{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_46737/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_46737","id":"gutenberg_46737","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46737","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible -- Evidences, authority, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"THE BIBLE\n\n I. AUTHENTICITY\n II. CREDIBILITY\n III. MORALITY\n\n\n By\n JOHN E. REMSBURG\n\n\n \"Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible.\"\n --Ingersoll.\n\n\n New York\n THE TRUTH SEEKER COMPANY\n 62 Vesey Street\n 1907\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In memory of\n my\n mother,\n Sarah A. Bruner.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nIn January, 1901, the following announcement appeared in The Truth\nSeeker, of New York:\n\n\n To the Readers of The Truth Seeker: Two years ago that able\n and sagacious Liberal leader, L. K. Washburn, wrote: \"The next\n great moral revolution of the world will be a crusade against\n the Christian Bible.\" The church expects this and is preparing\n for it. In an address before the Methodist ministers of Chicago,\n the Rev. Dr. Curry, a distinguished Methodist divine, said: \"We are\n standing on the eve of the most stupendous revolution in reference\n to the doctrines of the Bible that the church has ever known.\" In\n this long war with bibliolaters the younger readers of The Truth\n Seeker will take a prominent part. To call their attention to the\n impending struggle, and to aid in a small way in fitting them for\n it, the editor of The Truth Seeker has invited me to open a sort\n of Bible school in his paper. For nearly a quarter of a century I\n have been writing and lecturing and debating against the divinity\n of the Bible. My opposition from the trained defenders of the\n book has been at times both keen and bitter. I was compelled to\n become and remain a diligent student of the Bible and of Biblical\n criticism. As far as possible I collected all of the damaging facts\n obtainable. I digested and classified them and filed them away\n in the labeled pigeon-holes of my brain for use when needed. I am\n growing old. My hair which was black when I began my work will soon\n be white. I have at the most but a few more years to labor. This\n arsenal of facts which I have gathered and the arguments that\n I have formulated from them I wish to place within the reach of\n others. Whether the thought be a Spiritualistic assurance or an\n Irish bull, it will be a pleasure to me when I am dead to know\n that I am still of some service to the cause.\n\n In the next issue of The Truth Seeker I shall begin a series\n of some thirty lessons or chapters on \"The Bible.\" The chief\n purpose of the work will be to combat the dogmas of the divine\n origin and infallibility of the Christian Bible. The points of\n attack will be three: 1. Its Authenticity; 2. Its Credibility;\n 3. Its Morality. I shall endeavor to disprove in a large degree\n the authenticity of its books, the credibility of its statements,\n and the morality of its teachings.\n\n\n John E. Remsburg.\n\n\nThese chapters were published in weekly installments in The Truth\nSeeker, their publication extending through a period of twenty\nmonths. The matter was electrotyped as published and the work will now\nbe given to the public in book form. To those interested in Biblical\ncriticism, and especially to the Freethought propagandist and to the\nChristian investigator, it is hoped that its contents may be useful.\n\nThe facts presented in this volume, while known to many Christian\nscholars, are, as far as possible, kept from the lower orders of the\nclergy and from the laity. Divines enjoying high honors and large\nsalaries may be cognizant of them without endangering their faith;\nbut the humbler ministers who receive small pay, and the laity who\nsupport the church, are liable to have their faith impaired by a\nknowledge of them.\n\nIn Part II., devoted to the Credibility of the Bible, less space is\ngiven to the errors of the New Testament than to those of the Old\nTestament. This is not because the New contains less errors than\nthe Old, but because the author has prepared another volume on this\nsubject. In \"The Christ,\" a sequel to \"The Bible,\" a more exhaustive\nexposition of the errors of the New Testament, particularly of the\nFour Gospels, is given.\n\nWhile denying the infallibility of the writers of the Bible the author\nis not unconscious of his own fallibility.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nPART I.\n\nAUTHENTICITY.\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nSacred Books of the World, 5\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nThe Christian Bible, 12\n\n\nChapter III.\n\nFormation of the Canon, 21\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\nDifferent Versions of the Bible, 39\n\n\nChapter V.\n\nAuthorship and Dates, 45\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\nThe Pentateuch, 50\n\n\nChapter VII.\n\nThe Prophets, 76\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\nThe Hagiographa, 94\n\n\nChapter IX.\n\nThe Four Gospels, 108\n\n\nChapter X.\n\nActs, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation, 140\n\n\nChapter XI.\n\nPauline Epistles, 152\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nCREDIBILITY.\n\n\nChapter XII.\n\nTextual Errors, 163\n\n\nChapter XIII.\n\nTwo Cosmogonies of Genesis, 181\n\n\nChapter XIV.\n\nThe Patriarchal Age, 188\n\n\nChapter XV.\n\nThe Jewish Kings, 198\n\n\nChapter XVI.\n\nWhen Did Jehoshaphat Die? 210\n\n\nChapter XVII.\n\nInspired Numbers, 231\n\n\nChapter XVIII.\n\nHarmony of the Gospels, 238\n\n\nChapter XIX.\n\nPaul and the Apostles, 247\n\n\nChapter XX.\n\nThe Bible and History, 260\n\n\nChapter XXI.\n\nThe Bible and Science, 271\n\n\nChapter XXII.\n\nProphecies, 293\n\n\nChapter XXIII.\n\nMiracles, 306\n\n\nChapter XXIV.\n\nThe Bible God, 317\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\nMORALITY.\n\n\nChapter XXV.\n\nThe Bible Not a Moral Guide, 329\n\n\nChapter XXVI.\n\nLying--Cheating--Stealing, 339\n\n\nChapter XXVII.\n\nMurder--War, 351\n\n\nChapter XXVIII.\n\nHuman Sacrifices--Cannibalism--Witchcraft 361\n\n\nChapter XXIX.\n\nSlavery--Polygamy, 374\n\n\nChapter XXX.\n\nAdultery--Obscenity 388\n\n\nChapter XXXI.\n\nIntemperance--Vagrancy--Ignorance, 394\n\n\nChapter XXXII.\n\nInjustice to Women--Unkindness to Children--Cruelty to Animals,\n404\n\n\nChapter XXXIII.\n\nTyranny--Intolerance, 415\n\n\nChapter XXXIV.\n\nConclusion, 423\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nArguments Against the Divine Origin and in Support of the Human Origin\nof the Bible, 433\n\n\nIndex, 463\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE BIBLE.\n\nPART I.--AUTHENTICITY.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nSACRED BOOKS OF THE WORLD.\n\n\nAsia has been the fruitful source of religions and Bibles. The seven\ngreat religions of the world, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism,\nZoroastrianism, Mohammedanism, Judaism, and Christianity--all had\ntheir birth in Asia; and the so-called sacred books which are used to\nuphold and propagate these faiths were nearly all written by Asiatic\npriests and prophets. A brief description of the most important of\nthese books will be presented in this chapter.\n\n\n\nSacred Books of India.\n\nVedas.--The Vedas are the oldest Bibles in the world. There are\nfour of them, the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda, and the\nAtharvaveda. Devout Hindoos believe that these books have always\nexisted--that they are co-eternal with God. Scholars agree that they\nare very old, that the Rigveda, the oldest of the four, and one of\nthe oldest books extant, was composed between 3,000 and 4,000 years\nago. Each Veda is complete in itself, and consists of religious\nteachings, prayers, and hymns.\n\nPuranas.--The Vedas and Puranas are the most important of the\nsacred books of the Hindoos. The Puranas, more than any other works,\nhave contributed to mould the doctrines of the popular Brahmanical\nreligion of India. They are eighteen in number, of which the Bhagavata,\ncontaining a history of Chrisna, is the one best known.\n\nTripitaka.--This is the Buddhist Bible. It was compiled 300 years\nbefore the Christian era. Self conquest and universal charity are\nits fundamental teachings.\n\nUpanishads.--These are sacred books which treat of the Creation, of\nthe Supreme Being or Spirit, Brahma, and of the nature of the human\nsoul and its relation to Brahma.\n\nTantras.--The Tantras are sacred books relating chiefly to the\nGod Siva.\n\nRamayana.--The Ramayana is one of the great epic poems of the world. It\ngives the history of Rama, one of the incarnations of the God Vishnu.\n\nMahabharata.--This is another epic poem, a larger one, containing\nmore than 100,000 verses. Like the Ramayana, it is believed to be of\ndivine origin. It has been described as \"the great manual of all that\nis moral, useful, and agreeable.\"\n\nInstitutes of Menu.--Menu is regarded as the law-giver of the Hindoos,\nas Moses is of the Jews. The Institutes of Menu are in many respects\nsimilar to the so-called laws of Moses.\n\n\n\nSacred Books of China.\n\nYih King.--This book contains a cosmological treatise and a compendium\non morals. It was written 1143 B.C.\n\nShu King.--This contains the teachings and maxims of certain ancient\nChinese kings. There are documents in it over 4,000 years old.\n\nShi King.--This is the Chinese hymn book. It contains three hundred\nsacred songs and poems, some of which are very old.\n\nLe King.--The Le King is a text book on manners, customs, and\nceremonies. It has been one of the chief agents in moulding the social\nand religious life of China.\n\nChun Tsien.--The Chun Tsien is a historical work compiled by\nConfucius. It gives a record of his own times and those immediately\npreceding him.\n\nThe above books, called the Five Kings, are the canonical books of\nConfucianism, the religion of the educated classes of China. With\nthe exceptions noted, they were mostly written or compiled about\n500 B.C. They are considered sacred by the Chinese, but not, like\nother sacred books, a revelation from God. Confucius recognized no\nGod. His religion is preeminently the religion of this world, and\nis thus summed up by him: \"The observance of the three fundamental\nlaws of relation between sovereign and subject, father and child,\nhusband and wife, and the five capital virtues--universal charity,\nimpartial justice, conformity to ceremonies and established usages,\nrectitude of heart and mind, and pure sincerity.\"\n\n\n\nSacred Books of Persia.\n\nZend Avesta.--This is one of the most important of all the Bibles of\nthe world, although the religion which it teaches numbers but a few\nadherents. It was written by Zoroaster and his disciples about 3,000\nyears ago. It was an enormous work in size, covering, it is said,\n12,000 parchments. The Zend Avesta proper consisted of twenty-one\nbooks. All of these, save one and some fragments of the others,\nhave perished. They dealt chiefly with religion, but touched upon\nalmost every subject of interest to mankind. They were believed to\nbe a faithful record of the words spoken to the great prophet by God\nhimself. Both Jews and Christians borrowed much from the Zend Avesta.\n\nSadder.--The Sadder is the Bible of the modern Parsees, and contains,\nin an abridged form, the religious teachings of Zoroaster.\n\n\n\nSacred Books of Islam.\n\nKoran.--The Mohammedans believe that divine revelations were given\nto Adam, Seth, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and Mohammed,\nand that each successive revelation in a measure superseded the\npreceding one. The books given to Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Abraham\nhave been lost. The Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Four Gospels\nare accepted by them, but the interpolations and corruptions of Jews\nand Christians, they claim, have greatly impaired their value. The\nKoran is with them the book of books--God's last and best revelation\nto man. It was written in rays of light on a tablet before the throne\nof God. A copy bound in white silk and bedecked with gems was carried\nby Gabriel to the lowest heaven, where from time to time, during a\nperiod of twenty years, portions of it were transmitted to Mohammed\nuntil the whole was given to the world. The book is divided into\n114 chapters. It is elegant in style, and, like most other Bibles,\ncontains, along with a great deal that is fabulous and puerile,\nsome admirable moral teachings.\n\nSunna.--The Sunna is a large work containing many thousand legends\nof Mohammed. It is a sacred book, but of less authority than the Koran.\n\n\n\nSacred Books of the Jews.\n\nTorah.--The Book of the Law, now commonly called the Pentateuch,\nis the most sacred of all Jewish books. Jews as well as Christians\nbelieve that it was written by Moses and dictated by God. It was not\ndivided into five books as we have it. In the oldest Hebrew manuscripts\nthe entire work forms but one book. It was subsequently divided into\nparshiyoth, or chapters, and these into sedarim, or sections.\n\nNebiim.--The Law and the Prophets were the chief authorities of the\nJews. The books of the Prophets, called Nebiim, were believed by\nthe orthodox Jews to be divinely inspired, but were esteemed of less\nimportance than the Torah.\n\nCethubim.--This collection of writings comprised the hymns, poems,\nand other books now known as the Hagiographa.\n\nTalmud.--The Talmud, while not regarded as a divine revelation, like\nthe Law and the Prophets, is in some respects the most important of\nJewish works. It is almost a library in itself, and constitutes a vast\nstorehouse of information pertaining to Jewish history and theology.\n\n\n\nSacred Book of Christians.\n\nHoly Bible.--The Christian Bible consists of two collections of small\nbooks, one called the Old Testament, the other the New Testament. The\nOld Testament comprises the Torah, Nebiim, and Cethubim of the Jews. It\nis divided into 39 books (including the Apocryphal books accepted by\nthe Greek and Roman Catholic churches, about 50). The New Testament\nis a collection of 27 early Christian writings, which originally\nappeared in the various churches of Asia, Africa and Europe.\n\nThe Bible is but one of many books for which divinity is\nclaimed. Christians deny the divinity of the other books, however,\nand affirm that they are of human origin--that their book is God's\nonly revelation to mankind. The orthodox claim respecting its divinity\nis expressed in the following words:\n\n\"Behind the human authors stood the divine Spirit, controlling,\nguiding, and suggesting every part of their different messages\"\n(Birks).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN BIBLE.\n\n\nThe title Bible, from Ta Biblia, meaning The Book, or more properly\nThe Books, was given to the sacred book of Christians, it is claimed,\nby Chrysostom in the fifth century.\n\nFor a period of one hundred and fifty years the sacred books of the\nJews alone constituted the Christian Bible. They consisted of the\nfollowing three collections of books which form the\n\n\n Old Testament.\n\n The Law.\n\n Genesis,\n Exodus,\n Leviticus,\n Numbers,\n Deuteronomy.\n\n\n The Prophets.\n\n Joshua,\n Judges,\n 1 Samuel,\n 2 Samuel,\n 1 Kings,\n 2 Kings,\n Isaiah,\n Jeremiah,\n Ezekiel,\n Hosea,\n Joel,\n Amos,\n Obadiah,\n Jonah,\n Micah,\n Nahum,\n Habakkuk,\n Zephaniah,\n Haggai,\n Zechariah,\n Malachi.\n\n\n Hagiographa.\n\n Psalms,\n Proverbs,\n Job,\n Song of Solomon,\n Ruth,\n Lamentations,\n Ecclesiastes,\n Esther,\n Daniel,\n Ezra,\n Nehemiah,\n 1 Chronicles,\n 2 Chronicles.\n\n\nTo the above thirty-nine books of the Old Testament were subsequently\nadded the following twenty-seven books of the\n\n\n New Testament.\n\n Matthew,\n Mark,\n Luke,\n John,\n Acts,\n Romans,\n 1 Corinthians,\n 2 Corinthians,\n Galatians,\n Ephesians,\n Philippians,\n Colossians,\n 1 Thessalonians,\n 2 Thessalonians,\n 1 Timothy,\n 2 Timothy,\n Titus,\n Philemon,\n Hebrews,\n James,\n 1 Peter,\n 2 Peter,\n 1 John,\n 2 John,\n 3 John,\n Jude,\n Revelation.\n\n\nThe books of the Old Testament were called The Scripture, or\nScriptures, by early Christians. After the books of the New Testament\nwere recognized as canonical and inspired, the terms Old and New\nTestaments were employed to distinguish the two divisions. Tertullian,\nat the beginning of the third century, was the first to use the term\nNew Testament.\n\nThe proper arrangement of the books of the Old Testament is in\nthe order named in the foregoing list. Both Jews and Christians,\nhowever, have varied the order. The books of the Hagiographa, with the\nexceptions of Ruth which follows Judges, Lamentations which follows\nJeremiah, and Daniel which appears among the Prophets, have been placed\nbetween the Earlier and Later Prophets. In later Jewish versions\nthe Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther,\ncalled the five rolls, come immediately after the Pentateuch. In the\nChristian Bibles of the Eastern churches, including the two most noted\nancient manuscripts, the Vatican and Alexandrian, the seven Catholic\nEpistles, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude,\nfollow Acts and precede the Pauline Epistles.\n\nIn the accepted Hebrew the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament\nformed but twenty-two, corresponding to the twenty-two letters of the\nHebrew alphabet. Judges and Ruth formed one book, First and Second\nSamuel one, First and Second Kings one, First and Second Chronicles\none, Ezra and Nehemiah one, Jeremiah and Lamentations one, and the\ntwelve Minor Prophets one.\n\nThe books of the Pentateuch (Pente, five; teuchos, volume) now bear\nthe Greek names given them by the Septuagint translators, with the\nexception of the fourth, Arithmoi, which is called by the English name,\nNumbers. The Hebrew names for these, as well as many other books of the\nOld Testament, are the initial words of the books. The name of Genesis,\nas translated, is \"In the Beginning;\" Exodus, \"These Are the Words;\"\nLeviticus, \"And He Called;\" Numbers, \"And He Spake;\" Deuteronomy,\n\"These Are the Words.\" Joshua originally belonged to this collection,\nand to the six books modern scholars have given the name Hexateuch.\n\nAbout one-half of the books of the Bible, Joshua, Isaiah, Matthew,\netc., are named after their alleged authors. A few, like Ruth and\nEsther, take their names from the leading characters of the books. The\nPauline Epistles bear the names of the churches, people, or persons\nto whom they are addressed. The titles of Judges, Kings, Chronicles,\nPsalms, Proverbs, and a few others, indicate the subjects of the books.\n\nThe division of the books of the Bible into chapters was made in\nthe thirteenth century; the division into verses, in the sixteenth\ncentury. These divisions are to a great extent mechanical rather\nthan logical. Paragraphs are frequently divided in the formation of\nchapters, and sentences in the formation of verses.\n\n\n\nCanonical and Apocryphal Books of the Old and New Testaments.\n\nIn addition to the canonical books of the Bible, there are many Jewish\nand Christian books known as the Apocryphal books of the Old and New\nTestaments. A critical review of the Bible demands a consideration of\nthe apocryphal as well as the canonical books, and the subject will\nbe made more intelligible to the reader by giving a list of both. In\nmaking a classification of them they will be divided into ten groups,\nas follows:\n\n\n\n1.\n\nBooks accepted as canonical and divine by all Jews and Christians.\n\nGenesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.\n\n\n\n2.\n\nBooks accepted as canonical and divine by a part of the Jews and by\nall Christians.\n\nJoshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah,\nEzekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk,\nZephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.\n\n\n\n3.\n\nBooks accepted by a part of the Jews as canonical, but not divine;\nby most Christians as canonical and divine.\n\nRuth, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms,\nProverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel.\n\n\n\n4.\n\nBooks accepted as canonical by some Jews, and for most part by the\nGreek and Roman Catholic churches, but rejected by the Protestants.\n\nBaruch, Tobit, Judith, Book of Wisdom, Song of the Three Children,\nHistory of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh,\nEcclesiasticus, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3\nMaccabees, 4 Maccabees, 5 Maccabees.\n\n\n\n5.\n\nLost books cited by writers of the Bible.\n\nBook of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant,\nBook of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah,\nVisions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand\nProverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles\nof the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu,\nBook of Enoch.\n\n\n\n6.\n\nBooks which formed the original canon of the New Testament and which\nhave always been accepted by Christians.\n\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,\nGalatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians,\n2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 John.\n\n\n\n7.\n\nBooks which are now generally accepted by Christians, but which were\nfor a time rejected.\n\nHebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.\n\n\n\n8.\n\nBooks now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of\nthe older manuscripts of the New Testament.\n\nShepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul's\nEpistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.\n\n\n\n9.\n\nOther Apocryphal books of the New Testament which are extant.\n\nGospel of the Infancy, Protevangelion of James, Acts of Pilate,\nNativity of Mary, Fifteen Epistles of Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp,\nGospel of Marcion (in part), Clementine Recognitions, Clementine\nHomilies.\n\n\n\n10.\n\nApocryphal books of the New Testament which are lost.\n\nOracles of Christ, Gospel According to the Hebrews, Gospel According\nto the Egyptians, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Paul, Gospel of Philip,\nGospel of Matthias, Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of\nTatian, Gospel of Basilides, Gospel of Apelles, Gospel of Cerinthus,\nGospel of Bartholomew, Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Revelation of Paul,\nRevelation of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Memoirs of the Apostles.\n\nHere is a list of one hundred and fifty books. In the apocryphal\ngroups have been included only the most important of this class. To\nthese might be added at least one hundred other apocryphal books of\nthe Old and New Testaments. Of these two hundred and fifty Jewish and\nChristian writings, sixty-six--about one-fourth--have been declared\ncanonical and divine by Protestants.\n\nIn the mind of the devout Protestant there is as great a difference\nbetween the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old and New\nTestaments as there is between light and darkness. The former he\nregards as the work of a wise and good God, the latter, with a\nfew exceptions, as the work of ignorant and wicked men. And yet\nthere is no such difference. The two classes are of much the same\ncharacter. The worst canonical books are, perhaps, better than the\nworst apocryphal books; while, on the other hand, the best apocryphal\nbooks, if not equal to the best canonical books, are far superior to\na majority of them. Circumstances rather than merit determined the\nfate of these books. Books of real merit and of high authority in some\nof the early churches were cast aside because these churches either\nceased to exist or changed their creeds; while books of little merit\nsurvived as authorities because their teachings supported the doctrines\nwhich survived. The religion of the primitive churches underwent many\nradical changes. The Christianity of the second century was not the\nChristianity of the first. Books teaching the new theology superseded\nthose which taught the old; and thus the earlier writings became\nobsolete. Of all the Christian books written prior to the middle of the\nsecond century only a few epistles have been retained as authorities.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nFORMATION OF THE CANON.\n\n\nSecond in interest and importance only to the origin of the individual\nbooks composing the Bible are the facts relating to the manner in\nwhich these books were collected into one great volume and declared\ncanonical or authoritative. The formation of the canon required\ncenturies of time to complete.\n\n\n\nThe Jewish Canon.\n\nThe Jewish canon, it is claimed, was chiefly the work of Ezra,\ncompleted by Nehemiah. \"All antiquity,\" says Dr. Adam Clarke, \"is\nnearly unanimous in giving Ezra the honor of collecting the different\nwritings of Moses and the prophets and reducing them into the form\nin which they are now found in the Bible.\"\n\nThis opinion, shared alike by Jews and Christians, is simply a\ntradition. There is no conclusive evidence that Ezra founded the canon\nof the Old Testament. Nehemiah could not have completed it, because\na part of the books were written after his time. There is no proof\nthat all the books of the Old Testament existed in a collected form\nbefore the beginning of the Christian era. There is no proof that even\nthe Law and the Prophets existed in such a form before the Maccabean\nperiod. The Rev. Frederick Myers, an able authority on the Bible,\nmakes this candid admission: \"By whom the books of the Old Testament\nwere collected into one volume, and by what authority made canonical,\nwe do not know\" (\"Catholic Thoughts on the Bible,\" p. 56).\n\nAnother prevalent belief is that all of the Jewish scriptures were\nlost during the captivity, and that Ezra was divinely inspired to\nrewrite them. Iren\u00e6us says: \"God ... inspired Esdras, the priest of\nthe tribe of Levi, to compose anew all the discourses of the ancient\nprophets, and to restore to the people the laws given them by Moses\"\n(\"Ecclesiastical History,\" Book V., chap. viii).\n\nThis is a myth. The books of the Old Testament which were written\nbefore the captivity were not lost. Many books, it is true, were\nwritten after the captivity, but these books were not reproductions\nof lost writings. They were original compositions, or compilations\nof documents which had not been lost.\n\nIf Ezra was inspired, as claimed, to rewrite the Hebrew scriptures,\nhe did not complete his task, for the books that were really lost have\nnever been restored, and the Old Testament is but a part of the Hebrew\nscriptures that once existed. St. Chrysostom says: \"The Jews having\nbeen at some time careless, and at others profane, they suffered some\nof the sacred books to be lost through their carelessness, and have\nburnt and destroyed others.\" The list of books given in the preceding\nchapter, under the head of \"Lost Books cited by writers of the Bible,\"\nwould nearly all be deemed canonical were they extant. Referring to\nthese books, the Rev. Dr. Campbell, in his \"Introduction to Matthew,\"\nsays: \"The Book of the Wars of the Lord, the Book of Jasher, the\nBook of Nathan the Prophet, the Book of Gad the Seer, and several\nothers, are referred to in the Old Testament, manifestly as of\nequal authority with the book which refers to them, and as fuller in\npoint of information. Yet these are to all appearances irrecoverably\nlost.\" God's revelation in its entirety, then, no longer exists.\n\nThe ten Hebrew tribes which formed the kingdom of Israel, and whose\nremnants were afterwards called Samaritans, accepted only the first\nsix books of the Old Testament. The other Jews generally accepted the\nPentateuch and the Prophets, and, in a less degree, the Hagiographa\nas canonical. Some of them also attached more or less importance to\nthe Apocryphal books.\n\n\n\nThe Christian Canon.\n\nRespecting the formation of the New Testament canon, the\nRev. Dr. Roswell D. Hitchcock says:\n\n\"The new book of records was, like the old, set down by eye-witnesses\nof and actors in its scenes, closely after their occurrence;\nits successive portions were cautiously scrutinized and clearly\ndistinguished as entitled to reception; when the record, properly\nso-called, was completed, the new canon was closed\" (\"Analysis of\nthe Bible,\" p. 1149).\n\n\"This process was rapid and decisive; it had in all probability\nbecome substantially complete before the death of John, the last of\nthe apostles\" (Ibid, p. 1158).\n\nThat these statements, popularly supposed to be true, are wholly untrue\nwill be demonstrated by the facts presented in this and succeeding\nchapters. The Christian canon was not completed before the death of\nthe last apostle. The New Testament did not exist in the time of the\napostles. It did not exist in the time of the Apostolic Fathers. It\nwas not in existence in the middle of the second century.\n\nThere was no New Testament in the time of Papias. Dr. Samuel Davidson,\nthe highest Christian authority on the canon, says: \"Papias (150\nA.D.) knew nothing, so far as we can learn, of a New Testament canon\"\n(\"Canon of the Bible,\" p. 123).\n\nJustin Martyr knew nothing of a New Testament canon. I quote again\nfrom Dr. Davidson: \"Justin Martyr's canon (150 A.D.), so far as\ndivine authority and inspiration are concerned, was the Old Testament\"\n(Ibid, p. 129).\n\nFor nearly two centuries after the beginning of the Christian era,\nthe Old Testament--the Old Testament alone--constituted the Christian\ncanon. No other books were called scripture; no other books were\nconsidered inspired; no other books were deemed canonical.\n\n\n\nFounding of the Canon.\n\nTo Iren\u00e6us, more than to any other man, belongs the credit of founding\nthe Roman Catholic church; and to him also belongs the credit of\nfounding the New Testament canon, which is a Roman Catholic work. No\ncollection of books corresponding to our New Testament existed before\nthe time of Iren\u00e6us. He was the first to make such a collection,\nand he was the first to claim inspiration and divine authority for\nits books. Dr. Davidson says:\n\n\"The conception of canonicity and inspiration attaching to New\nTestament books did not exist till the time of Iren\u00e6us\" (\"Canon,\"\np. 163).\n\nAt the close of the second century the Christian world was divided\ninto a hundred different sects. Iren\u00e6us and others conceived the plan\nof uniting these sects, or the more orthodox of them, into one great\nCatholic church, with Rome at the head; for Rome was at this time the\nlargest and most influential of all the Christian churches. \"It is a\nmatter of necessity,\" says Iren\u00e6us, \"that every church should agree\nwith this church on account of its preeminent authority\" (\"Heresies,\"\nBook 3).\n\nIn connection with this work Iren\u00e6us made a collection of books for\nuse in the church. His collection comprised the following: Matthew,\nMark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians,\nGalatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians,\nSecond Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon,\nFirst John, and Revelation--twenty books in all.\n\nIn the work of establishing the Roman Catholic church and the New\nTestament canon Iren\u00e6us was succeeded, early in the third century, by\nTertullian and Clement of Alexandria. They adopted the list of books\nmade by him. The books adopted by these Fathers were selected from a\nlarge number of Christian writings then extant--forty or more gospels,\nnearly as many Acts of Apostles, a score of Revelations, and a hundred\nepistles. Each church had one or more books which were used in that\nchurch. No divine authority, however, was ascribed to any of them.\n\nWhy did the Fathers choose these particular books? Above all,\nwhy did they choose four gospels instead of one? We never see four\nbiographies of Washington, of Cromwell, or of Napoleon, bound in\none volume; yet here we have four different biographies of Jesus in\none book. Iren\u00e6us says it is because \"there are four quarters of\nthe earth in which we live, and four universal winds.\" Instead of\nthis artificial reason he could have given a natural, a rational,\nand a truthful reason. While primitive Christians, as we have seen,\nwere divided into many sects, the principal sects may be grouped into\nthree divisions: 1. The Petrine churches, comprising the church of\nRome and other churches which recognized Peter as the chief of the\napostles and the visible head of the church on earth; 2. The Pauline\nsects, which accepted Paul as the true exponent of Christianity;\n3. The Johannine or Eastern churches, which regarded John as their\nfounder. A collection of books to be acceptable to all of these\nchurches must contain the favorite books of each. The First Gospel,\nwritten about the time this church union movement was inaugurated,\nwas adopted by the Petrine churches. The Second Gospel was also\nhighly valued by the church of Rome. The Third Gospel, a revised and\nenlarged edition of the Pauline Gospel of Marcion, had become the\nstandard authority of Pauline Christians. The Fourth Gospel, which\nhad superseded other and older gospels, was generally read in the\nJohannine churches. The Acts of the Apostles, written for the purpose\nof healing the dissensions that had arisen between the followers of\nPeter and Paul, was acceptable to both Petrines and Paulines. The\nEpistles of Paul were of course received by the Pauline churches,\nwhile the First Epistle of John was generally received by the Eastern\nchurches. The collection would not be complete without a Revelation,\nand the Revelation of John was selected.\n\nThe work instituted by Iren\u00e6us was successful. The three divisions of\nChristendom were united, and the Catholic church was established. But\nthis cementing, although it held for centuries, did not last, as was\nhoped, for all time. The seams gave way, the divisions separated,\nand to-day stand out as distinctly as they did in the second century;\nthe Roman Catholic church representing the Petrine, the Greek church\nthe Johannine, and the Protestant churches to a great extent the\nPauline Christians of that early age. But while the church separated,\neach retained all of the sixty-six canonical books, save Revelation,\nwhich for a time was rejected by the Greek church.\n\nThe New Testament originally contained but twenty books. To First\nPeter, Second John, and the Shepherd of Hermas Iren\u00e6us attached some\nimportance, but did not place them in his canon. Hebrews, James,\nSecond Peter, Third John, and Jude he ignored. Tertullian placed in an\nappendix Hebrews, First Peter, Second John, Jude, and the Shepherd of\nHermas. Clement of Alexandria classed as having inferior authority,\nHebrews, Second John, Jude, First and Second Epistles of Clement\n(of Rome), Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and Revelation\nof Peter.\n\nRegarding the competency of the founders of the New Testament canon,\nDavidson says:\n\n\"Of the three fathers who contributed most to its early growth, Iren\u00e6us\nwas credulous and blundering, Tertullian passionate and one-sided,\nand Clement of Alexandria, imbued with the treasures of Greek wisdom,\nwas mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics\" (Canon, p. 155).\n\n\"The three Fathers of whom we are speaking had neither the ability nor\nthe inclination to examine the genesis of documents surrounded with\nan apostolic halo. No analysis of their authenticity was seriously\ncontemplated\" (Ibid, p. 156).\n\n\n\nCompletion of the Canon.\n\nThe Christian canon, including the New Testament canon, assumed\nsomething like its present form under the labors of Augustine and\nJerome toward the close of the fourth century. St. Augustine's canon\ncontained all of the books now contained in the Old and New Testaments,\nexcepting Lamentations, which was excluded. It contained, in addition\nto these, the apocryphal pieces belonging to Daniel, and the books of\nTobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and First and Second Maccabees.\n\nSt. Jerome's canon contained Lamentations, which Augustine's canon\nexcluded, and omitted Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and First\nand Second Maccabees, which Augustine's included. Roman Catholics\naccept the canon of Augustine, including Lamentations; Protestants,\ngenerally, accept the canon of Jerome.\n\nWhile Jerome included in his canon all the books of the New Testament,\nhe admitted that Philemon, Hebrews, Second Peter, Second and Third\nJohn, Jude, and Revelation were of doubtful authority.\n\nReferring to the work of Augustine and Jerome, Davidson, says:\n\"Both were unfitted for the critical examination of such a topic\"\n(Canon, p. 200).\n\n\n\nChristian Councils.\n\nMany believe that the Council of Nice, held in 325 A.D., determined\nwhat books should constitute the Bible. This council did not determine\nthe canon. So far as is known, the first church council which acted\nupon this question was the Synod of Laodicea which met in 365. This\ncouncil rejected the Apocryphal books contained in Augustine's\nlist, but admitted Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. It excluded\nRevelation.\n\nVarious councils, following this, adopted canonical lists. One council\nwould admit certain books and the next council would reject them. The\nthird council of Carthage in 397 adopted the list of Augustine which\nadmitted the Apocryphal books and Revelation and rejected Lamentations.\n\nThe actions of none of these councils were unanimous or decisive. The\nlist of books adopted was adopted simply by a majority vote. A\nlarge minority of every council refused to accept the list of the\nmajority. Some advocated the admission of books that were rejected;\nothers opposed the admission of books that were accepted. As late as\nthe seventh century (629), at the sixth Council of Constantinople,\nmany different canonical lists were presented for ratification.\n\nThe damaging facts that I have adduced concerning the formation of\nthe Christian canon are admitted in a large degree by one of the\nmost orthodox of authorities, McClintock and Strong's \"Cyclopedia of\nBiblical and Ecclesiastical Literature.\" Dr. McClintock says:\n\n\"The New Testament canon presents a remarkable analogy to the canon of\nthe Old Testament. The beginnings of both are obscure.... The history\nof the canon may be divided into three periods. The first, extending\nto 170, includes the era of circulation and gradual collection of\nthe apostolic writings. The second is closed in 303, separating the\nsacred from other ecclesiastical writings. The third may be defined\nby the third Council of Carthage, 397 A.D., in which a catalogue\nof the books of the Scriptures was formally ratified by conciliar\nauthority. The first is characteristically a period of tradition, the\nsecond of speculation, and the third of authority, and we may trace the\nfeatures of the successive ages in the course of the history of the\ncanon. But however all this may have been, the complete canon of the\nNew Testament, as we now have it, was ratified by the third Council\nof Carthage, 397 A.D., from which time it was generally accepted by\nthe Latin church, some of the books remaining in doubt and disputed.\"\n\nConcerning the work of these councils, William Penn writes as follows:\n\n\"I say how do they know that these men discerned true from\nspurious? Now, sure it is, that some of the Scriptures taken in by\none council were rejected by another for apocryphal, and that which\nwas left out by the former for apocryphal was taken in by the latter\nfor canonical\" (Penn's Works, Vol. I., p. 302).\n\nIn regard to the character of these councils, Dean Milman writes:\n\n\"It might have been supposed that nowhere would Christianity appear\nin such commanding majesty as in a council.... History shows the\nmelancholy reverse. Nowhere is Christianity less attractive, and\nif we look to the ordinary tone and character of the proceedings,\nless authoritative, than in the councils of the church. It is in\ngeneral a fierce collision of two rival factions, neither of which\nwill yield, each of which is solemnly pledged against conviction\"\n(History of Latin Christianity, Vol. I., p. 226).\n\nThe Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons, no two of\nwhich are alike, were fixed by modern councils. The Council of Trent\n(1545-1563) determined the Roman Catholic canon. While a majority\nwere in favor of the canon of Augustine they were not agreed in\nregard to the character and classification of the books. There were\nfour parties. The first advocated two divisions of the books, one to\ncomprise the acknowledged books, the other the disputed books. The\nsecond party proposed three divisions--the acknowledged books, the\ndisputed books of the New Testament, and the Apocryphal books of the\nOld Testament. The third party desired the list of books to be named\nwithout determining their authority. The fourth party demanded that\nall the books, acknowledged, disputed, and apocryphal, be declared\ncanonical. This party triumphed.\n\nAt a council of the Greek church held in Jerusalem in 1672, this\nchurch, which had always refused to accept Revelation, finally placed\nit in the canon. The Greek canon contains several apocryphal books\nnot contained in the Roman Catholic canon.\n\nBoth divisions of the Protestant church, German and English, declared\nagainst the authority of the Apocryphal books. The Westminster Assembly\n(1647) formally adopted the list of books contained in our Authorized\nVersion of the Bible.\n\n\n\nAncient Christian Scholars.\n\nMost Christians believe that all of the books of the Bible, and\nonly the books of the Bible, have been accepted as canonical by all\nChristians. And yet, how far from this is the truth! In every age of\nthe church there have been Christians, eminent for their piety and\nlearning, who either rejected some of these books, or who accepted\nas canonical books not contained in the Bible.\n\nNot one of the five men who contributed most to form the canon,\nIren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Clement, Jerome, and Augustine, accepted all of\nthese books.\n\nLate in the second century Melito, Bishop of Sardis, a contemporary\nof Iren\u00e6us, was deputed to make a list of the books belonging to the\nOld Testament. His list omitted Esther and Lamentations.\n\nThe Muratori canon, which is supposed to belong to the third century,\nomitted Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter, and Third John. The\nApostolic canon omitted Revelation, and included First and Second\nClement and the Apostolic Constitutions.\n\nOf Origen, the great Christian Father of the third century, \"Chambers'\nEncyclopedia\" says: \"Origen doubted the authority of the Epistle\nto the Hebrews, of the Epistle of James, of Jude, of the Second of\nPeter, and the Second and Third of John; while, at the same time, he\nwas disposed to recognize as canonical certain apocryphal scriptures,\nsuch as those of Hermas and Barnabas.\" In addition to the apocryphal\nbooks named, Origen also accepted as authoritative the Gospel of the\nHebrews, Gospel of the Egyptians, Acts of Paul, and Preaching of Peter.\n\nThe Rev. Jeremiah Jones, a leading authority on the canon, says:\n\"Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and the rest of\nthe primitive writers were wont to approve and cite books which now\nall men know to be apocryphal\" (Canon, p. 4).\n\nTheodoret says that as late as the fifth century many churches used the\nGospel of Tatian instead of the canonical Gospels. Gregory the Great,\nat the beginning of the seventh, and Alfric, at the close of the\ntenth century, accepted as canonical Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans.\n\nEarly in the fourth century the celebrated church historian,\nEusebius, gave a list of the acknowledged and disputed books of the\nNew Testament. The disputed books--books which some accepted and\nothers rejected--were Hebrews, James, Second and Third John, Jude,\nRevelation, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Acts of Paul,\nand Revelation of Peter.\n\nAthanasius rejected Esther, and Epiphanius accepted the Epistle\nof Jeremiah. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Gregory, Bishop of\nConstantinople, both rejected Revelation.\n\nChrysostom, one of the greatest of church divines, and, who gave to\nthe sacred book of Christians its name, omitted ten books from his\ncanon--First and Second Chronicles, Esther, Job, and Lamentations,\nfive books in the Old Testament; and Second Peter, Second and Third\nJohn, Jude, and Revelation, five books in the New Testament.\n\n\n\nProtestant Scholars.\n\nMany Protestant scholars have questioned or denied the correctness\nof the Protestant canon. Calvin doubted Second and Third John\nand Revelation. Erasmus doubted Hebrews, Second and Third John,\nand Revelation. Zwingle and Beza rejected Revelation. Dr. Lardner\nquestioned the authority of Hebrews, James, Second Peter, Second\nand Third John, Jude and Revelation. Evanson rejected Matthew, Mark,\nLuke, and nearly half of the Epistles. Schleiermacher rejected First\nTimothy. Scaliger rejected Second Peter. Davidson thinks that Esther\nshould be excluded from the canon. Eichorn rejected Daniel and Jonah\nin the Old Testament, and Second Timothy and Titus in the New.\n\nDr. Whiston excluded the Song of Solomon, and accepted as canonical\nmore than twenty books not found in the Bible. He says: \"Can anyone be\nso weak as to imagine Mark, and Luke, and James, and Jude, who were\nnone of them more than companions of the Apostles, to be our sacred\nand unerring guides, while Barnabas, Thaddeus, Clement, Timothy,\nHermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who were equally companions of the\nsame Apostles, to be of no authority at all?\" (Exact Time, p. 28).\n\nThe Rev. James Martineau, of England, says: \"If we could recover\nthe Gospel of the Hebrews, and that of the Egyptians, it would be\ndifficult to give a reason why they should not form a part of the\nNew Testament; and an epistle by Clement, the fellow laborer of Paul,\nwhich has as good a claim to stand there as the Epistle to the Hebrews,\nor the Gospel of Luke\" (Rationale of Religious Enquiry).\n\nArchbishop Wake pronounces the writings of the Apostolic Fathers\n\"inspired,\" and says that they contain \"an authoritative declaration\nof the Gospel of Christ\" (Apostolic Fathers).\n\nThe church of Latter Day Saints, numbering one half million adherents,\nand including some able Bible scholars, believe that the modern Book\nof Mormon is a part of God's Word, equal in authority and importance\nto the Pentateuch or the Four Gospels.\n\n\n\nMartin Luther.\n\nThe greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin\nLuther. He is generally recognized as its founder; he is considered\none of the highest authorities on the Bible; he devoted a large\nportion of his life to its study; he made a translation of it for\nhis people, a work which is accepted as one of the classics of German\nliterature. With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine\nauthority. And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than\nsix of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible.\n\nLuther rejected the book of Esther. He says: \"I am such an enemy to\nthe book of Esther that I wish it did not exist.\" In his \"Bondage of\nthe Will,\" he severely criticises the book.\n\nHe rejected the book of Jonah. He says: \"The history of Jonah is\nso monstrous as to be absolutely incredible\" (Colloquia, Chap. LX.,\nSec. 10).\n\nHe rejected Hebrews: \"The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul;\nnor, indeed, by any apostle\" (Standing Preface to Luther's New\nTestament).\n\nHe rejected the Epistle of James: \"St. James' Epistle is truly an\nepistle of straw\" (Preface to Edition of 1524).\n\nHe rejected Jude. \"The Epistle of Jude,\" he says, \"allegeth stories\nand sayings which have no place in Scripture\" (Standing Preface).\n\nHe rejected Revelation. He says: \"I can discover no trace that it is\nestablished by the Holy Spirit\" (Preface to Edition of 1522).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nDIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE.\n\n\nThe following is a brief description of the principal versions,\ntranslations, and manuscripts of the Bible:\n\n\n\nVersions of the Jewish Scriptures.\n\nHebrew.--The greater portion of the Jewish Scriptures was written in\nthe ancient Hebrew language, while a smaller portion was written in\nthe Aramaic or Chaldaic dialect of this language. The written language\nof the Hebrew contained no vowels. The meaning of many words was mere\nconjecture. About one thousand years ago Jewish scholars developed a\nsystem of vowel points and made a revision of the Hebrew Scriptures\nin what is known as the Masoretic text. The early Christian versions\nof the Old Testament, including that of the Roman Catholic church,\nare based upon the earlier or consonantal text; the Protestant\nversions are based upon the later or Masoretic text. The accepted\nHebrew versions generally omitted the Apocryphal books.\n\nSamaritan.--The Samaritan Bible, the canonical Scriptures of the\nSamaritan Israelites, contained but six books--the Pentateuch and what\nis styled a corrupt version of Joshua. Some scholars believe that the\nSamaritan Pentateuch is the most correct version we have of this work.\n\nSeptuagint.--The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Jewish\nScriptures, including the Apocryphal books. We are told that about\n285 b. c. seventy scholars, each in a separate cell, translated all\nof these books. The translations, it is stated, were exactly alike,\na proof of divine supervision. This story is a fiction. Instead of\nseventy translations of fifty books, there was one translation of five\nbooks. The Pentateuch alone was translated at this time. The Prophets,\nthe Hagiographa, and the Apocrypha were translated at various times\nduring the succeeding three hundred years. The Septuagint was the\nversion used by the Hellenistic Jews and by the primitive Christians.\n\n\n\nAncient Christian Versions.\n\nPeshito.--The Peshito is probably the oldest version of the Christian\nBible. It is in Aramaic, and is the Bible of Syrian Christians. It\nomits Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation.\n\nEgyptian.--There were two versions of the Egyptian Bible, the Thebaic,\nwritten in the language of Upper Egypt, and the Memphitic or Coptic,\nwritten in the language of Lower Egypt. These versions included the\nApocrypha and excluded Revelation.\n\nEthiopic.--This was the Bible of Ethiopian Christians. The Old\nTestament contained four divisions: 1. The Law; 2. Kings; 3. Solomon;\n4. The Prophets. It also contained the Book of Enoch, a book found in\nno other version. The New Testament omitted Revelation and included\nthe Apostolic Constitutions.\n\nGothic.--This version was made by a Gothic bishop in the fourth\ncentury. It omitted four of the principal books of the Old Testament,\nFirst and Second Samuel, and First and Second Kings.\n\nItalic.--The Italic version was one of the earliest Latin versions\nof the Bible. The New Testament contained but twenty-four books. It\nomitted Hebrews, James, and Second Peter.\n\nVulgate.--The Vulgate, one of the most important versions of the Bible,\nis the Latin version made by Jerome about the beginning of the fifth\ncentury. It is the standard version of the Roman Catholic church. It\nhas undergone many revisions and consequently many changes. It now\nincludes the Apocryphal books which Jerome did not accept as canonical.\n\n\n\nAncient Manuscripts.\n\nThe three most important Greek manuscripts, those which are recognized\nas the highest authorities in determining the text of the Bible,\nare the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexandrian.\n\nSinaitic.--The Sinaitic Manuscript, now preserved in St. Petersburg,\nwas discovered by Dr. Tischendorf at a convent near Mount Sinai. It\nis believed by many to be the oldest manuscript of the New Testament\nextant, dating back, it is supposed by some, to the fourth century. It\ncontains twenty-nine books--the twenty-seven canonical books, the\nEpistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas.\n\nVatican.--This manuscript, now in the Vatican library at Rome, belongs,\nit is claimed, to the fourth century. The Old Testament contains the\nApocrypha. The New Testament is a mutilated copy, containing only\nthe Four Gospels, Acts, and a part of the Epistles.\n\nAlexandrian.--The Alexandrian Manuscript, now in the British Museum,\nbelongs, it is said, to the fifth or sixth century. The Old Testament\nincludes the Apocryphal books. The New Testament includes the canonical\nbooks, and in addition to these the First and Second Epistles of\nClement.\n\n\n\nModern Versions.\n\nLuther's.--The principal German version of the Bible was made by\nthe leader of the Protestant Reformation. On account of its superior\nliterary merits and its large circulation it is, next to our Authorized\nVersion, the most important of the Protestant versions. Luther placed\nthe Apocryphal books in an appendix at the end of the Old Testament,\nand the books of the New Testament which he rejected in an appendix\nat the end of the New.\n\nWicliffe's.--The translation of Wicliffe, which appeared in the latter\npart of the fourteenth century, was the first English translation of\nthe Bible.\n\nTyndale's.--Tyndale commenced his English translation of the Bible\nabout the same time that Luther commenced his German translation. He\ndid not live to complete it, and a portion of the Old Testament was\ntranslated by others.\n\nKing James.--The Authorized English Version, commonly called the\nKing James Bible, was published in 1611. It was made by forty-seven\nEnglish scholars, working in six companies--two at Oxford, two at\nCambridge, and two at Westminster. The basis of this version is\nTyndale's translation. The Apocryphal books, which were not accepted\nas canonical by the English church, were placed in an appendix. They\nare now generally omitted. The King James Bible is admittedly one\nof the most incorrect versions; but dressed in the strong, quaint\nEnglish of Shakespeare's time it possesses considerable literary\nmerit. It has been translated into nearly every tongue, and has had\na larger circulation than all others combined.\n\nNew Version.--The new or Revised Version of the Bible is a revision\nof the King James version. The revision was made by a Committee of\ntwenty-seven English scholars, whose work was revised by an American\ncommittee. It was begun in 1870 and finished in 1882. In this version\nthe matter is divided into paragraphs instead of chapters and verses.\n\nDouay.--The Douay Bible is an English translation of the Vulgate. It\nis the standard English version of the Roman Catholic church.\n\nThe foregoing are but a few of the numerous versions of the Bible,\nancient and modern, that have appeared. Nearly every nation of Europe\nhas from one to a score. Luther's version is nearly 400 years old,\nand yet Germany had seventeen translations, and consequently seventeen\nversions, before Luther's was published. England had many versions\nbesides those named.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nAUTHORSHIP AND DATES.\n\n\nUpon the authenticity of the books of the Bible depends in a large\nmeasure their value as authorities. These books are filled with\nstrange and marvelous stories. Are these stories true or false? If\ntrue, we should accept them; if false, reject them. From whence do\nthese writings come?\n\nIf you hear a startling statement on the street your disposition to\naccept or reject it will depend largely upon the character of its\nauthor. If he is a reputable person you will be disposed to accept\nit; if it does not come from a reputable person, or if you are unable\nto discover its author, you will be disposed to reject it. Christian\npriests demand the acceptance of these books as infallible truth. What\nevidence do they adduce to justify this demand? Where did they obtain\nthese books? When were they written? Who wrote them? What is the\nreputation of their authors for intelligence and veracity? Were they\nlearned and astute men, or were they weak and credulous men? Were\nthey good men, or were they bad men? If able men wrote them, may they\nnot have been impostors? If good men wrote them, may they not have\nbeen mistaken?\n\nThese priests claim to have a knowledge of the authorship of all,\nor nearly all, the books of the Bible. With one or two exceptions,\nthey have assigned authors to all the books of the Old Testament, and\nto these exceptions they have even assigned \"probable\" authors. They\nalso claim a great antiquity for them--claim that they were written\nfrom four hundred to fifteen hundred years before the Christian\nera. The books of the New Testament, they affirm, were all written\nin the first century, and by those whose names they bear.\n\nThe following table gives the authorship and date of composition,\naccording to orthodox authorities, of the books composing the\nProtestant canon. It is not claimed that every book was written in\nthe year assigned for its composition, but that it was written in or\nprior to the year assigned.\n\n\n Old Testament.\n\n BOOK AUTHOR DATE\n\n Genesis Moses B.C. 1451\n Exodus ,, ,, ,,\n Leviticus ,, ,, ,,\n Numbers ,, ,, ,,\n Deuteronomy ,, ,, ,,\n Joshua Joshua ,, 1426\n Judges Samuel ,, 1049\n Ruth ,, (?) ,, ,,\n 1 Samuel ,, ,, ,,\n 2 Samuel Gad & Nathan B.C. 1016\n 1 Kings Jeremiah ,, 600\n 2 Kings ,, ,, ,,\n 1 Chronicles Ezra ,, 456\n 2 Chronicles ,, ,, ,,\n Ezra ,, ,, ,,\n Nehemiah Nehemiah ,, 433\n Esther Mordecai (?) ,, 440\n Job Job ,, 1520\n Psalms David ,, 1020\n Proverbs Solomon ,, 980\n Ecclesiastes ,, ,, ,,\n S. of Solomon ,, ,, 1016\n Isaiah Isaiah ,, 700\n Jeremiah Jeremiah ,, 585\n Lamentations ,, ,, ,,\n Ezekiel Ezekiel ,, 575\n Daniel Daniel ,, 534\n Hosea Hosea ,, 780\n Joel Joel ,, 800\n Amos Amos ,, 785\n Obadiah Obadiah ,, 588\n Jonah Jonah ,, 856\n Micah Micah ,, 700\n Nahum Nahum ,, 698\n Habakkuk Habakkuk ,, 600\n Zephaniah Zephaniah ,, 609\n Haggai Haggai ,, 583\n Zechariah Zechariah ,, 520\n Malachi Malachi ,, 420\n\n\n New Testament.\n\n BOOK AUTHOR DATE\n\n Matthew Matthew A.D. 40\n Mark Mark ,, 63\n Luke Luke ,, ,,\n John John A.D. 97\n Acts Luke ,, 63\n Romans Paul ,, 57\n 1 Corinthians ,, ,, ,,\n 2 Corinthians ,, ,, ,,\n Galatians ,, ,, 55\n Ephesians ,, ,, 62\n Philippians ,, ,, ,,\n Colossians ,, ,, 61\n 1 Thessalonians ,, ,, 52\n 2 Thessalonians ,, ,, ,,\n 1 Timothy ,, ,, 64\n 2 Timothy ,, ,, 65\n Titus ,, ,, ,,\n Philemon ,, ,, 61\n Hebrews ,, ,, 62\n James James ,, ,,\n 1 Peter Peter ,, 64\n 2 Peter ,, ,, ,,\n 1 John John ,, 68\n 2 John ,, ,, ,,\n 3 John ,, ,, 69\n Jude Jude ,, 64\n Revelation John ,, 96\n\n\nThe names and dates given in the foregoing table are, with a few\nexceptions, paraded as established facts. And yet the greater portion\nof them are mere assumptions, without even the shadow of proof\nupon which to base them. Many of them are self-evidently false--are\ncontradicted by the contents of the books themselves. The authorship\nof at least fifty books of the Bible--thirty in the Old Testament\nand twenty in the New--is unknown.\n\nThese books are not as old as claimed. The books of the Old Testament,\ninstead of having been written from 1520 to 420 B.C., were probably\nwritten from 1000 to 100 B.C. The books of the New Testament, instead\nof having all been written in the first century, were, many of them,\nnot written until the second century.\n\nIn regard to this subject, Prof. George T. Ladd of Yale College writes:\n\"The authorship and date of most of the Old Testament writings, and\nof some of the New Testament, will never be known with certainty\"\n(What Is the Bible? p. 294).\n\nThe following six chapters will be devoted to an examination of the\nquestion of the authenticity of the books of the Bible. I shall attempt\nto show that the greater portion of these books, including the most\nimportant ones, are not authentic--were not written by the authors\nclaimed, nor at the time claimed; that they are anonymous documents,\nwritten or compiled for the most part at a later age than that in\nwhich their reputed authors are supposed to have lived.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE PENTATEUCH.\n\n\nThe first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,\nNumbers, and Deuteronomy--collectively called the Pentateuch--are the\nmost important books of the Old Testament. The three great Semitic\nreligions, Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, are all, to a\ngreat extent, based upon them.\n\nThese books, orthodox Christians affirm, were written by Moses at least\n1,450 years before the Christian era. \"This sacred code,\" says Dr. Adam\nClarke, \"Moses delivered complete to the Hebrews sometime before his\ndeath.\" In modern versions of the Bible, Genesis is styled the First\nBook of Moses; Exodus, the Second Book of Moses; Leviticus, the Third\nBook of Moses; Numbers, the Fourth Book of Moses, and Deuteronomy,\nthe Fifth Book of Moses. Their very high authority rests upon the\nsupposed fact of their Mosaic authorship and great antiquity. To\ndisprove these--to show that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses,\nnor at this early age, but centuries later by unknown writers--is to\nlargely impair, if not entirely destroy, its authority as a religious\noracle. And this is what modern criticism has done.\n\n\n\nArguments for Mosaic Authorship.\n\nThe following passage is the chief argument relied upon to prove the\nMosaic authorship of the Pentateuch:\n\n\"And it came to pass, that when Moses had made an end of writing the\nwords of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses\ncommanded the Levites, which bore the ark of the covenant of the\nLord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of\nthe ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there\nfor a witness against thee\" (Deut. xxxi, 24-26).\n\nThis was written for a purpose. Its sequel appears in 2 Kings. During\nthe reign of Josiah, Hilkiah the high priest discovered a \"book of\nthe law\" in the temple. \"And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan\nthe scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord\"\n(2 Kings xxii, 8).\n\nThis book was the book of Deuteronomy, written, not in the time\nof Moses, but in the time of Josiah, more than eight centuries\nlater. Hilkiah needed the book and he \"found\" it. It was written by\nhim or for him. Holland's great critic, Dr. Kuenen, says: \"There is\nno room to doubt that the book was written with a view to the use\nthat Hilkiah made of it\" (Kuenen's Hexateuch, p. 215).\n\nDr. Oort, another able Dutch scholar, professor of Oriental languages\nat Amsterdam, says: \"The book was certainly written about the time\nof its discovery. It is true that it introduces Moses as uttering\nthe precepts and exhortations of which it consists, just before the\npeople enter Canaan. But this is no more than a literary fiction. The\nposition of affairs assumed throughout the book is that of Judah in\nthe time of Josiah\" (Bible for Learners, vol. ii, p. 331).\n\nIn support of this unanimous conclusion of the critics, Dr. Briggs\npresents the following long array of irrefutable arguments:\n\n\"The reasons for the composition of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah\naccording to the later hypothesis are: (1) Expressions which indicate\na period subsequent to the Conquest (ii, 12; xix, 14); (2) the law\nof the king, which implies the reign of Solomon (xvii, 14-20); (3)\nthe one supreme judicatory of the time of Jehoshaphat (xvii, 8); (4)\nthe one central altar of the times of Hezekiah (xii, 5 seq.); (5) the\nreturn to Egypt in ships not conceivable before the time of Manasseh\n(xxviii, 68); (6) the forms of idolatry of the middle period of the\nmonarchy (iv, 19; xvii, 3); (7) no trace of Deuteronomy in writings\nprior to Jeremiah; (8) the point of view indicates an advanced style\nof theological reflection; (9) the prohibition of Mazzebah (xvi,\n22) regarded as lawful in Isaiah (xix, 19); (10) the style implies\na long development of the art of Hebrew oratory, and the language\nis free from archaism, and suits the times preceding Jeremiah; (11)\nthe doctrine of the love of God and his faithfulness with the term\n'Yahweh thy God' presuppose the experience of the prophet Hosea;\n(12) the humanitarianism of Deuteronomy shows an ethical advance\nbeyond Amos and Isaiah and prepares the way for Jeremiah and Ezekiel;\n(13) ancient laws embedded in the code account for the penalties\nfor their infraction in 2 Kings xxii; (14) ancient laws of war are\nassociated with laws which imply the wars of the monarchy, and have\nbeen influenced by Amos\" (The Hexateuch, p. 261).\n\nNo book had been deposited in the ark as the writer stated. At the\ndedication of Solomon's temple the ark was opened, but it contained\nno book. \"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone,\nwhich Moses put there at Horeb\" (1 Kings viii, 5-9).\n\nIn the Pentateuch it is also stated that Moses, at the command of God,\nwrote certain covenants (Ex. xxxiv, 27), recorded the curse of Amalek\n(Ex. xvii, 14), and made a list of the stations between the Red Sea and\nthe Jordan (Num. xxxiii); likewise that he wrote a song (Deut. xxxi,\n22). The absurdity of adducing these to prove that Moses wrote the\nPentateuch is thus exposed by Briggs:\n\n\"When the author of the Pentateuch says that Moses wrote one\nor more codes of law, that he wrote a song, that he recorded a\ncertain memorandum, it would appear that having specified such of\nhis materials as were written by Moses, he would have us infer that\nthe other materials came from other sources of information. But it\nhas been urged the other way; namely, that, because it is said that\nMoses wrote the codes of the covenant and the Deuteronomic code,\nhe also wrote all the laws of the Pentateuch; that because he wrote\nthe song Deut. xxxii, he wrote all the other pieces of poetry in the\nPentateuch, that because he recorded the list of stations and the\nmemorial against Amalek, he recorded all the other historical events\nof the Pentateuch. It is probable that no one would so argue did he\nnot suppose it was necessary to maintain the Mosaic authorship of\nthe Pentateuch at every cost\" (Hexateuch, pp. 10, 11).\n\nAgain, it has been argued that Christ and some of the writers of the\nNew Testament recognize Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Such\nexpressions as \"the law of Moses,\" \"the book of Moses,\" \"Moses said,\"\netc., occur a few times. These expressions are explained and this\nargument answered by the following: 1. It is not denied by critics\nthat Moses was the legislator of the Jews and promulgated certain\nlaws. 2. An anonymous book is usually called after the leading\ncharacter of the book. 3. At this time the traditional theory of the\nMosaic authorship was generally accepted. Of Christ's mention of Moses,\nDr. Davidson says: \"The venerable authority of Christ himself has no\nproper bearing on the question.\"\n\n\n\nArguments Against Mosaic Authorship.\n\nThat the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, that it is an anonymous\nwork belonging to a later age, is clearly proven by the following:\n\n1. There is no proof that Moses ever claimed to be the author of the\nPentateuch. There is nothing in the work, neither is there anything\noutside of it, to indicate that he was its author.\n\n2. The ancient Hebrews did not believe that he wrote it. Renan says:\n\"The opinion which attributes the composition of the Pentateuch to\nMoses seems quite modern; it is very certain that the ancient Hebrews\nnever dreamed of regarding their legislator as their historian. The\nancient documents appeared to them absolutely impersonal, and they\nattached to them no author's name\" (History of Semitic Languages,\nBook II., chapter i).\n\n3. The Pentateuch was written in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew of\nthe Bible did not exist in the time of Moses. Language is a growth. It\ntakes centuries to develop it. It took a thousand years to develop the\nEnglish language. The Hebrew of the Bible was not brought from Egypt,\nbut grew in Palestine. Referring to this language, De Wette says:\n\"Without doubt it originated in the land [Canaan] or was still further\ndeveloped therein after the Hebrew and other Canaanitish people had\nmigrated thither from the Northern country\" (Old Testament, Part\nII.). Gesenius says that the Hebrew language scarcely antedates the\ntime of David.\n\n4. Not only is it true that the Hebrew language did not exist, but\nit is urged by critics that no written language, as we understand it,\nexisted in Western Asia in the time of Moses. Prof. Andrew Norton says:\n\"For a long time after the supposed date of the Pentateuch we find\nno proof of the existence of a book or even an inscription in proper\nalphabetical characters among the nations by whom the Hebrews were\nsurrounded\" (The Pentateuch, p. 44). Hieroglyphics were then in use,\nand it is not to be supposed that a work as large as the Pentateuch\nwas written or engraved in hieroglyphics and carried about by this\nwandering tribe of ignorant Israelites.\n\n5. Much of the Pentateuch is devoted to the history of Moses; but\nexcepting a few brief compositions attributed to him and quoted by the\nauthor he is always referred to in the third person. The Pentateuch\ncontains a biography, not an autobiography of Moses.\n\n6. It contains an account of the death and burial of Moses which he\ncould not have written:\n\n\"So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of\nMoab.... And he buried him in a valley of the land of Moab\"\n(Deut. xxxiv, 5, 6).\n\n\"And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab\nthirty days\" (8).\n\nOrthodox commentators attempt to remove this difficulty by supposing\nthat the last chapter of Deuteronomy belongs to the book of Joshua,\nand that Joshua recorded the death of Moses. The same writer,\nreferring to the appointment of Joshua as the successor of Moses,\nsays: \"And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom\"\n(Deut. xxxiv, 9). If Joshua wrote this, however full of the spirit\nof wisdom he may have been, he certainly was not full of the spirit\nof modesty. Joshua did not write this chapter.\n\n7. \"No man knoweth of his [Moses'] sepulchre unto this day\"\n(Deut. xxxiv, 6).\n\nThat the authorship of this chapter should ever have been attributed\nto either Moses or Joshua is incomprehensible. The language plainly\nshows that not merely one but many generations had elapsed between\nthe time of Moses and the time that it was written.\n\n8. While the advocates of the Mosaic authorship have, without proof,\nasserted that Joshua wrote the book of Joshua and the conclusion\nof Deuteronomy, the Higher Critics have demonstrated the common\nauthorship of Deuteronomy and a large portion of Joshua. As all the\nevents recorded in Joshua occurred after the death of Moses, he could\nnot have been the author of Deuteronomy.\n\n9. \"They [the Israelites] did eat manna until they came unto the\nborders of Canaan\" (Ex. xvi, 35).\n\nThis passage was written after the Israelites settled in Canaan and\nceased to subsist on manna. And this was not until after the death\nof Moses.\n\n10. \"The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau\nsucceeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and\ndwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession,\nwhich the Lord gave unto them\" (Deut. ii, 12).\n\nThis refers to the conquest of Canaan and was written after that event.\n\n11. \"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they\nfound a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day\" (Num. xv, 32).\n\nWhen this was written the children of Israel were no longer in the\nwilderness. Their sojourn there is referred to as a past event. As\nMoses died while they were still in the wilderness--that is, before\nthey had entered the promised land--it could not have been written\nby him.\n\n12. \"Thou shalt eat it within thy gates\" (Deut. xv, 22).\n\nThe phrase, \"within thy gates,\" occurs in the Pentateuch about\ntwenty-five times. It refers to the gates of the cities of the\nIsraelites, which they did not inhabit until after the death of Moses.\n\n13. \"Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, ... that\nthe land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out\nthe nations that were before you\" (Lev. xviii, 26, 28).\n\nWhen Moses died the nations alluded to still occupied the land and\nhad not been expelled.\n\n14. \"And Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah-jireh: as\nit is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen\"\n(Gen. xxii, 14).\n\nThis is one of the passages adduced by the critics of the seventeenth\ncentury against the Mosaic authorship of these books. It implies the\nconquest and a long occupancy of the land by the Israelites.\n\n15. \"And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of\nCanaan\" (Gen. xxiii, 2). \"And Jacob came ... unto the city of Arbah,\nwhich is Hebron\" (xxxv, 27).\n\nMoses' uncle was named Hebron, and from him the Hebronites were\ndescended. After the Conquest this family settled in Kirjath-arba\nand changed the name of the city to Hebron.\n\n16. \"And Rachel died and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is\nBethlehem\" (Gen. xxxv, 19).\n\nThe Hebrew name of Bethlehem was not given to this city until after\nthe Israelites had conquered and occupied it.\n\n17. \"For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the remnant of giants;\nbehold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of\nthe children of Ammon?\" (Deut. iii, 11.)\n\nThis is another passage relied upon by the early critics to disprove\nthe Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The writer's reference to\nthe bedstead of Og, which was still preserved as a relic at Rabbath,\nindicates a time long subsequent to the conquest of Bashan.\n\n18. \"Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of\nold time have set in thine inheritance\" (Deut. xix, 14).\n\nThis refers to the ancient landmarks set by the Israelites when\nthey obtained possession of Canaan, and was written centuries after\nthat time.\n\n19. \"And Jair the son of Manasseh went and took the small towns\nthereof, and called them Havoth-jair\" (Num. xxxii, 41).\n\nThe above is evidently a misstatement of an event recorded in Judges:\n\n\"And after him [Tola] arose Jair, a Gileadite, and judged Israel twenty\nand two years. And he had thirty sons, ... and they had thirty cities,\nwhich are called Havoth-jair unto this day\" (Jud. x, 3, 4).\n\nJair was judge of Israel from 1210 to 1188 b.c., or from 241 to 263\nyears after the date assigned for the writing of the Pentateuch.\n\n20. \"And Nobah went and took Kenath, and the villages thereof, and\ncalled it Nobah, after his own name\" (Num. xxxii, 42).\n\nReferring to this and the preceding passage, Dr. Oort says: \"It is\ncertain that Jair, the Gileadite, the conqueror of Bashan, after\nwhom thirty places were called Jair's villages, lived in the time of\nthe Judges, and that a part of Bashan was conquered at a still later\nperiod by a certain Nobah\" (Bible for Learners, vol. i, p. 329).\n\n21. \"Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the\ncoasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name,\nBashan-havoth-jair, unto this day\" (Deut. iii, 14).\n\nEven if Jair had lived in the time of Moses, the phrase \"unto this day\"\nshows that it was written long after the event described.\n\n22. \"And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he\narmed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and\neighteen, and pursued them unto Dan\" (Gen. xiv, 14).\n\nThis passage could not have been written before Dan existed. In Judges\n(xviii, 26-29) the following account of the origin of this place is\ngiven: \"And the children of Dan went their way; ... and came unto\nLaish, unto a people that were at quiet and secure; and they smote\nthem with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.... And\nthey built a city, and dwelt therein. And they called the name of the\ncity Dan.\" This is placed after the death of Samson, and Samson died,\naccording to Bible chronology, 1120 B.C.--331 years after Moses died.\n\n23. \"And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before\nthere reigned any king over the children of Israel\" (Gen. xxxvi, 31).\n\nThis could not have been written before the kingdom of Israel was\nestablished; for the writer is familiar with the fact that kings have\nreigned in Israel. Saul, the first king of Israel, began to reign\n356 years after Moses.\n\n24. \"And his [Israel's] king shall be higher than Agag\" (Num. xxiv, 7).\n\nThis refers to Saul's defeat of Agag. \"And he [Saul] took Agag the\nking of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people\nwith the edge of the sword\" (1 Sam. xv, 8). The defeat of Agag is\nplaced in 1067 B.C., 384 years after Moses.\n\n25. \"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, ... until Shiloh come\"\n(Gen. xlix, 10).\n\nThese words are ascribed to Jacob; but they could not have been written\nbefore Judah received the sceptre, which was not until David ascended\nthe throne, 396 years after the death of Moses.\n\n26. \"And the Canaanite was then in the land\" (Gen. xii, 6).\n\nWhen this was written the Canaanite had ceased to be an inhabitant of\nPalestine. As a remnant of the Canaanites inhabited this country up\nto the time of David, it could not have been written prior to his time.\n\n27. \"The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land\"\n(Gen. xiii, 7).\n\nThis, like the preceding passage, could not have been written before\nthe time of David. The Perizzites, also, inhabited Palestine for\na long period after the conquest. In the time of the Judges \"the\nchildren of Israel dwelt among the ... Perizzites\" (Jud. iii, 5).\n\n28. \"The first of the first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into\nthe house of the Lord thy God\" (Ex. xxiii, 19).\n\nThis was not written before the time of Solomon; for God had no\nhouse prior to the erection of the temple, 1004 B.C., 447 years\nafter Moses. When David proposed to build him a house, he forbade it\nand said:\n\n\"I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the\nchildren of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked\nin a tent and in a tabernacle\" (2 Sam. vii, 6).\n\nThe tabernacle itself was a tent (Tent of Meeting). During all this\ntime no house was ever used as a sanctuary.\n\n29. \"One from among the brethren shalt thou set king over thee.... But\nhe shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return\nto Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses.... Neither shall\nhe multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither\nshall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold\" (Deut. xvii,\n15-17).\n\n\"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses\" (1 Kings iv,\n26). \"And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt\" (x, 28). \"And he\nhad seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines:\nand his wives turned away his heart\" (xi, 3). \"The weight of gold\nthat came to Solomon in one year was six hundred three score and six\ntalents of gold\" (x, 14). \"And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem\nas stones\" (27).\n\nNothing can be plainer than that this statute in Deuteronomy was\nwritten after Solomon's reign. The extravagance and debaucheries\nof this monarch had greatly impoverished and corrupted the kingdom,\nand to prevent a recurrence of such excesses this law was enacted.\n\n30. \"If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, ... thou\nshalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall\nbe in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee the sentence\nof judgment\" (Deut. xvii, 8, 9).\n\nThis court was established by Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xix,\n8-11). Jehoshaphat commenced his reign 914 B.C., 537 years after Moses.\n\n31. \"But in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes,\nthere thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there shalt thou do\nall that I command thee\" (Deut. xii, 14).\n\n\"Is it not he [the Lord] whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah\nhath taken away, and said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship\nbefore this altar?\" (Is. xxxvi, 7).\n\nUp to the time of Hezekiah the Hebrews worshiped at many\naltars. Hezekiah removed these altars and established the one central\naltar at Jerusalem. This was in 726 B.C.--725 years after Moses.\n\n32. \"And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships\"\n(Deut. xxviii, 68).\n\nThis, critics affirm, was written when Psameticus was king of Egypt. He\nreigned from 663 to 609 B.C.\n\n33. \"Neither shalt thou set thee up any image [pillar]\" (Deut. xvi,\n22).\n\nThis proves the late origin of the Pentateuch, or at least of\nDeuteronomy. Isaiah (xix, 19) instructs them to do the very thing\nwhich they are here forbidden to do, and as he would not have advised\na violation of the law it is evident that this statute could not have\nexisted in his time. Isaiah died about 750 years after Moses died.\n\n34. The worship of the sun, moon, and stars by the Jews, is mentioned\nand condemned (Deut. iv, 19; xvii, 3). This nature worship was adopted\nby them in the reign of Manasseh, 800 years after Moses.\n\n35. \"Wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord, what\nhe did in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon\" (Num. xxi, 14).\n\nThe author of the Pentateuch here cites a book older than the\nPentateuch, which gives an account of the journeyings of the Israelites\nfrom Egypt to Moab--from the Exodus to the end of Moses' career.\n\n36. \"And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law\nvery plainly\" (Deut. xxvii, 8).\n\n\"And he [Joshua] wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of\nMoses\" (Josh. viii, 32).\n\nChristians affirm that the Law of Moses and the Pentateuch are\none. That this Law of Moses was not the one hundred and fifty thousand\nwords of the Pentateuch is shown by the fact that after the death of\nMoses it was all engraved upon a stone altar.\n\n37. \"Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were\nupon the face of the earth\" (Num. xii, 3).\n\nNo writer would bestow such fulsome praise upon himself. This was\nwritten by a devout admirer of Moses, but it was not written by Moses.\n\n38. \"And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed\nthe children of Israel before his death\" (Deut. xxxiii, 1).\n\nThere are three reasons for rejecting the Mosaic authorship of this:\nMoses is spoken of in laudatory terms; he is spoken of in the third\nperson; his death is referred to as an event that is already past.\n\n39. \"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses\"\n(Deut. xxxiv, 10).\n\nNot only is the highest praise bestowed upon Moses, a thing which\nhe would not have done, but the language clearly shows that it was\nwritten centuries after the time he lived.\n\n40. The religious history of the Hebrews embraces three periods of\ntime, each covering centuries. During the first period the worship of\nJehovah was confined to no particular place; during the second it was\nconfined to the holy city, Jerusalem; during the third it was confined,\nnot merely to Jerusalem, but to the temple itself. There are writings\nin the Pentateuch belonging to each of these periods. The Encyclopedia\nBritannica declares that this fact alone affords overwhelming disproof\nof Mosaic authorship.\n\n41. The religion of the Pentateuch was not a revelation, but an\nevolution. The priestly offices, the feasts, the sacrifices, and\nother religious observances underwent many changes, these changes\nrepresenting different stages of development in Israel's religion\nand requiring centuries of time to effect.\n\n42. The legislation of the Pentateuch was also the growth\nof centuries. Some of the minor codes are much older than the\ndocuments containing them. There is legislation older than David,\n1055 B.C.--probably as old as Moses, 1451 B.C. There is legislation\nbelonging to the time of Josiah, 626 B.C., of Ezekiel, 575 B.C.,\nof Ezra, 456 B.C. Would it not be absurd to claim that all the\nlaws of England from Alfred to Victoria were the work of one mind,\nAlfred? And is it less absurd to claim that all the laws of the Jews\nfrom Moses to Ezra were instituted by Moses?\n\n43. The Pentateuch abounds with repetitions and contradictions. The\nfirst two chapters of Genesis contain two accounts of the Creation\ndiffering in every important particular. In the sixth, seventh, and\neighth chapters of Genesis two different and contradictory accounts\nof the Deluge are intermingled. Exodus and Deuteronomy each contain a\ncopy of the Decalogue, the two differing as to the reason assigned for\nthe institution of the Sabbath. There are several different versions\nof the call of Abraham; different and conflicting stories of the\nEgyptian plagues; contradictory accounts of the conquest of Canaan.\n\n\n\nThe Work of Various Authors and Compilers.\n\n44. The four preceding arguments suggest the concluding and most\nimportant one. The character of the writings of the Pentateuch preclude\nthe possibility of unity of authorship, and consequently the Mosaic\nauthorship of the work as a whole. The books of the Pentateuch were\nnot all composed by one author. The book of Genesis is not the work\nof one author. The first two chapters of Genesis were not written by\nthe same writer. The Pentateuch was written by various writers and\nat various times.\n\nThe Pentateuch comprises four large documents known as the Elohistic\nand Jehovistic documents, and the Deuteronomic and Priestly Codes. They\nare distinguished by the initial letters E, J, D, and P. E and J\ninclude the greater portion of Genesis and extend through the other\nbooks of the Pentateuch, as well as through Joshua, Judges, Samuel,\nand Kings. D includes the greater portion of Deuteronomy, fragments\nof the preceding books, and a large portion of Joshua. P includes\nthe greater portion of the middle books of the Pentateuch and smaller\nportions of the other books.\n\nThe author of each of these documents incorporated into his work one\nor more older documents. These four works were afterwards united by\nsuccessive editors or redactors. E and J were first fused into one. A\nsubsequent redactor united D with this, and still later another united\nthis compilation with P.\n\nIn addition to these principal documents there are several minor\ncodes, chief of which is the Holiness Code comprising ten chapters of\nLeviticus, xvii-xxvi. There are also several poems written by various\nauthors. Thus the Pentateuch instead of being the product of one mind\nis the work of many writers and compilers, probably twenty or more.\n\nThese documents, especially the principal ones, notwithstanding\nthe intermingling of their contents, are easily distinguished and\nseparated from each other by Bible critics. The thoughts of the human\nmind, like the features of the human face, controlled by the law of\nvariation, assume different forms. We who are familiar with faces\nhave no difficulty in distinguishing one face from another. No two\nfaces are alike. Critics who have devoted their lives to literature\ncan distinguish the writings of individuals almost as readily as\nwe distinguish the faces of individuals. There are certain idioms of\nlanguage, certain peculiarities of style, belonging to each writer. The\nlanguage and style of these documents are quite dissimilar. To quote\nDr. Briggs: \"There is as great a difference in style between the\ndocuments of the Hexateuch as there is between the Four Gospels.\" The\nprincipal documents are thus described by this critic:\n\n\"E is brief, terse, and archaic; graphic, plastic, and realistic;\nwritten in the theocratic interest of the kingdom of God. J is poetical\nand descriptive, the best narrative in the Bible, giving us the history\nof the kingdom of redemption. D is rhetorical and hortatory, practical\nand earnest, written in the more theological interest of the training\nof the nation in the fatherly instruction of God. P is annalistic\nand diffuse, fond of names and dates, written in the interest of the\npriestly order, and emphasizing the sovereignty of the Holy God and\nthe sanctity of the divine institutions\" (Hexateuch, p. 265).\n\nEach document abounds with characteristic words and phrases peculiar\nto that document. Holzinger notes 108 belonging to E and 125 belonging\nto J. Canon Driver gives 41 belonging to D and 50 belonging to P. One\nof the chief distinguishing marks is the term used to designate the\nDeity. In E it is Elohim, translated God; in J, Jehovah (Yahveh)\nElohim, translated Lord God. In D the writer continually uses the\nphrase \"The Lord thy God,\" this phrase occurring more than 200\ntimes. \"I am Jehovah\" is a phrase used by P, including the Holiness\nCode, 70 times. It is never used by E or D. \"God of the Fathers\"\nis frequently used by E and D; never by P.\n\nBishop Colenso's analysis of Genesis is as follows: Elohist, 336\nverses; Jehovist, 1,052 verses; Deuteronomist, 39 verses; Priestly\nwriter, 106 verses.\n\nThe Pentateuch was chiefly written and compiled from seven to ten\ncenturies after the time claimed. The Elohistic and Jehovistic\ndocuments, the oldest of the four, were written at least 300 years\nafter the time of David and 700 years after the time of Moses. They\nwere probably written at about the same time. E belongs to the Northern\nKingdom of Israel, J to the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The unanimous\nverdict of critics is that Deuteronomy was written during the reign\nof Josiah, about 626 B.C., 825 years after Moses died. The Holiness\nCode belongs to the age of Ezekiel, about fifty years later. The\nPriestly Code was written after the Exile, in the time of Ezra,\n1,000 years after Moses. Important changes and additions were made\nas late as the third century B.C., so that, excepting the variations\nand interpolations of later times, the Pentateuch in something like\nits present form appeared about 1,200 years after the time of Moses.\n\n\n\nThe higher Criticism--Its Triumph and Its Consequences.\n\nThe certainty and the consequences of the Higher Criticism of the\nPentateuch are thus expressed by Hupfeld:\n\n\"The discovery that the Pentateuch is put together out of various\nsources, or original documents, is beyond all doubt not only one\nof the most important and most pregnant with consequences for the\ninterpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament, or\nrather for the whole of theology and history, but it is also one of\nthe most certain discoveries which have been made in the domain of\ncriticism and the history of literature. Whatever the anti-critical\nparty may bring forward to the contrary, it will maintain itself,\nand not retrograde again through anything, so long as there exists\nsuch a thing as criticism, and it will not be easy for a reader upon\nthe stage of culture on which we stand in the present day, if he\ngoes to the examination unprejudiced, and with an uncorrupted power\nof appreciating the truth, to be able to ward off its influence.\"\n\nThe critical labors of Hobbes, Spinoza, Peyrerius, Simon, Astruc,\nEichorn, Paine, Bauer, (G. L.) De Wette, Ewald, Geddes, Vater, Reuss,\nGraf, Davidson, Colenso, Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Briggs, and\nothers, have overthrown the old notions concerning the authenticity\nof the Pentateuch. There is not one eminent Bible scholar in Europe,\nand scarcely one in America, who any longer contends that Moses wrote\nthis work.\n\nThe pioneers in the field of the Higher Criticism were the Rationalists\nHobbes and Spinoza and the Catholics Peyrerius, Simon, and Astruc. More\nthan two hundred years ago Benedict Spinoza, the greatest of modern\nJews, with his own race and the entire Christian church against him,\nmade this declaration, which the scholarship of the whole world\nnow accepts:\n\n\"It is as clear as the noonday light that the Pentateuch was not\nwritten by Moses\" (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Chap, viii,\nSec. 20).\n\nA century passed, and Thomas Paine in France, in the most potent\nvolume of Higher Criticism ever penned, exposed in all their nakedness\nthe wretched claims of the traditionalists. He read the Pentateuch\nand wrote:\n\n\"Those books are spurious.\" \"Moses is not the author of them.\" \"The\nstyle and manner in which those books are written give no room to\nbelieve, or even to suppose, they were written by Moses.\" \"They were\nnot written in the time of Moses, nor till several hundred years\nafterwards\" (Age of Reason).\n\nAbout the same time German scholars, ever foremost in the domain of\ncritical analysis, took up the work. The writings of Eichorn, Bauer,\nVater, and De Wette, \"swept the field in Germany.\" De Wette, one of her\ngreatest theologians, thus presents the conclusion of German critics:\n\n\"The opinion that Moses composed these books is not only opposed by all\nthe signs of a later date which occur in the work itself, but also by\nthe entire analogy of the history of Hebrew literature and language\"\n(Books of Moses, Sec. 163).\n\nFifty years or more elapsed and Davidson and Colenso studied and wrote,\nand British scholarship was soon arrayed against the old in favor of\nthe new. Dr. Davidson, in the following words, voices the opinion of\nEngland's learned:\n\n\"There is little external evidence for the Mosaic authorship, and what\nlittle there is does not stand the test of criticism. The succeeding\nwriters of the Old Testament do not confirm it.... The objections\nderived from internal structure are conclusive against the Mosaic\nauthorship\" (Introduction to the Old Testament).\n\nAt last, in our own land and in our own time, Dr. Briggs and others\nattack the Mosaic theories, and, in spite of the efforts of Princeton's\nfossils, the intelligence of America acknowledges the force of their\nreasoning and accepts their conclusions. The Higher Criticism has\ntriumphed. Spinoza's judgment is confirmed, and the American critic\npronounces the verdict of the intellectual world:\n\n\"In the field of scholarship the question is settled. It only remains\nfor the ministry and people to accept it and adapt themselves to it\"\n(Hexateuch, p. 144).\n\nBut this is not the end. A victory has been achieved, but its full\nresults remain to be realized. The clergy, against their will,\nand the laity, who are subservient to the clergy's will, are yet to\nbe enlightened and convinced. Even then, when the facts disclosed\nby the Higher Criticism have gained popular acceptance, another\ntask remains--the task of showing men the real significance of these\nfacts. The critics themselves, many of them, do not seem to realize the\nconsequences of their work. The Rationalistic critics, like Hobbes,\nSpinoza, Paine, Reuss, Wellhausen, Kuenen and others, have measured\nthe consequences of their criticisms and accepted them. The orthodox\ncritics have not. Some of them, like Dr. Briggs, while denying\nthe Mosaic authorship and great antiquity of the Pentateuch, while\nmaintaining its anonymous and fragmentary character, and conceding its\ncontradictions and errors, are yet loath to reject its divinity and\nauthority. But these also must be given up. This work as a divine\nrevelation and authentic record must go. Its chief theological\ndoctrine, the Fall of Man, is a myth. With this doctrine falls the\nAtonement, and with the Atonement orthodox Christianity. This is the\nlogical sequence of the Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. To these\ncritics, and to all who are intelligent enough to discern the truth\nand courageous enough to meet it, I would repeat and press home the\nadmonition of our critic, \"to accept it and adapt themselves to it.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE PROPHETS.\n\n\nNext to the Pentateuch, the most important books of the Old Testament\nare the Prophets. They are divided into two divisions, Earlier and\nLater. The Earlier prophets comprise Joshua, Judges, First Samuel,\nSecond Samuel, First Kings, and Second Kings. The Later Prophets are\ndivided into Greater and Minor. The Greater Prophets are Isaiah,\nJeremiah, and Ezekiel; the Minor Prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos,\nObadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah,\nand Malachi.\n\n\n\nJoshua.\n\nThe book of Joshua, it is claimed, was written by Joshua just before\nhis death, which occurred, according to the accepted chronology, in\n1426 B.C. This book for a time formed a part of the Pentateuch (or\nHexateuch). In later times, to increase its authority, the Pentateuch\nwas ascribed to Moses. A recognition of the fact that Moses could not\nhave written a history of the events that happened after his death\ncaused that portion now known as Joshua to be detached and credited\nto Joshua.\n\nMany of the arguments adduced against the Mosaic authorship of the\npreceding books apply with equal force against the claim that Joshua\nwrote the book which bears his name. The book contains no internal\nevidence of his authorship; he does not claim to be its author; the\nother writers of the Old Testament do not ascribe its authorship to\nhim; he is spoken of in the third person; it is clearly the work of\nmore than one writer; the language in which it was written was not in\nexistence when he lived; much of it relates to events that occurred\nafter his death.\n\n\"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua, the son\nof Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being a hundred and ten\nyears old. And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in\nTimnath-serah.... And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua,\nand all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua\" (Josh. xxiv,\n29-31).\n\nAs the Pentateuch gives an account of the death and burial of Moses, so\nthe book of Joshua gives an account of the death and burial of Joshua.\n\n\"And Eleazer the son of Aaron died\" (xxiv, 33).\n\nThe death of Eleazer occurred six years after the death of Joshua.\n\n\"But the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto\nthis day\" (xv, 63).\n\nThe children of Judah did not dwell in Jerusalem until nearly 400\nyears after Joshua. The phrase \"unto this day\" is frequently used in\nthe book, and this shows that it was written long after the events\nit describes.\n\nIn his account of the miracle of Joshua causing the sun to stand still,\nthe writer appeals to the book of Jasher in support of his statement:\n\n\"Is not this written in the book of Jasher?\" (x, 13.)\n\nThis could not have been written until after the book of Jasher\nwas written or compiled. When was Jasher written? We do not know,\nbut in his history of David the author of Samuel thus refers to it:\n\"He [David] bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow;\nbehold, it is written in the book of Jasher\" (2 Sam. i, 18). This\nproves that the book of Jasher was not written before the time of\nDavid. If the book of Joshua was not written until after the book\nof Jasher was written, then it could not have been written until the\ntime of David or later.\n\nThe book of Joshua consists of two parts. The first, which originally\nformed a part of, or sequel to, Deuteronomy, was probably written\nbefore the Captivity; the latter part was written after the\ncaptivity--900 years after the time of Joshua.\n\n\n\nJudges.\n\nThe authorship of this book has been ascribed to Samuel. In disproof\nof this I quote the following:\n\n\"Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem and taken it\"\n(i, 8).\n\nJerusalem was taken by Judah 1048 B.C.; Samuel died 1060 B.C., twelve\nyears before it was taken.\n\n\"In those days there was no king in Israel\" (xviii, 1; xix, 1;\nxxi, 25).\n\nThis passage, which is repeated several times, was written after\nIsrael had become a kingdom, and evidently long subsequent to the\ntime of Saul and Samuel.\n\n\"And they forsook the Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth\" (ii, 13).\n\nThis was probably written as late as the reign of Hoshea, 730 B.C.\n\nThe chapters relating to Samson indicate a date as late as Manasseh,\n698 to 643 B.C. During the reign of this king the Hebrews became\nsun-worshipers. Samson was a sun-god--the name signifies \"sun-god.\" All\nthe stories related of him in Judges are solar myths.\n\n\"He and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of\nthe captivity of the land\" (xviii, 30).\n\nThe above passage denotes a date as late as the Captivity.\n\nSmith's \"Bible Dictionary\" says: \"It is probable that the books\nof Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings originally formed one work\"\n(art. Ruth). If these books originally formed one work, Samuel was\nnot the author of any of them, for Kings, it is admitted, was written\nas late as the time of Jeremiah, and possibly as late as the time of\nEzra, from 450 to 600 years after Samuel.\n\nJudges, like the Pentateuch and Joshua, is the work of several\nwriters. It can scarcely be called even a compilation. It is a mere\ncollection of historical and mythological fragments, thrown together\nwithout any regard to logical arrangement or chronological order.\n\n\n\nFirst and Second Samuel.\n\nIt is popularly supposed, and many Christian teachers affirm, that\nSamuel wrote the books which bear his name. And yet the writer says,\n\"Samuel died,\" and seven chapters of the first book follow this\nannouncement. The second book in no way pertains to him; his name\nis not once mentioned; the events narrated occurred from four to\nforty-four years after his death.\n\nOthers claim that the books were written by Samuel, Nathan, and Gad,\nbasing their claim on a passage in Chronicles, which says that the\nacts of David \"are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in\nthe book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer\"\n(1 Chron. xxix, 29).\n\nAs Samuel died while David was yet a young man--four years before\nhe became king--he did not record the acts of David. Nathan and\nGad are referred to in the books, but in a manner that forbids the\nsupposition of their authorship. These books were not written by\nSamuel; neither were they written by Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. Their\nauthorship is unknown.\n\nConcerning the books of Samuel, Dr. Oort writes: \"There is no book in\nthe Bible which shows so clearly that its contents are not all derived\nfrom the same source.... Two conflicting traditions relating to the\nsame subject are constantly placed side by side in perfect simplicity,\nand apparently with no idea that the one contradicts the other\"\n(Bible for Learners, vol. i, pp. 433, 434).\n\n\n\nFirst and Second Kings.\n\nIn the Catholic version, and in the subtitles of our versions of\nthe Bible, First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings are\ncalled the First, Second, Third, and Fourth books of Kings. They are\nproperly one book. The division of the work into four books is not only\nartificial, but illogical. Regarding the authorship of the last two,\nSmith's \"Bible Dictionary\" says: \"As regards the authorship of the\nbooks, but little difficulty presents itself. The Jewish tradition,\nwhich ascribes them to Jeremiah, is borne out by the strongest internal\nevidence\" (Kings).\n\nIs this true? The date assigned for Jeremiah's composition of the books\nis 600 B.C. And yet a considerable portion of the work is devoted to\na presentation of the forty years of Jewish history subsequent to this\ndate. It records the death of Jehoiakim, the first siege and taking of\nJerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the elevation of Zedekiah to the throne,\nhis eleven years' reign, the second siege and capture of Jerusalem,\nand a long list of events that followed. It records the reign of\nthe Babylonian king, Evil-Merodach. This, according to the popular\nchronology, and according to the \"Bible Dictionary,\" was from 561\nto 559 B.C.--forty years after the date assigned, and long after the\ntime of Jeremiah.\n\nThese books are a mixture of history and fiction. They profess to be a\nhistory of the Hebrew kings; and yet a dozen chapters are devoted to\na fabulous account of the sayings and doings of two Hebrew prophets,\nElijah and Elisha. First and Second Chronicles, which give a history\nof the same kings, refer to Elijah but once, and make no mention\nof Elisha.\n\nThe confused character of their contents, especially their chronology,\nhas often been referred to. They are simply a compilation of ancient\ndocuments, written at various times, and by various authors.\n\nThe Encyclopedia Britannica expresses the almost unanimous verdict of\ncritics respecting the authorship of the four principal historical\nbooks of the Old Testament: \"We cannot speak of the author of Kings\nor Samuel, but only of an editor or successive editors whose main\nwork was to arrange in a continuous form extracts or abstracts from\nearlier books.\"\n\n\n\nIsaiah.\n\nIsaiah, the chief of the prophetic books, and, next to the Pentateuch\nand the Four Gospels, the most important book of the Bible, purports to\nbe a series of prophecies uttered during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham,\nAhaz, and Hezekiah. Uzziah's reign began B.C. 810, and ended B.C. 758;\nHezekiah's reign began B.C. 726 and ended B.C. 698. Isaiah's ministry\nis supposed to have extended from about 760 to 700 B.C., and toward\nthe close of this period, the book of Isaiah, as it now appears,\nis said to have been written.\n\nIn support of Isaiah's authorship of the entire work the following\narguments have been advanced:\n\n\n 1. Its various prophecies exhibit a unity of design.\n 2. The style is the same throughout the work.\n 3. Messianic prophecies abound in both its parts.\n 4. No other writer claimed its authorship.\n 5. The ancient Jews all ascribe it to him.\n\n\nThe above arguments for the authenticity of the work are partly\ntrue and partly untrue. So far as they conflict with the following\narguments against its authenticity as a whole they are untrue:\n\n\n 1. The work is fragmentary in character.\n 2. The style of its several parts is quite unlike.\n 3. Many of its events occurred after Isaiah's death.\n 4. Much of it relates to the Babylonian captivity.\n 5. It records both the name and the deeds of Cyrus.\n\n\nIsaiah might very properly be divided into two books, the first\ncomprising the first thirty-nine chapters; the second, the concluding\ntwenty-seven chapters. Impartial critics agree that while Isaiah may\nhave written a portion of the first part he could not have written\nall of it nor any of the second. This is the conclusion of Cheyne,\nDavidson, De Wette, Eichorn, Ewald, Gesenius, and others.\n\nThat he wrote neither the first nor the second part of the book,\nas it now exists, is proven by the following passages taken from both:\n\n\"Babylon is fallen, is fallen\" (xxi, 9).\n\n\"Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defensed cities\nof Judah, and took them\" (xxxvi, 1).\n\n\"So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned and\ndwelt in Nineveh.\n\n\"And it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the house of Nishrock\nhis god, that Addrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the\nsword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia; and Esarhaddon his\nson reigned in his stead\" (xxxvii, 37, 38).\n\nSennacherib ascended the throne 702 B.C. and died 680 B.C. Isaiah\nlived in the preceding century.\n\n\"That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my\npleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the\ntemple, Thy foundation shall be laid\" (xliv, 28).\n\n\"Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus\" (xlv, 1). \"He shall\nbuild my city, and he shall let go my captives\" (xlv, 13).\n\nCyrus conquered Babylon B.C. 538, and released the Jews from captivity\nand permitted them to return and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple\nB.C. 536, nearly two centuries after the time of Isaiah.\n\nRegarding these passages, Dr. Lyman Abbott, in a sermon on \"The\nScientific Conception of Revelation,\" says: \"If you take up a history\nand it refers to Abraham Lincoln, you are perfectly sure that it\nwas not written in the time of George Washington. Now, if you take\nup the book of Isaiah and read in it about Cyrus the Great, you are\nsatisfied that the book was not written by Isaiah one hundred years\nbefore Cyrus was born.\"\n\nProf. T. K. Cheyne of Oxford University, the leading modern authority\non Isaiah, says: \"That portion of the Old Testament which is known as\nthe book of Isaiah was, in fact, written by at least three writers--and\npossibly many more--who lived at different times and in different\nplaces.\" Nearly all of the ninth chapter, which, on account of its\nsupposed Messianic prophecies, is, with Christians, one of the most\nvalued chapters of the Bible, Professor Cheyne declares to be an\ninterpolation.\n\nThat four of the middle chapters, the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh,\nthirty-eighth, and thirty-ninth, originally formed a separate document\nis evident. Concerning these four chapters, Paine truthfully observes:\n\"This fragment of history begins and ends abruptly; it has not the\nleast connection with the chapter that precedes it, nor with that which\nfollows it, nor with any other in the book\" (Age of Reason, p. 129).\n\nIf Isaiah wrote this book, and Jeremiah wrote the books of Kings,\nas claimed; then either Isaiah or Jeremiah was a plagiarist; for the\nlanguage of the four chapters just mentioned is, with a few slight\nalterations, identical with that of a portion of the second book\nof Kings.\n\nThe integrity of this book cannot be maintained. It is not the product\nof one writer, but of many. How many, critics may never be able to\ndetermine; certainly not less than five, probably more than ten.\n\n\n\nJeremiah.\n\nThe prophecies of Jeremiah, it is affirmed, were delivered at various\ntimes between 625 and 585 B.C., and a final redaction of them was made\nby him about the latter date. The book, as it now appears, is in such\na disordered condition that Christian scholars have to separate it\ninto numerous parts and rearrange them in order to make a consecutive\nand intelligible narrative. Dr. Hitchcock, in his \"Analysis of the\nBible\" (p 1,144), says: \"So many changes have taken place, or else\nso many irregularities were originally admitted in the arrangement\nof the book, that Dr. Blayney, whose exposition we chiefly follow,\nwas obliged to make fourteen different portions of the whole before\nhe could throw it into consecutive order.\"\n\nThe following is Dr. Blayney's arrangement of the book: Chapters i-xii;\nxiii-xx; xxii, xxiii; xxv, xxvi; xxxv, xxxvi; xlv-xlviii; xlix (1-33);\nxxi; xxiv; xxvii-xxxiv; xxxvii-xxxix; xlix (34-39); l, li; xl-xliv.\n\nThis disordered condition of Jeremiah indicates one of two things:\na plurality of authors, or a negligence, if nothing worse, on the part\nof the Bible's custodians that Christians will be loath to acknowledge.\n\nThe book, as a whole, was not written by Jeremiah. He did not write\nthe following:\n\n\"And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity\nof Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and\ntwentieth day of the month, that Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in\nthe first year of his reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king\nof Judah, and brought him forth out of prison\" (lii, 31).\n\nThe release of Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach occurred 562 or 561\nB.C. Jeremiah had then been dead twenty years.\n\nThis book is not the work of one author. The thirty-seventh and\nthirty-eighth chapters were not written by the same person. Much of\nthe thirty-eighth is a mere repetition of the thirty-seventh; and\nyet the two are so filled with discrepancies that it is impossible\nto accept both as the writings of the same author.\n\nJeremiah, it is declared, wrote both Kings and Jeremiah. He could\nnot have written the concluding portion of either. The last chapter\nof 2 Kings and the last chapter of Jeremiah are the same, and were\nwritten after the time of Jeremiah.\n\n\n\nEzekiel.\n\nThe period assigned for Ezekiel's prophecies is that beginning\nB.C. 595 and ending B.C. 573. Christians assert that the first\ntwenty-four chapters of the work were written before the destruction\nof Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The whole work was undoubtedly written\nafter this event.\n\nThe Talmud credits its authorship to the Great Synagogue. If this be\ncorrect, Ezekiel had nothing to do with its composition; for he was\nnot a member of the Great Synagogue. Ewald, while claiming for him\nthe utterance of its several prophecies, believes that the book in\nits present form is not his work, but that of a later author.\n\nReferring to Ezekiel, Dr. Oort says: \"In his case, far more than in\nJeremiah's even, we must be on our guard against accepting the written\naccount of his prophecies as a simple record of what he actually said\"\n(Bible for Learners, vol. ii, p. 407).\n\nZunz, a German critic, not only contends that the book is not\nauthentic, but declares that no such prophet as Ezekiel ever existed.\n\nWhile it must be admitted that the internal evidence against the\nintegrity and authenticity of Ezekiel is weaker than that of the\nother books thus far examined, it can be confidently asserted that\nBible apologists have been unable to establish either. One damaging\nfact they concede: no other writer of the Bible ever mentions the\nbook or its alleged author.\n\n\n\nMinor Prophets.\n\nThe twelve Minor Prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah,\nMicah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,\nrequire but a passing notice. Compared with the other Prophets, or\neven with the principal books of the Hagiographa, they are of little\nimportance. A part of them may be genuine--the writings of those to\nwhom their authorship has been ascribed--but there is no external\nevidence, either in the Bible or elsewhere, to support the claim,\nwhile the internal evidence of the books themselves is not convincing.\n\nThe date assigned for the composition of Jonah, the oldest of the\nLater Prophets, is 856--according to some, 862 B.C. He is said to\nhave prophesied during the reign of one Pul, \"king of Assyria.\" But\nunfortunately Pul's reign is placed in 770 B.C., ninety years after\nthe date assigned for the book. Jonah is named in the Four Gospels,\nnamed by Christ himself. This is adduced as proof of its authenticity\nand in support of a literal instead of an allegorical interpretation of\nits language. But Christ's language, even if his divinity be admitted,\nproves neither the authenticity nor the historical character of the\nbook. He taught in parables, and certainly would have no hesitancy\nin using an allegorical figure as a symbol. No scholar now contends\nfor its authenticity, and no sane person believes its stories to be\nhistorical. Luther rejected the book.\n\nFour other books, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah, and Malachi, are quoted or\nsupposed to be quoted, by the Evangelists, and two, Joel and Amos,\nare mentioned in Acts. This proves no more than that these books\nwere in existence when the New Testament was written--a fact which\nnone disputes.\n\nMatthew (ii, 6) cites Micah (v, ii) as a Messianic prophecy. Micah\nlived during the reign of Hezekiah and wrote, not of an event 700\nyears in the future, but of one near at hand, the expected invasions\nof the Assyrians. The passage quoted by Matthew (ii, 15) from Hosea\n(xi, 1) refers to the exodus of the Israelites which took place 700\nyears before the time of Hosea.\n\nZechariah is the work of at least three writers. Davidson says: \"To\nZechariah's authentic oracles were attached chapters ix-xiv, themselves\nmade up of two parts (ix-xi, xii-xiv) belonging to different times\nand authors\" (Canon, p. 33). The passage quoted by Matthew (xxi, 5)\nis not from the authentic portion of Zechariah, but from one of the\nspurious chapters, ix, 9.\n\nMark (1, 2, 3) quotes a prophecy which he applies to John the\nBaptist. The passage quoted contains two sentences, one of which\nis found in Malachi (iii, 1), the other in Isaiah (xl, 3). Whiston\ndeclares that both sentences originally belonged to Isaiah. If Whiston\nis correct the Evangelist has not quoted Malachi. This, the last book\nof the Old Testament, is an anonymous work, Malachi being the name\nof the book and not of the author.\n\nThe period assigned for the prophecies of Amos is from 808 to 785\nB.C. The book contains the following: \"In that day will I raise up the\ntabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof;\nand I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of\nold\" (ix, 11).\n\n\"And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and\nthey shall build the waste cities and inhabit them\" (14).\n\nAmos was not written until after the captivity. This commenced 588\nB.C. and continued fifty years.\n\nJoel, it is asserted, was written 800 B.C. That this writer also\nlived after the captivity is shown by the following:\n\n\"I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem\" (iii, 1).\n\nThis passage, it is claimed, was a prediction made centuries before\nthe event occurred. Joel's ability to predict future events, however,\nis negatived by his next effort: \"But Judah shall dwell forever,\nand Jerusalem from generation to generation\" (20).\n\n\"Nineveh is laid waste: who shall bemoan her?\" (Nahum iii, 7).\n\nThe composition of Nahum is placed between 720 and 698 B.C. Nineveh\nwas destroyed 606 B.C., a century later.\n\nThe first verse of Zephaniah declares that the book was written\n\"in the days of Josiah,\" in the seventh century B.C.; the last verse\nshows that it was written in the days of Cyrus, in the sixth century\nB.C. Every chapter of Habakkuk and Obadiah's single chapter show that\nthese books were written after the dates assigned.\n\nThe book of Haggai is ascribed to Haggai, the last person in the world\nto whom it can reasonably be ascribed. It is not a book of Haggai,\nbut about Haggai. Excepting a few brief exhortations, of which it\ngives an account, it does not purport to contain a word from his\ntongue or pen. This argument applies with still greater force to Jonah.\n\nThe greater portion of the Minor Prophets are probably forgeries. The\nnames of their alleged authors are attached to them, but in most\ncases in the form of a superscription only. Each book opens with a\nbrief introduction announcing the author. These introductions were not\nwritten by the authors themselves, but by others. The only authority\nfor pronouncing the books authentic, then, is the assurance of some\nunknown Jewish scribe or editor.\n\nA damaging argument against the authority, if not against the\nauthenticity, of the Prophets is the fact that while the historical\nrecords of the Old Testament cover the time during which all of them\nare said to have flourished, only a few of them are deemed worthy\nof mention.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE HAGIOGRAPHA.\n\n\nThe Hagiographa comprises the remaining thirteen books of the\nOld Testament. It was divided into three divisions: 1. Psalms,\nProverbs, Job. 2. Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,\nEsther. 3. Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, First and Second Chronicles. The\nJews considered these books of less value than those of the Law and\nthe Prophets. The books belonging to the third division possess little\nmerit; but the first two divisions, omitting Esther, together with\na few poems in the Pentateuch and the Prophets, contain the cream of\nHebrew literature.\n\n\n\nPsalms.\n\nThe collection of hymns and prayers used in public worship by Jews\nand Christians, and called the Psalms, stands first in importance as a\nreligious book in the Hagiographa. Christians accept it not only as a\nbook of praise, but as a prophetic revelation and doctrinal authority.\n\nIt is popularly supposed that David wrote all, or nearly all, of\nthe Psalms. Many commentators attribute to him the authorship of one\nhundred or more. He wrote, at the most, but a few of them.\n\nThe Jews divided them into five books: 1. Chapters i-xli; 2. xlii-lxii;\n3. lxiii-lxxxix; 4. xc-cvi; 5. cvii-cl. Smith's \"Bible Dictionary,\"\na standard orthodox authority, claims for David the authorship of the\nfirst book only. The second book, while including a few of his psalms,\nwas not compiled, it says, until the time of Hezekiah, three hundred\nyears after his reign. The psalms of the third book, it states, were\ncomposed during Hezekiah's reign; those of the fourth book following\nthese, and prior to the Captivity; and those of the fifth book after\nthe return from Babylon, four hundred years after David's time.\n\nThere are psalms in the third, fourth, and fifth books ascribed\nto David, but they are clearly of much later origin. The \"Bible\nDictionary\" admits that they were not composed by him, and attempts\nto account for the Davidic superscription by assuming that they were\nwritten by Hezekiah, Josiah, and others who were lineal descendants\nand belonged to the house of David. But there is nothing to warrant\nthe assumption that they were written by these Jewish kings. They\nwere anonymous pieces to which the name of David was affixed to add\nto their authority.\n\nThe second book concludes with these words: \"The prayers of David,\nthe son of Jesse, are ended.\" This is accepted to mean that none of\nthe psalms following this book belong to David. The Korahite psalms,\nassigned to David's reign, belong to a later age. Twelve psalms are\nascribed to Asaph, who lived in David's reign. This passage from one\nof them was written at least 430 years after David's death:\n\n\"O God, the heathen are come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple\nhave they defiled: they have laid Jerusalem on heaps\" (lxxix, 1).\n\nIn the second and third books the word God occurs 206 times, while\nJehovah, translated \"Lord God,\" occurs but 44 times; in the remaining\nthree books, God occurs but 23 times, while Jehovah occurs 640 times.\n\nPsalms xlii and xliii are merely parts of the same psalm. Psalm xix\nconsists of two distinct psalms, the first eleven verses constituting\none, the last three another. Psalms xiv and liii are the same; lx and\ncviii, omitting the first four or five verses, are also the same. The\nSeptuagint version and the Alexandrian manuscript contain 151 psalms,\nthe last one being omitted from other versions.\n\nSome of the more conservative German critics credit David with\nas many as thirty psalms. Dr. Lyman Abbott contends that he did\nnot write more than fifteen. The Dutch scholars, Kuenen and Oort,\nbelieve that he wrote none. And this is probably the truth. While\ncollections of these psalms doubtless existed at an earlier period,\nthe book, in its present form, was compiled during the Maccabean age,\nabout one hundred and fifty years before the Christian era.\n\nMany of these psalms are fine poetical compositions; but the greater\nportion of them are crude in construction, and some of them fiendish\nin sentiment.\n\n\n\nProverbs.\n\nThe authorship of Proverbs has been ascribed to Solomon. He could have\nwritten but few of these proverbs, and probably wrote none. It is a\ncompilation of maxims made many centuries after his time. Tradition\nrepresented Solomon as the wisest of men, and every wise saying whose\norigin was unknown was credited to him.\n\nDr. Oort says: \"The history of Solomon's wisdom resembles that\nof David's music. In either case the imagination of posterity has\ngiven a thoroughly religious character to what was in reality purely\nsecular; and just as David was made the author of a number of psalms,\nso various works of the so-called sages, or proverb-makers, were\nascribed to Solomon\" (Bible for Learners, vol. ii, p. 75).\n\nThe book consists of seven different collections of proverbs, as\nfollows: 1. i, 7-ix; 2. x-xxii, 16; 3. xxii, 17-xxiv; 4. xxv-xxix;\n5. xxx; 6. xxxi, 1-9; 7. xxxi, 10-31. The first six verses are\na preface.\n\nThe first collection, it is admitted, was not the work of\nSolomon. These proverbs were composed as late as 600 B.C. The second\ncollection is presented as \"The Proverbs of Solomon.\" If any of\nSolomon's proverbs exist they are contained in this collection. The\nthird collection is anonymous. The fourth begins as follows: \"These\nare also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah,\ncopied out\" (700 B.C.). The fifth contains \"The words of Agur the son\nof Jakeh.\" The sixth, comprising the first nine verses of the last\nchapter, are \"The words of King Lemuel.\" The seventh, comprising the\nremainder of the chapter, is a poem, written after the Captivity.\n\n\n\nJob.\n\nIt is remarkable that the book which, from a literary point of view,\noccupies the first place among the books of the Bible, should be the\nonly one in the collection that was not written by a believer in the\nreligion of the Bible. It is almost universally conceded that the\nbook of Job was not written by a Jew, but by a Gentile.\n\nMost Christians ascribe its authorship to Job himself; but there\nis no more authority for ascribing it to Job than there is for\nascribing the Pentateuch to Moses. Job is the name of the leading\ncharacter of the book, not the name of its author. Its authorship is\nunknown. The Talmud asserts, and probably correctly, that Job was\nnot a real personage--that the book is an allegory. Luther says,\n\"It is merely the argument of a fable.\"\n\nRegarding its antiquity, Dr. Hitchcock says: \"The first written of\nall the books in the Bible, and the oldest literary production in the\nworld, is the book of Job.\" The date assigned for its composition is\n1520 B.C.\n\nHad Job been written a thousand years before the time claimed, it\nwould not be the oldest literary production in the world. But it was\nprobably written a thousand years after the time claimed. Luther places\nits composition 500 years after this time; Renan says that it was\nwritten 800 years later, Ewald and Davidson 900 years later. Grotius\nand De Wette believe that it was written 1000 years after the date\nassigned, while Hartmann and others contend that it was written still\nlater. While its exact date cannot be determined, there is internal\nevidence pointing to a much later age than that named.\n\n\"Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the\nsouth\" (ix, 9).\n\nThe use of these Greek astronomical names proves a later origin. So,\ntoo, does the following passage:\n\n\"The Chaldeans made out three bands\" (i, 17).\n\nOf this people Chambers' Encyclopedia says: \"The Chaldeans are first\nheard of in the ninth century before Christ as a small Accadian tribe\non the Persian Gulf.\" This was seven centuries after the date assigned\nfor Job, while the same authority states that Chaldea did not exist\nuntil a still later period.\n\nThe poem of Job, as originally composed, comprised the following:\nChapters i-xxvii, 10; xxviii-xxxi; xxviii-xli, 12; xlii, 1-6. All\nthe rest of the book, about eight chapters--nearly one fifth of\nit--consists of clumsy forgeries. The poet is a radical thinker\nwho boldly questions the wisdom and justice of God. To counteract\nthe influence of his work these interpolations which controvert its\nteachings were inserted.\n\nNor is this all. Our translators have still further mutilated the\nwork. Its most damaging lines they have mistranslated or glossed\nover. Thus Job (xiii, 15) says: \"He [God] will slay me; I have no\nhope.\" Yet they make him say the very reverse of this: \"Though he\nslay me, yet will I trust in him.\"\n\n\n\nThe Five Rolls.\n\nThe second division of the Hagiographa, known as the Five Rolls,\nor Megilloth, contains five small books--The Song of Solomon,\nEcclesiastes, Lamentations, Ruth, and Esther.\n\nThe Song of Solomon, Song of Songs, or Canticles, as it is variously\ncalled, and Ecclesiastes, or The Preacher, are said to be the works\nof Solomon--the former a product of his youth, the latter of his old\nage. It is quite certain that the same author did not write both,\nand equally certain that Solomon wrote neither.\n\nThe Song of Solomon, Ewald affirms, is an anonymous poem, written\nabout the middle of the tenth century B.C..--after Solomon's time. It\nis doubtless of much later origin. It belongs to Northern, and\nnot to Southern Palestine. This alone proves that Solomon did not\nwrite it. The Talmud says, \"Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah,\nProverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs.\" Hengstenberg, one of the\nmost orthodox of commentators, says that Ecclesiastes was written\ncenturies after the time of Solomon. Davidson believes that it was\nwritten as late as 350 B.C.; while Hartmann and Hitzig, German critics,\ncontend that it was written still later.\n\nSolomon's Song is an amorous poem, beautiful in its way. But when\nwe turn to it in the Christian Bible and find the running titles\nof every page and the table of contents of every chapter filled\nwith sanctimonious drivel about Christ and his bride, the Church,\nwe are reminded of a lecherous parson masquerading under the cloak of\npiety among his female parishioners. The Preacher of Ecclesiastes is\nsomething of a Freethought preacher. He is a skeptic and a philosopher.\n\nLamentations, it is claimed, was composed by Jeremiah. There is little\nevidence either for or against this claim. Oort affirms that its\nascription to Jeremiah is a \"mistaken tradition,\" that its five poems\nwere written by five different authors and at different times. The\nhabit of ascribing anonymous writings to eminent men was prevalent\namong the Jews. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Daniel, and\nprobably Jeremiah, have been declared the authors of books of which\nthey never heard.\n\nRuth is the only book of the Bible whose authorship is generally\nconceded by Christians to be unknown. Dr. Hitchcock says: \"There is\nnothing whatever by which the authorship of it can be determined.\"\n\nMany orthodox scholars admit that Esther's authorship, like that\nof Ruth, is unknown. Some credit it to Mordecai. It was written\nas late as 300 B.C., 150 years after Mordecai's time. The Vulgate\nand modern Catholic versions include six chapters not found in our\nauthorized version. There are many books in the Bible devoid of truth,\nbut probably none so self-evidently false as Esther. It has been\ndescribed as \"a tissue of glaring impossibilities from beginning to\nend.\" Luther pronounces it a \"heathenish extravagance.\"\n\n\n\nDaniel.\n\nChristians class Daniel with the Greater Prophets, and assign its\nauthorship to the sixth century B.C. It belongs to the Hagiographa\nand was one of the last books of the Old Testament to be written.\n\nA considerable portion of the book relates to Belshazzar. Twenty\ntimes in one chapter is he referred to as the king of Babylon, and\nfive times is he called the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Yet Belshazzar was\nnot the son of Nebuchadnezzar, neither was he king of Babylon. Again\nthe author devotes several chapters to Darius \"the Median,\" who,\nhe says, defeated the Chaldeans and conquered Babylon. Now, nearly\neverybody, excepting this writer, supposed that it was Cyrus the\nPersian who conquered Babylon. Darius \"the Median\" was never king of\nBabylon. This book was written by one ignorant of Babylonian history,\nand not by Daniel, who lived in Babylon, and who is said to have been\nnext to the king in authority.\n\nProf. A. H. Sayce, Professor of Assyriology in Oxford University,\nconsidered by many the greatest of arch\u00e6ologists, a believer in\nthe divinity of the Bible and an opponent of Higher Criticism, is\ncompelled to reject Daniel. In a recent article, he says: \"The old\nview of the old Book is correct excepting the book of Daniel, which\nis composed of legends.... The historical facts as we know them from\nthe contemporaneous records are irreconcilable with the statements\nfound in the historical portions of Daniel.\"\n\nThis statement, aside from its rejection of Daniel, is\nsignificant. Here is a man whose life-long study and researches make\nhim preeminently qualified to judge of one book's authenticity and\ncredibility. This book he rejects. The books he accepts are those\nconcerning which he is not specially qualified to judge.\n\nDr. Arnold says: \"I have long thought that the greater part of the\nbook of Daniel is most certainly a very late work, of the time of\nthe Maccabees\" (Life and Correspondence, Vol. II., p. 188). This\nconclusion of Dr. Arnold's, made seventy years ago, is confirmed by\nthe later critics who place its composition in the reign of Antiochus\nEpiphanes, about 165 B.C.\n\nA part, if not all of the book, was written in Aramaic. In the Greek\nversion the three small Apocryphal books, History of Susannah, Song\nof the Three Holy Children, and Bel and the Dragon, are included in\nit. The fact that the Jews placed Daniel in the Hagiographa, instead of\nthe Prophets, is fatal to the claims regarding its authorship and date.\n\n\n\nEzra and Nehemiah.\n\nEzra and Nehemiah for a time constituted one book, Ezra. This was\nafterwards divided into two books and called The First and Second\nbooks of Ezra. Both were ascribed to Ezra. Subsequently the names\nwere changed to those by which they are now known, and the authorship\nassigned respectively to Ezra and Nehemiah. That both were not composed\nby the same author is shown by the fact that each contains a copy of\nthe register of the Jews that returned from Babylon.\n\nCritics agree that Ezra did not write all of the book which now bears\nhis name--that it is the work of various authors and was written,\nfor the most part, long after Ezra's time. A portion of it was written\nin Hebrew and the remainder in Aramaic.\n\nNehemiah wrote, at the most, but a part of the book ascribed to\nhim. He did not write the following:\n\n\"The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua,\nwere recorded chief of the fathers; also the priests to the reign of\nDarius the Persian\" (xii, 22).\n\nDarius the Persian began to reign 336 B.C.; Nehemiah wrote 433 B.C.\n\n\"There were in the days of ... Nehemiah the governor\" (xii, 26). \"In\nthe days of Nehemiah\" (47).\n\nThese passages show that the book, as a whole, was not only not written\nby Nehemiah, but not until long after the time of Nehemiah. Spinoza\nsays that both Ezra and Nehemiah were written two or three hundred\nyears after the time claimed. The later critics are generally agreed\nthat neither Ezra nor Nehemiah had anything to do with the composition\nof these books.\n\n\n\nFirst and Second Chronicles.\n\nThe concluding books of the Hagiographa, and of the Old\nTestament, if arranged in their proper order, are First and Second\nChronicles. Theologians tell us that they were written or compiled\nby Ezra 456 B.C.\n\nBy carefully comparing the genealogy given in the third chapter of 1\nChronicles with that given in the first chapter of Matthew, it will\nbe seen that the records of Chronicles are brought down to within a\nfew generations of Jesus. These books are a compilation of documents\nmade centuries after the time that Ezra and Nehemiah are supposed to\nhave completed the canon of the Old Testament, and a hundred years\nafter the date assigned for the Septuagint translation.\n\nThe fragmentary character of many of the books of the Bible, and\nparticularly of Chronicles, is shown in the conclusion of the second\nbook. It closes with an unfinished sentence, as follows: \"The Lord\nhis God is with him and let him go up--.\" The concluding words may\nbe found in another book of the Bible--Ezra (i, 3): \"To Jerusalem,\nwhich is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel,\"\netc. The first verses of Ezra are identical with the last verses of\nChronicles. The compiler of Chronicles had seemingly begun to copy\nthe document which now forms a part of the book of Ezra, and in the\nmiddle of a sentence was suddenly called away from his work, never\nto resume and complete it.\n\nWe have now reviewed the books of the Old Testament. We have seen\nthat the claims made in support of their authenticity are, for the\nmost part, either untrue or incapable of proof. When and by whom\nGenesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,\nRuth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, First and\nSecond Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs,\nEcclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Jonah, Haggai,\nand Malachi were written is unknown. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and\nZechariah wrote, at the most, but portions of the books ascribed to\nthem. The few remaining books may have been written by those whose\nnames they bear, though even these are veiled in doubt. There is not\none book in the Old Testament whose authenticity, like that of many\nancient Greek and Roman books, is fully established.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE FOUR GOSPELS.\n\n\nThe lesser in size but the greater in importance of the two divisions\nof the Bible is the New Testament. The principal books of the New\nTestament, and the most highly valued by Christians of all the books\nof the Bible, are the Four Gospels. These books, it is affirmed,\nwere written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in the first century;\nMatthew between 37 and 50, Mark and Luke between 56 and 63, and John\nbetween 78 and 97 A.D.\n\nThe orthodox claims regarding the origin of these books are thus\nexpressed by Dr. Hitchcock:\n\n\"The Four Gospels are the best authenticated ancient writings in the\nworld; so clear, weighty, and extensive is the mass of testimony in\nfavor of them\" (Analysis of the Bible, p. 1149).\n\n\"These four books, together constituting the best attested piece of\nhistory in the world, were written by four eye-witnesses of the facts\nnarrated\" (Ibid, p. 1151).\n\n\"Matthew and John were Apostles and Mark and Luke were companions\nand disciples of Apostles\" (Ibid).\n\nIf these books are authentic and divinely inspired, as claimed,\nChristianity is built upon a rock, and the floods and winds of\nadverse criticism will beat against it in vain; but if they are not\nauthentic--if they were not written by the Evangelists named--if they\nare merely anonymous books, written one hundred and fifty years after\nthe events they purport to record, as many contend, then it is built\nupon the sand and must fall.\n\n\n\nThe Apostles.\n\nChristians claim to have an \"unbroken chain of testimony\" to the\ngenuineness and credibility of the Four Gospels from the alleged\ndates of their composition down to the present time. I shall endeavor\nto show that they have no such chain of testimony--that the most\nimportant part of it is wanting.\n\nTwenty books--all of the remaining books of the New Testament but\nthree--are ascribed to the Apostles Paul, Peter, and John. All of\nthese books, it is affirmed, were written after Matthew was written,\nand about one-half of them after Mark and Luke were written. If this\nbe true, some proofs of the existence of the Synoptic Gospels ought\nto be found in these books.\n\nOf the fourteen Epistles credited to Paul all have been assigned\nlater dates than Matthew, and a portion of them later dates than Mark\nand Luke. But there is not a word to indicate that any one of these\nGospels was in existence when Paul wrote.\n\nThe two Epistles of Peter, it is claimed, were written after Matthew,\nMark, and Luke were written. But these Epistles contain no mention\nof them.\n\nThe four remaining books, First, Second, and Third John and Revelation,\nare said to have been written after these Gospels were composed. Their\nreputed author, however, knows nothing of these gospels.\n\nThe three great Apostles are silent--three links at the very beginning\nof this chain are missing.\n\n\n\nThe Apostolic Fathers.\n\nAfter the Apostles, and contemporary with the oldest of them, come the\nApostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Clement\nwrote about the close of the first century. There are two Epistles\ncredited to him, but in these Epistles are to be found no evidences\nof the existence of the Four Gospels.\n\nIgnatius is said to have suffered martyrdom in the year 116. There\nare fifteen Epistles which bear his name. A few of these are believed\nto be genuine, while the remainder are conceded to be forgeries. But\nin none of them, neither in the genuine nor in the spurious, is there\nany evidence that the Gospels had appeared when they were written.\n\nPolycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who is said to have been the companion of\nJohn, died at a very advanced age, about the year 167. His Epistle to\nthe Philippians is extant, but it contains no reference to the Gospels.\n\nHermas and Barnabas are usually classed with the Apostolic Fathers. The\nShepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas make no mention of\nthe Evangelists.\n\nThat the writings of the Apostolic Fathers contain no proofs of\nthe existence of the Four Gospels is admitted even by Christian\nwriters. Dr. Westcott admits it:\n\n\"Reference in the sub-apostolic age to the discourses or actions of our\nLord, as we find them recorded in the Gospels, show, as far as they go,\nthat what the Gospels relate was then held to be true; but it does\nnot necessarily follow that they were already in use, and were the\nactual source of the passages in question. On the contrary, the mode\nin which Clement refers to our Lord's teaching--'the Lord said,' not\n'saith'--seems to imply that he was indebted to tradition, and not to\nany written accounts, for words most closely resembling those which\nare still found in our Gospels. The main testimony of the Apostolic\nFathers is, therefore, to the substance, and not to the authenticity\nof the Gospels\" (On the Canon of the New Testament, p. 52).\n\nBishop Marsh makes the following admission: \"From the Epistle of\nBarnabas, no inference can be deduced that he had read any part\nof the New Testament. From the genuine Epistle, as it is called,\nof Clement of Rome, it may be inferred that Clement had read the\nFirst Epistle to the Corinthians. From the Shepherd of Hermas no\ninference whatsoever can be drawn. From the Epistles of Ignatius it\nmay be concluded that he had read St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,\nand that there existed in his time evangelical writings, though it\ncannot be shown that he has quoted them. From Polycarp's Epistle to the\nPhilippians it appears that he had heard of St. Paul's Epistle to that\ncommunity, and he quotes a passage which is in the First Epistle to\nthe Corinthians and another which is in the Epistle to the Ephesians;\nbut no positive conclusion can be drawn with respect to any other\nepistle, or any of the Four Gospels\" (Michaelis, Vol. I., p. 354).\n\nDr. Dodwell says: \"We have at this day certain most authentic\necclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas,\nHermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I\nhave named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But\nin Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New\nTestament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named\"\n(Dissertations upon Iren\u00e6us).\n\nProfessor Norton says: \"When we endeavor to strengthen this evidence by\nappealing to the writings ascribed to Apostolic Fathers we, in fact,\nweaken its force. At the very extremity of the chain of evidence,\nwhere it ought to be strongest, we are attaching defective links which\nwill bear no weight\" (Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol I., p. 357).\n\nClement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, all refer to the Epistles of Paul,\nshowing that they were in existence when they wrote and that they were\nacquainted with them. But they never mention the Four Gospels, and this\nsilence affords conclusive evidence that these books as authoritative\ndocuments did not exist in their time; for it is unreasonable to\nsuppose that they would use the least important and make no use of\nthe most important books of the New Testament. Three additional and\nthree of the principal links in this \"unbroken chain of testimony\"\nare wanting, and must be supplied before the authenticity of the Four\nGospels can be established.\n\n\n\nThe Christian Fathers.\n\nThe early Christian Fathers had no knowledge of the existence of the\nFour Gospels. One of the earliest and one of the most eminent of the\nChristian Fathers was Justin Martyr. He lived and wrote about the\nmiddle of the second century. His writings are rather voluminous,\nand are devoted to the task of proving to both Jews and Gentiles\nthe divinity of Christ and the divine origin of Christianity. If\na Christian writer were to attempt to demonstrate this now, where\nwould he go for his authority? To the Four Gospels. These would\nconstitute his chief--almost his entire authority. Now, had these\nbooks been extant when Justin wrote, and valued as they are by\nChristians to-day, he would have used them, he would have quoted\nfrom them, he would have named them. But he makes no use of them,\nhe never mentions them. He makes more than three hundred quotations\nfrom the Old Testament--Messianic prophecies, etc.--and in nearly two\nhundred instances he names the books from which he quotes. He makes\nnearly one hundred quotations from Christian writings that are now\nconsidered apocryphal, but he makes none from the Four Gospels.\n\nThis silence of Justin is the most damaging argument that has been\nadduced against the authenticity of the Gospels. This demonstrates\none of two things: that these books were not in existence when Justin\nMartyr wrote, were not in existence at the middle of the second\ncentury, or if they were, the foremost Christian scholar of his age\nrejected them.\n\nRecognizing the significance of this damaging fact, Christian\napologists have attempted to show that Justin was acquainted with\nour Gospels by citing extracts from his writings similar to passages\nfound in them. Westcott adduces seven passages, but admits that two\nonly are wholly identical. He says:\n\n\"Of the seven, five agree verbally with the text of St. Matthew\nor St. Luke, exhibiting, indeed, three slight various readings not\nelsewhere found, but such as are easily explicable. The sixth is a\ncondensed summary of words related by St. Matthew; the seventh alone\npresents an important variation in the text of a verse, which is,\nhowever, otherwise very uncertain\" (Canon of the New Testament,\np. 131).\n\nThink of this renowned defender of Christianity, Justin Martyr,\nattempting to establish the divinity of Christ by citing four hundred\ntexts from the Old Testament and apocryphal books and two only from\nthe Evangelists!\n\nThere is really but one passage in the Gospels to be found in\nJustin. But if it could be shown that they contain many passages\nsimilar to, or even identical with, passages found in his writings,\nthis would not prove that he has quoted from them. It is not claimed\nthat these Gospels are mere fabrications of their authors, or that\nthey are composed entirely of original matter. They consist largely\nof traditions, and these traditions, many of them, were embodied in\nother and older books which were used by the early Fathers. While the\nFour Gospels were not extant in Justin's time, some of the documents\nof which they are composed, particularly those containing the reputed\nsayings of Jesus, had already appeared and were frequently cited by\nthe Fathers. These citations, Paley, Lardner, Westcott, and others,\nin their evidences of Christianity, have adduced as proofs of the\nearly origin of the Four Gospels.\n\nJustin's quotations are chiefly from what he calls the \"Memoirs of\nthe Apostles.\" These, it is claimed, were the Four Gospels. If so,\nthen the gospels we have are not genuine, for the quotations from the\n\"Memoirs\" are not to be found in our Gospels. Justin says that Mary\n(not Joseph) was descended from David; that Jesus was born in a cave;\nthat the Magi came from Arabia; that Jesus made ploughs and yokes;\nthat a fire was kindled in the Jordan at his baptism; that he was\ncalled a magician. The \"Memoirs,\" or Gospels, from which Justin quotes\nare not our Gospels.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Giles repudiates the claim that Justin Martyr recognized\nthe Gospels. He says:\n\n\"The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,\nare never mentioned by him--do not occur once in all his works. It\nis, therefore, childish to say that he has quoted from our existing\nGospels\" (Christian Records, p. 71).\n\nPapias, a Christian bishop and a contemporary of Justin Martyr,\nis cited as a witness for the Gospels. He is quoted by Eusebius as\nreferring to writings of Matthew and Mark. But the books he mentions\nare plainly not the gospels of Matthew and Mark.\n\nOf Matthew he says: \"Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew\ndialect, and every one interpreted them as he was able\" (Eusebius'\nEcclesiastical History, book iii, p. 39).\n\nThis was not the biographical narrative known as \"Matthew,\" but\nprobably an apocryphal book called the \"Oracles of Christ,\" which\nsome ascribed to Matthew.\n\nMark is referred to as follows: \"Mark having become the interpreter\nof Peter, wrote accurately whatever he remembered, though he did\nnot arrange in order the things which were either said or done\nby Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him; but\nafterwards, as I said, accompanied Peter, who adapted his teaching\nto the occasion, and not as making a consecutive record of the Lord's\ndiscourses\" (Ecclesiastical History, book iii, p. 39).\n\nThis does not describe our Gospel of Mark, which, although\na compilation, is a consecutive narrative of events, and not a\ncollection of isolated fragments.\n\nBut even if Papias was acquainted with the Gospels, he is a poor\nwitness to their credibility, for he accepted the teachings of\ntradition in preference to the books which he knew: \"I held that what\nwas to be derived from books did not profit me as that from the living\nand abiding voice [tradition]\" (Ecclesiastical History, iii, 39).\n\nDr. Davidson admits that the books mentioned by Papias were not our\nGospels. He says:\n\n\"Papias speaks of Matthew and Mark, but it is most probable that he had\ndocuments which either formed the basis of our present Matthew and Mark\nor were taken into them and written over\" (Canon of the Bible, p. 124).\n\n\"He neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired Gospels\"\n(Ibid, p. 123).\n\nThe writings of thirty Christian authors who wrote prior to 170 are\nstill extant. In all these writings there is to be found no mention\nof the Four Gospels.\n\nIn the writings of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, occurs the\nfollowing: \"John says: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word\nwas God.'\" This was written in 180, after the middle of the latter\nhalf of the second century, and is the earliest proof of the existence\nof any one of the Four Gospels.\n\nIren\u00e6us, bishop of Lyons, who wrote about 190, is the earliest\nwriter who mentions all of the Four Gospels. He names them; he\ndeclares them to be inspired; he makes four hundred quotations from\nthem. The Four Gospels were in existence when Iren\u00e6us wrote, and they\nwere undoubtedly composed between the time of Justin Martyr and the\ntime of Iren\u00e6us--that is, some time during the latter half of the\nsecond century.\n\nWriters on the evidences of Christianity endeavor to establish the\ngenuineness of the Four Gospels by showing that the Fathers who lived\nand wrote during the two centuries following the ministry and death\nof Jesus accepted and quoted them as authorities. They credit these\nFathers with more than four thousand evangelical quotations. But where\nare these quotations to be found? Nearly all of them in Iren\u00e6us,\nClemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen, while in Clement\nof Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr few or none are\nclaimed. The fact that the writings of the Fathers which appeared\nimmediately after 180 contain thousands of evangelical references,\nwhile in all the writings which appeared before 170 the evangelists\nare not even named, affords conclusive evidence that the Four Gospels\nwere composed during or near the decade that elapsed between 170 and\n180 A.D.\n\n\n\nInternal Evidence.\n\nThe Four Gospels do not claim to have been composed by Matthew,\nMark, Luke, and John. The titles are not \"The Gospel of Matthew,\"\n\"The Gospel of Mark,\" \"The Gospel of Luke,\" and \"The Gospel of John,\"\nbut \"The Gospel According to Matthew,\" \"The Gospel According to Mark,\"\n\"The Gospel According to Luke,\" and \"The Gospel According to John.\" The\ntitles simply imply that they are according to the real or traditional\nteachings of these Evangelists. So far as the textual authorship is\nconcerned, they are, and do not purport to be other than, anonymous\nbooks. Omit these titles, and not one word remains to indicate their\nauthorship. Now, it is admitted that these books did not originally\nbear these titles. St. Chrysostom, who believes that they are genuine,\nsays (Homilies i) that the authors did not place their names at\nthe head of their Gospels, but that this was afterward done by the\nchurch. There is nothing in them to support the claim that they were\nwritten by those whose names have been prefixed. On the contrary,\ntheir contents furnish conclusive proofs that they were not written\nby these supposed authors, nor in the apostolic age.\n\n\n\nMatthew.\n\nChristians believe that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew. Our\nMatthew was written in Greek. An attempt has been made to explain\nthe discrepancy by assuming that Matthew wrote his book in Hebrew,\nand subsequently rewrote it in Greek, or translated it into this\nlanguage. But another difficulty remains. The quotations from the\nOld Testament in Matthew, and there are many, are taken, not from the\nHebrew, but from the Septuagint (Greek) version. This proves that it\nwas originally written in Greek and not in Hebrew.\n\nThe Gospel According to the Hebrews, it is affirmed, was the Hebrew\nform of Matthew. If this be true, then our Greek Matthew cannot be a\ncorrect translation, for the passages from the Gospel of the Hebrews\nwhich have been preserved are not to be found in Matthew. The following\nquotations are from the Gospel of the Hebrews, this supposed original\nGospel of Matthew:\n\n\"He who wonders shall reign, and he who reigns shall rest.\"\n\n\"Then the rich man began to smite his head, and it pleased him not.\"\n\n\"The Holy Ghost, my mother, lately took me by one of my hairs, and\nbore me to the great mountain Tabor.\"\n\n\"I am a mason, who get my livelihood by my hands; I beseech thee,\nJesus, that thou wouldst restore to me my strength, that I may no\nlonger thus scandalously beg my bread.\"\n\nIf these passages are from the original Gospel of Matthew, then the\naccepted Gospel of Matthew is spurious.\n\nThis Hebrew Gospel was the Gospel of the Ebionites and\nNazarenes. Eusebius says: \"They [the Ebionites] made use only of that\nwhich is called the Gospel According to the Hebrews.\" Epiphanius says:\n\"They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel of Matthew most entire in the\nHebrew language.\" St. Jerome refers to it as \"the Gospel which the\nNazarenes and Ebionites use.\"\n\nReferring to these sects, Dr. Hug, the eminent Catholic critic, says:\n\"The Ebionites denied the miraculous conception of Christ, and,\nwith the Nazarenes, looked upon him only as an ordinary man.\" The\nGospel which these sects accepted as their authority could not have\nbeen our Gospel of Matthew, because the most important part of this\nGospel is the story of the miraculous conception.\n\nWhile the claim that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew is vigorously\nmaintained, the claim that he afterwards translated it into Greek\nhimself is so manifestly untenable that many have conceded its\nimprobability. Jerome says: \"Who afterwards translated it [Matthew]\ninto Greek is not sufficiently certain.\"\n\nThe consequences of this admission are thus reluctantly expressed\nby Michaelis: \"If the original text of Matthew is lost, and we have\nnothing but a Greek translation: then, frankly, we cannot ascribe\nany divine inspiration to the words.\"\n\nTwo texts may be cited from Matthew which prove a later date for the\nGospel than that claimed. Jesus, in upbraiding the Jews, is reported\nto have used the following language:\n\n\"Upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,\nfrom the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of\nBarachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar\" (xxiii, 35).\n\nZacharias, the son of Baruch (Barouchos), who is undoubtedly meant,\nwas slain in the temple about 69 A.D. Thus Matthew makes Jesus refer\nto an event that occurred forty years after his death and twenty or\nthirty years after the Gospel of Matthew is said to have been written.\n\nDr. Hug admits that this is the Zacharias referred to. He says:\n\"There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its\ncircumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the\nsame Zacharias Barouchos, who, according to Josephus, a short time\nbefore the destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the temple.\"\n\nRegarding this passage in Matthew, Professor Newman, of University\nCollege, London, says: \"There is no other man known in history to\nwhom this verse can allude. If so, it shows how late, how ignorant,\nhow rash, is the composer of a text passed off on us as sacred truth\"\n(Religion Not History, p. 46).\n\n\"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the\ngates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee\nthe keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on\nearth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on\nearth shall be loosed in heaven\" (xvi, 18, 19).\n\nThis passage was written at the beginning of the establishment of the\nRoman Catholic hierarchy, for the purpose of securing the recognition\nof the Church of Rome (the founding of which tradition assigned to\nPeter) as the church of Christ.\n\nBishop Marsh, in his Michaelis, says: \"If the arguments in favor of\na late date for the composition of St. Matthew's Gospel be compared\nwith those in favor of an early date, it will be found that the former\ngreatly outweigh the latter.\"\n\nDr. Davidson admits that Matthew is an anonymous work. He says:\n\"The author, indeed, must ever remain unknown\" (Introduction to the\nNew Testament, p. 72).\n\n\n\nMark.\n\nAs to where the Gospel of Mark was written, whether in Asia, in Africa,\nor in Europe, is unknown. Some believe that it was written at Antioch;\nChrysostom states that it was written at Alexandria; Iren\u00e6us says\nthat it was written at Rome. If it was written at Rome it was probably\nwritten in Latin instead of Greek. Smith's \"Bible Dictionary\" concedes\nthat \"it abounds in Latin words.\" The following is an example:\n\n\"And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name\nis Legion: for we are many\" (v. 9).\n\nCommenting on this passage, the Rev. Dr. Giles says: \"The Four Gospels\nare written in Greek, and the word 'legion' is Latin; but in Galilee\nand Perea the people spoke neither Latin nor Greek, but Hebrew, or\na dialect of it. The word 'legion' would be perfectly unintelligible\nto the disciples of Christ, and to almost everybody in the country\"\n(Christian Records, p. 197).\n\nIf it was written in Latin, then our Greek Mark, like Matthew, instead\nof being an original Gospel, is simply an unauthenticated translation.\n\nMark has generally been considered a Petrine Gospel; orthodox\nChristians claiming that Peter dictated the Gospel to Mark. Discussing\nthis claim, the author of \"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"Throughout\nthe Gospel there is the total absence of anything which is specially\ncharacteristic of Petrine influence and teaching\" (Vol. I.,\np. 362). Volkmar and others declare it to be Pauline. One thing can\nbe affirmed with certainty; it was not written by John Mark, neither\nwas it dictated by Peter.\n\nThe last twelve verses of Mark, it is claimed, are an interpolation,\nbecause they are not to be found in the older manuscripts of the\nbook. The Revision Committee which prepared the New Version of the\nNew Testament pronounced them spurious. If these verses are not\ngenuine, then it must be admitted that the second Gospel is either\nan unfinished or a mutilated work; for with these verses omitted,\nit ends abruptly with the visit of the women to the tomb, leaving the\nmost important events at the close of Christ's career, his appearance\nand ascension--the proofs of his resurrection--unrecorded.\n\nThe greater portion of Mark is to be found in Matthew and Luke, and\nmuch of it in the same or similar language. Judge Waite, in his review\nof the Gospel, says: \"Mark has almost a complete parallel in Luke and\nMatthew taken together. There are but 24 verses which have no parallel\nin either of the other synoptics\" (History of Christianity, p. 350).\n\nRegarding the origin of Mark, Strauss says: \"Our second Gospel\ncannot have originated from recollections of Peter's instructions,\ni. e., from a source peculiar to itself, since it is evidently a\ncompilation, whether made from memory or otherwise, from the first\nand third Gospels\" (Life of Jesus, Vol. I., p. 51).\n\nThat neither Peter nor Mark had anything to do with the composition\nof this book is admitted by Davidson. Referring to it he says: \"It\nhas therefore no relation to the Apostle, and derives no sanction\nfrom his name. The author is unknown\" (Introduction to New Testament,\nVol. II, p. 84).\n\n\n\nLuke.\n\nIn denying the authenticity of Mark and Luke, what I deny is that these\nbooks were written by the traditional Mark and Luke, the companions\nof Peter and Paul. I deny that they were written in the apostolic age\nand by apostolic authority. As stated by \"Chambers's Encyclopedia,\"\n\"the question as to their genuineness is in the main question as\nto the fact of their existence at this early period; the special\nauthorship of each Gospel is a comparatively less important question.\"\n\nThe book of Luke is anonymous; it does not claim to be written by\nLuke. And yet the Fathers may have been correct in ascribing its\nauthorship to him. If so, who was this Luke? Where did he live? When\ndid he write his book? \"Chambers's\" says he \"was born, according to\nthe accounts of the Church Fathers, at Antioch, in Syria.\" Smith's\n\"Bible Dictionary\" says, \"He was born at Antioch.\" The Gospel is\naddressed to Theophilus. Who was Theophilus? The \"Bible Dictionary\"\nsays: \"From the honorable epithet applied to him in Luke i, 3, it\nhas been argued with much probability that he was a person in high\nofficial position.\" There is but one Theophilus known to history to\nwhom the writer can possibly refer, and this is Theophilus, Bishop\nof Antioch, who lived in the latter part of the second century. Luke\nand Theophilus, then, both belonged to Antioch, and it is undoubtedly\nto this Theophilus that Luke's Gospel is addressed. This proves that\nit was written more than one hundred years after the date assigned\nfor its composition. When Luke assumed the task of writing a Gospel,\nMatthew, it has been claimed, was the only Gospel extant. And yet\nLuke in his introduction declares that many had been written; all of\nwhich he admits were genuine. Jerome says that one of the Gospels\nwhich Luke refers to was the Gospel of Appelles: \"The Evangelist,\nLuke, declares that there were many who wrote Gospels.... They were\nsuch as that according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias,\nand Bartholomew, that of the Twelve Apostles, and Basilides, and\nAppelles, and others.\" The Gospel of Appelles was written about\n60 A.D. If Luke's Gospel was written after the Gospel of Appelles,\nit was written after the middle of the second century.\n\nDr. Schleiermacher, one of the greatest of modern theologians,\nmaintains that Luke is a compilation of thirty-three different\nmanuscripts; as follows: Chapter i, 1-4; i, 5-80; ii, 1-20; ii, 21;\nii, 22-40; ii, 41-52; iii, iv, 1-15; iv, 16-30; iv, 31-44; v, 1-11;\nv, 12-16; v, 17-26; v, 27-39, vi, 1-11; vi, 12-49; vii, 1-10; vii,\n11-50; viii, 1-21; viii, 22-56; ix, 1-45; ix, 46-50; ix, 51-62; x,\n1-24; x, 25-37; x, 38-42; xi, 1-13; xi, 14-54; xii, xiii, 1-9; xiii,\n10-22; xiii, 23-35; xiv, 1-24; xiv, 25-35; xv, xvi, xvii, 1-19; xvii,\n20-37; xviii, xix, xx; xxi; xxii, xxiii, 1-49; xxiii, 50-56; xxiv.\n\nBishop Thirlwall's Schleiermacher contains the following in regard to\nthe composition of Luke: \"The main position is firmly established that\nLuke is neither an independent writer, nor has made a compilation from\nworks which extended over the whole course of the life of Jesus. He\nis from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of\ndocuments which he found in existence, and which he allows to pass\nunaltered through his hands\" (p. 313).\n\nThe immediate source of Luke's Gospel was undoubtedly the Gospel\nof Marcion, itself a compilation of older documents. Referring to\nthis Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould says: \"The arrangement is so\nsimilar that we are forced to the conclusion that it was either used\nby St. Luke or that it was his original composition. If he used it,\nthen his right to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to\nthe ground, as what he added was of small amount\" (Lost and Hostile\nGospels).\n\n\n\nThe Synoptics.\n\nThe Synoptics Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is claimed, are original\nand independent compositions, and the oldest of all the Gospels,\nboth canonical and apocryphal. This claim is disproved by the\nform and character of their contents. One of two things is certain:\neither these writers copied from each other, or all copied from older\ndocuments. The following, which are but a few of the many passages\nthat might be adduced, afford unmistakable evidence of this:\n\nMatthew--\"They were astonished at his doctrine\" (xxii, 33).\n\nMark--\"They were astonished at his doctrine\" (i, 22).\n\nLuke--\"They were astonished at his doctrine\" (iv, 32).\n\n\n\nMatthew--\"For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the\nscribes\" (vii, 29).\n\nMark--\"For he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the\nscribes\" (i, 22).\n\n\n\nMatthew--\"While he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came,\nand with him a great multitude, with swords and staves, from the\nchief priests,\" etc. (xxvi, 47).\n\nMark--\"While he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with\nhim a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests,\"\netc. (xiv, 43).\n\n\n\nMatthew--\"And without a parable spake he not unto them\" (xiii, 34).\n\nMark--\"But without a parable spake he not unto them\" (iv, 34).\n\n\n\nMatthew--\"Sought opportunity to betray him\" (xxvi, 16).\n\nLuke--\"Sought opportunity to betray him\" (xxii, 6).\n\n\n\nMark--\"But they understood not that saying\" (ix, 32).\n\nLuke--\"But they understood not this saying\" (ix, 45).\n\nThe theory that the Synoptics borrowed from each other will account\nfor the agreements in their books; but it will not account for the\ndisagreements, and these are quite as numerous as the agreements. The\nfollowing hypothesis, however, will account for both. When the\nSynoptics were composed probably fifty gospels, some of recent and\nothers of early origin, were already in existence. In addition to\nthese were a hundred other documents pertaining to Christ and his\nteachings. From this mass of Gospel literature the Synoptics were\ncompiled. Those portions that agree were taken from a common source;\nthose that do not agree were taken from different documents.\n\nDean Alford believes that in the early ages of the church there\nexisted what he terms a \"common substratum of apostolic teachings,\"\n\"oral or partially documentary.\" This, he says, \"I believe to have been\nthe original source of the common part of our three Gospels.\" Canon\nWestcott admits that \"their substance is evidently much older than\ntheir form.\"\n\nProfessor Ladd, of Yale College, says: \"In some respects each of the\nfirst three Gospels must be regarded as a compilation; it consists\nof material which the others have in common with it, and which was\nof a traditional kind more or less prepared before the author of\nthe particular Gospel took it in hand to modify and rearrange it\"\n(What Is the Bible? p. 295).\n\nBishop Marsh, in his Michaelis, says: \"The notion of an absolute\nindependence, in respect to the composition of our three first Gospels,\nis no longer tenable\" (Vol. III, part 2, p. 170).\n\nProf. Robertson Smith, of Scotland, pronounces them \"unapostolic\ndigests of the second century.\" Evanson goes further and declares\nthem to be \"spurious fictions of the second century.\"\n\nThe Encyclopedia Britannica concedes the fact that Protestant\nscholarship in Europe has virtually abandoned the popular orthodox\nposition regarding the origin of these books. It says:\n\n\"It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form only\nby degrees, and that while they have their root in the apostolic age,\nthey are fashioned by later influences and adapted to special wants\nin the early church. They are the deposits, in short, of Christian\ntraditions handed down first of all in an oral form, before being\ncommitted to writing in such a form as we have them; and this is now\nan accepted conclusion of every historical school of theologians in\nEngland no less than in Germany, conservative no less than radical.\"\n\n\n\nJohn.\n\nIn addition to what has already been adduced against the Johannine\nauthorship of the Fourth Gospel, I submit the following:\n\n1. John, the disciple of Jesus, was an unlettered fisherman. The\nauthor of the Fourth Gospel was an accomplished scholar and a polished\nwriter. His book is one of the classics of Christian literature.\n\n2. The Apostle John was born at Bethsaida. The author of John says\nthat Bethsaida was in Galilee (xii, 21). Bethsaida was not in Galilee,\nbut in Perea, and to assert that John wrote this Gospel is to assert\nthat he was ignorant of the location of his own town.\n\n3. \"In Bethany beyond Jordan\" (New Ver. i, 28). \"In Enon near to Salim\"\n(iii, 23). \"A city of Samaria, called Sychar\" (iv, 5). These passages\nwere written by one little acquainted with the geography of Palestine\nand unfamiliar with the scenes he attempts to describe.\n\n4. John, the son of Zebedee, was a Jew. The manner in which the author\nof the Fourth Gospel always refers to the Jews is conclusive evidence\nthat he was not a Jew.\n\n5. The Synoptics state that Jesus celebrated the Passover with his\ndisciples, and was crucified on the following day. The author of\nJohn states that he was crucified on the previous day, and therefore\ndid not partake of the Paschal supper. In the second century a great\ncontroversy arose in the church regarding this. Those who accepted\nthe account given in the Synoptics observed the feast, while those\nwho accepted the account given in the Fourth Gospel rejected it. Now,\nwe have the testimony of Iren\u00e6us that John himself observed this\nfeast. \"For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it,\nbecause he had ever observed it with John, the disciple of our Lord\"\n(Against Heresies, iii, 3). As John accepted the account which appears\nin the Synoptics and rejected that which appears in the Gospel of John,\nhe could not have written the Fourth Gospel.\n\n6. The disciple John is represented as standing at the cross and\nwitnessing the crucifixion. The author of John does not claim to\nhave been present, but appeals to the testimony of an eye-witness in\nsupport of his statements: \"And he that saw it bare record, and his\nrecord is true\" (xix, 35).\n\n7. \"Now, there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom\nhe loved\" (xiii, 23). \"The disciple standing by, whom he loved\" (xix,\n26). \"To Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved\"\n(xx, 2). This beloved disciple is said to be John. The Synoptics,\nhowever, do not represent John as the favorite disciple. If there was\none disciple whom Jesus loved more than the others, it was Peter. To\nascribe to John the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is to ascribe to\nhim a spirit of self-glorification that is simply disgusting.\n\n8. \"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his\ndisciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written,\nthat ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:\nand that believing ye might have life through his name\" (xx, 30,\n31). Thus concludes the original Gospel According to St. John. This\nbook was not written by John, but it was written by a disciple of\nJohn for Johannine Christians. When the Roman Catholic hierarchy\nwas formed and the Gospel of John was admitted to the New Testament\ncanon, there was appended another chapter--a forgery. The hero of\nthis chapter is Peter. A dozen times Jesus calls him by name. To him\nJesus gives the oft repeated injunction, \"Feed my lambs;\" \"feed my\nsheep.\" This chapter was added to counteract the Johannine influence\nand exalt the Petrine teachings so dear to Rome. To give an appearance\nof genuineness to this forgery, \"the disciple whom Jesus loved\" is\nagain introduced and declared the author of the Gospel, thus making\nJohn himself a supporter of Petrine supremacy.\n\n9. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the\nSynoptics state, were witnessed by John. The author of the Fourth\nGospel knows nothing about them. \"All the events said to have been\nwitnessed by John alone are omitted by John alone. This fact seems\nfatal either to the reality of the events in question or to the\ngenuineness of the Fourth Gospel\" (Greg).\n\n10. Even Christians have tacitly admitted the hopelessness of\nmaintaining the authenticity of both the Fourth Gospel and the\nSynoptics. If the Synoptics are authentic, the Fourth Gospel cannot\nbe. Smith's \"Bible Dictionary\" says: \"In the Fourth Gospel the\nnarrative coincides with that of the other three in a few passages\nonly. Putting aside the account of the Passion, there are only\nthree facts which John relates in common with the other Evangelists\"\n(Art. Gospels).\n\n11. The author of John declares Jesus to be God. The complete\ndeification of Jesus was the growth of generations. The early\nChristians, including the Apostles, believed him to be a man. Later, he\nbecame a demi-god, and the writings and traditions which represented\nhim as such formed the materials from which the Synoptics were\ncompiled. Not until the latter part of the second century was Jesus\nplaced among the gods, and not until this time was the Fourth Gospel\nwritten.\n\nAlluding to the Fourth Gospel, Canon Westcott says: \"The earliest\naccount of the origin of the Gospel is already legendary.\"\n\nProfessor Davidson says: \"The Johannine authorship has receded before\nthe tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at\ntimes it is here irresistible\" (Canon of the Bible, p. 127).\n\nFrom a work entitled \"The New Bible and Its Uses\" Prof. Andrew\nD. White, our present minister to Germany, in his \"Warfare of Science\"\n(vol. ii, p. 306), quotes the following in relation to John, which\nshows how rapidly the supposed authenticity of Bible books is\ndisappearing before the investigations of the Higher Critics:\n\n\"In the period of thirty years ending in 1860, of the fifty great\nauthorities in this line, four to one were in favor of the Johannine\nauthorship.... Of those who have contributed important articles\nto the discussion from 1880 to 1890, about two to one reject the\nJohannine authorship of the Gospel in its present shape--that is to\nsay, while forty years ago great scholars were four to one in favor\nof, they are now two to one against, the claim that the Apostle John\nwrote the Gospel as we have it.\"\n\n\n\nThe Four Gospels.\n\nThe principal reason for rejecting both the reputed authorship and the\ncredibility of the Four Gospels is the contradictory character of their\ncontents. If Jesus Christ was a historical personage, as Christians\nbelieve, these alleged biographies were not written by his Apostles and\ntheir companions; neither were they compiled from authentic records.\n\nThe Greek text of the Gospels disproves their authenticity. Their\nassigned authors, or two of them at least, were unlearned Jews. Their\nwork was confined chiefly to the lower classes of their countrymen,\nin a land where Greek was almost unknown. The absurdity of this is\nshown by Mrs. Besant: \"The only parallel for so curious a phenomenon\nas these Greek Gospels, written by ignorant Jews, would be if a Cornish\nfisherman and a low London attorney, both perfectly ignorant of German,\nwrote in German the sayings and doings of a Middlesex carpenter, and as\ntheir work was entirely confined to the lower classes of the people,\nwho knew nothing of German, and they desired to place within their\nreach full knowledge of the carpenter's life, they circulated it among\nthem in German only, and never wrote anything about him in English.\"\n\nThe doctrines of the immaculate conception and of a material\nresurrection, so prominent in the Four Gospels, are proofs of their\nlate origin. These doctrines are not taught in the older books of the\nNew Testament, and were unknown to the Christians of the first century.\n\nThe scholarly author of \"Supernatural Religion,\" after a patient and\nexhaustive examination of every accessible document relating to the\nsubject, writes as follows:\n\n\"After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on\nthe point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those\nGospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus\"\n(Vol. II., p. 248).\n\nBishop Faustus, a heretical theologian of the fifth century, referring\nto this so so-called Gospel history, says:\n\n\"It is allowed not to have been written by the Son himself nor by his\nApostles, but long after by some unknown men who, lest they should\nbe suspected of writing things they knew nothing of, gave to their\nbooks the names of the Apostles.\"\n\nRegarding these four books and their sequel, Acts, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas,\nthe noted theologian and critic of Holland, voices the opinion of\nhimself and his renowned associates, Dr. Kuenen and Dr. Oort, in the\nfollowing words:\n\n\"Our interest is more especially excited by the five historical\nbooks of the New Testament. If we might really suppose them to have\nbeen written by the men whose names they bear, we could never be\nthankful enough for such precious authorities.... But, alas! not\none of these five books was really written by the person whose name\nit bears--though for the sake of brevity we shall still call the\nwriters Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--and they are all of more\nrecent date than their headings would lead us to suppose.... We\ncannot say that the Gospels and the book of Acts are unauthentic,\nfor not one of them professes to give the name of its author. They\nappeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe\ntheir origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no\nconfidence whatever\" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 24).\n\nThe Pentateuch was not written by Moses, nor the Four Gospels by\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The authenticity of the chief books of\nthe New Testament, like that of the chief books of the Old, must be\ngiven up. The results of our review of them may be summed up in the\nwords of the great German, Ferdinand Christian Baur: \"These Gospels\nare spurious, and were written in the second century.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nACTS, CATHOLIC EPISTLES, REVELATION.\n\n\nIn this chapter will be reviewed the so-called historical book of\nActs, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation. In some versions of the\nNew Testament the Catholic Epistles come immediately after Acts.\n\n\n\nActs of the Apostles.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles is one of many books bearing this name which\nappeared during the early centuries of the church. Concerning the\norigin of our canonical Acts, Dr. Hitchcock says: \"It was written\nby Luke, in considerable part from his own observations of the facts\nnarrated, and about A.D. 63, and at Rome, during Paul's stay there.\"\n\nThe Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus; the book of Acts is\naddressed to the same person, and as the author states that he has\naddressed a former work to him, it is inferred that both works were\nwritten by the same person. It has been shown that Theophilus lived\nin the latter part of the second century, and that the Gospel of Luke\nwas written at this time. If Luke and Acts, then, were written by\nthe same person, and Acts was written after Luke, it also must have\nbeen written late in the second century, and consequently could not\nhave been written by Luke, the companion of Paul.\n\nIt is asserted that Luke was the associate of Paul, and that he was\nin Rome with Paul when his book was written. This implies Paul's\nsanction of the book. But if the Epistles of Paul are genuine, and\nit is generally agreed that those bearing upon this question are,\nthis can not be true; for the Paul of these epistles and the Paul of\nActs are two entirely different characters.\n\nThe book is entitled the Acts of the Apostles; and yet the acts of\nPeter and Paul are almost the only apostolic acts recorded. Besides\nthe narrative of the author, the book consists largely of discourses\nattributed to Peter and Paul. But the style of the \"unlearned and\nignorant\" (iv, 13) Peter is so similar to that of Paul with his \"much\nlearning\" (xxvi, 24), and both so closely resemble the style of the\nauthor, that one not strongly imbued with faith must conclude that\nthe whole is the product of one mind.\n\nThe author cites a speech made by Gamaliel before the Jewish council,\nin which he uses the following language: \"For before these days rose\nup Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men,\nalmost four hundred, joined themselves, who were slain,\" etc. (v, 36).\n\nJosephus, who gives an account of this event (Antiq. Bk. xx,\nch. v, sec. 1), says that it happened \"while Fadus was Procurator\nof Judea.\" This was 45 or 46 A.D. Gamaliel's speech was delivered,\naccording to the accepted chronology, 29 A.D. Thus the author of Acts\nmakes Gamaliel refer to an event as long past which in reality did\nnot happen until sixteen years after that time.\n\nContinuing his speech, Gamaliel refers to another event, as follows:\n\"After this man [Theudas] rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the\ntaxing, and drew away much people after him; he also perished\" (37).\n\nHere the author makes Gamaliel state that the sedition of Judas of\nGalilee occurred after that of Theudas, when in fact it occurred in\n6 A.D.--forty years before. Such grave discrepancies could have been\nmade only by one writing long after the date claimed.\n\nHoltzmann, a German critic, has shown that the author of Acts\nborrowed from the Antiquities of Josephus. The Antiquities appeared\n93 A.D.--just thirty years after the date assigned to Acts.\n\nThis book will not be given up by orthodox Christians without a\nstruggle. The authenticity of primitive Christianity depends largely\nupon the authenticity of this book. Renan who was a Rationalist, and,\nat the same time something of an apologist for Christianity, affirms\nthat the last pages of Acts, which are devoted almost entirely to\nPaul's missionary labors constitute the only historical record of\nthe early church. At the same time, he admits that it is the most\nfaulty book in the New Testament. The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas concedes the\nsame. He says:\n\n\"Of the earliest fortunes of the community of Jesus, the primitive\nhistory of the Christian church and the whole of the apostolic age,\nwe should know as good as nothing if we had not the book of Acts. If\nonly we could trust the writer fully! But we soon see that the utmost\ncaution is necessary. For we have another account of some of the\nthings about which this writer tells us--an account written by the\nvery man to whom they refer, the best possible authority, therefore,\nas to what really took place. This man is Paul himself. In the first\ntwo chapters of the epistle to the Galatians he gives us several\ndetails of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story\nside by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this\nbook contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not\nthe result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design, an\nattempt--conceived no doubt with the best intentions--to hide in some\ndegree the actual course of events\" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III.,\np. 25).\n\nThe dissensions which arose in the first century between the Jewish\nChristians and the Gentile Christians had only increased with time,\nand these were among the chief obstacles in the way of uniting\nChristians and establishing the Catholic church. The composition\nof Acts was one of the many attempts made toward the close of the\nsecond century to heal these dissensions. The author was a man who\ncared little for either Petrine or Pauline Christianity--little for\nthe so-called truths of Christianity in any form--but a man who cared\nmuch for church unity and church power.\n\nThe book of Acts was little known at first. St. Chrysostom, writing\nin the fifth century, says: \"This book is not so much as known to\nmany. They know neither the book nor by whom it was written.\"\n\n\n\nJames and Jude.\n\nThe seven Catholic Epistles, James, First and Second Peter, First,\nSecond, and Third John, and Jude, have been declared spurious or\ndoubtful by eminent Christian scholars in every age of the church. The\nFathers were loath to admit them into the Bible, and their right to\na place there has always been disputed.\n\nJames and Jude, the first and the last of these epistles, orthodox\nChristians believe, were written by James and Jude, the brothers of\nJesus, in 62 and 64 A.D.\n\nThree leading orthodox authorities, representing the three great\ndivisions of the Christian church, Cajetan of the Roman Catholic\nchurch; Lucar of the Greek Catholic church, and Erasmus of the\nProtestant church, have denied the authenticity of James. Luther\nhimself refused to accept it. He says: \"The Epistle of James I account\nthe writing of no apostle.\"\n\nThe composition of Jude and Second Peter are both placed\nin A.D. 64. There is no proof that either was in existence in\nA.D. 164. It is only necessary to read Jude and the second chapter\nof Second Peter to see that one borrowed from the other. While most\nbelieve that the author of Second Peter used Jude in the construction\nof his epistle, Luther contends that Jude is the plagiarist. He says:\n\"The epistle of Jude is an abstract or copy of St. Peter's Second\"\n(Preface to Luther's Version).\n\nJude cites as authentic the apocryphal book of Enoch, and the\napocryphal story of Michael the archangel contending with Satan\nfor the body of Moses. Origen, Jerome, and others in ancient,\nand Calvin, Grotius and others in modern times, have doubted its\nauthenticity. Mayerhoff says it was written in the second century to\ncombat the heresies of the Carpocratians.\n\n\n\nEpistles of Peter.\n\nMost Christians contend that the First Epistle of Peter is\ngenuine. Some of the early Christian Fathers, however, rejected\nit. Iren\u00e6us did not place it in his canon. Not until the third century\nwas it accepted as the writing of Peter.\n\nThe celebrated Tubingen school of critics rejects the authenticity\nof the book. Baur and Zeller believe it to be a Pauline\ndocument. Schwegler believes that it was written to reconcile the\nPauline and Petrine doctrines. The Dutch critics say that it was\nborrowed largely from Paul and James, and that it was probably written\nearly in the second century. Regarding its authorship, Jules Soury,\nof the University of France, says:\n\n\"Nobody, however, knows better than he [Renan] that the so-called\nFirst Epistle of Peter, full of allusions to Paul's writings, as well\nas the epistle to the Hebrews and the epistle of James, dates in all\nprobability from the year 130 A.D., at the earliest, thus placing\ntwo generations between the time of its composition and the latter\nyears of the reign of Nero, when Peter is fabled to have been in Rome\"\n(Jesus and the Gospels, p. 32).\n\nAll critics pronounce Second Peter a forgery. Chambers's Encyclopedia\nsays: \"So far as external authority is concerned, it has hardly\nany. The most critical and competent of the Fathers were suspicious of\nits authenticity; it was rarely if ever quoted, and was not formally\nadmitted into the canon till the Council of Hippo, 393 A.D. The\ninternal evidence is just as unsatisfactory.\"\n\nSmith's \"Bible Dictionary\" contains the following relative to its\nauthenticity: \"We have few references to it in the writings of the\nearly Fathers; the style differs materially from that of the First\nEpistle, and the resemblance amounting to a studied imitation between\nthis epistle and that of Jude, seems scarcely reconcilable with the\nposition of Peter.... Many reject the epistle altogether as spurious.\"\n\nIt is believed by some that the original title of Second Peter was\nthe Epistle of Simeon. Grotius argues that it is a compilation from\ntwo older epistles. The third chapter begins as follows: \"This second\nepistle, beloved, I now write unto you.\" These words clearly denote the\nbeginning of a document. Those who affirm its genuineness consider the\nsecond chapter an interpolation. Westcott says there is no evidence of\nthe existence of this epistle prior to 170 A.D. Scaliger declares it to\nbe a \"fiction of some ancient Christian misemploying his leisure time.\"\n\n\n\nEpistles of John.\n\nThe so-called Epistles of John, so far as the books themselves are\nconcerned, are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written\nby the Apostle John, nor by anyone bearing the name of John.\n\nOf First John, \"Chambers's Encyclopedia\" says: \"Of the epistles\nit is almost certain that the First proceeded from the same writer\nwho composed the [Fourth] Gospel. In style, language, and doctrine,\nit is identical with it.\" If John did not write the Fourth Gospel,\nand it is conceded by most writers that he did not, then he did not\nwrite this epistle.\n\nReferring to the Gospel of John, whose authenticity he denies and\nwhose composition he assigns to the second century, Dr. Hooykaas\nsays: \"The First Epistle of John soon issued from the same school in\nimitation of the Gospel\" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 692).\n\nOf two passages in the First Epistle, ii, 23, and v, 7, which teach\nthe doctrine of the Trinity, the \"Bible Dictionary\" says: \"It would\nappear without doubt that they are not genuine.\" The Revisers of the\nKing James version pronounced them spurious.\n\nThe second and third epistles were not written by the writer of\nthe first. The early Fathers rejected them. Eusebius in the fourth\ncentury classed them with the doubtful books. It has been claimed that\nthe second epistle was written for the purpose of counteracting the\nheretical teachings of Basilides and his followers. Basilides was a\nfamous writer of the second century.\n\nThese epistles have the following superscriptions: \"The elder\n[presbyter] unto the elect lady\" to the first, and \"The elder unto\nthe well-beloved Gaius\" to the second. The declaration that they are\nfrom an elder or presbyter proves that they are not from an apostle,\nand consequently not from the Apostle John. If they were written by a\nwriter named John, it was probably John the Presbyter, who lived in\nthe second century. Jerome states that they were generally credited\nto him. In his account of John the Presbyter, Judge Waite says:\n\"He is also, not without reason, believed to have been the author of\nthe Epistles of John\" (History of the Christian Religion, p. 228).\n\n\n\nRevelation.\n\nRevelation is the last book of the Bible, and the one least\nunderstood. Christians themselves are not agreed as to its\nmeaning. Some believe it to be a series of prophecies which have had\ntheir fulfilment in the struggles between Christianity and Paganism;\nothers believe that its prophecies are yet to be fulfilled; still\nothers pronounce it a symbolical poem, representing the conflict\nbetween truth and error, while not a few consider it the recorded\nfancies of a diseased imagination.\n\nThe book purports to be from \"John to the seven churches of Asia\" (i,\n4). This John is declared to be the Apostle John and its authority is\nbased upon this claim. Smith's \"Bible Dictionary\" says: \"The question\nas to the canonical authority of the Revelation resolves itself into\na question of authorship. Was St. John the Apostle and Evangelist\nthe writer of the Revelation?\" If John the Apostle and the author\nof the Fourth Gospel were one, as assumed by the \"Bible Dictionary,\"\nthen the question of its authenticity and canonical authority must be\nabandoned, for the author of the Fourth Gospel did not write it. There\nis nothing in common between them. The German theologian, Lucke, says:\n\"If all critical experience and rules in such literary questions\ndo not deceive, it is certain that the Evangelist and Apocalyptist\nare two different persons.\" De Wette says: \"The Apostle John, if he\nbe the author of the Fourth Gospel and of the Johannine epistles,\ndid not write the Apocalypse.\" Regarding this conclusion, Ewald says:\n\"All men capable of forming a judgment are of the same opinion.\" Among\nthe eminent critics and commentators who take this position are Luther,\nErasmus, Michaelis, Schleiermacher, Credner, Zeller, Evanson, Baur,\nRenan, and Davidson.\n\nThe Apostle John wrote neither the Fourth Gospel, the so-called\nEpistles of John, nor Revelation. That he did not write Revelation\nis shown by the following:\n\n1. The author does not claim to be an apostle.\n\n2. He refers to the Twelve Apostles (xxi, 14) in a way that forbids\nthe supposition that he was one of them.\n\n3. The Apostle John is declared to have been illiterate and incapable\nof writing a book.\n\n4. It is addressed to the seven churches of Asia, and yet the seven\nchurches of Asia, to which it is addressed, rejected it.\n\nThe Alogi maintained that it was a forgery which came from\nCorinth. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, writing in the third century,\nsays: \"Divers of our predecessors have wholly refused and rejected\nthis book, and by discussing the several parts thereof have found it\nobscure and void of reason and the title forged.\"\n\nConcerning its rejection by modern churchmen, the Edinburgh Review\n(No. 131) says: \"The most learned and intelligent of Protestant\ndivines here almost all doubted or denied the canonicity of the book\nof Revelation. Calvin and Beza pronounced the book unintelligible,\nand prohibited the pastors of Geneva from all attempts at\ninterpretation.\" Dr. South described it as \"a book that either found\na man mad or left him so.\"\n\nLuther, in the Preface to his New Testament (Ed. of 1522) writes:\n\"In the Revelation of John much is wanting to let me deem it either\nprophetic or apostolical.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nPAULINE EPISTLES.\n\n\nFourteen books--Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians,\nEphesians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second Thessalonians,\nFirst and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews--are ascribed,\nsome correctly, some doubtfully, and others falsely, to Paul. They\nwere all written, it is claimed, between 52 and 65 A.D.\n\n\n\nGenuine Epistles.\n\nThe genuine Epistles of Paul, those whose authenticity is conceded\nby nearly all critics, are Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and\nGalatians. The term \"genuine\" is applied to the books as originally\nwritten, and not to the text as it now exists. It is probable that they\nhave undergone various changes since they left Paul's hand. The last\ntwo chapters of Romans are believed to be interpolations. The fifteenth\nconsists chiefly of irrelevant matter which detracts from the symmetry\nof the work. The sixteenth is mostly filled with salutations. In these\nseveral women are given a prominence in church affairs that is wholly\nat variance with Paul's attitude toward woman. The subscription to\nthe First Epistle to the Corinthians states that it \"was written from\nPhilippi.\" The 19th verse of the last chapter shows that Paul was in\nAsia instead of Europe, while the 8th verse expressly declares that\nhe was at Ephesus. The Second Epistle to Corinthians, it is declared,\n\"was written from Philippi\" also. That this is doubtful is admitted\neven by the most orthodox authorities. The subscription to Galatians\nreads as follows: \"Unto the Galatians, written from Rome.\" This book\nwas written between 52 and 55 A.D.; Paul did not go to Rome until 61\nA.D. This epistle was written from Ephesus.\n\nWhile critics are nearly unanimous in acknowledging the genuineness\nof these books, a few, including Professor Thudichum of Germany,\nProf. Edwin Johnson of England, and W. H. Burr of this country,\npronounce them forgeries, and contend that the Paul of the New\nTestament is a myth.\n\n\n\nDoubtful Epistles.\n\nThe doubtful Epistles, those whose authenticity is accepted by some\ncritics and rejected by others, are Philippians, First Thessalonians,\nand Philemon. Sixty years ago to this list of doubtful books critics\nwould have added three others--Ephesians, Colossians, and Second\nThessalonians; but the critical labors of the Tubingen school and\nothers have relegated these to the already burdened shelf of spurious\nBible books.\n\nIn regard to Philippians, Ferdinand Baur, for thirty years head of\nthe Tubingen school and unquestionably the greatest of Bible critics,\nsays: \"The Epistles to the Colossians and to the Philippians ... are\nspurious, and were written by the Catholic school near the end of\nthe second century, to heal the strife between the Jew and Gentile\nfactions\" (Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ).\n\nBaur also rejects First Thessalonians. He contends that this, as well\nas the Second Epistle, contains teachings quite at variance with the\nteachings of Paul. The German critic Schrader is confident that Paul\ndid not write First Thessalonians.\n\nRespecting Philemon, Dr. Hitchcock says: \"This brief Epistle was\nwritten at the same time with those to the Colossians and Ephesians,\nand was sent along with them by Tychicus and Onesimus.\" As Colossians\nand Ephesians have both been declared spurious by the ablest Christian\nscholars, Philemon, to say the least, is placed in bad company. This\nEpistle was written in behalf of one Onesimus, a zealous Christian,\nwho is also mentioned in Colossians. There was an Onesimus, a zealous\nchurch worker, living in 175 A.D.\n\nHolland's critics, Dr. Kuenen, Dr. Oort, and Dr. Hooykaas, are disposed\nto accept Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon, but admit\nthat there are grave doubts concerning the authenticity of each.\n\n\n\nSpurious Epistles.\n\nThe spurious Epistles, those whose authenticity is generally denied\nby the critics, are Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians,\nFirst and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews.\n\nEwald and De Wette both admit that Ephesians was not written by\nSt. Paul. De Wette thinks it was compiled from Colossians. Davidson and\nMayerhoff believe that neither Ephesians nor Colossians is genuine. I\nhave quoted Baur's rejection of Colossians. The Encyclopedia Britannica\nsays: \"It is undeniable that the Epistle to the Colossians and the\nso-called Epistle to the Ephesians differ considerably in language\nand thought from other Pauline Epistles and that their relation to\none another demands explanation.\"\n\nFirst and Second Thessalonians are pronounced the oldest of Paul's\nwritings, both belonging, it is claimed, to 52 A.D. The author of the\nSecond Epistle is very desirous of having his writing accepted as\na genuine Epistle of Paul. Several times he declares himself to be\nPaul. He warns them not to be deceived \"by letter as from us\" (ii,\n2), and concludes with \"the salutation of Paul with mine own hand,\nwhich is the token in every Epistle.\" This Epistle affirms the first\nto be a forgery. The first was probably written at an early date, and,\nwhether genuine or spurious, was accepted as a Pauline Epistle. In it\nthe early advent of Christ--during Paul's lifetime--is predicted. \"We,\nwhich are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not\nprevent them which are asleep\" (iv, 15). \"Then we which are alive\nand remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds\"\n(17). Generations passed, Christ did not come, and the church\nwas losing faith in Paul and Christianity. To restore confidence,\nanother letter from Paul to the Thessalonians was \"found,\" and this\nrepudiates the first. He exhorts them not to be troubled, \"neither\nby spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of\nChrist is at hand\" (ii, 2). It teaches the second coming of Christ,\nbut carefully leaves the time indefinite. Whatever may be said of\nthe First Epistle, the Second is clearly a forgery.\n\nWith respect to these Epistles, the Britannica says: \"The predominant\nopinion of modern criticism at present is that the genuineness of the\nFirst Epistle is certain, while that of the Second must be given up.\"\n\nFirst and Second Timothy and Titus, known as the Pastoral Epistles, and\nHebrews were not written by Paul. The Pastoral Epistles are forgeries,\nwhile Hebrews is an anonymous work. The contents of these books betray\na later date. Their teachings are not the teachings of Paul. Their\nlanguage is utterly unlike that of the genuine Epistles. They contain\ntwo hundred words never used by Paul. Marcion, the most noted Pauline\nChristian of the second century, who made a collection of Paul's\nEpistles, excluded them. Tatian and Basilides also rejected them.\n\nAgainst the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles may be cited\nnearly every modern critic, including the four great names of Baur,\nEichorn, De Wette, and Davidson. Baur says they were written in the\nsecond century.\n\nWhile thirteen of the so-called Pauline Epistles claim to have\nbeen written by Paul, Hebrews alone is silent regarding its\nauthorship. Tertullian classed it with the apocryphal books, but\nthought it might have been written by Barnabas. In the Clermont codex\nit is called the Epistle of Barnabas. According to Origen, some ascribe\nit to Luke, others to Clement of Rome. Origen himself says: \"Who it was\nthat really wrote the Epistle, God only knows.\" Dr. Westcott admits\nthat there is no evidence that Paul wrote it. Grotius attributes it\nto Luke, Luther to Apollos. Luther says: \"That the Epistle to the\nHebrews is not by St. Paul, nor, indeed, by any apostle, is shown by\nchapter ii, 3\" (Preface to Luther's N. T.).\n\nConcerning the seven books that we have been considering, Dr. Hooykaas\nsays:\n\n\"Fourteen Epistles are said to be Paul's; but we must at once strike\noff one, namely, that to the Hebrews, which does not bear his name\nat all.... The two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus were\ncertainly composed long after the death of Paul.... It is more than\nprobable that the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians are also\nunauthentic, and the same suspicion rests, perhaps, on the first,\nbut certainly on the second of the Epistles to the Thessalonians\"\n(Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 23).\n\nThe Rev. John W. Chadwick, in his \"Bible of To-day,\" says that the\nfirst four Epistles \"are his [Paul's] with absolute certainty.\" Four\nothers, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon,\nhe is disposed to accept, but admits that their authenticity is\ndoubtful. The remaining books he pronounces spurious.\n\nPersons in this age have little conception of the prevalence\nof literary forgeries in the early centuries of the church. Now,\nwhen books are printed in editions of 1,000 or more, such forgeries\nare nearly impossible and consequently rare. When books existed in\nmanuscript only, they were neither difficult nor uncommon. Books\nand letters purporting to have been written by Paul, Peter, John,\nand other Apostles were readily \"discovered\" when wanted. Of these\nApostolic forgeries Prof. John Tyndall says: \"When arguments or proofs\nwere needed, whether on the side of the Jewish Christians or of the\nGentile Christians, a document was discovered which met the case, and\non which the name of an Apostle or of some authoritative contemporary\nof the Apostles was boldly inscribed. The end being held to justify\nthe means, there was no lack of manufactured testimony.\"\n\n\n\nConclusion.\n\nOf these fourteen Epistles ascribed to Paul, four, then, Romans,\nFirst and Second Corinthians, and Galatians, are pronounced genuine;\nthree, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon, are of doubtful\nauthenticity; while seven, Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians,\nFirst and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews, are spurious.\n\nThe genuine writings of Paul are probably the oldest Christian writings\nextant. Admitting the authenticity of these four books, of course,\nis not admitting the authenticity of Christianity. Paul was not a\nwitness of the alleged events upon which historical Christianity\nrests. He was not a convert to Christianity until many years after\nChrist's death. He did not see Christ (save in a vision); he did not\nlisten to his teachings; he did not learn from his disciples. \"The\ngospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither\nreceived it of man, neither was I taught it\" (Gal. i, 11, 12). Paul\naccepted only to a small extent the religion of Christ's disciples. He\nprofessed to derive his knowledge from supernatural sources--from\ntrances and visions. Regarding the value of such testimony, the\nauthor of \"Supernatural Religion\" says: \"No one can deny, and medical\nand psychological annals prove, that many men have been subject to\nvisions and hallucinations which have never been seriously attributed\nto supernatural causes. There is not one single valid reason removing\nthe ecstatic visions and trances of the Apostle Paul from this class.\"\n\n\n\nWe have now reviewed the books of the Bible and presented some of the\nhistorical and internal evidences bearing upon the question of their\nauthenticity. The authenticity of the books of the New Testament,\nwe have seen, is but little better attested than that of the Old. The\nauthors of twenty books--Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Ephesians,\nColossians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus,\nHebrews, James, First and Second Peter, First, Second, and Third John,\nJude, and Revelation--are unknown. Three books--Philippians, First\nThessalonians, and Philemon--are of questionable authenticity. Four\nbooks only--Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians--are\ngenerally admitted to be authentic.\n\nOf the sixty-six books of the Bible at least fifty are anonymous\nworks or forgeries. To teach that these books are divine, and to\naccept them as such, denotes a degree of depravity on the one hand,\nand an amount of credulity on the other, that are not creditable to\na moral and enlightened people.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nCREDIBILITY.\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTEXTUAL CORRUPTIONS.\n\n\n\"The Bible does not contain the shadow of a shade of error from\nGenesis to Revelation\"--Cheever.\n\n\"Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word\nof it, is the direct utterance of the Most High.\"--Bunyan.\n\nSuch are the dogmatic assertions of Bibliolaters. So much confidence\ndo they pretend to repose in the doctrine of the Bible's inerrancy\nthat they propose the most crucial tests for its submission.\n\nThe Rev. Jeremiah Jones, one of the highest orthodox authorities on\nthe canon, lays down this rule in determining the right of a book to\na place in the canon:\n\n\"That book is apocryphal which contains contradictions; or which\ncontains histories, or proposes doctrines contrary to those which are\nknown to be true; or which contains ludicrous trifling, fabulous,\nor silly relations; or which contains anachronisms; or wherein the\nstyle is clearly different from the known style of the author whose\nname it bears\" (New Methods, Vol. I., p. 70).\n\nThe Rev. T. Hartwell Horne, a standard authority in the orthodox\nchurch, submits this test in determining the divinity of the Bible\nas a whole:\n\n\"If real contradictions exist in the Bible, it is sufficient proof\nthat it is not divinely inspired, whatever pretenses it may make to\nsuch inspiration\" (Introduction to the Scriptures, Vol. I., p. 581).\n\nI challenge the verity of Cheever's and Bunyan's claims and proceed\nto apply to this book the tests of Jones and Horne. Instead of not\ncontaining the shadow of a shade of error, I shall show that it is\nso filled with the darkness of error that the truths existing in it\nare scarcely discernible. Instead of being the direct utterance of\nthe Most High, I shall show that every book of it, every chapter of\nit, every verse of it, every word of it, is the direct utterance of\nman. I shall impeach the authority of the Christian canon and show\nthat all of its books are apocryphal; that they contain histories\nand propose doctrines that are contrary to what is known to be true;\nthat they contain ludicrous, trifling, fabulous, and silly relations;\nthat they abound with anachronisms. If I have not already shown that\nthe style of these books is clearly different from the known style of\nthe authors whose names they bear, it is because the \"known style\" of\nthese authors is a myth. I shall adduce enough real contradictions from\nthe Bible to not only refute the claim that it is divinely inspired,\nbut to destroy its credibility even as a human authority.\n\n\n\nErrors of Transcribers.\n\nIf the Bible were a divine revelation, as claimed, it would have\nbeen divinely preserved. Not only the original writers, but the\ntranscribers, translators, and printers, also, would have been divinely\ninspired. It is admitted that divine inspiration was confined to the\noriginal writers. Consequently the Bible, as we have it, cannot be\nan infallible revelation. If it be not an infallible revelation it\ncannot be a divine revelation.\n\nIt is popularly supposed that the books of the Bible, as originally\nwritten, have been preserved free from corruptions. That they are full\nof textual errors--that the books as they were originally written\nno longer exist and cannot be restored--is conceded even by the\nmost orthodox of the Lower Critics. The principal causes of these\ncorruptions are the following:\n\n1. Clerical errors. The invention of printing made it possible\nto preserve the original text of a writer comparatively free from\nerrors. With the works of ancient writers this was impossible. For a\nperiod of from 1,200 to 2,200 years preceding the invention of printing\nthe only means of preserving the books of the Bible was the pen of the\nscribe. However careful the copyist might be, errors would creep into\nthe text. But instead of being careful these copyists, many of them,\nwere notoriously careless. This is especially evident in the case of\nnumbers. Hundreds of errors were made in the transcription of these\nalone. Probably one-half of the numbers given in the Old Testament,\nand many in the New, are not those given in the original text, but\nare errors due to the carelessness of transcribers and a want of\ndivine supervision.\n\n2. Interpolations. There are thousands of interpolations in the\nBible. A considerable portion of the words printed in Italics in our\nversion are acknowledged interpolations. Many of them appeared first in\nthe shape of marginal notes intended to explain or correct a statement\nin the text. Later scribes incorporated these into the text. And thus,\nwhile God was engaged in watching sparrows and numbering the hairs\nin his children's heads, additions in this and various other ways\nwere made to his word. In many instances whole chapters were added\nto the original documents.\n\n3. Omissions. Much matter was carelessly omitted. To quote the Bible\nfor Learners, \"not only letters and words, but whole verses have fallen\nout.\" Objectionable matter was intentionally omitted. Chrysostom\ntells us that entire books were destroyed by the Jews. They were on\nsuch familiar terms with the Deity that they could obtain other and\nmore desirable ones for the asking.\n\n4. Textual changes. In innumerable places the text has been wilfully\nchanged to suit the religious and other notions of the priests. Let\nme cite an example. In early copies, and probably in the original\ntext, Genesis xviii, 22, reads as follows: \"The Lord yet stood before\nAbraham.\" They thought it detracted from God's dignity to stand before\none of his creatures, and so they changed it to its present form,\n\"Abraham stood yet before the Lord.\"\n\nConcerning the corruptions of the scribes, Dr. Davidson says: \"They\ndid not refrain from changing what had been written, or inserting\nfresh matter\" (Canon, p. 34).\n\nThe facts that I have mentioned apply not merely to the Old Testament,\nbut to the New Testament as well. Westcott, a very high authority\non the canon, says: \"It does not appear that any special care was\ntaken in the first age to preserve the books of the New Testament\nfrom the various injuries of time or to insure perfect accuracy of\ntranscription.... The original copies seem to have soon perished.\"\n\n\n\nErrors of Translators.\n\nThese errors of the transcribers have been immeasurably increased\nby the translators. A perfect translation is impossible, and for\nthese reasons: 1. No language has words to express perfectly all\nthe words of another language. 2. Languages change with time and\nthe words of one age have a different meaning in the next. 3. Many\nwriters do not express themselves clearly, and it is often impossible\nto fully comprehend their meaning. This is especially true of Bible\nwriters. 4. No two translators will grasp the meaning of a writer in\nexactly the same manner, or convey it in the same words.\n\nIn regard to the Old Testament the Hebrew language, as anciently\nwritten, was the most difficult of all languages to translate. It\nwas written from right to left; the words contained no vowels; there\nwere no intervening spaces between the words, and no punctuation\nmarks. Even with the introduction of vowel points many words in Hebrew,\nas in English, have more than one meaning. Without these points,\nas originally written, the number is increased a hundred fold. The\nfive English words, bag, beg, big, bog, and bug, are quite unlike\nand easily distinguished. Omit the vowels, as the ancient Jews did,\nand we have five words exactly alike, or rather, one word with five\ndifferent meanings. The Hebrew language was thus largely composed of\nwords with several meanings. As there were no spaces between words it\nwas sometimes hard to tell where a word began or where it ended; and\nas there were no punctuation marks, and no spaces between sentences,\nparagraphs, or even sections, it was often difficult to determine\nthe meaning of a writer after the words had been deciphered.\n\nHere is the best known passage in the Bible printed in English as\nthe Jews would have written it in Hebrew:\n\n\n bllwhtmcmdgnkhtmnhtbdllhnvhntrhchwrhtfR\n vgrfwsstbdrsvgrfdndrbldrdshtsvgnvhnstshtrnnd\n nkhtsnhtrflvmrfsrvldtbnttpmttntnsdldnsrtbdrn\n nmrvrfrlghtdnrphtdnmdg\n\n\nIn the printed text there is little danger of mistaking one letter for\nanother; in the written text there is, especially if they resemble\neach other. The Hebrew letters corresponding to our D and R were\nnearly alike and easily confounded. Consequently in Numbers i, 14,\nwe have \"Eliasaph the son of Deuel,\" and in Numbers ii, 14, \"Eliasaph\nthe son of Reuel.\" Only God knows which is correct, and he does not\ncare to enlighten us. Therefore we must believe that both are correct\nor be damned.\n\nSt. Jerome says: \"When we translate the Hebrew into Latin we are\nsometimes guided by conjecture.\" Le Clerc says: \"The learned merely\nguess at the sense of the Old Testament in an infinity of places\"\n(Sentim, p. 156). The Old Testament as we have it, then, consists\nlargely of guesses and conjectures.\n\nThe title page of our Authorized Version of the Bible contains these\nwords: \"Translated out of the original tongues.\" The Old Testament\nis declared to be a correct translation of the accepted Hebrew. In\nits preparation, however, the Greek more than the Hebrew version\nwas followed. Referring to the King James translators, the historian\nJohn Clark Ridpath says: \"Following the Septuagint rather than the\nHebrew original, they fell into many errors which a riper scholarship\nwould have avoided\" (Cyclopedia of Universal History. Vol. II.,\np. 763). Instead of being a collection of original guesses and\nconjectures our Old Testament is, to a great extent, merely a bad\nEnglish translation of a corrupted copy of a spurious Greek translation\nof the original (?) Hebrew.\n\nOn the title page of the Authorized Version of the New Testament\nappears another falsehood: \"Translated out of the original Greek.\" The\noriginal Greek of the New Testament, it is claimed, belongs to the\nfirst century. The \"original Greek\" out of which our version was\ntranslated is less than 500 years old. The Greek version from which it\nwas translated was made by Erasmus in 1516. Referring to the materials\nemployed by Erasmus in the preparation of his work, the Rev. Alexander\nRoberts, D. D., in his \"Companion to the Revised Version of the English\nNew Testament,\" a work which the Committee on Revision delegated him\nto write and which was approved, makes the following admissions:\n\n\"In the Gospels he principally used a cursive MS. of the fifteenth\nor sixteenth century.\"\n\n\"In the Acts and Epistles he chiefly followed a cursive MS. of the\nthirteenth or fourteenth century.\"\n\n\"For the Apocalypse he had only one mutilated manuscript.\"\n\n\"There are words in the professed original for which no divine\nauthority can be pleaded, but which are entirely due to the learning\nand imagination of Erasmus.\"\n\nLittle do Christians realize how much of the Bible is due to the\nimagination of theologians.\n\nIn view of the difficulties that I have mentioned, if the translators\nhad earnestly tried to give us a faithful translation of the Bible\ntheir work would have teemed with imperfections. But they did not even\nattempt to give us a faithful translation. We know that in numerous\ninstances they purposely mistranslated its words. A hundred examples\nmight be cited. One will suffice--sheol.\n\nThe translators themselves ought to be the best judges of each\nother's work. Of Beza's New Testament, Castalio says: \"It would\nrequire a large volume to mark down the multitude of errors which\nswarm in Beza's translation.\" Of Castalio's translation, Beza says:\n\"It is sacrilegious, wicked, and downright pagan.\" Reviewing Luther's\nBible, Zwingle writes: \"Thou corruptest, O Luther, the Word of\nGod. Thou art known to be an open and notorious perverter of the Holy\nScriptures.\" Luther, in turn, calls the translators of Zwingle's Bible\n\"a set of fools, anti-Christs, and impostors.\"\n\nOur Authorized Version is certainly as faulty as any of the above,\nand its translators have been the recipients of as severe criticisms\nas those quoted. The Committee on Revision, while compelled to treat\nit respectfully, declared against its infallibility in the following\nwords: \"The studied variety adopted by the translators of 1611 has\nproduced a degree of inconsistency that cannot be reconciled with\nthe principles of faithfulness\" (Preface to N. V.).\n\n\n\nDifferent Versions Contain Different Books.\n\nThat the charges that I have made concerning the corruptions of\nthe text of the Bible are true, one fact alone amply proves--its\nmany discordant versions and translations. Hundreds have perished,\nall of them differing from the original and differing from each\nother. A hundred still exist; no two of them alike. Excepting the\nEnglish versions, which are mostly revisions of the same version,\nscarcely two of the principal versions contain the same books.\n\nThe received Hebrew contains 39 books (22 as divided), the Samaritan\n6 (some copies but 5); the Septuagint about 50. Of the Christian\nversions of the Old Testament, some contain the Apocryphal books,\nothers do not. The Gothic and Ethiopic versions exclude a part of\nthe canonical books.\n\nThe Syriac New Testament contains but 22 books; the Italic 24 (some\ncopies 25); the Egyptian 26; the Vulgate 27. The Ethiopic omits a\ncanonical book and includes an apocryphal book. The Sinaitic and\nAlexandrian manuscripts each contain 29 books. Each contains two\napocryphal books, but the books are not the same.\n\nThe Roman Catholic and the Greek Catholic Bibles do not contain the\nsame number of books. The Roman Catholic and the Protestant Bibles\ndo not contain the same number; the Roman Catholic contains 75,\nthe Protestant 66.\n\n\n\nDifferent Versions of the Same Book Differ.\n\nNo two versions of the same book are alike. The Samaritan Pentateuch\ndoes not agree with the Hebrew Pentateuch; the Septuagint Pentateuch\nagrees with neither.\n\nThe Hebrew and the Septuagint have both been accepted by Christians\nas authoritative. In a single chapter may be found a dozen important\nvariations:\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begat Salah\"\n(Gen. xi, 12).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years and\nbegat Cainan.\"\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and\nthree years\" (13).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and he\nbegat Salah, and he lived after the birth of Salah three hundred and\nthirty years.\"\n\nHebrew.--\"And Salah lived thirty years and begat Eber\" (14).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Salah lived a hundred and thirty years and begat\nEber.\"\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three\nyears\" (15).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Salah lived after he begat Eber three hundred and\nthirty years.\"\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Eber lived four and thirty years and begat Peleg\" (16).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Eber lived a hundred and thirty-four years and\nbegat Peleg.\"\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty\nyears\" (17).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Eber lived after he begat Peleg two hundred and\nseventy years.\"\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Peleg lived thirty years and begat Reu\" (18).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Peleg lived a hundred and thirty years and begat\nRagad.\"\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Reu lived two and thirty years and begat Serug\" (20).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Ragad lived a hundred and thirty-two years and\nbegat Serug.\"\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Serug lived thirty years and begat Nahor\" (22).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Serug lived a hundred and thirty years and begat\nNahor.\"\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Nahor lived nine and twenty years and begot Terah\" (24).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Nahor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years and\nbegat Terah.\"\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen\nyears\" (25).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Nahor lived after he begat Terah a hundred and\ntwenty-five years.\"\n\n\n\nHebrew.--\"And Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his\nson's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife\" (31).\n\nSeptuagint.--\"And Terah took Abram and Nahor his sons, and Lot the son\nof Haran his son's son, and Sarai and Melcha, his daughters-in-law,\nthe wives of his sons Abram and Nahor.\"\n\n\n\nThe early Christian versions and manuscripts contain an immense number\nof different readings, at least 150,000. Dr. Mill discovered 80,000\ndifferent readings in the New Testament alone.\n\nOrigen, writing in the third century, says: \"There is a vast difference\nbetwixt the several editions of the scripture, happening either through\nthe carelessness of the transcribers, or else the forwardness of some\nwho pretend to correct and adulterate the scripture\" (Commentary on\nSt. Matthew).\n\nModern versions do not agree. The readings of the Catholic and\nProtestant versions are quite unlike: The Protestant versions\nthemselves contain a great variety of readings. The New Version\nis supposed to be simply a revision of the Authorized Version. The\ncommittee that prepared it was governed by this rule: \"To introduce\nas few alterations as possible into the text of the Authorized Version\nconsistent with faithfulness.\"\n\nHow many alterations were made? More than one hundred thousand!\n\nThe following are some of the changes made in the New Testament:\n\nOld Version.--\"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is\nprofitable for doctrine,\" etc. (2 Tim. iii, 16).\n\nNew Version.--\"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable\nfor teaching,\" etc.\n\nOld.--\"And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were\nspoken of him\" (Luke ii, 33).\n\nNew.--\"And his father and his mother were marveling at the things\nwhich were spoken concerning him.\"\n\nOld.--\"These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan\" (John i, 28).\n\nNew.--\"These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan.\"\n\nOld.--\"God was manifest in the flesh\" (1 Tim. iii, 16).\n\nNew.--\"He [Christ] who was manifested in the flesh.\"\n\nOld.--\"No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret\nplace\" (Luke xi, 33).\n\nNew.--\"No man, when he hath lighted a lamp, putteth it in a cellar.\"\n\n\n\nOld.--\"Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth\nunto life\" (Matt, vii, 14).\n\nNew.--\"For narrow is the gate and straitened the way that leadeth\nunto life.\"\n\n\n\nOld.--\"Our Father, which art in heaven. Hallowed be thy name. Thy\nkingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us\nthis day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our\ndebtors, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:\nFor thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen\"\n(Matt, vi, 9-13).\n\nNew.--\"Our father, which art in heaven. Hallowed be thy name. Thy\nkingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us\nthis day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have\nforgiven our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver\nus from the evil one.\"\n\nOne would suppose that if Christians preserved any part of the Bible\nfree from corruption it would be the prayer of their Lord, a little\nprayer containing but a few lines. And yet they have not. The so-called\nLord's Prayer that our mother's taught us is not the Lord's Prayer. The\nprayer we learned contains sixty-six words. The Lord's Prayer contains\nbut fifty-five. The revisers have expunged fifteen words, added some,\nand altered others.\n\nThe last twelve verses of Mark, the first eleven verses of John viii,\nand 1 John v, 8, three important passages, are all admitted to be\nforgeries.\n\n\n\nDifferent Copies of the Same Version Differ.\n\nDifferent copies of the same version contain different\nreadings. St. Jerome's version was declared a forgery, because\nit differed so much from the Italic version then in use. Jerome\nanticipated the charge and met the objection in his preface addressed\nto Pope Damasus:\n\n\"Two things are my comfort under such a reproach: First, that 'tis you,\nthe Supreme Pontiff, that have put me upon the task; and secondly,\nthat by the confession even of the most envious, there needs be some\nfalsity where there is so much variety. If they say that the Latin\ncopies are to be credited, let them tell me which. For there are\nalmost as many different copies as there are manuscripts.\"\n\nProf. Wilbur F. Steele, a noted Christian scholar, relates the\nfollowing relative to our own version: \"In 1848 there was such\nconfusion in the office of the American Bible Society, and such\nimpossibility of telling what should be the reading in many places,\nthat a man was set to work to bring order out of chaos. He took four\nBibles from as many leading Bible houses of England, a copy of the\nAmerican Bible Society, and a copy of the original edition of 1611,\nall claiming to be the same. These were carefully compared throughout;\nevery variation, no matter how minute, was noted. The number of these\nvariations was about 24,000\" (Central Christian Advocate). Twenty-four\nthousand variations found in six copies of the same version!\n\nThus we see that different versions of the Bible do not contain\nthe same books; different versions of the same book do not contain\nthe same readings, while even different copies of the same versions\ndisagree. Which is the word of God?\n\nIf the Bible had originally consisted of authentic and credible\ndocuments its credibility would have been greatly impaired by these\nwholesale corruptions of the transcribers and translators. But if\nwe had the originals, it is doubtful whether their credibility would\nbe much greater than these distorted copies. Enough remains to show\nthe general character of them, and this is bad. They consist mostly\nof historical and biographical narratives, interwoven with legends,\nmyths, and fables; crude poetical compositions; the ravings of diseased\nreligious minds, called prophecies and revelations; and theological\ndissertations, no two of which agree in their doctrines. A few of the\nbooks possess genuine merit and deserve a place among the literary\ntreasures of the world, but all of them are fallible.\n\nRemarkable, as coming from a theological professor, but fraught with\ntruth and confirmatory of the statements made in this chapter, are\nthese words of Professor Steele:\n\n\"Evidently every letter of the English Bible has not been miraculously\nwatched over. He who has neither eyes nor conscience may affirm it,\nbut persons provided with these can not. If the affirmer hedges by\nsaying he did not refer to translations but to the 'original,' we\nnote that (1) translations are the only thing most people have to\ngo to heaven on; and (2) that scholars of truth and conscience find\nequally as much fault with the 'original.'\"\n\n\"There are hundreds, if not thousands, of places in which the scholar\nfinds conflicting testimony.\"\n\nIn discussing the credibility of the Bible the question of authenticity\nwill, for the most part, be waived. With Christians all of its books\nare genuine--the writings of those to whom they are ascribed--and for\nthe sake of argument, as well as convenience, these ascribed authors\nwill be recognized.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nTWO COSMOGONIES OF GENESIS.\n\n\nA stereotyped claim of Bible believers is this: \"The account of\ncreation given in Genesis is in harmony with the accepted teachings\nof science.\" But which account? In the opening chapters of Genesis\nare presented two ancient poems, written by different authors. The\nfirst comprises the first chapter and the first three verses of the\nsecond chapter; the second comprises the remainder of the second\nchapter. Each poem contains a cosmogony. But neither of them agrees\nwith the demonstrated truths of science. Above all, they do not agree\nwith each other. The points of disagreement are many, chief of which\nare the following:\n\n\n\n1.\n\nIn the first cosmogony the appellation of Deity is uniformly \"Elohim\"\n(the gods), translated \"God.\" This term occurs thirty-five times.\n\nIn the second, the appellation of Deity is uniformly \"Jehovah (Yahweh)\nElohim,\" translated \"Lord God.\" This term occurs eleven times.\n\nThe first belongs to the Priestly code, the second to the Jehovistic\ndocument. They represent different schools of Jewish thought and\ndifferent periods of Jewish history.\n\n\n\n2.\n\nIn the first, earth is a chaos covered with water. The waters must\nbe assuaged before vegetation can appear.\n\nIn the second, earth is at first a dry plain. Vegetation cannot exist\nbecause there is no moisture. \"For the Lord God had not caused it to\nrain upon the earth\" (ii, 5).\n\n\n\n3.\n\nIn the first, plants are created from the earth--are a product of\nthe earth. \"And the earth brought forth grass and herb\" (i, 12).\n\nIn the second, they are created independent of the earth--are created\nby God and then transferred to earth. \"The Lord God made the earth and\nthe heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth,\nand every herb of the field before it grew\" (ii, 4, 5).\n\n\n\n4.\n\nIn the first, fowls, fish, and aquatic animals form one act of\ncreation--land animals and reptiles another; the former being created\non the fifth day, the latter on the sixth (i, 21-25).\n\nIn the second, fowls and land animals are created at the same\ntime--form one creation act (ii, 19).\n\n\n5.\n\nIn the first, fowls are created out of the water. \"And God said, Let\nthe waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,\nand fowl that may fly above the earth\" (i, 20).\n\nIn the second, fowls are created out of the ground. \"Out of the ground\nthe Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air\"\n(ii, 19).\n\n\n\n6.\n\nIn the first, trees are created before man. Trees appear on the third\nday, while man does not appear until the sixth day.\n\nIn the second, trees are created after man. \"And the Lord God formed\nman; ... planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man\nwhom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow\nevery tree,\" etc. (ii, 7, 8.)\n\n\n\n7.\n\nIn the first, fowls are created before man--are created on the fifth\nday, while the creation of man does not occur until the sixth day.\n\nIn the second, fowls are created after man. \"The Lord God formed every\nbeast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto\nAdam to see what he would call them\" (ii, 19).\n\n\n\n8.\n\nIn the first, man is created after the beasts. God's first work on the\nsixth day was the creation of beasts, his last work was the creation\nof man (i, 24-31).\n\nIn the second, man is created before the beasts. God makes man before\nhe plants the garden of Eden, while beasts are not made until after\nthe garden is planted (ii, 7-19).\n\n\n\n9.\n\nIn the first, man and woman are created at the same time. \"So God\ncreated man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;\nmale and female created he them\" (i, 27).\n\nIn the second, woman is created after man. The writer supposes a\nconsiderable period of time to have elapsed between the creation\nof man and the creation of woman. God creates man; then he plants a\ngarden and places the man there to tend it; next he makes the animals\nand birds and brings them to Adam to name; finally he concludes that\nAdam needs a helpmate, and taking a rib from his body, creates woman.\n\n\n\n10.\n\nThe first cosmogony comprises eight distinct creations:\n1. Light. 2. The firmament. 3. Dry land. 4. Vegetation. 5. Sun, moon,\nand stars. 6. Fish and fowls. 7. Land animals. 8. Man.\n\nThe second comprises four creations: 1. Man\n(Adam). 2. Trees. 3. Animals. 4. Woman (Eve).\n\n\n\n11.\n\nIn the first, the heavens and the earth are created in six literal\ndays.\n\nIn the second, no mention is made of this six days' creation. On the\ncontrary, the writer simply refers to \"the day that the Lord God made\nthe earth and the heavens\" (ii, 4).\n\n\n\n12.\n\nIn the first, God, from his throne in heaven, speaks earth's creation\ninto being. \"God said, Let the earth bring forth, ... and it was so.\"\n\nIn the second, God comes down on earth, plants a garden, molds man\nout of clay, breathes in his nostrils, makes woman out of a rib,\nmakes birds and animals as a child makes mud pies, and brings them\nto Adam to see what he will call them.\n\n\n\n13.\n\nIn the first, man at the creation is given both fruit and herbs\nto subsist upon. \"Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed,\n... and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed;\nto you it shall be for meat\" (i, 29).\n\nIn the second, he is given fruit alone for food. Not until after he\nsins and the curse is pronounced does God say, \"Thou shalt eat the\nherb of the field\" (iii, 18). According to this writer the use of\nherbs and grain for food was a consequence of man's fall.\n\n\n\n14.\n\nIn the first, man may partake of the fruit of all the trees. \"Every\ntree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it\nshall be for meat\" (i, 29).\n\nIn the second, he is not permitted to partake of the fruit of all the\ntrees. \"Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden\" (iii, 1). \"Of\nthe tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it\"\n(ii, 17).\n\n\n\n15.\n\nIn the first, \"God made the firmament, and divided the waters\nwhich were under the firmament from the waters which were above the\nfirmament\" (i, 7). When moisture was needed \"the windows of heaven\nwere opened\" and water discharged from the reservoir above. When\nenough was discharged \"the windows of heaven were stopped, and the\nrain from heaven was restrained\" (viii, 2).\n\nIn the second, when moisture was needed, \"There went up a mist from\nthe earth, and watered the whole face of the ground\" (ii, 6).\n\n\n\n16.\n\nIn the first, man is given dominion over all the earth. \"Let them\nhave dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,\nand over the cattle, and over all the earth\" (i, 26).\n\nIn the second, his dominion is confined to a garden. \"And the Lord\nGod took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it\nand keep it\" (ii, 15).\n\n\n\n17.\n\nBoth cosmogonies are theological rather than scientific. The real\npurpose of the first, in its present form at least, is not so much to\nexplain the creation of the universe as to inculcate a belief in the\ndivine institution of the Sabbath. It belongs to the Priestly code,\nand one of the chief pillars of priestcraft is the Sabbath.\n\nThe second contains no recognition of the Sabbath. The chief purpose\nof this account of the creation, if we include the third chapter,\nwhich is really a continuation of it, is to establish the doctrine\nof the Fall of Man.\n\n\n\n18.\n\nAccording to the first the Creator is an optimist. He views all his\nworks and declares them \"good.\"\n\nAccording to the second the Creator is a pessimist. He sees in his\nworks both \"good and evil;\" the good continuing to diminish, and the\nevil continuing to increase.\n\n\n\nTo establish the credibility and divine origin of Genesis it is\nnecessary not merely to harmonize its theories with science, but to\nreconcile its statements with each other. The latter is as impossible\nas the former. Dean Stanley, in his Memorial Sermon on Sir Charles\nLyell at Westminster Abbey, made this frank admission:\n\n\"It is now clear to diligent students of the Bible that the first and\nsecond chapters of Genesis contain two narratives of the creation,\nside by side, differing from each other in most every particular of\ntime, place, and order.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHE PATRIARCHAL AGE.\n\n\nIn disproof of the credibility of the so-called patriarchal history\nof the Pentateuch, a few of its many incredible and contradictory\nstatements will be presented here.\n\n\n\n1.\n\nThe following are the recorded ages of the patriarchs: Adam, 930\nyears (Gen. v, 5); Seth, 912 (8); Enos, 905 (11). Cainan, 910 (14);\nMahalaleel, 895 (17); Jared, 962 (20); Enoch, 365 (23) Methuselah,\n969 (27); Lamech, 777 (31); Noah, 950 (ix, 29); Shem, 600 (xi, 10,\n11); Arphaxad, 438 (12, 13); Cainan, 460 (omitted in Hebrew Version,\nbut given in Septuagint); Salah, 433 (14, 15); Eber, 464 (16, 17),\nPeleg, 239 (18, 19); Reu, 239 (20, 21); Serug, 230, (22, 23); Nahor,\n148 (24, 25); Terah, 205 (32); Abraham, 175, (xxv, 7); Isaac, 180\n(xxxv, 28); Jacob, 147 (xlvii, 28); Joseph, 110 (l, 26).\n\nEleven generations of these patriarchs (twelve if Cainan be included),\nNoah, Shem, Arphaxad, (Cainan), Salah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor,\nTerah, and Abraham, were all living at the same time.\n\nNoah died in the year 2006 A.M. When Adam died Noah's father was 56\nyears old.\n\nAbraham was the twentieth generation from Adam. When Abraham was\n56 years old, Noah, whose father was 56 years old when Adam died,\nwas still living.\n\nWhen Noah died, his\ngreat-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson,\nAbraham, was an old man.\n\nIsaac was the eleventh generation from Shem. When Shem died Isaac\nwas 110 years old.\n\nJacob was the thirteenth generation from Noah. When Noah's eldest\nson died Jacob was 50 years old.\n\nThe combined ages of seven patriarchs equal a sum five hundred years\ngreater than the time that has elapsed from the creation of the world\nto the present time.\n\n\n\n2.\n\n\"Every one that findeth me shall slay me\" (Gen. iv, 14).\n\n\"And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill\nhim\" (15).\n\n\"And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the\nland of Nod\" (16).\n\n\"And Cain knew his wife: and she conceived, and bare Enoch; and he\n[Cain] builded a city\" (17).\n\nCain, believing that he had a plurality of lives, and fearing that\nevery one who found him would take one, appealed to God, who set a mark\non him so that his father and mother, the only persons in existence\nbesides himself, would know him. Then going out from the presence of\nOmnipresence, he went to a country where nobody lived, married a wife,\nand built a city with a population of three inhabitants.\n\n\n\n3.\n\n\"And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat\nLamech: and Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred\neighty and two years.... And all the days of Methuselah were nine\nhundred sixty and nine years\" (Gen. v, 25-27).\n\n\"And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:\nand he called his name Noah\" (28, 29).\n\n\"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the\nseventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains\nof the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened\"\n(vii, 11).\n\n\"And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first\nmonth, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off\nthe earth\" (viii, 13).\n\n\"And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. And\nall the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years\" (ix, 28, 29).\n\nWhen the Flood began Noah was 599 years (one month and seventeen days)\nold; when it ended he was exactly 600 years old.\n\nIt is commonly supposed that Methuselah died before the Flood. If\nthe foregoing passages be correct, he did not, as will be shown by\nthe following:\n\n1. From the birth of Lamech to the beginning of the Flood was 182\nyears + 599 = 781 years; and from the birth of Lamech to the end of\nthe Flood was 182 years + 600 years = 782 years. If Methuselah lived\nafter he begat Lamech 782 years, he lived until the end of the Flood.\n\n2. From the birth of Methuselah to the beginning of the Flood was\n187 years + 182 years + 599 years = 968 years. From the birth of\nMethuselah to the end of the Flood was 187 years + 182 years + 600\nyears = 969 years. At the commencement of the Flood he was but 968\nyears old, and not until the end of it was he 969.\n\n3. From the birth of Methuselah to the death of Noah was 187 years +\n182 years + 950 years = 1319 years. As Noah died 350 years after the\nFlood, from the birth of Methuselah to the end of the Flood was 1319\nyears - 350 years = 969 years. If he lived 969 years, he lived until\nthe end of the Flood.\n\nAs Methuselah was not one of the eight persons that went into the ark,\nwhere was he during the Flood?\n\nAccording to the Septuagint Genesis, the Flood occurred fourteen\nyears before the death of Methuselah.\n\n\n\n4.\n\n\"Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring\ninto the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and\nfemale. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind,\nof every creeping thing of the earth after his kind; two of every\nsort shall come unto thee\" (Gen. vi, 19, 20).\n\n\"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and\nhis female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his\nfemale. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female\"\n(vii, 2, 3).\n\nReferring to the above, the celebrated Jewish commentator, Dr. Kalisch,\nsays: \"Noah was commanded to take into the ark seven pairs of all\nclean, and one pair of all unclean, animals, whereas he had before been\nordered to take one pair of every species, no distinction whatever\nbetween clean and unclean animals having been made.... We do not\nhesitate to acknowledge here the manifest contradiction.\"\n\n\n\n5.\n\n\"And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begat Shem\" (v, 32).\n\n\"And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon\nthe earth\" (vii, 6).\n\n\"Shem was a hundred years old, and he begat Arphaxad two years after\nthe flood\" (xi, 10).\n\nIf Noah was five hundred years old when he begat Shem, and six hundred\nyears old at the time of the Flood, Shem was one hundred years old\nat the time of the Flood. If Shem begat Arphaxad two years after the\nFlood, he was one hundred and two years old when he begat Arphaxad.\n\n\n\n6.\n\n\"And Arphaxad begat Salah\" (Gen. x, 24).\n\n\"And Arphaxad begat Shelah\" (1 Chron. i, 18).\n\n\"And Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Salah\" (Genesis,\nSept. Ver.).\n\n\"Which was the son of Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was\nthe son of Arphaxad\" (Luke iii, 35, 36).\n\nAccording to the Hebrew Genesis and Chronicles, Arphaxad was the\nfather of Salah; according to the Septuagint Genesis and Luke, Cainan\nwas the father, and Arphaxad the grandfather of Salah.\n\n\n\n7.\n\n\"The woman [Sarah] was taken into Pharaoh's house\" (Gen. xii, 15).\n\n\"And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done\nunto me?\" (18).\n\n\"And Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah\" (xx, 2).\n\n\"Then Abimelech called unto Abraham, and said unto him, What hast\nthou done unto us?\" (9).\n\nIt may be claimed that both Pharaoh and Abimelech took Sarah. But it\nis evident that these are both legends of the same event, or, rather,\ndifferent and conflicting forms of the same legend. The first belongs\nto the Jehovist, the second to the Elohist.\n\n\n\n8.\n\n\"And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of\nHaran.... And into the land of Canaan they came\" (Gen. xii, 4, 5).\n\n\"And Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram\" (xi, 26).\n\n\"And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years\" (32).\n\n\"When his father was dead, he [Abram] removed him into this land,\nwherein ye now dwell\" (Acts vii, 4).\n\nIf Abram did not go to Canaan until after the death of his father,\nhe did not go until he was 135 years old, 60 years older than stated\nin the first account.\n\n\n\n9.\n\n\"And Abram was four score and six years old when Hagar bare Ishmael\nto Abram\" (Gen. xvi, 16).\n\n\"And Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born unto\nhim\" (xxi, 5).\n\n\"And the child [Isaac] grew, and was weaned\" (8).\n\n\"And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle\nof water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the\nchild [Ishmael], and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in\nthe wilderness of Beersheba. And the water was spent in the bottle,\nand she cast the child under one of the shrubs\" (14, 15).\n\nWhen Isaac was weaned, and Hagar was sent into the wilderness,\nIshmael, who was about sixteen years old, is represented as a babe\nin his mother's arms.\n\n\n\n10.\n\n\"And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter\nof Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite\"\n(Gen. xxvi, 34).\n\n\"Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter\nof Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter\nof Zibeon the Hivite; and Bashemath Ishmael's daughter\" (xxxvi, 2, 3).\n\nDid Esau marry two wives, according to the first account, or three,\naccording to the second? Was his first wife Judith, the daughter of\nBeeri, or Adah, the daughter of Elon? Was Bashemath the daughter of\nElon the Hittite, or was she the daughter of his uncle Ishmael?\n\n\n\n11.\n\n\"I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name\nof God Almighty: but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them\"\n(Ex. vi, 3).\n\n\"I [Abraham] have lifted up mine hand unto the Lord [Jehovah] the\nmost high God\" (Gen. xiv, 22).\n\n\"He [Isaac] said, For now the Lord [Jehovah] hath made room for us\"\n(xxvi, 22).\n\n\"He [Jacob] said, Surely the Lord [Jehovah] is in this place\"\n(xxviii, 16).\n\nAccording to the writer in Exodus, Jehovah did not become the\nnational God of Israel until after the time of Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob. According to the writer in Genesis, he was known to each of\nthese patriarchs.\n\n\n\n12.\n\n\"All the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were\nthree score and ten\" (xlvi, 27).\n\n\"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his\nkindred, three score and fifteen souls\" (Acts vii, 14).\n\n\n\n13.\n\n\"And the Midianites sold him [Joseph] into Egypt unto Potiphar,\nan officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the guard\" (Gen. xxxvii, 36).\n\n\"And Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an\nEgyptian, bought him [Joseph] of the hands of the Ishmaelites\"\n(xxxix, 1).\n\n\n\n14.\n\n\"Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: the sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's\nfirstborn, and Simeon, and Levi,\" etc. (Gen. xxxv, 22, 23).\n\n\"And these are the names of the sons of Levi, according to their\ngenerations: Gershon, and Kohath\" etc. (Ex. vi, 16).\n\n\"And the sons of Kohath; Amram,\" etc. (18).\n\n\"And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she\nbare him Aaron and Moses\" (20).\n\n\"And the children of Israel journeyed from Ramases to Succoth,\nabout six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children\"\n(Ex. xii, 37).\n\nLevi was the son of Jacob, Kohath was the son of Levi, Amram was the\nson of Kohath, and Moses was the son of Amram. Moses was the fourth\ngeneration from Jacob. In the time of Moses the adult male population\nof Israel numbered 600,000, representing a total population of about\n3,000,000. Thus in four generations the progeny of Jacob increased\nfrom twelve persons to three millions.\n\n\n\n15.\n\nJudah, Jacob's fourth son, married and had three sons--Er, Onan, and\nShelah. Er grew to manhood, married Tamar, and died. Onan then married\nhis widow, and died also. Shelah, who was much younger than Onan, grew\nto manhood and refused to marry his brother's widow. Tamar then had\ntwo sons, Pharez and Zarah, by Judah himself (Gen. xxxviii). Pharez\ngrew to manhood, married, and had two sons, Hezron and Hamil (xlvi,\n12), before Jacob and his family went to Egypt. When they went to\nEgypt, Judah was but forty-two years old.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nTHE JEWISH KINGS.\n\n\nMuch of the Bible is devoted to events which are narrated but\nonce. These records may be true, or they may be false. We may\nquestion their truthfulness, but it is difficult to demonstrate their\nfalsity. Had all the events of the Bible been recorded but once\nits credibility could the more easily be maintained. But wherever\ntwo or more accounts of the same events occur, such as in Kings and\nChronicles, where two histories of the Jewish Kings are given, and in\nthe Four Gospels, where four biographies of Jesus are given, we find\nthem so filled with discrepancies as to make them unworthy of credit.\n\nThe following are some of the contradictory statements that occur in\nthe books pertaining to the Jewish kings:\n\n\n\n1\n\nWas David the seventh or the eighth son of Jesse?\n\n\"And Jesse begat his first-born Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and\nShimma the third, Nethaniel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the\nsixth, David the seventh\" (1 Chron. ii, 13-15).\n\n\"Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel\nsaid unto Jesse, The Lord hath not chosen these. And Samuel said unto\nJesse, are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet\nthe youngest [David]\" (1 Sam. xvi, 10, 11).\n\n\n\n2\n\nWho gave David the shewbread to eat when he was a fugitive from Saul?\n\n\"Then came David to Nob to Abimelech the [High] priest.... So the\npriest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the\nshewbread\" (1 Sam. xxi, 1, 6).\n\n\"And he [Jesus] said unto them, Have ye never read what David did\nwhen he was ahungered, he, and they that were with him? How he went\ninto the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and\ndid eat the shewbread?\" (Mark ii, 25, 26).\n\n\n\n3\n\nWhat relation did the High Priests Abimelech and Abiathar bear to\neach other?\n\n\"Abiathar the son of Abimelech\" (1 Sam. xxiii, 6).\n\n\"Abimelech the son of Abiathar\" (2 Sam. viii, 17).\n\n\n\n4\n\nWhat sons were born to David in Jerusalem?\n\n\"And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem:\nShammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, Ibhar also, and Elishua,\nand Nepheg, and Japhia, and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet\"\n(2 Sam. v, 14-16).\n\n\"Now these are the names of his children which he had in Jerusalem:\nShammua, and Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, and Ibhar, and Elishua,\nand Elpalet, and Nogah, and Nepheg and Japhia, and Elishama, and\nBeeliada, and Eliphalet\" (1 Chron. xiv, 4-7).\n\n\n\n5\n\nWhat was the name of David's tenth son (twelfth according to\nChronicles)?\n\nEliada (2 Sam. v, 16).\n\nBeeliada (1 Chron. xiv, 7).\n\n\"Eliada\" means \"God knows;\" \"Beeliada\" means \"Baal knows.\" Did David\nname his son for the God of the Jews, or for the God of the heathen?\n\n\n\n6\n\nHow many horsemen did David take from Hadadezer?\n\n\"David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen,\nand twenty thousand footmen\" (2 Sam. viii, 4).\n\n\"David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen,\nand twenty thousand footmen\" (1 Chron. xviii, 4).\n\n\n\n7\n\nWas it forty thousand horsemen or forty thousand footmen that David\nslew of the Syrians?\n\n\"David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and\nforty thousand horsemen\" (2 Sam. x, 18).\n\n\"David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots\nand forty thousand footmen\" (1 Chron. xix, 18).\n\n\n\n8\n\nWho moved David to number the people, the Lord or Satan?\n\n\"The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David\nagainst them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah\" (2 Sam. xxiv, 1).\n\n\"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number\nIsrael\" (1 Chron. xxi, 1).\n\n\n\n9\n\nHow many warriors had Israel and Judah?\n\n\"And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand [800,000] valiant men\nthat drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand\n[500,000] men\" (2 Sam. xxiv, 9).\n\n\"And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand\n[1,100,000] men that drew sword; and Judah was four hundred three\nscore and ten thousand [470,000] men\" (1 Chron. xxi, 5).\n\n\n\n10\n\nWas David to suffer three or seven years of famine?\n\n\"So Gad came to David and said unto him: Thus saith the Lord, choose\nthee either three years of famine, or three months to be destroyed\nbefore thy foes\" (1 Chron. xxi, 11, 12).\n\n\"So Gad came to David and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven\nyears of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three\nmonths before thine enemies?\" (2 Sam. xxiv, 13).\n\n\n\n11\n\nWhat did David pay for the threshing floor?\n\n\"And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an\naltar unto the Lord in the threshing floor of Araunah [Ornan] the\nJebusite.... So David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for\nfifty shekels of silver [$26.50]\" (2 Sam. xxiv, 18, 24).\n\n\"Then the angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David, that David\nshould go up, and set up an altar unto the Lord in the threshing-floor\nof Ornan the Jebusite.... So David gave to Ornan for the place six\nhundred shekels of gold [$3,414]\" (1 Chron. xxi, 18, 25).\n\n\n\n12\n\nHow many overseers did Solomon have while building the Temple?\n\n\"And Solomon had three score and ten thousand that bare burdens,\nand four score thousand hewers in the mountains; besides the chief\nof Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and\nthree hundred\" (1 Kings, v, 15, 16).\n\n\"And he set three score and ten thousand of them to be bearers of\nburdens and four score thousand to be hewers in the mountains, and\nthree thousand and six hundred overseers to set the people awork\"\n(2 Chron. ii, 18).\n\n\n\n13\n\nWhat was the height of the pillars before the house?\n\n\"For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high\napiece.... And he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof\nJachin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof\nBoaz\" (1 Kings vii, 15, 21).\n\n\"Also he made before the house two pillars of thirty and five cubits\nhigh, ... and called the name of that on the right hand Jachin,\nand the name of that on the left Boaz\" (2 Chron. iii, 15, 17).\n\n\n\n14\n\nWhat was the capacity of the molten sea?\n\n\"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the\nother.... And it was a hand-breadth thick, and the brim thereof was\nwrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained\ntwo thousand baths\" (1 Kings vii, 23, 26).\n\n\"Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim.... And\nthe thickness of it was a handbreadth, and the brim of it like the\nwork of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received\nand held three thousand baths\" (2 Chron. iv, 2, 5).\n\n\n\n15\n\nHow many overseers did Solomon have over his other works?\n\n\"These were the chief of the officers that were over Solomon's work,\nfive hundred and fifty, which bare rule over the people that wrought\nin the work\" (1 Kings ix, 23).\n\n\"And these were the chief of King Solomon's officers, even two hundred\nand fifty, that bare rule over the people\" (2 Chron. viii, 10).\n\n\n\n16\n\nHow many stalls did Solomon have for his horses?\n\n\"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and\ntwelve thousand horsemen\" (2 Chron. ix, 25).\n\n\"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots,\nand twelve thousand horsemen\" (1 Kings iv, 26).\n\n\n\n17\n\nHow much gold did they bring Solomon from Ophir?\n\n\"And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred\nand twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon\" (1 Kings ix, 28).\n\n\"And they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence\nfour hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to King\nSolomon\" (2 Chron. viii, 18).\n\n\n\n18\n\nWho was the first to die, Jeroboam or Abijah?\n\n\"Neither did Jeroboam recover strength again in the days of Abijah:\nand the Lord struck him, and he died. But Abijah waxed mighty\"\n(2 Chron. xiii, 20, 21).\n\n\"And the days which Jeroboam reigned were two and twenty years\"\n(1 Kings xiv, 20).\n\n\"And Abijam [Abijah] slept with his fathers; and they buried him in\nthe city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead. And in the\ntwentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah\"\n(1 Kings xv, 8, 9).\n\nInstead of Abijah waxing mighty after Jeroboam's death, Jeroboam\nreigned two years after Abijah's death.\n\n\n\n19\n\nWho was the mother of Abijah?\n\n\"He [Rehoboam] took Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him\nAbijah\" (2 Chron. xi, 20).\n\n\"His [Abijah's] mother's name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel\nof Gibeah\" (2 Chron. xiii, 2).\n\n\n\n20\n\nWas Asa the son or the grandson of Maachah?\n\n\"Forty and one years reigned he [Asa] in Jerusalem. And his mother's\nname was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom\" (1 Kings xv, 10).\n\n\"Three years reigned he [Abijam] in Jerusalem. And his mother's name\nwas Maachah the daughter of Abishalom.... And Asa his son reigned in\nhis stead\" (1 Kings xv, 2, 8).\n\n\n\n21\n\nHow long did Omri reign?\n\n\"In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to\nreign over Israel twelve years.... So Omri slept with his fathers,\nand was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead. And\nin the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the\nson of Omri to reign\" (1 Kings xvi, 23, 28, 29).\n\nFrom the thirty-first to the thirty-eighth year of Asa's reign Omri\nis said to have reigned twelve years.\n\n\n\n22\n\nWhen did Baasha die?\n\n\"Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his\nson reigned in his stead.... In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king\nof Judah began Elah the son of Baasha to reign\" (1 Kings xvi, 6, 8).\n\n\"In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of\nIsrael came up against Judah\" (2 Chron. xvi, 1).\n\n\n\n23\n\nWhen did Jehoram king of Israel and Jehoram king of Judah begin\nto reign?\n\n\"And Jehoram [of Israel] reigned in his stead in the second year of\nJehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah\" (2 Kings i, 17).\n\n\"And in the fifth year of Joram [Jehoram of Israel].... Jehoram the\nson of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign\" (2 Kings viii, 16).\n\nAccording to the first account, Jehoram of Israel began to reign\nin the second year of Jehoram of Judah; according to the second,\nJehoram of Judah began to reign in the fifth year of Jehoram of Israel.\n\n\n\n24\n\nWhen did Ahaziah begin to reign?\n\n\"In the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign\nover Judah\" (2 Kings ix, 29).\n\n\"In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did\nAhaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign\" (2 Kings\nviii, 25).\n\n\n\n25\n\nHow old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?\n\n\"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he\nreigned one year in Jerusalem\" (2 Kings viii, 26).\n\n\"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he\nreigned one year in Jerusalem\" (2 Chron. xxii, 2).\n\n\n\n26\n\nHow long did Jotham reign?\n\n\"In the second year of Pekah ... began Jotham the son of Uzziah king\nof Judah to reign. Five and twenty years old was he when he began to\nreign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem\" (2 Kings xv, 32, 33).\n\n\"And Hoshea ... slew him [Pekah] and reigned in his stead, in the\ntwentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziab\" (2 Kings xv, 30).\n\n\n\n27\n\nWho was Josiah's successor?\n\n\"Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and\nmade him king in his father's stead\" (2 Chron. xxxvi, 1).\n\n\"For thus saith the Lord touching Shallum the son of Josiah king of\nJudah which reigned instead of Josiah his father\" (Jer. xxli, 11).\n\n\n\n28\n\nHow old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?\n\n\"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign\" (2\nChron. xxxvi, 9).\n\n\"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign\" (2 Kings\nxxiv, 8).\n\n\n\n29\n\nWhen did Evil-Merodach release Jehoiachin from prison?\n\n\"In the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month\"\n(2 Kings xxv, 27).\n\n\"In the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month\"\n(Jer. lii, 31).\n\n\n\n30\n\nWhat relation did Zedekiah, the last of the Jewish kings, bear to\nJehoiachin, his predecessor?\n\n1. He was his son. \"Jechoniah [Jehoiachin] his son, Zedekiah his son\"\n(1 Chron. iii, 16).\n\n2. He was his brother. \"Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him\n[Jehoiachin] to Babylon, ... and made Zedekiah his brother king of\nJudah\" (2 Chron. xxxvi, 10).\n\n3. He was his uncle. \"The king of Babylon made Mattaniah his\n[Jehoiachin's] father's brother king in his stead and changed his\nname to Zedekiah\" (2 Kings xxiv, 17).\n\n\"That Zedekiah, who in 1 Chron. iii, 16, is called 'his son,' is the\nsame as Zedekiah his uncle (called 'his brother,' 2 Chron. xxxvi,\n10), who was his [Jehoiachin's] successor on the throne seems certain\"\n(Smith's Bible Dictionary, Art. Jehoiachin).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nWHEN DID JEHOSHAPHAT DIE?\n\n\nAt the end of Solomon's reign the Jewish nation was divided into two\nkingdoms. Two tribes acknowledged the authority of Solomon's successor,\nRehoboam. This was called the kingdom of Judah, of which Jerusalem was\nthe capital. Ten tribes revolted and made Jeroboam king. This formed\nthe kingdom of Israel, of which Samaria was the capital. The following\nis a brief summary of the reigns of the kings of the two kingdoms from\nthe partition of the empire to the conquest of Israel by the Assyrians:\n\n\n\nKingdom of Judah.\n\n\"And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah ... and he reigned\nseventeen years\" (1 Kings xiv, 21).\n\n\"And Rehoboam slept with his fathers ... and Abijam his son reigned\nin his stead\" (1 Kings xiv, 31). \"Three years reigned he\" (xv, 2).\n\n\"And Abijam slept with his fathers ... and Asa his son reigned in\nhis stead\" (1 Kings xv, 8). \"Forty and one years reigned he\" (10).\n\n\"And Asa slept with his fathers ... and Jehoshaphat his son reigned\nin his stead\" (1 Kings xv, 24). \"And he reigned twenty and five years\nin Jerusalem\" (xxii, 42).\n\n\"And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers ... and Jehoram his son\nreigned in his stead\" (1 Kings xxii, 50). \"And he reigned eight years\"\n(2 Kings viii, 17).\n\n\"And Joram [Jehoram] slept with his fathers ... and Ahaziah reigned\nin his stead\" (2 Kings viii, 24). \"And he reigned one year\" (26).\n\n\"And he [Ahaziah] fled to Megiddo and died there\" (2 Kings xi,\n17). \"And when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was\ndead she arose and destroyed all the seed royal. But Jehosheba took\nJoash the son of Ahaziah ... and he was with her [his nurse] hid in\nthe house of the Lord six years. And Athaliah did reign over the land\"\n(xi, 1-3).\n\n\"They slew Athaliah\" (2 Kings xi, 20). \"And they brought down the king\n[Joash] from the house of the Lord.... And he sat on the throne of\nthe kings\" (19). \"Forty years reigned he in Jerusalem\" (xii, 1).\n\n\"His servants smote him [Joash] and he died, ... and Amaziah his son\nreigned in his stead\" (2 Kings xii, 21)--\"and reigned twenty and nine\nyears\" (xiv, 2).\n\n\"They made a conspiracy against him [Amaziah] ... and slew him\"\n(2 Kings xiv, 19). \"And all the people of Judah took Azariah ... and\nmade him king instead of his father, Amaziah\" (21). \"And he reigned\ntwo and fifty years\" (xv, 2).\n\n\"So Azariah slept with his fathers ... and Jotham his son reigned in\nhis stead\" (2 Kings xv, 7). \"And he reigned sixteen years\" (33).\n\n\"And Jotham slept with his fathers ... and Ahaz his son reigned in\nhis stead\" (2 Kings xv, 38)--\"and reigned sixteen years\" (xvi, 2).\n\n\"And Ahaz slept with his fathers ... and Hezekiah his son reigned in\nhis stead\" (2 Kings xvi, 10) \"In the sixth year of Hezekiah ... Samaria\nwas taken\" (xviii, 10).\n\nFrom the division of the empire, then, to the conquest of Israel by\nthe Assyrians, the reigns of Judah's kings were as follows:\n\n\n Rehoboam, seventeen years,\n Abijam, three years,\n Asa, forty-one years,\n Jehoshaphat, twenty-five years,\n Joram, eight years,\n Ahaziah, one years,\n Athaliah, six years,\n Joash, forty years,\n Amaziah, twenty-nine years,\n Azariah, fifty-two years,\n Jotham, sixteen years,\n Ahaz, sixteen years,\n Hezekiah, six years.\n\n\n\nKingdom of Israel.\n\n\"They ... made him [Jeroboam] king over all Israel\" (1 Kings xii,\n20). \"And the days which Jeroboam reigned were two and twenty years\"\n(xiv, 20).\n\n\"And he [Jeroboam] slept with his fathers and Nadab his son reigned\nin his stead\" (1 Kings xiv, 20)--\"and reigned over Israel two years\"\n(xv, 25).\n\n\"And Baasha smote him [Nadab] ... and reigned in his stead\" (1 Kings\nxv, 27, 28)--\"twenty and four years\" (33).\n\n\"So Baasha slept with his fathers ... and Elah his son reigned in\nhis stead\" (1 Kings xvi, 6)--\"two years\" (8).\n\n\"Zimri went in and smote him, and killed him [Elah] ... and reigned\nin his stead\" (1 Kings xvi, 10)--\"seven days\" (15).\n\n\"Wherefore all Israel made Omri ... king over Israel\" (1 Kings xvi,\n16)--\"to reign over Israel twelve years\" (23).\n\n\"So Omri slept with his fathers ... and Ahab his son reigned in his\nstead\" (1 Kings xvi, 28)--\"twenty and two years\" (29).\n\n\"So Ahab slept with his fathers and Ahaziah his son reigned in his\nstead\" (1 Kings xxii, 40)--\"and reigned two years over Israel\" (51).\n\n\"So he [Ahaziah] died ... and Jehoram [his brother] reigned in his\nstead\" (2 Kings i, 17)--\"and reigned twelve years\" (iii, 1).\n\n\"I have anointed thee [Jehu] king ... over Israel\" (2 Kings ix,\n6). \"And Jehu ... smote Jehoram\" (24). \"And the time that Jehu reigned\nover Israel in Samaria was twenty and eight years\" (x, 36).\n\n\"And Jehu slept with his fathers ... and Jehoahaz his son reigned in\nhis stead\" (2 Kings x, 35)--\"and reigned seventeen years\" (xiii, 1).\n\n\"And Jehoahaz slept with his fathers ... and Joash his son reigned\nin his stead\" (2 Kings xiii, 9)--\"and reigned sixteen years\" (10).\n\n\"And Joash slept with his fathers and Jeroboam sat upon his throne\"\n(2 Kings xiii, 13)--\"and reigned forty and one years\" (xiv, 23).\n\n\"And Jeroboam slept with his fathers ... and Zachariah his son reigned\nin his stead\" (2 Kings xiv, 29)--\"six months\" (xv, 8).\n\n\"And Shallum ... slew him [Zachariah] and reigned in his stead\"\n(2 Kings xv, 10)--\"a full month\" (13).\n\n\"Menahem ... slew him [Shallum] and reigned in his stead\" (2 Kings xv,\n14)--\"and reigned ten years\" (27).\n\n\"And Menahem slept with his fathers and Pekahiah his son reigned in\nhis stead\" (2 Kings xv, 22)--\"and reigned two years\" (23).\n\n\"Pekah ... killed him [Pekahiah] and reigned in his room\" (2 Kings xv,\n25)--\"and reigned twenty years\" (7).\n\n\"And Hoshea ... slew him [Pekah] and reigned in his stead\" (2 Kings\nxv, 30)--\"nine years\" (xvii, 1). \"In the ninth year of Hoshea the king\nof Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria\" (6).\n\nFrom the division of the empire to the conquest of Israel the reigns\nof Israel's kings, omitting Zimri's brief reign of seven days and\ncalling the combined reigns of Zachariah and Shallum one year, as\ncomputed by chronologists, were as follows:\n\n\n Jeroboam, twenty-two years,\n Nadab, two years,\n Baasha, twenty-four years,\n Elah, two years,\n Omri, twelve years,\n Ahab, twenty-two years,\n Ahaziah, two years,\n Jehoram, twelve years,\n Jehu, twenty-eight years,\n Jehoahaz, seventeen years,\n Joash, sixteen years,\n Jeroboam II., forty-one years,\n Zachariah and Shallum, one years,\n Menahem, ten years,\n Pekahiah, two years,\n Pekah, twenty years,\n Hoshea, nine years.\n\n\nThe foregoing epitome of Jewish history, gleaned from 1 and 2 Kings,\nis presented in order that the reader may the more readily understand\nthe following solutions (based upon statements that appear in these\nbooks) to the question that forms the topic of this chapter--When\ndid Jehoshaphat die?\n\nJehoshaphat is represented as one of Judah's best and greatest\nkings. He did \"that which was right in the eyes of the Lord.\" \"The\nLord was with Jehoshaphat.\" \"And Jehoshaphat waxed great.\" \"And he\nhad riches and honor in abundance.\" He died at the age of sixty,\nafter a reign of twenty-five years. Ahaziah, king of Israel, is\nrepresented as a very wicked king. \"He did evil in the sight of\nthe Lord.\" \"For he served Baal, and worshiped him, and provoked to\nanger the Lord.\" Elijah prophesied his early death, which came after\na brief reign of two years. The last chapter of the first book of\nKings chronicles the reign and death of Judah's king, Jehoshaphat;\nthe first chapter of the second book of Kings records the reign and\ndeath of Israel's king, Ahaziah. Now when did Jehoshaphat die? Did\nhe die before or after Ahaziah died?\n\n\n\n1.\n\n\"And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa\nover Judah\" (1 Kings xv, 9).\n\nAs Jeroboam reigned twenty-two years, he reigned two years after Asa\nbecame king. From the commencement of Asa's reign, then, to the death\nof Ahaziah, the reigns of Israel's kings were as follows: Jeroboam 2\nyears, Nadab 2 years, Baasha 24 years, Elah 2 years, Omri 12 years,\nAhab 22 years, and Ahaziah 2 years. 2 years + 2 years + 24 years +\n2 years + 12 years + 22 years + 2 years = 66 years.\n\nAs Asa reigned forty-one years and Jehoshaphat reigned twenty-five\nyears, from the commencement of Asa's reign to the death of Jehoshaphat\nwas 41 years + 25 years = 66 years.\n\nIf from the commencement of Asa's reign to the death of Ahaziah was\nsixty-six years, and from the commencement of Asa's reign to the\ndeath of Jehoshaphat was sixty-six years, Jehoshaphat therefore died\nin the same year that Ahaziah died.\n\n\n\n2.\n\n\"Now in the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam the son of Nebat reigned\nAbijam over Judah\" (1 Kings xv, 1).\n\nAs Jeroboam reigned 22 years, he reigned four years after the beginning\nof Abijam's reign. From the beginning of Abijam's reign, then, to the\ndeath of Ahaziah, the reigns of Israel's kings were: Jeroboam 4 years,\nNadab 2 years, Baasha 24 years, Elah 2 years, Omri 12 years Ahab 22\nyears, and Ahaziah 2 years. 4 years + 2 years + 24 years + 2 years +\n12 years + 22 years + 2 years = 68 years.\n\nFrom the beginning of Abijam's reign to the death of Jehoshaphat\nthe reigns of Judah's kings were: Abijam 3 years, Asa 41 years,\nJehoshaphat 25 years. 3 years + 41 years + 25 years = 69 years.\n\nIf from the beginning of Abijam's reign to the death of Ahaziah was\nsixty-eight years, and from the beginning of Abijam's reign to the\ndeath of Jehoshaphat was sixty-nine years, Jehoshaphat therefore died\none year after Ahaziah died.\n\n\n\n3.\n\n\"In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to\nreign over Israel\" (1 Kings xvi, 23).\n\nFrom the accession of Omri to the death of Ahaziah the reigns of\nIsrael's kings were: Omri 12 years, Ahab 22 years, and Ahaziah 2\nyears. 12 years + 22 years + 2 years = 36 years.\n\nAs Omri became king in the thirty-first year of Asa's reign,\nAsa reigned ten years after Omri became king, and this added to\nJehoshaphat's reign of twenty-five years makes thirty-five years from\nOmri to the death of Jehoshaphat.\n\nIf from the accession of Omri to the death of Ahaziah was thirty-six\nyears, and from the accession of Omri to the death of Jehoshaphat\nwas thirty-five years, Jehoshaphat therefore died one year before\nAhaziah died.\n\n\n\n4.\n\n\"In the three and twentieth year of Joash the son of Ahaziah king\nof Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu began to reign over Israel\"\n(2 Kings xiii, 1).\n\nFrom the death of Ahaziah king of Israel to the accession of Jehoahaz,\nJehoram reigned 12 years, and Jehu 28 years, a total of 40 years.\n\nFrom the death of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Jehoahaz, Judah's\nsovereigns reigned--Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah 6 years,\nJoash 23 years. 8 years + 1 year + 6 years + 23 years = 38 years.\n\nIf from the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Jehoahaz was forty\nyears, and from the death of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Jehoahaz\nwas thirty-eight years, Jehoshaphat therefore died two years after\nAhaziah died.\n\n\n\n5.\n\n\"And Jehoram [of Israel] reigned in his [Ahaziah's] stead, in the\nsecond year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat\" (2 Kings i, 17).\n\nIf Ahaziah died and Jehoram of Israel became king in the second year\nof Jehoram of Judah, Jehoshaphat therefore died two years before\nAhaziah died.\n\n\n\n6.\n\n\"And Joram [Jehoram] king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out,\neach in his chariot ... against Jehu\" (2 Kings ix, 21), \"And Jehu drew\na bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and\nthe arrow went out at his heart\" (24). \"But when Ahaziah the king of\nJudah saw this he fled by way of the garden house. And Jehu followed\nafter him, and said, Smite him also in the chariot. And they did so\"\n(27).\n\nJehoram, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, king of Judah, were thus slain\nat the same time. Jehu succeeded Jehoram; Athaliah succeeded Ahaziah,\nreigned six years, and was in turn succeeded by Joash. Jehu had thus\nreigned six years over Israel when Joash became king of Judah. As\nJehoram reigned twelve years, from the death of Ahaziah [of Israel]\nto the accession of Joash then, was eighteen years.\n\nFrom the death of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Joash, Judah's\nsovereigns reigned as follows: Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah\n6 years--a total of fifteen years.\n\nIf from the death of Ahaziah to the reign of Joash was eighteen years,\nand from the death of Jehoshaphat to the reign of Joash was fifteen\nyears, Jehoshaphat therefore died three years after Ahaziah died.\n\n\n\n7.\n\n\"In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned\nAmaziah the son of Joash king of Judah\" (2 Kings xiv, 1).\n\nFrom the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Amaziah the reigns\nof Israel's kings were: Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28 years, Jehoahaz\n17 years, Joash 2 years. 12 years + 28 years + 17 years + 2 years =\n59 years.\n\nFrom the death of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Amaziah, Judah's\nkings reigned--Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah 6 years,\nJoash 40 years. 8 years + 1 year + 6 years + 40 years = 55 years.\n\nIf from the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Amaziah was fifty-nine\nyears, and from the death of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Amaziah\nwas fifty-five years, Jehoshaphat therefore died four years after\nAhaziah died.\n\n\n\n8.\n\n\"And Jehoshaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the\nfourth year of Ahab king of Israel\" (1 Kings xxii, 41).\n\nIf Ahab reigned twenty-two years and Jehoshaphat began to reign in the\nfourth year of Ahab's reign, Jehoshaphat had reigned eighteen years\nwhen Ahab died, and twenty years when Ahaziah died. As Jehoshaphat\nreigned twenty-five years, he therefore died five years after\nAhaziah died.\n\n\n\n9.\n\n\"Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the\nseventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years\nover Israel\" (1 Kings, xxii, 51).\n\nIf Ahaziah began to reign in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat and\nreigned two years before he died, he died in the nineteenth year\nof Jehoshaphat's reign. As Jehoshaphat reigned twenty-five years,\nhe therefore died six years after Ahaziah died.\n\n\n\n10.\n\n\"Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria\nin the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah\" (2 Kings iii, 1).\n\nIf Ahaziah died and Jehoram became king in the eighteenth year of\nJehoshaphat's reign, Jehoshaphat therefore died seven years after\nAhaziah died.\n\n\n\n11.\n\n\"In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel\nbegan Jotham the son of Uzziah [Azariah] king of Judah to reign\"\n(2 Kings xv, 32).\n\nFrom the death of Ahaziah to the beginning of Jotham's reign the\nfollowing were the reigns of Israel's kings: Jehoram 12 years, Jehu\n28 years, Jehoahaz 17 years, Joash 16 years, Jeroboam 41 years,\nZachariah and Shallum 1 year, Menahem 10 years, Pekahiah 2 years,\nPekah 2 years. 12 years + 28 years + 17 years + 16 years + 41 years +\n1 year + 10 years + 2 years + 2 years = 129 years.\n\nFrom the death of Jehoshaphat to the beginning of Jotham's reign the\nfollowing were the reigns of Judah's kings: Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1\nyear, Athaliah 6 years, Joash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years, Azariah 52\nyears. 8 years + 1 year + 6 years + 40 years + 29 years + 52 years =\n136 years.\n\nIf from the death of Ahaziah to the beginning of Jotham's reign was\none hundred and twenty-nine years, and from the death of Jehoshaphat to\nthe beginning of Jotham's reign was one hundred and thirty-six years,\nJehoshaphat therefore died seven years before Ahaziah died.\n\n\n\n12.\n\n\"In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah king of Judah did Zachariah\nthe son of Jeroboam reign over Israel\" (2 Kings xv, 8).\n\nFrom the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Zachariah the reigns\nof Israel's kings were: Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28 years, Jehoahaz\n17 years, Joash 16 years, Jeroboam 41 years. 12 years + 28 years +\n17 years + 16 years + 41 years = 114 years.\n\nFrom the death of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Zachariah the reigns\nof Judah's kings were: Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah 6 years,\nJoash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years, Azariah 38 years. 8 years + 1 year +\n6 years + 40 years + 29 years + 38 years = 122 years.\n\nIf from the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Zachariah was one\nhundred and fourteen years, and from the death of Jehoshaphat to\nthe accession of Zachariah was one hundred and twenty-two years,\nJehoshaphat therefore died eight years before Ahaziah died.\n\n\n\n13.\n\n\"In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekahiah the son of\nMenahem began to reign over Israel\" (2 Kings xv, 23).\n\nFrom the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Pekahiah, Israel's\nkings reigned as follows: Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28 years, Jehoahaz\n17 years, Joash 16 years, Jeroboam 41 years, Zachariah and Shallum 1\nyear, Menahem 10 years. 12 years + 28 years + 17 years + 16 years +\n41 years + 1 year + 10 years = 125 years.\n\nFrom the death of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Pekahiah, Judah's\nkings reigned as follows: Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah 6\nyears, Joash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years, Azariah 50 years. 8 years +\n1 year + 6 years + 40 years + 29 years + 50 years = 134 years.\n\nIf from the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Pekahiah was one\nhundred and twenty-five years, and from the death of Jehoshaphat\nto the accession of Pekahiah was one hundred and thirty-four years,\nJehoshaphat therefore died nine years before Ahaziah died.\n\n\n\n14.\n\n\"In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of\nElah to reign in Samaria over Israel\" (2 Kings xvii, 1).\n\nFrom the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Hoshea the reigns of\nIsrael's kings were: Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28 years, Jehoahaz 17\nyears, Joash 16 years, Jeroboam 41 years, Zachariah and Shallum 1\nyear, Menahem 10 years, Pekahiah 2 years, Pekah 20 years. 12 years\n+ 28 years + 17 years + 16 years + 41 years + 1 year + 10 years +\n2 years + 20 years = 147 years.\n\nFrom the death of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Hoshea the reigns of\nJudah's kings were: Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah 6 years,\nJoash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years, Azariah 52 years, Jotham 16 years,\nAhaz 12 years. 8 years + 1 year + 6 years + 40 years + 29 years +\n52 years + 16 years + 12 years = 164 years.\n\nIf from the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Hoshea was one\nhundred and forty-seven years, and from the death of Jehoshaphat\nto the accession of Hoshea was one hundred and sixty-four years,\nJehoshaphat therefore died seventeen years before Ahaziah died.\n\n\n\n15.\n\n\"And it came to pass in the fourth year of King Hezekiah, which\nwas the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that\nShalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria and besieged it\"\n(2 Kings xviii, 9).\n\nFrom the death of Ahaziah to the commencement of the siege of Samaria\nthe reigns of Israel's kings were: Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28 years,\nJehoahaz 17 years, Joash 16 years, Jeroboam 41 years, Zachariah and\nShallum 1 year, Menahem 10 years, Pekahiah 2 years, Pekah 20 years,\nHoshea 7 years. 12 years + 28 years + 17 years + 16 years + 41 years +\n1 year + 10 years + 2 years + 20 years + 7 years = 154 years.\n\nFrom the death of Jehoshaphat to the siege of Samaria the reigns of\nJudah's kings were: Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah 6 years,\nJoash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years, Azariah 52 years, Jotham 16 years,\nAhaz 16 years, Hezekiah 4 years. 8 years + 1 year + 6 years + 40 years\n+ 29 years + 52 years + 16 years + 16 years + 4 years = 172 years.\n\nIf from the death of Ahaziah to the siege of Samaria was one hundred\nand fifty-four years, and from the death of Jehoshaphat to the siege\nof Samaria was one hundred and seventy-two years, Jehoshaphat therefore\ndied eighteen years before Ahaziah died.\n\n\n\n16.\n\n\"In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began\nAzariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign\" (2 Kings xv, 1).\n\nFrom the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Azariah the reigns\nof Israel's kings were: Jehoram 12 years, Jehu 28 years, Jehoahaz\n17 years, Joash 16 years, Jeroboam 27 years. 12 years + 28 years +\n17 years + 16 years + 27 years = 100 years.\n\nFrom the death of Jehoshaphat to the accession of Azariah the reigns of\nJudah's kings were: Joram 8 years, Ahaziah 1 year, Athaliah 6 years,\nJoash 40 years, Amaziah 29 years. 8 years + 1 year + 6 years + 40\nyears + 29 years = 84 years.\n\nIf from the death of Ahaziah to the accession of Azariah was one\nhundred years, and from the death of Jehoshaphat to the accession\nof Azariah was eighty-four years, Jehoshaphat therefore died sixteen\nyears after Ahaziah died.\n\n\n\nRecapitulation.\n\nWhen did Jehoshaphat's death occur? Did it occur before or after\nAhaziah's death occurred? The following is a recapitulation of the\nvarious answers to this question which the preceding solutions have\ndisclosed:\n\n\n 1. The same year.\n 2. One year after.\n 3. One year before.\n 4. Two years after.\n 5. Two years before.\n 6. Three years after.\n 7. Four years after.\n 8. Five years after.\n 9. Six years after.\n10. Seven years after.\n11. Seven years before.\n12. Eight years before.\n13. Nine years before.\n14. Seventeen years before.\n15. Eighteen years before.\n16. Sixteen years after.\n\n\nHere are sixteen different answers to a simple historical question. But\none of them can possibly be correct; fifteen of them must necessarily\nbe incorrect. And yet I challenge the theologian to demonstrate the\nincorrectness of one of them without at the same time demonstrating the\nfallibility of the Bible and its unreliability as a historical record.\n\n\n\nNotes and Explanations.\n\nThe history of Judah's and of Israel's sovereigns is recorded in Kings\nand repeated in Chronicles. Had I used both Kings and Chronicles\nin the preparation of this chapter, the number of various answers\nwould have been increased. Some Christian scholars, however, admit\nthat Chronicles is not entirely free from errors, while Kings, on\nthe other hand, is denominated a \"marvel of accuracy.\" To avoid any\nobjections that might be raised were Chronicles used--to assail only\nthat which is deemed unassailable--I have confined myself to Kings.\n\nTo prevent confusion in regard to names, the reader should remember\nthat Israel had two kings named Jeroboam, and that Israel and Judah\neach had kings named Ahaziah, Jehoram, and Jehoash. In Israel Jehoram\nsucceeded Ahaziah; in Judah, Ahaziah succeeded Jehoram. The contracted\nform of Jehoram is Joram, and of Jehoash, Joash. Both forms are\nused. Azariah is also called Uzziah.\n\nIn computing time, ordinal numbers are reckoned the same as cardinal\nnumbers. It may be urged that the phrase, \"in the eighteenth year,\"\ndoes not denote the full period of eighteen completed years. In\njustification of the method pursued, I may say that it is not only\nthe method generally followed by chronologists, but it is the method\nauthorized by the Bible. See 2 Kings xvii, 1; 2 Kings xvii, 6. Also\n1 Kings xv, 9, 10; 2 Chron. xvi, 13. Its adoption simplifies the form\nwithout increasing the number of solutions.\n\nTo reconcile other discrepancies, some Bible chronologists have assumed\nan interregnum of eleven years between the reigns of Jeroboam II. and\nZachariah, and another of nine years between Pekah and Hosea. The\nlanguage of the Bible utterly precludes these assumptions.\n\n\"And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel,\nand Zachariah his son reigned in his stead\" (2 Kings xiv, 29).\n\n\"And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son\nof Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead\"\n(2 Kings xv, 30).\n\nThat these interregnums did not occur, nor indeed any interregnums\nbetween the reigns of Israel's kings, is attested by Josephus, who by\nChristians is esteemed an authority second only to the writers of the\nScriptures. The ninth book of his \"Antiquities\" bears the following\ntitle: \"Containing the interval of one hundred and fifty-seven years\nfrom the death of Ahab to the captivity of the ten tribes.\" This\nforbids the idea of any interregnum.\n\nBut if it could be shown that these or other interregnums really did\noccur, the fact would increase rather than diminish the difficulties\nconnected with the solution of this question.\n\nWe search the writings of Bible commentators in vain for an explanation\nor attempted reconciliation of many of the conflicting statements to\nbe found in the passages that I have quoted. These exegetes have either\nbeen ignorant of their existence, or have purposely ignored them. Some\nof the more noticeable ones they have attempted to reconcile; but the\nexplanations offered are of such a character as to make it seemingly\nimpossible for an honest scholar to advance them, or an intelligent\nreader to accept them.\n\nThese pretended reconciliations have been abridged, and, in the\nshape of marginal notes, transferred to the popular editions of the\nBible. Where different and conflicting dates are assigned for the\ncommencement of a king's reign, opposite the first will be found\nsuch explanatory notes as \"prorex,\" \"viceroy,\" \"in consort,\" or \"in\npartnership with his father;\" and opposite the last, \"began to reign\nalone;\" and all this without a word or hint, either in the Bible or\nelsewhere, to authorize it.\n\nThe demonstration of a single error in the Bible destroys the dogmas of\nits divinity and infallibility. Yet notwithstanding this single error,\nor even twenty errors, it might still be valuable as a historical\nrecord. But when it can be demonstrated that it abounds with glaring\ncontradictions, that its every chapter teems with flagrant errors,\nit is utterly unworthy of credit, and must be rejected even as a\nhuman record of events.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nINSPIRED NUMBERS.\n\n\nIn the second chapter of Ezra is given a register of the Jews who\nreturned from Babylon to Jerusalem. The register begins with these\nwords:\n\n\"Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the\ncaptivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar\nthe king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again\nunto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city.\"\n\nIn the seventh chapter of Nehemiah, beginning with the sixth verse,\nis a copy of the same register. Nehemiah says:\n\n\"And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at\nthe first, and found written therein,\n\n\"These are the children of the province, that went up out of the\ncaptivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar\nthe king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem\nand to Judah, every one unto his city.\"\n\nThen follows in each a list of the families with the number of persons\nbelonging to them. But in transcribing the numbers, either Ezra or\nNehemiah has made many errors. A careful examination reveals no less\nthan twenty, as shown by the following:\n\n\n\n1.\n\n\"The children of Arah, seven hundred and seventy-five\" (Ez. ii, 5).\n\n\"The children of Arah, six hundred fifty and two\" (Neh. vii, 10).\n\n\n\n2.\n\n\"The children of Pahath-moab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab,\ntwo thousand eight hundred and twelve\" (Ez. ii, 6).\n\n\"The children of Pahath-moab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab,\ntwo thousand and eight hundred and eighteen\" (Neh. vii, 11).\n\n\n\n3.\n\n\"The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five\" (Ez. ii, 8).\n\n\"The children of Zattu, eight hundred forty and five\" (Neh. vii, 13).\n\n\n\n4.\n\n\"The children of Bani, six hundred forty and two\" (Ez. ii, 10).\n\n\"The children of Binnui, six hundred forty and eight\" (Neh. vii, 15).\n\n\n\n5.\n\n\"The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three\" (Ez. ii, 11).\n\n\"The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and eight\" (Neh. vii, 16).\n\n\n\n6.\n\n\"The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two\"\n(Ez. ii, 12).\n\n\"The children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred twenty and two\"\n(Neh. vii, 17).\n\n\n\n7.\n\n\"The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six\" (Ez. ii, 13).\n\n\"The children of Adonikam, six hundred three score and seven\"\n(Neh. vii, 18).\n\n\n\n8.\n\n\"The children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six\" (Ez. ii, 14).\n\n\"The children of Bigvai, two thousand three score and seven\"\n(Neh. vii, 19).\n\n\n\n9.\n\n\"The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four\" (Ez. ii, 15).\n\n\"The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five\" (Neh. vii, 20).\n\n\n\n10.\n\n\"The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and three\" (Ez. ii, 17).\n\n\"The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and four\" (Neh. vii, 23).\n\n\n\n11.\n\n\"The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three\" (Ez. ii, 19).\n\n\"The children of Hashum, three hundred twenty and eight\" (Neh. vii,\n22).\n\n\n\n12.\n\n\"The children of Beth-lehem, a hundred twenty and three.\n\n\"The men of Netophah, fifty and six\" (Ez. ii, 21, 22).\n\n[The number of both is one hundred and seventy-nine].\n\n\"The men of Beth-lehem and Netophah, a hundred four score and eight\"\n(Neh. vii, 26).\n\n\n\n13.\n\n\"The men of Beth-el and Ai, two hundred twenty and three\" (Ez. ii, 28).\n\n\"The men of Beth-el and Ai, a hundred twenty and three\" (Neh. vii, 32).\n\n\n\n14.\n\n\"The children of Magbish, a hundred fifty and six\" (Ez. ii, 30).\n\n[This family is omitted from Nehemiah's list.]\n\n\n\n15.\n\n\"The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty and five\"\n(Ez. ii, 33).\n\n\"The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty and one\"\n(Neh. vii, 37).\n\n\n\n16.\n\n\"The children of Senaah, three thousand and six hundred and thirty\"\n(Ez. ii, 35).\n\n\"The children of Senaah, three thousand nine hundred and thirty\"\n(Neh. vii, 38).\n\n\n\n17.\n\n\"The singers: the children of Asaph, a hundred twenty and eight\"\n(Ez. ii, 41).\n\n\"The singers: the children of Asaph, a hundred forty and eight\"\n(Neh. vii, 44).\n\n\n\n18.\n\n\"The children of the porters: the children of Shallum, the children\nof Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children\nof Hatita, the children of Shobai, in all a hundred thirty and nine\"\n(Ez. ii, 42).\n\n\"The porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the\nchildren of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of Hatita,\nthe children of Shobai, a hundred thirty and eight\" (Neh. vii, 45).\n\n\n\n19.\n\n\"The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of\nNekoda, six hundred fifty and two\" (Ez. ii, 60).\n\n\"The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of\nNekoda, six hundred forty and two\" (Neh. vii, 62).\n\n\n\n20.\n\n\"And there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women\"\n(Ez. ii, 65).\n\n\"And they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women\"\n(Neh. vii, 67).\n\nThe following is a table of the census of all the families, as given\nby Ezra and Nehemiah respectively:\n\n\n FAMILY. EZRA. NEHEMIAH\n\n Parosh 2,172 2,712\n Shephatiah 372 372\n Arah 775 652\n Pahath-Moab, etc 2,812 2,818\n Elam 1,254 1,254\n Zattu 945 845\n Zaccai 760 760\n Bani 642 648\n Bebai 623 628\n Azgad 1,222 2,322\n Adonikam 666 667\n Bigvai 2,056 2,067\n Adin 454 655\n Ater 98 98\n Bezai 323 324\n Jorah (Hariph) 112 112\n Hashum 223 328\n Gibbar (Gibeon) 95 95\n Beth-lehem and Netophah 179 188\n Anathoth 128 128\n Azmaveth 42 42\n Kirjath-arim, etc 743 743\n Ramah and Gabah 621 621\n Michmas 122 122\n Bethel and Ai 223 123\n Nebo 52 52\n Magbish 156\n Elam 1,254 1,254\n Harim 320 320\n Lod, Hadid, and Ono 725 721\n Jericho 345 345\n Senaah 3,630 3,930\n Jedaiah 973 973\n Immer 1,052 1,052\n Pashur 1,247 1,247\n Harim 1,017 1,017\n Jeshua, etc 74 74\n Asaph 128 148\n Shallum, etc 139 138\n The Nethinim, etc 392 392\n Delaiah, etc 652 642\n Servants 7,337 7,337\n Singers 200 245\n\n\nIn the above table are twenty discrepancies. Twenty errors in\nforty-three numerical statements is a bad showing for an infallible\nrecord.\n\nEzra and Nehemiah both state that the whole congregation, exclusive of\nthe servants and singers, numbered 42,360. Yet the sum total of each\nis much less than this, that of Ezra being but 29,818, and Nehemiah,\n31,089.\n\nIn the number of domestic animals Ezra and Nehemiah agree. In the\noblations they disagree. According to Ezra they gave 61,000 drams of\ngold, 5,000 pounds of silver, and 100 priests' garments. According\nto Nehemiah they gave in all 41,000 drams of gold, 4,200 pounds of\nsilver, and 597 priests' garments.\n\nWhen bibliolaters affirm that there is not one error in the Bible,\nrefer them to this register, where in two chapters may be found two\ndozen errors.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nHARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.\n\n\nThe more intelligent of orthodox Christians admit that the Bible as\na whole is not infallible and divine, but claim that it contains a\ndivine revelation--that a part of it is the work of God and a part\nthe work of man. And yet they cannot separate the one from the other,\ncannot agree as to which is divine and which human. Concerning this\nclaim Prof. Goldwin Smith writes:\n\n\"When we are told there are in the Old Testament scriptures both\na human and a divine element, we must ask by what test the divine\nis to be distinguished from the human? Nobody would have thought of\n'partial inspiration' except as an expedient to cover retreat. We but\ntamper with our own understanding and consciences by such attempts at\nonce to hold on and let go; to retain the shadow of the belief when\nthe substance has passed away. Far better it is, whatever the effort\nmay cost, honestly to admit that the sacred books of the Hebrews,\ngranting their superiority to the sacred books of other nations,\nare, like the sacred books of other nations, the works of man and\nnot of God.\"\n\nOthers admit the fallibility and human origin of the Old Testament\nand claim infallibility and divinity for the New Testament alone. But\nthey cannot consistently claim infallibility and divinity for the New\nand not for the Old. The New Testament is based upon the Old. If the\nfoundation be fallible the superstructure must be fallible also. Both\nhave been declared canonical; both are bound in the same volume and\nlabeled Holy Bible. The chief apostles declared the writings of the\nOld Testament to be divine, a claim they did not make for the writings\nof the New. Besides, the New Testament is as full of errors as the Old.\n\nIt has been shown that the Four Gospels are not genuine--that they were\nnot written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is to their credit\nthat they were not. A knowledge of the fact relieves the Apostles\nand their companions of a very discreditable imputation. Were four\nwitnesses to testify in a court of justice and contradict each other\nas the Evangelists do, they would be prosecuted for perjury.\n\nIn another work five hundred errors to be found in the Four Gospels\nwill be exposed. In this chapter twenty, selected largely at random,\nwill suffice to disprove the credibility of these books:\n\n\n\n1.\n\nWhen was Jesus born?\n\n\"In the days of Herod the king\" (Matt. ii, 1).\n\n\"When Cyrenius was governor of Syria\" (Luke ii, 2).\n\nBetween Matthew and Luke there is a discrepancy of fully nine years. If\nJesus was born in the days of Herod he was born at least three years\nbefore the beginning of the Christian era: if he was born in the\ntime of Cyrenius he was born at least six years after the beginning\nof the Christian era.\n\n\n\n2.\n\nWhere was Jesus born, in a house, or in a manger?\n\n\"And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child\nwith Mary his mother\" (Matt. ii, 11).\n\n\"And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph and the babe\nlying in a manger\" (Luke ii, 16).\n\n\n\n3.\n\nWhat did his parents do with him?\n\n\"When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by\nnight, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod\"\n(Matt. ii, 14, 15).\n\n\"And when the days of her [Mary's] purification according to the law\nof Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present\nhim to the Lord.... And when they had performed all things according\nto the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city\nNazareth\" (Luke ii, 22, 39).\n\n\n\n4.\n\nWhat were the names of the twelve apostles?\n\n\"Now the names of the twelve Apostles are these: The first, Simon,\nwho is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee,\nand John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew\nthe publican; James the son of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, whose surname\nwas Thaddeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot\" (Matt. x, 2-4).\n\n\"He chose twelve, whom also he named apostles: Simon (whom he also\nnamed Peter), and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and\nBartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon\ncalled Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot\"\n(Luke vi, 13-16).\n\n\n\n5.\n\nWhom did Jesus call from the receipt of custom?\n\n\"He saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom; and\nhe saith unto him, Follow me\" (Matt. ix, 9).\n\n\"He went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt\nof custom: and he said unto him, Follow me\" (Luke v, 27).\n\n\n\n6.\n\nWhen Jesus sent out his Apostles, did he command them to provide\nthemselves with staves?\n\n\"And he commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey,\nsave a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money\" (Mark vi, 8).\n\n\"And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves,\nnor scrip, neither bread, neither money\" (Luke ix, 3).\n\n\n\n7.\n\nWhat did Jesus' neighbors say of him?\n\n\"Is not this the carpenter?\" (Mark vi, 3).\n\n\"Is not this the carpenter's son?\" (Matt. xiii, 55.)\n\n\n\n8.\n\nWas it one man or two men possessed with devils who came out of\nthe tombs?\n\n\"There met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit\" (Mark\nv, 2).\n\n\"There met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs\"\n(Matt. viii, 28).\n\n\n\n9.\n\nAs Jesus was going to Jerusalem, how many blind men sat by the wayside?\n\n\"A certain blind man sat by the way side begging.... And he cried,\nsaying, Jesus thou Son of David, have mercy on me\" (Luke xviii, 35).\n\n\"Two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus\npassed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of\nDavid\" (Matt. xx, 30).\n\n\n\n10.\n\nWhat was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?\n\n\"Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice\" (Matt. xxvi, 34).\n\n\"Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice\" (Mark xiv, 30).\n\n\n\n11.\n\nWhat was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?\n\n\"And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe\" (Matt. xxvii,\n28).\n\n\"And they put on him a purple robe\" (John xix, 2).\n\n\n\n12.\n\nAt what time during the day was he crucified?\n\n\"And it was the third hour [9 A.M.], and they crucified him\" (Mark\nxv, 25).\n\n\"And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour\n[noon].... Then delivered he him unto them to be crucified\" (John xix,\n14, 16).\n\n\n\n13.\n\nWhat did they give him to drink?\n\n\"They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall\" (Matt. xxvii, 34).\n\n\"They gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh\" (Mark xv, 23).\n\n\n\n14.\n\nDid both thieves revile him on the cross?\n\n\"And they that were crucified with him reviled him\" (Mark xv, 32).\n\n\"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him.... But\nthe other answering rebuked him\" (Luke xxiii, 39, 40).\n\n\n\n15.\n\nCertain words were inscribed on the cross; what were these words?\n\n\"The King of the Jews\" (Mark xv, 26).\n\n\"This is the King of the Jews\" (Luke xxiii, 38).\n\n\"This is Jesus the King of the Jews\" (Matt. xxvii, 37).\n\n\"Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews\" (John xix, 19).\n\n\n\n16.\n\nWas it lawful for the Jews to put Jesus to death?\n\n\"The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put\nany man to death\" (John xviii, 31).\n\n\"The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die\"\n(John xix, 7).\n\n\n\n17.\n\nWhat women visited the sepulchre on the morning of the resurrection?\n\n\"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene, early when it was\nyet dark, unto the sepulchre\" (John xx, 1).\n\n\"In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first\nday of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the\nsepulchre\" (Matt. xxviii, 1).\n\n\"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning,\nthey came unto the sepulchre.... It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna,\nand Mary the mother of James, and other women\" (Luke xxiv, 1, 10).\n\n\n\n18.\n\nAt what time in the morning did they visit the tomb?\n\n\"At the rising of the sun\" (Mark xvi, 2).\n\n\"When it was yet dark\" (John xx, 1).\n\n\n\n19.\n\nWhom did they see at the tomb?\n\n\"The angel\" (Matt. xxviii, 2).\n\n\"A young man\" (Mark xvi, 5).\n\n\"Two men\" (Luke xxiv, 4).\n\n\"Two angels\" (John xx, 12).\n\n\n\n20.\n\nWhere did Jesus first appear to his disciples?\n\n\"Then said Jesus unto them [the women], Be not afraid; go tell\nmy brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see\nme.... Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a\nmountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him they\nworshiped him; but some doubted\" (Matt. xxviii, 10, 16, 17).\n\n\"And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found\nthe eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying,\nThe Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.... And as they\nthus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them\" (Luke xxiv,\n33, 34, 36).\n\nThe first time I read Paine's \"Age of Reason\" I was amazed to learn\nthat the Bible contains as many errors as he exposes. But when a little\nlater I made a more thorough study and analysis of the Pentateuch,\nthe so-called historical books of the Old Testament, and the Four\nGospels, I found that Paine had only selected here and there one\nof a multitude of errors--that in a single book of the Bible were\nto be found more errors than he had cited from its sixty-six. The\nbriefest expos\u00e9 of all the errors of the Bible would require a larger\nvolume than the Bible itself. And yet, this book which contains more\nerrors than any other book in Christendom, is the only book for which\nChristians claim inerrancy.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nPAUL AND THE APOSTLES.\n\n\nIn this chapter will be presented some passages from Paul and the\nother Apostles pertaining to their writings, their teachings, and\ntheir characters, which affect the credibility of the remaining books\nof the New Testament.\n\n\n\n1.\n\nIt is popularly supposed that Jesus and his twelve Apostles formulated\nthe doctrines of Christianity and founded the Christian church. Paul\nwas the real author of this religion and the founder of the church.\n\n\"Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: and when he had\nfound him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a\nwhole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much\npeople. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch\"\n(Acts xi, 25, 26).\n\nJesus Christ was a Jew. Peter, John, James, and the other Apostles in\nPalestine were not Christians, but Jews--orthodox Jews--who differed\nfrom other Jews chiefly in accepting Jesus as the expected Jewish\nMessiah. Paul and his followers were the first Christians. The Dutch\ncritics frankly admit that \"Christianity has to thank him more than\nany other for its existence,\" that he was \"the founder of the Christian\nchurch,\" and that \"without him it would have remained an insignificant\nor forgotten Jewish sect\" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III. pp. 20,\n642, 643).\n\n\n\n2.\n\nThe conversion of Paul is described as follows:\n\n\"And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there\nshined round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth,\nand heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou\nme? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus\nwhom thou persecutest\" (Acts ix, 3-5).\n\nThis was simply a hallucination; and upon this hallucination of the\ndiseased mind of Paul the whole system of Christian theology is based.\n\n\n\n3.\n\nThe effect of Paul's miraculous conversion upon his companions is\nthus related:\n\n\"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless\" (Acts ix, 7).\n\n\"We were all fallen to the earth\" (xxvi, 14).\n\n\n\n4.\n\n\"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a\nvoice, but seeing no man\" (Acts ix, 7).\n\n\"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid;\nbut they heard not the voice of him that spake to me\" (xxii, 9).\n\n\n\n5.\n\nAfter his conversion Acts states that \"straight-way he preached Christ\nin the synagogues\" (ix, 20) at Damascus; that when, soon after, the\nJews sought to kill him he escaped and went immediately to Jerusalem;\nthat \"Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles\" (27);\n\"And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem\" (28).\n\nPaul denies this. Referring to his conversion he says:\n\n\"Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up\nto Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into\nArabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I\nwent up to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him fifteen days. But\nother of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother\"\n(Gal. i, 16-19).\n\n\n\n6.\n\nPaul declares that his mission was to the Gentiles alone.\n\n\"I am the Apostle of the Gentiles\" (Rom. xi, 13).\n\n\"That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles\"\n(xv, 16).\n\nAccording to Acts (ix, 20-22; xiii, 5, 14-43; xiv, 1; xvii, 1, 2,\n10; xviii, 4, 19; xxviii, 17), from the beginning to the end of his\nministry, he was continually preaching in the synagogues to the Jews.\n\n\n\n7.\n\nWhile Paul proclaims himself the apostle to the Gentiles he declares\nthat Peter's mission was confined to the Jews.\n\n\"The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel\nof the circumcision was unto Peter\" (Gal. ii, 7).\n\nPeter contends that his mission was to the Gentiles.\n\n\"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto\nthem, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made\nchoice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word\nof the gospel\" (Acts xv, 7).\n\n\n\n8.\n\nThe chief of Paul's theological teachings is Justification by Faith\nalone.\n\n\"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but\nby the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,\nthat we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works\nof the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified\"\n(Gal. ii, 16).\n\n\"If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain\" (21).\n\n\"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the\ndeeds of the law\" (Rom. iii, 28).\n\nJames declares this doctrine to be false and pernicious.\n\n\"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead\"\n(James ii, 20).\n\n\"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works\nis dead also\" (26).\n\n\"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith\nonly\" (24).\n\n\n\n9\n\nThe two great miracles of the Gospels are the immaculate conception\nand the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The Evangelists teach the\ndoctrine of the immaculate conception. Paul and Peter declare Jesus\nto be simply a man.\n\nPaul: \"The man Christ Jesus\" (1 Tim. ii, 5).\n\nPeter: \"A man approved of God\" (Acts ii, 22).\n\n\n\n10.\n\nThe Evangelists teach the resurrection of the natural body--a body\nof flesh and blood. Paul teaches a spiritual resurrection only.\n\n\"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body\" (1 Cor. xv,\n44).\n\n\"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God\" (50).\n\n\n\n11.\n\nPaul both affirms and denies the immortality of man: \"Glory and honor\nand immortality\" (Rom. ii, 7). \"This mortal must put on immortality\"\n(1 Cor. xv, 53).\n\n\"The King of kings, and Lord of lords [Christ]; who only hath\nimmortality\" (1 Tim. vi, 15, 16).\n\n\n\n12.\n\nPaul: \"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,\nthat we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we\nare no longer under a schoolmaster\" (Gal. iii, 24, 25).\n\n\"But now we are delivered from the law\" (Rom. vii, 6).\n\nJesus: \"Think not that I am come to destroy the law.... I am not come\nto destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and\nearth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law\"\n(Matt. v, 17, 18).\n\n\n\n13.\n\n\"We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not\nprevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from\nheaven, ... and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are\nalive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds\"\n(1 Thes., iv, 15-17).\n\nPaul believed that Christ had appeared to him. It was a delusion. He\nexpected Christ to come again. He was mistaken.\n\n\n\n14.\n\nThe following is an example of Paul's reasoning:\n\n\"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to\nthem that believe not; but prophesying serveth not for them that\nbelieve not, but for them which believe. If, therefore, the whole\nchurch be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues,\nand there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will\nthey not say ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there cometh in\none that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all\"\n(1 Cor. xiv, 22-24).\n\nSpeaking with tongues is for the unbeliever. Therefore if you speak\nwith tongues the unbeliever is not convinced.\n\nProphesying is not for the unbeliever. Therefore if you prophesy the\nunbeliever is convinced.\n\n\"Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto\nyou; as also in all of his epistles, speaking in them of these things;\nin which are some things hard to be understood\" (2 Peter iii, 15, 16).\n\nThe Duke of Somerset says: \"There is scarcely a single passage in\nthe Pauline Epistles, or a single doctrine in the Pauline theology,\nwhich is not darkened or embroiled by the ambiguity of the expression\"\n(Christian Theology and Modern Scepticism, p. 116).\n\n\n\n15.\n\nThe following passage of seven verses from Paul (Rom. iii, 12-18)\nis borrowed from six different chapters of the Old Testament. Is it\na medley of misquotations, or a mosaic of plagiarisms?\n\n\"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become\nunprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.\n\n\"Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used\ndeceit; the poison of asps is under their lips.\n\n\"Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.\n\n\"Their feet are swift to shed blood.\n\n\"Destruction and misery are in their ways.\n\n\"And the way of peace have they not known.\n\n\"There is no fear of God before their eyes.\"\n\n\n\n\"They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there\nis none that doeth good, no, not one\" (Ps. xiv, 3).\n\n\"Their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with the tongue\n(Ps. v, 9). Adders' poison is under their lips\" (cxl, 3).\n\n\"His mouth is full of cursing and deceit\" (Ps. x, 7).\n\n\"Their feet run to evil and they make haste to shed innocent blood\"\n(Is. lix, 7).\n\n\"Wasting and destruction are in their paths\" (Ibid).\n\n\"The way of peace they know not\" (8).\n\n\"There is no fear of God before his eyes\" (Ps. xxxvi, 1).\n\n\n\n16.\n\nThe following words are ascribed to Jesus by Paul:\n\n\"Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed\nto give than to receive\" (Acts xx, 85).\n\nNo such words are to be found in the recorded sayings of Jesus.\n\n\"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have\nentered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared\nfor them that love him\" (1 Cor. ii, 9).\n\nThe above is quoted by Paul as scripture, but the scriptures do not\ncontain this passage.\n\n\n\n17.\n\n\"Who his [Christ's] own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree\"\n(1 Peter ii, 24).\n\nThe Epistles of Peter are devoted largely to Christ's suffering and\ndeath, but no mention is made of his crucifixion. The words \"cross\"\nand \"crucify\" are not to be found in them. In Acts Peter speaks of\nJesus' death as follows:\n\n\"Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree\" (v, 30).\n\n\"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth ... whom they slew and hanged on a\ntree\" (x, 38, 93).\n\n\n\n18.\n\n\"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word\nand the Holy Ghost; and these three are one\" (1 John v, 7).\n\nThis is the chief text relied upon to support the doctrine of the\nTrinity, and this text all Christian scholars admit to be a forgery.\n\n\n\n19.\n\n\"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying,\nBehold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints\" (Jude 14).\n\nJude's scriptural authority is an apocryphal book.\n\nGenesis, Chronicles, and Luke all agree that Enoch was not the seventh,\nbut the sixth from Adam.\n\n\"Adam ... begat ... Seth\" (Gen. v, 3); \"Seth ... begat Enos\" (6);\n\"Enos ... begat Cainan (9); \"Cainan ... begat Mahalaleel\" (12);\n\"Mahalaleel ... begat Jared\" (15); \"Jared ... begat Enoch\" (18).\n\n\"Adam, Sheth, Enoch, Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Henoch\" (1 Chron. i,\n1-3).\n\n\"Which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was\nthe son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son\nof Seth, which was the son of Adam\" (Luke iii, 37, 38).\n\n\n\n20.\n\n\"Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him,\nsaying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before\nthem all, saying, I know not what thou sayest\" (Matt. xxvi, 69, 70).\n\n\"And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man\" (72).\n\n\"Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man\" (74).\n\n\"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I [Paul] withstood him to the\nface, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came\nfrom James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come,\nhe withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the\ncircumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him\"\n(Gal. ii, 11-13).\n\n\"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church\"\n(Matt. xvi, 18).\n\n\n\n21.\n\n\"Him [Timothy] would Paul have to go with him, and took and circumcised\nhim because of the Jews which were in those quarters\" (Acts xvi, 3).\n\n\"Thou seest, brother [Paul], how many thousands of Jews there are\nwhich believe, and they are all zealous of the law.... Do therefore\nthis that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;\nthem take and purify thyself with them. Then Paul took the men, and\nthe next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple\"\n(Acts xxi, 20-26).\n\nPaul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy. But if he practiced circumcision,\nand took the vow of a Nazarite, as claimed, he was a greater hypocrite\nthan Peter; for Saul the Jew was not more violently opposed to the\nreligion of Christ than Paul the Christian was to the religion of the\nJews. That he was addicted to hypocrisy and dissimulation is shown\nby the following admissions in his genuine epistles:\n\n\"Being crafty I caught you with guile\" (2 Cor. xii, 16).\n\n\"Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews\"\n(1 Cor. ix, 20).\n\n\"I am made all things to all men\" (22).\n\n\n\n22.\n\nJohn impeaches the credibility of Paul and denounces him as a\nliar. Critics agree that portions of Revelation, including the\nfollowing, are aimed directly at Paul:\n\n\"Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not,\nand hast found them liars\" (ii, 2).\n\n\n\n23.\n\n\"And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this\nbook: for the time is at hand\" (Rev. xxii, 10).\n\nAmong much that is unintelligible, the writer of Revelation clearly\npredicts the destruction of Rome (xvii, 16, 18); asserts that Nero,\nwho was really dead, was yet alive (xiii, 3); proclaims the immediate\ncoming of Christ (i, 7; xxii, 7, 12), the avenging of the persecuted\nprophets and apostles (xviii, 20), the binding of Satan for a thousand\nyears (xx, 2), and the establishment of God's kingdom (xxi).\n\n\"We know how completely these expectations were\ndisappointed. Jerusalem, where the temple at least was never to be\nviolated, fell utterly, and the sanctuary was laid low never to rise\nagain; while Rome, instead of being turned to a desert, still held\nher rank and fame. Nero, the Antichrist, was dead and never returned\nto life; but neither did the Christ come back to earth. The martyrs\nwere not avenged, but fresh persecutions awaited the faithful. The\nkingdom of Satan held its own, and the kingdom of God came not\"\n(Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 655).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nTHE BIBLE AND HISTORY.\n\n\nAbout one-half of the books of the Bible purport to be, to a\nconsiderable extent at least, historical. But from Genesis to\nRevelation there is scarcely a book which can be accepted as a reliable\nrecord of events. Nearly all of them abound with manifest absurdities,\nexaggerations, and contradictions. Their authors, for the most part,\ndeal with matters concerning which the ancient profane historians take\nno cognizance; and this, in a measure, conceals their errors. But\nwhen they do refer to known historical events, they exhibit such\nan ignorance of the facts, or such a desire to pervert them, as to\ndestroy their credibility. In this chapter will be presented some\n\"sacred\" history which reason rejects or the demonstrated facts of\nprofane history disprove.\n\n\n\n1.\n\n\"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\"\n\nThe Bible, it is affirmed, contains a connected and reliable historical\nand chronological record of events from the Creation down to the\nuniversally accepted dates of profane history. And yet between the\nthree versions of the Jewish Bible there is an utter disagreement. The\ncreation of the world, according to these versions, was as follows:\n\n\n Hebrew, 4004 B.C.\n Samaritan, 4700 B.C.\n Septuagint, 5872 B.C.\n\n\nThe Talmud and Josephus, based upon the above, agree with neither,\nnor with each other. According to the Talmud, the Creation occurred\n5344 B.C.; according to Josephus, 4658 B.C.\n\n\n\n2.\n\n\"And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about\nsix hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. And\na mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds,\neven very much cattle. Even the selfsame day it came to pass, that\nall the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt\" (Ex. xii,\n37, 38, 41).\n\n\"And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused\nthe sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night.... And\nthe children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry\nground.... Thus the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of\nthe Egyptians\" (Ex. xiv, 21, 22, 30).\n\nThe Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is represented as having taken\nplace in an incredibly brief space of time. It was after midnight when\nMoses was ordered to notify his people to depart. Before morning they\nwere all en route from Rameses to the Red Sea, which they reached in\nthree days and crossed in a few hours.\n\nAs there were 600,000 men, the total number of persons must have\nbeen nearly 3,000,000. Three millions is a number easily spoken and\nquickly written. But neither the author of this story nor those who\naccept it as history have the slightest conception of its meaning. They\nevidently think that three million people--old and young; men, women,\nand children; the sick and the lame, together with their flocks and\nherds, their household effects and provisions--could be moved with\nthe celerity of a few hundred men. When Napoleon crossed the Nieman\nin 1812, it took his army of trained soldiers, inured to hardships\nand accustomed to rapid marches, three days and nights to cross the\nriver in close file on three bridges. Had his army been as large as\nthis body of Israelites, to have crossed the river on one bridge,\nallowing the necessary time for rest, would have taken six months. It\nwould have required months to notify, assemble, and organize this vast\npopulation of slaves in readiness for their migration. And when the\njourney began, if the head of the column had left Rameses in the spring\nthe rear of the column would not have been able to move before autumn.\n\n\n\n3.\n\n\"Behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel\nfor a possession\" (Deut. xxxii, 49).\n\nIn the twelfth chapter of Joshua is given a list of thirty-one\nkingdoms which were conquered by them. This was in the fifteenth\ncentury B.C. From this time forward they are represented as a mighty\nnation by Bible historians.\n\nRameses III. overran Canaan and conquered it between 1280 and 1260\nB.C. The Egyptian records give a list of all the tribes inhabiting\nit. The children of Israel--the Hebrews--were not there. In the fifth\ncentury B.C., when Herodotus, the father of history, was collecting\nmaterials for his immortal work, he traversed nearly every portion\nof Western Asia. He describes all its principal peoples and places;\nbut the Jews and Jerusalem are of too little consequence to merit a\nline from his pen. Not until 332 B.C. do the Jews appear upon the stage\nof history, and then only as the submissive vassals of a Grecian king.\n\n\n\n4.\n\n1. \"Elhanan, the son of Jair, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath of Gath,\nthe shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam\" (2 Sam. xxi, 19,\nH. V.).\n\n2. \"Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the\nGittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam\" (1 Chron. xx, 5).\n\n3. \"Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother\nof Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's\nbeam\" (2 Sam. xxi, 19, A. V.).\n\nThe above are three versions of the same passage. The first is a\ncorrect translation of the passage as it appears in the Hebrew. It is\na part of one of the two discordant narratives used by the compiler of\nSamuel. The compiler of Chronicles saw the discrepancy and interpolated\nthe words \"Lahmi the brother of.\" Our translators interpolated the\nwords \"the brother of.\"\n\nCritics admit that if the killing of Goliath is a historical event,\nwhich is improbable, it was Elkanah, and not David, who slew him. The\nstory of David and Goliath given by the other narrator in 1 Samuel is\na myth. This writer says: \"And David took the head of the Philistine,\nand brought it to Jerusalem,\" evidently believing that the Israelites\nthen occupied Jerusalem, whereas the duel between David and Goliath\nis said to have occurred 1062 B.C., while the conquest and occupancy\nof Jerusalem by the Israelites did not occur until 1047 B.C., fifteen\nyears later.\n\n\n\n5.\n\n\"And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying, ... Behold, I purpose to build an\nhouse unto the name of the Lord my God, ... and my servants shall be\nwith thy servants, and unto thee will I give hire for thy servants\"\n(1 Kings v, 2, 5, 6).\n\n\"And Solomon had three score and ten thousand that bare burdens,\nand four score thousand hewers in the mountains; beside the chief\nof Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and\nthree hundred\" (15, 16).\n\n\"So was he seven years in building it\" (vi, 38)\n\n\"And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, the length\nthereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits,\nand the height thereof thirty cubits\" (2).\n\nThe main building of Solomon's Temple, then, was about 96 feet long,\n32 feet wide, and 48 feet high. One hundred and fifty thousand men\nengaged seven years in building a house as large as a village church\nor a country store! The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse!\n\n\n\n6.\n\n\"And the children of Israel fled before Judah: and God delivered\nthem into their hand. And Abijah and his people slew them with great\nslaughter: so there fell down slain of Israel five hundred thousand\nchosen men\" (2 Chron. xiii, 16, 17).\n\nFive hundred thousand slain in one battle! At the battle of Gettysburg,\none of the greatest battles of modern times, for three long days,\ntwo mighty armies of America engaged in deadly conflict, and when it\nwas ended, the defeated army had less than five thousand killed. And\nyet we are asked to believe that this puny race of Hebrews, too\ninsignificant to attract the notice of ancient historians, marshaled\nin battle two contending armies, the carnage of which equaled that\nof a hundred Gettysburgs.\n\nTalk about oriental exaggeration! If you wish to find its choicest\nspecimens, search not the pages of Persian and Arabian romance,\nbut read a chapter of sacred history.\n\n\n\n7.\n\n\"And Pul the king of Assyria came against the land; and Menahem gave\nPul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to\nconfirm the kingdom in his hand\" (2 Kings xv, 19).\n\nThe king who reigned in Assyria at this time was Iva-lush. Assyria\nnever had a king named Pul.\n\n\n\n8.\n\n\"Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords,\nand drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the\nwine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father\nNebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem;\nthat the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might\ndrink therein\" (Dan. v, 1, 2).\n\n\"In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand and wrote over\nagainst the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's\npalace\" (5).\n\n\"And this is the writing that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN\"\n(25).\n\n\"In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans [Babylon]\nslain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom\" (30, 31).\n\nAs a dramatic piece of fiction Belshazzar's Feast is good; as a\nchapter of ancient history it is bad. Belshazzar was not the son of\nNebuchadnezzar; neither was he king of Babylon. Darius the Mede did\nnot take the kingdom.\n\n\n\n9.\n\n\"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from\nC\u00e6sar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing\nwas first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)... And Joseph\nalso went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea,\nunto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of\nthe house and lineage of David), to be taxed with Mary his espoused\nwife, being great with child\" (Luke ii, 1-5).\n\nThis cannot be accepted as historical for the following reasons:\n\n1. C\u00e6sar Augustus never issued a decree that all the world should be\ntaxed, nor even one that all the Roman world should be taxed.\n\n2. If he had issued such a decree Joseph and Mary would not have been\nsubject to taxation, because they lived in Galilee, an independent\nprovince.\n\n3. Had they been subject to taxation they would have been enrolled\nin their own country and not in some distant kingdom.\n\n4. Cyrenius did not become governor of Syria until nearly ten years\nafter the death of Herod, and Jesus was born, it is claimed, in the\ndays of Herod.\n\n\n\n10.\n\n\"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was\nexceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in\nBethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under\"\n(Matt. ii, 16).\n\nThe statement that Herod the Great, who was firmly established in\nhis government, and who had full-grown male heirs to succeed him,\nwas afraid that the babe of an obscure Nazareth carpenter would\nsupplant him in his kingdom, is enough to cause a Covenanter to laugh\non Sunday. Had Herod issued such a decree his friends, instead of\nexecuting it, would have had him confined in a madhouse. The fact that\nthe Roman and Jewish historians of that age--one of whom, an enemy,\ngives a full and complete record of his life--know nothing of this\nawful tragedy, that an anonymous author writing nearly two centuries\nafterward is the only one who mentions it, is of itself sufficient\nto brand it as an atrocious falsehood.\n\n\n\n11.\n\n\"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,\nfrom the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of\nBarachias whom ye slew between the temple and the altar\" (Matt. xxiii,\n35).\n\nThe divine historian ascribes these words to Jesus. Jesus was\ncrucified, it is claimed, about 29 A.D. Zacharias was slain in 69 A.D.,\nforty years after the death of Jesus. Some contend that Jesus refers\nto the Zachariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles (xxiv, 20, 25). But this\nZachariah was the son of Jehoiada. Besides, the accusation of Jesus\nis intended to cover all time from the first to the last offense,\nand to name this Zachariah would be to admit that they had shed no\nrighteous blood for 850 years.\n\n\n\n12.\n\n\"For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be\nsomebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined\nthemselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were\nscattered, and brought to nought.\n\n\"After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and\ndrew away much people after him: he also perished\" (Acts v, 36, 37).\n\nAccording to Acts the sedition of Theudas occurred before the taxing,\nwhich was about 6 A.D. It really occurred while Fadus was procurator\nof Judea, about 46 A.D.--forty years after the date assigned in Acts.\n\nThe Bible is largely a medley of fables, mythologies, and\nlegends. These legends contain a modicum of truth--how much cannot\nbe determined. The reliable historian faithfully presents the facts\ncontained in the materials at his command. These so-called sacred\nhistorians do not. With them history is secondary to theology and\nmade subservient to it. Every event is represented as a special act of\ndivine Providence and is tortured to uphold and serve their theological\nnotions. Referring to the author or compiler of Judges, Dr. Oort\nsays: \"The writer has drawn most of his narratives from trustworthy\nsources.... Our gratitude to him would indeed be still greater than it\nis, if he had given us all that he found in his authorities unmixed\nand unaltered. But to an Israelite historian this seems to have been\na simple impossibility\" (Bible for Learners, Vol. I., p. 363).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nTHE BIBLE AND SCIENCE.\n\n\n\"There is a beautiful harmony between the principles of science and\nthe teachings of the Bible.\"--Dr. Cheever.\n\nBibliolaters, unacquainted with the principles of science, and\nscientists unacquainted with the teachings of the Bible, may accept\nthis statement; those conversant with both cannot. In the Bible a\nthousand scientific errors may be found. The limits of this work\npreclude a presentation of them all. Enough will be given, however,\nto show that the teachings of the Bible conflict with the teachings\nof the ten principal sciences--Astronomy, Geology, Geography, Botany,\nZoology, Ethnology, Physiology, Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics.\n\n\n\nAstronomy.\n\n\"And God said, Let there be light, and there was light\" (Gen. i, 3).\n\n\"And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And\nthe evening and the morning were the first day\" (5).\n\n\"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day and\nthe lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also ... and\nthe evening and the morning were the fourth day\" (16, 19).\n\nThe cause is supposed to precede the effect; but here the effect\nprecedes the cause. Light and darkness, morning and evening, day and\nnight exist before the sun.\n\nThe Bible teaches us that the earth is older than the sun; science\nteaches us that the sun is older than the earth.\n\nIn the creation of the universe God devoted five-sixths of his time\nto the creation of this little world of ours, while but a fragment\nof the remaining time was needed to create the countless worlds that\nexist outside of our solar system. Five brief words, \"He made the\nstars also,\" record the history of their creation.\n\nAccording to the Bible, the oldest star is less than six thousand\nyears old. What says the scientist?\n\n\"I have observed stars, of which the light, it can be proved, must\ntake two millions of years to reach this earth.\"--Sir William Herschel.\n\n\"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley\nof Ajalon.\"\n\n\"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go\ndown about a whole day\" (Josh. x, 12, 13).\n\n\"Behold, I [the Lord] will bring again the shadow of the degrees,\nwhich is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So\nthe sun returned ten degrees\" (Isaiah xxxviii, 8).\n\nThe Bible teaches the geocentric theory that the sun revolves around\nthe earth; Science teaches the heliocentric theory that the earth\nrevolves around the sun.\n\nLuther, accepting the Bible and rejecting science, wrote:\n\n\"The fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of\nAstronomy. But sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the\nsun to stand still and not the earth.\"\n\n\"Biblical astronomy,\" says the celebrated Jewish commentator,\nDr. Kalisch, \"is derived from mere optical appearance.\"\n\n\n\n\nGeology.\n\n\"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth\" (Gen. i, 1).\n\n\"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,\nand the fruit tree yielding fruit\" (i, 11).\n\n\"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving\ncreature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth\"\n(i, 20).\n\n\"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after\nhis kind, cattle and creeping things\" (i, 24).\n\n\"And God said, Let us make man in our image\" (i, 26).\n\n\"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth\" (Ex. xx, 11).\n\nAccording to the Bible, the earth was created in six days about\nsix thousand years ago. Geology tells us that the earth was old six\nmillion years ago.\n\nTo make room for the earth's development, theologians now contend\nthat a vast period of time elapsed between the work recorded in the\nfirst verse and in those following. To this Bishop Colenso replies:\n\n\"We are plainly taught in the book of Genesis, according to the simple,\nstraightforward meaning of the words, that Elohim created the heaven\nand the earth in the beginning of these six days--that is, taking\ninto account the chronological data of the Bible, about six thousand\nyears ago\" (The Pentateuch, Part IV, p. 94).\n\nAgain, theologians claim that these six days were not six literal\ndays, but six long epochs of time. The Rev. Moses Stuart, Professor of\nSacred Literature in Andover Theological Seminary, one of the ablest\nHebrew scholars, says:\n\n\"When the sacred writer in Genesis i says, the first day, the second\nday, etc., there can be no possible doubt--none.... What puts this\nbeyond all question in philology is that the writer says specifically,\nthe evening and the morning were the first day, the second day,\netc. Now, is an evening and a morning a period of some thousands\nof years? Is it, in any sense, when so employed, an indefinite\nperiod? The answer is so plain and certain that I need not repeat\nit. If Moses has given us an erroneous account of the creation, so\nbe it. Let it come out, and let us leave the whole. But do not let\nus turn aside his language to get rid of difficulties that we may\nhave in our speculations.\"\n\nThe Jewish scholar, Dr. Kalisch, not only rejects this interpretation\nof the word day, but admits that it would not reconcile Genesis with\nscience if allowed. He says:\n\n\"The device that the days denote epochs is not only arbitrary, but\nineffective, for the six epochs of the Mosaic creation correspond in\nno manner with the gradual formation of cosmos.\"\n\nAccording to Genesis the creation of organic life occupied but three of\nthese six days. The order of creation for these three days, or periods,\nis as follows: 1. (3d day) Land plants; 2. (5th day) aquatic animals,\nbirds; 3. (6th day) Mammals, reptiles, man.\n\nIs this confirmed by science? Passing Lyell by, let us cite our more\northodox Dana. Dr. Dana, who professed to believe that the study of\nGeology tended \"to strengthen faith in the Book of books,\" gives the\nseveral geological ages, together with the successive appearances of\norganic life, as follows: 1. Arch\u00e6an Age--Lowest marine life, if any;\n2. Silurian Age--Invertebrates, marine plants; 3. Devonian Age--Fish,\nearliest appearance of land plants; 4. Carboniferous Age--Luxuriant\nvegetation, lowest forms of reptiles; 5. Reptilian Age--Highest forms\nof reptiles; 6. Tertiary Age--Birds, mammals; 7. Quaternary Age--Man.\n\nEven Dana cannot reconcile Genesis with Geology. Genesis tells us\nthat the earliest organic life was terrestrial vegetation; Geology\ntells us that ages of organic life passed before terrestrial plants\nappeared. Genesis tells us that fish and fowls were created at the same\ntime; Geology tells us that the finny tribes existed ages before the\nfeathered tribes appeared. Genesis tells us that mammals and reptiles\nwere created at the same time; Geology tells us that while reptiles\nexisted in the Carboniferous age, mammals did not appear until the\nclose of the Reptilian age. Genesis tells us that birds appeared before\nreptiles; Geology tells us that reptiles existed first. Genesis tells\nus that life existed first upon the land; Geology tells us that the\nsea teemed with animal and vegetable life ages before it appeared\nupon the land.\n\nThe seven ages of Geology comprise twenty-five geological\nperiods. Genesis recognizes but six periods in the creation of\nthe entire universe; Geology recognizes twenty-five periods in the\nformation of earth's crust alone. According to Bible chronology, the\nuniverse is less than six thousand years old; according to Geology,\nthe mere existence of life upon earth's crust, which is as but a day\ncompared with the existence of the universe, is probably nearly fifty\nmillions of years. Dr. Dana says:\n\n\"If time from the commencement of the Silurian included 48 millions\nof years, which some geologists would pronounce much too low an\nestimate, the Paleozoic part [Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous],\naccording to the above ratio, would comprise 36 millions, the Mesozoic\n[Reptilian] 9 millions, and the Cenozoic [Tertiary and Quaternary]\n3 millions\" (Text Book of Geology, p. 329).\n\nWhen Geology was in its infancy scientists attempted to reconcile\nits teachings with the teachings of the Bible. No scientist worthy\nof the name attempts to reconcile them now.\n\nWriting over thirty years ago, Carl Vogt thus records the triumph of\nGeology over Genesis:\n\n\"It is hardly twenty years since I learned from Agassiz: transitional\nstrata, pal\u00e6ozoic formations--kingdom of fishes; there are no reptiles\nin this period, and cannot be any, because it would be contrary to the\nplan of creation; secondary formations (Trias, Jura, chalk)--kingdom of\nreptiles; there are no mammals and cannot be any, for the same reason;\ntertiary strata--kingdom of mammals; there are no men and cannot be\nany; present creation--kingdom of man. What is become of this plan of\ncreation, with its exclusiveness? Reptiles in the Devonian strata,\nreptiles in the coal, reptiles in the Dyas. Farewell, kingdom of\nfish! Mammals in the Jura, mammals in Purbeck chalk, which some reckon\nas the lowest chalk formation; good-by, kingdom of reptiles! Men in\nthe highest tertiary strata, men in the diluvial forms--au revoir,\nkingdom of mammals!\"\n\n\n\nGeography.\n\n\"The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved\" (1 Chron. xvi,\n30).\n\n\"Who laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be removed\nforever\" (Ps. civ, 5).\n\n\"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the\nworld upon them\" (1 Sam. ii, 8).\n\n\"I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth\"\n(Rev. vii, 1).\n\n\"The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth\nhim all the kingdoms of the world\" (Matt. iv, 8).\n\nThe science of Geography describes the earth as spherical in form,\nwith a daily revolution on its axis and an annual revolution around\nthe sun. The Bible describes it as stable, flat, and angular.\n\n\"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence\nit was parted, and became into four heads.\n\n\"The name of the first is Pison\" [Indus or Ganges] (Gen. ii, 10, 11).\n\n\"And the name of the second river is Gihon [Nile]: the same is it\nthat compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.\n\n\"And the name of the third river is Hiddekel [Tigris]: ... And the\nfourth river is Euphrates\" (ii, 13, 14).\n\nBible geography makes the Nile and the Euphrates both branches of\nthe same river.\n\n\"Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar\" (John\niv, 5).\n\nSamaria contained no city of this name.\n\n\"These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan\" (John i, 28,\nNew Ver.).\n\nBethany was a suburb of Jerusalem and not located beyond the Jordan.\n\n\"He departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea beyond\nJordan\" (Matt. xix, 1).\n\nThe dead sea and the Jordan formed the eastern boundary of Judea,\nand no coasts of Judea existed beyond the Jordan.\n\n\"Which was of Bethsaida of Galilee\" (John xii, 21).\n\nBethsaida was not of Galilee, but of Perea.\n\n\n\nBotany.\n\n\"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after\nhis kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,\nafter his kind\" (Gen. i, 12).\n\n\"And the evening and the morning were the third day\" (i, 13).\n\n\"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day\"\n(i, 16).\n\n\"And the evening and the morning were the fourth day\" (i, 19).\n\nThe Bible states that the earth was covered with vegetation, that\ngrass and herbs and trees flourished without the heat and light of\nthe sun. Science denies it.\n\n\"Cursed is the ground for thy sake.... Thorns also and thistles shall\nit bring forth to thee\" (Gen. iii, 17, 18).\n\nThorns and thistles are represented as resulting from a curse. They\nare no more the result of a curse than are grapes and corn.\n\n\"And again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; and the dove came\nin to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf\nplucked off\" (Gen. viii, 10, 11).\n\nHebrew commentators state that it was a fresh olive leaf. The Bible\nwriter supposes that the earth could be submerged for nearly a year\nwithout the vegetable kingdom being destroyed. Had this deluge really\noccurred, all vegetation, save, perhaps, a few aquatic plants, would\nhave died.\n\n\"He planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it\" (Is. xliv, 14).\n\nNot in Western Asia, for the tree does not grow there. Bible\ncommentators believe that the pine is meant.\n\nThe authors of Genesis (xxx, 37) and Ezekiel (xxxi, 8) both mention\nthe chestnut-tree. But it is admitted that the chestnut did not grow\nwhere they stated. Referring to this error, Smith's Bible Dictionary\nsays: \"The 'plane-tree' ought probably to have been substituted. The\ncontext of the passages where the word occurs indicates some tree\nwhich thrives best in low and rather moist situations, whereas the\nchestnut-tree is a tree which prefers dry and hilly ground.\"\n\n\"Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone:\nbut if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit\" (John xii, 24).\n\nIf it die it bringeth forth no fruit.\n\n\n\nZoology.\n\n\"Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and\nof everything that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two\n[or by sevens of clean according to another account] unto Noah into\nthe ark\" (Gen. vii, 8, 9).\n\nThe animal kingdom, including insects, etc., comprises more than\n1,000,000 species. According to the Bible, two or more of every species\nfrom every clime--polar animals accustomed to a temperature of fifty\ndegrees below zero, and tropical, to one hundred degrees above--were\nbrought together and preserved for a year in an ark. If the teachings\nof Natural History be true, this Bible story is false.\n\nThe Bible pronounces unclean and unfit for food the following animals:\n\n\"The camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof\"\n(Lev. xi, 4).\n\n\"The coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof\"\n(xi, v).\n\n\"The hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof\"\n(xi, 6).\n\n\"The swine, though he divideth the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet\nhe cheweth not the cud\" (xi, 7).\n\nEvery statement proclaims the writer's ignorance of the simple facts of\nZoology. The camel does divide the hoof; the coney does not chew the\ncud; the hare does not chew the cud; the swine is not cloven-footed\n(bisulcate), but four-toed.\n\n\"All ruminants have the foot cleft, and they only have it.\"--Cuvier.\n\n\"Every one of the four instances or illustrations brought forward by\nthe Biblical writer is necessarily erroneous; any attempt at defending\nthem implies an impotent struggle against Science.\"--Dr. Kalisch.\n\nScarcely less erroneous are the following passages: \"And these are\nthey which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls: ... the stork,\nthe heron after her kind, and the lapwing and the bat.\n\n\"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination\nunto you.\n\n\"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth\nupon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon\nthe earth;\n\n\"Even these of them may ye eat: the locust after his kind, and the\nbald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the\ngrasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which\nhave four feet, shall be an abomination unto you\" (Lev. xi, 13-23).\n\n\"And the Lord said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,\nthou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;\nupon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days\nof thy life\" (Gen. iii, 14).\n\nThe serpent does not eat dust, while Science shows that it crawled\nupon its belly before the curse just as it did afterward.\n\n\n\nEthnology.\n\nAccording to the Bible, all mankind have sprung from a single pair\ncreated by God six thousand years ago. Science does not admit that\nman is the result of a divine creative act, that all the races have\ndescended from a single pair, or that his existence here is confined\nto the brief period of sixty centuries. She is not able to tell yet,\neven approximately, when man's advent upon the earth occurred, but\nshe has long since proved the Biblical record false, and shown that\ninstead of his having occupied the earth but six thousand years he\nhas been here at the least from ten to fifty times six thousand years.\n\nReferring to the Biblical origin of man, Professor Huxley says:\n\"Five-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic monogenism as\nif it were an established truth, and believe it. I do not; and I am\nnot acquainted with any man of science, or duly instructed person,\nwho does\" (Methods and Results of Ethnology).\n\n\"There were giants in the earth in those days\" (Gen. vi, 4).\n\nThe Bible, like the mythical records of other early nations, represents\nthe earth as peopled with a race of giants. Yet the stature of man\nis as great to-day as it was five thousand years ago.\n\n\"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years\"\n(Gen. v, 5).\n\nThe Bible says that for a period of two thousand years men lived\nfor centuries, that at least seven patriarchs attained to an age of\nnearly 1,000 years. The Egyptian records of that period show that\nman's longevity was no greater then than it is now.\n\nNot only the size and age of men, but their numbers are exaggerated by\nBible writers. The Israelites, at the time they settled in Palestine,\nnumbered, it is claimed, two or three millions. Out of this country,\nto make room for them, God cast \"seven nations greater and mightier\nthan\" the Israelite nation (Deut. vii, 1). Palestine must then have\nsustained a population as great as Spain does now with a territory\nthirty times as large.\n\nThe census of Israel and Judah, taken in the time of David, places\nthe number of warriors at 1,570,000 (1 Ch. xxi, 5). This makes the\nwhole population twice as great as that of Illinois with an area nine\ntimes as large as Palestine and a soil ten times as fertile.\n\n\"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech\"\n(Gen. xi, 1):\n\n\"Let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may\nnot understand one another's speech\" (Gen. xi, 7).\n\nThe origin of the various languages of men is here attributed to a\nmiraculous confusion of tongues. Science shows that languages had no\nsuch origin. Renan says:\n\n\"Far from placing unity at the beginning of language, it is necessary\nto look at such a unity as the slow and tardy result of an advanced\ncivilization. In the beginning there were as many dialects as\nfamilies.\"\n\nThis Bible account of the confusion of tongues is contradicted by\nthe preceding chapter of Genesis (x, 5, 20, 31), which, referring to\nthe children of Japheth, Ham, and Shem, says they were divided \"every\none after his tongue,\" \"after their families, after their tongues.\"\n\n\n\nPhysiology.\n\n\"And the ark rested in the seventh month ... upon the mountains of\nArarat\" (Gen. viii, 4).\n\n\"And in the second month [of the following year] was the earth dried\"\n(viii, 14).\n\nHere on the top of Ararat, three miles above the surrounding country,\nand three thousand feet above the region of perpetual snow, for months,\nthe respiratory organs of man and all the animals of earth performed\ntheir functions without difficulty!\n\n\"Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?\" (Matt. ix, 4).\n\n\"What reason ye in your hearts?\" (Luke v, 22).\n\nJesus recognizes the heart as the seat of reason and intelligence.\n\n\"In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children\" (Gen. iii, 16).\n\n\"She was found with child of the Holy Ghost\" (Matt. i, 18).\n\n\"Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit\" (Mark v, 8).\n\n\"And the prayer of faith shall save the sick\" (James v, 15).\n\nAttributing the pains of parturition to a curse, recording the\ngeneration of a child without a natural father, ascribing nervous and\nother disorders to demons, and healing the sick by prayer are Biblical,\nbut not scientific.\n\n\"And all the first-born males [of Israel] ... were twenty and two\nthousand two hundred and three score and thirteen\" (Num. iii, 43).\n\nAs the population of Israel was about 3,000,000, this would give\n130 persons to each family and an average of 128 children to each\nmother. Faith may accept this, but physiological science rejects it.\n\n\n\nChemistry.\n\n\"And he lifted up the rod and smote the waters that were in the river,\n... and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood\"\n(Ex. vii, 20).\n\n\"Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with water. And they filled\nthem up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now and bear\nunto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the\nfeast had tasted the water that was made wine,\" etc. (John ii, 7-9).\n\n\"But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar\nof salt\" (Gen. xix, 26).\n\n\"And he took the [golden] calf which they had made and burnt it in\nthe fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water,\nand made the children of Israel drink of it\" (Ex. xxxii, 20).\n\nTurning a river into blood, water into wine, flesh into salt, and\nburning and grinding gold into powder and holding it in solution,\ncannot be harmonized with the teachings of science.\n\nBut it is not merely to a few Biblical passages, to a few so-called\nmiraculous changes in the elements of nature, that the science of\nchemistry is opposed. It is opposed to the entire Bible as a divine\nrevelation. The central ideas of this book, a Creator, a Providence,\nand a Mediator, are all overthrown by this science.\n\nReferring to this, Comte truthfully observes:\n\n\"However imperfect our chemical science is, its development has\noperated largely in the emancipation of the human mind. Its opposition\nto all theological philosophy is marked by two general facts, ... first\nthe prevision of phenomena, and next our voluntary modification of\nthem\" (Positive Philosophy, Book IV., chap. i).\n\n\"In this way, Chemistry effectually discredits the notion of the\nrule of Providential will among its phenomena. But there is another\nway in which it acts no less strongly: by abolishing the idea ... of\ncreation in nature\" (Ibid).\n\n\n\nPhysics.\n\n\"I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a\ncovenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when\nI bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the\ncloud: and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you\nand every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more\nbecome a flood, to destroy all flesh\" (Gen. ix, 13-15).\n\nThe Bible writer did not know that it was the refraction and reflection\nof the sun's rays on the drops of water which produced the prismatic\ncolors of the rainbow; he did not know that the phenomenon was as\nold as rain and sunshine, but believed it to be a postdiluvian sign\nthrown on the dark canvas of clouds by the Almighty.\n\n\"It seems plain,\" says the Bishop of Natal, \"that the writer supposes\nthe bow to have been seen for the first time when the deluge was over.\"\n\n\"The words which Moses spake unto all Israel\" (Deut. i, 1).\n\n\"And Moses called all Israel and said unto them\" (v, 1).\n\n\"There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read\nnot before all the congregation of Israel\" (Josh. viii, 35).\n\nNature's temple must have possessed wonderful acoustic properties\nto enable Moses and Joshua to reach the ears of a multitude of three\nmillions.\n\n\"Let us build a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven\"\n(Gen. xi, 4).\n\nGod himself, ignorant of pneumatics, believes the project possible,\nand confounds their language to prevent it.\n\n\"And the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into\nthe midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were as a\nwall unto them on the right hand, and on their left\" (Ex. xiv, 21, 22).\n\nA fundamental principle of hydrostatics is the following: \"When a\npressure is exerted on any part of the surface of a liquid, that\npressure is transmitted undiminished to all parts of the mass, and\nin all directions.\"\n\n\n\nMathematics.\n\n\"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,\nand the Holy Ghost: and these three are one\" (1 John v, 7).\n\n\"The incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that\nthree are one and one is three!\"--Thomas Jefferson.\n\nMatthew concludes his genealogy of Jesus as follows:\n\n\"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;\nand from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen\ngenerations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are\nfourteen generations\" (Matt. i, 17).\n\nThis genealogy, including both Abraham and Jesus, contains but\nforty-one generations. Here we have an inspired scholar performing\nthe mathematical solution of dividing forty-one generations by three\nand obtaining fourteen generations for a quotient.\n\n\"The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three\nhundred and three score\" (Ezra ii, 64).\n\nThis number, 42,360, is given as the whole number of persons belonging\nto the families that returned from Babylon. Adding together the numbers\ngiven in the census register, of which the above is declared to be the\nsum total, we find the whole number to be only 29,818--a difference\nand a discrepancy of 12,542.\n\nThe foregoing are but three of three hundred mathematical errors to\nbe found in the Bible.\n\nIt is not merely in a few unimportant scientific details, but in the\nfundamental principles of the most important sciences--of astronomy,\nof geology, of geography, and of man--that the Bible errs. Its writers\nevince no divine knowledge of the facts of nature. Their works exhibit\nthe crude notions of the age in which they lived. Some of their\nteachings are in harmony with the accepted truths of Science; but\nthese prove no more than a human origin. The wisest of mankind do not\nknow all; the most ignorant know something. While there are phenomena\ntoo complex for the mind of a Newton or a Darwin to grasp, there are\nothers regarding which the first impressions of a child are correct.\n\nTo assert that the Bible is in harmony with the teachings of Modern\nScience is to assert that no advancement has been made in Science for\ntwo thousand years, when all know that many of the most marvelous\nscientific discoveries are less than two hundred years old. The\nscientific attainments of Bible writers were not above those of\nthe age and country in which they lived, and probably far below;\nfor the Bible is largely the work of theologians, and theologians\nhave ever been behind their age in scientific knowledge. The mission\nof theologians is not to advance, but to retard Science. They have\nwaged a relentless but ineffective warfare against it. In the words\nof Huxley: \"Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every\nscience, as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules.\"\n\n\"The Hebrew Pentateuch,\" says Gerald Massey, \"has not only retarded the\ngrowth of science for eighteen centuries, but the ignorant believers\nin it as a book of revelation have tried to strangle every science\nat its birth. There could be and was but little or no progress in\nAstronomy, Geology, Biology, or Sociology until its teachings were\nrepudiated by the more enlightened among men.\"\n\nOf the Bible and Science thus writes America's eminent scientist and\nauthor, Dr. John W. Draper:\n\n\"It is to be regretted that the Christian church has burdened itself\nwith the defense of these books, and voluntarily made itself answerable\nfor their manifest contradictions and errors.... Still more, it is to\nbe deeply regretted that the Pentateuch, a production so imperfect\nas to be unable to stand the touch of modern criticism, should be\nput forth as the arbiter of science\" (Conflict Between Religion and\nScience, p. 225).\n\n\"The world is not to be discovered through the vain traditions that\nhave brought down to us the opinions of men who lived in the morning\nof civilization, nor in the dreams of mystics who thought that they\nwere inspired\" (Ibid, p. 33).\n\n\"For her [Science] the volume of inspiration is the book of\nNature, of which the open scroll is ever spread forth before the\neyes of every man. Confronting all, it needs no societies for its\ndissemination. Infinite in extent, eternal in duration, human ambition\nand human fanaticism have never been able to tamper with it. On the\nearth it is illustrated by all that is magnificent and beautiful,\non the heavens its letters are suns and worlds\" (Ib., p. 227).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nPROPHECIES.\n\n\n\"Prophecy is a demonstration of divine knowledge; as miracles,\nin the restricted acceptation of the word, are a demonstration of\ndivine power. Prophecies being true, revelation is established as\na fact.\"--Keith.\n\n\"The predictions respecting Christ are so clear, so detailed\nand circumstantial, as to constitute together one of the most\nimportant proofs of the inspiration of the Bible and of the truth\nof Christianity.\"--Hitchcock.\n\nA prophet, according to the orthodox and popular signification of\nthe term, is one who predicts. A prophecy is a prediction, and the\nwritings of the prophets are a collection of predictions regarding\nfuture events. Prophet and prophecy, as used in the Bible, have no\nsuch meaning. The prophet might make a prediction, just as any one\nmay make a prediction, but this was not necessarily any part of his\noffice. The functions of the prophet were those of preacher, poet,\nand musician. There were not merely a score of them, but thousands\nof them. The more talented prophets became authors--composed the\npoems, recorded the history, and wrote the religious works of the\nHebrews. Some of these prophets were moral reformers--labored earnestly\nto reform their people. The wicked were exhorted to forsake their\nsins, and threatened with divine retribution if they did not. When\ntheir countrymen were in bondage they consoled them with the promise\nthat God would liberate them. The oppressed and the captive longed\nfor a deliverer. The prophet gave utterance to these longings, and\nthis gave birth to the Messianic idea.\n\nThe more important of these so-called prophecies will now be examined.\n\n\n\n1.\n\n\"And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees'\nexcellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall\nnever be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to\ngeneration; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall\nthe shepherds make their fold there. But wild beasts of the desert\nshall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures;\nand owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the\nwild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and\ndragons in their pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come,\nand her days shall not be prolonged\" (Isaiah xiii, 19-22).\n\nHad this prophecy been literally fulfilled, it would not have evinced\nsupernatural prescience on the part of the prophet. It is the fate\nof cities to flourish for a time and then decay. The world contains\nthe ruins, not of Babylon alone, but of a thousand cities.\n\nThe enemies of Babylon wished for and hoped for its destruction. The\nprophet voiced that wish and hope. Perhaps at that very moment the\nvictorious armies of the Persian were leveling its walls.\n\nBut this prophecy has not been literally fulfilled. Babylon was not\nas when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah; it has been inhabited;\nit has been dwelt in from generation to generation; the Arabian\nhas pitched his tent there; shepherds have made their fold there;\nsatyrs have not danced there; dragons have not occupied her palaces;\nher days were prolonged. The ancient glory of Babylon has faded,\nbut a thriving city still exists there, a standing refutation of the\nclaim that Isaiah's prophecy has been fulfilled.\n\n\n\n2.\n\n\"For thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will bring upon Tyrus\nNebuchadrezzar [Nebuchadnezzar], king of Babylon.... With the hoofs\nof his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy\npeople by the sword, and thy strong garrison shall go down to the\nground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey\nof thy merchandise.... And I will make thee like the top of a rock:\nthou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more:\nfor I the Lord have spoken it\" (Ezekiel xxvi, 7, 11, 12, 14).\n\nHere is a specific prediction. But it was not fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar\ndid not destroy, nor even conquer, Tyre. \"He reduced the whole sea\ncoast except Tyre, which stood a thirteen years' siege by water\nand by land, ending, not in subjection, but ... leaving the native\nsovereigns on their thrones and their wealth and power untouched\"\n(Chambers's Encyclopedia).\n\nA thousand years after Ezekiel uttered his prophecy, Jerome, the\nforemost Christian of his age, declared it to be \"the most noble and\nbeautiful city in Phoenicia.\" Twenty-four hundred years have passed,\nand Tyre still survives.\n\n\n\n3.\n\n\"Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be\na ruinous heap\" (Isaiah xvii, 1).\n\nThis prophecy was spoken nearly twenty-seven hundred years ago,\nand yet during all these centuries Damascus has flourished, and is\nto-day the most prosperous city of Western Asia.\n\n\n\n4.\n\n\"And I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from\nthe tower of Syene even unto the borders of Ethiopia. No foot of\nman shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it,\nneither shall it be inhabited forty years\" (Ezekiel xxix, 10, 11).\n\nThis and a score of other prophecies concerning Egypt have never\nbeen fulfilled.\n\n\n\n5.\n\n\"For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel\nshall surely be led away captive out of their own land\" (Amos vii, 11).\n\nJeroboam did not not die by the sword, and Israel was not led away\ncaptive, as predicted. \"And the Lord said not that he would blot out\nthe name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of\nJeroboam the son of Joash. Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam and\nall that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered\nDamascus and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they\nnot written in the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel? And\nJeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel\"\n(2 Kings xiv, 27-29).\n\n\n\n6.\n\n\"Thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none\nto sit upon the throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast\nout in the day to the heat and in the night to the frost\" (Jeremiah\nxxxvi, 30).\n\nThis prophecy was not fulfilled. \"So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers:\nAnd Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead\" (2 Kings xxiv, 6).\n\n\n\n7.\n\n\"And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment;\nand these nations shall serve the King of Babylon seventy years\"\n(Jeremiah xxv, 11).\n\nIt is now conceded by all critics that the book of Jeremiah, as a\nwhole, was not composed before the Captivity. But even if these words\nwere uttered before the Captivity, they are fatal to the claim of\nBible inerrancy; for either the prophecy was not fulfilled, or Bible\nhistory is false. According to the historical books of the Bible,\nthe Captivity did not last seventy, but only about fifty years.\n\nReferring to this and similar prophecies, Matthew Arnold says: \"The\ngreat prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah are, critics can now see,\nnot strictly predictions at all\" (Literature and Dogma, p, 114).\n\n\n\n8.\n\n\"And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end\nof the earth even unto the other\" (Deut. xxviii, 64).\n\nThese words were uttered, not as a prophecy, but as a warning or\nthreat. If they obey the Lord's statutes a long list of blessings are\npromised; if they do not obey them, a hundred evils are threatened,\namong which is the one quoted. One of the most dreaded and one of the\nmost common calamities in that age was the conquest or dispersion\nof one tribe or nation by another. In an enumeration of all known\nevils, it would be strange if this, the one most often threatened,\nhad been omitted.\n\n\n\n9.\n\n\"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his\nname Immanuel\" (Isaiah vii, 14).\n\nThis is cited as a prophecy of Jesus Christ. The only thing in it\nsuggestive of the story of Jesus is the word \"virgin.\" The word\nthus translated, however, does not necessarily mean virgin in the\ncommon acceptation of this term, but simply \"young woman,\" either\nmarried or single. Correct this error and the text reads: \"Behold, a\nyoung woman shall conceive, and bear a son.\" All that is suggestive\nof the miraculous conception vanishes. But this is not the only\nerror. The forms of the verbs have been changed. The passage should\nread as follows: \"Behold, a young woman is with child and beareth a\nson.\" The woman was with child when the prophet wrote. This precludes\nthe possibility of a reference to Jesus Christ. Not only this, the\ncontext utterly forbids it. All the events named by the prophet,\nincluding the birth of this child, occurred more than seven hundred\nyears before Christ.\n\nMichaelis rejects this prophecy. He says: \"I cannot be persuaded that\nthe famous prophecy in Isaiah (chap. vii, 14) has the least reference\nto the Messiah.\"\n\n\n\n10.\n\n\"I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign\nand prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In\nhis days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this\nis his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS\"\n(Jer. xxiii, 5, 6).\n\nThe correct rendering of this passage is as follows:\n\n\"I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign\nand prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land. In\nhis days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and\nthis is the name whereby they shall call themselves: The Eternal is\nour righteousness.\"\n\nIn order to make a Messianic prophecy of this passage and give it\neffect, no less than eight pieces of trickery are employed: 1. The\nword \"branch\" is made to begin with a capital letter. 2. The word\n\"king\" also begins with a capital. 3. \"The name\" is rendered \"his\nname.\" 4. The pronoun \"they,\" relating to the people of Judah and\nIsrael, is changed to \"he.\" 5. The word \"Eternal\" is translated\n\"Lord.\" 6. \"The Lord our righteousness\" is printed in capitals. 7. In\nthe table of contents at the head of the chapter are the words \"Christ\nshall rule and save them.\" 8. At the top of the page are the words\n\"Christ promised.\"\n\n\n\n11.\n\n\"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, ... until Shiloh come;\nand unto him shall the gathering of the people be\" (Gen. xlix, 10).\n\nThe meaning of Shiloh being somewhat obscure, it was made to apply\nto Christ. It is now known that Shiloh was the national sanctuary\nbefore the Jews occupied Jerusalem. A correct translation of the\npassage reads as follows:\n\n\"The pre-eminence shall not depart from Judah so long as the people\nresort to Shiloh; and the nations shall obey him.\"\n\nBut even if the writer meant \"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah\nuntil Christ comes,\" as claimed, the prediction was not fulfilled; for\nthe sceptre departed from Judah six hundred years before Christ came.\n\n\n\n12.\n\n\"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the\ngovernment shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be declared\nWonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the\nPrince of Peace\" (Isaiah ix, 6).\n\nThis passage, even if genuine, is not applicable to Jesus Christ. But\nit is not genuine. Professor Cheyne, the highest authority on Isaiah,\npronounces it a forgery.\n\n\n\n13.\n\n\"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the\ncommandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince,\nshall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks\" (Daniel viii, 25).\n\nIt is claimed that \"week\" here means a period of seven years, and\nassumed, of course, that by Messiah is meant Christ. Seven weeks\nand three score and two weeks are sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years,\nthe time that was to elapse from the command to rebuild Jerusalem to\nthe coming of Christ, if the prophecy was fulfilled.\n\nThe decree of Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple was made\n536 B.C. According to the accepted chronology, Christ was born 4\nB.C. From the decree of Cyrus, then, to the coming of Christ was 532\nyears instead of 483, a period of seven weeks, or forty-nine years,\nlonger than that named by Daniel.\n\nEzra, the priest, went to Jerusalem 457 B.C. This event, however, had\nnothing whatever to do with the decree for rebuilding Jerusalem and the\ntemple. It occurred 79 years after the decree was issued, and 58 years\nafter the temple was finished. But a searcher for Messianic prophecies\nfound that from the time of Ezra to the beginning of Christ's ministry\nwas about 483 years, or 69 prophetic weeks; and notwithstanding there\nwas a deficiency of 79 years at one end of the period, and an excess\nof 30 years at the other, it was declared to fit exactly.\n\n\n\n14.\n\n\"The days shall come, in the which there shall not be left one stone\n[of the temple] upon another, that shall not be thrown down.\"\n\n\"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away\ncaptive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the\nGentiles\" (Luke xxi, 6, 24).\n\nIt has been shown that the books containing this so-called prophecy of\nJesus were written one hundred years after the conquest and destruction\nof Jerusalem.\n\n\n\n15.\n\n\"The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light. And\nthe stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven\nshall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in\nthe clouds with great power and glory.... Verily I say unto you,\nThat this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done\"\n(Mark xiii, 24-26, 30).\n\nThat generation did pass, and more than eighteen centuries have\nfollowed, and yet the Son of man has not come and these things have\nnot been done. Christ was a false prophet.\n\n\n\n16.\n\n\"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet.... And upon her\nforehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother\nof Harlots\" (Revelation xvii, 4, 5).\n\nProtestant churches have no difficulty in recognizing in this Mother\nof Harlots the Church of Rome, apparently forgetting that they are\nher daughters.\n\nThe following, relative to Bible prophecies, is from the pen of\nWilliam Rathbone Greg:\n\n\"A prophecy, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, signifies\na prediction of future events which could not have been foreseen\nby human sagacity, and the knowledge of which was supernaturally\ncommunicated to the prophet. It is clear, therefore, that in order\nto establish the claim of any anticipatory statement, promise, or\ndenunciation to the rank and title of a prophecy, four points must\nbe ascertained with precision, viz., what the event was to which the\nalleged prediction was intended to refer; that the prediction was\nuttered in specific, not vague, language before the event; that the\nevent took place specifically, not loosely, as predicted; and that\nit could not have been foreseen by human sagacity.\"\n\n\"It is probably not too much to affirm that we have no instance in the\nprophetical books of the Old Testament of a prediction in the case of\nwhich we possess, at once and combined, clear and unsuspicious proof\nof the date, the precise event predicted, the exact circumstances of\nthat event, and the inability of human sagacity to foresee it. There\nis no case in which we can say with certainty--even where it is\nreasonable to suppose that the prediction was uttered before the\nevent--that the narrative has not been tampered with to suit the\nprediction, or the prediction modified to correspond with the event\"\n(Creed of Christendom, pp. 128, 131.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nMIRACLES.\n\n\nThat curious volume of exaggerated fiction known as the Baron\nMunchausen stories has delighted many. Works of this character fill\na legitimate place in literature. The humorists have contributed much\nto the health and happiness of mankind.\n\nA charming store of wit and humor of the Munchausen variety is to be\nfound in the Bible. Here are a thousand and one stories as marvelous\nand amusing as are to be found in the whole realm of modern fiction.\n\nUnfortunately those who profess to value this book the most derive\nthe least benefit from it. They mistake the meaning and purpose of\nits writers. They accept as facts its most palpable fictions. Its\nmost laughable stories are read with the most solemn visages. This\nserious method of treating the ridiculous has produced an army of\nmorose dyspeptics who mistake indigestion for religion, and intolerance\nfor virtue.\n\nTo afford a little relaxation from the duller chapters of this work,\nto furnish a few grains of pepsin to aid in the digestion of a Sunday\ndinner, a small collection of these funny tales of ancient wits--the\nBaron Munchausen writers of old times--is given. He who can read\nthem without a smile must be either dull of comprehension or without\nappreciation of humor.\n\n\n\nThe First Cutlet.\n\nPRACTICAL JOKE PLAYED UPON A SLEEPY MAN BY HIS FACETIOUS CREATOR.\n\nAnd the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I\nwill make him an help meet for him.... And the Lord God caused a deep\nsleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs,\nand closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib which the Lord\nGod had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man\n(Gen. ii, 18, 21, 22).\n\n\n\nThe Great Freshet.\n\nA STORY CALCULATED TO PARALYZE A KENTUCKY COLONEL.\n\nThe same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and\nthe windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth\nforty days and forty nights.... And the waters prevailed exceedingly\nupon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole\nheaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail;\nand the mountains were covered (Gen. vii, 11, 12, 19, 20).\n\n\n\nRingstreaked, Speckled, and Spotted.\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF PRENATAL INFLUENCES LAUGHABLY BURLESQUED.\n\nAnd Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chestnut\ntree; and pilled white streaks in them, and made the white appear\nwhich was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled\nbefore the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the\nflocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to\ndrink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth\ncattle ringstreaked, speckled, and spotted (Gen. xxx, 37-39).\n\n\n\nThe Waters Were Divided.\n\nMOSES TELLS, WITH A WINK, ABOUT THE STRONGEST GALE OF WIND KNOWN\nTO HISTORY.\n\nAnd Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused\nthe sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made\nthe sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of\nIsrael went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground; and the\nwaters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left\n(Ex. xiv, 21, 22).\n\n\n\nQuails!!!\n\nTHE MODERN BIRD HUNTER WILL SAY: \"I LOVE A LIAR, BUT THIS ONE SUITS\nME TOO WELL!\"\n\nAnd there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from\nthe sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey\non this side, and as it were a day's journey on the other side,\nround about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of\nthe earth. And the people stood up all that day, and all that night,\nand all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered\nleast gathered ten homers [over 100 bushels] (Num. xi, 31, 32).\n\n\n\nThree Good Snake Stories.\n\n\"WINE IS A MOCKER, STRONG DRINK IS RAGING.\"\n\nAnd the Lord said unto him [Moses], What is that in thine hand? And\nhe said, A rod. And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it\non the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before\nit. And the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it\nby the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became\na rod in his hand (Ex. iv, 2-4).\n\nAnd the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the\npeople; and much people of Israel died.... And the Lord said unto\nMoses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall\ncome to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon\nit shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon\na pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man,\nwhen he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived (Num. xxi, 6, 8, 9).\n\nAnd Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants,\nand it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and\nthe sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like\nmanner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod\nand they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods\n(Ex. vii, 10-12).\n\n\n\nMore of Aaron's Tricks.\n\nINCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS, ONE VERY LOUSY TRICK.\n\nAnd he [Aaron] lifted up the rod and smote the waters that were in\nthe river, in the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of the servants;\nand all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood\n(Ex. vii, 20).\n\nAnd Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the\nfrogs came up and covered the land of Egypt (viii, 6).\n\nAaron stretched out his hand with his rod and smote the dust of the\nearth, and it became lice in man and in beast; all the dust of the\nland became lice throughout all the land of Egypt (viii, 17).\n\n\n\nThe Sun Stood Still.\n\n\"IS NOT THIS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF JASHER?\"\n\nAnd he [Joshua] said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon\nGibeon; and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood\nstill, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves\nupon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So\nthe sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down\nabout a whole day (Josh. x, 12, 13).\n\n\n\nSamson's Feats.\n\nAS DESCRIBED BY THE HUMORIST WHO WROTE THE BOOK OF JUDGES.\n\nAnd he [Samson] found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his\nhand and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith. And Samson said,\nWith the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jawbone of an\nass have I slain a thousand men (Judges xv, 15, 16).\n\nAnd Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands,\nand turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two\ntails. And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the\nstanding corn of the Philistines and burnt up both the shocks, and also\nthe standing corn, with the vineyards and olives (Judges xv, 4, 5).\n\n\n\nThe Loquacious Ass.\n\nREMARKS OF A QUADRUPED THAT STOOD ON HER RECORD.\n\nAnd Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with\nthe princes of Moab.... And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord,\nshe fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he\nsmote the ass with a staff. And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass,\nand she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee that thou hast\nsmitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because\nthou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now\nwould I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass,\nupon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I\never wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay (Num. xxii, 21, 27-30).\n\n\n\nA Bear Story.\n\nEDIFYING TALE OF A BALDHEADED MAN, SOME NAUGHTY CHILDREN, AND TWO\nBEARS.\n\nAnd he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going\nup by the way, there came forth little children out of the city,\nand mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou\nbaldhead. And he turned back and looked on them, and cursed them in\nthe name of the Lord. And there came forth two she-bears out of the\nwood, and tare forty and two children of them (2 Kings ii, 23, 24).\n\n\n\nThe Boy Sneezed.\n\nHOW A PROPHET'S WHISKERS TICKLED A SHAMMING KID AND BROUGHT HIM OUT\nOF HIS TRANCE.\n\nAnd when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead,\nand laid upon his bed. And he went in therefore, and shut the door upon\nthem twain, and prayed unto the Lord. And he went up and lay upon the\nchild, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes,\nand his hands upon his hands; and he stretched himself upon the child:\nand the flesh of the child waxed warm. Then he returned, and walked\nin the house to and fro, and went up, and stretched himself upon him:\nand the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes\n(2 Kings, iv, 32-35).\n\n\n\nShadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.\n\nTHREE OF SATAN'S SUBJECT ASTONISH THE OFFICIALS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR.\n\nThese men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats,\nand their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning\nfiery furnace.... And the princes, governors, and captains, and the\nking's counselors, being gathered together, saw these men upon whose\nbodies the fire had no power, nor was a hair of their head singed,\nneither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed\non them (Dan. iii, 19, 21, 27).\n\n\n\nTake Me Up.\n\nA DIVERTING YARN, CALCULATED TO CAUSE MUCH MERRIMENT AMONG THE MARINES.\n\nThen they said unto him [Jonah], What shall we do unto thee that the\nsea may be calm unto us? for the sea wrought and was tempestuous. And\nhe said unto them, Take me up and cast me forth in the sea.... So\nthey took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea; and the sea\nceased from her raging.... Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to\nswallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days\nand nights.... And the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out\nJonah upon the dry land (Jonah i, 11-17; ii, 10).\n\n\n\nThe Confiding Husband.\n\nA TIMELY DREAM SAVES THE REPUTATION OF A YOUNG WOMAN.\n\nNow the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary\nwas espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with\nchild of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband being a just man,\nand not wishing to make her a public example, was minded to put her\naway privily. But while he thought on these things, behold the angel\nof the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of\nDavid, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is\nconceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.... Then Joseph being raised\nfrom sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took\nunto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her\nfirst-born son; and he called his name Jesus (Matt. i, 18-25).\n\n\n\nThey Did Eat and Were Filled.\n\nINTERESTING APPLICATION OF HYPNOTISM BY WHICH A MULTITUDE WERE\nCONVINCED THAT THEY HAD DINED.\n\nAnd they say unto him, We have here but five loaves and two fishes. He\nsaid, Bring them hither to me. And he commanded the multitude to\nsit down on the grass and took the five loaves and the two fishes,\nand looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves\nto his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did\nall eat, and were filled; and they took up the fragments that remained\ntwelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were about five thousand\nmen beside women and children (Matt. xiv, 15-21).\n\n\n\nLazarus Come Forth.\n\nJESUS APPRISES THE BROTHER OF MARTHA THAT THE JOKE HAS BEEN CARRIED\nFAR ENOUGH.\n\nWhen Jesus came, he found that he [Lazarus] had lain in the grave four\ndays already.... Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh\nto the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Jesus said,\nTake ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead,\nsaith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh, for he hath been\ndead four days.... He [Jesus] cried with a loud voice, Lazarus come\nforth. And he that was dead came forth (John xi, 17, 38, 39, 43, 44).\n\n\n\nThese Bible stories, which Christians profess to believe, are unworthy\nof serious consideration. They are not historical, but fabulous. A\nmiracle is a fable. The miraculous is impossible; the impossible\nuntrue. If miracles were possible and necessary in that age they are\npossible and necessary now. This is an age of unbelief. Give us one\nmiracle and we will believe. Let Jesus visit earth again and with\nhis divine touch revivify the inanimate dust of Lincoln and give him\nback to the nation that loved him so well, and we will acknowledge\nhis divinity and believe that the Bible is inspired. Had he restored\nto life the decaying corpse of Lazarus the Jews would have believed\nin him. The Jews did not believe in him, therefore the miracle was\nnot performed.\n\nThe divine origin of the Bible cannot be established by miracles\nbecause the possibility of a miracle itself cannot be established. In\nthe language of Hume, \"a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature;\nand as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws,\nthe proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as\nentire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nTHE BIBLE GOD.\n\n\nThe Bible, it is claimed, is the word of God--a revelation from God\nto man. It was written or inspired by God, and deals chiefly with\nGod and his works.\n\nWho and what is this God of the Bible? What is the nature and\ncharacter of this divine author? Is he omnipresent, or has he a local\nhabitation merely? Is he omnipotent, or is he limited in power? Is\nhe omniscient, or is his knowledge circumscribed? Is he immutable,\nor is he a changeable being? Is he visible and comprehensible, or is\nhe invisible and unknowable? Is he the only God, or is he one of many\ngods? Does he possess the form and attributes of man, or is he, as\nChristians affirm, without body, parts, or passions? Let God through\nhis inspired penmen answer.\n\n\n\nIs God Omnipresent?\n\nDo not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord (Jer. xxiii, 24).\n\nThe heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him (2 Ch. ii, 6).\n\nIf I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell,\nbehold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell\nin the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me\n(Ps. cxxxix, 8-10).\n\nThe Lord was not in the wind: ... the Lord was not in the earthquake\n(1 Kings xix, 11).\n\nAnd Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the\nland of Nod (Gen. iv, 16).\n\nAnd he said unto Balak, Stand here by thy burnt offering, while I\nmeet the Lord yonder (Num. xxiii, 15).\n\nGo down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to\ngaze (Ex. xix, 21).\n\nGod is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us! for there hath\nnot been such a thing heretofore (1 Sam. iv, 7).\n\n\n\nIs God Omnipotent?\n\nWith God all things are possible (Matt. xix, 26).\n\nI know that thou canst do everything (Job xlii, 2).\n\nThere is nothing too hard for thee (Jer. xxxii, 17).\n\nFor the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth (Rev. xix, 6).\n\nAnd the Lord was with Judah, and he [the Lord] drove out the\ninhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants\nof the valley, because they had chariots of iron (Jud. i, 19).\n\n\n\nIs He Omniscient?\n\nGod ... knoweth all things (1 John iii, 20).\n\nThe eyes of the Lord are in every place (Prov. xv, 3).\n\nHe knoweth the secrets of the heart (Ps. xliv, 21).\n\nNo thought can be withholden from thee (Job xlii, 2).\n\n\n\nThe Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, ... to\nknow what was in thine heart (Deut. viii, 2).\n\nGod left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart\n(2 Ch. xxxii, 31).\n\nThe Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great,\nand because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see\nwhether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which\nis come unto me: and if not I will know (Gen. xviii, 20, 21).\n\n\n\nIs He Immutable?\n\nI am the Lord, I change not (Mal. iii, 6).\n\nWith whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning (James i, 17).\n\nMy covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out\nof my lips (Ps. lxxxix, 34).\n\nHe is not a man that he should repent (1 Sam. xv, 29).\n\n\n\nI [God] am weary with repenting (Jer. xv, 6).\n\nIt repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth (Gen. vi, 6).\n\nThe Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel (1 Sam. xv,\n35).\n\nAnd God repented of the evil that he said he would do unto them;\nand he did it not (Jonah iii, 10).\n\nThe Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house and the\nhouse of thy father should walk before me forever: but now the Lord\nsaith, Be it far from me (1 Sam. ii, 30).\n\n\n\nIs He Visible and Comprehensible?\n\nI have seen God face to face (Gen. xxxii, 30).\n\nAnd they saw the God of Israel (Ex. xxiv, 10).\n\nFor the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are\nclearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his\neternal power and Godhead (Rom. i, 20).\n\n\n\nNo man hath seen God at any time (John i, 18).\n\nWhom no man hath seen, nor can see (1 Tim. vi, 16).\n\nThere shall no man see me and live (Ex. xxxiii, 20).\n\nGod is great, and we know him not (Job xxxvi, 26).\n\nTouching the Almighty, we cannot find him out (Job xxxvii, 23).\n\n\n\nIs There One God Only?\n\nThere is one God; and there is none other but he (Mark xii, 32).\n\nBefore me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me\n(Is. xliii, 10).\n\nI am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God\n(Is. xliv, 6).\n\n\n\nThou shalt not revile the gods (Ex. xxii, 28).\n\nAnd the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us\n(Gen. iii, 22).\n\nWho is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? (Ex. xv, 11).\n\nAmong the gods, there is none like unto thee, O Lord (Ps. lxxxvi, 8).\n\nThe Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods (Ps. xcv, 3).\n\nGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the\ngods (Psalms lxxxii, 1?).\n\n\n\nIn What Form Does God Exist?\n\n\"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body,\nparts, or passions.\"--Thirty-nine Articles.\n\nCompare the above conception of Deity with the anthropomorphic\ncharacter of God portrayed in the following one hundred passages:\n\nGod created man in his own image (Gen. i, 27).\n\nThe hair of his [God's] head (Dan. vii, 9).\n\nThou canst not see my [God's] face (Ex. xxxiii, 20).\n\nThe eyes of the Lord run to and fro (2 Ch. xvi, 9).\n\nAnd his [God's] ears are open (1 Pet. iii, 12).\n\nThese are a smoke in my [God's] nose (Is. lxv, 5).\n\nThere went up a smoke out of his [God's] nostrils (2 Sam. xxii, 9).\n\nThat proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matt. iv, 4).\n\nHis [God's] lips are full of indignation (Is. xxx, 27).\n\nAnd his [God's] tongue as a devouring fire (Ibid).\n\nHe shall dwell between his [God's] shoulders (Deut. xxxiii, 12).\n\nThou [God] hast a mighty arm (Ps. lxxxix, 13).\n\nThe right hand of the Lord (Ps. cxviii, 16).\n\nThis is the finger of God (Ex. viii, 19).\n\nI [God] will show them the back (Jer. xviii, 17).\n\nOut of thy [God's] bosom (Ps. lxxiv, 11).\n\nMy [God's] heart maketh a noise in me (Jer. iv, 19).\n\nMy [God's] bowels are troubled (Jer. xxxi, 20).\n\nThe appearance of his [God's] loins (Ezek. i, 27).\n\nDarkness was under his [God's] feet (Ps. xviii, 9).\n\nThe mind of the Lord (Lev. xxiv, 12).\n\nThe breath of his [God's] nostrils (2 Sam. xxii, 16).\n\nIn the light of thy [God's] countenance (Ps. lxxxix, 15).\n\nThou God seest me (Gen. xvi, 13).\n\nMy God will hear me (Micah vii, 7).\n\nThe Lord smelled a sweet savour (Gen. viii, 21).\n\nWill I [God] eat the flesh of bulls? (Ps. 1, 13.).\n\nWill I [God] drink the blood of goats? (Ibid.)\n\nThe hand of God hath touched me (Job xix, 21).\n\nWe have heard his [God's] voice (Deut. v, 24).\n\nGod doth talk with man (Ibid).\n\nThe Lord shall laugh at him (Ps. xxxvii, 13).\n\nNow will I [God] cry (Is. xlii, 14).\n\nHe [God] shall give a shout (Jer. xxv, 30).\n\nWhy sleepest thou, O Lord? (Ps. xliv, 23.)\n\nThen the Lord awaked (Ps. lxxviii, 65).\n\nGod sitteth upon the throne (Ps. xlvii, 8).\n\nGod riseth up (Job xxxi, 14).\n\nThe Lord stood by him (Acts xxiii, 11).\n\nI [God] will walk among you (Lev. xxvi, 12).\n\nThou [God] didst ride upon thine horses (Hab. iii, 8).\n\nHe [God] wrestled with him (Gen. xxxii, 25).\n\nThe Lord will work (1 Sam. xiv, 6).\n\nI [God] am weary (Is. i, 14).\n\nHe [God] rested on the seventh day (Gen. ii, 2).\n\nThe Lord God planted a garden (Gen. ii, 8).\n\nGod is able to graft (Rom. xi, 23).\n\nThe Father is a husbandman (John xv, 1).\n\nHe [God] hath fenced up my way (Job xix, 8).\n\nThe Lord is my shepherd (Ps. xxiii, 1).\n\nThe Lord build the house (Ps. cxxvii, 1).\n\nThe tables were the work of God (Ex. xxxii, 16).\n\nThou [God] our potter (Is. lxiv, 8).\n\nThe Lord God made coats of skin (Gen. iii, 21).\n\nAnd [I God] shod thee with badger's skin (Ezek. xvi, 10).\n\nThe Lord shave with a razor (Is. vii, 20).\n\nI [God] will cure them (Jer. xxxiii, 6).\n\nAnd he [God] buried him (Deut. xxxiv, 6).\n\nThy God which teacheth thee (Is. xlviii, 17).\n\nMusical instruments of God (1 Ch. xvi, 42).\n\nHe [God] wrote upon the tables (Ex. xxxiv, 28).\n\nThy book which thou [God] hast written (Ex. xxxii, 32).\n\nO Lord, I have heard thy speech (Hab. iii, 2).\n\nThe Lord is our lawgiver (Is. xxxiii, 22).\n\nThe Lord is our judge (Ibid).\n\nFor God is the king of all the earth (Ps. xlvii, 7).\n\nHe [God] is the governor (Ps. xxii, 8).\n\nGod himself is ... our captain (2 Ch. xiii, 12).\n\nThe Lord is a man of war (Ex. xv, 3).\n\nThe Lord hath opened his armory (Jer. i, 25).\n\nThe Lord shall blow the trumpet (Zech. ix, 14).\n\nI [God] myself will fight (Jer. xxi, 5).\n\nHe [God] will whet his sword (Ps. vii, 12).\n\nHe [God] hath bent his bow (Lam. ii, 4).\n\nGod shall shoot at them (Ps. lxiv, 7).\n\nRocks are thrown down by him [God] (Nahum i, 6).\n\nI [God] will kill you (Ex. xxii, 24).\n\nThou [God] art become cruel to me (Job. xxx, 21).\n\nI [God] sware in my wrath (Ps. xcv, 11).\n\nI [God] have cursed them already (Mal. ii, 1).\n\nThy God hath blessed thee (Deut. ii, 7).\n\nThe Lord repented (Amos vii, 6).\n\nGod did tempt Abraham (Gen. xxii, 1).\n\nO Lord thou hast deceived me (Jer. xx, 7).\n\nHe [God] hath polluted the kingdom (Lam. ii, 2).\n\nHe [God] is mighty in strength (Job ix, 4).\n\nWith him [God] is wisdom (Job xii, 13).\n\nI [God] was a husband (Jer. xxxi, 32).\n\nThe only begotten of the Father (John i, 14).\n\nThe sons of God saw the daughters of men (Gen. vi, 2).\n\nThe love that God hath to us (1 John iv, 16).\n\nThese six things doth the Lord hate (Prov. vi, 16).\n\nThe joy of the Lord (Neh. viii, 10).\n\nIt grieved him [God] at his heart (Gen. vi, 6).\n\nThe Lord pitieth them that fear him (Ps. ciii, 13).\n\nI [God] feared the wrath of the enemy (Deut. xxxii, 27).\n\nThe Lord ... is a jealous God (Ex. xxxiv, 14).\n\nThe fierce anger of the Lord (Num. xxv, 4).\n\nWith the Lord there is mercy (Ps. cxxx, 7)\n\nVengeance is mine ... saith the Lord (Rom. xii, 10).\n\nWhile many of these texts are simply metaphorical allusions to a Deity,\nas a whole they clearly reveal the anthropomorphic conception of God\nthat prevailed among Bible writers generally. This God was represented\nas a being of power and glory, yet a being possessing the form, the\nattributes, and the limitations of man. He was a colossal despot--a\nking of kings.\n\nThe God of the Bible is a product of the human imagination. God did\nnot make man in God's image, as claimed, but man made God in man's\nimage. Man is not the creation of God, but God is the creation of man.\n\nThis God who was supposed to have created the universe out of nothing\nhas himself gradually been resolved into nothingness in the minds\nof his votaries, and to-day, enthroned in the brain of Christendom,\nthere reigns a mere phantom, \"without body, parts, or passions\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\nMORALITY.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nTHE BIBLE NOT A MORAL GUIDE.\n\n\nWe are asked to accept the Bible as the revealed will of an\nall-powerful, all-wise and all-just God. We are asked to revere it\nbeyond all other books, to make a fetich of it. Above all, we are asked\nto accept it as a divine and infallible moral guide. Christians profess\nto accept it as such; and many who are not Christians--many who reject\nthe authenticity of the most of it, and who doubt the credibility\nof much of it--parrot-like, repeat the claims of supernaturalists,\ndwell upon its \"beautiful moral teachings,\" and abet the efforts of\nthe clergy to place it in our public schools, seemingly oblivious to\nthe fact that it is not in any sense a moral guide.\n\n\n\nWhat is Morality?\n\nWhat is morality? Paley, by many considered the chief of modern\nChristian authorities, basing his conception of morality on the Bible,\ndefines it as \"the doing good to mankind, in obedience to the will\nof God [as revealed in the Bible], and for the sake of everlasting\nhappiness [and to escape everlasting misery].\" Supernaturalism and\nselfishness are thus its sole principles; supernaturalism being its\nsource and selfishness being the motive for its observance. Here virtue\ndoes not bring its own reward, the will of God is not omnipotent,\nand mankind, like a spoiled child, must be bribed or frightened to\nobey its precepts.\n\nThis is the Christian conception of morality. But it is a false\nconception. Morality is not supernatural and divine, but natural and\nhuman. It is purely utilitarian. Utility, regardless of the will\nof God, is its all-pervading principle. Whatever is beneficial to\nman is right, is moral; and whatever is injurious to him is wrong,\nis immoral. The end and aim of moral conduct, according to Hobbes,\nis self-preservation and happiness; not everlasting happiness in\nanother world, as taught by Paley, but life-lasting happiness in\nthis. Dr. Priestley's phrase, \"The greatest happiness of the greatest\nnumber,\" is pronounced by Jeremy Bentham, one of the most eminent\nof ethical writers, \"a true standard for whatever is right or wrong,\nuseful, useless, or mischievous in human conduct.\"\n\nMore and more, as men become civilized and enlightened, the egoistic\nprinciples of religionists give way to the altruistic principle\nof Rationalists. \"Live for others\" is the sublime teaching of the\nPositivist Comte. In obeying this noble precept we are not sacrificing,\nbut augmenting our own happiness. \"To do good is my religion,\"\nsaid Thomas Paine. The rewards and punishments of this religion,\nwhich is here but another name for morality, are happily expressed\nby Abraham Lincoln: \"When I do good I feel good, and when I do bad I\nfeel bad.\" The husband and wife who labor for each other's happiness,\nregardless of their own; the father and mother who deprive themselves\nto make their children happy; men, like Sir Moses Montefiore and\nBaron Hirsch, and women, like Florence Nightingale and Clara Barton,\nwho devote their time and wealth to aid in removing the poverty and\nalleviating the sufferings of humanity--these, by increasing the\nhappiness of others, increase their own.\n\nWhen the true principles of morality are universally understood and\naccepted, divine revelations will be cast aside and supernatural\nreligions will die; the zealot's visions of a celestial paradise\nwill vanish, and the philanthropist's dream of a heaven on earth will\nbe realized.\n\n\n\nBible Codes.\n\nThe Ten Commandments in the Old Testament and the Sermon on the Mount,\nincluding the Golden Rule, in the New, are supposed to comprise\nthe best moral teachings of the Bible. They are declared to be so\nfar superior to all other moral codes as to preclude the idea of\nhuman origin.\n\nThe Decalogue is a very imperfect moral code; not at all superior to\nthe religious and legislative codes of other ancient peoples. The last\nsix of these commandments, while not above criticism, are in the main\njust, and were recognized alike by Jew and Gentile. They are a crude\nattempt to formulate the crystallized experiences of mankind. The\nfirst four (first three according to Catholic and Lutheran versions)\npossess no moral value whatever. They are simply religious emanations\nfrom the corrupt and disordered brain of priestcraft. They only serve\nto obscure the principles of true morality and produce an artificial\nsystem which bears the same relation to natural morality that a\nmeasure of chaff and grain does to a measure of winnowed grain.\n\nAs a literary composition and as a partial exposition of the peculiar\ntenets of a heretical Jewish sect, the Sermon on the Mount is\ninteresting; but as a moral code it is of little value. Along with\nsome admirable precepts, it contains others, like the following,\nwhich are false and pernicious: \"Blessed are the poor in spirit;\"\n\"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth;\" \"If thy\nright eye offend thee pluck it out;\" \"If thy right hand offend thee\ncut it off;\" \"Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth\nadultery;\" \"Resist not evil;\" \"Whosoever shall smite thee on the\nright cheek, turn to him the other also;\" \"If any man will sue thee\nat the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also;\"\n\"Love your enemies;\" \"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth;\"\n\"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall\ndrink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on;\" \"Take therefore\nno thought for the morrow.\"\n\nChristians claim that unbelievers have no moral standard, that they\nalone have such a standard--an infallible standard--the Bible. If we\nask them to name the best precept in this standard they cite the Golden\nRule. And yet the Golden Rule is in its very nature purely a human rule\nof conduct. \"Whatsoever ye [men, not God] would that men should do to\nyou, do ye even so to them.\" This rule enjoins what Christians profess\nto condemn, that every person shall form his own moral standard. In\nthis rule the so-called divine laws are totally ignored.\n\nThe Golden Rule, so far as the Bible is concerned, is a borrowed\ngem. Chinese, Greek, and Roman sages had preached and practiced it\ncenturies before the Sermon on the Mount was delivered. This rule, one\nof the best formulated by the ancients, is not, however, a perfect rule\nof human conduct. It does not demand that our desires shall always be\njust. But it does recognize and enjoin the principle of reciprocity,\nand is immeasurably superior to the rule usually practised by the\nprofessed followers of Jesus: Whatsoever we would that you should do\nunto us, do it; and whatsoever we wish to do unto you, that will we do.\n\nThe three Christian virtues, faith, hope, and charity, fairly represent\nthis whole system of so-called Bible morals--two false or useless\nprecepts to one good precept. Charity is a true virtue, but \"faith\nand hope,\" to quote Volney, \"may be called the virtues of dupes for\nthe benefit of knaves.\" And if the knaves have admitted charity to be\nthe greatest of these virtues, it is because they are the recipients\nand not the dispensers of it.\n\n\n\nBible Models.\n\nThe noblest types of manhood, like Bruno, Spinoza, Paine, and\nIngersoll, have been slandered, anathematized, and slain by Christians,\nwhile the gods, the heroes, the patriarchs, the prophets, and the\npriests of the Bible have been presented as the highest models of\nmoral excellence. Of these, Jehovah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David,\nPaul, and Christ are represented as the greatest and the best.\n\nWho was Jehovah? \"A being of terrific character--cruel, vindictive,\ncapricious, and unjust.\"--Jefferson.\n\nWho was Abraham? An insane barbarian patriarch who married his sister,\ndenied his wife, and seduced her handmaid; who drove one child into\nthe desert to starve, and made preparations to butcher the other.\n\nWho was Jacob? Another patriarch, who won God's love by deceiving\nhis father, cheating his uncle, robbing his brother, practicing\nbigamy with two of his cousins, and committing fornication with two\nof his housemaids.\n\nWho was Moses? A model of meekness; a man who boasted of his own\nhumility; a man who murdered an Egyptian and hid his body in the\nsand; a man who exterminated whole nations to secure the spoils of\nwar, a man who butchered in cold blood thousands of captive widows,\na man who tore dimpled babes from the breasts of dying mothers and put\nthem to a cruel death; a man who made orphans of thirty-two thousand\ninnocent girls, and turned sixteen thousand of them over to the brutal\nlusts of a savage soldiery.\n\nWho was David? \"A man after God's own heart.\" A vulgar braggadocio,\nusing language to a woman the mere quoting of which would send me\nto prison; a traitor, desiring to lead an enemy's troops against\nhis own countrymen; a thief and robber, plundering and devastating\nthe country on every side; a liar, uttering wholesale falsehoods\nto screen himself from justice; a red-handed butcher, torturing and\nslaughtering thousands of men, women, and children, making them pass\nthrough burning brick-kilns, carving them up with saws and axes,\nand tearing them in pieces under harrows of iron; a polygamist,\nwith a harem of wives and concubines; a drunken debauchee, dancing\nhalf-naked before the maids of his household; a lecherous old\nlibertine, abducting and ravishing the wife of a faithful soldier; a\nmurderer, having this faithful soldier put to death after desolating\nhis home; a hoary-headed fiend, foaming with vengeance on his dying\nbed, demanding with his latest breath the deaths of two aged men,\none of whom had most contributed to make his kingdom what it was,\nthe other a man to whom he had promised protection.\n\nWho was Paul? A religious fanatic; a Jew and a Christian. As a Jew,\nin the name of Jehovah, he persecuted Christians; as a Christian,\nin the name of Christ, he persecuted Jews; and both as a Jew and a\nChristian, and in the name of both Jehovah and Christ, he practiced\ndissimulation and hallowed falsehood.\n\nWho was Christ? He is called the \"divine teacher.\" Yes,\n\n\n \"He led\n The crowd, he taught them justice, truth, and peace,\n In semblance; but he lit within their souls\n The quenchless flames of zeal, and blessed the sword\n He brought on earth to satiate with the blood\n Of truth and freedom his malignant soul.\"\n\n --Shelley.\n\n\n\nImmoral Teachings of the Bible.\n\nIn the modern and stricter sense of the term, morality is scarcely\ntaught in the Bible. Neither moral, morals, and morality, nor\ntheir equivalents, ethical and ethics, are to be found in the\nbook. T. B. Wakeman, president of the Liberal University of Oregon,\na life-long student of sociology and ethics, says:\n\n\"The word 'moral' does not occur in the Bible, nor even the\nidea. Hunting for morals in the Bible is like trying to find\nhuman remains in the oldest geologic strata--in the eozoon, for\ninstance. Morals had not then been born.\"\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it sanctions\nnearly every vice and crime. Here is the long list of wrongs which\nit authorizes and defends:\n\n\n 1. Lying and Deception.\n 2. Cheating.\n 3. Theft and Robbery.\n 4. Murder.\n 5. Wars of Conquest.\n 6. Human Sacrifices.\n 7. Cannibalism.\n 8. Witchcraft.\n 9. Slavery.\n10. Polygamy.\n11. Adultery and Prostitution.\n12. Obscenity.\n13. Intemperance.\n14. Vagrancy.\n15. Ignorance.\n16. Injustice to Woman.\n17. Unkindness to Children.\n18. Cruelty to Animals.\n19. Tyranny.\n20. Intolerance and Persecution.\n\n\nThe Bible is, for the most part, the crude literature of a people\nwho lived 2,000 years, and more, ago. Certain principles of right\nand wrong they recognized, but the finer principles of morality were\nunknown to them. They were an ignorant people. An ignorant people is\ngenerally a religious people, and a religious people nearly always an\nimmoral people. They believed that they were God's chosen people--God's\npeculiar favorites--and that because of this they had the right to\nrob and cheat, to murder and enslave the rest of mankind. From these\ntwo causes, chiefly, ignorance and religion, i. e., superstition,\nemanated the immoral deeds and opinions which found expression in\nthe writings of their priests and prophets.\n\nThe passages in the Bible which deal with vice and crime may be\ndivided into three classes:\n\n1. There are passages which condemn vice and crime. These I indorse.\n\n2. There are many passages in which the crimes and vices of the people\nare narrated merely as historical facts without either sanctioning\nor condemning them. The book merits no censure because of these.\n\n3. There are numerous passages which sanction vice and crime. These,\nand these alone, in the chapters which follow, I shall adduce to\nprove the charges that I make against the Bible as a moral guide.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nLYING--CHEATING--STEALING.\n\n\nLying.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it sanctions\nlying and deception.\n\n\"And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab that he may go up and\nfall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another\nsaid on that manner. And there came forth a spirit and stood before\nthe Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him,\nWherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit\nin the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade\nhim, and prevail also; go forth and do so. Now therefore, behold the\nLord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these, thy prophets\"\n(1 Kings xxii, 20-23).\n\n\"If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord\nhave deceived that prophet\" (Ezek. xiv, 9).\n\n\"O Lord, thou hast deceived me\" (Jer. xx, 7).\n\n\"Wilt thou [God] be altogether unto me as a liar?\" (Jer. xv, 18.)\n\n\"God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie\"\n(2 Thess. ii, 11).\n\nRespecting the forbidden fruit God said: \"In the day that thou eatest\nthereof thou shalt surely die\" (Gen. ii, 17). But the serpent said,\n\"Ye shall not surely die\" (iii, 4). Satan's declaration proved true,\nGod's declaration proved untrue. Thus, according to the Bible, the\nfirst truth told to man was told by the devil; the first lie told to\nman was told by God.\n\nIn regard to the promised land God says: \"Doubtless ye shall not come\ninto the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein,\n... and ye shall know my breach of promise\" (Num. xiv, 30-34).\n\nGod commands Moses to deceive Pharaoh (Ex. iii, 18), he rewards the\nmidwives for their deception (Ex. i, 15-20), and instructs Samuel to\ndeceive Saul (1 Sam. xvi, 2).\n\n\"And the Lord said unto Samuel, ... fill thine horn with oil, and go,\nI will send thee to Jesse the Beth-lehemite: for I have provided me\na king among his sons. And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it\nhe will kill me. And the Lord said, Take a heifer with thee, and say,\nI am come to sacrifice to the Lord.\"\n\nWould an omnipotent and a just God use falsehood and deceit? If there\nbe such a God we must believe that he is an honest and a truthful\nBeing. But this God of the Bible violates nearly every pledge he makes,\nand instructs his children to lie and deceive.\n\nThe patriarchs all follow his example and instructions. Abraham tries\nto deceive Pharaoh and Abimelech (Gen. xii, 13-19; xx, 2); Sarah tries\nto deceive the Lord himself (Gen. xviii, 13-15). Abraham becomes the\nparent of a liar. Isaac said of Rebecca, his wife, \"She is my sister\"\n(Gen. xxvi, 7). Rebecca in turn deceives her husband (Gen. xxvii,\n6-17). Jacob sustains the reputation of the family for lying.\n\n\"And he came unto his father, and said, My father; and he said,\nHere am I; who art thou, my son? And Jacob said unto his father, I\nam Esau, thy first-born.... And he discerned him not, so he blessed\nhim. And he said, Art thou my very son, Esau? And he said, I am\"\n(Gen. xxvii, 18-24).\n\nJacob's wives, Leah and Rachel, both used deceit. The former\ndeceived her husband (Gen. xxix, 25); the latter deceived her father\n(Gen. xxxi, 34, 35). His twelve sons were all addicted to the same\nvice (Gen. xxxvii; xlii, 7), and these became the founders of the\ntwelve tribes of Israel, God's chosen people.\n\nDavid, Elisha, and Jeremiah, three of God's holiest men, were liars\n(1 Sam. xxvii, 8-11; 2 Kings, viii, 7-15; Jer. xxxviii, 24-27).\n\nSpeaking of the Hebrews and Bible writers prior to the Exile and the\nintroduction of Persian ethics, Dr. Briggs says:\n\n\"They seem to know nothing of the sin of speaking lies as such. What\nis the evidence from this silence? They were altogether unconscious\nof its sinfulness. The holiest men did not hesitate to lie, whenever\nthey had a good object in view, and they showed no consciousness of sin\nin it. And the writers who tell of their lies are as innocent as they.\"\n\nThe Decalogue itself does not forbid lying. It forbids perjury;\nbut mere lying is not forbidden.\n\nChrist taught in parables that he might deceive the people.\n\n\"And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of\nthe kingdom of God, but unto them that are without, all these things\nare done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive;\nand hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time\nthey should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them\"\n(Mark iv, 11, 12).\n\nPaul used deception and boasted of it. He says:\n\n\"Being crafty, I caught you with guile\" (2 Cor. xii, 16).\n\n\"Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews\"\n(1 Cor. ix, 20).\n\n\"I am made all things to all men\" (1 Cor. ix, 22).\n\n\"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his\nglory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?\" (Rom. iii, 7.)\n\nThe primitive Christians, accepting the Bible as infallible\nauthority, naturally regarded lying for God's glory not a vice but\na virtue. Mosheim in his \"Ecclesiastical History\" says:\n\n\"It was an established maxim with many Christians, that it was\npardonable in an advocate for religion to avail himself of fraud and\ndeception, if it were likely they might conduce toward the attainment\nof any considerable good.\"\n\nDean Milman, in his \"History of Christianity,\" says: \"It was admitted\nand avowed that to deceive into Christianity was so valuable a service\nas to hallow deceit itself.\"\n\nDr. Lardner says: \"Christians of all sorts were guilty of this fraud.\"\n\nBishop Fell writes: \"In the first ages of the church, so extensive\nwas the license of forging, so credulous were the people in believing\nthat the evidence of transactions was grievously obscured.\"\n\nM. Daill\u00e9, one of the most distinguished of French Protestants, says:\n\"For a good end they made no scruple to forge whole books.\"\n\nDr. Gieseler says they \"quieted their conscience respecting the\nforgery with the idea of their good intention.\"\n\nDr. Priestley says they \"thought it innocent and commendable to lie\nfor the sake of truth.\"\n\nScaliger says: \"They distrusted the success of Christ's kingdom\nwithout the aid of lying.\"\n\nThat these admissions are true, that primitive Christianity\nwas propagated chiefly by falsehood, is tacitly admitted by all\nChristians. They characterize as forgeries, or unworthy of credit,\nthree-fourths of the early Christian writings.\n\nThe thirty-second chapter of the Twelfth Book of Eusebius's\n\"Evangelical Preparation\" bears this significant title: \"How far it\nmay be proper to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of\nthose who require to be deceived.\"\n\nBishop Heliodorus affirms that a \"falsehood is a good thing when it\naids the speaker and does no harm to the hearers.\"\n\nSynesius, another early Christian bishop, writes: \"The people are\ndesirous of being deceived; we cannot act otherwise with them.\"\n\nThat is what most modern theologians think. With Dr. Thomas Burnett,\nthey believe that \"Too much light is hurtful to weak eyes.\"\n\nThat the methods employed in establishing the church are still used in\nperpetuating its power, a glance at the so-called Christian literature\nof the day will suffice to show. Read the works of our sectarian\npublishers, examine the volumes that compose our Sunday-school\nlibraries, peruse our religious papers and periodicals, and you will\nsee that age has but confirmed this habit formed in infancy.\n\nEvery church dogma is a lie; and based upon lies, the church depends\nupon fraud for its support. The work of its ministers is not to\ndiscover and promulgate truths, but to invent and disseminate\nfalsehoods. In the words of Isaiah, they well might say: \"We have\nmade lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves.\"\n\nThe church offers a premium on falsehood and imposes a punishment\nfor truthfulness. With a bribe in one hand and a club in the other,\nshe has sought to prolong her sway. The allurements of the one and\nthe fear of the other have filled the world with hypocrisy. In our\nhalls of Congress, in the editorial sanctum, in the professor's chair,\nbehind the counter, in the workshop, at the fireside, everywhere, we\nfind men professing to believe what they know to be false, or wearing\nthe seal of silence on their lips, while rank imposture stalks abroad\nand truth is trampled in the mire before them.\n\nEvery truth seeker is taunted and ridiculed; every truth teller\npersecuted and defamed; the scientist and philosopher are discouraged\nand opposed; the heretic and Infidel calumniated and maligned. In proof\nof this, witness the abuse heaped upon the Darwins and Huxleys, see\nthe countless calumnies circulated against the Paines and Ingersolls.\n\nIt is said that Paulus Jovius kept a bank of lies. To those who paid\nhim liberally he gave noble pedigrees and reputations; those who\ndid not he slandered and maligned. Paulus is dead, but the church,\nguided by Bible morality, continues his business.\n\n\n\nCheating.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide, because it sanctions\ncheating and the use of dishonorable methods in obtaining wealth\nand power.\n\n\"And Jacob sod [boiled] pottage; and Esau came from the fields, and\nhe was faint; and Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that\nsame red pottage; for I am faint.... And Jacob said, Sell me this\nday thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die;\nand what profit shall this birthright do me? And Jacob said, Swear\nto me this day; and he sware unto him; and he sold his birthright\nunto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and\nhe did eat and rose up and went away\" (Gen. xxv, 29-34).\n\nThis transaction, one of the basest recorded, receives the sanction\nof the Bible. Jacob, with God's assistance, by using striped rods,\ncheated Laban out of his cattle:\n\n\"And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive,\nthat Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters,\nthat they might conceive among the rods.\n\n\"When the cattle were feeble, he put them not in; so the feebler were\nLaban's and the stronger Jacob's. And the man increased exceedingly,\nand had much cattle\" (Gen. xxx, 41-43).\n\n\"If he [Laban] said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the\ncattle bare speckled; and if he said thus, The ringstreaked shall be\nthy hire; then bare all the cattle ringstreaked. Thus God hath taken\naway the cattle of your father and given them to me\" (Gen. xxxi, 8, 9).\n\nThus, by defrauding his uncle, his famishing brother, and his blind\nand aged father, this God-beloved\n\npatriarch stands forth the prince of cheats--the patron saint of\nrogues.\n\nThe Israelites obtain the Egyptians' property by false pretenses.\n\n\"And I [God] will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians;\nand it shall come to pass that when ye go, ye shall not go empty; but\nevery woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in\nher house, jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment; and ye\nshall put them upon your sons and upon your daughters; and ye shall\nspoil [rob] the Egyptians\" (Ex. iii, 21, 22).\n\n\"And the Lord said unto Moses, ... Speak now in the ears of the\npeople, and let every man borrow of his neighbor, and every woman of\nher neighbor, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold\" (Ex xi, 1, 2).\n\n\"And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and\nthey borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold,\nand raiment; and the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the\nEgyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required;\nand they spoiled the Egyptians\" (Ex. xii, 35, 36).\n\nHere obtaining goods under false pretenses and embezzlement are\ncommended by God himself. It may be claimed that the Egyptians had\nwronged the Israelites. Suppose they had; could God secure justice\nfor them only by treachery and fraud? Suppose your son worked for a\nfarmer, and that farmer defrauded him of his wages; would you advise\nyour son to borrow a horse of his employer and decamp with it in order\nto obtain redress, especially when you had the power to obtain redress\nby lawful means? Instead of encouraging these slaves in an act that\nwould eventually lead them to become a race of thieves and robbers,\nan honest God would have taken their masters by the collar and said,\n\"You have received the labor of these men and women; pay them for it!\"\n\nIn the Mosaic law we find the following beautiful statute:\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\nthou mayest sell it unto an alien\" (Deut. xiv, 21).\n\n\"Anything that dieth of itself\" is diseased. Diseased flesh is\npoisonous. To authorize its use, even if those receiving it are not\ndeceived, is immoral.\n\nOut West, a family, good Christians, had a hog to die of some\ndisease. What did they do with it? Eat it? No, their Bible told them\nthis would be wrong. They dressed it nicely, took it into an adjoining\nneighborhood, and sold it to strangers. Was this right? The Bible\nsays it was.\n\nWith the widespread influence of a book inculcating such lessons in\ndishonesty, what must be the inevitable result? Men distrust their\nfellow men; along our business thoroughfares Fraud drives with brazen\nfront; in almost every article of merchandise we buy we find a lie\nenshrined; at every corner sits some Jacob slyly whittling spotted\nsticks to win his neighbor's flocks.\n\n\n\nStealing.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it sanctions\ntheft and robbery.\n\nIts pages teem with accounts of robberies, and in many instances God\nis said to have planned them and shared in the spoils. He instructs\nMoses to send a marauding expedition against the Midianites. They\nput the inhabitants to the sword, and return with 800,000 cattle. Of\nthis booty God exacts 800 head for himself and 8,000 head for his\npriests. The remainder he causes to be divided between the soldiers\nand citizens. So elated are the Israelites with their success, so\ngrateful to God for his assistance, that they make him a gift of\n16,000 shekels of stolen gold (Num. xxxi).\n\nWhen Joshua took Jericho, \"they burnt the city with fire, and all that\nwas therein; only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass\nand of iron they put into the treasury of the Lord\" (Josh, vi, 19-24).\n\nWhen he captured Ai, \"the cattle and the spoils of that city Israel\ntook for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the Lord\nwhich he commanded Joshua\" (Josh, viii, 27).\n\nJehovah gets the spoils of Jericho, and Israel those of Ai.\n\nDavid, a modest shepherd lad, is placed under the tutelage of Jehovah\nonly to become the cruelest robber of his time. On one occasion,\npurely for plunder, he despoiled three nations and \"saved neither man\nnor woman alive to bring tidings to Gath, saying, Lest they should\ntell on us\" (1 Sam. xxvii, 8-12).\n\nIt is said that the Italian bandit never plans a robbery without\ninvoking a divine blessing upon his undertaking, doubtless believing\nthat the God of David, of Moses, and of Joshua still reigns.\n\nJacob's wives, Leah and Rachel, were both thieves. Leah appropriated\nthe property of her son; Rachel stole her father's jewels. Neither\nact was condemned.\n\n\"When thou comest into thy neighbor's vineyard, then thou mayest eat\ngrapes thy fill at thine own pleasure, but thou shalt not put any in\nthy vessel.\n\n\"When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou\nmayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a\nsickle unto thy neighbor's standing corn\" (Deut. xxiii, 24, 25).\n\n\"Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he\nis hungry\" (Prov. vi, 30).\n\nGrand larceny is condemned, but petty larceny is commended.\n\nChrist enjoined submission to robbery: \"Of him that taketh away thy\ngoods ask them not again\" (Luke vi, 30).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nMURDER--WAR.\n\n\nMurder.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it sanctions\nmurder.\n\nIt is true the Sixth Commandment says, \"Thou shalt not kill;\" but\nthis law is practically annulled by innumerable commands from the\nsame source, like the following, to kill:\n\n\"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his\nside, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and\nslay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every\nman his neighbor\" (Ex. xxxii, 27).\n\n\"Spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling\"\n(1 Sam. xv, 3).\n\n\"Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children\"\n(Ezek. ix, 6)\n\n\"Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood\" (Jer. xlviii,\n10).\n\nFor the leader and legislator of his chosen people, God selects a\nmurderer. The first recorded act of Moses was premeditated murder. \"He\nlooked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man,\nhe slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand\" (Ex. ii 12).\n\nFor committing a murder, Phinehas is rewarded by Jehovah with \"the\ncovenant of an everlasting priesthood\" (Num. xxv, 6-13).\n\nSamuel \"hewed Agag,\" a captive king, \"in pieces before the Lord\"\n(1 Sam. xv, 32, 33).\n\nJehu murders all the house of Ahab, and God rewards him for it:\n\n\"And Joram turned his hands and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There is\ntreachery, O Ahaziah. And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength,\nand smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his\nheart and he sunk down in his chariot.\n\n\"But when Ahaziah, the king of Judah, saw this, he fled by the way\nof the garden house. And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite\nhim also in the chariot. And they did so.\n\n\"And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it, and she\npainted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window. And\nas Jehu entered in at the gate she said, Had Zimri peace who slew his\nmaster? And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on\nmy side? Who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs. And he\nsaid, Throw her down. So they threw her down, and some of her blood\nwas sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses; and he trode her under\nfoot. And when he was come in, he did eat and drink, and said, Go, see\nnow this cursed woman, and bury her; for she is a king's daughter. And\nthey went to bury her, but they found no more of her than the skull,\nand the feet, and the palms of her hands.\"\n\nThe dogs had devoured her.\n\n\"And Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria. And Jehu wrote letters and\nsent to Samaria.... And it came to pass when the letter came to them,\nthat they took the king's sons, and slew seventy persons, and put\ntheir heads in baskets, and sent him them to Jezreel.\"\n\n\"So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel,\nand all his great men, and his kinsfolks, and his priests, until he\nleft him none remaining.\"\n\n\"And the Lord said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing\nthat which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of\nAhab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the\nfourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel\" (2 Kings ix,\n23, 24, 27, 30-35; x, 1, 7, 11, 30).\n\nThe assassination of Eglon by Ehud was characterized by the basest\ntreachery and brutality. Eglon was king of Moab. Ehud carried a present\nto him, and after he had delivered the present he told the king that he\nhad a private message for him. Eglon ordered his attendants to retire,\nand when alone Ehud drew a large dagger from beneath his cloak and\nthrust it through the body of the king. And the Bible tells us that\nGod raised up Ehud expressly for this work (Jud. iii, 15-23).\n\nThe warmest eulogy in the Bible is bestowed upon a murderess. Sisera\nis a fugitive from battle. He reaches in safety the tent of Heber, his\nfriend. Heber is absent, but Jael, his wife, receives the fugitive, and\nbids him welcome. She gives him food, spreads a soft couch for him, and\ncovers him with her mantle. Wearied with his retreat, and unconscious\nof impending danger, Sisera soon sinks into a profound slumber. With a\ntent nail in one hand and a hammer in the other, Jael approaches the\nbedside of her sleeping guest. She bends over him, listens to assure\nherself that he is asleep, then places the nail against his temple,\nand with a blow drives it through his head. A struggle, and Sisera\nis dead, a victim of one of the most damnable deeds ever committed.\n\nIn honor of this assassination, God's favorite prophetess, Deborah,\nsings:\n\n\"Blessed above women shall Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, be;\nblessed shall she be above women in the tent. He asked water, and she\ngave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish. She put\nher hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workman's hammer;\nand with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when\nshe had pierced and stricken through his temples. At her feet he\nbowed, he fell, he lay down; at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he\nbowed, there he fell down dead. The mother of Sisera looked out at\na window, and cried through the lattice, Why is his chariot so long\nin coming? Why tarry the wheels of his chariot?\" (Jud. v, 24-28.)\n\nWe wish to place before our children, for their emulation, good\nand noble characters. We have been taught that in the Bible such\ncharacters may be found. You desire a model woman to place before your\ndaughter. What one will you select? Here is a woman whom the Bible\npronounces \"blessed above women.\" This must be a suitable model,\nthen. Blessed for what? For committing one of the most infamous\nof murders.\n\nWe had a Kansas girl who followed in the footsteps of this\n\"blessed woman.\" Years ago, across the prairies of southern Kansas\nstretched a lonely road. By its side, far from other habitations,\nstood an unpretentious dwelling, inhabited by four persons--father,\nmother, son, and daughter. But the daughter was the ruling spirit\nthere. Their only volume, we are told, was a Bible, and this the\ndaughter read. The house contains two rooms besides the cellar. The\nrooms are separated simply by a curtain. In the front room is kept a\nsmall stock of groceries. Here, too, with its back against the curtain,\nand fastened to the floor, stands a chair. Above the door is a sign\nwith this inviting word, \"Provisions.\" A traveler enters and makes some\npurchases, displaying a well-filled purse. He is treated hospitably,\nand invited to remain awhile and rest. Wearied, he drops into the\nchair, his head pressing against the curtain. Armed with a hammer,\nthis follower of Jael now approaches from the rear. One well-directed\nblow, and the tired traveler sinks into eternal rest. His pockets are\nrifled, and his body thrown into the cellar, to be taken out at night\nand buried in the little garden behind the dwelling. Time rolls on;\nthe traveler does not return. Day after day his wife at home, with\nanxious heart, peers through the window and sighs, \"Why don't he\ncome?\" At length suspicion rests upon this den of infamy. A search\nis instituted, and the garden is found to be a cemetery, filled with\nthe bodies of murdered travelers--one a little child. In the mean\ntime this female monster with her kin has fled. Detectives are still\nsearching for her. They'll never find her. Where is she? In heaven\nwith Jael. Now let some modern Deborah sing, \"Blessed above maidens\nshall Kate Bender be!\"\n\n\n\nWar.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it sanctions\nwars of conquest and extermination.\n\n\"Blessed be the Lord, my strength, which teacheth my hands to war\nand my fingers to fight\" (Ps. cxliv, 1).\n\nThe Old Testament is largely a record of wars and massacres. God\nis represented as \"a man of war.\" At his command whole nations are\nexterminated.\n\n\"Ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you,\n... and ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell\ntherein\" (Num. xxxiii, 52, 53).\n\n\"And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall\ndeliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them\" (Deut. vii, 16).\n\n\"Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee\nfor an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:\nbut thou shalt utterly destroy them\" (Deut. xx, 16, 17).\n\n\"And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses;\nand they slew all the males.... And the children of Israel took\nall the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took\nthe spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their\ngoods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all\ntheir goodly castles with fire\" (Num. xxxi, 7-10).\n\nMoses is angry because the women and children have been saved, and\nfrom this fiendish conqueror comes the mandate: \"Kill every male\namong the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man.\"\n\nThe mourning remnants of twenty thousand families are thus to be\ndestroyed. The fathers, far away, lie still in death beside the\nsmouldering ruins of their once fair homes; and now their wives and\nlittle ones are doomed to die. The signal is sounded, and the massacre\nbegins. The mothers, on bended knees, with tearful eyes and pleading\nlips, are ruthlessly cut down. Their prattling babes, in unsuspecting\ninnocence, smile on the uplifted sword as if it were a glittering toy,\nand the next moment feel it speeding through their little frames. The\ndaughters only are spared--spared to be the wretched slaves of those\nwhose hands are red with the life-blood of their dear ones.\n\nAnd this is but a prelude to the sanguinary scenes that are to follow.\n\n\"Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon; behold\nI have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and\nhis land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle. This\nday will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon\nthe nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report\nof thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.\"\n\n\"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the\nmen, and the women, and the little ones of every city, we left none\nto remain\" (Deut. ii, 24, 25, 34).\n\n\"The Lord our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of\nBashan, and all his people, and we smote him until none was left to\nhim remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a\ncity which we took not from them, threescore cities.... And we utterly\ndestroyed them as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying\nthe men, women, and children of every city\" (Deut. iii, 3-6).\n\nMoses dies, and Joshua next leads Jehovah's troops.\n\n\"And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand\nJericho.... And they utterly destroyed all that was in that city,\nboth man and woman, young and old\" (Josh. vi, 2, 21).\n\n\"And the Lord said unto Joshua, Stretch out the spear that is in\nthy hand toward Ai; for I will give it into thine hand.... And so\nit was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were\ntwelve thousand.... And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it a heap forever\"\n(Josh. viii, 18, 25, 28).\n\n\"And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish,\nand encamped against it, and fought against it. And the Lord delivered\nLachish into the hands of Israel, which took it on the second day,\nand smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were\ntherein\" (Josh. x, 31, 32).\n\n\"And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him;\nand they encamped against it, and fought against it. And they took it\non that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls\nthat were therein he utterly destroyed that day\" (Josh. x, 34, 35).\n\nThus city after city falls, and nation after nation is vanquished,\nuntil thirty-one kingdoms have been destroyed. And still there\n\"remaineth much land to be possessed,\" and many millions more of\nunoffending people to be slain to please this God of War.\n\nChrist came, heralded as the \"Prince of Peace.\" But he \"came not to\nsend peace but a sword\"--a sword his own arm was too weak to wield,\nbut which his followers have used with dire effect. Expunge from the\nhistory of Christendom the record of its thousand wars and little will\nremain. From the time that Constantine inscribed the emblem of the\ncross upon his banner to the present hour, the church of Christ has\nbeen upheld by the sword. Five million troops maintain its political\nsupremacy in Europe to-day. To \"express our national acknowledgment\nof Almighty God as the source of all authority in civil government;\nof the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of nations, and of his revealed\nwill as of supreme authority;\" in short, to make this a \"Christian\nnation,\" as Bible moralists demand, means a standing army in this\ncountry of five hundred thousand men.\n\nThe Bible has inspired more wars in Christendom than all else\ncombined. It is a fountain of blood, and the crimson rivers that have\nflowed from it would float the navies of the world.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nHUMAN SACRIFICES--CANNIBALISM--WITCHCRAFT.\n\n\nHuman Sacrifices.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it sanctions\nhuman sacrifices.\n\n\"No devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that\nhe hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession,\nshall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy unto the\nLord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed;\nbut shall surely be put to death\" (Lev. xxvii, 28, 29).\n\nGod commands Abraham to sacrifice his son:\n\n\"Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get\nthee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering\"\n(Gen. xxii, 2).\n\nThe order was countermanded, but the perusal of this text has driven\nthousands to insanity and murder.\n\nThat a famine may cease, David sacrifices the sons of Saul:\n\n\"Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and\nwherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance\nof the Lord?... And they answered the king, The man that consumed us\nand devised against us.... Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto\nus, and we will hang them up unto the Lord.... And the king said, I\nwill give them. And he delivered them unto the hands of the Gibeonites,\nand they hanged them in the hill before the Lord; and they fell all\nseven together, and were put to death in the days of the harvest\"\n(2 Sam. xxi).\n\nThe sacrifice, we are told, was accepted, and the famine ceased.\n\nFive of these innocent victims, if the Bible be true, were the sons\nof Michal, David's own wife. Two were the sons of Rizpah. Throughout\nthat long summer--from April till October--in the heat and glare of the\nday and the chill and darkness of the night, Rizpah, broken-hearted,\ntenderly watches and protects the decaying bodies of her dead sons\nand relatives.\n\n\"And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for\nher upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped\nupon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air\nto rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.\"\n\nWhen I dwell on this dark tragedy, and contrast the love and devotion\nof this agonized and despairing Hebrew mother with the malignant\nhatred and heartless cruelty of this Bible God and his despicable\nagent, humanity rises to the highest heaven and divinity sinks to\nthe lowest hell.\n\nThe pathetic story of Jephthah's daughter is familiar to all. Jephthah\nis a warrior, and makes a vow that if he is permitted to conquer\nthe children of Ammon, upon his return the first that meets him at\nthe door will be offered up for a burnt offering unto the Lord. He is\nsuccessful; the Lord permits him to defeat the children of Ammon. Upon\nhis return the first to meet him is his daughter, an only child. He\ntells her of his vow. She prays for two brief months to live. Her\nprayer is granted, and at the expiration of this time, the Bible tells\nus that Jephthah \"did with her according to the vow which he had vowed\"\n(Jud. xi, 26-40).\n\nDescribing the fulfilment of this terrible vow, Dr. Oort says:\n\n\"This victim, crowned with flowers, was led round the altar with\nmusic and song in honor of Yahweh. She met her cruel fate without\nshrinking. But who shall say how sick at heart her father was when\nhe struck that fatal blow with his own hand and saw the blood of his\ndarling child poured out upon the sacred stone, while her body was\nburned upon the altar?\" (Bible for Learners, Vol. I., p. 408.)\n\n\"In that frightful sacrifice that he performed--breaking the holiest\ndomestic ties--we do but see the disastrous results of a mistaken\nfaith\" (Ibid., p. 411).\n\nThe celebrated Jewish commentator, Dr. Kalisch, while endeavoring\nto palliate as far as possible the crimes of his people, admits that\nhuman sacrifices were not uncommon among them:\n\n\"The fact stands indisputable that human sacrifices offered to Jehovah\nwere possible among the Hebrews long after the time of Moses, without\nmeeting a check or censure from the teachers and leaders of the nation\"\n(Leviticus, Part I., p. 385).\n\n\"One instance like that of Jephthah not only justifies, but\nnecessitates, the influence of a general custom. Pious men slaughtered\nhuman victims, not to Moloch, nor to any other foreign deity, but to\nthe national God, Jehovah\" (Ibid., p. 390).\n\nJules Soury says: \"Nothing is better established than the existence\nof human sacrifices among the Hebrews in honor of Iahveh, and that\ndown to the time of Josiah, perhaps even until the return from the\nBabylonish captivity\" (Religion of Israel, p. 46).\n\nThe Church, having received the benefits of a sacrificed God,\ndeems human sacrifices no longer necessary. But what can be said\nof the Church as a whole cannot be said of all its individual\nmembers. Scarcely a year passes without the sacrifice of human beings\nby those who believe the Bible to be inspired, and who believe that\nwhat was right three thousand years ago is right to-day.\n\nThe sacrifice of little Ben Smith at Los Angeles, in 1882, is still\nremembered by some. His father was converted at a Methodist revival. He\nbecame very religious. The press dispatches stated that \"for several\nmonths he devoted his time to the study of the Bible until he not\nonly convinced himself that he ought to make a human sacrifice, but\nbrought his wife and their only child, a boy of thirteen, to acquiesce,\nin his views.\" I quote from the mother's testimony:\n\n\"When he talked to me and persuaded me that a good wife ought to\nthink as her husband did, I got so as to take whatever he said as the\ntruth. He made us fast, and when Ben asked him if God had ordered us\nto starve he said yes. When he announced that the boy must be killed\nwe both remonstrated, but finally thought it was all right. On the\nday appointed for the ceremony he called Ben out of the house and\ntold him he had to die for our savior. The little fellow knelt down\nand I got on my knees by his side; John raised the knife, looked hard\ninto the boy's face, and then drove the knife into his breast.\"\n\nHere the mother was overcome with grief. Regaining her composure,\nshe continued: \"I am always thinking of Ben; I am always hearing him\nin the night asking to be brought in and laid on his bed, and begging\nfor a little water before he died.\"\n\nLet me recall another half-forgotten scene. In a quiet village of New\nEngland live a pair whom nature meant for good, kind citizens. But\nthey have become infatuated with the Bible. They believe it to be\ninfallible. Day after day they pore over its pages. They dwell with\nespecial interest upon the story of Abraham and Isaac, until at last\nthey become impressed with the belief that they, too, are called\nupon to offer up their child. The fatal hour arrives. Nerved for the\ncruel deed, they approach the bedside of their child, a sweet-faced,\ncurly-haired girl of four. How placidly she rests! Folded upon her\nbreast are dimpled hands, white as the winter snow; curtained in\nslumber are eyes as mild as the summer sky. How beautiful! How pure! We\nwould risk our lives to save that pretty thing from harm. How dear,\nthen, must she be to that father and that mother! She is their\nidol. But that idol is about to be sacrificed upon the altar of\nsuperstition. There they stand--the mother with a lamp in her hand,\nthe father with a knife. They gaze for a moment upon their sleeping\nvictim. Then the father lifts his arm and plunges the knife into\nthe heart of his child! A quiver--the blue eyes open, and cast\na reproachful look upon the parent. The little lips exclaim, \"O\npapa!\" and the sacrifice is made!\n\nYou may say these people were insane. Aye, but what made them\ninsane? And what, more than almost any other cause, is filling our\nasylums with these unfortunate people? The vain attempt to reconcile\nwith reason the irreconcilable teachings of the Bible.\n\n\n\nCannibalism.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it teaches the\nhorrible custom of cannibalism.\n\n\"The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons\nshall eat their fathers\" (Ezek. v, 10).\n\n\"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your\ndaughters shall ye eat\" (Lev. xxvi, 29).\n\n\"And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of\ntheir daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend\"\n(Jer. xix, 9).\n\n\"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy\nsons and of thy daughters.... So that the man that is tender among\nyou, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother,\nand toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his\nchildren which he shall leave; so that he will not give to any of\nthem the flesh of his children whom he shall eat.... The tender and\ndelicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole\nof her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye\nshall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and\ntoward her daughter, ... for she shall eat them\" (Deut. xxviii, 53-57).\n\n\"The hands of the pitiful women have sodden [boiled] their own\nchildren\" (Lam. iv, 10).\n\n\"And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered,\nThis woman said unto me, Give thy son that we may eat him to-day,\nand we will eat my son to-morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat\nhim. And I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son that we may\neat him; and she hath hid her son\" (2 Kings vi, 28, 29).\n\nYou will say that these were punishments inflicted upon these people\nfor their sins. And you will have us believe that these punishments\nwere just. Strange justice! a merciful God compelling a starving\nmother to kill and devour her own child!\n\n\"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,\nye have no life in you\" (John vi, 53).\n\nThe church perpetuates the idea, if not the practice, of\ncannibalism. The Christian takes a piece of bread, and tries to make\nhimself and the world believe that he is eating the body of Christ;\nhe takes a sup of wine, and says, \"This is Christ's blood.\" Your\nsacramental feast points to the time when savage priests gathered\naround the festal board and supped on human flesh and blood.\n\nPrimitive Christians, many of them, were guilty of cannibalism. In\ntheir Agap\u00e6 they were accustomed to kill and eat an infant. Dr. Cave\nin his \"Primitive Christianity\" (Part III., ch. i) says:\n\n\"Epiphanius reports that the Gnostics (a sect of primitive Christians)\nat their meetings were wont to take an infant begotten in their\npromiscuous mixtures, and, beating it in a mortar, to season it\nwith honey and pepper and some other spices and perfumes to make\nit palatable, and then like swine or dogs to devour it, and then to\nconclude all with prayer.\"\n\nMeredith, in \"The Prophet of Nazareth,\" says:\n\n\"So well known were those horrid vices to be carried on by Christians\nin their nocturnal and secret assemblies, and so certain it was thought\nthat every one who was a Christian participated in them, that for a\nperson to be known to be a Christian was thought a strong presumptive\nproof that he was guilty of these offenses.... It would appear,\nhowever, that, owing to the extreme measures taken against them by\nthe Romans, both in Italy and in all the provinces, the Christians, by\ndegrees, were forced to abandon entirely in their Agap\u00e6 infant murders,\ntogether with every species of obscenity, retaining, nevertheless,\nsome of them, such as the kiss of charity, and the bread and wine,\nwhich they contended was transubstantiated into real flesh and blood.\"\n\nIn the remote districts of Christian Russia, where the rays of\nour civilization have not yet penetrated the darkness of theology,\nwhere Bible morals are still supreme, we are told that even at the\npresent time a more terribly real form attaches to this eucharistic\nceremony. From Harper's Weekly I quote the following:\n\n\"We hear of horrid sects at present in Russia, practicing cannibal and\nhuman sacrifices with rites almost more devilish than any recorded in\nhistory. 'The communism of the flesh of the Lamb' and 'the communism\nof the blood of the Lamb' really seem to have been invented by the\nlowest demons of the bottomless pit. The subject is too revolting to\nbe pursued in detail; it is enough to say that an infant seven days\nold is bandaged over the eyes, stretched over a dish, and a silver\nspoon thrust into the side so as to pierce the heart. The elect suck\nthe child's blood--that is 'the blood of the Lamb!' The body is left\nto dry up in another dish full of sage, then crushed into powder and\neaten--that is 'the flesh of the Lamb!'\"\n\n\n\nWitchcraft.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it recognizes\nas a verity the delusion of witchcraft and punishes with death its\nvictims.\n\nThe God that inspired the account of Saul's interview with the\nwitch of Endor was as thorough a believer in witchcraft as the most\nsuperstitious crone of the Middle Ages.\n\nManasseh \"used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a\nfamiliar spirit, and with wizards\" (2 Chron. xxxiii, 6).\n\nIsaiah speaks of \"wizards that peep and mutter\" (Isa. viii, 19).\n\nSamuel (1 Sam, xv, 23) and Micah (v, 12) and Nahum (iii, 4) and Paul\n(Gal. v, 20) all admit the reality of witchcraft.\n\nThe decline in the belief of wizards and witches denotes a decline of\nfaith in the Bible. Until a very recent period, those who professed\nto believe in the divinity of the Bible also professed to believe in\nthe reality of witchcraft. \"Giving up witchcraft,\" says John Wesley,\n\"is, in effect, giving up the Bible\" (Journal, 1768).\n\nSir William Blackstone says: \"To deny the possibility--nay, actual\nexistence--of witchcraft and sorcery is at once flatly to contradict\nthe revealed word of God in various passages both of the Old and\nNew Testaments.\"\n\nSir Matthew Hale says: \"The Bible leaves no doubt as to the reality\nof witchcraft and the duty of putting its subjects to death.\"\n\n\"I should have no compassion on these witches.\" said Luther; \"I would\nburn them all\" (Table Talk).\n\n\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live\" (Ex. xxii, 18).\n\n\"A man also or a woman that hath a familial spirit, or that is a\nwizard, shall surely be put to death\" (Lev. xx, 27).\n\nOh, that I could bring to view the suffering and death these texts\nhave caused! Millions have died because of them. One thousand were\nburned at Como in one year; 800 were burned at W\u00fcrzburg in one year;\n500 perished at Geneva in three months; 80 were burned in a single\nvillage of Savoy; nine women were burned in a single fire at Leith;\nsixty were hanged at Suffolk; 3,000 were legally executed during\none session of Parliament, while thousands more were put to death by\nmobs; Remy, a Christian judge, executed 800; 600 were burned by one\nbishop at Bamburg; Boguet burned 600 at St. Cloud; thousands were\nput to death by the Lutherans of Norway and Sweden; Catholic Spain\nbutchered thousands; Presbyterians were responsible for the death of\n4,000 in Scotland; 50,000 were sentenced to death during the reign\nof Francis I.; 7,000 died at Treves; the number killed in Paris in a\nfew months is declared to have been \"almost infinite.\" Dr. Sprenger\nplaces the total number of executions for witchcraft in Europe at nine\nmillions. For centuries witch fires burned in nearly every town of\nEurope, and this Bible text, \"Thou shall not suffer a witch to live,\"\nwas the torch that kindled them.\n\nFour hundred were burned at Toulouse in one day. Think of it! Four\nhundred women--guilty of no crime, save that which exists in the\ndiseased imaginations of their accusers--four hundred mothers, wives,\nand daughters, taken out upon the public square, chained to posts,\nthe fagots piled around them, and burned to death! See them writhing\nin the flames--listen to their piteous shrieks--four hundred voices\nraised in one wild chorus of agony! And all because the Bible says,\n\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\"\n\nOnly a few years ago, in the province of Novgorod, Russia, a woman was\nburnt for witchcraft. Agrafena was a soldier's widow, and possessed\nof more than ordinary gifts of mind. But ignorance and superstition\nprevailed around her. Every strange occurrence, every disease that\ncould not be accounted for, was the result of witchcraft. One day a\nfarmer's daughter was seized with some violent disease, and in her\nparoxysms of pain she chanced to breathe the name of Agrafena. That\nwas enough; Agrafena was a witch. A mob was raised and led to the\nwidow's dwelling. They called her to the door, parleyed with her a\nmoment, then thrust her back into the house, fastened its doors, and\nset it on fire. And while it was burning, this mob, led by Christian\npriests, stood around it, singing praises to God--their strains blended\nwith the shrieks of this dying woman--dying because the Bible says,\n\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\"\n\nAnd in our own America the blighting influence of this delusion and\nthis brutal statute has been felt. With the soil of our Republic is\nmingled the dust of murdered women--murdered because the Bible says,\n\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nSLAVERY--POLYGAMY.\n\n\nSlavery.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it sanctions\nthe infamous crime of human slavery.\n\n\"Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall\nbe of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy\nbondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that\ndo sojourn among you; of them shall ye buy, and of their families\nthat are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be\nyour possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your\nchildren after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be\nyour bondmen forever\" (Lev. xx. v, 44-46).\n\nIn certain cases they were even permitted to enslave the members of\ntheir own race.\n\n\"If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the\nseventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself,\nhe shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall\ngo out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have\nborne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her\nmaster's and he shall go out by himself\" (Ex. xxi, 2-4).\n\nIf he desires his liberty he must desert his wife and little ones. To\nbecome a freeman he must become an exile.\n\n\"And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife,\nand my children; I will not go out free, then his master shall bring\nhim unto the judges; he shall also bring him unto the door, or unto\nthe door-post; and his master shall bore his ears through with an awl;\nand he shall serve him forever\" (5, 6).\n\n\"And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be\nunto his brethren.\n\n\"And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be\nhis servant.\n\n\"God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem;\nand Canaan shall be his servant\" (Gen. ix, 25-27).\n\nNor is it the Jewish Scriptures alone which sanction slavery. The\nChristian Scriptures are not less emphatic in their indorsement of it.\n\n\"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters\nworthy of all honor\" (1 Tim. vi, 1).\n\n\"Exhort servants to be obedient unto their masters\" (Titus ii, 9).\n\n\"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to\nthe flesh, with fear and trembling\" (Eph. vi, 5).\n\n\"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the\ngood and gentle, but also to the froward\" (1 Pet. ii, 18).\n\nIt may be urged that the term \"servant\" here refers to a hired\nservant. Not so; wherever the word \"servant\" occurs in the New\nTestament, it means slave in its worst sense.\n\nThe Fugitive Slave law, which made us a nation of kidnappers, derived\nits authority from the New Testament. Paul had established a precedent\nby returning a fugitive slave to his master.\n\nReferring to this act of Paul, the Rev. Dr. Stringfellow of Virginia\nwrote:\n\n\"Oh, how immeasurably different Paul's conduct to this slave and\nmaster, from the conduct of our abolition brethren! This is sufficient\nto teach any man that slavery is not, in the sight of God, what it\nis in the sight of the abolitionists\" (Scriptural View of Slavery).\n\nThe Rev. Moses Stuart of Massachusetts wrote:\n\n\"What, now, have we here? Paul sending back a Christian servant,\nwho had run away from his Christian master.... Paul's conscience sent\nback the fugitive slave. Paul's conscience, then, like his doctrines,\nwas very different from that of the abolitionists.\"\n\nIt was no easy task to convince the Bible moralist that slavery\nwas wrong. When the French Revolutionists rejected the Bible, they\nabolished slavery in the colonies. When the church regained control\nof the government, the Bible came back, and with it slavery. When\nClarkson's bill for the abolition of slavery was before Parliament,\nLord Chancellor Thurlow characterized it as a \"miserable and\ncontemptible bill,\" and \"contrary to the Word of God.\"\n\nCharles Bradlaugh, in the North American Review, writing of his own\nChristian England, says:\n\n\"George III., a most Christian king, regarded abolition theories with\nabhorrence, and the Christian House of Lords was utterly opposed to\ngranting freedom to the slave. When Christian missionaries, some sixty\nyears ago, preached to Demerara negroes under the rule of Christian\nEngland, they were treated by Christian judges, holding commission\nfrom Christian England, as criminals for so preaching. A Christian\ncommissioned officer, member of the Established Church of England,\nsigned the auction notices for the sale of slaves as late as 1824.\"\n\nThe most zealous defenders of slavery in this country were Bible\nmoralists. The Rev. Alexander Campbell wrote: \"There is not one verse\nin the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not\nthen, we conclude, immoral.\"\n\nThe Rev. E. D. Simms, professor in Randolph-Macon College, wrote:\n\"These extracts from Holy Writ unequivocally assert the right of\nproperty in slaves.\"\n\nThe Rev. R. Furman, D. D., Baptist, of South Carolina, said: \"The\nright of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures,\nboth by precept and example.\"\n\nRev. Thomas Witherspoon, Presbyterian, of Alabama, said: \"I draw my\nwarrant from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to hold the\nslave in bondage.\"\n\nSaid the Rev. Mr. Crawder, Methodist, of Virginia: \"Slavery is not\nonly countenanced, permitted, and regulated by the Bible, but it was\npositively instituted by God himself.\"\n\nYou say that this is the testimony of interested parties, that the\nSouth was interested in perpetuating slavery. True, but where did\nyour Northern theologians stand?\n\nRev. Dr. Wilbur Fisk, President of Wesleyan University, thus wrote:\n\"The New Testament enjoins obedience upon the slave as an obligation\ndue to a present rightful authority.\"\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Nathan Lord, President of Dartmouth College, wrote:\n\"Slavery was incorporated into the civil institutions of Moses; it\nwas recognized accordingly by Christ and his apostles. They regulated\nit by the just and benevolent principles of the New Testament. They\ncondemned all intermeddlers with it.\"\n\nProfessor Hodge, of Princeton, said: \"The Savior found it around him,\nthe Apostles met with it in Asia, Greece, and Italy. How did they\ntreat it? Not by denunciation of slave-holding as necessarily sinful.\"\n\nSaid the Rev. Dr. Taylor, Principal of the Theological Department of\nYale College: \"I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ were now on earth,\nhe would, under certain circumstances, become a slaveholder.\"\n\nIt is now half-forgotten that the North as well as the South once\npracticed slavery--that New England, New York, New Jersey, and\nPennsylvania all held slaves. Christian New England, which made the\nBible both its legal and moral code, for more than one hundred years,\nheld Negroes and Indians in slavery, and even sold Quaker children\ninto bondage. \"Parish ministers all over New England,\" says the\nRev. William Goodell, \"owned slaves\" (American Slave Code, p. 106).\n\nClerical slaveholders in the South trampled under foot the relations\nof wife and mother; and clerical slaveholders in the North did the\nsame. Mr. Goodell says:\n\n\"Even in Puritan New England, seventy years ago, female slaves,\nin ministers' and magistrates' families, bore children, black or\nyellow, without marriage. No one inquired who their fathers were, and\nnothing more was thought of it than of the breeding of sheep or swine\"\n(Ibid., p. 111).\n\n\"A Congregational minister at Hampton, Conn. (Rev. Mr. Mosely),\nseparated by sale a husband and wife who were both of them members\nof his own church, and who had been, by his own officiating act as\na minister, united in marriage\" (Ibid., p. 114).\n\nLet me cite one of the laws of the Bible relative to the treatment\nof slaves--a law which demons would blush to indorse, but which a\nmerciful (?) God enacted for the guidance of his children:\n\n\"If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die\nunder his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he\ncontinue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money\"\n(Ex. xxi, 20, 21).\n\nHere a master may brutally beat his slave, and if that slave linger\nin the agonies of death a day or two before dying, he shall not be\npunished, because the slave \"is his money.\"\n\nGoodell's \"American Slave Code,\" a work written by a Christian\nclergyman, and which I have already quoted, contains four hundred\npages of outrages, like the following, committed by men who accepted\nthe Bible as their moral guide:\n\n\"A minister in South Carolina, a native of the North, had a stated\nSabbath appointment to preach, about eight miles from his residence. He\nwas in the habit of riding thither in his gig. Behind him ran his negro\nslave on foot, who was required to be at the place of appointment\nas soon as his master, to take care of his horse. Sometimes he fell\nbehind, and kept his master waiting for him a few minutes, for which\nhe always received a reprimand, and was sometimes punished. On one\noccasion of this kind, after sermon, the master told the slave that\nhe would take care to have him keep up with him, going home. So he\ntied him by the wrists, with a halter, to his gig behind, and drove\nrapidly home. The result was that, about two or three miles from home,\nthe poor fellow's feet and legs failed him, and he was dragged on\nthe ground all the rest of the way by the wrists! On alighting and\nlooking round, the master exclaimed, 'Well; I thought you would keep\nup with me this time!' So saying, he coolly walked into the house. The\nservants came out and took up the poor sufferer for dead. After a\ntime he revived a little, lingered for a day or two, and died!\"\n\nWas this brutal minister punished? He was not. \"If he continue a day or\ntwo, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.\" Was he silenced\nfrom preaching? was he even reprimanded by the church? No. Without\npunishment, without censure, he continued to preach Bible morals and\nabuse his slaves.\n\nFrederick Douglass, the greatest of his race and a slave, says:\n\"My master found religious sanctity for his cruelty.... I have seen\nhim tie up a lame young woman and whip her with a heavy cowskin\nupon her naked shoulders, causing the warm red blood to drip; and,\nin justification of the bloody deed, he would quote this passage of\nScripture: 'He that knoweth his master's will and doeth it not shall\nbe beaten with many stripes.'\"\n\nSlavery flourished on this continent because the Bible taught\nthat it was lawful and just. To oppose slavery was to oppose the\nplainest teachings of this book. The Abolition movement was an Infidel\nmovement. The Emancipation Proclamation was a nullification of \"God's\nlaw.\" The great Rebellion was a contest between Bible morality and\nnatural morality. The latter triumphed, but the conflict filled half\na million graves, brought grief to many million hearts, and covered\nthe land with desolation.\n\nAnd this advocate of slavery is the idol Protestants worship; this\nis the book they wish to become the law of our land; this is the\nmoral guide they wish to place in our public schools! In the name\nof those who died for the freedom of their fellow-men; in the name\nof those made childless, fatherless, and companionless by this cruel\nstrife; in the name of those whose backs still bear the scars of the\nmaster's lash; in the name of human liberty, I protest against this\nretrogressive movement!\n\n\n\nPolygamy.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it sanctions\nthat other twin relic of barbarism, polygamy.\n\nThe Mosaic law provides that \"if a man have two wives, one beloved\nand another hated,\" he shall not ignore the legal rights of the hated\nwife's children (Deut. xxi, 15-17). This statute recognizes both the\nexistence and the validity of the institution.\n\nAnother statute (Deut. xxv, 5) provides that if a man die, his\nsurviving brother shall become the husband of his widow, and this\nregardless as to whether the brother be married or single.\n\nThe first eighteen verses of the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus\nare devoted to what is termed \"unlawful marriages.\" Here polygamy\nis recognized and regulated to the extent of prohibiting a man from\nmarrying the sister of a living wife.\n\nBut there is one statute which places the validity of this institution,\nso far as the Bible is concerned, beyond all controversy. Deuteronomy\n(xxiii, 2) declares that no illegitimate child shall enter into the\ncongregation of the Lord, even up to the tenth generation. Now,\npolygamy was either lawful or unlawful. If unlawful, then the\nchildren of polygamists were illegitimate children, and disqualified\nfor the sanctuary. But the children of polygamists were not thus\ndisqualified. The founders of the twelve tribes of Israel were all\nchildren of a polygamist.\n\nThe most renowned Bible characters were polygamists. Abraham had two\nwives, and when he died the Lord said, \"Abraham obeyed my voice,\nand kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws\"\n(Gen. xxvi, 6).\n\nJacob was a polygamist, and after he had secured four wives and\nconcubines, God blessed him and said, \"Be fruitful and multiply\"\n(Gen. xxxv, 11).\n\nGideon had \"many wives\" (Jud. viii, 30), and it was to him an angel\ncame and said, \"The Lord is with thee\" (Jud. vi, 12).\n\nDavid had a score of wives and concubines, and \"David was a man after\nGod's own heart;\" \"David did right in the eyes of the Lord.\" God\nhimself said to David, \"I delivered thee out of the hands of Saul;\nand I gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives\" (2 Sam. xii,\n7, 8).\n\n\"And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much,\nand largeness of heart\"--sufficient to hold a thousand wives and\nconcubines.\n\nMany years ago the Mormon, Orson Pratt, wrote a defense of polygamy,\nbased upon the Bible. A noted lawyer of New York sent a copy of it\nto the Rev. Dr. W. B. Sprague with the interrogation, \"Can you answer\nthis?\" Back came the frank reply, \"No; can you?\"\n\nIt is claimed that the New Testament is opposed to polygamy. It is\nnot. William Ellery Channing says:\n\n\"There is no prohibition of polygamy in the New Testament. It is an\nindisputable fact that although Christianity was first preached in\nAsia, which had been from the earliest ages the seat of polygamy,\nthe Apostles never denounced it as a crime, and never required their\nconverts to put away all wives but one.\"\n\nElizabeth Cady Stanton says: \"It was at a Jewish polygamous wedding\nthat Jesus performed his first miracle, and polygamy was practiced\nby Christians for centuries.\"\n\nIt is true that many primitive Christians did not practice\npolygamy. And why? Because Pagan Greece and Rome had taught them\nbetter. It was to them, and not to their Scriptures, that they were\nindebted for the monogamic system of marriage. The Roman Catholic\nchurch did not generally sustain polygamy; but it did sustain a\nsystem of concubinage which was certainly as bad. For centuries the\nkeeping of concubines was almost universal among the Catholic clergy,\none abbot keeping no less than seventy.\n\nThe founders of the Protestant church, however, accepting the Bible\nas their guide, attaching to it a degree of authority which had\nnever been attached to it before, were candid and consistent enough\nto admit the validity of the institution. Referring to this subject,\nSir William Hamilton, a Christian and a Protestant, says:\n\n\"As to polygamy in particular, which not only Luther, Melanchthon,\nand Bucer, the three leaders of the German Reformation, speculatively\nadopted, but to which above a dozen distinguished divines among the\nReformers stood formally committed\" (Discussions on Philosophy and\nLiterature).\n\nSpeaking of Luther and Melanchthon, Hamilton says:\n\n\"They had both promulgated opinions in favor of polygamy, to the\nextent of vindicating to the spiritual minister a right of private\ndispensation, and to the temporal magistrate the right of establishing\nthe practice if he chose by public law\" (Ibid).\n\nIn accordance with these views, John of Leydon, a zealous Protestant,\nestablished polygamy at Munster, and murdered or drove from their\nhomes all who dared to oppose the odious custom. Other Protestants\nfollowed his example.\n\nOn the 19th of December, 1539, at Wittenberg, Luther and Melanchthon\ndrew up the famous \"Consilium,\" authorizing the landgrave, Philip\nof Hesse, to have a plurality of wives. This instrument bears\nthe signatures of Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer,\nDionysius Melander, John Lening, Antony Corvinus, Adam Kraft, Justus\nWinther, and Balthasar Raida, nine of the leading Protestant divines\nof Germany.\n\nIt is a well-known fact that Luther advised Henry VIII. to adopt\npolygamy in his case, but by divorcing two wives, and murdering two\nmore, the founder of the English church avoided it.\n\nThe advocacy of polygamy by the chief Reformers prevented Ferdinand\nI. from declaring for the Reformation. The German princes, too,\ngenerally opposed it; and this opposition, coupled with the fact that\nthe most licentious sects espoused it, finally caused a reaction in\nfavor of monogamy.\n\nProtestants, it ill became you to point the finger of scorn at the\nMormons of Utah. Yet with characteristic consistency you were demanding\nthe suppression of polygamy in the territories, while at the same time\nyou were endeavoring to have the whole country accept as infallible\nauthority a book which sanctions the pernicious custom. Make the Bible\nthe fundamental law of the land, as you demand, and polygamy will\nbecome, in theory at least, a national instead of a local institution.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nADULTERY--OBSCENITY.\n\n\nAdultery.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it sanctions\nadultery and prostitution.\n\nAdultery is made prominent by the recital of the numerous adulteries\nof Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Judah, Samson, David, and other Bible saints,\nand sanctified by the approved adulteries of Abraham and Jacob.\n\nBoth Abraham and Isaac were willing to sell the virtue of their wives\nto save themselves from harm.\n\nTwo instances are recorded of fathers having offered their own\ndaughters to gratify the lust of a sensual mob, and these abominable\nacts are represented as especially meritorious. Read the nineteenth\nchapter of Genesis and the nineteenth chapter of Judges; dwell upon\nthe eighth verse of the former and the twenty-fourth verse of the\nlatter; and then, if you can indorse the spirit of these narratives,\nyou are unfit to be the parent of a daughter.\n\nThe Mosaic law authorizes a father to sell his daughter for a concubine\nor mistress (euphemistically translated \"maid servant\"). God's\ninstructions respecting the thirty-two thousand captive Midianite\nmaidens impliedly sanction concubinage and prostitution.\n\nThese Bible teachings have been the cause of countless outrages\nagainst the chastity of woman. John Wesley says:\n\n\"Almost all the soldiers in the Christian world ... have claimed,\nmore especially in time of war, another kind of liberty: that of\nborrowing the wives and daughters of the men that fell into their\nhands\" (Wesley's Miscellaneous Works, Vol. III., p. 117).\n\nLuther, drawing his morality from the Bible, gave concubinage his\nindorsement:\n\n\"There is nothing unusual in princes keeping concubines; and although\nthe lower orders may not perceive the excuses of the thing, the more\nintelligent know how to make allowance\" (Consilium).\n\nLuther might with equal truthfulness have said, \"There is nothing\nunusual in priests and preachers keeping concubines,\" and he might have\nhelped to confirm it by a few leaves from his own private history. In a\nletter to his confidential friend, Spalatin, he confessed to numerous\nadulteries.\n\nGod instructs his prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute. He subsequently\ncommands him to love and hire an adulteress (Hosea i, 2, 3; iii, 1, 2).\n\nChrist forgave the woman taken in adultery, while his favorite female\ncompanion was a reformed (?) prostitute. Referring to his female\nancestors, Dr. Alexander Walker, a Christian, says:\n\n\"It is remarkable that in the genealogy of Christ only four women\nhave been named: Tamar, who seduced the father of her late husband;\nRachab, a common prostitute; Ruth, who, instead of marrying one of her\ncousins, went to bed with another of them, and Bathsheba, an adultress,\nwho espoused David, the murderer of her husband\" (Woman, p. 330).\n\nThe early Christians were notorious for their adulteries. Dr. Cave, in\nhis \"Primitive Christianity\" (Part II., ch. v), says it was commonly\ncharged \"that the Christians knew one another by certain privy marks\nand signs, and were wont to be in love almost before they knew one\nanother; that they exercised lust and filthiness under a pretense\nof religion, promiscuously calling themselves brothers and sisters,\nthat by the help of so sacred a name their common adulteries might\nbecome incestuous.\"\n\nOf the Carpocratians, who Dr. Lardner says \"are not accused of\nrejecting any part of the New Testament,\" Dr. Cave says: \"Both men\nand women used to meet at supper (which was called their love-feast),\nwhen after they had loaded themselves with a plentiful meal, to prevent\nall shame, if they had any remaining, they put out the lights, and\nthen promiscuously mixed in filthiness with one another\" (Ibid).\n\nIn his Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul says: \"It is reported commonly\nthat there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not\nso much as named among the gentiles\" (1 Cor. v, 1).\n\nIt is an indisputable fact that the most notorious adulterers are\nthose whose profession makes them most familiar with the teachings\nof the Bible, and compels them to accept its teachings as divine.\n\n\n\nObscenity.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide, and protest against\nits being placed in the hands of the young, because its pages are\ndefiled with obscenity.\n\nAside from thousands of coarse and vulgar expressions contained in it,\nthere are at least a hundred passages so obscene that their appearance\nin any other book would exclude that book from the mails and send\nits publisher to prison. The United States courts have declared\nparts of the Bible to be obscene. There are entire chapters, such as\nthe thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis, that reek with obscenity from\nbeginning to end.\n\nIn proof of the charge of obscenity, I refer you to the following:\nIsaiah xxxvi, 12; Ezek. iv, 12-15; Gen. xix, 30-36; xxx, 1-16; xxxviii;\n2 Kings xviii, 27; Lev. xv, 16-33; Job xl, 16, 17; 1 Kings xiv, 10;\nIsaiah iii, 17.\n\nThat portions of the Bible are obscene and unfit to be read, is\nadmitted even by Christians. Noah Webster, a Protestant, edited an\nexpurgated edition of the Bible. In vindication of his work, he says:\n\n\"Many passages are expressed in language which decency forbids to be\nrepeated in families and in the pulpit.\"\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Embree, Methodist, of Kansas, in a speech before the\nTopeka School Board advocating the reading of Bible selections in\nthe public schools of that city, recently said:\n\n\"I would not want the Bible read indiscriminately. I think some of\nit unfit to be read by any one.\"\n\nThe Rev. Father Maguire, Catholic, in his debate with the\nRev. Mr. Greg, at Dublin, gave utterance to the following:\n\n\"I beg of you not to continue such a practice; it is disreputable. I\nwill ask Mr. Greg a question (and I beg of you, my brethren of the\nProtestant church, to bear this in mind), I will ask him if he dare\nto take up the Bible and read from the book of Genesis the fact of\nOnan--I ask him will he read that? Will he read the fact relative to\nLot and his two daughters? Will he read these and many other passages\nwhich I could point out to him in the Holy Bible, which I would not\ntake one thousand guineas, nay, all the money in the world, and read\nthem here to-day?\"\n\nRichard Lalor Shiel, M. P., and Privy Counselor to the Queen,\nthus wrote:\n\n\"Part of the Holy Writings consist of history, and the narration of\nfacts of a kind that cannot be mentioned in the presence of a virtuous\nwoman without exciting horror. Shall a woman be permitted to read in\nher chamber what she would tremble to hear at her domestic board? Shall\nshe con over and revolve what she would rather die than utter?\"\n\nAnd if unfit for the perusal of a matured woman, shall innocent\nchildhood be polluted by these vile, indecent tales?\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\nINTEMPERANCE--VAGRANCY--IGNORANCE.\n\n\nIntemperance.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it fosters the\nevil of intemperance.\n\nWhile the sacred books of Buddhists and Mohammedans, by forbidding\nthe use of intoxicating drinks, have contributed to make drunkenness\namong these people disreputable and rare, the Bible, by encouraging\ntheir use, has made intemperance in Christian countries frightfully\nprevalent and almost respectable.\n\n\"Thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after,\nfor oxen or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink\" (Deut. xiv,\n26).\n\n\"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto\nthose that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink and forget his poverty,\nand remember his misery no more\" (Prov. xxxi, 6,7).\n\n\"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake\"\n(1 Tim. v, 23).\n\n\"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry\nheart, for God now accepteth thy works\" (Eccles. ix, 7).\n\n\"Corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids\"\n(Zech. ix, 17).\n\n\"They shall plant vineyards and drink the wine thereof\" (Amos ix, 14).\n\n\"Wine that maketh glad the heart of man\" (Ps. civ, 15).\n\n\"Wine which cheereth God and man\" (Jud. ix, 13).\n\n\"In the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto\nthe Lord for a drink offering\" (Num. xxviii, 7).\n\nWill that wing of the Prohibition army which accepts the Bible as\nits guide inscribe these texts upon its banner?\n\nAs a reward for the Jews keeping the judgments of the Lord he was to\nbless their wine (Deut. vii, 13).\n\nLiberal giving to the Lord was to be rewarded with an abundance\nof wine.\n\n\"Honor the Lord with thy substance, and with the first fruits of all\nthine increase: so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy\npresses shall burst out with new wine\" (Prov. iii, 9, 10).\n\nOne of the most direful calamities was a wine famine.\n\n\"Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, all ye drinkers of wine,\nbecause of the new wine; for it is cut off from your mouth.... The\ndrink offering is cut off from the house of the Lord; the priests,\nthe Lord's ministers, mourn.... Gird yourselves and lament, ye priests\nhowl, ye ministers of the altar; come, lie all night in sackcloth,\nye ministers of my God; for ... the drink offering is withholden from\nthe house of your God\" (Joel i, 5, 9, 13).\n\nGod's especial favorites had a weakness for wine. When he drowned\nthe world's inhabitants he saved Noah, knowing that as soon as the\nwaters subsided he would plant a vineyard, make wine, and become\nintoxicated. When Sodom was destroyed the only righteous man he\nfound was that foul drunkard, Lot. When David made his celebrated\nfeast in honor of the Lord he gave to every man and woman a flagon\nof wine. He kept some for himself and so merry did his heart become\nthat he \"danced before the Lord with all his might.\"\n\nThus joyously sings Solomon: \"I have drunk my wine with my milk [milk\npunch]; eat, O friends! drink, yea, drink abundantly.\" In the morning\nhe sings another song: \"Open to me ... my love ... for my head is\nfilled with dew.\" How many a wayward fellow like Solomon has risen\nfrom the gutter, sorrowfully wended his way home, and serenaded his\nsleeping spouse with that same melody!\n\nWhen Solomon erected his temple to God he gave to his laborers \"twenty\nthousand baths [nearly 175,000 gallons] of wine\" (2 Chron. ii, 10).\n\nThe Nazarite, it is claimed, was commanded to abstain from wine. Yes,\nbut only during the period of his separation. \"After that the Nazarite\nmay drink wine\" (Num. vi, 20).\n\nGod commanded Jeremiah to tempt with wine those who abstained from\nits use:\n\n\"Go unto the house of the Rechabites and speak with them, and bring\nthem into the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers, and give\nthem wine to drink\" (Jer. xxxv, 2).\n\nChrist spoke as follows:\n\n\"John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine.... The\nSon of Man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous\nman and a winebibber\" (Luke, vii, 33, 34).\n\nThis censure was evidently not unmerited. The first act in Christ's\nministerial career was to manufacture three barrels of wine for\na wedding feast; his last recorded act was a benediction upon the\nwine cup.\n\nTheology being no longer in demand, the Protestant clergy, contrary\nto the teachings of the Bible, and the traditions of the church, now\nfind it popular and profitable to espouse the cause of temperance. But\nin championing one rational virtue they employ two Christian vices,\nhypocrisy and intolerance. The most inconsistent, the most uncharitable\nopponents of the liquor traffic to-day are these fresh converts who\nprofess to be doing their master's will and who claim that his Word\nis the advocate of total abstinence and prohibitory laws. With fierce\ninvective they declaim against the old God Bacchus, yet every anathema\nthey hurl at him will apply with equal justice to their God and Christ.\n\nOne of the most unscrupulous arguments ever adduced in support\nof any cause is that now advanced by some Christian temperance\nadvocates to the effect that the wine sanctioned in the Bible was\nnot intoxicating. With the same ease that they declare that in the\nBible \"black\" means \"white,\" that \"hate\" means \"love,\" and \"day\"\nmeans \"age,\" they declare that Bible wine does not mean wine, but\nunfermented grape juice.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. W. M. Thompson, Rev. William Wright, Rev. S. H. Calhoun,\nRev. C. V. A. Van Dyke, and other able Hebrew and Sanscrit scholars\nof Western Asia, who have made the history and customs of its people\nboth ancient and modern a life study, affirm that such a thing as\nnon-intoxicating wine was unknown, that the unfermented juice of the\ngrape was never recognized as wine. Dr. Philip Schaff, the foremost\nBible scholar of this country, affirms the same:\n\n\"The wine of the Bible was no doubt pure and unadulterated.... It was\ngenuine and real wine, and, like all wine in use in grape-growing\ncountries, exhilarating. To lay down the principle that the use of\nintoxicating drink as a beverage is a sin--per se--is to condemn the\ngreater part of Christendom, to contradict the Bible, and to impeach\nChrist himself, who drank wine and made wine by miracle to supply\nthe marriage guests.\"\n\nAt the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church held at Belfast,\nIreland, in 1870, an exhaustive examination and discussion was given\nthis subject. The result was the adoption by an almost unanimous\nvote of the following resolution offered by the Rev. Robert Wales,\nProfessor of Dialectic Theology, Belfast:\n\n\"As the wine used in the oblations of the Old Testament time at the\nPassover and by our Lord Jesus Christ himself in the institution of the\nsupper was the ordinary wine of the country, that is, the fermented\njuice of the grape, we cannot sanction the use of the unfermented\njuice of the grape as a symbol in the ordinance.\"\n\nThat the sacramental wine used by the early Christians was\nintoxicating, and that they were addicted to using it to excess at\nthe Lord's Supper, is admitted by Paul (1 Cor. xi, 20-34).\n\nReferring to this subject, the Christian Register says: \"We deplore\nintemperance, and welcome every truthful argument against it, but the\nargument founded on the non-intoxicating character of Bible wine is\na weak and diluted fallacy.\"\n\n\n\nVagrancy.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it encourages\npoverty and vagrancy.\n\nJesus Christ was the panegyrist of poverty and the promoter of\nvagrancy:\n\n\"Blessed be ye poor\" (Luke vi, 20).\n\n\"But woe unto you that are rich\" (Luke vi, 24).\n\n\"A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven\" (Matt. xix,\n23).\n\n\"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for\na rich man to enter into the kingdom of God\" (Mark x, 25).\n\n\"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth\" (Matt. vi, 19).\n\nWhen the judicious use of wealth is promotive of human happiness,\nand when poverty is the source of so much misery and crime, such\nteachings are not only false, but pernicious.\n\n\"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall\ndrink; nor yet for your body what ye shall put on.... Behold the\nfowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather\ninto barns.... And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the\nlilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they\nspin.... Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or,\nWhat shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?... The\nmorrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto\nthe day is the evil thereof\" (Matt. vi, 25-34).\n\nTo-day our land is infested with an army of tramps. Their skirmishers\nare deployed along every highway; their points of attack are the\nkitchen and the haymow; their text-book on military science is the\nSermon on the Mount. \"They sow not, neither do they reap;\" \"They toil\nnot, neither do they spin.\" They beg and steal. These are Christ's\nfollowers--the truest followers he has on earth to-day.\n\nIn the streets of our cities we see men clad in rags, idle, and\ndrunken, and penniless. We see them arrested for vagrancy, thrust into\nprison, or made to labor for their bread. These are Christ's martyrs.\n\nPoor tramp and vagrant! How you are \"persecuted for righteousness'\nsake!\" Men despise you; the farmer drives you from his door; the social\neconomist racks his brain to devise a plan for your suppression;\nstate governments legislate against you; everywhere you are treated\nas an outcast--and all because, taking the Bible for your guide,\nyou endeavor faithfully to conform to its teachings.\n\n\n\nIgnorance.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it condemns\nthe use of reason and the acquisition of knowledge.\n\n\"Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat\nof it\" (Gen. ii, 17).\n\n\"She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her\nhusband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were\nopened\" (iii, 6, 7).\n\n\"Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden\" (23).\n\n\"He that believeth not shall be damned\" (Mark xvi, 16).\n\nFor partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, our parents\nwere banished from Paradise; for obeying the dictates of reason,\nwe are consigned to hell.\n\nEducation, physical, moral, and intellectual, is discouraged.\n\nBodily exercise profiteth little.--Paul.\n\nBe not righteous overmuch.--Solomon.\n\nNeither make thyself over wise.--Solomon.\n\nChoice mottoes, the above, to hang up on the walls of the school-room!\n\n\"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy\" (Col. ii, 8).\n\n\"Knowledge puffeth up\" (1 Cor. viii, 1).\n\n\"Thy wisdom and thy knowledge it hath perverted thee\" (Isa. xlvii, 10).\n\n\"I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly; I\nperceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom\nis much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow\"\n(Ecles. i, 17, 18).\n\n\"If any man be ignorant let him be ignorant\" (1 Cor. xiv, 38).\n\n\"The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God\" (1 Cor. iii, 19).\n\n\"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge\" (Prov. i, 7).\n\nThe fear of the Lord is the beginning of ignorance. This fear has\nkept the world in intellectual bondage. It is a flaming sword that\npriestcraft has placed in every highway of learning to frighten back\nthe timid searchers after truth.\n\n\"The clergy, with a few honorable exceptions,\" says Buckle, \"have\nin all modern countries been the avowed enemies of the diffusion of\nknowledge, the danger of which to their own profession they, by a\ncertain instinct, seem always to have perceived.\"\n\nThe Bible, and the religion emanating from it, are the fruitful\nparents of ignorance and idiocy. They demand a sacrifice of the very\nattribute which exalts the man of sense above the idiot; they bid him\npluck out the eyes of Reason, and in their place insert the sightless\nballs of Faith.\n\n\"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians,\" says Luther\n(L. Ungedr. Pred. Bru., p. 106).\n\n\"One destitute of reason,\" is a phrase employed by Webster to define\nthe word \"fool.\"\n\n\"We are fools for Christ's sake,\" exclaims Paul (1 Cor. iv, 10).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\nINJUSTICE TO WOMEN--UNKINDNESS TO CHILDREN--CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.\n\n\nInjustice to Women.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it has degraded\nwoman.\n\nThe holy offices of wife and mother it covers with reproach. Its\nteachings carried out, as they were during the centuries of Christian\nrule, leave woman but two paths in which to tread--the one leading into\nslavery, the other into exile. Servitude in the house of a husband,\nor self-banishment into a convent--these are the sad alternatives\npresented for her choice.\n\n\"Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee\"\n(Gen. iii, 16).\n\n\"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands\" (Col. iii, 18).\n\n\"As the church is subject unto Christ so let the wives be to their\nown husbands in everything\" (Eph. v, 24).\n\n\"Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted\nunto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience,\nas also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask\ntheir husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in\nthe church\" (1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35).\n\n\"Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.... For after this\nmanner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God,\nadorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands; even\nas Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord\" (1 Peter iii, 1-6).\n\n\"Let woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not\na woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be\nin silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not\ndeceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression\"\n(1 Tim. ii, 11-14).\n\nOh! the unspeakable outrage that woman has suffered because of that\nold Jewish fable!\n\nThe teachings of the Bible respecting marriage are an insult to\nevery married woman. Christ discouraged marriage (Matt. xix, 10-12),\nwhile a more despicable dissertation on marriage than Paul gives in\nthe seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians was never penned.\n\nIn contracting matrimonial alliances, woman's rights and choice are\nnot consulted. The father does his daughter's courting, and sells\nor gives her to whom he pleases. A father is even allowed to sell\nhis daughter for a slave (Ex. xxi, 7). In the Decalogue the wife is\nclassed with slaves and cattle as a mere chattel.\n\nKidnapping is commanded for the purpose of obtaining wives.\n\n\"Therefore they [God's priests] commanded the children of Benjamin,\nsaying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; and see, and, behold, if\nthe daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out\nof the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters\nof Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.... And the children of\nBenjamin did so, and took them wives according to their number of\nthem that danced whom they caught\" (Jud. xxi, 20-23).\n\nThe Levitical law makes motherhood a sin that can be expiated only\nby offering a sin offering at the birth of every child. The degree\nof sinfulness depends upon the sex of the child; giving birth to\na daughter being esteemed a greater sin than giving birth to a son\n(Lev. xii).\n\nThe laws of the Bible in regard to divorce are most unjust. A husband\nis permitted to divorce his wife if she displease him, while a wife\nis not allowed to obtain a divorce for any cause whatever.\n\n\"When a man hath taken a wife, and marries her, and it come to pass\nthat she find no favor in his eyes, ... then let him write her a bill\nof divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house\"\n(Deut. xxiv, 1).\n\n\"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord\nthy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken\nthem captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and\nhast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; then\nthou shalt bring her home to thine house.... And it shall be, if thou\nhave no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will\"\n(Deut. xxi, 10-14).\n\nWives were compelled to suffer outrage for the sins of their husbands.\n\n\"Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out\nof thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes,\nand give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in\nthe sight of this sun\" (2 Sam. xii, 11).\n\n\"Their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished\" (Is. xiii,\n16).\n\n\"I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the\ncity shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished\"\n(Zech. xiv, 2).\n\n\"Let their wives be bereaved of their children and be widows\"\n(Jer. xviii, 21).\n\nThe teachings of the Bible have been used by the church to keep woman\nin a subordinate position.\n\n\"There is not a more cruel chapter in history,\" says Dr. Moncure\nD. Conway, \"than that which records the arrest by Christianity of the\nnatural growth of European civilization regarding woman. In Germany\nit found woman participating in the legislative assembly, and sharing\nthe interests and counsels of man, and drove her out and away.... Even\nmore fatal was the overthrow of woman's position in Rome. Read the\nterrible facts as stated by Gibbon, by Milman, and Sir Henry Maine;\nread and ponder them, and you will see the tremendous wrong that\nChristianity did to woman.\"\n\nEven the priceless virtue of chastity, in the name of law and in the\nname of the Bible, was trampled under foot. Mrs. Gage, in \"Woman,\nChurch, and State,\" says:\n\n\"Women were taught by the church and state alike that the feudal lord,\nor seigneur, had a right to them, not only against themselves, but as\nagainst any claim of husband or father. The law known as Marchetta,\nor Marquette, compelled newly-married women to a most dishonorable\nservitude. They were regarded as the rightful prey of the feudal\nlord from one to three days after their marriage.... France, Germany,\nPrussia, England, Scotland, and all Christian countries where feudalism\nexisted, held to the enforcement of Marquette.\"\n\nRespecting this law, Michelet writes: \"The lords spiritual had this\nright no less than the lords temporal. The parson, being a lord,\nexpressly claimed the first fruits of the bride\" (La Sorcerie,\npage 62).\n\nIn this country, while the most illiterate and depraved man is\nclothed with the rights of a sovereign, the noblest woman is held in\na subordinate position; and from the Bible, priests and politicians\nhave procured the chains that hold her in subjection.\n\nReferring to the Bible, America's greatest woman, Elizabeth Cady\nStanton, says: \"I know of no other books that so fully teach the\nsubjection and degradation of woman\" (Eighty Years and More).\n\nBrave Helen Gardener says: \"Every injustice that has ever been fastened\nupon women in a Christian country has been 'authorized by the Bible'\nand riveted and perpetuated by the pulpit\" (Men, Women, and Gods,\npage 14).\n\n\"Women are indebted to-day for their emancipation from a position of\nhopeless degradation, not to their religion nor to Jehovah, but to the\njustice and honor of the men who have defied his commandments. That\nshe does not crouch to-day where St. Paul tried to bind her, she\nowes to the men who are grand and brave enough to ignore St. Paul,\nand rise superior to his God\" (Ibid, page 30).\n\nGeorge W. Foote of England says it will yet be the proud boast of\nwoman that she never contributed a line to the Bible.\n\n\n\nUnkindness to Children.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because its teachings\nrespecting the treatment of children are cruel and unjust.\n\nIt advocates the use of corporal punishment for children.\n\n\"Thou shalt beat him with the rod\" (Prov. xxiii, 14).\n\n\"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with\nthe rod he shall not die\" (Ibid xxiii, 13).\n\n\"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of\ncorrection shall drive it far from him\" (Ibid xxii, 15).\n\n\"The rod and reproof give wisdom\" (Ibid xxix, 15).\n\nIt advocates capital punishment for children:\n\n\"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey\nthe voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him will\nnot hearken unto them; then shall his father and his mother lay hold\non him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the\ngate of his place.... And all the men of the city shall stone him\nwith stones that he die\" (Deut. xxi, 18, 19, 21).\n\nIt advocates the indiscriminate and merciless slaughter of little\nchildren:\n\n\"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes\"\n(Isa. xiii, 16).\n\n\"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God;\nthey shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces\"\n(Hosea xiii, 16).\n\n\"As he [Elisha] was going up by the way, there came forth little\nchildren out of the city, and mocked him.... And he turned back,\nand looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And\nthere came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and\ntwo children of them\" (2 Kings ii, 23, 24).\n\nIt advocates the punishment of children for the misdeeds of their\nparents.\n\n\"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the\nfathers upon the children\" (Ex. xx, 5).\n\n\"I will stir up the Medes against them, ... their eye shall not spare\nchildren\" (Isa. xiii, 17, 18).\n\n\"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your\nchildren\" (Lev. xxvi, 22).\n\nDavid prays that the children of his adversaries may become vagabonds\nand beggars; and Jeremiah, that the children of his enemies may perish\nby famine.\n\nGod kills Bath-sheba's child:\n\n\"And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bore unto David,\nand it was very sick.... And it came to pass on the seventh day that\nthe child died\" (2 Sam. xii, 15-18).\n\nPoor babe! tortured and murdered for its parents' crime!\n\n\n\nCruelty to Animals.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it sanctions\nand enjoins unkindness and cruelty to animals.\n\nPortions of the Old Testament, and particularly those relating to\nsacrifices, are calculated to foster a spirit of brutality, and\na total disregard for animal life. God revels in the blood of the\ninnocent. The offering of fruits made by Cain is rejected by him;\nthe bloody sacrifice of Abel is accepted.\n\nNearly the entire book of Leviticus is devoted to such laws as these:\n\n\"If he offer a lamb for his offering, then shall he offer it before\nthe Lord. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering,\nand kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation; and Aaron's\nsons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar\"\n(Lev. iii, 7, 8).\n\n\"And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the Lord be of\nfowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtle-doves, or of young\npigeons. And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off\nhis head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be\nwrung out at the side of the altar\" (Lev. i, 14, 15).\n\nThe minutest directions for conducting these bloody sacrifices come\nfrom the lips of Jehovah himself, and are too brutal and disgusting\nto repeat.\n\nThe number of animals sacrificed was incredible. At times whole\nherds were killed. On one occasion Asa sacrificed 700 oxen and 7,000\nsheep. David made an offering of 1,000 bullocks and 2,000 sheep. At\nthe dedication of the temple, 142,000 domestic beasts were sacrificed\nby Solomon.\n\nAnd this wholesale slaughter of innocent animals, we are told, was\nhighly pleasing to the Lord. But\n\n\n \"What was his high pleasure in\n The fumes of scorching flesh and smoking blood,\n To the pain of the bleating mothers, which\n Still yearned for their dead offspring? or the pangs\n Of the sad ignorant victim underneath\n The pious knife?\"\n\n --Byron.\n\n\nA God of mercy, it would seem, ought to protect the weaker orders of\nhis creation; but the God of the Bible manifests an utter disregard\nfor them. When the being created in his own image proved too true a\ncopy, and he wished to destroy it, he sent a deluge, \"and all flesh\ndied that moved upon the earth.\" To wreak his vengeance upon Pharaoh,\nhe visited with disease and death his unoffending cattle. In times of\nwar, he ordered his followers to \"slay both man and beast.\" Saul's\ngreat transgression, the chief cause of his dethronement and death,\nwas that he saved alive some sheep and oxen instead of killing them\nas God desired. David and Joshua, God's favorite warriors, houghed the\nhorses of their enemies, and thus disabled turned them loose to die.\n\nWe teach a child that it is wrong to rob the nests of birds. It opens\nthe Bible and reads:\n\n\"If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree,\nor on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam\nsitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the\ndam with the young; but thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and\ntake the young to thee\" (Deut. xxii, 6, 7).\n\nThroughout Christendom \"man's inhumanity to man\" is only equaled by his\ncruelty to the inferior animals. The Buddhist, who has not the Bible\nfor his guide, considers it a sin to harm the meanest creature. Even\nthe savage kills only what he needs for food, or such as threaten him\nwith danger. But the Christian, whose Bible gives him dominion over\nthe beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, maims and murders\nin pure wantonness, and after years of patient service, even turns\nhis beast of burden out to die of hunger and neglect.\n\nFor the sake of these dumb creatures, would that our world had less\ntheology, and more humanity; had fewer Moodys, and more Henry Berghs!\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\nTYRANNY--INTOLERANCE.\n\n\nTyranny.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because it enjoins\nsubmission to tyrants.\n\n\"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, ... whether it be to\nthe king as supreme; or unto governors\" (1 Pet. ii, 13).\n\n\"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no\npower but of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth\nthe ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves\ndamnation\" (Rom. xiii, 1, 2).\n\nAnd these sentiments were uttered when a Nero sat upon the throne--when\nPalestine was being crushed beneath the iron heel of despotism--when\nbrave and patriotic men were struggling for freedom.\n\nThe Bible has ever been the bulwark of tyranny. When the oppressed\nmillions of France were endeavoring to throw off their yoke--when\nthe Washingtons, the Franklins, the Paines, and the Jeffersons were\ncontending for American liberty--craven priests stood up in the pulpit,\nopened this book, and gravely read: \"The powers that be are ordained\nof God; they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.\"\n\nIn the American Revolution every Tory was a Christian, and nearly\nevery orthodox Christian was a Tory. Writing in 1777, John Wesley says:\n\n\"I have just received two letters from New York.... They inform me\nthat all the Methodists there were firm for the government, and on\nthat account persecuted by the rebels\" (Wesley's Miscellaneous Works,\nVol. III., page 410).\n\nReferring to our Revolutionary fathers, Robert Dale Owen says:\n\n\"I know not what the private opinions of those sturdy patriots were,\nwho, in the old Philadelphia State House, appended their signatures\nto the immortal document. But this I do know, that when they did so,\nit was in defiance of the Bible; it was in direct violation of the\nlaw of the New Testament.\n\n\"If a Being who cannot lie penned the Bible, then George Washington\nand every soldier who drew sword in the Republic's armies for liberty\nexpiate, at this moment, in hell-fire, the punishment of their ungodly\nstrife! There, too, John Hancock and every patriot whose name stands\nto America's Title Deed, have taken their places with the devil and\nhis angels! All resisted the power; all, unless God lie, have received\nto themselves damnation\" (Bacheler-Owen Debate, Vol. II., page 230).\n\nFrom the first century to the twentieth--from Paul to Leo--these Bible\nteachings have dominated the Christian world. Of the early Christian\nFathers, Lecky writes:\n\n\"The teaching of the early Fathers on the subject is perfectly\nunanimous and unequivocal. Without a single exception, all who touched\nupon the subject pronounced active resistance to the established\nauthorities to be under all circumstances sinful\" (Rationalism in\nEurope, Vol. II., page 136).\n\nJeremy Taylor, one of the greatest of modern divines, speaking not\nfor himself alone, but for all Christians, says:\n\n\"The matter of Scripture being so plain that it needs no\ninterpretation, the practice and doctrine of the church, which is\nusually the best commentary, is now but of little use in a case so\nplain; yet this also is as plain in itself, and without any variety,\ndissent, or interruption universally agreed upon, universally practiced\nand taught, that, let the powers set over us be what they will,\nwe must suffer it and never right ourselves\" (Ductor Dubitantium,\nBook III., chapter iii).\n\nThis has been the chief cause of Christian triumph and Christian\nsupremacy. It has secured for the church the adherence and support\nof every tyrant in Christendom. Thomas Jefferson truly says:\n\n\"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to\nliberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses\nin return for protection to his own.\"\n\nWriting of his country and his country's church, Macaulay says:\n\n\"The Church of England continued to be for more than 150 years the\nservile handmaid of monarchy, the steady enemy of public liberty. The\ndivine right of kings and the duty of passively obeying all their\ncommands were her favorite tenets. She held these tenets firmly through\ntimes of oppression, persecution, and licentiousness, while law was\ntrampled down, while judgment was perverted, while the people were\neaten as though they were bread\" (Essays, Vol. I., page 60).\n\n\n\nIntolerance.\n\nI refuse to accept the Bible as a moral guide because its teachings\nhave filled the world with intolerance and persecution.\n\n\"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter,\nor the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul,\nentice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which\nthou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers: namely, of the gods of the\npeople which are round about you [that is, accept another religion]\n... thou shalt not consent unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him;\nneither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him; but thou\nshalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him\nto death, and afterwards the hand of all the people\" (Deut. xiii, 6-9).\n\nKill your friend, kill your brother, kill your wife, kill your child,\nfor accepting another religious belief!\n\nDid a merciful God inspire this prayer?\n\n\"Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his\nchildren be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be\ncontinually vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of\ntheir desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and\nlet the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy\nunto him; neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children\"\n(Ps. cix, 8-12).\n\n\"In the literature of the world there is nothing more heartless,\nmore infamous, than the 109th Psalm.\"--Ingersoll.\n\nLet me quote from the New Testament:\n\n\"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that\nbelieveth not shall be damned\" (Mark xvi, 16).\n\n\"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire\" (Matt. xxv, 41).\n\n\"These shall go away into everlasting punishment\" (Matt. xxv, 46).\n\n\"Cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched\" (Mark\nix, 45).\n\nThese passages ought to consign to everlasting abhorrence the being\nwho uttered them, the book containing them, and the church indorsing\nthem. This dogma of endless punishment is the dogma of fiends,\nthe most infamous dogma that human lips have ever breathed! What\nneedless terror it has inspired! What misery it has caused! Think\nof the millions of innocent children whose young lives it has filled\nwith gloom! This horrible nightmare of hell has strewn the pathway of\nchildhood with thorns where flowers should have been made to bloom;\nit has filled the minds of children with fear and made them wretched\nwhen their hearts should have been filled with joy; it has robbed\nhome of wife and mother, it has driven thousands of pure and loving\nwomen to madness and despair. I had rather trace my descent to the\ntiger or hyena than to the creation of a God who dooms his creatures\nto eternal pain; and the time will come when the remembrance of the\ntheologians who have taught this hideous lie will provoke more shame\nand pity than the ancestral apes do now.\n\n\"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive\nhim not into your house\" (2 John i, 10).\n\nAmid the storms of a winter night, a traveler, perishing with cold\nand hunger, knocks at your door and begs for food and shelter. You\ninterrogate him as to his religious belief, and finding that he is\nnot a member of your church you forbid him to enter. In the morning\nwhen you discover his lifeless body by the roadside, how impressed\nyou will be with the transcendent beauty of Bible morals!\n\nPaul preached a sermon on charity, and then wrote to the Galatians\nas follows:\n\n\"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have\nreceived, let him be accursed\" (Gal. i, 9).\n\nFrom the same pen, too, came this sneaking, infamous hint:\n\n\"I would they were even cut off which trouble you\" (Gal. v, 12).\n\nWhat ghastly fruits these teachings have produced! We see earth\ncovered with the yellow bones of murdered heretics and scholars; we\nsee the persecutions and butcheries of Constantine, of Theodosius,\nof Clovis, of Justinian, and of Charlemagne; we see the Crusades,\nin which nearly twenty millions perish; we see the followers\nof Godfrey in Jerusalem--see the indiscriminate massacre of men,\nwomen, and children--see the mosques piled seven deep with murdered\nSaracens--the Jews burnt in their synagogues; we see Coeur de Lion\nslaughter in cold blood thousands of captive Saracens; we see the\nFranks in Constantinople, plundering, ravishing, murdering; we see\nthe Moors expelled from Spain; we see the murder of the Huguenots\nand Waldenses--the slaughter of German peasants--the desolation\nof Ireland--Holland covered with blood; we witness Smithfield and\nBartholomew; we see the Inquisition with its countless instruments\nof fiendish cruelty; we see the Auto-da-f\u00e9, where heretics, clad in\nmockery, are led to torture and to death; we see men stretched upon\nthe rack, disjointed, and torn limb from limb; we see them flayed\nalive--their bleeding bodies seared with red-hot irons; we see them\ncovered with pitch and oil and set on fire; we see them hurled headlong\nfrom towers to the stony streets below; we see them buried alive; we\nsee them hanged and quartered; we see their eyes bored out with heated\naugers--their tongues torn out--their bones broken with hammers--their\nbodies pierced with a thousand needles; we see aged women tied to the\nheels of fiery steeds--see their mangled and bleeding bodies dragged\nwith lightning speed over the frozen earth; we see new-born babes\nflung into the flames to perish with their mothers, or with their\nmothers sewed in sacks and sunk into the sea; in short, on every hand,\nas a result of this book's teachings, we see hate, torture, death!\n\nBut, thanks to the brave Infidels who have gone before, you, Bible\nmoralists, can use these instruments of cruelty to silence heretics\nto Christianity no more.\n\n\n \"Where are the hands which once for this foul creed,\n 'Mid flame and torture, made an Atheist bleed?\n Gone--like the powers your fathers used so well\n To send souls heavenward through the flames of hell.\n And you, poor palsied creatures! you, ere long,\n With them thrice cursed shall swell Gehenna's throng.\n Your God is dead; your heaven a hope bewrayed;\n Your hell a by-word, and your creed a trade;\n Your vengeance--what? A mere polluting touch--\n cripple striking with a broken crutch!\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nTwenty crimes and vices--lying, cheating, stealing, murder, wars of\nconquest, human sacrifices, cannibalism, witchcraft, slavery, polygamy,\nadultery, obscenity, intemperance, vagrancy ignorance, injustice\nto woman, unkindness to children, cruelty to animals, tyranny,\npersecution--are, we have seen, sanctioned by the Bible. Scattering\nthis book broadcast over the land, making it the chief text-book of\nthe Sunday-school and, above all, placing it in our public schools\nand compelling our youth to accept it as infallible authority,\nis a monstrous wrong; and you who advocate it are the enemies\nof virtue and the promoters of vice. James Anthony Froude says:\n\"Considering all the heresies, the enormous crimes, the wickedness,\nthe astounding follies, which the Bible has been made to justify,\nand which its indiscriminate reading has suggested; considering that\nit has been, indeed, the sword which our Lord said he was sending,\nand that not the devil himself could have invented an implement more\npotent to fill the hated world with lies and blood and fury, I think\ncertainly that to send hawkers over the world loaded with copies of\nthis book, scattering it in all places, among all persons, ... is\nthe most culpable folly of which it is possible for man to be guilty.\"\n\nThere are within the lids of this Bible a hundred chapters sanctioning\nthe bloodiest deeds in all the annals of crime; and this is the book\nyou wish to place in the hands of our sons! There are within the\nlids of this Bible a hundred chapters which no modest woman can read\nwithout her cheek becoming tinged with the blush of shame; and this\nis the book you wish to place in the hands of our daughters! If you\ndelight to feast upon such carrion you have the right to do so, but\nyou have no right to thrust it down the throats of your neighbors. As\na Liberal, I concede to the Christian cuckoo the right to propagate\nher species; but I protest against her laying her eggs in the secular\nnest and having them hatched by the state.\n\nI contend that the Bible does not present an infallible moral\nstandard, and I have given many valid reasons why it does not. I\nexpect the defenders of this book to complete the task that I have here\nessayed. They will claim that the Bible is opposed to crime. They will,\nno doubt, cite numerous passages in confirmation of this claim. Let\nthem do this. Then place the results of our labors side by side. This\nwill show that the Bible abounds with teachings that conflict. This\nfact established, the dogma of its divinity must fall. And this is what\nI am endeavoring to do--to tear this dogma from the human brain. Not\nuntil this is done can we have a pure morality. So long as men's\nminds are confused and corrupted by these conflicting and demoralizing\nteachings, so long will immorality prevail. You cannot make men moral\nwhile they accept as their moral guide a book which sanctions every\ncrime and presents as the best models of human excellence the most\nnotorious villains. You cannot make them moral by teaching them that a\nlie is better for being called inspired, that a vice becomes a virtue\nwith age, that a dead rogue should be canonized and a live one killed.\n\nNot until this dogma is destroyed can you appreciate what is\nmeritorious in the Bible. There are in it some noble precepts. It\ncontains along with the false much that is true; along with the bad\nmuch that is good; but while you are compelled to accept all--the\ntrue and the false, the good and the bad, as alike infallible, as\nalike divine--it can be of no value to you.\n\nYou may contend that I mistake the meaning of what I have quoted from\nthis book. But the language is too plain to be mistaken. Do not tell\nme that it states one thing and means another. This is, you affirm,\nthe word of your God. Is your God wanting in candor?\n\nSo far as the Bible is concerned, the criminal has as much to\nsupport the justness of his crime as the Christian has to sustain\nthe truthfulness of his creed. The various doctrines of the church\nare not upheld by stronger Scripture proofs than have been cited in\njustification of the crimes that I have named.\n\nBible apologists tell us that it is only in this book that wrongdoers\nconfess and record their sins, and that this is evidence of its\ndivinity. Were this true we might say that the Bible is the only book\nwhose authors are so devoid of shame as to parade their sins. But this\nclaim is not true. It was not the sinners who wrote these accounts\nof their sins any more than it is the criminals to-day who write and\npublish the accounts of their crimes.\n\nBible lands, we are told, are more moral than other lands. This is\nfalse. The morality of Pagan China and Japan, without the Bible,\nis not inferior to that of Christian Europe with it. Modern Europe\nwith its partial rejection of the Bible is superior in morality\nto medieval Europe with its full acceptance of it. The morals of\nthe people have improved in about the same ratio that their faith\nin the book has declined. A further declension of faith will bring\na further improvement in morals. In Christian countries those who\nhave discarded its teachings are morally superior to those who still\naccept them. It is the ignorant who are the most devout believers\nin this book, and it is the ignorant who are the most immoral. The\nintelligence and morality to be found in Christian lands are not the\nresults of Bible teachings, but exist in spite of them.\n\nThat some great and good men have commended the Bible as a moral\nguide is true. These commendations are given wide publicity. But the\ntestimonials of these men are, for the most part, not the result of\ncareful reading and study. They have been inspired by the teachings of\nchildhood, by the sentiment that prevails around them, or by a perusal\nof only the choicest portions of the book. These testimonials, too,\nare mostly from men who, while expressing admiration for many of\nits teachings, do not believe and do not profess to believe in its\ndivinity. Many of these testimonials are forgeries.\n\n\"If you discard the Bible, what,\" asks the Christian, \"will you give\nus as a moral guide?\" Enter a public library blindfolded; take from\nits shelves a volume at random, and you will scarcely select a worse\none. The book you select may not pertain to morals. It may not even\ncontain the word \"moral.\" But neither does the Bible. Must we go to\nthe ignorant past for our morality? Does human experience count for\nnothing? Have the most marvelous advances been made in every other\ndepartment of human knowledge during the past two thousand years\nand none in ethical science? Read Bentham, Mill, and Spencer. Let\nyour children study Count Volney's \"Law of Nature,\" and Miss Wixon's\n\"Right Living.\" These books are not infallible and divine, they are\nfallible and human; but they are immeasurably superior to any books\nthat supernaturalists can offer. Not in Moses nor Jesus, not in the\nDecalogue nor Sermon on the Mount, is there to be found a statement of\nmoral duties so just and so comprehensive as the following from Volney:\n\n\"What do you conclude from all this? I conclude from it that all the\nsocial virtues are only the habitude of actions useful to society\nand to the individual who practices them; that they all refer to the\nphysical object of man's preservation; that nature having implanted\nin us the want of that preservation, has made a law to us of all\nits consequences, and a crime of everything that deviates from it;\nthat we carry in us the seed of every virtue, and of every perfection;\nthat it only requires to be developed that we are only happy inasmuch\nas we observe the rules established by nature for the end of our\npreservation; and that all wisdom, all perfection, all law, all virtue,\nall philosophy, consist in the practice of these axioms founded on\nour own organization:--Preserve thyself; Instruct thyself; Moderate\nthyself; live for thy fellow-men, that they may live for thee.\"\n\nThe Bible moralist would have us believe that from this book all\nmorality has been derived; that God is the author and the Bible the\nrevelation and sole repository of moral laws. But it is not from\nGods and Bibles that these laws have come. In the words of Tyndall,\n\"Not in the way assumed by our dogmatic teachers has the morality of\nhuman nature been propped up. The power that has molded us thus far\nhas worked with stern tools upon a rigid stuff.... That power did\nnot work with delusions, nor will it stay its hands when such are\nremoved. Facts, rather than dogmas, have been its ministers--hunger,\nshame, pride, love, hate, terror, awe--such were the forces, the\ninteraction and adjustment of which during the immeasurable ages of\nhis development wove the triplex web of man's physical, intellectual,\nand moral nature, and such are the forces that will be effectual to\nthe end.\"\n\nAccepting the Bible--not for what it is claimed to be, the word of\nGod, but for what it is, the work of man--I can excuse, in a degree,\nthe crude ideas of right and wrong and the laxity of morals that\nprevailed among the people whose history it purports to record. The\nage in which they lived, the circumstances that surrounded them,\nmust palliate, to some extent, their deeds and theories. But it is\nhumiliating to think that in these better times, illuminated by the\nlight of a glorious civilization, there are those who spurn the robes\nof virtue that Reason in the loom of grave Experience has woven,\nand who from the dark and musty closets of the past drag forth for\nuse the soiled and blood-stained garments that barbarians wore.\n\n\n\nWith this chapter our review of the Bible ends. We have examined\nsuccessively the authenticity of its books, the credibility of its\nstatements, and the morality of its teachings. The authenticity of the\nBible must be abandoned. It will be abandoned, and abandoned soon. Its\ncredibility, impaired by a knowledge of its lack of authenticity and\nthe exposure of its numberless errors, will be contended for awhile\nlonger. But this, in turn, will go. When its credibility has been\ndestroyed, and it is acknowledged to be mostly a volume of fables\nand legends, priestcraft continuing to survive, the clergy, as a\ndernier resort, will descant upon the divine lessons of morality\ntaught by these fables and legends. But the relentless iconoclasts\nof criticism will break this image also, and the Bible as a moral\nguide and religious authority will be laid away forever.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nArguments Against the Divine Origin and in Support of the Human Origin\nof the Bible.\n\n\nA celebrated theologian has used with much ingenuity and effect the\nwatch as an argument in support of the divine origin of the universe. I\nhave a watch. Like other watches it is not infallible. But supposing\nthat I should claim for it infallibility and divinity; that while\nother watches are of human invention and workmanship, this particular\nmake of watches is the work of God. The claim would be deemed too\nabsurd for serious consideration. I would be regarded as a lunatic\nor a jester. Now, it is no more absurd to claim infallibility and\ndivinity for a watch than it is to claim infallibility and divinity for\na book. Yet millions of people of recognized sanity and intelligence\nprofess to believe, and many of them do sincerely believe, that a book\ncalled the Bible is divine. How do we account for this? It is simply\nthe result of centuries of religious education. I could have taken\nmy children and taught them that my watch is divine. Had I kept them\nisolated as far as possible from other people, had I commanded them\nto shun discussion, and forbidden them to reason about it, as the\nclergy do in regard to the Bible, they would probably believe it. I\nwas taught that the Bible is divine. I believed it. But in a fortunate\nhour I listened to the voice of Reason; I examined the claims of its\nadvocates; I read it; and the halo of holiness surrounding the old\nbook vanished.\n\nAs a supplement to my review of the Bible I shall present some\narguments, thirty-six in number, against the divine origin and\nin support of the human origin of the Bible. The brevity and\nincompleteness of many of them will, I admit, justify the conclusion\nnot proven. I have space for little more than a mere statement of\nthem. The evidence supporting them will be found in the preceding\nchapters of this book.\n\nIn a discussion of this question the champion of the Bible is placed\nat a tremendous disadvantage--is handicapped as it were--at the very\ncommencement by this fact: While both the advocates and opponents of\nBible divinity admit that man exists and has written books, it has\nnot been proven that a God even exists, much less that he has written\nor inspired a book. But let us concede, for the sake of argument,\nthat there is a God; that he is all-powerful, all-wise, and all-just;\nand that he can write or inspire a book. Is the Bible the work of\nsuch a Being? It is not. The following are my arguments:\n\n1. Its mechanical construction and appearance. The Bible is printed\nwith type made by man, on paper made by man, and bound in a volume\nby man. In its mechanical construction and appearance it does not\ndiffer from other books.\n\n2. The character of its contents. The contents of this book consist of\nthoughts--human thoughts--every thought bearing unmistakable evidence\nof having emanated from the human mind. There is not a thought\nexpressed in the Bible, the meaning of which can be comprehended,\nthat is beyond the power of man to conceive. If it contains thoughts,\nthe meaning of which cannot be comprehended, they are not a revelation,\nand are self-evidently human.\n\n3. The manner in which its contents were communicated to man. These\nthoughts are expressed in human language. The Bible originally\nappeared, it is claimed, in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages,\ntwo of them obscure languages of Western Asia. The president of\nthe United States does not issue an important proclamation in the\nCherokee or Tagalese language, and the ruler of the universe would not\nhave issued a message intended for all mankind in the most obscure\nlanguages of the world. Had he given a message to man he would have\nprovided a universal language for its transmission.\n\n4. Lack of divine supervision in its translation into other\ntongues. Failing to provide a universal language for its transmission,\nGod would at least have supervised its translation into other\nlanguages. Only in this way could its inerrancy and divinity have\nbeen preserved. Yet no divine supervision has been exercised over the\ntranslators, the transcribers, and the printers of this book. Divine\nsupervision, it is admitted, was confined to the original writers.\n\n5. Not given to man until at a late period in his existence. This is\nan argument advanced by Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon rejected the\nBible. He said that if it had been given to man at the creation he\nmight have accepted it, but that its late appearance proved to him\nthat it was of human origin.\n\n6. Not given as a guide to all mankind, but only to an insignificant\nportion of it. Not only has the Bible been confined to a small period\nof man's existence, it is nearly all addressed to one small race of\nearth's inhabitants. While Christians affirm that it is a universal\nmessage intended for all, its doctrines and ceremonies pertain to\nthe Jews. This is wholly true of the Old Testament, and, with the\nexception of a few doubtful passages, true of the Four Gospels, the\nchief books of the New Testament. Now, is it reasonable to suppose that\nthis great and just All-Father, as he is called, would for centuries\ntake into his special confidence and care a few of his children and\nignore and neglect the others?\n\n7. It deals for the most part, not with the works of God, but with the\nworks of man. What man does and knows is not a divine revelation. Paine\nsays: \"Revelation, therefore, cannot be applied to anything done upon\nearth, of which man himself is the actor or witness; and consequently\nall the historical and anecdotal part of the Bible, which is almost\nthe whole of it, is not within the meaning and compass of the word\nrevelation, and therefore is not the word of God.\"\n\n8. But one of many Bibles. There are many Bibles. The world is divided\ninto various religious systems. The adherents of each system have their\nsacred book, or Bible. Brahmins have the Vedas and Puranas, Buddhists\nthe Tripitaka, Zoroastrians the Zend Avesta, Confucians the five King,\nMohammedans the Koran, and Christians the Holy Bible. The adherents of\neach claim that their book is a revelation from God--that the others\nare spurious. Now, if the Christian Bible were a revelation--if it\nwere God's only revelation, as affirmed--would he allow these spurious\nbooks to be imposed upon mankind and delude the greater portion of\nhis children?\n\n9. Many versions of this Bible. Not only are there many Bibles in the\nworld, there are many versions of the Christian Bible. The believers\nin a divine revelation have not been agreed as to what books belong\nto this revelation. The ancient Jews, who are said to have sustained\nmore intimate relations with God than any other race, were not agreed\nin regard to this. The accepted Hebrew version contains 39 books (22\nas divided by the Jews), the Samaritan version contains but 6 books\n(some copies 5); while the Septuagint version contains 50. The early\nChristians were not agreed. The Syriac version of the New Testament\ncontains 22 books; the Italic 24 (some copies 25); the Egyptian 26;\nthe Vulgate 27. The Sinaitic and Alexandrian MSS. each contains 29\nbooks, but they are not all the same. The Gothic version omitted four\nbooks in the Old Testament. The Ethiopic omitted books in both the\nOld and New Testaments which are now accepted, and included books\nin both which are now rejected. The Bibles of the Roman Catholic,\nof the Greek Catholic, and of the Protestant churches do not contain\nthe same books. This disagreement regarding the books of the Bible\nis proof of their human origin.\n\n10. Incompetency of those who determined the canon. If the Bible were\nthe word of God it would not have required the deliberations of a\nchurch council to determine the fact. And yet the Christian canon\nwas determined in this manner; and it took centuries of time and\nmany councils to make a collection of books that was acceptable to\nthe church. Not until the close of the fourth century were all the\nbooks of the Bible adopted.\n\nIt is commonly supposed that the members of these councils were men of\ngreat learning and still greater honesty. On the contrary, they were\nmostly men of little learning and less honesty. They were ignorant,\nfanatical, and immoral. Their deliberations were characterized by\ntrickery, lying, mob violence, and even murder. Many of them, so far\nfrom being able to read and critically examine the books of the Bible,\ncould not read their own names. Even the molders of their opinions\nconcerning the canon--Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,\nJerome, and Augustine--were they living now, would be considered\nvery ordinary clay. The historical facts in regard to the formation\nof the Bible, if generally known, would be sufficient to dispel all\nillusions respecting its divinity.\n\n11. Books belonging to this so-called revelation lost or\ndestroyed. There were many other Jewish and Christian writings for\nwhich divinity was claimed and which Bible writers themselves declare\nto be of as much importance and authority as those which still\nexist. The transitory and perishable nature of these books proves\ntheir human origin, and shows that while those that remain are more\nenduring they are not immortal and imperishable, and hence not divine.\n\n12. Different versions of the same book do not agree. There are a\nhundred versions and translations of the books of the Bible. No two\nversions of any book agree. The translators and copyists have altered\nnearly every paragraph. The earlier versions alone contain more\nthan 100,000 different readings. The original text no longer exists\nand cannot be restored. Every version, it is admitted, abounds with\ncorruptions. Now, to assert that a book is at the same time divine and\ncorrupt is a contradiction of terms. God, it is affirmed, is all-wise,\nall-powerful, and all-just. If he is all-wise he knew when his work\nwas being corrupted; if he is all-powerful he could have prevented it;\nif he is all-just he would have prevented it. This God, it is declared,\nis everywhere and sees everything. He watches the sparrows when they\nfall, and numbers the hairs of our heads. He knows the secrets of every\nheart. If he made a revelation to his children, upon the acceptance\nand observance of which depends their eternal happiness, and then\nknowingly and wilfully allowed this revelation to be perverted and\nmisunderstood, he is not a just God, but an unjust devil.\n\n13. The mutability of its contents. The alterations made by\ntranscribers and translators demonstrate the mutability of its\ncontents, and this disproves its divine character. To admit that man\ncan alter the work of God is to admit that human power transcends\ndivine power. If the thoughts composing the Bible were divine man\ncould not alter them.\n\n14. The anonymous character of its books. If the Bible is to be\naccepted even as a reliable human record its authors ought, at least,\nto be persons of acknowledged intelligence and veracity. And yet\nalmost nothing is known of its authors. The authorship of fully fifty\nbooks of the Bible is absolutely unknown. Its books are nearly all\neither anonymous or self-evident forgeries. This is true of the most\nimportant books. The Pentateuch we know was not written by Moses,\nnor the Four Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Aside from\nthe anonymous character of the writings of the Bible, with a few\nexceptions, they evince neither a superior degree of intelligence\nnor a high regard for the truth.\n\n15. Its numerous contradictions. If the Bible were divine there would\nbe perfect harmony in all its statements. One contradiction is fatal\nto the claim of inerrancy and divinity. Now the Bible contains not\nmerely one, but hundreds of contradictions. Nearly every book contains\nstatements that are contradicted by the writers of other books. This\nis especially true of the Four Gospels. The writers of these agree that\na being called Jesus Christ lived and died; but regarding nearly every\nevent connected with his life and death they disagree. Human discord,\nand not divine harmony, dwells in its pages.\n\n16. Its historical errors. If the Bible were divine its history would\nbe infallible. But it is not. It presents as historical facts the most\npalpable fictions, and denies or misstates the best authenticated\ntruths of history. Referring to Bible writers, the eminent Dutch\ndivines, Drs. Kuenen, Oort, and Hooykaas, in their preface to \"The\nBible for Learners,\" say: \"As a rule, they concern themselves very\nlittle with the question whether what they narrated really happened\nso or not.\" Its history is fallible and human.\n\n17. Its scientific errors. God, the alleged author of this book,\nit is claimed, created the universe. He ought, then, to be familiar\nwith his own works. The writers of the Bible, on the contrary,\ndisplay a lamentable ignorance of the universe and its phenomena. The\nRev. Dr. Lindsay Alexander, orthodox Calvinist, in his \"Biblical\nTheology,\" referring to these writers, says: \"We find in their writings\nstatements which no ingenuity can reconcile with what modern research\nhas shown to be scientific truth.\" The demonstrated truths of modern\nscience were unknown to them. They give us the crude ideas of primitive\nman and not the infallible knowledge of an omniscient God.\n\n18. Its alleged miracles. The Bible is filled with marvelous\nstories. The sun and moon stand still; the globe is submerged with\nwater to the depth of several miles; rods are transformed into\nserpents, dust into lice, and water into blood and wine; animals\nhold converse with man in his own language; men pass through fiery\nfurnaces unharmed; a child is born without a natural father; the\ndead arise from the grave and walk the earth again. These marvelous\nstories--these miracles--are adduced to prove the divine origin of\nthe Bible. They prove its human origin. If these miracles prove the\ndivinity of the Bible, then nearly all the books of old are divine,\nfor they abound with these same miracles. If these stories be true,\nif these miracles occurred, the laws of nature were arrested and\nsuspended. The laws of nature are immutable. If the laws of nature\nare immutable they cannot be suspended. The laws of nature cannot be\nsuspended; they never have been suspended; these stories are false;\nand being false, the Bible is not divine.\n\n19. Its immoral teachings. If the Bible were of divine origin its moral\nteachings would be divine. It would be what its adherents affirm it to\nbe, an infallible moral guide. But its moral teachings are not divine;\nit is not an infallible moral guide. It contains, like other Bibles,\nsome moral precepts; but it also sanctions nearly every crime and\nvice. War and murder, bigotry and persecution, tyranny and slavery,\ndemonism and witchcraft, adultery and prostitution, drunkenness and\nvagrancy, robbery and cheating, falsehood and deception, are all\nauthorized and commended by this book. It cannot, therefore, be divine.\n\n20. Its inferior literary character. If the Bible were the word\nof God, as a literary composition it would be above criticism. It\nwould be as far superior to all other books as God is superior to\nman. Its rhetoric would transcend in beauty the glorious coloring\nof a Titian. Its logic would be faultless. The Bible is not such a\nbook. It contains some admirable pieces and these owe much of their\nliterary merit to the translators, appearing as our version did in\nthe golden age of English literature. As a whole it is far inferior to\nthe literature of ancient Greece and Rome; inferior to the literature\nof modern Italy, of France, of Germany, and of England. If the Bible\nbe the word of God it is a long way from God up to Shakespeare.\n\n21. Its writers do not claim to be inspired. Had the writers of the\nBible been inspired they would have known it and would have proclaimed\nit. Had they claimed to be inspired it would not prove the Bible\nto be divine, for like Mohammed, they might have been deluded, or,\nlike a more recent finder of a holy book, impostors. But they do not\neven claim that their books are divine revelations. Some of these\nbooks contain what purport to be divine revelations, but the books\nthemselves do not pretend to be divine. The only exception is the\nbook called Revelation, admittedly the most doubtful book of the Bible.\n\n\"All scripture is given by inspiration.\" Waiving the questions of\nauthenticity and correct translation, who wrote this? Paul. What was\nthe scripture when he wrote? The Old Testament, the Old Testament\nalone. The writers of the Old Testament do not claim to be divinely\ninspired. This is a claim made by the later Jews and by the early\nChristians. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament do not\nclaim that their writings are divine. This, too, is a claim made by\nothers long after they were written.\n\nThe fact that the writers of the Bible do not believe and do not\nassert that their books are of divine origin, that this claim was\nfirst made many years after they were composed, by those who knew\nnothing of their origin, is of itself, in the absence of all other\nevidence, sufficient to demonstrate their human origin.\n\n22. God has never declared it to be his word. The Bible does not,\nas we have seen, purport to be the word of God. Nowhere, neither in\nthe book nor outside of it, has he declared it to be his revealed\nwill. It contains various messages, chiefly of local concern, which\nhe is said to have delivered to man; but the book, as such, is not\nascribed to him nor claimed by him.\n\n23. Whatever its origin it cannot be a divine revelation to us. Even\nsupposing that the writers of the Bible had claimed to be inspired\nand that these books really were a divine revelation to them, they\nwould not, as Paine justly argues, be a divine revelation to us. The\nonly evidence we would have of their divinity would be the claim of\nthe writer--a claim that any writer might make--a claim that even\nan honest writer might make were he, like many religious writers,\nthe victim of a delusion.\n\n24. A written revelation unnecessary. To affirm the necessity of a\nwritten revelation from God to man, as Christians do, is to deny his\ndivine attributes and ascribe to him the limitations of man. If God\nbe omnipotent and omnipresent a written revelation is unnecessary. To\nimpute to him an unnecessary act is to impute to him an imperfection,\nand to impute to him an imperfection is to impugn his divinity. We do\nnot write a communication to one who is present. Think of an infinite,\nall-powerful, and ever-present God communing with his living children\nthrough an obscure and corrupted message said to have been delivered\nto a tribe of barbarians three thousand years ago!\n\n25. Its want of universal acceptance. A divine revelation intended\nfor all mankind can be harmonized only with a universal acceptance\nof this revelation. God, it is affirmed, has made a revelation to\nthe world. Those who receive and accept this revelation are saved;\nthose who fail to receive and accept it are lost. This God, it is\nclaimed, is all-powerful and all-just. If he is all-powerful he can\ngive his children a revelation. If he is all-just he will give this\nrevelation to all. He will not give it to a part of them and allow\nthem to be saved and withhold it from the others and suffer them to\nbe lost. Your house is on fire. Your children are asleep in their\nrooms. What is your duty? To arouse them and rescue them--to awaken\nall of them and save all of them. If you awaken and save only a part\nof them when it is in your power to save them all you are a fiend. If\nyou stand outside and blow a trumpet and say, \"I have warned them,\nI have done my duty,\" and they perish, you are still a fiend. If\nGod does not give his revelation to all; if he does not disclose its\ndivinity to all; if he does not make it comprehensible and acceptable\nto all; in short, if he does not save all, he is the prince of fiends.\n\nIf all the world's inhabitants but one accepted the Bible and there was\none who could not honestly accept it, its rejection by one human being\nwould prove that it is not from an all-powerful and an all-just God;\nfor an all-powerful God who failed to reach and convince even one of\nhis children would not be an all-just God. Has the Bible been given\nto all the world? Do all accept it? Three-fourths of the human race\nreject it; millions have never heard of it.\n\n26. Non-agreement of those who profess to accept it. If the Bible\nwere the work of God there would be no disagreement in regard to its\nteachings. Its every word would be as clear as the light of day. Yet\nthose who profess to accept it as divine are not agreed as to what\nit means. In the Christian world are a hundred sects, each with a\ndifferent interpretation of its various teachings. Take the rite of\nbaptism. Baptism is enjoined by the Bible. But what is baptism? The\nthree leading Protestant denominations of this country are the Baptist,\nthe Presbyterian, and the Methodist. I ask the Baptist what constitutes\nbaptism, and he tells me immersion; I ask the Presbyterian, and he\ntells me sprinkling; I ask the Methodist which is proper, and he\ntells me to take my choice. Sectarianism is conclusive proof that\nthe Bible is human.\n\n27. Inability of those who affirm both a human and a divine element\nin it to distinguish the one from the other. Confronted by its many\nglaring errors and abominable teachings, some contend that a part of it\nis the work of man and a part the work of God. And yet they are unable\nto separate the one from the other. If a hundred attempts were made by\nthem to eliminate the human from the divine no two results would be the\nsame. Their inability to distinguish this supposed divine element from\nthe human is proof that both have the same origin--that both are human.\n\n28. The character of its reputed divine author. The Bible is an\natrocious libel on God. It traduces his character, and denies his\ndivinity. The God of the Bible is not this all-powerful, all-wise,\nand all-just Ruler of the universe, but a creature of the human\nimagination, limited in power and knowledge, and infinite only in\nvanity and cruelty.\n\n29. The belief of primitive Christians in its divinity not an immediate\nconviction but a growth. Had the books of the Bible been divinely\ninspired their divinity would have been recognized at once. When they\noriginally appeared they were believed and known to be the works of\nman and accepted as such.\n\nReferring to the Old Testament, Dr. Davidson says: \"The degree of\nauthority attaching to the Biblical books grew from less to greater,\ntill it culminated in a divine character, a sacredness rising even\nto infallibility\" (The Canon of the Bible, p. 274).\n\nOf the New Testament Dr. Westcott says: \"It cannot, however, be\ndenied that the idea of the inspiration of the New Testament, in\nthe sense in which it is maintained now, was the growth of time\"\n(On the Canon of the New Testament, p. 55).\n\nThe admitted fact that these books were originally presented and\nreceived as human productions, and that the idea of inspiration\nand divinity was gradually and slowly developed by the priesthood,\nis conclusive proof that they are of human and not of divine origin.\n\n30. Its acceptance by modern Christians the result of religious\nteaching. In India the people believe that the Vedas and other sacred\nbooks or Bibles are divine. Why do they believe it? Because for a\nhundred generations they have been taught it by their priests. The\nTurks believe that the Koran came from God. They believe it because\nfor twelve centuries this has been their religious teaching. For nearly\ntwo thousand years Christian priests have taught that the Holy Bible is\nthe word of God. As a result of this the masses of Europe and America\nbelieve it to be divine. Each generation, thoroughly impregnated with\nsuperstition, transmitted the disease to the succeeding one and made\nit easy for the clergy to impose their teachings on the people and\nperpetuate their rule. The belief of Christians in the divinity of\nthe Bible, like the belief of Hindoos in the divinity of the Vedas,\nand of Mohammedans in the divinity of the Koran, is the result of\nreligious teaching.\n\nThe ease with which a belief in the divine character of a book\nobtains, even in an enlightened age, is illustrated by the inspired\n(?) books that have appeared in this country from time to time,\nand for several of which numerous adherents have been secured. About\nseventy-five years ago a curious volume, called the Book of Mormon,\nmade its appearance. A few impostors and deluded men proclaimed its\ndivinity. A priesthood was established; Mormon education and Mormon\nproselytism began their work, and already nearly a million converts\nhave been made to the divinity of this book.\n\nDr. Isaac Watts says: \"The greatest part of the Christian world can\nhardly give any reason why they believe the Bible to be the Word of\nGod, but because they have always believed it, and they were taught so\nfrom their infancy.\" Really the entire Christian world--pope, bishop,\npriest, and layman--the learned and the unlearned--can give no other\nvalid reason.\n\nProfoundly true are these words of the historian Lecky: \"The\noverwhelming majority of the human race necessarily accept their\nopinions from authority. Whether they do so avowedly, like the\nCatholics, or unconsciously, like most Protestants, is immaterial. They\nhave neither time nor opportunity to examine for themselves. They\nare taught certain doctrines on disputed questions as if they were\nunquestionable truths, when they are incapable of judging, and every\ninfluence is employed to deepen the impression. This is the origin\nof their belief. Not until long years of mental conflict have passed\ncan they obtain the inestimable boon of an assured and untrammeled\nmind. The fable of the ancient is still true. The woman even now sits\nat the portal of life, presenting a cup to all who enter in which\ndiffuses through every vein a poison that will cling to them for\never. The judgment may pierce the clouds of prejudice; in the moments\nof her strength she may even rejoice and triumph in her liberty;\nyet the conceptions of childhood will long remain latent in the\nmind to reappear in every hour of weakness, when the tension of the\nreason is relaxed, and when the power of old associations is supreme\"\n(History of Rationalism, Vol. II., pp. 95, 96).\n\nSchopenhauer says: \"There is in childhood a period measured by six,\nor at most by ten years, when any well inculcated dogma, no matter how\nextravagantly absurd, is sure to retain its hold for life.\" Considering\nthe impressionable character of the immature mind, and how nearly\nimpossible it is to eradicate the impressions of childhood, the\nwonder is not that so many believe in the divinity of the Bible,\nunreasonable as the belief is, but rather that so many disbelieve it.\n\n31. An article of merchandise. Bibles are manufactured and sold just as\nother books are manufactured and sold. Some are printed on poor paper,\ncheaply bound, and sold at a low price; while others are printed on\nthe best of paper, richly bound, and sold at a high price. But all\nare sold at a profit. The publisher and the book seller, or Bible\nagent, derive pecuniary gain from their publication and sale. It\nmay be urged that the Bible can be obtained for the asking, that\nmillions of copies are gratuitously distributed. But this is done\nin the interest of Christian propagandism. Nearly all religious,\npolitical, and social organizations, to promote their work, make a\nfree distribution of their literature.\n\nThe printing and selling of Bibles is as much a part of the publishing\nbusiness as the printing and selling of novels. One of the leading\npublishing houses of this country is that of the American Bible\nSociety. Wealthy and deluded Christians have been successfully\nimportuned to contribute millions to this Society. Directly or\nindirectly the clergy reap the harvest, leaving the gleanings to\nthe lay employees, many of whom labor at starvation wages. In Great\nBritain the crown has claimed the sole and perpetual right to print\nthe Bible (A. V.). For monetary or other considerations her kings have\ndelegated this right to publishers who have amassed fortunes from its\nsale. Twenty years ago Bible publishing was characterized as the worst\nmonopoly in England. If the Bible were divine God would not allow it\nto be used as merchandise. It would be as free as light and air.\n\n32. A pillar of priestcraft. Not only is the Bible printed and sold\nlike other books, but its so-called divine teachings themselves are\nused as merchandise. There are in Christendom half a million priests\nand preachers. These priests and preachers are supported by the\npeople. Even the humble laborer and the poor servant girl are obliged\nto contribute a portion of their hard earnings for this purpose. In\nthis country alone two thousand million dollars are invested for their\nbenefit; while two hundred million dollars are annually expended for\ntheir support. For what are these men employed? To interpret God's\nrevelation to mankind, we are told. An all-powerful God needing an\ninterpreter! According to the clergy, God though omnipresent has had to\nsend a communication to his children, and though omnipotent he cannot\nmake them understand it. Those ignorant of other tongues and unable\nto make known their wants require interpreters. The various Indian\ntribes employ them. For the sake of gain these men degrade their God\nto the level of an American savage, representing him as incapable of\nexpressing his thoughts to man, and representing themselves as the\npossessors of both human and divine wisdom and authorized to speak\nfor him.\n\nThese Bibles are simply the agents employed by priests to establish\nand perpetuate their power. They claim to be God's vicegerents\non earth. As their credentials they present these old religious\nand mythological books. These books abound with the marvelous and\nmysterious--the impossible and unreasonable--and are easily imposed\nupon the credulous. If the contents of a book be intelligible\nand reasonable you can not convince these people that it is other\nthan natural and human; but if its contents be unintelligible and\nunreasonable it is easy to convince them that it is supernatural and\ndivine. Smith's Bible Dictionary says: \"The language of the Apostles\nis intentionally obscure.\" Of course; if it were not obscure there\nwould be no need of priests to interpret it, and what is Scripture\nfor if not to give employment to the priests?\n\nWe are triumphantly told that the Bible has withstood the assaults of\ncritics for two thousand years. But as much can be said of other sacred\nbooks. Any business will thrive as long as it is profitable. Bibles\nwill be printed as long as there is a demand for them; and there\nwill be a demand for them as long as priests do a lucrative business\nwith them. Considering their abilities the vendors of the Gospel\nare among the best paid men in the world to-day. The wealth of men\nand the smiles of women are bestowed upon them more lavishly than\nupon any other class. There are thousands in the ministry enjoying\ncomfortable and even luxurious livings who would eke out a miserable\nsubsistence in any other vocation.\n\n33. Its advocates demand its acceptance by faith rather than by\nreason. In the Gospels and in the Pauline Epistles, the principal\nbooks of the New Testament, Christ, the reputed founder, and Paul, the\nreal founder of the Christian religion, both place religious faith,\ni. e., blind credulity, above reason. This evinces a lack of divine\nstrength and is a confession of human weakness.\n\nModern advocates of the Bible in presenting the dogma of divine\ninspiration ask us to discard reason and accept it by faith. In the\naffected opinion of these men, to examine this question is dangerous,\nto criticise the Bible is impious, and to deny or even doubt its\ndivinity is a crime. What is this but a tacit acknowledgment that\nthe faith they wish us to exercise is wanting in themselves? This\ncondemnation of reason and commendation of credulity is an insult\nto human intelligence. A dogma which reason is obliged to reject,\nand which faith alone can accept, is self-evidently false; and its\nretention is not for the purpose of supporting a divine truth, but\nfor the purpose of supporting a human lie.\n\n34. The refusal of its advocates to correct its acknowledged\nerrors. That the clergy are controlled by mercenary motives rather\nthan a love of truth is attested by the fact that they continue to\nteach the admitted errors of the Bible. Our Authorized version, it is\nconceded by Christian scholars, contains hundreds of errors. That the\nRevisers corrected many of these errors is admitted. Yet the clergy\ncling to these errors and refuse to accept a corrected text. The\nprincipal reasons assigned for retaining the Old version instead of\nadopting the New are these: 1. The English of three hundred years\nago possesses a certain charm which distinguishes the Bible from more\nmodern works and secures for it a greater reverence. 2. Its division\ninto chapters and verses renders it more convenient. 3. The adoption\nof the New would expose the errors of the Old, suggest the possible\nfallibility of the New, and sow the seeds of doubt. Thus expediency\nprompts them to teach the acknowledged errors of man in preference\nto what they claim to be the truths of God. This proves the human\ncharacter of the Bible and the insincerity of its professed exponents.\n\n35. Its authority maintained by fraud and force. For sixteen hundred\nyears--from the time that Constantine, to gain a political advantage\nover his rivals, became a convert to the Christian faith--corruption\nand coercion have been the predominant agents in maintaining its\nsupremacy. Fagot, and sword, and gun, and gibbet, and rack and\nthumbscrew, and every artifice that cunning and falsehood could devise,\nhave been used to uphold the dogma of this book's divinity. To-day,\nin nearly every nation of Europe, the powers of the state are employed\nto compel allegiance to it. And in this free Republic, everywhere, with\nbribe and threat, the authorities are invoked to force its bloody and\nfilthy pages into the hands of innocent school girls to pollute with\nsuperstition, lust, and cruelty their young and tender minds. These\ndeeds of violence, these pious frauds, these appeals to the civil\npowers, all prove it to be the work of man and not the word of God.\n\n36. The intelligence of the world for the most part rejects it. If\nthe Bible were divine the wise would be the best qualified to realize\nand appreciate the fact; for while all may err the judgment of the\nintelligent is better than the judgment of the ignorant. In Christendom\nthe ignorant nearly all believe the Bible to be the infallible word\nof God, every verse of which is to be accepted literally. A more\nintelligent class reject the objectionable portions of it, or give to\nthem a more rational and humane interpretation. Those of the highest\nintelligence--the great leaders of the world in national affairs, in\nthe domain of literature, in science and philosophy, and in Biblical\nand religious criticism--the Washingtons and Lincolns, the Franklins\nand Jeffersons, the Fredericks and Napoleons, the Gambettas and\nGaribaldis; the Shakespeares and Byrons, the Goethes and Schillers,\nthe Carlyles and Emersons, the Eliots and de Sta\u00ebls; the Humboldts\nand Darwins, the Huxleys and Haeckels, the Drapers and Tyndalls, the\nComtes and Spencers; the Humes and Gibbons, the Voltaires and Renans,\nthe Bauers and Strausses, the Paines and Ingersolls--all these reject\nits divinity. A Gladstone is an anomaly.\n\nDr. Watson of Scotland gives frank expression to a fact of which\nhis fellow clergymen are fully cognizant, but which they are loth\nto admit. He says: \"The great, and the wise, and the mighty, are not\nwith us. These men, the master minds, the imperial leaders among men\nare outside our most Christian church.\"\n\nThe ignorant suppose that the intelligent accept the Bible; because\nthe intelligent, dependent in a large degree upon the ignorant,\nand knowing that of all passions religious prejudice and hatred are\nthe worst, do not care to arouse their antagonism by an unnecessary\navowal of their disbelief. This is especially true of men in public\nlife. But these men think; and to their intellectual friends they talk.\n\nIn his \"History of the Bible,\" Bronson C. Keeler says: \"The only men\ndistinguished for their learning who now believe it to be the inspired\nword of God, are the men who are, either directly or indirectly, making\ntheir living out of it.\" Do these learned divines themselves believe\nit? Nearly every intelligent clergyman entertains and confidentially\nexpresses opinions regarding the Bible which he dare not proclaim\nfrom the pulpit. But master and slave are alike growing weary--the\nmaster of his duplicity, the slave of his burden. Emancipation for\nboth is approaching. To-day the clergy smile when they meet; some\nday they will laugh outright, this stupendous farce will be ended,\nand man will be free.","title":"The Bible: I. Authenticity II. Credibility III. Morality","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":96986}