diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38802-h/images/Portrait.jpg | bin | 0 -> 65420 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38802-h/images/Titlepage.jpg | bin | 0 -> 65185 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/orig38802-h/main.htm | 10802 |
3 files changed, 10802 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/orig38802-h/images/Portrait.jpg b/old/orig38802-h/images/Portrait.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..dc9d10c --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38802-h/images/Portrait.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38802-h/images/Titlepage.jpg b/old/orig38802-h/images/Titlepage.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8273d21 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38802-h/images/Titlepage.jpg diff --git a/old/orig38802-h/main.htm b/old/orig38802-h/main.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2ad9fbf --- /dev/null +++ b/old/orig38802-h/main.htm @@ -0,0 +1,10802 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> +<html lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" + content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> +<title> + The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 2 (of 12) + by Robert G. Ingersoll +</title> + + +<style type="text/css"> + <!-- + body { text-align:justify} + P { margin:15%; + margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + hr.full { width: 100%; } + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + .play { margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; text-align: justify; font-size: 100%; } + img {border: 0;} + blockquote {font-size: 97%; margin-left: 30%; margin-right: 20%;} + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 1%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: left; + color: gray; + } /* page numbers */ + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 10%; margin-left: 1%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; + margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 40%; margin-bottom: .75em; font-size: 110%;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 5%;} + .indent {font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + CENTER { padding: 10px;} + PRE { font-family: Times; font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; margin-left: 25%;} + --> +</style> + + +</head> +<body> + +<div style="height: 8em;"><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br></div> +<a name="title"></a> +<h1> + THE WORKS OF ROBERT G. INGERSOLL +</h1><br> + +<h2>By Robert G. Ingersoll</h2> + +<br><br> + +<center> +"THE CLERGY KNOW, THAT I KNOW, THAT THEY KNOW, THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW." +</center> + +<h3> +IN TWELVE VOLUMES, VOLUME II. +</h3><br> + +<h2> +LECTURES +</h2><br> + +<h3> +1900 +</h3><br> + +<h4> +THE DRESDEN EDITION +</h4> +<br><br> +<center> +TO +</center> +<center> +MRS. SUE. M. FARRELL, +</center> +<center> +IN LAW MY SISTER, +</center> +<center> +AND IN FACT MY FRIEND, +</center> +<center> +THIS VOLUME, +</center> +<center> +AS A TOKEN OF RESPECT AND LOVE, IS DEDICATED. +</center> + +<br> +<br> +<hr> +<br> +<br> + +<br /> +<center> +<img alt="Titlepage (63K)" src="images/Titlepage.jpg" height="1250" width="728" /> +</center> +<br /> + +<br /> +<center> +<img alt="Portrait (63K)" src="images/Portrait.jpg" height="1070" width="723" /> +</center> +<br /> + + +<h3>Contents</h3> + +<p class="toc"><a href="#linkTOC"> +CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. +</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#linkPREF"> +PREFACE. +</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002"> +SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES. +</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0003"> +SOME REASONS WHY +</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0004"> +ORTHODOXY. +</a></p> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005"> +MYTH AND MIRACLE. +</a></p> + + +<br> +<br> +<hr> +<br> +<br> + +<a name="linkTOC"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> + +<div style="height: 4em;"><br><br><br><br></div> + +<h2> + CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. +</h2> +<blockquote> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0002"> +SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES. +</a></p> + +<br> +(1879.) +<br> +Preface—I. He who endeavors to control the Mind by Force is a +<br> +Tyrant, and he who submits is a Slave—All I Ask—When a Religion +<br> +is Founded—Freedom for the Orthodox Clergy—Every Minister an +<br> +Attorney—Submission to the Orthodox and the Dead—Bounden Duty of +<br> +the Ministry—The Minister Factory at Andover—II. Free Schools—No +<br> +Sectarian Sciences—Religion and the Schools—Scientific +<br> +Hypocrites—III. The Politicians and the Churches—IV. Man and Woman the +<br> +Highest Possible Titles—Belief Dependent on Surroundings—Worship of +<br> +Ancestors—Blindness Necessary to Keeping the Narrow Path—The Bible the +<br> +Chain that Binds—A Bible of the Middle Ages and the Awe it Inspired—V. +<br> +The Pentateuch—Moses Not the Author—Belief out of which Grew +<br> +Religious Ceremonies—Egypt the Source of the Information of Moses—VI. +<br> +Monday—Nothing, in the Light of Raw Material—The Story of Creation +<br> +Begun—The Same Story, substantially, Found in the Records of Babylon, +<br> +Egypt, and India—Inspiration Unnecessary to the Truth—Usefulness of +<br> +Miracles to Fit Lies to Facts—Division of Darkness and Light—VII. +<br> +Tuesday—The Firmament and Some Biblical Notions about it—Laws of +<br> +Evaporation Unknown to the Inspired Writer—VIII. Wednesday—The Waters +<br> +Gathered into Seas—Fruit and Nothing to Eat it—Five Epochs in the +<br> +Organic History of the Earth—Balance between the Total Amounts of +<br> +Animal and Vegetable Life—Vegetation Prior to the Appearance of the +<br> +Sun—IX. Thursday—Sun and Moon Manufactured—Magnitude of the Solar +<br> +Orb—Dimensions of Some of the Planets—Moses' Guess at the Size of Sun +<br> +and Moon—Joshua's Control of the Heavenly Bodies—A Hypothesis Urged +<br> +by Ministers—The Theory of "Refraction"—Rev. Henry Morey—Astronomical +<br> +Knowledge of Chinese Savants—The Motion of the Earth Reversed by +<br> +Jehovah for the Reassurance of Ahaz—"Errors" Renounced by Button—X. +<br> +"He made the Stars Also"—Distance of the Nearest Star—XI. +<br> +Friday—Whales and Other Living Creatures Produced—XII. +<br> +Saturday—Reproduction Inaugurated—XIII. "Let Us Make Man"—Human +<br> +Beings Created in the Physical Image and Likeness of God—Inquiry as +<br> +to the Process Adopted—Development of Living Forms According to +<br> +Evolution—How Were Adam and Eve Created?—The Rib Story—Age of +<br> +Man Upon the Earth—A Statue Apparently Made before the World—XIV. +<br> +Sunday—Sacredness of the Sabbath Destroyed by the Theory of Vast +<br> +"Periods"—Reflections on the Sabbath—XV. The Necessity for a Good +<br> +Memory—The Two Accounts of the Creation in Genesis I and II—Order +<br> +of Creation in the First Account—Order of Creation in the Second +<br> +Account—Fastidiousness of Adam in the Choice of a Helpmeet—Dr. +<br> +Adam Clark's Commentary—Dr. Scott's Guess—Dr. Matthew Henry's +<br> +Admission—The Blonde and Brunette Problem—The Result of Unbelief and +<br> +the Reward of Faith—"Give Him a Harp"—XVI. The Garden—Location of +<br> +Eden—The Four Rivers—The Tree of Knowledge—Andover Appealed +<br> +To—XVII. The Fall—The Serpent—Dr. Adam Clark Gives a Zoological +<br> +Explanation—Dr. Henry Dissents—Whence This Serpent?—XVIII. +<br> +Dampness—A Race of Giants—Wickedness of Mankind—An Ark Constructed—A +<br> +Universal Flood Indicated—Animals Probably Admitted to the Ark—How Did +<br> +They Get There?—Problem of Food and Service—A Shoreless Sea Covered +<br> +with Innumerable Dead—Drs. Clark and Henry on the Situation—The Ark +<br> +Takes Ground—New Difficulties—Noah's Sacrifice—The Rainbow as a +<br> +Memorandum—Babylonian, Egyptian, and Indian Legends of a Flood—XIX. +<br> +Bacchus and Babel—Interest Attaching to Noah—Where Did Our First +<br> +Parents and the Serpent Acquire a Common Language?—Babel and the +<br> +Confusion of Tongues—XX. Faith in Filth—Immodesty of Biblical +<br> +Diction—XXI. The Hebrews—God's Promises to Abraham—The Sojourning +<br> +of Israel in Egypt—Marvelous Increase—Moses and Aaron—XXII. +<br> +The Plagues—Competitive Miracle Working—Defeat of the Local +<br> +Magicians—XXIII. The Flight Out of Egypt—Three Million People in a +<br> +Desert—Destruction of Pharaoh ana His Host—Manna—A Superfluity of +<br> +Quails—Rev. Alexander Cruden's Commentary—Hornets as Allies of the +<br> +Israelites—Durability of the Clothing of the Jewish People—An Ointment +<br> +Monopoly—Consecration of Priests—The Crime of Becoming a Mother—The +<br> +Ten Commandments—Medical Ideas of Jehovah—Character of the God of +<br> +the Pentateuch—XXIV. Confess and Avoid—XXV. "Inspired" Slavery—XXVI. +<br> +"Inspired" Marriage-XXVII. "Inspired" War-XXVIII. "Inspired" Religious +<br> +Liberty—XXIX. Conclusion. +<br> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0003"> +SOME REASONS WHY. +</a></p> + +<br> +(1881.) +<br> +I—Religion makes Enemies—Hatred in the Name of Universal +<br> +Benevolence—No Respect for the Rights of Barbarians—Literal +<br> +Fulfillment of a New Testament Prophecy—II. Duties to God—Can we +<br> +Assist God?—An Infinite Personality an Infinite Impossibility-Ill. +<br> +Inspiration—What it Really Is—Indication of Clams—Multitudinous +<br> +Laughter of the Sea—Horace Greeley and the Mammoth Trees—A Landscape +<br> +Compared to a Table-cloth—The Supernatural is the Deformed—Inspiration +<br> +in the Man as well as in the Book—Our Inspired Bible—IV. God's +<br> +Experiment with the Jews—Miracles of One Religion never astonish the +<br> +Priests of Another—"I am a Liar Myself"—V. Civilized Countries—Crimes +<br> +once regarded as Divine Institutions—What the Believer in the +<br> +Inspiration of the Bible is Compelled to Say—Passages apparently +<br> +written by the Devil—VI. A Comparison of Books—Advancing a Cannibal +<br> +from Missionary to Mutton—Contrast between the Utterances of Jehovah +<br> +and those of Reputable Heathen—Epictetus, Cicero, Zeno, +<br> +Seneca—the Hindu, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius—The Avesta—VII. +<br> +Monotheism—Egyptians before Moses taught there was but One God +<br> +and Married but One Wife—Persians and Hindoos had a Single Supreme +<br> +Deity—Rights of Roman Women—Marvels of Art achieved without the +<br> +Assistance of Heaven—Probable Action of the Jewish Jehovah incarnated +<br> +as Man—VIII. The New Testament—Doctrine of Eternal Pain brought to +<br> +Light—Discrepancies—Human Weaknesses cannot be Predicated of +<br> +Divine Wisdom—Why there are Four Gospels according to Irenæus—The +<br> +Atonement—Remission of Sins under the Mosaic Dispensation—Christians +<br> +say, "Charge it"—God's Forgiveness does not Repair an Injury—Suffering +<br> +of Innocence for the Guilty—Salvation made Possible by Jehovah's +<br> +Failure to Civilize the Jews—Necessity of Belief not taught in the +<br> +Synoptic Gospels—Non-resistance the Offspring of Weakness—IX. Christ's +<br> +Mission—All the Virtues had been Taught before his Advent—Perfect and +<br> +Beautiful Thoughts of his Pagan Predecessors—St. Paul Contrasted +<br> +with Heathen Writers—"The Quality of Mercy"—X. Eternal Pain—An +<br> +Illustration of Eternal Punishment—Captain Kreuger of the Barque +<br> +Tiger—XI. Civilizing Influence of the Bible—Its Effects on the +<br> +Jews—If Christ was God, Did he not, in his Crucifixion, Reap what +<br> +he had Sown?—Nothing can add to the Misery of a Nation whose King is +<br> +Jehovah +<br> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0004"> +ORTHODOXY. +</a></p> +<br> +(1884.) +<br> +Orthodox Religion Dying Out—Religious Deaths and Births—The Religion +<br> +of Reciprocity—Every Language has a Cemetery—Orthodox Institutions +<br> +Survive through the Money invested in them—"Let us tell our Real +<br> +Names"—The Blows that have Shattered the Shield and Shivered the Lance +<br> +of Superstition—Mohammed's Successful Defence of the Sepulchre of +<br> +Christ—The Destruction of Art—The Discovery of America—Although +<br> +he made it himself, the Holy Ghost was Ignorant of the Form of this +<br> +Earth—Copernicus and Kepler—Special Providence—The Man and the Ship +<br> +he did not Take—A Thanksgiving Proclamation Contradicted—Charles +<br> +Darwin—Henry Ward Beecher—The Creeds—The Latest Creed—God as +<br> +a Governor—The Love of God—The Fall of Man—We are Bound +<br> +by Representatives without a Chance to Vote against Them—The +<br> +Atonement—The Doctrine of Depravity a Libel on the Human Race—The +<br> +Second Birth—A Unitarian Universalist—Inspiration of the +<br> +Scriptures—God a Victim of his own Tyranny—In the New Testament +<br> +Trouble Commences at Death—The Reign of Truth and Love—The Old +<br> +Spaniard who Died without an Enemy—The Wars it Brought—Consolation +<br> +should be Denied to Murderers—At the Rate at which Heathen are being +<br> +Converted, how long will it take to Establish Christ's Kingdom on +<br> +Earth?—The Resurrection—The Judgment Day—Pious Evasions—"We shall +<br> +not Die, but we shall all be Hanged"—"No Bible, no Civilization" +<br> +Miracles of the New Testament—Nothing Written by Christ or his +<br> +Contemporaries—Genealogy of Jesus—More Miracles—A Master of +<br> +Death—Improbable that he would be Crucified—The Loaves and Fishes—How +<br> +did it happen that the Miracles Convinced so Few?—The Resurrection—The +<br> +Ascension—Was the Body Spiritual—Parting from the Disciples—Casting +<br> +out Devils—Necessity of Belief—God should be consistent in the +<br> +Matter of forgiving Enemies—Eternal Punishment—Some Good Men who are +<br> +Damned—Another Objection—Love the only Bow on Life's dark Cloud—"Now +<br> +is the accepted Time"—Rather than this Doctrine of Eternal Punishment +<br> +Should be True—I would rather that every Planet should in its Orbit +<br> +wheel a barren Star—What I Believe—Immortality—It existed long before +<br> +Moses—Consolation—The Promises are so Far Away, and the Dead are so +<br> +Near—Death a Wall or a Door—A Fable—Orpheus and Eurydice. +<br> +<p class="toc"><a href="#link0005"> +MYTH AND MIRACLE. +</a></p> +(1885.) +<br> +I. Happiness the true End and Aim of Life—Spiritual People and +<br> +their Literature—Shakespeare's Clowns superior to Inspired +<br> +Writers—Beethoven's Sixth Symphony Preferred to the Five Books of +<br> +Moses—Venus of Milo more Pleasing than the Presbyterian Creed—II. +<br> +Religions Naturally Produced—Poets the Myth-makers—The Sleeping +<br> +Beauty—Orpheus and Eurydice—Red Riding Hood—The Golden Age—Elysian +<br> +Fields—The Flood Myth—Myths of the Seasons—III. The Sun-god—Jonah, +<br> +Buddha, Chrisnna, Horus, Zoroaster—December 25th as a Birthday of +<br> +Gods—Christ a Sun-God—The Cross a Symbol of the Life to Come—When +<br> +Nature rocked the Cradle of the Infant World—IV. Difference between +<br> +a Myth and a Miracle—Raising the Dead, Past and Present—Miracles +<br> +of Jehovah—Miracles of Christ—Everything Told except the Truth—The +<br> +Mistake of the World—V. Beginning of Investigation—The Stars as +<br> +Witnesses against Superstition—Martyrdom of Bruno—Geology—Steam and +<br> +Electricity—Nature forever the Same—Persistence of Force—Cathedral, +<br> +Mosque, and Joss House have the same Foundation—Science the +<br> +Providence of Man—VI. To Soften the Heart of God—Martyrs—The God was +<br> +Silent—Credulity a Vice—Develop the Imagination—"The Skylark" and +<br> +"The Daisy"—VII. How are we to Civilize the World?—Put Theology out +<br> +of Religion—Divorce of Church and State—Secular Education—Godless +<br> +Schools—VIII. The New Jerusalem—Knowledge of the Supernatural +<br> +possessed by Savages—Beliefs of Primitive Peoples—Science is +<br> +Modest—Theology Arrogant—Torque-mada and Bruno on the Day of +<br> +Judgment—IX. Poison of Superstition in the Mother's Milk—Ability +<br> +of Mistakes to take Care of Themselves—Longevity of Religious +<br> +Lies—Mother's religion pleaded by the Cannibal—The Religion of +<br> +Freedom—O Liberty, thou art the God of my Idolatry +<br> +</blockquote> + +<br> +<br> +<hr> +<br> +<br> + +<a name="linkPREF"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> + +<div style="height: 4em;"><br><br><br><br></div> + +<h2> + PREFACE. +</h2> +<p> +For many years I have regarded the Pentateuch simply as a record of a +barbarous people, in which are found a great number of the ceremonies +of savagery, many absurd and unjust laws, and thousands of ideas +inconsistent with known and demonstrated facts. To me it seemed almost +a crime to teach that this record was written by inspired men; that +slavery, polygamy, wars of conquest and extermination were right, and +that there was a time when men could win the approbation of infinite +Intelligence, Justice, and Mercy, by violating maidens and by butchering +babes. To me it seemed more reasonable that savage men had made these +laws; and I endeavored in a lecture, entitled "Some Mistakes of Moses," +to point out some of the errors, contradictions, and impossibilities +contained in the Pentateuch. The lecture was never written and +consequently never delivered twice the same. On several occasions it was +reported and published without consent, and without revision. All these +publications were grossly and glaringly incorrect As published, they +have been answered several hundred times, and many of the clergy are +still engaged in the great work. To keep these reverend gentlemen from +wasting their talents on the mistakes of reporters and printers, I +concluded to publish the principal points in all my lectures on this +subject. And here, it may be proper for me to say, that arguments cannot +be answered by personal abuse; that there is no logic in slander, and +that falsehood, in the long run, defeats itself. People who love their +enemies should, at least, tell the truth about their friends. Should it +turn out that I am the worst man in the whole world, the story of the +flood will remain just as improbable as before, and the contradictions +of the Pentateuch will still demand an explanation. +</p> +<p> +There was a time when a falsehood, fulminated from the pulpit, smote +like a sword; but, the supply having greatly exceeded the demand, +clerical misrepresentation has at last become almost an innocent +amusement. Remembering that only a few years ago men, women, and even +children, were imprisoned, tortured and burned, for having expressed +in an exceedingly mild and gentle way, the ideas entertained by me, I +congratulate myself that calumny is now the pulpit's last resort. The +old instruments of torture are kept only to gratify curiosity; the +chains are rusting away, and the demolition of time has allowed even the +dungeons of the Inquisition to be visited by light. The church, impotent +and malicious, regrets, not the abuse, but the loss of her power, and +seeks to hold by falsehood what she gained by cruelty and force, by +fire and fear. Christianity cannot live in peace with any other form of +faith. If that religion be true, there is but one savior, one inspired +book, and but one little narrow grass-grown path that leads to heaven. +Such a religion is necessarily uncompromising, unreasoning, aggressive +and insolent. Christianity has held all other creeds and forms in +infinite contempt, divided the world into enemies and friends, and +verified the awful declaration of its founder—a declaration that +wet with blood the sword he came to bring, and made the horizon of a +thousand years lurid with the fagots' flames. +</p> +<p> +Too great praise challenges attention, and often brings to light a +thousand faults that otherwise the general eye would never see. Were we +allowed to read the Bible as we do all other books, we would admire its +beauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and account for all its absurd, +grotesque and cruel things, by saying that its authors lived in rude, +barbaric times. But we are told that it was written by inspired men; +that it contains the will of God; that it is perfect, pure, and true in +all its parts; the source and standard of all moral and religious truth; +that it is the star and anchor of all human hope; the only guide for +man, the only torch in Nature's night. These claims are so at variance +with every known recorded fact, so palpably absurd, that every free +unbiased soul is forced to raise the standard of revolt. +</p> +<p> +We read the pagan sacred books with profit and delight. With myth and +fable we are ever charmed, and find a pleasure in the endless repetition +of the beautiful, poetic, and absurd. We find, in all these records of +the past, philosophies and dreams, and efforts stained with tears, +of great and tender souls who tried to pierce the mystery of life and +death, to answer the eternal questions of the Whence and Whither, and +vainly sought to make, with bits of shattered glass, a mirror that +would, in very truth, reflect the face and form of Nature's perfect +self. +</p> +<p> +These myths were born of hopes, and fears, and tears, and smiles, and +they were touched and colored by all there is of joy and grief between +the rosy dawn of birth, and deaths sad night. They clothed even the +stars with passion, and gave to gods the faults and frailties of the +sons of men. In them, the winds and waves were music, and all the lakes, +and streams, and springs,—the mountains, woods and perfumed dells were +haunted by a thousand fairy forms. They thrilled the veins of Spring +with tremulous desire; made tawny Summer's billowed breast the throne +and home of love; filled Autumn's arms with sun-kissed grapes, and +gathered sheaves; and pictured Winter as a weak old king who felt, +like Lear upon his withered face, Cordelia's tears. These myths, though +false, are beautiful, and have for many ages and in countless ways, +enriched the heart and kindled thought. But if the world were taught +that all these things are true and all inspired of God, and that eternal +punishment will be the lot of him who dares deny or doubt, the sweetest +myth of all the Fable World would lose its beauty, and become a scorned +and hateful thing to every brave and thoughtful man. +</p> +<p> +Robert G. Ingersoll. +</p> +<p> +Washington, D. C., Oct. 7th, 1879. +</p> + +<br> +<br> +<hr> +<br> +<br> + +<a name="link0002"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> + +<div style="height: 4em;"><br><br><br><br></div> + +<h2> + SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES. +</h2> +<p> +HE WHO ENDEAVORS TO CONTROL THE MIND BY FORCE IS A TYRANT, AND HE WHO +SUBMITS IS A SLAVE. +</p> +<center> +I. +</center> +<p> +I want to do what little I can to make my country truly free, to broaden +the intellectual horizon of our people, to destroy the prejudices born +of ignorance and fear, to do away with the blind worship of the ignoble +past, with the idea that all the great and good are dead, that the +living are totally depraved, that all pleasures are sins, that sighs +and groans are alone pleasing to God, that thought is dangerous, that +intellectual courage is a crime, that cowardice is a virtue, that a +certain belief is necessary to secure salvation, that to carry a cross +in this world will give us a palm in the next, and that we must allow +some priest to be the pilot of our souls. +</p> +<p> +Until every soul is freely permitted to investigate every book, and +creed, and dogma for itself, the world cannot be free. Mankind will be +enslaved until there is mental grandeur enough to allow each man to have +his thought and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can, upon +all these questions differ, and yet grasp each other's hands as friends. +It is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we +know nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and +despise each other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination, +or the Trinity, should make people imprison and burn each other +seems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet in all countries where +Christians have existed, they have destroyed each other to the exact +extent of their power. Why should a believer in God hate an atheist? +Surely the atheist has not injured God, and surely he is human, capable +of joy and pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not be +far better to treat this atheist, at least, as well as he treats us? +</p> +<p> +Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask +is—not that they love their enemies, not that they love their friends +even, but that they treat those who differ from them, with simple +fairness. +</p> +<p> +We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish Christians to so act that we +will not have to forgive them. +</p> +<p> +If all will admit that all have an equal right to think, then the +question is forever solved; but as long as organized and powerful +churches, pretending to hold the keys of heaven and hell, denounce every +person as an outcast and criminal who thinks for himself and denies +their authority, the world will be filled with hatred and suffering. To +hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all the creeds. +</p> +<p> +That which has happened in most countries has happened in ours. When +a religion is founded, the educated, the powerful—that is to say, the +priests and nobles, tell the ignorant and superstitious—that is to +say, the people, that the religion of their country was given to their +fathers by God himself; that it is the only true religion; that all +others were conceived in falsehood and brought forth in fraud, and that +all who believe in the true religion will be happy forever, while all +others will burn in hell. For the purpose of governing the people, that +is to say, for the purpose of being supported by the people, the priests +and nobles declare this religion to be sacred, and that whoever adds to, +or takes from it, will be burned here by man, and hereafter by God. The +result of this is, that the priests and nobles will not allow the people +to change; and when, after a time, the priests, having intellectually +advanced, wish to take a step in the direction of progress, the people +will not allow them to change. At first, the rabble are enslaved by the +priests, and afterwards the rabble become the masters. +</p> +<p> +One of the first things I wish to do, is to free the orthodox clergy. +I am a great friend of theirs, and in spite of all they may say against +me, I am going to do them a great and lasting service. Upon their necks +are visible the marks of the collar, and upon their backs those of the +lash. They are not allowed to read and think for themselves. They are +taught like parrots, and the best are those who repeat, with the fewest +mistakes, the sentences they have been taught. They sit like owls upon +some dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and hoot the same old hoots +that have been hooted for eighteen hundred years. Their congregations +are not grand enough, nor sufficiently civilized, to be willing that +the poor preachers shall think for themselves. They are not employed for +that purpose. Investigation regarded as a dangerous experiment, and the +ministers are warned that none of that kind of work will be tolerated. +They are notified to stand by the old creed, and to avoid all original +thought, as a mortal pestilence. Every minister is employed like an +attorney—either for plaintiff or defendant,—and he is expected to +be true to his client. If he changes his mind, he is regarded as +a deserter, and denounced, hated, and slandered accordingly. Every +orthodox clergyman agrees not to change. He contracts not to find new +facts, and makes a bargain that he will deny them if he does. Such is +the position of a Protestant minister in this nineteenth century. His +condition excites my pity; and to better it, I am going to do what +little I can. +</p> +<p> +Some of the clergy have the independence to break away, and the +intellect to maintain themselves as free men, but the most are compelled +to submit to the dictation of the orthodox, and the dead. They are +not employed to give their thoughts, but simply to repeat the ideas of +others. They are not expected to give even the doubts that may suggest +themselves, but are required to walk in the narrow, verdureless path +trodden by the ignorance of the past. The forests and fields on either +side are nothing to them. They must not even look at the purple hills, +nor pause to hear the babble of the brooks. They must remain in the +dusty road where the guide-boards are. They must confine themselves +to the "fall of man," the expulsion from the garden, the "scheme of +salvation," the "second birth," the atonement, the happiness of the +redeemed, and the misery of the lost. They must be careful not to +express any new ideas upon these great questions. It is much safer for +them to quote from the works of the dead. The more vividly they describe +the sufferings of the unregenerate, of those who attended theatres and +balls, and drank wine in summer gardens on the Sabbath-day, and laughed +at priests, the better ministers they are supposed to be. They must show +that misery fits the good for heaven, while happiness prepares the bad +for hell; that the wicked get all their good things in this life, and +the good all their evil; that in this world God punishes the people he +loves, and in the next, the ones he hates; that happiness makes us bad +here, but not in heaven; that pain makes us good here, but not in hell. +No matter how absurd these things may appear to the carnal mind, they +must be preached and they must be believed. If they were reasonable, +there would be no virtue in believing. Even the publicans and sinners +believe reasonable things. To believe without evidence, or in spite of +it, is accounted as righteousness to the sincere and humble Christian. +</p> +<p> +The ministers are in duty bound to denounce all intellectual pride, and +show that we are never quite so dear to God as when we admit that we are +poor, corrupt and idiotic worms; that we never should have been born; +that we ought to be damned without the least delay; that we are so +infamous that we like to enjoy ourselves; that we love our wives and +children better than our God; that we are generous only because we are +vile; that we are honest from the meanest motives, and that sometimes we +have fallen so low that we have had doubts about the inspiration of the +Jewish Scriptures. In short, they are expected to denounce all pleasant +paths and rustling trees, to curse the grass and flowers, and glorify +the dust and weeds. They are expected to malign the wicked people in the +green and happy fields, who sit and laugh beside the gurgling springs or +climb the hills and wander as they will. They are expected to point out +the dangers of freedom, the safety of implicit obedience, and to show +the wickedness of philosophy, the goodness of faith, the immorality of +science and the purity of ignorance. +</p> +<p> +Now and then a few pious people discover some young man of a religious +turn of mind and a consumptive habit of body, not quite sickly enough +to die, nor healthy enough to be wicked. The idea occurs to them that +he would make a good orthodox minister. They take up a contribution, and +send the young man to some theological school where he can be taught to +repeat a creed and despise reason. Should it turn out that the young +man had some mind of his own, and, after graduating, should change his +opinions and preach a different doctrine from that taught in the school, +every man who contributed a dollar towards his education would feel that +he had been robbed, and would denounce him as a dishonest and ungrateful +wretch. +</p> +<p> +The pulpit should not be a pillory. Congregations should allow the +minister a little liberty. They should, at least, permit him to tell the +truth. +</p> +<p> +They have, in Massachusetts, at a place called Andover, a kind of +minister factory, where each professor takes an oath once in five +years—that time being considered the life of an oath—that he has not, +during the last five years, and will not, during the next five years, +intellectually advance. There is probably no oath that they could easier +keep. Probably, since the foundation stone of that institution was laid +there has not been a single case of perjury. The old creed is still +taught. They still insist that God is infinitely wise, powerful and +good, and that all men are totally depraved. They insist that the best +man God ever made, deserved to be damned the moment he was finished. +Andover puts its brand upon every minister it turns out, the same as +Sheffield and Birmingham brand their wares, and all who see the brand +know exactly what the minister believes, the books he has read, the +arguments he relies on, and just what he intellectually is. They know +just what he can be depended on to preach, and that he will continue to +shrink and shrivel, and grow solemnly stupid day by day until he reaches +the Andover of the grave and becomes truly orthodox forever. +</p> +<p> +I have not singled out the Andover factory because it is worse than the +others. They are all about the same. The professors, for the most part, +are ministers who failed in the pulpit and were retired to the seminary +on account of their deficiency in reason and their excess of faith. As +a rule, they know nothing of this world, and far less of the next; but +they have the power of stating the most absurd propositions with faces +solemn as stupidity touched by fear. +</p> +<p> +Something should be done for the liberation of these men. They should +be allowed to grow—to have sunlight and air. They should no longer +be chained and tied to confessions of faith, to mouldy books and +musty creeds. Thousands of ministers are anxious to give their honest +thoughts. The hands of wives and babes now stop their mouths. They +must have bread, and so the husbands and fathers are forced to preach +a doctrine that they hold in scorn. For the sake of shelter, food and +clothes, they are obliged to defend the childish miracles of the past, +and denounce the sublime discoveries of to-day. They are compelled to +attack all modern thought, to point out the dangers of science, the +wickedness of investigation and the corrupting influence of logic. It is +for them to show that virtue rests upon ignorance and faith, while vice +impudently feeds and fattens upon fact and demonstration. It is a part +of their business to malign and vilify the Voltaires, Humes, Paines, +Humboldts, Tyndalls, Haeckels, Darwins, Spencers, and Drapers, and +to bow with uncovered heads before the murderers, adulterers, and +persecutors of the world. They are, for the most part, engaged in +poisoning the minds of the young, prejudicing children against science, +teaching the astronomy and geology of the Bible, and inducing all to +desert the sublime standard of reason. +</p> +<p> +These orthodox ministers do not add to the sum of knowledge. They +produce nothing. They live upon alms. They hate laughter and joy. They +officiate at weddings, sprinkle water upon babes, and utter meaningless +words and barren promises above the dead. They laugh at the agony of +unbelievers, mock at their tears, and of their sorrows make a jest. +There are some noble exceptions. Now and then a pulpit holds a brave +and honest man. Their congregations are willing that they should +think—willing that their ministers should have a little freedom. +</p> +<p> +As we become civilized, more and more liberty will be accorded to these +men, until finally ministers will give their best and highest thoughts. +The congregations will finally get tired of hearing about the patriarchs +and saints, the miracles and wonders, and will insist upon knowing +something about the men and women of our day, and the accomplishments +and discoveries of our time. They will finally insist upon knowing how +to escape the evils of this world instead of the next. They will ask +light upon the enigmas of this life. They will wish to know what we +shall do with our criminals instead of what God will do with his—how +we shall do away with beggary and want—with crime and misery—with +prostitution, disease and famine,—with tyranny in all its cruel +forms—with prisons and scaffolds, and how we shall reward the honest +workers, and fill the world with happy homes! These are the problems +for the pulpits and congregations of an enlightened future. If Science +cannot finally answer these questions, it is a vain and worthless thing. +</p> +<p> +The clergy, however, will continue to answer them in the old way, until +their congregations are good enough to set them free. They will still +talk about believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, as though that were the +only remedy for all human ills. They will still teach that retrogression +is the only path that leads to light; that we must go back, that faith +is the only sure guide, and that reason is a delusive glare, lighting +only the road to eternal pain. +</p> +<p> +Until the clergy are free they cannot be intellectually honest. We can +never tell what they really believe until they know that they can safely +speak. They console themselves now by a secret resolution to be as +liberal as they dare, with the hope that they can finally educate +their congregations to the point of allowing them to think a little for +themselves. They hardly know what they ought to do. The best part of +their lives has been wasted in studying subjects of no possible value. +Most of them are married, have families, and know but one way of making +their living. Some of them say that if they do not preach these foolish +dogmas, others will, and that they may through fear, after all, restrain +mankind. Besides, they hate publicly to admit that they are mistaken, +that the whole thing is a delusion, that the "scheme of salvation" is +absurd, and that the Bible is no better than some other books, and worse +than most. +</p> +<p> +You can hardly expect a bishop to leave his palace, or the pope to +vacate the Vatican. As long as people want popes, plenty of hypocrites +will be found to take the place. And as long as labor fatigues, there +will be found a good many men willing to preach once a week, if other +folks will work and give them bread. In other words, while the demand +lasts, the supply will never fail. +</p> +<p> +If the people were a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish—if +a little more enlightened, religion would perish! +</p> +<center> +II. FREE SCHOOLS. +</center> +<p> +It is also my desire to free the schools. When a professor in a college +finds a fact, he should make it known, even if it is inconsistent with +something Moses said. Public opinion must not compel the professor to +hide a fact, and, "like the base Indian, throw the pearl away." With the +single exception of Cornell, there is not a college in the United +States where truth has ever been a welcome guest. The moment one of the +teachers denies the inspiration of the Bible, he is discharged. If he +discovers a fact inconsistent with that book, so much the worse for the +fact, and especially for the discoverer of the fact. He must not corrupt +the minds of his pupils with demonstrations. He must beware of +every truth that cannot, in some way be made to harmonize with the +superstitions of the Jews. Science has nothing in common with religion. +Facts and miracles never did, and never will agree. They are not in the +least related. They are deadly foes. What has religion to do with +facts? Nothing. Can there be Methodist mathematics, Catholic astronomy, +Presbyterian geology, Baptist biology, or Episcopal botany? Why, then, +should a sectarian college exist? Only that which somebody knows should +be taught in our schools. We should not collect taxes to pay people for +guessing. The common school is the bread of life for the people, and it +should not be touched by the withering hand of superstition. +</p> +<p> +Our country will never be filled with great institutions of learning +until there is an absolute divorce between Church and School. As long +as the mutilated records of a barbarous people are placed by priest and +professor above the reason of mankind, we shall reap but little benefit +from church or school. +</p> +<p> +Instead of dismissing professors for finding something out, let us +rather discharge those who do not. Let each teacher understand that +investigation is not dangerous for him; that his bread is safe, no +matter how much truth he may discover, and that his salary will not be +reduced, simply because he finds that the ancient Jews did not know the +entire history of the world. +</p> +<p> +Besides, it is not fair to make the Catholic support a Protestant +school, nor is it just to collect taxes from infidels and atheists to +support schools in which any system of religion is taught. +</p> +<p> +The sciences are not sectarian. People do not persecute each other on +account of disagreements in mathematics. Families are not divided about +botany, and astronomy does not even tend to make a man hate his father +and mother. It is what people do not know, that they persecute each +other about. Science will bring, not a sword, but peace. +</p> +<p> +Just as long as religion has control of the schools, science will be an +outcast. Let us free our institutions of learning. Let us dedicate them +to the science of eternal truth. Let us tell every teacher to ascertain +all the facts he can—to give us light, to follow Nature, no matter +where she leads; to be infinitely true to himself and us; to feel that +he is without a chain, except the obligation to be honest; that he is +bound by no books, by no creed, neither by the sayings of the dead nor +of the living; that he is asked to look with his own eyes, to reason for +himself without fear, to investigate in every possible direction, and to +bring us the fruit of all his work. +</p> +<p> +At present, a good many men engaged in scientific pursuits, and who +have signally failed in gaining recognition among their fellows, are +endeavoring to make reputations among the churches by delivering weak +and vapid lectures upon the "harmony of Genesis and Geology." Like all +hypocrites, these men overstate the case to such a degree, and so +turn and pervert facts and words that they succeed only in gaining the +applause of other hypocrites like themselves. Among the great scientists +they are regarded as generals regard sutlers who trade with both armies. +</p> +<p> +Surely the time must come when the wealth of the world will not be +wasted in the propagation of ignorant creeds and miraculous mistakes. +The time must come when churches and cathedrals will be dedicated to the +use of man; when minister and priest will deem the discoveries of the +living of more importance than the errors of the dead; when the truths +of Nature will outrank the "sacred" falsehoods of the past, and when a +single fact will outweigh all the miracles of Holy Writ. +</p> +<p> +Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money +wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize +mankind? +</p> +<p> +When every church becomes a school, every cathedral a university, every +clergyman a teacher, and all their hearers brave and honest +thinkers, then, and not until then, will the dream of poet, patriot, +philanthropist and philosopher, become a real and blessed truth. +</p> +<center> +III. THE POLITICIANS. +</center> +<p> +I would like also to liberate the politician. At present, the successful +office-seeker is a good deal like the centre of the earth; he weighs +nothing himself, but draws everything else to him. There are so many +societies, so many churches, so many isms, that it is almost impossible +for an independent man to succeed in a political career. Candidates are +forced to pretend that they are Catholics with Protestant proclivities, +or Christians with liberal tendencies, or temperance men who now and +then take a glass of wine, or, that although not members of any church +their wives are, and that they subscribe liberally to all. The result of +all this is that we reward hypocrisy and elect men entirely destitute of +real principle; and this will never change until the people become grand +enough to allow each other to do their own thinking, our Government +should be entirely and purely secular. The religious views of a +candidate should be kept entirely out of sight. He should not be +compelled to give his opinion as to the inspiration of the Bible, the +propriety of infant baptism, or the immaculate conception. All these +things are private and personal. He should be allowed to settle such +things for himself, and should he decide contrary to the law and will of +God, let him settle the matter with God. The people ought to be wise +enough to select as their officers men who know something of political +affairs, who comprehend the present greatness, and clearly perceive the +future grandeur of our country. If we were in a storm at sea, with deck +wave-washed and masts strained and bent with storm, and it was necessary +to reef the top sail, we certainly would not ask the brave sailor who +volunteered to go aloft, what his opinion was on the five points of +Calvinism. Our Government has nothing to do with religion. It is neither +Christian nor pagan; it is secular. But as long as the people persist in +voting for or against men on account of their religious views, just so +long will hypocrisy hold place and power. Just so long will the +candidates crawl in the dust—hide their opinions, flatter those with +whom they differ, pretend to agree with those whom they despise; and +just so long will honest men be trampled under foot. Churches are +becoming political organizations. Nearly every Catholic is a Democrat; +nearly every Methodist in the North is a Republican. +</p> +<p> +It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply +upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, +if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this +Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the +hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, +man is a slave. +</p> +<p> +All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same +spirit that kindled the fires of the <i>auto da fe</i>, and lovingly built +the dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing +blasphemy—making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible, +or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself +on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by +impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An +infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in +partnership with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act +that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one +thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine +and imprisonment. It strikes me that God might write a book that would +not necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think +it would be safe to say that a real God could produce a work that would +excite the admiration of mankind. Surely politicians could be better +employed than in passing laws to protect the literary reputation of the +Jewish God. +</p> +<center> +IV. MAN AND WOMAN +</center> +<p> +Let us forget that we are Baptists, Methodists, +</p> +<p> +Catholics, Presbyterians, or Freethinkers, and remember only that we are +men and women. After all, man and woman are the highest possible titles. +All other names belittle us, and show that we have, to a certain extent, +given up our individuality, and have consented to wear the collar of +authority—that we are followers. Throwing away these names, let us +examine these questions not as partisans, but as human beings with hopes +and fears in common. +</p> +<p> +We know that our opinions depend, to a great degree, upon our +surroundings—upon race, country, and education. We are all the result +of numberless conditions, and inherit vices and virtues, truths and +prejudices. If we had been born in England, surrounded by wealth and +clothed with power, most of us would have been Episcopalians, and +believed in church and state. We should have insisted that the people +needed a religion, and that not having intellect enough to provide one +for themselves, it was our duty to make one for them, and then compel +them to support it. We should have believed it indecent to officiate in +a pulpit without wearing a gown, and that prayers should be read from +a book. Had we belonged to the lower classes, we might have been +dissenters and protested against the mummeries of the High Church. +Had we been born in Turkey, most of us would have been Mohammedans and +believed in the inspiration of the Koran. We should have believed that +Mohammed actually visited heaven and became acquainted with an angel by +the name of Gabriel, who was so broad between the eyes that it required +three hundred days for a very smart camel to travel the distance. If +some man had denied this story we should probably have denounced him as +a dangerous person, one who was endeavoring to undermine the foundations +of society, and to destroy all distinction between virtue and vice. We +should have said to him, "What do you propose to give us in place +of that angel? We cannot afford to give up an angel of that size for +nothing." We would have insisted that the best and wisest men +believed the Koran. We would have quoted from the works and letters of +philosophers, generals and sultans, to show that the Koran was the best +of books, and that Turkey was indebted to that book and to that alone +for its greatness and prosperity. We would have asked that man whether +he knew more than all the great minds of his country, whether he was so +much wiser than his fathers? We would have pointed out to him the fact +that thousands had been consoled in the hour of death by passages from +the Koran; that they had died with glazed eyes brightened by visions of +the heavenly harem, and gladly left this world of grief and tears. +We would have regarded Christians as the vilest of men, and on all +occasions would have repeated "There is but one God, and Mohammed is his +prophet!" +</p> +<p> +So, if we had been born in India, we should in all probability have +believed in the religion of that country. We should have regarded the +old records as true and sacred, and looked upon a wandering priest as +better than the men from whom he begged, and by whose labor he lived. +We should have believed in a god with three heads instead of three gods +with one head, as we do now. +</p> +<p> +Now and then some one says that the religion of his father and mother +is good enough for him, and wonders why anybody should desire a better. +Surely we are not bound to follow our parents in religion any more than +in politics, science or art. China has been petrified by the worship +of ancestors. If our parents had been satisfied with the religion of +theirs, we would be still less advanced than we are. If we are, in any +way, bound by the belief of our fathers, the doctrine will hold good +back to the first people who had a religion; and if this doctrine is +true, we ought now to be believers in that first religion. In other +words, we would all be barbarians. You cannot show real respect to your +parents by perpetuating their errors. Good fathers and mothers wish +their children to advance, to overcome obstacles which baffled them, and +to correct the errors of their education. If you wish to reflect credit +upon your parents, accomplish more than they did, solve problems that +they could not understand, and build better than they knew. To sacrifice +your manhood upon the grave of your father is an honor to neither. Why +should a son who has examined a subject, throw away his reason and adopt +the views of his mother? Is not such a course dishonorable to both? +</p> +<p> +We must remember that this "ancestor" argument is as old at least as +the second generation of men, that it has served no purpose except to +enslave mankind, and results mostly from the fact that acquiescence +is easier than investigation. This argument pushed to its logical +conclusion, would prevent the advance of all people whose parents were +not Freethinkers. +</p> +<p> +It is hard for many people to give up the religion in which they were +born; to admit that their fathers were utterly mistaken, and that the +sacred records of their country are but collections of myths and fables. +</p> +<p> +But when we look for a moment at the world, we find that each nation has +its "sacred records"—its religion, and its ideas of worship. Certainly +all cannot be right; and as it would require a life time to investigate +the claims of these various systems, it is hardly fair to damn a man +forever, simply because he happens to believe the wrong one. All these +religions were produced by barbarians. Civilized nations have contented +themselves with changing the religions of their barbaric ancestors, but +they have made none. Nearly all these religions are intensely selfish. +Each one was made by some contemptible little nation that regarded +itself as of almost infinite importance, and looked upon the other +nations as beneath the notice of their god. In all these countries it +was a crime to deny the sacred records, to laugh at the priests, to +speak disrespectfully of the gods, to fail to divide your substance +with the lazy hypocrites who managed your affairs in the next world upon +condition that you would support them in this. In the olden time +these theological people who quartered themselves upon the honest +and industrious, were called soothsayers, seers, charmers, prophets, +enchanters, sorcerers, wizards, astrologers, and impostors, but now, +they are known as clergymen. +</p> +<p> +We are no exception to the general rule, and consequently have our +sacred books as well as the rest. Of course, it is claimed by many of +our people that our books are the only true ones, the only ones that the +real God ever wrote, or had anything whatever to do with. They insist +that all other sacred books were written by hypocrites and impostors; +that the Jews were the only people that God ever had any personal +intercourse with, and that all other prophets and seers were inspired +only by impudence and mendacity. True, it seems somewhat strange that +God should have chosen a barbarous and unknown people who had little or +nothing to do with the other nations of the earth, as his messengers to +the rest of mankind. +</p> +<p> +It is not easy to account for an infinite God making people so low in +the scale of intellect as to require a revelation. Neither is it easy to +perceive why, if a revelation was necessary for all, it was made only +to a few. Of course, I know that it is extremely wicked to suggest these +thoughts, and that ignorance is the only armor that can effectually +protect you from the wrath of God. I am aware that investigators with +all their genius, never find the road to heaven; that those who look +where they are going are sure to miss it, and that only those who +voluntarily put out their eyes and implicitly depend upon blindness can +surely keep the narrow path. +</p> +<p> +Whoever reads our sacred book is compelled to believe it or suffer +forever the torments of the lost. We are told that we have the privilege +of examining it for ourselves; but this privilege is only extended to +us on the condition that we believe it whether it appears reasonable or +not. We may disagree with others as much as we please upon the meaning +of all passages in the Bible, but we must not deny the truth of a single +word. We must believe that the book is inspired. If we obey its every +precept without believing in its inspiration we will be damned just as +certainly as though we disobeyed its every word. We have no right to +weigh it in the scales of reason—to test it by the laws of nature, or +the facts of observation and experience. To do this, we are told, is to +put ourselves above the word of God, and sit in judgment on the works of +our creator. +</p> +<p> +For my part, I cannot admit that belief is a voluntary thing. It seems +to me that evidence, even in spite of ourselves, will have its weight, +and that whatever our wish may be, we are compelled to stand with +fairness by the scales, and give the exact result. It will not do to say +that we reject the Bible because we are wicked. Our wickedness must be +ascertained not from our belief but from our acts. +</p> +<p> +I am told by the clergy that I ought not to attack the Bible; that I am +leading thousands to perdition and rendering certain the damnation of my +own soul. They have had the kindness to advise me that, if my object is +to make converts, I am pursuing the wrong course. They tell me to use +gentler expressions, and more cunning words. Do they really wish me +to make more converts? If their advice is honest, they are traitors to +their trust. If their advice is not honest, then they are unfair with +me. Certainly they should wish me to pursue the course that will make +the fewest converts, and yet they pretend to tell me how my influence +could be increased. It may be, that upon this principle John Bright +advises America to adopt free trade, so that our country can become a +successful rival of Great Britain. Sometimes I think that even ministers +are not entirely candid. +</p> +<p> +Notwithstanding the advice of the clergy, I have concluded to pursue my +own course, to tell my honest thoughts, and to have my freedom in this +world whatever my fate may be in the next. +</p> +<p> +The real oppressor, enslaver and corrupter of the people is the Bible. +That book is the chain that binds, the dungeon that holds the clergy. +That book spreads the pall of superstition over the colleges and +schools. That book puts out the eyes of science, and makes honest +investigation a crime. That book unmans the politician and degrades the +people. That book fills the world with bigotry, hypocrisy and fear. +It plays the same part in our country that has been played by "sacred +records" in all the nations of the world. +</p> +<p> +A little while ago I saw one of the Bibles of the Middle Ages. It was +about two feet in length, and one and a half in width. It had immense +oaken covers, with hasps, and clasps, and hinges large enough almost +for the doors of a penitentiary. It was covered with pictures of winged +angels and aureoled saints. In my imagination I saw this book carried +to the cathedral altar in solemn pomp—heard the chant of robed and +kneeling priests, felt the strange tremor of the organ's peal; saw the +colored light streaming through windows stained and touched by blood +and flame—the swinging censer with its perfumed incense rising to the +mighty roof, dim with height and rich with legend carved in stone, while +on the walls was hung, written in light, and shade, and all the colors +that can tell of joy and tears, the pictured history of the martyred +Christ. The people fell upon their knees. The book was opened, and the +priest read the messages from God to man. To the multitude, the book +itself was evidence enough that it was not the work of human hands. How +could those little marks and lines and dots contain, like tombs, the +thoughts of men, and how could they, touched by a ray of light from +human eyes, give up their dead? How could these characters span the vast +chasm dividing the present from the past, and make it possible for the +living still to hear the voices of the dead? +</p> +<center> +V. THE PENTATEUCH +</center> +<p> +The first five books in our Bible are known as the Pentateuch. For a +long time it was supposed that Moses was the author, and among the +ignorant the supposition still prevails. As a matter of fact, it seems +to be well settled that Moses had nothing to do with these books, and +that they were not written until he had been dust and ashes for hundreds +of years. But, as all the churches still insist that he was the author, +that he wrote even an account of his own death and burial, let us speak +of him as though these books were in fact written by him. As the +Christians maintain that God was the real author, it makes but little +difference whom he employed as his pen. +</p> +<p> +Nearly all authors of sacred books have given an account of the creation +of the universe, the origin of matter, and the destiny of the human +race, all have pointed out the obligation that man is under to his +creator for having placed him upon the earth, and allowed him to live +and suffer, and have taught that nothing short of the most abject +worship could possibly compensate God for his trouble and labor suffered +and done for the good of man. They have nearly all insisted that we +should thank God for all that is good in life; but they have not all +informed us as to whom we should hold responsible for the evils we +endure. +</p> +<p> +Moses differed from most of the makers of sacred books by his failure +to say anything of a future life, by failing to promise heaven, and to +threaten hell. Upon the subject of a future state, there is not one +word in the Pentateuch. Probably at that early day God did not deem +it important to make a revelation as to the eternal destiny of man. +He seems to have thought that he could control the Jews, at least, by +rewards and punishments in this world, and so he kept the frightful +realities of eternal joy and torment a profound secret from the people +of his choice. He thought it far more important to tell the Jews their +origin than to enlighten them as to their destiny. +</p> +<p> +We must remember that every tribe and nation has some way in which, the +more striking phenomena of nature are accounted for. These accounts +are handed down by tradition, changed by numberless narrators as +intelligence increases, or to account for newly discovered facts, or for +the purpose of satisfying the appetite for the marvelous. +</p> +<p> +The way in which a tribe or nation accounts for day and night, the +change of seasons, the fall of snow and rain, the flight of birds, +the origin of the rainbow, the peculiarities of animals, the dreams +of sleep, the visions of the insane, the existence of earthquakes, +volcanoes, storms, lightning and the thousand things that attract the +attention and excite the wonder, fear or admiration of mankind, may be +called the philosophy of that tribe or nation. And as all phenomena are, +by savage and barbaric man accounted for as the action of intelligent +beings for the accomplishment of certain objects, and as these beings +were supposed to have the power to assist or injure man, certain things +were supposed necessary for man to do in order to gain the assistance, +and avoid the anger of these gods. Out of this belief grew certain +ceremonies, and these ceremonies united with the belief, formed +religion; and consequently every religion has for its foundation a +misconception of the cause of phenomena. +</p> +<p> +All worship is necessarily based upon the belief that some being exists +who can, if he will, change the natural order of events. The savage +prays to a stone that he calls a god, while the Christian prays to a god +that he calls a spirit, and the prayers of both are equally useful. The +savage and the Christian put behind the Universe an intelligent cause, +and this cause whether represented by one god or many, has been, in all +ages, the object of all worship. To carry a fetich, to utter a prayer, +to count beads, to abstain from food, to sacrifice a lamb, a child or an +enemy, are simply different ways by which the accomplishment of the same +object is sought, and are all the offspring of the same error. +</p> +<p> +Many systems of religion must have existed many ages before the art of +writing was discovered, and must have passed through many changes before +the stories, miracles, histories, prophecies and mistakes became fixed +and petrified in written words. After that, change was possible only by +giving new meanings to old words, a process rendered necessary by the +continual acquisition of facts somewhat inconsistent with a literal +interpretation of the "sacred records." In this way an honest faith +often prolongs its life by dishonest methods; and in this way the +Christians of to-day are trying to harmonize the Mosaic account of +creation with the theories and discoveries of modern science. +</p> +<p> +Admitting that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, or that he gave +to the Jews a religion, the question arises as to where he obtained +his information. We are told by the theologians that he received his +knowledge from God, and that every word he wrote was and is the exact +truth. It is admitted at the same time that he was an adopted son of +Pharaoh's daughter, and enjoyed the rank and privilege of a prince. +Under such circumstances, he must have been well acquainted with the +literature, philosophy and religion of the Egyptians, and must have +known what they believed and taught as to the creation of the world. +</p> +<p> +Now, if the account of the origin of this earth as given by Moses is +substantially like that given by the Egyptians, then we must conclude +that he learned it from them. Should we imagine that he was divinely +inspired because he gave to the Jews what the Egyptians had given him? +</p> +<p> +The Egyptian priests taught <i>first</i>, that a god created the original +matter, leaving it in a state of chaos; <i>second</i>, that a god moulded it +into form; <i>third</i>, that the breath of a god moved upon the face of +the deep; <i>fourth</i>, that a god created simply by saying "Let it be;" +<i>fifth</i>, that a god created light before the sun existed. +</p> +<p> +Nothing can be clearer than that Moses received from the Egyptians the +principal parts of his narrative, making such changes and additions as +were necessary to satisfy the peculiar superstitions of his own people. +</p> +<p> +If some man at the present day should assert that he had received from +God the theories of evolution, the survival of the fittest, and the +law of heredity, and we should afterwards find that he was not only an +Englishman, but had lived in the family of Charles Darwin, we certainly +would account for his having these theories in a natural way, So, if +Darwin himself should pretend that he was inspired, and had obtained +his peculiar theories from God, we should probably reply that his +grandfather suggested the same ideas, and that Lamarck published +substantially the same theories the same year that Mr. Darwin was born. +</p> +<p> +Now, if we have sufficient courage, we will, by the same course of +reasoning, account for the story of creation found in the Bible. We +will say that it contains the belief of Moses, and that he received his +information from the Egyptians, and not from God. If we take the account +as the absolute truth and use it for the purpose of determining the +value of modern thought, scientific advancement becomes impossible. And +even if the account of the creation as given by Moses should turn out +to be true, and should be so admitted by all the scientific world, the +claim that he was inspired would still be without the least particle +of proof. We would be forced to admit that he knew more than we had +supposed. It certainly is no proof that a man is inspired simply because +he is right. +</p> +<p> +No one pretends that Shakespeare was inspired, and yet all the writers +of the books of the Old Testament put together, could not have produced +Hamlet. +</p> +<p> +Why should we, looking upon some rough and awkward thing, or god in +stone, say that it must have been produced by some inspired sculptor, +and with the same breath pronounce the <i>Venus de Milo</i> to be the work +of man? Why should we, looking at some ancient daub of angel, saint or +virgin, say its painter must have been assisted by a god? +</p> +<p> +Let us account for all we see by the facts we know. If there are things +for which we cannot account, let us wait for light. To account for +anything by supernatural agencies is, in fact to say that we do not +know. Theology is not what we know about God, but what we do not know +about Nature. In order to increase our respect for the Bible, it became +necessary for the priests to exalt and extol that book, and at the same +time to decry and belittle the reasoning powers of man. The whole +power of the pulpit has been used for hundreds of years to destroy the +confidence of man in himself—to induce him to distrust his own powers +of thought, to believe that he was wholly unable to decide any question +for himself, and that all human virtue consists in faith and obedience. +The church has said, "Believe, and obey! If you reason, you will become +an unbeliever, and unbelievers will be lost. If you disobey, you will +do so through vain pride and curiosity, and will, like Adam and Eve, be +thrust from Paradise forever!" +</p> +<p> +For my part, I care nothing for what the church says, except in so far +as it accords with my reason; and the Bible is nothing to me, only in so +far as it agrees with what I think or know. +</p> +<p> +All books should be examined in the same spirit, and truth should be +welcomed and falsehood exposed, no matter in what volume they may be +found. +</p> +<p> +Let us in this spirit examine the Pentateuch; and if anything appears +unreasonable, contradictory or absurd, let us have the honesty and +courage to admit it. Certainly no good can result either from deceiving +ourselves or others. Many millions have implicitly believed this book, +and have just as implicitly believed that polygamy was sanctioned by +God. Millions have regarded this book as the foundation of all +human progress, and at the same time looked upon slavery as a divine +institution. Millions have declared this book to have been infinitely +holy, and to prove that they were right, have imprisoned, robbed +and burned their fellow-men. The inspiration of this book has been +established by famine, sword and fire, by dungeon, chain and whip, by +dagger and by rack, by force and fear and fraud, and generations have +been frightened by threats of hell, and bribed with promises of heaven. +</p> +<p> +Let us examine a portion of this book, not in the darkness of our fear, +but in the light of reason. +</p> +<p> +And first, let us examine the account given of the creation of this +world, commenced, according to the Bible, on Monday morning about five +thousand eight hundred and eighty-three years ago. +</p> +<center> +VI. MONDAY. +</center> +<p> +Moses commences his story by telling us that in the beginning God +created the heaven and the earth. +</p> +<p> +If this means anything, it means that God produced, caused to exist, +called into being, the heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that +he formed the heaven and the earth of previously existing matter. Moses +conveys, and intended to convey the idea that the matter of which the +heaven and the earth are composed, was created. +</p> +<p> +It is impossible for me to conceive of something being created from +nothing. Nothing, regarded in the light of a raw material, is a decided +failure. I cannot conceive of matter apart from force. Neither is it +possible to think of force disconnected with matter. You cannot imagine +matter going back to absolute nothing. Neither can you imagine nothing +being changed into something. You may be eternally damned if you do not +say that you can conceive these things, but you cannot conceive them. +</p> +<p> +Such is the constitution of the human mind that it cannot even think of +a commencement or an end of matter, or force. +</p> +<p> +If God created the universe, there was a time when he commenced to +create. Back of that commencement there must have been an eternity. In +that eternity what was this God doing? He certainly did not think. +There was nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing had ever +happened. What did he do? Can you imagine anything more absurd than an +infinite intelligence in infinite nothing wasting an eternity? +</p> +<p> +I do not pretend to tell how all these things really are; but I do +insist that a statement that cannot possibly be comprehended by any +human being, and that appears utterly impossible, repugnant to every +fact of experience, and contrary to everything that we really know, must +be rejected by every honest man. +</p> +<p> +We can conceive of eternity, because we cannot conceive of a cessation +of time. We can conceive of infinite space because we cannot conceive +of so much matter that our imagination will not stand upon the farthest +star, and see infinite space beyond. In other words, we cannot conceive +of a cessation of time; therefore eternity is a necessity of the mind. +Eternity sustains the same relation to time that space does to matter. +</p> +<p> +In the time of Moses, it was perfectly safe for him to write an account +of the creation of the world. He had simply to put in form the crude +notions of the people. At that time, no other Jew could have written +a better account. Upon that subject he felt at liberty to give his +imagination full play. There was no one who could authoritatively +contradict anything he might say. It was substantially the same story +that had been imprinted in curious characters upon the clay records +of Babylon, the gigantic monuments of Egypt, and the gloomy temples of +India. In those days there was an almost infinite difference between +the educated and ignorant. The people were controlled almost entirely +by signs and wonders. By the lever of fear, priests moved the world. The +sacred records were made and kept, and altered by them. The people could +not read, and looked upon one who could, as almost a god. In our day it +is hard to conceive of the influence of an educated class in a barbarous +age. It was only necessary to produce the "sacred record," and ignorance +fell upon its face. The people were taught that the record was inspired, +and therefore true. They were not taught that it was true, and therefore +inspired. +</p> +<p> +After all, the real question is not whether the Bible is inspired, but +whether it is true. If it is true, it does not need to be inspired. If +it is true, it makes no difference whether it was written by a man or a +god. The multiplication table is just as useful, just as true as though +God had arranged the figures himself. If the Bible is really true, +the claim of inspiration need not be urged; and if it is not true, its +inspiration can hardly be established. As a matter of fact, the truth +does not need to be inspired. Nothing needs inspiration except a +falsehood or a mistake. Where truth ends, where probability stops, +inspiration begins. A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. +Truth does not need the assistance of miracle. A fact will fit every +other fact in the Universe, because it is the product of all other +facts. A lie will fit nothing except another lie made for the express +purpose of fitting it. After a while the man gets tired of lying, and +then the last lie will not fit the next fact, and then there is an +opportunity to use a miracle. Just at that point, it is necessary to +have a little inspiration. +</p> +<p> +It seems to me that reason is the highest attribute of man, and that if +there can be any communication from God to man, it must be addressed +to his reason. It does not seem possible that in order to understand a +message from God it is absolutely essential to throw our reason away. +How could God make known his will to any being destitute of reason? How +can any man accept as a revelation from God that which is unreasonable +to him? God cannot make a revelation to another man for me. He must make +it to me, and until he convinces my reason that it is true, I cannot +receive it. +</p> +<p> +The statement that in the beginning God created the heaven and the +earth, I cannot accept. It is contrary to my reason, and I cannot +believe it. It appears reasonable to me that force has existed from +eternity. Force cannot, as it appears to me, exist apart from matter. +Force, in its nature, is forever active, and without matter it could +not act; and so I think matter must have existed forever. To conceive +of matter without force, or of force without matter, or of a time when +neither existed, or of a being who existed for an eternity without +either, and who out of nothing created both, is to me utterly +impossible. I may be damned on this account, but I cannot help it. In my +judgment, Moses was mistaken. +</p> +<p> +It will not do to say that Moses merely intended to tell what God did, +in making the heavens and the earth out of matter then in existence. +He distinctly states that in the <i>beginning</i> God created them. If this +account is true, we must believe that God, existing in infinite space +surrounded by eternal nothing, naught and void, created, produced, +called into being, willed into existence this universe of countless +stars. +</p> +<p> +The next thing we are told by this inspired gentleman is, that God +created light, and proceeded to divide it from the darkness. +</p> +<p> +Certainly, the person who wrote this believed that darkness was a thing, +an entity, a material that could get mixed and tangled up with light, +and that these entities, light and darkness, had to be separated. In his +imagination he probably saw God throwing pieces and chunks of darkness +on one side, and rays and beams of light on the other. It is hard for a +man who has been born but once to understand these things. For my part, +I cannot understand how light can be separated from darkness. I had +always supposed that darkness was simply the absence of light, and that +under no circumstances could it be necessary to take the darkness away +from the light. It is certain, however, that Moses believed darkness to +be a form of matter, because I find that in another place he speaks of +a darkness that could be felt. They used to have on exhibition at Rome a +bottle of the darkness that overspread Egypt. +</p> +<p> +You cannot divide light from darkness any more than you can divide heat +from cold. Cold is an absence of heat, and darkness is an absence of +light. I suppose that we have no conception of absolute cold. We know +only degrees of heat. Twenty degrees below zero is just twenty degrees +warmer than forty degrees below zero. Neither cold nor darkness are +entities, and these words express simply either the absolute or partial +absence of heat or light. I cannot conceive how light can be divided +from darkness, but I can conceive how a barbarian several thousand years +ago, writing upon a subject about which he knew nothing, could make a +mistake. The creator of light could not have written in this way. If +such a being exists, he must have known the nature of that "mode of +motion" that paints the earth on every eye, and clothes in garments +seven-hued this universe of worlds. +</p> +<center> +VII. TUESDAY. +</center> +<p> +We are next informed by Moses that "God of the waters, and let it divide +the waters from the waters;" and that "God made the firmament, and +divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters +which were above the firmament." What did the writer mean by the word +firmament? Theologians now tell us that he meant an "expanse." This will +not do. How could an expanse divide the waters from the waters, so that +the waters above the expanse would not fall into and mingle with the +waters below the expanse? The truth is that Moses regarded the firmament +as a solid affair. It was where God lived, and where water was kept. It +was for this reason that they used to pray for rain. They supposed that +some angel could with a lever raise a gate and let out the quantity of +moisture desired. It was with the water from this firmament that the +world was drowned when the windows of heaven were opened. It was in this +said Let there be a firmament in the midst firmament that the sons of +God lived—the sons who "saw the daughters of men that they were +fair and took them wives of all which they chose." The issue of such +marriages were giants, and "the same became mighty men which were of +old, men of renown." +</p> +<p> +Nothing is clearer than that Moses regarded the firmament as a vast +material division that separated the waters of the world, and upon +whose floor God lived, surrounded by his sons. In no other way could he +account for rain. Where did the water come from? He knew nothing about +the laws of evaporation. He did not know that the sun wooed with amorous +kisses the waves of the sea, and that they, clad in glorified mist +rising to meet their lover, were, by disappointment, changed to tears +and fell as rain. +</p> +<p> +The idea that the firmament was the abode of the Deity must have been in +the mind of Moses when he related the dream of Jacob. "And he dreamed, +and behold, a ladder set upon the earth and the top of it reached to +heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it; and +behold the Lord stood above it and said, I am the Lord God." +</p> +<p> +So, when the people were building the tower of Babel "the Lord came down +to see the city, and the tower which the children of men builded. And +the Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have all one language: +and this they begin to do; and nothing will be restrained from them +which they imagined to do. Go to, let us go down and confound their +language that they may not understand one another's speech." +</p> +<p> +The man who wrote that absurd account must have believed that God lived +above the earth, in the firmament. The same idea was in the mind of the +Psalmist when he said that God "bowed the heavens and came down." +</p> +<p> +Of course, God could easily remove any person bodily to heaven, as it +was but a little way above the earth. "Enoch walked with God, and he was +not, for God took him." The accounts in the Bible of the ascension of +Elijah, Christ and St. Paul were born of the belief that the firmament +was the dwelling-place of God. It probably never occurred to these +writers that if the firmament was seven or eight miles away, Enoch and +the rest would have been frozen perfectly stiff long before the journey +could have been completed. Possibly Elijah might have made the voyage, +as he was carried to heaven in a chariot of fire "by a whirlwind." +</p> +<p> +The truth is, that Moses was mistaken, and upon that mistake the +Christians located their heaven and their hell. The telescope destroyed +the firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered +the ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his Mother infinitely +absurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem, +and in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds. +</p> +<center> +VIII. WEDNESDAY. +</center> +<p> +We are next informed by the historian of creation, that after God had +finished making the firmament and had succeeded in dividing the waters +by means of an "expanse," he proceeded "to gather the waters on the +earth together in seas, so that the dry land might appear." +</p> +<p> +Certainly the writer of this did not have any conception of the real +form of the earth. He could not have known anything of the attraction of +gravitation. He must have regarded the earth as flat and supposed that +it required considerable force and power to induce the water to leave +the mountains and collect in the valleys. Just as soon as the water was +forced to run down hill, the dry land appeared, and the grass began to +grow, and the mantles of green were thrown over the shoulders of the +hills, and the trees laughed into bud and blossom, and the branches were +laden with fruit. And all this happened before a ray had left the quiver +of the sun, before a glittering beam had thrilled the bosom of a flower, +and before the Dawn with trembling hands had drawn aside the curtains of +the East and welcomed to her arms the eager god of Day. +</p> +<p> +It does not seem to me that grass and trees could grow and ripen into +seed and fruit without the sun. According to the account, this all +happened on the third day. Now, if, as the Christians say, Moses did not +mean by the word day a period of twenty-four hours, but an immense and +almost measureless space of time, and as God did not, according to this +view make any animals until the fifth day, that is, not for millions of +years after he made the grass and trees, for what purpose did he cause +the trees to bear fruit? +</p> +<p> +Moses says that God said on the third day, "Let the earth bring forth +grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after +his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so. And the +earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the +tree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself after his kind; and God saw +that it was good, and the evening and the morning were the third day." +</p> +<p> +There was nothing to eat this fruit; not an insect with painted wings +sought the honey of the flowers; not a single living, breathing thing +upon the earth. Plenty of grass, a great variety of herbs, an abundance +of fruit, but not a mouth in all the world. If Moses is right, this +state of things lasted only two days; but if the modern theologians are +correct, it continued for millions of ages. +</p> +<p> +"It is now well known that the organic history of the earth can be +properly divided into five epochs—the Primordial, Primary, Secondary, +Tertiary, and Quaternary. Each of these epochs is characterized by +animal and vegetable life peculiar to itself. In the First will be found +Algæ and Skulless Vertebrates, in the Second, Ferns and Fishes, in the +Third, Pine Forests and Reptiles, in the Fourth, Foliaceous Forests and +Mammals, and in the Fifth, Man." +</p> +<p> +How much more reasonable this is than the idea that the earth was +covered with grass, and herbs, and trees loaded with fruit for millions +of years before an animal existed. +</p> +<p> +There is, in Nature, an even balance forever kept between the total +amounts of animal and vegetable life. "In her wonderful economy she must +form and bountifully nourish her vegetable progeny—twin-brother life to +her, with that of animals. The perfect balance between plant existences +and animal existences must always be maintained, while matter courses +through the eternal circle, becoming each in turn. If an animal be +resolved into its ultimate constituents in a period according to the +surrounding circumstances, say, of four hours, of four months, of four +years, or even of four thousand years,—for it is impossible to deny +that there may be instances of all these periods during which the +process has continued—those elements which assume the gaseous form +mingle at once with the atmosphere and are taken up from it without +delay by the ever-open mouths of vegetable life. By a thousand pores +in every leaf the carbonic acid which renders the atmosphere unfit for +animal life is absorbed, the carbon being separated, and assimilated to +form the vegetable fibre, which, as wood, makes and furnishes our houses +and ships, is burned for our warmth, or is stored up under pressure for +coal. All this carbon has played its part, and many parts in its time, +as animal existences from monad up to man. Our mahogany of to-day has +been many negroes in its turn, and before the African existed, was +integral portions of many a generation of extinct species." +</p> +<p> +It seems reasonable to suppose that certain kinds of vegetation-and +certain kinds of animals should exist together, and that as the +character of the vegetation changed, a corresponding change would take +place in the animal world. It may be that I am led to these conclusions +by "total depravity," or that I lack the necessary humility of spirit to +satisfactorily harmonize Haeckel and Moses; or that I am carried away by +pride, blinded by reason, given over to hardness of heart that I might +be damned, but I never can believe that the earth was covered with +leaves, and buds, and flowers, and fruits before the sun with glittering +spear had driven back the hosts of Night. +</p> +<center> +IX. THURSDAY. +</center> +<p> +After the world was covered with vegetation, it occurred to Moses that +it was about time to make a sun and moon; and so we are told that on the +fourth day God said, "Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven +to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for +seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the +firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so. And +God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the +lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also." +</p> +<p> +Can we believe that the inspired writer had any idea of the size of the +sun? Draw a circle five inches in diameter, and by its side thrust a pin +through the paper. The hole made by the pin will sustain about the same +relation to the circle that the earth does to the sun. Did he know that +the sun was eight hundred and sixty thousand miles in diameter; that it +was enveloped in an ocean of fire thousands of miles in depth, hotter +even than the Christian's hell, over which sweep tempests of flame +moving at the rate of one hundred miles a second, compared with which +the wildest storm that ever wrecked the forests of this world was but a +calm? Did he know that the sun every moment of time throws out as much +heat as could be generated by the combustion of millions upon millions +of tons of coal? Did he know that the volume of the earth is less than +one-millionth of that of the sun? Did he know of the one hundred and +four planets belonging to our solar system, all children of the sun? Did +he know of Jupiter eighty-five thousand miles in diameter, hundreds +of times as large as our earth, turning on his axis at the rate of +twenty-five thousand miles an hour accompanied by four moons, making the +tour of his orbit in fifty years, a distance of three thousand million +miles? Did he know anything about Saturn, his rings and his eight moons? +Did he have the faintest idea that all these planets were once a part of +the sun; that the vast luminary was once thousands of millions of miles +in diameter; that Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars were all +born before our earth, and that by no possibility could this world have +existed three days, nor three periods, nor three "good whiles" before +its source, the sun? +</p> +<p> +Moses supposed the sun to be about three or four feet in diameter and +the moon about half that size. Compared with the earth they were but +simple specks. This idea seems to have been shared by all the "inspired" +men. We find in the book of Joshua that the sun stood still, and the +moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. +"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go +down about a whole day." +</p> +<p> +We are told that the sacred writer wrote in common speech as we do +when we talk about the rising and setting of the sun, and that all he +intended to say was that the earth ceased to turn on its axis "for about +a whole day." +</p> +<p> +My own opinion is that General Joshua knew no more about the motions of +the earth than he did about mercy and justice. If he had known that the +earth turned upon its axis at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and +swept in its course about the sun at the rate of sixty-eight thousand +miles an hour, he would have doubled the hailstones, spoken of in the +same chapter, that the Lord cast down from heaven, and allowed the sun +and moon to rise and set in the usual way. +</p> +<p> +It is impossible to conceive of a more absurd story than this about the +stopping of the sun and moon, and yet nothing so excites the malice of +the orthodox preacher as to call its truth in question. Some endeavor +to account for the phenomenon by natural causes, while others attempt +to show that God could, by the refraction of light have made the sun +visible although actually shining on the opposite side of the earth. The +last hypothesis has been seriously urged by ministers within the last +few months. The Rev. Henry M. Morey of South Bend, Indiana, says "that +the phenomenon was simply optical. The rotary motion of the earth was +not disturbed, but the light of the sun was prolonged by the same laws +of refraction and reflection by which the sun now appears to be above +the horizon when it is really below. The medium through which the sun's +rays passed may have been miraculously influenced so as to have caused +the sun to linger above the horizon long after its usual time for +disappearance." +</p> +<p> +This is the latest and ripest product of Christian scholarship upon +this question no doubt, but still it is not entirely satisfactory to me. +According to the sacred account the sun did not linger, merely, above +the horizon, but stood still "in the midst of heaven for about a +whole day," that is to say, for about twelve hours. If the air was +miraculously changed, so that it would refract the rays of the sun while +the earth turned over as usual for "about a whole day," then, at the +end of that time the sun must have been visible in the east, that is, +it must by that time have been the next morning. According to this, that +most wonderful day must have been at least thirty-six hours in length. +We have first, the twelve hours of natural light, then twelve hours of +"refracted and reflected" light. By that time it would again be morning, +and the sun would shine for twelve hours more in the natural way, making +thirty-six hours in all. +</p> +<p> +If the Rev. Morey would depend a little less on "refraction" and a +little more on "reflection," he would conclude that the whole story is +simply a barbaric myth and fable. +</p> +<p> +It hardly seems reasonable that God, if there is one, would either stop +the globe, change the constitution of the atmosphere or the nature of +light simply to afford Joshua an opportunity to kill people on that +day when he could just as easily have waited until the next morning. +It certainly cannot be very gratifying to God for us to believe such +childish things. +</p> +<p> +It has been demonstrated that force is eternal; that it is forever +active, and eludes destruction by change of form. Motion is a form of +force, and all arrested motion changes instantly to heat. The earth +turns upon its axis at about one thousand miles an hour. Let it be +stopped and a force beyond our imagination is changed to heat. It has +been calculated that to stop the world would produce as much heat as the +burning of a solid piece of coal three times the size of the earth. +And yet we are asked to believe that this was done in order that one +barbarian might defeat another. Such stories never would have been +written, had not the belief been general that the heavenly bodies were +as nothing compared with the earth. +</p> +<p> +The view of Moses was acquiesced in by the Jewish people and by the +Christian world for thousands of years. It is supposed that Moses +lived about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and although he was +"inspired," and obtained his information directly from God, he did not +know as much about our solar system as the Chinese did a thousand +years before he was born. "The Emperor Chwenhio adopted as an epoch, a +conjunction of the planets Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, which has +been shown by M. Bailly to have occurred no less than 2449 years before +Christ." The ancient Chinese knew not only the motions of the planets, +but they could calculate eclipses. "In the reign of the Emperor +Chow-Kang, the chief astronomers, Ho and Hi were condemned to death for +neglecting to announce a solar eclipse which took place 2169 B. C., a +clear proof that the prediction of eclipses was a part of the duty of +the imperial astronomers." +</p> +<p> +Is it not strange that a Chinaman should find out by his own exertions +more about the material universe than Moses could when assisted by its +Creator? +</p> +<p> +About eight hundred years after God gave Moses the principal facts about +the creation of the "heaven and the earth" he performed another miracle +far more wonderful than stopping the world. On this occasion he not +only stopped the earth, but actually caused it to turn the other way. +A Jewish king was sick, and God, in order to convince him that he would +ultimately recover, offered to make the shadow on the dial go forward, +or backward ten degrees. The king thought it was too easy a thing to +make the shadow go forward, and asked that it be turned back. Thereupon, +"Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord, and he brought the shadow +ten degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." I +hardly see how this miracle could be accounted for even by "refraction" +and "reflection." +</p> +<p> +It seems, from the account, that this stupendous miracle was performed +after the king had been cured. The account of the shadow going backward +is given in the eleventh verse of the twentieth chapter of Second Kings, +while the cure is given in the seventh verse of the same chapter. "And +Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil, +and he recovered." +</p> +<p> +Stopping the world and causing it to turn back ten degrees after that, +seems to have been, as the boil was already cured by the figs, a useless +display of power. +</p> +<p> +The easiest way to account for all these wonders is to say that the +"inspired" writers were mistaken. In this way a fearful burden is lifted +from the credulity of man, and he is left free to believe the evidences +of his own senses, and the demonstrations of science. In this way he can +emancipate himself from the slavery of superstition, the control of the +barbaric dead, and the despotism of the church. +</p> +<p> +Only about a hundred years ago, Buffon, the naturalist, was compelled by +the faculty of theology at Paris to publicly renounce fourteen "errors" +in his work on Natural History because they were at variance with the +Mosaic account of creation. The Pentateuch is still the scientific +standard of the church, and ignorant priests, armed with that, pronounce +sentence upon the vast accomplishments of modern thought. +</p> +<center> +X. "HE MADE THE STARS ALSO." +</center> +<p> +Moses came very near forgetting about the stars, and only gave five +words to all the hosts of heaven. Can it be possible that he knew +anything about the stars beyond the mere fact that he saw them shining +above him? +</p> +<p> +Did he know that the nearest star, the one we ought to be the best +acquainted with, is twenty-one billion of miles away, and that it is +a sun shining by its own light? Did he know of the next, that is +thirty-seven billion miles distant? Is it possible that he was +acquainted with Sirius, a sun two thousand six hundred and eighty-eight +times larger than our own, surrounded by a system of heavenly bodies, +several of which are already known, and distant from us eighty-two +billion miles? Did he know that the Polar star that tells the mariner +his course and guided slaves to liberty and joy, is distant from this +little world two hundred and ninety-two billion miles, and that Capella +wheels and shines one hundred and thirty-three billion miles beyond? Did +he know that it would require about seventy-two years for light to reach +us from this star? Did he know that light travels one hundred and +eighty-five thousand miles a second? Did he know that some stars are so +far away in the infinite abysses that five millions of years are +required for their light to reach this globe? +</p> +<p> +If this is true, and if as the Bible tells us, the stars were made after +the earth, then this world has been wheeling in its orbit for at least +five million years. +</p> +<p> +It may be replied that it was not the intention of God to teach geology +and astronomy. Then why did he say anything upon these subjects? and if +he did say anything, why did he not give the facts? +</p> +<p> +According to the sacred records God created, on the first day, the +heaven and the earth, "moved upon the face of the waters," and made +the light. On the second day he made the firmament or the "expanse" and +divided the waters. On the third day he gathered the waters into seas, +let the dry land appear and caused the earth to bring forth grass, herbs +and fruit trees, and on the fourth day he made the sun, moon and stars +and set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth. +This division of labor is very striking. The work of the other days is +as nothing when compared with that of the fourth. Is it possible that +it required the same time and labor to make the grass, herbs and fruit +trees, that it did to fill with countless constellations the infinite +expanse of space? +</p> +<center> +XI. FRIDAY. +</center> +<p> +We are then told that on the next day "God the moving creatures that hath +life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of +heaven. And God created great whales and every living creature which the +waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged +fowl after his kind, and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, +saying, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and +let fowl multiply in the earth." +</p> +<p> +Is it true that while the dry land was covered with grass, and herbs, +and trees bearing fruit, the ocean was absolutely devoid of life, and so +remained for millions of years? +</p> +<p> +If Moses meant twenty-four hours by the word day, then it would make but +little difference on which of the six days animals were made; but if the +word said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly day was used to express +millions of ages, during which life was slowly evolved from monad up to +man, then the account becomes infinitely absurd, puerile and foolish. +There is not a scientist of high standing who will say that in his +judgment the earth was covered with fruit-bearing trees before the +moners, the ancestors it may be of the human race, felt in Laurentian +seas the first faint throb of life. Nor is there one who will declare +that there was a single spire of grass before the sun had poured upon +the world his flood of gold. +</p> +<p> +Why should men in the name of religion try to harmonize the +contradictions that exist between Nature and a book? Why should +philosophers be denounced for placing more reliance upon what they know +than upon what they have been told? If there is a God, it is reasonably +certain that he made the world, but it is by no means certain that he is +the author of the Bible. Why then should we not place greater confidence +in Nature than in a book? And even if this God made not only the world +but the book besides, it does not follow that the book is the best part +of creation, and the only part that we will be eternally punished for +denying. It seems to me that it is quite as important to know something +of the solar system, something of the physical history of this globe, +as it is to know the adventures of Jonah or the diet of Ezekiel. For my +part, I would infinitely prefer to know all the results of scientific +investigation, than to be inspired as Moses was. Supposing the Bible to +be true; why is it any worse or more wicked for Freethinkers to deny +it, than for priests to deny the doctrine of evolution, or the dynamic +theory of heat? Why should we be damned for laughing at Samson and his +foxes, while others, holding the Nebular Hypothesis in utter contempt, +go straight to heaven? It seems to me that a belief in the great truths +of science are fully as essential to salvation, as the creed of any +church. We are taught that a man may be perfectly acceptable to God +even if he denies the rotundity of the earth, the Copernican system, the +three laws of Kepler, the indestructibility of matter and the attraction +of gravitation. And we are also taught that a man may be right upon +all these questions, and yet, for failing to believe in the "scheme of +salvation," be eternally lost. +</p> +<center> +XII. SATURDAY. +</center> +<p> +On this, the last day of creation, God said;— +</p> +<p> +"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle +and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was +so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after +their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; +and God saw that it was good." +</p> +<p> +Now, is it true that the seas were filled with fish, the sky with fowls, +and the earth covered with grass, and herbs, and fruit bearing trees, +millions of ages before there was a creeping thing in existence? Must +we admit that plants and animals were the result of the fiat of some +incomprehensible intelligence independent of the operation of what are +known as natural causes? Why is a miracle any more necessary to account +for yesterday than for to-day or for to-morrow? +</p> +<p> +If there is an infinite Power, nothing can be more certain than that +this Power works in accordance with what we call law, that is, by and +through natural causes. If anything can be found without a pedigree of +natural antecedents, it will then be time enough to talk about the fiat +of creation. There must have been a time when plants and animals did not +exist upon this globe. The question, and the only question is, whether +they were naturally produced. If the account given by Moses is true, +then the vegetable and animal existences are the result of certain +special fiats of creation entirely independent of the operation of +natural causes. This is so grossly improbable, so at variance with the +experience and observation of mankind, that it cannot be adopted without +abandoning forever the basis of scientific thought and action. +</p> +<p> +It may be urged that we do not understand the sacred record correctly. +To this it may be replied that for thousands of years the account of +the creation has, by the Jewish and Christian world, been regarded as +literally true. If it was inspired, of course God must have known just +how it would be understood, and consequently must have intended that +it should be understood just as he knew it would be. One man writing to +another, may mean one thing, and yet be understood as meaning something +else. Now, if the writer knew that he would be misunderstood, and also +knew that he could use other words that would convey his real meaning, +but did not, we would say that he used words on purpose to mislead, and +was not an honest man. +</p> +<p> +If a being of infinite wisdom wrote the Bible, or caused it to be +written, he must have known exactly how his words would be interpreted +by all the world, and he must have intended to convey the very meaning +that was conveyed. He must have known that by reading that book, man +would form erroneous views as to the shape, antiquity, and size of this +world; that he would be misled as to the time and order of creation; +that he would have the most childish and contemptible views of the +creator; that the "sacred word" would be used to support slavery and +polygamy; that it would build dungeons for the good, and light fagots +to consume the brave, and therefore he must have intended that these +results should follow. He also must have known that thousands and +millions of men and women never could believe his Bible, and that the +number of unbelievers would increase in the exact ratio of civilization, +and therefore, he must have intended that result. +</p> +<p> +Let us understand this. An honest finite being uses the best words, in +his judgment, to convey his meaning. This is the best he can do, because +he cannot certainly know the exact effect of his words on others. But an +infinite being must know not only the real meaning of the words, but the +exact meaning they will convey to every reader and hearer. He must know +every meaning that they are capable of conveying to every mind. He must +also know what explanations must be made to prevent misconception. If +an infinite being cannot, in making a revelation to man, use such words +that every person to whom a revelation is essential will understand +distinctly what that revelation is, then a revelation from God through +the instrumentality of language is impossible, or it is not essential +that all should understand it correctly. It may be urged that millions +have not the capacity to understand a revelation, although expressed in +the plainest words. To this it seems a sufficient reply to ask, why a +being of infinite power should create men so devoid of intelligence, +that he cannot by any means make known to them his will? We are told +that it is exceedingly plain, and that a wayfaring man, though a fool, +need not err therein. This statement is refuted by the religious history +of the Christian world. Every sect is a certificate that God has not +plainly revealed his will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a +different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, +there have been ages of war, and centuries of sword and flame. If +written by an infinite God, he must have known that these results must +follow; and thus knowing, he must be responsible for all. +</p> +<p> +Is it not infinitely more reasonable to say that this book is the work +of man, that it is filled with mingled truth and error, with mistakes +and facts, and reflects, too faithfully perhaps, the "very form and +pressure of its time"? +</p> +<p> +If there are mistakes in the Bible, certainly they were made by man. If +there is anything contrary to nature, it was written by man. If there is +anything immoral, cruel, heartless or infamous, it certainly was never +written by a being worthy of the adoration of mankind. +</p> +<center> +XIII. LET US MAKE MAN. +</center> +<p> +We are next informed by the author of the Pentateuch that God said "Let +us make man in our image, after our likeness," and that "God created man +in his own image, in the image of God created he him—male and female +created he them." +</p> +<p> +If this account means anything, it means that man was created in the +physical image and likeness of God. Moses while he speaks of man as +having been made in the image of God, never speaks of God except as +having the form of a man. He speaks of God as "walking in the garden +in the cool of the day;" and that Adam and Eve "heard his voice." He is +constantly telling what God said, and in a thousand passages he refers +to him as not only having the human form, but as performing actions, +such as man performs. The God of Moses was a God with hands, with feet, +with the organs of speech. +</p> +<p> +A God of passion, of hatred, of revenge, of affection, of repentance; a +God who made mistakes:—in other words, an immense and powerful man. +</p> +<p> +It will not do to say that Moses meant to convey the idea that God made +man in his mental or moral image. Some have insisted that man was made +in the moral image of God because he was made pure. Purity cannot be +manufactured. A moral character cannot be made for man by a god. +Every man must make his own moral character. Consequently, if God +is infinitely pure, Adam and Eve were not made in his image in that +respect. Others say that Adam and Eve were made in the mental image +of God. If it is meant by that, that they were created with reasoning +powers like, but not to the extent of those possessed by a god, then +this may be admitted. But certainly this idea was not in the mind of +Moses. He regarded the human form as being in the image of God, and for +that reason always spoke of God as having that form. No one can read +the Pentateuch without coming to the conclusion that the author supposed +that man was created in the physical likeness of Deity. God said "Go to, +let us go down." "God smelled a sweet savor;" "God repented him that he +had made man;" "and God said;" and "walked;" and "talked;" and "rested." +All these expressions are inconsistent with any other idea than that the +person using them regarded God as having the form of man. +</p> +<p> +As a matter of fact, it is impossible for a man to conceive of a +personal God, other than as a being having the human form. No one can +think of an infinite being having the form of a horse, or of a bird, or +of any animal beneath man. It is one of the necessities of the mind to +associate forms with intellectual capacities. The highest form of which +we have any conception is man's, and consequently, his is the only form +that we can find in imagination to give to a personal God, because all +other forms are, in our minds, connected with lower intelligences. +</p> +<p> +It is impossible to think of a personal God as a spirit without form. +We can use these words, but they do not convey to the mind any real and +tangible meaning. Every one who thinks of a personal God at all, thinks +of him as having the human form. Take from God the idea of form; speak +of him simply as an all pervading spirit—which means an all pervading +something about which we know nothing—and Pantheism is the result. +</p> +<p> +We are told that God made man; and the question naturally arises, how +was this done? Was it by a process of "evolution," "development;" the +"transmission of acquired habits;" the "survival of the fittest," or was +the necessary amount of clay kneaded to the proper consistency, and then +by the hands of God moulded into form? Modern science tells that man has +been evolved, through countless epochs, from the lower forms; that he +is the result of almost an infinite number of actions, reactions, +experiences, states, forms, wants and adaptations. Did Moses intend +to convey such a meaning, or did he believe that God took a sufficient +amount of dust, made it the proper shape, and breathed into it the +breath of life? Can any believer in the Bible give any reasonable +account of this process of creation? Is it possible to imagine what +was really done? Is there any theologian who will contend that man +was created directly from the earth? Will he say that man was made +substantially as he now is, with all his muscles properly developed for +walking and speaking, and performing every variety of human action? +That all his bones were formed as they now are, and all the relations of +nerve, ligament, brain and motion as they are to-day? +</p> +<p> +Looking back over the history of animal life from the lowest to +the highest forms, we find that there has been a slow and gradual +development; a certain but constant relation between want and +production; between use and form. The Moner is said to be the simplest +form of animal life that has yet been found. It has been described as +"an organism without organs." It is a kind of structureless structure; +a little mass of transparent jelly that can flatten itself out, and can +expand and contract around its food. It can feed without a mouth, digest +without a stomach, walk without feet, and reproduce itself by simple +division. By taking this Moner as the commencement of animal life, or +rather as the first animal, it is easy to follow the development of the +organic structure through all the forms of life to man himself. In this +way finally every muscle, bone and joint, every organ, form and function +may be accounted for. In this way, and in this way only, can the +existence of rudimentary organs be explained. Blot from the human mind +the ideas of evolution, heredity, adaptation, and "the survival of +the fittest," with which it has been enriched by Lamarck, Goethe, +Darwin, Haeckel and Spencer, and all the facts in the history of animal +life become utterly disconnected and meaningless. +</p> +<p> +Shall we throw away all that has been discovered with regard to organic +life, and in its place take the statements of one who lived in the +rude morning of a barbaric day? Will anybody now contend that man was a +direct and independent creation, and sustains and bears no relation to +the animals below him? Belief upon this subject must be governed at +last by evidence. Man cannot believe as he pleases. He can control his +speech, and can say that he believes or disbelieves; but after all, his +will cannot depress or raise the scales with which his reason finds the +worth and weight of facts. If this is not so, investigation, evidence, +judgment and reason are but empty words. +</p> +<p> +I ask again, how were Adam and Eve created? In one account they are +created male and female, and apparently at the same time. In the next +account, Adam is made first, and Eve a long time afterwards, and from a +part of the man. Did God simply by his creative fiat cause a rib slowly +to expand, grow and divide into nerve, ligament, cartilage and flesh? +How was the woman created from a rib? How was man created simply from +dust? For my part, I cannot believe this statement. +</p> +<p> +I may suffer for this in the world to come; and may, millions of years +hence, sincerely wish that I had never investigated the subject, but had +been content to take the ideas of the dead. I do not believe that any +deity works in that way. So far as my experience goes, there is an +unbroken procession of cause and effect. Each thing is a necessary link +in an infinite chain; and I cannot conceive of this chain being broken +even for one instant. Back of the simplest moner there is a cause, +and back of that another, and so on, it seems to me, forever. In my +philosophy I postulate neither beginning nor ending. +</p> +<p> +If the Mosaic account is true, we know how long man has been upon this +earth. If that account can be relied on, the first man was made about +five thousand eight hundred and eighty-three years ago. Sixteen hundred +and fifty-six years after the making of the first man, the inhabitants +of the world, with the exception of eight people, were destroyed by +a flood. This flood occurred only about four thousand two hundred and +twenty-seven years ago. If this account is correct, at that time, only +one kind of men existed. Noah and his family were certainly of the same +blood. It therefore follows that all the differences we see between the +various races of men have been caused in about four thousand years. If +the account of the deluge is true, then since that event all the ancient +kingdoms of the earth were founded, and their inhabitants passed through +all the stages of savage, nomadic, barbaric and semi-civilized life; +through the epochs of Stone, Bronze and Iron; established commerce, +cultivated the arts, built cities, filled them with palaces and temples, +invented writing, produced a literature and slowly fell to shapeless +ruin. We must believe that all this has happened within a period of four +thousand years. +</p> +<p> +From representations found upon Egyptian granite made more than three +thousand years ago, we know that the negro was as black, his lips as +full, and his hair as closely curled then as now. If we know anything, +we know that there was at that time substantially the same difference +between the Egyptian and the Negro as now. If we know anything, we know +that magnificent statues were made in Egypt four thousand years before +our era—that is to say, about six thousand years ago. There was at +the World's Exposition, in the Egyptian department, a statue of king +Cephren, known to have been chiseled more than six thousand years ago. +In other words, if the Mosaic account must be believed, this statue was +made before the world. We also know, if we know anything, that men lived +in v Europe with the hairy mammoth, the cave bear, the rhinoceros, and +the hyena. Among the bones of these animals have been found the stone +hatchets and flint arrows of our ancestors. In the caves where they +lived have been discovered the remains of these animals that had been +conquered, killed and devoured as food, hundreds of thousands of years +ago. +</p> +<p> +If these facts are true, Moses was mistaken. For my part, I have +infinitely more confidence in the discoveries of to-day, than in the +records of a barbarous people. It will not now do to say that man has +existed upon this earth for only about six thousand years. One can +hardly compute in his imagination the time necessary for man to emerge +from the barbarous state, naked and helpless, surrounded by animals far +more powerful than he, to progress and finally create the civilizations +of India, Egypt and Athens. The distance from savagery to Shakespeare +must be measured not by hundreds, but by millions of years. +</p> +<center> +XIV. SUNDAY. +</center> +<p> +"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he +rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God +blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had +rested from all his work which God created and made." +</p> +<p> +The great work had been accomplished, the world, the sun, and moon, and +all the hosts of heaven were finished; the earth was clothed in +green, the seas were filled with life, the cattle wandered by the +brooks—insects with painted wings were in the happy air, Adam and Eve +were making each others acquaintance, and God was resting from his work. +He was contemplating the accomplishments of a week. +</p> +<p> +Because he rested on that day he sanctified it, and for that reason and +for that alone, it was by the Jews considered a holy day. If he only +rested on that day, there ought to be some account of what he did the +following Monday. Did he rest on that day? What did he do after he +got rested? Has he done anything in the way of creation since Saturday +evening of the first week? +</p> +<p> +It is now claimed by the "scientific" Christians that the "days" of +creation were not ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, but immensely +long periods of time. If they are right, then how long was the seventh +day? Was that, too, a geologic period covering thousands of ages? +That cannot be, because Adam and Eve were created the Saturday evening +before, and according to the Bible that was about five thousand eight +hundred and eighty-three years ago. I cannot state the time exactly, +because there have been as many as one hundred and forty different +opinions given by learned Biblical students as to the time between the +creation of the world and the birth of Christ. We are quite certain, +however, that, according to the Bible, it is not more than six thousand +years since the creation of Adam. From this it would appear that the +seventh day was not a geologic epoch, but was in fact a period of less +than six thousand years, and probably of only twenty-four hours. +</p> +<p> +The theologians who "answer" these things may take their choice. If they +take the ground that the "days" were periods of twenty-four hours, then +geology will force them to throw away the whole account. If, on the +other hand, they admit that the days were vast "periods," then the +sacredness of the Sabbath must be given up. +</p> +<p> +There is found in the Bible no intimation that there was the least +difference in the days. They are all spoken of in the same way. It may +be replied that our translation is incorrect. If this is so, then only +those who understand Hebrew, have had a revelation from God, and all the +rest have been deceived. +</p> +<p> +How is it possible to sanctify a space of time? Is rest holier than +labor? If there is any difference between days, ought not that to be +considered best in which the most useful labor has been performed? +</p> +<p> +Of all the superstitions of mankind, this insanity about the "sacred +Sabbath" is the most absurd. The idea of feeling it a duty to be solemn +and sad one-seventh of the time! To think that we can please an infinite +being by staying in some dark and sombre room, instead of walking in the +perfumed fields! Why should God hate to see a man happy? Why should it +excite his wrath to see a family in the woods, by some babbling stream, +talking, laughing and loving? Nature works on that "sacred" day. The +earth turns, the rivers run, the trees grow, buds burst into flower, and +birds fill the air with song. Why should we look sad, and think about +death, and hear about hell? Why should that day be filled with gloom +instead of joy? +</p> +<p> +A poor mechanic, working all the week in dust and noise, needs a day of +rest and joy, a day to visit stream and wood—a day to live with wife +and child; a day in which to laugh at care, and gather hope and strength +for toils to come. And his weary wife needs a breath of sunny air, away +from street and wall, amid the hills or by the margin of the sea, where +she can sit and prattle with her babe, and fill with happy dreams the +long, glad day. +</p> +<p> +The "Sabbath" was born of asceticism, hatred of human joy, fanaticism, +ignorance, egotism of priests and the cowardice of the people. This +day, for thousands of years, has been dedicated to superstition, to the +dissemination of mistakes, and the establishment of falsehoods. Every +Freethinker, as a matter of duty, should violate this day. He should +assert his independence, and do all within his power to wrest the +Sabbath from the gloomy church and give it back to liberty and joy. +Freethinkers should make the Sabbath a day of mirth and music; a day to +spend with wife and child—a day of games, and books, and dreams—a day +to put fresh flowers above our sleeping dead—a day of memory and hope, +of love and rest. +</p> +<p> +Why should we in this age of the world be dominated by the dead? Why +should barbarian Jews who went down to death and dust three thousand +years ago, control the living world? Why should we care for the +superstition of men who began the Sabbath by paring their nails, +"beginning at the fourth finger, then going to the second, then to the +fifth, then to the third, and ending with the thumb?" How pleasing +to God this must have been. The Jews were very careful of these nail +parings. They who threw them upon the ground were wicked, because Satan +used them to work evil upon the earth. They believed that upon the +Sabbath, souls were allowed to leave purgatory and cool their +burning souls in water. Fires were neither allowed to be kindled nor +extinguished, and upon that day it was a sin to bind up wounds. "The +lame might use a staff, but the blind could not." So strict was the +Sabbath kept, that at one time "if a Jew on a journey was overtaken +by the 'sacred day' in a wood, or on the highway, no matter where, nor +under what circumstances, he must sit down," and there remain until the +day was gone. "If he fell down in the dirt, there he was compelled to +stay until the day was done." For violating the Sabbath, the punishment +was death, for nothing short of the offender's blood could satisfy the +wrath of God. There are, in the Old Testament, two reasons given for +abstaining from labor on the Sabbath:—the resting of God, and the +redemption of the Jews from the bondage of Egypt. +</p> +<p> +Since the establishment of the Christian religion, the day has been +changed, and Christians do not regard the day as holy upon which God +actually rested, and which he sanctified. The Christian Sabbath, or +the "Lord's day" was legally established by the murderer Constantine, +because upon that day Christ was supposed to have risen from the dead. +</p> +<p> +It is not easy to see where Christians got the right to disregard the +direct command of God, to labor on the day he sanctified, and keep as +sacred, a day upon which he commanded men to labor. The Sabbath of God +is Saturday, and if any day is to be kept holy, that is the one, and not +the Sunday of the Christian. +</p> +<p> +Let us throw away these superstitions and take the higher, nobler +ground, that every day should be rendered sacred by some loving act, +by increasing the happinesss of man, giving birth to noble thoughts, +putting in the path of toil some flower of joy, helping the unfortunate, +lifting the fallen, dispelling gloom, destroying prejudice, defending +the helpless and filling homes with light and love. +</p> +<center> +XV. THE NECESSITY FOR A GOOD MEMORY. +</center> +<p> +It must not be forgotten that there are two accounts of the creation +in Genesis. The first account stops with the third verse of the second +chapter. The chapters have been improperly divided. In the original +Hebrew the Pentateuch was neither divided into chapters nor verses. +There was not even any system of punctuation. It was written wholly with +consonants, without vowels, and without any marks, dots, or lines to +indicate them. +</p> +<p> +These accounts are materially different, and both cannot be true. Let us +see wherein they differ. +</p> +<p> +The second account of the creation begins with the fourth verse of the +second chapter, and is as follows: +</p> +<p> +"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they +were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the +heavens. +</p> +<p> +"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb +of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain +upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. +</p> +<p> +"But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of +the ground. +</p> +<p> +"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed +into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. +</p> +<p> +"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put +the man whom he had formed. +</p> +<p> +"And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is +pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the +midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. +</p> +<p> +"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it +was parted and became into four heads. +</p> +<p> +"The name of the first is Pison; that is it which compasseth the whole +land of Havilah, where there is gold. +</p> +<p> +"And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx +stone. +</p> +<p> +"And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that +compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. +</p> +<p> +"And the name of the third river is Hiddekel; that is it which goeth +toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. +</p> +<p> +"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to +dress it and to keep it. +</p> +<p> +"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden +thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and +evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof +thou shalt surely die. +</p> +<p> +"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I +will make him an helpmeet for him. +</p> +<p> +"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and +every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would +call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was +the name thereof. +</p> +<p> +"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to +every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helpmeet +for him. +</p> +<p> +"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; +and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; +</p> +<p> +"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and +brought her unto the man. +</p> +<p> +"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she +shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. +</p> +<p> +"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave +unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. +</p> +<p> +"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." +</p> +<p> +Order of creation in the first account: +</p> +<p> +1. The heaven and the earth, and light were made. +</p> +<p> +2. The firmament was constructed and the waters divided. +</p> +<p> +3. The waters gathered into seas—and then came dry land, grass, herbs +and fruit trees. +</p> +<p> +4. The sun and moon. He made the stars also. +</p> +<p> +5. Fishes, fowls, and great whales. +</p> +<p> +6. Beasts, cattle, every creeping thing, man and woman. +</p> +<p> +Order of creation in the second account: +</p> +<p> +1. The heavens and the earth. +</p> +<p> +2. A mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole face of the +ground. +</p> +<p> +3. Created a man out of dust, by the name of Adam. +</p> +<p> +4. Planted a garden eastward in Eden, and put the man in it. +</p> +<p> +5. Created the beasts and fowls. +</p> +<p> +6. Created a woman out of one of the man's ribs. +</p> +<p> +In the second account, man was made <i>before</i> the beasts and fowls. If +this is true, the first account is false. And if the theologians of our +time are correct in their view that the Mosaic day means thousands of +ages, then, according to the second account, Adam existed millions of +years before Eve was formed. He must have lived one Mosaic day before +there were any trees, and another Mosaic day before the beasts and fowls +were created. Will some kind clergymen tell us upon what kind of food +Adam subsisted during these immense periods? +</p> +<p> +In the second account a man is made, and the fact that he was without a +helpmeet did not occur to the Lord God until a couple "of vast periods" +afterwards. The Lord God suddenly coming to an appreciation of the +situation said, "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will +make him an helpmeet for him." +</p> +<p> +Now, after concluding to make "an helpmeet" for Adam, what did the Lord +God do? Did he at once proceed to make a woman? No. What did he do? He +made the beasts, and tried to induce Adam to take one of them for "an +helpmeet." If I am incorrect, read the following account, and tell me +what it means: +</p> +<p> +"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I +will make him an helpmeet for him. +</p> +<p> +"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and +every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would +call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was +the name thereof. +</p> +<p> +"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to +every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet +for him." +</p> +<p> +Unless the Lord God was looking for an helpmeet for Adam, why did +he cause the animals to pass before him? And why did he, after the +menagerie had passed by, pathetically exclaim, "But for Adam there was +not found an helpmeet for him"? +</p> +<p> +It seems that Adam saw nothing that struck his fancy. The fairest ape, +the sprightliest chimpanzee, the loveliest baboon, the most bewitching +orangoutang, the most fascinating gorilla failed to touch with love's +sweet pain, poor Adam's lonely heart. Let us rejoice that this was so. +Had he fallen in love then, there never would have been a Freethinker in +this world. +</p> +<p> +Dr. Adam Clarke, speaking of this remarkable proceeding says:—"God +caused the animals to pass before Adam to show him that no creature yet +formed could make him a suitable companion; that Adam was convinced that +none of these animals could be a suitable companion for him, and that +therefore he must continue in a state that was not good (celibacy) +unless he became a further debtor to the bounty of his maker, for among +all the animals which he had formed, there was not a helpmeet for Adam." +</p> +<p> +Upon this same subject, Dr. Scott informs us "that it was not conducive +to the happiness of the man to remain without the consoling society, +and endearment of tender friendship, nor consistent with the end of his +creation to be without marriage by which the earth might be replenished +and worshipers and servants raised up to render him praise and glory. +Adam seems to have been vastly better acquainted by intuition or +revelation with the distinct properties of every creature than the most +sagacious observer since the fall of man. +</p> +<p> +"Upon this review of the animals, not one was found in outward form his +counterpart, nor one suited to engage his affections, participate in his +enjoyments, or associate with him in the worship of God." +</p> +<p> +Dr. Matthew Henry admits that "God brought all the animals together +to see if there was a suitable match for Adam in any of the numerous +families of the inferior creatures, but there was none. They were all +looked over, but Adam could not be matched among them all. Therefore God +created a new thing to be a helpmeet for him." +</p> +<p> +Failing to satisfy Adam with any of the inferior animals, the Lord God +caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and while in this sleep took out +one of Adam's ribs and "closed up the flesh instead thereof." And out of +this rib, the Lord God made a woman, and brought her to the man. +</p> +<p> +Was the Lord God compelled to take a part of the man because he had used +up all the original "nothing" out of which the universe was made? Is it +possible for any sane and intelligent man to believe this story? Must a +man be born a second time before this account seems reasonable? +</p> +<p> +Imagine the Lord God with a bone in his hand with which to start +a woman, trying to make up his mind whether to make a blonde or a +brunette! +</p> +<p> +Just at this point it may be proper for me to warn all persons from +laughing at or making light of, any stories found in the "Holy Bible." +When you come to die, every laugh will be a thorn in your pillow. At +that solemn moment, as you look back upon the records of your life, no +matter how many men you may have wrecked and ruined; no matter how many +women you have deceived and deserted, all that can be forgiven; but +if you remember then that you have laughed at even one story in God's +"sacred book" you will see through the gathering shadows of death the +forked tongues of devils, and the leering eyes of fiends. +</p> +<p> +These stories must be believed, or the work of regeneration can never be +commenced. No matter how well you act your part, live as honestly as you +may, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, divide your last farthing +with the poor, and you are simply traveling the broad road that leads +inevitably to eternal death, unless at the same time you implicitly +believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. +</p> +<p> +Let me show you the result of unbelief. Let us suppose, for a moment, +that we are at the Day of Judgment, listening to the trial of souls +as they arrive. The Recording Secretary, or whoever does the +cross-examining, says to a soul: +</p> +<p> +Where are you from? +</p> +<p> +I am from the Earth. +</p> +<p> +What kind of a man were you? +</p> +<p> +Well, I don't like to talk about myself. I suppose you can tell by +looking at your books. +</p> +<p> +No, sir. You must tell what kind of a man you were. +</p> +<p> +Well, I was what you might call a first-rate fellow. I loved my wife and +children. My home was my heaven. My fireside was a paradise to me. To +sit there and see the lights and shadows fall upon the faces of those I +loved, was to me a perfect joy. +</p> +<p> +How did you treat your family? +</p> +<p> +I never said an unkind word. I never caused my wife, nor one of my +children, a moments pain. +</p> +<p> +Did you pay your debts? +</p> +<p> +I did not owe a dollar when I died, and left enough to pay my funeral +expenses, and to keep the fierce wolf of want from the door of those I +loved. +</p> +<p> +Did you belong to any church? +</p> +<p> +No, sir. They were too narrow, pinched and bigoted for me, I never +thought that I could be very happy if other folks were damned. +</p> +<p> +Did you believe in eternal punishment? +</p> +<p> +Well, no. I always thought that God could get his revenge in far less +time. +</p> +<p> +Did you believe the rib story? +</p> +<p> +Do you mean the Adam and Eve business? +</p> +<p> +Yes! Did you believe that? +</p> +<p> +To tell you the God's truth, that was just a little more than I could +swallow. +</p> +<p> +Away with him to hell! +</p> +<p> +Next! +</p> +<p> +Where are you from? +</p> +<p> +I am from the world too. +</p> +<p> +Did you belong to any church? +</p> +<p> +Yes, sir, and to the Young Men's Christian Association besides. +</p> +<p> +What was your business? +</p> +<p> +Cashier in a Savings Bank. +</p> +<p> +Did you ever run away with any money? +</p> +<p> +Where I came from, a witness could not be compelled to criminate +himself. +</p> +<p> +The law is different here. Answer the question. Did you run away with +any money? +</p> +<p> +Yes, sir. +</p> +<p> +How much? +</p> +<p> +One hundred thousand dollars. +</p> +<p> +Did you take anything else with you? +</p> +<p> +Yes, sir. +</p> +<p> +Well, what else? +</p> +<p> +I took my neighbor's wife—we sang together in the choir. +</p> +<p> +Did you have a wife and children of your own? Yes, sir. +</p> +<p> +And you deserted them? +</p> +<p> +Yes, sir, but such was my confidence in God that I believed he would +take care of them. +</p> +<p> +Have you heard of them since? +</p> +<p> +No, sir. +</p> +<p> +Did you believe in the rib story? +</p> +<p> +Bless your soul, of course I did. A thousand times I regretted that +there were no harder stories in the Bible, so that I could have shown my +wealth of faith. +</p> +<p> +Do you believe the rib story yet? +</p> +<p> +Yes, with all my heart. +</p> +<p> +Give him a harp! +</p> +<p> +Well, as I was saying, God made a woman from Adam's rib. Of course, I do +not know exactly how this was done, but when he got the woman finished, +he presented her to Adam. He liked her, and they commenced house-keeping +in the celebrated Garden of Eden. +</p> +<p> +Must we, in order to be good, gentle and loving in our lives, believe +that the creation of woman was a second thought? That Jehovah really +endeavored to induce Adam to take one of the lower animals as an +helpmeet for him? After all, is it not possible to live honest and +courageous lives without believing these fables? It is said that from +Mount Sinai God gave, amid thunderings and lightnings, ten commandments +for the guidance of mankind; and yet among them is not found—"Thou +shalt believe the Bible." +</p> +<center> +XVI. THE GARDEN. +</center> +<p> +In the first account we are told that God made man, male and female, +and said to them "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and +subdue it." +</p> +<p> +In the second account only the man is made, and he is put in a garden +"to dress it and to keep it." He is not told to subdue the earth, but to +dress and keep a garden. +</p> +<p> +In the first account man is given every herb bearing seed upon the face +of the earth and the fruit of every tree for food, and in the second, +he is given only the fruit of all the trees in the garden with the +exception "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which was a +deadly poison. +</p> +<p> +There was issuing from this garden a river that was parted into four +heads. The first of these, Pison, compassed the whole land of Havilah, +the second, Gihon, that compassed the whole land of Ethiopia. +</p> +<p> +The third, Heddekel, that flowed toward the east of Assyria, and the +fourth, the Euphrates. Where are these four rivers now? The brave prow +of discovery has visited every sea; the traveler has pressed with weary +feet the soil of every clime; and yet there has been found no place from +which four rivers sprang. The Euphrates still journeys to the gulf, but +where are Pison, Gihon and the mighty Heddekel? Surely by going to the +source of the Euphrates we ought to find either these three rivers or +their ancient beds. Will some minister when he answers the "Mistakes of +Moses" tell us where these rivers are or were? The maps of the world are +incomplete without these mighty streams. We have discovered the sources +of the Nile; the North Pole will soon be touched by an American; but +these three rivers still rise in unknown hills, still flow through +unknown lands, and empty still in unknown seas. +</p> +<p> +The account of these four rivers is what the Rev. David Swing would call +"a geographical poem." The orthodox clergy cover the whole affair with +the blanket of allegory, while the "scientific" Christian folks talk +about cataclysms, upheavals, earthquakes, and vast displacements of the +earth's crust. +</p> +<p> +The question, then arises, whether within the last six thousand years +there have been such upheavals and displacements? Talk as you will about +the vast "creative periods" that preceded the appearance of man; it +is, according to the Bible, only about six thousand years since man was +created. Moses gives us the generations of men from Adam until his day, +and this account cannot be explained away by calling centuries, days. +</p> +<p> +According to the second account of creation, these four rivers were +made after the creation of man, and consequently they must have been +obliterated by convulsions of Nature within six thousand years. +</p> +<p> +Can we not account for these contradictions, absurdities, and falsehoods +by simply saying that although the writer may have done his level best, +he failed because he was limited in knowledge, led away by tradition, +and depended too implicitly upon the correctness of his imagination? +Is not such a course far more reasonable than to insist that all these +things are true and must stand though every science shall fall to mental +dust? +</p> +<p> +Can any reason be given for not allowing man to eat of the fruit of the +tree of knowledge? What kind of tree was that? If it is all an allegory, +what truth is sought to be conveyed? Why should God object to that fruit +being eaten by man? Why did he put it in the midst of the garden? There +was certainly plenty of room outside. If he wished to keep man and this +tree apart, why did he put them together? And why, after he had eaten, +was he thrust out? The only answer that we have a right to give, is +the one given in the Bible. "And the Lord God said, Behold the man has +become as one of us to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth +his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: +Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till +the ground from whence he was taken." +</p> +<p> +Will some minister, some graduate of Andover, tell us what this means? +Are we bound to believe it without knowing what the meaning is? If it is +a revelation, what does it reveal? Did God object to education then, and +does that account for the hostile attitude still assumed by theologians +toward all scientific truth? Was there in the garden a tree of life, the +eating of which would have rendered Adam and Eve immortal? Is it true, +that after the Lord God drove them from the garden that he placed upon +its Eastern side "Cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way +to keep the way of the tree of life?" Are the Cherubim and the flaming +sword guarding that tree still, or was it destroyed, or did its rotting +trunk, as the Rev. Robert Collyer suggests, "nourish a bank of violets"? +</p> +<p> +What objection could God have had to the immortality of man? You +see that after all, this sacred record, instead of assuring us of +immortality, shows us only how we lost it. In this there is assuredly +but little consolation. +</p> +<p> +According to this story we have lost one Eden, but nowhere in the Mosaic +books are we told how we may gain another. I know that the Christians +tell us there is another, in which all true believers will finally be +gathered, and enjoy the unspeakable happiness of seeing the unbelievers +in hell; but they do not tell us where it is. +</p> +<p> +Some commentators say that the Garden of Eden was in the third +heaven—some in the fourth, others have located it in the moon, some +in the air beyond the attraction of the earth, some on the earth, some +under the earth, some inside the earth, some at the North Pole, others +at the South, some in Tartary, some in China, some on the borders of the +Ganges, some in the island of Ceylon, some in Armenia, some in Africa, +some under the Equator, others in Mesopotamia, in Syria, Persia, Arabia, +Babylon, Assyria, Palestine and Europe. Others have contended that +it was invisible, that it was an allegory, and must be spiritually +understood. +</p> +<p> +But whether you understand these things or not, you must believe them. +You may be laughed at in this world for insisting that God put Adam into +a deep sleep and made a woman out of one of his ribs, but you will be +crowned and glorified in the next. You will also have the pleasure of +hearing the gentlemen howl there, who laughed at you here. While you +will not be permitted to take any revenge, you will be allowed to +smilingly express your entire acquiescence in the will of God. But where +is the new Eden? No one knows. The one was lost, and the other has not +been found. +</p> +<p> +Is it true that man was once perfectly pure and innocent, and that +he became degenerate by disobedience? No. The real truth is, and the +history of man shows, that he has advanced. Events, like the pendulum of +a clock have swung forward and back ward, but after all, man, like +the hands, has gone steadily on. Man is growing grander. He is not +degenerating. Nations and individuals fail and die, and make room +for higher forms. The intellectual horizon of the world widens as the +centuries pass. Ideals grow grander and purer; the difference between +justice and mercy becomes less and less; liberty enlarges, and love +intensifies as the years sweep on. The ages of force and fear, of +cruelty and wrong, are behind us and the real Eden is beyond. It is said +that a desire for knowledge lost us the Eden of the past; but whether +that is true or not, it will certainly give us the Eden of the future. +</p> +<center> +XVII. THE FALL. +</center> +<p> +We are told that the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, +that he had a conversation with Eve, in which he gave his opinion about +the effect of eating certain fruit; that he assured her it was good to +eat, that it was pleasant to the eye, that it would make her wise; that +she was induced to take some; that she persuaded her husband to try it; +that God found it out, that he then cursed the snake; condemning it to +crawl and eat the dust; that he multiplied the sorrows of Eve, cursed +the ground for Adam's sake, started thistles and thorns, condemned man +to eat the herb of the field in the sweat of his face, pronounced the +curse of death, "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return," made +coats of skins for Adam and Eve, and drove them out of Eden. +</p> +<p> +Who, and what was this serpent? Dr. Adam Clarke says:—"The serpent must +have walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment. +That he was endued with the gift of speech, also with reason. That these +things were given to this creature. The woman no doubt having often seen +him walking erect, and talking and reasoning, therefore she testifies +no sort of surprise when he accosts her in the language related in +the text. It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or +orangoutang kind is here intended, and that Satan made use of this +creature as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his +murderous purposes against the life of the soul of man. Under this +creature he lay hid, and by this creature he seduced our first parents. +Such a creature answers to every part of the description in the text. It +is evident from the structure of its limbs and its muscles that it might +have been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing else than +the sovereign controlling power could induce it to put down hands—in +every respect formed like those of man—and walk like those creatures +whose claw-armed parts prove them to have been designed to walk on +all fours. The stealthy cunning, and endless variety of the pranks +and tricks of these creatures show them even now to be wiser and more +intelligent than any other creature, man alone excepted. Being obliged +to walk on all fours and gather their food from the ground, they are +literally obliged to eat the dust; and though exceeding cunning, +and careful in a variety of instances to separate that part which is +wholesome and proper for food from that which is not so, in the article +of cleanliness they are lost to all sense of propriety. Add to this +their utter aversion to walk upright; it requires the utmost discipline +to bring them to it, and scarcely anything offends or irritates them +more than to be obliged to do it. Long observation of these animals +enables me to state these facts. For earnest, attentive watching, and +for chattering and babbling they (the ape) have no fellows in the animal +world. Indeed, the ability and propensity to chatter, is all they have +left of their original gift of speech, of which they appear to have been +deprived at the fall as a part of their punishment." +</p> +<p> +Here then is the "connecting link" between man and the lower creation. +The serpent was simply an orang-outang that spoke Hebrew with the +greatest ease, and had the outward appearance of a perfect gentleman, +seductive in manner, plausible, polite, and most admirably calculated to +deceive. +</p> +<p> +It never did seem reasonable' to me that a long, cold and disgusting +snake with an apple in his mouth, could deceive anybody; and I am glad, +even at this late date to know that the something that persuaded Eve to +taste the forbidden fruit was, at least, in the shape of a man. +</p> +<p> +Dr. Henry does not agree with the zoological explanation of Mr. Clark, +but insists that "it is certain that the devil that beguiled Eve is the +old serpent, a malignant by creation, an angel of light, an immediate +attendant upon God's throne, but by sin an apostate from his first +state, and a rebel against God's crown and dignity. He who attacked +our first parents was surely the prince of devils, the ring leader in +rebellion. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, because it is +a specious creature, has a spotted, dappled skin, and then, went erect. +Perhaps it was a flying serpent which seemed to come from on high, as a +messenger from the upper world, one of the seraphim; because the serpent +is a subtile creature. What Eve thought of this serpent speaking to her, +we are not likely to tell, and, I believe, she herself did not know +what to think of it. At first, perhaps, she supposed it might be a good +angel, and yet afterwards might suspect something amiss. The person +tempted was a woman, now alone, and at a distance from her husband, +but near the forbidden tree. It was the devil's subtlety to assault the +weaker vessel with his temptations, as we may suppose her inferior to +Adam in knowledge, strength and presence of mind. Some think that Eve +received the command not immediately from God, but at second hand from +her husband, and might, therefore, be the more easily persuaded to +discredit it. It was the policy of the devil to enter into discussion +with her when she was alone. He took advantage by finding her near the +forbidden tree. God permitted Satan to prevail over Eve, for wise and +holy ends. Satan teaches men first to doubt, and then to deny. He makes +skeptics first, and by degrees makes them atheists." +</p> +<p> +We are compelled to admit that nothing could be more attractive to a +woman than a snake walking erect, with a "spotted, dappled skin," unless +it were a serpent with wings. Is it not humiliating to know that our +ancestors believed these things? Why should we object to the Darwinian +doctrine of descent after this? +</p> +<p> +Our fathers thought it their duty to believe, thought it a sin to +entertain the slightest doubt, and really supposed that their credulity +was exceedingly, gratifying to God. To them, the story was entirely +real. They could see the garden, hear the babble of waters, smell the +perfume of flowers. They believed there was a tree where knowledge grew +like plums or pears; and they could plainly see the serpent coiled amid +its rustling leaves, coaxing Eve to violate the laws of God. +</p> +<p> +Where did the serpent come from? On which of the six days was he +created? Who made him? Is it possible that God would make a successful +rival? He must have known that Adam and Eve would fall. He knew what +a snake with a "spotted, dappled skin" could do with an inexperienced +woman. Why did he not defend his children? He knew that if the serpent +got into the garden, Adam and Eve would sin, that he would have to drive +them out, that afterwards the world would be destroyed, and that he +himself would die upon the cross. +</p> +<p> +Again, I ask what and who was this serpent? He was not a man, for only +one man had been made. He was not a woman. He was not a beast of the +field, because "he was more subtile than any beast of the field which +the Lord God had made." He was neither fish nor fowl, nor snake, because +he had the power of speech, and did not crawl upon his belly until after +he was cursed. Where did this serpent come from? Why was he not kept out +of the garden? Why did not the Lord God take him by the tail and snap +his head off? Why did he not put Adam and Eve on their guard about this +serpent? They, of course, were not acquainted in the neighborhood, and +knew nothing about the serpent's reputation for truth and veracity +among his neighbors. Probably Adam saw him when he was looking for "an +helpmeet" and gave him a name, but Eve had never met him before. She was +not surprised to hear a serpent talk, as that was the first one she had +ever met. Every thing being new to her, and her husband not being with +her just at that moment, it need hardly excite our wonder that she +tasted the fruit by way of experiment. Neither should we be surprised +that when she saw it was good and pleasant to the eye, and a fruit to +be desired to make one wise, she had the generosity to divide with her +husband. +</p> +<p> +Theologians have filled thousands of volumes with abuse of this serpent, +but it seems that he told the exact truth. We are told that this serpent +was, in fact, Satan, the greatest enemy of mankind, and that he entered +the serpent, appearing to our first parents in its body. If this is +so, why should the serpent have been cursed? Why should God curse the +serpent for what had really been done by the devil? Did Satan remain +in the body of the serpent, and in some mysterious manner share his +punishment? Is it true that when we kill a snake we also destroy an evil +spirit, or is there but one devil, and did he perish at the death of +the first serpent? Is it on account of that transaction in the Garden +of Eden, that all the descendants of Adam and Eve known as Jews and +Christians hate serpents? +</p> +<p> +Do you account for the snake-worship in Mexico, Africa and India in the +same way? +</p> +<p> +What was the form of the serpent when he entered the garden, and in what +way did he move from place to place? Did he walk or fly? Certainly he +did not crawl, because that mode of locomotion was pronounced upon him +as a curse. Upon what food did he subsist before his conversation with +Eve? We know that after that he lived upon dust, but what did he eat +before? It may be that this is all poetic; and the truest poetry is, +according to Touchstone, "the most feigning." +</p> +<p> +In this same chapter we are informed that "unto Adam also and to his +wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them." Where did +the Lord God get those skins? He must have taken them from the animals; +he was a butcher. Then he had to prepare them; he was a tanner. Then +he made them into coats; he was a tailor. How did it happen that they +needed coats of skins, when they had been perfectly comfortable in a +nude condition? Did the "fall" produce a change in the climate? +</p> +<p> +Is it really necessary to believe this account in order to be happy +here, or hereafter? Does it tend to the elevation of the human race to +speak of "God" as a butcher, tanner and tailor? +</p> +<p> +And here, let me say once for all, that when I speak of God, I mean +the being described by Moses; the Jehovah of the Jews. There may be for +aught I know, somewhere in the unknown shoreless vast, some being whose +dreams are constellations and within whose thought the infinite exists. +About this being, if such an one exists, I have nothing to say. He has +written no books, inspired no barbarians, required no worship, and has +prepared no hell in which to burn the honest seeker after truth. +</p> +<p> +When I speak of God, I mean that god who prevented man from putting +forth his hand and taking also of the fruit of the tree of life that +he might live forever; of that god who multiplied the agonies of woman, +increased the weary toil of man, and in his anger drowned a world—of +that god whose altars reeked with human blood, who butchered babes, +violated maidens, enslaved men and filled the earth with cruelty and +crime; of that god who made heaven for the few, hell for the many, +and who will gloat forever and ever upon the writhings of the lost and +damned. +</p> +<center> +XVIII. DAMPNESS. +</center> +<p> +"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the +earth, and daughters were born unto them. +</p> +<p> +"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and +they took them wives of all which they chose. +</p> +<p> +"And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that +he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. +</p> +<p> +"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that +when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare +children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of +renown. +</p> +<p> +"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and +that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil +continually. +</p> +<p> +"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it +grieved him at his heart. +</p> +<p> +"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face +of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls +of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." +</p> +<p> +From this account it seems that driving Adam and Eve out of Eden did not +have the effect to improve them or their children. On the contrary, the +world grew worse and worse. They were under the immediate control and +government of God, and he from time to time made known his will; but in +spite of this, man continued to increase in crime. +</p> +<p> +Nothing in particular seems to have been done. Not a school was +established. There was no written language. There was not a Bible in the +world. The "scheme of salvation" was kept a profound secret. The five +points of Calvinism had not been taught. Sunday schools had not been +opened. In short, nothing had been done for the reformation of the +world. God did not even keep his own sons at home, but allowed them to +leave their abode in the firmament, and make love to the daughters +of men. As a result of this, the world was filled with wickedness and +giants to such an extent that God regretted "that he had made man on the +earth, and it grieved him at his heart." +</p> +<p> +Of course God knew when he made man, that he would afterwards regret +it. He knew that the people would grow worse and worse until destruction +would be the only remedy. He knew that he would have to kill all except +Noah and his family, and it is hard to see why he did not make Noah and +his family in the first place, and leave Adam and Eve in the original +dust. He knew that they would be tempted, that he would have to drive +them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life; +that the whole thing would be a failure; that Satan would defeat his +plan; that he could not reform the people; that his own sons would +corrupt them, and that at last he would have to drown them all except +Noah and his family. Why was the Garden of Eden planted? Why was the +experiment made? Why were Adam and Eve exposed to the seductive arts of +the serpent? Why did God wait until the cool of the day before looking +after his children? Why was he not on hand in the morning? +</p> +<p> +Why did he fill the world with his own children, knowing that he would +have to destroy them? And why does this same God tell me how to raise my +children when he had to drown his? +</p> +<p> +It is a little curious that when God wished to reform the ante-diluvian +world he said nothing about hell; that he had no revivals, no +camp-meetings, no tracts, no outpourings of the Holy Ghost, no baptisms, +no noon prayer meetings, and never mentioned the great doctrine of +salvation by faith. If the orthodox creeds of the world are true, all +those people went to hell without ever having heard that such a place +existed. If eternal torment is a fact, surely these miserable wretches +ought to have been warned. They were threatened only with water when +they were in fact doomed to eternal fire! +</p> +<p> +Is it not strange that God said nothing to Adam and Eve about a future +life; that he should have kept these "infinite verities" to himself and +allowed millions to live and die without the hope of heaven, or the fear +of hell? +</p> +<p> +It may be that hell was not made at that time. In the six days of +creation nothing is said about the construction of a bottomless pit, and +the serpent himself did not make his appearance until after the creation +of man and woman. Perhaps he was made on the first Sunday, and from that +fact came, it may be, the old couplet, +</p> +<pre> + "And Satan still some mischief finds + For idle hands to do." +</pre> +<p> +The sacred historian failed also to tell us when the cherubim and the +flaming sword were made, and said nothing about two of the persons +composing the Trinity. It certainly would have been an easy thing to +enlighten Adam and his immediate descendants. The world was then only +about fifteen hundred and thirty-six years old, and only about three +or four generations of men had lived. Adam had been dead only about six +hundred and six years, and some of his grandchildren must, at that time, +have been alive and well. +</p> +<p> +It is hard to see why God did not civilize these people. He certainly +had the power to use, and the wisdom to devise the proper means. What +right has a god to fill a world with fiends? Can there be goodness in +this? Why should he make experiments that he knows must fail? Is there +wisdom in this? And what right has a man to charge an infinite being +with wickedness and folly? +</p> +<p> +According to Moses, God made up his mind not only to destroy the people, +but the beasts and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air. What +had the beasts, and the creeping things, and the birds done to excite +the anger of God? Why did he repent having made them? Will some +Christian give us an explanation of this matter? No good man will +inflict unnecessary pain upon a beast; how then can we worship a god who +cares nothing for the agonies of the dumb creatures that he made? +</p> +<p> +Why did he make animals that he knew he would destroy? Does God delight +in causing pain? He had the power to make the beasts, and fowls, and +creeping things in his own good time and way, and it is to be presumed +that he made them according to his wish. Why should he destroy them? +They had committed no sin. They had eaten no forbidden fruit, made no +aprons, nor tried to reach the tree of life. Yet this god, in blind +unreasoning wrath destroyed "all flesh wherein was the breath of life, +and every living thing beneath the sky, and every substance wherein was +life that he had made." +</p> +<p> +Jehovah having made up his mind to drown the world, told Noah to make +an Ark of gopher wood three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and +thirty cubits high. A cubit is twenty-two inches; so that the ark was +five hundred and fifty feet long, ninety-one feet and eight inches wide +and fifty-five feet high. This ark was divided into three stories, and +had on top, one window twenty-two inches square. Ventilation must have +been one of Jehovah's hobbies. Think of a ship larger than the Great +Eastern with only one window, and that but twenty-two inches square! +</p> +<p> +The ark also had one door set in the side thereof that shut from the +outside. As soon as this ship was finished, and properly victualed, Noah +received seven days notice to get the animals in the ark. +</p> +<p> +It is claimed by some of the scientific theologians that the flood was +partial, that the waters covered only a small portion of the world, and +that consequently only a few animals were in the ark. It is impossible +to conceive of language that can more clearly convey the idea of a +universal flood than that found in the inspired account. If the flood +was only partial, why did God say he would "destroy all flesh wherein +is the breath of life from under heaven, and that every thing that is +in the earth shall die"? Why did he say "I will destroy man whom I have +created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping +thing and the fowls of the air"? Why did he say "And every living +substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the +earth"? Would a partial, local flood have fulfilled these threats? +</p> +<p> +Nothing can be clearer than that the writer of this account intended to +convey, and did convey the idea that the flood was universal. Why should +Christians try to deprive God of the glory of having wrought the most +stupendous of miracles? Is it possible that the Infinite could not +overwhelm with waves this atom called the earth? Do you doubt his power, +his wisdom or his justice? +</p> +<p> +Believers in miracles should not endeavor to explain them. There is but +one way to explain anything, and that is to account for it by natural +agencies. The moment you explain a miracle, it disappears. You should +depend not upon explanation, but assertion. You should not be driven +from the field because the miracle is shown to be unreasonable. You +should reply that all miracles are unreasonable. Neither should you be +in the least disheartened if it is shown to be impossible. The possible +is not miraculous. You should take the ground that if miracles were +reasonable, and possible, there would be no reward paid for believing +them. The Christian has the goodness to believe, while the sinner asks +for evidence. It is enough for God to work miracles without being called +upon to substantiate them for the benefit of unbelievers. +</p> +<p> +Only a few years ago, the Christians believed implicitly in the literal +truth of every miracle recorded in the Bible. Whoever tried to explain +them in some natural way, was looked upon as an infidel in disguise, +but now he is regarded as a benefactor. The credulity of the church is +decreasing, and the most marvelous miracles are now either "explained," +or allowed to take refuge behind the mistakes of the translators, or +hide in the drapery of allegory. +</p> +<p> +In the sixth chapter, Noah is ordered to take "of every living thing +of all flesh, two of every sort into the ark—male and female." In the +seventh chapter the order is changed, and Noah is commanded, according +to the Protestant Bible, as follows: "Of every clean beast thou shalt +take to thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts that are +not clean, by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by +sevens, the male and the female." +</p> +<p> +According to the Catholic Bible, Noah was commanded—-"Of all clean +beasts take seven and seven, the male and the female. But of the beasts +that are unclean two and two, the male and the female. Of the fowls also +of the air seven and seven, the male and the female." +</p> +<p> +For the purpose of belittling this miracle, many commentators have +taken the ground that Noah was not ordered to take seven males and seven +females of each kind of clean beasts, but seven in all. Many Christians +contend that only seven clean beasts of each kind were taken into the +ark—three and a half of each sex. +</p> +<p> +If the account in the seventh chapter means anything, it means <i>first</i>, +that of each kind of clean beasts, fourteen were to be taken, seven +males, and seven females; <i>second</i>, that of unclean beasts should be +taken, two of each kind, one of each sex, and <i>third</i>, that he should +take of every kind of fowls, seven of each sex. +</p> +<p> +It is equally clear that the command in the 19th and 20th verses of the +6th chapter, is to take two of each sort, one male and one female. And +this agrees exactly with the account in the 7th, 8th, 9th, 14th, 15th, +and 16th verses of the 7th chapter. +</p> +<p> +The next question is, how many beasts, fowls and creeping things did +Noah take into the ark? +</p> +<p> +There are now known and classified at least twelve thousand five hundred +species of birds. There are still vast territories in China, South +America, and Africa unknown to the ornithologist. +</p> +<p> +Of the birds, Noah took fourteen of each species, according to the 3d +verse of the 7th chapter, "Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male +and the female," making a total of 175,000 birds. +</p> +<p> +And right here allow me to ask a question. If the flood was simply a +partial flood, why were birds taken into the ark? It seems to me that +most birds, attending strictly to business, might avoid a partial flood. +</p> +<p> +There are at least sixteen hundred and fifty-eight kinds of beasts. Let +us suppose that twenty-five of these are clean. Of the clean, fourteen +of each kind—seven of each sex—were taken. These amount to 350. Of +the unclean—two of each kind, amounting to 3,266. There are some six +hundred and fifty species of reptiles. Two of each kind amount to 1,300. +And lastly, there are of insects including the creeping things, at least +one million species, so that Noah and his folks had to get of these into +the ark about 2,000,000. +</p> +<p> +Animalculæ have not been taken into consideration. There are probably +many hundreds of thousands of species; many of them invisible; and +yet Noah had to pick them out by pairs. Very few people have any just +conception of the trouble Noah had. +</p> +<p> +We know that there are many animals on this continent not found in the +Old World. These must have been carried from here to the ark, and then +brought back afterwards. Were the peccary, armadillo, ant-eater, sloth, +agouti, vampire-bat, marmoset, howling and prehensile-tailed monkey, the +raccoon and muskrat carried by the angels from America to Asia? How did +they get there? Did the polar bear leave his field of ice and journey +toward the tropics? How did he know where the ark was? Did the kangaroo +swim or jump from Australia to Asia? Did the giraffe, hippopotamus, +antelope and orang-outang journey from Africa in search of the ark? Can +absurdities go farther than this? +</p> +<p> +What had these animals to eat while on the journey? What did they eat +while in the ark? What did they drink? When the rain came, of course +the rivers ran to the seas, and these seas rose and finally covered the +world. The waters of the seas, mingled with those of the flood, would +make all salt. It has been calculated that it required, to drown the +world, about eight times as much water as was in all the seas. To find +how salt the waters of the flood must have been, take eight quarts of +fresh water, and add one quart from the sea. Such water would create +instead of allaying thirst. Noah had to take in his ark fresh water for +all his beasts, birds and living things. He had to take the proper food +for all. How long was he in the ark? Three hundred and seventy-seven +days! Think of the food necessary for the monsters of the ante-diluvian +world! +</p> +<p> +Eight persons did all the work. They attended to the wants of 175,000 +birds, 3,616 beasts, 1,300 reptiles, and 2,000,000 insects, saying +nothing of countless animalculæ. +</p> +<p> +Well, after they all got in, Noah pulled down the window, God shut the +door, and the rain commenced. +</p> +<p> +How long did it rain? +</p> +<p> +Forty days. +</p> +<p> +How deep did the water get? +</p> +<p> +About five miles and a half. +</p> +<p> +How much did it rain a day? +</p> +<p> +Enough to cover the whole world to a depth of about seven hundred and +forty-two feet. +</p> +<p> +Some Christians say that the fountains of the great deep were broken up. +Will they be kind enough to tell us what the fountains of the great deep +are? Others say that God had vast stores of water in the center of the +earth that he used on that occasion. How did these waters happen to run +up hill? +</p> +<p> +Gentlemen, allow me to tell you once more that you must not try to +explain these things. Your efforts in that direction do no good, because +your explanations are harder to believe than the miracle itself. Take my +advice, stick to assertion, and let explanation alone. +</p> +<p> +Then, as now, Dhawalagiri lifted its crown of snow twenty-nine thousand +feet above the level of the sea, and on the cloudless cliffs of +Chimborazo then, as now, sat the condor; and yet the waters rising seven +hundred and twenty-six feet a day—thirty feet an hour, six inches +a minute,—rose over the hills, over the volcanoes, filled the vast +craters, extinguished all the fires, rose above every mountain peak +until the vast world was but one shoreless sea covered with the +innumerable dead. +</p> +<p> +Was this the work of the most merciful God, the father of us all? If +there is a God, can there be the slightest danger of incurring his +displeasure by doubting even in a reverential way, the truth of such a +cruel lie? If we think that God is kinder than he really is, will our +poor souls be burned for that? +</p> +<p> +How many trees can live under miles of water for a year? What became of +the soil washed, scattered, dissolved, and covered with the <i>debris</i> of +a world? How were the tender plants and herbs preserved? How were the +animals preserved after leaving the ark? There was no grass except such +as had been submerged for a year. There were no animals to be devoured +by the carnivorous beasts. What became of the birds that fed on worms +and insects? What became of the birds that devoured other birds? +</p> +<p> +It must be remembered that the pressure of the water when at the highest +point—say twenty-nine thousand feet, would have been about eight +hundred tons on each square foot. Such a pressure certainly would have +destroyed nearly every vestige of vegetable life, so that when the +animals came out of the ark, there was not a mouthful of food in the +wide world. How were they supported until the world was again clothed +with grass? How were those animals taken care of that subsisted on +others? Where did the bees get honey, and the ants seeds? There was not +a creeping thing upon the whole earth; not a breathing creature beneath +the whole heavens; not a living substance. Where did the tenants of the +ark get food? +</p> +<p> +There is but one answer, if the story is true. The food necessary +not only during the year of the flood, but sufficient for many months +afterwards, must have been stored in the ark. +</p> +<p> +There is probably not an animal in the world that will not, in a year, +eat and drink ten times its weight. Noah must have provided food and +water for a year while in the ark, and food for at least six months +after they got ashore. It must have required for a pair of elephants, +about one hundred and fifty tons of food and water. A couple of mammoths +would have required about twice that amount. Of course there were other +monsters that lived on trees; and in a year would have devoured quite a +forest. +</p> +<p> +How could eight persons have distributed this food, even if the ark had +been large enough to hold it? How was the ark kept clean? We know how it +was ventilated; but what was done with the filth? How were the animals +watered? How were some portions of the ark heated for animals from the +tropics, and others kept cool for the polar bears? How did the animals +get back to their respective countries? Some had to creep back about +six thousand miles, and they could only go a few feet a day. Some of the +creeping things must have started for the ark just as soon as they were +made, and kept up a steady jog for sixteen hundred years. Think of +a couple of the slowest snails leaving a point opposite the ark and +starting for the plains of Shinar, a distance of twelve thousand miles. +Going at the rate of a mile a month, it would take them a thousand +years. How did they get there? Polar bears must have gone several +thousand miles, and so sudden a change in climate must have been +exceedingly trying upon their health. How did they know the way to go? +Of course, all the polar bears did not go. Only two were required. Who +selected these? +</p> +<p> +Two sloths had to make the journey from South America. These creatures +cannot travel to exceed three rods a day. At this rate, they would make +a mile in about a hundred days. They must have gone about six thousand +five hundred miles, to reach the ark. Supposing them to have traveled by +a reasonably direct route, in order to complete the journey before Noah +hauled in the plank, they must have started several years before the +world was created. We must also consider that these sloths had to board +themselves on the way, and that most of their time had to be taken up +getting food and water. It is exceedingly doubtful whether a sloth could +travel six thousand miles and board himself in less than three thousand +years. +</p> +<p> +Volumes might be written upon the infinite absurdity of this most +incredible, wicked and foolish of all the fables contained in that +repository of the impossible, called the Bible. To me it is a matter +of amazement, that it ever was for a moment believed by any intelligent +human being. +</p> +<p> +Dr. Adam Clarke says that "the animals were brought to the ark by the +power of God, and their enmities were so removed or suspended, that the +lion could dwell peaceably with the lamb, and the wolf sleep happily by +the side of the kid. There is no positive evidence that animal food was +ever used before the flood. Noah had the first grant of this kind." +</p> +<p> +Dr. Scott remarks, "There seems to have been a very extraordinary +miracle, perhaps by the ministration of angels, in bringing two of every +species to Noah, and rendering them submissive, and peaceful with each +other. Yet it seems not to have made any impression upon the hardened +spectators. The suspension of the ferocity of the savage beasts during +their continuance in the ark, is generally considered as an apt figure +of the change that takes place in the disposition of sinners when they +enter the true church of Christ." +</p> +<p> +He believed the deluge to have been universal. In his day science had +not demonstrated the absurdity of this belief, and he was not compelled +to resort to some theory not found in the Bible. He insisted that "by +some vast convulsion, the very bowels of the earth were forced upwards, +and rain poured down in cataracts and water-spouts, with no intermission +for forty days and nights, and until in every place a universal deluge +was effected. +</p> +<p> +"The presence of God was the only comfort of Noah in his dreary +confinement, and in witnessing the dire devastation of the earth and its +inhabitants, and especially of the human species—of his companions, his +neighbors, his relatives—all those to whom he had preached, for whom he +had prayed and over whom he had wept, and even of many who had helped to +build the ark. +</p> +<p> +"It seems that by a peculiar providential interposition, no animal of +any sort died, although they had been shut up in the ark above a year; +and it does not appear that there had been any increase of them during +that time. +</p> +<p> +"The Ark was flat-bottomed—square at each end—roofed like a house so +that it terminated at the top in the breadth of a cubit. It was divided +into many little cabins for its intended inhabitants. Pitched within and +without to keep it tight and sweet, and lighted from the upper part. +But it must, at first sight, be evident that so large a vessel, thus +constructed, with so few persons on board, was utterly unfitted to +weather out the deluge, except it was under the immediate guidance and +protection of the Almighty." +</p> +<p> +Dr. Henry furnished the Christian world with the following:— +</p> +<p> +"As our bodies have in them the humors which, when God pleases, become +the springs and seeds of mortal disease, so the earth had, in its +bowels, those waters which, at God's command, sprung up and flooded it. +</p> +<p> +"God made the world in six days, but he was forty days in destroying it, +because he is slow to anger. +</p> +<p> +"The hostilities between the animals in the ark ceased, and ravenous +creatures became mild and manageable, so that the wolf lay down with the +lamb, and the lion ate straw like an ox. +</p> +<p> +"God shut the door of the ark to secure Noah and to keep him safe, and +because it was necessary that the door should be shut very close lest +the water should break in and sink the ark, and very fast lest others +might break it down. +</p> +<p> +"The waters rose so high that not only the low flat countries were +deluged, but to make sure work and that none might escape, the tops of +the highest mountains were overflowed fifteen cubits. That is, seven +and a half yards, so that salvation was not hoped for from hills or +mountains. +</p> +<p> +"Perhaps some of the people got to the top of the ark, and hoped to +shift for themselves there. But either they perished there for want of +food, or the dashing rain washed them off the top. Others, it may be, +hoped to prevail with Noah for admission into the ark, and plead old +acquaintance. +</p> +<p> +"'Have we not eaten and drank in thy presence? Hast thou not preached in +our streets?' 'Yea,' said Noah, 'many a time, but to little purpose. I +called but ye refused; and now it is not in my power to help you. God +has shut the door and I cannot open it.' +</p> +<p> +"We may suppose that some of those who perished in the deluge had +themselves assisted Noah, or were employed by him in building the ark. +</p> +<p> +"Hitherto, man had been confined to feed only upon the products of the +earth. Fruits, herbs and roots, and all sorts of greens, and milk, which +was the first grant; but the flood having perhaps washed away much +of the fruits of the earth, and rendered them much less pleasant and +nourishing, God enlarged the grant and allowed him to eat flesh, which +perhaps man never thought of until now, that God directed him to it. Nor +had he any more desire to it than the sheep has to suck blood like the +wolf. But now, man is allowed to feed upon flesh as freely and safely as +upon the green herb." +</p> +<p> +Such was the debasing influence of a belief in the literal truth of the +Bible upon these men, that their commentaries are filled with passages +utterly devoid of common sense. +</p> +<p> +Dr. Clarke speaking of the mammoth says: +</p> +<p> +"This animal, an astonishing proof of God's power, he seems to have +produced merely to show what he could do. And after suffering a few of +them to propagate, he extinguished the race by a merciful providence, +that they might not destroy both man and beast. +</p> +<p> +"We are told that it would have been much easier for God to destroy all +the people and make new ones, but he would not want to waste anything +and no power or skill should be lavished where no necessity exists. +</p> +<p> +"The animals were brought to the ark by the power of God." +</p> +<p> +Again gentlemen, let me warn you of the danger of trying to explain a +miracle. Let it alone. Say that you do not understand it, and do not +expect to until taught in the schools of the New Jerusalem. The more +reasons you give, the more unreasonable the miracle will appear. Through +what you say in defence, people are led to think, and as soon as they +really think, the miracle is thrown away. +</p> +<p> +Among the most ignorant nations you will find the most wonders, among +the most enlightened, the least. It is with individuals, the same as +with nations. Ignorance believes, Intelligence examines and explains. +</p> +<p> +For about seven months the ark, with its cargo of men, animals and +insects, tossed and wandered without rudder or sail upon a boundless +sea. At last it grounded on the mountains of Ararat; and about three +months afterward the tops of the mountains became visible. It must not +be forgotten that the mountain where the ark is supposed to have first +touched bottom, was about seventeen thousand feet high. How were the +animals from the tropics kept warm? When the waters were abated it would +be intensely cold at a point seventeen thousand feet above the level of +the sea. May be there were stoves, furnaces, fire places and steam coils +in the ark, but they are not mentioned in the inspired narrative. How +were the animals kept from freezing? It will not do to say that Ararat +was not very high after all. +</p> +<p> +If you will read the fourth and fifth verses of the eight chapter you +will see that although "the ark rested in the seventh month, on the +seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat, it was not +until the first day of the tenth month that the tops of the mountains +could be seen." From this it would seem that the ark must have rested +upon about the highest peak in that country. Noah waited forty days +more, and then for the first time opened the window and took a breath +of fresh air. He then sent out a raven that did not return, then a dove +that returned. He then waited seven days and sent forth a dove that +returned not. From this he knew that the waters were abated. Is it +possible that he could not see whether the waters had gone? Is it +possible to conceive of a more perfectly childish way of ascertaining +whether the earth was dry? +</p> +<p> +At last Noah "removed the covering of the ark, and looked and behold the +face of the ground was dry," and thereupon God told him to disembark. In +his gratitude Noah built an altar and took of every clean beast and of +every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings. And the Lord smelled a +sweet savor and said in his heart that he would not any more curse the +ground for man's sake. For saying this in his heart the Lord gives as a +reason, not that man is, or will be good, but because "the imagination +of man's heart is evil from his youth." God destroyed man because "the +wickedness of man was great in the earth, and <i>because every imagination +of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually</i>." And he +promised for the same reason not to destroy him again. Will some +gentleman skilled in theology give us an explanation? +</p> +<p> +After God had smelled the sweet savor of sacrifice, he seems to have +changed his idea as to the proper diet for man. When Adam and Eve were +created they were allowed to eat herbs bearing seed, and the fruit of +trees. When they were turned out of Eden, God said to them "Thou shalt +eat the herb of the field." In the first chapter of Genesis the "green +herb" was given for food to the beasts, fowls and creeping things. Upon +being expelled from the garden, Adam and Eve, as to their food, were +put upon an equality with the lower animals. According to this, the +ante-diluvians were vegetarians. This may account for their wickedness +and longevity. +</p> +<p> +After Noah sacrificed, and God smelled the sweet savor; he said—"Every +moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb +have I given you all things." Afterward this same God changed his mind +again, and divided the beasts and birds into clean and unclean, and made +it a crime for man to eat the unclean. Probably food was so scarce when +Noah was let out of the ark that Jehovah generously allowed him to eat +anything and everything he could find. +</p> +<p> +According to the account, God then made a covenant with Noah to the +effect that he would not again destroy the world with a flood, and as +the attesting witness of this contract, a rainbow was set in the cloud. +This bow was placed in the sky so that it might perpetually remind God +of his promise and covenant. Without this visible witness and reminder, +it would seem that Jehovah was liable to forget the contract, and drown +the world again. Did the rainbow originate in this way? Did God put it +in the cloud simply to keep his agreement in his memory? +</p> +<p> +For me it is impossible to believe the story of the deluge. It seems so +cruel, so barbaric, so crude in detail, so absurd in all its parts, +and so contrary to all we know of law, that even credulity itself is +shocked. +</p> +<p> +Many nations have preserved accounts of a deluge in which all people, +except a family or two, were destroyed. Babylon was certainly a city +before Jerusalem was founded. Egypt was in the height of her power when +there were only seventy Jews in the world, and India had a literature +before the name of Jehovah had passed the lips of superstition. An +account of a general deluge "was discovered by George Smith, translated +from another account that was written about two thousand years before +Christ." Of course it is impossible to tell how long the story had +lived in the memory of tradition before it was reduced to writing by the +Babylonians. According to this account, which is, without doubt, much +older than the one given by Moses, Tamzi built a ship at the command of +the god Hea, and put in it his family and the beasts of the field. He +pitched the ship inside and outside with bitumen, and as soon as it was +finished, there came a flood of rain and "destroyed all life from the +face of the whole earth. On the seventh day there was a calm, and the +ship stranded on the mountain Nizir." Tamzi waited for seven days more, +and then let out a dove. Afterwards, he let out a swallow, and that, as +well as the dove returned. Then he let out a raven, and as that did not +return, he concluded that the water had dried away, and thereupon +left the ship. Then he made an offering to god, or the gods, and "Hea +interceded with Bel," so that the earth might never again be drowned. +</p> +<p> +This is the Babylonian story, told without the contradictions of the +original. For in that, it seems, there are two accounts, as well as +in the Bible. Is it not a strange coincidence that there should be +contradictory accounts mingled in both the Babylonian and Jewish +stories? +</p> +<p> +In the Bible there are two accounts. In one account, Noah was to take +two of all beasts, birds, and creeping things into the ark, while in the +other, he was commanded to take of clean beasts, and all birds by +sevens of each kind. According to one account, the flood only lasted +one hundred and fifty days—as related in the third verse of the eighth +chapter; while the other account fixes the time at three hundred and +seventy-seven days. Both of these accounts cannot be true. Yet in order +to be saved, it is not sufficient to believe one of them—you must +believe both. +</p> +<p> +Among the Egyptians there was a story to the effect that the great god +Ra became utterly maddened with the people, and deliberately made up his +mind that he would exterminate mankind. Thereupon he began to destroy, +and continued in the terrible work until blood flowed in streams, when +suddenly he ceased, and took an oath that he would not again destroy the +human race. This myth was probably thousands of years old when Moses was +born. +</p> +<p> +So, in India, there was a fable about the flood. A fish warned Manu +that a flood was coming. Manu built a "box" and the fish towed it to a +mountain and saved all hands. +</p> +<p> +The same kind of stories were told in Greece, and among our own Indian +tribes. At one time the Christian pointed to the fact that many nations +told of a flood, as evidence of the truth of the Mosaic account; but +now, it having been shown that other accounts are much older, and +equally reasonable, that argument has ceased to be of any great value. +</p> +<p> +It is probable that all these accounts had a common origin. They were +likely born of something in nature visible to all nations. The idea of a +universal flood, produced by a god to drown the world on account of +the sins of the people, is infinitely absurd. The solution of all these +stories has been supposed to be, the existence of partial floods in most +countries; and for a long time this solution was satisfactory. But the +fact that these stories are greatly alike, that only one man is warned, +that only one family is saved, that a boat is built, that birds are sent +out to find if the water had abated, tend to show that they had a common +origin. Admitting that there were severe floods in all countries; it +certainly cannot follow that in each instance only one family would be +saved, or that the same story would in each instance be told. It may be +urged that the natural tendency of man to exaggerate calamities, might +account for this agreement in all the accounts, and it must be admitted +that there is some force in the suggestion. I believe, though, that the +real origin of all these myths is the same, and that it was originally +an effort to account for the sun, moon and stars. The sun and moon +were the man and wife, or the god and goddess, and the stars were their +children. From a celestial myth, it became a terrestrial one; the air, +or ether-ocean became a flood, produced by rain, and the sun moon and +stars became man, woman and children. +</p> +<p> +In the original story, the mountain was the place where in the far east +the sky was supposed to touch the earth, and it was there that the ship +containing the celestial passengers finally rested from its voyage. But +whatever may be the origin of the stories of the flood, whether told +first by Hindu, Babylonian or Hebrew, we may rest perfectly assured that +they are all equally false. +</p> +<center> +XIX. BACCHUS AND BABEL. +</center> +<p> +As soon as Noah had disembarked, he proceeded to plant a vineyard, and +began to be a husbandman; and when the grapes were ripe he made wine and +drank of it to excess; cursed his grandson, blessed Shem and Japheth, and +after that lived for three hundred and fifty years. What he did during +these three hundred and fifty years, we are not told. We never hear of +him again. For three hundred and fifty years he lived among his sons, +and daughters, and their descendants. He must have been a venerable man. +He was the man to whom God had made known his intention of drowning the +world. By his efforts, the human race had been saved. He must have been +acquainted with Methuselah for six hundred years, and Methuselah was +about two hundred and forty years old, when Adam died. Noah must himself +have known the history of mankind, and must have been an object of +almost infinite interest; and yet for three hundred and fifty years he +is neither directly nor indirectly mentioned. When Noah died, Abraham +must have been more than fifty years old; and Shem, the son of Noah, +lived for several hundred years after the death of Abraham; and yet he +is never mentioned. Noah when he died, was the oldest man in the whole +world by about five hundred years; and everybody living at the time of +his death knew that they were indebted to him, and yet no account is +given of his burial. No monument was raised to mark the spot. This, +however, is no more wonderful than the fact that no account is given of +the death of Adam or of Eve, nor of the place of their burial. This may +all be accounted for by the fact that the language of man was confounded +at the building of the tower of Babel, whereby all tradition may have +been lost, so that even the sons of Noah could not give an account of +their voyage in the ark; and, consequently, some one had to be directly +inspired to tell the story, after new languages had been formed. +</p> +<p> +It has always been a mystery to me how Adam, Eve, and the serpent were +taught the same language. Where did they get it? We know now, that +it requires a great number of years to form a language; that it is of +exceedingly slow growth. We also know that by language, man conveys to +his fellows the impressions made upon him by what he sees, hears, smells +and touches. We know that the language of the savage consists of a few +sounds, capable of expressing only a few ideas or states of the +mind, such as love, desire, fear, hatred, aversion and contempt. Many +centuries are required to produce a language capable of expressing +complex ideas. It does not seem to me that ideas can be manufactured by +a deity and put in the brain of man. These ideas must be the result of +observation and experience. +</p> +<p> +Does anybody believe that God directly taught a language to Adam and +Eve, or that he so made them that they, by intuition spoke Hebrew, or +some language capable of conveying to each other their thoughts? How did +the serpent learn the same language? Did God teach it to him, or did he +happen to overhear God, when he was teaching Adam and Eve? We are told +in the second chapter of Genesis that God caused all the animals to pass +before Adam to see what he would call them. We cannot infer from this +that God named the animals and informed Adam what to call them. Adam +named them himself. Where did he get his words? We cannot imagine a man +just made out of dust, without the experience of a moment, having the +power to put his thoughts in language. In the first place, we cannot +conceive of his having any thoughts until he has combined, through +experience and observation, the impressions that nature had made upon +him through the medium of his senses. We cannot imagine of his knowing +anything, in the first instance, about different degrees of heat, nor +about darkness, if he was made in the day-time, nor about light, if +created at night, until the next morning. Before a man can have what we +call thoughts, he must have had a little experience. Something must have +happened to him before he can have a thought, and before he can express +himself in language. Language is a growth, not a gift. We account now +for the diversity of language by the fact that tribes and nations have +had different experiences, different wants, different surroundings, and, +one result of all these differences is, among other things, a difference +in language. Nothing can be more absurd than to account for the +different languages of the world by saying that the original language +was confounded at the tower of Babel. +</p> +<p> +According to the Bible, up to the time of the building of that tower, +the whole earth was of one language and of one speech, and would have so +remained until the present time had not an effort been made to build +a tower whose top should reach into heaven. Can any one imagine what +objection God would have to the building of such a tower? And how could +the confusion of tongues prevent its construction? How could language +be confounded? It could be confounded only by the destruction of memory. +Did God destroy the memory of mankind at that time, and if so, how? +Did he paralyze that portion of the brain presiding over the organs +of articulation, so that they could not speak the words, although they +remembered them clearly, or did he so touch the brain that they +could not hear? Will some theologian, versed in the machinery of the +miraculous, tell us in what way God confounded the language of mankind? +</p> +<p> +Why would the confounding of the language make them separate? Why would +they not stay together until they could understand each other? People +will not separate, from weakness. When in trouble they come together +and desire the assistance of each other. Why, in this instance, did they +separate? What particular ones would naturally come together if nobody +understood the language of any other person? Would it not have been just +as hard to agree when and where to go, without any language to express +the agreement, as to go on with the building of the tower? +</p> +<p> +Is it possible that any one now believes that the whole world would be +of one speech had the language not been confounded at Babel? Do we not +know that every word was suggested in some way by the experience of men? +Do we not know that words are continually dying, and continually being +born; that every language has its cradle and its cemetery—its buds, its +blossoms, its fruits and its withered leaves? Man has loved, enjoyed, +hated, suffered and hoped, and all words have been born of these +experiences. +</p> +<p> +Why did "the Lord come down to see the city and the tower"? Could he +not see them from where he lived or from where he was? Where did he come +down from? Did he come in the daytime, or in the night? We are taught +now that God is everywhere; that he inhabits immensity; that he is in +every atom, and in every star. If this is true, why did he "come down to +see the city and the tower?" Will some theologian explain this? +</p> +<p> +After all, is it not much easier and altogether more reasonable to say +that Moses was mistaken, that he knew little of the science of language, +and that he guessed a great deal more than he investigated? +</p> +<center> +XX. FAITH IN FILTH. +</center> +<p> +No light whatever is shed upon what passed in the world after the +confounding of language at Babel, until the birth of Abraham. But, +before speaking of the history of the Jewish people, it may be proper +for me to say that many things are recounted in Genesis, and other books +attributed to Moses, of which I do not wish to speak. There are many +pages of these books unfit to read, many stories not calculated, in my +judgment, to improve the morals of mankind. I do not wish even to call +the attention of my readers to these things, except in a general way. It +is to be hoped that the time will come when such chapters and passages +as cannot be read without leaving the blush of shame upon the cheek of +modesty, will be left out, and not published as a part of the Bible. If +there is a God, it certainly is blasphemous to attribute to him the +authorship of pages too obscene, beastly and vulgar to be read in the +presence of men and women. +</p> +<p> +The believers in the Bible are loud in their denunciation of what they +are pleased to call the immoral literature of the world; and yet few +books have been published containing more moral filth than this inspired +word of God. These stories are not redeemed by a single flash of wit or +humor. They never rise above the dull details of stupid vice. For one, +I cannot afford to soil my pages with extracts from them; and all such +portions of the Scriptures I leave to be examined, written upon, and +explained by the clergy. Clergymen may know some way by which they can +extract honey from these flowers. Until these passages are expunged +from the Old Testament, it is not a fit book to be read by either old +or young. It contains pages that no minister in the United States would +read to his congregation for any reward whatever. There are chapters +that no gentleman would read in the presence of a lady. There are +chapters that no father would read to his child. There are narratives +utterly unfit to be told; and the time will come when mankind will +wonder that such a book was ever called inspired. +</p> +<p> +I know that in many books besides the Bible, there are immodest lines. +Some of the greatest writers have soiled their pages with indecent +words. We account for this by saying that the authors were human; that +they catered to the taste and spirit of their times. We make excuses, +but at the same time regret that in their works they left an impure +word. But what shall we say of God? Is it possible that a being of +infinite purity—the author of modesty, would smirch the pages of his +book with stories lewd, licentious and obscene? If God is the author of +the Bible, it is, of course, the standard by which all other books can, +and should be measured. If the Bible is not obscene, what book is? Why +should men be imprisoned simply for imitating God? The Christian world +should never say another word against immoral books until it makes the +inspired volume clean. These vile and filthy things were not written +for the purpose of conveying and enforcing moral truth, but seem to +have been written because the author loved an unclean thing. There is +no moral depth below that occupied by the writer or publisher of obscene +books, that stain with lust, the loving heart of youth. Such men should +be imprisoned and their books destroyed. The literature of the world +should be rendered decent, and no book should be published that cannot +be read by, and in the hearing of the best and purest people. But as +long as the Bible is considered as the work of God, it will be hard +to make all men too good and pure to imitate it; and as long as it is +imitated there will be vile and filthy books. The literature of our +country will not be sweet and clean until the Bible ceases to be +regarded as the production of a god. +</p> +<p> +We are continually told that the Bible is the very foundation of modesty +and morality; while many of its pages are so immodest and immoral that +a minister, for reading them in the pulpit, would be instantly denounced +as an unclean wretch. Every woman would leave the church, and if the men +stayed, it would be for the purpose of chastising the minister. +</p> +<p> +Is there any saving grace in hypocrisy? Will men become clean in speech +by believing that God is unclean? Would it not be far better to admit +that the Bible was written by barbarians in a barbarous, coarse and +vulgar age? Would it not be safer to charge Moses with vulgarity, +instead of God? Is it not altogether more probable that some ignorant +Hebrew would write the vulgar words? The Christians tell me that God is +the author of these vile and stupid things? I have examined the question +to the best of my ability, and as to God my verdict is:—Not guilty. +Faith should not rest in filth. +</p> +<p> +Every foolish and immodest thing should be expunged from the Bible. +Let us keep the good. Let us preserve every great and splendid thought, +every wise and prudent maxim, every just law, every elevated idea, and +every word calculated to make man nobler and purer, and let us have the +courage to throw the rest away. The souls of children should not +be stained and soiled. The charming instincts of youth should not be +corrupted and defiled. The girls and boys should not be taught that +unclean words were uttered by "inspired" lips. Teach them that these +words were born of savagery and lust. Teach them that the unclean is the +unholy, and that only the pure is sacred. +</p> +<center> +XXI. THE HEBREWS. +</center> +<p> +After language had been confounded and the people scattered, there +appeared in the land of Canaan a tribe of Hebrews ruled by a chief or +sheik called Abraham. They had a few cattle, lived in tents, practiced +polygamy, wandered from place to place, and were the only folks in the +whole world to whom God paid the slightest attention. At this time +there were hundreds of cities in India filled with temples and palaces; +millions of Egyptians worshiped Isis and Osiris, and had covered their +land with marvelous monuments of industry, power and skill. But these +civilizations were entirely neglected by the Deity, his whole attention +being taken up with Abraham and his family. +</p> +<p> +It seems, from the account, that God and Abraham were intimately +acquainted, and conversed frequently upon a great variety of subjects. +By the twelfth chapter of Genesis it appears that he made the following +promises to Abraham. "I will make of thee a great nation, and I will +bless thee, and make thy name great: and thou shalt be a blessing. And I +will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee." +</p> +<p> +After receiving this communication from the Almighty, Abraham went into +the land of Canaan, and again God appeared to him and told him to take +a heifer three years old, a goat of the same age, a sheep of equal +antiquity, a turtle dove and a young pigeon. Whereupon Abraham killed +the animals "and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one +against another." And it came to pass that when the sun went down and +it was dark, behold a smoking furnace and a burning lamp that passed +between the raw and bleeding meat. The killing of these animals was +a preparation for receiving a visit from God. Should an American +missionary in Central Africa find a negro chief surrounded by +a butchered heifer, a goat and a sheep, with which to receive a +communication from the infinite God, my opinion is, that the missionary +would regard the proceeding as the direct result of savagery. And if +the chief insisted that he had seen a smoking furnace and a burning +lamp going up and down between the pieces of meat, the missionary would +certainly conclude that the chief was not altogether right in his mind. +</p> +<p> +If the Bible is true, this same God told Abraham to take and sacrifice +his only son, or rather the only son of his wife, and a murder would +have been committed had not God, just at the right moment, directed him +to stay his hand and take a sheep instead. +</p> +<p> +God made a great number of promises to Abraham, but few of them were +ever kept. He agreed to make him the father of a great nation, but he +did not. He solemnly promised to give him a great country, including all +the land between the river of Egypt and the Euphrates, but he did not. +</p> +<p> +In due time Abraham passed away, and his son Isaac took his place at +the head of the tribe. Then came Jacob, who "watered stock" and enriched +himself with the spoil of Laban. Joseph was sold into Egypt by his +jealous brethren, where he became one of the chief men of the kingdom, +and in a few years his father and brothers left their own country and +settled in Egypt. At this time there were seventy Hebrews in the world, +counting Joseph and his children. They remained in Egypt two hundred and +fifteen years. It is claimed by some that they were in that country for +four hundred and thirty years. This is a mistake. Josephus says they +were in Egypt two hundred and fifteen years, and this statement is +sustained by the best biblical scholars of all denominations. According +to the 17th verse of the 3rd chapter of Galatians, it was four hundred +and thirty years from the time the promise was made to Abraham to +the giving of the law, and as the Hebrews did not go to Egypt for two +hundred and fifteen years after the making of the promise to Abraham, +they could in no event have been in Egypt more than two hundred and +fifteen years. In our Bible the 40th verse of the 12th chapter of +Exodus, is as follows:— +</p> +<p> +"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was +four hundred and thirty years." +</p> +<p> +This passage does not say that the sojourning was all done in Egypt; +neither does it say that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt four +hundred and thirty years; but it does say that the sojourning of the +children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty +years. The Vatican copy of the Septuagint renders the same passage as +follows:— +</p> +<p> +"The sojourning of the children of Israel which they sojourned in Egypt, +and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years." +</p> +<p> +The Alexandrian version says:—"The sojourning of the children of Israel +which they and their fathers sojourned in Egypt, and in the land of +Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years." +</p> +<p> +And in the Samaritan Bible we have:—"The sojourning of the children of +Israel and of their fathers which they sojourned in the land of Canaan, +and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." +</p> +<p> +There were seventy souls when they went down into Egypt, and they +remained two hundred and fifteen years, and at the end of that time they +had increased to about three million. How do we know that there were +three million at the end of two hundred and fifteen years? We know it +because we are informed by Moses that "there were six hundred thousand +men of war." Now, to each man of war, there must have been at least five +other people. In every State in this Union there will be to each voter, +five other persons at least, and we all know that there are always more +voters than men of war. If there were six hundred thousand men of war, +there must have been a population of at least three million. Is it +possible that seventy people could increase to that extent in two +hundred and fifteen years? You may say that it was a miracle; but +what need was there of working a miracle? Why should God miraculously +increase the number of slaves? If he wished miraculously to increase the +population, why did he not wait until the people were free? +</p> +<p> +In 1776, we had in the American Colonies about three millions of people. +In one hundred years we doubled four times: that is to say, six, twelve, +twenty-four, forty-eight million,—our present population. +</p> +<p> +We must not forget that during all these years there has been pouring +into our country a vast stream of emigration, and that this, taken +in connection with the fact that our country is productive beyond all +others, gave us only four doubles in one hundred years. Admitting that +the Hebrews increased as rapidly without emigration as we, in this +country, have with it, we will give to them four doubles each century, +commencing with seventy people, and they would have, at the end of +two hundred years, a population of seventeen thousand nine hundred and +twenty. Giving them another double for the odd fifteen years and there +would be, provided no deaths had occurred, thirty-five thousand eight +hundred and forty people. And yet we are told that instead of having +this number, they had increased to such an extent that they had six +hundred thousand men of war; that is to say, a population of more than +three millions? +</p> +<p> +Every sensible man knows that this account is not, and cannot be true. +We know that seventy people could not increase to three million in two +hundred and fifteen years. +</p> +<p> +About this time the Hebrews took a census, and found that there were +twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three first-born males. +It is reasonable to suppose that there were about as many first-born +females. This would make forty-four thousand five hundred and forty-six +first-born children. Now, there must have been about as many mothers +as there were first-born children. If there were only about forty-five +thousand mothers and three millions of people, the mothers must have had +on an average about sixty-six children apiece. +</p> +<p> +At this time, the Hebrews were slaves, and had been for two hundred and +fifteen years. A little while before, an order had been made by the +Egyptians that all the male children of the Hebrews should be killed. +One, contrary to this order, was saved in an ark made of bullrushes +daubed with slime. This child was found by the daughter of Pharaoh, and +was adopted, it seems, as her own, and, may be, was. He grew to be +a man, sided with the Hebrews, killed an Egyptian that was smiting a +slave, hid the body in the sand, and fled from Egypt to the land of +Midian, became acquainted with a priest who had seven daughters, took +the side of the daughters against the ill-mannered shepherds of that +country, and married Zipporah, one of the girls, and became a shepherd +for her father. Afterward, while tending his flock, the Lord appeared to +him in a burning bush, and commanded him to go to the king of Egypt and +demand from him the liberation of the Hebrews. In order to convince him +that the something burning in the bush was actually God, the rod in his +hand was changed into a serpent, which, upon being caught by the tail, +became again a rod. Moses was also told to put his hand in his bosom, +and when he took it out it was as leprous as snow. Quite a number of +strange things were performed, and others promised. Moses then agreed to +go back to Egypt provided his brother could go with him. Whereupon +the Lord appeared to Aaron, and directed him to meet Moses in the +wilderness. They met at the mount of God, went to Egypt, gathered +together all the elders of the children of Israel, spake all the words +which God had spoken unto Moses, and did all the signs in the sight of +the people. The Israelites believed, bowed their heads and worshiped; +and Moses and Aaron went in and told their message to Pharaoh the king. +</p> +<center> +XXII. THE PLAGUES. +</center> +<p> +Three millions of people were in slavery. They were treated with the +utmost rigor, and so fearful were their masters that they might, in +time, increase in numbers sufficient to avenge themselves, that they +took from the arms of mothers all the male children and destroyed +them. If the account given is true, the Egyptians were the most cruel, +heartless and infamous people of which history gives any record. God +finally made up his mind to free the Hebrews; and for the accomplishment +of this purpose he sent, as his agents, Moses and Aaron, to the king +of Egypt. In order that the king might know that these men had a divine +mission, God gave Moses the power of changing a stick into a serpent, +and water into blood. Moses and Aaron went before the king, stating that +the Lord God of Israel ordered the king of Egypt to let the Hebrews +go that they might hold a feast with God in the wilderness. Thereupon +Pharaoh, the king, enquired who the Lord was, at the same time stating +that he had never made his acquaintance, and knew nothing about him. +To this they replied that the God of the Hebrews had met with them, and +they asked to go a three days journey into the desert and sacrifice +unto this God, fearing that if they did not he would fall upon them with +pestilence or the sword. This interview seems to have hardened Pharaoh, +for he ordered the tasks of the children of Israel to be increased; so +that the only effect of the first appeal was to render still worse the +condition of the Hebrews. Thereupon, Moses returned unto the Lord and +said, "Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people? Why is +it that thou hast sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy +name he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered thy +people at all." +</p> +<p> +Apparently stung by this reproach, God answered:— +</p> +<p> +"Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharoah; for with a strong hand +shall he let them go; and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of +his land." +</p> +<p> +God then recounts the fact that he had appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and +Jacob, that he had established a covenant with them to give them the +land of Canaan, that he had heard the groanings of the children of +Israel in Egyptian bondage; that their groanings had put him in mind of +his covenant, and that he had made up his mind to redeem the children +of Israel with a stretched-out arm and with great judgments. Moses then +spoke to the children of Israel again, but they would listen to him no +more. His first effort in their behalf had simply doubled their trouble +and they seemed to have lost confidence in his power. Thereupon Jehovah +promised Moses that he would make him a god unto Pharaoh, and that +Aaron should be his prophet, but at the same time informed him that his +message would be of no avail; that he would harden the heart of Pharaoh +so that he would not listen; that he would so harden his heart that he +might have an excuse for destroying the Egyptians. Accordingly, Moses +and Aaron again went before Pharaoh. Moses said to Aaron;—"Cast down +your rod before Pharaoh," which he did, and it became a serpent. Then +Pharaoh not in the least surprised, called for his wise men and +his sorcerers, and they threw down their rods and changed them into +serpents. The serpent that had been changed from Aaron's rod was, at +this time crawling upon the floor, and it proceeded to swallow the +serpents that had been produced by the magicians of Egypt. What became +of these serpents that were swallowed, whether they turned back into +sticks again, is not stated. Can we believe that the stick was changed +into a real living serpent, or did it assume simply the appearance of a +serpent? If it bore only the appearance of a serpent it was a deception, +and could not rise above the dignity of legerdemain. Is it necessary to +believe that God is a kind of prestigiator—a sleight-of-hand performer, +a magician or sorcerer? Can it be possible that an infinite being would +endeavor to secure the liberation of a race by performing a miracle that +could be equally performed by the sorcerers and magicians of a barbarian +king? +</p> +<p> +Not one word was said by Moses or Aaron as to the wickedness of +depriving a human being of his liberty. Not a word was said in favor +of liberty. Not the slightest intimation that a human being was justly +entitled to the product of his own labor. Not a word about the cruelty +of masters who would destroy even the babes of slave mothers. It seems +to me wonderful that this God did not tell the king of Egypt that no +nation could enslave another, without also enslaving itself; that it was +impossible to put a chain around the limbs of a slave, without putting +manacles upon the brain of the master. Why did he not tell him that a +nation founded upon slavery could not stand? Instead of declaring these +things, instead of appealing to justice, to mercy and to liberty, he +resorted to feats of jugglery. Suppose we wished to make a treaty with +a barbarous nation, and the President should employ a sleight-of-hand +performer as envoy extraordinary, and instruct him, that when he came +into the presence of the savage monarch, he should cast down an umbrella +or a walking stick, which would change into a lizard or a turtle; what +would we think? Would we not regard such a performance as beneath the +dignity even of a President? And what would be our feelings if the +savage king sent for his sorcerers and had them perform the same feat? +If such things would appear puerile and foolish in the President of a +great republic, what shall be said when they were resorted to by the +creator of all worlds? How small, how contemptible such a God appears! +Pharaoh, it seems, took about this view of the matter, and he would not +be persuaded that such tricks were performed by an infinite being. +</p> +<p> +Again, Moses and Aaron came before Pharaoh as he was going to the +river's bank, and the same rod which had changed to a serpent, and, +by this time changed back, was taken by Aaron, who, in the presence of +Pharaoh, smote the water of the river, which was immediately turned to +blood, as well as all the water in all the streams, ponds, and pools, as +well as all water in vessels of wood and vessels of stone in the entire +land of Egypt. As soon as all the waters in Egypt had been turned +into blood, the magicians of that country did the same with their +enchantments. We are not informed where they got the water to turn into +blood, since all the water in Egypt had already been so changed. It +seems from the account that the fish in the Nile died, and the river +emitted a stench, and there was not a drop of water in the land of +Egypt that had not been changed into blood. In consequence of this, the +Egyptians digged "around about the river" for water to drink. Can we +believe this story? Is it necessary to salvation to admit that all the +rivers, pools, ponds and lakes of a country were changed into blood, in +order that a king might be induced to allow the children of Israel the +privilege of going a three days journey into the wilderness to make +sacrifices to their God? +</p> +<p> +It seems from the account that Pharaoh was told that the God of the +Hebrews would, if he refused to let the Israelites go, change all the +waters of Egypt into blood, and that, upon his refusal, they were so +changed. This had, however, no influence upon him, for the reason that +his own magicians did the same. It does not appear that Moses and Aaron +expressed the least surprise at the success of the Egyptian sorcerers. +At that time it was believed that each nation had its own god. The +only claim that Moses and Aaron made for their God was, that he was the +greatest and most powerful of all the gods, and that with anything like +an equal chance he could vanquish the deity of any other nation. +</p> +<p> +After the waters were changed to blood Moses and Aaron waited for seven +days. At the end of that time God told Moses to again go to Pharaoh and +demand the release of his people, and to inform him that, if he refused, +God would strike all the borders of Egypt with frogs. That he would make +frogs so plentiful that they would go into the houses of Pharaoh, into +his bedchamber, upon his bed, into the houses of his servants, upon his +people, into their ovens, and even into their kneading troughs. +This threat had no effect whatever upon Pharaoh. And thereupon Aaron +stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came +up and covered the land. The magicians of Egypt did the same, and with +their enchantments brought more frogs upon the land of Egypt. +</p> +<p> +These magicians do not seem to have been original in their ideas, but +so far as imitation is concerned, were perfect masters of their art. The +frogs seem to have made such an impression upon Pharaoh that he sent +for Moses and asked him to entreat the Lord that he would take away the +frogs. Moses agreed to remove them from the houses and the land, and +allow them to remain only in the rivers. Accordingly the frogs died out +of the houses, and out of the villages, and out of the fields, and the +people gathered them together in heaps. As soon as the frogs had left +the houses and fields, the heart of Pharaoh became again hardened, and +he refused to let the people go. +</p> +<p> +Aaron then, according to the command of God, stretched out his hand, +holding the rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in +man and in beast, and all the dust became lice throughout the land of +Egypt. Pharaoh again sent for his magicians, and they sought to do +the same with their enchantments, but they could not. Whereupon the +sorcerers said unto Pharaoh: "This is the finger of God." +</p> +<p> +Notwithstanding this, however, Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go. +God then caused a grievous swarm of flies to come into the house of +Pharaoh and into his servants' houses, and into all the land of Egypt, +to such an extent that the whole land was corrupted by reason of the +flies. But into that part of the country occupied by the children of +Israel there came no flies. Thereupon Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron +and said to them: "Go, and sacrifice to your God in this land." They +were not willing to sacrifice in Egypt, and asked permission to go on a +journey of three days into the wilderness. To this Pharaoh acceded, and +in consideration of this Moses agreed to use his influence with the Lord +to induce him to send the flies out of the country. He accordingly told +the Lord of the bargain he had made with Pharaoh, and the Lord agreed to +the compromise, and removed the flies from Pharaoh and from his servants +and from his people, and there remained not a single fly in the land of +Egypt. As soon as the flies were gone, Pharaoh again changed his mind, +and concluded not to permit the children of Israel to depart. The Lord +then directed Moses to go to Pharaoh and tell him that if he did not +allow the children of Israel to depart, he would destroy his cattle, his +horses, his camels and his sheep; that these animals would be afflicted +with a grievous disease, but that the animals belonging to the Hebrews +should not be so afflicted. Moses did as he was bid. On the next day all +the cattle of Egypt died; that is to say, all the horses, all the asses, +all the camels, all the oxen and all the sheep; but of the animals owned +by the Israelites, not one perished. This disaster had no effect upon +Pharaoh, and he still refused to let the children of Israel go. The Lord +then told Moses and Aaron to take some ashes out of a furnace, and +told Moses to sprinkle them toward the heavens in the sight of Pharaoh; +saying that the ashes should become small dust in all the land of Egypt, +and should be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast +throughout all the land. +</p> +<p> +How these boils breaking out with blains, upon cattle that were already +dead, should affect Pharaoh, is a little hard to understand. It must +not be forgotten that all the cattle and all beasts had died with the +murrain before the boils had broken out. +</p> +<p> +This was a most decisive victory for Moses and Aaron. The boils were +upon the magicians to that extent that they could not stand before +Moses. But it had no effect upon Pharaoh, who seems to have been a man +of great firmness. The Lord then instructed Moses to get up early in the +morning and tell Pharaoh that he would stretch out his hand and smite +his people with a pestilence, and would, on the morrow, cause it to rain +a very grievous hail, such as had never been known in the land of Egypt. +He also told Moses to give notice, so that they might get all the cattle +that were in the fields under cover. It must be remembered that all +these cattle had recently died of the murrain, and their dead bodies had +been covered with boils and blains. This, however, had no effect, and +Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and the Lord sent thunder, +and hail and lightning, and fire that ran along the ground, and the hail +fell upon all the land of Egypt, and all that were in the fields, both +man and beast, were smitten, and the hail smote every herb of the field, +and broke every tree of the country except that portion inhabited by the +children of Israel; there, there was no hail. +</p> +<p> +During this hail storm Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron and admitted +that he had sinned, that the Lord was righteous, and that the Egyptians +were wicked, and requested them to ask the Lord that there be no more +thunderings and hail, and that he would let the Hebrews go. Moses agreed +that as soon as he got out of the city he would stretch forth his hands +unto the Lord, and that the thunderings should cease and the hail should +stop. But, when the rain and the hail and the thundering ceased, Pharaoh +concluded that he would not let the children of Israel go. +</p> +<p> +Again, God sent Moses and Aaron, instructing them to tell Pharaoh that +if he refused to let the people go, the face of the earth would be +covered with locusts, so that man would not be able to see the ground, +and that these locusts would eat the residue of that which escaped from +the hail; that they would eat every tree out of the field; that they +would fill the houses of Pharaoh and the houses of all his servants, and +the houses of all the Egyptians. Moses delivered the message, and went +out from Pharaoh. Some of Pharaoh's servants entreated their master +to let the children of Israel go. Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron and +asked them, who wished to go into the wilderness to sacrifice. They +replied that they wished to go with the young and old; with their sons +and daughters, with flocks and herds. Pharaoh would not consent to this, +but agreed that the men might go. Thereupon Pharaoh drove Moses and +Aaron out of his sight. Then God told Moses to stretch forth his hand +upon the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they might come up and eat +every herb, even all that the hail had left. "And Moses stretched out +his rod over the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought an east wind all +that day and all that night; and when it was morning the east wind +brought the locusts; and they came up over all the land of Egypt and +rested upon all the coasts covering the face of the whole earth, so that +the land was darkened; and they ate every herb and all the fruit of the +trees which the hail had left, and there remained not any green thing +on the trees or in the herbs of the field throughout the land of Egypt." +Pharaoh then called for Moses and Aaron in great haste, admitted that +he had sinned against the Lord their God and against them, asked their +forgiveness and requested them to intercede with God that he might take +away the locusts. They went out from his presence and asked the Lord to +drive the locusts away, "And the Lord made a strong west wind which took +away the locusts, and cast them into the Red Sea so that there remained +not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt." +</p> +<p> +As soon as the locusts were gone, Pharaoh changed his mind, and, in the +language of the sacred text, "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that +he would not let the children of Israel go." +</p> +<p> +The Lord then told Moses to stretch out his hand toward heaven that +there might be darkness over the land of Egypt, "even darkness which +might be felt." "And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and +there was a thick darkness over the land of Egypt for three days during +which time they saw not each other, neither arose any of the people from +their places for three days; but the children of Israel had light in +their dwellings." +</p> +<p> +It strikes me that when the land of Egypt was covered with thick +darkness—so thick that it could be felt, and when light was in the +dwellings of the Israelites, there could have been no better time for +the Hebrews to have left the country. +</p> +<p> +Pharaoh again called for Moses, and told him that his people could go +and serve the Lord, provided they would leave their flocks and herds. +Moses would not agree to this, for the reason that they needed the +flocks and herds for sacrifices and burnt offerings, and he did not know +how many of the animals God might require, and for that reason he could +not leave a single hoof. Upon the question of the cattle, they divided, +and Pharaoh again refused to let the people go. God then commanded Moses +to tell the Hebrews to borrow, each of his neighbor, jewels of silver +and gold. By a miraculous interposition the Hebrews found favor in the +sight of the Egyptians so that they loaned the articles asked for. After +this, Moses again went to Pharaoh and told him that all the first-born +in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh upon the throne, +unto the first-born of the maid-servant who was behind the mill, as well +as the first-born of beasts, should die. +</p> +<p> +As all the beasts had been destroyed by disease and hail, it is +troublesome to understand the meaning of the threat as to their +first-born. +</p> +<p> +Preparations were accordingly made for carrying this frightful threat +into execution. Blood was put on the door-posts of all houses inhabited +by Hebrews, so that God, as he passed through that land, might not be +mistaken and destroy the first-born of the Jews. "And it came to pass +that at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, +the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the throne, and the first-born of +the captive who was in the dungeon. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, +and all his servants, and all the Egyptians, and there was a great cry +in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead." +</p> +<p> +What had these children done? Why should the babes in the cradle be +destroyed on account of the crime of Pharaoh? Why should the cattle be +destroyed because man had enslaved his brother? In those days women and +children and cattle were put upon an exact equality, and all considered +as the property of the men; and when man in some way excited the wrath +of God, he punished them by destroying all their cattle, their wives, +and their little ones. Where can words be found bitter enough to +describe a god who would kill wives and babes because husbands and +fathers had failed to keep his law? Every good man, and every good +woman, must hate and despise such a deity. +</p> +<p> +Upon the death of all the first-born Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron, +and not only gave his consent that they might go with the Hebrews into +the wilderness, but besought them to go at once. +</p> +<p> +Is it possible that an infinite God, creator of all worlds and sustainer +of all life, said to Pharaoh, "If you do not let my people go, I will +turn all the water of your country into blood," and that upon the +refusal of Pharaoh to release the people, God did turn all the waters +into blood? Do you believe this? +</p> +<p> +Do you believe that Pharaoh even after all the water was turned to +blood, refused to let the Hebrews go, and that thereupon God told him he +would cover his land with frogs? Do you believe this? +</p> +<p> +Do you believe that after the land was covered with frogs Pharaoh still +refused to let the people go, and that God then said to him, "I will +cover you and all your people with lice?" Do you believe God would make +this threat? +</p> +<p> +Do you also believe that God told Pharaoh, "It you do not let these +people go, I will fill all your houses and cover your country with +flies?" Do you believe God makes such threats as this? +</p> +<p> +Of course God must have known that turning the waters into blood, +covering the country with frogs, infesting all flesh with lice, and +filling all houses with flies, would not accomplish his object, and that +all these plagues would have no effect whatever upon the Egyptian king. +</p> +<p> +Do you believe that, failing to accomplish anything by the flies, God +told Pharaoh that if he did not let the people go he would kill his +cattle with murrain? Does such a threat sound God-like? +</p> +<p> +Do you believe that, failing to effect anything by killing the cattle, +this same God then threatened to afflict all the people with boils, +including the magicians who had been rivaling him in the matter of +miracles; and failing to do anything by boils, that he resorted to hail? +Does this sound reasonable? The hail experiment having accomplished +nothing, do you believe that God murdered the first-born of animals and +men? Is it possible to conceive of anything more utterly absurd, stupid, +revolting, cruel and senseless, than the miracles said to have been +wrought by the Almighty for the purpose of inducing Pharaoh to liberate +the children of Israel? +</p> +<p> +Is it not altogether more reasonable to say that the Jewish people, +being in slavery, accounted for the misfortunes and calamities, suffered +by the Egyptians, by saying that they were the judgments of God? +</p> +<p> +When the Armada of Spain was wrecked and scattered by the storm, the +English people believed that God had interposed in their behalf, +and publicly gave thanks. When the battle of Lepanto was won, it was +believed by the Catholic world that the victory was given in answer to +prayer. So, our fore-fathers in their Revolutionary struggle saw, or +thought they saw, the hand of God, and most firmly believed that they +achieved their independence by the interposition of the Most High. +</p> +<p> +Now, it may be that while the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians, +there were plagues of locusts and flies. It may be that there were +some diseases by which many of the cattle perished. It may be that a +pestilence visited that country so that in nearly every house there +was some one dead. If so, it was but natural for the enslaved and +superstitious Jews to account for these calamities by saying that they +were punishments sent by their God. Such ideas will be found in the +history of every country. +</p> +<p> +For a long time the Jews held these opinions, and they were handed from +father to son simply by tradition. By the time a written language had +been produced, thousands of additions had been made, and numberless +details invented; so that we have not only an account of the plagues +suffered by the Egyptians, but the whole woven into a connected story, +containing the threats made by Moses and Aaron, the miracles wrought by +them, the promises of Pharaoh, and finally the release of the Hebrews, +as a result of the marvelous things performed in their behalf by +Jehovah. +</p> +<p> +In any event it is infinitely more probable that the author was +misinformed, than that the God of this universe was guilty of these +childish, heartless and infamous things. The solution of the whole +matter is this:—Moses was mistaken. +</p> +<center> +XXIII. THE FLIGHT. +</center> +<p> +Three millions of people, with their flocks and herds, with borrowed +jewelry and raiment, with unleavened dough in kneading troughs bound in +their clothes upon their shoulders, in one night commenced their journey +for the land of promise. We are not told how they were informed of the +precise time to start. With all the modern appliances, it would require +months of time to inform three millions of people of any fact. +</p> +<p> +In this vast assemblage there were six hundred thousand men of war, and +with them were the old, the young, the diseased and helpless. Where were +those people going? They were going to the desert of Sinai, compared +with which Sahara is a garden. Imagine an ocean of lava torn by +storm and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at by a Gorgon and changed +instantly to stone! Such was the desert of Sinai. +</p> +<p> +All of the civilized nations of the world could not feed and support +three millions of people on the desert of Sinai for forty years. It +would cost more than one hundred thousand millions of dollars, and would +bankrupt Christendom. They had with them their flocks and herds, and the +sheep were so numerous that the Israelites sacrificed, at one time, more +than one hundred and fifty thousand first-born lambs. How were these +flocks supported? What did they eat? Where were meadows and pastures for +them? There was no grass, no forests—nothing! There is no account +of its having rained baled hay, nor is it even claimed that they were +miraculously fed. To support these flocks, millions of acres of pasture +would have been required. God did not take the Israelites through the +land of the Philistines, for fear that when they saw the people of that +country they would return to Egypt, but he took them by the way of +the wilderness to the Red Sea, going before them by day in a pillar of +cloud, and by night, in a pillar of fire. +</p> +<p> +When it was told Pharaoh that the people had fled, he made ready +and took six hundred chosen chariots of Egypt, and pursued after the +children of Israel, overtaking them by the sea. As all the animals had +long before that time been destroyed, we are not informed where Pharaoh +obtained the horses for his chariots. The moment the children of Israel +saw the hosts of Pharaoh, although they had six hundred thousand men +of war, they immediately cried unto the Lord for protection. It is +wonderful to me that a land that had been ravaged by the plagues +described in the Bible, still had the power to put in the field an army +that would carry terror to the hearts of six hundred thousand men of +war. Even with the help of God, it seems, they were not strong enough +to meet the Egyptians in the open field, but resorted to strategy. Moses +again stretched forth his wonderful rod over the waters of the Red Sea, +and they were divided, and the Hebrews passed through on dry land, the +waters standing up like a wall on either side. The Egyptians pursued +them; "and in the morning watch the Lord looked into the hosts of the +Egyptians, through the pillar of fire," and proceeded to take the wheels +off their chariots. As soon as the wheels were off, God told Moses to +stretch out his hand over the sea. Moses did so, and immediately "the +waters returned and covered the chariots and horsemen and all the hosts +of Pharaoh that came into the sea, and there remained not so much as one +of them." +</p> +<p> +This account may be true, but still it hardly looks reasonable that God +would take the wheels off the chariots. How did he do it? Did he pull +out the linch-pins, or did he just take them off by main force? +</p> +<p> +What a picture this presents to the mind! God the creator of the +universe, maker of every shining, glittering star, engaged in pulling +off the wheels of wagons, that he might convince Pharaoh of his +greatness and power! +</p> +<p> +Where were these people going? They were going to the promised land. +How large a country was that? About twelve thousand square miles. About +one-fifth the size of the State of Illinois. It was a frightful country, +covered with rocks and desolation. How many people were in the promised +land already? Moses tells us there were seven nations in that country +mightier than the Jews. As there were at least three millions of Jews, +there must have been at least twenty-one millions of people already in +that country. These had to be driven out in order that room might be +made for the chosen people of God. +</p> +<p> +It seems, however, that God was not willing to take the children of +Israel into the promised land immediately. They were not fit to inhabit +the land of Canaan; so he made up his mind to allow them to wander upon +the desert until all except two, who had left Egypt, should perish. Of +all the slaves released from Egyptian bondage, only two were allowed to +reach the promised land! +</p> +<p> +As soon as the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea, they found themselves +without food, and with water unfit to drink by reason of its bitterness, +and they began to murmur against Moses, who cried unto the Lord, and +"the Lord showed him a tree." Moses cast this tree into the waters, +and they became sweet. "And it came to pass in the morning the dew lay +around about the camp; and when the dew that lay was gone, behold, +upon the face of the wilderness lay a small round thing, small as the +hoar-frost upon the ground. And Moses said unto them, this is the bread +which the Lord hath given you to eat." This manna was a very peculiar +thing. It would melt in the sun, and yet they could cook it by seething +and baking. One would as soon think of frying snow or of broiling +icicles. But this manna had another remarkable quality. No matter how +much or little any person gathered, he would have an exact omer; if he +gathered more, it would shrink to that amount, and if he gathered less, +it would swell exactly to that amount. What a magnificent substance +manna would be with which to make a currency—shrinking and swelling +according to the great laws of supply and demand! +</p> +<p> +"Upon this manna the children of Israel lived for forty years, until +they came to a habitable land. With this meat were they fed until +they reached the borders of the land of Canaan." We are told in the +twenty-first chapter of Numbers, that the people at last became tired +of' the manna, complained of God, and asked Moses why he brought +them out of the land of Egypt to die in the wilderness. And they +said:—"There is no bread, nor have we any water. Our soul loatheth this +light food." +</p> +<p> +We are told by some commentators that the Jews lived on manna for forty +years; by others that they lived upon it for only a short time. As +a matter of fact the accounts differ, and this difference is the +opportunity for commentators. It also allows us to exercise faith in +believing that both accounts are true. If the accounts agreed, and were +reasonable, they would be believed by the wicked and unregenerated. But +as they are different and unreasonable, they are believed only by the +good. Whenever a statement in the Bible is unreasonable, and you believe +it, you are considered quite a good Christian. If the statement is +grossly absurd and infinitely impossible, and you still believe it, you +are a saint. +</p> +<p> +The children of Israel were in the desert, and they were out of water. +They had nothing to eat but manna, and this they had had so long that +the soul of every person abhorred it. Under these circumstances they +complained to Moses. Now, as God is infinite, he could just as well have +furnished them with an abundance of the purest and coolest of water, and +could, without the slightest trouble to himself, have given them three +excellent meals a day, with a generous variety of meats and vegetables, +it is very hard to see why he did not do so. It is still harder to +conceive why he fell into a rage when the people mildly suggested that +they would like a change of diet. Day after day, week after week, month +after month, year after year, nothing but manna. No doubt they did +the best they could by cooking it in different ways, but in spite of +themselves they began to loathe its sight and taste, and so they asked +Moses to use his influence to secure a change in the bill of fare. +</p> +<p> +Now, I ask, whether it was unreasonable for the Jews to suggest that a +little meat would be very gratefully received? It seems, however, that +as soon as the request was made, this God of infinite mercy became +infinitely enraged, and instead of granting it, went into partnership +with serpents, for the purpose of punishing the hungry wretches to whom +he had promised a land flowing with milk and honey. +</p> +<p> +Where did these serpents come from? How did God convey the information +to the serpents, that he wished them to go to the desert of Sinai and +bite some Jews? It may be urged that these serpents were created for the +express purpose of punishing the children of Israel for having had the +presumption, like Oliver Twist, to ask for more. +</p> +<p> +There is another account in the eleventh chapter of Numbers, of the +people murmuring because of their food. They remembered the fish, the +cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions and the garlic of Egypt, +and they asked for meat. The people went to the tent of Moses and asked +him for flesh. Moses cried unto the Lord and asked him why he did not +take care of the multitude. God thereupon agreed that they should have +meat, not for a day or two, but for a month, until the meat should come +out of their nostrils and become loathsome to them. He then caused a +wind to bring quails from beyond the sea, and cast them into the camp, +on every side of the camp around about for the space of a days journey. +And the people gathered them, and while the flesh was yet between their +teeth the wrath of God being provoked against them, struck them with +an exceeding great plague. Serpents, also, were sent among them, and +thousands perished for the crime of having been hungry. +</p> +<p> +The Rev. Alexander Cruden commenting upon this account says:— +</p> +<p> +"God caused a wind to rise that drove the quails within and about the +camp of the Israelites; and it is in this that the miracle consists, +that they were brought so seasonably to this place, and in so great +numbers as to suffice above a million of persons above a month. Some +authors affirm, that in those eastern and southern countries, quails +are innumerable, so that in one part of Italy within the compass of five +miles, there were taken about an hundred thousand of them every day for +a month together; and that sometimes they fly so thick over the sea, +that being weary they fall into ships, sometimes in such numbers, that +they sink them with their weight." +</p> +<p> +No wonder Mr. Cruden believed the Mosaic account. +</p> +<p> +Must we believe that God made an arrangement with hornets for the +purpose af securing their services in driving the Canaanites from +the land of promise? Is this belief necessary unto salvation? Must we +believe that God said to the Jews that he would send hornets before them +to drive out the Canaanites, as related in the twenty-third chapter of +Exodus, and the second chapter of Deuteronomy? How would the hornets +know a Canaanite? In what way would God put it in the mind of a hornet +to attack a Canaanite? Did God create hornets for that especial purpose, +implanting an instinct to attack a Canaanite, but not a Hebrew? Can +we conceive of the Almighty granting letters of marque and reprisal to +hornets? Of course it is admitted that nothing in the world would +be better calculated to make a man leave his native land than a few +hornets. Is it possible for us to believe that an infinite being would +resort to such expedients in order to drive the Canaanites from their +country? He could just as easily have spoken the Canaanites out of +existence as to have spoken the hornets in. In this way a vast amount of +trouble, pain and suffering would have been saved. Is it possible that +there is, in this country, an intelligent clergyman who will insist that +these stories are true; that we must believe them in in order to be good +people in this world, and glorified souls in the next? +</p> +<p> +We are also told that God instructed the Hebrews to kill the Canaanites +slowly, giving as a reason that the beasts of the field might increase +upon his chosen people. When we take into consideration the fact that +the Holy Land contained only about eleven or twelve thousand square +miles, and was at that time inhabited by at least twenty-one millions of +people, it does not seem reasonable that the wild beasts could have been +numerous enough to cause any great alarm. The same ratio of population +would give to the State of Illinois at least one hundred and twenty +millions of inhabitants. Can anybody believe that, under such +circumstances, the danger from wild beasts could be very great? What +would we think of a general, invading such a State, if he should order +his soldiers to kill the people slowly, lest the wild beasts might +increase upon them? Is it possible that a God capable of doing the +miracles recounted in the Old Testament could not, in some way, have +disposed of the wild beasts? After the Canaanites were driven out, could +he not have employed the hornets to drive out the wild beasts? Think of +a God that could drive twenty-one millions of people out of the promised +land, could raise up innumerable stinging flies, and could cover +the earth with fiery serpents, and yet seems to have been perfectly +powerless against the wild beasts of the land of Canaan! +</p> +<p> +Speaking of these hornets, one of the good old commentators, whose +views have long been considered of great value by the believers in the +inspiration of the Bible, uses the following language:—"Hornets are a +sort of strong flies, which the Lord used as instruments to plague +the enemies of his people. They are of themselves very troublesome and +mischievous, and those the Lord made use of were, it is thought, of an +extraordinary bigness and perniciousness. It is said they live as the +wasps, and that they have a king or captain, and pestilent stings +as bees, and that, if twenty-seven of them sting man or beast, it is +certain death to either. Nor is it strange that such creatures did drive +out the Canaanites from their habitations; for many heathen writers give +instances of some people driven from their seats by frogs, others by +mice, others by bees and wasps. And it is said that a Christian city, +being besieged by Sapores, king of Persia, was delivered by hornets; for +the elephants and beasts being stung by them, waxed unruly, and so the +whole army fled." +</p> +<p> +Only a few years ago, all such stories were believed by the Christian +world; and it is a historical fact, that Voltaire was the third man of +any note in Europe, who took the ground that the mythologies of Greece +and Rome were without foundation. Until his time, most Christians +believed as thoroughly in the miracles ascribed to the Greek and Roman +gods as in those of Christ and Jehovah. The Christian world cultivated +credulity, not only as one of the virtues, but as the greatest of them +all. But, when Luther and his followers left the Church of Rome, they +were compelled to deny the power of the Catholic Church, at that time, +to suspend the laws of nature, but took the ground that such power +ceased with the apostolic age. They insisted that all things now +happened in accordance with the laws of nature, with the exception of a +few special interferences in favor of the Protestant Church in answer +to prayer. They taught their children a double philosophy: by one, they +were to show the impossibility of Catholic miracles, because opposed to +the laws of nature; by the other, the probability of the miracles of the +apostolic age, because they were in conformity with the statements of +the Scriptures. They had two foundations: one, the law of nature, and +the other, the word of God. The Protestants have endeavored to carry +on this double process of reasoning, and the result has been a gradual +increase of confidence in the law of nature, and a gradual decrease of +confidence in the word of God. +</p> +<p> +We are told, in this inspired account, that the clothing of the Jewish +people did not wax old, and that their shoes refused to wear out. Some +commentators have insisted that angels attended to the wardrobes of the +Hebrews, patched their garments, and mended their shoes. Certain it is, +however, that the same clothes lasted them for forty years, during the +entire journey from Egypt to the Holy Land. Little boys starting out +with their first pantaloons, grew as they traveled, and their clothes +grew with them. +</p> +<p> +Can it be necessary to believe a story like this? Will men make better +husbands, fathers, neighbors, and citizens, simply by giving credence +to these childish and impossible things? Certainly an infinite God could +have transported the Jews to the Holy Land in a moment, and could, as +easily, have removed the Canaanites to some other country. Surely there +was no necessity for doing thousands and thousands of petty miracles, +day after day for forty years, looking after the clothes of three +millions of people, changing the nature of wool and linen and leather, +so that they would not "wax old." Every step, every motion, would wear +away some part of the clothing, some part of the shoes. Were these +parts, so worn away, perpetually renewed, or was the nature of things +so changed that they could not wear away? We know that whenever matter +comes in contact with matter, certain atoms, by abrasion, are lost. Were +these atoms gathered up every night by angels, and replaced on the soles +of the shoes, on the elbows of coats, and on the knees of pantaloons, so +that the next morning they would be precisely in the condition they were +on the morning before? There must be a mistake somewhere. +</p> +<p> +Can we believe that the real God, if there is one, ever ordered a man +to be killed simply for making hair oil, or ointment? We are told in +the thirtieth chapter of Exodus, that the Lord commanded Moses to take +myrrh, cinnamon, sweet calamus, cassia, and olive oil, and make a +holy ointment for the purpose of anointing the tabernacle, tables, +candlesticks and other utensils, as well as Aaron and his sons; saying, +at the same time, that whosoever compounded any like it, or whoever put +any of it on a stranger, should be put to death. In the same chapter, +the Lord furnishes Moses with a recipe for making a perfume, saying, +that whoever should make any which smelled like it, should be cut off +from his people. This, to me, sounds so unreasonable that I cannot +believe it. Why should an infinite God care whether mankind made +ointments and perfumes like his or not? Why should the Creator of all +things threaten to kill a priest who approached his altar without having +washed his hands and feet? These commandments and these penalties would +disgrace the vainest tyrant that ever sat, by chance, upon a throne. +There must be some mistake. I cannot believe that an infinite +Intelligence appeared to Moses upon Mount Sinai having with him a +variety of patterns for making a tabernacle, tongs, snuffers and dishes. +Neither can I believe that God told Moses how to cut and trim a coat for +a priest. Why should a God care about such things? Why should he insist +on having buttons sewed in certain rows, and fringes of a certain color? +Suppose an intelligent civilized man was to overhear, on Mount Sinai, +the following instructions from God to Moses:— +</p> +<p> +"You must consecrate my priests as follows:—You must kill a bullock +for a sin offering, and have Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the +head of the bullock. Then you must take the blood and put it upon the +horns of the altar round about with your finger, and pour some blood at +the bottom of the altar to make a reconciliation; and of the fat that +is upon the inwards, the caul above the liver and two kidneys, and +their fat, and burn them upon the altar. You must get a ram for a burnt +offering, and Aaron and his sons must lay their hands upon the head of +the ram. Then you must kill it and sprinkle the blood upon the altar, +and cut the ram into pieces, and burn the head, and the pieces, and the +fat, and wash the inwards and the lungs in water and then burn the whole +ram upon the altar for a sweet savor unto me. Then you must get another +ram, and have Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the head of that, +then kill it and take of its blood, and put it on the top of Aaron's +right ear, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the great toe of +his right foot. And you must also put a little of the blood upon the +top of the right ears of Aaron's sons, and on the thumbs of their right +hands and on the great toes of their right feet. And then you must take +of the fat that is on the inwards, and the caul above the liver and the +two kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder, and out of a basket +of unleavened bread you must take one unleavened cake and another of oil +bread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat of the right shoulder. And +you must take of the anointing oil, and of the blood, and sprinkle it on +Aaron, and on his garments, and on his sons' garments, and sanctify +them and all their clothes."—Do you believe that he would have even +suspected that the creator of the universe was talking? +</p> +<p> +Can any one now tell why God commanded the Jews, when they were upon the +desert of Sinai, to plant trees, telling them at the same time that they +must not eat any of the fruit of such trees until after the fourth year? +Trees could not have been planted in that desert, and if they had been, +they could not have lived. Why did God tell Moses, while in the desert, +to make curtains of fine linen? Where could he have obtained his flax? +There was no land upon which it could have been produced. Why did he +tell him to make things of gold, and silver, and precious stones, when +they could not have been in possession of these things? There is but one +answer, and that is, the Pentateuch was written hundreds of years after +the Jews had settled in the Holy Land, and hundreds of years after Moses +was dust and ashes. +</p> +<p> +When the Jews had a written language, and that must have been long after +their flight from Egypt, they wrote out their history and their laws. +Tradition had filled the infancy of the nation with miracles and special +interpositions in their behalf by Jehovah. Patriotism would not allow +these wonders to grow small, and priestcraft never denied a miracle. +There were traditions to the effect that God had spoken face to face +with Moses; that he had given him the tables of the law, and had, in a +thousand ways, made known his will; and whenever the priests wished to +make new laws, or amend old ones, they pretended to have found something +more that God said to Moses at Sinai. In this way obedience was more +easily secured. Only a very few of the people could read, and, as a +consequence, additions, interpolations and erasures had no fear of +detection. In this way we account for the fact that Moses is made to +speak of things that did not exist in his day, and were unknown for +hundreds of years after his death. +</p> +<p> +In the thirtieth chapter of Exodus, we are told that the people, when +numbered, must give each one a half shekel after the shekel of the +<i>sanctuary</i>. At that time no such money existed, and consequently the +account could not, by any possibility, have been written until after +there was a shekel of the sanctuary, and there was no such thing until +long after the death of Moses. If we should read that Cæsar paid his +troops in pounds, shillings and pence, we would certainly know that the +account was not written by Cæsar, nor in his time, but we would know +that it was written after the English had given these names to certain +coins. +</p> +<p> +So, we find, that when the Jews were upon the desert it was commanded +that every mother should bring, as a sin offering, a couple of doves to +the priests, and the priests were compelled to eat these doves in the +most holy place. At the time this law appears to have been given, there +were three million people, and only three priests, Aaron, Eleazer and +Ithamar. Among three million people there would be, at least, three +hundred births a day. Certainly we are not expected to believe that +these three priests devoured six hundred pigeons every twenty-four +hours. +</p> +<p> +Why should a woman ask pardon of God for having been a mother? Why +should that be considered a crime in Exodus, which is commanded as a +duty in Genesis? Why should a mother be declared unclean? Why should +giving birth to a daughter be regarded twice as criminal as giving birth +to a son? Can we believe that such laws and ceremonies were made and +instituted by a merciful and intelligent God? If there is anything in +this poor world suggestive of, and standing for, all that is sweet, +loving and pure, it is a mother holding in her thrilled and happy arms +her prattling babe. Read the twelfth chapter of Leviticus, and you will +see that when a woman became the mother of a boy she was so unclean +that she was not allowed to touch a hallowed thing, nor to enter the +sanctuary for forty days. If the babe was a girl, then the mother was +unfit for eighty days, to enter the house of God, or to touch the sacred +tongs and snuffers. These laws, born of barbarism, are unworthy of our +day, and should be regarded simply as the mistakes of savages. +</p> +<p> +Just as low in the scale of intelligence are the directions given in the +fifth chapter of Numbers, for the trial of a wife of whom the husband +was jealous. This foolish chapter has been the foundation of all appeals +to God for the ascertainment of facts, such as the corsned, trial by +battle, by water, and by fire, the last of which is our judicial oath. +It is very easy to believe that in those days a guilty woman would +be afraid to drink the water of jealousy and take the oath, and that, +through fear, she might be made to confess. Admitting that the deception +tended not only to prevent crime, but to discover it when committed, +still, we cannot admit that an honest god would, for any purpose, resort +to dishonest means. In all countries fear is employed as a means of +getting at the truth, and in this there is nothing dishonest, provided +falsehood is not resorted to for the purpose of producing the fear. +Protestants laugh at Catholics because of their belief in the efficacy +of holy water, and yet they teach their children that a little holy +water, in which had been thrown some dust from the floor of the +sanctuary, would, work a miracle in a woman's flesh. For hundreds of +years our fathers believed that a perjurer could not swallow a piece of +sacramental bread. Such stories belong to the childhood of our race, and +are now believed only by mental infants and intellectual babes. +</p> +<p> +I cannot believe that Moses had in his hands a couple of tables of +stone, upon which God had written the Ten Commandments, and that when he +saw the golden calf, and the dancing, that he dashed the tables to the +earth and broke them in pieces. Neither do I believe that Moses took a +golden calf, burnt it, ground it to powder, and made the people drink it +with water, as related in the thirty-second chapter of Exodus. +</p> +<p> +There is another account of the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses, +in the nineteenth and twentieth chapters of Exodus. In this account not +one word is said about the people having made a golden calf, nor about +the breaking of the tables of stone. In the thirty-fourth chapter of +Exodus, there is an account of the renewal of the broken tables of +the law, and the commandments are given, but they are not the same +commandments mentioned in the twentieth chapter. There are two accounts +of the same transaction. Both of these stories cannot be true, and yet +both must be believed. Any one who will take the trouble to read +the nineteenth and twentieth chapters, and the last verse of the +thirty-first chapter, the thirty-second, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth +chapters of Exodus, will be compelled to admit that both accounts cannot +be true. +</p> +<p> +From the last account it appears that while Moses was upon Mount Sinai +receiving the commandments from God, the people brought their jewelry +to Aaron and he cast for them a golden calf. This happened before any +commandment against idolatry had been given. A god ought, certainly, +to publish his laws before inflicting penalties for their violation. To +inflict punishment for breaking unknown and unpublished laws is, in +the last degree, cruel and unjust. It may be replied that the Jews knew +better than to worship idols, before the law was given. If this is so, +why should the law have been given? In all civilized countries, laws are +made and promulgated, not simply for the purpose of informing the people +as to what is right and wrong, but to inform them of the penalties to be +visited upon those who violate the laws. When the Ten Commandments +were given, no penalties were attached. Not one word was written on +the tables of stone as to the punishments that would be inflicted for +breaking any or all of the inspired laws. The people should not have +been punished for violating a commandment before it was given. And yet, +in this case, Moses commanded the sons of Levi to take their swords and +slay every man his brother, his companion, and his neighbor. The brutal +order was obeyed, and three thousand men were butchered.. The Levites +consecrated themselves unto the Lord by murdering their sons, and their +brothers, for having violated a commandment before it had been given. +</p> +<p> +It has been contended for many years that the Ten Commandments are the +foundation of all ideas of justice and of law. Eminent jurists have +bowed to popular prejudice, and deformed their works by statements to +the effect that the Mosaic laws are the fountains from which sprang all +ideas of right and wrong. Nothing can be more stupidly false than such +assertions. Thousands of years before Moses was born, the Egyptians +had a code of laws. They had laws against blasphemy, murder, adultery, +larceny, perjury, laws for the collection of debts, the enforcement +of contracts, the ascertainment of damages, the redemption of property +pawned, and upon nearly every subject of human interest. The Egyptian +code was far better than the Mosaic. +</p> +<p> +Laws spring from the instinct of self-preservation. Industry objected +to supporting idleness, and laws were made against theft. Laws were made +against murder, because a very large majority of the people have always +objected to being murdered. All fundamental laws were born simply of the +instinct of self-defence. Long before the Jewish savages assembled at +the foot of Sinai, laws had been made and enforced, not only in Egypt +and India, but by every tribe that ever existed. +</p> +<p> +It is impossible for human beings to exist together, without certain +rules of conduct, certain ideas of the proper and improper, of the right +and wrong, growing out of the relation. Certain rules must be made, +and must be enforced. This implies law, trial and punishment. Whoever +produces anything by weary labor, does not need a revelation from heaven +to teach him that he has a right to the thing produced. Not one of +the learned gentlemen who pretend that the Mosaic laws are filled with +justice and intelligence, would live, for a moment, in any country where +such laws were in force. +</p> +<p> +Nothing can be more wonderful than the medical ideas of Jehovah. He +had the strangest notions about the cause and cure of disease. With +him everything was miracle and wonder. In the fourteenth chapter of +Leviticus, we find the law for cleansing a leper:—"Then shall the +priest take for him that is to be cleansed, two birds, alive and clean, +and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest shall command +that one of the birds be killed in an <i>earthen</i> vessel, over <i>running</i> +water. As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and +the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them, and the living bird, +in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. And he +shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, seven +times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird +loose into the open field." +</p> +<p> +We are told that God himself gave these directions to Moses. Does +anybody believe this? Why should the bird be killed in an <i>earthen</i> +vessel? Would the charm be broken if the vessel was of wood? Why over +<i>running</i> water? What would be thought of a physician now, who would +give a prescription like that? +</p> +<p> +Is it not strange that God, although he gave hundreds of directions for +the purpose of discovering the presence of leprosy, and for cleansing +the leper after he was healed, forgot to tell how that disease could be +cured? Is it not wonderful that while God told his people what animals +were fit for food, he failed to give a list of plants that man might +eat? Why did he leave his children to find out the hurtful and the +poisonous by experiment, knowing that experiment, in millions of cases, +must be death? +</p> +<p> +When reading the history of the Jewish people, of their flight from +slavery to death, of their exchange of tyrants, I must confess that my +sympathies are all aroused in their behalf. They were cheated, +deceived and abused. Their god was quick-tempered, unreasonable, cruel, +revengeful and dishonest. He was always promising but never performed. +He wasted time in ceremony and childish detail, and in the exaggeration +of what he had done. It is impossible for me to conceive of a character +more utterly detestable than that of the Hebrew god. He had solemnly +promised the Jews that he would take them from Egypt to a land flowing +with milk and honey. He had led them to believe that in a little while +their troubles would be over, and that they would soon in the land of +Canaan, surrounded by their wives and little ones, forget, the stripes +and tears of Egypt. After promising the poor wanderers again and again +that he would lead them in safety to the promised land of joy and +plenty, this God, forgetting every promise, said to the wretches in his +power:—"Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness and your children +shall wander until your carcasses be wasted." This curse was the +conclusion of the whole matter. Into this dust of death and night faded +all the promises of God. Into this rottenness of wandering despair fell +all the dreams of liberty and home. Millions of corpses were left to rot +in the desert, and each one certified to the dishonesty of Jehovah. I +cannot believe these things. They are so cruel and heartless, that my +blood is chilled and my sense of justice shocked. A book that is equally +abhorrent to my head and heart, cannot be accepted as a revelation from +God. +</p> +<p> +When we think of the poor Jews, destroyed, murdered, bitten by serpents, +visited by plagues, decimated by famine, butchered by each other, +swallowed by the earth, frightened, cursed, starved, deceived, robbed +and outraged, how thankful we should be that we are not the chosen +people of God. No wonder that they longed for the slavery of Egypt, and +remembered with sorrow the unhappy day when they exchanged masters. +Compared with Jehovah, Pharaoh was a benefactor, and the tyranny of +Egypt was freedom to those who suffered the liberty of God. +</p> +<p> +While reading the Pentateuch, I am filled with indignation, pity and +horror. Nothing can be sadder than the history of the starved and +frightened wretches who wandered over the desolate crags and sands of +wilderness and desert, the prey of famine, sword, and plague. Ignorant +and superstitious to the last degree, governed by falsehood, plundered +by hypocrisy, they were the sport of priests, and the food of fear. God +was their greatest enemy, and death their only friend. +</p> +<p> +It is impossible to conceive of a more thoroughly despicable, hateful, +and arrogant being, than the Jewish god. He is without a redeeming +feature. In the mythology of the world he has no parallel. He, only, is +never touched by agony and tears. He delights only in blood and pain. +Human affections are naught to him. He cares neither for love nor music, +beauty nor joy. A false friend, an unjust judge, a braggart, hypocrite, +and tyrant, sincere in hatred, jealous, vain, and revengeful, false in +promise, honest in curse, suspicious, ignorant, and changeable, infamous +and hideous:—such is the God of the Pentateuch. +</p> +<center> +XXIV. CONFESS AND AVOID +</center> +<p> +The scientific Christians now admit that the Bible is not inspired in +its astronomy, geology, botany, zoology, nor in any science. In other +words, they admit that on these subjects, the Bible cannot be depended +upon. If all the statements in the Scriptures were true, there would be +no necessity for admitting that some of them are not inspired. A +Christian will not admit that a passage in the Bible is uninspired, +until he is satisfied that it is untrue. Orthodoxy itself has at last +been compelled to say, that while a passage may be true and uninspired, +it cannot be inspired if false. +</p> +<p> +If the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy and geology when +the Bible was introduced among them, as they do now, there never could +have been one believer in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of +the various parts of the Bible had known as much about the sciences as +is now known by every intelligent man, the book never could have +been written. It was produced by ignorance, and has been believed and +defended by its author. It has lost power in the proportion that man +has gained knowledge. A few years ago, this book was appealed to in the +settlement of all scientific questions; but now, even the clergy +confess that in such matters, it has ceased to speak with the voice +of authority. For the establishment of facts, the word of man is now +considered far better than the word of God. In the world of science, +Jehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. All that God +told Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes +compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Laplace, and Humboldt. In +matters of fact, the Bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard. +Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years +ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the +Bible. The tables have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring to +prove that the Bible is not inconsistent with Science. The standard has +been changed. +</p> +<p> +For many ages, the Christians contended that the Bible, viewed simply as +a literary performance, was beyond all other books, and that man without +the assistance of God could not produce its equal. This claim was made +when but few books existed, and the Bible, being the only book generally +known, had no rival. But this claim, like the other, has been abandoned +by many, and soon will be, by all. Com pared with Shakespeare's "book +and volume of the brain," the "sacred" Bible shrinks and seems as feebly +impotent and vain, as would a pipe of Fan, when some great organ, voiced +with every tone, from the hoarse thunder of the sea to the winged warble +of a mated bird, floods and fills cathedral aisles with all the wealth +of sound. +</p> +<p> +It is now maintained—and this appears to be the last fortification +behind which the doctrine of inspiration skulks and crouches—that the +Bible, although false and mistaken in its astronomy, geology, geography, +history and philosophy, is inspired in its morality. It is now claimed +that had it not been for this book, the world would have been inhabited +only by savages, and that had it not been for the Holy Scriptures, man +never would have even dreamed of the unity of God. A belief in one God +is claimed to be a dogma of almost infinite importance, that with out +this belief civilization is impossible, and that this fact is the sun +around which all the virtues revolve. For my part, I think it infinitely +more important to believe in man. Theology is a superstition—Humanity a +religion. +</p> +<center> +XXV. "INSPIRED" SLAVERY +</center> +<p> +Perhaps the Bible was inspired upon the subject of human slavery. Is +there, in the civilized world, to-day, a clergyman who believes in the +divinity of slavery? Does the Bible teach man to enslave his brother? If +it does, is it not blasphemous to say that it is inspired of God? If +you find the institution of slavery upheld in a book said to have been +written by God, what would you expect to find in a book inspired by the +devil? Would you expect to find that book in favor of liberty? Modern +Christians, ashamed of the God of the Old Testament, endeavor now to +show that slavery was neither commanded nor opposed by Jehovah. Nothing +can be plainer than the following passages from the twenty-fifth chapter +of Leviticus. "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn +among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with +you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. +And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to +inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bondmen forever. Both +thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the +heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen, and +bondmaids." +</p> +<p> +Can we believe in this, the Nineteenth Century, that these infamous +passages were inspired by God? that God approved not only of human +slavery, but instructed his chosen people to buy the women, children and +babes of the heathen round about them? If it was right for the Hebrews +to buy, it was also right for the heathen to sell. This God, by +commanding the Hebrews to buy, approved of the selling of sons and +daughters. The Canaanite who, tempted by gold, lured by avarice, sold +from the arms of his wife the dimpled babe, simply made it possible for +the Hebrews to obey the orders of their God. If God is the author of +the Bible, the reading of these passages ought to cover his cheeks with +shame. I ask the Christian world to-day, was it right for the heathen +to sell their children? Was it right for God not only to uphold, but to +command the infamous traffic in human flesh? Could the most revengeful +fiend, the most malicious vagrant in the gloom of hell, sink to a lower +moral depth than this? +</p> +<p> +According to this God, his chosen people were not only commanded to buy +of the heathen round about them, but were also permitted to buy each +other for a term of years. The law governing the purchase of Jews is +laid down in the twenty-first chapter of Exodus. "If thou buy a Hebrew +servant, six years shall he serve: and in the seventh he shall go out +free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: +if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master +have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the +wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by +himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my +wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall +bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto +the door-post: and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl: +and he shall serve him forever." +</p> +<p> +Do you believe that God was the author of this infamous law? Do you +believe that the loving father of us all, turned the dimpled arms of +babes into manacles of iron? Do you believe that he baited the dungeon +of servitude with wife and child? Is it possible to love a God who would +make such laws? Is it possible not to hate and despise him? +</p> +<p> +The heathen are not spoken of as human beings. Their rights are never +mentioned. They were the rightful food of the sword, and their bodies +were made for stripes and chains. +</p> +<p> +In the same chapter of the same inspired book, we are told that, "if a +man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he dies under his +hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day +or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money." +</p> +<p> +Must we believe that God called some of his children the money of +others? Can we believe that God made lashes upon the naked back, a +legal tender for labor performed? Must we regard the auction block as an +altar? Were blood hounds apostles? Was the slave-pen a temple? Were the +stealers and whippers of babes and women the justified children of God? +</p> +<p> +It is now contended that while the Old Testament is touched with the +barbarism of its time, that the New Testament is morally perfect, and +that on its pages can be found no blot or stain. As a matter of fact, +the New Testament is more decidedly in favor of human slavery than the +old. +</p> +<p> +For my part, I never will, I never can, worship a God who upholds the +institution of slavery. Such a God I hate and defy. I neither want his +heaven, nor fear his hell. +</p> +<center> +XXXVI. "INSPIRED" MARRIAGE +</center> +<p> +Is there an orthodox clergyman in the world, who will now declare that +he believes the institution of polygamy to be right? Is there one who +will publicly declare that, in his judgment, that institution ever was +right? Was there ever a time in the history of the world when it was +right to treat woman simply as property? Do not attempt to answer these +questions by saying, that the Bible is an exceedingly good book, that we +are indebted for our civilization to the sacred volume, and that without +it, man would lapse into savagery, and mental night. This is no answer. +Was there a time when the institution of polygamy was the highest +expression of human virtue? Is there a Christian woman, civilized, +intelligent, and free, who believes in the institution of polygamy? Are +we better, purer, and more intelligent than God was four thousand years +ago? Why should we imprison Mormons, and worship God? Polygamy is just +as pure in Utah, as it could have been in the promised land. Love and +Virtue are the same the whole world round, and Justice is the same in +every star. All the languages of the world are not sufficient to express +the filth of polygamy. It makes of man, a beast, of woman, a trembling +slave. It destroys the fireside, makes virtue an outcast, takes from +human speech its sweetest words, and leaves the heart a den, where crawl +and hiss the slimy serpents of most loathsome lust. Civilization rests +upon the family. The good family is the unit of good government. The +virtues grow about the holy hearth of home—they cluster, bloom, and +shed their perfume round the fireside where the one man loves the one +woman. Lover—husband—wife—mother—father—child—home!—? without +these sacred words, the world is but a lair, and men and women merely +beasts. +</p> +<p> +Why should the innocent maiden and the loving mother worship the +heartless Jewish God? Why should they, with pure and stainless lips, +read the vile record of inspired lust? +</p> +<p> +The marriage of the one man to the one woman is the citadel and fortress +of civilization. Without this, woman becomes the prey and slave of lust +and power, and man goes back to savagery and crime. From the bottom of +my heart I hate, abhor and execrate all theories of life, of which the +pure and sacred home is not the corner-stone. Take from the world the +family, the fireside, the children born of wedded love, and there is +nothing left. The home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily with +a heart of fire—the fairest flower in all the world. +</p> +<center> +XXVII. "INSPIRED" WAR +</center> +<p> +If the Bible be true, God commanded his chosen people to destroy men +simply for the crime of defending their native land. They were not +allowed to spare trembling and white-haired age, nor dimpled babes +clasped in the mothers' arms. They were ordered to kill women, and to +pierce, with the sword of war, the unborn child. "Our heavenly Father" +commanded the Hebrews to kill the men and women, the fathers, sons and +brothers, but to preserve the girls alive. Why were not the maidens also +killed? Why were they spared? Read the thirty-first chapter of Numbers, +and you will find that the maidens were given to the soldiers and the +priests. Is there, in all the history of war, a more infamous thing than +this? Is it possible that God permitted the violets of modesty, that +grow and shed their perfume in the maiden's heart, to be trampled +beneath the brutal feet of lust? If this was the order of God, what, +under the same circumstances, would have been the command of a devil? +When, in this age of the world, a woman, a wife, a mother, reads this +record, she should, with scorn and loathing, throw the book away. A +general, who now should make such an order, giving over to massacre +and rapine a conquered people, would be held in execration by the whole +civilized world. Yet, if the Bible be true, the supreme and infinite God +was once a savage. +</p> +<p> +A little while ago, out upon the western plains, in a little path +leading to a cabin, were found the bodies of two children and their +mother. Her breast was filled with wounds received in the defence of her +darlings. They had been murdered by the savages. Suppose when looking at +their lifeless forms, some one had said, "This was done by the command +of God!" In Canaan there were countless scenes like this. There was +no pity in inspired war. God raised the black flag, and commanded his +soldiers to kill even the smiling infant in its mother's arms. Who +is the blasphemer; the man who denies the existence of God, or he who +covers the robes of the Infinite with innocent blood? +</p> +<p> +We are told in the Pentateuch, that God, the father of us all, gave +thousands of maidens, after having killed their fathers, their mothers, +and their brothers, to satisfy the brutal lusts of savage men. If there +be a God, I pray him to write in his book, opposite my name, that I +denied this lie for him. +</p> +<center> +XXVIII. "INSPIRED" RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. +</center> +<p> +According to the Bible, God selected the Jewish people through whom to +make known the great fact, that he was the only true and living God. For +this purpose, he appeared on several occasions to Moses—came down to +Sinai's top clothed in cloud and fire, and wrought a thousand miracles +for the preservation and education of the Jewish people. In their +presence he opened the waters of the sea. For them he caused bread to +rain from heaven. To quench their thirst, water leaped from the dry and +barren rock. Their enemies were miraculously destroyed; and for forty +years, at least, this God took upon himself the government of the Jews. +But, after all this, many of the people had less confidence in him than +in gods of wood and stone. In moments of trouble, in periods of +disaster, in the darkness of doubt, in the hunger and thirst of famine, +instead of asking this God for aid, they turned and sought the help of +senseless things. This God, with all his power and wisdom, could not +even convince a few wandering and wretched savages that he was more +potent than the idols of Egypt. This God was not willing that the Jews +should think and investigate for themselves. For heresy, the penalty was +death. Where this God reigned, intellectual liberty was unknown. He +appealed only to brute force; he collected taxes by threatening plagues; +he demanded worship on pain of sword and fire; acting as spy, +inquisitor, judge and executioner. +</p> +<p> +In the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, we have the ideas of God as to +mental freedom. "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or +the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice +thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast +not known, thou nor thy fathers; namely of the gods of the people which +are around about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one +end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth, Thou shalt not +consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity +him, neither shalt thou spare him, neither shalt thou conceal him. But +thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put +him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And thou shalt +stone him with stones that he die." +</p> +<p> +This is the religious liberty of God; the toleration of Jehovah. If +I had lived in Palestine at that time, and my wife, the mother of my +children, had said to me, "I am tired of Jehovah, he is always asking +for blood; he is never weary of killing; he is always telling of his +might and strength; always telling what he has done for the Jews, +always asking for sacrifices; for doves and lambs—blood, nothing +but blood.—Let us worship the sun. Jehovah is too revengeful, too +malignant, too exacting. Let us worship the sun. The sun has clothed the +world in beauty; it has covered the earth with flowers; by its divine +light I first saw your face, and my beautiful babe."—If I had obeyed +the command of God, I would have killed her. My hand would have been +first upon her, and after that the hands of all the people, and she +would have been stoned with stones until she died. For my part, I would +never kill my wife, even if commanded so to do by the real God of this +universe. Think of taking up some ragged rock and hurling it against the +white bosom filled with love for you; and when you saw oozing from +the bruised lips of the death wound, the red current of her sweet +life—think of looking up to heaven and receiving the congratulations of +the infinite fiend whose commandment you had obeyed! +</p> +<p> +Can we believe that any such command was ever given by a merciful and +intelligent God? Suppose, however, that God did give this law to the +Jews, and did tell them that whenever a man preached a heresy, or +proposed to worship any other God that they should kill him; and suppose +that afterward this same God took upon himself flesh, and came to this +very chosen people and taught a different religion, and that thereupon +the Jews crucified him; I ask you, did he not reap exactly what he +had sown? What right would this God have to complain of a crucifixion +suffered in accordance with his own command? +</p> +<p> +Nothing can be more infamous than intellectual tyranny. To put chains +upon the body is as nothing compared with putting shackles on the brain. +No god is entitled to the worship or the respect of man who does not +give, even to the meanest of his children, every right that he claims +for himself. +</p> +<p> +If the Pentateuch be true, religious persecution is a duty. The dungeons +of the Inquisition were temples, and the clank of every chain upon +the limbs of heresy was music in the ear of God. If the Pentateuch was +inspired, every heretic should be destroyed; and every man who advocates +a fact inconsistent with the sacred book, should be consumed by sword +and flame. +</p> +<p> +In the Old Testament no one is told to reason with a heretic, and not +one word is said about relying upon argument, upon education, nor upon +intellectual development—nothing except simple brute force. Is there +to-day a Christian who will say that four thousand years ago, it was +the duty of a husband to kill his wife if she differed with him upon +the subject of religion? Is there one who will now say that, under such +circumstances, the wife ought to have been killed? Why should God be so +jealous of the wooden idols of the heathen? Could he not compete with +Baal? Was he envious of the success of the Egyptian magicians? Was it +not possible for him to make such a convincing display of his power as +to silence forever the voice of unbelief? Did this God have to resort to +force to make converts? Was he so ignorant of the structure of the human +mind as to believe all honest doubt a crime? If he wished to do away +with the idolatry of the Canaanites, why did he not appear to them? Why +did he not give them the tables of the law? Why did he only make known +his will to a few wandering savages in the desert of Sinai? Will some +theologian have the kindness to answer these questions? Will some +minister, who now believes in religious liberty, and eloquently +denounces the intolerance of Catholicism, explain these things; will he +tell us why he worships an intolerant God? Is a god who will burn a soul +forever in another world, better than a Christian who burns the body for +a few hours in this? Is there no intellectual liberty in heaven? Do the +angels all discuss questions on the same side? Are all the investigators +in perdition? Will the penitent thief, winged and crowned, laugh at the +honest folks in hell? Will the agony of the damned increase or decrease +the happiness of God? Will there be, in the universe, an eternal <i>auto +da fe?</i> +</p> +<center> +XXIX. CONCLUSION +</center> +<p> +If the Pentateuch is not inspired in its astronomy, geology, geography, +history or philosophy, if it is not inspired concerning slavery, +polygamy, war, law, religious or political liberty, or the rights of +men, women and children, what is it inspired in, or about? The unity +of God?—that was believed long before Moses was born. Special +providence?—that has been the doctrine of ignorance in all ages. +The rights of property?—theft was always a crime. The sacrifice of +animals?—that was a custom thousands of years before a Jew existed. +The sacredness of life?—there have always been laws against murder. +The wickedness of perjury?—truthfulness has always been a virtue. +The beauty of chastity?—the Pentateuch does not teach it. Thou shalt +worship no other God?—that has been the burden of all religions. +</p> +<p> +Is it possible that the Pentateuch could not have been written by +uninspired men? that the assistance of God was necessary to produce +these books? Is it possible that Galileo ascertained the mechanical +principles of "Virtual Velocity," the laws of falling bodies and of all +motion; that Copernicus ascertained the true position of the earth and +accounted for all celestial phenomena; that Kepler discovered his three +laws—discoveries of such importance that the 8th of May, 1618, may be +called the birthday of modern science; that Newton gave to the world +the Method of Fluxions, the Theory of Universal Gravitation, and the +Decomposition of Light; that Euclid, Cavalieri, Descartes, and Leibnitz, +almost completed the science of mathematics; that all the discoveries +in optics, hydrostatics, pneumatics and chemistry, the experiments, +discoveries, and inventions of Galvani, Volta, Franklin and Morse, of +Trevethick, Watt and Fulton and of all the pioneers of progress—that +all this was accomplished by uninspired men, while the writer of the +Pentateuch was directed and inspired by an infinite God? Is it possible +that the codes of China, India, Egypt, Greece and Rome were made by man, +and that the laws recorded in the Pentateuch were alone given by +God? Is it possible that Æschylus and Shakespeare, Burns, and Beranger, +Goethe and Schiller, and all the poets of the world, and all their +wondrous tragedies and songs, are but the work of men, while no +intelligence except the infinite God could be the author of the +Pentateuch? Is it possible that of all the books that crowd the +libraries of the world, the books of science, fiction, history and song, +that all save only one, have been produced by man? Is it possible that +of all these, the Bible only is the work of God? +</p> +<p> +If the Pentateuch is inspired, the civilization of our day is a mistake +and crime. There should be no political liberty. Heresy should be +trodden out beneath the bigot's brutal feet. Husbands should divorce +their wives at will, and make the mothers of their children houseless +and weeping wanderers. Polygamy ought to be practiced; women should +become slaves; we should buy the sons and daughters of the heathen and +make them bondmen and bondwomen forever. We should sell our own flesh +and blood, and have the right to kill our slaves. Men and women should +be stoned to death for laboring on the seventh day. "Mediums," such +as have familiar spirits, should be burned with fire. Every vestige of +mental liberty should be destroyed, and reason's holy torch extinguished +in the martyr's blood. +</p> +<p> +Is it not far better and wiser to say that the Pentateuch while +containing some good laws, some truths, some wise and useful things is, +after all, deformed and blackened by the savagery of its time? Is it not +far better and wiser to take the good and throw the bad away? +</p> +<p> +Let us admit what we know to be true; that Moses was mistaken about a +thousand things; that the story of creation is not true; that the Garden +of Eden is a myth; that the serpent and the tree of knowledge, and the +fall of man are but fragments of old mythologies lost and dead; that +woman was not made out of a rib; that serpents never had the power of +speech; that the sons of God did not marry the daughters of men; that +the story of the flood and ark is not exactly true; that the tower of +Babel is a mistake; that the confusion of tongues is a childish thing; +that the origin of the rainbow is a foolish fancy; that Methuselah did +not live nine hundred and sixty-nine years; that Enoch did not leave +this world, taking with him his flesh and bones; that the story of Sodom +and Gomorrah is somewhat improbable; that burning brimstone never fell +like rain; that Lot's wife was not changed into chloride of sodium; that +Jacob did not, in fact, put his hip out of joint wrestling with God; +that the history of Tamar might just as well have been left out; that a +belief in Pharaoh's dreams is not essential to salvation; that it makes +but little difference whether the rod of Aaron was changed to a serpent +or not; that of all the wonders said to have been performed in Egypt, +the greatest is, that anybody ever believed the absurd account; that +God did not torment the innocent cattle on account of the sins of their +owners; that he did not kill the first born of the poor maid behind +the mill because of Pharaoh's crimes; that flies and frogs were not +ministers of God's wrath; that lice and locusts were not the executors +of his will; that seventy people did not, in two hundred and fifteen +years, increase to three million; that three priests could not eat +six hundred pigeons in a day; that gazing at a brass serpent could not +extract poison from the blood; that God did not go in partnership with +hornets; that he did not murder people simply because they asked for +something to eat; that he did not declare the making of hair oil +and ointment an offence to be punished with death; that he did not +miraculously preserve cloth and leather; that he was not afraid of wild +beasts; that he did not punish heresy with sword and fire; that he was +not jealous, revengeful, and unjust; that he knew all about the sun, +moon, and stars; that he did not threaten to kill people for eating the +fat of an ox; that he never told Aaron to draw cuts to see which of two +goats should be killed; that he never objected to clothes made of woolen +mixed with linen; that if he objected to dwarfs, people with flat noses +and too many fingers, he ought not to have created such folks; that +he did not demand human sacrifices as set forth in the last chapter +of Leviticus; that he did not object to the raising of horses; that he +never commanded widows to spit in the faces of their brothers-in-law; +that several contradictory accounts of the same transaction cannot all +be true; that God did not talk to Abraham as one man talks to another; +that angels were not in the habit of walking about the earth eating veal +dressed with milk and butter, and making bargains about the destruction +of cities; that God never turned himself into a flame of fire, and lived +in a bush; that he never met Moses in a hotel and tried to kill him; +that it was absurd to perform miracles to induce a king to act in a +certain way and then harden his heart so that he would refuse; that God +was not kept from killing the Jews by the fear that the Egyptians would +laugh at him; that he did not secretly bury a man and then allow the +corpse to write an account of the funeral; that he never believed the +firmament to be solid; that he knew slavery was and always would be a +frightful crime; that polygamy is but stench and filth; that the brave +soldier will always spare an unarmed foe; that only cruel cowards +slay the conquered and the helpless; that no language can describe the +murderer of a smiling babe; that God did not want the blood of doves and +lambs; that he did not love the smell of burning flesh; that he did not +want his altars daubed with blood; that he did not pretend that the sins +of a people could be transferred to a goat; that he did not believe in +witches, wizards, spooks, and devils; that he did not test the virtue of +woman with dirty water; that he did not suppose that rabbits chewed the +cud; that he never thought there were any four-footed birds; that he did +not boast for several hundred years that he had vanquished an Egyptian +king; that a dry stick did not bud, blossom, and bear almonds in one +night; that manna did not shrink and swell, so that each man could +gather only just one omer; that it was never wrong to "countenance the +poor man in his cause;" that God never told a people not to live in +peace with their neighbors; that he did not spend forty days with Moses +on Mount Sinai giving him patterns for making clothes, tongs, basins, +and snuffers; that maternity is not a sin; that physical deformity is +not a crime; that an atonement cannot be made for the soul by shedding +innocent blood; that killing a dove over running water will not make its +blood a medicine; that a god who demands love knows nothing of the human +heart; that one who frightens savages with loud noises is unworthy the +love of civilized men; that one who destroys children on account of +the sins of their fathers is a monster; that an infinite god never +threatened to give people the itch; that he never sent wild beasts to +devour babes; that he never ordered the violation of maidens; that +he never regarded patriotism as a crime; that he never ordered the +destruction of unborn children; that he never opened the earth and +swallowed wives and babes because husbands and fathers had displeased +him; that he never demanded that men should kill their sons and +brothers, for the purpose of sanctifying themselves; that we cannot +please God by believing the improbable; that credulity is not a virtue; +that investigation is not a crime; that every mind should be free; +that all religious persecution is infamous in God, as well as man; that +without liberty, virtue is impossible; that without freedom, even love +cannot exist; that every man should be allowed to think and to express +his thoughts; that woman is the equal of man; that children should be +governed by love and reason; that the family relation is sacred; that +war is a hideous crime; that all intolerance is born of ignorance and +hate; that the freedom of today is the hope of to-morrow; that the +enlightened present ought not to fall upon its knees and blindly worship +the barbaric past; and that every free, brave and enlightened man should +publicly declare that all the ignorant, infamous, heartless, hideous +things recorded in the "inspired" Pentateuch are not the words of God, +but simply "Some Mistakes of Moses." +</p> +<a name="link0003"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> + +<div style="height: 4em;"><br><br><br><br></div> + +<h2> + SOME REASONS WHY +</h2> +<h3> + I. +</h3> +<p> +RELIGION makes enemies instead of friends. That one word, "religion," +covers all the horizon of memory with visions of war, of outrage, of +persecution, of tyranny, and death. That one word brings to the mind +every instrument with which man has tortured man. In that one word are +all the fagots and flames and dungeons of the past, and in that word is +the infinite and eternal hell of the future. +</p> +<p> +In the name of universal benevolence Christians have hated their +fellow-men. Although they have been preaching universal love, the +Christian nations are the warlike nations of the world. The most +destructive weapons of war have been invented by Christians. The +musket, the revolver, the rifled canon, the bombshell, the torpedo, the +explosive bullet, have been invented by Christian brains. +</p> +<p> +Above all other arts, the Christian world has placed the art of war. +</p> +<p> +A Christian nation has never had the slightest respect for the rights of +barbarians; neither has any Christian sect any respect for the rights +of other sects. Anciently, the sects discussed with fire and sword, and +even now, something happens almost every day to show that the old spirit +that was in the Inquisition still slumbers in the Christian breast. +</p> +<p> +Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds other people in +contempt. +</p> +<p> +Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is +in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of +the imperfections of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological +certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance. Believing himself +to be the slave of God, he imitates his master, and of all tyrants, the +worst is a slave in power. +</p> +<p> +When a man really believes that it is necessary to do a certain thing +to be happy forever, or that a certain belief is necessary to ensure +eternal joy, there is in that man no spirit of concession. He divides +the whole world into saints and sinners, into believers and unbelievers, +into God's sheep and Devil's goats, into people who will be glorified +and people who will be damned. +</p> +<p> +A Christian nation can make no compromise with one not Christian; it +will either compel that nation to accept its doctrine, or it will wage +war. If Christ, in fact, said "I came not to bring peace but a sword," +it is the only prophecy in the New Testament that has been literally +fulfilled. +</p> +<center> +II. DUTIES TO GOD. +</center> +<p> +RELIGION is supposed to consist in a discharge of the duties we owe to +God. In other words, we are taught that God is exceedingly anxious that +we should believe a certain thing. For my part, I do not believe that +there is any infinite being to whom we owe anything. The reason I say +this is, we can not owe any duty to any being who requires nothing—to +any being that we cannot possibly help, to any being whose happiness we +cannot increase. If God is infinite, we cannot make him happier than +he is. If God is infinite, we can neither give, nor can he receive, +anything. Anything that we do or fail to do, cannot, in the slightest +degree, affect an infinite God; consequently, no relations can exist +between the finite and the Infinite, if by relations is meant mutual +duties and obligations. +</p> +<p> +Some tell us that it is the desire of God that we should worship him. +What for? Why does he desire worship? Others tell us that we should +sacrifice something to him. What for? Is he in want? Can we assist him? +Is he unhappy? Is he in trouble? Does he need human sympathy? We cannot +assist the Infinite, but we can assist our fellow-men. We can feed the +hungry and clothe the naked, and enlighten the ignorant, and we can +help, in some degree at least, toward covering this world with the +mantle of joy. +</p> +<p> +I do not believe there is any being in this universe who gives rain +for praise, who gives sunshine for prayer, or who blesses a man simply +because he kneels. +</p> +<p> +The Infinite cannot receive praise or worship. +</p> +<p> +The Infinite can neither hear nor answer prayer. +</p> +<p> +An Infinite personality is an infinite impossibility. +</p> +<center> +III. INSPIRATION. +</center> +<p> +WE are told that we have in our possession the inspired will of God. What +is meant by the word "inspired" is not exactly known; but whatever else +it may mean, certainly it means that the "inspired" must be the true. If +it is true, there is, in fact, no need of its being inspired—the truth +will take care of itself. +</p> +<p> +The church is forced to say that the Bible differs from all other books; +it is forced to say that it contains the actual will of God. Let us then +see what inspiration really is. A man looks at the sea, and the sea +says something to him. It makes an impression upon his mind. It awakens +memory, and this impression depends upon the man's experience—upon +his intellectual capacity. Another looks upon the same sea. He has a +different brain; he has had a different experience. The sea may speak +to him of joy, to the other of grief and tears. The sea cannot tell the +same thing to any two human beings, because no two human beings have had +the same experience. +</p> +<p> +A year ago, while the cars were going from Boston to Gloucester, we +passed through Manchester. As the cars stopped, a lady sitting opposite, +speaking to her husband, looking out of the window and catching, for the +first time, a view of the sea, cried out, "Is it not beautiful!" and the +husband replied, "I'll bet you could dig clams right here!" +</p> +<p> +Another, standing upon the shore, listening to what the great Greek +tragedian called "the multitudinous laughter of the sea," may say: Every +drop has visited all the shores of the earth; every one has been frozen +in the vast and icy North; every one has fallen in snow, has been +whirled by storms around mountain peaks; every one has been kissed to +vapor by the sun; every one has worn the seven-hued garment of light; +every one has fallen in pleasant rain, gurgled from springs and laughed +in brooks while lovers wooed upon the banks, and every one has rushed +with mighty rivers back to the sea's embrace. Everything in nature tells +a different story to all eyes that see and to all ears that hear. +</p> +<p> +Once in my life, and once only, I heard Horace Greeley deliver a +lecture. I think its title was, "Across the Continent." At last he +reached the mammoth trees of California, and I thought "Here is an +opportunity for the old man to indulge his fancy. Here are trees that +have outlived a thousand human governments. There are limbs above his +head older than the pyramids. While man was emerging from barbarism +to something like civilization, these trees were growing. Older than +history, every one appeared to be a memory, a witness, and a prophecy. +The same wind that filled the sails of the Argonauts had swayed these +trees." But these trees said nothing of this kind to Mr. Greeley. Upon +these subjects not a word was told to him. Instead, he took his pencil, +and after figuring awhile, remarked: "One of these trees, sawed into +inch-boards, would make more than three hundred thousand feet of +lumber." +</p> +<p> +I was once riding on the cars in Illinois. There had been a violent +thunder-storm. The rain had ceased, the sun was going down. The +great clouds had floated toward the west, and there they assumed most +wonderful architectural shapes. There were temples and palaces domed +and turreted, and they were touched with silver, with amethyst and gold. +They looked like the homes of the Titans, or the palaces of the gods. +A man was sitting near me. I touched him and said, "Did you ever see +anything so beautiful!" He looked out. He saw nothing of the cloud, +nothing of the sun, nothing of the color; he saw only the country and +replied, "Yes, it is beautiful; I always did like rolling land." On +another occasion I was riding in a stage. There had been a snow, and +after the snow a sleet, and all the trees were bent, and all the boughs +were arched. Every fence, every log cabin had been transfigured, touched +with a glory almost beyond this world. The great fields were a pure and +perfect white; the forests, drooping beneath their load of gems, made +wonderful caves, from which one almost expected to see troops of fairies +come. The whole world looked like a bride, jewelled from head to foot. +A German on the back seat, hearing our talk, and our exclamations of +wonder leaned forward, looked out of the stage window and said: "Yes, it +looks like a clean table cloth!" +</p> +<p> +So, when we look upon a flower, a painting, a statue, a star, or a +violet, the more we know, the more we have experienced, the more we +have thought, the more we remember, the more the statue, the star, +the painting, the violet has to tell. Nature says to me all that I am +capable of understanding—gives all that I can receive. +</p> +<p> +As with star, or flower, or sea, so with a book. A man reads +Shakespeare. What does he get from him? All that he has the mind to +understand. He gets his little cup full. Let another read him who knows +nothing of the drama, nothing of the impersonations of passion, and what +does he get? Almost nothing. Shakespeare has a different story for each +reader. He is a world in which each recognizes his acquaintances—he may +know a few, he may know all. +</p> +<p> +The impression that nature makes upon the mind, the stories told by sea +and star and flower, must be the natural food of thought. Leaving out +for the moment the impression gained from ancestors, the hereditary +fears and drifts and trends—the natural food of thought must be the +impression made upon the brain by coming in contact through the medium +of the five senses with what we call the outward world. The brain is +natural. Its food is natural. The result, thought, must be natural. The +supernatural can be constructed with no material except the natural. Of +the supernatural we can have no conception. Thought may be deformed, and +the thought of one may be strange to, and denominated as unnatural +by, another; but it cannot be supernatural. It may be weak, it may be +insane, but it is not supernatural. Above the natural man cannot rise, +even with the aid of fancy's wings. There can can be deformed ideas, +as there are deformed persons. There can be religions monstrous and +misshapen, but they must be naturally produced. Some people have ideas +about what they are pleased to call the supernatural; but what they +call the supernatural is simply the deformed. The world is to each man +according to each man. It takes the world as it really is and that man +to make that man's world, and that man's world cannot exist without that +man. +</p> +<p> +You may ask, and what of all this? I reply, as with everything in +nature, so with the Bible. It has a different story for each reader. Is +then the Bible a different book to every human being who reads it? It +is. Can God then, through the Bible, make the same revelation to two +persons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who reads it is the man who +inspires. Inspiration is in the man, as well as in the book. God should +have inspired readers as well as writers. +</p> +<p> +You may reply: "God knew that his book would be understood differently +by each one, and that he really intended that it should be understood as +it is understood by each." If this is so, then my understanding of the +Bible is the real revelation to me. If this is so, I have no right to +take the understanding of another. I must take the revelation made to me +through my understanding, and by that revelation I must stand. Suppose +then, that I do read this Bible honestly, fairly, and when I get through +I am compelled to say, "The book is not true." If this is the honest +result, then you are compelled to say, either that God has made no +revelation to me, or that the revelation that it is not true, is the +revelation made to me, and by which I am bound. If the book and my brain +are both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the +book and the brain do not agree? Either God should have written a book +to fit my brain, or should have made my brain to fit his book. +</p> +<p> +The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of him who +reads. There was a time when its geology, its astronomy, its natural +history, were inspired. That time has passed. There was a time when +its morality satisfied the men who ruled mankind. That time has passed. +There was a time when the tyrant regarded its laws as good; when the +master believed in its liberty; when strength gloried in its passages; +but these laws never satisfied the oppressed, they were never quoted by +the slave. +</p> +<p> +We have a sacred book, an inspired Bible, and I am told that this book +was written by the same being who made every star, and who peopled +infinite space with infinite worlds. I am also told that God created +man, and that man is totally depraved. It has always seemed to me that +an infinite being has no right to make imperfect things. I may be +mistaken; but this is the only planet I have ever been on; I live in +what might be called one of the rural districts of this universe, +consequently I may be mistaken; I simply give the best and largest +thought I have. +</p> +<center> +IV. GOD'S EXPERIMENT WITH THE JEWS +</center> +<p> +THE Bible tells us that men became so bad that God destroyed them all +with the exception of eight persons; that afterwards he chose Abraham +and some of his kindred, a wandering tribe, for the purpose of seeing +whether or no they could be civilized. He had no time to waste with all +the world. The Egyptians at that time, a vast and splendid nation, +having a system of laws and free schools, believing in the marriage of +the one man to the one woman; believing, too, in the rights of woman—a +nation that had courts of justice and understood the philosophy of +damages—these people had received no revelation from God,—they were +left to grope in Nature's night. He had no time to civilize India, +wherein had grown a civilization that fills the world with wonder +still—a people with a language as perfect as ours, a people who had +produced philosophers, scientists, poets. He had no time to waste on +them; but he took a few, the tribe of Abraham. He established a perfect +despotism—with no schools, with no philosophy, with no art, with no +music—nothing but the sacrifices of dumb beasts—nothing but the abject +worship of a slave. Not a word upon geology, upon astronomy; nothing, +even, upon the science of medicine. Thus God spent hours and hours with +Moses upon the top of Sinai, giving directions for ascertaining the +presence of leprosy and for preventing its spread, but it never occurred +to Jehovah to tell Moses how it could be cured. He told them a few +things about what they might eat—prohibiting among other things +four-footed birds, and one thing upon the subject of cooking. From the +thunders and lightnings of Sinai he proclaimed this vast and wonderful +fact: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." He took these +people, according to our sacred Scriptures, under his immediate care, +and for the purpose of controlling them he wrought wonderful miracles in +their sight. +</p> +<p> +Is it not a little curious that no priest of one religion has ever been +able to astonish a priest of another religion by telling a miracle? Our +missionaries tell the Hindoos the miracles of the Bible, and the Hindoo +priests, without the movement of a muscle, hear them and then recite +theirs, and theirs do not astonish our missionaries in the least! Is it +not a little curious that the priests of one religion never believe the +priests of another? Is it not a little strange that the believers +in sacred books regard all except their own as having been made by +hypocrites and fools? +</p> +<p> +I heard the other day a story. A gentleman was telling some wonderful +things and the listeners, with one exception, were saying, as he +proceeded with his tale, "Is it possible?" "Did you ever hear anything +so wonderful?" and when he had concluded, there was a kind of chorus +of "Is it possible?" and "Can it be?" One man, however, sat perfectly +quiet, utterly unmoved. Another listener said to him "Did you hear +that?" and he replied "Yes." "Well," said the other, "You did not +manifest much astonishment." "Oh, no," was the answer, "I am a liar +myself." +</p> +<p> +I am told by the sacred Scriptures that, as a matter of fact, God, even +with the help of miracles, failed to civilize the Jews, and this shows +of how little real benefit, after all, it is, to have a ruler much above +the people, or to simply excite the wonder of mankind. Infinite wisdom, +if the account be true, could not civilize a single tribe. Laws made by +Jehovah himself were not obeyed, and every effort of Jehovah failed. +It is claimed that God made known his law and inspired men to write +and teach his will, and yet, it was found utterly impossible to reform +mankind. +</p> +<center> +V. CIVILIZED COUNTRIES +</center> +<p> +IN all civilized countries, it is now passionately asserted that slavery +is a crime; that a war of conquest is murder; that polygamy enslaves +woman, degrades man and destroys home; that nothing is more infamous +than the slaughter of decrepit men, of helpless mothers, and of +prattling babes; that captured maidens should not be given to their +captors; that wives should not be stoned to death for differing with +their husbands on the subject of religion. We know that there was +a time, in the history of most nations, when all these crimes were +regarded as divine institutions. Nations entertaining this view now are +regarded as savage, and, with the exception of the South Sea Islanders, +Feejees, a few tribes in Central Africa, and some citizens of Delaware, +no human beings are found degraded enough to agree upon these subjects +with Jehovah. +</p> +<p> +The only evidence we can have that a nation has ceased to be savage, is +that it has abandoned these doctrines of savagery. +</p> +<p> +To every one except a theologian, it is easy to account for these +mistakes and crimes by saying that civilization is a painful growth; +that the moral perceptions are cultivated through ages of tyranny, of +crime, and of heroism; that it requires centuries for man to put out the +eyes of self and hold in lofty and in equal poise the golden scales +of Justice. Conscience is born of suffering. Mercy is the child of +the imagination. Man advances as he becomes acquainted with his +surroundings, with the mutual obligations of life, and learns to take +advantage of the forces of nature. +</p> +<p> +The believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to say, that +there was a time when slavery was right, when women could sell their +babes, when polygamy was the highest form of virtue, when wars of +extermination were waged with the sword of mercy, when religious +toleration was a crime, and when death was the just penalty for having +expressed an honest thought. He is compelled to insist that Jehovah is +as bad now as he was then; that he is as good now as he was then. Once, +all the crimes that I have mentioned were commanded by God; now they are +prohibited. Once, God was in favor of them all; now the Devil is their +defender. In other words, the Devil entertains the same opinion to-day +that God held four thousand years ago. The Devil is as good now as +Jehovah was then, and God was as bad then as the Devil is now. Other +nations besides the Jews had similar laws and ideas—believed in and +practiced the same crimes, and yet, it is not claimed that they received +a revelation. They had no knowledge of the true God, and yet they +practiced the same crimes, of their own motion, that the Jews did by +command of Jehovah. From this it would seem that man can do wrong +without a special revelation. +</p> +<p> +The passages upholding slavery, polygamy, war and religious persecution +are certainly not evidences of the inspiration of that book. Suppose +nothing had been in the Old Testament upholding these crimes, would +the modern Christian suspect that it was not inspired on that account? +Suppose nothing had been in the Old Testament except laws in favor of +these crimes, would it still be insisted that it was inspired? If the +Devil had inspired a book, will some Christian tell us in what respect, +on the subjects of slavery, polygamy, war and liberty, it would have +differed from some parts of the Old Testament? Suppose we knew +that after inspired men had finished the Bible the Devil had gotten +possession of it and had written a few passages, what part would +Christians now pick out as being probably his work? Which of the +following passages would be selected as having been written by the +Devil: "Love thy neighbor as thyself," or "Kill all the males among the +little ones, and kill every woman, but all the women children keep alive +for yourselves"? +</p> +<p> +Is there a believer in the Bible who does not now wish that God, amid +the thunders and lightnings of Sinai, had said to Moses that man should +not own his fellow-man; that women should not sell their babes; that all +men should be allowed to think and investigate for themselves, and that +the sword never should be unsheathed to shed innocent blood? Is there +a believer who would not be delighted to find that every one of the +infamous passages are interpolations, and that the skirts of God were +never reddened by the blood of maiden, wife, or babe? Is there an honest +man who does not regret that God commanded a husband to stone his wife +for suggesting the worship of some other God? Surely we do not need +an inspired book to teach us that slavery is right, that polygamy is +virtue, and that intellectual liberty is a crime. +</p> +<center> +VI. A COMPARISON OF BOOKS +</center> +<p> +LET us compare the gems of Jehovah with Pagan paste. It may be that +the best way to illustrate what I have said, is to compare the supposed +teachings of Jehovah with those of persons who never wrote an inspired +line. In all ages of which any record has been preserved, men have given +their ideas of justice, charity, liberty, love and law. If the Bible is +the work of God, it should contain the sublimest truths, it should excel +the works of man, it should contain the loftiest definitions of justice, +the best conceptions of human liberty, the clearest outlines of duty, +the tenderest and noblest thoughts. Upon every page should be found the +luminous evidence of its divine origin. It should contain grander and +more wonderful things than man has written. +</p> +<p> +It may be said that it is unfair to call attention to bad things in the +Bible. To this it may be replied that a divine being ought not to put +bad things in his book. If the Bible now upholds what we call crimes, +it will not do to say that it is not verbally inspired. If the words are +not inspired, what is? It may be said, that the thoughts are inspired. +This would include only thoughts expressed without words. If ideas are +inspired, they must be expressed by inspired words—that is to say, by +an inspired arrangement of words. If a sculptor were inspired of God to +make a statue, we would not say that the marble was inspired, but +the statue—that is to say, the relation of part to part, the married +harmony of form and function. The language, the words, take the place of +the marble, and it is the arrangement of the words that Christians claim +to be inspired. If there is an uninspired word, or a word in the wrong +place, until that word is known a doubt is cast on every word the book +contains. +</p> +<p> +If it was worth God's while to make a revelation at all, it was +certainly worth his while to see that it was correctly made—that it was +absolutely preserved. +</p> +<p> +Why should God allow an inspired book to be interpolated? If it was +worth while to inspire men to write it, it was worth while to +inspire men to preserve it; and why should he allow another person to +interpolate in it that which was not inspired? He certainly would not +have allowed the man he inspired to write contrary to the inspiration. +He should have preserved his revelation. Neither will it do to say that +God adapted his revelation to the prejudices of man. It was necessary +for him to adapt his revelation to the capacity of man, but certainly +God would not confirm a barbarian in his prejudices. He would not +fortify a heathen in his crimes.... +</p> +<p> +If a revelation is of any importance, it is to eradicate prejudice. +They tell us now that the Jews were so ignorant, so bad, that God was +compelled to justify their crimes, in order to have any influence +with them. They say that if he had declared slavery and polygamy to be +crimes, the Jews would have refused to receive the Ten Commandments. +They tell us that God did the best he could; that his real intention was +to lead them along slowly, so that in a few hundred years they would be +induced to admit that larceny and murder and polygamy and slavery were +not virtues. I suppose if we now wished to break a cannibal of the bad +habit of devouring missionaries, we would first induce him to cook +them in a certain way, saying: "To eat cooked missionary is one step +in advance of eating your missionary raw. After a few years, a little +mutton could be cooked with missionary, and year after year the amount +of mutton could be increased and the amount of missionary decreased, +until in the fullness of time the dish could be entirely mutton, and +after that the missionaries would be absolutely safe." +</p> +<p> +If there is anything of value, it is liberty—liberty of body, liberty +of mind. The liberty of body is the reward of labor. Intellectual +liberty is the air of the soul, the sunshine of the mind, and without +it, the world is a prison, the universe a dungeon. +</p> +<p> +If the Bible is really inspired, Jehovah commanded the Jewish people to +buy the children of the strangers that sojourned among them, and ordered +that the children thus bought should be an inheritance for the children +of the Jews, and that they should be bondmen and bondwomen forever. Yet +Epictetus, a man to whom no revelation was ever made, a man whose soul +followed only the light of nature, and who had never heard of the Jewish +God, was great enough to say: "Will you not remember that your servants +are by nature your brothers, the children of God? In saying that you +have bought them, you look down on the earth, and into the pit, on the +wretched law of men long since dead, but you see not the laws of the +gods." +</p> +<p> +We find that Jehovah, speaking to his chosen people, assured them that +their bondmen and their bondmaids must be "of the heathen that were +round about them." "Of them," said Jehovah, "shall ye buy bondmen +and bondmaids." And yet Cicero, a pagan, Cicero, who had never been +enlightened by reading the Old Testament, had the moral grandeur to +declare: "They who say that we should love our fellow-citizens but not +foreigners, destroy the universal brotherhood of mankind, with which +benevolence and justice would perish forever." +</p> +<p> +If the Bible is inspired, Jehovah, God of all worlds, actually said: +"And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under +his hand, he shall be sorely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue +a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money." And yet +Zeno, founder of the Stoics, centuries before Christ was born, insisted +that no man could be the owner of another, and that the title was bad, +whether the slave had become so by conquest or by purchase. +</p> +<p> +Jehovah ordered a Jewish general to make war, and gave, among others, +this command: "When the Lord thy God shall drive them before thee, thou +shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant +with them, nor show mercy unto them." And yet Epictetus, whom we have +already quoted, gave this marvelous rule for the guidance of human +conduct: "Live with thy inferiors as thou wouldst have thy superiors +live with thee." +</p> +<p> +Is it possible, after all, that a being of infinite goodness and wisdom +said: "I will heap mischief upon them; I will send mine arrows upon +them; they shall be burned with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, +and with bitter destruction. I will send the tooth of beasts upon them, +with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror +within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling +also, with the man of gray hairs" while Seneca, an uninspired Roman, +said: "The wise man will not pardon any crime that ought to be +punished, but he will accomplish, in a nobler way, all that is sought +in pardoning. He will spare some and watch over some, because of their +youth, and others on account of their ignorance. His clemency will not +fall short of justice, but will fulfill it perfectly." +</p> +<p> +Can we believe that God ever said to any one: "Let his children be +fatherless and his wife a widow; let his children be continually +vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate +places; let the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the stranger +spoil his labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let +there be any to favor his fatherless children." If he ever said these +words, surely he had never heard this line, this strain of music from +the Hindu: "Sweet is the lute to those who have not heard the prattle of +their own children." +</p> +<p> +Jehovah, "from the clouds and darkness of Sinai," said to the Jews: +"Thou shalt have no other gods before me.... Though shalt not bow down +thyself to them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous +God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the +third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Contrast this with +the words put by the Hindu in the mouth of Brahma: "I am the same to all +mankind. They who honestly serve other gods involuntarily worship me. +I am he who partakest of all worship, and I am the reward of all +worshipers." +</p> +<p> +Compare these passages; the first a dungeon where crawl the things begot +of jealous slime; the other, great as the domed firmament inlaid with +suns. Is it possible that the real God ever said: +</p> +<p> +"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I, the +Lord, have deceived that prophet; and I will stretch out my hand upon +him and will destroy him from the midst of my people." Compare that +passage with one from a Pagan. +</p> +<p> +"It is better to keep silence for the remainder of your life than to +speak falsely." +</p> +<p> +Can we believe that a being of infinite mercy gave this command: +</p> +<p> +"Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to +gate, throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man +his companion, and every man his neighbor; consecrate yourselves to-day +to the Lord, even every man upon his son and upon his brother, that he +may bestow a blessing upon you this day." +</p> +<p> +Surely, that God was not animated by so great and magnanimous a spirit +as was Antoninus, a Roman emperor, who declared that, "he had rather +keep a single Roman citizen alive than slay a thousand enemies." +</p> +<p> +Compare the laws given to the children of Israel, as it is claimed by +the Creator of us all, with the following from Marcus Aurelius: +</p> +<p> +"I have formed the ideal of a state, in which there is the same law +for all, and equal rights, and equal liberty of speech established; an +empire where nothing is honored so much as the freedom of the citizen." +</p> +<p> +In the Avesta I find this: "I belong to five: to those who think good, +to those who speak good, to those who do good, to those who hear, and to +those who are pure." +</p> +<p> +"Which is the one prayer which in greatness, goodness, and beauty is +worth all that is between heaven and earth and between this earth and +the stars? And he replied: To renounce all evil thoughts and words and +works." +</p> +<center> +VII. +</center> +<p> +IT is claimed by the Christian world that one of the great reasons for +giving an inspired book to the Jews was, that through them the world +might learn that there is but one God. This piece of information has +been supposed to be of infinite value. As a matter of fact, long before +Moses was born, the Egyptians believed and taught that there was but +one God—that is to say, that above all intelligences there was the one +Supreme. They were guilty, too, of the same inconsistencies of modern +Christians. They taught the doctrine of the Trinity—God the Father, God +the Mother, and God the Son. God was frequently represented as father, +mother and babe. They also taught that the soul had a divine origin; +that after death it was to be judged according to the deeds done in the +body; that those who had done well passed into perpetual joy, and those +who had done evil into endless pain. In this they agreed with the most +approved divine of the nineteenth century. Women were the equals of +men, and Egypt was often governed by queens. In this, her government +was vastly better than the one established by God. The laws were +administered by courts much like ours. In Egypt there was a system of +schools that gave the son of poverty a chance of advancement, and +the highest offices were open to the successful scholar. The Egyptian +married one wife. The wife was called "the lady of the house." The women +were not secluded. The people were not divided into castes. There was +nothing to prevent the rise of able and intelligent Egyptians. But like +the Jehovah of the Jews, they made slaves of the captives of war. +</p> +<p> +The ancient Persians believed in one God; and women helped to found the +Parsee religion. Nothing can exceed some of the maxims of Zoroaster. The +Hindoos taught that above all, and over all, was one eternal Supreme. +They had a code of laws. They understood the philosophy of evidence and +of damages. They knew better than to teach the doctrine of an eye for an +eye, and a tooth for a tooth. +</p> +<p> +They knew that when one man maimed another, it was not to the interest +of society to have that man maimed, thus burdening the people with two +cripples, but that it was better to make the man who maimed the other +work to support him. In India, upon the death of a father, the daughters +received twice as much from the estate as the sons. +</p> +<p> +The Romans built temples to Truth, Faith, Valor, Concord, Modesty, and +Charity, in which they offered sacrifices to the highest conceptions of +human excellence. Women had rights; they presided in the temple; they +officiated in holy offices; they guarded the sacred fires upon which the +safety of Rome depended; and when Christ came, the grandest figure in +the known world was the Roman mother. +</p> +<p> +It will not do to say that some rude statue was made by an inspired +sculptor, and that the Apollo of Belvidere, Venus de Milo, and the +Gladiator were made by unaided men; that the daubs of the early ages +were painted by divine assistance, while the Raphaels, the Angelos, and +the Rembrandts did what they did without the help of heaven. It will not +do to say, that the first hut was built by God, and the last palace by +degraded man; that the hoarse songs of the savage tribes were made by +the Deity, but that Hamlet and Lear were written by man; that the pipes +of Pan were invented in heaven, and all other musical instruments on the +earth. +</p> +<p> +If the Jehovah of the Jews had taken upon himself flesh, and dwelt as a +man among the people had he endeavored to govern, had he followed his +own teachings, he would have been a slaveholder, a buyer of babes, and a +beater of women. He would have waged wars of extermination. He would +have killed grey-haired and trembling age, and would have sheathed his +sword, in prattling, dimpled babes. He would have been a polygamist, and +would have butchered his wife for differing with him on the subject of +religion. +</p> +<center> +VIII. THE NEW TESTAMENT. +</center> +<p> +NE great objection to the Old Testament is the cruelty said to have been +commanded by God. All these cruelties ceased with death. The vengeance +of Jehovah stopped at the tomb. He never threatened to punish the dead; +and there is not one word, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last +curse of Malachi, containing the slightest intimation that God will take +his revenge in another world. It was reserved for the New Testament +to make known the doctrine of eternal pain. The teacher of universal +benevolence rent the veil between time and eternity, and fixed the +horrified gaze of man upon the lurid gulf of hell. Within the breast of +non-resistance coiled the worm that never dies. Compared with this, +the doctrine of slavery, the wars of extermination, the curses, the +punishments of the Old Testament were all merciful and just. +</p> +<p> +There is no time to speak of the conflicting statements in the various +books composing the New Testament—no time to give the history of the +manuscripts, the errors in translation, the interpolations made by the +fathers and by their successors, the priests, and only time to speak of +a few objections, including some absurdities and some contradictions. +</p> +<p> +Where several witnesses testify to the same transaction, no matter how +honest they may be, they will disagree upon minor matters, and such +testimony is generally considered as evidence that the witnesses +have not conspired among themselves. The differences in statement are +accounted for from the facts that all do not see alike, and that all +have not equally good memories; but when we claim that the witnesses are +inspired, we must admit that he who inspired them did know exactly what +occurred, and consequently there should be no disagreement, even in the +minutest detail. The accounts should not only be substantially, but they +should be actually, the same. The differences and contradictions can be +accounted for by the weaknesses of human nature, but these weaknesses +cannot be predicated of divine wisdom. +</p> +<p> +And here let me ask: Why should there have been more than one correct +account of what really happened? Why were four gospels necessary? It +seems to me that one inspired gospel, containing all that happened, was +enough. Copies of the one correct one could have been furnished to any +extent. According to Doctor Davidson, Irenæus argues that the gospels +were four in number, because there are four universal winds, four +corners of the globe. Others have said, because there are four seasons; +and these gentlemen might have added, because a donkey has four legs. +For my part, I cannot even conceive of a reason for more than one +gospel. +</p> +<p> +According to one of these gospels, and according to the prevalent +Christian belief, the Christian religion rests upon the doctrine of the +atonement. If this doctrine is without foundation, the fabric falls; and +it is without foundation, for it is repugnant to justice and mercy. +The church tells us that the first man committed a crime for which all +others are responsible. This absurdity was the father and mother of +another—that a man can be rewarded for the good action of another. We +are told that God made a law, with the penalty of eternal death. All +men, they tell us, have broken this law. The law had to be vindicated. +This could be done by damning everybody, but through what is known as +the atonement the salvation of a few was made possible. They insist that +the law demands the extreme penalty, that justice calls for its victim, +that mercy ceases to plead, and that God by allowing the innocent to +suffer in the place of the guilty settled satisfactory with the law. To +carry out this scheme God was born as a babe, grew in stature, increased +in knowledge, and at the age of thirty-three years having lived a life +filled with kindness, having practiced every virtue, he was sacrificed +as an atonement for man. It is claimed that he took our place, bore our +sins, our guilt, and in this way satisfied the justice of God. +</p> +<p> +Under the Mosaic dispensation there was no remission of sin except +through the shedding of blood. When a man sinned he must bring to the +priest a lamb, a bullock, a goat, or a pair of turtle-doves. +</p> +<p> +The priest would lay his hand upon the animal and the sin of the man +would be transferred to the beast. Then the animal would be killed in +place of the sinner, and the blood thus shed would be sprinkled upon +the altar. In this way Jehovah was satisfied. The greater the crime, the +greater the sacrifice. There was a ratio between the value of the animal +and the enormity of the sin. +</p> +<p> +The most minute directions were given as to the killing of +these animals. Every priest became a butcher, every synagogue a +slaughter-house. Nothing could be more utterly shocking to a refined +soul, nothing better calculated to harden the heart, than the continual +shedding of innocent blood. This terrible system culminated in the +sacrifice of Christ. His blood took the place of all other. It is not +necessary to shed any more. The law at last is satisfied, satiated, +surfeited. +</p> +<p> +The idea that God wants blood is at the bottom of the atonement, and +rests upon the most fearful savagery; and yet the Mosaic dispensation +was better adapted to prevent the commission of sin than the Christian +system. Under that dispensation, if you committed a sin, you had +to bring a sacrifice—dove, sheep, or bullock, now, when a sin is +committed, the Christian says, "Charge it," "Put it on the slate, If +I don't pay it the Savior will." In this way, rascality is sold on a +credit, and the credit system of religion breeds extravagance in sin. +The Mosaic dispensation was based upon far better business principles. +The debt had to be paid, and by the man who owed it. We are told that +the sinner is in debt to God, and that the obligation is discharged by +the Savior. The best that can be said of such a transaction is that the +debt is transferred, not paid. As a matter of fact, the sinner is in +debt to the person he has injured. If you injure a man, it is not enough +to get the forgiveness of God—you must get the man's forgiveness, you +must get your own. If a man puts his hand in the fire and God forgives +him, his hand will smart just as badly. You must reap what you sow. No +God can give you wheat when you sow tares, and no Devil can give you +tares when you sow wheat. We must remember that in nature there are +neither rewards nor punishments—there are consequences. The life and +death of Christ do not constitute an atonement. They are worth the +example, the moral force, the heroism of benevolence, and in so far as +the life of Christ produces emulation in the direction of goodness, it +has been of value to mankind. +</p> +<p> +To make innocence suffer is the greatest sin, and it may be the only +sin. How, then, is it possible to make the consequences of sin an +atonement for sin, when the consequences of sin are to be borne by one +who has not sinned, and the one who has sinned is to reap the reward of +virtue? No honorable man should be willing that another should suffer +for him. No good law can accept the sufferings of innocence as an +atonement for the guilty; and besides, if there was no atonement until +the crucifixion of Christ, what became of the countless millions who +died before that time? We must remember that the Jews did not kill +animals for the Gentiles. Jehovah hated foreigners. There was no way +provided for the forgiveness of a heathen. What has become of the +millions who have died since, without having heard of the atonement? +What becomes of those who hear and do not believe? Can there be a law +that demands that the guilty be rewarded. And yet, to reward the guilty +is far nearer justice than to punish the innocent. If the doctrine of +the atonement is true, there would have been no heaven had no atonement +been made. +</p> +<p> +If Judas had understood the Christian system, if he knew that Christ +must be betrayed, and that God was depending on him to betray him, and +that without the betrayal no human soul could be saved, what should +Judas have done? +</p> +<p> +Jehovah took special charge of the Jewish people. He did this for the +purpose of civilizing them. If he had succeeded in civilizing them, +he would have made the damnation of the entire human race a certainty; +because if the Jews had been a civilized people when Christ appeared—a +people who had not been hardened by the laws of Jehovah—they would not +have crucified Christ, and as a consequence, the world would have been +lost. If the Jews had believed in religious freedom, in the rights of +thought and speech, if the Christian religion is true, not a human soul +ever could have been saved. If, when Christ was on his way to Calvary, +some brave soul had rescued him from the pious mob, he would not only +have been damned for his pains, but would have rendered impossible the +salvation of any human being. +</p> +<p> +The Christian world has been trying for nearly two thousand years to +explain the atonement, and every effort has ended in an admission that +it cannot be understood, and a declaration that it must be believed. Has +the promise and hope of forgiveness ever prevented the commission of +a sin? Can men be made better by being taught that sin gives happiness +here; that to live a virtuous life is to bear a cross; that men can +repent between the last sin and the last breath; and that repentance +washes every stain of the soul away? Is it good to teach that the +serpent of regret will not hiss in the ear of memory; that the saved +will not even pity the victims of their crimes; and that sins forgiven +cease to affect the unhappy wretches sinned against? +</p> +<p> +Another objection is, that a certain belief is necessary to save the +soul. This doctrine, I admit, is taught in the gospel according to John, +and in many of the epistles; I deny that it is taught in Matthew, Mark, +or Luke. It is, however, asserted by the church that to believe is the +only safe way. To this, I reply: Belief is not a voluntary thing. A man +believes or disbelieves in spite of himself. They tell us that to +believe is the safe way; but I say, the safe way is to be honest. +Nothing can be safer than that. No man in the hour of death ever +regretted having been honest. No man when the shadows of the last day +were gathering about the pillow of death, ever regretted that he had +given to his fellow-man his honest thought. No man, in the presence of +eternity, ever wished that he had been a hypocrite. No man ever then +regretted that he did not throw away his reason. It certainly cannot be +necessary to throw away your reason to save your soul, because after +that, your soul is not worth saving. The soul has a right to defend +itself. My brain is my castle; and when I waive the right to defend it, +I become an intellectual serf and slave. +</p> +<p> +I do not admit that a man by doing me an injury can place me under +obligations to do him a service. To render benefits for injuries is +to ignore all distinctions between actions. He who treats friends and +enemies alike has neither love nor justice. The idea of non-resistance +never occurred to a man with power to defend himself. The mother of this +doctrine was weakness. To allow a crime to be committed, even against +yourself, when you can prevent it, is next to committing the crime +yourself. The church has preached the doctrine of non-resistance, and +under that banner has shed the blood of millions. In the folds of +her sacred vestments have gleamed for centuries the daggers of +assassination. With her cunning hands she wove the purple for hypocrisy +and placed the crown upon the brow of crime. For more than a thousand +years larceny held the scales of justice, hypocrisy wore the mitre and +tiara, while beggars scorned the royal sons of toil, and ignorant fear +denounced the liberty of thought. +</p> +<center> +XI. CHRIST'S MISSION. +</center> +<p> +HE came, they tell us, to make a revelation, and what did he reveal? +"Love thy neighbor as thyself"? That was in the Old Testament. "Love +God with all thy heart"? That was in the Old Testament. "Return good for +evil"? That was said by Buddha, seven hundred years before Christ was +born. "Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you"? That +was the doctrine of Lao-tsze. Did he come to give a rule of action? +Zoroaster had done this long before: "Whenever thou art in doubt as to +whether an action is good or bad, abstain from it." Did he come to tell +us of another world? The immortality of the soul had been taught by the +Hindoos, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans hundreds of years before he was +born. What argument did he make in favor of immortality? What facts +did he furnish? What star of hope did he put above the darkness of +this world? Did he come simply to tell us that we should not revenge +ourselves upon our enemies? Long before, Socrates had said: "One who +is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be +right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to +do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him." And Cicero +had said: "Let us not listen to those who think we ought to be angry +with our enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly. Nothing +is so praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as +clemency and readiness to forgive." Is there anything in the literature +of the world more nearly perfect than this thought? +</p> +<p> +Was it from Christ the world learned the first lesson of forbearance, +when centuries and centuries before, Chrishna had said, "If a man strike +thee, and in striking drop his staff, pick it up and hand it to him +again?" Is it possible that the son of God threatened to say to a vast +majority, of his children, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting +fire prepared for the devil and his angels," while the Buddhist was +great and tender enough to say: +</p> +<p> +"Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation; never +enter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live +and strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout +all worlds. Never will I leave this world of sin and sorrow and struggle +until all are delivered. Until then, I will remain and suffer where I +am?" +</p> +<p> +Is there anything in the New Testament as beautiful as this, from a +Sufi?—"Better one moment of silent contemplation and inward love than +seventy thousand years of outward worship." +</p> +<p> +Is there anything comparable to this?—"Whoever carelessly treads on +a worm that crawls on the earth, that heartless one is darkly alienate +from God." +</p> +<p> +Is there anything in the New Testament more beautiful than the story of +the Sufi? +</p> +<p> +For seven years a Sufi practised every virtue, and then he mounted the +three steps that lead to the doors of Paradise. He knocked and a voice +said: "Who is there?" The Sufi replied: "Thy servant, O God." But the +doors remained closed. +</p> +<p> +Yet seven other years the Sufi engaged in every good work. He comforted +the sorrowing and divided his substance with the poor. Again he mounted +the three steps, again knocked at the doors of Paradise, and again +the voice asked: "Who is there?" and the Sufi replied: "Thy slave, O +God."—But the doors remained closed. +</p> +<p> +Yet seven other years the Sufi spent in works of charity, in visiting +the imprisoned and the sick. Again he mounted the steps, again knocked +at the celestial doors. Again he heard the question: "Who is there?" and +he replied: "Thyself, O God."—The gates wide open flew. +</p> +<p> +Is it possible that St. Paul was inspired of God, when he said: "Let the +women learn in silence, with all subjection."—"Neither was the man +created for the woman, but the woman for the man?" +</p> +<p> +And is it possible that Epictetus, without the slightest aid from +heaven, gave to the world this gem of love: +</p> +<p> +"What is more delightful than to be so dear to your wife, as to be on +that account dearer to yourself?" +</p> +<p> +Did St. Paul express the sentiments of God when he wrote— +</p> +<p> +"But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the +head of every woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Wives, +submit yourselves unto your husbands as unto the Lord?" +</p> +<p> +And was the author of this, a poor despised heathen?— +</p> +<p> +"In whatever house the husband is contented with the wife, and the wife +with the husband, in that house will fortune dwell; but upon the house +where women are not honored, let a curse be pronounced. Where the wife +is honored, there the gods are truly worshiped." +</p> +<p> +Is there anything in the New Testament as beautiful as this?— +</p> +<p> +"Shall I tell thee where nature is most blest and fair? It is where +those we love abide. Though that space be small, it is ample above +kingdoms; though it be a desert, through it run the rivers of Paradise." +</p> +<p> +After reading the curses pronounced in the Old +</p> +<p> +Testament upon Jew and heathen, the descriptions of slaughter, of +treachery and of death, the destruction of women and babes; after you +shall have read all the chapters of horror in the New Testament, the +threatenings of fire and flame, then read this, from the greatest of +human beings: +</p> +<pre> + "The quality of mercy is not strained: + It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven + Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed; + It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. + 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes + The throned monarch better than his crown." +</pre> +<center> +X. ETERNAL PAIN +</center> +<p> +UPON passages in the New Testament rests the doctrine of eternal pain. +This doctrine subverts every idea of justice. A finite being can neither +commit an infinite sin, nor a sin against the Infinite. A being of +infinite goodness and wisdom has no right to create any being whose life +is not a blessing. Infinite wisdom has no right to create a failure, +and surely a man destined to everlasting failure is not a conspicuous +success. The doctrine of eternal punishment is the most infamous of +all doctrines—born of ignorance, cruelty and fear. Around the angel of +immortality, Christianity has coiled this serpent. +</p> +<p> +Upon Love's breast the church has placed the eternal asp. And yet in +the same book in which is taught this most frightful of dogmas, we are +assured that "the Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over +all his works." +</p> +<p> +A few days ago upon the wide sea, was found a barque called "The +Tiger," Captain Kreuger, in command. The vessel had been one hundred and +twenty-six days upon the sea. For days the crew had been without water, +without food, and were starving. For nine days not a drop had passed +their lips. The crew consisted of the captain, a mate, and eleven men. +At the end of one hundred and eighteen days from Liverpool they killed +the captain's Newfoundland dog. This lasted them four days. During the +next five days they had nothing. For weeks they had had no light +and were unable to see the compass at night. On the one hundred and +twenty-fifth day Captain Kreuger, a German, took a revolver in his hand, +stood up before the men, and placing the weapon at his temple said: +"Boys, we can't stand this much longer, and to save you all, I am +willing to die." The mate grasped the revolver and begged the captain to +wait another day. The next day, upon the horizon of their despair, they +saw the smoke of the steamship Nebo. They were rescued. +</p> +<p> +Suppose that Captain Kreuger was not a Christian, and suppose that he +had sent the ball crashing through his brain, and had done so simply +to keep the crew from starvation, do you tell me that a God of infinite +mercy would forever damn that man? +</p> +<p> +Do not misunderstand me. I insist that every passage in the Bible +upholding crime was written by savage man. I insist that if there is +a God, he is not, never was, and never will be in favor of slavery, +polygamy, wars of extermination, or religious persecution. Does any +Christian believe that if the real God were to write a book now, he +would uphold the crimes commanded in the Old Testament? Has Jehovah +improved? Has infinite mercy become more merciful? Has infinite wisdom +intellectually advanced? +</p> +<p> +WILL any one claim that the passages upholding slavery have liberated +mankind? Are we indebted to polygamy for our modern homes? Was religious +liberty born of that infamous verse in which the husband is commanded to +kill his wife for worshiping an unknown God? +</p> +<p> +The usual answer to these objections is, that no country has ever been +civilized without a Bible. The Jews were the only people to whom Jehovah +made his will directly known. Were they better than other nations? They +read the Old Testament and one of the effects of such reading was, that +they crucified a kind, loving, and perfectly innocent man. Certainly +they could not have done worse, without a Bible. In crucifying Christ +the Jews followed the teachings of his Father. If Jehovah was in fact +God, and if that God took upon himself flesh and came among the Jews, +and preached what the Jews understood to be blasphemy; and if the Jews +in accordance with the laws given by this same Jehovah to Moses, +crucified him, then I say, and I say it with infinite reverence, he +reaped what he had sown. He became the victim of his own injustice. +</p> +<p> +But I insist that these things are not true. I insist that the real God, +if there is one, never commanded man to enslave his fellow-man, never +told a mother to sell her babe, never established polygamy, never urged +one nation to exterminate another, and never told a husband to kill his +wife because she suggested the worship of another God. +</p> +<p> +From the aspersions of the pulpit, from the slanders of the church, +I seek to rescue the reputation of the Deity. I insist that the Old +Testament would be a better book with all these passages left out; and +whatever may be said of the rest of the Bible, the passages to which I +have called attention can, with vastly more propriety, be attributed to +a devil than to a god. +</p> +<p> +Take from the New Testament the idea that belief is necessary to +salvation; that Christ was offered as an atonement for the sins of +mankind; that heaven is the reward of faith, and hell the penalty of +honest investigation, and that the punishment of the human soul will go +on forever; take from it all miracles and foolish stories, and I most +cheerfully admit that the good passages are true. If they are true, it +makes no difference whether they are inspired or not. Inspiration is +only necessary to give authority to that which is repugnant to human +reason. Only that which never happened needs to be substantiated by a +miracle. +</p> +<p> +The universe is natural. +</p> +<p> +The church must cease to insist that passages upholding the institutions +of savage men were inspired of God. The dogma of atonement must be +abandoned. Good deeds must take the place of faith. The savagery of +eternal punishment must be renounced. It must be admitted that credulity +is not a virtue, and that investigation is not a crime. It must be +admitted that miracles are the children of mendacity, and that nothing +can be more wonderful than the majestic, unbroken, sublime, and eternal +procession of causes and effects. Reason must be the arbiter. Inspired +books attested by miracles cannot stand against a demonstrated fact. A +religion that does not command the respect of the greatest minds will, +in a little while, excite the mockery of all. +</p> +<p> +A man who does not believe in intellectual liberty is a barbarian. Is +it possible that God is intolerant? Could there be any progress, even +in heaven, without intellectual liberty? Is the freedom of the future +to exist only in perdition? Is it not, after all, barely possible that +a man acting like Christ can be saved? Is a man to be eternally rewarded +for believing according to evidence, without evidence, or against +evidence? Are we to be saved because we are good, or because another was +virtuous? Is credulity to be winged and crowned, whilst honest doubt is +chained and damned. +</p> +<p> +If Jehovah, was in fact God, he knew the end from the beginning. He +knew that his Bible would be a breast-work behind which all tyranny +and hypocrisy would crouch. He knew that his Bible would be the +auction-block on which women would stand while their babes were sold +from their arms. He knew that this Bible would be quoted by tyrants; +that it would be the defence of robbers called kings, and of hypocrites +called priests. He knew that he had taught the Jewish people nothing of +importance. He knew that he had found them free and left them slaves. He +knew that he had never fulfilled a single promise made to them. He knew +that while other nations had advanced in art and science his chosen +people were savage still. He promised them the world, and gave them a +desert. He promised them liberty and he made them slaves. He promised +them victory and he gave them defeat. He said they should be kings and +he made them serfs. He promised them universal empire and gave them +exile. When one finishes the Old Testament he is compelled to say: +"Nothing can add to the misery of a nation whose king is Jehovah!" +</p> +<p> +The Old Testament filled this world with tyranny and injustice, and the +New gives us a future filled with pain for nearly all of the sons of +men. +</p> +<p> +The Old Testament describes the hell of the past, and the New the hell +of the future. +</p> +<p> +The Old Testament tells us the frightful things that God has done, the +New the frightful things that he will do. +</p> +<p> +These two books give us the sufferings of the past and the future—the +injustice, the agony and the tears of both worlds. +</p> +<a name="link0004"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> + +<div style="height: 4em;"><br><br><br><br></div> + +<h2> + ORTHODOXY. +</h2> +<h3> + A LECTURE. +</h3> +<p> +IT is utterly inconceivable that any man believing in the truth of the +Christian religion should publicly deny it, because he who believes in +that religion would believe that, by a public denial, he would peril the +eternal salvation of his soul. It is conceivable, and without any great +effort of the mind, that millions who do not believe in the Christian +religion should openly say that they did. In a country where religion +is supposed to be in power—where it has rewards for pretence, where it +pays a premium upon hypocrisy, where it at least is willing to purchase +silence—it is easily conceivable that millions pretend to believe what +they do not. And yet I believe it has been charged against myself not +only that I was insincere, but that I took the side I am on for the sake +of popularity; and the audience to-night goes far toward justifying the +accusation. +</p> +<p> +Orthodox Religion Dying Out. +</p> +<p> +It gives me immense pleasure to say to this audience that orthodox +religion is dying out of the civilized world. It is a sick man. It has +been attacked with two diseases—softening of the brain and ossification +of the heart. It is a religion that no longer satisfies the intelligence +of this country; that no longer satisfies the brain; a religion against +which the heart of every civilized man and woman protests. It is a +religion that gives hope only to a few; that puts a shadow upon the +cradle; that wraps the coffin in darkness and fills the future of +mankind with flame and fear. It is a religion that I am going to do what +little I can while I live to destroy. In its place I want humanity, +I want good fellowship, I want intellectual liberty—free lips, the +discoveries and inventions of genius, the demonstrations of science—the +religion of art, music and poetry—of good houses, good clothes, good +wages—that is to say, the religion of this world. +</p> +<p> +Religious Deaths and Births. +</p> +<p> +We must remember that this is a world of progress, a world of perpetual +change—a succession of coffins and cradles. There is perpetual death, +and there is perpetual birth. By the grave of the old, forever stand +youth and joy; and when an old religion dies, a better one is born. When +we find out that an assertion is a falsehood a shining truth takes its +place, and we need not fear the destruction of the false. The more false +we destroy the more room there will be for the true. +</p> +<p> +There was a time when the astrologer sought to read in the stars the +fate of men and nations. The astrologer has faded from the world, but +the astronomer has taken his place. There was a time when the poor +alchemist, bent and wrinkled and old, over his crucible endeavored to +find some secret by which he could change the baser metals into purest +gold. The alchemist has gone; the chemist took his place; and, although +he finds nothing to change metals into gold, he finds something that +covers the earth with wealth. There was a time when the soothsayer and +augur flourished. After them came the parson and the priest; and the +parson and the priest must go. The preacher must go, and in his place +must come the teacher—the real interpreter of Nature. We are done with +the supernatural. We are through with the miraculous and the impossible. +There was once the prophet who pretended to read the book of the future. +His place has been taken by the philosopher, who reasons from cause to +effect—who finds the facts by which we are surrounded and endeavors +to reason from these premises and to tell what in all probability will +happen. The prophet has gone, the philosopher is here. There was a time +when man sought aid from heaven—when he prayed to the deaf sky. There +was a time when everything depended on the supernaturalist. That time in +Christendom is passing away. We now depend upon the naturalist—not upon +the believer in ancient falsehoods, but on the discoverer of facts—on +the demonstrater of truths. At last we are beginning to build on a +solid foundation, and as we progress, the supernatural dies. The leaders +of the intellectual world deny the existence of the supernatural. They +take from all superstition its foundation. +</p> +<p> +The Religion of Reciprocity. +</p> +<p> +Supernatural religion will fade from this world, and in its place we +shall have reason. In the place of the worship of something we know +not of, will be the religion of mutual love and assistance—the great +religion of reciprocity. Superstition must go. Science will remain. The +church dies hard. The brain of the world is not yet developed. There +are intellectual diseases as well as physical—there are pestilences and +plagues of the mind. +</p> +<p> +Whenever the new comes the old protests, and fights for its place as +long as it has a particle of power. We are now having the same warfare +between superstition and science that there was between the stage coach +and the locomotive. But the stage coach had to go. It had its day of +glory and power, but it is gone. It went West. In a little while it will +be driven into the Pacific. So we find that there is the same conflict +between the different sects and different schools not only of philosophy +but of medicine. +</p> +<p> +Recollect that everything except the demonstrated truth is liable +to die. That is the order of Nature. Words die. Every language has a +cemetery. Every now and then a word dies and a tombstone is erected, and +across it is written "obsolete." New words are continually being born. +There is a cradle in which a word is rocked. A thought is married to a +sound, and a child-word is born. And there comes a time when the word +gets old, and wrinkled, and expressionless, and is carried mournfully +to the grave. So in the schools of medicine. You can remember, so can I, +when the old allopathists, the bleeders and blisterers, reigned supreme. +If there was anything the matter with a man they let out his blood. +Called to the bedside, they took him on the point of a lancet to the +edge of eternity, and then practiced all their art to bring him back. +One can hardly imagine how perfect a constitution it took a few years +ago to stand the assault of a doctor. And long after the old practice +was found to be a mistake hundreds and thousands of the ancient +physicians clung to it, carried around with them, in one pocket a bottle +of jalap, and in the other a rusty lancet, sorry that they could not +find some patient with faith enough to allow the experiment to be made +again. +</p> +<p> +So these schools, and these theories, and these religions die hard. What +else can they do? Like the paintings of the old masters, they are kept +alive because so much money has been invested in them. Think of the +amount of money that has been invested in superstition! Think of the +schools that have been founded for the more general diffusion of useless +knowledge! Think of the colleges wherein men are taught that it is +dangerous to think, and that they must never use their brains except +in the act of faith! Think of the millions and billions of dollars that +have been expended in churches, in temples, and in cathedrals! Think of +the thousands and thousands of men who depend for their living upon the +ignorance of mankind! Think of those who grow rich on credulity and +who fatten on faith! Do you suppose they are going to die without a +struggle? What are they to do? From the bottom of my heart I sympathize +with the poor clergyman that has had all his common sense educated out +of him, and is now to be thrown upon the cold and unbelieving world. His +prayers are not answered; he gets no help from on high, and the pews are +beginning to criticise the pulpit. What is the man to do? If he suddenly +changes he is gone. If he preaches what he really believes he will get +notice to quit. And yet, if he and the congregation would come together +and be perfectly honest, they would all admit that they believe little +and know nothing. +</p> +<p> +Only a little while ago a couple of ladies were riding together from a +revival, late at night, and one said to the other, as they rode along: +"I am going to say something that will shock you, and I beg of you never +to tell it to anybody else. I am going to tell it to you." "Well, what +is it?" Said she: "I do not believe the Bible." The other replied: +"Neither do I." +</p> +<p> +I have often thought how splendid it would be if the ministers could but +come together and say: "Now, let us be honest. Let us tell each other, +honor bright"—like Dr. Curry, of Chicago, did in the meeting the other +day—"just what we believe." They tell a story that in the old time a +lot of people, about twenty, were in Texas in a little hotel, and one +fellow got up before the fire, put his hands behind him, and said: +"Boys, let us all tell our real names." If the ministers and their +congregations would only tell their real thoughts they would find that +they are nearly as bad as I am, and that they believe as little. +</p> +<p> +Orthodoxy dies hard, and its defenders tell us that this fact shows that +it is of divine origin. Judaism dies hard. It has lived several thousand +years longer than Christianity. The religion of Mohammed dies hard. +</p> +<p> +Buddhism dies hard. Why do all these religions die hard? Because +intelligence increases slowly. +</p> +<p> +Let me whisper in the ear of the Protestant: Catholicism dies hard. What +does that prove? It proves that the people are ignorant and that the +priests are cunning. +</p> +<p> +Let me whisper in the ear of the Catholic: Protestantism dies hard. What +does that prove? It proves that the people are superstitious and the +preachers stupid. +</p> +<p> +Let me whisper in all your ears: Infidelity is not dying—it is +growing—it increases every day. And what does that prove? It +proves that the people are learning more and more—that they are +advancing—that the mind is getting free, and that the race is being +civilized. +</p> +<p> +The clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know. +</p> +<p> +The Blows That Have Shattered the Shield and Shivered the Lance of +Superstition. +</p> +<p> +Mohammed. +</p> +<p> +Mohammed wrested from the disciples of the cross the fairest part of +Europe. It was known that he was an impostor, and that fact sowed the +seeds of distrust and infidelity in the Christian world. Christians made +an effort to rescue from the infidels the empty sepulchre of Christ. +That commenced in the eleventh century and ended at the close of the +thirteenth. Europe was almost depopulated. The fields were left waste, +the villages were deserted, nations were impoverished, every man who +owed a debt was discharged from payment if he put a cross upon his +breast and joined the Crusades. No matter what crime he had committed, +the doors of the prison were open for him to join the hosts of the +cross. They believed that God would give them victory, and they carried +in front of the first Crusade a goat and a goose, believing that both +those animals were blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. And I +may say that those same animals are in the lead to-day in the orthodox +world. Until the year 1291 they endeavored to gain possession of that +sepulchre, and finally the hosts of Christ were driven back, baffled and +beaten,—a poor, miserable, religious rabble. They were driven back, and +that fact sowed the seeds of distrust in Christendom. You know that at +that time the world believed in trial by battle—that God would take +the side of the right—and there had been a trial by battle between the +cross and the crescent, and Mohammed had been victorious. Was God at +that time governing the world? Was he endeavoring to spread his gospel? +</p> +<p> +The Destruction of Art. +</p> +<p> +You know that when Christianity came into power it destroyed every +statue it could lay its ignorant hands upon. It defaced and obliterated +every painting; it destroyed every beautiful building; it burned the +manuscripts, both Greek and Latin; it destroyed all the history, all +the poetry, all the philosophy it could find, and reduced to ashes every +library that it could reach with its torch. And the result was, that the +night of the Middle Ages fell upon the human race. But by accident, +by chance, by oversight, a few of the manuscripts escaped the fury of +religious zeal; and these manuscripts became the seed, the fruit of +which is our civilization of to-day. A few statues had been buried; a +few forms of beauty were dug from the earth that had protected them, and +now the civilized world is filled with art, the walls are covered with +paintings, and the niches filled with statuary. A few manuscripts were +found and deciphered. The old languages were learned, and literature +was again born. A new day dawned upon mankind. Every effort at mental +improvement had been opposed by the church, and yet, the few things +saved from the general wreck—a few poems, a few works of the ancient +thinkers, a few forms wrought in stone, produced a new civilization +destined to overthrow and destroy the fabric of superstition. +</p> +<p> +The Discovery of America. +</p> +<p> +What was the next blow that this church received? The discovery of +America. The Holy Ghost who inspired men to write the Bible did not +know of the existence of this continent, never dreamed of the Western +Hemisphere. The Bible left out half the world. The Holy Ghost did not +know that the earth is round. He did not dream that the earth is round. +He believed it was flat, although he made it himself. At that time +heaven was just beyond the clouds. It was there the gods lived, there +the angels were, and it was against that heaven that Jacob's ladder +leaned when the angels went up and down. It was to that heaven that +Christ ascended after his resurrection. It was up there that the New +Jerusalem was, with its streets of gold, and under this earth was +perdition. There was where the devils lived; where a pit was dug for +all unbelievers, and for men who had brains. I say that for this reason: +Just in proportion that you have brains, your chances for eternal joy +are lessened, according to this religion. And just in proportion that +you lack brains your chances are increased. At last they found that the +earth is round. It was circumnavigated by Magellan. In 1519 that brave +man set sail. The church told him: "The earth is flat, my friend; don't +go, you may fall off the edge." Magellan said: "I have seen the shadow +of the earth upon the moon, and I have more confidence in the shadow +than I have in the church." The ship went round. The earth was +circumnavigated. Science passed its hand above it and beneath it, and +where was the old heaven and where was the hell? Vanished forever! And +they dwell now only in the religion of superstition. We found there was +no place there for Jacob's ladder to lean against; no place there for +the gods and angels to live; no place to hold the waters of the deluge; +no place to which Christ could have ascended. The foundations of the +New Jerusalem crumbled. The towers and domes fell, and in their places +infinite space, sown with an infinite number of stars; not with New +Jerusalems, but with countless constellations. +</p> +<p> +Copernicus and Kepler. +</p> +<p> +Then man began to grow great, and with that came Astronomy, In 1473 +Copernicus was born. In 1543 his great work appeared. In 1616 the system +of Copernicus was condemned by the pope, by the infallible Catholic +Church, and the church was about as near right upon that subject as upon +any other. The system of Copernicus was denounced. And how long do you +suppose the church fought that? Let me tell you. It was revoked by Pius +VII. in the year of grace 1821. For two hundred and seventy-eight years +after the death of Copernicus the church insisted that his system was +false, and that the old Bible astronomy was true. Astronomy is the first +help that we ever received from heaven. Then came Kepler in 1609, and +you may almost date the birth of science from the night that Kepler +discovered his first law. That was the break of the day. His first law, +that the planets do not move in circles but in ellipses; his second law, +that they describe equal spaces in equal times; his third law, that the +squares of their periodic times are proportional to the cubes of their +distances. That man gave us the key to the heavens. He opened the +infinite book, and in it read three lines. +</p> +<p> +I have not time to speak of Galileo, of Leonardo da Vinci, of Bruno, and +of hundreds of others who contributed to the intellectual wealth of the +world. +</p> +<p> +Special Providence. +</p> +<p> +The next thing that gave the church a blow was Statistics. We found by +taking statistics that we could tell the average length of human life; +that this human life did not depend upon infinite caprice; that it +depended upon conditions, circumstances, laws and facts, and that these +conditions, circumstances, and facts were during long periods of time +substantially the same. And now, the man who depends entirely upon +special providence gets his life insured. He has more confidence even +in one of these companies than he has in the whole Trinity. We found by +statistics that there were just so many crimes on an average committed; +just so many crimes of one kind and so many of another; just so many +suicides, so many deaths by drowning, so many accidents on an average, +so many men marrying women, for instance, older than themselves; so many +murders of a particular kind; just the same number of mistakes; and +I say to-night, statistics utterly demolish the idea of special +providence. +</p> +<p> +Only the other day a gentleman was telling me of a case of special +providence. He knew it. He had been the subject of it. A few years ago +he was about to go on a ship when he was detained. He did not go, and +the ship was lost with all on board. +</p> +<p> +"Yes!" I said, "Do you think the people who were drowned believed in +special providence?" Think of the infinite egotism of such a doctrine. +Here is a man that fails to go upon a ship with five hundred passengers +and they go down to the bottom of the sea—fathers, mothers, children, +and loving husbands and wives waiting upon the chores of expectation. +Here is one poor little wretch that did not happen to go! And he thinks +that God, the Infinite Being, interfered in his poor little withered +behalf and let the rest all go. That is special providence. Why does +special providence allow all the crimes? Why are the wife-beaters +protected, and why are the wives and children left defenceless if the +hand of God is over us all? Who protects the insane? Why does Providence +permit insanity? But the church cannot give up special providence. If +there is no such thing, then no prayers, no worship, no churches, no +priests. What would become of National Thanksgiving? +</p> +<p> +You know we have a custom every year of issuing a proclamation of +thanksgiving. We say to God, "Although you have afflicted all the other +countries, although you have sent war, and desolation, and famine on +everybody else, we have been such good children that you have been +kind to us, and we hope you will keep on." It does not make a bit of +difference whether we have good times or not—the thanksgiving is always +exactly the same. I remember a few years ago a governor of Iowa got out +a proclamation of that kind. He went on to tell how thankful the people +were and how prosperous the State had been. There was a young fellow in +that State who got out another proclamation, saying that he feared the +Lord might be misled by official correspondence; that the governor's +proclamation was entirely false; that the State was not prosperous; that +the crops had been an almost utter failure; that nearly every farm in +the State was mortgaged, and that if the Lord did not believe him, all +he asked was that he would send some angel in whom he had confidence, to +look the matter over and report. +</p> +<p> +Charles Darwin. +</p> +<p> +This century will be called Darwin's century. He was one of the greatest +men who ever touched this globe. He has explained more of the phenomena +of life than all of the religious teachers. Write the name of Charles +Darwin on the one hand and the name of every theologian who ever lived +on the other, and from that name has come more light to the world +than from all of those. His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the +survival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of species, +has removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox +Christianity. He has not only stated, but he has demonstrated, that the +inspired writer knew nothing of this world, nothing of the origin of +man, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature; that +the Bible is a book written by ignorance—at the instigation of fear. +Think of the men who replied to him. Only a few years ago there was no +person too ignorant to successfully answer Charles Darwin; and the more +ignorant he was the more cheerfully he undertook the task. He was held +up to the ridicule, the scorn and contempt of the Christian world, and +yet when he died, England was proud to put his dust with that of her +noblest and her grandest. Charles Darwin conquered the intellectual +world, and his doctrines are now accepted facts. His light has broken +in on some of the clergy, and the greatest man who to-day occupies +the pulpit of one of the orthodox: churches, Henry Ward Beecher, is a +believer in the theories of Charles Darwin—a man of more genius than +all the clergy of that entire church put together. +</p> +<p> +And yet we are told in this little creed that orthodox religion is about +to conquer the world! It will be driven to the wilds of Africa. It must +go to some savage country; it has lost its hold upon civilization. It is +unfortunate to have a religion that cannot be accepted by the intellect +of a nation. It is unfortunate to have a religion against which every +good and noble heart protests. Let us have a good religion or none. My +pity has been excited by seeing these ministers endeavor to warp and +twist the passages of Scripture to fit the demonstrations of science. Of +course, I have not time to recount all the discoveries and events that +have assisted in the destruction of superstition. Every fact is an +enemy of the church. Every fact is a heretic. Every demonstration is +an infidel. Everything that ever really happened testifies against the +supernatural. +</p> +<p> +The church teaches that man was created perfect, and that for six +thousand years he has degenerated. Darwin demonstrated the falsity +of this dogma. He shows that man has for thousands of ages steadily +advanced; that the Garden of Eden is an ignorant myth; that the doctrine +of original sin has no foundation in fact; that the atonement is an +absurdity; that the serpent did not tempt, and that man did not "fall." +</p> +<p> +Charles Darwin destroyed the foundation of orthodox Christianity. There +is nothing left but faith in what we know could not and did not happen. +Religion and science are enemies. One is a superstition; the other is +a fact. One rests upon the false, the other upon the true. One is the +result of fear and faith, the other of investigation and reason. +</p> +<p> +The Creeds. +</p> +<p> +I have been talking a great deal about the orthodox religion. Often, +after having delivered a lecture, I have met some good, religious person +who has said to me: +</p> +<p> +"You do not tell it as we believe it." +</p> +<p> +"Well, but I tell it as you have it written in your creed." +</p> +<p> +"Oh, we don't mind the creed any more." +</p> +<p> +"Then, why do you not change it?" +</p> +<p> +"Oh, well, we understand it as it is, and if we tried to change it, +maybe we would not agree." +</p> +<p> +Possibly the creeds are in the best condition now. There is a tacit +understanding that they do not believe them, that there is a way to +get around them, and that they can read between the lines; that if they +should meet now to form new creeds they would fail to agree; and that +now they can say as they please, except in public. Whenever they do so +in public the church, in self-defence, must try them; and I believe in +trying every minister that does not preach the doctrine he agrees to. +I have not the slightest sympathy with a Presbyterian preacher who +endeavors to preach infidelity from a Presbyterian pulpit and receives +Presbyterian money. When he changes his views he should step down and +out like a man, and say, "I do not believe your doctrine, and I will not +preach it. You must hire some other man." The Latest Creed. +</p> +<p> +But I find that I have correctly interpreted the creeds. There was put +into my hands the new Congregational creed. I have read it, and I will +call your attention to it to-night, to find whether that church has made +any advance; to find whether the sun of science has risen in the heavens +in vain; whether they are still the children of intellectual darkness; +whether they still consider it necessary for you to believe something +that you by no possibility can understand, in order to be a winged angel +forever. Now, let us see what their creed is. I will read a little of +it. +</p> +<p> +They commence by saying that they +</p> +<p> +"<i>Believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, +and of all things visible and invisible</i>." +</p> +<p> +They say, now, that there is the one personal God; that he is the maker +of the universe and its ruler. I again ask the old question, Of what did +he make it? If matter has not existed through eternity, then this God +made it. Of what did he make it? What did he use for the purpose? There +was nothing in the universe except this God. What had the God been doing +for the eternity he had been living? He had made nothing—called nothing +into existence; never had had an idea, because it is impossible to have +an idea unless there is something to excite an idea. What had he been +doing? Why does not the Congregational Church tell us? How do they know +about this Infinite Being? And if he is infinite how can they comprehend +him? What good is it to believe in something that you know you do not +understand, and that you never can understand? +</p> +<p> +In the Episcopalian creed God is described as follows: +</p> +<p> +"<i>There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts +or passions</i>." +</p> +<p> +Think of that!—without body, parts, or passions. +</p> +<p> +I defy any man in the world to write a better description of nothing. +You cannot conceive of a finer word-painting of a vacuum than "without +body, parts, or passions." And yet this God, without passions, is angry +at the wicked every day; this God, without passions, is a jealous God, +whose anger burneth to the lowest hell. This God, without passions, +loves the whole human race; and this God, without passions, damns a +large majority of mankind. This God without body, walked in the Garden +of Eden, in the cool of the day. This God, without body, talked with +Adam and Eve. This God, without body, or parts met Moses upon Mount +Sinai, appeared at the door of the tabernacle, and talked with Moses +face to face as a man speaketh to his friend. This description of God is +simply an effort of the church to describe a something of which it has +no conception. +</p> +<p> +God as a Governor. +</p> +<p> +So, too, I find the following: +</p> +<p> +"<i>We believe that the Providence of God, by which he executes his +eternal purposes in the government of the world, is in and over all +events.</i>" +</p> +<p> +Is God the governor of the world? Is this established by the history of +nations? What evidence can you find, if you are absolutely honest and +not frightened, in the history of the world, that this universe is +presided over by an infinitely wise and good God? +</p> +<p> +How do you account for Russia? How do you account for Siberia? How do +you account for the fact that whole races of men toiled beneath the +master's lash for ages without recompense and without reward? How do you +account for the fact that babes were sold from the arms of mothers—arms +that had been reached toward God in supplication? How do you account for +it? How do you account for the existence of martyrs? How do you account +for the fact that this God allows people to be burned simply for loving +him? Is justice always done? Is innocence always acquitted? Do the +good succeed? Are the honest fed? Are the charitable clothed? Are the +virtuous shielded? How do you account for the fact that the world has +been filled with pain, and grief, and tears? How do you account for the +fact that people have been swallowed by earthquakes, overwhelmned by +volcanoes, and swept from the earth by storms? Is it easy to account +for famine, for pestilence and plague if there be above us all a Ruler +infinitely good, powerful and wise? +</p> +<p> +I do not say there is none. I do not know. As I have said before, this +is the only planet I was ever on. I live in one of the rural districts +of the universe, and do not know about these things as much as the +clergy pretend to, but if they know no more about the other world than +they do about this, it is not worth mentioning. +</p> +<p> +How do they answer all this? They say that God "permits" it. What would +you say to me if I stood by and saw a ruffian beat out the brains of a +child, when I had full and perfect power to prevent it? You would say +truthfully that I was as bad as the murderer. Is it possible for this +God to prevent it? Then, if he does not he is a fiend; he is no god. +But they say he "permits" it. What for? So that we may have freedom of +choice. What for? So that God may find, I suppose, who are good and who +are bad. Did he not know that when he made us? Did he not know exactly +just what he was making? Why should he make those whom he knew would be +criminals? If I should make a machine that would walk your streets and +take the lives of people you would hang me. And if God made a man whom +he knew would commit murder, then God is guilty of that murder. If God +made a man knowing that he would beat his wife, that he would starve +his children, that he would strew on either side of his path of life the +wrecks of ruined homes, then I say the being who knowingly called that +wretch into existence is directly responsible. And yet we are to find +the providence of God in the history of nations. What little I have read +shows me that when man has been helped, man has done it; when the +chains of slavery have been broken, they have been broken by man; when +something bad has been done in the government of mankind, it is easy to +trace it to man, and to fix the responsibility upon human beings. You +need not look to the sky; you need throw neither praise nor blame upon +gods; you can find the efficient causes nearer home—right here. +</p> +<p> +The Love of God. +</p> +<p> +What is the next thing I find in this creed? +</p> +<p> +"<i>We believe that man was made in the image of God, that he might know, +love, and obey God, and enjoy him forever.</i>" +</p> +<p> +I do not believe that anybody ever did love God, because nobody ever +knew anything about him. We love each other. We love something that we +know. We love something that our experience tells us is good and great +and beautiful. We cannot by any possibility love the unknown. We can +love truth, because truth adds to human happiness. We can love justice, +because it preserves human joy. We can love charity. We can love every +form of goodness that we know, or of which we can conceive, but we +cannot love the infinitely unknown. And how can we be made in the image +of something that has neither body, parts, nor passions? +</p> +<p> +The Fall of Man. +</p> +<p> +The Congregational Church has not outgrown the doctrine of "original +sin." We are told that: +</p> +<p> +"<i>Our first parents, by disobedience, fell under the condemnation +of God, and that all men are so alienated from God that there is no +salvation from the guilt and power of sin except through God's redeeming +power.</i>" +</p> +<p> +Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in +the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike +his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent. Does any +intelligent man now believe that God made man of dust, and woman of a +rib, and put them in a garden, and put a tree in the midst of it? Was +there not room outside of the garden to put his tree, if he did not want +people to eat his apples? +</p> +<p> +If I did not want a man to eat my fruit, I would not put him in my +orchard. +</p> +<p> +Does anybody now believe in the story of the serpent? I pity any man or +woman who, in this nineteenth century, believes in that childish fable. +Why did Adam and Eve disobey? Why, they were tempted. By whom? The +devil. Who made the devil? God. What did God make him for? Why did +he not tell Adam and Eve about this serpent? Why did he not watch the +devil, instead of watching Adam and Eve? Instead of turning them out, +why did he not keep him from getting in? Why did he not have his flood +first, and drown the devil, before he made a man and woman. +</p> +<p> +And yet, people who call themselves intelligent—professors in colleges +and presidents of venerable institutions—teach children and young men +that the Garden of Eden story is an absolute historical fact. I defy +any man to think of a more childish thing. This God, waiting around +Eden—knowing all the while what would happen—having made them on +purpose so that it would happen, then does what? Holds all of us +responsible, and we were not there. Here is a representative before the +constituency had been born. Before I am bound by a representative I want +a chance to vote for or against him; and if I had been there, and known +all the circumstances, I should have voted "No!" And yet, I am held +responsible. +</p> +<p> +We are told by the Bible and by the churches that through this fall of +man "<i>Sin and death entered the world?</i>" +</p> +<p> +According to this, just as soon as Adam and Eve had partaken of the +forbidden fruit, God began to contrive ways by which he could destroy +the lives of his children. He invented all the diseases—all the fevers +and coughs and colds—all the pains and plagues and pestilences—all the +aches and agonies, the malaria and spores; so that when we take a breath +of air we admit into our lungs unseen assassins; and, fearing that some +might live too long, even under such circumstances, God invented the +earthquake and volcano, the cyclone and lightning, animalcules to infest +the heart and brain, so small that no eye can detect—no instrument +reach. This was all owing to the disobedience of Adam and Eve! +</p> +<p> +In his infinite goodness, God invented rheumatism and gout and +dyspepsia, cancers and neuralgia, and is still inventing new diseases. +Not only this', but he decreed the pangs of mothers, and that by the +gates of love and life should crouch the dragons of death and pain. +Fearing that some might, by accident, live too long, he planted +poisonous vines and herbs that looked like food. He caught the serpents +he had made and gave them fangs and curious organs, ingeniously devised +to distill and deposit the deadly drop. He changed the nature of the +beasts, that they might feed on human flesh. He cursed a world, and +tainted every spring and source of joy. He poisoned every breath of air; +corrupted even light, that it might bear disease on every ray; tainted +every drop of blood in human veins; touched every nerve, that it +might bear the double fruit of pain and joy; decreed all accidents and +mistakes that maim and hurt and kill, and set the snares of life-long +grief, baited with present pleasure,—with a moment's joy. Then and +there he foreknew and foreordained all human tears. And yet all this is +but the prelude, the introduction, to the infinite revenge of the good +God. Increase and multiply all human griefs until the mind has reached +imagination's farthest verge, then add eternity to time, and you may +faintly tell, but never can conceive, the infinite horrors of this +doctrine called "The Fall of Man." The Atonement. +</p> +<p> +We are further told that: +</p> +<p> +"<i>All men are so alienated from God that there is no alleviation from +the guilt and power of sin except through God's redeeming grace;</i>" +</p> +<p> +And that: +</p> +<p> +"<i>We believe that the love of God to sinful man has found its highest +expression in the redemptive work of his Son, who became man, uniting +his divine nature with our human nature in one person; who was tempted +like other men and yet without sin, and by his humiliation, his holy +obedience, his sufferings, his death on the cross, and his resurrection, +became a perfect redeemer; whose sacrifice of himself for the sins +of the world declares the righteousness of God, and is the sole and +sufficient ground of forgiveness and of reconciliation with him</i>." +</p> +<p> +The absurdity of the doctrine known as "The Fall of Man," gave birth +to that other absurdity known as "The Atonement." So that now it is +insisted that, as we are rightfully charged with the sin of somebody +else, we can rightfully be credited with the virtues of another. Let us +leave out of our philosophy both these absurdities. Our creed will read +a great deal better with both of them out, and will make far better +sense. +</p> +<p> +Now, in consequence of Adam's sin, everybody is alienated from God. How? +Why? Oh, we are all depraved, you know; we all do wrong. Well, why? +Is that because we are depraved? No. Why do we make so many mistakes? +Because there is only one right way, and there is an almost infinite +number of wrong ways; and as long as we are not perfect in our +intellects we must make mistakes. "There is no darkness but ignorance," +and alienation, as they call it, from God, is simply a lack of +intellect. Why were we not given better brains? That may account for the +alienation. +</p> +<p> +The church teaches that every soul that finds its way to the shore of +this world is against God—naturally hates God; that the little dimpled +child in the cradle is simply a chunk of depravity. Everybody against +God! It is a libel upon the human race; it is a libel upon all the men +who have worked for wife and child; upon all mothers who have suffered +and labored, wept and worked; upon all the men who have died for their +country; upon all who have fought for human liberty. Leave out the +history of religion and there is little left to prove the depravity of +man. +</p> +<p> +Everybody that comes is against God! Every soul, they think, is like the +wrecked Irishman, who drifted to an unknown island, and as he climbed +the shore saw a man and said to him, "Have you a Government here?" The +man replied "We have." "Well," said he, "I'm forninst it!" +</p> +<p> +The church teaches us that such is the attitude of every soul in the +universe of God. Ought a god to take any credit to himself for making +depraved people? A god that cannot make a soul that is not totally +depraved, I respectfully suggest, should retire from the business. And +if a god has made us, knowing that we are totally depraved, why should +we go to the same being to be "born again?" +</p> +<p> +The Second Birth. +</p> +<p> +The church insists that we must be "born again" and that all who are not +the subjects of this second birth are heirs of everlasting fire. Would +it not have been much better to have made another Adam and Eve? Would it +not have been better to change Noah and his people, so that after that a +second birth would not have been necessary? Why not purify the fountain +of all human life? Why allow the earth to be peopled with depraved and +monstrous beings, each one of whom must be re-made, re-formed, and born +again? +</p> +<p> +And yet, even reformation is not enough. If the man who steals +becomes perfectly honest, that is not enough; if the man who hates his +fellow-man, changes and loves his fellow-man, that is not enough; he +must go through that mysterious thing called the second birth; he must +be born again. He must have faith; he must believe something that +he does not understand, and experience what they call "conversion." +According to the church, nothing so excites the wrath of God—nothing so +corrugates the brows of Jehovah with hatred—as a man relying on his own +good works. He must admit that he ought to be damned, and that of the +two he prefers it, before God will consent to save him. +</p> +<p> +I met a man the other day, who said to me, "I am a Unitarian +Universalist." "What do you mean by that?" I asked. "Well," said he, +"this is what I mean: the Unitarian thinks he is too good to be damned, +and the Universalist thinks God is too good to damn him, and I believe +them both." +</p> +<p> +Is it possible that the sacrifice of a perfect being was acceptable to +God? Will he accept the agony of innocence for the punishment of guilt? +Will he release Barabbas and crucify Christ? +</p> +<p> +Inspiration. +</p> +<p> +What is the next thing in this great creed? +</p> +<p> +"<i>We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the +record of God's revelation of Himself, the work of redemption; that +they were written by men under the special guidance of the holy spirit; +that they are able to make wise unto salvation; and that they constitute +an authoritative standard by which religious teaching and human conduct +are to be regulated and judged.</i>" +</p> +<p> +This is the creed of the Congregational Church; that is, the result +reached by a high-joint commission appointed to draw up a creed for +their churches; and there we have the statement that the Bible was +written "by men under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit." +</p> +<p> +What part of the Bible? All of it? All of it. And yet what is this Old +Testament that was written by an infinitely good God? The being who +wrote it did not know the shape of the world he had made; knew nothing +of human nature. He commands men to love him, as if one could love upon +command. The same God upheld the institution of human slavery; and the +church says that the Bible that upholds that institution was written by +men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then I disagree with the Holy +Spirit. +</p> +<p> +This church tells us that men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit +upheld the institution of polygamy—I deny it; that under the +guidance of the Holy Spirit these men upheld wars of extermination and +conquest—I deny it; that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit these +men wrote that it was right for a man to destroy the life of his wife if +she happened to differ with him on the subject of religion—I deny it. +And yet that is the book now upheld in this creed of the Congregational +Church. +</p> +<p> +If the devil had written upon the subject of slavery, which side would +he have taken? Let every minister answer. If you knew the devil had +written a work on human slavery, in your judgment, would he uphold +slavery, or denounce it? Would you regard it as any evidence that he +ever wrote it, if it upheld slavery? And yet, here you have a work +upholding slavery, and you say that it was written by an infinitely good +God! If the devil upheld polygamy, would you be surprised? If the devil +wanted to kill men for differing with him would you be astonished? If +the devil told a man to kill his wife, would you be shocked? And yet, +you say, that is exactly what God did. If there be a God, then that +creed is blasphemy. That creed is a libel upon him who sits on heaven's +throne. If there be a God, I ask him to write in the book in which my +account is kept, that I denied these lies for him. +</p> +<p> +I do not believe in a slaveholding God! I do not worship a polygamous +Holy Ghost, nor a Son who threatens eternal pain; I will not get upon my +knees before any being who commands a husband to slay his wife because +she expresses her honest thought. Suppose a book should be found old as +the Old Testament in which slavery, polygamy and war are all denounced, +would Christians think that it was written by the devil? +</p> +<p> +Did it ever occur to you that if God wrote the Old Testament, and +told the Jews to crucify or kill anybody that disagreed with them on +religion, and that this God afterward took upon himself flesh and came +to Jerusalem, and taught a different religion, and the Jews killed +him—did it ever occur to you that he reaped exactly what he had sown? +Did it ever occur to you that he fell a victim to his own tyranny, and +was destroyed by his own hand? Of course I do not believe that any God +ever was the author of the Bible, or that any God was ever crucified, +or that any God was ever killed, or ever will be, but I want to ask you +that question. +</p> +<p> +Take this Old Testament, then, with all its stories of murder and +massacre; with all its foolish and cruel fables; with all its infamous +doctrines; with its spirit of caste; with its spirit of hatred, and +tell me whether it was written by a good God. If you will read the +maledictions and curses of that book, you will think that God, like +Lear, had divided heaven among his daughters, and then, in the insanity +of despair, had launched his curses on the human race. +</p> +<p> +And yet, I must say—I must admit—that the Old Testament is better +than the New. In the Old Testament, when God had a man dead, he let +him alone. When he saw him quietly in his grave he was satisfied. The +muscles relaxed, and the frown gave place to a smile. But in the New +Testament the trouble commences at death. In the New Testament God is +to wreak his revenge forever and ever. It was reserved for one who said, +"Love your enemies," to tear asunder the veil between time and eternity +and fix the horrified gaze of man upon the gulfs of eternal fire. The +New Testament is just as much worse than the Old, as hell is worse than +sleep; just as much worse, as infinite cruelty is worse than dreamless +rest; and yet, the New Testament is claimed to be a gospel of love and +peace. +</p> +<p> +Is it possible that: "<i>The Scriptures constitute the authoritative +standard by which religious teaching and human conduct are to be +regulated and judged"?</i> +</p> +<p> +Are we to judge of conduct by the Old Testament, by the New, or by both? +According to the Old, the slaveholder was a just and generous man; a +polygamist was a model of virtue. According to the New, the worst can be +forgiven and the best can be lost. How can any book be a standard, +when the standard itself must be measured by human reason? Is there a +standard of a standard? Must not the reason be convinced? and, if so, is +not the reason of each man the final arbiter of that man? If he takes a +book as a standard, does he so take it because it is to him reasonable? +In what way is the human reason to be ignored? Why should a book take +its place, unless the reason has been convinced that the book is the +proper standard? If this is so, the book rests upon the reason of those +who adopt it. Are they to be saved because they act in accordance with +their reason, and are others to be damned because they act by the same +standard—their reason? No two are alike. Can we demand of all the same +result? Suppose the compasses were not constant to the pole—no two +compasses exactly alike—would you expect all ships to reach the same +harbor? +</p> +<p> +The Reign of Truth and Love. +</p> +<p> +I also find in this creed the following: +</p> +<p> +"<i>We believe that Jesus Christ came to establish among men the Kingdom +of God, the reign of truth and love, of righteousness and peace!</i>" +</p> +<p> +Well, that may have been the object of Jesus Christ. I do not deny it. +But what was the result? The Christian world has caused more war than +all the rest of the world beside. Most of the cunning instruments of +death have been devised by Christians. All the wonderful machinery by +which the life is blown from men, by which nations are conquered and +enslaved—all these machines have been born in Christian brains. And yet +he came to bring peace, they say; but the Testament says otherwise: "I +came not to bring peace, but a sword." And the sword was brought. What +are the Christian nations doing to-day in Europe? Is there a solitary +Christian nation that will trust any other? How many millions of +Christians are in the uniform of forgiveness, armed with the muskets of +love? +</p> +<p> +There was an old Spaniard on the bed of death, who sent for a priest, +and the priest told him that he would have to forgive his enemies before +he died. He said, "I have none." "What! no enemies?" "Not one," said the +dying man; "I killed the last one three months ago." +</p> +<p> +How many millions of Christians are now armed and equipped to destroy +their fellow-Christians? Who are the men in Europe crying against war? +Who wishes to have the nations disarmed? Is it the church? No; the men +who do not believe in what they call this religion of peace. When there +is a war, and when they make a few thousand widows and orphans; when +they strew the plain with dead patriots, Christians assemble in their +churches and sing "Te Deum Laudamus." Why? Because he has enabled a +few of his children to kill some others of his children. This is the +religion of peace—the religion that invented the Krupp gun, that will +hurl a ball weighing two thousand pounds through twenty-four inches +of solid steel. This is the religion of peace that covers the sea with +men-of-war, clad in mail, in the name of universal forgiveness. This is +the religion that drills and uniforms five millions of men to kill their +fellows. +</p> +<p> +The Wars It Brought. +</p> +<p> +What effect has this religion had upon the nations of the earth? What +have the nations been fighting about? What was the Thirty Years' War +in Europe for? What was the war in Holland for? Why was it that England +persecuted Scotland? Why is it that England persecutes Ireland even to +this day? At the bottom of every one of these conflicts you will find +a religious question. The religion of Jesus Christ, as preached by his +church, causes war, bloodshed, hatred, and all uncharitableness; and +why? Because, they say, a certain belief is necessary to salvation. They +do not say, if you behave yourself you will get there; they do not say, +if you pay your debts and love your wife and love your children, and are +good to your friends, and your neighbors, and your country, you will +get there; that will do you no good; you have got to believe a certain +thing. No matter how bad you are, you can instantly be forgiven; and no +matter how good you are, if you fail to believe that which you cannot +understand, the moment you get to the day of judgment nothing is left +but to damn you, and all the angels will shout "hallelujah." +</p> +<p> +What do they teach to-day? Nearly every murderer goes to heaven; there +is only one step from the gallows to God, only one jerk between the +halter and heaven. That is taught by this church. +</p> +<p> +I believe there ought to be a law to prevent the giving of the slightest +religious consolation to any man who has been found guilty of murder. +Let a Catholic understand that if he imbrues his hands in his brother's +blood, he can have no extreme unction. Let it be understood that he +can have no forgiveness through the church; and let the Protestant +understand that when he has committed that crime the community will not +pray him into heaven. Let him go with his victim. The victim, dying in +his sins, goes to hell, and the murderer has the happiness of seeing him +there. If heaven grows dull and monotonous, the murderer can again give +life to the nerve of pleasure by watching the agony of his victim. +</p> +<p> +The truth is, Christianity has not made friends; it has made enemies. It +is not, as taught, the religion of peace, it is the religion of war. +Why should a Christian hesitate to kill a man that his God is waiting +to damn? Why should a Christian not destroy an infidel who is trying to +assassinate his soul? Why should a Christian pity an unbeliever—one who +has rejected the Bible—when he knows that God will be pitiless forever? +And yet we are told, in this creed, that "<i>we believe in the ultimate +prevalence of the Kingdom of Christ over all the earth.</i>" +</p> +<p> +What makes you? Do you judge from the manner in which you are getting +along now? How many people are being born a year? About fifty millions. +How many are you converting a year, really, truthfully? Five or six +thousand. I think I have overstated the number. Is orthodox Christianity +on the increase? No. There are a hundred times as many unbelievers in +orthodox Christianity as there were ten years ago. What are you doing in +the missionary world? How long is it since you converted a Chinaman? +A fine missionary religion, to send missionaries with their Bibles and +tracts to China, but if a Chinaman comes here, mob him, simply to show +him the difference between the practical and theoretical workings of the +Christian religion. How long since you have had an intelligent convert +in India? In my judgment, never; there never has been an intelligent +Hindoo converted from the time the first missionary put his foot on +that soil; and never, in my judgment, has an intelligent Chinaman been +converted since the first missionary touched that shore. Where are they? +We hear nothing of them, except in the reports. They get money from poor +old ladies, trembling on the edge of the grave, and go and tell them +stories, how hungry the average Chinaman is for a copy of the New +Testament, and paint the sad condition of a gentleman in the interior +of Africa without the works of Dr. McCosh, longing for a copy of <i>The +Princeton Review</i>,—in my judgment, a pamphlet that would suit a savage. +Thus money is scared from the dying, and frightened from the old and +feeble. +</p> +<p> +About how long is it before this kingdom is to be established? No one +objects to the establishment of peace and good will. Every good man +longs for the time when war shall cease. We are all hoping for a day of +universal justice—a day of universal freedom—when man shall control +himself, when the passions shall become obedient to the intelligent +will. But the coming of that day will not be hastened by preaching the +doctrines of total depravity and eternal revenge. That sun will not rise +the quicker for preaching salvation by faith. The star that shines +above that dawn, the herald of that day, is Science, not +superstition,—Reason, not religion. +</p> +<p> +To show you how little advance has been made, how many intellectual bats +and mental owls still haunt the temple, still roost above the altar, +I call your attention to the fact that the Congregational Church, +according to this creed; still believes in the resurrection of the dead, +and in their Confession of Faith, attached to the creed, I find that +they also believe in the literal resurrection of the body. +</p> +<p> +The Resurrection. +</p> +<p> +Does anybody believe that, who has the courage to think for himself? +Here is a man, for instance, that weighs 200 pounds and gets sick +and dies weighing 120; how much will he weigh in the morning of the +resurrection? Here is a cannibal, who eats another man; and we know that +the atoms you eat go into your body and become a part of you. After +the cannibal has eaten the missionary, and appropriated his atoms to +himself, and then dies, to whom will the atoms belong in the morning of +the resurrection? Could the missionary maintain an action of replevin, +and if so, what would the cannibal do for a body? It has been +demonstrated, in so far as logic can demonstrate anything, that there +is no creation and no destruction in Nature. It has been demonstrated, +again and again, that the atoms in us have been in millions of other +beings; have grown in the forests and in the grass, have blossomed in +flowers, and been in the metals. In other words, there are atoms in each +one of us that have been in millions of others; and when we die, these +atoms return to the earth, again appear in grass and trees, are again +eaten by animals, and again devoured by countless vegetable mouths and +turned into wood; and yet this church, in the nineteenth century,'in a +council composed of, and presided over by, professors and presidents +of colleges and theologians, solemnly tells us that it believes in the +literal resurrection of the body. This is almost enough to make +one despair of the future—almost enough to convince a man of the +immortality of the absurd. They know better. There is not one so +ignorant but knows better. +</p> +<p> +The Judgment-Day. +</p> +<p> +And what is the next thing? +</p> +<p> +"<i>We believe in a final judgment, the issues of which are everlasting +punishment and everlasting life!</i>" +</p> +<p> +At the final judgment all of us will be there. The thousands, and +millions, and billions, and trillions, and quadrillions that have died +will be there. The books will be opened, and each case will be called. +The sheep and the goats will be divided. The unbelievers will be sent to +the left, while the faithful will proudly walk to the right. The saved, +without a tear, will bid an eternal farewell to those who loved them +here—to those they loved. Nearly all the human race will go away to +everlasting punishment, and the fortunate few to eternal life. This +is the consolation of the Congregational Church! This is the hope that +dispels the gloom of life! +</p> +<p> +Pious Evasions. +</p> +<p> +When the clergy are caught, they give a different meaning to the +words and say the world was not made in seven days. They say "good +whiles"—"epochs." +</p> +<p> +And in this same Confession of Faith and in this creed they say that the +Lord's day is holy—every seventh day. Suppose you lived near the North +Pole where the day is three months long. Then which day would you keep? +If you could get to the North Pole you could prevent Sunday from ever +overtaking you. You could walk around the other way faster than the +world could revolve. How would you keep Sunday then? Suppose we invent +something that can go one thousand miles an hour? We can chase Sunday +clear around the globe. Is there anything that can be more perfectly +absurd than that a space of time can be holy? You might as well talk +about a virtuous vacuum. We are now told that the Bible is not a +scientific book, and that after all we cannot depend on what God said +four thousand years ago—that his ways are not as our ways—that we must +accept without evidence, and believe without understanding. +</p> +<p> +I heard the other night of an old man. He was not very well educated, +and he got into the notion that he must have reading of the Bible and +family worship. There was a bad boy in the family, and they were reading +the Bible by course. In the fifteenth chapter of Corinthians is this +passage: "Behold, brethren, I show you a mystery; we shall not all +die, but we shall all be changed." This boy had rubbed out the "c" in +"changed." So when the old man put on his spectacles, and got down his +Bible, he read: "Behold, brethren, I show you a mystery, we shall not +all die, but we shall all be hanged." The old lady said, "Father, I +don't think it reads that way." He said, "Who is reading this?" "Yes +mother, it says 'hanged,' and, more than that, I see the sense of it. +Pride is the besetting sin of the human heart, and if there is anything +calculated to take the pride out of a man it is hanging." It is in this +way that ministers avoid and explain the discoveries of Science. +</p> +<p> +People ask me, if I take away the Bible what are we going to do? How can +we get along without the revelation that no one understands? What are +we going to do if we have no Bible to quarrel about What are we to do +without hell? What are we going to do with our enemies? What are we +going to do with the people we love but don't like? +</p> +<p> +"No Bible, No Civilization." +</p> +<p> +They tell me that there never would have been any civilization if it had +not been for this Bible. The Jews had a Bible; the Romans had not. Which +had the greater and the grander government? Let us be honest. Which of +those nations produced the greatest poets, the greatest soldiers, the +greatest orators, the greatest statesmen, the greatest sculptors? Rome +had no Bible. God cared nothing for the Roman Empire. He let the men +come up by chance. His time was taken up with the Jewish people. And +yet Rome conquered the world, including the chosen people of God. The +people who had the Bible were defeated by the people who had not. How +was it possible for Lucretius to get along without the Bible?—how did +the great and glorious of that empire? And what shall we say of Greece? +No Bible. Compare Athens with Jerusalem. From Athens come the beauty and +intellectual grace of the world. Compare the mythology of Greece with +the mythology of Judea; one covering the earth with beauty, and the +other filling heaven with hatred and injustice. The Hindoos had no +Bible; they had been forsaken by the Creator, and yet they became the +greatest metaphysicians of the world. Egypt had no Bible. Compare Egypt +with Judea. What are we to do without the Bible? What became of the Jews +who had a Bible? Their temple was destroyed and their city was taken; +and they never found real prosperity until their God deserted them. The +Turks attributed all their victories to the Koran. The Koran gave them +their victories over the believers in the Bible. The priests of each +nation have accounted for the prosperity of that nation by its religion. +</p> +<p> +The Christians mistake an incident for a cause, and honestly imagine +that the Bible is the foundation of modern liberty and law. They forget +physical conditions, make no account of commerce, care nothing for +inventions and discoveries, and ignorantly give the credit to their +inspired book. +</p> +<p> +The foundations of our civilization were laid centuries before +Christianity was known. The intelligence of courage, of self-government, +of energy, of industry, that uniting made the civilization of this +century, did not come alone from Judea, but from every nation of the +ancient world. +</p> +<p> +Miracles of the New Testament. +</p> +<p> +There are many things in the New Testament that I cannot accept as true. +</p> +<p> +I cannot believe in the miraculous origin of Jesus Christ. I believe he +was the son of Joseph and Mary; that Joseph and Mary had been duly and +legally married; that he was the legitimate offspring of that union. +Nobody ever believed the contrary until he had been dead at least one +hundred and fifty years. Neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke ever dreamed +that he was of divine origin. He did not say to either Matthew, Mark, +or Luke, or to any one in their hearing, that he was the Son of God, +or that he was miraculously conceived. He did not say it. It may be +asserted that he said it to John, but John did not write the gospel +that bears his name. The angel Gabriel, who, they say, brought the news, +never wrote a word upon the subject. The mother of Christ never wrote +a word upon the subject. His alleged father never wrote a word upon +the subject, and Joseph never admitted the story. We are lacking in +the matter of witnesses. I would not believe such a story now. I cannot +believe that it happened then. I would not believe people I know, much +less would I believe people I do not know. +</p> +<p> +At that time Matthew and Luke believed that Christ was the son of Joseph +and Mary. And why? they say he descended from David, and in order to +show that he was of the blood of David, they gave the genealogy of +Joseph. And if Joseph was not his father, why did they not give the +genealogy of Pontius Pilate or of Herod? Could they, by giving the +genealogy of Joseph, show that he was of the blood of David if Joseph +was in no way related to Christ? And yet that is the position into which +the Christian world is driven. In the New Testament we find that in +giving the genealogy of Christ it says, "who was the son of Joseph?" and +the church has interpolated the words "as was supposed." Why did they +give a supposed genealogy? It will not do. And that is a thing that +cannot in any way, by any human testimony, be established. +</p> +<p> +If it is important for us to know that he was the Son of God, I say, +then, that it devolves upon God to give us the evidence. Let him write +it across the face of the heavens, in every language of mankind. If it +is necessary for us to believe it, let it grow on every leaf next +year. No man should be damned for not believing, unless the evidence is +overwhelming. And he ought not to be made to depend upon say so, or upon +"as was supposed." He should have it directly, for himself. A man says +that God told him a certain thing, and he tells me, and I have only his +word. He may have been deceived. If God has a message for me he ought +to tell it to me, and not to somebody that has been dead four or five +thousand years, and in another language. +</p> +<p> +Besides, God may have changed his mind on many things; he has on +slavery, and polygamy at least, according to the church; and yet his +church now wants to go and destroy polygamy in Utah with the sword. Why +do they not send missionaries there with copies of the Old Testament? +By reading the lives of Abraham and Isaac, and Lot, and a few other +patriarchs who ought to have been in the penitentiary, maybe they can +soften their hearts. +</p> +<p> +More Miracles. +</p> +<p> +There is another miracle I do not believe,—the resurrection. I want to +speak about it as we would about any ordinary transaction. In the first +place, I do not believe that any miracle was ever performed, and if +there was, you cannot prove it. Why? Because it is altogether more +reasonable to believe that the people were mistaken about it than that +it happened. And why? Because, according to human experience, we know +that people will not always tell the truth, and we never saw a miracle +ourselves, and we must be governed by our experience; and if we go by +our experience, we must say that the miracle never happened—that the +witnesses were mistaken. +</p> +<p> +A man comes into Jerusalem, and the first thing he does is to cure the +blind. He lets the light of day visit the night of blindness. The eyes +are opened, and the world is again pictured upon the brain. Another man +is clothed with leprosy. He touches him and the disease falls from +him, and he stands pure, and clean, and whole. Another man is deformed, +wrinkled, and bent. He touches him, and throws around him again the +garment of youth. A man is in his grave, and he says, "Come forth!" +And the man walks in life, feeling his heart throb and his blood going +joyously through his veins. They say that actually happened. I do not +know. +</p> +<p> +There is one wonderful thing about the dead people that were raised—we +do not hear of them any more. What became of them? If there was a man +in this city who had been raised from the dead, I would go to see him +to-night. I would say, "Where were you when you got the notice to come +back? What kind of a country is it? What kind of opening there for a +young man? How did you like it? Did you meet there the friends you had +lost? Is there a world without death, without pain, without a tear? Is +there a land without a grave, and where good-bye is never heard?" Nobody +ever paid the slightest attention to the dead who had been raised. They +did not even excite interest when they died the second time. Nobody +said, "Why, that man is not afraid. He has been there once. He has +walked through the valley of the shadow." Not a word. They pass quietly +away. +</p> +<p> +I do not believe these miracles. There is something wrong somewhere +about that business. I may suffer eternal punishment for all this, but I +cannot, I do not, believe. +</p> +<p> +There was a man who did all these things, and thereupon they crucified +him. Let us be honest. Suppose a man came into this city and should meet +a funeral procession, and say, "Who is dead?" and they should reply, +"The son of a widow; her only support." Suppose he should say to the +procession, "Halt!" and to the undertaker, "Take out that coffin, +unscrew that lid. Young man, I say unto thee, arise!" and the dead +should step from the coffin and in a moment afterward hold his mother in +his arms. Suppose this stranger should go to your cemetery and find some +woman holding a little child in each hand, while the tears fell upon a +new-made grave, and he should say to her, "Who lies buried here?" +and she should reply, "My husband;" and he should cry, "I say unto +thee, oh grave, give up thy dead!" and the husband should rise, and in a +moment after have his lips upon his wife's, and the little children with +their arms around his neck; do you think that the people of this city +would kill him? Do you think any one would wish to crucify him? Do +you not rather believe that every one who had a loved one out in that +cemetery would go to him, even upon their knees, and beg him to give +back their dead? Do you believe that any man was ever crucified who was +the master of death? +</p> +<p> +Let me tell you to-night if there shall ever appear upon this earth the +master, the monarch, of death, all human knees will touch the earth. He +will not be crucified. All the living who fear death; all the living who +have lost a loved one, will bow to him. And yet we are told that this +worker of miracles, this man who could clothe the dead dust in the +throbbing flesh of life, was crucified. I do not believe that he worked +the miracles, I do not believe that he raised the dead, I do not believe +that he claimed to be the Son of God, These things were told long after +he was dead; told because the ignorant multitude demanded mystery and +wonder; told, because at that time the miraculous was believed of all +the illustrious dead. Stories that made Christianity powerful then, +weaken it now. He who gains a triumph in a conflict with a devil, will +be defeated by science. +</p> +<p> +There is another thing about these foolish miracles. All could have +been imitated. Men could pretend to be blind; confederates could feign +sickness, and even death. +</p> +<p> +It is not very difficult to limp or to hold an arm as though it were +paralyzed; or to say that one is afflicted with "an issue of blood." It +is easy to say that the son of a widow was raised from the dead, and +if you fail to give the name of the son, or his mother, or the time and +place where the wonder occurred, it is quite difficult to show that it +did not happen. +</p> +<p> +No one can be called upon to disprove anything that has not apparently +been established. I say apparently, because there can be no real +evidence in support of a miracle. +</p> +<p> +How could we prove, for instance, the miracle of the loaves and fishes? +There were plenty of other loaves and other fishes in the world? Each +one of the five thousand could have had a loaf and a fish with him. We +would have to show that there was no other possible way for the people +to get the bread and fish except by miracle, and then we are only half +through. We must then show that they did, in fact, get enough to +feed five thousand people, and that more was left than was had in the +beginning. +</p> +<p> +Of course this is simply impossible. And let me ask, why was not the +miracle substantiated by some of the multitude? +</p> +<p> +Would it not have been a greater wonder if Christ had <i>created</i> instead +of multiplied the loaves and fishes? +</p> +<p> +How can we now prove that a certain person more than eighteen hundred +years ago was possessed by seven devils? +</p> +<p> +How was it ever possible to prove a thing like that? +</p> +<p> +How can it be established that some evil spirits could talk while others +were dumb, and that the dumb ones were the hardest to control? +</p> +<p> +If Christ wished to convince his fellow-men by miracles, why did he not +do something that could not by any means have been a counterfeit? +</p> +<p> +Instead of healing a withered arm, why did he not find some man whose +arm had been cut off, and make another grow? +</p> +<p> +If he wanted to raise the dead, why did he not raise some man of +importance, some one known to all? +</p> +<p> +Why did he do his miracles in the obscurity of the village, in the +darkness of the hovel? +</p> +<p> +Why call back to life people so insignificant that the public did not +know of their death? +</p> +<p> +Suppose that in May, 1865, a man had pretended to raise some person by +the name of Smith from the dead, and suppose a religion had been founded +on that miracle, would it not be natural for people, hundreds of years +after the pretended miracle, to ask why the founder of that religion +did not raise from the dead Abraham Lincoln, instead of the unknown and +obscure Mr. Smith? +</p> +<p> +How could any man now, in any court, by any known rule of evidence, +substantiate one of the miracles of Christ? +</p> +<p> +Must we believe anything that cannot in any way be substantiated? +</p> +<p> +If miracles were necessary to convince men eighteen centuries ago, are +they not necessary now? +</p> +<p> +After all, how many men did Christ convince with his miracles? How many +walked beneath the standard of the master of Nature? +</p> +<p> +How did it happen that so many miracles convinced so few? I will +tell you. The miracles were never performed. No other explanation is +possible. +</p> +<p> +It is infinitely absurd to say that a man who cured the sick, the halt +and blind, raised the dead, cast out devils, controlled the winds and +waves, created food and held obedient to his will the forces of the +world, was put to death by men who knew his superhuman power and who +had seen his wondrous works. If the crucifixion was public, the miracles +were private. If the miracles had been public, the crucifixion could not +have been. Do away with the miracles, and the superhuman character of +Christ is destroyed. He becomes what he really was—a man. Do away with +the wonders, and the teachings of Christ cease to be authoritative. They +are then worth the reason, the truth that is in them, and nothing more. +Do away with the miracles, and then we can measure the utterances of +Christ with the standard of our reason. We are no longer intellectual +serfs, believing what is unreasonable in obedience to the command of a +supposed god. We no longer take counsel of our fears, of our cowardice, +but boldly defend what our reason maintains. +</p> +<p> +Christ takes his appropriate place with the other teachers of mankind. +His life becomes reasonable and admirable. We have a man who hated +oppression; who despised and denounced superstition and hypocrisy; who +attacked the heartless church of his time; who excited the hatred of +bigots and priests, and who rather than be false to his conception of +truth, met and bravely suffered even death. +</p> +<p> +The Resurrection. +</p> +<p> +The miracle of the resurrection I do not and cannot believe. If it was +the fact, if the dead Christ rose from the grave, why did he not appear +to his enemies? Why did he not visit Pontius Pilate? Why did he not call +upon Caiaphas, the high priest? upon Herod? Why did he not again enter +the temple and end the old dispute with demonstration? Why did he not +confront the Roman soldiers who had taken money to falsely swear that +his body had been stolen by his friends? Why did he not make another +triumphal entry into Jerusalem? Why did he not say to the multitude: +"Here are the wounds in my feet, and in my hands, and in my side. I am +the one you endeavored to kill, but Death is my slave"? Simply because +the resurrection is a myth. It makes no difference with his teachings. +They are just as good whether he wrought miracles or not. Twice two are +four; that needs no miracle. Twice two are five—a miracle can not help +that. Christ's teachings are worth their effect upon the human race. +It makes no difference about miracle or wonder. In that day every +one believed in the impossible. Nobody had any standing as teacher, +philosopher, governor, king, general, about whom there was not supposed +to be something miraculous. The earth was covered with the sons and +daughters of gods and goddesses. +</p> +<p> +In Greece, in Rome, in Egypt, in India, every great man was supposed to +have had either a god for his father, or a goddess for his mother. They +accounted for genius by divine origin. Earth and heaven were at that +time near together. It was but a step for the gods from the blue arch +to the green earth. Every lake and valley and mountain top was made rich +with legends of the loves of gods. How could the early Christians have +made converts to a man, among a people who believed so thoroughly in +gods—in gods that had lived upon the earth; among a people who had +erected temples to the sons and daughters of gods? Such people could not +have been induced to worship a man—a man born among barbarous people, +citizen of a nation weak and poor and paying tribute to the Roman power. +The early Christians therefore preached the gospel of a god. +</p> +<p> +The Ascension. +</p> +<p> +I cannot believe in the miracle of the ascension, in the bodily +ascension of Jesus Christ. Where was he going? In the light shed upon +this question by the telescope, I again ask, where was he going? +</p> +<p> +The New Jerusalem is not above us. The abode of the gods is not there. +Where was he going? Which way did he go? Of course that depends upon +the time of day he left. If he left in the evening, he went exactly +the opposite way from that he would have gone had he ascended in the +morning. What did he do with his body? How high did he go? In what way +did he overcome the intense cold? The nearest station is the moon, two +hundred and forty thousand miles away. Again I ask, where did he go? He +must have had a natural body, for it was the same body that died. His +body must have been material, otherwise he would not as he rose have +circled with the earth, and he would have passed from the sight of his +disciples at the rate of more than a thousand miles per hour. +</p> +<p> +It may be said that his body was "spiritual." Then what became of the +body that died? Just before his ascension we are told that he partook of +broiled fish with his disciples. Was the fish "spiritual?" +</p> +<p> +Who saw this miracle? +</p> +<p> +They say the disciples saw it. Let us see what they say. Matthew did not +think it was worth mentioning. He does not speak of it. On the contrary, +he says that the last words of Christ were: +</p> +<p> +"Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Is it +possible that Matthew saw this, the most miraculous of miracles, and +yet forgot to put it in his life of Christ? Think of the little miracles +recorded by this saint, and then determine whether it is probable that +he witnessed the ascension of Jesus Christ. +</p> +<p> +Mark says: "So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto them he was +received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God." This is all +he says about the most wonderful vision that ever astonished human eyes, +a miracle great enough to have stuffed credulity to bursting; and yet +all we have is this one, poor, meagre verse. We know now that most of +the last chapter of Mark is an interpolation, and as a matter of fact, +the author of Mark's gospel said nothing about the ascension one way or +the other. +</p> +<p> +Luke says: "And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from +them and was carried up into Heaven." +</p> +<p> +John does not mention it. He gives as Christ's last words this address +to Peter: "Follow thou Me." Of course, he did not say that as he +ascended. It seems to have made very little impression upon him; he +writes the account as though tired of the story. He concludes with an +impatient wave of the hand. +</p> +<p> +In the Acts we have another account. A conversation is given not +spoken of in any of the others, and we find there two men clad in white +apparel, who said: "Ye men of Galilee why stand ye here gazing up into +heaven? This same Jesus that was taken up into heaven shall so come in +like manner as ye have seen him go up into heaven." +</p> +<p> +Matthew did not see the men in white apparel, did not see the ascension. +Mark forgot the entire transaction, and Luke did not think the men in +white apparel worth mentioning. John had not confidence enough in the +story to repeat it. And yet, upon such evidence, we are bound to believe +in the bodily ascension, or suffer eternal pain. +</p> +<p> +And here let me ask, why was not the ascension in public? +</p> +<p> +Casting out Devils. +</p> +<p> +Most of the miracles said to have been wrought by Christ were recorded +to show his power over evil spirits. On many occasions, he is said to +have "cast out devils"—devils who could speak, and devils who were +dumb. +</p> +<p> +For many years belief in the existence of evil spirits has been fading +from the mind, and as this belief grew thin, ministers endeavored to +give new meanings to the ancient words. They are inclined now to put +"disease" in the place of "devils," and most of them say, that the +poor wretches supposed to have been the homes of fiends, were simply +suffering from epileptic fits! We must remember that Christ and these +devils often conversed together. Is it possible that fits can talk? +These devils often admitted that Christ was God. Can epilepsy certify to +divinity? On one occasion the fits told their name, and made a contract +to leave the body of a man provided they would be permitted to take +possession of a herd of swine. Is it possible that fits carried Christ +himself to the pinnacle of a temple? Did fits pretend to be the owner +of the whole earth? Is Christ to be praised for resisting such a +temptation? Is it conceivable that fits wanted Christ to fall down and +worship them? +</p> +<p> +The church must not abandon its belief in devils. Orthodoxy cannot +afford to put out the fires of hell. Throw away a belief in the devil, +and most of the miracles of the New Testament become impossible, even +if we admit the supernatural. If there is no devil, who was the original +tempter in the garden of Eden? If there is no hell, from what are +we saved; to what purpose is the atonement? Upon the obverse of the +Christian shield is God, upon the reverse, the devil. No devil, no hell. +No hell, no atonement. No atonement, no preaching, no gospel. +</p> +<p> +Necessity of Belief. +</p> +<p> +Does belief depend upon evidence? I think it does somewhat in some +cases. How is it when a jury is sworn to try a case, hearing all the +evidence, hearing both sides, hearing the charge of the judge, hearing +the law, are upon their oaths equally divided, six for the plaintiff and +six for the defendant? Evidence does not have the same effect upon all +people. Why? Our brains are not alike. They are not the same shape. We +have not the same intelligence, or the same experience, the same sense. +And yet I am held accountable for my belief. I must believe in the +Trinity—three times one is one, once one is three, and my soul is to be +eternally damned for failing to guess an arithmetical conundrum. That +is the poison part of Christianity—that salvation depends upon +belief. That is the accursed part, and until that dogma is discarded +Christianity will be nothing but superstition. +</p> +<p> +No man can control his belief. If I hear certain evidence I will believe +a certain thing. If I fail to hear it I may never believe it. If it is +adapted to my mind I may accept it; if it is not, I reject it. And what +am I to go by? My brain. That is the only light I have from Nature, and +if there be a God it is the only torch that this God has given me to +find my way through the darkness and night called life. I do not depend +upon hearsay for that. I do not have to take the word of any other man +nor get upon my knees before a book. Here in the temple of the mind I +consult the God, that is to say my reason, and the oracle speaks to me +and I obey the oracle. What should I obey? Another man's oracle? Shall +I take another man's word—not what he thinks, but what he says some God +has said to him? +</p> +<p> +I would not know a god if I should see one. I have said before, and I +say again, the brain thinks in spite of me, and I am not responsible for +my thoughts. I cannot control the beating of my heart. I cannot stop +the blood that flows through the rivers of my veins. And yet I am held +responsible for my belief. Then why does not God give me the evidence? +They say he has. In what? In an inspired book. But I do not understand +it as they do. Must I be false to my understanding? They say: "When you +come to die you will be sorry if you do not." Will I be sorry when I +come to die that I did not live a hypocrite? Will I be sorry that I +did not say I was a Christian when I was not? Will the fact that I was +honest put a thorn in the pillow of death? Cannot God forgive me for +being honest? They say that when he was in Jerusalem he forgave his +murderers, but now he will not forgive an honest man for differing from +him on the subject of the Trinity. +</p> +<p> +They say that God says to me, "Forgive your enemies." I say, "I do;" but +he says, "I will damn mine." God should be consistent. If he wants me to +forgive my enemies he should forgive his. I am asked to forgive enemies +who can hurt me. God is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt +him. He certainly ought to be as generous as he asks us to be. And I +want no God to forgive me unless I am willing to forgive others, and +unless I do forgive others. All I ask, if that be true, is that this God +should act according to his own doctrine. If I am to forgive my enemies, +I ask him to forgive his. I do not believe in the religion of faith, +but of kindness, of good deeds. The idea that man is responsible for his +belief is at the bottom of religious intolerance and persecution. +</p> +<p> +How inconsistent these Christians are! In St. Louis the other day I read +an interview with a Christian minister—one who is now holding a +revival. They call him the boy preacher—a name that he has borne for +fifty or sixty years. The question was whether in these revivals, when +they were trying to rescue souls from eternal torture, they would allow +colored people to occupy seats with white people; and that revivalist, +preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ, said he would not allow the +colored people to sit with white people; they must go to the back of the +church. These same Christians tell us that in heaven there will be no +distinction. That Christ cares nothing for the color of the skin. That +in Paradise white and black will sit together, swap harps, and cry +hallelujah in chorus; yet this minister, believing as he says he does, +that all men who fail to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will eternally +perish, was not willing that a colored man should sit by a white man and +hear the gospel of everlasting peace. +</p> +<p> +According to this revivalist, the ship of the world is going down; +Christ is the only life-boat; and yet he is not willing that a colored +man, with a soul to save, shall sit by the side of a white brother, +and be rescued from eternal death. He admits that the white brother +is totally depraved; that if the white brother had justice done him he +would be damned; that it is only through the wonderful mercy of God that +the white man is not in hell; and yet such a being, totally depraved, +is too good to sit by a colored man! Total depravity becomes arrogant; +total depravity draws the color line in religion, and an ambassador of +Christ says to the black man, "Stand away; let your white brother hear +first about the love of God." +</p> +<p> +I believe in the religion of humanity. It is far better to love our +fellow-men than to love God. We can help them. We cannot help him. We +had better do what we can than to be always pretending to do what we +cannot. +</p> +<p> +Virtue is of no color; kindness, justice and love, of no complexion. +</p> +<p> +Eternal Punishment. +</p> +<p> +Now I come to the last part of this creed—the doctrine of eternal +punishment. I have concluded that I will never deliver a lecture in +which I will not attack the doctrine of eternal pain. That part of the +Congregational creed would disgrace the lowest savage that crouches +and crawls in the jungles of Africa. The man who now, in the nineteenth +century, preaches the doctrine of eternal punishment, the doctrine of an +eternal hell, has lived in vain. Think of that doctrine! The eternity of +punishment! I find in this same creed—in this latest utterance of +Congregationalism—that Christ is finally going to triumph in this world +and establish his kingdom. This creed declares that "we believe in the +ultimate prevalence of the kingdom of God over all the earth." If +their doctrine is true he will never triumph in the other world. The +Congregational Church does not believe in the ultimate prevalence of the +kingdom of Christ in the world to come. There he is to meet with eternal +failure. He will have billions in hell forever. +</p> +<p> +In this world we never will be perfectly civilized as long as a gallows +casts its shadow upon the earth. As long as there is a penitentiary, +within the walls of which a human being is immured, we are not a +perfectly civilized people. We shall never be perfectly civilized until +we do away with crime. And yet, according to this Christian religion, +God is to have an eternal penitentiary; he is to be an everlasting +jailer, an everlasting turnkey, a warden of an infinite dungeon, and +he is going to keep prisoners there forever, not for the purpose of +reforming them—because they are never going to get any better, only +worse—but for the purpose of purposeless punishment. And for what? +For something they failed to believe in this world. Born in ignorance, +supported by poverty, caught in the snares of temptation, deformed by +toil, stupefied by want—and yet held responsible through the countless +ages of eternity! No man can think of a greater horror; no man can dream +of a greater absurdity. For the growth of that doctrine ignorance was +soil and fear was rain. It came from the fanged mouths of serpents, and +yet it is called "glad tidings of great joy." Some Who are Damned. +</p> +<p> +We are told "God so loved the world" that he is going to damn almost +everybody. If this orthodox religion be true, some of the greatest, and +grandest, and best who ever lived are suffering God's torments to-night. +It does not appear to make much difference with the members of the +church. They go right on enjoying themselves about as well as ever. If +this doctrine is true, Benjamin Franklin, one of the wisest and best of +men, who did so much to give us here a free government, is suffering +the tyranny of God to-night, although he endeavored to establish freedom +among men. If the churches were honest, their preachers would tell their +hearers: "Benjamin Franklin is in hell, and we warn all the youth not to +imitate Benjamin Franklin. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration +of Independence, with its self-evident truths, has been damned these +many years." +</p> +<p> +That is what all the ministers ought to have the courage to say. Talk +as you believe. Stand by your creed, or change it. I want to impress it +upon your minds, because the thing I wish to do in this world is to put +out the fires of hell. I will keep on as long as there is one little red +coal left in the bottomless pit. As long as the ashes are warm I shall +denounce this infamous doctrine. +</p> +<p> +I want you to know that according to this creed the men who founded this +great and splendid Government are in hell to-night. Most of the men who +fought in the Revolutionary war, and wrested from the clutch of Great +Britain this continent, have been rewarded by the eternal wrath of God. +Thousands of the old Revolutionary soldiers are in torment tonight. Let +the preachers have the courage to say so. The men who fought in 1812, +and gave to the United States the freedom of the seas, have nearly all +been damned. Thousands of heroes who served our country in the Civil +war, hundreds who starved in prisons, are now in the dungeons of God, +compared with which, Andersonville was Paradise. The greatest of heroes +are there; the greatest of poets, the greatest scientists, the men who +have made the world beautiful—they are all among the damned if this +creed is true. +</p> +<p> +Humboldt, who shed light, and who added to the intellectual wealth +of mankind; Goethe, and Schiller, and Lessing, who almost created the +German language—all gone—all suffering the wrath of God tonight, and +every time an angel thinks of one of those men he gives his harp an +extra twang. Laplace, who read the heavens like an open book—he is +there. Robert Burns, the poet of human love—he is there. He wrote +the "Prayer of Holy Willie." He fastened on the cross the Presbyterian +creed, and there it is, a lingering crucifixion. Robert Burns increased +the tenderness of the human heart. Dickens put a shield of pity before +the flesh of childhood—God is getting even with him. Our own Ralph +Waldo Emerson, although he had a thousand opportunities to hear +Methodist clergymen, scorned the means of grace, lived to his highest +ideal, gave to his fellow-men his best and truest thought, and yet his +spirit is the sport and prey of fiends to-night. +</p> +<p> +Longfellow, who has refined thousands of homes, did not believe in the +miraculous origin of the Savior, doubted the report of Gabriel, loved +his fellow-men, did what he could to free the slaves, to increase the +happiness of man, yet God was waiting for his soul—waiting to cast +him out and down forever. Thomas Paine, author of the "Rights of Man;" +offering his life in both hemispheres for the freedom of the human race; +one of the founders of this Republic, is now among the damned; and yet +it seems to me that if he could only get God's attention long enough +to point him to the American flag he would let him out. Auguste Comte, +author of the "Positive Philosophy," who loved his fellow-men to that +degree that he made of humanity a god, who wrote his great work in +poverty, with his face covered with tears—they are getting their +revenge on him now. +</p> +<p> +Voltaire, who abolished torture in France; who did more for human +liberty than any other man, living or dead; who was the assassin +of superstition, and whose dagger still rusts in the heart of +Catholicism—he is with the rest. All the priests who have been +translated have had their happiness increased by looking at Voltaire. +</p> +<p> +Giordano Bruno, the first star of the morning after the long night; +Benedict Spinoza, the pantheist, the metaphysician, the pure and +generous man; Diderot, the encyclopedist, who endeavored to get all +knowledge in a small compass, so that he could put the peasant on an +equality intellectually with the prince; Diderot, who wished to sow all +over the world the seed of knowledge, and loved to labor for mankind, +while the priests wanted to burn; who did all he could to put out the +fires—he was lost, long, long ago. His cry for water has become so +common that his voice is now recognized through all the realms of +heaven, and the angels laughing, say to one another, "That is Diderot." +</p> +<p> +David Hume, the Scotch philosopher, is there, with his inquiry about +the "Human Understanding" and his argument against miracles. Beethoven, +master of music, and Wagner, the Shakespeare of harmony, who made the +air of this world rich forever, they are there; and to-night they have +better music in hell than in heaven! +</p> +<p> +Shelley, whose soul, like his own "Skylark," was a winged joy, has been +damned for many, many years; and Shakespeare, the greatest of the human +race, who did more to elevate mankind than all the priests who ever +lived and died, he is there; but founders of inquisitions, builders +of dungeons, makers of chains, inventors of instruments of torture, +tearers, and burners, and branders of human flesh, stealers of babes, +and sellers of husbands and wives and children, and they who kept the +horizon lurid with the fagot's flame for a thousand years—are in heaven +to-night. I wish heaven joy! +</p> +<p> +That is the doctrine with which we are polluting the souls of children. +That is the doctrine that puts a fiend by the dying bed and a prophecy +of hell over every cradle. That is "glad tidings of great joy." +</p> +<p> +Only a little while ago, when the great flood came upon the Ohio, sent +by him who is ruling the world and paying particular attention to the +affairs of nations, just in the gray of the morning they saw a house +floating down and on its top a human being. A few men went out to the +rescue. They found there a woman, a mother, and they wished to save her +life. She said: "No, I am going to stay where I am. In this house I +have three dead babes; I will not desert them." Think of a love so +limitless—stronger and deeper than despair and death! And yet, the +Christian religion says, that if that woman, that mother, did not happen +to believe in their creed God would send her soul to eternal fire! If +there is another world, and if in heaven they wear hats, when such a +woman climbs the opposite bank of the Jordan, Christ should lift his to +her. +</p> +<p> +The doctrine of eternal pain is my trouble with this Christian religion. +I reject it on account of its infinite heartlessness. I cannot tell them +too often, that during our last war Christians, who knew that if they +were shot they would go right to heaven, went and hired wicked men to +take their places, perfectly willing that these men should go to hell +provided they could stay at home. You see they are not honest in it, +or they do not believe it, or as the people say, "they don't sense it." +They have not imagination enough to conceive what it is they believe, +and what a terrific falsehood they assert. And I beg of every one +who hears me to-night, I beg, I implore, I beseech you, never to give +another dollar to build a church in which that lie is preached. Never +give another cent to send a missionary with his mouth stuffed with +that falsehood to a foreign land. Why, they say, the heathen will go to +heaven, any way, if you let them alone. What is the use of sending them +to hell by enlightening them? Let them alone. The idea of going and +telling a man a thing that if he does not believe, he will be damned, +when the chances are ten to one that he will not believe it, is +monstrous. Do not tell him here, and as quick as he gets to the other +world and finds it is necessary to believe, he can say "Yes." Give him a +chance. +</p> +<p> +Another Objection. +</p> +<p> +My objection to orthodox religion is that it destroys human love, and +tells us that the love of this world is not necessary to make a heaven +in the next. +</p> +<p> +No matter about your wife, your children, your brother, your sister—no +matter about all the affections of the human heart—when you get there, +you will be with the angels. I do not know whether I would like the +angels. I do not know whether the angels would like me. I would rather +stand by the ones who have loved me and whom I know; and I can conceive +of no heaven without the loved of this earth. That is the trouble with +this Christian relief-ion. Leave your father, leave your mother, leave +your wife, leave your children, leave everything and follow Jesus +Christ. I will not. I will stay with my people. I will not sacrifice on +the altar of a selfish fear all the grandest and noblest promptings of +my heart. +</p> +<p> +Do away with human love and what are we? What would we be in another +world, and what would we be here? Can any one conceive of music without +human love? Of art, or joy? Human love builds every home. Human love is +the author of all beauty. Love paints every picture, and chisels every +statue. Love builds every fireside. What could heaven be without human +love? And yet that is what we are promised—a heaven with your wife +lost, your mother lost, some of your children gone. And you expect to be +made happy by falling in with some angel! Such a religion is infamous. +Christianity holds human love for naught; and yet Love is the only bow +on Life's dark cloud. It is the morning and the evening star. It shines +upon the babe, and sheds its radiance on the quiet tomb. It is the +mother of art, inspirer of poet, patriot and philosopher. It is the air +and light of every heart—builder of every home, kindler of every fire +on every hearth. It was the first to dream of immortality. It fills the +world with melody—for music is the voice of love. Love is the magician, +the enchanter, that changes worthless things to joy, and makes right +royal kings and queens of common clay. It is the perfume of that +wondrous flower, the heart, and without that sacred passion, that divine +swoon, we are less than beasts; but with it, earth is heaven, and we are +gods. +</p> +<p> +And how are you to get to this heaven? On the efforts of another. +You are to be a perpetual heavenly pauper, and you will have to admit +through all eternity that you never would have been there if you had not +been frightened. "I am here," you will say, "I have these wings, I have +this musical instrument, because I was scared. I am here. The ones who +loved me are among the damned; the ones I loved are also there—but I am +here, that is enough." +</p> +<p> +What a glorious' world heaven must be! No reformation in that world—not +the slightest. If you die in Arkansas that is the end of you! Think of +telling a boy in the next world, who lived and died in Delaware, that he +had been fairly treated! Can anything be more infamous? +</p> +<p> +All on an equality—the rich and the poor, those with parents loving +them, those with every opportunity for education, on an equality with +the poor, the abject and the ignorant—and this little day called life, +this moment with a hope, a shadow and a tear, this little space between +your mother's arms and the grave, balances eternity. +</p> +<p> +God can do nothing for you when you get there. A Methodist preacher can +do more for the soul here than its creator can there. The soul goes to +heaven, where there is nothing but good society; no bad examples; and +they are all there, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and yet they can do +nothing for that poor unfortunate except to damn him. Is there any sense +in that? +</p> +<p> +Why should this be a period of probation? It says in the Bible, I +believe, "Now is the accepted time." When does that mean? That means +whenever the passage is pronounced. "Now is the accepted time." It will +be the same to-morrow, will it not? And just as appropriate then +as to-day, and if appropriate at any time, appropriate through all +eternity. +</p> +<p> +What I say is this: There is no world—there can be no world—in which +every human being will not have the eternal opportunity of doing right. +</p> +<p> +That is my objection to this Christian religion; and if the love +of earth is not the love of heaven, if those we love here are to be +separated from us there, then I want eternal sleep. Give me a good cool +grave rather than the furnace of Jehovah's wrath. I pray the angel of +the resurrection to let me sleep. Gabriel, do not blow! Let me alone! +If, when the grave bursts, I am not to meet the faces that have been my +sunshine in this life, let me sleep. Rather than that this doctrine of +endless punishment should be true, I would gladly see the fabric of our +civilization crumbling fall to unmeaning chaos and to formless dust, +where oblivion broods and even memory forgets. I would rather that the +blind Samson of some imprisoned force, released by chance, should so +wreck and strand the mighty world that man in stress and strain of want +and fear should shudderingly crawl back to savage and barbaric night. I +would rather that every planet should in its orbit wheel a barren star! +</p> +<p> +What I Believe. +</p> +<p> +I think it is better to love your children than to love God, a thousand +times better, because you can help them, and I am inclined to think that +God can get along without you. Certainly we cannot help a being without +body, parts, or passions! +</p> +<p> +I believe in the religion of the family. I believe that the roof-tree is +sacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the soft cool clasp of earth, +to the topmost flower that spreads its bosom to the sun, and like a +spendthrift gives its perfume to the air. The home where virtue dwells +with love is like a lily with a heart of fire—the fairest flower in all +the world. And I tell you God cannot afford to damn a man in the next +world who has made a happy family in this. God cannot afford to cast +over the battlements of heaven the man who has a happy home upon this +earth. God cannot afford to be unpitying to a human heart capable of +pity. God cannot clothe with fire the man who has clothed the naked +here; and God cannot send to eternal pain a man who has done something +toward improving the condition of his fellow-man. If he can, I had +rather go to hell than to heaven and keep the company of such a god. +</p> +<p> +Immortality. +</p> +<p> +They tell me that the next terrible thing I do is to take away the hope +of immortality! I do not, I would not, I could not. Immortality was +first dreamed of by human love; and yet the church is going to take +human love out of immortality. We love, therefore we wish to live. A +loved one dies and we wish to meet again; and from the affection of the +human heart grew the great oak of the hope of immortality. Around +that oak has climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. Theologians, +pretenders, soothsayers, parsons, priests, popes, bishops, have taken +advantage of that. They have stood by graves and promised heaven. They +have stood by graves and prophesied a future filled with pain. They have +erected their toll-gates on the highway of life and have collected money +from fear. +</p> +<p> +Neither the Bible nor the church gave us the idea of immortality. The +Old Testament tells us how we lost immortality, and it does not say a +word about another world, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last +curse in Malachi. There is not in the Old Testament a burial service. +</p> +<p> +No man in the Old Testament stands by the dead and says, "We shall meet +again." From the top of Sinai came no hope of another world. +</p> +<p> +And when we get to the New Testament, what do we find? "They that are +accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the dead." +As though some would be counted unworthy to obtain the resurrection of +the dead. And in another place. "Seek for honor, glory, immortality." +If you have it, why seek it? And in another place, "God, who alone hath +immortality." Yet they tell us that we get our idea of immortality from +the Bible. I deny it. +</p> +<p> +I would not destroy the faintest ray of human hope, but I deny that +we got our idea of immortality from the Bible. It existed long before +Moses. We find it symbolized through all Egypt, through all India. +Wherever man has lived he has made another world in which to meet the +lost of this. +</p> +<p> +The history of this belief we find in tombs and temples wrought and +carved by those who wept and hoped. Above their dead they laid the +symbols of another life. +</p> +<p> +We do not know. We do not prophesy a life of pain. We leave the dead +with Nature, the mother of us all. Under the bow of hope, under the +seven-hued arch, let the dead sleep. +</p> +<p> +If Christ was in fact God, why did he not plainly say there is another +life? Why did he not tell us something about it? Why did he not turn +the tear-stained hope of immortality into the glad knowledge of another +life? Why did he go dumbly to his death and leave the world in darkness +and in doubt? Why? Because he was a man and did not know. +</p> +<p> +What consolation has the orthodox religion for the widow of the +unbeliever, the widow of a good, brave, kind man? What can the orthodox +minister say to relieve the bursting heart of that woman? What can he +say to relieve the aching hearts of the orphans as they kneel by the +grave of that father, if that father did not happen to be an orthodox +Christian? What consolation have they? When a Christian loses a friend +the tears spring from his eyes as quickly as from the eyes of others. +Their tears are as bitter as ours. Why? The echoes of the words spoken +eighteen hundred years ago are so low, and the sounds of the clods upon +the coffin are so loud; the promises are so far away, and the dead are +so near. +</p> +<p> +We do not know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door; the +beginning or end of a day; the spreading of pinions to soar, or the +folding forever of wings; the rise or the set of a sun, or an endless +life that brings the rapture of love to everyone. A Fable. +</p> +<p> +There is the fable of Orpheus and Eurydice. Eurydice had been captured +and taken to the infernal regions, and Orpheus went after her, taking +with him his harp and playing as he went. When he came to Pluto's realm +he began to play, and Sysiphus, charmed by the music, sat down upon the +stone that he had been heaving up the mountain's side for so many years, +and which continually rolled back upon him; Ixion paused upon his wheel +of fire; Tantalus ceased his vain efforts for water; the daughters of +the Danaides left off trying to fill their sieves with water; Pluto +smiled, and for the first time in the history of hell the cheeks of the +Furies were wet with tears. The god relented, and said, "Eurydice may +go with you, but you must not look back." So Orpheus again threaded the +caverns, playing as he went, and as he reached the light he failed to +hear the footsteps of Eurydice. He looked back, and in a moment she was +gone. Again and again Orpheus sought his love. Again and again looked +back. +</p> +<p> +This fable gives the idea of the perpetual effort made by the human mind +to rescue truth from the clutch of error. +</p> +<p> +Some time Orpheus will not look back. Some day Eurydice will reach the +blessed light, and at last there will fade from the memory of men the +monsters of superstition. +</p> +<a name="link0005"><!-- H2 anchor --></a> + +<div style="height: 4em;"><br><br><br><br></div> + +<h2> + MYTH AND MIRACLE. +</h2> +<h3> + I. +</h3> +<p> +HAPPINESS is the true end and aim of life. It is the task of +intelligence to ascertain the conditions of happiness, and when found +the truly wise will live in accordance with them. By happiness is meant +not simply the joy of eating and drinking—the gratification of the +appetite—but good, wellbeing, in the highest and noblest forms. The joy +that springs from obligation discharged, from duty done, from generous +acts, from being true to the ideal, from a perception of the beautiful +in nature, art and conduct. The happiness that is born of and gives +birth to poetry and music, that follows the gratification of the highest +wants. +</p> +<p> +Happiness is the result of all that is really right and sane. +</p> +<p> +But there are many people who regard the desire to be happy as a very +low and degrading ambition. These people call themselves spiritual. They +pretend to care nothing for the pleasures of "sense." They hold this +world, this life, in contempt. They do not want happiness in this +world—but in another. Here, happiness degrades—there, it purifies and +ennobles. +</p> +<p> +These spiritual people have been known as prophets, apostles, augurs, +hermits, monks, priests, popes, bishops and parsons. They are devout and +useless. They do not cultivate the soil. They produce nothing. They +live on the labor of others. They are pious and parasitic. They pray +for others, if the others will work for them. They claim to have been +selected by the Infinite to instruct and govern mankind. They are "meek" +and arrogant, "long-suffering" and revengeful. +</p> +<p> +They ever have been, now are, and always will be the enemies of liberty, +of investigation and science. They are believers in the supernatural, +the miraculous and the absurd. They have filled the world with hatred, +bigotry and fear. In defence of their creeds they have committed every +crime and practiced every cruelty. +</p> +<p> +They denounce as worldly and sensual those who are gross enough to love +wives and children, to build homes, to fell the forests, to navigate the +seas, to cultivate the earth, to chisel statues, to paint pictures and +fill the world with love and art. +</p> +<p> +They have denounced and maligned the thinkers, the poets, the +dramatists, the composers, the actors, the orators, the workers—those +who have conquered the world for man. +</p> +<p> +According to them this world is only the vestibule of the next, a kind +of school, an ordeal, a place of probation. They have always insisted +that this life should be spent in preparing for the next; that those +who supported and obeyed the "spiritual guides"—the shepherds, would +be rewarded with an eternity of joy, and that all others would suffer +eternal pain. +</p> +<p> +These spiritual people have always hated labor. They have added nothing +to the wealth of the world. They have always lived on alms—on the labor +of others. They have always been the enemies of innocent pleasure, and +of human love. +</p> +<p> +These spiritual people have produced a literature. The books they have +written are called sacred. Our sacred books are called the Bible. +The Hindoos have the Vedas and many others, the Persians the Zend +Avesta—the Egyptians had the Book of the Dead—the Aztecs the Popol +Vuh, and the Mohammedans have the Koran. +</p> +<p> +These books, for the most part, treat of the unknowable. They describe +gods and winged phantoms of the air. They give accounts of the origin +of the universe, the creation of man and the worlds beyond this. They +contain nothing of value. Millions and millions of people have wasted +their lives studying these absurd and ignorant books. +</p> +<p> +The "spiritual people" in each country claimed that their books had been +written by inspired men—that God was the real author, and that all men +and women who denied this would be, after death, tormented forever. +</p> +<p> +And yet, the worldly people, the uninspired, the wicked, have produced a +far greater literature than the spiritual and the inspired. +</p> +<p> +Not all the sacred books of the world equal Shakespeare's "volume of +the brain." A purer philosophy, grander, nobler, fell from the lips of +Shakespeare's clowns than the Old Testament, or the New, contains. +</p> +<p> +The Declaration of Independence is nobler far than all the utterances +from Sinai's cloud and flame. "A Man's a Man for a' That," by Robert +Burns, is better than anything the sacred books contain. For my part, I +would rather hear Beethoven's Sixth Symphony than to read the five books +of Moses. Give me the Sixth Symphony—this sound-wrought picture of +the fields and woods, of flowering hedge and happy home, where thrushes +build and swallows fly, and mothers sing to babes; this echo of the +babbled lullaby of brooks that, dallying, wind and fall where meadows +bare their daisied bosoms to the sun; this joyous mimicry of summer +rain, the laugh of children, and the rhythmic rustle of the whispering +leaves; this strophe of peasant life; this perfect poem of content and +love. +</p> +<p> +I would rather listen to Tristan and Isolde—that Mississippi of +melody—where the great notes, winged like eagles, lift the soul above +the cares and griefs of this weary world—than to all the orthodox +sermons ever preached. I would rather look at the Venus de Milo than to +read the Presbyterian creed. +</p> +<p> +The spiritual have endeavored to civilize the world through fear and +faith—by the promise of reward and the threat of pain in other worlds. +They taught men to hate and persecute their fellow-men. In all ages they +have appealed to force. During all the years they have practiced fraud. +They have pretended to have influence with the gods—that their prayers +gave rain, sunshine and harvest—that their curses brought pestilence +and famine, and that their blessings filled the world with plenty. They +have subsisted on the fears their falsehoods created. Like poisonous +vines, they have lived on the oak of labor. They have praised charity, +but they never gave. They have denounced revenge, but they never +forgave. +</p> +<p> +Whenever the spiritual have had power, art has died, learning has +languished, science has been despised, liberty destroyed, the thinkers +have been imprisoned, the intelligent and honest have been outcasts, and +the brave have been murdered. +</p> +<p> +The "spiritual" have been, are, and always will be the enemies of the +human race. +</p> +<p> +For all the blessings that we now enjoy—for progress in every form, for +science and art—for all that has lengthened life, that has conquered +disease, that has lessened pain, for raiment, roof and food, for music +in its highest forms—for the poetry that has ennobled and enriched our +lives—for the marvellous machines now working for the world—for all +this we are indebted to the worldly—to those who turned their attention +to the affairs of this life. They have been the only benefactors of our +race. +</p> +<center> +II. +</center> +<p> +AND yet all of these religions—these "sacred books," these priests, +have been naturally produced. From the dens and caves of savagery to +the palaces of civilization men have traveled by the necessary paths and +roads. Back of every step has been the efficient cause. In the history +of the world there has been no chance, no interference from without, +nothing miraculous. Everything in accordance with and produced by the +facts in nature. +</p> +<p> +We need not blame the hypocritical and cruel. They thought and acted as +they were compelled to think and act. +</p> +<p> +In all ages man has tried to account for himself and his surroundings. +He did the best he could. He wondered why the water ran, why the trees +grew, why the clouds floated, why the stars shone, why the sun and moon +journeyed through the heavens. He was troubled about life and death, +about darkness and dreams. The seas, the volcanoes, the lightning and +thunder, the earthquake and cyclone, filled him with fear. Behind all +life and growth and motion, and even inanimate things, he placed +a spirit—an intelligent being—a fetich, a person, something like +himself—a god, controlled by love and hate. To him causes and effects +became gods—supernatural beings. The Dawn was a maiden, wondrously +fair, the Sun, a warrior and lover; the Night, a serpent, a wolf—the +Wind, a musician; Winter, a wild beast; Autumn, Proserpine gathering +flowers. +</p> +<p> +Poets were the makers of these myths. They were the first to account for +what they saw and felt. The great multitude mistook these fancies +for facts. Myths strangely alike, were produced by most nations, and +gradually took possession of the world. +</p> +<p> +The Sleeping Beauty, a myth of the year, has been found among most +peoples. In this myth, the Earth was a maiden—the Sun was her lover, +She had fallen asleep in winter. Her blood was still and her breath had +gone. In the Spring the lover came, clasped her in his arms, covered her +lips and cheeks with kisses. She was thrilled, her heart began to beat, +she breathed, her blood flowed, and she awoke to love and joy. This myth +has made the circuit of the globe. +</p> +<p> +So, Red Riding-Hood is the history of a day. Little Red Riding-Hood—the +morning, touched with red, goes to visit her kindred, a day that is +past. She is attacked by the wolf of night and is rescued by the hunter, +Apollo, who pierces the heart of the beast with an arrow of light. +</p> +<p> +The beautiful myth of Orpheus and Eurydice is the story of the year. +Eurydice has been captured and carried to the infernal world. Orpheus, +playing upon his harp, goes after her. Such is the effect of his music +when he reaches the realm of Pluto, the laughterless, that Tantalus +ceases his efforts to slake his thirst. He listens and forgets his +withered lips, the daughters of the Danaides cease their vain efforts +to fill the sieve with water, Sisyphus sits down on the stone that he +so often had heaved against the mountain's misty side, Ixion pauses +upon his wheel of fire, even Pluto smiles, and for the first time in the +history of hell the cheeks of the Furies are wet with tears. +</p> +<p> +"Give me back Eurydice," cried Orpheus, and Pluto said: "Take her, but +look not back." Orpheus led the way and Eurydice followed. Just as he +reached the upper world, he missed her footsteps, turned, looked, and +she vanished. +</p> +<p> +And thus the summer comes, is lost, and comes again through all the +years. +</p> +<p> +So, our ancestors believed in the Garden of Eden, in the Golden Age, in +the blessed time when all were good and pure—when nature satisfied the +wants of all. The race, like the old man, has golden dreams of youth. +The morning was filled with light and life and joy, and the evening is +always sad. When the old man was young, girls were beautiful and men +were honest. He remembers his Eden. And so the whole world has had its +age of gold. +</p> +<p> +Our fathers were believers in the Elysian Fields. They were in the far, +far West. They saw them at the setting of the sun. They saw the floating +isles of gold in sapphire seas; the templed mist with spires and domes +of emerald and amethyst; the magic caverns of the clouds, resplendent +with the rays of every gem. And as they looked, they thought the curtain +had been drawn aside and that their eyes had for a moment feasted on the +glories of another world. +</p> +<p> +The myth of the Flood has also been universal. Finding shells of the +seas on plain and mountain, and everywhere some traces of the waves, +they thought the world had been submerged—that God in wrath had drowned +the race, except a few his mercy saved. +</p> +<p> +The Hindus say that Menu, a holy man, dipped from the Ganges some water, +and in the basin saw a little fish. The fish begged him to throw him +back into the river, and Menu, having pity, cast him back. The fish then +told Menu that there was to be a flood—told him to build an ark, to +take on board, people, animals and food, and that when the flood came, +he, the fish, would save him. The saint did as he was told, the flood +came, the fish returned. By that time he had grown to be a whale with +a horn in his head. About this horn Menu fastened a rope, attached the +other end to the ark, and the fish towed the boat across the raging +waves to a mountain's top, where it rested until the waters subsided. +The name of this wonderful fish was Matsaya. +</p> +<p> +Many other nations told similar stories of floods and arks and the +sending forth of doves. +</p> +<p> +In all these myths and legends of the past we find philosophies and +dreams and efforts, stained with tears, of great and tender souls who +tried to pierce the mysteries of life and death, to answer the questions +of the whence and whither, and who vainly sought with bits of shattered +glass to make a mirror that would in very truth reflect the face and +form of Nature's perfect self. These myths were born of hopes and fears, +of tears and smiles, and they were touched and colored by all there is +of joy and grief between the rosy dawn of birth and death's sad night. +They clothed even the stars with passion, and gave to gods the faults +and frailties of the sons of men. In them the winds and waves were +music, and all the springs, the mountains, woods and perfumed dells were +haunted by a thousand fairy forms. They thrilled the veins of Spring +with tremulous desire, made tawny Summer's billowy breast the throne and +home of love, filled Autumn's arms with sun-kissed grapes and gathered +sheaves, and pictured Winter as a weak old king, who felt, like Lear, +upon his withered face, Cordelia's tears. +</p> +<p> +These myths, though false in fact, are beautiful and true in thought, +and have for many ages and in countless ways enriched the heart and +kindled thought. +</p> +<center> +III. +</center> +<p> +IN all probability the first religion was Sun-worship. Nothing could +have been more natural. Light was life and warmth and love. The sun +was the fireside of the world. The sun was the "all-seeing"—the "Sky +Father." Darkness was grief and death, and in the shadows crawled the +serpents of despair and fear. +</p> +<p> +The sun was a great warrior, fighting the hosts of Night. Apollo was +the sun, and he fought and conquered the serpent of Night. Agni, the +generous, who loved the lowliest and visited the humblest, was the sun. +He was the god of fire, and the crossed sticks that by friction leaped +into flame were his emblem. It was said that, in spite of his goodness, +he devoured his father and mother, the two pieces of wood being his +parents. Baldur was the sun. He was in love with the Dawn—a maiden—he +deserted her and traveled through the heavens alone. At the twilight +they met, were reconciled, and the drops of dew were the tears of joy +they shed. +</p> +<p> +Chrishna was the sun. At his birth the Ganges thrilled from its source +to the sea. All the trees, the dead as well as the living, burst into +leaf and bud and flower. +</p> +<p> +Hercules was a sun-god. +</p> +<p> +Jonah the same, rescued from the fiends of Night and carried by the fish +through the under world. Samson was a sun-god. His strength was in +his hair—in his beams. He was shorn of his strength by Delilah, the +shadow—the darkness. So, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Buddha, +Quelzalcoatle, Prometheus, Zoroaster, Perseus, Codom Lao-tsze Fo-hi, +Horus and Rameses were all sun-gods. +</p> +<p> +All these gods had gods for fathers and all their mothers were virgins. +</p> +<p> +The births of nearly all were announced by stars. +</p> +<p> +When they were born there was celestial music—voices declared that a +blessing had come upon the earth. +</p> +<p> +When Buddha was born, the celestial choir sang: "This day is born +for the good of men Buddha, and to dispel the darkness of their +ignorance—to give joy and peace to the world." +</p> +<p> +Chrishna was born in a cave, and protected by shepherds. Bacchus, +Apollo, Mithra and Hermes were all born in caves. Buddha was born in an +inn—according to some, under a tree. +</p> +<p> +Tyrants sought to kill all of these gods when they were babes. +</p> +<p> +When Chrishna was born, a tyrant killed the babes of the neighborhood. +</p> +<p> +Buddha was the child of Maya, a virgin, in the kingdom of Madura. The +king arrested Maya before the child was born, imprisoned her in a tower. +During the night when the child was born, a great wind wrecked the +tower, and carried mother and child to a place of safety. The next +morning the king sent his soldiers to kill the babes, and when they came +to Buddha and his mother, the babe appeared to be about twelve years of +age, and the soldiers passed on. +</p> +<p> +So Typhon sought in many ways to destroy the babe Horus. The king +pursued the infant Zoroaster. Cadmus tried to kill the infant Bacchus. +</p> +<p> +All of these gods were born on the 25th of December. +</p> +<p> +Nearly all were worshiped by "wise men." +</p> +<p> +All of them fasted for forty days. +</p> +<p> +All met with a violent death. +</p> +<p> +All rose from the dead. +</p> +<p> +The history of these gods is the history of our Christ. He had a god for +a father, a virgin for a mother. He was born in a manger, or a cave—on +the 2 5th of December. His birth was announced by angels. He was +worshiped by wise men, guided by a star. Herod, seeking his life, caused +the death of many babes. Christ fasted for forty days. So, it rained for +forty days before the flood—Moses was on Mt. Sinai for forty days. The +temple had forty pillars and the Jews wandered in the wilderness for +forty years. Christ met with a violent death, and rose from the dead. +</p> +<p> +These things are not accidents—not coincidences. Christ was a sun-god. +All religions have been born of sun-worship. To-day, when priests +pray, they shut their eyes. This is a survival of sun-worship. When men +worshiped the sun, they had to shut their eyes. Afterwards, to flatter +idols, they pretended that the glory of their faces was more than the +eyes could bear. +</p> +<p> +In the religion of our day there is nothing original. All of its +doctrines, its symbols and ceremonies are but the survivals of creeds +that perished long ago. Baptism is far older than Christianity—than +Judaism. The Hindus, the Egyptians, the Greeks and Romans had holy +water. The eucharist was borrowed from the Pagans. Ceres was the goddess +of the fields, Bacchus the god of the vine. At the harvest festival they +made cakes of wheat and said: "These are the flesh of the goddess." They +drank wine and cried: "This is the blood of our god." +</p> +<p> +The cross has been a symbol for many thousands of years. It was a symbol +of immortality—of life, of the god Agni, the form of the grave of a +man. An ancient people of Italy, who lived long before the Romans, long +before the Etruscans, so long that not one word of their language is +known, used the cross, and beneath that emblem, carved on stone, their +dead still rest. In the forests of Central America, ruined temples have +been found, and on the walls the cross with the bleeding victim. On +Babylonian cylinders is the impression of the cross. The Trinity came +from Egypt. Osiris, Isis and Horus were worshiped thousands of years +before our Father, Son and Holy Ghost were thought of. So the Tree of +Life grew in India, China and among the Aztecs long before the Garden +of Eden was planted. Long before our Bible was known, other nations +had their sacred books, temples and altars, sacrifices, ceremonies and +priests. The "Fall of Man" is far older than our religion, and so are +the "Atonement" and the Scheme of Redemption. +</p> +<p> +In our blessed religion there is nothing new, nothing original. +</p> +<p> +Among the Egyptians the cross was a symbol of the life to come. And +yet the first religion was, and all religions growing out of that, were +naturally produced. Every brain was a field in which Nature sowed the +seeds of thought. The rise and set of sun, the birth and death of day, +the dawns of silver and the dusks of gold, the wonders of the rain and +snow, the shroud of Winter and the many colored robe of Spring, the +lonely moon with nightly loss or gain, the serpent lightning and the +thunder's voice, the tempest's fury and the zephyr's sigh, the threat +of storm and promise of the bow, cathedral clouds with dome and spire, +earthquake and strange eclipse, frost and fire, the snow-crowned +mountains with their tongues of flame, the fields of space sown thick +with stars, the wandering comets hurrying past the fixed and sleepless +sentinels of night, the marvels of the earth and air, the perfumed +flower, the painted wing, the waveless pool that held within its magic +breast the image of the startled face, the mimic echo that made a record +in the viewless air, the pathless forests and the boundless seas, +the ebb and flow of tides—the slow, deep breathing of some vague and +monstrous life—the miracle of birth, the mystery of dream and death, +and over all the silent and immeasurable dome. These were the warp and +woof, and at the loom sat Love and Fancy, Hope and Fear, and wove the +wondrous tapestries whereon we find pictures of gods and fairy lands +and all the legends that were told when Nature rocked the cradle of the +infant world. +</p> +<center> +IV. +</center> +<p> +WE must remember that there is a great difference. Myth is the +idealization of a fact. A miracle is the counterfeit of a fact. There is +the same difference between a myth and a miracle that there is between +fiction and falsehood—between poetry and perjury. Miracles belong to +the far past and the far future. The little line of sand, called the +present, between the seas, belongs to common sense, to the natural. +</p> +<p> +If you should tell a man that the dead were raised two thousand years +ago, he would probably say: "Yes, I know that." If you should say that +a hundred thousand years from now all the dead will be raised, he might +say: "Probably they will." But if you should tell him that you saw a +dead man raised and given life that day, he would likely ask the name of +the insane asylum from which you had escaped. +</p> +<p> +Our Bible is filled with accounts of miracles and yet they always fail +to convince. +</p> +<p> +Jehovah, according to the Scriptures, wrought hundreds of miracles for +the benefit of the Jews. With many miracles he rescued them from +slavery, guided them on their journey with a miraculous cloud by day and +a miraculous pillar of fire by night—divided the sea that they might +escape from the Egyptians, fed them with miraculous manna and +supernatural quails, raised up hornets to attack their enemies, caused +water to follow them wherever they wandered and in countless ways +manifested his power, and yet the Jews cared nothing for these wonders. +Not one of them seems to have been convinced that Jehovah had done +anything for the people. +</p> +<p> +In spite of all these miracles, the Jews had more confidence in a golden +calf, made by themselves, than in Jehovah. The reason of this is, that +the miracles were never performed, and never invented until hundreds of +years after those, who had wandered over the desert of Sinai, were dust. +</p> +<p> +The miracles attributed to Christ had no effect. No human being seems to +have been convinced by them. Those whom he raised from the dead, cured +of leprosy, or blindness, failed to become his followers. Not one of +them appeared at his trial. Not one offered to bear witness of his +miraculous power. +</p> +<p> +To this there is but one explanation: The miracles were never performed. +These stories were the growth of centuries. The casting out of devils, +the changing of water into wine, feeding the multitude with a few loaves +and fishes, resisting the devil, using a fish for a pocketbook, curing +the blind with clay and saliva, stilling the tempest, walking on the +water, the resurrection and ascension, happened and only happened, in +the imaginations of men, who were not born until several generations +after Christ was dead. +</p> +<p> +In those days the world was filled with ignorance and fear. Miracles +happened every day. The supernatural was expected. Gods were continually +interfering with the affairs of this world. Everything was told +except the truth, everything believed except the facts. History was a +circumstantial account of occurrences that never occurred. Devils and +goblins and ghosts were as plentiful as saints. The bones of the dead +were used to cure the living. Cemeteries were hospitals and corpses were +physicians. The saints practiced magic, the pious communed with God in +dreams, and the course of events was changed by prayer. The credulous +demanded the marvelous, the miraculous, and the priests supplied the +demand. The sky was full of signs, omens of death and disaster, and the +darkness thick with devils endeavoring to mislead and enslave the souls +of men. +</p> +<p> +Our fathers thought that everything had been made for man, and that +demons and gods gave their entire attention to this world. The people +believed that they were the sport and prey, the favorites or victims, of +these phantoms. And they also believed that the Creator, the God, could +be influenced by sacrifice, by prayers and ceremonies. +</p> +<p> +This has been the mistake of the world. All the temples have been +reared, all the altars erected, all the sacrifices offered, all the +prayers uttered in vain. No god has interfered, no prayer has been +answered, no help received from heaven. Nothing was created, nothing has +happened for, or with reference to man. If not a human being lived,—if +all Were in' their graves, the sun would continue to shine, the wheeling +world would still pursue its flight, violets would spread their velvet +bosoms to the day, the spendthrift roses give their perfume to the air, +the climbing vines would hide with leaf and flower the fallen and the +dead, the changing seasons would come-and go,-time would repeat the poem +of the year, storms would wreck and whispering rains repair, Spring +with deft and unseen hands would weave her robes of green, life with +countless lips would seek fair Summer's swelling breasts, Autumn would +reap the wealth of leaf and fruit and seed, Winter, the artist, would +etch in frost the pines and ferns, while Wind and Wave and Fire, old +architects, with ceaseless toil would still destroy and build, still +wreck and change, and from the dust of death produce again the throb and +breath of life. +</p> +<center> +V. +</center> +<p> +A FEW years ago a few men began to think, to investigate, to reason. +They began to doubt the legends of the church, the miracles of the past. +They began to notice what happened. They found that eclipses came at +certain intervals and that their coming could be foretold. They became +satisfied that the conduct of men had nothing to do with eclipses—and +that the stars moved in their orbits unconscious of the sons of men. +Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler' destroyed the astronomy of the Bible, +and demonstrated that the "inspired" story of creation could not be +true, and that the church was as ignorant as the priests were dishonest. +</p> +<p> +They found that the myth-makers were mistaken, that the sun and stars +did not revolve about the earth, that the firmament was not solid, +that the earth was not flat, and that the so-called philosophy of the +theologians was absurd and idiotic. +</p> +<p> +The stars became witnesses against the creeds of superstition. +</p> +<p> +With the telescope the heavens were explored. The New Jerusalem could +not be found. +</p> +<p> +It had faded away. +</p> +<p> +The church persecuted the astronomers and denied the facts. In +February, in the year of grace sixteen hundred, the Catholic Church, the +"Triumphant Beast," having in her hands, her paws, the keys of heaven +and hell, accused Giordano Bruno of having declared that there were +other worlds than this. He was tried, convicted, imprisoned in a dungeon +for seven years. He was offered his liberty if he would recant. Bruno, +the atheist, the philosopher, refused to stain his soul by denying what +he believed to be true. He was taken from his cell by the priests, by +those who loved their enemies, led to the place of execution. He was +clad in a robe on which representations of devils had been painted—the +devils that were soon to claim his soul. He was chained to a stake and +about his body the wood was piled. Then priests, followers of Christ, +lighted the fagots and flames consumed the greatest, the most perfect +martyr, that ever suffered death. +</p> +<p> +And yet the Italian agent of God, the infallible Leo XIII., only a few +years ago, denounced Bruno, the "bravest of the brave," as a coward. +</p> +<p> +The church murdered him, and the pope maligned his memory. Fagot and +falsehood—two weapons of the church. +</p> +<p> +A little while ago a few men began to examine rocks and soils, +mountains, islands, reefs and seas. They noticed the valleys and deltas +that had been formed by rivers, the many strata of lava that had been +changed to soil, the vast deposits of metals and coal, the immense reefs +that the coral had formed, the work of glaciers in the far past, the +production of soil by the disintegration of rock, by the growth and +decay of vegetation and the countless evidences of the countless ages +through which the Earth has passed. The geologists read the history +of the world written by wave and flame, attested by fossils, by the +formation of rocks, by mountain ranges, by volcanoes, by rivers, +islands, continents and seas. +</p> +<p> +The geology of the Bible—of the "divinely inspired" church, of the +"infallible" pope, was found to be utterly false and foolish. +</p> +<p> +The Earth became a witness against the creeds of superstition. +</p> +<p> +Then came Watt and Galvani with the miracles of steam and electricity, +while countless inventors created the wonderful machines that do the +work of the world. Investigation took the place of credulity. Men became +dissatisfied with huts and rags, with crusts and creeds. They longed for +the comforts, the luxuries of life. The intellectual horizon enlarged, +new truths were discovered, old ideas were thrown aside, the brain was +developed, the heart civilized and science was born. Humboldt, Laplace +and hundreds of others explained the phenomena of nature, called +attention to the ancient and venerable mistakes of sanctified ignorance +and added to the sum of knowledge. Darwin and Haeckel gave their +conclusions to the world. Men began to really think, the myths began +to fade, the miracles to grow mean and small, and the great structure, +known as theology, fell with a crash. +</p> +<p> +Science denies the truth of myth and miracle, denies that human +testimony can substantiate the miraculous, denies the existence of the +supernatural. Science asserts the absolute, the unvarying uniformity +of nature. Science insists that the present is the child of all the +past,—that no power can change the past, and that nature is forever the +same. +</p> +<p> +The chemist has found that just so many atoms of one kind unite with +just so many of another—no more, no less, always the same. No caprice +in chemistry; no interference from without. +</p> +<p> +The astronomers know that the planets remain in their orbits—that their +forces are constant. They know that light is forever the same, +always obeying the angle of incidence, traveling with the same +rapidity,—casting the same shadow, under the same circumstances in +all worlds. They know that the eclipses will occur at the times +foretold—neither hastening nor delaying. They know that the attraction +of gravitation is always the same, always in perfect proportion to mass +and distance, neither weaker nor stronger, unvarying forever. They know +that the facts in nature cannot be changed or destroyed, and that the +qualities of all things are eternal. +</p> +<p> +The men of science know that the atomic integrity of the metals is +always the same, that each metal is true to its nature and that the +particles cling to each other with the same tenacity,—the same force. +They have demonstrated the persistence of force, that it is forever +active, forever the same, and that it cannot be destroyed. +</p> +<p> +These great truths have revolutionized the thought of the world. +</p> +<p> +Every art, every employment, all study, all experiment, the value of +experience, of judgment, of hope, all rest on a belief in the uniformity +of nature, on the eternal persistence and indestructibility of force. +</p> +<p> +Break one link in the infinite chain of cause and effect, and the Master +of Nature appears. The broken link would become the throne of a god. +</p> +<p> +The uniformity of Nature denies the supernatural and demonstrates that +there is no interference from without. There is no place, no office left +for gods. Ghosts fade from the brain and the shrivelled deities fall +palsied from their thrones. +</p> +<p> +The uniformity of Nature renders a belief in "special providence" +impossible. Prayer becomes a useless agitation of the air, and religious +ceremonies are but motions, pantomimes, mindless and meaningless. +</p> +<p> +The naked savage, worshiping a wooden god, is the religious equal of the +robed pope kneeling before an image of the Virgin. The poor African who +carries roots and bark to protect himself from evil spirits is on the +same intellectual plane of one who sprinkles his body with "holy water." +</p> +<p> +All the creeds of Christendom, all the religions of the heathen world +are equally absurd. The cathedral, the mosque and the joss house have +the same foundation. Their builders do not believe in the uniformity +of Nature, and the business of all priests is to induce a so-called +infinite being to change the order of events, to make causes barren of +effects and to produce effects without, and in spite of, natural causes. +They all believe in the unthinkable and pray for the impossible. +</p> +<p> +Science teaches us that there was no creation and that there can be no +destruction. The infinite denies creation and defies destruction. An +infinite person, an "infinite being" is an infinite impossibility. +To conceive of such a being is beyond the power of the mind. Yet all +religions rest upon the supposed existence of the unthinkable, the +inconceivable. And the priests of these religions pretend to be +perfectly familiar with the designs, will, and wishes of this +unthinkable, this inconceivable. +</p> +<p> +Science teaches that that which really is has always been, that behind +every effect is the efficient and necessary cause, that there is in the +universe neither chance nor interference, and that energy is eternal. +Day by day the authority of the theologian grows weaker and weaker. As +the people become intelligent they care less for preachers and more for +teachers. Their confidence in knowledge, in thought and investigation +increases. They are eager to know the discoveries, the useful truths, +the important facts made, ascertained and demonstrated by the explorers +in the domain of the natural. They are no longer satisfied with the +platitudes of the pulpit, and the assertions of theologians. They are +losing confidence in the "sacred Scriptures" and in the protecting power +and goodness of the supernatural. They are satisfied that credulity is +not a virtue and that investigation is not a crime. +</p> +<p> +Science is the providence of man, the worker of true miracles, of +real wonders. Science has "read a little in Nature's infinite book of +secrecy." Science knows the circuits of the winds, the courses of the +stars. Fire is his servant, and lightning his messenger. Science freed +the slaves and gave liberty to their masters. Science taught man to +enchain, not his fellows, but the forces of nature, forces that have no +backs to be scarred, no limbs for chains to chill and eat, forces that +have no hearts to break, forces that never know fatigue, forces that +shed no tears. Science is the great physician. His touch has given +sight. He has made the lame to leap, the deaf to hear, the dumb to +speak, and in the pallid face his hand has set the rose of health. +Science has given his beloved sleep and wrapped in happy dreams the +throbbing nerves of pain. Science is the destroyer of disease, builder +of happy homes, the preserver of life and love. Science is the teacher +of every virtue, the enemy of every vice. Science has given the true +basis of morals, the origin and office of conscience, revealed the +nature of obligation, of duty, of virtue in its highest, noblest forms, +and has demonstrated that true happiness is the only possible good. +Science has slain the monsters of superstition, and destroyed the +authority of inspired books. Science has read the records of the rocks, +records that priestcraft cannot change, and on his wondrous scales has +weighed the atom and the star. +</p> +<p> +Science has founded the only true religion. Science is the only Savior +of this world. +</p> +<center> +VI. +</center> +<p> +FOR many ages religion has been tried. For countless centuries man +has sought for help from heaven. To soften the heart of God, mothers +sacrificed their babes! but the God did not hear, did not see, and did +not help. Naked savages were devoured by beasts, bitten by serpents, +killed by flood and frost. They prayed for help, but their God was +deaf. They built temples and altars, employed priests and gave of their +substance, but the volcano destroyed and the famine came. For the sake +of God millions murdered their fellow-men, but the God was silent. +Millions of martyrs died for the honor of God, but the God was blind. He +did not see the flames, the scaffolds. He did not hear the prayers, +the groans. Thousands of priests in the name of God tortured their +fellow-men, stretched them on racks, crushed their feet in iron boots, +tore out their tongues, extinguished their eyes. The victims implored +the protection of God, but their god did not hear, did not see. He +was deaf and blind. He was willing that his enemies should torture his +friends. +</p> +<p> +Nations tried to destroy each other for the sake of God, and the banner +of the cross dripping with blood floated over a thousand fields—but the +god was silent. He neither knew nor cared. Pestilence covered the earth +with dead, the priests prayed, the altars were heaped with sacrifices, +but the god did not see, did not hear. The miseries of the world did +not lessen the joys of heaven. The clouds gave no rain, the famine came, +withered babes with pallid lips sought the breasts of dead mothers, +while starving fathers knelt and prayed, but the god did not hear. +Through many centuries millions were enslaved, babes were sold from +mothers, husbands from wives, backs were scarred with the lash. The +poor wretches lifted their clasped hands toward heaven and prayed for +justice, for liberty—but their god did not hear. He cared nothing for +the sufferings of slaves, nothing for the tears of wives and mothers, +nothing for the agony of men. He answered no prayers. He broke no +chains. He freed no slaves. +</p> +<p> +The miserable wretches appealed to the priests of God, but they were on +the other side. They defended the masters. The slaves had nothing to +give. +</p> +<p> +During all these years it was claimed by the theologians that their +God was governing the world, that he was infinitely powerful, wise and +good—and that the "powers" of the earth were "ordained" by him. During +all these years the church was the enemy of progress. It hated all +physicians and told the people to rely on prayer, amulets and relics. +It persecuted the astronomers and geologists, denounced them as infidels +and atheists, as enemies of the human race. It poisoned the fountains of +learning and insisted that teachers should distort the facts in nature +to the end that they might harmonize with the "inspired" book. During +all these years the church misdirected the energies of man, and when it +reached the zenith of its power, darkness fell upon the world. +</p> +<p> +In all nations and in all ages, religion has failed. The gods have never +interfered. Nature has produced and destroyed without mercy and without +hatred. She has cared no more for man than for the leaves of the forest, +no more for nations than for hills of ants, nothing for right or wrong, +for life or death, for pain or joy. +</p> +<p> +Man through his intelligence must protect himself. He gets no help from +any other world. The church has always claimed and still claims that +it is the only reforming power, that it makes men honest, virtuous +and merciful, that it prevents violence and war, and that without its +influence the race would return to barbarism. +</p> +<p> +Nothing can exceed the absurdity of these claims. +</p> +<p> +If we wish to improve the condition of mankind—if we wish for nobler +men and women we must develop the brain, we must encourage thought +and investigation. We must convince the world that credulity is +a vice,—that there is no virtue in believing without, or against +evidence, and that the really honest man is true to himself. We must +fill the world with intellectual light. We must applaud mental courage. +We must educate the children, rescue them from ignorance and crime. +School-houses are the real temples, and teachers are the true priests. +We must supply the wants of the mind, satisfy the hunger of the brain. +The people should be familiar with the great poets, with the tragedies +of Æschylus, the dramas of Shakespeare, with the poetry of Homer and +Virgil. Shakespeare should be taught in every school, found in every +house. +</p> +<p> +Through photography the whole world may become acquainted with the great +statues, the great paintings, the victories of art. In this way the mind +is enlarged, the sympathies quickened, the appreciation of the beautiful +intensified, the taste refined and the character ennobled. +</p> +<p> +The great novels should be read by all. All should be acquainted with +the men and women of fiction, with the ideal world. The imagination +should be developed, trained and strengthened. Superstition has degraded +art and literature. It gave us winged monsters, scenes from heaven and +hell, representations of gods and devils, sculptured the absurd and +painted the impossible in the name of Art. It gave us the dreams of the +insane, the lives of fanatical saints, accounts of miracles and wonders, +of cures wrought by the bones of the dead, descriptions of Paradise, +purgatory and the eternal dungeon, discourses on baptism, on changing +wine and wafers into the the blood and flesh of God, on the +forgiveness of sins by priests, on fore-ordination and accountability, +predestination and free will, on devils, ghosts and goblins, the +ministrations of guardian angels, the virtue of belief and the +wickedness of doubt. And this was called "sacred literature." +</p> +<p> +The church taught that those who believed, counted beads, mumbled +prayers, and gave their time or property for the support of the gospel +were the good and that all others were traveling the "broad road" to +eternal pain. According to the theologians, the best people, the +saints, were dead, and real beauty was to be found only in heaven. They +denounced the joys of life as husks and filthy rags, declared that the +world had been cursed, and that it brought forth thistles and thorns +because of the sins of man. They regarded the earth as a kind of dock, +running out into the sea of eternity,—on which the pious waited for the +ship on which they were to be transported to another world. +</p> +<p> +But the real poets and the real artists clung to this world, to this +life. They described and represented things that exist. They expressed +thoughts of the brain, emotions of the heart, the griefs and joys, the +hope and despair of men and women. They found strength and beauty +on every hand. They found their angels here. They were true to human +experience and they touched the brain and heart of the world. In +the tragedies and comedies of life, in the smiles and tears, in the +ecstasies of love, in the darkness of death, in the dawn of hope, they +found their materials for statue and song, for poem and painting. Poetry +and art are the children of this world, born and nourished here. They +are human. They have left the winged monsters of heaven, the malicious +deformities of hell, and have turned their attention to men and women, +to the things of this life. +</p> +<p> +There is a poem called "The Skylark," by Shelley, graceful as the +motions of flames. Another by Robert Burns, called "The Daisy," +exquisite, perfect as the pearl of virtue in the beautiful breast of a +loving girl. Between this lark and this daisy, neither above nor below, +you will find all the poetry of the world. Eloquence, sublimity, poetry +and art must have the foundation of fact, of reality. Imaginary worlds +and beings are nothing to us. +</p> +<p> +At last the old creeds are becoming cruel and vulgar. We now have +imagination enough to put ourselves in the place of others. Believers +in hell, in eternal pain, like murderers, lack imagination. The murderer +has not imagination enough to see his victim dead. He does not see the +sightless and pathetic eyes. He does not see the widow's arms about the +corpse, her lips upon the dead. He does not hear the sobs of children. +He does not see the funeral. He does not hear the clods as they fall on +the coffin. He does not feel the hand of arrest, the scene of the trial +is not before him. He does not hear the awful verdict, the sentence of +the court, the last words. He does not see the scaffold, nor feel about +his throat the deadly noose. +</p> +<p> +Let us develop the brain, civilize the heart, and give wings to the +imagination. +</p> +<center> +VII. +</center> +<p> +IF we abandon myth and miracle, if we discard the supernatural and the +scheme of redemption, how are we to civilize the world? +</p> +<p> +Is falsehood a reforming power? Is credulity the mother of virtue? Is +there any saving grace in the impossible and absurd? Did wisdom perish +with the dead? Must the civilized accept the religion of savages? +</p> +<p> +If we wish to reform the world we must rely on truth, on fact, on +reason. We must teach men that they are good or bad for themselves, that +others cannot be good or bad for them, that they cannot be charged with +the crimes, or credited with the virtues of others. We must discard the +doctrine of the atonement, because it is absurd and immoral. We are not +accountable for the sins of "Adam" and the virtues of Christ cannot be +transferred to us. There can be no vicarious virtue, no vicarious vice. +Why should the sufferings of the innocent atone for the crimes of the +guilty. According to the doctrine of the atonement right and wrong do +not exist in the nature of things, but in the arbitrary will of the +Infinite. This is a subversion of all ideas of justice and mercy. +</p> +<p> +An act is good, bad, or indifferent, according to its consequences. No +power can step between an act and its natural consequences. A governor +may pardon the criminal, but the natural consequences of the crime +remain untouched. A god may forgive, but the consequences of the +act forgiven, are still the same. We must teach the world that the +consequences of a bad action cannot be avoided, that they are the +invisible police, the unseen avengers, that accept no gifts, that hear +no prayers, that no cunning can deceive. +</p> +<p> +We do not need the forgiveness of gods, but of ourselves and the ones +we injure. Restitution without repentance is far better than repentance +without restitution. +</p> +<p> +We know nothing of any god who rewards, punishes or forgives. +</p> +<p> +We must teach our fellow-men that honor comes from within, not from +without, that honor must be earned, that it is not alms, that even an +infinite God could not enrich the beggar's palm with the gem of honor. +</p> +<p> +Teach them also that happiness is the bud, the blossom and the fruit of +good and noble actions, that it is not the gift of any god; that it must +be earned by man—must be deserved. +</p> +<p> +In this world of ours there is no magic, no sleight-of-hand, by which +consequences can be made to punish the good and reward the bad. +</p> +<p> +Teach men not to sacrifice this world for some other, but to turn their +attention to the natural, to the affairs of this life. Teach them that +theology has no known foundation, that it was born of ignorance and +fear, that it has hardened the heart, polluted the imagination and made +fiends of men. +</p> +<p> +Theology is not for this world. It is no part of real religion. It has +nothing to do with goodness or virtue. Religion does not consist in +worshiping gods, but in adding to the well-being, the happiness of man. +No human being knows whether any god exists or not, and all that has +been said and written about "our god," or the gods of other people, has +no known fact for a foundation. Words without thoughts, clouds without +rain. +</p> +<p> +Let us put theology out of religion. +</p> +<p> +Church and state should be absolutely divorced. Priests pretend that +they have been selected by, and that they get their power from God. +Kings occupy their thrones in accordance with the will of God. The pope +declares that he is the agent, the deputy of God and that by right +he should rule the world. All these pretentions and assertions are +perfectly absurd and yet they are acknowledged and believed by millions. +Get theology out of government and kings will descend from their +thrones. All will admit that governments get their powers from the +consent of the governed, and that all persons in office are the servants +of the people. Get theology out of government and chaplains will be +dismissed from Legislatures, from Congress, from the army and navy. Get +theology out of government and people will be allowed to express their +honest thoughts about "inspired books" and superstitious creeds. Get +theology out of government and priests will no longer steal a seventh of +our time. Get theology out of government and the clergy will soon +take their places with augurs and soothsayers, with necromancers and +medicine-men. +</p> +<p> +Get theology out of education. Nothing should be taught in a school that +somebody does not know. +</p> +<p> +There are plenty of things to be learned about this world, about this +life. Every child should be taught to think, and that it is dangerous +not to think. Children should not be taught the absurdities, the +cruelties and imbecilities of superstition. No church should be allowed +to control the common school, and public money should not be divided +between the hateful and warring sects. The public school should be +secular, and only the useful should be taught. Many of our colleges +are under the control of churches. Presidents and professors are mostly +ministers of the gospel and the result is that all facts inconsistent +with the creeds are either suppressed or denied. Only those professors +who are naturally stupid or mentally dishonest can retain their places. +Those who tell the truth, who teach the facts, are discharged. +</p> +<p> +In every college truth should be a welcome guest. Every professor +should be a finder, and every student a learner, of facts. Theology and +intellectual dishonesty go together. The teacher of children should be +intelligent and perfectly sincere. +</p> +<p> +Let us get theology out of education. +</p> +<p> +The pious denounce the secular schools as godless. They should be. The +sciences are all secular, all godless. Theology bears the same relation +to science that the black art does to chemistry, that magic does to +mathematics. It is something that cannot be taught, because it cannot +be known. It has no foundation in fact. It neither produces, nor accords +with, any image in the mind. It is not only unknowable but unthinkable. +Through hundreds and thousands of generations men have been discussing, +wrangling and fighting about theology. No advance has been made. The +robed priest has only reached the point from which the savage tried to +start. +</p> +<p> +We know that theology always has and always will make enemies. It sows +the seeds of hatred in families and nations. It is selfish, cruel, +revengeful and malicious. It has heaven for the few and perdition +for the many. We now know that credulity is not a virtue and that +intellectual courage is. We must stop rewarding hypocrisy and bigotry. +We must stop persecuting the thinkers, the investigators, the creators +of light, the civilizers of the world. +</p> +<center> +VIII. +</center> +<p> +WILL the unknown, the mysteries of life and itiations of the mind, +forever furnish food for superstition? Will the gods and ghosts perish +or simply retreat before the advancing hosts of science, and continue to +crouch and lurk just beyond the horizon of the known? Will darkness +forever be the womb and mother of the supernatural? +</p> +<p> +A little while ago priests told peasants that the New Jerusalem, the +celestial city was just above the clouds. They said that its walls +and domes and spires were just beyond the reach of human sight. The +telescope was invented and those who looked at the wilderness of stars, +saw no city, no throne. They said to the priests: "Where is your New +Jerusalem?" The priests cheerfully and confidently replied. "It is just +beyond where you see." +</p> +<p> +At one time it was believed that a race of men existed "with their heads +beneath their shoulders." Returning travelers from distant lands were +asked about these wonderful people and all replied that they had not +seen them. "Oh," said the believers in the monsters, "the men with heads +beneath their shoulders live in a country that you did not visit." And +so the monsters lived and flourished until all the world was known. We +cannot know the universe. We cannot travel infinite distances, and so, +somewhere in shoreless space there will always be room for gods and +ghosts, for heavens and hells. And so it may be that superstition will +live and linger until the world becomes intelligent enough to build upon +the foundation of the known, to keep the imagination within the domain +of the probable, and to believe in the natural—<i>until the supernatural +shall have been demonstrated</i>. +</p> +<p> +Savages knew all about gods, about heavens and hells before they knew +anything about the world in which they lived. They were perfectly +familiar with evil spirits, with the invisible phantoms of the air, long +before they had any true conception of themselves. So, they knew all +about the origin and destiny of the human race. They were absolutely +certain about the problems, the solution of which, philosophers know, is +beyond the limitations of the mind. They understood astrology, but not +astronomy, knew something of magic, but nothing about chemistry. They +were wise only as to those things about which nothing can be known. +</p> +<p> +The poor Indian believed in the "Great Spirit" and saw "design" on every +hand.—Trees were made that he might have bows and arrows, wood for his +fire and bark for his wigwam—rivers and lakes to give him fish, wild +beasts and corn that he might have food, and the animals had skins that +he might have clothes. +</p> +<p> +Primitive peoples all reasoned in the same way, and modern Christians +follow their example. They knew but little of the world and thought that +it had been made expressly for the use of man. They did not know that it +was mostly water, that vast regions were locked in eternal ice and that +in most countries the conditions were unfavorable to human life. They +knew nothing of the countless enemies of man that live unseen in water, +food and air. Back of the little good they knew they put gods and back +of the evil, devils. They thought it of the greatest importance to gain +the good will of the gods, who alone could protect them from the devils. +Those who worshiped these gods, offered sacrifices, and obeyed priests, +were considered loyal members of the tribe or community, and those who +refused to worship were regarded as enemies and traitors. The believers, +in order to protect themselves from the anger of the gods, exiled or +destroyed the infidels. +</p> +<p> +Believing as they did, the course they pursued was natural. They +not only wished to protect themselves from disease and death, from +pestilence and famine in this world but the souls of their children from +eternal pain in the next. Their gods were savages who demanded flattery +and worship not only, but the acceptance of a certain creed. As long +as Christians believe in eternal punishment they will be the enemies of +those who investigate and contend for the authority of reason, of those +who demand evidence, who care nothing for the unsupported assertions of +the dead or the illogical inferences of the living. +</p> +<p> +Science always has been, is, and always will be modest, thoughtful, +truthful. It has but one object: The ascertainment of truth. It has no +prejudice, no hatred. It is in the realm of the intellect and cannot +be swayed or changed by passion. It does not try to please God, to gain +heaven or avoid hell. It is for this world, for the use of man. It is +perfectly candid. It does not try to conceal, but to reveal. It is the +enemy of mystery, of pretence and canc. It does not ask people to be +solemn, but sensible. It calls for and insists on the use of all the +senses, of all the faculties of the mind. It does not pretend to be +"holy" or "inspired." It courts investigation, criticism and even +denial. It asks for the application of every test, for trial by every +standard. It knows nothing of blasphemy and does not ask for the +imprisonment of those who ignorantly or knowingly deny the truth. The +good that springs from a knowledge of the truth is the only reward it +offers, and the evil resulting from ignorance is the only punishment it +threatens. Its effort is to reform the world through intelligence. +</p> +<p> +On the other hand theology is, always has been, and always will be, +ignorant, arrogant, puerile and cruel. When the church had power, +hypocrisy was crowned and honesty imprisoned. Fraud wore the tiara and +truth was a convict, Liberty was in chains, Theology has always sent the +worst to heaven, the best to hell. +</p> +<p> +Let me give you a scene from the day of judgment. Christ is upon +his throne, his secretary by his side. A soul appears. This is what +happens— +</p> +<p> +"What is your name?" +</p> +<p> +Torquemada. +</p> +<p> +"Were you a Christian?" +</p> +<p> +I was. +</p> +<p> +"Did you endeavor to convert your fellow-men?" +</p> +<p> +I did. I tried to convert them by persuasion, by preaching and praying +and even by force. +</p> +<p> +"What did you do?" +</p> +<p> +I put the heretics in prison, in chains. I tore out their tongues, put +out their eyes, crushed their bones, stretched them upon racks, roasted +their feet, and if they remained obdurate I flayed them alive or burned +them at the stake. +</p> +<p> +"And did you do all this for my glory?" +</p> +<p> +Yes, all for you. I wanted to save some, I wanted to protect the young +and the weak minded. +</p> +<p> +"Did you believe the Bible, the miracles—that I was God, that I was +born of a virgin and kept money in the mouth of a fish?" +</p> +<p> +Yes, I believed it all. My reason was the slave of faith. +</p> +<p> +"Well done, good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joys of thy +Lord. I was hungry and you gave me meat, naked and you clothed me.." +Another soul arises. +</p> +<p> +"What is your name?" +</p> +<p> +Giordano Bruno. +</p> +<p> +"Were you a Christian?" +</p> +<p> +At one time I was, but for many years I was a philosopher, a seeker +after truth. +</p> +<p> +"Did you seek to convert your fellow-men?" +</p> +<p> +Not to Christianity, but to the religion of reason. I tried to +develop their minds, to free them from the slavery of ignorance and +superstition. In my day the church taught the holiness of credulity—the +virtue of unquestioning obedience, and in your name tortured and +destroyed the intelligent and courageous. I did what I could to civilize +the world, to make men tolerant and merciful, to soften the hearts +of priests, and banish torture from the world. I expressed my honest +thoughts and walked in the light of reason. +</p> +<p> +"Did you believe the Bible, the miracles? Did you believe that I was +God, that I was born of a virgin and that I suffered myself to be killed +by the Jews to appease the wrath of God—that is, of myself—so that God +could save the souls of a few?" +</p> +<p> +"No, I did not. I did not believe that God was ever born into my world, +or that God learned the trade of a carpenter, or that he 'increased +in knowledge,' or that he cast devils out of men, or that his garments +could cure diseases, or that he allowed himself to be murdered, and in +the hour of death "forsook" himself. These things I did not and could +not believe. But I did all the good I could. I enlightened the ignorant, +comforted the afflicted, defended the innocent, divided even my poverty +with the poor, and did the best I could to increase the happiness of my +fellow-men. I was a soldier in the army of progress.—I was arrested, +imprisoned, tried and convicted by the church—by the 'Triumphant +Beast.' I was burned at the stake by ignorant and heartless priests and +my ashes given to the winds." +</p> +<p> +Then Christ, his face growing dark, his brows contracted with wrath, +with uplifted hands, with half averted face, cries or rather shrieks: +"Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil +and his angels." +</p> +<p> +This is the justice of God—the mercy of the compassionate Christ. +This is the belief, the dream and hope of the orthodox theologian—"the +consummation devoutly to be wished." +</p> +<p> +Theology makes God a monster, a tyrant, a savage; makes man a servant, +a serf, a slave; promises heaven to the obedient, the meek, the +frightened, and threatens the self-reliant with the tortures of hell. +</p> +<p> +It denounces reason and appeals to the passions—to hope and fear. +It does not answer the arguments of those who attack, but resorts to +sophistry, falsehood and slander. It is incapable of advancement. It +keeps its back to the sunrise, lives on myth and miracle, and guards +with a misers care the "sacred" superstitions of the past. +</p> +<p> +In the great struggle between the supernatural and the natural, between +gods and men, we have passed midnight. All the forces of civilization, +all the facts that have been found, all the truths that have been +discovered are the allies of science—the enemies of the supernatural. +</p> +<p> +We need no myths, no miracles, no gods, no devils. +</p> +<center> +IX. +</center> +<p> +FOR thousands of generations the myths have been taught and the miracles +believed. Every mother was a missionary and told with loving care the +falsehoods of "faith" to her babe. The poison of superstition was in the +mother's milk. She was honest and affectionate and her character, her +goodness, her smiles and kisses, entered into, mingled with, and became +a part of the superstition that she taught. Fathers, friends and priests +united with the mothers, and the children thus taught, became the +teachers of their children and so the creeds were kept alive. +</p> +<p> +Childhood loves the romantic, the mysterious, the monstrous. It lives in +a world where cause has nothing to do with effect, where the fairy waves +her hand and the prince appears. Where wish creates the thing desired +and facts become the slaves of amulet and charm. The individual lives +the life of the race, and the child is charmed with what the race in its +infancy produced. +</p> +<p> +There seems to be the same difference between mistakes and facts +that there is between weeds and corn. Mistakes seem to take care of +themselves, while the facts have to be guarded with all possible care. +Falsehoods like weeds flourish without care. Weeds care nothing for soil +or rain. They not only ask no help but they almost defy destruction. In +the minds of children, superstitions, legends, myths and miracles find a +natural, and in most instances a lasting home. Thrown aside in manhood, +forgotten or denied, in old age they oft return and linger to the end. +</p> +<p> +This in part accounts for the longevity of religious lies. Ministers +with clasped hands and uplifted eyes ask the man who is thinking for +himself how he can be wicked and heartless enough to attack the religion +of his mother. This question is regarded by the clergy as unanswerable. +Of course it is not to be asked by the missionaries, of the Hindus and +the Chinese. The heathen are expected to desert the religion of their +mothers as Christ and his apostles deserted the religion of their +mothers. It is right for Jews and heathen, but not for thinkers and +philosophers. +</p> +<p> +A cannibal was about to kill a missionary for food. +</p> +<p> +The missionary objected and asked the cannibal how he could be so cruel +and wicked. +</p> +<p> +The cannibal replied that he followed the example of his mother. "My +mother," said he, "was good enough for me. Her religion is my religion. +The last time I saw her she was sitting, propped up against a tree, +eating cold missionary." +</p> +<p> +But now the mother argument has mostly lost its force, and men of mind +are satisfied with nothing less than truth. +</p> +<p> +The phenomena of nature have been investigated and the supernatural has +not been found. The myths have faded from the imagination, and of them +nothing remains but the poetic. The miraculous has become the absurd, +the impossible. Gods and phantoms have been driven from the earth and +sky. We are living in a natural world. +</p> +<p> +Our fathers, some of them, demanded the freedom of religion. We have +taken another step. We demand the Religion of Freedom. +</p> +<p> +O Liberty, thou art the god of my idolatry! Thou art the only deity +that hateth bended knees. In thy vast and unwalled temple, beneath the +roofless dome, star-gemmed and luminous with suns, thy worshipers stand +erect! They do not cringe, or crawl, or bend their foreheads to the +earth. The dust has never borne the impress of their lips. Upon thy +altars mothers do not sacrifice their babes, nor men their rights. Thou +askest naught from man except the things that good men hate—the whip, +the chain, the dungeon key. Thou hast no popes, no priests, who stand +between their fellow-men and thee. Thou carest not for foolish forms, +or selfish prayers. At thy sacred shrine hypocrisy does not bow, virtue +does not tremble, superstition's feeble tapers do not burn, but Reason +holds aloft her inextinguishable torch whose holy light will one day +flood the world. +</p> + + +<div style="height: 6em;"><br><br><br> + + +<br /> +<table summary="" border="3" cellpadding="4"> +<tbody> +<tr> +<td><big><big><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38813/38813-h/38813-h.htm"> +TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ALL 12 EBOOKS IN THIS SET</a></big></big></td> +<td></td> +</tr> +</tbody> +</table> +<br /> + +<br><br><br></div> + +</body> +</html> |
