{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52414/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52414","id":"gutenberg_52414","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52414","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity and other religions","Mythology"],"text":"THE\n                          CHRISTIAN MYTHOLOGY.\n\n                                   BY\n                           BRIGHAM LEATHERBEE\n\n                   \"Knowledge is power, but ignorance\n                      is the mother of devotion.\"\n\n\n                               New York:\n                       THE TRUTH SEEKER COMPANY,\n                            62 Vesey Street.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n           I.  The Virgin Birth.\n          II.  Pagan Miracles.\n         III.  Spurious Relics.\n          IV.  Trial and Execution Myths.\n           V.  Distorted Prophecies.\n          VI.  The Resurrection.\n         VII.  Miracles.\n        VIII.  Atonement and Salvation by Faith.\n          IX.  The Trinity--Mariolatry.\n           X.  Saints--Good and Evil Spirits.\n          XI.  Religious Holidays and Rites.\n         XII.  The Eucharist.\n        XIII.  Spread of Christianity.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN MYTHOLOGY.\n\n\nThat Christianity, as to-day presented by the orthodox, is far\ndifferent from the Christianity promulgated by the early fathers, few\nare so blinded as to doubt. Christianity, like all other religions,\ncame not into the world full-grown, but from the simple conceptions of\nits early followers became gradually elaborated by the introduction of\npagan forms and customs until it supplanted its early rivals and gave\nits adherents a compact and solid theology not very different from\nthat of its predecessors. However, before considering the genealogy\nof Christianity, or its heirlooms from paganism, let us turn our\nattention to what were presumably the beginnings of the religious\nviews of mankind.\n\nProbably the true source of that human characteristic which is defined\nas the religious instinct and which is supposed to be an elevating and\nmoral agent, is to be found in the superstition which originated in\nfear of the unknown. The first ages of human life were so devoted to\nthe animal needs that little attention was given to anything else, but\nlater the craving for protection and help from some power greater than\nhimself led primitive man to look about him for something to sustain\nand aid him in his struggle for existence. Surrounded by natural\nphenomena of which he could give no explanation satisfactory to his\nexperience, he came to the conclusion that he was in an environment\npermeated with bodiless intelligences who governed these matters by\nsupernatural power. Awed to fear by the inexplicable workings of\nnature, he sought to propitiate the spiritual agencies by bribes,\nand he did all things for them which he thought would be agreeable\nto them to keep them in good-natured interest or indifference toward\nhim. And, naturally, he considered that what would be pleasing to\nhimself would be pleasing to them. Therefore, his offerings and his\nconduct towards these spirits were such as he would have desired shown\ntoward himself. Death and its imitation, sleep, being the greatest\nmysteries confronting him, he naturally began to consider the spirits\nof the dead, with whom he seemed to have intercourse in his dreams,\nas being influential factors in his career; and thus originated\nancestor-worship with its highly-developed rites and sacrifices,\nwhich in a modified form still exists in the Roman church in the\npractice of reading masses for the souls of the dead. At the same\ntime, noticing the great benefits derived from the warmth of the\nsun, to whose rays he owed his subsistence and whose glorious and\nawful presence was constantly before him, man began to feel grateful\nto that mighty power which was the source of all his welfare, and,\nappreciating that all terrestrial life depended upon it, he came to\nrecognize it as the great creative power.\n\nFrom such superstitious fear and weakness of primitive man arose\nall those religious feelings which the pious call instinctive and\nwhich have, through progress, evolution, and elaboration, controlled\ncertain races, and from whose union have arisen all the religious\nsystems that have ever flourished. Owing to the varied influences\nof climate, environment, and racial character, the various forms\nof worship predominating in different geographical situations have\nnaturally assumed different characteristics, but, when stripped\nof their surrounding, and often enveloping rites, ceremonies,\nand superficialities they may all be traced to the above-mentioned\nfundamental sources.\n\nIt is my intention to show, as briefly as possible, that in the\nChristianity of to-day we have nothing new nor of vital difference\nfrom what has always been taught and believed in the many epochs of\nthe past. In common with all religious systems, Christianity has a\nhero--the personified sun-god of all time--who is of obscure origin,\nwho passes through various episodes common to all, who is finally\nexecuted, and who rises once more to renewed power. In our perusal of\nthe subject, we shall first consider the life of Jesus as taught by\nthe Christian church; secondly, the dogmas affecting the source of\nhis power and the results of his influence; and, thirdly, the rites\nand ceremonies with which his worship is performed.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI--THE VIRGIN BIRTH.\n\n\nSome two thousand years ago there is said to have appeared in the\nnotoriously rebellious province of Galilee, the headquarters of Hebrew\nradicalism, a wandering teacher called Jesus, who passed from village\nto village expounding certain ethical and socialistic ideas, which\nwere condemned by the Roman government and which resulted in this\nman's arrest and subsequent execution. After his death, his various\npupils continued to preach his theories, and, separating, spread\nthese ideas over various parts of the then civilized world. These\npupils, naturally, having a firm belief in their former leader,\nand desiring to strengthen in every possible manner their faith\nas well as to increase the number of their proselytes, and, also,\nbeing themselves more or less affected by the ancient messianic idea,\ndid not deny Jesus more than mortal powers, and allowed certain pagan\ntheories of deity to creep into their faith. Later, when the vicious\nand crafty Constantine found it advisable for political reasons to\nadopt Christianity as the state religion, the great mass of Roman\nworshipers merely transferred the attributes of their ancient deities\nto the objects venerated by the new sect.\n\nThere was nothing new in bestowing a divine origin on Jesus. All the\nlesser gods of antiquity were the sons of Zeus, and, in later times,\nmonarchs were accorded the same origin. It was a common myth of\nall ancient peoples that numerous beings derived their birth from\nother than natural causes. Virgins gave birth to sons without aid\nof men. Zeus produced offspring without female assistance. Almost\nall the extraordinary men that lived under the old heathen mythology\nwere reputed to have been the sons of some of the gods. The doctrine\nof the virgin birth is perhaps one of the oldest of religious ideas;\nit is so universal that its origin is impossible to trace. Therefore,\nno wonder is excited when we find that most of the religious leaders\nhave been of celestial origin.\n\nKrishna, the Indian savior, was born of a chaste virgin called Devaki,\nwho, on account of her purity, was selected to become the mother of\nGod. Gautama Buddha was born of the virgin Maya and \"mercifully left\nParadise and came down to earth because he was filled with compassion\nfor the sins and miseries of mankind. He sought to lead them into\nbetter paths, and took their sufferings upon himself that he might\nexpiate their crimes and mitigate the punishment they must otherwise\ninevitably undergo.\"\n\nThe great father of gods and men sent a messenger from heaven to\nthe Mexican virgin, Sochiquetzal, to inform her that it was the\nwill of the gods that she should immaculately conceive a son. As a\nresult she bore Quetzalcoatl, the Mexican savior, who \"set his face\nagainst all forms of violence and bloodshed, and encouraged the arts\nof peace.\" The Mexican god Huitzilopochtli was likewise immaculately\nconceived by a woman who, while walking in a temple, beheld a ball of\nfeathers descending in the air. She grasped this and placed it in her\nbosom. It gradually disappeared and her pregnancy resulted. The Mexican\nMontezumas were later supposed to have been immaculately conceived\nby a drop of dew falling on the exposed breast of the mother as she\nlay asleep.\n\nThe Siamese have a virgin-born god and savior whom they call Codom;\nthe Chinese have several virgin-born gods, one being the result of\nhis mother's having become impregnated by merely treading on the\ntoe-print of God; while the Egyptians bowed in worship before the\nshrine of Horus, son of the virgin Isis.\n\nSetting aside the mythological interpretation of the miraculous\nconception of Jesus and the theory that his history is entirely\nfictitious, and viewing his birth from a natural human standpoint,\neven admitting that he may have been a \"divinely inspired man,\"\na little better than any other human being, there seems to be only\none explanation for his peculiar conception as recorded in Luke i.\n\nSome critics of the rational school have not failed to notice\na solution of the problem in the appearance of the angel Gabriel\nand his private interview with Mary (Luke i, 28-38). Say they very\npertinently, why may not some libidinous young man, having become\nenamoured of the youthful wife of the aged Joseph, and, knowing the\nprophecy of the messiah, have visited the object of his desire in\nangelic guise and, having won her confidence in this r\u00f4le, gained those\nfavors that produced the miraculous birth? And such an explanation\nis not improbable when we consider that it is an historical fact that\nyoung and confiding women often resorted to the pagan temples at the\ninstigation of the unscrupulous, where they enjoyed the embraces of\nardent but previously unsuccessful lovers, under the impression that\nthey were being favored by deities.\n\nSo those Christians whose reasoning powers will not allow them\nto believe in the absurdity of an unnatural conception, and whose\nsuperstitious adoration will not permit of their believing Mary guilty\nof an intentional faux pas, try in this manner to reconcile the two,\nand declare Joseph the guilty man.\n\nAccording to the Gospels, Joseph, the husband, knowing Mary to be\nwith child, married her (Matt. i, 18); but that is no reason for\nbelieving that he regarded the Holy Ghost's responsibility for his\nwife's condition with faith. He told of a dream in which he had been\ninformed that such was the case (Matt. i, 20-23). He may have believed\nthe dream, and he may not. The most sensible view is that he, \"being a\njust man,\" took this method of preserving her reputation, and that he\nhimself was the actual parent. Having betrayed the girl, he honestly\nmarried her, but, to defend her and himself from the accusation of a\nserious misdemeanor among the Jews (Deut. xxii), he invented the dream\nstory to account for her unfortunate condition. Girls have ever told\nimprobable stories to explain like misfortunes. Dan\u00e6 concocted the\nshower of gold yarn; Leda preferred to accuse herself of bestiality\nwith a swan to acknowledging a lover, and Europa blamed a bull. Modern\ndamsels have invented more modern but just as innocent agents.\n\nIt would seem from the subsequent actions and words of Mary that\nshe must have forgotten that her son was miraculously conceived of\nGod, for we find her reproaching him for remaining in the temple of\nJerusalem to argue with the rabbis with, \"Son, why hast thou thus\ndealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing\"\n(Luke ii, 48). Again, when Simeon and Anna proclaimed the messiahship\nof Jesus (Luke ii, 25-32; 36-38), we are told that \"Joseph and his\nmother marveled at those things which were spoken of him\" (Luke ii,\n33). This would hardly have been the case had they already known him\nas \"the Son of the Highest, who shall reign over the house of Jacob\nforever\" (Luke i, 32-33). Neither would Mary, had she realized that\nshe was the mother of God, have considered it necessary to resort\nto the temple (Luke ii, 22-24) to be purified from the stains of her\nchildbirth. Women, having borne natural children, were considered to\nhave become defiled in the act of parturition, through the contact\nof the perpetually active agency of original sin, whereof they must\nbe purified. The mere fact of her submitting to such a churching is\nevidence that Mary did not know that she had done anything remarkable\nin bearing Jesus, and was ignorant of an unusual conception.\n\nTheir neighbors, despite the dream, always recognized Jesus as Joseph's\nson (Matt. xii, 55; Luke iv, 22; John ii, 45; vi, 42; Nicodemus i,\n2). The orthodox explain this on the supposition that Joseph and\nMary kept all these things in their hearts, and did not tell the\nactual facts of the case, which seems unlikely. Joseph would want\nto explain the early birth of Jesus, and Mary would be desirous of\nsaving her reputation, and both would naturally boast of the honor\nconferred by the Holy Ghost, had they known of it, for in such case\nJoseph's relation to his god was the same as that of the peasant to\nhis seigneur in the days of the jus prim\u00e6 noctis. The liaison was an\nhonor, and would have been related to save Jesus from the disagreeable\nallusions made by his neighbors regarding his birth (John viii, 41).\n\nConforming to the narrations of the miraculous conception in Luke,\nMary, and the Protevangelion, is an old miracle play called \"Joseph's\nJealousy,\" in which we find a very natural picture of the good old\nhusband discovering a condition in his wife for which he is not\nresponsible and accusing her in plain old English of adorning his\nbrow with antlers. The following is the dialogue as given in Hone's\n\"Ancient Mysteries Described\":\n\n\nJos.   Say me, Mary, this childys fadyr who is?\n       I pry the telle me, and that anon?\n\nMry.   The Fadyr of hevyn, & se, it is,\n       Other fadyr hath he non.\n\n\nTo which Joseph very naturally replies in a burst of anger:\n\n\nJos.   Goddys childe! thou lyist, in fay!\n       God dede nevyr rape so with may.\n       But yit I say, Mary whoos childe is this?\n\nMry.   Goddys and your, I sey, I wys.\n\n\nThen in wrath at her obstinacy he breaks forth:\n\n\nJos.   Ya, ya! all olde men, to me take tent,\n         & weddyth no wyff, in no kynnys wyse.\n       Alas! Alas! my name is shent;\n         All men may me now dyspyse,\n       & seyn olde cokwold.\n\n\nMary tries to explain and says that her child is from God alone and\nthat she was so informed by an angel. The suspicious Joseph will not\nbe deceived, and gives way to some words that have since been accepted\nas a true explanation of the miraculous conception:\n\n\nJos.   An A'gel! alas, alas! fy for schame!\n         Ye syn now, in that ye to say;\n       To puttyn an A'ngel in so gret blame.\n         Alas, alas! let be do way;\n       It was s'n boy began this game,\n          That closhyd was clene and gay,\n        & ye geve hym now an A'ngel name.\n\n\nThe old prophecy in Isaiah (vii, 14) that a virgin shall bear a son\nloses its utility when we recognize that this was the sign given Ahaz\nthat God would preserve his kingdom, although he was then threatened\nby a coalition of the kings of Ephraim and Syria. If the prophecy\nreferred to the Christ, how could it have any influence on Ahaz? How\ncould he be calmed and made to preserve his courage in the face of\ndanger by a sign which would not be given until centuries after he\nslept with his fathers? But such was not the case. Isaiah made his sign\nappear as he had promised (vii, 16), \"Before the child shall know to\nrefuse evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall\nbe forsaken of both her kings\" (the rulers of Israel and Syria). Now,\nthis prophecy was fulfilled, either by the trickery of the prophet or\nthe compliance of a virgin, for we find in the next chapter (Isaiah\nviii, 3), \"And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived and bare\na son.\" And that is the whole story. To apply it to the mythical\nbirth of Jesus is puerile. No one can doubt that so good a Jew as\nJosephus believed in the prospect of a messiah, yet so little did\nIsaiah's prophecy impress him that he did not even mention the virgin\nepisode. Probably, on the whole, he thought it a rather contemptible\nbit of trickery and rather detrimental to the memory of Isaiah.\n\nJames Orr, in his treatise written expressly to prove the historical\nfact of the virgin birth, denies that the prophecy of Isaiah could be\napplied to Jesus. Here we have an orthodox writer who firmly believes\nin the miraculous conception, shattering the great cornerstone of the\nchurch's foundation for this belief. He says that the word \"almah\"\nwas not Hebrew for virgin at all, but meant only a marriageable\nyoung woman. He says it can have no connection with Jesus, and thus\nhe agrees with Thomas Paine, but for opposite reasons.\n\nWhile Orr evidently considers that all pagan tales of divine paternity\nare legends, he affirms that the case of Jesus is genuine. Just why God\nbecame Deus Genetrix only once, he does not explain. If God approved\nof this method of creation, he would surely have performed it more\nthan once. That he should have chosen a woman at all seems strange,\nwhen he could have produced Jesus without female assistance. Why\nshould he have given his son, coexistent with the father, and,\nas such, undoubtedly of a fully developed intelligence, all the\ndiscomfort and danger of infantile life? If Jesus were but another\nphase of the godhead, one of the divine eternal trinity, it was\ndegrading and ridiculous to have inflicted him with the processes of\nfoetal life, with all the embryonic phases of development from ovule,\nthrough vertebrate and lower form to human guise; to have given him\nthe dangers of human gestation and parturition, the inconvenience\nof childhood, with teething and other infantile discomforts, and the\nslow years of growth. Why did he inflict all these things on a part,\na third, of himself, in many years of preparation for but a few years\nof preaching, when he could have produced the Christ in a wonderful\nmanner, full grown in all the beauty and dignity and strength of\nperfect and sublime manhood? Probably some will answer that then Jesus\nwould have been regarded as an impostor. But no more doubt could be\ncast on such an appearance than has been thrown on the doubtful story\nof the purity of Mary. Orr, in his haste to prove his belief, gives a\nvery good argument against it (page 82) in the words, \"The idea of a\nVirgin birth ... was one entirely foreign to Jewish habits of thought,\nwhich honored marriage, and set no premium on virginity.\" Therefore,\nit could not have been of Jewish origin. The Jews never accepted it,\nand it grew up only under the influence of Gentile converts.\n\nIt was an idea of classic paganism, an adoption of universal\nphallism, this conception of a divine impregnation. The doctrine\nthat by conjunction with a woman, God begat the Christ is merely\nanother phase of the phallic idea of the procreative principles of\nthe deity--it is another form of the deus genetrix, the generative\nprinciple of male procreation.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nII.--PAGAN PARALLELS.\n\n\nThe orthodox church denies that the Christ had any brothers and\ndeclares that Jesus was the only child of Mary, in spite of gospel\ntestimony to the contrary. Matthew i, 25, referring to Joseph, says,\n\"And he knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son,\"\nwhich implies that after his birth marital relations began between\nJoseph and Mary, from which other children were born, for how,\notherwise, could Jesus have been the \"first-born\"? That Jesus had\nboth brothers and sisters is declared in Matthew xii, 46; xiii, 55,\n56; Mark iii, 31; vi, 3; Luke viii, 19-20; John ii, 12; vii, 3, 5,\n10, and Acts i, 14, while Paul in Galatians i, 19, expressly names\n\"James, the Lord's brother.\"\n\nAs the veneration for Mary increased under the influence of the pagan\nconceptions of an immaculate mother-queen of heaven, these simple\nand natural consequences of her marriage could not be tolerated,\neven allowing for the exceptional conception of Jesus, and the\northodox began to assert that Mary was not only an uncontaminated\nvirgin at the birth of Jesus, but that by miracle she did not lose\nher virginity by that event. They attempted to explain the above\nreferences, first, by asserting that these children were of Joseph by\na previous marriage, and later, when they felt it necessary to endow\nthe consort of their pure mother with perfect celibacy, they named\nthem as cousins only. Jerome was so strong a champion for Joseph's\nvirginity that he considered Epiphanius guilty of impious invention\nfor supporting the earlier belief regarding Jesus' brethren.\n\nThe Buddhists were far wiser than the Christians and eluded all such\ndifficulties by causing Maya to die seven days after the birth of\nSakyamuni, and by asserting such to have been the case with all the\nmothers of the Buddhas.\n\nAt the time of Jesus' birth a brilliant star is believed to have\nheralded the event, and has passed into tradition as \"the star\nof Bethlehem.\" There is nothing novel in this idea, as all ancient\npeoples were very superstitious about the celestial bodies, firmly\nbelieving in astronomical influences on human affairs, and it seems\nto have been a common idea that the births of great men were announced\nby the presence of peculiar stars.\n\nIn China, a new star appeared at the birth of Yu, founder of the first\ndynasty, as was also the case when the sage Laoutze was born, while\nin Mexico the \"morning star\" was the symbol of the national savior\nQuetzalcoatl. The primitive Christians, however, did not have to look\nso far for such an idea, but easily found a parallel in the unusual\nstar reported by the friends of Terah to have appeared on the night\nof Abraham's birth, which they said shone so brightly in the east.\n\nNot only was the birth of the messiah announced by the brilliant star,\nbut it was also celebrated by the singing of the heavenly host. Similar\nphenomena occurred at the birth of Krishna, when \"the clouds emitted\nlow pleasing sounds and poured down a rain of flowers.\" On the eve\nof the birth of Confucius \"celestial music sounded in the ears of\nhis mother\"; at Buddha's a \"marvelous light illumined the earth\";\nand at the birth of Osiris a voice was heard proclaiming that the\nruler of the earth was born.\n\nThe savior having been born, he must necessarily be recognized,\nso the myth of the wise men and their gifts follows--in a fashion\nvery similar to that told of the other saviors. The marvelous infant\nBuddha was visited at the time of his birth by wise men who immediately\nrecognized in him all the characteristics of divinity. At the time of\nConfucius' birth \"five celestial sages entered the house whilst vocal\nand instrumental music filled the air.\" Mithras, the Persian savior,\nwas visited by wise men called magi at the time of his birth, and\nwas presented by them with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh; and\nthe same story is told by Plato in relation to the birth of Socrates.\n\nWhile it is claimed for all the world's saviors that they were borne by\nvirgins and begotten by God, genealogies of royal descent are traced\nfor them through the husbands of their mothers in a most illogical\nmanner. As may be seen in the New Testament, the pedigree of Jesus is\nmost elaborately set forth in both Matthew and Luke, who claim that\nthrough Joseph (whose parentage is denied) the Christ was a direct\ndescendant of King David, though, strange to relate, the connecting\ngenerations are different in one inspired gospel from what they are\nin the other. Krishna, in the male line, was of royal descent, being\nof the house of Yadava, the oldest and noblest of India; and Buddha\nwas descended from Maha Sammata, the first monarch of the world.\n\nTherefore, it is not surprising to find a royal pedigree for the god\nChrist, especially when the religious position occupied by the king\nin rude societies is considered. The Kaffres acknowledge no other\ngods than their monarch, and to him they address those prayers which\nother nations are wont to prefer to the supreme deity. Every schoolboy\nknows of the apotheosis of the Roman emperors, and the monarchs of\nMexico and Peru were regarded as divinities. Every king of Egypt was\nadded to the list of gods and declared to be the son of Ra, and even,\nin some cases, was made the third person of a trinity. Each denied\nthat he owed his birth to the father from whom he inherited the crown,\nand claimed to have been miraculously begotten. Special temples were\nerected for the worship of the kings, which was conducted by special\npriests. The Parthian rulers of the Arsacid house, likewise, claimed\ndivinity and styled themselves brothers of the sun and moon.\n\nThe fable of the slaughter of the innocents, which was merely a\nnew form of the ancient myth of the dangerous child whose life is\na constant menace to some tyrant, was copied from several ancient\nreligions, and the flight of the holy family into Egypt has its\ncounterpart in other tales. King Kansa sought the life of Krishna\nand sent messengers to kill all infants in the neighboring places,\nbut a heavenly voice warned his foster-father to fly with him across\nthe river Jumna, which was immediately done. Salivahana, a virgin-born\nsavior anciently worshiped in southern India, had a similar experience;\nand fable tells that at Abraham's birth Nimrod sought his life, fearing\na prophecy that a child was born who should overthrow his power, and,\nas a result, he murdered 70,000 newly-born male children. At the time\nof Moses' birth, Pharaoh is said to have dreamed that a new-born child\nwould cause Egypt's ruin, and he ordered that all the new-born sons\nof Israel should be cast into the Nile. Similar stories, familiar to\nall readers of the classics, are told of Perseus, Herakles, Paris,\nJason, Bacchus, Romulus and Remus.\n\nAll these tales of the birth and early life of Jesus are similar to\nthose of the other and more ancient saviors, and so is the story of\nthe temptation and the forty days' fast. Moses fasted \"forty days and\nforty nights\" on the mount where he received the law (Ex. xxiv, 18;\nxxxiv, 28; Deut. ix, 9, 11). Elijah fasted \"forty days and forty,\nnights\" on Mt. Horeb (I Kings xix, 8). Joachim, in shame at being\nchildless, retired to the wilderness for a fast of \"forty days and\nforty nights\" (Protevangelion i, 6, 7). Buddha fasted and held his\nbreath until he became extremely weak, when Mara, Prince of Evil,\nappeared and tempted him to break his fast by offering to make him\nemperor of the world. Quetzalcoatl was also tempted by the devil\nduring a forty days' fast; and the temptation of Zoroaster forms the\nsubject of many legends.\n\nAll these myths readily implanted themselves in the Christian\nmythology, but the execution of its hero gave a great opportunity\nfor mythical expansion and elaboration.\n\nIt is taught that Jesus was crucified; whether he was or not nobody\nknows, although there are more pieces of the \"true cross\" extant than\ncould ever have flourished as trees on Mount Calvary.\n\nIf such a person as Jesus of Nazareth ever lived and was ever\nexecuted by the Romans, it is very probable that he was hanged, and\nthe gallows may, very likely, have been of a form similar to that of\na rude cross. The term crucifixion does not necessarily imply that one\nmust be nailed outspread upon a symmetrical cross. It was the ancient\ncustom to use trees as gibbets for execution, or a rude cruciform\ngallows, often called a \"tree\" (Deut. xxi, 22, 23; Nicodemus ix,\n10). To be hung on such a cross was anciently called hanging on a\ntree, and to be hung on a tree was crucifixion. This rough method of\nexecution was later modified by the Christians to the present theory\nof the crucifixion, as they very naturally desired to appropriate the\ncross for their own especial emblem, owing to the fact that its great\nantiquity as a universal religious symbol would aid in the propagation\nof their faith, and since its earliest inception, Christianity has\nbeen ever prone to aid its proselyting by the adoption of pagan dogmas,\nsymbols and practices from the so-called heathen theologies.\n\nOf all religious symbols, the cross is the most ancient and sacred. It\nhas from the earliest antiquity been the mystic emblem for reverence\nand awe, and appears to have been in the aboriginal possession of\nevery ancient people. Populations of essentially different culture,\ntastes, and pursuits have vied with one another in their superstitious\nadoration of it. Greek crosses of equal arms adorned the tomb of Midas\nof Phrygia; and long before the time of the Eutruscans, the inhabitants\nof northern Italy erected crosses over the graves of their dead. The\ncross was common to Mexico; white marble crosses were found on the\nisland of Saint Ulloa by its discoverers; and it was greatly revered\nin Paraguay and Peru.\n\nWhile the origin of the cross, shrouded as it is in the mists of the\nremotest antiquity, has been the subject of much speculation which has\nresulted in numerous theories, it is, undoubtedly, a conventionalized\nresult of primitive phallic ideas. Sexual motives underlie and permeate\nall known religious systems. The idea of a creative god naturally\ngave rise to characteristic symbolical expression of the male and\nfemale principles, which were gradually modified and reduced to the\ntau (a Gothic T), representing the male principle, and the ring,\nrepresenting the female principle. As a complete expression of the\ncreative power, these two symbols were often placed in conjunction;\nand the most ancient form of the conjunction was, probably, that\nof the crux ansata, known to the Egyptians as \"the emblem of life,\"\nwhich was very simply formed by placing the ring above the T. This\nemblem is sometimes called the \"cross with the handle,\" because in\nancient sculpture it is often represented as being carried by the\nring. (See Doane, \"Bible Myths\"; Inman, \"Ancient Faiths,\" etc.). This\nhandled cross was also sacred to the Babylonians and occurs repeatedly\non their cylinders, bricks and gems.\n\nIn ancient Scandinavian mythology the great warrior god Thor was always\nclosely associated with a cruciform hammer, this being the instrument\nwith which he killed the great Mitgard serpent, with which he destroyed\nthe giants, and performed other acts of heroism. Cruciform hammers,\nwith a hole at the intersection of the arms for the insertion of the\nhaft, have been discovered in Denmark, and were used in consecrating\nvictims at Thor's altars. The cross, or hammer, of Thor is still\nused in Iceland as a magical sign in connection with wind and rain,\njust as the corresponding sign of the cross is now used among the\nGerman peasantry to dispel a thunderstorm; both being expressions\nof the same idea that the cross is sacred to the god of thunder. As\nChristians blessed the full goblet with the sign of the cross,\nso the ancient Vikings made the sign of the hammer over theirs;\nand the signs were identical.\n\nThe practice of making the sign of the cross before eating, which\nhas, in Protestant sects, degenerated to the saying of grace, which\nagain has assumed the form of a prayer of thanks to God for bestowing\nthe sustenance, was originally merely a method of prevention against\ndemonical possession. It was thought that demons abounded everywhere\nand that one was very likely to imbibe one of these spirits unless\nhe took the precaution of making the sign of the cross, which they\ncould not endure and from which they fled. This belief in the efficacy\nof a talisman, universal among all peoples from the most barbarous\nto so-called civilized communities, was not only countenanced but\nencouraged by Christianity, and even today we find orthodox Christians\nwho--although they cannot be called educated in the highest sense,\nyet are not to be classed as illiterate--who are still practicing\nit. Every good Catholic wears a scapular, and many a one carries a\nlittle image of some saint to ward off disaster. The sign of the\ncross is still used in time of danger and is considered a weapon\nof miraculous power. Sword hilts are still constructed in the form\nof the cross to give fortune in battle, and the masts of ships with\nyards were once considered the symbol of the cross.\n\nThe burial of the dead about churches is another modern form of\nthe ancient superstition that within the shadow of the cross demons\ndare not disturb the body, which was necessary for resurrection and\nimmortality. This idea is a descendant of the ancient savage notion\nthat bodies in the vicinity of the idol were protected. Even in our\nmodern Protestant cemeteries we constantly find crosses erected over\nthe graves in the same superstitious manner, although in most cases\nit has become merely a surviving custom, the origin of which the\nperformers do not know.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIII.--SPURIOUS RELICS.\n\nAccompanying the worship of the cross, we find among orthodox\nChristians the adoration of the three nails of the passion\nwhich are nothing more than a union of the two Egyptian forms of\narchitecture--the obelisk, expressing the male idea, and the inverted\npyramid, expressing the female.\n\nTwo of these nails are supposed to have been found in the time of\nConstantine, who adorned his helmet and horse's bridle with them. Rome,\nMilan and Treves each boast of possessing one of them, while still\nanother may be seen at the church of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem,\nwhere it is annually exposed to the veneration of the people. In 1353\nPope Innocent VI. appointed a festival for these holy nails. Despite\nthese facts, a legend arose in the latter part of the sixteenth century\nthat these three nails were fashioned into an iron ring three-eighths\nof an inch broad and three-tenths thick and presented by the Empress\nHelena to Constantine to protect him in battle, and that this ring\nwas later used to support the golden plates of the celebrated Iron\nCrown of Lombardy.\n\nIn reference to the practice of relic worship in the Christian church,\nit is interesting to note that numerous objects of worship seem endowed\nwith remarkable powers of multiplication. The Church of Coulombs,\nDiocese of Ch\u00e2rtres; the Cathedral of Pry, the Collegiate Church\nof Antwerp, the Abbey of Our Savior at Charroux, and the Church of\nSt. John Lateran at Rome, all boast themselves the sole possessors\nof the only authentic \"holy prepuce,\" which was circumcised from\nJesus on the eighth day after his birth (Luke ii, 21), and preserved\nby the midwife in oil of spikenard, which was later poured upon his\nhead and feet by Mary Magdalene (Infancy ii, 1-4).\n\nLikewise, there are numerous \"holy shrouds.\" That at Besancon, which\nwas brought from Palestine by crusaders about the beginning of the\ntwelfth century, won fame by delivering the city from a destructive\nplague in 1544, while that at Turin had a festival instituted for\nit by Pope Julius II. in 1506. Other authentic shrouds may be found\nat the Church of St. Cornelius at Compeigne, in Rome, Milan, Lisbon,\nand Aix la Chapelle.\n\nAnother much multiplied relic is the Virgin's ring, supposed to have\nbeen the marriage ring used at the nuptials of Joseph and Mary. This\nsacred souvenir was discovered in 996 by a jeweler of Jerusalem\nand was readily recognized by its remarkable powers of healing and\nself-multiplication. Many European churches claim to possess this\nring and profess to expose it to the devout for veneration, but,\nundoubtedly, the most celebrated is that held by the Cathedral\nof Perouse.\n\nRelic worship and belief in the miraculous powers residing in the\nbones of departed saints, which continues, despite the more general\neducation of the laity, is by no means of Christian origin. In ancient\nGreece the bones of heroes were superstitiously regarded and those\nof Hector of Troy were sacredly preserved at Thebes; the tools used\nin the construction of the Trojan horse were kept at Metapontum;\nthe sceptre of Pelops was held at Ch\u00e6roneia; the spear of Achilles\nat Phaselis; and the sword of Memnon at Nicomedia. Miraculous statues\nof Minerva that brandished spears, abounded, and paintings that could\nblush and images that could sweat also existed.\n\nIn India there are numerous teeth of Buddha which his worshipers\nbelieve capable of performing miracles; and his coat, which as\nPrince Siddhatto he laid aside on entering the priesthood, has been\nmiraculously preserved, and is still shown.\n\nJerome, in defending the worship of relics which had been attacked\nby Vigilantus of Barcelona, did not deny that it was adopted from\npaganism, but commended it and explained that as this reverence had\nbeen previously \"only given to idols, and was then to be detested,\nwas now given to martyrs, and therefore to be received.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIV.--TRIAL AND EXECUTION MYTHS.\n\n\nThat Jesus should have been executed, either as an historical fact or\nas a mythological theory, is not remarkable; and even when considered\nin the light of his being one of the godhead, there is nothing new in\nthe relation of his death. The idea of a dying god is very old. The\ngrave of Zeus was shown at Crete, and the body of Dionyseus was\nburied at Delphi. Osiris and Buddha both died, and numerous deities\nwere crucified. Krishna, the Indian god, suffered such execution, as\ndid also the Mexican savior Quetzalcoatl. Representations of Krishna\nabound wherein he is depicted as nailed to a cross and having a round\nhole in his side. Prometheus was nailed by hands and feet to Mount\nCaucasus, with arms extended in the form of a cross.\n\nSo immeasurably voluminous have been the writings of the orthodox\nupon the trial, execution, and resurrection of Jesus that it seems\nadvisable to consider these matters, from a rational point of view,\nupon the hypothesis that such a man really lived and suffered\nexperiences similar to those narrated in the Gospels. With that\npremise the following views are offered:\n\nThe attitude of Jesus before Pilate shows him to have been a willing\nmartyr, yea, desirous of martyrdom. In all probability his fanatical\nmind believed that when the supreme moment should come, when his\nexecution should take place, and when his death seemed instantly\nimminent, some great natural phenomenon would occur to save him. He\nundoubtedly believed that he would not die, but that God would\nmiraculously interpose to rescue him and that at that time he would\nnot only be saved, but that the kingdom of heaven would be established\nunder his control. That this was his belief seems to be shown by his\ncry of disappointment when he realized that nothing supernatural was to\nprevent his death. When that moment of realization came, his surprise\nwas evident and, unlike many of his courageous followers who died in\ncalmness and bravery, he cried aloud in mental and physical anguish,\n\"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" (Matt. xxvii, 46; Mark\nxv, 34.)\n\nHis indifferent bearing before Pilate showed this faith in his\nredemption, for when the Roman procurator courteously asked him if\nhe were the king of the Jews, he replied ambiguously, as had always\nbeen his practice, \"Thou sayest it\" (Matt. xxvii, 11; Mark xv, 2;\nLuke xxiii, 3; John xviii, 37; Nicodemus iii, 10). But such ambiguity,\nwhich had served very well among the lower classes who had flocked to\nhear and question him, was of no avail before the matter-of-fact Roman,\nwho, as an imperial officer, desired straightforward answers, and was\nlittle impressed by Jesus' silence, except that he was rightfully\nastonished that when given the chance the prisoner should not have\navailed himself of it to explain his position. Therefore, seeing Jesus\nhad no will to answer his questions except in an exasperating manner,\nafter he had shown a willingness to save him, Pilate delivered Jesus\nover to the Jews according to the custom of the Romans in regard\nto the theological disputes of a subject people--but not until\nhe had requested them to spare the preacher. Had Jesus given the\nRoman a frank explanation of his position as an itinerant preacher,\nPilate would probably have saved him, but the chimerical idea of\nthe interposition of God by a miracle, which would glorify him above\nall else that could occur, led Jesus to make a willing sacrifice of\nhimself and throw away the opportunity offered him by Pilate.\n\nThere is nothing noble nor grand in this impudent conduct toward the\nRoman officer, but there is a good deal of justice and consideration\nin the conduct of Pilate. There is nothing noble in Jesus' willingness\nto die nor in his courting death at this trial, for it was entirely\nunnecessary and was desired on his part only because he expected a\nmiraculous salvation. According to his belief, he was to be the gainer,\nand he staked his life for a heavenly glory and lost, although he was\nprobably keen enough to see that in any case his death would increase\nhis fame, for the execution of a fanatic always lends a little glory\nto a cause, no matter how base, as witness the desire of anarchists\nfor martyrdom and the attitude with which they view those who die\nfor their horrible ideas.\n\nThe only question with the Roman was as to whether Jesus had proclaimed\nhimself the king of the Jews, and as he declined to answer this\nquestion, Pilate could do nothing to save him. The blind hatred of\northodox Christianity toward Pilate is absurd. Aside from the argument\nabove, there is another reason why his memory should be leniently\ntreated. According to the Christian dogma, Jesus was the son of God,\nand it was only by his sacrifice, by his actual death, that he could\nsave man. By dying he took the sins of mankind upon himself, and thus\nbecame the Savior. As the eternal Son, knowing all things, as a part\nof the godhead, he knew his death must occur--that was his mission on\nearth. Therefore, as instruments in the accomplishment of this grand\nplan, by which mankind was saved, and Jesus became the Savior, Caiaphas\nand Pontius Pilate should be regarded as divine agents worthy of glory\nand praise. Any other conclusion is entirely illogical. But then,\nwho will look for logic in the dogmas of Christianity? When one makes\na logical investigation of this faith, he abandons its unreasonable\nteachings, which cannot be accepted by a logical mind. The person\nwho allows his reason to govern his belief cannot in any way accept\nthe teachings of the absurd and ridiculous Christian cult.\n\nWhile suffering his execution, Jesus, according to the Gospel\nwriters, lost both his moral and physical courage, and cried aloud\nin agony, \"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?\" In view of this fact, it\nseems impossible for reasonable creatures to accept the Christian\ndogmas of the atonement and the trinity, for, if Jesus were one of\nthe godhead and had left his heavenly abode to descend to earth for\nthe especial purpose of saving mankind by shedding his blood for them,\nhe must necessarily have been aware of what was in store for him and\nhave known all the details attendant upon his execution.\n\nLooking at this fable rationally, Jesus was inferior in courage\nto many of his followers. When we recall the innumerable martyrs\nwho went to meet death with smiling lips, in perfect confidence,\nthe wailing savior, with his doubting cry to God, presents anything\nbut an impressive figure. Surely, to burn at the stake, to lie under\nthe axe, to endure the awful tortures of the Inquisition, were fully\nas agonizing as a crucifixion; and yet men--and delicate women--who\nhave never pretended to divinity, have borne these things silently.\n\nTo be sure, the whole story of the Christ is largely legendary and\nvery uncertain, but, according to the gospels of Matthew and Mark,\nJesus was weak in his convictions, afraid to die for his own teachings,\nand on the whole, his conduct at the supreme moment reminds one of\nthe weak French peasants of revolutionary times rather than the brave\nnobility. His peasant blood rose to the surface and in his fear he\ncried, \"Why hast thou forsaken me?\" although but a few moments before\nhe had assured one of the malefactors who suffered beside him that\non this day he should be in paradise (Luke xxiii, 43).\n\nEverything considered, it is not strange that the Jews would not accept\nJesus as the awaited messiah who should free them from the yoke of\nRome. They desired a strong and powerful leader, not a socialistic\nwandering teacher, and the prophecies promised a ruler surpassing the\nwisdom and power of the gorgeous Solomon. There is not one prophetic\npassage in the Old Testament that can properly be applied to Jesus,\nalthough many have been distorted for such purpose. The Jews looked\nupon him as an impostor and a revolutionist who not only pretended\nto be what he was not, but who disregarded their ancient laws and\npreached a doctrine contrary to that held by their rabbis.\n\nIt was not until long after his death that he was regarded as a\nprophet, and it was not until every proof of his very existence had\nvanished that divine honors were paid him. To the Jews he was a vagrant\nrevolutionist worthy of death, and the Jews knew him personally; to a\nlarge majority of twentieth century Christians, he is a god, and they\nknow absolutely nothing about him, save a collection of puerile myths\nwhich tax their credulity as children, but which as adults they accept.\n\nHowever, regarding the execution of Jesus, there is always the\nlegitimate doubt that it ever occurred. Aside from the fact that\nthe usual mode of death for criminals was by hanging, there is much\ninternal evidence in the gospels themselves which points to the\nconclusion that the whole story of the execution and resurrection is\nmythical and was composed from various Hebrew and pagan legends. The\ndying cry was copied verbatim from Psalms xxii, 1, wherein David\n\"complaineth in great discouragement\" over his diseased condition.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nV.--DISTORTED \"PROPHECIES.\"\n\n\nThe Jews, desirous that the spectacle of the execution should not\npollute the sanctity of their Sabbath, requested that the death of\nthe victim might be hastened (John xix, 31). Therefore, according\nto custom, the Roman soldiers broke the legs of the thieves, but,\nfinding Jesus already dead, they did not break his legs (John xix,\n33). In this the writer of John sees the fulfillment of a prophecy\n(John xix, 36). In Exodus xii, 46, occur the words \"neither shall\nye break a bone thereof,\" which were nothing more than a command of\n\"the ordinance of the passover\" (Ex. xii, 43), and applied to the\nsacrificial animals to be eaten then. But the gospel writers, delving\nfor prophecies, saw with their queerly distorted eyes a prophecy in\nthis and Numbers ix, 12, regardless of the fact that for centuries,\nin celebrating the passover, the Jews had conformed to this practice\nof not breaking the bones of the animals eaten. But the biographers\nsaw Jesus as the paschal lamb, and associated him with the meat of\nthe passover. The tendency to regard his body as the solid of the\nEucharist has likewise aided in this construction of the passages\nin Exodus and Numbers into a prophecy. In David's apostrophe to the\nrighteous he says that though their afflictions are many, \"the Lord\ndelivereth him out of them all\" and preserves him. \"He keepeth all\nhis bones; not one of them is broken\" (Psalm xxxiv, 19-20). This\nhas no reference to the Christ, but the distorted vision of the\napostolic writer saw in it such an intent. He says (John xix, 36),\n\"For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled,\nA bone of him shall not be broken.\"\n\nIn order, however, to be sure that Jesus was actually dead and, in\ncase he was not, to hasten that event, one of the soldiers pierced\nhis heart with a lance. Here John sees another prophecy fulfilled\n(John xix, 37), \"They shall look on him whom they pierced.\" This\nrefers to Zechariah xii, 10, where we find the words, \"And I will\npour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,\nthe spirit of grace and supplications; and they shall look upon me\nwhom they have pierced.\" This was the language of a prophet in a\ndiatribe against the enemies of Juda. How could the writer of John\nhave seen a prophecy in this, when the context reads \"in that day\nI will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem\"\n(Zech. xii, 9), and when at the time of the crucifixion, Jerusalem\nwas in the hands of the Romans?\n\nLikewise, the writers of Matthew and John saw in the drawing of lots by\nthe soldiers at the foot of the cross for the garments of Jesus--the\nusual custom regarding the minor possessions of executed criminals,\nwhich were always considered the spoil of the military guard--\"the\nfulfillment of a prophecy\" (Matt. xxvii, 35 John xix, 23, 24) found\nin Psalms xxii, 18, \"They part my garments among them, and cast\nlots upon my vesture,\" which really was a metaphorical expression\nof David concerning the treatment accorded him by his enemies. In\nthe preceding verse 16, in the same relation and rhetorical figure,\nhe says \"they pierced my hands and my feet.\" On the whole, Psalm\nxxii was a particularly happy composition for the Christian adepts\nat misconstruction. Neither Mark nor Luke refers to the fulfillment\nof a prophecy regarding the vestments, but content themselves with\nnarrating the event (Mark xv, 24; Luke xxiii, 34).\n\nIt was customary to give the condemned a drink of wine and myrrh\nto stupefy him and thus decrease the sufferings of execution. When\nthis was offered to Jesus he refused it (Mark xv, 23), probably\nbecause he wished to be perfectly conscious at the time when God\nshould miraculously reprieve him. Matthew, xxvii, 34, intentionally\nfalsifies the episode and calls the drink vinegar and gall, so bound is\nhe to see a messianic prophecy in Psalms xix, 21, \"They gave me also\ngall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,\"\nwhich words were really applied by David to his own personal enemies.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nVI.--THE RESURRECTION.\n\n\nRegarding the resurrection, it is interesting to note that, whereas\nmost crucified men lived a number of hours and even a day in this\ntorture, the wounds in the hands not being mortal and the position only\naffecting the circulation, causing death by exhaustion or starvation,\nJesus lived only three hours. Therefore, it may have been that he\nwas not actually dead, but merely in a state of coma, or perhaps a\ncataleptic condition. The custom he had of using his subjective mind\nin telepathic cures, as told in the gospels, seems to point to this\nconclusion, that, being strongly subjective, his condition here was\ncataleptic. Many cases are known of men having been restored after\ncrucifixion, and, as the embalming given Jesus in the Jewish custom\nconsisted in nothing more than a wrapping in a shroud with myrrh and\naloes, there is nothing to oppose this hypothesis. After resting for\na while in the tomb, he may have revived and gone out and been seen\nby others, after which he wandered away again to die in solitude from\nexhaustion and lack of food.\n\nIt is more probable, however, that this legend was copied from those\nof other religious heroes, who likewise rose from the dead, as there\nseems to be much variance between the different versions of the visit\nof Mary Magdalene to the sepulchre and her meeting with Christ. Matthew\nsays (xxviii, 1) that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary visited the\nsepulchre (3), where they saw a male angel descend from heaven during\nan earthquake and roll back the stone from the door and sit upon it\n(7). And he told them to \"go quickly, and tell his disciples\" that\nhe had risen, which they did. But as they were going (9) \"Jesus met\nthem ... and they came ... and worshiped him.\" Mark tells a similar\nstory with some variations as to the angel, but he relates that Jesus\nappeared first to Mary Magdalene \"early the first day of the week\"\n(xvi, 9), and not on her visit with Mary, the mother of James, and\nSalome at the tomb. According to Luke, the women went to the tomb,\nwhere they were informed by (xxiv, 4) \"two men in shining garments\"\nthat Jesus had risen, and they left and told the apostles. No mention\nis made here of the encounter of Mary Magdalene. John, however, gives\na more elaborate version. He narrates (xx) that Mary, going early and\nalone to the tomb, which she found entirely empty, ran and informed\nPeter, who verified her story and departed. After she was left alone\nshe looked into the sepulchre again, where she beheld two angels,\nand on turning away saw Jesus standing by her.\n\nSetting aside the idea of a mythical plagiarism in these tales,\nand also the cataleptic theory already mentioned, and considering\nthem from yet another point of view, we can still find a rational\nexplanation. The meeting of Jesus with Mary may have been the\nhallucination of a hysterical woman. According to Mark xvi, 9,\nand Luke viii, 2, Jesus had cast seven devils out of her, which is\nsurely sufficient proof that she was of neurotic temperament and\nhad been subject to delusions and hysteria. Undoubtedly after the\nshock of witnessing the crucifixion and death of her master, for\nthree gospels agree in stating that she was present (Matt. xxvii,\n56; Mark xv, 40; John xix, 25), this fond woman's mind, which seemed\nmore normal in his presence, again gave way and she returned to her\nhysterical condition. On visiting the tomb, she found it empty because\n\"his disciples came by night and stole him away,\" that they might\ndeclare he had risen from the dead, \"as is commonly reported among\nthe Jews until this day\" (Matt. xxviii, 11-15). As she was leaving,\nshe heard his voice (a common delusion of hysterical subjects) and\nsaw his form (another hallucination), but when she went to touch\nhim, she could not do so. The relation has all the marks of simple\nneurosis, and yet many modern Christians base their whole faith upon\nthe words of Paul in 1 Corinthians xv, 14, \"If Christ be not risen,\nthen is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.\"\n\nAs noted in various parts of this work, unless Christians believe in\nthe possibility of miracles, the power of a personal devil, and the\nphysical resurrection of the body, there is no foundation for their\nfaith, and it is a mockery.\n\nNot satisfied with having executed their god according to the most\napproved methods of antiquity, Christians felt the necessity of the\npresence of some remarkable natural phenomena at the time of his\ndeath, for among all ancient peoples it was customary to attribute\nsome remarkable natural convulsions to the death of a great man. When\nPrometheus was crucified on Mount Caucasus \"the earth quaked, thunder\nroared, lightning flashed, wild winds rent the air and boisterous\nbillows rose.\" On the death of Romulus, there was \"darkness over the\nface of the earth for six hours,\" and when Quetzalcoatl died the\nsun became black! Even in historical times, we find narrations of\nsimilar phenomena accompanying the deaths of royalty; and we read in\nmany authenticated histories of the frightful thunderstorms that were\ncoincident with the deaths of Isabella of Castile, Charles the Fifth,\nNapoleon the Great, and Oliver Cromwell.\n\nTherefore, it is not surprising to find mention of such occurrences\nat the time of the execution of the Christian god, although we are\nnot prepared for such astonishing and unprecedented phenomena as\nrelated by the ever exaggerating author of the \"Gospel according to\nSt. Matthew,\" who states very seriously that \"the vail of the temple\nwas rent in twain from top to bottom; and the earth did quake, and the\nrocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints\nwhich slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection,\nand went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.\"\n\nBut the execution, while it completes the mortal life of the incarnate\nChristian deity, by no means finishes the legend. Like the gods of\nantiquity, the Christ must also descend into hell and perform wonders\nsimilar to those of the ancient heroes. All the saviors of mankind\nhad done so--Zoroaster, the Persian; Osiris, the Egyptian; Baldur,\nthe Scandinavian; Quetzalcoatl, the Mexican; and Krishna, the Hindu;\nwhile Ishtar voluntarily descended into the Assyrian inferno.\n\nHaving descended into hell, resurrection was necessary, for it was\nunreasonable that the savior of mankind, the son of the supreme god,\nshould remain perpetually in the place of punishment; and, as his life\non earth was over, he could no longer abide there, and so the only\nplausible sequence was an ascension to heaven. Krishna, the crucified\nHindu savior, rose from the dead and ascended bodily into the celestial\nregions, as did Rama, another avatar of Vishnu. Buddha also ascended\nbodily into heaven when his mission on earth was fulfilled, and marks\non the rocks of a high mountain are shown as the last impressions of\nhis footsteps on earth. Zoroaster and \u00c6sculapius also had similar\nexperiences, as did Elijah and Adonis. Osiris rose from the dead\nand bore the title of \"The Resurrected One,\" his ascension being\ncelebrated in Egypt at the vernal equinox, as is the Christ's and\nas was Adonis'. Other saviors who rose from the dead were Dionysius,\nHerakles, Memnon, Baldur and Quetzalcoatl.\n\nModern Catholics are still taught the fables of the bodily ascension\nof Jesus, Mary the Virgin, and Mary the Magdalene and many other holy\npersons, as actual miraculous truths, not to be questioned nor denied.\n\nVery good, but how can educated Catholics of today reconcile such\ntruths with their actual scientific knowledge? They know that the\nearth is spherical, that the stars and planets are members of solar\nsystems, that outside the terrestrial atmosphere is nothing but\nvast space. There is no such place as a heaven anywhere in these\ncelestial regions, and the zenith of any geographical situation\nchanges every moment. Clouds are mere masses of vapor, not furniture\nfor the repose of the glorified dead. Then whither did these adored\nbeings ascend? Certainly, God in his love for them never flung them\nfar into space to whirl about for eternity.\n\nThese Catholics also know the law of gravitation, which would not allow\nof such a method of transportation. But why ask these questions? No\nreligious person is capable of thinking sensibly on the teachings\nof his faith, no matter how ridiculous. He accepts, as an adult,\nwhat he questions as a child.\n\nWhile the idea of bodily ascension of the Christ was probably copied\ninto his biography from that of Enoch (Gen. v, 24) and Elijah (2 Kings\nii, 11), such stories form a large part of the annals of classical\nmythology, almost every hero of antiquity having been translated to\nthe heavens when his earthly life was spent. The custom of converting\nthe tombs of prominent Christians into shrines likewise aided this\nbelief, as, it being impossible to discover the burial places of\nthe most conspicuous, the idea arose that they had been physically\nremoved to heaven.\n\nThe principal weakness of all the great theological systems now in\npractice is that they are terrestrial in their conception of God and\nman. Their foundations were laid at a period when mankind knew little,\nand cared less, about the planets; at a period when it was presumed\nthat the sun, moon, and stars were either beneficent deities or natural\nobjects placed in the firmament to light the world and please the eye\nof man by their beauty. Therefore God, as recognized in these systems,\ntakes heed of naught else than this particular world. He totally\nignores the other innumerable spheres of matter floating in space,\nmany of which may support life. All his interests center on this\ninfinitesimal portion of his creation. It is with the doings of the\ninhabitants of this planet that he is engaged. For this earth alone\nhe creates man, animals and vegetables; to this alone, he sends his\nonly son, or Savior; and it is here, in the purified state, that the\nsouls of men shall eternally dwell after the great judgment.\n\nSince science has proved that our solar system is but one of the many,\nand that in this system the earth is not the largest nor most important\nbody, should not such absurd theological ideas be abandoned and a\ngrander and vaster conception of the Deity be inaugurated? Should\nnot organized theology turn to nobler thoughts and say with Paul,\n\"When I was a child ... I thought as a child; but when I became a man,\nI put away childish things\" (1 Cor. xiii, 11)?\n\nAll such doctrines as predestination, which are based upon the sin\nof Adam, are now anachronistic. The acceptance of the theory of\nevolution, which entirely destroys the reality of the mythical Adam,\nsweeps away his biography and leaves no foundation for such dogmas. If\nthe Christian church desires to remain, she must cast aside these\nworthless doctrines, founded upon false hypotheses, when the minds\nof men were in darkness regarding the origin of species, and when\nthey saw in these the only solution of their problem.\n\nHaving accomplished his ascension and entered on his eternal kingdom,\none of the Christ's attributes is that of judging the dead. This\nidea undoubtedly came from the Alexandrian school of theology,\nwhere so many of the Christian theories were promulgated, for one\nof the best-known attributes of Osiris was that of the judge, and\nhe was generally represented as seated on his throne of judgment,\nbearing a staff (the crozier of the modern bishop) and holding the\ncrux ansata. Buddha is also supposed to be the judge of the dead.\n\nIn connection with the idea of the Christ as the divine judge of men,\ncertain sects of Christians have advocated that of his return to\nearth at some future period, which will terminate all terrestrial\nlife as it is known to-day, basing this belief upon Jesus' own\nproclamation of his second advent, although in his prophecy he\ndeclared the coming of the kingdom of heaven to be soon after his\ndeath. He even told his disciples that they could not visit all the\ncities of Israel before he should come again (Matt. x, 23); that\ntheir own generation should see these things (Matt. xxiv, 34; Mark\nxiii, 30); that some of those then listening to him should live to\nsee his kingdom (Matt. xvi, 28; xxiii, 36; xxiv, 34; Mark viii, 38;\nLuke ix, 1-27; xxi, 32). Such were his words, and it seems strange\nthat people, believing these words, can still regard him as a very\npart of God. Such improbabilities did Jesus gradually grow to preach,\nand so wild did he become in his exhortations that even his disciples\nat times appear to have believed him mad (Mark iii, 21), an opinion in\nwhich his enemies agreed (Mark iii, 22; John vii, 5-20; viii, 48-52;\nx, 20). They certainly had good cause for their suspicion. Was not his\nconduct in cursing the fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season\nan act of lunacy (Matt. xxi, 19-20; Mark xi, 13-14), and likewise\nhis arrogant assertion of the power of faith (Matt. xvii, 20; xxi,\n21; Mark xi, 23; Luke xvii, 6)? It is, however, quite probable that\nthis idea of a second advent was copied from the Persian theology,\nit being one of the tenets of the Zoroastrian religion that in the\nend Ormuzd, God of Light, should conquer Ahriman, God of Darkness,\nand that he should then summon the good from their graves, remove all\nevil from the face of nature, and permanently establish the kingdom\nof righteousness and virtue upon the earth.\n\nBut such ideas are not unique to Christians and Persians. The Hindus\nbelieve that Vishnu will have another avatar; the Siamese live in\nconstant expectation of the second coming of Codom; the Buddhists\nare looking forward to the return of Buddha; the Jews are awaiting\nthe messiah; and the disciples of Quetzalcoatl expected that deity's\nsecond advent--and most unfortunately thought their dream realized on\nthe arrival of the Spaniards, who took advantage of their consequent\nsubmissiveness to exterminate them.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nVII.--MIRACLES.\n\n\nIt is customary among orthodox Christians to assert that the godhead\nof their Christ was fully proven by the many miracles attributed to\nhim in the New Testament. But one must not forget that the performance\nof miracles is one of the most common attributes of founders of new\nsects, and one which all religious charlatans claim. Krishna lulled\ntempests, cured lepers, and restored the dead; Buddha, Zoroaster\n(who walked on water on his way to Mount Iran to receive the law),\nHorus, \u00c6sculapius, and innumerable others did likewise. Mohammed, not\ncontent with miracles of the omnipotent physician type, juggled the\nmoon through his sleeve. Even to-day faith in miracles is not dead,\nand miracle-working attributes have been claimed for Mrs. Eddy,\nfounder of Christian Science, Dowie, founder of Zion City, and\nSandford, leader of the Holy Ghost and Us.\n\nThere can be no doubt in the mind of a student of comparative theology\nthat Moncure D. Conway was correct when he stated in his essay on\nChristianity that \"among all the miracles of the New Testament not\none is original. Bacchus changed water into wine.... Moses and Elias\nalso fasted forty days.... Pythagoras had power to still waves and\ntempests at sea. Elijah made the widow's meal and oil increase; Elisha\nfed a hundred men with twenty loaves.... As for opening blind eyes,\nhealing diseases, walking on water, casting out demons, raising the\ndead, resurrection, ascension, all these have been common myths--logic\ncurrency of every race.\"\n\n\"One of the best attested miracles of all profane history is that which\nTacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured a blind man in Alexandria by\nmeans of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere touch of his foot,\nin obedience to a vision of the god Serapis,\" says Hume in his \"Essay\non Miracles,\" and we might here mention the numerous attested cures\nresulting from the laying on of royal hands by divinely appointed\nsovereigns.\n\nThe rulers of France, Aragon, and England touched for scrofula,\nthis practice being continued by the latter from the period of its\norigin with Edward the Confessor until the accession of William the\nThird, whose good sense put an end to it. James the Second, the last\npractitioner of this art, had so great a belief in his curative powers\nthat he set aside certain days on which he touched the afflicted from\nhis throne at Whitehall, while the sufferers came in throngs to kneel\nat his feet. The princes of the house of Austria likewise held divine\npower and were supposed to be capable of casting out devils and curing\nstammering by the touch of their aristocratic fingers.\n\nNumerous cases are narrated in which Jesus, by simply touching the\nperson of the afflicted, effected instantaneous cures. Such were\nthose of the leper (Matt. viii, 2-3; Mark i, 40-42; Luke v, 12-13);\nthe curing of Peter's mother-in-law of a fever (Matt. viii, 14-15;\nMark i, 30-31; Luke iv, 38-39), although in the Luke version he\n\"rebuked\" the fever; and the opening of the eyes of two blind men\n(Matt. ix, 27-30). Another method seems to have been by allowing the\nill to touch him or his garments (Matt. ix, 20-22; xiv, 36; Mark iii,\n10; v, 25-34; Luke vi, 19; viii, 43-48). At other times he simply told\nthe patient, or the agent of the patient, that faith had effected the\ncure, as with the centurion's servant (Matt. viii, 5-13; Luke vii,\n2-10) and the daughter of the Canaanite (Matt. xv, 22-28; Mark vii,\n25-30); or told the stricken to hold forth a withered arm or pick up\nhis bed and walk, by which command the cure was completed (Matt. ix,\n2-7; xii, 10-13; Mark ii, 3-12; Luke v, 18-25).\n\nAmong all primitive peoples, the principal cause of disease was\nsupposed to lie in the displeasure of some deity toward the afflicted\nperson, who was punished by this deity for some offense or neglect\n(Psalms xxxviii, 3). One of the favorite methods of the gods in\nafflicting was sending evil and tormenting spirits into the body of\nthe victim. After more was learned of disease, this theory gradually\ndiminished in strength as regarded some troubles, but for centuries\nit was the universal theory that mental derangements and nervous\nafflictions were solely due to demoniacal possession, and all priests\nand medicine-men resorted to various exorcisms, from the primitive\nbanging of gongs and tooting of trumpets to scare away the spirit,\nto the prayers and sprinkling of holy water of the medi\u00e6val church\nto rid the patient of the unwelcome inhabitant of his body.\n\nThat Jesus believed in this demoniacal possession is undoubted, and\nhe effected his cures by ordering or calling out the devil from the\nbody of the possessed. For example, there is a story of Jesus driving\ndevils into an innocent herd of swine (Matt. viii, 28-33; Mark v,\n2-14; Luke viii, 26-34). We also find him casting out and rebuking\ndevils in various instances (Matt. ix, 32-34; xii, 22-24; xvii, 14-18;\nMark i, 23-24, 34; iii, 11; Luke iv, 33-36, 41; ix, 37-42).\n\nIn all probability, these medical miracles of Jesus were copied from\nolder legends by his biographers. But, even if they actually occurred,\nthey were not miracles at all, for a miracle must be, in the very\nmeaning of the word, performed by the suspension of a natural law,\nand from all gospel accounts the mental therapeutics of the Christ\nwere performed, if at all, in perfect accordance with well-established\npsychological laws. They had been performed years before his birth,\nand they have continued to be performed years after his death,\neven to the present time. Through the force of faith, the patients\nwere placed in passivity (hypnosis) and treated by suggestions being\nimpressed upon their subjective minds, when present; at a distance,\nthey were cured by the telepathic suggestions conveyed from the\nhealer to their subjective mentalities. There is no miracle here;\nit is merely a demonstration of telepathic and hypnotic phenomena,\ngoverned by psychic laws, and does not place the Christ on a higher\nintellectual plane than modern hypnotists and mental healers, who\nconsciously and knowingly work within the dispensation of these\nlaws. They are anything but proofs of the godhead of Jesus.\n\nIt would seem that the Pharisees had some such idea in mind when\nthey demanded an astronomical miracle and requested \"a sign from\nheaven.\" But, unable to comply, he evaded this performance by calling\nthem hypocrites and \"an evil and adulterous generation,\" and saying,\n\"There shall no sign be given unto this generation\" (Matt. xii, 38-39;\nxvi, 1-4; Mark viii, 11-13; Luke xi, 16, 29; John ii, 18, 24; vi, 30).\n\nOne of the commonest miracles ascribed to religious leaders of all\nsects and times, and one which never fails to convince witnesses and\nhearers of the authenticity of such a leader's claims, is that of\nrestoring the dead to life. Such miracles have been so well attested\nthat there seems little reason to suppose them entirely fictitious.\n\nEveryone has heard of cases of catalepsy, and medical history teems\nwith cases of \"suspended animation\"; in fact, the only actual proof\nof death is the entire decomposition of the vital organs; therefore,\nthe cruelty and crime of embalming corpses before such a condition\nis apparent. Some undertakers actually insist upon embalming before\nsuch conditions, because the dead can then be made to \"present a\nbetter appearance\"!\n\nThere are numerous well-proven cases of people lying for days in\ncataleptic conditions, even with slight signs of decomposition due\nto restricted circulation, and then returning to renewed lives and\nperfectly healthy states. All Eastern travelers are familiar with the\npractices of Hindu fakirs who allow themselves to be buried alive for\nweeks, and are \"resurrected\" without having suffered. Therefore, it\ndoes not seem improbable that some such acts on the parts of various\nreligious leaders may have occurred which have excited wonder with\nthe ignorant, and interest among the educated. The early Christians\nproclaimed many such wonderful works, albeit when challenged by a\nwealthy pagan to produce even one such case, in payment for which he\nwould become a convert, a failure was the result.\n\nOrthodox Christians proclaim that Jesus raised from death Jairus'\ndaughter, in entire forgetfulness of the actual words accredited\nto their leader, which were, \"The maid is not dead, but sleepeth\"\n(Matt. ix, 24; Mark v, 39; Luke viii, 52), showing his opinion that\nshe was in a cataleptic condition. While neither of the first three\ngospels says aught of the raising of Lazarus, we find it in John,\nwho seems to have substituted it for the story of Jairus' daughter,\nwhich does not appear in his gospel. According to this hyperbolical\nand probably demented authority, Jesus raised Lazarus to life after he\nhad been dead four days (John xi, 17), although Jesus maintained that\nLazarus was not dead (John xi, 11). He declared that \"this sickness is\nnot unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be\nglorified there-by\" (John xi, 4), or, in other words, Jesus believed\nthat the unfortunate Lazarus was obliged to undergo this frightful\nexperience that his seeming resurrection might cause gaping among\nthe vulgar, and add to the prestige of the miracle worker. For this\nreason, he purposely postponed going to the dying man, whom he might\nhave saved, that he might later have the glory of bringing him to\nlife! Excellent ethics! Finally, however, when he did depart, he said\npositively, \"Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake\nhim out of sleep\" (John xi, 11). Having arrived at the sepulchre,\nhe approached it, groaning and weeping, in a most theatrical manner,\nsuch as would appeal to a highly strung audience, and cried in a loud\nvoice, \"Lazarus, come forth!\" whereupon the dead man arose and came\nout (John xi, 33, 35, 43).\n\nNow, this may have been catalepsy, and it may have been the strong\nvoice and will of the Christ which caused the awakening, but, in\nall probability, if the affair ever occurred, it was a preconceived\ndramatic incident. All the actors were partisans of the professed\nmessiah, and the whole story reads like a play, and undoubtedly the\nwords \"come forth\" were the cue for the waiting man to appear.\n\nIt is by such contemptible methods that religions are established. If\nthe tale were due to the imagination of the author of John, it is most\ndiscreditable to him, and places his hero in a very bad light. If\nit actually occurred, it shows Jesus as a vain-glorious boaster,\nanxious to show his power to the vulgar, and desirous of gaining a\nfollowing by charlatanry, either by raising a hypnotized man or by\ncreating a cheap melodrama.\n\nIt had been prophesied (2 Esdras xiii, 50) that the messiah should\nbe a miracle worker, which probably caused Jesus to affect this\nr\u00f4le when he accepted the part of the messiah, and to condescend to\nsoil his mission by charlatanism, even to the raising of the dead in\nimitation of the former prophets, Elijah and Elisha (I Kings xvii,\n16-24; II Kings iv, 18-37).\n\nIt is rather amusing to hear Theodore Christlieb, that well-named,\nsturdy old German supporter of orthodoxy, boldly assert in irrevocable\nsimplicity and straightforwardness, in his \"Modern Doubt and Christian\nBelief\": \"However much in other respects our opponents may differ,\nthey all agree in the denial of miracles, and unitedly storm this\nbulwark of the Christian faith; and in its defense we have to combat\nthem all at once. But whence this unanimity? Because with the truth\nof miracles the entire citadel of Christianity stands or falls. [The\nitalics are his own.] For its beginning is a miracle, its author is a\nmiracle, its progress depends upon miracles, and they will hereafter\nbe its consummation. If the principle of miracles be set aside, then\nall the heights of Christianity will be leveled with one stroke, and\nnaught will remain but a heap of ruins. If we banish the supernatural\nfrom the Bible, there is nothing left us but the covers\" (pages 285-6).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nVIII.--ATONEMENT AND SALVATION BY FAITH.\n\n\nThe dogma of the atonement which very naturally resulted from the\ntheological interpretation of the crucifixion, was readily accepted\nby the Christian church. The idea of averting disasters by sacrifice\nand thus causing one devoted victim to bear the load of the sins of\nothers, in payment of which his death was acceptable, is one of the\ngreatest antiquity, and we find sacrifices of various kinds offered to\npropitiate the deities, from the simple offerings of primitive man to\nthe more elaborate sacrifices of a more complicated society. Finally\ncame the idea of human sacrifice and then the culminating theory of the\nsacrifice of a divine being whose suffering should atone for all the\nsins of mankind. The belief of redemption from sin by the sufferings\nof a divine incarnation was general and popular centuries before\nthe time of Jesus. In the temple of the moon the Albanians of the\neastern Caucasus kept a number of sacred slaves. When one exhibited\nmore than usual symptoms of inspiration, the high priest maintained\nhim in the utmost luxury for a year, after which he was anointed and\nled forth to be sacrificed. After his death, the people stood upon the\nbody as a purificationary ceremony, it being believed that the dead\nman was possessed of a divine spirit. The ancient Greeks were also\nfamiliar with the use of the human scapegoat, and it was customary\nat Marsailles, one of the busiest and most brilliant of the Greek\ncolonies, to sacrifice an inspired man when the city was ravaged by\nthe plague. All are familiar with the old Jewish practice of using\nthe scapegoat as the vehicle for the expiation of sins, and the whole\ntheory of the atonement is little more than a modernized expression\nof the old idea that the sins of the community may be delegated to\none agent to be sacrificed for the purification of the rest.\n\nThe prophecy, as it is called by John, made by Caiaphas, the high\npriest, \"it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people,\nand that the whole nation perish not\" (John xi, 50; xviii, 14), which\nhas been seized upon by the Christians as a reference to the vicarious\natonement, is nothing more than the opinion of an ardent orthodox Jew\nthat if Jesus were permitted to live and preach he would destroy the\nancient faith and his converts would abandon the old religion. The\nwords \"it is expedient for us\" qualify the whole statement. They\nsignified that the priesthood would be without a following were he\nallowed to continue. The idea of a vicarious atonement for all the\npeople would have been of no expediency whatever to Caiaphas and\nhis class. They felt that if orthodoxy fell by Jesus' preaching, the\nRomans could easily crush them, for it was only by their union and the\nsupport of their ancient rites that they could form any front to the\nimperial government; it was by these alone that they had any political\nsignificance. Once dismembered, the Jews would be scattered to the\ncorners of the earth (John xi, 52). This was the meaning of Caiaphas'\nwords, and he was correct, for such was the actual case. When orthodoxy\nwas undermined, the Jewish nation was ruined.\n\nThe doctrine that God was angry with humanity because of its ancestors'\ntransgressions, and would forgive its sins only on its acceptance of\nbelief in the godhead of Jesus, is so entirely at variance with the\nJewish teachings, which held that God freely forgave penitents on\nthe confession of their sins (Ex. xxxiv, 6-7; Neh. ix, 17; Ps. ciii,\n3; cxxx, 4; Is. xxxiii, 24; Dan. ix, 9) that it was never accepted\nby them.\n\nSome old Christian writers believed that it was to the devil that the\nChrist was sacrificed. Their belief in the justice of the Supreme\nwould not allow them to think that he demanded the sacrifice of an\ninnocent for the sins of the guilty. Proclus of Constantinople, in the\nage of Austin, wrote that \"the devil held us in a state of servitude,\nboasting that he had bought us. It was necessary, therefore, that\nall being condemned, either they should be dragged to death, or a\nsufficient price be paid; and because no angel had the wherewithal\nto pay it, it remained that God should die for us.\"\n\nWhile such an idea is certainly of a higher moral nature than that\nwhich states that God sacrificed his own innocent son for man, it\nhas the unfortunate result of attributing to the devil greater power\nthan to God; for if the devil could demand and receive a part of the\ngod-head as ransom, then God himself was weaker than the arch fiend.\n\nHislop, in his \"Two Babylons,\" commenting upon the Chaldean doctrine\nthat it was \"by the works and merits of men themselves that they must\nbe justified and accepted of God,\" utterly condemns it, and glories in\nthe dogma of the atonement with great and illogical pleasure. Having\nreviewed the Egyptian belief that Anubis weighed the merits and\ndefects of departed souls, so that Osiris, in accordance with the\nresult, might judge and sentence them; and the Parsee belief that the\nAngel of Justice sat on the bridge of Chinevad, which connected heaven\nand earth, weighing souls to decide whether or not they should enter\nparadise, he condemns such theories as \"utterly demoralizing,\" and\nasserts that no believer can ever have \"any solid feeling of comfort,\nor assurance as to his prospects in the eternal world,\" which very fact\nwould seem conducive to clean lives and good deeds. Then he continues\nin ecstasy to exalt the immoral Christian doctrine of \"justification\nby faith alone,\" which he declares alone \"can produce a life of loving,\nfilial, hearty obedience to the law and commands of God,\" and by which\nman may reach salvation \"absolutely irrespective of human merits,\nsimply and solely through the righteousness of Christ.\"\n\nThis is one of the most absurd and immoral doctrines of all the\nabsurd and immoral doctrines of Christianity, and one which leads to\nall varieties of crime and misery. A man who believes that simple\nfaith alone is a perfect and acceptable passport to eternal bliss\nwill take no pains to lead either a decent or useful life. He is at\nliberty to commit all the crimes known to his nature; he may murder,\nsteal, rape, and lie with impunity, for his faith in Christ will\nsave him from his well-deserved punishment; while a man of high\nethical standards and immaculate moral principles, who spends his\nwhole life in self-sacrifice for the progress of humanity is doomed\nto damnation, unless he believe! What a horrible doctrine! What a\nblasphemous conception of the justice of God!\n\nEvery student of comparative theology knows that such views of\natonement were centuries old at the date of the supposed birth of\nthe Christ, and that all sorts of sacrifices were made at the altars\nof different gods with the same idea of atonement; but, aside from\nthis, is there not something cowardly and mean in trying to shirk the\nresponsibilities of one's actions upon either an animal, a man, or a\ngod? Is it not contemptible to suppose that the death and suffering\nof another will allow one to go unpunished, or that such suffering is\na license for humanity to sin? All that is ridiculous, blasphemous,\nand illogical appears in this stupid dogma.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIX.--THE TRINITY--MARIOLATRY.\n\n\nThe dogma of the trinity, which was introduced, strongly advocated,\nand finally successfully lobbied through the famous Council of Nica\u00e6\nin 315, by that astute theological politician Athanasius, Bishop of\nAlexandria, split the Christian church in twain and threw Europe into\nturmoil and bloodshed.\n\nAthanasius was the leader of the Alexandrian school of Christian\ntheology which drew its inspirations and ideas largely--one\nmight almost say, exclusively--from ancient Egyptian sources. The\nEgyptians were an essentially religious people whose deistic ideas\nwere surrounded by ceremony, priestcraft, and mysticism, all of which\nmade such a deep impression upon the pliant minds of the Alexandrian\nChristians that they molded their new faith in the form of their old.\n\nThe Egyptians highly revered the number three, which they generally\nrepresented under the form of a triangle. To the Egyptians nothing\ncould be perfect or complete unless it was of three component\nparts. Therefore, their gods were generally grouped in sets of three,\nmany cities having their own especial trinities. Horus was divided\ninto three persons, and Osiris, Isis and Horus were worshiped under\nthe sign of the triangle.\n\nBut Egypt was not alone in her trinitarian ideas. The theory of sex\nworship had a strong hold on all the peoples of antiquity, and it is\nnot surprising to find similar religious expressions in India. One\nof the most prominent features of Indian theology is the doctrine\nof the divine triad governing all things. This triad is called the\nTri-murti and consists of Brahma, the creator, Vishnu, the preserver,\nand Siva, the destroyer. It is an inseparable unity though three in\nform. The inhabitants of China and Japan, most of whom are Buddhists,\nworship God in the form of a trinity. The Persians have a similar\ntriad composed of Ormuzd, the creator, Mithras, the son, and Ahriman,\nthe destroyer. The ancient Scandinavians likewise worshiped a triple\ndeity who was yet one god, and consisted of Odin, Thor, and Frey.\n\nOne of the many weak points in the doctrine of the trinity, and one\nthat must be noticeable even to Christians, is that, according to the\nNew Testament, the apostles themselves never seem to have recognized\nthe divinity of Jesus, but always treated him as a human Jew like\nthemselves. This attitude of the early Christian disciples is noted by\nPriestley, who remarks in his \"Corruptions of Christianity\" (page 136):\n\"It can never be thought that Peter and the others would have made\nso free with our Lord, as they sometimes did, if they had considered\nhim as their maker, and the being who supported the whole universe;\nand therefore must have been present in every part of creation, giving\nhis attention to everything, and exerting his power upon everything,\nat the same time that he was familiarly conversing with them. Moreover,\nthe history of the temptation must be altogether improbable in such\na supposition. For what could be the offer of the kingdoms of this\nworld to him who made the world, and was already in possession of it?\"\n\nNumerous texts which tend to affirm the humanity of Jesus have been\nstumbling blocks in the paths of the trinitarians, and they have\ntaken great pains to explain away these embarrassing texts, even at\nthe cost of much ingenuity and absurdity. Paul, the real founder of\nthe faith, in his first epistle to Timothy, says: \"For there is one\nGod, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus\"\n(1 Tim. ii, 5); and again in his first epistle to John he remarks:\n\"No man hath seen God\" (1 John iv, 12). Such phrases as \"Why callest\nthou me good? There is none good but one, that is God\" (Matt. xix,\n17), and \"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the\ntruth, which I have heard of God\" (John viii, 40), do not appear to be\nfitting remarks for the second person of the trinity. Again, the words,\n\"My Father is greater than I\" (John xiv, 28), were likewise difficult\nof explanation by those who held that every member of the trinity is\ncoequal, but Austin got around this by declaring that \"Christ having\nemptied himself of his former glory, and being in form of a servant,\nwas then less, not only than his Father, but even than himself\"!\n\nThe same writer asserts that the words, \"that the Son knew not the\ntime of the day of judgment, but only the Father\" (Mark xiii, 32),\nmeans that while Jesus did know something of the trinity, he would\nnot make it known to others--thus making a downright liar of his God.\n\nThe whole of trinitarianism is epitomized in the phrase of Peter\nLombard, who, having made the impossible arithmetical assertion\nthat no one person of the trinity is less than the other two, says:\n\"He that can receive this, let him receive it; but he that cannot,\nlet him, however, believe it; and let him pray that what he believes\nhe may understand.\"\n\nJesus having been ordained one of the godhead, the only begotten son\nof the most high god, the worship of his mother naturally followed;\nfor who could reasonably refuse to bend the knee to the one virgin\nof all humanity, considered worthy of the honor of bearing the\nincarnate deity? It was all the easier for the Christian church to\nadopt this practice, that it had been one of the principal features\nof the ancient theologies. All nations have worshiped a pure, chaste\nqueen of heaven, a personification of that beautiful celestial body\nthat smiles so benignly down on earth every month. In every land the\nmoon was worshiped as a mother goddess, pure, beautiful, and loving;\nfor there is not the slightest doubt that the virgin queen of heaven,\nso commonly worshiped by all nations, was merely a personification\nof the moon.\n\nIsis, mother of the Egyptian savior Horus, was worshiped as a virgin\nand was styled \"Our Lady,\" \"Queen of Heaven,\" \"Mother of God,\"\n\"Intercessor,\" and \"Immaculate Virgin.\" She was commonly represented\nwith the divine infant seated on her lap, or standing on a crescent\nmoon, and having a glory of twelve stars about her head.\n\nWith the adoption of the worship of Isis to Christianity, the crescent\nmoon became a sacred symbol of Mary, who was often portrayed standing\nupon one. It was held peculiarly sacred by the Greek church and\na large crescent moon of gold adorned the dome of St. Sophia at\nConstantinople. When the city fell in 1453 before the Turkish arms,\nthe Sultan adopted the crescent as a symbol of his victorious power\nand as a humiliation to his Christian enemies, and thus again the\nreligious significance of the crescent changed, and as an emblem of a\nMohammedan power soon came to be regarded by the forgetful Christians\nwith horror and a deadly hatred.\n\nThe ancient Chaldees believed in a celestial virgin-mother to whom\nthe erring sinner might appeal, and Shin-moo, the mother goddess,\noccupies a conspicuous place in Chinese worship. The Babylonians and\nAssyrians worshiped a goddess called Mylitta, whose son Tammuz is\nsaid to have arisen from the dead.\n\nIn India they have worshiped for ages Devaki, the mother of Krishna,\nand Maya, the mother of Buddha, both of whom are represented with the\ninfant saviors in their arms. Their statues, similar to the Christian\nmadonnas, are found in Hindu temples, and their portraits are always\naccompanied by halos.\n\nSochiquetzal, mother of Quetzalcoatl, was worshiped in Mexico as\nthe mother of their crucified savior. As queen of heaven and the\nchaste and immaculate protectress of women, the Greek Hera and her\nRoman prototype, Juno, were worshiped by the ancient classical world,\nwhile the virtuous Diana of Ephesus held a similar place in Phoenician\nmythology.\n\nAll the ancient beliefs in the virgin queen of heaven and her\nmiraculous child probably had more or less effect on the growth\nof virgin worship in the Christian church; but it was undoubtedly\nEgyptian influence which was most powerful in the adoption of it,\njust as it was in regard to the trinitarian dogma. The worship of\nIsis and Horus was introduced into Rome during the early days of\nthe empire and was readily accepted. And with its introduction came\nthose basalt images of the goddess and her child which have since\nbeen adopted by the Christians as ancient representations of Mary and\nJesus, albeit they are as black as Ethiopians. Many centuries before,\nthe worship of the Greek goddess Hera had been instituted at Rome\nunder the name of Juno, and she was especially regarded as the chaste\nand immaculate protectress of women. And it was the combination of\nthe worship offered to these two deities that the Christian church\ncondensed into the worship of the mother of Jesus, to which it added\nthe attributes of Diana, making Mary the patroness of chastity as\nwell as fruitfulness! In Dante's day it was customary to invoke the\nVirgin Mary at childbirth just as Juno Lucina was invoked by the\npagan ancestors of the Italians.\n\nThe worship of the virgin as theotokos, the mother of god, was\npromulgated at the general council of Ephesus, which was called by\nthe Emperor Theodosius II in 431, and, after that date, and up to\nthe present time, we find this lowly Jewish peasant girl delineated\nin all the insignia of royalty and portrayed in the most beautiful\nand patrician type of classical beauty.\n\nWith the adoration of Mary rose the legend that she, too, had ascended\nbodily into heaven and was there crowned by her son and bidden to\nsit eternally upon his right hand that she might plead with him to\nmitigate the punishments of sinners, thus allowing that the judgment\nof this second member of the holy trinity might be fallible, or at\nleast open to influence.\n\nHaving raised the virgin to this immense height, the natural sequence\nwas to go a step farther and grant to her also immaculate origin. This\nidea was first noticed in the eleventh century and steadily grew\nuntil in 1494 Sextus the Fourth officially recognized it and gave it\nthe solemn sanction of the church, and in July, 1615, Paul the Fifth\ninstituted the office commemorating her immaculate conception. Virgin\nworship has continued to grow and flourish, and even so late as 1854,\nPius the Ninth issued a bull officially declaring Mary the \"Mediatrix\"\nbetween Christ and the faithful.\n\nMary is not, however, the only intercessor that stands between man and\nhis God. There is an immense horde of saints who also occupy positions\nof honor about the heavenly throne. These immortal semi-human beings\nare created by a decree of the Roman pontiff and their canonization\nhas often been due to whimsical reasoning. That all the apostles,\nmartyrs, and early Christian fathers should have been raised to this\nholy peerage is not so remarkable; but that such honor should have\nbeen conferred on the wicked, unscrupulous, and vicious Constantine,\nand his almost unknown mother Helena; on the powerful and warlike\nCharlemagne; and on the ambitious and ungrateful Thomas \u00e0 Becket,\nseems strange to say the least.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nX.--THE SAINTS--GOOD AND EVIL SPIRITS.\n\n\nThat this army of saints was originally created to replace the body\nof heroes and demi-gods of antiquity cannot be doubted. The compliance\nwith which the church converted pagan deities into Christian heroes is\nperfectly well known, and it is shown in many ways. Ancient statues\nwere declared to represent newly canonized saints to whom pagan\nattributes were unhesitatingly given--often most ridiculously. At\nthe temple of Sebona, in Nubia, the Christians replaced the figure\nof the old god of the temple, which appeared in a fresco, by that of\nSt. Peter, thus depicting King Rameses the Second as presenting his\noffering to the Christian saint! The statue of Jupiter in St. Peter's\nat Rome has been declared that of the erstwhile fisherman, and its\noriginal thunderbolts have been replaced by the keys, which the\nChristian mythologists have filched from the god Janus to bestow on\ntheir revered patron in accordance with the promise of Matthew xvi,\n19. Rome is full of proofs of this conversion of heathen to Christian\ndeities. The temple formerly sacred to the Bona Dea was dedicated\nto the Virgin Mary; the church of Saint Apollinaris stands on the\nspot formerly dedicated to Apollo; and the temple of Mars was given\nto St. Martina. The very names of some of the saints have an old\nfamiliar sound--as St. Baccho, St. Quirinus, St. Romula, St. Redempta,\nSt. Concordia, St. Nympha, and St. Mercurius.\n\nThe Christian symbolism of its heroes has also a decidedly pagan\nflavor. The ancient winged lion of the Egyptian mythology is made to\nportray St. Mark; the sacred bull denotes St. Luke; while St. John\nis generously supplied with both the eagle of Jove and the hawk's\nhead of Horus.\n\nThe idea of intercession, which is the principal attribute of all the\nsaints, is also a very ancient religious theory and probably came with\nthe other dogmas already mentioned from Alexandria, as we find that\nthe Egyptians believed that some of their gods--and particularly the\nfour gods of the dead--acted as mediators with the stern judge Osiris\nand attempted to turn aside his wrath and the punishment of sins.\n\nMuch akin to the saints, though differing from them in form and in\nnever having been mortal, are the angels. These beings combine the\nwings of the Roman victories with the sweet voices of the Teutonic\nelves and the classical sirens, and are in many ways similar to\nthe famous northern valkyries who wore shirts of swan plumage and\nhovered over Scandinavian battlefields to receive the souls of\nfalling heroes. The Hindu apsaras and Moslem houris belong to the\nsame family. A few years ago a bitter controversy arose in New York\nEpiscopal circles as to the sex of these unearthly creatures, some\nstrenuously advocating their masculinity, while others gallantly\nasserted that they were essentially feminine, but the earlier idea\nwas that they were entirely sexless, combining the characteristic\nvirtues of both sexes.\n\nApart from both saints and angels stands another figure in the\nChristian mythology--one, however, that has no actual counterpart in\nthe ancient faiths. This is Satan. The classical religious systems\nhad no such conception, their king of the dead being a gloomy and\naustere deity without any of the malicious or mischievous propensities\nof the more modern devil, and having no designs upon the welfare of\nmankind. The medieval conception of the devil was a grotesque compound\nof elements derived from all the pagan mythologies which Christianity\nsuperseded. From the sylvan deity Pan he gets his goat-like body, his\nhorns and cloven hoofs; his lameness was due to his fall from heaven,\nin imitation of the fall of the Roman Vulcan; and his red beard was\ntaken from the lightning god Thor, as was also his power over the\nthunderbolts; while his pitchfork is the converted trident of Neptune.\n\nThat much of the absurd fabric of Christianity is built upon a\nbelief in Satan cannot be denied, for the whole theology is based\nupon the necessity of a savior whose death atones for the sins of\nmankind, which were consequent upon man's fall from grace through the\nmachinations of the devil. Had man never fallen, there were no need\nof a savior. Had man never been tempted, he would never have fallen,\nand in no words was the necessity of a belief in the devil more\nplainly set forth than by that most orthodox writer, des Mousseaux,\nin his \"Moeurs et Pratiques des Demons,\" published in 1852. He says:\n\"The Devil is the chief pillar of Faith. He is one of the grand\npersonages whose life is closely allied to that of the church, and\nwithout his speech, which issued out so triumphantly from the mouth\nof the serpent, the fall of man could never have taken place. Thus,\nif it were not for him, the Savior, the Crucified, the Redeemer,\nwould be but the most ridiculous of supernumeraries and the cross an\ninsult to good sense!\" In his preface to \"Les Hauts Phenom\u00e8nes de la\nMagie,\" des Mousseaux repeats this theory: \"If magic and spiritualism\nwere both but chimeras, we would have to bid an eternal farewell\nto all the rebellious angels now troubling the world; for thus we\nwould have no more demons down here.... And if we lost our demons,\nwe would lose our Savior likewise; for, from whom did that Savior\nsave us? And then there would be no more Redeemer; for, from whom\nor what could that Redeemer redeem us? Hence, there would be no more\nChristianity.\" He evidently regards Satan as \"the prince of this world\"\n(John xii, 31; xvi, 11); \"the god of this world\" (Cor. iv, 4); and\n\"the prince of the power of the air\" (Eph. ii, 2).\n\nThe universally accepted belief of Christendom in the almost absolute\npower of the devil was the cause of the most awful persecution\nof innocence that the world has ever seen. While the tortures of\nthe heretics by the Inquisition had some cause of a political as\nwell as ecclesiastical nature, the houndings of those accused of\nwitchcraft and sorcery had no foundation save in superstition and\ngross ignorance. During the Christian era millions of persons have\nbeen destroyed for this crime in conformity to the command, \"Thou\nshalt not suffer a witch to live\" (Ex. xxii, 18). The Roman church\nrecognized and punished the crime; Luther approved of the burning of\nwitches; the Scotch reformers did likewise, and the Puritans of New\nEngland delighted in the persecution.\n\nWhile all religiously orthodox people accept the narrative of\nscriptural miracles with unquestioning faith and never cast a doubt\non the greatest improbabilities so long as they are told of biblical\nheroes, these very people assign all the seeming supernatural affairs\nof post-scriptural times to the devil. Psychical phenomena which, if\nperformed two thousand years ago by Jesus (such as the resurrection\nof Lazarus and the materialization to the Magdalene), they accept\nwithout hesitation, they brand as trickery or a delusion or Satan,\nwhen placed before them by a professed Spiritualist.\n\nWitches and wizards were condemned to horrible deaths by the medieval\nchurch for performing the very identical acts for which the same church\ncanonized departed saints and instituted offices for their adoration\nand worship; and modern Christians smile and sneer derisively at\nfortune tellers, but condemn in holy horror as heretics those who\nrefuse to believe in the foreseeing powers of the ancient Hebrew\nprophets.\n\nThis Christian devil-worship, for it can be called little else, crept\ninto Judaism during the Babylonian captivity, and was originally a\nrecognition of the dual powers of good and evil, seemingly coequal. By\nplacing Satan in opposition to God, in giving him eternal life, and\nendowing him with miraculous powers, and even allowing him to upset\nand vanquish the plans of God, Christians have made Satan equal, if not\nsuperior, to the Deity. A Puritan bigot hanging witches in New England\nwas admitting in the plainest manner his faith in Satan's power, though\nit never occurred to him for an instant that these curious happenings\nmight be attributed to God. The power of God to perform miracles was\nthen, as now, a matter of the past. With the Protestant Reformation\ncame the idea that no longer did God interfere for the benefit of\nman. In the seventeenth century God had ceased to work by other than\nnatural agencies. His miraculous powers, if not lost, were at least\nsuspended. But not so Satan--that archfiend was as powerful as ever,\nif not more so. He could inflict magical tortures on God's divinely\nelect and make them writhe in agony. Pious Cotton Mather had ceased\nto believe in divine miracles, but he had no doubt of devilish ones,\nand it appears to all students of that dark and shameful period of our\nhistory that the belief was rampant among the majority that God was\nvanquished and Satan ruled. Never was belief in the dual principles\nof good and evil more surely set forth in ancient Persia than it was\nin New England by such harsh, cruel, and bigoted priests as Mather\nand Parrish.\n\nToday, while all churchmen have grown more liberal, we still find\nboth in pulpit and pew innumerable believers in the power of Satan\nto tempt and force erring humanity into wrong and sinful paths in\nmiraculous salvation from which by God they have no faith. Today,\ninstead of earthly and present salvation by the Deity from the\nclutches of Satan, the belief seems prevalent that a post-mortem\nsalvation is more efficacious, and that all that is required for\neternal bliss is belief in the vicarious atonement of the Christ. To\nhear our orthodox friends declaim on the powers of Satan almost makes\none ready to believe that God is dead and Satan rules supreme. Such\nis the blasphemy of demonic faith.\n\nWhile Satan, as the arch-enemy, is somewhat similar to the Persian\nAhriman, he is not alone in his wickedness. When Christianity came\ninto power and supplanted paganism as the Roman state religion,\nit immediately debased all of the pagan gods, whom it did not\nappropriate to itself as saints, to devils and assigned them\nsubordinate positions in hell, under command of the great Satan. And\nthus, all the beautiful water sprites, sylvan nymphs, spirits of the\nair, and other lesser deities, became the associates of wickedness,\nand, as such, continued, until a very recent date, to hold sway over\nthe superstitious imaginations of the majority of Europeans.\n\nThe medi\u00e6val church likewise invented the famous succub\u00e6 and incubi,\nthe former demons impersonating the beautiful nymphs of the old\nmythology and attacking the virtue of youths with their seductive\narts, while the latter, in imitation of the ancient satyrs, sought the\nvirginity of unsuspecting maidens; all of which may readily be learned\nof in accounts of the many trials held by \"the Holy Inquisition,\"\nin which such were condemned as had held intercourse with these demons.\n\nIn many cases, women swearing to have had intercourse with incubi\nwere merely suffering from erotic and nymphomaniac hallucinations,\nwhile others may have found it a convenient excuse for explaining\nillicit impregnations. Men, falling under the charms of women,\nfound it a convenient method for disposing of their loves, after the\ninfatuation had passed, by declaring them succub\u00e6; and monks, who had\ncontracted venereal diseases, laid their sufferings to these same fair\ndemons. In the case of the monks, however, the succub\u00e6 were often of\npurely hallucinary origin, due to excessive asceticism together with\nthe suppression of natural desires and a too faithful conformity to\nthe ordinance of celibacy. Nymphomania is also prevalent in convents,\nowing to the unnatural sexual lives led by the nuns, who either\nremain truly chaste or abandon themselves to all sorts of debauchery\nand perverted lubricities. In former times these rages of demented\nwomen were supposed to have been caused by possession of demons,\nwhich tormented them at the orders of magicians, and advantage was\noften taken by the unscrupulous to accuse their enemies of the crime\nof sorcery, and thus cause their execution.\n\nOne of the most famous of these horrible affairs was that of Loudin in\nPoitiers, where the nuns of the Ursuline convent, becoming hysterical\nand demented, swore themselves afflicted by Urbain Grandier, a priest\nof the local church, and despite the attempts of the rational bailiff\nand sensible civil lieutenants, some enemies of the cur\u00e9 among the\nexorcists managed to secure the arrest, torture, and final burning\nof the unfortunate man in 1632. Later, it was discovered that, being\npersonally attractive, handsome and gallant, Grandier, who never\ndenied his numerous amours, had incurred the enmity of the Loudin\nnuns by entirely ignoring their advances; and hell hath no fury like\na woman scorned! These libidinous women, constantly brooding over\ndisappointment to their fond hopes, gave such a character of demonic\npossession to their neurosis that advantage could be taken of it by\nrival priests to rid themselves of an envied enemy. The writhings,\ngesticulations, convulsions, etc., of these unfortunate women,\ncombined with the indecency of their actions on the approach of the\nexorcists (caused merely by the approach of a male), were believed by\nthe vulgar to be demonstrations of demonic possession. Other nuns,\nseeing the attention and notoriety thus gained by these sisters,\nalthough themselves free from dementia, could not resist the temptation\nto simulate its forms and thus acquire renown for themselves.\n\nThus arose those horrible demonical scenes which occupied the attention\nof all Europe during the seventeenth century and seemed to point to\nthe possession of all convents by devils. And not convents alone, for\nother hysterical women, without the walls, possessed of the same rage\nfor notoriety, took up the character of demonic possessed and spread\nthe vulgar superstition until it seems that every woman in Europe who\nwas so unfortunate as to be in any way afflicted with tendencies to\nhysteria, neurosis, idiocy, or dementia of any character whatever,\ncame to be regarded as in the power of a demon, which in turn was\nthe slave of some magician. And thus, through the influence of an\nignorant and unscrupulous priesthood, a powerful engine was placed\nat its disposal for the removal of enemies. Executions for sorcery\ncontinued until their very number and barbarity palled, and the wearied\npeople were ready for their abolition, when the Reformation opened and\nwith the accession of power, Protestantism, in this matter, at least,\nswayed the masses to reason once more.\n\nDr. Figuier, in his \"Histoire du Merveilleux,\" explains these\ndemonical possessions as entirely due to hypnotism, and, ignoring the\nnymphomaniac theory, asserts that the exorcists themselves hypnotized\nthe nuns for their own glory and for purposes of vengeance. One page\n234 of volume I he says: \"L'appareil deploy\u00e9 par les exorcistes,\nleurs adjurations, leurs gestes imposants et forcen\u00e9s, tenaient\nlieu des manipulations que nos magnetiseurs emploient pour endormir\nleurs sujets. Operant sur des jeunes filles nerveuses, malades,\nmelancoliques, les exorcistes produisaient chez elles une partie des\nphenom\u00e8nes auxquels donn\u00e9 lieu le somnambulisme artificiel.\"\n\nThe universal belief in evil spirits became a powerful engine for the\nadvancement of the church. By its use all those who were inimical to\nthe church could be put out of the way as comrades of devils, and,\nfurthermore, the theory was advanced that only by the exorcisms of\nthe church could man be protected from malevolent powers. Holy water,\nsigns of the cross, repetitions of the name of Mary had full power\nto annul all the machinations of the demons, but only in the hands\nof the true believers was this efficacious. To preserve one from the\ndangers of demonic spite, absolute orthodoxy was essential, and thus\na great premium was imposed upon strict adherence to the church. Thus\nwas gross superstition a most powerful factor in the growth and spread\nof Christianity. According to Lecky: \"There was scarcely a village or\na church that had not, at some time, been the scene of supernatural\ninterposition. The powers of light and the powers of darkness were\nregarded as visibly struggling for the mastery. Saintly miracles,\nsupernatural cures, startling judgments, visions, prophecies, and\nprodigies of every order, attested the activity of the one, while\nwitchcraft and magic, with all their attendant horrors, were the\nvisible manifestations of the other.... Tens of thousands of victims\nperished by the most agonizing and protracted torments, without\nexciting the slightest compassion.... Nations that were separated\nby position, by interests, and by character, on this question were\nunited.\" And the germ of all this evil lay in the very foundation of\nChristianity--the faith held in supernatural agencies.\n\nThe belief in the supernatural agency in the temptation of Eve, the\ntemptations of Jesus, the possibility of the miraculous conception,\nand the miracles of Christ, were but stepping-stones to faith in\ninnumerable invisible but potent powers. One who can conscientiously\nbelieve in the supernatural as found between the covers of the\nBible can, by but a slight stretch of the imagination, believe any\npreposterous tale that is woven about a supernatural agency. If one\ncan believe a woman can conceive without contact with semen, one\ncan believe some old woman can dry up his cow. If one can believe\nthat Jesus actually raised Lazarus from the dead, one can believe\nthat a man can kill him by sticking pins in a wax effigy. If one\ncan believe that Elijah ascended to heaven in a fiery chariot, one\ncan believe that Goody Jones rode a broomstick through the air. If\none can believe that the Christ was actually tempted by the devil,\none can believe in succub\u00e6 and incubi. It is all a matter of logical\nreasoning. As soon as a Christian's intellectual powers develop to\na point where he can find no place for the miraculous in the world\nabout him, he begins to doubt that which was in the world before him;\nbut, regarding theological tales, he either places them in another\ncategory or ignores them, unless faced with them, when he crawls and\ncalls them \"sacred mysteries.\" That an old woman can sour his milk\nor kill his child by the evil eye he does not believe, for reason has\ntaught him otherwise. And for the same reason he would not believe his\ndaughter if she told him she was pregnant with a miraculous child. He\ndid not believe Josephine Woodbury when she made a similar statement\nin Boston a few years ago. But he does believe it of Mary, because it\nis a \"holy mystery,\" and is in another category. He has inherited his\nfaith from a long line of orthodox ancestors, and he has never stopped\nto consider it by the light of pure reason. It is fortunate for the\ndogma of the virgin birth that it took root when people believed such\nthings, otherwise Mary would have been adorned with the scarlet letter.\n\nFeasts, fasts and elaborate ceremonials were important features of\nthe most ancient worships, and it is not, therefore, strange to find\nsomewhat modified adaptations of them in the Christian church. For,\nwherever Christianity wandered and found firmly implanted religious\ntheories and customs, it immediately gave them new significations and\naccepted them, until finally the greater part of paganism was gathered\nfrom all parts of the civilized world and amalgamated into one strong\ntheological organization. Finding in almost every nation a festival\nat the winter solstice, in commemoration of the accouchement of the\ncelestial, virgin queen of heaven, and the birth of the sun-god,\nthe Christian fathers decided to adopt the 25th of December as the\nnatal day of their Christ.\n\nMithras, Osiris, Horus, Bacchus, Adonis and Buddha were all said to\nhave been born on this day, and it is the date of one of the greatest\nreligious festivals of India, during which the people decorate their\nhouses with garlands and make presents to relatives and friends;\na custom adopted by the Christians in much the same manner as was\nthat of the ancient German yule-log, burned in honor of the sun-god.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nXI.--RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS AND RITES.\n\n\nThe winter solstice was also the time of the great Scandinavian\nfestival in honor of Frey, son of Odin and Frigga, who was supposed\nto have been born at this time. The Jews, likewise, have a feast\nbeginning on the 25th of December, which lasts eight days, and is in\nmemory of the victory of the Maccabees over the Greeks. It is called\nthe feast of Hanuca.\n\nA great annual festival, called the \"feast of lamps,\" was held by the\nEgyptians in the early part of the year in honor of the goddess Neith,\nduring which lamps of oil were burned all night before the houses. This\nfestival was renamed Candlemas or the \"purification of the virgin,\"\nand was adopted by the Christian church.\n\nThe ancient pagan inhabitants of Europe annually celebrated a spring\nfestival which began with a week's indulgence in all kinds of sports\nand was called the carne-vale, or taking farewell of meat, because a\nfast of forty days immediately followed. In Germany this was held in\nhonor of the Saxon goddess Hertha, or Ostara, or Eostre--as you may\nprefer to call her--whose name was adopted as Easter by the Christians\nas the name to be applied to the end of their lenten period. Among\nthe Syrians it was the custom to celebrate an elaborate festival\nat the time of the spring equinox in honor of the glorious Adonis,\nbeloved of the great goddess Astarte. This worship was later introduced\ninto Greece, whence it traveled to Rome with the majority of Grecian\nmythological theories. It was later introduced into Egypt, where it was\nannually celebrated at Alexandria, the cradle of Christianity, until\nthe latter part of the fourth century, when a Christian significance\nwas given it.\n\nThe myth of Adonis is too well known to need repetition here, and\nits parallel to that of the Christ is readily seen. The ceremonies\nnow held in Rome at Easter are but slightly different from those\nheld there at the same time of year centuries ago. This similarity\nwas explained away by the assertion of the Christian fathers \"that\na long time before there were Christians in existence, the devil had\ntaken pleasure to have their future mysteries and ceremonies copied\nby his worshipers\"--a very simple and satisfactory explanation!\n\nThat Easter is in reality an astronomical festival in honor of the\nsun-god seems conclusive from the fact that it occurs on no settled\ndate, but takes place on the first Sunday after the first full moon\nafter the passing of the vernal equinox, which, for convenience,\nis fixed at March 21.\n\nAmong the many Christian fasts of pagan origin none is more familiar\nto all than the weekly Friday abstinence from meat. Under the old\nmythology, Friday, the dies veneris, was sacred to Venus, and on that\nday the devout worshipers of this charming goddess ate nothing but\nfish, as all the \"finny tribe\" were sacred to her, and considered\nproper diet for those that worshiped at her shrine.\n\nWhen the Bishop of Rome assumed the power and dignity of head of\nthe western church, he also assumed all the prerogatives of the\nancient pontifex maximus (who was supposed to be the direct physical\ncommunication between the people and the deities), and many of the\nattributes of the emperors. He adopted the gorgeous vestments of the\nancient high priest and even stretched forth a foot to be kissed, as\nHeliogabalus had done. He considered himself capable of raising such as\nhe saw fit to semi-divine honors by canonization, just as the emperors\nhad raised altars to their favorites, and he claimed precedence over\nevery monarch of the earth, just as they also had done. But the Roman\npontiff is not unique in his position of viceroy of the deity. The\ngrand lama of Thibet is considered as the representative of Buddha\nand has the power of dispensing divine blessings on whomsoever he\nwill. Taoism also has a pope who resides on the Lung-h\u00fb mountain,\nin the department of Kwang-hsi, who bears the surname Chang and is\ncalled \"Heavenly Master.\"\n\nThe best known rites of the Christian church are probably those of\nbaptism, confession and communion, with which are associated the\nideas of purification, prayer and transubstantiation.\n\nThe rite of baptism, like all ideas which refer to the purification\nof sin by water, is a most ancient one. Rivers, as sources of\npurification, were at an early date invested with a sacred character,\nand every great river was supposed to be permeated with a divine\nessence and its waters were believed to cleanse from all mortal\nguilt and contamination. The Ganges and the Jordan are well known\nexamples of this faith, and vases of Ganges water are to be found in\nalmost every dwelling in India for religious purposes. In Mongolia\nand Thibet children are named by the priests, who immerse them in\nholy water while reading a prescribed prayer, after which the name is\nbestowed. Baptism preceded initiation into the mysteries of both the\nEgyptian Isis and the Persian Mithras, and was held to be the means\nof regeneration and of remission of sins.\n\nTertullian, noticing the great similarity between the Christian and\npagan baptisms, na\u00efvely remarked that the devil \"baptizes some, of\ncourse, such as believe in him and are faithful to him; he promises\nexpiation of sins from the bath, and, if my memory of Mithras serves\nme still, in this rite he signs his soldiers on their foreheads.\"\n\nMuch akin to baptism is the general use by the Christian church of\nso-called holy water, which is ascribed to Pope Alexander the First,\nwho ruled during the first century. This pontiff probably did little\nmore than officially to condone, by his papal sanction, the very\ngeneral use of lustral water, which the Romans had inherited from\ntheir pagan ancestors; for lustral water was always kept in vases\nat the entrance of the Roman temples, that those passing in and out\nmight sprinkle themselves with it; and the priests used a sprinkling\nbrush called the aspersorium with which they threw the purifying\nwater over their congregations, in the same manner as modern priests\nuse the hyssop. The druids gave, or sprinkled upon, the worshipers\nwater in which mistletoe had been immersed or steeped.\n\nSimilar to the idea of purification by baptism is that of purification\nby confession and prayer. The idea involved in confession is\nthat the declaration of the crime relieves the conscience of its\ncriminality. In Iceland and among the Scandinavian and Teutonic\npeoples in general, murder ceased to be a crime when the slayer had\ndeclared himself guilty. Among the Jews confession was practiced,\nthe purpose of its institution being that the priest might judge of\nthe sacrifice required for the expiation of the sin committed, and,\nalso, that every crime might be rehearsed over the scapegoat. The\nPeruvians confessed their sins to their priests with the exception\nof the Incas, who confessed to the sun. At the famous Samothracian\nmysteries a priest was especially charged with hearing the confessions\nof great criminals and with granting them absolution.\n\nAmong Protestant Christians confession is often made directly to\nthe supreme deity in the form of prayer, which, like most other\nreligious practices, is an eminently pagan custom. The Assyrians,\nBabylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, and most other ancient peoples\noffered sacrifices on the altars of their gods to propitiate them,\nand accompanied these offerings with prayers. Today, instead of\npresenting wines and viands to his god, the devout Christian offers\nverbal expressions of a contrite spirit or, more often, asks a\nfavor. He demands, begs, or advises through this method, according\nto his own nature and disposition.\n\nThe expression used in modern orthodox Protestant prayers, \"through\nour Lord, Jesus Christ,\" is merely the concrete expression of the\nidea of mediation. The great supreme God was looked upon by most\nnations of antiquity as being too great, too sublime, too holy, to\nbe addressed directly; and, in this lofty conception of the deity,\nthey prayed for favors to mediators whom they created to request\nboons from the real ruler of heaven and earth.\n\nAmong the Hindus, supplications were addressed to the various\napotheosized incarnations of Vishnu, rather than to the great Brahma;\nthe Greeks made supplication to numerous lesser gods, rather than to\nZeus; Persians addressed Mithras instead of Ormuzd; and the modern\nRomanist kneels to saints and martyrs, or Jesus or his mother, at\nwhose shrines they place offerings which are bribes for favors; but\nalmost never do they immediately supplicate the supreme God. In this\nthey are certainly less blasphemous than their Protestant fellows, who\ndo not hesitate to talk familiarly to God of the most trivial affairs.\n\nBelief in the efficacy of prayer is an absurdity which owes its\norigin to a hereditary trait of humanity, descended through a long\nline of superstitious ancestors. Primitive man prayed to his dead\nfathers for their good will, believing them more powerful in their\npost mortem state than during life. The ancients offered prayers\nat the shrines of their various gods and, among all nations, from\ntime immemorial, deities have been supplicated to bestow gifts and\navert misfortunes. The overcharged mind of the superstitious has\never found relief in expressing its troubles to the imaginary beings\non whom it has bestowed superhuman attributes. All over the world,\nin all languages, have arisen various petitions to the deities,\nand still do they continue to arise. Savages pray to their idols,\nMoslems crouch facing Mecca to pray to Allah, Hindus pray to the\navatars of Vishnu, and all Christendom besieges the throne of God in\nconstant supplication.\n\nCan any rational mind believe that these numerous, varied and even\nantagonistic petitions will be answered? Some are praying for rain,\nsome for a cessation of it, some for health, some for happiness,\nsome for material blessings, and some for spiritual welfare. Vain\nrepetitions! The material universe is governed by immutable laws which\nall the breath in creation wasted in prayer cannot in any way affect;\nwhile such spiritual benefits as morality, character and virtue \"are\nequally dependent on the invariable laws of cause and effect.\" Prayers\nfor forgiveness of sins are perhaps the most common, as well as the\nmost absurd, that are daily offered. Sin is the breaking of a material\nor moral law, and no law can be broken without the transgressor's\nincurring the penalty. Is it not absurd of the church to preach the\nimmutable justice of God, and at the same time declare that sinners\nmay escape punishment by prayer?\n\nCommunion, or union with the deity, is an idea of great antiquity\nand has been common to all religions; although the methods practiced\nare numerous and varied. The more common mode, however, is by the\nconsumption of consecrated foods and drinks, with the idea that these\nhave acquired (by the act of consecration) a divine character of which\nthe communicant becomes a partaker through their reception. The dogma\nof the eucharist was instituted many centuries before the Christian era\nand was believed in by the ancient Egyptians (from whom the Christians\nprobably received it through the Alexandrian school), who, at the\ntime of the celebration of the resurrection of Osiris, ate a sacred\nwafer, which, after consecration by a priest, was declared the flesh\nof the god. In ancient Greece, bread was worshiped as Ceres and wine\nas Bacchus; and, when the devout ate the bread and drank the wine,\nthey claimed they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of\ntheir deities. The ancient Mexicans used bread of corn meal mixed\nwith blood, which, after, having been consecrated by the priests,\nwas given to the people to eat as the flesh of Quetzalcoatl, much\nto the surprise and horror of the first Spanish missionaries, who\nascribed it to mockery of their holy eucharist due to Satan.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nXII--THE EUCHARIST.\n\n\nThe primal origin of the eucharist probably occurred far back in the\nperiod of universal anthropophagy. Most savage and semi-savage peoples\nhave practiced cannibalism because they believed that by eating the\nflesh of the dead they gained the qualities of the deceased. Just as\nsome Africans eat tiger to become brave, savages ate their courageous\nfoes to attain their virtues. Following this same idea further,\nthe belief was established that by consuming the flesh of a god,\nsupernatural powers might be acquired. Thus the early Christian\nmissionaries to the New World found such customs in Peru and Mexico.\n\nFather Acosta described one of these festivals which occurred annually\neach May in Mexico, wherein the statue of a god was made of dough, and\n\"killed\" by an arrow in the hand of a priest. The god was then broken\nin pieces which by means of \"certain ceremonies ... were blessed and\nconsecrated for the flesh and bones of this idoll.\" These pieces the\npriest gave \"to the people in manner of a communion who received it\nwith such feare, and reverence, as it was an admirable thing, saying\nthat they did eate the flesh and bones of God.\"\n\nLikewise came the idea that sacrifices to the gods in some way attained\ngodlike characteristics, and so the Guatemalan priests ate the bodies\nof the sacrificed.\n\nThe words of the modern Roman priest, \"hoc est corpus meum,\"\nwhich are supposed, by some magical influence, to cause the actual\ntransubstantiation in the celebration of the eucharist, remind one\nforcibly of the dotting of the memorial Chinese tablet by a mandarin,\nby which official act the spirit of the departed, to whom it is\ndedicated, is presumed to take up residence in the new abode.\n\nAs a logical deduction from a given hypothesis, any Roman priest\nis greater than the virgin. She conceived God but once, while the\npriest may through his mass create the body of the Christ whenever\nhe so desires. Every time a priest performs this function he is the\nfather of God.\n\nHowever, in spite of the absurdity of the practice, to deprive the\ncommunion of the real presence is to make it a senseless and useless\nceremony. While the communicants believe in the efficacy of the wafer\nas the actual body, there is reason for absorbing it, as they thus\nunite themselves with the actual spirit of the Christ. But the moment\nthis dogma is rejected, the rite becomes futile, and nothing is more\nridiculous than its perpetuation in the Protestant churches. The\nquibble that it is performed in memory of Jesus is a fallacy. In\nUnitarian churches it is an arrant absurdity (one that is retained\nin many cases simply because the old historical churches of that\ndenomination have inherited fine old communion plate which is proudly\ndisplayed), and one can only respect and admire Ralph Waldo Emerson's\nstand in the matter, when he preferred to relinquish his remunerative\nand honorable pastorate in the Second Church of Boston (the only\npulpit he ever filled) rather than celebrate this anachronistic and\nindefensible rite.\n\nJerome carried his reverence for the Eucharistic bread [1] so\nfar that he considered that the table on which it was consecrated,\ntogether with the cloth in which it was wrapped, and the other utensils\nconnected with its service, were to be worshiped with equal respect as\nthat given the body and blood of the Savior. This theory led to the\nconsecration of altars, which by a decree of the Council of Epaone,\nin 517, in imitation of the Jewish and pagan sacrificial altars, were\nordered to be of stone, which material had been originally chosen\nas the most suitable material for the execution of the sacrifices,\nwhose blood should flow over it, without danger of absorption.\n\nAnother of the ancient pagan ideas which took a strong hold upon\nChristianity and rose to an abnormal power during the middle ages\nwas that of monasticism with its accompanying asceticism. There is\nscarcely a religion of ancient and modern times that does not recognize\nasceticism as an element of its system. Buddha taught his disciples a\nreligion of abstinence, and, among the Buddhists, there are ordained\nand tonsured priests, living in monasteries under vows of celibacy,\nwhile there are similar asylums for women. Brahmanism also has its\norders of ascetics and Hinduism has its fakirs. Fasting and self-denial\nwere observances required by the Greeks of those who desired initiation\ninto the mysteries; the Jews observed many fasts; and the Egyptian\npriests passed their novitiate in the deserts engaged in prayer and\nliving in caves. Like many other Christian customs, the monastic habit\nprobably came from Egypt, and it was considered by Gibbon to have\nhad a potent influence on the fall of the western empire, in that it\nremoved from active and useful life so many able-bodied men and women.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nXIII.--SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\nHaving now shown that there is nothing new in Christianity; nothing\nin which it differs essentially from the older faiths; having shown\nthat it brought no new ideas in its dogmas, practices, or morality,\nbut a few words are necessary to explain its marvelous growth and rapid\nacceptance. Christianity grew so rapidly, and was adopted so readily\nin many parts of the world simply because it was so cosmopolitan and\nelastic. It went forth to proselyte in a very conciliatory manner,\nembracing and absorbing every deeply rooted theological idea and\ncustom which obstructed its path, and, in every way, exerting itself\nto propitiate its converts. And it was not until it became strong\nand powerful and was well supported by fanatical adherents that it\ndared to assume the r\u00f4le of conqueror. Then, when the period of its\nstrength was full, its tone changed and, strong in self-confidence,\nChristianity became militant and strode forth in armor to vanquish\nwith the sword and fill the world with blood.\n\nOne of the reasons for the rapid acceptance of Christianity among the\nRomans and its remarkable growth in their dependencies was that for\ncenturies the people had ceased to take their religion seriously. The\nvulgar masses, undoubtedly then as now, and at all times, unthinkingly\nswallowed all that was taught them of their deities, but the writings\nof cultivated men show clearly that for centuries the worship and\nreverence of their ancestral gods had but slight influence upon their\nethical ideas.\n\nLucretius (95-52 B. C.), the exponent of the Epicurean doctrines,\nregarded the gods as the creations of human fear. Ennius (239-169\nB. C.) translated and expounded the writings of Euhemerus (316 B. C.),\nwherein it was claimed that all the ancient myths were historical\nevents, that the gods were originally kings who were accorded post\nmortem worship by their grateful subjects. The Stoics regarded the\ngods as personifications of the different attributes of nature. Cicero\nadopted the Platonic conception of the deity as mind freed from all\ntaint of matter, while Ovid made the gods ridiculous in his mocking\n\"Metamorphoses,\" and, in his lascivious descriptions of their amours,\ndegraded them forever as ethical models. Horace likewise mocked them.\n\nThe glorious military conquests of the Roman arms in Asia and Africa\nbrought the soldiers into contact with alien religions, and the germs\ninstilled in the minds of the armies spread among all the peoples of\nRome's domains, upon their return. Likewise the ever-increasing influx\nof foreigners, bringing with them their native gods and theological\nsystems, had more or less influence, while the apotheoses of the\nemperors gave a powerful impetus to the degradation of the ancient\nfaith.\n\nThe vulgar clung to their ancient shrines and the cultured sneered\nat them for so doing. They bent the knee in public and they laughed\nmockingly in private. In such a state was the religion of Rome when\nthe first Christians began to proselyte; and on such fertile ground,\namid the ruins of an ancient faith, the seed readily took root and\nrapidly spread out. Any other faith, supported by sturdy, conscientious\nand indomitable missionaries, would have done the same. The old faith\nwas dead and the time was ripe for something new and vigorous.\n\nAs the civilized world was then under one powerful government, which\nallowed no political discord within its borders and which granted\nabsolute religious freedom, the Christian missionaries could travel in\nsafety from one province to another and, without fear of molestation,\ncould propagate their doctrines among the people through the media\nof the Greek and Latin tongues, which were universal throughout the\nempire. Early Christianity was merely a sect of Judaism, and as the\nJews were scattered all through the Roman provinces, every Jewish\nsettlement having its synagogue which the Christian missionaries\nvisited in order to preach their message, \"the new religion, which was\nundertaken in the name of the God of Abraham, and Moses, found a sphere\nalready prepared for itself.\" The new sect was naturally welcomed by\nthe Roman Jews, as it was a purely national religion, founded upon\nthe teachings of a Jewish peasant for the Jewish people. There is\nnothing in the gospels which portrays Jesus as anything other than\na prophet to his own nation. While his moral doctrines, like all\nethical principles, are applicable to all races, he was ignorant of\nall peoples save his own, and it was to them alone that he preached,\nproclaiming his messiahship for them only. He was content to remain\nwithin the boundaries of his own country and expressed no wish\nnor desire to visit other lands. Had it remained as Jesus desired,\nChristianity would never have been separated from Judaism. It was\nowing to the direct disobedience of Peter and Paul in this particular,\nthat Christianity spread among the gentiles (Acts xiv, 46). In sending\nforth his apostles to preach his mission, Jesus commanded, \"Go not\ninto the way of the gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans\nenter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel\"\n(Matt. x, 5-6). When appealed to by the Canaanite woman, he said,\n\"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel\"\n(Matt. xv, 24). It was to the Jews that he spoke when he said, \"Ye are\nthe salt of the earth\" (Matt. v. 13). \"Ye are the light of the world\"\n(Matt. v, 14). It was in reference to the twelve tribes of Israel\nthat he so numbered his apostles (Matt. xix, 28). And it was of his\ncompatriots that he thought when prophesying his resurrection, \"Ye\nshall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man\nbe come\" (Matt. x, 23). There is no thought of a universal mission\nin all this. His mission and sacrifice were for his own nation, and,\nas Paul writes to Titus, he \"gave himself that he might purify unto\nhimself a peculiar people\" (Tit. ii, 14).\n\nThinking probably of the political strife which his messiahship would\ncause, Jesus said, \"I came not to bring peace, but a sword\" (Matt. x,\n34), in which remark he was a truer prophet than the heavenly host\nthat sang at his birth \"on earth peace, good will toward men\" (Luke\nii, 14). \"The Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any\nother institution that ever existed among mankind,\" says Lecky in his\n\"Rationalism in Europe\" (vol. ii, p. 40). The Holy Office in Spain\nburned over 31,000 persons and condemned to punishment hardly less\nsevere 290,000. During the reign of Charles the Fifth 50,000 heretics\nwere executed in the Netherlands and on February 16, 1508, the Holy\nOffice condemned all the inhabitants, numbering 3,000,000 of people,\nto death as heretics, and Philip the Second confirmed the decree and\nordered its instant execution.\n\nThe whole history of Christianity, in all its forms, reeks with blood\nand smells to heaven with carrion. In the first centuries Christians\npersecuted pagans or, divided among themselves, persecuted each other\nas heretics. Later arose the feuds of orthodox and Arian, then came\na united Christendom against Islam, followed by Protestant wars. In\nthese Catholics murdered, pillaged, and devastated Protestants and\nburned and tortured them as heretics by ecclesiastical tribunals;\nProtestants persecuted and executed Catholics and, divided among\nthemselves, persecuted one another. In the sixteenth century Anglican\nEpiscopalians persecuted Catholics and Nonconformists. In the\nseventeenth century Puritans persecuted Catholics, Episcopalians,\nand Quakers, and so on. The whole history of this religion is a\nlong narration of blasphemous and degrading theories propagated by\nviolence, hypocrisy and crime. Christian charity is a delusion which\nis found only among the persecuted, who, the instant the scale turns,\nbecome the ruling faction, forget its meaning, and hasten to avenge\ntheir sufferings in persecutions. No other religion has so bloody\na history as Christianity. The old heathen religions went calmly on\ntheir way, indifferent to one another and showing the most perfect\ntoleration. Rival gods of rival nations were worshiped in temples side\nby side, without conflict or ill feeling. Buddhists and Brahmins mildly\nflourish in proximity. But Christians who believe that the Christ was\nsacrificed for love of humanity, that their gospel is one of love,\npeace, and good will, vie with one another to outstrip the ferocity\nof wild beasts.\n\nWhile many students believe that Jesus was a purely mythical being,\nwithout actual existence save in the brains of religious Christians,\nI see no reason to doubt that a certain Jewish rabbi may have come out\nof the rebellious province of Galilee about the time of Herod. Such\nmessiahs had come before him and such have succeeded him. Some of\nthe messiahs subsequent to Jesus were: one who appeared in Persia in\n1138, another in Arabia in 1167, and one in Moravia at the close of\nthe twelfth century. Eldavid proclaimed himself messiah in Persia in\n1199, Sabathai Tzevi assumed the title of \"King of Kings\" in 1666\nand was executed at Constantinople by the Sultan. So late as 1829\nthere appeared in India the eight-year-old son of a peasant who was\na wonderful serpent charmer and was called Marayum Powar. It was an\nancient belief that the ability to handle serpents unharmed was a\nproof that one had become perfectly holy--absorbed in God! Therefore,\nnumerous people came to believe Powar a god and in ten months ten\nthousand followers were about him, baptizing and performing miraculous\ncures--and his cult seemed well on the road to establishment when,\nover-confident of his power, he was bitten by a serpent and died. His\nfollowers, after vainly awaiting his resurrection, dispersed.\n\nThat Jesus' whole career is lost in encircling myth is no proof that\nthe original figure never existed. There is plenty of historical\nevidence to show that the central portion of Europe was once ruled by\na king named Karl, and we do not doubt this simply because a great\ncloud of myths has been gathered about the name of St. Charlemagne,\nany more than we feel bound to believe that because he once lived he\nmust now necessarily exist, sleeping in a mountain, until it shall\nbe necessary for him to spring forth and save the German fatherland.\n\nOne set of students assert that the Christ was merely the\npersonification of vegetable life, claiming that his death and\nresurrection typify the death and revivification of vegetation. Others\nhold that he is the modern phase of the eternal sun-god. To sustain\nthis hypothesis the following allegorical interpretation of his\nsupposed career is offered as an explanation. He was born on the\nearly dawn of the twenty-fifth day of December, the day on which\ncommences the sun's apparent revolution around the earth; his birth\nwas announced by the brilliant morning star; his virgin mother was\nthe pure and beautiful dawn; his temptation was his struggle with\nthe adverse clouds which he dispersed; his trial, execution, and\ndeath were emblematic of the solar decline and crucifixion at the\nbeginning of winter; his descent into hell was typical of the three\ndays of the winter solstice; and his resurrection and ascension refer\nto the return of the sun after its seeming extinction.\n\nI have now shown that among the great majority of the nations of\nantiquity, no matter as to how they may have differed in the details,\nall held one general idea of faith in a savior-mediator between man\nand the supreme deity. Some such medium seemed necessary to them, for\nthey had not reached that intellectual plane on which one feels able\nto hold direct communication with the creator. Modern Christianity,\nin all its forms, still panders to this ancient superstition that man\nmust needs have an agent between himself and his God. He must have\nan intercessor between his weakness and God's power--and vengeance.\n\nBut when the human mind is freed from superstition and men learn\nthat right living and a clean ethical code is all that is required,\nthen they will cease to bow, either physically or mentally, to\nany humanly invented mediator, and their enlarged ideas of the\njustice of the supreme deity will prohibit any belief in impossible\ndemi-gods. However, for the majority, that happy time of emancipation\nis still in the distant future, and, until its dawn lightens the\ngeneral intelligence, men will continue to adore and supplicate the\nmediator whom inheritance and environment have taught them to revere,\nas Krishna, Buddha, Mithras, or the Christ, as the case may be.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY.\n\n\nApocryphal New Testament, Being All the Gospels, Epistles and Other\nPieces Now Extant, Attributed in the First Four Centuries to Jesus\nChrist, His Apostles, and their Companions, and not Included in the\nNew Testament by its Compilers. London. Printed for William Hone, 1821.\n\nBaring-Gould, S.--Curious Myths of the Middle\nAges. London. 1877. Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets, and other\nOld Testament Characters. New York. 1872. The Origin and Development\nof Religious Beliefs. New York. 1870. 2 vols.\n\nBlavatsky, H. P.--Isis Unveiled: A Master-key to the Mysteries of\nAncient and Modern Science and Mythology. New York. 1891. 2 vols.\n\nBourke, John G.--Scatalogic Rites of All Nations. Washington. 1891.\n\nBunsen, Christian Charles Josias.--Christianity and Mankind;\nTheir Beginnings and Prospects. London. 1854. 7 vols. God in\nHistory; or, The Progress of Man's Faith in the Moral Order of the\nWorld. London. 1868. 3 vols.\n\nCastan, L'Abee Em.--Les Origines du Christianisme d'apres la tradition\ncatholique. Paris. 1869. 2 vols. Les Origines du Christianisme d'apres\nla critique rationaliste contemporaine. Paris. 1868.\n\nChantepepie de la Saussaye, P. D.--The Religion of the\nTeutons. Boston. 1902.\n\nCheetham, S.--The Mysteries--Pagan and Christian. London. 1897.\n\nChristlieb, Theodore.--Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. New\nYork. 1874.\n\nClodd, Edward.--Myths and Dreams. London. 1885.\n\nColenso, John William.--Lectures on the Pentateuch and Moabite\nStone. London. 1873.\n\nConway, Moncure Daniel.--Idols and Ideals, with an essay on\nChristianity. New York. 1877.\n\nDoane, T. W.--Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions. New\nYork.\n\nDorman, Rushton M.--The Origin of Primitive Superstitions,\netc. Philadelphia. 1881.\n\nDraper, John William.--History of the Conflict between Religion and\nScience. New York. 1881. History of the Intellectual Development of\nEurope. New York. 1878. 2 vols.\n\nFarrar, J. A.--Paganism and Christianity. London. 1891. Primitive\nManners and Customs. New York. 1879.\n\nFiguier, Louis.--Histoire du Merveilleux dans les temps\nmodernes. Paris. 1880. 4 vols.\n\nFiske, John.--Myths and Myth-Makers. Boston. 1901.\n\nFrazer, J. C.--The Golden Bough. London. 1890. 2 vols.\n\nFrothingham, Octavius Brooks.--The Cradle of the Christ. New\nYork. 1877.\n\nGibbon, Edward.--The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman\nEmpire. Philadelphia. 1876. 6 vols.\n\nDe Gubernatis, Angelo.--Zoological Mythology; or, The Legends of\nAnimals. London. 1872. 2 vols.\n\nHardwick, Charles.--Christ and Other Masters. London. 1874.\n\nHargraves, Jennings.--The Rosicrucians. Their Rites and\nMysteries. London. 1870. 2 vols.\n\nHarnack, Adolph.--The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three\nCenturies. Translated by James Moffatt. New York. 1904. 2 vols.\n\nHerodotus.--Translation of G. C. Macauley. London. 1890. 2 vols.\n\nHislop, Alexander.--The Two Babylons; or, The Papal Worship,\netc. Edinburgh. 1862.\n\nHone, William.--Ancient Mysteries Described, etc. London. 1823.\n\nHudson, Thompson Jay.--The Law of Psychic Phenomena. Chicago. 1896.\n\nInman, Thomas.--Ancient Faiths and Modern. London. 1876. Ancient\nPagan and Modern Christian Symbolism. London. 1869.\n\nJameson, Mrs.--Legends of the Madonna. London. 1852.\n\nJevons, Frank Byron.--An Introduction to the History of\nReligion. London. 1896.\n\nLang, Andrew.--Custom and Myth. London. 1884. Myth, Ritual, and\nReligion. London. 1887. 2 vols.\n\nLecky, William Edward Hartpole.--History of European Morals from\nAugustus to Charlemagne. London. 1877. 2 vols. History of the Rise and\nInfluence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe. New York. 1866. 2\nvols.\n\nKundy, J. P.--Monumental Christianity. London. 1889.\n\nMacdonald, James.--Religion and Myth. London. 1893.\n\nMiddleton, Conyers.--A Letter from Rome. London. 1847.\n\nDes Mousseaux.--Les Haunts Phenomenes de la Magie Moeurs et Pratiques\ndes Demons. 1852.\n\nMuller, Max.--Chips from a German Workshop. London. 1867. 2 vols.\n\nOrr, James.--The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York. 1907.\n\nPicart, Bernard.--The Ceremonies and Religious Customs of the Various\nNations of the Known World, etc. London. 1733. 7 vols.\n\nPriestley, Joseph.--An History of the Corruptions of\nChristianity. Birmingham. 1793. 2 vols.\n\nRenan, Ernest.--The Life of Jesus. Translated by C. E. Wilboir. New\nYork. 1865.\n\nSharpe, Samuel.--Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian\nChristianity. London. 1863.\n\nSmith, W. Robertson.--Lectures on the Religion of the\nSemites. Edinburgh. 1889.\n\nStrauss, David Friedrich.--The Life of Jesus. Translated by George\nEliot. London. 1892.\n\nTuttle, Hudson.--The Career of the Christ-Idea in History. Boston. The\nCareer of the God-Idea in History. Boston.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTE\n\n\n[1] The use of unleavened bread by the Greek church caused great\ndisputes between it and the Latin in the eleventh century, but\nthe latter finally accepted it on the argument that as the Christ\ninstituted the supper during the passover, he must have used it,\nas there was no leaven procurable at that time.","title":"The Christian Mythology","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":24914}