{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45414/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45414","id":"gutenberg_45414","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45414","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature","Free thought"],"text":"A HANDBOOK OF FREETHOUGHT.\n\n             Containing in Condensed and Systematized Form\n                   A Vast Amount of Evidence Against\n              The Superstitious Doctrines of Christianity.\n\n\n                        Selected by W. S. BELL.\n\n\n                               New York:\n                       THE TRUTH SEEKER COMPANY,\n                          28 Lafayette Place.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nI have aimed in preparing this work to put into compact and orderly\nform a large amount of irrefragable evidence against the superstitions\nof the church. I have often felt the need of such a work for my own\nuse. The matter herewith presented has been culled from some of the\nablest writers living and dead. As a book of reference I hope it may\nbe a valuable aid to all investigators and truthseekers. Its running\nhead lines, chapter heads, subheads, and classified subjects make it a\n\"handbook.\"\n\n\nSan Francisco.\n\nJanuary 10, 1890.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCREATION.\n\nIn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1 : 1.)\n\n\nNo sooner do we read this sentence than we find our minds full of\nperplexing questions. Quite naturally we ask in the \"beginning\" of\nwhat? It could not mean in the beginning of God, for it is supposed\nthat he had no beginning; it could not mean the beginning of eternity,\nas that is without commencement or end, and it could not have been in\nthe beginning of matter as it is eternal. If then matter is eternal,\nthe story about the creation of the heaven and the earth is nothing\nmore than a myth--a childish story that has come down to us from the\ndark ages of the remote past.\n\nThe indestructibility of matter is the corner-stone of modern\nphilosophy, and the indestructibility of matter implies its eternal\nexistence, that is, it never was created and it never will cease to\nexist. Theologians have taught for centuries that God created matter\nout of nothing. Enlightened people have to smile when they hear these\nstories repeated. Some theologians who have discovered the folly of\nsuch empty traditions have tried to reconstruct them by means of new\ninterpretations. The Rev. De Witt Talmage, of Brooklyn, has discovered\nthat God created matter out of a piece of omnipotence. This discovery\nis important, and may lead to grand results; still there are some\npeople who doggedly refuse to accept this invention, and maintain that\nomnipotence is nothing more than an attribute, and that one could with\nas much propriety speak of God's creating matter out of omniscience,\nor omnipresence.\n\nThere are others who do not claim that matter was made out of nothing,\nbut that it was in a chaotic state, and that at a certain time (before\ntime was), God formed it into the universe in six days of creation.\n\nBut this explanation does not help us out of our difficulties. For if\nGod did not create matter out of nothing then it is eternal, and there\ncould be no such thing as creation, or Creator. There is nothing in\nthis old story at all, if it proves on examination that the \"Creator\"\ndid not create matter; for in that case matter is co-eternal with God,\nand like him, is uncaused. When this old definition of creation fails\nthe theological superstructure built upon it totters and falls to\nthe ground. For if the Creator did not originate the universe from\nnothing, then matter is eternal, and God is not omnipotent, is not\ninfinite, is not God. Thus we see that we have no reason whatever\nto think that there ever was a beginning to matter, or that creation\nof matter is at all thinkable. The words \"beginning\" and \"creation,\"\nas thus used are without meaning.\n\nIt is a marvel how long the mind of man has been subject to this\nchildish fable. Surely the wise men of the different ages who heard\nit perceived its unreasonableness. But the wise men were few and the\nunwise were many, and the superstructure built over their heads in\nthe form of theocracies and theologies, laid upon the foundations of\nthis myth were too formidable to admit of free thought. The prophets\nmust prophesy according to the traditions of the fathers. New\ninterpretations were never welcome in this world. A radical idea\nis always a source of pain to the superficial or bigoted mind. And\nabove all heresy was the worst of all things, and everything new was\nheresy. And because human reason was all the time making discoveries\nwhich revealed better things than had been known, and because reason\nexposed the weakness and falsity of traditions and superstitions,\ntherefore reason itself was condemned and put under ban and was called\n\"carnal reason,\" and in order to overcome it, faith, blind belief, was\nset up as the greatest of all human virtues. And so strong was reason\nin its persistent attempts to get at the truth, it became necessary to\npreach faith all the time and to make salvation in another world depend\nupon it. And, as if this was not enough, he was constantly reminded\nthat the sentence, \"believe or be damned\" did not relate wholly to\nanother world. Damnation often began in this world. The persecutions,\ninquisitions, crusades, St. Bartholomew massacres all show how hard\nit is with those who have faith to have kindness of heart.\n\n\"And God said let there be light and there was light.\" But how do\nwe know he said so? Who was the reporter at that early date? In fact\neven if it were true, how could any one have ever found it out? And\nif any one had found it how could we know it? The same question might\nbe asked in reference to creation. Who discovered the fact? How could\nwe know that some one had learned it even if it were true?\n\n\"And God saw the light that it was good.\" From this expression, we\nshould infer that he did not know beforehand whether the light he\nwas about experimentally to originate would be a good thing or not;\nbut after having spoken it into existence and contemplating it for a\nwhile, he pronounced it good. The approval is spoken of it much after\nthe manner of men. For instance we see a painter after having put the\nfinishing touches on his picture step back and with satisfaction look\nat it, and say, \"it is the greatest effort of my life.\"\n\n\"And God divided the light from the darkness.\" The originator of this\nstory had not the slightest idea of the nature of light. He supposed it\nto be a substance that could be separated from darkness, which he also\nimagined a substance, as white beans may be separated from black beans.\n\n\n    In his imagination he probably saw God throwing pieces and\n    chunks of darkness on one side and rays and beams of light on\n    the other. It is hard for a man who has been born but once to\n    understand these things. (\"Mistakes of Moses,\" Ingersoll.)\n\n    \"And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night;\n    and the evening and the morning were the first day.\"\n\n\nBible expounders have found it difficult to reconcile the word \"day\"\nwith the teachings of geology. According to common chronology the\ncreation of this universe out of nothing took place four thousand and\nfour years before the birth of Christ, which would make the universe\nabout six thousand years old. The testimony of geology is that the\nformation of this earth as it now is, must have a record of millions\nof years. And astronomy demonstrates that there are stars so far from\nthis earth that it would take an indefinitely long time for the light\nfrom them to reach this earth.\n\nHere then are two witnesses against this story which makes the earth\nabout six thousand years old. These witnesses cannot be impeached.\n\nWhat shall be done with the record? Oh, put a new interpretation upon\nit. \"A person who is not a critic,\" says Huxley, \"and is not a Hebrew\nscholar, can only stand up and admire the marvelous flexibility of\nthe language which admits of such adverse interpretations.\"\n\nThe great expounders who explain the inexplicable things assure us\nthat the six days of creation spoken of in the book of Genesis do\nmean literal days of twenty-four hours, but that the word \"day\" is\nhere used to mean an indefinite period, \"a great while.\" But there\nare so many, and such great difficulties in the way of our accepting\nthis explanation that we are forced to reject it.\n\nIn the first place the record says \"days,\" and says nothing in\nconnection with the word that would lead us to think the writer meant\nanything by the word more than it usually signifies; while on the\nother hand all the uses of the word seem to imply that a day in every\ninstance where the word is used, means a period of twenty-four hours.\n\nHugh Miller, and an eminent geologist, attempted to reconcile Genesis\nwith geology, and after a laborous effort to achieve this end committed\nsuicide. He attempted an impossible task.\n\nThere is not the slightest grounds for supposing the writer of\nGenesis to mean by the word \"day\" anything more than we mean by the\nsame word. The language, \"the evening and the morning were the first\nday,\" can admit of but one interpretation, and that is the duration\nof twenty-four hours. We shall find that the writer uses the word\n\"day\" where, by no possible flexibility of interpretation, can the\nword mean anything other than this, and gives no hint that he means\nanything different in the use of the word in the latter case from\nits signification in its previous use.\n\n\n    \"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made,\n    and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had\n    made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because\n    that in it he had rested from all his work.\"\n\n    \"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all\n    that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord\n    blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.\"\n\n    \"It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever;\n    for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and on the seventh\n    day he rested and was refreshed.\"\n\n\nAnd still another instance may be given to show that the word \"day\" has\nno double meaning: \"And God made two great lights, the greater to rule\nthe day and the lesser to rule the night.\" The word \"day\" obviously\nmeans what we mean by it when we use it in connection with night.\n\nThese proofs settle the question of the meaning of the word \"day.\" It\nmeans in Genesis just what it means when we use it. The account given\nof creation in speaking of \"days\" meant literally twenty-four hours;\nand geology and astronomy prove such statements to be childish and\nfoolish. If we should admit that the word \"day\" in this narrative\nmeant millions of years, then the first Sabbath upon which the Lord\nrested and was refreshed also meant millions of years. If this be so\nthen it is safe to infer that he is still resting. This may in some\ndegree account for the fact that the ministers are trying to run the\nworld in his name. For if God exerts his power over the world to guide\nand control it according to his own sovereign will it is nothing less\nthan high handed presumption if not rebellious usurpation on the part\nof the clergy to attempt to take the management out of his hands.\n\nIn the second chapter of Genesis, Adam is said to have been made\nbefore the animals were created. After Adam had given names to all\nthe animals as they passed before him in grand review, there was no\nhelpmeet found among them for him, and as an afterthought God formed\na woman for him out of a rib. But here was a very long period between\nthe creation of Adam and Eve. According to the first chapter of Genesis\nAdam and Eve were created at the same time, and before the creation\nof the animal kingdom, but in the second chapter man was the first\ncreature made and woman the last. This would make Adam millions of\nyears older than Eve, if the word \"day\" means millions of years in\nthe first chapter of Genesis.\n\n\n    \"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the\n    waters, and let it divide the waters. And God made the firmament\n    and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the\n    waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God\n    called the firmament heaven.\"\n\n\nAccording to this writer's ideas heaven and earth were two flat\nspheres, upon each of which were vast quantities of water. The\nfirmament in which were set the sun, moon, and stars was in some way\nsupported at a short distance above the earth.\n\n\n    The Hebrew term rakia so translated, is generally regarded as\n    expressive of simple expansion, and is so rendered in the margin\n    of the A. V. (authorized version). (Gen. 1 : 6.) The root means\n    to expand by beating whether by the hand, the foot, or any other\n    instrument. It is especially used of beating out metals into thin\n    plates. (Ex. 39 : 3, and Num. 16 : 39.) The sense of solidity is\n    combined with the ideas of expansion and tenuity in the term. The\n    same idea of solidity runs through all the references to the\n    rakia. In Exodus 24 : 10, it is represented as a solid floor. So\n    again in Ezekiel 1 : 22-26, the \"firmament\" is the floor on\n    which the throne of the Most High is placed. Further, the office\n    of the rakia in the economy of the world demanded strength and\n    substance. It was to serve as a division between the waters above\n    and the waters below. (Gen. 1 : 7.) In keeping with this view the\n    rakia was provided with \"windows\" (Gen. 7 : 11, Isa. 24 : 18,\n    Mal. 3 : 10), and \"doors\" (Ps. 78 : 23) through which the rain\n    and the snow might descend. A secondary purpose which the rakia\n    served was to support the heavenly bodies, sun, moon, and stars\n    (Gen. 1 : 14), in which they were fixed as nails, and from which\n    consequently, they might be said to drop off. (Isa. 14 : 12-34,\n    Mat. 24 : 29.) In all these particulars we recognize the same\n    view as was entertained by the Greeks, and to a certain extent\n    by the Latins. If it be objected to the Mosaic account that the\n    view embodied in the word rakia does not harmonize with strict\n    philosophical truth, the answer to such an objection is, that\n    the writer describes things as they appear rather than as they\n    are. (Smith's \"Abridged Bible Dictionary,\" Firmament.)\n\n\nOne not acquainted with the wonderful flexibility of biblical\ninterpretation, might conclude after reading this explicit definition\nof the rakia that the story of creation was an inspired revelation,\nbut not true. We ourselves are inclined to this opinion, and we\naccept the conclusion that the Mosaic description of the firmament\n\"does not harmonize with strict philosophical truth; and possibly\nwe shall conclude that all parts of the Mosaic cosmogony will show\nthat the writer who attempts to give a history of the beginning of\nthe universe, did nothing more than describe things as they appeared\nto his mind's eye, rather than as they actually were.\n\n\n    \"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, and the herb\n    yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind,\n    whose seed is in itself, upon the earth, and it was so.\"\n\n\nThis was on the third day, and we read that on the fifth day, \"God\ncreated great whales and every living creature that moveth which\nthe waters brought forth abundantly after their kind.\" But in the\nevolution of life upon this earth, grasses, trees and plants do not\nprecede the evolution of marine animals. Here again we come upon\none of those instances where the account given does not harmonize\nwith strict philosophical truth; but the answer to such objections\nis that \"the writer describes things as they appear rather than as\nthey are.\" In modern language we should say he was merely guessing\nat the riddle of existence.\n\n\n    \"And God made two great lights, and the greater to rule the day\n    and the lesser to rule the night; and he made the stars also.\"\n\n\nThe creation of the sun and the moon was on the fourth day. But it is\nnot made clear how there could have been a morning and an evening of\nthree previous days, in the absence of the sun. Then again there is no\npossible explanation for the existence of vegetation without sunlight.\n\nGrasses, trees, and plants will not grow without sunlight. And still\nanother difficulty meets us in the same passage. The writer says God\nmade two great lights, the greater to rule the day and the lesser\nto rule the night. And this also is lacking in harmony with \"strict\nphilosophical truth,\" for there is only one great light; the moon has\nno light, but merely reflects the sun's rays. It is true it seems\nto be a light, and as \"the writer describes things as they appear\nrather than as they are,\" we can hold him responsible only for the\nrevelation he makes as a matter of inspiration and not for its truth.\n\nBefore the sun was created, the writer gives us to understand that the\ndry land appeared--or to put it more definitely, God commanded saying,\n\"Let the dry land appear.\" But to whom was it to appear when there\nwas no eye yet created to look upon it, and if there had been, there\nwas no sunlight, and therefore if the world had been full of eyes\nthe land would not have appeared! This is a problem. Did the waters\nlie on the mountain tops, and refuse to run down to the valleys,\nuntil they were commanded?\n\nFor how was it possible for a writer who describes things as they\nappear, to attempt to give us a glimpse of things which certainly\ncould not have appeared, only to a mind diseased? But not wishing to\nappear captious we will let this pass, only however with the explicit\nunderstanding that the writer, in this case certainly attempted to\ndescribe things as they could not appear.\n\nWe find our perplexities increasing as we proceed. Especially when we\nattempt to read the stone book of geology in company with the Hebrew\nbook of Genesis.\n\nWhoever he may have been, and there can be no doubt of the sex of\nthe writer, as the book everywhere betrays the spirit of the \"lord of\ncreation,\" man, he seems to think that the earth was created before\nthe sun, when the truth is the earth is the child of the sun. One\ncould as well speak of a son being older than his father as to talk\nof the creation of the sun, after the earth had been created.\n\nThus, statement after statement of the story about creation falls\nfor lack of support--and like bubbles the airy word pictures burst\nat the first touch of science.\n\nWhat gross ignorance the writer betrays in speaking of the vast\nuniverse. It is nothing; it needs no extended description, five\nwords are enough to describe the creation of an infinite universe,\nand hence to the writer it was quite sufficient to merely say,\n\"He made the stars also.\" And two of these words are supplied by the\ntranscribers. As it seemed to this original cosmogonist the work of\ngetting up a universe was not a matter of very great importance.\n\nWe are not disposed to credit this story for the reason that, the\nauthor makes it necessary for God to take five days to create the\nsolar system, but for the infinite universe beyond, he needed less\nthan one day. The Mosaic cosmogonist had no soul for astronomy or he\nwould have seen the necessity of more time in the creation of the\nstarry systems. We could have no patience with his description if\nit were not for the fact of which we are so well assured by Smith's\nBible Dictionary, that he is not giving us matter of fact but is\n\"describing things as they appear rather than as they are.\"\n\nBut no sooner do we quit one difficulty than we are beset with\nanother. In looking over the leaves of the stone book of geology\nwe find fossils of animals which existed untold ages before man,\nand as they had eyes there must therefore have been light, the sun\nmust have existed an indefinitely long period before man.\n\nAnd last of all on the sixth day late on Saturday afternoon, God\ncreated man in his own image. And as he stepped back and surveyed\nthe week's work which was before him he pronounced himself satisfied\nwith it all. Everything was just as he would have it. Everything\nwas perfect. \"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold\nit was very good.\" In fact there was not a single thing he could\nsee a chance to make any improvement on; for it is impossible for\nus to think of a perfect creator making an imperfect creature. And\nif by any mistake he had made anything not just as it ought to be,\nand as he intended, we should think that knowing the fact he would\nmake the necessary improvement; and if he would not, then we must\nconclude that he is not infinitely good. Thus every turn we make in\nthis story drives us to the conclusion that it is not true, that it\nis only an ancient myth. It is the brass of ignorance which has been\npalmed off upon us for the gold of truth.\n\n\"So God created man in his own image,\" and yet in the next breath\nthe writer informs us that after Adam and Eve had eaten of the\nforbidden fruit, they became more like God, and if they had been\npermitted to eat of the tree of life they would have become still\nmore like him. But it is hard for one who has not been born again\nto understand how Adam and Eve could become more and more like God,\nwhen they were created in his image and pronounced very good.\n\nThe command given them was, \"Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye\ntouch it lest ye die.\" But the serpent said unto the woman, \"Ye shall\nnot surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,\nthen your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good\nand evil.\"\n\nAnd this was just how it turned out. After they had eaten of this\nprohibited tree, they became more like the gods than they had been. But\nwe are led to immediately ask, could they have been made in the first\nplace like them? And unless they were both counterfeits we cannot\nimagine how an image can be improved--that is, become more of an image.\n\nAnd the Lord God said, \"Behold the man has become as one of us,\n(just as the serpent had foretold) to know good and evil.\" Here is a\nclear contradiction of terms. And in order to explain the matter at\nall satisfactorily to ourselves we have to recur to the assurance\nof authority that it is not claimed that the narration is literal\nhistory of fact, but merely the writer's opinions of how it seemed\nto him it ought to be.\n\n\n    \"Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon\n    the face of all the earth, and, every tree which is the fruit of\n    a tree yielding seed, to you it shall be for meat.\"\n\n\nHere is an explicit statement of Adam's right to eat of any fruit he\nmight find. But in the third chapter of this wonderful book, we find\nthat there are two trees whose fruit he is prohibited from eating,\n\"Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden,\nGod hath said he shall not eat of it.\" Then after Adam and Eve had\nrefreshed themselves from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which\nmade them as the gods knowing good and evil, the Lord God said,\n\"Now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life\nand eat and live forever, therefore the Lord sent him forth from the\ngarden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.\"\n\nWe fail to see any reason for the apparent change of plan in the mind\nof the Lord. He first grants Adam and Eve the privilege of eating any\nfruit they chose, and afterward prohibited them from eating of the\nfruit of two trees, which would have most benefited them. Certainly we\ncan see no good reason for prohibiting them from acquiring knowledge,\nespecially of good and evil, since the gods had this sort of knowledge\nthemselves. In fact we would naturally suppose that the more accurate\nman's knowledge of good and evil is the better off he would be; he\nwould certainly be more moral. But let us imagine that it was not\ndesirable for Adam and Eve to have such knowledge and morality and\nthus to resemble so closely the gods themselves, is there any good\nreason why they should not have partaken of the fruit of the tree of\nlife, and thereby lived forever? Why should the fact that they had\nbecome more like the gods be a sufficient reason for preventing them\nfrom sharing in the immortal life? Would not it have been altogether\nprobable that Adam and Eve would continue to become more and more\nlike the gods, seeing that they had begun so persistently to acquire\nthe godlike virtues?\n\n\"And when the woman saw the tree was good for food, and that it was\npleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise,\"\netc. We see that it was wisdom that was prohibited, and not murder,\nrobbery, or drunkenness. Why was knowledge and wisdom forbidden to\nman when these above all things else he needed most? Why is it that\nreligion has always condemned learning, discoveries, inventions,\nreforms, etc.? Knowledge is the forbidden fruit of all the gardens\nof the gods. But how could these celestial creators expect to prevent\nman from gaining knowledge after they had created him with a brain to\nthink? To think is to have knowledge, and to have some knowledge is to\nthirst for more, and thus it was absolute madness to create man with\na brain and command him not think. As well throw a bird into the air,\nand shoot it for flying, or spear a fish for swimming in the water,\nas to damn a human being for coming into possession of the knowledge\nof good and evil.\n\nThe story seems to imply many contradictions which are not explicitly\nexpressed. For Adam and Eve must have been moral beings to have\nunderstood the supposed commands of God. If they were moral then\nthey already knew what good and evil was. The way in which this\nprimitive couple acquired knowledge reminds one of the description\nof the creation of the sun. In the first chapter of this wonderful\nbook, we find light created, and on the fourth day afterward the\nsun is made. This is reversing the order of cause and effect, as in\nthis effect comes before cause. There is this explanation, however,\nthat the world was new and had not got fairly into working order.\n\nIn the case of Adam and Eve, we have no such explanation to offer. We\nfind them from the very first moment, rational beings, and of course\nhaving a knowledge of good and evil; but the historian who gives us\nthe account, declares that they came into the possession of knowledge\nnot by virtue of their brains; but because of their eating of certain\nfruit. The effect is made to be the cause.\n\nThere is only one way out of the dilemma. The writer described things\n\"as they seemed rather than as they are.\"\n\nEven so great a man as the Hon. W. E. Gladstone has to betake himself\nto specious arguments in attempting to refute the testimony of science\nwhen opposed to Genesis. His logic is kindred to that quoted from\nSmith's Bible Dictionary, wherein the writer says of the author of\nGenesis that he \"describes things as they appear, rather than as they\nare.\" Mr. Gladstone in the \"Order of Creation,\" says:\n\n\n    Proceeding, on what I hold to be open ground, to state my own\n    idea of the key to the meaning of the Mosaic record (Genesis),\n    I suggest that it was intended to give moral, and not scientific\n    instruction to those for whom it was written.\n\n\nWho was it that \"intended to give moral, and not scientific\ninstruction?\" If it was the author of Genesis who intended it for\nonly moral instruction, then it cannot be claimed to be a revelation\nfrom God; but if on the other hand it was God who intended to give\nonly moral instruction, then he is responsible for making the author\nof Genesis record that which is not true. What a sight for gods and\nmen! To see the ex-premier of England pettifogging at the bar of\nReason for a dying, nay dead superstition; for certainly Genesis as\na revelation is dead so far as reason and science are concerned.\n\nBut this hostility to knowledge instituted in the garden of Eden has\nbeen perpetuated through all the ages. Faith has been held up as the\nall-important virtue, as by it the priests could get the people to\nbelieve anything. Somewhere Goethe says, \"Belief is not the beginning\nbut the end of knowledge.\" In the early days of the church it was found\nnecessary to abandon reason. The world had too many philosophers who\nstood prepared to expose the superstitions which set themselves up\nwith authority. The injunction given to and heeded by chiefly the low\nand ignorant was, \"Do not examine; only believe and thy faith will\nmake thee blessed.\" \"Wisdom is a bad thing in life, foolishness is\nto be preferred.\" But this sentiment was older than that date, for we\nfind in the writings of Paul the same teaching, \"If any man among you\nseemeth to be wise, let him become a fool that he may be wise.\" At\nanother time he insists that, \"We are fools for Christ's sake.\"\n\nMy advice is to eat of the fruit of knowledge, and have your\neyes opened to the truth no matter what it is. It may be that some\ndelusive Santa Claus may fade away in the distance before your clearer\nvision. Let it go. Nothing is so expensive as error. Seek to know\nthe truth, and struggle to throw off such prejudices as tempt you to\nfashion truth to your own intellectual myopia or moral obliquities. Eat\nand become more truly a man; eat and become more beautifully a woman.\n\n\n    \"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,\n    and to everything that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is\n    life I have given every herb for meat.\"\n\n\nThis writer never visited a menagerie. His knowledge of the habits\nof the animal kingdom are as innocent as if he had never sought for\nknowledge, had never examined natural history, or else he would have\nknown that such animals as lions, tigers, and wolves could not feed\non grass. The vultures of the air do not live upon seeds or hay,\nbut must have fish or flesh. Daniel going into a den of lions fed\non hay, would be about as brave as a milk maid's going into the\nstall to milk a cow. We cannot conjecture what state of mind the\nMosaic cosmogonist could have been in when he described the lion as\na herbivorous animal. It is so wide a departure from the most common\nknowledge of the habits of animals that our confidence in the accuracy\nof the historian is greatly shaken.\n\nIt is commonly believed that if man had not eaten of the forbidden\nfruit he would have been immortal. Now the very fact that Adam and\nEve ate at all, proves them to have been mortal. For eating implies\na nutritive system, which means growth, maturity, and decay of the\norganism. Death is natural, and not a penalty--not a curse pronounced\nupon the primitive pair for disobedience. They would have died even\nif they had partaken of the tree of life.\n\nAnd in connection with this erroneous idea of the loss of immortality\nis another respecting labor. It has been a doctrine taught by the\nchurch that labor is a curse pronounced upon the family of man in\nconsequence of Adam's transgression, and proof often quoted is,\n\"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.\"\n\nThis is the consequence of cherishing an ambition to become more like\nthe gods. Because he was foolish enough to disobey in the matter of\ntasting some tempting fruit which attracted his eye, he and all his\nposterity must toil hard to get a mere subsistence, and then go to\nhell and roast forever. To an ordinary man this seems rather rough\nfor so small an offense--to sweat in this life is bad enough, but\nto roast in another is too much, and we utter our righteous protest\nagainst it. And since we now have our choice between hell, hades,\nsheol or gehenna I, for one, prefer hades as its temperature is lower.\n\nBut this story like many others lacks consistency. For we read that\nbefore Adam transgressed the commandment, \"The Lord took the man and\nput him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.\" This\nlooks like work, and gardeners and farmers would look upon all such\narrangements as work, especially would they thus regard it, if the\ngarden was large and it was the duty of one person to take the entire\ncare of it, to that is, do all the work.\n\nLabor therefore was natural to man and did not come upon him as a\ncurse. It was not in consequence of his eating prohibited apples that\nthe necessity of toil was imposed upon him as a curse, but because\nmental and physical activity are natural, and he could not exist\nwithout them.\n\nLabor is natural and honorable. The hands and brain of man imply labor,\nas necessarily as the lungs imply air, or the gills of the fish imply\nwater. Man could not exist without it; but the great evil which has\narisen is the abuse of labor. Some have been enabled to get possession\nof wealth and thereby have the power to control the laborer and take\nsuch a share out of the profits of his toil as they see fit. The\nstronger prey upon the weaker. Our present civilization does not\ncivilize, because it does not remove this relic of barbarism which\nallows the rich to rob the poor of the profits of their labor. The\nlaborer who produces the wealth of the country is the one who does not\nget its benefits. The old form of European civilization which justifies\nand aids the rich in becoming richer and making the poor poorer is\nbeginning to show traces of its existence in this country. And we must\nsay we cannot see how or when this sort of civilization with gilded\ntop and rotten base is to come to an end. Surely there is no way out of\nour barbarous degradation except by the development of the individual\nthrough his intelligence into liberty, morality, and manhood.\n\n\"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field,\nand every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he\nwould name them.\" Some animals, as the Armadillo, and Sloth of South\nAmerica would consume more time in going from South America to the\ngarden of Eden, than Adam's life covered. And how could the polar\nbear and the humming bird of the tropics pass through the different\ntemperatures to reach the garden of Eden? and how long could they\nsurvive if they were even there, and how could they find their way\nback to their former habitats? Did the fish all swim up to the shore\nand range themselves in a row to be named?\n\nWe wish to call attention to the grand review of the animals, to\npoint out the implication that Adam could not find a helpmeet among\nthem. We read:\n\n\n    \"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the\n    field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see\n    what he would name them. And whatsoever Adam called every living\n    creature that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all\n    the cattle, to the fowl of the air, to every beast of the field,\n    but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him.\"\n\n\nNow the very words, \"was not found,\" imply that search was made for a\nhelpmeet, but none could be found. And because none could be found,\ntherefore the Lord God went immediately to work to make a woman for\nhim. The Creator threw him into a deep sleep, and while in that\nunconscious condition and unable to do or say a thing in his own\ndefense, the Lord took out a rib, or as Ingersoll says, \"a cutlet,\"\nwhile Dr. Talmage insists that God took out Adam's \"side\" and reformed\nit into a woman, and as the text reads, \"Brought her unto the man.\" Was\nhe not there right on the spot? Was it necessary for the Lord after\ntaking out the rib to go off a distance by himself that he might finish\nthe work undisturbed? Unless something of the kind was necessary we\ndo not see the force of the sentence, \"Brought her unto the man.\"\n\nThe Greenlanders have a story that relates the creation of woman\nfrom man's thumb. This is significant and much more probable. There\nis wisdom in this even if it be regarded as a myth. The bare fact\nthat woman has always been under man's thumb shows some kinetic\nrelation. The masculine gender has not been reluctant to manifest a\ndisposition to preserve the gentler sex in this position. He calls her\nby pet names, and bestows compliments upon her, and declares upon the\nhonor of a despot that there is no name so sacred as mother, and that\nthere is no virtue so precious as that possessed by woman--he will even\ndie for her, but still he prefers to keep her in subjection under his\nthumb. Liberty will come to woman when she becomes tired of being a\nmere plaything, a pet, a favorite slave, and then, and not till then\nmay she rise into the full dignity of womanhood, and throw off thumb\nauthority and all allegiance to the legends which give the thumb its\nauthority. Woman needs again to eat of the tree of knowledge of good\nand evil, even if she be driven out of the social garden and ostracised\ntherefrom with the flaming sword of respectability guarding the gates\nagainst her return. Her first rebellion brought knowledge and progress\nto man, and her second rebellion must be against both God and man.\n\n\"And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die.\" Never\nin the history of snakes was there a match for this first one. It\nis highly probable that his snakeship did not have a protracted\nexistence after this emeute of the garden. In fact we never hear\nof him more. Some historians say he changed his name and went west,\nand some have gone so far as to say that Satan, who attacked Job many\ncenturies after the seduction of Adam and Eve was nothing more than\nthe old Serpent under a new name.\n\nOne thing is certain, and that is, that the snake in the garden of Eden\nimmortalized himself in a short time. But we can hardly comprehend the\ncurse pronounced upon it for so laudable a work. This was the curse:\n\"Above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly\nshalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.\" It\nwould seem from this, that the serpent did not go naturally upon his\nbelly, but some how or other he diddled along on the tip end of his\ntail. We fail to see any reason for this sort of locomotion unless\nit was to help him look out for other snakes. And we are perplexed to\nunderstand why he should be sentenced to eat dust. If he was cursed,\nit seems that the curse is quite conveniently borne by him; for he\nfinds it just to his gait to go upon his belly, and as for eating dust,\nhe never did and never will. He is defiant, rebellious, and successful.\n\nThe more we study the character of this original snake the more we\nfind to admire in him.\n\nIt is true we do not always understand just how things could happen as\nthey did, but we take them as they read and make the best of them. For\ninstance we can form no idea of how it was possible for the serpent\nto talk to Eve, and reason with her like a philosopher. He talked to\nher the same as if he had had vocal organs, and a brain similar but\nsuperior to man's. Unless he had a mouth and head like a human being\nwe cannot see how he could have talked; and if his head was of that\ntype we cannot see how he could have been called a snake. There was\na great many suggestions prompted by reading the account of this\nwonderful serpent. We cannot understand why he should have been\nmade. Or why, if it were necessary to have him, he was not placed\nunder some restraint? Why was he not created so that God himself\ncould govern him? Or why after seeing he had made him a little too\nwise, and a trifle too devilish he did not kill him? Or if that were\nimpracticable or impossible, why did he not put up signs on all the\nfences around Eden, \"Adam and Eve beware of snakes!\"\n\n\"And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord\nGod amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto\nAdam and said unto him, where art thou?\" But we are amazed at the\nvery thought that it was possible for them to get out of sight of\nthe omniscient eye! We read in many books, and have heard it all\nour lives that God sees all things, but according to this account,\nhis first creatures, fresh from his plastic hands, and very near to\nhim got beyond his omniscient sight. How could this be, when \"the\neyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good?\"\n\n\n    \"For his eyes are upon the ways of man and he seeth all his\n    goings.\"\n\n    \"For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole\n    earth.\"\n\n\nAnd yet, notwithstanding he made all things, and sees all things,\nand knows all things, Adam and Eve were able to get behind the trees\nand hide away out of his sight.\n\nOn another occasion it is recorded that the Lord had come down from\nheaven to see whether the reports which were brought up to him were\ntrue or not. \"And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower\nwhich the children of men builded.\" And in still another place it is\nwritten: \"And the Lord said because of the city of Sodom and Gomorrah\nis great and because their sin is grievous I will go down now and see\nwhether they have done according to the cry of it, which is come up\nbefore me, and if not I will know.\"\n\nAnd yet other equally inspired writers, describing things as they\nappeared rather than as they are, solemnly declare that \"all things\nare naked and open to him with whom we have to do.\"\n\nBut we pass on leaving Adam behind the tree, hid away from the presence\nof the Lord, to notice other sacred passages which are not in harmony\nwith strict philosophical truth.\n\n\"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow; in\nsorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to\nthy husband and he shall rule over thee.\" Now there is no reason\nto suppose that the pain of childbirth has ever been increased\nin woman. Her physiological structure has in no way undergone\na radical change. Besides, all animals bearing offspring bear\npains. Did the curse upon woman extend to the females of animals\nbearing offspring? But wherein does the male suffer his share in this\ndivine punishment?\n\n\"And he shall rule over thee.\" This is a matter of fact--and is\nequally true of those people who know nothing of Israel or Israel's\ngod. Man has ruled over woman in all times and in all countries,\nand will continue to reign over her until she aspires to and contends\nfor her rights.\n\nThe path of woman's future is steep, slippery, and long. Many ages will\npass before she attains the glory and beauty possible to womanhood,\nbut with prophetic eyes we see that time coming. With joy we labor and\nwait, that at some future day this world will be made happy and grand\nthrough the evolution of truth, love, and liberty in the elevation\nof woman.\n\nAnother part of the curse is that, \"Thorns and thistles shall it (the\nground) bring forth,\" but geology shows that thorns and thistles were\nas plentiful in the primeval world as they are now. Hence there must\nbe some mistake on the part of the writer in setting down the origin\nof thorns and thistles for that particular date.\n\n\n    \"And Adam called his wife Eve because she was the mother of\n    all living.\"\n\n\nThis is another astonishing statement. Eve was the mother of all\n(human beings) living, and there were none living but herself and\nAdam! If she was the mother of all living, she was not only Adam's\nmother, but her own mother too.\n\nIt is true that when Cain grew to manhood and slew his brother, there\nwere some people down in the land of Nod, but when God made them we\nhave no means of knowing. They were not a people of much consequence\nas no notice is taken of them by our author, and besides they permitted\nCain to come and live among them and take a wife. Perhaps these people\nwere before Adam and Eve, for it is stated that in the city there were\nworkers of iron and brass. Brass is a compound of copper and zinc,\nand these workers must have had a knowledge of the arts of mining and\ncompounding metals. The mark, too, was set upon Cain that \"whosoever\"\nmight not slay him; then there must have been a \"whosoever.\" It is very\nlikely that if Cain built a city he must have had the aid of carpenters\nand workmen, and it may be that he found his wife in the land of Nod\namong the \"whosoever\" \"workers in of iron and brass.\" I think the\nclergy will agree that there was a \"whosoever.\" It would have been\nneedless to put a mark on Cain to preserve his life from a \"whosoever\"\nif there were no \"whosoever,\" and my opinion is that Mr. Cain married\nsome of the daughters of Mr. \"Whosoever\" in the land of Nod.\n\n\"And Adam called his wife Eve because she was the mother of all\nliving!\" That eclipses everything. And we were about concluding that\nnothing of the kind had ever been known before, but we remember the\nstory about Ahaziah, and that he was two years older than his father.\n\n\n    Thirty and two years old was he (Jehoram) when he began to reign,\n    and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.\n\n    And Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.\n\n    Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. (Kings\n    8 : 17, 24, 26.)\n\n\nIn the book of Chronicles we have another account.\n\n\n    Thirty and two years old was he (Jehoram) when he began to reign\n    and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years. And the inhabitants of\n    Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead. Forty\n    and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. (2 Chron. 21\n     : 20, and 2 Chron. 20 : 1, 2.)\n\n\nJehoram was thirty-two years old when he came to the throne, and he\nreigned eight years, which made him forty years old at his death,\nand his son Ahaziah who took up the reins of government which dropped\nfrom the hands of his father, was forty-two years old--just two years\nolder than his father, and the youngest son at that.\n\n\n    \"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of\n    skins and clothed them.\"\n\n\nThere is no description of the style of these dresses, and we are\nleft without data for judging of their fitness, only we are inclined\nto the opinion that the country where it was just the temperature for\nthe natives to go naked, skin coats would be a trifle too winterish\nin style. We fail too see the necessity for such heavy clothing, or\nin fact for any clothing at all, inasmuch as they were created to\ngo naked. For we read that, \"They were both naked the man and his\nwife, and were not ashamed.\" Or if they must have some protection\nfor their modesty why were not fig-leaf aprons quite sufficient for\nthat climate? And still further we can see no necessity for the\nLord to turn tailor and make their clothes when Adam and Eve had\nalready learned to sew; for \"they sewed fig-leaves together and made\nthemselves aprons,\" and as the seasons changed they could easily have\nlearned to make garments of comfort for themselves, and also to set\nthe fashions for the rest of the world. The origin of the universe is\nan insoluble mystery. And yet to the uninformed mind it seems to be\nno problem at all. We daily hear such people reasoning in this way:\n\"There must have been a First Cause of all things, and that First\nCause we call God.\" It is only because the mind of man is uninformed,\nthat he reasons in this way. It requires only a little reflection\nto see that there could have been no First Cause. It is clear that\nevery cause must have an effect, for unless it produces an effect it\ncannot be a cause. Hence we cannot infer that there can be an effect\nwhich of itself does not become a cause, producing other effects, so\nthat it is absolutely impossible in the nature of cause and effect,\nfor a last cause or a first cause to exist. As a last cause would be a\ncause only when it produced an effect, and the last effect would be an\neffect only when it became a cause. It is equally true that there could\nbe no First Cause; for whatever is, is the result of some previous\ncause. We can view causation only as a chain in form of a circle.\n\n\"If we apply to this question the notion of time we see the limit of\nour thought, because if we try to think of an absolute creative power\nbefore creation, we discover that the idea is unthinkable, as infinite\nand absolute creative power in the presence of inactivity and nothing\nare incompatible. It could not have been creative power without\ncreating something. We are therefore unable to think of absolute\ncreative power as inert--we are equally unable to think of it inactive\nin the presence of chaos, and as impotent to conceive of its existence\nas absolute. We cannot think of it existing after creation, as rest\nand inactivity are again incompatible with the notion of force.\"\n\nWe may look at this subject in whatever way we choose we shall\nfind that in no way whatever can we form any idea of a First\nCause, an infinite and absolute Creator. Let us see. \"The First\nCause cannot be absolute, that is, it cannot exist out of all\nrelation to the universe. Whereas a cause not only sustains some\nrelation to its effect, but exists as a cause only by virtue of\nsuch relations. Suppress the effect and the cause has ceased to be\na cause. Absolute cause, therefore, is like the phrase, circular\ntriangle. The two words stand for conceptions which cannot be made\nto unite. We attempt, says Mr. Mansel, to escape from this apparent\ncontradiction by introducing the succession of time. The absolute\nexists first by itself and afterward becomes a cause. But here we are\nchecked by the third conception of the infinite. How can the infinite\nbecome that which it has not from the first.\" (\"Fisk's Cosmic Philos.\")\n\nLook at it whatever way we may the finite mind cannot grasp the\nconception of the infinite. Nay, cannot know of the existence of the\ninfinite. Hence all efforts to explain the First Cause, the absolute,\nand the infinite, are more artificial and unreal than painted ships\nupon a painted sea.\n\nWe may view the subject in still another light. If God reasons,\nhis knowledge is limited and he is finite. Man reasons because his\nknowledge is circumscribed. If he knew everything he would have\nno doubts, and hence would not need to investigate, experiment,\nrecollect, and compare. He would not be compelled to lay down certain\ndefinite data, and follow their implications through rules of logic,\nand through scientific experiment in order to reach conclusions. The\nend would be as clearly before his mind as the beginning; in fact\nthere would be to such a mind no beginning and no end. But we cannot\nimagine an infinite being who needs to recollect past events. But\nif we deny that in the mind of God there is the faculty of memory,\nwe thereby deny that he reasons. The same may be said of doubt,\nfor if the mind of God is never troubled with doubts, it is simply\nbecause he does not reason. Much of the mind's activity is employed in\ndoubts. Doubt and inquiry are necessary elements of thought. Does God\ndoubt? Does he investigate, compare, and test matters by experiment? If\nhe does then he is not infinite, and if he does not, then he does not\nreason. Has he imagination? If he exercises this important function\nof the mind then he deals in unrealities, idealizes, has dreams,\ncherishes visions, builds air castles. If he does not thus exercise\nimagination he cannot be said to reason.\n\nIt is an old argument that design implies a designer. The essential\nweakness of this argument lies in what is called \"proofs of\ndesign.\" And in support of this idea it is commonly urged that there\nare everywhere apparent in nature evidences of order, harmony, and\nadaptation. But to put this argument into a sentence, the maggot in\nthe cheese could offer the same arguments to show there was a design\nin his position in the cheese. He could argue that everything about him\nshowed order, harmony, and adaptation. It was just the cheese for him.\n\nBut even if we should admit this statement, it would not prove the\nexistence of God, for if an intelligent mind had created the universe,\nit is certain that that mind itself must have been governed by law\nwhich yields to order, harmony, and adaptation, and if these imply\na designer in one case they must also in the other, and therefore\nevery designer must have had a designer.\n\n\n\n\nThe Difference Between the Two Cosmogonies as Given in the First Two\nChapters of Genesis.\n\nIn the first, the earth emerges from the waters and is therefore\nsaturated with moisture. (Gen. 1 : 9, 10.) In the second, the whole\nface of the ground requires to be moistened. (Gen. 2 : 6.)\n\n\n\nIn the first, the birds and beasts are created before man. (Gen.\n1 : 20, 24, 26.) In the second, man is created before the birds and\nbeasts. (Gen. 2 : 7, 9.)\n\n\n\nIn the first, all the \"fowls that fly\" are made out of the\nwaters. (Gen. 1 : 20.) In the second, the \"fowls of the air\" are made\nout of the ground. (Gen. 2 : 19.)\n\nIn the first, man is made lord of the whole earth. (Gen. 1 : 28.) In\nthe second, he is merely placed in the garden of Eden to dress it\nand to keep it. (Gen. 2 : 8, 15.)\n\n\n\nIn the first, man and woman are created together. (Gen. 1 : 28.) In\nthe second, the beasts and birds are created between the man and\nwoman. (Gen. 2 : 7, 8, 15, 22.)--Bishop Colenso.\n\n\n\n\nEvidence of the Vast Age of the Universe.\n\n\"I have looked further into space than ever human being did before\nme. I have observed stars, of which the light, it can be proved,\nmust take two millions of years to reach this earth. Nay more, if\nthose distant bodies had ceased to exist two million of years ago,\nwe should still see them, as the light would travel after the body\nwas gone. * * *\n\n\"The light from the nearest star requires some three years to reach\nthe earth. From a star one thousand three hundred and forty-four times\nfarther it would require about four thousand years, and for such\na cluster as we have imagined, no less than six thousand years are\nneeded.\" (Sir Wm. Herschell, \"Life and Works of Sir Wm. Herschell\"\nby Edward S. Holden.)\n\nSir Wm. Thomson, in Encyclopedia Britannica, article, Geology, showed\nfrom data available at the time, \"that the superficial consolidation\nof the globe (this earth) could not have occurred less than twenty\nmillions of years ago.\"\n\n\n    \"And as any table of the earth's crust will show you there are\n    rocks above and below the chalk, for the production of which\n    millions heaped upon millions of years were required.\" (Clodd's\n    \"Childhood of Religions.\")\n\n\nSuch eminent scientists as Sir Wm. Thomson, Helmholtz, Newcomb, Croll,\nBishop, Reade, Lyell, Darwin, and others think it would have taken\nmany millions of years for the original nebul\u00e6 to condense to the\npresent dimensions of the sun.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPROPHECY.\n\n\n\"A prophecy, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, signifies\na prediction of future events, which could not have been foreseen\nby human sagacity, and the knowledge of which was supernaturally\ncommunicated to the prophet. It is clear, therefore, that in\norder to establish the claim of anticipatory statement, promise,\nor denunciation, to the rank of a prophecy, four points must be\nascertained with precision; namely, (1.) what the event was to which\nthe alleged prediction was intended to refer; (2.) that the prediction\nwas uttered in specific, not vague, language before the event;\n(3.) that the event took place specifically, not loosely, as predicted;\n(4.) and that it could not have been foreseen by human sagacity. * * *\n\n\"It is probably not too much to affirm that we have no instance in the\nprophetical books of the Old Testament of a prediction, in the case of\nwhich we possess, at once and combined, clear and unsuspicious proof\nof the date, the precise event predicted, the exact circumstances of\nthe event, and the inability of human sagacity to foresee it.\n\n\"The state of the case appears to be this: That all the Old Testament\nprophesies have been assumed to be genuine inspired predictions; and,\nwhen falsified in their obvious meaning and received interpretation,\nby the event, have received immediately a new interpretation, and been\nsupposed to refer to some other event. When the result has disappointed\nexpectation, the conclusion has been, not that the prophecy was false,\nbut the interpretation was erroneous. It is obvious that a mode of\nreasoning like this is peculiar to theological inquirers. * * *\n\n\"In justification of this idea of a double sense, he (Dr. Arnold)\ncontinues: 'The notion of a double sense in prophecy has been treated\nby some persons with contempt. Yet it may be said that it is almost\nnecessarily involved in the idea of prophecy. Every prophecy has\naccording to the very definition of the word, a double source;\nit has, if I may venture so to speak, two authors, the one human,\nthe other divine.... If uttered by the tongue of man, it must also,\nunless we suppose him to be a mere instrument (in the same sense as a\nflute or a harp), be colored by his own mind. The prophet expresses\nin words certain truths conveyed to his mind; but his mind does not\nfully embrace them, nor can it; for how can man fully comprehend the\nmind of God? Every man lives in time, and belongs to time; the present\nmust be to him clearer than the future.... But with God there is no\npast, nor future; every truth is present to him in all its extent,\nso that his expression, if I may so speak, differs essentially\nfrom that which can be comprehended by the mind, or uttered by the\ntongue of man. Thus every prophecy as uttered by man (that is, by an\nintelligent and not a mere mechanical instrument), and at the same\ntime as inspired by God, must, so far as appears, have a double sense;\none, the sense entertained by the human mind of the writer; the other,\nthe sense infused into it by God.' We must confess our amazement at\nthe obvious and extreme unsoundness of this whole passage. Not only\ndoes it painfully remind us of the double meaning so often and so\njustly charged upon the Pagan oracles--but it assumes the strange\nand contradictory improbabilities: first, that God was unable to\nconvey his meaning to the mind of the prophet; secondly, that he\ninfused this meaning into the words which were uttered, although\nhe could not infuse it into the mind of the man who uttered them;\nand thirdly, that we can see further into the mind and meaning of\nGod than those to whom he spoke; that they in expressing the ideas\nwhich he had put into their minds, mistook or imperfectly conceived\nthose ideas,--but that to us is given to discover a thought which\nthose words contained, but did not express, or which, if they did\nexpress it, they were not understood by the writer to express. Now,\neither the ideas which God wished to communicate were conveyed to\nthe mind of the prophet, or they were not; if they were so conveyed,\nthen the prophet must have comprehended them, and intended to express\nthem correctly--for it is monstrous to suppose that God would infuse\nideas into a man's mind for the purpose of being communicated to\nthe public; which ideas he yet did not enable him to communicate;\nand then all the above confused subtleties fall to the ground. If,\non the other hand, these ideas were not so conveyed to the prophet's\nmind, then it must have been the words and not the ideas which were\ninspired, and God used the prophet simply as a flute (a supposition\nscouted by Dr. Arnold) and we are thus driven to the equally monstrous\nsupposition that God used words which did not convey his meaning,\neven to the very favored individual to whom and through whom he\nspoke.\" (Greg's \"Creed of Christendom,\" pp. 76, 92.)\n\n\"We have already had ample proof that the Jewish writers not only did\nnot scruple to narrate past events as if predicting future ones--to\npresent history in the form of prophecy, but that they habitually\ndid so. The original documents from which the books of Moses were\ncompiled, must have been written, as we have seen in the time of the\nearliest kings, while the book of Deuteronomy was not composed, and\nthe whole Pentateuch did not assume its present form till, probably,\nthe reign of Josiah; yet they abound in such anticipatory narrative--in\npredictions of events long past. The instances are far too numerous\nto quote.\" (Greg's \"Creed of Christendom,\" p. 86.)\n\n\"There is not throughout the whole Bible any word that describes to\nus what we call a poet, nor any word that describes what we call\npoetry. The case is, that the word prophet, to which latter times\nhave affixed new ideas, was the Bible word for poet, and the word\nprophesying meant the art of making poetry. It also meant the art of\nplaying poetry to a tune upon any instrument of music.\n\n\"We read of prophesying with pipes, tabrets, and horns--of prophesying\nwith harps, with psalteries, with cymbols, and with every other\ninstrument of music then in fashion. Were we now to speak of\nprophesying with a fiddle, or with a pipe and tabor, the expression\nwould have no meaning, or would appear ridiculous, and to some people\ncontemptuous, because we have changed the meaning of the word.\n\n\"We are told of Saul being among the prophets, and also that he\nprophesied, but we are not told what they prophesied, nor what he\nprophesied. The case is, there was nothing to tell; for these prophets\nwere a company of musicians and poets, and Saul joined in the concert,\nand this was called prophesying.\"--Thomas Paine on the Prophecies.\n\n\"There is no reason to think that a prophet ever received a\nrevelation which was not spoken directly and pointedly to his own\ntime. (Ency. Brit. \"Bible.\")\n\n\"It is plain, however, that the whole work (the Pentateuch) is not\nthe uniform production of one pen, but that in some way a variety of\nrecords of different ages, and styles have been combined to form a\nsingle narrative. Accordingly, Jewish tradition bears evidence that\nMoses wrote the Pentateuch, Joshua the book named after him, Samuel\nthe book of Judges, and so forth. As all Hebrew history is anonymous,\na sure sign that people had not yet learned to lay weight on questions\nof authorship, it is not probable that this tradition rests on any\nsurer ground than conjecture.\" (Ency. Brit., \"Bible.\")\n\n\"I have now fully and fairly analyzed and exposed many of the most\nimportant prophecies or pretended prophecies of the whole Bible,\nI have shown that very few of them are real prophecies at all; that\nthose which are real prophecies, very few ever have been, or ever\ncan be fulfilled; that the very few which seem to have been fulfilled\nwere written after the occurrence of the events claimed to be their\nfulfilments, and that, whether fulfilled or unfulfilled, none of\nthese prophecies ever have been, or ever can be, of any service to\nthe world. And thus fall all the prophetic props of priestcraft. Not\none of them can bear the test of fair examination.\" (Kelso's \"Bible\nAnalayzed.\")\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMIRACLES.\n\n\n\"At the very outset of inquiry into the origin and true\ncharacter of Christianity we are brought face to face with the\nsupernatural. Christianity professes to be a Divine Revelation\nof truths which the human intellect could not otherwise have\ndiscovered. It is not a form of religion developed by the wisdom of man\nand appealing to his reason, but a system miraculously communicated to\nthe human race, the central doctrines of which are either supernatural\nor untenable. If the truths said to be revealed were either of\nan ordinary character, or naturally attainable they would at once\ndiscredit the claim to divine origin. No one could maintain that a\nsystem discoverable by reason would be supernaturally communicated. The\nwhole argument for Christianity turns upon the necessity of such a\nrevelation, and the consequent probability that it would be made. * * *\n\n\"The spontaneous offer of miraculous evidence, indeed, has\nalways been advanced as a special characteristic of Christianity\nlogically entitling it to acceptance in contradistinction to all other\nreligions. 'It is an acknowledged historical fact,' says Bishop Butler,\n'that Christianity offered itself to the world, and demanded to be\nreceived, upon the allegation, that is, as unbelievers would speak,\nupon the pretence of miracles, publicly wrought to attest the truth of\nit in such an age; ... and Christianity, including the dispensation\nof the Old Testament, seems distinguished by this from all other\nreligions.'\n\n\"Having then ascertained that miracles are absolutely necessary\nto attest the reliability of a Divine Revelation we may proceed\nto examine them more closely, and for the present we shall confine\nourselves to the representation of these phenomena which are in the\nBible. Throughout the Old Testament the doctrine is inculcated that\nsupernatural communications must have supernatural attestation. God\nis described as arming his servants with power to perform wonders, in\norder that they may thus be accredited as his special messengers. The\nPatriarchs and the people of Israel generally are represented as\ndemanding 'a sign' of the reality of the communications said to come\nfrom God, without which, we are led to suppose, they not only would\nnot have believed, but would have been justified in disbelieving,\nthat the messengers actually came from him. Thus Gideon asks for a\nsign that the Lord talked with him.\n\n'And the Lord said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou\nshalt smite the Midianites as one man.'\n\n'And he (Gideon) said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight,\nthen show me a sign that thou talkest with me.' (Judges 6 : 16, 17.)\n\n\"And Hezekiah demands proof of the truth of Isaiah's prophecy that\nhe should be restored to health.\n\n'And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the Lord\nwill heal me, and that I shall go up unto the house of the Lord the\nthird day?' (2 Kings 20 : 8.)\n\n\"It is, however, unnecessary to refer to instances, for it may be\naffirmed that upon all occasions, miraculous evidence of an alleged\ndivine mission is stated to have been required and accorded.\n\n\"The startling information is at the same time given, however, that\nmiracles may be wrought to attest what is false as well as to accredit\nwhat is true. In one place, it is declared that if a prophet actually\ngives a sign or wonder and it comes to pass, but teaches the people\non the strength of it, to follow other gods, they are not to hearken\nto him, and the prophet is to be put to death.\n\n'If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth\nthee a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass, whereof he\nspake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast\nnot known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the\nwords of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams.' (Deut. 13 : 1, 2, 3.)\n\n\"The false miracle is here attributed to God himself.\n\n'For the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord\nyour God with all your heart and with all your soul.' (Deut. 13 : 3.)\n\n\"In the book of the prophet Ezekiel the case is stated in a still\nstronger way, and God is represented as directly deceiving the prophet.\n\n'And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord\nhave deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him,\nand will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.' (Ezek.\n14 : 9.)\n\n\"The narrative of God's hardening Pharaoh's heart in order to bring\nmore plagues upon the land of Egypt is in this vein. God, in fact, is\nrepresented as exerting his almighty power to deceive a man and then\ndestroying him for being deceived. In the same spirit is the passage\nin which Micaiah describes the Lord as putting a lying spirit into\nthe mouths of the prophets who incited Ahab to go to Ramoth-gilead. (1\nKings 22 : 14-23.)\n\n\"The miracles wrought by the Egyptian sorcerers in competing with\nMoses were done by another power than God. We have notable instances\nof the belief in signs and wonders wrought by this other power. Jesus\nis represented as warning his disciples against false prophets,\nwho work signs and wonders.\n\n'Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied\nin thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done\nmany wonderful works? of whom he should say, I never knew you, depart\nfrom me, ye that work iniquity.' (Mat. 7 : 22, 23.)\n\nAnd again in another place:\n\n'For false prophets shall arise, and shall work signs and wonders,\nto seduce, if it were possible, the elect.' (Mark 13: 22.)\n\nAlso, when the Pharisees accuse him of casting out devils by Beelzebub,\nthe prince of the devils, Jesus asks: 'By whom do your children cast\nthem out?' a reply which would lose all its point if they were not\nadmitted to be able to cast out devils. In another passage John\nis described as saying: 'Master, we saw one casting out devils\nin thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him.' Without\nmultiplying instances, however, there can be no doubt of the fact\nthat the reality of false miracles and lying wonders is admitted in\nthe Bible. The obvious deduction from this representation of miracles\nis that the source and purpose of such supernatural phenomena must\nalways be exceedingly uncertain. Their evidential value is, therefore,\nprofoundly affected, 'it being,' as Dr. Newman has said of ambiguous\nmiracles, 'antecedently improbable that the Almighty should rest\nthe credit of his Revelation upon events which but obscurely implied\nhis immediate presence.' As it is affirmed that other supernatural\nbeings exist, as well as an assumed personal God, by whose agency\nmiracles are performed, it is impossible to argue with reason that\nsuch phenomena are at any time especially due to the intervention of\nthe Deity. Dr. Newman recognizes this, but passes over the difficulty\nwith masterly lightness of touch. After advancing the singular argument\nthat our knowledge of spirits is only derived from scripture, and\nthat their existence cannot be deduced from nature, whilst he asserts\nthat the being of a God--a personal God be it remembered--can be\nso discovered, and that, therefore, miracles can only properly be\nattributed to him, he proceeds: 'Still it may be necessary to show\nthat on our own principles we are not open to inconsistency. That is,\nit has been questioned whether, in admitting the existence and power\nof the spirits on the authority of Revelation, we are not in danger\nof invalidating the evidence upon which that authority rests. For the\ncogency of the argument for miracles depends on the assumption, that\ninterruptions in the course of nature must ultimately proceed from God;\nwhich is not true, if they may be effected by other beings without\nhis sanction. And it must be conceded, that, explicit as scripture\nis in considering miracles as signs of divine agency, it still does\nseem to give created spirits some power of working them; and even,\nin its most literal sense, intimates the possibility of their working\nthem in opposition to the true doctrine (Deut. 13 : 1-3; Mat. 24 :\n24; 2 Thes. 2 : 9-11).' (Dr. Newman's Two Essays on Miracles, p. 31.)\n\n\"Dr. Newman repudiates the attempts of various writers to overcome\nthis difficulty by making a distinction between great miracles and\nsmall, many miracles and few, or by referring to the nature of the\ndoctrine attested in order to determine the author of the miracles,\nor by denying the power of spirits altogether, and explaining away\nscripture statements of demoniacal possession and the narrative of the\nLord's temptation. 'Without having recourse to any of these dangerous\nmodes of answering the objection,' he says, 'it may be sufficient to\nreply, that, since, agreeably to the antecedent sentiment of reason,\nGod has adopted miracles as the seal of a divine message, we believe\nhe will never suffer them to be so counterfeited as to deceive the\nhumble inquirer.' (Ibid. p. 51.)\n\n\"This is the only reply which even so powerful a reasoner as Dr. Newman\ncan give to an objection based on distinct statements of scripture\nitself. He cannot deny the validity of the objection, he can only\nhope or believe in spite of it. Personal belief independent of\nevidence is the most common and the weakest of arguments; at best\nit is prejudice masked in the garb of reason. It is perfectly clear\nthat miracles being thus acknowledged to be common both to God and to\nother spirits they cannot be considered a distinctive attestation of\ndivine intervention; and as Spinoza finely argued, not even the mere\nexistence of God, can be inferred from them; for as a miracle is a\nlimited act and never expressed more than certain and limited power,\nit is certain that we cannot from such an effect, conclude even the\nexistence of a cause whose power is infinite.\n\n\"This dual character obviously leads to many difficulties in defining\nthe evidential function and force of miracles, and we may best\nappreciate the dilemma which is involved by continuing to follow\nthe statements and arguments of divines themselves. To the question\nwhether miracles are absolutely to command the obedience of those in\nwhose sight they are performed, and whether upon their attestation,\nthe doer and his doctrine are to be accepted as of God, Archbishop\nFrench unhesitatingly replies: 'It cannot be so, for side by side\nwith the miracles which serve for the furthering of the kingdom of\nGod runs another line of wonders, the counter-workings of him who is\never the ape of the Most High.' (Dr. French's 'Notes on the Miracles\nof Our Lord.') Eighth ed., p. 22.\n\n\"'This fact,' he says, 'that the kingdom of lies has its wonders no\nless than the kingdom of truth, is in itself sufficient evidence that\nmiracles cannot be appealed to absolutely and finally, in proof of\nthe doctrine which the worker of them proclaims.'\n\n\"This being the case, it is important to discover how miracles\nperform their function as the indispensible evidence for a Divine\nRevelation, for with this disability they do not seem to possess much\npotentiality. Archbishop French then offers the following definition\nof the function of miracles: 'A miracle does not prove the truth of\na doctrine or the divine mission of him that brings it to pass. That\nwhich alone it claims for him at the first is a right to be listened\nto; it puts him in the alternative of being from heaven or from\nhell. The doctrine must first commend itself to the conscience as being\ngood, and only then can the miracle seal it as divine.' But the first\nappeal is from the doctrine to the conscience, to the moral nature\nof man. Under certain circumstances, he maintains their evidence is\nutterly to be rejected. 'But the purpose of the miracle' he says,\n'being as we have seen, to confirm that which is good, so, upon the\nother hand, where conscience and mind witness against the doctrine,\nnot all the miracles in the world have a right to demand submission\nto the word which they seal. On the contrary, the great act of faith\nis to believe, against, and in despite of them all, in what God has\nrevealed to, and implanted in the soul of the holy and the true;\nnot to believe another gospel, though an angel from heaven, or one\ntransformed into such should bring it (Deut. 13 : 3; Gal. 1 : 8);\nand instead of compelling assent, miracles are then rather warnings\nto us that we keep aloof, for they tell us that not merely lies are\nhere, for to that the conscience bore witness already, but that he who\nutters them is more than a common deceiver, is eminently a liar and\nanti-Christ, a false prophet; standing in more immediate connection\nthan other deceived and evil men to the kingdom of darkness, so that\nSatan has given him his power (Rev. 13 : 2); is using him to be an\nespecial organ of his, and to do a special work for him.' And he\nlays down the distinct principle that: 'The miracle must witness for\nitself, and then, and then only, the first is capable of witnessing\nfor the second.'\n\n\"These opinions are not peculiar to the Archbishop of Dublin, but\nare generally held by divines, although Dr. French expresses them\nwith unusual absence of reserve. Dr. Mozley emphatically affirms the\nsame doctrine when he says: 'A miracle cannot oblige us to accept\nany doctrine which is contrary to our moral nature or a fundamental\nprinciple of religion.' Dr. Mansel speaks to the same effect: 'If\na teacher claiming to work miracles proclaims doctrines contrary\nto previously established truths, whether to the conclusions of\nnatural religion or to the teaching of a former revelation, such\na contradiction is allowed even by the most zealous defenders of\nthe evidential value of miracles, to invalidate the authority of the\nteacher. But the right conclusion from this admission is not that true\nmiracles are invalid an evidences, but that the supposed miracles in\nthis case are not true miracles at all; that is, are not the effects\nof divine power, but of human deception or of some other agency.' A\npassage from a letter written by Dr. Arnold, which is quoted by\nDr. French in support of his views, both illustrates the doctrine\nand the necessity which has led to its adoption. 'You complain,'\nsays Dr. Arnold, writing to Dr. Hawkins, 'of those persons who judge\nof a revelation not by its evidence, but by its substance. It has\nalways seemed to me that its substance is a most essential part of\nits evidence; and that miracles wrought in favor of what was foolish\nor wicked would only prove Manicheism. We are so perfectly ignorant\nof the unseen world, that the character of any supernatural power\ncan only be judged by the moral character of the statements which it\nsanctions. Thus only can we tell whether it be a revelation from God\nor from the Devil.' In another place Dr. Arnold declares: 'Miracles\nmust not be allowed to overrule the gospel; for it is only through\nour belief in the gospel that we accord our belief in them.'\n\n\"It is obvious that the mutual dependence which is thus established\nbetween miracles and the doctrines in connection with which they are\nwrought destroys the evidential force of miracles, and that the first\nand final appeal is made to reason. The doctrine in fact proves the\nmiracles instead of the miracle attesting the doctrine. Divines, of\ncourse, attempt to deny this, but no other deduction from their own\nstatements is logically possible. Miracles according to scripture\nitself, are producible by various supernatural beings and may be\nsatanic as well as divine: man on the other hand, is so ignorant of\nthe unseen world that avowedly, he cannot, from the miracle itself,\ndetermine the agent by whom it was performed; the miracle, therefore,\nhas no intrinsic evidential value. How, then, according to divines,\ndoes it attain any potentiality? Only through a favorable decision on\nthe part of reason on the 'moral nature of man' regarding the character\nof the doctrine. The result of the appeal to reason respecting the\nmorality and credibility of the doctrine determines the evidential\nstatus of the miracle. The doctrine therefore, is the real criterion\nof the miracle which, without it, is necessarily an object of doubt\nand suspicion.\n\n\"We have already casually referred to Dr. Newman's view of such a\nrelation between miracle and doctrine, but may here more fully quote\nhis suggestive remarks. 'Others by referring to the nature of the\ndoctrine attested,' he says, 'in order to determine the author of the\nmiracle, have exposed themselves to the plausible charge of adducing,\nfirst the miracle to attest the divinity of the doctrine, and then\nthe doctrine to prove the divinity of the miracle.' This argument he\ncharacterizes as one of the 'dangerous modes' of removing a difficulty,\nalthough he does not himself point out a safer, and in a note, he adds:\n'There is an appearance of doing honor to the Christian doctrines in\nrepresenting them as intrinsically credible, which leads many into\nsupporting opinions which, carried to their full extent, supercede\nthe need of miracles altogether. It must be recollected, too, that\nthey who are allowed to praise have the privilege of finding fault,\nand may reject, according to their a priori notions, as well as\nreceive. Doubtless the divinity of a clearly immoral doctrine could\nnot be evidenced by miracles; for our belief in the moral attributes of\nGod, is much stronger than our conviction of the negative proposition,\nthat none but he can interfere with the system of nature. But there\nis always the danger of extending this admission beyond its proper\nlimits, of supposing ourselves judges of the tendency of doctrines;\nand because, unassisted reason informs us what is moral and immoral\nin our own case, of attempting to decide on the abstract morality of\nactions.... These remarks are in nowise inconsistent with using (as was\ndone in a former section) our actual knowledge of God's attributes,\nobtained from a survey of nature and human affairs, in determining\nthe probability of certain professed miracles having proceeded from\nhim. It is one thing to infer from the experience of life another\nto imagine the character of God from the gratuitous conceptions of\nour own minds.' Although Dr. Newman apparently fails to perceive\nthat he himself thus makes reason the criterion of miracles and\ntherefore incurs the condemnation with which our quotation opens,\nthe very indecision of his argument illustrates the dilemma in\nwhich divines are placed. Dr. Mozley, however, still more directly\ncondemns the principle we are discussing, that the doctrine must\nbe the criterion of the miracle, although he also, as we have seen\nelsewhere, substantially affirms it. He says: 'The position that the\nrevelation proves the miracle, and not the miracles the revelation,\nadmits of a good qualified meaning; but taken literally, it is a\ndouble offense against the rule, that things are properly proved by\nthe proper proof of them; for a supernatural fact is the proper proof\nof supernatural doctrine, while a supernatural doctrine on the other\nhand is certainly not a proper proof of a supernatural fact.'\n\n\"This statement is obviously true, but it is equally undeniable that,\ntheir origin being uncertain, miracles have no evidential force. How\nfar then, we may inquire in order thoroughly to understand the\nposition, can doctrines prove the reality of miracles or determine\nthe agency by which they are performed? In the case of moral truths\nwithin the limits of reason, it is evident that doctrines, which\nare in accordance with our idea of what is good and right do not\nrequire miraculous evidence at all. They can secure acceptance by\ntheir own merits alone. At the same time it is universally admitted\nthat the truth or goodness of a doctrine could not attest the divine\norigin of a miracle. Such truths, however, have no proper connection\nwith revelation at all. 'These truths,' to quote the words of Bishop\nAtterbury, 'were of themselves sufficiently obvious and plain, and\nneeded not a divine testimony to make them plainer. But the truths\nwhich are necessary in this manner to be attested, are those which\nare of positive institution; those which if God had not pleased to\nreveal them, human reason could not have discovered; and those, which,\neven now, they are revealed, human reason cannot fully account for,\nand perfectly comprehend.' How is it possible then that reason,\nor the 'moral nature of man' can approve as good, or appreciate\nthe fitness of, doctrines which in their very nature are beyond\nthe criterion of reason. What reply, for instance, can reason give\nto any appeal to it regarding the doctrine of the trinity or of\nthe incarnation? If doctrines, the truth and goodness of which are\napparent, do not afford any evidence of divine revelation, how can\ndoctrines which reason can neither discover nor comprehend attest the\ndivine origin of miracles? Dr. Mozley clearly recognizes that they\ncannot do so. 'The proof of a revelation,' he says, and we may add,\nthe proof of a miracle--itself a species of revelation--'which is\ncontained in the substance of a revelation has this inherent check or\nlimit in it; namely: that it cannot reach to what is undiscoverable by\nreason.' 'Internal evidence is itself an appeal to reason, because at\nevery step the test is our own appreciation of such and such an idea or\ndoctrine, our own perception of its fitness; but human reason cannot\nin the nature of the case prove that which, by the very hypotheses,\nlies beyond reason.' It naturally follows that no doctrine which lies\nbeyond reason, and therefore requires the attestation of miracles,\ncan possibly afford that indication of the source and reality of\nmiracles which is necessary to endow them with evidential value,\nand the supernatural doctrine must, therefore, be rejected in the\nabsence of miraculous evidence of a decisive character.\n\n\"Canon Mozley labors earnestly, but unsuccessfully, to restore to\nmiracles as evidence some part of that potentiality of which these\nunfortunate limitations have deprived them. 'Whilst on the one hand,'\nhe says, 'we must admit indeed an inherent modification in the function\nof a miracle as an instrument of proof,' he argues that this is only a\nlimitation, and no disproof of it, and he contends that: 'The evidence\nof miracles is not negatived because it has conditions.' His reasoning,\nhowever, is purely apologetic, and attempts by the unreal analogy of\nsupposed limitations of natural principles and evidence to excuse the\ndisqualifying limitations of the supernatural. He is quite conscious\nof the serious difficulty of the position: 'The question' he says,\n'may at first sight create a dilemma.--If a miracle is nugatory on the\nside of one doctrine, what cogency has it on the side of another? Is\nit legitimate to accept its evidence when we please and reject it\nwhen we please?' The only reply he seems able to give to these very\npertinent questions is the remark which immediately follows them:\n'But in truth a miracle is never without an argumentative force,\nalthough that force may be counterbalanced.' In other words, a miracle\nis always an argument, although it is often a bad one. It is scarcely\nnecessary to go to the supernatural for bad arguments.\n\n\"It might naturally be expected that the miraculous evidence selected\nto accredit a divine revelation should possess certain unique and\nmarked characteristics. It must at least, be clearly distinctive of\ndivine power and exclusively associated with divine truth. It is\ninconceivable that the Deity, deigning thus to attest the reality\nof a communication from himself of truths beyond the criterion of\nreason, should not make the evidence simple and complete, because\nthe doctrines proper to such a revelation, not being appreciable\nfrom internal evidence, it is obvious that the external testimony\nfor them,--if it is to be of any use--must be unmistakable and\ndecisive. The evidence which is actually produced, however, so far\nfrom satisfying these legitimate anticipations, lacks every one of the\nqualifications which reason antecedently declares necessary. Miracles\nare not distinctive of divine power but are common to Satan, and they\nare admitted to be performed in support of falsehood as well as in the\nservice of truth. They bear, indeed, so little upon them the impress\nof their origin and true character, that they are dependent for their\nrecognition upon our judgment of the very doctrines to attest which\nthey are said to have been designed.\n\n\"Even taking the representation of miracles, therefore, which\ndivines themselves give, they are utterly incompetent to perform\ntheir contemplated functions. If they are superhuman they are not\nsupersatanic, and there is no sense in which they can be considered\nmiraculously evidential of anything. To argue as theologians do,\nthat the ambiguity of their testimony is intended as a trial of\nour faith is absurd, for reason being unable to judge of the nature\neither of supernatural fact or of supernatural doctrine it would be\nmere folly and injustice to subject to such a test beings avowedly\nincapable of sustaining it. Whilst it is absolutely necessary, then,\nthat a divine revelation should be attested by miraculous evidence to\njustify our believing it the testimony so called seems in all respects\nunworthy of the name, and presents anomalies much more suggestive of\nhuman invention than divine originality. We are, in fact, prepared by\nthe scriptural account of miracles to expect that further examination\nwill supply an explanation of such phenomena which will wholly remove\nthem from the region of the supernatural.\n\n\"We have seen that a divine revelation is such only by virtue of\ncommunicating to us something which we could not know without it, and\nwhich is in fact undiscoverable by human reason; and that miraculous\nevidence is absolutely requisite to establish its reality. It is\nadmitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the\nspecific revelation which we are considering, the very substance of\nwhich is supernatural and beyond the criterion of reason, and that its\nastounding announcements, if not demonstrated to be miraculous truths,\nmust inevitably be pronounced 'the wildest delusions.' On examining\nthe supposed miraculous evidence, however, we find that not only is it\nupon general grounds antecedently incredible, but that the testimony by\nwhich its realty is supported, so far from establishing the inferences\ndrawn from the supposed supernatural phenomena, is totally insufficient\neven to certify the actual occurrence of the events narrated.\n\n\"Even if the reality of miracles could be substantiated, their value\nas evidence for the divine revelation is destroyed by the necessary\nadmission that miracles are not limited to one source, but that there\nare miracles satanic which are to be disbelieved, as well as divine\nand evidential ones to be believed.\n\n\"Similar miracles to those which are supposed to attest it are reported\nlong antecedent to the promulgation of Christianity, and continued\nto be performed for centuries after it.\n\n\"A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has flowed through all\nhuman history, deep and broad as it has passed through the darker ages,\nbut dwindling down to a thread as it has entered days of enlightenment.\n\n\"The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that\ntheir supposed occurrence has been confined to ages of ignorance and\nsuperstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or\nplace where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and\nascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power.\n\n\"There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural\ninterference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have\nsprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not\na single valid argument to support it.\n\n\"When we turn from more general arguments to examine the documentary\nevidence for the reality of the supposed miraculous occurrences,\nand of the divine revelation which they accredit, we meet with the\ncharacteristics which might have been expected. We do not find any\ntrace even of the existence of our gospels for a century and a half\nafter the events they record. They are anonymous narratives, and there\nis no evidence of any value connecting these works with the writers\nto whom they are popularly attributed. The miraculous evidence upon\nwhich alone, it is admitted, we could be justified in believing its\nastounding doctrines being thus nugatory, the claims of Christianity to\nbe considered a divine revelation must necessarily be disallowed, and\nits supernatural elements, which are, in fact, the very substance of\nthe system, inevitably sharing the same fate as the supposed miraculous\nevidence, must, therefore, be rejected as incredible and opposed to\nreason and complete induction.\" (\"Supernatural Religion,\" p. 698.)\n\n\"A miracle as evidence can establish no fact, for the reason that the\nmiracle does not exist. The miracle itself must be attested. As we\nhave no evidence of miracles, we are not called on to believe them,\nbut to believe the story which relates them. 'But the miracle is above\nand beyond reason.' To this we reply: It is absurd to assume what is\nbeyond reason, to account for what is opposed to reason.\" (Ibid.)\n\n\n\n\nDavid Hume's Argument on Miracles.\n\n\"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and\nunalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a\nmiracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument\nfrom experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable\nthat all men must die; that lead cannot of itself remain suspended in\nthe air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless\nit be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature,\nand there is required a violation of these laws, or, in other words,\na miracle, to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever\nhappen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man\nseemingly in good health should die suddenly; because such a kind of\ndeath, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently\nobserved to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to\nlife; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There\nmust, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous\nevent, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as\na uniform experience amounts to a proof there is here a direct and\nfull proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any\nmiracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed or the miracle rendered\ncredible but by an opposite proof which is superior. (2.)\n\n\"The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our\nattention), 'that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle,\nunless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be\nmore miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish; and\neven in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the\nsuperior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force\nwhich remains after deducting the inferior.' When any one tells me that\nhe saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself\nwhether it be more probable that this person should either deceive\nor be deceived, or that the fact which he relates should really have\nhappened. I weigh the one miracle against the other, and according to\nthe superiority which I discover I pronounce my decision, and always\nreject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would\nbe more miraculous than the event which he relates, then, and not\ntill then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.\n\n\"In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed that the testimony upon\nwhich a miracle is founded may possibly amount to an entire proof,\nand that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy; but\nit is easy to show that we have been a great deal too liberal in our\nconcession, and that there never was a miraculous event established\non so full an evidence.\n\n\"For, first, there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle\nattested by a sufficient number of men of such unquestioned good\nsense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion\nin themselves; of such undoubted integrity as to place them beyond\nall suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and\nreputation in the eyes of mankind as to have a great deal to lose\nin case of their being detected in any falsehood; and, at the same\ntime, attesting facts performed in such a public manner, and in so\ncelebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable;\nall which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in\nthe testimony of men.\n\n\"Secondly. We may observe in human nature a principle which, if\nstrictly examined, will be found to diminish extremely the assurance\nwhich we might, from human testimony, have in any kind of prodigy. The\nmaxim by which we commonly conduct ourselves in our reasonings is,\nthat the objects of which we have no experience resemble those of\nwhich we have; that what we have found to be most usual is always\nmost profitable, and that where there is an opposition of argument we\nought to give the preference to such as are founded on the greatest\nnumber of past observations; but though, in proceeding by this rule,\nwe readily reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in an\nordinary degree, yet in advancing further the mind observes not\nalways the same rule, but when anything is affirmed utterly absurd\nand miraculous it rather the more readily admits of such a fact,\nupon account of that very circumstance which ought to destroy all its\nauthority. The passion of surprise and wonder arising from miracles,\nbeing an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency toward the\nbelief of those events from which it is derived. And this goes so\nfar, that even those who can not enjoy this pleasure immediately,\nnor can believe those miraculous events of which they are informed,\nyet love to partake of the satisfaction at second-hand or by rebound,\nand take pride and delight in exciting the admiration of others.\n\n\"With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travelers\nreceived, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations\nof wonderful adventures, strange men and uncouth manners! But if the\nspirit of religion joins itself to the love of wonder, there is an end\nof common sense, and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses\nall pretensions to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast,\nand imagine he sees what has no reality; he may know his narrative\nto be false, and yet persevere in it with the best intentions in the\nworld, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause; or even where this\ndelusion has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a temptation,\noperates on him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any\nother circumstances, and self-interest with equal force. His auditors\nmay not have, and commonly have not, sufficient judgment to canvass\nhis evidence; what judgment they have, they renounce by principle,\nin these sublime and mysterious subjects; or if they were ever so\nwilling to employ it, passion and a heated imagination disturb the\nregularity of its operations. Their credulity increases his impudence,\nand his impudence overpowers their credulity.\n\n\"Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room for\nreason or reflection, but, addressing itself entirely to the fancy\nor the affections, captivates the willing hearers and subdues their\nunderstanding. Happily, this pitch it seldom attains. But what a\nTully or a Demosthenes could scarcely effect over a Roman or Athenian\naudience, every Capuchin, every itinerant or stationary teacher,\ncan perform over the generality of mankind, and in a higher degree,\nby touching such gross and vulgar passions.\n\n\"The many instances of forged miracles and prophecies, and\nsupernatural events, which in all ages have either been detected by\ncontrary evidence or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove\nsufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to the extraordinary and\nthe marvelous, and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all\nrelations of this kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even with\nregard to the most common and most credible events. For instance, there\nis no kind of report which rises so easily and spreads so quickly,\nespecially in country places and provincial towns, as those concerning\nmarriages: insomuch that two young persons of equal condition never\nsee each other twice but the whole neighborhood immediately join them\ntogether. The pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting,\nof propagating it, and of being the first reporters of it, spreads\nthe intelligence. And this is so well known that no man of sense\ngives attention to these reports till he finds them confirmed by\nsome greater evidence. Do not the same passions, and others still\nstronger, incline the generality of mankind to believe and report,\nwith the greatest vehemence and assurance, all religious miracles?\n\n\"Thirdly. It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and\nmiraculous relations that they are observed chiefly to abound among\nignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever\ngiven admission to any of them, that people will be found to have\nreceived them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted\nthem with that inviolable sanction and authority which always attend\nreceived opinions. When we peruse the first histories of all nations,\nwe are apt to imagine ourselves transported into some new world, where\nthe whole frame of nature is disjointed, and every element performs its\noperations in a different manner from what it does at present. Battles,\nrevolutions, pestilence, famine, and death, are never the effect of\nthose natural causes which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles,\njudgments, quite obscure the few natural events that are intermingled\nwith them. But as the former grow thinner every page, in proportion\nas we advance nearer the enlightened ages, we soon learn that there is\nnothing mysterious or supernatural in the case, but that all proceeds\nfrom the usual propensity of mankind toward the marvelous; and that\nthough this inclination may at intervals receive a check from sense\nand learning, it can never be thoroughly extirpated from human nature.\n\n\"It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say upon the perusal of\nthose wonderful historians, that such prodigious events never happen in\nour days. But it is nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all\nages. You must surely have seen instances enough of that frailty. You\nhave yourself heard many such marvelous relations started, which,\nbeing treated with scorn by all the wise and judicious, have at least\nbeen abandoned even by the vulgar. Be assured that those renowned\nlies, which have spread and flourished to such a monstrous height,\narose from like beginnings; but being sown in a more proper soil,\nshot up at last into prodigies almost equal to those which they relate.\n\n\"It was a wise policy in that false prophet Alexander, who, though\nnow forgotten, was once so famous, to lay the first scene of his\nimpostures in Paphlagonia, where, as Lucian tells us, the people\nwere extremely ignorant and stupid, and ready to swallow even the\ngrossest delusion. People at a distance who are weak enough to think\nthe matter at all worth inquiry have no opportunity of receiving\nbetter information. The stories come magnified to them by a hundred\ncircumstances. Fools are industrious in propagating the imposture;\nwhile the wise and learned are contented, in general, to deride its\nabsurdity, without informing themselves of the particular facts by\nwhich it may be distinctly refuted. And thus the imposture above\nmentioned was enabled to proceed, from his ignorant Paphlagonians, to\nthe enlisting of votaries even among the Grecian philosophers and men\nof the most eminent rank and distinction in Rome; nay, could engage the\nattention of that sage emperor Marcus Aurelius, so far as to make him\ntrust the success of a military expedition to his delusive prophecies.\n\n\"The advantages are so great of starting an imposture among an ignorant\npeople that, even though the delusion should be too gross to impose\non the generality of them, which, though seldom, is sometimes the\ncase, it has a much better chance for succeeding in remote countries\nthan if the first scene had been laid in a city renowned for arts and\nknowledge. The most ignorant and barbarous of these barbarians carry\nthe report abroad. None of their countrymen have a large correspondence\nof sufficient credit and authority to contradict and beat down the\ndelusion. Men's inclination to the marvelous has full opportunity to\ndisplay itself. And thus a story, which is universally exploded in the\nplace where it was first started, will pass for certain at a thousand\nmiles distant. But had Alexander fixed his residence at Athens, the\nphilosophers of that renowned mart of learning would have spread,\nthroughout the whole Roman empire, their sense of the matter; which,\nbeing supported by so great an authority, and displayed by all the\nforce of reason and eloquence, would have entirely opened the eyes of\nmankind. It is true Lucian, passing by chance through Paphlagonia,\nhad an opportunity of performing this good office. But though much\nto be wished, it does not always happen that every Alexander meets\nwith a Lucian ready to expose and detect his impostures.\n\n\"I may add as a fourth reason which diminishes the authority of\nprodigies, that there is no testimony for any, even those which have\nnot been expressly detected, that is, not opposed by any infinite\nnumber of witnesses; so that not only the miracle destroys the credit\nof testimony, but the testimony destroys itself. To make this the\nbetter understood, let us consider that in matters of religion,\nwhatever is different is contrary; and it is impossible that the\nreligions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China, should\nall of them be established on any solid foundation. Every miracle,\ntherefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of those religions\n(and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is to\nestablish the particular system to which it is attributed, so has\nit the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every other\nsystem. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit\nof those miracles on which that system was established; so that all\nthe prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary\nfacts; and the evidences of these prodigies, whether weak or strong,\nas opposite to each other. According to this method of reasoning,\nwhen we believe any miracle of Mahomet or his successors, we have\nfor our warrant the testimony of a few barbarous Arabians: and on the\nother hand, we are to regard the authority of Titus, Livius, Plutarch,\nTacitus, and, in short, of all the authors and witnesses--Grecian,\nChinese, and Roman Catholic, who have related any miracle in their\nparticular religion; I say we are to regard their testimony in\nthe same light as if they had mentioned that Mahometan miracle,\nand had in express terms contradicted it, with the same certainty\nas they have for the miracle they relate. This argument may appear\nover subtile and refined; but is not in reality different from the\nreasoning of a judge who supposes that the credit of two witnesses,\nmaintaining a crime against any one is destroyed by the testimony of\ntwo others who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues distant\nat the same instant when the crime is said to have been committed.\n\n\"One of the best-attested miracles in all profane history is that\nwhich Tacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured a blind man in\nAlexandria by means of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere\ntouch of his foot, in obedience to a vision of the god Serapis,\nwho had enjoined them to have recourse to the emperor for these\nmiraculous cures. The story may be seen in the works of that historian\n(Hist. lib. v. cap. 8. Suetonius gives nearly the same account in\nVitia Vesp.), where every circumstance seems to add weight to the\ntestimony, and might be displayed at large with all the force of\nargument and eloquence, if any one were now concerned to enforce the\nevidence of that exploded and idolatrous superstition: The gravity,\nsolidity, age, and probity of so great an emperor, who, through\nthe whole course of his life conversed in a familiar manner with\nhis friends and courtiers, and never affected those extraordinary\nairs of divinity assumed by Alexander and Demetrius. The historian,\na contemporary writer, noted for candor and veracity, and, withal,\nthe greatest and most penetrating genius perhaps of all antiquity,\nand so free from any tendency to credulity that he even lies under\nthe contrary imputation of Atheism and profaneness. The persons from\nwhose authority he related the miracle, of established character\nfor judgment and veracity, as we may well presume; eye witnesses of\nthe fact, and confirming their testimony after the Flavian family\nwas despoiled of the empire, and could no longer give any reward as\nthe price of a lie. Utrumque, qui interfuere, nunc quoque memorant,\npostquam nullum, mendacio pretium. To which if we add the public\nnature of the facts as related, it will appear that no evidence can\nwell be supposed stronger for so gross and palpable a falsehood.\n\n\"There is also a memorable story related by Cardinal de Retz, which\nmay well deserve our consideration. When that intriguing politician\nfled into Spain to avoid the persecution of his enemies, he passed\nthrough Saragossa, the capital of Arragon, where he was shown, in the\ncathedral, a man who had served seven years as a doorkeeper, and was\nwell known to everybody in town that had ever paid his devotions at\nthat church. He had been seen, for so long a time, wanting a leg;\nbut recovered that limb by the rubbing of holy oil upon the stump;\nand the cardinal assures us that he saw him with two legs. This\nmiracle was vouched by all the canons of the church; and the whole\ncompany in town were appealed to for a confirmation of the fact;\nwhom the cardinal found by their zealous devotion, to be thorough\nbelievers of the miracle. Here the relater was also contemporary to\nthe supposed prodigy, of an incredulous and libertine character, as\nwell as of great genius, the miracle of so singular a nature as could\nscarcely admit of a counterfeit, and the witnesses very numerous, and\nall of them, in a manner spectators, of the fact to which they gave\ntheir testimony. And what adds mightily to the force of the evidence,\nand may double our surprise on this occasion, is that the cardinal\nhimself, who relates the story, seems not to give any credit to it,\nand consequently can not be suspected of any concurrence in the holy\nfraud. He considered, justly, that it was not requisite, in order to\nreject a fact of this nature, to be able accurately to disprove the\ntestimony, and to trace its falsehood through all the circumstances\nof knavery and credulity which produced it. He knew that as this\nwas commonly altogether impossible at any small distance of time and\nplace, so was it extremely difficult, even where one was immediately\npresent, by reason of the bigotry, ignorance, cunning, and roguery of\na great part of mankind. He therefore concluded, like a just reasoner,\nthat such an evidence carried falsehood upon the very face of it,\nand that a miracle supported by any human testimony was more properly\na subject of derision than of argument.\n\n\"There surely never was a greater number of miracles ascribed to one\nperson than those which were lately said to have been wrought in France\nupon the tomb of Abbe Paris, the famous Jansenist, with whose sanctity\nthe people were so long deluded. The curing of the sick, giving hearing\nto the deaf, and sight to the blind, were everywhere talked of as the\nusual effects of that holy sepulcher. But, what is more extraordinary,\nmany of the miracles were immediately proved upon the spot, before\njudges of unquestioned integrity, attested by witnesses of credit and\ndistinction, in a learned age, and on the most eminent theater that\nis now in the world. Nor is this all: a relation of them was published\nand dispersed everywhere; nor were the Jesuits, though a learned body,\nsupported by the civil magistrate, and determined enemies to those\nopinions in whose favor the miracles were said to have been wrought,\never able distinctly to refute or detect them. (3.) Where shall we\nfind such a number of circumstances agreeing to the corroboration of\none fact? And what have we to oppose to such a cloud of witnesses but\nthe absolute impossibility or miraculous nature of the events which\nthey relate? And this, surely, in the eyes of all reasonable people,\nwill alone be regarded as a sufficient refutation.\n\n\"Is the consequence just, because some human testimony has the\nutmost force and authority in some cases--when it relates the battle\nof Phillipi or Pharsalia, for instance--that therefore all kinds of\ntestimony must, in all cases, have equal force and authority? Suppose\nthat the C\u00e6sarean and Pompeian factions had, each of them, claimed\nthe victory in these battles, and that the historians of each\nparty had uniformly ascribed the advantage to their own sides; how\ncould mankind, at this distance, have been able to determine between\nthem? The contrariety is equally strong between the miracles related\nby Herodotus or Plutarch, and those delivered by Mariana, Bede,\nor any monkish historian.\n\n\"The wise lend a very academic faith to every report which favors\nthe passion of the reporter, whether it magnifies his country, his\nfamily, or himself, or in any other way strikes in with his natural\ninclinations and propensities. But what greater temptation than\nto appear a missionary, a prophet, an embassador from heaven. Who\nwould not encounter many dangers and difficulties in order to obtain\nso sublime a character. Or if, by the help of vanity and a heated\nimagination, a man has first made a convert of himself and entered\nseriously into the delusion, who ever scruples to make use of pious\nfrauds in support of so holy and meritorious a cause.\n\n\"The smallest spark may here kindle into the greatest flame: because\nthe materials are always prepared for it. The avidum genus auricularum\n(Lucretius)--the gazing populace receive greedily, without examination,\nwhatever soothes superstition and promotes wonder.\n\n\"How many stories of this nature have, in all ages, been detected\nand exploded in their infancy. How many more have been celebrated\nfor a time and have afterward sunk into neglect and oblivion. Where\nsuch reports, therefore, fly about, the solution of the phenomenon\nis obvious; and we judge in conformity to regular experience and\nobservation when we account for it by the known and natural principles\nof credulity and delusion. And shall we, rather than have recourse\nto so natural a solution, allow of a miraculous violation of the most\nestablished laws of nature?\n\n\"I need not mention the difficulty of detecting a falsehood in\nany private or even public history at the place where it is said\nto happen; much more when the scene is removed to ever so small\na distance. Even a court of judicature, with all the authority,\naccuracy, and judgment which they can employ, find themselves often\nat a loss to distinguish between truth and falsehood in the most\nrecent actions. But the matter never comes to any issue if trusted\nto the common method of altercation and debate and flying rumors,\nespecially when men's passions have taken part on either side.\n\n\"In the infancy of new religions the wise and learned commonly\nesteem the matter too inconsiderable to deserve their attention or\nregard. And when afterward they would willingly detect the cheat,\nin order to undeceive the deluded multitude, the season is now past,\nand the records and witnesses which might clear up the matter have\nperished beyond recovery.\n\n\"No means of detection remain but those which must be drawn from\nthe very testimony itself of the reporters; and these, though always\nsufficient with the judicious and knowing, are commonly too fine to\nfall under the comprehension of the vulgar.\n\n\"Upon the whole, then, it appears that no testimony for any kind of\nmiracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof;\nand that even supposing it amounted to a proof, it would be opposed by\nanother proof, derived from the very nature of the fact which it would\nendeavor to establish. It is experience only which gives authority to\nhuman testimony; and it is the same experience which assures us of\nthe laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience\nare contrary, we have nothing to do but subtract the one from the\nother, and embrace an opinion, either on one side or the other, with\nthat assurance which arises from the remainder. But according to\nthe principle here explained, this subtraction, with regard to all\npopular religions, amounts to an entire annihilation; and therefore\nwe may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can have such\nforce as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any\nsuch system of religion.\n\n\"I beg the limitations here made may be remarked when I say that\na miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a\nsystem of religion. For I own that, otherwise, there may possibly be\nmiracles or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind\nas to admit of proof from human testimony; though perhaps it will\nbe impossible to find any such in all the records of history. Thus,\nsuppose all authors, in all languages, agree that from the first of\nJanuary, 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole earth for\neight days; suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event\nis still strong and lively among the people; that all travelers who\nreturn from foreign countries bring us accounts of the same tradition,\nwithout the least variation or contradiction--it is evident that our\npresent philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive\nit as certain, and ought to search for the causes whence it might be\nderived. The decay, corruption, and dissolution of nature is an event\nrendered probable by so many analogies, that any phenomenon which seems\nto have a tendency toward that catastrophe comes within the reach of\nhuman testimony, if that testimony be very extensive and uniform.\n\n\"But suppose that all the historians who England treat of should\nagree that on the first day of January, 1600, Queen Elizabeth died;\nthat both before and after her death she was seen by her physicians\nand the whole court, as is usual with persons of her rank; that her\nsuccessor was acknowledged and proclaimed by the parliament; and that\nafter being interred a month she again appeared, resumed the throne,\nand governed England for three years--I must confess that I should be\nsurprised at the concurrence of so many odd circumstances, but should\nnot have the least inclination to believe so miraculous an event. I\nshould not doubt of her pretended death, and of those other public\ncircumstances that followed it; I should only assert it to have been\npretended, and that it neither was nor possibly could be real. You\nwould in vain object to me the difficulty, and almost impossibility,\nof deceiving the world in an affair of such consequence. The wisdom\nand solid judgment of that renowned queen, with the little or no\nadvantage she could reap from so poor an artifice--all this might\nastonish me; but I would still reply that the knavery and folly of\nmen are such common phenomena, that I should rather believe the most\nextraordinary events to arise from their concurrence than admit of\nso signal a violation of the laws of nature.\n\n\"But should this miracle be ascribed to any new system of religion,\nmen in all ages have been so much imposed on by ridiculous stories of\nthat kind that this very circumstance would be a full proof of a cheat,\nand sufficient with all men of sense not only to make them reject the\nfact, but even reject it without further examination. Though the being\nto whom the miracle is ascribed be in this case Almighty, it does not\nupon that account become a whit more probable, since it is impossible\nfor us to know the attributes or actions of such a being otherwise\nthan from the experience which we have of his productions in the\nusual course of nature. This still reduces us to past observation,\nand obliges us to compare the instances of the violation of truth\nin the testimony of men with those of the violation of the laws of\nnature by miracles, in order to judge which of them is most likely and\nprobable. As the violations of truth are more common in the testimony\nconcerning religious miracles than in that concerning any other matter\nof fact, this must diminish very much the authority of the former\ntestimony, and make us form a general resolution never to lend any\nattention to it, with whatever specious pretense it may be covered.\n\n\"Lord Bacon seems to have embraced the same principles of\nreasoning. 'We ought,' says he, 'to make a collection or particular\nhistory of all monsters and prodigious births or productions, and,\nin a word, of everything new, rare, and extraordinary in nature. But\nthis must be done with the most severe scrutiny, lest we depart from\ntruth. Above all, every relation must be considered as suspicious which\ndepends in any degree upon religion, as the prodigies of Livy: and,\nno less so, every thing that is to be found in the writers of natural\nmagic or alchemy, or such authors who seem, all of them, to have an\nunconquerable appetite for falsehood and fable.' (Nov. Org. lib. 2,\naph. 9.)\n\n\"I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered,\nas I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or\ndisguised enemies to the Christian religion who have undertaken to\ndefend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is\nfounded on faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it\nto put it to such a trial as it is by no means fitted to endure. To\nmake this more evident, let us examine those miracles related in\nscripture; and, not to lose ourselves in too wide a field, let us\nconfine ourselves to such as we find in the Pentateuch, which we shall\nexamine according to the principles of these pretended Christians,\nnot as the word or testimony of God himself, but as the production\nof a mere human writer and historian. Here, then, we are first to\nconsider a book, presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people,\nwritten in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all\nprobability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by\nno concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts\nwhich every nation gives of its origin. Upon reading this book,\nwe find it full of prodigies and miracles. It gives an account of a\nstate of the world and of human nature entirely different from the\npresent: of our fall from that state; of the age of man extended to\nnear a thousand years; of the destruction of the world by a deluge;\nof the arbitrary choice of one people as the favorites of heaven, and\nthat people the countrymen of the author; of their deliverance from\nbondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I desire anyone\nto lay his hand upon his heart, and, after a serious consideration,\ndeclare whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported\nby such a testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than\nall the miracles it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it\nbe received according to the measures of probability above established.\n\n\"What we have said of miracles may be applied, without any variation,\nto prophecies; and, indeed, all prophecies are real miracles, and as\nsuch only can be admitted as proofs of any revelation. If it did not\nexceed the capacity of human nature to foretell future events, it would\nbe absurd to employ any prophecy as an argument for a divine mission or\nauthority from heaven; so that upon the whole we may conclude that the\nChristian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but\neven at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without\none. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity; and\nwhoever is moved by faith to assent to it is conscious of a continued\nmiracle in his own person which subverts all the principles of his\nunderstanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most\ncontrary to custom and experience.\"\n\n\"For hundreds of years, miracles were about the only things that\nhappened. They were wrought by thousands of Christians, and testified\nto by millions. The saints and martyrs, the best and greatest,\nwere the witnesses and workers of wonders. Even heretics, with the\nassistance of the Devil, could suspend the 'laws of nature.' Must\nwe believe these wonderful accounts because they were written\nby 'good men,' by Christians, 'who made their statements in the\npresence and expectation of death?' The truth is that these 'good\nmen' were mistaken. They expected the miraculous. They breathed the\nair of the marvelous. They fed their minds on prodigies, and their\nimaginations feasted on effects without causes. They were incapable\nof investigating. Doubts were regarded as 'rude disturbers of the\ncongregation.' Credulity and sanctity walked hand in hand. Reason\nwas danger. Belief was safety. As the philosophy of the ancients was\nrendered almost worthless by the credulity of the common people,\nso the proverbs of Christ, his religion of forgiveness, his creed\nof kindness, were lost on the mist of miracle and the darkness of\nsuperstition.\" (Ingersoll's Reply to Black.)\n\n\"Believers in miracles should not try to explain them. There is but\none way to explain anything, and that is to account for it by natural\nagencies. The moment you explain a miracle it disappears. You should\ndepend not upon explanation, but assertion. You should not be driven\nfrom the field because the miracle is shown to be unreasonable. You\nshould reply that all miracles are unreasonable. Neither should you\nbe in the least disheartened if it is shown to be impossible. The\npossible is not miraculous. You should take the ground that if\nmiracles were reasonable, and possible, there would be no reward\nfor believing them. The Christian has the goodness to believe, while\nthe sinner asks for evidence. It is enough for God to work miracles\nwithout being called upon to substantiate them for the benefit of\nunbelievers.\" (Ingersoll's \"Mistakes of Moses,\" p. 146.)\n\n\"So when we are told that wine was made out of water, and bread and\nfish out of nothing in large quantities, we know that we are listening\nto statements that simply go out of the field of credible testimony\ninto the realm of supreme credulity. Such assertions require you to\nbelieve not only what you have not seen, but what all reason and\nexperience tell you, you never can see. They ask you not only to\nbelieve in a past event, but in a past event outside of all reason,\nunsupported by nature, opposed to all natural laws, beneath the\nrealm of reason, out of the light of experience, under the shadow\nof superstition. The great electric light of the intellect is turned\noff at the church door.\" (Helen H. Gardener. \"Men, Women, and Gods.\")\n\n\n\n\nSome Extra Miracles.\n\nA snake talks, reasons, and has more knowledge than Adam and Eve. See\nthird chapter of Genesis.\n\nGod talks to the snake in the same chapter. On another occasion God\nspoke to a fish. \"And the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited\nout Jonah upon dry land.\" (Jonah 2 : 10.)\n\nBalaam's ass seems to have been able to talk, and to see angels. \"And\nthe Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam,\nWhat have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three\ntimes?\" (Numbers 22 : 28.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Great Quail Story.\n\n\"And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from\nthe sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey\non this side (thirty-three and one-fifth miles), and as it were a\nday's journey (thirty-three and one-fifth miles) on the other side,\nround about the camp and as it were two cubits (three feet and four\ninches) high upon the face of the earth. And while the flesh was\nyet between their teeth, ere it was chewed the wrath of the Lord was\nkindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very\ngreat plague.\" (Numbers 11 : 31, 33.) And the people quailed before\nthe Lord; that is they quailed outwardly, but not inwardly.\n\n\n\n\nA Suit of Clothes Lasting Forty Years, and even then Not Old.\n\n\"Yea forty years didst thou sustain them in the wilderness, so that\nthey lacked nothing; their clothes waxed not old, and their feet\nswelled not.\" (Neh. 9 : 21.)\n\n\n\n\nLot's Wife turned into a Pillar of Salt.\n\nThe Boston Transcript knows of an erudite clergyman who spoke of the\nunfortunate woman of Sodom as \"Lot's lady who was transformed into\na monolith of chloride of sodium.\"\n\n\n\n\nCattle which were Killed Several Times After they were Dead.\n\n\"And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of\nEgypt died, but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not\none.\" (Ex. 9 : 6.)\n\nThis is the first time they were killed, so far as we know of. The\nimmediate cause of their taking off is ascribed to \"Murrain.\" In\nthe twenty-fifth verse of the same chapter it is fully implied that\nthey were killed again: \"And the hail smote throughout all the land\nof Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail\nsmote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field.\" Now\nit is fair to infer that a hail which \"brake every tree of the field\"\nwas destructive enough to kill animals. This makes the second time\nthey were killed.\n\nIn the twelfth chapter of Exodus and twenty-ninth verse we read that\nsome of the same cattle were killed again, making three times that\nthey died: \"And it came to pass that at midnight the Lord smote all\nthe first born of the land of Egypt, from the first born of Pharaoh\nthat sat upon the throne unto the first born of the captive in the\ndungeon; and the first born of cattle.\" After these repeated deaths\nof the cattle, we find Pharaoh and his horsemen in full pursuit of the\nfleeing Hebrews, and Pharaoh and his horsemen and horses, were drowned\nin the sea. Of course it is difficult for one who is carnally minded,\nto understand how cattle can be killed so many times. Possibly the\n\"Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Dumb Animals\" might have\ndone good service had it been in full working order in those days.\n\n\n\n\nPeople Get Up in the morning Dead.\n\n\"And when they arose, behold they were all dead corpses.\" (Isaiah\n37 : 36.)\n\n\n\n\nElisha Returns to Life.\n\n\"And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold,\nthey spied a band of men; and they cast the man unto the sepulcher\nof Elisha: and when the man (the corpse) was let down, and touched\nthe bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.\" (2 Kings\n13 : 21.)\n\nIt would have been a great consolation to us, if the writer had only\nadded a few lines more, and told us what Elisha did after he stood\nup on his feet. Of course if he stood up, he could not stand on any\none else's feet than his own, but did he climb out of the sepulcher\nand go on his way rejoicing? Execrable historian to leave us in the\ndark when we so greatly need light! We fear the writer of Matthew\nhad this story in his mind, when speaking of the earthquake at the\ncrucifixion of Christ. He says, \"And the graven were opened; and many\nbodies of the saints which slept, arose, and came out of the graves\nafter his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared\nunto many.\"--\"Came out of the graves after his resurrection\"; but\nthey arose at the time of the earthquake, and the resurrection did\nnot take place until the third day afterward. What were they doing\nall this time? Standing up in their graves, dressed in their funeral\nwardrobe? If they appeared unto many there is no mention of the fact\nmade by either Jew or Gentile.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHEAVEN.\n\nElijah Went to Heaven in a Chariot of Fire.\n\n\n\"And it came to pass as they still went on, and talked, that behold,\nthere appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted\nthem both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.\" (2\nKings 2 : 11.)\n\nThe writer of Luke, has given us almost a literal copy of this story\nin telling of Jesus' ascent to heaven:\n\n\"And he led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands,\nand blessed them; and it came to pass while he blessed them, he was\nparted from them and carried up into heaven.\" (Luke 24 : 50, 51.)\n\n\"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into\nheaven, and sat on the right hand of God.\" (Mark 16 : 19.)\n\nTo these writers heaven was only a few miles away. They had not the\nfaintest conception of the distance of the nearest fixed star:\n\n\"And he (Jacob) dreamed and behold a ladder set up on the earth\nand the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God\nascending and descending on it.\" (Gen. 28 : 12.)\n\nThe tower of Babel was another method of reaching heaven. The writers\nof the gospels have no better ideas than the ancient Jews had.\n\nI give below, a few out of many passages which show that the writers\nof the New Testament regarded heaven as only a few miles away.\n\n\"And, lo, the heavens were opened.\" (Mat. 3 : 16.)\n\n\"He saw the heavens opened.\" (Mark 1 : 10.)\n\n\"There came a voice from heaven saying.\" (Mark 1 : 11.)\n\n\"And lo, a voice from heaven saying.\" (Mat. 3 : 17.)\n\n\"For the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled\nback the stone from the door, and sat on it.\" (Mat. 28 : 2.)\n\n\"And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven.\" (Luke 22 : 43.)\n\n\"Then came there a voice from heaven saying.\" (John 12 : 28.)\n\n\"I heard another voice from heaven saying.\" (John 18 : 4.)\n\nAll these and many more passages which might be cited go to show that\nthese writers supposed heaven to be but a short distance away. There\nwas a constant and familiar intercourse between the gods above and\nmen below.\n\nThe Christian idea of heaven is but another form of the Greek notion\nof Mt. Olympus--it is not only borrowed, but vague and mythical\nin the extreme--it is childish and has much of the flavor of Santa\nClaus stories.\n\n\n\n\nDeluge.\n\nThe great flood in which the waters piled up at the rate of about eight\nhundred feet per day for forty days was another of the extraordinary\noccurrences of Bible record. In these degenerate times a downfall of\nthree inches of rain, for one day is usually sufficient to satisfy\neverybody. But think of about eight hundred feet per day!\n\nA river turned into blood after it had just been transformed into\nblood: \"And Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord commanded; and he\nlifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the\nsight of Pharaoh, and in sight of his servants, and all the waters\nthat were in the river were turned into blood. And the fish that\nwas in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could\nnot drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout\nall the land of Egypt. And the magicians of Egypt did so with their\nenchantments.\" (Ex. 7 : 20, 21, 22.) The magicians turned a river of\nblood into blood, and killed dead fish, eh?\n\n\n\n\nThe Ass and the Calf.\n\n\"And he took the (golden) calf which they had made, and burnt it in\nthe fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the waters,\nand made the children of Israel drink of it.\" (Ex. 32 : 20.)\n\nBut as gold does not burn in a fire, nor can it be ground to powder,\nor strewed upon the waters, or drunk, we are forced to conclude that\nthe author of this little golden calf story, must have been an ass.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nJESUS CHRIST.\n\n\nThe Genealogy of Jesus.\n\n\"Matthew (1 : 17) says, 'So all the generations from Abraham to David\nare fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon\nare fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon\nunto Christ are fourteen generations.'\n\n\"Luke (3 : 23-38) relates Christ's genealogy, and gives forty-three\ngenerations between David and Christ, these two persons being\nincluded. Here then in the genealogy of the same person is an\nutterly irreconcilable discrepancy of fifteen generations. This\nis truly a bad beginning. Although these two accounts may both be\nfalse they cannot possibly both be true. If 'all the generations,'\nfrom David to Jesus, were only 'twenty-eight,' as given by Matthew,\nthere could not possibly have been at the same time, 'forty-three'\nof them as given by Luke. The case becomes much worse, however, when\nwe discover that, with the exception of Jesus, Joseph, and David,\nthese two authors give entirely different sets of men. Since it is\nutterly impossible for the same individual to have descended through\nboth of these lines of ancestors, it is equally impossible for both\nof these accounts to be true.\" (J. R. Kelso's \"Bible Analyzed.\")\n\n\"On the first glance these genealogies, as given by Matthew and\nLuke, are so evidently different that it has been the ordinary, if\nnot invariable practice of Christian harmonists and commentators to\nrepresent the former Evangelist as recording the descent of Joseph,\nwhile the latter Evangelist is said to have given the pedigree of\nMary. We will say nothing of the plausibility of this explanation,\nwhich acknowledges the genealogies to be wholly different, and supposes\nthey belong to two persons. Our questions must rather effect the\ntruthfulness of this mode of explaining away the difficulty. Let the\nreader bear in mind how Matthew states that 'Jacob begat Joseph the\nhusband of Mary,' and how Luke's words are 'Joseph which was the son\nof Heli,' and then let the reader say whether it is truthful to allege\nthat these different genealogies belong to different individuals. Is\nit not plain that each of them professes to trace the lineal descent\nof one and the same man, Joseph? If we are still to be told that when\nMatthew professes to give the descent of Joseph, he is to be understood\nas giving the descent of Mary, then we simply rejoin that such an\nexplanation is nothing more nor less than an abandonment of the idea\nof inspirational infallibility; for it represents the Bible as saying\none thing and meaning another.\" (McNaught, \"Doctrine of Inspiration.\")\n\n\n\n\nWhen was Jesus Born?\n\nAs to the time when Jesus was born, we have no positive\ninformation. Matthew says he was born in Herod's time, and that Herod\ncaused all the little children to be killed on account of him. Luke\nsays Jesus was born in the time of Cyrenius, when Augustus C\u00e6sar gave\norders that all the people should be taxed. Now, Cyrenius succeeded\nArchelaus, who reigned ten years after the death of Herod. Here is a\ncontradiction that cannot be explained away. The exact day of Herod's\ndeath can be almost arrived at, as shown by Josephus, who says that\non the night preceding the death of Herod there was an eclipse of\nthe moon. In calculating back to the time of this eclipse, it is\nfound to have occurred on the fourth of March, four years before\nChrist; another perplexing discrepancy. Matthew says he was born\nin the days of Herod, and John says it was in the days of Cyrenius,\nfourteen years afterward. Again, Mark and Luke say Jesus began to be\nthirty years of age in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,\nthe very day of whose accession is known; and by counting back, we\nfind that Jesus must have been born four years before the Christian\nera, which disagrees entirely with the statement of Matthew.\n\nProfessor John Fiske remarks that while the Jesus of the dogma is\nthe best known, the Jesus of history is the least known of all the\neminent names in history. \"Persons who had given much attention to\nthe subject affirmed that there were not less than one hundred and\nthirty-two different opinions as to the year in which the Messiah\nappeared.\" (\"Conflict Between Religion and Science,\" p. 184.)\n\nDr. Adam Clarke, on observations of Luke 2 : 8, in his Commentary says:\n\"The nativity of Jesus in December should be given up. The Egyptians\nplaced it in January; Wagenseil in February; Bochart in March. Some\nmentioned by Clemens Alexandrine in April; others in May. Epiphanius\nspeaks of some who placed it in June, and others supposed it to have\nbeen in July. Wagenseil, who was not sure of February, fixed it as\nprobably in August; Lightfoot on the fifteenth of September. But the\nLatin church [Catholic], supreme in power and infallible in judgment,\nplaced it on the twenty-fifth of December, the very day on which the\nancient Romans celebrated the feast of their goddess, Bruma. Pope\nJulius I. (in the fourth century) made the first alteration, and\nit appears to have been done for this reason.\" The Christians often\naim to make an argument that the chronology of the Christian era is\nestablished by the confirmation that is given by the years being\nnumbered from the supposed birth of Jesus, but it is no proof at\nall. The idea of counting the years from the advent of Jesus was not\nthought of for several centuries after the time when the vague legends\nsaid he was supposed to have lived. The plan of numbering the years\nfrom that apocryphal event was first invented by a monk, Dionysius\nExiguus, about 530 after Christ. It was introduced into Italy not\nlong afterward, and was propagated by Bede, who died in 735. It was\nordered to be used by the bishops in the Council of Chalcedon in 816,\nbut it was not generally employed for several centuries afterward. It\nwas not legalized until the year 1000. Charles III. of Germany was the\nfirst sovereign who added \"In the year of our Lord\" to his reign, in\n879. (See Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, and Encyclopedia of Chronology.)\n\nNow, in recapitulation, let us see how much, by the common sense\nmethod of interpreting the gospels, we have been forced to reject\nas incredible.\n\nFirst, we have seen that Joseph's dream concerning the immaculate\nconception was, after all, only a dream, and that wonderful dreams are\nnot uncommon; Samson's mother having had one which is so identical\nwith Joseph's, that we are persuaded that the dream of the latter\nis but a copy of the dream of the former; that almost all men of\ndistinction in ancient times were reported to have had wonderful\nprodigies attending their conception and birth,--and that there is no\nevidence in the gospels of the resurrection of Jesus. Paul saw him in\na vision, that is, in his mind's eye, but does not claim to have seen\nhim in the flesh. And of the ascension, it is a self-evident fiction.\n\nThe miracles are not only incredible from their being incompatible with\nand contrary to human experience, but the manner in which they are\nrelated proves that they never were performed. (See \"Miracles.\") And\nconcerning the moral teachings of Jesus we find great imperfection. He\ndid not come to save all men, but only the lost sheep of the house of\nIsrael; he taught that the end of the world was nigh at hand, when a\ngreat physical revolution should usher in the kingdom of heaven, but\nit did not come. We find also that Jesus did not respect the rights\nof property; that he despised this world; that he condemned the rich\nbecause they were rich, and made great promises to the poor because\nthey were poor; that he professed to pardon sin, and on one occasion\npardoned a person's sins for washing his feet; that he exhibited an\nimperfect sense of justice in a great many instances; and, lastly,\nwe find that there is no history of him excepting the gospels, and in\nthese there is no unquestionable record of the time when or the place\nwhere he was born. We are forced to conclude that if ever there was\nsuch a person as Jesus of Nazareth, we have no trustworthy sources\nof positive knowledge concerning him.\n\n\n\n\nChristianity Rests Upon a Dream.\n\n\"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother\nMary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found\nto be with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a\njust man and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to\nput her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold,\nthe angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph\nthou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that\nwhich is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.\" (Mat. 1 : 18-20.)\n\n\"Before they came together, she was found to be with child of the\nHoly Ghost.\"\n\n1. How could any one but Mary say who the father of the child was?\n\n2. If the conception was miraculous then neither Mary nor any one\nelse could know ought of the paternity of the child.\n\n3. Mary says nothing about the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost.\n\n4. Who found out that Joseph had had such a dream?\n\n5. Was it duly reported and verified then and there?\n\n6. The book that relates the dream is anonymous and does not appear\nin history until A. D. 180-182.\n\n7. The writers of the other three gospels know nothing of this dream.\n\n8. There is no evidence that the writer of the first gospel ever\npersonally knew Mary.\n\n9. Luke (1 : 30) says that it was to Mary that the angel of the\nLord appeared.\n\n10. Only a dream! The corner-stone of Christianity rests upon a\ndream! Take away this dream and Christianity has nothing left.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE GOLDEN RULE.\n\nThe moral teachings of the Bible are not original. Back of the pyramids\nin pre-historic times mothers taught their children to be kind to each\nother. Not from heaven but out of the human heart came the golden\nrule. A mother's love was sufficient to reveal this best rule of\nlife. Human inspiration is the only inspiration needed to call forth\nthe expression--\"Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you.\"\n\nSixty years before the Christian era, Hellel, a Jewish rabbi wrote:\n\"Do not do to others, what you would not like others to do to you.\"\n\nTwo hundred and eighty years before Christ, Epicurus said: \"It is\nmore blessed to give than to receive.\"\n\nThree hundred and fifty years before Christ, Socrates said: \"Act\ntoward others as you desire them to act toward you.\"\n\nThree hundred and seventy years before Christ, Aristippus said:\n\"Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for\nanother's welfare as your own.\"\n\nThree hundred and eighty-five years before Christ, Aristotle wrote:\n\"We should conduct ourselves toward others, as we would have them\nact toward us.\"\n\nFour hundred years before Christ, Sextus said: \"What you wish your\nneighbors to be to you, such be also to them.\"\n\nFour hundred and twenty years before Christ, Plato wrote: \"May I do\nto others as I would have them do to me.\"\n\nFive hundred years before Christ, Confucius taught: \"Do unto another\nwhat you would have him do to you, and do not to another what you\nwould not have him do unto you: it is the foundation principle of\nall the rest.\" (24th Maxim Confucius.) Jesus concludes by saying,\n\"For this is the law and the prophets,\" and Confucius closes his rule\nby observing, \"Thou only needst this law alone; it is the foundation\nand principle of all the rest.\"\n\nAnd it should not be overlooked that Jesus, in thus attributing\nthe golden rule to \"the law and the prophets,\" disclaims its\nauthorship. Confucius does the same.\n\nSix hundred years before Christ, Thales said: \"Avoid doing what you\nwould blame others for doing.\"\n\nSix hundred and fifty years before Christ, Pittacus taught: \"Do not\ndo to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.\"\n\n\"That the system of morals propounded in the New Testament contains\nno maxim which had not been previously enunciated, and that some of\nthe most beautiful passages in the apostolic writings are quotations\nfrom Pagan authors, are well known to every scholar; and so far from\nsupplying, as some suppose, an objection against Christianity, it is\na strong recommendation of it, as indicating the intimate relation\nbetween the doctrines of Christ and the moral sympathies of mankind in\ndifferent ages. But to assert that Christianity communicated to man\nmoral truths previously unknown, argues on the part of the assertor,\neither gross ignorance or else wilful fraud.\" (Buckle, \"History of\nCivilization,\" vol. 1, p. 129.)\n\n\"Did space admit, I could cite numerous passages from Enoch in close\ncorrespondence with the New Testament scripture, in many cases almost\nword for word. In that book, as in the Talmud, and as was held by\nthe Jews in general (saving the Sadducees), may be found the exact\ndoctrines taught by Jesus relative to the Son of Man coming in the\nclouds of heaven, the resurrection of the dead, the day of judgment,\nthe punishment of the wicked in everlasting fire, and the reward\nof the righteous in heaven. The eschatology of Jesus is borrowed\nin toto from that prevalent in Judea during his lifetime. Not one\nsingle new idea respecting the 'four final things,' death, judgment,\nheaven, and hell, can be found in Jesus' teachings as embodied in\nthe gospels.\"--Wm. Emmette Coleman.\n\n\n\n\nJesus an Essene.\n\n\"Of the resemblance between the Essenes and the followers of Christ\nin their principles and practices, I will let a Christian writer\nspeak--Christian D. Ginsburg, LL. D., who is a leading contributor to\nAlexander's new edition of Kitto's Cyclopedia, the most orthodox of the\nchief English Bible dictionaries. I will read a few extracts from an\nessay entitled, 'The Essenes Their History and Doctrines.' Dr. Ginsburg\nsays: 'The identity of many of the precepts and practices of\nEssenism and Christianity is unquestionable. Essenism urged on its\ndisciples to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness;\nso did Christ. (Mat. 6 : 33, and Luke 12 : 31.) The Essenes forbade\nthe laying up of treasures upon earth; so did Christ. (Mat. 6 : 19,\n21.) The Essenes demanded of those who wished to join them, to sell\nall their possessions, and to divide it among the poor brethren;\nso Christ. (Mat. 19 : 21, and Luke 12 : 33.) The Essenes had all\nthings in common, and appointed one of the brethren as steward to\nmanage the common bag; so the primitive Christians. (Acts 2 : 44,\n45; 4 : 32, 34, and John 12 : 6; 13 : 29.) Essenism regarded all its\nmembers on the same level, forbidding the exercise of authority of\none over the other, and enjoining mutual service; so Christ. (Mat.\n20 : 25-28, and Mark 9 : 35, 37; 10 : 42, 45.) Essenism commanded its\ndisciples to call no man master upon the earth; so Christ. (Mat. 23 :\n8, 9.) Essenism laid the greatest stress on being meek and lowly in\nspirit; so Christ. (Mat. 5 : 5, 29.)\n\n'Christ commended the poor in spirit, those who hunger after\nrighteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart and the peacemakers;\nso the Essenes.... Christ combined the healing of the body with that\nof the soul; so the Essenes. Like the Essenes, Christ declared that\nthe power to cast out evil spirits, to perform miraculous cures, etc.,\nshould be possessed by his disciples as signs of their belief. (Mark\n16 : 17; comp. also Mat. 10 : 8, and Luke 9 : 1, 2; 10 : 9.) Like\nthe Essenes, Christ commanded his disciples not to swear at all, but\nto say yea, yea, and nay, nay. The manner in which Christ directed\nhis disciples to go on their journey (Mat. 10 : 9, 10) is the same\nwhich the Essenes adopted when they started on a mission of mercy. The\nEssenes, though repudiating offensive war, yet took weapons with them\nwhen they went on a perilous journey: Christ enjoined his disciples\nto do the same thing. (Luke 22 : 36.) Christ commended that elevated\nspiritual life, which enables a man to abstain from marriage for the\nkingdom of heaven's sake, and which cannot be attained by all men\nsave those to whom it is given (Mat. 19 : 10-12; comp. also 1 Cor. 8);\nso the Essenes, who, as a body, in waiting for the kingdom of heaven,\nabstained from connubial intercourse. The Essenes did not offer animal\nsacrifices, but strove to present their bodies a living sacrifice,\nholy and acceptable, unto God, which they regarded as a reasonable\nservice; the apostle Paul exhorts the Romans to do the same. (Rom. 12 :\n1.) It was the great aim of the Essenes to live such a life of\npurity and holiness as to be the temples of the holy spirit and to be\nable to prophesy; the apostle Paul urges the Corinthians to covet to\nprophesy. (1 Cor. 14 : 1, 39.) When Christ pronounced John to be Elias\n(Mat. 11 : 14), he declared that the Baptist had already attained\nto that spirit and power which the Essenes strove to obtain in their\nhighest stage of purity. It will therefore hardly be doubted that our\nSavior himself belonged to this holy brotherhood. This will especially\nbe apparent when we remember that the whole Jewish community, at the\nadvent of Christ, was divided into three parties, the Pharisees,\nthe Sadducees, and the Essenes, and that every Jew had to belong\nto one of these sects. Jesus, who in all things conformed to Jewish\nlaw, who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,\nwould naturally associate himself with that order of Judaism which\nwas most congenial to his holy nature. Moreover, the fact that\nChrist, with the exception of once, was not heard of in public\ntill his thirtieth year, implying that he lived in seclusion with\nthis fraternity, and that though he frequently rebuked the Scribes,\nPharisees, and Sadducees, he never denounced the Essenes, strongly\nconfirms this conclusion.... The accounts given by Josephus first\nmentioned their existence in the days of Jonathan the Maccabaean,\nB. C. 166; and they most unquestionably show that the Essenes existed\nat least two centuries before the Christian era, and that they at\nfirst lived among the Jewish community at large. Their residence at\nJerusalem is also evident from the fact that there was a gate named\nafter them. When they ultimately withdrew themselves from the rest\nof the Jewish nation, the majority of them settled on the northwest\nshore of the Dead Sea, sufficiently distant to escape its noxious\nexhalations, and the rest lived in scattered communities throughout\nPalestine and Syria. Both Philo and Josephus estimated them to be\nabove four thousand in number. This must have been exclusive of women\nand children. We hear very little of them after this period (that\nis, 40 A. D.); and there can hardly be any doubt that, owing to the\ngreat similarity which existed between their precepts and practices,\nand those of the primitive Christians, the Essenes, as a body, must\nhave embraced Christianity.'\"--Underwood, in Underwood-Marples Debate.\n\n\n\n\nJesus' Teachings Not up to the Moral Standard of To-day.\n\n1. Jesus failed to explicitly teach any of the cardinal human\nvirtues. If he taught kindness and forgiveness it was usually at the\nexpense of justice.\n\n2. He nowhere explains and inspires self-reliance and individual\nliberty.\n\n3. He nowhere condemns kingcraft, priestcraft and tyranny. He opposes\ntheir abuses, but not the radical evils out of which they spring.\n\n4. He has no just ideas of marriage and divorce.\n\n5. He nowhere explains the nature of heaven and hell.\n\n6. He does not teach the value of economy and thrift, but turns people\nloose with the notion that they must take no thought for the morrow.\n\nThe following saying of Jesus exhibits the lack of a high moral\nsense of justice, and also the fact that he does not pretend to be\nthe savior of the whole human race. He said to his own countrymen:\n\"Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but\nunto them that are without, all these things are done in parables;\nthat seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may\nhear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted,\nand their sins be forgiven them. (Mark 4 : 11.)\n\nFrom this we learn that Jesus did not desire to save the Gentiles;\nthe parabolical style was used in order to prevent them from becoming\nconverted and having their sins pardoned.\n\nIn addition to this imperfection of the moral sense, Jesus was\nsometimes unforgiving in his spirit and practice. He says on one\noccasion: \"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny\nbefore my father which is in heaven.\" (Mat. 10 : 33.)\n\nIt is true that he taught his disciples to love their enemies, but it\nis a precept he did not observe himself; he allowed himself to speak\nof those who did not accept his teachings as, \"fools,\" \"hypocrites,\"\n\"thieves,\" \"serpents,\" \"vipers,\" and many other abusive epithets,\nwhich clearly exhibit on his part anger and hatred. We have another\ninstance of his unforgiving spirit in that myth of the dying thief on\nthe cross. It is there recorded that Jesus prayed for the forgiveness\nof his enemies, but had he been consistent with that prayer, he would\nnot have pardoned one thief without also pardoning the other. When\nhe could ask God to forgive his enemies, it would have been demanded\nby his own rule, that he also forgive them; but, on the contrary, he\nonly forgives the malefactor who spoke words in his praise. This spirit\nis carried out in the doctrine of future rewards and punishments.\n\n\n\n\nJesus Exhibits an Imperfect Sense of Justice.\n\nIn failing to recognize the rights of property; in his denunciation of\nthe rich; in his teachings of submission to wrong; in his professing\nto pardon sin, even before it is asked for, Jesus errs. This moral\nsense is lacking in his teachings concerning God. Take this as an\nillustration: \"Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto\nhim at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; for a\nfriend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set\nbefore him. And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not;\nthe door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot\nrise and give thee. I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give\nhim, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will\nrise and give him as many as he needeth.\" (Luke 11 : 15.)\n\nAnd so it is with God, he leads us to believe, for though he is our\nfriend he will not grant our requests; but if we annoy and tease\nhim, at last, worn out, he will answer our prayers to get rid of\nus. Therefore, \"Ask and it shall be given you; for every one that\nasketh receiveth.\"\n\nThe parable of the unfortunate widow is another instance in point:\n\"There was in a city a judge who feared not God, neither regarded man\n[same kind of judges in our cities now]. And there was a widow in that\ncity, and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And\nhe would not for a while; but afterwards he said within himself, Though\nI fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me,\nI will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.\" (Luke\n18 : 2-6.) It is just so in praying to God. He may not hear you or\nheed you at first, yet by a \"continual coming and troubling him,\"\nhe must of necessity at last become weary and grant you the desires\nof your heart, in order to escape being troubled.\n\nAt one time the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus who\nhad been taken in the act of adultery, and asked for his judgment. He\nsaid: \"He that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone\nat her.\" This was a well-directed rebuke, and they felt it, and\nthey \"went out one by one, beginning at the eldest even unto the\nlast.\" Then Jesus, standing alone with the woman, asks, \"Woman where\nare those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said,\nNo man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee;\ngo and sin no more.\" (John 8 : 7-11.)\n\nIn all parts of the Bible adultery is condemned, and by all civil\nlaws it is now prohibited, and all religious teaching forbids it, and\nthere is no reason in this case why Jesus should not have condemned\nthe act, even while he showed mercy to the actor. Here as elsewhere\nJesus shows mercy at the expense of justice. Were these principles\ncarried out in life, the criminal would go untried and unpunished.\n\n\"Go into the village over against you, and straightway you shall\nfind an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them and bring them unto\nme. And if any man say aught unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need\nof them, and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it\nmight be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the\ndaughter of Zion, Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting\nupon an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass. And the disciples went\nand did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass, and the colt,\nand put on their clothes, and set him thereon.\" (Mat. 21 : 2-7.)\n\nThe writer would have us believe that Jesus rode upon two asses at\nonce; but the prophet who could invent such a story must have been\nan ass himself to suppose that Jesus could ride upon two donkeys\nof such unequal size at one time. It was not the prophet, however,\nwho perpetrated this outrage upon common sense, but the writer of\nMatthew, whoever he was. Mark, Luke, and John mentioned the affair,\nand all agree in speaking of one ass only. Had the writer read the\nprophet aright, he would have quoted it differently, \"Behold thy King\ncometh unto thee, ... lowly, and sitting upon an ass; even a colt,\nthe foal of an ass.\" (Zech. 9 : 9.)\n\nAnother instance of this disregard of the interests of others is\nexhibited by Jesus where he casts the devils out of two men and permits\nthem to enter the swine, \"and the swine ran down a steep place into\nthe sea and perished in the waters.\" Mark (5 : 12) says there were\nabout two thousand head, but there is not a word said about the equity\nof the proceeding. In this case Jesus does not offer any compensation\nfor the destruction of property which had been caused by him.\n\nHe does not make even an apology or an explanation. No wonder, then,\nthat the people became alarmed at this and asked him to go on his\njourney with as little delay as possible: \"The whole city came out\nto meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would\ndepart out of their coasts.\" (Mat. 8 : 34.)\n\nAnother instance of this lack of the sense of justice is displayed\nin the parable of Dives and Lazarus. The one goes to heaven, that\nis, to Abraham's bosom, because he was poor, and the other to hell,\nbecause he was rich. Say what we may our civilization is built upon\nwealth. Civilization, the highest and noblest estate of man, is\nachieved by the utter repudiation of poverty. The legitimate love of\nmoney is the spur of all human progress. Civilization would speedily\ndegenerate into barbarism if this respect for property was removed.\n\nHis views of poverty are in harmony with his teachings on other\nhuman interests: \"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth;\"\n\"Take no thought for the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought\nfor the things of itself.\" How evident it is that one of the most\nessential virtues of life is here repudiated.\n\nThoughtfulness about the future is a distinguishing trait of a wise\nman. To take no thought for the morrow would be as foolish as for one\nto bind himself hand and foot on the approach of his enemy. Science\ninspires man with earnest inquiry about the morrow, and also enables\nhim by his perception of it how better to live to-day.\n\n\"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee,\nturn not thou away.\" (Mat. 5 : 42.) Society as it now exists would not\nlast a single day if his command were obeyed. Borrowing and lending\nis poor business, even as it is now carried on, but what it would\nbecome under the universal practice it would be impossible to guess.\n\n\"And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have\nye? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But\nlove ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing\nagain.\" (Luke 6 : 34.) So impracticable a precept is this, that no\npeople have ever practiced it, nor could it be carried out without\nthe demoralization and overthrow of civilization.\n\n\n\n\nJesus Teaches the Duty of Submission to Wrong.\n\nThe general doctrines of resignation and contentment are incompatible\nwith strength of character and progress in life. The most worthy\nmembers of society everywhere are just those people who have the least\nresignation and contentment. Jesus does not seem to have cherished\nthese conditions himself. He was neither contented nor resigned to\nthe social status about him. \"The powers that be\" did not seem to\nhim to be from above, but from beneath, and he accordingly waged war\nupon the existing social evils. But Jesus also teaches the duty of\nsubmission to wrong: \"And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek,\noffer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not\nto take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of\nhim that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again.\" (Luke 6 : 29,\n30.) Just think of it! \"And of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them\nnot again.\" Society would be overthrown in a day if this command was\ncarried out. We should have no commerce, no law protecting our various\ninterests, no civilized society. Paul echoes the same notion when he\nsays, \"Now, therefore, there is utterly a fault among you, because\nye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why\ndo ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?\" (1 Cor. 6 : 7.)\n\nSuffer yourselves to be defrauded! If human life has any virtue at all,\nit surely consists in some degree in doing the very opposite, that is,\nin not suffering ourselves to be defrauded. It is true that love seems\nat first sight to be an all-important virtue, and one incapable of\nabuse; but such love as induces us to submit to wrong is spurious. In\nthe world as it exists about us, we are culpable when we suffer\nourselves to be defrauded. The common virtues which are recognized by\nall men are courage and resistance to wrong. Everywhere our eyes turn,\nwe look to see the hero who nobly resists the wrongs and frauds which\nthe powerful perpetrate upon the weak and helpless. \"Resistance to\ntyrants is the will of God\" is the modern conception of duty. And in\naccordance therewith we have laws prohibiting wrong and fraud. Besides\nthere is no manliness, self-reliance, or self-respect compatible with\nsuch craven submission, which is spiritless and purposeless. John\nStuart Mill observes of Christianity: \"Its ideal is negative rather\nthan positive; passive rather than active; innocence rather than\nnobleness; abstinence from evil rather than energetic pursuit of\ngood. In its precepts (as has been well said), 'thou shalt not'\npredominates over 'thou shalt.'\"\n\n\n\n\nImmoral Teachings of Jesus.\n\n\"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you nay;\nbut rather division.\" (Luke 12 : 51.)\n\n\"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and a\ndaughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her\nmother-in-law.\" (Mat. 10 : 35.)\n\n\"I am come to send fire on earth; and what will I, that it be already\nkindled.\" (Luke 12 : 49.)\n\n\"For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three\nagainst two, and two against three.\n\n\"The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the\nfather; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against\nthe mother; the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and the\ndaughter-in-law against the mother-in-law.\" (Luke 12 : 52, 53.)\n\n\"If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife\nand children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also,\nhe cannot be my disciple.\" (Luke 14 : 26.)\n\n\"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send\npeace, but a sword.\" (Mat. 10 : 34.)\n\n\"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father\nthe child: and the children shall rise up against their parents,\nand cause them to be put to death.\" (Mat. 10 : 21.)\n\n\"And they said unto him, Lord, behold here are two swords. And he\nsaid unto them, It is enough.\" (Luke 22 : 38.)\n\n\"He that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one.\" (Luke\n22 : 36.)\n\n\n\n\nBitter and Unreasonable Denunciations of Jesus.\n\n\"All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers.\" (John 10 : 8.)\n\n\"Ye are of your father, the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye\nwill do.\" (John 8 : 44.)\n\n\"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation\nof hell?\" (Mat. 23 : 33.)\n\n\"O, generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good\nthings?\" (Mat. 12 : 34.)\n\n\"But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me,\nSatan.\" (Mat. 16 : 23.)\n\n\"Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the\nDevil and his angels.\" (Mat. 25 : 41.)\n\n\"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that\nbelieveth not shall be damned.\" (Mark 16 : 16.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus a False Prophet.\n\n\"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another:\nfor verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of\nIsrael till the Son of man be come.\" (Mat. 10 : 23.)\n\n\"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall\nnot taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his\nkingdom.\" (Mat. 16 : 28.)\n\n\"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be\ndarkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall\nfall from heaven and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.\n\n\"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then\nshall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son\nof man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.\n\n\"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and\nthey shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one\nend of heaven to the other.\n\n\"Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender,\nand putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. So likewise\nye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even\nat the doors.\n\n\"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these\nthings be fulfilled.\" (Mat. 24 : 29-34.)\n\n\"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall\nnot taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God.\" (Luke\n9 : 27.)\n\n\"And he said unto them, Verily, I say unto you, That there be some\nof them, that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they\nhave seen the kingdom of God come with power.\" (Mark 9 : 1.)\n\n\"Now learn a parable of the fig tree: When her branch is yet tender,\nand putteth forth leaves, Ye know that the summer is near: So ye in\nlike manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass know that\nit is nigh, even at the doors. Verily, I say unto you, That this\ngeneration shall not pass till all these things be done.\" (Mark\n13 : 28-30.)\n\n\"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the\nstars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity;\nthe sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear,\nand for looking after those things which are coming on the earth:\nfor the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see\nthe Son of man coming in a cloud, with power and great glory.\n\n\"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift\nup your heads: for your redemption draweth nigh.\n\n\"And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the\ntrees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your ownselves\nthat summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these\nthings come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of heaven is nigh at\nhand.\" (Luke 21 : 25-31.)\n\n\"If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee?\" (John\n21 : 23.)\n\nIt is unnecessary to call attention to the fact that the foregoing\npassages imply that the end of the world was at hand. Jesus was a\nfalse prophet.\n\n\n\n\nJesus Curses the Fig Tree.\n\n\"The Jesus of the four gospels is alleged to have been God, all-wise;\nbeing hungry, he went to a fig tree, when the season of figs was\nnot yet come. Of course there were no figs on the tree, and Jesus\nthen caused the tree to wither away. This is an interesting account\nto a true orthodox trinitarian. Such a one will believe: first, that\nJesus was God, who made the tree and prevented it from bearing figs;\nsecond, that, God the all-wise, who is not subject to human passions\nbeing hungry went to the fig tree, on which he knew there were no\nfigs, expecting to find some there; third, that God the all-just then\npunished the tree because it did not bear figs in opposition to God's\neternal ordination.\"--Charles Bradlaugh.\n\n\n\n\nContemporaneous Historians are Silent Concerning the Resurrection\nof Jesus.\n\nPhilo, Josephus, Seneca, Pliny the elder, and Pliny the younger,\nDiogenes, Socrates, Pausanias, Suetonius, Tacitus, Adrian, Marcus\nAurelius, Lucian, and others have not one word to say about it.\n\nIn answer to this a certain minister replies that: \"Seneca, Diogenes,\nLaertes, Pausanias, Tacitus, and Marcus Aurelius, were Pagans, who\ncertainly in works of stoic philosophy, travels, and geography would\nnot discourse of Jesus.\" In answer to this I maintain that it is\naltogether probable, if not certain, that some of these writers would\nhave recorded the \"darkness over all the earth,\" which lasted some\nthree hours (Luke 23 : 44) and the opening of the graves out of which\nmany of the dead came and went into the city and showed themselves\nunto many: besides, there were several earthquakes. (Mat. 27 : 51,\nand 28 : 2, also Acts 16 : 26.) Such marvels, especially the darkness\nover all the earth, and the earthquakes could not have escaped the\npen of all such historians and philosophers.\n\n\"Each of these philosophers (Pliny the Second and Seneca) in a\nlaborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of nature,\nearthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses which his indefatigable\ncuriosity could collect; neither of them has mentioned or even alluded\nto the miraculous darkness at the crucifixion.\"--Gibbon.\n\n\n\n\nThe Resurrection of Jesus.\n\nComparing now the several narratives of the resurrection with one\nanother, we find this general result:\n\nIn Mark Jesus is said to have appeared three times.\n\n1. To Mary Magdalene.\n\n2. To two disciples.\n\n3. To the disciples at meat.\n\nTwo such appearances only are recorded in Matthew:\n\n1. To the women.\n\n2. To the eleven in Galilee.\n\nIn Luke he appears:\n\n1. To Cleopas and his companion.\n\n2. To Peter.\n\n3. To the eleven and others.\n\nIn the last chapters of John the appearances amount to four:\n\n1. To Mary Magdalene.\n\n2. To the disciples without Thomas.\n\n3. To the disciples with Thomas.\n\n4. To several disciples on the Tiberias lake.\n\nPaul extends them to six:\n\n1. To Peter.\n\n2. To the twelve.\n\n3. To more than five hundred.\n\n4. To James.\n\n5. To all the apostles.\n\n6. To Paul.\n\n\"Upon this most momentous question every one of the Christian writers\nis at variance with every other.\" (Amberley's \"Analysis of Religious\nBelief,\" p. 273.)\n\nThey differ as to the number of women who visited the sepulcher. John\nmentions only one; Matthew names two, Mary Magdalene and the other\nMary. Mark says there were three, the two Marys and Salome. Luke says\nthere were more than three, the two Marys, Joanna, and certain others\nwith them. They differ as to the number of persons in white seen\nat the sepulcher. Mark mentions one, \"a young man.\" Matthew speaks\nof one, an angel. Luke says there were two men, and John that there\nwere two angels. They disagree us to what was said by the persons in\nwhite. According to Matthew and Mark, they spoke of the resurrection\nof Jesus and his departure into Galilee, and sent a message to his\ndisciples commanding them to follow him thither. In Luke they simply\nsaid that he was risen, and referred to a former prediction of his to\nthis effect. In John they simply asked Mary, \"Woman! why weepest thou?\"\n\nDiscrepancies as to where Jesus went after his resurrection. Matthew,\ndismissing Jesus from history with these words, \"Go ye therefore and\nteach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and\nHoly Ghost\" (28 : 19), seems to know nothing of the ascension; for\nit in utterly incompatible with the assumption that he is an honest\nand faithful historian. He could not possibly neglect recording so\nimportant an event had he known it, and the plain inference--the\nirresistible conclusion is that if he did not record it, it was\nbecause no such thing had occurred.\n\nSee with what brevity Mark concludes the career of Jesus. Mark gives\nthese as the parting words of Jesus: \"So then after the Lord had spoken\nunto them he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand\nof God.\" (16 : 19.)\n\nHow brief is the description of this wonderful scene! No writer that\nhad witnessed such a sight could possibly condense his thoughts and\nfeelings concerning it into one sentence. He would have had much to\nsay; namely, of his own thoughts and emotions on the occasion, and what\nother witnesses said and did at the time the event occurred. Writers\nwho go into particulars on less marvelous affairs would not be\nlikely to dash off the most wonderful event that had ever happened\nbefore human eyes in one sentence. The thing is utterly improbable and\nincredible. \"He was received up into heaven\" reveals the credulity and\nsuperstition of the times. How could the writer know where he had gone,\nif he had once passed away from his sight? Moreover, he knew nothing\nof a local heaven or of a personal God, yet he says that Jesus \"sat\n(down) on the right hand of God,\" as though the Infinite Power which\npervades the universe had two hands and was made in the image of man!\n\nThe only rational explanation we can put upon such language is to\nsuppose it written by one who was not present at the time referred to,\nbut had heard of it and had undertaken to give his version of what\nhe heard, perhaps in the attempt trying to reconcile two or three\ndifferent versions of the story, and at the same time weave in his own\nopinion on the subject. At any rate, whoever wrote it, the writer does\nnot claim to have been an eye-witness, and the legendary character\nof the account proves that the myth had been handed down to him.\n\nLuke (24 : 50, 51) says: \"And he led them out as far as to Bethany,\nand he lifted up his hands and blessed them; and it came to pass\nwhile he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into\nheaven.\" This version leaves out the sitting on the right hand of\nGod--yet it has the same superstition of a local heaven--of which the\nwriter speaks as if he had as positive and distinct knowledge as he\nclaims to have of Jesus and his resurrection.\n\nIf Matthew closes without giving us anything of the after life and\ndeath of Jesus--if he breaks off abruptly without giving us any\ninsight into the feelings of the disciples, Luke does not. He says\nthat after they had witnessed the departure of Jesus they worshiped\nhim and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. (24 : 52.) But this\nis totally unnatural. We cannot imagine disciples rejoicing in the\nloss of their friend. It is not human nature to be glad on such\noccasions. We always grieve in parting with friends. The father\ngrieves when he parts with his son, the mother weeps when she gives\nthe parting kiss to her daughter. It may be said in reply that the\ndisciples had faith that Jesus had gone to heaven. But this will not\nmeet the difficulty, for Christian mothers believe when they part with\ntheir sweet, innocent babes that they go straight to heaven, but does\nthis belief dry their tears or soothe their anguished hearts? No,\nthose mothers are frequently tormented to frenzy and even madness\nby the intense grief occasioned by loss of their dear ones. It is\nhuman nature to grieve upon the loss of friends, but here we find\ndisciples who do not mourn when their dearest friend has departed\nfrom them. They were glad of it, and so they \"returned to Jerusalem\nwith great joy.\" Such a paragraph as this could have been inserted\nin the story by some subsequent writer, but never could have been\nwritten by one who had witnessed such an event. Another feature of\nthis description, as given by Luke, is that it seems to be a slightly\nvaried copy of the account given of Elijah. \"And it came to pass,\nas they still went on, and talked, that behold there appeared a\nchariot of fire and horses of fire and parted them both asunder;\nand Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.\" (2 Kings 2 : 11.)\n\nHow closely Luke's account seems to resemble this! \"And he led them\nout as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed\nthem. And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from\nthem and carried up into heaven.\" (Luke 24 : 50, 51.) \"And when he\nhad spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a\ncloud received him out of their sight.\" (Acts 1 : 9.)\n\nHow suggestive is the fact that the writers do not undertake to\ntell how he was translated! The writer of the book of Kings gives\nus a \"chariot of fire\" and \"a whirlwind\" as the modus operandi of\ntranslating Elijah from one world to the other (?), but here there are\nno agencies mentioned, and so far as the writers are concerned, there\nseems to be nothing incomplete or unreasonable in the statements that\nhe \"was carried up into heaven,\" and \"was taken up and a cloud received\nhim out of their sight.\" We must suppose that persons witnessing such\nan extraordinary event would have some notions as to the means used\nin translating Jesus above the clouds, and that they could not fail\nto express them in giving an account of what they had seen. Their\nsilence on this point, and the utter incredibility of the story make\nit apparent that the writer is merely recording myths.\n\nThe last chapters of John are silent concerning the ascension. Now,\nas it is generally admitted by the best biblical critics that the\nlast twelve verses of the last chapter of Mark are spurious, we\nhave then only one of the four biographers of Jesus who mentions the\nascension. It is utterly improbable that these three other writers\nshould deliberately refuse to give an account of the greatest event\nthey had ever seen. We must consider the discrepancies of the writers\nconcerning the number of days that Jesus remained on earth after\nhis resurrection.\n\nAccording to Luke's account, he did not remain on earth one\nday. \"To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise\" (Luke 23 : 43)--that\nis, in heaven; see 2 Cor. 12 : 4. In this same twenty-third chapter of\nLuke, Jesus does not ascend until the third day after his crucifixion;\nand in Acts 1 : 3, it is recorded that he was \"seen of them forty\ndays.\"\n\nAnother slight discrepancy occurs in relation to the length of time\nJesus was in the grave. Matthew says (12 : 40), \"For as Jonas was\nthree nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three\ndays and three nights in the heart of the earth.\" But as Jesus was\nonly two nights and one day in the grave there is no analogy between\nthe two, hence the statement is radically erroneous.\n\nAn orthodox clergyman critic explains this seeming contradiction\nin this way: \"In regard to Jesus being only one day and two nights\nin the grave, the very same quantity of time 'three days and three\nnights,' and which according to our computation was one whole day,\nparts of two others and two whole nights, is termed three days and\nthree nights in the book of Esther. There is no impropriety in this\ninterpretation.\" The word \"interpretation\" as here used is slightly\nequivocal, as is also the phrase \"according to our computation.\" It\nis peculiar to mathematics that it does not change according to our\ncomputation or any kind of interpretation. It is always true that\ntwo and two make four whether the book of Esther acknowledges the\nfact or not. And it not only damages the gospels to bring forth this\nsort of evidence, but it seriously derogates from the inspiration of\nthe book of Esther, which thus attempts in defiance of arithmetic to\nmake one day and two nights into three days and three nights.\n\nNo one saw Jesus come from the grave. When Mary Magdalene came to the\nsepulcher, \"Behold there was a great earthquake, for the angel of the\nLord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from\nthe door and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning and his\nraiment white as snow. And for fear of him the keepers did shake and\nbecome as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women,\nFear not ye, for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He\nis not here, for he is risen as he said. Come see the place where\nthe Lord lay.\" (Mat. 28 : 2-6.)\n\nWe have here the stone at the door of the sepulcher, and yet the body\nof Jesus had risen and departed from the tomb. There would seem to be\nno need in closing the grave after he had risen. But a more serious\ncriticism must be made upon the fact that it is not pretended that\nthere was any eye-witness of Jesus coming from the sepulcher. We\nhave only the word of an angel, but as a story abounding with\nconversations of angels is legendary we are not permitted to take\ntheir testimony. Besides, we have serious contradictions concerning\nthe number of angels seen. Matthew says there was one angel, and that\nhe rolled back the stone from the door and sat upon it. Mark says\nthat when Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome,\nhad brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him; and\nvery early in the morning, etc. \"And they said among themselves, Who\nshall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher? And when\nthey looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away, for it was very\ngreat. And entering, they saw a young man sitting on the right side,\nclothed in a long white garment, and they were affrighted.\" (16 : 1-3.)\n\nLuke also says the stone was rolled away when the women came to the\nsepulcher, and upon entering in, behold \"two men\" stood by them in\nshining garments. John says Mary saw two angels in white sitting, the\none at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had\nlain. Besides, she sees the stone rolled away from the door. Matthew\nrecords the descent of an angel from heaven; the other biographers of\nJesus know nothing of this starting point of the angel. Matthew here\nsays that the angel rolled away the stone from the door, but Mark,\nLuke, and John say that the stone was rolled from the door of the\nsepulcher when Mary Magdalene came to it. Matthew here relates that\nMary Magdalene saw an angel sitting upon the stone at the door outside\nof the sepulcher, but Mark says she saw a young man sitting down inside\nthe sepulcher. Luke avers that she saw two men standing inside of it,\nand John affirms that Mary Magdalene sees two men sitting, \"one at\nthe head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain;\"\nbut they do not tell her that Jesus had risen, as did the angel in\nMatthew, and the young man in Mark, and the two men in Luke.\n\nAccording to John, Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene. But\naccording to Luke Jesus did not first appear to Mary Magdalene, but\nto two persons traveling from Jerusalem to Emmaus: the name of one\nof them we are told was Cleopas. (Luke 24 : 13.) But this appearance\nof Jesus to brethren who were not apostles is clearly legendary. The\nother synoptics seem to know nothing of it. It is wholly improbable\nthat Jesus should, after his resurrection, appear first of all to\ntwo unknown Christians after this manner and accompany them upon such\na journey.\n\nNow all the attendant circumstances of this event are mysterious,\ninexplicable, and improbable; and the closing paragraph removes\nthe account beyond sober history. \"And it came to pass as he sat at\nmeat with them, he took bread and blessed it and broke and gave to\nthem. And their eyes were opened and they knew him, and he vanished\nout of their sight.\" (Luke 24 : 30, 31.)\n\n\"Their eyes were holden,\" is superstitious, and as for his vanishing\nout of sight, we have the most unmistakable traces of legend--the\nfruit of ignorance and childish imagination.\n\nWe are called upon to believe that with feet, the bones of which were\nbroken and crushed with the spikes driven through them on the cross,\nhe traveled back to Jerusalem about as rapidly as did the two persons\nwith whom he journeyed to Emmaus. How could he walk upon feet thus\ncrippled? His hands were yet unhealed, although his fellow-travelers\ndid not perceive such wounds, nor did they notice that he stepped\nhaltingly.\n\nHe possessed the same material body which he had before his death. He\ncould be seen and touched. All of which shows that he not only\npossessed a physical organization, but that it was the same body he\nhad before his death. And yet this body could vanish from the two\nunknown brethren at Emmaus, it could travel rapidly, it could come in\nthrough closed doors, it could ascend from earth out of sight contrary\nto the laws of gravitation; he had flesh and bones, and could eat and\ndrink. \"And when he had thus spoken he showed them his hands and his\nfeet, and while they believed not for joy and wondered, he said unto\nthem, Have ye any meat? And they took and gave him a piece of broiled\nfish and honeycomb, and he took it and did eat before them.\" (Luke\n24 : 41-43.)\n\nIt is useless to attempt any explanation of this difficulty by calling\nhis body a spiritual body. The disciples on this occasion, when Jesus\nsuddenly appeared among them, thought they had seen a spirit, but Jesus\nwishing to disabuse their minds, said, \"Behold my hands and my feet,\nthat it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh\nand bones, as ye see me have.\" (Luke 24 : 39.)\n\nIf we accept this plain declaration, then, we are forced to enquire\nwhat became of this physical body. It surely must have died. It is\ncertain that if he ate and drank, he had a nutritive system--a human\norganism--subject to death. And what became of this \"corruptible\nbody?\" Matthew and John do not pretend to know anything about the\nmatter. Mark has no knowledge of the final disposition of his body, for\nthe last twelve verses of Mark are generally regarded as spurious. Why\nshould not all these writers have possessed the same information that\nLuke pretends to have? They do not write to complement and supplement\nthe writings of one another, but each claims to give the important\nfeatures of Jesus' biography independently. Is not the end of Jesus'\ncareer on earth important, in order to understand his life and\ncharacter? Three of the four biographers by their silence say either\nthat there is no importance to be attached to the ascension of Jesus,\nor that it was unknown to them; in other words, that it did not occur.\n\nPassing this, we encounter irreconcilable contradictions between\ndifferent writers as to the locality where Jesus appeared to his\ndisciples after his resurrection. Matthew says the angel at the\nsepulcher informed the woman to \"go quickly and tell his disciple\nthat he is risen from the dead, and behold he goeth before you into\nGalilee; there ye shall see him.\" (28 : 7.) \"And as they went to\ntell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them and said, All hail!\" (28 :\n9.) But as the angel had instructed them to go into Galilee, so also\ndoes Jesus give the same command, \"Go tell my brethren that they go\ninto Galilee, and there shall they see me.\" (28 : 10.)\n\nMark gives a very similar account of the woman coming to the tomb\nand seeing the \"young man,\" who said, \"Be not affrighted; ye seek\nJesus of Nazareth, which was crucified; he is risen; he is not here;\nbehold the place where they laid him. But go your way and tell his\ndisciples that he goeth before you into Galilee, there ye shall see\nhim, as he said unto you.\" (16 : 6, 7.)\n\nThe writers of the third and fourth gospels know nothing of any command\nto go into Galilee; but on the contrary, Luke relates the command of\nJesus to his disciples to remain where they were until they should\nreceive blessings from God. \"Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until\nye be endued with power from on high.\" (24 : 49.) Here is manifestly\nan entire unconsciousness of any necessity of the disciples for going\ninto Galilee. For, after giving this command, Luke goes on to say,\n\"He led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and\nblessed them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted\nfrom them, and carried up into heaven.\" (24 : 50, 51.)\n\nThe two gospels of Mark and Luke make no mention of any journey;\nbut on the contrary, the immediate ascension of Jesus precludes the\npossibility of it. Matthew, who knows nothing of any ascension, gives\nthis very equivocal statement of the affair: \"Then the eleven disciples\nwent away into Galilee into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them,\nand when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.\" (28 :\n16, 17.) But this is too vague; the point which would most interest\nus to know is what they doubted and who it was that doubted. Another\nequally vague expression is found in the fourth gospel, where it\nis related of Peter and John that they went into the sepulcher,\n\"Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the\nsepulcher, and they saw and believed\" (20 : 8); but what they saw\nand believed is not made plain, except that they saw an empty tomb,\nor at least one which contained only the \"linen clothes;\" but what\nthey believed concerning this empty grave we are not informed. If\ntheir belief maintained any correspondence with what they saw, they\nbelieved that they had seen an empty grave. But our difficulties do\nnot cease; we are surprised that these early visitors of sepulchers\ndo not see anything of the material in which Jesus was embalmed. It\nis recorded that \"there came also Nicodemus which at the first came\nto Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about\nan hundred pound weight.\" (John 19 : 39.)\n\nIt is but natural to suppose that if the linen clothes were laid off,\nthe myrrh and aloes also would be found lying with them, for there\nis no probability that Jesus would go abroad a la mummy. We might\nask where the clothes came from that he wore after coming out of the\nsepulcher. His own garments had been taken by the soldiery when he\ndied, that the scripture might be fulfilled (?), but where is the\nscripture fulfilled which informs us whence came his resurrection\ngarments? He did not go into society nude, and yet we have no evidence\nthat any provisions were made for a new suit of clothes. Some have\nsupposed that when Mary saw him and mistook him for the gardener\nher mistake arose from the fact that he may have been clothed in the\ngarments of the gardener. But how did he get possession of them?\n\nWe must return to the contradictions in regard to the embalmment\nof Jesus. Matthew's version excludes the myrrh and aloes. He says,\n\"And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen\ncloth and laid it in his own new tomb.\" (27 : 59, 60.)\n\nThe fourth gospel, as we have seen, relates that when Joseph\nof Arimathea and Nicodemus had received the body of Jesus, they\nembalmed it in \"a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound\nweight.\" Mark knows nothing of this, and his account wholly excludes\nit. Joseph \"bought fine linen and took him down and wrapped him\nin the linen and laid him in the sepulcher.\" (15 : 46.) \"And when\nthe Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James,\nand Salome, had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint\nhim.\" (16 : 1.) If the women came on the third day to embalm the\nbody, they certainly knew nothing of its embalmment on the day of\nhis death. Luke's version also excludes the version of the fourth\ngospel. As in Mark, so in Luke, they came on the first day of the week\nto perform this rite of embalmment. \"And they [the women] returned and\nprepared spices and ointments ... and upon the first day of the week,\nvery early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing\nthe spices which they had prepared.\" (23 : 56, and 24 : 1.)\n\nSome exegetes have interpreted this, by saying that \"the women came\nto embalm the body of Jesus, being wholly ignorant of what Joseph and\nNicodemus had done.\" This might be sufficient if it were not for the\nfact that the women saw Jesus after he was put in the tomb. \"And Mary\nMagdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus beheld where he was laid.\" (Mark\n15 : 47.) Matthew corroborates this: \"And there was Mary Magdalene\nand the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulcher\" (27 : 61)\nwhen Jesus was placed in it.\n\nThe obvious meaning of these texts is that they saw him wrapped in\n\"the fine linen\" and laid away in the tomb. Here, then, are the\ncontradictory statements. The writer of the fourth gospel relates\nhow Jesus was embalmed on the day of his death; the writers of the\nsecond and third gospels state that the women came on the third day\nto perform this service, wholly unconscious of such embalmment having\ntaken place on the day of Jesus' death; while the writer of the first\ngospel knows nothing of the embalmment on the day of his death, nor\nof the intended embalmment on the third day. He speaks of the early\nvisit of the women as coming merely to see the grave. \"In the end of\nthe Sabbath, as it began to dawn, toward the first day of the week,\ncame Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.\" (28 : 1.)\n\nFurther contradictions are found in the statements of the writers\nas to the time when the women prepared the spices. Mark says (16 :\n11), that when the \"Sabbath was past\" the women bought spices with\nwhich to anoint the body of Jesus. Luke says they bought them before\nthe Sabbath; \"And they returned and prepared spices and ointments,\nand rested on the Sabbath day.\" (23 : 56.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Foretells his Resurrection.\n\nThere are a number of passages in the gospels which show that Jesus\ntold his disciples over and over again that he should rise on the third\nday, and there are other passages which as plainly show that they\nhad no thought of any such resurrection when the third day came. If\nhe repeatedly told his followers that he was to be put to death in\nJerusalem and rise again the third day, we must conclude that his\ndisciples would remember his sayings and that at least some of them\nwould wait for the third day to come, expecting to see the miracle\ntranspire. But we are astounded to read over and over again of this\n\"rising again the third day,\" and yet find no friend remembering or\nexpecting the event when the third day came. It is urged that Jesus'\nfollowers did not understand his words, but this will not meet the\ncase. If several of these disciples were intelligent enough to write\nthe biography of their Master they could not have been so stupid as\nnot to understand such plain words; besides, we must remember that\nhis enemies understood him.\n\nThe Pharisee said to Pilate, \"Sir, we remember that the deceiver said\nwhile he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.\"\n\nPilate said, \"Ye have a watch, go your way, make it sure as ye\ncan.\" The disciples could not have failed to understand him, because\nit was a special effort on the part of Jesus to show that he must\ndie and rise again on the third day.\n\n\"But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.\" (Luke\n24 : 16.)\n\nThis miraculous blindness is too irrational to discuss. It is certain\nthat if their eyesight was good enough to see what was in the tomb\n\"when it was yet dark\" (John 20 : 1), they would surely recognize\nan intimate friend if they journeyed with him in the highway in the\nmiddle of the afternoon.\n\n\"From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples how\nthat he must go up to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders\nand chief priests and scribes and be killed, and be raised again the\nthird day.\" (Mat. 16 : 21.)\n\n\"And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of\nman shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him,\nand the third day he shall rise again.\" (Mat. 27 : 22, 23.)\n\n\"And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in\nthe way and said unto them, Behold we go up to Jerusalem and the\nSon of man shall be betrayed unto the chiefs and priests and unto\nthe scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver\nhim to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him:\nand the third day he shall rise again.\" (Mat. 20 : 17-19.)\n\n\"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many\nthings, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests and\nscribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spoke\nthat saying openly.\" (Mark 8 : 31.)\n\nThere is not a chance to refer this prediction to the esoteric\nteachings of Jesus, for he \"spake that saying openly.\"\n\n\"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is\ndelivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and after\nthat he is killed he shall rise the third day.\" (Mark 9 : 31.)\n\n\"And he took again the twelve and began to tell them what things should\nhappen unto him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of\nman shall be delivered unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and\nthey shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles,\nand they shall mock him, and shall scourge him; and shall spit upon\nhim; and the third day he shall rise again.\" (Mark 10 : 32, 33.)\n\n\"The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders\nand chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third\nday.\" (Luke 9 : 22.)\n\n\"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we\ngo up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written concerning the\nSon of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the\nGentiles, and shall be mocked and spitefully entreated and spitted\nupon; and they shall scourge him, and put him to death, and the third\nday he shall rise again.\" (Luke 18 : 31-33.)\n\nThese teaching are so plain and repeated so often that it is\ninconceivable that his disciples should not comprehend his meaning. If\nthese passages had been as enigmatical as the following, there might\nhave been some grounds for the claim of ignorance or dullness on the\npart of the disciples: \"For as Jonas was three days and three nights\nin the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three\nnights in the heart of the earth.\" (Mat. 12 : 40.)\n\nBut the above predictions have nothing dark or obscure about them. The\ntime of his resurrection is always specified as the third day.\n\n\n\n\nNone of the Disciples Looking for a Resurrection.\n\nWith these numerous predictions of his resurrection before us, let us\nsee whether they can be made to harmonize with other statements on the\nsubject. When immediately after the transfiguration Jesus warns his\ndisciples not to reveal what they had seen until after he had risen\nfrom the dead, we are told that they questioned among themselves\n\"what rising from the dead should mean.\" (Mark 9 : 2.)\n\nHow is it possible that such doubt and surprise could be expressed\nby men who had first witnessed the resurrection of Moses and Elias,\nand who had also seen the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus,\nthe son of the widow of Nain and Lazarus!\n\nNow it is plain that if they had ever witnessed these miraculous\nresurrections, they could not possibly have wondered \"what the rising\nfrom the dead should mean.\" Both statements cannot be true, for if\nthey thus wondered, it is proof enough that they had never seen the\ndead raised to life; and if they did not so express themselves, then\nthe gospels are unhistorical. That they never queried in this manner\namong themselves is evident from the fact that the resurrection from\nthe dead was at that time a doctrine generally accepted by the Jews. It\nis evident that those who undertook the embalmment of Jesus had no\nthought of his resurrection within forty-eight hours. But suppose it\nconceded that Jesus was deserted by his immediate friends, and his body\nhanded over to Joseph and Nicodemus, who embalmed it in \"a mixture of\nmyrrh and olives about one hundred pound,\" possibly being ignorant\nof the repeated predictions of his resurrection on the third day,\nwhich were made to the disciples; still this is unavailing, as the\ndisciples are also ignorant of any rising from the dead to take place\non the third day. The women undertook the task of embalming the body\nof Jesus, but they seem not to have got fully prepared for the task\nuntil the third day. When his body was taken down from the cross and\nwrapped in linen and put in the sepulcher, \"the women also which came\nwith him from Galilee followed after, and beheld the sepulcher and how\nhis body was laid, and they returned and prepared spices and ointments,\nand rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the\nfirst day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the\nsepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared.\" (Luke 23 :\n55, 56, and 24 : 1.)\n\n\"In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first\nday of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to see the\nsepulcher.\" (Mat. 27 : 61.)\n\nThese two writers, while not agreeing on the object of the women's\nvisiting the sepulcher, nevertheless do agree that they did not go\nexpecting to see the sepulcher empty.\n\nThis early visit was made ostensibly to anoint or embalm the body\nof Jesus. Mary Magdalene and the other women did not even dream of a\nresurrection--she did not come expecting to find the tomb empty, but\nwas concerned to know how they should remove the stone from the mouth\nof the tomb. It is evident that if she had heard Jesus say repeatedly\nthat on the third day after his death he would rise again, she would\nnot have forgotten it; and if she had, she must have recollected his\npredictions when she found the grave empty. In fact she never once\nthinks of a resurrection, but when she sees the empty grave, exclaims,\n\"They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not\nwhere they have laid him.\" (John 20 : 2.)\n\nLuke says that, \"As the women were much perplexed thereabout, behold\ntwo men stood by them in shining garments, and as they were afraid,\nand bowed themselves to the earth [people usually run away when they\nare frightened] they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the\ndead? He is not here, but is risen; remember how he spoke unto you\nwhen he was yet in Galilee, saying: The Son of man must be delivered\ninto the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day\nrise again. And they remembered his words.\" (Luke 24 : 5-8.)\n\nThis is evidently an afterthought, an effort to fill out an imperfect\nrecord, but the patch is too perceptible; for had it been that\nthe women needed only to have their memory jogged to recollect the\nprediction of Jesus concerning his rising from the dead on the third\nday, we may infer that a similar reminder would refresh the memory\nof the eleven, but on the contrary they scouted the idea of such\na thing. The women \"returned from the sepulcher and told all these\nthings unto the eleven, and the rest ... And their words seemed to\nthem as idle tales, and they believed them not.\" (24 : 9, 11.)\n\nMark also says that the eleven did not believe the story of Mary\nMagdalene: \"She went out and told them that had been with him, as they\nmourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive,\nand had been seen of her, believed not.\" (16 : 10, 11.)\n\nThey also had not so much as a dream of the resurrection of Jesus. They\nwere not waiting and watching for the third day to come that they\nmight see the predictions of Jesus fulfilled and their hearts filled\nto overflowing with joy at the sight. They were not at the sepulcher,\nas we might naturally expect. True, it was not too early for the\nwomen impelled by human love to be there with ointments and spices;\nbut the eleven who were baptized with heavenly love (John 20 : 22),\nentertained not the first thought of visiting the grave. And even when\nthe marvelous scenes witnessed by the women are clearly stated to the\neleven who had heard him teach that he must go up to Jerusalem and be\nkilled and the third day rise again--who had heard this teaching and\nprediction repeatedly and openly, and in the plainest language, and yet\ndid not believe anything in it or in the report of the women--all this\nis simply incredible. We are forced to conclude that if they were not\nat the tomb on the third day, and scouted the story of the women--for\n\"their words seemed to them as idle tales\"--they had never once heard\nJesus say he would rise from the dead on the third day.\n\nLuke says, that of the eleven only Peter went to the sepulcher, and\nthat stooping down \"he saw the linen clothes laid by themselves, and\ndeparted wondering in himself at that which had come to pass.\"\n(24 : 12.)\n\nHe wonders, but expresses no thought of a resurrection. The writer\nof the fourth gospel contradicts Luke in saying that there were two\npersons who went to the sepulcher on that occasion. \"Peter therefore\nwent forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulcher.... Then\nwent in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcher,\nand he saw and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture,\nthat he must rise again from the dead.\" (John 20 : 3, 9, 10.)\n\n\"He saw and believed,\" but we are not told what he believed. He did not\ncertainly believe in the resurrection of Jesus. \"For as yet they knew\nnot the Scripture, that he must rise again.\" This passage is plainly\nlegendary. It belongs to a later age when the dogma began to control\nthe minds of Christians; for it is true that the early Christians\ndid not insist so much upon the evidence of miracles as they did\nupon the prophecies. It must have been written long after that time,\nfor it is not the \"scriptures\" they needed to know to be informed\nconcerning his resurrection, but the plain language of Jesus which he\nhad with special effort, and in an open manner uttered in their ears\nbut a few days before. It was wholly needless for them to know the\nscriptures in order to recollect these prophetic predictions. Regard\nthese statements as we may, they are certainly unhistorical. For if\nJesus so frequently spoke of his death and subsequent resurrection,\nthen it is certain that they would have remembered his words, and\nif they had not cherished them with faith, yet when they had heard\nfrom the women of the empty grave, they would without doubt, have\nrecalled his predictions, and claimed their fulfillment. But they\ndo no such thing. They said of the women's story what was probably\ntrue, that \"their words seemed to them as idle tales, and [therefore]\nthey believed them not.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Evidence of Paul on the Resurrection of Jesus.\n\nHe gives his testimony in this form: \"For I delivered unto you first\nof all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins\naccording to the Scriptures, and was buried, and that he rose again\nthe third day according to the Scriptures. And that he was seen by\nCephas, then by the twelve. After that he was seen of above five\nhundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this\npresent, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James,\nthen by all the Apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also,\nas of one born out of due time.\" (1 Cor. 15 : 4-8.)\n\nIn this statement Paul does not pretend to have witnessed the event\nhimself, but preaches it as a doctrine which he had \"received.\" He\nspeaks of it as a tradition, \"that Christ died for our sins according\nto the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again\nthe third day according to the Scriptures.\"\n\nThis language betrays the influence of the dogma of a later date;\nfor the writer in speaking of the five hundred by whom Jesus was\nsaid to have been seen says, \"of whom the greater part remain unto\nthis present [day] but some are fallen asleep.\" \"Unto this present\"\n[day] shows that the writer is making his record long after the event.\n\nPaul wrote probably about twenty-five years after the date of the\nevents he records. And the writers of the gospels also wrote at a\nlate date. Matthew says, \"And this saying is commonly reported among\nthe Jews until this day.\" (28 : 15.)\n\nThe phrase \"until this day\" points out the fact that the gospel records\nwere not completed until long after the time of their occurrence. In\naddition to this, there were many gospels recording the life and\ndoings of Jesus. \"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth\nin order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed\namong us.\" (Luke 1 : 1.) \"Believed among us\"--he did not know, but\nmerely believed these things. Now suppose we had these other gospels,\nwhat harmony could we expect to find among the imaginary five hundred\nif they had left a record of what was \"most surely believed.\"\n\n\"He was seen by Cephas.\" It is significant of Paul's independence,\nthat while the writers of the four gospels all explicitly declare that\nJesus first appeard to Mary Magdalene, Paul knows nothing of such an\nappearance. That he makes no mention of this first appearance of Jesus\nis evidence that he wrote independently of others, as he said he did,\nand also that he wrote before the evangelists wrote. He had no honors\nto bestow upon women, as his writings show, and if he had ever heard\nof this appearance to Mary Magdalene, he concluded that it was \"an\nidle tale.\" (Luke 24 : 11.)\n\nIt is noticeable also that although this doctrine is \"received\" as\na prediction of the scriptures, yet no one is recorded in either of\nthe gospels or writings of Paul as having seen Jesus rise from the\nsepulcher. Even though it is affirmed that Mary Magdalene and the\nother Mary had seen the angel from heaven roll back the stone from\nthe mouth of the sepulcher, yet they did not witness any resurrection.\n\nAll that Paul \"received\" on this subject was the current traditions. As\na Pharisee, he believed in the doctrine of a general resurrection,\nand it was most natural for him to accept such tradition into his\nbelief. That he wrote under the influence of a later age, when the\ndogma began to assume character, is manifest in the recourse he has to\nscripture evidences. \"And that he rose again the third day according\nto the Scriptures.\" (1 Cor. 15 : 4.) But the passages usually cited as\nproof-predictions that Jesus should rise from the dead, when examined,\ncannot be regarded as Messianic at all; for the idea of a suffering\nMessiah was wholly foreign to the Jewish mind. The scriptures usually\ncited are Isaiah 53; Psalms 22 and 69; Psalms 16 : 10; Hosea 6 : 2.\n\nAs illustrating the free use made of the scriptures, we have only to\ncompare Matthew 12 : 40 with parallel passages of Mark and Luke. Mark\n(8 : 11), says, \"And the Pharisees came forth and began to question\nwith him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And he\nsighed deeply in his spirit and saith, Why doth this generation seek\nafter a sign? Verily I say unto you, there shall no sign be given\nunto this generation.\"\n\nLuke (11 : 29-31) states that \"when the people were gathered thick\ntogether, he began to say, This is an evil generation; they seek a\nsign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the\nprophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall the\nSon of man be to this generation.\"\n\nMatthew gives two versions of this incident, \"A wicked and adulterous\ngeneration seeketh after a sign, and there shall be no sign but the\nsign of the prophet Jonas.\" (16 : 4.) \"Certain of the scribes and\nof the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from\nthee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous\ngeneration seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to\nit, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. For as Jonas was three days\nand three nights in the whale's belly so shall the Son of man be three\ndays and three nights in the heart of the earth.\" (Mat. 12 : 38-41.)\n\nHere it will be observed is an illustration of the growth of the\ndogma and myth in adding this reference to Jonas. And it is highly\nsignificant that the application of the myth of Jonas is wholly\nfanciful, as the passage referred to (Jonah 1 : 17.) has not the\nslightest character of prophecy. That the scriptures are evidently\ntortured is obvious from the fact that Jesus was only one day and two\nnights in the heart of the earth, and, as before said, the passage\nis not prophetic; besides, its varied form in the gospels plainly\nshows it to be a myth.\n\n\"He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, and after that he was\nseen by above five hundred brethren at once.\" But there were only\neleven Apostles until after the ascension, when Matthias was elected\nto fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Judas. \"And they gave\nforth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered\nwith the eleven apostles.\" (Acts 1 : 26.)\n\nThis election of Matthias took place after the ascension. He could not\ntherefore have been seen by the \"twelve\" after his ascension (and there\nwere not twelve until after the ascension), only by the \"eye of faith.\"\n\nThat Jesus was seen by above five hundred is nothing more than naked\nstatement. Paul does not claim to have been one of that number. This\nepisode, moreover, is not mentioned in any of the four gospels. It\nis remarkable that so great an event should be passed over by other\nwriters also, for not a trace of it can be found elsewhere. It is\ndifficult for us to understand how this marvelous scene could so\ncompletely perish out of sight of all writers except one who was not\npresent, but merely heard of it afterward. That Paul may have believed\nthe story we do not deny--and that he believed that the greater part of\nthe witnesses \"remain unto this present\" time. Now if these survivors\nremained he does not mention the names of any of them. And besides,\nthey were not within reach of the Corinthians who might wish to hear\nand investigate their testimony, for the Corinthians did not accept\nthe resurrection of Jesus as a matter of fact.\n\nHow could five hundred disciples come together immediately at one\ntime, when some time after the ascension the number of disciples at\nJerusalem was only one hundred and twenty? (Acts 1 : 15.)\n\nWe need to know something of the character of those who gave Paul\nthis information, and the sources of their knowledge. For it is\nall-important to our inquiry to know from whom Paul received these\ntraditions and what evidences his informants had of the truth of the\nstory they told. To believe in the reality of these appearances simply\nbecause Paul states that he has \"received\" his information from others\nand believes it to be true, without inquiring as to the character\nof his informers, is the blindest credulity. Who were the five\nhundred? What did they think of the event? How did Paul or any other\nperson know what they thought, if there were no written statements\nby them? Where and when did the five hundred see the risen Jesus?\n\n\"Last of all he was seen by me.\" In another place he says, \"Have I\nnot seen Jesus Christ our Lord?\" (1 Cor. 9 : 1.)\n\nElsewhere he relates: \"But when he was pleased, God, who separated me\nfrom my mother's womb, and called me through his grace to reveal his\nson in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately\nI conferred not with flesh and blood, but I went into Arabia and\nreturned again to Damascus.\" (Gal. 1 : 15-17.)\n\n\"For neither did I receive it from men nor was taught it, but through\nthe revelation of Jesus Christ.\" (Gal. 1 : 11.) We shall find as we\nproceed that Paul saw Jesus subjectively. It is quite natural to so\nunderstand his words, \"reveal his son in me.\" Especially does this\nseem obvious when we remember that Paul was a man who firmly believed\nin visions and revelations. In relating his own experience he states\nthis fact plainly. \"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago\n(whether in the body I cannot tell--God knoweth), such a one caught\nup to the third heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the body or\nout of the body, I cannot tell--God knoweth) how that he was caught\nup into paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful\nfor man to utter. Of such an one will I glory.\" (2 Cor. 12 : 2-4.)\n\nIn Acts there are three contradictory accounts of his seeing\nJesus in a vision. \"And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus:\nand suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven. And\nhe fell to the earth and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul,\nwhy persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the\nLord said I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee\nto kick against the pricks. And he, trembling and astonished, said,\nLord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise,\nand go into the city, and it will be told thee what thou must do. And\nthe men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice,\nbut seeing no man.\" (Acts 9 : 3-7.)\n\nA second version is in this form: \"And it came to pass that as I made\nmy journey and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there\nshone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the\nground, and heard a voice saying unto me Saul, Saul, why persecutest\nthou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me,\nI am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were\nwith me saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not\nthe voice of him that spoke to me. And I said, Lord, what wilt thou\nhave me do? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus,\nand there it shall be told thee of all the things which are appointed\nfor thee to do.\" (Acts 22 : 6-10.)\n\nThe third account of the affair is given thus: \"Whereupon as I went\nto Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,\nat mid-day, O king, I saw in the way alight from heaven, above the\nbrightness of the sun, shining round about me. And when we were all\nfallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, saying, in the\nHebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for\nthee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And\nhe said, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.... Whereupon,\nO king, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.\" (Acts 26 :\n9-19.)\n\nAccording to the first account the companions of Paul \"stood\nspeechless\" (9 : 7); in the third they \"all fall to the earth.\" (26 :\n14.) Then again, in the first account it is said that the men \"stood\nspeechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one.\" In the second it\nis stated that \"they that were with me saw indeed the light, but they\nheard not the voice.\" These contradictions do not seem to clothe the\nvision of Paul with the acceptable form of harmony.\n\nIt will be observed that even in this vision Paul is not described\nas seeing Jesus. He sees a light and falls to the ground, and when\nhe rises he is blind. \"And they led him by the hand and brought him\nto Damascus. And he was three days without sight.\" (9 : 8.)\n\nIn the continuation of this account Paul has another vision: \"And it\ncame to pass that when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I\nprayed in the temple, I was in a trance, and saw him saying unto me,\nMake haste and get thee out of Jerusalem.\" (22 : 17, 18.)\n\nIn connection with these visions and revelations it is highly\nsignificant that Paul never claims to have seen Jesus in the flesh, and\nhe never speaks of the resurrection as material, but as spiritual. \"It\nis sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.\" (1 Cor. 15 :\n44.) \"Who shall change our vile bodies that it may be fashioned like\nunto his glorious body,\" (Phil. 3 : 21.) Evidently there is no claim\nfor seeing Jesus in the body made by Paul in any of his writings. He\npreaches the doctrine of the resurrection, but this doctrine he, as\na Pharisee, believed before he became a Christian. Paul claims that\nin a vision he saw Jesus. Luke says that this was also the manner in\nwhich Mary Magdalene and the other women saw Jesus. \"And when they\nfound not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a\nvision of angels, which said that he was alive.\" (24 : 2, 3.)\n\nThis gives force to the claim of Paul, that his seeing or vision of\nJesus was of the same class as the visions of all the others who had\nseen him.\n\nThus, after a careful examination of the writings attributed to the\nimmediate followers of Jesus, we find that not one of them says, \"I\nsaw Jesus rise from the grave;\" or \"I saw Jesus in the flesh after his\nresurrection.\" In legendary style it is frequently repeated that he\n\"appeared\" first to this and then to that one, but there is not the\nslightest evidence that any one saw him. And in this connection it\nis worthy of remark that Jesus did not appear to any persons except\nhis friends. This gives better occasion for suspicion that the story\nis mythical.\n\n\"Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly, not to all the\npeople, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us who did eat\nand drink with him.\" (Acts 10 : 41.) To appear to a few private friends\nfor one day does not seem much like bringing life and immortality to\nlight to the whole world. The method is too narrow and exclusive. And\neven of these few friends not one has left the record for us of what\nhe saw. The writers who have recorded the current traditions of their\ntime, agree in saying that Mary Magdalene found the grave empty:\nfurther than this the writers do not corroborate one another.\n\nHow soon the resurrection of the physical body became popular we\nhave no means of knowing. It was not certainly until some time after\nthe writings of Paul were given to the churches, for he, as we have\nseen, speaks, of it as a spiritual resurrection. So also does Peter\n(1 Peter 3 : 13), speak of Jesus \"being slain in the flesh, but made\nalive again in the spirit.\"\n\nThe legend became more and more marvelous as it spread\nabroad. Enthusiasm inflamed the minds of the ignorant and superstitious\nuntil the subjective visions of Paul became crystalized into objective\nrealities. His visions, and the visions, revelations and messages\nof the angels of others were reduced in popular belief to historical\nfacts.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY WITHOUT HISTORICAL BASIS.\n\n\n1. No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part of the\nNew Testament. [This assuredly would not have been the case had they\nbeen the oldest, and the foundation on which the whole was built.]\n\n2. No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting\nor engraving, no sculpture or other relic of antiquity which may be\nlooked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of\nthose gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of\nthe second century. Even the explorations of the Christian catacombs\nfailed to bring to light any evidence of that character.\n\n3. The four gospels were written in Greek, and there was no translation\nof them into other languages earlier than the third century.\n\n4. No manuscript of the gospels are in existence dating further back\nthan the fourth century. Of that century, or the next, there are three\nor four, and some twenty or thirty, more than a thousand years old.\n\n5. No autograph manuscript of any of the gospels has ever been known,\nso far as there is any authentic record, nor has any credible witness\never claimed to have seen such a manuscript. No one has ever claimed\nto have seen such a manuscript of either of the four gospels in\nthe hand-writing of Luke, Mark, Matthew, or John. If the autograph\nmanuscripts had ever existed they would have been preserved among\nthe most sacred relics of the church.\n\n6. During the first two centuries tradition was esteemed of more\nvalue and better evidence of the gospel history, than any written\nbooks or manuscripts.\n\n7. The dialect in which the New Testament books were written,\na sort of Hebraistic Greek, has been considered evidence of their\nantiquity. But this dialect prevailed three centuries after Christ,\nand was in full use during the second century. The same or similar\nHebraisms abound in the apocryphal gospels of that age.\n\n8. The canonical gospels were selected by the bishops from a large\nnumber then in circulation.\n\n\n\nIn taking a general review of the first hundred and seventy\nyears of the Christian religion the first thing that strikes the\nmind is the dearth of material from which to construct a reliable\nhistory. It is seen at once how much must rest upon probability in\nits different degrees--how much must be relegated to the province of\nspeculation. The works of the only church historian who wrote during\nthat period, lost or destroyed the few fragments that are left being\nof comparatively no value--the writings of Porphyry and others who\nwrote against Christianity, and those of the heretic Christians,\nall destroyed--there remain only the works of some of the orthodox\nfathers, and the text of those in a mutilated and corrupted condition.\n\nSuch is the material at the hands of the historian. Of course he cannot\nrely implicitly upon the unsupported assertion of any such writer\nfor the truth of any historical fact whatever. In every instance\nhe is obliged to scrutinize carefully, and endeavor to ascertain\nwhether any ulterior motives may have prompted whatever statement\nmay be under consideration. If he can find none, and the fact stands\nuncontradicted by other writers, it is cautiously accepted. Under\nsuch circumstances progress is slow and uncertain. The most that any\nwriter can hope to accomplish is to place in proper shape what is\nalready known, and to establish here and there a landmark for the\nbenefit of subsequent historians.\n\nIn conclusion, as the result of this investigation, it may be repeated\nthat no evidence is found of the existence in the first century of\neither of the following doctrines: the immaculate conception--the\nmiracles of Christ--the material resurrection. No one of these gospels\nis found in the epistles of the New Testament, nor have we been able\nto find them in other writings of the first century.\n\nAs to the four gospels, in coming to the conclusion that they\nwere not written in the first century, we have but recorded\nthe conviction of the most advanced scholars of the present day,\nirrespective of their religious views in other respects; with whom\nas now presented, is, How early in the second century were they\ncomposed? Discarding as inventions of the second century, having no\nhistorical foundation, the three doctrines above named, and much else\nwhich must necessarily stand or fall with them, what remains of the\nChristian religion? (C. B. Waite, \"History of the Christian Religion\nto the year 200.\")\n\n\n\n\nThe Canon.\n\n\"The infancy of the canon was cradled in an uncritical age and rocked\nwith traditional ease. Conscientious care was not directed from the\nfirst to the well authenticated testimony of eye-witnesses. Of the\nthree fathers who contributed most to its early growth, Iren\u00e6us was\ncredulous and blundering; Tertullian passionate and one-sided; and\nClement, of Alexandria, imbued with the treasures of Greek wisdom,\nwas mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics.\n\n\"Iren\u00e6us agrees that the gospels should be four in number, neither more\nnor less, because there are four universal winds and four quarters\nof the world. The Word or Architect of all things gave the gospel in\na four-fold shape. According to this father the apostles were fully\ninformed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge after\ntheir Lord's ascension.\n\n\"He says, 'Matthew wrote his gospels while Peter and Paul were\npreaching in Rome, and founding the church.' Such assertions show\nboth ignorance and exaggeration.\n\n\"Tertullian affirms that the tradition of the apostolic churches\nguarantees the four gospels, and refers his readers to the churches\nof Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, etc., for the authentic epistles of\nPaul. What is this but the rhetoric of an enthusiast?\n\n\"Clement contradicts himself in making Peter authorize Mark's gospel\nto be read in the churches, while in another place he says the apostles\n'neither forbade nor encouraged it.'\n\n\"The three fathers of whom we are speaking had neither the ability\nnor inclination to examine the genesis of documents surrounded with an\napostolic halo. No analysis of their authenticity and genuineness was\nseriously attempted. In its absence, custom, accident, taste, practical\nneeds, directed the tendency of tradition. All the rhetoric employed\nto throw the value of their testimony as far back as possible, even up\nto or very near to the apostle John, is of the vaguest sort. Appeals to\nthe continuity of tradition and of church doctrine, to the exceptional\nveneration of these fathers for the gospels, to their opinions being\nformed earlier than the composition of the works in which they are\nexpressed, possess no force.\n\n\"The ends which the fathers in question had in view, their polemic\nmotives, their uncritical, inconsistent assertions, their want of sure\ndata, detract from their testimony. Their decisions were much more\nthe result of pious feeling, biased by the theological speculations\nof the times, than the conclusions of a sound judgment. The very\narguments they use to establish certain conclusions show weakness of\nperception. What are the manifestations of spiritual feeling compared\nwith the result of logical reasoning?\" (Davidson on the Canon.)\n\nThus we have the testimony of one of the ablest and clearest\nminds that has ever written upon the canon which the fathers most\ndepended upon to establish the authenticity of the small books\nforming it, were \"ignorant,\" \"credulous,\" \"blundering,\" \"passionate,\"\n\"one-sided,\" \"uncritical,\" \"inconsistent,\" \"possessed undue enthusiasm\nwith contradictions;\" \"not possessing ability or inclination to\nexamine;\" \"attempting no analysis of genuineness;\" \"an unreasonable\napostolic reverence.\" \"Custom, accident, taste, and the tendency of\ntradition taking the place of careful examination;\" \"a disposition\nto misrepresent;\" \"exceptional veneration of the fathers for the\ngospels older than the composition;\" \"want of data;\" \"their decisions\nthe result of pious feeling based upon [incorrect] theological\nspeculations;\" \"unsound judgment;\" \"weakness of perception;\" \"lack\nof logical reasoning.\" These are the characteristics of the fathers\ndepended upon to establish the authenticity of a gospel story which\nhas no solid foundation to rest upon and which is clearly of an\napocryphal character. (\"Answers to Christian Questions\" pp. 69-70,\nby D. M. Bennett.)\n\n\"One hundred and seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed\nbefore the collection assumed a form that carried with it the idea\nof holy and inspired.\" (Davidson on the Canon, p. 106.)\n\n\"It is clear that the earliest church fathers did not use the books of\nthe New Testament as sacred documents clothed with divine authority,\nbut followed for the most part, at least till the middle of the second\ncentury, apostolic tradition orally transmitted.\" (Ibid, p. 107.)\n\n\"Their decisions (the fathers) were much more the result of pious\nfeeling biased by the theological speculations of the times, than\nthe conclusions of a sound judgment. The very arguments they use to\nestablish certain conclusions show weakness of perception.\" (Ibid\np. 124.)\n\n\"The men who first canonized them (the gospels) had no certain\nknowledge of their authors.\" (Ibid p. 127.)\n\n\"That Luke did not write the gospel of Luke.\" (Ibid 2, p. 25.)\n\n\"The canon was not the work of the Christian Church so much as of\nthe men who were striving to form the church.\" (Ibid p. 129.)\n\n\"Professor Davidson says that the Gospel of Matthew, as we have\nit now could not have been written by Matthew. Intro. New Test. 1,\np. 484. He says that the present Gospel of Mark was not written by\nMark and that its author is unknown.\" (Ibid 2, p. 83, 84.)\n\nOf John's Gospel he says:\n\n\"Its existence before 140 A. D. is incapable either of decision or\nprobable showing. The Johannine authorship has receded before the\ntide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times,\nit is here irresistible.\n\n\"No certain traces of the existence of the fourth gospel can be found\ntill after Justin Martyr, that is till after the middle of the second\ncentury.\" (Ibid 2, p. 520.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Value of Papias' Testimony.\n\n\"Suppose Papias is referring to our present gospel of Mark, what\ntestimony have we to the authenticity of Jesus' words as contained\nin it? Just this: Eusebius says that Papias said that John the\npresbyter said that Mark said that Peter said that Jesus said thus\nand so.\" (Keeler's \"Short History of the Bible,\" p. 19.)\n\n\n\n\nIgnorance and Dishonesty of the Early Fathers.\n\nThat the charge of ignorance justly attaches to many of the fathers\nof the church, and that of dishonesty as well, there is abundant\nevidence, but a small portion of this can be given here. Mosheim,\nin part 2 chapter 3 of his \"Ecclesiastical History,\" says:\n\n\"The interest of virtue and true religion suffered yet more\ngrievously by the monstrous errors that were universally adopted\nin this century, and became a source of innumerable calamities and\nmischiefs of succeeding ages. The first of these maxims was that it was\nan act of virtue to deceive and lie when by that means the interest\nof the church might be promoted; and the second, equally horrible,\nthough in another point of view, was \"that errors in religion, when\nmaintained and adhered to after proper admonition were punishable with\ncivil penalties and corporal tortures.\" The former of these erroneous\nmaxims was now of long standing. It had been adopted for long ages\npast, and had produced an incredible number of ridiculous fables,\nfictitious prodigies, and pious frauds to the remarkable detriment to\nthat glorious cause in which they were employed. And it must be frankly\nconfessed that the greatest men and the most eminent saints of this\ncentury [the fourth] were more or less tainted with the infection of\nthis corrupt principle, as will appear evident to such as look with an\nattentive eye to their writings and actions. We would willingly except\nfrom this charge Ambrose, and Hiliary Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen,\nand Jerome; but truth, which is more respectable than these venerable\nfathers, obliges us to involve them in the general accusation.\"\n\nAt another time he says, as translated by Vidal:\n\n\"At the time when he [Hermas] wrote, it was an established maxim\nwith many Christians to avail themselves of fraud and deception,\nif it was likely they would conduce toward the attainment of any\nconsiderable good.\"\n\nHe again says:\n\n\"It was considered that they who made it their business to deceive,\nwith a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather\nof commendation than censure.\"\n\nThe French Protestant writer, Casaubon, talks in a similar way, thus:\n\n\"It mightily affects me to see how many there were in the earliest\ntimes of the church who considered it a capital exploit to lend to\nheavenly truth the help of their own inventions in order that the\nnew doctrine might be received by the wise among the Gentiles. These\nofficious lies, they said, were devised for a good end.\"\n\nLe Clerc, corroborating these opinions, says:\n\n\"Dissemblers of truth are nowhere to be met with in such abundance\nas among the writers of church history.\"\n\nM. Daille, another learned and impartial French writer, in his\ncelebrated work, the \"Use of the Fathers,\" says:\n\n\"We find them saying things which they did not themselves believe. They\nare mutually witnesses against each other, that they are not to be\nbelieved absolutely on their bare word.\"\n\nIn book 1, chapter 6, he states upon the authority of St. Jerome, that:\n\n\"Origin, Methodius, Eusebius, Apollonaris, have written largely against\nCelsus and Porphyry. Do but observe their manner of arguing, and\nwhat slippery problems they used. They alleged against the Gentiles,\nnot what they believed, but what they thought necessary.\"\n\nJerome himself adds:\n\n\"I forbear mentioning the Latin writers, as Tertullian, Cyprian,\nMinutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hiliary, lest I should rather seem\nto accuse others than defend myself.\"\n\nDaille adds of the fathers:\n\n\"They made no scruple to forge whole books.\"\n\nAn able writer in the Eclectic Review of 1814, page 179, speaks of\nthe fathers in this way:\n\n\"When we consider the number of gospels, acts, epistles, revelations,\ntraditions, and constitutions which were put in circulation during\nthe first three centuries, and which are unquestionably spurious,\nwe find sufficient reason for examining with care and receiving\nwith extreme caution productions attributed to eminent men in the\nprimitive church. Some of the early Christians do not seem to have\npossessed in some points a nice sense of moral obligation. The writing\nof books under false names, and the circulating of fables, were not\naccounted violations of duty; or, if the impropriety of such conduct\nwas felt, the end proposed--the promotion of the Christian cause--was\nthought to justify the means employed for the accomplishment. (From\nD. M. Bennett's \"Answers to Christian Questions,\" p. 78-80.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Not a Historical Character.\n\nThe following very pertinent argument is made use of by the\nRev. S. Baring-Gould in his \"Lost and Hostile Gospels\": \"It is somewhat\nremarkable that no contemporary, or even early account of the life of\nour Lord exists, except from the pen of Christian writers. That we\nhave none by Greek or Roman writers is not, perhaps, to be wondered\nat; but it is singular that neither Philo, Josephus, nor Justus\nof Tiberius, should ever have alluded to Christ or to primitive\nChristianity. Philo was born at Alexandria about twenty years before\nChrist. In the year A. D. 40 he was sent by the Alexandrian Jews on\na mission to Caligula, to entreat the emperor not to put in force his\norder that his statue should be erected in the temple of Jerusalem and\nin all the synagogues of the Jews. Philo was a Pharisee. He traveled\nin Palestine, and speaks of the Essenes he saw there; but he says\nnot a word about Jesus Christ or his followers. It is possible that\nhe may have heard of the new sect, but he probably concluded it was\nbut insignificant, and consisted merely of the disciples, poor and\nignorant, of a Galilean rabbi, whose doctrines he, perhaps did not\nstay to inquire into, and supposed they did not differ fundamentally\nfrom the traditional teaching of the rabbis of his day.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Spurious Passage in Josephus.\n\n\"At this time lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed he ought to be\ncalled a man]; for he performed wonderful works [he was a teacher of\nmen who received the truth with gladness]; and he drew to him many\nJews and also many Greeks. [This was the Christ.] But when Pilate,\nat the instigation of our chiefs, had condemned him to crucifixion,\nthey who at first loved him did not cease; [for he appeared to them\non the third day again; for the divine prophets had foretold this,\ntogether with many other wonderful things concerning him], and even\nto this time the community of Christians called after him, continues\nto exist.\"\n\nThat this passage is spurious has been almost universally\nacknowledged. One may be accused perhaps of killing dead birds, if\none again examines and discredits the passage; but as the silence of\nJosephus on the subject which we are treating is a point on which it\nwill be necessary to insist, we cannot omit as brief a discussion as\npossible of the celebrated passage.\n\nThe passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two\nplaces (Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 11; Demonst. Evang. lib. 3.),\nbut it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A. D. 140), Clement of\nAlexandria (fl. A. D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A. D. 193), and Origen\n(fl. A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced\nby Justin in his apology, or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew,\nhad it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence\nof Origen is still more significant. Celsus in his book against\nChristianity introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the arguments of\nCelsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of\nJosephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the\ngenuine text. He indeed distinctly affirms that Josephus did not\nbelieve in Christ. (Contra. Celsus 1.)\n\nAgain the paragraph interrupts the chain of ideas in the original\ntext. Before this passage comes an account of how Pilate, seeing there\nwas a want of pure drinking water in Jerusalem, conducted a stream into\nthe city from a spring two hundred stadia distant, and ordered that\nthe cost should be defrayed out of the treasury of the Temple. This\noccasioned a riot. Pilate disguised Roman soldiers as Jews, with\nswords under their cloaks, and sent them among the rabble, with orders\nto arrest the ringleaders. This was done. The Jews finding themselves\nset upon by other Jews, fell into confusion; one Jew attacked another,\nand the whole company of rioters melted away. \"And in this manner,\"\nsays Josephus, \"was this insurrection suppressed.\" Then follows the\nparagraph about Jesus, beginning, \"At this time lived Jesus, a wise\nman, if indeed one ought to call him a man,\" etc., and the passage is\nimmediately followed by, \"About this time another misfortune threw the\nJews into disturbance; and in Rome an event happened in the temple of\nIsis which produced great scandal.\" And then he tells an indelicate\nstory of religious deception which need not be repeated here. The\nmisfortune which befell the Jews was, as he afterward relates, that\nTiberius drove them out of Rome. The reason of this was, he says, that\na noble Roman lady who had become a proselyte, had sent gold and purple\nto the temple at Jerusalem. But this reason is not sufficient. It is\nclear from what precedes--a story of sacerdotal fraud--that there was\nsome connection between the incidents in the mind of Josephus. Probably\nthe Jews had been guilty of religious deceptions in Rome, and had made\na business of performing cures and expelling demons, with talismans,\nand incantations, and for this had obtained rich payment.\n\nFrom the connection that exists between the passage about the\n\"other misfortune which befell the Jews,\" and the former one about\nthe riot suppressed by Pilate, it appears evident that the whole of\nthe paragraph concerning our Lord is an interpolation. That Josephus\ncould not have written the passage as it stands, is clear enough, for\nonly a Christian would speak of Jesus in the terms employed. Josephus\nwas a Pharisee and a Jewish priest; he shows in all his writings that\nhe believes in Judaism.\n\nIt has been suggested that Josephus may have written about Christ\nas in the passage quoted, but that the portions within brackets are\nthe interpolations of a Christian copyist. But when these portions\nwithin brackets are removed, the passage loses all its interest\nand is a dry statement utterly unlike the sort of notice Josephus\nwould have been likely to insert. He gives color to his narratives;\nhis incidents are always sketched with vigor; this account would be\nmeagre besides those of the riot of the Jews and the rascality of\nthe priests of Isis. Josephus asserts, moreover, that in his time\nthere were four sects among the Jews--the Pharisees, the Sadducees,\nthe Essenes, and the sect of Judas of Gamala. He gives tolerably\ncopious particulars about these sects, and their teachings, but of the\nChristian sect he says not a word. Had he wished to write about it,\nhe would have given full details, likely to interest his readers,\nand not have dismissed the subject in a couple of lines.\n\nIt was perhaps felt by the early Christians that the silence of\nJosephus, so famous a historian and a Jew, on the life, miracles,\nand death of the founder of Christianity was extremely inconvenient;\nthe fact could not fail to be noticed by their adversaries. Some\nChristian transcriber may have argued, either Josephus knew nothing\nof the miracles performed by Christ--in which case he is a weighty\ntestimony against them--or he must have heard of Jesus, but not\nhaving deemed his acts, as they were related to him, of sufficient\nimportance to find a place in history. Arguing thus, the copyist took\nthe opportunity of rectifying the omission, written from the stand\npoint of a Pharisee, and therefore designated the Lord as merely a\nwise man. (D. M. Bennett in \"Jesus Christ.\")\n\nThat this paragraph, concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, is not\nJosephus's but an interpolation, is argued from these several following\nconsiderations:\n\n1. It is not quoted or referred to by any Christian writer before\nEusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century,\nand afterward.\n\n2. This paragraph was wanting in the copies of Josephus which were\nseen by Photius, in the ninth century.\n\n3. It interrupts the course of the narration.\n\n4. It is unsuitable to the general character of Josephus, who is\nallowed not to have been a Christian.\n\n5. If Josephus were the author of this paragraph, it would be\nreasonable to expect in him frequent mention of Christ's miracles;\nwhereas he is everywhere else silent about them.\n\n6. The word Christ or Messiah appears not in any place in all the works\nof Josephus, excepting two; namely, the paragraph which we have been\nconsidering, which is now in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities;\nand another in the twentieth book of the name Antiquities where is\nmention made of James, the brother Jesus who is called 'Christ.' (Works\nof N. Lardner, vol. 7, pp. 14, 15.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEUSEBIUS.\n\nThe Father of Church History.\n\nIn referring to his work of writing a history of the church up to\nhis own times, he says:\n\n\"We are attempting a kind of trackless and unbeaten path.\"\n\nAgain he says of Philo Jud\u00e6us that he was a very \"learned man.\" Among\nmany other things which contradict this estimate, is the fact that\nPhilo takes more than one hundred pages in showing how that dreams\nare sent from God.\n\nAgain, Eusebius does not say that the last works of Hegesippus,\nPapias and Dionysius of Corinth, contain anything concerning the\ncanonical gospels; therefore, they contained none.\n\nWe give the opinion of a few well-known writers upon this \"father of\nchurch history\":\n\nIn Draper's Intellectual Development of Europe, p. 197, Bunsen and\nNiebuhr are quoted--the one (Bunsen) as saying that he purposely\n\"perverted chronology for the sake of making synchronisms,\" and the\nother (Niebuhr) declaring \"he is a very dishonest writer.\"\n\n\"Eusebius had a peculiar faculty of diverging from the\ntruth.\" (\"History of Christian Religion,\" p. 7.)\n\n\"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius, himself,\nindirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to\nthe glory, and has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of\nreligion.\" (Gibbon's \"Rome,\" vol. 1, p. 493.)\n\n\"In one of the most learned and elaborate works that antiquity has left\nus, the thirty-second chapter of the twelfth book of his evangelical\npreparation, bears for its title this scandalous proposition: 'How it\nmay be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine and for the\nbenefit of those who want to be deceived.'\" (Gibbon's \"Vindication,\"\np. 76.)\n\n\"But Eusebius, the father of church history, capped the climax by\nfabricating the celebrated passage about \"Jesus, a wise man, if it\nbe lawful to call him such.\" (\"Anti-Christ,\" p. 28.)\n\n\"He (Eusebius) has frankly told us that his principle in writing\nhistory was to conceal the facts that were injurious to the reputation\nof the church.\" (Lecky's \"European Morals,\" vol. 1, p. 492.)\n\n\"Eusebius, who would never lie or falsify except to promote the glory\nof God.\" (Taylor's Diegesis, p. 345.)\n\nEusebius pronounces a panegyric upon Constantine. The following is\nthe list of Constantine's murders as given by Robert Taylor:\n\n\n[**TODO: Verify table]\n        Maximinian, his wife's father                A. D.   310\n        Bassianus, his sister Anastacia's husband    A. D.   314\n        Licinianus, his nephew by Constantina        A. D.   319\n        Fausta, his wife                             A. D.   320\n        Sopater, his former friend                   A. D.   321\n        Licinius, his sister Constantina's husband   A. D.   325\n        Crispus, his own son                         A. D.   326\n\n\nAnd the church still continues to regard these two persons as holy\nmen of God, raised up for a wise purpose--the one an open, wholesale\nmurderer, and the other a cowardly, cunning and corrupt priest. The\nvast injury they have done the human race can never be computed. They\npoisoned the fountains of civilization, and all Christendom has been\ndrinking its poisoned waters ever since. If there are anywhere in\nhistory two men who have done their fellow men more positive harm\nand wrong, I do not know them. Their names should be held up to\neternal scorn.\n\nBaronius, a sincere advocate of the Christian faith, calls Eusebius:\n\"the great falsifier of ecclesiastical history, a wily sychophant,\na consummate hypocrite, a time serving persecutor, who had nothing\nin his known life or writings to support the belief that he himself\nbelieved in the Christian system.\"\n\nEusebius is the source from whom all have drawn their material. Of\nhim Dean Milman in a note to Gibbon's Rome says: \"It is deeply to\nbe regretted that the history of this period rests so much on the\nloose, and, it must be admitted, by no means scrupulous authority of\nEusebius.\" (Page 85.)\n\n\n\n\nSpurious Writings of the Early Church.\n\n\"Not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of\nhis life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders,\nwere composed by persons whose intentions, perhaps, were not\nbad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superstition and\nignorance.\" (Mosheim's \"Ecclesiastical History.\")\n\n\"Christian churches had scarcely been gathered and organized\nwhen here and there men rose up who, not being contented with the\nsimplicity and purity of that religion which the apostles taught,\nattempted innovations, and fashioned religion according to their own\nliking.\" (Mosheim's \"Ecclesiastical History,\" vol. 1, c. 5.)\n\n\"To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tradition as we do a\nnotorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit, unless what he\nsays is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted veracity.\" (Extract\nfrom Bower's \"Lives of the Popes.\")\n\n\"This opinion has always been in the world, that to settle a certain\nand assured estimation upon that which is good and true, it is\nnecessary to remove out of the way whatever may be an hindrance\nto it. Neither ought we to wonder that even those of the honest,\ninnocent, primitive times made use of these deceits, seeing for a\ngood end they made no scruple to forge whole books.\" (Daille on the\nUse of the Fathers, b. 1, c. 3.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Bible Not an Inspired Revelation.\n\n\"What would be the characteristics of a revelation? 1st. A revelation\nwould be free from inherent contradictions. Does the New Testament\nrevelation stand this test? 2d. A revelation would not contradict\nnatural laws, for nature is the only undisputed revelation to\nman. 3d. A revelation would be so authenticated that it would be more\nreasonable to admit than to deny its claims. The history of thousands\nof years proves that, so far, no revelation has been made that compels\nthe mind's assent, as thousands of thinking men reject the so-called\nrevelation of the New Testament. The New Testament does not claim\ninfallibility for itself; and proving that a book is infallible does\nnot prove that it was inspired, else we might claim inspiration for\nthe problems of Euclid.\" (Anon.)\n\n\"When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two\ntables of commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged\nto believe him, because they had no other authority for it, than his\ntelling them so; and I have no authority for it than some historian\ntelling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity\nwith them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man\nqualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator, could produce himself\nwithout having recourse to supernatural intervention.\" (Thomas Paine's\n\"Age of Reason.\")\n\n\"Revelation is a communication of something which the person, to whom\nthat thing is revealed, did not know before. For if I have done a\nthing, or seen it done, it needs no revelation to tell me I have done\nit, or seen it, nor to enable me to tell it, or to write it.\" (Thomas\nPaine's \"Age of Reason.\")\n\n\"If it was worth God's while to make a revelation to man at all,\nit was certainly worth his while to see to it that it was correctly\nmade. He would not have allowed the ideas and mistakes of pretended\nprophets and designing priests to become so mingled with the original\ntext that it is impossible to tell where he ceased and where the\npriests and prophets began. Neither will it do to say that God\nadapted his revelation to the prejudices of mankind. Of course it\nwas necessary for an infinite being to adapt his revelation to the\nintellectual capacity of man; but why should God confirm a barbarian\nin his prejudices? Why should he fortify a heathen in his crimes? If a\nrevelation is of any importance whatever, it is to eradicate prejudices\nfrom the human mind. It should be a lever with which to raise the human\nrace. Theologians have exhausted their ingenuity in finding excuses\nfor God. It seems to me that they would be better employed in finding\nexcuses for men. They tell us that the Jews were so cruel and ignorant\nthat God was compelled to justify, or nearly to justify, many of\ntheir crimes, in order to have any influence with them whatever. They\ntell us that if he had declared slavery and polygamy to be criminal,\nthe Jews would have refused to receive the ten commandments. They\ninsist that, under the circumstances, God did the best he could;\nthat his real intention was to lead them along slowly, step by step,\nso that, in a few hundred years they would be induced to admit that\nit was hardly fair to steal a babe from its mother's breast. It has\nalways seemed reasonable that an infinite God ought to have been able\nto make man grand enough to know, even without a special revelation,\nthat it is not altogether right to steal the labor, or the wife, or\nthe child of another. When the whole question is thoroughly examined,\nthe world will find that Jehovah had the prejudices, the hatreds,\nand superstitions of his day.\n\n\"If there is anything of value, it is liberty. Liberty is the air of\nthe soul, the sunshine of life. Without it the world is a prison and\nthe universe an infinite dungeon.\n\n\"If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before him,\nlike a panorama, moved the history yet to be. He knew exactly how\nhis words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors,\nwhat infamies, would be committed in his name. He knew that the fires\nof persecution would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He\nknew that brave men would languish in dungeons, in darkness, filled\nwith pain; that the church would use the instruments of torture,\nand that his followers would appeal to whip and chain. He must have\nseen the horizon of the future red with the flames of the auto da\nfe. He knew all the creeds that would spring like poisoned fungi from\nevery text. He saw the sects waging war against each other. He saw\nthousands of men, under the orders of priests, building dungeons for\ntheir fellow men. He saw them using instruments of pain. He heard the\ngroans, saw the faces white with agony, the tears, the blood--heard\nthe shrieks and sobs of all the moaning, martyred multitudes. He knew\nthat commentaries would be written on his words with swords, to be\nread by the light of faggots. He knew that the Inquisition would be\nborn of teachings attributed to him. He saw all the interpolations\nand falsehoods that hypocrisy would write and tell. He knew that above\nthese fields of death, these dungeons, these burnings, for a thousand\nyears would float the dripping banner of the cross. He knew that in\nhis name his followers would trade in human flesh, that cradles would\nbe robbed, and woman's breasts unbabed for gold, and yet he died with\nvoiceless lips. Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not tell his\ndisciples, and through them the world, that man should not persecute,\nfor opinion's sake, his fellow man? Why did he not cry, You shall\nnot persecute in my name; you shall not burn and torment those who\ndiffer from you in creed? Why did he not plainly say, I am the Son of\nGod? Why did he not explain the doctrine of the trinity? Why did he\nnot tell the manner of baptism that was pleasing to him? Why did he\nnot say something positive, definite, and satisfactory about another\nworld? Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven to the\nglad knowledge of another life? Why did he go dumbly to his death,\nleaving the world to misery and to doubt?\n\n\"You may ask, And what of all this? I reply, As with everything\nin nature, so with the Bible. It has a different story for each\nreader. Is, then, the Bible a different book to every human being\nwho reads it? It is. Can God, through the Bible, make precisely the\nsame revelation to two persons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who\nreads is not inspired. God should inspire readers as well as writers.\n\n\"You may reply: God knew that his book would be understood differently\nby each one, and intended that it should be understood as it is\nunderstood by each. If this is so, then my understanding of the\nBible is the real revelation to me. If this is so, I have no right\nto take the understanding of another. I must take the revelation\nmade to me through my understanding, and by that revelation I must\nstand. Suppose, then, that I read this Bible honestly, fairly, and\nwhen I get through am compelled to say, 'The book is not true.' If\nthis is the honest result, then you are compelled to say, either that\nGod has made no revelation to me, or that the revelation that it is\nnot true is the revelation made to me, and by which I am bound. If\nthe book and my brain are both the work of the same infinite God,\nwhose fault is it that the book and the brain do not agree? Either\nGod should have written a book to fit my brain, or should have made\nmy brain to fit his book. The inspiration of the Bible depends upon\nthe credulity of him who reads. There was a time when its geology,\nits astronomy, its natural history, were thought to be inspired:\nthat time has passed. There was a time when its morality satisfied\nthe men who ruled the world of thought: that time has passed.\n\n\"These are the passages that have liberated woman!\n\n\"According to the Old Testament, woman had to ask pardon, and had to be\npurified, for the crime of having borne sons and daughters. If in this\nworld there is a figure of perfect purity, it is a mother holding in\nher thrilled and happy arms her child. The doctrine that the woman is\nthe slave, or serf, of man--whether it comes from heaven or from hell,\nfrom God or a demon, from the golden streets of the New Jerusalem or\nfrom the very Sodom of perdition--is savagery, pure and simple.\n\n\"In no country in the world had women less liberty than in the Holy\nLand, and no monarch held in less esteem the rights of wives and\nmothers than Jehovah of the Jews. The position of woman was far\nbetter in Egypt than in Palestine. Before the pyramids were built,\nthe sacred songs of Isis were sung by women, and women with pure\nhands had offered sacrifices to the gods. Before Moses was born, women\nhad sat upon the Egyptian throne. Upon ancient tombs the husband and\nwife are represented as seated in the same chair. In Persia women were\npriests, and in some of the oldest civilizations 'they were reverenced\non earth, and worshiped afterward as goddesses in heaven.' At the\nadvent of Christianity, in all Pagan countries women officiated\nat the sacred altars. They guarded the eternal fire. They kept the\nsacred books. From their lips came the oracles of fate. Under the\ndomination of the Christian church, woman became the merest slave for\nat least a thousand years. It was claimed that through woman the race\nhad fallen, and that her loving kiss had poisoned all the springs of\nlife. Christian priests asserted that but for her crime the world would\nhave been an Eden still. The ancient fathers exhausted their eloquence\nin the denunciation of woman, and repeated again and again the slander\nof St. Paul. The condition of woman has improved just in proportion\nthat man has lost confidence in the inspiration of the Bible.\n\n\"The old argument that if Christianity is a human fabrication its\nauthors must have been either good men or bad men, takes it for granted\nthat there are but two classes of persons--the good and the bad. There\nis, at least, one other class--the mistaken, and both of the other\nclasses may belong to this. Thousands of most excellent people have\nbeen deceived, and the history of the world is filled with instances\nwhere men have honestly supposed that they had received communications\nfrom angels and gods.\" (Ingersoll's Reply to Black.)\n\n\"But an infinite being must know not only the real meaning of\nthe words, but the exact meaning they will convey to every reader\nand hearer. He must know every meaning that they are capable of\nconveying to every mind. He must also know what explanations must\nbe made to prevent misconception. If an infinite being cannot,\nin making a revelation to man, use such words that every person to\nwhom a revelation is essential, will understand distinctly what that\nrevelation is, then a revelation from God, through the instrumentality\nof language is impossible, or it is not essential that all should\nunderstand it correctly.\n\n\"After all, the real question is, not whether the Bible is inspired,\nbut whether it is true. If it is true, it does not need to be\ninspired. If it is true, it makes no difference whether it was\nwritten by a man or a god. The multiplication table is just as useful,\njust as true as though God had arranged the figures himself. If the\nBible is really true, the claim of inspiration need not be urged;\nand if it is not true, its inspiration can hardly be established. As\na matter of fact, the truth does not need to be inspired. Nothing\nneeds inspiration except a falsehood or a mistake.\" (Ingersoll's\n\"Mistakes of Moses,\" p. 59.)\n\n\"It may be argued that millions have not the capacity to understand a\nrevelation, although expressed in plainest words. To this it seems a\nsufficient reply, to ask, why a being of infinite power should create\nmen so devoid of intelligence, that he cannot by any means make known\nto them his will?\" (Ingersoll's \"Mistakes of Moses,\" p. 90.)\n\n\"Millions have declared this book to be infinitely holy, to prove\nthat they were right have imprisoned, robbed and burned their fellow\nmen. The inspiration of this book has been established by famine,\nsword, and fire, by dungeon, chain, and whip, by dagger and by rack,\nby force and fear and fraud, and generations have been frightened by\nthreats of hell, and bribed with promises of heaven.\n\n\"Had we been born in Turkey, most of us would have been Mohammedans\nand believed in the inspiration of the Koran. We should have believed\nthat Mohammed actually visited heaven and became acquainted with an\nangel by the name of Gabriel who was so broad between the eyes that\nit required three hundred days for a very smart mule to travel the\ndistance. If some man had denied this story we should have denounced\nhim as a dangerous person, one who was endeavoring to undermine the\nfoundations of society, and to destroy all distinctions between virtue\nand vice. We should have said to him 'What do you propose to give us\nin place of this angel? We cannot afford to give up an angel of that\nsize for nothing.' We would have insisted that the wisest and best\nmen believed the Koran.\" (Ingersoll's \"Mistakes of Moses,\" p. 36.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Pentateuch.\n\n\"The Pentateuch is affirmed to have been written by Moses under the\ninfluence of divine inspiration. Considered thus a record vouchsafed\nand dictated by the Almighty, it commands not only scientific but\nuniversal consent.\n\n\"But here in the first place it may be demanded, who or what is it\nthat has put forth this great claim in its behalf?\n\n\"Not the work itself. It nowhere claims the authorship of one man,\nor makes the impious declaration that it is the writing of Almighty\nGod.\" (Draper's \"Conflict Between Religion and Science.\")\n\n\n\n\nThe Bible Not Inspired.\n\n1. The Bible is full of errors:\n\n\"In 1847, the American Bible Society appointed a committee of its\nmembers to prepare a standard edition of King James's version,\nfree from typographical errors. They prepared such an edition,\ncorrecting, as they stated, twenty-four thousand errors; but alarmed\nat the attacks made upon it, it was withdrawn; and the American Bible\nSociety continues to this day to circulate for the word of God a\nbook having in it twenty-four thousand acknowledged errors.\" (\"Common\nSense Thoughts on the Bible,\" Wm. Denton.)\n\n2. The Bible sanctions cruelties. The wars of extermination waged by\nthe Jews upon surrounding nations afford ample proof.\n\n3. The Bible indorses immorality. It indorses war, slavery, polygamy,\nintemperance, and superstition.\n\n4. The writers of the gospels do not claim to be inspired.\n\n5. We do not know when, where, or by whom, either the gospels or the\nbooks supposed to be written by Moses, were composed.\n\n6. Paul says: \"All scripture is given by inspiration of God; but there\nis (1.) no definite meaning attached to the word inspiration. (2.) He\ndoes not refer to the gospels for they had no existence when he wrote.\n\n7. Inspiration is not a success. There are a thousand different sects\nquarreling about the meaning of the \"inspired scriptures.\"\n\n8. Inspiration should be pure. The Bible abounds in obscenity.\n\n9. The Bible undergoes revisions, improvements, etc. An infallible\nbook cannot be improved.\n\n10. The Bible has no plan or system, and hence has no definite\nobject. Millions upon millions of Christians have differed regarding\nits teachings.\n\n11. The Bible is a fetich. Millions of people have a slavish regard\nfor the Holy Bible who have little or no respect for Humanity, Truth,\nor Justice.\n\n\n\n\nGod's Ways are Not Our Ways.\n\n\"Now this God either did or he did not believe in and command murder\nand rapine in the days when he used to sit around evenings and chat\nwith Abraham and Moses and the rest of them. His especial plans and\ndesires were 'revealed' or they were not. The ideas of justice and\nright were higher in those days than they are now, or else we are\nwiser and better than God, or else the Bible is not his revealed\nwill. You can take your choice. My choice is to keep my respect for\ndivine justice and honor, and let the Bible bear the burden of its\nown mistakes.\n\n\"If religion is a revelation, then it is not a growth, and it would\nhave been most perfect in design and plan when it was nearest its\nbirth. Now accepting the Bible theory of Jehovah, we find that when the\ncommunications of God were immediate and personal there could have been\nno mistake as to his will. To deal with it as a growth or evolution\ntoward better things is to abandon the whole tenet of a revealed law\nof God. But to deal with it as a revelation is to make God a being\ntoo repulsive and brutal to contemplate for one moment with respect.\n\n\"He either did or did not tell those men those things. Which will\nyou accept?\" (Helen Gardener's \"Men, Women, and Gods.\")\n\n\"Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated\nimmediately from God to man. No one will deny or dispute the power\nof the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But\nadmitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed\nto a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is\nrevelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person,\na second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be\na revelation to all those persons. It is a revelation to the first\nperson only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are\nnot obliged to believe it.\n\n\"It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything\na revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally\nor in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first\ncommunication--after this, it is only an account of something which\nthat person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may\nfind himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent upon me to\nbelieve it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me,\nand I have only his word for it that it was made to him.\n\n\"When I am told that the Koran was written in heaven, and brought\nto Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of\nhearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. [1] I did not\nsee the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.\n\n\"When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave\nout, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and\nthat her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so,\nI have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required\na much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have\nnot even this--for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter\nthemselves; it is only reported by others that they said so--it is\nhearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon\nsuch evidence.\n\n\"It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given\nto the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when\nthe heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world,\nand that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a\nstory. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen\nmythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not\na new thing at that time, to believe a man to have been celestially\nbegotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of\nfamiliar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had\ncohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either\nnew, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that\nthen prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or Mythologists,\nand it was those people only that believed it. The Jews who had kept\nstrictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always\nrejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.\n\n\"It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the\nChristian church, sprung out of the tail of heathen mythology. A\ndirect incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the\nreputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that\nthen followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality,\nwhich was about twenty or thirty thousand; the statue of Mary succeeded\nthe statue of Diana of Ephesus, the deification of heroes changed into\nthe canonization of saints; the mythologists had gods for everything;\nthe Christian mythologists had saints for everything; the church\nbecame as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the\nother; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little\nelse than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to\nthe purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and\nphilosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.\n\n\"Nothing that is here said can apply even with the most distant\ndisrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous\nand an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced was\nof the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality\nhad been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers,\nmany years before; by the Quakers since; and by many good men in all\nages, it has not been exceeded by any.\n\n\"Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or\nanything else; not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his\nown writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people;\nand as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was\nthe necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians,\nhaving brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were\nobliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part\nof the story must have fallen to the ground.\n\n\"The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing\nthat admitted of publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of\nthe story had this advantage, that though they might not be credited,\nthey could not be detected.\" (Thomas Paine's \"Age of Reason.\")\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSELF-CONTRADICTIONS OF THE BIBLE.\n\n\nTHEOLOGICAL DOCTRINES.\n\nGod is Satisfied with his Works.\n\nAnd God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very\ngood. (Gen. 1 : 31.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Dissatisfied with his Works.\n\nAnd it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it\ngrieved him at his heart. (Gen. 6 : 6.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Dwells in Chosen Temples.\n\nAnd the Lord appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him: I have\nheard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for a house\nof sacrifice.... For now have I chosen and sanctified this house,\nthat my name may be there forever: and mine eyes and my heart shall\nbe there perpetually. (2 Chr. 7 : 12, 16.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Dwells Not in Temples.\n\nHowbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands. (Acts\n7 : 48.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Dwells in Light.\n\nDwelling in the light which no man can approach unto. (1 Tim. 6 : 16.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Dwells in Darkness.\n\nThe Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. (1 Kings\n8 : 12.)\n\nHe made darkness his secret place. (Ps. 18 : 11.)\n\nClouds and darkness are round about him. (Ps. 97 : 2.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Seen and Heard.\n\nAnd I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts. (Ex.\n33 : 23.)\n\nAnd the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto\nhis friend. (Ex. 33 : 11.)\n\nAnd the Lord called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And\nhe said I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid. (Gen. 3 :\n9, 10.)\n\nFor I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (Gen.\n32 : 30.)\n\nIn the year that King Uzziah died, I saw, also, the Lord sitting upon\na throne, high and lifted up. (Is. 6 : 1.)\n\nThen went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the\nelders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel.... They saw God,\nand did eat and drink. (Ex. 24 : 9, 10, 11.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Invisible and Cannot be Heard.\n\nNo man hath seen God at any time. (John 1 : 18.)\n\nYe have neither heard his voice, at any time, nor seen his shape. (John\n5 : 37.)\n\nAnd he said, thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see\nme and live. (Ex. 33 : 20.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Tired and Rests.\n\nFor in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh\nday he rested, and was refreshed. (Ex. 31 : 17.)\n\nI am weary with repenting. (Jer. 15 : 6.)\n\nThou hast wearied me with thine iniquities. (Is. 43 : 24.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Never Tired and Never Rests.\n\nHast thou never heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator\nof the ends of the earth, fainteth not, never is weary? (Is. 40 : 28.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Omnipresent, Sees and Knows all Things.\n\nThe eyes of the Lord are in every place. (Prov. 15 : 3.)\n\nWhither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven,\nthou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If\nI take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of\nthe sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall\nhold me. (Ps. 139 : 7-10.)\n\nThere is no darkness nor shadow of death where the workers of iniquity\nmay hide themselves. For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he\nseeth all his goings. (Job 34 : 22, 21.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Not Omnipresent, Neither Sees nor Knows all Things.\n\nAnd the Lord came down to see the city and the tower. (Gen. 11 : 5.)\n\nAnd the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great,\nand because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see\nwhether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which\nis come unto me; and, if not, I will know. (Gen. 18 : 20, 21.)\n\nAnd Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God,\namongst the trees of the garden. (Gen. 3 : 8.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Knows the Hearts of Men.\n\nThou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men. (Acts 1 : 24.)\n\nThou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising; thou understandest\nmy thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down,\nand art acquainted with all my ways. (Ps. 139 : 2, 3.)\n\nFor he knoweth the secrets of the heart. (Ps. 44 : 21.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Tries Men to Find Out what is in their Hearts.\n\nThe Lord, your God, proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord\nyour God, with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deut. 13 : 3.)\n\nThe Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to\nhumble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thy heart. (Deut.\n8 : 2.)\n\nFor now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld\nthy son, thine only son, from me. (Gen. 22 : 12.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is All-Powerful.\n\nBehold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is there anything too\nhard for me?... There is nothing too hard for thee. (Jer. 32 : 27, 17.)\n\nWith God all things are possible. (Mat. 19 : 26.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Not All-Powerful.\n\nAnd the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of\nthe mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley,\nbecause they had chariots of iron. (Judges 1 : 19.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Unchangeable.\n\nWith whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (James\n1 : 17.)\n\nFor I am the Lord; I change not. (Mal. 3 : 6.)\n\nI, the Lord, have spoken it; it shall come to pass, and I will do it. I\nwill not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent. (Ezekiel\n24 : 14.)\n\nGod is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he\nshould repent. (Num. 23 : 19.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Changeable.\n\nAnd it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it\ngrieved him at his heart. (Gen. 6 : 6.)\n\nAnd God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and\nGod repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them,\nand he did it not. (Jonah 3 : 10.)\n\nWherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed, that thy house,\nand the house of thy father, should walk before me forever; but now the\nLord saith, Be it far from me.... Behold, the days come that I will cut\noff thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house. (1 Sam. 2 : 30, 31.)\n\nIn those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah,\nthe son of Amoz, came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord,\nSet thy house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.... And it\ncame to pass afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the\nword of the Lord came unto him, saying, Turn again and tell Hezekiah,\nthe captain of my people, Thus saith the Lord, ... I have heard thy\nprayer, ... and I will add unto thy days, fifteen years. (2 Kings 20 :\n1, 4, 5, 6.)\n\nAnd the Lord said unto Moses, Depart and go up hence, thou and the\npeople.... For I will not go up in the midst of thee.... And the\nLord said unto Moses, I will do this thing, also, that thou hast\nspoken.... My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee\nrest. (Ex. 33 : 1, 3, 17, 14.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Just and Impartial.\n\nThe Lord is upright, ... and there is no unrighteousness in\nhim. (Ps. 92 : 15.)\n\nShall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Gen. 18 : 25.)\n\nA God of truth, and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deut.\n32 : 4.)\n\nThere is no respect of persons with God. (Rom. 2 : 11.)\n\nYe say the way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel;\nis not my way equal? (Ezek. 18 : 25.)\n\nHe doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth\nthe stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye, therefore,\nthe stranger. (Deut. 10 : 18, 19.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Unjust and Partial.\n\nCursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his\nbrethren. (Gen. 9 : 25.)\n\nFor I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the\nfathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. (Ex.\n20 : 5.)\n\nFor the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or\nevil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,\n... it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it\nis written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Rom. 9 : 11,\n12, 13.)\n\nFor whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more\nabundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even\nthat he hath. (Mat. 13 : 12.)\n\nYe shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt give\nit unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or\nthou mayest sell it unto an alien. (Deut. 14 : 21.)\n\nAnd David spake unto the Lord when he saw the angel that smote the\npeople, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but\nthese sheep, what have they done? (2 Sam. 24 : 17.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Not the Author of Evil.\n\nThe law of the Lord is perfect.... The statutes of the Lord are\nright.... The commandment of the Lord is pure. (Ps. 19 : 7, 8.)\n\nGod is not the author of confusion. (1 Cor. 14 : 33.)\n\nA God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deut.\n32 : 4.)\n\nFor God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any\nman. (James 1 : 13.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is the Author of Evil.\n\nOut of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lam.\n3 : 38.)\n\nThus saith the Lord, Behold I frame evil against you and devise a\ndevice against you. (Jer. 18 : 11.)\n\nI make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things. (Is.\n45 : 7.)\n\nShall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? (Amos\n3 : 6.)\n\nTherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments\nwhereby they should not live. (Ezek. 20 : 25.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Gives Freely to those who Ask.\n\nIf any of you lack wisdom, let him ask God, that giveth to all men\nliberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. (James 1 : 5.)\n\nFor every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth. (Luke\n11 : 10.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Withholds his Blessings and Prevents their Reception.\n\nHe hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should\nnot see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be\nconverted, and I should heal them. (John 12 : 40.)\n\nFor it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should\ncome against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly,\nand that they might have no favor. (Josh. 11 : 20.)\n\n0 Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways and hardened our\nheart? (Is. 63 : 17.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is to be Found by Those who Seek him.\n\nEvery one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth. (Mat.\n7 : 8.)\n\nThose that seek me early shall find me. (Prov. 8 : 17.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Not to be Found by Those who Seek him.\n\nThen shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek\nme early, but shall not find me. (Prov. 1 : 28.)\n\nAnd when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you;\nyea, when ye make many prayers I will not hear. (Is. 1 : 15.)\n\nThey cried, but there was none to save them; even unto the Lord,\nbut he answered them not. (Ps. 18 : 41.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Peaceful.\n\nThe God of peace. (Rom. 15 : 33.)\n\nGod is not the author of confusion, but of peace. (1 Cor. 14 : 33.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Warlike.\n\nThe Lord is a man of war. (Ex. 15 : 3.)\n\nThe Lord of Hosts is his name. (Is. 51 : 15.)\n\nBlessed be the Lord, my strength, which teacheth my hands to war and\nmy fingers to fight. (Ps. 144 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Kind, Merciful, and Good.\n\nThe Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy. (James 5 : 11.)\n\nFor he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of\nmen. (Lam. 3 : 33.)\n\nFor his mercy endureth forever. (1 Chron. 16 : 34.)\n\nI have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord\nGod. (Ezek. 18 : 32.)\n\nThe Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his\nworks. (Ps. 145 : 9.)\n\nWho will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of\nthe truth. (1 Tim. 2 : 4.)\n\nGod is love. (1 John 4 : 16.)\n\nGood and upright is the Lord. (Ps. 25 : 8.)\n\n\n\n\nGod is Cruel, Unmerciful, Destructive, and Ferocious.\n\nI will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. (Jer.\n13 : 14.)\n\nAnd thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall\ndeliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. (Deut. 7 : 16.)\n\nNow go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and\nspare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling. (1\nSam. 15 : 2, 3.)\n\nBecause they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the\npeople fifty thousand, and three score and ten men. (1 Sam. 6 : 19.)\n\nThe Lord thy God is a consuming fire. (Deut. 4 : 24.)\n\nThe Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them, ... and they\ndied. (Josh. 10 : 11.)\n\n\n\n\nGod's Anger is Slow, and Endures but for a Moment.\n\nThe Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in\nmercy. (Ps. 103 : 8.)\n\nHis anger endureth but a moment. (Ps. 30 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nGod's Anger is Fierce, Frequent, and Endures Long.\n\nAnd the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them\nwander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that\nhad done evil in the sight of the Lord was consumed. (Num. 32 : 13.)\n\nAnd the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and\nhang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger\nof the Lord may be turned away from Israel. (Num. 25 : 4.)\n\nFor ye have kindled a fire in mine anger which shall burn\nforever. (Jer. 17 : 4.)\n\nGod is angry [\"with the wicked,\" interpolated by the translators]\neveryday. (Ps. 7 : 11.)\n\nAnd the Lord met him and sought to kill him. (Ex. 4 : 24.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Commands, Approves of, and Delights in Burnt Offerings, Sacrifices,\nand Holy Days.\n\nThou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for\natonement. (Ex. 29 : 36.)\n\nOn the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of\natonement; it shall be a holy convocation unto you, and ye shall\nafflict your souls and offer an offering made by fire unto the\nLord. (Lev. 23 : 27.)\n\nAnd thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar; ... it is a sweet\nsavor; an offering made by fire unto the Lord. (Ex. 29 : 18.)\n\nAnd the priest shall burn all on the altar to be a burnt sacrifice,\nan offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord. (Lev. 1 : 9.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Disapproves of, and has no Pleasure in, Burnt Offerings,\nSacrifices, and Holy Days.\n\nFor I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that\nI brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings\nor sacrifices. (Jer. 7 : 22.)\n\nYour burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet\nunto me. (Jer. 6 : 20.)\n\nWill I eat of the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer\nunto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High. (Psalm 50 :\n13, 14.)\n\nBring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the\nnew moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies I cannot away with;\nit is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.... To what purpose is the\nmultitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. I am full of the\nburnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not\nin the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come\nto appear before me, who hath required this at your hand? (Is. 1 :\n13, 11, 12.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Forbids Human Sacrifice.\n\nTake heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them [the\nGentile nations;] ... for every abomination to the Lord which he hateth\nhave they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters\nhave they burnt in the fire to their gods. (Deut. 12 : 30, 31.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Commands and Accepts Human Sacrifices.\n\nNo devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he\nhath, both of man and of beast, and of the field of his possession,\nshall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy unto the\nLord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed,\nbut shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 27 : 28, 29.)\n\nThe king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah, ... and the five sons of\nMichael; ... and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites,\nand they hanged them in the hill before the Lord.... And after that\nGod was entreated for the land. (2 Sam. 21 : 8, 9, 14.)\n\nAnd he [God] said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou\nlovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there\nfor a burnt offering. (Gen. 22 : 2.)\n\nAnd Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without\nfail deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, then it shall be,\nthat whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me\nwhen I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be\nthe Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah\npassed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the\nLord delivered them into his hands.... And Jephthah came to Mizpeh\nunto his house and behold, his daughter came out to meet him.... And\nhe sent her away for two months; and she went with her companions and\nbewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And it came to pass at the\nend of two months that she returned unto her father, who did according\nto his vow which he had vowed. (Judges 11 : 30, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Tempts No Man.\n\nLet no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot\nbe tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. (James 1 : 13.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Does Tempt Men.\n\nAnd it came to pass after these things that God did tempt\nAbraham. (Gen. 22 : 1.)\n\nAnd again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and\nhe moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah. (2\nSam. 24 : 1.)\n\nAnd the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job,\nthat there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright\nman, one that feareth God and escheweth evil? And still he holdeth\nfast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy\nhim without cause. (Job. 2 : 3.)\n\nO Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived, [marginal reading,\nenticed.] (Jer. 20 : 7.)\n\nLead us not into temptation. (Mat. 6 : 13.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Cannot Lie.\n\nGod is not a man, that he should lie. (Num. 23 : 19.)\n\nIt was impossible for God to lie. (Heb. 6 : 18.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Lies; He Sends Forth Lying Spirits to Deceive.\n\nAh, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. (Jer.\n4 : 10.)\n\nWilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar? (Jer. 14 : 18.)\n\nFor this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should\nbelieve a lie. (2 Thes. 2 : 11.)\n\nNow, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth\nof all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning\nthee. (1 Kings 22 : 23.)\n\nThen God sent an evil spirit. (Judges 9 : 23.)\n\nAnd if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the\nLord have deceived that prophet. (Ezek. 14 : 9.)\n\n\n\n\nBecause of Man's Wickedness God Destroys him.\n\nAnd God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and\nthat every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil\ncontinually.... And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have\ncreated. (Gen. 6 : 5, 7.)\n\n\n\n\nBecause of Man's Wickedness God will Not Destroy him.\n\nAnd the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground\nany more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil\nfrom his youth; neither will I again smite any more every living\nthing. (Gen. 8 : 21.)\n\n\n\n\nGod's Attributes are Revealed in his Works.\n\nFor the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are\nclearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his\neternal power and Godhead. (Rom. 1 : 20.)\n\n\n\n\nGod's Attributes Cannot be Discovered.\n\nCanst thou, by searching, find out God? (Job. 11 : 7.)\n\nThere is no searching of his understanding. (Is. 40 : 28.)\n\n\n\n\nThere is but One God.\n\nThe Lord our God is one Lord. (Deut. 6 : 4.)\n\nThere is none other God but one. (1 Cor. 8 : 4.)\n\n\n\n\nThere is a Plurality of Gods.\n\nAnd God said, Let us make man in our image. (Gen. 1 : 26.)\n\nAnd the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us. (Gen.\n3 : 22.)\n\nAnd the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre.... And\nhe lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood by him;\nand when he saw them he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed\nhimself toward the ground, and said, My Lord, if now I have found favor\nin thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant. (Gen. 18 :\n1, 2, 3.)\n\nFor there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,\nand the Holy Ghost. (1 John 5 : 7.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMORAL PRECEPTS.\n\n\nRobbery Commanded.\n\nWhen ye go, ye shall not go empty; but every woman shall borrow of her\nneighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver\nand jewels of gold, and raiment; and ye shall put them upon your sons\nand upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 3 :\n21, 22.)\n\nAnd they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels\nof gold, and raiment.... And they spoiled the Egyptians. (Ex. 12 :\n35, 36.)\n\n\n\n\nRobbery Forbidden.\n\nThou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him. (Lev. 19 : 13.)\n\nThou shalt not steal. (Ex. 20 : 15.)\n\n\n\n\nLying Commanded, Approved, and Sanctioned.\n\nAnd the Lord said unto Samuel, ... I will send thee to Jesse, the\nBethlemite; for I have provided me a king among his sons. And Samuel\nsaid, How can I go? If Saul hear it he will kill me. And the Lord\nsaid, Take a heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to\nthe Lord. (1 Sam. 16 : 1, 2.)\n\nAnd the woman [Rahab] took the two men and hid them and said thus:\nThere came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were; and it came\nto pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that\nthe men went out; whither the men went I wot not; pursue after them\nquickly, for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to\nthe roof of the house and hid them with the stalks of flax. (Josh. 2 :\n4, 5, 6.)\n\nWas not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received\nthe messengers, and had them sent out another way? (James 2 : 25.)\n\nAnd the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why\nhave ye done this thing, and have saved the men-children alive? And\nthe midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not\nas the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere\nthe midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the\nmidwives. (Ex. 1 : 18-20.)\n\nAnd there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said,\nI will persuade him ... I will go forth and will be a lying spirit\nin the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade\nhim and prevail also; go forth and do so. (1 Kings 22 : 21, 22.)\n\nYe shall know my breach of promise. (Num. 14 : 34.)\n\nFor if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his\nglory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? (Rom. 3 : 7.)\n\nBeing crafty, I caught you with guile. (2 Cor. 12 : 16.)\n\n\n\n\nLying Forbidden.\n\nThou shalt not bear false witness. (Ex. 20 : 16.)\n\nLying lips are an abomination to the Lord. (Prov. 12 : 22.)\n\nAll liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire\nand brimstone. (Rev. 21 : 8.)\n\n\n\n\nKilling Commanded and Sanctioned.\n\nThus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his\nside, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and\nslay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every\nman his neighbor. (Ex. 32 : 27.)\n\nSo Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab.... And the Lord\nsaid unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which\nis right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according\nto all that was in my heart, thy children of the fourth generation\nshall sit on the throne of Israel. (2 Kings 10 : 11, 30.)\n\n\n\n\nKilling Forbidden.\n\nThou shalt not kill. (Ex. 20 : 13.)\n\nNo murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. (1 John 3 : 15.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Blood-Shedder Must Die.\n\nAt the hand of every man's brother will I require the life\nof man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be\nshed. (Gen. 9 : 5, 6.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Blood-Shedder Must Not Die.\n\nAnd the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill\nhim. (Gen. 4 : 15.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Making of Images Forbidden.\n\nThou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness\nof anything that is in heaven above, or that in in the earth\nbeneath. (Ex. 20 : 4.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Making of Images Commanded.\n\nThou shalt make two cherubims of gold.... And the cherubims shall\nstretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their\nwings, and their faces shall look one to another. (Ex. 25 : 18, 20.)\n\n\n\n\nSlavery and Oppression Ordained.\n\nCursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his\nbrethren. (Gen. 9 : 25.)\n\nOf the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you,\nof them shall ye buy.... They shall be your bondmen forever; but\nover your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule with\nrigor. (Lev. 25 : 45, 46.)\n\nI will sell your sons and daughters into the hands of the children of\nJudah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people afar off;\nfor the Lord hath spoken it. (Joel 3 : 8.)\n\n\n\n\nSlavery and Oppression Forbidden.\n\nUndo the heavy burdens.... Let the oppressed go free, ... break every\nyoke. (Is. 58 : 6.)\n\nThou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him. (Ex. 22 : 21.)\n\nHe that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand,\nhe shall surely be put to death. (Ex. 21 : 16.)\n\nNeither be ye called masters. (Mat. 23 : 10.)\n\n\n\n\nImprovidence Enjoined.\n\nConsider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither\ndo they spin.... If God so clothe the grass of the field ... shall\nhe not much more clothe you?... Therefore, take no thought, saying,\nWhat shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or wherewithal shall we\nbe clothed?... Take, therefore, no thought for the morrow. (Mat. 6 :\n28, 30, 31, 34.)\n\nGive to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away\nthy goods, ask them not again.... And lend, hoping for nothing again,\nand your reward shall be great. (Luke 6 : 30, 35.)\n\nSell that ye have and give alms. (Luke 12 : 33.)\n\n\n\n\nImprovidence Condemned.\n\nBut if any provide not for his own, especially for those of his own\nhouse, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1\nTim. 5 : 8.)\n\nA good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children. (Prov.\n13 : 22.)\n\n\n\n\nAnger Approved.\n\nBe ye angry and sin not. (Eph. 4 : 26.)\n\nAnd he [Elisha] turned back and looked on them and cursed them in the\nname of the Lord. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood\nand tare forty and two children of them. (2 Kings 2 : 24.)\n\nAnd when he had looked round about on them with anger, ... he saith\nunto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. (Mark 3 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nAnger Disapproved.\n\nBe not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the\nbosom of fools. (Eccl. 7 : 9.)\n\nMake no friendship with an angry man. (Prov. 22 : 24.)\n\nThe wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. (James 1 : 20.)\n\n\n\n\nGood Works to be Seen of Men.\n\nLet your light so shine before men, that they may see your good\nworks. (Mat. 5 : 16.)\n\n\n\n\nGood Works Not to be Seen of Men.\n\nTake heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of\nthem. (Mat. 6 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nJudging of Others Forbidden.\n\nJudge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge,\nye shall be judged. (Mat. 7 : 1, 2.)\n\n\n\n\nJudging of Others Approved.\n\nDo ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the\nworld shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest\nmatters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things\nthat pertain to this life? If, then, ye have judgments of things\npertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in\nthe church. (1 Cor. 6 : 2, 3, 4.)\n\nDo not ye judge them that are within? (1 Cor. 5 : 12.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Taught Non-Resistance.\n\nResist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek,\nturn him the other also. (Mat. 5 : 39.)\n\nAll they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Mat.\n26 : 52.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Taught and Practiced Physical Resistance.\n\nHe that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. (Luke\n22 : 36.)\n\nAnd when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out\nof the temple. (John 2 : 15.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Warned his Followers Not to Fear Being Killed.\n\nBe not afraid of them that kill the body. (Luke 12 : 4.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Himself Avoided the Jews for Fear of Being killed.\n\nAfter these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in\nJewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. (John 7 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nPublic Prayer Sanctioned.\n\nAnd Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord, in the presence of\nall the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward\nheaven. [Then follows the prayer.] And it was so, that when Solomon\nhad made an end of praying all his prayer and supplication unto the\nLord, he arose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling on\nhis knees, with his hands spread up to heaven.... And the Lord said\nunto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication that thou hast\nmade before me. (1 Kings 8 : 22, 54, and 9 : 3.)\n\n\n\n\nPublic Prayer Disapproved.\n\nWhen thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they\nlove to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the corners of the\nstreets, that they may be seen of men.... But thou, when thou prayest,\nenter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy\nFather which is in secret. (Mat. 6 : 5, 6.)\n\n\n\n\nImportunity in Prayer Commended.\n\nBecause this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her\ncontinual coming she weary me.... And shall not God avenge his own\nelect, which cry day and night unto him? (Luke 18 : 5, 7.)\n\nBecause of his importunity he will rise, and give him as many as he\nneedeth. (Luke 11 : 8.)\n\n\n\n\nImportunity in Prayer Condemned.\n\nBut when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for\nthey think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be ye\nnot therefore like unto them; for your Father knoweth what things ye\nhave need of before ye ask him. (Mat. 6 : 7, 8.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Wearing of Long Hair by Men Sanctioned.\n\nAnd no razor shall come on his head; for the child shall be a Nazarite\nunto God from the womb. (Judges 13 : 5.)\n\nAll the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come\nupon his head; until the days be fulfilled in the which he separateth\nhimself unto the Lord, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of\nthe hair of his head grow. (Num. 6 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Wearing of Long Hair by Men Condemned.\n\nDoth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair,\nit is a shame unto him? (1 Cor. 11 : 14.)\n\n\n\n\nCircumcision Instituted.\n\nThis is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed\nafter thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (Gen.\n17 : 10.)\n\n\n\n\nCircumcision Condemned.\n\nBehold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ\nshall profit you nothing. (Gal. 5 : 2.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Sabbath Instituted.\n\nAnd God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. (Gen. 2 : 3.)\n\nRemember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Ex. 20 : 8.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Sabbath Repudiated.\n\nThe new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away\nwith; it is iniquity. (Is. 1 : 13.)\n\nOne man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day\nalike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Rom. 14 : 5.)\n\nLet no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of\na holy day, or of the new moon; or of the Sabbath days. (Col. 2 : 16.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Sabbath Instituted because God Rested the Seventh Day.\n\nFor in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that\nin them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed\nthe Sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Ex. 20 : 11.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Sabbath Instituted for a Very Different Reason.\n\nAnd remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that\nthe Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and\nby a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to\nkeep the Sabbath day. (Deut. 5 : 15.)\n\n\n\n\nNo Work to be Done on the Sabbath under Penalty of Death.\n\nWhosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put\nto death. (Ex. 31 : 15.)\n\nThey found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day.... And\nall the congregation brought him without the camp and stoned him with\nstones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses. (Num. 15 : 32, 36.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Broke the Sabbath and Justified the Act.\n\nTherefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him because\nhe had done these things on the Sabbath day. (John 5 : 16.)\n\nAt that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his\ndisciples were a hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and\nto eat. But when the Pharisees saw it they said unto him, Behold,\nthy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath\nday. But he said unto them, ... Have ye not read in the law, how that\non the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath,\nand are blameless? (Mat. 12 : 1, 2, 3, 5.)\n\n\n\n\nBaptism Commanded.\n\nGo ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of\nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Mat. 28 : 19.)\n\n\n\n\nBaptism Not Commanded.\n\nFor Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.... I thank\nGod that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius. (1 Cor. 1 :\n17, 14.)\n\n\n\n\nEvery Kind of Animal Allowed for Food.\n\nEvery moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you. (Gen. 9 : 3.)\n\nWhatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat. (1 Cor. 10 : 25.)\n\nThere is nothing unclean of itself. (Rom. 14 : 14.)\n\n\n\n\nCertain Kinds of Animals Prohibited for Food.\n\nNevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud or\nof them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel and the hare, and\nthe coney; for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore,\nthey are unclean unto you. And the swine, because it divideth the hoof,\nyet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of\ntheir flesh, nor touch their dead carcass. (Deut. 14 : 7, 8.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Taking of Oaths Sanctioned.\n\nIf a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul\nwith a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to\nall that proceedeth out of his mouth. (Num. 30 : 2.)\n\nHe that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth. (Is.\n65 : 16.)\n\nNow, therefore, swear unto me here by God.... And Abraham said,\nI will swear.... There they sware both of them. (Gen. 21 : 23, 24, 31.)\n\nBecause he [God] could swear by no greater, he sware by\nhimself. (Heb. 6 : 13.)\n\nAnd I ... made them swear by God. (Neh. 13 : 25.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Taking of Oaths Forbidden.\n\nBut I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven for it is\nGod's throne; nor by the earth for it is his footstool. (Mat. 5 : 34.)\n\n\n\n\nMarriage Approved and Sanctioned.\n\nAnd the Lord said, It is not good that the man should be alone:\nI will make him a help-meet for him. (Gen. 2 : 18.)\n\nAnd God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the\nearth. (Gen. 1 : 28.)\n\nFor this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave\nto his wife. (Mat. 19 : 5.)\n\nMarriage is honorable in all. (Heb. 13 : 4.)\n\n\n\n\nMarriage Disapproved.\n\nIt is good for a man not to touch a woman.... For I [Paul] would that\nall men were even as I myself.... It is good for them if they abide\neven as I. (1 Cor. 7 : 1, 7, 8.)\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Divorce Permitted.\n\nWhen a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass\nthat she find no favor in his eyes, ... then let him write her a\nbill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of\nhis house. (Deut. 24 : 1.)\n\nWhen thou goest out to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God\nhath delivered them into thy hands, and thou hast taken them captive,\nand seest among the captives a beautiful woman and hast a desire unto\nher, ... then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; ... and after\nthat thou shalt go in unto her and be her husband, and she shall be\nthy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou\nshalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all\nfor money; thou shalt not make merchandize of her. (Deut. 21 : 10-14.)\n\n\n\n\nDivorce Restricted.\n\nBut I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving\nfor the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery. (Mat.\n5 : 32.)\n\n\n\n\nAdultery Sanctioned.\n\nBut all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him,\nkeep alive for yourselves. (Num. 31 : 18.)\n\nAnd the Lord said unto Hosea, Go, take thee a wife of\nwhoredoms.... Then said the Lord to me, Go yet, love a woman, beloved\nof her friend, yet an adulteress.... So I bought her; ... and I said\nunto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the\nharlot, and thou shalt not be for another man; so will I also be for\nthee. (Hosea 1 : 2, and 3 : 1, 2, 3.)\n\n\n\n\nAdultery Forbidden.\n\nThou shalt not commit adultery. (Ex. 20 : 14.)\n\nWhoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Heb. 13 : 4.)\n\n\n\n\nMarriage or Cohabitation with a Sister Denounced.\n\nCursed is he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father,\nor the daughter of his mother. (Deut. 27 : 22.)\n\nAnd if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his\nmother's daughter, ... it is a wicked thing. (Lev. 20 : 17.)\n\n\n\n\nAbraham Married his Sister, and God Blessed the Union.\n\nAnd Abraham said, ... She is my sister; she is the daughter of\nmy father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my\nwife. (Gen. 20 : 11, 12.)\n\nAnd God said unto Abraham, As for Sarah, thy wife, ... I will bless\nher, and give thee a son also of her. (Gen. 17 : 15, 16.)\n\n\n\n\nA Man May Marry His Brother's Widow.\n\nIf brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no child the\nwife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's\nbrother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife. (Deut.\n25 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nA Man May Not Marry his Brother's Widow.\n\nIf a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing;\n... they shall be childless. (Lev. 20 : 21.)\n\n\n\n\nHatred to Kindred Enjoined.\n\nIf any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,\nand children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also,\nhe cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14 : 26.)\n\n\n\n\nHatred to Kindred Condemned.\n\nHonor thy father and mother. (Eph. 6 : 2.)\n\nHusbands, love your wives.... For no man ever yet hated his own\nflesh. (Eph. 5 : 25, 29.)\n\nWhosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. (1 John 3 : 15.)\n\n\n\n\nIntoxicating Beverages Recommended.\n\nGive strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine to those\nthat be of heavy hearts. Let him drink and forget his poverty, and\nremember his misery no more. (Prov. 31 : 6, 7.)\n\nAnd thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after,\nfor oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink. (Deut.\n14 : 26.)\n\nDrink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake,\nand thine often infirmities. (1 Tim. 5 : 23.)\n\nWine that maketh glad the heart of man. (Ps. 104 : 15.)\n\nWine which cheereth God and man. (Judges 9 : 13.)\n\n\n\n\nIntoxicating Beverages Discountenanced.\n\nWine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived\nthereby is not wise. (Prov. 20 : 1.)\n\nLook not thou upon the wine when it is red; when it giveth his color\nin the cup.... At the last it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like\nan adder. (Prov. 23 : 31, 32.)\n\n\n\n\nIt is Our Duty to Obey Rulers, Who are God's Ministers and Punish\nEvil Doers Only.\n\nLet every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no\npower but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever,\ntherefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and\nthey that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers\nare not a terror to good work, but to evil.... For this cause pay\nye tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending continually\nupon this very thing. (Rom. 13 : 1, 2, 3, 6.)\n\nThe Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat; all, therefore, whatsoever\nthey bid you observe, that observe and do. (Mat. 23 : 2, 3.)\n\nSubmit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake;\nwhether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors as unto them\nthat are sent of him for the punishment of evil-doers. (1 Pet. 2 :\n13, 14.)\n\nI counsel thee to keep the king's commandment.... Whoso keepeth the\ncommandment shall feel no evil thing. (Eccl. 8 : 2, 5.)\n\n\n\n\nIt is Not Our Duty Always to Obey Rulers, Who Sometimes Punish the\nGood, and Receive Damnation Therefor.\n\nBut the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded\nthem.... Therefore God dealt well with the midwives. (Ex. 1 : 17, 20.)\n\nShadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said, ... Be it known\nunto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the\ngolden image which thou hast set up. (Dan. 3 : 16, 18.)\n\nWherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree, ... (that\nwhoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, ... he\nshall be cast into the den of lions).... Now, when Daniel knew that\nthe writing was signed, he went into his house and ... kneeled upon his\nknees three times a day and prayed, ... as he did aforetime. (Dan. 6 :\n9, 7, 10.)\n\nAnd the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against\nhis Christ. For of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou\nhast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles,\nand the people of Israel, were gathered together. (Acts 4 : 26, 27.)\n\nBeware of the Scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and\nlove salutations in the market places, and the chief seats in the\nsynagogues.... These shall receive greater damnation. (Mark 12 : 38,\n39, 40.)\n\nAnd Herod with his men of war set him at naught, and mocked him, and\narrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.... And\nPilate gave sentence.... And when they were come to the place which\nis called Calvary, there they crucified him.... And the people stood\nby beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him. (Luke 23 :\n11, 24, 33, 35.)\n\n\n\n\nWoman's Rights Denied.\n\nAnd thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over\nthee. (Gen. 3 : 16.)\n\nI suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,\nbut to be in silence. (1 Tim. 2 : 12.)\n\nThey are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (1\nCor. 14 : 34.)\n\nEven as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. (1 Peter 3 : 6.)\n\n\n\n\nWoman's Rights Affirmed.\n\nAnd Deborah, a prophetess, ... judged Israel at that time.... And\nDeborah said unto Barak, Up, for this is the day in which the Lord hath\ndelivered Sisera into thy hand.... And the Lord discomfited Sisera,\nand all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword\nbefore Barak. (Judges 4 : 4, 14, 15.)\n\nThe inhabitants of the villages ceased; they ceased in Israel, until\nthat I, Deborah, arose, that I arose, a mother in Israel. (Judges\n5 : 7.)\n\nAnd on my hand-maidens I will pour out in those days my spirit,\nand they shall prophesy. (Acts 2 : 18.)\n\nAnd the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. (Acts\n21 : 9.)\n\n\n\n\nObedience to Masters Enjoined.\n\nServants, obey in all things your masters according to the\nflesh.... And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as to the Lord. (Col.\n3 : 22, 23.)\n\nServants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the\ngood and gentle, but also to the froward. (1 Peter 2 : 18.)\n\n\n\n\nObedience Due to God Only.\n\nThou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou\nserve. (Mat. 4 : 10.)\n\nBe ye not the servants of men. (1 Cor. 7 : 23.)\n\nNeither be ye called masters; for one is your master, even\nChrist. (Mat. 23 : 10.)\n\n\n\n\nThere is an Unpardonable Sin.\n\nHe that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never\nforgiveness. (Mark 3 : 29.)\n\n\n\n\nThere is No Unpardonable Sin.\n\nAnd by him all that believe are justified from all things. (Acts\n13 : 39.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHISTORICAL FACTS.\n\n\nMan was Created After the Other Animals.\n\nAnd God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after\ntheir kind.... And God said, Let us make man.... So God created man\nin his own image. (Gen. 1 : 25, 26, 27.)\n\n\n\n\nMan was Created Before the Other Animals.\n\nAnd the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone;\nI will make him a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God\nformed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought\nthem unto Adam to see what he would call them. (Gen. 2 : 18, 19.)\n\n\n\n\nNoah, by God's Command, Took Into the Ark Clean Beasts by Sevens.\n\nAnd the Lord said unto Noah, ... Of every clean beast thou shalt\ntake to thee by sevens.... And Noah did according to all that the\nLord commanded him. (Gen. 7 : 1, 2, 5.)\n\n\n\n\nNoah, by God's Command, Took Into the Ark Clean Beasts by Twos.\n\nOf clean beasts ... there went in two and two unto Noah into the Ark,\n... as God had commanded Noah. (Gen. 7 : 8, 9.)\n\n\n\n\nSeed Time and Harvest were Never to Cease.\n\nWhile the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest ... shall not\ncease. (Gen. 8 : 22.)\n\n\n\n\nSeed Time and Harvest Did Cease for Seven Years.\n\nAnd the seven years of dearth began to come.... And the famine was\nover all the face of the earth. (Gen. 41 : 54, 56.)\n\nFor these two years hath the famine been in the land; and yet there are\nfive years in which there shall neither be earing nor harvest. (Gen.\n45 : 6.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Hardened Pharaoh's Heart.\n\nBut I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people\ngo. (Ex. 4 : 21.)\n\nAnd the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh. (Ex. 9 : 12.)\n\n\n\n\nPharaoh Hardened His Own Heart.\n\nBut when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart,\nand hearkened not unto them. (Ex. 8 : 15.)\n\n\n\n\nAll the Cattle and Horses in Egypt Died.\n\nBehold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field,\nupon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and\nupon the sheep.... And all the cattle of Egypt died. (Ex. 9 : 3, 6.)\n\n\n\n\nAll the Horses of Egypt did Not Die.\n\nBut the Egyptians pursued after them (all the horses and chariots of\nPharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army) and overtook them encamping\nby the sea. (Ex. 14 : 9.)\n\n\n\n\nJohn the Baptist Recognized Jesus as the Messiah.\n\nThe next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the\nLamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.... And I saw\nand bare record that this is the Son of God. (John 1 : 29, 34.)\n\n\n\n\nJohn the Baptist did Not Recognize Jesus as the Messiah.\n\nNow, when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent\ntwo of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come,\nor do we look for another? (Mat. 11 : 2, 3.)\n\n\n\n\nJohn the Baptist was Elias.\n\nThis is Elias which was for to come. (Mat. 11 : 14.)\n\n\n\n\nJohn the Baptist was Not Elias.\n\nAnd they asked him, \"What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am\nnot. (John 1 : 21.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Father of Joseph, Mary's Husband, was Jacob.\n\nAnd Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born\nJesus. (Mat. 1 : 16.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Father of Mary's Husband was Heli.\n\nBeing ... the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli. (Luke 3 : 23.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Father of Salah was Arphaxad.\n\nAnd Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begat Salah. (Gen.\n11 : 12.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Father of Sala was Cainan.\n\nWhich was the son of Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was\nthe son of Arphaxad. (Luke 3 : 35, 36.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Infant Jesus was Taken into Egypt.\n\nHe took the young child and his mother by night and departed into\nEgypt, and was there until the death of Herod.... But when Herod was\ndead ... he arose and took the young child and his mother and came\n... and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. (Mat. 2 : 14, 15, 19, 21, 23.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Infant Jesus was Not Taken into Egypt.\n\nAnd when the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses,\nwere accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to\nthe Lord.... And when they had performed all things, according to the\nlaw of the Lord, they returned ... to their own city, Nazareth. (Luke\n2 : 22, 39.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus was Tempted in the Wilderness.\n\nAnd immediately [after his baptism] the spirit driveth him into the\nwilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days tempted of\nSatan. (Mark 1 : 12, 13.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus was Not Tempted in the Wilderness.\n\nAnd the third day [after his baptism] there was a marriage in Cana\nof Galilee.... And both Jesus was called and his disciples to the\nmarriage. (John 2 : 1, 2.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Preached his First Sermon Sitting on the Mount.\n\nAnd, seeing the multitude, he went up into a mountain, and when he\nwas set his disciples came unto him. And he opened his mouth and\ntaught them, saying. (Mat. 5 : 1, 2.)\n\n\n\n\nHe Preached his First Sermon Standing in the Plain.\n\nAnd he came down with them and stood in the plain; and the company\nof his disciples and a great multitude of people ... came to hear\nhim.... And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said. (Luke 6 :\n17, 20.)\n\n\n\n\nJohn was in Prison when Jesus went into Galilee.\n\nNow, after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee,\npreaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. (Mark 1 : 14.)\n\n\n\n\nJohn was Not in Prison when Jesus went into Galilee.\n\nThe day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee. (John 1 : 43.)\n\nAfter these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of\nJudea.... And John was also baptizing in Enon.... For John was not\nyet cast into prison. (John 3 : 22, 23, 24.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Disciples were Commanded to Take a Staff and Sandals.\n\nAnd commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey\nsave a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse;\nbut be shod with sandals. (Mark 6 : 8, 9.)\n\n\n\n\nThey were Commanded to Take Neither Staves Nor Sandals.\n\nProvide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; nor\nscrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet\nstaves. (Mat. 10 : 9, 10.)\n\n\n\n\nTwo Blind Men Besought Jesus.\n\nAnd behold, two blind men sitting by the way-side, when they heard\nthat Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord\nthou son of David. (Mat. 20 : 30.)\n\n\n\n\nOnly One Blind Man Besought Him.\n\nA certain blind man sat by the way-side begging.... And he cried,\nsaying, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. (Luke 18 : 35, 38.)\n\n\n\n\nTwo Men Coming Out of the Tombs Met Jesus.\n\nThere met him two, possessed with devils, coming out of the\ntombs. (Mat. 8 : 28.)\n\n\n\n\nOnly One Man Coming Out of the Tombs Met Him.\n\nThere met him, coming out of the tombs, a man with an unclean\nspirit. (Mark 5 : 2.)\n\n\n\n\nA Centurion Besought Jesus to Heal his Servant.\n\nThere came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, and saying, Lord,\nmy servant lieth at home sick of the palsy. (Mat. 8 : 5, 6.)\n\n\n\n\nNot the Centurion, but his Messengers, Besought Jesus.\n\nHe sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would\ncome and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they besought\nhim. (Luke 7 : 3, 4.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus was Crucified at the Third Hour.\n\nAnd it was the third hour, and they crucified him. (Mark 15 : 25.)\n\n\n\n\nHe was Not Crucified Until the Sixth Hour.\n\nAnd it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour;\nand he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king.... Shall I crucify your\nking? (John 19 : 14, 15.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Two Thieves Reviled Jesus.\n\nThe thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in\nhis teeth. (Mat. 27 : 44.)\n\nAnd they that were crucified with him, reviled him. (Mark 15 : 32.)\n\n\n\n\nOnly One of the Thieves Reviled Him.\n\nAnd one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him.... But\nthe other answering, rebuked him, saying, Dost thou not fear God,\nseeing thou art in the same condemnation? (Luke 23 : 39, 40.)\n\n\n\n\nVinegar Mingled with Gall was Offered Jesus.\n\nThey gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall. (Mat. 27 : 34.)\n\n\n\n\nWine Mingled with Myrrh was Offered to Him.\n\nAnd they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh. (Mark 15 : 23.)\n\n\n\n\nSatan Entered into Judas while at the Supper.\n\nAnd after the sop Satan entered into him. (John 13 : 27.)\n\n\n\n\nSatan Entered into him Before the Supper.\n\nThen entered Satan into Judas.... And he went his way and communed with\nthe chief priests and captains, how he might betray him.... Then came\nthe day of unleavened bread when the passover must be killed. (Luke\n22 : 3, 4, 7.)\n\n\n\n\nJudas Returned the Pieces of Silver.\n\nThen Judas ... brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief\npriests and elders. (Mat. 27 : 3.)\n\n\n\n\nJudas did Not Return the Pieces of Silver.\n\nNow, this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity. (Acts\n1 : 18.)\n\n\n\n\nJudas Hanged Himself.\n\nAnd he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed,\nand went and hanged himself. (Mat. 27 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nJudas did Not Hang Himself, but Died Another Way.\n\nAnd falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels\ngushed out. (Acts 1 : 18.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Potter's Field was Purchased by Judas.\n\nNow, this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity. (Acts\n1 : 18.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Potter's Field was Purchased by the Chief Priests.\n\nAnd the chief priests took the silver pieces ... and bought with them\nthe potter's field. (Mat. 27 : 6, 7.)\n\n\n\n\nBut One Woman Came to the Sepulcher.\n\nThe first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene, early, when it was\nyet dark, unto the sepulcher. (John 20 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nTwo Women Came to the Sepulcher.\n\nIn the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day\nof the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the\nsepulcher. (Mat. 28 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nThree Women Came to the Sepulcher.\n\nAnd when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother\nof James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come\nand anoint him. (Mark 16 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nMore than Three Women Came to the Sepulcher.\n\nIt was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James,\nand other women that were with them. (Luke 24 : 10.)\n\n\n\n\nIt was at Sunrise when they Came to the Sepulcher.\n\nAnd very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came\nunto the sepulcher, at the rising of the sun. (Mark 16 : 2.)\n\n\n\n\nIt was some time Before Sunrise when They came.\n\nThe first day of the week, cometh Mary Magdalene, early, while it\nwas yet dark, unto the sepulcher. (John 20 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nTwo Angels were Seen at the Sepulcher, Standing up.\n\nAnd it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold,\ntwo men stood by them in shining garments. (Luke 24 : 4.)\n\n\n\n\nBut One Angel was Seen, and He was Sitting Down.\n\nFor the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled\nback the stone from the door, and sat upon it.... And the angel\nanswered and said unto the women, Fear not. (Mat. 28 : 2, 5.)\n\n\n\n\nTwo Angels were Seen within the Sepulcher.\n\nAnd as she wept she stooped down and looked into the sepulcher,\nand seeth two angels in white. (John 20 : 11, 12.)\n\n\n\n\nBut One Angel was Seen within the Sepulcher.\n\nAnd entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the\nright side, clothed in a long white garment. (Mark 16 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nThe One Angel Seen was Without the Sepulcher.\n\nThe angel ... rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon\nit. (Mat. 28 : 2.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Women went and Told the Disciples of Christ's Resurrection.\n\nAnd they departed quickly from the sepulcher, with fear and great joy,\nand did run to bring his disciples word. (Mat. 28 : 8.)\n\nAnd returned from the sepulcher, and told all these things unto the\neleven. (Luke 24 : 9.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Women did Not Go and Tell the Disciples.\n\nAnd they went out quickly and fled from the sepulcher; for they\ntrembled and were amazed; neither said they anything to any man. (Mark\n16 : 8.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Angels Appeared After Peter and John Visited the Sepulcher.\n\nPeter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, [whom Jesus\nloved,] and came to the sepulcher, ... and went into the sepulcher,\nand seeth the linen clothes.... Then the disciples went away again. But\nMary stood without at the sepulcher, weeping; and as she wept she\nstooped down and looked into the sepulcher, and seeth two angels in\nwhite. (John 20 : 3, 6, 10-12.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Angels Appeared Before Peter Alone Visited the Sepulcher.\n\nBehold, two men stood by them [the women] in shining garments.... And\nthey ... returned from the sepulcher, and told all these things\nunto the eleven.... Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulcher,\nand stooping down he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves,\nand departed wondering. (Luke 24 : 4, 8, 9.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Appeared First to Mary Magdalene Only.\n\nNow, when Jesus was risen early, the first day of the week, he appeared\nfirst to Mary Magdalene. (Mark 16 : 9.)\n\nAnd when she had thus said, she turned herself back and saw Jesus\nstanding, and knew not that it was Jesus. (John 20 : 14.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Appeared First to the Two Marys.\n\nAnd as they [Mary Magdalene and the other Mary] went to tell his\ndisciples, behold Jesus met them, saying, All hail. (Mat. 28 : 9.)\n\n\n\n\nHe Appeared to Neither of the Marys.\n\n(See Luke 24 : 1-11.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus was to be Three Days and Three Nights in the Grave.\n\nSo shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart\nof the earth. (Mat. 12 : 40.)\n\n\n\n\nHe was but Two Days and Two Nights in the Grave.\n\nAnd it was the third hour, and they crucified him.... It was\nthe preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.... And\nPilate ... gave the body to Joseph. And he ... laid him in a\nsepulcher.... Now, when Jesus was risen early the first day of the\nweek, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. (Mark 15 : 25, 42, 44,\n45, 46; and 16 : 9.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Holy Ghost Was Bestowed at Pentecost.\n\nBut ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon\nyou.... Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days\nhence. (Acts 1 : 8, 5.)\n\nAnd when the day of Pentecost was fully come they were all of one\naccord in one place.... And they were all filled with the Holy\nGhost. (Acts 2 : 1, 4.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Holy Ghost was Bestowed Before Pentecost.\n\nAnd when he said this he breathed on them, and saith unto them,\nReceive ye the Holy Ghost. (John 20 : 22.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Disciples were Commanded Immediately After the Resurrection to\ngo into Galilee.\n\nThen said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid; go tell my brethren that\nthey go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. (Mat. 28 : 10.)\n\n\n\n\nThey were Commanded Immediately After the Resurrection to Tarry\nat Jerusalem.\n\nBut tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power\nfrom on high. (Luke 24 : 49.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus First Appeared to the Eleven Disciples in a Room at Jerusalem.\n\nAnd they rose up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found\nthe eleven gathered together.... And as they thus spake, Jesus himself\nstood in the midst of them.... But they were terrified and affrighted,\nand supposed that they had seen a spirit. (Luke 24 : 33, 36, 37.)\n\nThe same day, at evening, being the first day of the week, when the\ndoors were shut where the disciples were assembled, ... came Jesus\nand stood in the midst. (John 20 : 19.)\n\n\n\n\nHe First Appeared to them on a Mountain in Galilee.\n\nThen the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where\nJesus had appointed them. And when they saw him they worshipped him,\nbut some doubted. (Mat. 28 : 16, 17.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus Ascended from Mount Olivet.\n\nAnd when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken\nup, and a cloud received him out of their sight.... Then returned\nthey unto Jerusalem, from the mount called Olivet. (Acts 1 : 9, 12.)\n\n\n\n\nHe Ascended from Bethany.\n\nAnd he led them out as far as to Bethany; and he lifted up his hands\nand blessed them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was\nparted from them, and carried up into heaven. (Luke 24 : 50, 51.)\n\n\n\n\nDid he Ascend from Either Place?\n\nAfterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and\nupbraided them with their unbelief.... So then, after the Lord had\nspoken unto them, he was received up into heaven. (Mark 16 : 14, 19.)\n\n\n\n\nPaul's Attendants Heard the Voice, and Stood Speechless.\n\nAnd the men which journeyed with him [Paul] stood speechless, hearing\na voice but seeing no man. (Acts 9 : 7.)\n\n\n\n\nHis Attendants Heard Not the Voice, and were Prostrate.\n\nAnd they that were with me saw indeed the light and were afraid;\nbut they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. (Acts 22 : 9.)\n\nAnd when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice. (Acts\n26 : 14.)\n\n\n\n\nAbraham Departed to go into Canaan.\n\nAnd Abram took Sarah, his wife, and Lot, his brother's son, ... and\nthey went forth to go into the land of Canaan, and into the land of\nCanaan they came. (Gen. 12 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nAbraham Went not Knowing Where.\n\nBy faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which\nhe should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out,\nnot knowing whither he went. (Heb. 11 : 8.)\n\n\n\n\nAbraham had Two Sons.\n\nAbraham had two sons; one by a bond-maid, the other by a free\nwoman. (Gal. 4 : 22.)\n\n\n\n\nAbraham had but One Son.\n\nBy faith, Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac, ... his only\nbegotten son. (Heb. 11 : 17.)\n\n\n\n\nKeturah was Abraham's Wife.\n\nThen again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. (Gen.\n25 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nKeturah was Abraham's Concubine.\n\nThe sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine. (1 Chron. 1 : 32.)\n\n\n\n\nAbraham Begat a Son when he was a Hundred Years Old, by the\nInterposition of Providence.\n\nSarah conceived and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set\ntime of which God had spoken to him. (Gen. 21 : 2.)\n\nAnd being not weak in the faith, he considered not his own body,\nnow dead, when he was about a hundred years old. (Rom. 4 : 19.)\n\nTherefore sprang there from one, and him as good as dead, so many as\nthe stars of the sky. (Heb. 11 : 12.)\n\n\n\n\nAbraham Begat Six Children More After he was a Hundred Years Old,\nWithout any Interposition of Providence.\n\nThen again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah; and she\nbare him Zimram, and Jockshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak,\nand Shuah. (Gen. 25 : 1, 2.)\n\n\n\n\nJacob Bought a Sepulcher of the Sons of Hamor.\n\nAnd the bones of Joseph ... buried they in Shechem, in a parcel\nof ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor, the father of\nShechem. (Josh. 24 : 32.)\n\n\n\n\nAbraham Bought it of the Sons of Emmor.\n\nIn the sepulcher that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons\nof Emmor, the father of Sychem. (Acts 7 : 16.)\n\n\n\n\nGod Promised the Land of Canaan to Abraham and his Seed.\n\nAnd the Lord said unto Abraham,... All the land which thou seest,\nto thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever.... Unto thee and to\nthy seed after thee. (Gen. 13 : 14, 15, and 17 : 8.)\n\n\n\n\nAbraham and his Seed Never Received the Promised Land.\n\nAnd he gave him [Abraham] none inheritance in it, no, not so much as\nto set his foot on. (Acts 7 : 5.)\n\nBy faith he sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country,\ndwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of\nthe same promise.... These all died in faith, not having received\nthe promises. (Heb. 11 : 9, 13.)\n\n\n\n\nBaasha Died in the Twenty-sixth Year of Asa.\n\nSo Baasha slept with his fathers, ... and Elah, his son, reigned in\nhis stead.... In the twenty and sixth year of Asa, king of Judah,\nbegan Elah to reign over Israel. (1 Kings 16 : 6, 8.)\n\n\n\n\nBaasha did Not Die in the Twenty-sixth Year of Asa.\n\nIn the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha, king of\nIsrael, came up against Judah. (2 Chron. 16 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nAhaziah was the Youngest Son of Jehoram.\n\nAnd the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, his [Jehoram's]\nyoungest son, king in his stead; for the band of men that came with\nthe Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. (2 Chron. 22 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nAhaziah was Not the Youngest Son of Jehoram.\n\nThe Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and\nof the Arabians, ... and they came up into Judah ... and carried away\nall the substance that was found in the king's house, and sons also,\nand his wives; so that there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz,\nthe youngest of his sons. (2 Chron. 21 : 16, 17.)\n\n\n\n\nAhaziah was Twenty-two Years Old when he Began to Reign, being Eighteen\nYears Younger than his Father.\n\nThirty and two years old was he [Jehoram] when he began to reign;\nand he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.... And Ahaziah reigned in\nhis stead.... Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to\nreign. (2 Kings 8 : 17, 24, 26.)\n\n\n\n\nAhaziah was Forty-two Years Old when he Began to Reign, being Two\nYears Older than his Father.\n\nThirty and two years old was he [Jehoram] when he began to reign, and\nhe reigned in Jerusalem eight years. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem\nmade Ahaziah his youngest son, king in his stead. Forty and two years\nold was Ahaziah when he began to reign. (2 Chron. 21 : 20, and 22 :\n1, 2.)\n\n\n\n\nMichal had No Child.\n\nTherefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of\nher death. (2 Sam. 6 : 23.)\n\n\n\n\nMichal had Five Children.\n\nThe five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul. (2 Sam. 21 : 8.)\n\n\n\n\nDavid was Tempted by the Lord to Number the People.\n\nAnd the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved\nDavid against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2 Sam.\n24 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nDavid was Tempted by Satan to Number the People.\n\nAnd Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number\nIsrael. (1 Chron. 21 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nThere were 800,000 Warriors of Israel and 500,000 of Judah.\n\nAnd Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king; and\nthere were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the\nsword; and the men of Judah five hundred thousand men. (2 Sam. 24 : 9.)\n\n\n\n\nThere were 1,100,000 of Israel and 470,000 of Judah.\n\nAnd Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And\nall they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand\n[1,100,000] men that drew the sword; and Judah was four hundred three\nscore and ten thousand [470,000] men that drew the sword. (1 Chron.\n21 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nDavid Sinned in Numbering the People.\n\nAnd David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And\nDavid said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done. (2\nSam. 24 : 10.)\n\n\n\n\nDavid Never Sinned except in the Matter of Uriah.\n\nDavid did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not\naside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life,\nsave only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. (1 Kings 15 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nDavid Slew 700 Syrian Charioteers and 40,000 Horsemen.\n\nAnd David slew the men of the seven hundred chariots of the Syrians,\nand forty thousand horsemen. (2 Sam. 10 : 18.)\n\n\n\n\nDavid Slew 7,000 Syrian Charioteers and 40,000 Footmen.\n\nAnd David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in\nchariots, and forty thousand footmen. (1 Chron. 19 : 18.)\n\n\n\n\nDavid Paid for a Threshing Floor Fifty Shekels of Silver.\n\nSo David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels\nof silver. (2 Sam. 24 : 24.)\n\n\n\n\nDavid Paid for it Six Hundred Shekels of Gold.\n\nSo David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold. (1\nChron. 21 : 25.)\n\n\n\n\nGoliath was Slain by David.\n\nAnd there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines,\nnamed Goliath of Gath.... So David ... smote the Philistine and slew\nhim. (1 Sam. 17 : 4, 50.)\n\n\n\n\nGoliath was Slain by Elhanan.\n\nElhanan, the son of Jaare-origim, a Bethlehemite, slew [\"the brother\nof,\" supplied by the translators] Goliath the Gittite. (2 Sam.\n21 : 19.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSPECULATIVE DOCTRINES.\n\n\nChrist is Equal with God.\n\nI and my Father are one. (John 10 : 30.)\n\nWho, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal\nwith God. (Phil. 2 : 6.)\n\n\n\n\nChrist is Not Equal with God.\n\nMy Father is greater than I. (John 14 : 28.)\n\nOf that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven,\nbut my Father only. (Mat. 24 : 36.)\n\n\n\n\nChrist Judged Men.\n\nThe Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the\nSon.... As I hear I judge. (John 5 : 22, 30.)\n\n\n\n\nChrist Judged No Man.\n\nI judge no man. (John 8 : 15.)\n\nIf any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not; for I came\nnot to judge the world, but to save the world. (John 12 : 47.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus was All Powerful.\n\nAll power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Mat. 28 : 18.)\n\nThe Father loveth the son, and hath given all things into his\nhand. (John 3 : 35.)\n\n\n\n\nJesus was Not All Powerful.\n\nAnd he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands on\na few sick folk and healed them. (Mark 6 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Law was Superceded by the Christian Dispensation.\n\nThe law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom\nof God is preached. (Luke 16 : 16.)\n\nHaving abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments\ncontained in ordinances. (Eph. 2 : 15.)\n\nBut now we are delivered from the law. (Rom. 7 : 6.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Law was Not Superceded by the Christian Dispensation.\n\nI come not to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till\nheaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass\nfrom the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break\none of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be\ncalled the least in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 5 : 17, 18, 19.)\n\n\n\n\nChrist's Mission was Peace.\n\nAnd suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly\nhost praising God and saying, Glory to God In the highest, and on\nearth peace, good will toward men. (Luke 2 : 13, 14.)\n\nAnd thou, child, shall be called the Prophet of the Highest.... To\nguide our feet into the way of peace. (Luke 1 : 76, 79.)\n\nAnd his name shall be called ... The Prince of Peace. (Is. 9 : 6.)\n\n\n\n\nChrist's Mission was Not Peace.\n\nThink not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send\npeace, but a sword. (Mat. 10 : 34.)\n\nI am come to send fire on the earth. (Luke 12 : 49.)\n\n\n\n\nChrist Received not Testimony from Man.\n\nYe sent unto John and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive\nnot testimony from man. (John 5 : 33, 34.)\n\n\n\n\nChrist Did Receive Testimony from Man.\n\nAnd ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from\nthe beginning. (John 15 : 27.)\n\n\n\n\nChrist's Witness of Himself is True.\n\nI am one that bear witness of myself.... Though I bear record of\nmyself, yet my record is true. (John 8 : 18, 14.)\n\n\n\n\nChrist's Witness of Himself is Not True.\n\nIf I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. (John 5 : 31.)\n\n\n\n\nIt was Lawful for the Jews to Put Jesus to Death.\n\nThe Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to\ndie. (John 19 : 7.)\n\n\n\n\nIt was Not Lawful for the Jews to Put him to Death.\n\nThe Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any\nman to death. (John 18 : 31.)\n\n\n\n\nChildren are Punished for the Sins of their Parents.\n\nI, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of\nthe fathers upon the children. (Ex. 20 : 5.)\n\nBecause by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies\nof the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall\nsurely die. (2 Sam. 12 : 14.)\n\n\n\n\nChildren are Not Punished for the Sins of their Parents.\n\nThe son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. (Ezek. 18 : 20.)\n\nNeither shall the children be put to death for the fathers. (Deut.\n24 : 16.)\n\n\n\n\nMan is Justified by Faith Alone.\n\nBy the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. (Rom.\n3 : 20.)\n\nKnowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by\nthe faith of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 2 : 16.)\n\nThe just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith. (Gal. 3 :\n11, 12.)\n\nFor if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to\nglory. (Rom. 4 : 2.)\n\n\n\n\nMan is Not Justified by Faith Alone.\n\nWas not Abraham our father justified by works?... Ye see then how that\nby works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (James 2 : 21, 24.)\n\nThe doers of the law shall be justified. (Rom. 2 : 13.)\n\n\n\n\nIt is Impossible to Fall from Grace.\n\nAnd I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish,\nneither shall any pluck them out of my hand. (John 10 : 28.)\n\nNeither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers,\nnor things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor\nany other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of\nGod which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8 : 38, 39.)\n\n\n\n\nIt is Possible to Fall from Grace.\n\nBut when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and\ncommitteth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that\nthe wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath\ndone shall not be mentioned; in his trespass that he hath trespassed,\nand in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. (Ezek.\n18 : 24.)\n\nFor it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have\ntasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy\nGhost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the\nworld to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto\nrepentance. (Heb. 6 : 4, 5, 6.)\n\nFor if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through\nthe knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again\nentangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them\nthan the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known\nthe way of righteousness than, after they have known it, to turn from\nthe holy commandment delivered unto them. (2 Peter 2 : 20, 21.)\n\n\n\n\nNo Man is Without Sin.\n\nFor there is no man that sinneth not. (1 Kings 8 : 46.)\n\nWho can say, I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my\nsin? (Prov. 20 : 9.)\n\nFor there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth\nnot. (Eccl. 7 : 20.)\n\nThere is none righteous, no, not one. (Rom. 3 : 10.)\n\n\n\n\nChristians are Sinless.\n\nWhosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; ... he cannot sin,\nbecause he is born of God.... Whosoever abideth in him sinneth\nnot.... He that committeth sin is of the devil. (1 John 3 : 9, 6, 8.)\n\n\n\n\nThere is to be a Resurrection of the Dead.\n\nThe trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised. (1 Cor. 15 : 52.)\n\nAnd I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; ... and they\nwere judged, every man according to their works. (Rev. 20 : 12, 13.)\n\nThe hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear\nhis voice, and shall come forth. (John 5 : 28, 29.)\n\nFor if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. (1 Cor. 15 : 16.)\n\n\n\n\nThere is to be no Resurrection of the Dead.\n\nAs the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down\nto the grave shall come up no more. (Job 7 : 9.)\n\nThe dead know not anything, neither have they any more a\nreward. (Eccl. 9 : 5.)\n\nThey are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall\nnot rise. (Is. 26 : 14.)\n\n\n\n\nReward and Punishment to be Bestowed in this World.\n\nBehold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth, much more\nthe wicked and the sinner. (Prov. 11 : 31.)\n\n\n\n\nReward and Punishment to be Bestowed in the Next World.\n\nAnd the dead were judged out of those things which were written in\nthe books, according to their works. (Rev. 20 : 12.)\n\nThen he shall reward every man according to his works. (Mat. 16 : 27.)\n\nAccording to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor.\n5 : 10.)\n\n\n\n\nAnnihilation the Portion of all Mankind.\n\nWhy died not I from the womb? Why did I not give up the ghost when I\ncame out of the belly?... For now should I have lain still and been\nquiet; I should have slept; then had I been at rest, with kings and\ncounselors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves;\nor with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver;\nor as a hidden, untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never\nsaw the light. There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the\nweary be at rest.... The small and great are there, and the servant\nis free from his master. Wherefore is light given to him that is\nin misery, and life unto the bitter in soul, which long for death,\nbut it cometh not, ... which rejoice exceedingly and are glad, when\nthey can find the grave? (Job. 3 : 11, 13-17, 19-22.)\n\nThe dead know not anything.... For there is no work, nor device,\nnor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest. (Eccl. 9 :\n5, 10.)\n\nFor that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth the beasts, even\none thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea,\nthey have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above\na beast.... All go unto one place. (Eccl. 3 : 19, 20.)\n\n\n\n\nEndless Misery the Portion of a Part of Mankind.\n\nThese shall go away into everlasting punishment. (Mat. 25 : 46.)\n\nAnd the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and\nbrimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be\ntormented day and night for ever and ever.... And whosoever was\nnot found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of\nfire. (Rev. 20 : 10, 15.)\n\nAnd the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever. (Rev.\n14 : 11.)\n\nAnd many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake, some to\neverlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Dan.\n12 : 2.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Earth is to be Destroyed.\n\nThe earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (2\nPeter 3 : 10.)\n\nThey shall perish, but thou remainest. (Heb. 1 : 11.)\n\nAnd I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose\nface the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was no place found\nfor them. (Rev. 20 : 11.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Earth is Never to be Destroyed.\n\nWho laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be removed\nforever. (Ps. 104 : 5.)\n\nBut the earth abideth forever. (Eccl. 1 : 4.)\n\n\n\n\nNo Evil Shall Happen to the Godly.\n\nThere shall no evil happen to the just. (Prov. 12 : 21.)\n\nWho is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is\ngood? (1 Peter 3 : 13.)\n\n\n\n\nEvil Does Happen to the Godly.\n\nWhom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he\nreceiveth. (Heb. 12 : 6.)\n\nAnd the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant, Job,\nthat there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and upright\nman?... So went Satan forth ... and smote Job with sore boils from\nthe sole of his foot unto his crown. (Job 2 : 3, 7.)\n\n\n\n\nWorldly Good and Prosperity the Lot of the Godly.\n\nThere shall no evil happen to the just. (Prov. 12 : 21.)\n\nFor the Lord loveth judgment and forsaketh not his saints; they are\npreserved forever.... The wicked watcheth the righteous and seeketh\nto slay him. The Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him\nwhen he is judged.... Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright;\nfor the end of that man is peace. (Ps. 37 : 28, 32, 33, 37.)\n\nBlessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the\nungodly.... Whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. (Ps. 1 : 1, 3.)\n\nAnd the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man. (Gen.\n39 : 2.)\n\nSo the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning. (Job\n42 : 12.)\n\n\n\n\nWorldly Misery and Destitution the Lot of the Godly.\n\nThey were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain\nwith the sword; they wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins;\nbeing destitute, afflicted, tormented; ... they wandered in deserts,\nand in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. (Heb. 11 :\n37, 38.)\n\nThese are they which came out of great tribulation. (Rev. 7 : 14.)\n\nYea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer\npersecution. (2 Tim. 3 : 12.)\n\nAnd ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. (Luke 21 : 17.)\n\n\n\n\nWorldly Prosperity a Blessing and a Reward of Righteousness.\n\nThere is no man that hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or\nfather, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and\nthe gospel's, but he shall receive a hundred-fold now in this time,\nhouses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and\nlands. (Mark 10 : 29, 30.)\n\nI have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous\nforsaken nor his seed begging bread. (Ps. 37 : 25.)\n\nBlessed is the man that feareth the Lord.... Wealth and riches shall\nbe in his house. (Ps. 112 : 1, 3.)\n\nIf thou return unto the Almighty, thou shalt be built up.... Then\nthou shalt lay up gold as dust. (Job 22 : 23, 24.)\n\nIn the house of the righteous is much treasure. (Prov. 15 : 6.)\n\n\n\n\nWorldly Prosperity a Curse and a Bar to Future Reward.\n\nBlessed be ye poor. (Luke 6 : 20.)\n\nLay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth.... For where your\ntreasure is there will your heart be also. (Mat. 6 : 19, 21.)\n\nAnd it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the\nangels into Abraham's bosom. (Luke 16 : 22.)\n\nIt is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for\na rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Mat. 19 : 24.)\n\nWo unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. (Luke\n6 : 24.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Christian Yoke is Easy.\n\nCome unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give\nyou rest. Take my yoke upon you.... For my yoke is easy and my burden\nis light. (Mat. 11 : 28-30.)\n\nWho is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is\ngood? (1 Peter 3 : 13.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Christian Yoke is Not Easy.\n\nIn the world ye shall have tribulation. (John 16 : 33.)\n\nYea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer\npersecution. (2 Tim. 3 : 12.)\n\nWhom the Lord loveth be chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom\nhe receiveth.... But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are\npartakers, then are ye bastards and not sons. (Heb. 12 : 6, 8.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Fruit of God's Spirit is Love and Gentleness.\n\nThe fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering,\ngentleness, goodness. (Gal. 5 : 22.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Fruit of God's Spirit is Vengeance and Fury.\n\nAnd the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him.... And he ... slew\na thousand men. (Judges 15 : 14, 15.)\n\nAnd it came to pass on the morrow that the evil spirit from God came\nupon Saul, ... and there was a javelin in Saul's hand. And Saul cast\nthe javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with\nit. (1 Sam. 18 : 10, 11.)\n\n\n\n\nProsperity and Longevity Enjoyed by the Wicked.\n\nWherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in\npower? Their seed is established in their sight with them, and their\noffspring before their eyes. Their houses are safe from fear. (Job 21 :\n7, 8, 9.)\n\nThey [men of the world] are full of children and leave the rest of\ntheir substance to their babes. (Ps. 17 : 14.)\n\nI was envious at the foolish when I saw the prosperity of the\nwicked.... They are not in trouble as other men.... Behold, these are\nthe ungodly who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. (Ps.\n73 : 3, 5, 12.)\n\nThere is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his\nwickedness. (Eccl. 7 : 15.)\n\nWherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? Wherefore are all they\nhappy that deal very treacherously? (Jer. 12 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nProsperity and Longevity Denied to the Wicked.\n\nThe light of the wicked shall be put out.... Terrors shall make him\nafraid on every side.... He shall be driven from light into darkness,\nand chased out of the world. He shall neither have son nor nephew\namong his people, nor any remaining in his dwellings. (Job. 18 : 5,\n12, 18, 19.)\n\nBut it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong\nhis days. (Eccl. 8 : 23.)\n\nBloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days. (Ps.\n55 : 23.)\n\nThe years of the wicked shall be shortened. (Prov. 10 : 27.)\n\nThey [the hypocrites] die in youth. (Job. 36 : 14.)\n\nBe not over much wicked, neither be foolish; why shouldst thou die\nbefore your time? (Eccl. 7 : 17.)\n\n\n\n\nPoverty is a Blessing.\n\nBlessed be ye poor.... Woe unto you that are rich! (Luke 6 : 20, 24.)\n\nHath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs\nof the kingdom? (James 2 : 5.)\n\n\n\n\nRiches a Blessing.\n\nThe rich man's wealth is his strong tower, but the destruction of\nthe poor is their poverty. (Prov. 10 : 15.)\n\nIf thou return unto the Almighty then thou shalt be built up.... Thou\nshalt then lay up gold as dust. (Job 22 : 23, 24.)\n\nSo the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning,\nfor he had 14,000 sheep, and 6,000 camels and a thousand yoke of oxen,\nand a thousand she asses. (Job 42 : 12.)\n\n\n\n\nNeither Poverty nor Riches a Blessing.\n\nGive me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for\nme; lest I be full and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord? or lest\nI be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain. (Prov. 30 :\n8, 9.)\n\n\n\n\nWisdom a Source of Enjoyment.\n\nHappy is the man that findeth wisdom.... Her ways are ways of\npleasantness, and in her paths are peace. (Prov. 3 : 13, 17.)\n\n\n\n\nWisdom a Source of Vexation, Grief, and Sorrow.\n\nAnd I gave my heart to know wisdom.... I perceived that this also\nis vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief, and he that\nincreaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow. (Eccl. 1 : 17, 18.)\n\n\n\n\nA Good Name a Blessing.\n\nA good name is better than precious ointment. (Eccl. 7 : 1.)\n\nA good name is rather to be chosen than great riches. (Prov. 22 : 1.)\n\n\n\n\nA Good Name is a Curse.\n\nWoe unto you when all men shall speak well of you. (Luke 6 : 26.)\n\n\n\n\nLaughter Commended.\n\nTo everything there is a season, and a time.... A time to weep and\na time to laugh. (Eccl. 3 : 1, 4.)\n\nThen I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the\nsun than to eat and to drink, and to be merry. (Eccl. 8 : 15.)\n\nA merry heart doeth good, like a medicine. (Prov. 17 : 22.)\n\n\n\n\nLaughter Condemned.\n\nWoe unto you that laugh now. (Luke 6 : 25.)\n\nSorrow is better than laughter; for by the sadness of the countenance\nthe heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of\nmourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. (Eccl. 7 :\n3, 4.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Rod of Correction a Remedy for Foolishness.\n\nFoolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction\nshall drive it far from him. (Prov. 22 : 15.)\n\n\n\n\nThere is No Remedy for Foolishness.\n\nThough thou shouldst bray a fool in mortar, ... yet will not his\nfoolishness depart from him. (Prov. 27 : 22.)\n\n\n\n\nTemptation to be Desired.\n\nCount it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations. (James 1 : 2.)\n\n\n\n\nTemptation Not to be Desired.\n\nLead us not into temptation. (Mat. 6 : 13.)\n\n\n\n\nProphecy is Sure.\n\nWe have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that\nye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place. (2 Peter\n1 : 19.)\n\n\n\n\nProphecy is Not Sure.\n\nAt what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning\na kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if\nthat nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I\nwill repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what\ninstant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom,\nto build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey\nnot my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would\nbenefit them. (Jer. 18 : 7-10.)\n\nThe prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their\nmeans.... From the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth\nfalsely. (Jer. 5 : 31, and 6 : 13.)\n\n\n\n\nMan's Life was to be One Hundred and Twenty Years.\n\nHis days shall be a hundred and twenty years. (Gen. 6 : 3.)\n\n\n\n\nMan's Life is but Seventy Years.\n\nThe days of our years are three score years and ten. (Ps. 90 : 10.)\n\n\n\n\nMiracles a Proof of Divine Mission.\n\nNow, when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent\ntwo of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come,\nor do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and\nshow John again those things which ye do hear and see; the blind\nreceive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed,\nand the deaf hear, the dead are raised. (Mat. 11 : 2-5.)\n\nRabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do\nthese miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (John 3 : 2.)\n\nAnd Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians;\nand the people feared the Lord and believed the Lord and his servant\nMoses. (Ex. 14 : 31.)\n\n\n\n\nMiracles Not a Proof of Divine Mission.\n\nAnd Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants\nand it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and\nthe sorcerers. Now, the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like\nmanner with their enchantments, for they cast down every man his rod,\nand they became serpents. (Ex. 7 : 10-12.)\n\nIf there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth\nthee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass\nwhereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which\nthou hast not known, and let us serve them, thou shalt not hearken unto\nthe words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. (Deut. 13 : 1-3.)\n\nIf I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do our sons cast them\nout? (Luke 11 : 19.)\n\n\n\n\nMoses was a Very Meek Man.\n\nNow, the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon\nthe face of the earth. (Num. 12 : 3.)\n\n\n\n\nMoses was a Very Cruel Man.\n\nAnd Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?... Now,\ntherefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every\nwoman that hath known man. (Num. 31 : 15, 17.)\n\n\n\n\nElijah Went up to Heaven.\n\nAnd Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2 Kings 2 : 11.)\n\n\n\n\nNone but Christ Ever Ascended into Heaven.\n\nNo man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,\neven the Son of Man. (John 3 : 13.)\n\n\n\n\nAll Scripture is Inspired.\n\nAll scripture is given by inspiration of God. (2 Tim. 3 : 16.)\n\n\n\n\nSome Scripture is Not Inspired.\n\nBut I speak this by permission and not by commandment.... But to the\nrest speak I, not the Lord. (1 Cor. 7 : 6, and 5 : 12.)\n\nThat which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord. (2 Cor. 11 : 17.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE DEVIL.\n\n\nI have nothing new to offer on this old subject, and I therefore warn\nthe reader not to expect any wonderful revelations. The Devil is not\nan object of recent discovery. He is as old as the hills. Everybody\nseems to know him, and he seems to know everybody. It would therefore\nbe in vain for me to attempt to give any information respecting\nthis old friend. However, as there are some thoughts which persist\nin bolting into my mind regarding old Nick, I have concluded to jot\nthem down for those who have a taste for devilish reading.\n\nIt was always a question that greatly perplexed me, when a boy, why\nGod should create the Devil. I never could see it in any other light\nthan that of an egregious blunder. Why should an infinitely good being\ncreate an infinitely bad being? Why did not the Creator make all of\nhis creatures perfect? Why did he not save them from being lost? Why\ndid he form man to place him in the garden to be tempted and ruined\nwhen it was in the Creator's power to prevent his fall? Why did he not\ncreate him so good and so strong that it would be impossible for him\nto do wrong? Why was the Serpent (the Devil) made so much stronger and\nwiser than man? If Adam had only been made a great deal stronger, and\nthe Serpent less seductive, the human race might have had a glorious\nand brilliant career. But as it was a powerful serpent-devil on the\none hand, and on the other, a weak-headed know-nothing man, is it\nnot clear that better results could not have been expected?\n\nWhy did not the author of the red man (Adam) tell him that he was\ngoing to have a severe temptation?--that he was soon to meet his great\nadversary? It is highly probable that Adam could have made a better\nshowing if he had only been advised of the situation in time. But as\nit was he did not have a fair chance. It would have been no more than\njustice to have told Adam and Eve all about the Serpent-devil which\nwas hid away somewhere in the garden like a snake in the grass. It\nwould have been only fair to have posted on all the fences and walls\nabout the garden, this sign, \"Adam and Eve, Beware of Snakes!\" This\nwould have given them a chance for their lives. Poor Adam and Eve! They\nwere not a bad lot, but were transplanted too early, and were nipped\nin the bud by the great original Serpent, who was acting according\nto his nature and circumstances, and therefore we cannot find it\nin our hearts to be too severe on his Satanic Majesty. If Satan was\ngreat, it was not won by his own powers, he had greatness thrust upon\nhim. Let us be just; let us give the Devil his due. I have no doubt\nbut he has grievances, if there were any court where he could offer\nhis complaints.\n\nThe Creator made both man and Serpent-devil, knowing just what would\nand must come to pass, and he did it all for his own glory. He\nalso made hell for his own glory. Surely the Lord's ways are not\nour ways. For no Modoc Indian would entertain such a design toward\nhis children, no matter how bad they might be, or how vicious his\nown nature.\n\nWe cannot think of a creator without seeing that he as the author of\nall things, is responsible for good and evil, for right and wrong,\nfor ignorance and knowledge, for truth and error. Man is therefore, no\nmore responsible for his nature than a steam engine is responsible for\nits defects. The defects must be attributed to the maker in both cases.\n\nAdam knew good and evil without eating of the tree of knowledge. He\nhad a brain, and his thoughts were imperfect; sometimes they were\nrelatively correct, and then again they were wholly wrong or in\nerror. This was knowing good and evil, therefore he knew good and evil\nwithout eating of the prohibited fruit, just as surely as he had a\nbrain. The tree of knowledge is a very childish story. Knowledge does\nnot grow on trees, nor does much of it exist in heads which entertain\nsuch fables as a divine revelation.\n\nMan was created with a brain to do his thinking and knowing, and by\nits very nature of knowing he must know good and evil, and yet he\nis cursed for knowing good and evil. As well might the Creator give\nthe bird wings, toss it in the air and then damn it for flying. But\neven supposing the story to be true, namely, that the fruit of the\ntree made one to know good and evil, why should such desirable fruit\nbe forbidden? What would the world be without the knowledge of good\nand evil? Man cannot know good without also knowing evil. They are\ninseparable. God himself knows good and evil, and if it is good for\nhim to have such knowledge, then it surely must be good for you and\nme. The love of knowledge is the fountain of life. Man must have\nknowledge or his life is a mere cipher. All hail then to Mother Eve,\nwho first tasted of the tree of knowledge, who first quenched her\nthirst at this fountain from which the whole race of thirsty souls\nhave delighted to drink. Mythology abounds in stories about the gods;\nabout their imperfections and weaknesses, but this account of the\nSerpent-devil and the tree of knowledge is the silliest fable of\nall, and has entailed indescribable misery upon the human race. The\nprohibition of knowledge has left an inherited twist in human\nnature. Even now in the afternoon of the nineteenth century mankind\ndoes not know much--and it is largely due to this first commandment\nnot to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Has not the\nchurch always prohibited knowledge? Has she not stood in the way of\nevery great reform? Knowledge is not important. Only believe. Believe\nin the Bible, but believe it only as the priest explains it.\n\nIt seems that the Serpent-devil knew more about the nature of man,\nand what would result from his eating the fruit of the tree of\nknowledge than God did. Jehovah told Adam in plain terms, that if\nhe ate of the fruit of that tree he would die that very day. But\nthe Serpent-devil told Eve (in French I suppose) that she and her\n\"hubby\" would do no such a thing, but on the contrary it would be\na great blessing to them, and that they would become as gods (there\nwere lots of gods in those days and many of them \"no great shakes\"),\nknowing good and evil. It turned out just as the Serpent-devil had\ntold Mother Eve; they did not die. And when God saw what Adam and Eve\nhad done he called a conclave of gods, and after due deliberation\nvoted to drive them out of the garden penniless, to live upon the\ncold charities of an unfriendly world. And this is the same God who\ncommands us to forgive and to love our enemies. That would not be\ngod-like, and therefore I hold the commandment invalid.\n\nIn this august assemblage of the celestial hosts, one of their number\nassigns the reasons for expelling Adam and Eve from the garden in these\nwords: \"Behold the man (and woman) has become as one of us to know\ngood and evil.\" (Gen. 3 : 22.) Here we see it is a surprise to the\ngods that man had become as one of them, knowing good and evil. Yet\nthese gods are supposed to know all things from all eternity to all\neternity. Do the gods forget things as we poor mortals do?\n\nThe Serpent had told Eve just what would happen, and God told Adam\njust that which did not happen. The Serpent said: \"For God doth\nknow that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,\nand ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Ye shall not surely\ndie.\" (Gen. 3 : 5, 4.) The Serpent gave it straight, and God made a\nmistake to say the least. In all this story about the fall of man,\nthe Devil appears to be a better friend of man than his Creator.\n\nThe Serpent was in reality not the enemy, but the friend of man. He\nspoke words of truth and encouragement to Adam at a time when he needed\ngood counsel. It is not to be forgotten that he spoke the truth. The\npoisonous tongue of malice has called him the father of lies, but this\nsaying is a lie itself--and a bald-headed lie of sufficient antiquity\nto be itself most appropriately called the father of lies. The Devil,\nLucifer, is the light-bearer, the truth revealer; but the world at\nlarge has an impression that there is a screw loose somewhere, and\nhave unwittingly ascribed the evil to the Devil, when a very slight\nstudy of his character and deeds will show that \"the Devil is not\nhalf as black as he is painted.\"\n\nThe next account we have of him is in the book of Job (not a Hebrew\nwriting), where he appears under the title of Satan. It is to be\nborne in mind that he has many names. In the book of Genesis we left\nhim a serpent with a curse pronounced upon him: \"Because thou hast\ndone this thou art cursed above all cattle [what kind of cattle is\na snake?] and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly thou\nshalt go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.\" (Gen. 3 :\n14.) Prior to the great fall of Adam and Eve, when they fell upward\nand became as the gods, it seems the Serpent had always hopped along\nerect, on the tip end of his tail, but because he had divulged some\ncourt secrets, he was condemned to crawl upon his belly the rest\nof his natural life (which is, I should remark, uncommonly long);\nbut in the book of Job he says of himself that he has been \"walking\nup and down in the earth.\" Who told him to get up? Was he not cursed\nto go on his belly for all time to come? How could he walk? A snake\nhas no legs. When, where, how, and by whom was this transformation\nof a hideous serpent into a prince-like man, accomplished? I don't\nknow. Perhaps it is a sort of Santa Claus story, coming down to us\nfrom the childhood of the race. All peoples have similar traditions\nwhich spring from early myths. Our Devil story will have to get in\nline and march in the procession of fables. There are many people,\nand people of the very best kind, who do not have any Devil. He\nhas left them and gone on a permanent vacation. On the other hand,\nthere are folks who could not feel happy if they thought there were\nno Devil. To all such, who may read this, I would ask a few questions\nwhich if they will intelligently answer, I shall be greatly obliged.\n\nDid the Serpent talk? How could he speak without having the\nvocal organs necessary to human speech? Who taught him the use of\nlanguage? What language did he speak? Was it French? I merely suggest\nthe French, as Adam and Eve took French leave of the garden. Did the\nSerpent reason like a man? How could he with such a small head and not\neven a spoonful of brains, know so much more than Adam and Eve? Yea,\nhe even knew more than God himself--for God did not know, or else\nhe fibbed, that man would not die if he ate the forbidden fruit. He\ndid not seem to know that man would become as the gods by partaking\nof this tree, but the Serpent knew all this and possibly much more;\nbut how could so much superior knowledge be crowded into so small a\nhead? Some of our congressmen with domes of unusual dimensions do not\nknow as much as this inexperienced Serpent did. How are we to account\nfor this? Let some devilishly wise man explain to a benighted world\nwhy Satan has been so wickedly traduced.\n\nIn the book of Job we have a second account of the Devil: \"Now there\nwas a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the\nLord, and Satan came also among them. And the Lord said unto Satan,\nWhence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, From going\nto and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the\nLord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there\nis none like him in the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that\nfeareth God and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the Lord and said,\nDoth Job fear God for naught? Hast not thou made a hedge about him,\nand about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? Thou\nhast blest the work of his hands and his substance is increased in\nthe land. But put forth thine hand now and touch all that he hath,\nand he will curse thee to thy face. And the Lord said unto Satan,\nBehold all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not\nforth thy hand. So Satan went from the presence of the Lord.\" (Job 1 :\n6-12.) Then follows an account of the destruction of the cattle and\nchildren of Job, and yet he would not curse God. Satan then suggested\nthat to afflict him in person would bring out his weakness and deeply\nhidden wickedness. Job was tormented with boils, and three gratuitous\nadvisors, and did not curse God, but came very nearly giving his\ncounselors a cuss word or two. They exasperated him beyond measure.\n\nNow while it must be admitted that the Devil does not show up to\nas great advantage in this fable as he does in that relating to the\ntree of knowledge, yet we should not jump to our conclusions. Let us\nreview this Job story.\n\nWe are surprised at the dignified manners of Satan. He walks in with\nlordly airs among the sons of God. No one present said to him, \"Get\nout of here.\" He struts around in the gay company as one of them. We\nhardly know how to understand such familiarity possible between the\nsons of God and Satan. If, however, the sons of God in those days\nwere no better than the sons of God are in these, it is not in the\nleast surprising that Satan should conduct himself as well as the\nbest of them. But why did God permit him to do these cruel things to\nJob? In a certain book by God, we are told to \"resist the Devil and\nhe will flee from thee.\" This would have been splendid medicine for\nthe doctors who prescribed it. Satan did not come there so far as\nwe see to work any temptation. It was God who set up the temptation\nbefore Satan. He began by asking Satan what he thought of Job. What\nmattered it what his opinion of Job might be? Why should his opinion\nbe asked? Was it not showing respect to him? God should have said,\n\"Get behind me Satan.\"\n\nSatan had seen many men who could not stand in the hour of trial,\nand not knowing Job he took him for a man of that kind; God, however,\nknew Job to be a \"perfect\" man and ought to have protected him from\nall evil. Yet he did nothing of the kind, but on the contrary, clothed\nSatan with power of destroying his cattle and children, and afflicting\nhim with tormenting boils. We see then that it is not Satan who is\nresponsible for the sufferings of the patient man, but God himself,\nwho first shows respect to Satan's presence and his opinions, then\ngives him power by which he does a monstrous wrong to a good man\nand his family. But if Satan's part is bad God's is worse. He is\nthe author of all of Job's miseries. If God had been just, he would\nnot have led off to his Satanic Majesty with such a temptation as to\nask him his opinion of Job. It was immaterial what his opinion was;\nbut it was all important that if there were a God in Israel that he\nshould protect and honor the \"perfect\" man, Job.\n\nBut aside from the barbarities of this myth, look at its childish\nabsurdities. How could the omniscient, whose eyes are in every place,\nbeholding the evil and the good, need to ask Satan where he came\nfrom! Was not God, the omnipresent, everywhere on earth? If Satan had\nbeen going up and down the country would he not of necessity have met\nGod again and again? Obviously these great opponents must have often\nmet. Again, it was useless for God to ask Satan what his opinion of\nJob was, or would be after he tested him, as he knows all things past,\npresent, and to come, in heaven, earth and hell (I mean hades). It\nis evident that Satan's opinion is not needed or cared for, because\nafter all the trials Job suffered were ended, there is not one word\ngiven as to what Satan's opinion of Job was, and yet in the beginning\nof the story this seems to be its sole object. After Job suffers a\nlong time from bodily sores and \"miserable comforters\" Satan vanishes\nfrom the scene in a very obscure way, and God blesses Job with twice\nas much as he had before. He had more sheep, more camels, more oxen,\nand more asses. He became father of seven sons and three daughters,\nthe same number of sons and daughters that were slain by Satan,\ninstigated by God. Why were these ten innocent persons murdered? Had\nthey no rights that a just God was bound to respect? Shall not the\njudge of all the earth do right? Certainly he ought to. But in this\ncase the judge pleads guilty of this crime. In reply to Satan God\nsays: \"Although thou movedst me against him to destroy him without\ncause.\" (Job 2 : 3.) Here is an unqualified confession of wronging\nJob and his children without a show of justice; and even the cattle,\nI imagine, would protest against the outrageous slaughter perpetrated\non them. If these asses were like Balaam's, I am sure they would\nenter suit for damages.\n\n\"So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning,\nfor he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a\nthousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. He had also seven sons\nand three daughters.\" (Job 42 : 12, 13.) It is clear that the Lord\nhad nothing to do whatever with these blessings. Job had had sheep,\ncamels, oxen, asses, and children before, without any assistance from\nthe Lord; and if he secured a similar stock of cattle and a family\nof children it was by his own management and husbandry.\n\nBut supposing them a gift from God as damages sustained by Job at\nthe hand of Satan through the instigation of God, yet they could\nnot assuage his grief for the loved ones ruthlessly torn from his\nembrace. It is easy to see that this story is nothing more than\nan oriental tale--a myth. It is wanting not only in fact, but it\nteaches very bad morals. There is nothing ennobling in it. 1. God\nhad no moral right to permit Satan to come unrebuked into the company\nof the sons of God. An earthly father teaches his children to avoid\n\"evil communications,\" but on this occasion the heavenly father did\nnot scorn the company of Satan, but treated him respectfully. 2. Again,\nthe infinite being would not need to ask the Devil what his opinion of\nJob was, for he would know beforehand. 3. The infinitely good being\nwould not want the Devil's opinion--nor would he value it a straw,\nif it were given before it was asked. 4. The infinitely just ruler\nof the universe would not give the great adversary of man and God\nsuch diabolical power over that \"perfect and upright man\" Job. Nor\nwould he have permitted the three \"miserable comforters,\" reeling\nmentally under the blind staggers of a blind theology, to have added\nmore torment to that imposed by his Satanic Majesty. Nor would he\nhave permitted him to murder the seven sons and three daughters, as a\nmere matter of experiment in testing Job's staying powers. All this\nis so horrible that the afterthought of more camels and asses, as a\ncompensation is an insufficient patch to cover the unqualified wrongs\ndone to the man of Uz. Even Job does not shine as conspicuously in\nall this as he should. Job ought to have protested with all his might\nand main against both God and Devil, that his individual rights were\ninvaded. He should have taken a change of venue, to have a hearing\nbefore some other god, where there was a slight hope of securing more\njustice. But he didn't and the consequence is we are all advised,\nwhen suffering the outrageous wrongs of despotism, to \"be patient\nlike Job.\" It has been a great evil to the human family that Job\nwas no \"kicker;\" it has opened wide the flood gates of tyranny, and\ntransfused the cowardly blood of sheep into the veins of men. Oh,\nthat Job had kicked and taken an appeal, what an inspiration it would\nbe to the fold of God now, to resist the shears of the fleecers! to\nrebel against the rule of robbers!\n\nSome questions to be answered by the man who pounds the Bible and\nclaims to understand the Greek scriptures:\n\n1. Who were the sons of God?\n\n2. How many were there present, and were there still more of them\nelsewhere?\n\n3. Where did they come from?\n\n4. Were they any relation to the people of Nod?\n\n5. Who were their mothers?\n\n6. What were their occupations?\n\n7. Where are they now?\n\n8. Where did the Devil come from?\n\n9. Did God create him or did he make himself?\n\n10. If God made him then is he not responsible for all that old\nNick does?\n\n11. If he is as terribly demoniacal as orthodox theology describes him,\n\"why in 'l don't God kill the Devil?\"\n\n12. If he cannot kill him does it not prove that the Devil is his\nmatch; and if he can, but will not, does it not prove that he sustains\nhim and approves of his work?\n\n13. In the light of modern theology is not the Devil almost always\nsuccessful? Does he not have a larger kingdom, a larger following\nthan God?\n\n14. Why did the Creator inflict such a hellish punishment upon Adam\nand Eve, and let the Serpent off so lightly?\n\n15. Has the punishment inflicted upon the Devil lessened his power?\n\n16. Have the curses which God has pronounced on the world made\nit better?\n\n17. Is there any place in the record, accounts of the Devil's stealing,\nrobbing, and murdering?\n\n18. Are there not numerous stories in the Bible recounting the\nrobberies and murders perpetrated in the name and by the sanction\nof God? Some times the people of God destroyed five thousand, ten\nthousand, twenty thousand, fifty thousand, seventy thousand, and\nin one instance six hundred and seventy thousand, as in the case\nof Pharaoh and his hosts in the Red sea. Did Satan ever try to do\nanything as hellish as this?\n\n19. Is the Devil the father of lies? When did he tell a deliberate\nfalsehood? To Eve? Oh no, it was the other party who did that business.\n\n20. Did he lie when he took Jesus up into an exceeding high mountain,\netc., and saith unto him, \"All these will I give thee,\" etc.? (Mat. 4 :\n8.) It is claimed that old Beelzebub lied on this occasion. It\nwould hit the bull's eye in the center if we were to say that the\nwriter of this story about Jesus being carried off bodily into an\nexceeding high mountain, was the boy responsible for this lie. But\nwithout resting the case there let us see how it opens out. It is\nurged that \"the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof;\" but\nit may be urged that the Devil is called \"the prince of this world,\"\nimplying that he has just claims both by conquest and possession;\nand therefore he could have given at least a quitclaim deed.\n\nThe Devil is an expensive luxury of the church. It costs about\n$1,000,000,000 annually for preaching against the Devil. Even if there\nis less said derogatory to his Satanic Majesty now-adays, yet it costs\njust as much, and more too, for drawing it mild, than it did formerly,\nfor describing the split hoof, horns, and spear-headed tail, hell,\netc. Notwithstanding the fact that the people want less Devil and\nmore bread and beef, yet they must have some Devil. Hence the church\nclings to its Devil-idol with which to scare the people. To give up\nthe Devil is to break up house-keeping all around. If there be no\nDevil then there is no hell; and if no hell, there is no salvation;\nand if no salvation there is no need of preaching; and \"no preach no\npay.\" How could a fat minister with a fat salary, look such a ghost\nas that in the face? Yes, it would be impossible for the church to\nsurvive without the Devil. The clergy have to fall back upon him in\ntimes of revival to stir up the fears of uninformed people.\n\nThe Devil has had many hard names heaped upon him, for example: The\nTempter; the Adversary or Satan; Beelzebub; the Prince of Devils; the\nStrong One; the Enemy, or the Hostile One; the Serpent; Lying Spirit;\nLucifer; Son of the Morning; Prince of Darkness; Prince of the Power\nof the Air; the Accuser; Angel of the Bottomless Pit; Angel of Light;\nMammon; Belial; Legion; the Foul Spirit; the Unclean Spirit; the God\nof this World; the Great Red Dragon; Abaddon; Apollyon, the Destroyer,\netc. Besides these sacred titles, he is equally well known by certain\nhouse-hold names, as, Old Nick; Old Splitfoot; the Old Scratch; Old\nHarry; Old Horny; the Old Boy; the Deuce; the Dickens; auld Clouty;\nNickie; Ben; his Satanic Majesty, etc. It must be confessed that\nthese names do not carry much sanctity with them, nor do they leave\nus in love with the character they represent. But before we proceed\nfurther, it is only simple justice (that is giving the Devil his due),\nto call attention to the various names by which God has been known.\n\nThe early Hebrew literature speaks of gods, not God. We find the\nfollowing names ascribed to them: El; Elohim; El Shaddai; Shaddai;\nElvoh; Yahve, or Jah. The following is a personal photograph as nearly\nas we can draw it, of the Jewish Jehovah as described in the Bible:\n\"There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth\ndevoured: coals were kindled by it.\" (Ps. 18 : 8.) \"Round about him\nwere dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.\" (Ps. 18 : 11.) \"His\nhead and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes\nwere as a flame of fire.\" (Rev. 1 : 14.) \"And his feet like unto fine\nbrass, as if they burned in a furnace.\" (Rev. 1 : 15.) \"He had horns\ncoming out of his hand.\" (Hab. 3 : 4.) \"And burning coals went forth\nat his feet.\" (Hab. 3 : 5.) \"In the midst of the seven candle-sticks\none like unto the son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot\nand girt about the paps with a golden girdle.\" (Rev. 1 : 13.) \"And\nhe had in his right hand seven stars; and out of his mouth went a\nsharp two-edged sword.\" (Rev. 1 : 16.)\n\nThis God has violated all the moral laws he ever gave to man. He\napproved of lying, robbing, adultery, murder, war, and all the great\ncrimes known to man.\n\nIs it any wonder that Theodore Parker should say to the Calvinist who\nwas trying to convert him, \"The difference between us is simple,--your\nGod is my Devil.\"\n\nThe reader has his choice--or he may say \"good Lord good Devil,\"\nand float with the current. There is, however, no disguising the fact\nthat between God and the Devil, as described in the Bible, the Devil\nsustains the better moral character of the two. He is not spotless\nand clean, it is true, but he has infinitely less bloodshed to answer\nfor than Jehovah.\n\nWhere the Devil did he come from? I am reminded of this form of\nexpression by a little incident related of a Scotch preacher, who took\nfor his text, on one occasion, the following passage: \"The Devil, as a\nroaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour.\" (1 Peter 5 :\n8.) It must be borne in mind, in order to better understand the full\nforce and beauty of the preacher's division of the text into three\nheads, that it was common in earlier times to repeat the pronoun in a\nsentence, for example, John Smith, his book, Mary she has come home,\netc. In charming accord with this old style, the minister divided his\ntext into three parts. He said, \"My brethren, we will first inquire\nwhere the Devil he was walking to? and secondly, who the Devil he\nwanted to devour? and thirdly, what the Devil he was roaring about?\"\n\nHaving gratuitously thrown in this gem, we proceed to answer the\nquestion, \"Where the Devil, did he come from?\"\n\nIt is evident that the earlier Hebrew literature is almost wholly\nfree from any traces of a personal Devil, and that later writings of\nthe same people show strong outline of such a personality of evil.\n\nWhile it is true that Satan is a Hebrew word, it is equally true that\nthe word does not denote a being at all, but means anything adverse or\nopposing. We may cite in illustration a few passages. Second Samuel\n19 : 22: \"David said, What have we to do with you, ye sons of Jeremiah,\nthat ye should this day be adversaries unto me?\" First Kings 11 :\n14: \"And Jehovah stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the\nAdomite.\" First Kings 11 : 23: \"And God stirred up another adversary,\nRezon, the son of Eliadah.\"\n\nIn these instances, the word rendered adversary or adversaries,\nis Satan, and means nothing more than an opponent.\n\nWhen the Jews were carried captives to Babylon, they came into\nimmediate contact with a people, the Persians, who believed in a good\nbeing and a bad one. Ormazd was their good God, and Ahriman their\nDevil. The latter was as clearly defined in the duality of Zoroastrian\ntheology, as the former. During their seventy years' captivity it\ncould not be otherwise, than that the enslaved people should imbibe\nsome of the customs and beliefs of their masters. If they went so far\nas to change the characters of their language from the original Hebrew\nletters to those of the Chaldas, it is easy to see that they would\nof course, adopt this notion of an evil principle and personality,\nso prevalent at that time in Chaldea. After the Babylonian exile the\ndoctrine of a Devil became a part of the Jewish belief, and the evil\nspirit was termed Satan, as he was the foe or adversary of God. In\nFirst Chronicles 21 : 1, there is a circumstance related in which\nSatan or the Devil is the principal agent. The words are: \"And Satan\nstood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel.\" Now the\nbook of Chronicles being written after the captivity, it was quite\nnatural that the writer should consider and designate the enemy of\nGod, the Devil or Satan. But the same event is mentioned in another\nof the Jewish books, written before the captivity, and the temptation\nof David is referred to entirely another being. Here the words are:\n\n\n    \"And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and\n    moved David against them, to say, 'Go number Israel and Judah,'\n    Thus in the earlier books, the affair is attributed to the Lord,\n    but in the books written after the Jewish connection with the\n    Chaldeans and Persians, Satan is blamed for the same act. This,\n    beyond doubt proves the source of the Christian superstition\n    respecting the Devil.\" (\"The Devil,\" by John Watts.)\n\n    \"With this dualistic system the Jews came in contact during their\n    captivity at Babylon, and are supposed to have retained permanent\n    traces of it in their subsequent theology. The conception of the\n    Devil and of a lower kingdom of demons or devils is the evident\n    illustration of this. (Ency. Brit. V. Devil.)\n\n    \"The reason why there was no Devil in the early books was because\n    none was needed then. The gods considered themselves as being\n    quite equal to any emergency that might arise in the way of\n    wickedness.\"--M. D. Conway.\n\n\nIn other words, the Devil is a myth coming out of the terrible\ndarkness of remote ages. Every fear that the primitive man and men\nof barbarous races have had, painted devils before their minds of\nevery description. The master mind has said:\n\n\n            \"'Tis the eye of child-hood\n            That fears a painted Devil.\"\n\n\nThe thought that millions of people commonly well informed on general\nmatters, still believe in this barbarous myth, must shock and oppress\nlike an incubus every sensitive and well-informed mind. Such people can\nsmile pleasantly over the homely myth of Santa Claus, but the Devil\nis altogether a different personage. An old lady was once told that\nthe Devil was dead. She sat silent for a moment, and then replied,\n\"Well, you may think so, but we hope for better things.\"\n\nAs the horrid doctrine of witchcraft under the light of advancing\nknowledge has had to retire into the background of oblivion; as the\nPuritan doctrine of infant damnation has been relegated to the limbo\nof forgetfulness; as hell's fire has burned to ashes and the ashes\nbecome cold, so too, is the doctrine of a personal Devil retreating\nfrom the minds of all sensible people.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSOUL FARRAGO.\n\nWhat is, and Where is the Soul?\n\n\nUntil the Greek philosophy taught the world how to use and abuse\nabstract notions, immaterialism was not an attainable phase of\nthought. (Prof. Bain, \"Mind and Body,\" p. 143.)\n\n\n    Thought necessarily supposes conditions. To think is to\n    condition, and conditional limitation is the fundamental law of\n    the possibility of thought. For, as the greyhound cannot outstrip\n    his shadow, nor (by a more appropriate simile) the eagle out-soar\n    the atmosphere in which he floats, and by which alone he may be\n    supported; so the mind cannot transcend the sphere of limitation,\n    within and through which exclusively the possibility of thought\n    is realized. (Sir William Hamilton, \"Philosophy\" p. 456.)\n\n\nIn this paper an attempt is made to answer two very important\nquestions, namely: What is, and where is the soul? in such fashion\nthat everybody will be satisfied that he has a soul, and the exact\nspot it occupies in his mundane tabernacle. Here are a number of\nopinions on this subject, by the most learned men the world has ever\nproduced. In a multitude of counsel there is wisdom. The first witness\nI shall put upon the stand is:\n\nPythagoras: (6th c. B. C.) The soul is number and a harmony. Taught\nthe doctrine of metempsychosis. His disciples held the soul to be\nan aggregate of particles of great subtilty pervading the air in\nconstant agitation.\n\nHeraclitus: (6th c. B. C.) The soul is a spark of the stellar essence:\n\"Scintilla stellaris essentia.\"\n\nPherecides: (6th c. B. C.) Souls existed from all eternity.\n\nAnaximenes: (Ionic philosopher, 5th c. B. C.) God is air, air is a\nlife-giving principle to man. The soul is air.\n\nDiogenes of Appollonia: (Greek natural philosopher, 5th c. B. C.) The\nsoul of the world and the soul of man is air.\n\nAnaxagoras: (5th c. B. C.) The soul is an immortal, aerial spirit.\n\nSocrates: (4th c. B. C.) The soul is corporeal and eternal.\n\nEpicurus: (4th c. B. C.) The soul is a bodily substance, composed of\nsubtile particles, disseminated through the whole frame, and having\na great resemblance to spirit or breath.\n\nEmpedocles: (Sicilian philosopher and poet, 5th c. B. C.) Declared\nhimself to have been \"a boy, a girl, a bush, a bird, a fish;\" that\nthe soul inhabits every form of animal and plant.\n\nAristotle: (4th c. B. C.) Plants have souls without\nconsciousness. Animals have souls, but inseparable from body. The\nhuman body is inseparable from mind, but the human mind is divided\ninto active and passive intellect. The active intellect is pure form,\ndetached from matter, and immortal.\n\nJosephus: (1st c.) There were three sects among the Jews--the\nPharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Pharisees believed in\nmetempsychosis; the Sadducees believed that the soul perished with the\nbody; the Essenes held that the soul was immortal. The soul descended\nin an aerial form into the body, from the highest region of the air,\nwhither they were carried back again by a violent attraction, and after\ndeath those which had belonged to the good dwelled beyond the ocean\nin a country where there was neither heat nor cold, nor wind nor rain.\n\nPliny: (2d c.) The body and the soul have, from the moment of death,\nas little sensation as before birth.\n\nJustin Martyr: (2d c.) It is heresy to say that the soul is taken up\ninto heaven, men rise with the same bodies.\n\nTatian: (2d c.) There are two spirits conjoined in the human body. A\nmaterial and an immaterial spirit.\n\nAthenagoras: (2d c.) The soul is spiritual, but with a spirituality\nsubject to material tendencies.\n\nOrigen: (3d c.) The soul is neither spirit nor matter.\n\nAugustine: (4th c.) The soul has neither length, breadth, nor\nthickness. It acts on the body through the corporeal substances of\nlight and air, which substances are mingled through the denser parts\nof the body. The commands of the soul are first communicated to this\nsubtile matter, and by it immediately conveyed to the heavier elements.\n\nTertullian: (Latin father, about 160.) The soul has the human form,\nthe same as its body, only it is delicate, clear, and ethereal. Unless\nit were corporeal, how could it be effected by the body, be able to\nsuffer, or be nourished within the body?\n\nSt. Ambrose: (4th c.) We know nothing but what is material, excepting\nonly the ever venerable Trinity.\n\nSt. Hilary: (5th c.) There is nothing created which is not corporeal,\nneither in heaven nor in earth, neither visible nor invisible;\nall is formed of elements; and souls, whether they inhabit a body,\nor are without a body, have always a corporeal substance.\n\nGregory Nazianzen: (4th c.) Soul, or spirit, is composed of two\nproperties--motion and diffusion.\n\nBishop Nemesius: (5th c.) The soul is an immaterial substance. It\nis involved, as Plato taught, in eternal, self-produced motion,\nfrom which the motion of the body is derived. The pre-existence of\nthe soul proves its supra-sensible character, and its immortality.\n\nFaustus: (Bishop of Regium, in Gaul, A. D. 470.) All created things\nare matter; the soul being composed of air, God alone is incorporeal.\n\nMamertus: (In reply to the bishop.) Man was made in the image of\nGod. Now, as there can be no likeness to God in matter, therefore\nit must be found in the soul, therefore the soul is immaterial. The\nsoul is present in every part of the body as well as in the whole,\njust as God is present in the whole universe, otherwise a part of\nit would be lost when any portion of the body is cut off. The soul\nis not contained in the body, but in reality contains it. Hence,\nit must be immaterial, for no material substance can at once contain\nthe body and be within it as its animating principle.\n\nThomas Aquinas: (13th c.) The soul is the Actuality of body, as heat,\nwhich is the source whence bodies are made hot, is not body, but a\nsort of actuality of body. The soul of man is an independent substance.\n\nDuns Scotus: (13th c. British philosopher.) The soul is a created\nsomething, the basis of all finite existence, including corporeal\nmatter itself.\n\nAlbert Magnus: (13th c.) Held that the active intellect is a part of\nthe soul, and is immortal by virtue of its community with God.\n\nGassendi: (French philosopher, 17th c.) There is no evidence of the\nspirituality of the soul.\n\nMalebranche: (Priest and philosopher, 17th c.) We see all in God,\nwho is in fact our soul.\n\nLocke: (17th c.) Matter may think, and God may communicate thought\nto matter.\n\nParacelsus: (15th c.) Taught there were four souls--vegetal, sensitive,\nrational, and spiritual. Campanella demonstrates this last by the\nfact that carcasses bleed at the sight of the murderer.\n\nMansel: (\"Philosophy of Consciousness,\" p. 327.) We are not authorized\nto say that we know the soul to be simple, and that, therefore, it is\nindestructible; but only that we do not know the soul to be compound,\nand, therefore, that we cannot infer its mortality from the analogy\nof bodily dissolution.\n\n\"Buck's Theo. Dic.\" defines soul: That vital, immaterial, active\nsubstance, or principle in man, whereby he perceives, remembers,\nreasons, and wills. It is rather to be described as to its operations\nthan to be defined as to its essence. Various, indeed, have been the\nopinions of philosophers concerning its substance.\n\nParkhurst: (A distinguished Hebrew lexicographer.) As a noun, nephesh\nhath been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we\ncommonly call the soul. I must, for myself, confess that I can find\nno passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning.\n\nHobbes: Spirit is synonymous with ghost--a mere phantom of the\nimagination.\n\nLocke: (\"Understanding,\" p. 419.) We can no more know that there are\nfinite spirits really existing, by the idea we have of such things\nin our minds, than by the ideas any one has of fairies, or centaurs;\nhe can come to know that things answering those ideas do really exist.\n\nVoltaire: The Greeks distinguish three sorts of souls--Psyche,\nsignifying the sensitive soul--the soul of the senses; hence it was\nthat Love, the son of Aphrodite, had so much passion for Psyche,\nand that she loved him so tenderly. Pneuma, the breath which gave\nlife and motion to the whole machine, and which we have rendered by\nspiritus--spirit--a vague term which has received a thousand different\nacceptations. And lastly, Nous, intelligence. Thus we possess three\nsouls, without having the slightest notion of any of them.... What\nare we to think of a child with two heads, which is otherwise well\nformed? Some say that it has two souls, because it is furnished with\ntwo pineal glands, with two callous substances, with two sensoria\ncommunia. Others answer, that there cannot be two souls with but one\nbreast and one navel.... The word soul is one of those which everyone\npronounces without understanding it. We understand those things of\nwhich we have an idea, but we have no idea of soul--spirit; therefore,\nwe do not understand it.\n\nJohn Calvin: The soul is an immortal essence, the nobler part of\nman. It is a creation out of nothing, not an emanation; it is essence\nwithout motion, not motion without essence. It is not properly bounded\nby space, still it occupies the body as a habitation, animating its\nparts and endowing its organs for their several functions.\n\nDugald Stewart: Although we have the strongest evidence that there\nis a thinking and sentient principle within us, essentially distinct\nfrom matter, yet we have no direct evidence of the possibility of\nthis principle exercising its various powers in a separate state from\nthe body. On the contrary, the union of the two, while it subsists,\nis evidently of the most intimate nature.\n\nJoseph Priestly: It being a rigid canon of the Newtonian logic not\nto multiply causes without necessity, we should adhere to a single\nsubstance until it be shown, which cannot be, that the properties\nof mind are incompatible with the properties of matter. He was\nopposed to protecting and perpetuating absurdity by dodging behind\nmystery. That there is no difference between spiritual substance and\nnothing at all. That the doctrine of a separate soul embarrasses the\nwhole system of Christianity.\n\nMcBeth: The times have been that when the brains were out the man\nwould die, and there an end.\n\nBuchner: Experience and daily occupation teach us that the spirit\nperishes with the material substratum--that man dies. (\"Matter and\nForce.\")\n\nBurmeister: That the soul of a deceased person does not re-appear\nafter death, is not contested by rational people. Spirits and ghosts\nare only seen by diseased or superstitious individuals.\n\nVogt: Physiology decides definitely and categorically against\nindividual immortality, as against any special existence of the\nsoul. The soul does not enter the foetus like the evil spirit into\npersons possessed, but is a product of the development of the brain,\njust as muscular activity is a product of muscular development. So\nsoon as the substances composing the brain are aggregated in a similar\nform, will they exhibit the same functions. We have seen that we\ncan destroy mental activity by injuring the brain. By observing\nthe development of the child we also arrive at the conviction that\nthe activity of the soul progresses in proportion as the brain is\ngradually developed. The foetus manifests no mental activity, which\nonly shows itself after birth when the brain acquires the necessary\nmaterial condition. Mental activity changes with the period of life,\nand ceases altogether at death.\n\nLecky: (\"Rat. in Europe,\" p. 341, v. I.) Not one of the early fathers\nentertained the same opinion as the majority of Christians do of\nthe present day, that the soul is perfectly simple, and entirely\ndestitute of all body, figure, form, and extension. On the contrary,\nthey all acknowledged it to contain something corporeal, although\nof a different kind and nature from the bodies of this mortal\nsphere.... Tertullian mentions a woman who had seen a soul, which she\ndescribed as \"a transparent and lucid figure, in the perfect form of a\nman.\" St. Anthony saw the soul of Ammon carried up to heaven. The soul\nof a Libyan hermit named Marc was borne to heaven in a napkin. Angels\nalso were not unfrequently seen, and were universally believed to\nhave cohabited with the daughters of the antediluvians.... Sometimes\nthe soul was portrayed as a sexless child, rising out of the mouth\nof the corpse.\n\nJohn Meslier: (\"Testimony of a Dying Priest.\") The barbarians,\nlike all ignorant men, attribute to spirits all the effects of\nwhich their inexperience prevents them from discovering the true\ncauses. Ask a barbarian what causes your watch to move, he will\nanswer, \"A spirit.\" Ask our philosophers what moves the universe,\nthey will tell you, \"It is a spirit.\" Ask a theologian what he means\nby a spirit. He will answer that it is an unknown substance, which\nis perfectly simple, which has nothing tangible, nothing in common\nwith matter. In good faith, is there any mortal who can form the\nleast idea of such a substance.\n\nJames F. Ferrier: (Institutes of Metaphysics.) In vain does the\nSpiritualist found an argument for the existence of a separate\nimmaterial substance on the alleged incompatibility of the\nintellectual and physical phenomena to co-inhere in the same\nsub-stratum. Materiality may very well stand the brunt of that\nunshotted broadside. This mild artifice can scarcely expect to be\ntreated as a serious observation. Such a hypothesis cannot be meant\nto be in earnest. Who is to dictate to nature what phenomena, or\nwhat qualities inhere in what substances; what effects may result\nfrom what causes? Matter is already in the field as an acknowledged\nentity--this both parties admit. Mind, considered as an independent\nentity, is not so unmistakably in the field. Therefore as entities\nare not to be multiplied without necessity, we are not entitled to\npostulate a new cause, so long as it is possible to account for the\nphenomena by a cause already in existence; which possibility has\nnever yet been disproved.\n\nDraper: (John William.) Chemistry furnishes us with a striking example\nof the doctrine of Diogenes of Apollonia, that the air is actually a\nspiritual being; for, on the discovery of several of the gases by the\nearly experimenters, they were not only regarded as of a spiritual\nnature, but actually received the name under which they pass to this\nday, gheist or gas, from a belief that they were ghosts. (\"Int. Dev.,\"\np. 103, v. 1.)\n\nW. R. Grove: (\"Correlation and Conservation of Forces,\" p. 103.) The\nancients when they witnessed natural phenomenon, removed from ordinary\nanalogies, and unexplained by any mechanical action known to them,\nreferred it to a soul, a spiritual or preternatural power: thus amber\nand the magnet were supposed by Thales to have a soul; the functions\nof digestion, assimilation, etc., were supposed by Paracelsus to\nbe effected by a spirit (the Arch\u00e6us). Air and gases were also at\nfirst deemed spiritual, but subsequently became invested with a more\nmaterial character, and the word gas, from geist, a ghost or spirit,\naffords us an instance of the gradual transmission of a spiritual\ninto a physical conception.\n\nBuchner: Now, in the same manner as the steam engine produces motion,\nso does the organic complication of force-endowed materials produce in\nthe animal body a sum of effects, so interwoven as to become a unit,\nand is then by us called spirit, soul, thought.\n\nTaylor: Mr. Darwin saw two Malay women in Keeling Island, who had\na wooden spoon dressed in clothes like a doll. This spoon had been\ncarried to the grave of a dead man, and becoming inspired at full\nmoon, in fact lunatic, it danced about convulsively like a table\nor a hat at a modern spirit-seance. (\"Early History of Mankind,\"\np. 139, v. 2.) Savages believe that their pots, kettles, pans, etc.,\nhave souls. His knives, tobacco-pipes, the winds, water, fire, storm,\netc., have souls.\n\nSamuel Johnson: (\"Oriental Religions,\" p. 543.) Various North-American\ntribes believe that the soul of a dying person may be drawn into\nthe bosom of a sterile woman, or blown by the breath into that of\nthe nearest relative, and so come again to birth in the way that the\nreceiver desires.\n\nTheodore Parker, John Wesley, Jeremy Taylor, Coleridge, Lamartine,\nAgassiz, and hosts of other men well known to fame, taught that\nanimals as well as men, had immortal souls.\n\nBrodie: (President of the Royal Society, 1858.) The mind of animals\nis essentially the same as that of man. Every one familiar with the\ndog will admit that that creature knows right from wrong, and is\nconscious when he has committed a fault.\n\nDu Bois-Reymond: With awe and wonder must the student of nature\nregard that microscopic molecule of nervous substance which is the\nseat of the laborious, constructive, orderly, loyal, dauntless soul\nof the ant. It has developed itself to its present state through a\ncountless series of generations.\n\nJohn Fiske: But the propriety of identifying soul and breath, which\nreally quits the body at its decease, has furnished the chief name\nfor the soul, not only to the Hebrew, the Sanskrit, and the classic\ntongues; not only to German and English, where geist, and ghost,\naccording to Max Muller, have the meaning of \"breath,\" and are akin\nto such words as gas, gust, and geyser; but also to numerous barbaric\nlanguages. (\"Myths and Myth-Makers,\" p. 225.) The belief in wraiths has\nsurvived into modern times, and now and then appears in that remnant\nof primeval philosophy known as \"Spiritualism,\" as for example, in\nthe case of the lady who \"thought she saw her own father look in at\nthe church window at the moment he was dying at his own house.\" (Ib.,\np. 229.) The Kamtchadales expressly declare that all animals, even\nflies and bugs, will live after death,--a belief, which, in our day,\nhas been indorsed on philosophical grounds by an eminent living\nnaturalist. (Ib., 230.) [Mr. Fiske refers to Agassiz.]\n\nM. Figuier: Human souls are for the most part the surviving souls of\ndeceased animals; in general, the souls of precocious children like\nMozart come from nightingales, while the souls of great architects\nhave passed into them from beavers, and etc., etc. (\"The To-morrow\nof Death,\" p. 247.)\n\nW. Lauder Lindsay: By no kind of scientific evidence can it be proved\nthat soul exists, whether in man or other animals.... Nor should it\nbe forgotten that, according to many writers, the word or term \"soul\"\nis regarded as synonymous with \"mind,\" in which case there can be no\nquestion as to its possession by the higher animals. While the term\n\"soul\" has also been applied--in figurative senses no doubt--even to\nplants. (\"Mind in the Lower Animals,\" v. 1, p. 101.) It obviously lies\nwith those who assert dogmatically that all men have immortal souls,\nwhile no animals possess them, to reconcile with such a conviction the\nprovable fact that many animals are superior to many men, not only in\ngeneral intelligence, but also as regards moral sense and religious\nfeeling. (Ib.) Ideas of justice or right, feelings of decency or shame,\nthat combination or essence of moral qualities known as conscience,\nare as certainly present in some animals as they appear to be absent\nin countless numbers of men. (Ib., p. 103.)\n\nErnst Haeckel: The final result of this comparison is this: That\nbetween the most highly developed animal souls, and the lowest\ndeveloped human souls there exists only a small quantitative, but\nno qualitative difference, and this difference is much less than\nthe difference between the lowest and the highest human souls,\nor than the difference between the lowest and the highest animal\nsouls. (\"Hist. of Creation,\" v. 2, p. 362.) Some of the wildest tribes,\nof men, in Southern Asia and Eastern Africa have no trace whatever of\nthe first foundations of all human civilization of family life, and\nmarriage. They live together, in herds, like apes, generally climbing\non trees and eating fruits; they do not know of fire, and use stones\nand clubs as weapons, just like the higher apes. (Ib., p. 363.)\n\nDescartes: (17 c.) Matter, whose essence is extension, is known by\nthe senses; mind, whose essence is thinking, can be known only by\nself-consciousness. The thinking principle is immaterial.\n\nOrigen: The nature of the soul is such as to make her capable of\nexisting eternally, backward as well as forward, because her spiritual\nessence, as such, makes it impossible that she should, either through\nage or violence, be dissolved.\n\nRev. Joseph Baylee, D. D.: (Principal of St. Aidan's College,\nBirkenhead, England.) Man is eternal. He was in existence before he\nwas born; sinned before he was born, and if he had never been born\nwould have suffered eternal damnation for that sin. (Dis. on God and\nthe Bible between Dr. Baylee and Mr. Bradlaugh.)\n\nDraper: (\"Conflict,\" p. 127.) Moreover, to many devout persons there\nis something very revolting in the suggestion that the Almighty is a\nservitor to the caprices and lusts of men, and that at a certain term\nafter its origin, it is necessary for him to create for the embryo\na soul.\n\nVedic Theology: The soul is a particle of that all-pervading principle,\nthe Universal Intellect, or Soul of the World, detached for a while\nfrom its primitive source; and placed in connection with the bodily\nframe, but destined, by an inevitably as rivers run back to be lost\nin the ocean from whence they arose.\n\nThe Bible: As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that\ngoeth down to the grave shall come up no more. (Job 7 : 9.) They are\ndead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise;\ntherefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their\nmemory to perish. (Isa. 26 : 14.) For the living know that they\nshall die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more\na reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Whatsoever thy hand\nfindeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is no work, nor device,\nnor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest. (Eccl. 9 :\n5, 10.) For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts,\neven one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other;\nyea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence\nabove a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place, all are of\nthe dust and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man\nthat goeth upward; and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward\nto the earth? (Eccl. 3 : 19-22.) There (the grave) the wicked cease\nfrom troubling; and there the weary be at rest. (Vide Job 3 : 11-22.)\n\nHaving thus successfully responded to the interrogatory, What is\nthe soul? that is to say, the constituent thereof, let us now very\nbriefly settle the locus in quo:\n\nPlato: The soul is located in the brain.\n\nAristotle: The soul is located in the heart.\n\nHeraclitus: The soul is located in the blood.\n\nEpicurus: The soul is located in the chest.\n\nCritios: The soul is located in the blood.\n\nSommering: The soul is located in the ventricles.\n\nKant: The soul is located in the water contained in the ventricles.\n\nPlotinus: The body is located in the soul, and not the soul in\nthe body.\n\nEnnemoser: The whole body is the seat of the soul.\n\nFischer: The soul is located in the nervous system.\n\nFicinus: The soul is located in the heart.\n\nDescartes: The soul is located in the pineal gland.\n\nBontekoe: The soul is located in the corpus callosum.\n\nWillis: The soul is located in the corpora striata.\n\nVieussens: The soul is located in the centrum ovale.\n\nBoerhaave: The soul is located on the boundary line of the gray and\nwhite substance.\n\nMayer: The soul is located in the medulla oblongata.\n\nCamper: The soul is located in the pineal gland, nates and testes.\n\nDohoney: Scientifically speaking, man is a threefold being: body,\nsoul, and spirit. The home of the spirit is the cerebrum, while the\nseat of the soul is the cerebellum. (\"Man,\" p. 118.)\n\nLa Pieronie: The dwelling place of the soul is in the callous body.\n\nBuchner: Some authors imagine that the soul, under certain\ncircumstances, leaves the brain for a short time and occupies another\npart of the nervous system. The solar plexus, a concatenation of\nsympathetic nerves, situated in the abdomen, was especially pointed\nout as the favored spot. (\"Force and Matter,\" p. 195.)\n\nProchaska: Assumed that the cerebrum and the cerebellum were the\nseat of \"soul sensations,\" and the sensorium commune the seat of\n\"body sensations.\"\n\nWhytt: As the schoolmen supposed the Deity to exist in every ubi but\nnot in any place, which is to say in Latin that he exists everywhere,\nbut in English nowhere, so they imagined the soul of man not to occupy\nspace, but to exist in an indivisible point.\n\nProf. Erdmann: The theory that the soul has its seat in the brain,\nmust lead to the result that when the body is separated from the head,\nthe soul should continue to exist.\n\nFortlage: There are certain errors in the human mind. The error of\nthe seat of the soul in the brain is one of them.\n\nMcCulloch says, in his able work on the \"Credibility of the\nScriptures\": There is no word in the Hebrew language that signifies\neither soul or spirit, in the technical sense in which we use the\nterms, as implying something distinct from the body. (\"Credibility\nof Scriptures,\" p. 491, v. 2.)\n\nKitto, in his \"Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature,\" renders Genesis\n2 : 7, as follows: \"And Jehovah God formed the man [Heb. the Adam] of\ndust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life:\nand the man became a living animal.\n\nBishop Tilotson says: The immortality of the soul is rather supposed,\nor taken for granted, than expressly revealed in the Bible.\n\nThe Egyptian doctrine of the soul is one of the most important, as\nit is the most ancient, for this nation seems to have been the first\nto declare that the soul was immortal. (Chambers' Encyclopedia.)\n\n\nR. Peterson.\n\n\n\n\n\nIMMORTALITY.\n\nThere is still another question. Why should God, a being of infinite\ntenderness, leave the question of immortality in doubt? How is it\nthat there is nothing in the Old Testament on this subject? Why is\nit that he who made all the constellations did not put in his heaven\nthe star of hope? How do you account for the fact that you do not\nfind in the Old Testament, from the first mistake in Genesis to the\nlast curse in Malachi, a funeral service? Is it not strange that some\none in the Old Testament did not stand by an open grave of father or\nmother and say, \"We shall meet again\"? Was it because the divinely\ninspired men did not know? You taunt me by saying that I know no more\nof the immortality of the soul than Cicero knew. I admit it. I know\nno more than the lowest savage, no more than a doctor of divinity,\nthat is to say, nothing.--Ingersoll, Ingersoll-Field Discussion.\n\nSome urge that the soul is life. What is life? Is it not the word\nby which we express the aggregate normal functional activity of\nvegetable and animal organisms, necessarily differing in degree, if\nnot in kind, with each different organization? To talk of immortal\nlife, and yet to admit the decay and destruction of the organization,\nis much the same as to talk of a square circle. You link together two\nwords which contradict each other. The solution of the soul problem\nis not so difficult as many imagine. The greatest difficulty is, that\nwe have been trained to use certain words as \"God,\" \"matter,\" \"mind,\"\n\"spirit,\" \"soul,\" \"intelligence,\" and we have been further trained\nto take these words as representatives of realities, which in fact,\nthey do not represent. We have to unlearn much of our school lore. We\nhave specially to carefully examine the meaning of each word we use. I\nam told that the mind and the body are separate from one another. Are\nthe brightness and steel of the knife separate? Is not brightness the\nquality attaching to a certain modification of existence--steel? Is\nnot intelligence a quality attaching to a certain modification of\nexistence--man? The word brightness has no meaning, except as relating\nto some bright thing. The word intelligence, no meaning, except as\nrelating to some intelligent thing. I take some water and drop it\nupon the steel, in due course the process of oxidation takes place,\nand the brightness is gone. I drop into a man's brain a bullet; the\nprocess of the destruction of life takes place, and his intelligence\nis gone. By changing the state of the steel we destroy its brightness,\nand by disorganizing the man destroy his intelligence. Is mind an\nentity or result? an existence or a condition? Surely it is but the\nresult of organic activity, a phenomenon of animal life. (\"Has Man\na Soul?\" Charles Bradlaugh.)\n\n\n\nThe idea of immortality, like the great sea, has ebbed and flowed in\nthe human heart, beating its countless waves of hope and joy against\nthe shores of time, and was not born of an book, nor of any religion,\nnor of any creed; it was born of human affection, and will continue\nto ebb and flow beneath the clouds and mists of doubt and darkness\nas long as love kisses the lips of death. It is the rainbow of hope\nshining upon the tears of grief. We love, therefore we wish to live,\nand the foundation of the idea of immortality is human affection\nand human love, and I have a thousand times more confidence in the\naffections of the human heart, in the deep and splendid feelings of\nthe human soul than I have in any book that ever was or ever can be\nwritten by mortal man.--Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nIs This Life the \"Be-all and End-all?\"\n\nTo answer that question, or to give my views on the subject as to\nwhether man lives after death or is extinguished as a living being by\ndeath, would ordinarily involve a long preliminary discourse; but I\nthink I can give you my views, such as they are, in a few words. Life\nis sensation, sensibility, the power of feeling. Without sensation\nthere is no life. We feel with our nerves; we see with our eyes; we\nhear with our ears. Without nerves there would be no feeling, without\neyes no seeing, without ears no hearing. These senses, therefore,\nof feeling, seeing, hearing, exist in combination with certain forms\nof matter, and cannot exist without such combination. So the mind\nexists in combination with the matter, brain. Without the brain there\ncan be no mental phenomena, no thinking, no perceiving. These things\nare palpable; they are truths which may not be disputed. Therefore,\nif death destroys our nerves, it destroys our power of feeling;\nif it destroys our eyes, it destroys our power of seeing; if it\ndestroys our ears, it destroys our power of hearing; if it destroys\nour brain, it destroys our power of thinking and perceiving. The man\nlies down, feeling nothing, seeing nothing, knowing nothing; he is a\ncorpse. Separated from the brain, the mind cannot act, cannot think,\ncannot conceive; therefore, if it exists at all, it is the same as\nif it were dead. In that condition, the mind can no more think or\nperceive than the dust into which the decomposed nerves have fallen\ncan feel. What follows then? That the man has come to an end, entirely;\nhe is extinguished.--Selected.\n\n\n\nSo you must equally bear with the comparatively small number of\nscientists who, within the last three hundred years, have worked out\nthe hypothesis that the soul is not matter, substance, or entity,\nat all, but simply the continuous action or process of the nervous\nsystems of animals, and especially of the brain of man, in answer to\ntheir environment. In a word, the life, soul, spirit, mind, thought,\nfeeling, and consciousness are but varying tones of the music which\nour nervous systems give out when the world plays upon them--much as\nthe piano answers to the touch of our hands. The music was not in,\nnor the property of the piano, nor of the hand, but it arises and\nexists only by reason of the playing-contact of the two. Thus the\nlife or soul is not a property of brain-matter, or of our nerves,\nnor of the world or its impinging force; but when those world forces\nby touch, heat, light, electricity and foods do reach so as to act\nupon the nerves and brain, then comes their reaction, and we call\nthat reaction feeling, life, soul, thought, reason, etc., through all\nof the varying music of consciousness, whether exhibited by a child,\na savage, a Newton or a Goethe.--Anon.\n\n\n\n\nMaterialism--Prof. Tyndall.\n\nIf Materialism is confounded, science is rendered dumb.... Materialism,\ntherefore, is not a thing to be mourned over, but to be honestly\nconsidered; accepted if wholly true, rejected if false. (\"Fragments of\nScience,\" p. 221.) It ought to be known and avowed that the physical\nphilosopher, as such, must be a pure Materialist. His inquiries\ndeal with matter and force, and with them alone. (Ib., p. 72.) As\nregards knowledge, physical science is polar. (Ib., p. 52.) It\nis the advance of [this] knowledge that has given a materialistic\ncolor to the philosophy of our age. (Ib., p. 222.) We may fear and\nscorn Materialism; but he who knew all about it, and could apply his\nknowledge, might become the preacher of a new gospel. (Ib., p. 221.)\n\nThrough our neglect of the monitions of a reasonable Materialism,\nwe sin and suffer daily. (Ib., p. 224.) The practical monitions are\nplain enough which declare that on our dealings with matter depend\nour weal or woe, physical and moral. (Ib., p. 222.) It is our duty\nnot to shirk--it ought rather to be our privilege to accept, the\nestablished results of physical inquiries; for here, assuredly, our\nultimate weal depends upon our loyalty to truth. Is mind degraded by\nthis recognition of its dependence [on matter]? Assuredly not. Matter,\non the contrary, is raised to the level it ought to occupy, and from\nwhich timid ignorance would remove it. (Ib., p. 221.)\n\nMatter is not that empty capacity which philosophers and theologians\nhave pictured it, but the universal mother, who brings forth\nall things as the fruit of her own womb. Nature is seen to do\nall things spontaneously, without the meddling of the gods. (Ib.,\np. 193.) Matter I define as that mysterious thing by which all that is,\nis accomplished. How it came to have the power which it possesses is a\nquestion on which I never ventured an opinion. (Ib., p. 193.) I discern\nin matter the promise and potency of all terrestrial life. (Ib.,\np. 251.)\n\nDoes life belong to what we call matter, or is it an independent\nprinciple infused into matter at some suitable epoch? (Ib.,\np. 131.) There does not exist a barrier, possessing the strength\nof a cobweb, in opposition to the hypothesis which ascribes the\nappearance of life to that \"potency of matter\" which finds its\nexpression in natural evolution.... Divorced from matter, where is\nlife? (Ib., p. 192.) To man, as we know him, matter is necessary to\nconsciousness. (Ib., p. 192.) Every meal we eat, and every cup we\ndrink, illustrates the mysterious control of mind by matter. (Ib.,\np. 50.)\n\nIf these statements startle, it is because matter has been defined\nand maligned by philosophers and theologians, who were ignorant\nalike of its mystical and transcendental powers. (Ib., p. 51.) Two\ncourses, and two only, are possible: either let us open our doors\nfreely to the conception of creative acts, or, abandoning them let\nus radically change our notions of matter. (Ib., p. 191.) Without\nthis total revolution of the notions now prevalent, the evolution\nhypothesis must stand condemned. (Ib., p. 133.)\n\nIf we look at matter as defined by our scientific text-books, the\nnotion of conscious life coming out of it cannot be formed by the\nmind. (Ib., p. 191.) Spirit and matter have ever been present to us in\nthe rudest contrast: the one as all noble, the other as all vile. But\nis this correct? Upon the answer to this question, all depends. (Ib.,\np. 133.) #/\n\nPhysiology proves Materialism to be true, and the following testimony\nto that fact by eminent scientific men is only a small part of what\nmight be quoted of similar tenor:\n\nBain tells us: The most careful and studied observations of\nphysiologists have shown beyond question, that the brain as a whole\nis indispensible to thought, feeling, and volition.\n\nDr. Ferrier says: The brain is the organ of mind, and that mental\noperations are possible only in and through it. This fact is so\nwell established that we may start from it as we should from any\nultimate fact.\n\nProf. Virchow, of Berlin, says: Every one must admit that without a\nbrain, nay, more, without a good and well developed brain, the human\nmind has no existence.--Man has a mind and rational will only in as\nmuch and in so far as he possesses a brain.\n\nHuxley says: What we call the operations of the mind are functions of\nthe brain, and the materials of consciousness are products of cerebral\nactivity. Sensations are products of the inherent properties of the\nthinking organ.\n\n\n\nTyndall says: We believe that every thought and every feeling has\nits definite mechanical correlative in the nervous system; that it\nis accompanied by a certain separation and remarshalling of the atoms\nof the brain.\n\n\n\nDr. Maudsley says: I do not go beyond what facts warrant, when I say\nthat, when a thought occurs in the mind, there necessarily occurs\na correlative change in the gray matter of the brain. Without it,\nthe thought could not arise; with it, it can not fail to rise.\n\n\n    What is matter! I take a handful of earth in my hands, and\n    into that dust I put seeds, and arrows from the eternal quiver\n    of the sun smite it, and the seeds grow and bud and blossom,\n    and fill the air with perfume in my sight. Do you understand\n    that? Do you understand how this dust and these seeds and that\n    light and this moisture produced that bud and that flower and\n    that perfume? Do you understand that any better than you do the\n    production of thought? Do you understand that any better than\n    you do a dream? Do you understand that any better than you do\n    the thoughts of love that you see in the eyes of the one you\n    adore? Can you explain it? Can you tell what matter is? Have\n    you the slightest conception? Yet you talk about matter as\n    though you were acquainted with its origin; as though you had\n    compelled, with clenched hands, the very rocks to give up the\n    secret of existence. Do you know what force is? Can you account\n    for molecular action? Are you familiar with chemistry? Can you\n    account for the loves and hatreds of the atoms? Is there not\n    something in matter that forever eludes you? Can you tell what\n    matter really is? Before you cry Materialism, you had better\n    find what matter is. Can you tell of anything without a material\n    basis? Is it possible to imagine the annihilation of a single\n    atom? Is it possible for you to conceive of the creation of a\n    single atom? Can you have a thought that is not suggested to you\n    by what you call matter? Did any man or woman or child ever have\n    a solitary thought, dream or conception, that was not suggested\n    to them by something they had seen in nature?--Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nThe Origin of Belief in the Soul.\n\n* * * I had waited at some distance, and as the day grew stronger,\nsaw that this new grave was not the only one upon that lonely height.\n\nOn my right was a mound on which lay the betel-box, the pipe, the\nhaversack, and \"dah\" (or chopper-knife) that in life had been his\nwho lay beneath. I turned to rest on the trunk of a fallen tree,\nwhen I heard the sound of footsteps. The childless man and woman were\npassing. I knew the man, and I spoke to him. He had often been my guide\nin former visits to his village. He stopped. His wife passed on. I\nasked, tenderly I hope, as to his child. What was the cause of death?\n\n\"Fever.\" Then he squatted down, drew out his pipe, filled and lit it.\n\n\"Whose grave is that?\" I asked, pointing to the mound with the\nbetel-box and \"dah.\"\n\n\"One of the men of my village,\" he replied; \"he died some months ago.\"\n\n\"Why do you leave his betel-box, haversack, and 'dah' on the\ngrave? What use can it be to him?\"\n\n\"It is our custom.\"\n\n\"But why?\"\n\n\"His 'lah' (spirit) will require them.\"\n\n\"But you see his 'lah' has not taken them. They are still there,\nand they are rotting away.\"\n\n\"Oh, no!\" Very promptly. \"What you see are only the forms of the\nthings. Their 'lahs' have gone away and are with the man's 'lah.'\"\n\n\"Where?\"\n\n\"In another world below this.\"\n\n\"And so people's 'lahs' after death go to another world and work as\nin this?\"\n\n\"Yes; and if they had no haversack, and no betel-box, and no 'dah'\nhow would they get on? How could they cut down forest and cultivate\nrice for food if they had no 'dah'?\"\n\nHe added after a pause:\n\n\"So our people say, but I don't know. I am ignorant. I am only a poor\njungle fowl.\"\n\n\"But,\" I persisted, \"how do your people know that it is true--that\nthe betel-box, the haversack, the knife, and other things have 'lahs,'\nor even that the man has a 'lah'?\"\n\nThe Karen was silent for a while. Then he said--\n\n\"My child is dead--his body is buried there. It can not move and\ngo about; yet I know that in my sleep he will come to me. He will\nspeak, and I shall speak to him. It is not his body but his 'lah'\nthat will come. So also I lost an ax long ago. It fell in the forest\nsomewhere. I could not find it, but in my sleep I have seen its 'lah'\nand have held it in my hand.\" He paused, and went on: \"It must have a\n'lah,' for iron and handle have rotted away long ago, yet I held them\nlast night in my hand.\"\n\n\"Then the 'lah' lives independently of the body?\"\n\n\"Yes. Our people say so.\"\n\nI was silent. Here among these savages I saw how the germs of belief\nin a future life are laid, from what delusion they spring.\n\nThen looking back to the far-off times, when the ancestors of our own\nnow civilized race were savages with minds as undeveloped as that of\nthe savage before me, I saw how from the mystery of dream-appearances\nrose the belief in the dual nature of things. I saw how this belief,\nextending first to all things animate and inanimate, came in the slow\nevolution of man's intellect, by the elimination of the grosser and\ncruder portion of his thought to hold at length only of living things.\n\nNo profound thought--no deep insight into human nature is needed to\ntrace along general lines its further development.\n\nMan in his selfish egoism making himself the center of all nature,\nhas deemed that he alone is thus favored and raised above the rest\nof the universe.\n\nMoreover it is a belief that with all its uncertainties has an\nintrinsic attractive beauty in the hope it gives to man, that love\nand happiness will last beyond the grave.\n\nAbove all--fatalest of all, it is a belief that offers to the craft\nof the priest, power over his fellow man.\n\nThus, flattering to man's self-love, useful as an engine of power,\naffording an easy explanation of mysteries in life and death, this\nbelief in a soul really rising in \"the mists and shadows of sleep,\"\nhas come down to us as god-revealed from on high.--C. T. Bingham, in\n\"Progress,\" London, England.\n\n\n\n\n\"When a Man Dies what Becomes of his Soul?\"\n\nA friend of mine meeting me in the streets of Chicago one day,\nwithout much ceremony propounded the above question; \"Say, Brother\nBell,\" he began, \"I would like to have you tell me what becomes of\na man's soul when he dies?\" In reply I said, \"Do you see that man\nwalking on the other side of the street?\" \"Yes,\" he said, \"that is\nold Johnson.\" I then called his attention to the peculiar movement\nof the old gentleman. \"See what a peculiar gait he has.\" He assented\nthat our friend's gait was peculiar. As we were contemplating him,\nhe stopped to look in a store window. When he halted I turned to my\nquestioner and asked, \"Where has Mr. Johnson's gait gone since he\nstopped walking?\" He very candidly acknowledged that a man's gait\nwas not a thing, not an entity, but a mode of motion, and that when\nthe body ceased to move, there was no gait. I asked him if thinking\n(the soul) was not a motion or activity of the brain, and that when\nit ceased to act, if there was any soul or thinking left. I have a\nvery distinct remembrance that he talked a long time and said nothing.\n\n\n\n\nSome Soul Questions.\n\n1. Where does the soul come from?\n\n2. Is the soul an entity or nonentity?\n\n3. Of what is the soul composed?\n\n4. When does the soul enter the body, before or after birth?\n\n5. In what part of the body is the soul located?\n\n6. If the soul is located in all parts of the body what becomes of\nthat part of the soul contained in an amputated part of a living body?\n\n7. Is the soul an organization independent of the body?\n\n8. Does the soul develop as the body develops?\n\n9. Is the soul of an infant of the same size and weight as the soul\nof an adult?\n\n10. Is the soul of a negro of the same color as the soul of a\ncaucasian?\n\n11. Is the soul of an idiot as well developed as the soul of an\nintelligent person?\n\n12. When does the soul leave the body, at death or at the resurrection\nday?\n\n13. If the soul leaves the body at death, where does it sojourn while\nwaiting for the resurrection morn?\n\n14. If a living person was placed in an air-tight jar, and the jar\nsealed hermetically, at death how would the soul make its exit?\n\n15. After leaving the body what direction does the soul pursue to\nreach its final destination?\n\n16. What length of time does it require for the soul to reach its\nfinal destination?\n\n17. Where and at what distance from the earth is the soul land located?\n\n18. Has the soul the physical organs indispensible to mental action\nand consciousness?\n\n19. If not, of what use would the soul be?\n\n20. Is the soul sensible or insensible to pain?\n\n21. Of what shape is the soul?\n\n22. Of what color is the soul?\n\n23. Does the soul retain its sex?\n\n24. When and where are the souls made, or did they always exist?\n\n25. We have five infallible witnesses to prove the existence of matter,\nnamely, hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, and feeling. By these\nfive witnesses we prove the existence and the component parts of\nmatter. Can you by the aid of these five senses prove the existence\nof souls?--W. C. Clow.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDESIGN ARGUMENT.\n\n\nNothing could have come by chance, it is said, and therefore it is\ninferred that this universe must have been created by a God.\n\nLet us view this famous argument for a moment. God is something or\nnothing. To say he is nothing is to say there is no God. If he is\nsomething, he is not merely a property or quality, but an existence\nper se--an entity, a substance, whether material or immaterial is\nunimportant. If he is a substance, a material, or spiritual being,\nthere must be order, harmony, and adaptation, or fitness, in his\ndivine nature, to enable him to perceive, reflect, design, and\nexecute his plans. If Deity does not reason, does not cogitate, but\nperceives truth without the labor of investigation and contrivance,\nhe must still possess an adaptation or fitness thus to perceive,\nas well as to execute his design.\n\nTo say God is without order, harmony, and adaptation, or fitness,\nis to say he is a mere chaos--worse than that imaginary chaos that\ntheologians tell us would result if divine agency were withdrawn from\nthe universe. If a being without order, harmony, and adaptation,\nor a divine chaos, can create an orderly universe then there is no\nconsistency in saying that unintelligent matter could not have produced\nthe objects that we behold. If order, harmony, and adaptation do\nexist in the divine mind (or in the substance which produces thought,\npower, and purpose in the divine mind) they must be eternal, for that\nwhich constitutes the essential nature of a God must be the eternal\nbasis of his being. If the order, harmony, and adaptation in God are\nco-existent with him, are eternal, they must be independent of design,\nfor that which never began to exist could not have been produced, and\ndoes not therefore admit of design. If order, harmony, and adaptation\nare independent of design in the divine mind, it is certain that order,\nharmony, and adaptation exist, and are not evidence of a pre-existent,\ndesigning intelligence.\n\nIf order, harmony, and adaptation exist, which were not produced by\ndesign, which are therefore not evidence of design, it is unreasonable\nand illogical to infer designing intelligence from the fact alone\nthat order, harmony, and adaptation exist in nature. Therefore\nan intelligent Deity cannot be inferred from the order, harmony,\nand adaptation in nature. If the order, harmony, and adaptation in\nDeity, to produce his thoughts, and to execute his plans, are eternal,\nwhy may not the formation of matter into worlds, and the evolutions\nof the various forms of vegetable and animal life on this globe\nbe the result of the ceaseless action of self-existent matter in\naccordance with an inherent eternal principle of adaptation? Is it\nmore reasonable to suppose the universe was created, or constructed\nby a being in whom exists the most wonderful order and harmony,\nand the most admirable adaptation to construct a universe (which\norder, harmony, and adaptation could have had no designing cause),\nthan to suppose that the universe itself in its entirety is eternal,\nand the self-producing cause of all the manifestations we behold?\n\nIs a God uncaused, and who made everything from nothing, more easy\nof belief than a universe uncaused and existing according to its own\ninherent nature? Is it wonderful that matter should be self-existent;\nthat it should possess the power to form suns, planets, and construct\nthat beautiful ladder of life that reaches from the lowest forms\nof the vegetable kingdom up to man? How much more wonderful that a\ngreat being should exist, without any cause, who had no beginning,\nand who is infinitely more admirable than the universe itself.\n\nAgain, the plan of a work is as much evidence of intelligence and\ndesign as the work which embodies the plan. The plan of a steam\nengine in the mind of Fitch--the plan of the locomotive in the\nmind of Stephenson--was as much evidence of design as the piece of\nmachinery after its mechanical construction. If God be an omniscient\nbeing--a being who knows everything; to whose knowledge no addition\ncan be made--his plans must be eternal--without beginning, and\ntherefore uncaused. If God's plans are not eternal; if from time to\ntime new plans originate in his mind, there must be an addition to\nhis knowledge, and if his knowledge admits of addition, it must be\nfinite. But if his plans had no beginning; if, like himself, they\nare eternal, they must, like him, be independent of design. Now, the\nplan of a thing, we have already seen, is as much evidence of design\nas the object which embodies the plan. Since the plans of Deity are\nno proof of design that produced them (for they are supposed to be\neternal), the plan of this universe, of course, was no evidence of\na designing intelligence that produced it. But since the plan of\nthe universe is as much evidence of design as the universe itself,\nand since the former is no evidence of design, it follows that design\ncannot be inferred from the existence of the universe.\n\nThe absurdity of the a posteriori argument of a God consists in\nthe assumption that what we call order and adaptation in nature are\nevidence of design, when it is evident that whether there be a God or\nnot, order and adaptation must have existed from eternity, and are not\ntherefore necessarily proof of a designing cause. The reasoning of the\ntheologian is like that of the Hindoo in accounting for the position\nof the earth. \"Whatever exists must have some support,\" said he. The\nearth exists, and is therefore supported. He imagined it resting on the\nback of an elephant. The elephant needing some support, he supposed\nrested on the back of a huge tortoise. He forgot that according to\nhis own premise that whatever exists must have some support, that\nthe tortoise should rest on something. The inconclusiveness of his\nreasoning is apparent to a child. Whatever exists is supported. The\nearth exists. Therefore, the earth is supported; it rests on an\nelephant; the elephant rests on a tortoise; the tortoise exists,\nbut nothing is said about its support.\n\nThe theologian says order, harmony, and adaptation are evidence\nof a designing intelligence that produced them. The earth and its\nproductions show order, harmony, and adaptation. Therefore, the earth\nand its productions have been produced by an intelligent designer. Just\nas the Hindoo stopped reasoning when he imagined the earth on an\nelephant, and the elephant on a tortoise, so the theologian stops\nreasoning when he says, God made the world. But as surely as from\nthe premise that whatever exists must have some support, follows the\nconclusion that the tortoise rests on something, as rests on it the\nelephant, does it follow from the proposition that order, harmony,\nand adaptation are proof of an intelligent designer, that the order,\nharmony, and adaptation in the Deity to produce the effects ascribed\nto him are evidence of an intelligent designer who made him, as the\nvarious parts of nature, adapted to one another, are evidence of an\nintelligent designer that produced them. This reasoning leads to the\nconclusion that there has been an infinite succession of creative and\ncreated Gods, which is inconsistent with the idea of a First Cause,\nthe creator of the universe. Then why attempt to explain the mysteries\nof the universe by imagining a God who produced everything but himself,\nand why argue from the order and fitness in the world the existence\nof a designer. It reminds me of the ostrich, that having buried its\nhead in the sand, so as to render invisible its pursuers, fancies\nthere is no further need of exertion to escape from the dangers and\ndifficulties which surround it.\n\n\n    \"Design represented as a search after final cause, until we come to\n    a first cause, and then stop,\" says F. N. Newman, \"is an argument I\n    confess which in itself brings me no satisfaction.\" \"The attempt,\"\n    says Buckle, \"which Paley and others have made to solve this\n    mystery by rising from the laws to the cause are evidently futile,\n    because to the eye of reason the solution is as incomprehensible\n    as the problem, and the arguments of the natural theologian,\n    in so far as they are arguments, must depend on reason.\"\n\n\nDesign implies the use of means for the attainment of ends. Man\ndesigns, plans, contrives and uses secondary agencies to accomplish his\npurposes, because unable to attain his ends directly. But how absurd\nto speak of contrivance and design in a being of infinite power and\nknowledge. Man, to build steamships has to fell trees and hew them\ninto various shapes, get iron from the earth and smelt it in furnaces,\nand work it into bolts, braces, nails, etc., hundreds of workmen,\ncarpenters, joiners, blacksmiths, cabinet-makers, painters, caulkers,\nriggers, etc., labor for months before the vessel can be launched. If\nman possessed the power to speak into existence a steamship, would he\ncontrive, plan and use means to construct it? On the contrary, would\nit not come instantly into existence as a complete, perfect whole?\n\nBut the existence of a steamer, since it is only a means to an end,\nwould be inconsistent with unlimited power in man. If he were able\nto effect his purposes why should he construct a vessel with which\nto visit far off lands? Infinite power would enable him to cross the\nocean by the mere exercise of his will. It is evident at a glance\nthat the use of means is incompatible with infinite knowledge and\ninfinite power. This argument ... in proving too much proves nothing,\nand demonstrates its own worthlessness, and therefore we cast it\naside. Design implies finiteness; man designs and has to calculate\nand use means to accomplish his end. If he were all powerful would he\nuse that power to construct ships to cross the ocean, or armies to\nwin battles, when he could accomplish his end without, and by those\nmeans demonstrate that he is infinite in power? An infinite being would\nnot have to employ means to complete his works; he would not have to\ndoubt and cogitate before he accomplished his design; that would be\nthe method of man. It is absurd to suppose that a God did all those\nthings. We supposed God infinite in everything, in his power, in his\nlove and kindness. He has power to do everything. And yet the world is\nso constructed that at every step we take we crush to death creatures\nas minutely and curiously formed as ourselves. They kill one another in\nnumerous struggles, and life has been such a series of bloody battles,\nresulting in destruction of life, that the Waterloos and Solferinos of\nhistory are nothing in comparison. Where is the design in the volcano\nthat belches forth its fiery billows and buries in ruins a Pompeii\nand a Herculaneum? Where is the design in the tornado that sends a\nfleet with its precious freight of humanity beneath the remorseless\nwaves? Where is the design in the suffering and torture that thousands\nfeel this very moment in the chambers of sickness, and in the hospitals\nfull of diseases? Where is the evidence of a great being who has the\npower to make men happy, and yet allows the world to go on in all its\nmisery--such misery as it makes one's heart ache to see, and which we,\nimperfect creatures as we are, would gladly stop if we could?\n\nAnd where is the design in the thousands of facts which science\nhas brought to light, showing that there are organs and parts that\nserve no purpose at all, but on the contrary, are injurious to their\npossessors? Why do some animals, like the dugong, have tusks that\nnever cut through the gums? Why has the guinea pig teeth that are shed\nbefore it is born? Science tells us these rudimentary structures are\nthe remnants of a former state, in which these parts were of service;\nbut theology, which requires us to believe that a God made all these\nanimals as we now see them, cannot possibly reconcile these facts\nwith infinite wisdom and goodness.\n\nAdaptation in organisms instead of having been produced by a Deity,\nwe hold is largely the result of natural selection. Adaptation must\nexist as the adjustment of objects to their environments. If a flock\nof sheep be exposed to the weather of a severe climate, those of\nthem having the thinnest wool, affording the least protection from\nthe cold, will perish. Those with the thickest wool and hardiest\nnature will survive every year, and by the law of heredity, transmit\ntheir favorable variations. By this process those best adapted to the\nclimate live, and the others perish. Thus in the struggle for life we\nhave the \"survival of the fittest,\" without any design whatever. But\nthe theologian comes along and looking at the sheep, says: \"See how\nGod has adapted these sheep to the climate.\" He forgets the thousands\nthat have shivered and perished in winter's cold as the condition\nof this adaptation. So animals change the color of their coverings\nin accordance with their environments. The bears among the icebergs\nof the North are white, because in the struggle for life every light\nvariation has been favorable to the animal--has facilitated its escape\nfrom the hunter and its preying upon the living things upon which it\nsubsists. Those with darker coverings have gradually become extinct,\nleaving in undisputed possession of the snow banks and icebergs\nthis species, which in color resembles the general aspect of its\nsurroundings. Look at the rabbits. Some change their color every year;\nsome are brown in the summer and white like the snow in winter. Those\nwith this tendency to change their color during the year, having\nthe most favorable variation, have persisted, and this tendency,\nby heredity, has been accumulated, until it has become a part of the\nnature of the animal.\n\nThese are but illustrations of a principle discovered by Darwin and\nWallace, which explains largely how, not only color and thickness\nof coverings, but speed, strength and suppleness of body, keenness\nof sight and hearing, and all other parts and powers of organism\nhave been developed in adaptation to their environment, without any\nspecial design whatever.\n\nIt is said we have no evidence of the eternal existence of the\nuniverse, because we have no personal observation of it. But is there\nany personal observation to prove the existence of an eternal God? Yet\nit is believed in by our opponents. We believe the universe always\nhas existed in the past, because we see no trace of a beginning; we\nbelieve it will always exist in the future, because we see no prospect\nor possibility of an end. Worlds have their formation and dissolution;\nbut the substance is neither augmented nor diminished. Matter\nis indestructible and eternal. We are not, therefore, in need of\na creator.\n\n\nB. F. Underwood.\n\n\n\n\nDo the natural affairs of this world show a designer? Is there\na conscious intelligence at work guiding all the affairs of this\nworld? We see no evidence of a wise and benevolent design in the\ncreation of wild, ravenous birds and beasts of prey. We fail to see\nanything like a kind providence in earthquakes, volcanoes, floods,\ntidal-waves, storms at sea, drouth, famine, and pestilence. Is there\na supreme intelligence which causes monstrosities, sends epidemics,\nhorrid diseases, plants parasites upon the human body? Are lice,\ntape-worms, bed-bugs, fleas, flies, grasshoppers, and mosquitoes\n\"blessings in disguise?\" Are abject poverty and misery divine\nblessings? Is ignorance a gracious boon in mercy sent? Pain and misery\nare not exceptional features of man's life on earth, but they are chief\ncharacteristics of it. Are some unconscious of their degradation? Shall\nwe infer therefrom that ignorance is bliss? If this unconsciousness\nof degradation on the part of some shall be considered as evidence\nof a benevolent designer, then what shall we say in the case of those\nwho are conscious of their degradation?\n\n\"If,\" says Haeckel, \"we contemplate the common life and mutual\nrelations between plants and animals (man included) we shall find\neverywhere and at all times, the very opposite of that kindly and\npeaceful social life which the goodness of the creator ought to\nhave prepared for his creatures: we shall rather find everywhere a\npitiless, most embittered struggle of all against all.\" Large fish\neat small ones, large birds devour the smaller, and the ferocious\nbeasts of prey live upon the weaker and less fleet animals. In this\nstruggle for existence there is one perpetual battle; the smaller,\nweaker and less fleet are captured and devoured by the stronger,\nand man destroys and eats any of them at his pleasure.\n\nIs there a display of intelligence and benevolent design in creating\nman with strength and wisdom to slaughter his prey at will? Then\nwhere is the benevolence of design in creating the animals to be\nthus slaughtered?\n\nThe universe, we shall find, does not exhibit evidence of a conscious\nintelligent design. Says Shelley: \"We must prove design before we\ncan infer a designer.\"\n\n\n    Mr. Talmage insists that it takes no especial brain to reason out\n    a \"design\" in nature, and in a moment afterward says: \"When the\n    world slew Jesus, it showed what it would do with the eternal\n    God if once it could get its hands upon him.\" Why should a God\n    of infinite wisdom create people who would gladly murder their\n    creator? Was there any particular \"design\" in that? Does the\n    existence of such people conclusively prove the existence of a\n    good designer? (\"Ingersoll's Interviews,\" p. 46.)\n\n\n\n\nProvidence.\n\nReligious people see Providence in everything. Strange it is, too, that\nthe most marked displays of Providence are seen in shipwrecks, railroad\ncollisions, or in all devastating fires, floods, and plagues. In such\nappalling calamities as lead most sensible men to say with \u00c6neas,\n\"If there be gods, they certainly take no interest in the affairs\nof men,\" the Christian sees proof of a good guardian, a saving God,\nwhere nothing but destruction and ruin mark his pathway. There is\na strange fatuity manifested by believers in this doctrine. Not long\nsince a young man died very suddenly in Boston. There was a post-mortem\nexamination by regular physicians, and a coroner's jury, who mutually\ndeliberated over the body as to the cause of its death. The doctors\nfound the young man's stomach somewhat irritated. On close inspection\nthe contents of the stomach were found to be a mixture of bread and\nbutter, mince pie and coffee, ham and eggs, buckwheat cakes, oyster\nstew, plum pudding, pound cake, corned beef, ice cream, more mince pie,\nand baked beans.\n\nThe jury gave the case most grave and deliberate consideration, and\nin accordance therewith returned the verdict: \"Came to his death by a\nmysterious dispensation of the afflictive hand of Providence.\" Just\nso! Anything, however evil, unjust or foolish may be attributed to\nProvidence; yet he remains both wise and good.\n\nWhy, if this world is created and controlled by infinite wisdom\nand benevolence, are not all things beautiful? One of man's noblest\nendeavors is to beautify. But we see many flowers and plants which\nare not beautiful.\n\nMany parts of the earth are inhospitable and forbidding. What beauties\non the other hand lie buried at the bottom of the ocean, its flora,\nshells, and corals! But no human eye ever sees them. Wherein is the\nevidence of design? Where is the evidence of design in the horrid\nmonsters which once filled the oceans? Where is the design in creating\nsuch monstrosities as we see among animals?\n\nDid the designer intend that parasites should infest the human\nbody? The creator made the parasites (lice) and their proper\ndwelling-place seems to be the human body. The human body gives them\ntheir proper food. They are so constituted as to reproduce themselves\nrapidly and thus persist in feeding upon man.\n\nThe question is immediately raised: \"Were the lice made for man, or\nman for the lice?\" When did it ever occur to a sane mind that bed-bugs\nand mosquitoes and fleas were created with a benevolent design?\n\nThese facts are irreconcileable with the notion of a supreme and\nbeneficent Providence.\n\nWhere is the evidence of benevolent design in earthquakes, floods,\nvolcanoes, drouth, famine, and ten thousand ills which flesh is heir\nto? Where is the moral purpose? Where is the benevolence in peopling\nthe earth with millions of human beings who live lives of poverty\nand misery?\n\nBut it is argued that we cannot see it all now, but by and by it will\nbe made plain to us, that is, when we get into the other world. This\nis begging the question. The Christian says creation shows a creator,\nwho first created the universe and now presides over it. But when\nwe bring the facts of this world, its abounding evils and human\nmiseries, to show the absence of any benevolent superintendence,\nhe promises to make good his argument in the next world. This is\nasking a fellow to wait too long. Again, it is argued by the Christian\nthat God ordained pain to work out good; but how comes it that this\nordination of working good out of evil does not take place? Sometimes\none man is made better by it, and another is brutalized by it. How\ndoes this come to pass if pain was ordained to work good? Has the\nplan of the designer failed? \"The evils of this world are ordained\nfor the purpose of developing our souls; only by pain and suffering\ncan we be prepared for heaven.\" Little children who die, according\nto this dogma, can never be developed.\n\n\n    Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall\n    not fall to the ground without your Father? (Mat. 10 : 29.)\n\n\nBut sparrows do fall to the ground nevertheless. And if some do not\nfall to the ground that wicked bird the sparrow-hawk, devours them\nsometimes before they have an opportunity to fall. It is the same\nwise and kind Providence who makes the sparrow and the sparrow-hawk,\nbut perhaps the poor sparrow does not recognize the wisdom and mercy\nof having a destroyer. But our good Christian friends will have it\nthat all things come to pass by the direct control of an all-wise\nand all-good Providence. The Chicago fire, the Boston fire, and\nothers are all dispensations of Providence, if we may believe the\nministers, and they are the only ones who pretend to have positive\ninformation of the facts. The bursting of a mill-dam, or a tidal-wave,\nor anything and everything else that carries the besom of destruction\nto thousands is to them a well-known intervention of the hand of\na wise and merciful Providence. It is the same, with good fortune;\nif we as a people have great prosperity, large harvests and abundance\nof trade, it is because of this \"All-wise Providence.\" He brings the\nevil and the good, miseries and joys, sins and salvation.\n\nHow do we know there is a kind Providence watching over this\nworld? \"Oh!\" says our Christian friend, \"we see this manifested in\nthe kindly adaptations of nature to man's conditions, everything\nseems to have been made for man's comfort.\" But, this general\nadaptation of man to nature and of nature to man, proves nothing of\na conscious intelligence ruling over the universe. The maggot in the\ncheese might look around him and say, if he could talk: \"All this\ncheese was made for me, because it's perfectly adapted to my wants\nand conditions.\" Man and maggot are adapted to their surroundings,\nbecause their surroundings have made them what they are.\n\nAfter attempting to prove the existence of a special Providence,\nand failing, the Christian then craw-fishes into absurd talk of\na mysterious Providence, a dark dispensation of Providence, an\ninscrutable Providence, an inexplicable Providence. And when driven\nfrom this refuge, he at last exclaims: \"Well, if it all seems dark and\nhidden from our understanding here, it will all be made clear when we\npass over to the other side.\" Yes, but you admit by this statement\nthat you know now positively nothing of a conscious intelligence\nruling the universe, why not say so?\n\nThe fundamental idea of a special Providence, is that he prevents\naccidents; but in spite of special Providence, accidents do occur. And\neven these mishaps, which show that no such thing as Providence exists,\nare claimed by the superstitious as proof of a mysterious Providence.\n\n\n    Francis Bacon says: \"We shall do well to bear in mind the ancient\n    story of one who in Pagan times was shown a temple with a picture\n    of all the persons who had been saved from shipwreck, after paying\n    their vows. When asked whether he did acknowledge the power of\n    the gods, \"Aye,\" he answered, \"but where are they painted who\n    were drowned after their vows?\" (Jevon's \"Principles of Science,\"\n    part 2, p. 5.)\n\n    We learn from the little care which nature takes of single\n    individuals. Thousands of them are sacrificed without hesitation\n    or repentance in the plenty of nature. Even with regard to man\n    we make the same experience. Not one half of the human race reach\n    the second year of their age, but die almost without having known\n    that they ever lived. We learn this very thing also from the\n    misfortunes and mishaps of all men, the good as well as the bad,\n    which cannot well be made to agree with the special preservation or\n    co-operation of the creator. (Feuerbach's \"Essence of Religion.\")\n\n    But with the conception of a supreme beneficence this gratuitous\n    infliction of misery, in common with other terrestrial creatures\n    capable of feeling, is also absolutely incompatible.--Spencer.\n\n    In short, there can be no hypothesis of a \"moral government\"\n    of the world which does not implicitly assert an \"immoral\n    government.\" (Fisk's \"Cosmic Philosophy,\" vol. 2, p. 407.)\n\n    But the believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to\n    declare that there was a time when slavery was right--when men\n    could buy, and women could sell, their babes. He is compelled to\n    insist that there was a time when Polygamy was the highest form of\n    virtue; when wars of extermination were waged with the sword of\n    mercy; when religious toleration was a crime, and when death was\n    the just penalty for having expressed an honest thought. He must\n    maintain that Jehovah is just as bad now as he was four thousand\n    years ago, or that he was just as good then as he is now, but that\n    human conditions have so changed that slavery, polygamy, religious\n    persecutions, and wars of conquest are now perfectly devilish. Once\n    they were right--once they were commanded by God himself; now, they\n    are prohibited. There has been such a change in the conditions of\n    man that, at the present time, the Devil is in favor of slavery,\n    polygamy, religious persecution, and wars of conquest. That is to\n    say, the Devil entertains the same opinion to-day that Jehovah held\n    four thousand years ago, but in the meantime Jehovah has remained\n    exactly the same--changeless and incapable of change.... A very\n    curious thing about these commandments is that their supposed\n    author violated nearly every one. From Sinai, according to the\n    account, he said: \"Thou shalt not kill,\" and yet he ordered the\n    murder of millions; \"Thou shalt not commit adultery,\" and yet\n    he gave captured maidens to gratify the lust of captors; \"Thou\n    shalt not steal,\" and yet he gave to Jewish marauders the flocks\n    and herds of others; \"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,\n    nor his wife,\" and yet he allowed his chosen people to destroy the\n    homes of neighbors and to steal their wives; \"Honor thy father\n    and thy mother,\" and yet this same God had thousands of fathers\n    butchered, and with the sword of war killed children yet unborn;\n    \"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,\" and\n    yet he sent abroad \"lying spirits\" to deceive his own prophets,\n    and in a hundred ways paid tribute to deceit. So far as we know,\n    Jehovah kept only one of these commandments--he worshipped no\n    other God. (\"Ingersoll's Reply to Black.\")\n\n    It is said of Christ that he was infinitely kind and generous,\n    infinitely merciful because when on earth he cured the sick,\n    the lame, and the blind. Has he not as much power now as he had\n    then? If he has and is the God of all worlds, why does he not\n    now give back to the widow her son? Why does he withhold light\n    from the blind, and why does one who had the power miraculously\n    to feed thousands allow millions to die for want of food? Where\n    is he now? (\"Ingersoll's Interviews.\")\n\n\n\n\nFirst Cause.\n\nAssuming then, the existence of a First Cause, let us inquire for\na moment into its nature. The First Cause must be infinite. For if\nwe regard it as finite, we regard it as bounded or limited, and are\nthus compelled to think of a region beyond its limits, which region\nis uncaused. And if we admit this, we virtually abandon the doctrine\nof causation altogether. We, therefore, have no alternative but to\nregard the First Cause an infinite.\n\nWe are no less irresistibly compelled to regard the First Cause as\nindependent. For if it be dependent, that on which it depends must\nbe the First Cause. The First Cause can therefore have no necessary\nrelation to any other form of being; since if the presence of any other\nform of existence is necessary to its completeness, it is partially\ndependent upon such other form of existence, and cannot be the First\nCause. Thus the First Cause, besides being infinite, must be complete\nin itself, existing independently of all relations,--that is, it must\nbe absolute.\n\nTo such conclusions, following the most refined metaphysical\nphilosophy of the day, are we easily led. By the very limitations\nof our faculties, we are compelled to think of a First Cause of\nall phenomena; and we are compelled to think of it as both infinite\nand absolute.\n\nNevertheless, it will not be difficult to show that such a\nconclusion is utterly illusive; and that in joining together, the\nthree conceptions of Cause, of Infinite, and of Absolute, we have\nwoven for ourselves a net-work of contradictions, more formidable,\nmore disheartening than any that we have yet been required to\ncontemplate. For, in the first place, that which is a cause cannot\nat the same time be absolute. For the definition of the Absolute\nis that which exists out of all relations; whereas a cause not\nonly sustains some definite relation to its effect, but it exists\nas a cause only by virtue of such relation. Suppress the effect,\nand the cause has ceased to be a cause. The phrase \"absolute cause,\"\ntherefore, which is equivalent to \"non-relative cause,\" is like the\nphrase \"circular triangle.\" The two words stand for conceptions which\ncannot be made to unite. \"We attempt,\" says Mr. Mansel, \"to escape from\nthis apparent contradiction by introducing the idea of succession in\ntime. The Absolute exists first by itself, and afterwards becomes a\ncause. But here, we are checkmated by the third conception, that of\nthe Infinite. How can the Infinite become that which it was not from\nthe first? If causation is a possible mode of existence, that which\nexists without causing is not infinite; that which becomes a cause\nhas passed beyond its former limits.\n\n\"But supposing all these obstacles overcome, so that we might frame\na valid conception of a cause which is also absolute and infinite:\nhave we then explained the origin of the universe? Have we advanced\none step toward explaining how the Absolute can be the source of\nthe Relative, or how the Infinite can give rise to the Finite?\" To\ncontinue with Mr. Mansel, \"if the condition of causal activity is\na higher state than that of quiescence, the Absolute ... has passed\nfrom a condition of comparative imperfection to one of comparative\nperfection; and therefore was not originally perfect. If the state of\nactivity is an inferior state to that of quiesence, the Absolute in\nbecoming a cause has lost its original perfection. There remains only\nthe supposition that the two states are equal, and the act of creation\none of complete indifference. But this supposition annihilates the\nunity of the Absolute.\" (John Fiske, \"Cosmic Philosophy.\")\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE SUNDAY QUESTION.\n\n\nIt is related that once upon a time, a number of grave and reverend\nrabbins earnestly disputed among themselves, whether it was lawful or\nnot to eat an egg that was laid upon the Sabbath day. In the minds of\nsome of these grave and wise masters it was held to be a prohibited\negg, but in the stomachs of others of their number such eggs were\nheld as too good to be despised.\n\nIn the Blue Laws of Connecticut by Rev. Sam Peters, we have Puritan\nscruples put in rhyme:\n\n\n\"Upon the Sabbath day they'll no physick take,\nLest it should worke, and so the Sabbath breake.\"\n\n\nThere have always been great disputes over this subject which\nwe call in general terms the \"Sunday Question.\" Why do so many\nmisunderstandings arise upon this matter? Simply because people\ndo not understand the question. Millions of devout worshippers use\nthe terms Sunday and Sabbath as if they were synonymous. Millions\nof superstitious persons cherish obligations to maintain better\nconduct on Sunday than on any other day in the week. They cannot\nunderstand that it is fit and proper to do on Sunday anything that\nit is fit and proper to do on any other day. The tendency to perform\nthe duties of life correctly on Sunday leaves room and disposition\nnot to perform them so well on the other six days of the week. Such\npeople live cream lives on Sunday and skim-milk lives all the rest\nof the week. It won't do; because it tends to demoralize rather\nthan establish the noble sentiments of morality and manhood. If we\nwould know how to observe Sunday we must know something more about\nit than we have unconsciously learned from the nursery stories of\nour childhood. Let us begin with the names of\n\n\n\n\nThe Days of the Week.\n\n\n    We trace these names to our Saxon ancestors. By them the seven\n    days of the week were called Son-daeg, Moon-daeg, Tuis-daeg,\n    Woden's-daeg, Thurres-daeg or Thor's-day, Friga's-daeg, and\n    Seterne's-daeg. These were the names of ancient deities. As\n    seven planets and seven metals were at that time known--the sun,\n    the moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn being the\n    planets of astrology--a due allotment was made, gold was held\n    sacred to the sun, silver to the moon, iron to Mars, etc. Even\n    the portions of time were in a like manner dedicated; the seven\n    days of the week were respectively given to the seven planets of\n    astrology. The names imposed on these days, and the order in which\n    they occur, are obviously connected with the Ptolemaic hypothesis\n    of astronomy, each of the planets having an hour assigned to it in\n    its order of occurrence, and the planet ruling first the hour of\n    each day giving its name to that day. Thus arranged, the week is a\n    remarkable instance of the longevity of an institution adapted to\n    the wants of man. It has survived through many changes of empire\n    and has forced itself on the ecclesiastical system of Europe,\n    which, unable to change its idolatrous aspect, has encouraged the\n    vulgar error that it owes its authenticity to the holy scriptures;\n    an error too plainly betrayed by the Pagan names that the days\n    bear, and also by their order of occurrence. (\"Intellectual\n    Development of Europe,\" by John W. Draper, vol. 1, p. 403.)\n\n\nIt is remarkable that every day of the week is by different nations\ndevoted to the public celebration of religious services:--Sunday\nby the Christians, Monday by the Greeks, Tuesday by the Persians,\nWednesday by the Assyrians, Thursday by the Egyptians, Friday by the\nTurks, Saturday by the Jews.\n\n\n    From a passage in Genesis, in which the first reference to a\n    Sabbath occurs, the inference has been drawn (an inference not\n    warranted by the text) that the first parents of the human\n    race were taught by God himself to divide time into weeks,\n    and to set apart a portion as a day of rest, and for religious\n    purposes. If so, it would of course follow that this institution,\n    or some traces of it, would be found among all nations; and\n    the impression, therefore, on the mind of a very large class\n    of persons, is a very natural one, that however much a Sabbath\n    may have fallen into disuse, or be now disregarded, the week of\n    seven days has been kept by all generations of mankind from the\n    days of creation, and continues to be observed in every part of\n    the world. (\"Westminster Review,\" October 1850, p. 134.)\n\n\nIt is, however, true that observance of one day in seven as a day of\nrest, recreation, and pleasure obtains in many countries. How then\ndid it come about if it was not revealed to man, that we keep in a\nspecial manner\n\n\n\n\nOne Day in Seven?\n\nThe observance of a seventh part of the week is no more a revelation\nthan the multiplication table is. It was natural for man to measure\nthe spaces of time. The revolution of the earth, or from sun to sun\nwas a day, and from new moon to new moon was a month of twenty-eight\ndays. It was a most natural thing to have feasts at the full of the\nmoon and at new moon; between these times were the \"horned moon,\"\nand this marked another division of time. It was easy to divide the\nfull moon into four periods, each of seven days. Hence originated the\nobservance of one day in seven. After the moon time had been divided\ninto four parts each of seven days and the days specifically named,\nthen the old phraseology of \"new moon days\" was dropped as it was no\nlonger needed.\n\nThere are two different reasons given for observing the Sabbath:\n\n\n    For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all\n    that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord\n    blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (Exodus 20 : 11.)\n\n    And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt,\n    and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a\n    mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy\n    God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day. (Deuteronomy 5 : 15.)\n\n\nHere are two distinct and contradictory accounts given of the origin of\nthe Sabbath. According to the first, God instituted the Sabbath on the\nseventh day of time, immediately after his six days of creation. But\nif we are to believe the writer of Deuteronomy the Sabbath was set\nup as a memorial day of the Jews' escape from Egyptian bondage; an\noccurrence that took place something like two thousand five hundred\nyears after the year one, of creation. Both of these statements cannot\nbe correct, as one excludes the other. And in view of the fact that\nman naturally learned to divide time into days, moons, and quarter\nmoons we are strongly inclined to think that both of these ancient\naccounts are mythical.\n\n\n\"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.\"\n\n\nThe word holy has lost its original signification. The Hebrew word\nkadosh means \"to set apart.\" Parkhurst renders it, \"to separate,\nto set apart from its common and ordinary to some higher use or\npurpose.\" It is used in this sense in Genesis 4 : \"And God divided\n[i.e. separated] the light from the darkness.\"\n\nThe vessels of the sanctuary were to be \"Holy unto the Lord;\" that\nis, they were to be kept strictly separate from other vessels, for\nthe sanctuary.\n\nThe saba or Sabbath was a day of rest, and the command to keep it\nholy did not mean that it should be observed with solemnity, or\nkept by offering sacrifices or in the performance of other religious\nceremonies. Other days were working days, but the Sabbath was to be\na day of rest.\n\n\"The word holy,\" says a modern writer on the Sabbath, \"has now become\nso associated in our minds with Puritanical ideas of self-mortification\nand with modern religious forms of worship, that we are naturally\nmisled by it from the meaning of the original. Many pious persons\nsuppose that the command to keep the Sabbath day holy was equivalent\nto an injunction to attend a parish church, hear two or more sermons\nin the course of the Sunday and during the rest of the day to keep\nin-doors and read the Bible. The Jews, however, did not do this, for\nthe Bible was not written, and sermons in its exposition (which would\nhave wanted texts) could not well be preached. Nor does it appear\nfrom any passage in the books of Moses, that religious admonitions\nor discourses of any kind formed a part of the tabernacle service.\"\n\nThe Jewish Sabbath was emphatically a day of rest. Work, therefore,\nwas strictly prohibited; for \"Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath\nday, he shall surely be put to death.\" (Exodus 31 : 15.)\n\nThis law was not so literal as subsequent interpreters have made\nit. We have an account of only one person being put to death for this\ncrime. It is recorded in Numbers, 15 : 32-36 that \"while the children\nof Israel were in the wilderness they found a man that gathered sticks\nupon the Sabbath day.\"\n\n\n    And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses\n    and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.\n\n    And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should\n    be done to him.\n\n    And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death;\n    all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.\n\n    And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned\n    him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.\n\n\nThis was the only case in all the Hebrew writings, of stoning a man\nfor gathering sticks on the Sabbath. But this single instance has\nengendered an infinite amount of bitter persecution in the hearts of\nthe over-righteous, who keep the Sabbath holy and try also to make\ntheir neighbors observe it in a like manner.\n\nSir Humphrey Davy relates in his \"Salmonia,\" page 1,345, that he\n\"was walking on Arthur's Seat with some of the most distinguished\nprofessors of Edinburgh attached to the geological opinions of the\nlate Dr. Hutton, a discussion took place upon the phenomena presented\nby the rocks under our feet, and to exemplify a principle, Professor\nPlayfair broke some stones, in which I assisted the venerable and\namiable philosopher.\n\n\"We had hardly examined the fragments, when a man from the crowd,\nwho had been assisting at field-preaching, came up and warned us off,\nsaying, 'Ye think ye are only stane-breakers; but I ken ye are Sabbath\nbreakers, and ye deserve to be staned with your ain stanes.'\"\n\nAccidents which take place on Sunday are looked upon by some people as\n\"Judgments of God.\"\n\n\n    In Scotland on January 16th, 1603 the citizens were dreadfully\n    alarmed by an earthquake, on account of which a day of fasting\n    and humiliation was appointed by the magistrates and clergy. The\n    particular sin for which this scourge was thought to be sent,\n    was the custom of salmon-fishing on Sunday.\n\n    But this rigid feature of the Jewish Sabbath was of a negative\n    character, as the day was observed as a day of feasting and joy--a\n    day something like our Thanksgiving.\n\n    A variety of minor regulations referring to bodily indulgences\n    on that day, abundantly prove, if further proof were needed,\n    its recognized character as a \"feast-day\" in the natural and\n    general sense of the term, in Judaism. It was to be honored by\n    the wearing of finer garments, by three special meals of the best\n    cheer the house could afford; and it was considered a particularly\n    meritorious thing on the part of the master of the house to busy\n    himself personally as much as possible with the furnishing of\n    the viands, nay, the fetching of the very wood for the cooking,\n    so as to do as much honor to the \"bride-sabbath\" as in him lay.\n\n    Fasting, mourning, mortification of all and every kind, even\n    special supplicatory prayers are strictly prohibited. (Chamber's\n    Encyclopedia.)\n\n\nIf Sunday takes the place of the Sabbath, then the New Testament\nwould clearly reveal the fact; but it does nothing of the kind. If\nthe new religion was designed to take the place of the old, then we\nshould expect to find Jesus plainly teaching that after his death\nSunday should be observed in place of and as the Sabbath. But far\nfrom this, we find him repudiating the Jewish Sabbath, and saying\nnothing at all about a new day of ceremonies and worship.\n\nWe give a number of instances where Jesus intentionally repudiates\nand violates the common usages respecting the Sabbath:\n\n\n    The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the\n    water is troubled to put me into the pool; but while I am coming,\n    another steppeth down before me.\n\n    Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.\n\n    And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and\n    walked: and on the same day was the Sabbath.\n\n    The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath\n    day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.\n\n    And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him,\n    because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. (John 5 :\n    7, 8, 9, 10 and 16.)\n\n\nThe Jewish law regarding the Sabbath was strict. It was not lawful\nto carry burdens on that day.\n\n\n    Thus saith the Lord, Take heed to yourselves, and bear no\n    burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of\n    Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 17 : 21.)\n\n    And it came to pass that he went through the corn fields on the\n    Sabbath day; and his disciples began as they went to pluck the\n    ears of corn.\n\n    And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the\n    Sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them,\n    Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was a\n    hungered, he and they that were with him?\n\n    How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high\n    priest, and did eat the shew-bread, which is not lawful to eat,\n    but for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?\n\n    And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man and not man\n    for the Sabbath. (Mark 2 : 23-27.)\n\n\nJesus had repeated conflicts with the Jews on this question. He would\nnot honor the Jewish Sabbath, and consequently the Jews made war upon\nhim, threatening to take his life.\n\n\n    And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal\n    on the Sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against\n    him. But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had\n    the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he\n    arose and stood forth.\n\n    Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful\n    on the Sabbath days to do good or to do evil? to save life or to\n    destroy it?\n\n    And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man,\n    Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so; and his hand was restored\n    whole as the other. (Luke 6 : 7-11.)\n\n    And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another\n    what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6 : 11.)\n\n\nWe read in Luke 13 : 11-14, that \"there was a woman which had a spirit\nof infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no\nwise lift up herself.\"\n\n\n    And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her,\n    Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.\n\n    And he laid his hands upon her; and immediately she was made\n    straight, and glorified God.\n\n    And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because\n    that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day, and said unto the people,\n    There are six days in which man ought to work; in them therefore\n    come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.\n\n\nWith the commandment before his eyes, saying: \"Take heed to yourselves\nand bear no burdens on the Sabbath day as I commanded your fathers,\"\n(Jeremiah 18 : 21), Jesus deliberately bade the cripple take up his\nbed and walk, on the Sabbath day.\n\nIt is remarkable that those people who love to sabbatize so much,\nand to make others do so too, do not see that while Jesus violated\nintentionally the Jewish Sabbath, that he never gave his disciples the\nslightest hint that they should observe Sunday in any manner whatever.\n\nPaul, the founder of the Christian church, rejects the Sabbath.\n\n\n    Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in\n    respect of any holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath\n    days. (Colossians 2 : 16.)\n\n    One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every\n    day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.\n\n    He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that\n    regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. (Romans\n    14 : 5, 6.)\n\n    But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,\n    how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto\n    ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days and months and\n    times and years. (Galatians 4 : 9, 10.)\n\n\nBear in mind, reader, that there is not so much as a dot in the New\nTestament in favor of substituting Saturday for the Jewish Sabbath,\nor for observing it as a Sabbath day. Jesus and Paul both repudiate\nit. The history of the church is against the use of Sunday as the\nSabbath.\n\nSt. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, in the year 345, says: \"Turn thou\nnot out of the way into Samaritanism or Judaism, for Jesus Christ\nhath redeemed thee; henceforth reject all observance of Sabbaths,\nand call not meats, which are really matters of indifference, common\nor unclean.\"\n\nSt. Jerome, in the year 392, says: \"On the Lord's day they went to\nchurch, and returning from church they would apply themselves to their\nallotted works and make garments for themselves and others. The day\nis not a day of fasting, but a day of joy; the church has always\nconsidered it a day of joy, and none but heretics have thought\notherwise.\"\n\nSir William Danville, in his \"Six Texts,\" p. 241, says: \"Centuries\nof the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed by\nthe Christian church as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with\na single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed\nprevious to the sabbatical edict of Constantine in A. D. 321.\n\n\n\n\nThe Edict of Constantine.\n\nIn the code of Justinian lib. 3, title 12, sec. 2 and 3, we find the\nfirst legal edict regulating the Sabbath:\n\n\n    Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all\n    trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who\n    are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend\n    to the business of agriculture, because it often happens that no\n    other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the\n    critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities\n    granted by Heaven.\n\n\nBy a multitude of religious teachers of the present day, this decree\nof Constantine is recognized as the foundation of all \"Sabbath\"\nor \"Lord's day\" legislation; as the first recognition by the \"body\npolitic\" of the usages or institutions of Christianity. But nothing\ncan be more easily shown than that this decree was not made in the\ninterest of Christianity; that it did not respect the Sabbath or\nLord's day; and that it was not issued by a Christian ruler.\n\nThe reader will notice that the decree was partial; that it related\nonly to certain classes, leaving other classes to still pursue their\nusual avocations; and that it was respecting \"the venerable day of the\nsun.\" Now we appeal with confidence to every student and reader of the\nBible, that in all the scriptures there is no such a day or institution\nknown as \"the venerable day of the sun.\" And we affirm that, in this\ndecree, Constantine not only did not mention any Christian institution,\nbut he had no reference to any Christian institution.\n\nOn this point let such a reputable writer as Dr. Schaff testify:\n\n\n    He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as\n    dies Domini [Lord's day], but as dies solis [day of the sun],\n    in conformity to his worship of Apollo, and in company with\n    an ordinance for the regular consulting of the haruspex\n    (321). (\"History of the Christian Church,\" vol. 2.)\n\n\nThe edict of the sun's day was issued March 7; that for consulting\nthe haruspex was issued the day following, March 8. This edict\nof March 8 concerned the inspection of the entrails of beasts as\na means of foretelling future events. It was a heathen practice,\nand the decree was a heathen edict, made by a heathen ruler. This of\nitself is sufficient to show in what light we must regard his edict\nfor honoring \"the venerable day of the sun.\"\n\nDr. Schaff says that Constantine issued his sun's day decree \"in\nconformity to his worship of Apollo.\" Who was Apollo, and what relation\ndid his worship bear to reverencing \"the day of the sun?\" Webster says:\n\"A deity among the Greeks and Romans, and worshiped under the name\nof Phoebus, the sun.\"\n\n\nNoted Men who have Rejected the Observance of Sunday as the Sabbath.\n\n\n    For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of\n    the observance of Sabbaths, feasts, and sacrifices, before Moses,\n    no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the\n    will of God, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has been born without\n    sin.--Justin Martyr.\n\n    They (the patriarchs) did not therefore regard circumcision\n    nor observe the Sabbath, neither do we; neither do we abstain\n    from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions which Moses\n    subsequently delivered to be observed in types and symbols, because\n    such things as these do not belong to Christians.--Eusebius.\n\n    As regards the Sabbath or Sunday, there is no necessity for\n    keeping it; but if we do, it ought not to be on account of Moses's\n    commandment, but because nature teaches us from time to time to\n    take a day of rest.... If anywhere the day is made holy for the\n    mere day's sake, then I order you to work on it, to dance on it,\n    to do anything that will reprove this encroachment on Christian\n    spirit and liberty.--Martin Luther.\n\n    The law of the Sabbath being thus repealed, that no particular\n    day of worship has been appointed in its place is evident.--Milton.\n\n    They who think that by the authority of the church, the observance\n    of the Lord's day was appointed instead of the Sabbath, as if\n    necessary, are greatly deceived.--Melancthon.\n\n    And truly we see what such a doctrine has profited; for those who\n    adopt it far exceed the Jews in a gross, carnal, and superstitious\n    observance of the Sabbath.--John Calvin.\n\n    These things refute those who suppose that the first day of the\n    week (that is, the Lord's day) was substituted in place of the\n    Sabbath, for no mention is made of such a thing by Christ or\n    his Apostles.--Grotius.\n\n    It will be plainly seen that Jesus did decidedly and avowedly\n    violate the Sabbath. The dogma of the assembly of divines at\n    Westminster, that the observance of the Sabbath is a part of the\n    moral law, is to me utterly unintelligible.--Archbishop Whately.\n\n    As for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may yet\n    change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need,\n    or make every tenth day a holy day only, if we see cause why. We\n    may make two every week, if it were expedient, and not one enough\n    to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change it\n    from Saturday than to put difference between us and the Jews,\n    and lest we should become servants unto the day, after their\n    superstition. Neither need we any holy day at all if the people\n    might be taught without it.--William Tyndall.\n\n    The effect of which consideration is, that the Lord's day did\n    not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was\n    wholly abrogated, and the Lord's day was merely an ecclesiastical\n    institution.--Jeremy Taylor.\n\n    The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always\n    a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the\n    Apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from\n    them and the early Apostolic church to transfer the laws of the\n    Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false\n    application of this kind had begun to take place, for men appear by\n    that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.--Neander.\n\n    Dr. McNight says: The whole law of Moses being abrogated by Christ,\n    Christians are under no obligation to observe any of the Jewish\n    holidays--not even the Sabbath. (Com. on Epistles, Col.)\n\n\n\n\nSabbath Engenders Cruelty.\n\nThe history of the Sabbatarians proves them to be both ignorant and\ncruel. We have only to make a few quotations from standard authors\nto prove the charge.\n\n\n    At the same time that James shocked in so violent a manner,\n    the religious principles of his Scottish subjects, he acted in\n    opposition to those of his English. He had observed, in his\n    progress through England, that a Judaical observance of the\n    Sunday, chiefly by means of the Puritans, was every day gaining\n    ground throughout the kingdom; and that the people under color\n    of religion, were contrary to former practice, debarred such\n    sports and recreations as contributed both to their health and\n    amusement. Festivals which in other nations and ages are partly\n    dedicated to public worship, partly to mirth and society, were\n    here totally appropriated to the offices of religion and served to\n    nourish those sullen and gloomy contemplations, to which the people\n    were of themselves so unfortunately subject. The king imagined\n    that it would be easy to infuse cheerfulness into the dark spirit\n    of devotion. He issued a proclamation to allow and encourage,\n    after divine service, all kinds of lawful games and exercises;\n    and by his authority he endeavored to give sanction to a practice\n    which his subjects regarded as the utmost instance of profaneness\n    and impiety. (\"Hume's History of England,\" vol. 4, p. 447.)\n\n\nHume, speaking of the Puritans, remarks:\n\n\n    They [the house of commons] also enacted laws for the strict\n    observance of Sunday which the Puritans affected to call\n    the Sabbath, and which, they sanctified by most melancholy\n    indolence. (Vol. 5, p. 10.)\n\n    Besides this, it is important to remark that the Puritans were\n    more fanatical than superstitious. They were so ignorant of the\n    real principles of government, as to direct penal laws against\n    private vices. (\"Buckle's History of Civilization in England,\"\n    vol. 1, p. 261.)\n\n\nThe same spirit is rampant now in our prohibition laws, Sunday laws,\nprofane swearing laws, etc. Repressing vices does not extinguish them\nbut causes them to become more deep-seated and wide-spread. Moral\nnatures can be made more moral only by the use of moral means.\n\n\n\n\nThe Puritans.\n\n\n    Not dancers go to heaven, but mourners; not laughers but weepers;\n    whose tune is Lachrymae, whose music sighs for sin; who know\n    no other cinquepace but this to heaven, to go mourning all the\n    day long for their iniquities; to mourn in secret like doves,\n    to chatter like cranes for their own and others' sins. Fastings,\n    prayers, mourning, tears, tribulations, martyrdom were the only\n    sounds that led all the saints to heaven. (\"Bayne's Chief Actors\n    in the Puritan Revolution,\" p. 112.)\n\n\nPresbyterianism in Scotland was the twin of English Puritanism;\nPresbyterianism prohibited all sorts of pleasure as being sinful and\nof the Devil.\n\nThe following extracts are copied from Buckle's History of Civilization\nin England, volume 2, page 304:\n\n\n    Smiling, provided it stopped short of laughter, might occasionally\n    be allowed; still, being a carnal pastime it was a sin to smile\n    on Sunday. It was wrong to take pleasure in beautiful scenery;\n    for a pious man had no concern with such matters which were\n    beneath him, and which should be left to the unconverted.\n\nThe unregenerate might delight in these vanities, but they who were\nproperly instructed saw nature as she really was, and knew that she,\nfor about five thousand years, had been constantly on the move, her\nvigor was well nigh spent, and her pristine energy had departed. To\nthe eye of ignorance she still seemed fair and fresh; the fact,\nhowever, was that she was worn out and decrepit; she was suffering\nfrom extreme old age; her frame no longer elastic, was leaning on\none side, and she soon would perish.\n\nOwing to the sin of man all things were getting worse, and nature\nwas degenerating so fast that already the lilies were losing their\nwhiteness and the roses their smell.\n\nOn this account, it was improper to care for beauty of any kind;\nor to speak more accurately, there was no real beauty. The world\nafforded nothing worth looking at save and except the Scotch Kirk,\nwhich was incomparably the most beautiful thing under heaven. To look\nat that was a lawful enjoyment but every other pleasure was sinful. To\nwrite poetry, for instance, was a grievous offense, and worthy of\nspecial condemnation. To listen to music was equally wrong; for men\nhad no right to disport themselves in such idle recreation. Hence the\nclergy forbade music to be introduced even during the festivities of\na marriage.\n\nDancing was so extremely sinful that an edict expressly prohibiting\nit was enacted by the General Assembly, and read in every church\nin Edinburgh.\n\nIt was a sin for any Scotch town to hold a market either on Saturday\nor Monday, because both days were near Sunday. It was a sin to go from\none town to another on Sunday, however pressing the business might\nbe. It was a sin to visit your friend on Sunday; it was likewise\nsinful either to have your garden watered or your beard shaved.\n\nNo one, on Sunday, should pay attention to his health or think of his\nbody at all. On that day horse exercise was sinful; so was walking\nin the fields or in the meadows, or in the streets, or enjoying the\nfine weather by sitting at the door of your own house. To go to sleep\non Sunday before the duties of the day were over was also sinful and\ndeserved church censure. Bathing, being pleasant as well as wholesome,\nwas a particularly grievous offense; and no man could be allowed to\nswim on Sunday.\n\nIt mattered not what man liked; the mere fact of his liking it made\nit sinful. Whatever was natural was wrong. The clergy deprived the\npeople of their holidays, their amusements, their shows, their games,\nand their sports; they repressed every appearance of joy, they forbade\nall merriment, they stopped all festivities, they choked up every\navenue by which pleasure could enter, and spread over the country an\nuniversal gloom.\n\nOn Sunday, in particular, he must never think of benefitting others;\nand the Scotch clergy did not hesitate to teach the people that on\nthat day it was sinful to serve a vessel in distress, and that it was\na proof of religion to let ship and crew perish. They might go; none\nbut their wives and children would suffer, and that was nothing in\ncomparison with breaking the Sabbath. So, too, did the clergy teach,\nthat on no occasion must food or shelter be given to a starving man,\nunless his opinions were orthodox.\n\n\n\n\nSunday Should be Regarded as a day of Rest and Recreation.\n\nBut every one should be protected in his individual liberty of choosing\nhow he shall rest and enjoy himself. My neighbors certainly have no\nright to say how I shall conduct myself on Sunday, nor would they\nhave if they were elected to the state or national legislature. My\nright to freedom of conscience is inalienable. It is true that I\nmay be robbed of my liberty by those in power. The Sunday laws are\nthe spoliation of the weak by the strong. A most remarkable trait of\nthis nation is that it is constituted more than any other people that\nthe sun ever shone upon of law makers and law breakers. It forebodes\nnational decay. The people who indulge in this spirit are lacking in\nmoral sentiment, and the current history of the politics and religion\nof this country furnish a lamentable proof of the fact.\n\n\n\n\nUnconstitutionality of Sunday Laws.\n\nThere is no provision in the constitution requiring the citizens\nof the United States to observe Sunday in a religious manner; but\nthere are on the contrary, distinct and unqualified guarantees made\nto secure the religious liberty of every one. Sunday is a day of\nrest in the eyes of the Constitution but not a day of religious\nworship. Constitutionally it is every one's privilege to spend\nSunday as he chooses. He may, if he wishes, go to Sunday-school,\nclass-meeting, preaching, prayer-meeting, and preaching again, and\nthus employ all his time on Sunday in religious exercises; or if he\nprefers, he need go only once to service and fall asleep as soon as\nit begins. Others who desire it may visit the parks, green fields,\nride upon the cool waters or visit the libraries, museums, picture\ngalleries, zoological gardens and such other places of amusement\nand instruction as they see fit. It is the right of every American\ncitizen to decide in what way he should pursue his own happiness.\n\nWe read in Article 6 of the Constitution, that \"no religious test\nshall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust\nunder the United States.\" This foundation principle was supplemented\nby a provision in the first amendment, which says: \"Congress shall\nmake no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting\nthe free exercise thereof.\"\n\nWhat could be clearer than this, that the framers of the Constitution\nintended to exclude all religious questions from the charter of\nliberty? The Constitution recognizes the beliefs of neither Jew nor\nGentile--neither Christian nor Infidel.\n\nThe one special object of the framers of the Constitution was to\nestablish a free government, and especially did they aim to secure\nto the people their individual rights, and no right was so greatly\nin demand by the people as the right of a free conscience; the right\nto exercise their own judgment upon questions of religion.\n\n\n    \"We, the people of the United Slates, in order to form a more\n    perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,\n    provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and\n    secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,\n    do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States\n    of America.\"\n\n\nThe Declaration of Independence shows us that this question of\nliberty was that which the framers of the Constitution were seeking\nto establish: \"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all\nmen are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with\ncertain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and\nthe pursuit of happiness.\"\n\nWith these words of the Declaration of Independence before us and\nthe provision in Article 6 of the Constitution, namely, thus, \"no\nreligious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public\ntrust under the United States,\" and the further guarantee in the first\namendment, that \"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment\nof religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;\"--it is as clear\nas a sunbeam that all laws seeking to enforce a religious observance\nof Sunday are unconstitutional, and should not be executed; and where\nattempts are made to bind religious observance of the day upon Liberal\npeople they should resist it as an intolerable despotism.\n\nThe different states of the Union have numerous Sunday laws, which\nin most cases are a dead letter. Take for instance Massachusetts. In\nits history seventy-five cases have been decided mostly in favor of\na rigid enforcement of its Sunday laws. But both laws and decisions\nare powerless in controlling the people to observe Sunday as Sabbath.\n\nThe present laws of Massachusetts prohibit games, sports, concerts,\nplays, work, travel, idling, fishing, hunting, buying and selling,\nbut no one feels bound to obey them. Occasionally some new society\nsprings up calling itself \"The Society of Law and Order,\" and goes\nto work to set the world right. The first thing to be done is to\nenforce the Sunday laws, preventing barbers from shaving, milkmen from\ndistributing milk, newsdealers from selling papers, flower girls from\nselling flowers, cigar stores from selling cigars, croquet players\nfrom enjoying on their own premises an hour's exercise and amusement,\nsteamboats from carrying excursions from the city, ball players from\npracticing their games, the angler from taking a few trout, and many\nothers from finding rest and recreation in other ways. But these good\npeople who think that the world is out of joint and they are called\nto set it right, find it a greater task than they had bargained for,\nand so they soon tire, and the old world wags along as it did before\nthe \"Law and Order\" society came into existence.\n\nSunday laws are a solemn farce, and a burning shame. They are a\nwarfare upon the rights of man, in the interest of ancient traditions\nand modern despotism.\n\n\n    As for travel on the Lord's day, lo! how the people go their\n    journeys, take their pleasure rides, rattle over the streets with\n    their horse-cars, thunder through the villages past churches with\n    their locomotives, and plow the bogs and coastways with their\n    yachts and excursion steamers. Who questions the right? In the\n    line of sport and diversion, how common such things as boating\n    and fishing and hunting and ball playing and roving over pastures,\n    through woods, picking berries and gathering nuts, and attending\n    many a public entertainment to which an admittance fee is charged\n    and taken for purposes of gain, but whose character, however\n    sacred in name, is as secular as a banjo concert or a play\n    of the drama. No complaint. As regards traffic, do not livery\n    stable keepers let their horses as freely on Sundays as on week\n    days? Do not druggists sell as freely what they possess, whether\n    cigars or whisky, hairbrushes or perfumery? Do not hotels ply\n    their business as freely, always at the tobacco stand and often\n    at the bar? Do not newsboys run as loose with their shouts of\n    \"Herald and Gazette?\" While if you sail down of a Lord's day to\n    Martha's Vineyard, where \"religion is the chief concern,\" shall you\n    not see cigar stores, fruit stores, toy stores, souvenir stores,\n    etc., undisguisedly open for business, and pedlars hawking canes\n    and gim-cracks unchallenged by any deacon or dignitary? When,\n    therefore, the legislature (of Massachusetts) enacted as late\n    as 1863 that whoever does any manner of work or business on the\n    Lord's day shall be punished by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars,\n    instead of a fine not exceeding ten dollars, the former penalty, it\n    would seem that the intention must have been to provide a penalty\n    commensurate with the gravest breaches of the statute. What are\n    these, if they be not the running of passenger and freight railway\n    trains, whose mercenary noise makes havoc of all Sunday calm and\n    quiet; the repairing of railway tracks and bridges, the gangs\n    of workmen oft so large and belligerent enough to take a city;\n    the repairing of machinery in shops and mills; the racket of the\n    press turning out Sunday editions of newspapers secular as politics\n    and earthly as a quack medicine advertisement? These truly are\n    open and most gross violations of the law, but against them what\n    murmur has been heard taking the form of prosecution? Nay, the\n    breaches of the law that are prosecuted and have been are for the\n    most part the petty breaches, while the more flagrant offenders,\n    as a rule, have offended with impunity and still so offend.\n\n    Considering, therefore, the sturdiness with which the people of\n    the commonwealth resist the law's repeal, and the indifference\n    with which they treat its violations, it must be confessed that\n    Artemus Ward's sarcasm, as applied to \"prohibition,\" applies\n    here with peculiar force--in favor of the law, but against its\n    enforcement. (\"The Sunday Law of Massachusetts,\" by a member of\n    the Massachusetts bar, p. 29.)\n\n\nPuck, in its history of the United States, says: \"The Puritans\ninstituted many beautiful customs, and they had some very remarkable\nlaws. They provided strict penalties against Sabbath breaking. On\nSunday, they decreed that every able-bodied man, woman, and child\nin the country should go to church three times a day. They forbade\nreading anything except the Bible, forbade walking in the fields, and\ngenerally shut down on amusements. Then they called it the Lord's day,\nand thus strove to make the Lord unpopular.\"\n\n\n\n\nBen. Franklin on Connecticut Sundays.\n\nThe following is an extract from a letter written by Dr. Franklin to\nJared Ingersoll of New Haven. The original is in the possession of\nthe New Haven Colony Historical Society:\n\n\n    Philadelphia, Dec. 11, 1762.\n\n\n    I should be glad to know what it is that distinguishes Connecticut\n    Religion from common Religion:--communicate, if you please, some of\n    these particulars that you think will amuse me as a virtuoso. When\n    I travelled in Flanders I thought of your excessively strict\n    observation of Sunday; and that a man could hardly travel on\n    that day among you upon this lawful occasion, without Hazard of\n    Punishment, while where I was every one travelled, if he pleased,\n    or diverted himself in any other way; and in the afternoon both\n    high and low went to the Play or to the Opera, where there was\n    plenty of Singing, Fiddling and Dancing. I looked round for\n    God's Judgments, but saw no signs of them. The Cities were well\n    built and full of Inhabitants, the Markets filled with plenty,\n    the People well favored and well clothed; the Fields well tilled;\n    the Cattle fat and strong; the Fences, Houses and Windows all in\n    Repair; and no Old Tenor anywhere in the Country:--which would\n    almost make one suspect that the Deity is not so angry at that\n    offence as a New England Justice.\n\n\n    B. Franklin.\n\n\nIf you have any inalienable rights your freedom of conscience must\nbe one of the most fundamental. That is, it is for you to say how\nyou will deport yourself on matters of religion. It is nothing\nless than despotism for your neighbor to step up to you and say:\n\"Brother Jones, I want to see you at church to-day, and if you are\nnot there I will see to it that there is a law passed which will make\nyou attend church.\" This is what the Puritans actually did. They did\nit all for the glory of God, but our modern Puritans, the orthodox,\nseek to stop milk wagons from delivering milk on Sunday morning,\nflower girls from selling flowers on the streets of New York, all\nbecause of the welfare and purity of society. In several cities in\nTexas the sale of cigars on Sunday is a violation of the law.\n\nBut where do these members of the state and national legislatures get\ntheir power from? Do they have any except that which is delegated to\nthem by the people? They do not get the power from the people to usurp\ntheir inalienable rights. But here is a legislature passing laws upon\nthe religious observance of Sunday, who have never been instructed\nto secure the enactment of such laws. And even if ninety-nine out of\na hundred should so instruct their representative, the law could not\nbe binding upon the one hundredth person who did not so instruct his\n(mis)representative in congress. He can be made to obey by their\nbrute force. And this is what legislation amounts to generally. The\npeople are not represented by the law makers, but their interests\nand rights are invaded one after another until the poor people are\nsubjugated. Among the rights of man perhaps there is none which is\nmore generally recognized abstractly, and more frequently violated\npractically, than his right to freedom of conscience, or, in other\nwords, his religious liberty. How does this come about? One of the\nprincipal reasons for this anomaly is that most people think that\nwe ought to obey without question the will of the majority. They\nseem to think that an enactment by congress settles the question,\nwhatever it may be.\n\nHere is the secret of the Sunday legislation. The church is a spiritual\ndespotism always seeking to materialize. It is in the nature of power\nof all kinds to seek for more power. As a spiritual despotism the\nchurch is not a success. The nineteenth century has said to this mental\nand moral Lazarus, \"Take up thy bed and walk.\" But it has no place\nto walk to, and hence it refuses to obey the voice of humanity. It\nis slowly, however, undergoing the transformation of a dissolving view.\n\n\n\n\nA Common Sense View of the Sunday Question.\n\nJesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the\nSabbath. Now, at first sight, this seems a true and wise saying,\nbut upon reflection we are forced to modify our estimate of it. In\nthe first place there is no evidence that the Sabbath was ever made\nat all. It is the result of many things. The causes assigned for\nthe institution of this day are conflicting. One reason assigned is\nbecause the Lord rested on the seventh day and was refreshed. It is\na very empty noddle that can believe that statement. Such a childish\nview of creation would remind us of some one who had carried a heavy\nload up six flights of stairs, and then sat down puffing and blowing\nuntil he was rested and refreshed. Fancy an omnipotent being tired,\nhungry, and sleepy. A common sense view of the creation story leads\nus to reject it all as a myth.\n\nAnother reason assigned for the origin of the Sabbath is that it was\ninstituted in commemoration of God's deliverance of the Hebrews out of\nEgypt. But this is a flat contradiction of the previous reason given\nfor observing the Sabbath. This contradiction is enough to invalidate\nthe evidence of both these testimonies; but that is not all--the first\nstory about God Almighty being tired after a week's hard work, and\nhis resting and being refreshed on the seventh day, is so evidently\na myth as to need no argument. It is on a par with all stories about\nthe man in the moon, and the bit of legend recounting the escape of\nthe Hebrews from Egypt is full of contradictions and impossibilities\nwhich renders the story absolutely useless as a piece of evidence.\n\nNo one knows when or where the observance of the seventh day as a day\nof rest and recreation began. It doubtless had small beginnings in\ndifferent countries and different times, and has been subject to the\nlaw of evolution. The Sabbath was not a man-made product, but grew\nin character and importance as time rolled on. Therefore it is not\ntrue to say the Sabbath was made for man. All the making we see in\nhistory is what the priests have done in this direction. While it is\nnot true that the priests originated the Sabbath, yet it is true so\nfar as we can trace the existence of the priesthood that we find them\ncontinually making the day a day for themselves. Sunday is priests'\nday. Everybody must go to church to listen to an ignorant man talk,\nscold, misrepresent, and abuse everyone who does not believe as\nhe does. And this is called Divine Service. When the priest rests\ntemporarily from his labors upon the sinner and the skeptic, he trains\nhis guns upon some of those who profess as strongly as himself to be\ntrue blue Christians. Take the extremes; the Salvation Army saint and\na fashionable member of the fashionable Episcopal church. The latter\nlooks down upon the former and calls them \"trash, rubbish,\" and other\nclassical names, while the soldier of the temporal army returns the\ncompliment by styling his brethren of the Episcopal persuasion as\n\"the Devil's dudes.\" Behold! how these Christians love--to go for\none another.\n\nWe have seen that there is no history for the institution of the\nSabbath. We have learned also that to keep this day holy did not mean\nto attend preaching or prayer-meetings, or special religious services\nof any kind.\n\nWe have discovered that the Jewish Sabbath was not incorporated into\nthe early Christian church. We have seen also that Jesus repudiated\nthe Jewish Sabbath. That Paul, the founder of the church, also rejects\nthe Sabbath; and that the early fathers did not observe it. That\nthe great men of the middle ages repudiated it. It was left for the\nPuritans and Scotch Presbyterians to bewilder the undeveloped mind\nand poison the susceptible hearts of the people, by teaching the\ngloomy doctrines of Puritanism and Presbyterianism. Puritanism and\nPresbyterianism die hard. They still live. Their spirit is hostile to\nfreedom. Talk to them of liberty and you will readily wake the remark,\n\"Oh yes, we believe in liberty, but not in license.\" Now what does\nlicense mean with such people? Why it means that you shall conform\nto their religious notions and practices.\n\nEspecially must you remember the Sabbath to keep it holy; that is,\nyou are at liberty to do just as you please, if you please to do as\npleases them.\n\nProtestants all agree upon the right of free conscience, the right\nto believe as one chooses (which however he never can do, because he\nmust believe according to evidence).\n\nIt is the great boast of Protestantism that the individual has a free\nwill (another error), and that he must search the scriptures, and\ndecide for himself. They say every man has an open Bible put before\nhim, and he must make up his own mind on the \"truth of God.\" When he\nhas made up his mind, and seeks to enter a church which is full of\nliberty, what do the officers of the church say to him? Do they tell\nhim that his conscience is free and the Bible is an open book for him\nto read and interpret as he can? Oh, no! There is no free conscience,\nor open Bible business when one is getting into a church. On such\noccasions the candidate is taken by the proper officers into an ante\nroom, and placed upon a Procrustean bed usually called a creed, and\nif he is the proper length, all right, but if not he must either be\nstretched or sawed off to the proper dimensions. And these are the\npeople who have such a holy horror of license.\n\nA friend of mine went once to buy a pup. The price was five dollars;\nbut as there were three pups in the basket my friend said he would\ngive five dollars for one if he could have his choice. \"Oh yes, you\ncan have your choice,\" said the owner, \"if ye'll choose this pup\"\n[pointing to the most inferior one in the basket]. So it is with\nthe church; you can have all the liberty in the world to believe,\nif you believe the doctrines of this or that sect. You can have your\nown choice, if you choose to obey the priesthood. You can have all\nthe liberty to think as freely as you can on all subjects, if you\nwill never mention your thoughts. Here is what M. Guizot, an eminent\nChristian writer has to say about the liberty granted by the church:\n\n\n    When the question of political securities came into debate\n    between power and liberty; when any step was taken to establish a\n    system of permanent institutions, which might effectually protect\n    liberty from the invasions of power in general; the church always\n    ranged herself on the side of despotism. (\"Guizot's History of\n    Civilization,\" p. 130.)\n\n\nWith some people almost every act, if it be not strictly religious,\nis a desecration of the Lord's day. It is a solemn day, and for one\nto smile is a desecration of the holy day, while laughing is gross\nwickedness. To entertain one's friends on Sunday or to enjoy music,\nis carnal and therefore a desecration of the Lord's day. To love\nflowers is evidence of depravity; to admire the beauties of nature,\nas a golden sunset, or a summer's sunrise, are palpable evidences of\nbeing a \"man of sin.\" To do anything but attend church, look solemn,\nmourn and pray, weep and read the Bible, is of the Devil.\n\nWhat a spectacle that man presents to the world who is struggling\nfor perfection through religious beliefs and exercises. He never gets\nexactly there, but confidently and complacently thinks himself there\nor thereabouts. His next great work is to call upon others in life's\nhighway to follow in his footsteps. He gets some followers who join\nwith him in thanking God that they are not as other men are. Their\nself-righteousness becomes intense, and they become filled with the\nspirit of the Lord and preach believe (as we do) or be damned. Then\nbegins persecution and torture. It is always your \"dead-in-earnest\"\nman that gets up persecutions. He is trying to gain perfection, and the\nnatural ripe fruit of religious perfection is bigotry, intolerance,\nand despotism. Beware, oh! reader, of him who is seeking perfection,\nfor you are nothing better than a worm under his heel, and if he\ndoes not crush you, it is because he is better than his God. God will\ncrush you in the next world for not agonizing for perfection in this.\n\n\n\n\nEverybody's Sunday.\n\nI quote the following from \"The Sabbath Question,\" a very able pamphlet\nby my esteemed friend, Alfred E. Giles:\n\n\n    We prize Sunday as a Sabbath or rest day. But it is a physiological\n    fact that the cessation from action that refreshes or rests\n    some persons on that day, does not so operate on everybody. We\n    would that Sunday should be a joy, a delight to all the people;\n    that every man, woman, and child should anticipate its approach\n    with pleasure. On that day, if on no other, let the edifices of\n    the church be open free to all who love its praises, prayers, and\n    instructions. Let the tables and alcoves of the public library be\n    accessible to such persons as feel that they can find suitable\n    mental and spiritual food. If the social science association,\n    now active in promoting good fellowship and liberal feeling,\n    desire to, let it also add its proportion of good things to\n    the feast of the day. Let the art museums, halls of science,\n    academies of music, public parks, and galleries of paintings\n    disclose their treasures on Sundays freely to visitors. Let all\n    persons be unmolested on that day to seek the enjoyment and kind of\n    rest they may respectively need, they alone being judges thereof,\n    always provided that no one shall infringe on the equal liberty\n    of any other person.\n\n\n                    \"Rest is not quitting\n                      The busy career--\n                    Rest is the fitting\n                      Of self to its sphere;\n                    'Tis loving and serving\n                      The highest and best--\n                    'Tis onward, unswerving,\n                      And that is true rest.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS CIVILIZATION?\n\n\nVery many regard it as an entity, a thing, rather than a process. It\ncan no more be called a thing or an entity, than life, growth, or\nthinking, but like these, it is a process. \"Dr. Whately speaks of it\nas if it were a 'thing' which could be handed about from one nation\nto another, or hidden away in some dark corner.\" (Fiske's \"Cosmic\nPhilosophy,\" vol. 2, p. 175.) In general terms we may define it as a\nprogressive movement of the individual and of society. Its results\nare the highest attainments, the acquisition of the best things,\nas wealth, culture, and morality. But these \"best things\" must be\nshared liberally by the laboring classes or the civilization cannot\nlong survive. Every civilization of the past has been false in this\nrespect. The pyramids of Egypt have a record of kings possessing\nmillions of slaves. Greece produced a civilization inspired by a\nlove of the beautiful, and has consequently contributed more toward\nthe civilization of mankind than any other people. But no nation has\nconspicuously sought to secure to its people the rights of liberty and\njustice. And until the time comes when the people get these rights,\nthere can be no true civilization. Humanity must become the supreme\npurpose of life. The augean stables of legislation must be renovated\nfor the presence of better men who shall take the places of the corrupt\ndemagogues who now fill our highest offices of public trust. The very\nfact that a dozen of our United States senators represent $160,000,000\nspeaks volumes of itself. Many of these men have secured the most\nif not all their great wealth since they have been the custodians of\nthe people's public interests.\n\nA true civilization has never yet appeared in the world. Much that\nis written in proof of our boasted civilization is twaddle. We\nare living in many respects as barbarians lived thousands of years\nago. But to return to our definitions. It should be borne in mind that\ncivilization is not an end, but a means to higher ends; the results\nare not therefore fixed and final, as they in turn become causes of\nother results. If we regard civilization as a refined and cultured\nstate of society, we shall find that it means more than this--that it\nis rather the activity of mind which leads to higher refinements, to\ninvestigation, invention, discovery, and that it constantly inspires\nman with desires for still nobler achievements. Civilization is the\nonward and upward movement of the human race. This fermentation of\nhumanity is the product of many factors, and has been effected by all\nsorts of human activities. War, commerce, agriculture, inventions,\ncrusades, discoveries, literature, art, religion, skepticism,\ngovernment, languages, science, manufactures, climate, soil, food,\nand many other things have assisted in developing the mind and\nheart of man, and in improving his physical condition. In the present\ncentury, science has worked wonders by way of discovery and invention,\nincreasing the intellectual activities, thereby widening the knowledge\nof men and augmenting the sum of human happiness.\n\nWe should not overlook the fact that the world's advancement has been\nvastly more in the line of intellectual improvement and material\nprosperity than in the development of man's moral nature. Our\ncivilization is much like our dress, it abounds in shoddy and\ntinsel. There is much in the dome of modern civilization that glares\nin the sunlight, while its foundations, which are out of sight, are\nrotten. Our great cities show us that the rich are becoming richer\nand the poor poorer. Where will this end? Can a splendid civilization\nbe established on such a basis?\n\nDistinguished men have entertained widely different notions of the\ncauses of human progress. One writer thinks that government possesses\nthe secret power of progress; another claims all advancement for\nChristianity, and others that morality is the cause, while yet others\nattribute the magic power to the forces of nature. Mr. Buckle maintains\nthat man's progress is due to his physical environment. And a moment's\nreflection will show us that there is much truth in his claim. We\nknow that it is utterly impossible to establish a grand civilization\nin the tropics or in the polar regions. Suppose we should send all\nthe ministers in the country, all the gold and silver in the United\nStates treasury and millions of our best citizens to Greenland, could\nthey build up a splendid civilization there? Not at all. Nature is too\ninhospitable. Society flourishes only in a temperate climate. If it\nwere the church that created civilization then we should see similar\nresults in different latitudes and among different races. But the\nfacts are opposed to this claim. Wherever there is a high civilization\nthere is good soil and temperate climate. As an illustration of this\nfact I may refer the reader to the Abyssinians, who have had the\nBible in their possession about twice as long as the Anglo-Saxons;\nand yet they are all a race of barbarians still.\n\n\n    Christianity was introduced in that country about A.D. 330.\n\n    The people still remain rude and barbarous.\n\n    Bruce relates how he saw the people cut steaks from living cattle\n    and eat them raw. (Ency. Brit.)\n\n\nMr. Buckle claims that the favorable environment produces progress in\nthe race, and that as man progresses he gains more control over nature\nand utilizes her forces. He makes the desert to blossom, he overcomes\ndiseases, as plague, leprosy, and prevents famine, and because of\nhis increased knowledge wars are becoming less frequent and less\nbarbarous. From these facts he claims that the advance of civilization\nis characterized by a diminishing influence of physical laws, and an\nincreasing influence of mental laws. In proof of his position that\nclimate, soil, and food are the determining influences of progress,\nhe refers us to the climate of Asia and Africa as compared with the\nclimate of Europe and America, pointing out the latter as having\nvast mineral resources and great facilities of travel over highways,\nrivers, and lakes. The temperate climate is in every way therefore\nmost favorable to the highest civilization.\n\nIn the tropics man does not have to exhaust himself in obtaining his\nfood, as it grows spontaneously and in abundance, but the burning\nsun takes out of him his energy and enterprise; while on the other\nhand the inhabitant of Greenland has to fight for life against the\nsevere cold. His efforts and manner of life are exhausting, and tend\nto dwarf him physically, morally, and mentally. However much man may\ndo in overcoming nature, these two hindrances of extreme heat and\nexcessive cold remain insuperable barriers in his way.\n\nWar has been a civilizing power, although it has been fearful\nexpensive of blood, treasure, and public morals. The American\nrevolution of 1776 secured the independence of this country. The\nFrench revolution of 1789, transformed the whole of Europe. The recent\ngreat rebellion in this country emancipated the slave, and has made a\nmore perfect union of the North and South. The crusades were a great\nrevolutionary movement in Europe, beginning in 1096, and lasting about\ntwo hundred years. In fact there was no such a thing as Europe before\nthis great epoch. The different countries which constitute Europe,\nhad, prior to the crusades, almost no intercourse with one another,\nand consequently each was comparatively ignorant of the manners\nand customs of the others. The uprising of millions of men, women,\nand children, as warriors of Christ, who set out from time to time,\nfrom England, France, Germany, and Spain to rescue the Holy Land from\nthe Infidel, the Mohammedan, brought wonderful experiences to the\nfew thousand who survived to tell their stories. The pathways over\nwhich these deluded people thronged were whitened with the bleached\nbones of those who had fallen victims of disease, exposure, hunger,\nand the sword. What a monstrous blind sacrifice this was, offered up\non the altar of ignorance! Of course it could do the world no good to\nrescue the Holy Land. If God wanted that land rescued he could do it\nhimself. And that he did not do so is self-evident that he did not\nwant it rescued, besides, he would not allow even his own peculiar\npeople to rescue it. The church is still offering its sacrifices of\npublic weal, of blood, and treasure in trying to rescue, abroad, the\nPagan from his Paganism, and at home, the Infidel from his Infidelity,\nwhile God could do it himself if he so desired, but he does not,\nneither does he permit his own \"peculiar\" people to do it.\n\nThe crusaders had no commission from heaven for this business--they\nwere not the agents of God, but only pretenders--and the church\nof to-day has no more right to pretend to save the world than the\ncrusaders had to deliver the holy sepulchre from the so-called\nPagans. The one and the others are alike impostors upon a credulous\nworld. The crusades did nothing in the matter of rescuing the Holy\nLand. In this respect they were failures. The God of hosts did not\nlead them on to certain victory. But if they did not secure what they\naimed at, they found something infinitely better--a wider knowledge\nof the world.\n\nThe intercourse between these different peoples which was occasioned\nby the marching of armies through their lands, gave new ideas to all;\nbroke up the feudal system, and serfdom, secured the supremacy of a\ncommon law over the independent jurisdiction of the chiefs who claimed\nthe right of private wars. In a word, it was the origin of Europe,\nthe first great awakening of the intellect of the masses.\n\nNot only were the old manners and customs changed, but there was\nstimulated in society an increased mental activity; and the narrow\nroutine in which it had been accustomed to move was destroyed. Society\nbegan its new transformations into governments and nations, which\nsays Guizot, is the characteristic of modern civilization.\n\n\n\n\nIndustrial Influences.\n\n    The causes which mostly disturbed or accelerated the normal\n    progress of society in antiquity were the appearance of great\n    men. In modern times the appearance of great inventions. Printing\n    has secured the intellectual achievements of the past, and\n    furnished a sure guarantee of future progress. Gunpowder\n    and military machinery have rendered the triumph of\n    barbarians impossible. Steam has united nations in the closest\n    bonds. Innumerable mechanical contrivances have given a decisive\n    preponderance to that industrial element which has colored all the\n    developments of our civilization. The leading characteristics of\n    modern societies are in consequence marked out much more by the\n    triumphs of inventive skill than by the sustained energy of moral\n    causes. (\"Lecky's History of European Morals,\" vol. 1, p. 126.)\n\n\nIt is not necessary to point in what way the printing press, art,\ncommerce, and science, have promoted the progress of the race. It is so\napparent to every intelligent reader that these have been the stepping\nstones over which we have passed from barbarism to civilization,\nthat amplification is unnecessary.\n\nThe splendid results of science are everywhere so manifest that\nwe hardly need refer to them. What transformations the world has\nundergone through the uses of the steam engine, the spinning jenny,\ntelegraph, ocean cable, railroads, sewing machines, photography,\nspectrum analysis, and thousands of other useful inventions. We see\nadvancement achieved in free government, free schools, free libraries,\nfree trade, labor reform, prison reform, and reform in the treatment\nof lunatics, paupers and criminals, and reform seeking to adjust the\nwrongs perpetrated upon women.\n\nBesides all these improvements there is every indication in the spirit\nof to-day that we are soon to witness greater improvements, if not\nradical changes in government; changes affecting capital and labor.\n\n\n\n\nSkepticism.\n\nSkepticism played a prominent part in the eighteenth century. Doubt\ninstead of faith, possessed the minds of many of the most\ndistinguished men of thought, such as Voltaire, Hume, Diderot,\nRousseau, D'Holbach, Gibbon, and others. Some of the more prominent\nskeptics rejected Christianity on the common ground of incredibility\nof the scriptures. But as they had no form of belief or knowledge to\nsubstitute in place of the dogmas they rejected, it was not difficult\nfor the clergy with specious explanations to cover up the doubts and\ndisbeliefs which the skeptics raised. Something more was needed to\nbreak the spell of superstition and arouse the minds of men to thought\nand action. In the first part of the present century the philosophy\nof Evolution began to find place in the minds of most profound\nthinkers. Science has done what skepticism failed to accomplish;\nit has given knowledge instead of faith. It has cultivated intense\nintellectual habits in modern society and given mankind a sure test\nof truth, in its method of verification, by means of experiment,\nobservation and deduction.\n\n\n\n\nScience.\n\nScience is inexorably hostile to supernaturalism--cannot recognize a\nparticle of it. It knows nothing of a super-nature; with science all\nis nature, and nature is all. From pre-historic times the race has\nbeen under the control of ignorance and superstition, the parents of\nfear and cruelty; but now that science begins to dispel ignorance\nand superstition, we find courage, kindness, and other humanities\ntaking their places. And we should say just here that Infidelity is\nno longer synonymous with mere disbelief; it means more than this. It\nstands for all that reason approves. Freethought is the first fruits\nof skepticism, and this means honest inquiry on all subjects, old\nand new. It means independence and manhood in private as well as\npublic life--the right of everyone to think and express his thought\nregardless of creeds and customs, the right to live his own life\nin the enjoyment of the broadest possible liberty compatible with\nthe liberty of others. Freethinkers are the prophets of this age,\nproclaiming justice as the right of all, and predicting a day of wrath\nto those who trample upon the rights of a long-suffering people. In\nthe light of science, priestcraft must fade away like snow under the\nincreasing heat of the sun.\n\n\n\n\nMetaphysical Method.\n\nThe church made no progress in science and art for a thousand\nyears. The energies of the mind had no outlet except in a few channels\nwhich were not fruitful. The scholars of the middle ages exerted\ngreat mental force upon empty questions, as \"quiddities,\" \"entities,\"\n\"occult virtues,\" \"efficient causes,\" \"realism and nominalism,\" and the\n\"essence of things.\" Were any of these problems ever solved? What\ncorresponding benefit has resulted from these long and zealous\ndiscussions? What general conclusions have been reached? What first\nprinciples have been established by them?\n\nThe speculative philosophy created violent agitation in the church;\nbut from its very nature it offered no positive truth, no verifiable\nfacts to take the place of theology. The metaphysical method was\nfruitless, because its supporters sought to explain every problem by\nthe process of thought alone.\n\n\n    Tennemann has fairly stated the good and bad of scholastic\n    philosophy. It gave rise to a great display of address, subtlety,\n    sagacity in the explanations and distinction of abstract ideas,\n    but at the same time to many trifling and minute speculations,\n    to a contempt of positive knowledge and too much unnecessary\n    refinement. (Hallam, \"Middle Ages,\" vol. 1, p. 33.)\n\n\nFor centuries the church maintained metaphysical discussions about the\nnature of Christ, one party arguing that he was of the same substance\n(homoousion) as the Father, and an another as strongly argued that he\nwas of like substance (homoiusion) as the Father. These controversies\nwere attended with bloody conflicts. If one party were in possession\nof the revealed will of God, it was quite natural that all other\nparties should listen to them. If they would not they incurred the\nwrath of God, and if God was angry his people ought to imitate him;\nif God was going to damn heretics in the next world, his saints,\nwho are his agents here, ought to damn them in this.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRECAPITULATION.\n\nNo writer of distinction has been able, publicly, to show that\nChristianity has been a powerful factor for good in the civilization\nof the world. The definitions of civilization necessarily exclude\nsuperstition. We have seen that civilization is not an \"entity\" but\na progressive movement produced by favorable conditions, for example,\ntemperate climate, good soil, abundance of lakes, rivers, and mineral\nresources. Human activities upon a large scale have evolved still\nhigher and better conditions for parts of the race. We have shown\nhow war, commerce, agriculture, inventions, crusades, discoveries,\nliterature, art, skepticism, government, languages, science, and\nphilosophy have added to the sum of human well-being in one way\nand another.\n\nThe revival of learning did not spring from the church, but from\nPagan literature, and Mohammedan schools. And it requires no great\nresearch to learn that the church has never been favorably inclined\ntoward true learning, that is, toward science. It has insisted upon\nteaching an ignorant world the unknown and unknowable. \"Carnal reason\"\nand \"blasphemous science\" were never pet lessons for its subjects. It\nchose rather the motto, \"Ignorance is the mother of devotion.\"\n\n\n\n\nSome things Christianity has Not Done.\n\nIt has professed to offer the world a revelation of the will of\nGod. And what has this book, the Bible, revealed? What information\ndoes it give man of the nature of this earth, of geology, geography,\nor of the millions of stars seen and unseen; of agriculture? Is\nit not true that he who invented the plow was a greater man than\nMoses? What does the Bible teach about government, agriculture,\nmining, inventions, discoveries, arts, printing, morals, liberty,\nand all other branches of useful learning? It contains no instructions\nupon the most important and useful subjects. And of itself, the Bible\nmakes no claim to be an inspired revelation from God. The church,\nwith all its assumptions and presumptions, is not the teacher of the\nworld, as it has nothing but superstition to teach.\n\n\n\n\nThe Conflict between Christianity and Civilization.\n\nChristianity is conservative, and, like the bourbon, never gets a new\nidea or forgets an old one, and it is in its very nature, therefore,\nnon-progressive. The advancement of humanity has been achieved\nnot by and through Christianity, but in conflict with and triumph\nover it. Christianity itself has been subject to modification and\nprogress from forces without, rather than virtues within itself. The\nsavage doctrine \"believe or be damned,\" is no longer a popular pulpit\ntheme. Eternal torment has ceased to torment or terrify the living,\nelection and reprobation are no longer a commodity greatly in demand,\nand the divine right of kings is rapidly fading out of mind. Infant\ndamnation is not mentioned--babes do not go to hell in these days--they\nall crowd into Abraham's capacious bosom. The Devil is not so black\nas he used to be--it was reported lately that he is dead. Taking it\nall in all, there has been a great improvement in the doctrines of\nthe church. It should never be forgotten, however, that it professes\nto save the world, while the truth is just the opposite, that is,\nthe world saves the church. Common sense has taught the church the\nfoolishness and wickedness of these absurd and cruel doctrines,\nand has saved it from immediate decay by forcing it to give them\nup. The church makes progress because it must, not because it seeks\nto do so. The sanity of man is saving him from the insanity of\nreligion. The world moves and Christianity, though it hangs back,\nmust nevertheless move with it. The progressive element is in man,\nand when he is outside of the church he advances in knowledge and\nmorality; but within its walls he is sure to be conservative and\nnon-progressive. For why should he seek to make any progress? Has he\nnot the revealed will of God--a complete guide to duty here and to\ndestiny hereafter? Surely he needs no books to supersede the Bible\nor other virtues than those awakened by the grace of God.\n\n\n\n\nThe Bible Sanctions Great Crimes.\n\nWe come now to look at the crimes perpetrated by the people of God,\nto show how the Bible and Christianity lie as insuperable obstructions\nin the pathway of progress.\n\n\n\n\nWars of Extermination.\n\n\n    And when thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, and\n    it shall be, if it make the answer of peace, and open unto thee,\n    then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall\n    be tributaries unto thee and shall serve thee. And if it will\n    make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee (that is,\n    by defending their wives and children) then thou shalt besiege it.\n\n    And when the Lord God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou\n    shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; but the\n    women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the\n    city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself,\n    and thou shalt eat of the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord\n    thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities\n    which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of\n    these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord\n    thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive\n    nothing that breatheth. (Deut. 20 : 10-17.)\n\n    So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south,\n    and of the vale, and of the springs and all their kings; he left\n    none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed as the\n    Lord God of Israel had commanded. (Joshua 10 : 40.)\n\n    Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amelek did\n    to Israel (some three hundred years previous), how he laid wait\n    for him in the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite\n    Amelek, and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not,\n    but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,\n    camel and ass. (1 Sam. 15 : 2, 3.)\n\n    Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill\n    every woman that hath known man by lying with him.\n\n    But all the women children that have not known a man by lying\n    with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31 : 17, 18.)\n\n\nTo believe these bloody massacres to have been done by the express\ncommand of the supreme ruler of the universe, made man brutal and\ndespotic. And it is for this very reason that we have had so many wars\namong Christian nations. The Old Testament is a record of cruelty\nand blood; and if we fall back in time on this side of the cross of\nChrist, we shall find the same spirit, and the same bloody deeds\nperpetrated upon all those who were not numbered as the peculiar\npeople of God. Constantine established Christianity in the Roman\nempire by the sword; and his holy successors have maintained it by\nthe same power ever since.\n\n\n\n\nPolygamy.\n\nAlthough Christians now condemn polygamy, they uphold a Bible that\nnot only approves it, but also shows distinctly that God instituted it.\n\nSolomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and was\nnot condemned for his polygamy or concubinage, but was condemned for\ngoing after other Gods:\n\n\n    And the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned\n    away from the Lord. (1 Kings 11 : 9.)\n\n\nThere is nowhere any condemnation of Solomon for his polygamy to be\nfound in the Bible. On the contrary, he is extolled to the highest\ndegree. God is represented as saying: \"I have found David, a man after\nmine own heart.\" (Acts 13 : 22.) \"Yet among many nations was there no\nking like unto him (Solomon) who was beloved of God.\" (Neh. 13 : 26.)\n\nDavid, although he was a man after God's own heart, was not so highly\nesteemed as Solomon who was blest with a thousand wives. David did not\nhave quite as many wives, and consequently did not achieve the royal\ngrandeur of his son Solomon. The Lord gave David a number of wives:\n\"And Abigail hasted and arose, and rode upon an ass with five damsels\nof her's that went with her; and she went after the messengers of\nDavid and became his wife. David also took Ahinoam, of Jezreel,\nand they were also, both of them, his wives. (1 Sam. 25 : 42, 43.)\n\n\n    And David took him more wives out of Jerusalem. (2 Sam. 5 : 13.)\n\n    And I gave thee (David) thy master's house and thy master's wives\n    into thy bosom. (2 Sam. 12 : 8.)\n\n\nThe Christian apologist says that \"the Lord endured them to practice\npolygamy in consequence of the hardness of their hearts.\" But it is\nexplicitly shown in the above passage that the Lord gave David a number\nof wives. \"I gave thee thy master's wives into thy bosom,\" certainly\nexonerates David, and throws the responsibility on Jehovah. David\nis not censured for his polygamy, but is uniformly spoken of with\napproval except in one instance. In counseling Solomon Jehovah said:\n\"And if thou wilt walk in my ways to keep my statutes and commandments\nas thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days.\" (1\nKings 3 : 14.)\n\n\n    Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord\n    and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the\n    days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. (1\n    Kings 15 : 5.)\n\n\nThe truth is that nearly all the patriarchs and prophets were\npolygamists. They had not the faintest idea of true marriage, but\ntook women according to their caprice, and kept them as long as they\nwere pleased with them and cast them off when tired of them. It is a\nremarkable fact that we do not often read of any marriage ceremony\nwhen these men after God's own heart took them wives. A man in\nthese days who \"takes up\" with a woman without marriage is called a\nfree-lover. Were the patriarchs who took a number of women as wives\nwithout a marriage ceremony free-lovers? Just now the Christians\ncannot endure polygamy among the Mormons. They indorse it as a\nBible institution, good enough for Abraham, Isaac, and all the rest,\nbut out of fashion just now. The worst of it all is, the Christian\nsends missionaries and Bibles to the heathens and afterward reports\nwonderful success in converting them from their Paganism and polygamy\nthrough the means of preaching, praying, and missionary work; but\nwhen he thinks of the Mormon he forgets what wonders the missionary\nhas done abroad in converting the polygamists, and insists that our\nCongress send Winchester rifles to Utah rather than missionaries. The\nHoly Ghost is of no account there. The gospel of peace must now as\never resort to the divine efficacy of bullets rather than Bibles,\nto secure a victory for truth, justice, and love. Christianity shows\nthe same brutal instincts of war in its treatment of the Mormons that\nConstantine exhibited in establishing the church by the sword.\n\n\n\n\nThe Subjection of Woman.\n\nThe Bible nowhere teaches the equality of man and woman, but from\nGenesis to Revelation it treats her as man's inferior. The mythology\nof the ancient Hebrew story of the Garden of Eden has proved to be a\nveritable curse to her. \"And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and\nhe shall rule over thee\" (Gen. 3 : 16), has been the poisoned chalice\nput to her lips for over two thousand years. Paul the founder of the\nchurch, insists upon the subjection of woman. \"Likewise ye wives be\nin subjection to your own husbands.\" (1 Peter 3 : 1.)\n\n\n    Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands. (Col. 3 : 18.)\n\n    As the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to\n    their own husbands in everything. (Eph. 5 : 24.)\n\n\nThe church has uniformly maintained this doctrine, and demanded\nin the marriage ceremony that she promise to love, honor, and obey\nher husband.\n\n\n    For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither\n    was the man created for the woman but the woman (was created)\n    for the man. (1 Cor. 11 : 8, 9.)\n\n\n\n\nDivorce.\n\nWoman is unjustly treated in the matter of divorce, in both the Old\nand the New Testament. In the Old Testament the husband had the power\nto divorce his wife if she failed to please him, while the wife could\nnot divorce her husband for any cause.\n\n\n    When a man hath taken a wife and marries her, and it come to pass\n    that she find no favor in his eye, then let him write her a bill\n    of divorcement, and give it into her hand and send her out of\n    his house. (Deut. 24 : 1.)\n\n    When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies and the Lord\n    thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken\n    them captives and seest among the captives a beautiful woman,\n    and hast a desire unto her that thou wouldst have her to be thy\n    wife, then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, she shall\n    shave her head and pare her nails and she shall put the raiment\n    of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house\n    and bewail her father and mother a full month, and after that\n    thou shalt go in unto her and be her husband, and she shall\n    be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her,\n    then thou shalt let her go whither she will, but thou shalt not\n    sell her at all for money; thou shalt not make merchandise of\n    her because thou hast humbled her. (Deut. 21 : 10-14.)\n\n\nJesus says, \"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,\ncommitteth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from\nher husband, committeth adultery.\" (Luke 16 : 18.)\n\nIn this case there is a lack of qualification as to whether the man\nbe innocent or not; and there is no allowance made in case the man\nwho married her who was put away should be ignorant of her being a\ndivorced woman.\n\nAgain, \"But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his\nwife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit\nadultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth\nadultery.\" (Mat. 5 : 32.)\n\nHere we find not a word about the fornication of the husband. In\nshort, there is no equality of rights and duties taught in these\npassages. Jesus, in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke teaches\nthat it is adultery to marry a divorced woman. No matter what the\ncrime of the husband has been, a wife is not allowed to put him away\nand marry another. If he is a fornicator, and his wife is divorced\nfrom him and remarries, she commits adultery. This is only a slight\nmodification of the divorce law--that old law according to which the\nhusband had only to write his wife a bill of divorcement and send her\noff; but it was not lawful for the wife to write a bill and send the\nhusband away. All Christian nations have repudiated the teachings of\nboth the Old and the New Testament on the question of divorce.\n\nMarriage is now rapidly losing its sacramental character. If matches\nare made in heaven, it is evident that the work is poorly done, and\nfor all practical purposes they might as well be made on earth; and\nthe general opinion is inclined so strongly in that direction that\ngreater attention is now given to the laws of life, which instruct\nus how to make happy earthly matches, leaving the matches of heaven\nto be formed when we get there.\n\nThe Jews practiced the sale of their daughters:\n\n\n    And if any man shall sell his daughter to be a maid-servant,\n    she shall not go out as the man-servants do. If she pleases not\n    her master who hath betrothed her to himself. (Ex. 21 : 7.)\n\n\nJacob purchased Leah and Rachel, by serving Laban their father seven\nyears for each of them. He agreed to serve seven years for Rachel, and\nafter he had fulfilled his obligation, Laban deceived him by palming\noff Leah in the dark upon him as Rachel. But though so deeply wronged\nJacob did not despair, but served another seven years for her whom\nhe loved. See Genesis twenty-ninth chapter.\n\nIn the purchase of wives there was usually no ceremony, more than the\nwitnessing of the sale. We read of David and Solomon taking wives,\nbut no mention is made of any marriage ceremony.\n\nA jealous husband could torture his wife, by having her poisoned. See\nNumbers 5 : 11-31. There was no such law for a jealous wife. There\nwas no law of even-handed justice for a greatly wronged and outraged\nwife. The laws were made for the benefit of man, not for the protection\nof woman. Why? Because they were made by man.\n\n\n\n\nThe New Testament as well as the Old, Holds Woman in Servile Bondage.\n\nJesus and Paul were celibates, and their teachings and practice in\nregard to woman, have done her incalculable wrong.\n\n\n    The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man. Neither\n    was the man created for the woman; but the woman (was created)\n    for the man. (1 Cor. 11 : 8, 9.)\n\n\nPaul gets this idea from the mythical story of creation in Genesis.\n\nIn that childish story God is represented as making woman as \"an\nhelp meet,\" for Adam. Indeed her creation does not seem to have been\nintended at all, but the Creator seeing that it was not good for man\nto be alone, \"caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept;\nand he took out one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead:\nAnd the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a\nwoman, and brought her unto the man.\" (Gen. 2 : 21, 22.) Woman was an\nafterthought to the Lords of creation then, and she is an afterthought\nto the lords of creation now.\n\nIn that ancient myth woman was doomed to perpetual servitude because\nshe was of an investigating turn of mind, and sought to know good\nand evil. The sentence was, \"Thy desire shall be to thy husband,\nand he shall rule over thee.\" (Gen. 3 : 16.)\n\nNeither Jesus nor Paul proclaimed the dignity of marriage, or discerned\nthe necessity of enlarging the sphere of woman. Jesus shared the\ncommon sentiments of his age, and looked upon the marriage relation\nas incompatible with the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. He\ndeemed it necessary to call his disciples away from their families,\nand even to advise the men to make eunuchs of themselves if they were\nable to do so. (Mat. 19 : 12.) In his teachings on the question of\ndivorce, he is far from perceiving the even-handed justice which\nthe case demands. He says (Mark 10 : 11, 12) that if either the\nhusband or the wife put away one the other and marry again, commits\nadultery. All second marriages would therefore be unlawful according\nto this teaching. In Matthew (5 : 32) he permits the husband to put\naway the wife for the crime of fornication, but makes no provision for\nthe wife to put away the husband for the same offense. His disciples\nreceived an unfavorable impression of marriage, and after listening\nto him on this subject, they suggested: \"If the case of the man be so\nwith his wife, it is not good to marry.\" (Mat. 19 : 10.) How could\nthese plain people have misunderstood him upon a subject with so\nlittle chance for misapprehension?\n\nPaul's teachings were adverse to the marital relations: \"Art thou\nloosed from a wife? seek not a wife.\" (1 Cor. 7 : 27.)\n\n\"It is better to marry than to burn.\" (1 Cor. 7 : 9.) What an idea\nof marriage! He does not have the least conception of love, or of the\nhigher and refining joys of the conjugal relation. But permits him who\ncannot keep himself from beastliness to marry. In this his judgment is\nremarkably short-sighted, for he does not regard the sacrifice which\nthe woman must make who marries the beast. He looks upon woman as a\nmere safety-valve for men's passions,--her rights are not considered:\nshe has no rights. He will permit man to marry, but young widows he\ndenounces as heaping up damnation to themselves in marrying: \"But the\nyounger widows refuse, for when they have begun to wax wanton against\nChrist, they will marry having damnation, because they cast off their\nfirst faith.\" (1 Tim. 5 : 11, 12.) To marry was to wax wanton against\nChrist, which was nothing less than damnation! But old widows who\nwere above sixty years of age could join the church if they had \"been\nthe wife of one man\" and \"had washed the saints' feet.\" (1 Tim. 5 :\n9, 10.) I wonder what he thought of rejecting all young widowers,\nand accepting none under sixty years of age, and only those of them\nwho had washed their grandmother's feet?\n\nPaul not only advocates celibacy which is an evil to woman, but\nwhere the marriage relation exists he insists upon the subjection of\nwoman to her husband: \"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your\nown husbands;\" (1 Peter 3 : 1.) \"Obedient to their own husbands;\"\n(Titus 2 : 5.) \"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection;\"\n(1 Tim. 2 : 11.) \"Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ so let\nthe wives be (subject) to their own husbands in everything.\" (Eph.\n5 : 24.)\n\nThe reasons given for woman's subjection are, \"The man is not\nof the woman, but the woman is of the man. Neither was the\nman created for the woman, but the woman (was created) for the\nman.\" (1 Cor. 11 : 8, 9.) \"Let the woman learn in silence with\nall subjection.\" Wherefore? Because \"Adam was first formed, then\nEve.\" \"And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was\nin the transgression.\" (1 Tim. 2 : 11-14.) Woman has always been the\nguilty cause of man's great misfortune. Adam was not to blame but Eve\nwas the guilty one. Lot was innocent but his daughters were fearfully\nwicked. Joseph did not tempt anyone, but his master's wife tempted\nhim. Job, dear man, was all patience, but his wife flew into a rage,\nand tried to have him curse God and die. Solomon, the pure-hearted and\nsingle-minded man of seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines\nwas inspired to say, \"One man among a thousand have I found, but a\nwoman among all these have I not found.\" (Eccl. 7 : 28.)\n\nAnd to this day the Christian marriage ceremony demands of woman that\nshe promise to love, honor, and obey her husband.\n\n\n\n\nThe Bible Sanctions Slavery.\n\nWhat driveling idiots we mortals have been to suppose for a moment\nthat a good being, a heavenly father, would let one part of his family\nhold the other in slavery!\n\n\n    Moreover of the children of the strangers, that do sojourn,\n    of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,\n    which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession.\n\n    And ye shall take as an inheritance for your children after you, to\n    inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever,\n    but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule\n    one over another with rigor. (Lev. 25 : 45, 46.)\n\n    If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the\n    seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself\n    he shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall\n    go out with him; if his master has given him a wife, and she has\n    borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be\n    her master's and he shall go out by himself. (Ex. 21 : 2-4.)\n\n\n\n\nThe New Testament Sanctions Slavery.\n\n\n    Servants, obey in all things your master according to the flesh;\n    not with eye-service, as men pleasers, but in singleness of heart,\n    fearing God. (Col. 3 : 22.)\n\n    Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to\n    the good and gentle, but also to the froward. (1 Peter 2 : 18.)\n\n\nIn addition to these positive indorsements of slaveholding, it should\nbe remembered that Jesus never condemned it, and it was not difficult,\ntherefore, for the church also to indorse and support it.\n\n\n\n\nThe American Church was the Bulwark of American Slavery.\n\nThe slave system in this country always received the support of\nthe church. In the early history of the country it was occasionally\ncondemned by some of the bravest ministers, but as the nation grew\npowerful, so also did this sum of all villainies. Not only the\nministers of the slave states, but ministers of the free states lent\ntheir support to this despotism. The Rev. N. Bangs, D.D., of New\nYork, said:\n\n\n    It appears evident that however much the apostles might have\n    deprecated slavery as it then existed throughout the Roman empire,\n    he did not feel it his duty as an embassador of Christ, to disturb\n    those relations which subsisted between master and servants,\n    by denouncing slavery as such a mortal sin that they could not\n    be the servants of Christ in such a relation.\n\n\nRev. E. D. Simms, professor in Randolph-Macon college, a Methodist\ninstitution, affirmed that, \"Those extracts from Holy writ\nunequivocally assert the right of property in slaves.\"\n\nThe Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D.D., late president of the (Methodist) Wesleyan\nuniversity, in Connecticut: \"The relation of master and slave may\nand does in many cases, exist under such circumstances as free the\nmaster from the just charge of immorality.\"\n\nRev. Moses Stuart, of Andover, insisted that, \"the precepts of the\nNew Testament respecting the demeanor of slaves and their masters,\nbeyond all question, recognized the existence of slavery.\"\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Taylor, of Yale college, said: \"I have no doubt that if\nJesus Christ was now on earth, he would, under certain circumstances,\nbecome a slaveholder.\"\n\nThe \"Independent\" makes an admission. Speaking of the degradation\nof the Southern negroes, it says: \"For this Protestant Christianity\nsolely is to blame. It allowed slavery. It was slow to see its\nenormity. In the South it supported slavery with all its power. It\nlet the negroes live in ignorance of the word of God. It raised no\nvoice against unchristian laws forbidding slaves to be taught to read,\nand forbidding marriage.\"\n\nWe could give hundreds of just such quotations from ministers who\nupheld slavery as a divine institution. And these were the blind\nleaders of the blind until leaders and people were precipitated into\nthe life and death struggle of the nation. If the preachers had been\nhonest and brave we would never have had to pass through the terrible\nordeal of the great rebellion.\n\nThe northern churches were almost all in sympathy with the \"divine\ninstitution.\" Their ministers did not dare to condemn the system\nlest they should be deposed for their abolitionism. The writer was\npastor of a Methodist church in Brooklyn in 1859, and was dismissed\nfrom his pastorate on account of his anti-slavery preaching. After\nPresident Lincoln's emancipation proclamation the synods and general\nconferences arrayed themselves against the system, but not before.\n\n\n\n\nThe Reformation.\n\nIt is a common belief in Protestant countries that Protestantism\nhas been the cause of all modern enlightenment, \"overlooking,\" says\nMr. Buckle, \"the important fact that until enlightenment had begun,\nthere was no Protestantism required. Enlightenment was the cause of\nProtestantism. Many causes had been at work to bring up the public\nmind to a higher intelligence and a braver love of independence.\"\n\n\n    The reformation broke out at least twenty times before Luther,\n    and was put down. Arnold, of Brescia was put down; Fra Dolcino was\n    put down; the Albigenses were put down; the Vaudois were put down;\n    the Lollards were put down; the Hussites were put down.--Mill,\n    on Liberty.\n\n\nThe reformation was therefore the result of previous enlightenment,\na demand for larger liberty. It was the protest of reason against\nauthority. Liberalism is the full protest against all forms of\nsuperstition and despotism. We have greatly over-estimated the work of\nthe reformation. It did not greatly change the humanities of society,\nas the Protestants so fondly imagine. Protestants were found to be\nthe persecutors when they had the power, just as the Romanists had\nbeen; circumstances, however, modified and restrained them from such\natrocities as the latter had perpetrated.\n\n\n    Persecution for religious heterodoxy, in all its degrees, was in\n    the sixteenth century, the principle as well as the practice of\n    every church. (Hallam, \"Middle Ages,\" vol. 2, p. 48.)\n\n\n\n\nChristianity Teaches Immorality.\n\nThe doctrine of the atonement has been the dry rot in our\ncivilization. It has led millions to believe that they could escape the\nconsequences of violated laws of nature. Millions of people believe\nto-day that they can go through life in utter disregard of all that\nis right and good, and at the last moment when they come to shuffle\noff this mortal coil, all they will then need to do will be simply to\ncall upon Jesus and receive his approbation and permission to enter\nthe shining courts above. \"Jesus died and paid it all,\" relieves\nthe votary from the demands of morality, and, \"the Devil tempted me\nand I sinned,\" exonerates him from all guilt. This sort of teaching\nhas filled our prisons with those who fully believe it--and they are\nbehind the bars because they have lived according to their belief. The\nmalignant and mendacious cry that Freethought leads the truthseeker\nalways downward to a bad life is refuted by the fact that those who\nfill the prisons of our country are not Infidels, but believers in the\ndivine revelation who have lived up to the advantages offered by the\n\"gathering them in\" doctrine of atonement.\n\nThe murderers who are hanged on Friday in the different states almost\nevery week, nearly all Christians, are prepared to go to heaven and\nthere join in the company and songs of innocent children and pure\nmaids and matrons who, by their presence, make heaven worthy the\nname; but these fiends, if they should happen to be pardoned by the\ngovernor, there could not be found a reputable Christian who would\nwant to take one of them home to live in his family of noble wife and\nlovely children, for a single day. And yet he is fit for heaven, fit\nfor the company of angels and the purified of earth. The dying words\nof a good religious man were, \"I am no Infidel,\" and that man's name\nis John D. Lee, of Utah, who, in cold blood, murdered innocent men,\nwomen, and children, and after eluding justice for twenty years or more\nwas arrested, tried, found guilty and shot to death, with the words\non his lips, \"I am no Infidel.\" But his confession was unnecessary,\nas Freethinkers do not die that way, and the reason they do not die\nin that manner is because they do not believe in the great bankrupt\nact--the atonement. They have no savior, and hence have to save\nthemselves. They have no titles to mansions in the skies but have some\nclaims on earth which they prefer to stay with as long as they can.\n\nThe doctrine of the atonement is very immoral and no one can begin\nto estimate the wickedness it has fostered in society, by leading\npeople to believe they can pass through life committing all sorts of\ncrimes and at last, when they find themselves about to die, can call\nupon Jesus and find eternal life \"by believing on his name.\"\n\n\n\"Long as the lamp holds out to burn\nThe vilest sinner may return.\"\n\n\n\"This couplet has helped many a one to die easy.\" Oh, yes, it has,\nbut it has encouraged too many to live easy--to live entirely too\neasy--so easy that they did not need to gain intelligence, to practice\nmorality and pay their honest debts.\n\n\n\"Between the saddle and the ground\nWas mercy asked and pardon found.\"\n\n\nA salvation so extemporaneously performed, I fear could not endure;\nit resembles too closely the winter revivals whose fruits have all\ndisappeared before the summer's harvest is over.\n\n\n               \"Nothing, either great or small,\n                Nothing, sinner, no!\n                Jesus did, did it all\n                Long, long ago.\n                Weary, working, burdened one,\n                Wherefore toil you so?\n                Cease your doing, all was done\n                Long, long ago.\n                Till to Jesus' work you cling\n                By a simple faith,\n                Doing is a deadly thing,\n                Doing ends in death.\n                Cast your deadly doing down,\n                Down at Jesus' feet,\n                Rise in him, in him alone,\n                Gloriously complete.\"\n\n\nWhere are those who have risen in him gloriously complete? Show us\njust one.\n\n\n\n\nPrayer is Immoral.\n\nIt is immoral because it seeks to accomplish certain ends without\nusing the proper means, or it tries to do what reason teaches us\ncannot be done. When some years ago we had yellow fever at Memphis\nthe praying people all over this country united in supplicating\nthe unknown to remove the plague; but notwithstanding their united\npetitions to a throne of grace and to \"a prayer-answering God,\" they\nutterly failed. The yellow fever remained until the angel of frost\ncame and touched the air with its white wings of health.\n\nFred Douglass said he prayed for freedom twenty years, but received\nno answer until he prayed with his legs.\n\n\"Give us this day our daily bread,\" is a childish superstition. What\nmillions of poor women have starved to death with this prayer on\ntheir lips. Jesus made a prayer in the garden of Gethsemane which was\nnot answered. Now if the son of God may pray and receive no answer,\nwhat can the common rank and file sinner expect?\n\nWhen the native African sees an eclipse, he fancies some huge monster\nis attempting to devour the sun, or the moon, as the case may be. He\nresorts to his tom-tom, by which he hopes to frighten away the fearful\nmonster. After the eclipse has passed away he turns to his skeptical\nbrethren and says, \"I told you so,\" just as his more civilized brother\nwho prays for rain, and after it comes, no matter whether it is a\nday or a month afterward, turns upon his incredulous friends, and\nasks them triumphantly, \"Didn't I tell you so?\"\n\nThe tom-tom business in Africa and Christian prayers for rain, are\non a dead level with each other.\n\n\n    Sinner.--Is God infinite in his wisdom?\n\n    Parson.--He is.\n\n    Sinner.--Does he at all times know just what ought to be done?\n\n    Parson.--He does.\n\n    Sinner.--Does he always do just what ought to be done?\n\n    Parson.--He does.\n\n    Sinner.--Why do you pray to him?\n\n    Parson.--Because he is unchangeable. (\"Ingersoll's Interviews,\"\n    p. 83.)\n\n\nPrayer is simply supplication to God. God is a mystery; a mystery so\nprofound that nothing is known of him, save that he is a mystery. Even\nhis existence cannot be demonstrated. His non-existence is equally\nundemonstrable, because no man has a definite conception of him to\nuse as a starting point for investigation. Some claim that he is\na person, others that he is omnipresent. Both of these cannot be;\nfor personality and omnipresence are incompatible. Prayer is based\non the supposition of his personality. It implies necessarily a\nperson in a certain place, and possessed of certain attributes. He\nmust be omnipotent, omniscient, unchangeable, and all-good. Nothing\nless than this will come up to the conception of what a God should\nbe. Christians tell us God possesses all these attributes. We accept\ntheir statement because it is impossible to prove the contrary. On\nthis basis, then let us examine prayer.\n\nGod is said to be all goodness. Goodness is the performance of\nduty. Perfect goodness is the performance of all duty, and of nothing\nbeyond. It is also the performance of all duty without reluctance or\nhesitation. Prayer is an insult to this quality of God's character. It\nimplies that his goodness is not perfect. Every blessing for which\nman can ask, it is the duty of God either to grant or to withhold. In\neither case, prayer implies the possibility of imperfection. To ask God\nto grant a blessing which it is his duty to grant, is to assume that\nhe will not do his duty without being urged. Such an assumption is\ndownright insolence. To ask for a blessing which it is God's duty to\nwithhold, is to assume that he can be persuaded to commit sin. This,\ntoo, can only be regarded as an insult. In both cases prayer is\nuseless, because God is not likely to grant a blessing asked in the\nsame breath an insult is given.\n\nWe are told that God is pleased with prayer, because it shows our faith\nin his goodness. It rather shows our lack of faith. To be continually\nasking for blessings, implies a doubt whether we shall get them if we\ndo ask. He who never prays shows the most faith, for he takes it for\ngranted that God is good, and if he is good, he will provide for his\nchildren unasked. The child has faith that his father will provide\nfor him, but he never asks him to do so. Such conduct would prove\nhim unworthy of his father's care. So with prayer; the praying man\nis the true skeptic, and the Infidel is the true believer.\n\nPrayer makes God a changeable being. It implies that he will grant any\nfavor we ask, whether he had previously designed to do so or not. If\nwe were privy to his designs, and knew what blessings he intended to\nbestow, we could ask only for such as he had intended to give us. In\nthe absence of this knowledge we pray blindly for blessings which it\nmay be, he has determined to withhold. This necessarily implies that\nhe may change his designs. If the object pleaded for is a good one,\nsuch a change would be perfectly proper in an earthly monarch. In\nGod it would be fanciful in the extreme. It would place his will at\nthe disposal of a million fallible human beings. It would overthrow\nthe harmony of his government, and replace it by the most reckless\nchance. Our reception of a blessing would depend no longer on God's\ngoodness; it would depend on whether some other person of greater\npersuasive power, was or was not asking an opposite blessing at the\nsame time. God would be in constant indecision, and we should be in\nconstant doubt. Prayer, then, is based on the changeableness of an\nunchangeable being, and therefore valueless.\n\nPrayer, in theory, is based on the supposition of God's personality;\nprayer, in practice, assumes that God is omnipotent. It supposes\nthat he can be in all places at all times. People are praying at\nall hours of the day and in all quarters of the globe. To hear them\nall God must be at such places at such times. To do this he must\ncease to be a personal being, he must cease to be God. He will then\nhave no intelligence, no volition, for these depend on a personal\norganization. Prayer, therefore, logically annihilates the being to\nwhom it is addressed.\n\nPrayer implies doubt of the wisdom of God. To pray is to ask for a\ncertain blessing. We assume that such a blessing is best for us, and\ninform God of the fact. After insulting his goodness by asking for a\nblessing, we insult his intelligence by specifying what that blessing\nshall be. Prayers are rarely or never asked for general blessings\nalone. A person who asks for a blessing and leaves the choice of that\nblessing wholly to God, is liable to be considered a lunatic by all\ntrue believers. Yet to do otherwise is to deny God's omniscience. It\nassumes that God does not know what our wants are. If God is a rational\nbeing, he can only treat such an assumption with contempt. Prayer has\nbeen tried for two thousand years and with no result. No prayer has\never been directly or indirectly answered by God. On the contrary,\nhe apparently delighted in mocking those who call upon him. When the\nVille du Havre went down, over two hundred ministers were praying\nfor their lives, but in vain. Two girls who trusted not in prayers,\nbut in swimming-belts, alone were saved. (\"Logic of Prayer,\" Charles\nStevenson.)\n\nSome years ago when the yellow fever raged at Memphis, Tennessee, the\npious people of this country prayed most devoutly to have the plague\nswept away. These prayers were repeated, were offered up by the most\nfaithful in the Christian ranks, but all in vain. They had read in\ntheir Bible that the prayers of the righteous availeth much. They\nhad been taught to believe that \"all things whatsoever ye shall ask\nin prayer, believing, ye shall receive.\" (Mat. 21 : 22.) There is no\none thing that Jesus taught more explicitly than this; the prayers\nof those who truly believe shall be answered. He said:\n\n\n    Therefore I say unto you, What things so ever ye desire when ye\n    pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. (Mark\n    21 : 24.)\n\n\nBut we see that prayers are not answered. And besides, those prayers\nwhich it is claimed are answered carry no proof of the fact with them.\n\nDid not millions of Christians pray for the restoration of President\nGarfield? How utterly delusive it is to palm off as truth the following\npromise upon credulous minds:\n\n\n    Again I say unto you that if two of you shall agree on earth as\n    touching anything ye shall ask, it shall be done for them of my\n    Father, which is in heaven. (Mat. 18 : 19.)\n\n\nJesus himself offered a prayer that was not answered. In the garden\nof Gethsemane he prayed:\n\n\n    O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;\n    nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Mat. 26 : 39.)\n\n    There is no evidence that God has ever interfered in the affairs of\n    men. The hand of earth is stretched uselessly toward heaven. From\n    the clouds there comes no help. In vain the shipwrecked cry to\n    God. In vain the imprisoned ask for liberty and light--the world\n    moves on, and the heavens are deaf and dumb and blind. The frost\n    freezes, the fire burns, slander smites, the wrong triumphs, the\n    good suffer, and prayer dies upon the lips of faith. (\"Ingersoll's\n    Interviews,\" p. 49.)\n\n\n\"Ask and it shall be given thee\" is an erroneous and immoral\nteaching. It is false. It is not true that people get what they\npray for. We hear pious persons praying, \"Give us this day our daily\nbread,\" but none of them expect to get their bread in that way. What\nan irresistible smile would wrinkle the faces of the devout if a poor\nwidow should pray: \"Give us this day our daily coal,\" and another of\nthe praying circle should ask, \"Give us this day our daily potatoes,\"\nand another should beg, \"Give us this day our daily beefsteak.\"\n\nWhile no one expects to get his daily supplies in answer to prayer,\nyet millions of pious souls are scandalized if you doubt the efficacy\nof prayer. They will admit that they have to work for their \"daily\nbread,\" \"but after all God gives it to us just the same.\" He gives\nit to the sinner who does not pray in the same manner, that is,\nif he labors he earns his own bread.\n\nIn vain the seamstress in her sickness and poverty, prays, \"Give\nus this day our daily bread.\" She dies with these her last words on\nher lips.\n\nIn vain the noble souls who have been thrown into prison for daring\nto tell and defend the truth, have fervently appealed to the judge\nof all the earth for freedom.\n\nIn vain the martyr looked to heaven for deliverance.\n\n\n\n\nFaith in Prayer.\n\n\"I will close this letter with a little incident, the story of which\nmay not be so startling, but it is true. It is a story of child\nfaith. Johnny Quinlan, of Evanston, has the most wonderful confidence\nin the efficacy of prayer, but he thinks that prayer does not succeed\nunless it is accompanied with considerable physical strength. He\nbelieves that adult prayer is a good thing, but doubts the efficacy\nof juvenile prayer.\n\n\"He has wanted a Jersey cow for a good while, and tried prayer, but\nit didn't seem to get to the central office. Last week he went to a\nneighbor who is a Christian and believer in the efficacy of prayer,\nalso the owner of a Jersey cow.\n\n\"'Do you believe that prayer will bring me a yaller Jersey cow?' said\nJohnny.\n\n\"'Why, yes, of course. Prayer will remove mountains. It will do\nanything.'\n\n\"'Well, then, suppose you give me the cow you've got and pray for\nanother one.'\" (Bill Nye.)\n\n\n\n\nA Specimen Prayer.\n\n\"O Lord, our Heavenly Father, thou who dwellest in heaven [flattery]\nThou art the creator and preserver of all things; [flattery] we thank\nThee that we live and move and have our being; [Imagine a response of,\n'You are quite welcome, I am sure,'] that we are neither dead nor\ndamned--for hadst Thou visited one sin in a thousand, we should be\nbeyond the reach of hope and mercy. [He's not just, or He would have\ndone it.] Thousands of our fellow mortals, as good by nature as we,\nand far better by practice, are now trying the unalterable laws of\nan unending eternity. [Not a very good comment on His justice.] Yet\nwe have [by His partiality] still another opportunity to make our\ncalling and election sure. We come before Thee, O Lord, to ask the\nforgiveness of our sins. [Must have indulgence.] O Lord, look in mercy\non us and remember us in thy love. O we pray Thee that Thou wouldst\nprosper Thy cause. [He hadn't thought of that for sometime before.] O\nsend more laborers into the harvest, for the harvest is great and\nthe laborers are few, [another piece of information.] O Lord, hasten\nthe time when all shall know Thee from the least unto the greatest\n[We are satisfied that you are not diligent enough in this matter,\nand we want you to hurry up.] O Lord, check the progress of evil [You\nought to know enough to do it without being told,] and promote the\ncause of truth, [which you would do, if you were as much interested\nin the matter as we are.] O Lord, hear our prayer [Do pay attention\nand don't forget in an hour, like a stupid dolt, what we have been\ntelling you,] and answer our petitions. And in the end, when we are\ncalled to die, save us [which on account of our unworthiness, you may\nnot do, or on account of your forgetfulness you may neglect, and leave\nus the subject of one of the devil's infernal jokes,] and the praise,\nand the honor, and the glory, we will ascribe through endless ages to\nThee. [A great consideration, which will certainly be some inducement\nto you to save,--only just think what an advantage such an arrangement\nwill be to you.] All of which we ask for Jesus' sake, Amen.\"\n\n\n(Newspaper Clipping.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Boston Man's Prayer.\n\n\"Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul if I have a soul, from hell\nif there is a hell, Amen, if it is necessary.\"\n\n\n\n\nPrayer an Echo.\n\n                'From the earliest dawn of Nature's birth,\n                Since sorrow and sin first darkened the earth;\n                From sun to sun, from pole to pole,\n                Where'er the waves of Humanity roll,\n                The breezy robe this planet wears\n                Has quivered and echoed with countless prayers.\n                Each hour a million knees are bent,\n                A million prayers to heaven are sent;\n                There's not a summer beam but sees\n                Some humble suppliant on his knees;\n                There's not a breeze that murmurs by\n                But wafts some faithful prayer on high;\n                There's not a woe afflicts our race\n                But someone bears to the Throne of Grace;\n                And for every temptation our souls may meet\n                We ask for grace at the Mercy Seat.\n                * * * * * * * * * * * *\n                The beams smile on, and heaven serene\n                Still bends, as though no prayers had been;\n                And the breezes moan, as still they wave,\n                When man is powerless, heaven cannot save.\"\n\n                                                    --Charles Stevenson.\n\n\n\n\nOther Worldliness.\n\nIt seems to some people selfish for one to attempt to live in the\npersonal enjoyment of this world, but to lend all one's energies\ntoward gaining heaven is to them just right. Caring for one's health\nand family is selfishness, but struggling to save one's soul is the\nnoblest work of life.\n\nThe truth is Christian doctrines are purely selfish. When man does\ncertain duties, as they are called, because he wants to get to heaven,\nhis conduct is intensely selfish. The gospel constantly invites the\nfollowers of Jesus to act, from the consideration that \"great is your\nreward in heaven.\" Very many Christians say that if it were not for\nthe hope of future reward, they would not try to do right. In other\nwords they confess that they do not act from moral motives. They are\nmoved by the selfish motives of other worldliness. To act morally we\nmust do right because it is right and for no other consideration. When\nwe look beyond the act to see how much we are going to make out of it,\nthen our conduct is not moral. He who is going through the performance\nof duties because he wants to get to heaven, has yet to learn the\nmeaning of morality.\n\n\n\n\nChristianity is Intolerant.\n\nRevelation does not admit of two sides to religious questions. There\nis only one side, say the Moodys and Talmages, and that side is\nGod's side. We have no right to question Holy Writ. We must accept\nit. \"Believe or be damned,\" does not admit of the latitude of free\nthought, or the right of reason to question the authority of the Bible.\n\n\"Reason is 'carnal,' says the Christian idolator, and you cannot rely\nupon it--only trust in Jesus and you are saved.\"\n\nThe following historical facts prove beyond question that intolerance\nis the very soul of Christianity:\n\n\"When any step was taken to establish a system of permanent\ninstitutions, which might effectually protect liberty from the\ninvasions of power in general, the church always ranged herself on\nthe side of despotism.\" (Guizot's \"History of Civilization in Europe,\"\np. 154.)\n\n\"Persecution for religious heterodoxy, in all its degrees, was in\nthe sixteenth century, the principle as well as the practice of every\nchurch.\" (Hallam's \"Middle Ages,\" vol. 2, p. 48.)\n\nWhen Queen Mary, the first queen of England, had burned Latimer,\nRidley and others, and her ministers had chided her for it, she replied\nthat she did not think God could be angry with her for burning the\nheretics a few hours in this world, for their heresy, since he was\ngoing to burn them eternally in the next world for the same thing.\n\nHere you have the unadulterated article. It is nothing, if not\nintolerant, and in every age and country, with sword and hand,\nhas commanded the trembling people to believe or be damned. And\nthe Christian who does not do his utmost toward having heretics and\ninfidels burned at the stake, is trying to be better than his God.\n\n\n\n\nHell, Hades, Gehenna, Sheol.\n\nHow many mortals have been frightened out of their senses by the\nfalse alarm of fire in the next world. Preachers have pictured\nto mothers their children who died without the sacraments of the\nchurch being administered to them, as rolling on the fiery billows of\nhell. Parents have been demented by such descriptions, and have gone\nto lunatic asylums, or to their graves in consequence. Millions thus\nfrightened have joined the church, and confessed belief in the creed,\nalthough they may not have known the meaning of a single article of\nit. But once having avowed their adherence to the church have lived\nlives of hypocrisy ever afterward because they had not the honor\nand the courage to break away from their bondage. What stories the\npulpit has related of Infidels being struck dead for profanity and\nblasphemy. These holy pulpit alarmists will have much to answer for\nif there is any such thing as a judgment day or a God in Israel.\n\nIt is plain that Jesus taught the doctrine of future, if not endless\npunishment. It was endless punishment to those who committed the\nunpardonable sin: \"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of\nman, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the\nHoly Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world,\nneither in the world to come.\" (Mat. 12 : 32.)\n\nOther passages may be cited to show that Jesus taught the horrible\ndoctrine of eternal torment, and all efforts on the part of modern\ncommentators to explain away hell are in vain. \"And these shall\ngo away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life\neternal.\" (Mat. 25 : 46.)\n\nIf these words do not teach the doctrine of endless torment, it would\nbe a hard matter to express it in the vernacular.\n\n\n\n\nPictures of Hell.\n\nJohn Bunyan describes this interesting locality, and its inhabitants\nthus: \"All the devils in hell will be with thee howling and roaring,\nscreeching and yelling in such a manner that, thou wilt be at thy wits\nend, and be ready to run stark mad from anguish and torment. * * * Here\nthou must lie and fry, and scorch, and broil, and burn forevermore.\"\n\nThe father of New England theology, Jonathan Edwards, portrays his\nown imagination after this fashion:\n\n\"The saints in glory will be far more sensible, how dreadful the wrath\nof God is, and will better understand how terrible the sufferings\nof the damned are, yet this will be no occasion of grief to them,\nbut rejoicings. They will not be sorry for the damned: it will cause\nno uneasiness or dissatisfaction to them, but on the contrary when\nthey see this sight, it will occasion rejoicing, and excite them to\njoyful praises.\"\n\nDr. Emmons reveals his own \"true inwardness\" by giving it the following\ndescription:\n\n\"The happiness of the elect in heaven will in part consist of watching\nthe torment of the damned in hell. Among these it may be their\nown children, parents, husbands, wives and friends on earth. One\npart of the business of the blest is to celebrate the doctrine of\nreprobation. While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing\non the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally\nascending in view of the vessels of mercy who instead of taking the\npart of those miserable objects will sing, Amen, hallelujah: praise\nthe Lord.\"\n\nAgain, he says: \"When they (the saints) see how great the misery is\nfrom which God hath saved them and how great a difference he hath\nmade between their state and the state of others who were by nature,\nand perhaps by practice no more sinful and ill deserving than they,\nit will give them more a sense of the wonderfulness of God's grace\nto them in making them so to differ. The sight of hell-torments will\nexalt the happiness of the saints forever.\"\n\n\n\"Where saints and angels from their blest abode,\nChanting loud hallelujahs to their God.\nLook down on sinners in the realm of woe\nAnd draw fresh pleasures from the scenes below.\"\n\n\nThe Rev. Thomas Button, describes the bottomless character of his\nfancies thus:\n\n\"The godly wife shall applaud the justice of the judge in the\ncondemnation of her ungodly husband. The godly husband shall say,\nAmen! to the damnation of her who lay in his bosom. The godly parent\nshall say hallelujah! at the passing of the sentence upon the ungodly\nchild. And the godly child, shall from his heart, approve the damnation\nof his wicked parents who begot him, and the mother who bore him.\"\n\nThomas Vincent, a reverend, raves after this fashion: \"This will\nfill them, the saints, with astonishing admiration and joy, when\nthey see some of their near relatives going to hell; their fathers,\ntheir mothers, their children, their husbands, their wives, their\nhuman friends, and companions while they themselves are saved. * * *\nThose affections they now have for relatives out of Christ will cease,\nand they will not have the least trouble to see them sentenced to\nhell and thrust into the fiery furnace.\"\n\n\n            My thoughts on awful subjects roll,\n              Damnation and the dead;\n            What horrors seize the guilty soul\n              Upon a dying bed.\n\n            Where endless crowds of sinners lie,\n              And darkness makes their chains;\n            Tortured with keen despair they cry,\n              Yet wait for fiercer pains.\n\n            Then swift and dreadful she descends\n              Down to the fiery coast\n            Amongst abominable fiends,\n              Herself a frighted ghost.\n\n            Adore and tremble, for your God\n              Is a consuming fire;\n            His jealous eyes with wrath inflame,\n              And raise his vengeance higher.\n            Almighty vengeance, how it burns!\n              Vast magazines of plagues and storms\n            Lie treasured for his foes.\n\n\nThese grisly rhymes full of horrors are found in one of Watt's hymn\nbooks written in England in the early part of the last century,\nbut they are omitted from all modern hymn books.\n\nTertullian finds great joy in the idea of seeing his enemies in hell.\n\n\"What shall be the magnitude of that scene! How shall I laugh! How\nshall I rejoice! How shall I triumph when I behold so many and such\nillustrious kings, who were said to have mounted into heaven, groaning\nwith Jupiter their god, in the lowest darkness of hell.\" (Quoted by\nLecky, \"Rationalism in Europe,\" vol. 1, p. 329.)\n\n\"One great objection to the Old Testament is the cruelty said to\nhave been commanded by God, but all the cruelties recounted in the\nOld Testament ceased with death. The vengeance of Jehovah stopped at\nthe portal of the tomb. He never threatened to avenge himself upon\nthe dead; and not one word, from the first mistake in Genesis to the\nlast curse of Malachi, contains the slightest intimation that God\nwill punish in another world. It was reserved for the New Testament\nto make known the frightful doctrine of eternal pain. It was the\nteacher of universal benevolence who rent the veil between time and\neternity, and fixed the horrified gaze of man on the lurid gulfs of\nhell. Within the breast of non-resistance was coiled the worm that\nnever dies.\" (Ingersoll's Reply to Black.)\n\n\"Is it necessary that heaven should borrow its light from the glare\nof hell? Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice,\nimmortal meanness. To worship an eternal gaoler hardens, debases,\nand pollutes the soul. While there is one sad and breaking heart in\nthe universe, no perfectly good being can be perfectly happy. Against\nthe heartlessness of this doctrine every grand and generous soul\nshould enter its solemn protest. I want no part in any heaven where\nthe saved, the ransomed, and the redeemed drown with merry shout the\ncries and sobs of hell--in which happiness forgets misery--where the\ntears of the lost increase laughter and deepen the dimples of joy. The\nidea of hell was born of ignorance, brutality, fear, cowardice, and\nrevenge. This idea tends to show that our remote ancestors were the\nlowest beasts. Only from dens, lairs, and caves--only from mouths\nfilled with cruel fangs--only from hearts of fear and hatred--only\nfrom the conscience of hunger and lust--only from the lowest and\nmost debased, could come this most cruel, heartless, and absurd of\nall dogmas.\" (Ingersoll's Reply to Black.)\n\n\"A religion that teaches a mother that she can be happy in heaven,\nwith her children in hell--in everlasting torment--strikes at the\nvery roots of family affection. It makes the human heart stone. Love\nthat means no more than that, is not love at all. No heart that has\never loved can see the object of its affection in pain, and itself\nbe happy. The thing is impossible. Any religion that can make that\npossible is more to be dreaded than war or famine or pestilence or\ndeath. It would eat out all that is great and beautiful and good in\nthis life. It would make life a mockery and love a curse.\" (Helen\nH. Gardener's \"Men, Women, and Gods.\")\n\n\"They divided the world into saints and sinners, and all the saints\nwere going to heaven, and all the sinners yonder. Now, then, you\nstand in the presence of a great disaster. A house is on fire,\nand there is seen at a window the frightened face of a woman with\na babe in her arms, appealing for help; humanity cries out, \"Will\nsome one go to the rescue?\" They do not ask for a Methodist, Baptist,\nor a Catholic; they ask for a man. All at once there starts from the\ncrowd one that nobody ever suspected of being a saint; one may be,\nwith a bad reputation; but he goes up the ladder and is lost in the\nsmoke and flame; and a moment after he emerges, and the great circles\nof flames hiss around him; in a moment more he has reached the window;\nin another moment, with the woman and child in his arms, he reaches\nthe ground and gives his fainting burden to the by-standers, and the\npeople all stand hushed for a moment, as they always do at such times,\nand then the air is rent with acclamations. Tell me that that man in\ngoing to be sent to hell, to eternal flames, who is willing to risk\nhis life rather than a woman and child should suffer from the fire\none moment! I despise that doctrine of hell! Any man that believes\nin eternal hell is afflicted with at least two diseases; petrifaction\nof the heart and putrefaction of the brain.\" (Ingersoll's \"Ghosts.\")\n\n\n\n\nThe Church Opposed to Progress.\n\n\"The church has opposed every reform and until quite recently, almost\nevery useful invention. In the England of Elizabeth it was declared\nfrom the pulpit that the introduction of forks would demoralize the\npeople and provoke the divine wrath.\" (\"Martyrdom of Man,\" p. 38.)\n\nIn the year 1444 Caxton published the first book ever printed in\nEngland. In 1474 the then bishop of London, in a convocation of his\nclergy, said, \"If we do not destroy this dangerous invention it will\none day destroy us.\" That bishop was a prophet.\n\nHume says: \"It was remarkable that no physician in Europe, who had\nreached the age of forty years, ever to the end of his life adopted\nHarvey's doctrine of the circulation of the blood, and that his\npractice in London diminished extremely, from the reproach drawn on\nhim by that great and signal discovery. So slow is the progress in\nevery science even when not opposed by factitious and superstitious\nprejudices.\" (Hume's \"History of England.\")\n\nWhen Buffon had published Natural History, in which was included his\n\"Theory of the Earth,\" he was officially informed by the faculty of\ntheology in Paris that several of his propositions were \"reprehensible\nand contrary to the creed of the church.\"\n\nAnd when Columbus asserted the rotundity of the earth, he was ridiculed\nby the clergy, who maintained that \"everything would roll off on the\nother side and be consumed in the fires of hell, if the world should\nturn over.\"\n\nBenjamin Franklin's experiments with the lightning, were condemned,\nas he was only invoking upon himself the wrath of an angry God.\n\nProfessor Morse was freely ridiculed by the clergy for his attempt\nto construct a telegraph.\n\nRoger Bacon, who invented spectacles and improved the telescope,\nwas accused of having \"sold himself to the devil.\"\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to recall the persecutions of Copernicus,\nBruno, and Galileo on account of their discoveries in astronomy.\n\nAt Eaton, in Shelly's time, \"Chemistry was a forbidden thing.\"\n\nWe read in the life of Locke that \"there was a meeting of the heads of\nthe houses of Oxford, where it was proposed to censure and discourage\nthe reading of this essay (On the Human Understanding) and after\nvarious debates, it was concluded that without any public censure\neach head of a house should endeavor to prevent its being read in\nhis own college.\" (Spencer's \"Social Statics,\" p. 375.)\n\n\"With respect to the last, the grandest of all human undertakings\n(that is the circumnavigation of the earth) it is to be remembered\nthat Catholicism had irrevocably committed itself to the dogma of a\nflat earth, with the sky as a floor of heaven, and hell in the under\nworld.\" (Draper's \"Conflict,\" p. 294.)\n\nThe clergy for years have ridiculed Darwinism, and scouted the\nphilosophy of evolution, even after the best minds of Europe had\naccepted it. But after all their ridicule of Darwinism, when Darwin\nhad passed away the great heart of England did not fail to show the\nesteem in which the people at large held him, but lovingly laid his\nremains to rest in Westminster abbey with the dust of her noblest dead.\n\nIt is in the very nature of Christianity to persecute. It cannot\nlive on terms of equality with anything on earth. It must rule. It\nmust be supreme, and all institutions and all individuals must\nobey its mandates. It has in all of its vocabulary no such word as\nliberty. Every knee must bow to it, every tongue confess its authority,\nand every pocket--pay it tithes. And so gigantic has been its power\nthat obedience in every age has been almost universal. Millions\nhave professed to obey the despot who have had no idea of what\nthey were professing, and hence had not so much even an a dream of\nliberty. Poor man has been trampled in the dust, and sometimes used\nas food for cannon, to satisfy the ambition of pope or king, and when\nnot serviceable in that way, he was forced to worship God and serve\nthe priests.\n\n\"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.\" (Rom. 13 :\n1.) That is, the higher powers are the priests. The commandments of\nthese higher powers are expressed in such words as \"submit,\" \"obey,\"\n\"serve,\" \"pay tithes,\" \"believe,\"--and to heed them is to lose the\nhigher opportunities of manhood.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPROTESTANT PERSECUTIONS.\n\nWilliam Cobbett on the English Church.--A Letter to Lord Tenderten,\nLord Chief Justice of England, April 6, 1829.\n\n\"My Lord: I have read the report of your lordship's speech made on\nthe 4th inst. on the second reading of the Catholic bill; and there\nis one passage of it on which I think it my duty thus publicly to\nremark. The passage to which I allude relates to the character of\nthe law established church, and also to the probable fate that will,\nin consequence of this bill, attend her in Ireland.\n\n\"First, then, my lord, let us take your proposition 'that there\nin no church so tolerant as this.' I am sure your lordship has\nnever read her history; I am sure you have not. If you had you\nnever would have uttered these words. Not being content to deal in\ngeneral terms, I will not say she has been, and was from the outset,\nthe most intolerant church that the world ever saw; that she started\nat first armed with halters, ripping-knives, axes, and racks; that\nher footsteps were marked with blood, while her back bent under the\nplunder of her innumerable innocent victims; and that for refinement\nin cruelty and extent of rapacity she never had an equal, whether\ncorporate or sole. I will not thus speak of her in general terms,\nbut I will lay before your lordship some historical facts, to make\ngood that contradiction which I have given to your words. I assert\nthat this law-church is the most intolerant church I ever read or\nheard of; and this assertion I now proceed to make good.\n\n\"This church began to exist in 1547, and in the reign of Edward\nVI. Until now the religion of the country had been for several\nyears, under the tyrant Henry VIII., a sort of mongrel; but now it\nbecame wholly Protestant by law. The Articles of Religion and the\nCommon Prayer-book were now drawn up, and were established by acts of\nParliament. The Catholic altars were pulled down in all the churches;\nthe priests, on pain of ouster and fine, were compelled to teach the\nnew religion, that is to say, to be apostates; and the people who had\nbeen born and bred Catholics were not only punished if they heard mass,\nbut were also punished if they did not go to hear the new parsons;\nthat is to say, if they refused to become apostates. The people,\nsmarting under this tyranny, rose in insurrection in several parts,\nand, indeed, all over the country. They complained that they had been\nrobbed of their religion, and of the relief to the poor which the old\nchurch gave; and they demanded that the mass and the monasteries should\nbe restored, and that the priests should not be allowed to marry. And\nhow were they answered? The bullet and bayonet at the hands of German\ntroops slaughtered a part, caused another part to be imprisoned and\nflogged, and the remainder to submit, outwardly, at least, to the\nlaw-church. And now mark this tolerant and merciful church. Many of the\nold monastics and priests, who had been expelled from their convents\nand livings, were compelled to beg their bread about the country, and\nthus found subsistence among the pious Catholics. This was an eye-sore\nto the law-church, who deemed the very existence of these men, who\nrefused to apostatize, a libel on her. Therefore, in company, actually\nin company with the law that founded the new church came forth a law\nto punish beggars, by burning them in the face with a red-hot iron\nand by making them slaves for two years, with power in their masters\nto make them wear an iron collar. Your lordship must have read this\nact of Parliament, passed in the first year of the first Protestant\nreign, and coming forth in company with the Common Prayer-book. This\nwas tolerant work, to be sure; and fine proof we have here of this\nchurch being 'favorable to civil and religious liberty.' Not content\nwith stripping these faithful Catholic priests of their livings;\nnot content with turning them out upon the wide world; this tolerant\nchurch must cause them to perish with hunger or be branded slaves.\n\n\"Such was the tolerant spirit of this church when she was young. As\nto her burnings under Cranmer (who made the prayer book), they\nare hardly worthy of particular notice, when we have before us the\nsweeping cruelties of this first Protestant reign, during which,\nshort as it was, the people of England suffered so much that the\nsuffering actually thinned their numbers; it was a people partly\ndestroyed, and that, too, in the space of about six years; and this\nis acknowledged even in acts of Parliament of that day. But this\nlaw-church was established in reality during the reign of Elizabeth,\nwhich lasted forty-five years; that is, from 1558 to 1603; and though\nthis church has always kept up its character, even to the present day,\nits deeds during this long reign are the most remarkable.\n\n\"Elizabeth established what she called 'a court of high commission'\nconsisting chiefly of bishops of your lordship's 'most tolerant\nchurch,' in order to punish all who did not conform to her religious\ncreed, she being 'the head of the church.' This commission was\nempowered to have control over the 'opinions' of all men, and to\npunish all men according to their 'discretion, short of death.' They\nhad power to extort evidence by prison or the rack. They had power\nto compel a man (on oath) to 'reveal his thoughts,' and to 'accuse\nhis friend, brother, parent, wife, or child;' and this, too, on\n'pain of death.' These monsters, in order to 'discover priests,'\nand to crush the old religion, 'fined, imprisoned, racked,' and\ndid such things as would have made Nero shudder to think of. They\nsent hundreds to the rack in order to get from them confessions,\n'on which confession many of them were put to death.'\n\n\"I have not room to make even an enumeration of the deeds of religious\npersecution during this long and 'tolerant' reign; but I will state\na few of them:\n\n1. It was death to make a new Catholic priest within the kingdom.\n\n2. It was death for a Catholic priest to come into the kingdom\nfrom abroad.\n\n3. It was death to harbor a Catholic priest coming from abroad.\n\n4. It was death to confess to such a priest.\n\n5. It was death for any priest to say mass.\n\n6. It was death for any one to hear mass.\n\n7. It was death to deny, or not to swear, if called on, that this\nwoman was the head of the church of Christ.\n\n8. It was an offense (punishable by heavy fine) not to go to the\nProtestant church. This fine was \u00a320 a lunar month, or \u00a3250 a year,\nand of our present money \u00a33,250 a year. Thousands upon thousands\nrefused to go to the law-church; and thus the head of the church sacked\nthousands upon thousands of estates! The poor conscientious Catholics\nwho refused to go to the 'most tolerant church,' and who had no money\nto pay fines, were crammed into the jails until the counties petitioned\nto be relieved from keeping them. They were then discharged, being\nfirst publicly whipped, and having their ears bored with a red-hot\niron. But this very great 'toleration' not answering the purpose,\nan act was passed to banish for life all these non-goers to church,\nif they were not worth twenty pounds, and, in case of return they\nwere to be punished with death.\n\n\"I am, my lord, not making loose assertions here; I am all along\nstating from acts of Parliament, and the above form a small sample of\nthe whole; and this your lordship must know well. I am not declaiming,\nbut relating undeniable facts; with facts of the same character, with\na bare list, made in the above manner, I could fill a considerable\nvolume. The names of the persons put to death merely for being\nCatholics, during this long and dreary reign, would, especially if\nwe were to include Ireland, form a list ten times as long as that of\nour army and navy, both taken together. The usual mode of inflicting\ndeath was to hang the victim for a short time, just to benumb his or\nher faculties, then cut down and instantly rip open the belly, and\ntear out the heart, and hold it up, fling the bowels into the fire,\nthen chop off the head, and cut the body into quarters, then boil\nthe head and quarters, and then hang them up at the gates of cities,\nor other conspicuous places. This was done, including Ireland, to\nmany hundreds of persons, merely for adhering to the church in which\nthey had been born and bred. There were one hundred and eighty-seven\nripped up and boiled in England in the years from 1577 to 1603;\nthat is to say, in the last twenty-six years of Elizabeth's reign;\nand these might all have been spared if they would have agreed to go\nto church and hear the Common Prayer! All, or nearly all of them were\nracked before they were put to death; and the cruelties in prison,\nand the manner of execution, were the most horrible that can be\nconceived. They were flung into dungeons, kept in their filth, and\nfed on bullock's liver, boiled and unwashed tripe, and such things\nas dogs are fed on. Edwards Genings, a priest, detected in saying\nmass in Holborn, was after sentence of death offered his pardon if he\nwould go to church; but having refused to do this, and having at the\nplace of execution boldly said that he would die a thousand deaths\nrather than acknowledge the Queen to be the spiritual head of the\nchurch, Topliffe, the attorney-general, ordered the rope to be cut\nthe moment the victim was turned off, 'so that' (says this historian)\n'the priest being little or nothing stunned, stood on his feet casting\nhis eyes toward heaven, till the hangman tripped up his heels, and\nflung him on the block, where he was ripped up and quartered.' He was\nso much alive even after the boweling that he cried with a loud voice,\n'Oh! it smarts!' And then he exclaimed, 'Sancte Gregorie, ora pro me,'\nwhile the hangman having sworn a most wicked oath cried, 'Zounds! his\nheart is in my hand, and yet Gregory is in his mouth!'\"--Wm. Cobbett.\n\n\"For centuries the Irish were killed like game. We know not a few\ngood Englishmen who would be convulsed with the story of the murder\nof Smith or Jones, but whom the killing of an O'Tool or O'Dacherty,\nor any 'O'' or 'Mac' would not move in the least. That be it\nremembered in 1825. The collection of tithes alone cost a million\nlives. Henry VIII. aggravated all the outrages ever committed,\nand was determined the faith of the Irish should undergo a radical\nProtestant conversion. Raleigh butchered Limerick garrison in cold\nblood after Lord Grey had selected seven hundred to be hanged. James\nI. confiscated one-tenth of all the land in Ireland and destroyed\nthousands of lives for religion's sake. Protestant rectors kept private\nprisons for confining all who dissented from their faith. Dr. Leland,\na Protestant clergyman, wrote that the favorite object of the English\nParliament was the total extermination of all the Catholics in Ireland.\n\n\"Cromwell began by massacreing for three days the garrison of Drogheda\nafter quarter had been promised. Whole towns were put up and sold. The\nCatholics were banished from three-fourths of Ireland and confined\nto Connaught, and after a certain day every one found outside were\nshot or hung. Fleetwood, the reverend, said the Lord will appear in\nthis work. On every wolf's scalp and priest's head a premium of \u00a35\nwas offered! Young girls and boys were gathered up by the thousands\nand carried to the West Indies. So by 1652 was once populous Ireland\nso devastated that an occupied house was a curiosity and commented\non. Says one writer, S. W. Petry, 'There perished in 1641 over\nsix hundred thousand lives whose blood somebody must atone to God\nfor.'\" (Newspaper article.)\n\n\"The sword of the church was unsheathed and the world was at the mercy\nof ignorant and infuriated priests, whose eyes feasted on the agonies\nthey inflicted. Acting as they believed, or pretended to believe,\nunder the command of God; stimulated by the hope of infinite reward\nin another world--hating heretics with every drop of their bestial\nblood; savage beyond description; merciless beyond conception--these\ninfamous priests in a kind of frenzied joy, leaped upon the helpless\nvictims of their rage. They crushed their bones in iron boots; tore\ntheir quivering flesh with iron hooks and pincers; cut off their\nlips and eyelids; pulled out their nails, and into the bleeding\nquick thrust needles; tore out their tongues; extinguished their\neyes; stretched them upon racks; flayed them alive; crucified them\nwith their heads downward; exposed them to wild beasts; burned them\nat the stake; mocked their cries and groans; ravished their wives;\nrobbed their children, and then prayed God to finish the holy work\nin hell. Millions upon millions were sacrificed upon the altars of\nbigotry. The Catholic burned the Lutheran, the Lutheran burned the\nCatholic, the Episcopalian tortured the Presbyterian, the Presbyterian\ntortured the Episcopalian. Every denomination killed all it could of\nevery other, and each Christian felt in duty bound to exterminate every\nother Christian who denied the smallest fraction of his creed.... They\nhave imprisoned and murdered each other, and the wives and children\nof each other. In the name of God every possible crime has been\ncommitted, every conceivable outrage has been perpetrated. Brave men,\ntender and loving women, beautiful girls, and prattling babes have\nbeen exterminated in the name of Jesus Christ. For more than fifty\ngenerations the church has carried the black flag. Her vengeance has\nbeen measured only by her power. During all these years of infamy\nno heretic has ever been forgiven. With the heart of a fiend she has\nhated; with the clutch of avarice she has grasped; with the jaws of\na dragon she has devoured; pitiless as famine; merciless as fire;\nwith conscience of a serpent; such is the history of the church of\nGod.\" (Ingersoll's \"Heretics and Heresies.\")\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE PURITANS INTOLERANT.\n\nCapital Laws of Connecticut, Established by the General Court,\nDecember 1, 1642.\n\n1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other\nGod but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. (Deut. 13 : 6; 17 :\n2, 3, and Ex. 22 : 20.)\n\n2. If any man or woman be a witch (that is, hath or consulteth with a\nfamiliar spirit) they shall be put to death. (Ex. 20 : 18; Lev. 20 :\n27; Deut. 18 : 10, 11.)\n\n3. If any person shall blaspheme the name of God, the Father, Son\nor Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous, or high-handed\nblasphemy, or shall curse God in the like manner, he shall be put to\ndeath. (Lev. 24 : 15, 16.)\n\n4. If any person shall commit any wilful murder, which is manslaughter\ncommitted upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man's necessary\nand just defense nor by mere casualty against his will, he shall be\nput to death. (Ex. 21 : 12, 13, 14; Numb. 35 : 30, 31.)\n\n5. If any person shall slay another through guile, either by poisoning,\nor other such devilish practice, he shall be put to death. (Ex.\n21 : 14.)\n\n6. If any man or woman shall lie with a beast or brute creature, by\ncarnal copulation, they shall surely be put to death, and the beast\nshall be slain and buried. (Lev. 20 : 15, 16.)\n\n7. If any man lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of\nthem have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to\ndeath. (Lev. 20 : 13.)\n\n8. If any person committeth adultery with a married or espoused wife,\nthe adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Lev.\n20 : 10; 18 : 20; Deut. 22 : 23, 24.)\n\n9. If any man shall forcibly and without consent ravish a maid or\nwoman, that is lawfully married or contracted, he shall be put to\ndeath. (Deut. 22 : 25.)\n\n10. If any man shall steal a man or mankind, he shall be put to\ndeath. (Ex. 21 : 16.)\n\n11. If any man rise up by false witnesses, wittingly and of purpose\nto take away any man's life he shall be put to death. (Deut. 19 :\n16, 18, 19.)\n\n12. If any man shall conspire or attempt any invasion, insurrection,\nor rebellion against the commonwealth, he shall be put to death.\n\n\"All these are copied from the capital laws of Massachusetts,\nestablished (with her Body of Liberties) December, 1641,--except\nthe ninth (against rape of a married or betrothed woman), which was\nenacted by Massachusetts in June, 1642. One of the Massachusetts laws\npunished manslaughter with death, was not adopted by Connecticut,\nand only the first clause of the Massachusetts law against conspiracy,\nrebellion, etc. was taken.\" (\"Blue Laws, True and False,\" by Trumbull.)\n\n\"December 1642, two additional capital laws were added to the statute\nof Connecticut.\" (Ibid. p. 59.)\n\n13. If any child or children about 16 years old and of sufficient\nunderstanding, shall curse or smite their natural father or mother, he,\nor they shall be put to death, unless it can be sufficiently testified\nthat the parents have been unchristianly negligent in the education\nof such children or so provoke them by extreme and cruel correction\nthat they have been forced thereunto, to preserve themselves from\ndeath or maiming. (Ex. 21 : 17, 15; Lev. 20 : 9.)\n\n14. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son of sufficient years\nand understanding, namely, 16 years of age, which will not obey the\nvoice of his father or mother, and that when they have chastened him,\nwill not hearken to them, then may his father and mother, being his\nnatural parents, lay hold on him, and bring him to the magistrates\nassembled in court and testify unto them that their son is stubborn and\nrebellious and will not obey their voice and chastisement, but lives in\nsundry notorious crimes, such a son shall be put to death. (Deut. 21 :\n20, 21.)\n\n\"Persuade men that when ascribing to the Deity justice and mercy,\nthey are speaking of qualities generally distinct from those which\nexist among mankind--qualities which we are altogether unable to\nconceive, and which may be compatible with acts which men would term\ngrossly unjust and unmerciful; tell them that guilt may be entirely\nunconnected with a personal act that millions of infants may be\ncalled into existence for a moment to be precipitated into a place of\ntorment, that vast nations may live and die, and then be rased again\nto endure never-ending punishment, because they did not believe in a\nreligion of which they never heard, or because a crime was committed\nthousands of years before they were in existence; convince them that\nall this is part of a transcendentally perfect and righteous scheme,\nand there is no imaginable abyss to which such a doctrine would not\nlead.\" (Lecky's \"Rationalism in Europe,\" vol. 1, p. 384.)\n\nLecky proceeds to show that men who believe in salvation by the\nchurch will always persecute dissenters, and all history attests the\ntruth of his remarks. Catholics persecuted Protestants; Protestants\npersecuted Puritans; and Puritans, in there turn, persecuted other\ndissenters. Nor did the work stop here; though limited in their power,\nyet these dissenters even to-day find ways by which they can persecute\ndissenters from them without resort to physical means. There was not,\ntwo centuries ago, a single sect that did not uphold persecution.\n\n\n\n\nGalileo.\n\n\"For sixteen years the church had rest. But in 1632 Galileo ventured\non the publication of his work entitled 'The System of the World,'\nits object being the vindication of the Copernican doctrine. He was\nagain summoned before the Inquisition at Rome, accused of having\nasserted that the earth moves around the sun. He was declared to have\nbrought upon himself the penalty of heresy. On his knees with his\nhand on the Bible, he was compelled to abjure, and curse the doctrine\nof the movement of the earth. What a spectacle! This venerable man,\nthe most illustrious of his age, forced by the threat of death to\ndeny facts which his judges as well as himself knew to be true! He\nwas then committed to prison, treated with remorseless severity\nduring the remaining ten years of his life, and he was denied burial\nin consecrated ground. Must not that be false which requires for\nits support so much imposture, so much barbarity? The opinions thus\ndefended by the Inquisition are now objects of derision to the whole\ncivilized world.\" (Draper's \"Conflict Between Religion and Science.\")\n\n\n\n\nBruno.\n\n\"On the 17th of February, 1600, a vast concourse of people was\nassembled in the largest open space in Rome, gathered together by\nthe irresistible sympathy which men always feel, with the terrible\nand tragic in human existence. In the center stood a huge pile of\nfaggots, from out its logs and branches rose a stake, crowding around\nthe pile were eager and expectant faces, men of various ages and of\nvarious characters, but all for one moment united in a common feeling\nof malignant triumph, religion was about to be avenged; a heretic\nwas coming to expiate on that spot the crime of open defiance to\nthe dogmas proclaimed by the church--the crime of teaching that the\nearth moved, and that there was an infinity of worlds. The stake is\nerected for the 'maintenance and defense of the holy church, and the\nrights and liberties of the same.' Whom does the crowd await? Giordano\nBruno--the poet, philosopher, and heretic--the teacher of Galileo's\nheresy--the friend of Sir Philip Sidney, and the open antagonist\nof Aristotle. A hush comes over the crowd. The procession solemnly\nadvances, the soldiers peremptorily clearing the way for it. His face\nis placid though pale. They offer him the crucifix; he turns his head;\nhe refuses to kiss it! 'The heretic!' They show him the image of him\nwho died upon the cross for the sake of the living truth--he refuses\nthe symbol! A yell bursts from the multitude.\n\n\"They chain him to the stake. He remains silent. Will he not pray\nfor mercy? Will he not recant? Now the last hour has arrived--will\nhe die in his obstinacy, when a little hypocrisy would save him from\nso much agony? It is even so; he is stubborn and unalterable. They\nlight the faggots; the branches crackle; the flame ascends; the victim\nwrithes--and now we see him no more. The smoke envelopes him; but not a\nprayer, not a plaint, not a single cry escapes him. In a little while\nthe wind has scattered the ashes of Giordano Bruno.\" (G. H. Lewes's\n\"History of Philosophy.\")\n\n\"What a contrast between this scene of manly honor, of unshaken\nfirmness, of inflexible adherence to the truth, and that other\nscene which took place more than fifteen centuries previously by the\nfireside in the hall of Caiaphas the high priest, when the cock crew,\nand 'the Lord turned and looked upon Peter.' (Luke 22 : 61.) And yet\nit is upon Peter that the church has grounded her right to act as\nshe did to Bruno.\n\n\"But perhaps the day is approaching when posterity will offer an\nexpiation for this great ecclesiastical crime, and a statue of\nBruno be unveiled under the dome of St. Peter's at Rome.\" (Draper's\n\"Conflict Between Religion and Science.\")\n\n\"A divine revelation must necessarily be intolerant of contradiction;\nit must repudiate all improvement in itself, and view with disdain\nthat arising from the progressive intellectual development of\nman.\" (Draper's \"Conflict Between Religion and Science.\")\n\n\n\n\nTorture.\n\n\"The system (of medi\u00e6val tortures) was matured under the medi\u00e6val habit\nof thought, it was adopted by the inquisitors, and it received its\nfinishing touches from their ingenuity. In every prison the crucifix\nand the rack stood side by side, and in almost every country the\nabolition of torture was at last effected by a movement which the\nchurch opposed, and by men whom she cursed.\" (Lecky's \"Rationalism\nin Europe,\" vol. 1, p. 333.)\n\n\"But the most powerful consideration with a truly benevolent man,\nif he be a Christian, for the extirpation of heresy by force, is the\nbelief that its unfortunate victims will suffer unending torments in\nhell. Not for a few days, not for a few years must they suffer, but\nforever. Under the burden of such an awful thought can the sincere,\nkind-hearted Christian fold his arms and look calmly upon the efforts\nof men who are spreading unbelief or heresy in every direction,\nwho are not only going to hell themselves, but are taking with them\nthousands of their fellow men. Is it not natural that the sincere\nChristian, having the power, should suppress such opinions? that if\nnecessary he should resort to coercive measures? that if new heresies\nare constantly springing up he should punish some of the offenders\nwith severity, and thereby endeavor to deter others from leaving\nthe true faith? Under the influence of such a faith, must not the\ndesire for the suppression of the heresy be a measure of the desire\nfor the suppression of the most injurious and dangerous errors? and\nwill not the zeal to destroy them be in proportion to the love of\ntruth and regard for the welfare of humanity? Will not, therefore,\nthe most sincere, earnest, and devoted Christians, in an age of\nunquestioning faith, be the most active and zealous persecutors? On a\npriori grounds we cannot help arriving at such a conclusion, and the\nfacts of history attest the correctness of the conclusion thus arrived\nat from a consideration of the natural effects of the doctrine that\ncertain opinions involve merit and others guilt.\n\n\"It has been shown by Llorente that the men who founded the Inquisition\nwere men whose characters were free from the stains of vice, and\nwho were actuated in their cruel work of torturing and burning men,\nby the most philanthropic motives. Many of the worst persecutors,\nCatholic and Protestant alike, as Mr. Buckle has mentioned, have been\namong the most conscientious of men and women. Their cruelty was the\nresult of their faith. What, they argued, are the fleeting pains of\na few thousand men compared with the eternal agony of the thousands\nand tens of thousands they will, unless checked, lead to hell. Thus\nargued the Christians when they first obtained power and used it\nin killing Pagans; thus argued the Catholics of the Middle Ages;\nthus argued the Protestants of Geneva; thus argued the advocates\nof Episcopacy, the defenders of the Kirk of Scotland, and the pious\nPuritans of New England. In proportion as men believe that correct\ntheological beliefs involve merit and are essential to salvation,\nand that theological errors involve guilt and are punished with\ntorments in hell, and have power, they must be persecutors. Such\nhas been the case in the past. It was only when rationalism, acting\nin opposition to the church, rendered persecution impossible, that\ntheologians discovered that the punishment of men was at variance\nwith their religion. 'With the merits of this pleasing though tardy\nconversion,' says Lecky, 'I am not now concerned; but few persons,\nI think, can follow the history of Christian persecution without a\nfeeling of extreme astonishment that some modern writer, not content\nwith maintaining that the doctrine of exclusive salvation ought not\nto have produced persecution, have ventured, in defiance of unanimous\ntestimony of theologians of so many centuries, to dispute the plain\nhistorical fact that it did produce it.'\" (\"History of Morals,\"\nvol. 1, p. 422.)\n\n\"But independently of the influence of the Old Testament teachings,\nthe Christian system makes persecution inevitable in proportion as\nthe system is believed. Intolerance and persecution are a natural\nresult of the doctrine that certain religious opinions involve moral\nguilt. The Bible declares, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be\nsaved; he that believeth not shall be damned.' This makes unbelief and\nheresy a crime, and unbelievers and heretics criminals. It makes it the\nreligious duty of Christians to legislate for the extirpation of the\nformer and the punishment of the latter. Can men treat with charity\nand kindness those with whom they believe God is displeased--those\nwho are spreading doctrines that are regarded as plainly an offense\nto God? Is it not the wish of God that unbelief and heresy should be\ndestroyed, and, as an obedient subject, is it not natural that the\nChristian should, as far as possible, carry out the wishes of the\nGod he worships?\"\n\n\n\n\nThe New Testament Teaches Intolerance.\n\n\"'He that believeth not shall be damned.' (Mark 16 : 16.) St. Paul\nexclaims (Galatians 1), 'If any man preach any other gospel unto\nyou than that ye have received, let him be accursed.' He also says\n(1 Tim. 6), 'If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the\nwholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ ... he is\nproud, knowing nothing ... from such withdraw thyself.' 'Of whom (1\nTim. 1) is Hymen\u00e6us and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan,\nthat they may learn not to blaspheme.' In these passages persecution\nand punishment are clearly taught for disbelief. And that such teaching\nhas had an immoral tendency the excommunications, the imprisonments,\nand sacrifice of the lives of heretics in connection with the history\nof Christianity abundantly prove.\"--B. F. Underwood.\n\n\"Are men restrained by superstition? Are men restrained by what you\ncall religion? I used to think they were not; now I admit they are. No\nman has ever been restrained from the commission of a real crime,\nbut from an artificial one he has. There was a man who committed\nmurder. They got the evidence, but he confessed that he did it. 'What\ndid you do it for?' 'Money.' 'Did you get any money?' 'Yes.' 'How\nmuch?' 'Fifteen cents.' 'What kind of a man was he?' 'A laboring\nman I killed.' 'What did you do with the money?' 'I bought liquor\nwith it.' 'Did he have anything else?' 'I think he had some meat\nand bread.' 'What did you do with that?' 'I ate the bread and threw\naway the meat; it was Friday.' So you see it will restrain in some\nthings.\"--Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nThe Inquisition in Spain, 1568.\n\n\"Upon the 16th of February, 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office\ncondemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as\nheretics. From this universal doom, only a few persons, especially\nnamed, were excepted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days\nlater, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to\nbe carried into instant execution, without regard to age, sex or\ncondition. This is probably the most concise death-warrant that was\never framed. Three millions of people, men, women, and children,\nwere sentenced to the scaffold in three lines.\" (John L. Motley,\n\"The Rise of the Dutch Republic,\" vol. 2, p. 158.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Inquisition.\n\n\"In 1208. Innocent III. established the Inquisition. In 1209 De\nMontfort began the massacre of the Albigenses. In 1215 the Fourth\nCouncil of the Lateran enjoined all rulers, 'as they desired to be\nesteemed faithful, to swear a public oath that they would labor\nearnestly and to the full extent of their power, to exterminate\nfrom their dominions all those who were branded as heretics by the\nchurch.'\" (Lecky's \"Rationalism in Europe,\" vol. 1, p. 38.)\n\n\"Llorente, who had free access to the archives of the Spanish\nInquisition, assures us that by that tribunal alone more than 31,000\npersons were burnt, and more than 290,000 condemned to punishment\nless severe than death. The number of those put to death for their\nreligion in the Netherlands alone, in the reign of Charles V. has\nbeen estimated by a very high authority at 50,000, and at least half\nas many perished under his son. (Ibid. pp., 40, 41.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Church Opposed to Liberty.\n\n\"How has the church in every age, when in authority, defended\nitself? Always by a statute against blasphemy, against argument,\nagainst free speech. And there never was such a statute that did\nnot stain the book that it was in and that did not certify to the\nsavagery of the men who passed it. Never. By making a statute and by\ndefining blasphemy, the church sought to prevent discussion--sought\nto prevent argument, sought to prevent a man from giving his honest\nopinion. Certainly a tenet, a dogma, a doctrine, is safe when hedged\nabout by a statute that prevents your speaking against it. In the\nsilence of slavery it exists. It lives because lips are locked. It\nlives because men are slaves.\" (Ingersoll, \"The Reynolds Blasphemy\nTrial.\")\n\n\"So I say if you believe the Bible say so; if you do not believe it say\nso. And here is the vital mistake, I might almost say, in Protestantism\nitself. The Protestants when they fought the Catholics, said: 'Read\nthe Bible for yourselves--stop taking it from your priests--read the\nsacred volume with your own eyes. It is a revelation from God to his\nchildren, and you are the children,' and then they said: 'If after\nyou read it you do not believe it, and you say anything against it,\nwe will put you in jail, and God will put you in hell.' That is a fine\nposition to get a man in. It is like a man who invited his neighbor\nto come and look at his pictures, saying: 'They are the finest in the\nplace, and I want your candid opinion. A man who looked at them the\nother day said they were daubs, and I kicked him down stairs--now I\nwant your candid judgment.'\" (Ibid.)\n\n\n\n\nThe Bible Opposed to Liberty.\n\nTo-day we say that every man has a right to worship God or not, to\nworship him as he pleases. Is it the doctrine of the Bible? Let us see:\n\n\"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter,\nor the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul,\nentice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which\nthou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;\n\n\"Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh\nunto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even\nunto the other end of the earth;\n\n\"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall\nthine eye pity him; neither shalt thou conceal him;\n\n\"But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him\nto put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.\n\n\"And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath\nsought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee\nout of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.\" (Deut. 13 : 6.)\n\nAnd do you know according to that, if your wife--your wife that you\nlove as your own soul--if you had lived in Palestine, and your wife had\nsaid to you, \"Let us worship a sun whose golden beams clothe the world\nin glory; let us worship the sun; let us bow to that great luminary;\nI love the sun because it gave me your face; because it gave me the\nfeatures of my babe; let us worship the sun,\"--it was then your duty\nto lay your hands upon her, your eye must not pity her, but it was\nyour duty to cast the first stone against that tender and loving\nbreast. I hate such doctrine! I hate such books! I hate gods that\nwill write such books! I tell you that it is infamous.\n\n\"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord\nthy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in\nthe sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant,\n\n\"And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the\nsun, moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;\n\n\"And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired\ndiligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such\nabomination is wrought in Israel;\n\n\"Then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman, which have\ncommitted that wicked thing, unto thy gates even that man or that\nwoman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.\" (Deut. 17 :\n2-5.)--Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSECULARISM.\n\n\n\"Secularism has no mysteries, no mummeries, no priests, no ceremonies,\nno falsehoods, no miracles and no persecutions.\n\n\"It is a protest against theological oppression, against ecclesiastical\ntyranny, against being the serf, subject or slave of any phantom,\nor the priest of any phantom. It is a protest against wasting this\nlife for the sake of one we know not of. It proposes to let the gods\ntake care of themselves.\n\n\"It means the destruction of the business of those who trade in\nfear. It proposes to give serenity and content to the human soul. It\nwill put out the fires of eternal pain. It is striving to do away with\nviolence and vice, with ignorance, poverty, and disease. It lives for\nthe ever present to-day, and the ever coming to-morrow. It does not\nbelieve in praying and receiving, but in earning and deserving. It\nregards work as worship, labor as prayer, and wisdom as the savior\nof mankind.\"--Robert G. Ingersoll.\n\n\n\n\nPopular Questions and Objections.\n\n1. It is objected that Freethought is destructive, not constructive.\n\n(a) It is destructive of error, crime, cruelty, superstition and all\nkinds of wrong and oppression.\n\n(b) It is constructive in its defense and support of the rights of man,\nwoman, and child.\n\n(c) It is constructive in seeking to establish the highest form of\nmorality, that is, rational morality.\n\n(d) It is constructive, because it inspires man with a thirst for\nknowledge, and puts him in sympathy with science.\n\n(e) It is positive and reconstructive in inspiring man with moral\ncourage.\n\n\"What will you give us in place of religion?\"\n\n(a) We would put in place of religion, liberty, morality, honesty,\ncourage, knowledge, and manliness.\n\n(b) We do not wish to take away the Golden Rule; but we insist that it\nis not a Christian precept. It was in the world long before Jesus,\nbefore Moses, and before Abraham. Long before the pyramids were\nbuilt mothers called their children to their knees and said to them,\n\"Children be good to each other to-day.\" This is the Golden Rule. We\nsee then that it is of human origin, and not a part of Christianity,\nas Christianity is founded upon the supernatural. It is the old,\nold way that religions have of borrowing human virtues and ascribing\nthem to the gods.\n\n(c) We do not teach men to despise charity, but to so improve human\nconditions that charity and charitable institutions shall not be\nneeded.\n\n(d) \"What will you give us in place of the Bible?\"\n\nWe do not propose to take it away. We only ask people to read it as\nthey do other books--accepting the good and rejecting the bad.\n\n\"What are we to have in place of the consolation of the gospel?\"\n\nThe gospel means glad tidings. What are the glad tidings?\n\n1. That man is totally depraved and polluted. Good news!\n\n2. That he deserves eternal torment. Glad tidings!\n\n3. And that nine tenths of the human race will get their deserts. \"Many\nare called, but few are chosen.\" Glorious news!\n\n4. That hell is in view,--near at hand. Delightful tidings!\n\n5. That the reprobate cannot escape. Glorious gospel!\n\n6. That God hates the most of the race and has from eternity doomed\nthem to eternal woe.\n\nAnd all this is the gospel of glad tidings!\n\nSuppose we expose the delusion of eternal torments, what does man want\nin its place? Does he need a smaller hell to taper off on, before\nhe can give up hell altogether? What does any one want in place of\ninfant damnation? And so also with witchcraft, polygamy, slavery,\nand many other wrongs--must we have something to take their place? I\nheard of a kid gloved dude, who put his finger into a bucket of water,\nand after taking it out looked for the hole in the water. As well might\nthe poor fellow sick in the hospital ask the doctor, who promises to\ncure him of the small pox, what he will give him in its stead. Does\nhe want the itch or measles in place of the small pox?\n\n\"How does the Freethinker come to know so much more than millions\nof good and great men who for eighteen centuries have believed in\nChristianity?\"\n\n(a) Here we have the old question of majorities.\n\nMillions of good and great men once firmly believed in witchcraft.\n\nLuther said: \"I would have no compassion on these witches, I would\nburn them all.\"\n\nJohn Wesley said: \"Giving up witchcraft is giving up the Bible.\"\n\nSir Matthew Hale believed in witchcraft.\n\n(b) The good and great men of many ages believed in hell--that is,\nfor somebody else. Practically hell is now in the lower case, if not\nentirely closed up for repairs.\n\n(c) Millions of good and wise men for many centuries believed that\nthis earth was flat, and that the sun went daily round it. And these\ngood and wise people burned all those who did not agree with them.\n\n(d) Millions of the best of earth at one time believed that it was\nright and proper to hang a man for stealing a sheep.\n\n(e) At one time almost every body believed that it was well-pleasing\nto God, for Christians to torture and murder heretics.\n\n(f) Millions of the wisest and best men have at different times\nbelieved that the world was speedily coming to an end.\n\n(g) The great men of the past professed to believe in Christianity\nbecause they were compelled to do so through fear of persecution,\ntorture, and death. Millions of prominent men in society to-day,\nhave to pretend to believe in the doctrines of the church in order\nto be respectable.\n\n(h) In every country under the sun people believe in their own\nreligion.--The good and great Mohammedans, believe in Islamism. The\ngood and great Buddhists believe in Buddhism, and the good and great\nBrahmins, believe in Brahminism.\n\n(i) The wise men of to-day in Europe and America do not believe in\nChristianity. The men of science do not attempt to prove the claims\nof Christianity.\n\nIt is claimed that Infidelity is demoralizing in its tendency.\n\n(a) With such lives before us as those of Paine, Ingersoll, Palmer,\nBennett, Wright, Seaver, and many others this charge proves to be\ngroundless.\n\n(b) Liberal principles are not degrading. Truth, liberty, and justice\ncannot demoralize, but blind faith does.\n\n\"Infidels always repent on their death bed.\"\n\n(a) Paine did not. Bennett did not. Dr. T. Brown did not. Courtlandt\nPalmer, Horace Seaver, Elizur Wright, did not--and millions of other\ngood men have died tranquilly without any belief whatever in another\nworld.\n\n\"Can Infidelity save the world?\"\n\nOne thing is certain, namely, that Christianity cannot do it, as it\nhas been trying to do so for eighteen centuries.\n\nThere is no such thing as salvation possible.\n\nThe world can be improved most rapidly by allowing everyone to\nmind his own business--by giving man his natural and equal rights,\nby inspiring him with liberty, for nothing so fully prepares people\nfor liberty as liberty itself.\n\n\"What has Freethought done for the world?\"\n\n(a) What has Christianity done for the world? Why it has built schools,\nchurches, and charitable institutions.\n\n(b) It is true that Christianity instituted schools, colleges,\nand universities; but not for the purpose of educating the people\nin truth, but in only such knowledge as would not conflict with its\nown superstitions. Christian schools have been for ages at war with\nscience and liberty.\n\n(c) It is true that the church builds asylums for the poor--but it is\nthe church that is in a large degree responsible for the impoverished\ncondition of the people. And the very money that builds the almshouse\nwas begged from the poor, by the church. The church has nothing of\nitself to give except preaching. When the church builds an institution\nit first becomes a beggar.\n\n(d) The church builds insane asylums. And the church has filled them\nwith her own people. There are more people made crazy and insane by\nreligious excitements than by any other one thing.\n\n\"What have Infidels given for education, charity, and science?\"\n\nWe will give the names of six noted Freethinkers, and could give\nmore, but give these six to begin with: Stephen Girard, Robert Owen,\nJames Lick, William Maclure, John Rodman, and Peter Brigham. These\ngentleman who were all Infidels, gave at least fifteen millions of\ndollars for education, science, and charity. The vast sum given by\nStephen Girard for a secular education of orphan children has been\nstolen by Christians and put to another use.\n\n\n\n\nOrthodoxy and Liberalism Compared.\n\n1. Orthodoxy has a creed, but Liberalism has none. A creed is something\nyou do not understand, but it is nevertheless necessary for you to\nprofess that you believe it--and the more unreasonable and impossible\nthis something is the greater merit you have in saying you believe it.\n\n2. Orthodoxy has a Bible. Liberalism accepts all bibles and books\nfor what they are worth.\n\n3. Orthodoxy has a savior--Liberalism seeks to make all men saviors.\n\nIt should not be forgotten that the orthodox savior has failed after\ntrying for eighteen centuries. He even fails to save his own professed\npeople and to make them any better than other folks.\n\n4. Orthodoxy has a prospective heaven. Liberalism takes no stock in\nharps and crowns in the sky country--and is not terrorized by smoke\nfrom the sulphur lake.\n\n5. Orthodoxy insists that the most imperative duty is to believe, while\nLiberalism teaches that man should think, question, and investigate,\nand always be governed by reason.\n\nThe one preaches \"he that hath ears to hear, let him hear (us the\npreachers);\" the other teaches that \"he who has brains to think,\nlet him think.\"\n\n6. Orthodoxy commands you to obey. Liberalism inspires you to defy\ndespotism and to love liberty.\n\n7. Orthodoxy tells you that there is merit in believing. Liberalism\nshows you that there is no merit in belief.\n\n8. Orthodoxy maintains that belief is subject to one's will. Liberalism\nproves that intelligent belief depends upon evidence, and that\nreligious beliefs are inherited.\n\n9. Orthodoxy hinges most of its teachings upon the traditions of\nthe past, the mysteries of the present and the hopes of an imaginary\nfuture.\n\nLiberalism admits of no postponement. \"One world at a time,\" and now\nis the time.\n\n10. Orthodoxy is opposed to the teachings of science. See the lives\nof Galileo, Bruno, Copernicus.\n\n11. Orthodoxy persecutes her own followers; for example: Dr. Thomas,\nProfessor Swing, Professor William Robertson Smith of Aberdeen\nCollege, Scotland, Professor Winchell of Vanderbilt University,\nProfessor Blauvelt, Professor John Miller of Princeton, New Jersey,\nand hosts of others.\n\n12. Orthodoxy seeks to guide men by authority, mottoes, and\ntexts. Liberalism inspires man to govern and guide himself through\nthe exercise of his own reason.\n\n13. Orthodoxy teaches that the innocent must suffer that the guilty\nmay escape. Liberalism teaches that justice should be meted out to\nall. The great scheme of salvation failed because it was a \"scheme.\" It\nis now pretty well known as a \"bankrupt scheme.\"\n\n14. \"The Bible has stood the attack of Infidelity during eighteen\ncenturies.\" Ignorance has stood the attack of knowledge for a much\nlonger time, and yet ignorance has not so very materially suffered--it\nis still ignorance.\n\nVice has stood the attacks of virtue ever since the world\nbegan. Superstition has been besieged by science for many centuries,\nand yet superstition seems hale and hearty and bids fair to have a long\nlife. Is it true that those who believe in the Bible are willing to\nhave it tested by reason, justice, or humanity? It is not true that\nit has stood the test of science. Christians are not willing to have\nthe Bible tested.\n\n\"The Infidel rejects the religion of his mother.\" Not always; but\neven suppose it were true, did not Jesus reject the religion of his\nmother? Did not Paul, Peter, Luther, Wesley--did they not all reject\nthe religion of their mothers?\n\nDoes not preaching consist in asking people to reject the religion\nof their mothers and to come over to the preacher's religion?\n\n\"Freethinkers are ruthless, and do not care how much they hurt our\nfeelings. They speak coarsely upon sacred subjects.\" Yes; but do not\nChristians hurt our feelings? They send us to hell, and then put on\na look of injured innocence if we do not sweetly return them \"thanks.\"\n\nIt is often charged that Freethinkers do not believe anything. While\nit is true that we are not strong in any form of religious beliefs,\nyet it is true that we have most positive and decided convictions in\nregard to this world. We advocate freedom, truth, justice, equity,\nand every known human virtue. These all have an existence, we believe\nin all these present existing virtues. We believe in the realities,\nbut the saint believes in the unrealities. He relishes as the meat\nand drink of his soul, such airy nothings as: dreams, visions,\ntrances, inspirations, revelations, mysteries, miracles, witches,\nevil spirits, demons, devils, angels, immaculate conception, raising\nof the dead, drinking poison with impunity, omens, signs, sorcery,\nmagic, resurrection, and ascension.\n\n\"We are fools for Christ's sake,\" says the apostle, and in the language\nof the Quaker, we must say, we have not the heart to contradict him.\n\nIt is objected that \"Freethought has no moral standard.\"--Yes it\nhas--it has Reason the only true lamp to man's path. \"But Reason is\nfallible, you can not always trust it.\" You cannot always trust the\nreason of him who is not well developed mentally and well informed. But\nthe Bible is fallible, and always fallible, and you can trust it in\nbut very few places except where it presents truth; and this moral\ntruth is older than it. So we could get along without the Bible, but\nwe could hardly get along without Reason, although some people try to.\n\n\"There is no agreement among Freethinkers.\" That is their\nglory. Freethought has no procrustean bed upon which it may bring all\nof its constituency to one and the same size. The glory of Freethought\nis that it inspires man to become free and possess his liberty against\nall invaders. To be free is to be a man, and not to be free is to be\na slave.\n\nIs there, let me ask, anything like agreement among the creeds? Have\nthe Bible expounders always seen eye to eye? Do the biblical critics\nall harmonize? Where, I would like to know, can you find more\ndisagreement than in the Christian church?\n\n\n\n\nInfidelity.\n\n\"Infidelity is honest. When it reaches the confines of reason, it says:\nI know no further.\n\n\"Infidelity does not palm its guess upon the ignorant as a\ndemonstration. Infidelity proves nothing by slander--establishes\nnothing by abuse.\n\n\"Infidelity has nothing to hide. It has no 'holy of holies,' except\nthe abode of truth. It has no curtain that the hand of investigation\nhas not the right to draw aside. It lives in the cloudless light,\nin the very noon of human eyes.\n\n\"Infidelity has no bible to be blasphemed. It does not cringe before\nan angry god.\n\n\"Infidelity says to every man: Investigate for yourself. There is no\npunishment for unbelief.\n\n\"Infidelity asks for no protection from legislatures. It wants no\nman fined because he contradicts its doctrines.\n\n\"Infidelity relies simply upon evidence--not evidence of the dead,\nbut of the living.\n\n\"Infidelity has no infallible pope. It relies only on infallible\nfact. It has no priest except the interpreter of nature. The universe\nis its church. Its bible is everything that is true. It implores\nevery man to verify every word for himself, and it implores him to\nsay if he does not believe it, that he does not.\n\n\"Infidelity does not fear contradiction. It is not afraid of\nbeing laughed at. It invites the scrutiny of all doubters, of all\nunbelievers. It does not rely upon awe, but upon reason. It says to\nthe whole world: It is dangerous not to think. It is dangerous not\nto be honest. It is dangerous not to investigate. It is dangerous\nnot to follow where reason leads.\n\n\"Infidelity requires every man to judge for himself. Infidelity\npreserves the manhood of man.\" (Ingersoll's \"Interviews,\" p. 165.)\n\nPor.--Why, man, what's the matter? Don't tear your hair.\n\nSir Hugh.--I have been beaten in a discussion, overwhelmed and\nhumiliated.\n\nPor.--Why didn't you call your adversary a fool?\n\nSir Hugh.--My God! I forgot it!\n\n\n\n\nThe Objects of Orthodoxy and Liberalism.\n\nLiberalism, like all reform movements, is poorly understood by all\nthe masses. The more ignorant of the clergy know nothing of its real\nobjects, and the few who do understand it dare not tell the truth,\ntherefore we can not refer to its real objects too often. In this\narticle we propose to place side by side the principle objects of\nOrthodoxy and Liberalism without comment so that our readers will be\nable to study them in contrast and see which is the more reasonable.\n\nOrthodoxy seeks first and above all to glorify God; Liberalism seeks\nfirst and above all to glorify man.\n\nOrthodoxy seeks to save men from hell; Liberalism seeks to save them\nfrom vice, ignorance, and superstition.\n\nOrthodoxy teaches men how to die; Liberalism teaches them how to live.\n\nOrthodoxy says believe and be saved; Liberalism says behave and\nbe saved.\n\nOrthodoxy promises happiness to the elect in another world; Liberalism\nseeks to make all happy in this one.\n\nOrthodoxy encourages men to seek for mansions in the skies; Liberalism\nencourages them to secure homes on earth.\n\nOrthodoxy teaches men to rely on God and pray; Liberalism teaches\nthem to rely on themselves and work.\n\nOrthodoxy teaches self-abnegation; Liberalism teaches self-respect.\n\nOrthodoxy tells you what the Bible means; Liberalism takes it for\ngranted the Bible means what it says.\n\nOrthodoxy says salvation is by faith only; Liberalism says it is by\nhonesty, education, and industry.\n\nOrthodoxy offers a substitute for the sins of such as believe;\nLiberalism expects every man to answer for his own acts. (Independent\nPulpit.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MATERIALISM COMPARED.\n\n\nChristianity Teaches:               Materialism Teaches:\n\n1. The existence of a God           1. The self-existence, the\ninfinite in presence, yet a         eternity, and the sufficiency of\npersonal being; infinite in         nature, and the universality and\nknowledge, yet a being who          invariableness of natural law.\ncogitates, contrives, plans, and\ndesigns, like man; infinite in      2. That in the history of this\npower, yet the author of a world    world there has been an evolution\nfull of imperfections; infinite     from the simple to the complex,\nin goodness (as well as power),     from the special to the general,\nyet permits martyrs to expire       from the homogeneous to the\namid flames, and patriots and       heterogeneous.\nphilanthropists to languish in\ndungeons; unchangeable, yet at a    3. That good and evil are relative\ncertain time after a                terms. All morality is founded on\nbeginningless state of inaction,    utility and evolved by the wants\naroused from his idleness and       and necessities of human existence.\nmade a universe out of nothing;     Honesty is right, not because a God\nis not the cause of evil, yet the   has so declared, but because man's\ncreator of everything and           security, safety, and happiness are\neverybody save himself; is free     promoted by it.\nfrom infirmities, yet is pleased\nwith some things and displeased     4. That man's condition, although\nwith others; is without body,       imperfect, is improvable by his own\nparts, or passions, and yet is of   unaided efforts.\nthe masculine gender.\n                                    5. That man should look to himself\n2. The original perfection of       and not to a spectacle of suffering\neverything.                         and death of eighteen hundred years\n                                    ago, for improvement and elevation.\n3. The existence of a devil--a\ncreature made by God, and the       6. That belief and unbelief are\nauthor of evil that will exist      involuntary and without moral merit\nforever.                            or demerit.\n\n4. That man is a \"fallen            7. That instead of worshiping God,\ncreature,\" and unable to improve    we should direct all our efforts to\nby his own unassisted efforts.      improve ourselves, letting \"gods\n                                    attend on things for gods to know.\"\n5. That man can be \"saved\" only\nthrough the blood and merits of     8. That man, wherever he may exist,\nChrist.                             it is rational to believe, will be\n                                    fitted to his condition. An\n6. That belief in the Christian     unbroken everlasting sleep, which\nsystem involves moral merit;        probably awaits us all, affords no\ndisbelief, sin.                     ground for fear. And how infinitely\n                                    preferable to a future state of\n7. That it is man's duty to         punishment in which the majority of\nworship God by prayer and praise.   our race will be forever miserable!\n\n8. That a comparatively small       9. That the teachings of reason and\nportion of mankind in the future    the lessons of experience are the\nwill be happy; the greater          only revelations man has received.\nportion will be in torment\neternally.                          10. That the Bible should be tested\n                                    by the same rules of historical and\n9. That man has received a book     modern criticism that are applied\nrevelation, of which, however,      to other ancient documents.\nbut a comparatively small part of\nthe race has ever obtained          11. That the barbarous acts of the\ninformation.                        Israelites, like those of other\n                                    ancient nations, were the result of\n10. That reason should be           their undeveloped, and uncivilized\nsubordinated to the teachings of    condition.\nthe Bible.\n                                    12. That the universe is full of\n11. That the acts of the Jews,      mysteries, above our comprehension,\nsuch as are practiced now by        but none contrary to our reason.\nbarbarians only, were commanded\nby God, and were, therefore,        13. That the difference of opinion\nright.                              among Liberals is consistent with\n                                    their common position that man has\n12. That there are mysteries        no infallible standard. That the\ncontrary to experience and          enlightened reason of man is the\nreason, which must nevertheless     highest and best standard he\nbe believed.                        possesses.\n\n13. Although God has given man a    14. That woman is man's equal and\nrevelation, there is great          natural companion--exists for him\nuncertainty as to what he meant     only in the sense in which he\nto say on several subjects of       exists for her.\ngreat importance.\n                                    15. That slavery, polygamy, and\n14. That woman is man's inferior    despotism are evils whenever and\nand subordinate, was made for his   wherever they exist.\ngratification and convenience,\nwhile man was made for himself      16. That man should attend to the\nand the glory of God.               affairs of this world, and,\n                                    contrary to the notion of Jesus,\n15. That God has approved and       should take \"thought for the\nsanctioned polygamy, slavery, and   morrow.\"\ndespotism.\n                                    17. That evil is due to natural\n16. That man should take no         causes. Man can gradually remove\nthought for the morrow. He should   the evils that afflict him by\npattern after the lilies of the     becoming acquainted with his\nfield.                              nature, relations, and\n                                    surroundings.\n17. That man's ills and\nsufferings are ascribable largely   18. Jesus was probably a reformer,\nto the immediate agency of a        a \"come-outer,\" an \"Infidel\" of his\npersonal, malicious Devil--a        time. We can esteem him as a\nbeing of extended presence, of      benefactor without worshiping him\nalmost infinite knowledge, of       as a God.\ngreat strategy, and immense\npower.                              19. The present is better than the\n                                    past, and the golden age of the\n18. That Jesus was God Almighty     world is in the future.\nincased in human flesh.\n\n19. That the golden age of the\nearth was in the past.\n                                                       B. F. Underwood.\n\n\n\n\n\"Safest to Believe.\"\n\nIt has often been argued that credulity is safer than skepticism--that\n\"it is safest to believe;\" inasmuch as if a man believes in heaven and\nhell, and there be no such places, he is, if no gainer, at least no\nloser; whereas the Infidel may lose, and cannot gain. Upon the same\nprinciple, it were safest to believe all the religions of the world\nat once--Christian, Mohammedan, Jewish, Hindoo, Confucian, and all\nthe rest; because it is but insuring the matter by halves to trust\nto one only. If Allah be not the only God and Mahomet be an imposter,\nthere is no harm done and nothing lost; and if there be not a paradise\nin another world, there has been a pleasant dream of anticipated joys\nin this.\n\nLet us ask, is the balance of profit and loss fairly struck? Are the\nchances all in favor of the believer and all against the skeptic? Is\nthere nothing to be thrown into the opposite scale? Surely much. If\nreligion be a fallacy, it is a fallacy pregnant with mischief. It\nexcites the fears without foundation; it fosters feelings of\nseparation between the believer and the unbeliever; it consumes\nvaluable time that can never be recalled, and valuable talents that\nought to be better employed; it draws money from our pockets to\nsupport a delusion; it teaches the elect to look upon their fellow\nmen as heathen and castaways, living in sin here, and doomed to\nperdition hereafter; it awakens harassing doubts, gloomy despondency,\nand fitful melancholy; it turns our thoughts from the things of the\nworld, where alone true knowledge is found; it speaks of temporal\nmiseries and temporal pleasures as less than nothing and vanity,\nand thus fosters indifference to the causes of the weal and woe of\nmankind; worse than all, it chains us down to an antiquated orthodoxy,\nand forbids the free discussion of those very subjects which it most\nconcerns us to investigate. If religion be a fallacy, its votaries are\nslaves. Whereupon, then, rests the assertion, that if the believer does\nnot gain, he cannot lose? Is it nothing to lose time and talents, to\nwaste our labor on that which is not bread, and our money upon that\nwhich profiteth not? Is it nothing to feel that the human beings\nthat surround us are children of the devil and heirs of hell? Is\nit nothing to think that we may perhaps look across the great gulf\nand see some one we have loved on earth tormented in a fiery lake;\nand hear him ask us to dip a finger in water that it may cool his\nparched tongue? Is it no loss to live in disquiet by day, and in\nfear by night; to pass through dark seasons of doubt and temptation,\nand to be conscious that we are but as strangers and pilgrims here,\ntoiling through a weary valley of cares and sorrows? Is it no loss to\nhold back when truth oversteps the line of orthodoxy, and when there\nought to be free discussion, to shrink before we know not what? Is\nall this no loss? Or, is it not rather the loss of all that a free\nand rational being most values?\n\nThose engaged in the trade of religion, imagine themselves to have a\nmighty advantage against Infidels upon the strength of the old, worn\nout argument that whether the Christian religion be true or false\nthere can be no harm in believing; and that belief is, at any rate,\nthe safer side. Now to say nothing of this old popish argument, which a\nsensible man must see is the very essence of popery, and would oblige\nus to believe all the absurdities and nonsense in the world: inasmuch\nas if there be no harm in believing, and there be some harm and danger\nin not believing, the more we believe, the better; and all the argument\nfor any religion whatever would be, that it should frighten us out of\nour wits; the more terrible, the more true; and it would be our duty\nto become the converts of that religion, whatever it might be, whose\npriests could swear the loudest, and damn and curse the fiercest. This\nis a wolfish argument in sheep's clothing. (Truth Seeker tract.)\n\n\n\n\nThe \"Safe Side.\"\n\n\"Ours is the safe side,\" says the Christian; \"for if Infidelity be\ntrue then both Infidel and Christian have the same destiny, namely\nto die and end all, but if Christianity be true what will become\nof the Infidel?\" In reply to this we say, that although at death\nboth believer and unbeliever fall asleep side by side upon the\nbosom of mother earth, yet it does not make yours the safe side;\nbecause if Christianity be true then the most of the human race\ngo into eternal torment. Orthodoxy has always taught that \"many\nare called but few are chosen.\" Now if nine tenths of the race are\ngoing to suffer endless pain I do not see how those who are going to\nconstitute a large part of that number and are to be eternally lost,\ncan call it the \"safe side.\" For it should not be forgotten that\nthe vast majority of those who are going to suffer the wrath of God,\nare professed Christians. \"Many will say unto me in that day, Lord,\nLord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name done many\nwonderful works? And then will I profess unto them--I never knew you,\ndepart from me ye that work iniquity.\" (Mat. 7 : 22, 23.)\n\nNo, no, it will not do to trust that side as the \"safe side\" where\n\"many are called but few are chosen.\"\n\nWe need something safer than that.\n\nAgain, we do not see how it can be the \"safe side,\" to despise this\nlife, in hopes of another that we know nothing of. If Infidelity be\ntrue, all Christians are superstitious idolaters. If Infidelity be\ntrue, Christians are deceived and are corrupting the minds of millions\nof children with superstition which will render them bigoted, cruel,\nand unhappy. And this is about the size of it. How, then, can it be\nthe safe side. The safe side is always to be fair and honorable. It\nis safe always to examine both sides. It is safe to be on the alert\nfor more truth. It is safe to accept the truth even when it cuts away\nold prejudices and old beliefs. It is safe not to be a sectarian. It\nis not safe to be a partizan, but it is safe to be free, courageous,\nand honest in all things. It is not safe for you to cling to myths,\nfables, and superstitions, and to leave them as a blighting inheritance\nto your children.\n\n\n\n\nPopular Objections to Infidelity Answered, Showing Some Mistakes\nof Christians.\n\n1. That we are negative, only.--We deny what we deem to be false,\nwe affirm what we believe to be true, Christians do the same;\nonly much that they affirm, we deny, and much that they deny,\nwe affirm. Negation is necessary and healthful. No affirmation is\npossible that does not presuppose a negation. Negation is but the\nassailing side of affirmation. We deny the fables of mythology;\nwe affirm the demonstrable truths of science.\n\n2. That we have no incentive to good deeds.--If the Christian acts\nas he believes, he does good to escape hell and gain heaven--he\nrespects the rights of others through fear of punishment and hope of\nreward. Hence it is that he cannot understand how the man who rejects\nhis creed can be a good man. We do right because all the experience of\nthe race has shown that what we call \"right\" is conducive to happiness;\nbecause the line of right action is the line of least resistance;\nbecause we believe in the principle of reciprocity, and because every\nact of every individual becomes a part of the inheritance of the race,\nand thus as we are, so shall be our children. If we are intemperate,\ndiseased, and criminal, our children shall suffer in consequence\nthereof. What higher or stronger incentive to right action can\nbe offered?\n\n3. That we are unhappy.--Why should we be more unhappy than the\nChristian? Why should we not be more happy? We live in the same world;\nwe believe in making the most of its opportunities for obtaining\nhappiness, while he (theoretically, at least,) believes that earthly\njoy depreciates heavenly bliss; we are cursed by no fear of an angry\nGod, by no dreams of an endless hell and of a revengeful devil; the\nChristian no more than the Infidel, is exempt from accident, sickness\nand death, and the agony of parting with loved ones is his no less\nthan ours. He accepts Revelation and Creation, and hence believes\nthat we belong to a falling race; we accept Science and Evolution,\nand hence believe that we belong to a rising race. Which is the most\nrational and hope inspiring belief?\n\n4. That it is \"safest to believe.\"--If this proves anything it proves\ntoo much. If our future (if we have one) can be rendered more secure\nby pretending to believe when we do not, then the Protestant should\naccept Catholicism, and the Catholic, Protestantism, while the members\nof every sect should believe all that is taught by all other sectarists\nand Christians of every school should believe all that is contained\nin the sacred books of other religions.\n\n5. That we hurt the feelings of those who cherish the old faith.--Why\nshould the Christian complain that we disturb settled convictions and\ncut loose the anchored bark of faith? Has not Christianity ever been\na missionary religion? It seeks to disturb the religion of the whole\nworld. Christians attack all religions other than their own--our\noffence is that we include Christianity in the category of false\nfaiths. (Lucifer.)\n\n\n\n\n\"All Owing to the Bible.\"\n\n\"It is a very common argument with Christians, that only those nations\nwhich have had the Bible are refined, civilized and learned. The\nfollowing is the boastful manner in which Christians set forth the\nclaims of their religion: \"Take a map of the world, draw a line around\nthose countries that have enjoyed the highest degree of refinement,\nand you will encircle just those nations that have received the Bible\nas their authority in religion.\" In refutation of this assumption\nHorace Seaver writes: \"From this language the plain inference is,\nthat those nations have been indebted to the influence of the Bible\nfor the positions to which they have attained. Let us follow out a\nlittle this line of argument and see where it will lead.\n\n\"The ancient Egyptians stood as far in advance of their contemporaries\nas do the nations of Christendom at the present day, as the remains of\ntheir cities and temples fully attest. And if the argument is good,\nthey were indebted for that superiority to their worship of cats,\ncrocodiles, and onions!\n\n\"The ancient Greek might have exclaimed, as he beheld the proud\nposition to which Greece attained--'See what we owe to a belief in our\nglorious mythology; we have reached the highest point of enlightenment\nthe world has ever witnessed; we stand unequaled in power, wealth,\nthe cultivation of the arts, and all that makes a nation refined,\npolished, and great!'\n\n\"How immeasurably would his faith in the elevating tendency of his\nreligion have been increased could he have looked with prophetic eye\ninto the distant ages of the future, and beheld the enlightened and\nChristianized nations of the nineteenth century adopting the remains\nof Grecian architecture, sculpture, painting, oratory, music and\nliterature as their models! Pagan Rome, too, once mistress of the\nworld and arbitress of nations--the home of philosophers and sages--the\nland in which the title 'I am a Roman citizen,' was the proudest that\nmortal could wear--Rome, by the above Christian argument, should have\nascribed all her honor, praise, and glory to her mythology.\n\n\"The Turk and the Saracen, likewise, have had their day of power and\nrenown. Bagdad was the seat of science and learning at a time when\nthe nations of Europe were sunk in darkness and superstition. The\nTurk and Saracen should have pointed to the Koran as the source of\ntheir refinement.\n\n\"Thus we see that the Christian argument we are noticing, if it\nproves anything, it proves too much. If the nations of Christendom\nare indebted to the Bible for their enlightenment, likewise were\nthe Egyptians indebted to their cat and crocodile and onion worship,\nthe Greeks and Romans to their mythology and the Turks and Saracens\nto their Koran.\"--Seaver.\n\nThe following is from William Denton's \"Common Sense Thoughts on\nthe Bible:\"\n\n\"'But it is well known, that in those countries where the Bible is\nread, studied, and believed in, there is more knowledge and greater\nfreedom, more virtue and happiness, than in any other countries.'\"\n\n\"If true, and if all this was the result of reading and believing the\nBible, it would not prove the Bible to be divine. A book may be useful,\nthough merely human. But where is the proof that we owe our virtue,\nliberty, and enlightenment to the Bible? The Abyssinians have had the\nBible in their possession twice as long as the Anglo-Saxons, and yet\nthey are a race of barbarians still. What did the Bible accomplish for\nthe people of Syria, and Asia Minor, who were first blessed with it? So\nlittle, that the Koran superseded it; the Mohammedans being superior\nin almost every respect, to the Christians whom they conquered and\nconverted. The Greeks and Romans were as far in advance of surrounding\nnations as we are or profess to be. Was it the Bible that elevated\nand made them and made their unsurpassed poets, painters, sculptors,\nand orators? Their priests, doubtless, attributed their superiority\nto the superior religion they possessed. So Bible believers oppose\nscience and reform to the last; but when they triumph in spite of\ntheir opposition, they are the first to shout glory to the Bible for\nwhat it has accomplished.\"--Denton.\n\n\"I had a conversation with a gentleman once--and these gentlemen are\nalways mistaking something that goes along with a thing for the cause\nof the thing--and he stated to me that his particular religion was\nthe cause of all advancement. I said to him, 'No, sir; the causes of\nall advancement in my judgment, are plug hats and suspenders.' And\nI said to him, 'You go to Turkey, where they are semi-barbarians,\nand you won't find a pair of suspenders or a plug hat in all that\ncountry; you go to Russia, and you will find now and then a pair of\nsuspenders at Moscow or St. Petersburg; but you go on down until you\nstrike Austria, and black hats begin; then you go to Paris, Berlin, and\nNew York, and you will find everybody wears suspenders and everybody\nwears black hats. Wherever you find education and music, there you\nwill find black hats and suspenders.' He said that any man who said\nto him that plug hats and suspenders had done more for mankind than\nthe Bible and religion he would not talk to.\" (Ingersoll's \"Ghosts.\")\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE BIBLE ON TEMPERANCE.\n\n    Passages Commending or Enjoining the Use of Wine or Strong\n    Drink, or Both, or including a Plentiful supply of Wine among\n    the Blessings to be Bestowed upon Favored individuals or tribes,\n    etc.; or including the Deprivation of it among the Punishments\n    inflicted upon the Disobedient.\n\n\n\"Jacob, blessing Judah, said: (Gen. 49 : 11, 12): 'Binding his foal\nunto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed\nhis garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes. His\neyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.'\n\n\"Doesn't look as though Yahweh, the 'God of Jacob,' thought wine a\nvery bad article.\n\n\"Num. 6 : 20: 'After that the Nazarite may drink wine.'\n\n\"In Deut. 7 : 13, God, through Moses, said to his chosen people:\n'And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee; and he\nwill also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land,\nthy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil,' etc., etc.\n\n\"Just think of it, Woman's Christian Temperance Union people, God has\nsolemnly promised to bless his faithful children with an especially\nlarge vintage, a better vintage than that of their unbelieving\nneighbors! Rather rough on the heretic French and the Infidel Germans!\n\n\"Deut. 11 : 14: 'That I will give you the rain of your land in his\ndue season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest\ngather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thy oil.'\n\n\"Yahweh is determined that the supply of wine shall not fall short.\n\n\"Deut. 14 : 26: 'And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever\nthy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for\nstrong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth; and thou shalt\neat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and\nthine household.'\n\n\"Rev. Mr. Stevenson to the box! Repeat your testimony, please. 'I said\nthat, The education of the children of the republic in temperance\nprinciples logically involves the maintenance in those schools of\nthe Bible as the great text book in morals.'\n\n\"Deut. 15 : 14: 'Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock,\nand out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press of that wherewith\nthe Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.'\n\n\"This is said regarding the manumitted Hebrew slave. And so it\nis a blessing for God to give the fruit of the wine-press to his\nchildren? And we are to emulate him?\n\n\"It seems that God punishes his people by blasting their vineyards,\nand thus cutting short their supply of wine, as below:\n\n\"Deut. 28 : 39: 'Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but thou\nshalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes, for the worms\nshall eat them.'\n\n\"Verse 51 of the same chapter tells the people that their cattle\nand wine and oil shall be taken from them if they disobey God's\ncommands. This is the famous 'cursing chapter' of the Bible, and is\njust the reading calculated to make a man believe that God was the\nfirst pope of Rome.\n\n\"Deuteronomy is a very good book for the Woman's Christian Temperance\nUnion, and I suggest that it hold a special meeting to pray for the\nevidently 'rum'-loving god who wrote it. There is much other matter\nin it that helps to make it an admirable work for use in the schools.\n\n\"Judges 9 : 13: 'And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine,\nwhich cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?'\n\n\"Ah! so it appears that God, the 'original prohibitionist,' according\nto the Woman's Christian Temperance Union drinks wine, else how could\nit cheer him?\n\n\"Second Sam. 6 : 19: 'And he dealt among all the people, even among\nthe whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as men, to every\none a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine.'\n\n\"Query: What would the Christian temperance ladies have done with that\nwine had they been present when David, the man after God's own heart,\ndealt it out to all, men as well as women?\n\n\"Second Sam. 16 : 2: 'And Ziba said, The asses be for the king's\nhousehold to ride on; and the bread and summer fruit for the young men\nto eat; and the wine that such as faint in the wilderness may drink.'\n\n\"In Kansas and Iowa many get 'faint in the wilderness,' judging by\nthe business of the drugstores. No doubt they have all seen this\nprescription given by God.\n\n\"Second Chron. 2 : 10: 'And behold, I will give to thy servants,\nthe hewers that cut timber, twenty thousand measures of beaten wheat,\nand twenty thousand measures of barley, and twenty thousand baths of\nwine, and twenty thousand baths of oil.'\n\n\"The article which Solomon, 'the wisest of all men,' gave to the\nservants of the king of Tyre in one-fourth payment for their labor\nin preparing the temple which he built to the Lord, was probably\nespecially blessed by the Lord for that use, and so rendered\nnon-intoxicating, else we must conclude that he pays those who build\nhouses for him in what friend St. John would call 'liquid damnation.'\n\n\"And inasmuch as Solomon was the wisest of all men (or God made a\nmistake when he so said), and the temple was for the said God, I am\njustified in concluding that this God regards wine as a legal tender,\nand so I put the above passage in this category as one in which God\nhas sanctified the use of wine.\n\n\"Neh. 5 : 11: (To the usurers): 'Restore, I pray you, to them, even\nthis day, their lands, their vineyards, their olive yards, and their\nhouses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the\nwine, and the oil, that ye exact of them.'\n\n\"Neh. 10 : 39: 'For the children of Israel and the children of Levi\nshall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil\n... and we will not forsake the house of our God.'\n\n\"Wine, old or 'new,' seems to have been always acceptable to 'our God,'\nwhether tendered as a holy offering or otherwise.\n\n\"'The Lord' makes wine, according to the Psalmist:\n\n\"Psalm 104 : 15: 'And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil\nto make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.'\n\n\"If 'the Lord' lived in Iowa, Lozier and Foster would have him arrested\nfor violation of the new iron-clad prohibitory law.\n\n\"Prov. 3 : 10: 'So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy\npresses shall burst out with new wine.'\n\n\"Prov. 31 : 6, 7: 'Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish,\nand wine unto those that be of heavy heart. Let him drink and forget\nhis poverty and remember his misery no more.'\n\n\"In these two verses, the author of Proverbs has more than nullified\nall the good things he said in his earlier chapters, and which I have\nquoted in List A. I am quite sure that where they have prevented the\ndrinking of one glass of wine or strong drink, these passages have\nled to the drinking of one thousand. And this is a mild statement of\nthe case.\n\n\"Eccl. 9 : 7: 'Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine\nwith a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.'\n\n\"Song of Sol. 1 : 2: 'Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth;\nfor thy love is better than wine.'\n\n\"From this we gather that, next to love wine is the best thing\nin the world. This is the opinion of most bacchanalian experts,\nI believe. Solomon seems to have had much experience.\n\n\"Song of Sol. 5 : 1: 'I have drunk my wine with my milk; eat, O\nfriends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O believers.'\n\n\"Is this the earliest mention of milk punch?\n\n\"Song of Sol. 8 : 2: 'I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of\nthe juice of my pomegranate.' Metaphorical, undoubtedly.\n\n\"Isa. 1 : 22: 'Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water.'\n\n\"Have your wine full strength, as much as you would have your silver\nunalloyed, is the admonition of God's prophet.\n\n\"Isa. 24 : 7: 'The new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth; all the\nmerry-hearted do sigh.'\n\n\"One more in the long list of passages wherein it is said that God\npunished his chosen people by cutting off their vintage. What God\nregards as a real deprivation to lose must be good to have and to keep,\nin his opinion, whatever the Woman's Christian Temperance Union people\nmay think about it. Verse 9 says: 'They shall not drink wine with a\nsong; strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it.' Verse 11:\n'There is a crying for wine in the streets; all joy is darkened;\nthe mirth of the land is gone.'\n\n\"God thus punished them by taking away their wine, on the same\nprinciple that he punishes us by killing our children, as Christians\nsay that he does. Will they contend that children are inherently an\nevil? They must if they follow the same line of reasoning that they\ndo in interpreting these texts.\n\n\"Isa. 27 : 2, 3: 'In that day sing ye unto her, a vineyard of red\nwine. I the Lord do keep it; I will water it every moment; lest any\nhurt it, I will keep it night and day.'\n\n\"Figurative, doubtless! So is the next, but all the influence of these\npassages is on the side of intemperance, necessarily, for the simple\nreason that the great mass of the people will take them literally,\nand for the further reason that the constant association of wine\nwith 'good news' and symbols of religion familiarize the mind with\nit and serve to give it something of a sacred character. This last\nmentioned fact helps to explain why the church so long opposed the\nmodern temperance movement. But here is the passage above indicated,\nIsa. 55 : 1: 'Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,\nand he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat: yea, come buy wine\nand milk without money and without price.'\n\n\"Isa. 62 : 8: 'The Lord hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm\nof his strength, Surely I will no more give thy corn to be meat for\nthine enemies; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy wine,\nfor the which thou hast labored.'\n\n\"Rev. Stevenson should suggest to the Lord that, whereas wine is an\nevil thing, and the Bible a 'great text book of morals,' and the\npalladium of temperance, essential in the proper training of our\nchildren, therefore, he, the Lord, should have clearly shown that he\nmeant that the enemies of his chosen people should take from them\ntheir wine that through such deprivation they should be better and\nhappier. But, no! he ranks wine with corn, and registers a mighty\noath that the people shall have them both.\n\n\"Isa. 65 : 8: 'Thus saith the Lord, As the new wine is found in the\ncluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it,\nso I will do for my servants' sake, that I may not destroy them all.'\n\n\"Jer. 31 : 12: 'Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of\nZion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord, for wheat,\nand for wine, and for oil,' etc.\n\n\"Jer. 40 : 10: 'But ye, gather ye wine, and summer fruits, and oil, and\nput them in your vessels, and dwell in the cities that ye have taken.'\n\n\"Probably 'wine' here means grapes, though it is used in the same\nconstruction as 'oil.'\n\n\"Jer. 48 : 33: 'And joy and gladness is taken from the plentiful field,\nand from the land of Moab, and I have caused wine to fail from the\nwine presses.'\n\n\"Dan. 1 : 5: 'And the king appointed them a daily provision of the\nking's meat, and of the wine which he drank, so nourishing them three\nyears, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.'\n\n\"Here God intends, plainly, to convey the impression that wine is\nnourishing! The only way in which the Christian temperance people\ncan relieve him from the imputation of teaching lessons so opposite\nto theirs is to enter the plea that he did not inspire the writer!\n\n\"Hos. 2 : 8, 9: 'For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine,\nand oil, and multiplied her silver and gold which they prepared\nfor Baal. Therefore I will return and take away my corn in the time\nthereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool\nand my flax given to cover her nakedness.'\n\n\"Of course, if these passages and very many of like import, are any\nargument against wine, they are of equal weight in the scale against\ncorn, wool, and many other useful and necessary articles. The authors\nof such verses, wherever found, unquestionably looked upon wine as\none of God's good gifts to his children, but which he was compelled\nto sometimes deprive them of because of their disobedience.\n\n\"Hos. 9 : 2: 'The floor and the wine-press shall not feed them,\nand the new wine shall fail in her.'\n\n\"That is, Israel shall be punished for her transgressions by the\ndestruction of the fertility of the soil.\n\n\"Evidently the perfume of wine was pleasing unto the Lord, for he\nsays, in promising his blessing to the repentant people (Hos. 14 :\n7): 'They shall revive as the corn, and grow as the wine; the scent\nthereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon.'\n\n\"Joel 1 : 5: 'Awake, ye drunkards, and howl, all ye drinkers of wine.'\n\n\"This, taken by itself, would be an unqualified condemnation of\nintoxicants, but such was not the prophet's meaning. The verse\nconcludes: 'Because of the new wine, for it is cut off from your\nmouths.'\n\n\"In the vision of the prophet he sees the great evils that have\ncome upon his country; the palmer-worm, and the locust, and the\ncanker-worm have destroyed the crops. 'The meat-offering and the\ndrink-offering is cut off from the house of the Lord, ... the corn\nis wasted, the oil languisheth,' etc. While in the verse quoted the\ndrinkers are mildly requested to howl, in verse thirteen we have,\n'Gird yourselves and lament, ye priests; howl ye ministers of the\naltar.' No temperance admonition or lesson here, that is plain.\n\n\"Joel 3 : 18: 'And it shall come to pass in that day that the mountains\nshall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and\nall the rivers of Judah shall flow with water,' etc.\n\n\"Thus, again, among the great blessings to be bestowed upon the\nfaithful is wine in abundance. One of the facts that strikes me\nmost forcibly, in making such an examination as this, is the almost\nuniversal favor with which the Hebrew prophets looked upon wine\nand wine-drinking; and in prophesying the evils to come upon their\npeople because of their disobedience to God or their oppression of\ntheir fellows, they rarely fail to include the cutting off of the\nwine supply. This they evidently regarded as one of the greatest of\ncalamities. Our Christian temperance friends would gladly, so they\nsay, visit wholesale destruction upon the vineyards and barley fields,\nand they seem almost to seek to convey the impression that God made a\nmistake when he created grapes and barley. This proves how honest they\nare when they say that the Bible is a temperance book. In Amos 5 : 11,\nwe have another example of the above-mentioned fact in the utterances\nof the prophet. Denouncing the people for their injustice, he says:\n'Ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink wine of\nthem.' In the preceding sentence he had said: 'Ye have built houses of\nhewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them.' Houses were good, wine was\ngood; but because of their sins they should be deprived of both. There\nis here no argument either direct or implied in behalf of abstinence.\n\n\"Amos 9 : 14: 'And I will bring again the captivity of my people\nof Israel, and they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them;\nand they shall plant vineyards and drink the wine thereof; they shall\nalso make gardens and eat the fruit of them.'\n\n\"It does not seem that even Mr. Stevenson would venture to claim this\nverse as a Bible argument for temperance. They shall drink the wine!\n\n\"Micah. 6 : 15: 'Thou shalt sow, but thou shalt not reap; thou shalt\ntread the olives, but thou shalt not anoint thee with oil; and sweet\nwine, but shalt not drink wine.'\n\n\"How can apparently honorable men claim that God, as revealed in the\nBible, disapproves of the use of intoxicants when he is continually\ntelling his chosen people that he will punish them by destroying\ntheir corn, and their wine, and their oil; evidently taking particular\npains to impress upon them the fact that they (wine, corn, and oil)\nare equally good and useful?\n\n\"Zeph. 1 : 13: 'They shall also build houses, but not inhabit them;\nand they shall plant vineyards, but not drink the wine thereof.'\n\n\"The same old story:\n\n\"In chapter 1, verse 11, Haggai calls for a drouth upon the land to\npunish the people, and he includes, as usual, the corn, and the oil,\nand the new wine among the things to be destroyed.\n\n\"Zech. 9 : 17: 'For how great is his goodness, and how great is\nhis beauty; corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine\nthe maids.'\n\n\"Rather a singular apportionment of his bounty, unless 'corn' means\nsomething stronger than wine.\n\n\"Matt. 11 : 19: 'The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say,\nBehold, a man is gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans\nand sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.' But are these\nher children who claim Jesus as very God and yet fly directly in the\nface of his precepts and practice? Or is it moral uprightness instead\nof wisdom that they lack?\n\n\"In Mat. 21 : 33 to 41, and Mark 12 : 1 to 9, Jesus gives us the\nparable of the vineyard and the husbandman, and in it all there is\nno hint that there was anything wrong in the business of winemaking.\n\n\"The thought that we find expressed in Mat. 11 : 19, is given again\nin Luke 7 : 33-4-5, where we read: 'For John the Baptist came neither\neating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son\nof man is come eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold a gluttonous\nman, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom\nis justified of all her children.'\n\n\"Whoever uttered these words, man or god; whoever wrote them,\nJohn or some one else one hundred or more years later, there can\nbe no disputing regarding the lesson which is taught. It is that\neach individual is to determine for himself or herself in all\nthings pertaining to personal conduct and habits. 'Let every man\nbe fully persuaded in his own mind' is the central idea of the\nvarious renderings. There is no rebuke, expressed or implied,\nof intemperance; there is nothing that can be tortured into a\ncondemnation of wine-drinking or into an approval of the principle of\ntotal abstinence, or that of prohibition. Here was his opportunity to\ncondemn the drinking of wine, to speak for that which is now called\ntemperance; but from his lips fell no words of warning; to those\ngathered about him he said nothing in favor of the great reform which\nChristians of to-day, falsely assuming to speak in his name, declare\nfinds its sanction and inspiration, its bulwark and tower of defense,\nin the Bible.\n\n\"It seems that the good Samaritan (Luke 10 : 34) had with him a supply\nof wine with which he dressed the wounds of the stranger.\n\n\"John 2 : 3-11: 'And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith\nunto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have\nI to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto\nthe servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set\nthere six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of\nthe Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto\nthem, Fill the water-pots with water. And they filled them up to\nthe brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the\ngovernor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast\nhad tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was\n(but the servants which drew the water knew), the governor of the\nfeast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the\nbeginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk,\nthen that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until\nnow. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and\nmanifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.'\n\n\"John 4 : 46: 'So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he\nmade the water wine.'\n\n\"The first miracle which Jesus performed was to convert six pots\nof water into wine! And this feat convinced his disciples of his\nsupernatural origin and powers! And he did this to manifest forth\nhis glory! Either this is true or the Bible is false. Whether true or\nnot, it has been a most powerful argument against abstinence; it has\nresulted directly in making drunkards, as it has indirectly in making\nhypocrites and Jesuitical sophists. I of course mean by this last\nsentence that the seeming necessity to prove the Bible a temperance\nwork has made any number of Christian apologists resort to all kinds\nof specious arguments and make any number of false claims in order to\nmake good their assertions. The assumption that this wine was not of\nan intoxicating nature is purely gratuitous. There is not even the\nghost of a fact to be found in support of it. Hundreds of passages,\nwhich I have quoted under their appropriate heads, prove beyond a\ndoubt that the wine so often mentioned in the Bible was intoxicating;\nthe words of the governor prove that this miraculously produced portion\nof it certainly was of the very best, for it is against all reason to\nsuppose that men accustomed to the taste and effects of wine would\npronounce simple grape-juice to be better than all that had already\nbeen served to them at the feast; and, finally, the declaration that\nthis act of Jesus was a miracle and that it made his disciples to\n'believe on him,' gives the last stroke to the already nearly dead\n'non-intoxicating' theory.\n\n\"Col. 2 : 16: 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or\nin respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.'\n\n\"In other words, judge for yourselves in all these matters, submit\nto no dictation from without. How does that strike you, Messrs. Bible\nProhibitionists?\n\n\"1 Tim. 5 : 23: 'Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for\nthy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.'\n\n\"It is probable that this short verse has led to the consumption of\nmore wine and caused more intemperance than any other equal number\nof words in any language or contained in any book. It has had more\npotent effect upon the mind of the Christian believer than have\ntwenty passages which have in a hesitating, half-hearted, uncertain\nway caution against the use of much wine.\n\n\"Comparing this class of passages with those grouped under 'A,'\nwe find that the Bible pleas for temperance are out voted more than\nfive to one by those in favor of the use of intoxicants. The record\nis an astonishingly bad one for the Bible as a total abstinence and\nProhibition work, and should put to the blush all of its worshipers and\napologists who have been so foolish or unscrupulous as to claim that\nit is indispensable to the temperance cause and in the education of our\nchildren. Both claims are absurd.\" (E. C. Walker's \"Bible Temperance.\")\n\n\n\n\nThe Inconsistency of Agnosticism.\n\n    \"It seems to me as irrational to say there is no God as to say\n    there is a God.\"--Editor Twentieth Century.\n\n\n\"But pray, why? Does not that proposition tacitly concede that it is\nirrational to say there is a God? If so, how can it be irrational\nto deny an irrational proposition or absurdity? Are not the two\npropositions antithetical? If so, one or the other is, of necessity,\nfalse. Conceding then, as he does, the absurdity of the God idea, why\nwill Mr. Pentecost persist, inconsistently, in maintaining that there\nis no difference between the rationality of Theism and Materialism,\nwith its incidental Atheism?\n\n\"Will he kindly tell us the difference in degree of rationality\nbetween the position that there is a personal Devil and that there is\na God? Are not both notions of the same origin and equally absurd? Are\nnot both transmitted to us from the dark ages, from the same book, and\nmust not both stand or fall together? Yet Mr. Pentecost would not, from\npure deference and respect for our poor, non-evolved pious friends,\nassume an Agnostic's attitude and concede that 'it is as irrational\nto say there is no Devil as to say there is a Devil.' Of course\nnot. He simply denies the existence of His Satanic Majesty without\nequivocation, and the proof of his existence not being forthcoming\nhis denial is equivalent to proof that such a being does not exist.\n\n\"In law and equity the affirmative is obliged to prove its case. If\nthen a proposition is self-evidently absurd, unnatural and absolutely\nimpossible, why concede to those affirming, without a shadow of proof,\nthat their belief is equally rational with our unbelief, that 'it\nmay be so,' 'I don't know,' etc.\n\n\"Having discarded as authoritative ancient traditions, there is\nabsolutely no logic, no reason, no science, no analogy that will\nsustain or demonstrate the existence of a God. And in view of this fact\na simple denial is all-sufficient to prove the negative. As the plea of\nthe prisoner at the bar of 'not guilty' is equivalent to proof of his\ninnocence and bound to be respected by court and juror, unless, indeed,\nthe affirmative, beyond a shadow of a doubt, establishes his guilt, so\nthe Atheist's fearless denial, nowadays, must demand profound respect,\nand is equivalent to proof, unless, indeed, the Church brings proof,\noutside of a discarded Bible, of the truth of its basic idea.\n\n\"Now, though unnecessary to prove a negative, and the God-idea not\nhaving been established by history, revelation, science, or reason,\nyet alleged arguments being continually advanced in the vain endeavor\nto resuscitate a vanishing religion, a few propositions are here\nadvanced which prove there is no God.\n\n\"There is a universe. This proves there is no God.\n\n\"The universe is infinite. This excludes anything else of like\ncharacter--two infinities being an absurdity.\n\n\"The universe (nature) is here and there and everywhere. This proves\nthat God cannot be here and there and everywhere.\n\n\"Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Matter\n(implying energy and force) monopolizing every point of space,\nnothing else can occupy it in addition.\n\n\"The universe exists now. Something cannot come from nothing, therefore\nthe universe has always existed.\n\n\"Being eternal and infinite, this excludes anything anterior, exterior,\nor superior to it.\n\n\"Is God in the universe or the universe in God? If there is a God,\neither of these propositions must be true, yet both are glaringly\nabsurd.\n\n\"Can an engineer drive a locomotive and be a locomotive at the same\ntime? If not, how can a God manipulate an infinite universe and be\ninfinite 'Himself?'\n\n\"Yet the universe, outside of a God, is an absolute reality, as much\nso as a locomotive is a reality outside of the engineer. The world\nis a reality, our planets, the sun, all the countless millions of\nstars within reach of our telescopes and the infinitude of stars and\nsystems beyond the reach of our strongest lenses, which science infers\nto exist, all these are a reality and all these, yes, every object of\nknowledge is a reality, and all these are not God! How then, in the\nname of reason I ask, can a God, of whom we know absolutely nothing,\nbe infinite, when an infinite number of material objects--not God--fill\nall space?\n\n\"But does the universe exist in God? If we but imagine for a moment\nthe aspect of the universe to resemble a huge machine of infinite\nproportions, eternally active in all its vast proportions, the idea\nof the universe existing within a God will appear equally childish\nand simple.\n\n\"All phenomena are the results of energy co-existent and inseparable\nfrom matter. All cosmic motion, change, and life may be traced to\nthis physical and chemical energy pervading all nature--never to a God.\n\n\"Mind--the so-called infinite as well as finite--implies limit,\nlocalization, conditions, etc. This fact tends to prove that while God,\nperchance, might concentrate his mind on the world or some particular\nsect or individual, considering their exhortations, the rest of the\nworld and the universe for the time being would be Godless!\n\n\"From a late scientific authority I quote in proof: 'It is impossible\nfor a person's mind to be in two places at the same time.' Noted\nchess players may play twenty games simultaneously, but it is done\nby speedy transfer of thoughts from one game to another and not by\nconsidering two moves at once.\n\n\"Thus 'Omniscience' is impossible.\n\n\"Again; mind implies limit and necessitates organism, brain,\nnervous force, etc. This again makes impossible a God. Let the Church\ndemonstrate how a God without a brain can be a God and all it implies,\nor how a God with a brain can be infinite, and I will kneel down and\nworship with them.\n\n\"Is this dogmatism? The 'dogmatism of the Infidel' we hear so\nmuch about? If it is, then asserting that twice two is four is\ndogmatism. Then we state all the facts of mathematics, all the truths\nof history is dogmatism. We simply confine ourselves to fact, to\nknowledge and demonstrated truth. There we stop and refuse to accept\nthe crude notions transmitted from our ignorant ancestors, which, it is\ndogmatically asserted, are true in spite of our knowledge and reason.\n\n\"I protest against being accused of dogmatism, I studiously endeavor\nto be fair and make no pretensions to scholarship and learning. But I\nemphatically protest against the dogmatism of others who, assuming a\nsuperior air of knowledge assert notions contrary to fact. Supposing\nsome one should affirm that twice two is five, would it be dogmatism,\nto deny the proposition, and would thinking minds be justified to\nassume the attitude of Agnostics and concede that while in their\nopinion twice two is four, yet twice two may be five, 'I don't know,'\n'one proposition is as irrational as the other,' etc.?\n\n\"We know a universe exists. Existing now proves it is eternal. This\nsimple fact absolutely makes impossible, yes, needless, a God.\n\n\"I simply assert that twice two is four and cannot possibly be\nfive. That the universe filling all space nothing else can fill it in\naddition. If this be dogmatism all knowledge is a farce.\"--Wettstein.\n\n\n\n\nGod Responsible for the Ills Man Suffers.\n\n\"If God foreknew whatever was to come to pass, he must have been\nperfectly well aware that his whole creation, including the scheme of\nredemption, would be the most stupendous failure imaginable,--as it\ncertainly has been if the Christian religion be true. For what rational\nor humane man would raise a family of children, if he knew beforehand\nthat they would all be vagabonds and criminals, ending their days in\nprison or on the scaffold? What prudent farmer would intentionally\nsow wheat on land certain to produce a bad crop? What sensible\nbusiness man would knowingly embark in an enterprise sure to prove\ndisastrous, and to involve himself and his family in irretrievable\nruin? And yet such conduct on the part of men would be far less\nirrational and criminal than that of which the Creator is guilty,\nif the doctrine of his foreknowledge and omnipotence be true. For,\naccording to this doctrine, he alone is responsible for whatever\nhas occurred and will occur, and for all the suffering in the world,\nsince he had full power to prevent it but did not, and does not; and\nthe conclusion to be drawn from this fact is, that he intended all\nthings to be just as they have been in the past, are now and are to\nbe in the future. For, if he possessed absolute power, he might have\nplaced man under entirely different circumstances, and surrounded\nhim by influences which would have led him into the path of perfect\nrectitude, but did not choose to do so; and we fail to understand\nhow man can be justly held responsible either for his own creation,\nfor the nature with which he is endowed, or for the environment which\ndetermines his conduct.\" (J. W. Stillman's \"God and the Universe.\")\n\n\n\n\nThe Idea of God Must Go.\n\n\"I think it is not a good thing for people to believe in God. I think\nit is a bad thing for them to do so. I think the belief in God is one\nof the things that is helping very strongly to keep knaves in power and\nhonest people in weakness; it is one of the things that is preventing\nthe people from thinking for themselves and helping themselves. The\nhuman mind will never be perfectly free, and peasants and mechanics\nand day laborers will never be perfectly fairly treated in this world,\nuntil the church is utterly destroyed. I do not want to see the church\nreformed. I want to see her utterly destroyed, because as long as she\nexists the ruling classes in society will always have in her a faithful\nally to help them carry on their infernal schemes of pillage. I do not\nwant people to have a better idea of God or an idea of a better God. I\nwant the idea of God entirely rooted out of the mind, because I know\nthat as long as any idea of God remains in the mind, the priest and\nthe politician will have something to work upon, and this world will\nnever be free and happy until the priest and the politician are gone.\n\n\"One man will tell you that God is a Roman Catholic, another that\nhe is a Presbyterian, another that he is a Baptist, and so on. One\nman will say that he is a Republican, another that he is a single\ntaxer, another that he is a Socialist, and so on. What we must come\nto see is, that nothing is done in human society that is not done by\nmen. Poverty must be destroyed, not because it is God's will that it\nshould be, but because it is best for the human race that it should\nbe. And general wealth must be achieved, not because it is God's\nwill that it should be, but because it is best for the human race\nthat it should be. Beware of those men who tell you what is or what\nis not the will of God. In every case you will find a person who is\nintellectually asleep, or half asleep, or mentally dishonest, or else\nyou will find--and this is more likely--a priest or a politician,\na person who wants to get you to not think about what he is teaching\nyou. We have been dragged through enough mire and blood and darkness\ndoing things according to the will of God. It is now time we began\nto think things out for ourselves.\"--Pentecost.\n\n\n\n\"Mr. Barnum said that Christians had a different way of thinking\nabout God now from that of fifty years ago. 'When I first heard\nof the doctrine of the Universalists,' said he, 'I felt so utterly\nastonished that I thought I'd drop dead in my boots. The orthodox\nfaith painted God as so revengeful a being that you could hardly\ndistinguish the difference between God and the Devil. If I had almighty\npower and could take a pebble and give it life, knowing beforehand\nthat fifty-nine seconds out of every sixty would be extreme misery,\nI would be a monster. Yet this is how God was described, and people\ntalk about loving such a being.'\" (Newspaper clipping.)\n\n\n\n\nAtheism.\n\n1. Something (substance) must have always been, or anything could\nnot now be.\n\n2. Then this something was eternal, and hence self-existent.\n\n3. Since self-existent and eternal, it must have been infinite,\nand hence was everything existing everywhere.\n\n4. Therefore, all that is, has always been; that is, everything has\neternally existed everywhere.\n\nBut will you say that this something, this self-existent, eternal\neverything, is God? Very well. Then nothing but God could be. Then\nhe must be the all of everything existing everywhere. Then where\nis your universe? You see you cannot have a universe if you have\na God. We have the universe; hence you cannot have a God. \"But he\ncreated the universe,\" you say. Very well; from what did he create\nit? Nothing? Omnipresent God alone extending on, and on, and forever\non through all the everywheres, cramming all the immensities full of\nhis essential self. He could not have created the universe beyond\nhimself, since there was no beyond. There could have been no place\nin which to put it outside of himself when created, since there was\nno outside. If created, it must have been from his own essence; and\nthen it would not have been a creation of anything, but a changing of\nhimself into something different; and that was not possible, since\nhe was self-existent, and must necessarily exist the same forever,\nsince he was eternal, and must exist unchangeable. So the universe\ncould not have been made from nothing, since all the spaces everywhere\nwere crammed completely full of everything, and hence there was no\nunoccupied premises where the raw material could have been stored\naway. It could not have been created from God-substance, since that\nalready was; it could not have been formed from God's pre-existing\nself, since that would have been to change the eternally unchangeable\ninto something else--to annihilate himself as God by working himself\nover into the universe. You see that there can be but one Eternal\nAll. You cannot have both--a God and the universe. And since we have\nthe universe, that is, everything eternally existing everywhere,\nwe need no God, there is no room for a God, and there has never been\nanything for a God to do. Therefore, there is no God.\n\nAs an infinite God must necessarily fill the entirety of space,\nthere could be no room for aught else. God and man could not live\ntogether in the same universe. God would necessarily be everything;\nthen the universe must be nothing. But we have the universe, and that\nis everything; therefore God is nothing--existing nowhere. A mote that\nis, is better than a God that is not. If we part with God and obtain\na universe, we make a magnificent exchange. The issue has always\nbeen God versus matter. When people come to understand that matter\nhas always been, that it eternally had the start of everything else,\nand hence needed no creation, it will be seen that there never has\nbeen any necessity for a God, and as the universe is ever governed by\nlaw, there is nothing for a God to do. Men must believe in matter,\nbecause it is everything, and does everything. Something is always\nbetter than nothing. If God is not matter he is not anything; and the\nidea of God is destined to become obsolete, and gradually pass into\nutter forgetfulness. The God-idea has been the center and foundation of\nall the superstitions of the world. When men have learned to dispense\nwith it, their emancipation will be great indeed.--Sam Preston.\n\n\n\n\nJehovah a Failure.\n\n1. He was unsuccessful in creation. He made Adam and Eve and the\nserpent; but all his plans were frustrated in a short time; and\n\"it repented the Lord that he had made man.\"\n\n2. In repeopling the world from Noah's family he decidedly failed\nagain. How easy it would have been after drowning the whole world,\nto create a new man and woman of perfect character, and omit the\nDevil business.\n\n3. In attempting to save the world through Jesus Christ he made\nanother failure. It is not in the nature of things for this world to be\nsaved. \"To be saved\" means too much, and it means too little. Man can\nnot be saved entirely from his weakness, ignorance, and selfishness;\nand hence can never be perfect. Man can be made morally better,\nintellectually wiser, physically healthier, individually and socially\nhappier; but his betterment cannot be achieved through preaching,\nBible-reading, praying and other religious exercises. It must come\nthrough liberty. He must have equal rights with his fellow men. He must\nhave justice established between man and man. The toiler must get the\nfruits of his toil. A good home has a more sacred influence over the\nhearts of men to make them kind and good, than all the preaching in\nthe world. With a home of his own man has a little heaven of his own,\nand a truer and better love of his neighbor.\n\n\"The character of a god is the character of the people who have made\nhim. When therefore I expose the crimes of Jehovah, I expose the\ndefective morality of Israel; and when I criticise the God of modern\nEurope, I criticise the defective intellects of Europeans. The reader\nmust endeavor to bear this in mind; for though he may think that his\nidea of the Creator is actually the Creator, that belief is not shared\nby me.\" (Winwood Reade, \"Martyrdom of Man.\")\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nATONEMENT.\n\nAtonement for Sin, an Immoral Doctrine.\n\n1. The doctrine of the atonement is of heathen origin, and is\npredicated upon the assumption that no sin can be fully expiated\nwithout the shedding of blood. In the language of Paul, \"Without\nthe shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin.\" A barbarous\nand bloody doctrine truly! But this doctrine was almost universally\nprevalent amongst the orientals long 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 cannot be true.\n\n3. If the penalty for sin was death, as taught in Genesis 3, and\nChrist suffered that penalty for man, then man should not die; but,\nas he does, it makes the doctrine preposterous. It could not have\nmeant spiritual death, as some argue, because a part of the penalty\nwas that of being doomed to return to dust (Gen. 3 : 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\ncould not be infinite unless he had continued to suffer to all\neternity. Therefore the assumption is false.\n\n6. An all-wise God would not let things get into such a condition as\nto require the murder of his only son from any consideration whatever.\n\n7. And no father, cherishing a proper regard and love for his son,\ncould have required him to be, or consented to have him put to death\nin a cruel manner; for the claims of mercy and paternal affection\nare as imperative as justice.\n\n8. To put an intelligent and innocent being to death, for any purpose\nis a violation of the moral law, and as great a sin as that for which\nhe died. Hecatombs of victims cannot atone for the infraction of the\nmoral law 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\nin it 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\nor reason 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\nof refinement, and indicate a barbarous and heathen origin.\n\n13. The atonement punishes the innocent for the guilty, which\nis a twofold crime, and a reversal of the spirit of justice. If\na father should catch four of his children stealing and the fifth\none standing by and remonstrating against the act, and should seize\non the innocent one and administer a severe flagellation, he would\ncommit a double crime: 1st, that of punishing an innocent child;\n2d, that of exonerating and encouraging the four children in the\ncommission of crime. The atonement involves the same principle.\n\n14. No person with true moral manhood would consent to be be saved\non any such terms; but would prefer to suffer for his own sins,\nrather than let an innocent being suffer for them. And the man who\nwould accept salvation upon such terms must be a sneak and a coward,\nwith a soul not worth 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,\nnor Gods murdered to save my soul.\n\n16. If there is any virtue in the atonement in the way of\nexpiating crime, then there is now another atonement demanded by the\nprinciples of moral justice to cancel the sin committed by the first\natonement--that of murdering an innocent being, \"in whose mouth was\nno guile;\" and then another atonement to wipe out the sin of this\natonement, and so on. And thus it would be atonement after atonement,\nmurder after murder, ad infinitum. What shocking consequences and\nabsurdities are involved in this ancient heathen superstition!\n\n17. It seems strange that any person can cherish the thought\nfor a moment that the Infinite Father would require a sacrificial\noffering for the trifling act of eating a little fruit, and require\nno atonement for the infinitely greater sin of murdering \"his only\nbegotten son.\" Another monstrous absurdity!\n\n18. The advocates of the atonement tell us that man stands toward\nhis Creator in the relation of a debtor, and the atonement cancels\nthe debt. To be sure! How does it do it?--Graves.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA MINORITY NOT A SECT.\n\n\"A Protestant minister of Oakland, California, in a recent address\non the public school system of the United States, expressed himself\nas follows: 'In one of the schools of San Francisco Herbert Spencer's\n\"Data of Ethics\" was introduced as a text book of morals--as palpable\na violation of the law forbidding sectarian instruction as the\nintroduction of the Catholic or Methodist catechism; for Hebert\nSpencer belongs to a very small and narrow sect which promulgates\nthe creed of Agnosticism.'\n\n\"If the reverend speaker had taken the ground that the 'Data of Ethics'\nwas too abstruse to be placed in the hands of public school pupils we\nshould have felt inclined to sustain his objection. But when he says\nthat to introduce such a book is to give a sectarian character to the\nschool in which it is used, we must enter a protest. Science is never\nsectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins\nwhen you ask a man or a child to assume what cannot be proved, for\nthe sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some\nparticular creed. The followers of Mr. Spencer may be in a minority,\nbut they are no more a sect than were the adherents of the Copernican\nsystem of astronomy, or than are the believers in the Darwinian\ntheory of natural selection. Mr. Spencer makes no appeal to faith,\nbut finds his premises in the common experience of mankind. A pupil\nwho was being taught out of the 'Data of Ethics' would be quite at\nliberty to dispute either the premises or the arguments of the author;\nand he would not be silenced by the declaration that Mr. Spencer\nis infallible. But when catechisms are taught they are taught, not\nas containing matter for discussion, but as containing doctrines\nthat must not be disputed, on pain of more or less disagreeable\nconsequences. Similarly when the Bible is read in school it is read\nnot as a fallible record of events, or a fallible guide in morals,\nbut as something absolutely authoritative--the very voice of God. It\nis perfectly obvious then, where sectarianism in education begins; it\nbegins just at the point where doctrines of any kind accepted on faith\nby a portion of the community and not discussible on grounds of reason,\nare made a part of public school instruction. Sectarianism comes\nin whenever the teacher is obliged to say, 'Hush' to the inquiring\nscholar who wants his reason satisfied before he will believe. There\nis no sectarianism, on the other hand, in making use of a book which\nlays no claim to any kind of privilege, and which, therefore, cannot\nforce the belief of anyone. The followers of Mr. Spencer do not form\na sect because they have no beliefs which they wish to exempt from\ncriticism or discussion, and because they hold themselves at full\nliberty to pass beyond the bounds of Mr. Spencer's thought whenever\nthey can see their way to doing so. Mr. Spencer's 'Data of Ethics'\nmay not contain all the truth on the subject of morals, but the truth\nwhich it does contain lends itself to demonstration; and no one can be\nthe worse for being taught demonstrable truths. Upon that foundation\nhe can afterward build what he likes--hay, stubble, or what not; and\nafter his superstructure has been tried by the fire of experience,\nas it is very likely to be, he will still have something solid left\non which to rebuild in perchance wiser fashion. We do not advocate\nthe introduction of the 'Data of Ethics' into the public schools: but\nwe are convinced that it would be a very good thing for the rising\ngeneration if some of the ideas contained in that book could be\nbrought home to their minds.\" (Popular Science Monthly, November 1889.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTE\n\n[1] Referring to the story of Moses receiving the two tables of\ncommandments. See page 134.","title":"A handbook of Freethought : $b containing in condensed and systematized form a vast amount of evidence against the superstitious doctrines of Christianity","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":129699}