{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43550/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43550","id":"gutenberg_43550","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43550","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"THE BIBLE OF BIBLES;\n\nOR,\n\nTWENTY-SEVEN \"DIVINE\" REVELATIONS:\n\nCONTAINING A DESCRIPTION OF TWENTY-SEVEN BIBLES, AND AN EXPOSITION OF\nTWO THOUSAND BIBLICAL ERRORS IN SCIENCE, HISTORY, MORALS, RELIGION, AND\nGENERAL EVENTS; ALSO A DELINEATION OF THE CHARACTERS OF THE PRINCIPAL\nPERSONAGES OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE, AND AN EXAMINATION OF THEIR\nDOCTRINES.\n\nBy Kersey Graves,\n\nAuthor Of \"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors,\" \"The Biography Of\nSatan.\"\n\nFourth Edition.\n\nBoston:\n\nColby & Rich, Publishers, No. 9 Montgomery Place.\n\n1879.\n\n\nBy Lydia M. Graves,\n\nAssistant Authoress.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES AND EXPLANATIONS FOR THE THIRD EDITION.\n\n1. On page 73 it is stated that no geologist or philosopher believes\nin either a creation or a creator. It is admitted that some men, called\ngeologists, may believe so; but we hold that no man thoroughly versed in\ngeology and philosophy can thus believe.\n\n2. On page 141, contradiction 146, it should be stated in the first part\nthat Ahaziah's reign began in his thirty-second year, instead of the\neleventh year of Joram. The second part should state that he began in\nhis forty-second year, instead of the twelfth year of Joram.\n\n3. On page 143, contradiction 181, the anointment of Christ is spoken\nof But the text refers to the feast of the passover.\n\n4. On page 315 it is stated that the Unitarians believe in a hell. It\nshould be understood, however, that they believe in a hell merely as a\nstate or condition, and not as a place.\n\n5. On page 364 it is stated that the weight of the tables of the law\nwas fifty times as much as Hilkiah could carry. This, of course, would\ndepend upon the quality and condition of the stone used and the manner\nof engraving the law, if not, what is assumed, to constitute the law.\nIt is stated that some considered the Pentateuch the law. This, however,\nwas only in a general sense. They, of course, knew that the law as\ndescribed in Deuteronomy was the law proper, or special law.\n\n6. The charge of falsehood against Christ, on page 403, is not intended\nto imply that it is certain he designed telling a falsehood. But, as he\nstated he would not go up to the feast at Jerusalem, and yet did go,\nit shows that he either intended to deceive, or was ignorant of what\nhe would do in the future; and either defect would prove he was not an\nomniscient God.\n\n7. On page 414 it is stated that a Jew could not be a full Roman citizen\nin the time of Paul, and that Tarsus was not at that time a Roman city.\nBut it may be stated also that authors differ on these points; and we\nleave the matter for them or their critical readers to settle. Let it be\nnoted that it is not claimed that Paul, while professing to be first a\nRoman citizen, and then a Pharisee, and then a disciple of Jesus Christ,\ncould not be all three at once; but it indicates his policy of changing.\n\nTHE PERSONALITY OF GOD.\n\nAs the denial of the personality of God, as set forth in Chapter, has\nbeen warmly assailed by Orthodox professors since the work was issued,\nand as that dogma constitutes one of the principal pillars of the\nOrthodox faith, I propose to examine it a little further in the light of\nreason and science. I will present other absurdities of the doctrine in\nthe form of questions.\n\n1. If God is an organized personality, what should we assume to be his\nform, size, shape, and color?\n\n2. How large is his body?\n\n3. Does it occupy more than one planet?\n\n4. If not, how can he be present in other worlds?\n\n5. What is his physical type--Malay, Mongolian, Anglo-Saxon, or African?\n\n6. What is his complexion--white, black, or tawny?\n\n7. What is the color of his eyes and hair?\n\n8. What are the dimensions of his body and the length of his arms and\nlegs?\n\n9. What is his position--lying, sitting, or standing?\n\n10. How is his time occupied?\n\n11. And as personality implies sex, and one sex not only implies the\nother sex, but creates a necessity lor the other sex, we are driven to\nask, who is God's wife, and where is she?\n\n12. Are they both on the same planet?\n\n13. And have they ever been divorced? Or is he still a bachelor?\n\n14. And as sex also implies offspring, we desire to ask, how many\nchildren have they had?\n\n15. And whether they are all boys?\n\n16. And, as personality also implies parentage, this brings up the\nquestion, who was God's father, grandfather, etc.\n\n17. And as personality implies the susceptibility to anger, and the\nBible-God is often represented as getting angry, and anger has been\nshown to be a species of insanity, would not this imply and prove that\nheaven is ruled by an insane God--an omnipotent luuatic?\n\n18. And would not this virtually make heaven a lunatic asylum, and\nconsequently a very unsuitable and disagreeable place to live in?\n\nAs all these and many other absurdities are involved in the assumption\nof a personal God, it is difficult to see how any reasonable being can\nswallow the doctrine.\n\nMORE BIBLES.\n\nAs the notices of several bibles prepared for the first edition were\nleft out from fear of making the book too large, I have concluded to\ninsert a brief notice of some of them here.\n\n1. _Dhammapada,_ or \"Path of Virtue.\" This sacred book has constituted\nthe moral and religious guide of several hundred millions of Hindoos for\nmany centuries. It is probably the oldest record of the Budhistic\nfaith. It is assumed to be a collection from the _pitakas_, which\nare principally compilations from the discourses of the incarnate god\nGautama, written out by his disciples. It was pronounced genuine and\ncanonical by a famous council which met in 246 B. C., under the reign of\nKing Asoka. Max M\u00fcller says, \"Its moral code, taken by itself, is one of\nthe most perfect the world has ever known.\" Spence Ilardy, and' Johnson,\nboth speak highly of the work. It contains many wise, beautiful, and\nlofty moral precepts, of which we will give a few specimens:--\"Haste to\ndo good.\" \"Give to those who ask.\" \"Master thyself, and then thou canst\ncontrol and teach others.\" \"Select for friend? the best of men.\" \"Be\njust, speak truly, act nobly,\" etc.\n\n2. _Tripitika_. This book is divided into three parts hence its name,\nwhich means \"the three _pitikas_.\" Like the _Dhammanada_, it is a\nhistory of some of the gods, and sets forth their lives and precepts. It\nforbids the commission of sin, and enjoins the practice of the highest\nvirtues. \"In no system,\" says Amherly, \"is benevolence and charity\nmore emphatically inculcated.\" Chastity is recommended, and a life of\nspotless virtue in every respect enjoined. The former work appears to be\nmade up principally by selections from this.\n\n3. Other sacred books might be mentioned, such as \"The Paradise of\nFo,\" \"Confucius and his Disciple,\" \"Catena of the Chinese Budhistic\nScriptures\" \"The Baghavat Gita,\" \"The Sanhita,\" \"Sudras\" (appendages\nto the Sunhita), \"Divine Opherisms of Kanada,\" \"The Uphanishads\" (a\ncommentary on the Vedas), \"Saddharma Pundosika\" (another commentary),\n\"Worship and Psalmody of the Maharades,\" etc. Some of these works are\neither other titles for those previously described, or are additions,\nappendages, or commentaries. And thus it will be observed the world is\nfull of bibles and scriptures.\n\nTHE LEADING POSITIONS OF THIS WORK.\n\nWe maintain, 1st, That man's mental faculties are susceptible of\na threefold division and classification, as follows: First, the\nintellectual department; second, the moral and religious department;\nthird, the animal department (which includes also the social).\n\n2d, That all Bibles and religions are an outgrowth from some or all of\nthese faculties, and hence of natural origin.\n\n3d, That all Bibles and religions which originated prior to the dawn of\ncivilization in the country which gave them birth (i.e., prior to the\nreign of moral and physical science) are an emanation from the combined\naction and co-operation of man's moral, religious, and _animal_ feelings\nand propensities.\n\n4th, That the Christian Bible contains (as shown in this work) several\nthousand errors,--moral, religious, historical, and scientific.\n\n5th, That this fact is easily accounted for by observing that it\noriginated at a period when the moral and religious feelings of the\nnation which produced it co-operated with the _animal propensities_\ninstead of an _enlightened intellect_.\n\n6th, That, although such a Bible and religion may have been adapted\nto the minds which originated them, the _higher_ class of minds of\nthe present age demands a religion which shall call into exercise the\n_intellect_, instead of the _animal_ propensities.\n\n7th, That, as all the Bibles and religions of the past are more of an\nemanation from the _animal propensities_ than the _intellect_, they\nare consequently not suited to this age, and are for this reason being\nrapidly abandoned.\n\n8th, That true religion consists in the _true exercise_ of the moral and\nreligious faculties.\n\n9th, As the Christian Bible is shown in this work to inculcate bad\nmorals, and to sanction, apparently, every species of crime prevalent in\nsociety in the age in which it was written, the language of remonstrance\nis frequently employed against placing such a book in the hands of the\nheathen, or the children of Christian countries; and more especially\nagainst making \"the Bible the fountain of our laws and the supreme\nrule of our conduct,\" and acknowledging allegiance to its God in the\nConstitution of the United States, as recommended by the American\nChristian Alliance. Such measures, this work shows by a thousand facts,\nwould be a deplorable check to the moral and intellectual progress of\nthe world.\n\n10th, If any clergyman or Christian professor shall take any exceptions\nto any position laid down in this work, the author will discuss the\nmatter with him in a friendly manner in the papers, or through the\npost-office, or before a public audience.\n\nKersey Graves.\n\nRichmond, Indiana\n\n\n\n\nTHE BIBLE OF BIBLES.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.--THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.\n\nWe live in the most important age in the history of the world. No age\npreceding it was marked with such signal events. No other era in the\nhistory of civilization has been characterized by such agitation of\nhuman thought; such a universal tendency to investigation; such a\ngeneral awakening upon all important subjects of human inquiry; such\na determination to grow in knowledge, and cultivate the immortal\nintellect, and mount to higher plains of development. The world of\nmind is in commotion. All civilized nations are agitated from center\nto circumference with the great questions of the age. And what does all\nthis prove? Why, that man is a progressive being; that the tendency of\nthe human mind is onward and upward; and that it will not always consent\nto be bound down in ignorance and superstition. And, thanks to the\ngenius of the age, it is the prophecy of the glorious reformation and\nregeneration of society,--an index of a happier era in the history of\nthe human race. Old institutions are crumbling, and tumbling to the\nground. The iron bands of creeds and dogmas, with which the people have\nbeen so long bound down, are bursting asunder, and permitting them to\nwalk upright, and do their own thinking. In every department of science,\nin every arena of human thought and every theater of human action,\nwe see a progressive spirit, we behold a disposition to lay aside the\ntraditions and superstitions of the past, and grasp the living facts\nof the age. We everywhere see a disposition to abandon the defective\ninstitutions, political and religious, which were gotten up in the\nchildhood of human experience, and supplant them with those better\nadapted to the wants of the age. In a word, there is everywhere\nmanifested a disposition and determination to unshackle the human body,\nand set free the human mind, and place it with its living aspirations\non the road to the temple of Truth. An evidence of the truth of these\nstatements the reader can gather by casting his eyes abroad, or by\nreading the periodicals of the day. At this very time nearly all the\northodox churches are in a state of commotion. The growing light and\nintelligence of the age, penetrating their dark creeds and dogmas, are\nproducing a sort of moral effervescence. The question of \"hell\" is now\nthe agitating theme of the churches. Posterity will ridicule us, and\nclass us with the unenlightened heathen, for discussing a question\nso far behind the times, and one so childish and so absurd in this\nintelligent and enlightened age. To condescend to discuss such a\nquestion now must be Well enough for scientific and intelligent\nminds. And other important religious events mark the age. When the\nRoman-Catholic Church, through its Ecumenical Council, dragged the Pope\nfrom his lofty throne of usurped power, and robbed him of his attribute\nof infallibility, it proclaimed the downfall of the Pope and the\n_death-knell_ of the Church. Already thousands of his subjects refuse\nlonger to bow down and kiss the big toe of his sacred majesty. His\nscepter has departed, his spiritual power is gone, his temporal power is\nwaning. And the same spirit of agitation is operating as a leaven in the\nProtestant churches also. All the orthodox churches are declining and\ngrowing weaker by their members falling off. The Methodist Church has\nrecently lost more than two hundred of its preachers; and the Baptist\nChurch, according to the statement of a recent number of \"The Christian\nEra,\" has lost twenty-two thousand of its members within a period of\nfive years. The agitation in the churches is driving thousands from\ntheir ranks, while many who remain are becoming more liberal-minded.\nThe orthodox Quaker Church has, in many localities, \"run clear off the\ntrack.\"\n\nIt has abandoned its old time-honored peculiarities in dress and\nlanguage, once deemed by them sacred, and essential to true godliness.\nThe use of \"thee\" and \"thou\" is laid aside by many of its members; and\neven leading members have given up the \"shad-bellied coat,\" and the\nround-crowned hat with a brim broad enough to \"cover a multitude of\nsins.\" They no longer wait for \"the Holy Ghost\" to move them to preach;\nbut, as a member once remarked, \"they go it on their own hook, like the\nMethodists, hit or miss.\" Music, once regarded by many of them as an\nemanation from \"an emissary of the Devil,\" is now admitted into many of\ntheir churches. Thus it will be seen they are making some progress. The\n_light without_ is benefiting them _more_ than \"the light _within_.\" All\nthe orthodox systems committed a fatal error at the outset in assuming\nthat their religions were derived directly from God, and consequently\nmust be _perfect_ and _unalterable_, and a _finality_ in moral and\nreligious progress. Such an assumption will cause the downfall, sooner\nor later, of any religious body which persists in propagating the error.\nReligious institutions, like all other institutions, are subject to the\nlaws of growth and decay. Hence, if their doctrines and creeds are not\nimproved occasionally to make them conform to the growing light and\nintelligence of the age and the principles of science, they will fall\nbehind the times, cease to answer the moral and religious wants of the\nage, and become a stumbling-block in the path of progress. Common sense\nwould teach us that the doctrines preached by the churches two hundred\nyears ago must be as much out of place now as the wooden shoes and\nbearskin coats worn by the early disciples would be _for us. Their\nspiritual food_ is by no means adapted to _our moral and religious\nwants_. We are under no more moral and religious obligation whatever\nto preach the doctrines of original sin, the fall of man, endless\npunishment, infant damnation, &c., because our religious forefathers\nbelieved in these doctrines, than we are morally bound to eat beetles,\nlocusts, and grasshoppers, because our Jewish ancestors feasted on there\nnasty vermin, as we learn by reading Lev. xi. Why is it that in modern\ntimes there has arisen great complaint in all the orthodox churches\nabout the rapid inroads of infidelity into their ranks? It is simply\nbecause, that while the people are beginning to assume the liberty to do\ntheir own thinking, the churches refuse to recognize the great principle\nof universal progress as applicable to their religion, which _would_\nand _should_ keep their doctrines and precepts improved up to the times.\nInstead of adopting this wise policy, they try to compel their members\nto be content with the old stale _salt_ junk of bygone ages, in the\nshape of dilapidated, outgrown creeds and dogmas; but it will not do. It\nis as difficult to keep great minds tied down to unprogressive creeds as\nit would be to keep grown-up boys and girls in baby-jumpers. Enlightened\nnations are as capable of making their own religion as their own laws;\nthat is, of making its tenets conform to the natural outgrowth of their\nreligious feelings as they become more expanded and enlightened. And it\nis a significant historical fact, that great minds in _all_ religious\nnations have wholly or partially outgrown and abandoned the current\nand popular religions of the country. It is only moral cowards, or\nthe ignorant and uninformed, who throw themselves into the lap of the\nChurch, and depend upon the priest to pilot them to heaven. Moses, Jesus\nChrist, Mahomet, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Emanuel Swedenborg,\nGeorge Fox, Elias Hicks, and many other superior minds, strove hard\nunconsciously to rise above the religion in which they were educated;\nand all succeeded in making some improvement in its stereotyped\ndoctrines or practices. The implied assumption of the churches, that\ntheir doctrines and precepts are too perfect to be improved and too\nsacred to be investigated, and their Bible too holy to be criticised, is\ncontradicted both by history and science; and this false assumption\nhas already driven many of the best minds of the age from their ranks.\nTheodore Parker declared that all the men of great intellects had left\nthe Church in his time, because, instead of improving their religion to\nkeep it up to the times they bolt their doors, and hang curtains over\ntheir windows to keep out the light of the age. There could not be\none inch of progress made in any thing in a thousand years with the\nprinciple of non-progression in religion adopted by the churches; for,\nif it will apply to religion, it will apply with still greater force to\nevery thing else: and hence it would long ago have put a dead lock\nupon all improvement, had it not been counteracted by outside\ncounter-influences. It is because a large portion, and the _most\nenlightened portion_, of the community have assumed the liberty and\nmoral independence to _think_ and _act for themselves_, that society has\nmade _any_ progress either in science, morals, or religion. A religion\nwhich sedulously opposes its _own improvement_ can do nothing essential\ntoward improving _any thing else_, unless _forced_ into it by outside\ninfluences; and it can not feel a _proper degree of interest_ in those\nimprovements essential to the progress of society. On the contrary, it\nmust check the growth of every thing it touches with its palsied hands.\nHere we can see the reason that no church in any age of the world has\ninaugurated any great system of reform for the improvement of society,\nbut has _made war_ on nearly every reform set on foot by that class of\npeople which it has chosen to stigmatize as \"infidels.\" Such a religion\nwill _decline and die_ in the exact ratio of the enlightenment and\nprogress of society.\n\nTHE COMING REVOLUTION.\n\nThat there is a general state of _unrest_ in the public mind, at the\npresent time, on the subject of religion, must be apparent to every\nobserving person. Theological questions, long since regarded as settled\nfor ever, are being overhauled and discussed with a freedom and general\ninterest far transcending that known or practically realized at any\nprevious period. This is premonitive of a _speedy_ religious revolution.\nThat it will come sooner or later is as _certain_ as that seed-sowing is\nsucceeded by harvest. Reforms no longer move with the snail's pace they\ndid a century ago. This is an age of steam and electricity; and every\nthing has to move with velocity. We cherish no unkindly feelings toward\nany church or people; but we must rejoice that the strongholds of\northodoxy are being shaken, and error exposed, and that creeds are\nloosening their iron grasp upon the immortal mind Old, long-cherished\ndogmas, myths, and blinding superstitions are passing away, to make room\nfor something better.\n\nYes, the signs of the times indicate the _dawning_ of a brighter day\nupon the world,--a day which shall be illuminated by the rays of reason\nand science.\n\nAnd, if this work shall contribute any thing toward _speeding_ the\ndawning of that glorious era, we shall feel amply rewarded for the labor\nand personal sacrifice required in its production.\n\nREASON WILL SOON TRIUMPH.\n\nThe march of science and the rapid growth of the reasoning faculties\npeculiar to this progressive age are daily revealing the errors of our\npopular theology, and exposing their demoralizing effects in repressing\nthe growth and healthy action of the intellect, and perverting the\nexercise of the moral faculties. And this progressive change and\nimprovement must be a source of great rejoicing to every true-hearted\nphilanthropist, and furnishes a strong incentive to labor with zeal in\nthis field of reform. It should be borne in mind, that all the dogmas\nand doctrines of our current religious faith originated at a period\nbefore the sun of science had risen above the moral horizon, and\nanterior to the birth of moral science, and hence, like other\nproductions of that age, are heavily laden with error. But rejoice, O ye\n_lovers of and laborers for_ truth and science! the dark clouds of our\ngloomy theology are _rapidly_ receding before the sunlight of our modern\ncivilization, and will soon leave a clear and cloudless sky! And all\nwill rejoice in having learned and practically experienced the glorious\ntruth, that true religion is not incorporated in Bibles, or inscribed on\nthe pages of any book, and cannot be found therein, but is a natural and\nspontaneous outgrowth of man's moral and religious nature, and is \"the\n_most beautiful flower of the soul_.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.--APOLOGY AND EXPLANATION.\n\nAlthough books are constantly issuing from the press, and the country\nkept literally flooded with new publications, yet but few of them\nmeet the real wants of the age, and many of them are of no permanent\npractical benefit to the world. Such a work as is comprised in \"The\nBible of Bibles\" is a _desideratum_. It has been long and loudly called\nfor. It is a moral necessity, and partially supplies one of the great\nmoral wants of the times. It is true, hundreds of works have been\npublished embracing criticisms on the Bible, and attempting to expose\nsome of its numerous errors, and portray some of its evil influences\nupon those who accept it as a moral guide. Yet it is believed that the\npresent work embraces the first attempt to arrange together, or make out\nany thing like a full list of, the numerous errors of \"the Holy Book.\"\nAnd yet it falls far short of accomplishing this end; for, although\nmore than two thousand errors are brought to notice, a critical research\nwould bring to light several thousand more. It will be observed by the\nreader, that there has been a constant effort on the part of the author\nto abridge, contract, and compress the contents of the volume into the\nsmallest compass possible to be attained compatible with perspicuity.\nEvery chapter, and almost every line, discloses this policy. In no\nother way than by the adoption of such an expedient could two thousand\nbiblical errors have been brought to notice in a single volume. The\nadoption of the most rigid rules of abbreviation and compression alone\ncould have accomplished it; and this policy has been carried out even in\nmaking citations from the Bible. Such superfluous words and phrases\nhave been dropped as could be spared without impairing the sense or real\nmeaning of the text. And yet, with this unceasing effort to compress\nand abridge the work, it falls so far short of portraying fully all\nthe errors and evils which a critical investigation shows to be the\nlegitimate outgrowth of our Bible religion, that the author contemplates\nfollowing it with another work, which may complete an exposition of nine\nthousand errors now known to be comprised in \"the Holy Book.\" The\ntitle will probably be, \"The Bible in the Light of History, Reason, and\nScience.\" He intends also to rewrite and republish soon, and probably\nenlarge, his \"Biography of Satan,\" so as to make it entirely a new work.\n\nI. JEHOVAH.\n\nThe author desires the reader to bear it specially in mind that his\ncriticisms on the erroneous conceptions and representations of God,\nas found in the Christian Bible, appertains in all cases to that mere\nimaginary being known as the Jewish Jehovah, and has no reference\nwhatever to the God of the universe, who must be presumed to be a very\ndifferent being. The God of Moses, who is represented as coming down\nfrom heaven, and walking and talking, eating and sleeping, traveling on\nfoot (and barefoot, so as to make it necessary for Abraham to wash his\nfeet); and who is also represented as eating barley-cakes and veal with\nAbraham (Gen. xviii.); wrestling all night with Jacob, and putting his\nthigh out of place; trying to kill Moses in a hotel, but failing in the\nattempt; and as getting vanquished in a battle with the Canaanites; and\nalso as frequently getting mad, cursing and swearing, &c.,--such was\nthe character of Jehovah, the God of the Jews,--a mere figment of the\nimagination. Hence he is a just subject of criticism.\n\nII. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.\n\nSome of the representatives of the Christian faith, when the shocking\nimmoralities of the Old Testament are pointed out, attempt to evade\nthe responsibility by alleging that they do not live under the _old_\ndispensation, but the _new_, thereby intimating that they are\nnot responsible for the errors of the former. But the following\nconsiderations will show that such a defense is fallacious and entirely\nuntenable.\n\n1. It takes both the Old and the New Testaments to constitute \"the Holy\nBible\" which they accept as a whole.\n\n2. Both are bound together, and circulated by the million, as possessing\nequal credibility and equal authority.\n\n3. Both are quoted alike by clergymen and Christian writers.\n\n4. The New Testament is inseparably connected with the Old.\n\n5. The prophecies of the Old form the basis of the New.\n\n6. Both are canonized together under the word \"holy.\"\n\n7. Nearly all the New-Testament writers, including Paul, indorse the\nOld Testament, and take no exception to any of its errors or any of its\nteachings. For these reasons, to accept one is to accept the other. Both\nstand or fall together.\n\nNote.--Christ modified some of Moses's error, but indorsed most of the\nOld Testament errors.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.--WHY THIS WORK WAS WRITTEN,\n\nThere are in this and other Christian countries more than one hundred\nthousand clergymen who spend a portion of each recurring sabbath in\npresenting the claims, and dilating upon the beauties and benefits (some\nreal and some imaginary), of the religion of the Christian Bible. They\nclaim that it is the religion for this age, and a religion that should\nbe adopted by the whole human race; but they present but one side of the\npicture, and but one phase of the argument. A witness before a jury is\nrequired to \"tell the truth, and _the whole_ truth;\" but the priesthood\ndare not do this with respect to the errors and defects of their\nreligion. They would lose their congregations and their _salaries_ also.\nBut few clergymen possess the moral courage to turn state's evidence\nagainst their pockets or their \"bread and butter.\" It is a sad\nreflection that they are hired, and required to _conceal_ whatever\nerrors may loom up before their moral vision in the investigation of the\nprinciples of their religion, or the Bible on which it is founded. They\nare placed in the position of an attorney who is sworn to be true to\nhis client at any sacrifice of truth and moral manhood. Whatever may\nbe their moral convictions with respect to the sinfulness or evil\nconsequences or demoralizing effects of continuing to preach the\n_intellectually dwarfing and morally poisoning_ doctrines originated in,\nand adapted only to, the dark and undeveloped ages of the past, when the\nrace was under the dominion of the animal and blind propensities, yet\n_they must do it_. They must continue to preach these errors, to sustain\nthese evils, and maintain their false positions, or lose their salaries\nand their popular standing in society. It is a very unfortunate position\nto be placed in; but, self-interest being the ruling principle of the\nage, we cannot reasonably expect the clergy will do any thing toward\nenlightening the people on the errors and immoral influences of their\nreligious doctrines, or the substitution of a better system, until human\nnature has advanced to a higher moral plane. On the contrary, we must\nexpect they will continue to blind the people, pervert the truth,\nmagnify every imaginable good quality of their religious system; while,\non the other hand, they will as sedulously attempt to hide every defect\nwhich either they or others may discover in their Bible. This state of\nthings in the religious world imposes upon the moral reformer the solemn\nnecessity of employing the most effectual lever, and of adopting every\navailable moral means, to counteract this morally deleterious influence\nof the clergy, and arrest the tide of evil which follows in their wake\nas the legitimate fruits of a course of conduct dictated _by policy\ninstead of principle_.\n\nII. THE MORAL TRUTHS OF THE BIBLE.\n\nSome of our readers will doubtless be disposed to ask why we have not\noccupied a larger portion of this work in exhibiting the beauties and\nbenefits of the religion and system of morals set forth in the Bible.\nThe answer to the question is fully anticipated in the preceding\nremarks. It is simply because fifty thousand tongues and pens are almost\nconstantly employed in this work. They do it and overdo it. This renders\nit a work of supererogation on our part; while, on the other hand, we\nfind the errors and evils of the Bible and its religion, which they\noverlook or neglect to expose, so very numerous, that we can not exhibit\nthem in a single volume, unless we allow but a limited space to a\nrepetition of what is done by them every week. This is our reason for\nappearing to pursue a one-sided policy.\n\nIII. WHY RESORT TO RIDICULE?\n\nWe hope we shall not be misunderstood or condemned by any reader for\nappearing to indulge frequently in a spirit of levity in attempting to\nexpose the logical and moral absurdities of the Bible. We have assumed\nthis license more from an apprehended moral necessity than from a\nnatural disposition. Ridicule is now generally acknowledged by moralists\nto be a most potent weapon for the demolition of error. Moral and\nreligions absurdities, according to Cicero, can be arrested and put down\nmuch sooner by \"holding them up to the light of ridicule, than by any\nother means that can be employed.\" Let no one, then, oppose the use of\nsuch means simply because it may disturb a sensitive feeling in his\nown mind, derived from a false education. A critical investigation of\nreligious history discloses the important fact, that the conviction\nestablished in the popular mind that it is wrong to indulge in a feeling\nof levity when writing or discoursing on religious subjects is the work\nof the clergy. Having discovered that many of the narrations of their\nBible, and likewise many of the tenets of their creeds, are really\nridiculous when examined in the light of science, reason, and sound\nsense, in order to prevent these ridiculous features of their systems\nfrom being exposed, they taught the people that ridicule is entirely\nout of place in matters of religion, and that such feelings, or language\n_expressive_ of such feelings, should be entirely suppressed. And it is\nprincipally by the invention of this expedient, and the establishment\nof this conviction in the public mind, that the clergy have succeeded in\nkeeping the ridiculous errors of their creeds concealed from age to age.\nAnd to continue this policy longer is only to yield to their interests,\nand prolong those evils still longer which have been perpetuated for\ncenturies by the adoption of this expedient. No other argument or\napology is necessary than this as a justification of the limited extent\nto which the language of ridicule has been employed in this work. It is\nan egregious error, which is the offspring of an erroneous education\nand habit, to suppose that ridicule is more out of place on religious\nsubjects than on other subjects. O. S. Fowler has fully established this\nas a scientific fact on phrenological grounds. We should be quite sorry\nto wound the feelings of any sensitive mind by any language made use of\nin this work, and hope this explanation, will prevent such results.\n\nTHE PRINCIPAL DESIGN OF THIS WORK.\n\nAs a critical examination of the Christian Bible discloses the fact\nthat it contains several thousand moral and scientific errors, and as\nexperience proves the tendency of such errors is to corrupt the moral\nfeelings and check the intellectual growth of all who read and believe\n\"the Hoty Book,\" we have, since arriving at this conviction, considered\nit to be our duty not only to expose these errors, but also to\ndiscourage the habitual reading of the Bible with any other view than\nto learn its real character. And more especially do we earnestly advise\nparents not to place the Bible in the hands of their children till\nthey arrive at an age when a more mature judgment can enable them to\ndiscriminate between its truths and its errors. And we likewise entreat\nall moralists and philanthropists, and all lovers of truth and virtue,\nas they desire the moral growth and moral reformation of the world, to\nexert their influence to stop the shipment of the Christian Bible\nto foreign lands to be circulated among the uncultured and credulous\nheathen. Here is disclosed one of our principal reasons for writing this\nwork. We wish to make it a voice of remonstrance against placing any of\nthose morally defective books called Bibles in the hands of the ignorant\nand impressible heathen, or the children of Christian countries, until\ntheir minds become sufficiently fortified by age and experience to\nresist or withstand the demoralizing influence of their bad precepts and\nbad examples as exposed in this work.\n\nDON'T READ PERNICIOUS BOOKS.\n\nThe Quaker Church (of which the author was once a member) have a clause\nin their discipline forbidding their members to read pernicious books,\nwhich are defined by one of the founders of the Church (William Penn)\nto be \"such books and publications as contain language which appears to\nsanction crime or wrong practices, or teach bad morals.\" And hundreds\nof cases cited in this work prove that the Christian Bible may be ranked\nwith works of this character. If the advice of the Hindoo editor had\nbeen complied with many years ago,--to \"revise all Bibles, and leave\nout their bad precepts and examples,\" and change their obscene\nlanguage,--the Christian Bible might now be a very useful and\ninstructive book. But we are willing to leave it to the conscience of\nevery honest reader, who places truth and morality above Bibles and\ncreeds, to decide, after reading this work, whether the Bible, with all\nits ennobling precepts, does not contain too strong an admixture of bad\nmorality to make it a safe or suitable book to be relied on as a guide\nin morals and religion. According to Archbishop Tillotson, Bibles shape\nthe morals and religion of the people in all religious countries,--they\nare derived from the examples and precepts of these \"Holy Books.\" If\nthis be true, we most solemnly and seriously put the question to every\nBible reader, What must be the effect upon the morals and religion of\nChristian countries of such moral examples as Abraham, Moses, Noah,\nIsaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, and nearly all the prophets, with their\nlong string of crimes, as shown in this work? Let us not be guilty of\nthe folly of suffering our inherited, stereotyped predilections, and\nexalted veneration for \"the Holy Book,\" to rule our moral sense, and\ncontrol our judgment in this matter, but muster the moral courage to\nlook at the thing in its true light. Let us be independent moralists and\nphilanthropists, rather than slaves to Bibles and creeds. \"Every book,\"\nsays a writer, \"has a spirit which it breathes into the minds of its\nreaders;\" and, if it contains bad morals or bad language, the habitual\nreading of it will gradually reconcile the mind to those immoral\nlessons, and finally cause them to be looked upon as God-given truths.\nSuch is the omnipotent force of habit. And we appeal to all Bible\nreaders to testify if this has not been their experience. All Christian\nprofessors, when they first commenced reading the Bible, doubtless found\nmany things in it which shocked their moral sense, did violence to\ntheir reasoning faculties, and mortified their love of decorum. But a\nperseverance in reading it, through the force of habit and education,\nhas finally reconciled their minds to those immoral lessons, and blinded\nthe judgment, so that they are not now conscious of their real character\nand deleterious influence upon the mind.\n\nTWO THOUSAND BIBLE ERRORS.\n\nOne of the strongest and most solemn lessons of human experience, and\nproofs of the blinding effect of a false religious education, may be\nfound in the fact that the two thousand Bible errors brought to notice\nin this work have been overlooked from age to age by the great mass of\nBible readers. So absolutely and deplorably blinded have they been in\nsome cases, as to lead them to conclude, like Dr. Cheever of New York,\nthat \"the Bible does not contain the _shadow of a shade_ of error from\nGenesis to Revelation.\" Such a perversion and stultification of the\nreasoning faculties was never excelled in any age or country. St.\nAugustine furnishes another striking illustration of the total wreck of\nmind and moral principle which an obstinate determination to accept the\nBible with all its errors is capable of effecting. Having found a great\nmany absurdities in the Bible which he could not reconcile with reason\nand sense, and hence discovering he must either give up his Bible or his\nreason, he chose the latter alternative, and declared in his \"Book\nof Sermons\" (p. 33), \"I believe things in the Bible because they are\nabsurd. I believe them because they are impossible\" (as glaring an\nabsurdity as ever issued from human lips). Such a desperate expedient\nto save his Bible and creed from going overboard shows that they had\ndemoralized his mind, and made a complete wreck of his reason. This is\nthe writer who declared he found and preached to a nation of people\nwho had but one eye, and that situated in their foreheads, and another\nnation who had no heads, but eyes in their breasts. It seems a pity that\nthis single-eyed nation became extinct; for Christ declared, \"If\nthine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.\" Such an\nembodiment of light might have done much to enlighten the world. And\nthis St. Augustine is the writer whom Eusebius pronounces \"the great\nmoral light of the Christian Church.\" And St. Irenaeus furnishes\nanother deplorable example of the prostration or perversion of the\nmoral faculties by accepting the Bible as a standard for morals when he\n_justified the crime of incest_ by pointing to the example of \"righteous\nLot\" and his daughters. The celebrated Albert Barnes was made a\nvictim of great mental suffering for many years by his laborious but\nineffectual attempts to reconcile the Bible with the dictates of reason.\nHear what he says about the matter. We will present the case in his own\nlanguage: \"These difficulties (of reconciling the teachings of the Bible\nto reason) are probably felt by every mind that ever reflects on\nthe subject; and they are unexplained, unmitigated, and unremoved. I\nconfess, for one, that I feel them, and feel them more sensibly and\npowerfully the more I look at them, and the longer I live. I do not\nunderstand them, and I make no advance toward understanding them. I do\nnot know that I have a ray of light upon this subject which I had not\nwhen the subject first flashed across my soul. I have read what wise and\ngood men have written upon the subject; I have looked at their theories\nand explanations; I have endeavored to weigh their arguments,--for my\nwhole soul pants for light and relief on these questions: but I get\nneither; and, in the anguish and distress of my soul, I confess I get no\nlight whatever. I see not one ray to disclose to me the reason why sin\ncame into the world, why the earth is strewn with the dying and the\ndead, and why man must suffer to all eternity. I have never seen a\nparticle of light thrown on these subjects that has given a moment's\nease to my tortured mind.... I trust that other men... have not the\nanguish of spirit which I have. But I confess, when I look on a world of\nsinners and sufferers, upon death-beds and graveyards, and upon a world\nof woe filled with hosts to suffer for ever; and when I see my friends,\nmy parents, my family, my people, my fellow-citizens--when I look upon\na whole race--all involved in this sin and danger; and when I see the\ngreat mass of them wholly unconcerned; and when I feel that God only\ncan save them, and yet he does not do it,--I am struck dumb. It is\nall dark--dark--dark to my soul; and I cannot disguise it\" (Practical\nSermons, p. 124). There, reader, you have the candid confession of an\nhonest-minded, orthodox, and one of the ablest and most talented writers\nthat ever wielded the pen in defense of the Christian faith. And if such\na talented and logical mind could find no reason, consistency, or moral\nprinciple in the dogmas of orthodoxy, we may readily ask, Who can?\nThousands of other orthodox clergymen have doubtless been perplexed with\nthe same difficulties, but have not had the honesty to confess it. Those\nwho do not now perceive them can find the reason by putting their hands\non their own heads. They will find their intellects or logical brains\ndefective. Moral philosophers now find no difficulty in solving any of\nthose problems which so much perplexed the mind of Mr. Barnes. They\nare all false and unfounded dogmas, except the prevalence of death and\ndisease in the world. And these casualties are now known to be amongst\nthe wisest and most useful dispensations of nature. (See chapter headed\nNatural and Moral Evil.) And had Mr. Barnes ascended to the plane\nof mental and moral science, instead of remaining down in the dark,\northodox, theological cellar, trying to squeeze truth out of old, dead,\ndried-up, dusty, theological dogmas, he would have readily found the\nsolution to all his problems, and would have rejoiced in thus emerging\ninto the glorious sunlight of truth.\n\nBIBLES USEFUL IN THEIR PLACE.\n\nWe do not question but that Bibles served a useful purpose for those\nnations and tribes by whom and for whom they were written; but as they\nonly represent the imperfect moral and religious conceptions of that\nage, and have always been sacredly guarded from improvement, to make\nthem the rule of action for any subsequent age would be to stop all\nmoral and religious improvement. It is strikingly evident that society\ncan make no improvement while it follows a Bible which is interdicted\nfrom improvement. It must remain stationary, with respect to religion\nand morals, so far as it is tied to an unchangeable book. Bibles in this\nway become masters of human thought, and shackles for the soul, and thus\ninflict serious evils upon society by their tendency to stop all moral,\nand religious progress. Three thousand or ten thousand years may elapse,\nand no improvement can be made in the religion or morals of the people\nwhile the Bible from which they emanate is prohibited from improvement.\nThus Bibles inflict a death-like torpor and stagnation upon the moral\nand intellectual progress of society so far as their precepts are\nlived up to; that is, so far as the assumption that there can be no\nimprovement in the teachings of the Bible is practically observed. It\nis the source of a pleasing reflection, however, to know that most Bible\nbelievers habitually violate their own principles by trampling this\nassumption under foot. Otherwise we would have remained eternally in a\nstate of barbarism.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.--THE BEAUTIES AND BENEFITS OF BIBLES.\n\nThebe is displayed in all Bibles a devout recognition of moral\nprinciples, and a strong manifestation of moral feeling. The disciples\nof all Bibles manifest an ardent aspiration for something higher,\nsomething nobler,--a mental struggle to reach a higher plane. This moral\naspiration is displayed in almost every chapter; and there are in all\nBibles veins of beautiful thought coursing through their pages. All\nof them contain moral precepts which are in their nature elevating and\nennobling, and which, if practically recognized, would have done much to\nimprove the morals and enhance the happiness of their disciples; and all\nBibles are valuable as fragments of religious history, and as indicating\nthe state of religion and morals of the people who originated them.\nTheir numerous outbursts of religious feeling indicate the depth of\ntheir devotion; while their many noble moral aphorisms indicate an\nappreciation of, and a desire for, a higher moral life than they were\nable to practice because of the strength of their animal feelings. This\nis especially true of the Jews, and also of the early Christians. They\nhad a partial perception of a true moral life, and a desire at times to\npractice it; but that desire was counteracted and held in check by their\nstill stronger animal natures and animal propensities.\n\nA HIGHER PLANE OF DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ATTAINED.\n\nThere can be no question, from the light derived from the twofold\navenues of science and history, but that the great principle of\nuniversal progress, which is carrying every thing forward to a higher\nplane and state of perfection, has elevated the most advanced nations of\nthe present age _beyond and above_ the religion and morals prevalent in\nthe world when the Jewish and Christian Bible was written, which makes\nit very unsuitable for the _present_ advanced state of society.\nAn investigation of the science of anthropology discloses the very\nsignificant and important fact, that the religious feelings of the\nfounders and early representatives of the Jewish and Christian religions\nwere under the control of their animal natures, which accounts for their\nfrequent use of obscene language, and their frequent indulgence in\nthe practice of every species of crime with the full sanction of the\nprinciples of their religion. And they cherished the conviction that\nthose things had the divine sanction.\n\nLOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE.\n\nThe moral and religions feelings of the early Jews and Christians\n_co-operated_ with their _animal propensities_; and the _latter held\nsupreme sway_ over the former: while the moral and religions feelings\nof the most advanced minds of the present day co-operate, not with the\n_animal_, but with the _intellectual_. This makes a very important and\nvery marked difference, and makes the semi-animal religion of the past\nvery unsuitable for the present age. Please note this point, friendly\nreader.\n\nBIBLE WRITERS HONEST.\n\nIt may readily be conceded that the writers and compilers of all Bibles\nwere honest, and that all the errors which those Bibles embrace, and the\ncrimes which they sanction, were honestly believed to be right, and in\naccordance with the will of God. For all sacred history teaches us, as\nan important lesson of human nature, that no errors are too gross,\nno crimes too enormous, no statements too false or absurd, no\ncontradictions too glaring, and no stories too preposterous or too\nridiculous, to receive the fullest indorsement of the most honest and\npious minds, and to be even cherished by them as _God-given_ or divinely\nrevealed _truths_, when such has been their teaching every day of their\nlives, in connection with the habitual _suppression_ of the voice of\nreason, and the inherited conviction of their truth deeply implanted in\nthe mind, derived from a thou sand preceding generations. A strong and\nunyielding cord of religious conviction thus grows in the human mind,\nwhich no reason, no philosophy, and no science can ever sever or even\nshake. It becomes a moral canker, which no remedy can reach, or arrest\nin its progress. It seems to grow into the very heartstrings. Such is\nthe strength of religious prejudice, such the weak side of human nature.\nThree hundred millions of people believe in the Hindoo religion, one\nhundred millions in the Chinese religion, two hundred millions in the\nMahomedan religion, and one hundred and fifty millions in the Christian\nreligion,--all for the same reasons, because their parents so believed,\nand taught them, and their neighbors still believe it; and surrounding\ninfluences have caused them to continue in their erroneous belief.\n\nAfter the illuminating rays of the sun of science had to some extent\ndispelled the religious errors of our early education, the case was so\nplain, that we entered upon the work of trying to convince others, with\nsanguine hopes of success. But experience has established the conviction\nin our mind, that if every text of the Christian Bible were a falsehood,\nand every line of their creeds an absurdity, there are many devout\nadmirers of the book who could never be made to see it, because they\nare ruled by their _religious feelings_, and not by their _reasoning\nfaculties_; and hence they will live and die in their moral and\nreligious errors. But we rejoice in the omnipotent power of truth, which\nwill finally dispel all error from progressive minds.\n\nGENERAL CLAIMS OF BIBLES.\n\nMore than twenty sacred books have been found in varions countries,\nwhich, if not in all cases denominated Bibles, have at least been\nvenerated and used as such, and, properly speaking, are Bibles. Hence\nwe shall call them Bibles. The list in this chapter comprises nearly\nall which recent research has brought to light. A brief synopsis of\nthe character and contents of each will be presented, so far as a\ncomparative view with the Christian Bible seems to make it requisite.\n\nAll of these Bibles possess some common characteristics:--\n\n1. All of them were claimed to be inspired.\n\n2. All were claimed to be an embodiment of wisdom and knowledge far\ntranscending the ordinary attainments of man.\n\n3. All were penned by inspired men, who were shielded from the\npossibility of erring while writing them.\n\n4. Each Bible is a finality in religious knowledge.\n\n5. Each one is an authority from which there is no appeal.\n\n6. It is a sin to question or doubt the truth of any of them, or to\nsuggest the possibility of their containing errors.\n\n7. Some of them were written by God, some by angels, and others by\ninspired men.\n\n8. Each one points out the only safe and certain road to heaven.\n\n9. He who is a disbeliever in any one of these holy books is an infidel.\n\n10. Each one is to effect the salvation of the whole human race.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.--TWENTY-SEVEN BIBLES DESCRIBED.\n\n\nTHE HINDOO BIBLES.\n\nI. THE VEDAS.\n\nThe Veda is considered to be the oldest sacred book of the Hindoos,\nand is evidently the oldest Bible now extant. There is a vast amount\nof evidence to prove that it was written long before the time of Moses,\nwhich establishes the fact that it borrowed nothing from the Jews or\nJewish writings. They purport to be the inspired utterances of very\nancient and holy saints and prophets, known as Rishis, who received\nthem directly from the mouth of the great God Brahma about nine thousand\nyears ago, after they had existed in his mind from all eternity. These\n\"holy men,\" by their devout piety and unreserved devotion to the cause\nof God and religion, it was believed, had attained to true holiness and\nheavenly sanctity. The Vedas treat of the attributes of God, and his\ndealings with the human race; his invisibility and spirituality; his\nunchangeableness, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence; the\nnature and binding force of his laws; the doctrine of future rewards\nand punishments; frequent and wonderful display of divine power, called\nmiracles, &c. It contains, likewise, many noble, lofty, and beautiful\nmoral precepts. It also treats, to some extent, of astronomy, medicines,\nand government. The May number of \"The New-York Tribune\" for 1838\ncontains a very interesting account of the recent translation of the\nVedas into the English language, from which we will make a few extracts:\n\"The whole of the Veda is now being published for the first time by\nthe East-India Company, by which the reader will learn that most of\nthe odious things which have been charged to it are false. They are\nnot found therein. They are Christian forgeries; such as the burning of\nwidows on the funeral pile of their husbands, the marriage of\nchildren, the doctrine of caste, &c. None of these things are taught\nor countenanced by the Vedas. The man who believes in the Vedas\napproximates to a Christian.\" (Mark this statement, Christian reader!)\nMr. Greeley further says: \"The highest authority for the religion of the\nBrahmins is the Vedas. The most elaborate arguments have been framed\nby its devout believers to establish its divine origin and absolute\nauthority. They constantly appeal to its authority, and, in controversy\nwith Mahomedan and Christian missionaries\" (Mahomedans have\nmissionaries among them, observe), \"they invariably fall back on the\nVedas,--referring to it with great confidence in support of any thing\nthey wish to establish as divine. There is no doctrine of Christianity\nwhich has not been anticipated by the Vedas.\" What is that you say,\nMr. Greeley? \"They have all the doctrines of Christianity!\" Is that\npossible? All the holy and inspired doctrines of Jesus Christ, the great\ndivine Lawgiver and Savior of the world, found in an old heathen\nBible, written more than two thousand years before a single line of\nthe doctrines of Christ was penned! Here is one of the most astounding\nannouncements ever made to the world. The reader, perhaps, will suppose\nthat Mr. Greeley was an infidel; but here, again, is something most\nastonishing: Mr. Greeley was up to this time a sound member of a\nChristian church, and withal a truthful writer. Such an announcement\nought to have startled the whole Christian world, and set them to\ninvestigating the matter. But, like the disciples of all the heathen\nreligions, they are immovably fixed in the errors of their faith, and\nturn a deaf ear to all criticism, and all honest inquiry relating to the\ntruth of its claims. Such is the tenacity of their inherited convictions\nof being right, their assumption of infallibility, their aversion and\nopposition to investigation, that, if every line of their Bible was a\nfalsehood, but few of them would find it out.\n\nThere are four works which come under the name of Vedas, known as the\nRig Veda, Yojur Veda, Sama Veda, and Atharva Veda.\n\nEach of these Bibles is constituted of various books, probably the work\nof different writers. Each Veda is accompanied by psalms or hymns, known\nas the \"Sanhita,\" and also by a sort of prose treatise or commentary,\ncalled the \"Brahmana,\" which possesses a ritualistic or didactic\ncharacter,--all of which were believed to be inspired. \"Never has the\ntheory of inspiration,\" says Mr. Amberly, \"been pushed to such extremes\nas in the case of the Vedas. They were believed by some to be the direct\ncreation of Brahma,\" while the hymns which accompany them were claimed\nto be the inspired productions of holy men and prophets (Rishis).\nThe Vedas was the standard authority in all cases; and any doctrine,\nopinion, or statement at variance with the Vedas was to be rejected as\nfalse. \"And as for a contradiction in the Holy Book,\" says Mr. Amberly,\n\"the thought was not to be entertained for a moment as possible.\" Such\na conclusion they ascribed to the reader's wrong interpretation of its\nlanguage. Such was the extreme veneration in which the book was held,\nthat every text, word, and even syllable, was counted. A Brahmin was not\nallowed to marry till after he had devoted several years to studying the\nHoly Book; And, to attain to complete holiness, the disciple must commit\nthe Rig Veda to memory, or read it through on his bended knees. The\nVedas represent God as being \"one and indivisible,\" and \"merciful to\nsinners.\" And Brahmins and Budhists, when they pray for sinners or\nfor their enemies, manifest a spirit of kindness and forgiveness not\nequalled by Christians.\n\nThe Budhists had many churches and many priests, who taught the people\nto lead virtuous lives, and to avoid the commission of every species of\ncrime, including the use of intoxicating drinks. And in no other system\nwas ever benevolence and charity, and also chastity, more emphatically\nenjoined, or more consistently practiced. The Vedas teach that every\ngood act has its reward, and every bad act its punishment. Its disciples\nare taught that many saviors (Avators) have appeared on earth at\ndifferent periods to suffer and die for the people; the last of\nwhich was Salavahana, cotemporary with Christ. God Sakia is of great\nveneration amongst them, and prayers are often addressed to him. Many\ntales are told of his goodness, self-denial, suffering, and sacrifice\nfor the people, which leads to the conclusion that he was a pure,\nholy, and unselfish being. He gave utterance to many noble and morally\nexalting precepts. His principal precepts were comprised in six\ncommandments:\n\n1. \"Not to kill any living creature.\" 2. \"Not to steal.\" 3. \"Not to\ncommit unchastity.\" 4. \"Not to lie.\" 5. \"Not to drink intoxicating\ndrinks.\" 6. \"Not to lay up treasures upon earth.\" These are a few of his\nleading precepts, and which he himself practiced. In the observance\nof the last precept, he and his followers have excelled almost every\nChristian on earth, as their Bible contains the same precept, but none\nof them try to practice it. Hence the Hindoos are in this respect much\nbetter Christians than the Christians themselves. Here it may be noted\nthat the Hindoos, like the disciples of the Christian faith, have had\nvarious ecclesiastical councils to settle the canon of their Bible or\nsome controverted doctrinal questions. One of the most noted of these\ncouncils was called under the reign of King Asoka in the year 246 B.C.\nIt was constituted of seven hundred \"learned and accomplished priests.\"\nBut they could not stop the progress of infidelity, as they essayed to\ndo. It continued to increase till another council was called under the\nreign of King Kanishka, and another revision of the sacred text took\nplace. But, as in Christian and Mahomedan countries, it tended rather\nto unsettle than to settle the popular faith. Nothing can arrest the\nintelligence and growth of progressive minds. Skepticism and\ninfidelity will continue to increase whenever the mind is unfettered by\npriestcraft, till the last credal institution is swept from the face of\nthe earth, and ceases to curse the human family.\n\nII. THE INSTITUTES OF MENU.\n\n\"The Code of Menu,\" or \"Institutes of Menu,\" constitutes another sacred\nbook of the Hindoos. The Rev. Mr. Allen says of it: \"It is a code of\nreligious and civil laws, and makes a part of the Hindoo Scriptures.\" It\nis in many respects similar to the Vedas, and is almost equal to it\nin age; and, like the Vedas, it is a standard of faith and a guide for\nmoral action. Hindoos call it _Menu Darma Shastra_, \"the ordinances of\nGod.\" \"As these ordinances, or divine laws,\" says Mr. Allen, \"profess to\nbe of divine origin, kings have no authority to change them. Their duty\nwas to administer their governments according to their teachings.\" All\nclasses of people were required to live up to them. \"In these respects,\"\nsays Mr. Allen (p. 366), \"they resemble the laws given by Moses, and\ncontained in the Old Testament.\" These Institutes treat on the subject\nof creation, the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, and also\ndefine many of the duties of life.\n\nIII. RAMAYANA.\n\nWith respect to age, the Ramayana is generally ranked next to the Code\nof Menu, and is equally adored as a holy and inspired book, and \"may be\nclassed,\" says Mr. Allen, \"with the Hindoo Scriptures.\" It treats of the\nwar in Heaven, in which the dragon, or serpent-devil, was cast to the\nearth. To put an end to his ravages here, the Savior and incarnate God\nChrishna was sent down. Christ, we are told, \"came to destroy the devil\nand his works.\" Col. Sherman tells us, in his \"Recollections of an\nIndian Official,\" that \"the people (Hindoos) assured us this Bible\nwas written, if not by the hand of the Deity himself, at least by his\ninspiration; and, if asked if any absurdity that may be pointed out in\nthe book be true, they reply with great _naivete_, 'Is it not written\nin the Holy Book? and how could it be there, and not be true?'\"--exactly\nthe same defense that is often set up for the Christian Bible by its\neducationally warped admirers. It is believed the great Hindoo prophet,\nVyas, wrote much of this Bible, or \"Inspired Poem,\" as some call it.\n\nIV. THE MAHABARAT.\n\nThe origin of this sacred book is considered to be very nearly co-eval\nwith that of the Ramayana. It has an appendix, or epistle, called the\n\"_Bagkavat Gita_.\" which, on account of its high tone of spirituality,\nhas attracted much attention in Europe. The Hindoos believe the Mahabrat\nis highly inspired, and that every event noticed in it was recorded\nbefore it took place; thus making it in the highest degree prophetic.\n\"Its author, they claim,\" says Mr. Allen, \"is no other than the\nincarnate God Chrishna, of whose life it treats.\" That profound Oriental\nscholar, Mr. Wilkins, thinks this and the other sacred books of India\nare more than three thousand years old, as is evidenced by sculptures in\nsolid rocks.\n\nV. THE PURANS, OR PORANAS.\n\nSome Hindoo Holy Scriptures, when arranged together in one book, are\nknown as the _Barta Skastra_, of which the Poranas constitute a part.\nThe last-named work treats of the creation of the world, and its final\ndestruction and future renovation, the \"great day of judgment,\" Divine\nProvidence, &c.; also the ordinances and rules for worship, &c.\n\nVI. ANALOGIES OF THE BRAHMIN AND JEWISH RELIGION.\n\nBrahminism and Judaism are each old forms of religion. Each was\nsuperseded by a new and improved form of religion. Each has a story of\ncreation. Jehovah and Brahma both created the sun, moon, and stars (so\nbelieved by millions).\n\n1. The spirit of both moved upon the face of the waters.\n\n2. The world is spoken in to existence by both Jehovah and Brahma.\n\n3. The Hindoos had an Adimo and Iva, the Hebrews an Adam and Eve.\n\n4. In each case every thing is to produce after its kind.\n\n5. Man is in each case the last and crowning work of the whole creation.\n\n6. Both stories set man as a ruler over subordinate creation.\n\n7. Light in each case was spoken into existence.\n\n8. Jehovah and Brahma each occupied six days in the work of creation.\n\n9. There is a primitive paradise and state of moral purity in each\nstory.\n\n10. A tree whose fruit produced immortality is noticed in each\ncosmogony.\n\n11. A serpent figures in each, and outwits Brahma and Jehovah.\n\n12. Man in each partakes of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.\n\n13. The doctrine of the fall is found in each account. The means for\nman's restoration is provided in each case.\n\n14. Each sacred legend has a story of a war in heaven.\n\n15. The soul is the breath of life, or breath of God, in each cosmogony.\n\n16. Labor is imposed as a curse in each case.\n\n17. A moral code of ten commandments is found in each system. Not to\nkill is a command in each decalogue. Stealing is interdicted in each\ndecalogue. Adultery is condemned in each. Bearing false witness is\nforbidden by each.\n\n18. Both Brahmins and Jews lost their \"Holy Law,\" or \"Laws of God.\" One\nhad a Hilkiah, and the other a Bisheu, to find the law.\n\n19. Each had an established order of priesthood. The priesthood was\nhereditary in each case: a tribe or family furnished the priests in each\ncase.\n\n20. Both claimed to be God's pet and holy, or peculiar, people; and both\nstyled other nations barbarians or aliens.\n\n21. Both holy nations were forbidden to marry with others; and both were\ntoo holy to eat with barbarians.\n\n22. Each had a ceremonial law prescribing numerous rites. The church\nceremonies were performed by priests in each.\n\n23. The priests were forbidden to eat meat in both cases.\n\n24. Both Jews and Brahmins worshiped by bloody sacrifices. Both had\ntheir favorite sacred animals. Animal sacrifices were by each to arrest\npublic calamities.\n\n25. One interdicted beef, and the other pork, as food.\n\n26. Both prescribed purification after touching dead bodies; and each\nreligion had a law of purification. Bathing was a mode of purification\nin each religion.\n\n27. Each has its \"holy\" places, times, days, cities, mountains, rivers,\n&c. India, as well as Judea, was considered a holy land.\n\n28. Each had its holy ground. Both drew off their shoes on entering\nupon holy ground or holy places.\n\n29. Both had their holy days, and the same in most cases.\n\n30. Mount Mera was no less holy than Mount Sinai or Mount Horeb. Jordan\nwas a sacred river in one case, and Ganges in the other. Jerusalem was a\n\"holy\" city with the Jews, and Benares with the Hindoos.\n\n31. Holy fasts and feasts were a part of each religion. Both made u holy\nfeast at full moon.\n\n32. Each had its holy fires.\n\n33. Both had their holy mysteries kept sacredly guarded.\n\n34. Each prepared and kept holy water for ceremonial purposes.\n\n35. Both anointed themselves with \"holy ointment.\"\n\n36. Each claimed to have the only true and \"holy faith.\"\n\n37. \"Holy temples\" were familiar terms to each. Their temples were\nconstructed in a similar manner. Each had a \"_sanctum sanctorum_,\" or\n\"holy of holies.\" Only the holy priest of both entered the interior\nsanctum.\n\n38. Both had their drink-offerings (called _turpin_ by the Hindoos).\n\n39. Both sprinkled their door-posts with blood.\n\n40. One had a scape-goat, and the other a scape-horse.\n\n41. Both taught that the sins of the father were visited upon the\nchildren.\n\n42. Religious pilgrimages were practiced by each.\n\n43. Both acknowledge and teach one supreme God. Inferior deities, or\nangels, are believed in by each. God's omniscience, omnipotence, and\nomnipresence are taught in both Bibles.\n\n44. God is represented to be invisible by each. And \"God is a spirit,\"\nand infinitely wise and good, is taught in each.\n\n45. To love God supremely is recommended by each.\n\n46. Both taught that God was a God of power, and assisted them in their\nbattles.\n\n47. Both taught that a knowledge of God is essential.\n\n48. Silent meditation upon the Lord is recommended by each.\n\n49. God was to each a refuge in danger and trouble.\n\n50. The government of each was a theocracy, God the executive.\n\n51. Both religions were constituted largely of external rites. In each\nthe priest was the expounder of the holy books and laws. \"Patriarchs\"\nwas one of the sacred orders of each system. Holy \"prophets\" figure\nconspicuously in each system. Both priests and people were in each case\nbelieved to be inspired.\n\n52. And each had its witnesses to prove the truth and fulfillment of its\nprophecies.\n\n53. Both held their Holy Bibles as an inspired guide of right and wrong.\n\n54. One Bible was from Jehovah, and the other from Brahma.\n\n55. Ezra was inspired to compile the Jewish Bible, and Vyas the Brahmin.\n\n56. Each religious order had a holy ark containing something sacred.\n\n57. A story of a deluge is found in the Bible of each.\n\n58. The corruption or wickedness of society caused the flood in each\ncase.\n\n59. The Brahmins had their patriarch Satyavrata, answering to Noah.\n\n60. Each was forewarned of the flood.\n\n61. Eight persons were saved in each case.\n\n62. In each story a large vessel is prepared. Animals were saved by\npairs in each case. A rainbow is spoken of in each flood story.\n\n63. For Shem, Ham, and Japhet, the Hindoos have a Sherma, Charma, and\nJyapheta.\n\n64. Charma was condemned to be \"a servant of servants,\" like Ham.\n\n65. Human life was in each traditionally spun out to nearly a thousand\nyears.\n\n66. One day a thousand years with God, in each system.\n\n67. Both have stories of persons ascending to heaven.\n\n68. Budha was cast into the fiery furnace like the three holy children.\n\n69. Musavod was a giant in strength like Samson.\n\n70. Rhambha was changed to a pillar of stone, like Lot's wife to salt.\n\n71. Mahendra was carried through the air like Habakkuk.\n\n72. A story of Budha answers to that of Darnel in the lions' den.\n\n73. Idolatry is discouraged, but occasionally practiced by each\n\n74. Witchcraft was believed in by each.\n\n75. Here are presented eighty-eight striking analogies.\n\n\nVII. ANTIQUITY OF INDIA.\n\nHaving presented a long list of analogies between the Hindoo and Jewish\nreligions, we will proceed to prove the prior existence of the Hindoo\nsystem, and leave the reader to deduce his own inferences. \"In times\ncoeval with the earliest authentic records,\" says a writer, \"the Hindoos\ncalculated eclipses, and were venerated for their attainments in some of\nthe arts and sciences.\" According to the learned astronomer Baily,\ntheir calculations in astronomy extended back to the remote period of\nseventeen hundred years before Moses; and some of the ancient monuments\nand inscriptions of India bespeak for its religion a very remote\nantiquity. Some of our modern learned antiquarians have expressed\nthe opinion that the Sanscrit language of the Brahmins is the oldest\nlanguage that can be traced in the history of the human race. They also\nstate that this language was extant before the Jews were known as a\nnation; and neither it nor their religion has _ever_ been known to\n_change_. These facts are sufficient to establish the existence of\nthe Brahmin and Budhist systems of religion long prior to the earliest\nrecords of the Jewish nation.\n\nNote.--Here we desire to call the attention of the reader to the very\nremarkable statement of Col. Dow in his \"History of India.\" He tells us\nthat \"the Hindoos give a _very particular account of the origin_ of the\nJewish religion\" (pref. v.). They say that a pious Hindoo by the name of\nRajah Tara apostatized from the faith, for which he was banished to the\nWest, where he established a system of religion, which became afterwards\nknown as the Jewish religion. Tura only needs a change of one letter to\nmake Tera, the father of Abraham. Let the reader make a note of this.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.--THE EGYPTIAN BIBLE.\n\n\nTHE \"HERMAS.\"\n\nThe sacred books, the \"Hennas,\" or \"Books of Hermas,\" were believed by\nthe Egyptians to have been dictated by the God Isis, and inspired by\nhim. In their collected capacity they constituted the Egyptian Bible,\nand were believed to contain \"the sum total of human and divine wisdom.\"\nTheir great age is undisputed. They treat of the creation of the world,\nthe attributes of God, and the theogony of the inferior deities, which\nanswer to angels in the Christian system, as they hold the same office,\nand are apparently the same kind of beings. The \"Hermas,\" like all other\nBibles, recognize but one supreme God, whom it declares to be just,\nholy, morally perfect, invisible, and indivisible, and whom it\nrecommends to be worshiped in silence. This \"Holy Book\" contains some\nlofty and soul-inspiring moral sentiments and useful precepts.\n\nANALOGY OF THE EGYPTIAN AND JEWISH RELIGIONS.\n\nModern archaeological researches in Egypt have disclosed a very striking\nresemblance between the ancient Egyptian religion and that found in the\nJewish Old Testament, which, with the evidence of the greater antiquity\nof the former, has fastened the conviction upon the mind of every\nimpartial reader of history, that the Jewish religion was constructed\nfrom materials obtained in Egypt and India; and this conclusion is\ncorroborated by the Bible itself, which tells us Moses was skilled in\nall the wisdom and learning of Egypt, and was by birth an Egyptian.\nWhen we compare the doctrines, precepts, laws, and customs of the two\nreligions, we find but little difference between them.\n\nEven to the ten commandments there is a striking resemblance. The\naccount of the creation and the order of its development is essentially\nthe same in both. 1. The Egyptians had a leader filling the place of\nMoses by the name of Hermes; and his writings were held in similar\nestimation, as they were believed to be inspired and dictated by\nInfinite Wisdom. 2. The Egyptians had a priesthood of wealth and power,\nand possessing the same sacerdotal caste as those of the Jews. 3. And\nthe priesthood, Mr. Pritchard tells us (Debate 116), was hereditary,\nand confined to a certain tribe, as was that of the Jews. According to\nDiodorus Siculus, and also Mr. Wilkinson, nearly all their ceremonies\nwere essentially the same. 4. And their religious temples were\nconstructed upon the same model, with an outer court and an inner\ncourt,--a _sanctum sanctorum_. 5. The Egyptians had numerous prophets\nlike the Jews. And Herodotus says, \"The art of predicting future events\ncame from the Egyptians.\" 6. The Egyptians had an ark, or shrine, which\nserved as an oracle, and was carried about on a pole by a procession of\npriests, as the ark of the covenant of the Jews was by the Levites.\nThe Rev. John Kendrick, in his \"Ancient Egypt,\" acknowledged that he\nbelieved \"the ark of the covenant of the Hebrews was constructed on the\nmodel of the Egyptian shrine.\" 7. Kitto, in his \"Cyclopedia,\" says the\nEgyptian sphinxes explain what is meant by the cherubims of the Jews.\n8. In their selection of animals for sacrifices, we find the same rules\nwere adopted. Each were controlled by the singular fancy of choosing\na red heifer. 9. Each had their scape-animals to carry away their\nsins,--the Egyptians an ox, and the Jews a goat. 10. Both practiced\ncircumcision. And we have the authority of Herodotus for saying the Jews\nand Phoenicians borrowed the custom of the Egyptians. 11. Both Jews and\nEgyptians took off their shoes when approaching a holy place, which,\nwith the Egyptians, was in the temple. 12. Both believed in one supreme,\nover-ruling God, and many subordinates, known either as angels or\ndeities, which, in their character and their offices, were essentially\nthe same. And a hundred other analogies might be pointed out, which\nindicate the Oriental origin of Judaism.\n\nANTIQUITY OF EGYPT.\n\nAs a full comparison will show that the religion of ancient Egypt and\nthat of the Jews were essentially alike, not only in their general\nfeatures but in their most minute details, with respect to most of their\ndoctrines, precepts, and customs, the question arises, How came this\nresemblance? It is out of the question to consider it merely fortuitous:\nthat one grew out of the other, or both were derived from a common\nsource, we are compelled to admit. To determine which was the parent\nsystem we have only to ascertain which possesses the greater antiquity.\nThis question is very easily settled. A large volume of facts is at our\ncommand which tend to prove that the Egyptians were in a high state of\ncivilization before the Jews were known to history. The Bible itself\npartially recognizes this fact by its frequent allusion to Egypt as a\nwise and powerful nation, able at all times to exercise superior sway\nover the Jews, and whose wise men, or magicians, could compete with not\nonly the Jews, but their God, in the performance of miracles; that\nis, with the Jews and their God to help them, in achieving the most\nastounding feats. They could make any thing that Jehovah could, with the\nexception of lice. The remote antiquity of Egypt can be proved by a few\nfacts. The Egyptians have a carefully preserved list of sixty-one kings,\nwho ruled the empire between Menes and Amasis, with names and ages\ngiven, whose aggregate reign comprises a period of more than seven\nthousand years. Herodotus says they computed with great care and\naccuracy. Manetho tells us Menes reigned seven thousand seven hundred\nyears ago, which places him more than seventeen hundred years before\nAdam. Engravings on monuments, and writings on papyrus, confirm the\nstatement of Manetho. And then hieroglyphics on the pyramids of Egypt,\nwith names, dates, and figures which have recently been deciphered,\nenable us to trace the antiquity of Egypt back eight thousand years,\nwhen she is shown to have been in a high state of civilization. Another\nfact: Layard and Rawlinson, who recently visited Egypt as commissioners\nor agents of the British Government, state that fragments of pottery\nhave been recently found by digging in the Valley of the Nile, which,\nby counting the successive layers, or deposits, made by the annual\noverflowing of the river, are shown to be not less than eleven thousand\nyears old. Such facts amount to demonstration, and can not be set aside.\nAnd Mr Wilkinson, in his \"Manners and Customs of Ancient Egypt,\" adduces\nanother kind of evidence to show the impossibility of Egypt having\nobtained her religion from the Jews. He says, \"The first glimpse we\nobtain of Egypt shows us a nation far advanced in the arts and customs\nand institutions of civilized life.\" And this was six or seven thousand\nyears ago; while the most conclusive evidence can be adduced to show\nthat no essential change has been made in her religion since the\ninscriptions were made on the monuments, some of which bear evidence of\nbeing eight thousand or nine thousand years old. If there has been no\nessential change in her religion for eight thousand or nine thousand\nyears, it is _prima facie_ evidence that she did not borrow any of\nher religious tenets of the Jews. Such facts settle the question more\nconclusively than the most elaborate argument could do.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.--THE PERSIAN BIBLES.\n\n\nI. THE ZEND AYESTA.\n\nThe Persians, properly speaking, had two Bibles, or Testaments,\nregarded as inspired and of divine authority,--the _Zend Avesta_ and the\n_Sadder_, which may be denominated their Old and New Testaments.\nWith these may be classed other sacred books of Persia, known as the\n\"Desatur\" (or Revealed Will of God), the \"_G. Javidan_\" (or Eternal\nWisdom), and the \"_Sophi Ibraham\"_ (Wisdom of Ibraham). Hyde, in his\nBiography of Brittain, eighth chapter, pronounces the _G. Javidan_ older\nthan the writings of Zoroaster, which were penned 600 B.C.\n\nThe Zend Avesta presents a detailed account of creation in six _kappas_,\nor indefinite periods of time; the temptation and fall of man, and his\nfinal restoration; the immortality of the soul, &c.\n\nII. PERSIAN BIBLE--THE SADDER.\n\nThe Sadder depicts \"the war in heaven,\" in which the great dragon, or\ndevil, Ahrimanes, is finally slain. This sacred book, as well as the\nZenda Avesta, contains many beautiful precepts. The Persian sacred\nwritings are all full of prayer and praise to God. One portion addresses\nhim as _Ormuzd_, another as _Ahura Mazda_. None of their Holy Books\ncountenance or show any favor either for idolatry or polytheism. The\nPersians have alway's opposed the making and worship of deific images;\nand they worship but one God, with the above names. One of their\nprayers, as a specimen, will show this: \"O Ahura Mazda, thou true and\nhappy being! aid us to think and speak of thee, and do only those things\nwhich promote the true welfare of body and soul. I believe in thee as\nthe just and holy God, thou living Wise One! Thou art the author of\ncreation, the true source of light and life. I will praise thee, thou\nHoly Spirit, thou glorious God Mazda! Thou givest with a liberal hand\ngood things to the impious, as well as to the pious.\" In that portion of\nthe Zenda Avesta called the \"Yacna,\" constituting seven chapters, it\nis declared, \"We worship Ahura Mazda, and pray for the spread of his\nreligion. We praise Mazda's religion, and the pure brotherhood which it\nestablished. From the Holy Spirit Mazda proceeds all good, and he is the\nsource of perfection and immortality.\" Here let it be noted that Cyrus\nof Persia was teaching the doctrine of immortality of the soul, while\nMoses seems never to have thought of such a thing: he is silent on the\nsubject. Zenda Avesta means \"The Living Word of God.\" It has also been\ncalled by its disciples \"The Revealed Word;\" and Ahura Mazda has been\ncalled the \"God of gods,\" as the Jews called Jehovah. Who is to settle\nthis counter-claim?\n\nSin, repentance, and forgiveness are all recognized in the sacred books\nof the Persians. This is evinced by a devout disciple, when he says,\nin prayer, \"I repent, O Lord, of my wicked deeds in thought and words.\nForgive, O Lord: I repent of my sins.\" A writer says, \"Upon the really\nfundamental duties of man, the Zenda Avesta upholds a high standard of\nmorality and honesty, and seeks to inculcate the immense importance\nof leading an upright and virtuous life,--such a life alone as can be\npleasing to God and useful to man.\" A text in this sacred book reads,\n\"You can not be a worshiper of the one true God and of many gods at the\nsame time;\" which is a very explicit avowal of the belief in but one\nGod. This Persian Bible declares, that one way to advance God's kingdom\non earth is to confer benefit upon the poor. Its spirit of kindness and\nsympathetic regard for suffering extends even to the brute creation. It\nforbids cruelty to any class of beings, and enjoins kindness to all.\nIts psalms, hymns, and liturgies breathe forth a spirit of deep piety. A\ncompliance with the divine law is urged as a means of saving the sinner\nfrom future punishment. The stern moral fortitude of the great teacher\nand moral exemplar Zoroaster, in resisting, like Christ, the temptations\nof the Evil One, evinces a high appreciation of true virtue. As a whole,\nthe sacred books of the Persians, like those of other nations, contain\na considerable amount of golden truth mixed with much rubbish and\nsuperstition.\n\nANALOGY OF THE PERSIAN AND JEWISH RELIGIONS.\n\nDoctor Pocoke says, \"Many things taught in the sacred books of the\nPersians are the same as those taught in the Pentateuch of Moses,\nand other parts of the Bible. They also contain many of the psalms\nerroneously called by the Jews and Christians the Psalms of David.\" Sir\nWilliam Jones, in his \"Asiatic Researches,\" says, \"The primeval religion\nof Iran (Persia) is called by Newton the oldest, and it may justly be\ncalled the noblest, of all religions.\" It teaches \"a firm belief that\none supreme God made the world by his power, and governs it by his\nprovidence. It inculcates a pious fear, love, and adoration for God;\nalso a due reverence for parents and aged persons, fraternal affection\nfor the whole human species, and a compassionate tenderness even for the\nbrute creation.\" Can as much as this be said of the Christian religion?\nMr. Goodrich, after stating that the ancient Hebrews evidently had no\nidea of astronomy as a science, says, \"The Chaldeans appear to have\nmade observations on eclipses earlier than the commencement of written\nhistory\" (\"History of All Nations,\" p. 25).\n\nThe Chaldeans and Persians have a story of creation essentially the same\nas that of the Jews. It represents Ormuzd as creating the world through\nthe word in six kappas, or periods of time. Previous to that period,\nnothing but chaos, or darkness, and water had existed. Ormuzd created,\nfirst, the heavens and the earth; second, the firmament; third, the seas\nand waters; fourth, the sun, moon, and stars; fifth, birds, reptiles,\nquadrupeds, &c.; sixth, man. The Persians and Chaldeans have also a\nstory of a deluge, in which Xisuthra, being warned in a dream, built an\nark, in which he saved himself, his wife and daughter, and the pilot,\nand a pair of every species of animals, reptiles, and birds. After the\nrain had ceased, he sent out a pigeon, which, finding no resting place,\ncame back to the ark. The second time, it came with mud in its bill,\nwhich was a better evidence that the waters had subsided than the leaf\nwhich Noah's dove returned with, as that might have been picked up while\nfloating on the waters. They had a giant in strength (a Gaza) answering\nto that of Samson. They had a story of a lofty tower designed to reach\nto heaven, but the gods destroyed it, and confounded the language of the\nbuilders. The Persians had their priests, their prophets, their angels,\ntheir twelve patriarchs, their holy fires, holy water, and rites of\npurification, like the Jews; also their ordinance of water-baptism.\nTheir holy mountains, holy rivers, and holy waters, their animal\nsacrifices, and their sacrament or ceremony of bread and wine, were\nall similar to those of the Jews. They had a Soleimon and a Soleimon's\ntemple. Their religion was a theocracy, and was violently opposed to\nidolatry; but, unlike the Jewish religion, it taught the doctrine of the\nimmortality of the soul, and the lofty idea that the human mind is an\nemanation from the divine nature. We find the principal elements of the\nChristian system also mixed up with the doctrines and principles above\nset forth; such as two primary principles of good and evil (Ormuzd and\nAhrimanes), termed by Christians God and the Devil,--two Gods with their\ntwo kingdoms, which were always at war with each other, to moderate\nwhich stands Mithra the Mediator, who was born, like Christ, of an\nimmaculate virgin. For a further elucidation, see \"The World's Sixteen\nCrucified Saviors.\"\n\nANTIQUITY OF THE PERSIAN RELIGION.\n\nThe historical facts to establish the existence of the Persian religion\nlong prior to that of the Jews are numerous, cogent, and unanswerable.\nThey have calculations in astronomy which, scientists admit, must have\nbeen made four hundred years anterior to the time of Moses. According to\nBerosus, fragments of their history have been found which extend it back\nfifteen thousand years; and he tells us it is computed with great care.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.--CHINESE BIBLES.\n\n\nKINGS AND SHOO.\n\nThe Chinese have varions sacred books, the principal of which are the\nFive Kings. They have also four Holy Books, known as Shoo, and one\ncalled Tao-te, though the word King is a term applied to all their\nsacred books. Some of these Holy Bibles are attributed to Confucius, one\nof them (Ta-heo, the Great Learning) to his grandson, and others to his\ndisciples. Some of the sects recognize thirteen Kings, or sacred books,\nothers only seven, and the principal sect but five. Some of these\nHoly Books bear a resemblance to the Christian Gospels, others to the\nEpistles; and one of them bears a considerable resemblance to Paul's\nEpistle to the Hebrews. They are believed to be divinely inspired;\nand all are regarded as authority in matters of faith, doctrine, and\npractice. All of them inculcate virtue, and condemn vice and immorality.\nI will present merely a brief exposition of a few of the leading books.\n\nI. TA-HEO; OR, GREAT LEARNING.\n\nThis book forms the basis of the religious sect known as the Tao-ists.\nIt treats principally of doctrines, but enjoins many important\nduties,--such as family government, the cultivation of the natural\nfaculties, the acquisition of knowledge, the duty of being honest and\nsincere and rectifying the heart, and the moral obligation of having\ngood rulers and a righteous government as means of making all peaceful\nand happy.\n\nII. THE CHUNG YUNG; OR, THE DOCTRINE OF THE MEAN.\n\nThis book contains the Golden Rule: \"What you do not like others to\ndo to you, do not so to them.\" It recommends a state of harmony in the\nmental faculties as the path of duty and the road to happiness and to\nheaven. It teaches that people should follow the dictates of their\nown consciences, and cultivate and fully develop their natures. On the\nwhole, it admonishes a system of moral perfection. It declares that\nspiritual beings are constantly around us, and we do nothing without\nthem, though we do not see nor hear them. Pretty good spiritualism!\n\nIII. THE BOOK OF MANG, OF MENCIUS.\n\nMang, or Mencius, the philosopher, lived about two hundred years after\nConfucius. This Holy Book of his was not admitted into the Chinese canon\ntill several centuries after it was written. Up to that date it was\nregarded as apocryphal, but is now held in high veneration as an\ninspired book. It affirms the essential goodness of human nature,\ninstead of the Christian doctrine of \"total depravity.\" It teaches that\nall men are possessed of more or less goodness by nature, but are often\ncorrupted by bad example and bad governments. It argues the moral right\nof the people to choose their own rulers.\n\nIV. SHOO KING; OR, BOOK OF HISTORY.\n\nThis work is constituted of fifty-eight books. It throws much light on\nthe history of the Chinese Empire, and bears evidence of having been\nwritten in a very remote age, but was compiled about 500 B.C. It\nargues that people are not bad by nature, and that it is the duty of\ngovernments to bless the good and punish the wicked. Otherwise they\nneed not expect the blessing of heaven, or the favor of the people.\nIt relates the case of an emperor who was reformed by reading the Holy\nBook.\n\nV. THE SHE KING; OR, BOOK OF POETRY.\n\nThis book is about as devoid of moral instruction as the Books of Ruth\nand Esther in the Christian Bible. It is principally a display of human\nemotions and social feelings. Yet almost every Chinese has committed\nportions of it to memory. Being gotten up in the style of a poem, it is\nwell calculated to enlist the feelings of the devout disciple.\n\nVI. THE CHUN TSEN; OR, SPRING AND SUMMER.\n\nThis is principally a historical record, and is interpreted as\nrepresenting spring and summer. It is held in high estimation as being\nthe production of the \"Great Divine Man,\" Confucius; and it is wonderful\nwith what ingenuity its commentators and teachers have succeeded in\nextracting from its dry details about wars, marriages, deaths, travels,\neclipses, battles, &c., the most profound lessons in morals. Like the\nadmirers and expounders of other Holy Books in all ages and countries,\nthey bestow the most recondite spiritual meanings on texts containing\nnothing but nonsense, senseless verbiage, or immoral teachings.\n\nVII. THE TAO-TE KING; OR, DOCTRINE OF REASON.\n\n\"Tao\" means _absolute_, and \"Te\" means _virtue_; which indicates that\nit teaches _absolute virtue_. Of all sacred books this is the most\nphilosophical. It seems to constitute both a revelation and system of\nphilosophy. It displays considerable wisdom and beauty, but is not free\nfrom those gross and repulsive elements which characterize the Christian\nand some other Bibles. It declares that God created, cherishes, and\nloves all the world. It has no angry God, but one enjoining love and\nbenevolence, and the return of good for evil, upon all the human race.\nIt declares God made all beings: his essence formed them, his might\npreserves them, his providence protects them, and his power perfects\nthem. It condemns war and weapons of death: it says that Tao does\nnot employ them, and all good men abhor them. It also condemns the\npossession of worldly wealth as being in opposition to a spiritual\nlife, and as denoting the absence of good from the soul. Modesty, mercy,\nbenevolence, and contentment are recommended as the highest of human\nvirtues. An extensive commentary, written by a Chinese saint about 160\nB.C., goes with this book to explain it, as all \"divine revelations\"\nhave to be revealed over again by the priests, who seem to assume that\nInfinite Wisdom is too ignorant of human language to dictate a book that\ncan be understood. Must it not be mortifying to him to have his blunders\nthus exposed?\n\nANALOGY OF THE CHINESE AND JEWISH RELIGIONS.\n\nThe Christian historian, Mr. Milne, expressed a fear that he might be\ncondemned for furnishing proof, that, before Jesus was born, a morality\nas pure was inculcated in the celestial empire (China). As in the\nHindoo, Egyptian, and Persian religions, we find the Jewish and\nChristian religions here amalgamated together. The Chinese had a\ncosmogony, or story of creation similar in some respects to those\nalready noticed. These sacred books speak of a primitive paradise, in\nwhich was a tree of knowledge and a tree of life; also of a deluge and\nan ark. Baptism, the cross, and the miter are emblematical rites of\ntheir religion. They also taught the doctrine of the eucharist and the\ntrinity, and practiced circumcision.\n\nThe Chinese have a story or tradition of an incarnate God, Natigai,\nwho, like Christ, was both creator and mediator. His system of religious\nfaith taught the doctrine of special providences, future rewards\nand punishments, a general judgment-day, the duty of humility or\nself-abasement, and the moral and religious obligation to observe strict\ntemperate habits, and to devote our whole lives to God, &c.\n\nThe Chinese religion inculcates many beautiful and sublime moral\nprecepts, which we have not space to notice here.\n\nThe historical books of China, comprising a hundred and fifty volumes,\nand called \"The Great Annals,\" and recently translated by a scientific\nFrenchman, have a regular chronology, beginning nearly two thousand six\nhundred years before the period assigned for the creation of Adam. And\nthey have calculations in astronomy at that remote period. The learned\nmen of Europe have decided that they made the calculation of an eclipse\nabout seven hundred years before the time of Moses. These facts are\nsufficient to prove the existence of their religion long anterior to the\ntime of Adam.\n\nCONCLUDING INFERENCE.\n\nIn addition to the facts and authorities we have cited to show that the\nHindoo, Egyptian, Persian, and Chinese religions were all established\nprior to that of the Jews, there are other facts which demonstrate the\nabsolute impossibility of any of these religions obtaining any of their\nreligious elements or doctrines from the Jews.\n\n1. We find both the Jewish and Christian doctrine interwoven into\neach one of those Oriental systems. Hence, if they borrowed one, they\nborrowed both. But that is impossible: for the Christian system is known\nto be much younger.\n\n2. Those Oriental religions are all conservative in character; so that\nthere has been scarcely any perceptible change in their doctrines during\nthe thousands of years of their known existence. Hence their very nature\nwould preclude them from borrowing any new doctrines.\n\n3. On the contrary, the Jewish mind has been very vacillating. A\ndisposition to change their religion has been constantly manifested\nthrough their whole history. Such facts as these settle the question.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.--BIBLES\n\n\nI. THE SOFFEES' BIBLE--THE MUSNAVI.\n\nThe Bible of the Soffees, the \"Musnavi\", teaches that God exists\neverywhere and in every thing; that the soul of man, and the principle\nof life throughout all nature, are not _from God_, but _of_ God, and\nconstitute a part of his essence; that nothing exists essentially but\nGod; and that \"all nature abounds with Divine Life.\" Mr. Malcom, in his\n\"History of the Moguls\" (p. 269), says: \"The Soffees are incessantly\noccupied in adoring the Almighty, and in a search after truth.\" They\nare passionately fond of poetry and music (two essential elements of\ncivilization). Their Bible teaches many beautiful moral lessons.\n\nII. THE PARSEES' BIBLE--\"BOUR DESOT.\"\n\nThe Parsees' Bible is entitled _Bour Desch_, which means \"Genesis; or,\nthe Beginning of Things.\" Its cosmogony is similar to that of Moses,\nthough more definite, and probably written at an earlier period. Its\nEden, or primitive paradise, lasted three thousand years before Kipo\n(the Devil) entered, plucked the fruit, handed it to the woman, and thus\ncaused her downfall, and, after her, that of the whole human race.\n\nIII. THE TAMALESE BIBLE.\n\nWe have space for but little more than the titles of other Bibles.\n\nThe Tamalese \"Holy Book\" was known as the \"_Kalivodkam_,\" and contains\nsome excellent moral precepts.\n\nIV. SCANDINAVIAN BIBLE.\n\nSaga, meaning \"Wisdom,\" is the name of the Scandinavian \"Inspired\nVolume,\" so called because it was believed to have emanated from the\nfountain of divine wisdom.\n\nV. THE KALMUCS' BIBLE.\n\nKaliocham, the Kalmucs' Bible, was believed to contain in repletion \"all\nthe wisdom of God and man.\"\n\nVI. THE ATHENIAN BIBLE.\n\nThe ancient Athenians had what they claimed to be a \"Holy and\nGod-derived Book,\" called \"The Testament.\" Dinarchus alludes to it in\nhis speech against Demosthenes. It was read with deep, solemn awe and\ndevoutness.\n\nVII. THE CABALISTS' BIBLE.\n\nYohar, or \"Book of Light,\" the Bible of the Cabalists, relates some\nwonderful cures and miracles performed by that sect.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.--THE MAHOMEDAN BIBLE--THE KORAN.\n\nThe Koran, or Alkoran, is the most modern in its origin of 22 in the\nlist, having been penned six hundred years later than the Christian\nBible. It differs from most other Bibles in being the production of a\nsingle author, and, for this reason, possesses more uniformity of style\nand fewer contradictions than most other Bibles. Mahomet did not claim\nto be its author, and did not write it, but merely dictated it to his\nsecretary Zaid. Like the founder of the Christian religion, and nearly\nall the other great religions of the world, he was very illiterate.\nIncarnate Gods and religious chieftains possess no aspiration to become\nscholars, and no taste for science. They were governed by feeling and\nthe impulse of religious enthusiasm, which have no affinity for science.\nMahomet, however, did not profess to be a God, but merely a prophet. The\nKoran, having originated in a later and more enlightened age than the\nChristian Bible, possesses some superior features, and, of course, is\nsuperior to still older Bibles. It is more consistent in its teachings\non the subject of temperance, as it does not, like the Christian Bible,\nboth sanction and condemn the use of intoxicating drinks; but uniformly\nforbids the use of it, and even prohibits the manufacture of it. It\nalso shows more respect for the rights of woman by providing for her\nmaintenance by dowry. It levies a tax on its disciples of two and\none-fourth per cent for the support of the poor. It enjoins not only\nkindness and respect for enemies, but a careful provision for their\nwants.\n\nThe disciples of the Koran were taught and believed that the Holy Book\nwas originated in heaven, and had long been preserved there by its\ndivine author Allah, and, in the fullness of time, was handed down,\nchapter at a time, by the angel Gabriel to the prophet Mahomet; and his\nscribe Zaid recorded it. The leading doctrines of the Koran are: the\nUnity of the Godhead, and the perfection of his attributes; the joys of\nparadise, and the terrors of hell; the awful fate of unbelievers in the\nKoran. The Day of Judgment is held up as a terror to evildoers and\nskeptics, and an encouragement to the faithful. Skeptics, or unbelievers\nin the Koran and the Mahomedan religion, are repeatedly consigned to the\nsame terrible fate (the fires of hell) that Christ consigns the\nunbeliever in the Christian religion, and the same as that to which the\nfounders of other religions doom those who reject or disbelieve their\npretended revelations. The Koran abounds in precepts of a high moral\ntone.\n\nMahomet holds out the idea that Christ was created like Adam, and\ntherefore was but a man, though a true servant of God. This, he asserts,\nwas the view of Christ himself. The doctrine that God could have a son,\nor that there could be more than one person in the Godhead, was to\nhim profanity, infidelity, and downright blasphemy. It is repeatedly\ndenounced in strong terms in the Koran. All prayer and praises to God\nare addressed to him in the singular number. I will cite a few texts in\nillustration: \"Praise be to God, Lord of all worlds, the compassionate\nand merciful King. Thee only do we worship, and to thee only do we\ncry for help. Guide us in the right path.\" \"The sun is God's noonday\nbrightness; the moon followeth him: the day revealeth his glory; and\nthe night enshroudeth him.\" \"He built the heavens, and spread forth the\nearth.\" \"And whoso shall fear God, and do good works, no fear shall come\nupon them, neither shall they be put to grief. But those who turn away\nfrom him, he will consign to eternal fire.\" \"To those who believe (the\nKoran), and do things which are right, hath God promised forgiveness and\na noble recompense.\"\n\nII. THE MORMONS' BIBLE--THE BOOK OF MORMON; ALSO \"THE REVELATIONS OF\nJOSEPH SMITH.\"\n\nThis sacred book is claimed to have been found inscribed on gold plates,\nsituated several feet below the surface of the earth, in Wayne County,\nN.Y., in the year 1823, by Joseph Smith, a pious youth, then only\nfourteen years of age, who declared he received information with respect\nto the existence of the plates and their locality from an angel of the\nLord, with whom he had had frequent intercourse for several years. The\nfollowing is a description of the plates and original records composing\nthe book, as furnished by Orson Pratt, one of the \"Latter-day Apostles\"\nof Jesus Christ: \"The records were engraven on plates which had the\nappearance of gold. Each plate was not far from seven by eight inches\nin length and width, being not quite as thick as common tin. They were\nfilled on both sides with engravings in Egyptian characters, and bound\ntogether in a volume as the leaves of a book, fastened at one edge with\nthree rings running through the whole. This volume was something near\nsix inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters, or\nletters, upon the unsealed part were small and beautifully engraven. The\nwhole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction, and\nskill in its engravings. With the records was found a curious instrument\ncalled by the ancients 'Urim and Thummim'; which consisted of two\ntransparent stones, clear as crystal, set in the two rims of a bow. It\nwas used in ancient times by persons called seers, by means of which\nthey received revelations of things past or future.\"\n\nMr. Smith finally succeeded, with the aid of a profound linguist in\nNew-York City by the name of Anthon, in translating the whole work into\nthe English language. Several writers testify that the ground out of\nwhich the records were dug was solid, and covered with a thick and solid\ngrowth of grass, presenting no appearance of having ever been disturbed.\nThe sect now constitutes about three hundred thousand disciples. The\nfollowing testimony to the truth of the story is a voluntary offering by\nthree witnesses:--\n\nTESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES.\n\nBE it known unto all nations, tongues, kindred, and people unto whom\nthis work shall come, that we, through the grace of God the Father, and\noar Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record,\nwhich is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites.\nMen, brethren, and also of the people of Jared. And we also know that\nthey have been translated by the gift and power of God; for his voice\nhath declared it unto Us: wherefore we know of a surety that the work\nis true. And we also testify that we have seen engravings which are upon\nthe plates; and they are shown unto us by the power of God, and not of\nman. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came\ndown, and that he brought and laid before our eyes, and we beheld and\nsaw, the plates and the engravings thereon. And we know it is by the\ngrace of God and our Lord Jesus Christ that we beheld and bare\nrecord that these things are true, and it is marvelous in oar eyes.\nNevertheless the voice of the Lord commanded that we should bear record\nof it. Wherefore, to be obedient to the commandments of God, we bear\ntestimony of these things. And we know, that if we are faithful in\nChrist, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found\nspotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him\neternally in heaven. And the honor be to the Father and the Son and the\nHoly Ghost, which are one God. Amen.\n\nOliver Cowdery.\n\nDavid Whitmer.\n\nMartin Harris.\n\nMORMON SACRED BOOK, NO. 2--THE BOOK OF DOCTRINES AND COVENANTS; OR, THE\nREVELATIONS OF JOSEPH SMITH.\n\nIn addition to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith originated and partly\ncomposed a Book of Doctrines and Covenants, purporting to be a direct\nrevelation from heaven relative to the temporal government of their\nchurch. It enjoined the support of the poor, the taxation of members,\nthe establishment of cities and temples, the education of the people,\nthe emigration of saints, &c. This book has been venerated by the\nMormons as a \"holy revelation from God,\" and hence is, in a strict\nsense, a Bible. Its title sufficiently indicates its character. As much\nas Christians ridicule the idea of Joseph Smith receiving a revelation\nfrom God, it comes to us with exactly the same authority as the\nclaimed-to-be revelation of Moses. The evidence in each case is the\nsame.\n\nIII. THE SHAKERS' BIBLE.\n\nThe Bible of the Shakers is entitled \"A Holy, Sacred, and Divine Roll\nfrom the Lord God of Heaven to the Inhabitants of the Earth, Revealed in\nthe Society of New Lebanon, Columbiana County, New York, United States\nof America.\" The testimony of eleven mighty angels is given, who are\nsaid to have attended the writing of the Roll. A copy of the Holy Book\nhas been sent to every king and potentate on earth. Its contents and\nstyle bear some resemblance to the Christian Bible; and it contains\ntexts which appear to have been drawn from that book, and then altered.\nIt should be borne in mind that the Shakers also profess to believe in\nthe Christian Bible, with their own peculiar construction of the book,\nlike other sects.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.--THE JEWISH BIBLE.\n\nIn a practical sense, there are other books beside the Old Testament\nwhich go to make up the Jewish Bible. The Talmud, or rather the two\nTalmuds; the Jerusalem Talmu (comprising the Mishna, or Second Law),\ncompiled about 150 B.C. by a Jewish rabbi; and the Babylonian Talmud,\ncompiled about six hundred and fifty years later,--are regarded by the\nJews as equally inspired and equally binding in their moral requisitions\nas that of the Old Testament. In fact, they compare the former to wine,\nand the latter to water, when speaking of their relative value. Some\n\"tall stories\" are found in these Jewish revelations, such as these: it\ntells of a bird so tall that the water of a river in which it stood\ncame only to its knees, though the water was so deep that it took an ax,\nthrown into it, seven years to reach the bottom; and of an egg of such\nenormous dimensions, that, when broken, the white of it glued a whole\ntown together and a forest of three hundred cedar-trees. These are but\nspecimens of their miracles. Such is the character of the Jewish sacred\nwritings, emanating from the same source as the Old Testament; and\nconsequently of equal authority and reliability, and equally entitled to\nour belief.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.--THE CHRISTIANS' BIBLE.\n\nThe Christian Bible, as now accepted by Protestants (for it must be\nborne in mind that it has been altered and amended on various occasions,\nthus altering the canonical Word of God), is composed of thirty-nine\nbooks in the Old-Testament department, and twenty-seven in the New; the\nwhole constituting a multifarious collection of old oracles, obsolete\ndogmas, Oriental legends, ancient myths, religious reveries, beautiful\nprecepts, poetry, heart-touching pathos, wild fancies, preceptive\nadmonitions, martial exploits, domestic regulations, broken, disjointed\nnarratives, ritual rules, and spiritual ideas; including also cosmogony,\nhistory, theocracy, theology, annals, romance, prophecy, rhapsody,\npsalmody, mythology, allegory, dreams, tradition, legislation, ethics,\npolitics, and religion, all jumbled together without arrangement,\ndivision, classification, or order; committed to writing in various\nages and nations and countries, and by various writers, extending over\na period of several thousand years, including nearly every form of\ncomposition known to human ingenuity,--gay, grave, tragical, logical,\nphilosophical, religious, and romantic,--emanating from Gods, angels,\nmen, and devils; recorded, some of it in mountains, some of it in caves,\nsome of it on the banks of rivers, some of it in forests, some of it in\ndeserts, and some of it under the shadow of the Pyramids. It commenced\non Mount Horeb, and ended in the isle of Patmos.\n\nFrom such circumstances we are not surprised to learn that its\nchronology is unreliable, chimerical, and incorrect; its history\ncontradictory and incredible; its philosophy fallacious; its logic\nunsound; its cosmogony foolish and absurd; its astronomy fragmentary and\nchildish; its religion pagan-derived; its morals defective, sometimes\nselfish, often extravagant, and in some cases pernicious. Its\ngovernment, both temporal and spiritual, is, to some extent, both\nbarbarous and tyrannical; while its theocracy is mere brute force.\nIt presents us with narratives without authorities, facts and figures\nwithout dates, and records without names. We find no order in its\narrangement, no system in its subjects or the manner of presenting\nthem, and no connection in its paragraphs, and often no agreement in its\nstatements, and no sense in its logic. It seems to teach nearly\nevery thing upon nearly every question of morals which it touches. It\napparently both sanctions and condemns nearly every species of crime to\nwhich it refers, and pours fulsome laudations upon the heads of some\nof the most bloody-minded and licentious men,--such as David, Solomon,\n&c.,--and holds them up as examples of true practical morality. It is\noften dark, ambiguous, and mysterious, as well as contradictory, not\nonly in its lessons of morality, but in its account of the simplest\noccurrences, thus rendering it comparatively worthless as a moral guide;\ninasmuch as it is much easier to find out what is right and what is\nnot without going to the Bible, than it is to find out what the Bible\nteaches upon the subject, or what it intends to teach in any given case.\nWith respect to war, slavery, polygamy, and the use of intoxicating\nliquors, for example, it is much easier to determine whether they are\nright or wrong by the moral fitness of things than whether they are\nscriptural or anti-scriptural; while it is silent upon many crimes which\nnow infest society. If we are compelled to determine the character of\nsome actions without going to the Bible, why not that of all other moral\nactions and duties? Edmund Burke says of the Bible, \"It is necessary to\nsort out what is intended as example, and what only as narrative; what\nis to be understood literally, and what figuratively, where one precept\nis to be controlled and modified by another; what is temporary, and what\nof perpetual obligation; what is appropriate to one state or set of men,\nand what is the general duty of men in all ages.\" Now, who can not see\nthat all this must require a quality of mind capable of determining or\nlearning moral principles and moral duties without recurrence to the\nBible? And it must require a vast amount of time to accomplish this\ntask, all of which is lost, inasmuch as it is consuming time in making\nthe Bible conform to what you have already learned of right outside\nits pages,--time that might be much better employed. Such are the moral\naspects of the Bible. But it also has its beauties, which we need not\noccupy much space in depicting, as we have fifty thousand clergymen in\nthis country who attend faithfully to that matter. Suffice it to say,\nthat portions of it are characterized by a high-toned spirituality,\nother portions by a deep, heart-stirring pathos. And then we have\nmanifested in other parts the most devout piety, while the books of the\nprophets often breathe forth a spirit of the most elevating poetry. And\nthere is scarcely a book, or even a chapter, in the whole Bible, that\ndoes not evince a spirit of religious devotion, and an effort for the\nright, though often misdirected. Taken as a whole, the Bible may be\nregarded as an exposition of the condition of science, morals, religion,\ngovernment, and domestic polity of the era in which it was written, and\nsuited to the temporal and spiritual wants of the people of that age,\nfor whom it was written, _but not for this age_. When regarded in this\nlight, and as simply a human production of the best minds of the age\nand times in which it was written, many portions of it can be read with\ninterest and instruction. But when read, as it has been for centuries,\nas a perfect, divine composition, designed for all time and as a\nfinality in faith and practice and moral progress, it becomes a\nstumbling-block in the path of progress, an embargo upon free thought,\na fetter upon the soul, a fog of bewilderment to the mind, and a\ndrag-chain to the moral and intellectual reformation of the world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.---GENERAL ANALOGIES OF BIBLES.\n\nFrom the foregoing brief analysis of the characters of the Bibles of\nvarious nations, it will be observed that they are, in their main or\nleading features, essentially alike, including the Holy Books of Jews,\nChristians, and pagans; that they are alike in their ends and aims and\nmain characteristics; that all inculcate the same fundamental doctrines;\nthat all impart and enjoin the observance of intrinsically the same\nmoral lessons, the same preceptive aphorisms. All teach substantially\nthe same superstitions, the same kind of miraculous feats performed\nby Gods, angels, and men and devils, the same marvelous stories and\nachievements over-ruling and over-riding the great laws of nature,\noften checking or stopping the ponderous wheels of the machinery of\nthe universe. The revelations on the pages of each are claimed to\nbe God-derived, and to have been inspired through prophets, oracles,\nangels, apostles, or \"holy men;\" or to have issued directly from the\nmouth of God, and descended from his immaculate throne to earth, without\nthe intervention or employment of a medium. Each puts forth similar\nnotions and traditions concerning Gods, deities, or angels, genii,\ndemons, or evil spirits, priests, prophets, patriarchs, prayers,\nsacrifices, penances, ceremonies, rituals, Messiahs, redeemers,\nintercessors, sin-atoning, crucified Saviors, sons of God, &c. All\nrecognize the doctrine of atonement for sin; all, or nearly all,\napproximate in their modes of propitiating the favor of an offended\nDeity by oblations, sacrifices, and offerings of animals, men, or Gods,\nor sons of God. Each has its cosmogony; each proclaims the doctrine\nof one supreme God, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, of\npost-mortem rewards for \"deeds done in the body,\"--endless bliss for\nthe righteous, and punishment for the wicked. Each attests the truth and\ndivine origin of its religion by the record of a long array of the\nmost astonishing miracles, confirmed and ratified by the fulfillment\nof numerous prophecies. Most of them teach the doctrine of the primeval\ninnocence and moral elevation of man, and of his fall, and of his\nprospective subsequent restoration; and also of the necessity of a\n\"change,\" or \"being born again,\" in order to a full reconciliation\nwith God, and a perfect state of righteousness. In a word, all had\nessentially the same religious institutions, and the same ecclesiastical\norders of priests, pilgrims, monks, and missionaries; the same or\nsimilar prayers, liturgies, sermons, missionaries, and sacrificial\nofferings; similar holy orders of saints, angels, and martyrs. All had\ntheir \"holy days,\" their \"holy fasts and feasts,\" \"holy rivers,\" \"holy\nmountains,\" and \"holy temples,\" &c.; and nearly all preached essentially\nthe same doctrines relating to a spiritual birth, regeneration,\npredestination, and a future life, rewards, and punishments, and a final\njudgment, &c. All furnish a religion cut and dried (the great end of all\nBible creeds) so as to save the intellectual labor and mental toil of\ndiscovering the rule of right and the road to duty by an investigation\nof the great laws of cause and effect, the nature and constitution\nof the human mind, and the moral fitness of things. As a finale to\ncreation, and a final consummation and triumph of their peculiar faith,\neach imagines and portrays a great prospective millennial epoch, at\nwhich juncture the heavens are to be \"rolled together as a scroll;\" the\noceans, seas, lakes, and rivers to take fire, and be reduced to ashes;\n\"the New Jerusalem to descend from God out of heaven;\" and peace,\nrighteousness, and happiness unalloyed to rule and to reign thenceforth\nand for ever. Hence all Bibles and religions are of divine origin, or\nnone.\n\nNote.--Sir William Jones says the ancient religions borrowed from each\nother.\n\n\nII. SUPERIOR FEATURES OF HEATHEN BIBLES.\n\nThere is not one Oriental Bible in all the number but that is superior\nin some respects in its teachings to the Christians' Bible.\n\nNone of them sanction so explicity every species of crime; none of them\ncontain so much obscene language. On the contrary, the Chinese Bible, as\nMr. Meadows says, \"_contains not one sentence but that may be read with\npropriety in any drawing-room in England._\" Strikingly different from\nthat of the Christian Bible, as shown in Chap. XXIII. The Mahomedan\nBible is quite superior in its teachings, both with respect to\nintemperance and the treatment of women. It forbids both the use and\nthe traffic in intoxicating drinks, and also the manufacture; while\nthe Christian Bible, although condemning one, sanctions both (see Chap.\nLVIII.). With respect to women, it contains some commendable precepts.\nIt not only enjoins husbands to treat their wives properly, and provide\nfor them, but provides for their divorce in case this is not done; while\nthe Christian Bible, by the authority of Christ, allows divorce for no\ncrime, abuse, cruelty, or inhuman treatment on the part of tyrannical,\nwicked, or drunken husbands, but that of fornication (see Matt, v.\n32). The Koran also enjoins a tax of two and one-fourth p. ct. on its\ndisciples to support the poor; while the Christian Bible says, \"Thou\nshalt not countenance a poor man in his cause\" (Ex. xxiii. 3), though it\nis true it contains counter-precepts. These examples are sufficient\nto lead to the conclusion that nothing would be gained to the cause of\npractical morality by supplanting any of the Oriental Bibles with the\nChristian Bible.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.--THE INFIDELS' BIBLE.\n\nWe find the remarkable admission in the Christian Bible, that the moral\nguide adopted by infidels is superior to that book which Christians\nhave adopted for a guide. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, says, \"The\nGentiles, who have not the Bible, do by nature the things contained in\nthe Bible.\" An astonishing Bible concession, truly! He, however, uses\nthe word \"law\" for Bible; but commentators tell us the law is contained\nin the Bible, and some writers make \"law\" and \"Bible\" synonymous terms.\nWe therefore give the sense more fully by rendering it \"Bible\"\ninstead of \"law.\" It is here admitted by Paul, that the great Bible of\nNature, written upon man's consciousness, and inscribed upon every thing\naround him, which is the infidels' Bible and revelation, is superior to\nany printed Bible. If man learns by nature the moral lessons taught\nby the Bible or moral law (that is by nature's laws, as learned by\nobservation and experience, which is the infidel's sole reliance for\nlearning the great lessons and duties of life), then this _natural_\nrevelation, which Paul commends so highly, is superior to any _written_\npreprinted revelation. If, as Paul teaches, the ignorant, illiterate\nGentile can learn by this _revelation_ of nature, or _law_ of nature,\nthe duties of life, the great truths of salvation, and the right road to\nheaven, then it must be greatly superior to the Christians' Bible. For\nit is admitted by Christians themselves (foreign missionaries), that,\nwith all the aid that priests and commentators can render, there is a\nconsiderable portion of their Bible which the heathen can not learn or\nbe made to understand. But not so, according to Paul, with God's natural\nBible, and the revelation inscribed on man's moral nature, and\nlearned by the exercise of his common sense, natural judgment, and the\nexperience of mankind in general. Hence we have a Bible which is not\nonly easily read and easily understood by even the unlettered heathen,\nbut a Bible which possesses many advantages over all printed Bibles,\nsome of which I will mention. In the first place, it is a Bible always\nopen. It can not be kept closed under lock and key, as the Christian\nBible has been in past ages. Second, It is a Bible that needs no\ntranslation in any language; for it is already written in the languages\nall the nations of the earth. Third, It is a Bible, thank God! that all,\nwhether high or low, learned or unlearned, can read and understand.\nIts glorious truths are easily read; for they are plainly and legibly\ninscribed upon every leaf and page of the soul of every human being.\nFourth, Hence this revelation needs no priest to expound it, and no\nchurch to unravel its mysteries, by voluminous commentaries. Sixth, No\nconcordance is needed to enable its readers to find its golden gems,\nwhich glitter and sparkle upon every page. They are what the Quakers\ncall \"the light within.\" Seventh, Neither moths nor mice can destroy\nthis glorious Bible. Fire can not consume it, nor water wash it away.\nIt is imperishable and eternal. It is a Bible into which no errors\nhave ever crept, either by printers, transcribers, or translators. And\n(soul-cheering thought!) it is a Bible which contains all the important\ndoctrines, principles, and precepts which can be found in any perishable\npaper-and-ink Bible, and all the grand truths that God ever vouchsafed\nto man. They can all be found in this golden-leaved Bible, this eternal,\nsoul-saving revelation of God.\n\nJesus refers to this natural Bible, or revelation, again when he say's,\n\"Know ye not of yourselves what is right? \"--that is, by the Bible\nplanted in your own souls, the revelation stereotyped upon your own\nmoral sense or moral nature. Hence the virtual acknowledgment by Jesus\n(who is Bible authority), that there is no necessity of running to any\nprinted or paste-board Bible to learn the truths of the gospel or the\nduties of life; for he teaches the important lesson that we may learn\nthem in our own inward selves. We can \"know of ourselves what is right.\"\nAnd there are other texts which admit that God's first revelation, and\nhis last and only revelation, to the human race, is far superior to that\nof any books of human origin; and which admit that this glorious\nrevelation can not be found In the Christian Bible, or any other\nperishable book, but existed for ages before any paper-and-ink Bible was\never thought of.\n\nI will quote one other text to prove these statements, and in further\nconfirmation of the proposition that the Christian Bible itself admits\nthat the infidels' Bible, direct from the hand of God, is greatly\nsuperior to it in all the essential features and principles of a Bible.\nPaul concedes this when he says, in his epistle to the Romans, \"The\ninvisible things of God are clearly seen and understood by the things\nthat are made, even his eternal power and Godhead\" (Rom. i. 20). Now,\nhere it is proved, if any thing can be proved by the Bible, that every\nthing that can be learned about God and religion can be found written\nupon the tablets of nature, and inscribed upon every thing that is made.\nFor it is declared, that even the \"invisible things of God\"--that is,\nthe _great spiritual truths_ of the kingdom--can be seen and learned\nby the revelations, or lessons, written upon things \"that are made.\" A\nwonderful admission, truly! It is stated, they can not only be seen, but\n\"_clearly seen_ and understood,\" by studying the things \"that are made,\"\nand learning their important lessons. If, then, they can be \"clearly\nseen and understood,\" there is not the shadow of a doubt left upon\nthe mind as to their truth or meaning: you are not annoyed with that\nperplexity, uncertainty, and painful anxiety about the meaning of moral\nlessons they teach, as you are with respect to hundreds of texts you\nfind in the Christian Bible. This is a grand revelation and declaration\nand benefit, truly. And \"even his eternal power and Godhead,\"--that is,\nGod's character and attributes,--we are here told, can be learned by\nreading and studying this beautiful and easily comprehended Bible,\nwritten by the finger of God upon every leaf and page of nature.\n\nWas there ever a more important, more pleasing, or more beautiful\nrevelation made to the world than this of Paul's? And is it not\nsurprising that Christians have never noticed this most important\nadmission? It is an important moral lesson that throws their pen-and-ink\nBible into the shade, and shows we would be better without than with it\nby substituting God's eternal and universal Bible. It will be observed,\nthen, that it is shown by different texts of the Bible, that the \"Holy\nBook\" which came directly from the hands of God is greatly superior to\nthat which came through the hands of man. And the fact that it is the\nonly Bible, or revelation, that can now be found in all countries, and\nthe only Bible that can be read by all nations, kingdoms, tongues, and\npeople, and that not one man, woman, or child in a hundred, take the\nworld over, can read any other Bible but this, is very nearly _prima\nfacie_ evidence that it is the only Bible God ever designed for the\nhuman race, and that he never did impart, and never will impart, any\nother revelation to the world; that no other Bible is necessary for the\nmoral, religious, and spiritual welfare of the race, or to point the\nroad to salvation. Hence it is the only Bible we would recommend for\nthe reading of the young. It is the only Bible we are certain they can\nunderstand. It is the only Bible we are certain is free from errors.\nIt is the only Bible we are certain has never been altered or\nmistranslated. It is the only Bible we are certain teaches no immoral\nlessons. It is the only Bible which we are certain contains no vulgar or\nobscene language, calculated to raise a blush on the cheek of modesty,\nand outrage every feeling of decorum, as many of the texts found in the\nChristian Bible do. It is the only \"Holy Scripture\" we can be certain\nwas given forth by divine inspiration, and the only sacred volume or\n\"Holy Word\" which has the full seal and sanction of Almighty God. Read,\nthen, and study well, this open and widespread Bible which infolds the\nuniverse. All the Bibles and religions of the past claim to have been\nauthorized by a _direct_ revelation or inspiration from God. But we\nare satisfied that no such revelation has ever been given forth to any\nnation in any age of the world. For inspiration is now known to be a\nuniversal law of the natural mind; an inborn principle of the human\nsoul, which all ages and nations, and every human being, have possessed\na greater or less share of. And the amount of true inspiration possessed\nby each individual depends upon his or her moral, intellectual, and\nspiritual elevation of the soul or mind into the higher enjoyment of\nspiritual bliss where it becomes _en rapport_ with all that is lovely,\ninspiring, and beautiful in God's universe; where it can take cognizance\nof great moral problems and spiritual truths; and where it can look\nthrough the long vista of futurity, and behold the events of coming\nyears rolling up toward the threshold of time. This is true inspiration,\nand the spirit of true prophecy. But it is the work of our own minds,\nand not of Deity, and is not confined to any age, nation, or religion.\nIt depends upon the culture of the moral and intellectual faculties and\nthe spiritual aspirations of the individual, and not upon his creed or\nreligious belief.\n\nAs for a divine revelation, it can not be found in any book of human\norigin. It could not be incorporated into a book, nor could all the\nbooks in the world contain it. It is inscribed all over the face of\nnature. We read it upon the outstretched earth and upon the shining\nheavens; we read it upon\n\n     \"Every bush and every bower,\n     Every leaf and every flower.\"\n\nHere, then, we have a Bible with a revelation as broad as the universe.\nIts lids are the heavens above, and the earth beneath. Its golden-leaf\npages are spread out at our feet; its lessons of wisdom, its truths of\nsalvation, and its soul-inspiring beauties, are inscribed upon the soul,\nand written all over the face of nature. Read and study it, O man! and\nbecome \"wise onto salvation.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.--TWO THOUSAND BIBLE ERRORS. OLD TESTAMENT DEPARTMENT.\n\nA HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THREE ERRORS IN THE STORY OF CREATION.\n\nAs the Old Testament possesses no order, no arrangement, and no distinct\nsystem of either morals or religion, and no regular connection in its\nhistory, we have to treat it in the same unsystematic order in which we\nfind it, and to expose many foolish errors and stories which seem almost\nbeneath the dignity of any respectable writer to notice. But, as they\nconstitute a large portion of the Old Testament, we have got to deal\nwith _them_ or _nothing_. And, although trifling in _themselves_, they\nhave done much mischief. Hence we deem it of greater importance to\nexpose their evil influence than to trace them to their heathen origin,\nas we originally designed doing.\n\n1. The first text in the Bible is evidently an error. \"In the beginning\nGod created the heavens and the earth\" (Gen. 1). No geologist and\nphilosopher at the present day believes in either a creation or a\ncreator. The assumption involves two impossibilities. First, a creation\ncould not take place without something to create from: \"_Ex nihilo nihil\nfit_,\"--\"Out of nothing nothing can come.\" Second, to account for the\norigin of the earth, sun, moon, and stars, by assuming the existence of\na creator, is throwing no light on the subject. We have made no progress\ntowards solving the problem; for we are equally puzzled to account for\nthe origin of the creator himself. It is as easy to assume that matter\nalways existed as to assume that the creator always existed. Hence there\nwould be no creation possible, and none needed. This is now regarded as\na settled scientific problem.\n\n2. It is a scientific error to assert that matter had a beginning,\nas the Bible assumes. Many scientific facts have been developed to\nestablish the conclusion that all beings and objects on earth were\neliminated from its elements, and all the planets we can recognize\nwere an outgrowth from some other worlds. The proposition is not only\nsusceptible of much proof (which I have not space here to present), but\nis very beautiful and satisfactory. It \"composes our reason to peace.\"\nAll we lack of comprehending it is the capacity to grasp eternity and\ninfinity, which finite mortals cannot do.\n\n3. If God \"created the heavens\" (Gen. i. 1), and heaven is his\n\"dwelling-place\" (see 1 Kings viii. 30), then where did he dwell before\nthe heavens were made? Here is a very puzzling question, and involves an\nabsurdity equal to that of the Tonga-Islanders, who teach that the first\ngoose was hatched from an egg, and that the same goose laid the egg. An\nidea equally ludicrous is involved in the assumption that God created\nthe heavens and the earth about six thousand years ago; so that,\nprevious to that era, there was nothing on which he could stand, sit, or\nlie, but must have been suspended in mid-air from all eternity.\n\n4. If nothing existed prior to six thousand years ago, then there was\nnothing for God to do, and nothing for him to do it with. Hence he\nmust have spent an eternity in idleness, a solitary monarch without a\nkingdom.\n\n5. As we are told God created the light (Gen. i. 3), the conclusion is\nforced upon us, that, prior to that period, he had spent an eternity in\ndarkness. And it has been discovered that all beings originating in\na state of darkness, or living in that condition, were formed without\neyes, as is proved by blind fishes being found in dark caves. Hence\nthe thought is suggested, that God, prior to the era of creation (six\nthousand years ago), was perfectly blind.\n\n6. \"God saw the light that it was good\" (Gen. i. 4). Hence we must\ninfer that God had just got his eyes open, and that he had never before\ndiscovered that light is good. Of course it was good to be delivered\nfrom eternal darkness.\n\n7. \"And God divided the light from the darkness\" (Gen. i. 4). Hence,\nprevious to that period, they must have been mixed together. Philosophy\nteaches that light and darkness never can be separated, any more than\nheat and cold, as one is only a different degree of the other.\n\n8. \"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night\"\n(Gen. i. 5). And to whom did he call them? as no living being was in\nexistence until several days afterwards.\n\nHence there was no need of calling them any thing, and, as we are told\nAdam named every thing, he could as easily have found names for these as\nfor other things.\n\n9. The Bible teaches us that day and night were created three days\nbefore the sun. Every school-boy now knows that it is the revolution\nof the earth upon its axis that causes day and night; and, but for the\nexistence of the sun, there could be no day and night. If Moses' God\nwas so ignorant, he had better never have wakened out of his eternity of\ndarkness.\n\n10. The Bible teaches that the earth came into existence three days\nbefore the sun; but science teaches us that the earth is a child or\noffshoot of the sun. Hence it could be equally true to say a son was\nborn three days before his father.\n\n11. \"And the earth was without form, and void\" (Gen. i. 2); but\nphilosophy teaches that nothing can exist without form, or when\nvoid. The declaration brings to mind the Scotchman's definition of\n\"nothing,\"--\"a footless stocking without a leg.\" We have an idea of a\nthing which does not exist.\n\n12. \"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters\" (Gen. i.\n2). Here we are taught that the original state of the earth was that of\nwater. But geology teaches its original constituents was fire or fusion;\nthat water did not exist, and could not exist, in it, or on it, for\nmillions of ages. Professor Agassiz says our earth was once in a state\nof igneous fusion, without water, without rain, and even without\nan atmosphere (\"Geological Sketches,\" i. 2). And even the pious,\nGod-fearing Hugh Miller says that \"the solid earth was at one time, from\ncenter to circumference, a mass of molten matter\" (\"Lectures on Geology,\"\n256). Here we have geology against theology.\n\n13. God spent a day making a firmament, by which he \"divided the waters\nfrom the waters.\" If it had then stated that he spent a day in making\nmoonshine, or one day in making breath for Adam, it would have been\nas sensible; for the firmament is as truly a part of the earth (being\neliminated from it) as our breath is a part of our bodies.\n\n14. \"Divided the waters from the waters.\" Here is disclosed a belief\nwhich prevailed in various Oriental and heathen nations, that the\nearth exists between two large lakes, or sheets of water; and that the\nfirmament is a solid floor, which holds the water up, and prevents it\nfrom falling, and inundating the earth; and, being supplied with doors\nand windows, when God wants it to rain he opens the windows (the Bible\nsays \"the windows of heaven were opened,\" see Gen. vii. 11). He pours\nit down by opening the windows, and stops it by shutting them up. \"The\nwindows of heaven were stopped\" (Gen. viii. 2). How fully is the heathen\ntradition disclosed here!\n\n15. We are told that God gathered \"the waters under heaven together unto\none place\" (Gen. i. 9). How ignorant he must have been of geography! He\nevidently had not studied the science, or had not traveled much, or\nhe would have known the waters under heaven never have been \"gathered\ntogether unto one place,\" but exist in many places, as the two hundred\nlarge lakes prove.\n\n16. The Bible tells us, that, when God created the vegetable kingdom, he\nordered each species of vegetation to \"bring forth after its kind\" (Gen.\ni. 11). Can we suppose that apple-trees would have borne buckeyes, or\nmullein-stalks produced pumpkins, or any thing foreign to their nature,\nif the command had not been given for each to bring forth after its\nkind?\n\n17. According to the Bible, the vegetable kingdom was created before\nthe animal; but the learned geologist Hitchcock, although a Christian\nby profession, in his \"Elements of Geology\" says, \"An examination of the\nrocks shows us that animals were created as early as vegetables\" (and\nhe might have said much earlier). And yet the Bible says vegetables were\ncreated on the third day, and animals on the fifth (see Gen. i.).\n\n18. The Bible represents vegetables as coming into existence before the\nsun, but philosophy teaches that they could neither germinate nor grow\nwithout the warming and vivifying influence of the sun.\n\n19. The Bible tells us that \"God made two great lights, the greater\nlight to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and God\nset them in the firmament to give light to the earth\" (Gen. i. 16,\n17). That is, he made two round balls, and then stuck them into a hole\nscooped out of the firmament for the purpose. This seems to be the idea.\nHere is disclosed the most egregious ignorance of astronomy. Think of\nthat stupendous solar luminary, as much larger than this pygmy planet as\na man is larger than a mouse, being hung up or stuck up above us for our\nsole accommodation! How sublimely ridiculous!\n\n20. The Bible represents the great world-builder, the almighty-,\narchitect, as spending five days in plodding and toiling at this little\nmole-hill of ours before he got it finished up to his notion, and then\nmade such a bad job of it that he repented for having undertaken it.\n\n21. But when he came to make the countless worlds, the vast suns, and\nsystems of suns, which roll their massive forms in every direction\naround the earth, these were all made in a few hours. \"And he made\nthe stars also.\" This text tells the whole story of the origin of the\nboundless planetary system, comprising millions of worlds larger\nthan our planet. What superlative ignorance of astronomy Moses' God\nmanifests!\n\n22. Moses is awarded great credit by Bible believers for opposing\npolytheism, and teaching the existence of but one God: but it would have\nbeen more to his credit if he had stuck to a belief in a plurality of\nGods; for it would take a million of such Gods as his imagination has\ncreated a thousand years to make such a universe as astronomers have\nbrought to light since he wrote.\n\n23. The language, \"Let us make man in our own image\" (Gen. 1. 26), seems\nto imply that there was an association of gods,--a company of almighty\nmechanics, who had formed a copartnership to do up a big job.\n\n24. If man was made in the image of God, why was he cursed for eating\nthe fruit of the tree of knowledge in order to be like God?\n\n25. According to the Bible, God became so tired in the business of\nworld-making that he had to take a rest of a whole day (and perhaps took\na nap also) when the job was completed; but geology and philosophy both\nteach that creation never was begun, and never will be finished, but is\ngoing on all the time. Hence new species of animals and vegetables are\nconstantly coming into existence.\n\n26. The Bible represents the entire universe as being created less\nthan six thousand years ago; but science teaches us that it has been in\nexistence for millions of years.\n\n27. A large volume of scientific facts has been accumulated by\nscientists, showing that even our earth, one of the youngest of the\nplanets, is at least several hundred thousand years old. Look at a\nfew of the facts which go to prove it. The coral reefs of Florida\nare estimated by Professor Agassiz to be one hundred and thirty-five\nthousand years old. Charles Lyell estimates the delta of the Mississippi\nValley to be at least one hundred thousand years old. Four growths of\ncypress-trees far below the surface of the ground, and situated one\nabove another, have been discovered near New Orleans, whose successive\ngrowths must have occupied a period of at least one hundred and\nfifty thousand years. So much for the agreement of geology and Bible\nchronology.\n\n28. But we are told that a day in the Bible means a thousand years.\nThen, as the sabbath day constitutes one of the days spoken of in the\nBible, and was provided as a day of rest, Christians and Bible believers\nshould rest a thousand years at a time; and, as God rested a whole day\n(a thousand years), he must have been as tired of resting as he was of\nworld-making. Why do the figures \"4004 B.C.\" stand at the top of the\nfirst page of the Bible, if a thousand years mean one day?\n\n29. The Bible teaches that whales, fishes, and birds were made on the\nsame day; but geology assures us that fishes came into existence long\nbefore fowls.\n\n30. The Bible teaches that beasts and creeping, things were all made\non the fifth day of creation; but geology tells us that reptiles and\ncreeping things crawled upon the earth millions of years before beasts\ncame into existence.\n\n31. The Bible represents man as coming into existence about six thousand\nyears ago; but human bones have recently been discovered in the vicinity\nof New Orleans which Dr. Dowler estimates to be at least fifty thousand\nyears old.\n\n32. A deity who becomes so tired and physically exhausted with six days'\nlabor as to be compelled to stop and rest, physiology teaches would\nbe liable to physical disease; and, if physically diseased, it might\nterminate in death, and thus leave the world without a God (Godless).\n\n33. The Bible tells us \"the Lord God formed man of the dust of the\nground\" (Gen. ii. 7); but philosophy teaches that dust possesses no\nvital properties, and that it would have been less difficult to make\nman of a stone or a stump, owing to their possessing more adhesive\nproperties. One writer suggests that the negro must have been made of\ncoal-dust.\n\n34. According to the Bible, a serious blunder was made by Jehovah in\nthe work of creation, by exhausting all the materials in the process\nof world-making and man-making, so that nothing was left to make\na \"helpmeet\" for Adam; and this blunder caused the necessity of\nrobbing Adam of one of his ribs.\n\n35. But common sense teaches us that a small crooked bone but a few\nounces in weight could not furnish half the material necessary to\nconstitute a woman. The Parsees, with a little more show of sense, tell\nus that the rib was used merely as a back-bone, around which the woman\nwas constructed; which revives in memory Erin's mode of making cannon,\nwhich consisted in \"taking a round hole, and pouring melted metal around\nit.\" The Tonga-Islanders have a tradition about as sensible as that of\nMoses with respect to the origin of the first woman. Their God made the\nfirst man with three legs, and amputated one of them to make a \"helpmeet\nfor him?\" This is an improvement, as a leg can be better spared when\nthere are three than a rib: it also possesses more material than a rib.\n\n36. The Bible teaches that man was created upright, but fell. If it\nmeans physically, it can be easily accounted for, and must be ascribed\nto his creator; for depriving him of one of his ribs would leave him in\nan unbalanced condition, so that he would be liable to fall.\n\n37. The Bible imparts to us the strange intelligence that \"the Lord God\nbrought all the beasts and birds to Adam to see what he would call them\"\n(Gen. ii. 19). What an idea for Omniscience or Infinite Wisdom to engage\nin the business of chasing bears, lions, tigers, elephants, and hyenas,\nand all manner of beasts great and small, and all manner of birds, also\nhissing, crawling, biting reptiles, and every living thing which he had\ncreated, and taking them to Adam \"to see what he would call them\"! Not\nhaving sufficient intelligence to find names for them himself (pardon\nthe thought), his curiosity was no doubt aroused to see what an ignorant\nbeing of his own creation, who had not sufficient intelligence to clothe\nhimself, would call the innumerable host of beasts, birds, &c., before\nany language was known, or even a single letter was invented to spell\nnames with. (We are very far from desiring to wound the feelings or\nencroach upon the reverence that any man or woman may cherish for \"a God\nof infinite love, wisdom, and goodness;\" but let it be kept constantly\nin mind we are not presenting the history of such a being here, but the\nmere imaginary God of Moses and the Bible.)\n\n38. As the Bible teaches that Adam named all the beasts, animals, and\nbirds, it must have occupied a great number of years for the Lord God of\nMoses to have caught and taken the several hundred thousand species\nto Adam to receive names in all the three thousand languages, and then\nconvey them back to their respective climates.\n\n39. The question naturally arises, Why should Adam give them names by\nsaying, \"This is a horse, that is an ass, the animal yonder shall be\ncalled a hippopotamus,\" &c., when there was nobody present to hear it\nand be benefited by it? And nobody could have remembered half the names\nhad they been present. Here we wish to call the attention of the reader\nspecially to the fact that all the thoughts and language we have so far\ncited as being either that of God or Moses sounds like the utterance\nof ignorant children, and unworthy the dignity of an intelligent and\nsensible man much less that of a God.\n\n40. The Bible teaches that \"God made man in his own image.\" The reverse\nstatement would have been true, \"Man made God in his own image;\" for\nthis is true of all nations who believe in a God.\n\n41. Here let it be noted the Bible contains two contradictory accounts\nof creation; one found in the first chapter of Genesis, the other in\nthe second. In the first, animals are created before man; in the second,\nafter man.\n\n42. The first chapter of Genesis says, \"Let the earth bring forth\nplants\" (Gen. i. 11): the second says, \"God created every plant...\nbefore it was in the earth\" (Gen. ii. 9). A contradiction; and neither\nstatement is true, there being no creation.\n\n43. The first chapter has the earth created several days before the\nfirmament, or heaven: the second chapter has it created on the same day\n(Gen. ii. 4).\n\n44. The first represents fowls as originating in the water (Gen. i. 20):\nthe second has them created out of the water.\n\n45. After the first chapter says \"God created man in his own image\"\n(Gen. i. 27), the second says \"there was not a man to till the ground\"\n(Gen. ii. 4).\n\n46. The first chapter represents man and woman as being created at the\nsame time (Gen. i. 27): the second represents the woman as being created\nafter the man.\n\n47. The first implies that man has dominion over the whole earth: the\nsecond restricts his dominion to a garden. Which is the inspired story\nof creation?\n\n48. The Mexicans claim that the first man and woman were created in\ntheir country. The Hindoos aver that the original progenitors of the\nrace (Adimo and Iva) first made their appearance amongst them. The\nChinese claim a similar honor. The Persians contend that God landed the\nfirst human pair in the land of Iran. And, finally, the Jews affirm that\nJehovah created the first pair in Eden.\n\nTHE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE TREE OF LIFE.\n\nMoses tells us God planted two trees in Eden, one of which he called\n\"the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.\" This tree bore fruit which\nnobody was allowed to taste (Gen. ii. 9).\n\n49. Why the tree was planted, or why its fruit was forbidden to be used,\nare problems which the Bible does not solve, and which set reason at\ndefiance.\n\n50. And then it looks like a senseless act to create a tree for the\npurpose of bearing fruit (as we can conceive of no other purpose for\nwhich it could have been created), and then decree that it should all go\nto waste.\n\n51. It was worse still to create human beings with an appetite for this\nfruit, and place it in their sight, and then forbid them to taste it on\npenalty of death. Nothing could be more opposed to our ideas of reason\nand justice.\n\n52. Did God create beings in his own image, and then treat them as if he\nwished to tantalize them and render them unhappy?\n\n53. It would seem that he created man for no other purpose than to tease\nand torment him, and quarrel with him.\n\n54. Common sense would suggest it to be the act of an ignoramus or a\ntyrant to implant in man the desire to eat fruit which he did not allow\nhim to eat.\n\n55. And would it not be unjust to punish Adam and Eve for doing what he\nhimself had implanted in them the desire to do?\n\n56. God must have known they would eat the fruit, if he were omniscient.\n\n57. If he were not omniscient, he was not a God in a supreme or divine\nsense.\n\n58. God must have had the power without the will to prevent the act of\ndisobedience, which would make him an unjust and unmerciful tyrant.\n\n59. Or else the will without the power, which would make him a weak and\nfrail being, and not a God. (For a full elucidation of these points, see\nchapter sixty-nine.)\n\nWe will notice a few other points.\n\n60. As God declared eating the fruit would make Adam \"like one of us,\"\nthat is, Godlike (and all men are enjoined to become Godlike), was\nnot Adam, therefore, justified in eating the fruit in order to become\nGodlike?\n\n61. In chapter sixty-nine it is shown, that, as Adam and Eve got their\neyes open by eating the inhibited fruit, the act of disobedience turned\nout to be a great blessing, inasmuch as it saved the earth from being\nfilled with a race of blind human beings.\n\n62. And, as this blessing was obtained through the agency of the\nserpent-devil, we must admit \"the father of lies\" was a great benefactor\nof the human race, as shown in chapter sixty-nine.\n\n63. As Adam could not very well exercise \"dominion over every living\nthing that moveth upon the earth\" (Gen. i. 26) while shut up in a little\neight-by-ten garden, we can observe here another practical benefit of\nthe act of disobedience which drove him from the garden.\n\n64. Is it not a strange piece of moral incongruity to set Adam to\ntilling the soil in the garden as a _blessing_, and then doom him to\ntill it _outside_ as a curse? (Gen. iii. 23.) He first embarked in the\nbusiness as a blessing, and then as a curse. How the same act could be\nboth a blessing and a curse is a \"mystery of godliness\" which swamps us.\n\n65. The Jews tell us the original tempter was a serpent (Gen. iii.\n1); The Mexicans say it was a demon; the Hindoos call him a snake; the\nGreeks declare it was a dragon; Josephus supposes it was an ape; some of\nthe East-India sects speak of him as a fish; but the Persian revelations\nmake it a lizard. Which is right?\n\n66. The Mosaic or Hebrew cosmogony represents the serpent as dealing out\nthe fruit to the _genus homo_; while the Mexicans, the Egyptians, and\nthe Persians set the serpent or \"evil genius\" to guarding the tree to\nprotect the fruit. Which is right?\n\n67. When God Jehovah announced to the trinity of Gods, \"Behold, the man\nhas become as one of us to know good and evil\" (Gen. iii. 22), exactly\nas the serpent had predicted, instead of dying as Jehovah had predicted,\ndoes it not prove that the serpent was the best and most reliable\nprophet?\n\n68. As Adam and Eve could know nothing of the nature of right and wrong\nuntil they attained that knowledge by eating the fruit, does not this\nfact prove it to be a justifiable if not a righteous act?\n\n69. How could Adam and Eve know that any act was sinful before an act of\nany kind had been committed by which they could learn the character or\nconsequences of human conduct?\n\n69. Is it not a logical conclusion, that, if God created every thing,\nhe can control every thing, and hence, strictly speaking, is alone\nresponsible for the right performance of every thing?\n\n70. The Christian Bible tells us the first pair of human beings sewed\nfig-leaves together for clothing; but the Chinese revelation say\npalm-leaves. Which is right? Who can tell?\n\n71. As it is declared the voice of God was heard \"walking in the garden\"\n(Gen. iii. 8), we beg leave to ask, what kind of a thing is a \"walking\nvoice\"?\n\n72. We also beg leave to ask, who took charge of \"the house of many\nmansions\" while Jehovah was down among the bushes hunting and hallooing\nfor Adam?\n\n72. And who took charge of creation, and kept the machinery of the\nuniverse running during the thousand years' rest of God Almighty, if the\none day he rested means a thousand years?\n\n73. Was it necessary for an omnipresent God to come down from heaven\nto find Adam when he hid among the bushes? And what would have been the\nresult if he had not been found?\n\n74. Must we not conclude that the command to \"multiply and replenish the\nearth\" was rather superfluous, inasmuch as nations who never heard of\nthe command perform the duty faithfully?\n\n75. If the River Gihon, one of the four rivers of Paradise, \"encompassed\nthe whole land of Ethiopia\" (Gen. ii. 13), which is in Africa, how did\nit manage to cross the Red Sea, so as to get into Eden, which is in\nAsia?\n\n111. As Bishop Colenso shows the territory lying between the four rivers\nin Eden, as mentioned in Gen. ii. comprised an area of several hundred\nmiles, we would suggest that father Adam, while in Eden, had rather a\nlarge garden to cultivate.\n\n112. How could fig-leaves be sewed together for clothing before needles\nwere invented? (see Gen. iii. 7.)\n\n113. How did Eve see the tree as stated in Genesis (\"she saw the tree\")\nbefore she ate the fruit which caused her eyes to be opened?\n\n114. Is it not calculated to destroy all ideas of justice in the minds\nof man and woman to believe that God cursed and ruined the happiness\nof the whole human race merely for one simple act prompted by a being\ndestitute of moral perception or moral accountability?\n\n115. And what should we think of a being who would suffer a grand\nscheme, on which is predicated the happiness of his innumerable family\nfor untold ages, to be defeated by the wily machinations of a brainless\ncreature of his own creation?\n\n116. Why should Adam hide from God because he was naked, when, if\nGod made him, he must have become accustomed to seeing him in that\ncondition?\n\n117. If God in the morning pronounced every thing good, and in the\nevening every thing bad, does it not imply not only a serious blunder in\nthe job, but a serious mistake in his views either in the morning or in\nthe evening?\n\n118. As we are told \"the Lord God made clothing for Adam out of\ngoat-skins,\" the question naturally arises, Who caught and killed the\nanimals, and dressed the skins? Does it not imply that God was both a\nbutcher and a tanner? Rather plebeian employment for a God.\n\n119. And the statement that \"the Lord God planted a garden eastward in\nEden\" (Gen. ii. 8) seems to imply that he was a horticulturist also.\n\n120. It is pretty hard to believe that Adam could sleep while God\nAlmighty (Moses' God) was digging amongst his ribs, as stated in Gen.\nii. 21.\n\n121. How could Adam know what the word \"die\" meant before there had been\nany deaths in the world, when the Lord told him he should _die_ if he\nate the forbidden fruit?\n\n122. As Eve was pronounced \"the mother of all living\" when there were\nno human beings in existence but she and Adam, the inference seems to\nbe that she was the mother of herself, her husband, and all the animal\ntribes.\n\n123. \"In the image of God created he them\" (Adam and Eve, see Gen. i.\n27). If Adam and Eve were both created in the image of God, it would\nseem to follow that he was constituted of two genders, male and female.\n\nIn concluding this section, we ask the reader to think of an infinitely\nwise God being defeated in his grand scheme of creation or salvation by\na crawling serpent, and a frightful hell and all its horrors originating\nfrom this act. How sublimely ridiculous is the thought!\n\nII. THE SCIENTISTS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.\n\n1. Millions of years ago the sun in its revolution threw off, as it\nhad done on previous occasions, a sort of fire-mist, or nebulous\nscintillations, which floated and rolled through space for countless\nages, gradually accumulating from the atmosphere in its revolution,\nthus swelling in size until it became a conglomeration of gas; and,\ncontinuing to grow and progress, it ripened into a fiery, liquid mass\npossessing the most intense heat.\n\n2. After innumerable ages this fiery liquid mass began to cool, and\nfinally formed a crust upon its surface.\n\n3. As its interior elements began to evolve or emanate from its bosom,\nit formed a dense, heavy, murky atmosphere, almost as heavy as water, in\nwhich no living thing could have breathed or lived for a moment.\n\n4. This atmosphere contained moisture, which in the course of time\nbecame condensed into globules forming drops, which descended to the\nearth in the shape of rain.\n\n5. This rain, descending to the earth, cooled its surface, and\neventually filled its vast cavities with water, and thus formed lakes,\nseas, and oceans. The boiling, heaving mass in the bowels of the earth\nmade it very irregular in shape.\n\n6. As soon as the surface of the earth became sufficiently cool, small\nswellings began to appear upon its surface, presenting the appearance of\nblisters, or boils. These outgrowths finally began to exhibit vegetable\nlife; but for a long period of time they presented the appearance of\nrocks or stones.\n\n7. In the mean time the washings from the surface of the earth were\ndeposited in the seas and oceans, and, sinking to the bottom, in the\ncourse of time formed rocks.\n\n8. These rocks, as they hardened, gave off an element of life, which in\nthe course of time supplied the waters with various forms of animal or\nfinny life, and thus originated mollusks, fishes, &c.\n\n9. As the surface of the earth cooled and grew thicker, the elements of\nlife diffused through the liquid mass finally made their appearance on\nthe surface in the character of the lowest forms of vegetable life? such\nas mosses, lichens, ferns, &c.\n\n10. As the surface of the earth thickened, and consequently accumulated\nthe elements of vitality gave forth higher and still higher forms\nof vegetable life, finally the most matured forms of matter began to\nexhibit animal life.\n\n11. The first species was the zoophite, a compound of vegetable and\nanimal life, but possessing scarcely any of the functions of animal life\nexcept those of absorption and respiration, and these functions were but\nslightly manifested.\n\n12. Succeeding the zoophite came the mollusks and various hard-shelled\nanimal forms, which at first clung to the rocks, then fed on seaweeds\nand other vegetable substances, absorbing also from the atmosphere.\n\n13. In this way various species of animals and birds and reptiles sprang\nup, ran their course, and then perished, to give place to higher forms.\n\n14. And finally, when all the elements of life became sufficiently\nmatured, they formed a combination, and turned loose upon the earth the\nanimal man, who at first was nearly as ugly, clumsy, and awkward as a\nbaboon, possessed of but little more sense or intelligence.\n\n15. Each one of these changes and outgrowths of the new forms of\nvegetable and animal life constituted an epoch of innumerable ages, thus\nshowing the age of our planet to be beyond computation. We submit to the\nreader whether this is not a more rational, beautiful, and satisfactory\nsolution of the great problem of mineral, vegetable, animal, and human\nexistence, than the jumbled-up medley presented by Moses.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.--ABSURDITIES IN THE ARK AND FLOOD STORY.\n\nIf there were no other errors or absurdities in the Bible, our faith\nin it would diminish at every step in the investigation of the ark\nand flood story as related in the sixth chapter of Genesis. The\navowed purpose of the flood, the means employed, and their failure to\naccomplish the end desired, are all at war with our reason and our moral\nsense.\n\n1. The first question that naturally arises in considering this\nstory is, Why should so many millions of innocent beings--men, women,\nchildren, animals; birds, &c.--perish as a penalty for the sins of a few\nthousand people?\n\n2. The reason given for this wholesale destruction was the wickedness\nand moral depravity of the human race. But is it true that the whole\nhuman race was in that state at that period? According to Manetho and\nHerodotus, Egypt was in a state of high civilization and moral culture\nat the time; and, according to Dr. Hulde, China was also far advanced\nin the arts of civilization and in morality. Col. Dow and other writers\nrepresent India as being in a similar condition. There could, therefore,\nbe no justice in drowning all these nations in order to punish a few\nthousand rambling Jews: it was too much like \"burning the barn to\ndestroy the rats.\"\n\n3. An enlightened moralist of the present day would decide that it was a\nspecies of injustice to destroy all the land animals, and let the fishes\nand aquatic animals live. It looks like partiality.\n\n4. But God, having discovered that he made a signal failure in the work\nof creation, acknowledged that it \"grieved him at his heart,\" and that\nhe \"repented\" having undertaken it. However, he issued a proclamation,\nstating that \"the end of all flesh is come: every thing that is in the\nearth shall die.\"\n\n5. \"I, even I, do bring a flood of water upon the earth to destroy all\nflesh\" (Gen. xi. 6). The language seems to imply that somebody else had\nundertaken, or was about to undertake, the business.\n\n6. But \"Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord,\" and was placed at the\nhead of this grand scheme; being, as was assumed, although a drunkard,\nthe most righteous man that could be found.\n\n7. The Lord instructed him to build an ark five hundred and fifty feet\nlong, twenty feet wide, and fifty-five feet high,--about the size of an\neastern warehouse. Think of putting into this two of every species of\nanimal, and seven of every species of clean beast, and fowls of the\nair!--there being one hundred and fifty thousand or, as some make it,\nfive hundred thousand species of animal, one hundred and twelve thousand\nkinds of bird, and fifty thousand species of insect.\n\n8. And God ordered to be taken into this ark food sufficient to supply\nthese millions of mouths. This alone would have required forty such\nvessels.\n\n9. As it was declared that God destroyed every living thing from the\nface of the earth, it would have been necessary to have food enough\nstored away to last several years, until the earth could have time to be\nreplenished with a new crop of grass and vegetables to serve as food for\nthe granivorous and herbivorous species, and animals for the carnivorous\ntribes. The weight of such a cargo would have been sufficient to sink\nthe whole British navy!\n\n10. Consider for a moment what amount of food would be required for\neach species of animal. The four elephants (two of each species) would\nconsume a ton of hay in two days, making more than one hundred and\nfifty tons in twelve months. The fourteen rhinoceroses would consume\none thousand and fifty tons. And then the horses, cattle, sheep, goats,\nasses, zebras, antelopes, and other mammalia, would require at least two\nthousand tons more; making in the aggregate three thousand two hundred\ntons. This alone would have filled every inch of the vessel.\n\n11. The seven hundred and eighty-four thousand birds (one hundred\nand twelve thousand species) would require grain, which would make it\nnecessary to store several thousand bushels.\n\n12. The three thousand flesh-eating animals, including lions (one lion\ncould eat fifteen pounds a day), cats, dogs, jackals, hyenas, skunks,\nweasels, crocodiles, snakes, eagles, hawks, buzzards, &c., would require\nabout forty wagon-loads to be slaughtered and fed to them each day; for\nall would require fresh meat but the buzzards.\n\n13. And otters, minks, gulls, kingfishers, spoonbills, storks, &c.,\nwould require fish for food, which must either be preserved in tanks for\nthe purpose, or one hundred and fifty persons would have to be employed\nall the time in catching them; and there were only four men to do this\nand perform all the other labor,--sufficient for five thousand hands.\n\n14. There were nine hundred species of fly-catchers,--those that feed\non flies, beetles, and other insects. We are not informed whether flies\nwere included in the registered list or not; but they would, of course,\nbe impudent enough to take up their quarters in the vessel without\ninvitation.\n\n15. About two hundred and fifty birds known as bee-catch-ers would\nhave to be supplied with this kind of insect: this would be, to say the\nleast, rather stinging business.\n\n16. Many cans of cockroaches must have been saved to feed the\nbirds-of-paradise.\n\n17. There are several kinds of ant-eaters also, which would have\nrequired much time to be spent in searching for ants in the cracks of\nthe vessel, or in collecting then! off the water.\n\n18. The four hundred and forty-two monkeys would require fresh fruit;\nand it is not probable anybody had the forethought to can it for them.\n\n19. Sixty-five species of animal feed on insects; and it would have been\nnecessary for several persons to spend most of their time in crawling\nafter millipeds, fleas, wood-lice, &c.\n\n20. There would have been work for fifty boy's in providing leaves and\nflowers (if there were any possibility that they could be obtained while\nmerged in twenty-seven feet of water) for the animals that feed on these\nthings.\n\n21. Besides food, fresh water must have been stored up for most of these\nanimals, as they could not have endured the salty water of the briny\ndeep.\n\n22. Noah and his family must have studied ornithology and natural\nhistory many years to know what kind of food to save for the various\nkinds of birds and animals.\n\n23. Naturalists estimate that there are fourteen different climates,\neach with animals adapted only to the temperature and natural growth\nof that locality. How, then, could they all endure the change of being\nremoved to the vicinity of Mount Ararat? Animals from the frigid zones\nmust have felt like fish out of water in the warm climate of Armenia.\n\n24. And think of the immense labor required to obtain this innumerable\ncollection of animals! In the first place, either Noah or his God must\nmake a trip to the polar regions to obtain the white bear, the reindeer,\nthe polar dog, &c.\n\n25. And then the Rocky Mountains must be scaled to find and catch the\ngrizzly bear. Some time and labor must have been required to obtain the\nrattlesnakes, copperheads, vipers, cobras, snapping-turtles, &c., of the\ntorrid zone.\n\n26. And a great deal of strategy must have been employed to catch\nthe fox, the deer, the antelope, the gazelle, the chimpanzee, of the\ntemperate zone; also the eagle, hawk, buzzard, &c.\n\n27. To do all this hunting and catching, and conveying to the ark, of\nthe million and a half birds and animals, would have required a larger\nnumber of persons than Napoleon or Xerxes ever commanded; for, as the\nwhole thing is related as a natural occurrence, we can not assume that\nthey made the journey of their own accord.\n\n28. The Bible commentator Scott supposes that angels were employed to\naid in this business of storing away the animals in the ark; but it is\ncertainly derogatory to that elevated order of beings to suppose they\nwould stoop to such groveling work as bug-hunting, skunk-catching,\nsnake-snaring, &c.\n\n29. And how could this immense multitude of respiring and perspiring\nanimals live and breathe in a vessel with but one little twenty-two-inch\nwindow, and that in the third story, and shut up most of the time to\nkeep the rain out, especially if some giraffe had been disposed to\nmonopolize it when it was open by thrusting his head out? How could they\nbe kept thus for a whole year without breeding pestilence and death?\n\n30. All animals require light; and total darkness must have reigned\nin the two lower stories, and only a partial light supplied the third\nstory,--just what could come through a twenty-two-inch window.\n\n31. The chorus of voices in the ark--consisting of bellowing, baying,\nhowling, screaming, hissing, neighing, snorting, roaring, chattering,\nbuzzing, &c.--suggests that deafness would have been a blessing to the\nhuman beings present.\n\n32. We are told that \"fifteen cubits upward did the water prevail, and\nthe mountains were covered.\" Fifteen cubits (twenty-seven feet) would\nnot cover nine-tenths of the buildings now on the earth. Ararat is\nseventeen thousand feet, and Everest twenty-nine thousand feet high.\n\n33. Several scientists have shown by actual experiment that the\natmosphere could not contain the fourteen-hundredth part of the water\nthat is represented to have fallen in the time of the flood.\n\n34. Who or what conducted the ark to Ararat when the waters subsided? In\nthe Brahminical flood story a fish is said to have performed this feat,\nand dragged it to Mt. Hinavat; but Noah and Moses are silent on this\npoint.\n\n35. The peak of Ararat is perpetually covered with snow and ice; hence\nit must have been rather difficult and dangerous for the biped and\nquadruped cargo to descend from it.\n\n36. And what was there to prevent the nine hundred carnivorous animals\nfrom devouring the sheep, hogs, poultry, rabbits, minks, hedgehogs, &o.,\nas they tumbled pell-mell down the mountain together.\n\n37. The same catastrophe must have ensued from the act of turning them\nloose upon the earth together, with nothing to subsist upon but the\nflesh and blood of each other.\n\n38. Many Oriental nations have traditions of a flood, and some of them\nof several floods. Xisuthrus of Chaldea built a ship, in which he saved\nhimself and family during a mighty flood which overflowed the world;\nalso Fohi of China, Menu of the Brahmins, Satravarata of India, and\nDeucalion of Greece. Hence it appears there were several families saved\nbesides that of Noah's. Egypt and India have stories of two floods\noccurring. All these stories are evidently older than that recorded in\nthe Christian Bible.\n\n39. Geologists and archaeologists have collected a whole volume of\nevidence, which shows that such a deluge could never have taken place as\nis embodied in the traditions of several nations. The fresh water of\nthe lakes, and the salt water of the seas and oceans, would have been so\nmixed as never again to be separated as they are now. Egyptian monuments\nand sculpture can be traced to a much earlier period than that assigned\nfor Noah's flood.\n\n40. Lepsius has traced the existence of several races or tribes of\nnegroes up to a period within forty-eight years of Noah's flood; this\nwould seem to indicate that some of Noah's family were negroes, and must\nhave \"multiplied and replenished\" very rapidly to start several races in\nforty-eight years.\n\n41. The dynasties of Egyptian kings can be traced back several thousand\nyears beyond Noah's time.\n\n42. It is true Jesus Christ and the apostles indorsed the truth of\nthe flood story (Matt. xxiv. 37); but that is evidence against their\nintelligence, instead of being a proof of the truth of the story.\n\n43. And the assumed divine author of the flood admitted it was an utter\nfailure,--that it entirely failed to accomplish the end intended; for it\nwas declared but a few centuries after, that \"the imagination of man's\nheart is evil, and only evil, continually,\" which is an evidence that\nthe wicked folks were not all drowned by the world's inundation.\n\n44. With respect to the many difficulties and impossibilities I have\nenumerated as lying in the way of carrying out this experiment of the\nflood, it is sometimes argued in defense, that, as the whole thing was\nin the hands of God, such obstacles would not be a straw in his way. But\nsuch persons at different periods,--one ninety-five hundred years ago\nhave failed to notice that it is nowhere stated or implied that it was\nto be accomplished by miracles. A miracle could have destroyed all the\nwicked inhabitants of the earth in a moment, without any flood or other\nmeans.\n\n45. With regard to its being only a partial deluge, as argued by some\nBible defenders, we will say that it is only necessary to examine the\nlanguage of the Bible to settle this matter. It is declared over and\nover again, that the whole earth was covered with water, and _every\nliving thing destroyed_. If it had been only a partial deluge, all that\nwould have been necessary for Noah to do to save himself and family\nwould have been to migrate to some dry country; and the doomed sinners\nmight have saved themselves in this way.\n\n46. I will note here that the rainbow was for more than a thousand years\nlooked upon both as evidence that there had been a universal deluge, and\nalso that there never would be another. It is only at a recent period\nthat the study of philosophy has disclosed the fact that the rainbow is\ncaused by the reflection and refraction of the rays of light upon the\nfalling rain, and the error thus exploded.\n\n47. One thing in connection with this flood story is not clearly\nexplained in the Bible: Methuselah's time was not out till ten months\nafter the flood began, according to Bible chronology. Where was he\nduring this ten months?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.--THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, MORAL DEFECTS OF.\n\nThese commandments have always been regarded by Bible believers as being\na remarkable display of infinite wisdom, and as being morally perfect\nbeyond criticism; and consequently they have passed from age to age\nwithout examination, when a little investigation would have shown any\nlogical mind that they contain palpable errors both in logic and morals.\n\nFirst commandment: \"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me\" (Exod. xx.\n3); that is, as commentators have interpreted it, \"Thou shalt prefer\nno Gods to me.\" And why not? What harm can it do? Supposing the people\nprefer a golden calf, as the Jews did under the leadership of Aaron, in\nthe name of reason how can it injure either God or man? if not, where\nis the objection? The feeling of devotion is the same in all cases,\nwhatever may be the object worshiped. Hence the worshiper is as much\nbenefited by worshiping one object as another. On the other hand, it\nwould be a slander upon infinite wisdom to suppose he can desire the\nhomage, adoration, and flattery of poor ignorant mortals, and desire\nthem to crouch at his feet. It would make a mere coxcomb of him to\nsuppose he can be pleased with such adulation, or that he desires such\nhomage. We worship no such God.\n\nSecond commandment. The second commandment prohibits our making \"the\nlikeness of any thing that is in heaven above, the earth beneath, or the\nwaters under the earth\" (Exod. xx. 4). Let us look, in the first place,\nat the effect of this prohibition, and then at the character of the\nact. It effectually cuts off the use of photographs, portraits, and\npictures,--illustrations of every description; for all these are\nlikenesses of something.\n\nHence thousands of oases of the violation of this commandment take place\nevery day in all Christian or civilized countries. Books are issued\nevery day containing likenesses of something in the heavens above or\nthe earth beneath; especially are school-books illustrated with the\nlikenesses of all kinds of living beings, and often with inanimate\nobjects, by which children learn. The second commandment is utterly\ndisregarded and trampled under foot by all Christendom.\n\nThird commandment. This commandment prohibits our bowing down to and\nworshiping any other God but Jehovah, because \"I, the Lord thy God, am a\njealous God\" (Exod. xx. 5).\n\nAs for \"jealousy,\" it will make any being hateful and despised,\naccording to William Penn. But why not worship other Gods (that is,\nbeings supposed to represent or resemble God)? Can any serious evil\nresult from such an act, either to God or his worshipers? If so, what\nis it? Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that the heathen who\nbow down to images of wood and stone suppose them to be the veritable\nliving and true God (which, however, is not true), yet it would be the\nvery climax of folly to suppose that an infinite being, of such infinite\nperfection that it places him at an infinite distance beyond human\nflattery, can take the slightest offense at such an act. It is childish\nto entertain such a thought. A thousand times more sensible is the\ndoctrine of the Hindoos' Vedas, which makes God (Brahma) say, \"Those who\nworship other Gods worship me, because I hear them, and correct their\nmistake.\" We will illustrate:--\n\nA rebel soldier (son of a doctor) was wounded near his father's house,\nin Kentucky, during the war, in which he immediately sought refuge. As\nhe entered the hall (it being evening twilight), he observed some person\nat the farther end whom he supposed to be his father, and exclaimed,\n\"Father, I am wounded! Can you aid me?\" His father, being in a room\nabove, overheard him, and responded, \"Yes, sir.\" Had he had the vanity\nof Jehovah, he should have replied, \"No, sir: you mistook the servant\nin the hall for me: therefore I will not assist you, but punish you, and\nkill you.\" Remember, Jehovah is represented as killing the worshipers\nof other Gods (Deut. 3. iii. 6). If an illiterate heathen in like manner\nshould, in his ignorance, call upon idols or mere imaginary beings for\naid, would not his heavenly Father, \"in the room above\" or the heaven\nabove, hear him and reply, \"You are mistaken; I am here, not there; but\nno difference, the mistake is not important: your intention was good,\nand your motives honest; therefore I will grant your request\"? This\nwould be sensible. But Jehovah is represented as saying, \"If thy brother\nor son or daughter, or even the wife of thy bosom, shall say, let us\ngo and serve other Gods, thou shalt not pity nor spare, but kill them\"\n(Deut. xiii. 6). Here is the most shocking cruelty, combined with\nsupreme nonsense. We are commanded to kill wives, sons, and daughters,\nif they entertain a different view of God from ours, no matter how\nhonest they may be; and there is no question but that all worshipers\nare honest. They can not be otherwise. And yet there is no sin more\nfrequently or more fearfully denounced in the Christian Bible than that\nof worshipping other Gods. Who can not see that it all grew out of\nthe bitter sectarian bigotry of the Jews, which engendered feelings of\nanimosity toward all nations who refused to subscribe to their creed?\nThis has been the fault of all creed worshipers. As \"no man hath seen\nGod at any time\" (John i. 18), it must be a matter of imagination with\nevery human being as to what is the form, size, and character of God.\nAnd therefore it can make no difference what God, or what kind of God,\nwe call upon in our prayers. We would be equally heard and answered, if\nthere were a God answering prayer. The third commandment, therefore, is\ndevoid of sound sense.\n\nFourth commandment: \"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God\nin vain\" (Exod. xx. 7). The word \"vain\" is defined to mean \"worthless,\nfruitless;\" that is, attended with no good results. And we can not\nconceive that it can be any more sinful to take the name of God in vain\nthan that of a human being, or of any other object. It is not rational\nto suppose God, while superintending the movements of eighty-five\nmillions of worlds, pays any attention to the manner in which the\ninhabitants of this little planet use his name, or that he cares any\nthing about it. And then how is it possible for us to know when we are\nusing his name in vain, and when we are not?\n\nFifth commandment: \"Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.\" This\ncommandment is universally laid aside by all Christendom. Nobody keeps\nthe sabbath but the Jews. And as God himself does not keep the sabbath,\nbut lets all nature run and work (her laws operate the same on that day\nas on all other days of the week), we can not believe the sabbath was\ninstituted by him.\n\nSixth commandment: \"Honor thy father and mother\" (Exod. xx. 12). Pretty\ngood; but the reason assigned for it is devoid of sense,--\"That thy\ndays may be long upon the earth.\" We have never learned that long-lived\npersons have been more dutiful to parents than others.\n\nSeventh commandment: \"Thou shalt not kill\" (Exod. xx. 13). If the\nword \"not\" were left out, we would concede this commandment has been\nfaithfully obeyed. His \"holy people\" were killing nearly all the time;\nand their successors (the Christians) have inundated the earth with\nblood by a constant violation of this command. What good, therefore, we\nwould ask, has resulted from this commandment?\n\nTenth commandment. The tenth commandment forbids us to covet our\nneighbor's house, wife, or servant, or any of his property (covet,\n\"to desire earnestly\"). We can not conceive how there can be any moral\nturpitude in the act of desiring to possess any of our neighbor's\nproperty, or even his wife, if no improper means are used to obtain\nthem. The command was doubtless issued to keep the poor man from aping\nthe rich, and to make him content with his own lot and condition.\n\nThe above will be understood to be the true exposition of \"the holy\ncommandments of the Lord,\" \"the ten glorious laws of God,\" when people\nbecome accustomed to use their reason in matters of religion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.--FOOLISH BIBLE STORIES.\n\nI. TALKING SERPENTS AND TALKING ASSES.--GEN. III., NUM. XXII.\n\nThe laws of nature appear to have possessed but little force,\npermanency, or reliability in the days of Moses, as they were often\nbrought to a dead halt, and set aside on the most trivial occasions,\naccording to Bible history; and nothing could be learned of the\ncharacter, habits, or natural powers of animals by their form or\nphysical conformation, if they possessed, as represented, minds and\nreasoning powers supposed to be peculiar to the human species. Hence the\nstudy of natural history must have been useless. When naturalists at the\npresent day find animals without the organs of speech, they assume they\ndo not possess the ability to talk and reason. But the absence of\nthe vocal organs in the days of Moses appears to have furnished no\ncriterion, and interposed no obstacle to becoming a fluent speaker and\nan able reasoner, as is illustrated in the case of a serpent and an\nass talking and arguing like a lawyer. Hence natural history could have\npossessed no attraction, as nothing certain could have been learned by\nstudying it.\n\n1. It is a singular reflection that the Christian plan of salvation\nis based on a serpent, and with about as little show of sense as the\nHottentot tradition of the earth resting on the heads of four turtles.\n\n2. The idea of God creating a serpent to thwart and defeat his plans and\ndesigns, or permitting him to do it, is absolutely ridiculous.\n\n3. If God knew, when he created the serpent, that his machinations would\nbring \"death and sin and all our woe\" into the world, the act would\nprove him to be an unprincipled being.\n\n4. And, if he did not know it, he must have been ignorant and\nshort-sighted, and not fit to be a God.\n\n5. It would imply that he made a wonderful mistake in creating a being\nthat \"turned right round,\" and made war on his own kingdom, crippled it,\nand defeated its success.\n\n6. To assume that God could be outwitted by a serpent is to place him\nlower in the scale of intelligence than a snake.\n\n7. It would seem that the serpent was superior to Jehovah either in\nknowledge or veracity; for his statement relative to the effect of\neating the fruit proved to be true, while that of Jehovah proved to be\nfalse (Gen. iii. 3).\n\n8. And, as we have shown in chapter liii, he was a greater friend and\nbenefactor to the human race than Jehovah, as a number of benefits\nand blessings were conferred upon Adam and Eve and their posterity by\nyielding to his advice instead of obeying the mandates of Jehovah.\n\n9. It would doubtless be a source of gratification to naturalists of the\npresent age to learn what species of snake that was which possessed such\na remarkable intellect and reasoning faculties and powers of speech; and\nalso whether Hebrew was its vernacular.\n\n10. Why is it that ladies of the present day possess none of the\nnerveless intrepidity and moral courage of old mother Eve, who could\nstand and listen to a serpent talking without any signs of fainting,\nand with a perfect _nonchalance_, when our modern ladies would probably\nscream or run if a snake they should meet should assume the liberty to\naddress them even in the most polite manner? Mother Eve must have been\nfamiliar with oddities.\n\n11. If serpents and asses could talk in the days of Moses, why not now?\nWhy have they lost the power of speech?\n\n12. The species of serpents and asses which furnished such distinguished\nreasoners and orators should have been preserved, both as natural\ncuriosities and on account of their practical benefits. It would be\na source of instruction as well as amusement for a traveler, while\njourneying astride the back of an ass, to be able to enter into a\nfriendly chitchat and exchange views with him, especially if the ass\nshould be well posted on the topics of the day.\n\n13. It seems singular that the heathen prophet Balaam should be able\nto enlighten infinite wisdom when he called on him for information\nconcerning Balak, King of Moab, or that he should have been better\nposted in the matter.\n\n14. The circumstance of Jehovah advising Balaam to go at the call of\nBalak to curse Israel, then becoming very angry at him because he did\ngo, and employing an ass to intercept his journey, evinces him to have\nbeen a fickle-minded and changeable being. (Num. xxii. 20, 22.)\n\n15. It appears that, with all of Balaam's superior intelligence, he was\ninferior in spiritual discernment to that of his ass, as she could see\nthe spirit standing in the road when he could not.\n\n16. It has been contemptuously suggested as a slur on spiritualism, that\nperhaps the ass was a spiritual medium. But the fact that asses (of\nthe biped species) can now be found endowed with the power of speech,\nrenders the conclusion more rational that the ass talked without the aid\nof a spirit.\n\nSuch are some of the ridiculous features of these ridiculous stories.\nThe expedient of disposing of these foolish stories as allegories, as\nsome have attempted, will not avail any thing: for such figures are too\nlow and groveling to be employed even as metaphors; and there is no\nhint in the Bible that they are to be understood in an allegorical or\nmetaphorical sense.\n\nII. THE STORY OF CAIN, ABSURDITIES OF.\n\n1. Did not Eve dishonor God when, at the birth of Cain, she said, \"I\nhave got a man from the Lord\" (Gen. iv. 1), inasmuch as he turned out to\nbe a murderer?\n\n2. Did not God know that Cain would become a murderer? If he did not, he\nis not an omniscient God.\n\n3. And, if he did know it, would it not make him accountable for the\nmurder?\n\n4. Why did God set a mark on Cain that \"whosoever should find him should\nnot slay him\" (Gen. iv. 15), when there was no \"whosoever\" in existence\nbut his father and mother? And it can not be supposed they would have to\nhunt to find him, or that they would kill him when found.\n\n5. And how could \"whosoever\" know what the mark meant?\n\n6. Where did or where could Cain have gone when he \"fled from the\npresence of the Lord\" (Gen. iv. 16), as David says he is present\neverywhere, even in hell?\n\n7. How could Cain find a wife in the land of Nod (see Gen. iv. 17),\nwhen he himself had killed the whole human race excepting his father and\nmother? There were then no women to make wives of.\n\n8. Why did Cain build a city (see Gen. iv. 17), when there was nobody to\ninhabit it?\n\n9. As there were \"workers of iron and brass\" in this city, does it not\nfurnish evidence that there was a race of people who had attained a high\nstate of civilization before Adam was made?\n\n10. And as brass is not an ore, but a compound of copper and zinc, does\nit not furnish evidence that the mining business and the mechanic arts\nwere carried on long before Adam's time?\n\n11. If Cain did find a wife in the land of Nod, is it not evidence that\nsome ribs had been converted into women before Adam's time?\n\n12. Where did Cain find carpenters and masons to build his city, if his\nfather and mother constituted the whole human race?\n\n13. Did not Jehova know when he accepted Abel's offering and rejected\nCain's, that he was sowing the seeds of discord that would lead to\nmurder?\n\n14. And did he not set a bad example by showing partiality, as there is\nno reason assigned for preferring Abel's offering?\n\n15. Had not Cain just ground for believing that his offering of herbs\nwould be accepted, inasmuch as Jehovah had ordered Adam to use herbs for\nfood?\n\n16. Must we conclude that Jehovah had a carnivorous appetite, which\ncaused him to prefer animals to vegetables for sacrifices?\n\n17. What sense was there in dooming Cain to be a vagabond among men,\nwhen there was but one man in the world, and that his father?\n\nIII. THE ARK OF THE COVENANT, ABSURDITIES OF.--1 SAM. CHAP. VI.\n\nWe find no case in any history of superstition reaching a more exalted\nclimax than that illustrated in the history of the Jewish ark of the\ncovenant. It appears that up to the time of Solomon the Jews had no\ntemple for their God to dwell in, but for some time previous hauled him\nabout in box, about four feet long by thirty inches deep, known as the\n\"ark of the covenant\". Let it not be supposed that we misrepresent\nin saying that Jehovah was supposed to dwell in this box; for it is\nexplicitly stated that he dwelt between the cherubims, which constituted\na part of the accoutrements of the ark. (See 1 Sam. iv.)\n\nOne of the most singular and ridiculous features connected with this\nstory is, that Jehovah, in giving instructions for the construction of\nthe ark, told the people they must offer, among other curious things,\nbadger-skins, goat's hair, and red ram's skins (i.e., ram's skins dyed\nred). What use God Almighty could have had for the hides and hair of\nthese dead animals is hard to conjecture. Could superstition descend\nlower than this? As minute a description is given of the whole affair by\nJehovah and Moses as if there were some sense in it. The box was hauled\nabout by two cows; and it was enjoined that those selected by the\nPhilistines should be cows that had never been worked or harnessed, and\nthat their calves should be shut up and left at home. This is descending\nto a \"bill of particulars.\" The calves must have suffered, as their dams\nwere driven far away and then slaughtered. What became of the calves is\nnot stated; but we are told that the cows kept up a continual bellowing,\nor \"lowing.\" Perhaps this was designed as a kind of base or tenor for\nthe music which accompanied them; and this accounts for the calves being\nleft at home. It is curious to observe that the cows were not yoked to\nthe cart on which the ark was drawn, but tied to it,--probably by their\ntails. The Jews did not seem to possess sufficient mechanical skill\nor genius to invent an ox-yoke. Another singular part of this singular\nstory is, that the Philistines constructed six golden mice to accompany\nthe ark; and yet we are told that the Jews were not allowed to have\nimages of any thing (Ex. xx. 4). The most serious consideration\nconnected with this affair was the vast destruction of human life. In\nthe first place the Philistines, in a battle with the Lord's people,\nslew thirty thousand of them, and captured this box, as we must presume,\nwith the Lord in it. It seems strange that, when Jehovah had fought so\nmany successful battles, he would allow himself to be captured. It was\nsome time, too, before he was recovered from the Philistines. When\nthis was effected, as the ark was being conveyed back under the\nsuperintendence of David, with a company of thirty thousand people,\nwhile passing over some rough ground, the cart jostled, and the ark came\nnear being thrown off, with the Lord Jehovah in it, who would probably\nhave been considerably bruised by the fall. But a very clever man by\nthe name of Uzzah clapped his hand upon the cart to prevent this awful\ncatastrophe; and, although probably actuated by the best and most pious\nmotives, he was immediately killed for it. This part of the story has\na bad moral. On another occasion, on the arrival of the ark at\nBethshemesh, because one or two persons attempted to gratify a very\nnatural curiosity by looking into the ark, Jehovah became so much\nenraged that he killed fifty thousand of the people of Bethshemesh.\nHere is another of the many cases in which thousands of innocent people\nwere punished for the sin of one man or a few persons. How can any good\ngrow out of the relation of such unjust, unprincipled, and superstitious\ndoings recorded in a book designed for the moral instruction and\nsalvation of the world? We are told that at every place to which this\nbox was carried, while in the hands of the Philistines, it caused death\nand destruction, or some other serious calamity. At Ashdod it produced\ndisease and destruction among the people to an alarming extent; and\nsimilar results followed while the ark was at Ekron. Assuming that there\nis any truth in the story, the thought is here suggested that the box\nmight have been affected with some malarious disease. While at Jagon\nit caused the God of that place to fall down in the night from his\nresting-place; on the second night he lost both his hands. Who that is\nacquainted with Jewish history can not sec that this circumstance is\nrelated to show that the God of the Jews was superior to other Gods, as\nhe excelled them in working miracles, in Egypt and other places? That it\nwas a borrowed tradition is quite evident from the fact that the Hindoos\nand Egyptians had practiced similar rites and customs anterior to that\nperiod.\n\nThe Hindoo ark was carried on a pole by four priests; and, wherever it\ntouched ground, it wrought miracles in the shape of deaths and births,\nor the outgushing of springs of water. The Egyptian ark was constructed\nof gold, which probably made the box more valuable than the God within.\nAll such wooden or metal Gods were supposed to operate as talisman, or\nprotection against evil. When will the believers in divine revelation\nand divine prodigies learn that all such superstitious customs and\ninventions were the work of men, and not of God?\n\nIV. KORAH, DATHAN, AND ABIRAM, ABSURDITIES.--NUM. CHAP. XVI.\n\nThese three leading men of Israel, growing tired of the tyrannical\nusurpations of Moses, concocted a mutiny, in which they succeeded in\nenlisting some two hundred and fifty persons. When Moses learned what\nwas on foot, this \"meek man\" became very angry, and reported the case to\nJehovah, and requested him not to accept their offering when they came\nto make their usual oblations. The Lord took Moses' advice, and not only\nrefused their offering, but split the ground open where they stood, so\nthat they fell in, and were seen no more. And, when their two hundred\nand fifty followers saw this, they fled, fearing they might share the\nsame fate. But that expedient did not save them: \"a fire came out from\nthe Lord,\" and consumed the whole number. It must have been a fearful\nfire to consume so many while they were running. The fire came from the\nLord; but where the Lord was at the time we are not informed,--whether\nsitting on his throne in heaven, or standing beside the altar, as he\nfrequently did. Hence we can not tell whether the fire came from heaven,\nas it did on some other occasions, or from below. It must have been a\nvery aggravated case of rebellion; for God and Moses both got angry at\nonce, which was something rather unusual. It was customary, when Jehovah\ngot angry and made severe threats of what he would do, for Moses to\ninterfere, and intercede for his people, and try to cool him down;\nand, by the power of his logic and eloquence, he mostly succeeded in\nconvincing him that he was wrong, and got him to desist from carrying\nhis threats into execution. But, on this occasion, Moses, being angry\nhimself, let him take his own course. But the most unjust and unmerciful\nact in the whole transaction was that of Jehovah sending a plague, and\ndestroying fourteen thousand more, merely because they mourned for their\ndestroyed friends, and ventured to complain of the course he and Moses\nwere pursuing. It was certainly cruel to destroy them for so slight an\noffense. It appears that, by Aaron's standing \"between the dead and\nthe living, the plague was stayed.\" But for this timely interference\nof Jehovah's high priest, there is no knowing when or where the plague\nwould have stopped. Now, is it not something near akin to blasphemy to\ncharge such nonsense--ay, worse than nonsense, _cruelty, injustice, and\nmalignity_--to the just God of the universe?\n\nV. THE STORY OF DANIEL AND NEBUCHADNEZZAR.\n\nWe shall not attempt to present an exposition of all the absurdities\nwhich abound in the Book of Daniel, but will merely notice a few of its\nmost incredible statements. The most amusing chapter in the history of\nDaniel is his interpretation of the dreams of King Nebuchednezzar. It\nappears that on one occasion the king had forgotten his dream, which\nmade it ostensibly necessary for Daniel, before interpreting it, to\nreproduce it. But who can not see it was not necessary for him to do\neither to save his reputation and his life, both of which it appears\nwere at stake? If he were possessed of an active, fertile imagination,\nhe could invent both, and palm them off on to the king as the original,\nwho would be perfectly unable to detect the trick, as he knew nothing\nabout either. It is stated that one of the dreams consigned the king\nto the fate of eating grass like an ox for three years. In all such\nincredible stories which abound in the Christians' Bible, we find\nglaring absurdities, which a little reflection would reveal to the\nreader if he would allow himself to think. There is a palpable absurdity\nin this story which shows that, the conversion of the king into an ox us\na punishment could not have achieved that end. If he were converted into\nan ox, his reason was gone, and he was unconscious of his condition; and\nhence it was no punishment at all. Or, if he still retained his reason,\nhe had nothing to do but to walk away, and find food more congenial to\nhis appetite than grass. And thus the story defeats itself. It is stated\nhis hair became like eagles' feathers, and his nails like the claws of\na bird (Dan. iv. 33),--a very singular-looking ox surely. It would have\nbeen more appropriate to call such a being an eagle or a dragon. Such is\nthe careless and disjointed manner in which all Bible stories are told,\nas if related by mere ignorant children. The most conclusive \"knock-down\nargument\" to the truth of this story is found in the fact that\nno allusion to this astounding miracle can be found by any of the\nhistorians of that or any other nation. Had the king been transformed\ninto an ox, the history of his own nation (the Persians) would abound in\nallusions to the marvelous fact. Its silence on it settles the question.\n\nWe will occupy sufficient space to allude to one incident in the story\nof \"the three holy children,\" which we find related in the Book of\nDaniel. It is stated that a being who looked \"like the Son of God\"\nwas seen by the king walking in the furnace. To be sure! We are quite\ncurious to know how he found out how the Son of God looks. How long\nhad he lived in heaven with him so as to become familiar with his\ncountenance? What silly nonsense!\n\nVI. SODOM AND GOMORRAH.\n\nStory of Sodom and Gomorrah. We are seemingly required by this story to\nbelieve that God keeps a manufactory of brimstone in heaven; for we are\ntold that \"the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire\nfrom the Lord out of heaven\" (Gen. xix.). If we credit this story, we\nmay infer that the Lord keeps a supply of the article on hand, perhaps\nto be let down occasionally to replenish the bottomless pit.\n\nThe science of chemistry has demonstrated within the present century\nthat the air is composed of nitrogen and oxygen; and it has also\ndemonstrated that oxygen gas and sulphur or brimstone, when brought into\ncontact, are, with a moderate amount of heat, dissolved, united, and\nconverted into oil of vitriol. Hence, if fire and brimstone rained from\nheaven in that climate, it is scientifically and chemically certain that\nthe people were pelted with a shower of the oil of vitriol.\n\nOne square mile of the earth's surface in that locality would be\nsupplied with about thirteen thousand million pounds of oxygen. The\nrequisite amount of brimstone to convert this into oil of vitriol would\nbe about ten thousand million pounds, making in the whole twenty-three\nthousand millions of pounds.\n\nThis would have been sufficient to spoil all the Sunday garments of the\npeople, but could not have burned them up; for cold oil will not burn,\nand the fire and brimstone would have been converted into oil long\nbefore they reached the earth, and become too cool for the heat to\ninjure any thing.\n\nWe are told that several cities were destroyed by this divine judgment.\nAnd pray how many cities could exist in a hot and arid desert, where\nthere was not a drop of water that a human being could drink?\n\nVII. TOWER OF BABEL.\n\nOf all the stories ever recorded in any book, disclosing on the part of\nthe writer a profound ignorance of the sciences,--embracing, at least,\nastronomy, geography, and philosophy.--that of the Tower of Babel was\nprobably never excelled. A brief enumeration of some of its absurdities\nwill disclose this fact.\n\n1. We are told (in chap. xi. of Genesis), that, after God had discovered\nby some means that \"the children of men\" were building a city and a\ntower to reach to heaven, he \"came down to see the city and the tower\"\n(Gen. xi. 6). The statement that he \"came down\" implies that he was a\nlocal being, and not the omnipotent and omnipresent God.\n\n2. If he were not already present, and had to travel and descend in\norder to be present, we should like to know what mode of travel he\nadopted. It appears from the story that, if he came down, he must have\nreturned almost immediately, and descended a second time; for, after\nthis, he is represented as saying, \"Go to, let us go down, and there\nconfound their language\" (Gen. xi. 7).\n\n3. Who was this \"us?\" The use of this plural pronoun \"us\" implies that\nthere were several Gods on hand.\n\n4. And, if he came down, who did he leave in his place? Must we assume\nthere is a trinity of Gods? But it would be superlative nonsense to\nassume that the three Gods could be one (as Christians claim) if one of\nthem could leave the kingdom.\n\n5. How did the writer know that he or they talked in this manner, as he\ncould not have been present in person to hear it?\n\n6. In this same chapter the \"inspired writer\" tells us, \"The whole\nearth was of one language and one speech\" (Gen. xi. 1). In the preceding\nchapter there is a long list of different tongues, or languages, and\nnations; and it is declared they were \"divided in their lands, everyone\nafter his tongue, families, and nations.\" How contradictory!\n\n7. What a childish and ludicrous notion the writer entertained with\nrespect to heaven when he cherished the belief that a tower could be\nerected to reach it!\n\n8. According to St. Jerome the Tower of Babel was twenty thousand feet\nhigh. A Jewish writer says it was eighty thousand. In the first case\nit would be nearly four miles in height; in the other, over fifteen\nmiles,--nearly three times the height of the highest mountain on the\nglobe! No method has ever yet been discovered for elevating building\nmaterials to such a height.\n\n9. Taking St. Jerome as authority, the hod-carriers, in ascending and\ndescending, would have to perform a journey of more than seven miles\neach trip.\n\n10. As the air becomes rarefied in proportion to its distance from the\nearth, the lungs of the workmen would have collapsed, and their blood\nhave congealed, before they climbed half-way to the top. They could not\nhave breathed at such a height.\n\n11. As the earth is constantly revolving on its axis, the crazy\ntower-builders would only be in the direction of the point at which\nthey aimed once in twenty-four hours, and then moving with a speed one\nhundred and forty times greater than that of a cannon-ball. It would\nrequire dexterous springing to leap into the door of heaven as they\npassed it.\n\n12. And as the earth, in its orbit, moves at the rate of sixty-eight\nthousand miles an hour, it would soon carry them millions of miles\nbeyond any point they might be aiming to reach.\n\n13. After all, we can not see any possible objection Jehovah or any\nother God could have had to such an enterprise.\n\n14. If the Babelites had succeeded in climbing into heaven, what of\nit? Was Omnipotence afraid they would dispossess him of his throne,\nand seize the reins of government? If not, what could have been the\nobjection?\n\n15. And then it would not have taken the \"heavenly host\" fifteen minutes\nto tumble them out, as they did Michael and the dragon.\n\n16. The truth is, the imaginary God of the Jews was a. suspicious,\ncowardly, and jealous being. He was constantly getting into hot water.\nHe appeared to live in perpetual fear day and night that some other God,\nor some of his own creatures, would encroach upon his rights. In\nthis case he seemed to be alarmed for fear those ignorant, deluded\ntower-builders and wild fanatics would succeed in reaching the heavenly\nhome, perhaps bind him, and cast him out of his own kingdom. What\nsuperlative nonsense is the whole story! And yet millions believe it to\nbe divinely inspired, and many thousands of dollars have been spent in\nprinting it, and circulating it over the world.\n\nVIII. STOPPING THE SUN AND MOON,--ABSURDITIES OF THE STORY.\n\nOf all the stories that ever taxed the brain or credulity of a man of\nscience, that of Joshua stopping the sun and moon stands pre-eminent.\nThink of bringing to a stand-still that magnificent and immense luminary\nwhich constitutes the center of a solar system of one hundred and thirty\nworlds, all of which move in harmony with it. Such a catastrophe would\nhave broken one hundred and thirty planets loose from their orbits, and\ndashed them together in utter confusion, and would thus have broken up\nour solar system. The shock produced upon this earth would have thrown\nevery thing on its surface off into boundless space.\n\nFor a pun, man, on a little planet like this, to command the mighty sun,\nwhich is fourteen hundred thousand times as large as the earth, to stop\nin its grand career, would be comparable to an ant saying to a mountain,\n\"Get out of my way.\"\n\nAnd, when we look at the cruel and wicked purpose for which this\nstupendous miracle is said to have been wrought, we are shocked at the\ndemoralizing effect such lessons must have upon the millions who look\nupon it as the work of a just and righteous God.\n\nIt savors too much of blasphemy to assume that a God of infinite justice\nwould perform an act attended with such direful consequences, merely to\nallow the little, bloody-minded Joshua more time to blow out the brains\nand tear out the hearts of his enemies, guilty of no crime but that of\nbelieving in a different religious creed. Farewell to reason, justice,\nand morality, if we must subscribe to such moral lessons as this!\n\nAnd why did he have the moon stopped at midday, when it could not be\nseen, and was, perhaps, on the opposite side of the globe? Egypt, India,\nGreece, and Mexico all have traditions of the sun stopping, but, in most\ncases, have too much sense to stop the moon. Fohi of China had the sun\nstopped eight hundred and fifty years before Joshua, the son of Nun,\never saw the sun. Bacchus and other God-men of Egypt had it stopped four\ntimes. While in Greece Phaethon was set after it to hurry it up, and\nincrease its speed. A \"poor rule that will not work both ways!\" The\nChinese annals state that the sun stopped ten days during the reign of\nthe Emperor Yom. Argoon of India stopped it several days for his own\naccommodation.\n\nBut, unfortunately for the cause of religion, or rather religious\nsuperstition, no man of science, in any of these countries, has as much\nas noticed these world-astounding phenomena; and no writer, but one\nreligious fanatic in each case, has spoken of them,--a circumstance of\nitself sufficient to render them utterly incredible.\n\nIX. THE STORY OF SAMSON,--ITS ABSURDITIES.\n\nWere the story of Samson found in any other book than the Christian\nBible, it would be looked upon by Bible believers as one of those wild\nand incredible legends of heathen mythology with which all the holy\nbooks of that age abound. But it is accepted as true because found in\nthe Bible; and the Bible is considered to be true, partly because it\ntells such marvelous stories. It is assumed that they prove each other.\nPerhaps it is upon the presumption that \"it is a poor rule that will not\nwork both ways.\"\n\n1. We are told (Judg. chap. xiii.) that an angel appeared to the wife of\nManoah, and promised her a son; and Manoah seemed to be as well pleased\nabout the matter as his wife, and seemed to care but little whether the\nfather was a man or an angel or a God, and we are left in the dark as to\nwhich it was.\n\n2. It is rather a notable circumstance that the Jewish God and his\nangels seemed to have a great deal to do in trying to accommodate and\naid old women in becoming mothers, as in the case of Abraham's wife and\nManoah's wife, also Elizabeth and Mary in the New Testament, and other\ncases.\n\n3. The man or angel or God, whichever it was (for he is called by each\nname), that appeared to Mrs. Manoah, advised her to abstain from strong\ndrink, and to eat no unclean thing. Very good advice to be observed at\nany time; but it seems to imply that she was in the habit of using such\npernicious articles.\n\n4. And, when her child was born, he was called Samson, and was\nremarkable for his great strength, which is said to lie in his hair. The\nmighty denizens of the forest interposed no obstacle to his march; and\nhouses were but playthings, to be tossed in the air like balls. He is\nreported to have seized a lion and slain him when yet a boy, without a\nweapon of any kind. It would have been well if this mighty hero had been\npresent when Jehovah had a battle with the Canaanites (Judg. i. 19),\nas he would not probably have been defeated so easily because they had\nchariots of iron. Those vehicles of iron would have been mere straws for\nSamson. If their respective histories be true, he excelled Jehovah, both\nwith regard to strength and courage, in a severe contest.\n\n5. It is stated that, a short time after this young bachelor-hero had\nslain the king of the forest, as he was returning home from a visit to\nhis lady-love, he observed that a swarm of bees had taken possession of\nthe carcass, and filled it with honey.\n\nThose bees must have been very much less fastidious in their tastes and\nhabits than the bees of modern times; for the latter shun a carcass as\ninstinctively as death.\n\n6. Another remarkable circumstance connected with this case is, that the\nlong-haired bachelor thrust his hands through the bees, and tore out the\nhoney, regardless of their stinging mode of defending their rights.\nHis skin must have been as remarkable for toughness as his muscles for\nstrength.\n\n7. One of the most cruel, ungodly, and fiendish acts of this young hero\nwas that of murdering thirty men to get their garments, as a recompense\nto those thirty persons who solved his riddle; thus massacring\nthirty innocent persons in order to strip them of their garments,--an\nunprovoked and wanton murder. And yet it is declared, \"the spirit of God\nwas with him.\" What shocking ideas of Deity!\n\n8. Samson was evidently a \"free-lover,\" as he had intercourse with a\nnumber of women of doubtful character.\n\n9. His next great feat consisted in chasing and catching three hundred\nfoxes, and tying their tails together, and making a firebrand of them.\nIt must have been a good time to raise poultry after so many foxes\nhad disappeared, but certainly not before that event, if foxes were so\nnumerous.\n\n10. It seems strange that these \"tail-bearers\" of fire did not take to\nthe woods, instead of running through all the fields in the country, and\nsetting them on fire.\n\n11. The next feat was the breaking of two strong cords, with which his\narms had been bound by three thousand men. (See Judg. xv. 4). It is\ndifficult to conceive how three thousand men could get to him to tie\nthem, as it is intimated they did. His mode of being revenged after he\nhad snapped the cords was to seize the jaw-bone of an ass, and slay a\nthousand men; and, after he had killed these thousand men with the bone,\nthere was enough of it left to contain a considerable amount of water.\nIt is related that the Lord clave a hollow in it, and there came out of\nit water to quench Samson's thirst.\n\n12. Asses seem to figure quite conspicuously in Bible history. Sometimes\nthey talk and reason like a Cicero, as in the case of Balaam; and they\nserve other important ends in the histories of Abram and Job (who had a\nthousand) and Samson, and also that of Jesus Christ, who is represented\nas riding two at once. In the hands of Samson the jaw-bone of an ass was\nmore destructive than a twenty-four pound cannon, besides furnishing him\nwith water sufficient to supply his thirst.\n\n13. Another feat of this young Hercules was that of carrying away the\ngate and gate-posts of the city of Gaza, in which the keepers had shut\nhim up while lodging with a harlot. Most of his female companions seem\nto have been licentious characters; and yet \"the Lord favored him\"!\n\n14. It is said \"the spirit of the Lord moved Samson\" (Judg. xiii.\n25). It would seem that the spirit of the Devil did also; for he had\na terrible propensity for lying. He lied even to his own wife three or\nfour times. He once deceived her by telling her that his strength could\nbe overcome by tying him with green withes; and yet he snapped them like\ncobwebs. He then virtually confessed to her that he had lied, but told\nher that new ropes would accomplish the thing; and yet he was no sooner\nbound with them, than he freed his limbs as easily as a lion would crawl\nout of a fish-net. The next experiment in lying and tying appertained to\nhis hair. He told his sweet Delilah, that, if she would weave his seven\nlocks of hair into the web in the loom, he would be as weak as another\nman; but he walked off with the web and the whole accouterments hanging\nto his head, as easily as a wolf would with a steel trap dangling to his\nfoot. Why did not the hair pull out by the roots? he then told her the\ntruth, as was assumed, but which was evidently the biggest falsehood he\nhad uttered,--that his strength lay in his hair, and that his strength\nwould depart if his hair were to be shorn off. But if there were any\nphysical strength incorporated in the hair, so that it would flow into\nthe brain and down into the muscles when wanted to be used, men would\nnot frequent barber-shops, as they now do, but let it grow ten feet long\nif necessary.\n\n15. The last great act in this drama of physical prowess was that of\noverthrowing a house with three thousand people on the roof. (Modern\narchitecture don't often produce a roof large enough or strong enough\nto sustain three thousand people. This feat would require more strength\nthan to conquer the battalion armed with chariots of iron!)\n\n16. And in all this unholy and wicked business of lying, cheating, and\nmurdering, \"the Lord was with him.\" This is a slanderous imputation upon\nDivine Perfection and Holiness.\n\n17. No good that we can discover, but much evil, was accomplished by the\npractical life of this extraordinary man. He was ostensibly raised up\nto redeem Israel; and yet, immediately after his death, the Philistines\ngained a complete victory over the Israelites, and took prisoner the\nark of the Lord, and reduced them to a worse condition than they were in\nbefore.\n\n18. We can not escape the conviction that such stories have a\ndemoralizing effect upon those who read them, and believe they have the\ndivine approval.\n\n19. For seeming to treat the subject in a spirit of ridicule, I\nwill cite a Christian writer as authority, who says, \"He who treats\nabsurdities with seriousness lowers his own dignity and manhood.\"\n\n20. Such stories as the foregoing can certainly do nothing toward\nimproving the morals of the heathen by placing the book containing it in\ntheir hands.\n\nX. STORY OF JONAH,--ITS ABSURDITIES.\n\nThe history of Jonah is so much like numerous stories we find in heathen\nmythology that we are disposed to class it with them. Its absurdities\nare numerous, a few of which we will point out:--\n\n1. It represents Jonah as claiming to be a Hebrew; but as it says\nnothing about the Jews or Hebrews, and treats entirely of the heathen or\nGentiles, that is probably its source, and it was perhaps intended as a\nfable.\n\n2. The ship he boarded, when making his escape, was a heathen vessel,\nwhich implies that he had some affinity for that class of people.\n\n3. It seems very singular, that if Jonah did not believe Jehovah to be a\nmere local personal deity, rather than the Infinite and Omnipresent God,\nhe should entertain the thought of running away from him or escaping\nfrom his presence by flight.\n\n4. The heathen who had charge of the vessel were evidently possessed of\nmore humanity and more mercy than either Jehovah or the leading men of\nIsrael, who seem to have made it a point to kill nearly all the heathen\nthey could lay their hands on; as did Abram, Moses, Joshua, &c. For it\nis stated, that after they had cast lots to find who was the cause of\nthe storm which overtook the ship, and in this way discovered it was\nJonah, they strove with all their might to get the vessel to the\nshore, rather than resort to the desperate expedient of throwing Jonah\noverboard. This bespeaks for these heathen a feeling of mercy and\nhumanity.\n\n5. We learn by the language these heathen used in their prayer to stop\nthe storm, \"We beseech thee, O Lord,\" &c., that they believed in one\nsupreme God. Where, then, is the truth of the claim of the Jews that\nthey alone believed in one God, or the unity of the Godhead? In this way\ntheir own Bible often proves this claim was false; that the nations they\nhad intercourse with believed in one supreme and overruling God.\n\n6. It is stated, that after Jonah was thrown overboard, and was\nswallowed by a fish, he prayed to the Lord. How was this discovered? Did\nhe pray loud enough to be heard through the sides of the whale? or did\nthe fish open its mouth for his accommodation?\n\n7. As for the prayer, it appears to have been made up of scraps selected\nfrom the Psalms of David without much connection, or relevancy to the\ncase.\n\n8. It is stated that the Lord spake to the fish, and it vomited Jonah\nupon the dry land. It must have been a very singular fish to understand\nHebrew or any human language.\n\n9. In another respect the whale must have been a peculiar one, or of\npeculiar construction. The throat of an ordinary whale is about the\ndiameter of a man's arm. It must therefore have been very much stretched\nto swallow Jonah, or Jonah must have been very much compressed and\nelongated.\n\n10. The gourd that sheltered Jonah must also have been of a peculiar\nspecies to have a vine that could grow several yards in one night,\nand stand erect so as to hold the gourd in a position to shelter\nthe prophet; and the gourd would have to be as large as a cart or\nlocomotive, or it would soon cease to afford him shade.\n\n11. Jonah seems to have been a very proud and selfish man, with but\nlittle of the feeling of mercy, as he preferred that the whole nation of\nNinevites should be destroyed rather than that his prediction should not\nbe fulfilled, for he became very angry when he found the Lord was going\nto spare them.\n\n12. The reason the Lord assigns for sparing Nineveh is a very sensible\none,--because \"there are more than threescore thousand persons that can\nnot discern between their right and their left hand.\" This is certainly\nvery good reasoning; but why did he not think of this when millions of\ninnocent persons perished in the act of drowning the whole human race,\nexcepting four men and four women, or when Sodom and Gomorrah were\nswallowed up, or when seventy thousand were killed for a sin committed\nby David, or in the numerous cases in which a war of extermination was\ncarried on against whole nations, with the order to slay men, women, and\nchildren, and \"leave nothing alive that breathes\"? Why such partiality?\nBut this is one of the two thousand Bible inconsistencies.\n\n13. This is a very poor story, with a very bad moral. It indicates\nfickleness, short-sightedness, and partiality on the part of Jehovah;\nand selfishness and bad temper on the part of his prophet.\n\n14. There are other absurdities in this story which we will bring to\nview by a few brief questions.\n\n15. Why did Jehovah care any thing about the salvation or welfare of\nNineveh, a heathen city, when usually, instead of laboring to save the\nheathen, he was plotting their destruction?\n\n16. What put the thought into the heads of the mariners, that the storm\nwas caused by the misconduct of some person on board? Can we suppose\nthey ever knew of such a case? If the misconduct of human beings could\nproduce storms or a disturbance of the elements, the world would be\ncursed by a perpetual hurricane.\n\n17. We are told the sailors cast lots to ascertain who was the cause of\nthe storm. Rather a strange way of investigating the cause of natural\nevents.\n\n18. Is it not strange that Jehovah would bring on a violent storm on\nJonah's account, and continue it for hours, and let him sleep during\nthe time; and still stranger that Jonah was so indifferent that he could\nsleep in such a storm?\n\n19. Jonah must have been the most considerate and merciful sinner\never reported in history to propose himself that he should be thrown\noverboard as a means of allaying the storm, and saving a set of gambling\nheathen. What a wonderful freak of mercy and justice! But it seems to\nhave been all exhausted on the mariners, so that he had none left for\nthe poor Ninevites; for he became very angry when he found Jehovah was\nnot going to destroy them, the innocent and guilty and all together.\nThis was inconsistent, to say the least.\n\n20. What must have been the astonishment of the crew of the hundreds\nof ships sailing on the same sea to observe a sudden storm to arise and\nstop without any natural cause! And when they afterwards learned that\nthe whole thing was brought about by the misconduct of one man in one of\nthe vessels, perhaps hundreds of miles distant, they must have abandoned\nall idea of ever looking again for natural causes for storms after\nthat occurrence. How repressing such events would be to the growth and\ncultivation of the intellect, and the study of the natural sciences!\n\n21. How could Jonah remain three days in the whale's stomach without\nbeing digested, as fish have astonishing digestive powers? And, if he\nwere not digested, both he and the fish must have been extremely hungry\nat the end of the three days' fast.\n\n22. As a fish large enough to swallow Jonah could not swim through the\nshoal-water to reach the land, it becomes an interesting query to know\nhow it got Jonah on to \"the dry land.\" It must have required the use of\na powerful emetic to inspire the fish with force sufficient to throw him\nfifty or a hundred feet.\n\n23. Is it not strange that Jonah's message to the Ninevites should have\nhad such a marvelous effect upon the whole city, when it was evidently\ndelivered in a language that none of them understood?\n\n24. We are told the king issued orders for everybody, including men,\nwomen and children, and beasts, to stop eating and drinking, and to be\ncovered with sackcloth. What sin can we suppose the beasts had committed\nthat they must be doomed to starve, and be covered with sackcloth as\nan emblem of repentance? It must have required an enormous amount of\nsackcloth to cover two millions of people, and probably as many domestic\nanimals. Where it all came from, the Lord Jehovah only knows. And it\nseems singular that all of the animals should stand quietly while such\nan uncouth covering was thrown upon them.\n\n25. It is also difficult to comprehend why a nation of people, who\nprobably never heard of Jehovah before, should all repent in sackcloth\nand ashes. It is the most effective missionary work we have ever read\nof. In modern times it requires two hundred missionaries a whole century\nto make half that many converts.\n\n26. But the most conclusive argument against the truth of the story\nis found in the fact that it is falsified by the testimony of history.\nAccording to her history by Diodorus, Nineveh was destroyed by Arbaces\nsixteen years before Jonah's time.\n\n27. I have noticed this senseless story at some length, because\nChristian writers have invested it with great importance, and because it\nis indorsed by nearly all the New-Testament writers. Even Christ himself\nindorses it, and compares Jonah's case to his. Their extreme ignorance\nis evinced by the foregoing exposition.\n\n28. Several similar stories are found in heathen mythology, a few of\nwhich we will briefly sketch here. The Hindoo sacred book, the Purans,\nstates that Chrishna was swallowed by a crocodile, and, after remaining\nthree days in its stomach, was thrown upon dry land, much to his relief\nand also to that of the crocodile. A Grecian demi-God (Hercules),\naccording to Gales, was swallowed by a dog, and remained in his stomach\nthree days. But the story entitled to the premium is one preserved\nin the legends of some of the Eastern islanders. A man, for some\nmisdemeanor on a voyage across the Indus, was thrown over-board, and\nswallowed by a shark; but, as the fish still followed the vessel, it was\nfinally caught, and search made for the man, when, to the surprise of\nthe whole crew, he was found sitting bolt upright, playing the tune of\n\"Old Hundred\" on a fiddle he had in his possession when he went down the\nthroat of the sea-monster. This was rather a pleasant way of putting in\nthe time. Jonah, it appears, was not so fortunate as to have a fiddle\nin his possession while in the stomach of the whale. The foregoing ten\nstories, from that of the serpent to Jonah, have been for hundreds of\nyears printed by the thousand, struck off in almost every known human\nlanguage, and sent off by ship-loads to almost every nation on the\nglobe, to be placed in the hands of the heathen as being _productions of\nInfinite Wisdom, the inspirations of an All-wise God_, and calculated to\n_enlighten_ them and _improve their morals_. What sublime nonsense! what\negregious folly! And what a deplorable and sorrowful mistake has been\nthus committed by the blinded disciples of the Christian faith!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.--BIBLE PROPHECIES NOT FULFILLED.\n\nHaving devoted a chapter to this subject in \"The World's Sixteen\nCrucified Saviors,\" we shall treat the subject but briefly in this work.\nThe Old Testament has been thoroughly searched for prophecies, and more\nthan a hundred texts selected, by various Christian writers, and assumed\nto be prophetic of some future event. But a critical and impartial\ninvestigation of the subject will show that not one of them is, strictly\nspeaking, a prophecy; but most of them refer to events either in the\npast, or events _naturally_ suggested by the circumstances under which\nthe writer was placed. And in many cases the text has no reference\nwhatever to the event which Bible commentators assume they refer to. In\ntreating the subject briefly, we will show,--\n\n1. That if one-fourth of the texts from Genesis to Revelation were\nprophecies, and it could be shown that every one of them has been\nfulfilled to the letter, it would not prove that there was any divine\ninspiration or divine aid in the matter; because many facts show that\nprophecy, or the power to discover future events, is a _natural_ and not\na supernatural, gift.\n\n2. Many cases are reported in history of the prediction of future\nevents by pagan or heathen seers, and also by persons not claiming to be\ninspired nor even religious. I will cite a few cases: Josephine, wife\nof Napoleon, relates that she had all the important events of her future\nlife pointed out to her by an ignorant, illiterate fortune-teller, long\nbefore they occurred; such as her marriage, her unhappy life, and the\ndeath of her husband,--all of which was fulfilled to the letter. An\nastrologer predicted the great fire in London. Rousseau foretold the\nFrench Revolution. Cicero made a remarkable prophecy, which was realized\nin the discovery of America and the history of George Washington by\nconsulting the Sibylline oracles. These, and many other cases that\nmight be cited, furnish satisfactory evidence that the capacity for\nforetelling the occurrence of future events is a natural and inherent\npower of the human mind, and hence can do nothing toward proving\nthe divine origin of any religion, or the divine illumination of\nany prophet. Therefore any further argument in the case would be\nsuperfluous. We will only briefly review a few of the Jewish prophecies\n(or texts assumed to be prophecies) to show that the Jewish nation\noccupied a lower moral plane, and possessed less of the gift of prophecy\nthan some of the contemporary heathen nations. Hence Christian writers\nare wrong in assuming that the Jews alone possessed this power, while\nthey possessed it in a less degree than some of the Oriental prophets.\nProphecies (assumed to be) relating to Babylon, relating to Damascus,\nrelating to Tyre, relating to the dispersion of the Jews, relating to\nthe advent of Christ, &c., have been quoted time and again by Christian\nwriters and clergymen, and dwelt upon at great length in attempts to\nshow their fulfillment, in order to deduce therefrom the argument and\nconclusion that the Jewish nation were divinely commissioned to furnish\nthe world with a true system of religion and morals. But we are prepared\nto show that _every one_ of these prophecies so called has _utterly\nfailed_ of any fulfillment in the sense that writers and preachers\nassume. As it would require a large work to treat this subject fully, we\nshall only briefly refer to one or two cases as samples of the whole. As\nBabylon and Tyre are the most frequently referred to, and are regarded\nas the strongest cases, our attention will be confined to them. Relative\nto Babylon, Isaiah says, \"It shall not be dwelt in from generation to\ngeneration; neither shall the Arabian pitch his tent there\" (Isa. xiii.\n19): but he says, \"It shall be inhabited by wild beasts of the desert\nand satyrs and dragons,\"--not one of which predictions has ever been\nrealized. It is still inhabited, though its name has been changed to\nHillah, which has now a population of about nine thousand. So far from\nthe \"Arabian not pitching his tent there,\" it is the very thing they\nhave done, and are now doing daily. Mr. Lay-ard, who recently visited\nthe place, says, in his work (\"Nineveh and Babylon\"), \"The Arab\nsettlement showed the activity of a hive of bees.\" What a singular\nrebuff to Isaiah's prophecy, and also to that of Jeremiah, who says it\nshould become a \"perpetual desolation\" (xxv. 12), and that it should not\nbe dwelt in by man nor the son of man! (Jer. 1. 40.) Isaiah declared,\n\"Her days shall not be prolonged\" (Isa. xiii). And thus the prophecies\nhave all failed which refer to Babylon. Speaking of Tyre, Ezekiel says,\nit should be taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and trodden down by his chariots\nand horses; and \"thou shalt be built no more, and thou shalt never be\nfound again.\" And yet Tyre never was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, nor by\nany power; and, although it has suffered like other Eastern cities, it\nis still a flourishing city with a population of about five thousand.\n\nSt. Jerome spoke of it in the fourth century as being \"the most noble\nand beautiful city in Phoenicia.\" And this was more than a thousand\nyears after Ezekiel's maledictions were pronounced against it, which\ndeclared it should be destroyed, and never be rebuilt. True, it has been\npartially destroyed several times,--and what ancient city has not?--but\nit has been rebuilt as often. We have, then, before us two illustrative\ncases of the failures of Jewish prophecies pronounced against\nneighboring cities and kingdoms, probably prompted by a spirit of envy\nand animosity because they had either overruled the Jewish nation, and\nsubjected it to their power, or outstripped it in temporal prosperity.\nThe Jewish prophets were continually fulminating their thunders and\ncurses upon those powers and principalities which had overpowered them,\nand held them in subjection. This was very natural; and occasionally an\nunpropitious prediction may have been realized. But it is a remarkable\nfact, that more than forty disastrous events, which the Jewish prophets\ndeclared the Lord would inflict upon Egypt (the nation they so much\ncontemned and envied because it held them in slavery for four hundred\nyears), have never been realized in the history or experience of\nthat nation. Some of these cases are noticed in \"The World's Sixteen\nCrucified Saviors,\" as also the prophecies and failures in regard to\nDamascus and other cities, to which the reader is referred for a further\nelucidation this subject.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.--MIRACLES, ERRONEOUS BELIEF IN.\n\nHaving treated the subject of miracles at some length in \"The World's\nSixteen Crucified Saviors,\" we shall give it but a brief notice in this\nwork, and will comprehend the whole thing in a few points.\n\n1. The history of miraculous achievements by Gods and men form a very\nlarge chapter in the \"inspired writings\" of nearly all the ancient\nreligious systems which have flourished in the world; and to notice all\nthese cases would require volumes enough to make a library.\n\n2. Almost the only evidence we have in any case of the actual\nperformance of a miracle is the report of the writer who relates it.\n\n3. St. Chrysostom declares that \"miracles are not designed for men of\nsense, but only for sluggish minds.\" It will be understood, therefore,\nthat what we write here on the subject will not be designed for persons\nof sense, but only for the ignorant and superstitious.\n\n4. Many things in the past which were set down as miracles are now known\nto be the result of natural causes; such as the rainbow, most cases of\nsickness, and, in fact, nearly every phenomenon of nature. And, as\nevery age develops new light on natural causes, it has made the list of\nmiracles not already explained so small, that we may reasonably conclude\nthat they will all yet be explained and understood in this light,\nexcepting those fabricated without any basis of truth.\n\n5. As God appears to have regulated every thing in the beginning by\nfixed laws, if he should break one of those laws by the performance of a\nmiracle, it would throw every thing into chaos and confusion, and prove\nthat he is not a God of order and stability.\n\n6. If God, as we are told, made every thing perfect, then the\nperformance of a miracle must make them imperfect, or prove that they\nhave always been imperfect.\n\n7. The performance of a miracle would prove that God is an imperfect\nbeing in not having every thing regulated by the laws of nature.\n\n8. If the performance of miracles can authenticate the truth of one\nreligion, then it must prove the truth of all religions; for all report\nmiracles of some kind, and furnish, in most cases, the same kind of\nevidence that these miracles were performed.\n\n9. There is not a miracle related in either the Old or New Testament\nthat has not a parallel reported in the Bibles or sacred writings of the\nOrientals; such as curing the halt and blind, raising the dead, crossing\nstreams in a miraculous manner, &c. Many cases are reported of the\nHindoo Savior and Son of God, Chrishna, raising dead persons who had\nbeen drowned, murdered, or died a natural death. According to Tacitus,\nVespasian performed a number of miraculous cures; such as curing the\nlame, restoring sight to the blind, &c., just as is related of Jesus.\nAccording to Josephus, Alexander with his army passed through the Sea of\nPamphylia in the same miraculous manner that Moses did through the Red\nSea. As Alexander's army was engaged in the work of human butchery, we\nmay assume that, if God could have had anything to do with it, he would\nhave embraced the opportunity to drown them, and wash them all away.\n\n10. _Jewish Miracles_.--The Jewish Talmud speaks of birds so large that\nthey darkened the sun, and shut out the light of the sun from the\nearth. Probably they supposed, like Moses, that nearly all the earth\nwas located between Dan and Beersheba. Another kind of bird was so tall,\nthat, when walking in a river seventy feet deep, the water only reached\nits knees. This is a tall story; but it should be remembered that it is\nrelated by the same people who tell us about sticks being converted\ninto serpents, water into blood, dust into lice, &c., and a man (Samson)\noverturning a house with several thousand people in it, &c. Hence all\nthese stones are equally reliable or unreliable.\n\n11. _Mahomedan Miracles_.--Mahomedans bear off the palm in miraculous\nprodigies. For instance, a cock is spoken of so large that the distance\nbetween its feet and head was five hundred days' journey. What a pity\nBarnum could not obtain it! Another example: an angel so large that the\ndistance between his eyes was seventy thousand days' journey. The head\nof this tall ghost must have been among the planets. The earth would\nhave been too small to furnish him with a seat; and the attempt to-use\nit for that purpose would probably have thrown it out of its orbit.\n\n12. _Christian Miracles_.--The early Christians seem to have had the\nwhole miracle-making machinery of heaven under their control. Their\nmiracles were prodigious and numerous. They claimed they could cast\nout devils, call the dead from their graves, and make ghosts walk about\neither end up. We are told that when a Mr. Huntingdon was reduced to\ngreat poverty and suffering, and prayed for divine assistance, fishes\ncame out of the water to him, and larks and leather breeches from\nheaven, to serve as food and clothing. It is difficult to conceive how\nleather breeches came to be stored in heaven. With these few specimens,\nselected at random, we will stop. They are too large even to excite our\nmarvelousness. The most ignorant and superstitious nations have always\nhad the longest creeds and the tallest miracles.\n\n13. We have stated that the only evidence of the performance of any\nmiracle in most cases is the simple narration of it by the writer who\nrecords it. The Roman Catholics, however, claim to have the testimony\nof thousands of reliable witnesses to attest to the performance of some\nextraordinary miracles which they have reported the history of; such\nas a picture of the Virgin Mary, hanging on the walls of the church,\nopening and shutting its eyes daily for six or seven months, which\nthey declare was witnessed by sixty thousand people, including Pope,\ncardinals, bishops, &c.,--leading men of the Church.\n\n14. There is as much evidence that Esculapius raised Hypolitus from the\ndead (as related by the Roman historian Pausanias), as that Elijah or\nChrist raised the dead; as much evidence that the serpent's egg inclosed\nin gold (as related by Pliny in his \"Arguinum Ovum\") swam up stream when\nthrown into the river, as that Elisha raised an ax to the surface of the\nwater by casting a stick into it (2 Kings vi. 6); as much evidence that\nMahomet opened a fountain of water in the end of his little finger, as\nthat Samson found a spring of water in the jaw-bone of an ass; as much\nevidence that Mahomet's camel talked to him, as that Balaam's ass was\nendowed with human speech; and as much evidence that Esculapius cured\nthe blind with spittle, as that Christ performed such cures. All stand\nupon a level; all lack the proof.\n\n15. Here let it be noted that many of the miracles recorded in\nthe Christian Bible are susceptible of an explanation upon natural\nprinciples; such as the shadow going back on the dial of Ahaz, as the\nphenomenon has been witnessed in some of the Eastern countries of the\nshadows appearing to recede, when the sun is near the solstice, once in\nthe forenoon and once in the afternoon. The story of the devils entering\nthe hogs may be explained by assuming the devils to have been frogs; for\nthey are described as being like frogs. (See Rev. xvi. 13.)\n\nThe resurrection of Lazarus may be explained by assuming him to have\nbeen in a state of coma, or trance; for Christ once declared, \"This\nsickness is not unto death,\" but \"he sleepeth\" (John xi). The bloody\nsweat of Christ, and his transfiguration, can also be explained on\nnatural principles; also Paul's conversion, and his miraculous cures\nwith a handkerchief. Dr. Newton, the great healer, has cured hundreds\nof cases in a similar manner. And the time will come when all real\noccurrences, now called miracles, will be accounted for, and understood\nas the operation of natural causes.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.--ERRORS OF THE BIBLE IN FACTS AND FIGURES.\n\nA spiritual or metaphorical interpretation, if allowable in any\ncase, can not avail any thing towards either removing, explaining, or\nmitigating, in the least degree, the numerous palpable Bible errors\nrepresented by _figures. \"Figures never lie_\" and admit of no\nconstruction. The almost innumerable errors, therefore, of this\ncharacter which abound in the Bible utterly and for ever prostrate it as\na work possessing any authority, reliability, or credibility in matters\nof history, science, or even theology. Bible writers, when they have\noccasion to refer to numbers which they are interested in making\n_appear_ very large, seem to make almost a lawless use of figures. I\nwill present some examples, stated in brief language, commencing with\nthe Pentateuch. The author of these five books, in speaking of the\ngenealogy, population, armies, &c., of his own tribe, makes use of\nfigures which are not only incredible, but utterly impossible. The\nnumber of valiant fighting men, for example, among the Israelites, is\nfrequently stated to be about six hundred thousand, and never less. (See\nExod. xii. and xxxviii.; Num. xxvi., &c.) This number, as Bishop Colenso\ndemonstrates, reaches far beyond the utmost limits of truth. If the\nregular army had been six hundred thousand, then the whole population\n(women and children included) could not have been less than two\nmillions,--a number which many facts, cited by the Bible writer himself,\ndemonstrate to be impossible. I would ask, in the first place, how Moses\ncould address all this immense congregation at once, as he is often\nrepresented as doing. (See Ex. xxiv. 3; Lev. xxiv 15; Num. xiv. 7, &c.)\nJoshua makes \"all the congregation\" to include women and children. But\nhow could Moses address this vast multitude of people, some of whom must\nhave been at least ten miles distant, unless he used a speaking-trumpet\nor a telephone, neither of which, however, had then come to light. The\nwriter of Deuteronomy says, \"Moses spake unto all Israel\" (Deut. i.\n1). But not one in a hundred could have heard it, therefore it was very\nnearly \"labor lost.\" And Joshua says Moses wrote out his commandments,\nand he read them \"before all the congregation of Israel\" (Josh. viii.\n35). But it would have required a voice as loud as thunder to make \"all\"\nof them hear. And it should be borne in mind that the people on these\noccasions were assembled in the tabernacle,--as we infer from many\ntexts,--a building one hundred and eight yards square, and capable of\nholding about five thousand people, which would be just one to four\nthousand of the congregation; so there were five thousand people inside,\nand one million nine hundred and ninety-five thousand outside. These\nlast, we are told, occupied the outer court, which was just eighteen\nfeet wide.\n\nThis would place the most distant hearers twenty miles off.\n\nHow comforting the thought, that, when Moses called them to the temple\nto worship (see Josh. viii. 35), they could get within twenty miles of\nhim and \"the tabernacle of the Lord\"! The Lord had built a tabernacle\nfor them to worship in, but only one or two in six thousand could get\ninside of it. This small number only could enjoy seeing and hearing\nMoses and the Lord.\n\nThe rest--one million nine hundred and ninety-five thousand--were\noutside, waiting for admission. Bishop Colenso estimates, the size of\nthe camp of Israel at about twelve miles square.\n\nThis camp was situated in a desert of Sinai for at least a year; and\nthe business of keeping this camp in order, waiting upon the people,\nand removing also, the remains of the daily sacrifice of two hundred\nthousand oxen, sheep, &c., devolved upon three priests,--Aaron, Eleazar,\nand Ithamar. It would be quite an improvement of the sacerdotal order\nif the priests of to-day could be subjected occasionally to some such\nhealthy exercise; but they have managed to get the rule reversed. They\nnow have the people to wait upon them. But those three priests of the\nIsraelites must have achieved a herculean task to wait each one upon\nthree hundred and thirty-three thousand people daily, and, after\npreparing their food outside the camp, travel twelve miles to supply\neach one of this vast multitude with food and water. If they carried\nprovision for only one person at a time, they would have had to perform\nthis journey of twelve miles five thousand five hundred times an hour,\nwhich would have required them to be rather fleet on foot. And, besides\nthe labor of carrying away every day, to the distance of six or seven\nmiles, five hundred cart-loads of the offal of the dead animals, there\nwould be at least one pound of victuals to be carried to each person,\nmaking, in the aggregate, five thousand five hundred pounds. They must\nhave enjoyed good health, if abundant exercise would produce it. They\ncould not have been much troubled with dyspepsia or liver-complaint, as\nmany of that order are nowadays.\n\n1. We are told that Moses gave notice to the children of Israel at\nmidnight, that they must take their departure from Egypt the next\nmorning for the promised land (Exod. xii.); but, if they constituted the\nimmense number represented, they would have made a column two hundred\nmiles long, arranging them five abreast, so it would have taken several\ndays for all to get started. How, then, could they all start the _next\nmorning?_ And how did they keep their two millions of sheep and cattle\nalive for several days while passing over a sandy desert too poor to\nproduce dog-fennel? And it is strange how the whole tribe of Israelites,\nif two millions in number, could live forty years in a wild, barren\ndesert, and keep their immense flocks and herds alive.\n\n2. The number of first-born male children over a month old, on a\ncertain occasion, is set down at twenty-two-thousand two hundred and\nninety-three, which would make about eighty-eight children for each\nmother. This was \"replenishing\" rapidly. But their little tents, like\nthe tabernacle of the Lord, would not accommodate one-fourth of that\nnumber. This would necessitate the mothers to leave most of their\nchildren \"out in the cold.\"\n\nThe number of the children of Israel that went down to Egypt, according\nto Exod. i. 5, was seventy souls; and they remained there during four\ngenerations, represented by Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses, making\na period (as marginal notes state) of two hundred and fifteen years;\nthough Exod. xii. 40, gives it at four hundred and thirty years. But\nthis is another case of incredible exaggeration Four generations of\nordinary length, in that age, would not exceed the marginal calculation\nof two hundred and fifteen years; and for those seventy souls to\nincrease to two millions in that short period of time, of four\ngenerations, would have required each mother to have had twelve or\nfifteen children at a birth.\n\n3. Dan, in the first generation, had but one son (Gen. xlvi. 23); yet\nin the fourth generation he had increased to sixty-two thousand seven\nhundred, or, according to Num. xxvi. 43, to sixty-four thousand, which\nwould have required each son and grandson to have had about eighty\nchildren apiece. This would have been \"multiplying and replenishing\" on\na rapid scale.\n\n4. Aaron and his two sons had to make all the offerings, and on an altar\nonly nine feet square; and an offering had to be made at the birth of\nevery child, which would require about five hundred sacrifices daily;\nand then there were thirteen cities where these offerings had to be\nmade, and only three priests to do it. (See Lev. i. 11.) And, besides,\nthe priests had to eat a large portion of the burnt offerings (see Num.\nxviii. 10); and, as these offerings consisted of five hundred lambs and\npigeons, it would subject them to the task of eating enormous quantities\ndaily.\n\n5. At the second passover, an offering had to be made for every family\n(Exod. xii.), which would require the slaughter of about one hundred\nand fifty thousand lambs. The three priests had to sprinkle the blood\nof these lambs; and it had to be done in about two hours (1 Chron. xxx.\n35). The lambs had to be sacrificed at the rate of about one thousand\ntwo hundred and fifty a minute, and each priest had to sprinkle the\nblood of more than four hundred lambs per minute with their own hands,\nwhich would make the affair rather a bloody business, if it were not\nwholly impossible, and therefore an incredible story.\n\n6. If we could credit the statements of \"the inspired writer\" of the\nbook of Numbers (see chap. xxxi.), we should have to believe twelve\nthousand Israelites, in a war with the Midianites, after selecting out\nthirty-two thousand young damsels, killed forty-eight thousand men,\neight thousand women, and twenty thousand boys; burned all their cities,\nand captured all their stock, amounting to eight hundred and eight\nthousand, and all this without the loss of a single man. Each Israelite\nwould have had to conquer seventy-five resisting enemies, including men,\nwomen, children, and stock. It is a story too incredible for serious\nreflection. We are told that the clothing of the Israelites lasted\nforty years \"without waxing old\" (see Deut. xxix. 5),--another story too\nincredible to be entertained for a moment.\n\n7. In Deuteronomy the priests are always called sons of Levi, or\n\"Levites;\" but, in the other books of the Pentateuch, they are always\ncalled \"the sons of Aaron,\" which is an evidence they were not written\nby the same hand. Contradictions. According to Exod. xviii. 25, Moses\nappointed judges over Israel before the giving forth of the law; but\n(Deut. i. 6) we are told that the appointment took place after the law\nwas issued at Sinai.\n\n8. According to Deuteronomy, chap. x., \"the Lord separated the tribe of\nLevi\" after the death of Aaron; but, according to Numbers, chap. iii.,\nthe separation took place before his death.\n\n9. According Exodus, God instituted the sabbath because he rested on\nthat day; but, according to Deuteronomy, it was because he brought the\nIsraelites out of Egypt \"by a stretched-out arm.\" In Deuteronomy, chap.\nxiv., every creeping thing that flieth is declared to be unclean, and\nis forbidden to be eaten; but in Leviticus, chap. xi., every creeping\nthing, including four kinds of locust, is allowed, and is prescribed as\na part of their food.\n\n10. In Exodus, chap. vi., God is represented as saying, \"By my name\nJehovah was I not known to them\" (the patriarchs). But he was mistaken;\nfor that name occurs frequently in Genesis. In 1 Sam. chap. viii., we\nare told the name of Samuel's first-born was Joel; and the name of\nhis second, Abiah: but in Chroniclcs, vi. 28., we are told the name of\nSamuel's eldest son was Vashni. Which is right?\n\n11. _Bad Bible Morals_.--Persons mutilated by accident, or otherwise\nin helpless condition, were excluded from the congregation of the Lord;\nwhile the guilty culprits who caused this mutilation were allowed free\naccess to the holy sanctuary. (Set Lev. xxi.) We consider this bad\nmorality. Innocent base-born children were also excluded from the\ntemple, while the guilty parents were allowed free admission.\n\n12. By the law of Moses and the will of God, as is claimed, parents were\nrequired to stone rebellious children to death; and yet the parents were\noften the cause of this rebellious disposition, and tenfold more guilty\nthan the children, having corrupted them by bad influences. (See Deut.\nxxi.) This is a specimen of Bible justice and Bible morality.\n\n13. _The Jews not Civilized_.--The Lord's chosen people possessed so\nlittle of the element of civilization, they had to go to the King of\nTyre to hire artisans and skilled workmen to build their temple. (See 2\nChron. ii. 3, and 1 Kings v. 6.)\n\n14. It is stated that it took one hundred and fifty-three thousand men\nseven years to build Solomon's temple,--and heathen at that. (See 2\nChron. ii. 17,18.) Strange, indeed, when it was only a hundred and ten\nfeet long, thirty-six feet wide, and fifty-five feet high! (1 Kings vi.\n2.) Some of our modern churches are much larger buildings, and generally\nerected in less than a year by less than a dozen workmen. It is\ncertainly very damaging to the exalted pretensions of \"the Lord's\npeculiar people\" that they possessed minds and intelligence so far below\nthe heathen, that no workmen could be found amongst them, and they had\nconsequently to go to these same heathen to hire workmen to build the\nLord's house. Such facts sink the reputation both of them and their God.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.--BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS-TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SEVEN.\n\nIt is difficult to conceive how any real benefit or any reliable\ninstruction can be derived from a book which contains statements with\nrespect to doctrines or matters of fact that are contradicted on the\nnext page, or in some other portion of the book; because it not only\nconfuses the mind of the reader, but renders it impossible for him to\nknow, as he reads a statement in one chapter of the book, that it is\nnot contradicted and nullified in some other chapter, until he has\nsacrificed sufficient time to commit the whole book to memory: and but\nfew persons have ever achieved that herculean task. Hence it must be\nan unreliable book as an authority. We know it has been stated by many\nadmirers of the \"Holy Book\" that it contains no conflicting statements\nwhen properly understood. But who is to decide when it is properly\nunderstood? Here, again, is a conflict of ideas. All words have certain\nspecific meanings attached to them by common consent. And certainly any\nman of good sense would not attempt to attach any other meaning to them,\nwithout stating the fact and clearly defining his new meaning, if he\nexpects any reader to understand him, or any two readers to understand\nhim alike; and, if he writes without giving a hint that he has invented\nor employed new meanings for the words he uses, we are compelled to\nassume that his words and language have the ordinary and universally\nadopted signification. With this view of the case (as the writers of the\nBible have given no hint that they employed new meanings), it is false\nto assume or say there are no contradictions in the Bible, when, if\nwe accept language with its ordinary and established signification, an\nhonest and unbiased investigation will show that it contains several\nthousand statements which conflict with each other or with science,\nhistory or moral truth, and hence must be totally unreliable as an\nauthority. To prove this, we will now enter upon the unpleasant task of\narranging and classifying a large number of these contradictions found\nboth in the Old and New Testaments.\n\nI. CONTRADICTIONS IN MATTERS OF FACT AND IN DOCTRINES.\n\n1. Was it death to eat the forbidden fruit? Yes: \"In the day thou eatest\nthereof, thou shalt surely die\" (Gen. II. 17). No: \"And all the-days of\nAdam were nine hundrcd and thirty years\" (Gen. v. 5).\n\n2. Can a woman, according to scripture, ever speak on religious matters?\nYes: \"The same man had four daughters--virgins--who did prophesy\" (Acts\nxxi. 9). No: \"I suffer not a woman to teach, but to be in silence\" (1\nTim. ii. 12).\n\n3. Should a man ever laugh? Yes: \"There is a time to weep and a time to\nlaugh\" (Eccles. iii. 4). No: \"Sorrow is better than laughter\" (Eccles.\nviii. 3). Yes: \"I commend mirth, because a man hath no better thing\nunder the sun than to eat, drink, and be merry\" (Eccles. vii. 15).\n\n4. What is our moral duty relative to trimming the hair on our heads?\n\"There shall no razor come upon his head,... let the locks of his head\ngrow\" (Num. vi. 5). \"If a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him\"\n(1 Cor. xi. 14).\n\n5. Is there any remedy for a fool? Yes: \"The rod of correction will\ndrive it far from him\" (Prov. xxii. 15). No: \"Though thou bray a fool\nin a mortar, yet will his foolishness not depart from him\" (Prov. xxvi.\n6).\n\n6. Should we pay a fool in his own coin? Yes: \"Answer a fool according\nto his folly\" (Prov. xxvi. 5). No: \"Answer not a fool according to his\nfolly\" (Prov. xxvi. 6).\n\n7. Is man's life threescore years and ten? Yes: \"The days of our years\nare threescore years and ten\" (Ps. xc. 10). No: \"His days shall be a\nhundrcd and twenty years\" (Gen. vi. 3).\n\n8. Is it desirable to be tempted? Yes: \"Count it all Joy to be tempted\"\n(Jas. i. 2). No: \"Watch and pray, that ye enter not Into temptation\"\n(Matt. xxvi. 41).\n\n9. Which is the tempter, God or the devil? The devil: The devil tempted\nChrist and Judas. (See Matt. iv. 1). God: God tempted David (2 Sam.\nxxiv. 1).\n\n10. Does the Lord ever tempt man? No: \"Neither tempteth he any man\"\n(Jas. i.13). Yes: \"And God did tempt Abraham\" (Gen. xxii. 1). No: \"He\nblinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts\" (John xii. 40).\n\n11. Can God be tempted? No: \"God can not be tempted\" (Jas. i. 13). Yes:\n\"They have tempted me, the Lord, ten times\" (Num. xiv. 22).\n\n12. Is any thing good? Yes: Every thing (1 Tim. iv. 4). No: \"Every thing\nis corrupt\" (Gen. vi. 12).\n\n13. How many Gods are there? One: \"The Lord our God is one Lord\"\n(Deut. vi.4). Several: \"Let us make man in our own image\" (Gen. i. 26).\nThree: \"There are three that bear record in heaven, Father, Son, and\nHoly Ghost\" (1 John v. 7).\n\n14. Is God omnipresent? Yes: David declares the Lord is everywhere, In\nheaven and earth, and even in hell (Ps. cxxxix. 7). No: \"The Lord came\ndown to see Sodom\" (Gen. xviii. 20). Yes: \"There is no place where the\nworkers of iniquity can hide themselves\" (Job xxxiv. 22). No: \"Adam and\nEve hid themselves from the presence of the Lord\" (Gen. iii. 8). No:\n\"Cain fled from the presence of God\" (Gen. iv. 16). Yes: \"Man can not\nget out of his presence\" (Ps. cxxxix. 7).\n\n15. Is God omniscient? Yes: \"He knoweth the hearts of all men\" (Acts\ni. 24). No: \"The Lord had to prove the Israelites, and also Abraham, to\nknow what was in their hearts\" (Deut. viii. and Gen. xxii.).\n\n18. Is God omnipotent? Yes: \"With God all things are possible\" (Matt.\nxix. 26). No: \"He could not drive out the Inhabitants of the valley,\nbecause their chariots were made of iron\" (Judg. i. 19).\n\n17. Is God unchangeable? Yes: With him \"there is no variableness,\nneither shadow of turning; I change not\" (Mal. iii. 6). No: \"And the\nLord repented of the evil he said he would inflict upon the Ninevites\"\n(Jon. iii. 10).\n\n18. Is God a merciful being? Yes: \"The Lord is very pitiful, and full\nof mercy\" (Jas. v. 11). No: \"I will not pity nor spare, nor have mercy,\nbut destroy\" (Jer. xiii. 14) Yes: \"His tender mercies are over all his\nworks\" (Ps. cxiv. 9). No: \"Have no pity on them, but slay both man and\nwoman, infant and suckling\" (Sam. xv. 2). Yes: \"His mercy endureth for\never\" (1 Chron. xvi. 34). No: \"I have taken away my loving kindness and\nmercies\" (Jer. xvi. 3).\n\n19. Does God over hate? No: \"God is love\" (1 John iv. 16). Yea: \"He\nhated his own inheritance\" (Ps. cvi. 40).\n\n20. Is God's anger perpetual? No: \"His anger endureth but a moment\" (Ps.\nxxx 5). Yes: \"Mine anger shall burn for ever\" (Jer. xvii. 4).\n\n21. Is God the author of evil? Yes: \"I make peace, and I create evil\"\n(Isa. xiv. 7). No: \"Out of his mouth proceeds not evil\" (Lam. iii. 38).\n\n22. Is God in favor of war? No: \"He is the God of peace.\" Yes: \"The Lord\nis a man of war\" (Exod. xv. 3). No: \"He is not the author of confusion,\nbut of peace\" (1 Cor. xiv. 33).\n\n23. Is the spirit of God for peace? Yes: It is \"love, peace, joy,\ngentleness, and goodness\" (Gal. v. 22). No: \"The spirit of the Lord came\nupon him, and he slew a thousand men\" (Judg. xv. 16). Yes: \"The spirit\nof the Lord begets love, peace, and goodness\" (Gal. v. 22). No: \"By the\nspirit of the Lord Samson slew thirty men\" (Judg. xiv. 19).\n\n24. Has any man seen God? Yes: \"Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Ablho, and the\nseventy elders of Israel\" saw the God of Israel (Exod. xxiv.9). No: \"No\nman hath seen God at any time\" (John i. 18). Yes: \"I have seen God face\nto face, and my life has been preserved\" (Gen. xxxii. 30). No: \"There\nshall no man see me, and live\" (Exod. xxxiii. 20). Yes: \"I saw also the\nLord standing upon the throne\" (Isa. vi. 1). No: \"Ye have never seen his\nshape\" (John v. 37).\n\n25. Can any man hear God's voice? Yes: \"I heard thy voice in the garden\"\n(Gen. iii. 9). No: \"Ye have never heard his voice at any time\" (John v.\n37).\n\n26. Does God dwell in light? Yes: \"He dwelleth in light which no man can\napproach to\" (1 Tim. vi. 16). No: \"The Lord said he would dwell in thick\ndarkness\" (1 Kings viii. 12).\n\n27. Does God dwell in temples? Yes: \"I have chosen this [Solmon's]\ntemple for a house\" (2 Chron. viii. 16). No: \"The Most High dwelleth not\nin temples made with hands\" (Acts xvii. 24).\n\n28. Does God ever tire? Yes: \"God rested, and was refreshed\" (Exod.\nxxxi. 17). No: \"God fainteth not, neither is he weary\" (Isa. xl. 28).\n\n29. Is God a respecter of persons? No: \"There is no respect of persons\nwith God\" (Rom. ii. 11). Yes: \"And God had respect to Abel and his\noffering\" (Gen.).\n\n30. Can God always be found? Yes: \"Those who seek me early shall find\nme\" (Prov. viii. 17). No: \"They shall seek me early, but shall not find\nme\" (Prov. i. 28).\n\n31. Does the Lord believe in burnt offerings? No: \"I delight not in the\nblood of bullocks or of lambs or of he-goats\" (Isa. i. 11). Yes: \"Thou\nshall offer every day a bullock for a sin-offering\" (Exod. xxix. 36).\n\n32. Does the Lord believe in animal sacrifices of any kind? No: \"Your\nburnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me\"\n(Jer. vi. 20). Yes: \"Burnt sacrifices are sweet unto the Lord\" (Lev i.\n9).\n\n33. Does God believe in human sacrifices? No: For he condemned the human\nsacrifices of the Gentiles. (See Deut. xii. 30.) Yes: \"For his anger was\nabated by David's hanging the five sons of Michal in the hill before the\nLord.\" (See 2 Sam. xxi. 8, and Judg. xi. 30.)\n\n34. Does God ever repent? Yes: \"It repenteth the Lord that he had made\nman\" (Gen. vi. 6). No: \"The Lord is not a man that he should repent\"\n(Num. xxiii. 19).\n\n35. Is all scripture given by inspiration of God? Yes: \"All scripture is\ngiven by inspiration of God\" (2 Tim. iii. 16). No: \"I speak it not after\nthe Lord\" (2 Cor. xi. 17).\n\n36. Is war and fighting right? No: \"They that take the sword shall\nperish with the sword\" (Matt, xxvi. 32). Yes: \"He that hath no sword,\nlet him sell his coat and by one\" (Luke xxii. 36). No: \"Beat your swords\ninto plowshares, and your spears into pruning-hooks\" (Mic. iv. 3). Yes:\n\"Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning-hooks into spears\"\n(Joel iii. 10). Yes: \"Cursed be he who keepeth back his sword from\nblood\" (Jer. xlviii. 10).\n\n37. Shall nation war against nation? Yes: \"Nation shall rise up against\nnation\" (Matt. xxiv. 7). No: \"Nation shall not rise up against nation\"\n(Mic. iv. 3).\n\n38. Shall we love our enemies? Yes: \"Love your enemies\" (Luke vi. 27).\nNo: \"Bring my enemies, and lay them before me\" (Luke xix. 27).\n\n39. Is hatred right? No: \"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer\"(1\nJohn iii. 15) Yes: \"You must hate father and mother, brother and sister,\n&c., or ye can not be true followers of Christ\" (Luke xiv. 26).\n\n40. Is anger commended? Yes: \"Be ye angry, and sin not\" (Eph. iv. 26).\nNo \"Anger resteth in the bosom of fools\" (Ecclcs. vii 9).\n\n41. Is it right to steal and rob? No: \"Thou shalt not steal\" (Exod. xx.\n15); \"Neither rob\" (Lev. xix. 13). Yea: The Israelites took from the\nEgyptians \"Jewels of silver and Jewels of gold, and raiment, and they\nspoiled the Egyptians\" (Exod. xii. 35).\n\n42. Is it right to kill? No: \"Thou shalt not kill\" (Exod. xx. 13). Yes:\n\"Kill every male child amongst them.\" Yes: \"Go ye out and slay every\nman his companion and every man his neighbor, and every man his brother\"\n(Exod. xxxii. 27).\n\n43. Is it right to lie on any occasion? No: \"All liars are to be\npunished with fire and brimstone\" (Rev. xxi. 8). Yes: \"Go put a lying\nspirit into the mouths of all the prophets\" ( I Kings xxii. 21). No:\n\"Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord\" (Prov. xii. 22). Yes: \"The\nharlot Rahab lied, and was justified by works\" (Jas. ii. 25). No: \"Say\nnothing but the truth\" (2 Chron. xviii. 15). Yes: \"If the truth of God\nhath more abounded through my lie for his glory, why am I adjudged a\nsinner?\" (Rom. iii. 7).\n\n44. Is God in favor of lying and deception? No: \"Thou shalt not bear\nfalse wit-ness\" (Exod. 20). Yes: \"If a prophet is deceived, I the Lord\ndeceived that prophet\" (Ezek. xiv. 9).\n\n45. Is a pious life a happy life? Yes: \"Come unto me, and I will give\nyou rest\" (Matt. xi. 28). No: \"In the world ye shall have tribulation\"\n(John xvi. 33).\n\n46. Will righteousness make a man happy? Yes: \"There shall no evil\nhappen to the just\" (Prov. xii. 21). No: \"It is through much tribulation\nthe righteous enter the kingdom of heaven\" (Acts xiv. 21). Yes: \"The\nrighteous shall flourish\" (Ps. xcii. 12). No: \"The righteous shall\nperish\" (Isa. lvii. 1). Yes: \"The prayer of the righteous availeth much\"\n(Jas. v. 16). No: \"There is none righteous; no, not one\" (Rom. iii. 10).\nYes: The righteous to be slain with the wicked (Ezek. xxi. 3). No: The\n\"righteous not to be slain\" (Exod. xxiii. 7).\n\n47. Can we live without sinning? Yes: \"Those born of God can not sin\" (1\nJohn iii. 9) No: \"There is no man that sinneth not\" (I Kings viii.\n46). Yes: \"He that committeth sin is of the devil\" (1 John ill. 8). No:\n\"There are none that doeth good, and sinneth not\" (Eccles. vii. 20).\n\n48. Does wickedness shorten a man's life? Yes: \"The years of the wicked\nshall be shortened\" (Prov. x. 27). No: \"The wicked live, and become\nold\" (Job xxi. 7). Shall we resist evil? Yes: \"Put away the evil of your\ndoings\" (Isa. i. 16). No: \"Resist not evil\" (Matt. v. 37).\n\n49. Who can know whether the golden rule is right or wrong? Right:\n\"Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do you even so unto\nthem\" (Matt. vii. 12). Wrong: \"Spare them not, but slay both man and\nwoman, infant and suckling\" (1 Sam. xv. 3).\n\n50. Is wisdom desirable? Yes: \"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom\"\n(Prov. iii. 13). No: \"Much wisdom is much grief, and he that increaseth\nknowledge increaseth sorrow\" (Eccles. i. 18). Yes: \"Get wisdom with all\nthy gettings\" (Prov. iv. 7). Yes: \"Be wise as serpents\" (Matt. x. 16).\nNo: \"The wisdom of the wise shall be destroyed\" (1 Cor. i. 19).\n\n51. Shall we aim at a good reputation? Yes: \"A good name is better than\nriches\" (Prov. xxii. 1). No: \"Woe unto you when all men speak well of\nyou\" (Luke vi. 26).\n\n52. Are riches desirable? Yes: \"The rich man's wealth is his strong\nCity\" (Prov. x. 15). No: \"Woe unto you that are rich\" (Luke vi. 24).\nYes: \"Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord,... wealth and riches\nshall be in his house\" (Ps. cxii.). No: \"Blessed be ye poor, for yours\nis the kingdom of God\" (Luke vi. 20).\n\n53. Can a righteous man be rich, or a rich man be saved? Yes: \"In the\nhouse of the righteous is much treasure\" (Prov. xv. 6). No: \"It is\neasier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich\nman to enter the kingdom of God\" (Matt. xix. 24).\n\n54. Does the Lord believe in riches? Yes: \"The Lord blessed Job with\nfourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke\nof oxen,\" &c. (Job xiii. 12). No: \"A rich man can not enter into the\nkingdom of heaven\" (Matt. xix. 24). Yes: \"Wealth and riches shall be in\nthe house of the man that feareth God\" (Ps. cxii. 1). No: \"Lay not up\nfor yourselves treasures on earth\" (Matt. vi. 19).\n\n55. Shall we use strong drink? No: \"Wine is a mocker, and strong drink\nis raging\" (Prov. xx. 1). Yes: \"Give strong drink to him that is ready\nto perish\" (Prov. xxxi. 6).\n\n56. Should we ever use wine? No: \"Do not use wine nor strong drink\"\n(Lev. x. 9). Yes: \"Use a little wine for the stomach's sake\" (Tim. v.\n23). No: \"Look not upon the wine when it is red\" (Prov. xxiii. 31). Yes:\n\"Give wine to him that is of heavy heart\" (Prov. xxxi. 6).\n\n57. Is it right to eat all kinds of animals? Yes: \"There is nothing\nunclean of itself; eat every moving thing\" (Gen. ix. 3). No: \"Swine,\nhares, and camels are unclean; ye shall not eat of their flesh\" (Deut.\nxiv. 7).\n\n58. Is it good to eat flesh? Yes: It is good to eat flesh (Deut. xii.\n20). No; It is not good to eat flesh (Rom. xiv. 21).\n\n59. Is man justified by works? Yes: \"Abraham was justified by works\"\n(Jas. ii. 21). No: \"A man can not be justified by works\" (Gal. ii. 16).\n\n60. Is man saved by faith? Yes: \"Man is saved by faith without works\"\n(Rom. iii. 28). No: \"Man can not be justfied by faith without works\"\n(James ii. 24).\n\n61. Should our works be seen? Yes: \"Let your light shine before men\"\n(Matt. v. 16). No: \"Do not your alms before men\" (Matt. vi. 1),\n\n62. Is public prayer right? No: \"Enter into thy closet, and shut thy\ndoor\" (Matt vi. 6). Yes: \"Solomon prayed before all the congregation\" (1\nKings viii. 22).\n\n63. How can it be a moral duty to pray, there being no certainty of an\nanswer? \"Every one that asketh receiveth\" (Matt. vii. 8). \"They that\nseek me early shall find me\" (Prov. viii. 17). \"Then shall they call\nupon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but shall not\nfind me\" (Prov. i. 28).\n\n64. Is man to be rewarded in this life? Yes: Both the righteous and the\nwicked an to be rewarded on earth (Prov. xi. 31). No: They are to be\nrewarded after death (Matt. xvi. 27).\n\n65. Are children punished for the sins of their parents? Yes: \"The\niniquities of the father are visited upon the children\" (Exod. xx. 6).\nNo \"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father\" (Ezek. xviii.\n20).\n\n66. Should marriage be encouraged? Yes: \"Marriage is honorable to all\"\n(Heb. xiii. 4). No: \"It is good for a man not to touch a woman\" (1 Cor.\nvii. 1).\n\n67. Is divorce right or wrong according to the Bible? Right: \"If thou\nhave no delight in her (thy wife), then thou shalt let her go\" (Deut.\nxxi. 11). Wrong: \"Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the\ncrime of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery\" (Matt. v. 32).\n\n68. Is it right to marry a brother's widow? Yes: \"If a man die\nchildless, his brother shall marry his widow\" (Deut. xxv. 5). No: \"To\nmarry a brother's widow is an unclean thing\" (Lev. xx. 21).\n\n69. Is it ever right to marry a sister? No: \"Cursed shall he be who\ndoes so\" (Deut. xxvii. 22). Yes: \"Abraham married his sister, and was\nblessed\" (Gen. xx. 2).\n\n70. Does the Bible allow adultery? No: \"Whoremongers and adulterers God\nwill Judge\" (Heb. xiii. 4). Yes: \"The Lord commanded Hosea to take a\nwife of whoredoms\" (Hos. i. 2).\n\n71. Is fornication sinful? Yes: \"You should abstain from fornication\"\n(1. Thess. iv. 8). No: \"Every woman who hath not known man by lying with\nhim, save for yourselves\" (Num. xxxi. 18).\n\n72. Should we always obey kings and rulers? Yes: \"To resist [them] is to\nresist the ordinance of God\" (Rom. xiii. 3). No: \"Whether it is right to\nobey God or man, judge ye.\" Yes: \"Submit yourselves to every ordinance\nof man for the Lord's sake\" ( 1 Pet. ii. 14). \"Whatsoever they bid you\nobserve, that observe and do\" (Matt, xxiii. S). No: \"We ought to obey\nGod rather than man\" (Acts v. 29).\n\n73. Is the obedience of servants a duty? Yes: \"Servants, obey your\nmasters\" (Col. iii. 22). No: \"Be ye not the servants of men\" (1 Cor.\nvii. 23).\n\n74. Is slavery right? No: \"Be not called master;\" \"Break every yoke\"\n(Isa. lviii. 6). Yes: \"Ye shall buy of the children of the stranger,\n&c., and they shall be your possession\" (Lev. xxv. 46). No: \"Proclaim\nliberty throughout all the land\" (Lev. xxv. 10).\n\n75. Who can tell if baptism is an obligatory ordinance? Yes: \"Go ye and\nteach all nations, baptizing them,\" &c. (Matt, xxviii. 19). No: \"Christ\nsent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel\" (1 Cor. i. 17).\n\n76. Is image-making right? No: \"Ye shall make no image of any thing\"\n(Exod. xx. 4). Yes: \"Moses made an image of a serpent\" (Num. xxi. 9).\n\n77. Is circumcision right? Yes: \"Except ye be circumcised after the\nmanner of men, ye can not be saved\" (Acts xv. 1). No: \"If ye be\ncircumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing\" (Gal. v. 2). Yes: \"Ye must\nbe circumcised\" (Acts xv. 24). No: \"Circumcision is nothing\" (Cor. vii.\n19).\n\n78. Is it right to swear? No: \"Swear not at all\" (Matt. v. 35). Yes: God\nswore eleven times, says the Bible.\n\n79. Why was the sabbath instituted? Because \"God rested on the sabbath\nday\" (Exod. xx. 11). Because \"he delivered his people on that day\"\n(Deut. vi. 15).\n\n80. Is it right to observe the sabbath? Yes: \"Remember the sabbath day\nto keep it holy.\" No: \"Your new moons and your sabbaths,... I can not\naway with. It is iniquity\" (Isa. i. 12).\n\n81. Is it right to judge? Yes: \"Judge righteous Judgment\" (John vii.\n24). No: \"Judge not, that ye be not judged\" (Matt. vii. 2).\n\n82. Can a man work miracles without divine aid? No: \"No man can work\nsuch miracles except God be with him\" (John iii. 2). Yes: \"The Egyptians\ndid in like manner with their enchantments\" (Exod. vii. 10).\n\n83. Can any man ascend to heaven? Yes: \"Elijah ascended in a chariot\nof fire\" (2 Kings ii.11). No: \"No man hath ascended up to heaven\" (John\niii. 13). Yes: \"All men must see death\" (Heb. ix. 27). No: \"Enoch did\nnot see death\" (Heb. xi. 5).\n\n84. Should we fear death? Yes: \"Christ walked not in Jewry because the\nJews sought to kill him\" (John vii. 1). No: \"Fear not them that kill the\nbody\" (Matt. x. 28).\n\n85. Will the earth ever be destroyed? Yes: \"The earth also shall\nbe burned up\" (2 Pet. iii 10). No: \"But the earth abideth for ever\"\n(Eccles. i. 4).\n\n86. Does the Bible teach a future life? Yes: \"They shall go away into\neverlasting punishment\" (Matt. xxv. 46). No: \"For that which befelleth\nmen befalleth beasts;... as the one dieth, so dieth the other,\" &c.\n(Eccles. iii. 19).\n\n87. Does the Bible teach a future resurrection? Yes: \"The dead shall be\nraised\" (Cor. xv. 52). No: \"They shall not rise\" (Isa. xxvi.14). Yes:\n\"The saints came up out of the ground\" (Matt, xxvii. 62). No: \"Those who\ngo down into the grave never come up again\" (Job vii. 9).\n\n88. Are the actions of men ever to be judged according to the Bible?\nFirst, \"The Father judgeth no man\" (John v. 22). Second, \"I [Jesus\nChrist] judge no man\" (John viii. 15). So there is to be no judgment.\n\n89. No: \"God saw every thing was corrupt\" (Gen. vi. 11). Yes: \"God saw\nevery thing he had made was good\" (Gen. i. 31).\n\n90. Yes: \"God forgives the sinner\" (Jer. xxxi. 34). No: \"God kills the\nsinner\" (Ezek. xviii. 20).\n\n91. Yes: \"God justifies the ungodly\" (Rom. iv. 5). No: \"God will not\nclear the guilty\" (Exod. xxxiv. 7).\n\n92. Yes: \"Man is justified by the law\" (Rom. ii. 13). No: \"Man can not\nbe justified by the law\" (Gal. iii. 11).\n\n93. Yes: \"Many have sinned without the law\" (Rom. ii.12). No: \"Where\nthere is no law there is no transgression\" (Rom. iv. 18).\n\n94. Yes: \"Heaven is a kingdom that can not be moved\" (Heb. xii. 18). No:\n\"I will shake heaven and earth\" (Heb. xii. 26).\n\n95. Yes: \"Every thing is afraid of man\" (Gen. i. 28). No: \"The lion is\nnot afraid of man\" (Prov. xxx. 30).\n\n96. Yes: \"Every man in his own tongue\" (Gen. x. 5). No: \"The whole earth\none tongue\" (Gen. xi. 1).\n\n97. Yes: \"All things are become new\" (2 Cor. v. 17). No: \"There is\nnothing new under the sun\" (Eccles. i. 9).\n\n98. Yes: \"You shall make a likeness of a serpent and a cherubim\" (Exod.\nxxv. 18). No: \"Make no likeness of any thing in heaven above or the\nearth beneath,\" &c. (Exod. xx. 4).\n\n99. Yes: \"Deborah the prophetess judged Israel\" (Judg. iv. 4). No: \"A\nwoman is not to judge or rule a man\" (1 Tim. Ii. 12).\n\n100. Yes: \"God's people shall be ashamed\" (Hos. x. 6). No: \"God's people\nshall never be ashamed\" (Ps. xxxvii. 19).\n\n101. Yes: \"Blessed are the fruitful\" (Gen. i. 28). No: \"Blessed are the\nbarren\" (Luke xxiii. 29).\n\n102. Yes: \"Edom being thy brother, do not abhor him\" (Deut. xxiii. 7).\nNo: \"He slew of Edom ten thousand\" (2 Kings xiv. 7).\n\n103. Yes: \"Bear ye one another's burdens\" (Gal. vi. 2). No: \"Every man\nmust bear his own burden\" (Gal. vi. 5).\n\n104. Yes: \"Labor not for meat\" (John vi. 27). No: \"He that labors not\nshall not eat\" (2 Thess. iii. 10).\n\n105. In Genesis vi. 5 God declared he would pour out his curses because\n\"the imagination of man's heart is evil, and only evil continually.\" In\nGenesis viii. 21 he gives the same reason for not cursing the world.\n\nAnd these are mere specimens of a vast number of similar kind. Kings and\nChronicles especially are full of such discrepancies of dates, numbers,\nnames, &c. In one case the author of Chronicles makes a son two years\nolder than his father, the father being forty and the son forty-two. For\nproof, compare 2 Chron. xxi. 20 with xxii. 1, 2. And observe, the author\nof 2 Chron. xvi. 1 has Baasha, King of Israel, fighting against Judah\nten years after the author of 1 Kings xvi. 8 has him dead and buried.\nBut we have not space to spare to continue the list, as it would\ncomprise a large chapter. Let the reader compare the names and numbers\nof the leaders, families, tribes, &c., of the children of Israel, as\nrecorded by Ezra (chap. ii.), with those of Nehemiah (chap, vii.), and\nhe will find more than a dozen discrepancies and contradictions; the\ndifference amounting in some cases to thousands. He will also find\na difference with respect to the coronation, period of rule, and\ntermination of the reign of various kings, and wide differences tracing\ngenealogie, families, tribes, &c., if he will compare Kings, Chronicles,\nSamuel, Ezra, Nehemiah, &c. Such are the verbal discrepancies of the\n\"Word of God;\" such is arithmetic when \"inspired.\"\n\nTwo questions upon the above: 1. How much older can a son be than his\nfather according to scripture, basing the inquiry upon Chron. xxi. and\nxxii.? 2. How long can a man continue to fight after he is dead and\nburied, as is illustrated in the case of Baasha, King of Israel? (See\ncontradictions 142, 143, and 144.)\n\nCONTRADICTIONS IN HISTORY.\n\n100. When was man created? Gen. i. 25 says after the other animal. Gen.\nii, 13 says before the other animals.\n\n107. Were seed-time and harvest to be perpetual? Yes: \"Seed-time and\nharvest shall not cease\" (Gen. viii. 22). No: \"There was neither earing\nnor harvest\" for five years (Gen. xiv. 6).\n\n108. Did Eve see before she ate the forbidden fruit? Yes: \"Woman saw\nbefore she ate the fruit\" (Gen. iii. 6). No: \"Her eyes were opened by\neating the fruit\" (Gen. iii. 7).\n\n109. When did the earth become dry after the flood? \"In the first month\nthe waters of the flood were dried up\" (Gen. viii. 13). \"In the second\nmonth the waters of the flood were dried up\" (Gen. viii. 12).\n\n110. How old was Abraham when he left Haran? The eleventh chapter of\nGenesis makes him one hundred and thirty-five years old; but the twelfth\nsays he was only seventy-five.\n\n111. Did Abraham know where he was going? Yes: \"He went forth to go into\nthe land of Canaan\" (Gen. xii. 5). No: \"He went out, not knowing whither\nhe went\" (Heb. xi. 8).\n\n112. Did God give Abraham land? Yes: \"I give it to thy seed for ever\"\n(Gen. xiii. 15). No: \"Abraham had none inheritance in it, not so much as\nto set his foot on\" (Acts vii. 5).\n\n113. Did Moses fear Pharaoh? Yes: \"Moses fled, fearing Pharaoh\" (Exod.\nii. 14 and 18). No: \"Moses did not fear Pharaoh\" (Heb. xi. 21 ).\n\n114. Who hardened Pharaoh's heart? \"The Lord hardened the heart of\nPharaoh\" (Exod. ix. 12). \"Pharaoh hardened his heart\" (Exod. viii. 15).\n\n115. How many fighting men in Israel? Samuel says eight hundred thousand\n(2 Sam. xxiv. 9). Chronicles says one million one hundred thousand (1\nChron. xxi. 5).\n\n110. How many fighting men in Judah? Samuel says five hundred thousand\n(2 Sam. xxiv. 9). Chronicles says four hundred and seventy thousand (1\nChron. xxi. 5).\n\n117. Who moved David to number Israel? God: \"The Lord moved David to\nnumber Israel\" (2 Sam. xxiv. 1). The devil: \"Satan provoked him to do it\"\n(Chron. xxi. 1).\n\n118. Did David sin more than once? Yes: \"I have sinned greatly in\nnumbering Israel\" (2 Sam. 24. 10). No: \"He sinned only when he killed\nUriah\" (1 Kings xv. 5).\n\n119. How many years of famine was David to suffer? Chronicles says it\nwas three years (1 Chron. xxi. 11). Samuel says it was seven years (2\nSam. xxiv. 13).\n\n120. How many horsemen did David capture? Samuel says it was seven\nhundred (2 Sam. viii. 4). Chronicles says it was seven thousand (1\nChron. xviii. 4).\n\n121. What did David pay for his threshing-floor? Samuel says fifty\nshekels of silver (2 Sam. xxiv. 24). Chronicles says six hundred shekels\nof gold (1 Chron. xxi. 25).\n\n122. Was David's throne to come to an end? No: \"It shall be established\nfor ever\" (Ps. lxxxix. 4). Yes: \"It was cast down to the ground\" (Ps.\nlxxxix. 44).\n\n123. Was David really a man after God's own heart? Yes: \"David was a man\nafter God's own heart\" (Acts xiii. 22). No: \"David displeased the Lord\"\n(2 Sam. xi. 24).\n\n124. Was it a man or God that Jacob wrestled with? \"Jacob wrestled all\nnight with a man\" (Gen. xxxii.24). \"Jacob wrestled all night with God\"\n(Gen. xxxii. 30).\n\n125. How many were there of Jacob's family? \"Jacob's family was only\nseventy souls\" (Gen. xlvi 27). \"Jacob's family was seventy-five souls\"\n(Acts vii. 14).\n\n126. How long was Israel in Egypt? \"Israel was four hundred and thirty\nyears in Egypt\" (Exod. xii. 41). \"Jacob was only four hundred years in\nEgypt\" (Acts vii. 6).\n\n127. Did they see what the Lord did in Egypt? Yes: \"You have seen all\nthe Lord did in Egypt\" (Deut. xxix. 2). No: \"You have seen nothing he\ndid in Egypt\" (Deut. xxix. 4).\n\n128. Who was the father of Salah? Arphaxad (Gen. xi. 12). Cainan (Luke\niii. 85).\n\n129. Had Michal any children? No: \"Michal had no children unto the day\nof his death\" (2 Sam. vi. 23). Yes: \"The five sons of Michal\" (2 Sam.\nxxi. 8).\n\n130. Where was the law written? Exodus says it was written on Mt. Sinai.\nDeuteronomy says it was written on Mt. Horeb.\n\n131. How many died of the plague? Numbers says it was twenty and four\nthousand (Num. xxv. 9). Corinthians says three and twenty thousand (1\nCor. x. 8).\n\n132. When did Zachariah begin to reign? \"In the thirty-eighth year of\nAzariah\" (2 Kings xv. 8). But a comparison of 2 Kings xlv. 29 and xv. 1\nmakes but fourteen years.\n\n133. How many stalls for horses had Solomon? We are told in 1 Kings iv.\n26, he had forty thousand. But, according to 2 Chron. ix. 25, it was\nonly four thousand.\n\n134. How much oil did Solomon give Hiram? According to Kings v. 11,\nit was twenty measures. But, according to Chron. ii. 10, it was twenty\nthousand.\n\n135. Of what tribe was Solomon's artificer, who came from Tyre?\nAccording to 1 Kings vii. 14, he was of the tribe of Naphthali. But,\naccording to 2 Chron. ii. 14, he was of the tribe of Dan.\n\n136. How long were the two pillars of Solomon's porch? According to\n1 Kings vii. 15, they were eighteen cubits long. But, according to 2\nChron. iii. 15, they were thirty-five cubits long.\n\n137. How many baths were contained in the brazen sea? According to 1\nKings vii. 26, it contained two thousand; but, according to 2 Chron. iv.\n5, three thousand.\n\n138. How many mothers had Abijah? and who was she? According to 1 Kings\nxv. 2, she was the daughter of Ablshalom. But 2 Chron. xi. 20 says\nshe was the daughter of Absalom; and 2 Chron. xiii. 2 says she was the\ndaughter of Uriel.\n\nTHE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KINGS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL ARE A MASS OF CONFUSION.\n\n139. Where was Ahazlah killed, and how often? According to 2 Chron.\nxxii. 8, he was killed at Samaria; and, according to 2 King ix. 27, he\nwas killed again.\n\n140. How many did Jashobeam kill? \"Jashobeam slew eight hundred at one\ntime\" (2 Sam. xxiii. 8). No: It was only three hundred he slew (1 Chron.\nxi. 11).\n\n141. Who killed the Amalekites? Samuel says \"Saul utterly destroyed\nthem\" (1 Sam. xv. 3). But, according to chapter twenty-seven of the same\nbook, David killed them all, \"left neither man nor woman\" (1 Sam. xv.\n13). And yet it appears they were not well killed; for, forty years\nafter, they fought a battle with Ziklag (see 1 Sam. xxx. 18), and\nthey were all killed again, \"save four hundred young men;\" and Simeon\nafter-wards slew them. (See 1 Chron. iv. 3.) And yet, although destroyed\nthree times, Josephus says he was a descendant of the Amalekites. They\nmust have been a live people.\n\n142. When did Baasha fight a battle with Judah? According to 2 Chron.\nxvi. 1, it was in Asa's thirty-sixth year. But, according to 1 Kings\nxvi. 8, in the twenty-sixth year of Asa, Baasha died, or, at least,\nvacated the throne,--a difference of ten years.\n\n143. How did Asa and Baasha stand toward each other? \"There was war\nbetween Asa and Baasha all their days\" (1 Kings xv. 16). But, according\nto Chron. xiv. 1, they were at peace ten years.\n\n144. How long aid Baasha reign? \"Baasha reigned over Israel twenty-four\nyears\" (1 Kings xv. 33). But, according to 1 Kings xvi. 8, it was\ntwenty-three years.\n\n145. How long did Elah reign? According to 1 Kings xvi. 8, Elah reigned\ntwo years, commencing in Asa's twenty-sixth year.\n\n146. When did Ahazlah begin to reign over Judah? Kings says it was the\neleventh year of Joram (2 Kings viii. 16). Kings also says it was the\ntwelfth (2 Kings viii. 25).\n\n147. When did Omri begin to reign? \"In the thirty-eighth year of Asa\nbegan Omri to reign\" (Kings xvi. 15). But, as Zimri only reigned seven\ndays, and began in Asa's twenty-seventh year, Omri must also have\ncommenced in his twenty-seventh year.\n\n148. When did Ahab commence his reign? \"In the thirty-eighth year of Asa\nbegan Ahab, son of Omri, to reign\" (1 Kings xvi. 29). How can that be if\nOmri reigned twelve years? (See 1 Kings xvi. 23).\n\n149. When did Jeboram, son of Ahab, begin to reign? \"In the eighteenth\nyear of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, began Jeboram to reign\" (2 Kings iii.\n1). Impossible, if his son Amaziah commenced in Jehoshaphat's nineteenth\nyear (see 1 Kings xxii. 31), and reigned two years: seventeen and two\nare nineteen. And, according to 2 Kings 1. 17 and 1 Kings, it was twelve\nyears later, if Jehoshaphat reigned twenty-five years. (See 1 Kings).\n\n150. When did Azzlah, or Uzzlah, begin to reign? In the twenty-seventh\nyear of Jeroboam, according to 2 Kings xv. 1. But, according to 2 Kings\nxvi. 17 and 23, it was only sixteen years.\n\n151. How long did Jehu reign over Israel? \"Jehu reigned over Israel\ntwenty-eight years\" (2 Kings x. 36). But, according to 2 Kings xiii. 1,\nhe reigned thirty years.\n\n152. \"How long did Jehoahaz reign? Jehoahaz reigned seventeen years\" (2\nKings xiii. 1). But, according to 2 Kings xiii. 10, it was twenty years.\n\n153. How old was Ahaz when he began to reign? Twenty years. (2 Kings\nxvi. 2.) A wording to the text (2 Chron. xxiv. 2), his father was about\neleven years old when he was born.\n\nNEW-TESTAMENT CONTRADICTIONS.\n\nThere is a continual conflict in the statements of Christ's biographers\nwith respect to the various events of his life as compared with each\nother; and in some cases they contradict themselves. We will present\nsome examples:--\n\n154. Who came to worship Christ when he was born? Matthew says, \"wise\nmen from the East\" (Matt. ii. 5). Luke says they were shepherds of the\nsame country (Luke ii. 8).\n\n155. How were they led? Matthew says they were led by a star (Matt. ii.\n6). Lake says by on angel (Luke ii. 3).\n\n156. What did the parents of Jesus do when he was born? Matthew (ii. 13)\nsays they fled into Egypt. But, according to Luke (ii. 26), they staid\nthere forty-one days.\n\n157. To whom did God speak at Christ's baptism? To him: \"Thou art my\nbeloved son\" (Luke iii. 22). To the bystanders: \"This is my beloved son\"\n(Matt. iii. 17).\n\n158. Where did Christ go after being baptized? Mark says he went\nimmediately into the wilderness, and was there forty days (Mark 1. 12).\nJohn says three days after he was in Cana (John ii. 12).\n\n159. Where was John while Christ was in Galilee? \"John was put in\nprison\" (before that) (Mark i. 14). \"John was baptizing in \u00c6non\" (John\niii. 23).\n\n160. Where was Christ when he called Peter and Andrew? Matthew and Mark\nsay, \"walking by the Sea of Galilee.\" Luke says, \"sitting in their ship\"\n(Luke v. 10).\n\n161. Where were Peter and Andrew at the time? Matthew and Mark say, \"In\ntheir ship, fishing.\" Luke says, out \"washing their nets\" (Luke v. 2).\n\n162. How came Peter and Andrew to follow Jesus? Matthew and Mark say he\n\"called them.\" But, according to Luke, the draught of fishes caused them\nto go.\n\n163. Where did Christ heal the leper? Matthew says at the mount, after\nthe sermon (viii. 2). Mark says when preaching in Galilee.\n\n164. Who told Jesus the centurion's servant was sick? Luke says he sent\nthe elders of Israel to tell him (Luke vii. 3). But Matthew says the\ncenturion went himself (Matt, viii. 5).\n\n105. Where did Christ go after curing Peter's wife's mother? Matthew\nsays beyond the lake, and drowned a herd of swine (viii. 18). Lake says\nto Nain, and raised the dead (Luke vii. 11).\n\n166. Where did Christ drown the swine with devils? Matthew says in the\ncountry of Gergeasenes. Mark and Luke say in the country of Gadarenes.\n\n167. Where did the devils remonstrate against going? Mark (v. 10) says\nagainst being sent out of the country. Luke (viii. 31) says it was\nagainst going into the deep.\n\n168. Were Christ's disciples allowed to use staves? Yes: \"Take\nnothing... save a staff only\" ( Mark vi. 8). No: \"Take neither shoes or\nyet staves\" (Matt. x. 9).\n\n169. When did Christ pluck the ears of corn? Matthew (xii. 1) says after\nhe had appointed his twelve disciples. But Luke and Mark make it after\nthat event.\n\n170. What woman interceded for her daughter? \"A woman of Canaan... cried\nunto him\" (Matt. xv. 22). The woman was a Greek (Mark vii. 26).\n\n171. How great was the multitude which Jesus fed with seven loaves and\na few fishes? Matthew says four thousand, besides women and children\n(xv. 38). Mark says four thousand in all (viii. 9).\n\n172. How long was it after Christ was transfigured that he took James\nand John up into the mountain? Six days after (Matt. xvii. 4). Eight\ndays after (Luke ix. 28).\n\n173. How much power did Jesus say faith as big as a grain of\nmustard-seed can impart? Matthew (xvii. 20) says enough to remove\nmountains. Luke says (xvii. 6) enough to pluck up trees by the roots.\nBoth large jobs for one man.\n\n174. Who asked seats in the kingdom for Zebedee's children? Matthew\nsays (xx. 20) it was their mother. Mark says (x. 35) they asked it\nthemselves. Why did he refuse them two seats when he had promised them,\nwith the other ten disciples, twelve thrones? (Matt. xix. 28.)\n\n175. How many blind men did Jesus restore near Jericho? Matthew says\n(xx. 30) two blind men. Mark and Luke say only one, Bartimeus.\n\n176. Where did he perform this miracle? Matthew says as he was going\naway from Jericho. Luke says as he was coming into the city (xviii. 35).\n\n177. When did Christ drive out the money-changers? Matthew and Luke say\nthe day he rode into the city. Mark says not till the next day (xi. 11).\n\n178. What did Jesus tell his disciples about the ass? Matthew says (xxi.\n2) he told them they would find an ass and colt tied. Mark and Luke say\nthey found tied only a colt. And John says it was a young ass, and Jesus\nfound it himself (xii. 14). Mark and Luke say he rode the colt. But\nMatthew (xxi. 7) represents him as riding both the ass and the colt.\n\n179. Who answered Christ's question in the parable of the vineyard?\nMatthew says (xxi. 41) his disciples answered the question. Mark and\nLuke both say he answered it himself.\n\n180. When did Christ tell the truth about Lazarus? He first said his\nsickness was not unto death, but afterwards said he was dead.\n\n181. When did the anointment of Christ take place? Matthew says (xxvi.\n2) it was two days before the passover. But John says it was six days\nafter (John xii. 1). And Luke makes it much later (viii. 36 and xxii.\n1).\n\n182. Where did the anointment take place? Matthew says (xxvi. 6) in\nthe house of Simon the leper. Luke says (vii. 36) in the house of a\nPharisee. But, according to John, it was in the house of Lazarus (xii.\n1).\n\n183. Where was the ointment poured? Matthew and Mark say on his head.\nBut Luke and John say on his feet.\n\n184. When did Christ say one of his disciples would betray him? Matthew\nsays (xxvi. 21) while they \"did eat supper.\" But, according to Luke\n(xxii. 20), it was after supper was over.\n\n185. Where did Jesus go after supper? John savs \"over the brook Cedron\"\n(xviii. 1.). But the other three evangelists say to the Mount of Olives.\n\n186. When did Judas betray Christ? John says (xii. 27), after supper\nhe went out and made the bargain. But the other three say it was before\nsupper he made the bargain.\n\n187. Where and to whom did Peter first deny Christ? John says (xviii.\n17) to the damsel at the door. The other three say to the men in the\nball.\n\n188. To whom was the second denial made? Matthew and Mark say to a maid.\nLuke says to a man. John says to those who stood by the fire (xviii.).\n\n189. To whom was the third denial made? Matthew and Mark say to those\nwho stood by. John says (xviii.) to the servant of the high priest.\n\n190. Where was Christ crucified? John says at Calvary. The other three\nsay at Golgotha.\n\n191. At what hour was Christ crucified? Mark says (xv. 26) it was the\nthird hour. But, according to John (xix. 14), it was after the sixth\nhour.\n\n192. How was Christ dressed for the crucifixion? \"And put on him a\nscarlet robe\" (Matt, xxvii. 28). \"They put on him a purple robe\" (John\nxix. 2).\n\n193. What was the drink offered to Christ at the crucifixion? Mark\nsays it was wine mixed with myrrh (xv. 23). Matthew says it was vinegar\nmingled with gall. But Luke represents it as being only vinegar (xxiii.\n36). Matthew says Christ tasted it; but, according to Mark, he did not.\n\n194. Who bore Christ's cross? Matthew says Simon of Cyrene (xxvii. 82).\nBut John says Jesus bore it himself (xix, 17).\n\n195. Which of the thieves reviled him? Mark says both of them (xv. 29).\nLuke says (xxiii. 30) only one of them, and the other reviled him for\nit.\n\n196. What were the words of the superscription on the cross? \"This is\nJesus, the King of the Jews\" (Matt, xxvii. 87). \"The King of the Jews\"\n(Mark xv. 26). \"This is the King of the Jews\" (Luke xix. 18). \"Jesus of\nNazareth, the King of the Jews\" (John xix. 19). But one of these can be\nright.\n\n197. Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? Yes: \"We have\na law by which he ought to die\" (John xix. 7). No: \"It is not lawful to\nput any man to death\" (John xviii. 31).\n\n198. Who came to Christ's sepulcher? Matthew says (xxviii. 1) Mary\nMagdalene and another Mary. According to John, it was Mary Magdalene\nonly (xx. 1). But Lake says the two Marys and Joanna (xxiv. 10)\n\n199. Was it daylight when they came to the tomb? No: \"They came while\nit was yet dark\" (John xx. 1). Yes: \"They came at the rising of the sun\"\n(Mark xvi. 2).\n\n200. Whom did the women see at the tomb? Matthew says (xxviii. 1) an\nangel sitting. Mark says (xvi. 5) a young man. Luke says (xxiv. 4) two\nmen. John says (xx. 12) two angels.\n\n201. Did any of the women enter the sepulcher? Yes: They entered in\n(Mark xvi. 6). No: They did not (John xx. 2).\n\n202. Who looked into the sepulcher? According to Luke, it was Peter\n(xxiv. 12). According to John, it was another disciple (xx. 4).\n\n203. Did Peter go into the sepulcher? John says he did go in (xx. 6).\nAccording to Luke, he did not (xxiv. 12).\n\n204. Did those who visited the tomb relate the case to any one?\nAccording to Luke, they told the eleven disciples (xxiv. 27). But Mark\ntells us they said nothing to any man (xvi. 8).\n\n205. To whom did Christ appear after his resurrection? Matthew says to\nthe two Marys (xxviii. 9). Mark says to Mary Magdalene alone (xvi. 9).\nAccording to Luke, it was to two of his disciples at Emmaus.\n\n206. When did Christ first appear to his disciples? Matthew says it was\nat Galilee (Matt, xxviii. 16). Luke says it was at Jerusalem (Luke xxiv.\n33).\n\n207. How did Christ's disciples feel when they met him? Luke says they\nwere terrified (xxiv. 37). But John says they were glad (xx. 20).\n\n203. How often did Christ show himself to the disciples? John says,\n\"This is now the third time.\" But, according to the other three, it was\nthe sixth time.\n\n209. Where did Christ part from his disciples? Mark says (xvi. 14) it\nwas at Jerusalem. But, according to Luke, it was at Bethany.\n\n210. When did Christ ascend? According to Luke, it was the day of his\nresurrection (Luke xxiv. 13). John says it was nine days after (John xx.\n26). But, according to Acta i. 3, it was forty days after.\n\n211. From what place did Christ ascend? Luke says (xxiv. 6) it was from\nBethany. Acts says (i. 6) it was from Mount Olivet.\n\n212. Did Christ bear witness of himself? Yes: \"I am one that bear\nwitness of myself\" (John viii. 13). No: \"If I bear witness of myself, my\nwitness is not true\" (John v. 21).\n\n213. Could man bear testimony for Christ? Yes: \"Ye also shall bear\nwitness\" (John xv. 26). No: \"I receive not testimony from man\" (John v.\n23).\n\n214. Did Christ come on a mission of peace? Yes: \"To preach glory to\nGod,... and on earth peace\" (Luke ii. 13). No: \"I came not to send peace\nbut a sword\" (Matt. x. 34).\n\n215. Did Christ have a dwelling-place? No: Matthew says (viii. 20), \"He\nhad not where to lay his head.\" But John says he had a house, and his\ndisciples saw it (1. 34).\n\n216. Was Christ the savior? Yes: \"Christ is the savior of all men\" (1\nTim. iv. 10). No: \"Beside me [Jehovah] there is no savior\" (Isa. xiiii.\n11).\n\n217. Was Christ omnipotent? Yes: \"I and my Father are one\" (John x. 30).\nNo: \"My Father is greater than I\" (John xiv. 28).\n\n218. Was Christ equal to God? Yes; \"He thought it no robbery to be equal\nwith God\" (Phil, ii. 6). No: \"Mv Father is greater than I\" (John xiv.\n28).\n\n219. Was Christ supreme God? Yes: \"He was God manifest in the flesh\" (1\nTim. iii. 16). No: \"He was man approved of God\" (Acts ii. 22).\n\n220. How did Judas die? Matthew says he went out and hanged himself\n(Matt. xxvii. 6). The Acta says he went out and fell headlong (Acts i.\n18).\n\n221. Did the men at Paul's conversion hear a voice? Yes: \"Hearing a\nvoice, but seeing no man\" (Acts ix. 7). No: \"They heard not the voice\"\n(Acts xxil. 9).\n\n222. Did John see a book? Yes. \"I saw... a book written within,\" &c.\n(Rev. v. 1). No: \"No man in heaven or earth could look on the book\"\n(Rev. v. 3).\n\n228. Was John the Baptist Ellas? Yes: \"This is Elias which was to come\"\n(Matt. xi. 14). No: \"And he said I am not Ellas\" (John 1. 21).\n\n224. When did Herodias ask for the head of John the baptist? Matthew\nsays before Herod's great promise to her; but Mark says it was after\n(Mark vi. 24).\n\n225. Is the law of Moses superseded? Yes: \"We are delivered from the\nlaw\" (Rom. vii. 6). No: \"I came not to destroy the law\" (Matt. v. 17).\n\n226. Who was the father of Joseph? \"And Jacob begat Joseph, husband of\nMary\" (Matt. 1. 16). \"He was the son of Hell\" (Luke iii. 23).\n\n227. Who purchased the potter's field? \"Judas, with the reward of\niniquity\" (Acts I. 18). \"The chief priests took the silver, and bought\nthe potter's field\" (Matt, xxvii 6).\n\n228. Yes: \"The spirit led Christ to Jerusalem\" (Acts xx. 22). No: \"The\nspirit forbade him to so\" (Acts xxi. 4).\n\n229. Yes: \"I go to prepare a place for you\" (John xiv. 2). No: \"It was\nprepared from the beginning\" (Matt. xxv. 84).\n\n280. Yes: \"The mission of the gospel began at Jerusalem\" (Luke xxiv.\n47). No. \"It began at Galilee\" (Acts x. 37).\n\n231. Yes: \"I beseech you as strangers\" (1 Pet. ii. 11). No: \"You are not\nstrangers\" (Eph. ii. 14).\n\n232. Yes: \"Christ died for his enemies\" (Rev. x). No: \"For his friends\"\n(John xv. 13).\n\n233. Yes: \"I write unto you, fathers\" (1 John ii. 13). No: \"Call no man\nfather\" (Matt, xxiii. 9).\n\n234. Yes: \"I am with you alway\" (Matt, xxviii. 20). No: \"It is expedient\nfor you that I go away\" ( John xvi. 7).\n\nTotal, 277, including double contradictions.\n\nWe will not attempt to argue that these conflicting statements prove\nthat no such events as here referred to ever transpired, and that the\nwhole thing is a fabrication. We only argue that it proves the writers\nwere not inspired by infinite wisdom, or they would have told the exact\ntruth in all cases, so that there could have been no mistakes. It also\nproves that we never can know the real facts, or arrive at an accurate\nknowledge or the exact truth, with respect to any 01' those doctrines,\nduties, or events the contradictions appertain to; and, as these\ncontradictions refer to almost every doctrine, precept, and event of\nany importance, it thus sinks all Bible teaching into a labyrinth of\nuncertainty. Hence not _one single statement_ in it can be set down as\nabsolutely true without corroborative evidence.\n\nNote.--The reader will observe, from the contradictions in the foregoing\nlist with respect to all the duties of life, as well as all the crimes\nof society,--such as war, intemperance, slavery, theft, robbery, murder,\nfalsehood, swearing, lying, &c.,--that it is _absolutely impossible_ to\nlearn our moral and religious duties from the Bible.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.--OBSCENE LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE--TWO HUNDRED CASES.\n\nNo person of refinement and good morals, who has not been warped and\nbiased by education or religious training in favor of the Christian\nBible, can read that book through without being often shocked and put\nto the blush by its obscene and vulgar language! Indeed, there are\nmore than two hundred texts calculated to raise a blush on the cheek of\nmodesty. Many of them are so obscene that we would not dare copy them\ninto this work. It would not only outrage the feelings of the reader,\nbut it would render the author liable to prosecution.\n\nA law has been recently passed by Congress prohibiting the publication\nand circulation of obscene literature; and many persons have already\nbeen prosecuted under that law,--some of them for merely selecting and\npublishing some of the obscene texts of the Bible. But, without being\ninfluenced by these considerations, we will, in order to spare the\nfeelings of the reader, merely state the import of some of these texts.\n\n1. Omitting the history of Adam, in which we find some not very refined\nlanguage, we will commence with Noah. We are told that Noah became so\ndrunk as to strip off all his clothing, and one of his sons, to avoid\nseeing him in that situation, walked backward, and covered him: for\nwhich act his father cursed him. Thus it appears that Noah, although\n\"a righteous man,\" was not a very modest or decent one. And such a man\nbeing held up as a righteous example must have a demoralizing tendency\nupon those who accept him in this light. (See Gen. ix. )\n\n2. The story of Abraham and Sarah, and the account of Abraham's illicit\nintimacy with his servant-maid Hagar, as related in Genesis (chap.\nxvi.), and his and Sarah's gossip over the affair, is any thing but\nmodest.\n\n3. The \"holy man\" Lot: The story of Lot's incest with his daughters, as\nset forth in Genesis (chap. xix.), is both immodest and disgusting.\n\n4. Rachel and Bilhah: The tea-table talk of Jacob and Rachel, about\nthe act of Jacob in seducing their maid-servant Bilhah, must be morally\nrepulsive to all only Bible believers.\n\n5. The story of Leah and Zilpah is not much better. (See Gen. xxx.)\n\n6. The bargain between Leah and Rachel about Reuben's mandrakes (Gen.\nxxx.) is too immodest to relate or contemplate.\n\n7. Jacob's trick of using peeled sticks and poplar-trees among his\ncattle is something more than a descent from the sublime to the\nridiculous. And were it not deemed \"divine revelation, heavenly\ninstruction,\" it would have been left out (Gen. xxx.).\n\n8. The account of Rachel's stealing her father's images, and then\ntelling an indecent falsehood to hide it, is not very suitable for a\n\"Holy Book\" (Gen. xxxi.).\n\n9. The story of the defilement of Dinah we will not attempt to describe,\nas we can not do it without offending decency. (See Gen. xxxiv.)\n\n10. The story of Reuben and Bilhah, in the next chapter, may be\ninstructive to the pious, but is not so to persons of refined taste.\n\n11. If you read the narratives of Judah, Onan, and Tamar, as related in\nthe thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis, for humanity's sake keep it out\nof the hands of your children, and use _your_ influence to prevent its\ncirculation among the heathen; for it must have the effect to sink them\nstill deeper in moral depravity and mental degradation.\n\n12. The disgusting story of Absalom's familiarity with his father's\nconcubines, as related (2 Sam. xvi. 32), is so disgusting, that we will\nbarely allude to it. Having referred to twelve cases more, we shall\npursue the repulsive subject no further, except merely to indicate\nthe chapter and verse where a long list of such cases may be found\nand examined by those who may need more evidence that the Bible is an\nobscene book, not fit to be read in decent society.\n\n13. Vulgar language is used in representing men as acting like dogs.\n(See 2 Kings ix. 8.)\n\n14. Job describes disgusting conduct toward a woman (Job xxxi. 9).\n\n15. Solomon's Song of Songs contains much that is obscene language from\nthe first to the eighth chapter.\n\n16. Isaiah makes revolting suggestions relative to stripping women. (See\nIsa. xxxii. 2.)\n\n17. Ezekiel is represented as eating disgusting food (dung) (Ezek. iv.\n12).\n\n18. Jehovah's command to Hosea to marry a harlot is of immoral tendency.\n\n19. Isaiah frequently makes use of vulgar language. One case may be\nfound in chap. lxvi. 3.\n\n20. Another case in Hosea, describing horrible treatment of women and\nchildren. (See chap. xiii. 16.)\n\n21. The conduct of Sechem towards certain women, as told in Gen. xxxiv.\n4, is loathsome.\n\n22. The conduct of parents toward their daughters, as described in Deut.\nxxii. 15, and as enjoined by the Mosaic law, is disgusting and shocking\nin the extreme.\n\n23. And language no less disgusting, relative to the treatment of men,\nas prescribed by law, is found in Deut. xxiii.\n\n24. The account of Paul's conversion, as described in Acts ix., is\nextremely vulgar.\n\nThe above-cited cases are mere samples of hundreds of similar ones to be\nfound in God's Holy Book in the use of indecent language, calculated to\nmake any person blush to read in private, much more if read in public.\nIndeed, no person dare read them to a company of decent people. Look,\nthen, how the case stands. Look at the mortifying condition in which\nevery devout Bible believer in Christendom is placed. Here is a book\nwhich, it is claimed, emanated from a pure and holy being; which\ncontains so many passages couched in such obscene and offensive\nlanguage, that any person who attempts to read the book to a company\nmust be constantly and critically on his guard, and is liable to be\nkept in a state of fearful anxiety (as the writer knows by his own\nexperience), lest he stumble on some of these offensive texts. What an\nuncomfortable situation to be placed in when reading a book which is\nclaimed to be perfect in every respect! We have seen a Bible class\nin school stopped suddenly by the teacher, with orders to close their\nBibles, because he had observed, by looking ahead, that the chapter\ncontained language which would bring a blush to every cheek if read.\nIn the same school we saw a modest boy, of refined feelings, burst into\ntears because he was required to read to the school a certain passage\nin the account of the conversion of Paul. The teacher being a devout\nChristian, whose piety overruled his decorum, attempted to enforce the\nreading by a threat of punishment, but failed. We have also seen\nthe offer of one hundred dollars' reward, standing in a paper for\na considerable time to any person who would read a dozen texts to a\ncompany of ladies, which the gentleman offering the reward might select,\nbut no person dared to disgrace himself by accepting the offer.\n\nAnd what is the moral, or lesson, taught by these things? Why, that the\nBible is a very unsuitable book for a refined nation of people to read\nhabitually, or for a morally elevated and enlightened age of the world,\nthough it was probably adapted to the age and to the people for which it\nwas written. They had not attained to the present standard of morality\nand refinement. We cherish no disposition to censure them. They were\nprobably honest, and lived up to their highest idea of right. If\nanybody deserves censure in the case, it is the professedly enlightened\nChristians of the present age for going back to a savage, unenlightened\nage and nation for their religion and morals.\n\nA PARTIAL LIST OF THE OBSCENE PASSAGES OF THE BIBLE.\n\nThe following figures point to texts, many of which are too vulgar to be\ndescribed in any kind of language:--\n\nGen. xvii. 2, very disgusting; xix. 8, 33, 35, a shocking case; xx. 18;\nxxv. 23, disgusting; xxx. 3, very obscene; xxx. 15,16; xxxi. 12; xxxiv.\n2, 7, 16, 22; xxxviii. 9, loathsome; xxxviii. 29; lix. 25; Exod. 1.16;\nxix. 15; xx. 2; xxii. 10; xxxiv. 15, 16; Lev. xii. 15; xviii. 7, 19,\n20, 22, 23, 24; xxi. 7, 20, extremely vulgar; Num. xiv. 33; xix. 6,\ndisgusting; xxv. 1; xxxi. 35; Deut. xxi. 11; xxii. 15, 21; xxii. 22, 23,\n25; xxiii. 1, very disgusting; xxiii. 13, 17, 18; xxv. 5, 7, 10; xxxi.\n16; Judg. xi. 37; xix. 2, 25; Ruth i. 11, 12; iii.; iv. 13; 2 Sam. vi.\n20, 22; vii. 12; xi. 4, 11; xii. 11, 12, very disgusting; xiii. 11,\n12, 14, 20, 22, 23; 1 Kings i. 4; iii. 16, 17, 26; xi. 3; xvi. 11, very\nfilthy; xxi. 21; 2 Kings xviii. 27, very filthy; 2 Chron. xxi. 13,\n15; Esth. ii. 12, 14; Job iii. 10; xvi. 15; xxi. 24; xxxi. 10, very\ndisgusting, and 15; xxxii. 19; xi. 16; Ps. xxii. 10; xlviii. 6; cxxxix.\n13; Prov. xxiii. 27; xxx. 16,19; Eccles. iv. 11; xi. 5; Sol. 1. 13; Iii.\n1; vi. 8; vii. 2, 3; viii. 8; Isa. iii. 17; xxvi. 17, very nasty; xlvii.\n2; xlix., very obscene; xlvi. 7; Jer. ii. 20; iii. 1, 2, 6, 9, very\nfilthy, and 13; iv. 31; xiiii. 27; xiv. 17; xvi. 3, 4; xxix. 8; xxx. 6;\nxxxi. 8, 27; Lam. ii.13; vii.; Ezek. iv. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,\n25, 28, 33, 35; xviii. 6; xix. 2; xxii. 11; xxiii. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10,\n11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 43; xliv. 25; Hos. i. 2; ii. 2, 4, 5;\niv. 14, 18; vii. 4: ix. 1,14; Mic. 1, 2; iv. 10; Nah. iii. 4; Hab. ii.\n16; 2 Esd. viii. 8; ix. 43; xvi. 38, 49; Jud. ix. 2; Wisd. of Sol. iii.\n13; iv. 6; Ecclus. xx. 4; xxvi. 9; xxxviii. 25; xiii. 10; Bar. vi. 29; 2\nMacc. vi. 4; Matt. 1. 25; xxiv. 19; xxv. 10; Luke i. 15, 24, 31, 36, 41,\n44, 49; ii. 6, 7, 23; xi. 27; John xvi. 21; Acts ii. 30; Rom. i. 26,27;\niii.23; 1 Cor. vii. 1; 2 Cor. vi. 12; Heb. xi. 11; 2 Pet ii. 2; Rev.\nxii. 2; xvii. 1; xviii. 4.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.--CIRCUMCISION A HEATHEN CUSTOM.\n\nI. Circumcision is a very ancient rite, and of heathen origin, though we\nare told in Genesis that it was a command of God to Abraham; and it was\nnationalized by Moses. It was considered by the Jews a very important\nreligious rite, and has been practiced by them from their earliest\nhistory. So highly was this ordinance esteemed amongst them, that it\nwas in some cases performed twice. According to Herodotus and Diodorus,\ninstead of the Jews getting the command direct from God, they borrowed\nthe custom of the Assyrians; and Josephus silently assents to its truth;\nand J. G. Wilkinson says, \"It was established in Egypt long before\nJoseph was sold into that country,\" which furnishes evidence of its\nexistence before the time of Moses.\n\nAmong the Jews this rite was performed on the eighth day after birth:\nall converts to their religion, and all servants, had to submit to the\nordinance.\n\nJerome says that in his day a majority of the Idum\u00e6ans, Moabites,\nAmmonites, and Ishmaelites were circumcised. The ancient Phoenicians\nalso observed this rite, and the aboriginal Mexicans likewise. The\nMahomedans also practice it; and, although the Koran does not enjoin it,\nit has been practiced wherever that religion has been adopted. The rite\nis performed on both sexes in Arabia. This rite was practiced by the\nearly Christians. Even the wise Paul gave practical sanction to this\nordinance in the case of Timothy. The Coptic and Abyssinian Christian\nchurches still observe the custom. A circumcision festival was\nestablished in the Church, and kept on the 1st of January in\ncommemoration of the circumcision of Jesus.\n\nThe toleration of this rite by the Jews and Christians shows that they\nwere dwelling on the animal plane,--that they had not risen to that high\nstate of spirituality which would lead them to abandon such heathenish\nordinances and customs. It is so repulsive to refined society, that some\ncivilized nations have enacted laws interdicting the custom. Yes, this\nsenseless, cruel, heathenish rite has to some extent been abandoned, and\nmust ere long entirely disappear from the earth. It can not withstand\nthe lights of science and civilization: it is a childish, senseless,\nobscene, vulgar, heathenish, cruel, and disgusting superstition.\n\nII. FASTING AND FEASTING.\n\nA total ignorance of the laws of health is indicated as existing amongst\nthe disciples of all the ancient religions by the alternate extremes of\nfasting and feasting. The latter is injurious to health, and the former,\nalso, if long continued, as was frequently the case. But the subject\nof health did not occupy the minds of religious enthusiasts. They knew\nnothing of the laws of health, and cared less if possible. Fasting is\nreported, In some cases, as extending to an incredible period of time,\ncontinuing in some cases for months. Hindoos often fasted for a week,\nand in some cases, if reports are time, for several weeks. Pythagoras\nof Greece fasted, it is said, forty days. Both the fasts and the feasts\nwere generally held to signalize or celebrate some astronomical epoch;\nsuch as the changes of the moon, changes in the seasons, &c. The ancient\nrepresentatives of the Christian faith were much given to fasting, as\nwere also some of the Jews; but, at the present day, Christians, with\nothers, are more addicted to feasting than fasting, although fasting\nis enjoined by the Bible both by precept and practice. In this respect\nmodern Christianity bears no resemblance to ancient Christianity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.--HOLY MOUNTAINS, LANDS, CITIES, AND RIVERS.\n\n\nI. HOLY MOUNTAINS.\n\nThose who have read the Christian Bible are familiar with the fact that\nthe ancient Jews and early Christians had their holy mounts and holy\nmountains, and that they are often referred to in the Bible. Mount Sinai\nand Mount Horeb were to the Jews consecrated spots. They called forth\ntheir highest feelings of veneration; they occupied a place in their\ndevout meditations, similar to that of heaven in the mind of the\nChristian worshiper. It may be said to have been a substitute for heaven\nwith the Jews; for they knew no other heaven, and dreamed of no other in\ntheir earlier history. And Mount Zion was a place equally sacred in the\ndevout meditations of the early Christians. All the Oriental nations had\ntheir holy mountains before the Jews were known to history: Merau was\nthe holy mount of the ancient Hindoos; Olympus, of the Greeks; Athos,\nof the Egyptians. It is therefore evident that the founders of the\nChristian religion borrowed the idea of attaching sacredness to\nmountains. Several of Christ's important acts were represented as having\nbeen performed on mountains. His sermon was delivered on a mount; his\nmarch into Jerusalem was from the \"Mount of Olives.\" Luke says he went\nand abode in the Mount of Olives (xxi. 87). The Devil took him up into\nan exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the\nworld; and, finally, his earthly career culminated on Mount Calvary.\n\"Holy hill,\" holy mount, and holy mountain--the most important of which\nwas Mount Zion--are terms often used in the Old Testament. History\ndiscloses very fully the origin of the custom of attaching sacredness to\nhills and mountains. One writer says it was partly from the conviction,\nthat, the higher the earth ascends, the nearer it approaches the\nresidence of the Gods; and consequently they would the more certainly\nhear the prayers and invocations of mortals. Prophets, seers, and\nanchorites were accustomed, from these considerations, to spend much\ntime on the hills and mountains. In view of these facts, we may conclude\nthat all persons acquainted with history will acknowledge that the Jews\nand Christians derived the tradition of regarding hills and mountains\nas \"holy\" from the Orientals, and that it is consequently a heathen\ntradition.\n\nII. HOLY LANDS AND HOLY CITIES.\n\nJerusalem was the principal holy city of both Jews and Christians; and\nPalestine was their holy land.. Here, again, we find them anticipated by\nheathen nations. Thebes was the holy city of Egypt, Ida the holy city of\nIndia, Rome the holy city of the Greeks and Romans, Mecca the holy city\nof the Mahomedans. And, like the early Christians who spent much time in\nvisiting Jerusalem, the Mahomedans make frequent pilgrimages to Mecca.\nSyria was the holy land of the Chaldeans and Persians, Wisdom the holy\nland of the Hindoos, and Benares the principal \"holy city.\" And these\nholy places they visited very frequently, going in large companies,\nsinging hymns, and reciting texts from their holy books as they\ntraveled. And Christians in the time of Constantine spent much time in\ntraveling to and from Jerusalem and the Holy Land, prompted by the same\nsuperstitious notions and feelings. Here we observe another analogy\nin the religious customs of the Jews, Christians, and heathens, all of\nwhich were derived from ancient India.\n\nIII. HOLY RIVERS AND HOLY WATER.\n\nHoly rivers were quite numerous among the devotees of the ancient\nreligions. Ganges, in India, appears to have been the first river\ninvested with the title of \"holy.\" Its waters were used for the rite of\nbaptism, and were supposed to impart a spiritual life to the subject of\nimmersion. Jordan and the Euphrates were regarded as sacred by the Jews,\nand the former was the chosen stream for the rite of baptism by that\nnation.. Even Christ appears to have believed he could receive some\nspiritual benefit by being dipped beneath its waves. The Nile was a\nsacred river in Egypt, and many repaired to it for spiritual benefit.\nThus the origin of holy rivers and holy waters is plainly indicated to\nbe of heathen origin.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.--BIBLE CHARACTERS.\n\n\nI. CHARACTER OF JEHOVAH.\n\nThe Old Testament is principally a history of the Jews and their God\nJehovah,--a narrative of their trials, troubles, treachery, quarrels,\nand faithless dealings toward each other. No other God ever had so\nmuch trouble with his people; and no other nation ever showed so little\nrespect for their God, or so little disposition to obey him, or live up\nto his commands. There appears to have been almost a natural antipathy\nbetween them; so that they were constantly repelling each other. The\nrelationship appears to have been a forced one, possessing but few of\nthe adhesive ties of friendship.\n\nBoth parties were apparently happier when separated, as they were\nseveral times,--on one occasion for a long period (Lam. v. 20). And yet,\naccording to the biblical history of the case, they got along as well,\nwere as moral and as happy, as when their God was with them. Hence it is\nevident, if he had never returned, they would have sustained no serious\nloss or disadvantage in any way. The case furnishes an argument in favor\nof that class of people who are frequently denounced by the priesthood\nfor \"living without God in the world.\" If \"God's own people\" could get\nalong without him, why can not men and women of this intelligent age?\nAnd the reason he assigns for remaining with them as much as he did\nshows it was not from natural affinity or affection for them, but\nbecause he had \"promised\" to do so. Did he not know that \"a bad promise\nis better broken than kept?\" Another circumstance which implies that\nJehovah cherished but little respect for his people, and cared but\nlittle about them, is that, from his neglect (as it seems most natural\nto attribute it to this cause), they were literally broken up while he\nwas apparently with them. One portion of them fell into the hands of\nShalmaneser, King of Assyria, and the other portion into the hands of\nNebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon; and they were never able to regain\ntheir political power as a nation afterwards. And, to cap the climax,\nten out of the twelve tribes were lost entirely, thus leaving Jehovah\nalmost childless, and destitute of worshipers. And a search for them\nfor several thousand years has failed to bring them to light. This\ncircumstance is entirely irreconcilable with the idea that the Jews\nwere the special favorites of God. Indeed, it prostrates the assumption\nentirely beyond defense. It proves, also, that Jehovah's promise never\nto leave or forsake them was not adhered to. (See 1 Sam. xii. 22.)\n\nAnd the language and conduct of the God of the Jews on several occasions\nimply that, if he ever did make choice of them as his pets, he was\ndisappointed in them, and repented of the act. When he exclaimed, \"I\nhave nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against\nme\" (Isa. i. 2), he virtually confesses he had been short-sighted,\nor that he had erred in judgment in selecting the Jews as special\nfavorites.\n\nCertainly this is the language of vexation and disappointment, and want\nof judgment or foresight.\n\n2. We are told \"he hated his own heritage\" (Jer. xii. 8). Here is\nevinced again a feeling of hatred, vexation, and disappointment, that no\nsensible being should manifest, much less a God.\n\n3. \"He gathered unto him the children of Ammon and Amalek, and went and\nsmote Israel\" (Judg. iii. 13). This was a traitorous act, calculated to\ndiscredit any being. Hence it could not have been the act of an all-wise\nand benevolent God. Think of such a being getting into a squabble with\nhis own children, and having to invoke the aid of heathen tribes to\nsubdue them, and get him out of the difficulty! One day he heads an army\ncomposed of his \"peculiar people\" to fight the heathen, with the\navowed determination to exterminate them, and \"leave nothing alive that\nbreathes,\" The next day he gets out of patience with their stubbornness\nand iniquity; his fury gets up to fever heat; and he traitorously\nabandons them, and joins those same enemies to fight them, and reduce\nthem to slavery. It is scarcely necessary to say we do not believe such\na God ever existed, excepting in the imagination of ignorant people.\n\n4. Again: Jehovah is represented as selling his people several times to\nthe neighboring heathen tribes, which again leads to the conclusion that\nhe was disappointed in them, tired of them, and wished to get rid of\nthem. He sold them once to Jaban, King of Canan (Judg. iv. 2), and twice\nto the Philistines. Wonder what he got, and what he did with the money!\nThe first time he sold them to the Philistines, he told them he never\nwould deliver them again: but he seems either to have forgotten his\npromise, or forgot there is a moral obligation to stick to the truth;\nfor he delivered them several times after that, if his own biographer\nand inspired writer tells the truth. Here is more evidence that he\nis fickle-minded and unreliable, or that the Bible writers have\nmisrepresented his character.\n\n5. If we could assume there is any truth in the Bible history of\nJehovah, we should not wonder that the Jews preferred worshiping a\ngolden calf to paying their devotions to such a God, and, on the other\nhand, it is not surprising that he should manifest his displeasure\ntoward them, and frequently steal away from them, and often confess\ngrief, vexation, and regret for having made choice of such an ignorant,\nrebellious set of rambling nomads, who subsisted by war and plunder.\n\n6. Jehovah's jealousy of other Gods which he so frequently manifested\nand so often confessed, and which is one of the most objectionable\ntraits of his character, must be attributed to his own moral defects;\nfor he acted in such a manner as to cause his own people to prefer other\nGods to him. He frequently scolded and punished them for worshiping\nother Gods,--a circumstance which furnishes evidence that other Gods\nwere better, and therefore more worthy of being worshiped. What else\ncould have caused them to prefer other other Gods. He should have acted\nin such a loving and fatherly manner that other Gods could not have been\nmore venerated and sought after. Then he would not have been so often\nvexed, harassed, and perplexed at the idolatrous proclivities of his\nworshipers, and so often resorted to retaliation by forsaking them,\nselling them, enslaving them, or delivering them into the hands of the\nspoiler! In Judges ii. 14, it is declared, \"The Lord delivered them\ninto the hands of the spoiler;\" and, in Judges vi. 1, we are told he\ndelivered them into the hands of Midian for seven years. This looks like\nan attempt to spoil his own plans, and to falsify his own promises to be\nwith them, and protect them at all times.\n\n7. Much of Jehovah's dealings with his people seemed to be by way of\nexperiment, as in the case of trying Abraham's faith by requiring him\nto offer up his son. What an idea for an allwise and omnipotent God, or\nwhom it is said, \"Known unto him are all his works\"!\n\n8. But many circumstances prove that Jehovah was not the God of the\nuniverse, but only a family or national God. 1. His acknowledgment of\nthe existence of other Gods (Deut. vi. 14). 2. His jealousy of other\nGods (Exod. xxxiv. 14). 3. His traveling on foot, lodging in tents,\nhaving his feet washed, eating veal and cakes (Gen. xviii.), &c., all\ntend to prove this.\n\n4. And the fact that he could not know what was going on in other\nnations, and not even his own until he visited the spot in person (as\nin the case of the Tower of Babel), is proof he was not the God of the\nuniverse.\n\n9. We can not concede that the \"Creator of unnumbered worlds\" is (like\nJehovah) an angry, malevolent being, addicted to feelings of revenge\nand retaliation, which seemed to banish the feeling of love and goodness\nentirely from his mind, and who is represented as being frequently\nthwarted in his designs and purposes by the caprices of his weak and\nignorant children, who, so far from answering his expectations of being\nthe best, turned out to be the worst, of his human heritage. Such ideas\nwould be derogatory to Deity.\n\nAnd this is the God the \"American Christian Alliance\" are trying to\nobtain a recognition of in the Constitution of the United States. What a\nmoral calamity such a step would be!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.--CHARACTER OF GOD'S \"HOLY PEOPLE,\" THE JEWS.\n\nAs the Jews are reputedly \"the chosen people of God,\"--chosen by him\nout of all the nations of the earth to be the special recipients of his\nfavors,--the chosen instruments through which to communicate his will\nand his laws to the whole human race, and chosen to be a moral example\nfor all mankind, for that age, and for all future generations,--it\nbecomes a matter of great importance to know their real character for\nmorality, for intelligence, for honesty, and for reliability. And that\nwe may, in the effort to present a brief sketch of their character,\nfurnish no ground for suspecting any misrepresentation, we will present\nit in the language of Jewish and Christian writers of established\nreputation. It may reasonably be presumed that their own writers would\nbe more likely to overrate than underrate their virtues. Hear, then,\nwhat one of their leading prophets says of them. Isaiah thus describes\nthem (Isa. lix.): \"Their hands are defiled with blood, and their\nfingers with iniquity; and their lips speak lies; their tongues mutter\nperverseness. None of them call for justice; none of them plead for\ntruth. They trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and\nbring forth iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hand. Their\nfeet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood. Their\nthoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their\npaths.\" Such is a description of God's holy people by one of their\nnumber. And David completes the picture by declaring, \"There is none\nrighteous; no, not one.\"\n\nAnd Christ calls them \"a generation of vipers.\" Rather a shocking\npicture of God's peculiar people! \"Peculiar\" they were, if Isaiah's\ndescription of them was true,--peculiar for defective character. It is\nrather strange that Jehovah should have selected such moral outlaws as\nlawgivers and moral examples for the whole human race. There were,\nat the time, several nations superior to the Jews in morals and\nintelligence, and much farther advanced in civilization. The Greeks,\nEgyptians, Chaldeans, and a portion of the Hindoos were in advance of\nthe Jews.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Hilliard, in a sermon preached in New York in 1861, says\nof the Jews, \"They were by nature, perhaps, the most _cruel and\nblood-thirsty_, as well as idolatrous, people in the world.\" And yet he\nsays in the same sermon, \"that the Lord chose the Israelites because of\ntheir adaptedness of character to the carrying out of his divine ends of\nmercy to the race.\" What cogent reasoning! Why not select the Devil at\nonce, if beings the most _cruel and blood-thirsty_ were best calculated\nfor \"carrying out his divine ends of mercy to the race\"? Here is more\nproof of the evil effects of preaching, or adhering to, a religion which\nis so full of errors, absurdities, and immoral elements, that it blinds\nthe moral vision, and weakens the reasoning faculties to give it a\nplace in the mind, and leads to a system of false reasoning, and often\ncorrupts the natural judgment. We have more orthodox testimony to\nshow the defective morals of the Lord's chosen people. Dr. Burnet (a\nChristian writer), in his \"Arch\u00e6ologia Philosophie,\" says, \"They were\nof a gross and sluggish nature, not qualified for the contemplation of\nnatural things, nor the perception of divine ones. And consequently,\"\nhe tells us, \"Moses provided nothing for them of an intellectual nature,\nand promised them nothing beyond this life,--did not teach a future\nstate of existence.\" Lactantius says, \"They were never visited by the\nlearned men of other countries, because they were never famous for\nliterature.\" St. Cyril says,\n\n\"Moses never attempted to philosophize with the Jews, because they were\n'grossly ignorant,' and addicted to idolatry.\" Dr. Burnet further says,\n\"They were depraved in their manners and discipline, and almost bereaved\nof humanity. If I may speak the truth,... they were a vile company\nof men,--an assembly of slaves brought out of Egyptian prisons, who\nunderstood no art but that of making bricks.\" Josephus, being a Jew, was\ntheir friend and defender; and yet he says, \"They were so illiterate,\nthat they never wrote any thing, or held intercourse with the learned.\"\nSt. Cyril says, \"Some of them adored the sun as a deity; others, the\nmoon and stars; and others, beasts, and birds.\" One writer says, \"They\nhated all nations, and were hated by all nations,\" and they seemed\ndetermined to exterminate all nations but their own. They might also\nhave used the language of an ancient Christian sect, who declared, \"We\nare the friends of God, and the enemies of all mankind.\" Lot it be borne\nin mind that the testimonies here cited are not from infidel writers,\nbut all from Jews and Christians, who, we should presume, could have no\nmotive for exaggerating their moral defects, but rather inducements for\nconcealing them. Other similar testimony might be presented. Some of\nthe laws which Moses adopted for the government of the Jews corroborates\nstill further the statement that they occupied a very low position in\nthe scale of morals as well as intellect; for the laws of a nation are\na true standard of their character. Hence the law of Moses prohibiting\nuncleanness (Lev. xv.), the law against Incest (Lev. xviii.). Laws\nagainst bestiality, to prohibit both sexes from carnal familiarity with\nbeasts, and various other laws of a similar character, furnish a clear\nimplication that they were addicted to all these vile habits; and a law\nto compel them to wash their hands leads to the conclusion that they\nwere inclined to be filthy in their habits. And the following law shows\nthat they were not very particular about their food: \"Ye may eat\nthe locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the\ngrasshopper after his kind\" (Lev. xi. 22). Here were three kinds of\nrather repulsive insects which the Jews were expected to eat, at\nleast licensed to use as food. Can such a nation be considered to be\ncivilized? If so, where is a nation now existing that can not, with\nequal propriety, be said to be civilized? This portraiture of the Jewish\ncharacter is not here presented in any caviling spirit, or to show that\nthey are justly objects of either censure or ridicule. Far from it. They\nmost probably acted up to the highest light they were in possession of.\nThe primary motive of this exhibition of their character is to show that\nthey possessed no qualifications and no traits of character calculated\nto fit them for moral lawgivers and moral exemplars for us, and for the\n_whole human race_; and we can not assume, without really dishonoring\nourselves, that such a morally and intellectually inferior nation of\npeople were the chosen instruments in the hands of God to communicate\nthe revelation of his will to the human family. We are under no moral\nobligation to believe it. A revelation from a pure, perfect, and holy\nGod must (if we assume a revelation necessary) come through a pure and\nholy channel: otherwise it would be contaminated and corrupted before\nit reached us. If God could consent to communicate a revelation to the\nhuman race through such a channel as the Jewish nation furnished, we see\nnot how he could escape a stigma upon his character for stooping to such\nignoble means. And would not the act of familiarizing himself with such\na people show that he kept bad company, and furnish a bad ex-ample to us\nwho are enjoined to be \"perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect\"?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.--CHARACTER OF MOSES; MORAL DEFECTS OF.\n\nThe history of Moses is so intimately and thoroughly inter-blended with\nthat of the Jews, that, to present the character of one, is to present\nthe character of the other. We shall therefore devote but a brief\nchapter to a special exposition of his character, as it will be\nfound fully set forth in the history of the Jews, and the practical\nillustration of their moral character.\n\nNo religious chieftain ever claimed to be on more intimate terms with\nGod, and no writer ever presented a more dishonorable exhibition of his\ncharacter. He made God the author of nearly every thing he said and did,\nno matter how wicked, how cruel, how demoralizing, or how shocking to\ndecency or refined moral sensibilities. If some of his characteristics\nof God are not blasphemous, we can have but little use for the word.\nSome of his laws serve as an illustration of this statement. He says,\n\"The Lord spake unto Moses,\" and told him that no person with a flat\nnose or crooked back or broken hand, a crooked eye, or who was lame or\npossessing any kind of a physical blemish, should be admitted into the\ncongregation of the Lord (Lev. xxi.) This was punishing the unfortunate\nfor defects they could not help, thus aggravating the misfortunes of\na class who, above all others, had special claims upon his kindness on\naccount of the very defects for which they were excluded. These laws,\nand many others no better, sufficiently illustrate the character of the\nman. His penal code, which inflicted death for two hundred acts, many of\nthem no crime at all (such as picking up sticks on the sabbath to make a\nfire to cook their food with), furnishes conclusive evidence that he\nwas a cruel and unmerciful lawgiver. And the fact that he was almost\nconstantly engaged in a bloody warfare with neighboring nations, with\nthe avowed determination to exterminate them, and \"leave nothing alive\nthat breathes,\" simply because they preferred to worship some other\nGod than the cruel Jehovah, leads to the conclusion that he was a\nbloody-minded warrior. Had Christ lived under the Hebrew monarchy,\nMoses' laws would have put him to death; and yet they both claimed\nto derive their moral code from the same God, the Jewish Jehovah. A\ncircumstance is related of Moses killing an Egyptian, and hiding him\nin the sand. And it is stated, \"He looked this way and that way\" before\ncommitting the deed, and then concealed the dead body. This implies that\nhe felt guilty, and that it was an act of murder in the first degree.\nAlthough every chapter of Moses' history proves him to have been a\ncruel and bloody-minded barbarian, with a moral code possessing but\na slight exhibition of the elements of mercy, humanity, and justice, yet\nDr. Gaussel, in his \"Theopneustia,\" calls him \"a holy and divine man,\"\nand says, \"He was such a prophet, that his holy books were placed above\nall the rest of the Old Testament.\" The doctor furnishes us one of the\nmany cases of the blinding and biasing effect of a perverted religious\neducation, and an argument in favor of laboring to supersede Bible\nreligion with something better. Here we will notice it as a curious\ncircumstance, that, after Jehovah had occupied but six days in creating\neighty-five millions of worlds, and made most of them in a few hours,\nit should have taken him and Moses both forty days to write a law, and a\nvery imperfect one at that. And then it would seem it took Jehovah three\nthousand years to make a devil, as his Satanic Majesty does not figure\nin the Jewish hierarchy till after the lapse of that period.\n\nOne of the most conspicuous traits in Moses' mental composition was\nan unbounded self-esteem. Although he claimed to be in constant\nconsultation with Jehovah, he seldom yielded to his advice when it\nconflicted with his own judgment. On the contrary, he several times\ndetected his God in error, and admonished him, and entered into an\nargument to convince him that he was wrong; and, of course, he always\ncame out first best in the logical contest. Take, for example, the case\nof Aaron making the golden calf. It occurred while he and Jehovah were\nengaged in writing \"the holy law\" on Mount Sinai. When the case became\nknown to Jehovah, it so disturbed and aggravated him, that he at once\ndeclared he would not only punish the guilty sinner,--the apostate\nAaron,--but would exterminate the whole race. But the better tempered\nand more considerate Moses began to reason and remonstrate against such\na rash act. He appealed to his honor and love of approbation, and told\nhim the Egyptians would report that he was not able to get his \"holy\npeople\" to the promised land, and hence killed them to conceal the\nfailure. \"Oh, yes, Moses, you are right! I never thought of that,\" was\nthe seeming reply of Jehovah. And thus Moses proved to be smarter than\nhis God, and enlightened his ignorance.\n\nHere we will call the attention of the reader to the resemblance between\nMoses and the still more ancient Egyptian Mises, or Bacchus. It is\nso striking, that we can not resist the conviction that they were\noriginally closely connected with each other. 1. Bacchus, like Moses,\nwas born in Egypt. 2. Bacchus, or Mises, was also exposed to danger on\nthe River Nile, like Moses. 3. Bacchus lived on a mountain in Arabia\ncalled Nisas; Moses sojourned on Mount Sinai in Arabia. 4. Bacchus\npassed through the Red Sea dry-shod with a multitude of men, women,, and\nchildren, as Moses is represented as doing. 5. Bacchus likewise parted\nthe waters of the River Orontes, as Moses did those of Jordan. 6.\nBacchus commanded the sun to stand still, as Moses' friend Joshua did.\n7. Bacchus, with his wand, caused a spring of wine to spring from the\nearth, as Moses did a spring of water to flow from a rock with the \"rod\nof God,\" or \"the rod of divination.\" 8. Mises, like Moses, also engraved\nhis laws on tables of stone. 9. Both have been represented in pictures\nwith rays coming out of their heads, indicative of the light of the sun.\nThus, it will be observed, the resemblance runs through nearly the whole\nline of their history. That Bacchus figured in history anterior to the\ntime of Moses, no person versed in Oriental history can doubt,--a fact\nwhich impels us to the conclusion that the two stories got mixed before\nthe history of Moses was written! There is one important chapter in the\npractical life of Moses we can not omit to notice before we close his\nhistory, as it furnishes a still fuller illustration of his character.\nWe allude to his deliverance of \"the Lord's holy people\" from Egyptian\nbondage. Several of the incidents in this narrative are incredibly\nabsurd; and some of them of such demoralizing tendency, that it becomes\nthe duty of the moralist to expose them to view. The conduct of his\nGod Jehovah toward the King of Egypt in this case is so repulsive and\nunjust, that it must call forth the condemnation of every honest-minded\nreader possessing a true sense of justice.\n\n1. We are told that Jehovah, through Moses, frequently ordered Pharaoh\nto let his people go, and then as often hardened his heart that he\nshould _not_ let them go; and finally punished him with death because he\nwas unwilling to let them go.\n\nIt would certainly be difficult to discover any sense or any justice or\nany consistency in such conduct.\n\n2. It looks like not only a strange kind of _justice_, but monstrous\n_injustice_, for Jehovah or any God to kill a man for doing what he\nhad purposely _compelled_ him to do. Live frogs, lice, flies, blood,\nvengeance, and death were poured out upon the king and his subjects,\nostensibly for the purpose of compelling him to liberate the Jewish\nnation; and yet it was morally impossible for him to do so, because the\nsame Jehovah had planted in his mind the determination not to let them\ngo.\n\n3. When Moses spake to Pharaoh in the name of Jehovah to release the\nIsraelites, the king asked, \"Who is the Lord [thy Lord] that I should\nobey his voice?\" Here let it be borne in mind that different nations had\ntheir own Gods. And Moses' God is here the same itinerant being who had\nbeen rambling about among the bushes, hunting his lost child (Adam),\neating griddle-cakes with Abraham, wrestling all night with Jacob,\ngetting whipped in a fight with the Canaanites, &c. Pharaoh was\ntherefore justified in calling for his credentials.\n\n4. In nearly all the contests between Jehovah and other Gods, their\npower is fully admitted; and their success was only secondary to that\nof the God of Israel. The question was not, Shall Jehovah succeed, and\nother Gods fail? but, Shall Jehovah be awarded the first prize in the\ncontest, and his name stand at the top of the list?\n\n5. There are many texts in the Bible which go to show that Jehovah was\njealous of other Gods, and perpetually in fear of being outgeneraled by\nthem. \"Ye shall know that I am the Lord,\" was the constant burden of his\nsong. In the case before us he is represented as saying to Pharaoh, \"In\nthis thou shalt know that _I am the Lord_\" (Exod. vii. 17). \"It is true\nyou have a God, and he is very smart and powerful; but he can't come up\nto me.\"\n\n6. Jehovah seems to have been actuated by an aspiration for fame and\npower, as well as by a sympathy for his people in this contest with\nPharaoh; for he is represented as saying, \"I will get me _honor_ upon\nPharaoh and his host\" (Exod. xiv. 17). Here seems to be displayed a\nspirit of vanity, and a thirst for glory,--the aspiration of vain rulers\nand petty tyrants.\n\n7. The magicians kept up with Moses' God in the performance of miracles\ntill it came to making lice: here they failed. We might conjecture\nit was because all the dust had been already converted into lice by\nJehovah, were it not that they had previously converted the water into\nblood just after Jehovah had performed that miracle, and left not a pint\nto drink.\n\n8. In the achievement of all the ten prodigies, there is no intimation\nbut that the heathen magicians performed the miracles in the same manner\nthat Moses did, and with equal success in most cases and in all the most\ndifficult ones; thus leaving Jehovah no laurels worth boasting of.\n\n9. There must have been a great many thousand honest men and women in\nEgypt; and yet Jehovah is represented as killing the first-born of all\nEgyptian parents without any distinction of character, or any regard to\ntheir innocence; and even the first-born of beasts also. In the name of\njustice and mercy, what sin had the beasts committed that they had to be\npunished?\n\n10. We are somewhat puzzled to see how the magicians could turn all\nthe waters of Egypt into blood, when it was already blood, having been\nconverted into blood a short time before by Moses and Jehovah.\n\n11. And it seems strange that Pharaoh should have horses enough for six\nhundred \"chosen chariots\" (Exod. xiv. 7) after they had all been killed,\nthree or four times by some of the plagues of Egypt.\n\n12. It is not strange that Aaron's rod should swallow up the others as\nrepresented; for he had such a start in the business, and had made such\na large serpent, he had probably used up most of the materials, and left\nnothing but scraps for making others.\n\n13. The Christian who can lay down his Bible after reading such stories\nas this, and not feel his natural and instinctive love of honesty,\njustice, and morality weakened, must be wrongly fortified by nature\nagainst moral corruption.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.--CHARACTER OF ABRAHAM, MORAL DEFECTS OF.\n\nA brief history of the father of the Jewish tribe will tend to\nillustrate and indicate the character of the whole nation, as children\nusually inherit the qualities of their parents.\n\n1. We will first notice the great promise which Jehovah made to Abraham\nwith respect to the boundless extent of his future dominion. His\nseed were to be as the dust of the earth or the sands of the sea for\nmultitude (Gen. xiii. 16). And how has this promise been fulfilled? Why,\nafter a faithful compliance with the command to \"multiply and replenish\nthe earth\" for more than three thousand years, his whole tribe only\nnumbers about six million souls, which is less than one in two hundred\nof the entire population of the globe. It would take but a few handfuls\nof dust to furnish the particles to represent the number, instead of all\nthe dust of the earth as promised or predicted.\n\n2. Jehovah promised Abraham, in the second place, all the country \"from\nthe river of Egypt to the great river,--the River Euphrates\" (Gen. xv.\n18). And yet, after the lapse of three thousand years, we do not find\nmany occupying a foot of it. Another failure to execute his promise.\n\n3. \"To thee will I give it [the promised land], and to thy seed for\never\" (Gen. xiii. 15). It will be observed here, that the title and\npossession was to be perpetual,--to the end of the world, \"_for ever_.\"\nAnd yet it has been in the possession of other nations five or six\ntimes; and now not many of the Lord's holy people can be found there.\nAnother signal failure.\n\n4. Jehovah promised Abraham all the land \"from the river of Egypt to\nthe River Euphrates;\" but they have never had possession of the country\nwithin two hundred miles of the river of Egypt (Nile). A writer quaintly\nsuggests that Jehovah could never have previously seen the country he\nselected for his holy people, or he would not have chosen it; for all\nmodern travelers agree in describing it as being a poor, mountainous,\nrocky, barren, and desolate country. One writer says, \"It is a country\nof rocks and mountains, stones, cliffs, bounded by vast, dreary, and\nuninhabitable deserts.\" St. Jerome describes it as being \"the refuse and\nrubbish of nature.\" And this is the country, let it be remembered, that\nJehovah promised his people as the chosen spot of the earth. How little\nhe knew of geography!\n\n5. Jehovah and Abraham appear to have been very intimate friends, as\nthey ate and slept together; and the \"Judge of all the earth\" was often\na guest in the little, narrow, mud-built hut of the patriarch to eat\nveal, parched corn, and griddle-cakes with him, and have his feet washed\nalso by the old man (Gen. xviii. 18). From such circumstances it would\nappear that Jehovah traveled over the country in the character of a\nfoot-pad or \"tramp,\" and got into the mud occasionally. It is strange\nthat Christians can read their Bible without noticing this disparaging\ncaricature of their God.\n\n6. Abraham's conduct towards his servant-girl Hagar is both I\ndisgraceful and inhuman, as he first destroyed her character and\nvirtue by criminal intimacy, and then turned her and her child into\nthe wilderness to starve (Gen. xxi.). Such conduct is certainly very\nreprehensible.\n\n7. And this is the man who is represented as being chosen by a God of\ninfinite wisdom, infinite purity, and infinite holiness, to stand at the\nhead of the moral regeneration and salvation of the whole human\nrace. Such a conception is derogatory to the divine character, and\ndemoralizing to those who read and believe it.\n\n8. Among other immoral and disgraceful acts of \"God's chosen servant,\"\n\"the righteous patriarch,\" \"the Holy man of God,\" was that of uttering\nthe most shameful and unblushing falsehood. He is charged with\nintentional lying on two different occasions, in representing his wife\nas being his sister,--once to Pharaoh, and once to King Abimelech; and\nhis wife indorsed \\ his falsehood. (See Gen. chap. xii. and xx.)\n\n9. And yet, in the face of all these immoral deeds, God is represented\nas saying, \"Abraham kept all my commands, all my statutes, and all my\nlaws.\" (See Gen. xxvi. 5.) Hence the inevitable conclusion that\nAbraham was living up to the commands, statutes, and laws of God, while\ncommitting these crimes and outrages upon humanity. What a moral, or\nrather immoral lesson, is this to place before the heathen of foreign\ncountries, and the children of our own, who read the Bible! It must have\na tendency to demoralize them, and encourage them in the commission\nof similar crimes, as certainly as they are beings endowed with human\nfrailties. Note these facts.\n\n10. And we find other disgraceful, as well as incredible, deeds charged\nto the father of \"the faithful.\" The account of the surrender of his\nmanhood, and the obliteration of every impulse parental feeling required\nto obtain his consent to butcher his son Isaac upon the altar, imparts\na humiliating moral lesson (Gent. xxii.). It matters not that he did not\ncommit the deed. He consented to do it, and was ready to do it;\nwhich proves a state of mind calculated to make humanity shudder. The\nNew-Zealanders have been known to point the missionaries to this example\nas a justification of their cruel practices of slaughtering human\nbeings. If a father in this age of civilization should do such a thing,\nor even attempt it as Abraham did, he would be looked upon as a monster\nin human shape, or perfectly insane, even if he should claim that God\ncalled upon him to perform the act. It would have been infinitely better\nto disobey such a God than to disobey and outrage every parental and\nkindly im-pulse of his nature. But the case furnishes _prima-facie_\nevidence that Abraham was under a religious delusion in supposing God\nrequired the performance of such an inhuman deed. To assume that he did\nwould make him more of a demon than a God. Any man or woman is to be\npitied whose education has misled him or her, and blinded them so that\nthey can not see that the reading of a book teaching such lessons must\nprove morally injurious to the mind.\n\n11. The injunction on Abraham to slay his son is said to have been\nimposed upon him to try his faith. His faith in what? I would ask.\nFaith in his own humanity? faith in his love and affection for his\nson? Nothing of the kind! but faith in his susceptibility of rendering\nhimself an inhuman monster. Let us suppose a father says to his son,\n\"Richard, I want you to draw a knife, and cut your brother Robert's\nthroat;\" and afterwards explains the matter by telling him he issued\nthis order to try whether he would obey him. But his son would evince\nmore manhood, and a better moral character, by refusing to obey him. It\nis much better to obey the dictates of conscience, humanity, and mercy,\nthan to obey a father or a God in a case like this.\n\n12. And Jehovah is represented as saying, through an angel, \"Now I know\nthat thou fearest God\" (Gen. xxii. 12); equivalent to saying, \"If I had\nnot tried this experiment, I should not have known any thing about it.\"\nWhat blind mortals human beings can become, to suppose that a God of\ninfinite wisdom, who \"searcheth the hearts of all men,\" must resort to\ncruel and shocking experiments to find out the the state of their minds!\n\n13. But the history of the case discloses the fact that it did not\neffect the end desired,--that of proving Abraham's faith,--not in the\nleast, unless we assume that Abraham lied in the case. For he said\nto the young men while on the road to the altar, \"Abide here until we\n[myself and son] go yonder and worship, and come again to you.\" Here is\nevidence that Abraham knew he would bring his son back alive; that is,\nthat Isaac would return with him, or that he told a falsehood in order\nto deceive. The reader can seize which horn of the dilemma he prefers.\nIf he knew what the issue of the case would be, it would, of course,\nbe no trial of his faith whatever. And yet Paul and other New-Testament\nwriters laud the act as being one of great merit and a proof of his\nfaith.\n\n14. We must hasten on. We can only give a passing notice of a few other\nacts of this illustrious patriarch, in whom \"all the nations of the\nearth were to be blessed.\" Jehovah is represented as saying to Abraham,\non a certain occasion, \"I will go down now, and see whether they [the\nSodomites] have done according\" to my desire. \"If not, I will know\"\n(Gen. xviii. 21). This is one of several cases in which \"the Judge of'\nall the earth\" is represented as abandoning the throne of heaven, and\ncoming down to learn what was going on below. What a contracted and\nignorant being was the Jewish Jehovah!\n\n15. The mission of Jehovah at one time, when he called upon Abraham, was\nto inform him that his gray-headed wife, approaching a hundred years,\nwas to be blessed with a son in her old age. Has it never occurred\nto Bible admirers that this and other similar cases represented the\nAlmighty, whom \"the heaven of heavens can not contain,\" as traveling\nover the country in the character of a fortune-teller, notifying old\nwomen that the laws of nature would be suspended long enough to allow\nthem to be blessed or cursed with the care and perplexity of children in\ntheir old age?\n\n16. It should be noticed that Abraham's God never reproved him for any\nof his misdeeds; while, on the other hand, the heathen King Abimelech\ncalled the man of God to account for his moral defects (Gen. xx.).\n\n17. One of the most dishonorable acts recorded in the history of\nAbraham's God was that of bringing a plague upon Pharaoh and his\nhousehold for receiving, Abaham's wife, when it was brought about wholly\nthrough his treachery and misrepresentation, and when it appears that\nPharaoh treated her in the most respectful manner.\n\n18. But, with all these moral stains upon the character of Abraham, it\nbecomes a pleasant task to record one good act in his life. He seems\nto have presented the practical proof that he was a better man than\nhis God; for, when Jehovah threatened the destruction of Sodom for her\nwickedness, Abraham remonstrated, and suggested that it would be an act\nof injustice to destroy the righteous with the wicked. It appears\nthat this moral consideration had escaped the mind of Jehovah. What an\ninconsiderate, reckless being Bible writers represent the Almighty as\nbeing!\n\n19. Abraham, according to his history, was a man of valor, and achieved\nsome great exploits. For instance, with the assistance of his regiment\nof one hundred and eighteen servants, he chased at one time four great\nkings, with their mighty hosts,--the King of Babylon, the King of\nPersia, the King of Pontus, and the King of Nations (Gen. xiv.). He\ndrove them, we are told, more than a hundred miles, and recovered his\nbrother Lot from their grasp. A few such daring heroes could have put\ndown the American Rebellion without a battle.\n\n20. We will only observe further, that this \"true servant of the Lord\"\nwas both a polygamist and an idolater; at least we have the authority\nof the Jewish writer, Philo, for saying that his father was a maker of\nimages, and that Abraham worshiped them? Such is a brief outline of the\ncharacter of the man who is held up as an example for us to imitate, and\nthrough whom \"all the nations of the earth are to be blessed,\" and the\nman who stands at the head of that nation through which, we are told,\na revelation has been given to the world which is to effect the moral\nregeneration and salvation of the whole human race. Whether the means\nare adapted to the ends, the reader is left to judge.\n\nII. CHARACTER OF ISAAC.\n\n1. In accordance with the adage, \"Like father, like son,\" we find Isaac\ncarrying out the same spirit of fraud and deception practiced by his\nfather. When \"the men of the plain asked him about his wife, he said,\nshe is my sister\" (Gen. xxvi.); \"and this man Isaac was another of the\nfaithful servants of the Lord.\"\n\n2. If the statement is true that the Lord struck Ananias and Sapphira\nwith sudden death for telling a falsehood, as related in Acts v., the\nquestion naturally arises, Why did Abraham and Isaac escape the\nsame fate, as they were guilty of the same sin? Why this partiality?\nManifestly, this is a bad lesson in morals.\n\nIII. CHARACTER OF JACOB, MORAL DEFECTS OF.\n\n1. \"Like father, like son,\" is again verified in the practical life of\nJacob. We find this patriarch excels, in moral defects, both his father\nand his grandfather.\n\n2. His conduct toward his brother Esau, in robbing him of his just and\ninherited rights, is an act which stamps an eternal stigma upon his\ncharacter. When Jacob's father, old and blind, asked him, \"Art thou\nmy son Esau?\" he replied, \"I am\" (Gen. xxvii. 24), thus telling a\nbase falsehood, and deceiving his old father; and this deceptive and\nunderhanded act caused his brother \"to cry an exceedingly bitter cry\"\n(Gen. xxvii. 34 ). What an unfeeling brother was this \"true servant of\nthe Lord\"!\n\nIt appears that Isaac and Jehovah both intended that Esau should inherit\nthe blessing; but Jacob outwitted them by the aid and connivance of his\nmother. This is but a sample of the character and conduct of the family\nthroughout their whole history.\n\n3. Jacob seems to have entertained very singular and selfish ideas in\nregard to his religious obligation to serve and worship his God. He made\nit entirely a question of bread and butter, or, rather, of bread and\nraiment. He proposed to strike up a trade with Jehovah relative to\nhis future allegiance to his government, and to fix the terms of the\ncontract himself (Gen. xxviii.). He kindly and condescendingly told\nJehovah, that if he would provide him with food and raiment, and be his\nconstant companion in the future, \"then shall the Lord be _my_ God, and\nthis _stone_ shall be _God's house_; and I will give _one-tenth_ to the\nLord of what he giveth me\" (Gen. xxviii. 20). Here is the attempt to\ndrive a bargain with Jehovah on the _quid-pro-quo_ principle. We are\nnot informed how Jehovah appreciated this kindly offer. This is an\nunfortunate omission, as every reader must feel interested in knowing\nwhether he accepted the proposition; and henceforth he whom \"the heaven\nof heavens can not contain\" took up his abode in the patriarch's little\nstone hut. We are led to infer, that, if Jehovah refused to accept his\nterms, Jacob would henceforth refuse to be a subject of God's kingdom,\nand thus bring him to grief. This is a sample of the childish conception\nentertained by the whole Jewish nation of \"the God of the universe,\" if\nwe may presume their God was any thing more than a family or national\ndeity.\n\n4. The proneness of the Lord's holy people to falsify, and deceive is\nwell illustrated in the case of Laban, who, after Jacob had by a fair\ncontract, labored seven years for him for his daughter Rachel, would not\nlet him have her, but forced his older daughter Leah upon him; and, when\nJacob complained he told him he must serve seven years more if he got\nRachel; and his love for her prompted him to accept the terms. But he\nseems not to have been well compensated for his fourteen long years of\ntoil for these two sisters. Their subsequent conduct indicates that he\n\"paid dear for the whistle;\" and one month's labor ought to have paid\nfor both, even at ten cents a day, for they both turned out to be\nfailures. They were, however, a fair specimen of the race. Rachel stole\nher father's images; and, when pursued and overtaken by him, she hid\nthem, and told him a falsehood to conceal the act. The circumstance of\nher father _having_ images, and of her _stealing_ them, is an evidence\nthat both were idolaters (Gen. xxxi.).\n\n5. It is easy to see, from the foregoing facts, from what source the\nJewish proclivity to idolatry and also to falsehood was derived. The\nlatter was practically manifested by four hundred prophets at one time.\nIt is true the Lord was charged with putting the lie in their mouths (1\nKings xxii. 22).\n\n6. We are told, that, on a certain occasion, \"the sons of Jacob answered\nShechem, and Hamor his father, deceitfully\" (Gen. xxxiv. 13); by which\nit appears the spirit or propensity to fraud and deception was still\ntransmitted to their posterity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.--CHARACTER OF DAVID-HIS NUMEROUS CRIMES.\n\nHere is one of the illustrious Bible characters who has been held up to\nthe world for several thousand years as the \"sweet singer of Israel,\"\nand \"the man after God's own heart;\" whose life is stained by the\ncommission of a long list of crimes of the blackest character, some of\nwhich would send him to the State prison for life if committed in this\nmorally enlightened age.\n\n1. One of his first acts of moral delinquency was that of turning\ntraitor to Achish, King of Gath. After the king had kindly given him\na rulership over the city of Ziklag, he manifested his ingratitude\nby waging an unprovoked war for plunder upon the king's friends and\nrelatives, to rob them of their cattle (1 Sam. xxvii.).\n\n2. David, with an army, committed a similar act of aggression and\nspoliation upon the rights and property of Nabal, to attain his cattle\nby robbery (1 Sam. xxv.).\n\n3. David at one time turned traitor to his own nation by joining the\narmy of Achish to fight them (1 Sam. xxix.).\n\n4. David obtained possession of the kingdom of Ishboshett by bribery and\nintrigue, after acknowledging him to be a righteous man (2 Sam. iii.).\n\n5. David robbed Mephibosheth, the son of his bosom-friend Jonathan,\nand a poor cripple, of one-half of his estate, upon the plea that might\nmakes right (2 Sam. xvi.).\n\n6. David connived at some of the most abominable and atrocious crimes of\nhis sons (2 Sam.).\n\n7. The manner in which David obtained his first wife Michal is shocking\nto all who possess kind and philanthropic feelings. Saul had proposed a\nhundred foreskins of the Philistines as the price of his daughter; but\nDavid, in wanton cruelty, killed two hundred for this purpose.\n\n8. The manner in which David obtained his beautiful wife Bathsheba, to\nadd to his list of wives, might be tolerated in that era of barbarism;\nbut it must be looked upon at the present time as an act of cruelty and\nwickedness. He said to Joab, \"Set Uriah in the front of the battle...\nthat he may be smitten and die\" (2 Sam. xi. 15); which was equivalent to\nslaying him with his own hands, and for no crime, but solely to get his\nwidow for a wife.\n\n9. Thus, we see, David was not only a polygamist, but he obtained his\nwives by fraud, murder, and intrigue.\n\n10. David's _dancing naked_ in public was an indecent act, although\nseveral cases are reported of \"the holy\" men of that age appearing\nin public in a state of nudity. His wife Michal upbraided him for\n\"uncovering himself to the eyes of the handmaids, his servants, as one\nof the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself\" (2 Sam. vi.). It\nis said that \"David danced before the Lord with all his might.\" Can we\nsuppose the Lord would fancy such sights?\n\n11. David's treatment of the Moabites in killing two-thirds of them\nwithout any just provocation is an act that would hang any man of the\npresent day (2 Sam. viii.).\n\n12. The fiendish act of David in placing the Moabites under saws and\nharrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and making them walk through\nbrick-kilns (2 Sam. xii.), bespeaks a heart callous with cruelty,\nunmerciful as a tiger. The very thought of it is calculated to chill the\nblood of a person with the feelings of common humanity.\n\n13. David's murder of five step-sons and two brothers-in-law, to gratify\na malignant grudge toward the house of Saul, is another act showing the\nfiendish character of the man.\n\n14. When David was so old and stricken in years that no amount of\nbed-clothing could keep him warm, he made this a plea for marrying\nanother wife--and a young maid at that--to lie in his bosom him warm (1\nKings i. 1). Lust knows no failure in expedients.\n\n15. David's advice to his son Solomon on his death-bed, to assassinate\nJoab and his other enemies, shows that his ruling passions--animosity\nand revenge--were strong in death.\n\n16. And finally David's wicked prayer, as found in the hun-dred and\nninth Psalm, in which he invokes a string of the most horrid curses\nupon his enemies, culminates his immoral history. It completes the\ndemoralizing picture of the \"man after God's own heart.\" Now, we ask in\nsolemn earnest, is it not evident that a book indorsing such characters\nas David, placed in the hands of the heathen of other countries or the\nchildren of our own, must have a demoralizing tendency? Most certainly,\nif\n\nFranklin was right in saying, \"The reading of bad examples will make bad\nmorals.\" Remember, the perpetrator of all these crimes is said to be \"a\nman after God's own heart.\" If so, then God must have approved of\nall his crimes. But such a God will not do for this age; and to teach\nchildren and heathen such a lesson is calculated to effect their moral\nruin.\n\nII. CHARACTER OF SOLOMON.\n\nSolomon's writings and history both show that he was a libertine, a\ntyrant, and a polygamist. His tyrannical monopoly-of seven hundred wives\nand three hundred prostitutes, making him a practica \"Free-lover\" on\na large scale, is an indelible stigma upon his character. It was a\nusurpation of the rights, and a trespass upon the liberties, of nearly\ntwo thousand men and women. It prevented them from filling the mission\nor sphere in life that God designed them to enjoy. The organization of\nthe sexes shows they were designed to be husbands and wives and parents.\nAnd the nearly equal number of the sexes is an evidence that nearly\na thousand men were deprived of wives by Solomon's monopoly of women;\nwhile, on the other hand, those women were prevented from sustaining the\ntrue relation of wives. When he could not see those women more than once\nin three years by calling on one of them each day, it is a farce, and\nan insult to reason, to call them wives. Could a woman sustain the\npractical relation of wife to a man she only saw as husband once in\nthree years? The very idea is ridiculous, and a mockery of the true\nmarriage relation. And yet this is the man who is represented as being\nsuch a special favorite of God as to receive a portion of his divine\nwisdom. It is a slander, if any thing can be, upon Infinite Wisdom. By\nreading his amorous song, we can learn his motives for enslaving such a\nlarge number of women.\n\nIf this \"wise man\" is to be accepted as authority (and he should be if\nhe got his wisdom directly from God), then we must relinquish all hope\nof an immortal existence. Hear him: \"For that which befalleth the sons\nof men befalleth the beasts:... as the one dieth, so dieth the other;\nyea, they have all one breath, so that a man hath no pre-eminence over\na beast\" (Eccles. iii. 19). Here is a plain and unequivocal denial of\nman's conscious existence beyond the grave. Nor does the Old-Testament\nwriter teach the doctrine. Job denies it in still more explicit terms,\nif possible. (See Job xiv. 10.)\n\nIII. LOT AND HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTERS.\n\nThe act of Abram's brother Lot delivering up his two daughters to the\nSodomites, \"to do to them as is good in your eyes\" (Gen. xix. 8), must\nexcite reflections in the highest degree revolting to the mind of every\nfather who has daughters. The act of a father voluntarily offering up\nhis virtuous daughters to gratify the depraved passions of a mob is too\nshocking to contemplate.\n\nAnd to accept such a character as a \"righteous man\" must certainly\nweaken the faith of the Bible believer in a true system of morality, and\nplant in his mind a very low standard of the moral perfections of God.\n\nWe are told (Gen. xix. 26) that Lot's wife was converted into a pillar\nof salt as a penalty for the simple act of looking back. Several\nabsurdities are observable in this story:--\n\n1. It is difficult to conceive how any sin or crime could be attached to\nthe natural act of turning the head to look in any direction, especially\nwhen no injunction had been laid upon the act.\n\n2. If there were any thing so inherently wrong in the act of looking\nback as to be visited with such direful penalties, pillars of salt would\nsoon become more numerous than frogs were in Egypt.\n\n3. Reason would suggest that, to put the thing in shape to be believed\nby future generations, the woman should have been converted into some\nimperishable substance, such as granite, gold, silver, or pig-iron.\nA woman made of salt, or salt of a woman, would soon dissolve and\ndisappear.\n\n4. The Hindoos relate that a woman in India was once converted into a\npillar of stone for an act of unchastity; and \"the stone is there unto\nthis day.\" Here is a story with a better foundation: the Egyptians have\nthe tradition of a woman being converted into a tree for the act of\nplucking some fruit after it had been interdicted. How many of these\nstories should we credit?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.--CHARACTER OF THE JEWISH PROPHETS.\n\nIt is a circumstance indicative of the natural moral defects of the\nJewish character, that their most \"holy men,\" who were assumed to be\nfamiliar with the counsels of Infinite Wisdom, and on terms of daily\nintercourse with Jehovah, yet were, according to their own history, men\nof such defective moral habits and moral character as to be unreliable\neither as examples of moral rectitude, or with respect to their\nprophetic utterances. We will here present a brief sketch of the\ncharacter of the principal prophets, drawn from their own \"inspired\nwritings:\"--\n\nThe leading prophet Isaiah says, \"The priest and the _prophet_ have\nerred through strong drink. They are swallowed up of wine. They are out\nof the way through strong drink. They err in vision. They stumble in\njudgment\" (Isa. xxiv. 7).\n\nHere is a sweeping charge against _all_ the prophets,--_not one_ of them\nexcepted. If they err in vision (of course he means _spiritual_ vision),\nthen what reliance can be placed in their prophecies, especially if it\nis true, as he declares in chap. ix., that \"the prophets teach\nlies\"? Then we can not confide implicitly in any thing they say. This\nconclusion, and also the foregoing portraiture of their character,\nis confirmed by Hosea. 2; who says, in chap. ix., that \"the Lord will\npunish the _prophets for their sins and their iniquities_;\" also, \"The\n_prophet_ is a _snare_ in all his ways; the _prophet is a fool_,\" &c.\n(Hos. ix. 7, 9). Micah says that they _divined for money_, and _made the\npeople err_. What confidence, we ask, can be placed in men, either for\ntruthfulness or as moral teachers, who are thus represented by their own\nhistorians and their own friends to be almost destitute of moral\nprinciple? Each one denounces all the others. The implied meaning in\neach case seems to be, \"Take my pills, and beware of counterfeits.\"\nZechariah, who was one of them, declared the Lord would drive them all\nout of the land with the unclean spirits (Zech. xiii. 2). We should not,\nhowever, be surprised to find them possessing such a character, when\ntheir God, Jehovah, is represented as being no better, and is on the\nsame moral plane. They, in fact, make him responsible for all their\nmoral derelictions and sinful acts by representing him as being the\nauthor or instigator. \"If a prophet be deceived,... I the Lord have\ndeceived that prophet\" (Ezek. xiv. 9).\n\nHere the word prophet is used in a general sense, so as to imply that\nnone are excepted. Jeremiah takes God at his word when he exclaims, \"O\nLord, thou hast deceived me\" (Jer. xx. 7).\n\nHere, it will be observed, the moral character of Jehovah and his\nprophets were all cast in the same imperfect mold.\n\nThat superstition reigned supreme in the very _highest order_ of the\nJewish minds, to the exclusion of science, is shown by some of the wild,\nsuperstitious freaks of the prophets. Isaiah traveled through Egypt\nand Ethiopia three years stark naked (Isa. xx. 3). Such a disgusting\nexhibition, if attempted in this age of civilization, would terminate in\na few hours by the lodgment of the lunatic in the calaboose. Jehovah, it\nappears, first prompted the act, and afterwards spoke approving of it by\nsaying it was performed by \"my servant Isaiah\" (Isa. xx. 3).\n\nEzekiel and Habakkuk both would have us believe that God seized them\nby the hair of the head, and carried them,--the former, the distance of\neight miles; and the latter, three hundred, miles. How Jehovah himself\ntraveled while performing this feat of carrying the prophets is not\nexplained. It must have been rather an unpleasant way of traveling, and\nmust have caused some serious perturbation of mind lest the hair-hold\nshould slip, and precipitate them to the ground. If this mode of travel\ncould have been continued, it would have superseded the necessity of\nrailroads.\n\nEzekiel, we are told, lay three hundred and ninety days on his left\nside, and forty days on his right side; and then, having swallowed\na roll of parchment with the aid of Jehovah (Ezek. iii. 1), he was\nprepared for business. We are not told what was the object in swallowing\nsuch a formidable document, or how he managed to get into his stomach an\narticle having a diameter four times that of his throat. Jeremiah wore\ncords around his neck, and a yoke on his back (rather a singular place\nfor a yoke). Hosea claimed that God commanded him twice to go and marry\na whore (Hos. i. Z). This looks like a connivance at, if not a tacit\nindorsement of, whoredom. Ezekiel relates a \"story\" about being carried\nby \"the hand of the Lord,\" and set down among some old dry bones, which\nhe proceeded to invest with human flesh and sinews, and then drew skins\nover them to hold the flesh and bones together (Ezek. xxx vii.). Having\nthus manufactured a new supply of the _genus homo_, he invoked the four\nwinds to inflate their bodies with breath, when, lo! there \"stood upon\ntheir feet an exceeding great army.\" We use his own language. Here is\na story that casts all the wild and weird tales of heathen mythology in\nthe shade. There would have been no necessity for drafting soldiers in\nthe recent Rebellion if the country could have been blessed with such a\ncreative genius as Ezekiel. Such stories set all logic at defiance.\nIf the first commandment, \"Multiply and replenish the earth,\" had been\nneglected so as to render it necessary to adopt another process for\nincreasing the number of human beings, certainly a more rational and\ndecent mode might have been invented. We will not relate any more of the\ncurious capers of these \"inspired men of God.\"\n\nSome Christian writers have disposed of such erratic conduct, and such\nwild freaks of fancy, by assuming them to be the garb or metaphor\nof some great spiritual truth. This is explained by the proverb,\n\"Necessity is the mother of invention;\" but the common mind knows nothing\nof these inventions of the priesthood to save the credit of the Bible.\nHence, whether true or false, such an explanation does not destroy the\ndemoralizing influence of such ideas and language upon the public mind;\nand then it is derogatory to the character of God to assume he would\ndo such senseless and unrighteous things as are related in some of the\nabove cases. We insist that it would be a serious calamity upon the\ncountry to make a book containing such moral lessons, or rather immoral\nlessons, \"the fountain of our laws and the supreme rule of our conduct,\"\nas urged by the Evangelical Alliance; and it is a sorrowful and\ndeplorable circumstance that such a book is circulated among the heathen\nby the thousand as guides for their moral conduct. We wish they would\nrefuse to accept it, as the Japanese have done in the past.\n\nII. THE PROPHETS ELIJAH AND ELISHA.\n\nThere are some peculiar features in the history of these two Hebrew\nprophets, for which they seem to merit a special notice. They appear to\nhave been on very familiar terms with Jehovah; and the whole machinery\nof heaven, we are led to conclude, was under their control, with no\nspecial reason why they should merit such divine partiality, as they\nwere not overstocked with practical righteousness. The acts of raising\nthe dead and controlling the elements appear to have been to them very\ncommon-place performances. One of Elijah's greatest miraculous feats\nwas that of \"shutting up the heavens,\" so that there was no dew nor rain\nfor three years (1 Kings xvii. 1). Aside from the absolute impossibility\nof intercepting the action of the laws which control and regulate the\nentire machinery of the universe, there are several considerations which\nrender this story wholly incredible. It appears, from the language used,\nthat this drought extended over the whole earth, and all nations must\nhave suffered the direful consequences; and yet none of their histories\nallude to it. The absence of rain and dew for three years must\nhave caused the surface of the earth to become dry and parched to a\nconsiderable depth, particularly in the torrid zone. The creeks and\nrivulets must have been dried up. Every spear of grass, every tree,\nevery plant, must have withered and perished; and all the cattle must\nhave died for want of food and drink; and the people must have shared\nthe same fate. Indeed, not a living thing could have been left upon the\nface of the earth where this drought prevailed. And yet no other history\nmakes any allusion to such a calamity; and a circumstance which renders\nit more incredible is, that the moisture which is constantly ascending\nfrom the earth could not have been held in the upper strata of\nthe atmosphere for half that period of time. When it ascends and\naccumulates, and becomes sufficiently condensed, it must fall in the\nshape of rain.\n\n2. It appears that the prophet himself, in order to escape the fatal\nconsequences of this terrible visitation of divine wrath, was instructed\nto flee, and hide near the Brook Cherith, which was in the vicinity of\nJordan. Here, we are told, he was fed by a raven, which brought him both\nbread and water. The queries naturally arise here, Where did the raven\nobtain those articles of food? Why can not suffering and starvation be\nprevented at the present day by a similar expedient? Why should several\nmillions of human beings have suffered a terrible death by starvation in\nIndia within a recent period, if ravens can be employed as messengers\nof mercy? Why should God be partial? The preservation of the life of the\nprophet could not have been of so much more importance, judging from his\nsubsequent history, as he achieved but little good afterward; and, as\nnobody claims to have seen the raven but Elijah, the case looks a little\ndoubtful.\n\n3. The next miraculous feat of Elijah was that of increasing a widow's\nbarrel of meal and cruse of oil after they were nearly exhausted, so\nthat they lasted for many months. In nearly all such cases we find\nincredible features, in addition to the impossibility of performing the\nact. No reason can be found, in the history of this case, for bestowing\nsuch miraculous favors upon this woman that would not apply to thousands\nof women now, some of them even in a worse state of suffering, and in\ngreater need of divine aid. It does not appear that the miracle had the\neffect to convince anybody of the might and power of his God, nor\nthat it was designed to produce such an effect. Hence nothing was\naccomplished by it but the relief of the poor widow's wants, which was a\nvery good thing; but, as we have already remarked, she had no more\nclaim upon the benevolence and munificence of God than thousands of poor\nwidows and others of the present day who receive no such aid.\n\n4. The prophet performed, we are told, another miracle for the benefit\nof this woman, though we do not learn that she was more righteous than\nother women. Her son sickened and died (perhaps the meal was not in a\nvery healthy condition); and Elijah restored him to life. If there were\nany truth in the story, it could be accounted for by supposing the boy\nwas in a state of catalepsy, or trance, as life has been revived in\nnumerous cases in persons in this condition in modern times; and the\nconduct of Elijah furnishes some evidence that he understood it in this\nlight. He took the body into an upper room, so the performance should\nnot be witnessed by any of the company (perhaps for fear of being\ndisturbed; and he was probably apprehensive that they would suspicion,\nfrom his actions, that the boy was not dead). In fact the narrator does\nnot say he was dead, but only that the breath had gone out of him; and\nthis could be said in any case of swooning, trance, or catalepsy.\n\n5. Ahab is reported as reproving Elijah for bringing so much suffering\nupon the people by the great drought. The reason the prophet assigns\nfor this divine judgment is worthy of note. It was because Ahab and his\nsubjects worshiped a false God (Baalim). This explains the whole affair.\nThe Jews were always assuming that those who did not worship as they did\nworshipers of false Gods: but there is no evidence of were this, and no\nreason in the assumption. As St. John (i. 18) declares, \"No man has seen\nGod at any time,\" it follows that each worshiper, under every system of\nreligion, pictures on the form, size, shape, and character of God for\nhimself; and certainly, other nations had as much right to form their\nown mental conceptions of God as the Jews had, and were as likely to\nform a correct idea of him as they. They could not picture out a worse\nGod than Jehovah. Here we have a true explanation of the reason the Jews\nwere perpetually denouncing and would not subscribe to the Jewish creed.\nThe Jews were creed-worshipers.\n\n6. This conclusion is confirmed by the relation, in the next contest\nbetween the God of Elijah and the God of the prophets of Baal: We are\ntold that Elijah's God could kindle a fire upon the altar, while theirs\ncould not. Here is admitted the existence of other Gods. The only\ndifference between them is, Elijah's God was a little smarter. The same\nthing is aimed to be shown in numerous other contests between Jehovah\nand other Gods. It is merely a trial of skill, strength, and knowledge.\n\n7. And because the God of the prophets of Baal fell a little behind,\nand could not quite equal the achievements of Jehovah, we are told\nthat Elijah put the prophets all to death. Here is another circumstance\ntending to show that Elijah could not have been a true servant of a\nlust God; for such a God would not sanction such cruelty. But the story\ncarries an absurdity upon the face of it. To suppose that four hundred\nand fifty men would stand quietly, and submit to be slain by one man\nsingle-handed and alone, without any resistance, is altogether too\nincredible to be entertained for a moment.\n\n8. The next achievement of Elijah, after eating a barley cake, baked on\nthe coals, and drinking a cruse of water (1 Kings xix. 8), was to walk\nforty days and forty nights, without stopping to eat or sleep. This\nperformance was almost equal to that of the Hindoo, Yalpa, who walked\nround the sun in eleven hours. One story is just as credible as the\nother.\n\n9. We are told that, when Ahaziah, who succeeded his father making\nwar on other nations: it was simply because Ahab upon the throne, got\ncrippled by falling, and sent to consult the God of Ekron, Elijah, on\nhearing of it, asked why he did not consult the God of Israel (2 Kings\ni. G); and, when the king's messengers reported to him what the prophet\nElijah had said, he sent fifty messengers to the prophet to invite him\nto come and see him, that he might consult with him. These messengers\ntreated him very respectfully, and called him \"the man of God;\" but\nthe prophet, we are told, instead of complying with the king's request,\ncalled down fire from heaven, which consumed the whole number. When\nthe king heard of the circumstance, he sent fifty more messengers, who\nshared the same fate, and were likewise consumed by fire from heaven. An\nuncivil and very wicked thing for a righteous prophet to do.\n\n10. We are told that Elijah, in the course of his travels, came to a\nstream of water, and took off his mantle, and smote it. The water parted\nhither and thither, and permitted him to walk in the bottom of the\nstream. Another display of his great miraculous power; but it is void of\ntruth.\n\n11. The last astounding feat reported of this miraculous prophet\nwas that of ascending to heaven in a chariot of fire, with horses\nmade of the same material. Rather a hazardous mode of traveling. This\nstory is contradicted both by the laws of nature, and the express\ndeclaration of the Bible itself. The former teaches us that the fire\nwould have been extinguished for want of oxygen before he had ascended\nmany miles from the earth; and the latter declares, \"Flesh and blood can\nnot enter the kingdom of heaven;\" and also that \"no man hath ascended up\nto heaven but he that came down from heaven,\"--Christ Jesus (John\niii. 13). There are several circumstances which render these marvelous\nachievements of Elijah wholly incredible, in addition to their\nsetting aside the laws of nature. We can not learn that any good was\naccomplished by it. It does not appear that anybody was converted to a\nlife of practical righteousness; while we must assume that God must\nhave had some great purpose in view to cause him to thus set aside and\ntrample under foot his own laws. On the other hand, a great deal of bad\nfeeling was engendered, and a great many lives destroyed. And then\nthere is no allusion whatever to these astonishing miracles in any\nother history. All these circumstances and considerations warrant us\nin discarding the whole affair, though Christian writers attach great\nimportance to it.\n\nTHE FEATS OR ELISHA.\n\nThe marvelous deeds of Elisha appear to be, to a considerable extent,\na mere repetition of those of Elijah. Like his predecessor, he raised a\ndead child to life, increased the supply of oil for a widow after it had\nrun short, and also increased the quantity of good water for the people\nby a supernatural process, though not by a shower of rain, as Elijah\ndid, after a three years drought. There is evidently a disposition to\nimitate and outdo his predecessor: hence he brings water without the\nprocess of rain. There are two or three incidents in his history worthy\nof notice:--\n\n1. When Elijah took his perilous flight heavenward, and left him alone,\nwe are told he rent his garments. This act, although customary among\n\"the Lord's holy people,\" was rather an insane way of manifesting his\ngrief. A man in this age doing so would be taken to the insane asylum.\n\n2. The second performance of Elisha, deserving particular notice, was an\nact of malignant revenge upon some frolicsome boys reminding him that\nhe was bald-headed. For this simple, childish, though rude, act of\ncalling him \"bald-head,\" we are told he caused \"two bears to come out of\nthe woods, and tear forty-two of them to pieces.\" Why the other children\nescaped this fate, we are not told. This conduct on the part of the\nprophet evinces a morose, cruel, and revengeful disposition, instead\nof a philanthropic and benevolent one, as we should have expected the\nLord's chosen prophet to manifest. If the story were a credible one,\nit would be a stigma upon his character while it stands on the page of\nhistory.\n\n3. There is one circumstance related in the history of Elisha which\nseems to indicate that he was a man of rather gross habits. It is\nstated, that, when he killed a yoke of oxen for food, he \"boiled their\nflesh with the instruments of the oxen,\" and gave the people to eat (1\nKings xix. 21). We infer, from this lan guage, that the oxen were thrown\ninto the cooking-vessel whole, without being skinned or cleaned. It most\nhave been rather a rare dish, and a tough one also.\n\n4. We will notice one more remarkable incident in the history of this\nremarkable prophet. We are told, that, as some men were felling some\ntrees on the banks of the Jordan, one of them, by accident, let his\nax fall into the stream. On the case being reported to Elisha, he soon\nrelieved the man of his trouble by throwing a stick into the water,\nwhich caused the ax to swim. Here is another specimen of the philosophy\nof the Christian Bible. Heathen mythology is full of such lawless\nstories. When the boat in which a Hindoo was rowing capsized, and threw\nhis dinner into the Indus, a fish was accommodating enough to arrest\nit in its descent, and bring it to the surface, and restore it to the\nhungry boatman. A very accommodating fish! as much so as the stick!\n\nWe will now take a view of the moral bearing of the stories of these\ngreat \"God-chosen\" and \"God-favored prophets,\" as one Christian writer\nstyles them. We must assume that God would not suspend the action of\nthose laws which secure order and harmony throughout nature to perform\nsuch miracles as these prophets are represented as performing, unless\nsome great and important end was to be accomplished by it. Well, let us\nsee if this was the result; if not, we must assume that these miracles\nwere never performed. According to Dr. Lardner, miracles were always\ndesigned to accomplish some great good, and generally to remove the\nskepticism of unbelievers, and to convince them of the mighty power of\nGod. But we do not find that any such effects were produced by any of\nthe miracles here reported. The performance of Elijah did not convert\nAhab nor Jezebel, nor the worshipers of Baal, either to the faith or\nto a life of practical righteousness; nor did those of Elisha convert\nNaaman; nor did either of the prophets convert or reform any of the\nthousands of heathen in the countries through which they traveled. The\ncontemporary kings of Judah and Israel still continued in their ungodly\ncourse as before. In a word, nobody was benefited, nobody reformed, and\nno good effected by any of these miracles, only to a few individuals,\nwhich could have been accommodated in the usual way,--by ordinary\nmeans. On the other hand, bad feelings were engendered, many lives\nlost, and much suffering caused by their miraculous proceedings. We\nmust conclude, then, that, so far as any agency of God is claimed in\nthe several cases, these miracles were never performed; and we have the\nnegative testimony of history to prove still further that these miracles\nwere never wrought. The history of no other nation mentions them, not\neven the three years of drought; yet Christ speaks of it, and indorses\nit with all its impossibilities and all its bad consequences, which is\nan evidence of his ignorance of natural law. As these stories, by their\nstultifying absurdities, do violence to our reason, and also to our\nmoral faculties, on account of the cruelty, injustice, bloodshed (for it\nshows both prophets were murderers), we hold, from these considerations,\nthat the influence of these stories is demoralizing, and that they\nshould not be put into the hands of the heathen, as they are every year\nby the thousand.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.--PROGRESSIVE IDEAS OF DEITY.\n\n\nIDOLATRY: ITS CHARACTER, USES, HARMLESSNESS, AND PRIMARY ORIGIN.\n\nThere is no act, no species, of human conduct, nothing recognized as\na sin within the lids of the Christian Bible, which is perhaps more\nfearfully or more frequently condemned, or denounced with more awful and\nterrible penalties, than that of idolatry. Those who practiced it are\nranked with murderers and liars (Rev. xxii. 15); and it is declared,\n\"They shall not inherit The kingdom of God\" (1 Cor. vi. 9), but \"shall\nhave their portion in the lake of fire and brimstone\" (Rev. xxi.\n8). Now, we propose to bestow a brief examination upon the origin,\ncharacter, and practical moral effect of this ancient practice, that we\nmay learn the nature of the custom which is thus placed at the head of\nthe list of the acts of human depravity, and regarded as the blackest\nand most infamous crime ever perpetrated by sinful man. We find it\nmanifested under various forms, the original or most primitive aspect\nof which, so far as disclosed by the light of history, is known\nas _Fetichism_,--the worship of inanimate objects. Stretching the\nimagination far away in the rearward of time,--far back along the\nreceding pathway of human history, over a series of many thousands, not\nto say millions, of years,--we arrive at a period in which man is found\noccupying a plane of mere animal, sensorial existence, connected with\nwhich was an imperfect development of perception and reflection. In this\nera of his mental growth he began to perceive and recognize the motions\nof objects around him. He observed bright and shining bodies rolling\nover his head,--one by day, and ten thousand more by night. At least\nhe observed that they changed positions,--being in one locality in the\nmorning, and in the opposite direction in the evening. What conclusion\nfrom these observations could be more natural, more childlike (for, bear\nin mind, this was really the childhood of the race), or more reasonable,\nthan that these bodies possessed life,--that they inherently possessed\nthe power of locomotion, the same ability to move that he did\nhimself,--just as the infant, now gazing out upon the sky from the lap\nof its mother, fancies the darting meteor to be a bird or an animal?\nWherever the ignorant, illiterate, primitive inhabitants of our globe\nperceived motion,--whether it was displayed in the revolution of\nthe planets, the falling tree, or the rippling stream,--there they\nassociated life and motion. And, soon learning that these adjuncts of\nnature possessed a power and force superior to that with which they\nthemselves were endowed, their feelings of awe and veneration were\nthereby excited; and to the highest degree their deep in-wrought\ndevotional feelings first found an outlet by bowing in humble\nacknowledgment to the superior greatness of the shining orbs wheeling\nin such majestic grandeur along the deep blue sky, and \"bidding defiance\nto all below.\" This is believed to have been the first form, the first\npractical manifestation, of religious worship, and the first form or\nphase of idolatry now denominated Fetichism.\n\nPOLYTHEISM.--THIS WORD IS FROM _POLUS_, \"MANY,\" AND _THEOS_,\n\n\"God;\" and hence is used to denote a belief in many or several Gods,\nwhich comprehends the second form and stage of idolatry! We have spoken\nof the early recognition by the primitive inhabitants of the earth of\nthe motion of the heavenly bodies as giving rise to the belief that they\npossessed self-constituted life and volition. But, progressing a step\nfarther, their attention was turned to motion where there was no visible\nagent to produce it,--action without a visible actor. The thunder rolled\nand reverberated along the great archway of heaven, the winds whistled\nand moaned through the thick foliage of the trees, and rushed along\nthe valleys, oft-times with such violence as to overturn their rude\ntenements, and prostrate the towering oak at their feet. Yet nothing\ncould be seen of the agent which produced these direful effects. No\nbeing, no agent, no cause adequate for their production, was visible.\nHence they very naturally concluded that they were produced by invisible\nbeings who could wing their way through space without being seen. This\nassumed discovery soon gave rise to the thought that the stars might\nbe moved by these beings, instead of possessing, as they had previously\nbeen supposed to do, an inherent power of motion of their own. And\nthese prime movers of the planets they concluded to be Gods, or moving\nspirits. Thus originated the notion of a plurality of Gods, each planet\nhaving a separate ruling Deity. And the sun--being greatly superior to,\ntranscending in magnitude, light, power, and influence, all the other\nluminaries, with their qualities all combined--was, with the most\nchildlike naturalness, supposed to be ruled by the chief of the Gods,\n\"the Lord of lords and King of kings.\" It was he who, every morning\nthrowing open the magnificent portals of the Orient,--the huge golden\ngates of the eastern horizon,--slowly lifted aloft his stupendous body\nof light to dispel the deep dark gloom which fur many hours had been\nspread like a pall over universal nature.\n\nIt was he who, plowing his way through the heavens, despite the mist and\nclouds piled upon the great highway of his wonted march, rolled down at\neventide the western declivity of the cerulean causeway to give place to\nLuna, queen of night, realizing that,\n\n     \"Soon as the evening shades prevail,\n     The moon takes up the wondrous tale;\"\n\nand that\n\n     \"Ten thousand marshaled stars, a silver zone,\n     Diffuse their blended radiance round the throne.\"\n\nIt was this mighty solar orb, \"the king of day,\" who, having performed\nhis wonted journey to the south, returned in early spring to banish the\nchilling blasts of the drear cold season; to drive from off the earth\nthe biting frosts and freezing snows of gloom-dispensing winter, and\npour down, in lieu thereof, his genial and vivifying rays to waken\nthe flowers; to call forth vegetation, and ultimately ripen the golden\nharvest. In a word, he dispensed heat, light, life, and blessings\ninnumerable over all the earth. How easy, how natural, then, it was\nfor the untutored savage to conclude that the indwelling or on-dwelling\nspirit of the sun was \"the chief of the Gods,\" to whom all the inferior\nDeities (those who presided over the stars) bowed in humble allegiance,\nacknowledging his superior sway, his right to rule over the boundless\nuniverse! The sun, being thus the great central wheel of all recognized\npower,--i.e., the tabernacle or dwelling-place of the supreme,\nomnipotent God,--became the principal object of admiration and\nadoration, the pivot around which clustered their deepest devotional\naspirations; the subordinate Deities of the planets holding but a second\nplace in their devout contemplations and uprising venerations. The\nworship of these imaginary beings, including the ruling and overruling\n\"God of all,\" with his tabernacle pitched in the blazing sun, is now\ntermed idolatry, and may be regarded as the second phase or form of this\nspecies of worship. Hence we may note it as a remarkable circumstance,\nthat all the principal systems of religion now existing, as well as\nmost of those which have passed away, exhibit very strong marks of this\nancient solar worship; and it is more especially remarkable, that\nboth Judaism and Christianity, with all their exalted claims to a\nsupernatural origin, should be, as they seemingly are, deeply tinctured\nwith this ancient Sabean or solar worship. Distinct traces of it are\nobservable in the whole religious nomenclature of Christianity. It, in\nfact, pervades the whole system. This declaration is borne out by the\nfact that nearly every divine epithet, nearly every name applied to the\nDeity in the Christian scriptures, including those addressed to Jesus\nChrist, and also nearly every theological term in both the Old and New\nTestaments, are traceable to the ancient solar worship; that is, the\nwords, when traced to their roots, or original form, are found to have\nbeen solar titles. We will present some samples by way of proof: The\ndivine title Lord, in the New Testament, is translated from the Greek\n_Kuros_, which is the Persian name for the sun; God is from _Gad_,\nan Ammonian name for the sun; Jehovah, by translation and declension,\nbecomes Jupiter, which, according to Macrobius, is \"the sun itself;\"\nDeity is from the Latin _Deus_, which is traceable to _dies_, a day,--a\nperiod of time measured by the sun; Jesus is from _Jes_ or _J-es_ (with\nthe Latin termination _us_), which means \"the one great fire of the\nsun;\" and Christ is derived from _Chris_, a Chaldean term for the sun;\nand so on of other divine titles. And whole phrases of scripture-texts\ndisclose the same idolatrous solar origin. Why is Jesus Christ called\n\"the sun of righteousness\"? (spelled _s-u-n_, let it be noticed), as\nthis text, quoted from Malachi, is assumed to apply to him; and why\nis the term \"light,\" so frequently used and preferred throughout the\nChristian scriptures, to denote the spiritual condition of man? Why are\nnations, whose minds are cultivated and stored with knowledge, said to\nbe \"enlightened\"? Certainly, to our external vision, they are as opaque\nas the most grossly ignorant barbarians. But they are called enlightened\nwhen advanced in knowledge, simply because all knowledge was once\nsupposed to be imparted by the God of the sun through its descending\nrays of light. Hence light and knowledge are now synonymous terms. David\nsays, \"The Lord is my light and my salvation\" (Ps. xxvii. 1),--just what\nthe ancient pagans used to say of the sun. Isaiah says, \"The Lord\nshall be to thee an everlasting light\" (Isa. lx. 19),--exactly such a\nconception as the ancient heathen entertained of the sun, to which its\napplication is more obviously appropriate. Habakkuk says, \"His brightness\nwas as light\" (iii. 4). Apply this language to the sun, and its meaning\nbecomes strikingly significant. Christ is said to be \"a light to lighten\nthe Gentiles,\" \"the true light,\" \"the light of the world,\" &c.; and yet\nwe can not discover that those who have embraced his doctrines, and thus\ncome into possession of this \"true light,\" shed any more light upon a\ndevious pathway, traveled in the darkness of night, than the veriest\nJewish pharisee or infidel. The Christian reader will reply, \"These\nphrases are mere figures of speech.\" To be sure they are: we admit it.\nBut then their derivation and origin are none the less obvious, and,\nwhen scrutinizingly examined, disclose remote traces of Oriental\nidolatry; and, moreover, they most unmistakably prove Christianity to\nbe of heathen extraction with respect to its verbal habiliments, or\nexternal vestment, as well as the main drift and scope of its doctrines\nand teachings, as shown elsewhere. We will observe further, that such\nconceptions (found in the Christian Bible) as \"God is a consuming fire,\"\n\"God is light,\" &c. (John i. 5), originated in the primeval ages, when\nGod was supposed to reside in the sun; also such ejaculations as \"O\nLord, the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness\nof thy rising\" (Isa. ix. 3). The words \"light,\" \"brightness,\" and\n\"rising\" apply with striking force to the sun, and were used by the\nancient Persians in such a relation, while, on the other hand, it is\ndifficult to discover any sense or appropriateness in applying them--at\nleast the word \"rising\"--to the Supreme Being; for he is represented as\nalways occupying \"the highest heavens:\" so there can be no higher point\nto rise to. We might also ask, Why are \"the Lord's day\" and \"Sunday\"\nused as synonymous terms? or why is the Lord now worshiped on the very\nday anciently set apart for the worship of the sun or solar Deities?\nDo not these facts prove that many remnants of the ancient idolatrous\nreligions are still retained in Christian theology?\n\n_Monotheism_.--This word--from _monos_, one, or alone, and _Theos_,\nGod--represents a belief in but one God. We have shown in the preceding\nsection how a belief in a plurality of Gods originated. We will now\ntrace the progress of this idea to a unitary conception of the Deity. It\nwill be observed, by the study of ancient theology, that, as the human\nmind becomes enlightened and expanded by the discovery of the laws\ngoverning the heavenly bodies, the lesser or inferior Deities\ngradually fall into disbelief and disuse, and \"the Supreme Holy\nOne\" proportionally becomes exalted in the devout affections of the\nworshiping multitude, until most religious nations become, in one view,\nvirtually and practically monotheists. And it may be remarked here,\nthat, as neither the imaginary God nor carved images of God were objects\nof worship by the most enlightened classes of any nation, they can not\nstrictly and truthfully be termed idolaters. Hence some writers are bold\nto affirm there never was a nation of idolaters; and we incline to\nthis opinion. We are also bold to affirm that there never was, properly\nspeaking, a nation of monotheists,--believing in but one God, and\nno more,--neither Jews nor Christians excepted; and we are likewise\nprepared to exhibit the proof of the affirmation, that every nation,\nreported in history making a profession of religion, has acknowledged\nthe existence of _one supreme God_. This is true even of those who\nbelieve in a multiplicity of Gods,--a circumstance which places both\nJews and Christians in rather an awkward position, claiming as they do,\nand always have done, a monopoly of this faith; and the fact that they\nhave long professedly labored to bring other nations to this belief,\nwhile some of those nations have, as we shall show, been much more\nconsistent, both in the belief and practice of this doctrine, than\nthemselves, places them, as we conceive, in rather a ludicrous aspect.\nThe Christian Bible and the Christian world have arrogated vastly too\nmuch to themselves, and overstepped the bounds of truth, in claiming\nto be the only propagators of the unitary conception of a God, as the\nfollowing citations from historical authorities will clearly manifest:--\n\n1. Christians have a numerous _cortege_, or retinue, of angels in their\nsystem of inspired theology, as is shown in various parts of the Bible,\nwhich, in theological parlance, must be regarded as so many secondary\nGods, inasmuch as they are assigned the same duties, perform the same\nfunctions, and sustain precisely the same relation to the supernal Deity\nas did the subordinate Gods of the pagans under the ancient systems. It\nis, in fact, only a change of name, in order to get rid of the illogical\ndilemma of holding to the existence of but one God, while virtually\nacknowledging the existence of many. We might cite many facts and\ntestimonies from history in proof of this statement, but will restrict\nourselves to one. Mr. Higgins says, \"All nations believed in one supreme\nGod, and many subordinates. The latter some termed angels; others called\nthem Gods.\" More anciently than the Jews, we find that the Babylonians,\nChaldeans, Persians, and Syrians all vested these subordinate beings\nwith the properties of mere angels. \"Angels,\" then, with Christians,\nwe legitimately infer, is only another name for second-class Gods, or\nsubordinate Deities of the Orientals.\n\n2. Even if we should pass over, as unworthy of consideration, the\nhistorical facts which go to identify the Christian angels with the\nsubordinate Deities of the ancient pagans, there is yet spread out\nbefore us a broad and tenable ground for charging Christians with being\npolytheists,--that is, for rejecting their pretensions of worshiping\nand preaching a unitary God; for it is a very striking and depreciating\nfact, that, notwithstanding their boastful and arrogating claims, there\nare many texts in the Old Testament which imply, in the most distinct\nmanner, a belief in a plurality of Gods. Indeed the first passage in the\nbook, according to Mr. Parkhurst, would read, if correctly translated,\n\"In the beginning the _Gods_ created the heavens and the earth,\" thus\ndisclosing an acknowledgment of more than one God. And we find many\nother passages which are made to conceal the old polytheistic idea by\na wrong translation. Fortunately, however, for the disclosure of truth,\nthere are many texts in which it comes very distinctly to the surface.\nAs for example, in Genesis i. 26, we have the undisguised language, \"Let\nus make man in our own image.\" Now \"us\" and \"our\" being plural pronouns,\nit would be folly and nonsense to deny that they refer to a plurality\nof _Gods_. \"Let us make man\" means, \"Let us Gods make man;\" for no\nsophistry, shifting, or dodging can make sense of it with any other\nconstruction. And several times, in this and other chapters, is similar\nlanguage used. We will cut the matter short by observing, upon the\nauthority of Parkhurst, that _Aleim_ and _Elohim_ are the Hebrew plurals\nused to represent God in the Old Testament; that these are much more\nfrequently employed than the singular forms, _Al_ and _El_, thus\ndisclosing the conception of a plurality of Gods beyond dispute.\n\n3. And this argumentation acquires additional logical strength when\nbased on the fact that the Jews did not claim Jehovah as the _only_ God,\nbut merely as supreme to other Gods. He was \"God of Gods\" and \"Lord of\nLords.\" Nor was he claimed to be a God of any but the Jewish nation.\nJethro is made to say, \"Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all\nGods\" (Exod. xviii. 11). And in Exodus xv. 11 it is asked, \"Who is like\nunto Jehovah among the Gods?\" Just such a claim as is put forth for\nJupiter by Homer in his Iliad:--\n\n     \"O first and greatest God, by Gods adored,\n     We own thy power, our Father and our Lord!\"\n\nHence it will be observed, that if there were any merit or any honor in\nprofessing faith in a unitary Deity, or any truth forming a basis\nfor such a claim, neither Jews nor Christians could justly arrogate\na monopoly of such faith, inasmuch as there is an older claim to the\ndoctrine.\n\n4. But we find that the professors of the Christian faith occupy still\nmore untenable and more palpably erroneous ground than the Jews with\nrespect to the profession of holding strictly to the unitary conception\nof Deity; for they not only tacitly accept the contradictory phases of\nthis doctrine, which we have pointed out above, in the Jewish writings,\nbut they add thereto a new installment or chapter of errors by having\naccepted into their creed the old Oriental doctrine of a trinity of\nGods. They have \"God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost,\"\nwhich present us with a family of Gods as complete and absolute as\nthe confederated union of Gods in either the ancient Hindoo or Grecian\nPantheon. To allege, in defense, that these three Gods were all one,\nwhile we find each in various parts of the Bible spoken of separately,\nand discriminated by peculiar and distinct properties and titles,\ninstead of mitigating the error and contradiction, such a plea only\naggravates it. In the same sense the Hindoos claimed that their thousand\nGods were one. And all the triads or trinities of Gods swarming through\nthe ancient mythologies were proclaimed to be each \"a trinity in unity;\"\nso that such a defense only lands the professor of Christianity amongst\nheathen myths.\n\n5. The absurdity of the Christian Church in professing to worship a\nsingle God, also making a profession of rising above and contemning the\nidolatrous, polytheistic conception of Deity, culminates in their act\nof embodying and incorporating the infinite deityship in \"the man\nChrist Jesus,\" and declaring him to possess \"the fullness of the Godhead\nbodily\" For we thus have one _full_ and absolute God perambulating the\nearth in the person of Christ during his temporary sojourn here, while\nanother absolute God (the Father) occupied the throne of heaven, thus\npresenting us with a plurality of Gods too marked and undisguised to\nadmit a rational defense. A profession of monotheism arrayed with such\nfacts bespeaks folly supreme. The polytheism of the ancient heathen is\nscience and sense compared with such jargon. For, with all their Gods,\nthey never paid divine honors, or prayed to but one God (\"The\nSupreme Ruler\"); while Christians, on the contrary, worship all of\ntheirs,--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,--frequently naming each one\nseparately in their supplications to the throne of grace, thus rendering\nthemselves more open to the charge of polytheism, and that species of\nidolatry which consists in worshiping several Gods, than those whom\nthey condemn as heathen for committing similar acts. We will prove this\nstatement. The reverend missionary, D. O. Allen, says of a large body of\nheathen professors, \"They believe in the existence of beings whom they\ncall Gods, but do not recognize them as possessing any qualities, or as\nhaving any agencies in human affairs, which properly make them objects\nof worship. They resemble the angels in the Christian system. Brahma\nwith them is the supreme God, and all the other Gods offer him worship.\"\nIt is evident, then, that they virtually worship but one God, the\ninferior Deities being but angels; while Christians, on the contrary,\nhave placed two, if not three, Gods on the throne. Which, then, have the\nbest claim to be considered monotheists?\n\n6. And what sense, we would ask, can attach to the profession of\nmonotheism with such a God as the Bible sets forth,--a limited, local,\npersonal God. No doctrine stands out more prominently as a fundamental\ntenet of the Christian faith than that which makes God appear a\ncircumscribed, finite being. He is represented in their \"inspired\" book\nas possessing those qualities, properties, faculties, and functions\nwhich only a local, organized being can possess,--such as a body, head,\neyes, nose, mouth, arms, fingers, feet, stomach, bowels, heart, &c.; as\neating, sleeping, walking, talking, riding, laboring, resting, laughing,\ncrying; and as getting angry and jealous, and cursing, swearing,\nsmiting, fighting, &c., and on one occasion getting whipped or\nvanquished in a fight because the enemy were fortified with chariots of\niron. (See Josh. 17-18.) And hardly was creation completed before he\nwas down in Eden striding over the bushes, hunting for his lost child\nAdam,--the first sample of the _genus homo_. And several times he had to\nleave his golden throne, and descend to earth before he could be posted\nin human affairs.\n\nNow it must be evident to any person possessing a moiety of common sense\nthat such a limited, local, circumscribed being, limited in size, and\nrestricted in powers and qualities as Jehovah is represented in the\nBible to be, could neither be omnipotent, omniscient, nor omnipresent.\nTrue, Christians consider him so; but the Bible fails to make him so.\nAnd hence there would be room in infinite space for countless millions\nof such Gods, and the doctrine of polytheism would be perfectly\nconsistent. Indeed, such a dwarfish and circumscribed God would need\nthousands of such confederates to aid him in governing the countless\nworlds of the vast universe; so that the polytheistic doctrine from the\nChristian stand-point becomes a necessity, as it does also from another\nplane of view. We are told in Gen. i. that the work of creation was\ncompleted in six days; that the myriads of worlds which now chase each\nother through the sky were all rolled out of the vortex of infinitude in\na week. But it is evident to every scientific or reflecting mind that a\nmillion of years would not have sufficed for the work, especially for\nsuch a God as Moses describes and sets to the task Hence the period\nof creation should be extended, or the number of Gods increased _ad\ninfinitum_, to save the credibility of the cosmologic traditions.\nWe would say, then, that, for the following reasons, the more Gods\nChristians acknowledge, the better for the consistency of their cause:--\n\n1. Their conception of the Divine Essence is that of a local, limited,\nanthropomorphic, organized being, in exact conformity with the notion\nof the ancient pagans; with which, in order to have every part of the\ninfinite universe supplied, would require more in number than the most\nfertile imagination of the heathen ever created. 2. A countless host\nof such finite Gods would have been required to complete the work of\ncreation in six days. 3. There is room enough for any number of such\nfinite Gods to exist without encroaching on each other's dominions. 4.\nThere should have been at least one such God to be assigned the creation\nof each planetary world, which would require many millions of creative\nentities. 5. And the superintendence of the endlessly complicated\nmachinery of each planet, and the supply, specifically and individually,\nof the various wants of its swarming millions of diversified\ninhabitants, would require an infinite host more of such local Gods\nas Jehovah of the Jews. 6. And, as Christians already practically\nacknowledge the worship of three Gods, the addition of three hundred\nor three thousand more would only be an extension of the principle,\nand could not be a whit more objectionable. For it is not any specific\nnumber of Gods they object to, but a \"plurality;\" and three is as\ncertainly and absolutely a plurality as three hundred or three thousand.\nFrom the above considerations, founded on views of consistency, we think\nChristians should ground their arms, and cease their moral warfare upon\nthe votaries of other religions for being polytheistic or idolatrous.\nAnd \"the sin of worshiping many Gods,\" which they declaim so much on, is\nall a mere phantom. We can not see how the divine mind could possibly\nbe offended at the simple mistake of over-numbering the Godhead. We will\nillustrate the case. We will suppose a merchant in Cincinnati orders a\nbill of goods from New York, addressing the order to John Ap John & Co.\nThe latter opens and examines it, then returns it unfilled, with\nthe following quaint protest: \"Sir, there is no 'Co.' attached to my\naddress. It is simply John Ap John; and you have insulted my dignity by\nthis mistake, thus assuming that I have not the brain and bullion to do\nbusiness on my own hook, but must have partners. I therefore return it\nwith contempt for your insolent blunder.\" Now, we ask if there can be a\nman found who would be guilty of displaying such coxcomb vanity as\nthis. We trow not. Then, why charge it upon an infinite God--an all-wise\nDeity--by supposing that a prayer addressed, by an innocent mistake,\nto a hundred or a thousand Gods would not be as acceptable to him as\nif addressed to him alone, or even if erroneously addressed to the\nChristian trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?\n\n_The Construction and Worship of Images_.--In Exod. xx. 4 we find the\nfollowing command: \"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or\nany likeness _of any thing_ that is in heaven above, or that is in the\nearth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.\" Here, it will\nbe observed, is a sweeping interdiction against image-making; and, as\nit prohibits the likeness of _any thing_ that \"is in heaven above or the\nearth beneath,\" it is a dead-lock upon the fine arts. All engravings,\npaintings, photographs, &c., with which the civilized world is now\nflooded, and which hold high rank among the arts and sciences,\ninvolve an open infraction of this command. And hence, this biblical\ninterdiction being devoid of reason, and of an anti-civilizing tendency,\nthe enlightened portion of Christendom, by common consent, tramples it\nheedlessly under foot. And we are bold to say that this command is both\nfoolish and of impracticable application; for a living, thinking human\nbeing can no more avoid forming images of every thing that comes within\nthe range of his mental vision, whether situated in heaven above or the\nearth beneath, than he can stop the entire machinery of his thoughts,\nor the blood from circulating through his veins. It is as natural as\neating, and as inevitable as breathing. To be sure, he does not give\nexpression with wood, metal, or canvas to every image formed in the\nmind; but the nature of the act, morally speaking, is precisely the same\nas if he did. St. Clemens admits this when he declares it to be a sin\nfor women to look in the glass, because they form images of themselves.\nAll true! viewed from the Christian stand-point, which regards\nimage-making as a sin. The most sinful or reprehensible act of\nimage-making, however, in the view of Christians, is the construction of\nidols or images to represent the Deity. Living in a civilized age, they\nwould be ashamed to occupy the broad ground assumed by the command which\nwe have quoted above, which forbids the likeness of every thing that\nexists; yet they still hold that it is wrong to make images of the\nDeity,--not anymore so, according to the above command, than the\nacceptance of engravings of animals and photographs of friends. But\nwhere is the man now living, or when did the man live, who has not\nformed images of the Deity, or who does not instinctively and habitually\ndo it every day of his life? Every man makes a likeness of God, or what\nhe supposes to be such, every time he thinks of such a being. It is\nimpossible to make him the subject of thought without constructing a\nmental image of him,--i.e., without constructing an image of him in the\nbrain. And can it be more sinful to make an image of him with the hand\nthan with the head?--in other words, to construct a likeness of him\nexternally, than to construct it internally. Certainly not. One is\nshaped out in the mind; the other is shaped out of a block of wood or\nmetal: and most certainly, if the latter is idolatry, the former is\nalso. The Christian kneels in supplication with the image of God set up\nin his mind; the pagan worships with the image set up in the temple or\non the altar. One is externally represented with words; the other, with\nwood. The only difference between the Christian and pagan idolatry is,\nthat, after each has sketched out a likeness of the Creator upon the\ntablet or dial-plate of his mind according to his conception of the form\nof Deity, the Christian stops short with his work but half completed,\nwhile the pagan goes on and gives practical expression to his by\nrepresenting it with wood, stone, or other material, by which it is more\nthoroughly impressed upon the memory, and \"the devout contemplation,\"\n\"the remembrance of God,\" kept more constantly in the mind; and thus\nthe savage is proved to be the most practically religious of the two. We\nhave shown that the representation and delineation upon canvas, paper,\nwood, or steel, of the various objects of art,--of human creation,--are\nset down as the highest marks and the most distinguishing proofs of\ncivilization. And can it be right and laudable to thus represent or\nImage the works of the Creator, and wrong to image the Creator himself?\nNot according to the above command. Or can one be pleasing to him, and\nthe other offensive? There is neither sense nor science, logic nor lore,\nin such conclusions. Christian reader, do you not know that your little\ninnocent daughter 'violates the command every day of her happy life by\nnursing, dressing, and caressing her wax doll, her _image_ miniature\nman? For if it be true--and the Bible teaches it--that \"man was created\nin the image of God,\" then these artificial human likenesses, these\nimages of the infant man, are also images of God; and your little\ngirl daily commits \"the awful sin of idolatry,\" and you, too, for\ncountenancing her in the act. It may be noticed here that the pious\nChristian confers upon himself an honor which he denies to the Creator\nwhen he has his photograph struck off for the accommodation of a friend,\nwhile he denounces as idolatry all attempts to construct an imaginary\nlikeness of God. But consistency is a jewel rarely found.\n\n_Image Worship_.--We may be met here with the answer that \"it is not the\nmaking of images, but the worship of images, in lieu of the worship of\nGod, that constitutes idolatry.\" To this we reply, we have no proof\nthat any nation or people reported in history were ever obnoxious to\nthe charge. True, the people of many countries have been in the habit\nof prostrating themselves before idols in their daily worship. Yet in no\ncase which we have examined do we find that those idols were worshiped\nwith the thought of their being the true and living God, or of\ntheir being endowed with divine attributes, but only as types or\nrepresentations of God. It is possible that some of the lower stratum\nof society--some of the debased and ignorant--may have been deluded into\nthe idea that God had taken up his abode in those lifeless images. In\nfact we are assured that the priest, in some cases, labored to instill\nthis belief into their minds. Some of them may have been ignorant and\npliable enough to be misled by his artful misrepresentation. But, by\na large proportion of the idol-worshipers of every nation, we have the\nhighest authority for asserting that these artificial images were not\nregarded as any thing more than the mere representation, or outward\ntype, of the Deity, and were venerated with the same religious\nconviction which Christians experience in part aking of the body and\nblood of Christ with the images of bread and wine, and without the\nsuspicion of incurring the charge of idolatry. The two acts are\nprecisely the same in spirit and essence. But the untutored denizens\nof the Pacific isles do not conceive that the dumb and lifeless\nsylvan figure before which they prostrate themselves in worship is the\nomnipotent, self-existent God, the Creator of heaven and earth, more\ntruly than the Christians believe they are really eating and drinking\n\"the body and blood of Christ\" when partaking of the sacrament. They\nare both mere symbols, or representations, of something higher. It\nis irrational to suppose that beings endowed with minds believe that\ninanimate figures of gold, silver, iron, &c., possess omnipotent\nthought, power, and feeling. That able, pious Mahomedan writer, Abel\nFezzel, declares (in his \"Aren Akberry\") that \"the opinion that the\nHindoos (who make many idols) are idolaters has no foundation in fact;\nbut they are worshipers of God, and only one God.\" \"This,\" says the\nmodern traveler, Mr. Ditson of New York, \"I know to be true; for I had\nit from the lips of the Hindoos themselves.\" And this will apply with\nundiminished force to other nations habitually styled idolaters. \"Even\nthe most savage nations,\" says Mr. Parker, \"regard their idols only as\ntypes of God.\" And we might quote whole pages from heathen writers to\nthat effect. The ancient Grecian poet Ovid says, \"It is Jove we adore\nin the image of God.\" \"The Gods inhabit our minds and bodies,\" says\nStatius, a Latin writer, \"and not the images made to represent them.\"\nHence it is evident they had a perception of their true character. And\nthe missionary, Rev. D. O. Allen, tells us that even those who have been\nrepresented as worshiping the sun, moon, and stars, only contemplate\nthese planets as symbols of the Deity, and that \"their worship is really\naimed to the invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent God.\" It appears, then,\nthat whatever external objects the most ignorant and savage tribes have\naddressed, or have been supposed to worship, have been used merely as\ntypes and symbols to enhance their devotion in the worship of the true\nGod. Though, as Cicero remarks (in his philosophical works), \"A few may\nhave been so feeble in their perceptions as to confound and identify the\nstatues and Gods together.\" But another writer avers, \"There is not in\nall antiquity the least trace of a prayer addressed to a statue.\" He\nalso says, \"All paganism does not offer a single fact which can lead\nto the conclusion that they ever adored idols; nor was there ever a law\ncompelling them to do so.\" When Paul declared to the Athenians, \"Whom\nye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you,\" he confessed most\nexplicitly that they worshiped the true God through their idols. Where,\nthen, is the sin of idolatry?\n\nIn one of the Hindoo Bibles (the Baghavat Gita) God is made to say,\n\"They who serve other Gods with a firm belief of being right do really\ninvoluntarily serve me, and shall be rewarded.\" How admirable, how\nnoble, how magnanimous and merciful is this sentiment compared with\nthe damning, death-dealing denunciations against idolatry by the\nJewish Jehovah! And the Mahomedan Bible (the Koran) contains a similar\nsentiment to the above. Thus, we observe, both the Hindoo and Mahomedan\nBibles evince in this respect a higher degree of moral sense than that\nof the Christian Bible, whose violent interdictions against idolatry\nhave caused many nations to be butchered, and their lands deluged with\nblood. \"There is nothing in the Christian Bible,\" says Mr. Higgins, \"of\none-twentieth part of the value of this text of the Hindoo Bible in\nthe way of preventing a foolish persecution and bloodied.\" It may\nbe remembered here that Christians inherited their extreme hatred of\nidolatry from the Jews, which is fostered by the Jewish Bible, and that\nthe Jews derived their feelings of opposition to it from the two nations\nunder which they were long enslaved,--the Persians and Egyptians,--both\nof which, according to Herodotus, forbid the making of idols, the former\ninterdicting it by law; as did also the Roman emperor, Numa Pompilius,\n600 B.C. The Parsees of India to this day oppose idolatry; and the\nlearned among the Chinese have always discountenanced it. Strabo and\nother Grecian philosophers wrote against it. \"And many sects arose among\nthe ancient heathen,\" says the \"Hierophant,\" \"who rejected all external\nsymbols of the Deity.\" On the other hand, neither Jews nor Christians\nhave been entirely free from this \"sin\" so called. As for \"the Lord's\nholy people,\" there probably never was a nation who manifested a\nstronger or more invincible proclivity to idolatry than they, or\nwho indulged more eagerly in the practice of it whenever opportunity\npresented; and frequently did they break over all restraint to plunge\ninto this seemingly untiring luxury, not even withholding their\near-rings when a molten image or golden calf was to be constructed. And\neven their lawgiver Moses consented to the construction of a number of\nimitations or substitutes for the carved images of the pagans. Their\nbrazen serpent displayed upon a pole; their carved cherubims with the\nbody of a man, the head of an animal, and the wings of a bird; and\nthe ark of the covenant, which was borne about in the same manner the\nheathen carried their idols,--were all compromises with and concessions\nto idolatry, and were all venerated with the same spirit and in the same\nfashion the heathen adored their carved or molten images. As for the\nholy ark, the Jews as solemnly believed that God Almighty was shut up\nin that little box of shittim-wood as truly as ever the pagans believed\nthat he sometimes condescended to a transient abode in their idols;\nwhile it was death to touch it with \"unholy hands,\" and sixty thousand\nwere butchered because one man (the pious Iliza), on a certain occasion,\ninstinctively and devoutly clapped his hand on it to keep it from\nfalling. In fact, the golden image which it contained was an idol to all\nintents and purposes; nor were the brazen serpent and cherubim of the\naltar much less so. Hence the vindictive condemnation of other nations\nfor making and adoring images came with an ill grace from the Jews. Nor\nare the skirts of the disciples of Christ any freer from the stain of\nidolatry. In fact, it constitutes the very substratum of their religion.\nIn the first place, they quote approvingly such texts as the following:\n\"The Lord is my rock\" (Ps. xviii. 2); \"Who is a rock save our God?\" (Ps.\nxviii. 31); \"The shepherd the stone of Israel\" (Gen. xlix. 24). Peter\ncalls him \"a living stone\" (1 Pet. ii. 4). And there are a number of\nother similar texts, all of which disclose real fetichism, or the first\nform of idolatry. The ancient Laplanders.\n\nArabians, Phoenicians, and several tribes of Asia Minor used rocks and\nstones as representative images of Deity. And here we find the same\nassociation of ideas in the Christian Bible. Do you reply, \"They must\nbe considered figurative\"? Very well: prove that the ancient heathen\ntribes did not also consider them figurative.\n\nBut we have a much more serious and conclusive proof than tins that\nnearly the entire retinue of Christian professors are practical\nidolaters, and that their \"holy religion,\" in all its essential\ncharacteristics, comprises, in its very nature, the highest species of\nidolatry. Some Christian professors tell us that those who worship idols\nmust have a limited conception of the character and attributes of the\nDeity; thus conceding that idolatry consists in ascribing to God a false\ncharacter. Well, now, this is the very objection which we would urge\nas one of the first, and one of the most serious charges against the\nChristian system. It presents us with a cramped, dwarfish, and childish\nconception of Deity. In the first place, the disciples of Christianity\nstill cling to the old tradition, which they inherited from the heathen,\nof investing God with the form and characteristics of a man. For if the\nDeity possesses the human form, as they and their Bible teach, then\nhe must possess the human characteristics,--a logical sequence, which\nscience defies all Christendom to overturn, as it is the infallible\ntestimony of the natural history of all time that nothing can possess\nthe form of one being and the characteristics of another. As is form, so\nis and must be the character, is an axiom supported by numberless\nproofs of daily and hourly observation. Hence, Jesus Christ possessing,\naccording to the scriptures, the form of a man,--\"the form of a\nservant,\"--must inevitably have possessed the character of a man. Hence\nwe are not surprised to find, that, in spite of the combined efforts of\nhis evangelical biographers to make him a God (if they are really to be\nunderstood as designing to elevate him to the Godhead), his finite human\nqualities are dis-played in his history in every chapter. Every saying\nand every credible incident of his life prove him to have been a man,\nnotwithstanding some of them are apparently set forth as _prima-facie_\nevidence of his being a God. Therefore the conclusion that, as Jesus\nChrist had the form of a man, he could not have been a God; and to\nworship him as such was and is idolatry in the highest and fullest\nsense. And, besides the form, there are other evidences of his having\nbeen a man. He walked, talked, ate, slept, wept, shed tears, &c., and\nfinally died just as other men do. And, furthermore, he believed and\ntaught some of the traditions and superstitions of finite, ignorant\nmen,--such as a vengeful God, an endless hell, disease produced by\ndemons, a personal devil, the speedy conflagration of the world, &c.\nThus we have a threefold proof of his manhood, and disproof of his\nGodhead, and a proof that those who worship him are idolaters. And\nas the primitive or primordial Bible God Jehovah is represented as\npossessing, as we have already shown, a comprehensible body, eyes, nose,\nmouth, hands, arms, legs, feet, bowels, &c., and as being a jealous,\nangry, revengeful, fighting God (the God of battles), and inferior in\nseveral respects to some of the men who worshiped him, such worship is\nconsequently idolatry. We observe, then, that the Jews worshiped one\nidol (Jehovah); and the Christians, three (\"Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost\"),--the two former possessing the form of man, and the latter the\nform of a bird (a dove). There is exactly the same objection, and it\nis to exactly the same extent idolatry, to worship Jesus Christ as\nto worship Chrishna, Confucius, Mahomet, or any of the wooden Gods or\ngraven images of the idolatrous pagans. In each case it is assuming that\nGod, instead of being eternally infinite in all his attributes, has been\ninvested with the finite, limited, and comprehensible form of man, to\nsay nothing of the corresponding finite qualities which his worshipers\nhave assigned him. And this narrow, childish assumption, with\nits attendant conceptions, keeps the mind of the worshiper in an\nintellectually cramped and dwarfish condition, besides perpetuating\ntheir dishonorable and disparaging views of Deity. And herein lies the\ngreat objection to idolatry. If any of these venerated beings could\npossess divine attributes, there would be less moral objection to\nworshiping them as Gods. The error is not in ascribing divine attributes\nto the wrong being, but in the conception of wrong qualities and\nattributes as comprehensible in a divine being.\n\nFor God is not possessed of the vanity to be offended by the simple\nmistakes of men and women directing their prayers and devotions to\nanother being or object instead of to him. The grand error consists\nin mistaking the real character and attributes of Deity; that is, in\nconstructing false images of him,--whether _mental or material is all\nthe same_. In other words, idolatry consists in worshiping, for God,\nbeings or objects possessing finite forms, with whom, consequently,\ninfinite and divine attributes could not be properly associated, and\nthrough whom they could not possibly be displayed. And so self-evident\nwas the proof that these beings, possessing the form, size, and physical\noutline of men, and presenting every appearance of men (as Christ,\nChrishna, Confucius, &c.), were nothing but men, that even those who\nwere habitually taught to adore them as the supreme, omnipotent Deity,\nnaturally and instinctively, in their intercourse with them and their\ndescriptions of them, invested them with human qualities as well as\ndivine. And thus they came to present to the world the awkward\nand ludicrous figure of beings displaying both finite and infinite\nattributes,--i.e., of being demi-gods, half God and half man. This is\nespecially true of \"the man Christ Jesus.\" And it may be safely assumed\nas an incontrovertible proposition, that just so long as men are in the\nhabit of worshiping beings in the human form, whether Jehovah or Jesus\nChrist, or beings possessing any conceivable form as the great \"I\nam,\" just so long will they entertain, to their own injury and to the\ndisgrace of religion, inferior and dishonorable views of God. They must\nlearn that a finite body can not contain an infinite spirit, nor possess\nan infinite attribute; and that to worship an object or being known to\npossess or even supposed to possess any conceivable form, size, or shape\nwithin the comprehension of man, whether the materials composing this\nadored object or being are gold, silver, wood, brass, iron, or flesh and\nblood (as in the case of Jesus Christ), constitutes the highest species\nof idolatry. It can make no difference what the materials are, as it is\njust as impossible to associate divine and infinite attributes with an\nimage of flesh and blood or a finite body, as to associate them with an\nimage of wood, stone, or metal. All is alike idolatry.\n\nThe Christian world have an image or idol, constructed in part of flesh\nand blood, restricted, as they tell us, to a spiritual body, which\nthey call Jesus Christ, and which they place upon an imaginary throne\nsituated in or above the clouds, and worship it as God; while the\nBabylonians had the same image carved from wood and metal, which they\ncalled Dagon, and set upon a throne in the temple: and, in both cases,\nwe are told, by way of apology, that it was not the external form, or\noutward body, which constituted the divinity, but the spirit within.\nNow, as there is room in infinite space for millions of such beings\n(such finite Gods), there could be no moral objection to multiplying\ntheir number, and worshiping as many of them as the imagination could\nconjure up, or the polytheist's fancy could create. We worship none but\nthe infinite God; the living, moving, all-pervading, and all-energizing\nspirit of the infinite universe, who has no finite or comprehensible\nbody, and never had; and hence, being infinite in extent and in all his\nattributes, but one such being can possibly exist, and monotheism thus\nbecomes a virtue and a necessity. We will only remark further, that\nthe man who can worship a being with the human form or any form as the\ninfinite God, no matter if he swells his proportions by imagination to\nthe size of the planet Jupiter or the whole solar system, yet still, as\nthis is not one step of an approach toward infinitude or omnipresence,\nhis conceptions of Deity are puerile, childish, belittling, and\ndishonorable, if not blasphemous. If there is such a thing as blasphemy,\nit is found here. And his ignorance of the essential characteristics of\nan infinite being, or the scientific view of God, is on a par with the\nchild's ignorance of astronomy, who exclaims, \"Give me the moon!\" Here\nwe desire to apprise the reader more distinctly that we do not regard\nidolatry as a crime or blameworthy act in those who originated it,\nbut actually useful when restricted to its legitimate uses. To those\ngroveling in spiritual darkness, on the lower plane of religious\ndevelopment, it is as \"eyes to the blind, and crutches to the lame.\" It\nis only in those, who, like Christians, profess to be enlightened, that\nit becomes a culpable act. Several writers have shown that idols\nwere really practically useful, in a religious point of view, in the\nprimitive spiritual condition of mankind, and are yet so to the lower\nclasses in various countries; that is, to those who dwell upon the\nsensorial plane, and whose spiritual _perceptions_ are hence too feeble\nto soar to an ethereal world to find the great object of spiritual\nworship. The learned Hindoo, Roh Mun Roy, who wrote a work against\nidolatry, and who condemned the Christian churches for \"worshiping an\nidol in the person of Jesus Christ,\" beautifully sets forth the true\nnature and purpose of idolatry when he says (after stating that idols\nwere not made for the learned), \"The Vedas [Hindoo Bible] directs those\nwho are spiritually incapable of adoring the invisible Supreme Being to\napply their minds to some visible object as an external manifestation\nof the only true God, rather than lose themselves in the mazes of\nirreligion, the bane of society. As God exists everywhere, and pervades\nevery thing (even idols), such means were mercifully provided for the\nignorant and untrained to lead them on to true mental adoration and\nspiritual worship.\" And thus idols were used as aids and stepping-stones\nto the true worship for those who were mentally incapable of raising\ntheir minds from \"nature up to nature's God,\" as taught by this heathen\nwriter. Thus they served the same purpose as pictures do for children,\nand were equally innocent and useful. It is, therefore, no more sinful\nto be an idolater than to be a child. In fact, idolatry was a necessity\nof man's religious nature. The Vedas makes God say, \"The ignorant\nbelieve me visible while I am invisible.\" The able, pious Abel Fezzel\n(a Mahomedan writer) says, in his \"Aren Akberry,\" \"The Brahmins and\nHindoos all believe in the unity of the God-head; yet they hold images\nin high veneration, because they represent celestial beings, and prevent\nthe mind from wandering.\" Swedenborg says in like manner, \"The heathen\nkept images not only in their temples, but in their houses, not to\nworship them, but to call to mind the heavenly being they represented.\"\nThus it will be observed that the idol was the sanctuary where man, in\nhis childhood, met to commune with his God, just as the Christian now\nseeks his spiritual presence at the communion-table or the altar. The\npagan, who was a child in religious experience, was morally necessitated\nto have a God, or representation of God, he could see, feel, and handle.\nAnd it is remarkable that the Christian world, after two thousand years'\nreligious experience, still occupy the same plane,--are still pagans\nor children with respect to believing in visible external Gods, as they\nvirtually worship two, Jehovah and Jesus Christ, who, according to the\nteaching of their Bible and their established creeds, were often seen\nin the human form, and one of them with a human body. Thus it will\nbe observed they have not outgrown or advanced beyond the essential\nprinciple of idolatry,--that of worshiping a visible or imaginary form\nfor an invisible God, who, the \"positive philosophy\" teaches, never\nhas been and never can be seen under any circumstances, because, being\nomnipresent (that is, present everywhere, and everywhere alike), if he\ncould be seen at all, he could be seen at all times and in all places.\nThis is a self-evident, axiomatic truth.\n\n_Origin of Idolatry_.--Here we deem it proper to speak more directly and\nspecifically of the primary origin of idolatry, or image-worship, than\nis disclosed in the preceding pages. After the primitive inhabitants\nof the earth had conceived the notion that the sun, moon, and stars are\nmoved in their orbits through the heavens by beings who occupied them\n(as has already been shown), they were in the habit of gazing upon these\ntower-lights of the Elvsian fields (the home of the Gods) with the most\nintense delight, the most reverential awe and devotion. But ever\nand anon this pleasing reverie was interrupted, and subjected to sad\nsuspense, by \"the departure of the heavenly host to other and distant\nlands.\" First of all, the solar God, mounted upon his gem-wheeled\nchariot drawn by his fleet steeds, after plowing his way through the\ndeep-blue vault of the sky, was off on his swift-sped journey behind the\nwestern hills, but followed almost immediately by the whole retinue of\nstellar orbs (the homes of the lesser Gods), who danced along in his\nwake; but, ever true to the line of march, followed on apace, and were\nsoon beyond the bounds of human vision. This left an aching void in\ntheir devout minds. Hence the invention and construction of images as\nimaginary likenesses of the Gods, to serve as substitutes for them,\nto be venerated in their stead daring their absence, as we secure the\nlikeness of a friend when about to leave us for a journey, or to be long\nabsent. And here we may date the primary origin of idolatry, which is\nnothing more nor less than the first rude germination of man's religious\nnature.\n\nII. ALL CHRISTIANS ATHEISTS OR IDOLATERS.\n\nIt seems most strikingly strange that atheism and idolatry should be\nconsidered by the orthodox representatives of the Christian faith as\n\"the most God-defying and heaven-daring sins that man can be guilty of\"\n(as one Christian writer represents them to be), when there is not a\nprofessor of the Christian faith, and never has been, who was not guilty\nmost unquestionably of one of these sins. It requires but a few words\nto prove this statement. Nearly all the early Christian writers\ndefined atheism to be \"disbelief in a personal God,\" and idolatry as\n\"image-making.\"\n\nHow obtuse must have been their perceptions that they could not see\nthat their definition of these terms made them all either atheists or\nidolaters, and that it is impossible to escape one of these charges\nwithout becoming obnoxious to the other! No person can believe in a\npersonal God without forming an image of him in the mind; and this is\njust as much idolatry as though that mental image should find expression\nin wood or stone or brass, as shown in the preceding chapter. On the\nother hand, to believe in an infinite and spiritual God, instead of a\npersonal God, is, as shown above, atheism. It will be seen, then, to\nbelieve in a personal, organized Deity is, to all intents and purposes,\nidolatry; while to reject this anthropomorphic and sensuous idea, and\naccept the belief in a spiritual God in its stead, is atheism. And thus\nthe position is reduced to a demonstrated problem, that all Christians\nare either atheists or idolaters.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.--NEW-TESTAMENT ERRORS.\n\n\nI. DIVINE REVELATION IMPOSSIBLE AND UNNECESSARY.\n\nThe Hindoos, Egyptians, Persians, Chaldeans, Jews, and Mahomedans, and\nvarious other nations, claim to have had a special revelation of God's\nwill communicated to them for the benefit of the whole human race.\nBut the following facts and arguments will tend to show that no such\nrevelations have ever been made, and that there is none necessary:--\n\nWe will inquire, in the first place, what a divine revelation would\nbe. Coming from a perfect being, it would of course be perfect, and\nperfectly adapted to the moral and spiritual wants of the whole human\nrace. Such a revelation would be so clear, explicit, and unequivocal in\nits language with respect to every doctrine, principle, and precept, and\nevery statement of fact, that no person of ordinary mind could possibly\nmisunderstand it; and no two persons could differ for a moment with\nrespect to the meaning of any text embraced in it. It would need no\npriest and no commentator to explain it; and, if any attempt should be\nmade to explain it, it would only \"darken counsel,\" render the matter\nmore obscure, and would amount to the blasphemous assumption that\nOmniscience can be enlightened, and his works improved. And a _divine_\nrevelation should be communicated to the whole human race; for, if\nrestricted to one nation, it would render God obnoxious to the charge\nof partiality. And, in order to make it practicable to communicate it\nto all nations, it would be necessary to comprehend it in a universal\nlanguage constructed for the purpose, or else impart it to the world\nthrough all the three thousand languages in use by different nations and\ntribes. But, as such a revelation has never been made or known on the\nearth, it is at once evident that no such revelation has ever been\ncommunicated to man by Infinite Wisdom.\n\nII. REVELATION FOR ONE AGE AND NATION NO REVELATION FOR ANOTHER.\n\nA revelation issued two or three thousand years ago could be no\nrevelation for this age. The Rev. Jeremiah Jones admits that \"a\nrevelation can only be a revelation to him who receives it,\" and can not\nbe made use of to convince another (Canon, p. 51). Bishop Burnet admits\nthat a revelation to one man is no revelation to another. You can\nneither see nor feel a revelation made to another person. You can merely\nsee the marks on the paper on which he has recorded what he claims to\nhave been a revelation to him. And this is all the proof you can have in\nthe case, which is no proof at all.\n\nIII. A REVELATION ON THE BRAIN CALLED REASON.\n\nI know that God has inscribed a revelation on my brain called reason, as\nit is ever present with me. Hence I know that it was _designed for me_.\nBut I can not have this testimony with regard to a written revelation,\nas it was not communicated to me. Hence, as a matter of certainty and\nsafety, I should hold to my own revelation in preference _to any other._\n\nI can only be certain of my own revelation. Indeed I can not know that\nany other revelation was designed for me, because a dozen revelations\nare brought forward by different nations for my acceptance; and I can\nnot determine to an absolute certainty which is divine and which\nis human. To settle the matter, I must have another revelation made\nexpressly to me to inform me which is the true revelation. To save this\nextra labor, I might as well have had the original revelation itself.\n\nIV. THE HUMAN BRAIN SUPERIOR TO ANY REVELATION.\n\nAs an idiot can not be made to understand a revelation, it is evident\nthat a revelation presupposes a rational mind for its reception;\notherwise the revelation would be perfectly useless. Hence it is evident\nthe brain must be right before the revelation is given, or it will\nnot be able to understand it. This makes the brain superior to, and of\nhigher authority, than revelation.\n\nThe moment we begin to reason on the revelation of the Bible, which we\nare compelled to do to determine which is the true one, that moment we\ntransfer the authority of the Bible to the brain, and the brain thus\nbecomes its judge and jury. The reason sits in judgment over the\nBible, and is thus proved to be superior to it. This is realized in\nthe experience of every man who is superior to an idiot; and thus the\nquestion of Bible authority and superiority is at once and for ever\nsettled. It is proved to be inferior to reason, and subordinate to it,\nand dare not advance a step beyond it.\n\nV. INFALLIBLE REVELATION IMPOSSIBLE.\n\nA Bible or revelation could only be infallible to a man or woman of\ninfallible understanding; that is, to an infallible being. And, as no\nsuch being has ever existed, it is evident that no infallible revelation\nhas ever been issued.\n\nVI. EVERY THING MUST BE INFALLIBLE.\n\nNo infallible revelation could be of any practical use to any person\nunless all the circumstances connected with it were infallible. The\nlanguage in which it is written must be infallible; the person receiving\nit must be infallible; and the reader, or his understanding, must also\nbe infallible. But, as no such state of things has ever existed, it\nfollows that no infallible revelation has ever been given to man, and is\nabsolutely impracticable.\n\nVII. NO DIVINE REVELATION WITHOUT A SERIES OF MIRACLES.\n\nA divine revelation must be miraculously inspired; and then it must be\nmiraculously preserved from the slightest alteration by the translator\nor the transcriber, and from any error on the part of the printer.\nAnd, finally, the reader's mind and understanding and judgment must\nbe miraculously guarded from any mistake or misunderstanding or wrong\nconclusions relative to every text in the book. Otherwise there is no\nabsolute certainty that the revelation is a true one, or superior to s\nmere human production.\n\nVIII. OUR MORAL AND RELIGIOUS DUTIES CAN NOT BE LEARNED FROM ANY BIBLE\nOR REVELATION.\n\nA critical investigation of the matter will show that our moral and\nreligious duties are not half of them enumerated in the Bible; and to\nsuppose that God would reveal only a portion of them, and leave us\nin the dark with respect to others, and compel us to find them out by\nchance and conjecture, is to trifle with Omniscience, and assume that he\nis short-sighted and imperfect.\n\nIX. NO MORAL DUTY CLEARLY DEFINED BY THE BIBLE.\n\nAs the circumstances of each case of moral duty differ from every other\ncase, so our courses of action must be different. Hence revelation,\nto be of any practical use, should have foreseen those circumstances,\npointed them out, and instructed us how to act in the case. But this is\nnot done in any case. We will illustrate: We are enjoined by the Bible\nto \"bring up a child in the way he should go;\" but that way is not\npointed out or defined. We are not told which one of the thousand\nchurches he should join; we are not told, when a man's leg is broken,\nhow it should be mended; we are not told what means we should use to\nrestore the sick to health, nor instructed as to the best means to be\nused for the preservation of health and life. And, as these are among\nthe first and most important duties, we should have been instructed\nas to the best means to be used for that purpose; but these things are\nomitted, and left to the province of reason. There is no case in which\nwe are not compelled to make reason our supreme judge to decide how we\nshall practice the duties of revelation; and thus revelation is made a\nservant or subsidiary agent.\n\nChristians sometimes tell us, \"Give us something better in the place\nof our religion before you take it from us.\" But the Bible tells\nthem, \"Cease to do evil [before you] learn to do well.\" Doom error to\ndestruction, and truth will spring out of the ashes. What would you\nthink of a man who should say to a physician, \"Stop, sir! before you\nadminister that medicine to my child, I want to know what you are going\nto let it have in place of its pains and aches\"? We do not propose or\ndesire to destroy any religion as a whole, but only the deleterious\nweeds which are choking and poisoning the healthy plants. We do not wish\nto put down or arrest the progress of any truth.\n\nThe clergy sometimes assert that \"we could not distinguish right from\nwrong, but for the Bible.\" And was nothing known to the world about\nright and wrong, or the means of distinguishing between them, during\nthe two thousand years which elapsed before the Bible was written?\nChristians place Moses, its first writer, about fourteen hundred years\nbefore Christ, while the Bible dates back 4004 B.C. And then what about\nthose millions of the inhabitants of the globe who never had our Bible?\nAnd millions of them never had a Bible of any kind. Are they destitute\nof moral perception? On the contrary, reliable authority, and even\nChristian writers, assure us that the morals of many of those nations\nwill put to shame the morals of any nation professing the religion of\nChrist. Take, for example, the Kalaos tribe of Africa, who appear to\nhave no formal religion whatever; and yet, as Dr. Livingstone informs\nus, they maintain strict honesty in all their dealings with each other,\nand have made considerable progress in the arts and manufactures. They\nhave never had a Bible or revelation of any kind. Look also at the\ninhabitants of the Arru Islands. \"These people,\" says Dr. Livingstone,\n\"appear to have no religion whatever; and yet they live in brotherly\npeace, and respect each other's rights,\"--the rights of property in the\nfullest sense. The Rev. W. H. Clark, speaking of the Yoruba nation in\nCentral Africa, says, \"Their moral and even their civil rights in some\nrespects would put to shame any Christian nation in the world.\" We might\npresent a hundred more cases of this kind; but these three cases are\nsufficient to show that nations witt no Bible, no revelation, and even\nno religion, transcend any Christian nation with respect to strict\nhonesty and a practical sense of right and wrong. How absurd, therefore,\nis the idea shown to be, that a knowledge of the Christian Bible is\nessential to the knowledge and practice of good morals! (See chap. 50.)\n\nX. OUR DUTIES ARE ALL RECORDED IN THE BIBLE OF NATURE.\n\nThere is not a moral or religious duty that is not inscribed on the\ntablet of man's soul or consciousness which he would not soon learn if\nhis attention were not constantly directed to, and his mind occupied\nwith, the erroneous theories of the dark, illiterate ages.\n\nThe God of nature has endowed every human being with two\nsensations,--one of pleasure, and the other of pain,--which serve\nas guides in all his actions, both physical and moral. They stand as\nsentinels at the door of his soul to warn him of the approach of evil\nof every kind. The moment their kingdom is invaded, they raise an alarm,\nwhich he soon learns he must heed or suffer a penalty. If he drinks\nintoxicating drinks, or improperly indulges his appetites and\npropensities in any way, he learns, by suffering, that is the penalty\naffixed to the violation of the law of health, and that he can not\nescape it, and that no one can suffer for him, or make any \"atonement\nfor his sins.\" If he attempts to handle fire, he is soon apprized that\nhe is meddling with something that will injure him; if he commits a\nmoral wrong against a neighbor, it re-acts upon himself in various ways,\nas explained in Chap. 46. It thus acts as a two-edged sword, which cuts\nboth ways, punishes both the victim and the perpetrator. Man learns by\nexperience that crime will not only injure him, but, in many cases, will\ndestroy him.\n\nOn the other hand, when he practices virtue, she greets him with her\nsmiles, and fills his soul with pleasure. Let me illustrate:\n\nThe bells in some city toll the alarm of fire at midnight. In a few\nminutes thousands of men and boys are congregated on the spot, many\nof them half-dressed, and without hats or shoes, in order to aid a\nfellow-being in rescuing his dwelling from the all-devouring element.\nWhat prompts them to this act? It is not an injunction of their Bible.\nNo: it was the well-spring of philanthropy leaping up through their\nsouls that prompted to the deed, and not a written Bible. Again: why is\na mother's loving, watchful care ever exercised for the protection and\nwelfare of her child? She will endure almost any hardship or privation\nwhich its welfare requires. Why does she do this?\n\nHer Bible is silent on the subject. It is the impulse of nature welling\nup from the fountain of maternal affection which prompts to these acts\nof loving care,--to this moral duty. And this is true of all the other\nmoral duties of life. They are all imbibed al her fountain,--at the\nfountain of Nature. A man with a good moral development needs no\nrevelation to teach him what is right, no Bible to prompt him to the\nperformance of his duties. We rejoice \"with joy unspeakable\" that the\nworld is fast learning this moral axiom. The Bible truly teaches us\nthat our moral duties are revealed in the book of nature (Chap. 14). And\nChristian writers also admit this. Tertullian says, \"Why pain yourselves\nin searching for a divine law while you have that which is common to\nmankind, and engraven upon the tablet of nature?\" This is a wonderful\nadmission for a Christian writer to make, as it virtually concedes there\nis no moral or religious necessity for a written Bible or revelation.\n\nXI. A DIVINE REVELATION ADVERSE TO HUMAN PROGRESS.\n\nOne argument against the belief in a divine revelation is found in the\nfact that it would tend to paralyze human effort, and thus make man a\nmental sloth. If a man could find all his moral and religious duties\n\"cut and dried,\" and laid out before him, he would be thus robbed of\nthe motive to study and learn his duties by the exercise of his mental\npowers. And having no incentives to healthy, energetic action, he would\nbecome a drone and mental sloth. We can not believe God ever made such a\nblunder as this.\n\nXII. A DIVINE REVELATION WOULD IMPLY IMPERFECTION ON THE PART OF DEITY.\n\nIt is admitted that no revelation was ever given to man for more\nthan two thousand years after creation. This would imply that it\nwas forgotten by Infinite Wisdom, or else the moral necessity for\nit overlooked. Either assumption would make God an imperfect and\nshort-sighted being. It would appear like an after-thought. After man\nhad lived so many years upon the earth, it just occurred to God that he\nhad not given him a written revelation instructing him what to do\nand believe. The assumption of a divine revelation presupposes such a\nblunder as this on the part of Omniscience, and is therefore derogatory\nto his character.\n\nNow, we ask seriously, Do not the foregoing facts and arguments show\nthat there is no moral or religious necessity for a divine revelation\nto man? Let the believers in the necessity of the Bible, or a divine\nrevelation, show their fallacy, or for ever abandon the old mythological\nassumption that it is necessary.\n\nAnother conclusive argument: A mind that could comprehend a truth\ndivinely revealed could originate that truth. We will give an\nillustrative proof: A teacher works out a mathematical problem on the\nblackboard for the benefit of his school. Now, every teacher and every\nlogical mind will admit that every pupil, possessing the mental capacity\nto understand the mathematical truth thus revealed, could, by his own\nunaided powers, have developed it himself sooner or later. In like\nmanner, the mind that could comprehend a truth revealed from God, could\noriginate it without the aid of revelation. Hence revelation would\nbe worse than useless, as it would furnish a pretext for mental or\nintellectual sloth, and thus have a tendency to stop human progress\nby doing for us what we could and should do ourselves. A logical\ninvestigation of the case will show that we possess the mental capacity\nto discover _every truth we need_, whether it be scientific, moral, or\n_religious_; and such exercise furnishes the only means to keep the mind\nin a healthy condition. And thus the problem is proved again.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.--PRIMEVAL INNOCENCY OF MAN NOT TRUE.\n\nThe tradition so universally prevalent among the disciples of all the\nOriental systems of religious faith, as well as those of a more modern\norigin, and which is still a conspicuous element of the Christian\nsystem,--that man commenced his career in a state of moral\nperfection,--is so obviously at war with every principle of\nanthropology, and every page of human history tending to demonstrate the\nmoral character of the primitive inhabitants of the earth, that I shall\nemploy but little time and space in exposing its absurdity and falsity.\n\n1. All the organic remains of the _earliest_ types of the human species\nthat have been found demonstrate conclusively that man started on the\nanimal plane with animal feelings, propensities, and habits, almost\ntotally devoid of moral feelings, and \"consequently victim to his\npassions, propensities, and lusts.\"\n\nWhere, then, were his moral purity and angelic holiness? The idea is a\nmere chimera.\n\n2. It is now a settled problem in mental science that the character of\nevery species of animate being corresponds with its organization;\nthat the organic structure of the being, whether dead or alive, always\nindicates its true character. If it possesses the form and type of the\ntiger it will always be found with the disposition and habits of the\ntiger; or, if it is a sheep in form, it will be a sheep in character.\nThere is no deviation from this rule. Hence, when we find the bones of\nthe early types of the human species resembling those of the lower order\nof animals, there is no escaping the conclusion that they possessed an\nanalogous character.\n\n3. Look, then, at the fact that the skulls and facial bones of human\nbeings, found embedded in the rocks of Gibraltar, belonging to a\nrace which naturalists have decided existed upon the earth sixty-five\nthousand years ago, closely approximate those of an animal. They\npossessed retreating foreheads, prognathous jaws, extremely coarse\nfeatures, and skulls nearly an inch in thickness; hands resembling those\nof a monkey, feet resembling those of a bear, and cranial receptacle\nshowing a very small amount of moral brain. Now, it is evident that\nthis early race, with such a gross, brutal organization, could not\nhave possessed fine moral sensibilities and lofty virtue, purity, and\nperfection.\n\n4. And we find that nations whose organizations indicate a higher moral\ncharacter are of more modern origin, as shown by their organic remains\nbeing found in more recently formed strata,--the tertiary formation.\nIt is thus scientifically demonstrated that man's tendency toward moral\nperfection is inversely to the remoteness of time,--that, the nearer we\nretrace his history to his origin, the lower position he occupies in the\nscale of morals.\n\n5. We will cite one more historical fact to establish this theory The\nexistence of a tribe of negroes has been traced (as stated in Chap. 16.)\nto near the date of Noah's flood, whose organization indicates a very\nnear approach to the animal; thus showing, that, if they are descendants\nof Adam, he himself must have possessed an inferior or defective moral\norganization and character.\n\n6. Let the reader, after noting these facts, read the history of the\npractical lives of the earliest races or nations whose deeds have been\nrecorded, and he will find they sustain the same proportion; that\ntheir defective moral character corresponds (_ceteris paribus_) to\nthe remoteness of the era in which they lived. The history of the\nJews themselves illustrates and corroborates the proposition, as the\ncharacter of the modern Jews is far superior to those of the era of\nAbraham and Moses.\n\n7. Once more: The fact that the moral character of nearly all nations\nis constantly improving, proves beyond question that man once occupied\na much lower plane, and that, instead of falling from a state of moral\npurity, he is constantly ascending toward that condition.\n\n8. The current belief of man's primitive moral perfection is easily\ntraced to its origin. Nearly all the Oriental nations had a tradition\nof a \"golden age,\" when the most sublime and unalloyed bliss was the lot\nand enjoyment of the _genus homo_. But the serpent that beguiled Eve to\neat of the forbidden fruit in Eden, the serpent who stole the recipe\nof immortal life in Assyria, the entering of Typhon into the golden\nparadise of Osirus in Egypt, the opening of Pandora's box in Greece, the\npiercing of the evil egg by Ahrimanes in Chaldea, the machinations of\nthe snake in India, of the lizard in Persia, and the demon in Mexico,\nseem to have all had an agency in defeating the omniscient designs of\nDeity, and placing the reins of government in the hands of the world's\nomnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient evil genius, thus prostrating\nfor ever the great and glorious plans of Infinite Wisdom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXV.--ORIGINAL SIN AND FALL OF MAN.\n\nHaving shown that man commenced his earthly career on a low moral and\nintellectual plane, and that therefore the assumption of his original\nmoral perfection is a fallacy, the correlative dogma of his fall into a\nstate of moral depravity falls to the ground of its own weight. It would\nbe a work of supererogation to attempt to show that man never fell in a\nmoral sense, after having shown that he never occupied an elevated moral\nposition to fall from. It is self-evident that he could not fall if\nthere was no lower position for him to fall to; and this has been\nshown. Nevertheless we will expose its absurdity from other logical\nstand-points. According to the Westminster Catechism, \"God placed man in\nthe garden of Eden, and forbade him to eat of the fruit of the tree\nof knowledge; and, because he disobeyed, he became the victim of God's\neternal wrath, an accursed and totally depraved being.\" Such doctrine\nis not only morally revolting, but replete with logical absurdities. We\nwill recount some of them:--\n\n1. God formed and fashioned man, according to the Bible, after his own\nimage, the product of his infinite wisdom; and if he had not possessed\ninfinite wisdom, which must enable him to do every thing to perfection,\nhe had had an eternity to study the matter, and get it fully matured, so\nas to make every thing work in harmony, and endow every sentient being\nwith happiness.\n\n2. And, as happiness is the highest end and aim of every living being,\nit is hence evident that, where there is a want of happiness, there is a\nwant of perfection in the being who established such a state of things;\nand such a being could not by any possibility be infinitely good and\ninfinitely wise.\n\n3. A few points considered will show very clearly, that, if man sinned\nand fell, God has to sustain the responsibility of it. We are told that\nGod made man; and, being all-wise, he would, of course, endow him with\nexactly such faculties and inclinations and appetites as were best\nadapted to his situation, and calculated to make him happy. But,\naccording to orthodoxy, God had planted a tree near the spot where he\nplaced Adam, and furnished it with some beautiful and luscious fruit,\nand implanted in man an appetite and relish for it, and, as if to\ntantalize him with perpetual hanger, forbade him to eat the fruit; and\napparently, for fear Adam would obey his command and abstain from eating\nthe fruit, he created a serpent-devil to persuade him (or rather his\nwife) with bland smiles (assuming that a snake can smile, which is\nrather doubtful) to partake of the fruit, and satisfy their appetites.\nAll this appear's to have been the work of their Creator, and not\ntheirs. But the conspicuous features of the absurdity do not stop here.\n\n4. We are told that the prohibition to eat the fruit was issued to Adam\nbefore Eve was released from her imprisonment in Adam's side, or from\nperforming the functions of a rib-bone, before she became a woman and a\nwife; and it is not even implied that it was intended to extend to her.\nWhy, then, in the name of God, should such curses be heaped upon her\ndevoted head for eating the fruit when she had not been forbidden to do\nso? And it does not appear to have been wrong in any sense, only that\nJehovah had issued an order forbidding it.\n\n5. Jehovah professed great sympathy for Adam's lonely condition, and\nmade a help meet for him; and yet the first meat she helped him to, it\nwould seem, damned him and his posterity for ever. In view of this fact,\nit is probable Adam would have preferred to let her remain a bone in his\nside.\n\n6. Here let it be noted that Adam and Eve were ignorant and\ninexperienced beings. They had had no experience in any thing, and hence\ncould not know that such an act, or any other act, was wrong and sinful.\n\n7. Nor could Adam know what the word \"die\" meant when Jehovah told him\nhe would die the day he ate the fruit, as he had seen nothing die.\n\n8. It may here be said in reply, that they should, in their ignorance,\nhave obeyed the command which was given them To this we reply, they did\nobey the command of one being. God told them not to eat, and the serpent\ntold them to eat, the fruit; and, not having lived with or had any\nexperience with either of those omnipresent beings, how could they know\nwhat would be the consequence of obeying or disobeying either of them?\nThis question of itself is sufficient to settle the matter. They\ncould not possibly know, with no experience in either case, that the\nconsequence would be more serious or more fatal in disobeying Jehovah\nthan the serpent.\n\n9. And as they got their eyes open by eating the fruit, and did not die\nas Jehovah told them they would (while the serpent told them they\nwould not), it is not to be wondered at that ever after they and their\nposterity should be more inclined to serve the serpent-devil than\nJehovah, seeing that all the happy consequences which the former\npredicted as the result of eating the fruit were realized, while those\nof Jehovah were falsified. For proof see chap. 53.\n\n10. The most artful sophistry can not disguise the fact that the\ndoctrine of moral depravity is a slanderous imputation upon divine\nmercy, goodness, and justice, and challenges not only his goodness, but\nhis good sense.\n\n11. And every page of history and every principle of science demonstrate\nit to be both false and demoralizing.\n\nMan _fell up_, and not _down_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI.--THE MORAL DEPRAVITY OF MAN A DELUSION.\n\nIt is alleged by the orthodox world that man's moral nature and\nreasoning faculties, both became depraved by the fall. \"Totally\ndepraved\" has been the doctrine; but the gradual expansion and\nenlightenment of the mind by progressive science have modified the\ndoctrine with some of the churches, and they have substituted \"moral\ndepravity\" for \"total depravity.\"\n\nBut neither assumption can be scientifically or logically sustained. The\nassumption that our reason is depraved is made the pretext for urging\nthe superiority of revelation, and making reason subordinate to it. We\nare told, that, as our reason is depraved, we can not safely rely upon\nit to judge and criticise the Bible or the doctrine of the churches. Mr.\nMoody recently exclaimed, in a religious controversy, \"I never reason\non religion. None but the disciples of devils reason. It is dangerous to\nreason on religion.\" Unconscious of his ignorance, Mr. Moody assumed a\nvery ludicrous position.--By the _exercise_ of his reason on religion,\nMr. Moody came to the conclusion that it is _wrong_ to reason on\nreligion, thus committing the very sin he condemns in others. He\n_reasons_ on religion to convince people that it is _wrong_ to reason on\nreligion, and thus violates his own principles. His case is analogous\nto that of the town council which attempted to keep the prisoners of the\ncounty in the old jail while they erected a new jail with the timbers of\nthe old one,--rather a difficult task to achieve, but not more so than\nMr. Moody's attempt to keep his reason in chains while he is trying\nto exercise it. Or, rather, he insults his auditors by saying to them\nvirtually, \"I will use my reason on matters of religion, but you must\nnot use _yours_.\" As a reasoning being he reasons with reasonable\nbeings, and addresses their reason to convince them they ought not\nto reason on certain subjects. He uses logic to prove that logic is\ndangerous, and should not be used. By reasoning against reason he pulls\n_both ways_, like the Scotchman who attempted to lift himself by his\nears. He commits logical suicide when he attempts to show there is any\ncase in which reason should not be used. The truth is, a person can not\n_think_ on the subject of religion without beginning to _reason_ on it,\nbecause his _reasoning faculties and his thinking faculties are\nboth one_. He _thinks_ with his intellect, and he _reasons_ with his\nintellect; and, the very moment _he begins to think, he begins to\nreason_. And therefore, if it is _wrong to reason on religion, it\nis wrong to have any religion_. We should not allow it to occupy our\nthoughts for a single moment, and thus we would banish religion from\nthe world; which, however, would be no great loss if it is too absurd to\nbear the test of reason. And, if it is wrong to _reason on religion_, it\nis wrong to _reason on any subject_. The more _important_ the subject,\nthe more _necessary_ to use reason upon it, that we may make no mistakes\nin regard to it. The truth is, reason is the _only faculty_ with which a\nman can comprehend religion, revelation, or the Bible. This would prove\nagain that it is _wrong to have any religion_, if it is wrong to submit\nit to the judgment, and test it by our reasoning faculties. Reason\nis the principal faculty which distinguishes us from the brute; and,\ntherefore, to discard it if to approximate to the condition of the\nbrute. What a pity Mr. Moody had not been consulted in his creation that\nhe might have had his reasoning faculties left out! then he would not\nbe under the necessity of sinning daily by exercising his reason in\nhis attempts to stop its exercise. And then there are other serious\ndifficulties growing out of the reverend gentleman's position. His\nreason being \"depraved,\" we can place no confidence in its exercise or\ndecision in this case, so as to assume that his judgment and conclusions\nare correct when he declares against reason. If he reaches his\nconclusions through a depraved reason, they can be of no account.\nThe verdict can not transcend the judge or court which makes it. The\nreasoner being depraved, his reasoning and decision in the case must be\ndepraved also, and therefore worthless. Verily the gentleman is in a bad\nposition, and rather a serious quandary; and every struggle to get out\nonly sinks him deeper. He is in the predicament of a dog running round\nafter his tail. And then we should like to ask the gentleman, If our\nreason is not to be depended upon in matters of religion, how is it to\nbe depended upon in any case? And how does he know, or how can he know,\nbut that, his reason being depraved, it has lead him off the track,\nin this case, in his attempts to put it in chains? Will the reverend\ngentleman furnish a rule by which we can know in what case our reason\ncan be trusted, and in what cases we are to doff our moral manhood, and\nlie prostrate in the dust with the brute? And then the rule, being\nthe product of a depraved reason, could not be relied upon. Really the\nreverend gentleman is in an inextricable quandary. The case furnishes an\nillustrative proof of the extent a man can make a fool of himself when\nhe attempts to shipwreck his reason, and a proof that orthodoxy is a\nconglomeration of absurdities, and is entirely out of place in an age of\nprogressive thought, and an age of reason and science. The only evidence\nwe have ever had of the truth of the depravity of human reason is found\nin the fact that men professing to have common sense and reason can\nbelieve it to be true. And the fact that our moral sense instinctively\nrepels the doctrine of total depravity or moral depravity, and our\nreason rises up in rebellion against it, is proof positive of its\nabsurdity.\n\nThe thought is here suggested, that, if God could not get along without\nthe adoption of an expedient calculated to corrupt our moral nature and\ndeprave our reason, he should not and would not have implanted in us\nsuch an instinctive horror to the doctrine. This natural feeling of\nrepugnance is alone sufficient to condemn it, and prove that it is a\nslander upon Infinite Wisdom, and a libel upon human nature, to assume\nits existence. And such doctrine is evidently calculated to demoralize\nsociety. An old Roman proverb teaches us, \"Call a man a dog, and he\nwill be a dog.\" Call a child depraved, and it will feel depraved;\nand, feeling so, it will act so. On the other hand, teach the child he\npossesses the grand principle and feeling of an inherent nobility, and\nhe will rise to the dignity of moral manhood. Such is the difference in\nthe moral value of the two doctrines.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII.--FREE AGENCY AND MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY.\n\nOne of the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith is the free agency\nof man; but the very term is a logical contradiction. An agent must act\nin accordance with the will and wishes of his employer, or he will be\ncalled to account, and perhaps dismissed. Where, then, is his moral\nfreedom? It may be assumed that his employer licenses him to take his\nown course; but this must be with certain conditions, or else he will\nact for himself, and be no agent at all. Certain alternatives are placed\nbefore an agent, which he is privileged to choose; but that does not\nmake him free in any rational or practical sense. If he does not act as\nrequired or desired, he will be either punished or dismissed. That is\na singular kind of freedom. It is the freedom of a slave, which is no\nfreedom at all; and this is exactly the kind of freedom orthodoxy grants\nto the sinner, and to the whole human race. It marks out the road to\nheaven, and says, \"This is the road to eternal bliss; and you must walk\nin it, or eternal misery will be your portion.\" And, to escape such\na terrible doom, millions tremblingly travel the road impelled and\npropelled by fear. And this painful alternative Christians are pleased\nto term free agency, or moral freedom. It is simply the freedom of a\nslave to clank his chains. It is a perversion of language to apply the\nterm \"free agency\" to such a case. The orthodox give us our choice to\naccept their terms of salvation or reject them; but they attach to\nthe consequence of rejecting them the most awful penalties. We will\nillustrate: A father says to his son some sabbath morning, \"John, I am\ngoing to leave you free to-day either to go to church or go a-fishing.\"\nHe instantly darts away to the river or the lake with the glee of a\nhumming-bird, and is seen no more until nightfall. As he approaches the\ndoor, his father says to him, \"John, where have you been to-day?\"--\"Why,\nfather, I have been fishing, to be sure.\"--\"Well now, John, I am going\nto give you one of the most terrible floggings you ever had in your life\nfor not going to church.\"--\"Why, father, you told me I might take my\nchoice, and go either to church, or go a-fishing.\"--\"That is true, John;\nbut it was with the implied understanding that, if _you did not choose_\nto go to church, I would give you an unmerciful whipping.\" This is\nfree agency indeed! It is the free agency of orthodoxy illustrated, and\napplied to practice. Free agency coupled with a penalty is moral slavery\nand moral tyranny. There is no moral freedom about it. You are simply\nfree to take your choice between two systems of slavery and two systems\nof punishment or suffering. A hare pursued by a hound enjoys a similar\nkind of freedom,--the freedom to stand and be caught, or the freedom\nto run. Of all the absurdities that ever entered the brain of a human\nbeing, that of setting God and the Devil both after man, as orthodoxy\ndoes, and then call him a free agent, is not excelled. We are told\nthat we can not think a thought of ourselves. All our good thoughts\nand actions are prompted by a good being; and all our bad thoughts' and\nactions by a bad being (God and the Devil). Where, then, is our moral\nfreedom or our moral accountability, if neither our thoughts nor our\nactions are our own, as they can not be if they are prompted by other\nbeings? When a man performs a good act, it is assumed that God is the\nauthor of it; and he is told that he must give God praise for it. On the\nother hand, all wicked actions are assigned to the Devil. He is thus a\ntarget between these two cross-fires. Such an assumption sweeps away\nthe last vestige of free agency and moral accountability. Some Christian\nprofessors accept the doctrine of free agency to escape the dreaded\nalternative of assuming man to be a mere machine, which they call\nfatality. But here you have fatality to repletion. If to place man\nbetween two all-powerful beings, and have them both trying to direct his\nactions at once, don't make him a machine, then we have no use for the\nword. It is strange that Christian professors have never discovered\nthat, according to the teachings of the Bible, God himself is not a free\nagent. A free agent is one who can have things as he wills or wishes, so\nfar as he has the power to make them so. Look, then, at the fact that,\naccording to their own Bible, God himself does not enjoy this desirable\nboon. It is declared by that book that \"God wills not the death\n(destruction) of the sinner, but that all shall be saved.\" And it is\nelsewhere declared that \"strait is the gate, and narrow is the way,\nthat leadeth unto life; and few there be that find it.\" According to the\nfirst text, God desires to save all; but, according to the second, he\nsucceeds in saving but very few. Hence, not having things as he desires\nor wishes them to be, it is evident he is not a free agent, according\nto the orthodox or technical sense of that term. Why, then, talk of\nmen being free agents, if a being with infinite power can not be a free\nagent?\n\nTo make man a free agent strictly or truly, he should have been\nconsulted beforehand as to how, when, and where he would be born, or\nwhether he would be born at all or not. Douglas Jerrold significantly\nremarks that, \"if I had foreknown that a portion of mankind would be\nborn to be damned, I'll be d----d if I would have been born at all.\"\nThis expression, although profane, contains a good moral. Certainly\nnothing could be more preposterous or unreasonable than to hold one\nbeing accountable to another when the former had no agency in creating\nhis mind or originating his inclinations, out of which all his actions\ngrow. True accountability can only appertain to beings who created their\nown natural inclinations, or consented to receive those they are in\npossession of. This is clear and unanswerable logic. If man was made by\nGod, or Infinite Wisdom, as Christians affirm, then common sense would\nteach that God alone is accountable for his actions. The man would be\na fool who should blame a watch for not running right, knowing that the\nmaker conferred upon it all the properties and powers it possessed. The\nmaker of the watch alone is held responsible for all its perfections\nand imperfections. And, if man has a maker, it is a very clear case that\nthat maker is equally responsible for his running wrong. There is no\nresisting this conclusion. The true assumption in the case is, that\nman has no creator in the orthodox sense, and is only responsible to\nhimself, and to society so far as he is a voluntary member of it. But\northodoxy makes his salvation depend not only upon his resisting the\nnatural inclinations implanted in his system, but also upon the position\nof his birth. As an argument in favor of sending the Bible to the\nheathen, they declare that millions perish every year because they have\nnot the opportunity of reading that \"Holy Book,\" and learning the name\nof Jesus. This makes their salvation depend upon the locality of their\nbirth; as some sections furnish the opportunity, and others do not, of\nbecoming acquainted with their Bible, and the name of their Savior.\n\nWe must imagine, therefore, in \"the day of judgment\" every human being\nwill have a geographical question to answer. After being interrogated as\nto their conduct and practical lives, the next question will be, \"Where\nwere you born?\" If the answer is, \"In Arabia,\" the reply of the judge\nwill be, \"Oh yes! you are a Mahomedan. Our religion only saves those\nborn in Christian countries. I must therefore set you aside among the\ngoats.\" If the applicant is from India, he will be rejected from the\nkingdom, and consigned to perdition, because he is a \"heathen.\" And\nthus Christianity is shown to be a geographical system of salvation,\nand makes a man's eternal destiny depend upon whether he is born in this\ncountry or that country, which strips it of all claim to either justice,\nimpartiality, or good sense. The doctrine of free agency and moral\naccountability is one in a long list of Geological absurdities, which\noriginated in an age of scientific ignorance, when nothing was known\nof the natural powers, or the philosophy of the human mind, or the laws\nwhich control its action.\n\n_Moral Accountability_.--What is it? and where is it? It is certainly\none of the greatest moral puzzles ever submitted to a philosopher, as\nto how a being, forced into existence by an omnipotent creative power,\nwithout his consultation or consent, can be responsible to that creative\npower for his conduct, when he had no agency and no volition in his own\ncreation, and no power of resisting it, or in shaping its conditions. If\nGod possesses omnipotent power and infinite wisdom, and _is a creator_,\nhe could and should have made man to act just as he wished him to act;\nand, if he did not do so, common sense would suggest that it was his\nown fault. It will be seen from the force of this logic, that Christians\nmust either give up the doctrine of a voluntary personal creator, or\nthat of moral accountability. The two doctrines _can not_ be made to\nharmonize together.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVIII.--REPENTANCE,--THE DOCTRINE ERRONEOUS.\n\nHaving treated this subject somewhat lengthily and critically in \"The\nWorld's Sixteen Crucified Saviors,\" we shall devote but a brief space\nto its elucidation here. Nearly all religious nations have attached\ngreat importance to the act of repentance; but such an act does not\nrepair the injury or wrong repented of.\n\nThe repentance of a murderer does not restore his murdered victim to\nlife; nor does the repentance and tears of the incendiary rebuild the\ndwelling he has destroyed by fire. What, then, is its practical value?\n\nWe would ask, also, what moral value or merit can attach to an act of\nrepentance when it is not claimed to be an act of the sinner, but \"the\npower of God upon the soul\"? (Luther.) It appears then, according to\northodox logic,--1. That God won't save the sinner unless he repents. 2.\nThat he can't repent only as God moves him to do so. This places him in\na bad predicament. Hence, when he does repent, it is an act of God. 3.\nAnd then God saves him because he makes him repent. Here is a jumble of\nlogical incongruities and moral contradictions that can find no lodgment\nin a scientific mind. A few brief questions will set the doctrine of\nrepentance in its true light.\n\n4. Repentance consists in merely a revival of early impressions, that\nmay be either right or wrong, true or false, and almost as likely to be\none as the other.\n\n5. Who ever knew a person to embrace more rational doctrines, or become\nmore intelligent, or have a stronger taste for scientific pursuits, by\nrepentance?\n\n6. Is it not a fact that repentance usually causes a person to cling\nmore tenaciously to the errors and superstitions in which he was\neducated?\n\n7. Who ever knew a person by repenting, either in health or sickness,\nto condemn one wrong act which he had erroneously been taught to believe\nwas right? If not, does it not prove that repentance always conforms\nto education, whether that education is right or wrong, and hence does\nnothing toward enlightening the convert or anybody else?\n\n8. On the contrary, when a man repents with his mind full of religious\nerrors, is it not evident that the act of repentance will have the\neffect to rivet these errors more strongly upon his mind, and thus\neffect a moral injury instead of a moral benefit?\n\n9. If a man may abandon some of his immoral habits, which he has been\ntaught to believe are wrong, by an act of repentance, are not the good\neffects to some extent counterbalanced by his clinging more strongly to\nhis religious errors?\n\n10. Who ever knew a person to abandon a false religion by repentance?\nDoes a Hindoo or Mahomedan ever embrace Christianity by repenting?\n\n11. Who ever knew a Roman Catholic to become a Protestant, or a\nProtestant a Catholic, by repentance? And yet orthodox Christians will\ncite the belief and testimony of a dying man as an evidence of the truth\nof their doctrines.\n\n12. How can an act of repentance do any thing toward proving what is\nright and what is wrong in any case, when one person repents for doing\nwhat another repents for not doing? We have such cases recorded in\nhistory.\n\nWe have known a Campbellite to leave his dying testimony in favor of\nwater baptism, and a Quaker to leave his dying testimony against it.\nDoes one case prove it to be wrong, and the other right? If not, why do\nChristians cite such cases? What do they prove?\n\nFor a further illustration of this subject, see \"The World's Sixteen\nCrucified Saviors.\"\n\nDEATH-BED REPENTANCE.\n\nIf there is any class of people who need to repent for misspent time,\nand for leading false and foolish lives, it is the colporteurs who\ntravel over the country distributing pious tracts, containing doleful\naccounts of death-bed repentance, which, whether right or wrong, prove\nnothing.\n\nSuch cases of repentance as are reported do not appertain to the\nmoral conduct, but to the religious belief, of the sinner. It is the\nabandonment and condemnation of his past creeds, and not of his past\nconduct, which makes the tract so valuable. Such a case contains no\nmoral instruction whatever.\n\nIf his early education was Mahomedan, his repentance will establish that\nreligion again in his mind; but, if Mormonism was the religion of\nhis childhood, he would again have full faith in that religion. What\nnonsense!\n\nWho ever knew repentance to divorce or emancipate a man from all or any\nof the religious errors of his past life, and plant in his soul a better\nand more rational religion, or lead him to advocate any religion only\nthat in which he had been educated?\n\nSuch repentance is worth nothing, and absolutely foolish. Let us assume\nthat the numerous cases of death-bed repentance published in religious\ntracts are all true; and what would it prove? Why, simply this: that the\nconverts had all been educated to believe in Christianity, and had gone\nback to that religion. Had Budhism or Mahomedanism been their early\nreligion, they would have returned to that. It is merely old errors\nand old truths revived and re-established in the mind. But many facts\nafterwards gathered by honest investigation, appertaining to some of\nthese cases, show that they have either been manufactured or greatly\nexaggerated. As for example, the case of Thomas Paine is proved to be\nwithout foundation. His close was calm and peaceful. Many times has it\nbeen declared, in the pulpit and elsewhere, that \"Tom Paine repented,\nand died a miserable death.\" And yet we have the testimony of those\nChristian professors who were present with him almost constantly during\nhis last illness, that he never manifested the least compunction of\nconscience, or the least disposition to condemn any thing he had said or\nwritten in opposition to Christianity or the Bible. Take, for example,\nthe testimony of Willet Hicks, a reliable Quaker preacher. On being\ninterrogated by a neighbor of the author of this work as to the truth of\nthe statement that he repented, he replied, \"I was with Paine every day\nduring the latter part of his sickness, and can affirm that he did not\nexpress any regret for having written 'The Age of Reason,' as has been\nreported, nor for any thing he had said or written in opposition to the\nBible, nor ask forgiveness of God. He died as easy as any one I ever saw\ndie; and I have seen a great many die.\" And yet this Mr. Hicks was in\nhopes he would repent. Other similar testimony might be adduced; but\nthis is sufficient. The story of Ethan Allen's daughter calling upon her\nfather during her last illness, and asking him if he would recommend her\nto die in his religious belief, and his feeling so conscience-smitten by\nthe question, that he exclaimed, \"No: die in the belief of your mother!\"\n(who was a Christian) has gone the rounds of the Christian pulpits. And\nyet we have the statement of his nephew, Col. Hitchcock, that he had no\ndaughter to die during his lifetime.\n\nThere is not one word of truth in the report. These two cases furnish\nsamples of the manner in which a dying cause will grasp at straws.\n\nWe will subjoin here the testimony of a clergyman, in proof that\ninfidels are not more likely to die in a state of mental distress than\nChristians: The Rev. Theodore Clap, in his autobiography, says, \"In all\nmy experience I never saw an unbeliever die in fear. I have seen them\nexpire without any hope or expectation of the future, but never\nin agitation from dread or misgiving as to what might befall them\nhereafter. We know that the idea is prevalent that this final event\npasses with some dreadful terror or agony of soul. It is imagined, that,\nin the infidel's case, the pangs of dissolution are greatly augmented\nby the upbraidings of a guilty conscience, and by the reluctance of\nthe spirit to be torn from its mortal tenement, and hurried into the\npresence of an avenging Judge; but this is all a superstitious fancy. It\nis a superstitious fear, from a false education, that causes any one to\ndie in fear.\"\n\nThe Rev. W. H. Spenser, of the First Parish Church (Massachusetts),\nsays, \"Some of the men most bitterly stigmatized as infidels have been\namong the most brilliant and useful minds the world has ever known, and,\nwhen dying and suffering from calumny and scorn, have only to wait for\ntime to do them justice, and place them in history with the world's\nbenefactors or saviors. There is not to be found on record one purely\ninfidel man, in the sense now referred to, whose death-bed was attended\nby recantations and remorse.\" Thus testifies a clergyman.\n\nWe will now show from reliable authority that the most ardent faith in\nChrist and the Bible, and the most rigid and conscientious observance of\ntheir doctrines and precepts, do not guarantee permanent acquiescence\nor satisfaction, or protect the mind from the most violent mental\nperturbation in the hour of death. John Calvin stood in the first ranks\nof the Church militant in his time, and was considered by many\nthe leading clergyman in Christendom. Hear what Martin Luther, his\nco-laborer, says with respect to his mortal exit: \"He died forlorn and\nforsaken of God, blaspheming to the very end.... He died of scarlet\nfever, overrun and eaten up by ulcerous abscesses, the stench of which\ndrove every person away. He gave up the ghost, despairing of salvation,\nand evoking devils from the abyss, and uttering oaths most horrible,\nand blasphemies most frightful.\" Then tell us no more about infidels\nrecanting and dying unhappy, after reading this case. Yet all the cases\nand evidences cited above only tend to show that no forms of religious\nbelief have any thing specially to do with the condition of mind in\nthe hour of mortal dissolution, except so far as that belief has\nbeen invested with groundless, superstitious fears. Hence persons who\ndistribute death-bed tracts are in rather small business. We like the\nanswer of a liberal-minded man, who, when in his dying moments he was\nasked by a priest if he had made his peace with his God, replied, \"We\nhave never had any unfriendly words.\" We don't believe there can be a\ncase found in all Christendom of an infidel repenting whose parents were\nunbelievers, so that he was not educated and biased in favor of any form\nof religious faith or belief.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIX.--FORGIVENESS FOR SIN, AN IMMORAL DOCTRINE.\n\nThe doctrine of divine forgiveness for sin is another illogical and\nimmoral doctrine of the orthodox school, as well as that of heathen\nnations, which a logical analysis and the practical experience of nearly\nall religious countries show has been pernicious in its effects upon the\nmorals of society. A little reflection must convince any unbiased mind\nthat, while men and women are taught to believe that the consequences\nof sin or crime can be arrested or mitigated by an act of forgiveness\nby the divine Law-maker, they will feel the less restrained from the\ncommission of crime and wickedness. They naturally look upon it as a\nsort of license for the indulgence of their passions and propensities.\nThey are taught that none of the evil consequences of wrong-doing\ncan follow them to another world if they repent in time, and ask\nforgiveness. This they accept as a broad license to take their swing\nin vice and villainy. And thus they are partially demoralized by the\ndoctrine. Much more rational is the doctrine of the Swedenborgians and\nHarmonialists, that every sin or wrong act we commit makes its impress\nupon the soul, or immortal spirit, which will be carried with it to the\nlife eternal, and will there long operate to impair the happiness, and\nretard the spiritual growth, of every person who in this life indulges\nin crime or immoral conduct. They teach us that the character we form\nfor ourselves on this plane of existence will be carried with us to the\nspirit-world; that our character undergoes no radical change by merely\npassing through the gates of death. Hence, whatever defective moral\nqualities we permit to de incorporated into our characters here will\noperate to sink us to a lower plane of happiness in the after-death\nworld. This is a plausible and rational doctrine, to say the least,\nand can have no effect to demoralize the community, as the sentiments\nbreathed forth by some of the orthodox hymns have evidently done.\n\n     \"There is a fountain filled with blood,\n     Drawn from Immanuel's veins;\n     And sinners plunged beneath that flood\n     Lose all their guilty stains.\"\n\nCould any doctrine be more demoralizing than that here set forth,--that\nthe deep-dyed stains of a life of crime, debauchery, and wickedness can\nall be wiped out by the simple act of plunging into a pool of blood, or\nrather by believing that the atoning blood of Christ will cleanse from\nall sin? The same idea is incorporated into Watts's well-known hymn,--\n\n     \"While the lamp holds out to burn,\n     The vilest sinner may return.\"\n\nThe idea here set forth is shocking to the moralist, as well as\ndemoralizing in its effects on the community. \"The vilest sinner\" must\nfeel very little concern about \"returning\" to the path of virtue, or\nabandoning his wicked deeds, while the conviction is established in his\nmind that he is losing nothing by leading such a life, and will have\nnothing to do at the end of a long life of the most shocking crimes,\nvillainies, and vices, to escape entirely their legitimate punitive\nconsequences, but to take a flip in \"the blood of Jesus.\" Every\nscientific moralist can see very plainly that the world can never be\nreformed while such license for sin and wickedness is issued from the\nChristian pulpit. Practically speaking, God could not forgive a sin. An\nact of forgiveness implies that the legitimate consequence of the evil\ndeed or sinful act can be set aside, and escaped. The principles of\nmoral science teach us that this is impossible. It demonstrates that\nthe moral law is a part of our being; and, consequently, an act\nof forgiveness for the violation or that law could not suspend its\noperation, or stop the infliction of its penalty upon the perpetrator.\nIt could then, of course, effect nothing. Hence it will be seen that\nno sin can be forgiven, but must work out its legitimate consequences.\nScientifically speaking, the law is the cause, and the penalty the\neffect: when the cause is set in operation, the effect must follow.\nIt would be as easy to arrest the thunderbolt in its descent from the\nclouds as to evade the penalty of this law. God could not if he would,\nand would not if he could, forgive the violation of his laws. He could\nnot, because he has wisely arranged those laws to operate without his\ninterference. On the other hand, he would not if he could, because it\nwould encourage their future and further violation. And then a God\nwho would confer on us an inclination to commit certain acts, and then\nrequire us to ask his forgiveness for committing them, would not be a\nvery consistent being. Forgiveness is, theologically speaking, \"a free\nticket to Heaven.\" Buy a through ticket of the priest, and you can go on\n\"the strait-line\" road, direct to the orthodox \"house of many mansions,\"\nwithout having to switch off at any station to unload your burden of\nsins. \"All is well that ends well\" is their motto. The orthodox clergy\ntell the most vile and debauched villain and bloody assassin, after he\nhas inhumanly butchered and murdered his innocent and virtuous wife,\ncan, by an act of repentance and forgiveness, swing from the end of the\nhangman's rope directly into a heaven of pure and unalloyed bliss, and,\nwith his fingers all dripping with human blood, join the white-robed\nsaints in shouting, \"Glory hallelujah to the Lord God and the Lamb for\never and ever!\" Spare me, oh, spare me, from ever believing in such a\ndemoralizing religion as this!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XL.--CAN GOD BE SUBJECT TO ANGER?\n\nAll Bibles, and nearly every religious nation known to history, have\ntaught that God often gets angry at the creatures of his own\ncreation. But, in the light of modern science, nothing could be more\ntranscendently absurd, or more absolutely impossible, than that a being\npossessing all knowledge--a being infinite in power, infinite in wisdom,\nand filling all space throughout the boundless universe--should be a\nvictim to the weakness and ungovernable impulse of passion. The very\nidea is revolting and blasphemous, and presents to every reflecting and\nunbiased mind a self-evident impossibility. The emotion of anger\ncan only be the weakness of finite and imperfect beings. It is\nself-evidently impossible for a being possessing infinite perfection,\nand consequently infinite self-government, to cherish the feeling of\nanger for a moment, as the following consideration will show:--\n\n1. The modern study of mental philosophy has demonstrated anger to be a\nspecies of moral weakness; and hence it could not, for a single moment,\noccupy a mind possessing infinite perfection. A being, therefore, who\nis assumed to possess such a weakness is self-evidently not a God, but\nmerely an imaginary being, fit only to be worshiped by ignorant slaves.\n\n2. The practical experience of every person demonstrates anger to be a\nspecies of unhappiness, and often of absolute misery; and the indulgence\nof this passion not only makes the possessor unhappy, but destroys the\nhappiness of every one around him. If, therefore, God were an angry\nbeing, instead of heaven being a place or state of happiness, it would\nbe the most miserable place imaginable; for God is represented by the\nChristian Bible as getting angry every day (see Ps. vii. 11), and so\nangry that the \"fury comes up in his face.\" As a Yankee would say, \"He\ngets mad all over.\" I frankly confess I don't want to live in such a\nheaven, or with such a God. Indeed, it would be no heaven at all for\nanybody; for heaven is a state of happiness.\n\n3. In the third place, the modern study of the science of philosophy\nhas discovered that anger is a species of disease, which may result in\nmental and even physical suicide if carried far enough. It produces\na congested state of the blood-vessels of the brain, which, if not\narrested in its progress, will produce death. Dr. Gunn, in his work on\ndomestic medicine, reports several cases in which an inquest was held\nover a dead body by a coroner's jury, and the verdict rendered, \"Came\nto his death in a fit of anger.\" However irreverent, the thought forces\nitself upon us, that such a verdict might be given over the dead body\nof Jehovah if we were compelled to believe all we read of his getting\nangry; for it is a scientific deduction that can not be resisted, that,\nif anger can produce death in one being, it may in all beings subject to\nits influence.\n\n4. Again: as the result of the study of mental philosophy, anger is now\nknown to be a species of insanity. It deranges, more or less, all the\nfaculties of the mind, and often disqualifies the possessor for doing\nany thing right, or acting rationally, while under its influence. It\noften causes him to act without reason or judgment, and is liable to\ndrive him to the commission of crime. As well think of entering the cage\nof a tiger as to take up our abode in a heaven ruled by such a God,--a\nheaven controlled by a God bereft of reason by the ungovernable action\nof his own passions. We could not be happy in such a heaven: we should\nbe constantly under the influence of fear and apprehension, lest he\nshould become enraged, and his vengeance fall upon us. Where there is\nfear there is no heaven or happiness. If, as the Bible tells us, he is\nliable to repent, he might experience this mental perturbation at any\ntime, and repent for having admitted us into the heavenly kingdom, and\nconsequently expel us. Under such circumstances our motives would be\nvery much weakened for laboring to reach such a heaven, not knowing\nthat we should be permitted to remain there a single hour. How supremely\nridiculous, when logically analyzed, is the conception of an angry God!\nIt is entirely behind the age, and adapted only to the lowest stages\nof barbarism; and yet thousands of Christian clergymen preach this\ndemoralizing doctrine from the pulpit every sabbath day. It is\ndemoralizing, because no person can believe in an angry, sin-punishing\nGod, without cherishing such feelings in his own bosom. It is impossible\nfor him to avoid it. Indeed, he has no motives for trying to avoid it;\nbut, on the contrary, he possesses the strongest motives for cultivating\nsuch feelings. For Archbishop Whately says, \"Religious people always\ntry to be like the God they worship.\" They consider it not only their\nprivilege, but their duty, to imitate him. Hence, if they believe he\ngets mad occasionally, and pours out his vengeance upon his offending\nchildren (his disobedient subjects), they will naturally feel like\nfollowing his example, and be cruel and revengeful to those who excite\ntheir anger. This preaching the doctrine of an angry God has a tendency\nto foster vengeful and vindictive feelings amongst the people; when, if\nthe clergy would preach only a God of infinite love, infinite goodness,\ninfinite perfection in all his attributes, we should soon see a marked\nchange in society. Kindness, love, and good-will would be manifested\nbetween man and man; and cruel, vengeful, and vindictive feelings would\ngradually die out, and be numbered amongst the things which have been\nand are not. Then would the kingdom of peace be established on earth,\nand the millennium be ushered in. But we can not expect the priests\nto be better than their God, nor the people to be better than their\npriests. \"Like God like priest, and like priest like people.\" The priest\ndeals out damnation upon the people to be like his God; and the people\nfollow in his foot steps, and exercise cruel and revengeful feelings\ntoward each other. It seems astonishing that such an immoral and\nblasphemous doctrine should have been so long and so extensively\ntolerated in professedly enlightened countries, as it is evident it\nmust have had a bad effect; and past experience proves it has had\na demoralizing effect upon the people where the doctrine has been\npreached. It furnishes an illustration of the omnipotent power of\ncustom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLI.--ATONEMENT FOR SIN, AN IMMORAL DOCTRINE.\n\nHaving appropriated a portion of two chapters in \"The World's Sixteen\nCrucified Saviors\" to an exposition of the doctrine of the atonement, we\nshall treat the subject but briefly in this work.\n\n1. It is shown in the work above mentioned, that the doctrine of the\natonement is of heathen origin, and that it is predicated upon the\nassumption that no sin can be fully expiated without the shedding of\nblood. In the language of Paul, \"Without the shedding of blood, there\ncan be no remission for sin.\" A barbarous and bloody doctrine truly!\nBut this doctrine was almost universally prevalent amongst the Orientals\nlong before Paul's time.\n\n2. Christians predicate the dogma of atonement for sin upon the\nassumption that Christ's death and sufferings were a substitute for\nAdam's death, incurred by the fall. But as Adam's sentence was death,\nand he suffered that penalty, this assumption can not be true.\n\n3. If the penalty for sin was death, as taught in Gen. iii., and Christ\nsuffered that penalty for man, then man should not die; but, as he does,\nit makes the doctrine preposterous. It could not have meant spiritual\ndeath, as some argue, because a part of the penalty was that of being\ndoomed to return to dust (Gen. r. 19).\n\n4. If crucifixion was indispensably necessary as a penalty, then the\npunishment should have been inflicted either upon the instigator or\nperpetrator of the deed: either the serpent or Adam should have been\nnailed to the cross.\n\n5. We are told in reply, that, as an infinite sin was committed, it\nrequired an infinite sacrifice. But Adam, being a finite being, could\nnot commit an infinite sin; and Christ's sacrifice and sufferings could\nnot be infinite, unless he had continued to suffer to all eternity.\nTherefore the assumption is false.\n\n6. An all-wise God would not let things get into such a condition as to\nrequire the murder of his only son from any consideration whatever.\n\n7. And no father, cherishing a proper regard and love for his son, could\nhave required him to be, or consented to have him, put to death in a\ncruel manner; for the claims of mercy and paternal affection are as\nimperative as justice.\n\n8. To put an intelligent and innocent being to death for any purpose is\na violation of the moral law, and as great a sin as that for which he\ndied. Hecatombs of victims can not atone for the infraction of the moral\nlaw which is engraven upon our souls.\n\n9. If it were necessary for Christ to be put to death, then Judas is\nentitled to one-half the merit of it for inaugurating the act, as it\ncould not have taken place without his aid; and no one who took part in\nit should be censured, but praised.\n\n10. It is evident, that, if everybody had been Quakers, no atonement\nwould have been made, as their religion is opposed to bloodshed.\n\n11. The atonement is either one God putting another to death, or God\nputting himself to death to appease his own wrath; but both assumptions\nare monstrous absurdities, which no person distinguished for science or\nreason can indorse.\n\n12. Anger and murder are the two principal features in the doctrine of\nthe atonement; and both are repugnant to our moral sense and feelings of\nrefinement, and indicate a barbarous and heathen origin.\n\n13. The atonement punishes the innocent for the guilty; which is a\ndouble or twofold crime, and a reversal of the spirit of justice. If\na father should catch four of his children steeling, and the fifth one\nstanding by and remonstrating against the act, and should seize on the\ninnocent one and administer a severe flagellation, he would commit a\ndouble crime: 1st, that of punishing an innocent child; 2d, that of\nexonerating and encouraging the four guilty children in the commission\nof crime. The atonement involves the same principle.\n\n14. No person with true moral manhood would consent to be saved on any\nsuch terms; but would prefer to suffer for his own sins, rather than\nlet an innocent being suffer for them. And the man who would accept\nsalvation upon such terms must be a sneak and a coward, with a soul not\nworth saving.\n\n15. Who that possesses any sense of justice would want to swim through\nblood to get to the heavenly mansion? I want neither animals, men, nor\nGods murdered to save my soul.\n\n16. If there is any virtue in the atonement in the way of expiating\ncrime, then there is now another atonement demanded by the principles of\nmoral justice to cancel the sin committed by the first atonement,--that\nof murdering an innocent being, \"in whose mouth was no guile;\" and then\nanother atonement to wipe out the sin of this atonement, and so on. And\nthus it would be atonement after atonement, murder after murder, _ad\ninfinitum_. What shocking consequences and absurdities are involved in\nthis ancient heathen superstition!\n\n17. It seems strange that any person can cherish the thought for a\nmoment that the Infinite Father would require a sacrificial offering for\nthe trifling act of eating a little fruit, and require no atonement for\nthe infinitely greater sin of murdering \"his only-begotten son.\" Another\nmonstrous absurdity!\n\n18. The advocates of the atonement tell us that man stands toward his\nCreator in the relation of a debtor; and the atonement cancels the debt.\nTo be sure! How does it do it? We will illustrate: A man says to his\nneighbor, \"I owe you a thousand dollars; but I won't pay it.\"--\"Very\nwell,\" says the creditor, \"I will tell you what I will do: I will\nforgive the debt by seizing on my own son, strip him of all he has, and\nthen put him to death. The claims of justice will then be satisfied.\" A\nmonstrous idea of justice!\n\n19. The Jewish and Chaldean law of atonement required the offender\nto place his hand on the head of the beast while being consumed in\nsacrifice; and this was accepted as an atonement for his transgressions.\nSuch a conception is both senseless and demoralizing. He was thereby\ntaught that he would escape the legitimate consequences of his crime.\nAnd the Christian atonement is no better. The sin-atoning offering of\nChrist furnishes an open door through which the sinner escapes the just\npunishment of law. It is at least a partial liquidation of his sins.\nWhen one being is punished for another, this is, to the latter, an\nimmunity from punishment; and the ends of justice are thus completely\nthwarted, and the moral law broken and trampled under foot. If a culprit\nwere sentenced to the penalty of death for murder, and the punishment\nof another man were accepted in his stead, every court in the civilized\nworld would decide that two wrongs were committed,--the punishment of\nthe innocent, and the pardon of the guilty. Such doctrines are repugnant\nto ali ideas of justice, and are most certainly demoralizing.\n\n20. The wrong-doer should be taught that he is just as guilty, and just\nas certain of punishment for his crime, as if all the Gods in heaven\nwere put to death to atone for his sin; the penalty being inseparable\nfrom the act.\n\n21. What would be thought of the government that should punish the\nlaw-maker instead of the law-breaker? This is exactly what the atonement\namounts to; so that the law-maker falls a victim to the penalty of his\nown laws. It is God the law-maker dying for man the law-breaker. Such\nideas and such doctrines are monstrous, and completely overthrow every\nprinciple of civil jurisprudence.\n\n22. A God who could resort to such desperate expedients to appease his\nanger, and satisfy the demands of justice, is not a God, but merely\nan imaginary being which was conjured up in an age of ignorance and\nsuperstition. The belief in such a God is, nevertheless, demoralizing.\n\nWe will here relate an anecdote, showing that such ideas of the Supreme\nBeing are repulsive even to the unenlightened heathen: In Smith's \"Gulf\nof Guinea\" it is stated, that, as a Christian missionary was presenting\nthe doctrine of the Christian religion to Pepples, King of Bonny, and\ntold him that God gave his only-begotten son to die for us,--to be put\nto death for our sins,--the king stopped him by saying, \"Do you think me\na fool to believe such palaver as that,--that God would kill his own son\nto please himself; get mad at man, and then kill his own son, instead of\nkilling him? Never! never can I believe such fool palaver as that, It\nis a big fool lie.\" \"I tried,\" says the missionary, \"to impress upon his\nmind that nothing would satisfy divine justice but such a sacrifice; but\nhe cut me short by exclaiming, 'That will do; that will do: I have\ngot enough of such fool palaver.'\" Quite a sensible \"heathen\" was King\nPepples.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLII.--SPECIAL PROVIDENCE, AN ERRONEOUS DOCTRINE.\n\nAll the holy books, and nearly all holy men who have figured in\nthe world, have cherished a belief in what is termed \"special\nprovidences,\"--a doctrine which teaches that God individually and\npersonally superintends the affairs, not only of all nations, but of\neach individual human being, now amounting in number to about fourteen\nhundred millions. It seems strange that the striking absurdity of such\nan assumption has not struck every mind possessing the power to reflect\nor investigate. The thought of his looking after the affairs and\nhappiness of fourteen hundred millions of human beings at a time,\nbesides running several thousand millions of worlds, far excels any of\nthe astounding feats of the evil genii of Gulliver. In the sublimity of\nits absurdity and impossibility, it stands without a rival. It expands\nbeyond the utmost stretch of human credulity. Like all the other\ndoctrines of the popular creed, it sprang up in an age of the world\nwhen the human mind accepted every thing presented to it without\ninvestigation,--when nothing was rejected on the ground of its being\ntoo absurd to be believed. And an absurdity, when once established, no\nmatter how monstrous or how stultifying to the intellectual or reasoning\nfaculties, can bid defiance to the efforts of the few men of the world\nwhose minds are too much expanded and enlightened to accept such gross\nabsurdities. There are several objections to the doctrine of \"special\nprovidences,\" both of a logical or scientific character, and also upon\nmoral grounds, which shows that it should have no place in an age of\nscientific intelligence.\n\nOne of these objections is the one just brought to notice,--that of\nits extreme absurdity and practical impossibility. It does not require\na great mind, but only a reflecting one, to see that no rational\nconception of the Supreme Being could render it practicable for one\nmind, however boundless in knowledge and infinite in power, to be so\ndivided as to look after the interest of each individual of a countless\nnumber, scattered over a world of more than a hundred and seventy-five\nthousand millions of miles in extent. A scientific investigation of the\noperations of nature has settled the conviction in every scientific mind\nthat the life, actions, and destiny of every human being are under the\ncontrol of fixed and immutable laws, which need only to be studied and\nobserved to guard him effectually from personal accidents, and those\nphysical disasters to which he often falls a victim through ignorance\nof the proper means of avoiding them. It is now patent to all critical\nobservers that the serious disasters and numerous causes of physical\nsuffering to which the larger portion of the human family were so\nfrequently subjected in past ages, have largely diminished, and are\nconstantly decreasing as the march of science dispels the ignorance of\nthe people,--such as the sinking of ships, attributable to imperfect\nmechanical construction; pestilential diseases, caused by the general\nignorance of the causes of and means of preventing; the explosion of\nsteam-boilers on rivers, railroads, &c. And, from the present rates of\nimprovement in these respects, we may reasonably calculate that the time\nis not far in the future when such disasters will be unknown. Then we\nwill have no need of \"special providence\" to save the people from the\nfatal consequences of their ignorance. The conviction seems now to be\ngenerally established in the public mind, that when a boat is wrecked,\nor a locomotive strays from the track, and a few persons escape with\ntheir lives from the general wreck and ruin, it is to be ascribed to the\ninterposition of the hand of Providence. But common sense would\nsuggest, that, if Providence had any thing to do with it, he should have\ncommenced a little sooner, and put some more brains or common sense into\nthe heads of the managers of these cargoes of human beings, or kept\nthe whiskey out of their stomachs till they reached their point of\ndestination. In the thousands of cases annually reported of Providence\ninterposing his aid to save some reckless mariners, or some heedless\npassengers on a pleasure-boat, from a watery grave, or rescuing a few\npersons from the wreck of a railroad bridge, or some similar calamity,\nthe disasters might all have been avoided by Providence simply acting\nupon the wisdom of the proverb, \"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound\nof cure.\" It would be considered an act of criminal neglect on the part\nof a father who could stand by and see his children, from ignorance of\nthe danger of such a situation, fall from a precipice, and get crippled:\nfor which his diligence in taking care of them, and trying to heal\ntheir bruises, would by no means excuse him, as he should have commenced\nsooner, and prevented the accident from taking place. And nearly all the\ncases of providential interposition are liable to the same objection:\nthe assistance is too long delayed. A collision of two ships recently\noccurred on the Atlantic, by which both vessels were reduced almost to\nwrecks; but \"providentially but few lives were lost,\" though most of the\npassengers were injured. Now the question naturally arises, Why did\nnot God, when he perceived the vessels were approaching each other,\ninterpose his providential care, and prevent the disaster? He either\ncould not, or would not; and, in either case, he is not infinite in\nall his attributes, according to the general ideas of the matter. If he\ncould not, he is either not omnipresent or not infinite in power;\nand, if he could and would not, he is not infinite in kindness and\nbenevolence, or he would have put forth his hand, and saved his children\nfrom such a terrible fate. It is time mankind would learn that God\ngoverns the universe by general laws, fixed and unalterable, and ever\nharmonious, and that he never interferes immediately or personally in\nthe affairs of men.\n\nThat finite human spirits do, in many cases, aid in human affairs by\nwarning of danger, &c., is fully believed by many persons. If this be\ntrue, their interposition would be liable to be mistaken for that of the\nInfinite Spirit. But that any being can perform millions of finite acts\nat once, or that God should suspend the operation of his laws, which\ncontrol the universe, for the purpose of attending personally to the\nwants and prayers of each and every individual the world over,--many\nof the petitions running counter to, or in direct conflict with, each\nother,--is an idea too absurd to find lodgment in any truly enlightened\nmind. But we entertain the pleasing thought that men are beginning to\nlearn that God governs by general laws, and not by personal or special\nagency. These laws are so perfect in their operations that no special\nlaws or personal interference is necessary in any case. A critical\ninvestigation of any case of special providences would satisfy any\nscientific investigator that it was governed entirely by natural causes;\nbut such scrutinizing investigations are seldom made.\n\nThe great mass of pious people in all past ages have been so ignorant,\nand so little accustomed to reasoning or observation, that they have\nnever observed, that, although many cases are reported of Providence\ninterfering to save the life of a child who fell from the window of a\nbasement-story, none are recorded of his saving a child that fell from\nthe fifth story. Why is this? Does not this fact suggest a scientific\nlesson? But the heads of the great mass of the people have been so\nfilled with creeds and catechisms that they have no room for science.\nIt will be time enough to talk about special providences after a case\nis known of a man escaping with his life after a cannonball has passed\nthrough his head, or a bullet through his heart. The belief in special\nprovidences is calculated to paralyze human effort in times of danger,\nand thus suffer the consequences to be more frequently fatal. Let a man\nbelieve, while a ship is being wrecked in a storm, dashing against\nrocks and billows, and her deck overflowed with water, that there is a\nProvidence in the case, and he will naturally labor with less zeal and\neffort to save the vessel. If the case is in the hands of God, and it is\nhis good pleasure that they should be lost, it is of but little use to\nwork the pumps; and, if it is his will that they should be saved, they\nwill be saved without much effort on their part. There can be no doubt\nbut that millions of pious people have been restrained on various\noccasions from putting forth their strongest efforts to arrest a\nthreatening disaster, from the conviction that the hand of God was in\nit, and that no human efforts could change the fate he had decreed for\nthem. And thus the doctrine, in its practical consequences, has been\npernicious. But, in this age of reason and scientific illumination,\nmen are beginning to learn, that, in cases of threatening danger and\ndestruction, muscle is more necessary than \"Providence;\" that, when a\nship is sinking in mid-ocean, pumps are more efficacious than prayers;\nand, when a building is on fire, they can better do without the\nassistance of Providence than without water, firemen, and engines.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIII.--FAITH AND BELIEF, BIBLE ERRORS RESPECTING.\n\n\"Faith\" and \"belief\" seem to be among the most important words in the\nChristian New Testament. No words are much more frequently used. They\noccur in nearly every chapter, and are used more than two hundred times.\nThe following is a specimen of the manner in which these words are\nused:--\n\n\"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth\nnot shall be damned.\" This text, and the sentiment it contains, have\ncaused more misery, cruelty, and more butchery than all the edicts\nof any king that ever sat on the throne of England. Never did a more\ndelusive and fatal error find lodgment in the human mind than the idea\ncouched in this text. Terrible have been the denunciations, punishments,\nand cruelties poured upon the unbelievers in the popular creed, though\nthat creed has been one thing one day, and something else the next. No\nmatter how honest, how upright, how benevolent, or how righteous a man\nproved himself in his practical life, he was doomed to the dungeon, the\nfagot, and the halter, if his creed was not conformable to the orthodox\nfaith then in power. Men and women have been condemned and punished for\nassuming the right to doubt the truth of any doctrine of the popular\ncreed,--an egregious mistake, showing a profound ignorance of the\nnature of the human mind. All persons versed in the science of mental\nphilosophy now know that a man has no more control over his doubts and\nbeliefs than he has over the blood that courses through his veins:\nfor, without evidence, he can not believe; and, with it, he can\nnot disbelieve, as every one will find who will examine this matter\ncritically. Consequently it is as unreasonable to condemn a man for his\nbelief or disbelief, as to condemn him for the color of his hair. Doubt,\nso far from being restrained, should be cultivated, as being the first\nstep toward the attainment of knowledge and progress; for a man never\nmakes any advancement or improvement in his views on any subject till\nhe begins to doubt the correctness of his present views, or, at least,\ndoubts their being perfect, or being incapable of improvement.\n\nWho, then, can not see that to threaten a man for disbelief is tyranny\nand injustice, inasmuch as it has a tendency to make him a slave, and\nto repress the growth of his mind? Condemning a man for disbelief is\nvirtually offering a premium for hypocrisy, as it has the effect to make\nthousands _profess_ to believe doctrines which they do not, and which\ntheir consciences really condemn, in order to avoid the frowns and\nill-will of their neighbors. And, as hypocrisy is a greater evil in its\npractical effects upon society than unbelief, it can be seen that the\npractice of erecting a standard for belief and disbelief is wrong, and\nmischievous in its effects.\n\nThe Bible declares that \"faith is the gift of God.\" It is evident, that,\nif this be true, no responsibility can attach to faith or religious\nbelief; but all responsibility rests with the being who gives it.\n\nTwo great blunders have been committed by faith-dealers: First, in\nassuming that belief is of the nature of a coat, which can be put on and\noff at pleasure,--i.e., that a man can believe what he pleases or wishes\nto believe. The second is, that knowledge and belief are synonymous\nterms, which is very far from being true. Knowledge begins where faith\nand belief end. Belief is that uncertain state of the mind which is\nexperienced in the absence of knowledge; and, when that knowledge is\nobtained, the belief may prove to have been entirely erroneous. Belief\nimplies _uncertainty_; knowledge implies _certainty_. There is this wide\ndifference between them. We believe a thing when we do not know whether\nit is so or not; consequently the belief may be true or false. How\negregious, then, the blunder of the orthodox world in condemning for\ndisbelief! Belief, then, is a state of guessing. We will illustrate the\nposition of orthodox Christendom: A boy throws up a copper coin, and\ncries, \"Heads, or tails?\" A by-stander, believing from its construction\nthat \"heads\" will come up, cries out, \"Heads!\" Now, according to\nthe logic of the orthodox, if he guesses wrong, he should be damned\neternally for it.\n\nWhen you say to a man, \"You shall believe this, or you shall believe\nthat,\" you bind his soul in chains, and reverse the wheels of his\nprogress, and push him toward the \"dark ages.\"\n\nThe fear that it would be a sin to doubt, causes religious ignorance;\nand a man will never abandon his religious errors and superstitions\nwhile he fears to doubt their truth. A man's belief and creed grow\nshorter as his knowledge increases. And the time is not far distant when\nphilosophers and men of science will have no religious belief: all will\nbe knowledge.\n\nIt can be seen from the above exposition, that it is folly and\nconsummate ignorance to attach so much importance to religious belief,\ninasmuch as it is impossible to know whether it is right or wrong.\n\nAs the doctrine that belief is a virtue, and unbelief a crime has\ninundated the world with persecution, misery, and blood, it is time to\nabandon it.\n\nThose Christians who assume that belief is under the control of the\nwill can settle the matter by trying the following experiment upon\nthemselves: Let them try to believe, for only five minutes, that Mahomet\nwas a true prophet, and Jesus Christ was an impostor. If they can do\nthis, it will settle the question, and prove that man is responsible for\nhis belief: otherwise he is not.\n\nSome persons adhere to the Bible upon the plea that \"it is safest to\nbelieve it, and unsafe to disbelieve it.\" But he who can believe an\nerror or absurdity, or, rather, profess to believe it because he is\nafraid to disbelieve it, has not a soul big enough to be saved, and will\nbe certain to miss it; or, if he could be saved, no man of sense would\nwant to live in a heaven made up of such moral cowards and moral dwarfs.\nAnd, besides, the only way to make a safe thing of being saved on this\nground, is to swallow all the two thousand systems of religion in the\nworld,--six hundred Christian creeds, and fourteen hundred heathen\ntraditions; and, to do this, a person must have a very capacious\nstomach.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIV.--A PERSONAL GOD IMPOSSIBLE.\n\nMost of the Bibles, and nearly all the religious teachers of the world,\nhave represented God as being a personal being, and, at the same time,\nan infinite spirit. But that is another of the \"thousand and one\"\nabsurdities that have been taught and believed in the name of religion.\nA personal being must, in all cases, be an organized being. This is so\nself-evident as to need no argument; and that an organized being can not\nbe an infinite being is almost equality self-evident. An organized\nbeing must be a finite being. The word \"finite\" is used to express the\nopposite of \"infinite.\" To assume, therefore, that a finite being, or\na being with a finite body, can also be infinite, is equivalent to\nassuming that a thing can be white and black, large and small, long and\nshort, light and heavy, &c., at the same time; which is a self-evident\nabsurdity. A personal being must be constituted of different parts, or\nmembers,--as a head, heart, body, feet, &c.; and, if such a being\ncould be infinite, then each member must be infinite. But as it is\nself-evident that a being to be infinite must fill all space, and that\nnothing can be infinite unless it does occupy all space, it can be seen\nat once, that, if one member were infinite, it would occupy all space,\nwhich would preclude the possibility of another member being infinite.\nThus we are completely swamped at the first step toward making a\npersonal God infinite. Here let it be noted that the God of the Bible\nis represented as possessing all the members of the human body,--eyes\n(1 Pet. iii. 12), ears (Ibid.), nose (Isa. 65, 5), mouth (Isa. xiv. 23),\nfeet (Rev. i. 15), arms (Isa. xxx. 30), hands (Exod. xiii. 3), fingers\n(Exod. viii. 19), head (Dan. vii. 9), heart (Isa. lxiii. 4), lips (Ps.\nxvii. 4), &c. Now, it is evidently impossible that such a being could\nbe infinite. We may be told that these members are all to be taken in a\nspiritual sense. Granted, and the thing is equally impossible; for they\nmust still be separate members. There could be no possible sense in\napplying all these terms to the whole being. They must apply to separate\nparts; and, the moment we use terms which imply the existence of\nmore than one part, we concede the impossibility of such a God being\ninfinite: for only one part, one being, or one thing can be infinite.\nThere can not be two infinite beings,--self-evidently not.\n\nAnd there are other logical difficulties in the way of admitting the\nexistence of an infinite personal God. If there could be such a thing as\nan infinite personality or organized being, it is evident that only one\nsuch being could exist. What, then, becomes of the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, and also the Devil? They are all spoken of in the Bible as\nbeing omnipresent. Hence they must all be infinite, which is another\nself-evident impossibility. We could as easily conceive of two heads\nwearing the same hat at the same time, as two such beings being\ninfinite. If one of them is infinite, the others can not be; and\nyet each is represented as being omnipresent, which would make them\ninfinite. And thus we fail in every attempt to make a personal God\ninfinite. David, in speaking of the God Jehovah, says, \"If I descend\ninto hell, behold thou art there.\" Then he would not find the Devil\nthere; for two infinite beings could not be found there. And, if God's\ndwelling-place is in hell as well as in heaven, it can make but\nlittle difference which of the two places we go to, as we are told our\nhappiness will consist in being in his presence.\n\nThe defenders of a personal God sometimes have recourse to an\nillustrative argument. They tell us that the sun is a local,\ncircumscribed body, and yet shines to a boundless extent. It is here\nassumed that the rays of the sun are a part of the sun; but this is not\ntrue. They once constituted a part of the sun, it is true; but to assume\nthat they are still a part of the sun, after they have left it, is as\nabsurd as to assume that the breath is still a part of the human body\nafter it has escaped from the mouth. Thus every argument and every\nillustration fail to establish the self-evident absurdity of a personal\nGod of the orthodox world being an infinite being; or, in other words,\nof their conception of a God conforming to the teachings of science and\ngood sense.\n\nThose who assume the existence of a personal God must hold him\naccountable for all the crime and all the misery existing in the world.\nFor such a God could not be controlled or circumscribed in his\nactions by any arbitrary laws; and hence could and should, by personal\ninterference, put a stop to all the crime, misery, suffering, and wrong\nof every description existing on earth; and the fact that he does not do\nit we hold to be _prima-facie_ evidence that there is no personal God,\nbut that every thing is governed by fixed, immutable laws, which control\nGod himself, and which no God can alter.\n\nNote.--We have shown in the twelve preceding chapters that all the\nleading doctrines of Christianity are wrong,--from that of a belief in\ndivine revelation to that of the conception of a personal God. Hence a\nbetter religion is needed for this age.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLV.--EVIL, NATURAL AND MORAL, EXPLAINED.\n\nThe problem of the origin of evil has been the great theological puzzle\nto all theologians and with all religious systems, and has turned\nthe heads of more good people, and sent more devout Christians to the\nlunatic asylum, than any other theological question, excepting that\nof endless punishment; and yet modern science, which furnishes the\nprinciples for solving all the \"holy mysteries\" and miracles embodied in\nthe religious creeds and Bibles of the past ages, shows the question\nto be quite simple and easily understood. The true signification of the\nword _evil_, in a moral sense, can be expressed in a few words. It is\nonly another name for _imperfection or negation_.\n\nIt is the negative pole of the _great moral battery_; and without it the\nbattery could not be run. And without it there could be no morality,\nno moral principle or accountability, while man exists upon the present\nanimal plane. In fact, morality without evil would be an unmeaning word.\nEvil is a state of imperfection running through every vein of nature,\nfrom the igneous rock to the brain of man. Some writers attempt to\ndiscriminate between natural and moral evil; but there is no dividing\nline. Moral evil is as natural as any phenomenon in nature, and is,\nstrictly speaking, the phenomenal action of the brain. Moral evil\nis governed as rigidly by natural laws as physical evil; because (as\nscience demonstrates) it has its basis in man's moral nature. And,\npractically speaking, there will be neither natural nor moral evil when\nnature (now in a crude state) grows to a state of maturity. Evil or\nimperfection, which now characterizes every thing, diminishes in its\nratio to goodness or perfection as we ascend from inanimate matter to\nman,--the crowning work of nature. The theological world assumes that\nman alone bears the impress of imperfection, and that his imperfection\nis restricted principally to his moral action. \"Man alone is imperfect:\nall else bears the mark of divine perfection.\" So says Archbishop\nWhately. But the converse assumption is nearer true: Man is the crowning\nwork of nature, and his moral attributes constitute the keystone of the\narch. He is occasionally erratic, and often wicked, but not universally\nand continually so, like some of the lower animal tribes. The hyena will\nmurder at all times when opportunity offers; but man only occasionally,\nand when driven to it by the pressure of circumstances. All monkeys\nare thieves; but only a small portion of the _genus homo_ are such.\nMan derives all his propensity to evil and wickedness from the\nlower animals. His propensity to rob is exhibited in the eagle; his\ninclination to steal, in the monkey; his disposition to murder, in the\nhyena, alligator, rattlesnake, &c.; his disposition to enslave, in\nthe red ant, which makes a slave of the black ant, as has often been\nobserved by naturalists. Such was the wickedness among the lower animals\nin their earlier stage of development, that, by theft, robbery, and\nmurder, they effected the entire extinction of many species of animals.\nAnd if we descend still lower, and learn the practical history of the\nmineral kingdom, we shall find that its operations are marked by a\na still more ruinous and destructive form of evil. The hideous and\ndevouring earthquake; the heaving and overflowing volcano, burying whole\ncities beneath its deep and merciless waves of running fire; the roaring\nand furious tornado, destroying hundreds of dwellings, and dooming the\ninmates to a terrible death; and the swift-sped lightning, which, with\nno note of warning, strikes down hundreds of people every year,--all\nthese violent operations of nature are the manifestation of evil, and a\nproof that imperfection exists everywhere. And man is the last and least\nmanifestation of this multifarious destructive outburst of nature; and\nhe will never outgrow it, and escape its operation entirely, till\nall nature arrives at manhood. While nature is imperfect, man will be\nimperfect; for he is a child of nature, and all things move forward in\ncorrelated order. He can, however (and it is a necessity of his\nnature that he should), battle with opposing forces, and modify the\ncircumstances around him. His nature impels him to this as naturally as\nit urges him to eat food when hungry; but, as at present constituted and\nsituated, it will be the work of time to rid the earth of moral evil.\nThe only way to accomplish the extinction of evil is to labor for the\nelevation of the whole race. We are only rowing against the current in\nattempting to put down evil with our present system of moral ethics,\nwhich treats the criminal as a wicked being instead of an unfortunate,\nsin-sick brother. He should be sent to a moral hospital instead of\nto the gallows, the jail, and the dungeon. He should be treated as an\nunfortunate brother, rather than as a being to be spurned from society\nas a viper. He should be treated kindly, not cruelly; fed, and not\nstarved. His moral nature should be warmed by affection, and not\ncongealed by frowns. His instinctive respect for virtue should be\ndeveloped by a sound moral education, and not crushed by pursuing him\nwith a malignant spirit. Moral evils must be treated as the fruits of\nthe imperfections of our nature, and not as the product of sin-punishing\ndevils, who first originate and stimulate crimes, and then join with Cod\nin punishing the criminal with fiendish cruelty; thus applying a remedy\nwhich is a thousand times worse than the disease.\n\nThe science of phrenology explains most beautifully the cause and nature\nof sin or crime, and demonstrates that it is simply the perverted or\nunbalanced action of the natural faculties of the mind. Combativeness\nwhen excessively developed or unduly excited, prompts to quarrels and\nfighting; destructiveness, under similar circumstances, leads to war\nand bloodshed; amativeness, when not properly restrained, leads to the\nvarious forms of licentiousness; over-active acquisitiveness is the\nmain-spring in most cases of theft and robbery, and all crimes committed\nfor the acquisition of property or money. And other crimes are prompted\nby the over-active condition of these and, other mental faculties\nunrestrained by the moral faculties, every act and every species of\ncrime are in this way most satisfactorily accounted for by this\nnow generally received and thoroughly established science of mental\nphilosophy; so that \"the mystery of godliness,\" comprehended in the word\nsin, which for ages perplexed the student of theology, is now unraveled\nand understood by the scientific men of the age, and known to have a\nnatural basis and natural origin. And this all-important discovery has\ndriven the old orthodox Devil from the arena of human action. He no\nlonger walks \"to and fro in the earth, seeking whom he may devour.\"\nHe is dead--dead,--killed by the sledge-hammer of science. And yet the\nfifty thousand clergymen who still \"defend the faith once delivered to\nthe saints\" are (many of them) so far behind the march of human progress\nthat the news of the mortal exit of his Satanic Majesty seems not yet\nto have reached them; or, if it has, it is because they are unwilling to\nlose the services of a long-cherished and highly valued friend that they\nrefuse to credit the report of his demise. Take away their Devil, and\ntheir whole theological scaffolding falls to the ground. Revivals\ncould no more be carried on without his aid, than a watch could be kept\nrunning without a main-spring. And with the departure of the Devil must\ngo \"salvation by Christ,\" as there is then nothing, in a theological\nsense, to be saved from. It is an important fact, of which the clergy\nseem to be ignorant, that the march of science has exploded all their\nold theological dogmas. Phrenology has banished the Devil; physiology\nexplains the _modus operandi_ of repentance; psychology, the process of\n\"getting religion;\" philosophy analyzes their Bible miracles; geology\nhas expanded their six days of creation into six thousand years;\nastronomy has displaced Moses' theory of creation, and demolished St.\nJohn's little eight-by-ten heaven. (See Rev. chap. 21.) And yet the\northodox clergy refuse to shorten their creeds by leaving out these\nold, exploded dogmas. Like moles, they continue rooting and digging away\namong their musty creeds, dogmas, and catechisms, seemingly unconscious\nthat the sun of science is now shining with dazzling brilliancy in the\nmoral heavens. Some of them manifest a tenacity in holding on to musty\nand antiquated dogmas equal to that of the butcher's dog in the army\nwhich seized a slaughtered ox by the caudal appendage, with the\nintention of monopolizing the meat, and held on with a \"manly grip\" till\nlimb after limb had been torn off, and piece after piece had been cut\naway from the body by the hungry soldiers, and nothing was left but\nthe tail and the backbone; and then his canine majesty growled at\npassers-by, as much as to say, \"I am master of the situation.\" The\nfossilized clergy are \"masters of the situation,\" while the old orthodox\ncarcass is now minus every part but the tail and naked backbone, to\nwhich they cling with a deathly grasp worthy of a better cause.\nThey remind us of the hotel-keeper in Vermont, who, in answer to the\ninterrogatories of some travelers, stated that he did not keep any kind\nof food for either men or horses. \"What in the name of God, then, do\nyou keep?\" inquired one of the hungry guests. He replied, \"I keep Union\nHotel.\" The stand-still clergy still keep the old theological hotel\nminus any spiritual food, or supplied only with old salt junk handed\ndown from the camp of Moses or Father Abraham.\n\nA word more with respect to the origin of evil: Is it not strange that\nChristians should deny their God to be the author of evil, when it\nis expressly so declared in their Bible? \"I make peace, and _I create\nevil_. I Jehovah do all these things.\"\n\nHere is the positive declaration that God is the author of evil; and,\nif it were not thus unequivocally taught, we could prove that the Bible\nteaches this doctrine _indirectly_ by various texts If \"God made every\nthing that was made,\" then he either made evil or the author of evil,\nwhether that was a devil or a serpent or a fallen angel; and this is\nsubstantially the same thing as originating evil,--to originate the\nauthor of evil. We challenge refutation of the proposition. But a\nphilosophical analysis of the question will show there is no such thing\nas evil in either the _abstract or absolute_ sense. Good and evil are\nbut relative terms, like heat and cold, light and darkness, &c. There is\nno distinct line of demarkation between any of these correlative terms.\nIt is impossible to tell where one ends, and the other begins. And\nthen there is no act but that may become either right or wrong under\ndifferent circumstances. The Bible says, \"Thou shalt not kill.\" But\nthe man who should see an assassin pointing a pistol to the head of his\nwife, or a dagger to her breast, and refrain from killing him as the\nonly means of saving her life, would be virtually himself a murderer.\n\"Thou shalt not steal\" (Exod. xx.); and yet stealing would become a\n_moral right_, as well as a physical necessity, to avoid starvation.\nAnd so of all other acts called crime and sin: they may become _absolute\nvirtues_. How foolish, therefore, to erect inflexible standards for\nhuman action or conduct! And then it should be noted that what is\nregarded as sin in one age or country may be imposed as a moral or\nreligious duty in another. It is a sin to disbelieve the Koran in\nArabia, and a sin to believe it in America. It is a sinful act to\ndisbelieve the Christian Bible in this country, and a moral and\nreligious duty in Japan. It is blasphemy and atheism to disbelieve in\nJehovah and Jesus Christ in this country, but a still greater blasphemy\nand sin to believe in them in Arabia. And thus all human actions are\nmodified by the circumstances under which, and the locality in which,\nthey are committed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVI.--TRUE SALVATION, OK THE RATIONAL VIEW OF SIN.\n\nWe will now attempt to show what reason, science, and God's eternal\nBible teach as the nature of sin and its consequences. The orthodox\nworld represents sin to be a personal affront against a personal God.\nBut we take a broader, and, we think, a more rational view of the\nmatter. We believe that no act of ours, whether good or bad, can\npossibly affect an infinite, omnipresent, and impersonal Deity in any\nway whatever. Nothing we can do can either offend or gratify such a\nbeing. He is infinitely too far removed from our little narrow sphere\nof action. But every thing we do can and _does affect ourselves_, and\ngenerally our friends and all connected with us. Every wrong act we\nperform inflicts an injury upon our moral consciousness, and a wound\nupon our sense of right, and inflicts a lasting injury upon our moral\ndignity, if it does not create a painful sense of wrong. And, when once\ncommitted, no repentance, no forgiveness, no prayer, no atonement, no\npardon, can do any thing toward arresting the baneful effects, or toward\nhealing the wound it has inflicted upon our moral consciousness, or the\ninjury it has inflicted upon others. Hence we never ask for forgiveness,\nnor rely upon any atonement by men, animals, or Gods to cancel the\neffects, or mitigate the wrong, or alleviate the injury in the case.\nWhen you put your finger into fire, and burn it, you violate one\nof God's laws written upon your own constitution,--the law of\nself-preservation; and it inflicts a wound which the longest and loudest\nprayer ever uttered can do nothing towards healing. The effect will\nremain until healed by the working of nature's inherent laws. A similar\neffect is produced by every wrong act you inflict upon yourself or your\nfellow-beings. It inflicts a wound which is beyond the reach of prayer,\npardon, repentance, or forgiveness. It most work ita natural cure, as\nin the case of physical injury. All bodily suffering comes through the\nmind, and hence affects the mind as well as the body; and every\nmoral wrong we commit inflicts punishment or suffering upon the moral\nfeelings. Hence it will be seen that sin does not have to wait for God\nto point out the penalty or punishment, but contains its own punishment,\nwhich no power in heaven or earth can arrest, avert, or set aside. This\nis evidently the only true doctrine respecting the punishment for sin;\nand it is the only doctrine that can stop the commission of crime, and\nthe only doctrine that can ever reform the world; for, while the people\nare taught that sin can be atoned for by any power in heaven or earth,\nthey will the more easily yield to the temptations to commit sin. Their\nwill feel that this doctrine is a kind of license for sin: at least it\nweakens the motive for abstaining from sin. For if a man may lead a\nlife of crime, sin, wickedness, and debauchery, destitute of all moral\nprinciple, for ninety-nine years, as orthodoxy teaches, and then have\nthe effect entirely canceled, and the sin entirely erased from his\nsoul, by one short hour of prayer and repentance and forgiveness, and by\nacknowledging his faith in the atoning blood of Christ, and then stand\nbefore God without a moral blot upon his soul, all purified and ready\nto join the pure in heart--the white-robed angels who lived a life of\nself-denial and purity--in shouting glory to God, where is the motive\nfor leading a virtuous life? It is entirely too weak to restrain from\nthe commission of crime while the temptation is as strong as we usually\nfind it in all countries, especially as there is apparently a large\npremium offered to sinners. Christ says, \"There is more joy in heaven\nover one sinner that repent-eth than over ninety and nine just persons\nwho need no repentance\" (Luke xv. 7). No wonder that sin abounds in all\nChristian countries; and it always will abound while people are\ntaught such pernicious doctrines. Therefore we hold the doctrines of\nrepentance, atonement, forgiveness, &c., to be all wrong. They are\nsubversive of the first principles of moral justice, and pernicious in\ntheir effects upon society. Let the wrong-doer, instead of being\ntaught these pernicious doctrines, be instructed in the true system of\nsalvation, which will teach him there is no possibility of evading or\nescaping the punitive effects of wrong-doing; that every wrong act he\ncommits will inevitably drive the iron into his soul,--the two-edged\nsword of moral conviction; and that the blood of no goats or no Gods can\ndo any thing toward washing away the sin, or mitigating the punishment.\nAnd let him be rescued also from the pernicious error of the churches,\nthat \"sin is a sweet morsel to be rolled under the tongue,\" or that\n\"there is a pleasure in the commission of sin.\" We hold no such views;\nwe believe in no such doctrines. We do not believe there is any real\npleasure in the commission of a moral wrong of any kind. We believe that\nonly a life of virtue is productive of real happiness. Let the wrongdoer\nbe taught this moral lesson; and let him be also taught that every\nhumane and virtuous act of this life will expand his soul, and elevate\nhim to a higher plane of happiness, and bring him one step nearer the\ndoor of the heavenly kingdom. Let the world of mankind all be taught\nthese beautiful and soul-elevating doctrines, which many now know by\nexperience to be golden truths; and we will soon witness a great\nmoral revolution and renovation in society by the propagation of\nthese doctrines. We shall soon see the proof that our system of faith,\nembracing these beautiful, philosophical, and elevating doctrines, is\nmuch better calculated to moralize and reform the world than the morally\nweak and unjust doctrines of repentance, atonement, and pardon now daily\npreached from the Christian pulpits. Many cases could be cited to show\nthat they do have a pernicious influence. I will adduce one example:\nWhen that _Christian_ emperor, Constantine, had murdered his wife, son,\nnephew, and several other relatives, he raised his hands toward heaven,\nand exclaimed, \"The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin.\" Here is\nan example of the pernicious and demoralizing effect of the Christian\ndoctrines of atonement and forgiveness. We repeat, then, that such\ndoctrines are demoralizing, as they must operate to retard the progress\nof truth and true religion, and the moral reformation of the world.\nPeople should be taught that it is as impossible to escape the penalty\nfor sin or wrong-doing as it is to escape the darts of death; and\nthat any act of forgiveness or atonement by some other being is only\ncalculated to aggravate the wrong, and augment the sin, and open the\ndoor for a future commission of the act. All should understand that\nthere is no one to pardon sins, and no savior but themselves. \"The new\nreligion,\" as it is sometimes called,--though it is the oldest religion\nin the world, being founded in the moral and religious nature of man,\nand an outgrowth of his moral, religious, and spiritual elements,--this\nreligion, which is the religion of all the truly enlightened and\nscientific minds of the age, teaches that every person must be his own\nsavior; that every man and woman must work out their own salvation, not\nwith fear and trembling', however, but with joy and rejoicing. Hence\nwe ask no bleeding saviors, no atonements, no acquittals by pardon\nor forgiveness. We offer no such bribery for crime or sin,--no such\nallurements and inducements for leading a life of vice; for many can\ntestify, from their own experience, that they were more easily tempted\nfrom the path of virtue when they believed in these old heathenish,\nmorally deformed, and morally dwarfing doctrines. On the other hand,\nthey have felt much more strongly wedded to a life of virtue, and\nmore powerfully restrained from wrong-doing since they abandoned\nthese pernicious doctrines, and embraced the healthful, beautiful, and\nelevating doctrines of the \"Harmonial Philosophy.\" This system teaches\nwe have to suffer the penalty in full for every wrong act we commit;\nthat we _can not escape in any case_ by either _repentance, atonement,\nor pardon_; that we can not swim off to heaven through the blood of a\nmurdered or crucified God, and leave our sins behind unpunished, or pack\nthem on the back of a savior as the Jews did theirs of the back of a\ngoat. It teaches us that the penalty is as certain as the commission of\nthe crime; because one is the cause, and the other the effect. Hence we\ncould as easily replace a lost arm, torn off in the field of battle, by\nprayer, or stop the descending lightning from splintering yonder tree\ninto a thousand fragments, as to avert or set aside the penalty for\ncrime by \"supplicating the throne of grace.\" We hold that every wrong\nact we commit, if it does not destroy our happiness at the time, and\noperate as a barbed arrow sticking in the soul, will at least weaken\nour capacity for happiness in the future, weaken our moral strength\nand resolution to abstain from crime, weaken our natural detestation of\ncrime, and weaken our moral ability to resist the temptation to commit\nthe same and other crimes in the future, and finally destroy our moral\nmanhood and true dignity. Now, here is a series of powerful motives\nfor eschewing evil, and leading a life of virtue, which will operate\nto arrest that river of crime and iniquity now flowing through all\nChristian countries as soon as the people are taught these rational\nand beautiful doctrines in lieu of those weak and foolish incentives to\nvirtue which are taught them from the Christian pulpit. They possess a\nmuch greater moral force than the fear of angry Gods and horned Devils.\n_Reader ponder these maxims._ _The True Theory of Reform_.--It requires\nbut a few words to show what kind of moral teaching is required to\nreform the world. As happiness is the predominant desire and inalienable\nright of every human being, all aim to pursue that course best\ncalculated to attain it; but, as men are now organized and\ncircumstanced, they often pursue a course of life which infringes upon\nand destroys the happiness of others: and some of them commit acts\nknown as crimes, which are simply trespasses upon the rights, peace, and\nhappiness of their neighbors. If, in thus pursuing happiness, they must\ndestroy the happiness of others, then it follows that the happiness\nof others is incompatible with their own. If so, then God has made a\nserious blunder in making one man's happiness depend upon destroying the\nhappiness of others; and, as their happiness would depend equally upon\ndestroying his, the happiness of all would thus be destroyed. Hence\nthe theory won't work. It follows, then, that men lead a life of crime\ncalculated to destroy the happiness of others, because they are ignorant\nof the fact that they can pursue a course of life that will secure their\nown happiness without destroying that of others. All that is necessary\nto reform them, therefore, is to convince them of this fact. This is\nthe true theory, and the whole theory, of reform. And when people become\nacquainted with the modern discovery in moral philosophy, which teaches\nus that we can not attain to complete happiness without consulting the\nhappiness of others in every act which affects them, there will be a\ndouble motive for leading a virtuous and honorable life. Even Christian\nprofessors will profit by it when they find that the grasping avarice\nwhich prompts them to try to monopolize wealth, and thus withhold the\nmeans of comfort and happiness from their neighbors, is not the way to\nattain real happiness for themselves. When the glorious era arrives that\nmen will daily look after the happiness of others as well as their own,\nthen we shall have a true religion, and a true state of society, and a\nhappy world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVII.--THE BIBLE SANCTIONS EVERY SPECIES OF CRIME.\n\n\"Be ye perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect\" (Matt, v. 48). All\nChristian professors admit that this perfection is to be attained by\nfollowing his practical example, and that the way to become acquainted\nwith this practical example is to read the Bible. Let us see, then,\nwhere a practical compliance with this precept, as thus understood,\nwill lead us. If the God of the Bible is to be accepted as our \"heavenly\nFather,\" then a compliance with this precept will leave no crime\nuncommitted, and no sin not perpetrated; for he is represented as\neither committing or sanctioning every species of crime, wickedness, and\nimmorality known to society in the age in which the Bible was written.\nThat the truth of this statement may not be called in question, we will\nproceed to bring forward evidence to prove it.\n\nI. THE BIBLE SANCTIONS MURDER.\n\nWe find a scriptural warrant for the highest crime known to the\nlaw,--that of murder. God is represented as saying to his holy people,\n\"Go ye out and slay every man his brother, every man his companion,\nand every man his neighbor\" (Exod. xxii. 27). And, relative to the\ndissenter from the faith, he is represented as saying, \"Ye shall stone\nhim with stones that he die.\" Now, if such texts are not calculated to\nfoster the spirit of murder, and to extinguish the natural repugnance to\ncruelty and bloodshed in the human mind, we can conceive of no\nlanguage that would have such an effect, especially when it is taken in\nconnection with Christ's injunction, \"He that hath not a sword, let him\nsell his coat, and buy one.\"\n\nAnd the practical lives of Christian professors, from the earliest\nestablishment of the Church, furnishes proof of the demoralizing\ninfluence of such texts as these upon the readers of the Bible. These\ninjunctions to murder and slaughter have been faithfully obeyed; and\nthe effect has been to submerge Christendom in a sea of blood. Look, for\nproof, at the war among the churches for many years about the doctrine\nof the Eucharist, which resulted in the destruction of three hundred\nthousand lives; the fight about images, in which fifty thousand men,\nwomen, and children were murdered; the war of a dozen churches against\nthe sect of the Manicheans in the ninth century (A.D. 845) about\nsome trivial doctrine of the Christian creed, and which left on the\nbattle-field no less than a hundred thousand murdered human beings; the\nChurch schism, in the time of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, followed\nby the war of the Hussites, which resulted in a bloody slaughter of a\nhundred and fifty thousand fellow-Christians; the war known as \"The Holy\nInquisition,\" established in the year 1208, made a record in its history\nof human butchery of two hundred thousand Christian professors who had\nto atone in blood for assuming the liberty to differ from the popular\ncreed; and, finally, the Thirty Years' war which strewed the earth with\nbloody corpses to the frightful number of five millions of human beings,\nThe whole makes a sum total of eighteen millions, a large portion of\nwhich were Christian professors,--all the work of Christian hands and\nChristian churches, professed followers of the \"Prince of peace.\" But,\nif the text quoted above means any thing (requiring his followers to buy\nswords), he appears also to have been the Prince of war. All the bloody\ntragedies cited above, which form but a small number of the cases\nwhich indelibly stain the records of the Christian Church,' show\nhow faithfully Christian professors have lived out the demoralizing\ninjunctions of their Bible, and prove that the Book has been a powerful\nlever for evil as well as for good. Even the _shocking cruelties_\ndisplayed in the execution of these bloody tragedies finds a warrant\nin the Bible. In their efforts to carry out the Bible injunction to\nexterminate heretics, no species of cruelty was left untried as a\npunishment for the honest dissenter from the faith. The sword of the\nChurch was unsheathed, and plunged with a fierce and relentless ferocity\ninto the bosoms and bowels of their neighbors and fellow-Christian\nprofessors, whose only offense was that of believing and worshiping God\naccording to the dictates of their consciences. With a burning hatred\nfor heretics, stimulated by reading the Bible injunction to put them\nto death in a cruel manner, they leaped upon them with the ferocity of\ntigers, and tortured them to death with every species of cruelty their\ningenuity could invent. They tied them to the whipping-post, or chained\nthem to the fiery fagot; lacerated their bodies; cut their tongues from\ntheir mouths; tore their flesh from their bones with iron hooks, tongs,\nand pincers; cut off their lips, and tore out their tongues, so that\ntheir piercing cries and heart-rending agonies could convey no\nintelligible sound; tore their nails from their fingers, and thrust\nneedles into the bleeding wounds; melted red-hot metal, and poured it\ndown their throats; plucked out their eyes, and threw them to beasts;\nand, in some cases, their bodies were \"stretched upon the rack, and\nflayed alive, or torn limb from limb\". But I forbear: the picture is too\nshocking. Oh that the waves of oblivion could roll over and cover such\ndeeds of cruelty for ever! I rejoice that the age for such atrocities is\npassed, and, I trust, can never return. I hope the churches will never\nagain hold the reins of government, and shape all the laws of the\ncountry. The reason we do not witness such horrible scenes now is, that\nmany church-members have outgrown their Bible; and, if there are any who\nhave not, they are restrained by laws enacted by liberal minds of too\nmuch good feeling and good sense to permit the churches to thus cruelly\npersecute each other, or those who conscientiously differ from them.\nI have stated that the shocking cruelties and barbarities practiced by\nChristians upon each other in past ages, find a warrant in the Bible.\nThe act of David, \"the man after God's own heart,\" in placing the\nchildren of Ammon under saws and harrows of iron, is scarcely equaled in\natrocity by any act recorded in the history of the Fiji cannibals. It\nis revolting to every impulse of benevolence, every feeling of humanity,\nand all ideas of mercy or justice. And his wicked prayer, contained in\nthe one hundred and ninth Psalm, breathes forth the same spirit. It is\na series of fiendish imprecations poured out upon the heads of those who\ndiffered from his creed, and worshiped a different God. We will quote\nsome of his language: \"Set thou a wicked man over him. Let there be none\nto extend mercy unto him; let his children be fatherless, and his wife\na widow; let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let his\nposterity be cut off, and their name blotted out; let the extortioner\nget all that he hath; let his prayer become sin; let the stranger spoil\nhis land; let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.\"\n\nHere is a series of most malignant imprecations issuing from a mind\nrankling and burning with a feeling of implacable revenge, which is\nshocking to contemplate. It is murderous in its intent, and demoralizing\nin its effect upon those who accept it as being in accordance with the\nwill of God. No person can contemplate the cruelties practiced by\nthis \"man of God\" upon his unoffending neighbors, or read his vengeful\nprayer, and accept it as emanating from \"the man after God's own heart,\"\nwithout having his moral strength and resolution weakened, his moral\nstandard lowered, and his ideas of the moral perfection of Deity\ndegraded. And it was by deriving their conceptions of God from such\na source that the Christian world has come to entertain such low,\nbelittling, and dishonorable views of \"the Supreme Ruler of the\nuniverse,\" as is shown in their preaching and their writings; and it\nfurnishes their children with a low and imperfect standard of morality.\nAnd this must always be the condition of things while the Bible, with\nits numerous bad examples and bad morality, is accepted as a guide\nby those teachers and preachers who mold the moral sentiments of the\npeople. It will be observed, that \"the man after God's own heart\"\ninvokes the divine vengeance upon innocent children, and prays that they\nmay beg and starve, merely because their father was not a worshiper of\nthe savage Jewish Jehovah which exhibits a mind devoid of all idea of\njustice or humanity.\n\nAnd this is a part of the religion of the Christian's \"Holy Bible,\"\nclaimed as the product of divine inspiration. Now, who can not see that\nsuch a religion as this is calculated to engender bad feelings, bad\nideas, and bad morals, and to repress the lofty moral emotions of the\nhuman mind?\n\nII. THE BIBLE SANCTIONS THEFT OR ROBBERY.\n\nRobbery, practiced under the false pretense of borrowing, is another\ncrime claiming the sanction of God's \"Holy Word\" and that \"Holy Being\"\nwhose morality we are taught to imitate by the injunction, \"Be ye\nperfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.\" We are told (in Exod.\nxii.) that the Jews, or Hebrews, when leaving Egypt, robbed or\nstole from the inhabitants to such an extent, that \"they spoiled the\nEgyptians,\" which leads to the conclusion that the robbery must have\nbeen very extensive: and for this merciless, wholesale robbery, they\nclaimed the sanction of a just and righteous God; for we are told he\nsanctioned or commanded the act. And this is a part of the code of\nmorals \"the Evangelical Christian Union\" would have us incorporate into\nthe Constitution of the United States; but it is evident, from the facts\nalready presented, that such an act would be a step towards barbarism.\n\nIII. THE BIBLE SANCTIONS WAR.\n\nAnother immoral feature of the Christian Bible, and one which proves\nit to be a relic or record of barbarism, and a very unsuitable book\nto \"constitute the fountain of our laws, and the supreme rule of our\nconduct\" (as recommended and urged by the Evangelical Christian Union),\nis found in its frequent sanction of human butchery; and a just and\nrighteous God is represented as leaving his throne \"in the heavens\"\nto come down to take a part in their savage and bloody battles with\ndifferent nations about their religious creeds.. He is represented as\nstanding in the front ranks during every battle fought by his \"holy\npeople.\" And, by long experience on the field of human butchery, he came\nto receive the military title of \"God of War,\" \"A Man of War,\" \"The Lord\nof Hosts,\" &c.; and his success in destroying human beings won for him\nthe reputation of a great and skillful general, and placed him above\nother Gods in valor in his own estimation. He is represented as becoming\nso excited with anger, so blood-thirsty and revengeful in spirit, that\nhe commanded his holy people to strike down every living creature with\nthe sword, whether men or animals. The word of command was \"to spare\nnothing;\" \"save nothing alive that breathes.\" He is even represented\nas commanding the slaughter of innocent babes. The order was, so says\nSamuel (1 Sam. xv. 3), \"Spare them not, but slay both men and women,\ninfants and sucklings.\" Now, of all the blood-dyed mandates that ever\nissued from human lips, or was heard on the plains of human butchery,\nnone ever excelled it in cruelty and malignant barbarity, claimed\nas coming from the mouth of a God of infinite justice and infinite\nbenevolence. Think of the murder, in cold blood, of thousands of little\ninnocent, prattling babies, who never lisped an evil word, or conceived\nan evil thought, in their lives! and this by command of the loving\nFather of the human family! Who believes it? Who can believe it? Ay,\nwho dare believe it, if he would escape the charge of blasphemy? Neither\nNero nor Caligula was ever guilty of any thing so ruthless, so fiendish,\nso cruel, and so vindictive. And this is the God the Evangelical Union\ntell us the Constitution of the United States should recognize as the\nSupreme Ruler of nations. This is the Bible which they tell us should\nbecome \"the fountain of our laws, and the supreme rule of our conduct.\"\nThis is the religion which they are trying to revive and fasten upon\nus in this enlightened nineteenth century. This is the religion we are\nrequired to believe came from a God of infinite justice, infinite mercy,\nand loving kindness, or be denounced as infidels, and be eternally\ndamned. But could a person be more damned than to believe in such a\nreligion? Now, those who have studied the philosophy and impressibility\nof the human mind know that no extortion or contortion of the language\nof the text, no symbolical or spiritual construction that can be forced\nupon it, can prevent the reading and believing a book from producing\npernicious effects, which represents such barbarous deeds as having the\ndivine sanction. Nothing can prevent it from exercising a demoralizing\ninfluence upon a Christian community. The sooner, therefore, it can\ncease to be placed in the hands of the heathen and the young people of\nChristian lands, and cease to constitute the basis of our religion,\nthe better for the progress of true morality, and a virtuous system of\nreligion.\n\nIV. THE BIBLE SANCTIONS THE EVIL OF INTEMPERANCE.\n\nThere are a number of texts in the Bible, which, if human language can\nmean any thing, most unquestionably furnish a warrant for drunkenness,\nwhatever might have been the intention of the writer; and that they have\nhad the effect to sustain and promote this evil, the practical history\nof Christian countries furnish proof that can not be gainsaid. That\nteacher of Bible morality--that wise man who is said to have received\nhis wisdom directly from God, and must consequently be considered good\nauthority--is represented as saying, \"Give to him that is athirst, and\nwine to those of heavy heart. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and\nremember his misery no more.\" Here we are virtually recommended to drown\nour sorrows, and benumb the pangs of poverty, by becoming dead drunk;\nfor it is only after the inebriate has quaffed the contents of the\nintoxicating bowl, or swung the bottle to his lips till he becomes\nstupefied and insensible (i.e., \"dead drunk\"), that he can \"forget his\npoverty, and remember his misery no more.\" We dare not deny, then,\nthat Solomon recommended a state of beastly intoxication as a means of\ndrowning our troubles; for no other meaning can be forced upon the text\nthan that which we have assigned it, without assuming an unwarrantable\nuse of language. Away, then, with such a book as \"the source of moral\nand religious instruction for the heathen,\" or as a reading-book for\nyouth and children! The question is not what the Bible can be made to\nteach; but what is it naturally understood to teach, and what are the\nmoral consequences of so understanding it?\n\nAnd we find in Exodus a still more explicit license, not only for\ndrinking, but for buying and selling, intoxicating drinks It is\nproclaimed, upon the authority of Jehovah, \"Thou shalt spend thy\nmoney for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for\nwhatsoever thy soul lusteth after\" (Dent, xiv. 26). We are sometimes\ntold, but without reliable authority, that the wine here referred to did\nnot possess very intoxicating properties. But it will be observed that\nthe text did not stop at wine, but \"strong drink;\" thus leaving no doubt\nupon the mind of the reader but that they used strong liquors, even if\nwe were warranted in assuming the wine was not of this character, which,\nhowever, we are not, and which we know is not true: for, although like\nthe wine of the grape in other countries, it would not intoxicate while\nnew, yet in that warm climate, as travelers affirm, it will ferment in a\nfew hours. It is evident, then, that wine was one of their intoxicating\nbeverages in addition to \"strong drinks.\" And here we find a license\nfor buying and selling and using both in a book which the orthodox\nchurches would have us adopt as \"the fountain of our laws, and the\nsupreme rule of our conduct,\" ostensibly for the improvement of the\nmorals of the people; when it is known to unbiased investigators of the\nsubject that these and similar texts have been a stumbling-block in the\nprogress of the temperance reform among that class of people who take\nthe Bible as it reads without studying the art of extracting the old\nmeaning with the clerical force-pump, and coining a new meaning of their\nown especially adapted to the occasion,--an art studied and practiced by\nthe spiritually blinded devotees of all \"the Holy Bibles\" which God is\nassumed to have inspired for the salvation of the human race. I will\ncite one case in proof of the statement that a Bible containing such\ntexts as I have cited is calculated to do much mischief in the way of\nretarding the temperance reform by furnishing the plainest authority for\ndrinking and trafficking in intoxicating liquors. A friend, upon whom I\ncan rely, related to me the following case:\n\nA man addicted to intemperate habits was converted to religion and\ninduced to sign a temperance pledge, partly by the influence of a\nspeaker who quoted from \"the word of God\" such texts as these: \"Woe unto\nhim who holds the bottle to his neighbor's mouth\" (Hab. ii. 15); \"Wine\nis a mocker, and strong drink is raging\" (Prov, xx. 1). But a few days\nafter his conversion, as he was turning the leaves of the Bible, his\neye accidentally caught sight of one of the texts I have quoted,--\"Thou\nshalt spend thy money for strong drink,\" &c. Here he discovered that his\nBible and his God both declared that buying and drinking intoxicating\nbeverages was all right. It was enough. His resolution gave way;\nhis firmness was unmanned, his moral manhood prostrated, his pledge\noverruled; and, in less than two hours, he was again lying in the ditch\n\"dead drunk.\" Here is a proof of the mischief that can be wrought by one\nsingle text upon those who have accepted the Bible as \"the supreme rule\nof their conduct.\" You may proclaim the evil of intemperance with the\ntongue of a Cicero, or paint it with the pencil of a Raphael, and muster\nall the texts you can find in the book condemning the practice, yet one\nsuch text as I have quoted will poison the moral force, of it all while\nthe Bible is read and adored as \"the rule of their conduct.\" As one drop\nof belladonna or prussic acid will poison a whole pint of water, in\nlike manner will one immoral text, when found in a book accepted by the\npeople as their highest authority in practical morals, have the effect\nto neutralize the moral force of every sound precept that may be found\nin the book. It is useless, and labor comparatively lost, for a book or\na moral teacher to inculcate good precepts, while it is known they are\nmorally capable of teaching or preaching bad ones. One spark of fire is\nsufficient to explode a powder-magazine. Bad precepts and bad examples\nare both very contagious in a morally undeveloped and unenlightened age;\nand their pernicious effects can not be wholly counteracted or prevented\nby any number of precepts of an opposite character.\n\nBut we are told the precepts above quoted are in the Old Testament,\nand not the New, which is now accepted as higher authority. But then it\nshould be borne in mind, that the Old Testament is still being printed\nand bound with the New as a part of \"the Holy Bible,\" and \"God's perfect\nrevelation to man\" for \"the guidance of his moral conduct.\" It is still\ncirculated both in Christian and heathen countries by the million with\nthe New, and as of equal authority with the New Testament. It takes\nboth to make \"the Holy Bible.\" It will be in vain, then, to plead any\nextenuation or apology for the immoralities of the Old Testament on this\nground. They will both stand or fall together. The \"new dispensation\"\ncould not stand a day without the Old Testament as a basis. And\nthen, when we push our investigations a step further, we find the New\nTestament lending its sanction to most of the evils and crimes which\nare supported by the Old Testament; and among this number is that under\nreview,--the vice or sin of intemperance. Paul, one of the principal\nfounders and expounders of the religion of the New Testament, and one\nof the leading examples and teachers of its morals, in his letter of\nexhortation to Timothy, advises him to \"drink no longer water, but take\na little wine for the stomach's sake\" (1 Tim. v. 23). As for the plea\nor purpose for which the intoxicating beverage was to be used on this\noccasion \"for the stomach's sake,\" it is the same that dram-drinkers\nand drunkards have always had recourse to to justify the use of strong\ndrink. It is always drunk for \"the stomach's sake.\" And, when we find\nChrist himself converting a large quantity of water into wine (see John\nii.), we must conclude that the New Testament does not teach a system\nof morals calculated to arrest the sin of intemperance. Those, then, who\nwish still to continue floundering in the cesspool of drunkenness, can\nfind in the New Testament, as well as the Old, a justification for this\nsin.\n\nV. THE CRIME OF SLAVE-HOLDING SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE.\n\nThe Bible contains a warrant for the perpetual enslavement of men,\nwomen, and children. It is well known to the pioneer-laborers in the\nantislavery reform, that this book constituted a strong bulwark in\nsupport of the system; that it was one of the principal obstacles in the\nway of effecting its extermination.\n\nIts defenders quoted such texts as the following: \"Of the heathen round\nabout you, shall ye buy bondmen and bond maids, and they shall be your\npossession for ever\" (Lev. xxv. 44). Among Christian professors, such\npositive and explicit license for the practice of slave-holding was hard\nto be set aside; and it undoubtedly had an influence to perpetuate the\naccursed system of slavery.\n\nVI. THE BIBLE SANCTIONS POLYGAMY.\n\nThe practice of polygamy is indorsed by the Christian Bible. It is\nfrequently sanctioned in the Old Testament, both by precept and example,\nwhile it is nowhere condemned by the Book, either in the Old or New\nTestament. This fact makes Mormonisin an impregnable institution; and\nthis is the reason it bids defiance to the efforts of a Christian nation\nto put it down. It is a Bible institution. Hence a Bible-believing\nnation dare not attack it. The hand of the government is powerless\nto put it down, because it is justified by the \"Holy Book.\" Hence it\ncontinues to exist, a stigma upon the nation. Were it as explicitly\nand strongly condemned by the Bible as idolatry is, it would have been\nbanished from the country long ago.\n\nVII. LICENTIOUSNESS IS SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE.\n\nIt can hardly be wondered at that so many Christian professors fall\nvictims to licentious habits, as is evident from reports almost daily\npublished in the periodicals, from which one traveler has collected more\nthan two thousand cases of priests, the professed teachers of morality,\nwho have fallen victims to the vice of illegal sexual intercourse within\na few years; and probably the number whose deeds are never brought to\nlight is much greater. As we have already remarked, this licentiousness\namong Bible believers and Bible teachers is no cause of wonder when we\nreflect that it is taught in their Bible, both by example and precept,\nand even, we are told, commanded by Jehovah himself. In the thirty-first\nchapter of Numbers it is written, that the Lord commanded Moses to slay\nall the Midianites, except the women and girls who \"had never known\nman,\" amounting to about thirty thousand. They were even ordered to kill\nevery male among the little ones; and it is declared they left \"nothing\nalive that breathes,\" except the thirty thousand maids saved to gratify\nthe lust of those murderous libertines. Who that has any mercy, justice,\nor refinement in their nature, can believe that such cruelty and\nlicentiousness was the work of a righteous God? Christian professors\ncontemplate these revolting pictures with an anxious desire to save the\ncredit of the Book, until, by dint of determination to believe (for\nthey are afraid even to doubt), they finally persuade themselves, that,\nsomehow or other, they must be right, notwithstanding their revolting\nnature. They conclude they don't understand them, or that it is our fine\nmoral sensibilities, and our natural love of virtue, that is at fault.\nAnd thus our moral manhood is deadened and sacrificed to our barbarous\nreligion. It is an evident fact, and a sorrowful truth, that the moral\nsensibilities of all Christendom are more or less blunted and seared in\nthis way, and their standard of virtue lowered. Such is the demoralizing\ninfluence of the \"Holy Book\" when idolized and regarded as the source\nof our morals, and \"the supreme rule of our conduct.\" It is evident we\nnever can reach that elevated standard of morals and true refinement\nwhich is the natural outgrowth of civilization till the Bible is lowered\nto a more subordinate position, and is no longer allowed to shape our\nmorals, and mold our religion, and retard our civilization. The texts\nI have cited are but samples of many similar passages which evince a\nsickly, licentious state of morals amongst \"the Lord's holy people.\"\nBy the moral code of Moses and Jehovah, a Jew was authorized to seize\na beautiful woman (if he should see one amongst the captives taken in\nwar), and take her to his house for his wife; but, if he finds upon\ntrial that she don't suit him, then he can turn her out, and let her\ngo whither she will. He was licensed to turn her adrift upon the cold\ncharities of the world. \"If it shall be that thou find no delight in\nher, then thou shalt let her go whither she will\" (Deut. xxi. 14). It\ndoes not appear that her wishes were consulted in any case. She was\na captive at first, and a slave to the end. And these hard-hearted,\nlicentious men were \"God's holy people.\" Those pious and devout\nChristians who are so inveterately opposed to, and horrified at,\n\"Free-Lovism\" should not let it be known they believe in the Bible,\nlest they should get into the same difficulty the Rev. Mr. Hitchkiss did\nwhile in Arabia. Having stated to a Mahomedan that there was a class of\npeople in America known as \"Free-Lovers,\" and that they were infidels\nand Spiritualists, the disciple of the Koran remarked, in reply, \"I\nsuppose you are a Free-Lover also.\"--\"What makes you entertain that\nsupposition?\" asked the reverend. \"Because,\" said the Mussulman, \"you\nare a believer in the Christian Bible; and I have observed, by reading\nthat its leading men were practical Free-Lovers.' The wise Solomon was\nso highly esteemed by God, that he opened to him the fountain of wisdom;\nand hence he must have been looked up to by the Jews as a leading\nauthority in matters of religion and morals, and an example be followed\nin practical life; and he practiced 'Free-Lovism,' or licentiousness,\non a very large scale. His subjects and victims were numbered by\nthe thousand; and with three hundred of them he maintained no legal\nrelation. Hence they were what are now called prostitutes. And his\nfather David, 'the man after God's own heart,' was also a 'F ree-Lover,\nand indirectly committed murder in order to increase his number of\nvictims; and Abraham, the father and founder of the Jewish nation,\nalso belonged to that class. I suppose, therefore, you consider it all\nright.\" The reverend gentleman replied, \"I believe it was right for\nthem, but would not be right for us.\" \"Then,\" said the Mahomedan, \"you\nbelieve that moral principles change,--that what is right to day may be\nwrong tomorrow, and _vice versa_. Now, it is evident, that, if they\ncan change once, they can change again, and may thus be perpetually\nchanging; so that it would be impossible to know what true morality is,\nfor it would be one thing to-day and another tomorrow. I hold that the\nprinciples of morality are perfect, and hence can not change without\nbecoming immorality.\" Thus reasoned the \"unconverted heathen;\" and thus\nclosed his controversy with the Christian missionary. The reader can\njudge which had the better end of the argument.\n\nVIII. THE BIBLE SANCTIONS WIFE-CATCHING.\n\nIn the Book of Judges (Judges xxi. 20) we learn that the Israelites of\nthe tribe of Benjamin were instructed in the art of wife-catching. \"Go\nand lie in wait in the vineyards; and behold, if the daughters of Shiloh\ncome out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and\ncatch you every man a wife\" (Judges xxi. 21). \"And they did so.\" Now it\nwas certainty rather shameful business for God's oracles to be engaged\nin,--that of advising rude and lustful men to hide in ambush in the\nvineyards, and, when they saw the young maidens approaching, to pounce\nupon them while dancing, and carry or drag them off without a moment's\nwarning. It was called catching a wife; but, in this age of a higher\nmoral development, it would not be designated by such respectful\nlanguage, but would be placed in the list of crimes, and punished as a\nState-prison offense.\n\nIX. THE CRIMES OF TREACHERY AND ASSASSINATION.\n\nIn the fourth chapter of Judges we find a case of barbarity related,\ncomprising the double crime of treachery and murder, for which a\nparallel can scarcely be found in the annals of any heathen nation, and\nwhich appears to have received the approval of the Jewish Jehovah. It is\nexhibited in the history of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. We read,\nthat as a poor fugitive by the name of Sisera was fleeing from \"the\nLord's holy people,\" who were pursuing him with uplifted swords with the\ndetermination to kill him, not for any crime whatever, but because he\nprofessed a different religion, and refused to worship their cruel\nGod (for they seemed to consider themselves authorized by their God\nto exterminate all nations who dissented from their creed),--as this\nfugitive was flying from the swords of the worshipers of Jehovah, Jael\nwent out to meet him (Sisera), and said unto him, \"Turn in, my lord:\nturn in to me. Fear not.\" And, when he had turned in unto her in the\ntent, she covered him with a mantle, and feigned much pity for him; and,\nwhen he asked for a little water, she gave him milk: but, as soon as he\nhad fallen asleep, \"she took a nail of the tent and a hammer, and went\nsoftly unto him, and smote the nail into his temple, and fastened\nit into the ground.\" Who can read this deed of treachery and cruelty\nwithout emotions of horror, and thrilling chilly sensations at the\nheart? And yet Jehovah, the God of Israel, is represented as saying,\n\"Blessed above women shall Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, be\"\n(Judg. v. 24). Now, what is this but a premium offered for treachery and\ncold-blooded murder? I believe, with Lord Bacon, that \"it is better to\nbelieve in no God than to believe in one possessing dishonorable traits\nof character;\" and I can not see how it would be possible to ascribe\nmore dishonorable traits of character to any being than are ascribed\nto the Jewish Jehovah. And this is the God the orthodox world wants put\ninto the Constitution of the United States; but most unfortunate for our\nprogress in morals and civilization would it be to adopt such a measure.\nAnd this is the book which the churches are constantly appealing to the\npeople for aid to circulate among the heathen as necessary to improve\ntheir morals, and save their souls; but no other book could be put into\ntheir hands so completely calculated to deaden and obliterate every\nfeeling of humanity, every natural impulse of justice and mercy,\nand kindle feelings of murder and revenge. Such a book should not be\nadmitted into their families to corrupt their natural sense of right and\njustice.\n\nI will cite another case evincing the same spirit, and teaching the same\nkind of moral lesson. We are told in Judges (chap. iii.) that the Lord\nsent a man by the name of Ehud to murder Eglon, King of Moab, and sent\nhim with a lie upon his lips. As he came near to the king, he said unto\nhim, \"I have a message from God unto thee\" (Judg. iii. 20, 21). And,\nwhile conversing with him under the guise of a friend, he drew out a\ndagger which he had concealed under his garments, and plunged it\ninto his body, and killed him. And the Lord, \"the God of Israel,\" is\nrepresented as raising up the bloody-minded Ehud for the special purpose\nof perpetrating this shocking deed of murder. To circulate a book among\nthe heathen, detailing such revolting deeds of cruelty as consistent\nwith sound morality, and approved by a just and righteous God, is an\nevil of no small magnitude.\n\nI will cite one other case illustrative of Bible intolerance. It is\nfound in the history of the godly Phinehas, related in the twenty-fifth\nchapter of Numbers. He was one of \"The Lord's peculiar people,\" who were\nsuch violent sectarians that they showed no mercy towards any nation\nor any individual who dissented from their creed. Hence, when it was\nreported to Moses and his God that Zimri and his wife Cozbi had become\nconverts to the Baal-peor religion, they sent Phinehas after them with\ndeadly weapons to slay them for heresy; and he chased them into their\ntents, and slew them with a javelin upon their own hearthstone for no\ncrime whatever against the moral law, but for simply exercising their\nGod-given right to worship God according to the dictates of their\nconsciences. It was a feeling of sectarianism, intolerance, and bitter\nanimosity which prompted the act. We can not wonder, therefore, that\nChristian Bible believers, who have chosen this book as \"the supreme\nrule of their conduct,\" should have written their history in blood, and\nthat the whole pathway of their pilgrimage is strewn with the bones\nof their murdered victims, who were slain for being true to their\nconsciences, and for believing in and worshiping God according to their\nconvictions of right and duty.\n\nIn addition to the long list of crimes already enumerated as being\nsanctioned by the Bible, we will name a few others:--\n\n_Lying_.--We find that nearly all the leading characters who figure in\nBible history, and who are held up as moral exemplars of the human race,\nwere guilty of lying either directly or indirectly. We will cite a few\ncases:--\n\nIt is shown that Abraham and his wife (Gen. xx.), and Isaac (Gen.\nxxvi.), and Jacob (Gen. xxxi.), were all guilty of falsehood; also\nRachel, Jacob's wife (Gen. xxxi.), Jacob's sons (Gen. xxxvii.), and\nSamson (Judg. xvi.), and Elisha (2 Kings), and four hundred prophets (1\nKings xxii.). And Jeremiah makes out all the prophets were virtual liars\n(Jer. vi. 13). Peter lied three times in about seventy-five minutes\n(Luke xxii.). And Paul justifies lying (Rom. iii--7). With so many\nexamples of lying by \"inspired and holy men of old,\" the custom became\npopular among the early Christians, and was upheld and justified by\nthem, as stated by the popular Christian writer, Mosheim. And some of\n\"the heathen nations,\" for this reason, were accustomed to calling the\nJews \"the sons of falsehood.\" Now, we appeal to the moral consciousness\nof every honest reader to decide in his own mind whether it is possible\nfor a book containing such defective moral inculcations to be calculated\nto promote true virtue, or a love of truth, in either Christian or\nheathen nations, and whether it should not, on this account, be kept out\nof the hands of the heathen, as being calculated to weaken their natural\nappreciation of truth.\n\n_Swearing_.--Let the reader turn to his Bible concordance, and observe\nthe hundreds of cases in which God and his people are represented as\nswearing. He can then understand why profanity is now more prevalent\nin Christian than in heathen countries. God himself is several times\nrepresented as swearing in his wrath (Ps. xcv. 11). It should therefore\nbe expected to be prevalent amongst Christian Bible believers.\n\nAs a Christian missionary was recently returning from India on board a\nBritish vessel, observing a Christian professor frequently swearing, he\nstepped to him, and observed, \"Here, sir, is my son, twenty-one years\nold, born and raised in a heathen land, and to-day is the first time he\never heard a profane oath.\" Rather a withering lesson for a Christian\nprofessor. There are obviously two causes for the great prevalency\nof profane swearing in all Christian countries. One is its frequent\nindorsement in the Bible, and the other is the common custom of the\npriesthood apparently indulging in the practice in the pulpit. In their\ngodly zeal to convert sinners, they exclaim, \"God will damn you.\" The\nboys in the congregation catch the refrain, run into the street, and\nrepeat the oath (dropping one word), \"God damn you.\" Before we can\nexpect this foolish and demoralizing practice to be abandoned, we must\nhave a different Bible and different religious teachers; and also before\nwe can prevent the heathen who read our Bible from imitating our example\nin swearing, or using profane language.\n\n_Cursing_.--The numerous cases of cursing recorded in the Bible-from\nJehovah to Elisha, who cursed the sportive, saucy boys, and then\ndestroyed them with bears, are calculated to engender and foster the\nworst and most malignant passions of the human mind. The very name of\nthe Jews' God, Jehovah (Elohim), is derived from a root which signifies\n\"to curse and to swear.\" And the immoral practice of cursing is\ncontinued from the Old Testament through the New.\n\n_Murder_.--We have spoken of murders perpetrated by the Jews under the\nauthority of a theocratic government. We will now cite some cases of a\nmore private character: Cain, the first man born into the world, was\na murderer; and, instead of being punished for it, he appears to have\nbeen honored. He went into the land Nod, and built a great city. \"The\nman after God's own heart\" (David) indirectly killed Uriah; Judith cut\noff the head of Holofernes while in bed with him,--a most shocking case;\nJehoiada, the priest, murdered his queen at the high gate in cold blood;\nJael, the wife of Heber, murdered the flying fugitive Sisera by driving\na nail though his head; Ehud murdered the King of Eglon under the guise\nof friendship; Absalom murdered Ammon; Joab murdered Absalom; Solomon\nmurdered his brother Adonijah; Baasha murdered Nadab; Zimri murdered\nElah; Omri murdered Zimri Ahab murdered Naboth; Jehu murdered Ahab and\nJoram. Shallum murdered Zachariah; Hoshea murdered Pekah. Numerous other\ncases might be cited. Some of these murderers were leading men among\nthe Jews,--men whose life and character exercised great influence; and\nconsequently such examples were very pernicious, and the moral lesson\nthey impart to Bible readers must be corrupting to their moral feelings,\nif not their moral conduct.\n\n_Flogging_.--The practice of flogging is regarded as a relic of\nbarbarism by all modern writers on moral ethics. We find it was\nprescribed by law under the Hebrew monarchy. Forty lashes, in some\ncases, while the victim was tied or held down was the penalty for\ncertain crimes. (See Deut. xxv.) If they were schooled in the councils\nof infinite wisdom as they claimed to be, their God should have taught\nthem a less severe and more enlightened method of treating offenders.\n\n_Witchcraft_.--\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live\" (Exod. xxii.\n18) has been the watchword and the authority for the slaughter of great\nnumbers of human beings. Figures can not compute the tortures, the\nshocking cruelties, and the heart-crushing sufferings which have been\nendured as the legitimate fruit of this superstitious, barbarous law of\n\"God's holy people.\" It was continued in force to a late period, and has\nbeen more extensively practiced by Christians than by Jews.\n\nThe number of victims in Christian England alone amounts to hundreds of\nthousands. A large portion of them were tied hand and foot, and thrown\ninto the water. If they sank, that terminated the case, guilty or not\nguilty; if they swam or floated, that was regarded as an evidence of\nguilt, and they were taken out, and burned or hanged. During its reign\nin England, thirty thousand harmless women were burned as witches,\nmostly poor women who had no means of self-defense.\n\nEven the learned Sir Matthew Hale, one of England's most enlightened\nChristian jurists, sentenced a \"number of poor women to be hanged in\n1664 as witches;\" and the reason he assigned for it was, that \"the Bible\nleaves no doubt as to the reality of witchcraft, and the duty of putting\nits subjects to death.\" Thus we have an illustration of the enormous\nevils which have grown out of Bible superstitions, perpetuated by those\nwho were so ignorant as to accept the book as authority. Witchcraft,\nwhich was believed by Bible writers and Bible Christians to be the work\nof the Devil or of evil spirits, is now well understood in the light of\nmodern science as to its causes, of which Bible revelation was ignorant.\n\nAs the want of space will permit no farther exposition or enumeration of\nBible crimes, we will sum up the whole thus:\n\nMurder, theft, robbery, war, slavery, intemperance, polygamy,\nconcubinage, fornication, rape, piracy, lying, assassination, treachery,\ntyranny, revenge, persecution for religious opinions, vagabondism,\ndegradation and enslavement of women, hypocrisy, breach of faith,\nsuicide, vulgarity or obscenity, witchcraft, flogging, cursing,\nswearing, &c.\n\nWe have cited texts and examples in proof of the statement that all\nthese crimes, and others not here enumerated, are sanctioned by God's\n\"holy word,\" and were perpetrated by God's \"holy people,\" as they are\ncalled. And yet a Christian writer declares, \"The Lord kept his people\npure, holy, and upright through every period of their history.\" A\nstatement could hardly be made that would be farther from the truth. It\nis another evidence of the blinding effect of a false religion.\n\nAgain we ask, should a book, lending its sanction to the long catalogue\nof crimes herein enumerated, and which represents them as being in\naccordance with the will of a holy and a righteous God, be placed in the\nhands of the illiterate and credulous heathen as a guide for their moral\nconduct? Most certainly it must have a deleterious effect upon their\nmorals; and yet hundreds of thousands are distributed amongst them every\nyear by the Christian churches and missionary societies. And then think\nof making such a book \"the fountain of our laws, and the supreme rule\nof our conduct,\" as urged by the Evangelical Alliance and the orthodox\nchurches. We almost tremble at the thought of such a step toward\nbarbarism and demoralization.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVIII.--IMMORAL INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE.\n\nWith the characteristic moral teaching of the Christian Bible, presented\nin the preceding chapter and throughout this work, we see not how to\nescape the conviction that the Bible has inflicted, and must necessarily\ninflict, a demoralizing influence on society wherever it is read and\n_believed_. It is morally impossible for _any person_ to read and\nbelieve a book sanctioning, or appearing to sanction, so many species\nof crime and immorality without sustaining more or less moral and mental\ninjury by it. For whatever views he may entertain with respect to the\nnumerous crimes therein reported as having been committed with the\napproval, and often at the command, of a just God, it must naturally and\ninevitably have the tendency to weaken his detestation of those crimes,\nand also weaken his zeal and effort to extinguish them and other similar\ncrimes now existing in society. It must also lower his conception of the\nmoral attributes of Deity. However honest, and however naturally\nopposed to such immoralities at the outset, it is impossible for him to\nentertain the belief that they were once approved, or even connived at,\nby a morally perfect being, without becoming unconsciously weakened in\nhis feelings of opposition to, and his hatred of, such deeds. It may be\nalleged that these practices are at war with those precepts which enjoin\nus to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and that of\nloving our neighbors as ourselves, &c. This is true; but reason and\nexperience both teach us, as an important lesson in moral and mental\nphilosophy, that, when a book which is accepted as a guide for the\nconduct and moral actions of men contains contradictory precepts, the\npeople will seize on and reduce to practice those most consonant\nwith their natures, and most congenial to their natural feelings and\nInclinations. Hence it can easily be seen, that as the animal feelings\nand propensities which lead to the commission of crime, when unduly\nexercised, have always been stronger with the masses or the populace\nthan the moral feelings, they have consequently always been more\ndisposed to yield a compliance with those precepts which sanction,\nor appear to sanction, the commission of crime, than those which\nare condemnatory of crime. All persons in whose minds the animal\npropensities are the strongest will seize with eagerness the least\nauthority, or appearance of authority, for committing those crimes which\nthey are naturally inclined to commit, and for which they are glad to\nfind a license or encouragement to commit. Under such circumstances they\nwill ignore the virtuous precepts, and yield a compliance with those\nof an opposite character. Therefore Christian professors who expect the\nBible to exert a moral influence in reforming the world and freeing it\nfrom crime, because it contains some beautiful and sound moral precepts,\nwill be disappointed; for those precepts will be neutralized, and their\neffects destroyed, by those of an opposite character. A majority of the\npeople in all countries have always possessed a strong inclination\nfor committing those crimes which, we have shown, the Christian Bible\nappears to sanction. Hence the Bible, with all its counteracting\nprecepts, will only add fuel to the fire, for the reason already pointed\nout. Those who do not know this must be ignorant of the most important\nprinciples of moral science, and the elements of human nature. Right\nhere is where Christians commit a serious mistake. They scatter their\nBibles among the heathen by the thousand, assuming that it will have the\neffect to moralize and civilize them, while they can find a warrant in\nit (as shown in the preceding chapter) for every species of crime they\nhave been in the habit of committing. This is a solemn error they have\nbeen committing for ages. Hence their missionary labors, instead of\nreforming the heathen, have only tended to demoralize them, where they\nhave not been counteracted by the more rational religion of science and\nnature, as they have been in many cases. Many facts could be adduced to\nprove this statement, some of which may be found in Chapter 50. (\"Bible\na Moral Necessity\"). Wherever the Bible has been introduced, without the\narts and sciences to counteract its influence (as in Abyssinia and the\nSamoan Islands), crime has increased. History proves that wherever the\nBible has been circulated without any counteracting influences, both in\nChristian and heathen nations, it has had the effect to weaken the moral\nstrength of the people, lower their natural appreciation of virtue and a\ntrue moral life, and has had a tendency to popularize crime by making it\nmore respectable. It is therefore an _unsuitable book_ to circulate as a\nguide for the moral conduct of man _in any country_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIX.--THE BIBLE AT WAR WITH EIGHTEEN SCIENCES.\n\nThe word \"science\" is from the Latin _scire_ (\"to know\"). Hence every\nstatement incompatible with the teachings and principles of science is\nsimply _ignorance_ arrayed against _knowledge_. It may surprise some\nwho have been taught that the Bible contains \"a perfect embodiment of\ntruth,\" or who believe, with the redoubtable Dr. Cheever, that \"the\nBible does not contain the shadow of a shade of error from Genesis to\nRevelations,\"--it will doubtless surprise all such persons to be told,\nthat, so far from Dr. Cheever's statement being correct, \"the Holy\nBook,\" by a fair estimate, is found to contain more than nine thousand\nscientific errors alone; i.e., more than nine thousand statements and\nassumptions which conflict with the established principles of modern\nscience, besides errors in morals and history, &c.\n\nThis, perhaps, should not be a matter of surprise to any person after\nviewing the character and condition of philosophy and the wide-spread\nscientific ignorance which reigned over the world at that period. Let\nit be borne in mind that science was the book which does not contain\nseveral errors of this character but just budding into life, and\nphilosophy had attained but a feeble growth amongst that portion of the\nearth's inhabitants who constituted the representatives of the Jewish\nand Christian religion. Not only does their history and their writings\nshow that they were, for the most part, ignorant of what little science\nthere was in the world,--which was small compared with the present\nperiod,--but they opposed it whenever they came in contact with it.\nEvery thing was ascribed to supernatural power. The word \"science\" only\noccurs twice in the Bible,--once in the Old Testament, and once in the\nNew; and, in the latter case, it was used for the purpose of condemning\nit. Paul advises Timothy to \"beware of the babblings of science\" (1 Tim.\nvi. 20). The word \"philosophy\" is used but once in the Bible, and then\nnot to recommend it; but Paul uses it to condemn it, as he does science,\nor at least to discourage it: \"Beware lest any man spoil you through\nphilosophy and vain conceit\" (Col. ii. 8). It will be observed, then,\nthat there is apparently a veto placed upon the study of science and\nphilosophy in the only two instances in which reference is made to them\nin the Bible. We can not wonder, therefore, that its devout disciples\nhave in all ages, until a very recent period, set themselves squarely\nagainst the propagation of science and philosophy. It was but carrying\nout the spirit of their Bible. The early Christians, almost to a man,\ndiscouraged the study of science, and condemned and persecuted those\nwho attempted to propagate its principles, and even put some of them\nto death. Copernicus was persecuted for setting forth principles of\nastronomy which conflicted with the teachings of the Bible; Galileo was\nsentenced to death because he taught the rotundity and revolution of\nthe earth in opposition to the Bible, which declares, \"The earth has\nfoundations, and can not be removed\" (Ps. civ. 5); and Bruno suffered\nthe penalty of death for teaching substantially the same doctrine.\nAnd every discoverer in science was condemned and persecuted. Much was\nwritten by the early fathers in acknowledgment of the incompatibility\nof science with religion and the teachings of the Bible, and to warn the\npious disciple of the danger of occupying his mind in the investigation\nand study of science. Even Eusebius, the popular ecclesiastical writer\nof the third century, and one of the most intelligent Christians of\nthat age, acknowledged he had a contempt for \"the useless baubles of the\nphilosophers:\" \"We think little of these matters, turning our souls to\nthe exercise of better things.\" And Lactantius, a Christian of the\nsame century, pronounced the study of physical causes of natural things\n\"empty and false.\" And St. Augustine, \"a shining light of the Church,\"\ntreated with contempt the notion that the earth is round, as \"trees on\nthe other side would hang with their tops down, and the men there would\nhave their feet higher than their heads.\" He condemns it as false,\n\"because _no such race is recorded in Scripture_ among the descendants\nof Adam.\" What profound reasoning! Martin Luther utters his malediction\nagainst astronomy in the following language: \"This false Copernicus will\nturn the whole art of astronomy upside down; but the Scripture teacheth\nanother lesson, when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not\nthe earth.\" Of course Joshua's order for the sun to stop knocks the\nscience of astronomy on the head, and extinguishes it for ever with all\ntrue Bible believers; and men have had to outgrow their Bibles before\nthey could accept the teachings of astronomy. When we take into\nconsideration the almost boundless acquisitions that have been made in\nthe field of science since the invention of the printing art, and the\nmany discoveries evolved in every department of science and art, now\nclassified into a long list of new sciences, and which throw a flood of\nlight on almost every thing taught by the ancients in morals, religion,\nor science, we should not be surprised to find more or less error in\nevery thing they taught. Let us look for a moment at the long list\nof sciences now taught in our schools, most of which were unknown\ntwo hundred years ago: Astronomy, geology, chemistry, mineralogy,\nmeteorology, pneumatics, hydrostatics, mechanics, psychology,\npaleontology, anthropology, ethnology, archaeology, biology, history,\nchronology, botany, zoology, philosophy, physiology, ornithology,\ngeography, mathematics, optics, acoustics, phrenology, animal magnetism,\n&c. The facts and principles now comprised in these several branches of\nscience have mostly been developed within a comparatively recent period\nof time; and almost every department of science here enumerated embraces\nfacts and discoveries which reveal important errors in the religious\ncreeds of the ancient representatives of the Christian faith. To\nillustrate this statement, we will cite some examples:--\n\n1. _Astronomy_.--More than forty errors in astronomy will be found\nexposed in Chapter 15, treating on the Mosaic account of creation; and\nhere may be added a few more to the number. Several texts in the Bible\nspeak of the stars falling to the earth, or traveling in some lawless\ndirection. Even Christ committed this error. (See Mark xiii. 25.) How\nridiculous is this conception when viewed in connection with the fact\nthat these stars are many of them larger than the earth! Saturn is about\na thousand times larger, and Jupiter twelve hundred times larger, than\nour planet. John speaks of one-third of the stars falling at once (Rev.\nxii. 4). If these two large planets (Jupiter and Saturn) should be\nof the number, our little earth would fare rather badly, though it is\nevident they could not all have room to strike it. If they should strike\nit from opposite sides, they would effectually grind it to powder. The\ninspired writers of the Bible seem to have had their minds so filled\nwith heavenly things, that there was but little room left for scientific\nknowledge appertaining to the earth. The idea of the sun being made \"to\nrule by day, and the moon and stars to rule by night,\" as taught in\nGen. i. 16, discloses still further the ignorance of Bible writers on\nastronomy.\n\n2. _Geological Errors_.--The story of the creation in Genesis (as\nexposed in Chapter 15 of this work) contains many geological errors.\nAlmost every statement, in fact, conflicts with the teachings of\ngeology, and especially the assumption that the earth, with the retinue\nof worlds which roll through infinite space, was brought into existence\nby a fiat of Omnipotence, and only about six thousand years ago; while\nmany facts in geological science disprove its creation, and prove that\nit existed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years ago. For the\nnumerous Bible errors under this head, see Chapter 15.\n\n3. _Errors in Geography_.--The language applied to the earth by various\nwriters of the Bible show quite plainly that they entertained very\nerroneous conceptions of its form and size, and the laws that govern\nit. Such language as \"the foundations of the earth\" (Ps. civ. 5; Job\nxxxviii. 4), \"the ends of earth,\" \"the corners of the earth,\" \"the\npillars of the earth\" (1 Sam. ii. 8), clearly indicate that Bible\nwriters entertained the common erroneous conceptions of that age, that\nthe earth is a flat, square, angular figure, only inhabited on one side.\nMatthew, who represents Christ as seeing all the kingdoms of the earth\nfrom the top of a mountain, plainly discloses the same error.\n\n4. _Errors in Ethnology_.--The Bible assumption of the origin of man\nwithin a period of six thousand years, and the descent of the whole\nrace from a single pair, is directly at variance with the teachings\nof ethnological science, which discloses the true history of man, and\nproves, according to Agassiz and other modern naturalists, that\nthe human race has descended from at least five pairs of original\nprogenitors. See a work entitled \"Types of Mankind,\" compiled from the\nwritings of the ablest naturalists of the age.\n\n5. _Arch\u00e6ology_, which treats of antiquity, presents us with nearly the\nsame series of scientific facts to disprove the Bible history of man.\nIt presents us with many facts in the history of the ancient empires of\nIndia, Egypt, Greece, China, and Persia, which directly contradict many\nstatements found in the Christian Bible, which the want of space compels\nus to omit any notice of here. (See chapters on Bibles.)\n\n6. _Biology_.--The Bible statements which make a son two years older\nthan his father (2 Chron. xxi. and xxii.), a girl only three years old\nwhen she married, and two millions of people spring from seventy persons\nin two hundred and fifteen years, are all at variance with the teachings\nof biology.\n\n7. _Botany_.--The origin of thorns and thistles, and the preservation of\nthe whole vegetable kingdom during Noah's flood, as inferentially taught\nby the Christian Bible, conflict with the present established principles\nof botany.\n\n8. _Zoology_.--This science, which discloses the true history of animal\nlife, completely disproves some statements of the Bible relative to the\nanimal kingdom. The hare is pronounced unclean in Leviticus, \"because he\ncheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof\" (Lev. xi. 6). Here are three\nincorrect statements. The hare does not chew the cud, and does divide\nthe hoof, and is not unclean (i.e., not unsuitable for food).\n\n9. _Ornithology_.--The writer who represents God as showering down nine\nhundred square miles of quails, three feet thick, around the Jewish camp\nto serve as food (see Numb. xi. 32), must have been ignorant of the size\nof this bird, if not of the whole feathered tribe.\n\n10. _Physiology_.--The apostle James must have been ignorant of the\nscience of physiology when he declares the prayers of the elders of the\nChurch would heal the sick (Jas. v. 15). It is not denied but that the\npresence of the elders could exercise a healing influence on the sick;\nbut it should be ascribed to their magnetism, and not to their prayers.\nThe numerous cases in which disease is represented by Christ and his\ndisciples as being produced by devils or evil spirits, and a cure\neffected by ejecting the diabolical intruder, shows them to have been\nignorant of physiology; as does also the story of the sons of God\ncohabiting with the daughters of men (Gen. vi. 4), and producing a race\nof giants which, according to the Book of Enoch, were three hundred\ncubits high. Rather tall specimens of humanity. Their heads would\nbe above the clouds, so that they could not see which way they were\ntraveling. This story finds a parallel in the traditions of India, which\nonce produced a race of giants so tall that they could neither sit down\nin the house, nor stand up out of doors. Their eyes were so far from the\nground that they could not see their feet. All these stories originated\nin an age which was destitute of a knowledge of physiology; and, as this\namalgamation of Gods with human beings did nothing to improve the race,\nthe story is destitute of a moral, and proves (if it proves any thing)\nthat the Gods were no better than men.\n\n11. _Mental Science_.--The two hundred texts which represent the heart\nas being the seat of the mind or soul furnish conclusive evidence that\nthe writers were ignorant of the first principles of mental science. \"My\nheart uttereth understand ing,\" and \"a pure heart,\" are examples. \"An\nupright liver,\" or \"a pure liver,\" would be just as sensible language.\nThere is not one text in the book that implies a knowledge of the brain\nas being the organ of the mind, which is a scientific fact now well\nestablished.\n\n12. _Animal Magnetism_.--The exposition of this science by Mesmer,\nDeluse, Townsend, and other writers, renders it clearly evident that\nthe phenomena of witchcraft, trance, and many cases of spiritual\nvision, were nothing more nor less than the products of animal magnetism\nsuperinduced by the action of mind on mind, or the control of the mind\nby magnetic substances,--the science of magnetism being entirely unknown\nin that era of the world. Every case reported of restoring life to a\ndead person by Christ, Elijah, Elisha, and other God-men, if they\nhad any foundation in truth, are explained by the principles of this\nscience. Similar cases have been witnessed in modern times.\n\n13. _Philosophy_.--The science of philosophy, in its matured aspect,\nis of modern origin, and furnishes the true explanation for many of the\n\"mysteries of godliness,\" and other mysteries of the Christian Bible,\nwhich, by the illiterate writers of that age, were ascribed to the\ndirect manifestation of deific powers. They are now known to be natural\noccurrences, instead of supernatural, as assumed by the writers. The\nBible story of the rainbow furnishes one example. Moses must have been\nignorant of philosophy when he selected the rainbow as an evidence there\nshould be no rain in the future insufficient quantities to inundate the\nearth again, when it is known that the rainbow is a certain evidence of\nrain, as it is produced by the rain in the act of falling. This is but\none of many errors which the ignorant, illiterate Bible writers have\nmade for want of knowledge on scientific subjects, such as the history\nof creation, the story of the flood, &c. The several cases in which\nthunder is spoken of as being the voice of God disclose great ignorance\nof philosophy; and several instances in which God promises to take away\nthe sickness of the people evince an entire ignorance of the natural\nlaws which control health and disease. (See Exod. xxiii. 25; Deut. vii.\n15.)\n\n14. _Mathematics_.--The Bible is deficient in many cases with respect to\nthe correct observance of the rules and principles of mathematics.\nIts assumption that there can be but one God, and at the same time\nacknowledging three, furnishes a striking proof of this. Its enumeration\nof the families and tribes furnishes another evidence of this. Its\ncalculation of numbers rarely coincides with the names. For example:\nMatth., in his gospel, states there are forty-two generations from David\nto Joseph; but his list of names only makes forty-one. And Matthew says,\n\"From Adam to David are fourteen generations;\" but, by counting his list\nof names, we find but thirteen. The date of Methuselah's birth and\nhis age, when compared together, extend his age ten months beyond the\ninauguration of the flood. How he sustained life, and avoided drowning\nduring that time, must be one of the \"mysteries of godliness.\" These are\na few specimens of Bible mathematics.\n\n15. _Chemistry_.--A specimen of Bible chemistry is found in the story\nof \"fire and brimstone descending from heaven together\" without a\ncoalescence, or the chemical combination and product which usually\nresult from a contact of these two elements. Another specimen is\npresented in the process of manufacturing a golden calf by merely\ncasting gold ear-rings, finger-rings, &c., into the fire; and also\nMoses' invention for grinding the same gold into powder, and sprinkling\nit on the water, and compelling the people to drink it. No process is\nknown in modern times by which gold can be ground to powder, nor for\nholding it in solution if ground and thrown into water. The specific\ngravity of all gold now in use causes it to sink to the bottom as soon\nas it is thrown into water. Bible chemistry seems to differ from natural\nchemistry.\n\n16. _Pneumatics_.--Had Jehovah been acquainted with this science, he\ncould not have become alarmed about having his kingdom invaded by the\nbuilders of Babel; for we learn, by an acquaintance with the principles\nof this science, that the air becomes so rarefied as we ascend, that we\nsoon reach a point where human life must cease. Hence it was unnecessary\nto confound the language of the people in order to arrest the completion\nof the tower. They would have been compelled to desist before they had\ngot many miles from the earth.\n\n17. _Acoustics._--Moses must have been ignorant of this science, or\npresumed his readers would be, when he related the numerous cases of\nhimself and Joshua and others reading and talking to two millions of\npeople, some of whom must have been several miles distant. No human\nvoice in modern times could reach one-half of such an audience.\n\n18. _Hydrostatics_.--This science teaches us that several cases reported\nin the Bible of the waters of rivers and seas being separated and\nerected in perpendicular columns so as to form embankments, are\ncontradicted by all the laws governing fluids, and hence are wholly\nincredible. The sciences of optics, meteorology, philology, and\npsychology might also be included in the above list as being ignored\nand practically set aside by Bible writers. And yet, in the face of all\nthese facts, Dr. Cheever says, \"There is a beautiful harmony between\nthe principles of science and the teachings of the Bible throughout the\nwhole book.\" And this seems to have been the universal conviction of\nthe disciples of the Christian faith before the progress of scientific\ndiscovery in modern times laid bare the errors of the Holy Book. Since\nthat juncture in biblical theology culminated, a new theory has been set\non foot to dispose of the scientific errors of the Bible. We are told,\nas an apology for these errors, that \"the Bible was designed to teach\nreligion and morality, and not science.\" This is too true; but a true\nsystem of religion must be based on the principles of science. The plea\nalso discloses a scientific ignorance on the part of the objector in\nnot knowing \"there is science in every thing.\" Hence it is impossible\nto write on any subject without coming in contact with the principles of\nscience, which you must either conform to or violate. Persons destitute\nof scientific knowledge, as were Bible writers, are liable, in their\nignorance, to stumble into scientific errors in writing on any subject.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER L.--THE BIBLE AS A MORAL NECESSITY.\n\nTHE question is frequently asked by Bible adherents, What would be the\nmoral condition of society without the Bible? Would it not again relapse\ninto barbarism? Such questions manifest an ignorance of history and the\nmoral instincts of the human mind, and are easily met and answered by\nother questions indicating broader views. We ask, then, what was the\nmoral condition of the world, or that portion of it included in the\nJewish nation, during the two thousand years which elapsed before\nany part of our Bible was written? Was it any worse than the next two\nthousand years after it was written? And what is the moral condition of\nfive-sixths of the human family now, who never had our Bible? Facts in\nhistory prove that the morals of some of the nations included in this\nclass are superior to that of any Bible nation, either now existing,\nor figuring in past history. Take, for example, the Japanese. We will\npresent the testimony of an English officer, Col. Hall. Reporting his\nown observations and experience, he says, \"During more than a year's\nresidence in Japan, I never saw a quarrel among young or old. I have\nnever seen an angry blow struck, and have scarcely heard an angry word.\nI have seen the children at their sports, flying their kites on the\nhill; and no amount of entangled strings, or kites lodged in the trees,\nprovoked angry words or impatience. In their games of jackstones and\nmarbles, I have never seen an approach to a quarrel among them. They are\ntaught implicit obedience to their parents; but I have never seen one\nof them chastised. Respect and reverence for the aged is universal. A\ncrying child is seldom seen. We have nothing to teach them out of the\nabundance of our civilization.\"\n\nAnd a description of this nation by Dr. Oliphant fully confirms the\nabove. He says, \"Universal testimony assures us, that, in their domestic\nrelations, the men are gentle and forbearing; the women, obedient\nand virtuous. Every department of crime is less in proportion to the\npopulation than in Christian countries. The native tribunals prove their\ncompetency to deal with criminals by giving general satisfaction. Unlike\nany Christian country, locks and keys are never used; yet theft\nand robbery are almost unknown. Although we had the most tempting\ncuriosities with us, and left them laying about our lodgings for months,\nnot one of them was carried off, though our room was sometimes crowded\nwith people. During the whole of our stay in Yeddo, we never heard a\nscolding woman, nor saw a disturbance in the streets, nor a child struck\nor otherwise maltreated. In case of disputes between neighbors, their\nchildren are often selected as arbiters, and always give satisfaction.\nAnd parents in their old age often give their properly and the entire\nmanagement of their affairs into the hands of their children, who never\nbetray their trust.\" Now, it must be evident to every reader, that\nno such a moral picture of society can be presented of any Christian\ncountry. And yet the Christian Bible is not only scarcely known\namong them, but they have resisted the most determined efforts of the\nChristian f missionaries, for more than two hundred years, to introduce\nit and circulate it amongst them, and have kept it out by positive\nprohibition most of the time. Do such facts tend to confirm the\nstatement often made by devout Christians, that \"the Bible must be\nintroduced and read by the people before they can have good morals in\nany country\"? As a still further proof of the erroneousness of this\nstatement, we will now contrast the state of morals in the most\nreligious Christian countries with that of the heathen nation just\nreferred to. And this moral picture of our country is from the pen of\na Christian writer, the celebrated Parson Brownlow. He tells us, \"The\ngospel is preached to the people regularly all over the country....\nAnd yet, notwithstanding all this, rascality abounds in all classes\nof society.... Cheating and misrepresentation are the order of the day.\nIn politics there is very little patriotism! or love of country. In\nreligion there is more hypocrisy than grace; and the biggest scoundrels\nliving, crowd the church with a view to hide their rascally designs, and\nmore effectually serve the Devil. Pious villains, as sanctified as the\nmoral law, are keeping false accounts, and resort to them for the sake\nof gain.... In a word, rascality abounds among all classes.\" Now look on\nthis picture, and then on that. We will now present another contrast.\nWe will look at another specimen of morality among the heathen. The\nportraiture is furnished us by the celebrated Christian missionary, Dr.\nLivingstone. Speaking of some of the African tribes he encountered in\nhis travels, he says,\n\n\"The inhabitants have many wise laws and politic institutions, which\nwould not discredit any nation in Europe. They are not a warlike people,\nbut appear to hold martial achievements in great contempt or abhorrence.\nThey have such a nice sense of justice and equity, that they will by no\nmeans make any encroachments on the territory of their neighbors. Their\ndealings with each other are characterized by mutual confidence, which\n_Chris-tians would do well to imitate_.\" No man is afraid of being\ncheated. No precautions are used to prevent theft and robbery; and yet\nno theft and robbery are committed. Their goods to be sold are stored in\nan open bazaar, left without any attendants, and the purchaser fixes his\nown price, and leaves what he considers a fair equivalent in its stead;\nand all parties are satisfied.\n\nIt would seem, then, that, while in Christian countries \"it requires\ntwo to make a bargain,\" in heathen countries it requires but one. Here,\nthen, we have the morals of a heathen nation, who not only knew nothing\nof Christianity, but would not condescend to talk with the missionary on\nthe subject, but put him off with the plea, \"It makes no difference\nwhat a man's religion is, if his morals and practical life are right.\"\n_Sensible reasoning_\n\nWe will now turn another leaf in Christian history with the inquiry,\nIs every country honored with the name of Christian distinguished for\nmorality, and every nation stigmatized as heathen practically immoral?\nWe will present another specimen of Christian morality from the pen\nof that popular Christian writer, Mr. Goodrich. Speaking of the moral\ncondition of one of the oldest Christian nations now existing (the\nAbyssinians), he says, \"They are restless, savage, and brutal, almost\nbeyond any known tribes of men.\" The Scotch traveler, Mr. Bruce, was at\nGondar, the capital; and he tells us that he seldom went out without\nseeing dead human bodies lying in the streets, left to be devoured by\nthe dogs and hyenas. Alnary, who lived there some years since, says he\nwas invited to a feast, where, amongst the dishes he was offered, was\nflesh with warm blood. We are told the people eat the flesh from the\ncattle while alive; and sometimes, after a large piece has been cut out,\nthe skin is drawn over it, and the bleeding beast driven on its way.\nSometimes, when a party is assembled for a feast, and are seated, the\noxen are brought to the door, the flesh is cut off the living animal,\nand the meat devoured while the agonized brutes are filling the air with\ntheir bellowings....\n\nAnd the manners of the people in other respects are horrible in the\nextreme. Yet, strange to say, _they profess Christianity, and have\nnumerous churches_. Their saints are almost innumerable, and surpass in\nmiraculous power those of the Romish Church. The clergy do not attempt\nto prevent divorces, nor even polygamy. In confirmation of the above\ngraphic picture, we will quote also from an English geography by Guthrie\nand Ferguson, F.R.S. (p. 923): \"The inhabitants of Abyssinia _consist\nof Christians_. Some ecclesiastical writers would persuade us that the\nconversion of Abyssinia to Christianity happened in the time of the\napostles; but others state that this was after,--: in the year 333.\nThere is no such thing as marriage in Abyssinia, and no distinction\nmade between legitimate and illegitimate children, from the king to the\nbeggar.\" _Here, then, is \"Christian\" morality, and here is a specimen of\nChristian \"free-lovism\" too, in a country where the Christian Bible\nhas been circulated by the thousand, and read and adored for at least\nfifteen hundred years_. Such facts furnish a complete refutation of the\npopular Christian assumption that \"true and pure morality is inseparable\nfrom Christianity and the Bible.\"\n\nThe truth is, the Bible alone has _never done any thing_ to advance the\ncause of _either morality or civilization in any country_, because it\nis interdicted from improvement. It may be asked here, Why is it, then,\nthat both religion and morality prosper in most countries where the\nBible has been introduced? The answer to this question is found in the\n_important fact, overlooked by the Christian world_, that the _arts and\nsciences_ generally accompany, or soon follow, the introduction of the\nBible; but, where this has not been the case, and the Bible has been\ncirculated alone, as in the case of Abyssinia, no progress whatever\nhas been made towards the establishment of true morality or a rational\nreligion, or any of the adjuncts of civilization, thus proving that the\ncauses for the moral growth and improvement of society are outside of,\nand independent of, the Bible, and, we will add (in view of the many\nimmoral lessons taught in the book), in spite of the Bible. A little\nrational reflection must convince any unbiased person that Bibles,\nin the very nature of things, must retard the moral and intellectual\nadvancement and prosperity of society in every respect, notwithstanding\nthey contain many good and beautiful precepts, for representing, as they\ndo, the imperfect state of morals in the age and country in which they\nwere written; while their teachings are assumed to be a finality\nin moral and religious progress, and hence are not allowed to be\ntranscended in precept or practice. The consequence is, society would be\npinned down immovably and perpetually to the same barbarous religion and\nmorals of that age, if it were not pushed forward by the irresistible\ninfluences of the arts and sciences. Hence we owe our advancement and\nprosperity _not to Bibles, but to causes adequate to counteract and\novercome their adverse influences_.\n\nTHE MORAL BENEFITS OF INFIDELITY.\n\nAn additional argument to prove the Bible is not a moral necessity\nto teach the practical duties of life is the fact that that class of\npersons known as \"infidels,\" who entirely reject the book as a guide or\nas a moral instructor on account of its very defective and contradictory\nsystem of morals, are admitted by leading orthodox journals and\nrepresentative men in the nation to possess better moral characters and\nhabits, and to lead better moral lives, than Bible believers. As a\nproof of this statement, we will here present the most wonderful and\nhumiliating concessions of that leading religious journal of the nation,\n\"The New-York Evangelist.\" On this subject it speaks thus: \"To the shame\nof the Church it must be confessed that the foremost men in all our\nphilanthropic movements, in the interpretation of the spirit of the age,\nin the practical application of genuine Christianity, in the reformation\nof abuses in high and in low places, in the vindication of the rights\nof man and in practically redressing his wrongs, in the moral and\nintellectual regeneration of the race, _are the so-called infidels in\nour land_. The Church has pusillanimously left not only the working oar,\nbut the very reins of salutary reform, in the hands of men she denounces\nas inimical to Christianity, and who are doing with all their might,\nfor _humanity's_ sake, that which the Church ought to be doing\nfor _Christ's_ sake; and if they succeed, as succeed they will, in\nabolishing slavery, banishing rum, restraining licentiousness,\nreforming abuses, and elevating the masses, then must the recoil upon\nChristianity be disastrous in the extreme. Woe! woe! woe to Christianity\nwhen infidels, by force of nature or the tendencies of the age,\n_get ahead of the Church in morals_, and in the practical work of\nChristianity. In some instances they are already far in advance. In the\nvindication of truth, righteousness, and liberty, they are the pioneers\nbeckoning to a sluggish Church to follow in the rear.\" To this we will\nadd the testimony of another orthodox writer (the eminent Catherine\nBeecher) as to the superior practical morality of infidels as compared\nwith that of Christians. She says, in her \"Appeal to the People\"\n(p. 319), \"It has come to pass that the world has been improving in\npractical virtue, while the Church has been deteriorating. The writer,\nin her very extensive travels and intercourse with the religious world,\nhas had unusual opportunity to notice how surely and how extensively\nthis fact has been observed and acknowledged by the best class of\nclergymen and laymen.\" She says one of the most laborious Episcopal\nbishops of the Western States declares, that \"the world is growing\nbetter, and the Church is growing worse.\" She next cites the testimony\nof an eminent lawyer and church-member who is carrying on an extensive\nfinancial business throughout the country, and who makes the remarkable\nstatement, that \"the better class of _worldly men are more honorable\nand reliable in business than the majority of church-members_.\" (Let the\nreader mark this statement.) And this declaration was concurred in by\nanother eminent lawyer, banker, and church-member, who is doing a more\nextensive business in the North-western States than any other man. And\nhe states that the most extensive business-man in Central New York has\narrived at the same conclusion as the result of his observation. And the\ngreatest business-man in Boston is also referred to, whose experience\nled him to this conclusion. And other business-men in different parts of\nthe country testify to the same effect. We may, then, set it down as the\nuniversal testimony of business-men that infidels and outsiders are\nmore honest, more reliable, more truthful, and more honorable than\nchurch-members.\n\nWhat a fatal argument these facts furnish against the religion and\nmorality of the Christian Bible! They indicate that the religion and\nmorality of nature and science are superior.\n\nBURNING THE WORLD'S BENEFACTORS AS INFIDELS.\n\nIt will be perceived, from the preceding orthodox testimonies, that the\nclass of people usually stigmatized as infidels are the true exemplars\nin practical morality, and the true benefactors of society. And\nChristian countries owe them a debt of gratitude for all the reforms and\nimprovements which have proved such signal blessings to society within\nthe last few hundred years, and for their own elevation out of\nthe groveling ignorance of barbarism into the glorious sunlight of\ncivilization. What withering self-reproach, what shameful mortification\nand self-condemnation, they ought therefore to feel in view of having\ncommitted so many of them to the flames, or otherwise maltreated and\nkilled them! For, according to the above Christian testimonies, they\nwere the world's real benefactors; and the following list will show that\nthose victims _perished at the hands of Christians as infidel martyrs_:\nIn 1511 Herman of Ryswick was burned for heresy; in 1546 Aonius\nPolearius was hung, and then burned for skepticism; in 1574 Geofroi\nVallie was burned for publishing a heretical book; In 1546 Stephen\nDolet, a printer and bookseller, was burned at Paris for atheism; in\n1579 Matthew Hamont had his ears cut off, and was then burned alive, in\nEngland, for denying that Christ is God; in 1583 John Lewes was burned\nat Norwich, Eng., for \"denying the Godhead of Christ;\" in 1589 Francis\nKett, a member of a college in Cambridge, Eng., was burned for holding\n\"divers detestable opinions against Christ, our Savior;\" In 1611\nBartholomew Legate was burned to ashes at Smithfield for denying that\nChrist was God; in 1644 Edward Wightman was burned at Litchfield for\ndenying the divinity of Christ; in 1619 Lucilio Yanini, an Italian, was\nburned for atheistical opinions; in 1574 John Gonganelle was poisoned\nfor his infidelity by the Holy Sacrament; in 1629 Alexander Leighton had\nhis nose slit and his ears cut off, and was imprisoned for eleven\nyears for publishing a work against miracles. To make the matter short,\nwithout extending the list, it has been estimated that _forty thousand_\nperished at the hands of Christians in _forty y ears for infidelity,\nheresy,_ or other opinions deemed unsound by orthodox. And thus it\nwill be perceived that infidelity has had its martyrs as well as\nChristianity; and that Christians, in putting these men to death, were\nrobbing the world (according to \"The New-York Evangelist\")of its real\nbenefactors. Oh, shame! Christianity, where is thy blush?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LI.--SEND NO MOKE BIBLES TO THE HEATHEN.\n\nA recent work by a Christian writer states that there are now employed\nin the work of converting the heathen to Christianity fifteen thousand\nmissionaries, and that they succeed in converting about ten thousand\na year. From this statement, it appears that ten thousand missionaries\nmake annually one convert apiece, while five thousand make none. And the\ncost the writer estimates to be about twenty thousand dollars for each\nconvert. C. Wiseman estimated it, about thirty years ago, to be ten\nthousand dollars apiece. And, while these ten thousand converts were\nmade, the heathen population increased in numbers five millions. Thus it\nappears they increase two hundred times faster than they are converted.\nHow long will it take, at such rates, to effect the entire conversion\nof the world? and what will be the cost? All the gold ever dug from\nthe mines of Golconda and California would be but a drop in the bucket\ncompared with the requisite amount. The question naturally arises\nhere, Do the results justify such an enormous expenditure of time\nand treasure, say nothing of the loss of health on the part of the\nmissionaries? A learned Hindoo stated, in a speech made in London in\n1876, that the conversions made in India are confined principally to the\nlow, ignorant, superstitious class, who do not possess sufficient sense\nand intelligence to know the difference between the religion they are\nconverted to and the religion they are converted from. Are such converts\nworth ten thousand or twenty thousand dollars apiece? The case suggests\nthe story of the Hibernian who stated his horse had but two faults:\n\"First, he is hard to catch; second, he is no account when caught.\"\nThe heathen must be hard to convert if it requires an expense of ten\nthousand dollars apiece, and of but little account when converted if\nthey know nothing about the nature of the religion they are converted\nto. There are various considerations which go to prove that the hundreds\nof millions of dollars expended annually in this enterprise are worse\nthan wasted:--\n\n1. One missionary, becoming discouraged at the prospect, once made the\nstatement that nine-tenths of the converts have not sense enough to\nunderstand the Christian religion, nor moral principle enough to live up\nto its precepts, and that a considerable portion of them relapsed\ninto heathenism. It should be borne in mind that it is not the most\nintelligent nor the most moral portion of the heathen who profess\nto embrace Christianity, but generally the credulous, ignorant, and\nfickle-minded class, who are ready for any change that may be offered.\n\n2. No real good seems to be accomplished by the introduction of the\nChristian Bible among the heathen, but much evil. Its thousands of bad\nmoral precepts and bad moral examples, and its sanction of every\nspecies of crime, must inevitably have the effect to weaken their moral\nresolutions, and deepen them in the commission of crime. And hence,\nas missionaries themselves indirectly confess, crime has increased in\nalmost every nation where missions have been established. It is true,\nthat, in those nations where the arts and sciences have been cultivated,\nthey have operated to some extent in counteracting the bad moral lessons\nthey learn by reading the Bible; and in some cases, in this way, some\nimprovement has been made. But no instance can be found in the history\nof the missionary enterprise where any improvement has been made in the\nmorals of the people, where their instruction has been confined to the\nBible, without the arts and sciences. On the contrary, their morals\nhave grown worse, or remained unimproved, as in Abyssinia and the Samoan\nIslands, where, after more than a thousand years' instruction in Bible\nreligion, without the arts and sciences, they are still in the lowest\nstages of barbarism. (See Chapter 50.)\n\n\"THE BIBLE AS A MORAL NECESSITY.\"\n\n3. It is a policy that must be deplored by every true philanthropist,\nthat the Christian world expends millions of dollars every year to\nconvert the heathen to a religion that can neither improve their morals\nor their intellect, but inculcates bad lessons in morals and science,\nand, in many cases, is a worse religion than that already established in\nthose countries. (For evidence, see Chapter 50.)\n\n4. And this policy becomes still more reprehensible when coupled with\nthe fact that there are sixty thousand Christians living in a state\nof want, beggary, destitution, and suffering, in Christian cellars\nin New-York City; and two hundred thousand, including Boston and\nPhiladelphia, who are in a state of degradation and suffering almost\nbeyond description, who might be relieved and placed in a situation to\nimprove their morals and their physical condition comfortably if\nthe millions of money, time, and labor were spent on them which are\nuselessly expended on foreign missions. Think of two hundred thousand\nchurch-members living in dark, damp, dreary, sickly cellars, with grim\nstarvation daily staring them in the face, while their purse-proud\nChristian landlords are living in luxury over their heads. No such\ncruel, inhuman religion can be found in any heathen nation.\n\n5. And then the missionary enterprise inflicts physical evils, as well\nas moral, upon the foreign heathen. It introduces habits and customs\namongst them, which, in some cases, destroy their health, as well as\ncorrupt their morals. Look, for example, at the Sandwich Islands. Since\nthe establishment of Christian missions amongst them, the population has\ndecreased thirty per cent. Twenty thousand children in schools in 1848\nare dwindled down to eleven thousand. Marriages have decreased, and\ndivorces have increased. Nine hundred divorces took place in four\nyears, while previous to the introduction of Christianity, we are told,\ndivorces were almost unknown. Missionaries, ignorant of physiology\nand the laws of mental science, and in total disregard of natural law,\nestablish habits among the heathen which destroy both their health and\ntheir happiness.\n\n6. The people in several heathen countries have proved to be\nsharp-sighted and intelligent enough to detect the errors in the Bible\nand religious system presented to them by the missionaries. Bishop\nColenso states, that, while serving as missionary among the Zulus tribe,\nsome of the natives started objections to statements found in the Bible\nwhich had not occurred to his own mind. And this fact made him resign\nhis mission and return home, and read his Bible with more care, which\nresulted in detecting hundreds of errors in the Holy Book, which he\nhas published to the world in a large volume. We are informed that the\nHindoos told some of the missionaries while among them, that such a God\nas the Christian Bible describes would not be allowed to run at large in\ntheir country. He would be taken up as a criminal.\n\n7. The natives in several countries where the missionaries have been\noperating, on becoming acquainted with the character of the teachings\nof the Christian Bible, have raised objections to its being circulated\namongst them, and, in some cases, have besought the missionaries to\nleave. The Rev. Mr. Hall, a missionary in India, states that a public\nmeeting was called at Madras by the natives to draw up a petition to\nLord Stanley of England to send no more missionaries, and also entreat\nhim to withdraw those then operating there; and such was the interest\nmanifested that the meeting called out ten thousand people. The\nChinese, also, have manifested strong opposition to the movements of the\nmissionaries among them; while the Japanese have kept out from amongst\nthem both Bible and missionaries by positive law until a recent period.\n\n8. The inhabitants of the Friendly Isles, of Honolulu, of India, and\nalso of Japan, have all discussed the subject of sending missionaries to\nthis country to improve the morals of the Christians; and it is certain\nthat some of them are practically acquainted with a better system of\nmorals than that which prevails in this country.\n\nHere we will note the remarkable circumstance that a learned Hindoo\nhas recently held a two days' debate with a Christian missionary,\nwhich excited such an interest that it drew together from five to seven\nthousand of the natives, who desired to see the missionary beat in\nthe debate. A writer states that the Hindoo handled the missionary's\narguments as a cat would a mouse, thus intimating that the missionary\nwas completely vanquished in the logical contest; and yet this Hindoo is\ncalled a \"heathen.\" Pshaw! It would be a blessing to Christian countries\nto be supplied with a few millions of such heathen. It would improve\nboth their morals and their intelligence.\n\nNote.--Many anecdotes are afloat tending to prove the superior moral\nhonesty of the Hindoos and other \"heathen.\" As a traveler was walking\nthe streets of an Asiatic city with one of the natives, he proposed to\nstep into a store and purchase some article. \"No,\" said the native:\n\"see that chair in the door to let us know the merchant is\nabsent.\"--\"What!\" exclaimed the traveler: \"do merchants go away and\nleave their goods exposed in that way?\"--\"Yes,\" responded the honest\nnative, \"where there are no Christians about.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LII.--WHAT SHALL WE BELIEVE AND DO TO BE SAVED?\n\n\"What shall we believe and do in order to be saved?\" is an all-important\nquery, and one which daily occupies the minds of millions of earth's\ninhabitants of all countries and all climes. There are ten thousand\nanswers to this question, and they are as conflicting as the confusion\nof tongues at the Tower of Babel No two religious orders, and scarcely\nany two religious believers agree with respect to the all-important\nanswer to be rendered to this all-important question. To prove this, we\nwill interrogate the disciples of all the leading religious orders who\nhave found a place in the world's history, and compare their answers,\nand observe the result. Commencing in the order of time, the disciples\nof the Vedas will be the first we will interrogate, as they represent\nthe oldest religious faith that has ever been promulgated in the world.\n\nI. HINDOO'S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.\n\nWell, brother Hindoo, will you be so good as to answer this question,\n\"What shall we do and believe in order to be saved?\" \"Oh, yes!\" responds\nthe devout worshiper of Brahma, pointing to a stone arched pagoda.\n\"Go and prostrate yourself in that holy building, made venerable by a\nthousand years' devotion, and offer up prayer and praise to Brahma, and,\nif you have committed any sins, implore his forgiveness. You must also\nbelieve in his Holy Book, the Vedas, and obey its precepts, which\nenjoin virtue and holiness, and forbid theft, robbery, murder, lying,\ndishonesty, adultery, and other crimes; and you must not only believe\nin the Holy Book as God's revealed will to mankind, but you must believe\n_it is all true,--every word of it_. You must believe, also, that it\nexisted in the mind of the great God Brahma _from all eternity_; and\nsome nine thousand years ago was revealed by him to certain holy\nmen, known as rishis, or prophets, who recorded it in a book for the\ninstruction and salvation of the world; and that this divinely revealed\nand perfect book contains all knowledge, past, present, and future, and\n_all the religion necessary to save the whole human race_. And, if\nyou would become a true-born saint [i.e., in Christian language,\n\"regenerated and born again\"], you must read the Holy Book through upon\nyour bended knees. [And thousands of its most pious and devout disciples\nhave performed this humble and laborious task.] And if you would\nadvance still farther in soul-purification and true sanctity, so as to\nbecome a thrice-born saint [for they hold that the oftener you are born\nthe better], then you must commit the divine volume all to memory. [And\nmany of them, we are assured, have accomplished this herculean task.]\nBut you can not attain to complete and perfect holiness as a Hindoo\nsaint, unless you forsake the busy scenes of life, retire to lonely\nplaces, and devote yourselves to a life of religious contemplation.\" By\nleading this austere, self-denying life, they hold that men and women\ncan attain to complete holiness, and draw near to the spirit of God, and\nbecome so exalted in his favor as to receive important revelations from\nhim, and be enabled by him to perform great miracles, such as casting\nout devils, raising the dead, handling fire without being burned, and\nswallowing poison without being killed or injured, and finally become\nGods, and ascend to heaven in mortal bodies after the manner of Enoch\nand Elijah. In one respect some of the sects are much more consistent\nthan Christian professors. Believing, as Christians have always\nprofessed to do, that sickness is often sent by God as a punishment for\nsin, they never send for a physician, nor allow one to treat the case;\nbecause, as they argue, trying to cure it would be trying to counteract\nthe judgment of God, and thus bring down his vengeance upon the heads of\nthose guilty of this sin. Here Christians might learn an important moral\nlesson of the heathen,--that of living up to the doctrines they preach.\n\nWe have, then, the Hindoo answer to the question, \"What must we do and\nbelieve in order to be saved?\"\n\nTHE EGYPTIAN'S ANSWER.\n\nWell, brother disciple of the old Egyptian religion, let us hear your\nanswer to the question, \"What must we do and believe in order to be\nsaved?\"--\"Well,\" replies the believer in this ancient order of faith,\n\"if you would make a sure thing of escaping the pangs of hell, and being\nsaved in the heavenly mansion, you must not neglect to pray daily to the\ngreat God Tulis, crucified some twenty-eight hundred years ago for the\nsins of mankind; and, if you have committed any sin, you must pray to\nhim to have them canceled from 'The Book of Life.' [For the ancient\nEgyptians believed and taught that our evil deeds, as well as our good\ndeeds, are recorded in 'The Book of Life,' in which St. John represents\n(see Rev. 22-19.) our good deeds alone as being registered.] And, if\nyou would make a sure thing of being saved in 'the day of judgment,' you\nmust intercede with Divine Mercy to erase your evil deeds from this Book\nof Life, so that they will not stand against you in that solemn hour.\"\nHere we find a few of the duties enumerated which the disciples of that\nancient system of religion believed and taught were necessary to be\ncomprised in your religious creed in order to be saved in the great day\nof accounts.\n\nTHE CHINESE ANSWER.\n\nWe will now interrogate the representative of the religion of \"The Five\nVolumes,\" and hear his answer to this most important question that ever\noccupied the thoughts of the human mind. Well, then, brother Chinaman,\nplease tell us what we shall do and believe in order to reach the\nheavenly kingdom when compelled to quit the things of time. \"Why, the\nmost important thing of all is, to perform your daily vows to God, and\nworship him through images prepared to represent him, whether those\nimages are made of wood or stone or metal, though you are not to\nconsider these images as the veritable living and true God.\" For no\nnation was ever so brainless or stupid as to believe that idols or\nimages made of mere inanimate matter were living beings, much less a\nliving God. No! the images which have been represented by Christian\nwriters as being objects of worship in numerous heathen countries have\nbeen nothing more than mere imaginary likenesses of the Divine Being,\nand were gotten up for the same purpose that Christian men obtain\nphotograph likenesses of their absent friends, and hang them on the\nwalls of their dwellings. The object is simply to keep the images of\nour friends impressed on our minds in their absence; and the same motive\nactuates the idolater in making supposed images of an absent God. The\nobject is simply to have something before them that will keep them in\nremembrance of him, and his laws and commandments,--a very laudable\nmotive, most certainly. They are idolaters, it is true; and so are all\nnations who believe in a personal God, whether called Jew, pagan,\nor Christian: for idolatry is defined to be \"image-making and\nimage-worship;\" and both of these acts all religious nations have been\naddicted to (Christians not excepted). This can be seen in a moment,\nwhen we look at the essential nature of idolatry; that is, the making\nand worship of images. All images are first formed in the mind. The\nChristian forms his conception of a personal God in his mind; and the\npagan does the same. Both thus make their mental images of God. The only\ndifference in the two cases is, the pagan goes one step farther, and\nrepresents his image in wood, stone, or metal; but it is no more an\nimage than while it existed only in the mind. Then it is evident there\nis no essential difference between them. Both are idolaters. For a\nfurther elucidation of this subject, see the chapter on idolatry. And,\nif you would be saved by the Chinese religion, there are some\npractical duties you must perform. You must live up to the golden rule\nincorporated in their Bible nearly twenty-five hundred years ago. You\nmust also observe the rite of water-baptism; for it has been a religious\nordinance amongst them for several thousand years. And, if you would\nattain to complete holiness, you must be kind to all human beings, and\neven all animals. Kill no living thing, and eat nothing after sundown.\nThen you can be saved by their religion.\n\nTHE PERSIAN'S AND CHALDEAN'S ANSWER.\n\nBrothers of the religion of Iran, can you tell us what to do and believe\nin order to be saved? \"Yes, indeed. First of all, you must believe\n'God's Living Word,' the Zenda Avesta; for that is the meaning of the\nterm. _Zenda_ means 'the life' or 'the living,' and Avesta, 'the word\nof God.' And you must live up to its holy precepts, which will keep you\nfrom committing sin, and prompt you to lead a virtuous life. You must\nalso say grace, both before and after eating, as that was their ancient\ncustom. But you are forbidden to speculate in any of the necessaries of\nlife so as to cause suffering among the poor. And their Bible declares\nthat he who hoards up grain, and holds it for a high price, is\nresponsible for all the famine and all the misery that may take place\namong the people. [I would recommend modern Christian speculators\nto borrow this heathen code, and learn from it some important moral\nlessons.] To insure salvation under this religion, you most also believe\nin 'Mithra the Mediator,' crucified for the sins of the world some three\nthousand three hundred years ago by wicked hands, but in no case make\nany idols or images of God; for their religion practically condemns\nidolatry.\"\n\nTHE JAPANESE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.\n\nWe will now hear from a \"heathen\" nation distinguished for good sense,\ngood morals, and practical honesty.\n\nTell us, then, brother Japanese, what we must do and believe in order to\nbe saved. \"Well, first of all, you must keep the Christian Bible out of\nyour houses. Don't suffer it to enter your doors. Let all Bibles alone,\nand obey the inward monitions of your own souls. Your own conscience and\nexperience and moral sense will teach you that it is wrong to lie, wrong\nto swear, wrong to steal, wrong to cheat, wrong to get drunk, wrong to\nfight, and wrong to kill.\" Now let us learn something about the moral\ncharacter and practical lives of this \"heathen nation,\" who, for\nmore than two hundred years, have kept Christian Bibles and Christian\nmissionaries out from among them, most of the time by positive law. Dr.\nOliphant and Col. Hall, who both spent some considerable time amongst\nthem, state that they are an honest, upright, moral, and sober people.\nWith respect to honesty of dealing, sobriety, and abstinence from\nswearing, quarreling, fighting, or any of the common vices of society,\nthe best authorities assure us that no Christian nation on earth will\ncompare with them; and yet they conscientiously refrain from reading\nthe Christian Bible. (See Chapter L. of this work.) What a startling\ndisproof is here furnished to the declaration of Christian writers that\nthe introduction of the Christian Bible, and the establishment of the\nChristian religion amongst the heathen, are essential to the existence\nof good morals amongst them! In many cases more good would be effected\nby reversing the practice, and sending heathen missionaries into\nChristian nations, as the pious pagans of China, India, and the Friendly\nIsles have all been talking of doing; and some of the godly people of\nIndia have already entered upon the work.\n\nTHE MAHOMEDAN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.\n\nBrother disciple of the Koran, will you please to tell us what the one\nhundred and fifty million of followers of the great prophet believe is\nnecessary to do and believe in order to be saved? \"Yes, certainly.\nThe devout believers in this soul-saving religion have understood this\nquestion for more than a thousand years, and know exactly how to answer\nit. You must believe that the Holy Book (the Koran) is God's last\nrevelation, and his last will and testament to mankind; and you must\nshape your practical lives by its precepts, which will make you 'true\nsaints,' and honest, upright, and righteous men and women. You must\nalso believe that the great prophet is the true, holy, and appointed\nmessenger of God, and that Allah is the only true God. To believe, as\nChristians do, that God is divided into three persons or beings, or\nthree attributes, or three branches, known as Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, is not only a monstrous absurdity, but a monstrous sin and an\nunpardonable blasphemy; and no man or woman who holds such doctrine can\nbe saved. God is but one, and Allah is his name, and you must worship\nhim seven times a day; and on the sabbath day (Friday) you must present\nyourselves at the mosque with the Holy Book in your hand, which, having\nkissed, you are then to place it upon the holy altar, and listen\nwhile the priest explains its great truths and its profound and godly\nmysteries.\" And \"on such occasions,\" says Major Denham, \"tears flow in\nabundance, as under Christian preaching.\"\n\nHere, then, you have the terms of salvation and the road marked cut to\nheaven by the believers in the Koran.\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES' ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.\n\nAnd now, brethren of the Christian faith, we will listen with attention\nto your answer to the important question, \"What shall we do and believe\nin order to be saved?\" But Christian sects are so numerous, and their\nviews so conflicting, we can only find room for the answers of a few of\nthe leading churches.\n\nTHE CATHOLIC'S ANSWER.\n\nWell, brother Roman Catholic, as you represent the oldest Christian\ndenomination in existence, we will first hear from your Church in answer\nto this great question, \"What shall we do and believe in order to be\nsaved?\"--\"Well, the question is easily answered. You must believe that\nthe Bible is the inspired word of God; that Jesus Christ is the son of\nGod; and that St. Peter, succeeded by the Pope, is his vicegerent on the\nearth. You must also worship, or at least believe in the divinity of, the\nFather, son, and Holy Ghost, and the Virgin Mary; and adhere to the\nvarious rites and ceremonies of the Church.\"\n\nTHE GREEK CHRISTIAN'S ANSWER.\n\nWell, brother disciple of the Greek Church, \"what shall we do and\nbelieve in order to be saved?\" What do you think of the Roman Catholic's\nanswer? Is it correct? \"No, indeed: far from it. It is an insult to God\nthe Father and God the Son both to put either St. Peter or the Pope at\nthe head of the Church. That is the office and mission of Jesus\nChrist the Savior; and he will never save you while you believe such\nblasphemous doctrine.\" Away then goes the old mother-church, with her\nhundred and fifty millions of souls, down into the bottomless pit, being\nruled out of heaven by the Greek Church; that is, doomed to eternal\nperdition, according to the testimony of the Greek Church.\n\nTHE PRESBYTERIAN'S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.\n\nWell, brother of the Presbyterian order, we will now listen to your\nanswer to the great question, \"What shall we do and believe in order to\nbe saved?\" How about the Greek Christian's answer to the question? Is\nit right? Does he hold the true doctrine, or not? \"No: very far from\nit, indeed. Like the Roman Christian, he believes in the divinity of the\nVirgin Mary, and consequently he is an idolater and no idolater can\nbe admitted into the kingdom of 'Heaven.\" So away goes the old Greek\nChurch, with her seventy million disciples, down into the world of\nendless woe, if the testimony of our Presbyterian brother is to be\nrelied upon. And thus two-thirds of all Christendom, comprising the\ndisciples of the Romish Church and the Greek Church, are doomed to an\nendless hell, according to their own witnesses.\n\nTHE UNITARIAN CHRISTIAN'S ANSWER.\n\nOur Unitarian brother will now please come forward, and tell us \"what\nwe must do and believe in order to be saved.\" Do you indorse any of the\nanswers already obtained, or agree with any of the churches which have\nbeen interrogated upon this subject, or not? \"No: very far from it.\"\nWhat! you don't dissent from the views of the Presbyterian Church upon\nthis question, do you? \"Yes, I do: for they worship 'the man Christ\nJesus' (as Paul truly calls him), and, being but a man, they are\nidolaters (like the Roman and Greek Christians) for worshiping him as a\nGod, and therefore cannot be saved, according to the Bible. He was born\nas a man; he lived as a man; he ate as a man; he walked as a man; he\ntalked as a man; he slept as a man, and finally died as a man. And he\ncalls himself 'the son of man' more than forty times, which would make\nhim a man. For these and various other reasons we believe he could not\nhave been a God, but only a man; and therefore those who worship him as\na God are guilty of idolatry,--the most heinous sin a man can commit,\naccording to the Bible. And hence they can not possibly be saved, if the\nBible teaches truly.\" Away then goes four hundred Protestant sects to\nthe regions of eternal torment, if the testimony of Christian witnesses\nis to be believed and accepted in the case.\n\nTHE JEW'S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.\n\nBrother Jew, can you show us the road to salvation, or tell us what to\ndo and believe in order to be saved? \"Oh, yes! it is a plain question,\nand easily answered. You must believe that the Old-Testament Scriptures\nare the inspired word of God, and believe in its miracles and\nprophecies, though you are not to interpret or construe any of its\nprophecies as foretelling the coming and mission of Christ; for, as\nwe wrote them, we of course know exactly what they teach, and how to\nunderstand them. And we know most positively that they do not foretell\nthe coming and mission of any such a being as Jesus Christ as the\npromised Messiah.\"\n\n\"Now, look here, you wicked Jews,\" exclaim a hundred Christian sects,\n\"you are denying 'the Lord who bought you' and therefore can not be\nsaved.\" So six millions of Jews are consigned by their Protestant\nbrethren to endless torment,--given over to the buffetings of Satan to\nall eternity.\n\nBrother Methodist, perhaps you can do something towards settling this\nvexed and puzzling question, \"What must we do and believe in order to\nbe saved?\"--\"Certainly,\" exclaims the pious disciple of Wesley. \"It is\nperfectly plain, and easily answered. You must believe in the Bible as\nthe revealed will and word of God, and in Jesus Christ 'the Son and sent\nof God;' and pour out your souls in prayer and praises to God, and shout\n'Glory' to his holy name.\"--\"Stop! stop!\" cries out the good, pious,\nquiet, broad-brimmed Quaker. \"You can not be saved in that way. You\ndrown the inward monitor of the Holy Spirit, which must be listened\nto and obeyed in order to insure salvation. You, by your noisy way of\nworshiping God, drown the voice of this inward monitor, and consequently\nhear and heed not its admonitions; thus proving that you know nothing\nabout the true way of worshiping God, or what true religion is. And\ntherefore there is no chance for you to be saved.\" And thus two millions\nof Methodists are doomed to eternal woe by their Quaker brethren.\n\nTHE BAPTIST'S ANSWER\n\nBrother Baptist, will you give us your opinion, or answer the\nquestion, \"What shall we do and believe in order to be saved?\"\n\n--\"Oh, yes! the Bible is so plain upon that subject that no honest\nreader can misunderstand it. You are to believe in the Bible; believe\nin Jesus Christ, and live up to his precepts; and believe in, and\npractically observe, the sacred ordinance of water-baptism,--without\nwhich, according to the Bible, it is impossible to reach the kingdom, or\ninherit life everlasting.\"--\"Stop, stop!\" exclaims the drab-cloth Quaker\nagain. \"I perceive that the Baptists, as well as the Methodists, are not\non the road to salvation. No man or woman can be saved who believes in,\nand relies upon, the external and carnal rite of water-baptism. It is a\nreliance of such outward performances that causes millions of ignorant\nand unconverted heathen to sink to endless ruin every year. They and you\nare dwelling in the outer court, and practically know nothing about the\ntrue religion essential to salvation, and hence can not be saved.\"\n\n--\"Now, look here,\" exclaims the Campbellite Baptist, \"water-baptism is\none of the positive ordinances; and the Bible declares that no man or\nwoman can be saved without a compliance with all the ordinances, from\nthe least to the greatest. Therefore there is no chance for you infidel\nQuakers to get to heaven; but you will, sooner or later, be consigned to\nthe pit 'where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.'\" And\nthus we might pursue the conflicting jargon of answers through all the\nchurches. But we stop confused and confounded amid chaos, confusion, and\ncontradiction. All seems to be wild conjecture and blind guess-work\nwith regard to what we must do and believe in order to be saved. There\nappears to be no way of learning any thing about the road to salvation\nby the churches. What is to be done?\n\nTHE QUAKER'S ANSWER.\n\nBrother Quaker, as you profess to get light from above, perhaps you\ncan throw some light on this dark question. We have not yet heard\nyour answer to this puzzling question. Can you tell us \"what to do\nand believe in order to be saved\"? \"Most certainly I can,\" replies the\ninspired disciple of Fox and Penn. \"There can be no mistake about what\nthe Bible teaches on the subject. It is perfectly plain, and easily\nunderstood. You are to retire into the quiet, and turn your minds inward\nwith a prayerful desire to know the will of God. In this state of mind,\nopen your Bible and you will learn that you are to do justly, love\nmercy, and walk humbly with God, and become established in the true\nfaith: for the Bible declares that, 'without faith, it is impossible to\nplease God;' that is, faith in his beloved Son, whom he sent into the\nworld to die a propitiatory offering for the sins of man.\"--\"What!\"\nexclaims the Hicksite Quaker, \"do you mean to teach the dark and bloody\ndoctrine of the atonement? Do you mean to say that we have to swim\nthrough blood to get to 'the house of many mansions'? If you do, you are\negregiously mistaken. You are teaching and preaching an old, worn-out,\nbloody, heathen doctrine that never did and never can save a single\nsoul.\"--\"Now, look here,\" cries the Orthodox Quaker, \"the Bible\ndeclares, 'There is no other name given under Heaven whereby men can be\nsaved than that of Jesus Christ;' and you are blaspheming his name by\ndenying the efficacy of his death and sufferings. Therefore your chance\nfor salvation is a hopeless one. You will be lost, and consigned to the\npit where there is eternal weeping and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.\"\nSo away go both the Quaker orders, each booked by the other for eternal\nperdition. But we most stop, or we will swell this chapter on the war of\nconflicting creeds to a volume. We have now interrogated all the leading\nchurches relative to what it is necessary to do and believe in order to\nmake a sure thing of salvation, and escape the awful and dreadful fate\nof endless damnation. And what is the result? No two churches--and it\ncould easily be shown that scarcely any two Christians--agree upon this\nall-important question, upon which they tell us is hung the salvation of\nthe world. As we have shown, the churches all virtually shut the door of\nheaven against each other. They are _all off the track, all on the road_\nto eternal damnation, according to the testimony of their own witnesses.\nIn the name of God, what is the use or sense, then, of professing to\nbelieve in the Bible, or claiming to be Christians, when it is thus\ndemonstrably proved that nobody knows any thing about what the Bible\nteaches, or what it takes to make a Christian? The picture we\nhave presented is no mere fancy sketch. It is not the work of mere\nimagination. Hundreds, if not thousands, of quotations could be\nfurnished from the writings of eminent Christian writers of the\ndifferent churches to show that it is a solemn reality, and that they\ndiffer in the way, and as widely, as we have represented. And what is\nthe solemn lesson taught by it? Why, the absolute impossibility of our\nfinding the road to heaven through the churches and it is an entire\nwaste of time, besides being demoralizing to the mind, to attempt it.\nWe are often told by the orthodox Christians, by way of defending their\ncreeds, that the churches are agreed upon all the leading doctrines of\nthe Christian faith.\n\nWell, let us see how this is, and whether they in reality agree upon\n_any thing_. We will institute another court of inquiry, and briefly\nexamine and compare the views of the various churches relative to the\ncardinal doctrines of the Christian religion.\n\n1. _Moral Depravity_.--The first in order will be the fall and depravity\nof man.\n\nWell, brother Calvinist, as you hail from the oldest Protestant Church,\nwe will first solicit your views upon this all-important question. We\nwish to know whether you believe that man fell from a state of purity,\nand became morally depraved by the fall. \"Oh, yes! we believe he fell so\nlow that he became _totally depraved_ by the fall; so that _all men_ are\nnow the children of wrath, born in sin, and conceived in iniquity, and\ncovered with corruption from the crown of the head to the sole of the\nfoot.\"\n\nBrother Arminian, what do you think of this view of the matter? Is it\nBible doctrine, or not? \"No: it is neither according to the Bible, nor\naccording to common sense, but a damnable doctrine, that will send any\nman's soul to hell who believes in such outrageous doctrine. It is not\nonly untrue, but it is demoralizing to rob man so completely of his moral\nattributes as to make him feel like a brute, and, consequently, act like\none.\"\n\n2. _Man's Restoration._--How is this to be effected, brother Calvinist?\n\"Why, by the outpouring of the blood of Christ, the propitiatory\noffering.\" Brother Arminian, is this true Christian doctrine? \"No, it is\nnot. Man's salvation is effected in no such a way. Every man is to work\nout his own salvation. I can prove it by the Bible.\"\n\n3. _Endless Punishment_.--Most Protestant sects hold and preach that\nthe wicked, when they die, are consigned to a place or state called \"the\nbottomless pit.\" (How they are kept in it with the bottom out, the Lord\nonly knows, or perhaps we should say the Devil). But the Universalists\naffirm that the Bible teaches no such doctrine, but tells us that, \"as\nin Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive;\" which proves,\nas they affirm, the ultimate salvation of all the human race. But the\nRestorationists prove that there is \"a mediate place for souls, which is\nneither heaven nor hell, but a preliminary and a temporary abode for all\nsouls, good and bad.\" And there is another class of Christians who find\nin the same book a still different doctrine, that of the _absolute and\ntotal destruction_ of the wicked. They quote Phil. 3-19. Which of these\nfour Christian sects teach the true Bible doctrine? Who can tell?\n\n4. _Divinity of Christ_.--Most of the Protestant sects tell us that the\nBible makes a belief in the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ essential\nto salvation; but the Parkerite Christian, the Hicksite Christian, and\nthe Unitarian Christian affirm that it does not, that it only makes him\na perfect or superior specimen of manhood. Which is right? Who can tell?\n\n5. _Polygamy_.--Most of the churches once believed that polygamy is a\nBible doctrine, and practiced it for eight hundred years. But now they\ntell us it is not. The Mormons, however, declare that it is sanctioned\nin the Old Testament, and not condemned in the New, and hence is a Bible\ndoctrine. Which is right? How can we tell?\n\n6. _Marriage_.--Nearly all the sects hold that marriage is a Bible\ninstitution. But the Shakers declare that it is not, and quote Christ's\nown words to prove it as found in Luke 20-35. \"The children of this\nworld marry and are given in marriage; but they who shall be counted\nworthy of that world, and the resurrection, neither marry nor are given\nin marriage.\" They reasonably conclude that those who shall not be\nconsidered worthy of being saved (which includes all married people)\nwill not be saved, being cut off by Christ's positive prohibition of\nmarriage. Which is right? Who can tell? The text, however, furnishes a\nconsoling hope for old bachelors and old maids, to say the least.\n\n7. _The Sabbath_.--Most of the churches keep the first day of the week\nas the Bible sabbath. But the Seventh-day Baptists affirm that it is\nnot, that the seventh day of the week is the true sabbath of the Lord;\nwhile other sects tell us that Christ, both by precept and example,\nlabored to do away with all sabbath observances and all holy days. Which\nis right? Who can tell?\n\n8. _The Godhead._--All Trinitarians teach that there are _three persons\nin the Godhead_. The Paulite Christians say there are but two, while the\nUnitarians affirm there is but one. Which is right? Who can tell?\n\n9. _Baptism_.--The churches are not agreed with regard to baptism as to\nwhat it is, how, and when it should be applied, and on whom it should\nbe administered. Some hold to dipping, some to douching, and some to\nsprinkling, as the scripture mode of administering it. Which is right?\nWho can tell?\n\nI should prefer the dipping process. It would do something toward saving\nthe body of the sinner from disease, if not the soul from hell, _if\nfrequently applied_. He should be baptized once a week, if not once a\nday, with water and soap. We have now enumerated nearly all the leading\ndoctrines of the Christian faith, and shown that the views of the\nchurches, with respect to them, are about as different as day from\nnight. The important query then arises, What progress have we made\ntowards determining, by the Bible or by the churches, what we must do\nand believe in order to be saved? Why, about the same progress the boy\nhad made toward reaching the schoolhouse, who, on being interrogated\nby the teacher as to the cause of his late appearance, replied, \"Why,\nmaster, you see the road was so slippery, that, when I attempted to take\none step forward, I slipped two steps backward.\"--\"How did you manage to\nget here, then?\" asked the teacher. \"Why,\" replied Tom, \"I turned round\nand went the other way.\" I would suggest that the churches try this\npolicy of turning round, and going the other way. My conviction is\nthey would find the true road to salvation much sooner, and be better\nprepared to settle the question as to what they should do and believe in\norder to be saved. It is a question, however, they never can settle. The\nBible is a very old book; and, the farther we get away from the age in\nwhich it was written, the more difficult it will become to understand\nit: for human language, and even human thought and the meaning of words,\nare constantly changing. These circumstances will constantly augment the\ndifficulty of ever understanding any old Bible, or of determining what\nit teaches or designed to teach with respect to an important doctrine.\n\n10. _The Number of Hells_.--When the disciple of the Christian faith\ntalks of a hell in the presence of a Hindoo, he tells him he don't\nknow any thing about the matter: that there are no less than three\ninstitutions of this kind. But here the Mahomedan rises up, and says,\n\"You, too, are totally ignorant on the subject; for there are no less\nthan seven institutions of this character. One of them is set apart for\nChristians who believe in the divinity and atonement of Christ.\" Lieut.\nLynch, of the United-States navy, says that a Mahomedan told him, \"No\nman or woman can be saved who believes that God was born of a woman,\nand then became a malefactor to a human tribunal; for the doctrine is\nblasphemous.\" Which of all these opinions is right? Who can tell?\n\n11. _Bible Doctrines constantly changing_.--The increase of\nintelligence, and the growth and expansion of the human mind, have the\neffect to change the views of the people generally and constantly upon\nalmost every subject that occupies the mind; so that the creeds of\nthe churches are constantly changing. Hence the Bible is made to teach\nwidely different doctrines in different ages; and what is Christianity\nto-day is infidelity to-morrow, and _vice vers\u00e2_. (See Chapter lviii.)\nAnd so thorough is the change wrought upon the meaning or interpretation\nof nearly all the important texts in \"God's perfect revelation,\" that\nit virtually makes a new Bible for each generation. I will present some\nproofs and illustrations of this statement by comparing the doctrine of\nthe churches of the last century with those of the present. In the\ndays of Jonathan Edwards, a hell, constituted of a lake of fire and\nbrimstone, was preached in nearly all the Christian churches; also the\ndoctrine of infant damnation, when the Methodists sang that beautiful\nand charming hymn,--\n\n     \"For hell is crammed\n     With infants damned,\n     Without a day of grace;\"\n\nalso the doctrine of predestination, the doctrine of election and\nreprobation, the doctrine of purgatory, the doctrine of Christ's descent\ninto hell, &c. All these and other similar doctrines were preached in\nnearly every pulpit nearly every sabbath; and the preacher who would\nhave neglected to preach these doctrines would have been denounced as\non the road to hell. But now the clergyman who should attempt to preach\nthese old Calvinistic tenets would be denounced as \"an old fogy.\" Hence\nthe important query arises, When were the churches preaching Bible\ndoctrine, _then or now?_ Who can tell? Such changes are unceasingly\ngoing on. Important changes are sometimes made in the popular creed in\na few years' time, as we will cite a case to prove. Just before the\nlast war the peace doctrine was becoming quite popular in nearly all\nthe churches, and sermons were often preached from such texts as the\nfollowing: \"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall\nthey learn war any more.\" But, when the war broke out, new texts were\nhunted up, and the preaching all ran in the opposite direction. \"Cursed\nbe he who holseth back his sword from blood\" (Jer. xlviii. 10); \"He who\nhath not a sword, let him sell his coat, and buy one,\"--then constituted\nthe texts for a sound sermon. _Now it is evident that a book which thus\nteaches opposite doctrines virtually teaches nothing. Its moral force is\ndestroyed. If a man wants to perform a certain act to-day, and an act of\nan opposite character to-morrow, and can find a warrant for both in the\nBible, then it is evident the Bible can have no effect whatever towards\nchanging his course of life_. When every moral duty is both commanded\nand countermanded, and every crime both sanctioned and condemned, as\nappears to be the case with the Christian Bible, then it is evident that\na man with the Bible would act exactly as the man without the Bible; for\n_whatever he may naturally feel inclined to do, or whatever he wants to\ndo, he finds Bible authority for_. Hence it is evident the Bible can't\nchange his conduct in the least; for it merely tells him to do what he\nwishes to do, and had made up his mind to do. I will prove this position\nby citing several cases for illustration. We will suppose a man has\nbecome convinced by observation, or his own experience, that it is wrong\nto drink intoxicating liquors, and wants Bible authority for preaching\ntemperance. He can find it by turning to Isa. v. 22: \"Woe unto them that\nare mighty to drink wine.\" But a friend of his, a member of the same\nchurch, living in the city, where there is great demand for intoxicating\nbeverages, wants to make some money by selling it. He finds the\nauthority for that act also in Deut. xiv. 26: \"Thou shalt spend thy\nmoney for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for\nwhatever thy soul lusteth after.\" Another Christian becomes very\nangry, and filled with the spirit of a murderer towards a neighbor, and\nconcludes to kill him. He finds Bible authority for it in the text,\n\"Go ye out and slay every man his companion, every man his brother, and\nevery man his neighbor\" (Exod. xxxii. 27). Another pious Christian has\nbecome convinced, by \"the logic of history,\" that all war and fighting\nis wrong, and hence concludes to preach the doctrine of peace. He\nfinds Bible authority for that in the Decalogue: \"Thou shalt not kill.\"\nAnother devout Christian, whose common sense has taught him that it\nis wrong for one human being to enslave another, wants Bible authority\nagainst the practice. He finds it in the text, \"Thou shalt proclaim\nliberty through all the land,\" &c. Another godly saint, living in a\nslave-holding country, and being both a tyrant and a mammon worshiper,\nwants Bible authority for trafficking in the blood and bones of his\nfellow-beings. He finds it in Lev. xxv. 45: \"Of the heathen round\nabout you shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids, and they shall be your\npossession for ever;\" so he knows it is all right. And thus this\nexposition might be continued so as to show that there is no crime,\nno sin, no vice, and no wicked deed but that is both sanctioned and\ncondemned by \"God's Holy Word,\" and no moral duty that is not both\ncommanded and countermanded; thus proving it to be absolutely impossible\nto follow it as a guide without being led into the commission of every\nspecies of sin, crime, and abomination, as well as prompted to the\npractice of virtue. Every person who has not made shipwreck of common\nsense must see at once that it is utterly impossible to learn any thing\nabout what is right and what is wrong, what is sin and wickedness, and\nwhat is virtue, what is morality and what is immorality, or what he\nshould approve, and what condemn, what he should do and what leave\nundone, or, finally, any thing about the duties of life or the rules and\nprinciples of morality, by such a book. What can such a book, then, be\nworth, either in the cause of religion or morality? Where, oh! where\nis the common sense of Christendom? It is wonderful to what extent\nrationality and good sense have been banished from the human mind in\nall Bible countries by a false and perverted education. It can not be\nwondered at that we have so many antagonistic churches with innumerable\nconflicting creeds, when we examine and learn something about the\nendless contradictions and confusion of the teachings of the book on\nwhich they are founded.\n\nSIX HUNDRED ROADS TO HEAVEN.\n\nWe are swamped with endless difficulties in determining what to do and\nbelieve in order to be saved either by the Bible or the churches, when\nwe look at the fact that there are, as some writers have computed, more\nthan six hundred conflicting churches, each one claiming to preach and\nto teach the only true and saving faith of the gospel and yet differing\nheaven-wide with respect to what constitutes that true and saving faith.\nThey point out six hundred roads to heaven, when Christ says there\nis but one,--\"One Lord, one faith, and one baptism.\" The churches are\nsimply guessing institutions, and their creeds so many stereotyped\nsystems of guess-work. How much has been learned, or what important\nquestions have been settled, either in religion or morals, by the nearly\ntwo thousand years' reading and study of the Christian Bible? The\nsix hundred jarring churches, and their constantly increasing number,\nfurnish a sufficient answer to this question. What a ludicrous aspect\nwould the cause of science now be in, and what torrents of ridicule\nand contempt would be poured upon our institutions of learning, if they\ndiffered in their principles, or with respect to the principles of any\nbranch of science, as the churches differ with respect to the doctrine\nof the Bible! We will illustrate by an imaginary examination of the\nstudents of one of our institutions of learning with respect to their\nattainments in mathematics. A class having recited, we will interrogate\neach one separately. \"Well, John, as you have been studying figures\nseveral years, can you now tell us how many are twice two?\"--\"Yes, sir:\ntwice two are six.\"--\"Very well: take your seat. The next student will\nrise. James, can you tell us how many are twice two?\"--\"Yes, I can:\ntwice two are eleven.\"--\"Very well: be seated, and let Tommy rise.\nTommy, as you are a diligent student, and have been through the\narithmetic and the principal text-books, please tell us how many\nare twice two.\"--\"I will. It is a plain case: twice two are\nfourteen.\"--\"Very well: stand aside. That intelligent-looking boy yonder\nwe will hear from now. Well, Moses, can you tell us, as the result\nof your five years' close study of mathematics, how many are twice\ntwo?\"--\"Certainly I can. To be nice and exact about the matter, twice\ntwo are nine and a half.\"--\"Very well: I am done with you. There is one\nmore student to be interrogated. Well, Solomon, can you do any thing\ntowards settling the disputed question, how many are twice two?\"--\"Yes:\nI am astonished there should be any difference of opinion about the\nmatter, when it is plain that no person who is really in earnest to\nunderstand it can fail to see that twice two are seventeen.\" Such an\ninstitution of learning as this would be broken up as a nuisance in\nless than two hours after it was known to exist; and yet it furnishes a\nstriking illustration of the character and condition of our theological\ninstitutions in which are professedly taught the science of Christianity\nand the Bible. The difference among the professors and students of\ntheology is as great and important as in the former supposed case; and\nwere not the eyes of the soul put out, and the Christian sectarians\nrendered blind by their false or mistaken teachers, they would see that\nthis is a true picture of their condition. We will institute another\nillustration. The Christian churches are virtually six hundred\nguide-boards professedly pointing the way to heaven. Let us suppose a\ntraveler, hunting his way to \"the Queen City of the West,\" finds on\na hill a tree or post, to which are nailed six hundred guide-boards\npointing in six hundred different directions, and all labeled \"To\nCincinnati.\" How much would he learn from them about the proper road to\ntravel to reach the city? The chance of striking the right course would\nlay within six hundred guesses; and those guesses could be made as well\nwithout the guide-boards as with them. And it is equally certain, and\nmost self-evidently certain, that the road to heaven could be found\nas well if there were no churches and no Bibles pointing six hundred\ndifferent directions. Indeed, the chances of finding it would be much\nbetter without them, because the minds of the people are confused and\nconfounded, and their time wasted, their mental and spiritual vision\ndarkened, and their judgments weakened, by attempting to grope their\nway through such a labyrinth of chaos, confusion, and uncertainty, which\nreally incapacitates them for searching and finding the right way and\nthe sure road \"to the kingdom.\"\n\nONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY BIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND COMMENTARIES.\n\nWhen we learn that there have been no less than one hundred and\nfifty different translations and commentaries upon the Bible put in\ncirculation, we can see at once that this is calculated to greatly\naugment the difficulty of ever arriving at any thing like a unity of\nbelief among the churches, or of settling the question as to what it is\nnecessary to do and believe in order to be saved, or of finding the road\nto heaven through the churches. Translation after translation of the\nBible has been made by different churches, each one alleging that all\npreceding translations were full of errors. The learned Dr. Robinson of\nEngland has estimated that some of the modern translations of the Bible,\nmade for the special purpose of getting the errors out of \"the Holy\nBook,\" contain the frightful number of one hundred and fifty thousand\nerrors; and the American Christian Union, now engaged in translating\nthe Bible, declare that our present popular version, translated by\nfifty-four of the most learned Christian scholars, and which has long\nbeen an established standard authority in a large portion of Christendom\nand regarded as nearly perfect, yet contains twenty-four thousand\nerrors. How many more translations we are to have, God only knows. The\nthought occurs here, that, by the time all the errors are gotten out of\nthe Bible in this way, there will not be much of it left,--that it\nwill not be much larger than \"Poor Richard's Maxims,\" or a common-sized\nalmanac. Now, to show the utter impossibility of establishing any\ndoctrine or settling any question in theology by the Bible, or of\nlearning any thing about what constitutes Christianity, or what we are\nto do and believe in order to be saved, we have only to compare some of\nthese translations together, and observe the wide difference in their\nteachings, and the fatal contradictions in their doctrines and precepts.\nWe will cite a few examples by way of proof and illustration. In our\ntranslation, known as \"King James's Bible,\" a text makes Christ say,\n\"A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see I have\" (Luke xxiv. 39);\nbut, in the most popular translation in Europe (the Royal), this text\nis made to read, \"A spirit hath not flesh and blood, as you see I have\nnot.\" Here is a direct contradiction. One of these Bibles makes Christ\nsay he is a spirit, and the other that he is not, which is a flat, and\nalmost a fatal, contradiction. Now, where on earth is the tribunal to\nwhich we can appeal to find out which of these translations is right? or\nhow can the matter be settled? Again: the text which in our own version\nis made to read, \"There are three that bare record in heaven,--the\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost,\" reads in another translation, \"There are\nthree witnesses,--the water, the blood, and the spirit,\" which knocks\nthe trinity and divinity of Jesus Christ both out of the Bible, so far\nas they are founded upon this text. We will cite one more example:\n\"The wonderful Messianic prophesy\" as it is called (found in Isa. ix.\n6.),--which reads in our translation, \"Unto us a child is born, unto us\na son is given, he shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God,\nthe Everlasting Father,\" &c.,--is made in another translation to say,\ninstead of \"the Mighty God,\" \"the Mighty Hero,\" and, instead of \"the\nEverlasting Father,\" \"the Father of the everlasting age,\" &c., which\nshows that the text is not a prophecy at all, and has no more reference\nto Jesus Christ than to Mahomet. \"The Mighty Hero\" is not a term that\nis ever applied to God but to bloody warriors. Now, who is to settle the\nquestion as to which of these translations is the right one? It will be\nobserved, then, that we have, in the fifty contradictory translations\nof the Bible, no-less than fifty contradictory moral codes and\nfifty contradictory systems of doctrines, which are virtually fifty\nassumed-to-be-perfect revelations from God (of course, all infallible).\nNow, let us multiply the number of Christian sects (six hundred) by the\nnumber of Bible translations and commentaries (one hundred and fifty),\nand we will have indicated the number of roads marked out to heaven by\nthe churches. The result is ninety thousand (600 X 150 = 90,000).\nHere, then, we have ninety thousand roads leading to \"the house of many\nmansions,\" which suggests the conclusion that nobody can possibly miss\ngetting there; for we must presume that it would be impossible to travel\nin any direction without striking one of these numerous roads: so that\nthe world of sinners may be comforted with the assurance they will all\nbe saved. \"The broad road\" they are traveling must be intersected at\nmany points by some of these many pathways to paradise; and they have\nonly to turn off at the last crossing to be landed safe in \"kingdom\ncome.\" They have therefore ninety thousand chances of being saved by\ntraveling \"the broad road,\" if they prefer that to one of \"the straight\nand narrow roads.\" This soul-saving system may be regarded as a\nlottery scheme in which there are eighty-nine thousand nine hundred and\nninety-nine blanks, and but one prize. Who would risk a farthing in such\nan investment, with eighty-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine\nchances against drawing any thing? Certainly no person with common sense\nor any intelligence. We will use an illustration. We will suppose the\nproprietor of a brick building comprising ninety thousand, bricks, one\nof which contains a gold medal worth one thousand dollars, says to\none of his neighbors, \"Sir, the walls of this building comprise ninety\nthousand bricks, and one of them contains a gold medal worth one\nthousand dollars. If you will step to it, and put your finger on it, you\ncan have it.\" Can we suppose he would be very sanguine about winning the\ngold medal? Certainly not. We will make another illustration. We will\nsuppose the Queen of England sends a company of a thousand men to\nAustralia to dig for a treasure known to have been buried there during\na war, the locality of which she describes in writing so accurately that\nshe presumes there can be no difficulty in finding it. In a few weeks\nshe dispatches a messenger to the island to ascertain what progress the\nminers are making. But imagine his surprise, on reaching the place, to\nlearn that the laborers are divided up into six hundred companies, and\neach company stoutly insisting that the spot where they are digging\nanswers exactly to the locality described by the written instrument.\nNow, on the messenger reporting the case to the queen, what would\nshe conclude--ay, what could she conclude--but that she had made some\nserious blunder or omission in her attempted description of the place?\nIt is not possible that an explicit revelation of the matter could\nhave led to such endless confusion and disputes. In like manner we are\nmorally compelled to conclude--yes, every principle of reasoning and\ncommon sense impels us to the conclusion--that God has made a serious\nblunder in attempting to give forth a perfect revelation to the world,\nif (as it seems) he has left it so ambiguous, so unintelligible, and so\ncontradictory in its doctrines and teachings, that six hundred churches\nhave risen up, and are now disputing about what its doctrines and\nteachings are. These six hundred churches comprise a hundred and fifty\nmillions of guessing Christians, all guessing their way to heaven,\nwith ninety-thousand chances against their ever reaching the heavenly\nkingdom. To \"the angel host\" looking down, observing this infinite\ndiversity, demoralization, and conflict among the disciples of\nthe Christian faith, it must be regarded as a species of religious\nmonomania; for we may assume that no intelligent mind, which is not\nblinded by religious superstition, could be drawn into such a delusion\nas to conclude that such a book or such a religion or revelation is from\nan all-wise and all-powerful God, or that it is necessary to believe it,\nor that it is possible to believe it in any rational sense, or that\nit can have the remotest connection with our salvation. It makes God\na fool, man a lunatic, religion a farce, and the Bible superlative\nnonsense. Revelation is defined to be \"the act of making known.\" But\nwhat is made known by a book whose language is so contradictory and so\nambiguous that no two persons in a million agree with respect to all\nit teaches? Every preacher and teacher simply makes known his ignorance\nwhenever he assumes to know what the Bible teaches; and yet i is called\n\"a perfect revelation of God's will.\" It is an assumption that makes\nGod an ignoramus and a tyrant to suppose he would give forth a perfect\nrevelation to the world, and require us to accept it as such on pain\nof endless damnation, and yet leave it in such a jumbled, bungling, and\nunintelligent condition that it is impossible to understand it. Such an\nassumption certainly borders on blasphemy. We would charge him with no\nsuch driveling nonsense. It is the legitimate prerogative of reason to\nassume that a perfect being could make a perfect revelation or Bible,\nthe language of which should be so absolutely perfect and plain that no\nperson of ordinary understanding could possibly fail to understand every\ntext, every word, and every syllable of it, and no two persons could\npossibly differ about the meaning of one text in the whole book. Such\na revelation or Bible, and only such, could be ascribed to an all-wise\nGod. Even men and women can now be found who are so far master of human\nlanguage that they can write books so plainly that there can be no\ndispute about the meaning of one sentence in them. To assume, then, that\nan infinitely wise God could not produce such a book is to place him\nlower in the scale of intelligence than a common schoolboy. When,\ntherefore, I find the Christian Bible so far from possessing such\ncharacteristics, I set it down as _prima-facie_ evidence that an\nintelligent and all-wise God had nothing to do in originating it. And if\nhe were not superior to, or incapable of, such human weakness, he would\nreject with contempt and disdain the honor, or rather dishonor,\nascribed to him in the authorship of such a book,--such a medley of\ncontradiction, ignorance, superstition, and barbarism as is ascribed to\nhim.\n\nIt is sometimes alleged (as we have already observed) in defence or\nmitigation of the endless disputes among Christian professors about the\nteachings of the Bible, that this disagreement does not appertain to any\nof the essential doctrines of Christianity, but only to minor points, or\ndoctrines of minor importance. But such an admission is fatal either\nto their honesty or to their good sense. It concedes that the quarrels\namong the churches for ages has been about mere trifles, not worth\nspending breath about. It concedes that it is \"non-essentials,\" or mere\ntrifles, that keep them apart, and that have led them to build five\nor six churches, and hire five or six priests, in every little village\nthroughout the country, at an expense of many thousand dollars. It is\ncertainly a criminal waste of time and money to spend it by the million\nfor churches and priests to propagate doctrines which they themselves\nadmit possess no real intrinsic importance. It shows they have been\nactuated by selfish, dishonorable, and ignoble motives in fighting each\nother for a thousand years, and in some cases murdering each other\nby the thousand, for a difference of opinion they admit to be of no\nimportance. Those murdered Christians and devout Bible-believers were\ncharged with preaching damnable doctrines and devilish heresies; but\nnow we are told it was minor and unimportant doctrines that they were\nquarreling about, and for which they were tortured and killed for\npreaching. Yes, non-essential doctrine! _O tempora! O mores!_ But they\nmake a serious blunder when they talk about non-essential doctrine; for\ntheir Bible teaches that all doctrines are essential,--that there is\nno such thing as a non-essential doctrine; for it first proclaims\n\"one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,\" and then declares that \"he who\noffends in the least, offends in the whole.\"\n\nThese two declarations taken together prove (if they prove any thing)\nthat there is no \"non-essential doctrine,\" and that the slightest\ndeparture from the right faith, or the least disregard of the _most\ntrivial doctrine_ of the Christian creed, will land the soul of the man\nor woman in endless perdition who is guilty of it. The solemn question\narises here, then, Who can escape eternal damnation? For, if there is\nonly one true faith, then the hundred and forty thousand different and\nconflicting faiths cherished and propagated among Christians must all\nbe wrong but one,--a fact which impels us to the awful and inevitable\nconclusion that not one Christian in a thousand--no, not in ten\nthousand--can be saved by these terms of the gospel. The thought\nsometimes occurs to the writer, that no truly enlightened person,\npossessing a true moral dignity of character, could consent to hang his\nsalvation upon a book which, after eighteen hundred years of the most\ncritical investigation and explanation by the most learned minds\nin Christendom, still remains a mystery with regard to all its most\nimportant doctrines, so that more than six hundred churches are now\ndisputing about what it teaches; and the difficulty is still increasing\nby the uprising of new churches with new creeds and new interpretations\nof the Bible. Let the reader observe the striking difference in the\nharmony of views which prevail in the various scientific societies\nthroughout the country and those of the churches, and he will discover\nat once that there is no science in our religion. Take for example the\nastronomical societies. They are all perfectly agreed with respect to\nwhat the great Bible of nature teaches concerning that science. There\nis no contention and no dispute with respect to the doctrines and\nprinciples of that grand revelation of nature, because they are all\nsusceptible of proof and demonstration. Were it otherwise,--were\nthe amateurs and students of that science divided into six hundred\nconflicting factions, like the churches, each with a different theory\nwith respect to what it teaches,--one contending that the sun rises in\nthe east, another that it rises in the west; one arguing that the sun\nis the revolving center of our solar system, another contending that\nthe earth is; one teaching that the starry orbs which roll their massive\nforms through infinite space are mere wax tapers stuck in the azure\nvault to light this pigmy planet, or mere peep-holes for Gods to look\nout upon our world; and one arguing that they were all knocked up in a\nsingle day out of that singular substance called nothing, and another\nthat they are the outgrowth of other worlds, or have existed from\nall eternity. Had the author, who was once a member of one of those\nsocieties, observed such a chaos of confusion and conflict of opinion,\nhe would have discovered at once that nothing is realty known about the\nscience of astronomy,--that what is called such is nothing but a jargon\nof conflicting dogmas and wild speculations. Hence he would not have\nremained with them a single day after making such a discovery. Having\nlearned that the churches are in such a condition, he withdrew, and\nhas not been a member of one of those discordant institutions for many\nyears. He considers it a waste of time to be a member of a religious\nbody which only increases this difficulty and confusion. He has but one\nlife to live, and does not wish to waste that in a mere wild-goose chase\nafter religious speculations that can never be settled. Why fool away\nour lives in chasing theological butterflies that can never be caught,\nwhen there is a hundred times as much to be learned within the domain of\npositive science as can be acquired in a lifetime, that is practically\nuseful and calculated to enlarge the boundaries of our knowledge and\nelevate us to a higher plane of happiness, while the occupancy of the\nmind with theological dogmas is only calculated to \"lead to bewilder,\nand dazzle to blind\"?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LIII.--THE THREE PLANS OF SALVATION.\n\nYes, we shall make more progress in learning our duties, in learning\n\"what we must do in order to be saved,\" if we would look about us\nand forward, and endeavor to read the great Bible or book of\nnature illuminated by the rules of science, in which there are no\ncontradictions, no confusion, and where we may learn of, and, in our\nfinite measure, grow into and partake of the attributes of the Infinite\nFather, instead of looking backward and searching amongst the jarring\ncontradictious, the creeds, dogmas, myths, and traditions of the past,\ncovered as they are with the mold and dust of ages.\n\n\"Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission for sin.\"\nThe doctrine of this text constitutes the basis of all the plans of\nsalvation which various ages and nations have founded on dead Gods and\nliving devils. Nearly every religious nation known to history cherished\nthe belief that God is an irritable, irascible, and vindictive being,\nsubject to fits or paroxysms of anger; and, when in this furious and\nunbalanced and ungovernable state of mind, he frequently poured out his\nvengeance upon his disobedient children, often subjecting them to the\nmost terrible penalties in this life, and then threatened them with a\nstill worse doom in the next. To avert this direful calamity,--at least\nso far as it appertained to the life beyond the grave,--most religious\nnations invented schemes which came to be known as systems or plans\nof salvation. The original model seems to have been furnished by the\nHindoos, and borrowed from them by the Egyptians, and thence transmitted\nto the Persians and Grecians, and was finally incorporated into the\nChristian system, and now constitutes what is known as \"the Christian\nplan of salvation.\" Each system was composed of three cardinal\nprinciples: 1. The primeval innocency and moral perfection of man. 2.\nHis temptation and downfall into a state of moral depravity. 3. His\nrestoration to the divine favor by the voluntary sacrifice and atoning\noffering of a God (one of the three members of the trinity). These three\ncardinal doctrines constitute what Christians denominate \"the great and\nglorious plan of salvation,\" and on which a thousand volumes have\nbeen written, and ten thousand sermons are preached every year. As it\nprofesses to point out the road, and the only road, to heaven, it merits\na somewhat critical examination. We will therefore analyze and examine\nits several principles, to see whether it has a true moral basis, or is\nin strict accordance with the principles of natural justice. The first\nproposition assumes that man primordially occupied the highest plane\nof moral perfection, and that all his animal propensities were held in\nstrict abeyance to his moral convictions, and that he consequently led a\nmorally pure, perfect, and holy life. The first and most important query\nto which this proposition or assumption gives rise is, Can it be shown\nto be true? Can it be sustained by either the principles of natural or\nmoral science, or by the facts of history comprised in man's practical\nlife? Now, it so happens that facts have been accumulating for thousands\nof years, gathered from almost every department of science and\nhistory, to prove and demonstrate that the proposition is entirety\nuntenable,--that it is not true. Geology alone demonstrates its falsity.\nIt has written its negative verdict upon a thousand rocks beneath our\nfeet.\n\nThese rocks contain the fossiliferous and organic remains of the early\nand primitive inhabitants of the earth, and indicate the order of man's\nmoral and intellectual development; for as each successive layer or\nstratum of fossiliferous rocks, in which the organic remains of man are\nfound, marks a distinct period in his history, and the growth of his\nmoral and intellectual brain is found in all cases to correspond to\nthe age and growth of these strata, the question is thus settled and\ndemonstrate! by the facts of geological science. As, the older the\nrocks, the more remote period they mark in man's history; and, the more\nremote the period to which it is thus traced, the lower the position\nin the scale of moral and intellectual development his organic remains\nprove him to have occupied. The question is thus reduced to a scientific\nproblem, which admits of no disproof or refutation. It is, then, a\nsettled scientific truth, that, the further we trace the past history of\nman by the footprints of geological science, the nearer he approaches\nto the condition of an animal,--when he was almost totally devoid of\nintellectual perceptions and moral feelings, and was consequently a\nvictim to his lusts and animal propensities. Where, then, was his moral\npurity and perfection, or his angelic holiness? The doctrine is thus\nshown to be false and fabulous. All the skulls of the primitive races\nthat have been found by geological research show that man, in his first\nrude type, had scarcely any moral brain; and the history of the race\nat that period shows that he possessed a correspondingly low, weak,\ndefective moral character, so much so that he could scarcely be\nconsidered a moral, accountable being. To talk, then, of his occupying a\nhigh moral plane at that early period, is to contradict every principle\nof science and every page of history. His animal propensities and\nselfish feelings must have held complete sway over the whole empire of\nmind for thousands, if not for millions, of years; so that his moral\nstatus was but little above that of the brute. The facts of science and\nhistory to prove this proposition are abundant; but, as we are compelled\nto constantly observe the most rigid rules of brevity, we can only find\nspace for one or two proof-illustrations. Human skulls have been\nfound embedded in the rocks of Gibraltar with retreating foreheads,\nprognathous jaws, and frontal bones an inch thick, and the receptacles\nfor both the moral and intellectual brain very small,--all of which\ndenote very weak moral and intellectual minds, and a preponderance\nof the animal feelings; and geologists have decided that sixty-five\nthousand years must have elapsed since those bones and skulls were\ndeposited in those rocks. Hundreds of similar facts have been\ngathered by geologists, and might be cited: but this one case is amply\nsufficient, and furnishes as conclusive proof as a thousand could do\nthat the primitive inhabitants of the earth were on a low mental status,\nand that they were greatly inferior in morals and intellect to the\nleast-developed minds of the present age; and consequently man's course\nhas been upward, and not downward. There has been no falling, but a\ngradual rising, in both the moral and intellectual scale. It shows that\nman was at the very foot of the ladder at the commencement of his moral\nand intellectual career,--that he was flat on his back in the ditch;\nand, consequently, there was no lower place to fall to. The first\nproposition, then, is shown to be false,--that man originally occupied\na high moral position, and that he was in a state of moral purity and\nperfection.\n\nThe second proposition--that of man's fall and moral degeneracy--is\nlikewise shown to be false by the same facts; for, if he was never in a\nstate of moral purity and perfection, then it is evident he never could\nhave fallen from such a state. It would be superfluous, then, to attempt\nto show that man never fell, after having shown that he never occupied\na high moral position to fall from. He could only fall in the sense the\nScotchman did, who stated he fell up a well sixty feet in a bucket. It\nis settled, then, geologically, scientifically, and demonstrably, that\nman never fell in a moral sense.\n\nWe will now proceed to present what is presumed and assumed to be the\nscriptural exposition of man's original condition and fall.\n\nWe are told in the first chapter of Genesis, that, when God had\ncompleted the work of creation, he pronounced it all, not only good, but\n\"very good,\" which indicates a state of perfection; but it appears\nthe words were hardly out of his mouth till a very bad being, called a\nserpent, came crawling into the garden on his back, to furnish practical\nevidence that Moses' God was mistaken in having pronounced every\nthing so very \"good.\" We have to assume that he came into the garden\nof paradise on his back, because the reverse mode of traveling was not\nadopted until after the fall; that is, till after he was doomed to that\nmode of travel as a punishment for having tempted and beguiled Mother\nEve to try her new molars and incisors on some fruit (supposed to be\npippins) hanging on a tree, which, it appears, underwent the rapid\nprocess of blossoming, and bearing fruit that ripened in a few hours\nafter it was planted. And thus the serpent, although a senseless\nreptile, committed the first sin,--the first violation of moral law.\nThe first question that naturally arises here is, Why was not the\nfence around the garden of paradise made snake-proof, so as to keep his\nsnakeship out? Or shall we presume the gate was left open, and that\nhe entered in that way? This, however, would indicate a blundering\ncarelessness on the part of Jehovah, which we dare not assume. Another\nquestion arising here is, Why was not the angel with the flaming sword,\nwhich, we are told, was placed over the door or gateway to guard it from\nintruders,--why was he not placed there sooner? Why was he not placed\nthere before the fall, instead of after, so as to bruise the serpent's\nhead, or behead him, on his attempting to enter? To place a guard over\nthe gate after the Devil had entered, and caused the effectual downfall\nand ruin of the human race, and thus perpetrated all the mischief he\ncould, looks very much like \"locking the stable-door after the horse\nis stolen.\" And the query also arises here, Are we not compelled to\nconclude that Moses' God was a little short-sighted, and rather hasty\nin his conclusion that every thing was so \"very good\" when the serpent\nproved to be so very bad? The only way to escape this dilemma is to\nassume that God did not make him, and that consequently he was not\nincluded in the original invoice of goods and chattels which were\npronounced \"very good;\" but, in adopting this expedient, we only leap\n\"from the frying-pan into the fire:\" for the assumption does not do away\nwith the difficulty, because it is declared that God made every thing\nthat was made.\n\nHence it is evident that, if he were made at all, the God of Moses made\nhim; and, if he were not made, then it follows that he is a self-created\nor self-existent being, and invested with all the attributes, powers,\nand prerogatives of God Almighty himself. And thus we would place two\nomniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent beings on the throne of\nthe universe; which is not only a moral contradiction, but a moral\nimpossibility. We will assume, then, for the sake of the argument, that\nGod did create the Devil,--an assumption, however, which brings us into\nstill greater difficulty. Christ says, by way of illustrating human\ncharacter, that \"a tree is known by its fruit. A good tree can not bring\nforth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.\" In\nthis case God the Creator is the tree, and the Devil the fruit; and one\nis good, and the other evil. Here, then, is a good tree bearing evil\nfruit, which seems to furnish the most positive proof that Christ's\nmoral axiom, \"A good tree can not bear evil fruit,\" is false. There is\nevidently something wrong somewhere in this moral picture. Either Christ\nwas mistaken, or the Christian world is wrong in assuming the existence\nof this omnipotent and independent being of an opposite character. It\npresents us with a moral paradox which no theologian in Christendom has\nyet been able to solve. We are compelled to assume that both beings are\ngood, or both evil, and that they co-operate and act in harmony; or that\na good God made a wicked Devil,--i.e., \"a good tree brought forth evil\nfruit;\" or else we must reject the Christian system of salvation, and\nassume the existence of but one invisible and Almighty Being, who orders\nevery thing for the best. The absurdity we have just noticed is but one\nof many, both of a moral and of a scientific nature, equally senseless\nand foolish, which we find involved in the Christian plan of salvation.\nWe will notice a few others. According to Christian theology and\nChristian logic, all evil or sin that is committed is prompted by an\nevil tempter. Scientists and Harmonialists account for such actions by\ntracing them to the abnormal or perverted action of natural faculties,\npowers, and propensities, which, in their healthy state, are productive\nof good alone, and not evil; and thus making them the product of the\nmind itself in its unhealthy condition. But Christian theologians tell\nus it is a separate, evil genius operating in the \"inner man\" which does\nall the mischief, and prompts the possessor to the commission of sin.\nBut this assumption gives rise to endless difficulties, some of which\nwe will state in the form of questions. We would ask, then, in the first\nplace, if all sin or evil is prompted by an evil tempter, how came the\noriginal tempter himself to fall victim to sin? Who put him up to it,\nseeing there was no tempter in existence but himself? In such a dilemma,\nwe must either assume that Divine Goodness was his tempter, or that\nhe tempted himself. To make him his own tempter would involve us in an\negregious absurdity, equal to that of Guy Faux lifting himself by the\nstraps of his boots; and to make God the tempter would relieve his\nSatanic Majesty of all responsibility in the case, and make God alone\naccountable for the sin, and also the author of sin. This, however,\nthey do by other assumptions. Books enough have been written to form a\nlibrary by orthodox writers in the attempt to rescue their God from the\nodium and responsibility' of being the author of sin; but, under\ntheir system of theology, he can not escape the stigma. No sensible\nconstruction of any orthodox system can save God from the authorship\nand responsibility of sin. They all teach that God created man, and\nman committed sin. This makes God the author of sin, either directly or\nindirectly, in spite of all the logic and lore that ever has been, or\never can be, made use of to escape the conclusion; for even if it could\nbe successfully shown that God did not implant in man the desire or\ninclination to commit sin, and he derived this inclination from the\nDevil, it can not be denied that God is responsible for allowing the\nDevil to exist, or, if this could be denied, would still be responsible\nfor leaving man so morally weak as to be overcome by the Devil. If he is\ninfinite in goodness and infinite in power, as they teach, then, if\nhe did not fortify man with sufficient moral strength to resist all\ntemptation to sin, the act of sinning becomes his own. No logic and no\nsophistry can resist this conclusion. It is now a settled principle in\nmoral ethics, that what any being does through an agent he does himself,\nand is as responsible for it as if he performed the act with his own\nhands _de facto_. If, then, God created the Devil, and he turned out to\nbe the agent of evil or sin, it was only a roundabout and indirect mode\nof performing the act himself. This is a logical syllogism which defies\nthe ingenuity of the orthodox world to overturn. The most plausible plea\nin the case is, that the Devil was originally a good being, but fell\nfrom grace. According to several Bibles, he is a fallen angel; but it is\nevident that he could not fall unless he possessed some inherent moral\nweakness that caused him to fall. A perfect being could not fall. It is,\nthen, self-evident that inherent moral weakness was implanted in him\nby his Creator. This would make his Creator responsible for his moral\nweakness, which caused him to fall. And thus the question is settled\nlogically, philosophically, and morally.\n\nWe will now proceed to examine the nature of the diabolical act which\ncaused the downfall of the human race,--\"the original sin,\" as it is\ncalled. We are told it consisted in eating some fruit which grew on a\ntree God himself had planted in the Garden of Eden, and forbidden to be\nused. Why it was interdicted from use is not explained in the Christian\nBible; but it is rendered plain by the relation of the same story in\nother Bibles. In the Persian version it is stated that the tree bore\nthe twelve apples of immortality, and that the Devil, in the shape of a\nmonkey, guarded the tree, to prevent the _genus homo_ from partaking of\nthe fruit; as tradition had taught them, that, by so doing, man\nwould become immortal like the Gods, and live forever. This the Gods\ndeprecated, as they allowed no other beings to become equal to them, and\nhence had the tree guarded to save the immortal fruit. But the Christian\nBible is entirely silent as to the purpose of planting the tree, or\nforbidding its fruit to be eaten. It cuts short many stories which we\nfind more amplified and in fuller detail in older Bibles. No reflecting\nor unbiased mind can see any wisdom or any sense in permitting or\ncausing a tree to bear fruit, and then decreeing that it shall all go to\nwaste by interdicting it from being used, as Jehovah is represented as\nhaving done. Certainly no sensible God would act thus. And if Adam and\nEve were \"very good,\" as he himself declared them to be, must we not\nconsider it an ungodly and a tantalizing act to place fruit within their\nreach, and then forbid them to touch or taste it? It looks more like the\nact of a fiend than that of a kind and loving father, who we would\nnaturally suppose, would be so pleased with his newly made children that\nhe would do every thing possible to please them and make them happy. If\nthe fruit was an improper article of diet, it should have been placed\nout of sight, or rendered unpalatable, so that they should not desire to\neat it. If Adam and Eve were very good beings, and God both infinitely\ngood and infinitely wise, he could and should have placed them in a\ncondition from which they could not fall, and in which they would have\npossessed no inclination to do any thing wrong. I can see no possible\nbenefit to arise from surrounding them with temptations to commit an act\nthat would ruin them eternally, and their posterity after them. The plea\nis sometimes urged that it was morally necessary for the original\nprogenitors of the race to possess the power and liability to sin, in\norder to make them free agents. Free agents, indeed! That is certainly a\nnovel kind of free agency, which not only makes a man free to commit an\nact which it is known will lead to his own destruction and the ruin of\nthe entire human race, but implants in him the inclination to do it.\nThis is free agency run mad.\n\nWe will illustrate the principle. A mother sees her little child\napproaching an open well, and turns heedlessly away, and lets the child\nrush into the jaws of death; and, when reproved for the act, she raises\nthe plea, \"Oh, I did not want to interfere with its free agency!\"\nHere is the Christian logic of free agency put in practice. God is\nrepresented as setting traps around the human family, knowing they will\nbe caught; and this is called moral freedom or free agency. The rat\nenjoys the same kind of moral freedom when he creeps beneath the\ndeadfall in quest of food, and takes the chance of misplacing the\ntriggers. There is no free agency in any rational sense in furnishing a\nman with a rope to hang himself, knowing that it would be used for that\npurpose; and this the orthodox God has done for the whole human family,\nso that we are all now suspended on the gallows of total depravity and\nmoral death.\n\nTHE FALL AND CURSE.\n\nWe will now notice some of the awful consequences said to have resulted\nfrom eating the forbidden fruit,--\"the _worldwide curse_\" pronounced\nupon the human race as the penalty for that act. Several distinct\neffects are enumerated as consequences of the deed. But a critical\ninvestigation of the matter in the light of the present age will show,\nthat instead of being curses, they are blessings, and have added greatly\nto the enjoyment and happiness of the human family; and, consequently,\nwe should now be in a more deplorable condition than we are if \"our\nprimitive parents\" had heeded the divine interdiction, and let the fruit\nalone. We will look briefly at some of the consequences, and observe\nwhether they have really turned out to be curses, or not. The first\neffect produced by the act of Father Adam and Mother Eve eating the\nforbidden fruit appears to have been that of opening their eyes so that\nthey could see and distinguish objects around them. It certainly was\na very singular way of cursing human beings to grant them the glorious\nboon of vision, and thus relieve them from the necessity of groping\ntheir way through life. As to the gift of sight being a curse, there are\nthousands of human beings now in the world who would like to be cursed\nin that way--those who were born blind, or have lost their sight. \"The\nrest of mankind\" would consider it to be a great misfortune or curse to\nbe placed in the original condition of Adam and Eve in this respect. We\nmust admit, then, that this curse turned out to be a blessing, and\nthat we are indebted to the serpent-devil for it; and, consequently, he\nshould not have been doomed to dine on dust as a penalty for conferring\nthis blessing upon the human race.\n\nThe second consequence growing out of the act of eating the interdicted\nfruit appears to have been the acquisition of a knowledge of good and\nevil; that is, the power of distinguishing between good and evil. But\nthis, so far from being a curse, was an inestimable and indispensable\nblessing; for, without the attainment of this knowledge, they could not\nhave known that any act was evil, and hence would have been liable to\nplunge into all manner of crime, pillage, debauchery, murder, &c., until\nthey effected the entire extinction of the human race. The acquisition,\nthen, of the knowledge of the moral difference between good and evil was\nan invaluable blessing, and no curse at all; and, having been brought\nabout through the agency of the serpent-devil, he should have the credit\nof it.\n\nThe third effect produced by plucking and eating the prescribed fruit\nwas the discovery that they were naked. Why they had not made the\ndiscovery before is a mystery of godliness. The people of the present\nage, although presumed to be in a state of degeneracy, if not total\ndepravity, do not require the use of their eyes to know when they\nare naked; but it seems, that, before the fall in a state of moral\nperfection, such knowledge could only be acquired through the optic\nnerves. Hence \"the perfection of our first parents,\" so often spoken of\nand lauded by the orthodox world, must simply have been the perfection\nof ignorance; and it is true, if their history is true, that they were\nmost consummately ignorant until they were enlightened by the serpent.\nThey were too ignorant to clothe themselves. God Almighty had to forsake\nthe throne of heaven, and come down to earth, to make garments of\ngoatskins for them, before they could be sufficiently habilitated to go\nabroad, or admit company. Their two sons, however, were the only company\nthey were permitted to enjoy at that time. And one of these turned out\nto be a murderer; and, having killed his only brother, he fled to the\nland of Nod, and married a wife, although, according to the \"inspired\naccount,\" his mother was the only woman then living. It seems strange,\nunder such circumstances, that he should marry a wife when there were no\nwomen to make wives of. After he had killed his brother, and repented of\nit, a mark was set upon him, that \"whosoever found him should not slay\nhim.\" But how could this \"whosoever\" know what the mark meant? And who\nwas this \"whosoever,\" when he himself had killed off the whole human\nrace, excepting his father and mother? And we presume they would not be\nlikely to slay their own and only son if there were no mark set upon him\nto prevent it. Up to this period the conduct of the serpent-devil had\nbeen very respectful, and every act performed had resulted in a direct\nbenefit to the human family. Even his conduct towards Mother\nEve seems to have been marked by politeness; for he served her with\nfruit before partaking of it himself. For these good acts he deserved\nthe use of his legs, which, we must presume, he lost by the fall,\nwhen he transgressed, fell, and was cursed; and a part of this curse\nconsisted in taking his legs from him, and compelling him to crawl. But\nit appears his legs were afterwards restored to him; for, when he came\nwith the sons of God to attend a picnic at the house of Job, and was\nasked where he came from, replied, \"From walking to and fro in the\nearth.\" This feat of walking he could not very well have performed\nwithout legs. Hence we naturally conclude they had grown out again,\nor had been restored to him in some way, notwithstanding it had been\ndecreed he should \"crawl on his belly all the days of his life.\" The\nwhole story of the serpent, as presented in Genesis, is a borrowed and\nlaughable fiction; and the reader will excuse us for presenting it in\nthat light.\n\nWe have shown that the violation of the command of Jehovah to Adam and\nEve not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, so far from\nbeing attended with any evil result, gave rise to several important\nbenefits, and was therefore a praiseworthy act. And if they had carried\nthe act of disobedience a little further, and plucked and eaten of the\nfruit from the \"tree of life\" also, it would, according to the\ncontext, have produced results still more important, as it would have\nimmortalized their physical bodies, and prevented the ingress of death\ninto the world; and we should have been spared that dreadful calamity.\nBut a worse calamity would have overtaken us; for it is easily seen,\nthat, in the course of a few centuries, our planet would be overstocked\nwith inhabitants. And, as a part of Adam's curse consisted in being\ndoomed to eat the ground (see Gen. iii. 17), it follows, that, if none\nof his posterity had died, they would have become so numerous in the\ncourse of time as to have eaten up all the ground (there being nothing\nelse for them to eat), and leave not a mole-hill of _terra firma_ for a\nliving being to stand upon. The conception is really ludicrous, and yet\na legitimate inference from the story which presents us with a series of\nlaughable ideas from beginning to end.\n\nWe will now notice the sentence pronounced upon the several participants\nin this fabled rebellion against the divine government, and observe how,\nor to what extent, they were realized. Adam, Eve, and the snake were\nthe culprits arraigned at the bar under charge of being rebels; and, all\nbeing found guilty, a sentence was pronounced upon each separately.\nWe will examine them in their order. The first part of Adam's curse\nconsisted in being doomed to die,--\"The day thou eatest thereof, thou\nshalt surely die\" (Gen. ii. 17). The serpent, however, took the liberty\nto contradict and counteract the sentence, and told him he should not\ndie, but that partaking of the fruit would make him \"wise as the Gods,\nknowing good and evil.\" Now, the first question which arises here is,\nWho told the truth in the case,--Jehovah, or \"the father of lies\"? In\nthe eighth chapter of Genesis we read, \"All the days of Adam were nine\nhundred and thirty years, and he begat sons and daughters.\" It will\nbe seen, then, that he did not die in \"the day thereof,\" nor the year\nthereof, nor the century thereof; so it appears the serpent told the\ntruth and Moses' God told the falsehood, or was mistaken. Hundreds of\nChristian writers and commentators have racked their brains to find some\nplausible mode of disposing of these difficulties. The most specious\none they have resorted to is that of assigning the text a spiritual\nsignification, and alleging that it was a spiritual death that was\nintended in this case. But the text does not say so; and the context\nshows it was not so: for it is declared, \"Dust thou art, and unto dust\nshalt thou return\" (Gen. iii. 19), which shows it was not spiritual but\nphysical death that was meant; and this did not take place for more than\nnine hundred years after the sentence was pronounced.\n\nThe second part of Adam's curse consisted in being driven out of the\ngarden, and compelled to engage in agricultural pursuits; that is, he\nwas sentenced to earn his bread by the sweat of his face. (See Gen. iii.\n23). But the experience of nearly the whole human race, from that period\nto the present time, proves that the sweating part of the operation is\nno curse at all, but a real blessing; for no person in warm climates\ncan enjoy good health without perspiring occasionally; and as for\nlabor being a curse, because said to have been pronounced upon\nAdam as a penalty for transgression, the experience of all who have\ntried it, and the present condition of the civilized world, proclaim it\nto be untrue. Indeed, we must consider it a very fortunate circumstance\nthat he was driven out of the garden, and compelled to embark in\nagricultural pursuits, not only on account of such employments being\nconducive to health, but because the very existence of human life\ndepends upon it in all civilized countries. It is the source whence we\nderive all our food, all our clothing, and nearly all the comforts of\nlife. No: it is laziness, not labor, that curses the race; and the most\naccursed set of beings are the drones, the soft-handed gentry, who are\nalmost as afraid of a hoe, axe, or spade, as they are of the measles or\nsmall-pox, having been erroneously taught that labor is a curse.\n\nThe third item in Adam's curse consisted in being doomed to eat the\nground,--\"Cursed is the ground for thy sake, and in sorrow shalt thou\neat of it all the days of thy life\" (Gen. iii. 17); but we have never\nseen any report of either Adam or any of his posterity eating the\nground, or making it an article of diet. It will be observed, then, that\nno part of the sentence pronounced upon Adam turned out to be a curse,\nbut, when realized at all, was realized as a blessing.\n\nThe sentence pronounced upon the woman was also of a threefold\ncharacter. In the first place, she was doomed to \"Bring forth children\nin sorrow\" (Gen. iii. 16). And her posterity, we are told, inherited the\ncurse, and must suffer in this same way; but the history of the human\nfamily shows that many individuals, and whole nations in some cases,\nhave never suffered this affliction. It is well known that the mothers\nof some of the African tribes, also some of the tribes of Americans,\nnever suffer in childbirth. Hence it will be seen that the curse in the\ngeneral sense implied by the text is a failure in this case also.\n\nThe second punishment to which woman was to be subjected was that of\nbeing ruled over by her husband. This portion of her curse, we must\nconfess, has not been an entire failure. Many women, even in civilized\ncountries, are not only ruled over, but tyrannized over, by their\nhusbands. Yet this state of things has by no means been universal. On\nthe contrary, in many cases, woman has been the ruling party; and, in\nsome instances, they have not merely ruled their own husbands, but all\nthe husbands in the nation. Queen Mary, Queen Anne, and Queen Victoria,\nand many others, are examples of this kind; and then there have been\nthousands of women in all ages and countries who never had any husbands.\nConsequently the curse is a failure in their cases. The curse of\nhusband-dominion, then, has not fallen upon woman as a sex.\n\nThere was to be enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the\nserpent (i.e., their offspring) as the third part of woman's curse; but\nwe find no evidence that this part of the curse has ever been fulfilled.\nWe observe no more enmity between men and serpents than between men\nand other noxious reptiles and ravenous beasts. How much enmity exists\nbetween the Hindoo juggler and the serpent that twines around his arm\nand neck, and crawls through his bosom? We may be told in reply that\nit is not the common serpent that is referred to here, but the\nserpent-devil that beguiled Eve; but we do not learn that his Devilish\nMajesty ever had any offspring. So this part of the curse, in a general\nsense, is a failure also.\n\nTHE CURSE OF THE SERPENT.\n\nThe curse pronounced upon the serpent was of a twofold character.\n\nHe was doomed to crawl upon his belly. How he traveled previous to that\nperiod we have no means of knowing, as revelation is silent on this\nmomentous subject. He must have crawled on his back, or hopped on his\nhead or tail,--either of which we should consider a much more difficult\nmode of traveling than that inflicted on him by the curse. I can see\nno curse or punishment in an animal or reptile traveling in its natural\nway, and by the easiest mode known in the whole animal kingdom. To make\na curse of his mode of travel, he should have been turned the other side\nup, so that, while wiggling or wriggling along on his back, his eyes\nand mouth would get full of dust and mud. This would have been much more\nlike a punishment,--a more real and sensible curse than his present mode\nof traveling.\n\nThe second mode of punishing the serpent was to compel him to eat\ndust as an article of diet; but some difficulty must have arisen in\nattempting to comply with the injunction. When the ground is saturated\nwith water, he would have to take a meal occasionally of mud, which\nwould not be more nutritious than dust, and would not be fulfilling the\nlaw. But it is needless to speculate. It is evident he does not subsist\nin that way, but, like the other culprits, escaped the penalties or\npunishments due to his crime.\n\nI have now examined all the items of the curse--eight in number--said to\nhave been visited upon Adam, Eve, and the serpent; and what do they all\namount to? Not one of them has been realized as such; but most of those\nwhich were practically realized turned out to be real blessings. And yet\nthey have been proclaimed to the world by the clergy as the missiles of\nwrath hurled upon a guilty world for the sin of rebellion against the\ndivine government; and, whether any of these so-called \"visitations of\ndivine displeasure\" were designed as penalties for disobedience or not,\nit is evident they have not in a moral sense been realized, or had any\nbeneficial effect whatever. And we must conclude that it was rather\nshort-sighted in Moses' God to attempt to bring his children into\nobedience by pronouncing curses upon them. He himself virtually\nacknowledges it; for, after having tried these expedients and found they\navailed nothing, he became so discouraged, that he said, \"It grieved him\nto the heart\" (see Gen. vi. 6) that he had made so rebellious a creature\nas man.\n\n\nTHE SECOND SCHEME OF REDEMPTION.\n\nThe God of Moses, after having tried the expedient of cursing his\nchildren,--the cunning workmanship of his hands,--and grieved over the\nfailure for more than a thousand years,--he (the God of Moses) came to\nthe conclusion to try another expedient. He concluded to select a few\nof the choicest specimens of the _genus homo_, in order to preserve the\nrace and start anew with some of the best stock or material that could\nbe found. Accordingly, old drunken Noah--the most righteous man\nthat could be found amongst the millions of the inhabit ants of the\nglobe--was chosen to build a schooner, yacht, canoe, or some kind of a\nvessel, called an arc into which he stowed millions of birds, bipeds, and\ninsects of all species and all sizes, from the ostrich and condor down\nto fleas, flies, mosquitoes, spiders, and bed-bugs; and millions of\nanimals and reptiles of all kinds and all sizes, from the mammoth and\nthe mastodon down to skunks, lizards, snakes, gophers, and grasshoppers;\ntogether with himself and family of eight persons, and food sufficient\nto last them ten months while in the ark, and several years afterwards,\nas we must presume was done from the fact that it is declared that the\nwaters destroyed every living thing upon the face of the earth. And it\nmust have required several years to restock it with grass and animals to\nserve as food for the granivorous, herbivorous, and carnivorous species;\nand this would make a bulk sufficient to fill forty such vessels, and\na weight sufficient to sink the whole British navy. And all this living\nmass of respiring and perspiring animals were dependent upon one little\nwindow twelve inches by fifteen for light and air, and which had to\nbe kept shut most of the time to keep out the rain. If some giraffe or\ncameleopard had been disposed to monopolize the window by thrusting\nhis head out, we can easily imagine what would have been the fatal\nconsequence to this living, breathing cargo. And then we have to\nentertain the thought that lions and lambs, wolves and sheep, dogs\nand skunks, hawks and chickens, owls and doves, cats and mice, men and\nmonkeys, all ate and slept together in immediate juxtaposition like a\nband of brothers. Perhaps more glorious times never were realized since\n\"the sons of God shouted for joy.\" But it appears the whole thing turned\nout to be a failure. The drowning process was no more effectual in\nproducing the desired reformation than the first scheme that had been\ntried; for, only a few hundred years after the culmination of this\nworld-drowning experiment, Moses' God is represented as crying out\nin despair, \"The imagination of man's heart is evil, and only evil\ncontinually.\" This was certainly a deplorable and disheartening state\nof things witnessed so soon after it had been presumed that all the bad\nfolks had been drowned; but it appears, that, if all that class had been\ndrowned, there would have been no human beings left. David, therefore,\nwas probably right when he exclaims, \"There is none that doeth good, no\nnot one\" (Ps. xiv. 3).\n\nTHE THIRD AND LAST PLAN OF SALVATION.\n\nThe atonement was the third and last resort. The third experiment in any\ncase generally ends the siege whether successful or unsuccessful.\nAfter a few thousand years more had elapsed of grief, anger, and\ndisappointment in the practical history of Moses' God, he ventured to\ntry one more experiment in the effort to get his people in the right\ntrack,--not so much, however, to get them in the right way, as to have\nhis own wrath appeased. In this way he sanctions the greatest crime ever\nperpetrated by the hand of man,--that of murder. God the \"Father,\" in\norder to cancel the sins of his disobedient and rebellious children,\nand mitigate his own wrath, is represented as proposing to have his\n\"only-begotten son\" killed,--at least, as consenting to the act. This\nlooks like \"doing evil that good may come of it;\" which is a very\nobjectionable principle of moral ethics, according to Paul. How\nthe commission of the greatest of all sins can do any thing towards\nreforming other sins, or how the punishment of an innocent being can do\nany thing towards atoning for the sins of the guilty, presents us with\na moral problem, shocking both to our common sense and common reason.\nIf the Father's anger could not be appeased or his vengeance satisfied\nwithout the perpetration of a horrible murder, and the knowledge that\nsome victim had died a slow and agonizing death, we are forced to the\nconclusion that he is a cruel and revengeful God, and that his passions\noverrule his love of justice and his paternal regard for his son. But it\nappears that this last experiment, whether right or wrong, was attended\nwith as complete a failure as the two preceding ones; and yet it assumes\nto be the best that \"Infinite Wisdom\" could devise. And the resources\nof divine knowledge and skill were apparently exhausted when this scheme\nculminated. And yet it also failed, according to the admission of its\nown friends and ardent supporters (the clergy); for they tell us, that,\nnotwithstanding all the schemes and systems that Omniscience and\nInfinite Prescience could devise to save man, he does not get saved: at\nleast but few are saved, and they have to \"work out, their own salvation\nwith fear and trembling.\" Nineteen-twentieths of the human family, the\nclergy tell us, are still traveling \"the broad road,\" and are finally\nlost, notwithstanding all the labored experiments and expedients of\nomniscient or Jehovahistic wisdom to save them. With this view of the\ncase, the thought is suggested that it was hardly worth while to have\ngone to the trouble and expense of fitting up a heaven for the few that\nare saved. It certainly \"doesn't pay.\" And this conclusion is the more\nforcible in view of the fact that it must be rather a lonesome place,\nand consequently not a very desirable home or situation to live in; for\nwe are told it is \"a house of many mansions,\" \"and yet few there be that\nfind the strait and narrow road\" leading to it. Hence we may conclude\nthat many of the rooms or mansions are empty. Such a lonesome heaven\ncould not be congenial or adapted to any class of saints but monks and\nhermits.\n\nWe have now briefly examined the three plans of salvation which lie at\nthe foundation of the Christian religion, and shown that they are all\nfailures according to their own witnesses. In view of this fact, we can\nnot wonder that Moses' God is represented as saying that he repented for\nhaving made man, and that it grieved him to the heart (Gen. vi. 6). Such\na series of signal failures is enough to discourage even a saint or a\nGod.\n\nTrue religion sees God in every thing, reads his scriptures on every\npage of Nature's open Bible, and feels him in the inspiration of the\nsoul. It calls God father, not king; Christ a brother, not a redeemer.\nIt loves all men, but fears no God. Its God is not a tyrant, but a\nloving father. It looks upon Jesus Christ as a truly good man, but not\na God; as a noble, loving, benevolent being, but endowed with human\nfrailties. It considers him a martyr to truth and right, but not a just\nvictim to his father's wrath, or the just object of a bloody sacrifice.\nIt regards the laws of nature as sufficient, if diligently studied and\nstrictly observed, to serve as a guide for man's earthly life without\nany special revelation. It holds that man's natural love of goodness,\njustice, mercy, and honesty is capable of endless expansion and\naugmentation. It walks by the light of science. The many grand truths\nof the age, developed by the onward march of mind, form its infallible\nlaws, and constitute its living virtues. It uses reason for a lamp, and\nan enlightened intellect for a guide. It ties no martyr to the stake,\npiles the faggots around no heretics. It issues no dogmas, no bulls,\nno canons, and hangs man's salvation upon no infallible revelation.\nChristians say, Give us a better revelation; Christ said, \"Cease to do\nevil, and [then] learn to do well.\" All wrong and hurtful institutions\nshould be pulled down or abandoned, and trust to finding better ones.\nRemove the weeds from the soil, and a healthy and useful vegetation will\nspring up in their place. The true religion grants perfect freedom to\nall human beings; leaves human thought as free and unfettered as the\nwind, as free as the rays of sunlight which fall upon every hill and\nevery valley, and rest upon the bosom of the deep.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LIV.--THE TRUE RELIGION.\n\nTrue religion does not regard God as a personal monarch, governing the\nuniverse by the caprices of an angry and fickle mind, but as the living,\nmoving, all-pervading, self-sustaining, energizing, vivifying power\nwhich moves and sustains the machinery of the whole universe, and\ncontrols, by a concatenation of laws, the myriads of worlds which move\nin majestic grandeur through infinite space, and causes them to act\nin concert and harmony without a discordant jar. It does not write its\ninspiration and revelation in a dead language or unintelligible Hebrew,\nbut in living characters, which all can read and understand. It indulges\nin no spirit of bigotry, consigns no man or woman to endless torment,\nnever talks of total depravity or original sin. It is a natural and\ngodlike religion, calculated to satisfy the deep, unutterable longings\nof the soul, and bring blessings and happiness to all who live up to its\nrequirements. It is a tree bearing the fruit of practical righteousness.\nIt does not teach that all of God's truth is shut up in a printed book.\nIt knows no sects, no creeds, and no thirty-nine articles. It does\nnot pilot the pilgrim through life with a dark lantern, nor search for\nliving truths among the religious mummies of the dark ages, but regales\nitself upon the living truths of the age. Its devotees do not require\ntemples made with hands in which to worship the Father. It does not\nrequire holy houses, holy days, or holy sacraments. It recommends all\nto search for truth as a pearl of great price. It teaches all to worship\nGod by a life of practical goodness, and by cherishing kindly feelings\ntoward every human being. This is a religion that will impart true\npleasure in life, and afford sure comfort in a dying hour.\n\nTHE RELIGION FOR THIS AGE\n\nIs a religion founded upon truth and goodness;--a religion freed from\nthe old, worn-out superstitious, Oriental myths. The people are becoming\ntoo Enlightened to tolerate them much longer; they are becoming tired of\nbeing fed on the stale food of past ages; they have been kept in a state\nof spiritual stagnation long enough. They are becoming too intelligent\nto wish to listen to old mythological doctrines which have been preached\nby Christians for centuries. We want a religion better adapted to\nthe wants of the age. We want a religion that will furnish better\nnourishment for man's moral and spiritual nature,--a religion calculated\nto develop true manhood, instead of repressing it; a religion whose\ndoctrines do not conflict with established principles of science; a\nreligion which our moral sense does not condemn, and against which our\nreason will not rebel. We want a religion that builds no walls between\nreason and revelation, and forms no creeds and no barriers to the\nspontaneous outgrowth of every faculty of the soul. We want a religion\nthat does not require men and women to be born several times before\nthey can be honest, truthful, and reliable, or \"good enough to enter\nthe kingdom of heaven.\" We want a religion which acknowledges no law but\ntruth and justice,--a religion that will tolerate no wrong, and forgive\nno sin. We want a religion whose bond is love, whose temple is truth,\nand whose altar is a guiltless conscience, and whose creed is a life\nof practical righteousness. We want a religion which will teach us to\ncherish kindly feelings toward all mankind, and which will prompt us to\nlabor to spread flowers instead of thorns in the pathway of every one\nwith whom we come in contact, and thus make them better and happier\nbeings; for this is the true end of all true religion and all true\npreaching.\n\n     \"For modes of faith let zealous bigots fight:\n     He can't be wrong whose life is in the right.\"\n\nWe want a religion which will estimate men and women for what they are,\nand not for what they believe,--a religion that does not measure their\nmoral worth by their creeds, but by their practical lives. We want a\nreligion that will banish all creeds and mind-enslaving dogmas from the\nearth, and substitute in their place brotherly love and goodness. We\nwant a religion that will do away with ignorance and poverty, that will\nlabor to prevent any one from suffering for the needful things of life,\nand that will bind all together in the ties of universal brotherhood.\nIn fine, we want a religion which will make truth and love and true\npractical righteousness the pole-star of every man and woman who embrace\nit. This is the religion we need; this is the religion for the age; this\nis the religion that would and will banish all unrighteousness from the\nearth, and elevate the race to a higher plane than they ever have or\never can attain under their soul-cramping, creed-bound religions; this\nis the religion the author is laboring for, and has earnestly desired\nfor twenty-three years to see established among \"all nations, tongues,\nkindred, and people.\" This religion is not derived from any Bible,\nbut is an outgrowth of man's moral and religious nature, as all true\nreligions in all countries have been. A religion derived from this\nsource would prompt us to labor daily to promote the happiness of our\nneighbors and fellow-beings generally, instead of studying every hour\nof our lives to practically rob them, as do most men in civilized\ncountries, including nearly all Christian professors, who are\n_positively for bidden_ by their Bible and lawgiver (Christ) to _lay up\nany treasure_ on earth; yet it is their constant study how to draw\nall the money possible out of the pockets of their neighbors, with but\nlittle regard to their wants, necessities, or even sufferings, that they\nmay die in the midst of wealth. It is a strange, yet almost universal,\ninfatuation, that the inauguration of the true religion will banish from\nthe earth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LV.--\"ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD.\"\n\nIf this statement be true, then God must have \"led a very busy life;\"\nfor the world is literally loaded down with scriptures. There are not\nless than eleven hundred and fifty pious effusions that may come under\nthis head, and at least that number claiming to have originated from the\nfountain of divine inspiration; but the religious sects and religious\norders will tell us that but one of those eleven hundred and fifty\nscriptures is the product of the Divine Mind, and but one of them has\nreceived the seal and sanction of Almighty God. Then our salvation hangs\nby a very slender thread; for no rule has been furnished us by Infinite\nWisdom by which we can distinguish which is the spurious and which the\ngenuine, or which is the scripture given by inspiration of God. All\npious nations have had their scriptures in profusion. Let us hold a\ncourt, and hear the testimony of some of the witnesses with respect to\nthe validity of their respective claims. Here is a Hindoo, a pious soul\nof the Brahmin order. \"Well, brother, we wish you to tell us whether you\nknow any thing about the scriptures given by inspiration of God.\"--\"Most\ncertainly I do.\" Well, where and what are they? \"Why, after existing in\nthe mind of the great God Brahma from all eternity, they were revealed\nby him, about nine thousand years ago, to the holy richis (prophets),\nwho penned them into a Holy Book for the instruction and salvation of\nthe world, now known as the Vedas. They are pure, holy and divine, and\npoint out the only sure road to salvation.\"\n\nHere comes a Chinese mandarin. Well, brother, what light can you\nthrow upon this subject? Have you ever seen \"the scriptures given by\ninspiration of God\"? \"That is a question easily answered. The Five\nVolumes are the purest, the holiest, and the most sublime production\never given to the world. There is nothing immoral, no obscene language,\nto be found in this 'Holy Book.' Its precepts are matchless; and it\nis the only book whose teachings are calculated to 'make wise unto\nsalvation.' It will save all men who receive it, and obey it.\"\n\nTake a seat: we want now to hear from a disciple representing the land\nof Iran. Brother Persian, the question is, Where is \"the scripture given\nby inspiration of God\"? \"Your question surprises me. The Holy Zenda\nAvesta has been circulating for thousands of years; and have you not\nseen it? It points out the only sure road to the kingdom of eternal bliss,\nand contains the only true religion for the human race.\" Very well: be\nseated. There is yet another class of devout worshipers we wish to\ninterrogate on this all-important subject. Brother Mahomedan, will you\nplease to step forward, and help us solve this difficult problem? Where\nare \"the scriptures given by inspiration of God\"? \"Have you never read\nthat holy and inspired book, the Koran? If so, you ought to be able to\nanswer the question; and, if not, you are risking your eternal salvation\nby remaining ignorant of its beautiful truths: for it consigns to an\nendless fiery hell all who disbelieve and reject its sublime teachings,\nand refuse to travel the road it has marked out to paradise and eternal\nbliss.\" Thus we are making but little progress toward settling the\nquestion, Where is \"the scripture given by inspiration of God\"? We will\nnow question the Christian Church. Here we are met at the very threshold\nwith two hundred answers. \"Join our church, and beware of counterfeits,\"\nmeets us at every church-door. We do not mean to say that every church\nhas a separate Bible, though virtually it almost amounts to this, as\neach denies to all others that use of the Bible and construction of\nits doctrine and teachings which alone can insure salvation. But, in a\nbroader sense, there are two hundred answers to the question, Where are\nwe to find \"the only scriptures given by inspiration of God\"? The two\nhundred translators and four hundred commentators make out more than two\nhundred distinct systems of faith, and virtually more than two hundred\nBibles. When we look at the numerous and widely different translations\nof the Bible, and the numerous collection of books by different churches\nwhich have been made to constitute the Bible at different periods, and\nthe numerous alterations which Christian writers tell us have been made\nin all of the books of the Bible, and the great number of gospels and\nepistles floating over the world at one period and afterwards denounced\nas spurious, and the constant alteration of the Bible by adding some\nbooks and rejecting others, we can see at once that it is impossible\never to find any way of determining which are \"the scriptures given\nby inspiration of God.\" Here let it be noted, that, for nearly three\nhundred years, the Christian world had no Bible but the Old Testament,\nand that, during that period, hundreds of gospels and epistles\nwere written, and thirty-six Acts of the Apostles, by all kinds of\nscribblers, or, as one Christian writer calls them, \"ignorant asses.\"\nThese were put in circulation as constituting \"the only scriptures given\nby inspiration of God.\" Most of them were afterwards condemned by\nthe Church fathers as being the product of the Devil, and as being\ncalculated to lead every soul down to hell who should read and believe\nthem. But there never was any agreement among church-leaders as to which\nof the three hundred gospels and epistles in circulation were\nspurious, and which were genuine; nor has there ever been any rule for\ndistinguishing them, or determining which was which. How, then, was\nit possible to know which were \"the scriptures given by inspiration of\nGod\"? Here arises a query of most striking import, which should sink\ndeep into the mind of every honest investigator of this subject. Should\nit not be set down as a moral impossibility that an all-wise God would\ninspire men to write gospels and epistles for the instruction of mankind\nand the salvation of the world, and then let them get mixed up with\nhundreds of others \"inspired by the Devil,\" and calculated to lead to\nperdition\"? It must have been the means of effecting the eternal ruin of\nthousands, if not millions, of immortal souls.\n\nAnd nearly all Christian writers admit there was no way of\ndistinguishing the poisonous and pernicious productions from the\n\"inspired.\" It is also admitted that the former were more read than the\nlatter. Now, we must assume that a God would be essentially lacking\nin the ingredients of good sense (or rather would be a mere imaginary\nbeing) who would do business in such a bungling and reckless manner as\nto furnish man with a revelation of his will, hang his salvation upon\nit, and then abandon the field for three hundred years, and let every\nthing run to ruin. Such a God _ought to \"repent, and be grieved to the\nheart_.\" Look what kind of stuff the people swallowed for gospel during\nthat period! The Gospel of the Infancy, which was afterwards condemned\nas the work of devils and impostors, was, during this period, accepted\nas inspired by nearly the whole Christian world; and see what it\ncontains. In the first chapter it is related that a woman had a son who\nwas, by the intervention of some witches, turned into an ass, when she\nhastened off to the mother of the young Messiah (Jesus), and related\nher grievance to that amiable personage, which so excited her compassion\nthat she forthwith seized the young child Jesus, and set him astride the\nass's neck, when, \"lo and behold!\" it took all the ass properties out of\nthe animal, and restored him back to manhood, or rather boyhood. And\nall the biped asses then in Christendom swallowed this assinine story\nas \"scripture given by inspiration of God,\" The same book relates that\nvarious sick and impotent persons visited the child Jesus, and were\ncured of their diseases by having his swaddling-clothes wrapped about\ntheir heads, necks, or other portions of the body, and forthwith the\ndevils departed (on one occasion in the shape of a dog). If there is a\nlower plane of senseless superstition than this, I pray God I may never\nknow it. And all this was gospel and \"inspired scripture,\" for whole\ncenturies, with the _majority_ of Christendom. Both preachers and laymen\nread and believed those \"Holy Scriptures.\" This is about as senseless\nas the story of some devils coming out of a woman, and taking up their\nabode in a herd of swine. These stories are all \"chips of the same\nblock,\" and all equally incredible.\n\nCHARACTER OF THE VOTERS WHO DECIDED WHAT SCRIPTURES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED\nINSPIRED.\n\nIt is now well known that the first authentic collection of Gospels\nand Epistles, called \"the Bible,\" was made by the Council of Nice\n325 A.D.,--a body of drunken bishops and lawless bacchanalians. The\nChristian writer, Mr. Tyndal, says they got drunk, came to blows, and\nkicked and cuffed each other; and that \"the love of contention and\nambition overcame their reason.\" They claimed to be under the influence\nof \"the spirit.\" Undoubtedly they were; but it was a kind of spirit that\nmen hold intercourse with by uncorking the bottle, and not the spirit of\ngentleness and peace. He says, \"They fell afoul of each other;\" and such\nwas the severity of their blows, that one member was mortally wounded,\nand died a short time after. It was simply a disgusting and disgraceful\nrow,--a scene of rowdyism of at first seventeen hundred, and finally\nabout three hundred, Christian bishops, without a character for either\nvirtue, sobriety, or honesty. One-writer says, \"They were abandoned\nto every species of immorality, and addicted to the most abominable\ncrimes:\" and such was their extreme ignorance, that but few of them\ncould write their names. Their method of deciding which Gospels ana\nepistles were divinely inspired was quite unique. It is stated they were\nall placed under the communion-table; and, when the proper signal was\ngiven (so says Iren\u00e6us), the inspired Gospels \"hopped on to the table,\"\nwhich separated them from the spurious. Why the spurious Gospels did\nnot possess the hopping power and propensity is not stated. Two of the\nbishops, Crysante, and Musanius, died during the council, before the\nvote was taken; but such was the importance of the occasion, that they\ndid not withhold their votes on that account. The proper documents being\nprepared and carried and placed near their defunct bodies, they mustered\nall the force their dead bodies could command, and signed them; and\nthus, between the living and the dead, we have got a Bible which, it is\npresumed, contains all the scripture given by \"inspiration of God\" under\nthe new dispensation. The Gospels and Epistles thus voted into favor\nwere not arranged together in the form of an authentic Bible until\nnearly sixty years after.\n\nThis was done by the Council of Laodicea in the year 363. After this,\ncouncil after council was called to _vote in or vote out_ some of the\nbooks adopted by previous councils, and to settle some important church\ndogmas. The first council voted the Acts of the Apostles and Revelation\nout of the Bible (i.e., voted them down); but the second council, which\nmet in 363, voted them in again. Another council, which met in 406,\nvoted them, with several other books, out of the Bible again. And thus\nwere books and dogmas voted in and voted out of \"the infallible and\ninspired word of God,\" and altered and corrected, time after time and\ncentury after century, by twenty-four different councils, composed of\nbigoted bishops and clergymen, so quarrelsome and belligerent that they\nresorted to fisticuff fighting in several of the councils; and thus\nwas \"God's Holy Word\" and \"perfect revelation\" tossed to and fro like a\nbattledore,--this book voted in, and that one voted out, and sometimes\nhalf a dozen at a time. And where was the \"all scripture given by\ninspiration of God\" at the end of this revolutionary and demolishing\nclerical crusade? And where was its author, that he would suffer the\nwhole thing to be taken out of his hands, altered and corrupted till he\ncould not know his own book, and would not have been willing to father\nit if he had been able to recognize it? William Penn says, that \"some\nof the scriptures which were taken in by one council as inspired were\nrejected by another council as uninspired; and that which was left\nout by the former council as apocryphal was taken in by the latter as\ncanonical. And certain it is that they contradict each other. And how\ndo we know that the council which first collected and voted on the\nscriptures--voting some up, and some down--were able to discern the true\nfrom the false?\"\n\nHere the whole thing is set in its proper light by a devout Quaker\npreacher. The extract contains a volume of instruction, and shows the\nimpossibility of our determining the \"all scripture given by inspiration\nof God.\"\n\nADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS, AND INTERPOLATIONS.\n\nWe have a vast amount of testimony to prove that councils, churches, and\nclergymen arrogated to themselves a lawless license to change, insert,\nand leave out various texts, chapters, and even whole books, from \"God's\nunchangeable word,\" till it may now be assumed to be thoroughly changed.\nFrom a large volume of testimonies we will cite a few: The version of\nthe Old Testament made under Ptolemy Philadelphus, 287 B.C.,--the most\nreliable version extant,--Bishop Usher pronounces a spurious copy, full\nof interpolations, additions, and alterations. He says, \"The translators\nof the Septuagint added to, and took from, and changed at pleasure;\" and\nSt. Jerome says that Origen did the same thing with the New Testament.\nBishop Marsh testifies, in like manner, that Origen, who first collected\nthe Bible books together, confessed that he made many alterations in\nthem before they fell into the hands of the Council of Nice. Dr. Bentley\nadmits that the best copy of the New Testament contains hundreds of\nirreparable omissions, errors, and mistakes. The Rev. Dr. Whitby says,\n\"Many corruptions and interpolations were made almost in the apostolic\nage.\" Dupin says, \"Several authors took the liberty to add, retrench,\ncorrect divers things.\" Some of the clergy and churches rejected books\nwhich did not suit them, while others altered them to suit their fancy.\nWe are told that Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, made countless\nnumbers of alterations in the Bible in the sixth century for the purpose\nof making them suit his Church. Eusebius says he found so much proof\nthat the Gospel of Matthew had been altered and corrupted, that he\nrejected it as being unworthy of confidence. Victor Wilson informs us\nthat a general alteration of the Gospels took place at Constantinople\nin the year 506 by order of the Emperor Anastasius. St. Jerome complains\nthat in his time many alterations had been made in the Bible, and that\nits different translations were so essentially changed that \"no one copy\nor translation resembled another.\" Scaliger testifies that the clergy\nand the churches put into their scriptures whatever they thought would\nserve their purpose. Michaelis says, \"They thrust in and thrust out as\nbest suits fancy.\" In the name of God, we would ask how any person\nin his sober reason can think of finding \"all scripture given by\ninspiration of God\" in the midst of such a general wreck, ruin, and\ndemolition of the original scriptures. It is as impossible as to raise\nthe dead or to find Charlie Ross. The Rev. Dr. Gregory says that no\nprofane author has suffered like the Bible by profane hands. Where,\nthen, can we find \"all scripture given by inspiration of God\"?\n\n\nFORGED GOSPELS AND EPISTLES.\n\nThe Unitarian Bible says, in its preface, \"It is notorious that forged\nwritings, under the name of the apostles, were in circulation almost\nfrom the apostolic age.\" Mosheim testifies that \"several histories of\nChrist's life and doctrines, fall of pious frauds and fabulous wonders,\nwere put in circulation before the meeting of the Council of Nice;\" and\nhe states, like William Penn, that he had no confidence in their ability\nto distinguish the true from the false. We will here quote another\nstatement of William Penn: \"There are many errors in the Bible. The\nlearned know it: the unlearned had better not know it.\" Here is another\nsad proof of the blinding effect of reading and believing a book which\nabounds in errors. He would have the unlearned and honest reader swallow\nall the errors of the Bible, and be thereby morally poisoned by them,\nrather than have the book brought into discredit by having its\nerrors exposed. This circumstance of itself is sufficient to seal its\ncondemnation. Belsham says, \"The genuine books of the Bible were but\nfew compared with the spurious ones.\" This would be inferred from the\ncircumstance of only four Gospels being adopted out of fifty, and only\nseventeen Epistles out of more than one hundred. Daille says, \"The\nChristian fathers forged whole books; but neither he nor anybody else\ncan furnish any rule for determining which they are.\"\n\nLOST BOOKS FOUND OR RE-WRITTEN.\n\nDupin says a portion of the books of the Old Testament were burned in\nwars, and others lost by the Jews themselves; and in the Second Book\nof Chronicles (xxxiv. 14) we are told that Hilkiah found the Book of the\nLaw after it had been lost eight hundred years. This law appears to have\nconstituted the most important portion of the Jewish sacred writings.\nThe circumstance gives rise to some very strange reflections and\nconclusions. It appears from this circumstance that the Lord's holy\npeople had been without any law to guide or govern them for eight long\ncenturies. Now, can we suppose for a moment that their God, Jehovah,\nwas a being of infinite wisdom to write or dictate a law, and base the\nhappiness and welfare of his people if not the world on that law, and\nthen, through carelessness or otherwise, suffer it to get lost, and\nremain unfound for eight hundred years, so that nobody could have the\nbenefit of it during that long period? The very thought is a trespass\nupon our good sense, and does violence to our reason. And where was the\nlaw during all that time? and how was it preserved for so long a period\nof time? If written on papyrus or parchment, it would have perished\nin less than a century from being exposed to the weather: for we can't\nassume it was preserved in a drawer or box, as, in that case, it would\nnot have been lost; and, if engraven on stone, the weight would have\nbeen fifty times as much as Hilkiah could carry. We are told that when\nJosiah the king heard the law read, he rent his clothes (2 Chron. xxxiv.\n19).\n\nWell, that is strange indeed. It must have been a very curious law, or\nhe must have been a very curious man. Why the reading of a few plain\nmoral precepts should drive a man to insanity, and cause him to tear his\nclothes, is something hard to understand. And it is evidence that the\nwhole Jewish tribe had never known or read much about the law: otherwise\na knowledge of it would have been preserved by tradition, and the king\nwould not have been so profoundly ignorant of it. If the law was the\nPentateuch, as some writers assume, the king would have had to stand a\nweek to hear it all read; and it seems strange that \"Shaphan the scribe\"\ncould pick up a document covered with the mold, rust, and dust of eight\ncenturies, and read it off with sufficient expertness for the king to\nlisten to with patience. But the wonder and difficulty don't stop here.\nIt was only about a quarter of a century until this great \"holy and\ndivine law\" was lost again; which left \"the Lord's holy people\" again\nwithout any moral code to guide them, or a governing law, for six\ncenturies longer. No wonder they preferred worshiping a calf (see Exod.\nxxxii.) to paying homage to a God so reckless of their welfare and\nhappiness. On this occasion it became so thoroughly lost, that it\nnever \"turned up\" again; and there seemed to be no way to remedy the\ndeplorable loss but to have it written over again. At least that appears\nto have been the impression of Ezra the priest, who set himself to the\nonerous task of reproducing the long-lost document from memory or from\na second installment of divine inspiration. (See Esdras.) Such a memory\ndoes not often fall to the lot of mortals to possess,--a memory that\ncould enable a man to reproduce a document which neither he nor any\nother person had read for six hundred years. If the world could be\nfurnished with such a mental prodigy at the present day, we might again\nhave the benefit of the numerous books and libraries which have\nbeen destroyed by fire in modern times. It would require no previous\nknowledge of any of those works to achieve the task of reproducing\nthem. Perhaps we may be told that we are becoming \"wise above what is\nwritten.\" It would require no mental effort to attain to this eminence,\nand become obnoxious to such a charge. In this case, a few brief\nsentences, and the whole thing is dismissed: no details are given. The\nstory of Hilkiah finding the Book of the Law sounds very much like Joe\nSmith finding the Mormon Bible; and the case of Ezra's re-writing it is\nmatched by the story of \"Vyass the Holy\" finding the divine law of the\nBrahmins some three thousand years before Hilkiah was born. Mr. Higgins\nsays that nearly all ancient religious nations had the tradition of\nlosing and finding their holy books, holy laws, and holy languages. The\nquery is here suggested, that if such an important document could be\nrestored to the people in the manner adopted by Ezra, why was not\nthis expedient resorted to a thousand years sooner, and thus save the\ndemoralization of the Jews? The policy adopted is too much like \"locking\nthe stall after the horse is stolen.\"\n\nIMPOSSIBILITY OF POSSESSING A RELIABLE TRANSLATION.\n\nIt is quite evident, from the facts presented and from others which will\nhereafter be presented, that, if God ever gave forth a revelation of his\nwill to the founders of the Jewish and Christian religions, the world is\nnot in possession of it now, and can not find it in a book as old as the\nChristian Bible, and written by simply stringing consonants together\nin a line without any vowels, and without any distinction of words, and\nwhich must necessarily be an enigma that would puzzle any scholar to\ndecipher. Hence the learned Le Clere says, \"Even the learned guess at\nthe sense in an infinity of places, which has produced a prodigious\nnumber of discordant interpretations.\" And Simonton, in his \"Critical\nHistory,\" says, \"It is unquestionable that the greater part of the\nHebrew words of the Old Testament are equivocal in their signification,\nand utterly uncertain; and that even the most learned Jews doubt almost\nevery thing in regard to their proper meaning.\" To talk of finding \"all\nscripture given by inspiration of God\" environed with such difficulties,\nis to talk nonsense. We will illustrate the nature of these difficulties\nby citing a case. We will look at the random guessing at the meaning of\na single word of a single text by the most learned students and scholars\nin biblical literature. The word indicating the material of which Noah's\nark was com-posed, our translation says, was gophir-wood: but the Arabic\ntranslation says it was box-wood; the Persian translation says it was\npine-wood; another translation makes it red ebony; and still another\ndeclares it was wicker-work; Davidson, assuming to be \"wise above what\nis written\" the case, says it was bulrushes cemented with pitch; another\nwriter translates it cedar-wood, &c. And thus God's Holy Book, designed\nfor the guidance of man, has been the sport and the bauble of learned\nguessers in all ages of Christendom, who evidently know as much about\nit, in many cases, as a goose does about Greek.\n\nMANY DIFFERENT CHRISTIAN BIBLES.\n\nOwing to the multiplicity of Bible translations, which differ widely in\ntheir doctrines, precepts, and the relation of general events, making a\ndifferent collection of books to constitute \"the word of God,\" various\nchurches, and even individual professors, have assumed the liberty\nto compile and make a Bible for themselves. The Roman-Catholic Bible\ndiffers essentially from that of the Protestants', having fourteen more\nbooks. The Bible of the Greek Church differs from both. The Campbellites\nhave a translation of their own. The Samaritan Bible contains only the\nFive Books of Moses. The Unitarians, having found twenty-four thousand\nerrors in the popular translation, made another translation containing\nstill many thousand errors.\n\nThe American Christian Union, having found many thousand errors in King\nJames's translation, are now engaged in a new translation. How many more\nwe are to have, God only knows. Martin Luther condemned eleven books of\nthe Bible, as we have already stated, and thus made a Bible for Himself.\nPaul's Epistle to the Hebrews he denounced in strong terms. Eusebius,\nthe learned ecclesiastical writer, throws eight Bible-books\noverboard, and had a Bible to his own fancy. Dr. Lardner and\nJohn Calvin each condemned five or six books, and had a Bible peculiar\nto themselves. Grotius places the heel of condemnation on several books\nof the Bible. Bishop Baxter voted down eight books as uninspired, and\nunworthy of confidence. Swedenborg accepted only the Four Gospels and\nRevelation as inspired. The German fathers rejected the Gospel of St.\nMatthew, and I know not how many other books. The Bible of the learned\nChristian writer Evanson did not contain either Matthew, Mark, or\nJohn. The Unitarian Bible does not contain Hebrews, James, Jude,\nor Revelation. The Catholics denounce the Protestant Bible, and the\nProtestants condemn the Catholic Bible, as being full of errors. A\nnumber of other churches and learned Christians might be named who had\nBibles of their own selection and construction. And thus every book in\nthe Bible has passed under the flaming sword of condemnation, and\nhas been voted down by some ecclesiastical body or learned and devout\nChristian. Each church has either made out a Bible for itself, or\naccepted that which came the nearest teaching the doctrine of their\nown peculiar creed. In the midst of this rejection, expulsion, and\nexpurgation of Bibles and Bible-books, where can we find \"the scripture\ngiven by inspiration of God\"? We have it upon the authority of Dr. Adam\nClark, Eusebius, Bishop Marsh, and other writers, that many texts\nand passages contained in our Bible can not be found in the earlier\neditions; thus showing that many gross interpolations and forgeries have\nbeen practiced by the Christian fathers. Christ's prayer on the cross,\n\"Father, forgive them,\" &c., the story of the woman taken in adultery,\nthe passage relative to the three that bare record in heaven, &c.,\nthey assure us, can not be found in any early translation of the Bible.\nWhere, then, are \"the scriptures given by inspiration of God\"? Who can\ntell?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LVI.--INFIDELS UNDER THE ORIENTAL SYSTEMS,\n\nIt is an interesting and instructive historical fact, that in all\nreligious countries,--Christian, heathen, and Mahomedan,--as the people\nbecome educated and enlightened, a portion of them improve the teachings\nof their Bible by new interpretations; while another portion, possessed\nof still more intelligence, abandon the book altogether, and become\ninfidels to the prevailing religion of the country. I have spoken of the\nformer class in another chapter. In this chapter I shall present a brief\nhistory of the latter class, who are known as infidels under different\nsystems of religion. We find, by our historical researches, that in\nIndia, Egypt, Persia, Chaldea, China, Mexico, Arabia, &c., a portion of\nthe people outgrow the religion of the country in which they have been\neducated. And it is an important fact, observable in all religious\ncountries, that _that_ portion of the population who become dissatisfied\nwith the established religion of the country are the most intellectual,\nthe most intelligent, and very generally the most moral also. We desire\nthe reader to notice this, as it tends to prove that the cause of\ninfidelity in all countries is intelligence and intellect, and to\nestablish the converse proposition that the mass of people who adhere\nso rigidly to the religion in which they were educated are people of\nlimited intellect, large veneration, and not very progressive by nature,\nand very generally have but little historical or scientific knowledge.\nThey consequently have not observed the errors and defects of their\nreligion, or its cramping and stultifying effect upon the mind, or its\neffect upon the morals of the country. They prefer having somebody else\nto do their thinking for them. This will be fully illustrated by the\nbrief historical sketch we will now present of the practical operation\nof infidelity under several forms of religion.\n\nI. THE RELIGIOUS SKEPTICS OF INDIA.\n\nIt is generally assumed by the disciples of the Christian faith that the\npeople of India are on a low scale of mind and intelligence, and that\nthis accounts for the tardy success of the missionaries in the work of\nconverting them to the Christian faith, and the obstacles which lie\nin their pathway, which makes the cost of conversion bear an enormous\nproportion to the few proselytes won over to the religion of Jesus. This\nmatter is interestingly controverted by the Rev. David O. Allen, who\nspent twenty-five years in that country as a missionary. We will make\nan extract from his work, \"India, Ancient and Modern.\" Speaking of the\nobstacles the two hundred missionaries have to encounter in the work of\nconversion, he says, \"It is now some years since a spirit of infidelity\nand skepticism began to take strong hold of the _educated_ native minds\nof India. This spirit was first manifested in Calcutta, Madras, and\nBombay; and it is making rapid progress in all the large cities\" (p.\n584). Let the reader mark the word \"_educated_\" in this extract. Most\ncogently does it sustain the assumption we have several times made in\nthis work, that it is intellect and intelligence that cause infidelity\nunder every form and system of religion. It denotes an upward tendency\nfrom the brute creation, which is devoid of intellectual brain. Mr.\nAllen says, \"This class of persons [the infidels] have associations\nand societies for debates, discussions, and lectures; and, among the\nsubjects which engage their attention at such times, religion, in some\nof its forms and claims, has a prominent place. Their libraries are well\nfurnished with infidel and deistical works, which have been provided\nfrom Europe and America. The historical facts and doctrines of the\nBible, the ordinances of the gospel, and certain facts and periods\nof the history of Christianity are made the subjects of inquiry,\ndiscussion, and lectures. At such times Christianity and all connected\nwith it--the scriptures, doctrines, and characters, as well as parts of\nits history--are often treated with levity, scurrility, and blasphemy.\"\nLet the reader bear in mind that it is a Christian missionary that is\nspeaking, who is in the habit of styling every thing \"blasphemy\" in the\nshape of argument against his idolized and superstitious religion. We\nare assured from other sources that their language, although freighted\nwith argument and wit, is always respectable. \"On such occasions,\"\ncontinues Mr. Allen, \"they make a free use of the works of infidel\nwritings, and the sneers and cavils and arguments of deists in Europe\nand America.... This same class has also, to a great extent, the\nmanagement and control of the national press of India. [This statement\nsuggests that infidelity in India is becoming deep, wide-spread, and\npopular.] In their journals much appears of an infidel and scurrilous\nnature against Christianity in perverted and distorted statements of its\ndoctrines and duties, of its principles and its precepts, of the conduct\nand character of its professors, and of the ways and means used for\npropagating it.... The following facts show the state of the native\nmind in India: The proprietor and editor of one of _the oldest and\nbest-supported_ newspapers in Bombay some time ago expressed his views\nof the state of religion among all classes, and suggested what course\nshould be pursued. After inserting two or three articles in his paper,\nto prepare the minds of his readers, he said it was obvious to all that\nthe state of religion was very sad, and becoming more so, and that all\nclasses of people appeared to have lost all confidence in their sacred\nbooks; that Christians do not believe in their Bible, or they would\npractice its precepts; that the Jews, Mahomedans, Hindoos, and the\nZoroastrians do not believe in their sacred books, because, if they did,\nthey would not do so many things which their Bibles forbid, and neglect\nso many things which they command. He then proceeds to say that the\nsacred books of all these different classes may have been of divine\norigin, and when first given they may have been adapted to the the state\nand circumstances of the people, and may have been very useful, but that\nthey had become unsuitable to the present advanced state of knowledge\nand improved state of society; and that none of these sacred books could\never again have the confidence of the people, and become the rule\nof their faith and practice.... He then suggested that a religious\nconvention be called in Bombay, and that each class of people send a\ndelegation of their learned and devout men with copies of their sacred\nbooks, and that the men of this convention should prepare from all these\nsacred books a Shastra suited to the present state of the world, and\nadapted to all classes of people. And he expressed his belief that a\nShastra thus prepared and recommended would soon be generally adopted.\nIn his next paper he proceeded to mention some of the doctrines\nwhich such a Shastra should contain; and among them he said it should\ninculcate the existence of only one God, and the worship of him\nwithout any kind of idol or material symbol. And then he would have no\ndistinction of caste, which he thought was one of the greatest evils\nand absurd things in the Hindoo religion. Now, these opinions and\nsuggestions are chiefly remarkable as exhibiting the state of the\nnative mind. [Do you mean to say, Mr. Allen, that the hundred and fifty\nmillions of the native minds in India are all tinctured with these\ndoctrines? If so, it is glorious news indeed.] It is unnecessary to\nsay that these views are entirely subversive of Hindooism, invoking the\nrejection of its sacred books as well as its preceptive rites and most\ncherished practices. The writer of these articles for the public _was a\nrespectable and well-educated_ Hindoo.... He was proprietor as well\nas editor of his paper; so he had much interest in sustaining its\npopularity and increasing its circulation. Indeed, I was told he had but\nlittle property besides his paper, and that he relied chiefly upon\nit for his support. He knew the state of religious opinions among the\nHindoos; and he was well assured that such opinions and suggestions\nwould not be to the prejudice of his character, nor to the injury of\nhis paper. [Glad to hear this, Mr. Allen, on his account, and as showing\nthat a remarkable amount of good sense, intelligence, and infidelity\npredominate over the Christian religion in India.] Now, this man, the\nreaders of his paper, and the circle of his acquaintance, show the state\nof hundreds of thousands in India, who are dissatisfied with the\nHindoo religion, and, having no confidence in it, would gladly embrace\nsomething better, more reasonable, and calculated to exert a better\ninfluence upon society and the character of their nation.\" All hail to\nsuch intelligence as this! It shows that the heathen of India have more\nreason, sense, and intelligence than many professors of Christianity.\n\nNow, mark the cause which Mr. Allen assigns for this intellectual\nskepticism of India. He says, \"It is in part the effect of the knowledge\nthey acquire which removes their stupidity and ignorance, and imparts\npower to think, compare, reason, and judge on religious subjects; and\nin part from the principles and facts of modern astronomy, history,\ngeography, &c., being utterly at variance with the declarations and\ndoctrines of the Hindoo Shastras: so that no person who believes in the\nformer can retain any confidence in the latter. [And, if he had included\nthe Christian Bible with the Shastras, the statement would have\nbeen almost equally true.] The natural consequence of this course\nof education is to produce a spirit of skepticism in _respect to\nall religions_. [Another wonderful admission, and more proof that\ninfidelity, brains, and intelligence are correlative terms.] The effect\nis now seen in the religious, or rather the irreligious, views of a\nproportion of the young men who have been educated in European science\nand literature in the institutions established by the government of\nIndia. They are strongly opposed to Christianity, and often ridicule its\nmost sacred and solemn truths [errors more probably]. They openly\navow their skepticism and deistical sentiments; but they have hitherto\ngenerally conformed to the popular superstitions so far as to avoid\npersecution, and retain their sacred positions, and to secure and enjoy\ntheir property rights.... Motives of worldly policy may lead most of\nthe present generation of educated young men through life to show some\nrespect to notions, rites, and ceremonies which they regard as false,\nunmeaning, and superstitious; but, should these views pervade the masses\nof the native population (which they are now doing rapidly), they may\nbe expected to develop their genuine spirit in very painful consequence,\nunless Christianity acquires sufficient power to restrain them\" (pp. 574\nand 321). The painful consequence here apprehended is simply the triumph\nof religious skepticism based on, and growing out of, a broad and\nthorough literary and scientific education over the senseless dogmas and\nsuperstitions of Christianity. Such \"painful consequences\" will always\nfollow in any country the enlightenment and expansion of the minds of\nthe people by a thorough acquaintance with the principles of science and\nliterature. It is just as natural as that light should dispel darkness;\nand that is exactly what is realized in such cases. Mr. Allen's\nstatement that motives of worldly policy restrains many of the educated\nyoung men of India from avowing their real convictions on the subject\nof religion shows that the same spirit of mental _surveillance_ and\npriestly despotism prevails in India that prevails in all Christian\ncountries, and prevents thousands from letting their real sentiments be\nknown. And this mental slavery has filled the world with hypocrites;\nbut it will soon burst its bonds in India, or would, if the two hundred\nChristian missionaries could be called home. And then I would suggest\nthat the tide of missionary emigration be reversed, and that some of\nthose highly enlightened, educated men of India be sent to throw some\nlight upon this country. Mr. Allen, in the continuation of his subject,\nstates that the government councils of education in India are publishing\nvarious works on science and literature,--the production of the minds of\nits own citizens,--and that they have published a large number of works\nof this character within a few years past. And he states that, \"if\nthis course is continued, India will soon have a valuable indigenous\nliterature\" (p. 321). This statement tends to enlighten us still further\nas to the cause of the recent rapid spread of infidelity in that\ncountry; for science and literature are certain to precede infidelity.\nBut he complains that the government system of education, which simply\nteaches science without superstition, while \"it is destroying the\nconfidence of the people in their own system of religion, is also\nintroducing speculation, skepticism, and deism\" (p. 321). If he were an\nenlightened philosopher, he would understand that this is the legitimate\noperation of cause and effect. Mr. Allen, in concluding this sketch of\nthe rapid progress of skepticism in India, says there are many thousands\nin India who have passed from conviction of the falsehood of the Hindoo\nreligion into a state of skepticism and indifference to all religion,\nunless when the progress of Christianity now and then rouses them\nto oppose it. This must be cheering news to every enlightened\nphilanthropist. This whole sketch of Mr. Allen's is very interesting,\nas it discloses the real causes of infidelity or skepticism in all\nreligion? countries, and shows that every form of superstition is giving\nway and sinking before the march of science, literature, and education\nin the most populous nation on the globe. It is indeed a soul-cheering\nthought. And where is there a Christian professor who is so bigoted as\nnot to derive the hint from these historical facts that he can find the\ncause of his rigid adherence to his own religion, with all its errors,\nby simply placing his hands on his head? It is true. There are, however,\nmany persons who still believe in an erroneous system of religion,\nsimply because they have had no opportunity of obtaining light on the\nsubject.\n\nII. SECTS AND INFIDELS IN GREECE AND ROME.\n\nWhen we arrive at Greece we find a nation possessing a mental caliber\nseldom equaled, and furnishing many philosophers with brains sufficient\nto enable them to see through the errors and the absurdities of any\nsystem of religion. Hence infidels were more numerous than sectarians;\nand those infidels (better known as philosophers) nearly succeeded,\nby the force of superior logic and wisdom, in banishing all systems of\nreligious superstition from the nation. But questions of controversy\nwere more on philosophical subjects than on religious themes; because\nthe dogmas of the popular religion of Greece, like that of all other\ncountries, were so absurd that the Grecian philosophers could dispose\nof them without much mental effort. As a proof and illustration of\nthis statement, we will cite the case of Stilpo, who, on being asked\nby Crates (B.C. 331) whether he believed that God took any pleasure in\nbeing worshiped by mortals, replied, \"Thou fool, don't question me upon\nsuch absurdities in the public streets, but wait till we are alone.\"\n\nGreece, and also Rome, furnished intellectual minds of a high order; and\nall their numerous philosophers were skeptical on the prevailing forms\nof religion in those and other nations. It will be observed, then,\nthat nearly all the religious orders of antiquity gave rise to numerous\nsects, and also numerous infidels and skeptics, _alias_ philosophers.\n\nIII. SECTS AND SKEPTICS IN EGYPT.\n\nAncient Egypt was characterized by a considerable amount of intellectual\nmind, and no inconsiderable proficiency in the arts and sciences. And\nhence, as would naturally be expected, a considerable portion of her\npeople, in the course of time, broke from the trammels of the popular\nreligious faith, and became infidel to all the systems and sects in the\nnation; while those of a secondary order of intellect abandoned some\ndogmas, modified others, and started new sects. This gave offense to\nthe parental religious order, which resulted in one or two cases in a\nserious quarrel, though not with the bloody and deadly results which\nhave marked the religious quarrels among the sects and followers of \"the\nPrince of peace,\" which have been so sanguine, cruel, and bloody, as to\nleave eighteen million human beings on the battle-field, or consumed by\nfire, or consigned to a watery grave. Religious wars among the heathen\nhave not been half so fiendish or fatal as those waged by the disciples\nof the cross. The number of sects in Egypt is not known, but they were\nnumerous.\n\nIV. SECTS AND SKEPTICS IN CHINA.\n\nChina, though characterized by less mental activity than most other\nreligious nations, has had her sects and her skeptics, and not a very\nsmall number of the former, though less in proportion to her religious\npopulation than either Egypt, India, Persia, Chaldea, or Arabia. Some\nof her sects manifested a disposition to borrow dogmas from other\nreligions; while others attempted an improvement on the ancient faith\nestablished by Confucius, although in its moral aspects it was the best\nsystem of religion extant. The oldest sect known was founded by Laotse,\nand was known as Taotse. His religion differed more from that of\nConfucius with respect to its ceremonies than its doctrines. On the\nwhole, there has not been sufficient intellectual growth in China to\nproduce any very marked changes in the long-established religion of the\ncountry. Innovation and religious improvement in China are checked and\nalmost prevented by a sort of ecclesiastical tribunal, which has existed\nfrom time immemorial, known as \"the Court of Rites,\" which is invested\nwith authority to suppress religious innovation, and thus put an\nextinguisher on infidelity.\n\nV. PERSIAN SECTS AND SKEPTICS.\n\nPersia has possessed sufficient intellectual mind to make very\nconsiderable changes in her religion. According to tradition, she was\nonce overrun with idolatry. But now, and for at least three or\nfour thousand years (and before the time of Moses), that nation has\nmanifested the greatest abhorrence to images, excelling in this respect\neven Moses, who probably borrowed his antipathy to idolatry from that\ncountry. Sects have arisen which have condemned not only the doctrines\nof the primary system, but its mode of worship. There has been\nconsiderable controversy among the sects in Persia upon the question\nwhether God should be worshiped in temples made with hands, or in the\nopen air; also with respect to the origin of evil, and whether the\nDevil (Ahrimanes) was eternal, or co-eternal with God (Ormuzd). These\nquestions of dispute, and various others, have given rise to more than\nseventy different sects; while the most intellectual and best improved\nminds have outgrown and renounced them all, and assumed the character of\ninfidels.\n\nVI. MAHOMEDAN SKEPTICS AND SECTS.\n\nMahomedans have paid very particular attention to education, and the\ncultivation of the arts and sciences, and have produced and published a\nnumber of literary works. A number of scientific men have arisen among\nthem from time to time; and schools and colleges have been established,\nin which many have obtained a literary and scientific education, Hence\nthere will be no difficulty in understanding why thousands of infidels\nor skeptics have arisen amongst them, and avowed their disbelief in the\nreligion of the Koran. Some of them have spent much time in writing and\nspeaking in their attempts to expose its errors and absurdities; and\na large number of sects have sprung up amongst them from time to time,\nnumbering, on the whole, not less than fifty. All these sects mark the\nprogress of religious thought; and each sect made some improvement in\nthe prevailing creeds and dogmas, or some of the religious customs and\nceremonials. One of the oldest and principal sects was the Sabeans, who\nclaim to be the original founders of the Mahomedan religion. They are\nvery devout, pray three times a day,--morning, noon, and evening. They\nalso observe three annual fasts, offer animal sacrifices, and practice\ncircumcision, and cherish other foolish customs, and preach other\nsuperstitious doctrines, which the cultivation of the sciences has had\nthe effect to open the eyes of some of its devotees to see the absurdity\nof. Hence they have left, and founded new sects with new and improved\ncreeds. In this way a great many new sects have sprung up from time to\ntime, as in Christian countries, which marks the progress of religious\nimprovement. A great amount of religious controversy has been carried\non between these belligerent sects, which has had the effect, to some\nextent, to liberalize all. One of the largest And most important of\nthese sects has arisen in modern times,--\"the anti-Ramazan\" sect,--which\nnow numbers not less than forty thousand adherents. They discard the\nfeast of Ramazan, condemn polygamy, and contend that no man ought to\nbe persecuted for his religious opinions or his infidelity. It will be\nperceived they are somewhat radical; and this is easily accounted for.\nTheir origin dates since the dawn of literature in that country; and\nthey number in their ranks the best educated, most enlightened and\nintelligent professors of the Mahomedan faith. Here is suggested again\nthe cause of infidelity, or the act of outgrowing the popular faith,\nwhich has characterized a portion of the disciples of nearly every\nform of religion known to history. Some of the Mahomedan sects rose up\nagainst one form of popular superstition, and some another. One sect\nopposed the prevailing belief in a physical resurrection, and argued\nthat the soul rises only as a spiritual entity. Another sect opposed and\nexposed the absurdity and obscenity of the rite of circumcision. Another\nargued that punishment after death would be but for a limited period.\nAnother sect opposed the savage superstition of animal sacrifice,\n&c. While the mother institution, which worshiped in the ancient,\nmoss-covered mosque, condemned them all as infidels; but none of them\nseem to have possessed the amount of intellectual acumen or scientific\nintelligence to enable them to perceive that the whole system was\ndefective. Hence they labored to improve it, instead of laboring to\ndestroy it, and supply the place with something better; though\nhundreds and thousands of the educated classes had their mental vision\nsufficiently enlightened and expanded to enable them to see truth beyond\nthe narrow confines of creeds and dogmas. Hence they abandoned their\nlong-cherished religious errors, and have since lent their influence to\nexpose them, and put them down.\n\n     \"Thus round and round we run;\n     And ever the truth comes uppermost,\n     And ever is justice done.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LVII.--SECTS, SCHISMS, AND SKEPTICS IN CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES.\n\nThe practical history of Christianity, ever since the dawn of\ncivilization, has been that of schisms, sects, and divisions, all\nindicating the natural growth of the human mind, and its thirst for\nknowledge, its struggles for freedom, and its unalterable determination\nto be as free as the eagle that soars above the clouds. The number of\nchurch sects is estimated to be more than five hundred, and the number\nis still increasing. And the multiplication of infidels has kept pace\nwith the increase of the churches; and skeptics are now increasing much\nmore rapidly than converts to the churches. This fact accounts for the\nlamentations with which church organs and religious magazines an now\nfilled with respect to the rapid falling off of church membership,\nand the decline of church attendance. The people are rapidly outgrowing\ntheir creeds and dogmas. This causes the decline of the churches. We\nwill cite a few facts by way of illustration: A recent number of \"The\nChristian Era\" states that there has been twenty-two thousand more\ndeserters from the Baptist Church than conversions to it within the\nbrief period of five years. This does not look like converting the\nworld, as they have avowed their determination to do. And the Methodist\nChurch, according to \"The Watchman and Reflector.\" is losing its members\nstill faster: several thousand have left within the past year. \"Zion's\nWatchman\" presents us with a still sadder picture of the evangelical\nchurches in general. It states that religion is on the decline in all\nthose churches, and that in some of them it is rapidly dying out. It\nstates, that, where one new church is erected, two are shut up; and\nconcludes by saying, \"Zion indeed languisheth, and religion is at a low\nebb.\" It means churchianity religion; \"for pure religion and undefiled,\"\nthe outgrowth of modern intelligence, is on the increase, and increases\nin the ratio of the decline of the churches. The cause of Zion in old\nEngland appears to be in as lamentable a condition as in this country.\nA recent number of \"The English Recorder\" makes the solemn declaration\nthat there are five millions of people living without the means of grace\nin that one province, and that, if arranged in a continuous line in\nsingle file, they would reach the distance of fourteen miles. This is\nrather a large number of immortal souls to be traveling the broad road\nin one nation. And we are informed that in Canada a large number of the\npeople have no religion, and are on the road to infidelity. To return to\nthis country: A colporteur of the American Bible Society informs us that\nthree-fourths of the citizens of Philadelphia, and four-fifths of those\nof New York and vicinity, have no religion, and no faith in the religion\nof the Bible. They must therefore be set down as infidels. And the\nAmerican Christian Commission, which assembled not long since in New\nYork, has made some startling developments with respect to the decline\nof church attendance throughout the country. This body, I believe,\nrepresents nearly all the evangelical churches, and is composed\nprincipally of clergymen. They have had census committees traveling\nthe whole country over to ascertain the proportionate number of\nchurch-members and church-goers in every city, town, and village in the\ncountry. Their report is really astonishing; and, as figures will\nnot lie, these reports prove that the orthodox churches are rapidly\ndeclining. As indicative of the state of the whole country, look at the\ncondition of some of our large cities. This vigilance committee tells\nus that three-fourths of the citizens of St. Louis never attend church,\nmaking about two hundred thousand out of the whole population. And in\nBoston, according to their figures, the proportion of church-members and\nchurch-goers is still smaller, being only about one-fifth, which leaves\ntwo hundred thousand persons \"out in the cold;\" but it is a kind of\ncold that is very comfortable compared with the cold, chilling dogmas of\northodoxy. Statistics similar to the above are furnished for many of the\ncities, towns, and villages throughout the country, by which it appears\nthat many people are forsaking these old, obsolete institutions, and\nthat the credal churches are really in a dying condition. The State\nof Vermont, taking it at large, furnishes a moral lesson worthy of\nimitation. It is one of the best educated, moral, enlightened, and\nintelligent States in the Union. Crime is but little known compared with\nthe world at large; and yet only about one in twenty of her citizens\nis a sound church-member. Thus we see that Vermont is about the best\neducated and most moral State in the Union, and, at the same time, the\nmost infidel State. Put this and that together. It will be seen at once\nthat education, intelligence, morality, and infidelity go hand in hand;\nand that morality grows out of infidelity, instead of Christianity; and\nthat science and infidelity, and not the Bible or Christianity, are\nto be the great levers and instrumentalities for reforming the world.\nWhere, then, is the moral force of Christianity, so much talked of by\nthe clergy? And we have it, upon the authority of this national body of\nclergymen, that there are not a sufficient number of church edifices\nin the country to hold one-half of the people if they wished to attend\n\"divine service;\" and that, on an an average, the churches are not half\nfilled on the sabbath.\n\nFrom this statement it is evident that only about one-fifth are\nchurch-goers; and a large number of these are not church-members, but\nattend, as the committees state, for mere pastime. This state of things\nforms a striking contrast with the condition of things only eighty or a\nhundred years ago, when nearly everybody attended church. To sum up the\nthing in a few words, the case stands about thus: A hundred years ago\nfrom three-fourths to nine-tenths of the people were church-attendants,\nand the most of them church-members; but now not more than one in eight\nor ten is a church-adherent, and not the half of these are sound or full\nbelievers. A gentleman: who has recently traveled in every State in the\nUnion for the purpose of critically investigating the matter, concludes,\nas the result of his inquiries; that not one in fifteen of the entire\npopulation of the United States is a sound orthodox believer. This,\ncontrasted with the state of the country and churches a hundred years\nago, shows the difference is great, and that the decline of the orthodox\nfaith is rapid, and their approach to their final destiny swift and\nsure. Calculating from the present rates of decrease in church interest\nand belief in church creeds, there will not be an orthodox church in\nexistence sixty years from this time. Truly does the committee making\nthis report say, \"The state of the churches is alarming\", but it is only\nalarming to the unprogressive adherents to old, musty, mind-crushing\ncreeds and dogmas. To us it is not alarming, but cause of rejoicing,\nin view of the fact that the disappearance of these old soul-crushing\ninstitutions will give place to the glorious and grand truths of the\nHarmonial philosophy,--a religion adapted to the true wants of the soul,\nand calculated to save both soul and body from every thing which now\nmars their health, beauty, and happiness. Then every one can \"sit under\nhis own vine and fig-tree, where none can make him afraid\" of orthodox\ndevils or an angry God. We bring these things to notice for the purpose\nof showing that a religious body which persists in preaching, from year\nto year and from age to age, the same creed, dogmas, and catechisms,\nwithout any improvement, or even conceding the possibility that they can\nbe improved, will fall behind the times, and finally be abandoned by\nall growing and intelligent minds. They cease to answer the moral and\nspiritual wants of the people, and become as cramping to their souls as\nthe Chinese wooden shoes would be to their feet. \"Excelsior, onward and\nupward,\" is the motto for this age. And that institution, whether moral,\nreligious, or political, which obstinately refuses to live out this\nmotto, will die as certainly as that the stopping the circulation of the\nblood will produce death.\n\nHaving spoken of the decadence of the churches, we will now look at the\ncounter-picture,--the progress of infidelity. And here we observe that\nleading church-members not only confess to the decline of the churches,\nbut concede, on the other hand, that what they are pleased to stigmatize\nas infidelity is rapidly increasing. We will refer to some of their\nalarming reports. A recent number of \"Scribner's Monthly\" says, that\n\"at this very moment a black cloud of skepticism covers the whole moral\nhorizon;\" and the Right Reverend Bishop of Winchester corroborates the\nstatement by exclaiming, \"Infidelity is everywhere: it colors all our\nphilosophy and our commonplace religion.\" Professor Fisher, in a warning\nnote to Christian professors, says but few religious teachers are aware\nof the strength of the infidel party, and the alarming prevalence of\ninfidelity throughout the country,--that \"it pervades all classes of\nsociety, and is in the very atmosphere we breathe.\" If this be true,\nthat infidelity pervades the atmosphere, then all must inhale it, and\nbecome contaminated by it, and thus become infidels naturally, and in\nspite of any godly resistance. Hence they should not be blamed for what\nthey can not help. The Rev. David K. Nelson, author of \"The Cause and\nCure of Infidelity,\" makes some wonderful concessions in regard to the\nalarming prevalence of infidelity among the higher classes. He tells\nus that three-fourths of the editors of our popular newspapers are\ninfidels, that nearly all our law-makers are infidels, and that \"even\nthe Church itself is full of infidels.\" If these statements are to be\ncredited, the reverend gentleman may as well abandon all efforts to\narrest it; for it evidently has the reins of government, and can't be\nstopped, and will ultimately rule the nation, and finally the world.\nThen will we have a rational religion; then will the millennium, so long\npredicted by seers and sung of by poets, be ushered in as an earthly\nparadise. This statement of Mr. Nelson's is corroborated by the\nreligious magazines of the day. \"The American Quarterly Review\" asserts\nthat seventeen-twentieths or the people are tinctured with infidelity.\nThis leaves but a small handful of the faithful and zealous defenders\nof the \"faith once delivered to the saints.\" The editor of \"The Baptist\nExaminer\" says that a member of the United-States Senate remarked to\nhim, \"There are, I assure you, but very few members of this body who\nbelieve in your evangelical religion.\" This is confirmatory of the\nstatement frequently made in this work, that our current religion is\nnot adapted to the times; that it is practically outgrown by the better\ninformed classes of society. Mr. Beecher says, \"Four-fifths of\nthe educated young men of the age are infidels.\" Take notice, \"the\n_educated_.\" Here is further evidence that infidelity and intelligence\nare almost synonymous terms,--further proof that education and\nintelligence alone are needed to banish Christian superstition from the\nworld.\n\nLet it be borne in mind that infidelity, in its true sense, simply means\nwant of faith in the worn-out creeds and dogmas of past ages, but no\nlack of faith in any thing good and true. If we were to accept the\northodox definition of infidelity,--\"Want of faith in the precepts and\npractice of Christ,\"--then it would apply to every Christian professor\non earth. There is not one of them that is not tinctured more or less\nwith this kind of infidelity. There is not a Christian professor who\nbelieves as Jesus Christ did, or who practices the life he did. For\nexample: no civilized Christian in this enlightened age believes\nwith Christ that disease is produced by devils, and that, to cure the\n\"obsessed,\" the diabolical intruder must be cast out \"of the inner man.\"\nIn this and other respects all enlightened Christian professors of the\npresent day differ from the precepts and examples of Christ; hence,\nstrictly speaking, are not Christians, but infidels. And we are\nwarranted in saying that Christ himself, if living in this more\nenlightened and scientific age, would reject some of the superstitious\nnotions which he cherished in common with the religions professors\nof that dark and illiterate era. He was most devoutly honest, but very\nignorant on scientific subjects. Here permit us to note the fact that a\nvery great change has taken place within half a century in the practical\nlives, as well as the religious views, of those who still profess\nto believe in the Christian faith. The time has been when nearly all\nreligious professors, including even officers under the government, kept\na diary of their religious experience, about which they talked whenever\nthey met together; daily engaged in vocal prayer, and daily read their\nBibles and catechisms; and the latter many of them committed to memory.\nBut now it is doubtful whether one-half of even the clergy themselves\never read it. And as for the Bible, which used to be read every day by\nChristian professors, probably not one-half of them ever see inside\nof it once in six months, unless it is when they wish to settle some\ncontroverted question in theology. Some modern works of fiction or of\ntravel have taken the place of \"the Holy Book\" on the centre-table,\nwhile the newspaper has supplanted the catechism. These are some of the\nextraordinary changes which have recently taken place, and are still\nrapidly going on, in the practical lives of Christian professors, which\ntend to show that their faith is daily growing weaker in the soul-saving\nefficacy of their religion, or in the belief that it possesses any\nintrinsic importance. This rapid decline in practical Christianity will\nland nearly all its professors on the shores of infidelity in less than\nhalf a century.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LVIII.--MODERN CHRISTIANITY ONE-HALF INFIDELITY.\n\nWhen Martin Luther left the Roman-Catholic Church, and adopted the\nmotto, \"Liberty to investigate,\" he sounded the death-knell of\nevery orthodox church that should afterwards spring up outside the\njurisdiction of the Pope. Luther was bigotedly orthodox, and something\nof a tyrant: but he had more intellectual brain and mind than most men\nof his time; and that intellectual ability, though warped by education\nand enchained by bigotry and superstition, struggled for freedom as\nminds of that character always do. Luther commenced reasoning (most\nunfortunate for his orthodoxy); but he had been living in the murky\natmosphere of superstition all his life, and preaching a creed that had\nbeen stereotyped for a thousand years: so that his reasoning powers had\nbeen much weakened, and he had not sufficient intellectual light to see\nhis way out of the dark prison-house of superstition in which the whole\nChristian Church was then enslaved. But he had intellect enough, when\nexercised, to convince him there was something wrong in the popular\nreligion of the times; and he commenced reasoning, though in a very\nnarrow circle. He did not attack orthodoxy, but only the tyranny of\nits misrule and the audacity of the Pope. It was only a reasoning mind\nbeginning to feel the impulse of intellectual growth. The method which\nhe adopted--\"liberty to investigate\"--was a dangerous experiment for\northodoxy, and will yet prove the death-warrant of all Protestant\nchurches. The Pope has adopted the only true policy for keeping the\nlight of the grand truths of science and infidelity from entering the\ndarkened doors and windows of the Church, and producing schisms and\ndisputes,--that of binding the intellect in chains, and laying it\nat the feet of the Pope. But Luther, by adopting the motto, \"Liberty to\ninvestigate,\" set some orthodox minds to thinking and reasoning; and a\nreligious mind that is allowed to think for itself will eventually think\nand reason its way out of its soul-enslaving creed, or at least make\nsome progress in that direction. Hence, ever since Luther adopted this\ngrand motto, the Christian Church (except that part kept in fetters by\nthe Pope) has been gradually moving every hour since Luther entered upon\nthis hazardous experiment of allowing religionists to reason and think\nfor themselves. Orthodoxy has been growing weaker. It is becoming\ngradually diluted with the grand truths of science, and now entertains\nbroader and more enlightened views, Thus this bigoted spirit of\northodoxy is dying by inches. Its days are numbered; and the last\northodox Protestant church will die in less than a century.\n\nThis is no mere visionary dream or random guess-work: it is a scientific\nproblem, which can be proved and demonstrated by figures. The progress\nof the churches in the past, in permitting the truths of science and the\ninfidelity of the age to displace its mind-crushing dogmas, and modify\nits creeds, furnishes a certain criterion for calculating their final\ndestiny; and, by this rule, we are assured its years will be few. Let\nus look and see what progress the Protestant churches have already made\ntowards \"abandoning the faith once delivered to the saints.\" Some of\nthem are much farther advanced in the line of progress than others; and\neach new church that has sprung up since the days of Luther dates a new\nera in the religious progress and onward march of infidelity; and yet\neach one professed to be sound in the faith, and forbid any one to\nadvance beyond its landmarks. Every one proclaimed, Thus far shalt thou\ngo, and no farther, in the line of religious progress. We will notice\nthem in their order. The old Romish Church held all Chris-tians in its\niron grasp for eleven hundred years, and hung its dark curtains in\nthe moral heavens to exclude the light of science. Reason was held\nin chains, and the intellect crushed beneath the foot of popish\ninfallibility. But, after this night of intellectual darkness, Luther\nrebelled, and broke the spell, and set what little intellect there was\nleft in the Church to thinking.\n\nIts doctrines were heathenish. It taught the infallibility of the Pope,\nand the divinity of the Virgin Mary. In this respect they were more\nconsistent than the Protestant churches; for the divinity of Christ\npresupposes the divinity of both his parents, otherwise he would be\nhalf human and half divine. It also teaches the doctrine of election and\nreprobation, endless punishment, and other silly superstitions. In this\nstate of mental darkness Greek literature made an attempt to invade\nits ranks and dispel its ignorance with the light of science, but\nfailed,--not, however, until it had let a few gleams of light into the\nintellectual brain of some of the best minds, and set them to thinking.\nThis caused a few members to reject the infallibility of the Pope, and a\ndivision in the Church was the consequence.\n\nA new Church was instituted, which received the name of \"the Greek\nChurch.\" Here we find a slight improvement in the Christian creed. The\nGreek Christians rejected the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope,\nbut still held to the divinity of the Virgin Mary, and all the other\nsenseless dogmas of the Church. But, as it abandoned one of the most\npopular but unreasonable doctrines of the Church, it was an important\nstep toward advancement. They did not, however, look upon it in that\nlight, but declared it was the true doctrine of the Bible, and here\nplanted their stakes, and forbade any further improvement. After\ngathering a Church of seventy million souls, another night of\nintellectual darkness set in, and continued for four hundred years;\nwhich brings us down to the fifteenth century, when Luther rebelled\nagainst the Pope, and again broke the spell of mental lethargy and\nintellectual darkness, and set what little intellectual mind there was\nleft in the Church to thinking. Another slight improvement was made in\nthe Christian creed. The Lutherans not only rejected the doctrine of the\ninfallibility of the Pope but also the divinity of the Virgin Mary, but\nhere stopped, and planted their stakes, and issued a bull to interdict\nfurther progress; but the ball, once set in motion, can not be stopped.\nAs well attempt to bind the ocean with a rope of sand as to attempt to\nstop the march of thought when one link is broken which binds it to the\nJuggernaut of superstition. This is true, however, of but few minds. But\nfew church-members possess thought and independence enough to advance\nfaster than their leaders. Luther did not live long enough to outgrow\nall the superstitious dogmas in which he had been educated; but he made\nsuch rapid progress in infidelity that he condemned the doctrines\nof eleven books of, the Bible, and consequently rejected them; viz.,\nChronicles, Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Esther, Joshua, Jonah, Hebrews,\nJames, Jude, and Revelation. He was then an infidel with respect\nto eleven books of the Bible; and, had he lived in an age of progress\nlike the present, he would have become an out-and-out infidel. But\nthe mass of his followers did not possess minds so susceptible of\nintellectual growth: hence they lived and died in faith with the creeds\nhe made for them. There were, however, a few exceptions to this rule. In\nall ages and all religious countries, and under every form of religion,\nthere have been a few minds gifted with thought and reason beyond that\nof the multitude.\n\nA few of this class figured under Lutherism, who eventually, by virtue\nof their tendency to mental growth, discovered some defects in his creed\nand system of faith. Among this number was Arminius, who rejected the\ndoctrine of total depravity, original sin, the eucharist, purgatory,\n&c., and, with this change of Lutherism, founded what became known as\nthe Arminian Church: but as no mind and no set of minds in any age have\npossessed the mental capacity to discover all error, or to grasp all\ntruth, so Arminius only outgrew a few of the erroneous dogmas of\nthe Christian faith, and then stopped, and planted his stakes, and\nstereotyped his creed; and any opinion or doctrine that advanced beyond\nthat was infidelity. He did not live quite long enough to discover\nthe absurdity of the atonement and an endless hell, and hence those\ndoctrines are found in his creed; but the change he made in the popular\nreligion furnishes another indubitable proof of the progress of mind,\nand the progressive improvement of the religion of Christianity, and\nanother proof of the steady progress Christianity has made towards\ninfidelity. So distinct and marked have been these changes, that they\nfurnish data for calculating proximately the period when the last\ndogma shall drop out of the creeds of the churches, and bring them into\nconformity to the teachings of reason and science,--in other words,\nwhen Christianity shall merge into infidelity. And what is meant by\ninfidelity is the want of faith in the false and morally injurious\ndogmas of the superstitious ages.\n\nAnother step in the road of religious progress brings us to the\nUnitarian Church. Here we find still longer strides in the direction\nof the Christian faith towards infidelity. The Unitarians rejected the\ndoctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ.\n\nAnd why? Simply because the founders of that church had expansive\nintellectual minds that enabled them to perceive the absurdity and\nlogical impossibility of the truth of the doctrine. Their enlightened\nreasoning powers enabled them to discover these objections to the\ndoctrine: viz. (1) The impossibility of incorporating an infinite\nbeing into a finite body or into the human body; (2) the absurdity of\nconsidering any being on earth a God while there was acknowledged to be\none in heaven, making at least two Gods; (3) the difficulty of accepting\nthe Bible history of Christ as furnishing proof of his divinity, while\nit invests him with all the qualities of a human being. These and\nnumerous other absurdities, which are treated of in \"The World's Sixteen\nCrucified Saviors,\" lead them to reject the doctrine of the divinity of\nChrist, while most other Protestant churches consider a belief in the\ndoctrine essential to salvation.\n\nThus they make a long leap towards infidelity. Having intellectually\noutgrown the doctrine, they set themselves to work to get it out of the\nBible. This was no difficult task: for as many texts as may be found in\nthe New Testament in favor of the doctrine, a much larger number may\nbe cited in opposition to it. And a similar history may be given of the\nUniversalist Church. It, too, has run into infidelity. The doctrine of\nUniversal salvation is a beautiful doctrine: it had its origin in the\nnoblest and kindest feelings of the human mind. Messrs. Murray and\nBallou, founders of the church, were men of broad philanthropy and human\nsympathy, and possessed the kindest feelings. Such men could not brook\nthe idea of endless misery for a single soul in God's universe. They\nwere also men of a liberal endowment of reason and logical perception,\nand hence rejected the doctrine from logical considerations also.\nBeing intellectual and intelligent men, they became convinced that the\ndoctrine was wrong. They set themselves to work to get it out of the\nBible. Their object in doing this was more to save the credit of the\nBible than to make it an authority to sustain their own position. The\nBible being a many-stringed instrument, on which you can play any tune,\nthey found about as little difficulty in disproving the doctrine by the\nBible as others do in establishing the doctrine by that authority. It is\nwonderful with what ease and facility a dozen conflicting doctrines\nmay be drawn from the same text. This is because all human language\nis ambiguous, and that of the Bible pre-eminently so; and this fact\ndemonstrates the absolute impossibility of settling any controverted\ntheological question by the Bible. Controversialists who should argue a\nquestion before a jury on Bible ground, for a week or a month, should,\nin most cases, have a verdict given in favor of both parties; for,\nusually, both \"beat,\" and also get beaten. Universalists, taking\nadvantage of this ambiguity and uncertainty of Bible language, are now\nable to show that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in\nthe Book. They succeeded in ruling the doctrine out of all the punitive\nterms to be found in \"Holy Writ.\" The word \"devil,\" on being traced\nto its origin, was found to be a contraction of \"do evil.\" With this\ndiscovery they cast the \"devil\" out of their Bible. The word \"hell\" was\nfound to be derived from the Saxon word \"hole;\" and hence, if it have\nany application in the case, must mean \"Symm's Hole.\" \"Hell-fire\"\noriginally meant a fire kindled in the vicinity of Jerusalem to consume\nthe offal of the city. And thus, according to Universalism, the doctrine\nof future endless torment is no longer a Christian doctrine; and,\nwhether their position is correct or not, it is rather comforting to\nbelieve that none of us are to be eternally roasted in the future life,\nand that even Satan himself has been released from the \"painful duty\" of\nruling that kingdom. The history of both the Unitarian and Universalist\nChurches furnishes evidence of the rapid advancement of Christianity\ntoward infidelity; and also the conclusion that the natural desires and\nmoral feelings, and also the reasoning faculties, have much to do in\nforming the opinions of Christian professors as to whether certain\ndoctrines are taught in the Bible,--whether they are scriptural or\nantiscriptural. The wish is often father to the belief. Just let a\ncertain Bible doctrine become repugnant to the natural feelings of some\npious professor, or at war with his enlightened reason, or instinctively\nrepulsive to his moral sense, and he will find some way to convince\nhimself that it is not a Bible doctrine. A new light springing up in the\nmind has, in many cases, led to new and improved interpretations of the\nBible. It seems strange, indeed, that none of the two hundred millions\nof Christian professors have been able to discover that it is the\nimprovement of the moral and intellectual faculties that has done so\nmuch to improve the doctrines and general teachings of the Bible in\nmodern times. The old absurdities and heathenish ideas of the Bible\nare pumped out by the clerical force-pump, and a new set of ideas\nsubstituted in their place. This keeps it from falling immeasurably\nbehind the times. It is a work of moral necessity to keep it from being\ncondemned and set aside, or trampled under foot. Christian professors\ncan all find abundant scripture to prove any thing they desire to prove;\nbut let them change their belief, and adopt the opposite doctrine,\nand they can find as much scripture to prove that also. There is no\ndifficulty in making out any kind of a creed or code of faith that may\nbe desired. Hence a man may change his creed or his conduct as often as\nhe pleases, and still be a Christian, or fit least pass for one.\n\nWho that is not blinded by priestcraft, or a false religious education,\ncan not see that it was the natural growth of the moral and intellectual\nfaculties which gave rise to those new churches to which I have\nreferred, with their new and improved interpretation of the Bible? Step\nby step along the pathway of human progress, the churches are forced\nagainst all resistance to make occasional improvements in their creeds;\nbut so strong is their resistance to any change, and so determined\nto keep their creeds and dogmas unalterably stereotyped, that their\nimprovements are too slow to suit the most progressive minds amongst\nthem. Hence they leave the churches to which they have been tied, and\nin some cases form new ones, with new creeds, better adapted to the\nimproved taste and improved moral code of the times. There is not a\nProtestant church in existence that does not furnish incontestable\nproof that Christian doctrines are perpetually changing. There is not a\nProtestant church that is not on the high road to infidelity. They have\nall unconsciously broken loose from the old landmarks. There is not one\nof them that is not now preaching doctrines which they would fifty or\nsixty years ago have denounced as infidelity. This may be to some a\nstartling statement, but I will prove it.\n\nI have pointed out numerous changes in doctrines made by all the modern\nchurches, and their rapid tendency to infidelity. I will now show that\nthe churches from which they emanated, on account of their immobility\nand conservativeness, have also made radical changes in their creeds,\nand are moving on in the same direction, being pushed forward by the\nirresistible tide of modern innovation and improvement. They have made\nmore or less change in nearly all the doctrines of their creeds. Then\nlook at the numerous doctrines once regarded as the very essence of\nChristianity, which they have entirely abandoned. We will enumerate some\nof them: The doctrine of casting out devils; the doctrine of a lake\nof fire and brimstone; the doctrine of Christ's descent into hell; the\ndoctrine of purgatory (these two last-named doctrines, Mr. Sears says,\n\"were once the doctrines of the Church universal, which nobody called\nin dispute\"); the doctrine of election and reprobation, fore-ordination;\nthe doctrine of infant damnation; the doctrine of polygamy, &c. These\nwere all once regarded as prime articles of the Christian faith; and\nmost of them were preached by all the churches: and now they are all\nabandoned by most of the churches; thus showing that they improve their\ncreeds as they advance in light and knowledge. Thus the enlightenment of\ntheir own minds leads them to preach more enlightened doctrines, which\nthey erroneously suppose are the teachings of the Book, when they are\nreally the product of their own minds. The Indian, when he halloos\nto the distant hills and receives back the echo of his own voice,\nerroneously supposes some one is responding to him. In like manner,\nChristians, when reading and interpreting their Bible, receive the echo\nof their own minds, which they mistake for the response of the Bible\nwriters, and the true meaning of the text. Each new church, springing up\nfrom time to time, is founded on some new interpretation of the Bible,\nand flatters itself, that, for the first time since the establishment of\nChristianity, it has found the true key for unlocking all the mysteries\nand explaining all the doctrines of the Bible; and that all the churches\nwhich preceded it were in the dark, each of which interpreted the same\ntexts differently, with the same conviction that they had found the true\nkey for laying open the hidden mysteries of the \"word of God.\" But the\nprobability is, that if the Bible writers could be called up from their\ngraves, and interrogated about the matter, they would declare that not\none of the churches had guessed at the real meaning of those texts which\nthey are quarreling about the meaning of; that they are all far from the\nmark; and that they have all saddled a meaning on the texts which the\nwriters never intended, and never thought of, and would make them smile\nto hear of,--though, in many cases, they have made decided improvements\non the original meaning, so as to make them more acceptable to the\nenlightened and thinking and intelligent minds of the age. This saves\nthe Book from being rejected. Did the clergy preach the same doctrine\nthey did fifty or a hundred years ago, they would find themselves minus\na congregation. It is the improvement they are constantly making in\nthe Bible that keeps up its reputation, and saves it from the ruinous\ncriticisms and condemnations of the scientific men of the age. And yet\nthese changes are wrought unconsciously to the great mass of Christian\nprofessors; and many of them would have been startled had they been told\nin early life that the time would come when they would believe as they\ndo now,--perhaps horrified at the thought,--and would have denounced it\nas the rankest infidelity. The question, then, naturally arises here,\nWhere is the use of erecting standards of faith, when you believe one\nthing to-day and another to-morrow? You admit you were mistaken in the\nbelief you entertained a few years ago; and in a few years more, if you\nhave a progressive mind, you will admit that your present position is\nwrong, and susceptible of improvement. Every Christian professor of much\nintelligence makes some improvement in his creed in the course of\nhis life. Hence it is impossible for him to know what he will believe\nto-morrow, or how much more of an infidel he will be than he is to-day.\nOne change makes way for another. The wheels of progress move steadily\nonward: they never stop, and never run backward. It is impossible, after\nyou have made the slightest change and improvement in your religious\nbelief, which is a step in the direction of infidelity, to know how many\nsteps you will take in the future. You may resolve and re-resolve, as\nmost religious professors do, that there shall be no change in your\npresent views; but that will not prevent it. One change proves not only\nthe possibility, but the probability, of another change. Martin Luther\nonce believed, like Rev. Dr. Cheever of New York that, \"There is not the\nshadow of a shade of error in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation;\"\nand yet he afterwards found eleven books of the Bible so full of errors,\nthat he decided they were not divinely inspired, and rejected them from\nhis creed: and, had he lived fifty years later, he might have rejected\nall the other books of the Bible, and become as rank an infidel as Paine\nand Voltaire. They became infidel to the whole Bible in the same way he\nbecame infidel to nearly a fourth of it. The mind which loosens itself\nfrom the trammels of its early education, and begins to think for\nitself, has launched its bark on the sea of infidelity. One free thought\nis one step toward infidelity; that is, a disbelief in the dogmas,\nsuperstitions, and traditions of the dark ages. It is just as useless\nand just as foolish for a man to resolve he will never be an infidel, as\nto resolve it shall never rain, or that the hair on his head shall never\nturn gray; for he has just as much control over one as the other.\n\nWe have shown that the Protestant churches are sailing out on the ocean\nof infidelity, and are making steady progress in that direction; and\nit is only a question of time when they will be entirely infidel. It is\ntrue, that, owing to the conservative character of the church creeds,\nand the inveterate hostility the priests have ever manifested to\nchanging them, upon the assumption that they are too holy and too sacred\nto be criticised and too perfect to be improved, the churches have made\nslow progress in the way of improving their creeds compared with what\nwould have been witnessed in this respect under a more liberal and\ntolerant spirit. Owing to this impediment the improvement in Christian\ndoctrine has not kept pace with improvements in other things. The\nprogress in the arts, science, agriculture, political economy, the\nmechanic arts, the fine arts, &c., has far outstripped the improvement\nof our religious institutions, and their relinquishment of the errors\nand superstitions of the past, and nothing but the most absolute\ncompulsion by the moral force of the progressive spirit of the age\nhas induced the churches to make any improvement in their creeds and\ndoctrines. The spirit of improvement is manifested in every department\nof business, and in all our numerous institutions but that of our\nreligion. When it comes to that, it is.\n\n\"Hands off! there shall be no changes here.\" It must still continue to\nwear the same old garments it has worn for nearly two thousand years,\nthough they have become musty, soiled, and worn, and directly opposed\nto the spirit of the age. In view of this strongly opposing conservative\nspirit, it is remarkable that so much improvement has been realized\nin our national religion as we now witness. This improvement has been\neffected more by the process of changing the meaning of words and\nlanguage than that of changing the text by a new translation, as I have\nalready shown. This surgical operation has been inflicted upon thousands\nof texts; and so frequently and so generally has this expedient been\nadopted by churches to get rid of the errors of the \"Holy Book,\" that\nthe meaning of some texts has been changed hundreds of times. There is\none text in Galatians (iii. 20), which, Christian writers inform us, has\nreceived no less than two hundred and forty interpretations at different\ntimes by different writers; that is, two hundred and forty guesses have\nbeen made at the meaning of this one text. \"Revelation\" is defined as\n\"the act of making known.\" But what is made known by a book, one text of\nwhich you have to guess two hundred and forty times at the meaning of,\nand then don't know whether it is right or not? And this is but a sample\nof many texts scattered through the Book, which have been overburdened\nwith meanings in a similar manner in order to get a sufficient amount of\nscience and sense into them to make them acceptable to the enlightened\nminds of the age. This renovating and revolutionizing process makes\nChristianity a mere system of guess-work, and salvation a mere\nlottery-scheme; and thousands, in view of this ambiguity and\nprecariousness, have come to the conclusion that it is easier to find\nwhat is right in any question of morals, without recourse to the Bible,\nthan it is to find out what the Bible writers desired to teach in the\ncase. Why, then, waste such a vast amount of time in attempting to find\nout the meaning of thousands of texts, as many Christian writers have\ndone in all ages of the Church, when, if the meaning could be determined\nwith certainty, there would be but little accomplished by it? For, after\nall, we have to test the truth of the doctrine or precept by our own\nexperience, in the same manner they proved it,--if they proved it at\nall. There has been time enough wasted in this kind of speculation to\nbuild the Pyramids; and the world is no wiser or better for it. As there\nis no certain rule for interpreting one text in the Bible (and every\nword originally written in Hebrew had from four to forty meanings),\nwe may guess at the meanings till our heads are gray, and then die\nin doubt. To show how the meaning of Bible texts has been improved by\nsuccessive constructions, I will cite one case. For more than a thousand\nyears the various texts which refer to casting out devils were accepted\nas literally true. It was supposed they mean just what they say, and\nthat \"the old fellow\" (King Beelzebub) is to be cast out of the inner\nman,--body, head, horns, and hoofs. But, when the age of reason dawned\nupon the world, it began to be discovered that the notion of casting\nout devils was an old heathen tradition, and too senseless for sensible\npeople to believe in. Hence, to save the credit of the Book and the\ncredit of the Church, casting out devils was interpreted to mean\ncast-ing out our evil propensities, which, although a perversion of the\nmeaning of the writer, was an improvement on the original. The further\nacquisition of scientific knowledge, accelerated by the invention of\nthe printing-press, revealed the fact that man never parts with his\nevil propensities, or any other propensities, however much they may\nbe subdued. Hence Bible-mongers set themselves to work to ferret out\nanother meaning for the text. They finally decided that casting out\ndevils means _restraining_ our evil propensities. This, although far\nfrom the meaning of the writer, is another improvement on \"God's perfect\nrevelation.\" In this way, step by step, this and thousands of other\ntexts have been improved from time to time by successive translations\nand interpretations, until \"God's Book\" has become partially purged of\nthe errors it would seem he put into it; and it may yet, in this way,\nbecome a sensible book.\n\nThe interpretation of the Bible has been (as already stated) an art in\nall Christian countries for ages. The original object was to obtain the\nmeaning of the Bible writers; but, in modern times, the object seems to\nbe to obtain a meaning to suit the reader, without much regard to the\nmeaning of the writer.\n\nThis statement may be, to some readers, rather startling; but there can\nbe no question of its truth. Some of our most popular Christian writers\nhave avowed it, though in rather an indirect way. Hear what the Rev.\nJohn Pye Smith, the leading Christian clergyman of England, and one of\nthe ablest and most popular in all Christendom, says with respect\nto Bible interpretations: \"I would advise the clergy everywhere to\ninterpret the Bible according to the spirit of the age.\" Most wonderful\nadvice truly, and a dead shot at the Bible. Let it be understood, then,\nthat, according to this Christian divine, Bible readers hereafter are to\npay no attention to the plain and obvious meaning of the Bible language,\nor to the writer's intended meaning (which is the only true meaning),\nbut force a meaning into the text which you know will be acceptable\n\"to the spirit of the age;\" that is, to men of reason and of scientific\nattainments. The Bible, then, is to be venerated henceforth, not for\nwhat it teaches, but for what it ought to teach, or what the fanciful\nreader would have it teach. Verily, verily, we have fallen upon strange\ntimes when \"God's word,\" like a nose of wax, is to be molded into any\nshape to suit \"the spirit of the times;\" but don't let it be supposed\nthat the Rev. John Pye Smith is the only Christian professor who makes\nGod's infallible revelation succumb to the good sense and intelligence\nof the age,--\"the spirit of the times.\" There is not an orthodox\nclergyman, not a Christian church, and scarcely a Christian professor,\nwho does not make the Bible a mere tool in that way. None of them, in\nall cases, accept the literal meaning of the Bible. None of them take\nthe dictionary for a guide in all cases to determine the meaning of the\nwords of the text. As we have said, there is not an orthodox church or\nclergyman who does not frequently abandon the dictionary, and travel\noutside of it, and coin a new meaning of his own for many of the\nwords of the Bible, and ingraft into those words a meaning they never\npossessed before. They thus assume a license that would not be tolerated\nwith respect to any other book; and yet, notwithstanding these countless\nalterations and changes in \"God's unchangeable word,\"--changes in the\nlanguage, changes in the meaning of its words, changes by translation,\nchanges in the import of its doctrine, and changes in the teaching of\nits precepts; yet millions cling to it as \"God's perfect, unalterable\nrevelation,\" his \"pure and unadulterated word.\" They seem to take the\nsame view of it the old lady did of the carving-knife, which, although\nit had been mended sixteen times, had had seven new blades and nine new\nhandles, yet it was the same old keepsake which her father had given\nher forty years before. The Bible, in like manner, has been altered\nand amended by fifty translations and a hundred and fifty thousand\nalterations, according to the learned Dr. Robinson of England, and is\nstill believed by millions to be the same old book,--just as God gave it\nto man. What superstitious infatuation! It is an instructive fact, which\nwe will note here, that all this labor of amending and enlightening the\nBible is the work of the very best minds in the churches,--the growing,\nthinking, intellectual minds in those institutions; minds that are in a\nstate of unrest, that are hungering and thirsting for something better;\nminds which are unconsciously struggling to get free from the trammels\nof priestcraft and superstition, and the religious creeds in which they\nwere educated, and are unconsciously aspiring for something better,\nsomething higher, holier, and purer, but can not give up the idolized\nBook which has been so long enwrapped among their heart-strings that\nit has seemingly become a part and parcel of their souls. Hence, rather\nthan abandon it and leave it behind them, they prefer to remodel and\nreconstruct it, and bring it up to their own moral standard, and thus\nmake a better and more sensible thing of it than God himself did in the\nfirst place; that is, assuming that he had any thing to do with it.\nAnd they generally put newer and better ideas into the Book, and better\nmorals, than they ever got out of it; and finally, in many cases,\noutgrow the current theology, and become more enlightened, more\nintelligent, and more useful members of society, than they were in any\nperiod of their lives.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LIX.--CHARACTER OF THE CHRISTIAN'S GOD.\n\nThe object in selecting and presenting the list of texts quoted in\nthis chapter is to show that Bible writers entertained a very low and\ndishonorable conception of the \"all-loving Father,\" and that, on this\naccount, the reading of these caricatures of Infinite Wisdom must have a\ndemoralizing effect upon those who habitually read them, and accept them\nas truth. Even if they were all accepted as metaphors, or mere figures\nof speech, that would not prevent or destroy their injurious effect upon\nthe mind; for descriptions by metaphor or pictures have the same effect\nupon the mind as literal descriptions or representations. And what must\nbe the effect upon the mind of the ignorant heathen who read the Book\nwith no suspicion of its being aught but reality, as much of it was\nunquestionably designed to be?\n\n1. \"There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, fire out of his mouth\ndevoured: coals were kindled by it\" (2 Sam. xxil. 9). Suggestion of a\nvolcano.\n\n2. \"He had horns coming out of his hand\" (Hab. ill. 4).\n\n3. \"Out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword\" (Rev. 1.16). Rather a\nfrightful monster to look at.\n\n4. \"He shall mightily roar from his habitation\" (Jer. xxv. 30). Wonder\nif it frightened the saints in glory.\n\n6. \"He shall give a shout, as they that tread the grapes\" (Jer. xxv.\n30).\n\n6. \"He awaked as one out of sleep\" (Ps. lxxviii. 60). The presumption\nwould be he had been asleep.\n\n7. \"And like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine\" (Ps. lxxviii.\n65). Would not this lead to the conclusion he was drunk?\n\n8. In his anger he persecuted and slew without pity (Lam. iii. 43). Good\nauthority for persecuting and killing enemies. No wonder all Christendom\nis noted for persecution and bloodshed.\n\n9. \"His fury is poured out like fire\" (Nah. i. 0). Rather a frightful\nGod.\n\n10. \"The rocks are thrown down by him\" (Nah. i. 6). Throwing stones is\nrather a ludicrous business for a God to engage in.\n\n11. He became angry, and sware (Ps. xcv. 11). It is easy to see why\nswearing is so common in Christian countries.\n\n12. He burns with anger (Isa. xxx. 27). Who would wish to live in heaven\nwith such a being?\n\n13. \"His lips are full of indignation\" (Isa. xxx. 27). Who saw his lips?\nand what peculiar aspect did they present to lead to this conclusion?\n\n14. \"And his tongue as a devouring fire\" (Isa. xxx. 27). How came the\nwriter to see his tongue?\n\n15. He \"is a jealous God\" (Exod. xxxiv. 14). Jealous of what? \"Jealousy\nis a hateful fiend\" (Cato).\n\n16. \"He shall stir up Jealousy like a man of war\" (Isa. xiii. 13). Of\ncourse, if he indulged in jealousy himself, his example would stir up\nthis vile passion in others.\n\n17. He rides upon horses (Ilab. iii. 8). In what part of the universe are\nthose horses kept? and how many does he ride at a time?\n\n18. \"He shall cry, yea, roar\" (Isa. xlii. 13). Rather a frightful\nobject.\n\n19. \"He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have\nthem in derision\" (Ps. ii. 4). \"But thou, O Lord, shalt laugh at them;\nthou shalt have all the heathen in derision\" (Ps. iii. 8). Who ever\nheard him laugh?\n\n20. \"The Lord is a man of war\" (Exod. xv. 3). What kind of arms does he\nuse?\n\n21. \"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood\" (Deut. xxx 11. 42). A\ngood archer.\n\n22. \"They have provoked me to anger.\"--\"Anger shows great weakness of\nmind\" (William Penn).\n\n23. \"I will heap mischief upon them.\"--\"Mischief-makers are enemies to\nsociety\" (Socrates).\n\n24. \"I will spend my arrows upon them\" (Deut. xxxii. 23). \"Arrows are\nthe weapons of savages\" (Goodrich).\n\n25. \"A fire is kindled in mine anger\" (Deut. xxxii. 22). \"Anger resteth\nin the bosom of tools\" (Solomon).\n\n26. \"I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of\nserpents\" (Deut. xxxii. 24). This exhibits a more fiendish spirit than\nthat of Nero.\n\n27. \"I myself will fight against you in anger and fury and great wrath\"\n(Jer. xxi. 5). \"Anger and fury disclose a weak and unbalanced mind\"\n(Publius Syrus).\n\n23. \"I will laugh at your calamity\" (Prov. 1. 20). \"Only brutal savages\ncan be happy while others are miserable\" (Publius Syrus).\n\n20. \"I frame evil against you\" (Jer. xviii. 11). Who, then, can deny that\nGod is the author of evil?\n\n30. The spirit said, \"I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his\nprophets\" (1 Kings xxii. 22). Of course, then, all the lies they told\nwould be his, and not theirs.\n\n31. \"If I whet my glittering sword\" (Deut. xxxii. 41). What a frightful\npicture for the all-loving Father!\n\n32. \"Spare them not, but destroy both men and beasts, infant and\nsuckling\" (1 Sam. xv. 8). We would neither worship such a God on earth,\nor dwell with him in heaven.\n\n83. \"He was unto me as a bear lying in wait, and as a lion in secret\nplaces\" (Lam. ill. 10). Think of the God of the universe descending from\nheaven, and crouching in ambush, like bears and lions, to spring upon\nthe unsuspecting traveler! The tendency of such a thought is to weaken\nboth moral and intellectual growth.\n\n31. He will \"cry like a travailing woman\" (Isa. xlii. 14).\n\n35. He is full of vengeance and wrath, and is furious (Nah. 1. 2). A\nsavage monster. Who would worship such a God?\n\n36. \"The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young\nman and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs\" (Deut.\nxxxii. 25).\n\n37. \"The sword shall devour, and make drunk with their blood\" (Jer. 10).\n\nThe language of the above is blasphemous and shocking to refined\nfeelings, whether accepted as literal or figurative.\n\nThough but just begun, we will pursue this sickening theme no further\nat present. It is an unpleasant task to pen these shocking pictures of\n\"Divine Goodness;\" but the time has arrived when these evils should be\nfully exposed, that Christian professors may see the error of preaching\nthe doctrines of the semi-barbarous ages, which have the effect to dwarf\nthe intellect and repress the growth of every healthy moral emotion\nof the mind, and thus retard the moral and intellectual progress of\nsociety. Such considerations loudly call for a full exposition of the\nerrors and evils of biblical theology, so long concealed under the\nsacred garb of \"inspiration.\"\n\nNote.--This chapter might easily be extended to a hundred pages of\nsimilar examples.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LX.--ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY ERRORS OF JESUS CHRIST.\n\nIn \"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors,\" under the head of \"The Two\nHundred Errors of Christ,\" the author has pointed out sixty errors in\nhis teachings and practical life. It was the intention or the author\nto have completed the exposition in this chapter; but he has discovered\nthat a full and thorough elucidation of all the errors would swell this\nvolume beyond its proper size. He has therefore concluded to present a\nmere abstract of one hundred and fifty of those errors in this work,\nand reserve a fuller exposition to be comprised in a pamphlet to be\npublished soon, and to contain also thirteen powerful and unanswerable\narguments exposing the numerous absurdities and impossibilities of\nthe orthodox theory that Christ possessed two natures, human and\ndivine,--that he was both God and man. This assumption is known as \"the\nhypostatic union,\" or dual nature of Christ. The pamphlet, comprising\nthese two subjects, can be had when published, of the usual booksellers\nor the author, for twenty-five cents.\n\nThe admirers and worshipers of Jesus Christ adore him as a being of\nabsolute perfection,--perfect in intelligence, perfect in wisdom?\nperfect in power, perfect in judgment, perfect in his practical life,\nand perfect in his moral inculcations. We are told, \"He spake as never\nman spake;\" and, finally, that he taught a system of religion and morals\nso absolutely faultless as to challenge the criticism of the world,\nand so perfect as to defy improvement: and to doubt or disbelieve this\ndogmatic assumption is to peril our eternal salvation. With this kind of\nteaching and preaching in the Christian pulpit for nearly two thousand\nyears, it is not strange that the great mass of Christian professors\nhave been blinded and kept in ignorance with respect to his numerous\nerrors, which modern science has brought to light both in teachings and\nhis practical life, a portion of which will be found briefly noticed in\nthis chapter under three heads: viz., (1) \"Christ's Moral and Religious\nErrors,\" (2) \"Christ's Scientific Errors,\" (3) \"Christ's Errors of\nOmission.\"\n\nI. THE MORAL AND RELIGIOUS ERRORS OF CHRIST.\n\nIn \"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors\" we have, under the above\nheading, shown (1) that Christ possessed a very ardent religious nature;\n(2) that he was unenlightened by scientific culture, (3) and that\nconsequently he often indulged in the most extravagant views of the\nduties of life; (4) that he inculcated a moral and religious system\ncarried to such extremes as to render its obligations utterly impossible\nto be reduced to practice; (5) that his injunction, \"Take no thought for\nto-morrow,\" is of impracticable application, and never has been lived up\nto by any of his disciples in that age or since; (6) that, if reduced to\npractice, it would starve the world to death in less than twelve months;\n(7) that his injunction, \"Lay not up treasures on earth\" (Matt. vi. 19),\nhas been ignored and trampled under foot by the whole Christian world;\n(8) that his injunction to his disciples to part with all their property\n(Matt. xix. 21) would soon fill the world with paupers; (9) that his\npromise to supply all the necessaries of life to those who shall \"seek\nfirst the kingdom of heaven\" (Matt. vi. 33) has never been fulfilled;\n(10) that his injunctions, \"Resist not evil,\" (11) when smitten on one\ncheek, turn the other also, are virtual invitations to personal abuse;\n(12) that his mandate, \"Love not the world;\" (13) also, \"to hate father\nand mother, brother and sister,\" &c. (Luke xiv. 26); (14) also, to give\nup voluntarily our garments when attacked by a robber (Matt. v. 40);\n(15) also, to make no defense of our lives when they are sought\nby murderers (Luke xvii. 33), are all extravagant, unnatural, and\nunreasonable moral obligations; (16) that his declaration to his\ndisciples, that they would be \"hated by all men\" (Matt. x. 22). (17)\nand his injunction to shake off the dust of their feet against their\nskeptical hearers, (18) and \"go and teach all nations,\" (19) and \"take\nnothing for your journey\" (Mark. vi. 8), are all indications of a mind\nrun wild with religious fanaticism; (20) as is also the declaration, \"He\nthat believeth not shall be damned;\" (21) and \"He that believeth and is\nbaptized shall be saved\" is equally unreasonable; (22) that all things\nasked for in prayer believing has never been realized by any person;\n(23) that it sets aside all natural laws. (24) It is calculated\nto encourage idleness and sloth, (25) and thus bring on misery and\nstarvation. (26) The commands to \"call no man 'father;'\" (27) also, \"Call\nno man 'a fool;'\" (28) also, to \"pray without ceasing;\" (29) also,\nto forgive our enemies four hundred and ninety times (\"seventy times\nseven\"); (30) also, to \"love your enemies\" (Matt. v. 46); (31) also, to\npluck out our eyes and cut off our hands if they offend us; (32) and,\nalso, to become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, are utterances\nwhich bespeak a mind devoid of a knowledge of either natural or moral\nphilosophy; (33) as does also the injunction to become perfect as (God)\nour Father in heaven (Matt. v. 48). (34) His belief in an angry God;\n(35) his injunction to fear God (Matt. x. 28); (36) his advice to his\nfollowers to live like the lilies of the field (Matt. vi. 26); (37)\nhis statement that \"the meek should inherit the earth,\" (38) that his\ndisciples would be hated by all men; (39) his reasons for forbidding\nthem to swear; (40) his blessing on the poor; (41) his denunciation of\nthe rich; (42) his parable of Dives; (43) his encouragement to mourn;\n(44) his blessing on the pure in heart, (45) and on the hungry and\nthirsty; (46) his choosing the ignorant for companions; (47) his setting\nthe mother against the daughter (Matt. x. 36); (48) his getting angry\n(Matt, xxi. 12); (49) his treatment of his mother, (50) also of the\nmoney-changers, (51) and of the Pharisees; (52) his usurpation of\nproperty (Matt. xxi. 2); (53) his calling men \"fools and hypocrites,\"\n(54) also \"vipers,\" (55) and \"children of the Devil\" (John viii. \");\n(56) his enjoining his disciples to shake off the dust of their feet\nagainst them, (57) and to call no man \"rabbi,\" (58) and no man \"master;\"\n(59) his falsehood about going to Jerusalem (John vii. 8); (60) his\nsubstituting water for wine; (61) his strong sectarianism (John x. 1);\n(62) his treatment of the Gentiles (Matt. x. 5); (63) his threat toward\nJerusalem; (64) his calling honest men \"robbers\" (John x. 8); (65) his\ndenunciation of Sodom and Gomorrah, (66) and Chorazin and Bethsaida\n(Matt, xi. 21), (67) and Capernaum; (68) his answer to the woman of\nSamaria, (69) and his calling Peter \"Satan;\" (70) his hatred of the\nworld, (71) and contempt of life,--all these precepts and practices,\nwhen critically examined, are found to be at variance with the laws of\nmoral science as taught in this enlightened age, which establishes the\nfact that Christ was no moral philosopher.\n\nII. SCIENTIFIC ERRORS OF CHRIST.\n\nThe following scientific errors of Christ, a portion of which are\nexposed in \"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors,\" show that he was\nneither a natural nor a moral philosopher: (1) He assumed that disease\nis produced by demons, or evil spirits. (2) He generally treated\ndisease, not as the result of natural causes, but as produced by evil\nbeings. (3) His rebuking a fever (Luke iv. 39) discloses an ignorance of\nthe science of physiology. (4) His declaration about the stars falling\n(Matt. xxiv. 29) evinces his ignorance of astronomy; (5) as does also\nhis belief in the conflagration of the world (Matt. xxiv. 34). (6) His\nbelief in a personal devil (Matt. xvii. 18), (7) also his belief in a\nliteral hell (Matt. xviii. 8), (8) also a belief in the unphilosophical\ndoctrine of repentance (Mark ii. 17), (9) and also that of divine\nforgiveness (Matt. vi. 12); (10) his repeated assumption that belief is\na voluntary act of the mind; (11) his frequent reference to the heart as\nbeing the seat of consciousness; (12) the great importance he attaches\nto a right faith; (13) his unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost; (14)\nhis superstitious idea of casting out devils; (15) his comparing faith\nto a grain of mustard-seed (Matt. xi. 23); (16) the promise of \"well\ndone\" (Matt. xxv. 21) as a reward for well-doing; (17) his statement\nabout man increasing his stature, (18) and about two men joining in\nprayer (Matt, xviii.19); (19) his promise to come in the clouds of\nheaven (Matt, xxiv. 30); (20) the time that event was to take place\n(Matt. x. 23); (21) his penalty for wrong-doing, or sin; (22) his\npenalty for falsehood (John viii. 44); (23) his superstitious belief\nin an undying worm; (24) his penalty for idle words; (25) his statement\nabout speaking in new tongues (Mark xvi. 17), (26) about handling\npoisonous serpents, (27) also swallowing deadly poisons, (28) and that\nthese acts should furnish a proof of divine power; (29) his frequent\nconfabs with imaginary devils; (30) his views of the marriage relation\n(Luke xx. 34); (31) why a certain man was born blind (Matt. vii. 22);\n(32) his ignorance of the natural causes of physical defects; (33) his\nconduct toward the fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 20); (34) his statement relative\nto the Queen of Sheba, (35) and relative to Noah's flood (Luke xvii.\n27); (36) his frequent denunciation of unbelievers; (37) his injunction\nto become perfect as God; (38) his erroneous views of love, (39) and\nof the peacemakers, (40) and of the tax-gatherers, (41) and of divorce;\n(42) his views of alms; (43) his statement about Moses (John v. 46),\n(44) about Nicodemus, (45) about bearing witness, (46) about letting our\nlight shine, (47) about his disciples praying, (48) about praying for\nthe kingdom of heaven, (49) about the law (Matt. v. 17), (50) about his\nbeing the Christ (Matt, x. 23), (51) about performing miracles, (52)\nabout bringing a sword, (53) about his disciples sitting on the twelve\nthrones, (54) about judges in heaven, (55) about the fate of Judas; (56)\nhis deception by Judas; (57) his mistake about Peter; (58) his promise\nto the sons of Zebedee (Matt. xx. 23); (59) his parable of the unjust\njudge; (60) his new commandment; (61) his promise of a hundred-fold\nreward; (62) his ideas about paying tribute, (63) also about marrying\na divorced woman; (64) his promising Peter the keys of the kingdom of\nheaven; (65) his declaration relative to binding things in heaven; (66)\nhis notion of merit in religious belief, (67) and that faith is the gift\nof God; (68) his ideas of lust, (69) and about earthly treasures,\n(70) also treasure in heaven, (71) about tombstones, (72) and about an\narbitrary personal God; (73) his ignorance of science and natural law.\n(74) He never spoke of a natural law, (75) nor used the word \"science,\"\n(76) nor \"natural philosophy.\" (77) And, finally, his spending\nnine-tenths of his time in idleness or obscurity is historic, scientific,\nand practical proof against his divinity. From all the facts and\nprecepts enumerated above, we are compelled to conclude he was no\nphilosopher, and was ignorant of the principles of natural science. And\nthis accounts for the numerous scientific errors which abound in all his\nteachings and preachings and his whole practical life, as set forth in\nthe work of which this is a synopsis.\n\nIII. CHRIST'S ERRORS OF OMISSION.\n\nHad Christ been an all-wise and omniscient God,--the character his\northodox disciples claim for him,--he would have noticed and understood,\nand consequently have condemned, various demoralizing practices,\ncustoms, and institutions then existing in society. He would also\nhave discovered and taught the grand moral and scientific truths and\nprinciples which have since been brought to light, and have proved such\nsignal blessings to society, so that the world could have enjoyed them\ntwo thousand years ago.\n\n(1) He would, in the first place, have discovered and exposed the\nevils of the despotic form of government which he lived, (2) and have\nsuggested a better system. (3) He would have taught the people the\nbeauties and benefits of a true democracy, (4) and would have\nexposed the evils of physical as well as mental slavery; (5) also the\ndeleterious and demoralizing effects of intoxicating drink, instead of\nmanufacturing it. (See John ii. 7-9.) (6) He would also have exposed the\nerrors and evils of the many popular religious superstitions then and\nthere prevalent, instead of indorsing them. (7) He would have taught\nthe science of anthropology as essential to human happiness, (8)\nincluding the principles of mental science; (9) and likewise the true\nprinciples of moral science, (10) and the necessity of mental culture,\n(11) and the most important lesson of all,--that of self-development.\n(12) He would have taught the people that every thing is controlled by\nnatural law, (13) instead of by the caprices of an angry God. (14)\nHe would have taught the people that right and wrong are natural\nprinciples; (15) that virtue contains its own reward, (16) and sin or\ncrime its own punishment. (17) He would have taught the science of life\nand the laws of health as essential to human happiness; (18) and that\nthe violation of natural law must be attended with suffering; (19)\nand that every immoral act a man commits against another must injure\nhimself, (20) and destroy his true happiness, (21) and tend to make\nhim a victim to his own passions. (22) He would have taught the true\nprinciples of mental freedom, (23) and the rights of conscience in\nmatters of belief; (24) and that man is responsible to himself alone for\nhis belief. (25) And, finally, he would have taught the modern doctrine\nof evolution as furnishing the true and philosophical solution of all\nhuman actions, both good and bad. Certainty a being possessing infinite\nwisdom could have discovered and brought to light these grand practical\ntruths, and thus greatly augmented the sum of human happiness, instead\nof leaving the world to drag on in suffering ignorance. And his omitting\nto do it must be characterized as an error of omission. For a fuller\nexposition, see the pamphlet.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXI.--CHARACTER AND ERRONEOUS DOCTRINES OF THE APOSTLES.\n\nChrist's apostles, although reputedly inspired, were very far from\nbeing exemplary characters. Quarrels, jealousies, and emulations are\nfrequently disclosed in their practical lives. We are told there were\n\"envyings and jealousies and divisions\" among them (1 Cor. iii. 8), and\nthat \"they disputed among themselves who should be the greatest\" (Mark\nix. 34). This implies that there was selfishness and worldly ambition\nat the bottom of their movements. Paul also represents them as\n\"_defrauding_\" and lawing each other (1 Cor. vi. 7,8); and Paul himself\nhad a serious quarrel with Barnabas, as we are told: \"The contention was\nso sharp that they departed asunder one from the other\" (Acts xv. 36).\nThese incidents in the practical lives of the apostles show that\nthey were frail and fallible mortals, and under the control of selfish\nfeelings like the rest of us, and that their \"inspiration,\" if\nthey possessed any, was not of a very high order. Such men are very\nunsuitable examples for the heathen to imitate, as they are impliedly\nrecommended to do when the Bible is placed in their hands.\n\nWith respect to the doctrines taught by the apostles or New-Testament\nwriters, we will here assume the liberty to say they contain more errors\nthan we can allow space to enumerate. For those of Paul and Peter we\nshall appropriate a separate chapter, but will only cite a few of the\nerrors of the other New-Testament writers as mere samples of others.\nJames's superstitious idea of curing the sick by prayer and oil we\nhave already noticed (chapter xli.). He also indorses the foolish and\nincredible story of Elijah controlling the elements so as to cause a\nthree-years' drought (chap. v. 17). He tells us we can get wisdom by\nsimply asking it of God (chap. i. 5). Then why do millions of people\ndevote years to hard mental labor to acquire it? He speaks approvingly\nof the practical life of Abraham, also of the miserable harlot Rahab\n(chap. ii. 23, 25), and avows his belief in a devil, &c. John also avows\nhis belief in this superstition (1 John ii. 13), and likewise in the\nbloody atonement (1 John i. 7) and the doctrine of predestination\n(1 John v. 18); and, worse than all, he issues the bigoted mandate,\n\"Receive no man into your house\" who does not preach the doctrine I do\n(2 John i. 10). Jude indorses the foolish story of Sodom and Gomorrah,\nthe contest between Michael and the Devil, the second advent, a day of\ngeneral judgment, &c. These will do for specimens of apostolic errors.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXII.--CHARACTER OF PAUL, AND HIS DOCTRINES.\n\nPaul, standing at the head of the Church in the apostolic age, and\nbeing the principal New-Testament writer and the principal teacher and\ndoctrinal expounder of the New Covenant, or gospel dispensation,\nhis practical life and his doctrines must therefore be regarded as\nconstituting a part, if not the principal part, of the basis of the\nChristian religion. We shall therefore make no apology for presenting\nhere a brief exposition of his character and his doctrines; and we\nshall show that both present numerous defects and inconsistent and\ncontradictory features.\n\n1. In his First Epistle to Timothy (i. 13) he states that he had been\n\"a blasphemer and persecutor, and injurious\", and confesses that he was\n_particeps criminis_ in the martyrdom of Stephen; yet, in the Acts of\nthe Apostles, he declares, \"I have lived in all good conscience before\nGod unto this day\" (Acts xxiii. 1). Here is one specimen of his many\nincongruous statements.\n\n2. He relates the account of his miraculous conversion three times, and\nin three different ways. In the first statement he says, \"The men stood\nspeechless, _hearing a voice_, but seeing no man\" (Acts ix. 7). In the\nsecond account he says, \"_They heard not the voice_ that spake to me\"\n(Acts xxii. 9). In the third statement, when relating the case to King\nAgrippa, he says, \"They were all fallen to the earth\" (Acts xxvi. 14);\nwhile, in the first account, he had stated, \"The men stood speechless.\"\nIt is evident they could not stand speechless while they were all fallen\nto the earth.\n\n3. In one account he states that Jesus told him to stand up, and receive\nhis mission; but in another place he says he was ordered to go to\nDamascus to receive the message.\n\n4. He told the king that he showed himself first at Damascus, and then\nat Jerusalem (Acts xxvi. 20); but in his Epistle to the Galatians he\ndeclares that he did not go to Jerusalem.\n\n5. Again he says he went to Jerusalem, and Barnabas took him by the\nhand, and brought him to the apostles (Acts ix. 27).\n\n6. And then, again, to the Galatians he declares he saw none of the\napostles,n\"save James, the Lord's brother\" (Gal. i. 13).\n\n7. In 1 Cor. x. 35 he says, \"I please all men in all things;\" but in Gal.\ni. 10 he says, \"If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of\nGod.\" Here, then, is another palpable contradiction.\n\n8. In Rom. xi. 5 he speaks of the \"election of grace;\" but in Tit. xi. 9\nhe says the grace of God has appeared to all.\n\n9. In his letter to Timothy he says, \"God will have all men to be saved\"\n(1 Tim. ii. 4): but in Rom. ix. 22 he speaks of \"the vessels of wrath\nfitted to destruction;\" and in Rom. ix. 27 he says, \"A remnant shall be\nsaved.\" All will not be saved if only a remnant are saved.\n\n10. When about embarking for Rome he stated, \"I perceive the voyage will\nbe of much hurt and damage to life\" (Acts xxvii. 10); yet on the voyage\nhe declared, \"There shall be no loss of any man's life among you\"\n(Acts xxvii. 22). An \"inspired apostle\" and oracle of God should be\npunctiliously accurate in all cases, or all his statements will be\nbrought under distrust, and it will be impossible to arrive at the\ntruth in the case; or, in any case, all will be involved in doubt and\nconjecture.\n\n11. Paul's errors in doctrinal inculcations are numerous. His confession\nto the Corinthians, that, \"being crafty, I caught you with guile\" (2\nCor. xii. 16), sets forth a bad example, and indicates a bad system of\nmorals, which is calculated to have a demoralizing effect upon Bible\nreaders and believers, especially the heathen and the youth of Christian\ncountries.\n\n12. And his statement that the truth of God \"hath more abounded through\nmy lie unto his glory\" (Rom. iii. 7), is still more demoralizing in its\ntendencies. Many have looked upon it as a justification for lying. It\nseems to imply that lying is all right if done for the glory of God; and\nas he states in 1 Cor. x. 31, that whatsoever we do should be done to\nthe glory of God, it logically follows that lying is justifiable in\nall cases. And Mr. Higgins states that such doctrine had the effect\nto reduce lying to a system among the early Christians, and that they\nconsidered it a duty to lie when the interest of the Church could be\npromoted by it. A book inculcating such bad morality should not be\ncirculated amongst the heathen.\n\n13. Paul's reason for recommending a life of single blessedness is\ndeserving of notice. He says the unmarried man careth for the things of\nthe Lord; but the married man careth for the things of the world,--\"how\nhe may please his wife\" (1 Cor. vii. 33). The last act he named here\ndoes not trouble men much nowadays, at least after the honeymoon is\npassed; and a man who considers God worthy of more attention than wives,\nas Paul did, would not be likely to bestow a very high appreciation\non the latter. But the greatest objection to the doctrine is, that, if\npractically carried out in accordance with his recommendation,\nthere would soon be no wives to please. 14. We must notice another\nobjectionable doctrine of Paul with respect to marriage. Instead of\nacknowledging an honorable and virtuous motive for marriage, he would\ntolerate it as the least of two evils; that is, as a means of mitigating\na burning lust (1 Cor. vii. 9). This makes marriage a mere animal\nattraction,--the union of a man and woman drawn together from lustful\nmotives. Paul advises bachelors not to marry or touch a woman, but\nremain single like himself (1 Cor. vii? 1). But such advice, if\npractically complied with, would soon depopulate the globe. If not\nso strongly adverse to human nature, it would doubtless ere this have\nfilled the world, first with Shakers, and then with the graves of an\nextinct race.\n\n15. Paul says to the Romans (Rom. vii. 17), \"It is no more I that do it,\nbut sin that dwelleth in me. For I prove... that in my flesh dwelleth\nno good thing.\" Here are taught two erroneous doctrines: (1) The\nessentially corrupt and sinful nature of the human body, taught\nanciently by the Hindoo ascetics; (2) that sin or the Devil operates\non the mind independent of the human will or volition, which savors of\nfatalism. And his statement that some vessels are made to honor, and\nsome to dishonor (Rom. ix. 21), seems unequivocally to set forth the\nsame doctrine. Many commentators have puzzled their brains over it to\nmake it mean something else, but with ill success the declaration is\nnot, that men _become_ vessels of honor and dishonor, but that they _are\nmade so_.\n\n16. Paul's exhortation to servants to be obedient to their masters\nhas furnished pious Christian slaveholders a good text to preach from\nthroughout slaveholding Christendom, and has done much to rivet the\nchains tighter upon the limbs of the slave.\n\n17. When Paul calls the Cretans \"liars, evil beasts,\" &c., he descends\nto a low position, both in the scale of manners and morals: he is\nnot only uncivil, but exhibits bad passions. They did not merit such\npersonal abuse, as they had never done him an injury, at least we have\nno proof of it.\n\n18. Paul tells us that God sends people a strong delusion, that they may\nbelieve a lie and be damned (2 Thess. ii. 12). More fatalism. To delude\npeople with lies in order to damn them is worse than hardening Pharaoh's\nheart in order to find a pretext for drowning him. Let it be borne in\nmind, that, if there is any spiritual signification justly assignable\nto, this text, it can only benefit the few, as the common people always\naccept language with its common signification. But can we assume that\nPaul was such a blunderer that he frequently used language conveying\nexactly the opposite meaning from that intended, and that in this way\nhe taught fatalism and when he did not intend to do so? And then, he was\ninspired, is it not a slander upon Infinite Wisdom to assume that God\nwas so ignorant of human language that he put these pernicious doctrines\nin Paul's mouth by mistake? One or the other of these conclusions we are\ndriven to accept, in order to save Paul from condemnation; but this only\nsaves his moral character at the expense of his good sense. The most\nrational assumption appears to be, that Paul lived in an age and country\nwhich knew nothing of mental or moral science, and honestly believed and\ntaught these pernicious doctrines. We will now learn something about the\nmoral code of bachelors.\n\n19. \"I suffer not a woman to speak in the church.\" \"It is a shame for a\nwoman to speak in the church\" (1 Cor. xiv. 35). He says, if they want to\nknow any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. But this, in some\ncases, would be the blind leading the blind; and, in other cases, only\nthe leaders would be blind. Paul should have learned the lesson of\nO'Connell, the Irish agitator, who said, \"Since I have learned that my\nmother was a woman, I have great respect for women, and advocate their\nrights.\"\n\n20. We will now notice the reason Paul assigns for having immoral\ndoctrines as it is claimed wives subject to their husbands: it is simply\nbecause man was created before woman (1 Tim. ii. 13). What profound\nlogic! worthy a Locke or a Newton! But, if there is any logical force\nin the argument, then monkeys should have the preference of men in the\nchurches, as they came still earlier in the order of creation.\n\n21. Paul's doctrine that all governments are ordained of God, and that\nthose who resist them shall receive to themselves damnation (Rom. xiii.\n1), is a virtual condemnation of those noble philanthropists who in\nvarious ages and countries resisted the authority of tyrants. It makes\nWashington, Jefferson, Franklin, and others sinners and criminals for\nopposing the tyranny of King George.\n\n22. Paul evinced a very intolerant spirit when he said, \"If any man\npreach any other doctrine than that which I declare onto you, let him be\naccursed\" (1 Gal. i. 9). This is the spirit of intolerance, persecution,\nand bigotry,--the spirit which has erected the scaffold, piled the fiery\nfagots around the stake, wielded the guillotine, adjusted the halter\naround the neck of the martyr, and crimsoned the earth with the blood\nof the righteous. This very text has had the effect to fire up such a\nspirit; and it has frequently been quoted as authority for such cruel\ndeeds as those just cited.\n\n23. Paul gives utterance to a very singular doctrine when he says that\neven nature teaches that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair, but\nthe glory for a woman, because nature gave it to her for a covering.\n(See 1 Cor. xi. 14.) He was certainly not much of a philosopher, or he\nwould have made the discovery that nature promotes the growth of the\nhair upon the heads of men and women exactly alike. If nature did not\npermit any hair to grow upon the head of man, or did not allow it to\ngrow more than an inch in length, there might be some plausibility\nin the assertion. But, as the case stands, it is the shears, and not\nnature, which teaches that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair;\nor rather, if there is any shame in the case, it consists in man cutting\noff his hair after nature has been so kind as to supply him with such a\nuseful covering.\n\n24. Paul's indorsement of the doctrine of the atonement, and his\ndeclaration that \"without the shedding of blood there can be no\nremission for sin\" (Heb. ix. 22), show that he had not advanced beyond\nthe old Jewish and pagan superstition of \"blood for blood.\" The doctrine\nis a relic of heathen barbarism, and is shocking to persons of fine\nmoral sensibilities; but this subject is treated in another chapter.\n\n25. Paul also indorses the old heathen tradition that God is an angry,\nrevengeful being. (See Eph. ii. 3.) He lent the influence of his\npowerful mind and pen to perpetuate this demoralizing and blasphemous\ndoctrine, which has had an injurious effect upon the minds and morals of\nthe people in all post ages.\n\n26. We again call attention to Paul's declaration that God sent the\npeople a strong delusion that they might believe a lie and be damned.\nThink of a just and righteous God deluding people in order to damn them!\nThe doctrine is certainly blasphemous. It is enough to charge a demon\nwith such acts as this. Some writers suppose that Paul did not mean what\nis here literally expressed; but it is probable he did, for it is the\nold Jewish idea that every thing that takes place is the achievement of\na God. We must assume that the devil who now attends to such business,\nhad not been sworn into office at that time. Hence he supposed that\nJehovah still attended to such business.\n\n27. One indelible stigma on Paul's character is found in his indorsement\nof the pagan and Jewish rite of circumcision,--a cruel and bloody\ncustom,--which no truly enlightened and sensible man would lend his\nsanction to perpetuate, much less perform with his own hands, as Paul\ndid on Timotheus (Acts xvi. 3). Paul also contradicts himself with\nrespect to the matter. He says, \"If ye be circumcised, Christ shall\nprofit you nothing\" (Gal. v. 2). Yet he afterward performed the act\non Timotheus, as stated above. This is preaching one doctrine and\npracticing another.\n\n28. Paul said that he was a Roman citizen; but no Jew could be a full\nRoman citizen till the reign of Philip or Decius, long after. He also\npassed for Paul of Tarsus; but Tarsus was not a Roman city at that time,\nnor until about a hundred years after ward. This was being all things to\nall men in order to gain a few proselytes; and truly he carries out the\ndoctrine quite well. At one time he professes to be a Roman (Acts xxii.\n26); at another time he professes to be a Pharisee, and says that his\nparents were Pharisees (see Acts xxiii. 5); and then, again, he was an\napostle of Jesus Christ (Acts xv. 10).\n\n29. Paul uses some rather doughy arguments on the subject of the\nresurrection. He says that on the last day, at the sound of the trumpet,\nwe shall all be raised, the dead in Christ first (1 Cor. xv. 52). We are\nalso told that \"this mortal shall put on immortality.\" We are compelled\nto believe, from the language here used, that Paul believed in the sleep\nof the soul in the grave; and the resurrection of the natural body is a\nridiculous absurdity and a physical impossibility. The sleep of the\nsoul is a still worse assumption. Why should the soul lay in the ground\ncovered with filth and worms? What possible benefit could it derive from\nlaying in a state of insensibility for centuries? And what would become\nof it if some one should remove the decomposed remains of the body,\nand all the earth contiguous, to some other locality, or toss it into a\nrunning stream? And this has been done. What becomes of the soul in such\na case? Does it float down the stream with the physical debris? If so,\nwhere will it stop? and how will it be found in the day of resurrection?\n\n30. And the doctrine of the resurrection is attended with still greater\ndifficulties and logical obstructions. The physical body, according\nto Paul, is to become a spiritual body. But a portion of the body is\nconsumed by worms during the process of decomposition in the grave; and\nthose worms, when they die, are consumed by other worms. Will it not,\nthen, require a search-warrant in the day of resurrection to find\nall those worms, and to gather every minute particle of the old body\ntogether to form the spiritual body? Why not make the new body of a\nstone or a stump, or some other material, instead of the old, decayed,\ndecomposed body? It would require a miracle in either case. Cases have\nbeen reported of Christian missionaries being eaten up by cannibals. The\nflesh of the Christian in such cases becomes a part of the physical body\nof the cannibal; and the cannibal will, according to Christian theology,\ncome forth unto \"the resurrection of damnation,\" and will take a\nportion of the body of the missionary with him to the bottomless pit.\nHow will it be obtained? A serious difficulty, certainly! How is it to\nbe met and surmounted? Many other logical difficulties lie in the way of\nmaking a practical application of the doctrine.\n\n31. When Paul calls our physical tenements \"vile bodies\" (see Phil. iii.\n21), he reveals the old pagan idea of the body being sinful. They looked\nupon it as a kind of prison for the soul, and a thing to be hated and\ncontemned as you would a tyrant with a rope around your neck. This error\ndiscloses great ignorance of the functions of the human body, and its\nrelation to the soul or mind. It would be impossible to have a pure soul\nin a vile body. Here Paul discloses still further ignorance of science.\n\nThere are other acts and other erroneous doctrines, which mark the\npractical life of Paul, that are quite obnoxious to criticism; as, for\nexample, the curse he pronounced upon Ely mas, whom he stigmatized as\na sorcerer, though he does not prove he was one, but says that was his\nname by interpretation (Acts xiii. 8). This act, which it is stated\nproduced total blindness, must be regarded as an act of bigotry and\nintolerance. Elymas is not charged with any crime or immoral conduct;\nand, so far as we can learn his history, he was an honest, upright man:\nbut he sought \"to turn away the deputy from the faith\" (Acts xiii. 8);\nthat is, like the Greek philosophers, he attempted to point out\nthe absurdity of some of Paul's doctrines. There is something very\nsignificant in the statement of Paul, that some of his doctrines were\n\"to the Greeks foolishness\" (1 Cor. i. 23); for they were a learned,\nintelligent, and sensible nation of people. And no such nation ever has,\nor ever will, accept as true and sound doctrine some of the theological\nnonsense and absurd doctrines which Paul preached. Future generations\nwill wonder that such doctrines were ever taught by people claiming to\nbe sensible and intelligent.\n\nThe circumstance which Paul relates of a viper coming out of a bundle\nof sticks, and fastening on his hand without inflicting a deadly wound,\nevinces a degree of superstition which no philosopher could entertain.\nThe assumption is, that God, after bestowing upon the reptile the\ndisposition and means of defending itself, interposed by a divine act to\nprevent their action.\n\nChrist and his apostles (including Paul), instead of studying and\nunderstanding the laws of nature, were constantly looking for something\nto contravene them, and set them aside. Of course they were honest\nin this; but it shows their want of scientific knowledge, which was\ncharacteristic of the age.\n\nThe circumstance of Paul's handkerchief and apron healing the sick, as\nrelated in Acts xix. 12, is evidently regarded as another interposition\nof divine power. But cases are frequently performed in this manner\nin various parts of this country by Dr. Newton and other healers,\nwho impart their magnetic aura to a handkerchief, or some article of\nclothing, or a piece of paper, and send it to the sick, who are cured as\neffectually as those were by Paul's magnetized handkerchief; for it was\nundoubtedly his magnetism imparted to the handkerchief that effected the\ncures. Modern science is solving the mysteries and miracles of the past.\n\nWe will only observe further, that Paul lays down three systems of\nsalvation, which, when arranged side by side, certainly make the road\nbroad enough to enable nearly every son and daughter of Adam to reach\nthe heavenly kingdom:--\n\n_Salvation by Faith_.--\"By faith ye are saved, and not of yourselves:\nit is the gift of God\" (Eph. ii. 8). It being the gift of God, we, of\ncourse, can have no agency in the matter. \"A man is justified by\nfaith without the deeds of the law\" (Rom. iii. 28). This is a direct\ncontradiction of James, who declares, \"Faith, if it hath not works, is\ndead\" (Jas. ii. 17).\n\n_Salvation by Works_,--\"God will render to every man according to his\ndeeds\" (Rom. ii. 6). \"The doers of the law shall be justified\" (Rom. ii.\n13). Thus, it will be observed, Paul, in the above-cited texts, not only\ncontradicts James, but contradicts himself.\n\n_Salvation by Divine Predestination_,--\"As many as were ordained to\neternal life believed\" (Acts xiii. 48). This is not given as Paul's\nlanguage; but it is spoken with respect to his preaching. And Paul sets\nforth the same doctrine in Rom. xi. 5 when he speaks of a remnant\nbeing \"saved by the election of grace.\" Here, then, are three roads to\nheaven, which so multiply the chances of being saved that but few can be\nlost.\n\nSuch conflicting statements show that confusion and ambiguity\ncharacterize the Bible, and render it impossible to learn any thing\ndefinite from its statements.\n\nNote.--How can Christians believe In the immortality of the soul after\nreading Paul's declaration that \"God alone hath life and immortality\ndwelling in the light \"? If so, then man is not an immortal being (see 1\nTim. ri. 16).\n\n2. CHARACTER AND ERRONEOUS DOCTRINES OF PETER.\n\nIn his practical life St. Peter was a singular and angular being. He\npresents us with the opposite extremes of virtue and vice. He appears\nto have been about as distinguished for wickedness as for piety. He\ntold the same falsehood repeatedly, and backed it up with an oath (Matt,\nxxvi.): hence lying, cursing, and swearing are laid to his charge. And\nthen, we are told, he was put in possession of the keys of the kingdom\nof heaven (Matt. xvi. 19). How a man, guilty of such moral derelictions,\ncould have had a higher honor bestowed upon him than was ever bestowed\nupon any other human being, or how he could have been considered a safe\ncustodian for such an important charge, it is difficult to see; and\nthen it looks too much like a bribe for immoral conduct. It weakens\nthe incentives to a virtuous life to reward the criminal, and shows\nimperfection in the moral system which he was allowed to represent.\nAs for his doctrines, they are characterized by the same moral and\nscientific errors and defects as those of St. Paul, and embrace some of\nthe same doctrines of heathen mythology.\n\n1. He speaks of the earth as \"standing out of the water and in the\nwater\" (2 Pet. iii. 5). Here is the old Hindoo tradition which taught\nthat the earth floated on a sea of water, traces of which are also found\nin Genesis.\n\n2. He tells us, also, that the earth has been once destroyed by water,\nand in the day of judgment will be destroyed by fire (2 Pet. iii. 6, 7).\nIt has been from time immemorial a very prevalent tradition amongst\nthe Oriental nations that the world had been, and would be again,\nalternately destroyed by water and fire. Peter and Josephus also seem to\nindorse this tradition.\n\n3. Peter also indorses and teaches the absurd and unphilosophical\ndoctrine of fore-ordination (1 Pet. i. 20).\n\n4. He also enjoins \"servants to be in subjection to their masters,\"\nnot only the good, but the froward (1 Pet. ii. 18). This is absolute\ntyranny. There is to be no resistance to the bloody lash. The motto of\nPatrick Henry is much better,--\"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to\nGod.\"\n\n5. Wives are to be in subjection to their husbands (1 Pet. iii. 1), even\nas Sarah obeyed Abraham (verse 6). There is nothing said about husbands\nobeying wives, probably because, as he says, woman is the weaker vessel\n(1 Pet. iii. 7). Wonderful logic! A sage conclusion for a Christian\nmoralist. He thus places Christian morality below that of the ancient\nDruids, who placed women on a level with men in both Church and State.\n\n6. Peter tells us, \"Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree\"\n(1 Pet. ii. 24). This is the old Jewish idea of carrying away sins by\nscapegoats, and the Oriental heathen doctrine of putting innocent Gods\nto death as a punishment for the sins of the people,--a doctrine\nwhich posterity will condemn as barbarous. (See \"The Sixteen Crucified\nSaviors,\" Chapter xxi.)\n\n7. Peter says a \"dumb ass spoke with man's voice\" (2 Pet. ii. 16). He\nthus indorses the story of Balaam's ass becoming endowed with human\nspeech.\n\n8. Peter, like Paul and Christ, indorses the absurd story of Noah and\nthe flood (1 Pet. iii. 20).\n\n9. But space will not permit us to notice all the erroneous doctrines\nset forth by Peter. He teaches the doctrine of a general judgment (2\nPet. ii. 9), the doctrine of election and reprobation (2 Pet. i. 10),\nthe doctrine of a general conflagration of all things terrestrial (2\nPet. iii. 12).\n\n10. But the most remarkable incident in the life of Peter is his\nconnection with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira. We find many logical\nabsurdities and moral errors in this story recorded in Acts v. 1. It is\nvery strange that Peter, who denied his Lord and master three times, and\nhence was repeatedly guilty of telling positive falsehoods, should be\nthe chosen instrument under Christ's religion to pronounce sentence of\ndeath upon Ananias and Sapphira for the same sin. 2. Why should Ananias\nand Sapphira be punished with death for a crime that Peter, Abraham,\nand Isaac were all guilty of several times? 3. Is it not strange that\nJehovah should be considered as being strongly opposed to lying, if\nhe himself, as stated in 1 Kings xxii., converted four hundred of his\nprophets into liars, and then indorsed the lying Peter? 4. Is not the\ncrime of Ananias and Sapphira--that of attempting to withhold a little\nmoney from the priests by lying--of less magnitude than that of ruining\na whole nation by robbery, as we are told God's holy people did?\nThey robbed and \"spoiled the Egyptians\" (Exod. xii. 36). 5. Is it not\nprobable they needed it more than the priests did? The moral law teaches\nthat it is necessity, and not might, that makes right. 6. Does it not\nlook rather unreasonable that Sapphira should repeat the same falsehood\nfor which her husband had just been struck dead, as it must have been\nknown to her? Who can believe it? 7. And can we suppose that God would\nbe so partial as to kill a man and woman for the first offense of lying,\nand let Abraham, Isaac, and Peter, and others, escape after committing\nthe sin several times! These considerations seriously damage the\ncredibility of the story.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXIII.--IDOLATROUS VENERATION FOR BIBLES.\n\n     \"Should reason, science, and philosophic lore\n     Against my faith combine,\n     I'd clasp the Bible to my breast,\n     Believing still that it's divine.\n\n     Here I am told how Christ hath died\n     To save my soul from hell:\n     Not all the books on earth beside\n     Such heavenly wonders tell.\n\n     This simple book I'd rather own\n     Than all the gold and gems\n     That e'er in monarch's coffers shone,\n     Than all their diadems.\n\n     Nay, were the seas one chrysolite,\n     The earth a golden ball,\n     And diadems the stars of night,\n     This book were worth them all.\"\n\nA Christian writer, in attempting to portray the Protestant view of the\nBible, says, \"It is a miraculous collection of miraculous books. Every\nword it contains was written by miraculous inspiration from God, which\nwas so full, complete, and infallible, that the authors delivered the\ntruth, and nothing but the truth. The Bible contains no false statements\nof doctrine or faith, but sets forth all religious and moral truth which\nman needs to know, or which it is possible for him to receive, and not\na particle of error; and therefore the Bible is the only authoritative\nrule of faith and practice.\" These two pious effusions--one in prose,\nthe other in poetry--exhibit the views and feelings very prevalent among\nthe disciples of the Christian faith only a few centuries ago; and\nthey are cherished yet, to a considerable extent, by a large portion\nof Christian professors. This blind, idolatrous veneration is gradually\ngiving way to the light of science and general intelligence; and the\nthick mental gloom and darkness of superstition out of which they grow\nis being dispelled. When the intellectual mind becomes fully developed\nand enlightened, the Bible will find its true level, and will command no\nmore homage than other books. It will be read and estimated, like other\nhuman productions, according to its real merits. In this enlightened\nand scientific age, Bible devotees never go to such extreme lengths in\npouring fulsome adulations upon the idolized book. They would be laughed\nat for their ignorance and superstition if they should attempt it. But\nthe time has been when every religious nation which possessed a \"Iloly\nBook\" attached extreme sacredness and exalted holiness to the book and\nall its contents, and often indulged in the most extravagant language\nand the wildest rhapsodies in their attempts to eulogize and idolize its\nvirtues. In this respect there was but little difference between Jews,\npagans, and Christians: all idolized their Holy Books. A sacred regard\nwas shown not only for the book, but often for every manuscript, scrap\nof paper, or text which it contained, or which was supposed to contain a\nmessage or revelation from God. But few religious nations have existed,\neven in the remote past, who have not possessed some kind of Bible\nor sacred record which they treated with an enthusiastic veneration\nbordering on idolatry. The Hindoos, the Egyptians, the Persians,\nthe Chinese, the Mahomedans, and the early Christians were all Bible\nidolaters. The Hindoos, like the Christians, were religiously enjoined\nto read and study \"the Holy Scriptures;\" and the priests, as those\nin Christian countries do now, made them a study, and reduced the\ninterpretation of them to an art. And, like Christians in another\nrespect, they were interdicted from transcending in knowledge what was\ntaught in their assumed-to-be divinely illuminated pages. The disciple\nof the Hindoo faith was not allowed to become \"wise above what\nwas written\" in the Vedas (see chapter vi.); and the same solemn\nprohibition, \"Add not to, or take not from, the word of God,\" was\nreverently obeyed by the devout disciple of the Vedas. The Mahomedans\nbelieve the Koran has been received and transmitted from generation to\ngeneration by the direct agency of God. They claim that it is not only\nan infallible rule of faith and practice, but \"God's last will and\ntestament to man,\" and that it is designed by God for the whole human\nfamily; and they pray and hope for its universal extension and adoption.\nOne pious Mussulman (Sadak), on being asked why the Koran appeared to\nbe newer every time it was read, replied, \"Because God did not reveal\nit for any particular age or nation, but for all mankind down to the\nJudgment Day.\" Mahomedans tell us that, \"such is the innate efficacy\nof the Koran, it removes all pains of body and all sorrows of mind.\nIt annihilates what is wrong in carnal desires, delivers us from the\ntemptations of Satan and from fears. It removes all doubts raised by\nsatanic influences, sanctifies the heart, imparts health to the soul,\nand produces union with the Lord of holiness.\" With the ancient Persians\nthe great test and touchstone of all faith and all moral action was\ntheir \"Holy Word of God.\" To know whether a thing was right or wrong,\nthey had only to inquire, \"Is it taught, or is it forbidden, by the\nZenda Avesta?\" The Persians, like the Jews, had four days set apart in\neach month for religious festivals, on which occasions, Mr. Hyde informs\nos, \"they met in their temples, and read portions of their Holy Books,\nand preached and inculcated morality and virtue\" (chap. xxxviii. p.\n352). But Bible exaltation and adoration ran much higher than is here\nindicated in some countries. They were not only believed to be \"words\"\nor \"the word of God,\" but to have a portion of the spirit of God\nimpressed into every chapter, every verse, and every word; and hence\nthey received a portion of that veneration and adoration usually\nascribed to Deity. And here we find both Jews and Christians have been\nstrict imitators of the heathen in the practical exhibition of this\nspecies of book idolatry. We are told that the ancient Budhists ascribed\ninherent sacredness and supernatural power to the identical Sanscrit\nword of their scriptures. Hence it was considered sacrilegious to make\nany alteration in the arrangement of those words; and, for fear some\nalteration of this kind might be made, they objected to the missionaries\ntranslating \"the Holy Book\" into the English language. Mr. Hyde informs\nus, they not only read their Bible in their temples, but at their\nfestivals and in their families; and, like the Jews and primitive\nChristians and the Mahomedans, they carried them in their travels, and\nslept with the Holy Book under their pillows. Nearly all Bibles in that\nage were treated with this kind of veneration. Brahmins, Persians, Jews,\nMahomedans, and Christians, in their earlier history, were in the habit\nof attaching texts or detached portions of scripture to their clothes,\nor inserting them into their hats or shoes,--an act prompted by the\nbelief that they would impart some supernatural charm; and the Persians,\nHindoos, and Mahomedans have been seen covered from head to foot with\nscripture texts. In the days of St. Justin and St. Jerome such scenes\nwere often witnessed among Christians also. Even the handling of\nthe Bible was believed to impart a supernatural or miraculous power,\nmanifested in the cure of diseases, driving away devils, &c. Several\nBibles were thus deified. In some nations they were kept under lock and\nkey, or cloistered in a golden box, to prevent unsanctified hands from\nopening them. The notion was prevalent with the devotees of several\nBibles, that they should be read differently, if not held differently,\nfrom other books. Kissing the \"Holy Book\" was also prevalent among\nthe Hindoos, Mahomedans, and early Christians,--indeed, in nearly\nall religious countries. Bible worship knew no bounds in the days of\nignorance and superstition, when people had more piety than philosophy.\nBelieving that the spirit of God permeated their Bibles, nearly all\nthe blessings of life were ascribed to their influence. Such a belief,\nfostered from age to age, and transmitted from parent to child, could\nbut operate to blind the judgment of all Bible believers so as to\ndisqualify them for detecting defects or perceiving their errors,\nthough they may abound on every page. And these Bibles have been read\nby millions of their disciples with a kind of solemn awe or holy fervor,\nwhich not only wholly incapacitates the mind for perceiving its errors,\nbut shuts out the possibility of a doubt of its truth. Indeed, they\nglory in assuming it to be \"a perfect embodiment of divine truth,\"\n\"without the shadow of a shade of error from Genesis to Revelation,\" to\nuse the language of Dr. Cheviot with respect to the Christian Bible. The\nreasoning faculties are put to sleep, and the intellect bound fast\nin chains, before \"God's Iloly Book\" is opened; and if the reasoning\nfaculties should by chance arouse, and rebel against such tyranny, and\ntry to assert their rights by permitting a doubt to spring up in the\nmind that some statement or text is not true, the Bible devotee becomes\nalarmed, and exclaims, with trembling fear, \"Lord, I believe: help thou\nmine unbelief.\" In this state of fearful and prayerful mental strife\nagainst reason, doubt, and disbelief, he again sinks into the \"darkness\nof devotion,\" determined still longer to hug his canonized and idolized\nbook to his bosom with all its errors and immoralities. This has been\nvirtually the experience of thousands of Bible believers, to a greater\nor less extent, in all ages and all countries in possession of \"Holy\nBooks.\" In this way Bibles have been an obstacle to the progress of mind\nand the progress of society. An unchangeable and infallible book\nmust inevitably cramp the mind, and hold it in chains. Hence a\nBible-believing community can make no progress in morals, science,\nor civilization, only so far as they violate their own principles\nby transcending its teachings. Society would remain for ever in an\nignorant, uncultured state, were there not some minds in it possessing a\nsufficient amount of intellect to outgrow their Bibles; and, but for the\npublication and perusal of other books, society would make but little\nprogress. A mind which is religiously and conscientiously bound to\nbelieve in a Bible is bound to all its errors and all its ignorance,\nand hence can make no progress while it adheres rigidly to its own\nprinciples or its own scruples; but, thanks to the progressive genius of\nthe age, the \"Holy Books\" which embody the moral and religious errors of\nthe past are nearly outgrown, so that they are seldom read now even by\ntheir professed admirers. People are assuming the liberty of becoming\n\"wise above what is written\" in \"God's Holy Book.\" Even Christians\nthemselves often assume this liberty: otherwise we should have a\ncommunity characterized by ignorance and superstition; and our writers\nwould be as liable to stumble into errors and contradictions as the\nBible writers when they penned \"God's perfect revelation.\" It requires\nthe acquisition of but little knowledge and intelligence to become \"wise\nabove that which was written\" in that illiterate and ignorant age.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXIV.--SPIRITUAL OR IMPLIED SENSE OF BIBLES.\n\nThe practice seems to have been very early conceived and adopted in\nvarious countries by the disciples of different Bibles, which have been\nlong extant in the world, of attaching to all the offensive texts of\ntheir sacred books (which, when taken literally, convey either a vulgar,\nimmoral, or foolish sense) a new and more acceptable meaning than\nearlier custom had sanctioned, or more devout minds had ever thought\nof. As the growing intelligence of the people was constantly disclosing\nlong-unnoticed and important errors in the Holy Book, this expedient\nwas adopted to cover them up, or put them out of sight. As Jesus, if not\nPaul, by virtue of the growth of the moral and intellectual perceptions,\nwas able to distinguish some errors and moral defects in the first\ninstallment of Bible revelation as found in the Jewish Old Testament, so\nthe people in every age since, in those countries where any cultivation\nhas been bestowed upon the mind, have been capable of bringing to light\nnumerous errors incorporated into the sacred books of past ages; and as\nsome of those books called Bibles were claimed by their disciples to be\nperfect, divinely inspired, and infallible, and consequently free from\nerror, some expedient had to be devised to sustain this claim, and show\nthat the man of science was guilty of falsehood when he charged \"God's\nHoly Book\" with containing errors. The expedient finally adopted was to\ntake the long-established signification of the words of the text out,\nand put in a new meaning, coined by the prolific brain of the devout\ndefender of the Book for the occasion; and this new sense was called\n\"the spiritual sense.\" It was presumed it would be more acceptable to\nthe intelligent minds of the age. In this way, whenever a new scientific\ndiscovery has been announced, demonstrating some of the statements of\nthe venerated volume to be erroneous, the clergy have set themselves to\nwork with their clerical force-pumps to extract the meaning which our\nstandard dictionaries assign to the words of every text that seemed to\nconflict with the newly discovered scientific truth, and ingraft into it\na new meaning of their own invention. This practice finally became, and\nhas long been, an established practice and art in nearly every country\nwhere a Bible has been known, whether Jewish, Pagan, or Christian. In\nfact, no nation having a Bible has omitted to practice it.\n\nNo matter how vulgar, how disgusting, or how shocking to the better\nfeelings, or how immoral the literal reading of the text, a hundred\nways could be found to get rid of its offensive signification; a hundred\nspiritual interpretations could be thrust under its verbal coverings.\nThe most senseless, the most indecorous, and the most demoralizing\nverbiage could thus be made to pass for great \"spiritual truths.\" The\npagans and the Jews practiced this art laboriously and extensively; and\nthe disciples of the Christian faith, in all ages of the Church have\nbeen their strict imitators. That it is a very ancient heathen custom is\nevident from the declaration of \"The Nineteenth Century,\" which quotes\nPlutarch as saying, \"The spiritual or allegorical mode of interpreting\nwords and language was applied to the poems of Orpheus, the Egyptian\nwriters, and the Phrygian traditions\" (p. 337). Grote tells us that the\nplain and literal meaning would not have been listened to, as it did\nnot suit the mental demands of the people. (See Grote's \"History of\nGreece.\") He assigns this mode of interpreting sacred books to ancient\nEgypt; and Mr. Wilson says the Christians caught the passion for\nspiritualizing and allegorizing their Bible at an early date, and of\nconverting them on all occasions into spiritual mysteries, from the\nlater Platonists, the example of Philo, and the Jewish rabbis. \"The\nMahomedans,\" Mr. Kant informs us, \"gave a spiritual sense to the sensual\ndescriptions of their paradise,\" and thus the Hindoos also interpreted\ntheir Vedas. \"The Mahomedans,\" says another writer, \"indulge in glowing\nallegories concerning love and intoxication, which, like some of the\nHindoo devotional writings, seem sensual to those who perceive only the\nexternal sense, while the initiated find in them an interior meaning.\"\nThe Greeks and Romans, according to the testimony of Mr. Kant, explained\naway some of the silliest legends of their polytheism by spiritualizing\nthem, or giving them a mystical sense. Speaking in general terms, Mr.\nTaylor says, \"An allegorical sense was the apology offered for the\nmanifest absurdities of paganism.\" The Roman Julian once remarked, that\nthe poetic stories concerning the Gods, though regarded as fables, he\nsupposed contained a spiritual treasury. Kant declares, in like manner,\nthat the ancient pagans \"gave a mystical sense to the many vicious\nactions of their Gods, and to the wildest dreams of their poets, in\norder to bring the popular faith into agreement with their doctrines of\nmorality;\" that is, they resorted to a spiritual interpretation in order\nto save them from being condemned as popular intelligence advanced. \"All\nthe learned ancients,\" says Mr. Higgins, \"gave their sacred writings two\nmeanings,--one literal, and the other spiritual.\" Philo confessed that\nthe literal sense of the Old Testament is \"shocking:\" hence \"a divine\nscience, believed by intuition, is necessary to penetrate the hidden\nmeaning.\" The Essenes declared, the literal sense of their scriptures\nwas devoid of all power. Origen, finding Moses' writings replete with\nerror and immorality, got rid of the difficulty by declaring, \"It is\nall allegory.\" He makes the remarkable confession, that \"there were some\nthings inserted in the Bible as history which were never transacted:\"\nhence he concludes they must be interpreted spiritually, or set down as\nfalse. And St. Hillary declares, \"There are many historical passages in\nthe New Testament, which, if taken literally, are contrary to sense\nand reason; and therefore there is a necessity for a mystical\ninterpretation.\" Not that we have any evidence that such an\ninterpretation was ever thought of by the writer; but this new and\nforced interpretation is the only alternative to save the credit of the\nBook. Any senseless expedient or subterfuge that could be invented was\ndragged in, rather than admit the Holy Book contained errors; for this\nwould prove it to be the work of man, and not of God. This has been\nthe policy from time immemorial of the votaries of all sacred books.\nOrigen--after declaring, \"There is no literal truth in the story of\nChrist driving out the money-changers\"--asserts that it is an allegory,\nindicating that we are to cast out our evil propensities. He says\nthe early Christians seldom used the literal sense of the scriptures,\nbecause it taught something objectionable; and, ever since the\ninauguration of this mode for concealing the errors and defective moral\nteachings of the Bible, all kinds of ridiculous interpretations of\nscripture have been resorted to by orthodox writers to make it teach\nwhat each one desired. Since they arrogated to themselves the liberty to\ndepart from the literal meaning of the text, hundreds of meanings have\nbeen ingrafted upon the same text by as many writers and readers; thus\nlaunching all scripture import upon the quicksands of uncertainty. The\nRev. Mr. McNaught of England points to one text in Galatians--on which,\nhe says, two hundred and forty meanings have been saddled by different\nBible interpreters--as a specimen of this kind of license, that is,\ntwo hundred and forty guesses at the meaning: thus making Bible\ninterpretation, and the system of salvation founded on it, an entire\nsystem of _guess-work_; and I would suggest, that, if we have thus to\nguess our way to heaven, we can do so as well without the Bible as\nwith it. A God who is so ignorant of human language as to give forth\na revelation to the world couched in such unintelligible and ambiguous\nterms that no two people can understand it alike, it seems to us,\nshould not have attempted it. All will be chaos and confusion and wild\nguess-work with respect to the meaning of a large portion of the Bible,\nwhile its readers are allowed to depart from the established meaning\nof words as defined by our dictionaries, and fabricate new meanings of\ntheir own. As for example: St. Andrew tells us, that, when Christ spoke\nof removing mountains, he meant the Devil; and, when he spoke of selling\ntwo sparrows for a farthing, Bishop Hillary says he meant \"sinners\nselling themselves to the Devil.\" The red heifer offered by Moses on the\nday of Pentecost was \"spiritually Jesus Christ;\" thus identifying Gods\nwith beasts. The wool and hyssop used-for sprinkling the people, we are\ntold, means spiritually, \"the cross of Christ.\" Christ's injunction to\nhate father, mother, brother, and sister, &c., we are told, means\nthat we must love them; and many similar examples of manufacturing new\nmeanings for obnoxious texts might be cited.\n\nNow, we ask, of what practical value can the Bible be, when there is no\ncertain clew to its meaning, or when any of its readers, on finding a\nword or text whose literal signification does not suit their religious\nfancy, can assume the liberty to renounce the dictionary, ignore the\ncommon and established acceptation of words, and fabricate a new meaning\ncontrary to, and in direct conflict with, the common signification? To\nget rid of some obvious error in the text, they bestow upon it any kind\nof fanciful, and sometimes ridiculous, signification their imagination\ncan invent, and then insist with a godly zeal that it is the in-ten led\nmeaning of the writer. If such lawless license in the use of words is to\nbe tolerated, as Bible believers are in the habit of assuming, in order\nto make it teach something which they devoutly desire it should teach,\nthen all rules with respect to the employment of language and the use\nof words are at an end: our dictionaries may be banished from the\nschoolroom. We will no longer have use for them if words are no longer\nthe symbols of ideas, which must be the case if people are allowed to\nattach any signification to them they please, or assign them a meaning\nat variance with common custom; and a person can learn as much by\ncasting his eyes over the blank pages of the book as by tracing its\nprinted lines. And the art and labor of printing, so far as he is\nconcerned, is superseded; for, as he fabricates his own meaning, this\ncan be done as well without type as with it. Mr. Ernstein, in his\n\"Principles of Biblical Interpretation\" (p. 37), affirms that \"a\nproposition may be strictly true which is not contained in the words\nof the text;\" which is tantamount to saying, \"The meaning exists\nindependent of the text, and is to be found outside of it:\" so the text\nis not needed, and is of no practical use; for the sentiment of the text\ncan be traced as well on the blank page. The unwarrantable license which\nBible adherents assume of ingrafting new meanings into the words of a\ntext when its literal reading shocks their moral sense by its immodesty,\nits falsity, or its puerility, would not be tolerated with respect to\nany other book; and, if it is just and warrantable in this case, why not\nadopt it for interpreting the pagan Bibles, and thus spiritualize them\ninto truth and harmony? It would take every objectionable statement out\nof them, and make them pure, un-mixed truth. With this kind of license\na book can be made to teach any thing desired. Grant me the liberty that\nChristians assume in deviating from the established use of language, and\ncoining a new meaning for words, and I will take all the infidelity out\nof \"Tom Paine's writings,\" and make them chime with the smoothest and\nsoundest orthodoxy.\n\nIt should be borne in mind that the custom of spiritualizing the\napparently immoral and obscene portions of the Bible is something the\ncommon people know nothing about, but suppose that Bible writers, in\nall cases, mean just what they say. Hence it is evident the practice has\nbeen attended with no practical benefit to society; and Infinite Wisdom\nshould have foreseen (and would if it had been his production) that the\nuse of such language would have a demoralizing effect upon the world,\nand consequently would have made use of better language. Bishop Holbrook\nsays that the notion of an inner sense to the Bible is a mere creation\nof fancy, and will take the errors out of any book. And, as different\nwriters differ in their mode of spiritualizing the Bible, it proves it\nis a mere invention and forced expedient to save the credit of the Book.\nThe resort to a spiritual sense for the Bible was simply an attempt\nto conceal _its bad sense,--its nonsense_, its vulgarity, its immoral\nteachings, and its numerous contradictions, which scientific and\nprogressive minds are constantly bringing to light. But it is as\nillusory and ineffectual as the ostrich hiding its head in the sand to\nevade its pursuers. In both cases the danger is blinked out of sight,\nbut not removed.\n\nAny sense of a text not clearly expressed or unequivocally indicated\nby the language, we claim, is a slander and a derogation upon Infinite\nWisdom, as it assumes he was too ignorant of language to be able to say\nwhat he meant, thus placing him lower in the scale of intelligence than\na common schoolboy; and assumes his priesthood are infinitely wiser, as\nthey are able to reveal his \"Holy Book\" all over again, and thus make\nthe numerous blunders of Infinite Wisdom plain and intelligible to\ncommon sense and the poorest understanding.\n\nI can not conclude this chapter without bestowing my thanks upon Emanuel\nSwedenborg for the service he has rendered the cause of truth and\ntheological reform by an improved system of theology he has made out\nof the Bible, or rather out of his own brain. Being a man of unusual\nintellect and moral aspirations, and a man of considerable literary\nattainments, he could not brook the absurd system of theology taught in\nthe pulpits, professedly drawn from the Bible. And whether his system is\nmore conformable to the teachings of \"the Holy Book\" is a matter of no\nimportance. It is in many respects a rational and beautiful system, and\nis thus far very acceptable, and must be very beneficial as a substitute\nfor the irrational, and in some respects immoral, system taught by\nthe orthodox churches; and, were it universally adopted by Christian\nprofessors, it would be a great improvement on the popular system, and a\nstep toward the attainment of a true and perfect system.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXV.--WHAT SHALL WE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE?\n\nThe disbelievers in Christianity in all past time, when objecting to\nit as being fraught with too many moral defects to constitute a basis or\nguide for the religious opinions and moral actions of men in an age more\nfree from superstition, and much farther advanced in a knowledge of the\ntrue science of morals and the general principles of philosophy, have\nbeen met with the reply, \"Show us a better system before you pull down\nChristianity and throw aside the Bible. Let us know what you are going\nto substitute in their place.\" Very well, good friend, we will meet your\nobjection, and hope we can remove the difficulty. We think that either\nof the following answers should prove satisfactory, and, all taken\ntogether, more than satisfactory:--\n\n1. We do not propose or desire to destroy or supersede any valuable\ntruth, precept, principle, or doctrine taught in the Bible, or to set\naside any thing that can in any way prove to be practically useful. We\nonly propose to sift out the errors from the truth, rejecting the former\nand retaining the latter, and to employ as many of the old timbers\nin constructing the new superstructure as are not rotten or otherwise\ndefective.\n\n2. Truth can not be \"pulled down\" or destroyed, as it possesses an\nomnipotency of principle that is indestructible. Like gold in the\nrefiner's crucible, it shines the brighter for every effort to destroy\nit.\n\n3. It must be presumed, therefore, that whatever portion of your\nreligion is susceptible of destruction is false, and should be\ndestroyed.\n\n4. It is the nature of truth to spring up voluntarily the moment error\nis removed, as naturally as air or water rushes in to fill a vacuum. The\ninstant the clouds are rifted, the sun darts down its vivifying rays.\nupon the earth. You want no substitute for weeds when exterminated from\nyour garden. When eradicated, those plants which are more useful and\nbeautiful, and which they have been choking and repressing the growth\nof, will then assume a more healthy appearance. You ask no substitute\nfor sickness or disease, but desire it removed that you may again enjoy\nthe blessings of health. Moral health will likewise ensue by the removal\nof noxious weeds from the mind.\n\nAnd, finally, you can find a complete answer to this objection in your\nown Bible: \"Cease to do evil, and (then) learn to do well;\" that is, the\nmoment you discover an error in your faith or practice, abandon it, and\nyou will soon \"learn\" what its proper substitute is. Truth is always at\nhand as a substitute for error. We may assume, then, that, if any of the\nerroneous doctrines now propagated were abandoned, they would find their\nown substitute immediately, as sickness finds its substitute in health.\nBut we will not leave the pious Christian in this negative condition,\nbut will furnish him with a \"substitute\" which holds out much better\nhopes and promises than he has anchored in his idolized system, whether\nthose hopes appertain to a virtuous and happy life here, or to an\never-blessed eternity beyond the confines of time. That substitute\nwill be found fully explained in Chapter XIV., under the head of \"The\nInfidel's Bible.\" Or, if he desires a system in fuller detail, and\none possessing great beauty, let him examine the principles of \"The\nHarmonial Philosophy.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LXVI.--RELIGIOUS RECONSTRUCTION; OR, THE MORAL NECESSITY FOR A\nSCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR RELIGION.\n\nA philosophical analysis of the human mind, viewed in connection with\nthe practical history of man from the early morning of his existence,\nfully demonstrates it as an important truth, that individual happiness\nand the moral welfare of society depend essentially upon the uniform\naction and harmonious cooperation of all the mental faculties; and that,\non the other hand, their individually excessive and inharmonious action\nconstitutes the primary source of nearly all the crime, misery,\nand discord of society. And it may be well to note here, as another\nimportant preliminary truth, that the progressive development of the\nscience of mental philosophy has settled the division of the mental\nfaculties into the following classification: viz.,\n\n1. The animal, which imparts energy and impulsive strength to the whole\ncharacter, mental and physical. 2. The social, which is the source of\nfamily ties and the social and co-operative institutions of society.\n3. The moral, which makes us regardful of the happiness and welfare of\nother beings than ourselves. 4. The intellectual, which is the great\npilot-chamber or lighthouse of the whole mind; though it is but recently\nthat discoveries in mental philosophy have fully disclosed this as being\nits natural and legitimate office. It has thus demonstrated it to be\nthe most important department of the mind. Its position in the\ncerebrum--occupying, as it does, the superior frontal lobe of the\nbrain--might, however, have suggested this. Now this is no fanciful\ndelineation, no mere ideal mapping of the mind, but has been\ndemonstrated thousands of times, since the discoveries of Gall, to be\nthe true condition and classified analysis of the mental faculties. The\nreligious faculties constituting that department of the mind which often\ncontrols our actions anil conduct toward others, and being situated at\nthe apex of the brain,--the point where the most intensified feelings\nand impulses are supposed to concentrate their misdirection or abnormal\nexercise, is consequently attended with more direful consequences\nto society than that of any other portion of the mind. All history\ndemonstrates this as a tragical fact; for religion, more especially,\nis always born blind. This being a tenable fact, and the religious\nfaculties being awakened to action at an early period of human\nsociety,--before the intellectual chambers of the mind were lighted\nup by the illuminating rays of science, or supplied by a philosophical\neducation and a thorough and untrammeled study of nature's laws,--their\nnatural intensity of feeling, thus uncurbed and unenlightened, drove\ntheir honest but dark-minded possessors into the most senseless and\nchildish superstitions, the most absurd doctrines, the most relentless\nintolerance of belief, and the most bloody and murderous persecutions;\nthus proving that conscience unenlightened is a very unsafe and a very\ndangerous moral and religions guide. The popular Christian proverb, that\n\"man can not be too religious,\" comprehends a very fatal error in moral\nethics: for the man who possesses more religion than intellect, or\nmore devotional piety than intellectual cultivation and philosophical\nenlightenment, is sometimes a more dangerous man to society than the\nhighway robber or the midnight assassin; because, always finding many\naccomplices to aid him in his direful deeds of bloody persecutions, and\nfrequently being able, also, to invoke the strong arm of the law,\nhis work of defamation and spoliation, if not of open persecution and\nbloodshed, is wider spread than that of the burglar or the stealthy\nassassin.\n\nA review of history shows us: 1. That, up to the installation of the\nera of science, which dates back less than three centuries ago, the\nworld--that is, the Christian world--was literally a vast prison-house\nof chains, and a theater of butchery and blood,--the result of a\npractical effort of men, devoutly pious, to \"promote the glory of\nGod,\" and the establishment of a supposed-to-be-true religion. 2. The\nperpetrators of those tragical deeds upon men and women were, many of\nthem, as religiously honest and conscientious \"as ever breathed the\nbreath of life;\" and they verily believed they were doing God service in\nthus punishing and exterminating dissenters and heretics. The very fact\nthat some of these pious persecutors perished themselves at the\nfiery stake in the conscientious and unflinching maintenance of their\nprinciples, shouting \"Hallelujah\" while the burning fagots consumed\ntheir bodies, leaves no possible ground for doubt that a deep religious\nconviction had actuated them in the work of persecuting and punishing\nthe enemies of their religion, and in attempting to convert the world\nto its \"saving truth\" by the sword. Much is said about \"conscience,\" \"the\ninternal monitor,\" \"the still, small voice,\" &c., as a guide for man's\nmoral actions; but, if experience and history ever proved or can\nprove any thing, they demonstrate most conclusively that conscience\nunenlightened by the intellectual department of the mind, or a\nconscience grown up amid the weeds of scientific ignorance, is as\ndangerous a pilot upon the moral ocean as the helmsman of a ship,\nin midnight darkness, surrounded by dangerous shoals and resistless\nwhirlpools. Conscience without science or philosophy is a lamp without\noil, which consequently, being without light, is more likely to lead\nus astray than to guide us to the temple of truth. Science is the\npilot-lamp by which we discern our way on the pilgrim-voyage of life;\nwhile religion is the feeling, the motive-power, which impels us onward.\nHence the latter should at all times be subservient to the former,\nand should be checked and restrained from spontaneous development and\nexercise until the former is duly installed upon the mental throne as\nruler of the moral empire. It is as dangerous to cultivate and stimulate\nthe religious feelings, until the fires of science or practical\nphilosophy have been kindled up in the intellectual chambers to furnish\nthe light necessary to guide them in their impulsive course, as it would\nbe to steam up the boilers of a boat when approaching a precipice in\nthe night, with the pilot asleep upon his hammock, and all the lights\nextinguished in his chamber. Neither religion nor conscience possesses\nprimordially any light of its own. Both are born blind; and all\nthe light they ever possess is by reflection from the intellectual\nlight-house. Prolific, indeed, of the proof of this statement, are human\nnature, human experience, and universal history. Let the policy, then,\nbe, in all cases, to cultivate science before religion. The intellectual\nmind, we repeat, should be thoroughly cultivated and enlightened before\nthe religious feelings are called into action.\n\nQuery. Reader, what do you now think of Dr. Cheviot's statement, \"The\nBible does not contain the _shadow of a shade of error from Genesis to\nRevelation._\"\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.--SEVERAL IMPORTANT POINTS.\n\n1. As this work was announced several years ago, it seems proper to\nexplain the causes of the long delay in its publication. Want of health\nfor completing it, and want of means for publishing it, furnish the true\nexplanation. But by the practical application of a remedy constituting a\nnew and extraordinary discovery in the healing art, the author's health\nhas so far improved as to enable him to resume the work, and re-write\nnearly the whole of it in a few weeks time. The work advertised embraced\nbut forty pages. The present volume comprises nearly eleven times that\nnumber of pages, and includes only two chapters of the original, except\nthe small portion which has been re-written.\n\n2. While \"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors\" was designed\nprincipally to trace the doctrines, traditions, and miraculous events of\nthe Christian Bible to their primary pagan or Oriental origin, the main\nobject of \"The Bible of Bibles\" is to expose their logical absurdity,\nand the evils resulting from their propagation and practical\napplication.\n\n3. The objection is frequently raised in this work against placing the\nBible in the hands of children, and also in possession of the heathen.\nThis would, of course, keep it out of our common schools; and the author\nrejoices in knowing, that, although the Bible was used as a regular\nschool-book in his youthful days, it has been banished as a text-book\nfrom nearly every schoolroom throughout the country. This denotes\nprogress.\n\n4. Christian professors regard it as a sufficient refutation of all\nthe arguments and facts designed to prove and demonstrate the immoral\ninfluence of the Bible upon society, to assert that Christian countries\nare superior in morals to those not in possession of their Bible. But\nmany facts cited in this work tend to prove, that, if the assumption\nwere correct, it could not with any show of reason or sense be\nattributed to the influence of the Bible. It is clearly, if not\nself-evidently, impossible that such moral or immoral lessons as are\nderived from the history of such characters as the father and founder of\nthe Jewish nation (Abraham), who is represented as living up to all the\ncommands, all the statutes, and all the laws of God (see Gen. xxvi. 5),\nwhile practicing the abominable crimes of treachery, deceit, falsehood,\nincest or adultery, and polygamy, &c,--I say it is morally impossible\nfor such examples and such lessons to exert other than a demoralizing\ninfluence upon society; or that of David, pronounced \"the man after\nGod's own heart,\" while practicing a long catalogue of the most shocking\ncrimes (see chap. xxx). Such cases blasphemously represent God as\nsanctioning the most atrocious crimes and the most revolting deeds,\nwhich is a virtual licence to the whole human race to practice them. If\na book containing such lessons does not exert an immoral influence upon\nsociety, then human language, when employed in writing Bibles, fails to\nmake its ordinary impression upon the mind. But we will here cite three\ncogent and incontrovertible historical facts, which will settle the\nmatter at once and for ever, by proving the truth of our oft-repeated\nproposition, that the Christian Bible, notwithstanding the apparent\nimprovement in morals of most Christian countries in modern times,\nhas, on the whole, tended to demoralize every nation where it has\nbeen generally read, believed, and practiced. First, look at the moral\ncondition of the whole Christian world during the period known as \"the\nDark Ages,\" and you will see the proof in overwhelming torrents. During\nthat long night of moral darkness and human depravity, which lasted\nnearly a thousand years, all Christendom was reeking with moral\ncorruption, and practicing the most abominable crimes. Lying, deceit,\nhypocrisy, moral treason, licentiousness, adultery, fornication,\nfighting, and drunkenness were the order of the day among all classes,\nincluding the clergy and the deacons, simply because the light of\nscience had not reached them, and the Bible was their sole guide\nin morals and religion. This state of things continued until the\nintroduction of Greek literature dispelled the thick clouds of mental\ndarkness, and arrested the swift tide of moral corruption. Second, the\nGreeks without our Bible were both morally and intellectually superior\nto any Christian nation. Third, \"the Dark Ages\" were brought to a close\nby the introduction of Greek learning and Greek morals into Christian\nnations. This dates their first tendency to rise out of the sloughs of\nheathen barbarism, and their first appearance of moral improvement. And\nthus the proposition is proved and demonstrated by the facts of history\nthat the Bible continued to demoralize society till its influence was\narrested by the dawn of moral and physical science. In no nation has\nthere been any marked improvement in morals with the use of the Bible\nalone.\n\n5. It will doubtless be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance that\nso many thousand biblical errors as are disclosed in this work should\nhave passed from age to age unnoticed by the millions of disciples of\nthe Christian faith, and more especially the startling fact that all the\ncardinal doctrines of the Christian religion are founded in error.\nBut it should be borne in mind that it was regarded and taught as a\nreligious duty to suppress and conceal all such errors, and absolutely\nwicked, sinful, and dangerous to admit the possibility that the Holy\nBook can con-tain errors. And this negative policy alone was sufficient\nto keep them concealed and out of sight.\n\n6. It is stated in chapter thirty that none of 1st. Old Testament\nwriters teach the doctrine of immortality or the doctrine of future\nrewards and punishments. The proof and a full elucidation of this\nsubject will be found in \"The Biography of Satan.\"\n\n7. It is stated in chapter fifty-five that all human language is more\nor less ambiguous and uncertain, and in chapter fifty-two that skillful\nlinguists of this age can construct language whose meaning can not be\nmisunderstood; and hence God should have been able to do so when the\nBible was written. The first statement refers to language as ordinarily\nused when the Bible was written, and especially the imperfect Hebrew of\nthe Bible. The last statement implies that with the modern improvements\nlanguage can be so employed as to leave no doubt of its meaning in any\ncase. Both statements, then, are correct.\n\n8: The author, in abridging citations from history and the Bible, has\nin some cases deviated from custom in using quotation-marks. This is\nespecially true of chapter twenty-two (on Bible contradictions).\n\n9. It is believed that no errors of any importance can be found in this\nwork, unless some mistakes have been committed in making scriptural\nreferences.\n\n10. Each reader of this work is desired to examine carefully and\ncritically the author's exposition of \"The Twelve Cardinal Doctrines of\nthe Christian Faith,\" and report to him his views of that exposition.\nThose twelve leading doctrines are embraced in the twelve chapters\ncommencing at chapter 33 (on revelation) and ending at chapter 44 (on a\npersonal God).","title":"The Bible of Bibles; Or, Twenty-Seven \"Divine\" Revelations","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":165892}