{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45475/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45475","id":"gutenberg_45475","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45475","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"THE BIBLE UNVEILED\n\nBy M. M. Mangasarian\n\n\n1911\n\n\nWhen I seriously believe a thing, I say so in a few words, leaving the\nreader to determine what my belief is worth. But I do not choose\nto temper down every expression of personal opinion into courteous\ngeneralities. Let us learn to speak plainly and intelligibly first, and,\nif it may be, gracefully afterwards.--John Ruskin.\n\n|TO make it possible for a man to be as honest in his religion as he\nwould like to be in his business; to make him as unafraid in church as\nhe aims to be anywhere else, and to help make him as impatient of a lie\non Sunday as he is on any other day of the week, is the object of these\nstudies on the bible. I wish to be able to kindle in the breast of every\nfree citizen of this free country the love of truth, irrespective of\nwhether it helps or hurts; I wish to shame cowardice and cant out of\nevery man and woman who speaks the English language.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nAn Extraordinary Book\n\nA Word with the Reader\u2014Protestant and Catholic\n\nA Word with the Jews\n\n\nPART I.\n\nI. The Neglected Book\n\nWhat Makes a Book Inspired?\n\nThe Sects and Their Bibles\n\nCatholic and Protestant Bibles\n\nCatholics Make Their Own Bible\n\n\nPART II.\n\nI. The Tercentenary of the English Bible\n\nSome Lay Defenders of the Bible\u2014Bryan's Challenge\n\nBryan's Defense of the Bible\n\nII. Roosevelt on the Bible\n\nIII. \"Let Them Produce It\"\n\nWhat Is the Best Thing That Can Be Said in Favor of the Bible?\n\nIV. How to Test a Book\n\nSpeak According to Knowledge\n\n\nPART III.\n\nI. The First Chapter of the Bible\n\nThe First Verse of the Bible\n\nTheologians Discover That Six Days Means Six Periods\n\nThe Great Tragedy\n\nII. Taboo and Totem.\n\nThe Totem\n\nIII. The Bible and Magic\n\nThe Unbelievable in the Bible\n\nIV. The Strangest Story in the Bible\n\n\nPART IV.\n\nI. God and His Book\n\nThe Deity Demands Human Flesh\n\nII. The Portrait of God in the Bible\n\nA Bible Saint\n\nIII. The Bible and Judaism\n\nIV. Bible and Talmud\n\nV. The Masterpiece of the Bible\u2014Solomon's Temple\n\n\nPART V.\n\nContradictions in the Bible\n\nSerious Discrepancies in the Story of Jesus\n\nOne Writer Makes Jesus Affirm What Another Made Him Deny\n\n\nPART VI.\n\nI. What Was The Bible Meant to Teach?\n\nII. The Bible and Religion\n\nIII. Does the Bible Teach Morality?\n\nIV. Righteousness in the Bible\n\nV. The Ten Commandments\n\nVI. The Commandments Broken\n\nVII. Thou Shalt Despise Women\n\nVIII. The Sermon on the Mount\n\nIX. The Parables of Jesus\n\n\nPART VII.\n\nI. A Better Bible\n\nConclusion. The Book of God and the Book of Man\n\n\n\n\nAn Extraordinary Book\n\n|A BOOK which claims infallibility; which aspires to absolute authority\nover mind and body; which demands unconditional surrender to all its\npretensions upon penalty of eternal damnation, is an extraordinary book\nand should, therefore, be subjected to extraordinary tests.\n\nNeither Christian priests nor Jewish rabbis approve of applying to the\nbible the same tests by which _other_ books are tried.\n\nWhy?\n\nBecause it will help the bible?\n\nIt can not be that.\n\nBecause it might _hurt_ the bible?\n\nWe can think of no other reason.\n\nBut why devote so much space and time to the discussion of a book in\nwhich the educated world no longer believes? Why not take up issues that\nare more alive and more useful? I am of the opinion that the people who\nleave the bible alone do so, not because they think the book has ceased\nto hurt, but because they are still afraid of it, or its client\u00e8le. The\ngenerality of reformers would rather fight giants than the great _paper_\nidol of the churches--because it is _safer_.\n\nClergymen with liberal tendencies seek to dull the edge of all criticism\nagainst the bible by admitting in advance the conclusions of scholarship\nin reference to it, but still pretending to find a unique use for the\nbook as \"literature.\" Indeed! And since when has the bible, from being a\ndivine revelation, fallen to the level of mere letters? If the bible is\nmere literature, would the mails accept it in its present form? Would it\nbe tolerated in the homes of the people? And why should there be a paid\narmy of men in the service of a book which is only literature? Why so\nmany priests and rabbis to do its bidding, and why should so many costly\nand untaxed temples and cathedrals be built for a book which is no more\nthan any other literature? Why should missionaries be maintained to push\nthe sale of this one book if it is nothing but literature? Why is the\nworld broken up into sects and creeds without number in the name of this\nliterature? Peculiar literature, this!\n\n_The veil lifted!_ I am not going to give new names to the bible, or\nfind new _hidden_ meanings in it. That is not my profession. Occultism,\nwhich enables a reader to find in any book whatever he is seeking, has\nnever commanded my respect. By lifting the veil, I mean a very simple\nthing--showing up the bible.\n\nAll idols are veiled. The _veil_ is the idol. Uncovered, they scare\nnobody. I shall try to do to the great idol of Christendom what the sun\ndoes to the earth--coax it into the light.\n\n\n\n\nA Word with the Reader--Protestant and Catholic\n\n|LET me assure the prospective Catholic and Protestant readers of this\nvolume that I do not harbor a single feeling toward them which is not\nof the kindest and the most respectful. I have no quarrel whatever with\nindividuals, or with parties. It is altogether foreign to my nature to\ntake pleasure in giving pain to others. If the truth gives pain, it is\nnot the fault of the teacher, nor of the reader who hears it for\nthe first time, but of error, which stabs and stings before it will\nsurrender its victims.\n\nHaving been a Christian believer myself, I have the warmest sympathy for\nall who still wear the yoke of superaturalism. But I have no pity for\nerror. I will not consult its pleasure. I will not spare it. Before any\nof my readers condemn me for speaking openly, and without reservation,\nI trust they will think of something else I could have said about the\nbible which would have been better than the truth. And as I am going to\nmake the bible speak for itself, I am sure no one will charge me with\nmisrepresenting the facts.\n\nBut I have no business to be concerned about either pleasing or\ndispleasing anybody. I am going to tell the truth, even if it hurts. If\ntelling the truth hurts me, it is I, and not the truth, that has to get\nout of the way; if it hurts _you_, it is you, and not the truth, that\nhas to be sacrificed.\n\nNot \"truth for truth's sake,\" but \"truth for humanity's sake,\" is the\nbetter motto, argue certain teachers; but is there a better way of\nserving humanity than through truth? Even as \"Art for art's sake\" will\ngive humanity the highest art, \"Truth for truth's sake\" will give to the\nworld the only bread it can live by.\n\n\n\n\nA Word with the Jews\n\n|AS the bible is the work of Jewish authors, and as I say quite a little\nabout Jews and Judaism in this book, I wish to take the pains to explain\nmy position in advance. Rationalism is much indebted to the educated\nJew. Even more is the Jew indebted to Rationalism. The only miracle\nin the history of Israel was performed by Rationalism. All the bible\nmiracles are nothing in comparison. Rationalism has saved the Jew from\nhis greatest enemy--the bible. It is to the great credit of the Jew that\nhe has survived his \"holy\" book. No people have suffered more from it\nthan the chosen people. The bible has made the Jew a wanderer and an\nalien in every country. When thinking of the martyrdom of this race\nthrough the centuries, the poet Heine exclaimed: \"Judaism is not a\nreligion; Judaism is a misfortune.\" * The same poet congratulates\nhimself upon the hastening departure of Jehovah: \"It is the old Jehovah\nhimself that is preparing for death. Hear ye not the bells resounding?\nKneel down, they are bringing the sacraments to a dying God.\"\n\n     * Heine: _Philosophy and Religion in Germany._\n\nThe great strides which the modern Jew has made in culture as well as in\ncommerce, he owes to his emancipation from the influence of the bible.\nThe more he disobeys the bible the more universal he becomes in his\nsympathies and tastes. With the crushing load of the bible taken off his\nshoulders, the Jew is swift in responding to the most beneficent\ninfluences of environment. Away from Judaism lies the salvation of the\nJew. It was in Europe and America, among the Gentiles, and not in\nPalestine, that the Jew discovered himself. Not until he turned his back\nupon Jehovah and his book did the Jew leap forth to conquer in art, in\nliterature, in science, and in all the graces that help to make genius\nand virtue attractive. I do not say that all persecution and prejudice\nwill end when Jew and Christian cease to follow the teachings of the\nbible, but surely the most formidable obstacles to the fraternization of\nthe races shall be removed. It is a service to humanity to try to free\nthe Jew from the rabbinical yoke, and the Christian from that of the\npriest. The rabbi is as much a schismatic as the priest. The parent of\nboth is the bible.\n\nOnce for all, I beg the readers of this book to know that I do not\nbelieve for a moment that the Jews ever taught the absurdities, or\npracticed the atrocities, with which the bible credits them. I do\nnot believe they ever started on an expedition to murder babes and\nsucklings, or to capture girls for their harems, for which acts the\nbible praises them. Like the Catholics and the Protestants, the Jews,\ninspired by these same scriptures, have committed many follies through\nthe centuries, but I am positive in my own mind that the terrible Old\nTestament picture of the Jew is a libel against humanity, as well as\nagainst the Jews.\n\nNot until the Jew has completely parted with bible and Talmud; not until\nhe has completely surrendered to Rationalism in mind and _body_--for as\nlong as he practices the Abrahamic rite upon his children as a religious\nduty he will continue to be an alien in every land--will the Jew end his\nwanderings in the wilderness and enter the land of promise.\n\nThe Messiah of the Jew, as well as of the Christian, is come. It is\nRationalism. And what is Rationalism? The authority of Reason.\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\n\n\n\nI. The Neglected Book\n\n|THE bible is a sort of national pet in this country. We are taught from\nthe cradle to revere, and almost worship it. In time, the bible comes to\nbe as near and dear to us as our own mothers. When anybody praises it,\nwe applaud him; when anybody criticizes it, we feel toward him as we\nwould toward one who has betrayed his country, or insulted the national\nflag.\n\nWhen, recently, President Taft praised the bible by saying that \"Our\nlaws, our literature and our social life owe whatever excellence they\npossess largely to the influence of this, our chief classic,\" he was, I\nam sure, quite sincere. But, evidently, all he knows about the bible is\nwhat was taught him in the nursery, the Sunday-school, or the church.\nThe majority of people who exalt the bible above all other books have\nnot studied the book--not even read it, except a chapter here and a\npassage there. If the bible had been a smaller book, people would have\nbeen more familiar with its contents, but being a book of ponderous\nsize, the generality of people have only a _dilettante_ acquaintance\nwith its contents. Really, the size of the book has been its best\nprotection. There is scarcely any other book which is more reverenced,\nand less known, than the bible.\n\nThe bible societies, however, claim that for long centuries the bible\nhas been the best seller. About twenty million copies a year have been\ndisposed of during the past three hundred years. But selling a book, and\ngetting it read, are not the same thing. There are reasons which explain\nthe enormous traffic in bibles. A great deal of money is expended every\nyear to push its sale. Great legacies are devoted to the translation and\ndissemination of the bible in every country. Powerful corporations\nexist all over Christendom to introduce the bible into new territories.\nBesides, the book is sold at a nominal price, often below cost, which is\nmade possible by large endowments and legacies.\n\nAnother reason which explains the vogue of the bible is the fact that it\nis protected against all competition. The king is behind the book; the\npress is behind it; and a halo of divinity is thrown about it to scare\npeople from examining their own holy book with the same freedom that\nthey examine the holy books of other countries. What other book has ever\nreceived the patronage which the bible commands, even to-day? And what\nwould have been the fate of the bible had no more been done for it than\nhas been done for Shakespeare, for example? Not until all artificial\nhelps and props have been removed, will we be in a position to say\nwhether the bible sells on its own merits, or whether it is indebted for\nits popularity to special privilege.\n\nBut, as already intimated, notwithstanding these enormous sales, the\nbible is read so little by the present generation that it may well be\ncalled _The Neglected Book_. To prove this, we are not going to quote\nRationalists, but clergymen. The complaint from every pulpit is that the\nbible is being ignored by the people more and more every day. The Rev.\nLyman Abbott read, at one of his lectures, a chapter from the bible,\nwithout, however, mentioning the name of the book to his hearers. He was\naddressing an _\u00e9lite_ audience; on the platform were judges, bankers and\nthe \"first citizens\" of the town. At the conclusion of his lecture two\nof the gentlemen on the platform, one of them a judge, asked him for the\nname of the book he had read from. Lyman Abbott himself tells this and\nother similar stories to show how ignorant the American public is of\nthe contents of the book they venerate so piously and gush over so\nspectacularly.\n\nThe very people, however, who are so ignorant of the bible, would be the\nfirst to throw up their hands in horror should the least criticism be\ndirected against its contents. The same complaint, namely, that people\nare neglecting the study of the bible, is made by other clergymen. In\nschools and colleges, even, great ignorance has been discovered among\nthe pupils about the bible. Professor Hamilton reports that, in visiting\ncertain schools in New York, he found among pupils preparing for\ncollege, and nearly of an age for entrance, whole classes that could not\nanswer the easiest questions about the contents of the bible.\n\nIt is my opinion that the complaining clergymen themselves are not so\nwell acquainted with the bible as they should be. Of course, no harm\nis done either to science or ethics by this general ignorance of the\nstories in the bible; personally, I am pleased at the indifference of\nthe public to a collection of writings which has to be labeled \"holy\" to\ncommand respect.\n\nThe above facts are quoted only to prove that, despite its enormous\nsales, the bible is a stranger in the home, the school, the study, the\nshop, and in all the assemblies of the people. But the less some people\nare acquainted with the bible, the more they seem to believe in\nit. Indeed, ignorance of the bible is indispensable to faith in its\ninspiration. Moreover, it is this ignorant veneration which makes it\ndangerous for any one to read and tell the truth about it. Formerly,\nwhen the church had the power, such a man was either hacked to pieces,\nor burned to cinders; to-day, even, he is persecuted as much as public\nopinion will permit. It is a matter of history that in the name of\nthis Jewish-Christian volume, which people do not read and are but\nsuperficially acquainted with, nearly a hundred millions of lives have\nbeen destroyed in Europe alone. Could anything be more appalling? In\nmodern times, the church can no longer do to the unbelievers in the\nbible what it did to them for over seventeen hundred years, but it does\nto them as much as public sentiment will allow.\n\nThe reader will be interested in examining with me the book in the\ndefense of which, I regret to say, nearly every imaginable crime has\nbeen committed. It gives me pain to say this, but who can hide the\ntruth? Moreover, my sole purpose in telling the plain truth is not to\noffend, or give pain, but to encourage everybody to approach the book\nwithout fear. I am not going to praise the bible; but I am not going to\ndenounce it either; I am going to explain it.\n\nIt is my desire not so much to talk about the bible--when, and where,\nand by whom, it was compiled; how it was lost and discovered; burned in\nthe destruction of the temple, and later restored by the scribe Ezra;\nhow it has been edited and revised again and again * --but to lift the\nveil and show the book to the world.\n\n     * These questions are discussed in the author's pamphlet,\n     _How the Bible Was Invented._\n\n\n\n\nWhat Makes a Book Inspired?\n\n|BEFORE proceeding to read the book, may I explain that an _inspired_\nbook must be different from uninspired books. If it has excellences and\ndefects like other books, then it is in no sense different from any of\nthe works of man. An inspired book must be a perfect book, else what\nadvantage is there in being inspired? Again, an inspired book must\ncontain original matter, to justify its inspiration. If the bible\nneeded the help of inspiration to say what other books have said without\ninspiration, then, instead of being a greater, it must needs be a more\nordinary book. Is there anything in the bible which can not be found\nelsewhere? While there is not a single idea in the bible which was not\nknown before, there are many glorious truths of science and philosophy\nin other books which can not be found in the bible. Wherein, then, is\nthe bible inspired?\n\nLet me also explain that an argument, or the presentation of important\nfacts, produces an impression only upon the unprejudiced. The soundest\nreasoning will no more convince a partisan than the most copious shower\nwill give nourishment to the sand. But an argument is never addressed to\na biased mind. The appeal of reason is to the fairminded and the free.\n\nWhen, for instance, it is shown that certain passages are in one bible,\nand not in another; or how passages, regarded as divine at one time,\nhave been dropped or altered in more recent revisions, a telling point\nis made against an infallible book, in the opinion of all honest minds.\nOr, when it is shown that the bible positively teaches falsehood and\nimmorality, the question of inspiration is at once closed for all\nself-respecting and impartial judges. But, as intimated, nothing can\nsatisfy prejudice, or conquer wilful ignorance. Prejudice on the one\nhand, and stupidity on the other, are as impervious to argument as a\nduck's back is to water.\n\nThe present book is not for minds that are closed. When we go to court\nto have a case tried, the value of the evidence we present does not\ndepend upon the appreciation of our adversary's counsel. However\nconvincing our testimony, he will never admit that it proves his client\nguilty. It is the impartial judge, and it is, again, the open-minded\njury, that must pass upon the evidence. In the same way, what we say\nhere about the bible will not convert the priests or the rabbis. We do\nnot write for them. Our book will have no effect upon the pope; it is\nnot meant to change _his_ views. This book is for those who can afford\nthe truth.\n\nIn conclusion, the bible is a very _delicate_ subject to handle. The\nmaterial in hand is so prodigious, and of such a nature, that I am at a\nloss to know what to say and what to omit. There are many things in the\nbible to which I would like to call attention but which\nI am debarred from so doing because good taste will not allow it. Yet\nnot to be able to refer to these matters places me in the position of an\nattorney who has his best witnesses and evidence thrown out by a ruling\nof the court. The church people are permitted to go on and print in\nevery language the texts and stories of the bible which I am not allowed\neven to read in public--much less to comment on them. They can sell the\nbook by the millions, containing absurdities and atrocities which, by\norder of the court (that is to say, of public opinion, or of good\ntaste), I am prohibited from referring to in my argument against the\nauthority of the book. The reader can have no idea what a protection\nthat is to the bible. The defendant, as it were, has gagged the\nprosecution. It needs no effort to realize how much the bible is\nindebted to this fact for its being tolerated at all in the twentieth\ncentury. Courtesy prevents the exposure which would completely change\nthe world's opinion of the book.\n\nBut one can be a little freer in a book than on a public platform. Many\nof the texts quoted in this volume could not have been read from the\nplatform. But there are numerous passages in the bible which would cause\neven cold print to blush. We shall not disturb those.\n\n\n\n\nThe Sects and Their Bibles\n\n|THE Jews deny that the second half of the bible is inspired; the\nChristians admit that the first part of the bible is not as binding as\nthe second part.\n\nThe Jew fails to observe that, in denying inspiration to the New\nTestament, he is also depriving the Old of its inspiration. The\narguments by which he disproves the New Testament are the same which\ndisprove the Old, and all other \"inspired\" documents.\n\nThe Christian, by admitting that the Old Testament is no longer as\nbinding upon the conscience of man as it was at one time, or as the New\nTestament is now, surrenders the whole question of inspiration. If the\nOld Testament has been superseded, the New might be, too. If what God\nsays in one part of the book can be ignored by the Christians, what he\nsays in another part of the book may just as reasonably be ignored by\nthe Jews, and--this is important--what God says in either part of\nthe book may be ignored by the _Rationalist_. In other words, the\nRationalist agrees with the Christian that the Old Testament is\n_pass\u00e9_, and with the Jews, that the New Testament is nothing more than\necclesiastical literature. The Rationalist uses the arguments of the Jew\nagainst the New Testament, and the arguments of the Christian against\nthe Old, with the result that practically both Testaments fall by the\nblows of the sectarians themselves. Both Jew and Christian seem to be\nunable to perceive, or if they do, they are unwilling to admit, that not\nonly has each destroyed the position of the other, but also his own.\n\nAll the objections which the Jew brings against Christianity are equally\nvalid against his own Judaism. Does he object to the Christian trinity?\nThere is a trinity also in his religion. In Genesis we read that\nthe Lord appeared unto Abraham in three persons. He entertained and\nworshiped the three men as one Lord. * Does the Jew object to the dogma\nof incarnation? In the Old Testament, God repeatedly appears in flesh\nand blood. Is it the immaculate conception that the Jew can not accept?\nIn Judaism, too, that miracle was of frequent occurrence. Maidens in\nthe Old Testament, as in the New, see an angel of the Lord and become\npregnant. Is it the doctrine of hell to which the Jew objects? Jesus,\nin all probability, borrowed it from the Talmud. Is it an exclusive\nsalvation that the Jew rejects? But the _extra ecclesia non est solus_\nof the Catholic is but another version of the \"Outside Israel there\nis no salvation\" of the Old Testament. Is it the doctrine of blood\natonement in the New Testament which offends him? The Old Testament is\nas _red_ as the New. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is\none of name, largely. Is it not remarkable how people will subscribe\nto the very doctrines which they reject, if presented to them under a\ndifferent name? Jew and Christian have persecuted one another in the\npast. Why? Only for a name. The pity of it! Judaism is Christianity,\nand Christianity is Judaism. They are called by different names--that is\nall.\n\nTo the Jew we say: \"You will not take upon you the yoke of the New\nTestament; cast down also the yoke of the Old.\" And to the Christian we\nsay: \"You have already emancipated yourself from the authority of the\nOld Testament to a great extent; free yourself also from the authority\nof the New.\"\n\n\n\n\nCatholic and Protestant Bibles\n\n|THE Catholics do not believe in the Protestant bible; the Protestants\ndo not trust the Catholic bible. Each tells the truth about the bible of\nthe other, but not of his own.\n\nAs in the case of the Jew and the Christian, neither the Catholic nor\nthe Protestant seems to realize that in condemning each other's bible as\nuntrustworthy, or as a manipulated copy, they are condemning also each\nhis own bible. If the Catholics have tampered with the Word of God, as\nthe Protestants claim they have; and if the Protestants have a defective\nbible, as the Catholics charge, then the claim that God has preserved\nhis revelation from human error falls to the ground. If God did not\nprotect the Protestant bible from corruption, he is liable to be equally\nunconcerned about the Catholic bible, from which it follows that the\nWord of God can be, and has been, corrupted, which, if true--and both\nCatholics and Protestants say it is--then there is no incorruptible Word\nof God.\n\nThe Rationalist shares with the Catholic the latter's opinion of the\nProtestant bible; and of the Catholic bible, it doubts its reliability\njust as the Protestants do. Putting what the Protestants and Catholics\nsay of each other's bible side by side, the Rationalist arrives at the\nconclusion that both bibles are untrustworthy.\n\nLet us now consider another phase of the Catholic-Protestant position\non the bible. The Protestants are apparently very anxious to make\nthe reading of the bible in the home and the school imperative; the\nCatholics, on the other hand, seek to make it equally imperative _not_\nto read the bible. It is well known that the popes of Rome, as heads of\nthe church and vicars of Christ, have repeatedly forbidden the reading\nof the bible by the people. An index of forbidden books is kept in Rome\nfor the guidance of the faithful, and, surprising as it may seem,\nthe bible was placed upon this _Index Expurgatorius_ by the popes\nthemselves. The bull of Pius IV. reads: \"Whosoever shall dare to own a\ncopy of this book (bible) and read it without having procured a special\ndispensation shall not receive absolution for his sins.\"\n\nSimilar prohibitions were given by Pius VI., Leo II, XII., Gregory XVI.,\nPius IX. in his Syllabus, and Clement XI. in his famous bull,\n_Unigenitus_. In the _Index_ of forbidden books of Pope Innocent XI.,\n1704, one of the books forbidden is \"the bible in any of the popular\nlanguages.\"\n\nThis prohibition was not against the Protestant bibles only, for the\nfourth clause in the _Index_ is a warning against Catholic bibles as\nwell, _\"bibliorum Catholicis autoribus versorum_.\"\n\nMy sympathies in this matter are with the Catholics; if the bible is\nan infallible book, we ought to have an infallible reader. To say that\neverybody may interpret the bible as he pleases is to say that the bible\nhas no meaning at all, except what the readers themselves _read_ into\nit. But if it has an infallible meaning, only an infallible interpreter\ncan pronounce upon it. And when it is remembered that an erroneous\ninterpretation might be the means of damning the souls of many, it\nbecomes a positive duty not to read the book for one's self. The Pope\nmay read it, because being infallible, he can not misread it. I admire\nthe logic of the Catholic church in this respect. Grant the premises\nthat the bible is a special revelation--and infallible--and all the\narguments of the Protestants against the Catholic position shatter to\npieces, like the waves against a rock.\n\nBut, as already intimated, the Protestants believe in putting the\nbible in every house, hotel and school. They want every man to carry\na pocket-bible; and if women had pockets they would be urged to do the\nsame. From all this one would suppose that they were very anxious to\nget everybody acquainted with the contents of the bible. The different\nministerial assemblies, at their annual gatherings, recently attacked\nby official resolutions the decision of the Supreme Court of\nIllinois, which made the reading of the bible in the public schools\nunconstitutional. The Protestant churches do not seem to care at all\nabout the constitution--they want the bible in the schools, constitution\nor no constitution. In the twentieth century the supreme court rules the\nbible out of the people's schools! Had not Greece fallen before the wave\nof Asiatic mysticism, the bible would have been ruled out of Europe two\nthousand years ago. The Supreme Court of Illinois is doing now what\nthe supreme court of Europe should have done in the year one.\nNotwithstanding protests to the contrary, I am of the opinion that the\nProtestants are at heart as opposed to the reading of the bible as the\nCatholics. Indeed, they would have everybody read the bible, but they\nmust not read it with their own eyes, but as Calvin, or Wesley, or\nLuther read it. But that is not different from the Catholic position\nthat the Pope must read the bible for the people. If the Protestants\nreally permit each to read and interpret the bible according to his best\nthought, why are there heresy trials among them? That is a searching\nquestion. Heresy trials prove beyond a doubt that the Protestants do not\nwish anybody to read the bible for himself. See what the church did to\nme for reading the bible with my own eyes. At the age of twenty-five,\nmyself, my wife and baby were dispossessed of church, position and\nsupport. What was done to me for reading the bible with my own eyes has\nbeen done to thousands of others?\n\n\"Let _me_ read the bible for you,\" says the Catholic.\n\n\"Read the bible with _my_ eyes,\" says the Protestant.\n\nWhat is the difference?\n\n\n\n\nCatholics Make Their Own Bible\n\n|ONE of the significant facts about the bible is that no two copies of\nit are exactly alike. There are nearly as many versions of it as\nthere are sects. The most important variations are to be found between\nCatholic and Protestant bibles. As I write I have before me a copy of\nthe Catholic \"Holy Bible,\" on the title-page of which are these words:\n\n````HOLY BIBLE.\n\n```Translated from the Latin Vulgate.\n\n`_This edition of the Holy Catholic Bible, having been duly\n\n```examined, is hereby approved of._\n\nThen follows a long list of the names of bishops and archbishops. It\nis thus intimated that no bible is the \"Word of God\" unless it has the\nendorsement of these Catholic dignitaries. Only after these men have\nexamined the bible and given it their sanction does the book become\n\"divine.\" No layman can tell for himself, unaided by a priest, the \"Word\nof God\" from the word of man. In fact, it is the priest who changes the\nword of man into the \"Word of God\" by the same process that he converts\nordinary bread into a God.\n\nThere is given also in the \"Holy Catholic Bible,\" before me, a list of\nthe books which are pronounced to be \"inspired\" by the Council of Trent.\nTo introduce into the bible any book not contained in this list, or to\nexclude from the bible any one of the books which the Council of Trent\nhas decided to be \"inspired,\" is to be guilty of blasphemy. This is what\nit says:\n\n_Now if any one reading over these books in all their parts, as they\nare usually read in the Catholic Church... does not hold them sacred and\ncanonical... and does industriously contemn them let him be anathema._\n\nTo be _anathema_ means to be accursed. In other words, there is no\nchoice; it is the Catholic bible or a curse. No man has any right\nto choose for himself, or decide according to his own conscience and\nknowledge, which is the \"Word of God,\" or how much in the various\nbibles is actually \"the Word of God.\" He must, then, choose between\nthe priest's bible or--his curse. To try to prove a book \"inspired\" by\nthreatening to _curse_ all those who may tell the truth about it, is a\nsure sign that the makers of the bible themselves do not believe in\nits inspiration. It is impossible to think that if the priests really\nbelieved the bible to be \"divine,\" they would have undertaken to hedge\nit about with anathemas. But they curse to conceal their own unbelief.\nThere is not another book that had to curse its readers to make them\nbelieve in it.\n\nThe most effective argument against the bible is furnished by the church\nitself. For nearly fifteen hundred years it hanged and burned people\nalive to make them believe in the bible. That is a good way to prove\none's unbelief, not one's faith. It shows what little confidence the\nCatholics had in the ability of \"the Word of God\" to defend itself\nagainst a Giordano Bruno, when they burned him at the stake; and how\ndubious the Protestants were of _their_ bible, when they burned Michael\nServetus at the stake. The long list of terrible crimes committed in\ndefense of the bible is a conclusive proof, first, of the unbelief of\nthe Christians themselves in the ability of the bible to win men by the\nbeauty and truth of its teachings; and, second, of the evil influence of\nthe book upon those who accepted its authority.\n\nThe preface to the Catholic bible offers a further proof of the lack\nof confidence of Christians in \"the Word of God.\" It forbids people,\nas already shown, to read the Word of God without first securing the\nconsent of a priest. It is a heinous thing, according to the church\nauthorities, to undertake to read the bible on one's own responsibility.\n\"To prevent and remedy this abuse\" (namely, that of reading the bible,\nand interpreting it for one's self), says this same preface, \"it was\njudged necessary to forbid the reading of the scriptures in the vulgar\ntongues.\" Of course, ''there is no prohibition against reading it\nin Latin, or Hebrew, or Greek, or in any language that one does not\nunderstand, but it is forbidden to read it in the _vulgar_, that is\nto say, in any language that the reader is familiar with, \"without the\nadvice and permission of the pastors and spiritual guides whom God has\nappointed to govern his church.\" To prove this authority of the priest\nto forbid the reading of the bible, the following text is quoted: \"He\nthat will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the\npublican.\" *\n\n     *  Matthew xviii, 17, Catholic Bible.\n\nThe church _must_ be obeyed. The commandment says nothing about\nobeying the church only when she is in the right, or only when she is\nreasonable, or even only when she is scriptural--she must be obeyed\nbecause she is the church. And this, too, is quite consistent with the\nclaims of an infallible revelation. If everybody is to be given the\nliberty to decide when the church is right, reasonable, or scriptural,\nand when she is not, then it is not the church, but the individual, who\nis infallible. If the bible is \"inspired,\" there is no escape from the\nconclusions of the Catholic church. Did not Jesus say to the Apostles,\nand, therefore, to the priests: \"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall\nbe bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be\nloosed in heaven\"? * Does not this make everybody the slave of the\nchurch?\n\n     * Matthew xviii, 18, Catholic Bible.\n\nThe Catholic bible contains nearly a dozen more \"inspired\" books than\nthe Protestant bible, and many of the texts in the books which are\ncommon to both are differently translated. By comparing the list of\nbooks in the Catholic bible with the books in the Protestant bible, we\nfind that the Protestants are \"accursed\" by the decision of the Council\nof Trent, inasmuch as they deny the inspiration of, and exclude from\ntheir bible, about twelve of the books in the Catholic bible. Now, what\nis a layman to do when infallible churches disagree? We are commanded\nby the bible to hear the church, but which church? If we could decide\nourselves which is the true church, we would then be greater than the\nchurch, as it would need our approval before it could exercise any\nauthority over us. But if we can not decide which is the true church,\nwhat are we going to do? This is an important question, because unless\nwe belong to the true church we can not have the true bible.\n\nThe Catholics \"curse\" the Protestant bible. This is the literal truth.\nThe Protestants, on the other hand, call the Catholic bible \"a popish\nimposture.\" While they are wrangling about it, what becomes of the Word\nof God?\n\nBut the most interesting part in the preface to the Catholic bible is\nthe warning which the church gives to the reader of the bible, not to be\nshocked, or scandalized, by the immoral and impossible stories contained\ntherein. The reader is cautioned against applying to the bible the\nstandard of morality by which other books are judged. To scare the\nreader into praising in the bible what he would unreservedly and\nsweepingly condemn in other books, the following biblical text is\nquoted:\n\n_My thoughts are not as your thoughts, neither are my ways as your ways,\nsaith the Lord; for as the heavens are exalted above the earth even\nso are my ways exalted above your ways and my thoughts above your\nthoughts._ *\n\nWell, of course, that being the case, the reader shall start with his\nmind made up that he must not understand anything he reads. The better\nand much safer thing to do is not to read the bible at all. And that is\nhonestly what both Catholics and Protestants would like to say, if\nthey could. The Catholic bible in its preface comes as near giving that\nadvice as it dares, as the following will show:\n\n_How then shall any one, by his private reason, pretend to judge, to\nknow, to demonstrate, the incomprehensible and unsearchable ways of\nGod?_\n\nWhat is the use of reading an \"incomprehensible\" and \"unsearchable\"\nbook? The Word of God could not have been meant for man. Let it pass.\n\n     * Isaiah lv, 8-9, Catholic Bible; same in Protestant bible.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\n\n\n\nI. The Tercentenary of the English Bible\n\n|JUST at present there is a revival of interest in the bible. The three\nhundredth anniversary of the King James' version of the Holy Bible was\nrecently celebrated in the great cities of Christendom. All the pulpits\nhave been heard from in praise of the book. It will be noticed, however,\nthat almost every one of the preachers confined himself to glittering\ngeneralities about the bible. Judging by the reports of their sermons,\nthere was not a single speaker who attempted a careful and instructive\nstudy of the book--its origin, its growth, or the character of its\ncontents. Although the book was eloquently praised as the best ever\nwritten, no effort was made to point out wherein, or in what respect,\nthe bible deserved the honor and the worship demanded in its behalf. The\npreachers spoke of the bible with the same confidence, or conceit, that\nthe Moslem displays when he is praising his bible. One of the well-known\nspeakers, W. J. Bryan, challenged the world, at the bible-meeting in\nChicago, to produce a better book than the Jewish-Christian scriptures.\n\nThe celebration of the three hundredth anniversary of the publication\nof the authorized version presented also an opportunity to many of the\ndefenders of the bible to praise the translators of the bible under\nKing James of England. An idea of the moral and intellectual standing\nof these divines may be had by reading the preface which is attached to\nevery bible printed in Great Britain. In this, they dedicate the work to\nthe king, whom they exalt as a paragon of virtue. James I.\nwas, by universal consent, one of the meanest and most worthless\npedants that ever wore a crown. Yet, even as the divines who formulated\nthe Nicene creed addressed to Constantine, who had murdered the members\nof his own household in cold blood, the words, \"You have established the\nfaith, exterminated the heretics. That the king of heaven may preserve\nthe king of earth is the prayer of the church and clergy,\" the English\nauthors of the authorized version looked upon James, the meanest of the\nStuarts, as the vicar of God on earth, and presented him the following\naddress:\n\n_To the Most High and Mighty Prince James, by the grace of God, King\nof Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, the\ntranslators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy and Peace, through Jesus\nChrist our Lord.\n\nGreat and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which\nAlmighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us, the people\nof England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and\nreign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished\nnot well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental\nStar, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable\nclouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land that men should\nhave been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should\nhardly be known who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance\nof Your Majesty, as of the Sun of strength, instantly dispelled those\nsupposed and surmised mists and gave unto all that were well affected\nexceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government\nestablished in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted\nTitle, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and\nabroad._\n\nAnd much more, in this same strain, concluding with these words:\n\n_The Lord of heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy\ndays, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many\nsingular and extraordinary graces, so You may be the wonder of the world\nin this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honour of\nthat great God and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ, our\nLord and only Saviour._\n\nWhat made these \"divines\" so proud of James? He was their king. What\nmakes the \"divines\" of to-day praise the bible so effusively? It is\ntheir bible. We regret to say that the \"divines\" of to-day no more speak\nthe truth about the bible than the \"divines\" of three hundred years ago\nspoke the truth about King James.\n\n\n\n\nSome Lay Defenders of the Bible--Bryan's Challenge\n\n|ONE of the speakers at the tercentenary celebration was William\nJennings Bryan. Though not a \"divine\" as yet, he may become one,\naccording to reports, in the near future. Bryan was invited to deliver\nthe principal address at a mass meeting of the Christian churches of\nChicago (the Catholic church not included), in Orchestra Hall. In this\naddress, the oft-time presidential candidate openly challenged the\ncritics of his bible and of its divine origin \"to produce a book equal\nin wisdom and teachings to the volume which has stood the test of\ncenturies.\"\n\nAfter I made sure that Mr. Bryan had really made the challenge, as will\nappear by the quotations from his paper, _The Commoner_, which will be\ngiven later, a telegram was addressed to him, signed by myself, in which\nI accepted his challenge and invited him to state the terms on which\nhe would join me in the discussion of this timely and most important\nsubject, at the Auditorium, which seats six thousand people. Receiving\nno reply, a telegram was forwarded to the proprietor of the Lincoln\n_Star_--Lincoln being the home town of Mr. Bryan--requesting the\npublisher to please interview Mr. Bryan about this matter. To the\ncourtesy of this gentleman I am indebted for the following message from\nLincoln:\n\n_Charles Bryan has forwarded letter to W. J. Bryan, who returns here\nJune 3. Will hand Mr. Bryan your telegram when he reaches Lincoln._\n\nThe \"Charles Bryan\" in the dispatch is, I am told, the secretary, as\nwell as the brother, of William Jennings Bryan. He says he has forwarded\nletter, ostensibly about my telegram, to W. J. Bryan. Why did he not\nsend him the telegram, itself? If his letter merely informed Bryan that\nthere was a telegram for him from Chicago, without either enclosing the\nsame in his letter, or telling him of its contents, Mr. Bryan had good\nreason to discharge such a secretary. But if he enclosed the telegram,\nor, which is more likely, informed Mr. Bryan of its import, why does\nhe say that he will hand the telegram to Bryan \"when the latter reaches\nLincoln\"? Why keep a telegram a whole month before giving it to the\nperson to whom it is addressed? But if his letter had already advised\nBryan of my acceptance of his challenge, and my offer to let him dictate\nhis own terms, why pretend that the telegram will remain sealed until\nMr. Bryan returns to Lincoln on the third of June?\n\nEvidently, all that the two Bryans wanted was to postpone the day of\nreckoning. The third day of June arrived, but no answer came from Bryan.\nAnother appeal was made to the Lincoln _Star_:\n\n_If no trouble, would you mind finding if Bryan is at home; and what he\nexpects to do about Mangasarian's acceptance of his challenge._\n\nAnd as promptly as in the former instance, the answer came:\n\n_Bryan says he will take no action re challenge._\n\nBut it was Mr. Bryan who made the challenge in the first place. His\nchallenge was not only made in public, but it is now in print, as the\nfollowing from the report of his Orchestra Hall address, as it appeared\nin Bryan's own paper, fully shows:\n\n_The Christian world has confidence in the bible; it presents the book\nas the Word of God, but the attacks made upon it by its enemies continue\nin spite of the growth of the bible's influence. The Christian world\nby its attitude presents a challenge to the opposition, and this is an\nopportune moment to emphasize the challenge._\n\nHow does the distinguished Nebraskan get over these words? If \"_The\nChristian world... presents a challenge to the opposition, and this is\nan opportune moment to emphasize the challenge_,\" why did not Mr. Bryan\npromptly and gladly accept an offer which placed one of the greatest\nhalls in the country at his disposal, without any expense whatever to\nhimself or to the Christian world? To say the least, it is significant\nthat a successful orator and popular lecturer like Mr. Bryan, with his\nimplicit confidence in the bible as the best book in all the world,\nwould even hesitate, much less decline, to accept so great an\nopportunity as was placed at his disposal. Moreover, if he were\nnot going to make \"the action suit the word,\" why did he speak of a\nchallenge at all? Was this only an oratorical display on his part? Was\nit mere bravado? If he were talking on the same subject again, would he\nrepeat his challenge to the \"opposition\"? If our little episode with\nhim will prevent him from ever using the word \"challenge\" again in his\nreligious speeches, we shall consider our services well rewarded.\n\nBut the real reason for Bryan's collapse as a bible champion will\nbe seen in perusing the following comments on his address at the\ntercentenary celebration.\n\n\n\n\nBryan's Defense of the Bible\n\n|AS reported in _The Commoner_ * Bryan began his address by saying that\nthe critics of the bible _... have disputed the facts which it sets\nforth and ridiculed the prophesies which it recites; they have rejected\nthe account which it gives of the creation and scoffed at the miracles\nwhich it records. They have denied the existence of the God of the Bible\nand have sought to reduce the Savior to the stature of a man. They have\nbeen as bold as the prophets of Baal in defying the Living God and in\nheaping contempt upon the Written Word. Why not challenge the atheists\nand the materialists to put their doctrines to the test? When Elijah was\nconfronted by a group of scorners who mocked at the Lord whom he\nworshiped, he invited them to match the power of their God against the\npower of his, and he was willing to concede superiority to the one who\nwould answer with fire. When the challenge was accepted he built an\naltar, prepared a sacrifice, and then, to leave no room for doubt, he\npoured water upon the wood and the sacrifice--poured until the water\nfilled the trenches round about. So firm was his trust that he even\ntaunted his adversaries with their failure while his proofs were yet to\nbe presented. The prophets of Baal, be it said to their credit, had\nenough confidence in their God to agree to the test, and their\ndisappointment was real when he failed them--they gashed themselves with\nknives when their entreaties were unanswered.\n\nWhy not a bible test?_\n\n     * May 12, 1911.\n\nMr. Bryan does not tell the rest of the story, although as much of it as\nhe gives is bad enough.\n\nElijah had no desire to convert his rivals to the true faith; he wanted\nto kill every one of them, which he did:\n\n_And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of\nthem escape.... And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and\nslew them there._ *\n\n     *  There were 450 of them.\n\nThis is the same Elijah who prayed for a drought, and for the space\nof three years not a drop of rain fell upon the land. If there is an\neducated man who can admire such a prayer, or the Being who answered it,\nor who can believe that for three years, men, women, children, plants\nand animals went thirsty--he is really beyond hope.\n\nMr. Bryan did not accept our invitation, because, I believe, he felt\nthat he would not have the courage to repeat this story of Elijah\nbefore any other kind of an audience than one composed strictly of such\nChristian or Jewish believers who dare not think straight.\n\nWhat, for instance, would Bryan have answered if he were asked why\nElijah did not leave to the deity the killing of the four hundred and\nfifty priests of an alien faith? If God could send down fire from\nheaven to burn up the bullock, he could just as easily send down fire\nto destroy the whole priesthood of Baal--as he sent down fire to destroy\nSodom and Gomorrah. But Elijah executed his critics himself; he did not\nbelieve, evidently, that his God could get rid of them\nwithout his help. In this he was more infidel than the priests he\nkilled. Murder was Elijah's intent from the first. In the history of\nreligious persecution was there ever a priest who believed enough in God\nto leave to him the burning, or the quartering of heretics alive? How\nmuch nobler was the example of the Roman emperor who refused to give\nhis sanction to religious persecution on the ground that the gods could\navenge their own wrongs.*\n\n     * Deorum injurias deis curae.\n\nAnd does Bryan really believe that, once upon a time, the only way the\nDeity could hold his own was by giving pyrotechnic exhibitions, which\nended in wholesale bloodshed? Is that the kind of a test Bryan desires?\nThe fact that there are even more unbelievers to-day than in Elijah's\ntime is a proof that the \"fire and blood\" test is a failure. It is\nReason that questions the bible, Mr. Bryan! And if the bible can not\nconquer Reason, all the murders, the burnings and the hells of theology,\nhere or hereafter, are worse than a waste. Can'st thou conquer Reason?\n\nBut again, Bryan declines a meeting with Rationalists, because he is not\nsure that the God who answered Elijah by fire will do the same for him.\nIf he were, he would not have hesitated for a moment. He would have had\nan altar built on the platform and invoked the fire which would have\ncome down as soon as Bryan gave the word--injuring no one except the\nunbelievers. But his faith was not strong enough for that. He is a good\nenough Christian to believe that, once upon a time, that very thing\nhappened, but not a good enough Christian to believe that it will happen\na second time. The church has only _old_ miracles to boast of.\n\nIf I were in Mr. Bryan's place, I admit, I would have declined an\ninvitation to defend the bible before an audience of inquirers, just\nas he has done. The mistake he made was his _challenge_ \"to the\nopposition,\" as he expresses it, and not his refusal to appear as\ncounsel for the bible before a critical audience. He did the only\nconsistent thing under the circumstances when he told the representative\nof the press that he will not consider our invitation. Had he been\nequally thoughtful in his Orchestra Hall address he would not have even\nadmitted that there are some people who do not believe in the inspired\nbible--much less have challenged them.\n\nA good Christian must never undertake to defend his bible against\ncriticism; the moment he attempts this he takes the whole question out\nof God's hands. Who are _you_ that you should undertake to defend the\nWord of God? And what makes you think that God's Word needs a defense?\nNo better proof could be asked for to show that both Bryan and his\nhearers had lost the faith of Elijah, and were struggling in the slough\nof doubt, than his elaborate attempt to defend the bible and his mock\nchallenge to its critics. The difference between Bryan _defending_ an\ninfallible book, and the critics of the same book, is not one of kind,\nbut one of degree. Bryan would not have undertaken to defend the bible\ndid he not think a defense was necessary, and to think that God's book\nneeds to be defended is a criticism against the book. The Nebraska\nchampion of the bible, then, has already entered the first stages of the\ndoubt which, in all logical minds, culminates in a denial of its divine\norigin. No book which has to be defended can be divine.\n\nThe man who defends a _divine_ book and the man who attacks it are both\ndoubters.\n\nMr. Bryan might reply that, had he been a doubter, he would never have\nchallenged \"the opposition,\" as he did in his tercentenary address. As\nalready stated, it is true that he made the challenge, and repeated\nit many times during the course of his speech. It is equally true that\nthere is an air of confidence in Mr. Bryan's challenge, which must have\ngreatly impressed his audience. \"Let them produce,\" he demanded, \"a\nbetter bible than ours, if they can.\"\n\n_Let them collect the best of their school to be found among the\ngraduates of universities--as many as they please and from every land.\nLet the members of this selected group travel where they will, consult\nsuch libraries as they please, and employ every modern means of\nswift communication. Let them glean in the fields of geology, botany,\nastronomy, biology and zoology, and then roam at will wherever science\nhas opened a way; let them take advantage of all the progress in art and\nin literature, in oratory and in history--let them use to the full every\ninstrumentality that is employed in modern civilization; and when they\nhave exhausted every source, let them embody the results of their best\nintelligence in a book and offer it to the world as a substitute for\nthis bible of ours. Have they the confidence that the prophets of Baal\nhad in their God? Will they try? If not, what excuse will they give? Has\nman fallen from his high estate, so that we can not rightfully expect as\nmuch of him now as nineteen centuries ago? Or does the bible come to us\nfrom a source that is higher than man--which?_\n\nAny one listening to this flourish of trumpets would be led to think\nthat Mr. Bryan has already met and routed the enemy, and is now\ncelebrating his victory, instead of having yet to hear from the other\nside. Encouraged by the silence of his audience, the speaker grows\nbolder:\n\n_But our case is even stronger. The opponents of the bible can not take\nrefuge in the plea that man is retrograding. They loudly proclaim that\nman has grown and that he is growing still. They boast of a world-wide\nadvance and their claim is founded upon fact._\n\nAnd Mr. Bryan expresses surprise that, with all this progress, the world\nis unable \"to produce a better book to-day than man, unaided, could have\nproduced in any previous age.\"\n\nReferring once more to \"the opposition,\" he says:\n\n_The fact that they have tried, time and time again, only to fail\neach time more hopelessly, explains why they will not--why they can\nnot--accept the challenge thrown down by the Christian world to produce\na book worthy to take the bible's place._\n\nGrowing bolder and bolder, in the absence of \"the enemy,\" and feeling\nconfident that should \"the enemy\" be heard from, he could take refuge\nin a dignified silence, Mr. Bryan continues, like Don Quixote, to fight\ninvisible foes:\n\n_They (the agnostics) have prayed to their God to answer with\nfire--prayed to inanimate matter, with an earnestness that is pathetic;\nthey have employed in the worship of blind force a faith greater than\nreligion requires, but their Almighty is asleep._\n\nHad Mr. Bryan's \"Almighty\" been awake there would have been no need of\ndefenders of the bible. If the agnostics without divine aid, or with\nonly a \"sleepy\" God to help them, as Bryan avers, have done no more than\nto compel the believers to put up a defense for their Word of God, they\nhave demonstrated what man, unaided by ghostly powers, can do. And it\nis mere chatter to speak of agnostics as praying \"to their God to answer\nwith fire,\" etc. Agnostics will pray for fire only when they lose faith\nin Reason.\n\nAnd is it to be inferred from the above sentence of Bryan, that his God\nanswers by fire? We say again, if this champion of an obsolete theology,\na theology which is being deserted by the Christian scholars themselves,\nis in earnest, if he really believes all he says, if he dares to put his\nfaith to such a test as Elijah imposed upon his, or if he is prepared to\nprove to an intelligent audience that the science, the history, and the\nethics of the bible can stand all the strain that Reason and Conscience\nmay put upon them--why did he run under cover as soon as he heard the\nfirst sound of the Rationalist's approach? Mr. Bryan speaks with an air\nof confidence, as the extracts from his speech show, but no battles are\nwon by--_air_.\n\nIn his lecture on \"The Prince of Peace,\" Mr. Bryan takes the position\nthat to doubt or to question the doctrines of the churches is something\nto be ashamed of. To show the difference in mentality between William\nJennings Bryan and the great Thomas Jefferson, one has only to compare\nthe daring and independence of the latter with the theological timidity\nof the former.\n\nFrom Bryan's \"Prince of Peace\":\n\n_My purpose in delivering this lecture I will frankly avow. After my\nfirst political defeat, I deliberately refrained from talking\nreligion in public, so as to avoid the charge of using religion as a\nstepping-stone to further my personal ambitions. After my second defeat\nthe possibility of another nomination appeared so remote that I could\nnot let it weigh against the duty that I felt impelling me to address\nthe young men whom I saw refusing to attach themselves to a church. My\nhope is that I may shame some young men out of their conceit that it is\nsmart to be skeptical._\n\nFrom Jefferson's works, Vol. II, 2171:\n\n_Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact,\nevery opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God;\nbecause, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than\nof blindfolded fear.... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any\nfear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God,\nyou will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you\nfeel in the exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for\nyou._\n\nThe Presbyterian Bryan is ashamed of Reason; the Rationalist Jefferson\nis prouder of his Reason than an emperor of his crown.\n\nHad Mr. Bryan been reading Cicero instead of Elijah; had his culture\nbeen European instead of Asiatic, he would never have quoted the murder\nof four hundred and fifty men by one of the bible prophets as a proof\nof the truth of his religion. \"There are two ways of ending a dispute,\"\nwrote Cicero,--\"discussion and force. The latter manner is simply that\nof brute beasts, the former is proper to beings gifted with reason.\"\n\nWe leave it to Mr. Bryan to read between the lines.\n\n\n\n\nII. Roosevelt on the Bible\n\n|WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN was not the only politician, or publicist, who\ncontributed to the tercentenary celebration of the bible. Writing in the\n_Outlook_, Theodore Roosevelt, to his own satisfaction, at least, meets\nthe opponents of the inspiration of the bible, and briefly disposes\nof them. \"Occasional critics,\" he writes, \"taking sections of the Old\nTestament, are able to point out that the teachings therein are not in\naccordance with our own convictions and views of morality.\" Is it only\n\"occasional\" critics who express disapproval of the Jewish-Christian\nscriptures? And suppose it true that only \"occasional\" critics call\nattention to the harm which the bible does by its immoral and impossible\nteachings: Does that fact relieve the defenders of the bible from the\nobligation to answer their criticisms? The important question is not,\nwho makes the criticism; but, is the criticism just?\n\n\"The Old Testament,\" continues Mr. Roosevelt, \"did not carry Israel\nas far as the New Testament has carried us; but it advanced Israel\nfar beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached.\" This is\npractically a plea of guilty. Why was not the Old Testament as good\nas the New is supposed to be? Was it not equally divine? If the Old\nTestament was meant to prepare the Jews to accept the New Testament,\nthey have not accepted it yet. But is it true that \"the Old Testament\ncarried Israel far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then\nreached\"?\n\nIt is now nearly two thousand years since the New Testament began\nto \"carry us,\" and where have we reached? In how many things have we\nadvanced beyond the Greeks and the Romans, for instance? Only yesterday\nthe black man carried chains in our land, and throughout Christendom\nwhite slavery of a more degrading type than ever known before is still\nwith us. Political corruption of a character which Mr. Roosevelt himself\nhas pronounced the most deep-seated and chronic is eating away the\nvital parts of the American nation, while the hunger, the misery and the\nsqualor in the slums of our great cities, side by side with the waste\nof wealth and the worship of show, prove daily the complete failure of\nChristianity as a regenerating force. Whatever of hope there is to-day\nin the human heart for a better future on earth, and whatever signs\nthere may be of a realization of justice and happiness for all men,\nhere and now, we are indebted for them, not to the New Testament, but\nto modern thought, which is heresy from the point of view of the New, as\nwell as the Old, Testament.\n\nIt is the passing of the bible that has opened the way for real and\nradical reforms. It is the failure of the inspired teachers to fulfill\ntheir promises that has at last induced man to step to the front and\nassume full control of the world's destinies. Man no longer prays to\nthe gods; he works. When the bible was supreme in Europe, was the world\nbetter? Would Mr. Roosevelt return to the Middle Ages? Will he go back\nto the times of Knox, Wesley, Calvin and the New England clergy, or to\nthe times when, by the authority of the bible which then ruled without\na rival, in court and church, in the home and the school, men and\nwomen were bought and sold like animals, or burned alive as witches, or\ntortured to death in a thousand dungeons for daring to think? When the\nbible was supreme in Europe there was neither science nor commerce. When\nthe bible was supreme, tyrant and dissolute kings ruled by the \"grace\nof God,\" and priests persecuted the thinker in every capital of the\nChristian world. It is the emancipation of thought, and not the New\nTestament, that has conquered for us every blessing we enjoy. Not until\nthe Renaissance, that is to say, not until Europe deserted its Semitic\nor Asiatic teachers for those of Hellas and Rome, did modern nations\nbegin to wax strong in mind and body. The New Testament really carried\nus to the times of the Old Testament. It was the Renaissance of Greek\nthought and art that changed the \"thorns and thistles\" of theology into\nthe golden fruit of science.\n\nBut what about the claim that \"the Old Testament advanced Israel far\nbeyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached.\" I wish Mr.\nRoosevelt would read these lines as carefully as I have read his, which,\nif he does, I feel confident he will admit that he made the above\nstatement without taking the pains to look up the evidence. What answer\nwould the ex-president of the United States make if he were asked to\nprove his claim that the Old Testament carried the Jews to a higher\nstate of civilization than the nations who were their contemporaries?\n\nWere the Jews intellectually more advanced than any other nation of\nantiquity? Solomon was the contemporary of some of the immortal Greeks,\nbut while Greece was nursing the arts and crafts, the Jews, in order\nto build a temple to God--a temple very much smaller than many of our\nmodern cathedrals and churches and far less formidable--had to send\nabroad for masons and carpenters. \"The laborers employed in the temple\nwere all the strangers in the land,\" says one of the texts. Under Saul,\ntheir first king, while their enemies were well equipped with weapons of\nwarfare, the Jews had \"neither sword nor spear in the hand of any of the\npeople except Saul and Jonathan.\" We are informed also that \"in all the\nland of Israel not a smith was to be found,\" and that the Jews had to\ncross over to the land of the gentiles \"to sharpen every man his share\nand his ax.\" Surely we can not conclude from conditions as barbarous as\nthese that the Lord bestowed any great intellectual gifts upon the Jews\nas tokens of his peculiar love for them.\n\nIt is admitted by the bible writers themselves that the neighboring\nnations were much more powerful than \"the chosen people,\" and that only\nby the daily miraculous intervention of God could they cope with them at\nall, and that even then they were not always successful. The following\ntext is quite significant:\n\n_And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the\nmountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because\nthey had chariots of iron_ *\n\n     *  Judges i, 19.\n\nWe respectfully call Mr. Roosevelt's attention to this positive\ntestimony to the superiority in equipment of the Gentiles to the Jews in\nbible times. Even the God of Israel was helpless against the _science_\nof the Gentile nations. He could throw down stones from heaven, or stop\nthe sun and moon, or slay the firstborn of Egypt, but against science,\nagainst human inventions, he could do nothing. Is it a sign of\nsuperiority to depend upon miracles for one's daily existence? Is it not\nrather a proof of the intellectual sterility of the people?\n\nI am aware, of course, of the argument that Israel's superiority lay in\nits clearer moral visions. But why should a people morally superior to\ntheir neighbors be so mediocre in everything else? Is moral excellence\nprejudicial to national development? But it is not true that the Old\nTestament helped to make Israel morally superior to the heathen \"round\nabout them.\" It is to be regretted that the opposite of this is the\ntruth. A few examples from the bible will be sufficient to support the\nthesis that the bible did even less for the moral development of Israel\nthan it did for its intellectual and industrial expansion.\n\nAbraham, one of the most \"righteous\" characters of the bible, twice\ntrafficked in his wife's or sister's, honor, by selling her, the first\ntime, to the King of Egypt for sheep and oxen, asses and camels, and\nmale and female slaves; he repeated the imposture by selling her a\nsecond time to Abimelech, King of Gerar, for more \"sheep and oxen, and\nmen servants and women servants.\" His son Isaac followed his father's\nexample, and sold to the same Abimelech his wife, Rebekah. Compare now\nthe behavior of the \"heathen\" Abimelech, with that of the bible saints.\nAfter Rebekah had been introduced to the king as an unmarried woman by\nher husband, Isaac, she was taken into his palace:\n\n_And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that\nAbimelech, king of the Philistines, looked out at a window, and saw,\nand, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife.\n\nAnd Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy\nwife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him,\nBecause I said, Lest I die for her.\n\nAnd Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the\npeople might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldst have\nbrought guiltiness upon us.\n\nAnd Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man\nor his wife shall surely be put to death_. *\n\n     * Genesis xxvi, 8-II.\n\nWhich of these two characters was the more civilized? Though in daily\ncommunion with God and protected by miracles at every step, Isaac\npreferred to lie about his wife than to trust in God, and, like his\nfather, Abraham, he enriched himself by her shame; while the \"heathen\"\nAbimelech, on the other hand, grieved at the thought of the wrong which\nthe lying Isaac might have tempted his subjects to commit. And while not\neven David, another bible saint, ever thought of separating himself\nfrom the woman he had stolen by causing her husband to be shot, these\n\"heathen\" princes returned to Abraham and Isaac their wives.\n\nEven Jehovah is compelled to pay a tribute to the \"heathen\" king:\n\n_And God said unto him (Abimelech) in a dream, Yea, I know that thou\ndidst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from\nsinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.\n\nNow therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he\nshall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not,\nknow thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine._ *\n\n     * Genesis xx, 6-8.\n\nThis is a terribly incriminating admission for the deity to make. After\npaying a tribute to the \"integrity\" of Abimelech, and acknowledging his\ninnocence, Jehovah threatens to kill him if he will not fall upon his\nknees before the mendacious Abraham, \"for he is a prophet,\" and beg\nhim to pray for his salvation. But there is not a word of censure for\nAbraham for lying about his wife or for keeping the price of her shame.\nAbraham was orthodox, and that covers up a multitude of sins--even\nto this day. Is it any wonder that educated Jews are deserting the\nsynagogue?\n\nIn the thirty-fourth chapter of Genesis we find another example of the\nsuperiority in morals of the neighboring nations to the children of\nIsrael. One of the daughters of Israel \"went out to see the daughters of\nthe land.\" It is difficult to understand just why this young woman \"went\nout\" among the \"heathen.\" At any rate, she was fair, and it was not long\nbefore she found a princely suitor. Just as Sarah and Rebekah were\ntaken into the homes of the Gentiles, so was Leah, Jacob's daughter. The\nprince desired to retain her as his wife, and with this end in view he\nasked his royal father to get him \"this damsel to wife.\" Then\n\nHamor, the king, called upon Jacob to ask for the hand of his daughter\nin marriage to his son, Shechem. \"The soul of my son Shechem,\" he said\nto Jacob, \"longeth for thy daughter: I pray you to give her him to\nwife,\" and he enforced his plea for closer relations between Jews and\nGentiles by the following sensible argument:\n\n_And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and\ntake our daughters unto you. And ye shall dwell with us: and the land\nshall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions\ntherein_. *\n\nThe prince, too, following his father, pleaded with Jacob, to let him\nmarry his daughter:\n\n_And Shechem said unto her father, and unto her brethren, Let me find\ngrace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.\n\nAsk me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye\nshall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife._ **\n\n     * Genesis xxxiv, 9,10.\n\n     ** Genesis xxxiv, 11,12.\n\nWe will let the \"holy\" bible tell Mr. Roosevelt the rest of the story:\n\n_And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father\ndeceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:\n\nAnd they said unto them, We can not do this thing, to give our sister to\none that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:\n\nBut in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every\nmale of you be circumcised;\n\nThen will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your\ndaughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one\npeople.\n\nBut if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take\nour daughter, and we will be gone.\n\nAnd their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor's son.\n\nAnd the young man deferred not to do the thing because he had delight in\nJacob's daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his\nfather._ *\n\n\"And he was more honorable.\" Is there an Old Testament character of whom\nit is written anywhere in the bible that he was \"honorable\"? But let\nus see how \"honorable\" the sons of Jacob were in this affair. After the\nHivites had accepted the conditions, and were all circumcised, this is\nwhat happened:\n\n_And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of\nthe sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his\nsword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.\n\nAnd they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and\ntook Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.\n\nThe sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because\nthey had defiled their sister.\n\nThey took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which\nwas in the city, and that which was in the field.\n\nAnd all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took\nthey captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house_. **\n\n     * Genesis xxxiv, 13-19.\n\n     ** Genesis xxxiv, 25-29.\n\nWere the \"inspired\" sons of Jacob superior to their uninspired heathen\nneighbors? To marry a human being of another creed was to defile\none's self. How can there be any brotherhood in the world with such a\ndoctrine? That the bible God approved of these barbarities will be seen\nin the following story:\n\n_And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his\nbrethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of\nall the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before\nthe door of the tabernacle of the congregation.\n\nAnd when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw\nit, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his\nhand.\n\nAnd he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of\nthem through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the\nplague was stayed from the children of Israel.\n\nAnd those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.\n\nAnd the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,\n\nPhinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned\nmy wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for\nmy sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my\njealousy.\n\nWherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:\n\nAnd he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an\neverlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an\natonement for the children of Israel._ *\n\n     * Numbers xxv, 6-13.\n\nDo men like Bryan and Roosevelt, who are representative men in America,\nknow that there are scores of such stories in the Word of God? How do\nthey excuse Jehovah for rewarding Phinehas for so shameful a crime? Why\nkill a man who has loved and married a Gentile? But to this day, the\northodox Jew sits on the floor and mourns for his son or daughter who\nhas married a Gentile, as one mourns for the dead.\n\nIn what sense, then, is it true that \"the Old Testament carried Israel\nfar beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached?\"\n\nOf course, as already explained, I do not believe the shameful things\nthe bible relates about the Jewish people, but had Colonel Roosevelt\nread the bible carefully before writing about it; or had he taken the\npains to acquaint himself with the results of higher criticism, as\npresented by Christian scholars themselves, he would never have rushed\ninto his statement about the Old Testament carrying the Jews beyond any\nnation of antiquity. In his Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names,\nDr. T. Inman, speaking on this same subject, says this:\n\n_Even the devil is not so black as he is painted; and however dark may\nbe the crimes of the ancient Jews, the historian is bound to ascertain\nwhether there are not some bright spots in the vast pall of evil deeds\nthat spreads over their history. Yet to me the task is hopeless; I can\nnot find one single redeeming trait in the national character of the\nancient Hebrews. It is difficult to find a people in the olden times,\nwhereof we have a history, who were not superior to the necks shall be\nyour footstools._\n\nThe same scholar sums up the commandments, exhortations, ordinances and\nrevelations of the authors of the Old Testament, and finds their burden\nto be this:\n\n_Keep yourselves to yourselves, and to the God whom we preach; shun your\nneighbors, hate them, and, when you can, plunder and kill them. Agree\namong yourselves and treat your priests well, and then you shall be\ngreat and glorious, princes, kings and potentates in every land, and\nyour enemies' necks shall be your footstools._ *\n\nIt is very much safer for a public man to denounce the trusts than to\nread and tell the truth about the bible. Mr. Roosevelt has only made\nan assertion about the value of the Old Testament to the Jews. But\nan assertion is not an argument. We respectfully call Mr. Roosevelt's\nattention to the opinion which Jehovah, himself, held of his own people,\nwhich will settle the question of whether or not the bible helped to\nmake the Jews better than their neighbors:\n\n_And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and\nstand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it:\nbut I found none_. ***\n\n     * Vol. II, page 334.\n\n     **  Inman, Vol. II, page 335.\n\n     *** Ezekiel xxii, 30.\n\n\n\n\nIII. \"Let Them Produce It\"\n\n|PRODUCE a book like the bible,\" is the oft-repeated challenge addressed\nto the critics of the book. It is impossible to produce a book like the\nbible, without copying it. Another bible, exactly like the one we now\nhave, could only be had by making the second a duplicate of the first.\nThere is no other way of reproducing a book. We can no more reproduce\nthe bible than we can the \"Arabian Nights,\" or Shakespeare. In fact,\nno two things in nature are exactly alike. Men differ from one another,\neven as do books. Another Socrates, or another Napoleon, or another\nLincoln, would be an impossibility. It is equally out of the question to\nhave another Nero, Constantine, or Pope Alexander VI.\n\nTo ask us to produce a book like the bible is as unreasonable as to ask\nus to produce another Koran, or another Mahomet. If the new Koran be\nlike the old, no addition, or improvement has been made to religious\nliterature by its production; if the new Koran be different from the\nold, then it is not a reproduction. \"Let them produce it!\" sounds\npompous enough, but it is all noise and rattle.\n\nIn a private letter to an inquirer, to whom I am indebted for the\nquotation I am about to make, Mr. W. J. Bryan, referring to the author\nof this book, asks, \"If Mr. Mangasarian has books better than the bible,\nthere is nothing to prevent his presenting them to the public, and\ndriving the bible out of use.\" But that is precisely what is being done.\nThe bible has been, a step at a time, driven completely out of use in\nthe halls of learning. It is no longer an authority, for example, on\nquestions of science--geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology and all the\nother branches of one of the principal pursuits of man. Better books on\nthese subjects have replaced the \"Word of God.\" What is true of science\nis true of history, politics, government, education, commerce; in all\nthese departments and activities of life better books have relegated the\nbible into the background.\n\nDid the framers of the American Constitution, for instance, which\nGladstone calls \"the proudest product of the pen and brain\" of man,\nconsult the bible for their work? Did they borrow the doctrine of the\nseparation of Church and State from the bible? The Church in the bible\ndominates the State; but the Americans compelled the Church to take\nits hands off the State. Did they learn that lesson from the bible? The\nConstitution, again, declares that all power is derived from the consent\nof the governed. Is that biblical? Does not the \"Word of God\" plainly\nteach that \"the powers that be are appointed of God,\" and that not to\nobey the powers thus appointed, whether they be good or evil, is to\nreceive \"damnation to their souls\"? Evidently, then, the makers of\nAmerica had better books than the bible to be guided by.\n\nWhere again, is it permitted in the bible to tolerate all religions and\nto favor none? If there is any one idea more prominent than any other in\nthe bible, it is that the religion which it announces is alone true, and\nthat all the others are pernicious, and to be suppressed by fire and\nthe sword. And religious tolerance is one of the glories of the American\nConstitution.\n\nIt is its tyranny that is attacked, it is the forbidding and misleading\nlabels which the priesthood has placed upon it, which we wish to remove.\nIt is the bible as a fetish, or as the best book, or as a weapon of\npersecution, that we wish to overthrow.\n\nBut if the bible is not divine, we are asked again, how explain the\nfact that despite all the attacks of all the ages, it is still loved and\ncherished by so many? We might as well ask, \"If the bible is divine, how\nis it that in spite of all the things done to bolster it up, there are\nstill so many who do not believe in it?\" If long life and popularity\nprove the bible true, they ought to prove the Chinese and the Hindu\nbibles true, too. Is a man right because he is old, or is he wrong\nbecause he is young? Is truth to be decided by counting beans, as\nSocrates would ask? If it is majorities or age that counts, then\nChristianity must have been false when it was new, and counted only a\nhandful of followers.\n\nAnd then, there is the question, \"What will you give us in place of the\nbible?\" We can not take anything away from you which you can keep. And\nif you can not keep the bible, you have to let it go, whether or not you\ncan find another to take its place. But are there not better stories in\nthe world than those of the serpent in Eden; the fall of man; the\ndeluge and the drowning of the human race; the ten plagues of Egypt; the\ntalking ass; the whale that swallowed a man, and of the innumerable wars\nand massacres? Is it true that the foolish rites and ceremonies, and the\nunintelligible trinities, incarnations and resurrections in the bible\ncan not be matched? Are we really worrying that, if we give up these\ntales and mysteries, we will not be able to find anything to replace\nthem?\n\nIf we desire fairy stories, there is the mythology of the Greeks; if we\nwant miracles, there is science with its real wonders; if we want tales\nof human adventure and heroism, there is history, ancient and modern; if\nwe want biography, better than the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,\nis the story of the glorious discoverers and inventors whose\ngenius transmuted human ignorance into knowledge and barbarism into\ncivilization. And for the sufferings of the gods, read the story of the\nmartyrdom of man!\n\n\n\n\nWhat Is the Best Thing That Can Be Said in Favor of the Bible?\n\n|LET us put in the mouth of the defenders of the bible the strongest,\nthe most convincing and the most plausible arguments imaginable. Nothing\nis gained by denying to our adversary a fair chance. Who cares to\nmeasure swords with a shadow?\n\nI. \"The bible ought to be judged by its fruits,\" is one of the most\ncommended arguments in its favor. It is claimed that civilization, with\nall its blessings, is the gift of the bible. If this were true, it could\nnot prove the bible inspired. The inventors of steam, the mariner's\ncompass, and the printing-press have contributed much to human progress,\nbut would that prove that they were inspired? The writings of Socrates\nand Aristotle greatly aided the development of Europe, as the wars of\nAlexander the Great helped to educate all Asia. But does that make Greek\nliterature, or Alexander's wars, inspired?\n\nBut it is not true that civilization is the exclusive gift of the bible.\nThere was a civilization, in many respects fairer than ours, in Rome and\nin Greece, without the bible; while in Christian Abyssinia there is no\ncivilization to-day to speak of. If the bible is the only civilizer, the\nJews should have been in advance of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the\nGreeks and the Romans. If the bible is the sole civilizing force,\nhow explain the Dark Ages, when there was no other book that was even\nallowed to be named which did not agree with the bible?\n\nII. The next \"best\" argument in favor of the bible is that it gives\nthe world the only information on God, the soul, the origin of man, his\ndestiny, life beyond death, and the mysteries of Revelation. But what is\nthe information worth? Is its account of the creation of man and of\nthe universe out of nothing, and the creation of woman out of a rib,\nbelievable? Is the portrait of God, as given in the bible, acceptable?\nAnd as to the beyond, does the bible throw any more light on the\nquestion than the older or newer theo-sophic books?\n\nIII. A third \"best\" argument is that the bible presents the highest\nmorality and the noblest ideals ever known by man. What are they? Did\nthe bible discover morality? Was selfishness, or theft, or murder, or\nmeanness, a virtue before the bible forbade them? Was there no love of\none's neighbor, love of one's country, or nobody to practice charity, or\njustice, in the world before Moses or Jesus? But it is not true that\nthe bible teaches the highest morality; on the contrary, as this book\nundertakes to show, morality is the least of all the anxieties of the\nbible. According to its teaching, _belief_ comes first; and all the\nmorality in the world, we are told, can not save the man who will not\n_believe._\n\nIV. Another plea made in behalf of the bible is that it has comforted\nthousands and reformed some of the worst characters. \"I have the witness\nof the spirit in me,\" argues the convert, \"that the bible is the 'Word\nof God.'\" And he proceeds to relate how he was downcast, or fallen\nin sin, and the bible made a new man of him. We rejoice whenever the\ndisconsolate find cheer or the fallen arise. Nor is our happiness\ndiminished in the least when we are told that it was the bible which\nworked the change. Whoever dries a tear upon the eyelid of sorrow, and\nwhatever the force which lifts the fallen to their feet, deserves the\ngratitude of man. But if that proves the bible divine, why are there so\nmany who are not comforted, or so many of the fallen who do not rise\nat all? An infallible book should save more people than the bible is\nclaimed to do. The greater part of Christendom, not to speak of the rest\nof the world, is still to be saved. If the bible only saves some, so\ndoes education and other purely human agencies; and if education does\nnot save everybody, neither does the bible. Wherein, then, is the\nsuperiority of the \"divine\" to the human?\n\nMoreover, if a man is comforted by reading Shakespeare, or Goethe, or\nEmerson, or George Eliot, would that prove these authors inspired? Or,\nif a sick man is made better by exercise, or medical attention, and a\nbad man becomes good by a change of environment, would it follow that\nthese agencies were divine? If the bible is not the only power that can\nhelp, then it is but one of many agencies, and why should one of the\nmany agencies which make for improvement be labeled \"divine\"?\n\nNor does the plea that, because \"I feel it in my heart that the bible\nis divine,\" make it so. If \"I feel it in my heart\" were enough to prove\nanything true, other bibles would be as true as ours. The Turk and the\nChinaman \"feel it\" in their hearts about their gods as we do about ours.\nThe argument from _feeling_ practically dispenses with knowledge, and\nleads to intellectual nihilism.\n\nV. In defense of the bible it is further urged that, it being \"a\nheavenly treasure in an earthen vessel,\" allowance should be made for\nthe unavoidable imperfections which have crept into its pages. God\nwas the author, man was the amanuensis, they say, and, therefore, the\ndefects of the bible should be charged to the account of man. But why\nshould a heavenly treasure be enclosed in an earthen vessel? Are there\nno heavenly vessels? Was not Jesus as divine as his father? Why could\nnot he have committed the revelation to writing? Why leave it to\nunknown and unreliable reporters to transcribe a divine message? If\nthe reporters were not unreliable, then what is the complaint? But if\nreliable reporters could not be found, the deity could just as easily,\nand very much more safely, have written the whole of his message with\nhis own hand. Besides, a heavenly treasure which an earthen vessel can\nspoil is not very heavenly. If the incorruptible can be corrupted, then\nit is not any different from any other corruptible thing. Alas! for the\ninfallible book which has to be protected against printers' or revisers'\nmistakes. Let us have a better bible--one that no earthen vessel can\ncontaminate.\n\nVI. Finally, \"Why not dwell upon the truths in the bible and let\nalone the errors?\" is another of the \"strong arguments\" of the bible\ndefenders. \"There are truths enough in the bible, and to spare,\" say\nthey. \"Why, then, waste time on its imperfections?\" But it all depends\nupon how serious the imperfections are. It is not the number of errors,\nbut their importance that counts. One serious blemish in a book would\nbe enough to condemn the whole book. The strength of a chain is in its\nweakest link. It is no comfort to think that there are many more sound\nlinks in the chain than weak ones. When the defects in the bible are\npointed out, it is no answer to say that many, or even most, of its\nparts are all right. But this leads us to the next important question.\n\n\n\n\nIV. How to Test a Book\n\n|THE character of a book is determined not by its best, but by its worst\nparts. This sounds paradoxical, but let us see if it is not true. The\nbulk of a book may be composed of harmless and even of wholesome matter,\nbut if there is in it even half a page of questionable teaching, the\nbook becomes unsafe. One may write magnificently of liberty and the\nrights of man, for instance, but if anywhere in the book, even though\nonly for once, assassination be recommended as a political weapon, that\none idea would give to the whole work a dangerous tendency. Indeed, the\ngood parts of such a book, if anything, add to the mischief it might do,\nbecause they help to give it an air of respectability. In the same way,\na comedy, or a drama, may be perfectly proper in nearly all its parts,\nbut if it offends good taste, or attacks morality in a single line, the\nplay is bad. One indelicate scene in a production will bring upon its\nauthor the just condemnation of the public. Likewise, a novel may be\ncrowded with helpful philosophical reflections, but the least vulgarity\nin it would make the book a menace.\n\nWe are not taking the position that such books or plays should never\nbe read or acted, but that they should never be given an _unqualified_\nendorsement. The bible is given an unqualified endorsement. To deserve\nit, it ought not only to be good in the main, but good altogether. We\nshall see if the bible is good even in the main; but before we take up\nthat phase of the subject let me give you a few more illustrations\nto show that it is not true of the bible only that its worst parts\ndetermine its character, but also of the men in it who are held up for\nour emulation. If any one of our physical organs is in an unhealthy or\nperilous condition, the health of the whole body is in question. The\nsoundness of all our other parts can not excuse the alarming symptoms of\nthe affected organ. The insurance companies will reject our application\nif, though perfectly well in all our other organs, we are seriously\naffected in any one of them.\n\nBy the same rule is measured a man's intellectual parts. It is not the\nthousand sensible things a man says, but the one absurd or impossible\nstatement he advances which gives us the gauge of his intellect. To the\nobjection that the rule which we have been applying would do a great\ninjustice if applied to such a man as Alfred Russel Wallace, for\ninstance, who though an eminent scientist, and the rival of Charles\nDarwin, was also a firm believer in spiritualism, the answer is that the\nexample cited proves the inadvisability of endorsing any book or man,\nunqualifiedly. Only an infallible book, or an infallible man, could\ncommand such endorsement. The bible, therefore, must be perfect in\neverything, else its unqualified endorsement by the clergy is a real\ndanger.\n\nBut not only the physical and the intellectual, but also the moral\ncharacter of a man is ascertained by this rule. One act of treachery or\nmurder is enough to put a man behind the bars. Before such a man may be\nrestored to society he must reform, and, likewise, before a book may\nbe given full endorsement, the objectionable and the absurd must be\neliminated therefrom. In the same way, before any man could be held\nup as a perfect example, he must be above the charge of even a single\nserious defect. If you would have your play staged, cut out the\noffending lines; if you would have your bible read in the home and the\nschool, and the characters therein depicted, admired and followed, cut\nout the scandalous stories and the immoral teachings it contains. You\nwill not do this? Then both science and morality have the right to\ncondemn your book, and forbid its use in the public schools, by the help\nof the courts. We hope that in the near future the civilized world\nwill avail itself of this right, by taking steps to render the bible as\nharmless in church and Sunday-school as it now is in the public schools.\nThis can be done by breaking down the _unqualified endorsement_ which\nthe sectarian interests of the country have given the book. Unveil the\nbible! and its glamour will vanish.\n\nThe most telling proofs in favor of the Rationalist position on the\nbible are the admissions which, from time to time, the defenders of the\nbible themselves make. The editors of the _Oberlin College Magazine_,\nwhich is a religious publication, in an article on \"Bible Hero\nClassics,\" suggest that parts of the bible should be excluded from the\nmails:\n\n_Modern scholarship has so changed the point of view with which the\nbible is regarded, that one no longer has the confidence, in sending the\n\"seeker after God\" to the bible to believe that he will certainly find\nHim there. The Old Testament is a complete literature with units of\nvarying value. Much of it is incomprehensible to the ordinary reader.\nParts of it should be excluded from the mails._\n\nProf. Dr. Charles Henderson, the chaplain of the University of Chicago,\nexpresses his utter contempt for certain parts of the bible: \"John\nthe Baptist's God was no better than our devil. The things which\nmade Solomon and David saints in their own day would land them in the\npenitentiary in ours.\" *\n\n     * Reported in the Tribune, Chicago.\n\nThe bible quotes God as saying that David was a man after His own heart,\nbut this divine tells us David was a criminal. Could a more damaging\nadmission be made by a clergyman? And yet the book that can mistake a\nscoundrel for a saint is to be placed in the hands of our children at a\nvery tender age, and foisted upon the whole nation as \"the sublimest of\nbooks,\" to quote the words of another divine. * A book concerning which\nits own friends can hold such diametrically opposite opinions can not\nbe, at least, a very honest book. Honest people speak or write to be\nunderstood. If what one reader of the bible calls God, another calls the\ndevil; or if to one reader David is a great saint, while to another he\nis only a scamp, deserving a long term in jail, then, surely, either we\ncan not understand the bible, in which case the book is worthless;\nor the bible was not meant to be understood, which leads to the same\nconclusion.\n\n     * Editor Sunday School Times.\n\nThe Rev. J. Biresley, writing in the _Christian World_, pays,\nunconsciously, a great tribute to the Rationalist: \"More than thirty\nyears ago I listened to a lecture by Charles Bradlaugh on 'Is the Bible\nTrue'? His assertions shocked the orthodox among his hearers, and yet\nthere was scarcely one of them which the biblical students of to-day\nwould not accept.\" What a compliment this is to the courage of the\nRationalist. He dared to shock the orthodox at a time when they had the\npower to persecute him unto death. And what an admission this is, of the\nintellectual and moral superiority of the heretic to the believer! It\ntakes \"thirty years\" of dilly-dallying before Christian scholars will\nadmit that the persecuted heretic was in the right. Is it any wonder\nthat the world is losing respect for priest and preacher and honoring\nthe heretics as the pioneers of the golden day of truth?\n\nTo the churches we say: \"If you would save the bible, separate the good\nfrom the bad, and the false from the true. Do not print them all in one\nvolume as the 'Holy Bible.' If you have not the courage to call any part\nof the bible bad, or any of its statements false--we shall do it for\nyou.\"\n\n\n\n\nSpeak According to Knowledge\n\n|THERE are also good things in the bible. It would be regrettable,\nindeed, to believe it possible for a book of the size of the bible to be\nwholly bad. Literature is life; and it would be as impossible to find\na people with a literature wholly bad, as it would be to find a people\nwith an infallible literature. Together with the _Vedas_ of India, the\n_Avesta_ of the Pharisees, the _Five Kings_ of the Chinese, the Buddhist\n_Tri Pitikes_, and the Moslem _Koran_, the Jewish-Christian scriptures\ncontain many splendid passages.\n\nIn all ancient literature we run across bits of fine poetry and\neloquence. It would really be impossible to collect all the literature\nof a people, of whatever race or period in history, into one volume,\nwithout finding in the collection many a precious gem. The cry of a man\nin distress is always touching, be he Jew or Hindu. The love of man for\nhome and fatherland, for wife and child, for truth and freedom, in any\nbook, is sublime. Friendship is the one rose without a thorn, wherever\nit blooms. A melody does not have to be inspired, to be sung in all\nlands. We weep for the sufferings of a savage of ten thousand years ago,\nand we laugh with the men of wit and humor of every race and clime. We\nhave no prejudice against the bible. All we demand is the liberty\nto read it as we do any other literature: To enjoy what is noble and\ninspiring in it, and to reject what is false and degrading. It is the\nobject of our efforts to make it perfectly proper, as well as safe,\nfor any one to read and tell the truth about the bible. No man shall be\ncompelled to agree with it upon penalty of losing his standing in the\ncommunity now, or his \"soul\" in the hereafter.\n\nIn comparing one book with another, we must bear in mind that it is not\nthe ideas in which they agree, but those in which they disagree, that\njustifies their existence. All the seven bibles of the world * forbid\ncrime and recommend the virtues. Are they, then, all equally worthy?\nIf the important thing is sameness of teaching, why is not one bible\nenough? But there are many bibles, because it is the differences that\npreserve, as well as distinguish, one book from another. We would never\nbe able to tell wherein the bible of Confucius was superior to the\nMoslem Koran, or the Koran to the Avesta of Zoroaster, or again, the\nbook of science to the creeds, if we confined our investigations to the\nthings held in common by them all. It is by the things in which they\n_disagree_ that their real character is revealed.\n\n     * The seven bibles of the world are the Koran of the\n     Mohammedans, the Tri Pitikes of Buddhists, the Five Kings of\n     the Chinese, the three Vedas of the Hindus, the Zend Avesta\n     of the Persians, the Eddas of Scandinavia, and Old and New\n     Testaments of the Christians.\n\n\"Thou shalt love thy neighbor\" is in all the bibles, but \"Speak\naccording to knowledge\" is not in any of the bibles--it is found only in\nthe bible of science, and that is the difference between religion, which\nbuilds on _faith_, and science, which builds on _knowledge_.\n\nIn this one difference is the glory of science, a glory which is not\nshared by any of the sectarian bibles of the world.\n\n\"Speak according to knowledge\" and \"Speak according to knowledge.\"\nThat is to say, \"Let your tongue keep pace with your mind,\" are the two\ncommandments for which one looks in vain in the Jewish-Christian bible.\nNeither Moses nor Jesus ever thought of commanding, or at least of\npermitting, people to confine their statements and beliefs to the\nfacts--of never dogmatizing about the unknown, which vice has converted\nthe world into a babel of discord, hatred and persecution. Never did\neither of these teachers think of inculcating so sweet, so sane,\nso wholesome, so modest, so reverent, so peaceful, a command as is\nexpressed in the caution which science has posted up at every turn of\nthe road: Speak according to knowledge.\n\nNor does the bible allow people to speak their true thoughts. Could any\nbook be guilty of a greater offense against the highest ethics? All the\nTen Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount can not make up for this\nfailure of the bible to encourage, yea; and to command, in unmistakably\nplain and persuasive language, liberty of thought and speech as the only\nguarantee of honesty in religion, and as the only enemy which falsehood\nfears. On the other hand, how can any book be called good, much less the\nbest, in all the world, which contains such a passage as the following:\n\n_He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth\nnot shall be damned._ *\n\n     * Mark xvi, 16.\n\nCan freedom and the bible live under the same roof? Would it be safe\nto speak according to knowledge, when \"damnation\" is the penalty for so\ndoing? Was it to encourage honesty, liberty of conscience and tolerance\nthat so Asiatic and despotic a command as the above has been translated\ninto all the languages of the earth? Would not the bible have been a\nmore helpful book if it had said: \"Do not believe upon insufficient\nevidence, for to do so is to prefer error to truth\"? But there is not\na single bible that contains so daring a commandment. If a man may not\n\"Speak according to knowledge,\" he can not act according to conscience,\nand a religion which denies to us these two rights instead of saving us,\ndestroys us body and soul.\n\nThe only difference, in respect to freedom of worship, between the New\nTestament and the Old is that, while the New Testament postpones the\npunishment of the free thinker until the day of judgment, the Old\nTestament proceeds to \"damn\" him here and now:\n\n_If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or\nthe wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice\nthee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods... Thou shalt not\nconsent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity\nhim, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou\nshalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to\ndeath, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone\nhim with stones that he die_. *\n\n     * Deuteronomy xiii, 6-10.\n\nIt brings tears into my eyes to think of Europe and America upon their\nknees, with blanched cheeks and trembling lips, before such a text. Why\nretain so unjust and tyrannical a commandment in a book which the people\nare asked to love and obey? And why translate such evil words into all\nthe tongues of man? What has happened to the European races--to the\ndescendants of the glorious Greeks and the proud Romans--that they can\nfawn over a book that commands a mother to kill her child for not\nbelieving as she does? Surely a blight of some kind must have fallen\nupon both the heart and intellect of the Western world--else how explain\nthe gilt-edged bibles, containing these inhuman texts by the score,\nwhich young and old carry in their pockets, and almost worship?\n\nBut the full import of this text is in the words we have printed in\nitalics: \"_Neither shall thine eye pity him_.\" It seems as though the\nbeing who gave the commandment feared that the natural affections might\nlead fathers or mothers to hesitate dipping their hands in the blood\nof their own sons and daughters; hence, the imperative, \"Neither shall\nthine eye pity him.\" Yes, the heart must turn into a stone, even as\nthe head must be stunned, before anyone can be a good Jew or a good\nChristian.\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\n\n\n\nI. The First Chapter of the Bible\n\n|MUCH depends upon what impression the first chapter produces upon our\nminds. If we find the statements therein contained accurate, precise,\nreasonable, original, of course, that fact will dispose us very\nfavorably toward the remainder of the book; but if, on the other hand,\nthe first chapter should appear to us as fantastical, fictitious,\nlegendary, contradictory, grotesque--made up of gossip borrowed from\nhere and there--naturally, we will be prejudiced against the chapters\nwhich follow. If the first chapter is not true, the credit of the book\nwill certainly suffer. We may read the rest of the book as literature,\nor from curiosity, but as the word of God--no!\n\nCurious, is it not, that there is not a Christian scholar, or a\nuniversity man, who does not admit that the opening chapter of the bible\nis legendary, that is to say, not true. Sir Oliver Lodge, who is one of\nthe champions of the church, in his reply to Professor Haeckel, refers\nto the first chapter as \"the old Genesis legend.\" Canon Farrar, who\nwas a shining light in the Anglican church, calls this same chapter\nan allegory, that is to say, a fable. And the scholarly authors of\nthe Encyclopedia Biblica do not hesitate to deal with the story of\nthe creation in Genesis as mere gossip, borrowed from Assyrian and\nBabylonian sources.\n\nThere is hardly a single educated Christian who accepts the first\nchapter of the bible as anything more than tradition or fiction.\n\nThe dean of the University of Chicago, who is a Baptist clergyman,\nrecently said this in public print: \"It is irreligious to teach that the\nworld was made in six days, when we know that it was not.\" But the first\nchapter of the bible teaches that untruth, and for two thousand years\nthe churches, according to this Christian professor, have taught what\nis not true. In the Ten Commandments, supposed to have been given by God\nhimself, and which are still read in all the churches, we are ordered to\nkeep the seventh day holy, \"for in six days the Lord made the heaven and\nthe earth, etc.\" Yet, this Christian professor says this is not true.\nWhat is still more puzzling is that this same professor who condemns\nthe first chapter as erroneous, accepts the second, or the third, or\nthe tenth, as the word of God! Even more astonishing than this is the\nconduct of the religious teachers who from Monday to Saturday believe\nin the scientific doctrine of evolution, but on Sunday repeat with the\n_Westminster Catechism_ that \"In six days the Lord made the heaven and\nthe earth.\" What shall we think of a religion that can make people so\ncallous as that?\n\nOf course, a book or a man may make a number of statements of which some\nare true and some are not, but the man or the book that makes statements\nof which some are true and some false ceases to be different from any\nother book or man. The position of the orthodox preachers, that the\nbible is infallible from cover to cover, is very much more consistent\nthan the position of the Christian professor we have quoted, who says\nthat the first chapter of the bible is not the word of God, but the\nsecond or the fifth is. No. If the first chapter of your \"holy\" book is\nnot divine, the whole book is human.\n\nBut to state, as these Christian scholars do, that what the bible says\nin its first chapter is not true, is to make a very serious admission.\nIf Genesis is a legend, Jesus might be a legend, too, for both Genesis\nand Jesus are in the same \"holy\" book. If the bible is unreliable when\nit says the world was created, it may be equally unreliable when it says\nChrist was incarnated. If it is not true that the universe was made in\nsix days, it may not be true either that Christ rose from the grave. Our\nevidence for either statement is the bible. If the story of the fall of\nman is a myth, the story of the \"Lamb of God taking away the sins of\nthe world,\" may also be a myth. You can not part with Genesis and\nkeep Jesus. The moment a single stone is removed from the structure of\nsuper-naturalism, the safety of the whole building is threatened. The\ntragedy of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is inseparably related to\nthe tragedy of a dying god on Calvary. Christ is supposed to have shed\nhis blood because Adam's sin had brought a curse upon the whole human\nrace; and if Adam is a myth, what becomes of Christ?\n\n\n\n\nThe First Verse of the Bible\n\n|BUT let us read the first verse of the first chapter:\n\nIn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\n\nIndeed! The text could not be more childish if it read: \"In the\nbeginning God created the heaven and the moon.\" Is not the moon, or\nthe earth, a very small part of \"the heaven\" and included therein? Why\nseparate the earth, or the moon, from the rest of the universe? How\nwould it sound to say: \"In the beginning God created the earth and the\nSandwich Islands?\" or \"the earth and a grain of sand\"? But our next\ncomment will show that if the writer of this first verse of the\nfirst chapter of the bible was pitiably ignorant of his subject, the\ntranslator of it was even worse than ignorant--he was, I am sorry to\nsay, also a falsifier.\n\n\"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\"\n\nI hold my breath! The very first verse shows deliberate manipulation and\ntampering with the text. The Hebrew word which has been rendered into\nEnglish as \"God,\" is \"Elohim,\" which means gods, not God. The singular\nof Elohim is Eloah--the dreaded one. But the Hebrew text reads Elohim,\nnot Eloah, that is to say, the plural and not the singular form is used.\nHad the translators of the bible been free from sectarian prejudices,\nthe first verse in the bible would have read: \"In beginning (not in\nthe beginning) the gods created the heaven and the earth.\" But the\npriesthood, which had the bible in its custody, desired to prove by it\nthe dogma of monotheism. Yet, the first verse of the first chapter\nof the bible proved polytheism--more than one god. Whereupon, the\ntranslators quietly dropped the letter \"s\" from the word gods, and made\nit to read God, thereby suppressing the fact that the supposed inspired\nwriter of the opening chapter of the book was a Pagan, with more gods\nthan the translators themselves believed in. It does not require much\neffort to see what the consequences would have been had the first verse\nof the bible been truthfully rendered into the modern tongues. \"In\nbeginning the gods created the heaven and the earth\" might have\nrelegated the bible to the limbo of other mythological compositions.\n\"The gods\" would have made the exclusiveness of Christianity or Judaism\nimpossible. The history of European religions would have been different\nhad not that one letter \"s\" in the first verse of the first chapter of\nthe bible, and the very first time the deity is mentioned, been killed\nby the translators. Of course, finding manipulation in the very first\nverse, we will begin to suspect that other texts, too, have been\n\"doctored.\"\n\nThe very name of the book--Holy Bible--shows manipulation. By what, or\nby whose authority is the book called \"holy\"? It is nowhere stated\nin any of the manuscripts translated that the writings are \"holy.\"\nThe words Holy Bible, then, represent nothing more than the opinion\nor guess, or, at best, the judgment, of the English translators of the\nbook.\n\nBut there is a more serious example of manipulation on the title-page of\nthe Bible. Instead of admitting that the translation has been made from\nHebrew and Greek copies, not originals, for there are no originals (and,\ntherefore, there is no way of telling how true the copies are, since\nthey can not be compared with the originals), the words\n_Translated out of the original Greek_ is inserted on the title-page\nof the New Testament. This, I am compelled to say, is an indefensible\nmisstatement. The truth is that the originals, if they ever existed, are\nlost. The bible as we have it is not quite two hundred and fifty years\nold, and the most ancient manuscript in existence of the Old Testament\nis not a thousand years old. This is the _Codex Petropolitanus_, which\nis in the library of St. Petersburg. But where are the originals?\nWhy were they lost? Why were they \"inspired\" if they were not to be\npreserved? But how can men who do not hesitate to state in print that\nthey possess the \"original Greek\" of the New Testament when they do not\nand never have possessed it, pose as the moral teachers of the world? If\nthe translators of the bible wished to confine themselves to the truth,\ninstead of saying \"Translated out of the original Greek, which is not\nso, they would have said this on the title-page of their work:=\n\n````A Collection of Writings\n\n```Of Unknown Date and Authorship,\n\n````Rendered Into English\n\n``From Supposed Copies of Supposed Originals\n\n````Unfortunately Lost.=\n\nRev. T. K. Cheyne, who is one of the contributors to the most scholarly\nwork recently produced by churchmen, * gives a number of instances of\ndeliberate manipulation of bible texts by the translators. \"The Old\nTestament,\" he writes, \"is not altogether in its original form; it has\nundergone not merely corruption, but editorial manipulation. This is\nplainer in some books than in others; but nowhere, perhaps, is it more\nmanifest than in the Psalter.\" Two of his examples of mistranslation are\nfrom the twenty-ninth psalm:\n\n     * The Encyclopedia Biblica.\n\n\n  Authorized Version.           Literal Translation.\n\n     1. Give thanks unto             the Ascribe unto Yahwe, O ye\n  Lord, O ye mighty, give unto       sons of Jerahmeel,\n  the Lord glory and strength.       Ascribe unto Yahwe glory\n\n\n\n     2. Give unto the Lord the      and strength.\n  glory due unto his name;          Ascribe glory, O ye Ish-\n  worship the Lord in the           maelites, unto Yahwe,\n  beauty of holiness.               Worship Yahwe, Rehoboth\n                                    and Cush.\n\n\n  Compare also the first verse of the one hundred\n  and thirty-ninth psalm with its literal translation as\n  given by Doctor Cheyne :\n\n\n\n    Authorized Version.            Literal Translation.\n\n     1. O Lord thou hast          O Yahwe ! thou hast rooted\n  searched me, and known me.      up Zarephath,\n\n     2. Thou knowest my           It is thou that hast cut\n  down-sitting and mine upris-    down Maacath;\n  ing, thou understandest my      Ashhur and Arabia thou\n  thoughts afar off.              hast scattered.\n                                  All Jerahmeel thou hast\n                                  subdued.\n\nBut one of the worst cases of tampering with \"inspired\" texts is to be\nfound in the New Testament. For nearly two thousand years the seventh\nverse of the fifth chapter of the first epistle of St. John has been\nsaying this: \"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the\nFather, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.\"\n\nYou may look high and low for that text in the Revised Version, but you\nwill not be able to find it there. That text has slipped out of, or has\nbeen spirited away from, the bible, _revised_. After twenty centuries\nof time, the forgery blushes to look criticism in the face. The smuggled\ntext for the trinity is still in the King James' bible, but the best\nscholarship of the church, at least, is ashamed of it, and has dropped\nit. What confidence can be placed upon men who wait for twenty hundred\nyears before they will admit that what the Rationalist has been saying\nright along about the bible being a medley (to which from time to time\nthe sects made such additions as suited their interests or from which\nthey dropped whatever was prejudicial to their claims) is really true.\n\nBut let us return to the first verse of the bible: It is evident that\nthe writer of that verse believed in more than one god. This is shown by\nother references to the subject in the same chapter. He makes Elohim, or\nthe gods, say, \"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.\" Still\nanother text reads: \"Behold the man has become as one of us,\" which is\nalso in keeping with the \"gods\" who created the heaven and the earth.\n\nIn reply to this criticism, it has been argued that the \"we\" or the\n\"us\" and the \"our\" in this part of the bible prove the doctrine of the\ntrinity. The Catholic bible, in a footnote, plainly says so. Evidently,\nJohn Milton was of the same opinion, for in Paradise Lost he says:=\n\n```... Therefore the omnipotent\n\n```Eternal father--thus to his Son audibly spake:\n\n```Let us make now man in our image... *=\n\n     * Paradise Lost, book VII.\n\nBut why should the words \"us\" and \"our\" prove that there are only three\npersons in the Godhead? Why may not \"we\" mean four, or forty? Why only\nthree? It is really childish to see in \"gods,\" or in \"we,\" a proof of\nonly three gods, and no more.\n\nBesides, the members of the trinity are all supposed to belong to the\nmale sex; but the \"gods\" in Genesis say that they created man in their\nimage, \"male and female,\" the implication being that there were female\nas well as male gods in the \"we\" of the first chapter of the bible. This\nargument failing, the defenders of the bible make a second attempt to\nexplain away the letter \"s\" in gods: The writer of the first chapter\nof the bible, they argue, wrote the plural form out of respect to the\ndeity. He used the \"royal style\" of speaking to express his veneration.\nBut if \"gods\" in the plural is the respectful title of the deity, why\ndid the translators use the disrespectful singular in English? Why did\nthey drop the plural for the singular in the translation? Or is it only\nin Hebrew that the \"royal style\" must be observed? And is it conceivable\nthat a God who elsewhere in the bible says \"I\"--\"I am a jealous God,\"\nand \"I only am God,\" and \"there is none other beside me\"--would here,\nand in the very first chapter, and on a most important subject, say\n\"_we_ gods\" created \"the heaven and the earth\"?\n\nThere is no better way to prove the weakness of a cause than by trying\nto uphold it by equivocal arguments. Men would never be arguing that\n\"we\" means the trinity, or that it is the \"royal style,\" etc., if\nthey had more cogent arguments to advance. It is only when we are hard\npressed that we resort to sophistry.\n\nBut let us read the second verse:\n\n_The earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of\nthe deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters._\n\nHonestly, it is impossible to get any intelligible meaning out of such\na sentence. The earth was without _form?_ Was not the form of our globe\nthe same in the beginning as it is now? Can there be anything without a\nform of some kind? The revisers of the authorized version of the bible,\nwishing to remedy this ignorant statement, have dropped the word form,\nand substituted in its place the word waste: \"The earth was waste and\nvoid.\" But \"waste\" and \"void\" mean practically the same thing. The\nrevisers have simply refused to translate the word which means \"without\nform.\" Of course, the revised version is not read in all the churches;\nand in the authorized version, \"the earth is without form.\" This\nmeaningless text has been made to support the idea that at one time\nthere was only chaos, out of which the creator evolved cosmos. Science,\nhowever, has shown that nature was never in a state of chaos. The laws\nof matter are the same to-day, and will be the same to-morrow--and they\nhave never been different. The law of gravitation, for instance, was as\npotent and inevitable when the earth was younger as it is now. There was\njust as much order, or to put it differently, nature was as orderly a\nbillion years ago as she is to-day. Everything happened according to\nthe inherent properties of matter and force then, as now, and as it\nwill happen to-morrow and forever. Chaos, then, is a figment of the\ntheological mind. To provide God with something to do, a chaos was\ninvented, which had to be tamed into a cosmos to keep the deity\noccupied.\n\nBut the text proceeds to inform us that \"darkness was upon the face of\nthe deep.\" This can not mean that the land itself was in the light;\nit must mean that the entire earth, land and sea, were wrapped up in\ndarkness. All we have, then, in the beginning, is _darkness_, and God's\nspirit moving about in the darkness. What a beginning! If God is light,\nas we are told elsewhere in the bible, how could there be darkness where\nhe lived and moved about? God in the dark! or, God and the darkness! The\nunknown! It is this Darkness which men have called God! And is it not\nsignificant that because of this early association with darkness,\nthe gods have always preferred it to the light. In First Kings, sixth\nchapter, fourth verse, we read that Solomon in building his temple \"made\nwindows of narrow lights.\" The house was meant to be the dwelling place\nof God, and care was taken to shut out the light, except what slipped in\nthrough narrow windows. Modern church buildings show the same prejudice\nagainst the light. God feels at home in the darkness! That was his first\nhome--when he moved about in the universal night. It is also plainly\nstated in the bible that God prefers darkness for his abode.\n\n_The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness._ *\n\n     * I Kings viii, 12.\n\nGod! Darkness! They are joined together and no man has ever been able to\nput them asunder.\n\nBut let us read on:\n\n_And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the\nlight, that it was good._\n\nWas that the first time the deity saw the light? Did he not know before\nthis that the light was good? If he really had been moving over the\nface of the waters in total darkness for _oons_, who could blame him for\ncalling the light good? After he saw that the light was good, he divided\nit from the darkness, and he called the light day, and the darkness he\ncalled night, \"and the evening and the morning were the first day.\" We\nhave now day and night--evening and morning; but we have as yet no\nsun. Indeed, the sun is not created until the fourth day. How could\nthere be light without the sun? And why create a sun if light could be\nhad without it? The earth is in darkness or in the light according to\nits relative position to the sun. By its revolution on its axis\nthe earth presents an ever shifting surface to the sun. The earth's\nmovements are caused by two contrary forces, the centripetal and the\ncentrifugal--the one tossing the earth like a ball into infinite space,\nand the other tugging it toward the sun. The equilibrium of these forces\nmarks the diurnal course of the earth. Without the sun there would be\nno revolution of the earth, and if the earth stood still, there could be\nneither evening nor morning. And yet this verse states there was day and\nnight, morning and evening, before there was any sun. The idea that the\nworld is a progressive body, with the reins in the grip of those two\nforces, the centrifugal and the centripetal, whipping her on, and yet\nnever letting her for a moment, even, to step out of the celestial\nrace-course, never entered the puny and prosaic minds of myth-makers.\nIs there any reason why we should accept so impossible an explanation of\nthe origin of the universe, or of the relation of the earth to the sun,\nwhen we have within our reach the stupendous revelations of science?\n\nThe creation of the sun, like the creation of the woman, seems to have\nbeen an afterthought. Not only was there both light and darkness--a day\nand a night--before there was any sun, but the sunless light was also\nstrong enough to produce vegetation, for the bible states that herbs and\ntrees appeared and flourished on the third day; that is to say,\nvegetation arrived twenty-four hours before the sun. Not only does the\nbible speak of the stars as if they were thrown in, \"He made the stars\nalso,\" but the sun seems to have been thrown in, too--just as a grocer\nweighing beans tosses into the already loaded scales a few additional\nones.\n\n\"The sun was made to give light upon the earth,\" say the Scriptures. But\nthe earth was already lit up by the \"Let there be light, and there was\nlight,\" of the deity. The grass grew and the trees bore fruit after\ntheir kind without any help whatever from the sun. But an excuse must be\nprovided for the existence of the sun: it was made \"to give light upon\nthe earth.\" It never occurred to the infallible writer that the sun,\nbeing one million five hundred thousand times bigger than the earth,\nwould give more light than the earth could use. What would we say to\nthe wisdom of creating a million million candle-power electric flame to\nlight a molecule of dust? Yet, not only the sun which is fifteen hundred\nthousand times bigger than ourselves, but also the stars which are many\ntimes bigger than the sun, and of which there are an infinite number,\nwere all created to dance attendance on this tiny dewdrop of a world,\ntrembling in infinite space. The man who originated this gossip about\nsun and stars thought the firmament was a solid roof, just about so\nlarge and so far from the earth. It was made of hammered plate, and was\nequipped with windows which opened and shut, to let out or to stop\nthe rain. The stars, sun and moon were fastened to this upper roof and\nworked to and fro \"like sliding panels.\" Is it possible that people find\nthis infantile story of earth and sky inspiring? And is it not a pity\nthat we Americans, in this twentieth century, lack both the courage and\nthe frankness to speak our minds freely on the bible? If this Asiatic\nbook has done no other harm than to seal the lips of science from fear,\nit has done enough to deserve all the criticisms that Rationalism has\nleveled against it.\n\n\n\n\nTheologians Discover That Six Days Means Six Periods\n\n|THE defenders of the first chapter of the bible, in their attempt to\nreconcile theology with science, have advanced the theory that the \"six\ndays\" of creation, instead of meaning six natural days of twenty-four\nhours, means six indefinite periods of time. The object of this\nexplanation is to give the deity sufficient time to build his universe\nin, and so bring the story of theology and science into something like\nharmony. Of course, \"six\" meant six, and \"days\" meant days for nearly\ntwo thousand years, and there was no idea of ever changing the meaning\nof these words until the voice of Charles Darwin was heard in the\nworld. Then in haste the clergy, too, made a \"great\" discovery. Darwin\ndiscovered the law of evolution; the clergy discovered that \"six days\"\nin the bible means six _oons_, or eras of large proportions.\n\nThere is a semblance of truth in this contention of the theologians.\nWhen, for example, we say in Washington's day, we mean, the century, or\nthe times Washington lived in. Or when we say \"in the day of the Lord\"\nwe do not mean a day of twenty-four hours, but a long and indefinite\nperiod of time. But this defense breaks down completely when it is\nremembered that the bible positively states the _number_ of days\nrequired to make the world in. One day of indefinite duration would have\nbeen enough if time were what God needed. Why \"six\" indefinite times?\nThe \"six\" before the word days is unanswerable proof that the \"inspired\"\nwriter meant just six days and nothing more. When the number of days\nrequired for any purpose is stated, \"days\" can only mean one thing. If\nwe say Washington crossed the Delaware and drove the English out of the\nState in \"six days,\" there is absolutely no way of making the \"six\ndays\" mean anything else than six days. The number \"six\" is fatal to the\ntheological theory that days means eras. God was for forty days on Mount\nSinai; Jesus was in the wilderness for forty days; and he remained with\nhis disciples for forty days after his resurrection. If forty days means\nforty days, six days can mean six indefinite periods of time only when\nthere is no other way of saving the creed.\n\nStill another proof that the bible writers believed the universe was\ncalled into existence in six natural days, is their phrase, \"and the\nevening and the morning were the first day,\" and \"the evening and the\nmorning were the second day,\" and so on to the end of the week. We do\nnot need an evening and a morning to complete an indefinite era. And the\nseventh day on which, in imitation of the Lord, we are supposed to rest\nfrom our labors--is that, too, an indefinite period of time? Moreover,\nto intimate that six days were not enough for an almighty god to create\nthe universe in would be nothing less than skepticism. It is expressly\nstated in the bible that nothing \"is too hard\" for God; why, then, are\nnot six days of twenty-four hours enough? They _were_ enough, before\nDarwin. To extend the six days into six periods is to make terms with\nscience, and when one begins to do that one has already lost his faith.\nIn the bible of India, God only _thought_ of creating a world, and\nbehold the world was. That way of creating is more becoming to a god.\nHe, who could create out of nothing, could create also without time. The\nHindu god is bigger than the Hebrew. The former only thinks the world\ninto being. The latter needs six eras, or indefinite time, for the same\npiece of work. It is the Hindu who has faith.\n\nLet me explain: If I were asked, for example, to tell the time according\nto my watch, there is only one answer I could make, if I wished to tell\nthe truth. I am limited to one answer--one only. But if I did not care\nto tell the time as I have it, there are a hundred things I could say\ninstead. A man can say many things that are not true, but only one thing\ncan he say if he wishes to answer a question honestly. The theologians\ndo not seem to want to tell the truth about the bible; hence they have\na hundred other things to say. There is no end to the dodges,\nexcuses, apologies, sophisms--the allegorical, metaphorical, spiritual\ninterpretations--they can resort to to avoid giving the one true answer\nabout the bible.\n\nTo the scientist \"six days\" means six days; to the theologian they mean\nwhatever the interests of his creed require them to mean. They may mean\none thing to-day and another to-morrow. If the theologian is addressing\nmissionary converts, \"six days\" means six days, and if he is addressing\nscientists, he may make the \"six days\" mean six very long periods--as\nlong as his hearers desire. The first and last duty of the theologian\nis to save his creed. He will tell the truth when it helps his creed;\nhe will suppress the truth when he thinks it will hurt his creed. He was\nnot ordained to be loyal to the truth; he was ordained to stand up for\nthe creed. \"An oath, an oath, I have an oath in heaven,\" cried Shylock,\nwhen he was asked to listen to the voice of humanity. Likewise, when\nReason appeals to the clergyman to tell the truth about the bible, he\nanswers: \"An oath, an oath, I have taken an oath to defend the creed.\nShall I lay perjury to my soul?\"\n\nBut Genesis is as unreliable on the question of the age of the earth as\nit is on the way it came into existence. While it is not stated in the\nbible just how old the earth is, by comparing and computing the various\ndates it gives the precise biblical age of the earth may be arrived at.\nAccording to the chronology of the bible, the earth is something near\nsix thousand years old. Of course, it may be that \"years\" in the bible\nno more means years than \"days\" means days, but if they do, then the\nbible is wrong again. It is now generally admitted by scientists that\nthe age of our planet runs into the millions. There is not a single\nscholar who accepts the bible chronology seriously. According to Darwin,\nwho weighs his statements before he makes them, two hundred millions of\nyears would hardly be enough to bring about the multifarious forms of\nlife which now exist on the earth.\n\nHistorians have discovered traces of a civilization on the banks of the\nNile long before the mythical Adam opened his eyes in Eden. Egypt was\nin blossom long before the forbidden tree was planted in paradise, and\narcheology has proved the existence of man on this planet myriads of\nyears before Egypt reared her pyramids, or Athens her Parthenon. Out\nof the caves of Germany, England and France have been dug the bones of\nprimitive man who saw the light of the sun and heard the swing of the\nsea nearly two hundred and fifty thousand years ago. In a publication of\nthe Smithsonian. Institution, issued and paid for by the United States\nGovernment, it is stated that there is enough proof to make the age\nof the earth at least seventy millions of years. Every day, except on\nSunday, and everywhere, except in church, the United States affixes its\nofficial seal, and gives full approval, to the teachings of science; but\non Sunday, and in church, the same United States officially bows down\nand worships as the Word of God a book that makes all science a heresy\nand a blasphemy. And we wonder that there is so much false profession in\nthe land!\n\nMr. Gladstone, a few years ago, tried to help the theologians defend\nGenesis against the onslaughts of Darwinism. It was the object of his\nencounter with Huxley to show that the bible account of creation was\nas consistent with the known facts as the theory of evolution. In fact,\nGenesis, according to Gladstone, was a sort of introduction to Darwin's\n_Origin of Species_. In his admirable reply to Gladstone, Professor\nHuxley gives the bible version of the origin of life and the world to\nshow the irreconcilable difference between revelation and science. Says\nProfessor Huxley:\n\n_The bible teaches that this visible universe of ours came into\nexistence at no great distance of time from the present, and that\nthe parts of which it is composed made their appearance in a certain\ndefinite order, in the space of six natural days, in such a manner\nthat on the first of these days light appeared; that on the second the\nfirmament or sky separated the waters above from the waters beneath the\nfirmament; that on the third day the waters drew away from the dry land,\nand upon it a varied vegetable life, similar to that which now\nexists, made its appearance; that the fourth day was signalized by the\napparition of the sun, the stars, the moon and the planets; that on\nthe fifth day aquatic animals originated within the waters; that on the\nsixth day the earth gave rise to our four-footed terrestial creatures,\nand to all variations of terrestial animals except birds, which had\nappeared on the preceding day; and, finally, that man appeared upon the\nearth, and the emergence of the universe from chaos was finished._\n\nContinuing, Professor Huxley shows how the theologians try to wiggle out\nof all that this implies by quietly changing the natural meaning of the\nwords used by the bible writers. He says:\n\n_If we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority, we must\nbelieve that what seems so clearly defined in Genesis--as if very great\npains had been taken that there should be no possibility of mistake--is\nnot the meaning of the text at all. The account is divided into periods\nthat we may make just as long or as short as convenience requires. We\nare also to understand that it is consistent with the original text to\nbelieve that the most complex plants and animals may have been\nevolved by natural processes, lasting for millions of years, out of\nstructureless rudiments. A person who is not a Hebrew scholar can only\nstand aside and admire the marvelous flexibility of a language which\nadmits of such diverse interpretations._ *\n\n     * Controverted Questions, page 100.\n\n\n\n\nThe Great Tragedy\n\n|BUT it is when we come to read the bible story of the creation of man\nthat its unreliability becomes more manifest than ever. The story\nof Adam and Eve seems to have been lifted bodily out of some foreign\ndocument. This is evident from the fact that it is never referred to\nagain throughout the Old Testament. When the Jews were carried into\ncaptivity they became familiar with the Babylonian legend of creation,\nits Garden of Eden, the serpent, the forbidden tree, the fall of man,\netc. The name of the first man in the Babylonian story was _Adami_.\n\nThe belief that man was formed out of the earth is very ancient. Men saw\ndead bodies return to dust, and, naturally enough, they inferred from it\nthat man was made out of the dust of the earth.\n\nIn the Jewish story, as related in the second chapter of Genesis, the\nfirst man was a bachelor, and if he had liked that sort of life, woman,\nin all probability, would never have been created. It is suggested\nin the story that God asked Adam to choose a companion from among the\nanimals, which were made to pass before him, that he might name them,\nand if possible select from among them a companion for himself:\n\n_And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to\nevery beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet\nfor him._ *\n\nAdam was lonely:\n\n_And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:\nand he took one of his ribs... and the rib which the Lord God had taken\nfrom man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man._ **\n\n     * Genesis ii, 20.\n\n     ** Ibid. 21-22.\n\nThe story of the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, on\nwhich the whole theological system of the churches is built, is so crude\nthat it can not stand any kind of an examination. Adam and Eve, for\ninstance, are warned against the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good\nand evil. But, really, they did not have to eat of this tree to be able\nto tell good from evil, for they already knew the difference. When Adam\nsaw God, his maker, did he not love and honor him? If so, he knew what\nwas good. Did he not love his garden home? If so, he could tell what\nwas good. And did he not rejoice when Eve appeared before him with the\nfreshness of beauty in her cheeks and the sparkle of love in her eyes?\nIf so, Adam knew what was bliss. What was the object, then, of telling\nAdam that he must not learn to distinguish good from evil? Did not Adam\nand Eve enjoy their daily walks and musings? Did they not see that the\ntrees and the flowers springing up at their feet were fair to look upon?\nWere they not able to smell the fragrance that came with each passing\nzepyhr, or to feast on the luxury of shade and color that greeted their\neyes? Did not the song of the birds wake melodies in their souls? Surely\nthey were not wooden beings without either feeling or taste; yet, if\nthey could feel and choose, they certainly knew what was good and what\nwas not good before they ate of the magical tree in Eden.\n\nAgain, were not Adam and Eve made in the image of God? How, then, could\nthey be ignorant of good and evil? If they could not tell the difference\nbetween good and evil, or between God and the devil, in what sense were\nthey created moral beings? A man really created in the likeness of God\ndoes not have to eat of a tree before he can tell right from wrong.\n\nGod said to Adam: \"For on the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt\nsurely die.\" That is conclusive evidence that Adam knew good from evil\nbefore he ate of the forbidden tree; for he feared death. He must have\nknown that it was a terrible thing to die; he must have known enough\nto prefer life to death, else he could not have been scared by such a\npunishment.\n\n\"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, _thou shalt not eat\nof it_.\" This was not only a superfluous commandment, but also one that\ncould under no conceivable circumstances be obeyed. How could any one\nbe prevented from acquiring knowledge? To live is to learn. Why did God\ngive Adam eyes and ears if he was not to see or hear? But to see and\nhear is to compare, and to compare is to learn. Memory retains what\nthe eyes and the ears have communicated to it, and thus is born\nexperience--the universal teacher. To give a man a pair of lungs, and\nthen to tell him he shall not breathe, would not be more unreasonable\nthan to give a man organs, senses, brains--to make him in the image\nof God--and then to menace him with instant death if he should acquire\nknowledge. To give an impossible commandment is to desire its violation.\n\nThe apologists of the bible say that God was only trying Adam's\ncharacter, as he tried Abraham's faith when he ordered him to sacrifice\nhis son Isaac. But why try Adam with the tree of the knowledge of\ngood and evil? Why not with some other tree? And why try him with an\nimpossible commandment? The first requisite of a trial is that it be\nfair. Was it fair to deny to living and growing minds, \"divinely\" made,\nthe acquisition of experience? Is it fair to deny to one athirst, the\ntruth? And for whose benefit was the trial? God certainly must have\nknown in advance how Adam would behave under the circumstances; and as\nfor Adam, how could he act otherwise than as God had foreordained? Let\nthe truth be told: the bible deity was only seeking a pretext to damn\nthe first man he ever created and to curse the only world he ever made.\nAnd this, that the clergy may be able to declaim, \"God so loved the\nworld that he gave his only begotten son to die for it\"!\n\nIf God meant only to test Adam's loyalty to his creator, how explain the\nfollowing text:\n\n_And the Lord God said, Behold the man has become as one of us, to know\ngood and evil: and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the\ntree of life, and eat, and live forever; therefore the Lord God sent him\nforth from the Garden of Eden.... So he drove out the man_. *\n\n     * Genesis iii, 22-24.\n\nI am sorry, but that text places God in a poor light. The tree was\nforbidden, to prevent Adam from becoming a higher being. The \"Good God\"\nwas angry because man had become like one of us. And \"he drove out the\nman\" for an equally envious reason: \"Lest he put forth his hand, and\ntake also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever\" The \"Lord God\"\ndid not desire man to be immortal--that is why he \"drove\" him out of\nParadise, and to make the fall of man sure, to prevent his ever rising\nto \"divine\" heights, the Lord God stationed guards with flaming swords\nat the gates of Eden to beat back man from \"the way of the tree of\nlife.\" And is this the God who so loved the world that he gave his only\nbegotten son to die for it? Had he been more honest with Adam the crime\nof the crucifixion might have been prevented.\n\nIt is one of the principal tenets of all the churches that man was\ncreated immortal, and that but for Adam's disobedience there would have\nbeen no death in the world and Paradise would have remained in man's\npossession forever. But there is not the shadow of a foundation in the\nstory as told in the bible for such an inference. The bible teaches the\nvery opposite of what the churches hold. Adam is driven from Paradise to\n_prevent_ him from becoming immortal by eating also of the tree of\nlife. If God really wished the happiness of nan, he would, instead\nof warning him against magical trees, have instructed him in the things\nthat preserve life and promote joy. He would have told Adam and Eve how\nto love one another, to moderate their desires, and to labor daily for\nbeauty as well as for bread. He would have warned them, not against the\ntree of knowledge, but against the cunning, crafty serpent, of whose\nexistence he leaves them in utter ignorance. If the bible God were\nreally the friend of man, he would never have pitted two inexperienced\nchildren like Adam and Eve against Satan, the Lord of hell, and a match\nfor God Almighty himself. And in the hour of danger the Lord was not\nthere to help his little ones! He left them alone with the fiend who\nplays with loaded dice! By whose permission did the devil make his\nappearance in Paradise? And was there a devil before Adam fell? What a\nstory! Created and concealed in Eden, there was a devil, a monster,\nwho springs upon the first human pair, and they bleed to death in his\nclutches; and \"the Lord God\" does not appear on the scene until after\nthe devil has retired. And this is the being whom we must call \"Our\nFather\"! We are unable to find in the bible either a paradise or a\nfather. We have been taught to believe that where the devil is there is\nhell; the devil was in the Garden of Eden, therefore, the Garden of\nEden could not have been truly a Paradise. And had God really been a\n\"father,\" he would never have forgotten to warn his children against the\nserpent and his deadly sting.\n\nBut the story as told in Genesis is more creditable to the Evil One than\nto \"the Lord God.\" The devil told the truth to Eve when he assured her\nthat \"In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye\nshall be as gods, knowing good and evil.\" His statement squares with the\nfacts. He did not deceive them. Nor did he coax, or urge them to eat of\nthe fruit of the tree. Adam and Eve were left to do as they pleased. The\ndevil did not threaten them with dire consequences if they refused to\nobey his word. No attempt was made to scare or \"stampede\" them into\nplucking the forbidden fruit. All he did was to tell them exactly what\nwould happen if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge; and then\nhe retired. Let us place in parallel columns the words spoken by the\nserpent, or the devil whom he is supposed to have personified, and those\nof the Lord God:\n\n\n     The Lord God said :          And the serpent said :\n\n\n  But of the tree of the          Ye shall not surely die.\n\n  knowledge of good and evil,     For God doth know that in\n\n  thou shalt not eat of it: for   the day ye eat thereof, then\n\n  in the day that thou eatest     your eyes shall be opened, and\n\n  thereof thou shalt surely       ye shall be as gods, knowing\n\n  die.*                           good and evil. **\n\n\n     * This was spoken to Adam alone, for as yet Eve was not\n     created. See Genesis ii, 16, 17.\n\n     **  Ibid. iii, 5.\n\nWhich of the two speakers told the truth? Adam and Eve did not die on\nthe day they ate of the tree, as God had said they would--Adam lived to\nbe nine hundred years old--and their eyes were opened to know good and\nevil, just as the devil had predicted. We have already anticipated and\nanswered the argument that when God said they would die on the day they\nate of the forbidden tree, he meant they would become mortal. They were\nnot immortal before they had tasted of the fruit, since God expelled\nthem from Eden to prevent them from eating also of the tree of life and\nbecoming immortal.\n\nTo few of the readers of the bible has it ever occurred that the first\ncommandment God ever gave to man practically made the acquisition of\nknowledge a crime. The truth is that the first commandment of every\nrevealed religion is a \"Thou shalt not know.\" According to Genesis,\nthe Lord offered a Paradise to man on condition that he steer clear\nof knowledge. There has been considerable discussion as to the precise\nlocation of the Garden of Eden. But if we do not know where the\nGarden of Eden was, we know very well what it was. The Garden of Eden\nwas--Ignorance. This is the Paradise which the revealed religions offer\nto man. To know is to be expelled from Paradise. After God had placed\nAdam in Paradise, that is to say, in a state of ignorance, he said\nto him: \"Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge,\"\nthreatening him at the same time with death on the day that he ate\nof the fruit of that tree. Everything else was permitted save the\nacquisition of knowledge. On the day that man opened his eyes he lost\nthe paradise of the gods--Ignorance!\n\nIt has been customary to trace modern scepticism, or free inquiry, to\nthe eighteenth century, or to the Renaissance; but in reality modern\nthought began with Adam in the Garden of Eden--assuming for the time\nbeing the correctness of the narrative. Man broke the very first\ncommandment the gods ever gave, \"Thou shalt not know,\" and by so doing\nhe became himself a menace to the gods. That is very interesting. It was\nnot man who died on the day the fruit of knowledge was plucked; it was\nthe gods. \"Take care!\" said man to God. \"Take care! The day on which I\neat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge thou shalt die!\" It is now\nadmitted by the foremost biblical scholars that there are really two\ndifferent stories of the creation of man in the first and second\nchapters of the bible. The universe is called into being by _Elohim_ in\nthe first; while _Jahve_ is the name of the creator in the second.\nAnother important difference between the two accounts of the creation is\nthat in the one, man appears before the deity has completed the creation\nof the heaven and the earth; while in the other man is the last thing\nGod creates. It will be observed also that there is not a word said in\nthe second account about man being made in the image of God, or of his\nbeing created male and female; while there is nothing in the first\naccount about a garden or a forbidden tree. On the contrary, in the\nearlier story every tree is given for \"meat\" unto the man and the woman,\nwho were created at the same time, and not the one out of a rib of the\nother, and at a later time, as is related in the second account. In the\nfirst, or Elohistic story, God blesses Adam and Eve and commands them to\n\"be fruitful and multiply\"; in the second, or Jehovistic story,\nchild-bearing is not a blessing, but a curse pronounced upon the woman\nfor having eaten of the forbidden fruit. Eve has no offspring until she\nis expelled from Paradise in the second version, while in the first,\nAdam and Eve are commanded from the start to \"multiply and replenish the\nearth.\"\n\nBut why are both stories published? In all probability, to satisfy both\nthe _Elohistic_ and _Jehovistic_ factions. It is also probable that the\ndifferent accounts are the work of different compilers or collectors\nof news. The bible gives many signs of being a miscellany of floating\nreports and rumors, or \"they says,\" picked up here and there, and put\ntogether very loosely. Nor should we be surprised at the differences\nbetween the Elohistic and Jehovistic writers, for they are not more\nhopelessly at variance with each other than are the evangelists who tell\nthe story of Jesus.\n\n\n\n\nII. Taboo and Totem.\n\n|WHAT is the most probable explanation of the Garden of Eden story,\nwhether in its Babylonian or Hebrew form? To answer this question and\nalso to help explain many of the institutions and ceremonial observances\nin the bible, it will be necessary to acquaint ourselves with the\nmeaning of certain words, such as taboo, totem and magic. The word taboo\nhas come into the modern language from the Polynesian, and it means\nforbidden. And yet there is a fundamental difference between a thing\nwhich is forbidden in the English sense of that word, and a thing which\nis taboo in the sense which primitive races attached to that word. For\nexample, when we see a notice which reads, \"Passengers are forbidden\nto stand on the platform of the train,\" or \"Smoking not allowed in the\ndining-car,\" the object of the interdiction is in either case perfectly\nplain. We know why the act in question is prohibited. There is no\nsuggestion of mystery about it. A thing that is taboo, however, is so\nfor a reason which is undiscoverable. The bible forbids the eating of\npork. Why? The theologians try to explain that the prohibition against\npork had a sanitary motive. Such an answer is tantamount to an admission\non their part that they have not studied the bible with any care at all.\nTo say that Moses objected to pork on sanitary grounds would be about as\nreasonable as to say that he commanded the extermination of Gentiles on\nhumanitarian grounds. Yet many fall into the mistake of supposing that\nit was the fear of leprosy, or the thread-worm, which induced the Jewish\nlegislator to place swine's flesh under a ban. To see how inadequate\nthis explanation is, all we have to do is to remember that in all the\nbible there is not a single disease of any kind which is caused by\nthe eating or the drinking of anything. Disease in the bible is\nsupernatural. Meats or vegetables, the observance or neglect of dietary\nand sanitary laws, have absolutely nothing to do with the coming or\ngoing of a pestilence. Health, in the bible, has no more to do with\ncleanliness of the body, with the use of soap, or moderation and\nprudence in eating and drinking, than success in war, or prosperity in\nlife has with personal merit or effort. It is God who sends both health\nand sickness, famine or the plague, as he sends manna from the clouds\nand quails from the sea. To win a battle the people had only to stand\nstill, and see the Lord fight for them. Not until the Greeks appeared in\nhistory was it discovered that health and sickness had natural causes,\nand that the gods had nothing whatever to do with them. What, then, is\nthe explanation of the interdict against swine's flesh in the bible?\nBefore answering that, let us look at a few other examples, of taboo in\nthe Old Testament.\n\nThe name of God, like swine's flesh, was taboo. \"That shalt not take\nthe name of the Lord thy God in vain\" (the _in vain_ is a rationalist\nexplanation which was affixed to the text by a later hand). Now, why\nwas the name of God forbidden? In all probability it was to prevent\nthe stranger or the enemy from calling upon their God; it explains the\nunwillingness of the Jews to share Jahve with the rest of the world. But\nit is as much a guess to say why the name of God was taboo, as it is\nto give a reason for the ecclesiastical ban against the hog. The\ncommandments of science are intelligible; the dogmas of religion are\ndark. Why do we have to believe in the trinity, the virgin birth, etc.,\nin order to be saved? It is a mystery.\n\nAnother taboo was the Ark of the Covenant. This was a wooden box,\nsupposed to be the retreat of the deity. To touch this wooden chest\nmeant instant death. Uzzah was instantly killed for trying to steady\nthe ark in transit, \"for the oxen shook it.\" * And, on another occasion,\nover fifty thousand people were massacred \"because they had looked into\nthe ark of the Lord.\" ** Why destroy \"fifty thousand and three score\nand ten men\" for such a trifle? If it were because they disobeyed the\npriest, was it not the duty of the priest to give the reason which made\ntouching or looking into a box a deadly crime? But in religion to\nask for an explanation is also taboo. The things of religion are not\nsupposed to be understood. To understand is taboo.\n\n     * II Samuel vi, 6.\n\n     ** I Samuel vi, 19.\n\nA more important example of things forbidden without reason or rhyme is\nthe Sabbath. The prevailing interpretation is that out of compassion for\nman and beast the deity ordained a day of rest. But the truth is that\npity for the laboring man or the animal had positively nothing to do\nwith the institution of \"holy moons\" and Sabbaths. It is the stress of\nmodern thought that leads priests and rabbis to explain the Sabbath on\nRationalist grounds. To begin with, oriental races were not so exceeding\nfond of work as to necessitate a divine fiat to compel them to take a\nrest. If anything, they needed to be urged and scourged to work at all.\nThey were only too willing to let the Lord do everything for them. The\nideal of the oriental believer was to be \"like the lilies of the field,\nwhich toil not, neither do they spin.\" * What need was there for the\nbible people to invent machinery, to build factories, or to acquire\nscience, when a miracle-working God was ever at their elbow.\"_O, to be\nNothing, Nothing_,\" is to this day, one of the hymns in the churches.\n\n     * The Sermon on the Mount.\n\nIn the twenty-second chapter of Deuteronomy it is forbidden \"to plough\nwith an ox and an ass together.\" The theologians quote the text to prove\nthat kindness to animals was the motive of this ordinance, as kindness\nto man was, of the Sabbath. Nothing could be farther from the truth.\nWhy, then, is it unlawful to yoke an ass with an ox? It is another one\nof the mysteries of religion.\n\nWe have only to read on to learn that motives of humanity, justice or\neconomy play no part at all in these ordinances. \"Thou shalt not sow thy\nvineyard with divers seeds,\" says the same chapter. Surely this was not\nfrom any consideration of compassion for the soil or the seed. And when\nthe bible again says: \"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sort, as\nof woolen and linen together,\" is it for sanitary or economic reasons\nthat the commandment was given? When again we read, \"Ye shall eat no\nmanner of fat, of ox or of sheep,\" etc., it surely was not for any\nhygienic reason that fat was prohibited, for it goes on to say that \"the\nfat belongs to the Lord.\" But why should the Lord be so jealous of fat?\nIt is no more possible to understand the ordinance against fat, or mixed\nseed sowing, or garments of mingled yam, and a thousand other similarly\npuerile edicts in the Old Testament, than it is to understand why it is\nnecessary to sprinkle a man with water, or rub him with oil, before he\ncan be a good Christian. Why an ox and an ass should not plough together\nis just as much a mystery as transubstantiation. The English and the\nAmerican bible societies are translating these Hebrew and Christian\nriddles and distributing the book at the rate of about twenty million\ncopies a year, costing an amount of money, energy and time, which if\ndevoted to the advancement of health alone would do more toward making\nthis earth a paradise for man, now and here, than all the mysteries and\nmiracles of religion.\n\nBut let us not forget to explain the origin of the ban against the\nSabbath, or the seventh day. It will surprise the Sabbatarian to learn\nthat originally work was forbidden on the seventh day of the week for\nthe same reason that many in our day object to start on a journey or\non an enterprise of any kind on a Friday, or on the thirteenth of the\nmonth. The prejudice against Friday and the number \"13\" is based on\nthe belief that both the day and the number are evil. Why? Nobody knows\nexactly. In the same way, the seventh day was considered by all Semitic\nraces as an evil day--a day of disaster, unpropitious and accursed. The\nfear of the savage for the seventh day was as foolish as our fear of\nFriday, or of the number \"13.\" But we laugh at our own prejudice about\nFriday and regard the savage's awe of the seventh day as inspired.\n\nAs already stated, the seventh day was taboo because it was supposed to\nbe accursed. No work was to be done on that day, not because the work\nwould spoil the day, but because they feared the day would spoil the\nwork. Even in our day, if a man goes fishing on a bright Sunday, and is\ndrowned, or if children go picnicking on the Sabbath, and are run over,\nthe usual comment is that they lost their lives, not for fishing or\npicnicking, but for doing these perfectly innocent things on a certain\nday. Sunday is an evil day--for fishing, or for recreation of any kind.\nOn the Sabbath, the safest thing, according to the bible, is to stay\nindoors. It is a bad day for pleasure, and a bad day for labor. There\nis only one thing that is safe on the Sabbath--going to church. Do we\nwonder now that children hated the Sabbath, or that a gloom fell upon\nboth young and old on that lugubrious day?\n\nBut this supposedly evil day in time came to be regarded as \"holy.\" I\nsay supposedly evil, because there are no evil days, even as there are\nno \"holy\" days. One day is like another; it is superstition that makes\na certain day, or place, or number, holier than another. And we have a\nright to be suspicious of a religion that thinks more, for example, of\nthe number 3, or 7, or 40, or of the first or seventh day of the week\nthan of other days or numbers. One of the motives which, according to\nthe bible, actuated the building of a temple for Jehovah was to observe\nmore solemnly \"the Sabbaths and the new moons of the Lord.\" * The new\nmoons! Why is a \"new moon\" more virtuous or talismanic than a full moon?\nWhat has righteousness to do with \"new moons\" or full moons? Why do we\nhave to spend millions of dollars every year to send missionaries abroad\nto teach them the observance of \"Sabbaths and new moons\"? I am aware\nthat the missionaries omit the \"new moons,\" but is it not also in the\nWord of God? And what right has the missionary to drop anything from the\nWord of God? Has he forgotten the awful warning of the closing words of\nthe bible? \"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book\nof this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,\"\netc. ** But there is not a sect that has not both taken from, and added\nto, the Word of God. We tremble to think what will happen to them. \"God\nshall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.\" *** And\nwhat could be worse than the plagues mentioned in the bible? ****\n\n     *  II Chronicles ii, 4.\n\n     **  Revelation xxii, 19.\n\n     ***  Revelation xxii, 18.\n\n     ****  One of the rather mild plagues is described in\n     Leviticus xxvi, 22-29: \"I will also send wild beasts among\n     you, which shall rob you of your children.... And ye shall\n     eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your\n     daughters.\" Twenty million copies a year of this book are\n     sold!\n\nAs a day of rest and recreation, of intellectual, moral and aesthetic\nculture and pleasure, Sunday will always be one of the dearest\ninstitutions of civilization. But as already explained, humanitarian\nor ethical motives had no share at all in the making of the\nJewish-Christian Sabbath. Would the clergy, for instance, consent to\nhave any other day than Sunday observed as \"holy\"? Would they have the\ncourage to call Tuesday or Thursday the Sabbath of the Lord, sanctified\nand set apart from all eternity? If not, the inference is inevitable\nthat what they are principally interested in is the day--the taboo--and\nnot the rest and profit which may be derived from quitting work on a\ngiven day of the week.\n\nAmong the primitive races a thing was taboo either because it was\nsupposed to be \"unholy\" or because it was supposed to be \"holy.\" A\nCatholic must not touch the sacraments because they are \"holy,\" and\nthe Jew must not touch swine's flesh because it is \"unholy.\" In the one\ncase, as in the other, it is a \"thou shalt not.\" Why the touch of the\nfingers should defile the sacraments but not the touch of the palate or\nthe lips; or why swine's flesh should mar one's character or standing\nbefore the community, is not explained because it can not be explained.\nTheology is a collection of enigmas. The less the people understand\ntheir religion the more they believe in it. A taboo is not meant to be\nunderstood; it is only meant to be obeyed. The Babylonians, from whom\nthe Hebrews got their Sabbath, refrained from work on that day because\nthey considered it an evil day; we refrain from work on that day because\nwe think the day too sacred for work. It is not at all strange that\nthe reason for a given taboo, being no more than a whim, should in the\ncourse of time change. The \"thou shalt not\" remains; the why does not\nmatter much, because the why belongs to reason, and religion is a matter\nof faith.\n\n\n\n\nThe Totem\n\n|TO show further how the unholy becomes, in time, the holy, or vice\nversa, let us glance at another barbaric institution of the past, that\nof the totem. The word taboo, as already explained, is Polynesian in\norigin; the word totem has come to us from the American Indian. Totem is\na more difficult word to translate into modern thought. The most\npopular definition I could give to it would be to say that a totem is a\n\"mascot.\" And yet, it is very much more. To savage tribes a totem was\nan object, more frequently an animal, which was sacred to the particular\ntribe that had identified itself with it. The thing, or the plant, or\nthe beast thus selected, became an emblem, badge or bond of union. It\nserved also as a sort of password by which the members of the tribe were\nrecognized, and a center around which the clan grouped itself. To the\ntotem they looked for preservation against famine, war and annihilation\nas a tribe. The totem was the soul of the tribe--the tribe in essence.\nThe golden-rod is the national flower of America, the lily is upon the\nshield of France, the shamrock is Irish, the world over; in some\nsuch sense, only meaning very much more, was the totem to our savage\nancestors.\n\nNow we are in a position to guess at least why the bible forbids swine's\nflesh. Solomon Reinach, a distinguished Jewish scholar, and member of\nthe French Academy, says that the boar was the totem of the Jew long\nbefore Moses appeared on the scene. * The totem was protected by a\ntaboo, and, therefore, to eat it was a national crime. To destroy one's\ntotem was a sacrilege and a blasphemy, punishable by death. They looked\nupon the man who ate his totem with more abhorrence than we would feel\ntoward a fellow countryman who insulted his flag. Here, then, we have\ntwo counter currents; the Sabbath, beginning as an evil day, becomes\n\"holy,\" while the hog, once a totem, an object of reverence, a god,\ndegenerates into an unclean beast. Yet the one, as much as the other, is\nas taboo as ever.\n\n     * Orpheus, Solomon Reinach, page 27: \"Les Juifs pieux\n     s'abstiennent de manger du porc, parce que leurs lointains\n     ancestres, cinq on six mille ans avant notre ere, avaient\n     pour totem le sanglier.\"\n\nThe \"thou shalt not labor on the Sabbath day,\" and the \"thou shalt not\neat swine's flesh,\" remain the same, though the why is shifted from the\n\"because it is unholy\" to a \"because it is holy,\" in the case of the\nSabbath; and from the \"because it is holy\" to a \"because it is unholy,\"\nin the case of the hog. In the meantime, it remains as true as ever that\nthere is nothing either \"holy\" or \"unholy\" about a hog or a day. Why was\nthe seventh day cursed or blest? Why, of all the animals, was the\nhog selected, first to be adored and then to be abhorred? While many\ninteresting reasons could be suggested, the truth is that, like the\nmajority of religious rites and dogmas, both taboo and totem are\nimpenetrable mysteries. When, in the Merchant of Venice, Shylock is\nasked why he covets a pound of that merchant's flesh, \"nearest his\nheart,\" with a toss of his head, and his eyes afire, he replies: \"It is\nmy humor.\" * And if we were to ask Jehovah why swine's flesh is taboo,\nor why the seventh day is \"holy,\" or why the priest under penalty of\ndeath must carry a golden bell and a pomegranate upon the hem of\nhis robe, ** or why the man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not\ncircumcised shall be cut off from his people ***, or why \"Whosoever\ncometh any thing near unto the tabernacle of the Lord shall die,\" **** or\nwhy it is a deadly crime to peep into a wooden box, or yoke an ass with\nan ox, the answer would be the same: \"It is my humor.\"\n\n     *  Act iv, Scene I.\n\n     **  Exodus xxviii, 34-43.\n\n     ***  Genesis xvii, 14.\n\n     ****  Numbers xvii, 13.\n\nNothing could be more convincing that humor and not reason dictated the\ncommandments in the bible, than the large number of taboos, the neglect\nof which was invariably visited with death. If a man kindled a fire in\nhis kitchen on the Sabbath, or picked up sticks, he \"shall surely be\nput to death\"; if he forgot to observe the feast of the passover, or ate\nleavened bread during the passover, or ate the fat, or the blood of the\nanimals he slaughtered for food, he \"shall surely be put to death\"; if\na man made a holy ointment, or perfumery, or if he offered sacrifices\nwithout the help of a priest, or killed his cattle without giving a\npart of it to the priest, he \"shall surely be put to death.\" If a man\nentered the house of the dying, or touched a pig or a dead animal, and\ndid not pay the priest to absolve him from his guilt, he \"shall surely\nbe put to death.\"\n\nThe Old Testament is a veritable deathtrap. On every page, and behind\nevery sentence, almost, there is a trap. It takes a very clever dodger\nto escape falling into one of them. Even Moses was caught and smashed in\na trap. Out of all the people who left Egypt for the promised land, all\nbut two perished in the wilderness because of some infringement of the\nceremonial law. What a failure! Even as Eden, offered for a paradise\nto man, became the tomb of the human race, the promised land became the\ncemetery of the people who sacrificed their homes for it. Such is the\nhumor of the gods!\n\nBut let us speak of another totem. The Catholics eat fish on Friday. Not\none out of a million Catholics knows why fish is preferred to meat on\na certain day in the week. The fish, too, was at one time a totem in\nSyria. The early Christians, being largely from that part of the country\nwhere the fish was sacred, made a place for it in their new faith. In\nthe writings of the Christian Fathers, Jesus is often called the Big\nFish, and his disciples the little fish. Upon many of the ancient\nChristian tombstones there was engraved a fish. Tertullian, a shining\nlight in the early church, speaks of his converts as \"the fishes born\nin the waters of baptism.\" In the early communion service, the fish\nrepresented the divine elements. To this day the fish, an ancient Syrian\ntotem, holds its sway not only upon Christians, but also upon the Jews.\nAn orthodox Jew, no matter how poor, must have his fish every Friday\nevening. *\n\n     * Orpheus, Solomon Reinach, page 29.\n\nBut how did people come to eat their totem? It was explained above that\nswine's flesh is taboo, because of the sacredness of the boar to an\nancient Semitic tribe; if the fish was also sacred, and protected by a\n\"thou shalt not,\" or a taboo, how did it come to be an article of diet?\nUnder exceptional circumstances all primitive tribes ate their totems,\nor their gods. In the time of famine or war they fed on the sacred beast\nfor self-preservation--before which all other laws break down. Moreover,\nit was their belief that by eating their totem they acquired its virtues\nand strength. To partake of the qualities of the totem, and to become\nmore closely identified with it--made one with it--it was deemed\nnecessary on solemn occasions to eat it. Eating the totem came to be,\nin time, a religious rite. Of course, it was with many regrets and\napologies that the savage slew his totem for food. He mourned over\nit and blamed himself for the death of his god. On the other hand, as\nintimated above, he argued that the only way he could get into a closer\ncommunion with his totem, and become a partaker of his virtues, he must\neat of his flesh and drink of his blood. The Christian communion service\nis the modern version of an ancient rite. On Sundays, and with much\nmourning, the Christian crucifies again his totem, to eat of his body,\nbroken for him on the cross, and to drink of his blood, shed for the\nremission of his sins. Is it not wonderful how one superstition is like\nanother?\n\nThe Holy Ghost, one of the members of the trinity, is represented in\nthe form of a dove, because, like the fish and the boar, the dove was\nanother ancient totem. Whenever an animal, or a tree, or any other\nobject, is made to represent the deity, as the dove represents the Holy\nGhost, or the fish the Son of God, or the bull, or the eagle Zeus, we\nmay be quite sure that at one time these animals were gods. Gradually,\nfrom being regarded as gods, they came only to represent them. When the\nHoly Ghost, now and then, takes on the form of a dove, it goes to prove\nthat the Holy Ghost started as a dove--the dove was the Holy Ghost.\nAnd just as races of men sometimes fall back to the level of their\nancestors, the gods go back to the dove, and the fish, and the boar,\nwhence they came. The gods, too, like their religions, die of the same\ndisease--that of being found out.\n\nThe point which it has been the object of the discussion on taboos and\ntotems to establish is that the laws and commandments in the bible, as\nwell as the doings attributed to the deity represent, not Reason, but\nhumor. Whim plays the chief r\u00f4le in the divine drama. Noah is ordered to\ntake with him into the ark, \"of every clean beast\" seven pairs; \"and of\nbeasts that are not clean, two pairs, the male and the female.\" But no\ninstruction is given him as to what makes a beast clean or unclean, or\nhow Noah is to tell the one from the other. Nor is it explained why a\ncertain number of unclean beasts are to be saved, while all the unclean\nof the human race are to be drowned. The only answer we would get from\nthe \"Lord God,\" if we asked him for an explanation, would be, \"It is my\nhumor.\"\n\nAnd why should any animals be preserved at all? If the deity could by\na word of his mouth cause all forms of life, vegetable and animal, to\nspring forth out of the ground; if by a mere \"Let there be light,\" he\ncould create light--why should he trouble himself about packing the ark\nwith specimen animals to preserve the species? And why was it necessary\nto rain for forty days, to drown a world which it took him about six\ndays to create out of nothing? But we are reasoning, and in religion,\nreason is taboo.\n\nHow different is science! The bible is a book of puzzles; science is\ncommon sense. The bible treats of forms and ceremonies--of holy water,\nholy oils, holy wafers and of forbidden trees and animals. Science, on\nthe other hand, explains the inexorable laws of nature, a knowledge\nof which, and obedience to which, makes for life and happiness. Let us\nrejoice that science has broken for us the spell of superstition.\n\n\n\n\nIII. The Bible and Magic\n\n|STILL another word, the explanation of which would greatly help us\nto understand the bible, is the word magic. A magician, according to\nVoltaire, is a man who pretends to possess the secret of doing what\nnature can not do. Another Frenchman defines magic as the \"strategy\nof the savage.\" There is not very much difference between these two\ndefinitions. Magic is the weapon, or the art, or the science, of the\nsavage against the powers of nature. The magician claims to be able to\n\"go one better\" than nature, or to bring nature to terms. If there is a\ndrought, the magician offers to compel rain from the stubborn skies; if\nthe plague is upon the land, the magician bids it steal away; if wild\nbeasts attack his hut, the magician throws a spell over them and makes\nthem harmless. Fire will not burn, water will not drown, the grave can\nnot hold its prey, and even the gods become helpless at a word from the\nmagician. Magic, in a sense, is the coup d'etat of the savage.\n\nWhen one country is at war with another, the best generalship consists\nin finding out the tactics of the enemy with a view of beating him at\nhis own game. Likewise, the aim of the magician is to steal the secret\nof the gods and then play the part of a god not only better than the\ngods themselves, but against them as well. Is not man wonderful!\n\nIn one sense, magic is science in the making. But while science seeks\nto control nature through knowledge, magic resorts to spells, charms,\nincantations and concoctions. In other words, magic is dishonest\nscience.\n\nNow, much as I regret to say it, the bible is more than tainted with\nthis kind of science. Not a word is there in the bible about studying\nthe laws of nature, for study is not necessary where there is magic.\nThe real thing, science, is made superfluous by the imitation\narticle--magic. Thus the bible, by its preference for a false\nscience, postponed, if it did not succeed in defeating altogether, the\nintellectual evolution of man.\n\nScarcely anything happens in the bible in a natural way. Miracles are so\nmany, and so frequent, that there is practically no nature in the bible.\nThe dead arise, the rivers flow backward, the sea turns into dry land,\nsticks change into serpents, the axe head floats on the water, walls\nand fortifications fall at the sound of a trumpet, animals talk, virgins\nbecome mothers, sun and moon are arrested and then set free, and a\nuniverse is produced out of nothing, with as little ado as a magician\nrequires to pull a rabbit out of his sleeve.\n\nWe are in the land of magic. Nature is suspended, and the supernatural\nis in full swing.\n\nI read the other day of a country farmer who went to see a celebrated\nconjurer perform his wonders. He saw the \"wizard\" pick money out of the\nair, shoot watches into people's pockets, change copper into gold and\nsilver, and perform a hundred other equally marvelous feats. As he was\nleaving the charmed presence of the juggler, he expressed his surprise\nthat so resourceful a man should be under the necessity of giving\nperformances to earn a living. He could not understand why a man whose\ntouch turned everything to gold should collect dimes at the box office.\nOf course, the explanation is perfectly simple: The wonders which the\nconjurer performs are sham wonders. In the same way, the miracles in\nthe bible never help anybody nor accomplish anything because they are\nsham miracles. The bush which bums, and yet is not consumed, is a sham\nbush--the bush is not a bush, and the fire is not real fire. The few\nloaves and fishes with which Jesus fed a great multitude were sham\nloaves and fishes, and the multitude which, though hungry, could not\nexhaust the food, was a sham multitude. Sham bread, sham multitude,\nsham hunger! Such are the wonders of the conjurer or the magician in or\noutside the bible. If Jesus really possessed the power of multiplying\na few loaves into an exhaustless supply of bread, why is there then any\npoverty in the world?\n\nMoreover, the miracles--which are as thick on the pages of the bible as\nblackberries on a bush--what good did they do to the people for whose\nbenefit they were performed? If the Egyptians perished in their homes,\nthe Jews perished in the wilderness; if the Egyptians lost their slaves,\nthe Jews lost their sons and daughters--lost themselves. What good did\nall the miracles performed in their behalf do for them? Their city,\nJerusalem, was set on fire, their homes pillaged, their children put to\nthe edge of the sword, over and over again. What benefit did they derive\nfrom the ten thousand miracles lavished upon them? And look at the\nGreeks! Not one miracle did Jehovah perform for them. Yet they rose to\nbe the masters of the world, and are still by their worth and genius,\nthe teachers of mankind.\n\nThe most unexpected and impossible things are said and done in the\nbible. When Abraham was bom, his father, Terah, was seventy years old.\nIn every other book, as the father grows older, the son, too, would\nadvance in years. But in the bible, while Terah grows older, Abraham\ngrows younger, or stops growing altogether, so that when his father is\ntwo hundred and five years old, he himself is only seventy-five years\nold, making him sixty years younger than he should be by all the laws\nof arithmetic. But what is arithmetic to a magician? When the theologian\nsays three times one is one, he is not thinking of so little a thing as\nmathematics--there are no impossibilities for the magician. He can make\nthe three one, and the one three. Listen to one of the great Christian\nFathers, Tertullian:\n\n_What have the philosopher and the Christian in common? The disciple of\nGreece, and the disciple of heaven? What have Athens and Jerusalem, the\nchurch and the academy, heretics and Christians in common? There is\nno more inquiry for us, now that Christ has come, nor any occasion for\nfurther investigation, since we have the gospel.... The Son of God is\ndead; it is right credible because it is absurd; being buried he has\narisen; it is certain, because it is impossible._\n\nThere are no difficulties for theologians. If\n\n\"Isaiah, the prophet, cried unto the Lord, and he brought the shadow (of\nthe sun) ten degrees backward... in the dial,\" * why could not Abraham\ngrow backward? If Joshua could arrest the sun, what is a little miracle\nlike that of Abraham standing still while the whole world moved on? If\nJesus could be bom without a father, why could not Melchisedec be bom\nwithout either a father or a mother? This personage was, perhaps, one\nof the most wonderful in bible history. He had neither beginning nor\nending, neither a father nor a mother.\n\n_For this Melchisedec... to whom also Abraham gave a tenth (of the\nspoils)... without father, without mother, without descent, having\nneither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son\nof God._ **\n\n     *  II Kings xix, ii.\n\n     **  Hebrews vii, 1-3.\n\nWonderful as he was, he believed in getting his share of the spoils. The\ntheologians, in the bible, or outside of it, do not seem to be in the\nleast surprised at the incredible things in the Word of God. If Eve were\nnot startled when she heard the serpent talk, neither is the American\ntheologian who takes that for his text. If Balaam was not at all\nperplexed when his ass opened its mouth and asked him a question,\nneither are the divinity professors in our universities who explain\nthe incident to their pupils. This, if anything, is the more wonderful\nmiracle.\n\nIf I were riding a horse, and all of a sudden the animal should turn\naround and ask me what the subject of my lecture would be for next\nSunday, I would certainly be dumfounded. Yet neither Balaam, nor his\nfellow theologians of to-day, show the least perturbation over an ass\ninterrogating his rider. They can not afford to. Is not God almighty?\nAnd, besides, upon what grounds would they be justified in rejecting\nthis or that miracle while accepting others? Was it more difficult for\nBalaam's ass to have talked than for Christ to have been bom without\na father, or Melchisedec without any parents at all? Magic and miracle\nknow no laws.\n\n\"If God had not opened the mouth of the ass,\" said Father Ignatius, a\nmodern evangelist of the Anglican communion, \"remember that there would\nhave been no Christ.\" The Christian who says he believes in the virgin\nbirth, but not in the talking serpent or ass, is a sceptic already.\nThe reasoning by which he rejects the one miracle is equally effective\nagainst all the others. To accept the Christ miracle by faith, and to\nreject the Balaam miracle by reason, is a procedure which leads\nto anarchism in thought and faith. Oh, no; if you believe in the\nsupernatural at all you will have to believe in Melchisedec and Balaam,\nas you do in the virgin-born Christ. You can not choose your miracles.\nAll or none! And the man who believes in one miracle is not a bit\ndifferent from the man who believes in a million.\n\nThe Unitarian president of America * defines Christianity as \"The\nfatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.\" When Edward Everett Hale\ndied, the Unitarians said that \"Pater noster\"--our Father--expressed\nthe heart and soul of his Christianity. A short time ago, Doctor\nEliot, president emeritus of Harvard University, undertook to reduce\nChristianity to the same simple terms. The idea common to these men is\nthat the only essential thing is the God idea. Never mind about Balaam,\nor the virgin birth. \"Our Father which art in heaven\" is all that is\nnecessary. But one moment: Is not God as much a miracle as Christ or\nBalaam? How do we know God is, or that he is a father, or that he is in\nheaven? By faith? Why then is not faith also enough to make all\nmiracles true? The \"Our Father\" is a chip of the same old block of\nsupernaturalism. There are against one little chip from the block all\nthe objections that there are against the whole block. If God is our\nfather by faith, then Christ was bom of a virgin by faith, and the whale\nswallowed Jonah by faith, and the pope is the vicar of God by faith, and\nso on to the end of the creed. Let us be consistent; which is another\nway of saying, let us be honest.\n\n     * President Taft\n\n\n\n\nThe Unbelievable in the Bible\n\n|THE bible taxes even _credulity_ beyond the point of endurance. No\nmatter how willing one may be to believe everything in the bible, there\nis a limit even to one's willingness to believe. When Moses was upon the\nmountain talking with God, the people down in the plain were worshiping\nidols. Is it possible that with the quaking and thundering mountain\nbefore them, with the deity sitting on its summit, the Jews would have\nhad the temerity to worship a golden calf? Yet this is precisely what\nthe Jews are accused of doing. The parting of the Red Sea is easier to\nbelieve than that the Jews worshiped a calf in the immediate presence\nof \"the one true God\"! Let us glance at the story as it is told in the\nbible.\n\n_And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were\nthunders and lightning, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice\nof the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the\ncamp trembled.\n\nAnd Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God. And\nthey stood at the nether part of the mount.\n\nAnd when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and\nlouder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice_. *\n\nIs it believable that, under such circumstances, with the only God in\nsight of all the people, and his voice in their ears, the Jews could\nhave turned to Aaron and said to him:\n\n_Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses,\nthe man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is\nbecome of him._ **\n\nBoth stories can not be true. Either there was no quaking mountain, or\nsounding trumpet, or voice of God answering Moses from the summit, or\nthe tale of the golden calf is an interpolation. If the people were too\nstupid to know better, how was it that Aaron, the brother of Moses,\nwho had met \"the true God\" on several occasions, instead of showing the\nleast indignation or surprise, says to them:\n\n_Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of\nyour sons and of your daughters, and bring them unto me._ ***\n\n     * Exodus xix, 16,17,19.\n\n     ** Exodus xxxii, 1.\n\n     *** Exodus xxxii, 2.\n\nYes, \"bring me your gold,\" has been the cry of the mystery-man from the\nbeginning of the world!\n\n_And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving\ntool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy\ngods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt_. *\n\nAll this in full view of the flaming mountain, with God conversing\nwith Moses, and the trumpet blowing louder and louder! It is simply\nimpossible. There is not credulity enough in man, it seems to me, for\nsuch contradictory stories. I know men say they believe in them, but do\nthey?\n\nStrange as was the conduct of Aaron and the people on this occasion,\nthe behavior of Moses, when he came down and saw the people dancing\nlike naked savages about their newly fashioned god, ** was even more\ninexplicable. He made a drink out of the golden calf, which he first\nground into powder, and caused \"the children of Israel to drink of it.\"\n*** What could have been his idea in converting the god into a beverage?\nA text like that indicates plainly the presence of fetishism in the\nbible. Even as looking at a brazen serpent was supposed to cure them of\nserpent bites, the drinking of gods melted into a beverage was thought\nto be a remedy against idolatry. Other examples, proving the fetishistic\nbeliefs of Moses, are not wanting in the bible. To make a house\n\"holy\" or proof against the plague, Moses put up the following magical\nprescription:\n\n     * Exodus xxxii, 4.\n\n     ** Exodus xxxii, 25.\n\n     *** Exodus xxxii, 20.\n\n_And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and\nscarlet, and hyssop:\n\nAnd he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running\nwater:\n\nAnd he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and\nthe living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the\nrunning water, and sprinkle the house seven times:_\n\n_And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the\nrunning water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and\nwith the hyssop, and with the scarlet._ *\n\nTo ascertain a woman's virtue, the prescription was as follows:\n\n_And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the\ndust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and\nput it into the water:\n\nAnd the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot\nthem out with the bitter water:\n\nAnd he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the\ncurse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and\nbecome bitter._\n\nThis was not all; an animal's flesh was also burned and mixed with the\nwater.\n\n_And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass,\nthat, if she be defiled... her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall\nrot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people_. **\n\n     * Leviticus xiv, 49-52.\n\n     ** Numbers v, 11-27.\n\nIf these symptoms did not appear, then the woman was not guilty. But\nis it believable that, with God at their elbow, constantly answering\nquestions, revealing to them the pas and the future, and making all\nhidden things plain, they needed mixed drinks, or concoctions, to find\nout whether or not a woman was innocent? And mark you, evidence had no\nplace at all in the Mosaic court. No witnesses were examined, and no\ntestimony taken; it was the mixed preparations that did the work of\njudge and jury. Is it possible that all this is divine?\n\nBlood, according to the bible, is a great disinfectant. The way to\nsanctify a man or a people was to sprinkle them with blood.\n\n_Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon\nthe tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of\nhis sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe\nof their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.\n\nAnd thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the\nanointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and\nupon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him. *\n\nAnd Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people._ **\n\nHow does such a practice differ from fetishism? How can blood on the\ngarments have any effect upon the conscience or the intellect? The\nplea that all this was mere symbolism, if applied also to the rites and\nceremonies prescribed by the Hindu or Persian priesthood, would make\nall religions inspired. The ancient Hindus believed that cow-dung was\ndivinely prescribed for sanctifying purposes. Why was not that, too,\nmere symbolism? The word symbolism is made to cover a multitude of\nsuperstitions. Lacking the courage, and sometimes also the honesty, to\nsay that such ceremonies prove a very low state of culture on the part\nof the people who observed them, clever theologians not only excuse\nor defend them, but they even profess to find symbolized in them the\nmysterious purposes of the infinite. Superstition dies hard.\n\nEven as sprinkling with blood sanctified the people, confessing to a\ngoat secured a pardon from God for sin.\n\n_And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and\nconfess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all\ntheir transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of\nthe goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the\nwilderness:\n\nAnd the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not\ninhabited_. ***\n\n     * Exodus xxix, 20-21.\n\n     **  Exodus xxiv, 8.\n\n     *** Leviticus xvi, 21-22.\n\nCould this be the origin of the confessional? The goat ceremony has a\nwider meaning than the commentators will admit. There were really two\ngoats, upon which Aaron, the priest, cast lots, \"one lot for the Lord,\nand the other lot for the scapegoat.\" *\n\nThe word \"scapegoat\" is a euphemism; the Hebrew text says _Azazel_. Now\nthis was one of the terrible names of God. Both Jews and Mohammedans\nbelieved Azazel to be a dread divinity. Milton introduces Azazel as\nthe standard-bearer of the fallen hosts of heaven. The Arabs, who are a\nbranch of the Semitic race, paid homage to this celestial, and spoke of\nhim as the counsellor or advocate of Allah who was banished from heaven\nbecause when Adam, the first man, appeared upon the scene, he would not\nbow to him. Azazel did not think much of man; and it was for that he\nlost his position. The \"scapegoat,\" then, in the text was none other\nthan his Satanic majesty, the fallen chief of the heavenly hosts--the\ndevil. Setting apart a goat for Azazel, or allowing him to share with\nJehovah the offering at the altar, gives support to the belief that the\nJews worshiped the devil as well as Jehovah. It is plainly stated in\nother parts of the bible that devil worship was common among the Jews\neven as late as the time of Rehoboam, who reigned after David and\nSolomon. ** But more light is thrown on the subject of the intimacy\nbetween God and Satan in the story of Job.\n\n     * Leviticus xvi, 7-8.\n\n     **  II Chronicles xi, 15: \"And he ordained him priests for\n     the high places, and for the devils.\"\n\n\n\n\nIV. The Strangest Story in the Bible\n\n|ONE of the strangest chapters in the bible is the description of\nthe interview between God and the devil. The interview takes place in\nheaven. We have already met the devil in Paradise; now we are to\nfind him, as the French say, in a _t\u00eate \u00e0 t\u00eate_ with Jehovah, at the\nexclusive headquarters of the latter. There is much reason to believe\nthat these two beings, who seem to be together on important occasions,\noriginally sprang from the same stock, if such a term could be used.\nJehovah and Azazel, or Satan, appear to be first cousins. This is the\nimpression of nearly every student who looks into their pedigrees. In\nthe thought of early man God was hardly distinguishable from the devil.\nThe evidence bears out the bible suggestion that at one time God and the\ndevil were on the best of terms, and kept house together. In those days\nit was really difficult to tell them apart. In the twenty-first chapter\nof the first book of Chronicles, it is written by \"inspiration\" that\n\"God moved David to number Israel.\" In the twenty-fourth chapter, the\nfirst verse, of the second book of Samuel, we read that it was Satan who\nmoved David to take a census of the nation. There is no inconsistency\nhere. God and Satan belong to the \"unknown,\" and they pull together.\nWhen, as the bible informs us, there was war in heaven, the two\nrelatives quarreled and parted. And though ever since they have\nmaintained separate quarters, now and then, when there was a reunion of\nthe family, Satan was invited to join the festivities. There is a saying\nthat \"blood is thicker than water,\" and still another, that \"blood will\ntell.\" The occasional conferences and exchange of confidences between\nJehovah and Satan, as related in the bible, is a confirmation of these\npopular proverbs.\n\nThe instructions given to Aaron about being sure to have two goats, and\nto let Azazel have the one which fell to his lot, even though it may\nbe the fatter animal, shows the care which Jehovah takes of his ancient\ncomrade and minister. Perhaps this was necessary to keep the peace.\nAt any rate, it is evident that Jehovah was mindful of the rights of\nAzazel.\n\nBut now about the interview between Jehovah and Satan: \"Now there was a\nday,\" says the bible, \"when the sons of God came to present themselves\nbefore the Lord, and Satan came also among them.\" * Was he, too, one\nof the Sons of God? It is impossible to read the description of these\nfamily gatherings in heaven with Satan also invited, without being\nimpressed with the importance of the devil in the councils of God.\nPerhaps the _entente cordiale_ between Satan and Jehovah is to be\nexplained by the fact that the latter had not found any one among all\nhis ministers who could fill the place made vacant by the resignation of\nSatan. Jehovah needed the devil, and this dependence upon him to carry\nto a successful issue his most urgent and mysterious decrees was the\nsecret of the deference shown to the devil in these periodical reunions\nat the throne of God. On one of these occasions, as we have seen, when\nthe children of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan,\nof course, was there among them. But this was not the only time that\nSatan was invited to meet with God. His presence at these gatherings\ncreated no surprise, because he had been seen there frequently. But I am\nnot equally sure that the marks of special attention shown to him by\nthe Lord of heaven did not make the saints a little jealous of him. The\nreports of these meetings in heaven confine themselves exclusively to\nwhat transpires between the two principals, God and Satan. The other\n\"sons of God\" seem to have acted what in modern parlance would be called\n\"a silent part.\"\n\n     * Job i, 6.\n\nJehovah inquired of his distinguished guest, the news and whence he\ncame. As the Lord knew all the news himself, and also whence Satan came,\nhe must have asked these questions for the purpose of \"drawing him out,\"\nto use an expression in vogue among diplomats.\n\nBut Satan knew how to keep a secret. He answered his host's question\nwithout really telling anything either of the news, or whence he came:\n\"From going to and fro in the earth and from walking up and down in it,\"\nhe replied. If we were not afraid of exposing ourselves to the charge\nof blasphemy, we would say that this was a devilish answer. It said\nnothing. Evidently Satan wanted God to show his hand first.\n\n\"Hast thou considered,\" asked the Lord, addressing Satan more\nconfidentially, and coming to the point, \"my servant Job, that there\nis none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that\nfear-eth God, and escheweth evil?\" *\n\n     * Job 1,8.\n\nIn all probability the reference to Job was to prove that there was one\nman, at least, whom the devil had not yet been able to win over to his\nside. But the devil had an explanation for his failure to get Job;\nit was not because Job loved God, but because of the favors God kept\nshowering upon him.\n\n\"Doth Job fear God for naught?\" he asked. \"Hast not thou made an hedge\nabout him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every\nside?... But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and\nhe will curse thee to thy face.\" *\n\nThis was a challenge. Satan would not allow that there was even one man\nwho loved and served God from choice. To show his confidence in Job, the\nLord not only accepted the devil's challenge, but volunteered to hand\nover his one faithful subject to the tender mercies of the Evil One.\n\n_And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold all that he hath is in thy power._\n**\n\n     * Job i, 9-11.\n\n     **  Job i, 12.\n\nThereupon Satan hurried out in search of his victim. Whether or not the\nother \"children of God\" who were present at this reunion, heard this\ninteresting conversation between the two divinities, and who they\nthought would come out winner in the contest over a denizen of the\nearth, is not recorded. Job, of course, was not aware of the fact that\nJehovah and Satan were throwing dice for his soul. Nor was he consulted\nwhether or not he wanted to be turned over to the devil for the worst\ndrubbing any one ever received. From a human point of view, it was an\nunspeakable outrage to take a \"perfect and upright man\" and hand him\nover to be thrashed within an inch of his life. But there is, the\nlearned doctors of divinity tell us, a difference between human and\ndivine justice. \"God's ways are not our ways,\" as his conduct in this\ncase amply proves.\n\nThe devil lost no time in falling upon Job now that he had _carte\nblanche_ to bring his ingenuity into play. He began by attacking Job's\nproperty, which the Sabeans carry off. Scarcely has the patriarch\nreconciled himself to this loss, when word is brought to him that \"the\nfire of God is fallen from heaven,\" burning up everything that belonged\nto him in the fields. \"The fire of God\"? It looks as if Jehovah had not\nonly permitted Satan to ruin Job, if he could, but he was helping him,\npersonally, by sending down fire upon Job's servants and cattle. And\nwhat was the fault of these that they, too, should be punished? And why\nwere the sons and daughters of Job killed? For the next messenger tells\nJob that all his children were destroyed by a terrific windstorm, also\nsent by God. But it is one thing to ask these questions of a theologian,\nand another thing to get him to answer them. Despite these terrible\nblows, however, Job remained loyal to God. Jehovah came out ahead in the\nfirst inning. But the game is not over yet.\n\nAnother meeting is arranged for between these two powers. Again they\nmeet in heaven. It was a dangerous thing to let the devil into heaven so\noften, after the experience of Adam and Eve in Paradise, with its\ndire results, not only to man, but to the son of God himself, whose\ncrucifixion might have been prevented by refusing the devil admittance\ninto Eden. When the devil was seated comfortably next to the deity--or\nperhaps he was standing--he was asked about Job, who had remained true\nto God despite the fact that the latter had delivered him up to the\ndevil. But we will let Jehovah state his own case:\n\n_And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that\nthere is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one\nthat feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his\nintegrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without\ncause._ *\n\n     * Job ii, 3.\n\nDo you know, reader, why I have put in italics the concluding words in\nthe above quotation? It is the most terrible text in all the bible. It\nis what the lawyers would describe as the most conspicuous instance of\nself-incrimination on record. In this passage the Lord of heaven\nand earth makes the frightful admission that he did wrong upon the\nsuggestion of the devil--that he was tempted of the devil to commit a\ncrime! This is staggering. He also admits that the crime was committed\nagainst a just man, and without cause! We have in this text a most\nhumiliating picture of the deity--a God obeying the devil! The English\nlanguage is inadequate to help express the horror, the pity, the\nindignation, the defiance, the scorn, the sorrow which the spectacle of\na God admitting a heinous crime but pleading that the devil moved him to\ncommit it, provokes in me. If I could weep the world into common sense,\nI would do it; if I could laugh these absurdities and immoralities out\nof the world's mind and conscience, who would prevent me?\n\nI am really afraid of a God who will take advice from the devil. I am\nafraid of a God who will cause a \"perfect and upright man\" to be ruined\n\"without cause,\" just to win a wager from the devil.\n\nTo me, the strangest discovery one makes in the bible is that God and\nthe devil are, to use the nomenclature of the commercial world, business\npartners. They meet occasionally to discuss policies and to exchange\nviews. Each is mindful of the rights of the other. God would rather\nsee his servant Job ruined than drive the devil out of his presence for\nmoving him to commit a crime. Which is God and which is the devil?\n\nBut let us return to the story: Satan was not willing to grant that\nhe had lost, until Job had been punished some more. So he asked for\npermission to attack Job in his own person:\n\n\"Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But\nput forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he\nwill curse thee to thy face,\" * suggested the devil. What did the other\npartner say to this? Although he had just admitted that he did wrong\nto an innocent man, to a friend, he is willing to do it again, and this\ntime he consents to be more cruel and unjust than before.\n\n_And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand._**\n\nLike a flash, Satan fell upon Job and smote him \"from the sole of his\nfoot unto his crown.\" Job became a disgusting heap of prurient and\ncarious flesh.\n\n_And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down\namong the ashes._ ***\n\n     * Job ii, 4-5\n\n     **  Job ii, 6.\n\n     *** Job ii, 9.\n\nThus Job becomes a football between these two gambling divinities. After\nlosing everything, after being deprived of his sons and daughters, he\nhimself is brought down by foul sores and boils to the verge of death.\nIndeed, death would have been preferable to being the toy and plaything\nof Jehovah-Satan. The preachers defend this loose story and call it\ninspired, on the ground that it taught Job _patience_. But was there no\nsaner way of teaching him the lesson of patience?\n\nThe bible God plays with fire. His attempt to teach Adam obedience cost\nthe damnation of the human race and the death of his own son. He almost\ntempted Abraham to stick a knife into his own son in trying to make sure\nof his faith. He tried Jephtha's loyalty, and it cost the latter the\nlife of his young daughter; and to teach Job patience, servants, cattle,\nsons and daughters--all are slaughtered.\n\nMoreover, if Job was \"a perfect and upright man,\" as the text claims,\nwhat need was there of teaching him patience--and at such a cost, too?\nThe clergy, lacking the courage to say that the story of God and Satan,\ngambling for the soul of Job, is a myth, rack their brains for excuses\nand apologies to explain its presence in the Word of God. Nor is it true\nthat the story was meant to teach us submission to God, whether he sends\ngood or evil. That is what free-born people would call blasphemy. It is\nwrong to submit to evil. It is base to kiss the hand that robs us of our\nrights. We do not deserve freedom if we can endure slavery. Justice is\nborn of the rebellion against wrong, as truth is born of the protest\nagainst error. The Asiatic submits; the European rebels. Of that\nrebellion is born civilization. Prometheus, defying the gods, and not\nJob, licking the hand that has crushed him, is our inspiration!\n\nI am also aware of the argument of the liberal clergy, that the book of\nJob is only a poem. Why not say so, then, in plain print? Why bind an\nimaginary composition in the same volume with the \"infallible word of\nGod?\" But, even as the first chapter of Genesis was inspired history\nuntil Darwin exposed its untruth, so was the Book of Job inspired\nhistory until criticism showed its inherent immorality. As a play, Job\nis one of the most successful in ancient literature. But what is a play\ndoing in the \"Holy Bible\"?\n\nBut my main object in reciting the story of this Arab sheik was to show\nthe family resemblance between the two sovereigns, the one of heaven,\nthe other of hell. In the New Testament, too, Satan figures as a\npersonage of importance, and not at all as one who has been disarmed and\ndegraded. On one occasion Jesus and the devil met in the wilderness.\nThe conversation which took place between them shows the devil was as\nindependent and resourceful with the junior God as he was with Jehovah.\nAccording to St. Mathew, the devil picked up the Son of God and flew\nwith him through the air. When he had set him down on the pinnacle of\nthe temple he told him what he wanted. From there he carried Jesus to an\nexceeding high mountain, so high that from its summit \"all the kingdoms\nof the world\" could be seen. * Now a being who could fly through the air\nwith a god tucked away under his arm is not to be slighted.\n\n     * Matthew iv, 1-12.\n\nSatan has gone. Jehovah must follow. Neither can live without the other.\n\n\n\n\nPART IV.\n\n\n\n\nI. God and His Book\n\n|WHEN the deity had finished making his world, the bible says that he\nlooked his creation all over, and behold, everything that he had made\n\"was good.\" He was, according to this report, perfectly pleased with his\nwork. He was proud of the world he had created, for it was made in his\nown image. But in the very next chapter we read that the first woman God\never made deceived her husband, and the first man deserted his wife, by\nthrowing the blame of his transgression upon her, instead of coming to\nher defense. And the first son ever born to a mother--Cain--turned\nout to be a murderer--the murderer of his only brother. And the world\nitself, which a moment ago had been pronounced good, became so wicked in\na short time that it had to be drowned. Who would care to be the author\nof such a world!\n\nOf course, it will be said that the collapse of God's world was the\ndevil's fault, but where did _he_ come from? Why was there a devil in\na universe created by God, and in his own image? That is the question\nagainst which all theologies dash themselves to pieces. If the deity\nwas powerless against the devil, he could, at least, have refrained from\ncreating a world for the devil to work his mischief in. If you can not\nremove the quicksand, would you build a house on it?\n\nMoreover, this throwing the blame upon somebody else is the very tactics\nwhich Adam and Eve resorted to. But did it help them? When Adam was\nasked why he ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree, he threw the blame\nupon his wife. When the woman was interrogated, she threw the blame upon\nthe serpent, and now when we ask the \"Lord God\" why his world went to\npieces so soon after he had pronounced it perfect, he throws the blame\nupon the devil. Well, that will not do. If shirking his responsibility\ndid not save Adam nor his innocent progeny--the human race--why should\nit save the deity?\n\nThe story of Cain and Abel is the first episode on, earth. The two were\nbrothers. Abel was a shepherd; Cain, a farmer. Surely they needed each\nother, both commercially and socially. According to the bible, there\nwere altogether only four people in the world, at this time, and,\ntherefore, from every point of view, it was more than a dastardly crime\nto kill one of the members of this precious group.\n\nWhat was the cause of the hatred which led to the first bloodshed?\nUnfortunately these two brothers had a _religion_. But for their\nreligion they would never have hated one another, nor would murder\nhave stained the opening pages of history. Cain offered the Lord for a\nsacrifice, of the product of his farm; Abel brought to the altar a\nhead or two of cattle. They were both trying to please the Lord, each\nworshiping him according to his light. Ah! but that is not enough; there\nis only one worship that is orthodox. All others are taboo. God accepts\nAbel's flesh offering, and rejects Cain's vegetables. Then the trouble\nbegins. The murder of Abel by Cain started the religious persecutions\nwhich have blackened the face of man. To this source may be traced the\ninquisitions, the crusaders the wholesale massacres which have made\nhistory a horror and a shudder. The first bloodshed was in the name of\nreligion. The first murder was committed at the altar of God. It was a\nreligious difference which defiled with blood the cradle of the human\nrace. But who was responsible for the first murder in the world? The\ndeity! Had God been pleased to accept a vegetable offering with as much\npleasure as roasting flesh, or, had he said, \"Never mind me; be good to\none another,\" he would have removed thereby the most powerful motive for\nreligious persecution. The Cain and Abel story compels us to say that\nthe first persecutor was the \"Lord God\" himself.\n\nAnd how could these two brothers tell that God had accepted one offering\nand rejected the other? How can men tell to-day that God likes the\nCatholic worship better than the Protestant or the Moslem? Who can\nenlighten us on this subject? In the case of Cain and Abel, in all\nprobability, the flesh offering, being oily or fat, burned readily on\nthe altar; while the vegetables, being fresh and wet, or covered with\nthe soil, did not burn as readily, or they smoked instead of going up in\na flame, which natural circumstance was seized upon as a supernatural\nrevelation, and made the pretext for the most infamous deed on\nrecord--fratricide.\n\nAnd where did these two brothers get the idea that God was fond either\nof flesh or of vegetables? That is an interesting question. In the days\nof ignorance and fear, when the crocodile in the river was a god, it was\nsupposed that the monster had power to hurt people. He must, therefore,\nbe appeased. The rumor went abroad that the monster was very fond of\nlittle children. \"Let us throw him a child for his breakfast,\" suggests\na priest. The suggestion is followed. With prayers, incantations,\nprostrations--with incense, and chants, on stated occasions, the\ncrocodile is presented a child. To bribe the evil powers, to put them in\na friendly frame of mind by gifts of food and drink, of song and prayer,\nin order to turn their wrath into compassion--such was the beginning of\nhuman sacrifices. At first the gods were very particular. They demanded\nhuman flesh for their breakfast, and not until man was sufficiently\nstrong to make his own terms, did the gods consent to accept the flesh\nof the animal.\n\n\n\n\nThe Deity Demands Human Flesh\n\n|THE object of human and animal sacrifices in the bible, as in all\nthe older religions, was to placate the deity. The Jews would not have\noffered Jehovah the flesh of man and beast, did they not believe that\ntheir god was not only exceedingly fond of roast meats, but that this\nwas the only way to secure any favors from him. When an oriental desired\na favor of his king or chieftain, he approached him with many gifts, as\nwell as with prostrations and compliments. The way to be admitted to\nan audience with Jehovah was to praise him loudly, and to offer him the\nbest part of the spoils.\n\nThe psychological phase of the institution of sacrifices and worship is\nvery instructive. Even as a child tries to put its father in an amiable\nstate of mind before presenting its petition, the believer's motive in\ncoming forward with precious gifts--the flesh even of his own little\nones--or with elaborate and highly finished compliments, is to throw\na spell upon the deity, to charm him, as it were, into granting the\npetitioner his request. The savage actually believed that the savour of\nburning flesh, and the sight of palpitating blood shed at the altars,\nso delighted or intoxicated the deity that almost any favor could be\nwrested from him while in that condition. The object of the soft hymns\nand cajoling prayers in the churches to-day have the same purpose for\nwhich the sacrifices and dances of the barbarians were instituted. How\nto charm the deity, to please and engage his services, is the end and\naim of every kind of worship.\n\nThe word gospel is a combination of good and spell. To read it, is to\nbecome spellbound, according to the teaching of the churches. In the\nsame sense, a prayer-book is a collection of _spells_, to be used in\napproaching the deity. If we desire rain from him, we must use the\npetition, or the spell, expressly prepared for that purpose; if we\ndesire good harvests, or success in war, or the removal from the land\nof the plague or infidelity, we must use other spells. \"We ask it all\nin Jesus' name,\" is the way nearly all prayers close. That is one of the\nirresistible spells. \"Ask it in my name,\" says Jesus, because the belief\nwas current that there was magic in a name. That is to say, some names\nwere spells. The word charm comes from the Latin _carmen_. But that is\nalso the word for song or hymn. To sing to a god is to charm him, or\nbind him with a spell. The purpose of the chants is to _enchant_ the\ndeity, that is to say, to intoxicate him with praise, as the savage\ntried to intoxicate him with his roasts and reeking altars.\n\nThe service of the gods was very much more expensive in olden times than\nnow. Men had to part with their own children to keep on good terms with\nthe powers above. But, as often explained, the secular interests of\nlife always act as a check on the follies and absurdities of religion.\nInstead of throwing his children to the crocodile, or burning them alive\nupon the altar, the natural affections prevailed upon man to experiment\nwith animal flesh as an offering to his gods. As man developed in power\nand independence, he compelled the gods to draw up a new contract, or\na new testament, which not only forbade human, and later also animal,\nsacrifices, but allowed an offering of fruit, flowers and vegetables to\ntake the place of flesh and blood at the altars. In each new bargain,\nthe crocodile was the loser and man the gainer. The history of progress\nis the history of the successive bargains or covenants or testaments\nbetween man and the crocodile, or man and the powers he fears, each new\ncontract adding to the rights of man and clipping from the claims of\nthe crocodile. Is not this very interesting? What the Christians or Jews\ncall a progressive religion simply means that God is satisfied with\nless now, or demands less now, than he was wont to in the days of man's\nignorance and impotence.\n\nThe yoke of Jehovah is very much easier and not at all so pinching as\nformerly. His ten thousand categorical commandments, his taboos, his\nlong list of ceremonial observances of new moons and Sabbaths, and\nthe mysteries and dogmas which had to be accepted upon penalty of\nexcommunication and damnation, have been one after the other discarded\nas non-essentials, with the result that one may now join either the\nChristian or the Jewish church upon one's own terms--and this they call\nbeing _liberal_.\n\nWhat a blessing has Rationalism been even to the churches! It has\nsaved them from shedding the blood of their children, saved them their\ndomestic animals, and saved also the waste of their garden products, for\nthe gods now get nothing but \"words\" for an offering. The deity, who\nat one time turned away from Cain's vegetable and fruit offering, and\npreferred the smell of roasting flesh, is now glad enough to get a few\nverbal compliments once a week.\n\nBut in the bible, God has not yet heard of \"reformed\" Judaism or of\n\"liberal\" Christianity, and hence he will accept nothing less than\nhuman and animal sacrifices. \"Let me have blood, and more blood,\" is the\nrefrain of revelation. How many of the believers in the bible are aware\nthat God demanded by the mouth of Moses the first born of his people?\nNot only did he slay the first born of Egypt, but he also insisted upon\nhaving for himself the first fruits of the womb, as well as of the land\nof the chosen people.\n\n_Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the\nLord of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his\npossession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy\nunto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be\nredeemed; but shall surely be put to death._ *\n\n     *  Leviticus xxvii, 28,29.\n\nAnd Nehemiah relates how the faithful Jews, those who did not follow the\nexample of the heathen, continued under all circumstances to bring \"the\nfirstfruits of our ground, and the firstfruits of all fruits of all\ntrees, year by year, unto the house of the Lord: Also the _first born of\nour sons_ (daughters not acceptable), and of our cattle, as is written\nin the law.\" *\n\n     * Nehemiah x, 35,36.\n\nAnd this is the book that must be circulated by the millions as the\ngreatest and best in all the world! Even as the Old Testament demanded\nthe sacrifice of the sons of the people, the New Testament demands the\nsacrifice of the Son of God. Look at the animal about to be bound and\nmade ready for the knife of the priest. See its struggles and hear its\nmoan! But that is nothing compared to the piteous wail of the human\nchild torn from its parents' arms to be offered as a sacrifice to the\ncrocodile! Nay, behold the agony of Christ on the cross and listen to\nhis heartrending cry, \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" If\nGod failed to hear thee, O Jesus! humanity has heard thy prayer, and\nthere shall be no more murder on the altars of the crocodile!\n\nThe story of how Abraham was tempted, as it is said, to sacrifice his\nson to Jehovah, is well known. Abraham did not object at all. Neither\nwas he shocked, or surprised, when commanded to kill his own son. It\ndoes not seem to have been an unusual thing for Jehovah to demand human\nflesh for his diet. Abraham started to do as his religion required of\nhim. That is my complaint against religion. It makes a man willing to\ncommit any crime under heaven in the name of God! And there is not\nan American clergyman who has the courage to say that such a\ncommandment--requiring a father to butcher his son--should never have\nbeen given, or that, having been given, it should be stricken out of the\nbible. And had Abraham been a man, he would have become an out and\nout Atheist before he would have tied his little boy hand and foot and\npulled out his knife!\n\nBut the clergyman is on hand with his excuses. He has no arguments, he\nhas only _excuses_. God was only trying Abraham's faith, he tells us.\nIndeed! Did not the deity know in advance how Abraham would act under\nthe circumstances? \"Is it not true,\" ask again, the defenders of the\nbible, \"that Abraham was not allowed to destroy his son, Isaac?\" Yes,\nbut God allowed Jephthah to kill his _daughter!_ The story of this\nunfortunate father is told in the following verses:\n\n_And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without\nfail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be,\nthat whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I\nreturn in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's,\nand I will offer it up for a burnt offering._\n\nJehovah accepted the bargain and gave Jephthah the victory.\n\n_And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter\ncame out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only\nchild; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.\n\nAnd it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and\nsaid, Alas, my daughter!_\n\nThen the poor man explains to his child the vow he had made unto the\nLord. The young woman was willing to be offered up as a \"burnt offering\"\nunto the Lord, if she could have two months' time to wander about and\nbewail her sad fate.\n\n_And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto\nher father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed._ *\n\n     * Judges xi, 30-39.\n\nWhy should Americans have anything to do with an Asiatic cult which\ntempts a father to kill the son that had called him _papa_, or which\nactually permits a father to burn alive his only child--the child\nthat ran to greet him with a kiss? There was a good excuse to burn the\nclothes, or the timbrels with which Jephtha's daughter ran to meet her\nfather, instead of the young lady herself. A good argument could have\nbeen made that the first object the returning general saw was the\ntimbrels in her hand, but the Lord would not accept anything less than\nhuman flesh in those days.\n\nThere are many other examples in the \"Holy Bible\" as objectionable as\nthose already mentioned. Frequently the only way to turn away the \"wrath\nof God\" from the people, was to hang a few heads against the sun, or\nmassacre a whole community, children included, or to draw the sword\nupon the members of one's own family. What does the reader think of\nall this--in the bible! Why are not men ashamed to print and distribute\ntwenty million copies a year of a book so foreign to the best feelings\nof our age and country? Why should such a book be forced into our homes\nand schools, or placed in the hands of our little ones immediately after\nthey have left their cradles? Why should there be a copy of this book in\nevery room of every hotel in the land?\n\nBefore dismissing this subject it would be well to point out that the\nlong practice of human and animal sacrifices is responsible for the\ncruelty to children and animals in modern times. Humanity to our dumb\nneighbors has not been one of the distinguished virtues of either Jews\nor Christians, and though we live in the twentieth century we have to\nsupport societies specially devoted to preventing cruelty to children.\nIn the same way associations have been organized to protect animals\nagainst mistreatment.\n\nThat the bible gives little thought to the rights of animals may be\ninferred not only from St. Paul's rather brutal exclamation, \"Does God\ncare for the oxen?\" but also from the practice among the Jews to this\nday, of tormenting an animal before killing him for food. In the _Humane\nReview_, an eye witness of the Jewish method of slaughter to provide\n_Kosher_ meat for the market gives the following description of the\noperation:\n\n_As soon as the animal has been brought into the slaughtering chamber it\nis thrown to the ground either by attaching a rope or chain to the legs\nand then suddenly hauling on it, or by twisting the head upward and\nsideways by means of an appliance attached to the horns and passing\nunder the jaw, in such a way that the animal loses its balance and falls\nto the ground, in doing which it not infrequently injures itself so that\nthere is loss of blood or fracture of horn or rib. The animal is then\nrendered powerless by having its feet bound together, or the tail drawn\nthrough the hind legs forward and upward, while one of the slaughtermen\nplaces his foot on the animal's stomach and prevents its attempting to\noffer resistance. The head is then forced down so that it rests on the\nhorns, and the nose is pressed against the floor. This can only be done\nby the exertion of great force on the part of the slaughtermen, with\ncorresponding resistance, involving terror and suffering on that of\nthe animal. The Jewish official who performs the act of slaughter then\npasses his hand over the animal's tightly drawn throat, and mutters the\nso-called \"Schechita\" prayer. He then cuts the animal's throat right\nthrough the vertebrae, drawing the knife to and fro in so doing. The\nblood which spurts from the severed arteries is scattered like rain by\nthe breath which escapes from the lungs, and as the breath is drawn in\nit enters the gullet and lungs with a loud rattling noise. The gaping\nwound yawns wide, the animal opens and closes its eyes, rolling them to\nand fro, and opens and shuts its mouth as though gasping for breath.\nIf the flow of blood from the arteries in the neck ceases, one of the\nslaughtermen--not the Jewish official--draws them out, cuts away part of\nthem with the surrounding tissues, and throws the severed portion away.\nAnd while all this is going on the animal is alive and conscious of pain\nand terror._\n\n\n\n\nII. The Portrait of God in the Bible\n\n|TO prove the charge that the bible God is quite unfit for modern\npurposes, we have only to open the \"holy\" book at almost any page to\nfind such positive commandments as the following emanating from him:\n\n_Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and\nspare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and\nsheep, camel and ass._*\n\nSlaughter on a small scale, or at intervals, does not seem to satisfy\nthe bible deity. Like a vortex, he cries for more, more.\n\n_But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give\nthee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:\n\nBut thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the\nAmorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the\nJebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee._ **\n\n     * I Samuel, xv, 3.\n\n     **  Deuteronomy xx, 16, 17.\n\nWe would never have thought of calling attention to these gory pages\nbut for the protection of our homes and schools, which the clergy insist\nshould be placed under bible influence and instruction. And they have\nall the money and prestige in the world to force this book into our\nhomes, and will do so if they catch the modern world napping for a\nmoment.\n\nIt is not only the heathen that are put to the edge of the sword, but\nthe Jews themselves are repeatedly slaughtered on the flimsiest pretext.\nWhen the people expressed any disagreement or complaint, or offered any\ncriticism, they were \"consumed\" by the fire of the Lord. * When the Jews\nlonged for a change of diet, and remembered the better food they enjoyed\nin the land of Egypt, the anger of the Lord was kindled:\n\n_And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from\nthe sea, and let them fall by the camp.... 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._ **\n\nWhen he was less angry, he \"sent fiery serpents among the people,\nand they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.\" *** On one\noccasion nothing less than the massacre of five hundred thousand of\nhis own chosen people would restore his good temper. **** Is there any\nstrong reason why a book containing such demoralizing stories should be\ntranslated into every language and carried into every country under the\nsun? And is it not time for the American people to shut this \"holy\" book\nout of their homes, as it is already shut out of their public schools?\n\n     * Numbers xi, I.\n\n     ** Numbers, xxi, 6.\n\n     *** Numbers xi, 4-6, 31-33.\n\n     **** II Chronicles, xiii, 17.\n\nNot only did the commandments to kill and destroy proceed from the\ndeity, but the bible represents him as angry when his agents show any\npity or weakness in carrying out his designs. Saul is dethroned for\nsparing the cattle of the people he had been sent by the Lord to\ndestroy. But Saul spared the best of the cattle, after he had destroyed\nall the men, women and children \"to sacrifice unto the Lord.\" By doing\nthis he had hoped to please the Lord, but not so. \"It repented me,\" says\nJehovah, \"that I have set up Saul to be king.\" David, on the other hand,\nwas after \"God's own heart,\" because he was made of sterner stuff. As\nthis bible character is often held up as a pattern, and as children\nare expected to love David as one of the best and holiest men in the\nbible--of whom Jesus was descended--it may not be amiss to recite a few\nof the stories in which this \"man of God\" figured so prominently. In\nDavid we see the picture of his God. My hand really trembles as I write\nthe following verse:\n\n_And he (David) brought out the people that were in it, and cut them\nwith saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David\nwith all the cities of the children of Ammon._ *\n\nCould anything be more repugnant to civilized races than such\nunnecessary inhumanity? We are trying to introduce a milder form of\ncapital punishment than hanging, but surely it is not the bible that has\nsoftened our manners. I have so much faith in the saving common sense of\nthe average American or European that I believe if they would only read\nthe bible, and become better acquainted with it, they would not\nhesitate to do all in their power, even if it involved much personal\ninconvenience and loss, to break forever the power of these Semitic\ntales of war and plunder. Is there no more courage left in the world?\n\"Oh, but nobody believes in these parts of the bible any more.\" Very\nwell, then, why print and sell them at the rate of twenty million copies\na year? But let us continue the story of David:\n\n_And he... put them under saws... and under axes of iron, and made them\npass through the brick-kiln_. **\n\n     * I Chronicles, xx, 3.\n\n     **   II Samuel, xii, 31.\n\n\"And made them pass through the brick-kiln.\"\n\nWell! and is that in the bible? If the Lord could not prevent such\nbarbarity, could he not have prevented, at least, the publishing of such\ncriminal details? The American public is about to pass a law prohibiting\nthe newspapers from entering into the details of the daily murders and\nother horrible crimes they report. It is claimed, and justly, that such\nparticular descriptions of acts of cruelty and shame familiarize the\nyoung, especially, with the worst phases of life, and by suggestion lead\nthem astray. But the bible sins in this respect more flagrantly than\nany modern journal, not excepting the yellowest of them. Written, on the\nwhole, by barbarians who lived in an age of brigandage and massacre, the\nbible not only gives details of crime which would not be tolerated in\nany modern publication, but, what is infinitely more injurious to\nthe cause of morality, it sets upon unmentionable acts of cruelty and\ndebauchery the stamp of divine approval. Once more, I repeat that I\nwould never have devoted any labor to the discussion of the contents of\nthe bible, if it were not that this is the great idol of the civilized\nworld to-day--this the \"holy\" book, the reading of which it is the\ndesire of the churches to make compulsory in the home and the school,\nand this the word of God without which, it is claimed, there can be no\nmorality!\n\nEven as there is a movement to purge the daily newspapers of offensive\ndetails of lawlessness and crime, there is also a movement to clear\nthe billboards of objectionable displays and advertisements, and the\ntheaters of such plays and moving pictures as offend good taste and\ncorrupt the manners of young and old.\n\nStill another worthy effort is in the direction of omitting from\nchildren's schoolbooks descriptions of war and carnage, in order to\nwin them over to the nobler cause of peace. But why do not good men and\nwomen, who have bravely undertaken these needed reforms, try their hand\nalso on the Jewish-Christian bible? I challenge these reformers, who\nwould expunge from children's text-books the descriptions of battles and\nslaughters, to find a single passage in the secular history of Europe\nand America which can compare with the descriptions of David's divine\nmethod of warfare.\n\n_And thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon._ *\n\n     * II Samuel xii, 31.\n\n\"Unto all the cities.\" Goodness! It is not only upon one or two special\noffenders that these atrocities are practiced, but upon \"all the\ncities.\" And think of the state of heart and mind of a man that could\nbe such a monster! But there is something more appalling still: think of\nthe head and heart of the people of the twentieth century who dare\nnot denounce such barbarities because they are in the bible, and\nwho translate these details into every language under the sun for\nedification in morals!\n\nOf course, there are also many \"good things\" in the bible, but if all\nthe good editorials in newspapers can not atone for or justify the\npublication of offensive matter in other columns of the paper, why\nshould the \"good things in the bible\" be quoted to cover up or excuse\nsuch terrible passages as those quoted above? And if it be said that\nneither Jews nor Christians approve of all the things in the bible, I\nask, again, why then do they go on translating and disseminating the\nbook without expunging the objectionable parts? If they have the courage\nto so rewrite the history of nations, or report the news of the world,\nas to omit all wanton descriptions of brutal and vulgar conduct, why\nhave they not the courage to put the bible through the same purifying\nprocess? Who or what are they afraid of?\n\n\n\n\nA Bible Saint\n\n|THE story of David, which is placed in children's hands for their\nedification, is really that of a brigand, the personnel of whose\nfollowers is given in the following words:\n\n_And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and\nevery one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and he\n(David) became a captain over them: and there were with him about four\nhundred men._ *\n\nLed by their \"holy\" captain, they went about to murder and plunder.\nHiding themselves in caves and mountain fastnesses, they became a terror\nto people laboring in the fields or traveling from place to place. These\nfreebooters, naturally enough, preferred going with David to staying at\nhome to be sued for unpaid bills. So \"every one that was in debt\" joined\nthe robber band. The thoroughness with which David and his marauders did\ntheir work won for them the favor of Jehovah.\n\n_And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath,\nsaying, Lest they should tell on us, saying,\n\nSo did David._ **\n\n     * I Samuel xxii, 2.\n\n     ** Samuel xxvii, 11.\n\nDavid never did anything without first consulting the Lord. He was not\nonly cruel, but he was also a coward, for unless his God positively\nassured him of victory, he would not fight. The way he ascertained\nthe mind of the Lord shows him to have been as superstitious as he was\nunmerciful and cowardly. And this is the Saint David--the flower\nof Judaism and Christianity combined! Religion has so perverted the\njudgment of men that they admire in the bible what they would despise\nanywhere else.\n\n_And David said to Abiathar, the priest... I pray thee, bring me hither\nthe ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David. And David\nenquired of the Lord, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? Shall\nI overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue: for thou shalt surely\novertake them, and without fail recover all. _*\n\nAn _ephod_ was a cloak made according to the instructions of God, and\nworn by the priest. David consulted the cloak, and the cloak answered\nhim. Perhaps there was some one in the cloak; at any rate the cloak\nspoke. David evidently had other gods besides Jehovah and the _ephod_,\nwhom he kept at his home for consultation. On one occasion his wife\nMichal placed one of these domestic gods in David's bed, to mislead\nhis pursuers. ** But his gods, big or small, did not object to his\nbarbarities:\n\n_Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the\nPhilistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and gave\nthem in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in\nlaw._ ***\n\n     * I Samuel xxx, 7,8.\n\n     ** I Samuel xix, 13.\n\n     ***  I Samuel xviii, 27.\n\nDo parents desire their children to read such impure stories?\n\nDavid puts the scalping Indians to shame. On one occasion, after God had\ngreatly blessed him and given him the throne of Israel, David, who had\nalready hundreds of wives and concubines, caught sight of the wife of\none of his soldiers. To possess her, he coolly planned, and, without\nscruple, caused to be executed one of the meanest murders on record,\nthat of the husband of the woman he coveted. The only person punished\nfor this act of David was the innocent babe born of the crime. What\njustice!\n\nFrom this time on, David became, if anything, more offensive in his\nconduct than ever before. Having escaped punishment for the foul murder\nof Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, he caused to be hanged seven of the\nsons and grandsons of his ancient rival, Saul, on the pretext that\nthe three years' famine in the land would terminate by this sacrifice.\nIndeed, he had consulted the Lord before hanging these innocent youths,\nwith the result that, immediately after the seven corpses fell to the\nground \"before the Lord,\" the famine ceased. * It is curious how the\ndeity always agrees with a powerful king or emperor. Kaiser, czar, and\nsultan always obey God, because he never tells them to do anything they\ndo not want to do, and because he always approves of what they desire to\ndo. Kings and emperors have the deity under perfect control.\n\n     * II Samuel xxi, 1-9.\n\nSuch was David's unrelenting spite that, when on his death-bed, he\nextracted a promise from his successor to the throne never to forgive\nor to show mercy to any one that had ever offended him. Mentioning his\nenemy by name, \"his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood,\"\nhe hissed, as he expired. * It would be perfectly safe to say that there\nis not another character of equal prominence in history, with so many\nvices and so few virtues, as that of David, concerning whom it is said\nthat \"he was a man after God's own heart,\" and to whom is given the\nhighest praise in the bible by the deity himself:\n\n_My servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with\nall his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes. _**\n\n     * I Kings ii, 9.\n\n     ** I Kings xiv, 8.\n\n\n\n\nIII. The Bible and Judaism\n\n|IT is in examining the fundamental teachings of Judaism that we\ndiscover the blighting influence of the bible upon Jewish thought and\nconduct. In all the Old Testament there is not even a suggestion that it\nis a duty to love the Gentile, or to treat him justly at least. Judaism\nbelieved the world outside Israel lost, and _rejoiced_ in it.\n\nTo Judaism the Gentile was not worth saving. A stranger might of his\nown accord, seeing the light of Israel, unite himself with the people of\nGod, but it was no part of the Jewish religion to concern itself about\nthe balance of mankind. Moses Mendelsohn, in an otherwise admirable\nletter to the celebrated French theologian Lavater, who had sought to\nconvert him to Christianity, says that the religion of the Jew takes no\nthought of the salvation of people outside Israel:\n\n\"The religion of my fathers does not wish to be extended... Our rabbis\nunanimously teach that the written and oral laws which form conjointly\nour revealed religion are obligatory on our nation only.\" The bible then\ndoes not concern itself about enlightening any other people than the\nJews. Not only all attempts to spread abroad the truths of revelation\nare strictly forbidden, but the Gentile who, of his own accord even,\nasks to share with the Jew the blessings of his religion is to be\nrejected. \"Our rabbis,\" continues Mendelsohn in this same letter, \"...\nenjoin us to dissuade by forcible remonstrances every one who comes\nforward to be converted.\" Evidently, then, Judaism was never meant for\nhumanity at large. It was the religion of a tribe. People speak of\nthe mission or the message of Judaism; but how could a religion have a\nmessage for mankind when it recognized no mankind outside Israel? Was\nnot the doctrine of a chosen people, which is the _spina dorsi_ of the\nbible, the negation of human brotherhood? Was not its severe prohibition\nof intermarriage calculated to keep the Jew separate and an alien in\nevery land?\n\nThe bible-writers were shrewd enough to know that nothing would end\ntheir r\u00e9gime, or overthrow all race and creed wars by which that\nauthority was maintained, quicker than intermarriage, and hence they did\nnot hesitate to denounce it as an act of national suicide. It is a pity\nthat after many hundred years of residence among Gentiles, the hold of\nthe bible on the Jews in respect to getting into intimate relations with\npeople not of their own faith and race is as firm as ever. In a Jewish\ncatechism, in use in their Sunday-schools, we read:\n\n_Q. What other ordinances has God made to prevent our falling into sin?\n\nA. Those which forbid our associating with bad men or intermarrying with\nwicked and idolatrous nations._\n\nThe child is thus taught to look upon all non-Jews as \"wicked and\nidolatrous,\" and forming relations with them as \"falling into sin.\"\n\nThis is supported by a text from the bible. \"Neither shalt thou make\nmarriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son,\"\netc. *\n\n     * Deuteronomy vii, 3.\n\nA religion which forbids a man to marry the woman he loves because she\nis of a different faith is a separatist religion.\n\nAnother question in this Jewish catechism reads: \"Are we commanded still\nto keep ourselves distinct from other nations?\"\n\nTo which the child answers, \"Assuredly,\" etc. Observe the word \"still,\"\nin the question, which shows the old law is as binding as ever. How can\nthe rabbis justify such unfriendly teaching? And how reconcile it with\ntheir protests against anti-Semitism? If the Gentile will not take the\nJew into his club, the Jew shuts his home to the Gentile. But why should\nnot a Jew marry a Gentile? Moses and Ezra will not allow it? And why\nshould the twentieth century be bound by Moses and Ezra? How can God\nbe a universal father, and all peoples his children, if it is a crime\ndeserving of death, as the bible plainly announces in many places, for\none of his children to love another not of the same faith? This is the\nnegation of brotherhood in the holiest sense of the word. The Catholic\nwho denies salvation to all outside his church is not worse than the\northodox Jew. The Hebrew who has the courage to marry the woman he\nloves, in spite of all the theological fulminations of Moses and Ezra,\ndoes more to bring Israel into intimate fellowship with the world of\nto-day and more to unite all races in the bonds of brotherhood than all\nthe rabbis of Jewry. The way to free Israel is to educate the Jew\naway from the rabbi, and, _entre nous_, rabbi is only another name for\npriest.\n\nThe bible evidently does not believe either in equality or in\nbrotherhood. Will it be right to allow the teachers in our public\nschools, where all races and creeds are wrapped in the folds of one\nflag, to read from a book that teaches the boys and girls, who will be\nthe men and women of the future, to hate one another? And yet the bible\nis guilty, we regret to say, of that very crime. Not only does it make\nit a capital crime for a Jew to love a Gentile, but he must not even be\n\"on the square\" with him.\n\n_Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother.... Unto a stranger thou\nmayest lend upon usury._ *\n\nEvidently the stranger is not a brother, else why does it say again:\n\n_Of the children of the strangers... shall ye buy... they shall be your\nbondmen forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall\nnot rule one over another with vigor._ **\n\nand again:\n\n_Ye 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 thou\nmayest sell it unto an alien._ ***\n\n     * Deuteronomy xxiii, 19, 20.\n\n     ** Leviticus xxv, 45, 46.\n\n     *** Deuteronomy xiv, 21.\n\nTo give or to sell putrid flesh to the Gentile, or the _Goim_, is that\nthe way to educate and prepare the world for brotherhood?\n\nThe defenders of the bible have often pleaded that the wars of\nextermination in the bible had for their object the preservation of the\nchosen people from idolatrous associations. To keep pure the religion\nrevealed from above it was necessary, it is argued, to kill and destroy\nthe surrounding races and forbid the Jews under severe penalties from\nentering into close relations with them. But how does selling bad meat\nto the Gentiles help to preserve the purity of a religion? How does\nenslaving the stranger contribute to the same end? If it is association\nwith the Gentile that is feared, why were the Jews permitted to buy\nslaves of them and live with them in the same house or field? And how\ndoes lending money upon usury to the stranger help to protect the divine\nreligion from contamination? Candidly speaking, it is difficult to\nsee how anybody with a touch of the spirit of love and humanity in his\nbreast can believe in the Old Testament. The fall of the bastile did\nnot mark the dawn of a better day for France more than the fall of the\nbible will for both Jews and Gentiles.\n\nOne of the most hopeful signs of the day is that the cultivated Jew\nhas completely broken away from the religion of his ancestors. The\nsynagogues are even emptier than the churches. Of course, this has\ngreatly alarmed the orthodox element. Recently the junior rabbi of\nthe wealthiest New York synagogue, * in a sermon, on the first day of\nPassover, publicly attacked the Rationalists among the Jews, and held\nthem responsible for the disrepute into which has fallen the religion of\nthe bible:\n\n     * Temple Emanuel.\n\n_The old tree that brought forth many beauteous blossoms is almost\nstripped of its foliage, and one by one the golden autumn leaves are\nfalling as the older men and women of the congregation pass to their\nrest. There is no springtime here. It is the winter that is before us.\nFor we have no youth, no young Jews and Jewesses to take the place of\nthe elders. Let each family of the congregation ask itself where the\nyoung are, and the answer will be--not within the synagogue, but outside\nof it, indifferent to it; and faithless and disloyal to Judaism!_\n\nContinuing his wail, the rabbi said:\n\n_Look among you! Your sons and your daughters, many of them, are\nmarrying outside of their people. They are rearing their children with\nall modern accomplishments, but with no religion. Their homes are bare\nof piety and of the spirit of prayer. Some of them perhaps are engaged\nin charitable work, but the work of charity is a negative work at the\nbest, and with our young men and women it is very seldom carried on in\nthe spirit of Jewish brotherhood, but rather in a spirit of remote pity\nmingled with disdain. Are you satisfied with this result of your reform\nof Judaism?_\n\nOf course, when this rabbi speaks of religion he means Judaism; and\nwhen he speaks of brotherhood, he means \"Jewish brotherhood.\" It is as\nimpossible to make Judaism tolerant, as it is Christianity. Fortunately,\nmany of the fellow Jews of this rabbi did not hesitate to combat a\nteaching which aims to hold the Jews back while the whole world is\nmoving forward. Why should the Jew remain an Asiatic in religious\nthought and practice? It may be to the profit of the rabbi to keep the\nJew tied to the apron strings of the past, and to prevent his exodus\nfrom the wilderness of Sinai, but what spells prosperity for the rabbi\nor the priest spells ruin for the people. Look at Ireland. The priests\nwear gold chains and live in palatial residences--they increase and\nmultiply--while Ireland is depopulated and wasted to the bone. Not until\nboth Catholic and Jew dare to disobey their priests, do they begin\nto prosper and enjoy the liberties and blessings of life. As a Jewish\nscholar expresses it, the question is not whether or not the Jews shall\nembrace Christianity or remain Jews, but whether they shall be Asiatic\nor American.\n\n\n\n\nIV. Bible and Talmud\n\n|ANOTHER way of showing how the Old Testament has injured the thought\nand conduct of the Jewish race--as it has of all other races which\nhave accepted its authority, although, not to the same extent, for the\nobvious reason that they have wandered from its teaching more freely\nand daringly than the Jews--would be by examining Jewish religious\nliterature, especially the Talmud.\n\nThe rank and file of the orthodox Jews regard the Talmud with almost as\ngreat a reverence as the Old Testament. Even by advanced rabbis it is\nregarded as the best commentary on Mosaic morals and ritual. The Talmud\nis to the Jews what the decisions and interpretations of church councils\nare to the Catholics. The Talmud has been called the \"Revelation on\nthe Lip,\" that is to say, the unwritten word of God. For an intelligent\nunderstanding of Judaism, a knowledge of the Talmud is as indispensable\nas that of the Old Testament. We will make a few quotations here to\nshow that the Talmud goes even beyond the Old Testament, if that were\npossible, in regarding the Gentile as an enemy, instead of as a brother.\nMany among the Jews are as ignorant of the contents of the Talmud,\nas many among the Christians are of the contents of the bible. Let me\nreproduce a few of the Talmudic texts:\n\n_If the ox of an Israelite bruise the ox of a Gentile, the Israelite is\nexempt from paying damages; but should the ox of a Gentile bruise the ox\nof an Israelite, the Gentile is bound to recompense him in full._ *\n\nIf one finds lost property in a locality where the majority are\nIsraelites, he is bound to proclaim it, but he is not bound to do so if\nthe majority be Gentiles. **\n\nIf one who intends to kill a Gentile, he slay an Israelite... he shall\nbe free. ***\n\nAn alien forfeits the right to his own property in favor of the Jews.\n****\n\nRabbi Shemuel says advantage may be taken of the mistakes of a Gentile.\nHe once bought a gold plate as a copper of a Gentile for four zouzim,\nand then cheated him out of one zouz in the bargain. Rabbi Cahana\nsays that he swindled a Gentile, while the Gentile assured him that he\nconfidently trusted to his honesty. (v)\n\nIt is also expressly urged (Bava Kama, fol. 113, col. 1 ), to resort\nto false and adroit pretexts to secure the acquittal of a guilty Jew.\nCompare this from the \"people of God\" with the following from a Pagan\nPoet: =\n\n``` _If ever called\n\n```To give thy witness in a dubious case,\n\n```Though Phalaris himself should bid thee lie\n\n```On pain of torture in his flaming bull,\n\n```Disdain to barter innocence for life,_\n\n```To which life owes its luster and its worth.(vi)=\n\n     * Talmud, Bava Kame, fol. 38, col. 1.\n\n     **  Bava Metzia, fol. 24, col. 1.\n\n     ***   Sanh\u00e9drin, fol. 78, col. 2.\n\n     **** Bava Kama, fol. 38, col. 1.\n\n     v  Bava Kama, fol. 118, col. 2.\n\n     vi   Juvenal, Sat. 8,1,80.\n\nDoctor Edersheim quotes the following from the Talmud:\n\n_The best of the Gentiles kill; the best among serpents, crush its\nhead._\n\nNow this is the book which is to the orthodox Jew in Poland and Russia\nwhat the Pope is to the Italian and Spanish peasantry. That it is\nbinding upon the conscience of every believing Jew may be inferred from\nthe following:\n\n_Whosoever transgresses any of the sayings of the scribes is guilty of\ndeath._ *\n\nThe Talmud with its twelve large folio volumes, represents the national\nliterature of the Jews for a long period of time. What its worth is,\naside from the few scattered passages quoted above, may be seen from the\nfollowing estimate:\n\n_But yet I venture to say that it would be impossible to find less\nwisdom, less eloquence and less high morality, imbedded in a vaster bulk\nof what is utterly valueless to mankind--to say nothing of those parts\nof it which are indelicate and even obscene--than in any other national\nliterature of the same extent._ **\n\n     * Eiruvin, fol. 21, col. 2.\n\n     **  Dean Farrar, in A Talmudic Miscellany.\n\nBut what Canon Farrar says of the Talmud could with equal truth be said\nof the bulk of the bible. The Jews could ask for no better illustration\nof the baneful influence of the bible upon their national literature for\nlong centuries than the worthless character of the Talmudic writings.\n\nIt would have been a real miracle for the Jews to have developed a great\nliterature, or to have created a great civilization like that of the\nHellens or the Latins, with an infallible bible, and its offspring, the\nTalmud, blocking their progress on every side. It is interesting to note\nthat the only races of antiquity which blossomed morally, as well as\nintellectually, are those which had no _revelation_ to hamper their free\nmovements or to stunt their growth. The unfortunate Jews went through\nlife carrying the burden of Jehovah. The Greeks made sport of their\ngods; Jehovah made sport of the Jews.\n\nIf in modern times the Jews have produced first-class scholars in nearly\nevery branch of the activities of the mind, it is because, like the\nglorious Spinoza, the heretic Jew who was cursed and expelled from the\nsynagogue, they have divorced barren Judaism and \"taken for spouse\"\nscience--the only redeemer that redeems. I sincerely hope--and there are\nmany signs that this hope will be realized in the not distant\nfuture--that even as the French after centuries of submission to Rome\nthrew off its yoke and came out of Catholicism into modern thought--not\na few individuals only, but the best part of the nation--government and\nall; and as Spain, the most Catholic country in the world, is preparing\nto follow the example of France; and as noble little Portugal has just\nreasoned and voted itself out of the papacy into freedom of thought and\naction, I earnestly hope that the Jews, too, after untold centuries of\nintellectual bondage to an Asiatic religion, which is inimical to\nculture and humanity, will come out of the synagogue _en masse_, thereby\nregistering their protest against both bible and Talmud, and proving, as\nthe French have done, for instance, that they are great enough to change\ntheir religion.\n\nThe fear that the decline of Judaism will bring about national\ndisintegration is without foundation. If the Jew is an American in\nAmerica, an Englishman in England, a German in Germany--how can his\nwithdrawal from Judaism affect his nationality? Is Judaism the name of\na nation or of a religion? It is argued that the Jews are compelled to\ncling to one another, and to keep together in a body, because of the\ngeneral prejudice against them. Will I be forgiven if I were to say that\nJudaism is largely responsible for this fearful prejudice. Is there a\ntext in bible or Talmud, which any rabbi could quote, to prove that Jew\nand Gentile should love and respect one another and dwell together in\nfraternal relations, taking and giving in marriage, as though they were\none people? Produce such a text! And if there be not, is it any wonder\nthat the Gentile, the world over, and in all the ages, has looked upon\nthe Jew as an alien? It is not true that the cause of the prejudice\nagainst the Jew is the charge that his ancestors crucified Christ. That\nis a foolish argument. It is invented by the rabbis to throw dust into\nthe eyes of inquirers. Then why did the ancient Romans, long before\nChrist, entertain a prejudice against the Jews? The Latin authors\nexplained the reason for the prejudice: It was the religious scruple of\nthe Jew against mingling cordially and honestly with people other than\nhis own. Judaism shut up the Jew in his shell. To come in contact with a\nnon-Jew, to treat him, in every respect, as a brother, was blasphemy. Is\nit any wonder that Cicero, writing about the Jews, said that the Romans\nwere better acquainted with the Hindus who lived thousands of miles\naway, than with the Jews who lived next door to them? It was the\nexclusiveness of the Jew which created and which, alas, prevents from\ndying, the prejudice against them. It is far from my purpose to\ncontend that this is the only source of the ill-feeling between Jew and\nChristian, but I am confident that were the Jews to abandon Judaism, an\nAsiatic religion which will not assimilate modern thought, and abandon\nalso such rites and ceremonies which are unbecoming to a civilized\npeople, and enter into the most intimate domestic relations with\ntheir neighbors, in a few generations the ugly sectarian and racial\nprejudices, lacking their daily nourishment, will waste away and die.\n\"Ah, but if we do that, we will lose our Judaism,\" says the rabbi. Keep\nyour Judaism, if you prefer it to humanity. Of course, the Christians,\ntoo, must outgrow their exclusive religion. But my point is that the\nChristians, as in France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and America are\ncoming out of the old faiths _en masse_, while there is as yet no such\ndefinite movement among the Jews. True enough, here and there one meets\na Jew who has all but repudiated Judaism. As a representative of\nthis class is the writer of the article on Judaism in _Chambers'\nEncyclopedia_--Doctor Krauskopf, of Philadelphia. This gentleman almost\ncompletely strips Judaism of all its biblical and Talmudic features.\nThe program put forth by him is of so very radical a character as\nhardly to deserve the title of Judaism. It comes near leaving out\nsupernaturalism altogether.\n\n\"We discard,\" says Doctor Krauskopf, \"the belief in a God who is a man\nmagnified, who has his abode somewhere in the interstellar spaces. We\ndiscard the belief that the bible was written by God, or by man under\nthe immediate dictation of God, and that its teachings are therefore\ninfallible.... We discard the belief in the coming of a human Messiah\nwho will lead us back to Palestine, establish us as the rulers of the\nworld, and make all nations tributaries to us. We discard the belief\nin bodily resurrection, hell-torments, Paradisian rewards, prophecy,\nsuperstitions, all biblical and rabbinical beliefs, rites and ceremonies\nand institutions, which neither elevate nor sanctify our lives.\" *\nAnother step, and Judaism will be swallowed up in Rationalism.\n\nWill Judaism take that other step? The Jew will; but I fear that Judaism\nwill not. Like Christianity and every other form of organized religion,\nJudaism is too aged to put forth new shoots. Abandon it, is my earnest\nsuggestion. It has hurt the Jew. Judaism has made the Jew narrow\nand anti-social. At a Jewish Congress held at Basle in 1898, Doctor\nMandelstam, Professor in the University of Kiev, said: \"The Jews\nenergetically reject the idea of fusion with other nationalities, and\ncling firmly to their historical hope--that is, of a world empire.\"\nAgain, Dr. Leopold Kahn, the Vienna rabbi, in 1901 declared that \"the\nJew will never be able to assimilate himself; he will never adopt\nthe customs and ways of other peoples. The Jew remains Jew under all\ncircumstances. Every assimilation is purely exterior.\" **\n\n     * On the Progress of Liberty of Thought, C. E. Plumpter,\n     page 71.\n\n     *   Ethical World, August, 1911.\n\nThe educated Jews everywhere should combat such bigotry. If the Jewish\npeople desire universal respect and equality, they must fuse with other\npeople, which they can only do by coming out of the ancient oriental\nwilderness. To say that the jews energetically reject the idea of\n\"fusion with other nationalities,\" is to expose them to the charge that\nthey are the sworn enemies of the human race. Rabbis, beware!\n\nDuring the recent Race Congress in London, Mr. H. Snell spoke as follows\non this important question:\n\n_Regarding the question from the standpoint of ethical internationalism,\nit is not the Jew, but Judaism, that is at fault. As a citizen pursuing\nhis daily avocation, sharing in the duties and responsibilities of the\ncommon life, the Jew is the equal of his English neighbor, and should be\nso regarded. He is a reliable business man, a loyal comrade and a good\nfriend. The Jew in the synagogue is a totally different matter. It is\nthe curse of organized religion that it divides men from their fellows,\nand engenders strife rather than harmony. The moment the orthodox Jew\nremembers his Judaism, he ceases to be one with the nation in which he\nlives, and he falls back upon those racial prejudices which certainly\nperpetuate, even if they did not actually create, the aversion with\nwhich he is regarded. It is, I repeat, not the citizen Jew, but the\ntheocratic Jew and the financial Jew, that constitutes the problem.\nNo people can expect to be loved when they, through their habits and\ninstitutions, openly deride the institutions and customs of the nations\nunder whose laws they live. The orthodox Jew is not an Englishman or\na German, even though he may happen to have been born in the countries\nnamed. In so far as he obeys the Jewish law he represents a firm,\nisolated, yet international political unity, having as its goal the\ndominancy of the Jewish people. The land in which he lives does not\nappear to count. The Jewish people become a State within a State, living\ntheir own life, and cutting themselves off from the customs and ideals\nof the populations among whom they exist, and through whom they attain\nto material comfort. The Jew will not eat or drink with his Gentile\nneighbors; their marriage laws are not good enough for him; he regards\nmarriage with any one outside his race with horror; he will not accept\nthe day of rest enjoined by the peoples among whom he dwells for his own\nSabbath, but makes one day's rest in seven practically impossible for\nlarge sections of the people by insisting upon a special day of his\nown. It is this senseless isolation of Judaism, and its badly concealed\ncontempt for the Gentile, that make the change of attitude toward the\nJew so difficult._\n\nThe prejudice against the Jew is one of the most degrading things in\nmodern life. Such is the solidarity of humanity that what hurts one\nis bound to hurt also the other. But we see no solution of the Jewish\nproblem except in the complete emancipation of the Jew from Judaism, and\nof the Christian from Christianity. Reason will unite what religion has\nput asunder.\n\n\n\n\nV. The Masterpiece of the Bible--Solomon's Temple\n\n|THE masterpiece of the bible was Jerusalem. The proudest building\nin the \"holy city\" was Solomon's temple. Both Jehovah and his people\nexerted themselves to do their utmost to build a temple that was to be\nthe envy of all ages and peoples. Preparations for its erection were\nbegun in the reign of David, to whom God gave untold wealth. It is\nrelated in the bible that--\n\n_David the king... prepared for the holy house, even three thousand\ntalents * of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of\nrefined silver, to overlay the walls of the houses withal... Then the\nchief of the fathers and princes of the tribe of Israel... offered\nwillingly, and gave for the service of the house of God of gold five\nthousand talents and ten thousand drams, and of silver ten thousand\ntalents, and of brass eighteen thousand talents, and one hundred\nthousand talents of iron._ **\n\n     *  Cruden makes a talent of gold about\n        35,000, and a talent     of silver about\n        2,000.\n\n     ** Chronicles xxix, 1-7.\n\nHere then was a sum which in our money would run up to about three\nhundred millions of dollars. We are not going to ask how the chief of\na petty tribe, in one of the poorest and most barren parts of Asia,\ncould, at so remote a time, raise so enormous a fund; our desire is\nonly to show the elaborate preparations undertaken for the erection of\nSolomon's temple. But this is not the only reference to the big sums of\nmoney and other precious things which David collected for the temple,\nwhich was to be the glory of Jerusalem. Elsewhere in the bible we read:\n\n_Now, behold, in my trouble I have prepared for the house of the Lord\nan hundred thousand talents of gold, and a thousand thousand talents of\nsilver; and of brass and iron without weight._ *\n\nThis was fabulous wealth. David must have had a gold mine of miraculous\nproportions. Mongredien, as quoted by G. W. Foote, of England, estimates\nthat the total value of all the gold and silver of every sort in the\nBritish Isles barely amounts to seven hundred millions of dollars, and\nDavid, the bible says, raised, \"in my trouble,\" when times were not very\nprosperous, three thousand and six hundred millions in gold, and nearly\ntwo thousand and two hundred millions in silver. For no other building\nwere such preparations ever made.\n\nBut money alone was not all that was needed. A wise king, indeed the\nwisest that ever sat on a throne, if the bible is to be believed,\nappeared just at this time to take charge of the building of the temple.\nThe Lord asked Solomon to draw upon him for whatever he wanted. \"Ask\nwhat I shall give thee,\" ** he said. Solomon asked for wisdom, and got\nvery much more.\n\n_And God said to him... I have done according to thy words: lo, I have\ngiven thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none\nlike thee before thee, neither after thee shall any rise like unto thee.\nAnd I have also given thee... both riches and honour_. ***\n\n     * I Chronicles xxii, 14.\n\n     ** I Kings iii, 5.\n\n     *** I Kings iii, 11-14.\n\nThus equipped Solomon took up the work of preparation for the building\nof a suitable monument to Jehovah, which his father, David, had begun.\nOne of the first things Solomon did was to put thirty thousand men to\nthe task of gathering material for the construction of the temple.\nFor the space of four years this crowd of men traveled into foreign\ncountries in search of timber, as well as of skilled men for the temple:\n\n_So Hiram gave Solomon cedar trees and fir trees according to all his\ndesire. And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat for\nfood to his household, and twenty measures of pure oil: thus gave\nSolomon to Hiram year by year.... And King Solomon raised a levy out of\nall Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men. And he sent them to\nLebanon, ten thousand a month by courses. *\n\nAnd Solomon told out threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens,\nand fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and three thousand and\nsix hundred to oversee them. **\n\nSo was he seven years in building it._ ***\n\nFour years collecting materials, and seven years building the\ntemple--eleven years altogether. And \"threescore and ten thousand\nmen,\" added to \"fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain,\" plus \"three\nthousand and six hundred\" overseers, make a hundred and fifty-three\nthousand men in the service of the temple. By adding to this number the\nthirty thousand traveling abroad for the same object, we get the grand\ntotal of one hundred and eighty-three thousand and six hundred laborers\ndevoting eleven years to the erection of the temple.\n\nWhen at last the monument which had taxed the whole nation and its God\nto the utmost was completed, people came from far and near to behold it\nand its royal architect:\n\n_And when the Queen of Sheba **** heard of the fame of Solomon, she came\nto prove Solomon with hard questions.\n\n     * I Kings v, 10-14.\n\n     ** 1 Kings vi, 38.\n\n     *** II Chronicles ii, 2.\n\n     **** Country unknown.\n\n... and Solomon told her all her questions: and there was nothing hid\nfrom Solomon which he told her not.\n\nAnd when the Queen of Sheba had seen the wisdom of Solomon, and the\nhouse that he had built.\n\nAnd the meat of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the\nattendance of his ministers, and their apparel; his cupbearers also, and\ntheir apparel; and his ascent by which he went up into the house of\nthe Lord; there was no more spirit in her.... And she gave the king an\nhundred and twenty talents of gold, and of spices great abundance, and\nprecious stones._ *\n\nThere was no more spirit in her, I suppose, means she was dumb with\nastonishment. Indeed, the fame of the temple of Solomon threw a sort of\nmagic spell upon all the rival nations of the world, hypnotizing them\ninto submission to Israel:\n\n_And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear\nhis wisdom, that God had put in his heart And they brought every man his\npresent, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment, harness,\nand spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year._ **\n\n     * II Chronicles ix, 1-9.\n\n     ** II Chronicles ix, 23,24.\n\nEverything turns into silver and gold. Every one of Jehovah's favorites,\nAbraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, became exceeding rich. In the\npresent instance, not only are \"all the kings of the earth\" on their\nknees before the man who conceived and carried into completion so\nstupendous a monument--one of the seven or eight wonders of the\nworld--but they also empty their purses in his lap. The temple is\nalready earning a dividend.\n\nBut when we draw nigh unto this bible masterpiece to take its\nmeasurements, we find that the one hundred and eighty-three thousand and\nsix hundred men, working for eleven years, and spending the wealth of\nmany modern countries put together, produced only what we would call\nto-day an unusually small meeting-house.\n\n_And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof\nwas three-score cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the\nheight thereof thirty cubits.\n\nAnd the porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was the\nlength thereof, according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits\nwas the breadth thereof before the house._ *\n\n     * I Kings vi, 2.\n\nNow a cubit is the length of the forearm from the elbow to the end of\nthe middle finger, or about eighteen inches. The Egyptian cubit was\nabout twenty inches. It is not quite certain whether the Hebrew cubit\nwas as long. Some commentators, wishing to help Solomon's temple,\nstretch the cubit to nearly twenty-six inches. Figuring, however, on the\nbasis of the cubit of bible times, the Egyptian cubit, to ascertain the\nsize of Solomon's temple, we find that this national monument of Israel,\nthe pride of the desert, was about ninety feet long, thirty feet wide,\nand forty-five feet high; which would have cost to-day, when labor and\nmaterial are very much higher, but a few thousand dollars, and a short\ntime to build it in. Surely not all the gold and silver which David and\nhis son Solomon raised by taxing the people, and by collecting tribute\nfrom foreign powers were spent in the erection of this modest little\nchapel! Into what other channels could the money have been diverted?\nWho did the stealing? Nobody, really. It was only mythical wealth, and\na mythical army of workmen, building a mythical temple. The real temple\nwhich was destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked must have been a very\ninexpensive affair.\n\nThe only striking feature of the vaunted Solomonic edifice was its\nporch, which was altogether out of proportion to the rest of the\nbuilding, being one hundred and forty feet higher than the temple\nitself. But the eccentric porch, climbing up a hundred and forty feet\nhigher than the building it was designed to serve, as well as the\nbuilding itself, and the untold moneys it cost, together with the huge\narmy of toilers, existed only in the imagination of the Jewish scribe.\nWe have only to think of the pyramids of Egypt, the cities and temples\nof Babylonia, the still-abiding wonder of Baal-bec--the temple of the\nsun, to realize that even when they vaunt their gifts and possessions,\neven with their passion for inflation and swagger, the bible writers do\nnot rise to the level of the achievements of their heathen neighbors.\n\nBut it is only by comparing Athens with Jerusalem that we realize how\nvery much more wonderful is the truth of paganism than Jewish fiction.\nIt is not our intention to enumerate the masterpieces of Athens. To\npreserve even its dust and broken fragments, museums far more stupendous\nthan Solomon's temple have been reared all over the world. Was not\nAthens--as a city, as a place of habitation, as a school for the\nmind, as a spectacle for the eye, as the home of liberty--better than\nJerusalem? And is not the book or books which tell the story of the\nwonderful Greeks--how they lived, and thought, and sang, and wrought\ntheir masterpieces--better than the book which tells the story of the\ndesert? Both Judaism and Christianity will disappear, but Greece, that\nis to say, science, that is to say, art, that is to say, civilization,\nwill continue to produce masterpieces, and yet remain as prolific as\ntime.\n\n\n\n\nPART V.\n\n\n\n\nContradictions in the Bible\n\n|CONSISTENCY is as admirable in a book as it is in a man. Inconsistency\nis born either of ignorance or insincerity. In either case, it is a\nserious blemish in both man and book. There is, of course, a sense in\nwhich all growing minds are inconsistent, and proudly so. Manhood is\ninconsistent with childhood, experience contradicts want of knowledge,\nand progress is the very antithesis of custom and tradition. But there\nis no contradiction in dropping an idea which we find to be outworn and\nuntenable, to espouse its very opposite. On the other hand, it would be\nthe most unpardonable inconsistency to try to hold on to an opinion\nin the face of all the evidence against it. Equally insincere and\ncontradictory would be our conduct if we advocated the new idea without\ngiving up the old.\n\nThe Protestants, for instance, profess to believe in private judgment;\nbut they also believe in an infallible revelation. How can an honest\nmind hold on to both these ideas? What is private judgment good for\nwhere there is an infallible guide? But, if private judgment is meant\nto help us test or interpret infallibility, then private judgment is the\njudge of infallibility, which is absurd. And when a man uses his private\njudgment and disagrees with any part of the bible, is he not summarily\ndropped from the list, and \"delivered up to Satan,\" as the apostle\ncommands? Is that the way to respect the right of private judgment?\n\nThe bible is replete with contradictions of this description. A thing\nis often said and unsaid in the same sentence. An idea is affirmed and\ndenied; a promise made and broken; a doctrine given and withdrawn, in\nabout every chapter of the bible. The most contrary propositions may be\nproved by texts equally \"inspired.\" Not only does one writer pull down\nwhat the other builds up, but the same writer repeatedly demolishes\nhis own work. The author of Exodus, for instance, states as plainly as\nlanguage will allow that God is invisible; but the same writer assures\nus that God has been seen by man, and his form and shape discerned.\nMoses reports the Lord as saying to him, \"Thou canst not see my face;\nfor there shall no man see me, and live.\" * But the same Moses testifies\nthat \"the Lord spake unto Moses, face to face, as a man speaketh unto\na friend.\" ** The Apostle John bluntly contradicts this \"divine\"\nstatement, by another equally \"divine,\" that \"No man hath seen God at\nany time.\" *** And whereas Jacob swears that he not only saw God but had\nalso a wrestling match with him, which lasted for many hours,**** the\nApostle Paul testifies that, not only has no man ever seen God, but no\nman can ever see him. (v)\n\nIt is also stated that Abraham dined with the Lord, and that about\nseventy of the elders went up the mount and saw the God of Israel. (vi)\nBut more serious than the textual discrepancies, which are numerous, are\nthe moral contradictions, of which the following is but one out of many.\n\n     * Exodus xxxiii, 20.\n\n     ** Exodus xxxiii, 11.\n\n     *** John i, 18.\n\n     **** Genesis xxxii, 24-31.\n\n     v.   Timothy vi, 16.\n\n     vi.  Exodus xxiv, 9-11.\n\nIn telling the story of the Tower of Babel, and, describing the state\nof society immediately after the deluge, the bible paints a pleasing\npicture of the world after all the bad people in it had been drowned:\n\n_And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. _*\n\nAn ideal state! To educate the races of the world to dwell together as\none great family, speaking the same language and cherishing the same\nhopes--is not that the object of all our efforts? But this was precisely\nwhat the God of the bible is represented as not desiring. When Jehovah\nlooked down from heaven and saw the state of harmony in which these\npeople dwelt, and the energy and unanimity with which they labored\nto erect a tower which in their simplicity they thought would protect\nfuture generations from such a deluge as had destroyed their fathers and\nmothers, he was very much alarmed, and, as the text says, he decided to\nbreak up this happy family, and to make strangers and wanderers of its\nmembers over the whole earth. Could anything be more inconsistent!\n\n_And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the\nchildren of men builded.\n\nAnd the Lord said, Behold, the people is one (that, he did not like),\nand they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now\nnothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do._\n**\n\n     * Genesis xi, i.\n\n     ** Genesis xi, 5,6.\n\nThis picture of human concord and purpose displeased the being, one of\nwhose supposed titles is \"Our Father in Heaven.\" Nor did he enjoy\nthe sight of a united people, building a city, and a tower to defend\nthemselves against the fury of nature; in other words, progress and\nscience provoked the anger of Jehovah. And so the Lord said:\n\n_Let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not\nunderstand one another's speech.\n\nSo the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the\nearth: and they left off to build the city._ *\n\nWhat an occupation for a \"good\" God! Instead of blessing their union and\nbrotherhood, he destroys them. And this is the being whose fatherhood is\nto be the basis of human brotherhood! Even as Adam was expelled from the\ngarden, \"lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of\nlife, and eat, and live for-ever,\" ** the people dwelling in peace and\nlaboring in unison must be scattered lest they become great and happy.\nAnd is this the book which is to teach us human brotherhood?\n\n     * Genesis xi, 7, 8.\n\n     **  Genesis iii, 22.\n\nThe brotherhood of man existed; but the bible-God destroyed it. \"And\nthe Lord said, Behold, the people is one.\" Is not that brotherhood? They\nwere not fighting one another; they were not persecuting one another;\nthey were not idle; they were not working at cross-purposes. But after\nthe Lord had sown the seeds of discord, this unity was no more. How\ndifferent is the bible from what people think it is!\n\nBut it would be easier to make a list of the consistencies to be found\nin the Old Testament than to undertake to call attention even to a\nlimited number of its most glaring inconsistencies. The Old Testament,\nbeing miraculous from beginning to end, is but a mass of mutually\ndestructive statements, from the Mosaic commandment, which forbids a man\n\"to trim the corners of his beard,\" to the saying of the Lord that he\nhimself will turn barber and shave the people:\n\n_In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired... the\nhead, and the hair of the feet; and it shall also consume the beard._ *\n\nA sane word in the bible is as rare as an oasis in a desert. The Old\nTestament is mostly paradox and platitude.\n\n\n\n\nSerious Discrepancies in the Story of Jesus\n\n|BUT what about the New Testament? The Jesus story is as miraculous as\nthe Mosaic, and, therefore, equally well stocked with contradictions.\nIn presenting to us the narrative of the birth of Jesus, the first\nevangelist, Saint Matthew, states that Joseph \"took the young child\n(Jesus) and his mother by night and departed into Egypt, and was there\nuntil the death of Herod.... But when Herod was dead... he (Joseph)\narose and took the young child and his mother and came.. and dwelt in\na city called Nazareth.\" ** The Evangelist Luke, on the other hand, not\nonly ignores the flight to Egypt, but leaves absolutely not a shadow of\na foundation for the story as told in Matthew, which is, that as soon\nas the wise men from the East had departed, an angel of the Lord ordered\nthe \"Holy Family\" to Egypt. This was to protect the infant Jesus from\nthe machinations of King Herod. It is also clearly stated that they\nremained in Egypt until \"the death of Herod.\" But according to Luke,\nJesus did not leave the country at all, nor did he avoid Jerusalem,\nwhere Herod reigned:\n\n     * Isaiah vii, 20. The hair of the feet. The translators were\n     too civilized to render this sentence into plain English, so\n     they substituted the word \"feet\" in place of the\n     objectionable word in the Hebrew.\n\n     **  Matthew ii, 14-23.\n\n_And when the days of her purification, according to the laws of Moses,\nwere accomplished (eight days after birth of the child) they brought him\nto Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.... And when they had performed\nall things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee,\nto their own city Nazareth._ *\n\nWhen, then, did they visit Egypt?\n\nAccording to the law of Moses, Mary, the mother of Jesus, having given\nbirth to a child, could not appear in public until the days of her\npurification were over, and Jesus, the child, was required by another\nlaw, equally binding, to be circumcised on the eighth day, which he was,\naccording to Luke's Gospel:\n\n_And when the eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the\nchild, his name was called Jesus._ **\n\n     * Luke ii, 22-39.\n\n     **  Luke ii, 21.\n\nBut if Mary and her son remained in the land to perform these\nceremonies, and if they appeared in the temple at Jerusalem, where Herod\ncould have easily seized him, if he was really looking for him, what\nbecomes of the story in Saint Matthew, that Jesus fled by night from\nBethlehem to a foreign country, where he remained in hiding until Herod\ndied? Matthew says, Jesus fled to Egypt; Luke says, he did not go to\nEgypt at all, but was taken to Jerusalem, and publicly circumcised in\nthe temple, after which he and his parents went to live in Nazareth.\n\nIf Jesus followed the course laid down by Matthew, he could not possibly\nhave gone to Jerusalem, eight days after his birth, and thence to\nNazareth; if, on the other hand, he did as Luke reports, then it was a\nphysical impossibility for him to have fled to Egypt. Is it not evident\nfrom these random and careless statements that the writers are not\nreporting actual events, but merely reproducing floating gossip?\n\nLet us quote another instance: Mark says that \"immediately\" after his\nbaptism, Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, and\nthat he remained there for forty days. Note the words \"immediately\"\nand \"for forty days,\" and then read what John says about what Jesus did\nafter he was baptized. According to this evangelist, Jesus, three days\nafter he was baptized, went to a wedding in Cana of Galilee, where he\nturned water into wine. Will the interpreters of the Scriptures please\ntell us how Jesus could have gone to the wilderness _immediately_\nafter his baptism and remained there for _forty_ days, if, according\nto another report, he went to a marriage feast three days after his\nbaptism? A historical account in which such contradictions occur would\nlose, and deserves to lose, the confidence of the reader.\n\nPerhaps few events are so essential to the Christian plan of salvation\nas the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. But there is not a consistent\nreport of even this all-important occurrence in the Gospels. Mark has it\nthat Jesus was crucified at the third hour; John thinks that Jesus was\nnot crucified until some time after the sixth hour. Now, if Jesus were\nreally crucified, and these reporters were in Jerusalem at the time,\nand were also present at the crucifixion, they would have known, even\nwithout inspiration, at what hour the awful tragedy took place. The very\nfact that they report the time of the day shows that they are anxious\nto give to their report all the earmarks of a historical document. If,\ntherefore, the event had really transpired, and if the apostles had been\neye-witnesses of it, there would have been unanimity as to the hour in\nwhich Jesus was crucified. The lack of such unanimity shows, we believe,\nthat the reporters were far removed from the supposed events they are\ndescribing, and that they had nothing more than rumors to guide them.\n\nIn the description of the scene on Calvary, there are nearly as many\ninaccuracies as there are sentences.\n\nMatthew and Mark say: \"The thieves, also, which were crucified with\nhim... reviled him.\"\n\nJohn says: \"And one of the malefactors... railed on him.... But the\nother rebuked him (his companion) saying, Dost thou not fear God?\" etc.\n\nMatthew says: \"They gave him (Jesus) vinegar to drink, mingled with\ngall.\"\n\nMark says: \"And they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh.\"\n\nNor do the biographers of Jesus agree as to whether Jesus drank the\nvinegar-wine, or not. Matthew says, he \"tasted thereof, but would not\ndrink.\" Mark says: \"And they gave him to drink... but he received it\nnot.\" John is sure this is a mistake, for he says: \"He received the\nvinegar.\" Luke does not mention the wine-vinegar drink at all. We wonder\nwhat he would have said had he also referred to the matter.\n\nBut a better idea of the character of these documents will be had by\ncomparing the different accounts of the last hours, and the last words\nof Jesus. If Luke may be credited, Jesus delivered quite a little speech\non his way to Calvary. Seeing the \"great company of people, and of\nwomen\" which followed him, he said, addressing the women alone:\n\n_Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and\nfor your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall\nsay, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the paps\nwhich never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains,\nFall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a\ngreen tree, what shall be done in the dry?_ *\n\n     * Luke xxiii, 29-31.\n\nThis is quite pessimistic, and contains no suggestion of the great\nhope and salvation which a dying Saviour is said to have brought to\nthe world. And as none of the other evangelists reports this somber\nlamentation of Jesus, it is likely that some celibate alarmist, who\nexpected the speedy destruction of the world, penned the lines. Is it\nconceivable that, if Jesus actually delivered the above speech on his\nway to the cross, and under the most impressive circumstances--that\nthree of his intimate and inspired biographers would have omitted any\nmention of it? We are willing to waive the claim that an \"infallible\"\ndocument should be free from such errors as are liable to slip into\nhuman writings, but should they not, at least, be as free from them as\nany uninspired historical document is expected to be? It is reported\nthat Pilate wrote a \"superscription\" in three languages to be placed on\nthe cross, and which could be read even by the people in Jerusalem. What\nwas this superscription? Each of the four evangelists gives a different\nreading of it.\n\nMatthew: \"This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.\"\n\nMark: \"The King of the Jews.\"\n\nLuke: \"This is the King of the Jews.\"\n\nJohn: \"Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.\"\n\nNotwithstanding that we have four supposedly inspired witnesses, the\nexact wording of the short superscription remains unknown.\n\nWe are equally in the dark as to the last words of Jesus: \"I thirst,\"\nand \"It is finished,\" were his last words according to John.\n\n\"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,\" are the words reported by\nLuke.\n\n\"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,\" were the last words\naccording to Matthew and Mark.\n\nWhen we consider the miracle of the resurrection, it can not escape\nnotice that the documents which tell of it are nothing but a collection\nof popular rumors which, as usual, contradict one another at every\npoint. There is, on the one hand, for instance, the emphatic and\nunqualified statement, \"So shall the son of man be _three days and\nthree nights_ in the heart of the earth.\" Then follows an equally\nunqualified statement that Jesus was buried late Friday, and rose before\nor at sunrise, Sunday, thereby allowing only, at the utmost, _one day\nand two nights_ for Jesus to remain in his grave. Again, if the four\nnarrators of the events in Jesus' life were eye-witnesses of them, they\nwould have surely agreed in the report of the place from which Jesus\nascended. The writer of the Book of Acts tells us that Jesus ascended to\nheaven from the Mount of Olivet. The writer of the third Gospel says\nit was from Bethany that he went up to heaven. The author of the second\nGospel intimates that it was from neither of these places that Jesus\nascended, but that it was while they were all at dinner. Add to these\nconflicting reports, the important omission of John, the author of\nthe fourth Gospel, who does not so much as even mention this wonderful\nfinale in the earthly life of the Christian god, and an idea may be\nformed of the character of the events narrated in our Gospels.\n\nAccording to one version of the miraculous conversion of Paul, who may\nbe called the real founder of Christianity--at least, the man who was\nresponsible for its introduction into Europe--the men who were with him\nwhen he saw his famous vision on the road to Damascus \"stood speechless,\nhearing a voice, but seeing no man.\" This is as explicit as any\nstatement can be. But according to another version the men who were with\nPaul \"saw indeed the light... but they heard not the voice.\"\n\nPaul's Conversion! Paul's Conversion. *\n\n     * Read the ninth and the twenty-second chapters of Acts.\n\n\n  Paul's Conversion.!              Paul's Conversion.\n\n  Story No. 1.                     Story No. 2.\n\n  And the men which jour-          And they that were with\n  neyed with him (Paul) stood      me saw indeed the light\n  speechless, hearing a voice,     . . . but they heard not the\n  but seeing no man.               voice.\n\n\nThe only way to account for so decisive a disagreement in the narration\nof, presumably, one of the most significant events in the history of\nChristianity, is that the writer or writers had no first-hand knowledge\nof what they were reporting, and that both of the above versions were\nmatters of popular gossip--some holding to the earlier and others to the\nlater accounts, and the narrator, wishing to please both parties, and\npossessing no reliable data himself, incorporated them both in his\nreport.\n\nAn equally impressive event in the rise of Christianity is the suicide\nof Judas, one of the twelve apostles. That Jesus should have selected\nJudas for an apostle, knowing he was a murderer in embryo, is puzzling\nenough, but that there should be no unanimity as to the fate of a\nman who plays one of the principal r\u00f4les in the Christian scheme of\nsalvation, lends serious support to the theory that Judas, too, is a\nmyth. Observe the irreconcilable accounts concerning Judas, as given in\nMatthew and in the Acts of the Apostles:\n\n   * Read the ninth and the twenty-second chapters of Acts.\n\n\n  According to Matthew.                According to Acts.\n\n  Judas . . brought                    Now this man (Judas)\n  again the thirty pieces of           purchased a field with the\n  silver to the chief priests and      reward of iniquity. **\n  elders. *\n\n\nMatthew's account makes Judas return the thirty pieces of silver to the\nchief priests and elders who had bribed him with the amount; the other\nmakes Judas purchase a piece of land with the money.\n\nThere are also two contradictory accounts of the way in which Judas met\nhis death.\n\n\n  According to Matthew.          According to Acts.\n\n  And he (Judas) went and        And (Judas) falling head-\n  hanged himself. ***            long, he burst asunder in the\n                                 midst and all his bowels\n                                 gushed out. ****\n\n\n     * Matthew xxvii, 3.\n\n     *** Matthew xxvii, 5.\n\n     **** Acts i, 18. ****  Acts i, 18.\n\nThe writer of Acts knows nothing about the hanging story. His Judas has\na headlong fall, which causes him to burst open in the midst, tearing\nout his bowels. A man hanging himself can not have a headlong fall, and\nif it had been known to the writer of Acts that Judas \"went and hanged\nhimself,\" he would have left out \"he burst asunder in the midst and all\nhis bowels gushed out.\"\n\nWe leave it to the theologians to explain the manner of Judas' death.\n\n\n\n\nOne Writer Makes Jesus Affirm What Another Made Him Deny\n\n|WHEN we come to study the sayings attributed to Jesus the\ncontradictions become more and more pronounced. The most irreconcilable\nstatements are put in Jesus' mouth, often by the same evangelist, as the\nfollowing few quotations will show:\n\nJesus Is the Judge of Men.\n\nThe Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the\nSon.--John v, 22.\n\nJesus Is Not the Judge of Men.\n\nI (Jesus) judge no man.--John viii, 15.\n\nIf any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not. For I came\nnot to judge the world.--Ibid. xiii, 47.\n\nJesus Witness of Himself Is True.\n\nI am one that bear witness of myself... Though I bear record of myself,\nyet my record is true.--Ibid. viii, 1, 4, 18.\n\nJesus Witness of Himself Is Not True.\n\nIf I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.--Ibid. v, 31.\n\nTemptations Are to Be Avoided.\n\nLead us not into temptation.--The Lord's Prayer, Matthew vi, 13.\n\nTemptations Are to Be Courted.\n\nCount it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.--James i, 2.\n\nIn the same way it could be proven by the bible that Jesus worked\nmiracles of every description to inspire faith in his mission, and from\nthe same book it could just as positively be shown that Jesus not only\nworked no miracles whatever, but that he gave his word of honor he would\nunder no circumstances give a sign to prove his claims:\n\n\n  Jesus Refuses to Perform Miracles.    Jesus Recites His Many Miracles.\n\n\n  And the Pharisees came                Jesus answered and said\n  forth, and began to question          unto them, Go and shew John\n  with him, seeking of him a            again those things which ye\n  sign from heaven. . . .               do hear and see. The blind\n  And he sighed deeply in his           receive their sight, and the\n  spirit, and saith . . . There         lame walk, the lepers are\n  shall no sign be given unto           cleansed, and the deaf hear,\n  this generation. And he left          the dead are raised up. **\n  them. . . .*\n\n\nIt is difficult to suppose that the Pharisees, after seeing all these\nmiracles performed in their midst daily, desired \"a sign\" from, him, or\nthat Jesus, instead of pointing to his many miracles, should declare,\npositively: \"There shall no sign be given unto this generation.\" The\nmiracle of Jonah, who was in the belly of a fish for three days, was\nenough, Jesus said to the Jews, to prove his own divinity.\n\nAgain, it is as clear as anything can be, for instance, that the words,\n\"Go, ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of\nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,\" *** were interpolated\ninto the text of the Gospels after the Trinitarian party had come into\npower. If Jesus really delivered the words to his disciples just before\nthey began their missionary labors, how is it that not one of the\nbaptisms by the Apostles recorded in the New Testament were in the name\nof the Trinity? Paul was not baptized according to the formula given in\nthe Gospels; Peter did not baptize in the name of a triune God; Philip,\nwho baptized the Ethiopian, does not seem to have known of the Father,\nSon and Holy Ghost form of baptism.\n\n     * Mark viii, 11-13.\n\n     **  Matthew xi, 4,5.\n\n     ***  Matthew xxiii, 19.\n\nAgain, if Jesus really commanded his Apostles to go into all the world,\nand teach all nations, is it likely that only a short time thereafter,\nPeter, one of the pillars, who had seen the risen Lord, and was now\nconfirmed in his faith, would have refused to preach the Gospel to\nCornelius because the latter was not a Jew? And if Jesus really sent\nthem unto all the nations of the world, how are we to explain the\nbitter controversy over the admission of Gentiles into the church--a\ncontroversy that led Paul to denounce Peter as a dissimulator? It is\nnot a lack of moral courage, but courtesy, which, in view of these\nrevelations, restrains us from calling the above text in the Gospels a\npartisan forgery. Is it reasonable to suppose that the same Jesus who\nforbade his disciples to go to the Gentiles, telling them to confine\nthemselves exclusively to the Jews, also commissioned them to make no\ndistinction of race, country or religion?\n\nBelow we present one of the most important commandments of Jesus, and\nthe prompt cancellation of the same, in parallel columns:\n\n\n  Go not into the way of the          Go ye into all the world\n  Gentiles, and into any city of      and preach the Gospel to\n  the Samaritans enter ye not:        every creature. **\n  But go rather to the lost\n  sheep of the house of Israel. *\n\n\nAgain, Jesus said:\n\nI am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ***\n\n     * Matthew x, 5.\n\n     **  Luke xvi, 15.\n\n     ***  Matthew xv, 24.\n\nIt is claimed that Jesus postponed the giving of the larger command\nuntil his disciples could appreciate it. But there is a serious\nobjection to this explanation. When Jesus forbade his apostles to visit\nany of the cities of the Gentiles, he stated his reason for it. \"I\nam not sent,\" he said, \"but unto the... house of Israel.\" Could any\npronouncement be more explicit than that? He further explained to his\ndisciples that they would not finish visiting the cities of Israel\nbefore they would see him in his second coming. It was after\nChristianity had crossed over into Europe that a note of universality\nwas introduced into it. That Jesus had no idea, or even desire, to\ninclude the non-Jewish peoples of the world into his heavenly kingdom,\nis clearly inferred from his definite declaration that the world would\ncome to an end during the lifetime of some of those who heard his\npreaching.\n\nAnd now, how do the orthodox defend themselves against these\nrevelations? One of the answers they offer is that contradictions and\ninaccuracies occur in all books, but we do not discredit them on that\naccount. Therefore, they conclude, it is not fair to discredit the bible\nbecause of the mistakes it contains. But the bible is claimed to be\nan infallible book; and for an infallible book to stand in need of\nthe courtesy and indulgence shown to human writings is a terrible\nhumiliation. Moreover, the kind of contradictions which exist in the\nbible would destroy the reputation of any book.\n\nA second defense is that the mistakes in the bible are limited to\ndetails only, and that in the essentials, it is infallible. It will not\nbe necessary to remind the readers of this book of the untruth of that\nstatement.\n\nBut why could not an inspired book be as accurate in the details as in\nthe essentials? If, for instance, the world were really created, or\nif Jesus were crucified and raised from the grave, why is there not a\nconsistent account of these events?\n\nA third defense is that these contradictions really prove the\ninspiration of the bible. Had there been one consistent account of the\nlife and teachings of Jesus, instead of four contradictory ones, the\napostles might have been suspected of collusion, but the inconsistencies\nin their narratives show, it is said, that they were honest men. Let\nus test the value of the above defense by applying it to a specific\ninstance: Matthew and Luke testify that the women, upon their return\nfrom the empty grave of Jesus, communicated their experience to the\ndisciples: \"And they departed quickly from the sepulchre... and did run\nto bring his disciples word.\" Mark, on the other hand, testifies that\nthe women fled from the sepulchre in consternation; \"neither said they\nany thing to any man.\" Now, did the Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration\nboth accounts were supposedly produced, purposely cover the facts, or\nmisinform the reporters, that it may never be definitely known what the\nwomen really did when they returned from the grave; or, did he confuse\nthe writers that the world may see in their disagreements the proof of\ntheir honesty? But such a manouvre would only prove the ingenuity of the\nHoly Ghost--not the honesty of the reporters. If the women communicated\nwith the disciples upon their return from the grave, then, to have\nreported as Mark does, that \"neither said they any thing to any man,\"\nwas an error. It may have been an honest error, but if he were prompted\nby the Holy Ghost to make the error, it does not prove his honesty, any\nmore than the contrary report proves the honesty of Matthew and Luke.\n\nBut there is a more important question suggested by this discussion: Why\nare there four Gospels? If it were for the purpose of supplementing what\nthe others have omitted, we ask, why should there be omissions in an\ninspired document? If all four of the evangelists in reporting the same\nevent agree perfectly, three of the reports would be superfluous. One\ninspired and truthful account of it would have been enough. If, however,\nthe four accounts of the same event do not agree, as we have seen that\nin numerous instances they do not, then no one will attempt to maintain\nthat all four of them could be true. If one evangelist testifies that\nthe ascension took place from the Mount of Olives, and another is\nequally sure that it was from Bethany, about three miles from the former\nplace, it is evident that only one of them can be correct, if Jesus\nascended at all. The only good reason for more than one inspired account\nof Jesus' life is that given by a great pillar of the early church,\nnamely, there had to be as many Gospels as there were corners to the\nearth, or winds of heaven.\n\n\n\n\nPART VI.\n\n\n\n\nI. What Was The Bible Meant to Teach?\n\n|LET us now examine the claim that nothing has or can hurt the bible,\nand that this fact is the proof of its divinity. We will have no trouble\nin proving to the reader, that, in spite of the most expensive and\nextensive protection which the bible has enjoyed for centuries,\ncriticism has compelled it to part, one after another, with all its\nclaims. The science of the bible, for instance, has been thoroughly\ndiscredited. Its story of creation and of the origin of man has been\neverywhere replaced by the truer revelation of science. Darwin has\nplaced Genesis on the shelf. The fire of criticism has irrevocably\ndestroyed the Mosaic narrative. \"Inspiration\" has gone down before\ninvestigation. There is not a single institution of learning which\naccepts any longer the bible for a guide in matters of science. Even in\nCatholic schools, the world revolves around the sun, and the heresy of\nGalileo is to-day the faith of both pope and cardinals. Yes, the world\ngoes around, and even the Catholic church does not wish to prevent it,\nbut goes around with it. Is not the word of man, then, as far as it\nrelates to science, more reliable than the Word of God? In science,\nat least, the bible has been replaced by the better books of modern\nthinkers.\n\nThe bibliolater, however, tries to turn the edge of this strong point\nagainst his fetish by answering that the bible was not meant to teach\nscience. Very well, if science is not the province of the bible, then,\nit leaves out one of the most important branches of knowledge, and\nto that extent it is inferior to the books that include science. But\nreally, to say that the bible does not teach science, is to admit that\nit is unscientific, or false in its science. It may not have been the\nintention of Moses to deny the doctrine of evolution, but when he says\nthe universe was made in six days, and apparently, out of nothing, he\ntalks unscientifically, and, therefore, ignorantly and falsely. Joshua\nmay not have intended to combat the law of gravitation, but when he\nstops both sun and moon for his private business, he makes himself a\nrival of Sir Isaac Newton by teaching a contrary science, that is to\nsay, a false science. It is impossible for the bible to speak about\nthe origin of man--the animals, vegetation and the formation of sun\nand star--without entering the field of science. When, therefore, its\nclerical defenders say that the bible was not meant to teach science,\nthey really mean it is something else in the bible that is inspired, and\nnot its science.\n\nIt is then admitted that the science of the bible is not \"inspired,\" and\nthat the science of man is better than that of the bible; let us now see\nif the history of the bible is \"inspired.\" If we desire the truth about\nthe nations of antiquity--Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome--do we go\nto the bible for information? Are not the stones dug out of the ground,\nand the uncovering of buried cities, the reading of the inscriptions\nupon monument and pyramid, a more reliable source of knowledge than\nHebrew gossip? Is it the bible or the hieroglyphics which have resisted\nthe wear and tear of time that introduce us to the laws, institutions,\nthe manners and morals of remote nations? Did Herodotus get his facts\nfrom the bible? Did Rawlinson discover his wonderful story of ancient\nempires in the bible? Did Gibbon copy his monumental history of the\nRoman world from the bible? There is to-day in the Louvre, in France, a\nstone, called the Hammurabi stone, which gives a truer glimpse into the\npublic and private life of ancient Chaldea than all the five books of\nMoses. It is discoveries like the Hammurabi stone which enable us to\nunderstand also the bible and the sources it borrowed from. In the\nBritish museum are the sculptures, the slabs, the bas-reliefs, the\nmummies, the tombs, the thrones, and the gods of the world of long ago;\nand it is from them, and not from the anonymous and undated copies\nof lost documents which compose the bible that we receive accurate\ninformation concerning the races of the past. But, perhaps, the bible\nwas not meant to teach history, any more than it was meant to teach\nscience. The history of the bible is as unreliable as its science. What\ninformation it gives us about the Egyptians is not true; what it says\nabout the ancient Assyrian empire is not true; even what it says of the\n\"chosen people\" is not true. The excavations and investigations of\nman have shown that the bible writers invented, in the majority of\ninstances, the vices they attributed to their neighbors and the virtues\nwhich they claimed for themselves. Both their own greatness and the\ninsignificance of their rivals existed only in their own imagination.\n\nBut if the bible were not meant to teach either science or history,\nwhat does it teach? It will not be denied that before the days of modern\nthought the bible taught everything--science and history as well. It is\ncriticism that has compelled the bible to retire from those fields. But\nto say, as the clergy do, that the bible is not an authority on science\nor history, is to make a fearful admission. Either the \"inspired\"\nauthors knew the truth about the universe and the ancient empires, or\nthey did not If they knew the truth, why did they tell an untruth; if\nthey were ignorant, why did they not admit their ignorance? The books\nwhich teach both science and history represent, in that respect,\nat least, a greater and richer collection of books than the\nJewish-Christian scriptures.\n\nBut is philosophy the specialty of the bible? The wisest man in the\nbible, who is also the wisest man God is said to have created, is\nSolomon. There are many excellent maxims in the writings attributed\nto this Jewish author. But writing maxims does not make a man a\nphilosopher. To be a philosopher, one must not only have some kind of an\nanswer to the many questions which come up in the life of the world,\nbut he must also work these answers, acquired after years of study and\nresearch, into what might be called a system, comprehensive in its sweep\nand harmonious in the relation of its parts to the whole. Is there an\nauthor or a teacher in the bible who may be called a philosopher, or\nwho has a philosophy, in this sense of the word? Compare Solomon with\nAristotle, whom Goethe called \"The intellect of the world!\" What are\nSolomon's handful of proverbs compared with Aristotle's monumental\nwork, touching upon every phase of human life--art, science, history,\npolitics, ethics, music, the drama, education, government, international\nlaw, medicine, finance, economics, religion! How diminutive appears \"the\nwisest man\" of the bible beside this colossus, whom Dante named \"The\nmaster of those who know!\" And while Aristotle was not \"inspired,\" there\nis not in all his writings one idea that is degrading or immoral, while\nmuch of Solomon's writings would be denied the privilege of the mails\nwere they not labeled \"holy.\"\n\nThe _Songs of Solomon_, which abound in passages we can not quote in\nthis place, are defended by the clergy on the theory that they were\nmeant to describe the love of Christ for his church. But Solomon had\nnever heard of Christ. And, then, why should Christ use the language of\na debauchee to express his affection for the church? How desperate\nmust be the case of the bible champions to resort to so foolish an\nexplanation!\n\nIn the book of _Ecclesiastes_, another of Solomon's philosophical\ntreatises, there are expressed ideas which are positively hurtful. The\nwhole tenor of his teaching is that everything is a vanity. \"Vanity of\nvanities, all is vanity,\" he cries. Like a satiated oriental sultan, he\nhas lost the ability to take pleasure in life. Like Macbeth, he wishes\n\"the estate of the world were now undone.\" Life to him is but a \"strut\"\nacross the stage. There is no difference, he says, between a man and a\nbeast; between a fool and a wise man, between a good man and a bad man,\nfor what happens to the one happens to the other. And the conclusion he\narrives at is this:\n\n_A man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink,\nand to be merry._ *\n\n     * Ecclesiastes viii, 15.\n\nFew people, and even few preachers, who quote the words \"Let us eat and\ndrink and make merry, for to-morrow we may die,\" know, or are willing\nto admit, that the words did not originate with some French infidel, but\nwith the wisest man God ever created.\n\nSpeaking of women, Solomon is \"inspired\" to make the following comment:\n\n_Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: One man among a thousand\nhave I found; but a woman among all those have I not found._ *\n\n     * Ecclesiastes vii, 28.\n\nNo other man but an \"inspired\" Jew would be forgiven for such an insult\nto woman. Solomon plainly states that while both men and women are\nbad, yet women are much worse, for he has found one good man among a\nthousand, but not one good woman \"among all those.\" Could any book be\nmore unholy than the one which contains so sweeping and spiteful an\naccusation? And yet this is the book the reading of which our preachers\nare trying to make compulsory in the home and school. But the saddest\nand strangest of all is the conduct of the women, who notwithstanding\nthis insult, fall upon their knees before this Asiatic volume and kiss\nthe text that filches from them their good name!\n\nOf course, there are bad women, as there are bad men. But if the ability\nto restrain one's passions be a virtue, if resistance to temptation is\nindicative of strength of character, women are much stronger than\nmen. There are few men who would not make fools of themselves if women\nencouraged them. If patience, endurance of pain, and self-sacrifice are\ndesirable traits of character, women are braver than men. Every time\na woman becomes a mother, she descends, so to speak, into the grave to\ngive life to another. There is not a man who was not at one time carried\nin a woman's arms. But for her love, tenderness and unselfishness, there\nwould have been no civilization.* If woman counts for anything to-day;\nif intellectually, socially, industrially and politically, she has\nstepped to the front, it is all due to her own efforts--efforts against\nancient and \"inspired\" prejudices, against the opposition of bibles and\nthe creeds, of priests and politicians, and of Church and State. Unaided\nby man or God, woman has saved herself from a life of slavery and\ninaninity, of injustice and drudgery, and to-day both Church and State\nfear the rising power of woman!\n\n     * Consult the author's Woman Suffrage; or, the Childbearing\n     Woman and Civilization.\n\nBut perhaps the bible is great for its _literary_ qualities. Much is\nsaid in praise of the bible in this respect. We are asked to admire it\nas a collection of literary masterpieces. But which are the masterpieces\nin the bible? Is it the book of Ruth? Is it Esther? Is it Jonah, or\nDaniel, or Ezekiel? Is it Leviticus, or Isaiah? Is it the Psalms of\nDavid, or the Songs of Solomon? The only book that comes near being a\nmasterpiece is the book of Job, which, with the exception of the first\nand second chapters, in which Satan makes a fatal wager with Jehovah for\nthe soul of Job, is the work of a sceptic. Is there any story or romance\nin the bible that can compare in beauty and might to the _Faust_ of\nGoethe, or the _Omar Khayyam_ of Fitzgerald, or to the _Prometheus\nUnbound_ of Shelley? Is there a book among the five attributed to Moses,\nor the dozen or more attributed to the prophets, that is as entrancing\nas Victor Hugo's _Les Miserables?_\n\nIs Joshua's story of brigandage to be likened to Schiller's drama of the\n_Robbers?_ And where is the tale in the bible that permeates the thought\nwith an indescribable sweetness as the _David Copperfield_ of Dickens,\nor the _Adam Bede_ of George Eliot? What is there in the two books of\nKings, and the two books of Samuel, and the two books of Chronicles that\ncan be mentioned in the same breath with the glories that enrich the\npages of a Walt Whitman or an Emerson? Is there any wit or humor in the\nbible as refreshing, as innocent, as contagious, and as illuminating as\nthat which made Mark Twain the darling of two hemispheres? Is there such\nmusic in the bible as throbs and swells in the lyric of Heine, in the\nthunder tones of Milton, or in the wild wonder of Byron's song? And in\nrichness of style, in fluency and charm of language, in the sublimity\nand pathos of poise and period, in purity of diction, in felicity of\nexpression, in soundness of conception and reasoning, is there any part\nof the Hebrew bible that can approach the incomparable authors of Athens\nand Rome, whose thought is the perpetual fragrance of the centuries?\nAnd I have not yet even mentioned the thousand-souled, the myriad-minded\nShakespeare, whose monument is in the wonder and astonishment of the\nworld, and whose cemetery is the heart of humanity, where he lies in\nsuch pomp and splendor that for such a tomb the gods even would wish to\ndie!\n\nAnd as for _eloquence_. I do not have to belittle the bible prophets\nin order to score a point in favor of the men and the voices which have\nthrilled the ages. I have read chapter after chapter from the\npreachments of Isaiah and Jeremiah without deriving any more meaning out\nof them than I do from the verbose pages of prophet Dowie or Eddy. All\ntheosophist writers speak in cryptic phrases. It is the thought that is\nlike a clear and transparent stream, flowing as a sparkling gem, and not\nthe thick and muddy source, that inspires true eloquence.\n\nIf the bible prophets were to reappear in our midst, doing and saying\nthe things they are charged with in the Word of God, I am sure they\nwould be placed under bonds to keep the peace. Let us see what it\nmeant to _prophesy_ in bible times. In the first book of Samuel, the\nnineteenth chapter, we read that Saul sent a regiment to capture David.\nIt so happened that his messengers, while en route, became prophets,\nevery one of them. He sent a second regiment with the same result. A\nthird set of messengers become also prophetic and began to prophesy. We\nwill let the bible explain what these men did when they became prophets,\nby quoting the lines which describe the conduct of Saul, who, going in\nsearch of his regiments, became himself a prophet:\n\n_And he (Saul) went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the Spirit of God\nwas upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to\nNaioth in Ramah.\n\nAnd he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel\nin like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night.\nWherefore, they say, is Saul also among the prophets?_\n\nMark the word \"also,\" which means that all his messengers had likewise\nstripped themselves when \"the Spirit of the Lord was upon them.\" David\ndid the same thing when he danced naked before the ark.\n\nTo the chief of the Old Testament prophets, Isaiah, came this\ninstruction from heaven:\n\n_At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go\nand loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from\nthy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot._ *\n\nAnd he walked the streets, if the bible is to be depended, for three\nyears \"naked and barefoot.... for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon\nEthiopia,\" whatever that may mean. Another prophet, Micah, declares he\nwill not only go about \"stripped and naked,\" but he will also \"howl.\"\n** And are these the men to be compared with the masters of eloquence in\nancient and modern history?\n\n     * Isaiah xx, 2.\n\n     **  Micah i, 8.\n\nIs it necessary, after all this, to call attention to the better\nand purer eloquence of Demosthenes, thundering against the menace of\nMacedonia to the liberties of Athens; of Cicero, defending, both with\nhis voice and sword, the culture of Europe against the barbarians of\nthe north; of Plato's _Apologia_ of Socrates, the finest argument for\nfreedom of thought and speech that has come down to us from the past;\nof Pericles, eulogy of Athens, city of the light; of the _Antigone_ of\nSophocles, or the _Prometheus_ of \u00c6schylus, unexcelled in literature, as\nthe Grecian Pantheon is in architecture!\n\nAnd have we not forty centuries of forensic eloquence to pit against\nthe explosions and fulminations of the diviners and soothsayers of\nthe bible? There is Mirabeau, Danton, Cavour, Castellar, Garibaldi,\nMazzini, Burke, Charles Sumner, Carl Schurz, Abraham Lincoln, and a\nglorious host of others, whose voices trembled with the woes of Ireland,\nor the victories of England, or the hopes of United Germany, or the\ncries of mangled France! Besides, the orators of Europe saved their\ncountries by the new hope and energy they instilled into them; the\nprophets of the bible drove the nation they represented into ignominious\nbondage, and left desolation and ruin where there was once a people and\na nation. Even the debris which Rome and Greece have left behind them is\nthe envy of all the world to-day, while not even the Jews are willing to\ngo back to their own Jerusalem.\n\n\n\n\nII. The Bible and Religion\n\n|BUT if the bible were not meant to teach science or history; if it were\nnot meant to be a literary masterpiece, or a text-book of philosophy\nand eloquence, was it meant to teach religion? The claim is persistently\nmade that it is essentially as a book of religion that the bible is to\nbe judged, and that, as such, it is unsurpassed by any work of man. It\nis true that religion is the principal theme of the bible, but has it\nmade any original contributions to it? Does the bible throw any more\nlight on what are called the mysteries of religion than any other book?\nBefore the bible, men speculated about the hereafter; has the bible\nchanged speculation into knowledge? Before the bible, men believed or\ndoubted the gods; has the bible changed faith, or doubt, into certainty?\nWhich unsolved problem concerning the origin of the universe, or of man,\nhas the bible illuminated? The bible has added to the number of sects\nand creeds, but has it removed even one theological tenet from the field\nof controversy and uncertainty? A book concerning the most important\ndeliverances of which Christians themselves do not, and will not agree,\ncan not very well be a revelation.\n\nNor has the bible added a single new doctrine to the religious\ncreeds that were already current in the world. Was it the doctrine\nof immortality, or of the incarnation, the immaculate conception, the\ntrinity, the devil, original sin, or atonement by blood which the bible\ndiscovered. All these beliefs, together with baptism, circumcision,\ncommunion, etc., existed among the peoples of the world long before the\nadvent of the Jews. Alexander von Humboldt says that when the different\nreligions of the world are placed side by side it is difficult to tell\nthem apart. Like mosses or grass, they spring up the same in every soil,\nand only by a very powerful microscope could be detected the slight\nvariations, due to climate, time and environment.\n\nI know the final plea for the bible is that it announced for the first\ntime the one God idea. But we had occasion to ask in former comments on\nthis subject, what was the value of such a contribution? Why is one God\nbetter than three or three hundred? Would the world have been better\noff with only one man in it, or the heavens with only one God, and no\nangels, cherubim, seraphim, Christs, or any other celestial being? But\nit is not true, as the following texts clearly prove, that the bible\nteaches the one-God theory. It is impossible not to infer from the way\nthe Jewish writers speak of Jehovah that they believed in the existence\nof other gods besides their own:\n\n_Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods?--Exodus XV, II.\n\nNow I know that the Lord is greater than all gods.--Exodus xviii,. n.\n\nOur Lord is above all gods.--Psalms cxxxv, 5.\n\nBefore the gods will I sing praise unto thee.--Psalms cxxxviii, 1.\n\nGreat is our God above all gods.--II Chronicles ii, 5.\n\nThou shalt have no other gods before me.--Exodus xx, 3.\n\nWorship him, all ye gods.--Psalms xcvii, 7._\n\nThe same idea is conveyed by the declaration of David that among the\ngods there is none like unto his God, and by the further fact that\nMoses, when he met God in the bush, asked for his name, to distinguish\nhim from other gods. There is no necessity for nomenclature in heaven if\nthere is only one God. We do not need a name for God, unless more than\none God exists in the universe. To name God, then, is a clear proof\nthat it is done to distinguish him from others in the same calling. Why\nshould God have a name? When Moses asked for the name of God, the\nlatter should have replied: A name! for me! I, who am the Infinite, the\nEternal! Names are to distinguish one from another. I have no equal, or\nrival. Has the Universe a name? Has Time a name? Has Truth a name? The\nmere fact of God having a name shows he is but one of the many idols,\nlabeled and classified, that he may not be confused with others of the\nsame profession.\n\nA further proof of the plurality of gods in the bible is furnished\nby one of the texts which has been deliberately tampered with. The\ndistinguished scholar, Dr. Christie David Ginsburg, in his \"Introduction\nto the Hebrew Bible,\" gives a long list of biblical passages which the\n_Sopherim_, or the rabbis, have purposely changed. One of the altered\ntexts is in second Samuel, xxi: \"Every man to his gods, O Israel.\" By\ntransposing the two middle letters of the Hebrew word for gods, the\ntranslators converted the \"gods,\" into \"tents,\" and so the text now\nreads, \"Every man to his tents, O Israel.\"\n\nIn the next chapter will be discussed the claim that the superiority of\nthe bible lies in the perfect morality which it teaches.\n\n\n\n\nIII. Does the Bible Teach Morality?\n\n|THE question which opens this chapter will surprise many of my readers.\nIt has so often and so confidently been claimed that the bible is\nthe text-book of morality, that hardly any one has thought of even\ninvestigating the claim. Just as the people have believed the bible to\nbe inspired because they say so, they have come to believe, for the same\nreason, that the bible is the book of morals. The truth is, however, as\nI will endeavor to show, that the bible no more teaches morality than it\ndoes science, history or philosophy. That was not the purpose for which\nit was written, and that is an end toward which it makes practically no\ncontribution at all.\n\nMorality may be defined as the assertion of our rights and the defense\nof the rights of others. There is not a single phase of the question\nwhich is not covered by this definition. Even if morality were defined\nas the sum of our duties, personal and social, even then we must conquer\nthe right to perform these duties, else we can not live a moral life.\nTo obey our consciences we must have freedom, and freedom is a right; to\nsacrifice ourselves for a cause, or to keep ourselves \"unspotted of the\nworld,\" we must be allowed the right to develop along the line of our\nbest ideals. Therefore, to be moral is to have the strength and the\nindependence to be ourselves, and to defend others in the exercise of\nthe same right. It is in the very nature of a revelation to deny man\nthe right to be himself. But that is the very negation of morality.\n\"You must obey,\" says the bible; \"never mind whether you understand the\ncommandments, or whether you approve of them or not.\" Is that morality?\nAnd the bible can not treat you as its equal, else what will become of\nits infallibility? In other words, the bible wants slaves who will do\nits bidding without protest or question. Under slavery there can be no\nself-development; that is to say, slaves can not be moral. It will be\nseen that by morality we mean very much more than the observance of a\nfew \"thou shalt nots.\"\n\nBut, again, a revelation, by forbidding us to improve upon its\nteachings, denies to us the greatest of all rights--that of growing\nbetter than our teachers. To believe in infallibility is to deny one's\nself the right to learn, and people who can not learn, or who can not\ncorrect their mistakes, can not be moral. But to say that the bible does\nnot object to our changing its commandments, dropping some and adding\nothers, is to admit that the bible is not divine. But if we may not\nadd, nor take away, nor improve upon the bible commandments, then we are\nautomatons, and not men, and for automatons there is no morality.\nThe gods will not permit anybody to be better than themselves. Such a\nthought is blasphemy to them. The progress that leaves the gods behind\nis denounced by all the churches. But what is this but denying a man\nthe right to be himself, even if by being himself he should eclipse the\ngods. \"Do as I tell you,\" or \"Be as I am,\" is the bible commandment. The\ncommandment of morality is \"Be yourself.\"\n\nBut what about the many texts in the bible which demand purity, charity,\nlove of one's neighbor, and, above all, righteousness? It is difficult\nto believe that the bible writers could have meant by the word\nrighteousness what we mean by it, namely, ethical rectitude. How could\nsuch men as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Moses be held up as saints,\nand, at the same time, the most immoral deeds be attributed to them,\nwithout one word of disapproval? These men were \"holy,\" not because they\nwere pure, kind, just, honorable, or righteous, but because they were\northodox. Listen to this text: \"And he believed in the Lord; and he\ncounted it to him for righteousness.\" * Abraham was \"righteous,\" not\nbecause his conduct was right, but because he had the right faith.\n\nTo the god of the bible himself, the difference between good and evil,\nor right and wrong, was altogether secondary, else how could he have\nsaid, \"I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments\nwhereby they should not live.\" **\n\n     * Genesis xv, 6.\n\n     ** Ezekiel xx, 25.\n\nIt no more troubles the conscience of Jehovah to play a trick upon his\npeople than it did that of Abraham when he trafficked in his wife's\nhonor. Nor did it in the least surprise the prophets when they caught\ntheir god lying to them. \"Wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar?\"\nasks Jeremiah; and again he says, \"Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast\ngreatly deceived this people.\" * But is he then going to look for\nanother and a more honest god? Not at all. He does not regard lying as\nan insurmountable defect in the character of his god. And this because\nthere is no ethical code in the bible; the bible is jealous of one\nthing--the right belief.\n\nJeremiah is not the only prophet who is willing to overlook in his deity\nso slight a defect as immorality: \"Shall there be evil in a city and the\nLord hath not done it?\" is the exulting cry of Amos. **\n\nIsaiah makes the God of Israel say: \"I make peace and create evil.... I,\nthe Lord, do all these things.\" *** Nor did it in the least disconcert\nanother prophet to admit that \"the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the\nmouth of all these thy prophets.\" **** Like people, like God. It is not\nreligion that shapes and molds a people, but the people who make their\nreligion. This explains such passages as the following, which the Jews\nattributed to their God:\n\n_And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord\nhave deceived the prophet. (v)\n\nThus saith the Lord, Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a\ndevice against you. (vi)_\n\n     * Jeremiah xv, 18; iv, 10.\n\n     ** Amos iii, 6.\n\n     *** Isaiah xlv, 7.\n\n     **** I Kings xxii, 23.\n\n     v.   Ezekiel xiv, 9\n\n     vi.   Jeremiah xviii, 11.\n\nIn one of his letters, St. Paul does not hesitate to write that God\npurposely causes people to believe in a lie that he may have an excuse\nto damn them for not believing the truth. That people could read such a\npassage without protest and abhorrence, shows how effective has been\nthe blight of this Asiatic cult upon the mind and heart of the western\nworld. \"And for this cause,\" writes the Apostle Paul, \"God shall send\nthem strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all\nmight be damned.\" *\n\nThe God who in the Old Testament hardened the heart of Pharaoh that he\nmight ruin him and his people, leads people, in the New Testament, to\nhug a delusion to their souls that he might damn them. And this is the\nbeing who is not only to be our pattern for morality, but it shall also\nbe considered impossible for any one to be better than he is. To try to\nimprove on this \"divine\" pattern is blasphemy, both to the Jew and the\nChristian.\n\nTo teach that no one can be better than Jehovah, as he is depicted in\nthe bible, is the most hopeless pessimism. Morality is born of hope and\ncourage. It is the idea of human perfectibility and the idea of progress\nwhich give wings to human effort. The bible denies to man the privilege\nto transcend the ideals of the past, or to be better than his Asiatic\ngods.\n\n     * II Thessalonians ii, 11, 12.\n\n\n\n\nIV. Righteousness in the Bible\n\n_What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love\nmercy, and to walk humbly with thy God_. *\n\n     * Micah vi, 8.\n\n|THIS, and similar passages, are often quoted to give the bible a\nreputation. Many commentators, Mathew Arnold among them, contend that\nrighteousness is the major key-note of the Old Testament. To prove this,\nthe above passage from the prophet Micah is often quoted. Another text\nwhich these commentators are fond of quoting reads as follows:\n\n_And to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I show the\nsalvation of God._ *\n\n     *  Psalms 1, 23.\n\nTo deserve this salvation by a life of righteousness, it is claimed, was\nthe one all-permeating thought of the \"people of the bible.\" But this\nlast passage from the Psalms occurs only once in the Old Testament, and\nit is a little strange that there should be just one reference to the\nthought which is said to permeate the whole bible. However, that is\nnot the real answer to the conclusions drawn from this passage. By\nconsulting the margin of the Revised Version of the bible, which,\ntoo, is the work of Christian scholars and has this advantage over the\nAuthorized Version, that it is more accurate--by consulting, then, the\nlatest and more accurate translation of the bible, we find that the text\nreads:\n\n_Whosoever offereth the sacrifice of thanksgiving glorifieth me, and\nprepareth a way that I may show him the salvation of God._\n\nThere is nothing here about \"righteousness,\" or ethical conduct, or\nconversation. It was the English translators who gave the text its moral\ntone.\n\nLet us now examine the text which opens this chapter. It declares that\nGod requires of his people justice, mercy and humility. The word which\nhas been translated into English as \"mercy\" is _hesed_. It is difficult\nto believe that this word meant in Hebrew what we understand by \"mercy.\"\nIn the one hundredth and thirty-sixth Psalm, David, whose character we\nexplain in this book, thus praises the _hesed_, or \"mercy\" of God:\n\n_To him that smote Egypt in their first-born; for his mercy (hesed)\nendureth forever._ *\n\nSurely no modern moralist would think of attributing the wholesale\nmurder of all the first-born in a land to the \"mercy\" of God! In the\nsame vein, David, while praising Jehovah's \"mercy\" for \"overthrowing\nPharaoh and his host, in the Red sea,\" for \"slaying great kings,\" and\n\"famous kings,\" whom God killed in battle and whose lands he gave to\nthe Jews, he exclaims, \"For his hesed (mercy) endureth forever.\" We\nassociate with the idea of \"mercy,\" tenderness, compassion and charity.\nWhat makes \"mercy\" or charity a great quality is that it is, as a rule,\nbestowed upon the unfortunate, and even the undeserving. But to describe\nkilling people in their sleep, or throwing down stones from heaven to\ndestroy soldiers defending their homes, ** or to drown a nation trying\nto recover their property from the Jews who had \"spoiled the Egyptians,\"\nbefore fleeing the land, as acts of \"mercy,\" is to make of morality a\nmockery. What is the difference between the red Indian extolling Manitou\nfor the scalps he has given him, and David singing:\n\n     * Psalms cxxxvi, 10.\n\n     ** Joshua x, ii.\n\n_To him that smote Egypt in their first-born:\n\nFor his mercy endureth forever._ *\n\n     * Consult Chilperic's article in The Reformer, Vol. VI, page\n     664.\n\nWho would for a moment hesitate between these lines of David and\n\n```_The quality of mercy is not strained;\n\n```It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven\n\n```Upon the place beneath:_\n\nof Shakespeare?\n\nIt is not our purpose to show that the Old Testament knows nothing of\n\"mercy\" in the modern sense of the word, but that the word _hesed_ in\nthe bible text, which figures in the English translation of this text\nas \"mercy,\" means something quite different. Following the lead of the\ngreat Hebrew scholar, Gesenius, Chilperic makes the word _hesed_ in\nthis text from Micah, synonymous with our word \"piety.\" What Jehovah\ndesires of his people, then, is not clemency, but piety; not the love of\nman, but the love of God. It is the duty of man to God, not the duty of\nman to his fellows, the world over, that the Jewish prophet has in mind.\nThe first-born of Egypt and all the other foes of Israel were destroyed\nas a reward for the piety of the chosen people. It is for this David\npraises the hesed of the Lord. In the same way, the \"do justly\" in the\ntext has also a purely ceremonial meaning. The word \"justly\" in the\ntranslation is not the English of the Hebrew word in the text, which\nis _mishpat_. The Jews used the word in the sense of the law, or the\njudgments and ordinances, of Jehovah. What the Lord requires, then, in\nthis text from Micah, which the commentators make so much of, is \"to\nperform the law, to love piety, and to submit to Jehovah.\" And when the\nprophet quotes the Semitic God as saying: \"I desired hesed (mercy), and\nnot sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings,\" *\nhe means just what the modern revivalist means when he says: \"All your\nmorality can not save you. What God insists upon is _piety_.\" If further\nevidence be required to know that what we understand by justice, love,\ncharity, had no place in the vocabulary of the bible writers, there is\nthe story narrated in I Samuel, xv. This \"moral\" teacher, Samuel, orders\nKing Saul, in the name of Jehovah, to slaughter the Amalekites, \"both\nman and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.\" The\nking, in carrying out this program, manages to spare the lives of the\nbest of the cattle; he also allows the Amalekite king to escape alive.\nWhereupon, Jehovah is so provoked that, \"it repenteth me that I have\nset up Saul to be king,\" he says. Then Samuel goes to see the king, who\nrelates to him how he had consumed the Amalekites by putting everything\nto the sword. \"And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the\nsheep in mine ears and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?\" The king\nreplied that the best of the sheep and of the oxen were reserved \"_to\nsacrifice unto the Lord_.\" Observe now the answer which the prophet of\nGod gave to the king:\n\n     * Hosea vi, 6.\n\n_Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in\nobeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,\nand to hearken than the fat of rams._\n\nNow we understand what it is that the Lord demands; so did Saul, after\nSamuel had explained it to him, for \"Samuel hewed Agag (the king whose\nlife had been spared) in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.\" From a human\npoint of view, it would have been more moral to sacrifice to God the\ncattle Saul had saved than to \"hew in pieces\" a human being, but that\nis the morality of man; to be moral in the bible sense is to do as God\ncommands, whether what he commands you to kill be a sheep or a human\nbeing. Morality, according to the bible, means unquestioning obedience.\nAddressing a monster revival meeting, the Christian preacher declared\nthat: \"Violation of the sixth commandment, cursing, theft, drunkenness,\nand even murder, are pardonable sins, but refusal to accept the Son of\nGod is an eternal barrier to the heavenly kingdom.\" *\n\n     * The Toledo News-Bee, May 17, 1911.\n\nThat is our definition of immorality.\n\n\n\n\nV. The Ten Commandments\n\n|IT is the claim of both Jews and Christians that the Ten Commandments\nform the foundation, not only for the moral and civil laws of our\ncountry, but of the civilized world as well. Some bibliolaters, in their\nzeal, go so far as to say that there was no morality in the world before\nthe Ten Commandments were announced. That is to say, in their opinion,\nmorality is but a few thousand years old. Why, the world itself,\naccording to the bible chronology, is nearly six thousand years old. Are\nwe to understand, then, that until the time of Moses the world managed\nto get along without any morality at all?\n\nBut we know that the world is very much older than six thousand years,\nand that there were great empires and a civilization which was already\nold, long long before the Jews arrived. Egypt was at the zenith of her\nculture when the sons of Jacob appeared within her gates to beg for\nbread, and Babylonia and Persia were world-empires when the Jews were\nstill slaves. But to admit that there was any morality before Moses,\nis to give up the bible. What need could there be of a moral law coming\ndown from heaven, if there were one already growing out of the earth? No\ndeity is needed to find for us what was never lost, or to give us what\nwe already possessed. To admit, therefore, that there were ancient\nnations who flourished and waxed strong in art and commerce, in culture\nand character, long before the Ten Commandments descended from the\nclouds, would be fatal to the claim that there can be no morality\nwithout the bible.\n\nThe defenders of the bible find themselves in a very embarrassing\nposition. They can not deny Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome; but\nif they admit the greatness and glory of these empires, what becomes of\ntheir claim that morality was first given to the world by Moses in the\nwilderness? There is only one way out of the dilemma: Refuse to discuss\nthe question. And that is practically the tactics of the bible champions\nat present. It is absolutely impossible to find any more an educated and\nrespectable churchman who is willing to debate the question before an\naudience of inquirers. Silence is their one remaining asset.\n\nIt is related in the bible that the Ten Commandments were written on two\ntables of stone by the deity himself. But in a fit of anger, Moses, in\nwhose custody the documents in stone were placed, \"cast the tables out\nof his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.\" * This was a device to\naccount for the nonexistence of the tables. If ever there were a time\nwhen a miracle would have been in order, it was when Moses dropped the\ncommandments. After forty days of labor, Jehovah delivers the moral\nlaw, and not wishing to entrust the work of taking down his dictation to\nMoses, he inscribes them on imperishable stone, with his own hand. And\nthen they fall and break, like any schoolboy's slate. The slates should\nnot have broken--and they would not have broken--if all the other\nmiracles told in the bible are true. To have miracles without number\nwhen we do not need them, and then to refuse the one miracle that could\nhave saved the handwriting of God, is a fatal argument against the\nmiraculous.\n\n     * Exodus xxxii, 19.\n\nIt is true that Moses was summoned to the mountain for a new set of\ntables and commandments, but as I shall proceed to explain, the second\nTen Commandments were not written by the deity. His handwriting was\nirretrievably lost by the breaking of the first tables. We have miracles\nto preserve shoes and garments, and dead men's bones, but none to save\nthe writing of God. Thus it is that all the \"original\" documents of\nthe prophets and the apostles have perished, while the real wood of the\ncross and the coat of Jesus have been miraculously preserved.\n\nIn Exodus, thirty-second chapter, verse sixteen, we read:\n\n_And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of\nGod, graven upon the tables._\n\nBut what was the use? The tables broke, and the writing is lost. Why go\nto all that trouble to produce original documents, only to lose them\nso shortly after they are finished? The thirty-fourth chapter and the\ntwenty-seventh and twenty-eighth verses of the book of Exodus inform us\nthat the second collection of Commandments which were given to replace\nthe broken tables of stone, were not written by Jehovah, but by Moses:\n\n_And the Lord said unto Moses, write thou these words... And he (Moses)\nwas there with the Lord forty days and forty nights... And he wrote upon\nthe tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments._ *\n\n     * Exodus xxxiv, 27, 28.\n\nBut not only were the new commandments not in God's handwriting, but\nthey were also totally different from the first Ten Commandments. Thus\nit was not only the divine writing that perished, but also the moral law\nas first given. It is true that Moses reports what the lost commandments\nwere, but if he could remember them, why was it necessary for him to\ngo up the Mount for a transcript of them? The unpleasant conclusion is\nforced upon our minds that not only had Moses forgotten what the broken\ntables of stone contained, but Jehovah, himself, could not remember\nthem. Where, then, did Moses get the Ten Commandments which he says were\non the broken slates? I do not know. If he reported them from memory,\nand his memory were reliable, why was a second set of slates ordered,\nthat the Lord might write on them \"the words that were in the first\ntables, which thou breakest\"? * If a second series of commandments were\ngiven, as the text plainly states, because the first series was lost,\nhow did Moses reproduce the lost commandments? Could he have put\nthe fragments of the broken tables together, restoring thereby the\nhandwriting of God? Really, it is not history that the bible gives us,\nbut gossip.\n\nIt has already been shown that the deity did not write the second\nversion of the moral law with his own hand, although he promised he\nwould. Let me now present the second version of the Ten Commandments,\nto show that Jehovah had forgotten just as completely as had Moses, the\nfirst Ten Commandments which he himself had inscribed on the slates.=\n\n     * Exodus xxxiv, 1, abbreviated.\n\n_Exodus XXXIV.\n\n1. Thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous,\nis a Jealous God.\n\n2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.\n\n3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.\n\n4. Every firstling that is male is mine. And the first fruits of the\nland thou shalt bring unto the Lord.\n\n5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.\n\n6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.\n\n7. Thrice in the year shall all your men children (women not wanted)\nappear before the Lord God.\n\n8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.\n\n9. The sacrifice of the passover shall not be left over till the\nmorning.\n\n10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk._\n\nThat these were the commandments given to take the place of those\nunfortunately lost appears by the text that follows, and which we ask\npermission to quote again:\n\n_And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words:\n\n... And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten\ncommandments._ *\n\n     * Exodus xxxiv, 27.\n\nBy comparing these two pronouncements, only a very slight resemblance\ncan be discovered between them. In both documents, God is jealous, and\nthe feast of Sabbaths and weeks is ordered to be scrupulously observed.\nThere is not a single commandment in the second deliverance which can\nbe described as ethical in its import. It is a \"moral law\" without the\nremotest suggestion of morality in it. Nothing is said about the duty\nof man to himself, his neighbor, or his posterity. The Ten Commandments\nwhich were broken and lost contained, at least, prohibitory clauses\nagainst murder, theft, adultery, and the bearing of false witness\nagainst one's neighbor. Even though these interdictions had in view\nthe protection of the Jew only, as the conduct of Israel toward other\npeoples plainly shows; and even though only a portion of the lost\ndecalogue concerned itself with morality at all, the others being of\na theological and ceremonial character, still they, at least, have the\n_appearance_ of being a moral law, while the second decalogue is not\neven that.\n\nAnd why are there ten commandments? The Protestants split the first\ncommandment which forbids the worship of other gods and the making of\ngraven images into two separate commandments; the Catholics, on the\nother hand, divide the last commandment, which says, \"Thou shalt not\ncovet thy neighbor's house,\" or wife, or ox, or ass, into two, by\nseparating the wife from the ass and the ox. \"Thou shalt not covet thy\nneighbor's wife,\" is a commandment by itself in the Catholic bible,\nwhile, as explained, the Protestant bible makes no distinction between\na man's ox, ass and wife. Of course, we prefer the Catholic manipulation\nof the bible, in this respect, to that of the Protestants, who are\nmore jealous of the favor of Jehovah than of that of woman. But by what\nauthority do these sects go about splitting the divine commandments?\nOnly recently Cardinal Gibbons expressed great horror at the suggestion\nof certain Protestants that the Ten Commandments should be abbreviated\nand modernized. \"What blasphemy,\" exclaimed the cardinal. Yet, his\nchurch was guilty of that very kind of \"blasphemy\" when it separated\nwhat God had joined together--the ass, the ox and the wife.\n\n\n\n\nVI. The Commandments Broken\n\n|THE most telling criticism against the bible as an ethical work\nis that, while every one of its moral commandments are deliberately\ncountermanded and cancelled and allowed to be, yes, ordered to be,\nbroken, not one of the ceremonial or theological commandments was for a\nsingle time even suspended, or its neglect winked at, by the all-seeing\nJehovah. The man who gathered kindling wood on the seventh day, or\ncalled on other gods, or ate his totem, or forgot his taboo, or omitted\nthe Abrahamic rite, or ate fat, or forgot his blood offerings, or\nmarried a Gentile, or ate leavened bread on certain days, or approached\ntoo near to a priest or the candlesticks, was never allowed to escape\npunishment; while the thief, the murderer, the debauchee, the falsifier,\nthe traitor, the assassin, was again and again applauded and rewarded\nwith special favors. The commandment, \"Thou shalt not kill,\" was barely\nspelled out in full when the Lord orders a saturnalia of murder.\n\n_Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side,\nand go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay\nevery man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his\nneighbor... even every man upon his son._ *\n\nWho can have patience with such a book? What has become of the intellect\nof Europe that it can go to such a book for its morality? In one of\nNapoleon's unpublished letters, addressed to Junot, after giving secret\ninstructions about the movement against Lisbon, he adds, \"Shoot, say,\nsixty persons.\" ** If that makes him a monster, what shall we say of a\nbeing who asks fathers to murder their sons, and sons their fathers, in\ncold blood, and that, too, immediately after he had said, \"Thou shalt\nnot kill.\" But why was this bacchanalia of bloodshed ordered? The answer\nwill cause a shudder: \"That he (Jehovah) may bestow upon you a blessing\nthis day.\" *** To kill was an act of worship. To please God was better\nthan to spare one's children from the edge of the sword. God demanded\nmurder, and not until he was obeyed would he \"bless\" them! Do we need\nany further proof that there is only one commandment in the bible: \"Thou\nshalt obey the Lord thy God,\" that is to say, the priest. If he\nforbids murder, obey him; if he commands murder, obey him. But the most\nimportant point about all this is that both the giving and the\nbreaking of a \"moral\" commandment is for the purpose of furthering\nthe theological and ritualistic interests. \"And the Lord plagued the\npeople,\" that is to say, he ordered this internecine murder--why? Not\nbecause they had violated any of the \"moral\" commandments, but, mark\nthe excuse given, \"because they made the calf.\" **** The most abominable\nthing in the sight of this priest-made God, is not immorality, but\ninfidelity.\n\n    * Exodus xxxii, 27-29.\n\n    **  Lettres M\u00e9dit\u00e9s de Napoleon. Le cestre.\n\n    ***  Exodus xxxii, 29.\n\n    **** Exodus xxxii, 35.\n\nIt would be easy to enumerate the so-called \"moral\" commandments, one\nafter the other, and show how every one of them was ordered broken\nwhen the interests of the creed required it. \"Thou shalt not steal\" was\nrevoked again and again, and a thousand encouragements offered to seize\nthe land and goods of others. The commandment \"Thou shalt not commit\nadultery\" was made a mockery of by the express instruction to make a\nraid on neighboring countries and carry off the young girls by force. *\nWe have reason to be ashamed of Europe, of the Aryan races, for wanting\nto place such a book into the hands of young and old as the Word of God.\n\n     * Numbers xxxi, 18.\n\nIndeed, without any violence, either to the letter or to the spirit of\nthe bible, we may offer the following as the real Ten Commandments given\nby God to Moses:\n\n1. Thou shalt steal everything thou canst--thou shalt plunder, and\npractice usury.\n\n2. Thou shalt murder the alien and the heathen as well as thy own\nbrother.\n\n3. Thou shalt bear false witness.\n\n4. Thou shalt commit adultery.\n\n5. Thou shalt covet.\n\n6. Thou shalt hate thy neighbor of another faith.\n\n7. Thou shalt persecute.\n\n8. Thou shalt be cruel, and buy and sell human beings.\n\n9. Thou shalt be superstitious.\n\n10. Thou shalt despise woman, but permit a man to marry as many wives,\nand keep as many concubines as his fancy dictates. And let a man divorce\nhis wife whenever it shall please him to do so.\n\nSpace fails us to quote all the texts in the bible which support the\nabove commandments. It would be like reproducing the greater portions of\nthe bible to offer even a partial list of the direct and indirect ways\nin which the bible lends its authority, as well as encouragement, to the\ncommission of what we would consider criminal acts. Moreover, it would\nbe a very unpleasant task to repeat, or to call attention to, those\nparts of the bible which this phase of my subject leads me into. And\nyet I do not see how I can altogether shirk the disagreeable task. The\nreader has no idea how big a part of the bible is unreadable. If anybody\nundertook to bring out a cleanly version of the bible for family use, he\nwould soon find that the Old Testament, at least, would have to be left\nout, almost completely. Dr. Thomas Inman says: \"A long experience in\nlife and a retentive memory would lead me to say that the bible, as we\nhave it, is the first book which leads many youths astray.\" *\n\nThat Jehovah ordered his people to _steal_, is clearly indicated by the\nfollowing text:\n\n_When ye go, ye shall not go empty: But every woman shall borrow of her\nneighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver and\njewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons and\nupon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians!_\n\nWhat they were ordered to do to the Egyptians, they were ordered to do\nto all the nations they could lay their hands upon. The lands and goods\nof others were to be seized by force. Stealing was forbidden if the\nproperty belonged to a Jew; it was sanctioned if the property belonged\nto the \"heathen.\"\n\n_Murder_ is plainly commanded in the following text:\n\n_Slay every man his brother, and every man his companion and every man\nhis neighbour._ **\n\n     *  Ancient Faiths, etc., Vol. II, page 77.\n\n     **  Exodus iii, 21, 22.\n\nThere is hardly a page in the Old Testament which is not red with\nbloodshed.\n\n_Lying_ was approved by the deity. Moses was commanded to tell a\nfalsehood to Pharaoh, as were many of the other prophets advised to\npractice deception. Despite all the plagues which God is said to have\nsent upon the Egyptians to prove his might and power to deliver his\npeople out of bondage, it was found necessary, as a last resort, to tell\na lie to the king of Egypt to induce him to permit their departure. Upon\nbeing asked by Pharaoh why and where they wanted to go, Moses answered:\n\n_The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three\ndays' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the Lord our God; lest\nhe fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword._ *\n\nWhile planning to go on an expedition to seize the lands which their God\nhad promised them, they tell Pharaoh that they only desire to hold some\nkind of a prayer-meeting in the desert, after which they would come\nback, supposedly to return the jewels of gold and silver they had\nborrowed from the neighbors. The falsehood was effective when all the\nmiracles had failed. The Egyptians actually, if the story is true,\nallowed the Jews to rob them before they left.\n\nGod also commanded Samuel to lie:\n\n_And 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 said,\nTake a heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord._\n**\n\nIn the same way, the bible, it is to be regretted, sanctions sexual\nimmorality.\n\n_And the Lord said to Hosea, Go take unto thee a wife of whoredom._ ***\n\nAgain, the Lord commands:\n\n_When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy\nGod hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them\ncaptive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a\ndesire unto her... thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and\nshe shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her,\nthen thou shalt let her go whither she will._ ****\n\nNot a word is said about obtaining the woman's consent. And the\nfollowing:\n\n_But all the women children that have not known a man by lying with him,\nkeep alive for yourselves._ (v)\n\n     * Exodus v, 3.\n\n     **  Samuel xvi, 1, 2.\n\n     ***  Hosea i, 2.\n\n     ****  Deuteronomy xxi, 10-14.\n\n     v. Numbers xxxi, 18.\n\nSuch texts show how indifferent the bible is to what we understand by\nmorality.\n\nAs to _coveting_: The whole of the biblical instructions was nothing\nmore than a continuous encouragement to the Jews to covet everything\nthat was their neighbors, from the jewelry of the Egyptian, to the\nlands, the cattle, the homes and daughters of the nations of the earth:\n\n_And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying... I will\ngive unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a\nstranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. *\n\nFor all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy\nseed for ever._ **\n\nBut it will be impossible to command people to rob and slay their\nneighbors, and to covet their homes and women, without at the same time,\ncommanding them to _hate_ them.\n\n_Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt give it\nunto the stranger... that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an\nalien. ***\n\nThou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother.... unto a stranger thou\nmayest lend upon usury._ ****\n\nJesus improved upon the Old Testament by calling upon his followers to\ninclude in their hatred the members of their own family:\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, he\ncannot be my disciple._ (v)\n\n     * Genesis xvii, 3, 8.\n\n     **  Genesis xiii, 15.\n\n     *** Deuteronomy xiv, 21.\n\n     **** Deuteronomy xxiii, 19, 20.\n\n     v.  Luke xiv, 26.\n\nReligious _persecution_ is openly sanctioned both in the Old and the New\nTestaments. Every expression of independence, or disagreement with the\npriesthood, was blasphemy, and punishable by death.\n\n_And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to\ndeath, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the\nstranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name\nof the Lord, shall be put to death._ *\n\nThe Bible gives a very long list of \"blasphemies\" for which the death\npenalty is ordered--from failing to circumcise one's children, to\ngathering sticks on the Sabbath. And as to those professing a different\nfaith, the commandment was as follows:\n\n_These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in\nthe land, which the Lord God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it,\nall the days that ye live upon the earth.\n\nYe shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye\nshall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the\nhills, and under every green tree:\n\nAnd ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars and burn\ntheir groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their\ngods, and destroy the names of them out of that place._ **\n\n     * Leviticus xxiv, 16.\n\n     **  Deuteronomy xii, 1-4.\n\nCould intolerance go further than that! Other peoples are not to have\nany gods at all. Even as their lands will be taken away from them, so\nshall their gods. And since their Jehovah never intended to be the god\nof anybody else but a Hebrew, it followed that the Jews were the only\npeople privileged to own a god.\n\nWhy should \"all the high places,\" where the other nations served their\ngods, be destroyed? Did not Moses go to Mount Sinai, a high place, to\nworship Jehovah? Why may not a Gentile have his own high place, as well\nas a Jew? Surely, the heathen gods on their mountains could not possibly\nhave given a more unmerciful set of commandments than those which\nJehovah dictated to Moses. There was no breadth in the God of the Jews.\n_Live and let live, or Think and let think_, is the conquest of\nmodern thought for which we are indebted to Rationalism. We say it,\nreluctantly, but say it we must, Jehovah was a bigot. How long will the\nJews continue to profess a religion which requires of them to live in\nEurope and America, and in the twentieth century, according to the\nways of the desert? If Gentiles, in every country, are in great numbers\nforsaking Christianity, let the exodus of the Jews from the synagogue be\nequally earnest and pronounced.\n\n_Cruelty_ was to be the accompaniment of religious persecution.\n\nThe descriptions of acts of cruelty against the stranger seem to have\ngiven positive pleasure to the writers of the bible, for they enter into\nthe most repulsive details in narrating them:\n\n_For the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.... Howbeit\nSisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the\nKenite: for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the\nhouse of Heber the Kenite.\n\nAnd Tael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord,\nturn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the\ntent, she covered him with a mantle... Then Jael Heber's wife took a\nnail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto\nhim, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the\nground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.... Behold, Sisera\nlay dead, and the nail was in his temples._ *\n\n     *  Judges iv, 9, 17-23.\n\nFor this act of treacherous cruelty Jael was sainted:\n\n_Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed\nshall she be above women in the tent.... She put her hand to the nail,\nand her right hand to the workmen's hammer; and with the hammer she\nsmote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken\nthrough his temples.... So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord._ *\n\n_Superstitions_ of the most degrading type are recommended and their\ndaily practice sanctioned. Though they claimed to be on talking terms\nwith the deity, they had, nevertheless, to cast lots, and resort to\nsorcery and divination, to find out the mind of the Lord.\n\n_Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years\nold, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.\n\nAnd he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid\neach piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.... And it\ncame to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a\nsmoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.\n\nIn the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram._ **\n\nCould anything be more meaningless?\n\n... _And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel\nprevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.\n\nBut Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under\nhim, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one\non the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were\nsteady until the going down of the sun.\n\nAnd Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the\nsword._ **\n\n     *  Judges v, 24-31.\n\n     **  Exodus xvii, 11-13.\n\nOnly the most hopeless ignorance could credit such a performance.\n\nAnd Jesus thought that by self-mutilation one could become a candidate\nfor heaven:\n\n_For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's\nwomb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and\nthere be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of\nheaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.\n\nAnd the four beasts said, Amen._\n\n\n\n\nVII. Thou Shalt Despise Women\n\n|THE most unfortunate person in the whole bible is a woman. How is it\nthen that the bible has come to be regarded as really the emancipator\nof woman? Well, that is only one of many fictions about the \"Holy\" book.\nNot only is the responsibility for the fall of man, and the existence\nof such a place as hell, thrown upon woman, because she ate of the\nforbidden tree; but she is also introduced as a mere fragment of man,\nmade out of one of his ribs. As soon as born she was sold into perpetual\nslavery.\n\n_Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee._*\n\n     *  Genesis iii, 16.\n\nNever once did God promise a daughter to any of his favorites. And\ngirls are completely left out from the family chronicle. In biblical\ngenealogies there are no women. \"The Hebrew word used in the bible\nfor 'female,'\" says Joseph McCabe, \"can not with decency be translated\nliterally into English.\" Women were strictly excluded from the service\nof Jehovah. Nor were they privileged to repair to Jerusalem on the\nstated occasions required, by the national worship to appear before\nJehovah. It is no wonder that under these conditions the women of the\nbible, as Lecky says, were \"of a low order, and certainly far inferior\nto those of Roman history, or Greek poetry.\" Paul was inspired to\ncommand: \"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.... I\nsuffer not a woman to teach (Paul never could have dreamed of our public\nschools), nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.\" *\n\nIn the Old Testament motherhood is an act deserving atonement, and rules\nare given how a woman shall apply for absolution, as it were, after\nchildbirth. If her offspring were a boy, the punishment was lighter than\nwhen she gave birth to a girl. **\n\n     * I Timothy ii, 11, 12.\n\n     **  Leviticus xii, 2-5.\n\nThe commandment for a man to sell his daughter into slavery, as also\nthe institution of polygamy, and concubinage and divorce, extensively\npracticed by the leaders in the Holy Bible, show what precious little\ninterest Jehovah took in the welfare of woman. The bible continued\nfor centuries--down to the time of the Renaissance--to keep woman in\nsubjection. Even to-day, one of the greatest obstacles in the path of\nwoman is the bible. In a sermon at Saint Crantock's, preached only six\nyears ago, the vicar offered the following reasons for opposing the\ngranting to women the rights and opportunities enjoyed by man:\n\n_(1) Man's priority of creation. Adam was first formed, then Eve.\n\n(2) The manner of creation. The man is not of the woman, but the woman\nof the man.\n\n(3) The purport of creation. The man was not created for the woman, but\nthe woman for the man.\n\n(4) Results in creation. The man is the image of the glory of God, but\nwoman is the glory of man.\n\n(5) Woman's priority in the fall. Adam was not deceived; but the woman,\nbeing deceived, was in the transgression.\n\n(6) The marriage relation. As the church is subject to Christ, so let\nthe wives be to their husbands.\n\n(7) The headship of man and woman. The head of every man is Christ, but\nthe head of the woman is man._\n\nFor this one sin alone--its insult and injustice to woman--we should\nnever make our peace with the bible. Worse than all its miracles,\nfables, absurdities, immoralities, contradictions, indecencies, is its\ntyranny over woman because she is _weak_. This is unpardonable.\n\nIt is no defense to say that allowance must be made for the remote times\nin which these barbarities were committed. It is not the morality of the\n\"times\" but the morality of an infallible book that is under discussion.\nMoreover, why could not the people who daily saw God and heard from\nhim, be at least as decent as their \"heathen\" neighbors? The Midianites,\nwhose virgin daughters Moses ordered his followers to abduct, after all\nthe rest of the inhabitants had been put to death, had sheltered\nMoses for forty years when he fled for his life from Egypt. * Their\nhospitality is repaid by Moses in this unspeakable fashion. Why could\nnot Moses be as honorable and humane as the Midianites? Even by the\nadmissions of the bible itself, the nations whom Jehovah ordered to be\nexterminated were very much more hospitable than the Jews. Had Assyria,\nEgypt, Babylonia or Persia followed the example of the Jews, there would\nnot have been any Jews left in the world to-day. And the fact that,\nafter long years of captivity in heathen countries, when permission was\ngiven the Jews to return to Jerusalem, many of them refused to do so,\npreferring a foreign country to their own, is decisive proof that the\n\"heathen\" did not treat the Jews so unmercifully as Jehovah wanted the\nJews to treat the heathen. I can protest against the massacre of the\nChristians by the Turks, or of the Jews by the Christians, because I\ndo not believe the bible is binding upon my conscience. But how can a\nChristian or a Jew plead for liberty of conscience? How can a Jew or a\nChristian protest against being massacred while hugging to his bosom a\nbook which commands and approves of the most inhuman treatment of one\npeople by another?\n\n     *  Exodus ii, 15.\n\nMy forehead throbs as I quote these forbidden texts, and my pulse rises.\nBut I have the consolation that the book is not true, that the wild\nstories it tells about Jews and Christians had no basis in history. If I\ncould only get the devout Jews and Christians to realize this!\n\n\n\n\nVIII. The Sermon on the Mount\n\n|HOWEVER imperfect the teachings of others in the Old and New Testament\nmight be, it is urged that Jesus himself is the one infallible\nrevelation of God, and that even if everything else is lost, nothing is\nreally lost so long as Jesus abides. This is the remaining consolation\nof the apologists of the bible. No reasons are given as to why, in an\ninspired book, there should be only one person who is really inspired.\nNor do these \"new theologians\" stop to think that such an admission is\nequivalent to a plea of guilty--for if no one but Jesus in the bible\nis to be trusted, then Jesus can not be trusted either. In plain words\nJesus tells his hearers that they must believe in him, because Moses\nand the prophets testify of him. Repeatedly Jesus expressed his\nunquestioning belief in the Old Testament. He had come not to destroy\nthe law of Moses, but to fulfil it. And he expressly told them, that\nthere was no necessity for any one to come down from heaven to teach the\npeople, for \"if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they\nbe persuaded, though one rose from the dead.\" * But if \"Moses and the\nprophets\" are not to be depended upon, what becomes of Jesus' testimony\nof them? Jesus says \"Moses and the prophets were of God,\" the \"new\ntheologians\" say they were not. In the meantime, the same \"new\ntheologians\" say that Jesus knew what he was talking about.\n\nBut the \"new theologians,\" who have nearly thrown overboard everything\nelse, still cling, or pretend to cling, so ardently to Jesus as a moral\nteacher, because of the supposed beauty of the Sermon on the Mount,\nand the other teachings of Jesus. This is not the first time that the\npresent writer makes the Sermon on the Mount a subject for comment. **\nThere are many fine passages in the collection of utterances attributed\nto Jesus, but we have the same objection against the moral teachings\nof Jesus that we have against the moral teachings of Moses and the\nprophets. The best in Jesus' sermons are to be found in the Old\nTestament, and there is enough of the worst in the Old Testament in the\nsayings attributed to Jesus to make his teachings unfit, in the main,\nfor universal uses.\n\n     * Luke xvi, 31.\n\n     **  Consult the author's Is the Morality of Jesus Sound.\n\nOn one theme all parts of the bible are in perfect unison--God comes\nbefore man. To us this is the negation of morality. \"Blessed are the\npure in heart,\" preaches Jesus; and why are the pure blessed? \"Because,\"\nis the answer, \"they shall see God.\" There is not a word said about the\nsocial worth of personal and public purity of heart. Not a word that to\nbe pure is to bless the world in which one lives, or that by being pure\nwe help to make life on earth sweeter and more lovable. The idea that\nto be pure in thought and conduct is the way to serve humanity, and\nmake this earth a heaven, does not occur to Jesus at all. He is not\ninterested either in humanity or in this earth. His eyes are fixed upon\nthe mists beyond. His one thought is of the invisible God, not of man\nwho is made of flesh and blood.\n\nAnd when the \"purity\" required is examined, it will be found that, in\nconsonance with the Old Testament, purity of belief is what is meant\nby it. The thief on the cross would see God, not because he was pure in\nheart, but because he believed before he died. In the same way the other\nvirtues are recommended, not for their civic values, not as the means of\nsocial well-being and blessedness, but as auxiliaries to piety, namely,\nto the worship of God.\n\nThat Jesus had no message to man is seen in his attempt to shift the\ncenter of gravity, so to speak, from this world to the next. He would\ntake away from man the world in the hand, for the one hidden away in the\nclouds. \"Blessed are ye that hunger now,\" cries Jesus to the starving\nmultitude, \"for ye shall be filled.\" * But _when?_ It reads very\nmuch like the vague and airy promises which a politician makes to his\nconstituents when he is bidding for votes. \"Give us bread _now_,\" cry\nthe poor. Can the famished eat a promise for bread? But Jesus was not\ninterested in helping them \"now.\" He had come to reveal God and his\nglory, not to make the world a happy home for man. He prayed for and\npredicted the speedy destruction of the world; why, then, should he\nlabor for its betterment? And in his \"next world\" is there really going\nto be no more poverty? Let us read what Jesus says:\n\n_Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.... Woe unto you\nthat are full! for ye shall hunger._ **\n\n     * Luke vi, 21.\n\n     **  Luke vi, 21-25.\n\nIn the dim, distant day those who hunger now will have all that they\ncan eat, but those who now are filled will starve. What then is the\nadvantage of that future day over the now? Instead of doing away with\nhunger, it is to be shifted on to another set of people. There will be\njust as much poverty in the beautiful future Jesus predicts, as there is\nto-day, only the people who are poor here, will be rich there, and the\nrich now, will be the poor then. Is there any inspiration in such a\nprospect? Is it not like clinging to a straw, to expect help from such\nhaphazard utterances as these? What a serious world desires to know\nis not how to \"beat around the bush,\" but how to remedy real evils. By\ntaking the bread from one man and giving it to another, we neither add\nto the quantity of food, nor diminish the stress of poverty. Yet that is\nprecisely the solution Jesus proposes with such a flourish of trumpets.\nIs it any wonder that people do not care for his heaven, or that\nhumanity has turned away from Jesus to look for help elsewhere? Again\nJesus says:\n\n_Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh.... Woe unto you that\nlaugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep._ *\n\n     * Luke vi, 21-25.\n\nIs it not fantastic? Jesus seems to believe that to laugh _now_ is a\ncrime; and yet he holds it up as a future reward to those who weep now.\nThere is an oriental saying that the food which each one that comes into\nthe world needs, is set apart for him by Allah; he may eat it all at\nonce, and starve the rest of his life, or use it moderately, and have\nenough to last him all the days of his life. Likewise, Jesus appears to\nbe of the belief that there is just so much happiness set apart for man;\nhe can take it in this world, and go to _hades_ in the next; or he\ncan make this world a place of mourning, and go to heaven in the next.\nTherefore, \"Woe to those who want their heaven here, for they shall be\ntormented forever after, and blessed are those who mourn and weep here,\nfor they shall laugh in the hereafter.\" Is this sense?\n\nAccording to Jesus, as long as a man is weeping and mourning he is\n\"blessed,\" but as soon as he begins to laugh, then \"woe\" unto him. In\nthe same way, a man is \"blessed\" as long as he is hungry, but the moment\nhe is \"filled\" Jesus turns upon him with a \"woe unto you.\" Who could\nfail to draw the conclusion from such teaching that to help people to be\nhappy now, is to expose them to the \"woe unto you\" of God, and to help\npeople out of poverty now, is to bring upon their heads the curse of the\nfuture; and that, therefore, we should let the poor be the poor, and the\nrich, the rich--leaving it to the unknown future to settle all accounts.\nSuch a teacher deserves to have only the unthinking for his disciples.\n\nOne Sunday in June, about three years ago, I went to hear the Rev. Dr.\nAked, of the Fifth Avenue Baptist Church, in New York city. For his\nscripture lesson he read the parable of the \"Wheat and the Tares.\" *\nThis is about a farmer who sows good seed in his field. But while he was\nasleep, his enemies came and sowed tares among the wheat. As the blades\nsprang up \"and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.\"\nThe farm-hands, when they saw this, asked the owner for permission to\ndestroy the tares. \"Nay,\" replied the master, \"lest while ye gather up\nthe tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together\nuntil the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers,\nGather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn\nthem: but gather the wheat into my barn.\"\n\n     *  Matthew xiii, 24-30.\n\nWhat edification is there in such a story? To bring a church full of\npeople together--tired, busy, perplexed, hungering for ideas, for truth,\nfor beauty--only to tell them that the tares must not be touched\nor separated even from the wheat until some day in the future, some\njudgment day in the clouds, when the Lord of the harvest shall gather\nup the tares to be burned, and the wheat to be deposited in his chests!\nCould anything be more destructive of human endeavor and hope than this\nshifting of all responsibility upon God and the future? If the parable\nhas any meaning, it is this: Let every field become rank with weeds,\nand let nothing be done to destroy the weeds _now_--the future will take\ncare of that. The _future_ is the one great asset of the priest.\n\"Wait until you die,\" is his answer to every challenge to show present\nresults.\n\nThe weeds injure the wheat during the time that the crop is growing, and\nnot after it is ready to be harvested. What is gained by burning up the\ntares when they can no longer hurt the wheat and after they have done\nall the harm they could to the grain by stealing sun and moisture from\nthem? Besides, there is just as much danger of gathering up the wheat\nwith the tares at harvest time as there is of rooting up the wheat with\nthe tares while they are growing together. Why postpone the purging\nprocess? Why let a child, for example, grow up to be a criminal to be\nhanged, if there is a way of saving him from evil associations earlier\nin life? What farmer or educator will follow the advice of Jesus, to let\nthe bad and the good alone until judgment day?\n\nSuppose, instead of such an unprofitable story, with its impracticable\nlesson, and its suggestion of _laissez faire_, the preacher had read the\npage from Ralph Waldo Emerson, which contains a grander passage than\nis to be found in the whole bible, \"My freedom is part of my faith\"; or\nsuppose he had read to his audience the page from Thomas Paine in which\noccurs that thrilling and musical p\u00e6an, \"Where liberty is not, there is\nmy country\"--and why? Not to wait until some distant day, but to bring\nabout and share with them now, and here, the blessings of liberty; or\nsuppose the preacher had greeted his hearers with the words of Goethe,\n\"In the whole, the good, the true, the beautiful, resolve to live.\"\nWould he not have read to them from a better bible?\n\nBut the gem in the Sermon on the Mount is supposed to be the, \"But I say\nunto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy\nright cheek, turn to him the other also.\" * This advice is supplemented\nwith the \"Love your enemies,\" which is claimed to be the noblest\nutterance in all religious literature. The philosophy underlying these\ncommandments is the same which we found in the parable of the \"Wheat and\nthe Tares.\" Even as the tares are to be allowed to have their way in\na wheat field, evil is not to be resisted in the world of men, but let\nalone. It is not the business of man, according to Jesus, to effect\nreforms; he must leave it all to God. In his own time, and in his own\nway, God will fill the hungry and punish the rich; he will burn the\ntares and save the wheat; and he will reward the good and destroy the\nevil.\n\n     * Matthew v, 39.\n\nThis Asiatic fatalism is quite consistent with the belief in an all-wise\nand powerful being at the head of affairs. If God were not almighty,\nwe might assist him in his work; or if he were not all-wise, we might\nenlighten him on some things, but being almighty, and all-wise, he does\nnot wish any meddling on our part. Besides, if we resist evil, or weed\nthe tares, or fight poverty and misery, we might think that it is our\nefforts which have made the world better. But that is taboo. Really,\nJesus is quite right; there is no room for human effort where an\ninfinite being is doing things. The plea that God wants us to help\nhim, because if we neglect to do our part, neither will he do his, is\nnonsensical. An attitude of passivity is alone becoming to a believer.\nTo bestir oneself about the tares, or the evil in the world, is to show\nthat one has lost faith in the Lord of the harvest. \"Stand still and see\nthe salvation of the Lord,\" is the word of inspiration.\n\nAnd could anything be more pessimistic than \"Resist not evil?\" If not\nthe evil, what then shall man resist? Nothing? But he will fall into\ndecay unless he resists the forces that menace his well being. And why\nwas man made a moral agent or created in the \"divine\" image if he is to\nlet the powers of darkness have their way, instead of girding himself\nfor battle against them? But the decline of man is desired because that\nis the only way the world may come to an end, and God and his heaven\nushered in. Such is the philosophy of Jesus.\n\nIf God does not wish us to \"resist evil,\" pray what is the devil's\npleasure? We have been told that the devil always wants us to do the\nthings which God has forbidden. Does he, then, want us to resist evil?\nNot to resist the agencies of evil, is not to resist the devil, if there\nis such a being; and not to resist the devil is to surrender to him,\nwhich is just what he would want us to do.\n\nThe Sermon on the Mount, if complied with, would lead the world to an\n_impasse_. We must not resist the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus,\nand, according to the same teacher, we must not resist evil either.\nBut unless the Holy Spirit and evil are the same, how can we be as\nhospitable or as passive toward the one as toward the other? We must\nstand still and let God work in us his purposes, says the bible,\nand, according to the same book, we are to be equally passive to the\noperations of the Evil One. Is such advice intelligible? Could\nanything be more confusing and bewildering to the moral sense than so\ncontradictory a commandment? If the gospel writers had put in Jesus'\nmouth the words, \"I am the darkness of the world,\" they would not have\nbeen very far wrong.\n\nWhy resist not evil? If evil is evil, and if we have power to resist it,\nwhy may we not do so? What is morality but the exercise of the power of\nresistance against evil? The idea that by resisting evil we become evil\nourselves, as Tolstoi maintains, is as much a conundrum as the text\nitself. Did not Jesus resist the devil in the wilderness? Did he not\ndrive the evil spirits out of his patients? Did he not denounce the\nscribes and Pharisees who would not accept his Messiaship? And did he\nnot scourge the money-changers out of the temple court, and overturn\ntheir tables by sheer physical force? Why did he resist evil himself?\nAnd did such resistance degrade him?\n\nIn all probability, the reason we are warned against resisting evil is\nthat evil is one of the agencies God works by, and, therefore, to resist\nit is to rebel against God. But not to resist evil is to do evil. \"If\nany man,\" says Jesus, in this famous sermon, \"will sue thee at the law,\nand take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.\" * But there need\nbe no law courts, even, to go to, if we will only notify the robbers\nin advance that they may have all they can lay their hands on. Why not\nstrip ourselves for the benefit of the oppressor and thereby save him\nalso from the trouble of suing us for anything? Is the above advice\ngiven for the benefit of the honest man or the robber? Surely the latter\nwill not object to being given more than he sought to steal. And why\nshould an honest man labor to possess anything, since he must permit\nthe thief and the brigand to enjoy all the fruits of his own economy\nand thrift? By what process of ratiocination does Jesus arrive at the\nconclusion that the man of fraud and violence should not only not be\ndenied any demand he may make upon us, but that he should have more, nay\nall we have earned and saved. Is not this nihilism?\n\n     *  Matthew v, 40.\n\nNo extraordinary intelligence is needed to see what would happen to\nthe state that decided to live up to the teachings of Christ. Every\nprecaution to protect our homes and families would be condemned as\nunchristian. Instead of throwing the burglar out, or arousing the police\nto pursue and arrest him, we must thank him for giving us an opportunity\nto practice the rare \"virtue\" of giving also the other coat, as well as\nof turning also the other cheek to him. If the brigand strikes us once,\nwe must encourage him for a second blow; if he has killed but one member\nof the family, he must be pampered into further indulgence in his bloody\npastime. Is this the Christian religion? Surely it is not the\nreligion of common sense. But Jesus does not seem to reflect upon the\nconsequences to the robbers themselves of this policy of non-resistance,\nand of giving freely to him that would borrow of us. In order to be able\nto take or borrow of one's neighbor, that neighbor must have something.\nBut to encourage the having of things, the possessor of things must be\nprotected. Jesus, by taking away this protection, endangers the creation\nof wealth of any kind. What is the robber or the beggar to take when\nthere is nothing to take? And there will be nothing to take when the\nindustrious are sacrificed to the lazy and the vicious. Jesus strikes\nat the roots of civilization by his doctrine of \"let alone.\" And that\nis really what he is after. Wealth, culture, liberty, help to make us\nfonder of this world than of the next, fonder of things than of God! And\nthat, a jealous religion will not tolerate.\n\nWe are aware of the many ingenious explanations proposed to retain the\nSermon on the Mount in the creeds, though it is diligently excluded from\nlife. Praise the Sermon on the Mount, but do not practice it, seems to\nexpress the attitude of the church. Jesus is not supposed to have really\nmeant what he said about \"turning the other cheek,\" or allowing the\noppressor his way. What he was trying to say, argue the commentators,\nwas that we should be patient under provocation, not given to seeking\nvengeance; and that we should be generous to the indigent and the\nunfortunate. That was what Jesus wanted to say, according to defenders\nof the bible; but instead of saying that, he said something so totally\ndifferent that a large army of commentators is kept busy trying to\nexcuse and explain what he really said.\n\nThe world needs a teacher _who can say what he means, and mean what he\nsays_. If his commentators can make themselves understood why could not\nJesus? Besides, it is not right to be patient with wrong, or generous to\nthe oppressor. Shakespeare's thought was very much more wholesome when\nhe said that kindness to the guilty is injustice to the honest.\n\nInstead of these nihilistic or pessimistic utterances, which no\nself-respecting nation will translate into daily life, suppose Jesus had\nsaid, \"Not to resist crime is also a crime.\" Suppose he had said, \"If\never evil, or darkness, or poverty, is to be conquered, it will be by\nthe efforts of man only.\" But Jesus was trying to put man to sleep, not\nto provoke him into action against the enemies of his progress. Compare\nthe three simple but puissant commandments of Volney, the author of \"The\nRuins,\" to the whimsical ethics of the Sermon on the Mount:\n\n\nI.-- _Preserve thyself!_\n\nThis is the first task to which man must apply his head and hands. He\nmust preserve himself. A thousand things conspire against his life. He\nis beset by dangers and temptations. Under every stone lurks a menace\nto his well being. He must compel a place for himself in nature, and be\nable to hold it against all rivals.\n\nII.-- _Instruct thyself!_\n\nMark the positiveness of both commandments. By being active, not\nby passivity, will man succeed, both in self-preservation and\nself-instruction. Once we are confident of our standing in nature, and\nreasonably sure of our daily bread, it is our high privilege to start\non the quest for knowledge. \"Instruct thyself!\" Knowledge is the\nall-conquering weapon. Know thyself, thy fellows, thy world. The sun is\nthe light of the body; knowledge is the light of the mind.\n\nIII.--_Moderate thyself!_\n\nHaving conquered the means which assure self-preservation, and having\nthrough much labor acquired science--the intellectual sun which turns\nman's night into day--the next virtue, the practice of which alone can\nenable man to enjoy the life he has learned to preserves, and the arts\nand pleasures he has created through knowledge, is to put a wholesome\ncheck upon his appetites by exercising moderation. Not until a man\ncan moderate himself does he really become a moral, that is to say, a\nsuperior, being--a conqueror who can hold his possessions. In one of his\nromances, Voltaire makes the first man ask his Maker what he must do to\nget the most beauty and joy out of life. The answer to this question is\nalso Voltaire's: \"Practice Moderation.\"\n\nHow simple are all the commandments of Reason compared with the\ncontradictions of Revelation! There is not one word of Reason ever\nspoken which has lost either its authority or beauty, while it is\nadmitted by the believers themselves that more than half of the divine\nRevelation has become obsolete. To the question, \"Why do not men obey\nthe ordinances and commandments in the Old Testament?\" the answer of the\nchurches is, \"The times have changed,\" or, \"They were meant only for\nthe Jews.\" Revelations grow old and expire. Reason, like the sun,\nrises daily to give unto each day its daily light. If Rationalists ever\nsucceed in building a Hall of Reason, the two commandments which they\nwill inscribe over its entrance will never need revision:\n\n1. _Speak according to knowledge._\n\n2. _Act according to conscience._\n\n\n\n\nIX. The Parables of Jesus\n\n|JESUS is supposed to be the vein of gold in the bible. As already\nintimated, if the whole book is of God, it is difficult to see why\ncertain portions of it should be more or less godly than others. Among\nthe parables of Jesus, that of the \"Prodigal Son\" is said to be one\nof the most inspiring. It is the story of a young man who borrows in\nadvance his portion of his father's wealth, while the latter is still\nliving, and leaves home. After wasting his inheritance by riotous\nliving, he finds himself face to face with starvation. The worst thing\nhappens to him that might happen to a pious Jew--he is compelled to take\ncare of a herd of swine, and to eat of their food. In this condition,\nhe remembers that his father is still rich, with plenty of servants, and\nfood for everybody. He decides to go back to him, just as he is, and to\nthrow himself upon his mercy. It never occurs to him to try and make for\nhimself a good reputation before he returns to his father, or to earn\nback the wealth he has squandered by a life of debauchery. Why should\nhe? It is not his father's respect he wants, but his forgiveness. His\nfoolish father does just as the prodigal expected; he gives him a royal\nwelcome. A ring is slipped on his finger, the richest robe is thrown\nover his shoulders, and the fatted calf is killed for him.\n\nNobody will claim that the good-for-nothing son deserved all these\nhonors. Indeed, it is quite plainly insinuated that he is honored for\nbeing a repentant sinner, unlike his elder brother, who had no need of\nrepentance, because he remained at home and did his duty. To eat the\n\"fatted calf,\" it is necessary to be a great sinner, suing for mercy.\nFor the honest, who have no need to cry for forgiveness, there are no\nbanquets. This is shown by the treatment accorded the other son, who\nhad not asked for his portion of the inheritance, and had not wasted\nhis years and money in self-indulgence, who had not deserted his aged\nfather, but stood at his side in the home and the vineyard, doing also\nthe work of the younger brother who had run away from home. No favors\nare conferred upon him, no feast is given in his honor, and strangest\nof all, he is not even invited to the party. It is by accident that he\nfinds out about the costly banquet at which his prodigal brother was\nbeing entertained, while he himself was toiling in the fields. Who ate\nthe fatted calf? Not the man who raised it, but the man who had lost all\nclaim upon the fruits of his brother's or father's toil. Is this the way\nto encourage virtue? Rob the honest son who has not shirked labor--who\nhas been faithful, devoted and frugal--to feast the prodigal, who has\nalready consumed one fortune and is now begging for another? _Begging_,\nI say, for the idea of earning one is very disagreeable to prodigals.\nAs long as there is a \"father\" who is willing to treat his prodigal son\nbetter than the worthy son, prodigals will not be wanting in the world.\n\nAnd this is the gem of the collection over which we are supposed to go\ninto ecstasies!\n\nBut we must read between the lines; the purpose of Jesus, or whoever\nwas the author of the parable, was to show that the greater the sinner,\ngreater still is the welcome that awaits him. And this welcome is not to\nbe deserved, or earned through merit; it is given as a favor. God, whom\nthe father in the parable typifies, cares little for character. People\nmust not flatter themselves that they are saved because they deserve it.\nLook at the worthy elder son who had done his duty: he was not invited\nto the feast. Look at the prodigal son, who had descended to the level\nof the swine; he was \"dined and wined.\" Now we understand why the\nmalefactor on the cross was saved, and all his crimes wiped out in the\ntwinkling of an eye. Had he been a better man than he was, or had he\nbeen innocent of the crimes for which he was crucified, there would have\nbeen no chance for him. Nor does Jesus say a word about the subsequent\nconduct of the forgiven prodigal? Did he make amends for the harm he\nhad done to others by his selfishness? Was he really a changed character\nafter he was _feted?_ Not a word. The promise Jesus holds out to the\nsinner is not reform, but forgiveness.\n\nLet us take another parable: A very rich farmer, or landlord, goes out\nearly in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. He hired some\nvery early in the day; others about the noon hour, and others again as\nlate as \"the eleventh hour,\" that is to say, just an hour before the\nclose of day. When the laborers came to receive their pay for the day's\nwork, the landlord paid the man who had put in a full day just as much\nas he paid those who had only worked for one short hour. Naturally, the\nmen who had borne the brunt of the hot day, and had done most of the\nwork, complained. To which the lord of the vineyard made this reply: \"Is\nit not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil,\nbecause I am good?\" * And turning to his disciples, Jesus said: \"So the\nlast shall be first, and the first last; for many be called, but few\nchosen.\" ** The full meaning of which is that an employer's or the\nLord's whim is law.\n\n     * Matthew xx, 15.\n\n     **  Matthew xx, 16.\n\nWhat man of affairs can derive any benefit from such a parable? But\nthe object of Jesus, in this, as in the former parable, is to show the\nindependence of God of what we would call the moral law. God is not\nbound by any considerations of justice. He is an oriental who showers\nfavors or withholds them just as his pleasure dictates. And whatever\nhe gives is a _favor_, and not a debt which he must pay because of any\nmerit on the part of anybody. If wages are to be distributed according\nto the quality and quantity of the work done, then what is there left\nfor God to do?\n\nTo Jesus, God was something like a Turkish sultan of the olden days who\nexalted his barber to the rank of a grand vizier, and humbled the vizier\nto the level of a keeper of his stables, all in one night, to show that\nhis pleasure is above any consideration of justice and character. But\nthis is not morality; this is caprice. To pay the man who has worked\nonly for one hour as much as the man who has worked all day long, is\nto rob the latter of his dues. The Asiatics may submit to it, but the\nAmerican or European laborer will not. Because he is the sultan, or\nbecause he is God, is no excuse for such eccentricity. No; you are not\nat liberty to pay as you please, or to make contracts which sacrifice\njustice to whim.\n\nIn the parable of Lazarus and Dives, the fondness of the bible for the\nworthless, the fallen, the good for nothing, so to speak, becomes all\nthe more evident. At the door of a rich man sits a miserable beggar. He\nis not only poor, but also diseased. Like many an oriental _fakir_, he\nis covered with sores, which by their stench attract the hungry dogs to\nhis person. There he sits all day long--a menace to the public health,\nand an object of disgust. When this beggar dies, he is carried by angels\nstraight to Abraham's bosom; It is, of course, a pity he had to remain\non earth so long before entering Paradise. But what had he done to\ndeserve so great a reward? We might as well ask what the prodigal son\nhad done to deserve the \"fatted calf,\" or the \"eleventh-hour laborer\" to\ndeserve a full day's wages.\n\nNor is it true that Lazarus was saved for the inner beauty of his\ncharacter. As I have shown elsewhere, * by refusing a few drops of water\nto cool the parched tongue of the man who had given him of the crumbs of\nhis table on earth, Lazarus proved himself to be as small of soul as he\nwas leprous of body. But the point of the parable is to show that a man\nis saved, not because he deserves salvation, but because God takes\na fancy to him. And the more unworthy the subject, the better it\nillustrates that it is whim, and not justice, that presides over\nthe destinies of man. We may plead with justice; against whim we are\nhelpless. It is the sense of this helplessness of man in the hands of a\nwhimsical God that makes Christianity so pessimistic. Of course, for\nthe \"elect\" favor and whim are better than law and justice; and for the\nmediocre and the sinner, it is a good thing that merit or character\ndoes not count for anything before God. But what about those who have\nno other \"pull\" than their own self-respect and honor? And the dogma of\ntotal depravity has been invented to relieve the duty of being just to\nany one, since all mankind deserves to be damned.\n\n     * Is the Morality of Jesus Sound.\n\nThe same indifference to reason is shown in the next parable: A certain\nslave owed his king the enormous sum of ten thousand talents. In round\nnumbers a talent is worth one thousand dollars. Accordingly this slave\nwas indebted to his royal master for the sum of ten million dollars. A\n_slave_ owing more money than any one king ever owned in Jesus' day! How\nhe incurred this impossible debt is not explained. But the king pressed\nthe slave for payment. Whereupon the slave fell at his sovereign's feet\nand begged for mercy. As expected, the king, with a wave of his hand,\nmakes the slave a present of the ten million dollars which he owes,\nthereby canceling the entire indebtedness. Does this not remind us of\nthe parable of the prodigal son? Even as he was forgiven the waste and\ndebauchery which had disgraced him, this slave is quickly freed from\nhis obligation. The motive in making the debt a fabulous one was\nto emphasize the generosity of the sovereign. This brings us to the\nconclusion already announced, that great sinners are preferred to little\nones, because they help to show more directly that it is not character\nor personal merit that saves, or even helps a man with God, but pure\npatronage on the part of the deity. Salvation is a favor. That is the\nburden of the parables of Jesus.\n\nThe slave, however, fails to be as generous toward his debtors as his\nlord was to him. Instead of canceling their obligations as his own had\nbeen, he cast them into prison. When the king heard of this he summoned\nthe slave into his presence, and said to him: \"O thou wicked servant, I\nforgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me. Should not thou\nalso have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on\nthee?\" * In other words, debtors should be allowed to keep what they\nhave borrowed for the mere asking. The whole tenor of the parable is\nantisocial. To follow such teaching is to head toward bankruptcy. There\nwill be no lenders, if there are to be no collections. Once more Jesus\nsacrifices the worthy members of society to the spendthrifts and\nthe prodigals. The man who can lend is the real benefactor, not the\nborrower; but Jesus is interested in saving the latter, and in such a\nway as to ruin the former. But the shortsightedness of this policy,\nas already pointed out, is seen in its effects upon the creator and\nconserver of wealth--he will stop saving, and then what is the borrower\ngoing to do? Jesus' advice practically amounts to this: \"Allow your\ndebtors to defraud you.\" But the process will kill the debtor as well as\nthe lender.\n\nIf Jesus really wanted to encourage mendicancy, and to make this earth\na paradise for the beggar, he could not have served his purpose better\nthan by such a parable, or by the advice to \"Give to him that ask-eth\nthee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.\" **\nThe beggar could not wish for a stronger endorsement of his profession.\nEverything belongs to the beggar, and he is to have what he wants, not\nfor any work he may do in return, but because he wants it.\n\n     *  Matthew xviii, 32-33.\n\n     **  Matthew v, 42.\n\nIn the Lord's Prayer, one of the petitions reads: \"Forgive us our debts\nas we forgive our debtors,\" which really means, \"We have allowed our\nneighbors to impose upon us; you must allow us, Lord, to impose upon\nyou.\" Jesus could have found a hundred other ways of recommending\ncompassion for the weak and the unfortunate, if that were really what\nhe was aiming at. But his purpose was to show that the borrower, the\nbeggar, the prodigal, the good-for-nothing, are the favored children\nof God. It is not the strong, the self-reliant, the industrious, the\nsuccessful, whom God has chosen for his kingdom, but \"the foolish of\nthis world.\" And why? The question has already been answered: to show\nthat it is not merit or character that saves, but the grace of God.\nBy saving the worthless, God gets all the glory; while if he saved the\nstrong and the virtuous, it might be said that it was their character\nwhich helped to save them. \"My name is Jealous,\" * saith the Lord.\n\n     *  Exodus xxxiv, 14.\n\nBut Jesus does not forget to speak a good word also for the robber.\nIndeed the beggar and the robber belong to the same profession. And\nif anything, the robber's is the more respectable calling. He does\nnot whine and weep and, cant as the beggar does, to get his neighbor's\ngoods; he takes it by force, or craft, which is better than pious\nprating. The robber risks his life, shows skill and daring, and is not\nso prosaic, or at all sanctimonious, like the beggar. But, in the final\nanalysis, they are partners in business. They are both agreed that their\nrich neighbors must not object to part with their possessions on demand.\nIf Jesus had the beggar in his mind when he commanded, \"Give to him that\nasketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away,\"\nhe had the welfare of the highway robber in mind when he commanded: \"If\nany man take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.\" In the parable\nof the Good Samaritan, which, from our point of view, comes nearest to\nbeing the most innocent and harmless among the parables, while Jesus\ndeservedly lauds the humanity of the Samaritan toward his fellow man,\nwho had fallen among thieves, there is not a word said in condemnation\nof the robber. A splendid opportunity to denounce the lax conditions\nwhich made life and property insecure, which encouraged plunder and\nmurder along the highways of travel and commerce, was overlooked by\nJesus. He fails to call upon the authorities to take measures to prevent\nthe repetition of such crimes as he has been describing. He does not\ncall upon the officers of the law to pursue and catch the thief, and\nmete out to him the punishment he deserves. Nothing of this. He praises\nthe pity, the compassion of the Samaritan, which praise was well\ndeserved, but a man has not done his best when he has helped a victim of\nthe robbers to a dinner and a bed--he must protect future travelers from\nsuch outrages by assisting in the arrest and prompt punishment of\nthe criminal. But Jesus is not interested in reforming robbers, or\nconverting beggars into productive citizens. In fact, one reading\nbetween the lines can not avoid the conclusion that Jesus would let\nthe robbers alone, inasmuch as they give the good Samaritan a chance\nto practice piety and to show compassion. The beggar and the robber you\nalways have with you, Jesus seems to say, for how can men be kind and\nforgiving without them?\n\nIn conclusion, the lesson of the parables, to an unprejudiced mind, is\nthis: the more worthless and degraded a man, the more loaded down with\ndebts, the more dangerous he is to his fellows, the more suitable he\nwill be to prove that God saves whom he wishes, independent of the\nquestion of merit, and that \"the righteousness of man is as filthy\nrags.\" * A more opprobrious phrase could not have been used to express\nutter contempt for human virtues. According to the Gospel, \"the whores\nand harlots,\" as well as beggars and robbers, ** \"shall enter the\nkingdom of God,\" \"before the righteous, or the wise of this world.\" ***\nBut upon what grounds?\n\n     * Isaiah lxiv, 6.\n\n     ** \"Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the\n     publicans and the harlots go into the Kingdom of God before\n     you.\"--Matthew xxi, 31.\n\n     *** For God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to\n     confound the wise.'--I Corinthians i, 27. Paul also states\n     that the way to be wise is by becoming a fool: \"... let him\n     become a fool, that he may be wise.\"--I Corinthians iii, 18.\n\n\"It is my whim.\"\n\n\n\n\nPART VII.\n\n\n\n\nI. A Better Bible\n\n|I AM not able to say what makes a book \"holy,\" but I would like to\ngive my idea of a good book. No book deserves to be called good or great\nwhich does not grapple with the problems of life in such an open and\ndisinterested way as to challenge the most unsparing tests which may be\napplied to its conclusions, or to the methods by which it has arrived at\nthem. The book that objects to or fears criticism, or is injured by it,\nis certainly not a great book. Even as gold outlives the fire, a great\nbook must outlive criticism.\n\nThe works of such men as Copernicus and La Place, and of Galileo and\nHerschel, who opened up for us the heavens, are truly great, for the\nreason that not only do they not plead for protection against criticism,\nbut they resist all the strain that the freest and boldest criticism\ncan bring to bear upon them. The same is true of the works of Darwin,\nHaeckel, Herbert Spencer, who need neither the sword of the king nor\nthe curse of the priest to prove their conclusions true. And men like\nShakespeare, who have circumnavigated the human intellect, and sailed\naround the globe of beauty and truth, may justly be proud of their work,\nbecause criticism can no more hurt them than fire the gold. Can the\nbible stand the test which proves greatness? To answer this question we\nhave only to observe how vehemently the bible objects to criticism: \"He\nthat believeth not shall be damned,\" and \"Blessed are they who have not\nseen and yet have believed\"--that is to say, who believe blindly. And\nthe defenders of the bible have, alas! committed every conceivable crime\nin their effort to prevent criticism of the bible. Does this prove the\ngreatness of the bible?\n\nLet us make a brief comparison between the Book of God and some of\nthe books of man. Suppose we wished to teach the splendid truth of the\nsolidarity of the human race--the oneness of mankind--is there anything,\neither in the New or the Old Testament, which in breadth or beauty\napproaches the thoughts of the pagan philosophers on this subject?\n\n_I am a citizen of the world.--Socrates.\n\nNature ordains that a man should wish the good of every man, whoever he\nmay be, and for this very reason--that he is a man.--Cicero._\n\nDid any Jew, or Christian, ever say anything like that?\n\n_I was not born for one corner; my country is this whole\nworld.--Seneca._\n\nAnd it was not a slave, but a citizen of the proudest empire the world\never saw, who thus opens his sympathies to embrace the whole of\nthe human family. Where is the bible prophet, or apostle, who could\ntranscend creed and country with the same _elan?_\n\n_The much admired Republic of Zeno aimed simply at this, that neither in\ncities nor towns we should live under distinct laws, one from another,\nbut should look on all men as our fellow countrymen and citizens...\nlike a flock feeding together with equal rights in a common\npasture_.--Plutarch. *\n\n     * The Fortune of Alexander, 6.\n\nWhat would not Jews or Christians give for such a passage in their\n\"holy\" book! How proudly the clergy would quote it, to prove the\ndivinity of their religion, if this beautiful gem sparkled somewhere\nwithin the covers of their bible!\n\n_I am a man, and nothing human can be foreign to me.--Terrence._\n\nA sentiment like that makes the whole page which expresses it of solid\ngold. In vain do we look for so big an utterance in \"infallible\" books.\nTo the Hebrew there was no world outside Israel, and to Jesus all that\ncame before him were \"thieves and robbers.\" Not until Christianity\ncrossed over into Europe did its missionaries discover that \"God hath\nmade of one blood all the nations of the earth,\" though even then it was\na creed they had to accept or perish.\n\n_In the name of the universal brotherhood which binds together all men\nunder the common father of nature.\n\nNature is the only impartial father. The chosen people of this father\nare those of whatever race and religion who conquer knowledge and follow\nReason.--Quintillian.\n\nLove mankind.--Antoninus._\n\nIs it not better than the \"love one another,\" of Jesus, which really\nmeant, \"love only your fellow-believer\"? Jesus declared that it will be\nworse for those who rejected him and his apostles, on the last day, than\nfor Sodom and Gomorrah, which were consumed by fire from heaven.\n\n_What good man will look on any suffering as foreign to\nhimself?--Juvenal.\n\nThe Universe is but a great city; never, in reply to the question to\nwhat country you belong, say you are an Athenian, or a Corinthian, but\nsay you are a Cosmopolitan--a citizen of the world.--Epictetus._ *\n\n     * Discourses i, 9.\n\nBut it was not only in their universalism that the\n\nEuropean writers excelled the Asiatic seers and miracle-workers. It\nhas been persistently claimed that both love and justice are exclusively\nbiblical virtues. We regret to say that this is another untruth, the\nextensive circulation of which was deemed necessary to protect the bible\nagainst its rivals.\n\n_Love is the foundation of the law.--Cicero.\n\nSympathy is what distinguishes us from brutes.--Juvenal.\n\nThe love of all to all.--Pythagoras.\n\nHe who commits injustice is ever made more wretched than he who suffers\nit. It is never right to return an injury.\n-- Plato.\n\nWe should be good to our enemy and make him our friend.\n-- Cleobulus.\n\nAsk thyself daily to how many ill-minded persons, thou hast shown a kind\ndisposition.--Antoninus.\n\nTo the very end of life we will be in action, we will not cease to\nlabor for the common weal, to help individuals, to give aid even to our\nenemies.--Seneca._\n\nMoreover, the motives which the philosophers held forth were very much\nmore creditable to human nature than the rewards, either here or in the\nnext world, which the bible held out as inducements to action.\n\n_What more dost thou want when thou hast done a man a service than the\nfact of having done it? Art thou not content to have done something\nconformable to thy nature, and dost thou seek to be paid for it, as\nif the eye demanded a recompense for seeing, or the foot for\nwalking?--Seneca._ *\n\n     * De Benef ix, 41.\n\nIf so sweet and sane, so large and pure a sentiment could be found in\nany part of the Word of God, I shall forever after keep my mouth closed.\nThe servitude of man, not the service of man, is the theme of the bible;\nand if Jesus said that the charities should be done in secret, it was\nbecause that was the best way to secure a public reward. \"And your\nfather which seeth in secret,\" said Jesus, \"will reward you openly.\"\n\nThe secrecy recommended was a matter of policy. \"Reward\" is the constant\nrefrain in the bible. Promises of territory, lands, cattle, jewelry,\noil and wine, women and girls, in the Old Testament; and in the new,\nthrones, crowns, golden streets, harps, robes, and endless life beyond\nthe clouds, are the inducements held out to the devotee.\n\nAnother equally frequent and equally unfounded assertion of the pulpit\nhas been that but for the bible there would have been no hospitals in\nthe world, or any interest in the poor, by the rich. The defenders\nof the bible seem to feel that it is only by shutting their eyes and\nclosing their ears that they can continue to believe that the Jews were\nthe only \"inspired\" people in the world. In the first place, hospitals\nare more of a necessity in the modern world than they were in olden\ntimes. Science has taught us to apply method and system in the\ndepartment of philanthropy as in that of business, while formerly the\ncare of the needy was largely a private matter. Besides, our cities are\nbigger, and our populations more heterogeneous, and the struggle for\nexistence more intense to-day, than ever before. We have hospitals\nto-day, in self-defense, if not for any other reason. Our own peace and\ncomfort would be disturbed and our doorsteps and business offices,\nas well as homes, would be converted into hospitals, if the State, or\npublic enterprise, did not undertake in some systematic way the housing\nand nursing of the sick and the unfortunate. It is not only from charity\nthat we have hospitals to-day. We support them also from necessity.\n\nTo say, however, that the ancients, being deprived of the bible, took\nno interest in the care of the sick, or the hungry, is a clear\nmisrepresentation. If the bible is the hospital builder, how many\nhospitals did the Old Testament people build in Palestine under the\nreign of David or Solomon? Was there ever a single movement started in\nPalestine for the protection of the oppressed or the unfortunate of the\nworld? In his Paganism and Christianity, J. H. Farrer, speaking of the\npractice of charity in the pre-Christian world, cites the examples of\nCimon the Athenian giving of his abundance to feed the poor and clothe\nthe naked; of the Lacedaemonians supplying the people of Smyrna with\nfood in time of scarcity, and replying, when thanked for it, that they\nonly deprived themselves and their cattle of a dinner; of Apollonius\nreminding Vespasian that the supply of the needs of the poor was one of\nthe best uses of a sovereign's wealth; of Arcesilaus visiting Apelles,\nand, to relieve him of the indigence to which sickness had reduced him,\nplacing twenty drachms under his pillow, while pretending to make\nhim more comfortable; of the Roman nobles, after the accident to the\namphitheater at Fiden\u00e6 whereby fifty thousand persons were killed or\nwounded, opening their houses and procuring doctors and relief for the\nvictims; of all the cities of Asia relieving with money or shelter\nthe victims of the great earthquake in Smyrna in 177 A.D. * Seneca's\ndescription of the wise man offering aid to the shipwrecked, hospitality\nto the exile, money to the needy, redeeming prisoners from their chains,\nreleasing them from the arena, and giving sepulture to the criminal,\n** is clearly a picture drawn from nature and daily life, not from his\nimagination; and to suppose that such deeds required the impulse of the\nchurch to make them more common is to suppose that human nature itself\nchanged with the change that came over religion.\n\n     * Aristides i, 260.\n\n     **  De Clementta ii, 6.\n\nThe Roman historian, Tacitus, gives the following touching description\nof the behavior of the ancient Pagans in the presence of the suffering\nand distress caused by the great calamity in Smyrna:\n\n_The grandees of Rome displayed their humanity on this occasion; they\nthrew open their doors, they ordered medicines to be distributed, and\nthe physicians attended with assiduity in every quarter. The city of\nRome recalled, in that juncture, an image of ancient manners, when,\nafter a battle bravely fought, the sick and wounded were received with\nopen arms, and relieved by the generosity of their country._ *\n\nAnd let it not be forgotten that it was from the Pagan Greeks we\nreceived the word _philanthropy_, which means the love of man, into our\nmodern languages.\n\nMr. Farrer quotes again many authorities to show that both in Athenian\nand Roman society there was a constant solicitude for the welfare of the\npoor:\n\n_In the best days of Athens none of her citizens were in want for the\nnecessities of life; for the rich, according to Isocrates, regarding\nthe poverty of their fellow citizens as a disgrace to themselves and\nthe city, helped all who were in need, sending some abroad as traders,\nletting lands to others to cultivate at fair rents, and enabling\nothers to engage in different occupations. The Areopagus, too, checked\npauperism by providing public works._ **\n\n     * Annals iv, 62, 63.\n\n     ** Areopagiticus 12, 21, 38.\n\nHe also calls attention to the free schools; the exemption of orphans\nfrom the State charges; the maintenance at the public expense of the\nchildren of citizens killed in war; the daily payment of money from\nthe treasury to the destitute and the wounded, and the public monthly\ndinners given by the rich for the benefit of the needy. Under the great\nTrajan, the like of whom never sat on Jewish or Christian throne, a\nmonthly distribution of food was made to the children of the poor\nall over Italy, which was paid for by devoting to it a portion of the\ninterest lent by the State to the owners of farms on mortgage. In Rome,\nthere were, in every section of the city, medical officers, paid by the\nState, who devoted their whole time to the protection of the health\nof the citizens. One of the laws of Nerva required every one giving a\nbanquet first to make a donation for the poor of his district. The sick\nand the poor have never failed to provoke sympathy and help in any age\nor country of the world, and for any one religion to claim all the 'good\nin the world as its own exclusive property, is enough to make all brave\nand honest minds recoil therefrom with horror and sorrow. But people\nnever make such absurd claims except when they are in despair.\n\nThe pulpit is constantly lauding what it calls the beatitudes of Jesus,\nand challenging the world to parallel them if it can. We have accepted\nthe challenge.\n\nWhen asked how a man might best revenge himself, Diogenes replied:\n\"By becoming himself a good and honest man.\" * And how much saner is\nSeneca's advice: \"Some one has struck you, withdraw; by striking\nback you will give both an occasion and an excuse for many blows,\" **\ncompared with the \"Turn also the other cheek,\" of Jesus! \"What is the\nbest way for a man to hurt his enemy, or to give him the greatest pain?\"\nEpictetus was asked. \"By preparing to lead himself the best life he\ncan,\" was his answer.*** But a really European sentiment which perhaps\nnever swelled the breast of any Asiatic teacher was expressed by Seneca,\nwhen he wrote: \"A great mind that truly respects itself does not revenge\nan injury, because _it does not feel it_.\" **** The Sermon on the Mount\nis a series of dogmatic utterances, without enlightenment or logic.\nJesus gives no reasons, nor does he try to prove the truth of his\nstatements, while Seneca's beatitudes are luminous--like a fountain,\ncrystal clear to its depths.\n\nAnd where will we find finer examples of men who lived up to these\nteachings than in Pagan annals? Pittacus, one of the seven wise men of\nGreece, when his enemy had fallen into his hands, instead of avenging\nhimself on him, let him go with this explanation of his conduct:\n\"Forgiveness is better than revenge, for while the former is the sign\nof a gentle nature, revenge is that of a savage nature.\" (v) Can\nhis example be matched in the bible? It is true jesus prayed for his\nmurderers, but did he really mean to forgive them? Then why did he only\nsave the thief on the cross that praised him, while he let the other,\nwho reviled him, go to perdition? And why do not the Sunday-schools,\ninstead of teaching our children of Joseph and Joshua, who caused famine\nand destruction for their own aggrandizement, recite to our boys and\ngirls the story of Gescon, who, recalled from banishment and exalted to\nthe rank of chief general, instead of punishing his persecutors, allowed\nthem to depart in peace, saying: \"I will not return evil for evil, but\ngood for evil.\"\n\n     * Polyoenus v, 2.\n\n     **  De Ira ii, 34.\n\n     ***  Fray 130.\n\n     ****  De Ira iii, 5.\n\n     v. Epictetus, Fray 68.\n\nIt is in the book of man, not in the book of God, that we must look for\nexamples of heroism, love, pity, justice, truth, honor, humanity. In his\n_History of European Morals_, Mr. Lecky writes: \"Amongst the many wise\nsayings which antiquity ascribed to Pythagoras, few are more remarkable\nthan his division of virtue into two branches--to seek truth, and to do\ngood.\" ** And is there a finer passage, in any of the \"divine\" books\nof the many sects, than the creed of the tutor of Alexander the\nGreat--Aristotle:\n\n_Cleanse and purify thy heart, for it is the seat of all sin, not by\nworthless ceremonies, prayers and moanings, but by the stern resolve\nto sin no more--to uphold right and do right. Sacrifice thyself at the\nshrine of duty, forgiving injuries, and acting only toward others as you\nwould have them behave towards thy self._ ***\n\nWhere, again, in Jewish or Christian psalm, or hymnology, is there a\nfiner ideal than this, from Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, rendered in verse\nby the author of Paganism and Christianity:=\n\n```_That pleases me which pleases thee,\n\n```Great Universe: I murmur not,\n\n```If but the evils of my lot\n\n```May serve thy wider harmony._****=\n\nOr this from Seneca:\n\n```_Man's mind, not birth, determines his degree;\n\n```No slave so mean but virtue sets him free.\n\n```What if his body's bound! His soul can rise\n\n```On wings of thought unfettered to the skies.\n\n```What if his body's bought! His soul is free;\n\n````No servitude can mar its liberty._ (v)=\n\n\n     **  Vol. I, page 54.\n\n     ***  Short Texts on Faith and Philosophies, Forlong.\n\n     ****  Paganism and Christianity, Farrer, page 94.\n\n     v.   Ibid, 96.\n\nAnd how much purer the motives recommended in the following, compared\nwith the fear of hell and the hope of heaven, so conspicuous in\nChristian hymns:=\n\n``_Nature made Virtue man's chief aim and goal\n\n``When she made Conscience mistress of his soul,\n\n``His noblest actions taste no sweeter praise\n\n``Than that which conscience to itself conveys;\n\n``Nor on his crimes can punishment be laid\n\n``Worse than inflicts a conscience disobeyed.\n\n``Virtue calls, and, easy of access,\n\n``Spreads smooth the road that leads to happiness;\n\n``Mountains may crumble, Etna fall away,\n\n``True virtue only suffers no decay. *_=\n\nTo find out how radically anti-biblical, or how essentially Pagan are\nour civil and political institutions, compare the following from the\nAmerican Constitution with the Asiatic teaching of the Apostle Paul:\n\n\n  _The Constitution teaches:        St. Paul teaches:\n\n  That all political power is       Let every soul be subject\n  inherent in the people, and       unto the higher powers. For\n  all free governments are          there is no power but of God :\n  founded on their authority,       the powers that be are or-\n  and instituted for their ben-     dained of God. Whosoever\n  efit; and that they have at       therefore resisteth the power,\n  all times an undeniable and       resisteth the ordinance of\n  indefeasible right to alter       God : and they that resist\n  their form of government in       shall receive to themselves\n  such manner as they may           damnation.!\n  think expedient._\n\n\nWould it not be more edifying if our preachers or publicists, like\nRoosevelt and Bryan, instead of lavishing praises on an Asiatic book,\nout of tune with the intellectual and moral ideals of the modern world,\nrecommended to their countrymen the nobler thoughts of the European\nmasters? On a Sunday morning, what church could listen to a better\nsermon against superstition than is contained in these lines of\nPlutarch:\n\n     * Paganism and Christianity, Farrer, page 96.\n\n_```Few of the ills we mortals bear\n\n```Excel or equal those we fear;\n\n```But worst his lot of all mankind\n\n```Whom superstitious terrors bind.\n\n```He dreads no storm who stays on shore,\n\n```Nor battle who goes not to war;\n\n```But he who thinks of God with dread\n\n```Hath terror always overhead,\n\n```And draws from land and sea and sky\n\n```One long unending agony.=\n\n\n```And so, methinks, they wrong God less\n\n```Who doubt or disbelief confess\n\n```Than they who worse of God believe\n\n```Than of a man they could conceive,\n\n```And every vice to Him assign\n\n```To prove Him fickle, false, malign;\n\n```As I would rather men should say\n\n```\"There is no Plutarch\" than that they\n\n```Should speak of Plutarch as so mean,\n\n```So full of petty spite and spleen,\n\n```That, if you vexed him in the least,\n\n```Into your crops he'd turn his beast. *_=\n\n\n     * Paganism and Christianity, Farrer, pages 98, 99.\n\nWe often read in the newspapers of some foolish remark by a clergyman\nin his sermon, as, for instance, that the fearful and murderous wave of\nheat in the summer is a punishment from God for the sins of this or\nthat city; or that earthquakes are sent to show the divine displeasure\nagainst this or that heresy in the church; or that God is opposed to\naviation because the air belongs to the birds, as the sea does to the\nfishes; or that Christ is coming soon on a white horse: \"The Son of God\nis coming on a white horse and the armies of heaven will follow him.\nThen he will be crowned king of all Israel. The kingdom promised to\nDavid will be resurrected,\" said the Rev. Dr. Ford C. Ottman, at the\nWinona Lake convention. The reverend speaker had in mind the following\nexquisite bible text when he was looking for the \"white horse\":\n\n_I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon\nhim was called faithful and true.... And he was clothed with a vesture\ndipped in blood.... And the armies which were in heaven followed him\nupon white horses.... And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that\nwith it he should smite the nations.... and he treadeth the winepress of\nthe fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. *_\n\nIs it possible that the American mind has so deteriorated as to hope for\nthe fulfillment of such a prophecy?\n\nBut it is to the credit of the Christian clergy that they do not say\nmore foolish things or oftener than they do--seeing that their entire\nlife is spent in reading and teaching from a book full of fables,\ngossip, inanities, miracles, and, if I may say so--conundrums. What, for\ninstance, may be expected from men who have to feed on such meaningless\nand even revolting texts as the following:\n\n_I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my\nfury._ **\n\nThe deity making the people drunk to get even with them! We leave the\ntext to the clergy.\n\n_Thus saith the Lord God; Speak unto every feathered fowl, every beast\nof the field.... Come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice\nthat I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains\nof Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood. Ye shall eat the\nflesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth.\n\n... Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with\nmighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord God._ ***\n\n     *  Revelation xix, 11-15.\n\n     **  Isaiah lxiii, 6.\n\n     ***  Ezekiel xxxix, 17-20.\n\nAnd again:\n\n_And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice,\nsaying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather\nyourselves together, unto the supper of the great God; that ye may eat\nthe flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty\nmen, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the\nflesh of all men [of war], both free and bond, small and great._ *\n\nAnd what is the sense in the following:\n\n_His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like\nthe horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to\nthe ends of the earth._ **\n\n     * Revelation xix, 17, 18.\n\n     *  Deuteronomy xxxiii, 17.\n\nA sensible man would leave such a text severely alone; but the clergy\ntry to make the bullock stand for Christ, the horns, for the extremities\nof the cross, and the \"pushing\" has reference to the day of judgment,\netc.\n\nDear me! Who would care to spend the red blood in his veins in such an\noccupation? The beauty of the better bible, composed of such words of\nReason as I have culled from only a few of the ancient masters, lies\nin the fact that there is not a single passage therein to perplex the\nunderstanding, pervert the moral sense or cause a blush. It can not be\nsaid of the Jew-ish-Christian bible that it is free from passages which\nno civilized community would allow in any other than an \"inspired\"\nproduction. And this is enough to condemn the book. The argument\nthat the offensive portions of the Word of God should not be taken\nseparately, but in connection with the better parts of the book, amounts\nto a plea of guilty. How can the commandment to bear false witness, or\nto plunder, or to outrage women, become \"divine\" by being printed in the\nsame book with the Golden Rule?\n\nCompare, once more, the saying of Jesus, that, \"If thy right eye offend\nthee, pluck it out and cast it from thee... and if thy right hand offend\nthee, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee\nthat one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body shall\nbe cast into hell,\" (Matthew v, 29-31); and this other remarkable\nadvice to make \"eunuchs of themselves for the kingdom of heaven's sake\"\n(Matthew xix, 12), with the gloriously wholesome thought of Seneca on\nsuch absurd religious practices: \"One, out of zeal, makes himself an\neunuch, another lances his arms; if this be the way to please their\ngods, what should a man do if he had a mind to anger them? or, if this\nbe the way to please them, they do certainly deserve not to be worshiped\nat all... the most barbarous and notorious of tyrants... never went so\nfar as to command any man to torment himself.\" *\n\n     * Seneca's Morals xvii.\n\nWhat would not the clergy have given if the above passage had been\nin their bible, instead of in the writings of a \"heathen\"? Jesus\nrecommended self-torture; Seneca says, even tyrants \"never went so\nfar as to recommend any man to torment himself.\" Of course, in his\nextremity, the Christian will plead for a spiritual interpretation\nof Jesus' sayings: But why use such decidedly materialistic terms, as\n\"plucking out eyes,\" \"cutting off arms,\" and \"making eunuchs of one's\nself,\" to convey ideal meanings? Why could not Jesus talk _plainly_,\nlike Seneca?\n\nIn the selection of these few quotations, I have refrained from culling\nalso from the pages of modern writers, lest it be said that since these\nmodern men and women appeared after Christianity, it is to the bible\nthat the world is indebted for their great thoughts and works. Of\ncourse, this is not true, seeing how the church persecuted these men and\nwomen, and drove them to the stake, or at least, placed the offspring\nof their brain upon the _Index_, branding their thought as blasphemy.\nNevertheless, I have denied myself the pleasure of invoking the galaxy\nof intellectual leaders, from Bruno and Spinoza, to Goethe and Voltaire,\nand, Shakespeare and Shelley, and Ibsen and Emerson, who though they had\ntheir many faults, were morally as well as mentally, as far above Ezra,\nNehemiah, Noah, Solomon, or Peter and Paul, as sense and beauty are\nabove folly and platitude.\n\nWe have really paid the Hebrew-Christian scriptures an unmerited\ncompliment in comparing them with the noblest teachings of the Pagan\nphilosophers. Not only is it impossible to find in the bible the high\naspirations of the European mind, its independence and fearlessness of\nthe gods, so eloquently expressed in Seneca's prayer: \"O Neptune, your\nocean is big, and my bark is frail. You may save me if you will; you may\nsink me if you will, but whatever happen, I shall keep my rudder true,\"\nbut even when we compare the contents of the bible with the teachings\nand practices of the most primitive peoples in the world the result is\nfar from being favorable to the \"inspired\" volume.\n\nWas Molock, for instance, who devoured children, as destructive as\nJehovah who consumed whole nations by fire and the sword? Was Baal or\nAstaroth as sanguinary as the being who slaughtered in one night all\nthe first-born of Egypt? Did the idols of savages ever think even of\ndrowning a world? Is it possible to find in the dictionary of the gods,\none who can compare with the inventor of the Christian hell? When the\nmissionaries entered Borneo to convert the natives, the Rajah drove\nthem out of the land, \"because the Christian God used people as firewood\nafter death.\"\n\nIn conclusion, before Mr. Bryan and his colleagues may ask us to produce\na better bible, let them find in the Jewish-Christian scriptures a text\nor a passage which will describe a more enviable state of society in\nany Jewish or Christian country, of the past or the present, than the\npicture presented by the unrivaled Pericles in his Athenian oration,\nbeginning with the words:\n\n\"We are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and we\ncultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we employ not for\ntalk and ostentation, but when there is real use for it. We regard a\nman who takes no interest in public affairs not as a harmless but as a\nuseless character.\"\n\n\n\n\nConclusion. The Book of God and the Book of Man\n\n|THE former is a _miracle_. The latter is the actual story of man on\nearth, and his achievements. God finished his book long ago. Man is\nstill writing. There is between these two books the same difference that\nthere is between the rock and the vine. The rock does not grow, neither\ncan it move. Sun and shower fall upon it in vain. The vine, on the other\nhand, responds to the caress of the life-forces. It swings with the\nwind, and reaches up with every growing thing, for the sunshine.\n\nThe book of God is arrested, like the rock.\n\nThe book of Man is alive and increasing, like the vine.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n_There appears to be need of some bold man who specially honors\nplainness of speech, and will say what is best for the city and\ncitizens, ordaining what is good for the whole state, amid the\ncorruptions of human souls, opposing the mightiest lusts, and having\nno man his helper but himself, standing alone and following reason\nonly.--Plato._","title":"The Bible Unveiled","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":78792}