{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39268/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39268","id":"gutenberg_39268","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39268","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"*THE ELIMINATOR*\n               *or, SKELETON KEYS to SACERDOTAL SECRETS*\n\n                                  _By_\n\n                  *Richard B. Westbrook, D.D., L.L.D.*\n\n\n                                 _1894_\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n    PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION\n    PREFACE\n    SKELETON KEYS TO SACERDOTAL SECRETS\n    CHAPTER I. THE WHOLE TRUTH\n    CHAPTER II. SACERDOTALISM IMPEACHED\n    CHAPTER III. THE FABULOUS CLAIMS OF JUDAISM\n    CHAPTER IV.  MOSES AND THE PENTATEUCH\n    CHAPTER V. ANCIENT SYMBOLISM AND MODERN LITERALISM\n    CHAPTER VI.  ASTRAL KEYS TO BIBLE STORIES\n    CHAPTER VII. THE FABLE OF THE FALL\n    CHAPTER VIII. SEARCH FOR THE \u201cLAST ADAM\u201d\n    CHAPTER IX. WHAT IS KNOWN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT\n    CHAPTER X.  THE DRAMA OF THE GOSPELS\n    CHAPTER XI.  THE IDEAL CHRIST\n    CHAPTER XII.  JESUS AND OTHER CHRISTS\n    CHAPTER XIII. A REVERENT CRITIQUE ON JESUS\n    CHAPTER XIV.  A FEW FRAGMENTS\n    CHAPTER XV. BLOOD-SALVATION\n    CHAPTER XVI.  THINGS THAT REMAIN\n    INDEX\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION\n\n\nTHE Eliminator has now been before the public nearly two years. I have\nseen nothing worthy of the name of criticism respecting it. A few\nUnitarian ministers have said that Christ must have been a person\ninstead of a personification, for the reason that men could not have\nconceived of such a perfect character without a living example, and that\nthe great influence exercised by him for so long a time, over so many\npeople, proves him to have been an historic character. These arguments\nare anticipated and fully answered. (See pp. 283, 284, 306.)\n\nOur Unitarian friends are the greatest _idealists_ upon the globe! They\nonly accept the Gospel biography of Jesus (and we have no other) just so\nfar as the story accords with what they think it ought to be. They deny\nthe immaculate conception and miraculous birth of the Christ, and have\nvery great doubts about his crucifixion and resurrection. Their Christ\nis purely _ideal_. The fact is that Christendom has worshipped the\nliteral Jesus for the ideal Christ for nearly twenty centuries, though\ntheir conceptions of him have been manifold and contradictory. No wonder\nthat so many intelligent Christian sects in the early ages of the\nchurch utterly denied the existence of Jesus as an historic person.\n(See pp. 266, 267, 357.) But there is indubitable evidence that this\n_Christ character_ (called by many Unitarians the \u201cUniversal Christ\u201d)\nwas mainly _mythical, drawn from the astrological riddles of the older\nPagan mythologies._\n\nIn fact, almost everything in Christianity seems to have been an\n_afterthought_. It is the least original of any of the ten great\nreligions of the world, and the great mistake has been in making almost\neverything _literal_ which the wise men of ancient times regarded as\n_allegorical_. This comes from the priestly attempt to identify the\n_Jewish Jesus_ with the _Oriental Christ_ Tradition is, in fact, the\nmain foundation of the Christian scheme, and cunning sacerdotalists have\ndone by artifice what history, in fact, has failed to do. But for its\nmoral precepts and its \u201centhusiasm of humanity,\u201d Christianity would not\nsurvive for a single century. The so-called \u201cApostles\u2019 Creed\u201d (which was\nnot formulated until centuries after the last Apostle slept in the\ngrave), and which is repeated in so many churches every Sunday, has a\ngreater number of historical and theological misstatements than any\nother writing of the same length now extant!\n\nThere is in our day a general disposition to magnify the virtues of the\nChrist of the New Testament, connected with a proposition to unite all\nChristians in his leadership. This device will not succeed, because it\nis as impossible to found a perfect religion upon an imperfect man as it\nis upon a fallible Book. Lovers of the truth will show that the\ntraditional Christ is not a perfect model. (See Chapter xiii.) There is\na most significant sense in which it may be truthfully said: \u201cNever man\nspake like this man,\u201d as no great moral teacher ever uttered so many\nthings that needed to be revised and explained!\n\nMay it not be the fact that both Catholic and Protestant Christians are\nunder a great delusion as to the facts of religion? I think so. I\nbelieve so. I well know how difficult it is to explode a delusion that\nis nearly twenty centuries old, and that is supported by a sacerdotalism\nof vast wealth and learning, and whose votaries by \u201cthis craft have\ntheir wealth.\u201d\n\nI nail these _Th\u00e8ses_ to the church doors of all the Catholics and\nProtestants in Christendom, and with Martin Luther, at the Diet of\nWorms, I exclaim, \u201cHere I stand. I cannot move! God help me!\u201d If I am\nmistaken, then my reason is at fault and all history is a lie! It is\nsaid that when Renan died, the Pope inquired whether he had confessed\nbefore his de-cease, and upon being told that he had not, replied,\n\u201cWell, then God will have to save him for his sincerity!\u201d I am ready to\nbe judged on this ground. I sum up my latest conclusions thus: The Jesus\nof the Gospels is _traditional_, the Christ of the New Testament is\n_mythical_.\n\n  R. B. WESTBROOK.\n\n1707 Oxford Street,\n\nPhiladelphia.\n\nOctober 1, 1894.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nMany things in this book will greatly shock, and even give heartfelt\npain to, numerous persons whom I greatly respect. I have a large share\nof the love of approbation, and naturally desire the good opinion of\nthose with whom I have been associated in a long life. There is no\npleasure in the fact that I have to stand quite alone in the eyes of\nnearly all Christendom. There is no satisfaction in being deemed a\ndisturber of the peace of the great majority of those \u201cprofessing and\ncalling themselves Christians.\u201d But, at the same time, I must not be\nindifferent in matters where I believe truth is concerned.\n\nBefore I withdrew from the orthodox ministry I used to wonder why God in\nhis gracious providence had not seen fit to so order events as to give\nus a credible and undoubted history of the incarnation and birth of his\nSon Jesus Christ, and why that Saviour, who had come to repair the great\nevils inflicted upon our race by Adam, had never once mentioned that\nunfortunate fall.\n\nI do not deny that there was a person named Jesus nearly nineteen\nhundred years ago. I think there were several persons bearing this name\nand who were contemporaneous, and that several of them were very good\nmen; but that any one of them was _such_ a person as is described in the\nGospels I cannot believe. I lay special emphasis on the word such.\nAdmitting for the sake of the argument the real, historical personality\nof Jesus of Nazareth, he has by the process of _idealization_ become an\n_impersonation_, and I have so attempted to make it appear; and I cannot\nbut think that this view is not inconsistent with the most enlightened\npiety and religious devotion, while this explanation relieves us of many\nthings which are absurd and contradictory.\n\nI desire to explain more fully than appears in the _Table of Contents_\nthe plan of this book. I first combat the policy of _suppression and\ndeception_, and insist that the whole truth shall be published, and have\nshown that sacerdotalism is responsible for the fact that it has not\nbeen done. As so-called Christianity is based upon Judaism, I undertake\nto show the fabulous character of many of the claims of the Jews,\ndisclaiming all intention to asperse the character of Israelites of the\npresent generation.\n\nI thought it proper in this connection to give the substance of an _open\nletter_ to the Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on\n_Moses and the Pentateuch_\u2014to which His Honor never responded\u2014showing\nthat the \u201claw of Sinai was not the first of which we have any\nknowledge,\u201d and that Moses was not \u201cthe greatest statesman and lawgiver\nthe world had ever produced,\u201d as the Chief-Justice had affirmed in a\nlecture before the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania.\n\nPresenting brief views of the symbolic character of the Old Testament,\nand showing how \u201cAstral Keys\u201d unlock many Bible stories, I undertake to\nshow that the so-called fall of Adam is a _fable_, nothing more; and\nthen, as the _first_ Adam is shown to be a _myth_, I go in search for\nthe \u201c_last Adam_.\u201d Finding no knowledge of such a person except in the\nNew Testament, I deem it necessary to briefly show the character of this\nbook, that it may be determined how far it should be received as\nevidence in a matter of so much importance. Then in five chapters, more\nor less connected, I combat the idea of the historical, or rather\n_traditional_, Jesus, and follow with an examination of the evangelical\ndogma of _Blood-Salvation_, and close with a very brief summary of the\n_Things that Remain_ as the foundation of faith.\n\nI do not expect _caste_ clergymen to read this book any farther than is\nnecessary to denounce it. It is their way of meeting questions like\nthose herein discussed. I am prepared to have certain _dilettanti_\nsneer-ingly say, \u201cThis book is of no critical value.\u201d They are so\naccustomed to \u201cscholarly essays\u201d which \u201care poetically sentimental and\nfloridly vague\u201d that they have little respect for anything else. The\nbook is intended for the common people, and not for the professional\ncritics.\n\nI do not expect everybody to agree with me, especially at first. Truth\ncan afford to wait, and in years to come many points that I have made,\nwhich are now so startling, will be calmly and intelligently accepted.\n\nThere are probably mistakes in the book\u2014mistakes in names, in dates, and\nperhaps in facts; but these will not affect the main argument. No man\nknows everything. Until recently it was never suspected by the learned\nworld that _The Contemplative Life_ was not written by Philo nearly\nnineteen centuries ago, instead of being written by a monk in the third\ncentury of the Christian era. Even Macaulay and Bancroft have made\nmistakes, and so have many other authors of good repute.\n\nI have always tried to preserve a _reverent spirit_\u2014a genuine respect\nfor true religion and morality. I have always been profoundly religious,\nand cannot remember the time when I was not devout. But I do not believe\nthat it is ever proper \u201cto do evil that good may come.\u201d In this work I\nhave sought only the _truth_, in the firm conviction that superstition\nand falsehood cannot promote a course of _right living_, which is the\nobject and aim of all true religion.\n\nI have a supreme disregard for literary fame. I do not shrink from being\ncalled a _compiler_ or even a _plagiarist_. There is absolutely very\nlittle of real _originality_ in the world. I could have followed the\ncourse of many writers and _absorbed or assimilated_, and thus seemingly\nmade my own what they had written; but I have chosen to quote freely,\nand so have substantially given the words of many authors of repute, and\nat the same time saved myself the labor of a re-coining, which does not,\nafter all, deceive the intelligent reader. The books from which I\nlargely quote are mainly voluminous and very expensive, and some of them\nare out of print. I am indebted to the learned foot-notes of Evan Powell\nMeredith in his prize essay on _The Prophet of Nazareth_ for several\nthings, and must not fail to acknowledge my obligations to certain\nliving authors for valuable assistance, and especially to my friend Dr.\nAlexander Wilder, who prepared at my request the substance of Chapter\nX., _The Drama of the Gospels_, and who, in my judgment, has few\nsuperiors in classical and Oriental literature.\n\nI sympathize with those persons who will complain-ingly exclaim, \u201cYou\nhave taken away my Saviour, and I know not where you have laid him.\u201d But\nsuppose that we do not _need a Saviour_ in the evangelical sense?\nSuppose that man has not _fallen_, but that the race has been _rising_\nthese many centuries; and that while we have mainly to save ourselves,\nall the good and great men of all ages have aided us in the work of\nsalvation by what they have said and done and suffered, so that instead\nof one savior we really have had many saviors. I think that this view is\nmore reasonable and consoling than the commercial device of what is\ncalled the \u201cscheme of redemption,\u201d besides having scientific facts to\nsustain it.\n\nI have preserved on the title-page some of my college degrees, to\nindicate my professional studies of theology and law, and not from\nmotives of pedantry.\n\n    R. B. WESTBROOK.\n\n    1707 Oxford Street,\n    Philadelphia.\n\n\n\n\nSKELETON KEYS TO SACERDOTAL SECRETS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. THE WHOLE TRUTH\n\n\n_\u201cFor there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, neither hid\nthat shall not be known. Therefore, whatsoever ye have spoken in\ndarkness, shall be heard in the light, and that which ye have spoken in\nthe ear, in closets, shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.\u201d\u2014Luke 12:\n2, 3._\n\n\nTHE assumption is general that if the faith of the common people should\nbe unsettled as to some things which they have heretofore been taught\nregarding religion, they would immediately reject all truth, and fall\ninto a most deplorable state of skepticism and infidelity, and that the\nexisting institutions of religion would be destroyed, and public virtue\nso undermined as to endanger the very foundations of morality and civil\ngovernment. This is not only the fear of conservative and timid\nclergymen, but many of our prominent statesmen seem anxious lest the\nenlightenment of the people in matters in which they have been cruelly\ndeceived should so weaken the restraints of police and governmental\nauthority as to result in universal anarchy and a general disregard of\nthe rights of property, and even of the sacredness of human life.\n\nThese foolish fears show a great want of confidence in human nature, and\nfalsely assume that moral character depends mainly upon an unquestioning\nfaith in certain dogmas which, in point of fact, have no necessary\nconnection with it.\n\nThe statistics of crime show that a very large majority of those who\nhave been seized by the strong arm of the law as dangerous members of\nsociety are those who most heartily believe in those very dogmas of\ntheology which we are warned not to criticise, though we may know them\nto be accretions of ignorance and superstition, and that some of them\nhave a natural tendency to fetter the essential principles of true\nreligion and that higher code of morality which alone can stand strong\nunder all circumstances. It is safe to affirm that ninety-nine\nhundredths of the criminal class believe, or profess to believe, in the\ndogmas of the dominant theology, Romish and Protestant; which are\nessentially the same.\n\nIt is too often forgotten that the very first condition of good\ngovernment is faith in human nature, confidence in the people. You\nalways excite dishonor and dishonesty by treating men as if you think\nthem all rogues, and as if you expect nothing good from them, but every\nconceivable evil, only as they may be restrained by the fear of pains\nand penalties in this life and after death.\n\nOne great fundamental mistake of theologians and dogmatic pietists is\nthe baseless assumption that religion is something supernatural, not to\nsay anti-natural; something external to human nature and of foreign\norigin; something to be received by transfusion as the result or\nconsequence of faith in certain dogmas or the observance of external\nrites; something bottled up by the Church, like rare and precious\nmedicines in an apothecary-shop, to be dealt out to those who are\nwilling to follow priestly prescriptions and pay the required price.\n\nThe fact is, churches and scriptures and dogmas are the outcome of that\nreligious element which is inherent in human nature. It cannot be too\noften or too strongly urged that the religious principle is _innate_ and\n_ineradicable_ in mankind, and that you might as well try to destroy\nman\u2019s love of the beautiful, his desire for knowledge, his love of home\nand kindred, or even his appetite for food, as to try to destroy it. It\nis as natural to feel the want of religion as it is to be hungry. You\n_cannot_ destroy the foundations of religion. They rest in _nature_ and\nantedate all creeds and churches, and will survive them.\n\nEven Professor Tyndall says: \u201cThe facts of religious feeling are to me\nas certain as the facts of physics.\u201d\n\n... \u201cThe world will have religion of some kind.\u201d... \u201cYou who have\nescaped from these religions into the high and dry light of intellect\nmay deride them, but in doing so you deride accidents of form merely,\nand fail to touch the immovable basis of the religious sentiment in the\nnature of man. To yield this sentiment reasonable satisfaction is the\nproblem of problems at this hour.\u201d\n\nRenan also writes thus: \u201cAll the symbols which serve to give shape to\nthe religious sentiment are imperfect, and their fate is to be one after\nanother rejected. But nothing is more remote from the truth than the\ndream of those who seek to imagine a perfected humanity without\nreligion.\u201d... \u201cDevotion is as natural as egoism to a true-born man. The\norganization of devotion _is_ religion. Let no one hope, therefore, to\ndispense with religion or religious associations. Each progression of\nmodern society will render this want more imperious.\u201d\n\nWe use the word religion as it was used by Cicero, in the sense of\n_scruple_, implying the consciousness of a natural obligation wholly\nirrespective of what one may believe concerning the gods. Religion in\nits true meaning is the great fact of _duty, of oughtness_, consisting\nin an honest and persistent effort to realize ideal excellence and to\ntransform it into actual character and practical life. Religion as a\n_spirit_ and a life is objected to by none, but is admired and commended\nby all. It is superstition, bigotry, credulity, and dogma that are\ndetestable. The religious instinct has been perverted, turned into wrong\nchannels, made subservient to priestcraft and kingcraft, but its basic\nprinciple remains for ever firm. If it _could_ have been destroyed, the\nmachinations of priests would have annihilated it long ago. Give\nyourselves no anxiety about the corner-stone of religion, but look well\nto the rotten superstructures that have been reared upon it. Its\nprofessed friends are often its real enemies. It is the false prophet\nwho is afraid to have his oracles subjected to tests of reason and\nhistory. It is the evil-doer who is afraid of the light, the conscious\nthief who objects to being searched. An honest man would say, \u201cLet the\ntruth be published, though the heavens fell.\u201d\n\nThe whole truth should be published, as a matter of common honesty, if\nnothing more. We have no moral right to conceal the truth, any more than\nwe have to proclaim falsehood. He who deliberately does the one will not\nhesitate long about doing the other. And this is one of the most serious\naspects of this subject. He who can bring himself to practise deceit\nregarding religion will soon be a villain at heart, even if worldly\nprudence is strong enough to keep him out of the penitentiary.\n\nAs a rule, the unfaithful teacher inflicts a greater evil upon his own\nsoul than upon his unsuspecting dupe. The deceiver is sure to be\novertaken by his own deceit. Mean men become more mean, and liars come\nto believe their own oft-repeated falsehoods. This principle may in part\naccount for the fact that in all ages dishonest, mercenary, designing\npriests have been most corrupt citizens and ready tools in the hands of\ntyrants to oppress and enslave the people.\n\nEvery deceptive act blunts the moral sense, defiles and sears the\nconscience, until at last the hypocrite degenerates into a slimy, subtle\nhuman serpent that always crawls upon its belly and eats dust.\nSecretiveness and deceitfulness become a second nature, and show\nthemselves continually even in the ordinary affairs of life. The reflex\ninfluence of deception upon the deceiver himself is its most bitter\ncondemnation.\n\nBut modern preachers have a way of justifying their evasions and\nprevarications by saying that even Jesus himself withheld from his own\ndisciples some things, for the reason that they were \u201cnot able to bear\nthem,\u201d quite overlooking the fact that he is also reported to have said,\n\u201cWhen the Spirit of truth has come, he will teach you all things,\u201d and\nthat other passage (Luke 12: 2), where Jesus is represented as saying,\n\u201cFor there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, neither hid\nthat shall not be known. Therefore, whatsoever ye have spoken in\ndarkness, shall be heard in the light, and that which ye have spoken in\nthe ear, in closets, shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.\u201d\n\nIf after eighteen hundred years of Christian teaching the time has not\nyet come to proclaim the whole truth, it is not likely to come for many\nages in the future. If religion is a mystery too great to be\ncomprehended, too sacred for reverent but untrammelled investigation,\nsomething that can only exist with a blind, unreasoning credulity and\nthe utter stultification of the natural faculties of a true manhood,\nthen religion is not worth what it costs and should be exposed as a\ndelusion and a snare.\n\nThe time for the religious _Kabala_ has passed, and ambiguities,\nconcealments, and evasions are no longer to be tolerated. Martin Luther\nbuilded better than he knew when he proclaimed the right of private\njudgment in matters of religion. It has taken two hundred years for this\nfundamental principle to become thoroughly accepted by the people; but\nso firmly is it now established that bigoted ecclesiastics might as well\nattempt to resist the trend of an earthquake, stop the rising of the\nsun, and turn the light of noonday into the darkness of midnight as to\nattempt to arrest the progress of a true religious rationalism. The mad\nravings of fanatics will have no more influence than the pope\u2019s bull had\non the comet. Learning is no longer monopolized by a few monks and\nministers. For every five clergymen who are abreast with the times, the\nprogress of modern thought, and the conclusions of science, there are\nfifty laymen who are familiar with the writings of Humboldt, Darwin,\nHuxley, Spencer, Tyndall, and scores of other scientists, to whom the\nworld is more indebted for true progress than to all the lazy monks and\nmuttering priests who have lived since the world began. The fact is, the\nold delusion that men must look to the sacerdotal class exclusively, or\neven mainly, for religious truth, has been for ever banished from the\nminds of intelligent men. The literature of the day is full of free\nthought and downright rationalism, and even the secular newspaper is a\nmissionary of religious progress and reform, and brings stirring\nmessages of intellectual progress every day to our breakfast-tables. The\nworld moves, and those who attempt to stop it are sure to be crushed.\n\nThe pretence that anything is too sacred for investigation and\npublication will not stand the light of this wide-awake nineteenth\ncentury.\n\nIt is often said that the common people are not ready for the whole\ntruth. In 1873, Dr. J. G. Holland, then editor of _Scribner\u2019s Monthly_,\nwrote to Dr. Augustus Blauvelt declining to publish an article on \u201cThe\nDivine and Infallible Inspiration of the Bible,\u201d and added, \u201cI believe\nyou are right. I should like to speak your words to the world; but if I\ndo speak them it will pretty certainly cost me my connection with the\nmagazine. This sacrifice I am willing to make if duty requires it. I am\nafraid of nothing but doing injury to the cause I love.... In short, you\nsee that I sincerely doubt whether the Christian world is ready for this\narticle.... Instead of the theologians the _people_ would howl.... I\ncannot yet carry my audience in such a revolution. Perhaps I shall be\nable to do so by and by, but as I look at it to-day it seems\nimpossible.... My dear friend, I believe in you. You are in advance of\nyour time. You have great benefits in your hands for your time. You are\nfree and true. And I mourn sadly and in genuine distress that I cannot\nspeak your words with a tongue which all my fellow-Christians can hear.\nThey will not hear them yet. They will some time....\u201d\n\nDr. Holland has passed away and cannot reply to criticism. Let us be\nkind and charitable. He intended to be right, but he was mistaken. The\npeople do not howl when the truth is published, even though their\nprejudices may be aroused; and no tedious preparation is now necessary\nto be able to hear the whole truth. The masses of the people are hungry\nfor knowledge, and it is high time that they be honestly fed. They now\nmore than half suspect that they have been deceived by those some of\nwhom they have educated by their charities and liberally paid to teach\nthem the truth. When, in 1875, _Scribner\u2019s Monthly_ did publish Dr.\nBlauvelt\u2019s articles on \u201cModern Skepticism,\u201d it was not the people that\n\u201chowled.\u201d It was the clergy. Some of them demanded a new editor; others\nwarned the people from the pulpit not to patronize _Scribner_; and one\ndistinguished man declared that the magazine must be \u201cstamped out,\u201d and\nat once organized a most powerful ecclesiastical combination against the\nfreedom of the press; and yet the _North American Review_ and other\nsimilar magazines are today doing more to settle long-mooted religious\nquestions than all the pulpits in Christendom; and the people do not\nhowl. No respectable enterprising publisher now hesitates to publish a\nbook of real merit, however much its doctrines may differ from the\ndominant faiths. The masses of the people are determined to know all\nthat can be known of the history, philosophy, and principles of\nreligion; and the greater the effort to conceal and suppress the truth\nthe stronger will be the demand for its full and undisguised\nproclamation.\n\nThat there is a general drifting away from the old formulas of religious\ndoctrine everybody knows, and yet there is more practical religion in\nthe world to-day than in any previous age. It does not consist in\nfastings and attendance upon ecclesiastical rites and ordinances; but it\ntakes the form of universal education, of providing homes for friendless\ninfancy and old age, of the prevention of cruelty to children and even\nto brute animals, of the more rational and humane treatment of lunatics,\npaupers, and criminals, ameliorating the miseries of prisons and\nhospitals,\u2014in short, of elevating and improving the condition of\nuniversal humanity. These truly religious works do not depend upon any\nparticular statement of religious belief, for all sects and persons of\nno sect are equally engaged in them.\n\nCharities would not cease if all creeds should be abandoned or should be\nso revised as not to be recognized by the disciples of Calvin and\nWesley, and if every priest in the land should henceforth give up the\nmummeries and puerilities of the Dark Ages.\n\nReligion, as the \u201centhusiasm of humanity,\u201d the cultivation of all the\nvirtues, and the practice of the highest morality growing out of the\ninalienable rights of man in all the relations of life, is a fixed fact.\nIt is a natural endowment, coeval with humanity in its development and\nprogress, and is as absolutely indestructible as manhood itself.\n\nSo far from being true is the assumption that religion would be\nimperilled by the exposure of the false dogmas of theology and the\nheathenish rites and superstitious ceremonies of ecclesiasticism, it is\nclear to many minds that the myths of dogmatic theology and the\nabsurdities of primitive ages are the chief obstacles in the way of the\nfree course of true religion; and it may safely be affirmed that the\ndistinguishing dogmas of the dominant theology, Catholic and Protestant,\nas will hereafter be shown, are essentially demoralizing and logically\n_tend_ to undermine and corrupt public virtue. It is not intended to\naffirm that churches and theologians do no good and that their entire\ninfluence is bad. They teach much that is humane in principle and moral\nin practice, and so do good for society. Nevertheless, it is true that\nmuch of the rotten morality of the times can be philosophically traced\nto the influence of a false theology. The main dogmas of Romish and\northodox Protestant creeds are false, and it is absurd to suppose that a\npure system of public virtue can be founded upon ignorance,\nsuperstition, and falsehood.\n\nBut, after all, we are asked, Does it make any odds what one believes if\nhe is only sincere in his faith?\n\nThe obvious answer is, that the more sincerely you believe a lie the\nmore dangerous is your faith. The more trustfully you build upon a sandy\nfoundation the sooner and greater will be the fall and ruin of the\nsuperstructure. The more implicitly you confide in a dishonest partner\nor agent the more successful will be his robbery. There is no safety in\nerror and falsehood. The Westminster divines well said, \u201cTruth is in\norder to righteousness.\u201d There can be no true righteousness inherent in\na system of superstition and falsehood. The failure of the Church to\nreach the masses and to establish a condition of public honesty superior\nto the ancient heathen morality shows that there must be some serious\ndefect in its methods.\n\nBut the crushing objection to theological agitation and free discussion\nis the common one that \u201cit is unwise to unsettle and destroy the faith\nof the people in the dominant theology unless there is something better\nto offer them as a substitute.\u201d\n\nThere is something better. Truth is always better and safer than\nfalsehood. In the discussions which are to follow an attempt will be\nmade to show that there is a _natural religion_ which accords with\nenlightened reason, and which cannot fail to furnish a firm scientific\nfoundation for _the highest morality_. The common saying, that \u201cit is\nbetter to have a false religion than no religion,\u201d contains two\ngroundless assumptions\u2014viz. that it is possible for a man to have _no_\nreligion, and that that which is false may be dignified with the name\n_religion_. It is about time that things should be called by their right\nnames, and that superstition and falsehood should not be deemed\nnecessary to public morality.\n\nFor a religion (so called) of superstition and falsehood there must be a\nreligion of _natural science_ that cannot be overthrown, and which cannot\nfail to make its way among men as knowledge shall increase and the\nprinciples of true religious philosophy shall be better\nunderstood. We should not be frightened at the cowardly cry of\n\u201cdestructive criticism.\u201d We _must_ pull down before we can reconstruct.\n\nCONCLUSIONS.\n\n  (1) To imitate the example of the early Christian Fathers in fraud,\n      falsehood, and forgery for the promotion of religion is a policy\n      that is too shocking to the moral sense of civilized men\n      everywhere to be tolerated. To withhold or suppress the truth is a\n      crime against humanity and contrary to the spirit of this age; and\n      those who do it are the enemies of progress and unworthy to be\n      recognized as the authoritative teachers of the world.\n  (2) Those who publish that which is false or suppress what is true not\n      only do a great wrong to the people, but, if possible, do a\n      greater wrong to their own souls, and must suffer the\n      consequences. They must have an awful reckoning with eternal,\n      retributive justice.\n  (3) It is a most egregious mistake to suppose that the people cannot\n      be trusted with the whole truth\u2014that their sense of right is so\n      dull and flimsy that on the slightest discovery of the errors in\n      which they have been instructed from infancy they would lose\n      confidence in all truth and rightfulness and rush riotously to\n      ruin. If the people must be hoodwinked for ever, then the\n      distinguishing principle of the Protestant Reformation and the\n      basic principles of our American Declaration of Independence and\n      republican government are false and delusive, and we should return\n      to medi\u00e6val times and to feudal and autocratic government in\n      Church and State.\n  (4) It is high time that men should see that dogma is not religion;\n      that blind faith is more to be feared than rational skepticism and\n      scientific investigation; that whatever is opposed to reason and\n      science in theology can be spared, not only without any loss, but\n      greatly to the advantage of true religion and sound morality. All\n      the religion that is worth having is _natural and rational_, and\n      corresponds with the facts of the universe as they are\n      demonstrated by the crucibles of science and the inductions of a\n      sound philosophy. The principal moral obligations of men grow out\n      of their relations to each other in life, and nothing can be more\n      complete than the Golden Rule, emphasized in the Sermon on the\n      Mount, but as clearly taught in the Jewish _Babylonian Talmud_,\n      and in the twenty-fourth Maxim of the Chinese philosopher\n      Confucius, and many others centuries before the Christian era.\n  (5) Instead of loading down religion with Oriental myths and fables,\n      instead of a gorgeous ritualism and surpliced priests, borrowed\n      literally from the ancient paganism, instead of dogmas and creeds\n      and unquestioning faith and blind submission to ecclesiastical\n      dictation and rule, we want sound moral instruction in the great\n      fundamental truths of nature and of science, which will always be\n      found to strengthen and confirm the principles of true religion.\n      These are the sources from which to gain light. We want less creed\n      and more ethical culture, less profession and paraphernalia in\n      religious worship and more practical philosophy and common sense.\n  (6) The man who in scientific matters would make false representations\n      and conceal the real truth would be deemed an impostor, and the\n      time has come when hypocrites and cowards in theology should be\n      made to feel their degradation and be forced into an open\n      abandonment of \u201cways that are dark and tricks that are vain.\u201d If\n      we would scorn delusions in natural philosophy, if we would\n      correct errors in oceanic charts, astronomical diagrams, and\n      geographical maps, why should we hesitate to correct the most\n      egregious blunders regarding those things which are infinitely\n      more important? Can we with any proper sense of propriety and\n      right connive at falsehood and uphold and strengthen it by our\n      silence and cowardly negligence in failing to expose it? Are not\n      all delusions debasing and opposed to the progress of truth and\n      the elevation of mankind? In all the departments of human\n      knowledge religion and morality are most imperative in their\n      demands for pure and unadulterated truth; and he who does not\n      recognize this fact sins grievously against his own soul, against\n      the human family, and against the truth and its eternal Author,\n      the God of all truth.\n  (7) Finally, let it not be overlooked that it will not, for many\n      reasons, be possible much longer to keep the people in ignorance,\n      and to palm off upon them myths for veritable history and a system\n      of theology plainly at variance with the conclusions of science,\n      the facts of history, and the spiritual and moral consciousness of\n      every true and well-developed man. The schoolmaster is abroad, and\n      the spirit of fearless investigation is in the air, and men\n      _will,_ sooner or later, find out what is true; and when they come\n      to understand how they have been imposed upon by their cowardly\n      teachers, a fearful _reaction_ will be the result; and woe to the\n      hypocrite and time-server when that time comes! It is therefore\n      not only good principle, but good policy, to tell the whole truth\n      now. The following copy of a book-notice well describes the\n      prevalent policy regarding matters of faith:\n\n\u201cA theory of religious philosophy which is much commoner among us than\nmost of us think, but which has never been expressed so fully or so\nattractively as in the story of Marius.\n\n\u201c\u2018Submit,\u2019 it seems to say, \u2018to the religious order about you, accept\nthe common beliefs, or at least behave as if you accepted them, and live\nhabitually in the atmosphere of feeling and sensation which they have\nengendered and still engender; surrender your feeling while still\nmaintaining the intellectual citadel intact; pray, weep, dream with the\nmajority while you think with the elect; only so will you obtain from\nlife all it has to give, its most delicate flavor, its subtlest aroma.\u2019\u201d\nAgainst such a _sham_ the writer heartily protests, as against the\nvillainous maxim, quoted from memory, accredited to Aristotle: \u201c_Think_\nwith the sages and philosophers, but _talk_ like the common people.\u201d\nCome what may, let us cease to profess what we have ceased to believe.\n\n\u201cThe two learned people of the village,\u201d says Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes,\ntelling of his fanciful Arrowhead Village, \u201cwere the rector and the\ndoctor. These two worthies kept up the old controversy between the\nprofessions which grows out of the fact that one studies nature from\nbelow upward, and the other from above downward. The rector maintained\nthat physicians contracted a squint which turns their eyes inwardly,\nwhile the muscles which roll their eyes upward become palsied. The\ndoctor retorted that theological students developed a third eyelid\u2014the\n_nictitating membrane_, which is so well known in birds, and which\nserves to shut out, not all light, but _all the light they do not\nwant._\u201d\n\nThe Presbyterians have provided for a _revision_ of their creed, though\nthey have stultified themselves by certain restrictions, _shutting out\nthe light they do not want!_ Let us hope that the time will soon come\nwhen men will be honest enough and brave enough to follow the truth\nwherever it may lead. Let there be perfect veracity above all things,\nmore especially in matters of religion. It is not a question of\ncourtesies which deceive no one. To profess what is not believed is\nimmoral. Immorality and untruth can never lead to morality and virtue;\nall language which conveys untruth, either in substance or appearance,\nshould be amended so that words can be understood in their recognized\nmeanings, without equivocal explanations or affirmations. Let historic\nfacts have their true explanation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. SACERDOTALISM IMPEACHED\n\n\n_\u201cThe heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for\nhire, and the prophets thereof divine for money.\u201d\u2014Micah 3: 11._\n\n_\u201cPut me, I pray thee, into one of the priests\u2019 offices, that I may eat\na piece of bread.\u201d\u20141 Sam. 2: 36._\n\n\nTHE cognomens priest, prophet, presbyter, preacher, parson, and pastor\nhave certain things in common, and these titles may therefore be used\ninterchangeably.\n\nAs far back as history extends, the office or order now represented by\nthe clerical profession existed. It was as common among pagan tribes in\nthe remotest periods as among Jews and Christians in more modern times.\nService done to the gods by the few in behalf of the many is the primary\nidea of the priestly function. It has always and everywhere been the\nprofession and prerogative of the priests to pretend to approach nearest\nto the gods and to propitiate them; on account of which they have always\nbeen supposed to have special influence with the reigning deity and to\nbe the authorized expounders and interpreters of the divine oracles. The\npriesthood has always been a _caste, a \u201choly order;\u201d_ and it was no less\nso among ancient Jews than among modern Christians. In all churches\nclergymen _ex-officio_ exercise certain sacred prerogatives. They occupy\nselect seats in every sanctuary. They lead in every act of worship. They\npreside over every sacred ceremony. They exclusively administer the\nordinances of religion. They baptize the children and give or withhold\nthe \u201cHoly Communion.\u201d They celebrate our marriages, visit our sick, and\nconduct our funerals. In Romish churches and in some of our Protestant\nchurches they pretend to pronounce \u201cabsolution\u201d and to seal the\npostulant for the heavenly rest. It is not necessary, now and here, to\nspeak of the evil influence that these pretensions exert upon the common\npeople, nor of the light in which intelligent, thinking women and men\ncommonly regard them; but it is appropriate to note the reflex influence\nwhich such assumptions have upon the clergy themselves, disqualifying\nthem for such rational presentation of doctrinal truth as their hearers\nhave a right to expect.\n\nThe pride of his order makes it humiliating for the priest to admit that\nwhat he does not know is worth knowing. Claiming to be the authorized\nexpounder of God\u2019s will, how can he admit that he can possibly be in\nerror in any matter relating to religion? In view of the high\npretensions of his order, founded, as he claims, upon a\nplenarily-inspired and infallible book-revelation, and he professing to\nbe specially called and sanctified by God himself as his representative,\nit would be ecclesiastical treason to admit, even by implication, that\nhe is not in possession of all truth. Regarding his creed as a finality,\nhis mind becomes narrow, circumscribed, and unprogressive. He was taught\nfrom childhood that \u201cto doubt is to be damned,\u201d and through all his\nnovitiate he was warned against being unsettled by the delusions of\nreason and the wiles of infidelity. His professional education has been\nnarrow, one-sided, sectarian. He has seldom, if ever, read anything\noutside of his own denominational literature, and has heard little from\nanybody but his own theological professors and associates. He suspects\nthat Humboldt, Spencer, Huxley, and Tyndall are all infidels, and that\nthe sum and substance of Evolution, as taught by Darwin, is that man is\nthe lineal descendant of the monkey.\n\nSome persons think that ministers are often selected from among\nweaklings in the family fold. However, this may be, the absorption of\nthe \u201choly-orders\u201d idea, and the natural self-assurance and\nself-satisfaction that belong to a caste profession, render delusive the\nhope that anything original can ever come from such a source. Whether\nweak at first or not, the habits of thought and the peculiar training of\nyoung ecclesiastics are almost sure to dwarf them intellectually for\nlife. The theological student has become the _butt_ in wide-awake\nsociety everywhere, and his appearance in public is the occasion for\njests and ridicule over his sanctimonious vanity and silly pride. The\nextreme clerical costume which he is sure to assume excites the disgust\nof sensible people, though he may march through the street and up the\naisle with the regulation step of the \u201corder,\u201d and suppose himself to be\nthe object of reverent admiration on the part of all beholders. No\nwonder that the churches complain that few young men of ability enter\nthe ministry in these modern times.\n\nThe priestly office has always been deemed one of great influence, so\nthat ancient kings were accustomed to assume it. This was true of the\nkings of ancient Egypt, and the practice was kept up among the Greeks\nand Romans. Even Constantine, the first Christian emperor (so called),\ncontinued to exercise the function of a pagan priest after his professed\nconversion to Christianity, and he was not initiated into the Christian\nChurch by baptism until just before his death. One excommunicated king\nlay for three days and nights in the snow in the courtyard before the\nPope would grant him an audience! The \u201cPontifex-Maximus\u201d idea of the\nRoman emperors was the real foundation of the \u201ctemporal power\u201d claimed\nby the bishops of Rome. Kingcraft and priestcraft have always been in\nclose alliance. When the king was not a priest he always used the\npriest; and the priest has generally been willing to be used on the side\nof the king as against the people when liberally subsidized by the\nreigning potentate. Moreover, priestcraft has always been ambitious for\npower, and sometimes has been so influential as to make the monarch\nsubservient to the monk. More than one proud crown has been humbly\nremoved in token of submission to priestly authority, and powerful\nsovereigns have been obliged to submit to the most menial exactions and\nhumiliations at ecclesiastical mandates. The priestly r\u00f4le has always\nbeen to utilize the religious sentiment for the subjection of the\ncredulous to the arbitrary influence of the caste or order.\n\nPriestcraft never could afford to have a conscience, so admitted, and\ntherefore it has not shrunk from the commission of any crime that could\naugment its dominion. Its greatest success has been in the work of\ndemoralization. It has always been the corrupter of religion. The\nignorance and superstition of the people and the perversions of the\nreligious sentiment, innate in man, have been the stock in trade of the\ncraft in all ages, and are to-day.\n\nIt will be shown later how the whole system of dogmatic theology, Romish\nand Protestant (for the system is the same), has been formed so as to\naggrandize the priest, perpetuate his power, and hold the masses in\nstrict subjection. This is a simple matter of fact. History is\nphilosophy teaching by example, and often repeats itself, and it seldom\ngives an example of a priestly caste or \u201choly\u201d order of men leading in a\ngreat practical reform. The dominant priestly idea is to protect the\ninterests of the _order_, not to promote the welfare of the people.\n\nIn view of these principles and facts, and others which might be\npresented, it is reasonable to conclude that we cannot expect the whole\nliving, unadulterated truth, even if they had it, from the professional\nclergy. The caste idea renders it essentially unnatural and\nphilosophically impossible.\n\nBut there are other potent reasons why such expectation is vain. All\nChristendom is covered with numerous sects in the form of ecclesiastical\njudicatories, each claiming to be the true exponent of all religious\ntruth. The Romish Church is pre-eminently priestly and autocratic. The\npriesthood is the Church, and the people only belong to the Church; that\nis, belong to the priesthood, and that, too, in a stronger sense than at\nfirst seems to attach to the word _belong_. Then the priesthood itself\nis subdivided into castes.:\n\n    \u201cGreat fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite \u2019em,\n    And little fleas have lesser fleas; and so\u2014ad infinitum\u201d\n\nWhen Patrick J. Ryan was installed Archbishop in Philadelphia, an office\nconferred by a foreign potentate, our own city newspapers in flaming\nheadlines called it \u201cThe Enthronement of a Priest!\u201d And so it was. He\nsat upon a throne and received the honors of a prince. He is called \u201cHis\nGrace,\u201d and wears the royal purple in the public streets. Bishops are\nhigher than the \u201cinferior clergy,\u201d and the priest, presbyter, or elder\nis of a higher caste than the deacon, and all are higher and more holy\nthan the people. All ministers exercise functions which would be deemed\nsacrilege in a layman. The same odious spirit of caste prevails in fact,\nif not so prominently in form, in all orthodox denominations, especially\nas to the distinction between the clergy and the laity. Even Quakers\nhave higher seats for \u201crecommended ministers.\u201d\n\nMoreover, priests have laid down creeds containing certain affirmations\nand denials which are called \u201cArticles of Religion,\u201d to which all\nstudents of divinity and candidates for holy orders must subscribe\nbefore they can be initiated into the sacred arcana.\n\nThe professor in the theological seminary, who perhaps was selected for\nthe chair quite as much for his conservatism as for his learning, has\ntaken a pledge, if not an oath, that he will teach the young aspirant\nfor ecclesiastical honors nothing at variance with the standards of his\ndenomination; which covenant he is very sure to keep (having other\nprofessors and aspirants for professorships to watch him) in full view\nof the penalty of dismission from his chair and consequent\necclesiastical degradation. The very last place on this earth where one\nmight expect original research, thorough investigation, and fearless\nproclamation of the whole truth is in a theological school. A horse in a\nbark-mill becomes blind in consequence of going round and round in the\nsame circular path; and the theological professor in his treadmill\ncannot fail to become purblind as regards all new truth.\n\nWhat can be expected from the _graduates_ of such seminaries?\n\nThe theological novitiate sits with trembling reverence at the feet of\nthe venerable theological Gamaliel. From his sanctified lips he is to\nlearn all wisdom. Without his approbation he cannot receive the coveted\ndiploma. Without his recommendation he will not be likely to receive an\nearly call to a desirable parish.\n\nThe student is _obliged_ to find in the Bible just what his Church\nrequires, and nothing more and nothing less. In order to be admitted\ninto the clerical caste and have holy hands laid upon his youthful head\nhe must believe or profess to believe, _ipsissima verba_, just what the\n\u201cConfession\u201d and \u201cCatechism\u201d contain. The Rev. Dr. Samuel Miller once\nsaid in a sort of confidential undertone, \u201cWhat is the use of examining\ncandidates for the ministry at all as to what they believe? The fact\nthat they apply for admission shows that they intend to answer all\nquestions as we expect them to answer; else, they very well know, we\nwould not admit them.\u201d\n\nThe ecclesiastical system is emphatically an iron-bedstead system. If a\ncandidate is too long, it cuts him shorter; and if too short, it\nstretches him. He must be made to fit. Then, after \u201cordination\u201d or\n\u201cconsecration,\u201d the new-fledged theologian enters upon his public work\nso pressed by the cares of his charge and the social and professional\ndemands upon his time that he finds it impossible to prepare a lecture\nand two original sermons a week; so he falls back upon the \u201cnotes\u201d he\ntook from the lips of his \u201cold professor\u201d in the divinity school, or\nupon some of those numerous \u201cskeletons\u201d and \u201csketches\u201d of sermons\nexpressly published for the \u201caid\u201d of busy young ministers; and he gives\nto \u201chis people\u201d a dish of theological hash, if not of re-hash, instead\nof pouring out his own living words that should breathe and thoughts\nthat should burn.\n\nHence it is easy to see why one scarcely ever gets a fresh, living truth\nfrom the pulpit. It is almost always the same old, old story of\ncommonplace fossils that the wide-awake world has outgrown long ago, and\nthat modern science has fearlessly consigned to the \u201cbats and the moles\u201d\nof the Dark Ages. No wonder the pulpit platitudes fail to attract the\nmasses of earnest men, especially in our great cities.\n\nThen if a clergyman should discover, after years of thought and study,\nthat he has been in error in some matters, and that a pure rational\ninterpretation of the Bible is possible, and he really feels that the\ncreeds, as well as the Scriptures, need revising, what can he do? If he\nlets his new light shine, he will share the fate of Colenso, Robertson\nSmith, Augustus Blauvelt, Professor Woodrow, and scores of others. He\nknows that heresy-hunters are on the scent of his track. The mad-dog cry\nof _Heretic_ would be as fatal as a sharp shot from the ecclesiastical\nrifle. Proscription, degradation, ostracism, stare him in the face. Few\nmen who have the _esprit de corps_ of ecclesiasticism and a reasonable\nregard for personal comfort and preferment are heroic enough to face the\nsocial exclusion, financial ruin, and beggary for themselves and\nfamilies which are almost sure to follow a trial and condemnation for\nheresy. If the newly-enlightened minister escapes the inquisition of a\nheresy trial by declaring himself independent, he has a gauntlet to run\nin which many poisoned arrows will be sure to pierce his quivering\nspirit. It is true that some sects have no written creed and no trials\nfor heresy; but even among them there is an _implied_ standard of what\nis \u201cregular,\u201d and more than one grand soul knows by a sorrowful\nexperience, what it is to belong to the \u201cleft wing\u201d of the Liberal army,\nand to follow the \u201cspirit of truth\u201d outside of the implied creed.\n\nAnother reason why the whole truth cannot be expected from the regular\nclergy is, the influence of their pecuniary dependence upon those to\nwhom they minister. The Jews have always been great borrowers and\nimitators. It was quite natural that they should adopt the\n\u201cprice-current list\u201d of the ancient Ph\u0153nicians, whose priests not only\nexacted the tribute of \u201cfirst-fruits,\u201d but a fee in kind of each\nsacrifice. Then the judicial functions exercised by Jewish priests\nbecame a fruitful source of revenue, as the fines for certain offences\nwere paid to the priests (2 Kings 12: 16; Hosea 4: 8; Amos 2: 8).\nAccording to 2 Sam. 8: 18 and 2 Bangs 10: 11, also 12: 2, the priests of\nthe royal sanctuaries became the grandees of the realm, while the petty\npriests were generally poor enough\u2014just as is well known to be the case\namong the Christian clergy of to-day, some receiving a salary of\ntwenty-five thousand dollars and more per annum, while many of the\n\u201cinferior clergy\u201d hardly average two hundred and fifty dollars a year.\n\nThat the Christian clerical profession was borrowed from the Jews, just\nas the latter copied it from the heathen, is evident from the fact that\nPaul, while refusing for himself pecuniary support, preferring to \u201cwork\nwith his own hands\u201d (weaving tent-cloth), \u201cliving in his own hired\nhouse,\u201d nevertheless defended the principle of ministerial support,\nmainly on the ground of the Mosaic law (Deut. 25: 4), \u201cThou shalt not\nmuzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn\u201d (1 Cor. 9: 9; 1 Tim. 5:\n18). It is a striking illustration of the inconsistency of the modern\nclergy that they quote, in reference to a salaried ministry, the words\nascribed to Jesus (Matt. 10: 10), \u201cThe workman is worthy of his meat,\u201d\nor, as it is rendered in Luke 10: 7, \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his\nhire,\u201d very conveniently forgetting to quote the connecting words\nrequiring them to \u201cprovide neither gold nor silver nor brass in their\npurse, nor scrip for their journey, neither two coats, neither shoes,\nnor yet staves,\u201d but to enter unceremoniously into any house, accepting\nany proffered hospitality, \u201ceating such things as might be set before\nthem.\u201d The fact is, the first disciples of Jesus, according to our\nGospels, were mendicant monks, leading lives of asceticism and poverty.\nThere is no evidence that one of them ever received a salary; they made\nthemselves entirely dependent on public charity and hospitality. The\nidea of a \u201cchurch living\u201d or \u201cbeneficed clergy\u201d or a salaried ministry\nnever entered into the mind of Him of whom it is said he \u201chad not where\nto lay his head.\u201d\n\nIt is enough for the present argument to emphasize the point that, in\nthe very nature of things, it is not reasonable to expect the whole\ntruth from a salaried ministry. Those who have a large salary naturally\ndesire to retain it; those who have small and insufficient salaries\nnaturally desire to have them increased.\n\nThis can only be done by carefully preserving a good orthodox standing\naccording to the sectarian _shibboleth_, and in pleasing the people who\nrent the pews or who dole out their penurious subscriptions for \u201cthe\nsupport of the gospel.\u201d High-salaried ministers are most likely to be\nproud, arrogant, bigoted, sectarian. Starveling ministers become broken\nin spirit, fawning, and crouching, and they generally have an\nunconscious expression of appeal for help, of importunity and\nexpectancy, stamped upon their faces. The millstone of pecuniary\ndependence hangs so heavily about their necks that they seldom hold up\ntheir heads like men, and they can never utter a new truth or a\nstartling sentiment without pausing to consider what effect it may have\non the bread and butter of a dependent and generally numerous family.\nMinisters with high salaries are almost sure to be spoiled, and those\nwith low ones are sure to be stultified and dwarfed intellectually and\nmorally; so that we cannot depend upon either class for the highest and\nlatest truths. Those who have a \u201cliving,\u201d provided in a State Church,\nand those who depend upon voluntary contributions from the people, are\nalike manacled and handicapped. We must look elsewhere than to the\nmodern pulpit for that truth which alone can give freedom and true\nmanliness. Perfect indifference as to ecclesiastical standing, backed by\npecuniary independence, is an essential condition for untrammelled\ninvestigation and the fearless proclamation of the whole truth.\n\nIt was noticed in the recent convention of scientists in this city (the\nAmerican Association) that it was the salaried professors in Church\ncolleges who professed to find no conflict between Geology and Genesis.\nIt will always be so until the ecclesiastical tyranny is greatly\nweakened or destroyed, and men can utter their boldest thoughts without\nfear or favor, and when teachers can afford to have a conscience by\nmaking themselves free from Church control and menial dependence upon\nthose to whom they minister for the necessaries of a mere livelihood.\nScience itself has made progress only as it has been fearless of\npriestly maledictions; and when it shall throw off the incubus of Church\npatronage it will astonish the world in showing the eternal antagonisms\nbetween the dogmas of the dominant theology and the essential truths of\nnatural religion and morality.\n\nCONCLUSIONS.\n\nThe following conclusions follow from what has been said:\n\n  (1) The clerical fraternity claims to be more than a mere profession.\n      It is essentially a caste, a \u201choly order,\u201d borrowed from the\n      ancient paganism, but somewhat modified by Judaism and a perverted\n      Christianity.\n  (2) From such a caste or order the whole truth is not to be expected,\n      especially when the truth would show the order to be an imposture.\n      The assumptions of peculiar sanctity, official pre-eminence,\n      functional prerogatives, and special spiritual authority make such\n      a hope unnatural and quite impossible.\n  (3) The church system, with its tests of orthodoxy, its ecclesiastical\n      handcuffs, and its worse than physical thumb-screws, puts an end\n      to all independent thinking, and results in an enforced conformity\n      inconsistent with intellectual progress and the discovery and full\n      publication of the whole truth.\n  (4) The pecuniary stipend upon which professional preachers are\n      dependent has a demoralizing and degrading influence, so that the\n      doctrinal teaching of the pulpit should not be received without\n      hesitation and distrust. The common law excludes the testimony of\n      interested witnesses, and, though modern statutes admit such\n      testimony, the courts take it for what it is worth, but always\n      with many grains of allowance. \u201cA gift perverteth judgment,\u201d and\n      self-interest may sway the convictions of a man who intends and\n      desires to be fairly honest.\n  (5) The existing systems of ministerial education and support deter\n      many superior men from entering the profession, and have placed\n      preaching upon a commercial or mercantile basis, which has\n      manacled and crippled the pulpit, and must sooner or later result\n      in the consideration of the question whether the services of the\n      clergy are worth what they cost, and whether the truth must not be\n      sought for in some other direction. More than two hundred and\n      fifty thousand priests and ministers (of whom about one hundred\n      thousand are in the United States) are maintained at an annual\n      expense of more than five hundred millions of dollars; and, as a\n      rule, where priests are most numerous, people are poorest and\n      public morality lowest.\n\nA member of the Canadian Parliament (Hon. James Beatty) has recently\npublished a book in which he opposes the whole system of a salaried\nclergy on scriptural and other grounds; and many other thoughtful men\nare beginning to inquire how it is that the Society of Friends get along\nso well without a \u201chireling ministry.\u201d\n\n  (6) It is a great mistake to suppose that we must look mainly to\n      professional clergymen for instruction in divine things. It is a\n      significant fact that the most able and important books that have\n      been published within the last decade have been written by laymen\n      or by persons, like Emerson, who have outgrown the narrow garments\n      of a caste profession and have laid them off. How to get along\n      without professional ministers has been well answered by Capt.\n      Robert C. Adams (quoted in the writer\u2019s book, Man\u2014Whence and\n      Whither? pp. 218, 219).\n\nIf ministers would give up the _holy-orders_ idea, cast into the sea the\nmillstone incumbrance of pecuniary dependence, engage earnestly in some\nlegitimate work to support themselves, they would then for the first\ntime begin to realize what soul-freedom is, and they could then preach\nwith an intelligence and power and with a satisfaction to themselves of\nwhich they now know nothing. Let them try it for themselves and learn a\nlesson. Whether the clerical order is so divine an institution that we\nhave no right to call it into question or to abolish it altogether, is a\nquestion that must be practically considered soon.\n\n  (7) There is a deep impression widely prevailing among thoughtful and\n      sincerely religious persons that the infidelity of the pulpit is\n      largely responsible for the prevailing skepticism of the age. The\n      word \u201cinfidelity\u201d is here specially used in a strict philological\n      sense\u2014_infidele_, not faithful, unfaithfulness to a trust\u2014but it\n      is also used in its more general sense of _disbelief_ in certain\n      religious dogmas.\n\nWe impeach and arraign the clergy (admitting a few honorable exceptions)\non the general charge of _infidelity_ in the strictest and broadest\nsense of the word\u2014\n\n1st. In that they fail to qualify themselves to be the leaders of\nthought in the great, living questions affecting religion and morality.\nWe have elsewhere said: \u201cNot one minister in a thousand \u2018discerns the\nsigns of the times\u2019 or is prepared for the crisis. Few pastors ever read\nanything beyond their own denominational literature. Their education is\npartial, one-sided, professional. They cling to mediaeval superstitions\nwith the desperate grasp of drowning men. The great majority of the\nclergy are not men of broad minds and wide and deep research, and have\nnot the ability to meet the vexed questions of to-day.\u201d\n\nIt is an admitted policy, especially among the orthodox clergy (so\ncalled), not to read or to listen to anything that might unsettle their\nfaith in what they have accepted as a finality; whereas no man can\nintelligently _believe_ anything until he has candidly considered the\nreasons assigned by other men for not believing what he does. \u201cHe that\nis first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and\nsearcheth him.\u201d\n\nProfessor Fisher, the champion of Yale-College orthodoxy, has recently\nadmitted in the _North American Review_ that at least one of the causes\nof the decline of clerical authority and influence is the increased\nintelligence of the laity. If the people cannot get what they desire\nfrom the pulpit, they will seek it from the platform and the press.\nTruth is no longer to be concealed in cloisters and smothered in\ntheological seminaries, but it is to be proclaimed from housetops and in\nlanguage understood in every-day life.\n\nIt was once said that \u201cthe lips of the priest give knowledge,\u201d but it\nmay now be truly said that modern scientists and philosophers among the\nlaity are the principal teachers of mankind, and that publications like\nthe _North American Review_ and _The Forum_, and last, but not least,\nthe secular daily newspapers, are doing more to instruct the people in\nliving truths than the whole brood of ecclesiastical parrots.\n\n2d. We charge that many professional clergymen suppress things which\nthey do believe to be true, and not unfrequently suggest things, at\nleast by implication, which they do know to be false.\n\nDr. Edward Everett Hale recently published an article in the _North\nAmerican Review_ entitled \u201cInsincerity in the Pulpit;\u201d and the Rev. Dr.\nPhillips Brooks of Boston, who recently received episcopal honors in\nMassachussetts, has confirmed in the _Princeton Review_ what Dr. Hale\ncharged in the _North American Review_ regarding clerical\ndisingenuousness. Dr. Brooks wrote thus:\n\n\u201cA large acquaintance with clerical life has led me to think that almost\nany company of clergymen, talking freely to each other, will express\nopinions which would greatly surprise, and at the same time greatly\nrelieve, the congregations who ordinarily listen to these ministers....\nHow many men in the ministry to-day believe in the doctrine of verbal\ninspiration which our fathers held? and how many of us have frankly told\nthe people that we do not believe it?... How many of us hold that the\neverlasting punishment of the wicked is a clear and certain truth of\nrevelation? But how many of us who do not have ever said a word?\u201d\n\nThe same principle of prevarication and deceit was practised by the\nearly Fathers of the Christian Church, who not only concealed the truth\nfrom the masses of the people, but did not hesitate to deceive and\nmislead them.\n\nMosheim, an ecclesiastical historian of high authority, testifies that\n\u201cin the fourth century it was an almost universally adopted maxim that\nit was an act of virtue to deceive and lie when by such means the\ninterests of the Church might be promoted.\u201d He further says of the fifth\ncentury, \u201cFraud and impudent imposture were artfully proportioned to the\ncredulity of the vulgar.\u201d\n\nMilman, in his _History of Christianity_, says: \u201cIt was admitted and\navowed that to deceive into Christianity was so valuable a service as to\nhallow deceit itself.\u201d He further says  in the same historical work,\n\u201cThat some of the Christian legends were deliberate forgeries can\nscarcely be questioned.\u201d There is not a Bible manuscript or version that\nhas not been manipulated by ecclesiastics for century after century.\nMany of these priests were both ignorant and vicious. From the fifth to\nthe fifteenth century crimes not fit to be mentioned prevailed among the\nclergy.\n\nDr. Lardner says that Christians of all sorts were guilty of fraud, and\nquotes Cassaubon as saying, \u201cIn the earliest times of the Church it was\nconsidered a capital exploit to lend to heavenly truth the help of their\nown inventions.\u201d Dr. Thomas Burnet, in a Latin treatise intended for the\nclergy only, said, \u201cToo much light is hurtful to weak eyes;\u201d and he\nrecommended the practice of deceiving the common people for their own\ngood. I _know_ that this same policy is in vogue in our day. This same\nnefarious doctrine of the exoteric and esoteric, one thing for the\npriest and another for the people, is far from being dead in this\nnineteenth century. It has always been, and now is, the real priestly\npolicy to keep the common people in ignorance of many things; and if all\ndo not accept the maxim of Gregory, that \u201cIgnorance is the mother of\nDevotion,\u201d many ministers _privately_ hold in our day that \u201cwhere\nignorance is bliss \u2019Tis folly to be wise.\u201d\n\n3d. The third article of impeachment, under the general charge of\ninfidelity is, that sacerdotalists teach dogmas which they do not\nbelieve themselves. They do not all believe, _ex animo_, the distinctive\ndogmas of the orthodox creeds\u2014that God is angry with the great body of\nmankind, that his wrath is a burning flame, and that there is, as to a\nmajority of men, but a moment\u2019s time and a point of space between them\nand eternal torture more terrible than imagination can conceive or\nlanguage describe. It is well said that \u201cActions speak louder than\nwords;\u201d and we need only ask the question, \u201cDo ministers who profess to\nbelieve these horrible dogmas preach as if they really believed them?\u201d\nNotice the general deportment of the clergy at the summer resort, at the\nseaside, or on the mountain-top, and say whether they can possibly\nbelieve what for eight or nine months they have been preaching in their\nnow closed churches. Listen to the private conversation of our\nevangelists at the camp-meeting or at the meetings of ecclesiastical\nbodies, and then conclude, if you can, that they believe what they\nteach.\n\nTake, if you please, the case of one of our best-known evangelical\nministers, a member of the strictest of our orthodox sects, who spends a\nlarge proportion of his time in studying the ways of insects, and who\nwould chase a pismire across the continent to find out its habits. Can a\npastor believe in his heart the dogmas of the Westminster Confession,\nand yet devote so much time to ants? It is impossible. He may deceive\nhimself; he cannot deceive others.\n\n4th. Our fourth article of impeachment under the general charge is, that\nthe pulpit is the great promoter of skepticism called infidelity, in\nthat it insists upon the belief of dogmas which are absurd upon their\nface, such as the miraculous conception of Jesus, the dogma of the\nTrinity, the origin and fall of man, vicarious atonement,\npredestination, election and reprobation, eternal torture for the\nmajority, and many other absurdities which no rational mind can now\nconsistently accept.\n\nTrue, these dogmas may be found in the Bible; and when men ate told with\nweekly reiterations that the Bible is purely divine, supernatural, and\ninfallible, and they find that it is purely human, natural, and very\nfallible, they cannot believe the Bible, though they find many inspiring\nand helpful things in it. When ministers tell thinking men that they\nmust believe all or reject all, they accept the foolish alternative and\nreject all. And so it might be further shown how, in very many ways, the\npulpit is the great promoter of skepticism and infidelity, and that the\nprofessed teachers of religion are its greatest enemies, its most\neffective clogs and successful antagonists. No wonder that the most\nthoughtful and intelligent men and women in every community have drifted\naway from the popular faith, and are anxiously inquiring, What next?\n\nPresident Thomas Jefferson, in writing to Timothy Pickering, well said:\n\n\u201cThe religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of\nJesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have\ncaricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock\nreasonable thinkers to revolt them against the whole, and drive them\nrashly to pronounce its founder an impostor.\u201d Writing to Dr. Cooper, he\nsaid: \u201c_My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel if\nthere had never been a priest._\u201d\n\nWe would not abolish the office, or, if you please, the profession, of\n_public moral teacher_, but we would banish from the world the caste\nidea, the _holy-order_ pretence. When simple-minded young men and grave\nand surpliced bishops talk about taking \u201choly orders,\u201d sensible and\nthoughtful men know that they are talking holy nonsense. No man has a\nright to assume that he is more holy than other men, or that he has\nauthority to exercise religious functions that other men have not.\n\nNor have we any objection that moral teachers should be paid for their\nservices as other teachers are paid; but when educated men can afford to\nteach without pecuniary compensation, we think it would be well for them\nto do so; and when the teacher of morals adopts the example of St. Paul,\n\u201cworking with his own hands\u201d and \u201cliving in his own hired house,\u201d we\nthink the world will be the better for it. Let us hope that the day will\nsoon dawn when clergymen will consider themselves moral teachers only,\nand for ever repudiate the false pretence of special authority and\npriestly sanctimoniousness, and clearly understand that mediocrity and\nstupidity will not much longer be tolerated because of the so-called\nsacredness of a profession.\n\nThat the estimate here made of sacerdotalists may not seem extreme and\nunjustifiable, I add the testimony of one of the most honored\necclesiastics of the Established Church of England, Canon Farrar, who in\na recent sermon on priestcraft said: \u201cIn all ages the exclusive\npredominance of priests has meant the indifference of the majority and\nthe subjection of the few. It has meant the slavery of men who will not\nact, and the indolence of men who will not think, and the timidity of\nmen who will not resist, and the indifference of men who do not care.\u201d\nAlas that \u201choly hands\u201d should so often be laid \u201cupon skulls that cannot\nteach and will not learn\u201d!\n\nLet me here quote from Professor Huxley an admirable statement of the\nfacts in the case:\n\n\u201cEverywhere have they (sacerdotalists) broken the spirit of wisdom and\ntried to stop human progress by quotations from their Bibles or books of\ntheir saints. In this nineteenth century, as at the dawn of modern\nphysical science, the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the\nincubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox. Who shall\nnumber the patient and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of\nGalileo until now, whose lives have been embittered and their good name\nblasted by the mistaken zeal of bibliolaters? Who shall count the host\nof weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the effort to\nharmonize impossibilities; whose life has been wasted in the attempt to\nforce the generous new wine of science into the old bottles of Judaism,\ncompelled by the outcry of the same strong party? It is true that if\nphilosophers have suffered, their cause has been amply avenged.\nExtinguished theologies lie about the cradle of every science as the\nstrangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that\nwhenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has\nbeen forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not\nannihilated, scotched if not slain. But orthodoxy learns not, neither\ncan it forget; and though at present bewildered and afraid to move, it\nis as willing as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis\ncontains the beginning and the end of sound science, and to visit with\nsuch petty thunderbolts as its half-paralyzed hands can hurl those who\nrefuse to degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.\u201d \u201cReligion,\u201d\nhe also elsewhere writes, \u201carising like all other knowledge out of the\naction and interaction of man\u2019s mind, has taken the intellectual\ncoverings of Fetishism, Polytheism, of Theism or Atheism, of\nSuperstition or Rationalism; and if the religion of the present differs\nfrom that of the past, it is because the theology of the present has\nbecome more scientific than that of the past; not because it has\nrenounced idols of wood and idols of stone, but it begins to see the\nnecessity of breaking in pieces the idols built up of books and\ntraditions and fine-spun ecclesiastical cobwebs, and of cherishing the\nnoblest and most human of man\u2019s emotions by worship, \u2018for the most part\nof the silent sort,\u2019 at the altar of the _unknown and unknowable_\u201d...\n\u201cIf a man asks me what the politics of the inhabitants of the moon are,\nand I reply that I know not, that neither I nor any one else have any\nmeans of knowing, and that under these circumstances I decline to\ntrouble myself about the subject at all, I do not think he has any right\nto call me a skeptic.\u201d Again: \u201cWhat are among the moral convictions most\nfondly held by barbarous and semi-barbarous people? They are the\nconvictions that authority is the soundest basis of belief; that merit\nattaches to a readiness to believe; that the doubting disposition is a\nbad one, and skepticism a sin; and there are many excellent persons who\nstill hold by these principles.\u201d... \u201cYet we have no reason to believe\nthat it is the improvement of our faith nor that of our morals which\nkeeps the plague from our city; but it is the improvement of our natural\nknowledge. We have learned that pestilences will only take up their\nabode among those who have prepared unswept and ungarnished residences\nfor them. Their cities must have narrow, un watered streets full of\naccumulated garbage; their houses must be ill-drained, ill-ventilated;\ntheir subjects must be ill-lighted, ill-washed, ill-fed, ill-clothed;\nthe London of 1665 was such a city; the cities of the East, where plague\nhas an enduring dwelling, are such cities; we in later times have\nlearned somewhat of Nature, and partly obey her. Because of this partial\nimprovement of our natural knowledge, and that of fractional obedience,\nwe have no plague; but because that knowledge is very imperfect and that\nobedience yet incomplete, typhus is our companion and cholera our\nvisitor.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. THE FABULOUS CLAIMS OF JUDAISM\n\n\n    \u201cNot giving heed to Jewish fables.\u201d\u2014Tit. 1: 14.\n\n    \u201cNeither give heed to fables.\u201d\u20141 Tim. 1: 4.\n\n    \u201cBut refuse profane and old wives\u2019 fables.\u201d\u20141 Tim. 4: 7.\n\n\nIT is impossible to understand modern Christian ecclesiasticism without\na careful study of ancient Judaism. It is reported that Jesus himself\nsaid, \u201c_Salvation is of the Jews._\u201d The gospel was to be preached \u201cto\nthe Jews first.\u201d The common belief to-day is, that the Christian Church\nrepresents the substance of what Judaism was the promise, and that the\nNew Testament contains the fulfilment and realization of what was\nforeshadowed in the Old Testament.\n\nAll well-informed theologians understand that the Christian Church is\nheld to have had its origin in what is denominated the \u201ccall of\nAbraham,\u201d and that what is known in orthodox parlance as the \u201cAbrahamic\ncovenant\u201d lies at the foundation of the orthodox theory of grace and of\nall other systems of doctrine falsely designated as evangelical. It is a\nsuggestive fact that while Christians hold that their religion is the\nvery quintessence and outcome of Judaism, they most cordially hate the\nJews, and the Jews in return, have a supreme contempt for Christians and\nstoutly deny the relationship of parent and child.\n\nNow that the descent of the Jews from the Chaldean Abram, whom they\naffect to call their father, is discredited by all scholars who reject\nthe inspirational and infallible theory of the Old Testament, it is very\ndifficult to find out the real origin of this strange people. All modern\nwriters on Jews and Judaism admit that outside of the Old Testament\nthere is little or no history of the Jews down to the time of Alexander,\nand that there is very little reliable history even in the collection of\nbooks known as the Hebrew Scriptures. It cannot be doubted now that the\nPentateuch, improperly called the five books of Moses, was mostly\nwritten after the return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon,\nabout 538 b. c., and what is found in these books mainly corresponds\nwith the religion and literature of the Assyrians, and was learned\nduring their sojourn in that country, and not, as has ignorantly been\nsupposed, from the mythical Abram, the reputed immigrant from Ur of the\nChaldees. What is recorded in the Pentateuch, not being mentioned in\nother Old-Testament writings, shows that such records had no existence\nwhen those books were written, and therefore could have no recognition.\nIt will be shown hereafter that there is little or nothing in the\nPentateuch that is strictly original, much less strictly historical.\nIndeed, the tales of the Old Testament generally were written for a\nreligious or patriotic purpose, with little regard for time, place, or\nhistorical accuracy. Persons, real or mythical, are often used to\nrepresent different tribes, while allegory is the rule rather than the\nexception in what is ignorantly accepted as history. This is admitted by\nmany eminent Christian writers.\n\nThe word \u201cJew\u201d first occurs in 2 Kings 16: 6 to denote the inhabitants\nof Judea, but they should properly have been called \u201cJudeans.\u201d The very\nname _Jew_ is probably mythological, derived from _Jeoud_, the name of\nthe only son of Saturn, though, like Abraham, he had several other sons.\nIt cannot be doubted that the stories of Saturn and Abraham are slightly\nvaried versions of the same fable.\n\nThe Jews never deserved to be called a _nation_, at least not until in\ncomparatively modern times. They were inclined from the first to mingle\nwith and intermarry with other peoples, and so became _mongrels_ at an\nearly period.\n\nThere was no race distinction, we are told, between the Canaanites,\nIdumeans, and Israelites. Ishmael married an Egyptian woman, and so did\nJoseph, the son of Jacob. Esau married a daughter of Ishmael, also two\nother women, called daughters of Canaan, one a Hittite and the other a\nHivite. Judah and Simeon each married Canaanites. We read in Judges 3:\n5, 6, \u201cThe children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and\nAmorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites; and they took\ntheir daughters to be their wives, and gave their [own] daughters to\ntheir sons, and served their gods.\u201d\n\nIn Ezekiel 16th it is written: \u201cThus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem,\nThy birth and thy nativity was in the land of Canaan; thy father was an\nAmorite and thy mother an Hittite. Your mother was an Hittite and your\nfather an Amorite\u2014thine elder sister, Samaria, and thy youngest sister,\nSodom.\u201d\n\nIn Deut. 7: 7 the Jews are told, \u201cThe Lord did not set his love upon you\nbecause ye were more in number than any other people, for ye were\n_fewest_ of all people.\u201d In Josh. 12: 24 they are reminded that it was\nnecessary to \u201csend them hornets which drove them (the Canaanites) out\nbefore you, even the two kings of the Amorites;\u201d and in Ex. 23: 28, 29\nit is said, \u201cI will send hornets before thee which shall drive out the\nHivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before thee. I will not\ndrive them out from before thee in one year, lest the land become\ndesolate and the beasts of the field multiply against thee.\u201d This does\nnot look as if the Jews were very numerous or valorous in the little\nterritory not much larger than the State of Connecticut.\n\nJosephus makes certain notes to show that the Lacedemonians claimed\noriginal kinship with the Jews, and some writers make the same claim for\nthe Afghans and several other peoples. Nothing is more certain, in my\njudgment, than that the Jews are the most thoroughly _mongrel_ race upon\nthe face of the earth. That they have certain idiosyncrasies in common,\nand even certain distinguishing _facial_ and other physical marks, can\neasily be accounted for on other grounds than the assumption of unity of\nrace.\n\nThe common story of the origin of the Jews is certainly fabulous.\nMajor-General Forlong, of the British Army, says: \u201cThey were probably in\nthe beginning a wandering tribe of Bedouin Arabs who got possession of\nthe rocky parts of Palestine, which were never made better by their\npresence. They are a comparatively modern people. The first notice of\nJews is possibly that of certain Shemitic rulers in the Aram paying\ntribute about 850 b. c. to Vul-Nirari, the successor of Shalmaneser of\nSyria; regarding which, however, much more is made by biblicists than\nthe simple record warrants. This is the case also where Champollion\naffirms that mention is made on the Theban temples of the capture of\ncertain towns of the land we call Jud\u00e6a, this being thought to prove the\nexistence of Jews. Similar assumption takes place in regard to the\nhieratic papyri of the Leyden Museum, held to belong to the time of\nRameses II., an inscription read on the rocks of El-Hamamat, and the\ndiscovery of some names like Chedorlaomer in the records of Babylonia;\nbut this is all the (so-called) evidence as to the existence of ancient\nJews which has been advanced; and the most is made of it in Dr. Birch\u2019s\nopening address on the _Progress of Biblical Archaeology_ at the\ninauguration of the Archaeological Society. Of Jews we hear nothing\nduring all the Thothmik wars, unless they be included among the\nphallic-worshipping Hermonites who were mentioned as inhabiting the\nhighlands of Syria. We have no real historical evidence of the persons\nor kingdoms of David or Solomon, though we may grant the Jewish stories\n_cum grano salis_, seeing how outrageously they have always exaggerated\nin everything pertaining to their own glorification.\n\n\u201cThe only logical conclusion justifiable when we give up the inspiration\ntheory is, that Arabs and Syro-Ph\u0153nicians were known to Assyrians and\nEgyptians, and this none would deny. Indeed, we readily grant, with Dr.\nBirch, that under the nineteenth and twentieth Egyptian dynasties the\ninfluence of the Aram\u00e6an nations is distinctly marked; that not only by\nblood and alliances had the Pharaohs been closely united with the\nprinces of Palestine and Syria, but that the language of the period\nabounds in Semitic words quite different from the Egyptian, with which\nthey were embroidered and intermingled. Could it possibly be otherwise?\nIs it not so to this day? Is a vast and rapidly-spawning Shemitic\ncontinent like Arabia not to influence the narrow delta of a river\nadjoining it or the wild highlands of Syria to the north? Of course\nArabs or Shemites were everywhere spread over Egypt, Syria, and\nPh\u0153nicia, as well as in their ancient seats of empire in Arabia, Irak\n(Kaldia), and on the imperial mounds of Kalneh and Koyunjik; but not\nnecessarily as Jews. I cannot find that these last were anything more\nthan a peculiar religious sect of Arabs who settled down from their\npristine nomadic habits and obtained a _quasi_ government under petty\nprinces or sheiks, such as we have seen take place in the case of\nnumerous Arabian and Indian sects.\n\n\u201cOnly about two hundred years or so after their return from Babylon did\nthe Jews seem to consolidate into a nation, and the collection and\ntranslation of their old mythic records\u2014deciphered with much difficulty\nby the diligent librarians of Ptolemy Philadelphus from \u201cold shreds and\nscraps of leather\u201d\u2014no doubt materially aided in consolidating the people\nand in welding them into what they became\u2014clans proud of a sort of a\nmythic history built up by Ezra and other men acquainted with Babylonian\nrecords and popular cosmogonies.\u201d\n\nNo efforts, say the leaders of the Biblical Archaeological Society, have\nbeen able to find either amidst the numerous engravings on the rocks of\nArabia Petrea or Palestine, _any save Ph\u0153nician inscriptions_; not even\na record of the Syro-Hebrew character, which was once thought to be the\npeculiar property of Hebrews. Most of those inscriptions hitherto\ndiscovered do not date anterior to the Roman empire. Few, if _any_\nmonuments (of Jews) have been found in Palestine or the neighboring\ncountries of any useful antiquity save the Moabite Stone, and the value\nof this last is all in favor of my previous arguments on these points.\nAt the pool of Siloam we have an \u201cinscription in the Ph\u0153nician character\nas old as the time of the Kings;... it is incised upon the walls of a\nrock-chamber apparently dedicated to Baal, who is mentioned on it. So\nthat here, in a most holy place of this peculiar people, we find only\nPh\u0153nicians, and these worshipping the Sun-god of Fertility, as was\ncustomary on every coast of Europe from unknown times down to the rise\nof Christianity.\u201d\n\nThe Biblical Archaeological Society and British Museum authorities tell\nus frankly and clearly that no Hebrew square character can be proved to\nexist till after the Babylonian captivity, and that, at all events, this\ninscription of Siloam shows \u201cthat the curved or Ph\u0153nician character was\nin use in Jerusalem itself under the Hebrew monarchy, as well as the\nconterminous Ph\u0153nicia, Moabitis, and the more distant Assyria. No\nmonument, indeed,\u201d continues Dr. Birch, \u201cof greater antiquity inscribed\nin the square character (Hebrew) has been found as yet _older than the\nfifth century A. D._ [the small capitals are mine], and the coins of the\nMaccabean princes, as well as those of the revolter Barcochab, are\nimpressed with _Samaritan_ characters. So that here we have the most\ncomplete confirmation of all that I assert as to the mythical history of\na Judean people prior to a century or so b. c., and even then only under\nsuch a government as Babylonian administrators had taught them to form\nand the lax rule of the Seleukid\u00e6, followed by intermittent Roman\ngovernment, permitted of.\u201d\n\nAnother modern writer says: \u201cSoon after the death of Alexander the Jews\nfirst came into notice under Ptolemy I. of Egypt, and some of their\nbooks were collected at the new-built city of Alexandria.\u201d\n\nSuch was the insignificance of the Jews as a people that the historical\nmonuments preceding the time of Alexander the Great, who died 323 years\nb. c., make not the slightest mention of any Jewish transaction. The\nwritings of Thales, Solon, Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato, Herodotus, and\nXenophon, all of whom visited remote countries, contain no mention of\nthe Jews whatever. Neither Homer nor Aristotle, the preceptor of\nAlexander, makes any mention of them. The story of Josephus, that\nAlexander visited Jerusalem, has been proved to be a fabrication.\nAlexander\u2019s historians say nothing about it. He did pass through the\ncoast of Palestine, and the only resistance he encountered was at Gaza,\nwhich was garrisoned by Persians (Wyttenbach\u2019s _Opuscula_, vol. ii. pp.\n416, 421).\n\nFor half a century after its destruction, says Dr. Robinson, there is no\nmention of Jerusalem in history; and even until the time of Constantine\nits history presents little more than a blank (vol. i. pp. 367, 371).\n\nGeneral Forlong says: \u201cThe area of Judea and Samaria is, according to\nthe above authority, 140 X 40 = 5600 square miles, which I think is\ncertainly one-fourth too much, my own triangulation of it giving only\n4500, or a figure of about 130 X 35. I will, however, concede the\nallotment of 5600, but we must remember that, as a rule, the whole is a\ndismal, rocky, arid region, with only intersecting valleys, watered by\nsprings and heavy rain from November to February inclusive, and having\nscorching heats from April to September. Even the inhabitable portions\nof the country could only support the very sparsest population, and I\nspeak after having marched over it and also a considerable portion of\nthe rest of the world. In India we should look upon it as a very poor\nprovince; in some respects very like the hilly tracts of Mewar or\nOdeypoor in Kajpootana, but in extent, population, and wealth it is less\nthan that small principality.\n\n\u201cThe chief importance of Palestine in ancient history was due to its\nlying on the high-road between the great kingdoms of Egypt, Babylon, and\nAssyria, and as giving the Arabs a hiding- and abiding-place which\nthey\u2014Jews included\u2014could not obtain if they ventured out on the plains\nsouth and east. The holes and fastnesses of the hills were their\nsafeguards, and, as they assure us, very much used indeed. The Jewish\nstrip is divided into Samaria as a centre, with Galilee north and Judea\nsouth, giving to the two former eight-tenths, and the latter two-tenths;\nthat is, two tribes;  5600 X 2/10 so that the Judean area would be about\n5600 X 8/10 = 20 square miles, against the 4480 of the latter; and the\npopulation would be somewhat in this proportion, for the extreme\nbarrenness of all the country south and east of Jerusalem would be in\nsome degree made up for by this town being perhaps a little larger than\nthose in the north.\n\n\u201cWe are thus prepared to state the population of the entire land in\nterms of its area, as was done for the Judean capital, and with equally\nstartling results. The whole Turkish empire yields at present less than\ntwenty-four persons to the square mile, and in the wild and warring ages\nwe are here concerned with we may safely say that there were less than\ntwenty per square mile, of which half were females and one-third of the\nother half children and feeble persons, unable to take the field whether\nfor war or agriculture. The result is disastrous to much biblical\nmatter, and far-reaching; upsetting the mighty armies of Joshua and the\nJudges, no less than those of David and Solomon, who are thought for a\nfew short years to have united the tribes: nay, the stern facts of\nfigures destroy all the subsequently divided kings or petty chiefs who\nlasted down to the sixth century or so b. c., and show us that Jews have\never been insignificant in the extreme, especially when compared with\nthe great peoples who generally ruled them, and far and wide around\nthem.\n\n\u201cSo that this paltry thirty thousand to forty thousand is the very most\nwhich the twelve tribes could, and only for these few years, bring to\nthe front. In general, the tribes warred with one another and with their\nneighbors, so that, for the purposes of foreign war, the Jewish race\nrepresented only two or three tribes at a time, or, say, ten thousand\nable men. Thus one tribe\u2014as, for example, Judah\u2014would have only from\nthree thousand to four thousand men in all, supposing every man left his\nfields and home to fight, while Assyrian armies not unusually numbered\none hundred thousand to two hundred thousand men.\u201d\n\nIn the above statistics also we have taken a greater area than I think\nthe tribes occupied. There is not a sign of a Jewish people till about\nwhat is called their \u201cEastern Captivity,\u201d and the Rev. Mr. Rodwell\nwrites in the _Trans. of the Biblical Archaeological Society_ that \u201c_the\nHebrew of the Bible is no other than a dialectic variety of the\nCanaanitish or Ph\u0153nician tongue expressed in the Chaldean character_,\nnot brought, as has been taught, by Abram himself from Ur of the\nChaldees, but adopted by the Israelites during their long captivities.\u201d\n\u201cCould it possibly be otherwise when we look at the facts? The Jews were\na poor, ignorant, weak Arab tribe, living on the outskirts of a land\noccupied for long ages previously by the most famous race of all\nantiquity\u2014a people from whom Greece, Rome, and Carthage alike borrowed\nthe ideas of their earliest art and architecture. Homer called this race\n_Phens_ Poludaidaloi\u2014\u2018artists of varied skill,\u2019 and later Romans prized\nthem above all others for their constructive talent. Pliny, Seneca, and\nVarro praise them in words which will never die; Jews said that David\nsolicited their skilled labor, and that Solomon\u2019s temple, small and\nsimple though it was, could not be raised without their help; nay,\nthough Ezra says he had these ensamples before him, and had seen all the\nfine buildings of Babylon, yet he too had to solicit their aid, else the\nwalls of the city of Jehovah and Zerub-babel\u2019s second shrine could never\nhave been constructed. In all arts, trades, and manufactures this\nextraordinary people excelled every ancient race, and from the very\nearliest times down and into the Roman period. Is it surprising, then,\nthat their language and customs prevailed wherever their skilled aid was\nrequired? that Africa in its writing was no less Punic\u2014that is,\nPh\u0153nician\u2014than Libyan, guided by these wondrous Pheni or \u201cTyrii\nbilingues\u201d? The history of Britain during some past generations as the\nfirst great manufacturing country of modern times shows how\ncivilization, power, and progress must ever follow industry and\nusefulness, and Ph\u0153nicians to a great extent in early days controlled\n\u2018the sinews of war\u2019 where this was their interest; but it too often\nproved more profitable to deal in swords and helmets than in \u2018Tyrian\npurple\u2019 and costly brocade stuffs. Manufacturers are not much given to\nwriting, and these Pheni have been so parsimonious in their vowels and\nlavish and indifferent in the use of b\u2019s, dfs, r\u2019s, and s\u2019s that few\nphilological students have attempted the translation of Ph\u0153nician\nwritings, though Ph\u0153nician, and not Hebrew, is what alone we find traces\nof in Syria and Palestine.\u201d\n\nIt has been substantially said by William Henry Burr, in a work not now\nin the market, that \u201cvery erroneous ideas prevail in regard to the\nmagnitude of the nation and country of the Jews and their importance in\nhistory. Most maps of ancient Palestine assign far too much territory to\nthat nation. They make the greatest length of the country from 160 to\n175 miles, and its greatest breadth from 70 to 90, inclosing an area of\nfrom 10,000 to 12,000 square miles\u2014a little larger than the State of\nVermont. They not only include the entire Mediterranean coast for 160\nmiles, but a considerable mountain-tract on the north, above Dan, and a\nportion of the desert on the south, below Beer-sheba, besides running\nthe eastern boundary out too far. Moreover, they lengthen the distances\nin every direction. From Dan to Beersheba, the extreme northern and\nsouthern towns, the distance on Mitchell\u2019s map is 165 miles, and on\nColton\u2019s, 150; but on a map accompanying _Biblical Researches in\nPalestine_, by Edward Robinson, D. D., which is one of the most recent\nand elaborate, and will doubtless be accepted as the best authority, the\ndistance is only 128 miles.\n\n\u201cNow, the Israelites were never able to drive out the Canaanites from\nthe choicest portion of the country\u2014the Mediterranean coast\u2014nor even\nfrom most parts of the interior (Judges 1: 16-31; 1 Kings 9: 20, 21).\nThe Ph\u0153nicians, a powerful maritime people, occupied the northern\nportion of the coast, and the Philistines the southern; between these\nthe Jebusites or some other people held control, so that the Israelites\nwere excluded from any part of the Mediterranean shore. The map of their\ncountry must therefore undergo a reduction of a strip on the west at\nleast 10 miles wide by 160 long, or 1600 square miles. A further\nreduction must be made of about 400 square miles for the Dead Sea and\nLake of Tiberias. This leaves at most 9000 square miles by Colton\u2019s map.\nBut on this map the extreme length of the country is 175 miles, which is\n47 miles too great: for the whole dominion of the Jews extended only\nfrom Dan to Beersheba, which Dr. Robinson places only 128 miles apart.\nWe must therefore make a further reduction of an area about 47 by 60\nmiles, or 2800 square miles. Then we must take off a slice on the east,\nat least 10 miles broad by 60 long, or 600 square miles. Thus we reduce\nthe area of Colton\u2019s map from 11,000 square miles to 5600\u2014a little less\nthan the State of Connecticut.\n\n\u201cBut now, if we subtract from this what was wilderness and desert, and\nalso what was at no time inhabited and controlled by the Israelites, we\nfurther reduce their habitable territory about one-half. The land of\nCanaan being nearly all mountainous and bounded on the south and east by\na vast desert which encroached upon the borders of the country, a great\npart of it was barren wilderness. Nor did but one-fifth of the\nIsraelites (two and a half tribes) occupy the country east of the\nJordan, which was almost equal in extent to that on the west, the proper\nLand of Promise. The eastern half, therefore, must have been but thinly\npopulated by the two and a half tribes, who were only able to maintain a\nprecarious foothold against the bordering enemies. So, then, it is not\nprobable that the Israelites actually inhabited and governed at any time\n\u00e0 territory of more than 3000 square miles, or not much if any larger\nthan the little State of Delaware. At all events, it can hardly be\ndoubted that Delaware contains more good land than the whole country of\nthe Jews ever did.\n\n\u201cThe promise to Abraham in Gen. 15: 18 is \u2018from the river of Egypt to\nthe river Euphrates.\u2019 But the Jewish possessions never reached the Nile\nby 200 miles. In Ex. 33: 31 the promise is renewed, but the river of\nEgypt is not named. The boundaries are \u2018from the Red Sea to the Sea of\nthe Philistines (the Mediterranean), and from the desert to the river.\u2019\nBy \u2018the river\u2019 was doubtless meant the Euphrates; and assuming that by\n\u2018the desert\u2019 was meant the eastern boundary (though Canaan was bounded\non the south also by the same great desert which reached to the Red\nSea), we have in this promise a territory 600 miles long by an average\nof about 180 broad, making an area of about 100,000 square miles, or ten\ntimes as much as the Jews ever could claim, and nearly one-half of it\nuninhabitable. So, then, the promise was never fulfilled, for the\nIsraelites were confined to a very small central portion of their land\nof promise, and whether they occupied 3000 or 12,000 square miles in the\nperiod of their greatest power, the fact is not to be disputed that\ntheir country was a very small one.\n\n\u201cLamartine describes the journey from Bethany to Jericho as singularly\ntoilsome and melancholy\u2014neither houses nor cultivation, mountains\nwithout a shrub, immense rocks split by time, pinnacles tinged with\ncolors like those of an extinct volcano. \u2018From the summit of these\nhills, as far as the eye can reach, we see only black chains, conical or\nbroken peaks, a boundless labyrinth of passes rent through the\nmountains, and those ravines lying in perfect and perpetual stillness,\nwithout a stream, without a wild animal, without even a flower, the\nrelics of a convulsed land, with waves of stone\u2019 (vol. ii., p. 146).\u201d\n\nBut lest it may be thought that these dismal features are due to modern\ndegeneracy, let us take the testimony of an early Christian Father, St.\nJerome, who lived a long time in Bethlehem, four miles south of\nJerusalem. In the year 414 he wrote to Dardanus thus: \u201cI beg of those\nwho assert that the Jewish people after coming out of Egypt took\npossession of this country (which to us, by the passion and resurrection\nof our Saviour, has become truly the land of promise), to show us what\nthis people possessed. Their whole dominions extended only from Dan to\nBeersheba, hardly 160 Roman miles in length (147 geographical miles).\nThe Scriptures give no more to David and Solomon, except what they\nacquired by alliance after conquest.... I am ashamed to say what is the\nbreadth of the land of promise, lest I should thereby give the pagans\noccasion to blaspheme. It is but 47 miles (42 geographical miles) from\nJoppa to our little town of Bethlehem, beyond which all is a frightful\ndesert\u201d (vol. ii., p. 605).\n\nElsewhere he describes the country as the \u201crefuse and rubbish of\nnature.\u201d He says that \u201cfrom Jerusalem to Bethlehem there is nothing but\nstones, and in the summer the inhabitants can scarcely get water to\ndrink.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn the year 1847, Lieut. Lynch of the U. S. Navy was sent to explore\nthe river Jordan and the Dead Sea. He and his party with great\ndifficulty crossed the country from Acre to the Lake of Tiberias, with\ntrucks drawn by camels. The only roads from time immemorial were\nmule-paths. Frequent d\u00e9tours had to be made, and they were compelled\nactually to make some portions of their road. Even then the last\ndeclivity could not be overcome until all hands turned out and hauled\nthe boats and baggage down the steep places; and many times it seemed as\nif, like the ancient herd of swine, they would all rush precipitately\ninto the sea. Over three days were required to make the journey, which\nin a straight line would be only twenty-seven miles. For the first few\nmiles they passed over a pretty fertile plain, but this was the ancient\nPh\u0153nician country, which the Jews never conquered. The rest of the route\nwas mountainous and rocky, with not a tree visible nor a house outside\nthe little walled villages (pp. 135 to 152).\n\n\u201cThe ancient Sea of Galilee has a prominent place in Jewish geography\nand commerce, yet on this insignificant body of water, twelve miles long\nby seven wide, all the commerce of the Jews was carried on, except when\nthey had the use of a port on the Red Sea.\n\n\u201cIn a book entitled _The Holy Land, Syria_, etc., by David Roberts, R.\nA. (London, 1855), the valley of the Jordan is thus described:\n\n\u201c\u2018A large portion of the valley of the Jordan has been from the earliest\ntime almost a desert. But in the northern part the great number of\nrivulets which descend from the mountains on both sides produce in many\nplaces a luxuriant growth of wild herbage. So too in the southern part,\nwhere similar rivulets exist, as around Jericho, there is even an\nexuberant fertility; but those rivulets seldom reach the Jordan and have\nno effect on the middle of the Ghor. The mountains on each side are\nrugged and desolate, the western cliffs overhanging the valley at an\nelevation of 1000 or 1200 feet, while the eastern mountains fall back in\nranges of from 2000 to 2500 feet.\u2019\u201d\n\nWhat was the size of ancient Jerusalem? We know pretty nearly what it is\nnow and how many inhabitants it contains. It is three-quarters of a mile\nlong by half a mile wide, and its population is not more than ,500\n(_Biblical Researches_, vol i., p. 421), a large proportion of whom are\ndrawn thither by the renowned sanctity of the place. Dr. Robinson\nmeasured the wall of the city, and found it to be only 12,978 feet in\ncircumference, or nearly two and a half miles (vol. i., p. 268).\n\n\u201cIn a book entitled _An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem_,\nby James Fergusson (London, 1847), a diagram is given of the walls of\nancient and modern Jerusalem, from which it appears that the greatest\nlength of the city was at no time more than 6000 feet, or a little more\nthan a mile, and its greatest width about three-quarters of a mile;\nwhile the real Jerusalem of old was but a little more than a quarter\nthat size.\n\n\u201cWith these measurements Mr. Fergusson undertakes to estimate the\nprobable population of the ancient city, as follows:\n\n\u201c\u2018If we allow the inhabitants of the first-named cities fifty yards to\neach individual, and that one-half of the new city was inhabited at the\nrate of one person to each one hundred yards, this will give a permanent\npopulation of 23,000 souls. If, on the other hand, we allow only\nthirty-three yards to each of the old cities, and admit that the whole\nof the new was as densely populated as London, or allowing one hundred\nyards to each inhabitant, we obtain 37,000 souls for the whole; which I\ndo not think it at all probable that Jerusalem ever could have contained\nas a permanent population.\u2019 \u201c\u2018In another part of the book (p. 47) he\nsays:\n\n\u201cIf we were to trust Josephus, he would have us believe that Jerusalem\ncontained at one time, or could contain, two and a half or three\nmillions of souls, and that at the siege of Titus 1,100,000 perished by\nfamine and the sword, 97,000 were taken captive, and 40,000 allowed by\nTitus to go free.\n\n\u201cIn order to show the gross exaggeration of these numbers, he cites the\nfact that the army of Titus did not exceed, altogether, 30,000, and that\nJosephus himself enumerates the fighting-men of the city at 23,400,\nwhich would give a population something under 100,000. But even this he\nbelieves to be an exaggeration. For, says he,\n\n\u201c\u2018In all the sallies it cannot be discovered that at any time the Jews\ncould bring into the field 10,000 men, if so many.... Titus enclosed the\ncity with a line four and a half miles in extent, which, with his small\narmy, was so weak a disposition that a small body of the Jews could\neasily have broken through it; but they never seem to have had numbers\nsufficient to be able to attempt it.\u2019\n\n\u201cThe author guesses that the Jews might have mustered at the beginning\nof the siege about 10,000 men, and that the city might have contained\naltogether about 40,000 inhabitants, permanent and transient, in a space\nwhich in no other city in the world could accommodate 30,000 souls. But\nthe wall of Agrippa was built, as the same author states, twelve or\nthirteen years after the Crucifixion; hence prior to that time the area\nof Jerusalem was only 756,000 yards, and it was capable of containing\nonly 23,000 inhabitants at most, but probably never did contain more\nthan 15,000.\n\n\u201cAllowing to Jerusalem, in the period of the greatest prosperity of the\nJews, a population of even  20,000, is it at all probable that the whole\ncountry could have contained anything like even the lowest estimate to\nbe gathered from the Scripture record? In 1 Chron. 21: 5, 6 we read that\nthe number of \u2018men that drew the sword of Israel and Judah amounted to\n1,570,000, not counting the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. In 2 Sam. 24:\n9, the number given at the same census is 1,300,000, and no omission is\nmentioned. Assuming the larger number to be correct, and adding only\none-eighth for the two tribes of Levi and Benjamin, which may have been\nthe smallest, we have 1,766,000 fighting-men. This would give, at the\nrate of one fighting-man to four inhabitants, a total population of over\n7,000,000 souls. But if we adopt a more reasonable ratio, of one to six,\nwe have a population of over 10,500,000 souls. And then we omit the\naliens. These numbered 153,600 working-men only two years later (2\nChron. 2: 17), and the total alien population, therefore, must have been\nabout 500,000, which, added to the census, would make the total\npopulation from 7,500,000 to 11,000,000, or more. Can any intelligent\nman believe that a mountainous, barren country, no larger than\nConnecticut, without commerce, without manufactures, without the\nmechanical arts, without civilization, ever did or could subsist even\ntwo millions of people? Much less can it be believed that it subsisted\n\u2018seven nations greater and mightier than the Israelitish nation itself\u2019\n(Deut. 7: 1)\u2014i e. not less than 14,000,000.\n\n\u201cThat the Jews were a very barbarous people is undeniable. Slavery\nnecessarily makes a people barbarous. Not only were the Israelites a\nnation of slaves, according to their own record, but after their entry\ninto Canaan they were six times reduced to bondage in their own land of\npromise. During a period of 281 years they were in slavery 111 years.\n\n\u201cThat the Jews were far behind their surrounding neighbors in\ncivilization is shown by the fact that in the first battle they fought\nunder their first king, Saul, they had in the whole army \u2018neither sword\nnor spear in the hand of any of the people,\u2019 except Saul and Jonathan (1\nSam. 13:22). Nor was any \u2018smith found throughout all the land of Israel\u2019\n(ver. 19), but \u2018all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to\nsharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his\nmattock\u2019 (ver. 20.) This was 404 years after the Exodus and only 75\nyears prior to the building of Solomon\u2019s temple. Their weapons of war\nwere those of the rudest savage.\n\n\u201cAs another evidence of the barbarism of the Jews, when David resolved\nto build a house for himself he had no native artisans, but had to send\nto Hiram, king of Tyre, for masons and carpenters (2 Sam. 5: 11). Even\nthe wood itself had to be brought from Tyre, it would seem that even in\nthose days, as now, the mountains of Canaan were destitute of trees\u2014a\nsure sign of a sterile country. The wood of course had to be carried\noverland. Wheel-carriages were unknown to the Israelites, except in the\nform of chariots of iron used by their enemies, which prevented Judah,\neven with the help of the Lord, from driving out the inhabitants of the\nvalleys (Judg. 1: 19). David captured 1000 chariots in about the\nsixteenth year of his reign, of which he preserved only 100, disabling\nall the horses (1 Ghron. 18: 3.) Prior to this event neither chariots\nnor horses had been used by the Israelites, nor was much use made of\nthem by the subsequent kings. Oxen and asses were their beasts of\nburden; camels were rare even long after Solomon\u2019s reign. How, then, was\nthe wood brought from Tyre over the mountains, unless it was carried on\nthe backs of oxen or asses or dragged along the ground?\u201d\n\nThat a considerable number of Jews at one time sojourned in Egypt is\nhighly probable. How they got there, and how they came to leave, is not\nso certain. An eminent Egyptologist writes in a leading London journal:\n\n\u201cThe presence of large numbers of Semites in ancient Egypt has always\nbeen a puzzle to historians, and what first led to their migrating from\nMesopotamia to the land of the Pharaohs has never hitherto been made\nclear. Quite recently, however, the British Museum has become possessed\nof a number of cuneiform tablets which throw considerable light on the\nsubject. Early in the present year a number of these tablets were\noffered for sale in Cairo. They had been dug up from the grave of a\nroyal scribe of Amenophis III. and IV. of the eighteenth dynasty, which\nhad given up its records, and not only records, but seals and papyri of\ngreat historical and artistic value. Some went to the Boulak Museum,\nsome to Berlin, others to private persons, and eighty-one have found\ntheir way to the British Museum. These last have now been arranged and\ncatalogued by Mr. Budge, the well-known Egyptologist, whose\ninvestigations have brought to light a most interesting chapter in the\nhistory of ancient Egypt. Not only do the tablets explain the historical\ncrux mentioned above, but they introduce us to the family life of the\nearly kings. They picture to us the splendors of the royal palaces; they\nenable us to assist at the betrothal of the kings\u2019 daughters and to\nfollow the kings to their hunting-grounds. Most of the tablets are\nletters addressed to Amenophis III., and some are from Tushratta, king\nof Mesopotamia.\n\n\u201cAmenophis III. was a mighty hunter, and once on a shooting-trip into\nMesopotamia after big game he, like a king in a fairy-tale, met and\nloved Ti, the daughter of Tushratta. They were married in due time, and\nTi went down into Egypt with three hundred and seventeen of her\nprincipal ladies. This brought a host of their Semitic countrymen along,\nwho found in Egypt a good field for their business capacities, and\ngradually, like the modern Jews in Russia, got possession of the lands\nand goods of their hosts. The influence of the Semitic queen is attested\nby the very fact that this library of cuneiform tablets was preserved.\nAnd under the feeble sovereigns who followed, her countrymen doubtless\nheld their own. But at last came the nineteenth dynasty and the Pharaoh\n\u2018who knew not Joseph.\u2019 Then they were set to brick-making and\npyramid-building, till the outbreak which led to the Red Sea triumph.\n\n\u201cMr. Budge, of the British Museum, has translated three of the letters.\nOne is from Tushratta to Ameno-phis. After many complimentary\nsalutations, he proposes to his son-in-law that they should continue the\narrangement made by their fathers for pasturing doublehumped camels, and\nin this way he leads up to the main purport of his epistle. He says that\nManie, his great-nephew, is ambitious to marry the daughter of the king\nof Egypt, and he pleads that Manie might be allowed to go down to Egypt\nto woo in person. The alliance would, he considers, be a bond of union\nbetween the two countries, and he adds, as though by an after-thought,\nthat the gold which Amenophis appears to have asked for should be sent\nfor at once, together with \u2018large gold jars, large gold plates, and\nother articles made of gold.\u2019 After this meaning interpolation he\nreturns to the marriage question, and proposes to act in the matter of\nthe dowry in the same way in which his grandfather acted, presumably on\na like occasion. He then enlarges on the wealth of his kingdom, where\n\u2018gold is like dust which cannot be counted,\u2019 and he adds an inventory of\npresents which he is sending, articles of gold, inlay, and harness, and\nthirty eunuchs.\u201d\n\nIn speaking of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, Dr. Knappert\nsays: \u201cAccording to the tradition preserved in Genesis, it was the\npromotion of Jacob\u2019s son, Joseph, to be viceroy of Egypt that brought\nabout the migration of the sons of Israel from Canaan to Goshen. The\nstory goes that this Joseph was sold as a slave by his brothers, and\nafter many changes of fortune received the viceregal office at Pharaoh\u2019s\nhands through his skill in interpreting dreams. Famine drives his\nbrothers, and afterward his father, to him, and the Egyptian prince\ngives them the land of Goshen to live in. It is by imagining all this\nthat the legend tries to account for the fact that Israel passed some\ntime in Egypt. But we must look for the real explanation in a migration\nof certain tribes which could not establish or maintain themselves in\nCanaan, and were forced to move farther on.\u201d\n\nThe author of the _Religion of Israel_ says: \u201cThe history of the\nreligion of Israel must start from the sojourn of the Israelites in\nEgypt. Formerly it was usual to take a much earlier starting-point, and\nto begin with a discussion of the religious ideas of the patriarchs. And\nthis was perfectly right so long as the accounts of Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob were considered historical. But now that a strict investigation\nhas shown us that these stories are entirely unhistorical, of course we\nhave to begin the history later on.\u201d The author of _The Spirit History\nof Man_ says: \u201cThe Hebrews came out of Egypt and settled among the\nCanaanites. They need not be traced beyond the Exodus; that is their\nhistorical beginning. It was very easy to cover up this remote event by\nthe recital of mythical traditions, and to prefix to it an account of\ntheir origin in which the gods (patriarchs) should figure as their\nancestors.\u201d\n\nBut how about the Jewish exodus from Egypt? What was the real cause?\nWhom shall we credit, the writer of the book called Exodus or other\nwriters? What follows differs very much from the Hebrew story.\n\nLysimachus relates that \u201ca filthy disease broke out in Egypt, and the\noracle of Ammon, being consulted on the occasion, commanded the king to\npurify the land by driving out the Jews (who were infected with leprosy,\netc.), who were hateful to the gods. The whole multitude of the people\nwere accordingly collected and driven out into the wilderness.\u201d\n\nDiodorus Siculus says: \u201cIn ancient times Egypt was afflicted with a\ngreat plague, which was attributed to the anger of God on account of the\nmultitude of foreigners in Egypt, by whom the rites of the native\nreligion were neglected. The Egyptians accordingly drove them out. The\nmost notable of them went under Cadmus and Danaus to Greece, but the\ngreater number followed Moses, a wise and valiant leader, to Palestine.\u201d\n\nTacitus, the Roman historian, says: \u201cIn this clash of opinions one point\nseems to be universally admitted\u2014a pestilential disease, disfiguring the\nrace of man and making the body an object of loathsome deformity,\nspreading all over Egypt. Bocchoris, at that time the reigning monarch,\nconsulted the oracle of Jupiter Hammon, and received for answer that the\nkingdom must be purified by exterminating the infected multitude, as a\nrace of men detested by the gods. After diligent search the wretched\nsufferers were collected together, and in a wild and barren desert\nabandoned to their misery. In that distress, while the vulgar herd was\nsunk in deep despair, Moses, one of their number, reminded them that by\nthe wisdom of his counsels they had been already rescued out of\nimpending danger. Deserted as they were by men and gods, he told them\nthat if they did not repose their confidence in him as their chief by\ndivine commission they had no resource left. His offer was accepted.\nTheir march began, they knew not whither. Want of water was their chief\ndistress. Worn out with fatigue, they lay stretched on the bare earth,\nheartbroken, ready to expire, when a troop of wild asses, returning from\npasture, went up the steep ascent of a rock covered with a grove of\ntrees. The verdure of the herbage round the place suggested the idea of\nsprings near at hand. Moses traced the steps of the animals, and\ndiscovered a plentiful vein of water. By this relief the fainting\nmultitude was raised from despair.\u201d\n\nIn a learned work on Egypt by Mr. William Oxley of England, published in\n1884, the author writes: \u201cTaking the records as we find them, if they\nare real history, and as Palestine is contiguous to Egypt, we should\nnaturally expect to find some reference to the Israelites in the\nEgyptian annals, but what does appear in regard to Palestine is\ncertainly not favorable to the assumption that it was the home of the\nIsraelites as a nation. I cull the following from such materials as are\nat present within reach, partly taken from the _Records of the Past_:\n\n\u201cIt has been generally acknowledged by Egyptian biblicists that \u2018the\ncruel bondage of the Israelites, culminated under the reign of Rameses\nII., nineteenth dynasty, and that the Exodus took place under his\nsuccessor, Menephtah I., 1326 b. c., who was drowned in the Red Sea with\nall his host in his attempt to bring the wanderers back again. But, as I\nhave already said, the tomb of this very king at Thebes contains an\ninscription to the effect that he had lived to a good old age, and was a\nchild of good-fortune from his cradle to the grave. In the annals of\nRameses III., who reigned some fifty or sixty years after the Israelites\n_ought to have been_ settled in their own land, many references are made\nto the country in which they were located (according to biblical\naccounts). The king goes to what is known to us as Palestine, Ph\u0153nicia,\nand Syria to receive the annual tribute from the chiefs/ whom he calls\nKhetas. In the enumeration of his conquests, extending from Egypt east\nand northward, he enumerates thirty-eight tribes and peoples, and says:\n\u2018I have smitten every land, and have taken every land in its extent.\u2019 In\nhis reminder to the God Ptah of the benefits he had conferred on the\ngod, the king says: \u2018I gave to thy temple from the store-houses of\nEgypt, Tar-neter, and Kharu (i, e. Palestine and Syria) more numerous\nofferings than the sand of the sea, as well as cattle and slaves\u2019\n(Syrians). He also built a temple to Ammon in the same country, to which\n\u2018the nations of the Rutenna came and brought their tribute.\u2019 Making full\nallowance for the usual Egyptian flattery, the fact is clear that in the\ntime of this king the Israelites could not have been a settled and\ndistinct people; and the incident of their Exodus would have been too\nfresh and recent to be passed over without some comment by this\nvainglorious monarch.\n\n\u201cFrom a papyrus translated in the _Records of the Past_ (ii. 107),\nentitled _Travels of an Egyptian_, who gives a full account of\nPalestine, etc., it appears there was a fortress there which had been\nbuilt by Rameses II., and which was still belonging to Egypt. This would\nbe about 1350 B. C.; but not the slightest hint of any such people as\nIsraelites, although he tells us  \u2018he visited the country to get\ninformation respecting the country, with the manners and customs of its\ninhabitants.\u2019\n\n\u201cThe next is Rameses XII., some two hundred years after the Exodus, who\nis the hero of the story of the possessed princess. He was in\nMesopotamia at the time when the chief of the Bakhten brought his\ndaughter, who afterward became queen of Egypt. \u2018His Majesty was there\nregistering the annual tributes of all the princes of the countries,\u2019\namong whom he enumerates Tar-neter (Palestine), but no mention of\nIsraelites.\n\n\u201cI find no further trace until the time of Herodotus (about 420 B. c.);\nand here we come on historical ground. This great historian travelled\nthrough Egypt and Palestine in the reign of one of the kings of the\nPersian dynasty, about forty or fifty years after the alleged return of\nthe Jews from their captivity in Babylon, and when the temple had been\nbuilt and the city fortified. He repeatedly alludes to the Ph\u0153nicians\nand Syrians, whose country extended from the coast of the Levant down to\nthe Egyptian frontier, including the isthmus and Sinaitic Peninsula. He\nsays that Necho (about 670 b. c.) fought with the Syrians, and took a\nlarge city, Cadytis; but he makes no mention of Jews nor yet of\nJerusalem. If they had been there, it is incredible that such a careful\nand grasping historian should have explored the land without noticing\nthem in some way or other.\n\n\u201cThe next is from a tablet erected to Alexander II. by Ptolemy, at that\ntime viceroy under the Persian king, but who soon after himself became\nking of Egypt, 305 b. c. The inscription states that \u2018Alexander marched\nwith an army of Ionians to the Syrians\u2019 land, who were at war with him.\nHe penetrated its interior and took it at one stroke, and led their\nprinces, cavalry, ships, and works of art to Egypt.\u2019\n\n\u201cNext follows the third Ptolemy, 238 b. c. (see the Decree of Canopus,\n_Records of the Past_, viii., 81), who invaded the two lands of Asia,\nand brought back to Egypt all the treasures which had been carried away\nby Cambyses and his successors. He \u2018imported corn from East Rutenna and\nKafatha\u2019\u2014i. e. from Syria and Ph\u0153nicia. It was the father of this king\nwho is credited with sending to Judea for the seventy-two men who\ntranslated the Hebrew Bible into Greek; and yet neither of these\nPtolemaic kings makes mention of Judea, Jerusalem, or the Jews! The\ninference is obvious: _they were not there._\n\n\u201cMany historiographers, when writing of Jewish annals, use the Ptolemaic\nand other monumental and papyrian accounts as applying to the Jews, and\nconsequently use the term \u2018Jews,\u2019 but this is unwarrantable, inasmuch as\nthe accounts themselves speak of \u2018Syrians, Ph\u0153nicians,\u2019 etc., but _not_\nof \u2018Jews.\u2019 According to the best cyclop\u00e6dists, \u2018there is little or\nnothing known of the Jews or Jerusalem until the time of Christ;\u2019 and\neven then it is taken chiefly from Josephus, who, to my view, is\nscarcely admissible as a chronographer of actual history. No mention is\nmade by the Ptolemies\u2014say 250 or even less years b. c.\u2014of the Jews of\nJerusalem, and as the Roman emperor Hadrian (from 117 to 138 A. D.) is\ncredited with changing the name of the city to _\u00c6lia Capitolina_, it\ncould only have been known as Jerusalem for a few centuries at most. The\nArch of Titus in Rome is taken as conclusive proof that it was erected\nto commemorate his victories over the rebellious Jews and the successful\nsiege of Jerusalem. But even this, I apprehend, is taken chiefly from\nJosephus. When in Rome last year I closely inspected this arch,\nexpecting to find an inscription to this effect, but I was disappointed\nat seeing only a Latin one over the arch, which reads (in English): \u2018The\nSenate and Roman People to the Divine Titus, (Son) of the divine\nVespasian,\u2019 and another, by Pius VII., recording its restoration. It is\ntrue, I saw the alto-reliefs on the inside of the arch, showing a table,\ntrumpets, and a seven-branched lamp; but these were used in many\ntemples, and would as well refer to the Syrian or Ph\u0153nician temples,\nwhich undoubtedly existed at that time, and in the absence of direct\nRoman testimony to the name of the city and people (of which I am\nunaware), it cannot be accepted as indubitable evidence of its reference\nto a city called and known to them as Jerusalem, and to a people known\nto them as Jews. Unless this can be established, it only amounts to an\ninference resting on Josephus.\n\n\u201cAs the result of my researches, I place Jewish historians, so called,\nupon the same footing as the Christian ecclesiastical ones, whose works,\nwhile containing a base of more or less historical reference and truth,\nare yet too much overweighted with unhistorical myths to be regarded as\ngenuine, sober history. To my view, the Jews were, at the period I am\nreferring to, in a not dissimilar position to the Druses of Lebanon of\nthe present day. As is well known to a certain class of writers who have\ncome in contact with them, they form a community held together not so\nmuch by national ties as by semi-religious ones, which are based upon\nCabalistic and theurgic rites and ceremonies. Like what I conceive the\nJews to have been in the centuries preceding the Christian era, they are\nan _order_ rather than a nation, the remains of systems which have\ncontinued and survived from ancient times. In this light the Jewish\nrecords are intelligible as writings veiled in allegory, treating of\ntheir mystic lore, albeit expressed in verbiage that bears a literal\nmeaning upon its surface. I give this as the only solution that presents\nitself of the mysterious problem under review.\u201d\n\nI now propose to state a few points from the Jewish writings themselves\n(collated from Bishop Colenso) to show the fabulous character of the\nhistory of this pretentious people.\n\nThe number of fighting-men who marched out of Egypt is nowhere estimated\nat less than 600,000, and if this represented only one-fourth of the\npopulation, the latter must have reached 3,000,000. If we cut this down\none-third, so as to be sure of our figures, we make it 2,000,000 souls.\n\nThe number of the children of Israel who went into Egypt was 70 (Ex. 1:\n5). They sojourned in Egypt 215 years. It could not have been 430 years,\nas would appear from Ex. 11:40. The marginal chronology makes the period\n215 years, and there were only four generations to the Exodus\u2014namely,\nLevi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses (Ex. 6: 16, 18, 20). How could these\npeople have increased in 215 years from 70 souls so as to number 600,000\nwarriors? It would have required an average number of 46 children to\neach father. The 12 sons of Jacob had between them only 53 sons. At this\nrate of increase, in the fourth generation there would have been only\n6311 males (provided they were all living at the time of the Exodus),\ninstead of 1,000,000. If we add the fifth generation, who would be\nmostly children, the total number of males would not have exceeded\n28,465.\n\nAll the first-born males from a month old and upward, of those that were\nnumbered, were 22,273 (Num. 3: 43). The lowest computation of the whole\nnumber of the people at that time is 2,000,000. The number of males\nwould be 1,000,000. Dividing the latter number by the number of\nfirst-born, gives 44, which would be the average number of boys in each\nfamily, or about 88 children by each mother. Or, if where the first-born\nwere females, the males were not counted, the number of children by each\nmother would be reduced to 44.\n\nDan in the first generation had but one son (Gen. 46: 23), and yet in\nthe fourth generation his descendants had increased to 62,700 warriors\n(Num. 2: 26), or 64,400 (Num. 26: 43). Each of his sons and grandsons\nmust have had about 80 children of both sexes. On the other hand, the\nLevites increased the number of \u201cmales from a month old and upward\u201d\nduring the 38 years in the wilderness only from 22,000 to 23,000 (Num.\n3: 39; 26: 62), and the tribe of Manasseh during the same time increased\nfrom 32,200 (Num. 1: 35) to 52,700 (26: 34).\n\nThe whole population of Israel were instructed in one single day to keep\nthe passover, and actually did keep it (Ex. 12). At the first notice of\nany such feast Jehovah said, \u201cI will pass through the land of Egypt _this\nnight_.\u201d The passover was to be killed \u201c_at even_\u201d on the same day that\nMoses received the command.\n\nThe women were at the same time ordered to borrow jewels of their\nneighbors, the Egyptians. After midnight of the same day the Israelites\nreceived notice to start for the wilderness. No one was to go out of his\nhouse till morning, when they were to take their hurried flight with\ntheir cattle and herds. How could 2,000,000 people, scattered about over\na wide district, as they must have been with their cattle and herds,\nhave gotten ready and taken a simultaneous hurried flight at twelve\nhours\u2019 notice?\n\nThe Israelites, with their flocks and herds, reached the Red Sea, a\ndistance of from fifty to sixty miles over a sandy desert, in three\ndays! Marching fifty abreast, the able-bodied warriors alone would have\nfilled up the road for seven miles, and the whole multitude would have\nmade a column twenty-two miles long, so that the last of the body could\nnot have been started until the front had advanced that distance\u2014more\nthan two days\u2019 journey for such a mixed company. Then the sheep and\ncattle must have formed another vast column, covering a much greater\ntract of ground in proportion to their number. Upon what did these two\nmillions of sheep and oxen feed in the journey to the Red Sea over a\ndesert region, sandy, gravelly, and stony alternately? How did the\npeople manage with the sick and infirm, and especially with the seven\nhundred and fifty births that must have taken place in the three days\u2019\nmarch?\n\nJudah was forty-two years old when he went down with Jacob into Egypt,\nbeing three years older than his brother Joseph, who was then\nthirty-nine. For \u201cJoseph was thirty years old when he stood before\nPharaoh\u201d (Gen. 41: 46); and from that time nine years elapsed (seven of\nplenty and two of famine) before Jacob came down into Egypt. Judah was\nborn in the fourth year of Jacob\u2019s double marriage (Gen. 29: 35), being\nthe fourth of the seven children of Leah born in seven years; and Joseph\nwas born of Rachel in the seventh year (Gen. 30: 24, 26; 21: 41). In\nthese forty-two years of Judah\u2019s life the following events are recorded\nin Gen. 38:\n\nHe grows up, marries, and has three sons. His eldest son grows up,\nmarries, and dies. The second son marries his brother\u2019s widow and dies.\nThe third son, after waiting to grow to maturity, declines to marry the\nwidow. The widow then deceives Judah himself, and bears him twins\u2014Pharez\nand Zarah. One of these twins grows up and has two sons\u2014Hez-ron and\nHamul\u2014bom to him before Jacob goes down into Egypt.\n\nIn Ex. 30:11-13, Jehovah commanded Moses to take a census of the\nchildren of Israel, and in doing it to collect half a shekel of the\nsanctuary as atonement-money. This expression \u201cshekel of the sanctuary\u201d\nis put into the mouth of Jehovah six or seven months before the\ntabernacle was made. In Ex. 38: 26 we read of such a tribute being paid,\nbut nothing is there said of any _census_ being taken, only that the\nnumber of those who paid, from twenty years old and upward, was 603,550\nmen. In Num. 1: 1-46, more than six months after this occasion, an\naccount of an actual census is given, but no _atonment-money_ is\nmentioned. If in the first instance a census was taken, but accidentally\nomitted to be mentioned, and in the second instance the tribute was\npaid, but accidentally omitted likewise, it was nevertheless surprising\nthat the number of adult males should have been identically the same\n(603,550) on both occasions, six months apart.\n\nAaron and his two sons were the only priests during Aaron\u2019s lifetime.\nThey had to make all the burnt-offerings on a single altar nine feet\nsquare (Ex. 37: 1), besides attending to other priestly duties for\n2,000,000 people. At the birth of every child both a burnt-offering and\na sin-offering had to be made. The number of births must be reckoned as\nat least two hundred and fifty a day, for which consequently five\nhundred sacrifices would have to be offered daily\u2014an impossible duty to\nbe performed by three priests. For poor women pigeons were accepted\ninstead of lambs. If half of them offered pigeons, and only one instead\nof two, it would have required 90,000 pigeons annually for this purpose\nalone. Where did they get the pigeons? How could they have had them at\nall under Sinai? There were thirteen cities where the presence of these\nthree priests was required (Josh. 21: 19). The three priests had to eat\na large portion of the bumt-offerings (Num. 18: 10) and all the\nsin-offerings\u2014two hundred and fifty pigeons a day\u2014more than eighty for\neach priest.\n\nIn keeping the second passover under Sinai, 150,000 lambs must have been\nkilled\u2014i. e. one for each family (Ex. 12: 3, 4). The Levites slew them,\nand the three priests had to sprinkle the blood from their hands (1\nChron. 30: 16; 35: 11). The killing had to be done \u201cbetween two\nevenings\u201d (Ex. 12: 6), and the sprinkling had to be done in about two\nhours. The killing must have been done in the court of the tabernacle\n(Lev. 1: 3, 5; 17: 2-6). The area of the court could have held but 5000\npeople at most. Here the lambs had to be sacrificed at the rate of 1250\na minute, and each of the three priests had to sprinkle the blood of\nmore than 400 lambs every minute for two hours.\n\nThe number of warriors of the Israelites, as recorded at the Exodus, was\n600,000 (Ex. 7: 37); subsequently it was 603,550 (Ex. 38: 25-28), and at\nthe end of their wanderings it was 601,730 (Num. 26: 51). But in 2\nChron. 13:3, Abijah, king of Judah, brings 0,000 men against Jeroboam,\nking of Israel, with 0,000, and \u201cthere fell down slain of Israel 500,000\nchosen men\u201d (ver. 17). On another occasion, Pekah, king of Israel, slew\nof Judah in one day, 120,000 valiant men (2 Chron. 28: 6.)\n\nThe Israelites at their Exodus were provided with tents (Ex. 16: 16), in\nwhich they undoubtedly encamped and dwelt. They did not dwell in tents\nin Egypt, but in \u201chouses\u201d with \u201cdoors,\u201d \u201csideposts,\u201d and \u201clintels.\u201d\nThese tents must have been made either of hair or of skin (Ex. 26: 7,\n14; 36: 14, 19)\u2014most probably of the latter\u2014and were therefore much\nheavier than the modern canvas tents. At least 200,000 were required to\naccommodate 2,000,000 people. Supposing they took these tents from\nEgypt, how did they carry them in their hurried march to the Red Sea?\nThe people had burdens enough without them. They had to carry their\nkneading-troughs with the dough unleavened, their clothes, their cooking\nutensils, couches, infants, aged and infirm persons, and food enough for\nat least a month\u2019s use, or until manna was provided for them in the\nwilderness, which was \u201con the fifteenth day of the second month after\ntheir departure out of the land of Egypt\u201d (Ex. 16:1). One of these\ntents, with its poles, pegs, etc., would be a load for a single ox, so\nthat they would have needed 0.000 oxen to carry the tents. But oxen are\nnot usually trained to carry goods on their backs, and will not do so\nwithout training. Then it is written:\n\n\u201cThese be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel\u201d (Deut. 1: 1).\n\n\u201cAnd Moses called all Israel and said unto them\u201d (Deut. 5:1).\n\n\u201cThere was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not\nbefore all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little\nones, and the strangers that were conversant among them\u201d (Josh. 8: 35).\n\nHow was it possible to do this before at least\n\n2,000,000 people? Could Moses or Joshua, as actual eye-witnesses, have\nexpressed themselves in such extravagant language? Surely not.\n\nThe camp of the Israelites must have been at least a mile and a half in\ndiameter. This would be allowing to each person on the average a space\nthree times the size of a coffin for a full-grown man. The ashes, offal,\nand refuse of the sacrifices would therefore have to be carried by the\npriest in person a distance of three-quarters of a mile \u201cwithout the\ncamp, unto a clean place\u201d (Lev. 4:11, 12.) There were only three\npriests\u2014namely, Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar\u2014to do all this work for\n2,000,000 people. All the wood and water would have to be brought into\nthis immense camp from the outside. Where could the supplies have been\ngot while the camp was under Sinai, in a desert, for nearly twelve\nmonths together? How could so great a camp have been kept clean?\n\nBut how huge does the difficulty become if we take the more reasonable\ndimensions of twelve miles square for this camp; that is, about the size\nof London! Imagine at least half a million of men having to go out daily\na distance of six miles and back to the suburbs for the common\nnecessities of nature, as the law directed.\n\nThe Israelites undoubtedly had flocks and herds of cattle (Ex. 34: 3).\nThey sojourned nearly a year before Sinai, where there was no food for\ncattle; and the wilderness in which they sojourned nearly forty years is\nnow and was then a desert (Deut. 32: 10; 8: 15). The cattle surely did\nnot subsist on manna!\n\nAmong other prodigies of valor, 12,000 Israelites are recorded in Num.\n31 as slaying all the male Midianites, taking captive all the females\nand children, siezing all their cattle and flocks, numbering 808,000\nhead, taking all their goods and burning all their cities, without the\nloss of a single man. Then they killed all the women and children except\n32,000 virgins, whom they kept for themselves. There would seem to have\nbeen at least 80,000 females in the aggregate, of whom 48,000 were\nkilled, besides (say) 20,000 boys. The number of men slaughtered must\nhave been about 48,000. Each Israelite therefore must have killed 4 men\nin battle, carried off 8 captive women and children, and driven home 67\nhead of cattle. And then after reaching home, as a pastime, by command\nof Moses, he had to murder 6 of his captive women and children in cold\nblood.\n\nNow, I respectfully submit that, judging from the account of the Exodus\nof the Jews, which they have written themselves, we cannot credit it.\nThe narrative is full of contradictions, and is so absurd and\nincredible, and even impossible, that we must regard it as a _huge\nmyth_. There may have been an Exodus from Egypt, of which this account\nis an exaggeration, but it bears so many evidences of the _fabulous_\nthat we cast it aside and are led to doubt whether the Jews were ever in\nEgypt except as tramps and vagabonds, and to suspect that the whole\nstory is an _adapted_ history of some great exodus of some ancient\ntribes written for a _purpose._\n\nI think it has been shown that the Jews were not the people that they\nhave been supposed to be. They are a modern people in the world\u2019s\nhistory, antedated by many highly-civilized and powerful nations. They\nare not descendants of Abram, as will be shown more fully hereafter, and\ntheir population never reached the fabulous numbers that are given in\nwhat is called their sacred history. Indeed, there is so much of the\n_fabulous_ about them, so much of _false pretence_ that upon the very\nface is impossible and incredible, that the wonder is that Christians\nshould ever have seriously thought of regarding them and their\ninstitutions as the source and substance of what Christianity is. We\nhave no prejudice against the Jews. We cast no reflection upon the\nso-called Hebrews of the present day. They are not responsible for their\nancestors, any more than Gladstone, Huxley, Tyndall, Spencer, and other\nbrainy Englishmen are responsible for the savagery and barbarism of\n_their_ forefathers.\n\nIt has been our object in this chapter to show the _Munchausenish_\ncharacter of Jewish history, upon which the whole superstructure of\nmodern theology rests. If anybody is proud of his descent from such a\npeople, he is welcome to the glory.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.  MOSES AND THE PENTATEUCH\n\n\n_\u201cBut even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their\nheart.\u201d\u20142 Cor. 3:15._\n\n\nTHE first five books of the Old Testament, supposed by many to have been\nwritten by Moses, are called the Pentateuch. In the early chapters of\nGenesis, in the \u201cAuthorized Version,\u201d there is placed at the head of the\npage in the margin, \u201ca. m. 1,\u201d which mean Anno Mundi\u2014the year of the\nworld\u2014one, and immediately below it are the letters \u201cb. c.\u201d\u2014which mean\nBefore Christ\u2014\u201c4004.\u201d This is the system of chronology established by\nArchbishop Ussher, and means that 4004 years before Christ the world was\n_one_ year old. It is claimed that Moses promulgated the law about 1451\nb. c., and this must have been about two thousand five hundred and\nfifty-three years after the Creation, which added to 1890, the present\ndate, would make the world just five thousand eight hundred and\nninety-four years old. Lyell, a most judicious geologist estimated the\ndelta of the Mississippi at one hundred thousand years, and some persons\nthink these figures should have been doubled. Professor John Fiske\nthinks the glacial period began two hundred and forty thousand years\nago, and that human beings inhabited Europe at least one hundred and\nsixty thousand years earlier, thus giving an antiquity to our race of\nnot less than four hundred thousand years. Other scientists talk of\nhundreds of thousands, and even _millions_, of years, but we attach no\nimportance to specific figures. We simply insist upon an antiquity which\nvery far exceeds six thousand years.\n\nLearned Egyptologists place Rameses II., the Pharaoh of the Jewish\ncaptivity, whose mummy is now to be seen in the museum at Cairo, at 1390\nyears b. c. It seems strange that his mummy should be on exhibition in a\nmuseum when \u201che and all his hosts were swallowed up in the Red Sea.\u201d If\nwe are told that Rameses II. was succeeded by Sethi II., we find from\nEgyptian records that both of these kings lived to a good old age, and\nthe mummy of each has been preserved, and not even a hint is given that\neither of them was drowned. But we have, according to the tables of\nAbydos and Bunsen, which are generally accepted, three thousand six\nhundred and twenty years before Christ as the time in which Menes, the\nfirst monarch of Egypt, reigned, making two thousand two hundred and\nthirty years as the period of the Egyptian monarchy before the reign of\nRameses II.\n\nBut I contend that Egyptian civilization extends back at least seven\nthousand years, and Miss Amelia\n\n  B. Edwards, the Egyptologist, who has recently lectured in our\n     Pennsylvania University course, thinks ten thousand years not too\n     high an estimate. In support of ibis hypothesis, the great\n     antiquity of man, which no scholar now disputes, carries us back\n     many thousands of years beyond Menes, and there are many facts\n     which favor the assumption that the valley of the Nile was one of\n     the places inhabited for an indefinite period. The works of\n     art\u2014monuments, architecture, paintings, etc.\u2014show an antiquity that\n     cannot be estimated. Manetho, an Egyptian priest, who wrote a\n     history of Egypt, by request of Ptolemy II., two hundred and\n     eighty-six years before Christ, carries us back more than seven\n     thousand years.\n\nThe Pentateuch is a compilation by several authors, and hence its\npatchwork character. Professors Ewald and Kuenen and others have proved\nthis, and Dean Stanley, of the English Establishment, has admitted it.\nSome portions may have been compiled eight hundred or nine hundred years\nbefore Christ, but not the two contradictory accounts of the creation\nand fall of man. The Assyrian cuneiform tablets, which were discovered\nin 1873 and 1874 a. d., and which are now in the British Museum, show\nthat this ancient people had this story about two thousand years before\nthe time of Moses. The Jews learned it in Babylon, and none of the other\nOld-Testament writings contain any notice of it, because it was not\nknown until after the return of the Jews from their captivity in\nBabylon, five hundred and eighteen years before Christ. Is it not\nreasonable to suppose that the various Old-Testament writers would have\nmade some reference to the Pentateuch had they known of its existence?\nProfessor Fran\u00e7ois Lenormant of the National Library of France, a most\nlearned archaeologist and palaeontologist, and a most devout Christian,\nin his _Beginnings of History_ admits that the Jews borrowed\nsubstantially the story of the creation and the fall from more ancient\nnations, and furnishes the original copies. The legends recorded in\nGenesis are found among many ancient peoples who lived many centuries\nbefore Moses; and Berosus, a priest of the temple of Belus, who wrote\ntwo hundred and seventy-six years before Christ, affirms that fragments\nof Chaldean history can be traced back 15 Sadi or 150,000 years. I have\nmentioned these things because they are germane to what is to follow.\n\nThere is good reason for thinking that the book of Deuteronomy was\nwritten about six hundred and twenty-one years before Christ, and the\nremaining books of the Pentateuch were of later date, coming down to\nfour hundred and fifty years before Christ. This Professor Kuenen has\ndemonstrated beyond controversy in his _Religion of Israel_, to which I\nmust refer for his arguments in detail. The best scholarship of the\nworld does not believe that what is called the Law of Moses was written\nprior to the fifth or sixth century before Christ, and learned men in\nHolland, Germany, and England, as well as the most advanced thinkers in\nAmerica, now accept this opinion. Professor Robertson Smith, in the\n_Encyclop\u0153dia Britannica_, adopts this view, and Dean Stanley, in his\n_Jewish Church_, does not leave us in doubt as to his opinion.\n\nTake the following as an example of what I mean (Gen. 12:6): \u201cAnd the\nCanaanite was then in the land;\u201d whereas the expulsion of the Canaanites\ndid not occur until several centuries after the death of Moses, when\nthis must have been written. In Gen. (36: 31) we read, \u201cBefore there\nreigned any king over Israel.\u201d This must have been two hundred years\nafter the death of Moses. \u201cThe nations that were before you\u201d (Lev. 13:\n8) of course presupposes that the Canaanites had already been subdued.\n\u201cNow the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the\nface of the earth\u201d (Num. 12:13), could hardly have been written by Moses\nhimself. The expression \u201cunto this day\u201d frequently occurs, and shows\nthat the time was long after the events took place. It is also implied\nin various places that the writer resided in Palestine, and so it could\nnot have been Moses. In Deuteronomy (19: 14) we read, \u201cThou shalt not\nremove thy neighbor\u2019s landmark which they of old time have set in thine\ninheritance.\u201d They had no landmark to remove, unless this was written\nconcerning the land of Canaan long after the death of Moses. They are\nreproached for not keeping the Sabbath in the past for a long time, and\nthis is given as a reason for the Captivity; and hence Leviticus 26:34,\n35, 43 was written after the Captivity, which began in 597 b. c. In Gen.\n14:14, Lot is taken prisoner and rescued from his captors, whom they\n\u201cpursued unto Dan.\u201d Now, there was no such place as Dan until after the\nentrance into Canaan. We read in Judg. 18:27, 29 that this city was\ncalled Laish, which was burned by the Israelites, and then they built a\ncity, and they called it \u201cDan, after the name of their father: howbeit\nthe name of the city was Laish at first.\u201d This \u201ctrout in the milk\u201d is as\nstriking as if some one should write of Chicago when the Declaration of\nIndependence was signed. In Gen. 36:31 we read, \u201cAnd these are the kings\nthat reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the\nchildren of Israel.\u201d This passage shows that it was written after there\nhad been kings in Israel, and could not have been written by Moses. I\ncould show similar incongruities concerning the manna in Gen. 16: 35,\ncompared with Josh. 5: 12. So Deut. 24: 14 must have been written after\nthe entrance into Canaan, as until then they had no _lands_, and there\nwere no gates and no \u201cstrangers within their gates.\u201d The same might be\nsaid of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue: the Israelites had no\n_gates_ until after they entered Canaan. It could not have been written\nby Moses in the wilderness of Arabia.\n\nThese illustrations might be produced indefinitely, but enough have been\ngiven to show that the Pentateuch was written several hundred years\nafter the death of Moses, and that we are justifiable in fixing the date\nfor most of it in the fourth, fifth, or sixth century before the\nChristian era. The Pentateuch abounds in duplicate traditions of the\nsame transactions, and also in diversity and contradictions. These\nnumerous repetitions are fatal to the supposition that it was written by\nMoses. If Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, we should expect to\nfind a good many hints of this in other parts of the Bible; whereas we\nhave no reference to Sinai and its awful thunders, and, although Moses\nis mentioned in the New Testament, it only shows the existence of\ntraditions to that effect at that time. Not until the time that\nChristianity arose, about thirteen hundred years after the death of\nMoses, did the tradition obtain currency that he was the author of the\nPentateuch.\n\nThe fact is, the Jews are a comparatively modern people, and were not\nknown as a nation until the time of Alexander the Great (356-325 b. c.),\nand Herodotus, by never mentioning them, so indicates. While the\nHindoos, Egyptians, Grecians, Romans, Chaldeans, and Babylonians had\ntheir men of science, literature, and law, whose fame only brightens\nwith the flight of time, the Jews have no _history_ except what was\nwritten by themselves, and that is so absurd, impossible, and\ncontradictory that nobody can believe it.\n\nEverybody knows that the ancient Jews were the constitutional imitators\nof other peoples. They have always been the second-hand clothes-dealers\nof the world. As a race they never have been noted for originality, but\nhave always been ready to borrow what belonged to other people, and\nthen, with characteristic self-complacency, have claimed to be the\n\u201coriginal Jacobs\u201d of everything good and great. We intend this as no\nreflection upon the Jews of the present day.\n\n  C. Staniland Wake, an English writer, in his great work on the\n     _Evolution of Morality_, vol. ii., page 59,  thus expresses his\n     views: \u201cJudging from this fact, many persons imagine\u2014or at least,\n     from the superstitious reverence that they have for the Decalogue,\n     appear to do so\u2014that until the time of the Hebrew lawgiver the most\n     ordinary rules of morality were unknown. The mere fact of Egypt\n     being the starting-point of the Exodus ought to be sufficient to\n     disabuse the mind of this idea, without reference to the contents\n     of the code itself. But the moral laws given in the Decalogue are\n     of so primitive a character that it is absurd to suppose, except on\n     the assumption that the Hebrews were at that period in a condition\n     of pure savagery, that God would personally appear to give his\n     immediate sanction to them. The commands, Honor thy father and thy\n     mother, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou\n     shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy\n     neighbor, Thou shalt not covet, were simply _reiterations_ of laws\n     to which the Hebrews had been subject during their whole sojourn in\n     Egypt, and which must, in fact, have been familiar to them before\n     their ancestors left their traditional Chaldean home.\u201d\n\nThen we must bear in mind that Moses himself was an Egyptian by birth,\nand that he was brought up at the court of Pharaoh until he was forty\nyears of age, and in Acts 7: 22 we are told that \u201cMoses was learned in\nall the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.\u201d\n\nThe whole matter relating to the Pentateuch is thus summed up by the\nlate Prof. John Wm. Draper, M. D., LL.D., late of the University of New\nYork, in his _Conflict between Religion and Science_: \u201cNo man may dare\nto impute them (the books of the Pentateuch) to the inspiration of\nAlmighty God, their inconsistencies, incongruities, and impossibilities,\nas exposed by many learned and pious modern scholars, both German and\nEnglish, are so great. It is the decision of these critics that Genesis\nis a narrative based upon legends; that Exodus is not historically true;\nthat the whole Pentateuch is _unhistoric_ and _un-Mosaic_: it contains\nthe most extraordinary contradictions and impossibilities, sufficient to\ninvolve the credibility of the whole\u2014imperfections so conspicuous that\nthey would destroy the authenticity of any modern historical work.\u201d...\n\u201cTo the critical eye they all present peculiarities which demonstrate\nthat they were written on the banks of the Euphrates, and not in the\ndesert of Arabia. They contain many Chaldaisms.\u201d... \u201cFrom such Assyrian\nsources the legends of the creation of the earth and heavens, the Garden\nof Eden, the making of man from clay and the woman from one of his ribs,\nthe temptation of the serpent, etc.,... were obtained by Ezra.\u201d \u201cI agree\nin the opinion of Hupfeld, that the discovery that the Pentateuch is put\ntogether out of the various sources of original documents is beyond all\ndoubt, is not only one of the most important and most pregnant with\nconsequences for the interpretation of the historical books of the Old\nTestament\u2014or rather for the whole of theology and history\u2014but it is also\none of the most certain discoveries which have been made in the domain\nof criticism and the history of literature.\u201d\n\nBut not only do the laws of Egypt antedate the laws accredited to Moses,\nbut the Hindoos had laws which were yet more ancient. The writings of\nBuddha, who died in 477 b. c., refer to older books and quote from them,\nand these again refer to still older books, until we reach laws which\nexisted many thousands of years before the Law of Moses, as the laws of\nManu were drawn from the \u201cimmemorial customs\u201d of the nation and\nconstitute a kind of _common law_. \u201cThe most accurate scholars point to\nIndia as the origin of Egyptian civilization,\u201d says Le Renouf, the\nlearned Egyptologist.\n\nIf Egyptian literature was derived in a remote period from India, what\nmust be the date of old India\u2019s laws as compared with the laws of the\nHebrews? It is no wonder that Max M\u00fcller, professor in the orthodox\nUniversity of Oxford, says (in Chips, vol. i., p. 11): \u201cAfter carefully\nexamining every possible objection that can be made against the date of\nthe Vedic hymns, their claim to that high antiquity which is ascribed to\nthem has not, as far as I can judge, been shaken.\u201d The same learned\nSanskrit scholar says, \u201cThe opinion that the pagan religions were mere\ncorruptions of the religion of the Old Testament, once supported by men\nof high authority and great learning, is now as completely surrendered\nas the attempt at explaining Greek and Latin as corruptions of Hebrew\u201d\n(_Science of Religion_, p. 24). This great Sanskrit scholar admits in\nmany places in his voluminous writings the greater antiquity of the\npagan scriptures, and gives many weighty reasons to show how impossible\nand absurd it is to suppose that they have been changed and interpolated\nto adapt them to more modern times.\n\nThe Vedas, the sacred writings of the Hindoos, according to Sir William\nJones the Orientalist, \u201ccannot be denied to have an antiquity the most\ndistant.\u201d According to the Brahmans, they are coeval with the creation,\nand the Sama-Veda says, \u201cThey were formed of the soul of Him who exists\nby, or of, himself.\u201d The Hindoo laws were codified by Manu and copied by\nall antiquity, notably by Rome in the compilation or digest of the laws\nof all nations called the Code of _Justinian_, which has been adopted as\nthe foundation of all modern legislation. I could, did time permit,\nfurnish the laws of Manu, the Justinian Code, and the Civil Code of\nNapoleon in parallel columns, in a way to show their common origin\nbeyond a doubt. Laws of betrothal and marriage, paternal authority,\ntutelage, and adoption; property, contract, deposit, loan, sale,\npartnership, donation, and testamentary bequest,\u2014all were elaborately\npromulgated by the Code of Manu in 2680 _slocas_.\n\nLaws were arranged under eighteen principal heads, concerning as many\ndifferent causes for which laws are enacted: Debts, deposits and loans\nfor use, sale without ownership, gifts, non-payment of wages,\nagreements, sale and purchase, disputes, boundaries, assaults, slander,\nrobbery and violence, adultery, altercation between man and wife,\ninheritance, and gaming. \u201cThe court of Brahma with four faces\u201d is where\nfour learned Brahmans sat in judgment, one of whom was the king\u2019s chief\ncounsellor.\n\nOne of their trite sayings was, \u201cWhen justice, having been wounded by\niniquity, approaches the court, and the judges extract not the arrow or\ndart, they also shall be wounded by it.\u201d\n\nThe mode of conducting lawsuits was, in a great degree, similar to that\nused in all civilized countries of the present day. The oath taken by\nwitnesses was as follows: \u201cWhat ye know to have been transacted in the\nmatter before us, between the parties reciprocally, declare at large and\nwith truth, for your evidence in the cause is required.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe witness who speaks falsely shall be fast bound under water in the\nsnaky cords of Varuna, and be wholly deprived of power to escape torment\nduring a hundred transmigrations.\u201d\n\nBrahmans were banished for giving false evidence, but all others were\npunished by blows on the abdomen, the tongue, feet, eyes, nose, and\nears, and in capital cases blows were inflicted upon the whole body.\n\nSome of the moral sayings of the Hindoos run thus: \u201cHe who bestows gifts\nfor worldly fame, while he suffers his family to live in distress,\ntouches his lips with honey, but swallows poison. Such virtue is\ncounterfeit. Even what he does for his spiritual body, to the injury of\nthose he is bound to maintain, shall bring him ultimate misery, both in\nthis world and the next.\n\n\u201cContent, returning good for evil, resistance to sensual appetite,\nabstinence from illicit gains, knowledge of the Vedas, knowledge of the\nSupreme Spirit, veracity, and freedom from wrath, form the tenfold\nsystem of duties.\n\n\u201cHonor thy father and thy mother. Forget not the favors thou hast\nreceived. Learn whilst thou art young. Seek the society of the good.\nLive in harmony with others. Remain in thine own place.\n\n\u201cSpeak ill of none. Ridicule not bodily infirmities. Pursue not a\nvanquished foe. Deceive even not thy enemies. Forgiveness is sweeter\nthan revenge. The sweetest bread is that earned by labor. Knowledge is\nriches.\n\n\u201cWhat one learns in his youth is as lasting as graven on stone. The wise\nis he who knows himself. Speak kindly to the poor. Discord and gaming\nlead to misery. He misconceives his interest who violates his promise.\n\n\u201cThere is no tranquil sleep without a good conscience, nor any virtue\nwithout religion. To honor thy mother is the most acceptable worship. Of\nwomen the fairest ornament is modesty.\u201d\n\nThe following, from the laws of Manu (lib. iii. Sloca 55), will contrast\nstrangely with the law of Moses regarding the treatment of women and the\nesteem in which they should be held:\n\n\u201cWomen should be nurtured with every tenderness and attention by their\nfathers, their brothers, their husbands, and their brothers-in-law, if\nthey desire great prosperity.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhere women live in affliction the family soon becomes extinct; but\nwhen they are loved and respected, and cherished with tenderness, the\nfamily grows and prospers in all circumstances.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhen women are honored the divinities are content; but when we honor\nthem not all acts of piety are sterile.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe households cursed by the women to whom they have not rendered due\nhomage find ruin weigh them down and destroy them as if smitten by some\nsecret power.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn the family where the husband is content with his wife, and the wife\nwith her husband, happiness is assured for ever.\u201d\n\nThat there were many trivial things in the ancient pagan laws, and many\npractices prevailed among a portion of the people which seem idolatrous,\nwe freely admit; but the same is true of many of the Hebrew laws, which\nare too obscene for quotation here. We also find among the Hebrews all\nforms of _nature-worship_, such as sun-worship, tree-worship,\nfire-worship, ser-pent-worship, and phallic-worship. Of this more later\non.\n\nBesides the Hindoos and the Egyptians, there were many nations more\nancient than the Hebrews. The Grecian Argos was founded 1807 b. c.\nAthens and Sparta existed 1550 b. c. Then there were the Ph\u0153nicians, a\nmaritime people who flourished more than five thousand years ago, whose\nmonuments and inscriptions are found in Palestine to-day, while the\nHebrews have left us neither monument nor inscription. The Chaldeans\nestablished a monarchy four thousand or five thousand years ago, and\nthree thousand five hundred or four thousand years back the Assyrians\nbecame masters of the valley of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and from\nthese people the Jews got all they ever knew about things subsequently\nrecorded in the Pentateuch.\n\nThe Jewish and Christian religions (for they are claimed to be one) are\nnext to being the _youngest_, or most modern, of any of the _great\nreligions_ of the world, the Mohammedan being the last. Each claimed\ndivine authority; all had their lawgivers, priests, and prophets, who\nwrote, as they claimed, their bibles by _divine_ inspiration. The error\nof Judaism is in claiming the greatest antiquity, as well as claiming to\nbe the only religion having the divine sanction.\n\nI cannot refrain from mentioning some things which cannot be regarded as\nwholly irrelevant. Moses had a very remarkable experience in his\ninfancy. At his birth he was placed in an ark and set afloat on the\nNile, and was rescued by Pharaoh\u2019s daughter, who called a nurse for him\nwho proved to be his mother. We have many counterparts of this in\nGrecian and Egyptian mythology. _Perseus_ was shut up in a chest and\ncast into the sea by the king of Argos, and was found by Dictys, who\neducated him. _Bacchus_ was confined in a chest by order of the king of\nThebes, and was cast upon the Nile. He had two mothers\u2014natural and\nadopted. _Osiris_, the Egyptian divinity, was confined in a coffer and\nthrown into the river. He floated to Ph\u0153nicia. His mother wandered in\nsilence and grief to Byblos, and was selected by the king\u2019s servants and\ntaken to the palace, and was made _the nurse_ of the young prince. We\ncould give several  other parallel cases, but we pause and wonder\nwhether the reported experience of Moses was not another version of the\nsame myth.\n\nWe next find this \u201cgreatest of statesmen and lawgivers\u201d a fugitive from\njustice (Ex. 2: 11-15). He had killed a man and buried him in the sand,\nand when he learned that the murder was known by the Hebrews, and\nPharaoh sought to slay him, he fled to the land of Midian and tended the\nflocks of Jethro, a priest, until he was eighty years old. He knew then\nthat it was wrong to kill just as well as he did after receiving the Ten\nCommandments; for he \u201clooked this way and that\u201d to find out whether any\none saw him, and \u201che feared, and said, Surely this is known.\u201d He showed\na sense of _guilt_. He always seemed afraid of Pharaoh on account of\nthis murder.\n\nHe was next commissioned to deliver his brethren from their bondage in\nEgypt, and was instructed to say that \u201c_I Am that I Am_\u201d had sent him\n(Ex. 3: 14). Now, it seems to me very strange that Nuk-Pa-Nuk was the\nEgyptian name for God, and means, \u201c_I Am that I Am!_\u201d (Bonwick,\n_Egyptian Belief_, p. 395). This name was found upon an Egyptian\ntemple, according to Higgins (_Anacalypsis_, vol. ii. p. 17),\nwho says, \u201c_I Am_ was a divine name understood by all the initiated\namong the Egyptians;\u201d and Bunsen affirms, in his _Keys of St. Peter_,\nthat the \u201c_I Am_ of the Hebrews was the same as the _I Am_ of the\nEgyptians.\u201d\n\nThere is another peculiarity about Moses that seems strange to me. In\nhis statue in Fairmount Park he is represented as having horns, and he\nis so portrayed in the statue by Michael Angelo. Now the sun-god Bacchus\nhad _horns_, and so had Zeus, the Grecian supreme deity. _Bacchus_ was\ncalled \u201cthe Lawgiver,\u201d and it is said that his laws were written upon\n_two tables of stone_. It is also said that he and his army enjoyed the\n_light of the sun_ (pillar of fire) during the night-time, and he, like\nMoses, had a _rod_ with which divers miracles were wrought. The Persian\nlegend relates that Zoroaster received from Ormuzd the Book of the Law\nupon a _high mountain. Minos_ received on Mount Dicta, from Zeus, the\nsupreme god, _the law_. There are many such cases. Even Mohammed, it is\nsaid, so received the Koran.\n\nThen the crossing of the Red Sea by Moses and his three millions of\nabsconding slaves \u201cdry-shod,\u201d and the \u201crock in the wilderness giving\nforth water when struck by the rod of Moses,\u201d both have several\nparallels. Orpheus, the earliest poet of Greece, relates how _Bacchus_\nhad crossed _the Red Sea dry-shod_ at the head of his army, and how he\n\u201cdivided the waters\u201d of the rivers Orontes and Hydaspis and passed\nthrough them \u201cdry-shod,\u201d and how he _drew water from the rock\nwith his wonderful rod_. Professor Steinthal notes the fact \u201cthat almost\nall the acts of Moses correspond to those of the _sun-gods_.\u201d It may\nseem strange that the Hebrews were acquainted with Grecian mythology,\nyet we know this was the fact. Rev. Dr. Isaac M. Wise says, \u201cThe Hebrews\nadopted forms, terms, ideas, and myths of all nations with whom they\ncame in contact, and, like the Greeks, in their way cast them all in a\npeculiar Jewish religious mould.\u201d\n\nMoreover, there are strange inconsistencies and contradictions connected\nwith the alleged giving of the Law to Moses. In both Exodus and\nDeuteronomy God is represented as _speaking_ the words, and in Deut.\n5:22 it is said God \u201c_wrote_ them on two tables of stone\u201d after speaking\nthem, and in Ex. 24: 28 _Moses_ is represented as doing the writing:\n\u201cAnd _he_ wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten\ncommandments.\u201d We here find a hundred commandments, more or less, of a\nceremonial character, and only _one_ of the original ten, the one\nrelating to the Sabbath, and we here find \u201cearing-time and harvest\u201d made\na season of rest just as much as the Sabbath. Then there are different\nreasons given for the observance of the Sabbath in Ex. 20 and Deut.\n5\u2014the one that God \u201crested on the seventh day\u201d after creating all things\nin six days (of course this was in six days of twenty-four hours each,\nelse there was no pertinency in the reason); and the other, that it was\nin commemoration of the deliverance of the Hebrews from the bondage in\nEgypt.\n\nIt has been claimed that at least the Sabbath is an institution first\nestablished in the Decalogue of Exodus, and yet even this must be\ndenied. Evidences of the observance of the seventh day as sacred are\nfound in the calendars of the ancient Egyptians and Assyrians, and the\n_Records of the Past_ assert that Sabbath observance was in existence at\nleast eleven hundred years before Moses or Exodus among the Accadians,\nChaldeans, and Assyrians.\n\nThere are also great variances in the language of the two accounts in\nExodus and Deuteronomy, which could not have existed if copied from what\nGod had written in stone. The second table of stone was an exact copy of\nthe first (Deut. 10:2). When Moses got excited at Aaron\u2019s golden calf\nand broke the two tables of stone containing the Law, and God was going\nto destroy the people, Moses dissuaded him from doing so by telling him\nwhat the Egyptians would then say about him! (Num. 14; 13-16.)\n\nIt is worthy of note that the first commandment is of doubtful\n_monotheism_: Thou shalt have no \u201cother gods before me,\u201d implying that\nthere were other gods. Then there is something not pleasant in the idea\nof a \u201cjealous God,\u201d as used in this commandment and frequently in other\nplaces. Contrast this with the Hindoo _Geeta_, where God is represented\nas saying, \u201cThey who serve even other gods, with a firm belief in doing\nso, involuntarily worship Me. I am He who partaketh of all worship, and\nI am their reward.\u201d God is defined in the Hindoo _Vedas_ as, \u201cHe who\nexists by himself, and who is in all because all is in him; whom the\nspirit can alone perceive; who is imperceptible to the organs of sense;\nwho is without visible parts, Eternal, the Soul of all being, and whom\nnone can comprehend.\u201d \u201cGod is one, immutable, without form or parts,\ninfinite, omnipresent, and omnipotent.\u201d No need to prohibit the making\nof a \u201cgraven image\u201d to represent such a god.\n\nNow take Moses\u2019 description of God. He only saw his \u201cback parts\u201d (Ex.\n33: 22, 23), and God held his hand over him when in the cleft of the\nrocks while he passed by, that he might not see his glory. And, while it\nis said, \u201cThou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and\nlive\u201d (Ex. 33: 20), yet \u201cthe Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a\nman speaketh unto his friend\u201d (Ex. 33:11). He was with him in the\nmountain forty days and nights, and saw him and talked to him, and so\ndid at least seventy-three other persons (Ex. 24: 9). Yet we are told in\nJohn 1:18, \u201cNo man hath seen God at any time.\u201d\n\nThen there are many other \u201ccommandments\u201d in the Bible which cannot be\nreconciled with the \u201cTen Commandments,\u201d and very many acts regarded as\ncriminal in this nineteenth century which are not forbidden, but\nindirectly or tacitly sanctioned. One of the \u201cTen Commandments\u201d is,\n\u201cThou shalt not kill,\u201d but husbands are directed to _kill_ their wives\nif they propose to them a change of religion, and killing is commanded\nin numerous instances and for trivial offences, such as picking up\nsticks to make a fire on the Sabbath.\n\nTake the following as specimens of the cruelty of Moses:\n\n\u201cBut of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give\nthee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive that breatheth\u201d\n(Deut. 20:16).\n\nHere is another of his injunctions: \u201cThus saith the Lord God of Israel,\nPut every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate\nthroughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his\ncompanion, and every man his neighbor\u201d (Ex. 32:27).\n\nHere is another: \u201cThus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which\nAmalek did to Israel [some four hundred years before], how he laid wait\nfor him,\u201d etc. \u201cNow go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that\nthey have; slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,\ncamel and ass\u201d (1 Sam. 15: 2, 3). This was sweeping, merciless revenge\non the innocent.\n\nHe commands the Jews to swindle the Egyptians by false pretence,\n\u201cspoiling\u201d them of their jewelry (Ex. 3:19-22). He authorized them to\ntake _usury_ of strangers, but not of one another; and to sell the\n\u201cflesh of animals that had died of themselves\u201d to strangers and aliens,\nbut not to run the risk of poisoning themselves (Deut. 14:21).\n\nIn the affair with the Midianites _Moses was more cruel than the\nofficers and common soldiery_. He was \u201c_wroth with them_\u201d because they\nhad saved all the women alive, and required that they should go back and\nfinish the brutal butchery. I cannot do this subject justice without\ntranscribing a large portion of Num. 31:\n\n\u201cAnd they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses;\nand they slew all the males.\n\n\u201cAnd they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were\nslain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of\nMidian; Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.\n\n\u201cAnd the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and\ntheir little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their\nflocks, and all their goods.\n\n\u201cAnd they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their\ngoodly castles, with fire.\n\n\u201cAnd they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of\nbeasts.\n\n\u201cAnd they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses\nand Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of\nIsrael, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near\nJericho.\n\n\u201cAnd Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the\ncongregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.\n\n\u201cAnd Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains\nover thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.\n\n\u201cAnd Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?\n\n\u201cBehold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of\nBalaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and\nthere was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.\n\n\u201cNow therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every\nwoman that hath known man by lying with him.\n\n\u201cBut all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with\nhim, keep alive for yourselves.\u201d\n\nWhat shall we say when we remember that Moses found a refuge with the\nMidianites for forty years when he was a fugitive from justice for the\nmurder of the Egyptian, and the Midianites were the first to show the\nJews hospitality when they escaped from the bondage of Egypt? Moreover,\nMoses had married a woman of Midian, and might have been supposed to\nhave some regard for her kinswomen. It cannot be claimed that Moses was\ncompelled by the low condition of the people to treat the Midianites\nthus, for he was the _sole author_ of this extreme butchery of women and\nchildren, and was \u201cwroth\u201d with his officers for not committing the\natrocity in the first place. True, he charges the women with having\n\u201ccaused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit\ntrespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor but this could not\njustify the butchery of some forty-eight thousand women and twenty\nthousand boys, besides the old men. And then the thirty-two thousand\nvirgins had a fate _worse than death_, though called the \u2019Lord\u2019s\ntribute\u2019,\u201d and the priests got their full share of the spoil. For those\nwho would justify such cruelty and wholesale butchery, as they would\njustify famine and pestilence the effect of natural laws, I can have no\nvery great respect.\n\nIt has been said, \u201cCruel as many of the Mosaic punishments undoubtedly\nwere, it is well to remember that two hundred years ago the criminal\ncode of England was almost, if not equally, bloody. If Moses stoned\nadulteresses to death, it is not very long since we put witches and\nQuakers to death, while in many other countries the stake and the fagot\nwere the chief arguments in aid of orthodoxy. It would not be just to\njudge of the punishments inflicted over three thousand years ago from\nthe standpoint of the present century, when the Mosaic dispensation has\npassed away and that of the law of love substituted. There was no mercy\nin the smoking rocks of Sinai. There was nothing but the law in all its\nsternness.\u201d\n\nThis is all very well, but we should remember that the cruel criminal\ncodes of modern times got their cruelty from the Mosaic code. \u201cThou\nshalt not suffer a witch to live\u201d (Ex. 22: 18) was one of the laws of\nMoses, and from first to last thirty thousand witches were\u2019 executed in\nGreat Britain and two hundred thousand in Germany. Sir Matthew Hale\npronounced the death-sentence on a \u201cwitch,\u201d and Blackstone, the great\ncommentator, thought that witchcraft must be real because the Bible said\nthere were witches! Scotland continued to burn witches until 1722, and\nGermany until 1780, while in 1515 there were five thousand witches\nburned at Geneva. I am ashamed to speak of our own hanging of witches in\nMassachusetts, but it is very well known that it was done by authority\nof the law of Moses: \u201cA man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit,\nor that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them\nwith stones: their blood shall be upon them\u201d (Lev. 20: 27).(1)\n\nRev. Rabbi Hirsch sums up his conclusions as the result of his study of\nthe Pentateuch:\n\n\u201cThe non-authenticity of the Pentateuch is shown by the work itself. It\nis indicated by\u2014(1) The impossible occurrences in the desert; (2) The\nvarious contradictions and repetitions, as in the descriptions of the\nfestivals; the provision of the officiators for the sacrifices; the\nappropriations of the tithes; the rules for sacrificing the first-born\nchildren to Deity\u2014the law regulating these matters varying in\nDeuteronomy and Numbers; (3) Certain phrases used, as \u201cup to the present\nday,\u201d which lose all significance if applied to Moses. Thus the book\nitself shows not one author, but many.\n\n\u201cThe non-authenticity of the Pentateuch is shown also by lack of\nreference to it in the prophetical and historical books. Jeremiah, when\ndenouncing in unmeasured terms the very sins prohibited by the\nDecalogue, never uses the language of those cardinal rules of morality;\nthe prophecies show no trace of the priestly ordinances; and, though\nmost of the laws refer to Sinai, the name occurs in none of the\nprophetical books.\n\n  (1) In 1865 the witch-laws were yet in force in South Carolina!\n\n\u201cIt contains old songs; embodies the written law or judicial decisions\nof the Israelites in the Book of the Covenant; springs from two currents\nof history, the Elohist and Jehovist, the former composed of the younger\nElohist of the South and the older Elohist of the North; shows\nDeuteronomy very much altered from its original form by emendations and\nadditions, being formerly without the first four and the closing\nchapters, and the Levitical Law or Priestly Codex having been later\nincorporated with Joshua and the books of Moses; and lastly it is marred\nby changes made in accordance with the new religious spirit.\u201d\n\nWe know very little about Moses. If there ever was such a man\u2014which is\nvery doubtful, taking the writings accredited to him for authority\u2014he is\nnot shown to have been \u201cthe greatest statesman and lawgiver the world\nhas ever produced.\u201d Neither have the Jews ever developed, in ancient or\nmodern times, such a moral character as a people as to justify the\nsupposition that they had a great and inspired leader among them, and\nthat he taught them anything not well known for many centuries before to\nmore ancient and more intelligent nations.\n\nThe assumption that Moses was the author, under divine guidance, of what\nis commonly called the _Ten Commandments,_ about one thousand four\nhundred and fifty-one years before the Christian era, is _assumption_\nonly, without a particle of proof to sustain it. What are commonly\ncalled the laws of Moses were written by some person or persons unknown\nin the fifth or sixth centuries before the beginning of Christianity.\nMost of the matter of what is called the Pentateuch was borrowed from\nolder and wiser nations\u2014the Egyptians, the Hindoos, the Greeks, etc. But\nfor the unbounded credulity on this subject it would seem like an insult\nseriously to discuss the question, Which are the older writings? and,\nWhich the substantial copies? Unless a man is ready to take assumptions\nfor demonstrated facts, to ignore the museums and libraries, to question\nthe conclusions of the profound-est antiquarians, and to make the stream\nof history flow backward, he must admit that the Hebrews were the\nborrowers.(1)\n\n  (1) The substance of this chapter was published in March, 1890, in _An\n      Open Letter_ to Hon. Edward M. Paxson, Chief-Justice of\n      Pennsylvania, who had affirmed in a lecture before the Law School\n      of the University of Pennsylvania that the \u201claw of Sinai was the\n      first of which we have any knowledge,\u201d and that \u201cMoses was the\n      greatest statesman and lawgiver the world has ever produced.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. ANCIENT SYMBOLISM AND MODERN LITERALISM\n\n\n_\u201cWhich things are an allegory.\u201d\u2014Gal. 4:24._\n\n\nWORSHIP is natural to man, and all systems of religion, many think,\nreceived their cult from Nature-worship. Typology, mythology, theology\nfollowed each other as the links of a well-forged chain.\n\nCicero well suggested: \u201cDo you not see how, from the beginning, from the\nproductions of nature and the useful inventions of men have arisen\nfictitious and imaginary deities, which have been the foundations of\nfalse opinions, pernicious errors, and miserable superstitions?\u201d He\nasserts that \u201cif the sacred mysteries celebrated by the most ancient\npeoples were properly understood, they would rather explicate the nature\nof things than portray the knowledge of the gods.\u201d Plato said he \u201cwould\nexclude from his ideal republic the poems of Homer, because the young\nwould not be able to distinguish between what was allegorical and what\nwas actual.\u201d Proclus alleges that even Plato himself drew many of his\npeculiar dogmas from the symbolisms of the ancients. It is also said\nthat he was curious to find out what was the secret meaning of the\nallegories of the more ancient sages and philosophers, while at the same\ntime he affirmed that what he should successfully find out he would keep\nto himself. It is well known that the real offence of Socrates was in\npublishing to the common people the wisdom secreted by other teachers.\nHeyne has truly said that \u201cfrom myths all the history and all the\nphilosophy of the ancients proceed.\u201d Gerald Massey, in his great work\n_The Natural Genesis_, claims that it is only in the symbolic stage of\nexpression that we can expect to recover the lost meanings of priestly\ndogmas. These are preserved in the gesture-signs, ideographic types,\nimages, and myths scattered over the world. The symbolic extends beyond\nthe written or spoken language of any people now extant.\n\nHe well says that \u201cancient symbolism was a mode of expression which has\nbequeathed a mould of thought that imprisons the minds of myriads as\neffectually as the toad shut up in the rock in which it dwells is\nconfined.\u201d Myths and allegories, anciently unfolded to initiates in the\nmysteries, have been ignorantly adopted by modern priests and published\nto the world as the literal truth. The main dogmas of modern theology\nare based on distorted myths, \u201cunder the shadow of which we have been\ncowering as timorously as birds in a stubble when an artificial kite in\nthe shape of a hawk is hovering overhead.\u201d Modern dogmatic theology is\nlargely what Mr. Massey has tersely called \u201cfossilized symbolism.\u201d It\nwas the habit of the Oriental mind to personify almost everything.\nAncient mystics veiled all their thoughts in allegory and draped their\nsacred lessons in symbols. They invented many poetic riddles and\nfantastic stories, which the initiated knew to be fanciful, but which in\ntime came to be regarded by the masses as substantial historic facts. It\nis well known that this method was not confined to the ancients, but\nplayed a conspicuous part in the Middle Ages, and that its baneful\ninfluence is not yet exhausted. It will hereafter be shown that in no\nwritings extant can be found so many illustrations of the symbolic\nmethod of teaching as in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Even in\nour day the common people have not outgrown this habit of\npersonification, and are wont to tell their children of Santa Claus and\nKriss Kringle who bring them presents at Christmastime, and of Jack\nFrost who will bite them if they go out in the cold. Modern folk-lore is\nfull of symbolisms and personifications, as real to multitudes as are\nthe mythical stories found in writings supposed to contain an infallible\ndivine revelation.\n\nA large number of learned authors favor the theory that all systems of\ndogmatic theology are mythic suggestions of the phenomena of physical\nnature, postulated by philosophers and poets in the most ancient periods\nof the world. They maintain this hypothesis, in part from the well-known\nfact that many of the most widely-separated peoples, who never could\nhave had any intercourse, directly or indirectly, have used the same\nimagery and substantially adopted the same systems of religion. This\nsuggestion regarding Nature-worship is worthy of careful and reverent\nexamination. Primitive peoples, living mostly in the open air, were\nbrought in close contact with external natural objects and phenomena.\nOne of the most prevalent forms of religion in ancient times was\n_tree-worship,_ and it entered largely into the religious thought of the\nancient Jews. The tree furnished the food, mainly, upon which our race\nin its infancy depended for subsistence. The grove was called \u201cthe\nretreat beloved by gods and men.\u201d It furnished shelter from storm, and\nshade from the tropical sun. It was a place of rest and a thing of\nbeauty. Mr. Barlow, in his excellent book on Symbolism, says the most\ngenerally-received symbol of life was a tree. It was inseparable from\nthe ancient conception of a garden. It was the \u201ctree of life\u201d in the\nmythic paradise. It was suggestive of passion and offspring in\nconnection with the serpent, which was an emblem of male virility. The\ntree has many suggestions, not only in it leaves, but in its fruit and\nmode of propagation. The sap of certain trees has an exhilarating, and\neven an intoxicating, quality. The sacred soma was taken before reading\nthe Vedic hymns \u201cto quicken the memory.\u201d It was supposed to promote\nspirituality and inspiration. Various trees and plants are suggestive of\nfertility and fecundity in man. The lotus is the flower of Venus. There\nis a \u201clanguage of trees\u201d as well as \u201clanguage of flowers.\u201d There are\npoetic and symbolic reasons in the form of the stems and shape of the\nleaves for the display of orange-blossoms as bridal decorations, as\nthoughtful botanists can readily see. Much of the symbolism of the Old\nTestament is identical with the Eastern tree-worship; and without some\nknowledge of this form of imagery much of the Hebrew Scriptures must\nremain a dead letter. The frequent references to palms, cedars, oaks,\nvines, mandrakes, etc. etc., are vastly significant to the adept in\nsymbolism.\n\nThe Jewish Bible is full of Nature-worship to all whose eyes are not\nveiled by sacerdotalism. The fact that God is said to have appeared to\nMoses in the burning bush is suggestive of both tree- and fire-worship\n(Ex. 3: 2). Josephus says, \u201cThe bush was holy before the flame appeared\nin it and because it was holy it became the vehicle of the burning,\nfiery, jealous God of the Jews. Even our Christmas evergreens contain a\nrecognition of the gods of the trees. The feet is, many of the religious\nrites of both Jews and Christians are but slight modifications of the\nancient Nature-worship, as all well-read men know, but to which truth\nour modern theologians are as blind as bats. Abraham, the alleged\nprogenitor of the Jewish nation (so called), is represented as a\ndissenter from the religion of his native country; yet he, and his\ndescendants and followers after him for hundreds of years, employed the\nsame religious symbols and forms of worship used by the people of\nChaldea and other so-called idolatrous nations. Read the solemn\narraignment of the \u201cchosen people\u201d by the prophet, recorded in Ezek.\n16:15 to the end of that chapter, if you would have proof of this\ncharge. The fact is, if we treat the story of Abraham and other\nso-called Old-Testament patriarchs as we do the traditions of other\nnations, we shall be forced to give it an esoteric interpretation rather\nthan a literal or an historic one. But more of this farther on.\n\n_Serpent-worship_ is another form of sacred symbolism, and has an\nintimate connection with phallic rites. The serpent was not at first a\npersonification of evil, but of wisdom, and is so used in our New\nTestament, \u201c... wise (shrewd) as serpents, harmless as doves.\u201d It also\ndenotes the art or gift of healing, and was not only so used by\nEsculapius, but also by Moses, and is recognized as a type by Jesus\nhimself: \u201c... And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even\nso must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him\nshould not perish, but have, eternal life\u201d (Num. 21:9; John 3:14, 15).\nIndeed, the serpent has almost universally been regarded as a symbol of\nimmortal life, and especially, as frequently presented in ancient\nsculptures, with its tail in its mouth, thus forming an endless circle.\nThis idea may have been suggested at first by its tenacity of life, and\nits being so thoroughly alive in all its parts, its body and tail moving\nand living after its head has been crushed; and, further, from the\nperiodic renewal of its skin, suggesting a new and continuous life. Then\nthere are other significant qualities in the serpent\u2014viz. its power of\nvoluntary enlargement and self-erection, combined with its intense gaze\nand wonderful secret of fascination and its noiseless and mysterious\nmovement\u2014all suggestive of the _spirituel_. It is also a symbol of power\nand divinity, and as such was embroidered upon ancient robes and flags\nof royalty. Upon a decorative banner recently displayed upon the walls\nof an edifice in Philadelphia wherein recently met the General Assembly\nof the Presbyterian Church of the United States, the symbolic serpent\nwas prominent; and those who criticised it were silenced by a member\u2019s\npointing to the fact that the serpent is engraved upon the seal of the\nGeneral Assembly itself. Think of Presbyterians perpetuating\nserpent-symbolism!\n\nIt was doubtless the emblematic snakes which had been used in Ireland in\nthe Druidic worship, before the introduction of Christianity, that the\nsomewhat mythical St. Patrick drove out of the \u201cEmerald Isle\u201d\u2014all the\nsnakes according to Romish tradition, now believed by millions of devout\nworshippers to be strictly historical, though known by priests to be\nmythical. He destroyed the emblematic serpents. It was not until after\nthe invention of the talking subtle serpent that tempted Eve in Eden\nthat the serpent became a symbol of evil. The Jews never heard of that\n\u201cold serpent the devil\u201d until after their captivity in Babylon. We must\nnot fail, however, according to the Old Testament, to give King Hezekiah\ncredit for having been a sort of Hebrew St. Patrick, in attempting to\ndrive serpent-worship from among the Israelites after it had prevailed\namong them for about seven hundred years.\n\nIn a line or two we sum up the symbolism of the serpent, as has been\nsuggested, in that it is thoroughly alive, has a fiery nature, is swift\nin motion, and moves without bands or feet. It assumes a variety of\nforms, is long-lived, and renews its youth by shedding its external\ncovering, and at pleasure stands erect, enlarges its size, is strong,\nand is said to have the marvellous secret of fascination.\n\nInitiates worshipped only the qualities or principles symbolized by\noutward forms, while the ignorant may have really worshipped the\nexternal or literal object. Every quality in the objects of the ancient\nNature-worship has suggested a religious dogma, which was first\nincorporated into ancient systems of sacerdotalism, and can now be\ntraced in an occult and esoteric sense in all bodies of modern dogmatic\ntheology. Ninety-nine out of every one hundred of professional\necclesiastics are as ignorant of these things as unborn babes, while the\nselect few know, but conceal, the truth. The larger class are honest\ndupes and dunces, while the others are hypocrites and impostors.\n\n_Phallieism_, the worship of the genital organs, was another form of\nnatural symbolism. Men saw that in some mysterious way the race was\npropagated by the congress of the generative organs, male and female,\nand soon naturally worshipped them as at least the symbols of the\nunknown fecundating power of the universe.\n\nThis form of symbolism prevailed in the most distant ages, and has\ncontinued in many countries unto the present time. Richard Payne Knight,\nan honorable English gentleman, in 1865 wrote a quarto book, of which\nonly two hundred copies were printed, entitled _A Discourse on the\nWorship of Priapus, and its Connection with the Theology of the\nAncients_, in which this whole subject is boldly discussed, and\nphallicism illustrated by one hundred and thirty-eight engravings, many\nof them copied from actual emblems now preserved in the British Museum\nand in the Secret Museum in Naples. Major-General Forlong, of the\nBritish army, has also fully presented this subject in his recent quarto\nin two volumes, entitled _Rivers of Life; or, Sources and Streams of the\nFaiths of Man in all Lands._\n\nIt would doubtless astound many modern theologians to be told that even\nthe Jews did not escape the influence of this form of Nature-worship,\nand that our Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains many\nevidences of it; and yet it is a fact. Circumcision was no doubt an\noffshoot of phallicism. It did not originate with Abraham. It was known\nby the Egyptians, Abyssinians, and African tribes long before the time\nhe is said to have lived. It was practised, according to Herodotus, at\nleast twenty-four hundred years before our era, and was even then an\nancient custom. When Jacob entered into a covenant with Laban, a pillar\nwas set up, surrounded by a heap of stones (Gen. 31:45-53), which was a\nphallic emblem, and frequently used in the Old Testament. Hebrew\npatriarchs desired numerous descendants, and hence the symbolic pillar\nwas well suited to their religious cult.\n\nThe name of the reputed father of Abraham, Terah, signifies \u201ca maker of\nimages.\u201d In Amos 5: 26 it is said that the Hebrews in the wilderness\nworshipped a deity known by a name signifying \u201cGod of the Pillar,\u201d as is\nshown by the name Baal Tamar, which means the \u201cfructifying god.\u201d The\nSemitic custom of giving sanction to an oath or sacred pledge by what\nthe Hebrews called the \u201cputting of the hand under the thigh\u201d is\nexplained by the Talmudists to be the touching of that part of the body\nwhich is sealed and made holy by circumcision. The translations of the\nJewish Scriptures through motives of delicacy are full of these\neuphemisms. Professor Joseph P. Lesley, in his _Man\u2019s Origin and\nDestiny_, suggests that phallicism converted all the older Arkite\nsymbols into illustrations of its own philosophical conceptions of the\nmystery of generation, and thus gave to the various parts of the human\nbody those names which constitute the special vocabulary of obscenity of\nthe present day. Every scholar knows it to be a fact that certain words\nand names now never spoken except by the vulgar abound in the original\nJewish writings, and are partly concealed by the convenient methods of\neuphemism. When Abraham called his servant to take a solemn oath, he\nrequired him to lay his hands upon his parts of generation as the most\nsacred and revered parts of his body (Gen. 24:2), and Jacob, when dying,\nmade his son Joseph take the same form of oath (Gen. 47: 29). This was\nbut little more than the equivalent of the modern custom of laying the\nhand upon the heart as a token of sincerity. The proper translation of\nwhat the servant of Abraham was required to do is given in the margin of\nBagster\u2019s _Comprehensive Bible_ thus: \u201cIn sectione circumcisionis me\u00e6.\u201d\nWe have in this form of phallic oath an important suggestion as to the\norigin, or at least the use, of the words _testimony, testament,\ntestify_, and their cognates (_testis_, a witness), which cannot fail to\noccur to the learned reader, but which cannot here be fully explained.\n\u201c_Caute lege_\u201d (read carefully) was a warning of a secret or concealed\nmeaning which esoteric writers anciently put in the margin of their\nbooks when they would call the special attention of the initiated to\nwhat is now called \u201creading between the lines.\u201d Until our readers\ncomprehend this hint they will not be able to understand what is really\nmeant by the \u201ctestimony\u201d mentioned in connection with the \u201cark of the\ncovenant,\u201d as it occurs in Ex. 16: 34, before any laws, or even altars,\nwere known in Sinai or its thunders heard of. In this hint may also be\nfound the true explanation of David\u2019s nude dance before the ark, and of\nthe attending circumstances. Scores and scores of proofs could here be\nfurnished from the Old-Testament Scriptures, showing that the use of\nphallic emblems was the rule rather than the exception for centuries\namong the Jews; and the idols stolen by Rachel (teraphim) need no longer\nbe misunderstood, nor the meaning of the wedges upon which she sat and\nrefused to rise when the \u201ccustom of women was upon her\u201d (Gen. 31:35).\nShe was engaged in an act of devotion. General Forlong asserts that at\nthis present day Queen Victoria of Christian England rules over more\nthan one hundred millions of phallic worshippers! Indeed, more than half\nof the population of our globe still worship, as symbols of fertility\nand fecundity, the genital organs.\n\nA correspondent of the London Times, of April 8, 1875, says: \u201cThe Roman\nCatholic Church still keeps up certain suggestions of phallicism. As the\nancient temple or dagoba was the womb or feminine principle of the god\nSiva or Bod and others, so the new cardinal, Archbishop Manning, was\nafter his elevation conducted to his church, which is here entitled, in\nits relation to him, bride or spouse, he calling it _sponsa mea_. The\ncardinal was called the bridegroom, and the _actual building_ (the\nshrine of St. Gregory) _his_ spouse, and not the spiritual Church, which\nis called Chrises.\u201d The _Times_\u2019 correspondent further writes of this\n\u201csacerdos magnus,\u201d as he is termed, going to meet his spouse, the\nChurch: \u201cHe stood reverently at the door, when holy water was presented\nto him and clouds of incense spread around him, to symbolize that,\ninasmuch as before the bridegroom enters the bride-chamber he washes and\nis perfumed, so the cardinal, having been espoused to the Church with\nthe putting on of a ring, of his title, holy water and incense were\noffered to him, when the choir burst forth with the antiphon, \u2018Ecce\nsacerdos magnus\u2019\u2014\u2018Behold the great sacerdotal!\u2019\u201d\n\nWe are thus assured, as far as this is possible, that the phallic idea\nand a phallic faith lie at the base of this creed; and we are reminded\nof Apis of the Nile entering his palace for his works of sacrifice and\nmercy\u2014terms applied to the Great Generator or Great Creator. The\nancients all taught that their Great One, Manu, Man, or Noh, was in the\ngreat ark which floats in the midst of the waters, and that the whole\nwas a mystery incomprehensible to the uninitiated. He who is lord of the\nChristian ark is the lord of all nations, which the great sacerdos or\npope claims to be. He was till very lately a temporal as well as a\nspiritual head of kings and nations. So no wonder that the holder of the\nrod, baton, or banner, who occupies the place also of Moses to lead his\nflocks through this wilderness, is always examined as to his phallic\ncompleteness before being confirmed in the pontificate. This, we read in\nthe life of Leo X. by Roscoe, is required in the case of popes, just as\nthe laws of Moses required that all who came to worship their very\nphallic JHVH should first prove their completeness as men. From this we\nmay conclude that eunuchs or incompetent men were children of the devil,\nor at least, not of this phallic god\u2014a fact which the writer of Matt.\n19:12, and the Fathers Origen and Valentine, and a host of other saints\nwho acted on this text, must have overlooked. Wm. Roscoe, the historian,\nthus writes: \u201cOn the 11th of August, 1492, after old Roderigo (Borgia)\nhad assumed the name of Alexander VI., and made his entrance as supreme\npontiff into the church of St. Peter, after the procession and pageants\nhad all been gone through, Alexander was taken aside to undergo the\nfinal test of his qualifications, which in his particular case might\nhave been dispensed with.\u201d The historian of course alludes to his\nnumerous progeny.\n\nThe author expects to be criticised, and perhaps charged with obscenity,\nfor introducing this subject. But it has been well said: \u201cPrudery and\npruriency are frequently companions, equally impure and cowardly; and in\nall scientific investigations they should be disregarded rather than\nconciliated.\u201d The ancients saw no impurity in the symbolism of parentage\nto indicate the work of creation. What is divine and natural to be and\nto do cannot be immodest and obscene. No person can with decency and\npropriety impugn the operation of Nature\u2019s laws to which he owes his\nexistence; and he is degraded and corrupt above all others who regards\nthat law as essentially sensual. Phallicism meant no wrong until\nsensuality and impurity of life suggested that to mention it was\nindecorous. No clean and chaste mind can be shocked by the most obvious\nlaws of nature. Lydia Maria Child and other grand women have written\nbrave words on this subject which silly prudes would do well to study,\nif, indeed, they ever read anything beyond a lascivious French novel.\nWomen only expose their ignorance when they are reddened with blushes at\nthe mention of phallic worship, and at the same time wear the mystic\nhorse-shoe or the crescent upon their immaculate bosoms, eat hot\ncross-buns, dance around the Maypole, and worship beneath the church\nsteeple. Even the vestments of priests are ornamented with phallic\nemblems; and one can hardly go abroad without beholding things which\nshow how innocently and unconsciously \u201cthe records of the past\u201d are\npreserved in church architecture, ecclesiastical rites, and many other\nthings daily before our eyes\u2014well understood by really learned men, but\nto the true origin and significance of which the masses are totally\nblind. There are churches in Philadelphia, and elsewhere, even among\nthose who call themselves _liberal_, which are ornamented with all the\nemblems of the ancient Nature-worship, especially sun-worship and\nphallus-worship. The Women\u2019s Christian Temperance Union held a great\nmeeting recently at Ocean Grove, N. J., and innocently used a programme\ndecorated with the horseshoe and many other phallic emblems. They had\nthe cat seated on the crescent, which, according to Egyptian mythology,\nsaid, \u201cWe are virgins, but nevertheless desire that commerce which\neventuates in offspring.\u201d They had the emblematic _hare_ also, which\nalways denotes _fecundity_, and many other emblems not to be mentioned\nin polite society. Even our ordinary playing-cards, over which so much\nprecious time is wasted, are distinguished by phallic symbols!\n\nPassing by the symbolism of fire-worship prevalent in nearly all ancient\nlands, and omitting to notice ancestor-worship, the _worship of the\nsun_, which embraces nearly all the forms of Nature-worship, now claims\nour attention. It should be kept in mind what has already been\nintimated, that the use of natural objects in worship is not necessarily\nidolatrous.\n\nThe priests of Chaldea, Babylonia, Hindostan, and Egypt disclaimed the\nactual worship of the material objects prominent in their rituals, and\nheld that these visible signs were necessary for the vulgar to\ncontemplate, while intelligent worshippers fixed their spiritual eyes\nupon the thing or principle signified by the sign. The Roman Catholic\nChurch well understands this principle, and by its appeal to the ear and\neye of uneducated people attracts them to its gorgeous temples and holds\nthem in loyal subjection to the priests. Take the following as an\nillustration of the ancient customs referred to:\n\n\u201cMr. F. Buckland tells us, in _Land and Water_, that on the first of May\nall the choristers of Magdalen College, Oxford, still meet on the summit\nof their tower, one hundred and fifty feet high, and sing a Latin hymn\nas the sun rises, whilst the final peal of ten bells simultaneously\nwelcomes the gracious Apollo. In former days high mass was held here,\nand the rector of Slymbridge, in Gloucestershire, it appears, still has\nto pay ten pounds yearly for the one performance of sundry pieces of\nchoir-music at 5 A. M. on the top of this tower. This May music,\nChristian priests explain, is for the repose of the souls of kings and\nothers, which, of course, is quite an after-thought. Early mass for Sol\nused also to be held in the college chapel, but it is now explained\nthat, owing to this having been forbidden at the Reformation, it has\nsince been performed at the top of the tower. After the present hymn is\nsung by the choristers\u2014boys dressed in womanly raiment\u2014the lads throw\ndown eggs upon the crowd beneath, and blow long loud blasts to Sol\nthrough bright new tin horns\u2014showing us that the Bacchic and Jewish\ntrumpet f\u00eates are not yet forgotten by Christians. Long before daybreak\nthe youths of both sexes used to rise and go to a great distance to\ngather boughs and flowers, and reach home at sunrise to deck all doors,\nwindows, and loved spots.... Long before man was able to appreciate\nploughing and harvesting, he keenly felt the force of the winter and of\nthe vernal equinox, and was ready to appreciate the joyous warmth of the\nsun and its energizing power on himself, as well as on fruits and\nflowers.\u201d\n\nWhile the Jewish and Christian Bibles contain traces of all forms of the\nancient Nature-worship, there is one form that is specially conspicuous\nfrom the first chapter of Genesis to the last of Revelation\u2014to wit, the\nworship of the sun.\n\nThis form of worship was more general among pagan nations than any\nother. It was natural for those primitive people, leading pastoral lives\nin the open air, to fix their attention upon the sun and to notice his\nrelations to other celestial orbs. It was natural for the contemplative\nand devout to come to regard the sun as the best emblem of the creating,\nanimating, fecundating spirit of the universe, while the ignorant\nmultitude may never have looked beyond the material object. Those who\nhave read the history of the sun-worshippers of Mexico and Peru,\ndetailed in the great works of Prescott, must have been impressed by the\nfact that these nations enjoyed a higher prosperity and a purer public\nmorality when they were worshippers of the sun than they have ever\nenjoyed since under the Roman Catholic religion called Christian.\n\nTo fully understand how the astronomical element came to be extensively\nincorporated into the Jewish and Christian religions, it is absolutely\nnecessary to familiarize ourselves with that ancient pictorial device\nknown as the solar zodiac.\n\nZodiac-1\n\nZodiac-2\n\nThis is nothing more than an imaginary belt covering that region of the\nstarry heavens within the bounds of which the apparent motions of the\nsun, moon, and many other large planets are observed. It is divided into\ntwelve equal parts of thirty degrees each, called \u201csigns,\u201d known as\n\u201cconstellations\u201d and designated as follows:\n\nAries, the Ram or Lamb; Taurus, the Bull; Gemini, the Twins; Cancer, the\nCrab; Leo, the Lion; Virgo, the Virgin; Libra, the Balance; Scorpio, the\nScorpion; Sagittarius, the Archer; Capricornus, the Goat; Aquarius, the\nWater-carrier; Pisces, the Fishes.\n\nThese constellations are filled up with imaginary forms of men, women,\nanimals, monsters, and many fantastic figures, each including a group of\nstars. In the ancient astronomy these groups numbered thirty-six, to\nwhich many modern additions have been made. Through these constellations\npasses a wavy line called the Ecliptic, apparently marking the path of\nthe sun, but really indicating the path of our own earth around the sun.\nThe sun seems to move thirty degrees a month, and at the end of the year\nappears at the point from which he started. We thus have a natural belt\nor way about sixteen degrees wide extending around the entire heavens,\none half the year north, and the other half south, of the equator. But\nthe sun does not cross the equator at the same point each year, so that\nin crossing he is not always in the same sign. The sun seems to recede,\nand as the apparent recession of the sun is caused by the real movement\nof the earth, the phenomenal result is the precession of the equinoxes;\nand as the equinoctial point recedes in a fixed ratio, this point will\ngo back through the whole circle of the constellations in about\ntwenty-five thousand years, requiring about twenty-one hundred and sixty\nyears to pass through each sign. According to the ancient astrology, the\nsun assumed at different times the character of the particular sign\nthrough which it passed, and as such was symbolically worshipped. Four\nthousand years ago the sign Taurus gave rise to the worship of the Bull\n(the Egyptian Apis); and when the sun passed into the sign of Aries the\nLamb, this emblem dominated the worship of Persians and other\nsun-worshippers, and so became the paschal or passover lamb of the\nancient Hebrews.\n\nYou will now begin to see what this zodiacal device has to do with our\ninterpretations of the Bible. The Jewish Scriptures also contain it,\nand, as will soon be made to appear, it is impossible to make sense of\nlarge portions of the Bible without it.\n\nMany superficial persons imagine this peculiar mapping of the celestial\nheavens to be a modern fancy, because it is found in modern almanacs and\nin the maps and charts of modern school-books; but the fact is that it\nis so old and so universal that it is impossible to ascertain with\nhistorical accuracy when and where and how it did originate. There are\ntwo ancient zodiacs\u2014one at Esne on the Nile, and one in India\u2014besides\ntwo more modern ones at Denderah in Egypt. Sir William Drummond, who\nwrote in 1811, estimated the age of the one at Esne at about 6500 years;\nDupuis made it 1000 years older; while other calculations date the\nIndian zodiac back 22,875 years, and the Egyptian one 30,100 years.\nThese calculations are based upon the assumption that the signs were in\na certain position at certain known times, so that the computation is\none of simple mathematical astronomy. The credibility of these\ncalculations is strengthened by the following fact: Upon the coffin of\nan Egyptian mummy, now in the British Museum, is found a zodiac with the\nprecise indication of the position of the constellations in the year\n1722 B. c. Our own Professor Mitchell calculated the exact position of\nthe celestial bodies belonging to our solar system at the time\nindicated, and found that on October 7, 1722 B. c., the planets had\nactually occupied the position in the heavens marked upon the mummy\ncoffin!\n\nBut further proofs are superfluous, as the zodiacal designs must be much\nolder than the Bible or they could not have been so frequently used in\nit.\n\nThe Chaldean drama called the book of Job is supposed by some persons to\nbe very ancient, and its author showed his familiarity with the zodiacal\nconstellations when he so sublimely challenged his opponent: \u201cCanst thou\nbind the sweet influences of the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?\u201d\n\u201cCanst thou bring forth Mazzaroth?\u201d etc. etc. But can there be any doubt\nas to the antiquity of the zodiac when there is an honored Protestant\ndoctor of divinity, now living, who holds to the opinion that Enoch, or\neven Adam himself, invented the zodiac to foreshadow the redemption of\nfallen man through the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of a\nveritable God? Martin Luther is said to have thrown his inkstand at the\nhead of the devil. If the lusty old Reformer could now visit this world,\nhe would denounce in unmeasured terms of righteous wrath a man who under\nthe garb of a Lutheran minister could utter such consummate nonsense.\nAnd yet we must not forget that Dr. Martin Luther himself denounced\nCopernicus as an atheist and a fool.\n\nIt is the misfortune of the prevalent dogmatic theology that it was\nformed by people who held the _geocentric_ theory\u2014that is, that this\nlittle globe is the centre of the universe. Even now our professional\npriests seldom extend their thoughts beyond the narrow limits of the\nplanet upon which we dwell. They do not realize that, while the earth\ntravels at the rate of 68,000 miles an hour, Mercury makes 110,000 miles\nan hour, and that the sun has 1,380,000 times our earth\u2019s bulk, and has\na diameter of 822,000 miles to our earth\u2019s 8000; and that astronomers\nhave some knowledge of a fixed star in the constellation of the Swan\nwhich is 62,481,500,000,000 (62 trillions 481 billions 500 millions) of\nmiles from this planet, and that light, which travels from the sun to\nthe earth in eight minutes, would require ten years to reach us from\nthat star. Yet the author of the _Gospel in the Stars_ thinks the whole\ncelestial universe was so constructed as to shadow forth the dogmas of\npetty preachers of modern times! One can only laugh at such fanciful\nfollies.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.  ASTRAL KEYS TO BIBLE STORIES\n\n\n_\u201cTherefore they took a key and opened them.\u201d\u2014Judg. 3: 25._\n\n\nIT is the carefully-formed conclusion of many independent thinkers that\nthere is very little real history or biography in the Old-Testament\nScriptures. It is a monstrous mistake in modern ministers to take as\nliteral what is, in fact, strictly allegorical. The figurative character\nof most of the Bible narratives was well known and freely admitted by\nmany ancient writers, Jewish and Christian, as will be shown hereafter.\n\nIt would be natural to commence our studies of Hebrew symbolism with the\naccount of the creation and alleged fall of man; but as this dogma is so\ndirectly connected with the dogmas of modern sacerdotalism, we reserve\nthe examination of the so-called Mosaic account of Eden and the fall\nuntil we are ready to enter upon what is called, in theological\nparlance, \u201cthe redemptive scheme\u201d of Christianity. We say so-called\nMosaic account, for there are many reasons for doubting, as I have\nshown, that he wrote the Pentateuch, should his existence be admitted\nfor the sake of argument. Archbishop Burnet, in speaking of the story of\ncreation, says: \u201cWe receive this history without examination, because it\nwas written by Moses; but if we had found it in the work of a Greek\nphilosopher, a rabbi, or Mohammedan, our minds would be arrested at\nevery step by doubts and objections. This difference in our judgment\ndoes not come from the nature of the facts; it comes from the opinion we\nhave of Moses, whom we believe to be inspired.\u201d Here are three\nassumptions not supported by a particle of evidence, to wit: that such a\nman as Moses existed, that he was supernaturally inspired, and that he\nwrote Genesis and other books of the Pentateuch under divine\ninspiration. Now, we have no account of the real existence of Moses, and\nno account of what he did and said except from writings accredited to\nhim and the incidental mention of him in the New Testament. His alleged\nwonderful exploits in Egypt are not mentioned in Egyptian annals nor in\nany other contemporaneous writings, while many things-said of him in the\nOld Testament are substantially recorded of many other persons, as\nalready shown.\n\nThere are many reasons for believing that Moses was a personification of\nthe sun and his whole history  a myth. Observing persons cannot fail to\nnotice that all ancient paintings and statues of Moses represent him\nwith horns, probably originally denoting the rays of the sun when in the\nconstellation Taurus the Bull. The fact is well known that what is\ncalled the history of the Jews is mainly fiction, and that, too,\nborrowed from other peoples and modified to suit circumstances; and very\nbungling work have they made of it. The sacerdotalists of the world may\nbe safely challenged to produce anything strictly original from the Old\nTestament, especially relating to morals. The historian Josephus admits\nthat the Jews \u201cnever invented anything useful.\u201d Even the writings of\nJosephus should be received with many grains of allowance. He was\nhimself superstitious and credulous, as shown in his story of a heifer\ngiving birth to a lamb when being led from the temple stable to the\naltar. Moreover, we have no ancient certified copies of what he did\nactually write, and there is abundant evidence of alterations and\ninterpolations in his alleged writings by sacerdotalists in modern\ntimes. There is no greater imposition palmed off upon the ignorant than\nthe commonly-believed falsehoods that the Jews were a very ancient\npeople and that their Scriptures are the oldest book extant.\n\nWe now take up a few Bible stories, and give to them a symbolic instead\nof an historic interpretation; and for obvious reasons we begin with the\nalleged progenitor of the Jewish nation, _Abraham_.\n\nIt may or may not be a mere coincidence that by transposing the letters\nof the name Abraham we have the name Brahma\u2014just as in the old legend of\nthe sacrifice of the daughter of Agamemnon, Iphthi-genia, if we divide\nthe syllables into words, Iphthi-geni, we have literally Jephthah\u2019s\ndaughter; so, after all, it may be greatly to the credit of Jephthah\nthat the story is fabulous. These curious coincidences are not here\noffered as evidence. It is acknowledged, at least by implication, in the\nBible itself that the story of Abraham is of Chaldean origin, as his\nfather Terah was a native of Ur of the Chaldees and the alleged\npatriarch was a Chaldean. Now, these people were great astronomers in\nvery ancient times, and were accustomed to veil their occult science\nunder just such allegorical personifications and fabulous tales as this\nof Abraham. Paul, or whoever wrote the Epistle credited to him, lets out\nthe whole secret (Gal. 4: 22-26): \u201cFor it is written Abraham had two\nsons, one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of\nthe bondwoman was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by\npromise; _which things are an allegory,_\u201d etc. Now, if you carefully\nread the apostolic explanation in these verses, you will notice that the\ntwo sons of Abraham are two covenants, and the bondmaid Hagar represents\nan Arabian mountain, which by a magical change becomes the same as the\ncity of Jerusalem. The name Abram signifies the \u201cFather of Elevation,\u201d\nwhich is the astronomical distinction of the planet Saturn, the\nexaltation of which, with its devious ways, well represents the alleged\nhistory of its prototype. The word _Chasdim_, translated _Chaldees_,\nliterally means _light_, and is a professional not a geographical name,\nand probably refers to the art of magic and the work of astrologers; so\nthat it is more than probable that Abram was not a person, any more than\nChasdim was a place. There are many references in the Scriptures which\nfavor this interpretation, but which cannot here be mentioned. Even in\nthe _Lord\u2019s Prayer_, found in Jewish rituals long before the Christian\nera, there are evidences that it was first addressed to Saturn. There\nnever was any form of religious worship which did not contain an\nexpression equivalent to _Our Father who art in heaven_. Even Jupiter\nmeans _Our Father in the sky_.\n\nThe name of Abram has many variations, and there is an important sense\nin which he may be called \u201cthe father of many nations.\u201d He was the\nEsrael of the Chaldeans, the Israel of the Ph\u0153nicians, as the historian\nSanchoniathon distinctly alleges that their name for Saturn was Israel:\nthe names Abraham and Israel are used interchangeably in both the Old\nand New Testaments, and among the Hindoos, the Greeks, the Persians, and\nother nations he was the god Saturnus of the whole pagan world. Even\nupon the dials of our \u201cgrandfathers\u2019 clocks,\u201d cherished in many families\nas heirlooms in our day, his memory is kept green by the figure of the\ngod of Time. Scores of other similitudes between Saturn and Abraham\ncould here be introduced did space permit. Suffice it to say, Saturn in\nfable married his own sister, who was a star; and so did Abraham, and\nthe name of his wife signifies a star. Both had many sons, but each had\na favorite son, and Saturn called his _Jeoud_, which implies an only\nson, as Abraham so regarded Isaac. A learned English scholar has\nsuggested that the name \u201cJeoud\u201d is the real origin of the name \u201cJew,\u201d\nand he assigns several philological and historical reasons for his\ntheory. It is certain in the minds of many profound and independent\ninvestigators that the Jewish tribes originated in Arabia, and were\noriginally a mere religious order, and that their so-called history is\nlargely fabulous, and that their exodus is a comparatively modern novel\nwith an ancient date, as has been shown.\n\nLet us now take the best-remembered incident in the life of Abraham, the\nattempted murder and the rescue of his son Isaac, and see what will come\nof applying the symbolic instead of the literal interpretation to it.\n\nLet it be noted that this is not an original story. The ancient Hindoos\nhave one like it. King Haris-candra had no son. He prayed for one, and\npromised that if one should be born to him he would sacrifice him to the\ngods. One was born, and he named him Rohita. One day his father told him\nof his promise to Varuna to offer him in sacrifice. The son bought a\nsubstitute, and when he was about to be immolated he was marvellously\nrescued. Then there is the well-known similar story written by the\nPh\u0153nician Sanchoniathon\n\nthirteen hundred years before our era. Then there is the Grecian story\nof Agamemnon, to whom, when about to sacrifice his daughter, a stag was\nfurnished by a goddess as a substitute. There is another Grecian fable\nin which a maiden was about to be sacrificed, and as the priest uplifted\nhis knife to shed her blood the victim suddenly disappeared, and a goat\nof uncommon beauty stood in her place as a substitute. Another story\nruns thus: In Sparta the maiden Helena was about to be immolated on the\naltar of the gods, when an eagle carried off the knife of the priest and\nlaid it upon the neck of a heifer, which was sacrificed in her stead.\nSimilar stories might be produced from among many nations in the most\nancient times, long before the Jews picked this up in Babylon and\nrewrote it, with modifications, so as to apply it to their mythical\nprogenitor; for this fable of Abraham\u2019s offering was not written until\nafter their return from their Babylonish captivity\u2014much nearer our own\ntime than is generally suspected.\n\nRegarded as an historic account of a real transaction, this story of the\nattempted sacrifice of a beloved son by a venerable father is shocking\nin the extreme, dishonoring alike to God and to Abraham. A good God\ncould not have done such an unnatural and cruel thing. He had no\noccasion to try Abraham to find out how much faith he had. He knew that\nalready. Regarded as an astrological allegory, it is ingenious and\ncontains a moral lesson, to wit: obedience to the voice of God and the\nhope of deliverance in the hour of extreme emergency. The defect in the\nstory is, that God could trifle with a loving child, and pretend to\nrequire him to break one of his own commandments, \u201cThou shalt not kill,\u201d\nand subject him to its own penalty, \u201cWhoso sheddeth man\u2019s blood, by man\nshall his blood be shed.\u201d It would not have availed Abraham to plead\nthat God told him to murder his son, any more than it availed the\nPocasset crank when he pleaded that God had directed him to murder his\nlittle daughter. The State of Massachusetts sent the semi-lunatic to a\nsafe place of confinement. This story of Abraham and Isaac has led to\nscores and scores of murders of children by their fathers, just as the\npassage in the Old Testament, \u201cThou shalt not suffer a witch to live,\u201d\nhas been pleaded in justification of the cool, deliberate murder of\nmultitudes of men, women, and children on the charge of witchcraft.\n\nThe literal interpretation of what is called infallible Scripture has\nbeen the most bitter curse to deluded, priest-ridden humanity. It is the\n\u201cstock in trade\u201d of ignorant and selfish ecclesiastics to-day.\n\nLet us look a little more closely at this Abraham-and-Isaac myth.\nAbraham was the personification of Saturn, the god of Time, while Isaac\nwas the personification of the Sun. Abraham took Isaac up to\nHebron\u2014which means _union or alliance_, and clearly indicates a union of\nthe ecliptic and equinoctial line\u2014the very point at which the Ram of the\nvernal equinox passed by, or, as might be poetically said, was caught in\na cloud or bush; so that the whole story was written long ages before in\nthe celestial heavens, and emblazoned in the skies at the return of each\nvernal equinox. Writers on astro-theology point out details at great\nlength to support the symbolic interpretation, but it is enough for pur\npurpose to merely give the keynote. Let the fact be specially noted that\nthe names of the patriarchs have an astrological meaning,\n\nand that the twelve sons of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, who became\nthe heads of the twelve tribes of Israel, have distinctly astrological\ncharacters, fully indicated in Jacob\u2019s dying blessing on his sons (Gen.\n49) and in the corresponding \u201cSong of Moses\u201d (Deut. 33), on the banner\ncarried by the different tribes in their mythical march from Egypt to\nCanaan; and that on the breastplate of the officiating high priest the\njewels correspond to the celestial signs of the solar zodiac; and\nalthough Jacob had children by several different women and was a\nfirst-class Mormon, his twelve sons are made to correspond with the\ntwelve months of the year and the twelve signs of the zodiac. This fact\nis admitted by the orthodox author of _The Gospel in the Stars_. His\ndaughters are not considered worthy of notice, as that would have\nspoiled the riddle. The philology and etymology of the name _Jacob_ has\nsuggestions of the serpent; and from his history he must have been a\nsnaky fellow from the first to the last. He was born with his hand upon\nhis brother\u2019s \u201cheel,\u201d and he managed to cheat him out of his share of\nhis mother\u2019s affections, and lied to his father, and conspired with his\nmother to rob Esau, his brother, of his \u201cblessing.\u201d The stories of Laban\nand Leah and Rachel all conform to the symbolic rather than the literal\nhypothesis, as well as Jacob\u2019s vision of the ladder, and his\nwrestling-match with the angel, when he openly obtained the astrological\nname of the children of Saturn\u2014Israel. It must be admitted that the\nallegorical hypothesis relieves the patriarchs of the charge of many\nmean things, such as the heartless manner in which Abram treated Hagar\nwhen Sarah got jealous, and the manner in which he treated Sarah herself\nwhen he lied to the king through a selfish cowardice and gave his wife\nover to the lusts of the monarch Abimelech, who was (or one bearing his\nname) deceived by Isaac in regard to Rebekah by a similar trick (Gen.\n26:1). Lot, the nephew of Abraham, was guilty of a meaner and more\nunmanly act when he himself proposed to give over his two virgin\ndaughters to the worse than beastly lusts of a howling mob, to protect\ntwo angels who were guests at his tent (Gen. 19:1-11).\n\nBut theologians will never willingly admit that the Abraham of Genesis\nwas a myth. They well know the logical conclusion. They would have to\ngive up the \u201cAbrahamic covenant,\u201d which is the basis of sacerdotalism.\nWhen Professor Driver, of the orthodox University of Oxford, recently\nadmitted only by implication that Abraham may have had no real personal\nexistence, and claimed that such hypothesis would not be injurious to\nreligion, his article was rejected and suppressed by the editor of an\northodox paper in Philadelphia as dangerous. But to assume that all the\nprincipal actors of Genesis and some other books were impersonations,\nnot persons, would not destroy the good things they are alleged to have\nsaid and done. It is no more necessary to insist upon the real\npersonality of Abraham than to insist upon the literal existence of\nFaithful and Great-Heart and other impersonations in _Pilgrim\u2019s\nProgress_. Nobody insists that the characters in the parables accredited\nto Jesus must be taken in a literal sense. And yet it may be admitted\nthat the fictions of Scripture may have been suggested by some persons\nand facts, just as in modern novels there generally is some person who\nstands for the original of the story. This is eminently so in the novels\nof Dickens and D\u2019Israeli. Nevertheless, it is difficult to doubt that\nthe principal characters of the Old Testament are mythical, pure and\nsimple, as we find the originals in the older scriptures of different\nnations, confessedly founded upon the solar and other forms of\nNature-worship. The feet is, that the only rational way to explain the\nmarvellous stories of the Hebrew Scriptures is by the well-known methods\nof ancient symbolism.\n\nLet us now merely glance at some other Old-Testament fables.\n\n_Noah_ and his Deluge are mainly mythical, as this story is almost a\nliteral copy of the Chaldean, though found substantially in the writings\nof many other nations. It readily fits the allegorical method of\ninterpretation in almost every particular. The Chaldean account as\nwritten by Berosus, and found recently by the late George Smith of the\nBritish Museum on the clay tablets, is so much like the story in Genesis\nthat the latter must have been copied from the former; and the slight\nvariations in the two narratives are no greater than might have been\nexpected as between Chaldea and Palestine. The Jews obtained it from\nBabylon, as there is no mention made of this miracle in any book of the\nBible written before the Captivity. The books of Psalms, Proverbs,\nChronicles, Judges, Kings, etc. are silent on this subject. Josephus\ndefended the Noachian Deluge on the sole ground that an account of it\nwas held by the Chaldeans, never pretending that the Chaldean account\nwas taken from the Jewish record.\n\nBut it is useless to dwell on the story of a universal deluge of water.\nIt is in the light of modern science physically impossible and absurd;\nand such men as Buckland, Pye Smith, Hugh Miller, and Hitchcock, with\nmany other distinguished Christian scientists, give up the doctrine of a\nuniversal deluge while claiming a partial one. And here, again, the\nancient astronomy comes in with an explanation of partial floods of\nwaters by the natural results of the \u201cprecession of the equinoxes,\u201d in\nwhich, at certain periods during the change of the polar axis of the\nearth, great physical convulsions must follow, with wide eruptions of\nwater, making a partial overflow and suggesting the idea of a universal\ndeluge. Four such cataclysms must have occurred while the sun was making\none journey through the twelve zodiacal constellations. Prof. Huxley has\nrecently well said: \u201cBut the voice of arch\u00e6ology and historical\ncriticism still has to be heard, and it gives forth no uncertain sound.\nThe marvellous recovery of the records of an antiquity far superior to\nany that can be ascribed to the Pentateuch, which has been effected by\nthe decipherers of cuneiform characters, has put us in possession of a\nseries once more, not of speculations, but of facts, which has a most\nremarkable bearing upon the question of the trustworthiness of the\nnarrative of the Flood. It is established that for centuries before the\nasserted migration of Terah from Ur of the Chaldees (which, according to\nthe orthodox interpreters of the Pentateuch, took place after the year\n2000 b. c.) Lower Mesopotamia was the seat of a civilization in which\nart and science and literature had attained a development formerly\nunsuspected, or, if there were faint reports of it, treated as fabulous.\nAnd it is also no matter of speculation, but a fact, that the libraries\nof this people contain versions of a long epic poem, one of the twelve\nbooks of which tells the story of a deluge which in a number of its\nleading features corresponds to the story attributed to Berosus, no less\nthan with the story given in Genesis, with curious exactnesss.\n\n\u201cLooking at the convergence of all these lines of evidence leads to the\none conclusion\u2014that the story of the Flood in Genesis is merely a\nversion of one of the oldest pieces of purely fictitious literature\nextant; that whether this is or is not its origin, the events asserted\nin it to have taken place assuredly never did take place; further, that\nin point of fact the story in the plain and logically necessary sense of\nits words has long since been given up by orthodox and conservative\ncommentators of the Established Church.\u201d\n\nThe only rational interpretation of the extraordinary stories of the\nPentateuch and other scriptures is to regard them as mythical and\nallegorical, borrowed from the astrological systems of more ancient\npeoples. It is very difficult to present within the limits here allowed\nwhat has grown into ponderous volumes in elucidating the matter in hand.\n\nThe story of Jonah and the Fish, taken as a literal story, is\nincredible, though the notorious Brooklyn preacher thinks that it must\nbe literally true, as that God might have so diluted the gastric juice\nin the stomach of the fish as to make Jonah quite indigestible! This\nwhole story is found in earlier pagan writings, and is fully explained\nby the astronomical phenomena. The earth is a huge fish in the ancient\nmythology, and on December the 21st the sun (Jonah, the type) sinks into\nits dark belly, and after three days\u2014to wit, December 25th\u2014it comes\nforth. The Sun-god is on dry land again.\n\nThere is a Hindoo fable much like this. In Grecian fable Hercules was\nswallowed by a whale at Joppa, and is said to have lain three days in\nhis entrails. The Sun was called _Jona_, as can be shown from many\nauthorities. The nursery-tale of \u201cLittle Red Riding-Hood\u201d was also a\nsun-myth, mutilated in the English story, showing how the _Sun_ was\ndevoured by the _Black Wolf_ (Night), and came out unhurt. Scores of\nsimilar sun-myths could be narrated.\n\nBut there are geographical inaccuracies which show its mythical\ncharacter. Instead of Nineveh being \u201cthree days\u2019 journey\u201d from the coast\nwhere Jonah was vomited out, it is distant some four hundred miles of\nhill and plain, and the size of the city was not twenty by twelve miles,\nbut more nearly eight by three miles. Moreover, the city showed no signs\nof decay till about two hundred and fifty years after the alleged\nwarning of Jonah. It is truly astounding that intelligent men can be so\nblind. It was recently admitted by high Christian authority that there\nis not a particle of proof for this story except that Jesus had referred\nto Jonah as being \u201cthree days and nights in the whale\u2019s belly.\u201d If Jesus\ndid say this, he used it as an illustration. He probably stated a\ncurrent tradition, if he said it at all.\n\nLet us now try our key in the closet-door of the Samson story.\n\nAccording to the Bible account, Samson performed twelve principal\nexploits; and if you will turn to any good dictionary of mythology you\nwill find a wonderful likeness to the twelve labors of Hercules in the\nGreek myth of the Sun. Time can be taken to examine only one\u2014the cutting\noff of Samson\u2019s hair while reposing in the lap of Delilah, and the\nconsequent loss of his strength. Professor Goldhizer says: \u201cLong locks\nof hair and a long beard are mythological attributes of the sun.\u201d...\n\u201cWhen the powerful summer\u2019s sun is succeeded by the weak rays of the\nwinter\u2019s sun, its strength departs.\u201d But as the sun becomes ascendant\nagain he renews his strength, just as Samson\u2019s strength returned when\nhis hair grew out again. The seven locks represent the seven planetary\nworlds. The constellation Virgo represents Samson\u2019s wife; and Delilah,\nin whose lap he dallied and lost his strength, represents the months of\nautumn, before the winter came to hand him over to the Philistines, the\ndreary time of the winter months. The story of Samson is found in the\nsun-myths of all the Sun-worship-ping nations, and the story of Hercules\nwas known in an island colony of the Ph\u0153nicians five hundred years\nbefore it was known in Greece; and the story is almost as old as\nhumanity itself. The very name Samson (or Samp-shon) in some languages\nmeans the sun; and there is not an exploit recorded of him that does not\nyield to the solar interpretation; and when modern ministers undertake\nto explain how Samson caught three hundred foxes and set fire to their\ntails, they never think to mention (if they happen to know it) that in\nthe ancient festival of Ceres a fox-hunt was enacted in the theatres of\nRome in which burning torches were bound to the foxes\u2019 tails. We have an\nexplanation of this from Prof. Steinthal: \u201cThis was a symbolical\nreminder of the damage done to the fields by mildew, called the \u2019red\nfox\u2019 in the last of April. It was at the time of the _Dog Star_ at which\nthe mildew was most to be feared; and if at that time great solar heat\nfollowed too close upon the hoar-frost or dew of the cold nights, the\nmischief raged like a burning fox through the corn-fields. Like the\nlion, the fox is an animal that indicates the solar heat, being well\nsuited both by its color and long-haired tail.\u201d Bou-chart gives a\nsimilar explanation and application, and so do many other writers. It\nremains for ministers of this nineteenth century to dole out the ancient\nfables of the past as literal history to the grown-up children of\nto-day. The story of Samson in all its details yields to the key of\nancient symbolism. Why not admit the fact that this is a solar myth, and\nthus get clear of all the blasphemy and absurdities of a literal\ninterpretation?\n\nThe incredibly absurd story of Joshua\u2019s commanding the sun to stand\nstill for several hours has a rational explanation, regarded as a myth,\nwell known to initiates to set forth the correction of the calendar, so\nas to make different periods correspondras one stops a clock to make it\nagree with the ringing of the standard time by the town bell. There are\nscores of parallels in ancient history.\n\nRegard Solomon as a sun-myth, and you have no difficulty about the size\nof his family. The seven hundred wives and the three hundred concubines\nrepresented so many stars. Even the narratives of David\u2019s exploits with\nthe five kings, his \u201cunpleasantness\u201d with Saul, and his dalliance and\nintrigue with Bathsheba yield to the astro-mythological key.\n\nThe same is true of the story of the two she-bears that ate up the\nforty-two children who called shorn Elisha \u201cbald-head.\u201d The prophet was\nthe Sun, denuded of his curls at a certain astronomical period; the two\nbears were the constellations _Ursa Major and Ursa Minor_, the great\nbear and the little bear; and the forty-two children were a group of\nstars covered by the two bears, so that, figuratively, it might be said\nthey were \u201ceaten up.\u201d And yet the late Dr. Nehemiah Adams of Boston once\nexclaimed: \u201cI believe that the forty-two children who made fun of the\nbald head of the prophet of God are now in hell.\u201d He once wrote an\nadmirable book entitled _Agnes; or, The Little Key,_ but he failed to\nfind the skeleton key to unlock the solar fable of the prophet, the\nsaucy little children, and the voracious bears.\n\nWithin the last few months Philadelphia has been the scene of a most\nimposing ecclesiastical ceremony\u2014the investiture of the Roman Catholic\narchbishop with the pallium, a narrow band or sash made from wool grown\nupon white lambs that had been blessed by the Pope on St. Agnes\u2019 Day. We\nheard the eloquent sermon of the archbishop of New York, and he\ncommenced his plausible discourse by tracing the pallium to the mantle\nthat fell from Elijah upon Elisha, the summer and winter sun, and was\nworn by him after the translation of Elijah. But we try our skeleton\nkey, and find that Elijah represented the ascending summer sun, and\nElisha the sun of autumn; and when Elijah gained the greatest height, of\ncourse his lessened rays, well called a \u201cmantle,\u201d fell upon the\nbald-headed man representing the autumn. This is the whole story in\nplain language, and this is the kind of stuff that ecclesiastical\nman-millinery is made of. The crowd stared with admiration and wonder,\njust as children are amused with their doll-babies, who are \u201csick\u201d or\n\u201cwell,\u201d \u201cnaughty\u201d or \u201cgood,\u201d according to the whims of the \u201clittle\nwomen\u201d who dress and nurse them. There is a doll-baby period in every\nchild\u2019s history, and it may be necessary to have a doll-baby period in\nreligion; but it does seem to some of us that it is about time for\nfull-grown women and men to doff their bibs and aprons, lay aside their\ndoll-babies and other ecclesiastical toys, and act as becomes men and\nwomen of full growth. Even Paul said, \u201cWhen I was a child, I spake as a\nchild, I understood as a child; but when I became a man, I put away\nchildish things.\u201d It has been well said by a judicious writer:\n\u201cIntelligent readers, except revelationists, well know that the Hebrew\nfables are myths which teem with history of a kind, if we can only\nseparate the wheat from the chaff. So also is the story of the Creation\nin Genesis. We have a very valuable myth, though a purely phallic tale,\nsuch as East Indians\u2014and perhaps they only\u2014can thoroughly comprehend.\n\n\u201cWe would not seek to detract from the great value of myths, for,\nbesides their own intrinsic worth, these stories also exhibit to us many\nphases of ancient life and thought. Myths may be regarded as history\nwhich we have not yet been able to read. We should not discard as untrue\nor unhistorical any tale, biblical or other, as implying that it is\nfalse and unworthy of consideration. On the contrary, we cannot too\nearnestly and patiently ponder over every ancient tale, legend, or myth,\nas they all have some foundation and instructive lesson. Whenever an\nimportant myth has existed an important fact has doubtless been its\nbasis.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. THE FABLE OF THE FALL\n\n\n_\u201cAnd calleth those things which be not as though they were.\u201d\u2014Rom.\n4:17._\n\n\nTHE prevailing belief of Christendom to-day is, that about six thousand\nyears ago, somewhere in Asia, the Supreme Creator took common clay and\nmoulded it into the form of a man, somewhat as a sculptor forms the\nmodel from which the marble statue is to be constructed, and when shaped\nto his liking he breathed into the clay model the breath of life, and it\nbecame a living soul. This miraculous work is believed to have been\nbegun and completed on a particular day; so that in the morning the\nearth contained not a man, but in the afternoon the full-grown, bearded\nman stood up in his majesty and assumed supremacy over all living\nthings. This godlike man finding himself lonely, the Creator put him to\nsleep, and opened his side and took therefrom a rib, out of which he\nformed a woman, who was to be a companion, a wife, to the man; and from\nthis particular couple have come, by ordinary generation, all the people\ndwelling upon the face of the earth. They are said to have been perfect,\nbut, unfortunately for their progeny, this perfection did not long\ncontinue. Before they were blest with offspring they lost their\nCreator\u2019s favor by eating fruit from a forbidden tree, and became\nfearfully demoralized, and, instead of begetting children endowed with\ntheir own angelic qualities, they became the unhappy parents of a race\nof moral monsters, of which we are all degraded and degenerate\ndescendants.\n\nThe sacerdotal story of the fall of Adam and Eve is based upon the\nassumption that it is to be received as literal history, revealed by the\nCreator and written down in a book by a man specially chosen and\nplenarily inspired; so that there can be no error or mistake in the\nrecord. To question this narrative in its literal sense is most impious,\nand subjects the doubter to the charge of favoring infidelity.\n\nWhile persons \u201cprofessing and calling themselves Christians\u201d cannot\nagree regarding many things deemed by them matters of vital importance,\nthe fall of man is a matter in which they are fully agreed. The great\nbasic dogma which underlies all modern systems of theology, Romish and\nProtestant, is the utter depravity of the human race through the fall of\nAdam, dooming a large majority of the human family to eternal\npunishment.\n\nHow evil came into the world has been the most perplexing problem of the\nages. Before it the most gigantic minds have been covered with confusion\nand paralyzed with doubt. Why sin and suffering should have been\npermitted, not to say created, has never been made clear to the human\nreason by any system of theology, Romish or Protestant. A few years ago\nDr. Edward Beecher published a book entitled _The Conflict of Ages_.\nWhen reviewed by Dr. Charles Hodge in the _Princeton Review_ he entitled\nhis paper \u201cBeecher\u2019s Conflict;\u201d but it was rightly called _The Conflict\nof Ages_; it was not \u201cBeecher\u2019s Conflict,\u201d and the explanation given by\ntheology only involves the question in greater doubt and difficulty.\n\nFrom the first dawning of human reason, even in the mind of inquisitive\nchildhood, questions like these have been revolved, if not formulated:\nDid not God know, when he made Adam and Eve, that they would fall? Why,\nthen, did he create them? Why did he create a subtle serpent to tempt\nthem? Why did he create a tree the fruit of which was forbidden? Why did\nhe make the possible everlasting ruin of innumerable unborn mortals\ndepend on such a trivial act as the eating of a certain apple? Why did\nhe not destroy Adam and Eve after their first act of disobedience, and\nthus prevent them from propagating a faithless progeny, which should\nincrease in geometrical progression until the number should be so great\nas to exhaust calculation with weariness, stagger reason itself, and\ntranscend even the powers of the loftiest imagination to conceive? Why\nare the teeming millions of the children of Adam held virtually\nresponsible for this single trivial act of disobedience by an unknown\nremote ancestor myriads of ages ago? How could all men sin in him and\nfall with him in the first transgression? How could the guilt of Adam\u2019s\nsin be imputed to his children?\n\nThe circumstances connected with the degradation of man are so\nextraordinary that it is not unreasonable to inquire whether the\nnarrative of the fall is a matter of supernatural revelation based upon\nan historic occurrence, or whether it is purely mythical, portraying the\nconceptions of the human mind as to the origin of evil at some remote\nperiod of the world\u2019s childhood. For the support of the dogma of total\ndepravity through the fall of Adam theologians rely primarily upon the\naccount in the book of Genesis. It is a notable fact that Adam and Eve\nare not historically recognized in any other portion of the Old\nTestament, and their very existence was totally ignored by the Teacher\nof Nazareth, if the Gospels said to contain the only report of his\nteachings are to be credited. Nobody pretends that Moses, the doubtful\nauthor of the Pentateuch, wrote from personal knowledge; but it is\nclaimed that he wrote under inspiration of God, though there is not a\nsingle intimation in Genesis or any other book that he was so inspired,\nor that God had anything more to do with his writings than he had with\nthe writings of Homer, Herodotus, or John Milton. But the assumption\nthat the dogma of the fall through the sin of Adam was first revealed to\nMoses\u2014at most not more then eight or nine hundred years before the\nChristian era\u2014is plainly exploded by the fact that this story existed\namong many nations centuries and centuries before Moses is said to have\nbeen born or the writing called Genesis existed.\n\nIt is not within the lines of our general purpose to here give in detail\nthe numerous legends\u2014substantially the same, though differing in\nparticulars\u2014regarding the introduction of sin into this world, found in\nthe writings of Hindoos, Persians, Etruscans, Ph\u0153nicians, Babylonians,\nChaldeans, Egyptians, Thibetans, and others. Any man who would now dare\nto deny this statement regarding the prevalence of the story of the fall\ncenturies before the writing of Genesis existed would justly subject\nhimself to the charge of ignorance or dishonesty.\n\nDr. Inman states that Adam is the Phallus and Eve the Yoni\u2014in other\nwords, that Adam and Eve signify the same idea as Abraham and Sara,\nJacob and Leah, man and woman; thus embodying in the Hebrew the Hindoo\nnotion that all things sprang from Mahadeva and his Sacti, my lady Sara.\nThis deduction enables us at once to recognize, as did the early\nChristians, the mythical character of the account of the fall; and we\nmust conclude that the story means that the male and female lived\nhappily together so long as each was without passion for the other, but\nthat when a union took place between them the woman suffered all the\nmiseries inseparable from pregnancy, and the man had to toil for a\nfamily, whereas he had previously only thought of himself. The serpent\nis the emblem of \u201cdesire,\u201d indicated by the man and recognized by the\nwoman. \u201cThere is a striking resemblance between the Hindoo and Hebrew\nmyths. The first tells us that Mahadeva was the primary Being, and from\nhim arose the \u2018Sacti.\u2019 The second makes Adam the original, and Eve the\nproduct of his right side\u2014an idea which is readily recognizable in the\nword _Benjamin_. After the creation, the Egyptian, Vedic, and Jewish\nstories all place the woman beside a citron or pomegranate tree, or one\nbearing both fruits; near this is a cobra or asp, the emblem of male\ndesire, because these serpents can inflate or erect themselves at will.\u201d\n\nGeneral Forlong thus discourses upon this subject: \u201cMost cosmogonies\nrelate a phallic tale of two individuals Adam and Eve, meeting in a\ngarden of delight (Gan-Eden), and then being seduced by a serpent Ar\n(Ar-i-man), Hoa, Op, or Orus, to perform the generative act, which it is\ntaught led to sin and trouble, and this long before we hear of a\nspiritual god or of solar deities. These cosmogonies narrate a contest\nbetween man and Nature, in which the former fell, and must ever fall,\nfor the laws of Sol and his seasons none can resist.\u201d... \u201cThe Jews\nlearned most of their faith and fables from the great peoples of the\nEast; especially did they get the two cosmogonies, and that solar fable,\nmixed with truth, of a serpent tempting a woman with the fruit of a\ntree, of course in the fading or autumnal equinox, when only fruit\nexists and all creation tries to save itself by shielding all the stores\nof nature from the fierce onslaughts of angry Typhon when entering on\nhis dreary winter. The Gan-Eden fable was clearly an attempt by\nZoroastrians to explain to outsiders the difficult philosophical problem\nof the origin of man and of good and evil. Mithras, they said\u2014and the\nJews followed suit\u2014is the good God, the incarnation of God, who dwells\nin the beauteous orb of day; to which Christian Jews added that he was\nborn of a virgin in a cave which he illuminated.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe tree of life mentioned in Gen. 3: 22 certainly appears,\u201d says Mr.\nSmith (Chal. Acct, p. 88), \u201cto correspond to the sacred grove of Anu,\nwhich a later fragment of the creation-tablets states was guarded by a\nsword turning to all the four points of the compass; and there too we\nhave allusions to a thirst for knowledge, having been the cause of man\u2019s\nfall; the gods curse the dragon and Adam for the transgression. This\nAdam was one of the Zalmat-qaqadi, or dark men, created by Hea or\nNin-Si-ku, a name pointing to Hea being a Nin or Creator, while Adam is\ncalled Adami or Admi, the present Eastern term for man and the lingam,\nand no proper name.\u201d The impression that I get from the legends of\nIzdubar, or the Flood, or even the creation-tablets, is simply that\nthese were religious revivals. Nearly every illustration of Mr. Smith\u2019s\nlast volume shows the serpent as an evil influence. Now, if I am\nright\u2014and all I have read elsewhere tends to the same conclusion\u2014then\nall the tales as to a temptation by a serpent, a fall, are phallo-pythic\ntransmutations of faith, and have no more connection with the first\ncreation of man upon earth than have the flood, the ark, or\nmountain-worship of Jews in the desert, or the destruction of Pytho by\nApollo in the early days of Delphi, etc.\n\n\u201cThe tree and serpent,\u201d says Fergusson, \u201care symbolized in every\nreligious system which the world has known, not excepting the Hebrew and\nChristian, The two together are typical of the reproductive powers of\nvegetable and animal life. It is uncertain whether the Jewish tree of\nlife was borrowed from the Egyptians or Chaldeans; but the meaning was\nin both cases the same, and we know that the Assyrian tree was a\nlife-giving divinity. And Moses, or the writer of Genesis, has\nrepresented very much the same in his coiled serpent and love-apples, or\ncitrons, of the tree of life.\n\n\u201cThe writer of Genesis probably drew his idea of the two trees, that of\nlife and that of knowledge, from Egyptian and Zoroastrian story; for\ncriticism now assigns a comparatively late date to the writing of the\nfirst Pentateuchal book. After Genesis no further notice is taken in the\nBible of the tree of knowledge. But that of life, or the tree which\ngives life, seems several times alluded to, especially in Rev. 2: 7. The\nlingam or pillar is the Eastern name for the tree which gives life. But\nwhen this tree became covered with the inscriptions of all the past\nages, as in Egypt, then Toth, the Pillar, came to be called the tree of\nknowledge.\u201d\n\nBut it must not be supposed that all Christian theologians of the\npresent day hold the historical and literal truth of the legend of the\nfall of Adam. In several of the public libraries of Philadelphia may be\nfound a book entitled _Beginnings of History_, written by a learned\nprofessor of Archaeology at the National Library of France\u2014Professor\nFran\u00e7ois Lenormant. It was republished by Scribner, New York, in 1886,\nwith an introduction by Francis Brown, associate professor of Biblical\nPhilology in the Presbyterian Union Theological Seminary of New York. It\nis written from a Christian standpoint, and the writer is a firm\ndefender of the infallibility of the Hebrew Scriptures, and can never be\nsuspected of having any sympathy with modern rationalism. He not only\nadmits that the Edenic story of the introduction of sin, found in\nGenesis, is a compilation made up from the Shemitic traditions of\nBabylonians, Ph\u0153nicians, and other pagan peoples, but he has covered\npage after page with proofs of this fact by learned and accurate\nquotations from their numerous legends. He puts in the common plea of\nlawyers, known as _confession and avoidance_, and takes the ground that\n\u201cthe writer of the Hebrew Genesis took these fables from floating\ntradition as he found them, and cleansed them of their impurities,\naltered their polytheistic tendencies, made them monotheistic, and\notherwise so transformed them as to make them fit vehicles of spiritual\ninstruction by the Divine Spirit which inspired him.\u201d\n\nThis is an ingenious device, but it will hardly satisfy sound thinkers.\nThe question is, whether the story of Adam is historical truth or pagan\nfiction. The highest scholarship pronounces it fiction, while certain\northodox writers admit the fact \u201cthat God used prevailing but unreal\nfancies to teach important truths.\u201d\n\nThe document in which the story of the fall is found is a confused,\ninconsistent, and absurd compilation by at least two different writers,\nrepresenting each a different God, Jehovah and Elohim, the writers\ncontradicting each other in many particulars; and this feet is admitted\nby candid Christian writers, and by none more frankly than the late Dean\nStanley of the English Establishment. The first account of creation ends\nat the third verse of Gen. 2, and the second account begins with the\nfourth verse and closes with the end of that chapter. In the first\naccount the man and woman are created together on the sixth and last day\nof creation (Gen. 1:28). In the second account the beasts and birds are\ncreated after the creation of the man and before the creation of the\nwoman; and it was not until after Adam had examined and named all the\nbeasts of the fields, and had failed to find among the apes,\nchimpanzees, and ourangs a suitable companion for himself, that Eve was\nmade from one of Adam\u2019s ribs, taken from his primeval anatomy while\nunder the influence of a divine anaesthetic (Gen. 2:7, 8, 15, 22). In\nthe first account man was made on the last day, and woman was made at\nthe same time; in the second account man was made after the plants and\nherbs, but before fruit trees, beasts, and birds. So it would seem that,\ninasmuch as woman was made after all things, she was an afterthought, a\nsort of necessary evil for the solace and comfort of man. These\ncontradictions run through the whole of the first and second chapters of\nGenesis, and plainly show that these narratives were compiled by two\ndifferent persons from vague traditions or from different written\ndocuments. Had the Creator undertaken to write or dictate an account of\nhis own work, he certainly would not have contradicted himself six times\nwithin the limit of a few lines.\n\nThe credibility of the document in which is found the account of the\nfall is further impaired by the fact that it contains statements openly\nat variance with the demonstrations of science. It teaches not only that\nthe world was made in six days of twenty-four hours each, but that the\nwhole planetary system was made in a single day. \u201cHe made the stars\nalso.\u201d The discoveries of modern science have lately driven our\nsacerdotalists to a new and absurd interpretation of the story of\ncreation by alleging that the six days spoken of were not periods of\ntwenty-four hours each, but six indefinite periods of very long\nduration. But it would be easy to furnish numerous admissions of\northodox scholars that the six days of the creative week were intended\nby the writers to describe ordinary days, of twenty-four hours each, and\nnot indefinite periods. Any other interpretation Professor Hitchcock has\npronounced \u201cforced and unnatural, and therefore not to be adopted\nwithout a very urgent necessity.\u201d The venerable Moses Stuart, long\nprofessor of Biblical Literature in the Andover Theological Seminary,\nsays: \u201cWhen the sacred writer in Gen. 1 says the first day, the second\nday, etc., there can be no possible doubt\u2014none, I mean, for a\nphilologist, let a geologist think as he may\u2014that a definite day of the\nweek is meant. What puts this beyond all question,\u201d the learned\ntheologian adds, \u201cis that the writer says specifically \u2018the evening and\nthe morning were the first day,\u2019 \u2018the second day,\u2019 etc. Now, is an\nevening and a morning a period of some thousands of years?... If Moses\nhas given us an erroneous account of the creation, so be it. Let it come\nout and let us have the whole truth.\u201d The fact is, that the\nindefinite-period hypothesis does not, after all the quirks and special\npleadings, overcome the difficulty. The question arises, Why six\nindefinite periods? One indefinite period is as long as six or sixty.\nThere is nothing in geology to indicate six periods. One need only\nconsider the attempt to reconcile Genesis and geology to plainly see\nthat the Mosaic record was intended to be taken in its obvious sense.\nThe forced interpretations put upon the Hebrew story to make it appear\nto be historical and literal truth make it more absurd than it would\notherwise appear. Think of Adam created (according to one account) on\nthe second day, and Eve on the sixth day, and then accept the hypothesis\nthat these creative days represent indefinite periods of thousands, if\nnot millions, of years to each day, so that four indefinite periods of\nthousands of years passed away before Adam had his Eve to be his\nhelpmeet, and what a long, lonely time he must have had! Then how small\nthe human census must have been for unnumbered ages, and how strange the\nfact that the same writer says that Adam \u201clived nine hundred and thirty\nyears, and he died;\u201d that is to say, he died several hundred thousand\nyears before the rib was taken from his side to make him a wife!\n\nBut the fact must be emphasized that it is quite useless to criticise\nthe so-called Mosaic narrative of the fall, because it is acknowledged\nto be a huge myth or allegory by the best scholarship of modern times.\nThe Christian author of the _Beginnings of History_ has with profound\nresearch actually produced and printed the stories of many ancient\npeoples in contrast with the narrative in Genesis. He says in the\npreface to his book: \u201cThis is the problem which I have been led to\nexamine in comparing the narrations of the Sacred Book with those\ncurrent long ages before the time of Moses among nations whose\ncivilization dated back into the remote past, with whom Israel was\nsurrounded, from among whom it came out. As far as I myself am\nconcerned, the conclusion from this study is not doubtful. That which we\nread in the first chapter of Genesis is not an account dictated by God\nhimself, the possession of which was the exclusive privilege of the\nchosen people. It is a tradition whose origin is lost in the night of\nthe remotest ages, and which all the great nations of Western Asia\npossessed in common, with some variations. The very form given it in the\nBible is so closely related to that which has been lately discovered in\nBabylon and Chaldea, it follows so exactly the same course, that it is\nquite impossible for me to doubt any longer.\n\nThe school of Alexandria in general, and Origen in particular, in the\nfirst centuries of the Church interpreted the first chapters of Genesis\nin the allegorical sense; in the sixteenth century the great Cardinal\nCajetan revived this system, and, bold as it may appear, it has never\nbeen the object of any ecclesiastical censure.\u201d\n\nIt is well understood among men of learning that the whole story of\nEden, the talking serpent, and the sinning woman is a myth, and that all\nnations of sun-worshippers have had substantially the same legend, and\ntheir priests, poets, and philosophers have not hesitated to acknowledge\namong themselves its fabulous character. That early Jewish and Christian\nwriters freely admitted the allegorical character of the narrative\nascribed to Moses is well known. Maimonides, a learned Jewish rabbi,\nsaid: \u201cOne ought not to understand nor take according to the letter that\nwhich is written in the Book of the Creation, nor have the ideas\nconcerning it that most men have, otherwise our ancient sages would not\nhave recommended us to carefully conceal the sense of it, and on no\naccount to raise the allegorical veil which conceals the truth it\ncontains. Taken according to the letter, this work gives the most absurd\nand extravagant idea of divinity. Whoever shall discover the true sense\nof it ought to be careful not to divulge it.\u201d Philo, the great Jewish\nauthority, took the same ground, and wrote mainly to show the\nallegorical character of all the sacred books. Josephus held similar\nviews, and so did Papias and many of the early Christian Fathers. Origen\nsaid: \u201cWhat man of good sense will ever persuade himself that there was\na first, second, and a third day, and that these days had each their\nmorning and evening without the not-yet-existing sun, moon, and stars?\nWhat man sufficiently simple to believe that God, acting the part of a\ngardener, planted a garden in the East\u2014that the \u2018tree of life\u2019 was a\nreal tree, evident to the senses, whose fruit had the virtue of\npreserving life?\u201d etc. St. Augustine held the same views as to the\nallegorical character of the so-called Mosaic account of the creation\nand fall, and so did Tertullian, Clement, and Ambrose. Some of the early\nChristian authorities carried this idea of the allegorical character of\nthe Scriptures so far as to apply it to the Gospels themselves. \u201cThere\nare things therein\u201d (said Origen) \u201cwhich, taken in their literal sense,\nare mere falsities and lies;\u201d and St. Gregory asserted of the letter of\nScripture that \u201cit is not only dead, but deadly;\u201d while Athanasius\nadmonished us that \u201cshould we understand Sacred Writ according to the\nletter we should fall into the most enormous blasphemies.\u201d It seems to\nhave been fully realized in early times that there was no rational way\nto interpret Moses and his writings but upon the allegorical hypothesis.\nAs the Mosaic account of the creation and the fall of man is so\nevidently the same story that was suggested to the Persians and other\nnations by the astronomical phenomena, we are forced to the conclusion\nthat this is the only key to unlock  the mysteries of the first three\nchapters of Genesis. If the original story is known to have been founded\nupon the ancient astrological religion, the substantial copy in our\nJewish Scriptures must have the same basis. All the ancient religions\nhad their _Cabala_\u2014secret words and initiations\u2014and the Jewish and\nChristian Scriptures are no exceptions, as is seen upon their very\nsurface. We may not have all their secrets\u2014some of them may not be\nproper things to write about in our day\u2014but no fair man of intelligence\ncan successfully deny that many of those things which are absurd if\ntaken for historical truth are at once explained by reference to the\nsolar cults of the ancients.\n\nMany theologians have virtually admitted that there is nothing injurious\nto the interests of true religion in the hypothesis here presented, but,\non the contrary, there is much that is truly beautiful and calculated to\nelevate and inspire the devout mind. Even the distinguished Albertus, of\nthe twelfth Christian century, surnamed _the Great_ for his attainments\nas a scholastic ecclesiastic, did not hesitate to write: \u201cAll the\nmysteries of the incarnation of our Saviour Christ, and all the\ncircumstances of his marvellous life from his conception to his\nascension, are to be traced out in the constellations and are figured in\nthe stars.\u201d \u201cThe Gospel in the Stars\u201d was the significant advertisement\nof a course of sermons recently delivered in a prominent Lutheran church\nin Philadelphia by a learned doctor of divinity, and, though many of his\nhearers thought that the title should have been \u201cThe Stars in the\nGospel,\u201d it was certainly an evidence of progress and increasing light\nto have a frank admission from such a source that all the truths of the\ngospel and the doctrines of the Reformation were prefigured in the\ncelestial heavens and illustrated in the constellations of the solar\nzodiac.\n\nThis author admits the identity between the tenets of the astro-theology\nof ancient sun-worshippers and the present dominant theology of\nChristendom, but assumes that the original construction of the celestial\nheavens and its fanciful division into constellations had reference to,\nand in fact prefigured, what was literally fulfilled in Christianity. He\nfinds in the solar zodiac of Esne in Egypt as clear predictions of the\ncoming of Christ as he finds in Isaiah or any other Jewish prophet.\nThus, he \u201cgives away\u201d the whole argument, and unwittingly admits the\nnatural origin of all the distinctive tenets of modern dogmatic\ntheology. This last craze may well be regarded as a compound of\nscientific trifling and theological, moonshine.\n\nBut it is said by theologians that man is depraved, and that the present\nmoral status of humanity confirms the dogma of total depravity by\ndescent through fallen and depraved ancestors. This involves the\nquestion, What is depravity?\n\nThat man is not perfect in morality is as true as that he is not perfect\nin body nor in mentality. But does not every one know by his own\nexperience and observation that human shortcomings mainly arise from a\nwant of perfect development and the influence of environment, rather\nthan from essential, innate viciousness? What is called \u201csin\u201d should be\nknown as \u201cundevelopment,\u201d and, as real as is the law of heredity, it is\nno more real than the law of environment. Where there is evidence of\nhereditary evil tendencies it is not necessary to go back more than two\nor three generations to find the source.\n\nBut the fact must here be emphasized and continually kept in mind that\nthe story of Eden and the fall is substantially found in the annals of\nmany nations anterior to the existence of the Jewish tribes, varied only\nin trivial matters. The story of the serpent in Eden is probably of\nAryan source, to which the conception of the satanic origin of evil was\nattached after the Jews came into close contact with Persian dualistic\nideas. To doubt which was the original and which the copy, shows,\nregarding the well-established facts of history, a want of information\nso great as to make argument on this matter quite useless.\n\nThe conclusion is inevitable that if the fall of Adam is a fiction, then\nthe entire system of evangelical theology is based upon a fiction; and\nthe fruit must be natural to the tree\u2014a fictitious tree can only bear\nfictitious fruit. Orthodox theologians, especially of the logical\nPresbyterian stamp, realize that if they give up Adam and Eve as\nprogenitors of the entire human race, they give up the very\nfoundation-stones of the \u201credemptive scheme.\u201d This accounts for\nPresbyterian opposition to the doctrine of evolution. They are logical\nenough to see that the second Adam as a Saviour in the evangelical sense\nmust share the fate of the first Adam; and so Professor Woodrow of South\nCarolina has recently been degraded on account of his theory of\nevolution.\n\nThe world moves, and, as Professor Marsh of Yale College has well said,\n\u201cThe doctrine of evolution is as thoroughly demonstrated as the\nCopernican system of astronomy.\u201d\n\nIn the _Popular Science Monthly_ for October, 1890, we have a very able\narticle from Andrew D. White, LL.D., ex-president of Cornell University,\nshowing how completely science contradicts theology in regard to the\nEdenic story. He shows that the tendency of the race has always been\nupward from low beginnings. He further shows that Archbishop Whately and\nthe Duke of Argyll championed the Bible story, but were so conclusively\nanswered by Sir John Lubbock and Tylor that the views of the archbishop\nwere seen to be untenable, while the duke, as an honest man and a sound\nthinker, was obliged to give up his former views and adopt the\nscientific theory. The light thrown upon this subject by Herbert\nSpencer, Buckle, Max M\u00fcller, and scores of other great scholars is among\nthe glories of the century now ending. The public declaration of the\ncelebrated Von Martius, of his conversion to the scientific view of the\nstory of the Fall, ought to make smaller men less confident of their\nviews on a subject they have never studied.\n\nIn 1875, Commodore Vanderbilt endowed a university in Tennessee, and it\nwas put in charge of the Methodists. Dr. Alexander Winchell was called\nto the chair of Geology. He was distinguished in his specialty by his\nsuccessful labors in another university. He openly taught \u201cthat man\nexisted before the period assigned to Adam, and that all the human race\ncould not have descended from Adam.\u201d The Methodist bishop told him \u201cthat\nsuch views were contrary to the plan of redemption.\u201d The Methodist\nConference resolved \u201cthat they would have no more of this,\u201d and\nProfessor Winchell was summarily dismissed from the chair, and the\nposition, with its salary, assigned to another. The State University of\nMichigan recalled him to his former chair in that institution, where he\ncould teach _science_ regardless of the impotent thunders of _theology_.\n\nThe fall of Adam is really the pivotal principle in dogmatic theology of\nthe orthodox variety. If the entire human race are not descendants of a\nreal, genuine, historical pair miraculously created (a pair almost\ndivine in perfections), and who by disobedience fell from their high\nestate, and by their federal or representative character involved all\ntheir countless descendants by natural generation and descent in the\nsame ruin,\u2014if these things are not true, then what is called the\nevangelical scheme is based upon a fiction, and is to be so treated,\nregardless of the effect upon other theological doctrines. The dogma of\na sudden, special creation of a perfect man is not sustained by the\nfacts of history nor the science of palaeontology. Scientific\ninvestigators find man, so far as the evidence of his remote existence\ncan be traced, very nearly allied to apes; and there is abundant\nevidence to show that man has been improving in every respect as years\nand cycles of years have rolled away. It is thus absolutely demonstrated\nthat the history of our race shows the rise or ascent of man from a very\nlow estate, instead of his \u201cfall\u201d from a condition of high perfection.\n\nBut it does not follow, because man as we first find him was very much\nlike the anthropoid ape, that he is a lineal descendant of the ape. The\nmore rational hypothesis is, that both apes and man were evolved from\nstill lower animal forms by divergent lines, so that there is a relation\nof a very distant cousinship existing between them. There is many a\nfool-born jest about man and the monkey, oft repeated by _adcaptandum_\n\ntheologians who have never read Darwin\u2019s _Origin of Species_ nor his\n_Descent of Man_, and who therefore do not know that there is nothing in\nthese writings to justify such caricatures.\n\nThe fact is, the evolution of man by slow and long-continued processes,\ninstead of his sudden miraculous creation on a certain day, is now as\nwell established as the law of gravitation, in the judgment of\nscientists who are not hampered and blinded by preconceived theological\ndogmas. It cannot be denied that the weight of scientific testimony is\nvery largely in favor of the _development_ of man, instead of a\nmiraculous and complete creation at a particular period of time. The\ntrue ground will be found to be _creation by evolution_; and if our\npurblind sacerdotalists had accepted this doctrine, as the brightest of\nthem have privately done, they would have saved themselves the disgrace\nof becoming the laughing-stock of the scientific world. If man was\nbrought to his present high estate by a system of evolution, it is no\nless the work of the Supreme Creator of the universe than if he had been\nmade from clay in an instant of time; and if the character of man,\nmentally and morally, is admitted to be based on the degree of his\ndevelopment, it would solve many a knotty question in theology and\nmorals. At any rate, the evolution hypothesis has many advantages over\nthe Church dogma, manifestly founded on a pagan fable. The fact is,\nsacerdotalists have always been their own worst enemies, and have always\nbeen defeated in their battles with science and a true philosophy.\n\nIt is not intended to ignore the fact that legends of a paradisiacal\nperiod, a real \u201cgolden age,\u201d are found among all ancient peoples, also\nof periods of general demoralization; but these legends can easily be\naccounted for. It is a natural instinct in man to praise the past, and\nto think that \u201cthe former times were better than the present.\u201d We see\nthis among aged men and women to-day. Then it is well known that the\nstream of human history has never run in an unbroken channel. Our race\nhas ever had its \u201cups and downs,\u201d and, comparatively speaking, mankind\nhas had many _falls_ and _ascents_, while the general or ultimate\ntendency and result have been ascending higher and higher. Moreover, the\ngolden age of Adam in Eden must have been very short, according to the\nfable of Genesis, as the fall occurred before he had any children. What\na pity that Adam and Eve could not have maintained their innocence by\nblind obedience until at least a son and daughter could have been born\nto them! This may be considered irreverent, but everybody knows that,\noutside of the pulpit and the Sun-day-school, the story of Adam and Eve\nis hardly ever mentioned except as a huge joke, and that witty preachers\noften take part in laughing at it. It is difficult to write about a\nfiction otherwise than facetiously.\n\nI cannot refrain from again quoting Professor Huxley in summing up my\nown conclusions in regard to this matter:\n\n\u201cI am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one for a moment can doubt\nthat Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical\ntrustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the\nMessiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history. The\nidentification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the\ninterpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no\nevidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned\nto them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and\nsacrifices were not ordained by Jehovah; if the \u2018ten words\u2019 were not\nwritten by God\u2019s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a\nmythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the deluge a fiction; that\nof the fall a legend; that of the creation the dream of a seer,\u2014if all\nthese definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no\nmore value as history than the stories of the regal period of Rome, what\nis to be said of the Messianic doctrine which is so much less clearly\nenunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of\nthe New Testament, who on this theory have not merely accepted flimsy\nfictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of\nChristian dogma upon legends and quicksands?\n\n\u201cThe antagonism between natural knowledge and the Pentateuch would be as\ngreat if the speculations of our time had never been heard of. It arises\nout of contradictions upon matters of fact. The books of ecclesiastical\nauthority declare that certain events happened in a certain fashion; the\nbooks of scientific authority say they did not.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat we are pleased to call religion now-a-days is for the most part\nHellenized Judaism; and, not un-frequently, the Hellenic element carries\nwith it a mighty remnant of old-world paganism and a great infusion of\nthe worst and weakest products of Greek scientific speculation; while\nfragments of Persian and Babylonian\u2014or rather Accadian\u2014mythology burden\nthe Judaic contribution to the common stock. The antagonism of Science\nis not to Religion, but to the heathen survivals and the bad philosophy\nunder which Religion herself is wellnigh crushed. Now, for my part, I\ntrust this antagonism will never cease, but that to the end of time true\nScience will continue to fulfil one of her most beneficent functions,\nthat of relieving men from the burden of false Science which is imposed\nupon them in the name of Religion.\u201d\n\nThe fact that well-dressed congregations do not laugh sacerdotalists to\nscorn shows how safe it is to rely upon the credulity and indifference\nof those who have been taught mere myths as real history from early\nchildhood. The day will come when even children will laugh in the faces\nof priests when they seriously speak of the fall of Adam and Eve as a\nmatter of actual occurrence. The great curse of true religion to-day is\n_literalism_, enforced by priestcraft, in regard to what relates to our\nmost sacred concerns.\n\nIt is no part of our design to here explain the development theory as to\nhow man did originate from the lower forms of animal existence, but must\nrefer those who are willing to learn to such works as Darwin\u2019s _Origin\nof Species and Descent of Man_, Huxley\u2019s _Man\u2019s Place in Nature_, and to\nscores of other books accessible to all. Perhaps ninety-nine-hundredths\nof living working scientists repudiate the Adam-and-Eve story, and\nregard it as a fable intended to illustrate what man\u2019s attainments at\nthe time would not enable him to account for on natural principles.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. SEARCH FOR THE \u201cLAST ADAM\u201d\n\n\n_\u201cFor as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made\nalive.\u201d..._\n\n_\u201cAnd so it is written, the first Adam was made a living soul, the last\nAdam was made a quickening spirit.\u201d\u20141 Cob. 15: 22-45._\n\n\nTHE claim of sacerdotalism is substantially as follows: Adam was the\nfirst man and the sole progenitor of the entire human race. When he\nfell, all his progeny \u201csinned in him and fell with him in the first\ntransgression.\u201d Death was first introduced in the world by Adam\u2019s sin,\nand life is restored by Christ. Adam and Christ are the two great\nrepresentatives of death and life, of the fell and the restoration. The\nCreator permitted this great calamity to happen, having purposed from\nall eternity to redeem this degenerate race, or at least a portion of\nit, from the terrible curse caused by Adam\u2019s sin. In due time he did\nincarnate himself, became man, human flesh and blood, by impregnating,\nor \u201covershadowing,\u201d a Jewish virgin, and so was born, by ordinary\ngeneration, a human babe in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who was\ncalled the Christ. After about thirty years this human-born God died to\nmake it possible to restore our race to its original moral status. This\nis called the \u201credemptive scheme,\u201d and is the sum and substance of\nChristianity, and is fully set forth in what is very improperly called\nthe \u201cApostles\u2019 Creed,\u201d which is publicly recited in thousands of\nchurches every Sunday as an epitome of their belief.\n\nThe story of this one first man, who sinned by eating an apple from a\ncertain forbidden tree, has been proved to be a _fable, a myth, an\nallegory_. The legend may shadow forth certain natural truths, but it is\nnevertheless a myth. The thing never occurred. The alleged facts are not\nfacts. There was no first Adam. There may have been some one whom\ncertain persons called the last Adam, but it is nevertheless true that\nwhat is said of him was founded upon an _unreality_\u2014a thing which never\nhappened. According to biblical chronology, the last Adam did not make\nhis advent until about four thousand years after the first Adam fell,\nEven this seems to have been a long period to wait, but if we accept the\ninterpretation of certain modern writers, that which is called \u201cthe\nbeginning\u201d in Genesis may have been forty thousand or four hundred\nthousand years before the advent of Jesus. True, this would show certain\nevents to have been a very long way apart (for instance, the creation of\nEve after that of Adam) and would make the work of Christ in the\n\u201credemptive act\u201d occur ages and ages after the mischief was done.\n\nIt is contended that the promise of the sending of a Saviour was made\nthe very day that the first Adam sinned, and that the salvation of the\nsinner was conditioned upon man\u2019s faith in, and acceptance of, the\npromise that in due time, not mentioned, the last Adam should come and\nrepair all the mischief which the first Adam had caused. It is claimed\nby sacerdotalists that the saying in Genesis 3: 15 is the first promise\nof a Redeemer: \u201cAnd I will put enmity between thee [the  serpent] and\nthe woman, and between thy seed and  her seed; it shall bruise thy head\nand thou shalt bruise  his heel.\u201d But these very words occur in the\npagan fables that were written long before the time that I Genesis was\nwritten, and in some of these fables, much more consistently with the\npassage above quoted, the woman is represented as standing with her heel\non the serpent\u2019s head. Then it is claimed that the Creator accepted the\nsacrifice of Abel because it was a _bloody_ sacrifice, prefiguring the\nshedding of the _blood_ of\n\nChrist, and that he rejected the offering of Cain because there was no\n_blood_ in it. We have looked in vain through the Old-Testament\nScriptures for a promise of the _last_ Adam who was to come and redeem\nman, but have failed to find it. A system of \u201credemption\u201d that is based\non expressions so enigmatical must have a very flimsy foundation upon\nwhich to stand. It is like the assumption that women generally have an\naversion to reptiles because a serpent tempted Eve and brought so many\ncurses on the sex. To such miserable subterfuges will sacerdotalists\nresort to maintain a theory.\n\nOne of the first points emphasized in connection with the advent of\nJesus is the claim that it was _in exact fulfilment of Hebrew\nprophecy_. Certain orthodox Christian writers claim that there are _two\nhundred_ prophecies in the Old Testament relating to Jesus, while\ncertain other eminent German and English Christian scholars deny that\nthere is even one prophecy which does not admit of another and a more\nrational explanation. The quotations from Old-Testament prophecies in\nthe Gospels are, to say the least, unfortunate, and rather suggest the\nhypothesis that certain things, if done at all, were done to make the\nhistory fit the prediction.\n\nLearned Bible critics contend that there is not to be found a single\nexample of such redemptive prophecy, even though the theory of the\ndouble sense of prophecy be admitted. These predictions or hopes were\nintended to apply to eminent characters in Hebrew history as\n_deliverers_, and can only be applied to Jesus by a _forced and\nunnatural_ construction; and, though Cyrus and others appeared, the\nexpectations of the Jews have not yet been realized, and some of them\nare still awaiting _their_ Messiah, spurning the idea that the\npredictions of their prophets were fulfilled in the humble Man of\nNazareth.\n\nOne or two examples of so-called Messianic prophecies must suffice.\nMatthew (27: 9) says the prophecy of \u201cJeremy the prophet\u201d regarding the\nthirty pieces of silver was fulfilled in the betrayal of Jesus; whereas\nno such prophecy is found in Jeremiah, and, though similar words occur\nin Zechariah, they have another obvious application. Then in Matthew\n(chap. 2)  Hosea is quoted to prove that Jesus dwelt in Egypt to fulfil\na prophecy, whereas it is evident (Hos. 11:1) that it was of Israel, not\nJesus, that those words were spoken. Again, in Matt. 22:41 the quotation\nfrom the Psalms is obviously misapplied\u2014\u201cThe Lord said unto my lord,\u201d\netc.\u2014as it was not written by David, but Nathan addressed it to David.\nIt was the poet that called David _lord_, which spoils the prophecy and\nruins the argument of the evangelist. Many things recorded in the New\nTestament are unwittingly admitted to have been done to fulfil a\nsupposed prophecy\u2014\u201cthat it might be fulfilled.\u201d There is one very\namusing example of an attempt to fulfil an alleged prophecy\u2014that of\nJesus dwelling in Nazareth, because it had been prophesied that he\nshould be called a Naz-arene, no such prophecy ever having been uttered.\n\nThe Indian Yedas are full of alleged prophecies relating to coming\nincarnations, and so are the Chinese sacred books. Even Zoroaster, who\nlived 570 years b. c., prophesied; \u201cA virgin shall conceive and bear a\nson, and a star shall appear blazing at midday to announce his\nappearance. When you behold the star (said he), follow it whithersoever\nit leads you. Adore the mysterious child, offering him gifts with\nprofound humility. He is indeed the Almighty Word which created the\nheavens. He is indeed your Lord and everlasting King\u201d (_History of\nIdolatry_, Faber, vol. ii. p. 92). It was believed that this prophecy\nwas fulfilled by the advent of the Persian god _Sosia_. It was common\namong the ancients to presage the birth of a god by the appearance of a\nmysterious star, and for astronomers to hasten to adore the new-born\ndeity and present him gifts. Greece, Rome, Arabia, and even Mexico, were\nall familiar with _Messianic_ prophecies. Bishop Hawes says that \u201cthe\nidea that God should in some extraordinary manner visit and dwell with\nmen is found in a thousand forms among ancient heathens.\u201d\n\nThe fact is, there is no promise or prophecy of a \u201clast Adam\u201d in the\nHebrew Scriptures. The Jews give a very different interpretation to\nthose utterances alleged to be Messianic, and the alleged types of Jesus\nin the Old Testament are purely fanciful, and many of them are\nexceedingly childish. The idea that Solomon and Moses and the scapegoat\nwere _types_ of Jesus is simply absurd, and not creditable to the\nalleged antetype. There is no Jesus of Nazareth in the Hebrew oracles.\n\nThe bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament were antedated by heathen\nnations centuries before the Jews. The sacrificing of brute beasts was\nheathenism pure and simple, to conciliate an imaginary anthropomorphic\ngod. Twenty generations of innocent animals slaughtered by divine\ncommand in order to notify the world beforehand of the coming of the\nlast Adam, yet never saying so, seem to have failed to prepare the\npeople for the alleged spiritual sacrifice of Jesus. It was a signal\nfailure. If these bloody offerings were types of Jesus, there must have\nbeen some resemblance. Wherein did it lie? A bullock was forced to the\naltar; he died like any beast at the shambles. It made the sanctuary a\nslaughter-house. The involuntary offering of an innocent lamb or pigeon\ncannot be a type of a willing offering of a human being. The whole\nscheme of bloody animal sacrifices is a type of nothing but the cruelty\nof barbarism, and meant a good dinner and fat priests! It is generally\ncondemned by the Hebrew prophets as useless, and was entirely rejected\nby those who \u201cprofessed and called themselves Christians.\u201d\n\nSince we can learn absolutely nothing that is rationally reliable\nconcerning the \u201clast Adam\u201d from the Old Testament, it becomes necessary\nfor us to consult comparatively modern history. The advent of Jesus was\nmade, if made at all within the historic period, scarcely nineteen\nhundred years ago. If such a person appeared among men at that time,\nthere must be some written record of so wonderful an event by\ncontemporary parties.\n\nIn the Jewish Talmud, a perfect wilderness of religious and secular\nspeculations, we find many spiteful and distorted allusions to one Jesus\nwho went into Egypt and learned sorcery and magic, and by such influence\nraised a tumult among the people and led away a party of deluded\nfollowers. Whether this was Jesus of Nazareth it is impossible to say.\nThere were many persons bearing similar names.\n\nThere is at the present day much ignorance\u2014or at least indifference\u2014even\namong intelligent Christians, to the fact that the very name of Jesus is\nnot of Hebrew, but of Greek origin, as indeed is the whole history of\nhis life as related in the four Gospels; and no one but those who have a\nprevious theory to uphold can believe that the people of Jerusalem\nduring the time of Christ spoke any other language than that spoken by\ntheir forefathers. From this we will pass to other instances where the\nname of Jesus is applied to others not named in the Gospels; and it will\nbe a matter of surprise to many to know that no less than fifteen, most\nof them living at the time of the Christian era, are named by the Jewish\nhistorian Josephus as bearing the name of Jesus:\n\n   1. Jesus, son of Josedek (Ant., xi. iii. 10, iv. 1).\n   2. Jesus, sumamed Jason, son of Simon (Ant., xi. iii. 10, iv. 1).\n   3. Jesus, son of Phabet (Ant., xv. ix. 3).\n   4. Jesus, son of Sie (Ant., xvii. xiii. 1).\n   5. Jesus, son of Damneus (Ant., xx. ix. 1).\n   6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel (Ant., xx. ix. 4).\n   7. Jesus, son of Sapphias ( Wars, ii. xx. 4).\n   8. Jesus, son of Shaphat ( Wars, iii. ix. 7).\n   9. Jesus, son of Ananus ( Wars, iv. iv. 9).\n  10. Jesus, son of Ananus, a plebeian ( Wars, vi. v. 3).\n  11. Jesus, son of Gamala (Life, 38, 41).\n  12. Jesus, a high priest ( Wars, vi. ii. 2).\n  13. Jesus, son of Thebuthi ( Wars, vi. viii. 3).\n  14. Jesus, father of Elymas.\n  15. Jesus, surnamed Barabbas.\n\nJosephus also refers to one Judas, a Gaulonite, who was a leader of the\npeople, and whose character and career answer in so many respects to\nqualities credited to Jesus of Nazareth that it is supposed by many that\nthe name Jesus had been changed to Judas; and he also refers to other\nJesuses who are too much like the traditional Jesus of the Gospels in\nmany things to be mere coincidences. Then there was the _meek_ Jesus,\nmentioned by Josephus, who lived during the reign of Albinus, who\nprophesied such evil things, and who was scourged until his bones were\nlaid bare, and who uttered no reply, and in so many ways was like the\nJesus of tradition ( _Wars of the Jews_, book vi., chap. 5). Then we\nhave the mention of the Jesus, as is well known, who was the friend of\nSimon and John and the \u201cson of Sapphias,\u201d who was the leader of a\nseditious tumult, _who was betrayed by one of his followers_, and\ndefeated by Josephus himself when he was governor of Galilee, and put to\nshame and confusion (_Life of Josephus_, sec. 12-14).\n\nThis undoubtedly shows that nearly all that is claimed for Jesus of\nNazareth _might_ have been said as the substance of what was written by\nJosephus concerning real historical persons called Jesus. This may\naccount for the conglomerate character and the many inconsistencies\nascribed to this Jesus of tradition.\n\nThe failure of Jewish writers of the first century to recognize Jesus of\nNazareth, even in the most casual way, is a significant fact. Philo, the\ncelebrated writer of his day, was born about twenty years before the\nChristian era, and spent his time in philosophical studies at that\ncentre of learning, Alexandria in Egypt. He labored diligently and wrote\nvoluminously to reconcile the teachings of Plato with the writings of\nthe Old Testament, and, though in the prime and vigor of manhood when\nJesus is said to have lived, and dwelling in the immediate vicinity of\nJudea, and in the very city where Christianity was early introduced, yet\nthis learned, devout, and honest Jew makes no mention of Jesus of\nNazareth.\n\nEven more strange is the silence of Josephus, the Jewish historian, who\nwas born about A. d. 35, and lived and wrote extensively until after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, and yet he never mentioned the name of Jesus.\nThe celebrated passage regarding Christ is known to be a forgery, and\nthe one respecting \u201cJames the brother of Jesus, called the Christ,\u201d is\nby no means worthy of confidence. It must be certain that in the first\ncentury of our era Jesus of Nazareth did not attract the attention of\nthese fair and distinguished Jewish writers, if he in fact existed.\n\nIn early times the name Jesus, as has been shown, was as common as the\nnames John or James, and when the name is mentioned it is impossible to\nsay who is referred to. The passage in Josephus referring to Jesus thus,\n\u201cAbout this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be right to\ncall him a man,\u201d etc., is acknowledged by celebrated Christian writers\nto be a fraud. Its authenticity was given up as long ago as the time of\nDr. Nathaniel Lardner, author of the _Credibility of the Gospel\nHistory_, and one of the most highly regarded of Christian writers.\nGibbon, too, decided it to be a forgery. Bishop Warburton, the\ndistinguished defender of Pope\u2019s _Essay on Man_ against the charge of\natheism, and one of the most distinguished of Christian defenders,\nagreed with Lardner. The Rev. Robert Taylor quotes many other Christian\nwriters as coinciding. The biographer of Josephus in the _Encyclopaedia\nBritannica_ says the passage is unanimously regarded as spurious. Drs.\nOort, Hookyaas, and Xuenen, German Christian writers of great repute, in\nthe _Bible for Learners_ declare the passage to be \u201ccertainly spurious\u201d\nand \u201cinserted by a later and a Christian hand.\u201d\n\nGibbon says it was forged between the time of Origen (a. d. 230) and\nEusebius (a. d. 315). The credit of the forgery, however, is generally\ngiven to Eusebius, who first quoted it. The distinguished authors of the\n_Bible for Learners_ distinctly state that Josephus never mentioned\nJesus, and cite Josephus\u2019s close following of the atrocious career of\nHerod up to the very last moments of his life, without mentioning the\nslaughter of the innocents, as indubitable proof that Josephus knew\nnothing of Jesus. Dr. Lardner gives these reasons why he regards the\npassage as a forgery:\n\n\u201cI do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus,\nwhich was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before\nEusebius.\n\n\u201cNor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or\nword _Christ_ in any of his works, except the testimony above mentioned\nand the passage concerning James, the Lord\u2019s brother.\n\n\u201cIt interrupts the narrative.\n\n\u201cThe language is quite Christian.\n\n\u201cIt is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and\ncould not have omitted quoting it had it been in the text.\n\n\u201cIt is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning\nJosephus.\n\n\u201cUnder the article \u2018Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly\nstates that the historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the\nleast notice of Christ.\n\n\u201cNeither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens\nAlexandrinus, who made so many extracts from Christian authors, nor\nOrigen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony.\n\n\u201cBut, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv. of the first book of that work,\nOrigen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist,\ndid not acknowledge Christ.\u201d\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Giles, author of the _Christian Records_, adds to the\nreasons for rejecting the passage, as follows:\n\n\u201cThose who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus and the\nstyle of his writings have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a\nforgery interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious\nChristian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus\nshould have taken no notice of the Gospels or of Christ their subject.\nBut the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might\nas well expect to gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles as to\nfind this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It\nis well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of\nMoses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have\nwritten that _Jesus was the Christ?_ Such an admission would have proved\nhim to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under\nconsideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a\nbeliever in the new religion; and thus the passage stands forth, like an\nill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around\nit. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr,\nTertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies\nwith the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But\nEusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (i. 11), is the first who quotes\nit, and our reliance on the judgment, or even honesty, of this writer is\nnot so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works\nas undoubtedly genuine.\u201d\n\nOxley in his great work 011 Egypt says: \u201cHowever, I have found in some\npapers that this discourse _was not written by Josephus, but by one\nCaius, a presbyter._\u201d\n\nHere, according to their own showing, what had passed for centuries as\nthe work of Josephus was a fraud perpetrated by a dignitary of the\nChurch. This is in perfect keeping with ancient custom. In addition to\nall this, there is not an original manuscript of Josephus in existence,\nnor one (that I have heard of) that dates farther back than the tenth or\neleventh century A. D.\n\nAnother forged reference to Christ is found in the _Antiquities_, book\nxx. chapter ix. section 1, where Josephus is made to speak of James,\n\u201cthe brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.\u201d Some theologians who\nreject the longer reference to Jesus accept this as genuine. But they do\nit without reconciling the discrepancies between the stories regarding\nthe end of this same James. According to this passage, James was put to\ndeath under the order of the high priest. But according to Hegesippus, a\nconverted Jew who wrote a history of the Christian Church about A. d.\n170, James was killed in a tumult, not by sentence of a court. Clement\nof Alexandria confirms this, and is quoted by Eusebius accordingly.\nEusebius also quotes the line from Josephus without noticing that the\ntwo do not agree. The statement is quoted in various ways in the early\nwriters, and the conclusion is irresistible that the copies of Josephus\nwere tampered with by copyists. Even had Jesus lived and taught as\ndescribed in the Gospels, Josephus, an orthodox Jew, a priest, and\nconservative government official, would never have given him the title\nof Christ, or Messiah, a party leader for whom the Jews were looking to\nfree them from their Roman bondage.\n\nAmong the great pagan writers of the first century of our era we find\nabsolutely nothing relating to Jesus of Nazareth. There was Seneca,\nliving not far from these times, and then the Elder and the Younger\nPliny, Tacitus, Plutarch, Galen, Epictetus, Marcus Antoninus\u2014some of the\nnoblest men of the world. Let us look at some few fragments of testimony\nthat we have. One historian writes that \u201cunder a ringleader named\nChrestus the Jews raised a tumult.\u201d In another place he refers to the\nChristians as a class of men devoted to a \u201cnew and mischievous\nsuperstition.\u201d And Tacitus speaks of Judea as \u201cthe source of this evil.\u201d\nAnother speaks of the Christians as \u201ca sect hated for their crimes,\u201d and\nSuetonius gives Nero special praise for having done the most that he\ncould to wipe them off the face of the earth. In a _Life of Claudius_,\nanother Roman emperor, Christ is spoken of as \u201ca restless, seditious\nJewish agitator.\u201d Pliny the Younger, writing to the emperor about A. D.\n104, when he was governor of Bithynia, says the Christians do not\nworship the gods nor the emperors\u2014as most of the people then did\u2014nor\ncould they be induced to curse Christ. He says they met mornings for\nvirtuous vows, and chanted a hymn to Christ as to a god, and in the\nevening they ate together a common meal. And after he had put them to\ntorture he said all he could find against them was \u201ca perverse and\nimmoderate superstition.\u201d Lucian, about the middle of the second\ncentury, speaks of Jesus as the crucified Sophist. We do not know\ncertainly whether these references to Christ allude to Jesus of Nazareth\nat all. _Chrestians_ and _Chrestus_ were designations in common use all\nover the world, and the writers merely mentioned them as a sect well\nknown as creating some noise in the world. Certainly the language used\nin describing them is not very complimentary. They may have referred to\nthe Essenes, who had their ideal Chrest.\n\nA modern writer has shown that the story of the persecution of\nChristians by the emperor Nero (a. d. 54-68) is a modern fabrication.\nRobert Taylor, in his _Diegesis_ published in 1829, proved that\nCornelius Tacitus never could have written the passage describing such\npersecution. It has been demonstrated that the whole of the so-called\n_Annals of Tacitus_, containing the celebrated passage, was forged by a\nPapal secretary named Poggio Bracciolini. In 1422, while in the receipt\nof a small salary under Martin V., he was tempted by an offer of five\nhundred sequins (which would now be equal to fifty thousand dollars) to\nengage in some mysterious literary work. Seven years later, six books of\nwhat are now called the _Annals of Tacitus_ were brought to him by a\nmonk from Saxony. Then all Christendom rejoiced to learn that the\nheathen Tacitus had mentioned Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate.\nPoggio, though a father both spiritually and carnally, was not a husband\ntill the age of fifty-four. At seventy-two he accepted the office of\nsecretary to the republic of Florence, and at seventy-nine he died,\nleaving five sons of his old age. Up to the last he was a busy student\nand writer. Fifty-six years after his death his fourth son was secretary\nto Pope Leo X., at which time the pope\u2019s steward, stimulated by a\nmunificent reward, discovered the first six incomplete books of the\n_Annals_, being the unfinished work of Poggio in his old age.\n\nThe finding of ancient MSS. was a very lucrative business for scholars\nin those days. It began with Petrarch, who died in 1374, and did not end\nwith Poggio, who died in 1459. Poggio discovered several orations of\nCicero, a history by Ammianus Marcollinus, and several other classic\nworks, besides the unclassic writings of Tertullian, the first Latin\nFather.\n\nThe modern fabrication of many of the ancient Latin and Greek MSS. is\nnow becoming apparent. Jean Hardouin, a French Jesuit, died in 1729,\naged eighty-three years. He was deeply versed in history, language, and\nnumismatology. At the age of forty-four he began to suspect that certain\nwritings of the Christian Fathers were spurious, and soon became\nconvinced that none of them were genuine. Then turning his attention to\nthe Greek and Latin classics, he found evidence sufficient to convince\nhim that most of those also were forgeries, being fabricated by the\nBenedictine monks after the middle of the fourteenth century.\n\nEusebius\u2019s _Ecclesiastical History_, first found in Latin in the\nfifteenth century and then in Greek in the six-teenth century, we have\nno doubt is a probable forgery. And if so we have really no history of\nthe primitive Church except what may be found in the New Testament and a\nfew uncertain fragments of apocryphal literature, all much corrupted.\n\nThe use of the word _Christus_ and _Christianus_ by the Latin writers is\nsufficient evidence of modern fabrication. Ainsworth\u2019s Latin Dictionary\nhas not the word Christus nor Christianus in the Latin part, but in the\npart which gives the Latin equivalents of English words we find this:\n\nA Christian = Christianus.\n\nChristianism or Christianity = Christianismus.\n\nChristmas = Christianataliam festum.\n\nNow, the words Christus and Christianus are used by Tacitus, Suetonius,\nPliny (the younger), Tertullian, and all the succeeding Latin Fathers.\n\n_Christos_ in Greek is a very proper word, being a translation of the\nHebrew _mashiach_, meaning \u201canointed.\u201d Therefore, the Latins would have\nrendered it _unctus_.\n\nBut the Benedictine monks who forged the literature of the pretended\nFathers, instead of translating _christos,_ audaciously transferred the\nword, and thus the new word _Christus_, with a capital C, became an\nadditional name for the man-god of the Catholic Church.\n\nNow, we respectfully raise the query whether it is rational to suppose\nthat such wonderful things occurred in the little province of Palestine,\nsurrounded by learned sages and philosophers of the most enlightened\nnations of the world, and not one direct and intelligent reference\nshould have been made to them? Is it not strange that we have no account\nof the birth, sayings, and doings of this \u201clast Adam,\u201d who is said to\nhave come into this world on the most important mission, and yet we hear\nnothing of him except in four or five little anonymous and dateless\npamphlets written a long while after the events are said to have\ntranspired? Since the New Testament contains _all_ that has been written\non this subject, is it not our highest duty to subject this book to the\nmost thorough examination? This we shall now proceed to do in the most\nfearless manner, however startling the conclusions which may be reached.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. WHAT IS KNOWN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT\n\n\n_\u201cSearch the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and\nthey are they which testify of me.\u201d\u2014John 5: 39._\n\n\nWE of course use the above passage as a motto, as the writer must have\nreferred to the Old-Testament Scriptures, as the New Testament was not\nyet in existence. As this book is the sole dependence in finding\nevidence regarding Jesus, we naturally first inquire as to what is known\nof it. We find this volume to be made up of _twenty-seven_ small tracts\nor pamphlets, fastened together for the sake of convenience.\n\n  (1) We have _four_ sketches, purporting to be brief biographies of\n      Jesus.\n  (2) Next we have a condensed history, called the _Acts of the\n      Apostles._\n  (3) Then we have _twenty-one_ writings or letters addressed to\n      different churches or individuals in the epistolary form of\n      communication.\n  (4) And finally we have a _highly-wrought allegory_, partaking\n      somewhat of the form of both history and prophecy.\n\nWe find that this volume of little pamphlets is called the \u201cAuthorized\nVersion\u201d of the New Testament.\n\nWe inquire who _authorized_ this version, and find that it was gotten up\nby certain men, mainly Englishmen, in the year 1603 by the \u201cspecial\ncommand\u201d of James, who is called \u201cking of Great Britain, France, and\nIreland,\u201d and who was addressed by these gentlemen, mostly clergymen, as\n\u201cthe Most High and Mighty Prince, Defender of the Faith,\u201d etc.\n\nIt now becomes a matter of superlative importance to determine the basis\nupon which this version of the New Testament was made. It is well known\nthat in 1881 a New Version was published, and Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.\nD., a member of the committee of revisers, issued a little book entitled\n_Companion to the Revised Version_, to be circulated with it. This is\nthe latest and highest authority by which to settle the question of the\n_basis or standard_ of our \u201cAuthorized Version\u201d of the New Testament. It\nis stated on its title-page that it is \u201cTranslated out of the Original\nGreek;\u201d and it is safe and fair to let Dr. Roberts, the mouthpiece of\nthe New Version Committee, tell us upon what Greek manuscripts this\nversion of King James was based. After giving a history of the different\nGreek editions of the New Testament (the _first_ of which was completed\nin 1514, and its publication formally sanctioned by Pope Leo X. in\n1520), he inquires, \u201cWhich of the foregoing Greek texts formed the\n_original_ from which our common English translation was derived?\u201d \u201cTo\nthis question the answer is, that Beza\u2019s edition of 1589 was the one\nusually followed.\u201d Beza\u2019s edition was based on Stevens\u2019 edition of 1550,\nand that was derived from the fourth edition of Erasmus, published in\n1527. Beza, Stevens, Erasmus! In reference to the edition of Erasmus he\nsaid himself, \u201cIt was rather tumbled headlong into the world than\nedited.\u201d But the question now comes up, What was the basis of the\nedition of Erasmus? Dr. Roberts shall answer: \u201cIn the Gospels he\nprincipally used a cursive MS. of the fifteenth or sixteenth\ncentury,\u201d... \u201cadmitted by all to be of a very _inferior character._\u201d...\n\u201cHe procured another MS. of the twelfth century or earlier, but Erasmus\nwas ignorant of its value and made little use of it.\u201d... \u201cIn the Acts\nand Epistles he chiefly followed a cursive MS. of the thirteenth or\nfourteenth century, with occasional reference to another of the\nfifteenth century.\u201d... \u201cFor the Apocalypse he had only one mutilated\nMS.\u201d Dr. Roberts adds: \u201cHe had _no_ documentary materials for publishing\na complete edition of the Greek Testament.\u201d\n\nThe point we here raise is, that it is an admission made by the best\northodox authority that our \u201c_Authorized_ New Testament\u201d was formed out\nof  MSS. dating no farther back than the twelfth, thirteenth,\nfourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, and that even these were\nhastily and unskilfully used or not used at all.\n\nBut the question naturally arises, Have not earlier MSS. come to light,\nsubstantially confirming what we have in King James\u2019 Version? The answer\nis, that there are now in existence about two thousand MSS. containing\n_parts_ of the New Testament, with about _one hundred and fifty\nthousand_ variations, mostly trivial, but some very important; but no\nscholar, orthodox or liberal, will dare to pretend that any of these\ndate any farther back than the fourth or fifth century; and he would be\na reckless man, feeling bound to lie for what he might regard as the\ntruth, who would contradict the admission of Dr. Roberts, that there are\nonly five copies of the New Testament, at all complete, of a greater\nantiquity than the tenth century, nor who would dare to question the\nstatement of the Rev. George E. Merrell in his recent _Story of the\nManuscripts_, that \u201cthere is a wide gap of almost three centuries\nbetween the original manuscripts of the evangelists and apostles and the\nearliest copies of their writings which have yet been discovered.\u201d\nWhether there ever were _original_ manuscripts or _accurate_ copies are\nquestions which it would be prudent to hold for consideration until we\nhave made further investigations. When we reverently listen to our\nministers as they expound the Word, and learnedly tell us how certain\nsentences should have been translated from the \u201coriginal Greek,\u201d let us\nnot laugh in their faces, but respectfully ask them whether they do not\nknow that there is _no original_ Greek Testament or any certified copy,\nand that all we know upon these matters is highly conjectural and wholly\nunauthenticated.\n\nThe principal MSS. of the New Testament were unknown for a thousand\nyears after the Christian era\u2014to wit, those from which our \u201cAuthorized\u201d\nNew Testament was compiled\u2014and their real origin cannot be traced, and\neven their accepted date is purely a matter of conjecture. The\nAlexandrian, Vatican, and Sinaitic MSS., supposed to date from the\nfourth and fifth centuries, are of uncertain and suspicious origin, and\ntheir date is a matter of simple guess by parties whose prepossessions\nwould incline them to make them as ancient as possible. How easy it is\nfor the best scholars to be imposed upon is shown from the fact that the\nexperts of the British Museum would probably have been swindled by the\nrecent Syrian forgery of the very ancient book of Deuteronomy but for\nthe discovery of the fact by a French scholar that the \u201cancient\ndocument\u201d was in fact only a year or two old, the product of a skilled\ncopyist! The fact is, little or nothing is actually _known_ by\nhistorical and documentary verification of the origin or dates of the\nMSS. upon which our New Testament is based.\n\nThe next question that arises in a rational mind in this connection is\nthis: Have we in these twenty-seven little pamphlets all that has been\nwritten upon the subjects to which they relate? The answer to this\nquestion is very embarrassing. It is an undoubted fact that the\necclesiastical council that selected the books composing the New\nTestament had at least _fifty_ Gospels, from which they selected _four_,\nand more than _one hundred_ Epistles, from which they selected\n_seventeen_, and that from nearly a _score_ of books professing to be\nrecords of the \u201cActs of the Apostles\u201d they selected _one_, which\nChrysostom in the fifth century says \u201cwas not so much as known to many.\u201d\nThen there are _forty-one_ New-Testament books now extant, called\napocryphal, relating to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and\nbesides the canonical and apocryphal books extant there are\n_sixty-eight_ New-Testament books mentioned by the Christian Fathers of\nthe first four centuries which are not now known to be in existence.\nBesides these, more than _fifty_ books, written in the second century by\nmore than _twenty_ distinguished persons, have mysteriously disappeared.\nThe fact should also be emphasized that the adoption of the\nNew-Testament books in the early part of the fourth century, as we now\nsubstantially have them, was followed by the _disappearance_ and\nprobable _destruction_ of all books that could throw light upon the\nbooks received, and all the supposed copies of our Gospels to that\nperiod have been lost or destroyed. The fact to be kept in mind is this,\nthat the New-Testament books which we now have were selected from scores\nand hundreds of writings claiming equal authority by a few\nself-appoint-ed men, who had very few qualifications and many\ndisqualifications for the work they undertook for all coming\ngenerations. We have but a trifling proportion in number of the ancient\nrecords regarding Jesus.\n\nBut we now take up the little pamphlets as we have them, and try to\narrange them in order of time. The oldest writings of the New Testament\nare the Epistles of Paul. And here we find ourselves embarrassed by the\nfact that biblical criticism shows that not more than _five\u2014some say\nfour_\u2014of the Epistles ascribed to Paul were written by him\u2014viz. First\nThessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, and\nRomans. The other nine ascribed to Paul were doubtless written by\nunknown second-century authors. The same uncertainty prevails in regard\nto the authorship of several, if not all, of what are called the General\nor Catholic Epistles, as well as of the Acts of the Apostles and the\nbook of Revelation.\n\nIt is impossible to fix the dates of the New-Testament books except\napproximately. There is a great diversity of opinion. The earliest were\nprobably written in the last half of the first century, and the latest\ncertainly in the last quarter of the second century. Certain it is that\nno evidence can be found of the existence of our four Gospels until the\nlatter part of the second century, about one hundred and fifty years\nafter the alleged death of Jesus. It is therefore true what Prof.\nRobertson Smith, D. D., the learned Scotch Presbyterian minister,\nasserts, that our four Gospels are \u201cunapostolic digests of the second\ncentury.\u201d From the Apostolic Epistles we learn nothing of the life and\nteachings of Jesus. With Paul, Christ was an _idea_ rather than a\n_person_. Not a syllable do we find in his writings of the miraculous\nbirth of Jesus, no reference to the Sermon on the Mount, much less to\nthe miracles ascribed to him. He rather boasted that he had learned\nnothing of him from his disciples, but what he knew he had received at\nthe time of his own miraculous conversion. He dwells upon the _death_\nand spiritual _resurrection_ of Jesus, not upon his _life_; and the only\n_words_ of Jesus quoted by Paul, \u201cit is more blessed to give than to\nreceive,\u201d are not found at all in the Gospels. All that Paul ever\nclaimed to know about Jesus as a person he learned in a vision, and it\nis to be taken for what it is worth.\n\nWe are absolutely driven to the Gospels for information regarding the\nalleged founder of Christianity, his birth, his life, his teachings, and\nhis death. And here the fact should be faced that Jesus never wrote\nanything about himself, his mission, or his doctrines. We should not\neven know that he had learned the art of writing but for the incident\nmentioned in one of the Gospels (John 8:6) that on a certain occasion he\nstooped down and wrote in the sand; and now our learned New Versionists\ncome along and snatch this from us by declaring that the beautiful story\nabout the kind treatment of the woman taken in adultery is an\ninterpolation not found in the best early MSS., so that we are not even\nsure that Jesus wrote anything even with his finger in the sand, or that\nhe even knew how to write! Nobody pretends that Jesus ever directed his\ndisciples or any one else to write down what he said and did, but, on\nthe other hand, he often forbade his disciples to tell what he said and\ndid; and much of what he is reported to have said was so obscure that\nthe disciples themselves continually misunderstood him. Two reasons have\nbeen assigned for this omission of Jesus to write himself or to\ncommission others to write down his sayings. The first is, that he said\nnothing which could not be found in then existing writings (as can\neasily be shown), and the second is, that he was so sure that the world\nwas about to be destroyed, and that his own kingdom would so soon be set\nup and established upon the general ruin, that it was useless to write\ndown what was said and done in the short remaining period of mundane\nhistory.\n\nWe have four brief sketches claiming to be biographies of Jesus, which\nthe Church claims as authentic, from which we must draw all our\ninformation regarding Jesus.\n\nIt is not necessary here to assign the reasons of learned critics for\ntheir conclusion that the Gospel \u201caccording to\u201d Mark is the older of the\nfour. But it is worthy of note that there is not in it _one word_ of\n_the miraculous conception story_, and not a _hint_ of the bodily\nresurrection and ascension of Jesus, as the critics have a way of\nproving that the last chapter of Mark was added by a later hand.\n\nThen we are embarrassed by the testimony of Iren\u00e6us, Origen, Jerome, and\nother Christian Fathers that the Gospel of Matthew was written in\nHebrew, while there are indubitable internal evidences that this Gospel,\nas we have it, was written in Greek and by a Greek, and not a Jew, and\nthat it is really a _theological_ treatise written by some partisan for\necclesiastical reasons, and that if Matthew ever wrote a Gospel, it has\nbeen unfortunately lost or purposely destroyed. An early Christian sect,\ncalled in derision Ebionites, are supposed to have had the Hebrew Gospel\nof Matthew, and they were persecuted and stamped out for denying the\nmiraculous conception and divinity of Christ, and with them, some\ncritics suppose, perished the only genuine Gospel of Matthew. There is\nlittle if any doubt that the first and second chapters of our Matthew,\ngiving an account of the miraculous birth and genealogy of Jesus, were\nadded when this fiction was incorporated into Christianity as necessary\nto a divine Church establishment which should almost deify a hierarchy\nand bring the common people into subjection. In reading Matthew\u2019s Gospel\nwe should undoubtedly begin at chapter 3, and especially as the first\ntwo chapters are absurd, contradictory, and inconsistent. If Jesus was\nbegotten by the Holy Ghost, it was not consistent or necessary to notice\nthe genealogy of Joseph, and there is nothing more bungling than the\ngenealogies of Mary and Joseph as given in Matthew and Luke. Indeed, the\nname Matthew is not Jewish, and there are those who doubt if there ever\nwas such a man. It is a suggestive fact that the Egyptians had a\n_Matthu_, and that he was the _registrar_, or keeper of their records.\n\nThe Gospel ascribed to Luke he himself admits to be a r\u00e9sum\u00e9 or\ncompilation of what had been written by others and was the prevalent\nbelief (Luke, chapter 1). In making a close analysis of this little\ntract a learned German critic Schleiermacher, shows that it was probably\ncompiled from thirty-three different manuscripts. But since Luke himself\nclaims nothing more than the office of a collector, his work is a mere\ndigest of what others had written and a summary of what was then\nbelieved by some persons.\n\nThe Gospel according to John deserves a more careful and extended\nnotice, from the fact that it differs in so many particulars from the\nother three Gospels. There is no evidence of the existence of this\nwriting until A. D. 175, when it was mentioned in the Clementine\nHomilies,(1) and in 176, Theophilus of Antioch ascribed its authorship\nto John. But nothing is more certain than that John the Evangelist did\nnot write this little book, as it contains internal evidence of its\nGrecian origin, and that it could not have been written by one familiar\nwith Judaism and the geography of Palestine. Many of the best biblical\nscholars, orthodox and rationalistic, admit this fact, and our Methodist\nfriends may amuse themselves at their leisure in reading a learned note\nfrom the pen of their great commentator, Dr. Adam Clarke, at the close\nof his exposition of the first chapter of John, in which he points out\nthirty-five parallels between the writings of Philo the learned\nPlatonist and the Gospel of John, unwittingly showing that it must have\nbeen written by an Alexandrian Greek.\n\n  (1) These were spurious.\n\nAnd right here it is proper to expose an ancient fraud perpetuated in\nthe Church to the present day\u2014to wit, that Papius and Polycarp, early\nChristian writers, were personally acquainted with and instructed by\nJohn, and that therefore a succession was established with the teachings\nof Jesus himself, whose personal disciple John was. This story was\noriginated by Iren\u00e6us, and the fraud consists in confounding John the\nson of Zebedee and Salome with one John who was said to be a presbyter\nin Asia Minor. This ingenious device is clearly exposed by Reber in his\nwork\u2014_The Enigmas of Christianity_. Iren\u00e6us, bishop of Lyons, may be\ncalled one of the _founders_ of the papal hierarchy, as he in the second\ncentury attempted, but miserably failed, to furnish a catalogue of\nbishops in orderly succession from the apostles; and soon after he was\nfollowed in the same vain attempt by Tertullian, who first claimed\nsupremacy for the bishop of Rome, calling him \u201c_epis-copus\nepiscoporum_,\u201d a bishop of bishops. The fact is, it is not known who\nwrote the fourth Gospel, but it is certain that it was not written by\nthe humble, amiable Galilean fisherman, but by a learned neo-Platonist,\nwho was familiar with the dialectics of the learned Gnostic\nphilosophers, and who desired most earnestly their complete suppression\nas essential to the success of the fixed purpose of priests to establish\na Church, under an alleged divine commission, in which they were to be\nthe kings and princes. Priests have always been the corrupters and\nperverters of truth for their own aggrandizement, and the Grecian\ntreatise palmed upon the Church as the Gospel of St. John is one of the\nmost illustrious examples. But for this so-called \u201cGospel\u201d the existence\nof the papal hierarchy, and the consequent priestly pretensions in\nProtestant churches, would have been impossible. Enough has been\npresented to show that we have no alternative but to depend upon the\nsynoptical Gospels, credited to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in our inquiry\nas to Jesus.\n\nNow let us see just where we stand as to the sources of information to\nwhich we are to look in learning whom Jesus was.\n\n   1. We are restricted to four, if not three, short biographies,\n      accredited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, only two of whom,\n      Matthew and John, were mentioned among the disciples of Jesus.\n   2. That these sketches were written by those whose names they bear is\n      not supported by a particle of proof, but, on the other hand,\n      there is strong evidence that they were not written by the persons\n      to whom they are credited; and this is especially true in regard\n      to Matthew and John. Strictly speaking, our Gospels are anonymous.\n   3. These documents are without date, both as to the time in which\n      they are written and the place of writing, and there is no proof\n      of their existence until more than one hundred and fifty years\n      after the alleged occurrence of the things recorded.\n   4. That these four Gospels were selected from many other writings\n      most of which have been lost or destroyed.\n   5. That the men who made our four Gospels canonical, and rejected all\n      the rest, were for the most part narrow, bigoted partisans, and\n      had good reasons of a selfish nature to reject whatever did not\n      favor their ambitious designs.\n   6. We have no proof that the four Gospels made canonical by the early\n      ecclesiastical councils were the original writings of the\n      evangelists, even if we were sure that they wrote anything, nor\n      have we any proof that the copies adopted were genuine and\n      authentic and the best then extant.\n   7. We have no proof that the copies we have are accurate copies of\n      the ones adopted by the councils, but we have proof positive,\n      admitted by the New Version-ists of 1881, that they contain many\n      interpolations and additions and many evidences of forgeries and\n      alterations by the ignorant, designing, and selfish ecclesiastics\n      of the mediaeval centuries known as the Dark Ages.\n   8. That the Authorized Version read in the churches and in our\n      families is based upon MSS. dating from the twelfth to the\n      sixteenth century, and that only fragmentary MSS. and\n      unauthenticated copies are now in existence, dating from the\n      fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries.\n   9. That the copies we have bound up in our New Testament contradict\n      themselves and one another in a great many particulars, and\n      contain many statements which are geographically, historically,\n      and philosophically absurd and incredible.\n  10. That, therefore, our Gospels are of uncertain authority and of\n      undoubted human origin, and are to be so regarded without a doubt.\n\nNow, it will be said that this is an infidel attack upon the New\nTestament, and that it tends to the overthrow of the only religion that\ncan do the world any good. And yet, strange as it may appear, these\nfacts are presented in the best interests of true religion\u2014presented\nbecause they are true, and therefore best adapted, nay absolutely\nessential, to the successful defense and propagation of virtue and\nmorality.\n\nThe real infidels of the day are the theological liars and pretenders\nwho are wilfully ignorant, or too dishonest and cowardly to publish what\nthey know. Infidelity is breach of trust, disloyalty to truth. He who\nwould do the most good must tell the whole truth. If we regard the\nGospels as simple compilations from earlier documents and traditions,\nwith occasional additions and alterations to meet occasions and times,\nwe shall find in them very many things to admire and to adopt into our\nproblems of life and systems of morals, many things worthy of imitation,\nmany things to give courage and comfort in the struggle for existence,\nmany things which would be just as true and just as useful if they had\nonly been written yesterday by some one whom we have known from our\nchildhood.\n\nRegarding the Gospels as human, we can excuse their absurdities and\nerrors, and while we cast these errors aside we joyfully accept what is\ntrue and good and beautiful; but by claiming for them what they are not\nwe bring even what is true into disrepute.\n\nIt was a master-stroke of worldly wisdom and policy when Iren\u00e6us in the\nsecond century (who first mentioned our four Gospels) sanctioned the\nmonstrous assumption of all ecclesiastical authority by divine right by\nthe bishops and priests, which power soon became centralized at Rome;\nbut it was the greatest misfortune of the ages for the cause of true\nreligion and sound morality. It not only made the Church of Rome with\nits immense machinery a necessary result, but it made the not less false\nsystems of Protestant dogmatic theology possible. There is no use in\nattempting to disguise the fact that the so-called scheme of redemption\nis in principle and substance the same in the Catholic and orthodox\nProtestant Churches. Many intelligent persons feel that they would as\nsoon belong to one as the other, while they secretly regard the\nRomanists as logically the more consistent.\n\nThe Romanists are strong in that they place the Church _first (jure\ndivino)_ and make the scriptures the product of the Church, and of\ncourse subject to its interpretation. Protestants are weak in that they\nmake the Church subject to written scriptures, which were selected by\nthe founders of _Catholicism_, and then for centuries altered, forged,\ninterpolated, and manipulated by popes and priests to strengthen their\nauthority and secure the absolute submission of the people.\n\nThe one fatal blunder of the Protestant Reformers was to found their\nsystem of theology upon a written book of the origin of which so little\nis known, and yet regarding which so much is known that it is impossible\nfor persons of a rational, judicial mind to accept it as an infallible\nsupernatural revelation.\n\nThe conclusion is inevitable that in the absence of everything that, by\neven a strain of language, can be called _evidence_ as to the\ngenuineness and authenticity, of our Gospels we cannot safely accept\nthem as an infallible authority in religious matters. We have a right to\nexamine them critically, just as we would read and study any other\nancient writings of uncertain authorship and date.\n\nThe Reformation was in part the substitution of a _book_ which was\npronounced _infallible_, but which has proved to be very _fallible_, for\na Church which claimed infallibility, but which had shown itself not\nonly very fallible, but exceedingly corrupt and dangerous. Infallibility\nbelongs to neither men nor books. Infallibility in books is an\nabsurdity. A religion founded upon a printed book must submit to\nexamination of both the origin and character of that book, and must\nshoulder the imperfections and errors which the discoveries of modern\nresearch have fully exposed. The principles of true religion inherent in\nhuman nature, an ineradicable constituent of the constitution of man, as\nhas been shown, are to-day obscured and shackled by the false position\nin which its professed friends have placed it. It will be shown before\nthese papers are concluded that a religion manacled by a printed book\nclaiming infallibility, and made to depend solely upon an _historical\ncharacter_ who, if admitted to be historical, wrote nothing himself and\ncommissioned no one to write anything for him, and of whose verbal\nteachings and actual mode of life we can never be sure,\u2014a religion thus\nencumbered must suffer great loss, if not total failure, as men shall\nprogress in knowledge and science shall uncover the past and demonstrate\nthe absurdities of the superstitious dogmas of the ancient faiths. It is\nimpossible to compress the largest brains of the nineteenth century into\nthe smallest skulls of the twelfth century. The true friend of religion\nis the fearless man who dares attempt to rescue it from the accretions\nand perversions of the Dark Ages, and to establish its eternal\nprinciples of truth and righteousness in the very nature of man, in the\nelevation of moral character, in strict agreement with the demonstrated\nfacts of the present, as opposed to the bigoted and degrading fancies of\nthe past. To defend religion from the follies of its mistaken champions,\nand show that its foundations are secure and its ultimate triumph\ncertain, may now be denounced as treason to the Church, but in coming\nyears it will be seen to have been the work of men of whom the Church of\nto-day is not worthy.\n\nThe fact is, very little is known of the New Testament, but too much is\nwell known to receive it in _evidence_ in a matter of so much\nimportance. The narratives it contains would be _ruled out of court_ in\nany civilized country on the globe. It is evidently a huge _compilation_\nof what was at best only _traditions_ among the nations of the earth,\nand even these traditions, mixed and mangled as they are, must have\nanother and a more rational explanation than an historical or a literal\none. This book _cannot be an infallible divine revelation_. Let us see\nwhether we cannot find out what was really intended to be taught by the\ndifferent writers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.  THE DRAMA OF THE GOSPELS\n\n\n_\u201cGreat is the mystery of godliness.\u201d\u20141 Tim. 3:16._\n\n_\u201cWe speak the wisdom of God in a mystery.\u201d\u20141 Cor. 2:7._\n\n_\u201cI speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.\u201d\u20141 Cor. 10:15._\n\n\nIN early times every prominent religious teacher had his own gospel, as\nPaul asserts that he had his. The books that were canonized did not by\nany means shape the belief of the early Christians, but, on the\ncontrary, their beliefs shaped the character of the books. \u201cThe question\nof a \u2018Catholic canon,\u2019\u201d says Professor Davidson, \u201cwas realized about the\nsame time as the idea of a Catholic Church.\u201d The partisanship, low\ntrickery, and mob violence by which votes of councils were obtained to\nestablish ecclesiastical dogmas, the canonicity of Scriptures, etc.,\nwere such as now-a-days characterize a political meeting in the slums of\nan American city.\n\nWhile, therefore, we quote the statements of the Gospels to prepare the\nway for the presentation of our points of argument, we do so only for\nconvenience. They cannot, by any rule of sound criticism, testimony of\ncontemporary writers, or even of spiritual discernment, be accepted as\nhistorical.\n\nThe composition of the four Gospels indicates in many ways that they\nwere originally collections of _religious stories_, each of which has a\nmoral of its own, like the fables of \u00c6sop, or, more properly, the\nnarratives concerning Buddha given in the _Dhammapada_. This was a\ncommon mode of writing in early times. History and biography were hardly\nconsidered. Hence contradictions of verbal statement were not counted as\nof any importance. This is probably the reason why the transcribers\nneglected to remove the conflicts of statement and other inaccuracies\nthat abound in the Gospels.\n\nIt is also more than probable that many parts of these works which have\na narrative form were later interpolations. The first two chapters of\nMatthew and the first two in the Gospel according to Luke are\nunequivocally of this character. The style and diction are conspicuously\nunlike the language of the other parts of those works, as will appear on\nthe slightest notice.\n\nThe oldest parts of the New Testament are the Epistles of Paul to the\nGalatians, Corinthians, Romans, and Thessalonians. We will do well,\ntherefore, to study them a little while by themselves, without reference\nto the Gospels and other documents, which were of later date. Paul\nasserts that he possessed and promulgated a gospel distinct and\ndifferent from others, and he pronounced an anathema on the man or angel\nthat should teach any different one. The way that he became possessed of\nit he sets forth as follows: He had no conference with any human being\nwhatsoever about the matter, nor had he anything to do with those who\nwere apostles before him, but he went into Arabia and afterward to\nDamascus. A hint is furnished by Josephus in his history of his own life\nwhich throws some light upon the purpose of this sojourn in Arabia.\nThere were members of the Essenean brotherhood living there who were\nresorted to by individuals desiring instruction and discipline. Josephus\nhimself went thither for that purpose. Paul evidently had a similar\nerrand. He had been a Pharisee, but had embraced another faith.\n\nWhy did he choose the Esseneans in preference to the Judean apostles?\nThe answer must be that he was more certain of learning their tenets\nwithout adulteration. They were famous for their devotion to religious\nstudy, their cultivation of sacred literature and the art of prophecy,\nfor their austerity, industry, and peculiar social organization. We\nshall find upon comparison that this was very closely resembling what is\nrepresented of the first believers at Jerusalem. They had their\nepiscopacy, their deacons or stewards, their Holy Scriptures, and\napostles or missionaries. These were numerous in Syria, Asia Minor, and\nEgypt. As the Therapeut\u00e6 of the latter country resembled them, even to\nthe signification of their name (healers, ministers), the probability is\nthat the two were nearly identical. Eusebius, quoting the account of the\nEgyptian communes as given by Philo the Jew, has remarked the close\nsimilarity of their doctrines and customs with those of the apostolic\ncongregations, and declared that they were Christians and their writings\nthe Gospels.\n\nThis, however, is not tenable, at least not tenable in the way that he\nsuggests. Unfortunately for his statement, the Essenean brothers\nexisted, with all the peculiarities described, long before the Christian\nera. Josephus treats of them as flourishing as early as the time of\nJonathan, the first of the Maccabeans who held the office of high\npriest. About that period the canon of the Old Testament was finally\ncollected. \u201cJudas gathered together all those things that were lost by\nreason of the war we had (with Antiochos Epiphanes and his successors),\nand they remain with us\u201d (2 Macc. 2: 14). The Maccabees or Asmoneans\nwere partisans of the sect known as Asideans (Chaldeans), and afterward\nas Pharisees or Parsees. At this very period we first learn of the\nSadducees or Zadokites, who chiefly belonged to the hereditary lineage\nof Aaron, and likewise of the Essenean fraternity. These last had their\nown sacred books, and took no part in the worship and sacrifices of the\ntemple. In short, they were regarded as a people apart. Their books, we\nhave good reason to suppose, were different in tenor from those of the\nOld Testament, and it is by no means improbable that they included the\nscriptures written in Greek by the Alexandrians and now called the\nApocrypha.\n\nThe designation _Minim_ may mean \u201cobservers of the heavens,\u201d and the\nEssenes appear to have been such. \u201cBefore sunrising,\u201d says Josephus,\n\u201cthey speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers\nwhich they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a\nsupplication for its rising.\u201d This illustrates the taunt to the\nPharisees, that they could discern the face of the sky in regard to the\nweather, but could not read there the signs or symbols of the times,\nwhich were also written there.\n\nThe Saddukim were doubtless the disciples and partisans of Judas of\nGalilee, or Gaulonitis beyond Jordan. This man and his colleague Sadduk\nbegan their career at the time of the census or enrolment by Cyre-nius,\nwhich took place after the displacing of Arche-laus, the son of Herod\nI., from the throne of Judea. There are many plausible reasons for\nidentifying them with the apostolic congregation. They established a new\nreligious or philosophical sect, which Josephus declares had a great\nmany followers, and laid the foundations of the subsequent miseries of\nthe Jews. Their tenets agreed with those of the Pharisees; but, says the\nhistorian, \u201cthey have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that\nGod is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They do not value any kinds of\ndeath, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and\nfriends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord.\u201d The Jewish\nnation, Josephus declares, was infected with this doctrine to an\nincredible degree. It is plain that the books interdicted in the\n_Talmud_ pertained to the sect which followed these teachers, and\nperhaps also to the Essenes.\n\nThe Gospels show evidence of having been compiled from previous works.\nThe one ascribed to Mark is apparently the more original, being shorter,\nmore concise, and exhibiting fewer traces of having been tampered with.\nThe Gospel according to Matthew is from the same original, having whole\nsentences in exactly the same words, but it is amplified and more\ndiffuse. Neither of these Gospels was recognized by Paul, and indeed\nthere is much reason to doubt whether he had ever seen them. If he\nrecognized any evangelic compilation as genuine, it was the one ascribed\nto Luke; and even then the treatise must have been rewritten after his\nperiod.\n\nThere exists abundant reason for regarding the Essenean worship as more\nor less identical with that of Mithras, the Persian \u201cgod of heaven.\u201d\nThis appears to be sustained by a comparison of the cults. Thus, as has\nbeen remarked, they permitted no discourse on secular concerns before\nsunrise, but chanted prayers like the _Gathas_, as in supplication to\nthe divinity presiding over the sky. Their personal habits exhibited a\nprofound awe for the _Sun_. Their name itself was not peculiar to the\nfraternity of Palestine and Arabia, but was borne by the ascetic priests\nat Ephesus, whose manner of life was similar; and Plutarch informs us\nthat certain _osioi_ (another form of the name) performed mystic rites\nin the temple of Apollo at Delphi in commemoration of Zagreus, the\nsun-god of the Orphic religion, who was slain and resuscitated.\n\nThe Persian theology is evidently the basis and source of Judaism. The\nsymbolism of the universe afforded a model for their religion. After the\nconquest of Pontus and the pirate empire by Pompey, about 70 b. c., the\nworship was introduced into the Roman empire. The verdict of Salamis was\nthus reversed. The defeat of Xerxes, who was a zealous propagandist, had\nassured the ascendency of Apollo at Delphi and Demeter at Eleusis over\nthe religion of Ahura Mazda; but the conquest of the Mithras-worshippers\nby Pompey resulted in the introduction of their rites into every part of\nthe Roman world. From the river Euphrates to the Wall of Antoninus in\nBritain, and into the forests of Germany, Mithraism everywhere\nprevailed. For four centuries it disputed the supremacy with\nChristianity; and even when it was proscribed and forbidden by imperial\nauthority, it still retained its hold upon the _pagani_ or inhabitants\nof the rural districts. The Templars and other secret fraternities of\nthe Middle Ages were more or less similar in character to those of the\nParsee sun-god, and the rites which we have heard denounced as magic and\nwitchcraft were Mithraic ceremonies mingled with aboriginal customs.\nAlthough the divinity is essentially Persian, we cannot but regard the\nsecret worship as an Assyrian institution. M. Lajard has given an\naccount of this cultus, which so generally supplanted the mystic worship\nof the West.\n\nThe story of the temptation of Jesus, if read intelligently \u201cbetween the\nlines,\u201d will be seen to indicate the characteristics of the Mithraic\ninitiation. \u201cJesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by\nJohn. And straightway coming up out of the water he saw the heavens\nopened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him; and there came a\nvoice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well\npleased. And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness, and\nhe was there in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan\n[Anra-mainyas], and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered\nto him.\u201d\n\nThese different clauses relate to different parts of the mystic\nceremony.\n\nThe sojourn of the apostle Paul in Arabia, it is apparent, was for a\npurpose in close analogy with that of Jesus in the wilderness, as\nalready described. \u201cIt had pleased God,\u201d he says, \u201cto reveal [or unveil]\nhis Son in me;\u201d so, without conferring with anybody, he set forth on his\nholy errand, and upon his return began to preach a gospel which he\ndeclares was not according to man nor taught in lessons, but was\nreceived by the revelation. He was instructed at the fountain\nintuitively, and so was \u201cnot a whit behind the chiefest apostles.\u201d Hence\nin the utmost intensity of feeling he proclaimed, \u201cIf we, or even an\nangel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you, let him be accursed.\u201d\nHe goes on to recite the history of his career to show his entire\nindependence of Judaism and the other apostles, and dwells upon his\nabsolute rupture with Peter at Antioch on the ground of the adherence of\nthe latter to the discarded restrictions of that religion.\n\nThe question now becomes pertinent, What is the purport of this \u201cfaith\u201d?\nIn the fifteenth chapter of the First Corinthian Epistle he sets forth\nthe chief points as follows: \u201cI delivered unto you first of all that\nwhich I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to\nthe Scriptures; also that he was buried, and that he rose again the\nthird day, according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas,\nand after that of above five hundred brethren at once; after that he was\nseen of James, and then of all the apostles; and, last of all, he was\nseen of me also, as of one born out of due time.\u201d\n\nIt may appear strange to the common reader to be told that these\nmatters, which the apostle sets forth with so much apparent confidence,\nare _mystic and arcane the transcript of older theologies and\nconstituted throughout of astrologie symbolism._ The ancient faiths of\nthe different peoples contain doctrines and dramatic narrative closely\nanalogous with the evangelic story of Jesus. The later Persians had the\nlegend of Saoshyas (the savior), the son of the virgin Eredatferi, who\nconceives him in a miraculous manner. \u201cHe will appear and restore all\nthings, after which he will himself become subordinate, that the Creator\nmay be supreme and all in all.\u201d\n\nIn the Orphic drama, as it was performed by the Osians at the temple of\nApollo at Delphi, the birth of Zagreus of the holy maid Persephoneia as\nthe son of the Supreme Being, Zeus, is duly represented; then his\nproposed heirship of the universe, his passion and death; and finally\nhis restoration again into life through a reincarnation as son of the\nvirgin Semel\u00ea under the new name of _Dionysos_. The myth was Assyrian,\nSemel\u00ea being the same as Mylitta, the mystic mother, and her child,\nShamas Dian-nisi, or the personified Sun, the Judge or Lord of mankind.\n_The death, resurrection, and glorification of this Son of God\nwere celebrated in the mystic dramas of several countries._\n\nThe legends of Atys in Asia Minor, of Adonis or Tammuz in Syria, of\nOsiris in Egypt, were derived from the same source. They cover the same\nfield and have the same occult meaning. The apocalypse, or unveiling of\nthe mystic purport of the sacred dramas to those considered worthy and\ncompetent to understand them, was the great object of initiation. The\nGospels were regarded formerly as accounts of a tragedy of analogous\ncharacter. The higher functionaries of the Roman Catholic Church, we\nhave reason to believe, have this same view, which is more than hinted\nin several places. Paul speaks unequivocally in this way of his gospel\nand the preaching or heralding of Jesus Christ, \u201c_according to the\nrevelation or unfolding of the mystery now made known to all nations for\nthe obedience of faith._\u201d When the disciples asked of Jesus why he spoke\nto the common multitude in parables he makes this reply: \u201cUnto you it is\ngiven to know the mystery of the reign of God; but unto them that are\nwithout all these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see,\nand not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not understand.\u201d\n\nIn these religious stories there is a very similar general outline.\nThere is a divine parentage and a career given; then the Holy One is put\nto death, the corpse is brought in for burial, the tragic occurrence is\nmourned by women, and the ceremonial is concluded by his resuscitation\nand ascension. There were varied phases of the representation, but they\nalways had an intimate relation to the _seasons of the year and the\nanalogous occurrences in the world of nature_. Thus the supposed death\nmore frequently occurred at the beginning of spring, and was mourned for\na lenten period of forty days, which the vernal equinox brought to a\nclose. Then funeral rites were performed, and after three days, in the\ncase of Adonis, it was fabled that the god arose and ascended into the\nhigher sky. In the Dionysia or Bacchic rite the god descended into hell,\nthe world of death, and brought thence his virgin mother, that they\nmight be glorified together.\n\nThe Neo-Platonists taught that these occult rites were a form of\nrepresenting philosophic and religious dogmas as if in scenes of common\nlife by living persons, and of shadowing them by ceremonies and\nprocessions. This is more than hinted by Plato himself, and is\nundoubtedly true. The candidates were prepared for participation by long\nperiods of fasting and various purifications, moral and physical. The\nEleusinia consisted of a drama of several days in duration, in which the\nabduction, or rather death, of Persephon\u00e9 and the wanderings of her\nmother Demeter served as the veil or _myesis_ to the doctrine of\nresurrection and life of eternity. The author of _The Great Dionysiak\nMyth_ has ably presented the various forms of the Bacchic rites with the\nsame basis and d\u00e9nouement. Even the Hebrew Scriptures allude to the\nmatter. The \u201cmourning for the only one\u201d is mentioned by Jeremiah, Amos,\nand Zechariah.\n\nThat the story of Jesus was in like manner a drama for religious ends,\nconsisting of a miraculous parentage, a career of goodness, a passion,\ndeath, resurrection, and ascension, is, to say the least, no improbable\nsolution of the question.\n\nIt has also been noticed that the events of the seasons were denoted by\nthe mystic symbolism. The sun, stars, constellations, and earth are\ncommemorated in regard to their annual careers by these observances;\nwhether because they were essential to the physical well-being of man or\nwere especially appropriate for symbology different writers have\nconjectured differently, according to their own mental peculiarities.\nProbably both are right, so far as their views extend.\n\nIt becomes us now to investigate the drama of the Gospels more\ncarefully. The mythologic story of Mithras was probably Assyrian in\ndetail, though Persian in first conception. It embraced the same notions\nas were denoted by the mysteries of the Western peoples, and hence the\nMithraic worship in a very great degree superseded the arcane religions\nof Asia Minor and Europe. Very naturally, as may easily be perceived,\nthe _framework of the Gospel narrative is on the basis of these rites._\nThe influence of the other ancient faiths is also conspicuously\nmanifest. The physical, and particularly the astronomic, features are\neverywhere present in the external structure of Christianity. Sir Isaac\nNewton was quick to perceive that the festivals of the Church had been\nfixed and arranged upon the observed phenomena of the heavens, and gave\na detailed list of correspondences. It was not prudent, however, even in\nhis time, for a man to say all he knew, and he carefully avoided the\ndrawing of any conclusions which might encourage further inquiry in that\ndirection.\n\nIt has already been suggested that the gospel of Paul was at the bottom\nEssenean and Mithraic; and in accordance with that hypothesis the\ncrucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension would _be solar\nand astrologic events_. The Essenes, as well as the other\nMithras-worshippers, adored the sun and greeted his rising with\ninvocations and sacred chants. The death and resurrection were\n\u201caccording to the Scriptures.\u201d In other words, they were duly set forth\nafter the manner of literal occurrences in the sacred books of the\nEssenes long before Paul was born. The adepts of that fraternity\nunderstood the matter, and the hostility which they and the other\ndisciples always exhibited toward the great apostle was because he\ndivulged too much. His writings contained many _dysnoetic_ matters,\nPeter declared\u2014many matters of higher knowledge improperly expressed,\nwhich they that are unlearned and unstable might wrest to their own\nhurt. According to the scriptures of the brotherhood, the drama of the\nGospel had its d\u00e9nouement in the passion and tragedy of Jesus. Paul,\nlike a genuine adept, has accepted this narrative as the basis of his\ngospel; nevertheless, as though aware that it is a figurative rather\nthan a literal occurrence, he nowhere speaks of the crucifixion as a\ncrime.\n\nWe use the term _drama_ in this connection from a deliberate purpose,\nbecause we believe it correct. It was the designation of the matters\nrepresented in the Eleusinian, Dionysiac, and other arcane rites. The\ntheatre of the Greeks consisted of such tragic and other\nrepresentations, which were performed at the temples of Bacchus and\n\u00c6sculapius. Our modern theatre originated in like manner from the\nmysteries and mir-acle-plays of the Middle Ages, in which monks and\npriests acted the parts of the different persons of the Gospel drama.\nThe \u201cPassion Play,\u201d which excites so much interest in these modern\ntimes, is very suggestive, but little understood by sacerdotalists.\n\nThe Christian worship in the earlier centuries was not so unlike or\nincongruous with the pagan customs as may have been supposed. The\nemperor Hadrian, when in Egypt, was forcibly impressed with the apparent\nidentity of the worshippers of Serapis with those of Christ. \u201cThose who\nworship Serapis are Christians,\u201d he declared, \u201cand those who call\nthemselves Christian bishops are devotees of Serapis. The very patriarch\nhimself when he came into Egypt was said by some to worship Serapis and\nby others to worship Christ.\u201d\n\nThe same ambiguity prevailed in the case of Christianity where it had\nbeen in contact with the arcane worship of Mithras. Seel endeavors to\nexplain the matter as one of policy. He states that the early Christians\nin Germany for the most part ostensibly paid worship to the Roman gods\nin order to escape persecution. He makes a supposition as regards the\nadoption of the secret religion. \u201cIt is by no means improbable,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cthat under the permitted symbols of Mithras they worshipped the Son\nof God and the mysteries of Christianity. In this point of view,\u201d he\nadds, \u201cthe Mithraic monuments so frequent in Germany are evidences of\nthe secret faith of the early Christian Romans.\u201d We are not ready to\naccept this notion that the Christians paid homage to one God, meaning\nanother at the same time, except on the hypothesis that they regarded\nMithras and Jesus as virtually the same personification. This conclusion\nseems to be countenanced by Augustine, the celebrated bishop of Hippo.\n\u201cI know,\u201d says he, \u201cthat the worshippers of the divinity in the cap [the\nstatues of Mithras were decorated with the red Phrygian or cardinal\u2019s\ncap] used to say, \u2018Our god in the cap is Christian.\u2019\u201d\n\nThat the crucifixion of Christ was not a literal historic occurrence\nseems to require no argument. Besides, the first day of the Passover was\nnever a Friday, nor can it be according to the established principles of\nthe Jewish calendar. The account in the three synoptic Gospels is\ntherefore manifestly not correct as a literal occurrence; and the\nunknown writer of the Gospel of John has lamely attempted to evade the\ndifficulty by placing the crucifixion on the day before the Passover.\n\nThere was a mystic reason, however, for this statement of the synoptic\nGospels. The story of the crucifixion had the same occult meaning as\nthat of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. The forty days in\nwhich Jesus \u201cshowed himself alive after his passion\u201d corresponded with\nthe forty years of wandering in the wilderness. Hence, as the Israelites\nleft Egypt on the first day of the Passover, so Jesus was also crucified\non that day. Not being an historical event, one actually occurring, the\nstatement was permitted in order to preserve the harmony and identity of\nthe myths.\n\nAs, however, the story is astrological, we need only explain that the\nsun crossing the equinoctial line at the 21st of March is thus\ncrucified, the ecliptic and the equator constituting the real cross in\nthe form of the letter X. On the third day he appears ascending in the\nnorthern hemisphere, and so is \u201craised again according to the\nScriptures.\u201d\n\nPaul, while referring to these matters as _apparently historical_, never\ndeparts from their _symbolic_ import. In fact, he dwells upon this so\nemphatically that the events are only mentioned for the purpose of\nindicating his meaning more definitely. \u201cI am crucified with Christ,\u201d\nsays he; \u201cthey that are of Christ have crucified the flesh with its\naffections and lusts.\u201d Nobody will for a moment imagine that this\ncrucifixion meant any physical violence, but only a \u00e7asting off of those\ndispositions which are essentially unspiritual. \u201cOur old man is\ncrucified,\u201d Paul explains again, \u201cin order that the body of sin might be\ndestroyed;... likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto\nsin, but alive unto God.\u201d This is the real meaning of the death and\nresurrection as a spiritual matter. The external history which is so\nmuch insisted upon by the partisans of the letter vanishes utterly away\nbefore the eyes of him who perceives as well as sees, and understands\nthrough intelligence rather than by scientific and logical reasoning.\n\nThe early Fathers of the Church never scrupled to employ rites, symbols,\nand other agencies which had been previously used by the various\npriesthoods of the\u2019 pagan worships. The entire biography of Jesus, as it\nis set forth in the Gospels, exhibits unequivocally astrological\nfeatures, and a resemblance to the narratives of the gods so close as to\nbe equivalent almost to actual identity. The miraculous conception was\nbut a counterpart of many others: Atys, Adonis, Hercules, Bacchus, and\n\u00c6sculapius were fabled to have been sons of gods by human mothers. The\n25th of December was also the birthday of Mithras; and Chrysostom, with\ncharacteristic sophistry and equivocation, explains the matter and\njustifies it as follows: \u201cOn this day also the birthday of Christ was\nlately fixed at Rome, in order that while the heathen were busied with\ntheir profane ceremonies the Christians might perform their holy rites\nundisturbed.\u201d He adds: \u201cThey call this the birthday of the Invincible\nOne: who so invincible as the Lord that overthrew and conquered death?\nThey style it the birthday of the sun; he is the Sun of righteousness of\nwhom Malachi speaks: \u2018Upon you who fear my name the Sun of righteousness\nshall arise with healing in his wings.\u2019\u201d\n\nAt the very outset a serious difficulty is encountered. When the Roman\nemperor Theodosius, fifteen centuries ago, decreed the universal\nauthority of the Christian Church, he commanded also that all books of\nthe philosophers and others not according to the new faith should be\ndestroyed. This leaves only the collection known as the _New Testament_\nand the writings of certain theologians, together with certain Gospels,\nEpistles, and Apocalypses denominated apocryphal which were extant\nduring the earlier centuries of our era. In addition to this, there is\ninternal evidence in the writings now regarded as canonical that they\nhave been abridged, added to, and changed, so that the sense is more or\nless obscured and doctrines are affirmed which were not in the original\ndocuments.\n\nWith the exception, perhaps, of some of the Epistles of Paul, James, and\nFirst Peter there is no evidence, or even probability, that any other\nbook of the New Testament, whether Gospel, Epistle, or Apocalypse, was\nwritten, or even known, by the individual whose name it bears. Indeed,\nit is well known among students that the practice was formerly common to\nappend the name of some distinguished personage to a letter or treatise\nand put it forth with this to commend it. \u201cOur ancestors,\u201d says the\nphilosopher Jamblichus, \u201cused to inscribe their own writings with the\nname of Herm\u00e8s, he being as common property to all the priests.\u201d Very\nsignificant, therefore, is the clause \u201caccording to\u201d which occurs in the\ntitle of every one of the four Gospels. Each of them has been in\nexistence some fifteen or sixteen centuries \u201cwithout father, without\nmother,\u201d or any other voucher or guarantee as evidence of the truth of\nthe statements which it contains. We have no obligation to hesitate in\nour avowal that not one of the four reputed evangelists had anything to\ndo with the production to which his name is affixed. The works must\nstand upon their intrinsic merits, and receive consideration\naccordingly.\n\nTwo centuries had passed away after the beginning of the present era\nbefore the designation of _New Testament_ was used in connection with\nany collection of writings, and before any special authority was claimed\nfor them. The men who first suggested their canonicity were Iren\u00e6us of\nLyons, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian of Carthage. Neither of\nthese men, so far as is known, made any attempt to demonstrate that any\nbook of the collection was genuine or authentic. Professor Davidson has\ndeclared in regard to the scribes who made the copies of the books of\nthe _Old Testament_ that they did not refrain from changing what had\nbeen written or inserting fresh matter. The same course has been taken\nlikewise with the text of the New Testament. Heretics and orthodox alike\nadded to its matter in order to establish their peculiar dogmas. The\ntext is nowhere pure. The doctrines of the Trinity, the Nativity of\nJesus, his Godhead and equality with the Father, the story of Mary, were\nall introduced from Egypt and engrafted into the Gospels.\n\nJesus is represented as having been born in a cave or stable at the\nmoment of midnight. At that period the constellation Virgo is cut\nexactly in half by the eastern horizon, the sun itself being beneath in\nthe zodiacal sign of Capricorn, which was also called \u201cthe Stable of\nAugeas\u201d that Hercules was set to cleanse. Justin Martyr corroborates\nthis by stating that Christ was born when the sun (Mithras) takes his\nbirth in the stable of Augeas, coming as a second Hercules to cleanse a\nfoul world. Hence the rosary of the Roman Catholic Church has this\nservice: \u201cLet us contemplate how the Blessed Virgin Mary, when the time\nof her delivery was come, brought forth our Redeemer at midnight and\nlaid him in a manger.\u201d\n\nBy the cave, or _petra_, we may understand the cave of initiation, which\nwas always employed in ancient mystic rites. There was such a cave at\nBethlehem, and Jerome affirms that the mysteries of Adonis were\ncelebrated there in his time. Justin has preserved the tradition that\nMithras was born in a cave or petra, and Porphyry asserts that his rites\nwere observed in caves representing the vault of the heavens. The famous\ndeclaration to Peter owes all its significance to this fact: \u201cThou art\nPeter, and upon this rock (petra) I will build my Church; and the gates\nof hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys\nof the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall\nbe bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be\nloosed in heaven.\u201d Undoubtedly, this passage is an interpolation;\nnevertheless, it is susceptible of explanation. Jesus having asked the\ntwelve apostles who he was said to be, they reply: the \u201creincarnation\u201d\nof this or that prophet, as it was believed that such rebirth was usual\namong men. Peter then avows that he is the Son of God.\n\nSignificantly, Peter is not a Jewish proper name, but relates to\nfunction. It is a Semitic word denoting an interpreter of oracles. The\npriests of Apollo among the Gauls were denominated _pater\u0153_, as having\nthe gift of prophecy. The residence of Balaam the prophet was called\n_Petur_, and there were oracles of Apollo at Patrai in Achaia and Patara\nin Asia Minor. When, therefore, it is announced that the Church would be\nbuilt \u201cupon this rock,\u201d we may understand it to be the apostle\u2019s\noracular utterance that Jesus was the Son of God. The Church that was\nthus established consisted solely of adepts and initiates, the clergy\nonly, and the higher functionaries at that. The laity only _belong to_\nthe Church: the others _are_ the Church.\n\nThe Roman Catholic hierarchy have for centuries caused the fiction to be\npromulgated that the apostle Peter founded the universal see of Rome.\nThis is like the mystic utterances of Jesus in speaking to the multitude\nin parables. The pope, cardinals, and prelates know the real truth.\nThere never took place, so far as any historical evidence exists, any\nvisit, and much less the martyrdom, of the apostle Peter at Rome. The\npope is not the successor of any Christian apostle whatever, but only of\nthe pagan high priest. Under the republic and emperors the _pontifex\nmaximus_ was the supreme religious dignitary. Julius C\u00e6sar held that\noffice. He presided over the worship and interpreted the sacred oracles.\nIt was a direction in the secret religion never to change the foreign\nnames. The Chaldaic designation of the supreme pontiff and hierophant\nwas _peter_. When the ancient worship was suppressed the Roman bishop\nsucceeded to the pontificate; and by this exaltation became vicar of the\nLord and successor of the peter or pagan pontiff of Rome.\n\nThe tradition of the Magi or wise men coming from the east to worship\nthe infant Jesus, which was prefixed to the Gospel of Matthew, is pretty\nwell set forth by the names given them: _Kaspar_, the white one;\n_Melchior_, the king of light; and _Balthasar_, the lord of treasures.\nThe additional legend that they travelled to Germany and were buried at\nCologne grew out of the fact that the Mithraic worship was prevalent in\nthat region.\n\nIt should be borne in mind, while considering the astrologic character\nof the story of Jesus, that the divis-ion of the apparent path of the\nsun among the stars into the constellations which form the zodiac was\nmade and known throughout the Oriental world and employed in its\nreligious myths at an antiquity so remote as not to be known when the\nplan was devised. Astrological correspondences are carefully maintained\nall through the gospel narrative. The apostles represent the twelve\nmonths, each of them being sent or commissioned to announce him (the\nsun) to the people.\n\nThe special events and their dates are commemorated by the Church so as\nto be coincident with astrological data. The designation \u201cLamb of God\u201d\ncomes directly from the fact that the crucifixion was placed at the time\nthe sun crosses the equinoctial line in March, and so entered the\nzodiacal sign of Aries, the Lamb. He was thus \u201cslain before the\nfoundation of the world,\u201d or year, and takes away the sins or evils of\nwinter. Having descended into hell, or the winter period, he rises from\nthe dead. He is now enthroned; the four beasts, denoting the four chief\nconstellations in each quarter of the zodiacal circle\u2014Taurus, Leo,\nAquila, and Aquarius\u2014adore him, and the twenty-four elders (or hours)\nfall down and worship him. The miracle of turning water into wine is\ndone every year, as Addison has sung,:\n\n                    \u201cMay the sun refine\n    The grape\u2019s soft juice and mellow it to wine.\u201d\n\nThe curse of the fig tree is visited on every plant that is feeble and\npoorly rooted when the sun\u2019s heat comes upon it. John the Baptist says\nof Jesus: \u201cHe must increase, but I must decrease.\u201d The 24th of June, St.\nJohn\u2019s Day, is the last of the summer solstice, from which period the\ndays shorten, as, on the contrary, from the 25th of December, the natal\nday of Jesus, they lengthen. \u201cThis is the sixth month with her that was\ncalled barren,\u201d said the angel Gabriel to Mary on the 25th of March, the\nAnnunciation, nine months before Christmas. On the 15th of August the\nChurch celebrates the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin into the heavenly\nchamber of the King of kings, and accordingly the constellation Virgo\n(or Astr\u00e6a) also disappears, being eclipsed by the light and glory of\nthe sun. This disappearance continues seven days. Miriam, the virgin\nsister of Moses and Aaron, doubtless also an astral character, was\nsecluded seven days while leprous. Three weeks later the sun has moved\non in the sky, permitting the constellation again to appear; and\naccordingly the Church celebrates the 8th of September as the\nanniversary of the nativity of the Blessed Virgin.\n\nThe prominent pagan symbols which are now adopted by the Christian\nprelacy are generally astronomical. Astrology and religion always went\nhand in hand, and have not been legally divorced. At an earlier period\nthe sun entered the zodiacal sign of Taurus at the vernal equinox. This\nfact led to the adoption of the bull or calf as a symbol of the Deity.\nWe notice this fact all over the ancient world, and in some modern\npeoples that have not had a learned caste of priests. Every 2152 years\nthe zodiac shifts backward one sign\u2014i. e. one-twelfth of its whole\nextent. Hence, eventually, Aries, the Ram or Lamb, took the place of the\nBull to represent the god of spring. The paschal lamb, the ram-headed\ngod Amen of Egypt, and the lamb of Christian symbolism thus came into\nexistence. Since that the constellation Pisces has become the\nequinoctial sign, and the Fish is the symbol of the Church. Hence the\nbishop of Rome employs the seal of the fisherman, and the Gospel\nnarrative has made St. Peter a \u201cfisher.\u201d In this way the entire passion\nof Jesus from the crucifixion to the ascension is astronomic.\n\nThe Roman Catholic Church, having the superior understanding of the\nmatter, holds Protestants in derision for making a fetish of the Bible\nand worshipping the sun, while not comprehending the matter\nintelligently. Indeed, it is known by every intelligent priest that the\nsun and phallic symbols characterize every world-religion. No matter\nwhat attempts are made to disguise the matter, such is the fact. That\nthe sun is the light of the world needs but a mention; and so is Jesus\nas the avat\u00e2r or personification. The cross on which he is impaled was a\nsymbol of the phallic worship thousands of years ago. The form may be an\nX, f, or f, but it means the same. He is buried in winter and\nresuscitated in the spring.\n\nThus, to recapitulate: The Christian religion consists of the worship of\na divine being incarnated in human form in order to redeem fallen man,\nborn of a virgin, teaching immortality, working wonders, dying through\nthe machinations of the evil one, rising from death, re-ascending into\nheaven, and to be the judge of the living and dead. The Mithraic\nworship, its great rival and counterpart, was constituted with similar\nimagery. The festivals appointed in honor of Mithras were fixed in\naccordance with the seasons of the year, his birth being at the end of\nthe solstice in December, his death directly after the equinox in March.\nChrist, being like Mithras, the personification of the sun and lord of\nthe cosmos, enacts a career on earth corresponding in its principal\nparts to that of the sun in the heavens. The Holy Spirit as a wind or\natmosphere is the herald of his advent. The Virgin is the moon, the\nmother of the sun and queen of heaven, just as she was in the pagan\nworld under different names.\n\nOften also at evening we witness the sun undergoing a bloody passion and\ndying amid the reddened sky, leaving to the one whom he loves the moon\nas his mother.\n\nSo conscious is the Church of its descent in direct line from the former\npaganism that it has adopted the symbols of its predecessor and placed\nmany of the old gods in its catalogue of saints along with the Assyrian\narchangels. Bacchus appears there as St. Bacchus, St. Denis or\nDionysius, St. Liber, St. Eleutherius, St. Lyacus. Priapus is there as\nSt. Foutin, St. Cosmo, and St. Damian. The nymph Aura Placida is St.\nAura and St. Placida. There is also St. Bibiana, whose anniversary\noccurs on the day of the Grecian festival of tapping the wine-casks. The\nstar Margarita has become St. Margaret, and Hippolytus the son of\nTheseus, the hero-founder of the Athenian polity, has also been\ncanonized. The true image, or _veraicon_, has become St. Veronica, as\nthe supreme hierophant of Roman paganism is St. Peter. Then, too, there\nare sainted dogmas personified, as St. Perpetua, St. F\u00e9licitas, St.\nRogatian, St. Donatian, etc. There are also St. Abraham, St. Michael,\nSt. Gabriel, St. David, and St. Patrick, whose anniversary falls on that\nof his well-known predecessor, Pater Liber, the Roman Bacchus. The keys\nof the Italian Janus and the Phrygian Kybel\u00e9 are now held by the pope as\nthe keys of the kingdom of heaven.\n\nThere is not a feature, symbol, ceremony, or dogma in the Church which\ndid not have a pagan prototype. Another fact is equally curious. While\nthe worship of Mithras is the evident origin of the Christian cultus,\nthe Lamas of Thibet in the heart of Asia also have ecclesiastical\norders, ceremonies, and other institutions which are the almost literal\ncounterpart of those of Rome.\n\nWhether there ever was really such an individual living on the earth as\nJesus of Nazareth becomes, in view of these facts, a minor question.\nMyth, legend, tradition, and fancy have so transformed him that there is\nno nucleus of original humanity left in sight. He is almost absolutely\nwithout an historical mention. He has become a _myth, a\npersonification_, whether he was really a man or not. He is therefore an\n_ideal_, and not _real_. The passages in Josephus are unquestionable\nforgeries. Tacitus speaks of him as having been crucified under Pilate,\nbut in no way as an occurrence to be vouched for. Suetonius in his life\nof Claudius C\u00e6sar states that the emperor banished the Jews from Rome\nbecause they raised sedition under the instigation of one Chr\u00eastos. If\nthis is to be considered as meaning the reputed founder of the Christian\nreligion, the orthography of the name is very suggestive. Godfrey\nHiggins declares in his _Anacalypsis_ that it was the original term\nused, and was changed to Chreistos and Christ for ecclesiastical\nreasons. He was of opinion also that transcribers had made these\nalterations in the books of the New Testament. Chr\u00eastos was a title of\nApollo and other divinities, and was conferred upon the better class of\ncitizens in certain Grecian states. Once the term is applied to Jesus in\nthe first Epistle of Peter: \u201cThe Lord is Chr\u00ebstos.\u201d The probabilities\nfavor the supposition, the term Messiah, which is the Hebrew equivalent\nfor Christ, being nowhere used except in the fourth chapter of the\nGospel of John to designate Jesus, and that being a doubtful passage.\n\nThere are few data remaining that indicate the character of Jesus. So\nfar as these are definitive they exhibit a close relationship to the\nEssenean brotherhood.\n\nDuring the reign of Herod I., Hillel, a Babylonian, became president of\nthe Sanhedrim. He was thus the recognized head of the school, his\nopponents being known as Shammaites. Both parties professed to be the\ncustodians of the Kabala or traditions of the ancients. These comprised\nthe arcane literature of the Jews, which was to be kept carefully away\nfrom the laity. The Hillelites appear to have been more tenacious of\nprinciples, but the Shammaites were very captious in regard to the\nminutiae. The _Logia_, or aphorisms, imputed to Jesus accord with the\nutterances of Hillel, and in a degree justify the opinion of the Rabbis.\n\nThe relations of the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem and his early abode at\nNazareth are of the character of myth, and serve to indicate his\nassociation with the Essenes. Bethlehem was the reputed birthplace of\nKing David, and afterward the prophet Micah, depicting the rise of\nHezekiah as the messiah and liberator of Judea from the Assyrian yoke,\nassigns his origin to the same place. This latter prince could not have\nbeen the son of Ahaz, whom he is said to have succeeded, having been\nborn when that king was but ten or eleven years old. That the dynasty of\nAhaz was overthrown is intimated in the declaration of Isaiah (7: 9),\nand by his announcement of the accession of a new prince (9: 6, 7; 11:1,\netc.). The town of Bethlehem and the places about are enumerated in the\nsecond chapter of First Chronicles as containing \u201cthe families of the\nscribes,\u201d \u201cthe Kenites,\u201d from whom proceeded the Rechabites of later\ntimes. These Kenites appear to have been a sacerdotal and literary\ntribe, like the Magians of Media. They are said to have lived near the\ncity of palm trees (Judges 1:16), and to have removed into the southern\npart of the Judean territory. Moses was described as having intermarried\nand been adopted among them, and the kings Saul and David were more or\nless familiar with them. Saul found them when be marched against the\nAmalekites, and David sent them presents, as being accustomed in his\ncareer as an outlaw to \u201chaunt\u201d their region. Elijah the prophet is said\nto have gone into their country when he was driven out of the kingdom of\nSamaria.\n\nThe birth of Jesus at Bethlehem would seem, therefore, to have some\nmystic reference to this people, as well as to the notion of a lineal\ndescent from David. His abode in the earlier years of life at Nazareth\nwas evidently a myth of kindred nature. Curiously enough, the writer of\nthe first chapter of Luke has represented Mary as a resident of\nNazareth, while the second chapter of Matthew describes Joseph as taking\nup his abode there incidentally, fulfilling the word of the Essenean\nprophets: \u201cHe will be called a Nazarene,\u201d or Nazarite. The Esseneans\nwere also denominated _Nazarim_, and we may perceive the idea suggested\nby the name that Jesus belonged to their body. It was a common mode of\nwriting, to describe an every-day occurrence in a form conveying a\nmystic or occult meaning beneath the apparent statement. The character\nof Jesus as a prophet and representative personage is thus actually\nsignified. His birth in the country of the Kenites and adepts betokened\nhis consecration and separation, while the residence at Nazareth\ntypified his Essenean relations.\n\nThe congregation of disciples at Jerusalem and their sympathizers in\nPalestine were designated as Nazore-ans and Ebionim. It is no great\nstretch of imagination to presume them to have been an offshoot of the\nEssenean brotherhood. These were zealous propagandists, and their modes\nof life and action coincide very closely with those of the early Church.\nThe writers of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles describe the\napostles and their converts as living after the manner of an Essenean\ncommune. Jesus \u201cordained twelve that they should be with him;... and\nthey went into a house,\u201d or became as one family. This was precisely\nlike the Essenes and Therapeut\u00e6. \u201cIn the first place,\u201d says Philo, \u201cnot\none of them has a house of his own which does not belong to all of\nthem.\u201d For besides their living together in large societies, each house\nis also open to every visiting brother of the order. \u201cFurthermore, all\nof them have one store of provisions and equal expenses; they have their\ngarments in common, as they do with their provisions. They reside\ntogether, eat together, and have everything in common to an extent as it\nis carried out nowhere else.\u201d Hence we read without surprise that the\nmultitude came about them, so that they could not so much as eat bread.\nThe apostolic congregation is also described as imitating the same form\nof living: \u201cAll that believed were together and had all things common;\nand sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all of them as\nevery one had need.... Neither said any of them that aught of the things\nwhich he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Neither\nwas there any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of\nlands or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were\nsold and laid them down at the apostles\u2019 feet; and distribution was made\nunto every man as he had need.\u201d For a time the apostles, it is stated,\nwere stewards of the whole body, teaching them and supplying them with\nfood, till finally seven Hellenistic Jews were selected and set apart\nfor that purpose.\n\nEusebius comments upon the account given by Philo of the Therapeut\u00e6, as\nfollows: \u201cThese facts appear to have been stated by a man (Philo), who\nat least has paid attention to those that have expounded the sacred\nwritings. But it is highly probable that the ancient commentaries which\nhe says they have are the very Gospels and writings of the apostles, and\nprobably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained\nin the Epistle to the Hebrews and many others of St. Paul\u2019s Epistles....\nWhy need we add an account of their meetings, and the separate abodes of\nmen and women in these meetings, and the exercises performed by them,\nwhich are still in vogue among us at the present day; and which,\nespecially at the festival of our Saviour\u2019s passion, we are accustomed\nto use in our fastings and watchings and in the study of the divine\nword! All these the above-mentioned author has accurately described and\nstated in his writings; and they are the same customs that are observed\nby us alone at the present day, particularly the vigils of the great\nfestivals, and the exercises in them and the hymns that are commonly\nrecited among us. He states that whilst one sings gracefully with a\ncertain measure, the others, listening in silence, join in singing the\nfinal clauses of the hymns; also that on the above-mentioned days they\nlie on straw spread on the ground, and, to use his own words, they\nabstain altogether from wine and taste no flesh. Water is their only\ndrink, and the relish of their bread, salt, and hyssop. Besides this, he\ndescribes the grades of dignity among those who administer the\necclesiastical services committed to them\u2014those of the deacons and\npresident of the episcopate as the highest. But whosoever desires to\nhave a more accurate knowledge of these things may learn them from the\nhistory already cited; but that Philo, when he wrote those statements,\nhad in view the first heralds of the gospel and the original practices\nhanded down from the apostles must be obvious to all\u201d\n\nAs if to afford further foundation for this conjecture of identity of\nthe early disciples with the Ebionites, the Greek word for this\ndesignation, \u201cptochos,\u201d usually translated \u201cpoor\u201d and \u201cbeggar,\u201d occurs\nin the New Testament in a manner which often suggests that the Ebionites\nare meant by the designation.\n\n\u201cHappy the poor in spirit,\u201d says the Sermon on the Mount; \u201cfor the\nkingdom of the heavens is theirs.\u201d \u201cThe gospel is preached to them\u201d was\nthe message sent to John the Baptist in his prison at Macheras. \u201cIf thou\nwilt be perfect,\u201d says Jesus to the young man, \u201cgo, sell that thou hast,\nand give to the poor.\u201d In the Gospel according to St Luke (6: 20) Jesus\nactually addresses his disciples as \u201cye poor,\u201d or Ebionim. Lazarus is\ncalled _Ptochos, or Ebioni_, in the sixteenth chapter. Paul sternly\nrebukes the Galatian Christians for their conversion to Ebionism: \u201cBut\nthen, not having seen God, you were servants to those that are not gods;\nbut now having known God, or rather having been known by God, why do you\nturn about again to the weak and beggarly elements?\u201d\n\nNevertheless, the conclusion of Eusebius, that the Essenes or Therapeut\u00e6\nwere only Christians of the apostolic age, is impossible. They were of\ngreater antiquity, and flourished when Christians\u2014or _Chrestians_,\nwhichever they may be\u2014had never been heard of. The converse is more\nprobable by far\u2014that the apostles and their Ebionite followers were\nreligionists after the form of the Essenes.\n\nWe have indicated the evident similarity of these sectaries with the\nMithraic initiates, and the fact has also been shown that many of the\nChristians of the first centuries also observed the rites of that\nworship. That the astrological features of each were identical and are\nmanifest in the story of Jesus has also been illustrated. We may now\ntreat the final question, that of the person of Jesus himself.\n\nIt is the easiest way just now to concede his physical existence, and\nreject the marvels, exaggerations, and other incredibilities of the\nGospel narratives. A Roman Catholic writer of great acuteness has marked\nout that very course. He explains his position so aptly that we will\nreproduce the principal features, which certainly seem in a great degree\nto sustain our proposition. \u201cWhere intellect sees an idea, an\nabstraction,\u201d says he, \u201creligion sees a person. This involves a superior\ndevelopment of the consciousness; inasmuch while intellect of itself,\nhaving neither motive nor force, could not have created, personality\nincludes intellect and all else that is indispensable to action\u2014namely,\nfeeling and energy.\u201d\n\nHe sets forth Christianity as a religion in Palestine \u201cwhich consisted\nin the worship of a Divine Being incarnated in human form in order to\nredeem fallen man, born of a virgin, teaching immortality, working\nwonders of benevolence, dying through the hostile machinations of the\nspirit of evil, rising from death, reascend-ing into heaven, and\nbecoming judge of the dead. As representative of the sun the festivals\nappointed in his honor were fixed in accordance with the seasons, his\nbirth being at the end of the winter solstice; his death at the spring\nequinox; his rising soon afterward, and then his ascension into heaven,\nwhence he showers down benefits on man.\u201d\n\nThe same author indicates the Essenes as cherishing these beliefs:\n\u201cDeriving their tenets from the East, they believed in the Persian\ndualism, regarded the sun as the impersonation of the Supreme Light, and\nworshipped it in a modified way.\u201d He adds: \u201cTo the sect of the Essenes\nthe originals of John the Baptist and Jesus must have belonged.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe may possess a trustworthy account of the spirit that was in Jesus,\u201d\nhe says again, \u201cand yet be altogether in the dark respecting his precise\nsayings and doings. The condition of the world at this period being such\nas I have described, it was inevitable that any impressive personality\nwhose career enabled such things, with however small a modicum of truth,\nto be predicated of it as were predicated of Jesus, should be seized\nupon and appropriated to the purposes of a new religion....\n\n\u201cFor the masses the spectacle of an heroic crusade against the\nauthority, respectability, and pharisaism of an established\necclesiasticism, combined with complete self-devotion, with teaching of\nthe most absolute perfection in morals\u2014a perfection readily recognizable\nby the intuitive perceptions of all\u2014and with a confident mysticism that\nseemed to imply unbounded supernatural knowledge\u2014_all characteristics of\nthe sect of Essenes to which he and the Baptist manifestly\nbelonged_,\u2014these were amply sufficient to win belief in Jesus as a\ndivine personage. And especially so when they found him persistently\nreported not only as having performed miracles in his life, but as\nhaving shown that traditional superiority to all the limitation of\nhumanity which was ascribed to their previous divinities by rising from\nthe dead and ascending into heaven. Familiar as they were with the\nnotion of incarnations in which the sun played a principal part, and\naccustomed to associate such events with virgin mothers impregnated by\ndeities, births in stables or caves, hazardous careers in the exercise\nof benevolence, violent deaths, and descents into the kingdom of\ndarkness, resurrections and ascensions into heaven, to be followed by\nthe descent of blessings upon mankind,\u2014it required but the suggestion\nthat Jesus of Nazareth was a new and nobler incarnation of the Deity,\nwho had so often before been incarnate and put to death for man\u2019s\nsalvation, to transfer to him the whole paraphernalia of doctrine and\nrite deemed appropriate to the office.\u201d\n\nThere appears no reasonable doubt of the relationship of Jesus to the\nEssenean brothers. Not only does the name itself imply a personification\nof that peculiar people, but he is represented as uttering their\ndistinctive doctrines. In the Sermon on the Mount he required from his\ndisciples, as did the Essenean teachers, a righteousness exceeding that\nof the Scribes and Pharisees; and the Beatitudes are distinctly of the\nsame character. He prohibits the oath, as the Esseneans also did,\nenjoined non-resistance to violent assault and forgiveness of injuries,\nand exhorted to take no thought for the morrow, which he described as\nserving Mammon. He also charged against divulging the interior\ndoctrines, comparing it to giving the holy bread to dogs and casting\npearls to the swine, the latter treading the precious jewels under foot\nand the dogs turning to rend the giver. Indeed, the whole discourse is\none which a teacher of the fraternity would deliver to candidates.\n\u201cThese things,\u201d he declares, \u201care hid from the wise and prudent, but are\nrevealed to babes.\u201d When his disciples demur at his rigid tenets in\nregard to marriage, permitting divorce only for lewdness or false\nreligion, he sanctions their inference that it is not good to marry. \u201cHe\nthat is able to receive this doctrine,\u201d added he, \u201clet him receive it.\u201d\nTo the young man who desired to know the way to perfection he first gave\na reproof for calling him good when there was no one so but the one God,\nand then commanded him to sell all his possessions and give to the\n_poor_, probably meaning the _Ebionim_. In the parable in Luke the rich\nman after death is tormented, while the other, the _ptochos_ or Ebionite\nLazarus, is compensated in the lap of Abraham. Yet except the few cases\nwhen the terms \u201cbrethren\u201d and \u201cdisciple\u201d are used there are few direct\nreferences to the Essenes. But he is continually exhorting against the\ndoctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and denouncing the former.\nMeanwhile, he nowhere fills a page in history. He has left no mark of\nhis individual existence.\n\nWe have observed that Judaism was chiefly the counterpart of Persian\nMazdaism, the Supreme Being, the seven Amesha-spentas, Yazatas, Evil\nSpirit and devas, being reproduced in Jehovah with his angels and seven\narchangels, Satan and his wicked crew. Essenism, in turn, appears to\nhave been a form of the Persian religion, including the worship of the\nsun, astral and prophetic doctrines, occult science, a cultus and\nsacraments; and as the Persian doctrines were ascribed to the unknown\nZarathustra, so those of the Essenean brotherhood are personified in the\ncharacter of a gifted teacher, born on the natal day of Mithras,\ninculcating truth and right action, and in every way representing and\npersonifying the religious system. This was, as has been observed, a\ncommon practice in former times. As soon as we consider _Jesus as\nEssenism personified_ we find the difficulties vanish which every other\ntheory presents. But Essenism was much older than the Christian era,\ndespite the pretense of Eusebius of the absolute identity of Essenes and\nthe early Christians. We may also remark that there are fragments of\nbooks in existence which treat of a Jew, the son of a soldier and\ntemple-woman, who exhibits characteristics of the Jesus of the Gospels\nsufficient to intimate the identity of the two. They place his career in\nthe time of the earlier Asmonean kings, about the period when the\nEssenes are first mentioned by that name. We do not attach great\nimportance to these works, except for the fact that they would not have\nappeared, unless there had existed a comprehensive account of some kind,\nparabolic or historic, to suggest their preparation. The _Toldoth\nJeshu_, or Generations of Jesus, to which we refer, has several\ncharacteristics which are worth noting. The father of Jesus, being a\nsoldier, probably denoted a \u201csoldier of Mithras,\u201d and the alma or\nBlessed Virgin, a Hebrew maiden set apart for a time, as was the\npractice for young maids in Athens, to work and be initiated at the\ntemple. It is also asserted that Jesus spent a season in Egypt, where he\nlearned magic. The Therapeut\u00e6 had communes in that country as well as in\nArabia and Palestine, and were addicted to the study of medical\nknowledge, astrology, and other arts, which, being derived from the Magi\nor priest-caste of the East, were denominated magic. This term\noriginally carried with it no reproachful meaning, but meant all\nlearning of a liberal character, and occult science was only such\nknowledge as was considered too sacred for profane individuals. \u201cHe who\npours water into a muddy well,\u201d says Jamblichus, \u201cdoes but disturb the\nmud.\u201d Doubtless the primitive Essenean gospel described Jesus as a young\nman of rare qualities, the son of a Mithraic or Essenean adept, who was\ninstructed at the school of Alexandria or in the priest-colleges of\nancient Egypt, and became expert in the technic of religious and\nscientific wisdom. Thus, the great Siddartha was taught by the Jaina\nsage Mahavira before he became himself a teacher and a sage. As the\nsacraments of the Church are like the observances of the Essenes and\nthose which are also celebrated at the Mithraic initiations, this is\nabundantly plausible. The departure made by Paul and others from the\nmethods of the order afford the reason for the assigned origin of\nChristianity at the period known as the \u201cyear of our Lord,\u201d _Anno\nDomini._\n\nThe original books from which the Gospels were compiled have perished.\nThere was a Gospel in the possession of the Ebionites carefully guarded\nas a sacred or arcane book, a copy of which Jerome procured with great\ndifficulty, but which has since been lost and forgotten. The sect\ndisappeared, melting away into the church or the synagogue, and we now\nread of them loaded with the opprobrious slanders of Iren\u00e6us and\nEpiphanius. They were the original disciples in Judea, and were\nsubjected, in common with other Jews, to the hardships and persecutions\nwhich followed upon the destruction of the national polity. This Hebrew\nGospel and such writings as the Catholic Epistles of James and Peter\ncontained their peculiar doctrines. They regarded Jesus as a teacher or\nexemplar, but not as a superhuman being in any sense of the term. That\nnotion came from the pagans.\n\nIndeed, it was not their belief that such a man had literally existed.\nThe Doket\u00e6 (or Illusionists) held that he was a symbolic being, an\nideality. The Gnostics generally, whom Gibbon describes as \u201cthe most\npolite, the most learned, and most wealthy of the Christian name,\u201d\ndescribed him as an _aion_ or spiritual principle; and considered the\ncrucifixion as metaphorical and not a literal event. The real Christ,\nChr\u00ebstos or divine principle, they regarded as still in heaven, intact.\n\nThe apostle Paul was the great innovator upon the Ebionite and Essenean\ndoctrines. He was too broad and far-seeing to overlook the fact that the\nexclusiveness of Judaism would arrest any universal dissemination of the\nfaith in the world. Hence he struck out boldly on his own account. He\nhad a gospel, he declares to the Galatians, which he had received from\nno man; it was not \u201c_according_ to any man,\u201d but a distinct,\ndifferentiated matter, the apocalypse of Jesus Christ. \u201cLet the man, or\neven angel, that preaches any other gospel be anathema,\u201d he declares. He\ndid not hesitate to denounce the Ebionist apostles, nor they in turn to\nset him forth as an impostor, holding the doctrine of Balaam and\nteaching faith without works or rites. At Antioch he withstood Peter to\nthe face, and declares him condemned. Writing to the Corinthians, he\ndenounces the schisms and deprecates the influence of Apollos, a Jew\nfrom Alexandria. \u201cI, the wise architect, have laid the foundation,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cbut another has built upon it. That foundation is Christ.\u201d It is\nvery plain, however, that the Christ that he taught was rather an ideal\nthan a literal personage. \u201cI have seen the Lord,\u201d he declares, and again\navows that he preached \u201cJesus Christ and the Crucified One.\u201d Yet when he\nrefers to the death and resurrection he always treats of them as\nfigurative matters, pertaining to the spiritual and not to the corporeal\nnature. A Christ that he had seen could but be a spiritual entity.\n\u201cFlesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,\u201d he declares,\n\u201cneither doth corruption inherit incorruption.\u201d This is a complete\nsetting aside of any gross, literal sense to be given to his language.\nOthers who received the gospel were crucified as Christ was, and rose\nagain to a new life while yet embodied in mortal flesh. He was the type,\nthe model, the exemplar, and they who believed were walking in his\nfootsteps. \u201cKnow ye not,\u201d he asks the Roman believers, \u201cthat so many of\nus as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? We\nthen are buried with him by this baptism into his death; so that as\nChrist was raised up from the dead, even so we should walk in a new\nlife. For if we have become planted together in the likeness of his\ndeath, we are also, on the other hand, in that of his resurrection:\nknowing this, that our old man was crucified together, that the body of\nsin might be made inert, that we may no longer be enslaved to sin. If we\ndied with Christ, we believe that we will also live to him; being aware\nthat Christ having risen from the dead is no longer dying, death no\nlonger rules him. For wherein he died, he died to sin once for all; but\nwherein he lives, he lives to God. So likewise reckon ye yourselves dead\nto sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.\u201d\n\nA spiritual crucifixion, death, and resurrection, in strict analogy with\nthe equinoctial crucifixion, death, and resurrection of the mystic\nrites, is the foremost idea of this passage. The baptism of Jesus in the\nriver Jordan and his forty days\u2019 temptation in the wilderness were of\nthe same character. There was no literal dying signified in the case.\nIndeed, nobody knew better than Paul that the Jewish Sanhedrim did not\nsit and that capital punishments were not inflicted at the period of the\nPassover, the day of the crucifixion, being, according to the law, \u201ca\nday of holy convocation.\u201d The crucifixion being figurative and suggested\nby an astrological period, we are fully warranted in the hypothesis that\nthe victim likewise was a symbolic personage of an astral character.\n\nThis ideal Jesus, with the emphatic but ambiguous phrase of Paul\u2014\u201cHim\ncrucified\u201d\u2014was not sufficient for the exigencies of the Christian\nleaders of the subsequent century. The Gnostics and other cultured men\nwere satisfied, but the lower classes wanted a more tangible character,\na physical corporeity. The great want, therefore, was some proof of the\nliteral existence of the individual by the evidence of men that had seen\nhim and been familiar with him. This was now furnished by the production\nof the three synoptic Gospels and their adoption in the place of other\nevangelical literature. Afterward, Iren\u00e6us or some one with his approval\nadded the Gospel according to John. The fiction of an apostolic\nsuccession was then originated, and forgery for religious purposes was a\ngeneral practice. The quarrels of Christians with Christians were for\ncenturies more scandalous than all the atrocities of actual martyrdom.\n\nPrevious to this the Church had labored indefatigably and successfully\nto destroy the influence and reputation of Paul. He was now taken into\nfavor; his Epistles were revised, interpolated, toned down, and accepted\nas canonical. The Acts of the Apostles was next produced. It is a work\nin two parts\u2014one set apart to the story of the apostle Peter, and the\nother to the achievements of Paul. The purpose evidently was to indicate\nthat the two were not at variance, but were laborers in the same field.\nThe work of harmonizing must have been difficult. In our day it would\nnot have been possible. Books cannot be got out of the way as in former\ncenturies, and inconsistencies of writers are sure to be exposed.\n\nJustin Martyr lived at Rome in the reign of the Antonines and wrote a\n_Defence of the Christians_. Yet he makes no mention of \u201cSt. Peter the\nfirst bishop.\u201d He had never heard of him. Iren\u00e6us, however, did not\nhesitate to say anything to advance the gospel, and accordingly boldly\nasserts that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome; overlooking\ntheir reciprocal animosity, and the fact that the Epistle of Paul to the\nRomans addresses the \u201csaints,\u201d but makes no mention of a church.\nClaudius had banished the Jews from Rome for their turbulent conduct\nunder the instigations of Chrestos, and the emperors Trajan and Adrian\nseem to have known of Christians only from information which they had\nderived solely from the provinces in the East. But all this made no\ndifficulty for Iren\u00e6us. This French prelate also declared that the\nministry of Jesus lasted upward of ten years; also that he lived to be\nan elderly man. The anachronisms and bad geography of the Gospels are\nnotorious, but they do not compare with the absurdities of Iren\u00e6us. He\ninvented the name _Antichrist_, and hurled it with ferocious rage\nwhenever he had been assailed and hard pushed in controversy. He was\nnever so much in his element as when quarrelling; and his designation of\nIren\u00e6us (a man of peace) is one of the most stupendous misnomers ever\nheard of.\n\nWe have alluded to the fact that passages had been interpolated into the\nEpistles of Paul. The object was to harmonize the Logos of Philo and his\nschool with the Christ or Chr\u00eastos of the apostle. It would have been a\nfutile attempt if it had been made when Paul was castigating the\nCorinthian Christians in regard to Apollos. A dead man\u2019s words, however,\ncan be mutilated and perverted without his resistance. We accordingly\nfind the sturdy Hebrew diction of the apostle interlarded with Gnostic\nutterances, and new epistles purporting to have been written by him\nwhich give a different complexion to his doctrines. The _pleroma_ or\nfulness which is treated of in the Epistle to the Ephesians was taken\nbodily from the Gnostics.\n\nThe pre-existence of Christ as the Creator of the world was asserted in\na spurious document purporting to be a letter from him to the\nColossians, and interpolations of a corresponding nature were made in\nthe genuine Corinthian Epistles. Thus in the famous chapter on the\nresurrection we find the following sentiment of Philo in an amplified\nform: \u201cMan, being freed by the _Logos_ (or Word) from all corruption,\nshall be entitled to immortality.\u201d\n\nGibbon has shown us that the first regular church government was\ninstituted at Alexandria. This is in keeping with the other facts. The\ndogmas of an incarnate God, of the Trinity, and the sacred character of\nthe Blessed Virgin were all introduced into the creed by the influence\nof the Alexandrians, and it would therefore seem to be legitimately\ntheir right to institute the government. We have noticed already that\nthe Therapeut\u00e6 of that country had offices with similar titles and\nfunctions as those now possessed by officers of the Church, and as they\nand the Christians were closely allied, we have good reason for the\nbelief that they had united with the new organization in such numbers as\nto outvote the original members. Certain it is, that thenceforth the\nnames of Essenes and Therapeut\u00e6 occurred no more. But the sect which\ngave shape to the concept had thus, to a certain degree at least,\nresumed control over the whole matter.\n\nThat such an individual as Jesus Christ ever lived is entirely without\nproof from history. We find Josephus making mention of one and another\nwho acquired notoriety. He describes Judas of Galilee as the founder of\na fourth philosophic sect, and tells of Jesus the son of Hanan who\npredicted the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple years before it\noccurred. We observe similarity enough in his utterances to those of the\ntwenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and in his deportment when brought\nbefore the Roman governor to that described in the Gospels, to warrant\nsome little surmise of identity with the Jesus of the Gospels. But of\nJesus as the founder of the Christian religion, or more properly the\nEbionite sect, we have no such delineation. Of him we have only an\nutterance which is a palpable forgery.\n\nThis preaching of Jesus as a veritable individual of like passions with\nother men, having a will not always consonant with the divine will, and\nyet divine in qualities and attributes, has been very justly \u201cto the\nJews a stumbling-block and to the Greeks foolishness.\u201d Intelligent men,\nhowever reverent and impartial, have been compelled to dissent. The\nfanatic Tertullian in declaring his own position gave utterance to what\nmany felt to be the substance of the whole matter: \u201cI reverence it\nbecause it is contemptible; I adore it because it is absurd; I believe\nit because it is impossible.\u201d We are outgrowing a faith and veneration\nso utterly childlike as to be fatuity itself.\n\nIf we search for Jesus at Nazareth in Galilee, we shall not find a\nfootprint. If, however, we look for him in the testimonies of the\nNazarim and Essenes as the personification of their school of\nphilosophic thought, thus representing in concept the emanation of God\nand the evolution of man as a spiritual being, we shall see him as he\nis. Hence to surrender the popular notion of a literal man as an\ninfallible teacher and exemplar is not to renounce anything that is\nvital in truth. We will only dispense with the paganism and\nraan-worship. We eliminate the sensuous imagery, but preserve intact the\nlife, the power, and the energy. The parables and aphorisms which are in\nthe Gospels are as true, as wholesome, and inspiring as ever. Jesus the\nideal represents, and will continue to represent, all that was implied\nin the arcane religions in the East. Upon this ground, therefore, it is\nwell that Christianity in its external forms as well as in its esoteric\nprinciples should supplant the other worships. It repeats what there is\nof value in them, and at the same time it comes more closely home to the\nhigher consciousness. In the personification of Jesus the true ideal of\nour humanity is suggested. We are born of our earthly father and mother,\nwhose image and name we accordingly inherit, and we have to pass through\nthe pains and throes of a second birth as children of the celestial\nparent. This was outlined distinctly by symbols in the initiations, and\nthe successful candidate, having overcome in the trial, was enthroned\nand acknowledged as the son of the Most High. Hence Jesus sets forth in\nthe Gospel the last disclosure of the Essene\u00e2n rite: \u201cCall no man father\non the earth, for one is your Father; he is in the heavens; and you are\nbrothers.\u201d Paul repeats the sentiment in other words: \u201cAs many as are\nled by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God; heirs of God and\njoint-heirs with Christ.\u201d This idea, often too much lost sight of, lies\nat the core of all real knowledge. The end of all worship, all\nphilosophic discipline, and all religious teaching is to open the way in\nevery mind to a higher perception and a profounder conscientiousness.\n\nYet the suggestion of the angel at the sepulchre is pertinent\u2014that we\nforbear to seek for the living among the dead. The real enlightenment of\nmankind comes not from teachers, but only from the fountains of interior\nillumination. We have no call or occasion to go to this man or to that\nman as a leader. It may be the province of individuals to stand out\nconspicuously in order to indicate the next advance to be made. But when\neach has thus performed his service, his glory is outshone by the\nrefulgent light which he has induced others to seek and obtain.\n\nWe require no display of spiritual pyrotechnics. Enough for us that\nthere is truth, and that we have the intellect to perceive it\u2014that there\nis right, and we have the will to obey it. Neither a human God nor a\ndivine man can enlighten us further than this. There are freedom and\nimpulse for us to attain the highest degree of illumination of which we\nare capable. The human aspiration soars beyond the path of the\nlightning. In every noble idea, every worthy desire, we have a mediator\nwith God. The more silent the work, the more certain that the principle\nof all life is performing it. In this is our eternity, and there is\nnothing beyond.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.  THE IDEAL CHRIST\n\n\n_\u201cWhat think ye of Christ? Whose son was he?\u201d\u2014Matt. 22: 42._\n\n\nNEARLY a quarter of a century ago (1868) a very remarkable pamphlet was\npublished by request of the Free Religious Association, written by that\nremarkable man, the Rev. Samuel Johnson, a Unitarian minister and an\nauthor of no little repute. The subject was _The Worship of Jesus._ It\nhad a very limited circulation, and the stereotype plates were destroyed\nin the great Boston fire, and it is now very difficult to find a copy.\n\nMr. Johnson takes the ground that \u201cChristianity is a temporary step in\nthe divine growth of man through the worship of the ideal; and this hope\nlies, not in pausing on this step as final, nor in proving the names and\npersonalities associated with it to be as valid for ever as they have\nbeen in the past, but in that which underlies and governs the whole\nprocess\u2014_the law of religious idealization._\n\n\u201cThis is no speculation; it is the positive law of progress, as history\npresents it. To worship ideals is the condition of spiritual life. To\nlose belief that there is somewhere a better than ourselves is to\ngravitate downward to what is worse than ourselves. We grow better by\ndefinite homage to a best. And this worship of ideals is a process of\nidealization.... Man\u2019s power of growth, therefore, resides in the\nability to shift his veneration....\n\n\u201cIdeals prove themselves to be idealizations, that they may point him on\nto higher levels. This is religious progress....\n\n\u201cSo a time comes when every religion that centres in an individual\u2019s\nprerogative of divinity falls under criticism, and is, so far, referred\nto temporary causes. Christianity cannot escape this law. As a distinct\nreligion it is but Christism, and passes away, like Jehovism, before a\nbroader faith. Whether what succeeds it be called Theism or Pantheism,\nthis terminology of systems fails to express its scope. It is free\nworship of the one infinite and eternal life of the spiritual, moral,\nand physical universe....\n\n\u201cHow, then, did the concentration of the religious sentiment upon Jesus\noriginate? Not, as the Church insists, in the undeniable rights of a\nperfect Being to the everlasting allegiance of mankind, for there is no\nevidence of his perfection, intellectual or spiritual, but in the fact\nthat the religious sentiment, at a certain stage of its historical\nprogress, demanded a single human centre, and knew how to satisfy its\nown demand by its own process of idealization.\n\n\u201cThe ideal itself was sent in the soul of the age. It was bound to do\nwhat it would with its materials by its own divine gift. It was the\ncreative force of the time. It is not the whole truth to say with\nMerivale, then, that( the religion of Christ seized and developed, with\na divine energy, the latent yearnings of mankind for social combination,\nhaving for its essence, in a human point of view, the doctrine of the\nequality of man/ Rather did that religion catch a spirit of universality\nalready abroad in the age\u2014not latent, but mighty to transform society,\nto inspire both Hebrew Messiah and Gentile philosopher, _to make its god\nin its own image_, and to transform the little Jewish sect at last into\na Church of civilization....\n\n\u201cAnd this, at least, is sure; always there is a man for the hour.\nSomehow or other, a great demand will find satisfaction. But the man is\nnot what the hour reports him when it has crowned him with all that\nfaith and fancy can bestow, and set up, through him, its own special\ndemand as valid for all time. Future ages will revise, from a freer\nstandpoint, the image it transmits for their adoration....\n\n\u201cThe earliest types and emblems of Christ-worship betray this powerful\nelement in its origination. Jesus is represented in the form of the old\ndeities and in conjunction with them. Between the images of Mercury\nCriophorus and Apollo Nomius, and that of the \u2018Good Shepherd/ the\ntransition is so gradual that it is hard to decide whether the picture\nis pagan or Christian. In the Catacombs Jesus sits as Pluto on the\njudgment-seat, with Mary as Proserpine, while Mercury leads in souls.\nStill earlier emblems of Jesus, the Lamb, the Fish, the Ship, the Cross,\nthe Dove, are all associated with older heathen mysteries or\nmythological beliefs, as are also the Christian festivals and rites.\n\n\u201cAnd so the idealization of Jesus went on steadily and consistently till\nit reached deification. The early Christian \u2018apologists\u2019 ridiculed the\nhuman gods of the old polytheism, yet they did but concentrate the same\nprinciple more perfectly in the form of their Christ. Hebrew monotheism\nwas indeed too strong in Paul to allow of his finding in Jesus more than\na man in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt. But this hovers very\nclose upon the larger desire of the nations. And later, in the Gospel of\nJohn, the Gentile current has absorbed the Hebrew and the call for a\nGod-man is boldly met. A life of Jesus is here dramatically constructed,\nnot out of historical facts, nor even traditions, but out of that\npreconceived ideal of an incarnate word attaching itself, in its longing\nfor actual and living substance, to the growing prestige of his name....\n\n\u201cThe records of Jesus\u2019 life have had to be idealized also; and these are\nnot, like his person, so dim and veiled as to leave the religions\nimagination a certain margin of freedom, however inadequate, but a\ndefinite statement of doctrines, doings, and claims; so that science,\nphilosophy, art, and morality have been taught to bow in his name to the\nlimitations of half-developed times and men.\n\n\u201cIt is not denied that by leaving out what we dislike we can find in the\nNew-Testament Jesus as noble an ideal as we will, though it can be only\nof a purely interior individualism, unrelated to practical and political\nfunctions. But we cannot ignore the many sources, apart from the real\nlife of Jesus, from which this feast of good things has been derived.\nThe New Testament is, in fact, not so much the record of a life as the\nfruit of two ancient civilizations, the Oriental and Greek, of whose\nconfluence Christianity itself was the product....\n\n\u201cIt is urged that we destroy the basis of religious unity when we take\naway this historical and personal centre of faith. Men absolutely need,\nit is said, that concrete form, that individuality, under which the\ndivine is represented to them in the Christ. There would be more cause\nfor this anxiety if it could be shown that they have ever possessed such\na centre. But what have they had, after all, but a common name for\never-changing ideals? The belief that all eyes were turned to a common\nauthoritative centre was an illusion, which had its uses, indeed, but\nbecomes a breeder of strife in proportion as men learn the rights of\nfree inquiry. \u2018Worship the Christ! follow Jesus!\u2019 cry the ages. But who\nis Jesus? and what is the Christ? The Jesus of Matthew is one, the\nChrist of John is another, the \u2018second Adam\u2019 of Paul is a third. The\nmoral as well as the theological contents of the name vary with the ages\nand the sects that appeal to it. As the Christ of Luther was not the\nChrist of Augustine, nor his the Christ of James, so the Christ of the\nUnitarian is one, of the Calvinist another. Whom the one will save, the\nother will destroy; what to the one is moral wrong, to the other is\ndivine right; what love would require in the one, justice would\nforeclose in the other. What common centre can the liberal Bible\nscholars and the panic-stricken, text-ridden Revivalists find in the\nname of Christ? All the warring sects have been \u2018standing up for Jesus;\u2019\nand which of them knows what Jesus was? The farther you get back toward\nthe original, the less sure do you feel of your own knowledge, and the\nless right should you feel from what you know in part to assume that you\nhave found the appointed centre of religious thought. It would be easy\nto show that unity is impossible so long as it is sought to found it on\nthe claims of a person to that position, since the mysterious\nirrationality of such an office must keep the speculative faculties of\nmankind in ceaseless self-contradiction and strife. It would be easy to\nshow that this claim of Jesus has been the perpetual root of dogmatic\nwarfare\u2014that all barbarism of the Christian Church in past ages has come\nof jealousy about the honor due the person of the Christ.\u201d We offer no\napology for these long extracts from Mr. Johnson\u2019s inimitable little\nbook of ninety pages. \u201cHe being dead yet speaketh,\u201d and his words give\nno uncertain sound. He was in advance of the times, and if his brethren\nin the Unitarian ministry would regard Jesus, whom they almost deify, as\nan _ideal_ (quite imperfect) that has come down to us from pagan\npeoples, and cease to court the favor of the orthodox, they would have\nmore self-respect and more real regard from the thinking men of the age.\n\nWe might as well now come directly to the question whether the Jesus of\nthe Gospels was an _ideal_ rather than a historical individual\u2014an\n_impersonation_ rather than a person. And here we take the broad ground\nthat whether there was a real man or not makes no difference whatever,\nbecause the writings themselves are largely _ideal_, and so make the man\nwhat he was not. No two persons worship the same God, the \u201cpersonified\nInfinite.\u201d The conception of God must itself be limited and incomplete,\nand therefore inadequate and largely ideal. No two persons believe in\nthe same Jesus, so there must be as many ideals as there are believers.\nThe habit of exaggerating, of deifying those whom we have been taught to\nregard as the greatest and best, is a well-known disposition of the\nhuman mind. Indeed, \u201cthe function of the Church is the cultivation of\nthe ideal.\u201d This is so palpable that the legends of all religions\nrecognize this principle to such an extent that most of them represent\ntheir \u201csaviors\u201d as having been born of virgin mothers. Catholics flock\nto their temples and in parrot-like utterances worship an ideal Jesus\nand an equally ideal Virgin, and thus cultivate only the ideal side of\ntheir nature. It is very much easier to excite the imagination than to\nconvince the understanding; and this is the real secret of the strength\nof Catholicism and of the weakness of Protestantism. Catholic worship is\nmainly spectacular, an appeal to the senses, and is therefore attractive\nalike to the uneducated and the educated. They believe the Gospels\n_literally_, because they have had the principal incidents recorded in\nthem set forth before their eyes from their very birth, and they cannot\nbe reasoned out of what they have never been reasoned into.\n\nBut we are told that Jesus must have been a real person or he never\ncould have exerted the influence that he has for the last eighteen\nhundred years upon so many millions of people. Let us see: If Jesus ever\ndwelt upon this earth, it must have been several hundred years ago. Not\none of the many millions who have worshipped him since his few years of\nsojourn here but have done so in view of what they have heard of him or\nread of him. They never saw him and never heard his voice. He wrote\nnothing, and never authorized any one else to write anything. After the\nlapse of nearly two centuries the four Gospels appeared. Very little is\ntold of him there. If you take out what is repeated concerning him\ntherein, you would not have, in length, what would make a modern sermon;\nand that would be found full of contradictions, absurdities, and\nimpossibilities. Those who have believed on him have believed on what\nthey called _testimony_ concerning him; and that testimony would have\nproduced the same effect whether true or false if they really _believed_\nit. The real existence of an alleged person is not essential to excite\nadmiration if it is really _believed_ that he existed. The Swiss loved\nand honored William Tell just as much as if he had not in these latter\nyears been proved a myth. The world\u2019s history teems with the heroic\ndeeds of many noble persons (impersonations) who never had an existence,\nand the literature of the race would greatly suffer by striking out all\nthat is fictitious. The reason that the ideal Christ has exerted so much\ngreater influence than any other impersonation is because so many\nskilful artists have bestowed their best labor upon it, and because the\nfigure is so ancient and contains so many features that commend\nthemselves to the human mind and heart.\n\nWe find in _Natural Genesis_, by the English poet Gerald Massey, a\npassage which so beautifully portrays our own view of this subject that\nwe cannot forbear copying it:\n\n\u201cIt has often been said that if there were no historic Christ then the\nwriters who represented such a conception of the divine man must have\nincluded amongst them one who was equal to the Christ. But the mythical\nChrist was not the outcome of any such conception. It was not a work of\nthe individual mind at all, but of the human race\u2014a crowning result of\nevolution _versus_ any private conception of a hero. This was the hero\nof all men, who never was and was never meant to be human, but from the\nbeginning was divine; a mythical hero without mortal model, and equally\nwithout fault or flaw. This was the star-god who dawned through the\noutermost darkness; this was the moon-god who brought the message of\nrenewal and immortality; this was the sun-god who came with the morning\nto all men; this in the Kronian stage was the announcer of new life and\nendless continuity at the opening of every cycle, and in the\npsychotheistic phase the typical son of the Eternal as manifester and\nrepresentative in time.\n\n\u201cAs a mental model the Christ was elaborated by whole races of men, and\nworked at continually, like the Apollo of Greek sculpture. Various\nnations wrought at this ideal, which long-continued repetition evoked\nfrom the human mind at last as it did the Greek god from the marble.\n\n\u201cEgypt labored at the portrait for thousands of years before the Greeks\nadded their finishing touches to the type of the ever-youthful solar\ngod. It was Egypt that first made the statue live with her own life, and\nhumanized her ideal of the divine. Hers was the legend of supreme pity\nand self-sacrifice so often told of the canonical Christ. She related\nhow the very god did leave the courts of heaven and come down as a\nlittle child, the infant Horus born of the Virgin, through whom he took\nflesh or descended into matter, < crossed the earth as a substitute/\ndescended into Hades as the vivifier of the dead, their vicarious\njustifier and redeemer, the first-fruits and leader of the resurrection\ninto eternal life. The Christian legends were first related of Horus, or\nOsiris, who was the embodiment of divine goodness, wisdom, truth, and\npurity\u2014who personated ideal perfection in each sphere of manifestation\nand every phase of power. This was the greatest hero that ever lived in\nthe mind of man\u2014not in the flesh\u2014to influence with transforming force;\nthe only hero to whom the miracles were natural because he was not\nhuman. The canonical Christ only needed a translator, not a creator, a\ntranscriber of the \u2018sayings\u2019 and a collector of the \u2018doings\u2019 already\nascribed to the mythical Christ.\n\n\u201cThe humanized history is but the mythical drama made mundane. The\nsayings and marvellous doings of Christ being pre-extant, the \u2018spirit of\nChrist,\u2019 the \u2018secret of Christ,\u2019 the \u2018sweet reasonableness of Christ\u2019\nwere all pre-Christian, and consequently could not be derived from any\n\u2018personal founder\u2019 of Christianity. They were extant before the great\ndelusion had turned the minds of men and the figure-head of Peter\u2019s bark\nhad been mistaken for a portrait of the builder.\n\n\u201cThe Christ of the Gospels is in no sense an historical personage or a\nsupreme model of humanity\u2014a hero who strove, and suffered, and failed to\nsave the world by his death. It is impossible to establish the existence\nof an historical character even as an impostor. For such an one the two\nwitnesses, astronomical mythology and Gnosticism, completely prove an\nalibi. The Christ is a popular lay figure that never lived, and a lay\nfigure of pagan origin\u2014a lay figure that was once the Ram and afterward\nthe Fish; a lay figure that in  human form was the portrait and image of\na dozen different gods.\n\n\u201cThe imagery of the Catacombs shows that the types there represented are\nnot the ideal figures of the human reality. They are the sole reality of\nthe centuries after the Christian era, because they had been in the\ncenturies long before. The symbolism, the allegories, the figures, and\ntypes remained there just what they were to the Romans, Greeks,\nPersians, and Egyptians, The iconography of the Catacombs absolutely\nproves that the lay figure, as Christ, must have sat for the portraits\nof Osiris, Horus the child, Mithras, Bacchus, Arist\u00e6us, Apollo, Pan, the\nGood Shepherd. The lay figure or type is one all through. The portraits\nare manifold, yet they all mean the mythical Christ under whatsoever\nname.\n\n\u201cThe typical Christ, so far from being derived from the model man, has\nbeen made up from the features of many gods, after a fashion somewhat\nsimilar to those \u2018pictorial averages\u2019 portrayed by Mr. Galton, in which\nthe characteristics of various persons are photographed and fused in a\nportrait\u2014a composite likeness of twenty different persons merged in one\nthat is not _anybody_.\n\n\u201cIt is pitiful to track the poor faithful gleaners who picked up every\nfallen fragment or scattered waif and stray of the mythos, and to watch\nhow they treasured every trait and tint of the ideal Christ to make up\nthe personal portrait of their own supposed real one. His mother, like\nthe other forms of the queen of heaven, had the color of the _mater\nfrugum_, the complexion of the golden corn; and a Greek Father of the\neighth century cites an early tradition of the Christians concerning the\n_personnel_ of the Christ to the effect that in taking the form of Adam\nhe assumed features exactly like those of the Virgin, and his face was\nof a _wheaten color_, like that of his mother. That is, he (the seed)\nwas _corn-complexioned_, as was the mother of corn, like Flava Keres,\nAurea Venus, the Golden Lakshmi, the Yellow Neitli; and the son was her\nseed, which in Egypt was the corn brought forth at the vernal equinox,\nand which was continued in the cult of Rome as the \u2018bread-corn of the\nelect.\u2019\n\n\u201cIn the chapter of \u2018knowing the spirits of the East\u2019 the Osirified\nassumes the type of the virile and hairy Horus, the divine hawk of the\nresurrection. This is called the type under which he desires to appear\nbefore all men; and it is said, \u2018his hair is on his shoulder when he\nproceeds to the heaven.\u2019 This long hair of the adult Horus reaching down\nto the shoulders is a typical feature in the portraits of the Messiah,\nthe copy of the Kamite Christ made permanent by the art of the Gnostics.\nThe halo of Christ is the glory of the sun-god seen in his phantom phase\nwhen the more physical type had become psychotheistic. Hence it is worn\nby the child-Christ as the _karast_ mummy. It is the same halo that\nillumined Horus and Iu-em-hept, Krishna and Buddha, and others of whom\nthe same old tales of deliverance and redemption were told and believed.\nYet the dummy ideal of paganism is supposed to have become doubly real\nas the man-god standing with one foot in two worlds\u2014one resting on the\nground of the fall from heaven, and the other on the physical\nresurrection from the earth.\u201d\n\nIt is a well-known fact that many early Christian sects absolutely\ndenied the existence of Christ in the flesh, regarding him as a phantom.\nIt is very difficult to decide whether the apostle Paul believed in a\nreal or an ideal Christ. He wrote his Epistles before the Gospels were\nwritten, and therefore could have learned nothing from that source.\nConcerning the various appearances of Jesus after the resurrection, he\nsays: \u201cLast of all, he was seen of me, as by one born out of due time,\u201d\nand this seems to bear out the conjecture that Jesus was an ideal,\ninasmuch as it was not in the flesh that he saw him, and his refusal to\nknow him after the flesh indicates his strong preference for him as an\nidea, and not as a person. Paul makes no mention of any miracle but that\nof the resurrection, and that was manifestly a spiritual rather than a\nphysical fact. Moreover, he was a Pharisee, and it is difficult to see\nhow he could have \u201cgloried in the cross\u201d had he taken the cross in a\nliteral sense. He casts no reproach on the Jews for causing Jesus to\nsuffer, and never speaks of the crucifixion as a crime, nor shows a\nparticle of sympathy or compassion with the sufferer. He seems to have\nbeen the real founder of Christianity, and might have had in view the\ndirect action of the solar divinity with whom Christ had become\nassociated.\n\nA careful analysis of the Pauline Epistles will show, we think, that the\nChrist of Paul was an idea. And here it is important to bear in mind\nthat those who attributed to him at least ten Epistles he never wrote\nwould not scruple to alter, amend, interpolate, and change portions of\nthe Epistles he actually did write. Those who formed the system of\nChristian ecclesiasticism never could afford to have a conscience. Those\nFathers of the second century who formed the foundations of the Catholic\nhierarchy were most unscrupulous men.\n\nOf the _Gnostics_, Mr. Gerald Massey speaks as follows:\n\n\u201cThe ancient wisdom of Egypt and Chaldea lived on with the men who knew,\ncalled the Gnostics. They had directly inherited the gnosis that\nremained oral, the sayings uttered from mouth to ear that were to be\nunwritten, the mysteries performed in secret, the science kept\nconcealed. The continuity of the astronomical mythos of Equinoctial\nChristolatry and of the total typology is proved by the persistence of\nthe type\u2014the ancient genitrix, the two sisters, the hebdomad of inferior\nand superior powers, the trinity in unity represented by _Iao_ the\ntetrads male and female, the double Horus, or Horus and Stauros, the\nsystem of \u00c6\u00f4ns, the Karaite divinities, Harpocrates and Sut-Anubis, Isis\nand Hathor. Theirs was the Christ not made flesh, but the manifester of\nthe seven powers and perfect star of the pleroma. The figure of eight,\nwhich is a sign of the Nnu or associate gods in Egypt, who were the\nprimary Ogdoad, is reproduced as a gnostic symbol, a figure of the\npleroma and fellow-type of the eight-rayed star. The \u2018Lamb of God\u2019 was a\ngnostic sign. \u2018Lord, thou art the Lamb\u2019 (and \u2018our Light\u2019) was a gnostic\nformula. The \u2018Immaculate Virgin\u2019 was a gnostic type. On one of the sard\nstones Isis stands before Serapis holding the sistrum in one hand, in\nthe other a wheatsheaf, the legend being \u2018Immaculate is our Lady Isis,\u2019\nwhich proves the continuity from Kam.\n\n\u201cIt was gnostic art that reproduced the Hathor-Meri and Horus of Egypt\nas the Virgin and child-Christ of Rome, and the icons of characters\nentirely ideal which served as the sole portraits of the _historical_\nMadonna and Jesus the Christ. The report of Iren\u00e6us sufficed to show the\nsurvival of the true tradition. He complains of the oral wisdom of the\nGnostics, and says rightly they read from things unwritten\u2014i. e. from\nsources unknown to him and the Fathers in general. Chief of these\nsources was the science of astronomy. He testifies that Marcus was\nskilled in this form of the gnosis, and enables us to follow the line of\nunbroken continuity, and to confute his own assertion that Gnosticism\nhad no existence prior to Marcion and Valentinus; which shows he did not\nknow, or else he denied the fact, that the Suttites, the Mandaites, the\nEssenes, and Nazarenes were all Gnostics; all of which sects preceded\nthe cult of the carnalized Christ. Hippolytus informs us that Elkesai\nsaid the Christ born of a Virgin was _\u0153onian_. The Elkesites maintained\nthat Jesus the Christ had continually transformed and manifested in\nvarious bodies at many different times. This shows they also were in\npossession of the gnosis, and that the Christ and his repeated\nincarnations were Kronian. Hence we are told that they occupied\nthemselves \u2018with a bustling activity in regard to astronomical science.\u2019\nEpiphanius also bears witness that the head and front of the gnostic\nboast was astronomy, and that Manes wrote a work on astronomy, astronomy\nbeing the root of the whole matter concerning Equinoctial Christolatry.\n\u201cNothing is more astounding, on their own showing, than the ignorance of\nthe Fathers about the nature, the significance, the descent of\nGnosticism, and its rootage in the remotest past. They knew nothing of\nevolution or the survival of types, and for them the new beginning with\nChrist carnalized obliterated all that preceded. Such a thing as\npriority, natural genesis, or the doctrine of development did not\ntrouble those who considered that the more the myth the greater was the\nmiracle which proved the divinity.\n\n\u201cAlso, it has been asserted from the time of Iren\u00e6us down to that of\nMansel that the Gnostic heretics of the second century invented a number\nof spurious Gospels in imitation of or in opposition to the true gospel\nof Christ, which has descended to us as canonical, authentic, and\nhistoric. This is a popular delusion, false enough to damn all belief in\nit from the beginning until now. The ignorance of the past manifested by\nmen like Iren\u00e6us is the measure of the value of their testimony to the\norigines of Equinoctial Christolatry. They who pretend to know all\nconcerning the founding and the founder know nothing of the\nfoundations....\n\n\u201cGnosticism, according to those who are ignorant of its origin and\nrelationships, was supposed and assumed to have originated in the second\ncentury; the first being carefully avoided, only proves that the\nA-Gnostics, who had literally adopted the pre-Christian types, and\nbelieved they had been historically fulfilled, were then for the first\ntime becoming conscious of the cult that preceded theirs and face to\nface with those who held them to be the heretics. Gnosticism was no\nbirth or new thing in the second century, it was no perverter or\ncorrupter of Christian doctrines divinely revealed, but the voice of an\nolder cult growing more audible in its protest against a superstition as\ndegrading and debasing now as when it was denounced by men like Tacitus,\nPliny, Julian, Marcus Aurelius, and Porphyry. For what could be more\nshocking to any sense really religious than the belief that the very God\nhimself had descended on earth as an embryo in a virgin\u2019s womb, to run\nthe risk of abortion and universal miscarriage during nine months in\nutero, and then dying on a cross to save his own created world or a\nportion of its people from eternal perdition? The opponents of the\nlatest superstition were too intelligent to accept a dying deity....\n\n\u201cNever were men more perplexed and bewildered than the A-Gnostic\nChristians of the third and fourth centuries\u2014who had started from a new\nbeginning altogether, which they had been taught to consider solely\nhistoric\u2014when they turned to look back for the first time to find that\nan apparition of their faith was following them one way and confronting\nthem in another; a shadow that threatened to steal away their substance,\nmocking them with its a\u00ebrial unreality; the ghost of the body of truth\nwhich they had embraced as a solid and eternal reality claiming to be\nthe rightful owner of their possessions; a phantom Christ without flesh\nor bone; a crucifixion that only occurred in cloudland; a parody of the\ndrama of salvation performed in the air, with never a cross to cling to,\nnot a nail-wound to thrust the fingers into and hold on by, not one drop\nof blood to wash away their sins. It was horrible. It was devilish. It\nwas the devil, they said, and thus they sought to account for Gnosticism\nand fight down their fears. \u2018You poor ignorant idiotai!\u2019 said the\nGnostics, \u2018you have mistaken the mysteries of old for modern history,\nand accepted literally all that was only meant mystically.\u2019\u2014\u2018You spawn\nof Satan!\u2019 responded the Christians, \u2018you are making the mystery by\nconverting our accomplished facts into your miserable fables; you are\ndissipating and dispersing into thin air our only bit of solid foothold\nin the world, stained with the red drops of Calvary. You are giving a\nSatanic interpretation to the word of revelation and falsifying the\noracles of God. You are converting the solid facts of our history into\nyour new-fangled allegories.\u2019\u2014\u2018Nay,\u2019 replied the Gnostics, \u2018it is you\nwho have taken the allegories of mythology for historic facts.\u2019 And they\nwere right. It was in consequence of their taking the allegorical\ntradition of the fall for reality that the Christian Fathers considered\nwoman to be accursed, and called her a serpent, a scorpion, the devil in\nfeminine form.\u201d\n\nThe Gnostics are said by Gibbon to have been \u201cthe most polite, the most\nlearned, and the most wealthy of the Christian name.\u201d They were finally\nforbidden by Theodosias I. to assemble at their places of meeting or to\nteach their doctrines. Their books, too, were burned, so that we have\nnow no full account of them. Only those who lied about them have been\npermitted a hearing.\n\nThe very fact that all the apparently historic events in the life of\nJesus have an astrological and metaphoric character lifts him out of the\ncategory of physical humanity into that of the ideal. We may relegate\nhim thither, and yet leave no vacant place in the arena of common life.\nThis would be in perfect keeping with ancient usage. Among the reputed\nfounders of philosophic systems we have no evidence of the existence of\nsuch great teachers as Manu, Kapila, Vyasa, Kanada, or Gotama, and the\nfounding of the principal commonwealths was ascribed to demigods and\nfictitious eponymous heroes. Rome, Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and indeed\nevery ancient city of note, was said to be established after that\nmanner. Even leaders and teachers actually existing have been disguised\nby myth or the characteristics of the doctrine which they taught.\nConfucius and Zoroaster are hidden from view by the character assigned\nto them by later writers. Even Socrates as he appears and speaks in the\nPlatonic _Dialogues_ is little else than a personification of the\nAcademic philosophy. When we consider that he is closely assimilated to\nthe sages and hero-gods of the other worships, and that every\nsignificant point in his history conforms to astrological periods and to\nsimilar characteristics in the pagan religions, we cannot well avoid the\nconclusion that he too is an _ideal_.\n\nMr. William Oxley of England, in his great work on Egypt, takes the\nground that the account we have of Jesus in the Gospels is substantially\ndrawn from Egyptian sources.\n\nAmenoph III. was one of the greatest of the old Egyptian kings. Amongst\nother gigantic works, he built the temple at Luxor, much of which is\nburied in sand and covered over by native houses. It is on the walls of\nthis temple that very remarkable sculptures are portrayed relating to\nthe birth, etc. of Amenoph III.; they are on the inner wall of the\nsacred shrine, the holy of holies, and the sculptured scenes represent\nthe annunciation, the conception, the incarnation, birth, and adoration\nof the divine man-child (Amenoph III.) born from Mut-em-Sa. The two\nlatter syllables mean \u201cthe Alone,\u201d or Only One, and the whole title\nmeans \u201cthe mother who gave birth to the Only One.\u201d\n\nOne fact is established beyond all cavil, and that is that the New\nTestament is the product of an order of men well versed in astronomy,\nand who by the aid of that science produced, on lines laid down by the\nancient Egyptian hierophants, a new version of the old myths and\nallegories. We have as a fact the actual names and dates plagiarized\nfrom an Egypto-Arabic source, which undoubtedly betrays its origin, and\nthe interpretation of this, and numberless instances besides, in strict\naccordance with the astrological formula and system, with its\nGraeco-Egyptian zodiacal pictorial representations.\n\nOxley says: \u201c_Apropos_ to this doctrine, I have in my possession two\nstatuettes\u2014one dating from the twenty-second dynasty, 900 B. c.\u2014of Isis,\ncrowned and nursing the babe Horus. On my return from Egypt through\nItaly, I obtained a statuette of Mary, crowned and nursing the babe\nJesus, which is an exact copy of the Virgin and Child in the church of\nSt. Augustine in Rome. _The figures are identical_.\u201d\n\nFace to face with such a fact, who dare assert that the Egyptian Isis\nand Horus are a myth, and that the Christian Mary and Jesus are really\nhistorical? Some simple-minded ones beguile themselves with the delusion\nthat these Egyptian and other heathen beliefs are prophecies of the real\nJesus who in the fulness of time came down from heaven and was born of a\nvirgin. But against this we have not only the actual claim of several\nEgyptian kings to be the \u201cson of God according to promise or prophecy\u201d\n(sixteen hundred years before Christ was born), but we have the fact of\na whole nation _for thousands of years_ resting their hopes of eternal\nsalvation upon a belief that \u201cthe son of God, Osiris, came down from\nheaven, took upon himself the mortal form, was slain by wicked hands,\nrose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven, where he became the\ngreat judge of all mankind.\u201d\n\nWhat adds to the difficulty is that _no dates_ are given in the writings\nof the early Christian authors, and, what is more, many of their names\nare evidently _noms de plume_; for instance, the arch-heretic _Arius_\nand the great Nicene Council seem to resolve themselves simply into a\ncontroversy relating to the sun-god under the form of _Aries_ (the Ram\nor Lamb); and as to dates in connection therewith, they are simply\nMasonic points with an astronomical reference and symbolical meaning. In\nplain terms, nearly the whole of both the Old and New Testaments is an\nallegorical record of astral, solar, and planetary phenomena, with\npersonages substituted for zodiacal signs; and with this key in hand the\nHermetic student can unravel the allegories which are presented in such\na form as to read like literal history.\n\nOur English name for the zodiacal sign referred to is the Ram, but in\nLatin it is _Aries_, and _Nisan_ (which is the month of March). The\n\u201csacred year\u201d of all systems commences with this month and sign; hence\nthe _Arian_ heresy and the Council of _Nice_; which resolves itself into\na descriptive personified account of a conjunction of planets about the\ndefinite fixing of the _first point of Aries_ as a basic point in time\nin history, and which point is used in astronomical science to this day.\nBut the appearance of the Cross, with the letters I H S on the\nplanispherical chart, gives the key to the solution of the mystery. The\nChurch interprets these letters to stand for _Jesus Salvator Hominum_\u2014i.\ne. Jesus the Saviour of Men. The initiates read them as _numerals_,\nwhich stand for 608; which is the exact period of a solar-lunar cycle\u2014i.\ne. the number of years which pass before the sun and moon occupy the\nsame relative positions in the heavens.\n\nAccording to the astral theology of ancient religious systems, this\ncycle of 608 (or 600) years represented a Messianic period, at the\ncompletion of which a new messiah or avatar or savior was born upon the\nearth.\n\nThe one prior to Jesus was _Cyrus_, who gave orders for the building of\nthe temple at Jerusalem just six hundred years before Christ. Manatheo\nspeaks of a \u201cCyrus,\u201d son of Cambyses, first king of the twenty-second\ndynasty, but no Cyrus appears in the Egyptian annals. The biblical Cyrus\nis only another form of Osiris, and is in reality a sun-savior. The\nArabs used the same system, for their Mohammed comes in just about six\nhundred years after Christ, and their era commences with their\ncommencement of a new year, which dates from 622 A. D. Even our latest\nera\u2014_Anno Domini_\u2014did not come into general use until about one thousand\nyears after the event it is said to commemorate had passed. This epoch\nwas introduced into Italy in the sixth century by Dionysius the Little,\na Roman abbot, and it began to be used in Gaul in the eighth, but was\nnot generally followed until the ninth century. From extant charters in\nEngland it is known to have been used a little before the ninth century,\nbut it did not come into common use for a century later. Time was, for\ncenturies after the alleged birth of Christ, calculated from January 1\nin the 4th of the 194th Olympiad, the 753d A. u. c. of the foundation of\nRome, and 4714th of the Julian period.\n\nThe astro-theological foundation of the New Testament being\ndemonstrated, the actual date of the compilation of the matter becomes\nof secondary importance, inasmuch as celestial phenomena are as true\ntoday as they were when first used to symbolize the intellectual and\nspiritual nature of man. As all nations that have any pretensions to be\nconsidered civilized have had the same phenomena for their religious\nsystems, and as the path of the solar orb has been utilized for the\nhistory of its various personifications, the question arises, Which out\nof the many messiahs or sun-saviors are true, and which are false? As\nhas been already noted, the leading incidents in the memoirs of Osiris,\nBuddha, Chrishna, and Jesus are identical in conception, but more or\nless varied in expression according to the idiosyncrasies of the\nwriters. The logical and true method is to regard one and all as\nallegorical symbols, clothed not merely with an eclectic\nintellectuality, but vested with a moral power that can affect the heart\nand conscience of men for good.\n\nThe parentage of Christianism is in Egyptian Osirianism, while that of\nwhat we understand as Judaism is attributable to Chaldean sources, both\nconverging to a common centre and finding a new expression through two\ndiverse orders, yet both equally versed in Cabalistic science, modified\nby the eclectic influences which were active at the period of their\nproduction.\n\nThe ecclesiastical party, for reasons which are well understood, never\nallowed the laity to be taught other than the literal and surface\nmeaning, while the mystic brotherhoods were forbidden by the rules of\ntheir orders to make public the real meaning of the symbols, of which\nonly the highest degree of initiates were allowed to know.\n\nMr. William Oxley further thinks that if it were possible to raise the\nveil that obscures the historic past it would be found that the\ndivine-human ideal figure of Jesus Christ is the combination of the\nWestern _Hesus_ and Eastern _Christus_. This accounts for the title,\nwhile the incidents in the life of the historic Apollonius of Tyana\nwould supply material for the personal narrative. In fact, the nervous\ndesire of ecclesiastical reviewers to suppress or explain away the too\npatent similarity between his and the Gospel life of Jesus is a half\nadmission of there being a substratum of truth in the allegation.\n\nOxley says: \u201cAgainst the claim for a very high antiquity in regard to\neven the Old Testament, we are confronted with the fact that all the\nHebrew words used in its compilation have their roots in the Arabic\nlanguage (or Aramaic, which closely borders upon the Arabic); and what\nis not less strange is, that many of the so-called apocryphal writings\nof the Christians are still extant in the same language. As Christian\nproductions this fact is inexplicable, but considered as _Chrestonian_\ntales or legends, it is easy to understand, seeing that they relate to\nthe humanized deity of that geographical district.\u201d\n\nHe concludes that Christianity, considered as a living spiritual truth,\nis the gradual development of a system of thought, and is the resultant\nof the highest and best conception of the human mind as an ideal of\npurity and every virtue that it is capable of expressing; and, further,\nthat this ideal was presented to different nations long before the\nChristian one was known, and that it was the literalizing or\npersonification of this _written ideal_ that afforded conditions for the\nsuperstructure of ecclesiastical systems, dependent on a separate caste\nof men set apart for the purpose of its support and propaganda. As these\nmen were able to grasp and wield power over the intellect, and even\npersons, of their votaries, so in exact ratio the spiritual and\nintellectual ideal (which is not a monad, but universal) was lost, and\nthe assumed historical personage is exalted at the expense of spiritual\nliberty and the birthright prerogative of humanity. In short, the\nsupposed Founder of Christianity is not an historical personage, but an\nold ideal presented in a newer and better and higher form than its\npredecessors; and, further, this ideal is not dependent upon a past\nhistorical, but is held up as the standard of attainment by humanity;\nand as each realizes the truth within him or herself, then they will\nfind that the real \u201cChrist\u201d is not and was not an historical person, but\na spiritual life-giving principle within themselves.\n\nThe records of history show that a dramatic Christ has come down the\nstream of time from the earliest periods; from India through Egypt,\nChina, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Arabia, Asia Minor, and Palestine,\nuntil the present time\u2014from the Buddha of the Tauric constellations to\nthe Aries and Pisces of the modern Christ; and all his manifestations\npossess the essential characteristics of the one sun-god. Midway between\nBuddhists and the Christians appears the sublimely idealistic mythology\nof Greece, shining all over with the glory of the solar legend. Very\nprominent in this system is the god-man Prometheus. The name is\nsynonymous with _Logos_, which is used in the fourth Gospel in reference\nto Jesus, and signifies a demi-deity; and Prometheus means _Providence_,\nand is represented by the all-seeing Eye. We select him rather than\nother notable impersonations, for the purpose of referring to the\nwonderful Greek drama written by \u00c6schylus (_Prometheus Bound_), which\nwas acted in the theatre of Athens at least five hundred years before\nthe Christian era. The plot was derived from material even then of great\nantiquity, and contains all the essential features of the modern\n\u201cPassion Play\u201d so beautifully portrayed upon canvas in our churches and\neloquently described by our ministers of the present day. No author ever\ndisplayed greater powers of poetry in supporting through this Promethean\nplay the august character of this divine sufferer. We give a few lines\nfrom Potter\u2019s translation.:\n\n                   \u201cI will speak,\n    Not as upbraiding them, but my own gifts\n    Commending. \u2019Twas I who brought sweet hope\n    To inhabit in their hearts; I brought\n    The fire of heaven to animate their clay,\n    And through the clouds of barbarous ignorance\n    Diffused the beams of knowledge. In a word,\n    Prometheus taught each useful art to man.\u201d\n\nHe was called upon to explain how his goodness could have brought upon\nhim such extreme suffering,  and he says:\n\n    \u201cSee what, a god, I suffer from the gods!\n    For mercy to mankind I am not deemed\n    Worthy of mercy; but in this uncouth\n    Appointment am fixed here,\n    A spectacle dishonorable to Jove!\n    On the throne of heaven scarce was he seated,\n    On the powers of heaven\n    He showered his various benefits, thereby\n    Confirming his sovereignty; but for unhappy mortals\n    Had no regard, but all the present race\n    Willed to extirpate and to form anew.\n    None save myself opposed his will. I dared,\n    And, boldly pleading, saved them from destruction\u2014\n    Saved them from sinking to the realm of night;\n    For which ofl\u00ebnce I bow beneath these pains,\n    Dreadful to suffer, piteous to behold!\u201d\n\nNone remained to be witnesses of his dying agony but the chorus of\never-faithful women, who bewailed and lamented him. The earth trembled\nand the whole frame of nature was convulsed, and the curtain fell on the\nsublimest scene ever presented to human sight\u2014a _dying god!_ The\npreternatural darkness was exhibited on the stage, and the most\nagonizing and heartfelt sorrow manifested by the weeping audience. It\nwas the \u201cPassion Play.\u201d\n\nLet it be kept in mind that all of the incidents of the Gospels have\nbeen acted in the theatres or illustrated in the sacred rites and\nreligious ceremonies of pagan peoples from time immemorial. Are not the\nGospels a plagiarized and adapted _drama?_\n\nWe close this chapter with a further quotation from Mr. Johnson:\n\n\u201cI am not asserting that all this was pure fiction\u2014that no one stood\nwhere men imagined they saw a God on earth. But I do recognize the\nextreme difficulty of satisfying a free and sincere mind as to how much\nor how little did \u2018happen,\u2019 and the extreme hardihood of asserting at\nthis day that there was anything in the person or life of Jesus to vest\nin him the claim to be the enduring definitive centre of religious\nthought and association under any name or title whatsoever. Neither the\ncharacter of the records nor the manner of their origination authorizes\nthat postulate of perfection through which alone such claim could vest\nin any being. The veneration of ages for his name deserves respect as\nthe satisfaction of a natural demand during a certain stage of human\nprogress. But it does not prove him an exception to the law that the\nworship of personages must give way to the worship of principles\u2014the\ncentrality of an individual to the centrality of ideas\u2014the divinity or\n\u2018lordship\u2019 of a man to the deity of the infinitely wise and good. It\nillustrates that law. Christism in due time passes, like polytheism, and\na larger faith succeeds. Thus the theory refutes itself.\n\n\u201cThe Christian idealization demands that all imperfections in the\nNew-Testament Jesus shall be ascribed to the misapprehensions of the\ndisciples and the ignorance of the biographers. It is confident that\nJesus must have been greater than the record shows. But we do not know\nthat he was even so great as the record shows. We are confidently told\nthat such an ideal as can be there discerned presupposes its actual\u2014that\nno man could have drawn such a character except from life. \u2018Such a grand\nfigure is not hewn out of air.\u2019 But it is quite possible to carry this\nkind of divination too far.\n\n\u201cIf a man could be that, why could not a man or an age conceive that it\nought to be? All that can fairly be assumed is, that there must have\nbeen an impressive life (or lives) behind all the construction; and this\nis not denied. But the necessities of the religious life in that time\nproduced Jesus. Why could they not magnify their own product and improve\nupon it ideally as they developed into new and larger demands? If we are\nto insist that the idealizing faculty cannot go beyond actuality, no\nmeaning will be left to the word ideal, and no such faculty will remain.\nThis is the irony to which the old belief comes....\n\n\u201cA pure and simple worship of the Infinite and Eternal is the necessity\nof philosophy; it is the goal of science; it is the true ground of trust\nand prayer and love, of philosophic Theism and spiritual Pantheism\nalike; it is the parent of prophets, of mystics, of reformers, of all\ntrue builders of man\u2019s social unity and religious communion.\u201d\n\nNo reasonable man can doubt that the Christ of Paul and the Gospels is\nlargely, if not altogether, ideal; and in the succeeding chapter we\nproceed to give more specifically our reasons for thinking so.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.  JESUS AND OTHER CHRISTS\n\n\n_\u201cCome now, let us reason together.\u201d\u2014Isa. 1:18._\n\n_\u201cLet me reason the case with thee.\u201d\u2014Jer. 12: 1._\n\n\nTHAT there should be held so many different views concerning the\ncharacter and work of Christ is itself a very suggestive circumstance.\nIt implies that the evidence in the case is not direct and clear, and\nthat there are grounds for doubt and uncertainty. That honest,\nwell-meaning men should be left in doubt regarding the most wonderful\nevent in history, involving their salvation, is still more astounding.\nOne would suppose that if so wonderful an event as the incarnation of\nGod had taken place it would have been made so manifest that the most\nskeptical could not doubt it. There seems to have been great neglect or\nindifference regarding the matter. Contemporaneous history takes no\nnotice of Jesus, and the biographies that we have of him cannot be shown\nto have had an existence until nearly two centuries after he is said to\nhave made his advent; and Paul, who had written concerning him before\nthese Gospels were compiled, was so ambiguous that the most learned\ntheologians differ as to whether he regarded the Christ as an actual\nperson or merely an impersonation. The early records of the life of\nChrist, if any existed, seem to have been destroyed or lost, and there\nare no original documents nor authenticated copies of such records.\nThere can be no true faith, no genuine intelligent belief, without\nevidence; and where is the evidence? To believe without some reason for\nbelieving is blind credulity. The most intelligent Christian writers do\nnot even pretend to have any documents relating to the existence of\nJesus that by any strain of language can be called evidence.\n\nNeander, an eminent Christian writer, author of a _Life of Christ_,\nacknowledges in so many words his painful consciousness of the utter\nlack of historic evidence in regard to him, his acts, and wonderful\nperformances. He demands, as an imperative necessity, to be permitted at\nthe beginning to take the most important matters for granted. He asks:\n\u201cWhat, then, is the special presupposition with which we must approach\nthe life of Christ? It is, in a word, the belief that Jesus Christ is\nthe Son of God in a sense that cannot be predicated of any human being,\nthe truth that Christ is God-man being presupposed.\u201d Neander, by making\nthis confession, surrenders the whole question. There is no direct\nevidence of the existence of such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, and all\nfair-minded, intelligent Christian writers admit it. What is called\nevidence is found only in the short sketches of the New Testament, which\nhave been shown to be no evidence at all.\n\nWe might rest the case here. It is admitted that it cannot be _proved_\nthat Jesus existed, and when we undertake to show to the contrary we\nundertake to prove a negative\u2014a thing which is never required in a court\nof justice. Yet we do undertake it, and reverently invite the reader to\nimpartially consider the points in our case.\n\nThere is in the biography of Jesus an utter want of _originality_. It is\na copy of other lives. It is a significant fact that all the principal\nclaims made for Jesus of Nazareth had been made for others long before\nhim. We can only mention a few.\n\nThe birth of Buddha, like the birth of Jesus, was announced in the\nheavens by an asterism on the horizon which is singularly called the\n\u201cMessianic star.\u201d When Chrishna was born his star was pointed out by\nNared, a great astronomer.\n\nThe birth of every East Indian _avatar_ was announced by celestial\nsigns. Even the Jews have similar traditions regarding Moses and\nAbraham. Canon Farrar admits in his _Life of Christ_ that the Greeks and\nRomans always held this idea of the birth and death of great men being\npresaged by mysterious stars, and Tacitus affirms this regarding the\ndethronement of Nero. All candid theologians admit that this doctrine of\nthe announcement of the birth of extraordinary persons by the appearance\nof stars was a universal belief among ancient peoples.\n\nLuke is the only evangelist who records the fact that the birth of Jesus\nwas attended with the songs of angels from the heavenly world, and there\nis good reason for believing that this professed compiler drew his\ninformation from the apocryphal Gospel called \u201cProtevangelion.\u201d But\nthere is nothing novel in this idea, for the same thing had long before\nbeen recorded of Chrishna at his birth, that \u201cthe quarters of the\nhorizon were irradiate with joy,\u201d... that \u201cthe spirits and nymphs of\nheaven danced and sang, and at midnight the clouds emitted low pleasing\nsounds and poured down rain of flowers.\u201d It is only necessary here to\nstate that similar demonstrations are alleged to have attended the\nadvent of other Hindoo saviors, and also of Confucius, of Osiris, of\nApollonius, of Apollo, of Hercules, and of Esculapius.\n\nIt is certainly very singular that all the circumstances connected with\nthe birth of Jesus are recorded of several other persons long before.\nChrishna was cradled among shepherds, to whom his birth was first\nannounced, and the prophet Nared visited his father and mother and\ndeclared the child to be of divine descent. An aged hermit named Asita,\nlike Simeon of our Gospels, visited the infant Buddha and predicted\nwonderful things of his life and mission, and wept because he was too\nold to see the day. Not only was the infant Chrishna adored by the\nshepherds and magi, but was presented with \u201cgifts of sandal-wood and\nperfume,\u201d very like \u201cfrankincense and myrrh;\u201d and he was also presented\nwith gifts of \u201ccostly jewels and precious substances,\u201d very like \u201cgold.\u201d\nSubstantially the same things are recorded of Mithras, the Persian\nsavior, of Socrates, and many of the Grecian and Roman demigods.\n\nIt must suffice it to say that these incidents are too numerous and\ncircumstantial to be mere coincidences. King Kansa was jealous of the\ninfant Chrishna, and ordered a general slaughter of the infants under a\ncertain age and in a# certain district, just as Herod is falsely charged\nwith having done when Jesus was born; and as Joseph and Mary were warned\nin a dream to flee into Egypt to save the young child\u2019s life, so the\nfoster-father of Chrishna was warned of danger by a \u201cheavenly voice,\u201d\nand he was taken to Mathura; and Canon Farrar, speaking of the sojourn\nof Joseph, Mary, and the infant Jesus in Egypt, writes: \u201cAncient legends\nsay that they remained two years absent from Palestine, and lived at\nMatarieh, a few miles northeast of Cairo.\u201d This seems to be the same\nlegend, but the one regarding Chrishna is sculptured upon the rocks and\ntemples of India, while contemporary history makes no mention of the\nslaughter of the innocents by Herod; and further embarrassment arises\nfrom the fact that Herod was not king at that time, as the taxing under\nQuirinus did not take place under the reign of Herod, he having been\ndead for several years.\n\nIt would be easy to present more than a score of instances in which\npersons who came to be regarded as demigods and heroes had been obliged\nto flee from the wrath of the reigning monarch at their birth, as is\nrecorded of the infant Jesus. In all centuries of olden times the\nreigning monarch has generally been jealous of some mysterious child,\nwhose parents or caretakers were obliged to hide him away in some safe\nresort.\n\nThe long fast and temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, found in the\nGospel \u201caccording\u201d to Matthew, have numerous parallels in the experience\nof other Messiahs, even in minor details. The fast generally, as in the\ncase of Moses, the Ninevites, and Jesus, lasted forty days, but that of\nBuddha continued forty-seven days, and in his weakness and attenuation\nof body he was tempted by _Mara_, the prince of evil, who promised him\nall the kingdoms of the earth, \u201cuniversal empire,\u201d on certain\nconditions; but, like Jesus, he said, \u201cAvaunt! get thee away from me!\u201d\nAfter the temptation and triumph both Buddha and Jesus were ministered\nunto by visiting angels! Zoroaster, the founder of the Persian religion,\nhad a similar experience with the devil, of which there are fully\ndetailed reports.\n\nBoth Chrishna and Jesus were precocious boys, disputing with doctors and\nastonishing their teachers with their learning, which had not been\nacquired in the usual way; and both wandered away from their parents and\nbecame objects of anxiety and search to anxious mothers. Both preached a\ncelebrated sermon, wrought numerous and very similar miracles, were\nhated and opposed by the priests of their day, and both suffered\npremature violent deaths at about the same age, and then arose from the\ndead.\n\nThese parallels might be given to an indefinite extent, as they appear\nin _Asiatic Researches_, by Sir William Jones; Upham\u2019s _History and\nDoctrine of Buddhism_; Hardy\u2019s _Manual of Buddhism_; numerous other\nancient and modern writings on this subject; and the parallel facts\npresented by these authorities are admitted by the most distinguished\nChristian writers not a few.\n\nIn regard to miracles it is thought best to say only a passing word.\n\nIt is admitted by the ablest theologians of the orthodox schools that\nmiracles are indispensable to establish the claim of a special\nsupernatural revelation, and great reliance is made upon the miracles\naccredited to the Christian Christ; and yet we find other saviors and\nheroes credited not only with the same miracles substantially, but with\na larger number of even more wonderful miracles. It would be easy to\nfill a large volume with the alleged miracles of Buddha and Chrishna,\nand Prof. Max M\u00fcller affirms that the Buddhistic miracles \u201csurpass in\nwonderfulness the miracles of all other religions.\u201d Zoroaster, Buddha,\nOsiris, Isis, and Horus all wrought miracles, even the raising of the\ndead; Serapis, Marduk, Bacchus, Esculapius, and Apollonius did the same;\nand the early Christian Fathers admitted the reality of heathen\nmiracles, but very conveniently attributed them to the devil. In short,\nit may safely be affirmed that more wonderful and better-authenticated\naccounts of miracles are given of numerous other persons, both before\nand after the advent of the Christian Christ, than are given of his\nmiracles in the Gospels.\n\nThe Greeks were accustomed to say, \u201cMiracles for fools,\u201d and the Romans\nshrewdly said, \u201cThe common people like to be deceived\u2014deceived let them\nbe;\u201d and even the Christian Father St. Chrysostom declared that\n\u201cmiracles are proper only to excite sluggish and vulgar minds; men of\nsense have no occasion for them.\u201d The modern theological idea of proving\nthe record by the miracle, and the miracle by the record, has become too\ntransparent for even the most credulous.\n\nThere is also great confusion about the time of the birth of Jesus,\nthough the Church in a sort of perfunctory manner settled this by saying\nhe was born December 25, A. D. One. But the Church adopted this date for\nreasons of an astronomical character. More than one hundred different\ndates, some extending back nearly a century, have been fixed as to his\nbirth, showing that no one knew anything about it. A blundering notice\nof his birth assigns its date to the period when Cyrenius was governor\nof Syria, and makes the enrolment ordered by that official the occasion\nof Joseph\u2019s temporary sojourn at Bethlehem when that event took place.\nThis enrolment, however, was not made till after the displacement of\nArchelaus from the kingdom of Judea and some ten years or more after the\ndeath of Herod, and the story is accordingly in direct contradiction\nwith the account of the flight of Joseph into Egypt, while Herod was\nstill alive, to preserve the life of his son from that monarch\u2019s\njealousy. But what is very significant is the fact that when Cyrenius\ncommanded the enrolment Judas of Galilee arose and denounced it. He\nestablished a distinct sect which continued till the overthrow of the\nJewish people.\n\nJosephus says: \u201cWhen Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus\u2019s money, and\nwhen the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the\nthirty-seventh year of Caesar\u2019s victory over Antony at Actium,\u201d Antiq.\nxviii. 2. The battle of Actium, in which Octavianus gained his final\nvictory over Antony, occurred in b. c. 31. Counting thirty-seven years,\nwould bring the date of the taxings down to A. d. 6. Archelaus after\nreigning ten years was deposed for misconduct, and banished into Gaul.\nCyrenius, a Roman senator, had been sent by the government to settle up\nhis finances and take an account of the substance of the Jews, or, in\nother words, to assess their property in order to apportion their taxes.\nThese things were done in the thirty-seventh year after the battle of\nActium, or in 6 A. d. Counting ten years back, we would be at the year 4\nb. c., or the year Archelaus began to reign. As Herod of course was dead\nbefore Archelaus ascended the throne, he consequently died before Christ\nwas born, and hence the entire story of the slaying of the infants, the\njourney of the wise men, and the flight into Egypt falls helplessly to\nthe ground.\n\n\u201cBut when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, in the room of his\nfather Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned\nof God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee.\u201d Matt.\n2:22.\n\nHere we have a strange state of affairs. Joseph and the young child\nturned from Judea to Galilee when Archelaus was as powerful in the one\ncountry as in the other, for his ethnarchy included both!\n\nIn reading the first chapter of Matthew\u2019s Gospel we find an inexplicable\nmystery. The very first verse reads: \u201cThe book of the generation of\nJesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.\u201d Then in the\nsixteenth verse it is said, \u201cAnd Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of\nMary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.\u201d In the eighteenth,\nnineteenth, and twentieth verses the Holy Ghost is represented as the\nreal Father of Jesus by a virgin; and his miraculous divine descent is\nelsewhere specifically taught in the Gospels, and the divine Sonship of\nJesus has been accepted as a fact by the general Church\u2014Roman Catholic,\nGreek, and Protestant.\n\nOn the other hand, there is proof positive, if the record is accepted,\nthat Jesus claimed for himself simple humanity, and consequent\ninferiority and subjection to God; and Roman Catholics and orthodox\nProtestants very conveniently settle these contradictions by affirming\nthat he was both God and man; while Unitarians reject the divinity of\nJesus, and by way of apology for so doing magnify his manhood so as to\nmake him quite divine, a human god.\n\nIt would be easy to fill volumes with accounts, with very slight\nvariations, of the miraculous conception and birth of divine personages\nborn of virgin mothers, who, after laboring and suffering for the good\nof men, came to a tragic death, which was generally followed by a\ntriumphant resurrection and subsequent deification. The cases are so\nnumerous that one hardly knows where to begin to enumerate them. It\nwould be easy to furnish a roll containing the names of scores of\nincarnate deities, and it would be tedious to describe the many things\nin which they substantially agree.\n\nAccording to some modern writers, supported by abundant sculptures in\ntemples, caves, and rocks, Vishnu, the second person of the Hindoo\ntrinity, has been incarnated eight or nine times, Buddha being the\nfirst, Chrishna the eighth, and Gautama, also called Sakya-Muni, the\nninth. The fact that these alleged incarnations took place at uniform\nintervals show their astronomical origin.\n\nEqually suggestive is the fact that there are so many peculiarities\nconnected with the birth of these gods, and also so many incidents in\ntheir lives and deaths absolutely identical.\n\nThe name of the mother of Buddha was _Maia_ and the same name was given\nto the mother of the Greek Mercury and even to later divinities; which,\nlike the name Mary, typifies the sea and sometimes the month of May.\n\nBuddha had no earthly father, but was an immaculate conception of a ray\nof celestial light through a virgin mother. Chrishna, the eighth Indian\nincarnation, was born of the left intercostal rib of a virgin. His birth\nwas concealed through fear of the tyrant Kansa. He raised the dead and\nwrought marvellous miracles, and washed the feet of the Brahmans. It\nwould be tedious to give details, as almost every incident recorded in\nthe Gospels of the life of the alleged Christian incarnation is recorded\nin circumstantial detail of some ancient pagan deity.\n\nThe fact is, that all the great nations of antiquity, and many of the\nsmaller tribes, have had very similar views as to divine manifestations\nin human flesh; and you need only turn to the pages of any good\ndictionary of mythology to verify the truth of this allegation.\n\nWe might extend these analogies to an indefinite extent. The author of\n_Bible Myths_ has specified about fifty particulars in which Jesus is\nsaid to have resembled Buddha, and as many more particulars in the case\nof Chrishna. Nobody having any knowledge of the world\u2019s history will\ndoubt that these Indian divinities preceded the Judean Christ by several\ncenturies, as many distinguished writers, like Prof. Max M\u00fcller, have\nadmitted.\n\nWe challenge the theologians to present one single prominent feature or\ncharacteristic said to have been shown in the career of Jesus which did\nnot appear in several other alleged incarnations hundreds of years\nbefore. The fact is, that the Christ of modern times is a perfect copy\nof other Christs who preceded him. Not only are all ancient Oriental\nscriptures full of incarnated divine saviors, but the same symbols and\nceremonies abound in their worship. Take the cross, for an example. In\nancient India the cross was as common as in modern Rome, and heathen\ntemples were built in the form of a cross centuries before papists and\nPuseyites and their liberal imitators ever thought of such a thing. It\nwas a common symbol in the ancient worship of Egypt. It was a Druidic\nemblem in Britain five hundred years before the introduction of\nChristianity. Plato, the Grecian philosopher, four hundred or five\nhundred years before Christ proclaimed the cross to be the best symbol\nof the divinity next to the supreme. The worshippers of Serapis used it,\nand Hadrian, the Roman emperor, as late as A. d. 130 mistook them for\nChristians. The standard portrait of Jesus, so honored by modern\nChristians, is a copy of the head of Serapis, the well-known sun-god,\naccording to the testimony of Mr. King in his able work, _Gnostics and\ntheir Remains_ (p. 68).\n\nThe same is true of baptism and the Eucharist, as ceremonies identical\nwith these, in their main aspects, existed among the ancient pagans. The\n\u201cLord\u2019s Supper\u201d virtually was in use more than two hundred and fifty\nyears before Christ. Wherever Christian missionaries have gone they have\nfound substantially the same dogmas and religious observances, and\nTertullian, a Christian Father of the second century, conveniently\nexplained this fact by saying that the devil had taught the heathen\nthese same things to forestall the preaching of the missionaries.\n\nAnd yet Justin Martyr in the second century (a. d. 140), in defending\nthe Christian religion against the assaults of pagans, said: \u201cFor\ndeclaring that the Logos, the first-begotten Son of God, our Master\nJesus Christ, to be born of a virgin without any human mixture, and to\nbe crucified and dead and to have arisen again into heaven, we say no\nmore in this than what you say of those whom you style the sons of\nJove.\u201d Here is a distinct admission in the second century, from one in\nhigh authority, that the doctrine of the death and resurrection of\nmiraculously-incarnated deities born of virgin mothers was well known\namong pagans before the Christian era.\n\nBut we are not done with Justin Martyr yet. In his Apology to the\nemperor Hadrian he makes this most astonishing admission: \u201cIn saying\nthat all things were made in this beautiful order by God, what do we\nseem to say more than Plato? When we teach a general conflagration, what\ndo we teach more than the Stoics? By opposing the worship of the works\nof men\u2019s hands we concur with Menander the comedian.... For you need not\nbe told what a parcel of sons the writers most in vogue among you assign\nto Jove; there\u2019s Mercury, Jove\u2019s interpreter, in imitation of the Logos,\nin worship among you. There\u2019s \u00c6sculapius, the physician, smitten by a\nthunderbolt, and after that ascending into heaven. There\u2019s Bacchus, torn\nto pieces; and Hercules, burnt to get rid of his pains. There\u2019s Pollux\nand Castor, the sons of Jove by Leda, and Perseus by Dan\u00e6; and, not to\nmention others, I would fain know why you always deify the departed\nemperors, and have a fellow at hand to make affidavit that he saw C\u00e6sar\nmount to heaven from the funeral pile?\n\n\u201cAs to the Son of God, called Jesus, should we allow him to be nothing\nmore than man, yet the title of the Son of God is very justifiable, upon\nthe account of his wisdom, considering that you have your Mercury in\nworship under the title of the Word and Messenger of God.\n\n\u201c_As to the objection of our Jesus being crucified,_ I say that\nsuffering was common to all the forementioned sons of Jove, but only\nthey suffered another kind of death. As to his being born of a virgin,\nyou have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the lame and the\nparalytic and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than\nwhat you say of your \u00c6sculapius.\u201d\n\nSt. Augustine says: \u201cFor the thing itself which is now called the\nChristian religion really was known to the ancients, nor was not wanting\nat any time from the beginning of the human race until the time when\nChrist came in the flesh, from whence the true religion which had\npreviously existed began to be called Christian; and this in our day is\nthe Christian religion, not as having been wanting in former times, but\nas having in later times received this name.\u201d\n\nA fellow and tutor in Trinity College and lecturer on ancient history in\nthe University of Dublin (Mr. Mahaffy) closes one of his lectures in the\nfollowing manner: \u201cThere is, indeed, hardly a great or fruitful idea in\nthe Jewish or Christian system which has not its analogy in the\n(ancient) Egyptian faith. The development of the one God into a\n_trinity_; the incarnation of the mediating deity in a virgin, and\nwithout a father; his conflict and his momentary defeat by the powers of\ndarkness; his partial victory (for the enemy is not destroyed); his\nresurrection and reign over an eternal kingdom with his justified\nsaints; his distinction from, and yet identity with, the uncreate\nincomprehensible Father, whose form is unknown and who dwelleth not in\ntemples made with hands,\u2014_all these theological conceptions pervade the\noldest religion of Egypt_. So, too, the contrast and even the apparent\ninconsistencies between our moral and theological beliefs\u2014the\nvacillating attribution of sin and guilt partly to moral weakness,\npartly to the interference of evil spirits, and likewise of\nrighteousness to moral worth, and again to help of good genii or angels;\nthe immortality of the soul and its final judgment,\u2014_all these things\nhave met us in the Egyptian ritual and moral treatises_. So, too, the\npurely human side of morals and the catalogue of virtues and vices are\nby natural consequences as like as are the theological systems. _But I\nrecoil from opening this great subject now; it is enough to have lifted\nthe veil and shown the scene of many a future contest._\u201d\n\nIndeed, the ablest of the Christian Fathers never claimed that\nChristianity was a new religion recently and specially revealed by\nJesus, but made many admissions quite to the contrary. Clarke in his\n_Evidences_ says that the most ancient writers of the Church did not\nscruple to acknowledge the Athenian Socrates a Christian.\n\nClemens Alexandrinus, of the second century (a. d. 194), wrote: \u201cAnd\nthose who lived according to the _Logos_ were really Christians that is\nto say, those who practically accepted the Greek conception of a divine\nincarnation were really Christians.\u201d And why not, for is not John\u2019s\nGospel an elaboration of the Neo-Platonism of the Greeks? and is not the\nwhole Christian scheme an ingenious combination of Judaism and Oriental\nphilosophy?\n\nLactantius well said: \u201cIf there had been one to have collected the truth\nthat was scattered and diffused among the sects into one, and to have\nreduced it into a system, there would indeed have been no difference\nbetween him and us.\u201d Could anything be more emphatic than this admission\nof a Christian Father of the fourth century that Christianity is made up\nof fragments of other religions?\n\nA volume might be filled with similar admissions from the highest\nChristian authority, for it would be easy to show that it was the main\nargument of Justin Martyr (a. d. 141) that the Christian religion\ncontained nothing that might not be found in all earlier religions, and\nthat therefore its votaries deserved toleration and protection rather\nthan persecution.\n\nCompare the following, furnished by Mr. Johnson, with the teachings of\nJesus:\n\n\u201cWhen you have shut your doors and darkened your room, beware of saying\nthat you are alone, for you are not alone, for God is within, and your\ngenius is within, and what need have they of light to see what you are\ndoing?\u201d (Epictet., i. 14); \u201cDare look up to God, and say, \u2018Use me as\nthou wilt. I am one with thee. I refuse nothing that seems good to thee.\nLead me whither thou wilt\u2019\u201d (ii. 16); \u201cBe not angry with the erring, but\npity them rather\u201d (i. 18); \u201cBe patient, mild, ready to forgive, severe\nto none, knowing that the soul is never willingly deprived of truth\u201d\n(ii. 22); \u201cNo need to lift up the hands or get close to the ears of an\nimage, so as to be heard. God is near thee, with thee, in thee. I tell\nthee, Lucilius, a holy spirit dwells within us, beholder of our conduct\u201d\n(Seneca, Ep., xli.); \u201cBetween God and good men is friendship, yea,\nnecessary intimacy\u201d (De Prov., i. 5); \u201cWhat use in concealment from men?\nNothing is hid from God\u201d (Ep., lxxxiii. 1); \u201cGod escapes the eyes; he is\nseen by thought only\u201d (Nat. Quest., vii. 30); \u201cNo temples are to be\nbuilt to him. He must be hallowed by each in his own breast\u201d (Seneca,\nquoted by Lactantius, Ind., vi. 25); \u201cMan\u2019s primal union is with God\u201d\n(Cicero, De Leg., i. 7); \u201cVirtue is the same in God and man; man\ntherefore is in the likeness of God\u201d (ibid.).\n\nWe could multiply these quotations indefinitely, but we forbear. The\nfact cannot be denied that Christianity is but the continuation and\nmodification of the old pagan religions, and that Egypt has to be\nlargely credited with supplying a great portion of the subject-matter of\nour so-called \u201cspecial revelation.\u201d We could take up the sun-gods of\nEgypt and show that all the titles and offices ascribed to them are\ngiven to Jesus, and that often the very language is used. \u201cOut of Egypt\nhave I called my Son\u201d is emphatically true, but in a broader and wider\nsense than is generally supposed. This will be more clearly shown\nhereafter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII. A REVERENT CRITIQUE ON JESUS\n\n\nWE say \u201creverent\u201d out of pure regard to the feelings of multitudes of\ndevout persons who verily believe that Jesus was and is God, and so any\ncriticism of him is simply blasphemous. This subject is not to be\ntreated in a light or frivolous manner.\n\nWe say \u201creverent\u201d also out of respect to a smaller number of so-called\n_liberals_ who deny the divinity of Christ, but who nevertheless believe\nthat Jesus was the _one_ pre-eminently good and wise man, and that no\nman equal to him ever existed or ever will exist upon the face of this\nearth; that he was the special Son of God, the model man, worthy of\nworship as the man who possessed so much of the divine spirit as to\nentitle him to the place of honor and grateful remembrance among men for\nall time and in all countries.\n\nWe think it more honest and respectful to reverently inquire into the\nevidences of his divine character, and not to accept with blind\ncredulity what other men say. We are endowed with reason, and it seems\nto us proper that we should exercise our rational faculties, and not\nignore them altogether. Honest _doubt_ must be more acceptable to him,\n_if_ he is God, than unreasoning faith.\n\nNow, we propose to look at him in the light of the New Testament, and\nespecially of the Gospels, assuming them to be authentic. We shall here\npass by his infancy and childhood (utterly ignoring the doubtful and\ncontroverted passages concerning his immaculate conception and\nmiraculous birth), and take the first direct account we have of his\nlife. This commences when he was about _twelve_ years of age. We are\ntold that he accompanied his mother and putative father to Jerusalem,\nwhither they went to attend the feast of the Passover. Luke states that\nhe strayed away from his parents, who were greatly concerned for his\nsafety, but he was at length found in the temple among the doctors\nasking and answering wonderful questions, so as to astonish all who\nheard him with his wonderful knowledge. His mother gently reproved him\nfor giving them so much anxiety, and he answered back, rather\nimpatiently, \u201cHow is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be\nabout my Father\u2019s business?\" But he went home with his parents and was\nsubject to them, and for at least eighteen years dwelt with them and his\nbrothers James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. The names of his several\nsisters are not given. During these eighteen years he is supposed to\nhave learned the trade of a carpenter and worked with his reputed\nfather, who was a carpenter, spending the most vigorous portion of his\nlife in manual labor, only devoting about three years to his mission as\nthe Messiah. Now, Jesus is held up as an \u201cexample,\u201d and we are \u201cto\nfollow his steps,\u201d and it does not appear that there was anything in his\nexample specially worthy of imitation for about thirty years. We must\nfind it in the last years of his earthly career if we find it at all.\n\nThe first instance in which the evangelists bring Jesus forward as a\nmoral teacher is in the Sermon on the Mount. This discourse is supposed\nby Christians to be the masterpiece of wisdom and deep spiritual\ninsight. While Matthew gives it as a complete discourse, Mark and Luke\nintersperse the substance of the sermon throughout their Gospels; which\nis strong presumptive proof that it was not delivered as a connected\ndiscourse. Like the book of Proverbs, it seems to be a collection of the\nmoral sayings of former times, many of which can be pointed out, with\nslight verbal alterations, in the writings of pagan authors and of more\nmodern Jews of the Hillel school. In fact, there is nothing in the\nsermon which had not been taught by many others a long time before,\nwhile there is much that is absurd and impracticable, not to say untrue\nand unjust. Even the deep spirituality involved in recognizing the\nspirit and intent of the law can be paralleled by several passages in\nBuddhistic scriptures. The so-called \u201cGolden Rule\u201d was announced by\nConfucius as an axiom nearly five centuries before the Christian era,\nboth in its positive and its negative form, while the same maxim is laid\ndown in most choice and beautiful language by Isocrates, Aristotle,\nSextus, Pittacus, Thales, and many others from three to six centuries\nbefore Christ.\n\nThe same is true of the Lord\u2019s Prayer, though it is often asserted that\nJesus first taught the \u201cFatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.\u201d\nThis is not true. The \u201cLord\u2019s Prayer\u201d is found in the ancient Jewish\nrituals, and is entitled a \u201cPrayer to the Father,\u201d and the expression\n\u201cOur Father who art in heaven\u201d is common to many, if not all, nations\nand religions.\n\nWhile there are several things in the Sermon on the Mount truly\nbeautiful, there is nothing that is strictly _original_; there are many\nsayings which show a great lack of knowledge, and that are positively\nimpracticable and immoral in their tendency. No Christian tries to keep\nthese sayings. It would lead to vagabondism and would convert a nation\ninto a crowd of tramps. It would be positively immoral to obey them. If\nJesus did not _intend_ that his teachings should be taken according to\nthe common sense of the words used, why did he not say so? What is\nlanguage for but to express one\u2019s meaning? So far from teaching the\nnon-resistance of evil, in other places he runs into the extreme of\nteaching revenge. (See Luke 10:10-12; Matt. 10:14, 15; Mark 6:11.) He\nalso sanctions the most gross injustice. He commends the unjust steward\n(Luke 16:5-8), saying that he had \u201cdone wisely\u201d in cheating his employer\nby compounding with his creditors, and advises his hearers to make\n\u201cfriends\u201d of the \u201cmammon of unrighteousness.\u201d\n\nMoreover, whoever is familiar with the teachings ascribed to Jesus must\nknow that his first condition of discipleship is _the total surrender of\nall worldly possessions and the non-accumulation of earthly treasures\nthereafter_ (Matt. 16: 24; Luke 14: 26, 27; Matt. 19, etc.). Can words\nbe more emphatic than the utterances of Jesus reported in Matt.\n6:19-34?\u2014\u201cLay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and\nrust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.\u201d... \u201cFor\nwhere your treasure is, there will your heart be also.\u201d... \u201cYe cannot\nserve God and mammon.\u201d... \u201cTherefore I say unto you, Take no thought for\nyour life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your\nbody, what ye shall put on.\u201d This absolute unconcern about food and\nraiment is emphasized by repeating the injunction twice: \u201cTherefore take\nno thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or,\nWherewithal shall we be clothed?\u201d... \u201cTake therefore no thought for the\nmorrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.\u201d\n\nThe attempts of theologians to modify these precepts are most\npreposterous. They tell us that Jesus meant to discourage _anxious_\nthought about worldly possessions and wants\u2014that he intended to condemn\nundue anxiety and worriment of mind; and they even assert that the\noriginal word implies and justifies this rendering. To this it may be\nreplied, We cannot be certain as to what particular words Jesus used, as\nwe have no manuscripts of the Gospels dating back to within four hundred\nyears of his time, and the alleged copies that we have are not\nauthenticated; so that an argument, even if justified by learned\ncriticism, based upon the implied meaning of particular words is\nuseless, unless we are sure, as we cannot be, that Jesus used those very\nwords, and that he intended that his disciples and other unlearned and\nuncritical hearers should accept the implied rather than the obvious\nmeaning.\n\nBut, taking the words in the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels now most\napproved by scholars, we deny that there is anything in them to justify\nthe interpolation of the word \u201canxious\u201d between the words \u201cno\u201d and\n\u201cthought.\u201d There is the highest classical authority for the assertion\nthat the verb employed here simply means to \u201ccare,\u201d \u201cto be careful,\u201d \u201cto\nheed,\u201d and is so translated in other portions of the New Testament, as,\nfor examples, in 1 Cor. 7: 32, 33, 34; Phil. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:7; and in\nmany other passages. When Paul exhorted the Philippians to be \u201ccareful\nfor nothing,\u201d because the Lord was about to appear in judgment, he\nobviously meant that it was not worth while to make any provision for\nfuture bodily wants.\n\nIt is a universally-admitted principle of critical interpretation that\nthe meaning of words in any given text must be determined from the\ncontext, the connection in which the word occurs. It so happens that\nJesus has illustrated his doctrine in this connection so as to make it\nimpossible to doubt as to the meaning of the words employed: \u201cBehold the\nfowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather\ninto barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye much\nbetter than they?\u201d... \u201cAnd why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the\nlilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin,\nand I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like\none of these.\u201d\n\nThe use of the illative word, \u201c_wherefore_, if God so clothe the grass,\u201d\nand the word \u201c_therefore_ take no thought,\u201d show beyond doubt that Jesus\nintended to teach, and did teach, that his disciples were to be as\nindifferent to matters of food and clothing as are the birds of the air\nand the flowers of the field. Not only did he use words that sanction\nthe utmost improvidence in regard to future bodily wants, but he gave\nthe sense in which his words were to be received by referring them to\nthe well-known unconcern of the birds and lilies.\n\nBut it may be further shown what Jesus meant to teach by reference to\nhis own life and the lives of his first followers. There is little or no\nevidence in the Gospels or elsewhere that Jesus or his first disciples\never possessed any earthly goods whatever, or that they ever engaged in\nany of the useful or wealth-producing avocations of the country in which\nthey lived. Matthew speaks of Jesus as the son of a carpenter, and Mark\ncalls him \u201cthe carpenter, the son of Mary.\u201d The fervid imaginations of\nmodern writers have depicted Jesus as an apprentice to his father and\nlaboring at the carpenter\u2019s trade, but there is no evidence that he ever\npushed a plane or drove a nail. There is no reason to believe that he\never erected a house for others, and it is certain that he never built a\nhouse for himself, for he has told us that \u201cthe foxes have holes and the\nbirds of the air have nests, but the Son of man has not where to lay his\nhead.\u201d There is not in any of the Gospels one single word accredited to\nJesus in favor of industrial pursuits, not one syllable to justify the\naccumulation of property, or any forethought whatever for sickness, for\nhelpless infancy, or tottering age.\n\nWhen Jesus sent out his disciples he expressly forbade them to make any\nprovision for food or raiment. He said, \u201cProvide neither gold or silver\nnor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats,\nneither shoes, nor yet staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat.\u201d\nThey were to throw themselves upon the charities of the world, accept\nsuch things as were given them, and to manifest the utmost indifference\nto worldly comforts. There is no evidence that any of the followers of\nJesus who listened to his personal instructions ever engaged in any\nworldly avocation, except to catch a mess of fish when driven by hunger\nto do so. They lived from \u201chand to mouth,\u201d and if they had lived in our\nday they would, every one of them, have been denominated \u201ctramps,\u201d and\nwould have been amenable to our modern laws of vagrancy. \u2019Tis true,\nthere seems to have been some sort of care about future possible wants,\nbut only on the communistic principle. They had a treasurer in the\nperson of Judas Iscariot, but no _individual_ possessions were allowed.\nWe are told (Acts 4: 26) regarding early Christians, \u201cNeither was there\nany among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or\nhouses sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold,\nand laid them down at the apostles\u2019 feet, and distribution was made unto\nevery man according as he had need.\u201d In Acts 2:44, 45 the facts are also\nfully set forth: \u201cAnd all that believed were together and had all things\ncommon, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men\nas every man had need.\u201d Whatever was allowed as a community, it is\ncertain that no individual was allowed to accumulate or retain property\non his own personal account.\n\nIn perfect consistency with the view here presented Jesus taught that\nthe possession of riches was almost sure to debar one from heaven\u2014that\nwhile it might be possible for a rich man to be saved, because all\nthings are possible with God, nevertheless it is \u201ceasier for a camel to\ngo through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into\nheaven.\u201d Riches were always denounced by Jesus, and poverty eulogized as\nif it were a virtue in itself, commending one to the favor of God and\ngreatly increasing his prospects for the heavenly inheritance. If the\ntriple testimony of the synoptical Gospels amounts to anything, it shows\nbeyond a doubt that Jesus would accept no man as a disciple who\ncontinued in the possession of worldly property, or who accumulated\nearthly riches, or who allowed himself to think of the future\nnecessaries of life, even food and clothing. At the same time, the most\npromiscuous and profuse almsgiving was enjoined: \u201cSell all that thou\nhast and give unto the poor,\u201d was the literal injunction. \u201cGive to him\nthat asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou\naway.\u201d\n\nBesides this, he required absolute non-resistance: \u201cBut I say unto you\nthat ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right\ncheek turn to him the other also \u201cAnd whosoever shall compel thee to go\na mile, go with him twain \u201cAnd if any man will sue thee at the law and\ntake away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.\u201d This is even more than\nnon-resistance; it is a reward for unprincipled men to impose upon you.\nIt would be impossible to state the principle of absolute non-resistance\nin stronger language. But modern commentators tell us that Jesus did not\nintend to be so understood\u2014that he merely intended to condemn the spirit\nof strife and retaliation. Why, then, did he not say so? Which shall we\naccept\u2014what Jesus plainly and repeatedly said, or what commentators say\nhe meant?\n\nWhat are we to say about the doctrine of _bodily mutilation_ taught in\nthe Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5: 29, 30)? Theologians of to-day tell us\nthat these words are to be taken in a metaphorical sense\u2014that to secure\nsalvation we must sacrifice every passion that would lead us into sin,\nthough it might be as dear as a right hand, foot, or eye. The reason\nassigned by Jesus for enforcing this precept cannot be reconciled with\nthe assumption that it was intended to be figurative: \u201cFor it is\nprofitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that\nthy whole body should be cast into hell.\u201d If by members of the body\nJesus _meant principles or passions_ that might tempt and entrap one\ninto evil, we must charge upon the precept the absurdity that it would\nbe better to enter into heaven with one evil principle or passion than\nto be cast into hell with many evil principles and passions! The literal\ninterpretation is favored by the fact that in ancient times bodily\nmutilation was recognized in religious matters. In Matt. 19:12, Jesus is\nreported to have said, \u201cAnd there be eunuchs, which have made themselves\neunuchs for the kingdom of heaven\u2019s sake. He that is able to receive it,\nlet him receive it.\u201d If this is not a sanction of bodily mutilation,\nwhat can it mean? That it was understood literally by many early\nChristians cannot be denied. The ascetics of the second century\npractised the most extreme literal mortification of the flesh, and even\nin the middle of the third century Origen, one of the most learned of\nthe Christian Fathers, destroyed his own manhood by bodily mutilation as\nan act of piety. Much curious matter upon this subject may be found in\nMosheim\u2019s _Ecclesiastical History_, page 310, and also Gibbon\u2019s _Decline\nand Fall_, chap. xv. and notes.\n\nThe fairest and most reasonable way to ascertain what Jesus taught is to\nstudy his own life, and then to follow his example. It will be somewhat\nstartling to many when we announce the proposition that the religion of\nthe Christian Gospels is monastic and ascetic in the extreme, and that\nJesus himself was an ascetic, and that he required his disciples to\nbecome such. One thing is certain: No man can study the character of\nJesus and his teachings, his own life and the career of his immediate\ndisciples, without admitting the monkish character of their religion. It\nwas emphatically the religion of sorrow, the religion not only of\nanti-naturalism, but of unnaturalism. It virtually said: \u201cWhatever is\nnatural is wrong; whatever you desire is wrong. To do what is painful is\nright, while to do what you want to do is certain ruin. Life must be one\nincessant wail of suffering if it is to be followed with eternal\nblessedness. The body is the enemy of the soul, and the world the enemy\nof God. Worldly prosperity is a curse in disguise, while poverty and\nwant and persecution and suffering of all kinds are indications of the\ndivine favor.\u201d (See _Secret of the East_, by Dr. Felix L. Oswald.)\n\nAt the very commencement of his public career Jesus formed an alliance\nwith that hardiest of anchorites known as John the Baptist, and in all\nthe Gospels the close relationship between the missions of John and\nJesus is constantly recognized. It is a tradition of the early Church\nthat Jesus was never known to smile, and there is an implication in the\nGospels that his face was prematurely old. He recommended a life of\nreligious mendicancy and voluntary poverty as absolutely necessary for\nadmission to his kingdom.\n\nBut there was scarce anything in the teachings of Jesus that had not\nbeen insisted upon for hundreds of years before by the monks of India,\nEgypt, and other countries. It is impossible to go into details, but no\nman of reading will deny this allegation. Like the ancient monks, Jesus\npractised long fastings and abstained from flesh meats, though he ate\nfish and vegetables. He neither possessed nor sought to acquire any\nworldly property. While going about the streets and the seashore\nteaching by day, he generally resorted, like ancient monks, to the\nmountains and wilderness at night, and his principal religious devotions\nwere performed in the darkness of midnight. He abstained from marriage,\nand had but little regard for the domestic relations. Asceticism was the\ndistinguishing characteristic of the early Church, and the doctrine of\nthe community of goods was practically received by the Church for two\nhundred years, and is so received by many to-day.\n\nSo far from practically condemning the literal teachings of Jesus as we\nfind them in the Gospels, we take the ground that they were just what\nmight have been expected from one holding the doctrine that the world\nwas about to be destroyed and a new kingdom established upon the\nregenerated earth, of which he was to be the king and his disciples the\nprinces. If there was anything definite in the teachings of Jesus, it\nwas the speedy coming of the end of the world. Carefully study the\ntwenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, the thirteenth of Mark, and the\ntwenty-first of Luke if you have any doubts upon this subject.\n\nThe attempt of theologians to make it appear that Jesus only referred to\nthe destruction of Jerusalem is most absurd. It virtually charges Jesus\nwith the inconsistency of giving information upon one subject when his\ndisciples desired information upon another. They asked him for signs\nthat should precede the destruction of the world, and he distinctly\naffirmed, \u201cThis generation shall not pass away till all these things are\nfulfilled;\u201d \u201cThere be some standing here that shall not taste death till\nthey see the Son of man coming in his kingdom\u201d (Matt. 16:28). The\ndoctrine of the almost _immediate_ end of all mundane things as they\nthen existed is the only key to unlock what seems so absurd in the\nteachings of Jesus. If he believed what he taught as to the speedy end\nof the world, it was perfectly consistent for him to condemn the holding\nor accumulating of property, and to commend the most indiscriminate\nalmsgiving, the most absolute non-resistance, with bodily mortification\nand mutilation, and a life of unworldliness and practical mendicancy and\npoverty. Jesus and his disciples taught and acted just as men would\nteach and act if they believed that the end of the world was at hand.\nHis disciples so understood him.\n\nIn the year 960 A. d. there was in the Christian Church a revival of\nthis doctrine, and the speedy end of the world and the second coming of\nJesus were proclaimed with great earnestness. The clergy as a class\nadopted it, and encouraged people to give away their possessions. A\nuniversal panic prevailed; all business was suspended; men abandoned\ntheir families, and multitudes undertook a pilgrimage to Palestine to\nmeet their returning Lord.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to mention the craze of \u201cMillerism\u201d in 1843 in\nthis country, when many, in perfect consistency with their belief, gave\nup their possessions and prepared their \u201cascension robes,\u201d and waited\nanxiously for the end. If the clergy of all denominations should now\nunite in proclaiming just what Jesus predicted concerning the end of the\nworld, just in proportion as people sincerely believed the message they\nwould at once literally accept the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount,\nand act accordingly.\n\nThis leads us to the inevitable conclusion that much of what Jesus\ntaught can only be understood and justified by his particular view and\nrepresentation of the almost immediate end of all earthly things; and\nthis understanding of the subject is much more creditable to Jesus as a\nteacher than the assumption that he failed to make himself understood,\nand that he did not mean what he said, though both he and his disciples\npractically in their lives exemplified the unworldliness and asceticism\nthat he preached.\n\nWe submit as a key to the enigmas of the Sermon on the Mount and other\nhard sayings attributed to Jesus that he and his disciples believed and\ntaught that this world was about to be made new, that the then present\norder was about to terminate, and that therefore earthly possessions and\npursuits were of no consequence, and even the domestic relations were of\nlittle account.\n\nThat the teachings and examples of Jesus (in many respects) cannot be\naccepted by the people of the nineteenth century without a complete\noverthrow of existing institutions and forms of civilization is a\nself-evident fact. We must abandon all industrial pursuits, change all\nour views of the rights of property, adopt the communistic principle and\npolicy, and lead lowly lives of self-denial and bodily mortification and\ndiscomfort.\n\nWe repeat that the teachings and example of Jesus were natural and\nrational from his conviction of the approaching end of all things.\n\nIt would be easy to point out many other things in the Sermon on the\nMount equally defective and offensive to reason and common sense, but we\nforbear. We have dwelt upon this celebrated sermon at such length\nbecause it is held up as a model of moral teaching. We pronounce it a\nvery inferior compilation of things good and bad, not at all\ncorresponding with proper ideas of practical morality, and not adapted\nto the present necessities of civilization.\n\nWhat is said of the Sermon on the Mount may be said of many portions of\nthe alleged teachings of Jesus. We mention only a few instances. The\nparable of the Unjust Steward justifies a worldly cunning and a\ndecidedly dishonest act (Luke 16:5-8). Jesus commends him, saying that\n\u201che had done wisely\u201d in cheating his principal, and advises his\ndisciples to \u201cmake to them friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.\u201d A\nmore grossly dishonest act could not have been committed by a person\nacting in a fiduciary capacity. To follow his example would overthrow\nall business integrity and lead to universal knavery.\n\nIn the parable of the Unjust Judge he gives a very low and\nanthropomorphic view of God and the efficacy of prayer. It is this: A\ncertain woman went to a judge for a certain favor, and he would not\ngrant her request. She persisted, and finally he said, \u201cThough I fear\nnot God nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me I will\navenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.\u201d Then the lesson\ntaught: \u201cAnd shall not God avenge his own elect which cry unto him day\nand night, though he bear long with them?\u201d This certainly teaches that\nif one teases and worries God long enough, he will answer the prayer\nwithout regard to the rightfulness of the petition. Dr. Adam Clark says\nin his _Commentary_ that the expression \u201cshe weary me\u201d is a metaphor\ntaken from boxers, \u201cwho bruise each other about the face, _blacken the\neyes!_\u201d We forbear to remark on this blasphemous doctrine.\n\nWe pass on without specifying the manifestly unjust principles laid down\nin the parables of the Laborers in the Vineyard, the Ten Talents, the\nGreat Feast, and other parables, the manner in which he treated the\nwoman of Canaan, the mystification and evasions he used, leaving her in\ndoubt with regard to his real meaning, and the many instances in which\nhe gave irrelevant answers and unfair and illogical conclusions. His\nteachings were notable for their obscurity and ambiguity; he tells us he\ndid not desire to be understood; and no wonder that his most trusted\ndisciples wrangled about his true meaning and came to opposite\nconclusions. His own family did not believe in him, and some persons\nthought him insane. Indeed, his mysterious and enigmatical style is so\nmarked that it suggests whether, after all, what is said to have been\nspoken by Jesus was not the utterances and traditions of initiates in\nthe second Christian century?\n\nThe claim of autocratic official authority to forgive and punish, to\ndeny before God those who should deny him before men, to denounce whole\ncities for want of faith in him, to come in God\u2019s name to judge all\nmankind, to proclaim everlasting punishment and declare that some should\nnever be forgiven, mars the beauty of Jesus\u2019 character. A real\ndeficiency in his teaching was the absence of any explicit declaration\nof human brotherhood. It is a remarkable feet that no clear statement of\nthis idea is recorded of Jesus. But the lack was supplied in a certain\nform by Paul, whose broader ethnic experience and more liberal culture\nmade him recognize the demand more fully, and who was therefore bound to\nhave it satisfied in his religious ideal. This was easy, since he had\nnever seen Jesus, and could construct his personality as his own\nreverence and sense of human need might prompt.\n\nThe clearest statement of human brotherhood in the New Testament is that\nascribed to Paul: \u201cGod hath made of one blood all the nations of the\nearth.\u201d Yet even in Paul\u2019s mind it seems to have been conditioned on\nfaith in his Master. All were \u201cmembers of one another, whether Jew or\nGentile, bond or free;\u201d but it was only in so far as they were, or were\nfit to be, \u201cin the body of Christ.\u201d Cicero and Seneca rest human\nbrotherhood on broader and deeper foundations. \u201cAll are members of one\ngreat body,\u201d says Seneca also; but in what sense? \u201cBy the constitution\nof nature, which makes us kindred, and more miserable in doing than in\nreceiving an injury; and by whose sway our hands are prepared for mutual\nhelp.\u201d Paul says, \u201cIn Christ is neither bond nor free.\u201d But Seneca says\nmore broad-ly, \u201cVirtue invites all, free-born, slaves, kings, exiles. It\nasks no questions about rank or wealth. It is content with the bare\nman.\u201d Again, exhorting Nero, he says: \u201cDo not ask how much of\nmanumission is endurable, but how much the nature of justice and good\nwill allows you which bids you spare even captives and persons bought\nwith a price. Let slaves find refuge before the statute; if all things\nare permitted you (by custom and power) against a slave, there is that\nwhich the common law of life forbids to be done to a man; for the slave\nis of the same nature as yourself.\u201d So Cicero says: \u201cNo other things are\nso alike as we are to each other;\u201d \u201cThere is no one of any nation who\ncannot reach virtue by following the light of nature;\u201d \u201cThe foundation\nof law is that nature has made us for the love of mankind.\u201d\n\nOther testimonies to like effect might easily be adduced from \u201cheathen\u201d\nwriters of that age. And the later Stoics do but echo the thought of\ntheir predecessors from the days of Zeno and Cleanthes when they\nreiterate in the broadest terms the belief that men are created for the\nvery purpose of mutual good. And Philo says: \u201cWe all are brothers by the\nhighest kind of kindredship, as children of reason;\u201d \u201cSlavery is\nimpious, as destroying the ordinances of nature, which generated all\nequally and brought them up as if brethren, not in name only, but in\nreality and truth.\u201d But with the apostles of Christianity, as probably\nwith Jesus himself, brotherhood was inseparable from belief in \u201cthe\nChrist.\u201d\n\nBut let us not overlook the facts that the Gospels attribute to Jesus\ncertain beliefs which our present knowledge positively contradicts, and\neven sentiments and claims which the highest morality cannot approve.\nFor example, take his belief in diabolic possession; his claim of power\nto forgive sins and to judge mankind with his disciples on twelve\nthrones; his denunciation of cities that should not receive his\nmessengers; his official retaliation (Matt. 10: 33); the unpardonable\nsin; his giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and to his\napostles the same powers; the second coming of the Son of man, with\ndestruction of the world and the coming judgment day within that\ngeneration; condemning to endless punishment those who have not succored\nbelievers; no salvation to those found unrepentant at his coming; the\nsinning brother who will not hear the Church to be treated as a heathen;\nhis sweeping denunciation of Pharisees and Scribes; a personal devil and\nan everlasting hell; power over deadly serpents and the taking of\npoisons without injury; the working of miracles by faith, even to the\nremoving of mountains and tearing up trees, raising the dead, etc. etc.\netc.\n\nBut not only are the teachings of Jesus subject to criticism, but his\nacts are equally so. Take for an example the manner in which he\naddressed his mother when found disputing with the doctors in the\ntemple,  but more particularly hear his words to his mother at the\nwedding in Cana. She told him that the wine had run out, and he answered\nin the most uncouth manner, \u201c_Woman_, what have I to do with _thee?_\u201d\nThat is to say, of what concern was his mother to him, and what had he\nto do with her trouble about the wine being out? Then the making of the\nwine, upon which the people got drunk, was by no means worthy of\nimitation. The quantity, according to some divines, was not less than\ntwo or three hogsheads of intoxicating drink, enough to last the balance\nof the week. The guests were already drunk, and, though the wine was\nmade out of water, it was nevertheless highly intoxicating. We might\nalso mention his rude answer when his mother desired to speak to him\n(Mark 3: 21-35). At the time of his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem he\ntook an \u201cass and colt,\u201d the private property of some person, without\npermission, and the bystanders so understood it. He went immediately to\nthe temple and beat out with a whip all the merchants (whom he calls\nthieves), all legitimate dealers in animals and doves for religious\nsacrifice, and violently overthrew the tables of the money-changers,\nwhose business seems also to have been legitimate. This act was a\n\u201cbreach of the peace,\u201d and in any civilized country would have been\nfollowed by arrest and imprisonment. It was not right that he should\nassert his authority by such disorderly conduct, and that too upon the\neve of the celebration of a religious ceremony. When waited on by a most\nrespectable deputation of public men who served officially (Matt. 23:\n21) and inquired of him \u201cby what authority he did such things,\u201d instead\nof answering them frankly and making known to them his mission, he\nraised an irrelevant question, and because they could not tell whether\n\u201cJohn\u2019s baptism was from earth or heaven,\u201d he refused to give any\napology or explanation of his most treasonable and violent actions. He\naddressed the Scribes and Pharisees in the most extreme language,\ncalling them \u201cvipers,\u201d \u201cblind guides,\u201d \u201chypocrites,\u201d \u201cserpents,\u201d etc.,\nand used fulminations that were calculated to excite the worst passions\nand the most atrocious acts. He told them that they were \u201cwhited\nsepulchres\u201d and \u201cfools.\u201d When he was accepting the hospitalities of a\nPharisee (Luke 11:37-54) he abused and denounced both the host and his\nguests. He is said to have looked on the Pharisees \u201cwith anger,\u201d thus\nviolating what he taught. His unjustifiable conduct toward the \u201cbarren\nfig tree\u201d will not be overlooked. It was not the season for figs; he had\nno right to expect to find fruit on that tree, yet he \u201ccursed\u201d it, and\nhere again destroyed private property without rendering an equivalent.\nSo with the swine of the Gadarenes. This story is childish and wicked,\nand his action resulted in the destruction of animals which must have\nbeen valued at about four thousand pounds sterling. He was also\nchargeable with dissimulation greatly at variance with moral rectitude.\nWhen his brothers would have him go to Jerusalem to attend the feast of\ntabernacles he declined, and advised them to go without him. But when\nthey had gone, \u201cthen went up also to the feast, as it were in secret\u201d\n(John 7: 2-10).\n\nHe certainly here practised deceit. When walking with the two disciples\nto Emmaus he pretended to be another person, and when they arrived there\nhe \u201cmade as though he would go farther that is, he pretended what he did\nnot intend...\u201d (Luke 24:13). He practised the utmost dissimulation in\nseveral particulars in the affair of Judas, and carried it even farther\nthan the traitor. (Read and study Matt. 26: 46-50 and context.)\n\nWe might pursue this subject indefinitely. It is enough for our present\npurpose to affirm that many of the errors in natural philosophy,\nphysiology, astronomy, and other sciences that prevailed in that day are\nimplied or incorporated in the Gospels, with many prevailing\nsuperstitions, and that there are more mistakes and a greater number of\ncontradictions in the four Gospels than in any other writings of the\nsame length now extant in any language.\n\nThere is no one subject upon which so many books have been written as\nwhat are called \u201charmonies of the Gospels.\u201d There are now more than one\nhundred such books extant, besides thousands that have gone out of\nprint. Long ago as the seventeenth century Thomas Munn of London\npublished such a book, on the title-page of which he states that he has\nreconciled three thousand contradictions. What does all this imply? Has\nit ever been found necessary to so reconcile the writings of Plato,\nSocrates, Aristotle, Newton, or Bacon? Could not God make himself\nunderstood? It is an acknowledged fact among juriste that the\ndiscrepancies in the four Gospels would destroy the credibility of any\nfour witnesses in any intelligent court of law.\n\nWe must here express our conviction that the Gospels, which profess to\ngive the life of Jesus, are not original, genuine productions, and it is\ntime to show how they came into existence and were palmed off by\necclesiastics as the productions of those whose names they bear.\n\nAbout the time of the birth of Christianity almost every system of\nphilosophy and religion centred at Alexandria in Egypt. The Essenes,\nthough scattered throughout all the provinces of the Roman empire, had\ntheir head-quarters at Alexandria, where existed a flourishing\nuniversity. To this centre of learning seekers after truth from all\ncountries of the globe found their way, and, comparing their various\nsystems, the result was the evolution of the Eclectic philosophy, made\nup of what was regarded as the best of every known faith.\n\nPalestine and Egypt were geographically contiguous, and the commerce\nbetween them was general and constant through Alexandria. Here the\nvarious sects of Judaism came into direct contact with Greek and\nOriental thought and philosophy, with which they had been made quite\nfamiliar during their captivity in Babylon. Pythagorean, Platonic, and\neven Zoroastrian and Buddhistic speculations were rife\u2014were in the very\nair of Alexandria. It is notorious that in that city Christian theology\nassumed a systematic form. The first and best Christian manuscripts were\nAlexandrian, and so were the first bishops; so says Prof. Calvin E.\nStowe.\n\nIt is impossible for any party to escape entirely from the influence of\nits surroundings. How could a new sect eighteen hundred years ago escape\nthe influences that dominated the very atmosphere of Alexandria?\nChristianity, so called, did not escape this influence, but in a short\ntime took an eclectic form made up of the then existing systems of faith\nand philosophy, so that we now find in it ingredients taken from every\nknown system of religion and philosophy, including Judaism, Platonism,\nZoroastrianism, and Buddhism.\n\nMosheim says this Eclectic philosophy, which \u201cchose the good and\nrejected the evil out of every system that had been propounded to\nmankind,\u201d was taught in the university of Alexandria when Christianity\ncame into existence. A very interesting question arises in this\nconnection, which few have paused to ponder\u2014viz. What became of the\nsects of the Essenes and Therapeutists after the commencement of the\nChristian era? That they suddenly disappeared as sects is an historical\nfact. But what became of them? Is there anything more natural than to\nassume that they became the pioneers of the Christian Church, and, in\nfact, that it was these people to whom the name \u201cChristian\u201d was first\ngiven at Antioch? The entire New-Testament Scriptures are full of\nphrases and allusions which clearly show the Essenean admixture, of\nwhich many examples might be quoted. Even Eusebius, styled the \u201cFather\nof ecclesiastical history,\u201d without whose writings little or nothing is\nknown of the early Christian Church, not only admits the close\nresemblance between this sect and Christianity, but he even claims that\nthey were Christians.\n\nA thorough investigation of this matter drives one to the conclusion\nthat our Catholic Christianity came from Alexandria\u2014virtually from the\nEssenean monks who flourished before the Augustan age, and that their\nwritings are the foundation of our Gospels, re-edited, changed, and\ninterpolated to suit times and occasions. Catholicism is the undoubted\noffshoot of Egyptian monkery, as Protestantism is an offshoot of\nCatholicism, and improperly called a _Reformation_. Paul probably became\na sort of Martin Luther, and led the great schism from the Essenean\nChurch, and it was then from a certain time called Christian. The four\nGreek Gospels of our New Testament were made up at Alexandria from\nEgyptian asceticism, and consist largely of a union of Neo-Platonism\nwith Judaism, and is full of the occult and mystical so common in that\nperiod. They were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as can\nbe _proved_, and he who is called Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more\nthan an Essenean impersonation. This view is honestly held by the\nwriter, and did space permit he could give many pertinent reasons for\nit. Investigation in this direction would meet a rich reward.\n\nMany pious persons here confront us, and inquire reproachfully, \u201cWhat is\nthe use of destroying the faith of the people in the Christian\nreligion?\u201d This question implies what is not true, as it is farthest\npossible from the object of these papers to ridicule or in any way to\nbring religion into disrepute. It is not only good principle, but it is\nalso good policy, to always tell the truth. Why should we say, either\ndirectly or by implication, that Christianity is a supernatural religion\nwhen we know it to be of human origin, and can show just how, and when,\nand where it grew out of then existing creeds and systems of philosophy?\n\nIs religion such a sham that it can best be subserved by falsehood and\nimposture? We think not. And if we should adopt the Jesuistic maxims,\nthat \u201cthe end justifies the means\u201d and that \u201cpious intent hallows\ndeceit,\u201d it is simply impossible in this inquisitive scientific age to\nkeep up a deception, however venerable for age and sacred from\nassociation. Knowledge is on the increase, and the people will not for\never wear bandages over their eyes, and, thus hoodwinked, swallow\nwithout question whatever is put into their mouths by the dispensers of\ntheologic twaddle and priestly pap. Regarding Christianity as a special\ndivine revelation recently made, it will not stand scientific and\nhistoric examination; but regarding it as of human origin, an evolution,\na product of that age of pessimism which resulted from the\ndisappointment of the Jews as to their national Messiah, and the\ndisintegration and coming decadence and downfall of the Roman empire,\ncoupled with the proclamation of the speedy destruction of the world\nitself, it is just what might have been expected\u2014a religion of\npessimism, of sorrow, of unworldliness, of evil forebodings.\n\n\u201cWhen the devil got sick, the devil a monk would be.\u201d When Charles IV.\nof Spain was discomfited by the misfortunes of war, he sought solace in\nembroidering a petticoat for the Virgin Mary. Ranc\u00e9 had a domestic\ntragedy, and he founded the order of Trappist monks. Loyola would never\nhave founded Jesuitism if he had not first been disfigured and crippled\nin a military siege. Dante was an exile when he wrote his _Inferno_, and\nJohn Calvin was a dyspeptic and suffered from rheumatism, gout, and\nstone when he wrote his _Institutes_. The most distinguished devotees to\nthe religion of self-reproach have always been sufferers from headache\nand neuralgia, as \u201ccrippled foxes decry the vintage,\u201d and grapes are\nalways sour that are beyond reach.\n\nThe germs of Christianity grew out of the decaying carcasses of the\nJewish commonwealth and the Roman empire, and as the worship of sorrow\nand unnaturalness it is not promotive of the highest virtue and the best\ninterests of human society. It is only when the distinctive asceticism\nis eliminated and its extreme pessimism is destroyed by a rational\noptimism that it becomes a real blessing to humanity.\n\nEvery religion reflects the characteristics of the place and time of its\nbirth, and the gloomy and melancholic temperaments of the dwellers by\nthe Jordan, the Nile, and the Euphrates thoroughly permeated and\nimpregnated the sects of those countries.\n\nRegarding Christianity as of human origin, we are at liberty to cast\naside its lugubrious spirit, its impracticable unworldliness and\nunnaturalness, and with higher esteem, and a more genuine heartfelt\nappreciation, and a sincere acceptance and approval we are free to adopt\nand glorify its general humane spirit under the divine impulse of the\nuniversal Fatherhood of God.\n\nThe real religious basis is that he serves God best who serves man best,\nand the coming of the kingdom of God is concomitant with the coming of\nthe kingdom of man.\n\nThe claim of infallibility is always suspicious, and there is no\nfinality in religious truth and progress; and it cannot be doubted that\nthe religion of the nineteenth century is as great an improvement upon\nthe religion of the first as our civilization, science, commerce, and\nthe mechanic arts are superior. Prof. Max M\u00fcller, of the orthodox\nUniversity of Oxford, well says: \u201cThe elements and roots of religion\nwere there as far back as we can trace the history of man, and the\nhistory of religion, like the history of language, shows us throughout a\nsuccession of new combinations of the same radical elements.\u201d In no\nsystem of religion is the principle of combination, of previously\nexisting forms of creed and conduct, so apparent as in the Christian\nreligion. It is the best because it is the latest of the great\nreligions, and contains the best selections and combinations of all\npreviously existing ones, Jewish and pagan.\n\nOur faith in the sublime moral precepts of Christianity is increased and\nstrengthened as we realize that they are thousands of years old, that\nthey are the accumulated products of the ages\u2014an evolution from the\nconsummated wisdom of all previously existing religionists of all times\nand countries. God\u2019s real revelations to man are from within, and they\nwould not be any more divine if they were from without. Of nothing can\nwe be so sure as that God will take care of his own eternal truth, and\ncause it to shine forth with more radiant splendor as knowledge shall\nincrease and true science shall learn to read more intelligently the\nrecords of the divine character and will in the infallible book of\nnature.\n\nEcclesiastical tomtits may twitter and flutter, and theological owls may\nlook solemn and wise and hoot out their gloomy forebodings, but the true\nark of Nature\u2019s covenant is safe.:\n\n    \u201cEver the truth comes uppermost,\n    And ever is justice done.\u201d\n\nThe only safe position, because it is the only true one, is that there\nis a God in the universe, and that it is the divine order to make known\nhis will by slow and uniform processes, and not by sudden and miraculous\nrevelations.\n\nThe principle of evolution is just as true in its application to moral\nand spiritual things as it is in regard to the material world, and\nanother Darwin will some day arise who will demonstrate the fact.\nIndeed, this field is \u201cripe for the harvest,\u201d as several new sciences,\nnot dreamed of until within a half century past, are revealing facts and\nestablishing principles which are sure to consign the old\nsupernaturalism to regions of superstition and priestcraft.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.  A FEW FRAGMENTS\n\n\n_\u201cGather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.\u201d\u2014John\n6:12._\n\n\nGNOSTICISM.\n\nSINCE preparing Chapter XI., on _The Ideal Christ_, and quoting freely\nfrom Mr. Gerald Massey regarding the Gnostics, some doubts have been\nsuggested as to the soundness of his views. We have therefore carefully\nreviewed this matter, and can find no reason to abate one tittle from\nthe conclusions presented by this painstaking and able writer.\n\nThe word _gnosis_, meaning _knowledge_, does not apply exclusively to a\nparty or sect The Gnostics were not distinguished from Christians at\nfirst by sectarian lines. The Epistles of Paul, both genuine and\nspurious, recognize the gnosis, and there were Gnostic sects, as well as\nindividual Gnostics, both before and after the Christian era. The gnosis\nconsisted in knowing, and mainly in not accepting as historical and\nliteral what was really only allegorical. The chief Gnostic sects held\nas _secret_ their essential doctrines, and at the same time they had an\nexoteric statement which they gave to the common people. Even Paul, who\nseems to have been a first-class Gnostic, preached one gospel publicly\nto the Gentiles, and another which he gave \u201cprivately to them that were\nof reputation\u201d (Gal. 2: 2). His teachings were highly _Cabalistic_, and\nhe seems to have delighted in \u201cmysteries.\u201d He had no conference with any\nof the other apostles as to what he should teach, but went to Arabia,\nwhere he doubtless met the Essenean brotherhood, and probably learned\nfrom them instead of the Judean teachers. The Essenes were famous for\nthe cultivation of sacred literature, and had their _personified_\nChrist, as we have reason to believe. Mr. C. Staniland Wake thinks, with\ngood reason, that the Essenes were Mithrasts, and that they worshipped\nthe sun, and Mithras, the Persian savior, was a personification of the\nsun. The Essenes, according to Josephus, treated the sun with great\nveneration, and offered certain prayers early in the morning, as if they\nmade supplication for its rising. The Essenes and Mithrasts were\nGnostics in that they held to a personified savior, and not a literal\nman of flesh and blood. The symbolism of the universe afforded models\nfor the secrets of their religion, and their rites were introduced into\nevery part of the Roman empire\u2014of course including Palestine\u2014and for\nnearly four centuries the Mithraic religion wellnigh overshadowed\nChristianity. Much that was written of Jesus indicates the\ncharacteristics of the secret initiations. It may appear strange to the\nsuperficially informed when we affirm, as heretofore, that many of those\nmatters which Paul set forth with such seeming literalness were in fact\nmystic and arcane, the transcript of older doctrines, and were made up\nthroughout of astrological symbolism.\n\nThe systems of many ancient peoples centuries before Christianity\ncontain doctrines and dramatic stories closely analogous to the gospel\nstory of Jesus. The Neo-Platonists held that these occult rites were\nmerely a form of representing philosophic thought as if in scenes of\ndaily life. While Paul refers to certain matters as apparently\nhistorical, he never overlooks their symbolic import. The interpolators\nof his writings misrepresented his real views, as is evinced by internal\nevidence in the writings themselves.\n\nThe fourth Gospel, falsely credited to John, was written for the evident\npurpose of opposing the Gnostic doctrine of Jesus not made flesh by\npresenting the Neo-Platonic dogma of \u201cthe Word made flesh.\u201d In many\nplaces throughout the New Testament there is an implication that there\nwere those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh: \u201cAnd every spirit\nthat confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of\nGod\u201d (1 John 1: 3). In 2 John, 7th verse, it is said: \u201cFor many\ndeceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ\nis come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.\u201d How does\nthis comport with the assumption that the existence of the human Jesus\nwas never doubted in the apostolic age? The ignorant and disingenuous\necclesiastics who wrote on Gnosticism in early ages always observed one\nrule, and that was to represent it as a mere offshoot and corruption of\nChristianity, invented because of disappointed ambition by apostates\nfrom the religion established by the apostles. The Rev. Mr. King, in his\n_Gnostics, and their Remains_, affirms that such representations \u201care\nentirely false.\u201d The truth is, that Gnosticism did not purport to be a\nChristian system, except by a kind of syncretism to reconcile different\nfaiths. The Neo-Platonists attempted this, and Gnostics did the same on\nan analogous plan. The historical existence of Jesus was little else\nthan a concession made to the unreasoning multitude, while the esoteric\ndoctrine was so much older as to make such an existence of no possible\naccount except as a piece of folk-lore to hang illustrations of\ndoctrines upon. This is the central idea of every branch of Gnosticism.\nThe forms set forth by different expositors are secondary and\nincidental, liable to mislead those who attempt to place them in the\nfront and draw deductions from them; and hence Saturninus taught that\nall that was considered physical in Jesus was only a phantasy, and that\nwhat was from God was spiritual only, and not at all corporeal. As for\nthe writings of Tatian, they are \u201clost\u201d\u2014that is, destroyed\u2014and we are\nunder no obligations to accept what his enemies have said of them. The\nperiod was one in which calumny, slander, and forgery were the rule, as\nwell as the main dependence for refuting an adversary. We know nothing\nof Cerinthus except through Epiphanius, whose reputation for truth and\nveracity is so bad that he would make falsehood appear like truth by his\nmanner of telling it. Our evidence respecting Cerinthus comes chiefly\nfrom Epiphanius, who once professed to be a Gnostic (Macosian), and\nafterward turned Catholic, and, Judas-like, betrayed some scores of his\nformer associates, including seventy women, to the persecuting civil\nauthorities.\n\nThe Ophites were certainly mystics, and read everything concerning Jesus\nas a sacred allegory. Many think that _Christos_ was with them\n_Chr\u00ebstos_, the good, the incarnation and associate of Sophia, \u201cthe\nwisdom from on high.\u201d The \u201cwisdom religion\u201d was extensively symbolized.\nPythagoras named his esoteric doctrine the _gnosis_ or \u201cknowledge,\u201d and\nPlato used a similar expression to indicate the \u201cinterior knowledge.\u201d\nMarcion was evidently Persian and used Mithraic symbolism. The\nceremonials of Mithraism (red-cap Christians) and astral rites were\nadopted by the Catholic Church, besides many other rites of paganism.\nThe Jewish _Cabala_ and the Gnostics had much in common. The Sethites\nwere of Jewish origin, and they held that Seth was the son of Sophia,\nwho had filled him with the divine gnosis, and that his descendants were\na spiritual race.\n\nThe Mandaites were Gnostics, as their name indicates, and they found in\nthe system the older type of doctrine which obtained in Mesopotamia and\nin the old and elaborate Babylonian religion. This is seen from the fact\nthat the names of the old pantheon were adopted.\n\nThe variety of legends regarding Jesus show that he was not an\nhistorical character. Deriving the bulk of their theosophy from beyond\nthe Euphrates, and even much from beyond the Indus, the early\necclesiastics changed names, but retained their original ideas. Nearly\nall Christian festivals are the equivalents of pagan observances, as is\nwell known. Prof. F. W. Newman denounces the assertions of Tischendorf\nand Canon Westcott, concerning the Gnostics as \u201cunworthy of scholars,\nand only calculated to mislead readers, who most generally are ignorant\nof the actual facts in in the case.\u201d \u201cThe uncritical and inaccurate\ncharacter of the Fathers rendered them peculiarly liable to be misled by\nforgone conclusions.\u201d\n\nOriental Christianity and Parseeism furnish a striking example of\nreligious syncretism. In the Gnostic basis itself it is not difficult to\nrecognize the general features of the religion of ancient Babylon, and\nthus we are brought nearer to a solution of the problem as to the real\norigin of Gnosticism in general.\n\nDr. John Tulloch, principal of St. Andrew\u2019s University and the writer of\nthe article on the Gnostics in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (ninth\nedition), truly says: \u201cThe sources of Gnosticism are to be found in\ndiverse forms of religion and speculative culture antecedent to\nChristianity, especially in the theology of the Alexandrian Jews as\nrepresented in the writings of Philo, and again in the influences\nflowing from the old Persian or Zarathustrian religion and the\nBuddhistic faiths of the East.\u201d He also says it is \u201cthe fact that the\nspirit of Gnosticism and the language which it afterward developed were\nin the air of the apostolic age, and that the last thing to seek in the\nearly Fathers is either accuracy of chronology or a clear sequence of\nthought.\u201d\n\nIn Appletons\u2019 New _American Cyclopedia_, under the title \u201cGnostics,\u201d it\nis said: \u201cThe Gnostics numbered two classes\u2014the select few who were\nadmitted to the divine secrets, and the large class of common believers\nwho were not able to rise above the physical condition.\u201d The point is\nthat the Gnostics had a _secret doctrine_ which their adversaries did\nnot know. The recognition of Jesus as an actual person was only\napparent, and hence different people differed in that respect. The\ndoctrine came from the far East, and teachers only sought to harmonize\nit with the new worship, as they also did with Mithraism. The real\nGnostics were the spiritual men of the times, and mere externalists\ncould not understand them. It would be amusing if it were not so serious\nto see men often affecting great learning, themselves not professing\northodoxy, yet vehement for what can only be called Roman\necclesiasticism. \u201cThe letter killeth,\u201d and \u201cthe wise shall understand.\u201d\n\nMany writers on Gnosticism seem to know no more than the cock on the\ndunghill knows of the jewels that lie before him. The fact is, that the\nwritings of the so-called Fathers, and of the New Testament itself, have\ncome down to us percolated through Roman sacerdotalism, and must be\ntaken with many grains of allowance. There were many men named Jesus at\nthe commencement of the Christian era, but that a Jesus was crucified\nand rose from the dead is not supported by a particle of evidence. The\nanonymous author of the great English book, _Supernatural Religion_, has\nshown how utterly valueless the Gospels are as sources of evidence; and\nwhere else shall we look for an historical Jesus? We can have no faith\nin historical \u201cphantoms,\u201d \u201caions,\u201d and \u201cillusions.\u201d Neither pagan nor\nJewish contemporaneous history gives any countenance to the orthodox\nclaim of a personal, crucified, and risen Jesus.\n\nORIGIN OF THE CHRIST STORY.\n\nThe Gospels were doubtless compiled nearly two hundred years after the\nbeginning of the Christian era from the mythological and superstitious\nlore that was then circulating in great abundance; and Christ himself is\nonly a mythological personage who, if such a person ever had any\nexistence at all, existed many centuries before the Christian era, and\nwas very different from the Christ of the Gospels, being originally\n\u00c6sculapius or some other character of the like fame, and serving only as\nthe basis of the Christian fable. It is certain that the primitive\nteachers of Christianity converted to their own purposes the writings of\nancient poets and philosophers, mixing together the Oriental Gnosticism\nand Greek philosophy, and palming them on the world in a new form as\nthings especially revealed to themselves.\n\nIt may further be remarked that at a most early period of the Christian\nera there appears to have been great doubts as to the real existence of\nChrist. The Manichees, as Augustine informs us, denied that he was a\nman, while others maintained that he was a man, but denied that he was a\nGod (August. Serm. xxxvii. c. 12). There is, therefore, considerable\nforce in the expressions of a modern writer that the being of no other\nindividual mentioned in history ever labored under such a deficiency of\nevidence as to its reality, or ever was overset by a thousandth part of\nthe weight of positive proof that it was a creation of imagination only,\nas that of Jesus Christ. His existence as a man has, from the earliest\nday on which it can be shown to have been asserted, been earnestly and\nstrenuously denied; and that not by the enemies of the Christian faith,\nbut by the most intelligent, most learned, and most sincere of the\nChristian name who have left to the world proofs of their intelligence\nand learning in their writings and of their sincerity in their\nsufferings. The existence of no individual of the human race that was\nreal and positive was ever by a like conflict of jarring evidence\nrendered equivocal and uncertain. Nothing, however, is more common than\nfor some persons to assume an air of contempt, and to cry out that those\nwho deny that such a person as Jesus of Nazareth ever existed are\nutterly unworthy of being answered. It is, truly, very convenient for\nthem thus to shelter themselves by assuming his existence as\nincontrovertible, instead of fairly meeting historical facts which, to\nsay the least, render his existence very problemetical. It is to no\npurpose to urge that it might as well be denied that no such a person as\nAlexander the Great or Napoleon Bonaparte ever existed as to set at\ndefiance the evidence of the existence of Jesus. For the existence of\nneither Alexander nor Napoleon was miraculous, and there never was on\nearth one other real personage whose existence, as a real personage, was\ndenied and disclaimed even as soon as ever it was asserted, as was the\ncase with respect to the assumed personality of Christ. But the only\ncommon character that runs through the whole body of the evidence of\nheretics is, that they, one and all, from first to last, deny the\nexistence of Jesus Christ as a man, and, professing their faith in him\nas a God and Saviour, yet uniformly and consistently hold the whole\nstory of his life and actions to be allegorical. The very earliest\nChristian writings that have come down to us are of a controversial\ncharacter and written in attempted refutation of heresies. These\nheresies must therefore have been of so much earlier date and prior\nprevalence; they could not have been considered of sufficient\nconsequence to have called (as they seem to have done) for the entire\ndevotion and enthusiastic zeal of the orthodox party to extirpate or\nkeep them under, if they had not acquired deep root and become of\nserious notoriety\u2014an inference which leads directly to the conclusion\nthat they were of anterior origination to any date that has hitherto\nbeen ascribed to the Gospel history.\n\nIn accordance with the notion that Christ was a phantom, the writer of\nthe Commentaries which are attributed to Clement of Alexandria,\napparently quoting from the Gospel of Nicodemus, tells us that an\napostle  attempted to touch the body of Christ, but in so doing found no\nhardness of flesh and met with no resistance from it, although he thrust\nhis hand into the inner part of it. A similar idea is conveyed by Luke\nwhere he says that Christ _vanished_ out of the sight of his disciples,\nbut yet shortly after stood in the midst of them\u2014a notion consistent\nonly with that of an apparition (Luke 24: 31, 36). Similar remarks may\nbe made on the words of Christ to Thomas and Mary; to the latter he\nsays, \u201cTouch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father that is, I\nam not to be felt;\u201d and to the former he says, \u201cReach hither thy hand,\nand thrust it into my side\u201d (John 20:17, 27). Both these expressions,\ncontradictory as they are with regard to Jesus, still show that the\nwriter knew something of the notion entertained that Christ was a\n_phantom_. Luke (24: 37, 39) also has words proving the same point,\nwhere he says that the disciples, when they saw Christ after his\nresurrection, thought they had seen a spirit and that he told them to\nhandle him. Marcion of Pontus, who flourished about A. D. 127, believed\nChrist not to have been born of a virgin and to have grown up gradually,\nbut that he took the form of a man and _appeared_ as a man without being\nborn, and at once showed himself in Galilee in full maturity. Manes\nalso, according to the testimony of Socrates and others, \u201cdenied that\nChrist was ever really born or had real human flesh, but asserted that\nhe was a mere phantom.\u201d (See Lardner\u2019s _Credibility_, vol. ii. p. 141.)\nFor men who entertained this notion of \u201cthe person of Christ,\u201d his\nsufferings, death, and resurrection were of course a delusion\u2014were only\nin appearance. Thus, according to Father Apelles, who wrote about A. D.\n160, Christ was _not born_, nor was his body like ours, but consisted of\na\u00ebrial and ethereal particles. Very probably, Apelles did not think it\nunlikely that a body composed of such subtile matter as this should rise\nfrom the grave and be capable of passing not only through the smallest\naperture, but even through solid matter. Barnabas, the companion of\nPaul, in his Gospel had another way of disposing of the question of the\nresurrection\u2014namely, by denying that Christ was crucified at all, but\nwas taken up into the third heaven by four angels; that it was Judas\nIscariot who was crucified in his stead; and that Christ will not die\ntill the very end of the world (Toland\u2019s _Nazarenus_, Letter i. chap. v.\np. 17.) The _Basilidians_, about the commencement of the second century,\ndisposed in a similar manner of the miracle of the resurrection by\nasserting that it was not Christ, but Simon of Cyrene, who was crucified\ninstead of Jesus.\n\nSuch are some of the various opinions of the origin of the story of\nChrist\u2019s resurrection. They are placed before the reader that he may\nhave a choice of theories. After matured reflection, however, he will,\nmost probably, come to the conclusion that this tale originated in the\nsame manner as \u201cThe Gospel of the Birth of Mary,\u201d \u201cThe Gospels of the\nInfancy of Christ,\u201d \u201cThe Gospel of Nicodemus,\u201d the epistolary\ncorrespondence of Christ and Abgarus, of the Virgin Mary and Ignatius,\ntogether with hundreds of other similar productions of the ages when\nfacts were not so much appreciated as fables in the form of books. If he\narrive at this conclusion, he will see no reason to believe that such a\npersonage as the Christ of the Gospels was ever crucified, much less\nraised from the dead.\n\nANCIENT ENIGMAS.\n\nIt is amusing to observe how, in ancient times, the dark, enigmatical,\nand allegorical style was practised, particularly in the East, by all\npublic teachers, both Jews and Gentiles. By this means they explained\naway the fabulous tales current regarding their gods, and discoursed on\nevery branch of knowledge known to them. They deemed religion a mystery\nnot to be publicly explained, and always delivered its dogmas clothed in\ndark allegories (_Oie. de Nat. Deor. lib. ii. iii.; Spencer de Legibus\nHeb., p. 182; Clerici Hist. Eccles.,_ p. 23). The Egyptians and\nChaldeans were noted for their dark sayings (_Simon Hist cr\u00fb. des\nComment_, p. 4). Gale (_Opuscula Mythologica_) gives an account of\nseveral ancient books expressly written as instructions to interpret\nallegories. The Greek poets, Homer not excepted, are by their scholiasts\nregarded as treating of their gods in a mystical style. The Stoic\nphilosophers dressed the whole heathen theology in allegorical language\n(_Cic. de Nat. Deor_., lib. ii.). The Pythagorean philosophy was taught\nin enigmatical expressions, the meaning of which was studiously\nconcealed from the vulgar mind, and revealed even to the initiated only\ngradually as their years of maturity were thought to qualify them for\nits reception. Plato and his followers in the groves of Academia\npractised the same mode of teaching religion, especially theogony. The\nwritings attributed to Paul the apostle, as has been shown, are replete\nwith mystical and enigmatical expressions. This he confesses, saying\nthat he spoke \u201cthe wisdom of God in a mystery,\u201d \u201ccomparing spiritual\nthings with spiritual\u201d (1 Cor. 2: 7, 13). Accordingly, he regards the\nhistory of Isaac and Ishmael as an allegory (Gal. 4: 22-25), which he\ncondescends to explain. The primitive Fathers of Christianity pursued\nthe same mode of communicating instruction and of defending their\nreligion against the pagans. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria,\nIren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Origen, all of them, were very expert in this\noccult system, in imitation of the heathen philosophers, by whom most of\nthem had been educated. Eusebius (_Hist. Eccles_.y lib. vi. c. 19),\nciting what he is pleased to call the assertions of Porphyry, writes\nthat Origen, having been educated in Greek literature, intermingled it\nwith the fictions of Christianity, that he dealt in the works of Plato,\nNumenius, Cranius, Apollophanes, Longinus Moderatus, Nico-machus,\nCh\u00e6remon, and Cornutus, and that he derived from these pagan authors the\nallegorical mode of interpretation usual in the mysteries of the Greeks,\nand applied it to the Jewish Scriptures. Thus, Origen\u2019s mode of teaching\nwas identical with that of the pagans\u2014a mode commended even by the\nlearned Dodwell (_Letters of Advice_, etc., p. 208), who says that the\npagan mystical arts of concealment are of use toward understanding the\nScriptures. The Jewish rabbis also delivered their doctrines in the same\nobscure and mystical manner, as their Talmud, Cabala, Gemara, and other\nbooks, besides what we call the Hebrew Scriptures, amply show. The\nreligious teachers of all the nations of antiquity thus delighting in\ndark sayings, it is therefore by no means wonderful that the writers of\nthe Gospels, whoever they were, attribute similar enigmas to Jesus. This\naccounts, in a measure, for the obscurity of the Gospels, while,\nhowever, it traces their origin to a pagan source.\n\nGODS OF VIRGIN BIRTH.\n\nIt is in perfect harmony with what has long ago been demonstrated by\nsome of the most critical writers, not only in English, but also in\nother languages\u2014namely, that the New Testament has been collected by\nEclectic monks\u2014particularly Egyptian monks of Jewish extraction\nconnected with the Alexandrian college\u2014from various legendary tales and\nother documents then afloat, which they modified to answer their own\npurposes, and which since their time have been considerably altered to\nsuit the requirements of different religious communities.\n\nThe Christian apologists of the second and third centuries evinced no\nlack of knowledge on this point. Justin Martyr, as already cited, in\naddressing a Roman emperor, says that the Christians, by declaring Jesus\nto be the Son of God, born of a virgin, said no more than the Romans\nsaid of those whom they styled the 24 sons of Jupiter, such as Mercury,\nBacchus, Hercules, Pollux, and Castor; and as to Jesus, he repeats,\nhaving been born of a virgin, the pagans had their Perseus, son of Jove\nand the virgin Dana\u00eb, to balance this feature. Creusa, daughter of\nErectheus, was visited by the god Apollo, and in consequence became the\nmother of the god Janus. A Chinese virgin by means of the rays of the\nsun\u2014regarded as a deity\u2014became the mother of the god Fo, who acted as a\nmediator between his followers and another superior god. The Hindoo\nvirgin Rohini in like miraculous manner gave birth to a god, one of the\nBrahman trinity. Another Hindoo virgin, Devaci, as already observed,\nhaving had an intercourse with the deity Yasudeva, became the mother of\nan incarnate god whose name was Chrishna; whose birth was announced by\nthe appearance of a new star; whose life, when an infant, was sought in\nvain by the reigning tyrant of the country; whose principal exploits\nwere killing a terrible serpent, holding a mountain on the tip of his\nfinger, washing the feet of the Brahmans, saving multitudes by his\nmiraculous power, raising many from the dead, dying to save the world\nfrom sin and darkness, rising from the dead, and then ascending to his\nheavenly seat in Vaicontha (Sir Wm. Jones\u2019s Asiatic Researches, vol. i.\npp. 259-273). Somonocodom, who, according to the sacred books of the\nTalapoins of Siam, was destined to save the world, was another personage\nwho had a virgin mother. The followers of Plato about two hundred years\nafter his death, but more than a century before the Christian era,\nreported that he had been born of a virgin.\n\nThe most ancient Alexandrian chronicles, which furnish ample proofs of\nthe universal prevalence of our gospel religion in Egypt for ages before\nthe Christian era, testify as follows: \u201cTo this day Egypt has\nconsecrated the pregnancy of a virgin and the nativity of her son, whom\nthey annually present in a cradle to the adoration of the people; and\nwhen King Ptolemy, three hundred and fifty years before our Christian\nera, demanded of the priests the significancy of this religious\nceremony, they told him it was a mystery.\u201d (See _Christian Mythology\nUnveiled_, p. 94.)\n\nIndeed, the fabulous lore of ancient times is teeming with the amours of\ngods with virgins and the results thereof. Some writers have intimated\nthat such births were the consequences of the artful intrigues of the\npagan priests with holy virgins; but Dupuis, Albert, Alphonso,\nBoulanger, and others have clearly shown \u201cthat these and similar tales,\nwhich are revolting to common sense if taken literally, were originally,\nin Oriental learning, astronomical and other allegories, conveying the\nmost sublime truths then known touching the revolutions of the heavenly\nbodies and other physical and moral facts, while their meaning in after\nages was gradually perverted to answer other ends.\u201d\n\nTHE EPISTLES SILENT CONCERNING THE WORDS AND WORKS OF JESUS.\n\nIt is a most remarkable fact that in none of the Epistles is there any\nmention made of the various wonderful things narrated in the Gospels as\nhaving been said and done by Christ. Indeed, there is scarcely an\nallusion made in them to those astounding details with which every page\nof the Gospels is replete. No mention is made in them of what the\nGospels state that Christ declared _regarding the day of\njudgment_\u2014nothing about Christ\u2019s preternatural birth, his baptism, his\ntemptation by Satan, his denunciations of the different existing sects,\nhis precepts, his parables, his intimate acquaintance with publicans,\nwith Magdalene, with Mary and other women. Not one of his miracles is\ndetailed, and nothing is said of the marvellous circumstances which\nattended his crucifixion and death, such as the sun darkening, the earth\nquaking, the temple rending, rocks cleaving asunder, graves opening, the\ndead rising and walking the streets of Jerusalem. These are matters\nwhich, one would imagine, should occupy a very prominent position in all\nthe Epistles\u2014should be relied upon by the writers respectively as facts\nwith which to attest and establish the truth of their doctrines, and\nwhich would, of themselves, suffice to convince and convert the most\nincredulous and obdurate mind. In the Epistles ascribed to Peter, James,\nand John, who are said to have been eye- and ear-witnesses of what\nChrist did and said, one would expect, certainly, to find frequent\ndetails of the marvellous things said of Jesus in the Gospels. But Peter\ndoes not so much as allude to the keys of heaven and hell which the\nGospels say were given him to keep, nor even to the fact that Jesus,\nwalking on the sea, enabled him also to do so and saved him from\ndrowning. Neither does he tell those to whom he writes that Jesus\nconferred his blessing upon him when he pronounced him \u201cthe Christ, the\nSon of the living God;\u201d nor that Jesus, after he had suspiciously asked\nhim three times whether he loved him, and had as often received\naffirmative answers, charged him to feed his flock. Of course we cannot\nexpect him to have recorded in his Epistles that Jesus graced him with\nthe epithet \u201cSatan,\u201d or that he denied the same Jesus thrice. If it was\nthe son of Zebedee who wrote \u201cthe General Epistle of James\u201d (about the\nauthorship of which Christians have not as yet agreed), it would not\nseem too great a tribute to his divine Master for him to refer to some\nof his mighty words and deeds which he must have witnessed. Or if the\nauthor is the brother of Jesus (which is not very likely, since all his\nrelatives except his mother shunned him), he could deplore the fact that\nhe and his brothers\u2014Joses, Simon, and Judas\u2014_did not believe_ in the\npretensions of their divine brother, Jesus. But the very name of Jesus\nis mentioned, and that casually, only thrice in the whole Epistle. John,\n\u201cthe beloved disciple,\u201d could in one of his Epistles, or at least in\nthat which it is agreed he wrote\u2014to the confirmation of the genuineness\nof Matthew, Mark, and Luke\u2019s Gospels\u2014have adverted to that curious\nincident of his mother asking Jesus to allow him and his brother James\nto sit on each side of him in his kingdom; or could, with a mixture of\njoy and sorrow, ruminate on the pleasure he had felt in accompanying\nPeter to prepare the last Passover which they had eaten with their\ndivine Master, and bemoan the fatal disaster which shortly after\novertook his Lord. But he writes not one word about these remarkable\nevents, or about anything that occurred personally between him and\nJesus. Indeed, the writers of the Epistles totally ignore the contents\nof the Gospels. How, then, is this fact to be accounted for? Did the\nwriters of the Epistles\u2014whoever they were\u2014know anything at all about the\ncontents of the present Gospels? Are we not entitled to infer that\neither the churches, etc. to which these Epistles were addressed were\nmuch older than the date of the Gospels, and even than the time at which\nthe Christ of the Gospels was born, or that, if the present Gospels then\nexisted, the authors of the Epistles knew nothing of them?\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nWe have seen that, so limited was the knowledge of Jesus of futurity, he\nfalsely prophesied the end of the world, the time of his own\nresurrection, the perpetual praise of a woman who poured upon him a box\nof ointment, and the signs which believers in Christianity would\nmanifest. We have also seen that a vast number of his precepts and\ndoctrines were obscure, contradictory, bigoted, absurd, and untrue, and\nthat much of his conduct was open to criticism. We have further seen\nthat he was deficient in knowledge of natural philosophy; that he\nborrowed the best part of his doctrine from heathen mythology; that his\nlife, his teaching, and his practices were identical with those of\nheathen monks who had preceded him; that, like many other human beings,\nhe feared death; that neither his own neighbors, nor kinsmen, nor even\nhis disciples, believed that he was, either in nature or power, superior\nto other mortals; and that he himself avowed that the purpose for which\nhe had been ushered into the world was to send strife, division, fire,\nand sword on earth, and to make \u201cbrother deliver up brother to death,\nand the father the child, and incite children to rise up against their\nparents and cause them to be put to death\u201d (Matt. 10: 21).\n\nSuch has been the result of our inquiry. But let it not be supposed that\nthere was nothing to admire in the alleged character and teachings of\nthe ideal Jesus. There are many exceedingly tender things mingled with\nthe arrogant and severe. His character, made up from many models, could\nnot be otherwise than inconsistent and contradictory. It is a perfect\nmosaic, but such has been the reverence for Jesus, in view of the\nextraordinary claims made for him, that men have closed their eyes to\nhis imperfections and faults, while they have greatly magnified his\nvirtues. We have known many persons in our day who as far excelled Jesus\nin every noble and manly quality as the civilization and morality of the\nnineteenth century are superior to those of the first. It has been well\nsaid that Jesus, whether a person or an impersonation, will continue to\nbe the leader just so long as he _leads_; but he no longer leads. It is\nfound (assuming his personality) that he taught nothing but what had\nbeen taught with equal distinctness before him, and that he taught much\nnot suited to this commercial age and to the wants of this nineteenth\ncentury. While many persons profess to be disciples of Jesus, yet nobody\neven pretends to conform their lives to his alleged teachings. Properly\nspeaking, there is not now a real Christian upon the face of the earth,\nas no one attempts to practise the extreme precepts Christ is said to\nhave laid down in the so-called Sermon on the Mount. What is called\nChristianity is proved and admitted to be an evolution from various\nreligions which were before it. The good in every religion is the same,\nand men will go on weeding out the impure and imperfect, the fittest\nonly surviving. Christianity claims to be an infallible divine\nrevelation, and that it is complete in itself, and of course admits of\nno progress. This is the difficulty between the old orthodoxy and the\nnew orthodoxy of the creeds. The Church carries no flag of truce. It\nsays, You _must_ believe! True men answer, We _cannot_ believe the\nimpossible and the absurd. There can be no doubt as to who will survive\nin this struggle for existence. The \u201cspirit of truth\u201d is coming, and it\nwill \u201cteach in all things.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV. BLOOD-SALVATION\n\n\n_\u201cAnd almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without\nthe shedding of blood there is no remission.\u201d\u2014Heb. 9: 22. \u201cThe blood of\nJesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.\u201d\u2014! John 1: 5._\n\n\nIT would be tedious to quote even one-tenth of the passages from the New\nTestament in which salvation is ascribed to the blood of Jesus. Indeed,\nfrom Genesis to Revelation sacrificial blood seems to be the one\nprominent theme. The salvation of Christ is emphatically the salvation\nby blood, and this idea runs through the whole system of what is called\nevangelical theology. Jeremy Taylor wrote about \u201clapping with the tongue\nthe blood from the Saviour\u2019s open wounds,\u201d suggesting the well-known\nhabit of the bloodthirsty dog. But Mr. Taylor was outdone by the late\nRev. Bishop Jesse T. Peck, when he frantically exclaimed, in the\npresence of thousands of people at a religious mass-meeting, \u201cWe have\nnot enough _blood_ in our religion. I want to wade in the blood of\nCalvary up to my armpits, and _wallow_ in it,\u201d suggesting the well-known\nhabits of the filthy sow. But the Rev. T. D. Talmage, D. D., capped the\nclimax when, in his usual rhapsodical style, he exclaimed in a recent\nsermon: \u201cIt seems to me as if all Heaven were trying to bid in your\nsoul. The first bid it makes is the tears of Christ at the tomb of\nLazarus; but that is not a high-enough price. The next bid Heaven makes\nis the sweat of Gethsemane; but it is too cheap a price. The next bid\nHeaven makes seems to be the whipped back of Pilate\u2019s Hall; but it is\nnot a high-enough price. Can it be possible that Heaven cannot buy you\nin? Heaven tries once more. It says: \u2018I bid this time for that man\u2019s\nsoul the torture of Christ\u2019s martyrdom, the blood on his temple, the\nblood on his cheek, the blood on his chin, the blood on his hand, the\nblood on his side, the blood on his knee, the blood on his foot\u2014the\nblood in drops, the blood in rills, the blood in pools coagulated\nbeneath the cross; the blood that wet the tips of the soldier\u2019s spear,\nthe blood that plashed warm in the faces of his enemies.\u2019 Glory to God!\nthat bid wins it! The highest price that was ever paid for anything was\npaid for your soul. Nothing could buy it but blood! The estranged\nproperty is bought back. Take it. You have sold yourselves for naught;\nand ye shall be redeemed without money.\u2019 O atoning blood, cleansing\nblood, life-giving blood, sanctifying blood, glorifying blood of Jesus!\nWhy not burst into tears at the thought that for thee he shed it\u2014for\nthee the hard-hearted, for thee the lost?\u201d\n\nHenry III. of England was presented with a small portion of the blood of\nJesus, said to have been shed upon the cross, and to have been preserved\nin a phial, duly attested by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and other\ndistinguished functionaries as genuine. It was carried in triumph\nthrough the streets of London with rapturous shoutings by a large\nprocession, from St. Paul\u2019s to Westminster Abbey, and the historian\ntestifies that it made all England radiant with glory. Indeed, there has\nbeen enough of the so-called genuine blood that was shed on Calvary\ngiven to the faithful to float the largest ship in the navy of Great\nBritain. A sufficient quantity of the real cross upon which Jesus is\nsaid to have been crucified has been preserved to erect the largest\ntemple the world ever contained. There is no end to the superstition on\nthis subject, all going to show how deep-seated is the credulity which\nexists in the popular belief in regard to this matter.\n\nThere are many illustrations which might be given of \u201cblood-evocation\u201d\namong ancient pagans who regarded blood as the great arcanum of nature.\n\nBut what was the _origin_ of the idea that blood is purifying,\ncleansing, purging? There is nothing in the thing itself that suggests\nthis idea. Take a basinful of newly-drawn blood and set it upon the\ntable before you. It soon coagulates, and emits an offensive odor, so\nthat you are forced to hurry it from your presence. It is the very\nopposite of _cleansing_. If you get a drop upon your finger, you\nimmediately wash it off. Indeed, some persons cannot stand the sight of\nblood, and shrink from its touch as from a deadly poison. There must be\nsome reason for the idea that in some way blood is suggestive of\ncleansing or purifying. Now, we go to _nature_ in search of knowledge.\nThere is only one phenomenon in which the shedding of blood is a natural\nprocess, and that is when the young girl arrives at the stage of\n_pubescence_, and in this case, and in this case only, does it suggest\nthe idea of _purification_. Before the period approaches nothing can be\nmore suggestive of the untidy than the unpubescent girl. She is\ngenerally awkward, slouchy, and unattractive. But let the sanguineous\nevidence of approaching womanhood appear, and how changed! Her\ncomplexion becomes then most beautiful and bewitching. Her eyes sparkle\nwith a fire which cannot be described. Her once ungraceful form becomes\nlithe, and her whole person changes in such a manner as to indicate that\nsome great thing has happened. She has been purified or cleansed. She is\na new creature. Old things have passed away. Each succeeding month she\nhas a similar experience until the full bloom of womanhood has passed\naway.\n\nIndeed, we find among the primitive customs of ancient Africans a\nspecial observance of the commencement of the catamenial period. Before\nthe arrival of the time of periodicity the young girl is of very little\naccount, and is not numbered as a member of the tribe. It is not\nconsidered indecent for her to run around in a state of nudity until she\nis fourteen years of age or until the evidence of pubescence appears.\nStanley says of certain African girls: \u201cThey wait with impatience the\nday when they can be married and have a cloth to fold around their\nbodies.\u201d There was in use among certain ancient people, now worn by\nCatholic priests,  an apron known as the _peplum_, which was worn after\npuberty.\n\nThe tribal mark and totemic name were conferred in the _baptism of\nblood_. A covenant was entered into which was written with menstruous\nblood, because blood was the announcer of the female period of\npubescence. From time immemorial the Kaffirs have preserved the custom\nof celebrating the first appearance of the menstrual flow. All the young\ngirls in the neighborhood meet together and make merry on the happy\noccasion. We are told by Iren\u00e6us how the feminine _Logos_ was\nrepresented in the mysteries of Marcus, and the wine was supposed to be\nmiraculously turned into blood, and Charis, who was superior to all\nthings, was thought to infuse her own blood into the cup. The cup was\nhanded to the women, who also consecrated it with an effusion of blood\nproceeding from themselves.\n\nIt would seem that the blood of Charis preceded the blood of Christ, and\nit is doubtful whether there would have been any cleansing by the blood\nof Christ if there had been no purification by the blood of Charis. Thus\nNature\u2019s rubrics are written in _red_. The Eucharist is derived by\nClement of Alexandria from the mixture of the water and the Word, and he\nidentifies the Word with the blood of the grape. We give these delicate\nhints for what they are worth.\n\nWe have a deep conviction that the conception of the idea of\npurification by blood had at first some connection with the natural\nissue of blood at the commencement of periodicity in the female. In the\nEleusinian Mysteries, celebrated by pagans centuries before the paschal\nsupper of the Jews or the Lord\u2019s Supper of Christians, the element of\nblood was very conspicuously set forth, and Higgins has shown in his\n_Anaealypsis_ that the sacrifice of bread and wine in religious\nceremonies was common among many ancient peoples, the wine representing\nthe blood.\n\nIn 1885 a very remarkable book appeared, entitled _The Blood Covenant_,\nby Rev. H. Clay Trumbull, D. D., and we have obtained the consent of\nthis author (whom we have the honor to recognize as an old and very dear\npersonal friend) \u201cto use anything we please, in any way we please,\nwithout giving any credit.\u201d For this permission we are truly thankful,\nthough we only avail ourself of a few of the facts bearing upon the\npoint concerning which we write.\n\nOur author says: \u201cOne of these primitive rites, which is deserving of\nmore attention than it has yet received, as throwing light on many\nimportant phases of Bible-teaching, is the rite of blood-covenanting\u2014a\nform of mutual covenanting by which two persons enter into the closest,\nthe most enduring, and the most sacred of compacts as friends and\nbrothers, or as more than brothers, through the intercommingling of\ntheir blood by means of its mutual tasting or of its transfusion. This\nrite is still observed in the unchanging East; and there are historic\ntraces of it from time immemorial in every quarter of the globe, yet it\nhas been strangely overlooked by biblical critics and biblical\ncommentators generally in these later centuries.\n\n\u201cAlthough now comparatively rare, in view of its responsibilities and of\nits indissolubleness, this covenant is sometimes entered into by\nconfidential partners in business or by fellow-travelers; again, by\nrobbers on the road, who would themselves rest fearlessly on its\nobligations, and who could be rested on within its limits, however\nuntrustworthy they or their fellows might be to any other compact. Yet,\nagain, it is the chosen compact of loving friends\u2014of those who are drawn\nto it only by mutual love and trust.\n\n\u201cThere are, indeed, various evidences that the the of blood-covenanting\nis reckoned in the East even a closer tie than that of natural\ndescent\u2014that a \u2018friend\u2019 by this tie is nearer and is dearer, \u2018sticketh\ncloser\u2019 than a \u2018brother\u2019 by birth. We in the West are accustomed to say\nthat \u2018 blood is thicker than water,\u2019 but the Arabs have the idea that\nblood is thicker than a mother\u2019s milk. With them, any two children\nnourished at the same breast are called \u2018milk-brothers\u2019 or \u2018sucking\nbrothers;\u2019 and the tie between such is very strong.\n\n\u201cLucian, the bright Greek thinker, writing in the middle of the second\ncentury of our era, is explicit as to the nature and method of this\ncovenant as then practised in the East: \u2018And this is the manner of it:\nThereupon, cutting our fingers, all simultaneously, we let the blood\ndrop into a vessel, and, having dipped the points of our swords into it,\nboth of us holding them together, we drink it. There is nothing which\ncan loose us from one another after that.\u2019\n\n\u201cYet, a little while earlier than Lucian, Tacitus gives record of this\nrite of blood-brotherhood as practised in the East. He makes an\nexplanation: \u2018It is the custom of Oriental kings, as often as they come\ntogether to make covenant, to join right hands, to tie the thumbs\ntogether, and to tighten them with a knot. Then, when the blood is thus\npressed to the finger-tips, they draw blood by a light stroke and lick\nit in turn. This they regard as a divine covenant, made sacred, as it\nwere, by mutual blood or blended lives.\u2019\n\n\u201cSallust, the historian of Catiline\u2019s conspiracy against Rome, says:\n\u2018There were those who said at that time that Catiline at this\nconference, when he inducted them into the oath of partnership in crime,\ncarried round in goblets human blood mixed with wine, and that, after\nall had tasted of it with an imprecatory oath, as is men\u2019s wont in\nsolemn rites, he opened to them his plans.\u2019 Florus, a later Latin\nhistorian, describing this conspiracy, says: \u2018There was added the pledge\nof the league\u2014human blood\u2014which they drank as it was borne round to them\nin goblets.\u2019 And yet later Tertullian suggests that it was their own\nblood, mingled with wine, of which the fellow-conspirators drank\ntogether. \u2018Concerning the eating of blood and other such tragic dishes,\u2019\nhe says, \u2018you read that blood drawn from the arms and tasted by one\nanother was the method of making covenant among certain nations.\u2019\n\n\u201cAs far back even as the fifth century before Christ we find an explicit\ndescription of this Oriental rite of blood-covenanting. \u2018Now, the\nScythians,\u2019 says Herodotus, \u2018make covenants in the following manner,\nwith whomsoever they make them: Having poured out wine into a great\nearthen drinking-bowl, they mingle with it the blood of those making\ncovenant, striking the body with a small knife or cutting it slightly\nwith a sword. Thereafter they dip into the bowl sword, arrows, axe, and\njavelin. But while they are doing this they utter many invokings, and\nafterward not only those who make the covenant, but those of their\nfollowers who are of the highest rank, drink off the wine mingled with\nblood.\u2019\n\n\u201cAgain, Herodotus says of this custom in his day: \u2018Now, the Arabians\nreverence in a very high degree pledges between man and man. They make\nthese pledges in the following way: When they wish to make pledges to\none another, a third man, standing in the midst of the two, cuts with a\nsharp stone the inside of the hands along the thumbs of the two making\nthe pledges. After that, plucking some woollen from the garments of each\nof the two, he anoints with the blood seven stones as the \u201cheap of\nwitness\u201d which are set in the midst. While he is doing this he invokes\nDionysus and Urania. When this rite is completed, he that has made the\npledges introduces the stranger to his friends, or the fellow-citizen to\nhis fellows if the rite was performed with a fellow-citizen.\n\n\u201cGoing back, now, to the world\u2019s most ancient records in the monuments\nof Egypt, we find evidence of the existence of the covenant of blood in\nthose early days. So far was this symbolic thought carried that the\nancient Egyptians spoke of the departed spirit as having entered into\nthe nature, and, indeed, into the very being, of the gods by the rite of\ntasting blood from the divine arm.\n\n\u201c\u2018The Book of the Dead,\u2019  as it is commonly called, is a group, or\nseries, of ancient Egyptian writings representing the state and the\nneeds and the progress of the soul after death. A copy of this funereal\nritual, \u2018more or less complete according to the fortune of the deceased,\nwas deposited in the case of eveiy mummy. \u2018As the Book of the Dead is\nthe most ancient, so it is undoubtedly the most important of the sacred\nbooks of the Egyptians;\u2019 it is, in fact, \u2018according to Egyptian notions,\nessentially an inspired work;\u2019 hence its contents have an exceptional\ndogmatic value. In this book there are several obvious references to the\nrite of blood-covenanting. Some of these are in a chapter of the ritual\nwhich was found transcribed in a coffin of the eleventh dynasty, thus\ncarrying it back to a period prior to the days of the patriarchs.\n\n\u201c\u2018Give me your arm; I am made as ye,\u2019  says the departed soul, speaking\nto the gods. Then, in explanation of this statement, the pre-historic\ngloss of the ritual goes on to say: \u2018The blood is that which proceeds\nfrom the member of the Sun after he goes along cutting himself,\u2019  the\ncovenant blood which unites the soul and the god is drawn from the flesh\nof Ra when he has cut himself in the rite of that covenant. By this\ncovenant-cutting the deceased becomes one with the covenanting gods.\nAgain, the departing soul, speaking as Osiris\u2014or as the Osirian, which\nevery mummy represents\u2014says: \u2018I am the soul in his two halves.\u2019 This was\nat least two thousand years before the days of the Greek philosopher.\nHow much earlier it was recognized does not appear.\n\n\u201cMoreover, a \u2018red talisman,\u2019  or red amulet, stained with \u2018the blood of\nIsis,\u2019  and containing a record of the covenant, was placed at the neck\nof the mummy as an assurance of safety to his soul.  \u2018When this book\n[this amulet-record] has been made,\u2019 says the ritual, \u2018it causes Isis to\nprotect him.\u2019 \u2018If this book is known,\u2019 says Horus, \u2018he [the deceased] is\nin the service of Osiris.... His name is like that of the gods.\u2019\u201d\n\nDr. Trumbull properly remarks:\n\n\u201cThus in ancient Egypt, in ancient Canaan, in ancient Mexico, in modern\nTurkey, in modern Russia, in modern India, and in modern Otaheite, in\nAfrica, in Asia, in America, in Europe, and in Oceanica, blood-giving\nwas life-giving. Life-giving was love-showing. Love-showing was a\nheart-yearning after union in love and in life and in blood and in very\nbeing. That was the primitive thought in the primitive religions of all\nthe world.\n\n\u201cAn ancient Chaldean legend, as recorded by Bero-sus, ascribes a new\ncreation of mankind to the mixture by the gods of the dust of the earth\nwith the blood that flowed from the severed head of the god Belus. \u2018On\nthis account it is that men are rational and partake of divine\nknowledge,\u2019 says Berosus. The blood of the god gives them the life and\nnature of a god. Yet, again, the early Ph\u0153nician and the early Greek\ntheogonies, as recorded by Sanchoniathon and by Hesiod, ascribe the\nvivifying of mankind to the outpoured blood of the gods. It was from the\nblood of Ouranos, or of Saturn, dripping into the sea and mingling with\nits foam, that Venus was formed, to become the mother of her heroic\nposterity. \u2018The Orphies, which have borrowed so largely from the East,\u2019\nsays Lenormant, \u2018said that the immaterial part of man, his soul, his\nlife, sprang from the blood of Dionysus Zagreus, whom... Titans had torn\nto pieces, partly devouring his members.\u2019\n\n\u201cHomer explicitly recognizes this universal belief in the power of blood\nto convey life and to be a means of revivifying the dead.\n\n\u201cIndeed, it is claimed, with a show of reason, that the very word\n(_surquinu_) which was used for \u2018altar\u2019 in the Assyrian was primarily\nthe word for \u2018table\u2019\u2014that, in fact, what was known as the \u2018altar\u2019 to the\ngods was originally the table of communion between the gods and their\nworshippers.\u201d\n\nFrom the writings of Livingstone, the African explorer, as well as from\nthe reports of Stanley, it appears that the custom of blood-covenanting\nis kept up in Africa in these modern times.\n\nDescribing the ceremony, Livingstone says: \u201cIt is accomplished thus: The\nhands of the parties are joined (in this case Pitsane and Sambanza were\nthe parties engaged). Small incisions are made on the clasped hands, on\nthe pits of the stomach of each, and on the right cheeks and foreheads.\nA small quantity of blood is taken from these points, in both parties,\nby means of a stalk of grass. The blood from one person is put into a\npot of beer, and that of the second into another; each then drinks the\nother\u2019s blood, and they are supposed to become perpetual friends or\nrelations. During the drinking of the beer some of the party continue\nbeating the ground with short clubs and utter sentences by way of\nratifying the treaty.\u201d\n\nThe primitive character of these customs is the more probable from the\nfact that Livingstone first found them existing in a region where, in\nhis opinion, the dress and household utensils of the people are\nidentical with those represented on the monuments of ancient Egypt.\n\nConcerning the origin of this rite in this region, Cameron says: \u201cThis\ncustom of  making brothers, I believe to be really of Semitic origin.\u201d\n\nHenry M. Stanley, who was sent to rescue Livingstone, gives many\ninteresting accounts of his experience with the blood-covenanters. In\n1871, Stanley encountered the forces of Mirambo, the greatest of African\nwarriors. They agreed to make \u201cstrong friendship\u201d with each other. The\nceremony is thus described:\n\n\u201cManwa Sera, Stanley\u2019s \u2018chief captain,\u2019 was requested to seal our\nfriendship by performing the ceremony of blood-brotherhood between\nMirambo and myself. Having caused us to sit fronting each other on a\nstraw carpet, he made an incision in each of our right legs, from which\nhe extracted blood, and, interchanging it, he exclaimed aloud, \u2019If\neither of you break this brotherhood now established between you, may\nthe lion devour him, the serpent poison him, bitterness be in his food,\nhis friends desert him, his gun burst in his hands and wound him, and\neverything that is bad do wrong to him until death.\u2019\u201d The same blood now\nflowed in the veins of both Stanley and Mirambo. They were friends and\nbrothers in a sacred covenant\u2014life for life. At the conclusion of the\ncovenant they exchanged gifts, as the customary ratification or\naccompaniment of the compact. They even vied with each other in proofs\nof their unselfish fidelity in this new covenant of friendship.\n\nAgain and again, before and after this incident, Stanley entered into\nthe covenant of blood-brotherhood with representative Africans more than\nfifty times, in some instances by the opening of his own veins; at other\ntimes by allowing one of his personal escort to bleed for him.\n\nThus we see that in ancient and modern times, among all people and in\nall portions of the earth, this idea of blood-friendship prevailed. In\nthe primitive East, in the wild West, in the cold North, and in the\ntorrid South this rite shows itself. \u201cIt will be observed,\u201d says Dr.\nTrumbull, \u201cthat we have already noted proofs of the independent\nexistence of this rite of blood-brotherhood or blood-friendship among\nthe three great primitive divisions of the race\u2014the Semitic, the\nHamitic, and the Japhetic; and this in Asia, Africa, Europe, America,\nand the islands of the sea; again, among the five modern and more\npopular divisions of the human family\u2014Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian,\nMalay, and American. This fact in itself would seem to point to a common\norigin of its various manifestations in the early Oriental home of the\nnow scattered peoples of the world.\n\n\u201cThe Egyptian amulet of blood-friendship was red, as representing the\nblood of the gods. The Egyptian word for \u2019red\u2019 sometimes stood for\n\u2019blood.\u2019 The sacred directions in the Book of the Dead were written in\nred; hence follows our word \u2018rubric,\u2019 The Rabbis say that when\npersecution forbade the wearing of the phylacteries with safety, a red\nthread might be substituted for this token of the covenant with the\nLord. It was a red thread which Joshua gave to Rahab as a token of her\ncovenant relations with the people of the Lord. The red thread in China\nto-day binds the double cup from which the bride and bridegroom drink\ntheir covenant draught of \u2018wedding wine,\u2019 as if in symbolism of the\ncovenant of blood. And it is a red thread which in India to-day is used\nto bind a sacred amulet around the arm or the neck. Among the American\nIndians scarlet, or red, is the color which stands for sacrifices or for\nsacrificial blood in all their picture-painting; and the shrine, or\n_tunkan_, which continues to have its devotees, \u2019is painted red, as a\nsign of active or living worship.\u2019 The same is true of the shrines in\nIndia; the color red shows that worship is still living there; red\ncontinues to stand for blood.\u201d\n\nWhen a Jewish child is circumcised, it is commonly said of him that he\nis caused \u201cto enter into the covenant of Abraham and his godfather or\nsponsor is called Baal-beerith, master of the covenant.\u201d Moreover, even\ndown to modern times the rite of circumcision has included a\nrecognition, however unconscious, of the primitive blood-friendship\nrite, by the custom of the a rabbi,  God\u2019s representative, receiving\ninto his mouth the prepuce or foreskin that is cut from the boy, and\nthereby  made a partaker of the blood mingled with the wine according to\nthe method described among the Orientals, in the rite of\nblood-friendship, from the earliest days of history. We make this\nstatement on the testimony of Buxtorf, who is a recognized authority in\nmatters of Jewish customs, though he gives it in Latin, with a view of\nlimiting a knowledge of the facts.\n\nAll that we have stated concerning the blood-covenant brings us nearer\nand nearer to the disgusting and beastly habit of cannibalism. Dr.\nTrumbull says: \u201cIt would even seem to be indicated, by all the trend of\nhistoric facts, that cannibalism\u2014gross, repulsive, inhuman\ncannibalism\u2014had its basis in man\u2019s perversion of this outreaching of his\nnature (whether that outreach-ing were first directed by revelation or\nby divinely-given innate promptings) after inter-union and\nintercommunion with God, after life in God\u2019s life, and after growth\nthrough the partaking of God\u2019s food or of that food which represents\nGod. The studies of many observers in widely-different fields have led\nboth the rationalistic and the faith-filled student to conclude that in\n_their_ sphere of observation it was a religious sentiment, and not a\nmere animal craving\u2014either through a scarcity of food or from a spirit\nof malignity\u2014that was at the bottom of cannibalistic practices there,\neven if that field were an exception to the world\u2019s fields generally.\nAnd now we have a glimpse of the nature and workings of that religious\nsentiment which prompted cannibalism wherever it has been practised. In\nmisdirected pursuance of this thought men have given the blood of a\nconsecrated human victim to bring themselves into union with God; and\nthen they have eaten the flesh of that victim which had supplied the\nblood which made them one with God. This seems to be the basis of fact\nin the premises, whatever may be the understood philosophy of the facts.\nWhy men reasoned thus may indeed be in question. That they reasoned thus\nseems evident. Certain it is, that where cannibalism has been studied in\nmodern times it has commonly been found to have had originally a\nreligious basis; and the inference is a fair one that it must have been\nthe same wherever cannibalism existed in earlier times. Even in some\nregions where cannibalism has long since been prohibited there are\ntraditions and traces of its former existence as a purely religious\nrite. Thus, in India little images of flour paste or clay are now made\nfor decapitation or other mutilation in the temples, in avowed imitation\nof human beings who were once offered and eaten there.\u201d\n\nR\u00e9ville, treating of the native religions of Mexico and Peru, comes to a\nsimilar conclusion with Dorman, and he argues that the state of things\nwhich was there was the same the world over, so for as it related to\ncannibalism. \u201cCannibalism,\u201d he says, \u201cwhich is now restricted to a few\nof the savage tribes who have remained closest to the animal life, was\nonce universal to our race. For no one would ever have conceived the\nidea of offering to the gods a kind of food which excited nothing but\ndisgust and horror.\u201d In this suggestion R\u00e9ville indicates his conviction\nthat the primal idea of an altar was a table of blood-bought communion.\n\nThere is something that looks very much like cannibalism in the sixth\nchapter of John\u2019s Gospel. The Jews murmured that Jesus spoke of himself\nas the bread which came down from heaven, and inquired, \u201cHow can this\nman give us of his flesh to eat? Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily,\nverily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and\ndrink his blood ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh\nand drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the\nlast day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He\nthat eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.\nAs the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he\nthat eateth me, he also shall live because of me. This is the bread\nwhich came down out of heaven; not as the fathers did eat, and died; he\nthat eateth this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the\nsynagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.\u201d\n\nThis was spoken nearly two years before he is said to have instituted\nthe memorial Supper, and has always been a mystery to commentators,\nthough they allege that the whole mystery is explained in John 6: 63:\n\n\u201cIt is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the\nwords that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.\u201d This\nseems to be very farfetched indeed\u2014an afterthought. It did not satisfy\nsome of his disciples, for \u201cfrom that time many of his disciples went\nback, and walked no more with him.\u201d\n\nFrom this simple idea of securing faithfulness by the transfusion of the\nblood of two persons seems to have come the idea of _propitiating_ the\ngods by offering them bloody sacrifices. In primitive times, among\nbarbarous and uncivilized peoples, the conception was universal that the\ngods were very much like themselves, and that therefore they would be\npleased with presents. When offended they could be conciliated, and when\nsome crime had been committed they could be induced to forgive the\ntransgressor by some valuable offering, such as the first-fruits of the\nsoil or the most immaculate animals of the flock. This idea of obtaining\nfavors from the invisible powers was carried to such extremes that for\nthe honor of humanity we should feel inclined to doubt the monstrous\nstories were they not so well attested. The offering of these sacrifices\nbecame so degraded and disgusting by superstition that it ended in the\nbelief that the deity\u2019s anger could be appeased, his revenge satisfied,\nhis vanity flattered, and that he could be made generally pleased, by\nholocausts of human beings; so that the more costly the sacrifice, the\nmore certain was the deity to smile upon the donor. The Moloch-worship,\nthe mother placing the babe in the arms of the monstrous idol and seeing\nit burned before her own eyes, seems to exhaust the horrors of human\ningenuity. We have only space to state that these abominations prevailed\nover most of the heathen world when the Old-Testament rites and\nceremonies came into use among the Jews. We find the custom of offering\nsacrifices in the early pages of Genesis, when it led to the first\nmurder. Cain\u2019s sacrifice, sacerdotal-ists tell us, was not accepted by\nJehovah because there was no _blood_ in it, as there was in the offering\nof Abel. Abraham was about to slay his own son when the blood of a ram\nwas provided instead; and, in fact, all the Bible patriarchs sacrificed,\nand the exodus from Egypt itself was brought about under the pretence\nthat the people had to go to the desert to offer their accustomed\nsacrifice.\n\nThe Jews borrowed their idea of sacrifice from the heathen, and\nsometimes were more heathenish than the heathens themselves. Thousands\nand thousands of innocent animals were cruelly butchered for sacrifice,\nas the Jews were full of Egyptian reminiscences on one hand and of\nCanaanitish modes of worship on the other. It is said that Jehovah\nallowed these abominations because of the ignorance of these people and\ntheir hardness of heart, lest they might despise a naked religion and be\ndazzled by the imposing ceremonies by which they were surrounded. The\nwhole system of bloody sacrifices was based upon anthropomorphic\nconceptions of their Jehovah, to whom the \u201cagreeable smell\u201d of the blood\nwas a sweet satisfaction. The Jews adopted the very worst features of\npaganism in regard to these bloody sacrifices, which they offered on all\noccasions\u2014so much so that their prophets cried out against them and\nJehovah himself denounced them.\n\nThe life or blood of the animal was distinctly said to make \u201cthe\natonement for the soul.\u201d This notion of a _representative_ victim is one\nthat belonged to the whole ancient world, as can be seen by reference to\nany of the great cyclopaedias. It was _adopted_ by the Jews, not\n_revealed_ to them by Jehovah. The scape-goat (Lev. 16) and many other\ncases of seemingly expiatory sacrifices are embodiments of this idea,\nwhich was adopted by Christianity directly from Judaism, whose priests\nhad adopted it from other people.\n\nThe practice of bloody offerings was common to Hindoos, Assyrians,\nPh\u0153nicians, Greeks, and Northmen. There is a Hindoo ritual for human as\nwell as for brute animals set forth in _Asiatic Researches_. In\n_Fragments of Sanchoniathon_, Kronos sacrifices his \u201conly son\u201d to his\nfather Ouranos, his \u201cfather in heaven.\u201d Agamemnon sacrificed his\ndaughter, Iphigeneia,\n\nbefore going to Troy, and Polyxena, daughter of Priam, was immolated on\nthe tomb of Achilles to his manes. Repeatedly in the Punic wars children\nof noble families were burned alive to \u00c6sculapius, god of medicine.\nBurning at the stake and hanging upon a gibbet were sacrifices to\nappease the divine justice. In short, all bloody sacrifices were\npropitiatory, to appease the rage of hunger in a famished god. Blood was\nexcellent, because its aroma was the vehicle of life, and so afforded\nsupport to life.\n\nIn Homer\u2019s _Odyssey_, Ulysses slays animals before the ghosts of Hades,\nand these run up to be nourished by the blood. He draws his sword,\nrushes upon them, and drives them away. Then, selecting one with whom he\nwishes to talk, he feeds him with the invigorating vapor, and the ghost\nis then made strong enough to talk.\n\nBut none of these sacrifices were strictly vicarious. The old gods were\nangry at neglect, but never had the kind of justice that a sheep or goat\nor cow could not appease. The Jews were not unfamiliar with human\nsacrifices (Lev. 27:28,29; Judg. 11:30-39), and even the early\nChristians are said to have offered bloody sacrifices of human beings.\nThe deification of Jesus to correspond with the apotheosis of other\npersonages required a divine parentage. This idea was not gotten up\nuntil the second Christian century. Justin made Jesus a second god. But\nthe earlier Fathers did not connect the notion of the vicarious\natonement with that of original sin and total depravity. Basilides\nmaintained that penal suffering or suffering for purposes of justice of\nnecessity implies personal criminality in the sufferer, and therefore\ncannot be endured by an innocent person as a substitute.\n\nProf. Robertson Smith, LL.D., in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, in his\nlearned article on \u201cSacrifice,\" says part: \u201cWhere we find a practice of\nsacrificing honorific gifts to the gods, we usually find also certain\nother sacrifices which resemble those already characterized, to be\nconsumed in sacred ceremony, but differ from them, inasmuch as the\nsacrifice\u2014usually a living victim\u2014is not regarded as a tribute of honor\nto the god, but has a special or mystic significance. The most familiar\ncase of this second species of sacrifice is that which the Romans\ndistinguished from the _hostia honoraria_ by the name of _hostia\npiacularis_. In the former case the deity accepts a gift; in the latter,\nhe demands a life. The former kind of sacrifice is offered by the\nworshipper on the basis of an established relation of friendly\ndependence on his divine lord; the latter is directed to appease the\ndivine anger or to conciliate the favor of a deity on whom the\nworshipper has no right to count\u201d (vol. xxi. p.. 132).\n\n_Piamlar Sacrifices_.\u2014\u201cThe idea of substitution is widespread among all\nearly religions, and is found in honorific as well as piacular rites. In\nall such cases the idea is that the substitute shall imitate as closely\nas is possible or convenient the victim whose place it supplies; and so\nin piacular ceremonies the god may indeed accept one life for another,\nor certain select lives to atone for the guilt of a whole community; but\nthese lives ought to be of the guilty kin, just as in blood-revenge the\ndeath of any kinsman of the manslayer satisfies justice. Hence such\nrites as the Semitic sacrifices of children by their fathers [Moloch],\nthe sacrifice of Iphigeneia and similar cases among the Greeks, inasmuch\nas something is given up by the worshippers nor the offering up\nof boys to the goddess Mania at Rome....\n\n\u201cIn advanced societies the tendency is to modify the horrors of the\nritual, either by accepting an effusion of blood without actually\nslaying the victim\u2014e. g. in the flagellation of the Spartan lads\u2014or by a\nfurther extension of the doctrine of substitution: the Romans, for\nexample, substituted puppets for the human sacrifices to Mania, and cast\nrush dolls into the Tiber, at the yearly atoning sacrifice on the\nSublician Bridge. More usually, however, the life of an animal is\naccepted by the god in place of a human life.... Among the Egyptians the\nvictim was marked with a seal bearing the image of a man bound and\nkneeling with a sword at his throat. And often we find a ceremonial\nlaying of the sin to be expiated on the head of the victim (Herod, ii.\n39; Lev. 4: 4, compared with 14: 21).\n\n\u201cIn such piacular rites the god demands only the life of the victim,\nwhich is sometimes indicated by a special ritual with the blood (as\namong the Hebrews the blood of the sin-offering was applied to the horns\nof the altar or to the mercy-seat within the veil), and there is no\nsacrificial meal. Thus, among the Greeks the carcase of the victim was\nburied or cast into the sea [comp, with most important Hebrew\nsin-offerings and sacrifice of children to Moloch\u2014outside the camp or\ncity].\n\n\u201cWhen the flesh of the sacrifice is consumed by the priests, as with\ncertain Roman piacula and Hebrew sin-offerings, the sacrificial flesh is\nseemingly a gift accepted by the deity and assigned by him to the\npriests, so that the distinction between a honorific and a piacular\nsacrifice is partly obliterated. But this is not hard to understand; for\njust as a blood-rite takes the place of blood-revenge in human justice,\nso an offence against the gods may in certain cases be redeemed by a\nfine (e. g. Herod, ii. 65) or a sacrificial gift. This seems to have\nbeen the origin of the Hebrew _trespass-offering_ (p. 136).\n\n\u201cThe most curious developments of piacular sacrifice take place in the\nworship of deities of the totem type. Here the natural substitute for\nthe death of a criminal of the tribe is an animal of the kind with which\nthe worshippers and their god alike count kindred\u2014an animal, that is,\nwhich must not be offered in a sacrificial feast, and which indeed it is\nimpious to kill. Thus, Hecat\u00e9 was invoked as a dog, and dogs were her\npiacular sacrifices. And in like manner in Egypt the piacular sacrifice\nof the cow-goddess Isis-Hathor was a bull, and the sacrifice was\naccompanied by lamentations as at the funeral of a kinsman.\u201d\n\nUnder the head of _Mystical or Sacramental Sacrifices_\u2014i. e. sacrifices\nat initiations and in the _Mysteries_: \u201cAccording to Julian, the\nmystical sacrifices of the cities of the Roman empire were... offered\nonce or twice a year, and consisted of such victims as the dog of\nHecat\u00e9, which might not ordinarily be eaten or used to furnish forth the\ntables of the gods.... The mystic sacrifices seem always to have had an\natoning efficacy; their special feature is that the victim is not simply\nslain and burned or cast away, but that the worshippers partake of the\nbody and blood of the sacred animal, and that so his life passes, as it\nwere, into their lives and knits them to the deity in living communion.\n\n\u201cIn the Old Testament the heathen mysteries seem to appear as ceremonies\nof initiation by which a man was introduced into a new worship.... But\noriginally the initiation must have been introduction into a particular\nsocial community.... From this point of view the sacramental rites of\nmystical sacrifice are a form of blood-covenant.... In all the forms of\nblood-covenant, whether a sacrifice is offered or the veins of the\nparties opened and their own blood used, the idea is the same: the bond\ncreated is a bond of kindred, because one blood is now in the veins of\nall who have shared the ceremony.\u201d\n\nA learned friend writes me: \u201cI doubt whether a real distinction can be\nmade between _propitiatory and expiatory_ sacrifices. Propitiation is by\nexpiation. The basic idea in all sacrifices of that nature appears to be\n_substitution_; that is, something taking the place of the offender....\nIt seems that the basis of all sacrifice is to be found in a\nrelationship, or _kinship_ (through blood), between the deity\u2014who is\nonly the representative of the tribal head regarded as still living in\nthe spirit-world\u2014and the worshipper.\n\n\u201cI may add that the idea of pollution by wrongdoing\u2014i. e. offending the\ntribal deity\u2014to be got rid of only by the shedding of blood, is not\nunknown to so-called savages. This applies especially to offences\nagainst chastity, as with the M\u00e2lers of Rajmahal, India, and the Dyaks\nof Borneo. The pig is the animal usually sacrificed\u2014probably because it\nis the most valuable animal food. The P\u00e2dam Abors of Assam look upon all\ncrimes as public pollutions which require to be washed away by a public\nsacrifice. Here we have the idea of cleansing by the application of\nblood, and this appears to be the idea also with the M\u00e2lers, and\nprobably among the aboriginal hill-tribes of India generally.\u201d\n\nMommsen, the Roman historian, says: \u201cAt the very core of the Latin\nreligion there lay that profound moral impulse which leads men to bring\nearthly guilt and earthly punishment into relation with the world of the\ngods, and to view the former as a crime against the gods, and the latter\nas its expiation. The execution of the criminal condemned to death was\nas much an expiatory sacrifice offered to the divinity as was the\nkilling of an enemy in just war; the thief who by night stole the fruits\nof the field paid the penalty to Ceres on the gallows, just as the enemy\npaid it to mother earth and the good spirits on the field of battle. The\nfearful idea of substitution also meets us here: when the gods of the\ncommunity were angry, and nobody could be laid hold of as definitely\nguilty, they might be appeased by one who voluntarily gave himself up\n(_devovere se_).\u201d\n\nBut it was left for Anselm of Canterbury, late in the eleventh century,\nto first formulate the doctrine of vicarious atonement. Before this\nthere seemed to be among the theologians the idea that in some way\nChrist came to restore, at least in part, all that was lost in Adam.\nDuring the first four centuries of the Christian era there seems to have\nbeen no fixed opinion as to whether there was a ransom-price paid to God\nor the devil. Under the article \u201cDevil \" in the Encyclop\u0153dia Britannica\nit is said:\n\n\u201cHe [the devil] was, according to Cyprian (_De Unitate Ecd_.), the\nauthor of all heresies and delusions: he held man by reason of his sin\nin rightful possession, and man could only be rescued from his power by\nthe ransom of Christ\u2019s blood. This extraordinary idea of a payment or\nsatisfaction to the devil being made by Christ as the price of man\u2019s\nsalvation is found both in Iren\u00e6us (Adv. Hcer., v. 1. 1.) and in Origen,\nand may be said to have held its sway in the Church for a thousand\nyears. And yet Origen is credited with the opinion that, bad as the\ndevil was, he was not altogether beyond hope of pardon.\"\n\nIt would be tedious to note the various views that have prevailed among\ntheologians to the present day. Some hold that the offering was made to\nGod to satisfy divine justice; others hold that it was a commercial\ntransaction\u2014so much blood for so many souls; and still others regard the\nwhole as a governmental display to impress the world with a sense of the\nhatefulness of sin. Calvinists seem to think that the atonement was only\nmade for the elect, but that the blood of Christ had sufficient merit to\nsave the whole world. Roman Catholics hold that it is the literal,\nmaterial blood of Christ that saves the sinner, and hence their extreme\nbelief in the dogma of _transubstantiation_, the real body and blood of\nJesus being offered in the sacrifice of the Mass, and taken by the\npenitent in the Holy Communion. Protestants generally hold to a sort of\nconsubstantiation\u2014a sort of real presence in the sacrament; while\npersons of intelligence profess to believe that this whole theory of\nblood-salvation is only to be accepted in a figurative sense. The fact\nis, that the whole scheme of vicarious atonement is an ancient\nsuperstition, though taught in the New Testament, and is absurd and\nunphilosophical, and false in principle and in practice, as we shall\nhereafter show.\n\nWe leave altogether out of view the logical conclusion that if the blood\nshed by Jesus was the blood of a man, it could have had no more efficacy\nthan the blood of any other human being, and that if the blood shed was\nthe blood of a God, the very mention of the thought is absurd and\nblasphemous in the extreme. It is nonsense to say that it was the union\nof the divine with the human nature that gave the blood of Christ its\npeculiar efficacy\u2014that the altar sanctifies the gift for if the blood\nwas changed by the man being united with the God, it was not human\nblood, but the blood of a divine man.\n\nNow, there is no evidence that the blood of Jesus (supposing that he was\ncrucified) differed in its essential qualities from other human blood.\nIf analyzed by the chemist, it would have been found to contain only the\nconstituent particles which belong to human blood. The white and red\ncorpuscles and other chemical properties would have been found in it.\n\n_The dogma of blood-salvation as held by Romanists is cannibalism, pure\nand simple, and as held by Protestants it is sheer superstition, without\none grain of reason to support it._ It has no analogy in nature, nor in\nthe philosophy of legal jurisprudence as held and practised by the most\nenlightened nations of the world.\n\nIt seems to us that the doctrine of vicarious atonement is not only\nimmoral, but demoralizing. It represents God as punishing the innocent\nfor the guilty to make it possible to forgive the guilty. This is\ninconsistent with the eternal principles of justice and rightfulness. It\nmust have a demoralizing influence upon the mind and conscience of the\nsinner, to be told that his sins are already atoned for, and he only\nneed to be cleansed by the blood of Christ; and this is to be obtained\nby simple faith and trust! Believe that Jesus shed his blood for you,\nand that he is waiting and anxious to apply it in washing away your\nguilt, and it is done! Then as often as you sin afterward you need only\ngo through the same process to secure pardon! The easiness with which\nsins may be blotted out and washed away must have a demoralizing\ninfluence upon uneducated minds, though truly intelligent persons may\nnot reason in this way. The low state of morals among those who really\nbelieve in this device for the forgiveness of sins may thus be accounted\nfor. The numerous defalcations and downright thefts among the higher\nclasses of Christians, and the petty lying and stealing among the great\nmass of Catholics and Protestants, are notorious, and can be traced, we\nthink, to the easy methods of getting rid of the consequencees of\nwrong-doing. Our prison-statistics are truly suggestive, and should be\ncarefully studied. Freethinkers are far in advance of Christians in the\nmatter of practical morality. Many of those whom the courts exclude as\nwitnesses, because they do not accept certain religious dogmas, are\npre-eminently truthful, and would sooner die than tell a falsehood. They\ndo not rely upon the blood of Jesus to wash away the vilest sins and\nmake them white as snow.\n\nOur statesmen are beginning to find out that our system of _pardon_ is\nmost pernicious. To relieve from the consequences of wrong-doing through\na divine contrivance of the vicarious sufferings of an innocent person,\nand that human disobedience is made all right as to consequences by this\nobedience of a divine-human person, does not commend itself to the\nintelligence of this nineteenth century. The answer of theologians to\nthis charge is familiar and specious enough, but it is not practically\naccepted by the common people. When a child enters the Sunday-school\nroom, and his eyes rest upon the conspicuous placard, \u201c_Jesus Paid it\nAll_\u201d the natural inference is there is nothing more to pay, nothing to\ndo but to accept the free gift.\n\nThousands of ignorant persons, Catholics and Protestants, no doubt\nsecretly accept and rely upon this easy device to cover up their\nnumerous shortcomings and misdoings. This doctrine is a welcome one in\nthe murderer\u2019s cell and upon the platform of the gallows. In thousands\nof uncultivated minds the thought is no doubt deeply hidden that about\nthe surest way to get to heaven is to commit a murder and have the\n\u201cbenefit of clergy,\u201d and in due time to be \u201cjerked to Jesus\u201d (as\ndescribed by a Western journal) by the hangman\u2019s rope. Why should it not\nbe so? The vicarious atonement has been made, and is being made in the\nMass, and they have only to accept it. Two priests or ministers actually\nopposed the postponement of the execution of a certain murderer on the\nground that he then believed in Jesus, but that if execution was\npostponed they did not know that he would continue to \u201cbelieve,\u201d and\nthat his soul might thus be lost!\n\nSuppose that our State authorities should proclaim in advance free\npardon and a princely palace to all lawbreakers on the simple condition\nof trusting in the mediatorial interposition and substitution of\nanother, _already made and accepted_; what would be the effect on public\nmorals? The system of redemption and pardon set forth in the New\nTestament is infinitely more than this, and must be demoralizing. All\npublic officers know the evil effects of the pardon system, and how even\nthe faintest hope of pardon encourages crime, and how certainly a free\npardon is almost sure to be followed by a life of increased criminality.\n\nThere should be no such thing as pardon in our State jurisprudence\u2014no\n\u201cboard of pardons\u201d and no \u201cexercise of the executive clemency.\u201d If a\nconvict is believed to have been wrongly imprisoned, or by\nafter-discovered evidence is found to be innocent, let no \u201cpardon board\u201d\nor \u201cexecutive\u201d interfere, but let the case go back to the court that\nconvicted him or to one of like jurisdiction, and let the case be\njudicially reviewed in the light of evidence; and if the accused is\nfound innocent, let him be honorably acquitted, or if guilty remanded to\nprison.\n\nThere is nothing in reason, philosophy, or science that approves the\ntheologie method of dealing with offenders. It violates every principle\nof justice, and has not one single quality of rightfulness in it. It is\na fiction pure and simple, in form and in fact. Macaulay well said of\nthis redemptive scheme, \u201cIt resembles nothing so much as a forged bond,\nwith a forged release endorsed upon its back.\u201d Gregg pungently put it\nthus: \u201cIt looks very much like an impossible debt paid in inconceivable\ncoin; or a legal fiction purely gratuitous got rid of by what looks like\na legal chicanery purely fanciful. It gives unworthy conceptions of God\nas one delighting in the blood of human beings, and even suggests the\ndisgusting practices of cannibalism. It is a relic of the ancient\nbarbaric fetichism borrowed from savages by sacerdotalists for purposes\nof priestcraft, and should be scouted by all honest and intelligent\nmen.\u201d\n\nThe severely orthodox Rev. Professor Shedd, as well as Dr. Priestley,\nadmits that there was no scientific construction of the doctrine of the\natonement in the writings of the apostolic Fathers (_Hist, of Doc._,\nvol. ii., p. 208). The doctrine was evidently manufactured when the\nRomish Church was evolved out of the innumerable sects of early\nChristendom, and was enforced by wholesale excommunication of dissenters\nand the death penalty. Christianity was planted in Germany, Prussia, and\nSweden by military power. The Saxons were \u201cconverted\u201d by Charlemagne.\nAll the secret religions have a god or demi-god put to death. Even the\nFreemasons have Hiram Abiff. The death of Osiris was the central point\nin the Egyptian system. He was killed by Seth or Typhon, and returned to\nlife as Rat-Amenti, the judge. In Egypt, Christianity moulded its\ndoctrines of the Trinity, atonement, and \u201cmother of God.\u201d The Osirian\ntheology was grafted on the Christian stock, if indeed the Christian\nsystem was not an evolution of Osirianism; and of this the monstrous\nconcoction known as _vicarious atonement_ was made, and thrust down\nmen\u2019s throats by threats of hell and the visits of the executioner.\n\nWe might extend our remarks upon this subject indefinitely, but we have\nnot space. We have seen that _blood-salvation_ did not originate with\neither Jews or Christians. Dr. Trumbull has proved this over and over\nagain, and Kurtz, an orthodox writer, has admitted this fact. He says:\n\u201cA comparison of the religious symbols of the Old Testament with those\nof ancient heathendom shows that the ground and the starting-point of\nthose forms of religion which found their appropriate expressions in\nsymbols was the same in all cases; while the history of civilization\nproves that on this point priority cannot be claimed by the Israelites.\nBut when instituting such an inquiry we shall also find that the symbols\nwhich were transferred from the religions of nature to that of the\nspirit first passed through the fire of divine purification, from which\nthey issued as the distinctive theology of the Jews, the dross of a\npantheistic deification of nature having been consumed.\u201d All this is\nvery frank, but we should not overlook the fact, so clearly established,\nthat this doctrine of cleansing blood, so constantly taught in the New\nTestament and proclaimed from every orthodox pulpit in the land, was not\na _divine revelation_ specially made to Jews or Christians, but has been\nadopted and modified from the religions of nature, celebrated in all\nparts of the world by the most barbarous peoples in the remotest periods\nof time. Indeed, the more gross and savage the people, the more\ndisgusting has been this doctrine of _blood-salvation_.\n\nDr. Trumbull could only think of two possible ways of explaining these\nmarvellous things: \u201cHow it came to pass that men everywhere were so\ngenerally agreed on the main symbols of their religious yearnings, and\ntheir religious hopes in this realm of their aspirations, is a question\nwhich obviously admits of two possible answers. A common revelation from\nGod may have been given to primitive man, and all these varying yet\nrelated indications of religious strivings and aim may be but the\nperverted remains of the lessons of that misused or slighted revelation.\nOn the other hand, God may originally have implanted the germs of a\ncommon religious thought in the mind of man, and then have adapted his\nsuccessive revelations to the outworking of those germs. Whichever view\nof the probable origin of these common symbolisms, all the world over,\nbe adopted by any Christian student, the importance of the symbolisms\nthemselves, in their relation to the truths of revelation, is manifestly\nthe same.\"... \u201cBecause the primitive rite of blood-covenanting was well\nknown in the lands of the Bible at the time of the writing of the Bible,\nfor that very reason we are not to look to the Bible for a specific\nexplanation of the rite itself, even where there are incidental\nreferences in the Bible to the rite and its observances; but, on the\nother hand, we are to find an explanation of the biblical illustrations\nof the primitive rite in the understanding of that rite which we gain\nfrom outside sources.\"\n\nThese assumptions are very flimsy stuff upon which to found the most\nprominent and mysterious doctrine of the orthodox Christian religion,\nmaking it the Alpha and Omega of the whole \u201c_scheme of redemption_\u201d To\nwitness the mummeries of Roman Catholic priests and the manipulations of\nProtestant ministers in the celebration of the \u201cEucharistic Feast\u201d or\n\u201cHoly Communion\u201d is enough to lead a truly intelligent man to wonder why\nthese celebrants do not laugh each other in the face. Even our\nUniversalist and Unitarian ministers sometimes indulge in this heathen\ndiversion, though some of them deeply feel the absurdity of the rite,\nand the consequent humiliation to which they are subjected.\nNevertheless, some of our most profound  statesmen, when about to die,\ncall in a priest, Catholic or Protestant, to administer the heathen\nordinance. When will the world open its blind eyes, and learn that all\nthat God requires of men is to \u201cwalk humbly, love mercy, and deal\njustly\u201d?\n\nThere is no difficulty in accepting the words of a God who is said to\nhave uttered the burning reproof to ritualists and hypocrites as\nfollows: \u201cTo what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices? I delight\nnot in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. Bring no more\nvain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and\nsabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity\neven the solemn meeting. And when you spread your hands I will hide mine\neyes from you, yea, you make many prayers I will not hear, your hands\nare full of blood. Wash ye, make you clean, put away the evil of your\ndoings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well, seek\njudgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the\nwidows.\u201d\n\nThis doctrine of _bloodsalvation_ is, in our judgment, most\nunphilosophical and even absurd. It originated, as we have shown, in the\nmost gross and anthropomorphic conceptions of God, and its solemn\ncelebration in orthodox churches is inseparable from the most ignorant\nand superstitious rites of the most savage peoples. Its tendency must be\ndemoralizing.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.  THINGS THAT REMAIN\n\n\n_\u201cThat those things which cannot be shaken may remain.\u201d\u2014Heb. 12: 27._\n\n\nIN the preceding chapters we have shown that in our judgment the time\nhas fully come for the fearless proclamation of the whole truth,\nregardless of temporary consequences.\n\nWe think that we have also shown that for many important reasons we\ncannot expect the whole truth from the professional clergy.\n\nWe have shown that the Jews are not the very ancient and numerous people\nthat they have been supposed to have been, and that many of their claims\nare purely fabulous; and that this is specially true of their\nPentateuch, which Moses, supposing such a man to have lived, could not\nhave written.\n\nWe have shown how extensively symbolism anciently prevailed in sacred\nwritings, how modern sacerdotalists have accepted as literal history and\nmatters of fact what was at first a romance or an allegory intended to\nillustrate certain principles, and how the introduction of astral keys\ncan only explain many of the Old-Testament stories, which, taken\nliterally, are extremely absurd and foolish.\n\nWe think we have shown that the \u201cfall\u201d of the mythical Adam and Eve is\nan allegory, and not an historical fact, and that it is extremely\nunfortunate that the whole system of dogmatic theology is made to depend\nupon a mythus.\n\nWe have gone in search of the \u201csecond Adam,\u201d and have not found him,\nexcept in the New Testament, and we have shown how utterly incomplete\nand unsatisfactory that account is, not rising in any degree to the\ncharacter of evidence.\n\nWe have shown that the Gospels are highly dramatic; that the Christ is\nlargely ideal; that many other persons before the Christian era claimed\nall that was claimed for Jesus; and that he, his conduct, and alleged\nsayings (he wrote nothing) are widely open to criticism.\n\nWe have shown that the distinguishing feature of the New\nTestament\u2014blood-salvation\u2014is not a special revelation, but that it has\nbeen borrowed and modified and adapted from savages and from the most\nignorant and superstitious tribes; and that what is called the\n\u201credemptive scheme\u201d is full of absurdities and contradictions, and that\nit is philosophically and naturally demoralizing in its tendency and\ninfluence if its logical consequences are accepted.\n\nWe now come to the practical question, _What have we left?_ Is there\nanything in religion worth preserving? Indeed, is there anything\ncondemned in this book that is essential to the purest religion and the\nhighest morality? After doubting and throwing discredit on so much, have\nwe anything left worth preserving? Having cast so much of the cargo\noverboard to lighten the ship, is the vessel worth saving? Having cast\naway the accretions and superstitions of religion, we are only now just\nprepared to defend its essential and sublime principles. Let us see what\nremains.\n\n      I. _Our Faith in God remains._\u2014Not a God. The passage in the New\n         Testament (John 4: 24) admits that \u201ca\u201d is an interpolation.\n         There is no personality in God in a sense which implies\n         limitation. God is spirit, and so spirit is God. Even Professor\n         H\u00e6ckel, the German materialist, says: \u201cThis monistic idea of\n         God, which belongs to the future, has already been expressed by\n         Bruno in the following words: A spirit exists in all things,\n         and no body is so small but contains a part of the divine\n         substance within itself by which it is animated.\u201d The words God\n         and religion have been so long associated with superstition and\n         priestcraft that many liberal thinkers have a repugnance to\n         both. But we must not let these perversions of sacerdotalism\n         rob us of good words. We can conceive of God as the _Over-all\n         and In-all Spirit of the Universe._ That spirit is causation,\n         and matter, its palpable form, is one of its manifestations. We\n         know that Nature\u2019s method of making worlds and brutes and men\n         is by a uniform system of evolution, taking millions and\n         billions of years to carry on the work to the present time, and\n         that it is likely that it will take millions more to perfect\n         it. When asked what spirit is, we answer, We do not know;\n         neither do we know what electricity is, nor can we answer one\n         of a thousand questions that come up regarding the subtle and\n         occult qualities of matter. We see no difference between the\n         Unknowable of Herbert Spencer and the Unsearchable of Zophar in\n         the book of Job. The Unknown Power is the Noumenon, the\n         absolute Being in itself, the inner nature of force, motion,\n         and even of conscience.\n\nWe have said, in substance, elsewhere: It is a great mistake to think of\nGod as outside of and distinct from the universe. If there be a God at\nall, he is in the universe and in every part of it. We cannot properly\nlocalize him, and say that he is present in one place and not in\nanother, or that he is in one place more than another. He must be\neverywhere and in everything. Anthropomorphic (man-like) views of God\nare what make atheists and agnostics.\n\nMen constantly talk of the laws of Nature, forgetting that law itself is\na product and cannot be a cause. The law of gravitation is not the cause\nof gravitation. A self-originating and self-executing law is\nunthinkable. The prevalence of law supposes the existence of a lawmaker\nand a law-executor. We accept the law of evolution, but cannot conceive\nof evolution independent of involution and an Evolver.\n\nIt may be said that this is \u201cbegging the question\u201d by assuming the\nexistence of an infinite God. But we deny that it is an assumption in\nits last analysis. What is known as the scientific method leads\nlogically to the conclusion that there must be something that theists\ngenerally name God. You may call it \u201cprotoplasm,\u201d \u201cmolecular force,\u201d the\n\u201cpotentiality of matter,\u201d or even matter itself; and when you tell us\nwhat these words mean we will tell you what we mean by \u201cGod.\u201d Possibly\nwe all mean the same thing. We know of the existence of God, as we know\nother things, by palpable manifestations.\n\nAstronomers assumed the existence of Neptune from certain phenomena long\nbefore its existence could be demonstrated; and if the discovery had\nnever been made the phenomena so long observed would have nevertheless\njustified the conclusion that there must be some stupendous cause for\nsuch unmistakable and marvellous perturbations.\n\nWhen men talk of the eternity of matter we do not even profess to\nunderstand them. The most advanced scientists do not attempt to explain\none of a thousand mysteries in which the phenomena of the material world\nis enshrouded. Why, then, should we be expected to explain where and how\nand when God came into existence, or how he could have had an eternal\nexistence or be self-existent? We affirm no more of God than\nmaterialists imply of matter, and we endow him with no attributes that\nthey do not virtually ascribe to matter. So far as assumption is\nconcerned, both stand on the same ground. They, indeed, call things by\ndifferent names, but mean about the same thing. What theists prefer to\ncall \u201cthe works of God\u201d materialists call \u201cNature,\u201d \u201ccosmic laws,\u201d\n\u201cspontaneous generation,\u201d \u201cthe potency of matter,\u201d \u201cconservation of\nenergy,\" \u201ccorrelation of force,\" and \u201cnatural selection.\"\n\nThe fundamental error of modern scientists is that they limit their\ninvestigations to the physical and palpable, while we have demonstrable\nevidence of the existence of the spiritual and invisible. We know\nnothing of matter but from its properties and manifestations, and we\nhave the same kind of evidence in regard to spirit, and know that it is\nsuperior to gross matter, and therefore cannot be tested by the same\ncrucibles. In the very nature of things a great cause must ever be\nimponderable and invisible. It cannot be weighed and measured, but must\never remain intangible and incomprehensible. The spirit in physical man\nin its relation to the Supreme Spirit is as the drop of water to the\nocean or the single glimmering ray to the full-orbed, refulgent sun. Men\nmay talk of \u201cforce correlation,\" and trace its progress and products,\nbut they must remain dumb as to the beginning or origin of force unless\nthey accept the doctrine of an _intelligent First Force_. There is no\nway of accounting for the existence of spirit, of life, of intelligence,\nbut by premising the prior existence of spirit, life, and intelligence.\nLike only causes like. An egg does not come from a stone, and the\nascidian did not come from a lifeless rock.\n\nThe logical conclusion from the facts and principles herein suggested is\nthat there must be an intelligent First Cause of all things\u2014an\nall-pervading, fecundating, animating Spirit of the universe; and we\nprefer to call this God. Science has taught us the processes of his\nwork, and denominates them the \u201claws of Nature.\u201d In point of fact, as\nlittle is known of the origin and essence of matter as of spirit, and\nthere is as good ground for agnosticism in the former as in the latter.\nThere is therefore no necessary conflict between true science and a\nrational theism or monism.\n\nIt is a rational proposition that something must have been before what\nis called creation. There must have been an _intelligent potency_, and\nthat power theists call God. Materialism in its last analysis ascribes\nto matter all that theists ascribe to God. It gives matter an eternal\nself-existence\u2014endows it with an inherent infinite intelligence and an\nomnipotent potency. It spells \u201cGod\u201d with six letters instead of three.\nIt makes a God of matter, and then denies his existence!\n\nWe now submit that it is more rational to postulate the existence of an\neternal Supreme Intelligence and Power, the Creator and Ruler of all\nthings visible and invisible, who is the Author and Executor of the laws\nby which both mind and matter are governed. This Supreme Being is alone\nthe Self-existent One, and what are called the properties and modes of\ninert matter are but the proofs and manifestations of his eternal power\nand Godhead. There cannot be a poem without a poet, nor a picture\nwithout an artist. There cannot be a watch or other complex machine\nwithout an inventor and artisan. The universe is the sublimest of all\npoems, and Cicero well said that it would be easier to conceive that\nHomer\u2019s Iliad came from the chance shaking together of the letters of\nthe alphabet than that the atoms should have produced the cosmos without\na marshalling agency. The visible and palpable compel us to acknowledge\ntheir counterpart in the invisible and intangible, and we cannot\nrationally account for the origin of man without postulating the\nexistence of an Intelligence and Power greater than humanity.\n\nWe are reproached for the inconsistency of believing in a Power we\ncannot comprehend, and endowing him with attributes of which we can form\nno just conceptions. Atheists do not seem to realize that they are\nguilty of a greater inconsistency. They tell us that we believe in a\nBeing of whom we can form no conception, but they themselves must form\nsome conception of such a Being, else how could they deny his existence?\n\nThere is no difficulty in admitting the existence of a Supreme Power if\nwe do not attempt to comprehend and describe it. Matthew Arnold says:\n\u201cWe too would say \u2019God\u2019 if the moment we said \u2019God, you would not\npretend that you know all about him.\u201d His definition of God is indeed\nvague, but vastly suggestive: \u201cAn enduring Power not ourselves that\nmakes for righteousness.\u201d This suggests the moral element in the unknown\nPower. There is not only a spiritual sense in man which recognizes the\nsupersensuous, but there is an indwelling witness to the eternal\nprinciple of rightfulness. The sentiment of oughtness is inherent and\nineradicable. Every man who is not a moral idiot has a feeling that\ncertain things ought and ought not to be\u2014that there is an essential\nright and wrong. Human intuition sees and feels this mysterious Power\nthat answers to our Ego, and from which it proceeds; and this inward\nconviction cannot be eradicated from the average mind by the pretensions\nof science. The patient watcher in the dark room at the terminus of the\nocean cable sees in his suspended mirror the reflection of an electric\nspark, and he at once recognizes it as a message from the operator three\nthousand miles away. So God is seen by the aspiring and contemplative in\nthe concave mirror of man\u2019s own spirit, and, though it is a mere\nreflection, a spark, a flash, it clearly proves the existence of the\nCentral Magnet. It is this recognition of the moral element that forms\nthe basis of moral government and of that worshipfulness which has\nmanifested itself among all nations, barbarian and civilized.\n\nIt is safe to assume that the average Atheism is disbelief in the God of\nthe dominant theology, and not in the Ultimate Power that makes for\nrighteousness. Vulgar, anthropomorphic conceptions of God, which endow\nhim with certain speculative attributes, are condemned by reason and\nscience; but nevertheless phenomena have something behind them, and\nenergy has something beneath it, and all things have something in them\nwhich is the source of all phenomena and energy; and this enduring,\nall-pervading Power is our sure guarantee of the order of the universe.\nAnd this Power theists persist in calling God. Theologians may call this\nPantheism, but it is only seemingly so. There is a vast difference\nbetween saying that everything is God, and that God is in everything.\nThe old watchmaker-mechanician idea, a God separate and outside of the\nuniverse, has become obsolete, and science and reason and the law of\nprogressive development now compel men to reshape their conceptions of\nGod as identical with the Cosmos, plus the Eternal Power.\n\nHerbert Spencer has beautifully said: \u201cBut amid the mysteries, which\nbecome the more mysterious the more they are thought about, there will\nremain the one absolute certainty that man is ever in presence of an\nInfinite and Eternal Energy, from which all things proceed.\u201d The felt\nand the seen have their fulness in the unseen and intangible, and the\nvisible impels us to seek its counterpart and complement in the\ninvisible.\n\n     II. _Our Faith in Religion remains_.\u2014And here the question comes\n         up, What is religion? The commonly-accepted meaning of the word\n         is as derived from the Latin _religare_, which means \u201cto bind\n         back or to bind fast.\u201d We do not accept the definition, because\n         it is suggestive of _bondage_. It implies a previous harmonious\n         relation with God which had been lost. It favors the dogmas of\n         the fall of Adam and man\u2019s alleged reinstatement and \u201cbinding\n         back\u201d to the divine allegiance, through what is called, in\n         theological parlance, a \u201credemptive scheme.\u201d It is a\n         significant fact that Lactantius, a theologian of the early\n         part of the fourth century, was the first to apply the word\n         religion to \u201cthe bond of piety by which we are bound to God.\u201d\n         Augustine of the fifth century followed his example, and so did\n         Servius about the same time; and their example has been\n         followed by theologians ever since, presumably because it\n         favors the dogmas of the fall of Adam and the redemption by\n         Christ. But the highest classical authorities derive the word\n         religion from _relegere_ or _religere_, signifying \u201cto go\n         through or over and over again in reading, speech, or\n         thought\u2014to review carefully and faithfully to ponder and\n         reflect with conscientious fidelity.\u201d\n\nCicero must have understood the original meaning and origin of the Latin\nword, and he took this view of the subject. He lived more than three\nhundred years before Lactantius, and he said: \u201cBut they who carefully\nmeditated, and as it were considered and reconsidered all those things\nwhich pertained to the worship of the gods, were called religious, from\nreligere.\u201d The word _religio_ was in common use in ancient Rome in the\nsense of _scruple_, implying the consciousness of a natural obligation\nwholly irrespective of the gods. The oldest popular meanings of the word\n_religion_ were _faithfulness, sincerity, veracity, honor,\npunctiliousness, and conscientiousness_.*(1) Religion, then, in its true\nmeaning, is the great fact of _duty_, of _oughtness_ or _right-fulness_, of\n_conscience_ and _moral sense_. Its great business is to seek conformity to\none\u2019s highest ideal. It consists in an _honest and persistent effort by\nall appropriate means to realize ideal excellence and to transform into\nactual character and practical life._\n\n  (1) See _A Study of Religion_, by Francis E. Abbot.\n\nReligion in this sense is universally approved. It is false religion\nwhich is condemned. It is what some men would require you to believe in\nspite of history, science, and self-consciousness. It is superstition,\nbigotry, credulity, creed, sectarianism, that men detest. Religion is\ninnate and ineradicable in man, and there is a natural religion\nconcerning which man cannot be skeptical if he would. Bishop Butler has\nwell said that the morality of the gospel is \u201cthe republication of\nnatural religion and it would be easy to show the evolution of religion\nfrom very small beginnings and how this work is going on to-day.\n\nRegarding religion as an evolution, a development, and not as something\nas inflexible as a demonstrated proposition in mathematics, we are all\nthe while expecting an improvement. We have a right to expect that\nChristianity should be better than more ancient religions, because it is\nthe latest; and so it is in many respects. But we have a right to expect\nthat this improvement will go on with the lapse of time. The religion of\nthe nineteenth century is an improvement on the religion of the first\ncentury, but we are reaching forward to greater perfection. Even the\nsystem of morals taught in the New Testament is defective. We want\nsomething purer and better, and it is rapidly coming. All true religion\nis natural, and its morality relates to the mutual and reciprocal claims\nof men arising from organized society. If we are right in our dealings\nwith our fellow-men, we cannot be out of harmonious relations with God.\nAll happiness here and hereafter depends upon our knowledge of the order\nof the universe and the conformation of our lives to it. It is\nimpossible to divorce true religion from real science, and the more we\nknow of the latter the more we shall have of the former. Whatever tends\nto promote pure religion ought to be encouraged, and no man has any more\nreason to be ashamed of his religion than he has to be ashamed of his\nappetite. We sum up our ideas of religion by saying: Do all the good you\ncan to all the persons you can by all the means you can, and as long as\nyou can.\n\n    III. _The Scriptures remain for just What they are._\u2014Portions of the\n         Bible command our most profound reverence and our most\n         unqualified admiration. We respond heartily to some of the\n         truly excellent moral maxims of the Bible, and read with\n         rapture some of the selections of poetry from the Hebrew\n         prophets. But right in close connection we often find stories\n         of uncleanness, fornications, adulteries, and incests that the\n         vilest newspaper of to-day would not dare publish. Jael meanly\n         murders Sisera, and is praised for it, while the deceit and\n         treachery of Rahab are commended in the New Testament. The\n         story of Boaz and Ruth is only fit for a dime novel. Solomon\u2019s\n         Song is full of lasciviousness. Abram lies. Moses gets mad.\n         David commits adultery and murders Uriah. Jacob is deceitful\n         and a trickster; and so on to the end. Polygamy is shown to\n         have been the rule, and not the exception, among Jehovah\u2019s\n         favorites. War is everywhere tacitly justified, and slavery is\n         practised and not an abolitionist opens his mouth. We go to the\n         New Testament, and He who is called the \u201cPerfect One\u201d curses a\n         fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, drives out with\n         small cords men engaged in legitimate business, upsets their\n         tables, and uses the most violent and reproachful language\n         toward them. He shows want of respect for his mother, and is\n         ambiguous and evasive in his conversation with the woman of\n         Canaan\u2014says he does not know whether he is going to the feast\n         at Jerusalem or not, and then straightway sets out for the Holy\n         City, and makes believe by his actions that he is going to one\n         place, when he is actually going to another.\n\nWe want a higher morality than is taught in the Bible. We want higher\nand more noble conceptions than are given in the parable of the \u201cUnjust\nJudge,\u201d and more just and equitable principles than are taught in the\nparable of the \u201cUnjust Steward\u201d or the \u201cLaborers in the Vineyard\u201d or the\n\u201cTen Talents.\u201d We want a morality that relates to this life rather than\nto the next We do not want the possession of property held up as a\ncrime, and poverty represented as a virtue entitling one to a seat in\nthe future kingdom. We want good homes to live in now, rather than\n\u201cmansions in the skies.\u201d We do not want a morality that appeals to\nselfishness only, that discriminates in favor of celibacy, and that only\ntolerates marriage as a remedy for lust, as taught in the seventh\nchapter of First Corinthians. We want a higher morality than the\nmorality of even the New Testament.\n\nIt is difficult to speak to ears polite of the obscenity of the Bible.\nThere are more than one hundred passages of the most coarse and vulgar\ndescription. To print these in a book and send it through the United\nStates mails, if law were impartially administered, would put a man in\nthe penitentiary. There are entire chapters that reek with obscenity\nfrom beginning to end. We cannot tell you about Onan, and Tamar, and Lot\nand his two daughters, and scores of other obscene matters. There are\npassages even in the New Testament that cannot be mentioned in the\npresence of a virtuous woman. When we enter a lady\u2019s parlor and see the\nrichly-gilded Bible upon the centre-table, we shudder as we remember the\nobscenity that is contained between its costly lids. When we see a young\ngirl tripping along our streets, Bible in hand, we wonder if she knows\nthat she carries more obscenity than Byron ever wrote, than Shelley ever\ndreamed of, than the vilest French novelist ever dared to print.\n\nWe have very grave doubts about putting the Bible into the hands of\nchildren. They are, through it, made familiar with much that is\ndemoralizing. We have many reasons for rejecting the dogma of the\nplenary inspiration of the Scriptures and of their infallibility. These\nfragmentary writings must be judged by their merits\u2014by what they are. It\nhas been shown by the author of Supernatural Religion that we gain more\nthan we lose by taking this rational view of the Bible. An illusion is\nlost, but a reality is gained which is full of hope and peace. The\nunknown men who mostly wrote the little pamphlets which make up the\nBible probably did the best they knew\u2014that is, they wrote according to\nthe degree of their development\u2014but some of the writers were on a very\nlow plane. We should read these books and all other sacred writings of\nall nations just as we study geology\u2014as showing what was in the mind of\nman when the books were written, \u2018just as we learn from the earth\u2019s\nstrata the history and order of the various periodic formations. The\nbibles of the ages are accessible to every man who can read. All of them\ncontain much that is valuable, with much that is frivolous,\nsuperstitious, and false. But these books belong to our race, and happy\nis the man who knows how to use them wisely. He who rejects all makes as\ngreat a mistake as he who accepts all. The true position is that the\nBible contains the best thoughts of many of the best men that have lived\nin the ages of the past, expressed according to their light; and, while\ntheir obvious errors should be rejected, whatever commends itself to our\nreason, according to the best light of to-day, and to which each man\u2019s\nown inspiration and spiritual discernment responds, should be reverently\nstudied and highly esteemed. Religion is not a product of the Bible, but\nthe Bible is a product of religion\u2014natural religion\u2014though often\nmisunderstood and perverted. We do not throw aside the bibles, but\naccept them for just what we find them to be worth. We eat the kernel\nand throw away the shell.\n\n     IV. Our most Implicit Faith in the Continuity of Life remains.\u2014We\n         have no more confidence in Materialism than we have in Atheism.\n         We believe that some men at least are immortal\u2014that the\n         intellectual and moral giants should be blotted out at death is\n         unthinkable. We find in this doctrine of a future state much\n         that has a moral tendency. It inspires self-respect and esteem.\n         It leads to a proper appreciation of humanity. It inspires hope\n         for the future. It affords comfort in bereavement. It furnishes\n         a proper motive for aspiration and progress.\n\nWhen we consider the millions of years that have been employed in\nbringing man to his present high estate, it is rational to assume that a\ncapacity for such immense progress is good ground for faith in still\ngreater progress, so that there shall be no end to the advancement and\nattainments of humanity. If primitive man was not immortal, there may\nhave been a time when he became immortal, just as there is a time when\nthe embryo becomes a conscious, breathing babe, and when the undeveloped\nchild begins to exercise the functions of rationality and becomes an\naccountable being. It is not true that even the extreme Darwinian\ndoctrine is necessarily opposed to the doctrine of a future life for\nman. On the contrary, its fundamental principles suggest the hypothesis\nof immortality.\n\nIf the \u201cconservation of energy\u201d is a true principle of science, it\nfavors the faith of man in the doctrine of a future life. Greatness and\ngoodness developed in man must be \u201cconserved,\u201d and how can it be done if\ndeath is a destroyer? The \u201cpersistency of force\u201d in the human\npersonality must at least be equal to the primary elements which environ\nthat personality. Is  it rational to suppose that the sweep of evolution\nwhich has brought man from such unfathomable depths will not carry him\nup to still more illimitable heights? Are these vast achievements of\nNature to be so un-thriftily wasted? Do not the products of a past\neternity point unmistakably to still greater things in an eternity to\ncome?\n\nAnd, then, does not the scientific doctrine of the \u201cindestructibility of\nmatter\u201d favor the belief in life after death?\n\nThe theory of \u201cnatural selection\u201d also favors the doctrine of a future\nlife, and never appears so real and so beautiful as when we realize that\nas man progresses in everything that is grand and good he voluntarily\nfalls in with this natural law, and of choice not only selects that\nwhich is most to be desired, but by self-denial and almost superhuman\nexertions strives to attain the highest ideal of his heavenly\naspirations. The unwearied effort of the most highly-developed men to\nreach a higher perfection and a more exalted excellence is evidence that\nNature is true to herself, and that man will not be blotted out of\nconscious existence just as he first clearly perceives the essential\ndifference between good and evil. Having tasted the fruit of the tree of\nlife, he is destined to live for ever.\n\nIt is certainly a significant fact that the faith of man in, and a\ndesire for, a future life are strongest in his moments of greatest\nmental and spiritual exaltation. If this is an illusion, it is strange\nthat it should be particularly vivid when he is in his most god-like\nmoods and when he is most in love with the beautiful, the true, and the\ngood. Is it possible for Nature to thus trifle with and deceive and\ndisappoint man when he is most serious and truthful, and when all the\nelements of his better nature are in the ascendant and predominate over\neverything that is gross and perishable?\n\nA future life and an immortal one must exist to enable man to reach that\nperfection to which he aspires, and feels himself bound to attain as the\nonly end worthy of his being, and which, during the brief span of mortal\nlife, is never reached even by the most virtuous. Nature cannot be so\nblind, so stupidly improvident, as to throw away her most precious\ntreasures, gathered by so much labor and suffering, and not permit man\nto carry forward the great work, in which he has just began to succeed,\nto that perfection to which all his aspirations unmistakably converge.\n\nThen every cultivated man realizes as age increases that his attainments\nand successes in this ephemeral life fall far short of, and are\nabsolutely inadequate and disproportionate to, his inherent powers; and\nit is irrational to conclude that his very existence is to be blotted\nout and life itself become utterly extinct just as he has learned how to\nlive, and what life is, and what is his \" being\u2019s end and aim.\" We do\nnot desire to argue this question here: we only make a profession of our\nfaith.\n\n  V. Our Faith in the Doctrine of Present and Future Rewards and\n     Punishments remains.\u2014While it is irrational to accept the horrible\n     dogmas of sacerdotalism as to the eternal torments of the wicked,\n     it is equally unreasonable to believe that all men enter upon a\n     state of perfect happiness without regard to moral character.\n\nThe doctrine of rewards and punishments after death is clearly suggested\nby the principles of natural religion which have been recognized by all\nmen, pagan and Christian. That virtue brings its own reward and vice its\nown punishment is a fact in the experience of men in this life. It must\nbe so in the life to come, as the order of the universe cannot be\nchanged by time or place. No valid objection can be made to the\nprinciple of future punishment. But its nature and object must be taken\ninto the account. True punishment is never arbitrary nor vindictive. It\nis remedial, reformatory, disciplinary, and has respect to the\nconstitution of moral government and the best interests and welfare of\nits subjects. Suffering is a consequence of sin, not a judicial penalty,\nand happiness is not a favor conferred by grace, but a legitimate\nproduct of right being rather than of right doing. Men are rewarded or\npunished, both in this life and the life to come, not so much for what\nthey have done or not done as for what they are. Suffering is intended\nto put an end to that which causes suffering, and is for the good of the\nsufferer. In this world and in all possible worlds sin must be a source\nof suffering, and goodness a fountain of happiness. The degree of\nhappiness or misery of man after death must be in proportion to the\ndegree of his perfection or imperfection in character evolved during\nlife that will constitute his \u201cmeetness.\u201d\n\nThe same penal code must prevail in the next life that prevails here,\nand it may be thus summarized: (1) Suffering is a consequence of\nimperfection and wrong-doing. (2) Imperfection and wrong-doing will meet\ntheir appropriate punishment in the future life as in this world. (3)\nThe effect will only continue so long as the cause exists. (4) Men will\nfor ever make their own heaven or hell, and there is good reason for\nbelieving that the sufferings of many persons after death will be,\nbeyond all conception, awful in the extreme. (5) But the \u201cimmortal hope\u201d\njustifies the conclusion that all men will, sooner or later, be\nestablished in holiness and happiness.\n\nIn response to the question, _After death\u2014what?_ the proper answer to\nthe interrogative is, _In life\u2014what?_ Death is transition, not\ntransmutation. It is emigration, not Pythagorean transmigration. Change\nof place does not make change of character. It is therefore reasonable\nto conclude that a man after death is just what he was before death.\nEvery man will gravitate to his own place. There will be as many grades\nof moral character after death as in this life, and therefore as many\nheavens and hells. Misers and drunkards and libertines will still be\nsuch. Those who love the pure and beautiful, the true, the right, the\nunselfish, and the humane will still have the same desires and tastes\nafter death as before death, and will naturally gravitate to kindred\nspirits.\n\nAfter mature reflection the conclusion must be reached that the greatest\nhappiness of which man is capable arises from three sources: (1) The\nperception of new truth; (2) Its impartation to others; (3) Doing good\nto others. A more rational conception of future blessedness than this is\nimpossible.\n\nIf these views are correct, it is the highest wisdom to cherish and\ncultivate on earth and during life the tastes, the desires, the\naffections, the principles which in themselves constitute the highest\nbliss of saints and angels in all possible worlds. And as to hell after\ndeath, we have nothing to fear but the hell we may carry with us\u2014the\nhell of unholy lust, the hell of unsanctified passion, the hell of\nselfishness, the hell which follows wrong living and wrong doing.\n\nBut we must bring this book to a close. The writer is a firm believer in\nGod, in religion, and in morality; he accepts the Bible for just what it\nis. He believes in the continuity of life after death and in future\nrewards and punishments. If he believed that he had written anything in\nthis book to weaken faith in these doctrines, he would commit the\nmanuscript to the flames instead of to the printer.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n*A*\n\nAbraham a myth,  149 and his servant,  131 and phallic emblems,  131 and\nSaturn,  150 offering Isaac\u2014Parallels,  151- 154\n\nAbrahamie Covenant,  155\n\nAbydos and Bunsen\u2019s Egyptian tables,  96\n\nAdams, Dr., on forty-two children and the she-bears,  162 Capt. R. C.,\nhow to dispense with ministers,  40\n\nAdmission of Albertus,  180 of Ambrose,  179 of Augustine,  321 of\nClemens Alexandrinus,  364 of Tertullian,  179\n\nAlexandria, systems of religion prevalent in,  347\n\nAnno Domini, invented in the sixth century, generally adopt-1 ed in the\ntenth,  299\n\nAristotle, maxims of, disapproved,  24\n\nArnold, Matthew, his definition of God,  421\n\nAssyrian cuneiform tablets, discovery 1873\u201374, 97\n\nAthens and Sparta, date 1550 B.C., 108\n\nAvatars, all announced by celestial signs,  309- 312\n\n*B*\n\nBagster\u2019s Comprehensive Bible on the phallic oath,  132\n\nBarlow on tree-worship,  125\n\nBeatty, Hon. James, his opposition to salaried ministers,  40\n\nBerosus on Chaldean history,  98\n\nBlackstone on witches,  118\n\nBlauvelt, Dr. A.,  16  17\n\nBritish Museum, manuscripts,  74\n\nBrooks, Bishop, on insincerity in the pulpit,  43\n\nBrotherhood of man,  342  343\n\nBuckland on May music in Magdalen Church,  137\n\nBuddha, died  377 years before Christ,  104\n\nBudge, Dr., manuscripts classified by,  75\n\nBurnet, Bishop, on the story of the creation,  146\n\nDr., on concealing the truth,  44\n\nBurr, W. H., on area of Palestine and its population,  63-70.\n\n*C*\n\nCardinal Cajetan\u2019s admission,  178\n\nChaldean history, date of,  109\n\nChild, Lydia Maria, and women at Ocean Grove,  136\n\nChrist, doubts as to his existence,  367- 369\n\nChristus and Christianus, evidence of modern fabrication,  207\n\nChrysostom on the 25th of December,  243\n\nCicero on symbolism,  122\n\nCicero\u2019s definition of religion,  12  424\n\nCircumcision originated in phallic-ism, more ancient than Judaism,  130\n\nClark, Dr. Adam, points ont thirty-five parallels to Philo in John\u2019s\nGospels,  219\n\nClement, admission of,  179\n\nColenso, Bishop, collates from Pen-tateucn,  85\n\nConfucius\u2019s Golden Rule,  22\n\nConstantine a pagan priest,  29\n\nCross very ancient,  318\n\n*D*\n\nDavid\u2019s nude dance,  132\n\nDavidson, Prof., on \u201cCatholic canon,\u201d  227\n\nDeluge, The, Jews obtained the account from Babylon,  156\n\nDoket\u00e6,  266\n\nDraper on Pentateuch,  103\n\nDriver, Prof., and Philadelphia editor,  155\n\n*E*\n\nEdwards, Miss Amelia B., on date of Egyptian monarchy,  96\n\nElisha and she-bears explained,  162\n\nEpistles, silence of, concerning the Gospels,  372\n\nEssenes existed before Christianity,  230 identical with Mithraism,  232\nprofound regard for the sun,  239\n\nEusebius regarded the Essenes as Christians,  229\n\nEusebius\u2019s History a probable forgery,  206\n\n*F*\n\nFarrar, Canon, on priestcraft,  48\n\nFisher, Prof., on decline of clerical authority,  42\n\nFisk, John, on glacial period,  95\n\nForlong, Gen., on Jews,  55\n\non area of Judea and Samaria,  59\n\nForlong, Gen., on prevalence of phallicism,  130  133 on the fall,  170\n\n*G*\n\nGnosticism,  355- 362\n\nGnostics, what they held,  267\n\nGerald Massey on,  280- 294\n\nGibbon on,  294\n\nGolden Rule used by Confucius, Isocrates, Aristotle, Sixtus, Pittacus,\nThales, from three to six centuries before Christ,  327\n\nGospel in the Stars,  144  145\n\nGrecian Argos, date of,  108\n\nGregory on ignorance and devotion,  44\n\n*H*\n\nHale, Dr., on insincerity in the pulpit,  42\n\nSir Matthew, condemns a witch to death,  118\n\nHarmonies of the Gospels,  347\n\nHerod died before Jesus was born,  315\n\nHeyne on myths and philosophy,  123\n\nHindoo laws quoted,  105- 108\n\nHirsch, Rabbi, on Pentateuch,  119  120\n\nHolmes, O. W., Rector and Doctor,  25\n\nHuxley on clerical opposition to progress,  48 on the deluge,  157  158\non the fall,  187  188\n\n*I*\n\nI H S, numerals which stand for  308 explained,  298 Inman, Dr., on Adam\nand Eve,  169 Iren\u0153us the real founder of the Roman hierarchy,  220\n\n*J*\n\nJacob and Joseph,  121\n\nJefferson to Pickering,  46 to Dr. Cooper,  47\n\nJeoud, son of Saturn, origin of the name of Jew,  150\n\nJesus, Essenism personified,  264\n\nJesuses, many,  197\n\nJews, mongrels,  54 origin of,  55 real cause of exodus,  78\n\nJohn\u2019s Gospel first mentioned by Theophilus of Antioch in A. d.  176\n219\n\nJohnson, Rev. Samuel, on the ideal Christ,  276- 281 also  305  306  323\n324\n\nJonah and the fish, with its parallel myths,  159\n\nJones, Sir William, on antiquity of the Vedas,  105\n\nJosephus, forgery of passages relating to Jesus, numerous authorities\nquoted,  200- 203].\n\njoins the Essenes,  229 on the \u201cburning bush,\u201d  126\n\nJoshua, and the sun standing still,  162\n\nJustinian Code, origin of,  105\n\n*K*\n\nKaffirs celebrate the catam\u00e9nial period,  381\n\nKeys of Peter, an interpolation,  246\n\nKnight, Richard Payne, on the \u201cWorship of Priapus,\u201d  130\n\n*L*\n\nLactantius, admissions of,  323 Lardner, Dr., on deceit,  44 admissions\nof,  177 concerning fall,  173 Lenormant\u2019s admission,  98\n\nLe Renouf on origin of Egyptian civilization,  104\n\nLesley, Prof., on phallicism,  131\n\nLord\u2019s Prayer very ancient,  327\n\nLuther on Copernicus,  144\n\nLyell on delta of Mississippi,  95\n\n*M*\n\nMahaffy, Prof., on the identity of the Egyptian and Christian religions,\n321  322\n\nManetheo on date of Egyptian monarchy,  97\n\nManning, Archbishop, consecration of, suggestive,  133\n\nManu, laws of 2680 _slocas_,  104  105\n\nMaomonide8, admission as to the fall being allegorical,  178\n\nMarius, story of,  24\n\nMartyr\u2019s, Justin, comparison of Christianity and other religions,  319-\n321\n\nMassey on the ideal Christ,  284  288\n\non symbolism,  123\n\nMatthew, Gospel of, written in Hebrew according to Iren\u0153us, Origen, and\nJerome,  217\n\nMenes, date of reign,  96\n\nMerrell, Rev. Geo. E., gap of three, centuries in MSS.,  212\n\nMiller, Dr., on examination of ministers,  33\n\nMilman on deceit,  44\n\nMitchell, Prof., on mummy coffin,  143\n\nMithraism, its prevalence,  233  238\n\nMoses, strange coincidences in the life of,  109- 112 a myth; horns,\n147 and the Midianites and witches,  115  118\n\nMosheim on deceit,  43\n\nMSS., date of,  213\n\nM\u00fcller, Max, on dates,  104\n\nMutilation, bodily,  335\n\n*N*\n\nNeander\u2019s concession,  308\n\nNeo-Platonists, what they taught,  237\n\nNewton, Sir Isaac, what he perceived,  238\n\nNineveh not three days\u2019 journey from the coast,  159\n\nNoah and the deluge; Chaldean and other nations,  156\n\n*O*\n\nOrigen on the fall,  178\n\nOrphic and other dramas,  235\n\nOswald, Dr. Felix L., quoted,  336\n\nOxley, William, accounts of Jesus from Egyptian sources,  296\n\nconcerning Egyptian statuettes,  296  301 on the Jews,  79\n\n*P*\n\nPagan contemporaneous with Jesus; authorities quoted, 204.\n\nPapius and Polycarp, not instructed by John the son of Zebedee, but\nprobably by John, a Presbyter of Asia Minor,  219\n\nPaul\u2019s genuine Epistles,  214  215\n\nPaxson, Chief-Justice, open letter to,  121\n\nPeck, Bishop, on blood,  277\n\nPentateuch, date of,  97  98  100  101\n\nPeter\u2019s name of Chaldaic origin,  248\n\nPhallicism not necessarily obscene,  129  135\n\nPhilo, admission of,  178\n\nPh\u0153nicians, date of,  109\n\nPlato on Homer\u2019s poems,  122\n\nPresbyterian serpent symbolism,  128\n\nProclus on Plato,  122\n\nPrometheus, the god-man,  303\n\n*R*\n\nRachel sitting on the wedges,  132\n\nRameses II., Pharaoh of the captivity,  96\n\nReber exposes a fraud,  220\n\nReligion, definition of,  12\n\nRenan on religion,  12\n\nRoberts, Dr. Alexander, Version 1881,  210\n\nRoscoe, William, description of the consecration of Pope Alexander VI.,\n134\n\nRyan,\u2019Bishop, installed,  31  163\n\n*S*\n\nSabbath observed 1100 years before the Hebrews existed,  113\n\nSacrifices, human, beasts,  397  398\n\nSamson story and the twelve labors of Hercules; the foxes,  160  161\n\nSethi II., Egyptian king, his good old age,  96\n\nShedd, Prof., admission,  409\n\nSmith, Dr. Robertson, on the Gospels,  215 on sacrifice,  398 etc.\n\nSpencer, Herbert, on infinite and eternal energy,  423\n\nSt. Patrick and the snakes,  128\n\nStanley on blood-friendship,  389\n\nStuart, Moses, on the \u201cindefinite-period\u201d theory,  175\n\n*T*\n\nTacitus, Annala of, forged,  205\n\nTalmage on blood,  377\n\nTalmud, Babylonian,  22\n\n\u201cwilderness of speculations/\u2019  196\n\nTaylor, Jeremy, on blood,  377\n\nTertullian, fanatical expression of,  273\n\n\"Testimony,\" hint as to the origin of the word,  132\n\nTheodosius, Emperor, ordered books burned,  244  294\n\nToldoth Jethu,  265\n\nTrumbull on blood covenant, 382-389\n\nTyndall on religion,  11\n\n*U*\n\nUssher, Archbishop, his chronology,  95\n\n*V*\n\nVedio prophecies,  194\n\nVirgin-born gods,  369  371\n\nVon Martins, conversion of,  183\n\n*W*\n\nWake, C. Staniland, on Pentateuch,  101\n\nWhately, Archbishop, converted by Sir John Lubbock and Taylor,  183\n\nWhite, Andrew D., shows how science contradicts theology,  183\n\nWinchell, Dr. Alexander, and the Methodists,  184\n\nWitches executed, modern examples,  118\n\n*Z*\n\nZodiac,  140  141 age estimated,  143\n\nZoroaster prophesied of virgins,  194\n\nTHE END.","title":"The Eliminator; or, Skeleton Keys to Sacerdotal Secrets","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":113119}