diff options
Diffstat (limited to '39268-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 39268-0.txt | 11618 |
1 files changed, 11618 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/39268-0.txt b/39268-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..227dace --- /dev/null +++ b/39268-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11618 @@ +The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Eliminator; or, Skeleton Keys to Sacerdotal Secrets, by Richard B. Westbrook + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and +most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions +whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms +of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at +www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you +will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before +using this eBook. + +Title: The Eliminator; or, Skeleton Keys to Sacerdotal Secrets + +Author: Richard B. Westbrook + +Release Date: March 25, 2012 [eBook #39268] +[Most recently updated: December 21, 2021] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + +Produced by: David Widger + +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ELIMINATOR; OR, SKELETON KEYS TO SACERDOTAL SECRETS *** + + + + + *THE ELIMINATOR* + *or, SKELETON KEYS to SACERDOTAL SECRETS* + + _By_ + + *Richard B. Westbrook, D.D., L.L.D.* + + + _1894_ + + + + +CONTENTS + + + PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION + PREFACE + SKELETON KEYS TO SACERDOTAL SECRETS + CHAPTER I. THE WHOLE TRUTH + CHAPTER II. SACERDOTALISM IMPEACHED + CHAPTER III. THE FABULOUS CLAIMS OF JUDAISM + CHAPTER IV. MOSES AND THE PENTATEUCH + CHAPTER V. ANCIENT SYMBOLISM AND MODERN LITERALISM + CHAPTER VI. ASTRAL KEYS TO BIBLE STORIES + CHAPTER VII. THE FABLE OF THE FALL + CHAPTER VIII. SEARCH FOR THE “LAST ADAM” + CHAPTER IX. WHAT IS KNOWN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT + CHAPTER X. THE DRAMA OF THE GOSPELS + CHAPTER XI. THE IDEAL CHRIST + CHAPTER XII. JESUS AND OTHER CHRISTS + CHAPTER XIII. A REVERENT CRITIQUE ON JESUS + CHAPTER XIV. A FEW FRAGMENTS + CHAPTER XV. BLOOD-SALVATION + CHAPTER XVI. THINGS THAT REMAIN + INDEX + + + + +PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION + + +THE Eliminator has now been before the public nearly two years. I have +seen nothing worthy of the name of criticism respecting it. A few +Unitarian ministers have said that Christ must have been a person +instead of a personification, for the reason that men could not have +conceived of such a perfect character without a living example, and that +the great influence exercised by him for so long a time, over so many +people, proves him to have been an historic character. These arguments +are anticipated and fully answered. (See pp. 283, 284, 306.) + +Our Unitarian friends are the greatest _idealists_ upon the globe! They +only accept the Gospel biography of Jesus (and we have no other) just so +far as the story accords with what they think it ought to be. They deny +the immaculate conception and miraculous birth of the Christ, and have +very great doubts about his crucifixion and resurrection. Their Christ +is purely _ideal_. The fact is that Christendom has worshipped the +literal Jesus for the ideal Christ for nearly twenty centuries, though +their conceptions of him have been manifold and contradictory. No wonder +that so many intelligent Christian sects in the early ages of the +church utterly denied the existence of Jesus as an historic person. +(See pp. 266, 267, 357.) But there is indubitable evidence that this +_Christ character_ (called by many Unitarians the “Universal Christ”) +was mainly _mythical, drawn from the astrological riddles of the older +Pagan mythologies._ + +In fact, almost everything in Christianity seems to have been an +_afterthought_. It is the least original of any of the ten great +religions of the world, and the great mistake has been in making almost +everything _literal_ which the wise men of ancient times regarded as +_allegorical_. This comes from the priestly attempt to identify the +_Jewish Jesus_ with the _Oriental Christ_ Tradition is, in fact, the +main foundation of the Christian scheme, and cunning sacerdotalists have +done by artifice what history, in fact, has failed to do. But for its +moral precepts and its “enthusiasm of humanity,” Christianity would not +survive for a single century. The so-called “Apostles’ Creed” (which was +not formulated until centuries after the last Apostle slept in the +grave), and which is repeated in so many churches every Sunday, has a +greater number of historical and theological misstatements than any +other writing of the same length now extant! + +There is in our day a general disposition to magnify the virtues of the +Christ of the New Testament, connected with a proposition to unite all +Christians in his leadership. This device will not succeed, because it +is as impossible to found a perfect religion upon an imperfect man as it +is upon a fallible Book. Lovers of the truth will show that the +traditional Christ is not a perfect model. (See Chapter xiii.) There is +a most significant sense in which it may be truthfully said: “Never man +spake like this man,” as no great moral teacher ever uttered so many +things that needed to be revised and explained! + +May it not be the fact that both Catholic and Protestant Christians are +under a great delusion as to the facts of religion? I think so. I +believe so. I well know how difficult it is to explode a delusion that +is nearly twenty centuries old, and that is supported by a sacerdotalism +of vast wealth and learning, and whose votaries by “this craft have +their wealth.” + +I nail these _Thèses_ to the church doors of all the Catholics and +Protestants in Christendom, and with Martin Luther, at the Diet of +Worms, I exclaim, “Here I stand. I cannot move! God help me!” If I am +mistaken, then my reason is at fault and all history is a lie! It is +said that when Renan died, the Pope inquired whether he had confessed +before his de-cease, and upon being told that he had not, replied, +“Well, then God will have to save him for his sincerity!” I am ready to +be judged on this ground. I sum up my latest conclusions thus: The Jesus +of the Gospels is _traditional_, the Christ of the New Testament is +_mythical_. + + R. B. WESTBROOK. + +1707 Oxford Street, + +Philadelphia. + +October 1, 1894. + + + + +PREFACE + + +Many things in this book will greatly shock, and even give heartfelt +pain to, numerous persons whom I greatly respect. I have a large share +of the love of approbation, and naturally desire the good opinion of +those with whom I have been associated in a long life. There is no +pleasure in the fact that I have to stand quite alone in the eyes of +nearly all Christendom. There is no satisfaction in being deemed a +disturber of the peace of the great majority of those “professing and +calling themselves Christians.” But, at the same time, I must not be +indifferent in matters where I believe truth is concerned. + +Before I withdrew from the orthodox ministry I used to wonder why God in +his gracious providence had not seen fit to so order events as to give +us a credible and undoubted history of the incarnation and birth of his +Son Jesus Christ, and why that Saviour, who had come to repair the great +evils inflicted upon our race by Adam, had never once mentioned that +unfortunate fall. + +I do not deny that there was a person named Jesus nearly nineteen +hundred years ago. I think there were several persons bearing this name +and who were contemporaneous, and that several of them were very good +men; but that any one of them was _such_ a person as is described in the +Gospels I cannot believe. I lay special emphasis on the word such. +Admitting for the sake of the argument the real, historical personality +of Jesus of Nazareth, he has by the process of _idealization_ become an +_impersonation_, and I have so attempted to make it appear; and I cannot +but think that this view is not inconsistent with the most enlightened +piety and religious devotion, while this explanation relieves us of many +things which are absurd and contradictory. + +I desire to explain more fully than appears in the _Table of Contents_ +the plan of this book. I first combat the policy of _suppression and +deception_, and insist that the whole truth shall be published, and have +shown that sacerdotalism is responsible for the fact that it has not +been done. As so-called Christianity is based upon Judaism, I undertake +to show the fabulous character of many of the claims of the Jews, +disclaiming all intention to asperse the character of Israelites of the +present generation. + +I thought it proper in this connection to give the substance of an _open +letter_ to the Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on +_Moses and the Pentateuch_—to which His Honor never responded—showing +that the “law of Sinai was not the first of which we have any +knowledge,” and that Moses was not “the greatest statesman and lawgiver +the world had ever produced,” as the Chief-Justice had affirmed in a +lecture before the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania. + +Presenting brief views of the symbolic character of the Old Testament, +and showing how “Astral Keys” unlock many Bible stories, I undertake to +show that the so-called fall of Adam is a _fable_, nothing more; and +then, as the _first_ Adam is shown to be a _myth_, I go in search for +the “_last Adam_.” Finding no knowledge of such a person except in the +New Testament, I deem it necessary to briefly show the character of this +book, that it may be determined how far it should be received as +evidence in a matter of so much importance. Then in five chapters, more +or less connected, I combat the idea of the historical, or rather +_traditional_, Jesus, and follow with an examination of the evangelical +dogma of _Blood-Salvation_, and close with a very brief summary of the +_Things that Remain_ as the foundation of faith. + +I do not expect _caste_ clergymen to read this book any farther than is +necessary to denounce it. It is their way of meeting questions like +those herein discussed. I am prepared to have certain _dilettanti_ +sneer-ingly say, “This book is of no critical value.” They are so +accustomed to “scholarly essays” which “are poetically sentimental and +floridly vague” that they have little respect for anything else. The +book is intended for the common people, and not for the professional +critics. + +I do not expect everybody to agree with me, especially at first. Truth +can afford to wait, and in years to come many points that I have made, +which are now so startling, will be calmly and intelligently accepted. + +There are probably mistakes in the book—mistakes in names, in dates, and +perhaps in facts; but these will not affect the main argument. No man +knows everything. Until recently it was never suspected by the learned +world that _The Contemplative Life_ was not written by Philo nearly +nineteen centuries ago, instead of being written by a monk in the third +century of the Christian era. Even Macaulay and Bancroft have made +mistakes, and so have many other authors of good repute. + +I have always tried to preserve a _reverent spirit_—a genuine respect +for true religion and morality. I have always been profoundly religious, +and cannot remember the time when I was not devout. But I do not believe +that it is ever proper “to do evil that good may come.” In this work I +have sought only the _truth_, in the firm conviction that superstition +and falsehood cannot promote a course of _right living_, which is the +object and aim of all true religion. + +I have a supreme disregard for literary fame. I do not shrink from being +called a _compiler_ or even a _plagiarist_. There is absolutely very +little of real _originality_ in the world. I could have followed the +course of many writers and _absorbed or assimilated_, and thus seemingly +made my own what they had written; but I have chosen to quote freely, +and so have substantially given the words of many authors of repute, and +at the same time saved myself the labor of a re-coining, which does not, +after all, deceive the intelligent reader. The books from which I +largely quote are mainly voluminous and very expensive, and some of them +are out of print. I am indebted to the learned foot-notes of Evan Powell +Meredith in his prize essay on _The Prophet of Nazareth_ for several +things, and must not fail to acknowledge my obligations to certain +living authors for valuable assistance, and especially to my friend Dr. +Alexander Wilder, who prepared at my request the substance of Chapter +X., _The Drama of the Gospels_, and who, in my judgment, has few +superiors in classical and Oriental literature. + +I sympathize with those persons who will complain-ingly exclaim, “You +have taken away my Saviour, and I know not where you have laid him.” But +suppose that we do not _need a Saviour_ in the evangelical sense? +Suppose that man has not _fallen_, but that the race has been _rising_ +these many centuries; and that while we have mainly to save ourselves, +all the good and great men of all ages have aided us in the work of +salvation by what they have said and done and suffered, so that instead +of one savior we really have had many saviors. I think that this view is +more reasonable and consoling than the commercial device of what is +called the “scheme of redemption,” besides having scientific facts to +sustain it. + +I have preserved on the title-page some of my college degrees, to +indicate my professional studies of theology and law, and not from +motives of pedantry. + + R. B. WESTBROOK. + + 1707 Oxford Street, + Philadelphia. + + + + +SKELETON KEYS TO SACERDOTAL SECRETS + + + + +CHAPTER I. THE WHOLE TRUTH + + +_“For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, neither hid +that shall not be known. Therefore, whatsoever ye have spoken in +darkness, shall be heard in the light, and that which ye have spoken in +the ear, in closets, shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.”—Luke 12: +2, 3._ + + +THE assumption is general that if the faith of the common people should +be unsettled as to some things which they have heretofore been taught +regarding religion, they would immediately reject all truth, and fall +into a most deplorable state of skepticism and infidelity, and that the +existing institutions of religion would be destroyed, and public virtue +so undermined as to endanger the very foundations of morality and civil +government. This is not only the fear of conservative and timid +clergymen, but many of our prominent statesmen seem anxious lest the +enlightenment of the people in matters in which they have been cruelly +deceived should so weaken the restraints of police and governmental +authority as to result in universal anarchy and a general disregard of +the rights of property, and even of the sacredness of human life. + +These foolish fears show a great want of confidence in human nature, and +falsely assume that moral character depends mainly upon an unquestioning +faith in certain dogmas which, in point of fact, have no necessary +connection with it. + +The statistics of crime show that a very large majority of those who +have been seized by the strong arm of the law as dangerous members of +society are those who most heartily believe in those very dogmas of +theology which we are warned not to criticise, though we may know them +to be accretions of ignorance and superstition, and that some of them +have a natural tendency to fetter the essential principles of true +religion and that higher code of morality which alone can stand strong +under all circumstances. It is safe to affirm that ninety-nine +hundredths of the criminal class believe, or profess to believe, in the +dogmas of the dominant theology, Romish and Protestant; which are +essentially the same. + +It is too often forgotten that the very first condition of good +government is faith in human nature, confidence in the people. You +always excite dishonor and dishonesty by treating men as if you think +them all rogues, and as if you expect nothing good from them, but every +conceivable evil, only as they may be restrained by the fear of pains +and penalties in this life and after death. + +One great fundamental mistake of theologians and dogmatic pietists is +the baseless assumption that religion is something supernatural, not to +say anti-natural; something external to human nature and of foreign +origin; something to be received by transfusion as the result or +consequence of faith in certain dogmas or the observance of external +rites; something bottled up by the Church, like rare and precious +medicines in an apothecary-shop, to be dealt out to those who are +willing to follow priestly prescriptions and pay the required price. + +The fact is, churches and scriptures and dogmas are the outcome of that +religious element which is inherent in human nature. It cannot be too +often or too strongly urged that the religious principle is _innate_ and +_ineradicable_ in mankind, and that you might as well try to destroy +man’s love of the beautiful, his desire for knowledge, his love of home +and kindred, or even his appetite for food, as to try to destroy it. It +is as natural to feel the want of religion as it is to be hungry. You +_cannot_ destroy the foundations of religion. They rest in _nature_ and +antedate all creeds and churches, and will survive them. + +Even Professor Tyndall says: “The facts of religious feeling are to me +as certain as the facts of physics.” + +... “The world will have religion of some kind.”... “You who have +escaped from these religions into the high and dry light of intellect +may deride them, but in doing so you deride accidents of form merely, +and fail to touch the immovable basis of the religious sentiment in the +nature of man. To yield this sentiment reasonable satisfaction is the +problem of problems at this hour.” + +Renan also writes thus: “All the symbols which serve to give shape to +the religious sentiment are imperfect, and their fate is to be one after +another rejected. But nothing is more remote from the truth than the +dream of those who seek to imagine a perfected humanity without +religion.”... “Devotion is as natural as egoism to a true-born man. The +organization of devotion _is_ religion. Let no one hope, therefore, to +dispense with religion or religious associations. Each progression of +modern society will render this want more imperious.” + +We use the word religion as it was used by Cicero, in the sense of +_scruple_, implying the consciousness of a natural obligation wholly +irrespective of what one may believe concerning the gods. Religion in +its true meaning is the great fact of _duty, of oughtness_, consisting +in an honest and persistent effort to realize ideal excellence and to +transform it into actual character and practical life. Religion as a +_spirit_ and a life is objected to by none, but is admired and commended +by all. It is superstition, bigotry, credulity, and dogma that are +detestable. The religious instinct has been perverted, turned into wrong +channels, made subservient to priestcraft and kingcraft, but its basic +principle remains for ever firm. If it _could_ have been destroyed, the +machinations of priests would have annihilated it long ago. Give +yourselves no anxiety about the corner-stone of religion, but look well +to the rotten superstructures that have been reared upon it. Its +professed friends are often its real enemies. It is the false prophet +who is afraid to have his oracles subjected to tests of reason and +history. It is the evil-doer who is afraid of the light, the conscious +thief who objects to being searched. An honest man would say, “Let the +truth be published, though the heavens fell.” + +The whole truth should be published, as a matter of common honesty, if +nothing more. We have no moral right to conceal the truth, any more than +we have to proclaim falsehood. He who deliberately does the one will not +hesitate long about doing the other. And this is one of the most serious +aspects of this subject. He who can bring himself to practise deceit +regarding religion will soon be a villain at heart, even if worldly +prudence is strong enough to keep him out of the penitentiary. + +As a rule, the unfaithful teacher inflicts a greater evil upon his own +soul than upon his unsuspecting dupe. The deceiver is sure to be +overtaken by his own deceit. Mean men become more mean, and liars come +to believe their own oft-repeated falsehoods. This principle may in part +account for the fact that in all ages dishonest, mercenary, designing +priests have been most corrupt citizens and ready tools in the hands of +tyrants to oppress and enslave the people. + +Every deceptive act blunts the moral sense, defiles and sears the +conscience, until at last the hypocrite degenerates into a slimy, subtle +human serpent that always crawls upon its belly and eats dust. +Secretiveness and deceitfulness become a second nature, and show +themselves continually even in the ordinary affairs of life. The reflex +influence of deception upon the deceiver himself is its most bitter +condemnation. + +But modern preachers have a way of justifying their evasions and +prevarications by saying that even Jesus himself withheld from his own +disciples some things, for the reason that they were “not able to bear +them,” quite overlooking the fact that he is also reported to have said, +“When the Spirit of truth has come, he will teach you all things,” and +that other passage (Luke 12: 2), where Jesus is represented as saying, +“For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, neither hid +that shall not be known. Therefore, whatsoever ye have spoken in +darkness, shall be heard in the light, and that which ye have spoken in +the ear, in closets, shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.” + +If after eighteen hundred years of Christian teaching the time has not +yet come to proclaim the whole truth, it is not likely to come for many +ages in the future. If religion is a mystery too great to be +comprehended, too sacred for reverent but untrammelled investigation, +something that can only exist with a blind, unreasoning credulity and +the utter stultification of the natural faculties of a true manhood, +then religion is not worth what it costs and should be exposed as a +delusion and a snare. + +The time for the religious _Kabala_ has passed, and ambiguities, +concealments, and evasions are no longer to be tolerated. Martin Luther +builded better than he knew when he proclaimed the right of private +judgment in matters of religion. It has taken two hundred years for this +fundamental principle to become thoroughly accepted by the people; but +so firmly is it now established that bigoted ecclesiastics might as well +attempt to resist the trend of an earthquake, stop the rising of the +sun, and turn the light of noonday into the darkness of midnight as to +attempt to arrest the progress of a true religious rationalism. The mad +ravings of fanatics will have no more influence than the pope’s bull had +on the comet. Learning is no longer monopolized by a few monks and +ministers. For every five clergymen who are abreast with the times, the +progress of modern thought, and the conclusions of science, there are +fifty laymen who are familiar with the writings of Humboldt, Darwin, +Huxley, Spencer, Tyndall, and scores of other scientists, to whom the +world is more indebted for true progress than to all the lazy monks and +muttering priests who have lived since the world began. The fact is, the +old delusion that men must look to the sacerdotal class exclusively, or +even mainly, for religious truth, has been for ever banished from the +minds of intelligent men. The literature of the day is full of free +thought and downright rationalism, and even the secular newspaper is a +missionary of religious progress and reform, and brings stirring +messages of intellectual progress every day to our breakfast-tables. The +world moves, and those who attempt to stop it are sure to be crushed. + +The pretence that anything is too sacred for investigation and +publication will not stand the light of this wide-awake nineteenth +century. + +It is often said that the common people are not ready for the whole +truth. In 1873, Dr. J. G. Holland, then editor of _Scribner’s Monthly_, +wrote to Dr. Augustus Blauvelt declining to publish an article on “The +Divine and Infallible Inspiration of the Bible,” and added, “I believe +you are right. I should like to speak your words to the world; but if I +do speak them it will pretty certainly cost me my connection with the +magazine. This sacrifice I am willing to make if duty requires it. I am +afraid of nothing but doing injury to the cause I love.... In short, you +see that I sincerely doubt whether the Christian world is ready for this +article.... Instead of the theologians the _people_ would howl.... I +cannot yet carry my audience in such a revolution. Perhaps I shall be +able to do so by and by, but as I look at it to-day it seems +impossible.... My dear friend, I believe in you. You are in advance of +your time. You have great benefits in your hands for your time. You are +free and true. And I mourn sadly and in genuine distress that I cannot +speak your words with a tongue which all my fellow-Christians can hear. +They will not hear them yet. They will some time....” + +Dr. Holland has passed away and cannot reply to criticism. Let us be +kind and charitable. He intended to be right, but he was mistaken. The +people do not howl when the truth is published, even though their +prejudices may be aroused; and no tedious preparation is now necessary +to be able to hear the whole truth. The masses of the people are hungry +for knowledge, and it is high time that they be honestly fed. They now +more than half suspect that they have been deceived by those some of +whom they have educated by their charities and liberally paid to teach +them the truth. When, in 1875, _Scribner’s Monthly_ did publish Dr. +Blauvelt’s articles on “Modern Skepticism,” it was not the people that +“howled.” It was the clergy. Some of them demanded a new editor; others +warned the people from the pulpit not to patronize _Scribner_; and one +distinguished man declared that the magazine must be “stamped out,” and +at once organized a most powerful ecclesiastical combination against the +freedom of the press; and yet the _North American Review_ and other +similar magazines are today doing more to settle long-mooted religious +questions than all the pulpits in Christendom; and the people do not +howl. No respectable enterprising publisher now hesitates to publish a +book of real merit, however much its doctrines may differ from the +dominant faiths. The masses of the people are determined to know all +that can be known of the history, philosophy, and principles of +religion; and the greater the effort to conceal and suppress the truth +the stronger will be the demand for its full and undisguised +proclamation. + +That there is a general drifting away from the old formulas of religious +doctrine everybody knows, and yet there is more practical religion in +the world to-day than in any previous age. It does not consist in +fastings and attendance upon ecclesiastical rites and ordinances; but it +takes the form of universal education, of providing homes for friendless +infancy and old age, of the prevention of cruelty to children and even +to brute animals, of the more rational and humane treatment of lunatics, +paupers, and criminals, ameliorating the miseries of prisons and +hospitals,—in short, of elevating and improving the condition of +universal humanity. These truly religious works do not depend upon any +particular statement of religious belief, for all sects and persons of +no sect are equally engaged in them. + +Charities would not cease if all creeds should be abandoned or should be +so revised as not to be recognized by the disciples of Calvin and +Wesley, and if every priest in the land should henceforth give up the +mummeries and puerilities of the Dark Ages. + +Religion, as the “enthusiasm of humanity,” the cultivation of all the +virtues, and the practice of the highest morality growing out of the +inalienable rights of man in all the relations of life, is a fixed fact. +It is a natural endowment, coeval with humanity in its development and +progress, and is as absolutely indestructible as manhood itself. + +So far from being true is the assumption that religion would be +imperilled by the exposure of the false dogmas of theology and the +heathenish rites and superstitious ceremonies of ecclesiasticism, it is +clear to many minds that the myths of dogmatic theology and the +absurdities of primitive ages are the chief obstacles in the way of the +free course of true religion; and it may safely be affirmed that the +distinguishing dogmas of the dominant theology, Catholic and Protestant, +as will hereafter be shown, are essentially demoralizing and logically +_tend_ to undermine and corrupt public virtue. It is not intended to +affirm that churches and theologians do no good and that their entire +influence is bad. They teach much that is humane in principle and moral +in practice, and so do good for society. Nevertheless, it is true that +much of the rotten morality of the times can be philosophically traced +to the influence of a false theology. The main dogmas of Romish and +orthodox Protestant creeds are false, and it is absurd to suppose that a +pure system of public virtue can be founded upon ignorance, +superstition, and falsehood. + +But, after all, we are asked, Does it make any odds what one believes if +he is only sincere in his faith? + +The obvious answer is, that the more sincerely you believe a lie the +more dangerous is your faith. The more trustfully you build upon a sandy +foundation the sooner and greater will be the fall and ruin of the +superstructure. The more implicitly you confide in a dishonest partner +or agent the more successful will be his robbery. There is no safety in +error and falsehood. The Westminster divines well said, “Truth is in +order to righteousness.” There can be no true righteousness inherent in +a system of superstition and falsehood. The failure of the Church to +reach the masses and to establish a condition of public honesty superior +to the ancient heathen morality shows that there must be some serious +defect in its methods. + +But the crushing objection to theological agitation and free discussion +is the common one that “it is unwise to unsettle and destroy the faith +of the people in the dominant theology unless there is something better +to offer them as a substitute.” + +There is something better. Truth is always better and safer than +falsehood. In the discussions which are to follow an attempt will be +made to show that there is a _natural religion_ which accords with +enlightened reason, and which cannot fail to furnish a firm scientific +foundation for _the highest morality_. The common saying, that “it is +better to have a false religion than no religion,” contains two +groundless assumptions—viz. that it is possible for a man to have _no_ +religion, and that that which is false may be dignified with the name +_religion_. It is about time that things should be called by their right +names, and that superstition and falsehood should not be deemed +necessary to public morality. + +For a religion (so called) of superstition and falsehood there must be a +religion of _natural science_ that cannot be overthrown, and which cannot +fail to make its way among men as knowledge shall increase and the +principles of true religious philosophy shall be better +understood. We should not be frightened at the cowardly cry of +“destructive criticism.” We _must_ pull down before we can reconstruct. + +CONCLUSIONS. + + (1) To imitate the example of the early Christian Fathers in fraud, + falsehood, and forgery for the promotion of religion is a policy + that is too shocking to the moral sense of civilized men + everywhere to be tolerated. To withhold or suppress the truth is a + crime against humanity and contrary to the spirit of this age; and + those who do it are the enemies of progress and unworthy to be + recognized as the authoritative teachers of the world. + (2) Those who publish that which is false or suppress what is true not + only do a great wrong to the people, but, if possible, do a + greater wrong to their own souls, and must suffer the + consequences. They must have an awful reckoning with eternal, + retributive justice. + (3) It is a most egregious mistake to suppose that the people cannot + be trusted with the whole truth—that their sense of right is so + dull and flimsy that on the slightest discovery of the errors in + which they have been instructed from infancy they would lose + confidence in all truth and rightfulness and rush riotously to + ruin. If the people must be hoodwinked for ever, then the + distinguishing principle of the Protestant Reformation and the + basic principles of our American Declaration of Independence and + republican government are false and delusive, and we should return + to mediæval times and to feudal and autocratic government in + Church and State. + (4) It is high time that men should see that dogma is not religion; + that blind faith is more to be feared than rational skepticism and + scientific investigation; that whatever is opposed to reason and + science in theology can be spared, not only without any loss, but + greatly to the advantage of true religion and sound morality. All + the religion that is worth having is _natural and rational_, and + corresponds with the facts of the universe as they are + demonstrated by the crucibles of science and the inductions of a + sound philosophy. The principal moral obligations of men grow out + of their relations to each other in life, and nothing can be more + complete than the Golden Rule, emphasized in the Sermon on the + Mount, but as clearly taught in the Jewish _Babylonian Talmud_, + and in the twenty-fourth Maxim of the Chinese philosopher + Confucius, and many others centuries before the Christian era. + (5) Instead of loading down religion with Oriental myths and fables, + instead of a gorgeous ritualism and surpliced priests, borrowed + literally from the ancient paganism, instead of dogmas and creeds + and unquestioning faith and blind submission to ecclesiastical + dictation and rule, we want sound moral instruction in the great + fundamental truths of nature and of science, which will always be + found to strengthen and confirm the principles of true religion. + These are the sources from which to gain light. We want less creed + and more ethical culture, less profession and paraphernalia in + religious worship and more practical philosophy and common sense. + (6) The man who in scientific matters would make false representations + and conceal the real truth would be deemed an impostor, and the + time has come when hypocrites and cowards in theology should be + made to feel their degradation and be forced into an open + abandonment of “ways that are dark and tricks that are vain.” If + we would scorn delusions in natural philosophy, if we would + correct errors in oceanic charts, astronomical diagrams, and + geographical maps, why should we hesitate to correct the most + egregious blunders regarding those things which are infinitely + more important? Can we with any proper sense of propriety and + right connive at falsehood and uphold and strengthen it by our + silence and cowardly negligence in failing to expose it? Are not + all delusions debasing and opposed to the progress of truth and + the elevation of mankind? In all the departments of human + knowledge religion and morality are most imperative in their + demands for pure and unadulterated truth; and he who does not + recognize this fact sins grievously against his own soul, against + the human family, and against the truth and its eternal Author, + the God of all truth. + (7) Finally, let it not be overlooked that it will not, for many + reasons, be possible much longer to keep the people in ignorance, + and to palm off upon them myths for veritable history and a system + of theology plainly at variance with the conclusions of science, + the facts of history, and the spiritual and moral consciousness of + every true and well-developed man. The schoolmaster is abroad, and + the spirit of fearless investigation is in the air, and men + _will,_ sooner or later, find out what is true; and when they come + to understand how they have been imposed upon by their cowardly + teachers, a fearful _reaction_ will be the result; and woe to the + hypocrite and time-server when that time comes! It is therefore + not only good principle, but good policy, to tell the whole truth + now. The following copy of a book-notice well describes the + prevalent policy regarding matters of faith: + +“A theory of religious philosophy which is much commoner among us than +most of us think, but which has never been expressed so fully or so +attractively as in the story of Marius. + +“‘Submit,’ it seems to say, ‘to the religious order about you, accept +the common beliefs, or at least behave as if you accepted them, and live +habitually in the atmosphere of feeling and sensation which they have +engendered and still engender; surrender your feeling while still +maintaining the intellectual citadel intact; pray, weep, dream with the +majority while you think with the elect; only so will you obtain from +life all it has to give, its most delicate flavor, its subtlest aroma.’” +Against such a _sham_ the writer heartily protests, as against the +villainous maxim, quoted from memory, accredited to Aristotle: “_Think_ +with the sages and philosophers, but _talk_ like the common people.” +Come what may, let us cease to profess what we have ceased to believe. + +“The two learned people of the village,” says Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, +telling of his fanciful Arrowhead Village, “were the rector and the +doctor. These two worthies kept up the old controversy between the +professions which grows out of the fact that one studies nature from +below upward, and the other from above downward. The rector maintained +that physicians contracted a squint which turns their eyes inwardly, +while the muscles which roll their eyes upward become palsied. The +doctor retorted that theological students developed a third eyelid—the +_nictitating membrane_, which is so well known in birds, and which +serves to shut out, not all light, but _all the light they do not +want._” + +The Presbyterians have provided for a _revision_ of their creed, though +they have stultified themselves by certain restrictions, _shutting out +the light they do not want!_ Let us hope that the time will soon come +when men will be honest enough and brave enough to follow the truth +wherever it may lead. Let there be perfect veracity above all things, +more especially in matters of religion. It is not a question of +courtesies which deceive no one. To profess what is not believed is +immoral. Immorality and untruth can never lead to morality and virtue; +all language which conveys untruth, either in substance or appearance, +should be amended so that words can be understood in their recognized +meanings, without equivocal explanations or affirmations. Let historic +facts have their true explanation. + + + + +CHAPTER II. SACERDOTALISM IMPEACHED + + +_“The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for +hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money.”—Micah 3: 11._ + +_“Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat +a piece of bread.”—1 Sam. 2: 36._ + + +THE cognomens priest, prophet, presbyter, preacher, parson, and pastor +have certain things in common, and these titles may therefore be used +interchangeably. + +As far back as history extends, the office or order now represented by +the clerical profession existed. It was as common among pagan tribes in +the remotest periods as among Jews and Christians in more modern times. +Service done to the gods by the few in behalf of the many is the primary +idea of the priestly function. It has always and everywhere been the +profession and prerogative of the priests to pretend to approach nearest +to the gods and to propitiate them; on account of which they have always +been supposed to have special influence with the reigning deity and to +be the authorized expounders and interpreters of the divine oracles. The +priesthood has always been a _caste, a “holy order;”_ and it was no less +so among ancient Jews than among modern Christians. In all churches +clergymen _ex-officio_ exercise certain sacred prerogatives. They occupy +select seats in every sanctuary. They lead in every act of worship. They +preside over every sacred ceremony. They exclusively administer the +ordinances of religion. They baptize the children and give or withhold +the “Holy Communion.” They celebrate our marriages, visit our sick, and +conduct our funerals. In Romish churches and in some of our Protestant +churches they pretend to pronounce “absolution” and to seal the +postulant for the heavenly rest. It is not necessary, now and here, to +speak of the evil influence that these pretensions exert upon the common +people, nor of the light in which intelligent, thinking women and men +commonly regard them; but it is appropriate to note the reflex influence +which such assumptions have upon the clergy themselves, disqualifying +them for such rational presentation of doctrinal truth as their hearers +have a right to expect. + +The pride of his order makes it humiliating for the priest to admit that +what he does not know is worth knowing. Claiming to be the authorized +expounder of God’s will, how can he admit that he can possibly be in +error in any matter relating to religion? In view of the high +pretensions of his order, founded, as he claims, upon a +plenarily-inspired and infallible book-revelation, and he professing to +be specially called and sanctified by God himself as his representative, +it would be ecclesiastical treason to admit, even by implication, that +he is not in possession of all truth. Regarding his creed as a finality, +his mind becomes narrow, circumscribed, and unprogressive. He was taught +from childhood that “to doubt is to be damned,” and through all his +novitiate he was warned against being unsettled by the delusions of +reason and the wiles of infidelity. His professional education has been +narrow, one-sided, sectarian. He has seldom, if ever, read anything +outside of his own denominational literature, and has heard little from +anybody but his own theological professors and associates. He suspects +that Humboldt, Spencer, Huxley, and Tyndall are all infidels, and that +the sum and substance of Evolution, as taught by Darwin, is that man is +the lineal descendant of the monkey. + +Some persons think that ministers are often selected from among +weaklings in the family fold. However, this may be, the absorption of +the “holy-orders” idea, and the natural self-assurance and +self-satisfaction that belong to a caste profession, render delusive the +hope that anything original can ever come from such a source. Whether +weak at first or not, the habits of thought and the peculiar training of +young ecclesiastics are almost sure to dwarf them intellectually for +life. The theological student has become the _butt_ in wide-awake +society everywhere, and his appearance in public is the occasion for +jests and ridicule over his sanctimonious vanity and silly pride. The +extreme clerical costume which he is sure to assume excites the disgust +of sensible people, though he may march through the street and up the +aisle with the regulation step of the “order,” and suppose himself to be +the object of reverent admiration on the part of all beholders. No +wonder that the churches complain that few young men of ability enter +the ministry in these modern times. + +The priestly office has always been deemed one of great influence, so +that ancient kings were accustomed to assume it. This was true of the +kings of ancient Egypt, and the practice was kept up among the Greeks +and Romans. Even Constantine, the first Christian emperor (so called), +continued to exercise the function of a pagan priest after his professed +conversion to Christianity, and he was not initiated into the Christian +Church by baptism until just before his death. One excommunicated king +lay for three days and nights in the snow in the courtyard before the +Pope would grant him an audience! The “Pontifex-Maximus” idea of the +Roman emperors was the real foundation of the “temporal power” claimed +by the bishops of Rome. Kingcraft and priestcraft have always been in +close alliance. When the king was not a priest he always used the +priest; and the priest has generally been willing to be used on the side +of the king as against the people when liberally subsidized by the +reigning potentate. Moreover, priestcraft has always been ambitious for +power, and sometimes has been so influential as to make the monarch +subservient to the monk. More than one proud crown has been humbly +removed in token of submission to priestly authority, and powerful +sovereigns have been obliged to submit to the most menial exactions and +humiliations at ecclesiastical mandates. The priestly rôle has always +been to utilize the religious sentiment for the subjection of the +credulous to the arbitrary influence of the caste or order. + +Priestcraft never could afford to have a conscience, so admitted, and +therefore it has not shrunk from the commission of any crime that could +augment its dominion. Its greatest success has been in the work of +demoralization. It has always been the corrupter of religion. The +ignorance and superstition of the people and the perversions of the +religious sentiment, innate in man, have been the stock in trade of the +craft in all ages, and are to-day. + +It will be shown later how the whole system of dogmatic theology, Romish +and Protestant (for the system is the same), has been formed so as to +aggrandize the priest, perpetuate his power, and hold the masses in +strict subjection. This is a simple matter of fact. History is +philosophy teaching by example, and often repeats itself, and it seldom +gives an example of a priestly caste or “holy” order of men leading in a +great practical reform. The dominant priestly idea is to protect the +interests of the _order_, not to promote the welfare of the people. + +In view of these principles and facts, and others which might be +presented, it is reasonable to conclude that we cannot expect the whole +living, unadulterated truth, even if they had it, from the professional +clergy. The caste idea renders it essentially unnatural and +philosophically impossible. + +But there are other potent reasons why such expectation is vain. All +Christendom is covered with numerous sects in the form of ecclesiastical +judicatories, each claiming to be the true exponent of all religious +truth. The Romish Church is pre-eminently priestly and autocratic. The +priesthood is the Church, and the people only belong to the Church; that +is, belong to the priesthood, and that, too, in a stronger sense than at +first seems to attach to the word _belong_. Then the priesthood itself +is subdivided into castes.: + + “Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ’em, + And little fleas have lesser fleas; and so—ad infinitum” + +When Patrick J. Ryan was installed Archbishop in Philadelphia, an office +conferred by a foreign potentate, our own city newspapers in flaming +headlines called it “The Enthronement of a Priest!” And so it was. He +sat upon a throne and received the honors of a prince. He is called “His +Grace,” and wears the royal purple in the public streets. Bishops are +higher than the “inferior clergy,” and the priest, presbyter, or elder +is of a higher caste than the deacon, and all are higher and more holy +than the people. All ministers exercise functions which would be deemed +sacrilege in a layman. The same odious spirit of caste prevails in fact, +if not so prominently in form, in all orthodox denominations, especially +as to the distinction between the clergy and the laity. Even Quakers +have higher seats for “recommended ministers.” + +Moreover, priests have laid down creeds containing certain affirmations +and denials which are called “Articles of Religion,” to which all +students of divinity and candidates for holy orders must subscribe +before they can be initiated into the sacred arcana. + +The professor in the theological seminary, who perhaps was selected for +the chair quite as much for his conservatism as for his learning, has +taken a pledge, if not an oath, that he will teach the young aspirant +for ecclesiastical honors nothing at variance with the standards of his +denomination; which covenant he is very sure to keep (having other +professors and aspirants for professorships to watch him) in full view +of the penalty of dismission from his chair and consequent +ecclesiastical degradation. The very last place on this earth where one +might expect original research, thorough investigation, and fearless +proclamation of the whole truth is in a theological school. A horse in a +bark-mill becomes blind in consequence of going round and round in the +same circular path; and the theological professor in his treadmill +cannot fail to become purblind as regards all new truth. + +What can be expected from the _graduates_ of such seminaries? + +The theological novitiate sits with trembling reverence at the feet of +the venerable theological Gamaliel. From his sanctified lips he is to +learn all wisdom. Without his approbation he cannot receive the coveted +diploma. Without his recommendation he will not be likely to receive an +early call to a desirable parish. + +The student is _obliged_ to find in the Bible just what his Church +requires, and nothing more and nothing less. In order to be admitted +into the clerical caste and have holy hands laid upon his youthful head +he must believe or profess to believe, _ipsissima verba_, just what the +“Confession” and “Catechism” contain. The Rev. Dr. Samuel Miller once +said in a sort of confidential undertone, “What is the use of examining +candidates for the ministry at all as to what they believe? The fact +that they apply for admission shows that they intend to answer all +questions as we expect them to answer; else, they very well know, we +would not admit them.” + +The ecclesiastical system is emphatically an iron-bedstead system. If a +candidate is too long, it cuts him shorter; and if too short, it +stretches him. He must be made to fit. Then, after “ordination” or +“consecration,” the new-fledged theologian enters upon his public work +so pressed by the cares of his charge and the social and professional +demands upon his time that he finds it impossible to prepare a lecture +and two original sermons a week; so he falls back upon the “notes” he +took from the lips of his “old professor” in the divinity school, or +upon some of those numerous “skeletons” and “sketches” of sermons +expressly published for the “aid” of busy young ministers; and he gives +to “his people” a dish of theological hash, if not of re-hash, instead +of pouring out his own living words that should breathe and thoughts +that should burn. + +Hence it is easy to see why one scarcely ever gets a fresh, living truth +from the pulpit. It is almost always the same old, old story of +commonplace fossils that the wide-awake world has outgrown long ago, and +that modern science has fearlessly consigned to the “bats and the moles” +of the Dark Ages. No wonder the pulpit platitudes fail to attract the +masses of earnest men, especially in our great cities. + +Then if a clergyman should discover, after years of thought and study, +that he has been in error in some matters, and that a pure rational +interpretation of the Bible is possible, and he really feels that the +creeds, as well as the Scriptures, need revising, what can he do? If he +lets his new light shine, he will share the fate of Colenso, Robertson +Smith, Augustus Blauvelt, Professor Woodrow, and scores of others. He +knows that heresy-hunters are on the scent of his track. The mad-dog cry +of _Heretic_ would be as fatal as a sharp shot from the ecclesiastical +rifle. Proscription, degradation, ostracism, stare him in the face. Few +men who have the _esprit de corps_ of ecclesiasticism and a reasonable +regard for personal comfort and preferment are heroic enough to face the +social exclusion, financial ruin, and beggary for themselves and +families which are almost sure to follow a trial and condemnation for +heresy. If the newly-enlightened minister escapes the inquisition of a +heresy trial by declaring himself independent, he has a gauntlet to run +in which many poisoned arrows will be sure to pierce his quivering +spirit. It is true that some sects have no written creed and no trials +for heresy; but even among them there is an _implied_ standard of what +is “regular,” and more than one grand soul knows by a sorrowful +experience, what it is to belong to the “left wing” of the Liberal army, +and to follow the “spirit of truth” outside of the implied creed. + +Another reason why the whole truth cannot be expected from the regular +clergy is, the influence of their pecuniary dependence upon those to +whom they minister. The Jews have always been great borrowers and +imitators. It was quite natural that they should adopt the +“price-current list” of the ancient Phœnicians, whose priests not only +exacted the tribute of “first-fruits,” but a fee in kind of each +sacrifice. Then the judicial functions exercised by Jewish priests +became a fruitful source of revenue, as the fines for certain offences +were paid to the priests (2 Kings 12: 16; Hosea 4: 8; Amos 2: 8). +According to 2 Sam. 8: 18 and 2 Bangs 10: 11, also 12: 2, the priests of +the royal sanctuaries became the grandees of the realm, while the petty +priests were generally poor enough—just as is well known to be the case +among the Christian clergy of to-day, some receiving a salary of +twenty-five thousand dollars and more per annum, while many of the +“inferior clergy” hardly average two hundred and fifty dollars a year. + +That the Christian clerical profession was borrowed from the Jews, just +as the latter copied it from the heathen, is evident from the fact that +Paul, while refusing for himself pecuniary support, preferring to “work +with his own hands” (weaving tent-cloth), “living in his own hired +house,” nevertheless defended the principle of ministerial support, +mainly on the ground of the Mosaic law (Deut. 25: 4), “Thou shalt not +muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” (1 Cor. 9: 9; 1 Tim. 5: +18). It is a striking illustration of the inconsistency of the modern +clergy that they quote, in reference to a salaried ministry, the words +ascribed to Jesus (Matt. 10: 10), “The workman is worthy of his meat,” +or, as it is rendered in Luke 10: 7, “The laborer is worthy of his +hire,” very conveniently forgetting to quote the connecting words +requiring them to “provide neither gold nor silver nor brass in their +purse, nor scrip for their journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, +nor yet staves,” but to enter unceremoniously into any house, accepting +any proffered hospitality, “eating such things as might be set before +them.” The fact is, the first disciples of Jesus, according to our +Gospels, were mendicant monks, leading lives of asceticism and poverty. +There is no evidence that one of them ever received a salary; they made +themselves entirely dependent on public charity and hospitality. The +idea of a “church living” or “beneficed clergy” or a salaried ministry +never entered into the mind of Him of whom it is said he “had not where +to lay his head.” + +It is enough for the present argument to emphasize the point that, in +the very nature of things, it is not reasonable to expect the whole +truth from a salaried ministry. Those who have a large salary naturally +desire to retain it; those who have small and insufficient salaries +naturally desire to have them increased. + +This can only be done by carefully preserving a good orthodox standing +according to the sectarian _shibboleth_, and in pleasing the people who +rent the pews or who dole out their penurious subscriptions for “the +support of the gospel.” High-salaried ministers are most likely to be +proud, arrogant, bigoted, sectarian. Starveling ministers become broken +in spirit, fawning, and crouching, and they generally have an +unconscious expression of appeal for help, of importunity and +expectancy, stamped upon their faces. The millstone of pecuniary +dependence hangs so heavily about their necks that they seldom hold up +their heads like men, and they can never utter a new truth or a +startling sentiment without pausing to consider what effect it may have +on the bread and butter of a dependent and generally numerous family. +Ministers with high salaries are almost sure to be spoiled, and those +with low ones are sure to be stultified and dwarfed intellectually and +morally; so that we cannot depend upon either class for the highest and +latest truths. Those who have a “living,” provided in a State Church, +and those who depend upon voluntary contributions from the people, are +alike manacled and handicapped. We must look elsewhere than to the +modern pulpit for that truth which alone can give freedom and true +manliness. Perfect indifference as to ecclesiastical standing, backed by +pecuniary independence, is an essential condition for untrammelled +investigation and the fearless proclamation of the whole truth. + +It was noticed in the recent convention of scientists in this city (the +American Association) that it was the salaried professors in Church +colleges who professed to find no conflict between Geology and Genesis. +It will always be so until the ecclesiastical tyranny is greatly +weakened or destroyed, and men can utter their boldest thoughts without +fear or favor, and when teachers can afford to have a conscience by +making themselves free from Church control and menial dependence upon +those to whom they minister for the necessaries of a mere livelihood. +Science itself has made progress only as it has been fearless of +priestly maledictions; and when it shall throw off the incubus of Church +patronage it will astonish the world in showing the eternal antagonisms +between the dogmas of the dominant theology and the essential truths of +natural religion and morality. + +CONCLUSIONS. + +The following conclusions follow from what has been said: + + (1) The clerical fraternity claims to be more than a mere profession. + It is essentially a caste, a “holy order,” borrowed from the + ancient paganism, but somewhat modified by Judaism and a perverted + Christianity. + (2) From such a caste or order the whole truth is not to be expected, + especially when the truth would show the order to be an imposture. + The assumptions of peculiar sanctity, official pre-eminence, + functional prerogatives, and special spiritual authority make such + a hope unnatural and quite impossible. + (3) The church system, with its tests of orthodoxy, its ecclesiastical + handcuffs, and its worse than physical thumb-screws, puts an end + to all independent thinking, and results in an enforced conformity + inconsistent with intellectual progress and the discovery and full + publication of the whole truth. + (4) The pecuniary stipend upon which professional preachers are + dependent has a demoralizing and degrading influence, so that the + doctrinal teaching of the pulpit should not be received without + hesitation and distrust. The common law excludes the testimony of + interested witnesses, and, though modern statutes admit such + testimony, the courts take it for what it is worth, but always + with many grains of allowance. “A gift perverteth judgment,” and + self-interest may sway the convictions of a man who intends and + desires to be fairly honest. + (5) The existing systems of ministerial education and support deter + many superior men from entering the profession, and have placed + preaching upon a commercial or mercantile basis, which has + manacled and crippled the pulpit, and must sooner or later result + in the consideration of the question whether the services of the + clergy are worth what they cost, and whether the truth must not be + sought for in some other direction. More than two hundred and + fifty thousand priests and ministers (of whom about one hundred + thousand are in the United States) are maintained at an annual + expense of more than five hundred millions of dollars; and, as a + rule, where priests are most numerous, people are poorest and + public morality lowest. + +A member of the Canadian Parliament (Hon. James Beatty) has recently +published a book in which he opposes the whole system of a salaried +clergy on scriptural and other grounds; and many other thoughtful men +are beginning to inquire how it is that the Society of Friends get along +so well without a “hireling ministry.” + + (6) It is a great mistake to suppose that we must look mainly to + professional clergymen for instruction in divine things. It is a + significant fact that the most able and important books that have + been published within the last decade have been written by laymen + or by persons, like Emerson, who have outgrown the narrow garments + of a caste profession and have laid them off. How to get along + without professional ministers has been well answered by Capt. + Robert C. Adams (quoted in the writer’s book, Man—Whence and + Whither? pp. 218, 219). + +If ministers would give up the _holy-orders_ idea, cast into the sea the +millstone incumbrance of pecuniary dependence, engage earnestly in some +legitimate work to support themselves, they would then for the first +time begin to realize what soul-freedom is, and they could then preach +with an intelligence and power and with a satisfaction to themselves of +which they now know nothing. Let them try it for themselves and learn a +lesson. Whether the clerical order is so divine an institution that we +have no right to call it into question or to abolish it altogether, is a +question that must be practically considered soon. + + (7) There is a deep impression widely prevailing among thoughtful and + sincerely religious persons that the infidelity of the pulpit is + largely responsible for the prevailing skepticism of the age. The + word “infidelity” is here specially used in a strict philological + sense—_infidele_, not faithful, unfaithfulness to a trust—but it + is also used in its more general sense of _disbelief_ in certain + religious dogmas. + +We impeach and arraign the clergy (admitting a few honorable exceptions) +on the general charge of _infidelity_ in the strictest and broadest +sense of the word— + +1st. In that they fail to qualify themselves to be the leaders of +thought in the great, living questions affecting religion and morality. +We have elsewhere said: “Not one minister in a thousand ‘discerns the +signs of the times’ or is prepared for the crisis. Few pastors ever read +anything beyond their own denominational literature. Their education is +partial, one-sided, professional. They cling to mediaeval superstitions +with the desperate grasp of drowning men. The great majority of the +clergy are not men of broad minds and wide and deep research, and have +not the ability to meet the vexed questions of to-day.” + +It is an admitted policy, especially among the orthodox clergy (so +called), not to read or to listen to anything that might unsettle their +faith in what they have accepted as a finality; whereas no man can +intelligently _believe_ anything until he has candidly considered the +reasons assigned by other men for not believing what he does. “He that +is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and +searcheth him.” + +Professor Fisher, the champion of Yale-College orthodoxy, has recently +admitted in the _North American Review_ that at least one of the causes +of the decline of clerical authority and influence is the increased +intelligence of the laity. If the people cannot get what they desire +from the pulpit, they will seek it from the platform and the press. +Truth is no longer to be concealed in cloisters and smothered in +theological seminaries, but it is to be proclaimed from housetops and in +language understood in every-day life. + +It was once said that “the lips of the priest give knowledge,” but it +may now be truly said that modern scientists and philosophers among the +laity are the principal teachers of mankind, and that publications like +the _North American Review_ and _The Forum_, and last, but not least, +the secular daily newspapers, are doing more to instruct the people in +living truths than the whole brood of ecclesiastical parrots. + +2d. We charge that many professional clergymen suppress things which +they do believe to be true, and not unfrequently suggest things, at +least by implication, which they do know to be false. + +Dr. Edward Everett Hale recently published an article in the _North +American Review_ entitled “Insincerity in the Pulpit;” and the Rev. Dr. +Phillips Brooks of Boston, who recently received episcopal honors in +Massachussetts, has confirmed in the _Princeton Review_ what Dr. Hale +charged in the _North American Review_ regarding clerical +disingenuousness. Dr. Brooks wrote thus: + +“A large acquaintance with clerical life has led me to think that almost +any company of clergymen, talking freely to each other, will express +opinions which would greatly surprise, and at the same time greatly +relieve, the congregations who ordinarily listen to these ministers.... +How many men in the ministry to-day believe in the doctrine of verbal +inspiration which our fathers held? and how many of us have frankly told +the people that we do not believe it?... How many of us hold that the +everlasting punishment of the wicked is a clear and certain truth of +revelation? But how many of us who do not have ever said a word?” + +The same principle of prevarication and deceit was practised by the +early Fathers of the Christian Church, who not only concealed the truth +from the masses of the people, but did not hesitate to deceive and +mislead them. + +Mosheim, an ecclesiastical historian of high authority, testifies that +“in the fourth century it was an almost universally adopted maxim that +it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie when by such means the +interests of the Church might be promoted.” He further says of the fifth +century, “Fraud and impudent imposture were artfully proportioned to the +credulity of the vulgar.” + +Milman, in his _History of Christianity_, says: “It was admitted and +avowed that to deceive into Christianity was so valuable a service as to +hallow deceit itself.” He further says in the same historical work, +“That some of the Christian legends were deliberate forgeries can +scarcely be questioned.” There is not a Bible manuscript or version that +has not been manipulated by ecclesiastics for century after century. +Many of these priests were both ignorant and vicious. From the fifth to +the fifteenth century crimes not fit to be mentioned prevailed among the +clergy. + +Dr. Lardner says that Christians of all sorts were guilty of fraud, and +quotes Cassaubon as saying, “In the earliest times of the Church it was +considered a capital exploit to lend to heavenly truth the help of their +own inventions.” Dr. Thomas Burnet, in a Latin treatise intended for the +clergy only, said, “Too much light is hurtful to weak eyes;” and he +recommended the practice of deceiving the common people for their own +good. I _know_ that this same policy is in vogue in our day. This same +nefarious doctrine of the exoteric and esoteric, one thing for the +priest and another for the people, is far from being dead in this +nineteenth century. It has always been, and now is, the real priestly +policy to keep the common people in ignorance of many things; and if all +do not accept the maxim of Gregory, that “Ignorance is the mother of +Devotion,” many ministers _privately_ hold in our day that “where +ignorance is bliss ’Tis folly to be wise.” + +3d. The third article of impeachment, under the general charge of +infidelity is, that sacerdotalists teach dogmas which they do not +believe themselves. They do not all believe, _ex animo_, the distinctive +dogmas of the orthodox creeds—that God is angry with the great body of +mankind, that his wrath is a burning flame, and that there is, as to a +majority of men, but a moment’s time and a point of space between them +and eternal torture more terrible than imagination can conceive or +language describe. It is well said that “Actions speak louder than +words;” and we need only ask the question, “Do ministers who profess to +believe these horrible dogmas preach as if they really believed them?” +Notice the general deportment of the clergy at the summer resort, at the +seaside, or on the mountain-top, and say whether they can possibly +believe what for eight or nine months they have been preaching in their +now closed churches. Listen to the private conversation of our +evangelists at the camp-meeting or at the meetings of ecclesiastical +bodies, and then conclude, if you can, that they believe what they +teach. + +Take, if you please, the case of one of our best-known evangelical +ministers, a member of the strictest of our orthodox sects, who spends a +large proportion of his time in studying the ways of insects, and who +would chase a pismire across the continent to find out its habits. Can a +pastor believe in his heart the dogmas of the Westminster Confession, +and yet devote so much time to ants? It is impossible. He may deceive +himself; he cannot deceive others. + +4th. Our fourth article of impeachment under the general charge is, that +the pulpit is the great promoter of skepticism called infidelity, in +that it insists upon the belief of dogmas which are absurd upon their +face, such as the miraculous conception of Jesus, the dogma of the +Trinity, the origin and fall of man, vicarious atonement, +predestination, election and reprobation, eternal torture for the +majority, and many other absurdities which no rational mind can now +consistently accept. + +True, these dogmas may be found in the Bible; and when men ate told with +weekly reiterations that the Bible is purely divine, supernatural, and +infallible, and they find that it is purely human, natural, and very +fallible, they cannot believe the Bible, though they find many inspiring +and helpful things in it. When ministers tell thinking men that they +must believe all or reject all, they accept the foolish alternative and +reject all. And so it might be further shown how, in very many ways, the +pulpit is the great promoter of skepticism and infidelity, and that the +professed teachers of religion are its greatest enemies, its most +effective clogs and successful antagonists. No wonder that the most +thoughtful and intelligent men and women in every community have drifted +away from the popular faith, and are anxiously inquiring, What next? + +President Thomas Jefferson, in writing to Timothy Pickering, well said: + +“The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of +Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have +caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock +reasonable thinkers to revolt them against the whole, and drive them +rashly to pronounce its founder an impostor.” Writing to Dr. Cooper, he +said: “_My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel if +there had never been a priest._” + +We would not abolish the office, or, if you please, the profession, of +_public moral teacher_, but we would banish from the world the caste +idea, the _holy-order_ pretence. When simple-minded young men and grave +and surpliced bishops talk about taking “holy orders,” sensible and +thoughtful men know that they are talking holy nonsense. No man has a +right to assume that he is more holy than other men, or that he has +authority to exercise religious functions that other men have not. + +Nor have we any objection that moral teachers should be paid for their +services as other teachers are paid; but when educated men can afford to +teach without pecuniary compensation, we think it would be well for them +to do so; and when the teacher of morals adopts the example of St. Paul, +“working with his own hands” and “living in his own hired house,” we +think the world will be the better for it. Let us hope that the day will +soon dawn when clergymen will consider themselves moral teachers only, +and for ever repudiate the false pretence of special authority and +priestly sanctimoniousness, and clearly understand that mediocrity and +stupidity will not much longer be tolerated because of the so-called +sacredness of a profession. + +That the estimate here made of sacerdotalists may not seem extreme and +unjustifiable, I add the testimony of one of the most honored +ecclesiastics of the Established Church of England, Canon Farrar, who in +a recent sermon on priestcraft said: “In all ages the exclusive +predominance of priests has meant the indifference of the majority and +the subjection of the few. It has meant the slavery of men who will not +act, and the indolence of men who will not think, and the timidity of +men who will not resist, and the indifference of men who do not care.” +Alas that “holy hands” should so often be laid “upon skulls that cannot +teach and will not learn”! + +Let me here quote from Professor Huxley an admirable statement of the +facts in the case: + +“Everywhere have they (sacerdotalists) broken the spirit of wisdom and +tried to stop human progress by quotations from their Bibles or books of +their saints. In this nineteenth century, as at the dawn of modern +physical science, the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the +incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox. Who shall +number the patient and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of +Galileo until now, whose lives have been embittered and their good name +blasted by the mistaken zeal of bibliolaters? Who shall count the host +of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the effort to +harmonize impossibilities; whose life has been wasted in the attempt to +force the generous new wine of science into the old bottles of Judaism, +compelled by the outcry of the same strong party? It is true that if +philosophers have suffered, their cause has been amply avenged. +Extinguished theologies lie about the cradle of every science as the +strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that +whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has +been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not +annihilated, scotched if not slain. But orthodoxy learns not, neither +can it forget; and though at present bewildered and afraid to move, it +is as willing as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis +contains the beginning and the end of sound science, and to visit with +such petty thunderbolts as its half-paralyzed hands can hurl those who +refuse to degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.” “Religion,” +he also elsewhere writes, “arising like all other knowledge out of the +action and interaction of man’s mind, has taken the intellectual +coverings of Fetishism, Polytheism, of Theism or Atheism, of +Superstition or Rationalism; and if the religion of the present differs +from that of the past, it is because the theology of the present has +become more scientific than that of the past; not because it has +renounced idols of wood and idols of stone, but it begins to see the +necessity of breaking in pieces the idols built up of books and +traditions and fine-spun ecclesiastical cobwebs, and of cherishing the +noblest and most human of man’s emotions by worship, ‘for the most part +of the silent sort,’ at the altar of the _unknown and unknowable_”... +“If a man asks me what the politics of the inhabitants of the moon are, +and I reply that I know not, that neither I nor any one else have any +means of knowing, and that under these circumstances I decline to +trouble myself about the subject at all, I do not think he has any right +to call me a skeptic.” Again: “What are among the moral convictions most +fondly held by barbarous and semi-barbarous people? They are the +convictions that authority is the soundest basis of belief; that merit +attaches to a readiness to believe; that the doubting disposition is a +bad one, and skepticism a sin; and there are many excellent persons who +still hold by these principles.”... “Yet we have no reason to believe +that it is the improvement of our faith nor that of our morals which +keeps the plague from our city; but it is the improvement of our natural +knowledge. We have learned that pestilences will only take up their +abode among those who have prepared unswept and ungarnished residences +for them. Their cities must have narrow, un watered streets full of +accumulated garbage; their houses must be ill-drained, ill-ventilated; +their subjects must be ill-lighted, ill-washed, ill-fed, ill-clothed; +the London of 1665 was such a city; the cities of the East, where plague +has an enduring dwelling, are such cities; we in later times have +learned somewhat of Nature, and partly obey her. Because of this partial +improvement of our natural knowledge, and that of fractional obedience, +we have no plague; but because that knowledge is very imperfect and that +obedience yet incomplete, typhus is our companion and cholera our +visitor.” + + + + +CHAPTER III. THE FABULOUS CLAIMS OF JUDAISM + + + “Not giving heed to Jewish fables.”—Tit. 1: 14. + + “Neither give heed to fables.”—1 Tim. 1: 4. + + “But refuse profane and old wives’ fables.”—1 Tim. 4: 7. + + +IT is impossible to understand modern Christian ecclesiasticism without +a careful study of ancient Judaism. It is reported that Jesus himself +said, “_Salvation is of the Jews._” The gospel was to be preached “to +the Jews first.” The common belief to-day is, that the Christian Church +represents the substance of what Judaism was the promise, and that the +New Testament contains the fulfilment and realization of what was +foreshadowed in the Old Testament. + +All well-informed theologians understand that the Christian Church is +held to have had its origin in what is denominated the “call of +Abraham,” and that what is known in orthodox parlance as the “Abrahamic +covenant” lies at the foundation of the orthodox theory of grace and of +all other systems of doctrine falsely designated as evangelical. It is a +suggestive fact that while Christians hold that their religion is the +very quintessence and outcome of Judaism, they most cordially hate the +Jews, and the Jews in return, have a supreme contempt for Christians and +stoutly deny the relationship of parent and child. + +Now that the descent of the Jews from the Chaldean Abram, whom they +affect to call their father, is discredited by all scholars who reject +the inspirational and infallible theory of the Old Testament, it is very +difficult to find out the real origin of this strange people. All modern +writers on Jews and Judaism admit that outside of the Old Testament +there is little or no history of the Jews down to the time of Alexander, +and that there is very little reliable history even in the collection of +books known as the Hebrew Scriptures. It cannot be doubted now that the +Pentateuch, improperly called the five books of Moses, was mostly +written after the return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, +about 538 b. c., and what is found in these books mainly corresponds +with the religion and literature of the Assyrians, and was learned +during their sojourn in that country, and not, as has ignorantly been +supposed, from the mythical Abram, the reputed immigrant from Ur of the +Chaldees. What is recorded in the Pentateuch, not being mentioned in +other Old-Testament writings, shows that such records had no existence +when those books were written, and therefore could have no recognition. +It will be shown hereafter that there is little or nothing in the +Pentateuch that is strictly original, much less strictly historical. +Indeed, the tales of the Old Testament generally were written for a +religious or patriotic purpose, with little regard for time, place, or +historical accuracy. Persons, real or mythical, are often used to +represent different tribes, while allegory is the rule rather than the +exception in what is ignorantly accepted as history. This is admitted by +many eminent Christian writers. + +The word “Jew” first occurs in 2 Kings 16: 6 to denote the inhabitants +of Judea, but they should properly have been called “Judeans.” The very +name _Jew_ is probably mythological, derived from _Jeoud_, the name of +the only son of Saturn, though, like Abraham, he had several other sons. +It cannot be doubted that the stories of Saturn and Abraham are slightly +varied versions of the same fable. + +The Jews never deserved to be called a _nation_, at least not until in +comparatively modern times. They were inclined from the first to mingle +with and intermarry with other peoples, and so became _mongrels_ at an +early period. + +There was no race distinction, we are told, between the Canaanites, +Idumeans, and Israelites. Ishmael married an Egyptian woman, and so did +Joseph, the son of Jacob. Esau married a daughter of Ishmael, also two +other women, called daughters of Canaan, one a Hittite and the other a +Hivite. Judah and Simeon each married Canaanites. We read in Judges 3: +5, 6, “The children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and +Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites; and they took +their daughters to be their wives, and gave their [own] daughters to +their sons, and served their gods.” + +In Ezekiel 16th it is written: “Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem, +Thy birth and thy nativity was in the land of Canaan; thy father was an +Amorite and thy mother an Hittite. Your mother was an Hittite and your +father an Amorite—thine elder sister, Samaria, and thy youngest sister, +Sodom.” + +In Deut. 7: 7 the Jews are told, “The Lord did not set his love upon you +because ye were more in number than any other people, for ye were +_fewest_ of all people.” In Josh. 12: 24 they are reminded that it was +necessary to “send them hornets which drove them (the Canaanites) out +before you, even the two kings of the Amorites;” and in Ex. 23: 28, 29 +it is said, “I will send hornets before thee which shall drive out the +Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before thee. I will not +drive them out from before thee in one year, lest the land become +desolate and the beasts of the field multiply against thee.” This does +not look as if the Jews were very numerous or valorous in the little +territory not much larger than the State of Connecticut. + +Josephus makes certain notes to show that the Lacedemonians claimed +original kinship with the Jews, and some writers make the same claim for +the Afghans and several other peoples. Nothing is more certain, in my +judgment, than that the Jews are the most thoroughly _mongrel_ race upon +the face of the earth. That they have certain idiosyncrasies in common, +and even certain distinguishing _facial_ and other physical marks, can +easily be accounted for on other grounds than the assumption of unity of +race. + +The common story of the origin of the Jews is certainly fabulous. +Major-General Forlong, of the British Army, says: “They were probably in +the beginning a wandering tribe of Bedouin Arabs who got possession of +the rocky parts of Palestine, which were never made better by their +presence. They are a comparatively modern people. The first notice of +Jews is possibly that of certain Shemitic rulers in the Aram paying +tribute about 850 b. c. to Vul-Nirari, the successor of Shalmaneser of +Syria; regarding which, however, much more is made by biblicists than +the simple record warrants. This is the case also where Champollion +affirms that mention is made on the Theban temples of the capture of +certain towns of the land we call Judæa, this being thought to prove the +existence of Jews. Similar assumption takes place in regard to the +hieratic papyri of the Leyden Museum, held to belong to the time of +Rameses II., an inscription read on the rocks of El-Hamamat, and the +discovery of some names like Chedorlaomer in the records of Babylonia; +but this is all the (so-called) evidence as to the existence of ancient +Jews which has been advanced; and the most is made of it in Dr. Birch’s +opening address on the _Progress of Biblical Archaeology_ at the +inauguration of the Archaeological Society. Of Jews we hear nothing +during all the Thothmik wars, unless they be included among the +phallic-worshipping Hermonites who were mentioned as inhabiting the +highlands of Syria. We have no real historical evidence of the persons +or kingdoms of David or Solomon, though we may grant the Jewish stories +_cum grano salis_, seeing how outrageously they have always exaggerated +in everything pertaining to their own glorification. + +“The only logical conclusion justifiable when we give up the inspiration +theory is, that Arabs and Syro-Phœnicians were known to Assyrians and +Egyptians, and this none would deny. Indeed, we readily grant, with Dr. +Birch, that under the nineteenth and twentieth Egyptian dynasties the +influence of the Aramæan nations is distinctly marked; that not only by +blood and alliances had the Pharaohs been closely united with the +princes of Palestine and Syria, but that the language of the period +abounds in Semitic words quite different from the Egyptian, with which +they were embroidered and intermingled. Could it possibly be otherwise? +Is it not so to this day? Is a vast and rapidly-spawning Shemitic +continent like Arabia not to influence the narrow delta of a river +adjoining it or the wild highlands of Syria to the north? Of course +Arabs or Shemites were everywhere spread over Egypt, Syria, and +Phœnicia, as well as in their ancient seats of empire in Arabia, Irak +(Kaldia), and on the imperial mounds of Kalneh and Koyunjik; but not +necessarily as Jews. I cannot find that these last were anything more +than a peculiar religious sect of Arabs who settled down from their +pristine nomadic habits and obtained a _quasi_ government under petty +princes or sheiks, such as we have seen take place in the case of +numerous Arabian and Indian sects. + +“Only about two hundred years or so after their return from Babylon did +the Jews seem to consolidate into a nation, and the collection and +translation of their old mythic records—deciphered with much difficulty +by the diligent librarians of Ptolemy Philadelphus from “old shreds and +scraps of leather”—no doubt materially aided in consolidating the people +and in welding them into what they became—clans proud of a sort of a +mythic history built up by Ezra and other men acquainted with Babylonian +records and popular cosmogonies.” + +No efforts, say the leaders of the Biblical Archaeological Society, have +been able to find either amidst the numerous engravings on the rocks of +Arabia Petrea or Palestine, _any save Phœnician inscriptions_; not even +a record of the Syro-Hebrew character, which was once thought to be the +peculiar property of Hebrews. Most of those inscriptions hitherto +discovered do not date anterior to the Roman empire. Few, if _any_ +monuments (of Jews) have been found in Palestine or the neighboring +countries of any useful antiquity save the Moabite Stone, and the value +of this last is all in favor of my previous arguments on these points. +At the pool of Siloam we have an “inscription in the Phœnician character +as old as the time of the Kings;... it is incised upon the walls of a +rock-chamber apparently dedicated to Baal, who is mentioned on it. So +that here, in a most holy place of this peculiar people, we find only +Phœnicians, and these worshipping the Sun-god of Fertility, as was +customary on every coast of Europe from unknown times down to the rise +of Christianity.” + +The Biblical Archaeological Society and British Museum authorities tell +us frankly and clearly that no Hebrew square character can be proved to +exist till after the Babylonian captivity, and that, at all events, this +inscription of Siloam shows “that the curved or Phœnician character was +in use in Jerusalem itself under the Hebrew monarchy, as well as the +conterminous Phœnicia, Moabitis, and the more distant Assyria. No +monument, indeed,” continues Dr. Birch, “of greater antiquity inscribed +in the square character (Hebrew) has been found as yet _older than the +fifth century A. D._ [the small capitals are mine], and the coins of the +Maccabean princes, as well as those of the revolter Barcochab, are +impressed with _Samaritan_ characters. So that here we have the most +complete confirmation of all that I assert as to the mythical history of +a Judean people prior to a century or so b. c., and even then only under +such a government as Babylonian administrators had taught them to form +and the lax rule of the Seleukidæ, followed by intermittent Roman +government, permitted of.” + +Another modern writer says: “Soon after the death of Alexander the Jews +first came into notice under Ptolemy I. of Egypt, and some of their +books were collected at the new-built city of Alexandria.” + +Such was the insignificance of the Jews as a people that the historical +monuments preceding the time of Alexander the Great, who died 323 years +b. c., make not the slightest mention of any Jewish transaction. The +writings of Thales, Solon, Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato, Herodotus, and +Xenophon, all of whom visited remote countries, contain no mention of +the Jews whatever. Neither Homer nor Aristotle, the preceptor of +Alexander, makes any mention of them. The story of Josephus, that +Alexander visited Jerusalem, has been proved to be a fabrication. +Alexander’s historians say nothing about it. He did pass through the +coast of Palestine, and the only resistance he encountered was at Gaza, +which was garrisoned by Persians (Wyttenbach’s _Opuscula_, vol. ii. pp. +416, 421). + +For half a century after its destruction, says Dr. Robinson, there is no +mention of Jerusalem in history; and even until the time of Constantine +its history presents little more than a blank (vol. i. pp. 367, 371). + +General Forlong says: “The area of Judea and Samaria is, according to +the above authority, 140 X 40 = 5600 square miles, which I think is +certainly one-fourth too much, my own triangulation of it giving only +4500, or a figure of about 130 X 35. I will, however, concede the +allotment of 5600, but we must remember that, as a rule, the whole is a +dismal, rocky, arid region, with only intersecting valleys, watered by +springs and heavy rain from November to February inclusive, and having +scorching heats from April to September. Even the inhabitable portions +of the country could only support the very sparsest population, and I +speak after having marched over it and also a considerable portion of +the rest of the world. In India we should look upon it as a very poor +province; in some respects very like the hilly tracts of Mewar or +Odeypoor in Kajpootana, but in extent, population, and wealth it is less +than that small principality. + +“The chief importance of Palestine in ancient history was due to its +lying on the high-road between the great kingdoms of Egypt, Babylon, and +Assyria, and as giving the Arabs a hiding- and abiding-place which +they—Jews included—could not obtain if they ventured out on the plains +south and east. The holes and fastnesses of the hills were their +safeguards, and, as they assure us, very much used indeed. The Jewish +strip is divided into Samaria as a centre, with Galilee north and Judea +south, giving to the two former eight-tenths, and the latter two-tenths; +that is, two tribes; 5600 X 2/10 so that the Judean area would be about +5600 X 8/10 = 20 square miles, against the 4480 of the latter; and the +population would be somewhat in this proportion, for the extreme +barrenness of all the country south and east of Jerusalem would be in +some degree made up for by this town being perhaps a little larger than +those in the north. + +“We are thus prepared to state the population of the entire land in +terms of its area, as was done for the Judean capital, and with equally +startling results. The whole Turkish empire yields at present less than +twenty-four persons to the square mile, and in the wild and warring ages +we are here concerned with we may safely say that there were less than +twenty per square mile, of which half were females and one-third of the +other half children and feeble persons, unable to take the field whether +for war or agriculture. The result is disastrous to much biblical +matter, and far-reaching; upsetting the mighty armies of Joshua and the +Judges, no less than those of David and Solomon, who are thought for a +few short years to have united the tribes: nay, the stern facts of +figures destroy all the subsequently divided kings or petty chiefs who +lasted down to the sixth century or so b. c., and show us that Jews have +ever been insignificant in the extreme, especially when compared with +the great peoples who generally ruled them, and far and wide around +them. + +“So that this paltry thirty thousand to forty thousand is the very most +which the twelve tribes could, and only for these few years, bring to +the front. In general, the tribes warred with one another and with their +neighbors, so that, for the purposes of foreign war, the Jewish race +represented only two or three tribes at a time, or, say, ten thousand +able men. Thus one tribe—as, for example, Judah—would have only from +three thousand to four thousand men in all, supposing every man left his +fields and home to fight, while Assyrian armies not unusually numbered +one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand men.” + +In the above statistics also we have taken a greater area than I think +the tribes occupied. There is not a sign of a Jewish people till about +what is called their “Eastern Captivity,” and the Rev. Mr. Rodwell +writes in the _Trans. of the Biblical Archaeological Society_ that “_the +Hebrew of the Bible is no other than a dialectic variety of the +Canaanitish or Phœnician tongue expressed in the Chaldean character_, +not brought, as has been taught, by Abram himself from Ur of the +Chaldees, but adopted by the Israelites during their long captivities.” +“Could it possibly be otherwise when we look at the facts? The Jews were +a poor, ignorant, weak Arab tribe, living on the outskirts of a land +occupied for long ages previously by the most famous race of all +antiquity—a people from whom Greece, Rome, and Carthage alike borrowed +the ideas of their earliest art and architecture. Homer called this race +_Phens_ Poludaidaloi—‘artists of varied skill,’ and later Romans prized +them above all others for their constructive talent. Pliny, Seneca, and +Varro praise them in words which will never die; Jews said that David +solicited their skilled labor, and that Solomon’s temple, small and +simple though it was, could not be raised without their help; nay, +though Ezra says he had these ensamples before him, and had seen all the +fine buildings of Babylon, yet he too had to solicit their aid, else the +walls of the city of Jehovah and Zerub-babel’s second shrine could never +have been constructed. In all arts, trades, and manufactures this +extraordinary people excelled every ancient race, and from the very +earliest times down and into the Roman period. Is it surprising, then, +that their language and customs prevailed wherever their skilled aid was +required? that Africa in its writing was no less Punic—that is, +Phœnician—than Libyan, guided by these wondrous Pheni or “Tyrii +bilingues”? The history of Britain during some past generations as the +first great manufacturing country of modern times shows how +civilization, power, and progress must ever follow industry and +usefulness, and Phœnicians to a great extent in early days controlled +‘the sinews of war’ where this was their interest; but it too often +proved more profitable to deal in swords and helmets than in ‘Tyrian +purple’ and costly brocade stuffs. Manufacturers are not much given to +writing, and these Pheni have been so parsimonious in their vowels and +lavish and indifferent in the use of b’s, dfs, r’s, and s’s that few +philological students have attempted the translation of Phœnician +writings, though Phœnician, and not Hebrew, is what alone we find traces +of in Syria and Palestine.” + +It has been substantially said by William Henry Burr, in a work not now +in the market, that “very erroneous ideas prevail in regard to the +magnitude of the nation and country of the Jews and their importance in +history. Most maps of ancient Palestine assign far too much territory to +that nation. They make the greatest length of the country from 160 to +175 miles, and its greatest breadth from 70 to 90, inclosing an area of +from 10,000 to 12,000 square miles—a little larger than the State of +Vermont. They not only include the entire Mediterranean coast for 160 +miles, but a considerable mountain-tract on the north, above Dan, and a +portion of the desert on the south, below Beer-sheba, besides running +the eastern boundary out too far. Moreover, they lengthen the distances +in every direction. From Dan to Beersheba, the extreme northern and +southern towns, the distance on Mitchell’s map is 165 miles, and on +Colton’s, 150; but on a map accompanying _Biblical Researches in +Palestine_, by Edward Robinson, D. D., which is one of the most recent +and elaborate, and will doubtless be accepted as the best authority, the +distance is only 128 miles. + +“Now, the Israelites were never able to drive out the Canaanites from +the choicest portion of the country—the Mediterranean coast—nor even +from most parts of the interior (Judges 1: 16-31; 1 Kings 9: 20, 21). +The Phœnicians, a powerful maritime people, occupied the northern +portion of the coast, and the Philistines the southern; between these +the Jebusites or some other people held control, so that the Israelites +were excluded from any part of the Mediterranean shore. The map of their +country must therefore undergo a reduction of a strip on the west at +least 10 miles wide by 160 long, or 1600 square miles. A further +reduction must be made of about 400 square miles for the Dead Sea and +Lake of Tiberias. This leaves at most 9000 square miles by Colton’s map. +But on this map the extreme length of the country is 175 miles, which is +47 miles too great: for the whole dominion of the Jews extended only +from Dan to Beersheba, which Dr. Robinson places only 128 miles apart. +We must therefore make a further reduction of an area about 47 by 60 +miles, or 2800 square miles. Then we must take off a slice on the east, +at least 10 miles broad by 60 long, or 600 square miles. Thus we reduce +the area of Colton’s map from 11,000 square miles to 5600—a little less +than the State of Connecticut. + +“But now, if we subtract from this what was wilderness and desert, and +also what was at no time inhabited and controlled by the Israelites, we +further reduce their habitable territory about one-half. The land of +Canaan being nearly all mountainous and bounded on the south and east by +a vast desert which encroached upon the borders of the country, a great +part of it was barren wilderness. Nor did but one-fifth of the +Israelites (two and a half tribes) occupy the country east of the +Jordan, which was almost equal in extent to that on the west, the proper +Land of Promise. The eastern half, therefore, must have been but thinly +populated by the two and a half tribes, who were only able to maintain a +precarious foothold against the bordering enemies. So, then, it is not +probable that the Israelites actually inhabited and governed at any time +à territory of more than 3000 square miles, or not much if any larger +than the little State of Delaware. At all events, it can hardly be +doubted that Delaware contains more good land than the whole country of +the Jews ever did. + +“The promise to Abraham in Gen. 15: 18 is ‘from the river of Egypt to +the river Euphrates.’ But the Jewish possessions never reached the Nile +by 200 miles. In Ex. 33: 31 the promise is renewed, but the river of +Egypt is not named. The boundaries are ‘from the Red Sea to the Sea of +the Philistines (the Mediterranean), and from the desert to the river.’ +By ‘the river’ was doubtless meant the Euphrates; and assuming that by +‘the desert’ was meant the eastern boundary (though Canaan was bounded +on the south also by the same great desert which reached to the Red +Sea), we have in this promise a territory 600 miles long by an average +of about 180 broad, making an area of about 100,000 square miles, or ten +times as much as the Jews ever could claim, and nearly one-half of it +uninhabitable. So, then, the promise was never fulfilled, for the +Israelites were confined to a very small central portion of their land +of promise, and whether they occupied 3000 or 12,000 square miles in the +period of their greatest power, the fact is not to be disputed that +their country was a very small one. + +“Lamartine describes the journey from Bethany to Jericho as singularly +toilsome and melancholy—neither houses nor cultivation, mountains +without a shrub, immense rocks split by time, pinnacles tinged with +colors like those of an extinct volcano. ‘From the summit of these +hills, as far as the eye can reach, we see only black chains, conical or +broken peaks, a boundless labyrinth of passes rent through the +mountains, and those ravines lying in perfect and perpetual stillness, +without a stream, without a wild animal, without even a flower, the +relics of a convulsed land, with waves of stone’ (vol. ii., p. 146).” + +But lest it may be thought that these dismal features are due to modern +degeneracy, let us take the testimony of an early Christian Father, St. +Jerome, who lived a long time in Bethlehem, four miles south of +Jerusalem. In the year 414 he wrote to Dardanus thus: “I beg of those +who assert that the Jewish people after coming out of Egypt took +possession of this country (which to us, by the passion and resurrection +of our Saviour, has become truly the land of promise), to show us what +this people possessed. Their whole dominions extended only from Dan to +Beersheba, hardly 160 Roman miles in length (147 geographical miles). +The Scriptures give no more to David and Solomon, except what they +acquired by alliance after conquest.... I am ashamed to say what is the +breadth of the land of promise, lest I should thereby give the pagans +occasion to blaspheme. It is but 47 miles (42 geographical miles) from +Joppa to our little town of Bethlehem, beyond which all is a frightful +desert” (vol. ii., p. 605). + +Elsewhere he describes the country as the “refuse and rubbish of +nature.” He says that “from Jerusalem to Bethlehem there is nothing but +stones, and in the summer the inhabitants can scarcely get water to +drink.” + +“In the year 1847, Lieut. Lynch of the U. S. Navy was sent to explore +the river Jordan and the Dead Sea. He and his party with great +difficulty crossed the country from Acre to the Lake of Tiberias, with +trucks drawn by camels. The only roads from time immemorial were +mule-paths. Frequent détours had to be made, and they were compelled +actually to make some portions of their road. Even then the last +declivity could not be overcome until all hands turned out and hauled +the boats and baggage down the steep places; and many times it seemed as +if, like the ancient herd of swine, they would all rush precipitately +into the sea. Over three days were required to make the journey, which +in a straight line would be only twenty-seven miles. For the first few +miles they passed over a pretty fertile plain, but this was the ancient +Phœnician country, which the Jews never conquered. The rest of the route +was mountainous and rocky, with not a tree visible nor a house outside +the little walled villages (pp. 135 to 152). + +“The ancient Sea of Galilee has a prominent place in Jewish geography +and commerce, yet on this insignificant body of water, twelve miles long +by seven wide, all the commerce of the Jews was carried on, except when +they had the use of a port on the Red Sea. + +“In a book entitled _The Holy Land, Syria_, etc., by David Roberts, R. +A. (London, 1855), the valley of the Jordan is thus described: + +“‘A large portion of the valley of the Jordan has been from the earliest +time almost a desert. But in the northern part the great number of +rivulets which descend from the mountains on both sides produce in many +places a luxuriant growth of wild herbage. So too in the southern part, +where similar rivulets exist, as around Jericho, there is even an +exuberant fertility; but those rivulets seldom reach the Jordan and have +no effect on the middle of the Ghor. The mountains on each side are +rugged and desolate, the western cliffs overhanging the valley at an +elevation of 1000 or 1200 feet, while the eastern mountains fall back in +ranges of from 2000 to 2500 feet.’” + +What was the size of ancient Jerusalem? We know pretty nearly what it is +now and how many inhabitants it contains. It is three-quarters of a mile +long by half a mile wide, and its population is not more than ,500 +(_Biblical Researches_, vol i., p. 421), a large proportion of whom are +drawn thither by the renowned sanctity of the place. Dr. Robinson +measured the wall of the city, and found it to be only 12,978 feet in +circumference, or nearly two and a half miles (vol. i., p. 268). + +“In a book entitled _An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem_, +by James Fergusson (London, 1847), a diagram is given of the walls of +ancient and modern Jerusalem, from which it appears that the greatest +length of the city was at no time more than 6000 feet, or a little more +than a mile, and its greatest width about three-quarters of a mile; +while the real Jerusalem of old was but a little more than a quarter +that size. + +“With these measurements Mr. Fergusson undertakes to estimate the +probable population of the ancient city, as follows: + +“‘If we allow the inhabitants of the first-named cities fifty yards to +each individual, and that one-half of the new city was inhabited at the +rate of one person to each one hundred yards, this will give a permanent +population of 23,000 souls. If, on the other hand, we allow only +thirty-three yards to each of the old cities, and admit that the whole +of the new was as densely populated as London, or allowing one hundred +yards to each inhabitant, we obtain 37,000 souls for the whole; which I +do not think it at all probable that Jerusalem ever could have contained +as a permanent population.’ “‘In another part of the book (p. 47) he +says: + +“If we were to trust Josephus, he would have us believe that Jerusalem +contained at one time, or could contain, two and a half or three +millions of souls, and that at the siege of Titus 1,100,000 perished by +famine and the sword, 97,000 were taken captive, and 40,000 allowed by +Titus to go free. + +“In order to show the gross exaggeration of these numbers, he cites the +fact that the army of Titus did not exceed, altogether, 30,000, and that +Josephus himself enumerates the fighting-men of the city at 23,400, +which would give a population something under 100,000. But even this he +believes to be an exaggeration. For, says he, + +“‘In all the sallies it cannot be discovered that at any time the Jews +could bring into the field 10,000 men, if so many.... Titus enclosed the +city with a line four and a half miles in extent, which, with his small +army, was so weak a disposition that a small body of the Jews could +easily have broken through it; but they never seem to have had numbers +sufficient to be able to attempt it.’ + +“The author guesses that the Jews might have mustered at the beginning +of the siege about 10,000 men, and that the city might have contained +altogether about 40,000 inhabitants, permanent and transient, in a space +which in no other city in the world could accommodate 30,000 souls. But +the wall of Agrippa was built, as the same author states, twelve or +thirteen years after the Crucifixion; hence prior to that time the area +of Jerusalem was only 756,000 yards, and it was capable of containing +only 23,000 inhabitants at most, but probably never did contain more +than 15,000. + +“Allowing to Jerusalem, in the period of the greatest prosperity of the +Jews, a population of even 20,000, is it at all probable that the whole +country could have contained anything like even the lowest estimate to +be gathered from the Scripture record? In 1 Chron. 21: 5, 6 we read that +the number of ‘men that drew the sword of Israel and Judah amounted to +1,570,000, not counting the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. In 2 Sam. 24: +9, the number given at the same census is 1,300,000, and no omission is +mentioned. Assuming the larger number to be correct, and adding only +one-eighth for the two tribes of Levi and Benjamin, which may have been +the smallest, we have 1,766,000 fighting-men. This would give, at the +rate of one fighting-man to four inhabitants, a total population of over +7,000,000 souls. But if we adopt a more reasonable ratio, of one to six, +we have a population of over 10,500,000 souls. And then we omit the +aliens. These numbered 153,600 working-men only two years later (2 +Chron. 2: 17), and the total alien population, therefore, must have been +about 500,000, which, added to the census, would make the total +population from 7,500,000 to 11,000,000, or more. Can any intelligent +man believe that a mountainous, barren country, no larger than +Connecticut, without commerce, without manufactures, without the +mechanical arts, without civilization, ever did or could subsist even +two millions of people? Much less can it be believed that it subsisted +‘seven nations greater and mightier than the Israelitish nation itself’ +(Deut. 7: 1)—i e. not less than 14,000,000. + +“That the Jews were a very barbarous people is undeniable. Slavery +necessarily makes a people barbarous. Not only were the Israelites a +nation of slaves, according to their own record, but after their entry +into Canaan they were six times reduced to bondage in their own land of +promise. During a period of 281 years they were in slavery 111 years. + +“That the Jews were far behind their surrounding neighbors in +civilization is shown by the fact that in the first battle they fought +under their first king, Saul, they had in the whole army ‘neither sword +nor spear in the hand of any of the people,’ except Saul and Jonathan (1 +Sam. 13:22). Nor was any ‘smith found throughout all the land of Israel’ +(ver. 19), but ‘all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to +sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his +mattock’ (ver. 20.) This was 404 years after the Exodus and only 75 +years prior to the building of Solomon’s temple. Their weapons of war +were those of the rudest savage. + +“As another evidence of the barbarism of the Jews, when David resolved +to build a house for himself he had no native artisans, but had to send +to Hiram, king of Tyre, for masons and carpenters (2 Sam. 5: 11). Even +the wood itself had to be brought from Tyre, it would seem that even in +those days, as now, the mountains of Canaan were destitute of trees—a +sure sign of a sterile country. The wood of course had to be carried +overland. Wheel-carriages were unknown to the Israelites, except in the +form of chariots of iron used by their enemies, which prevented Judah, +even with the help of the Lord, from driving out the inhabitants of the +valleys (Judg. 1: 19). David captured 1000 chariots in about the +sixteenth year of his reign, of which he preserved only 100, disabling +all the horses (1 Ghron. 18: 3.) Prior to this event neither chariots +nor horses had been used by the Israelites, nor was much use made of +them by the subsequent kings. Oxen and asses were their beasts of +burden; camels were rare even long after Solomon’s reign. How, then, was +the wood brought from Tyre over the mountains, unless it was carried on +the backs of oxen or asses or dragged along the ground?” + +That a considerable number of Jews at one time sojourned in Egypt is +highly probable. How they got there, and how they came to leave, is not +so certain. An eminent Egyptologist writes in a leading London journal: + +“The presence of large numbers of Semites in ancient Egypt has always +been a puzzle to historians, and what first led to their migrating from +Mesopotamia to the land of the Pharaohs has never hitherto been made +clear. Quite recently, however, the British Museum has become possessed +of a number of cuneiform tablets which throw considerable light on the +subject. Early in the present year a number of these tablets were +offered for sale in Cairo. They had been dug up from the grave of a +royal scribe of Amenophis III. and IV. of the eighteenth dynasty, which +had given up its records, and not only records, but seals and papyri of +great historical and artistic value. Some went to the Boulak Museum, +some to Berlin, others to private persons, and eighty-one have found +their way to the British Museum. These last have now been arranged and +catalogued by Mr. Budge, the well-known Egyptologist, whose +investigations have brought to light a most interesting chapter in the +history of ancient Egypt. Not only do the tablets explain the historical +crux mentioned above, but they introduce us to the family life of the +early kings. They picture to us the splendors of the royal palaces; they +enable us to assist at the betrothal of the kings’ daughters and to +follow the kings to their hunting-grounds. Most of the tablets are +letters addressed to Amenophis III., and some are from Tushratta, king +of Mesopotamia. + +“Amenophis III. was a mighty hunter, and once on a shooting-trip into +Mesopotamia after big game he, like a king in a fairy-tale, met and +loved Ti, the daughter of Tushratta. They were married in due time, and +Ti went down into Egypt with three hundred and seventeen of her +principal ladies. This brought a host of their Semitic countrymen along, +who found in Egypt a good field for their business capacities, and +gradually, like the modern Jews in Russia, got possession of the lands +and goods of their hosts. The influence of the Semitic queen is attested +by the very fact that this library of cuneiform tablets was preserved. +And under the feeble sovereigns who followed, her countrymen doubtless +held their own. But at last came the nineteenth dynasty and the Pharaoh +‘who knew not Joseph.’ Then they were set to brick-making and +pyramid-building, till the outbreak which led to the Red Sea triumph. + +“Mr. Budge, of the British Museum, has translated three of the letters. +One is from Tushratta to Ameno-phis. After many complimentary +salutations, he proposes to his son-in-law that they should continue the +arrangement made by their fathers for pasturing doublehumped camels, and +in this way he leads up to the main purport of his epistle. He says that +Manie, his great-nephew, is ambitious to marry the daughter of the king +of Egypt, and he pleads that Manie might be allowed to go down to Egypt +to woo in person. The alliance would, he considers, be a bond of union +between the two countries, and he adds, as though by an after-thought, +that the gold which Amenophis appears to have asked for should be sent +for at once, together with ‘large gold jars, large gold plates, and +other articles made of gold.’ After this meaning interpolation he +returns to the marriage question, and proposes to act in the matter of +the dowry in the same way in which his grandfather acted, presumably on +a like occasion. He then enlarges on the wealth of his kingdom, where +‘gold is like dust which cannot be counted,’ and he adds an inventory of +presents which he is sending, articles of gold, inlay, and harness, and +thirty eunuchs.” + +In speaking of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, Dr. Knappert +says: “According to the tradition preserved in Genesis, it was the +promotion of Jacob’s son, Joseph, to be viceroy of Egypt that brought +about the migration of the sons of Israel from Canaan to Goshen. The +story goes that this Joseph was sold as a slave by his brothers, and +after many changes of fortune received the viceregal office at Pharaoh’s +hands through his skill in interpreting dreams. Famine drives his +brothers, and afterward his father, to him, and the Egyptian prince +gives them the land of Goshen to live in. It is by imagining all this +that the legend tries to account for the fact that Israel passed some +time in Egypt. But we must look for the real explanation in a migration +of certain tribes which could not establish or maintain themselves in +Canaan, and were forced to move farther on.” + +The author of the _Religion of Israel_ says: “The history of the +religion of Israel must start from the sojourn of the Israelites in +Egypt. Formerly it was usual to take a much earlier starting-point, and +to begin with a discussion of the religious ideas of the patriarchs. And +this was perfectly right so long as the accounts of Abraham, Isaac, and +Jacob were considered historical. But now that a strict investigation +has shown us that these stories are entirely unhistorical, of course we +have to begin the history later on.” The author of _The Spirit History +of Man_ says: “The Hebrews came out of Egypt and settled among the +Canaanites. They need not be traced beyond the Exodus; that is their +historical beginning. It was very easy to cover up this remote event by +the recital of mythical traditions, and to prefix to it an account of +their origin in which the gods (patriarchs) should figure as their +ancestors.” + +But how about the Jewish exodus from Egypt? What was the real cause? +Whom shall we credit, the writer of the book called Exodus or other +writers? What follows differs very much from the Hebrew story. + +Lysimachus relates that “a filthy disease broke out in Egypt, and the +oracle of Ammon, being consulted on the occasion, commanded the king to +purify the land by driving out the Jews (who were infected with leprosy, +etc.), who were hateful to the gods. The whole multitude of the people +were accordingly collected and driven out into the wilderness.” + +Diodorus Siculus says: “In ancient times Egypt was afflicted with a +great plague, which was attributed to the anger of God on account of the +multitude of foreigners in Egypt, by whom the rites of the native +religion were neglected. The Egyptians accordingly drove them out. The +most notable of them went under Cadmus and Danaus to Greece, but the +greater number followed Moses, a wise and valiant leader, to Palestine.” + +Tacitus, the Roman historian, says: “In this clash of opinions one point +seems to be universally admitted—a pestilential disease, disfiguring the +race of man and making the body an object of loathsome deformity, +spreading all over Egypt. Bocchoris, at that time the reigning monarch, +consulted the oracle of Jupiter Hammon, and received for answer that the +kingdom must be purified by exterminating the infected multitude, as a +race of men detested by the gods. After diligent search the wretched +sufferers were collected together, and in a wild and barren desert +abandoned to their misery. In that distress, while the vulgar herd was +sunk in deep despair, Moses, one of their number, reminded them that by +the wisdom of his counsels they had been already rescued out of +impending danger. Deserted as they were by men and gods, he told them +that if they did not repose their confidence in him as their chief by +divine commission they had no resource left. His offer was accepted. +Their march began, they knew not whither. Want of water was their chief +distress. Worn out with fatigue, they lay stretched on the bare earth, +heartbroken, ready to expire, when a troop of wild asses, returning from +pasture, went up the steep ascent of a rock covered with a grove of +trees. The verdure of the herbage round the place suggested the idea of +springs near at hand. Moses traced the steps of the animals, and +discovered a plentiful vein of water. By this relief the fainting +multitude was raised from despair.” + +In a learned work on Egypt by Mr. William Oxley of England, published in +1884, the author writes: “Taking the records as we find them, if they +are real history, and as Palestine is contiguous to Egypt, we should +naturally expect to find some reference to the Israelites in the +Egyptian annals, but what does appear in regard to Palestine is +certainly not favorable to the assumption that it was the home of the +Israelites as a nation. I cull the following from such materials as are +at present within reach, partly taken from the _Records of the Past_: + +“It has been generally acknowledged by Egyptian biblicists that ‘the +cruel bondage of the Israelites, culminated under the reign of Rameses +II., nineteenth dynasty, and that the Exodus took place under his +successor, Menephtah I., 1326 b. c., who was drowned in the Red Sea with +all his host in his attempt to bring the wanderers back again. But, as I +have already said, the tomb of this very king at Thebes contains an +inscription to the effect that he had lived to a good old age, and was a +child of good-fortune from his cradle to the grave. In the annals of +Rameses III., who reigned some fifty or sixty years after the Israelites +_ought to have been_ settled in their own land, many references are made +to the country in which they were located (according to biblical +accounts). The king goes to what is known to us as Palestine, Phœnicia, +and Syria to receive the annual tribute from the chiefs/ whom he calls +Khetas. In the enumeration of his conquests, extending from Egypt east +and northward, he enumerates thirty-eight tribes and peoples, and says: +‘I have smitten every land, and have taken every land in its extent.’ In +his reminder to the God Ptah of the benefits he had conferred on the +god, the king says: ‘I gave to thy temple from the store-houses of +Egypt, Tar-neter, and Kharu (i, e. Palestine and Syria) more numerous +offerings than the sand of the sea, as well as cattle and slaves’ +(Syrians). He also built a temple to Ammon in the same country, to which +‘the nations of the Rutenna came and brought their tribute.’ Making full +allowance for the usual Egyptian flattery, the fact is clear that in the +time of this king the Israelites could not have been a settled and +distinct people; and the incident of their Exodus would have been too +fresh and recent to be passed over without some comment by this +vainglorious monarch. + +“From a papyrus translated in the _Records of the Past_ (ii. 107), +entitled _Travels of an Egyptian_, who gives a full account of +Palestine, etc., it appears there was a fortress there which had been +built by Rameses II., and which was still belonging to Egypt. This would +be about 1350 B. C.; but not the slightest hint of any such people as +Israelites, although he tells us ‘he visited the country to get +information respecting the country, with the manners and customs of its +inhabitants.’ + +“The next is Rameses XII., some two hundred years after the Exodus, who +is the hero of the story of the possessed princess. He was in +Mesopotamia at the time when the chief of the Bakhten brought his +daughter, who afterward became queen of Egypt. ‘His Majesty was there +registering the annual tributes of all the princes of the countries,’ +among whom he enumerates Tar-neter (Palestine), but no mention of +Israelites. + +“I find no further trace until the time of Herodotus (about 420 B. c.); +and here we come on historical ground. This great historian travelled +through Egypt and Palestine in the reign of one of the kings of the +Persian dynasty, about forty or fifty years after the alleged return of +the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, and when the temple had been +built and the city fortified. He repeatedly alludes to the Phœnicians +and Syrians, whose country extended from the coast of the Levant down to +the Egyptian frontier, including the isthmus and Sinaitic Peninsula. He +says that Necho (about 670 b. c.) fought with the Syrians, and took a +large city, Cadytis; but he makes no mention of Jews nor yet of +Jerusalem. If they had been there, it is incredible that such a careful +and grasping historian should have explored the land without noticing +them in some way or other. + +“The next is from a tablet erected to Alexander II. by Ptolemy, at that +time viceroy under the Persian king, but who soon after himself became +king of Egypt, 305 b. c. The inscription states that ‘Alexander marched +with an army of Ionians to the Syrians’ land, who were at war with him. +He penetrated its interior and took it at one stroke, and led their +princes, cavalry, ships, and works of art to Egypt.’ + +“Next follows the third Ptolemy, 238 b. c. (see the Decree of Canopus, +_Records of the Past_, viii., 81), who invaded the two lands of Asia, +and brought back to Egypt all the treasures which had been carried away +by Cambyses and his successors. He ‘imported corn from East Rutenna and +Kafatha’—i. e. from Syria and Phœnicia. It was the father of this king +who is credited with sending to Judea for the seventy-two men who +translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek; and yet neither of these +Ptolemaic kings makes mention of Judea, Jerusalem, or the Jews! The +inference is obvious: _they were not there._ + +“Many historiographers, when writing of Jewish annals, use the Ptolemaic +and other monumental and papyrian accounts as applying to the Jews, and +consequently use the term ‘Jews,’ but this is unwarrantable, inasmuch as +the accounts themselves speak of ‘Syrians, Phœnicians,’ etc., but _not_ +of ‘Jews.’ According to the best cyclopædists, ‘there is little or +nothing known of the Jews or Jerusalem until the time of Christ;’ and +even then it is taken chiefly from Josephus, who, to my view, is +scarcely admissible as a chronographer of actual history. No mention is +made by the Ptolemies—say 250 or even less years b. c.—of the Jews of +Jerusalem, and as the Roman emperor Hadrian (from 117 to 138 A. D.) is +credited with changing the name of the city to _Ælia Capitolina_, it +could only have been known as Jerusalem for a few centuries at most. The +Arch of Titus in Rome is taken as conclusive proof that it was erected +to commemorate his victories over the rebellious Jews and the successful +siege of Jerusalem. But even this, I apprehend, is taken chiefly from +Josephus. When in Rome last year I closely inspected this arch, +expecting to find an inscription to this effect, but I was disappointed +at seeing only a Latin one over the arch, which reads (in English): ‘The +Senate and Roman People to the Divine Titus, (Son) of the divine +Vespasian,’ and another, by Pius VII., recording its restoration. It is +true, I saw the alto-reliefs on the inside of the arch, showing a table, +trumpets, and a seven-branched lamp; but these were used in many +temples, and would as well refer to the Syrian or Phœnician temples, +which undoubtedly existed at that time, and in the absence of direct +Roman testimony to the name of the city and people (of which I am +unaware), it cannot be accepted as indubitable evidence of its reference +to a city called and known to them as Jerusalem, and to a people known +to them as Jews. Unless this can be established, it only amounts to an +inference resting on Josephus. + +“As the result of my researches, I place Jewish historians, so called, +upon the same footing as the Christian ecclesiastical ones, whose works, +while containing a base of more or less historical reference and truth, +are yet too much overweighted with unhistorical myths to be regarded as +genuine, sober history. To my view, the Jews were, at the period I am +referring to, in a not dissimilar position to the Druses of Lebanon of +the present day. As is well known to a certain class of writers who have +come in contact with them, they form a community held together not so +much by national ties as by semi-religious ones, which are based upon +Cabalistic and theurgic rites and ceremonies. Like what I conceive the +Jews to have been in the centuries preceding the Christian era, they are +an _order_ rather than a nation, the remains of systems which have +continued and survived from ancient times. In this light the Jewish +records are intelligible as writings veiled in allegory, treating of +their mystic lore, albeit expressed in verbiage that bears a literal +meaning upon its surface. I give this as the only solution that presents +itself of the mysterious problem under review.” + +I now propose to state a few points from the Jewish writings themselves +(collated from Bishop Colenso) to show the fabulous character of the +history of this pretentious people. + +The number of fighting-men who marched out of Egypt is nowhere estimated +at less than 600,000, and if this represented only one-fourth of the +population, the latter must have reached 3,000,000. If we cut this down +one-third, so as to be sure of our figures, we make it 2,000,000 souls. + +The number of the children of Israel who went into Egypt was 70 (Ex. 1: +5). They sojourned in Egypt 215 years. It could not have been 430 years, +as would appear from Ex. 11:40. The marginal chronology makes the period +215 years, and there were only four generations to the Exodus—namely, +Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses (Ex. 6: 16, 18, 20). How could these +people have increased in 215 years from 70 souls so as to number 600,000 +warriors? It would have required an average number of 46 children to +each father. The 12 sons of Jacob had between them only 53 sons. At this +rate of increase, in the fourth generation there would have been only +6311 males (provided they were all living at the time of the Exodus), +instead of 1,000,000. If we add the fifth generation, who would be +mostly children, the total number of males would not have exceeded +28,465. + +All the first-born males from a month old and upward, of those that were +numbered, were 22,273 (Num. 3: 43). The lowest computation of the whole +number of the people at that time is 2,000,000. The number of males +would be 1,000,000. Dividing the latter number by the number of +first-born, gives 44, which would be the average number of boys in each +family, or about 88 children by each mother. Or, if where the first-born +were females, the males were not counted, the number of children by each +mother would be reduced to 44. + +Dan in the first generation had but one son (Gen. 46: 23), and yet in +the fourth generation his descendants had increased to 62,700 warriors +(Num. 2: 26), or 64,400 (Num. 26: 43). Each of his sons and grandsons +must have had about 80 children of both sexes. On the other hand, the +Levites increased the number of “males from a month old and upward” +during the 38 years in the wilderness only from 22,000 to 23,000 (Num. +3: 39; 26: 62), and the tribe of Manasseh during the same time increased +from 32,200 (Num. 1: 35) to 52,700 (26: 34). + +The whole population of Israel were instructed in one single day to keep +the passover, and actually did keep it (Ex. 12). At the first notice of +any such feast Jehovah said, “I will pass through the land of Egypt _this +night_.” The passover was to be killed “_at even_” on the same day that +Moses received the command. + +The women were at the same time ordered to borrow jewels of their +neighbors, the Egyptians. After midnight of the same day the Israelites +received notice to start for the wilderness. No one was to go out of his +house till morning, when they were to take their hurried flight with +their cattle and herds. How could 2,000,000 people, scattered about over +a wide district, as they must have been with their cattle and herds, +have gotten ready and taken a simultaneous hurried flight at twelve +hours’ notice? + +The Israelites, with their flocks and herds, reached the Red Sea, a +distance of from fifty to sixty miles over a sandy desert, in three +days! Marching fifty abreast, the able-bodied warriors alone would have +filled up the road for seven miles, and the whole multitude would have +made a column twenty-two miles long, so that the last of the body could +not have been started until the front had advanced that distance—more +than two days’ journey for such a mixed company. Then the sheep and +cattle must have formed another vast column, covering a much greater +tract of ground in proportion to their number. Upon what did these two +millions of sheep and oxen feed in the journey to the Red Sea over a +desert region, sandy, gravelly, and stony alternately? How did the +people manage with the sick and infirm, and especially with the seven +hundred and fifty births that must have taken place in the three days’ +march? + +Judah was forty-two years old when he went down with Jacob into Egypt, +being three years older than his brother Joseph, who was then +thirty-nine. For “Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before +Pharaoh” (Gen. 41: 46); and from that time nine years elapsed (seven of +plenty and two of famine) before Jacob came down into Egypt. Judah was +born in the fourth year of Jacob’s double marriage (Gen. 29: 35), being +the fourth of the seven children of Leah born in seven years; and Joseph +was born of Rachel in the seventh year (Gen. 30: 24, 26; 21: 41). In +these forty-two years of Judah’s life the following events are recorded +in Gen. 38: + +He grows up, marries, and has three sons. His eldest son grows up, +marries, and dies. The second son marries his brother’s widow and dies. +The third son, after waiting to grow to maturity, declines to marry the +widow. The widow then deceives Judah himself, and bears him twins—Pharez +and Zarah. One of these twins grows up and has two sons—Hez-ron and +Hamul—bom to him before Jacob goes down into Egypt. + +In Ex. 30:11-13, Jehovah commanded Moses to take a census of the +children of Israel, and in doing it to collect half a shekel of the +sanctuary as atonement-money. This expression “shekel of the sanctuary” +is put into the mouth of Jehovah six or seven months before the +tabernacle was made. In Ex. 38: 26 we read of such a tribute being paid, +but nothing is there said of any _census_ being taken, only that the +number of those who paid, from twenty years old and upward, was 603,550 +men. In Num. 1: 1-46, more than six months after this occasion, an +account of an actual census is given, but no _atonment-money_ is +mentioned. If in the first instance a census was taken, but accidentally +omitted to be mentioned, and in the second instance the tribute was +paid, but accidentally omitted likewise, it was nevertheless surprising +that the number of adult males should have been identically the same +(603,550) on both occasions, six months apart. + +Aaron and his two sons were the only priests during Aaron’s lifetime. +They had to make all the burnt-offerings on a single altar nine feet +square (Ex. 37: 1), besides attending to other priestly duties for +2,000,000 people. At the birth of every child both a burnt-offering and +a sin-offering had to be made. The number of births must be reckoned as +at least two hundred and fifty a day, for which consequently five +hundred sacrifices would have to be offered daily—an impossible duty to +be performed by three priests. For poor women pigeons were accepted +instead of lambs. If half of them offered pigeons, and only one instead +of two, it would have required 90,000 pigeons annually for this purpose +alone. Where did they get the pigeons? How could they have had them at +all under Sinai? There were thirteen cities where the presence of these +three priests was required (Josh. 21: 19). The three priests had to eat +a large portion of the bumt-offerings (Num. 18: 10) and all the +sin-offerings—two hundred and fifty pigeons a day—more than eighty for +each priest. + +In keeping the second passover under Sinai, 150,000 lambs must have been +killed—i. e. one for each family (Ex. 12: 3, 4). The Levites slew them, +and the three priests had to sprinkle the blood from their hands (1 +Chron. 30: 16; 35: 11). The killing had to be done “between two +evenings” (Ex. 12: 6), and the sprinkling had to be done in about two +hours. The killing must have been done in the court of the tabernacle +(Lev. 1: 3, 5; 17: 2-6). The area of the court could have held but 5000 +people at most. Here the lambs had to be sacrificed at the rate of 1250 +a minute, and each of the three priests had to sprinkle the blood of +more than 400 lambs every minute for two hours. + +The number of warriors of the Israelites, as recorded at the Exodus, was +600,000 (Ex. 7: 37); subsequently it was 603,550 (Ex. 38: 25-28), and at +the end of their wanderings it was 601,730 (Num. 26: 51). But in 2 +Chron. 13:3, Abijah, king of Judah, brings 0,000 men against Jeroboam, +king of Israel, with 0,000, and “there fell down slain of Israel 500,000 +chosen men” (ver. 17). On another occasion, Pekah, king of Israel, slew +of Judah in one day, 120,000 valiant men (2 Chron. 28: 6.) + +The Israelites at their Exodus were provided with tents (Ex. 16: 16), in +which they undoubtedly encamped and dwelt. They did not dwell in tents +in Egypt, but in “houses” with “doors,” “sideposts,” and “lintels.” +These tents must have been made either of hair or of skin (Ex. 26: 7, +14; 36: 14, 19)—most probably of the latter—and were therefore much +heavier than the modern canvas tents. At least 200,000 were required to +accommodate 2,000,000 people. Supposing they took these tents from +Egypt, how did they carry them in their hurried march to the Red Sea? +The people had burdens enough without them. They had to carry their +kneading-troughs with the dough unleavened, their clothes, their cooking +utensils, couches, infants, aged and infirm persons, and food enough for +at least a month’s use, or until manna was provided for them in the +wilderness, which was “on the fifteenth day of the second month after +their departure out of the land of Egypt” (Ex. 16:1). One of these +tents, with its poles, pegs, etc., would be a load for a single ox, so +that they would have needed 0.000 oxen to carry the tents. But oxen are +not usually trained to carry goods on their backs, and will not do so +without training. Then it is written: + +“These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel” (Deut. 1: 1). + +“And Moses called all Israel and said unto them” (Deut. 5:1). + +“There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not +before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little +ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them” (Josh. 8: 35). + +How was it possible to do this before at least + +2,000,000 people? Could Moses or Joshua, as actual eye-witnesses, have +expressed themselves in such extravagant language? Surely not. + +The camp of the Israelites must have been at least a mile and a half in +diameter. This would be allowing to each person on the average a space +three times the size of a coffin for a full-grown man. The ashes, offal, +and refuse of the sacrifices would therefore have to be carried by the +priest in person a distance of three-quarters of a mile “without the +camp, unto a clean place” (Lev. 4:11, 12.) There were only three +priests—namely, Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar—to do all this work for +2,000,000 people. All the wood and water would have to be brought into +this immense camp from the outside. Where could the supplies have been +got while the camp was under Sinai, in a desert, for nearly twelve +months together? How could so great a camp have been kept clean? + +But how huge does the difficulty become if we take the more reasonable +dimensions of twelve miles square for this camp; that is, about the size +of London! Imagine at least half a million of men having to go out daily +a distance of six miles and back to the suburbs for the common +necessities of nature, as the law directed. + +The Israelites undoubtedly had flocks and herds of cattle (Ex. 34: 3). +They sojourned nearly a year before Sinai, where there was no food for +cattle; and the wilderness in which they sojourned nearly forty years is +now and was then a desert (Deut. 32: 10; 8: 15). The cattle surely did +not subsist on manna! + +Among other prodigies of valor, 12,000 Israelites are recorded in Num. +31 as slaying all the male Midianites, taking captive all the females +and children, siezing all their cattle and flocks, numbering 808,000 +head, taking all their goods and burning all their cities, without the +loss of a single man. Then they killed all the women and children except +32,000 virgins, whom they kept for themselves. There would seem to have +been at least 80,000 females in the aggregate, of whom 48,000 were +killed, besides (say) 20,000 boys. The number of men slaughtered must +have been about 48,000. Each Israelite therefore must have killed 4 men +in battle, carried off 8 captive women and children, and driven home 67 +head of cattle. And then after reaching home, as a pastime, by command +of Moses, he had to murder 6 of his captive women and children in cold +blood. + +Now, I respectfully submit that, judging from the account of the Exodus +of the Jews, which they have written themselves, we cannot credit it. +The narrative is full of contradictions, and is so absurd and +incredible, and even impossible, that we must regard it as a _huge +myth_. There may have been an Exodus from Egypt, of which this account +is an exaggeration, but it bears so many evidences of the _fabulous_ +that we cast it aside and are led to doubt whether the Jews were ever in +Egypt except as tramps and vagabonds, and to suspect that the whole +story is an _adapted_ history of some great exodus of some ancient +tribes written for a _purpose._ + +I think it has been shown that the Jews were not the people that they +have been supposed to be. They are a modern people in the world’s +history, antedated by many highly-civilized and powerful nations. They +are not descendants of Abram, as will be shown more fully hereafter, and +their population never reached the fabulous numbers that are given in +what is called their sacred history. Indeed, there is so much of the +_fabulous_ about them, so much of _false pretence_ that upon the very +face is impossible and incredible, that the wonder is that Christians +should ever have seriously thought of regarding them and their +institutions as the source and substance of what Christianity is. We +have no prejudice against the Jews. We cast no reflection upon the +so-called Hebrews of the present day. They are not responsible for their +ancestors, any more than Gladstone, Huxley, Tyndall, Spencer, and other +brainy Englishmen are responsible for the savagery and barbarism of +_their_ forefathers. + +It has been our object in this chapter to show the _Munchausenish_ +character of Jewish history, upon which the whole superstructure of +modern theology rests. If anybody is proud of his descent from such a +people, he is welcome to the glory. + + + + +CHAPTER IV. MOSES AND THE PENTATEUCH + + +_“But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their +heart.”—2 Cor. 3:15._ + + +THE first five books of the Old Testament, supposed by many to have been +written by Moses, are called the Pentateuch. In the early chapters of +Genesis, in the “Authorized Version,” there is placed at the head of the +page in the margin, “a. m. 1,” which mean Anno Mundi—the year of the +world—one, and immediately below it are the letters “b. c.”—which mean +Before Christ—“4004.” This is the system of chronology established by +Archbishop Ussher, and means that 4004 years before Christ the world was +_one_ year old. It is claimed that Moses promulgated the law about 1451 +b. c., and this must have been about two thousand five hundred and +fifty-three years after the Creation, which added to 1890, the present +date, would make the world just five thousand eight hundred and +ninety-four years old. Lyell, a most judicious geologist estimated the +delta of the Mississippi at one hundred thousand years, and some persons +think these figures should have been doubled. Professor John Fiske +thinks the glacial period began two hundred and forty thousand years +ago, and that human beings inhabited Europe at least one hundred and +sixty thousand years earlier, thus giving an antiquity to our race of +not less than four hundred thousand years. Other scientists talk of +hundreds of thousands, and even _millions_, of years, but we attach no +importance to specific figures. We simply insist upon an antiquity which +very far exceeds six thousand years. + +Learned Egyptologists place Rameses II., the Pharaoh of the Jewish +captivity, whose mummy is now to be seen in the museum at Cairo, at 1390 +years b. c. It seems strange that his mummy should be on exhibition in a +museum when “he and all his hosts were swallowed up in the Red Sea.” If +we are told that Rameses II. was succeeded by Sethi II., we find from +Egyptian records that both of these kings lived to a good old age, and +the mummy of each has been preserved, and not even a hint is given that +either of them was drowned. But we have, according to the tables of +Abydos and Bunsen, which are generally accepted, three thousand six +hundred and twenty years before Christ as the time in which Menes, the +first monarch of Egypt, reigned, making two thousand two hundred and +thirty years as the period of the Egyptian monarchy before the reign of +Rameses II. + +But I contend that Egyptian civilization extends back at least seven +thousand years, and Miss Amelia + + B. Edwards, the Egyptologist, who has recently lectured in our + Pennsylvania University course, thinks ten thousand years not too + high an estimate. In support of ibis hypothesis, the great + antiquity of man, which no scholar now disputes, carries us back + many thousands of years beyond Menes, and there are many facts + which favor the assumption that the valley of the Nile was one of + the places inhabited for an indefinite period. The works of + art—monuments, architecture, paintings, etc.—show an antiquity that + cannot be estimated. Manetho, an Egyptian priest, who wrote a + history of Egypt, by request of Ptolemy II., two hundred and + eighty-six years before Christ, carries us back more than seven + thousand years. + +The Pentateuch is a compilation by several authors, and hence its +patchwork character. Professors Ewald and Kuenen and others have proved +this, and Dean Stanley, of the English Establishment, has admitted it. +Some portions may have been compiled eight hundred or nine hundred years +before Christ, but not the two contradictory accounts of the creation +and fall of man. The Assyrian cuneiform tablets, which were discovered +in 1873 and 1874 a. d., and which are now in the British Museum, show +that this ancient people had this story about two thousand years before +the time of Moses. The Jews learned it in Babylon, and none of the other +Old-Testament writings contain any notice of it, because it was not +known until after the return of the Jews from their captivity in +Babylon, five hundred and eighteen years before Christ. Is it not +reasonable to suppose that the various Old-Testament writers would have +made some reference to the Pentateuch had they known of its existence? +Professor François Lenormant of the National Library of France, a most +learned archaeologist and palaeontologist, and a most devout Christian, +in his _Beginnings of History_ admits that the Jews borrowed +substantially the story of the creation and the fall from more ancient +nations, and furnishes the original copies. The legends recorded in +Genesis are found among many ancient peoples who lived many centuries +before Moses; and Berosus, a priest of the temple of Belus, who wrote +two hundred and seventy-six years before Christ, affirms that fragments +of Chaldean history can be traced back 15 Sadi or 150,000 years. I have +mentioned these things because they are germane to what is to follow. + +There is good reason for thinking that the book of Deuteronomy was +written about six hundred and twenty-one years before Christ, and the +remaining books of the Pentateuch were of later date, coming down to +four hundred and fifty years before Christ. This Professor Kuenen has +demonstrated beyond controversy in his _Religion of Israel_, to which I +must refer for his arguments in detail. The best scholarship of the +world does not believe that what is called the Law of Moses was written +prior to the fifth or sixth century before Christ, and learned men in +Holland, Germany, and England, as well as the most advanced thinkers in +America, now accept this opinion. Professor Robertson Smith, in the +_Encyclopœdia Britannica_, adopts this view, and Dean Stanley, in his +_Jewish Church_, does not leave us in doubt as to his opinion. + +Take the following as an example of what I mean (Gen. 12:6): “And the +Canaanite was then in the land;” whereas the expulsion of the Canaanites +did not occur until several centuries after the death of Moses, when +this must have been written. In Gen. (36: 31) we read, “Before there +reigned any king over Israel.” This must have been two hundred years +after the death of Moses. “The nations that were before you” (Lev. 13: +8) of course presupposes that the Canaanites had already been subdued. +“Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the +face of the earth” (Num. 12:13), could hardly have been written by Moses +himself. The expression “unto this day” frequently occurs, and shows +that the time was long after the events took place. It is also implied +in various places that the writer resided in Palestine, and so it could +not have been Moses. In Deuteronomy (19: 14) we read, “Thou shalt not +remove thy neighbor’s landmark which they of old time have set in thine +inheritance.” They had no landmark to remove, unless this was written +concerning the land of Canaan long after the death of Moses. They are +reproached for not keeping the Sabbath in the past for a long time, and +this is given as a reason for the Captivity; and hence Leviticus 26:34, +35, 43 was written after the Captivity, which began in 597 b. c. In Gen. +14:14, Lot is taken prisoner and rescued from his captors, whom they +“pursued unto Dan.” Now, there was no such place as Dan until after the +entrance into Canaan. We read in Judg. 18:27, 29 that this city was +called Laish, which was burned by the Israelites, and then they built a +city, and they called it “Dan, after the name of their father: howbeit +the name of the city was Laish at first.” This “trout in the milk” is as +striking as if some one should write of Chicago when the Declaration of +Independence was signed. In Gen. 36:31 we read, “And these are the kings +that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the +children of Israel.” This passage shows that it was written after there +had been kings in Israel, and could not have been written by Moses. I +could show similar incongruities concerning the manna in Gen. 16: 35, +compared with Josh. 5: 12. So Deut. 24: 14 must have been written after +the entrance into Canaan, as until then they had no _lands_, and there +were no gates and no “strangers within their gates.” The same might be +said of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue: the Israelites had no +_gates_ until after they entered Canaan. It could not have been written +by Moses in the wilderness of Arabia. + +These illustrations might be produced indefinitely, but enough have been +given to show that the Pentateuch was written several hundred years +after the death of Moses, and that we are justifiable in fixing the date +for most of it in the fourth, fifth, or sixth century before the +Christian era. The Pentateuch abounds in duplicate traditions of the +same transactions, and also in diversity and contradictions. These +numerous repetitions are fatal to the supposition that it was written by +Moses. If Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, we should expect to +find a good many hints of this in other parts of the Bible; whereas we +have no reference to Sinai and its awful thunders, and, although Moses +is mentioned in the New Testament, it only shows the existence of +traditions to that effect at that time. Not until the time that +Christianity arose, about thirteen hundred years after the death of +Moses, did the tradition obtain currency that he was the author of the +Pentateuch. + +The fact is, the Jews are a comparatively modern people, and were not +known as a nation until the time of Alexander the Great (356-325 b. c.), +and Herodotus, by never mentioning them, so indicates. While the +Hindoos, Egyptians, Grecians, Romans, Chaldeans, and Babylonians had +their men of science, literature, and law, whose fame only brightens +with the flight of time, the Jews have no _history_ except what was +written by themselves, and that is so absurd, impossible, and +contradictory that nobody can believe it. + +Everybody knows that the ancient Jews were the constitutional imitators +of other peoples. They have always been the second-hand clothes-dealers +of the world. As a race they never have been noted for originality, but +have always been ready to borrow what belonged to other people, and +then, with characteristic self-complacency, have claimed to be the +“original Jacobs” of everything good and great. We intend this as no +reflection upon the Jews of the present day. + + C. Staniland Wake, an English writer, in his great work on the + _Evolution of Morality_, vol. ii., page 59, thus expresses his + views: “Judging from this fact, many persons imagine—or at least, + from the superstitious reverence that they have for the Decalogue, + appear to do so—that until the time of the Hebrew lawgiver the most + ordinary rules of morality were unknown. The mere fact of Egypt + being the starting-point of the Exodus ought to be sufficient to + disabuse the mind of this idea, without reference to the contents + of the code itself. But the moral laws given in the Decalogue are + of so primitive a character that it is absurd to suppose, except on + the assumption that the Hebrews were at that period in a condition + of pure savagery, that God would personally appear to give his + immediate sanction to them. The commands, Honor thy father and thy + mother, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou + shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy + neighbor, Thou shalt not covet, were simply _reiterations_ of laws + to which the Hebrews had been subject during their whole sojourn in + Egypt, and which must, in fact, have been familiar to them before + their ancestors left their traditional Chaldean home.” + +Then we must bear in mind that Moses himself was an Egyptian by birth, +and that he was brought up at the court of Pharaoh until he was forty +years of age, and in Acts 7: 22 we are told that “Moses was learned in +all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.” + +The whole matter relating to the Pentateuch is thus summed up by the +late Prof. John Wm. Draper, M. D., LL.D., late of the University of New +York, in his _Conflict between Religion and Science_: “No man may dare +to impute them (the books of the Pentateuch) to the inspiration of +Almighty God, their inconsistencies, incongruities, and impossibilities, +as exposed by many learned and pious modern scholars, both German and +English, are so great. It is the decision of these critics that Genesis +is a narrative based upon legends; that Exodus is not historically true; +that the whole Pentateuch is _unhistoric_ and _un-Mosaic_: it contains +the most extraordinary contradictions and impossibilities, sufficient to +involve the credibility of the whole—imperfections so conspicuous that +they would destroy the authenticity of any modern historical work.”... +“To the critical eye they all present peculiarities which demonstrate +that they were written on the banks of the Euphrates, and not in the +desert of Arabia. They contain many Chaldaisms.”... “From such Assyrian +sources the legends of the creation of the earth and heavens, the Garden +of Eden, the making of man from clay and the woman from one of his ribs, +the temptation of the serpent, etc.,... were obtained by Ezra.” “I agree +in the opinion of Hupfeld, that the discovery that the Pentateuch is put +together out of the various sources of original documents is beyond all +doubt, is not only one of the most important and most pregnant with +consequences for the interpretation of the historical books of the Old +Testament—or rather for the whole of theology and history—but it is also +one of the most certain discoveries which have been made in the domain +of criticism and the history of literature.” + +But not only do the laws of Egypt antedate the laws accredited to Moses, +but the Hindoos had laws which were yet more ancient. The writings of +Buddha, who died in 477 b. c., refer to older books and quote from them, +and these again refer to still older books, until we reach laws which +existed many thousands of years before the Law of Moses, as the laws of +Manu were drawn from the “immemorial customs” of the nation and +constitute a kind of _common law_. “The most accurate scholars point to +India as the origin of Egyptian civilization,” says Le Renouf, the +learned Egyptologist. + +If Egyptian literature was derived in a remote period from India, what +must be the date of old India’s laws as compared with the laws of the +Hebrews? It is no wonder that Max Müller, professor in the orthodox +University of Oxford, says (in Chips, vol. i., p. 11): “After carefully +examining every possible objection that can be made against the date of +the Vedic hymns, their claim to that high antiquity which is ascribed to +them has not, as far as I can judge, been shaken.” The same learned +Sanskrit scholar says, “The opinion that the pagan religions were mere +corruptions of the religion of the Old Testament, once supported by men +of high authority and great learning, is now as completely surrendered +as the attempt at explaining Greek and Latin as corruptions of Hebrew” +(_Science of Religion_, p. 24). This great Sanskrit scholar admits in +many places in his voluminous writings the greater antiquity of the +pagan scriptures, and gives many weighty reasons to show how impossible +and absurd it is to suppose that they have been changed and interpolated +to adapt them to more modern times. + +The Vedas, the sacred writings of the Hindoos, according to Sir William +Jones the Orientalist, “cannot be denied to have an antiquity the most +distant.” According to the Brahmans, they are coeval with the creation, +and the Sama-Veda says, “They were formed of the soul of Him who exists +by, or of, himself.” The Hindoo laws were codified by Manu and copied by +all antiquity, notably by Rome in the compilation or digest of the laws +of all nations called the Code of _Justinian_, which has been adopted as +the foundation of all modern legislation. I could, did time permit, +furnish the laws of Manu, the Justinian Code, and the Civil Code of +Napoleon in parallel columns, in a way to show their common origin +beyond a doubt. Laws of betrothal and marriage, paternal authority, +tutelage, and adoption; property, contract, deposit, loan, sale, +partnership, donation, and testamentary bequest,—all were elaborately +promulgated by the Code of Manu in 2680 _slocas_. + +Laws were arranged under eighteen principal heads, concerning as many +different causes for which laws are enacted: Debts, deposits and loans +for use, sale without ownership, gifts, non-payment of wages, +agreements, sale and purchase, disputes, boundaries, assaults, slander, +robbery and violence, adultery, altercation between man and wife, +inheritance, and gaming. “The court of Brahma with four faces” is where +four learned Brahmans sat in judgment, one of whom was the king’s chief +counsellor. + +One of their trite sayings was, “When justice, having been wounded by +iniquity, approaches the court, and the judges extract not the arrow or +dart, they also shall be wounded by it.” + +The mode of conducting lawsuits was, in a great degree, similar to that +used in all civilized countries of the present day. The oath taken by +witnesses was as follows: “What ye know to have been transacted in the +matter before us, between the parties reciprocally, declare at large and +with truth, for your evidence in the cause is required.” + +“The witness who speaks falsely shall be fast bound under water in the +snaky cords of Varuna, and be wholly deprived of power to escape torment +during a hundred transmigrations.” + +Brahmans were banished for giving false evidence, but all others were +punished by blows on the abdomen, the tongue, feet, eyes, nose, and +ears, and in capital cases blows were inflicted upon the whole body. + +Some of the moral sayings of the Hindoos run thus: “He who bestows gifts +for worldly fame, while he suffers his family to live in distress, +touches his lips with honey, but swallows poison. Such virtue is +counterfeit. Even what he does for his spiritual body, to the injury of +those he is bound to maintain, shall bring him ultimate misery, both in +this world and the next. + +“Content, returning good for evil, resistance to sensual appetite, +abstinence from illicit gains, knowledge of the Vedas, knowledge of the +Supreme Spirit, veracity, and freedom from wrath, form the tenfold +system of duties. + +“Honor thy father and thy mother. Forget not the favors thou hast +received. Learn whilst thou art young. Seek the society of the good. +Live in harmony with others. Remain in thine own place. + +“Speak ill of none. Ridicule not bodily infirmities. Pursue not a +vanquished foe. Deceive even not thy enemies. Forgiveness is sweeter +than revenge. The sweetest bread is that earned by labor. Knowledge is +riches. + +“What one learns in his youth is as lasting as graven on stone. The wise +is he who knows himself. Speak kindly to the poor. Discord and gaming +lead to misery. He misconceives his interest who violates his promise. + +“There is no tranquil sleep without a good conscience, nor any virtue +without religion. To honor thy mother is the most acceptable worship. Of +women the fairest ornament is modesty.” + +The following, from the laws of Manu (lib. iii. Sloca 55), will contrast +strangely with the law of Moses regarding the treatment of women and the +esteem in which they should be held: + +“Women should be nurtured with every tenderness and attention by their +fathers, their brothers, their husbands, and their brothers-in-law, if +they desire great prosperity.” + +“Where women live in affliction the family soon becomes extinct; but +when they are loved and respected, and cherished with tenderness, the +family grows and prospers in all circumstances.” + +“When women are honored the divinities are content; but when we honor +them not all acts of piety are sterile.” + +“The households cursed by the women to whom they have not rendered due +homage find ruin weigh them down and destroy them as if smitten by some +secret power.” + +“In the family where the husband is content with his wife, and the wife +with her husband, happiness is assured for ever.” + +That there were many trivial things in the ancient pagan laws, and many +practices prevailed among a portion of the people which seem idolatrous, +we freely admit; but the same is true of many of the Hebrew laws, which +are too obscene for quotation here. We also find among the Hebrews all +forms of _nature-worship_, such as sun-worship, tree-worship, +fire-worship, ser-pent-worship, and phallic-worship. Of this more later +on. + +Besides the Hindoos and the Egyptians, there were many nations more +ancient than the Hebrews. The Grecian Argos was founded 1807 b. c. +Athens and Sparta existed 1550 b. c. Then there were the Phœnicians, a +maritime people who flourished more than five thousand years ago, whose +monuments and inscriptions are found in Palestine to-day, while the +Hebrews have left us neither monument nor inscription. The Chaldeans +established a monarchy four thousand or five thousand years ago, and +three thousand five hundred or four thousand years back the Assyrians +became masters of the valley of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and from +these people the Jews got all they ever knew about things subsequently +recorded in the Pentateuch. + +The Jewish and Christian religions (for they are claimed to be one) are +next to being the _youngest_, or most modern, of any of the _great +religions_ of the world, the Mohammedan being the last. Each claimed +divine authority; all had their lawgivers, priests, and prophets, who +wrote, as they claimed, their bibles by _divine_ inspiration. The error +of Judaism is in claiming the greatest antiquity, as well as claiming to +be the only religion having the divine sanction. + +I cannot refrain from mentioning some things which cannot be regarded as +wholly irrelevant. Moses had a very remarkable experience in his +infancy. At his birth he was placed in an ark and set afloat on the +Nile, and was rescued by Pharaoh’s daughter, who called a nurse for him +who proved to be his mother. We have many counterparts of this in +Grecian and Egyptian mythology. _Perseus_ was shut up in a chest and +cast into the sea by the king of Argos, and was found by Dictys, who +educated him. _Bacchus_ was confined in a chest by order of the king of +Thebes, and was cast upon the Nile. He had two mothers—natural and +adopted. _Osiris_, the Egyptian divinity, was confined in a coffer and +thrown into the river. He floated to Phœnicia. His mother wandered in +silence and grief to Byblos, and was selected by the king’s servants and +taken to the palace, and was made _the nurse_ of the young prince. We +could give several other parallel cases, but we pause and wonder +whether the reported experience of Moses was not another version of the +same myth. + +We next find this “greatest of statesmen and lawgivers” a fugitive from +justice (Ex. 2: 11-15). He had killed a man and buried him in the sand, +and when he learned that the murder was known by the Hebrews, and +Pharaoh sought to slay him, he fled to the land of Midian and tended the +flocks of Jethro, a priest, until he was eighty years old. He knew then +that it was wrong to kill just as well as he did after receiving the Ten +Commandments; for he “looked this way and that” to find out whether any +one saw him, and “he feared, and said, Surely this is known.” He showed +a sense of _guilt_. He always seemed afraid of Pharaoh on account of +this murder. + +He was next commissioned to deliver his brethren from their bondage in +Egypt, and was instructed to say that “_I Am that I Am_” had sent him +(Ex. 3: 14). Now, it seems to me very strange that Nuk-Pa-Nuk was the +Egyptian name for God, and means, “_I Am that I Am!_” (Bonwick, +_Egyptian Belief_, p. 395). This name was found upon an Egyptian +temple, according to Higgins (_Anacalypsis_, vol. ii. p. 17), +who says, “_I Am_ was a divine name understood by all the initiated +among the Egyptians;” and Bunsen affirms, in his _Keys of St. Peter_, +that the “_I Am_ of the Hebrews was the same as the _I Am_ of the +Egyptians.” + +There is another peculiarity about Moses that seems strange to me. In +his statue in Fairmount Park he is represented as having horns, and he +is so portrayed in the statue by Michael Angelo. Now the sun-god Bacchus +had _horns_, and so had Zeus, the Grecian supreme deity. _Bacchus_ was +called “the Lawgiver,” and it is said that his laws were written upon +_two tables of stone_. It is also said that he and his army enjoyed the +_light of the sun_ (pillar of fire) during the night-time, and he, like +Moses, had a _rod_ with which divers miracles were wrought. The Persian +legend relates that Zoroaster received from Ormuzd the Book of the Law +upon a _high mountain. Minos_ received on Mount Dicta, from Zeus, the +supreme god, _the law_. There are many such cases. Even Mohammed, it is +said, so received the Koran. + +Then the crossing of the Red Sea by Moses and his three millions of +absconding slaves “dry-shod,” and the “rock in the wilderness giving +forth water when struck by the rod of Moses,” both have several +parallels. Orpheus, the earliest poet of Greece, relates how _Bacchus_ +had crossed _the Red Sea dry-shod_ at the head of his army, and how he +“divided the waters” of the rivers Orontes and Hydaspis and passed +through them “dry-shod,” and how he _drew water from the rock +with his wonderful rod_. Professor Steinthal notes the fact “that almost +all the acts of Moses correspond to those of the _sun-gods_.” It may +seem strange that the Hebrews were acquainted with Grecian mythology, +yet we know this was the fact. Rev. Dr. Isaac M. Wise says, “The Hebrews +adopted forms, terms, ideas, and myths of all nations with whom they +came in contact, and, like the Greeks, in their way cast them all in a +peculiar Jewish religious mould.” + +Moreover, there are strange inconsistencies and contradictions connected +with the alleged giving of the Law to Moses. In both Exodus and +Deuteronomy God is represented as _speaking_ the words, and in Deut. +5:22 it is said God “_wrote_ them on two tables of stone” after speaking +them, and in Ex. 24: 28 _Moses_ is represented as doing the writing: +“And _he_ wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten +commandments.” We here find a hundred commandments, more or less, of a +ceremonial character, and only _one_ of the original ten, the one +relating to the Sabbath, and we here find “earing-time and harvest” made +a season of rest just as much as the Sabbath. Then there are different +reasons given for the observance of the Sabbath in Ex. 20 and Deut. +5—the one that God “rested on the seventh day” after creating all things +in six days (of course this was in six days of twenty-four hours each, +else there was no pertinency in the reason); and the other, that it was +in commemoration of the deliverance of the Hebrews from the bondage in +Egypt. + +It has been claimed that at least the Sabbath is an institution first +established in the Decalogue of Exodus, and yet even this must be +denied. Evidences of the observance of the seventh day as sacred are +found in the calendars of the ancient Egyptians and Assyrians, and the +_Records of the Past_ assert that Sabbath observance was in existence at +least eleven hundred years before Moses or Exodus among the Accadians, +Chaldeans, and Assyrians. + +There are also great variances in the language of the two accounts in +Exodus and Deuteronomy, which could not have existed if copied from what +God had written in stone. The second table of stone was an exact copy of +the first (Deut. 10:2). When Moses got excited at Aaron’s golden calf +and broke the two tables of stone containing the Law, and God was going +to destroy the people, Moses dissuaded him from doing so by telling him +what the Egyptians would then say about him! (Num. 14; 13-16.) + +It is worthy of note that the first commandment is of doubtful +_monotheism_: Thou shalt have no “other gods before me,” implying that +there were other gods. Then there is something not pleasant in the idea +of a “jealous God,” as used in this commandment and frequently in other +places. Contrast this with the Hindoo _Geeta_, where God is represented +as saying, “They who serve even other gods, with a firm belief in doing +so, involuntarily worship Me. I am He who partaketh of all worship, and +I am their reward.” God is defined in the Hindoo _Vedas_ as, “He who +exists by himself, and who is in all because all is in him; whom the +spirit can alone perceive; who is imperceptible to the organs of sense; +who is without visible parts, Eternal, the Soul of all being, and whom +none can comprehend.” “God is one, immutable, without form or parts, +infinite, omnipresent, and omnipotent.” No need to prohibit the making +of a “graven image” to represent such a god. + +Now take Moses’ description of God. He only saw his “back parts” (Ex. +33: 22, 23), and God held his hand over him when in the cleft of the +rocks while he passed by, that he might not see his glory. And, while it +is said, “Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and +live” (Ex. 33: 20), yet “the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a +man speaketh unto his friend” (Ex. 33:11). He was with him in the +mountain forty days and nights, and saw him and talked to him, and so +did at least seventy-three other persons (Ex. 24: 9). Yet we are told in +John 1:18, “No man hath seen God at any time.” + +Then there are many other “commandments” in the Bible which cannot be +reconciled with the “Ten Commandments,” and very many acts regarded as +criminal in this nineteenth century which are not forbidden, but +indirectly or tacitly sanctioned. One of the “Ten Commandments” is, +“Thou shalt not kill,” but husbands are directed to _kill_ their wives +if they propose to them a change of religion, and killing is commanded +in numerous instances and for trivial offences, such as picking up +sticks to make a fire on the Sabbath. + +Take the following as specimens of the cruelty of Moses: + +“But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give +thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive that breatheth” +(Deut. 20:16). + +Here is another of his injunctions: “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, +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” (Ex. 32:27). + +Here is another: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which +Amalek did to Israel [some four hundred years before], how he laid wait +for him,” etc. “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that +they have; slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, +camel and ass” (1 Sam. 15: 2, 3). This was sweeping, merciless revenge +on the innocent. + +He commands the Jews to swindle the Egyptians by false pretence, +“spoiling” them of their jewelry (Ex. 3:19-22). He authorized them to +take _usury_ of strangers, but not of one another; and to sell the +“flesh of animals that had died of themselves” to strangers and aliens, +but not to run the risk of poisoning themselves (Deut. 14:21). + +In the affair with the Midianites _Moses was more cruel than the +officers and common soldiery_. He was “_wroth with them_” because they +had saved all the women alive, and required that they should go back and +finish the brutal butchery. I cannot do this subject justice without +transcribing a large portion of Num. 31: + +“And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; +and they slew all the males. + +“And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were +slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of +Midian; Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. + +“And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and +their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their +flocks, and all their goods. + +“And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their +goodly castles, with fire. + +“And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of +beasts. + +“And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses +and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of +Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near +Jericho. + +“And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the +congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. + +“And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains +over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. + +“And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? + +“Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of +Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and +there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. + +“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every +woman that hath known man by lying with him. + +“But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with +him, keep alive for yourselves.” + +What shall we say when we remember that Moses found a refuge with the +Midianites for forty years when he was a fugitive from justice for the +murder of the Egyptian, and the Midianites were the first to show the +Jews hospitality when they escaped from the bondage of Egypt? Moreover, +Moses had married a woman of Midian, and might have been supposed to +have some regard for her kinswomen. It cannot be claimed that Moses was +compelled by the low condition of the people to treat the Midianites +thus, for he was the _sole author_ of this extreme butchery of women and +children, and was “wroth” with his officers for not committing the +atrocity in the first place. True, he charges the women with having +“caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit +trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor but this could not +justify the butchery of some forty-eight thousand women and twenty +thousand boys, besides the old men. And then the thirty-two thousand +virgins had a fate _worse than death_, though called the ’Lord’s +tribute’,” and the priests got their full share of the spoil. For those +who would justify such cruelty and wholesale butchery, as they would +justify famine and pestilence the effect of natural laws, I can have no +very great respect. + +It has been said, “Cruel as many of the Mosaic punishments undoubtedly +were, it is well to remember that two hundred years ago the criminal +code of England was almost, if not equally, bloody. If Moses stoned +adulteresses to death, it is not very long since we put witches and +Quakers to death, while in many other countries the stake and the fagot +were the chief arguments in aid of orthodoxy. It would not be just to +judge of the punishments inflicted over three thousand years ago from +the standpoint of the present century, when the Mosaic dispensation has +passed away and that of the law of love substituted. There was no mercy +in the smoking rocks of Sinai. There was nothing but the law in all its +sternness.” + +This is all very well, but we should remember that the cruel criminal +codes of modern times got their cruelty from the Mosaic code. “Thou +shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Ex. 22: 18) was one of the laws of +Moses, and from first to last thirty thousand witches were’ executed in +Great Britain and two hundred thousand in Germany. Sir Matthew Hale +pronounced the death-sentence on a “witch,” and Blackstone, the great +commentator, thought that witchcraft must be real because the Bible said +there were witches! Scotland continued to burn witches until 1722, and +Germany until 1780, while in 1515 there were five thousand witches +burned at Geneva. I am ashamed to speak of our own hanging of witches in +Massachusetts, but it is very well known that it was done by authority +of the law of Moses: “A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, +or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them +with stones: their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 20: 27).(1) + +Rev. Rabbi Hirsch sums up his conclusions as the result of his study of +the Pentateuch: + +“The non-authenticity of the Pentateuch is shown by the work itself. It +is indicated by—(1) The impossible occurrences in the desert; (2) The +various contradictions and repetitions, as in the descriptions of the +festivals; the provision of the officiators for the sacrifices; the +appropriations of the tithes; the rules for sacrificing the first-born +children to Deity—the law regulating these matters varying in +Deuteronomy and Numbers; (3) Certain phrases used, as “up to the present +day,” which lose all significance if applied to Moses. Thus the book +itself shows not one author, but many. + +“The non-authenticity of the Pentateuch is shown also by lack of +reference to it in the prophetical and historical books. Jeremiah, when +denouncing in unmeasured terms the very sins prohibited by the +Decalogue, never uses the language of those cardinal rules of morality; +the prophecies show no trace of the priestly ordinances; and, though +most of the laws refer to Sinai, the name occurs in none of the +prophetical books. + + (1) In 1865 the witch-laws were yet in force in South Carolina! + +“It contains old songs; embodies the written law or judicial decisions +of the Israelites in the Book of the Covenant; springs from two currents +of history, the Elohist and Jehovist, the former composed of the younger +Elohist of the South and the older Elohist of the North; shows +Deuteronomy very much altered from its original form by emendations and +additions, being formerly without the first four and the closing +chapters, and the Levitical Law or Priestly Codex having been later +incorporated with Joshua and the books of Moses; and lastly it is marred +by changes made in accordance with the new religious spirit.” + +We know very little about Moses. If there ever was such a man—which is +very doubtful, taking the writings accredited to him for authority—he is +not shown to have been “the greatest statesman and lawgiver the world +has ever produced.” Neither have the Jews ever developed, in ancient or +modern times, such a moral character as a people as to justify the +supposition that they had a great and inspired leader among them, and +that he taught them anything not well known for many centuries before to +more ancient and more intelligent nations. + +The assumption that Moses was the author, under divine guidance, of what +is commonly called the _Ten Commandments,_ about one thousand four +hundred and fifty-one years before the Christian era, is _assumption_ +only, without a particle of proof to sustain it. What are commonly +called the laws of Moses were written by some person or persons unknown +in the fifth or sixth centuries before the beginning of Christianity. +Most of the matter of what is called the Pentateuch was borrowed from +older and wiser nations—the Egyptians, the Hindoos, the Greeks, etc. But +for the unbounded credulity on this subject it would seem like an insult +seriously to discuss the question, Which are the older writings? and, +Which the substantial copies? Unless a man is ready to take assumptions +for demonstrated facts, to ignore the museums and libraries, to question +the conclusions of the profound-est antiquarians, and to make the stream +of history flow backward, he must admit that the Hebrews were the +borrowers.(1) + + (1) The substance of this chapter was published in March, 1890, in _An + Open Letter_ to Hon. Edward M. Paxson, Chief-Justice of + Pennsylvania, who had affirmed in a lecture before the Law School + of the University of Pennsylvania that the “law of Sinai was the + first of which we have any knowledge,” and that “Moses was the + greatest statesman and lawgiver the world has ever produced.” + + + + +CHAPTER V. ANCIENT SYMBOLISM AND MODERN LITERALISM + + +_“Which things are an allegory.”—Gal. 4:24._ + + +WORSHIP is natural to man, and all systems of religion, many think, +received their cult from Nature-worship. Typology, mythology, theology +followed each other as the links of a well-forged chain. + +Cicero well suggested: “Do you not see how, from the beginning, from the +productions of nature and the useful inventions of men have arisen +fictitious and imaginary deities, which have been the foundations of +false opinions, pernicious errors, and miserable superstitions?” He +asserts that “if the sacred mysteries celebrated by the most ancient +peoples were properly understood, they would rather explicate the nature +of things than portray the knowledge of the gods.” Plato said he “would +exclude from his ideal republic the poems of Homer, because the young +would not be able to distinguish between what was allegorical and what +was actual.” Proclus alleges that even Plato himself drew many of his +peculiar dogmas from the symbolisms of the ancients. It is also said +that he was curious to find out what was the secret meaning of the +allegories of the more ancient sages and philosophers, while at the same +time he affirmed that what he should successfully find out he would keep +to himself. It is well known that the real offence of Socrates was in +publishing to the common people the wisdom secreted by other teachers. +Heyne has truly said that “from myths all the history and all the +philosophy of the ancients proceed.” Gerald Massey, in his great work +_The Natural Genesis_, claims that it is only in the symbolic stage of +expression that we can expect to recover the lost meanings of priestly +dogmas. These are preserved in the gesture-signs, ideographic types, +images, and myths scattered over the world. The symbolic extends beyond +the written or spoken language of any people now extant. + +He well says that “ancient symbolism was a mode of expression which has +bequeathed a mould of thought that imprisons the minds of myriads as +effectually as the toad shut up in the rock in which it dwells is +confined.” Myths and allegories, anciently unfolded to initiates in the +mysteries, have been ignorantly adopted by modern priests and published +to the world as the literal truth. The main dogmas of modern theology +are based on distorted myths, “under the shadow of which we have been +cowering as timorously as birds in a stubble when an artificial kite in +the shape of a hawk is hovering overhead.” Modern dogmatic theology is +largely what Mr. Massey has tersely called “fossilized symbolism.” It +was the habit of the Oriental mind to personify almost everything. +Ancient mystics veiled all their thoughts in allegory and draped their +sacred lessons in symbols. They invented many poetic riddles and +fantastic stories, which the initiated knew to be fanciful, but which in +time came to be regarded by the masses as substantial historic facts. It +is well known that this method was not confined to the ancients, but +played a conspicuous part in the Middle Ages, and that its baneful +influence is not yet exhausted. It will hereafter be shown that in no +writings extant can be found so many illustrations of the symbolic +method of teaching as in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Even in +our day the common people have not outgrown this habit of +personification, and are wont to tell their children of Santa Claus and +Kriss Kringle who bring them presents at Christmastime, and of Jack +Frost who will bite them if they go out in the cold. Modern folk-lore is +full of symbolisms and personifications, as real to multitudes as are +the mythical stories found in writings supposed to contain an infallible +divine revelation. + +A large number of learned authors favor the theory that all systems of +dogmatic theology are mythic suggestions of the phenomena of physical +nature, postulated by philosophers and poets in the most ancient periods +of the world. They maintain this hypothesis, in part from the well-known +fact that many of the most widely-separated peoples, who never could +have had any intercourse, directly or indirectly, have used the same +imagery and substantially adopted the same systems of religion. This +suggestion regarding Nature-worship is worthy of careful and reverent +examination. Primitive peoples, living mostly in the open air, were +brought in close contact with external natural objects and phenomena. +One of the most prevalent forms of religion in ancient times was +_tree-worship,_ and it entered largely into the religious thought of the +ancient Jews. The tree furnished the food, mainly, upon which our race +in its infancy depended for subsistence. The grove was called “the +retreat beloved by gods and men.” It furnished shelter from storm, and +shade from the tropical sun. It was a place of rest and a thing of +beauty. Mr. Barlow, in his excellent book on Symbolism, says the most +generally-received symbol of life was a tree. It was inseparable from +the ancient conception of a garden. It was the “tree of life” in the +mythic paradise. It was suggestive of passion and offspring in +connection with the serpent, which was an emblem of male virility. The +tree has many suggestions, not only in it leaves, but in its fruit and +mode of propagation. The sap of certain trees has an exhilarating, and +even an intoxicating, quality. The sacred soma was taken before reading +the Vedic hymns “to quicken the memory.” It was supposed to promote +spirituality and inspiration. Various trees and plants are suggestive of +fertility and fecundity in man. The lotus is the flower of Venus. There +is a “language of trees” as well as “language of flowers.” There are +poetic and symbolic reasons in the form of the stems and shape of the +leaves for the display of orange-blossoms as bridal decorations, as +thoughtful botanists can readily see. Much of the symbolism of the Old +Testament is identical with the Eastern tree-worship; and without some +knowledge of this form of imagery much of the Hebrew Scriptures must +remain a dead letter. The frequent references to palms, cedars, oaks, +vines, mandrakes, etc. etc., are vastly significant to the adept in +symbolism. + +The Jewish Bible is full of Nature-worship to all whose eyes are not +veiled by sacerdotalism. The fact that God is said to have appeared to +Moses in the burning bush is suggestive of both tree- and fire-worship +(Ex. 3: 2). Josephus says, “The bush was holy before the flame appeared +in it and because it was holy it became the vehicle of the burning, +fiery, jealous God of the Jews. Even our Christmas evergreens contain a +recognition of the gods of the trees. The feet is, many of the religious +rites of both Jews and Christians are but slight modifications of the +ancient Nature-worship, as all well-read men know, but to which truth +our modern theologians are as blind as bats. Abraham, the alleged +progenitor of the Jewish nation (so called), is represented as a +dissenter from the religion of his native country; yet he, and his +descendants and followers after him for hundreds of years, employed the +same religious symbols and forms of worship used by the people of +Chaldea and other so-called idolatrous nations. Read the solemn +arraignment of the “chosen people” by the prophet, recorded in Ezek. +16:15 to the end of that chapter, if you would have proof of this +charge. The fact is, if we treat the story of Abraham and other +so-called Old-Testament patriarchs as we do the traditions of other +nations, we shall be forced to give it an esoteric interpretation rather +than a literal or an historic one. But more of this farther on. + +_Serpent-worship_ is another form of sacred symbolism, and has an +intimate connection with phallic rites. The serpent was not at first a +personification of evil, but of wisdom, and is so used in our New +Testament, “... wise (shrewd) as serpents, harmless as doves.” It also +denotes the art or gift of healing, and was not only so used by +Esculapius, but also by Moses, and is recognized as a type by Jesus +himself: “... And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even +so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him +should not perish, but have, eternal life” (Num. 21:9; John 3:14, 15). +Indeed, the serpent has almost universally been regarded as a symbol of +immortal life, and especially, as frequently presented in ancient +sculptures, with its tail in its mouth, thus forming an endless circle. +This idea may have been suggested at first by its tenacity of life, and +its being so thoroughly alive in all its parts, its body and tail moving +and living after its head has been crushed; and, further, from the +periodic renewal of its skin, suggesting a new and continuous life. Then +there are other significant qualities in the serpent—viz. its power of +voluntary enlargement and self-erection, combined with its intense gaze +and wonderful secret of fascination and its noiseless and mysterious +movement—all suggestive of the _spirituel_. It is also a symbol of power +and divinity, and as such was embroidered upon ancient robes and flags +of royalty. Upon a decorative banner recently displayed upon the walls +of an edifice in Philadelphia wherein recently met the General Assembly +of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, the symbolic serpent +was prominent; and those who criticised it were silenced by a member’s +pointing to the fact that the serpent is engraved upon the seal of the +General Assembly itself. Think of Presbyterians perpetuating +serpent-symbolism! + +It was doubtless the emblematic snakes which had been used in Ireland in +the Druidic worship, before the introduction of Christianity, that the +somewhat mythical St. Patrick drove out of the “Emerald Isle”—all the +snakes according to Romish tradition, now believed by millions of devout +worshippers to be strictly historical, though known by priests to be +mythical. He destroyed the emblematic serpents. It was not until after +the invention of the talking subtle serpent that tempted Eve in Eden +that the serpent became a symbol of evil. The Jews never heard of that +“old serpent the devil” until after their captivity in Babylon. We must +not fail, however, according to the Old Testament, to give King Hezekiah +credit for having been a sort of Hebrew St. Patrick, in attempting to +drive serpent-worship from among the Israelites after it had prevailed +among them for about seven hundred years. + +In a line or two we sum up the symbolism of the serpent, as has been +suggested, in that it is thoroughly alive, has a fiery nature, is swift +in motion, and moves without bands or feet. It assumes a variety of +forms, is long-lived, and renews its youth by shedding its external +covering, and at pleasure stands erect, enlarges its size, is strong, +and is said to have the marvellous secret of fascination. + +Initiates worshipped only the qualities or principles symbolized by +outward forms, while the ignorant may have really worshipped the +external or literal object. Every quality in the objects of the ancient +Nature-worship has suggested a religious dogma, which was first +incorporated into ancient systems of sacerdotalism, and can now be +traced in an occult and esoteric sense in all bodies of modern dogmatic +theology. Ninety-nine out of every one hundred of professional +ecclesiastics are as ignorant of these things as unborn babes, while the +select few know, but conceal, the truth. The larger class are honest +dupes and dunces, while the others are hypocrites and impostors. + +_Phallieism_, the worship of the genital organs, was another form of +natural symbolism. Men saw that in some mysterious way the race was +propagated by the congress of the generative organs, male and female, +and soon naturally worshipped them as at least the symbols of the +unknown fecundating power of the universe. + +This form of symbolism prevailed in the most distant ages, and has +continued in many countries unto the present time. Richard Payne Knight, +an honorable English gentleman, in 1865 wrote a quarto book, of which +only two hundred copies were printed, entitled _A Discourse on the +Worship of Priapus, and its Connection with the Theology of the +Ancients_, in which this whole subject is boldly discussed, and +phallicism illustrated by one hundred and thirty-eight engravings, many +of them copied from actual emblems now preserved in the British Museum +and in the Secret Museum in Naples. Major-General Forlong, of the +British army, has also fully presented this subject in his recent quarto +in two volumes, entitled _Rivers of Life; or, Sources and Streams of the +Faiths of Man in all Lands._ + +It would doubtless astound many modern theologians to be told that even +the Jews did not escape the influence of this form of Nature-worship, +and that our Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains many +evidences of it; and yet it is a fact. Circumcision was no doubt an +offshoot of phallicism. It did not originate with Abraham. It was known +by the Egyptians, Abyssinians, and African tribes long before the time +he is said to have lived. It was practised, according to Herodotus, at +least twenty-four hundred years before our era, and was even then an +ancient custom. When Jacob entered into a covenant with Laban, a pillar +was set up, surrounded by a heap of stones (Gen. 31:45-53), which was a +phallic emblem, and frequently used in the Old Testament. Hebrew +patriarchs desired numerous descendants, and hence the symbolic pillar +was well suited to their religious cult. + +The name of the reputed father of Abraham, Terah, signifies “a maker of +images.” In Amos 5: 26 it is said that the Hebrews in the wilderness +worshipped a deity known by a name signifying “God of the Pillar,” as is +shown by the name Baal Tamar, which means the “fructifying god.” The +Semitic custom of giving sanction to an oath or sacred pledge by what +the Hebrews called the “putting of the hand under the thigh” is +explained by the Talmudists to be the touching of that part of the body +which is sealed and made holy by circumcision. The translations of the +Jewish Scriptures through motives of delicacy are full of these +euphemisms. Professor Joseph P. Lesley, in his _Man’s Origin and +Destiny_, suggests that phallicism converted all the older Arkite +symbols into illustrations of its own philosophical conceptions of the +mystery of generation, and thus gave to the various parts of the human +body those names which constitute the special vocabulary of obscenity of +the present day. Every scholar knows it to be a fact that certain words +and names now never spoken except by the vulgar abound in the original +Jewish writings, and are partly concealed by the convenient methods of +euphemism. When Abraham called his servant to take a solemn oath, he +required him to lay his hands upon his parts of generation as the most +sacred and revered parts of his body (Gen. 24:2), and Jacob, when dying, +made his son Joseph take the same form of oath (Gen. 47: 29). This was +but little more than the equivalent of the modern custom of laying the +hand upon the heart as a token of sincerity. The proper translation of +what the servant of Abraham was required to do is given in the margin of +Bagster’s _Comprehensive Bible_ thus: “In sectione circumcisionis meæ.” +We have in this form of phallic oath an important suggestion as to the +origin, or at least the use, of the words _testimony, testament, +testify_, and their cognates (_testis_, a witness), which cannot fail to +occur to the learned reader, but which cannot here be fully explained. +“_Caute lege_” (read carefully) was a warning of a secret or concealed +meaning which esoteric writers anciently put in the margin of their +books when they would call the special attention of the initiated to +what is now called “reading between the lines.” Until our readers +comprehend this hint they will not be able to understand what is really +meant by the “testimony” mentioned in connection with the “ark of the +covenant,” as it occurs in Ex. 16: 34, before any laws, or even altars, +were known in Sinai or its thunders heard of. In this hint may also be +found the true explanation of David’s nude dance before the ark, and of +the attending circumstances. Scores and scores of proofs could here be +furnished from the Old-Testament Scriptures, showing that the use of +phallic emblems was the rule rather than the exception for centuries +among the Jews; and the idols stolen by Rachel (teraphim) need no longer +be misunderstood, nor the meaning of the wedges upon which she sat and +refused to rise when the “custom of women was upon her” (Gen. 31:35). +She was engaged in an act of devotion. General Forlong asserts that at +this present day Queen Victoria of Christian England rules over more +than one hundred millions of phallic worshippers! Indeed, more than half +of the population of our globe still worship, as symbols of fertility +and fecundity, the genital organs. + +A correspondent of the London Times, of April 8, 1875, says: “The Roman +Catholic Church still keeps up certain suggestions of phallicism. As the +ancient temple or dagoba was the womb or feminine principle of the god +Siva or Bod and others, so the new cardinal, Archbishop Manning, was +after his elevation conducted to his church, which is here entitled, in +its relation to him, bride or spouse, he calling it _sponsa mea_. The +cardinal was called the bridegroom, and the _actual building_ (the +shrine of St. Gregory) _his_ spouse, and not the spiritual Church, which +is called Chrises.” The _Times_’ correspondent further writes of this +“sacerdos magnus,” as he is termed, going to meet his spouse, the +Church: “He stood reverently at the door, when holy water was presented +to him and clouds of incense spread around him, to symbolize that, +inasmuch as before the bridegroom enters the bride-chamber he washes and +is perfumed, so the cardinal, having been espoused to the Church with +the putting on of a ring, of his title, holy water and incense were +offered to him, when the choir burst forth with the antiphon, ‘Ecce +sacerdos magnus’—‘Behold the great sacerdotal!’” + +We are thus assured, as far as this is possible, that the phallic idea +and a phallic faith lie at the base of this creed; and we are reminded +of Apis of the Nile entering his palace for his works of sacrifice and +mercy—terms applied to the Great Generator or Great Creator. The +ancients all taught that their Great One, Manu, Man, or Noh, was in the +great ark which floats in the midst of the waters, and that the whole +was a mystery incomprehensible to the uninitiated. He who is lord of the +Christian ark is the lord of all nations, which the great sacerdos or +pope claims to be. He was till very lately a temporal as well as a +spiritual head of kings and nations. So no wonder that the holder of the +rod, baton, or banner, who occupies the place also of Moses to lead his +flocks through this wilderness, is always examined as to his phallic +completeness before being confirmed in the pontificate. This, we read in +the life of Leo X. by Roscoe, is required in the case of popes, just as +the laws of Moses required that all who came to worship their very +phallic JHVH should first prove their completeness as men. From this we +may conclude that eunuchs or incompetent men were children of the devil, +or at least, not of this phallic god—a fact which the writer of Matt. +19:12, and the Fathers Origen and Valentine, and a host of other saints +who acted on this text, must have overlooked. Wm. Roscoe, the historian, +thus writes: “On the 11th of August, 1492, after old Roderigo (Borgia) +had assumed the name of Alexander VI., and made his entrance as supreme +pontiff into the church of St. Peter, after the procession and pageants +had all been gone through, Alexander was taken aside to undergo the +final test of his qualifications, which in his particular case might +have been dispensed with.” The historian of course alludes to his +numerous progeny. + +The author expects to be criticised, and perhaps charged with obscenity, +for introducing this subject. But it has been well said: “Prudery and +pruriency are frequently companions, equally impure and cowardly; and in +all scientific investigations they should be disregarded rather than +conciliated.” The ancients saw no impurity in the symbolism of parentage +to indicate the work of creation. What is divine and natural to be and +to do cannot be immodest and obscene. No person can with decency and +propriety impugn the operation of Nature’s laws to which he owes his +existence; and he is degraded and corrupt above all others who regards +that law as essentially sensual. Phallicism meant no wrong until +sensuality and impurity of life suggested that to mention it was +indecorous. No clean and chaste mind can be shocked by the most obvious +laws of nature. Lydia Maria Child and other grand women have written +brave words on this subject which silly prudes would do well to study, +if, indeed, they ever read anything beyond a lascivious French novel. +Women only expose their ignorance when they are reddened with blushes at +the mention of phallic worship, and at the same time wear the mystic +horse-shoe or the crescent upon their immaculate bosoms, eat hot +cross-buns, dance around the Maypole, and worship beneath the church +steeple. Even the vestments of priests are ornamented with phallic +emblems; and one can hardly go abroad without beholding things which +show how innocently and unconsciously “the records of the past” are +preserved in church architecture, ecclesiastical rites, and many other +things daily before our eyes—well understood by really learned men, but +to the true origin and significance of which the masses are totally +blind. There are churches in Philadelphia, and elsewhere, even among +those who call themselves _liberal_, which are ornamented with all the +emblems of the ancient Nature-worship, especially sun-worship and +phallus-worship. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union held a great +meeting recently at Ocean Grove, N. J., and innocently used a programme +decorated with the horseshoe and many other phallic emblems. They had +the cat seated on the crescent, which, according to Egyptian mythology, +said, “We are virgins, but nevertheless desire that commerce which +eventuates in offspring.” They had the emblematic _hare_ also, which +always denotes _fecundity_, and many other emblems not to be mentioned +in polite society. Even our ordinary playing-cards, over which so much +precious time is wasted, are distinguished by phallic symbols! + +Passing by the symbolism of fire-worship prevalent in nearly all ancient +lands, and omitting to notice ancestor-worship, the _worship of the +sun_, which embraces nearly all the forms of Nature-worship, now claims +our attention. It should be kept in mind what has already been +intimated, that the use of natural objects in worship is not necessarily +idolatrous. + +The priests of Chaldea, Babylonia, Hindostan, and Egypt disclaimed the +actual worship of the material objects prominent in their rituals, and +held that these visible signs were necessary for the vulgar to +contemplate, while intelligent worshippers fixed their spiritual eyes +upon the thing or principle signified by the sign. The Roman Catholic +Church well understands this principle, and by its appeal to the ear and +eye of uneducated people attracts them to its gorgeous temples and holds +them in loyal subjection to the priests. Take the following as an +illustration of the ancient customs referred to: + +“Mr. F. Buckland tells us, in _Land and Water_, that on the first of May +all the choristers of Magdalen College, Oxford, still meet on the summit +of their tower, one hundred and fifty feet high, and sing a Latin hymn +as the sun rises, whilst the final peal of ten bells simultaneously +welcomes the gracious Apollo. In former days high mass was held here, +and the rector of Slymbridge, in Gloucestershire, it appears, still has +to pay ten pounds yearly for the one performance of sundry pieces of +choir-music at 5 A. M. on the top of this tower. This May music, +Christian priests explain, is for the repose of the souls of kings and +others, which, of course, is quite an after-thought. Early mass for Sol +used also to be held in the college chapel, but it is now explained +that, owing to this having been forbidden at the Reformation, it has +since been performed at the top of the tower. After the present hymn is +sung by the choristers—boys dressed in womanly raiment—the lads throw +down eggs upon the crowd beneath, and blow long loud blasts to Sol +through bright new tin horns—showing us that the Bacchic and Jewish +trumpet fêtes are not yet forgotten by Christians. Long before daybreak +the youths of both sexes used to rise and go to a great distance to +gather boughs and flowers, and reach home at sunrise to deck all doors, +windows, and loved spots.... Long before man was able to appreciate +ploughing and harvesting, he keenly felt the force of the winter and of +the vernal equinox, and was ready to appreciate the joyous warmth of the +sun and its energizing power on himself, as well as on fruits and +flowers.” + +While the Jewish and Christian Bibles contain traces of all forms of the +ancient Nature-worship, there is one form that is specially conspicuous +from the first chapter of Genesis to the last of Revelation—to wit, the +worship of the sun. + +This form of worship was more general among pagan nations than any +other. It was natural for those primitive people, leading pastoral lives +in the open air, to fix their attention upon the sun and to notice his +relations to other celestial orbs. It was natural for the contemplative +and devout to come to regard the sun as the best emblem of the creating, +animating, fecundating spirit of the universe, while the ignorant +multitude may never have looked beyond the material object. Those who +have read the history of the sun-worshippers of Mexico and Peru, +detailed in the great works of Prescott, must have been impressed by the +fact that these nations enjoyed a higher prosperity and a purer public +morality when they were worshippers of the sun than they have ever +enjoyed since under the Roman Catholic religion called Christian. + +To fully understand how the astronomical element came to be extensively +incorporated into the Jewish and Christian religions, it is absolutely +necessary to familiarize ourselves with that ancient pictorial device +known as the solar zodiac. + +Zodiac-1 + +Zodiac-2 + +This is nothing more than an imaginary belt covering that region of the +starry heavens within the bounds of which the apparent motions of the +sun, moon, and many other large planets are observed. It is divided into +twelve equal parts of thirty degrees each, called “signs,” known as +“constellations” and designated as follows: + +Aries, the Ram or Lamb; Taurus, the Bull; Gemini, the Twins; Cancer, the +Crab; Leo, the Lion; Virgo, the Virgin; Libra, the Balance; Scorpio, the +Scorpion; Sagittarius, the Archer; Capricornus, the Goat; Aquarius, the +Water-carrier; Pisces, the Fishes. + +These constellations are filled up with imaginary forms of men, women, +animals, monsters, and many fantastic figures, each including a group of +stars. In the ancient astronomy these groups numbered thirty-six, to +which many modern additions have been made. Through these constellations +passes a wavy line called the Ecliptic, apparently marking the path of +the sun, but really indicating the path of our own earth around the sun. +The sun seems to move thirty degrees a month, and at the end of the year +appears at the point from which he started. We thus have a natural belt +or way about sixteen degrees wide extending around the entire heavens, +one half the year north, and the other half south, of the equator. But +the sun does not cross the equator at the same point each year, so that +in crossing he is not always in the same sign. The sun seems to recede, +and as the apparent recession of the sun is caused by the real movement +of the earth, the phenomenal result is the precession of the equinoxes; +and as the equinoctial point recedes in a fixed ratio, this point will +go back through the whole circle of the constellations in about +twenty-five thousand years, requiring about twenty-one hundred and sixty +years to pass through each sign. According to the ancient astrology, the +sun assumed at different times the character of the particular sign +through which it passed, and as such was symbolically worshipped. Four +thousand years ago the sign Taurus gave rise to the worship of the Bull +(the Egyptian Apis); and when the sun passed into the sign of Aries the +Lamb, this emblem dominated the worship of Persians and other +sun-worshippers, and so became the paschal or passover lamb of the +ancient Hebrews. + +You will now begin to see what this zodiacal device has to do with our +interpretations of the Bible. The Jewish Scriptures also contain it, +and, as will soon be made to appear, it is impossible to make sense of +large portions of the Bible without it. + +Many superficial persons imagine this peculiar mapping of the celestial +heavens to be a modern fancy, because it is found in modern almanacs and +in the maps and charts of modern school-books; but the fact is that it +is so old and so universal that it is impossible to ascertain with +historical accuracy when and where and how it did originate. There are +two ancient zodiacs—one at Esne on the Nile, and one in India—besides +two more modern ones at Denderah in Egypt. Sir William Drummond, who +wrote in 1811, estimated the age of the one at Esne at about 6500 years; +Dupuis made it 1000 years older; while other calculations date the +Indian zodiac back 22,875 years, and the Egyptian one 30,100 years. +These calculations are based upon the assumption that the signs were in +a certain position at certain known times, so that the computation is +one of simple mathematical astronomy. The credibility of these +calculations is strengthened by the following fact: Upon the coffin of +an Egyptian mummy, now in the British Museum, is found a zodiac with the +precise indication of the position of the constellations in the year +1722 B. c. Our own Professor Mitchell calculated the exact position of +the celestial bodies belonging to our solar system at the time +indicated, and found that on October 7, 1722 B. c., the planets had +actually occupied the position in the heavens marked upon the mummy +coffin! + +But further proofs are superfluous, as the zodiacal designs must be much +older than the Bible or they could not have been so frequently used in +it. + +The Chaldean drama called the book of Job is supposed by some persons to +be very ancient, and its author showed his familiarity with the zodiacal +constellations when he so sublimely challenged his opponent: “Canst thou +bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?” +“Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth?” etc. etc. But can there be any doubt +as to the antiquity of the zodiac when there is an honored Protestant +doctor of divinity, now living, who holds to the opinion that Enoch, or +even Adam himself, invented the zodiac to foreshadow the redemption of +fallen man through the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of a +veritable God? Martin Luther is said to have thrown his inkstand at the +head of the devil. If the lusty old Reformer could now visit this world, +he would denounce in unmeasured terms of righteous wrath a man who under +the garb of a Lutheran minister could utter such consummate nonsense. +And yet we must not forget that Dr. Martin Luther himself denounced +Copernicus as an atheist and a fool. + +It is the misfortune of the prevalent dogmatic theology that it was +formed by people who held the _geocentric_ theory—that is, that this +little globe is the centre of the universe. Even now our professional +priests seldom extend their thoughts beyond the narrow limits of the +planet upon which we dwell. They do not realize that, while the earth +travels at the rate of 68,000 miles an hour, Mercury makes 110,000 miles +an hour, and that the sun has 1,380,000 times our earth’s bulk, and has +a diameter of 822,000 miles to our earth’s 8000; and that astronomers +have some knowledge of a fixed star in the constellation of the Swan +which is 62,481,500,000,000 (62 trillions 481 billions 500 millions) of +miles from this planet, and that light, which travels from the sun to +the earth in eight minutes, would require ten years to reach us from +that star. Yet the author of the _Gospel in the Stars_ thinks the whole +celestial universe was so constructed as to shadow forth the dogmas of +petty preachers of modern times! One can only laugh at such fanciful +follies. + + + + +CHAPTER VI. ASTRAL KEYS TO BIBLE STORIES + + +_“Therefore they took a key and opened them.”—Judg. 3: 25._ + + +IT is the carefully-formed conclusion of many independent thinkers that +there is very little real history or biography in the Old-Testament +Scriptures. It is a monstrous mistake in modern ministers to take as +literal what is, in fact, strictly allegorical. The figurative character +of most of the Bible narratives was well known and freely admitted by +many ancient writers, Jewish and Christian, as will be shown hereafter. + +It would be natural to commence our studies of Hebrew symbolism with the +account of the creation and alleged fall of man; but as this dogma is so +directly connected with the dogmas of modern sacerdotalism, we reserve +the examination of the so-called Mosaic account of Eden and the fall +until we are ready to enter upon what is called, in theological +parlance, “the redemptive scheme” of Christianity. We say so-called +Mosaic account, for there are many reasons for doubting, as I have +shown, that he wrote the Pentateuch, should his existence be admitted +for the sake of argument. Archbishop Burnet, in speaking of the story of +creation, says: “We receive this history without examination, because it +was written by Moses; but if we had found it in the work of a Greek +philosopher, a rabbi, or Mohammedan, our minds would be arrested at +every step by doubts and objections. This difference in our judgment +does not come from the nature of the facts; it comes from the opinion we +have of Moses, whom we believe to be inspired.” Here are three +assumptions not supported by a particle of evidence, to wit: that such a +man as Moses existed, that he was supernaturally inspired, and that he +wrote Genesis and other books of the Pentateuch under divine +inspiration. Now, we have no account of the real existence of Moses, and +no account of what he did and said except from writings accredited to +him and the incidental mention of him in the New Testament. His alleged +wonderful exploits in Egypt are not mentioned in Egyptian annals nor in +any other contemporaneous writings, while many things-said of him in the +Old Testament are substantially recorded of many other persons, as +already shown. + +There are many reasons for believing that Moses was a personification of +the sun and his whole history a myth. Observing persons cannot fail to +notice that all ancient paintings and statues of Moses represent him +with horns, probably originally denoting the rays of the sun when in the +constellation Taurus the Bull. The fact is well known that what is +called the history of the Jews is mainly fiction, and that, too, +borrowed from other peoples and modified to suit circumstances; and very +bungling work have they made of it. The sacerdotalists of the world may +be safely challenged to produce anything strictly original from the Old +Testament, especially relating to morals. The historian Josephus admits +that the Jews “never invented anything useful.” Even the writings of +Josephus should be received with many grains of allowance. He was +himself superstitious and credulous, as shown in his story of a heifer +giving birth to a lamb when being led from the temple stable to the +altar. Moreover, we have no ancient certified copies of what he did +actually write, and there is abundant evidence of alterations and +interpolations in his alleged writings by sacerdotalists in modern +times. There is no greater imposition palmed off upon the ignorant than +the commonly-believed falsehoods that the Jews were a very ancient +people and that their Scriptures are the oldest book extant. + +We now take up a few Bible stories, and give to them a symbolic instead +of an historic interpretation; and for obvious reasons we begin with the +alleged progenitor of the Jewish nation, _Abraham_. + +It may or may not be a mere coincidence that by transposing the letters +of the name Abraham we have the name Brahma—just as in the old legend of +the sacrifice of the daughter of Agamemnon, Iphthi-genia, if we divide +the syllables into words, Iphthi-geni, we have literally Jephthah’s +daughter; so, after all, it may be greatly to the credit of Jephthah +that the story is fabulous. These curious coincidences are not here +offered as evidence. It is acknowledged, at least by implication, in the +Bible itself that the story of Abraham is of Chaldean origin, as his +father Terah was a native of Ur of the Chaldees and the alleged +patriarch was a Chaldean. Now, these people were great astronomers in +very ancient times, and were accustomed to veil their occult science +under just such allegorical personifications and fabulous tales as this +of Abraham. Paul, or whoever wrote the Epistle credited to him, lets out +the whole secret (Gal. 4: 22-26): “For it is written Abraham had two +sons, one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of +the bondwoman was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by +promise; _which things are an allegory,_” etc. Now, if you carefully +read the apostolic explanation in these verses, you will notice that the +two sons of Abraham are two covenants, and the bondmaid Hagar represents +an Arabian mountain, which by a magical change becomes the same as the +city of Jerusalem. The name Abram signifies the “Father of Elevation,” +which is the astronomical distinction of the planet Saturn, the +exaltation of which, with its devious ways, well represents the alleged +history of its prototype. The word _Chasdim_, translated _Chaldees_, +literally means _light_, and is a professional not a geographical name, +and probably refers to the art of magic and the work of astrologers; so +that it is more than probable that Abram was not a person, any more than +Chasdim was a place. There are many references in the Scriptures which +favor this interpretation, but which cannot here be mentioned. Even in +the _Lord’s Prayer_, found in Jewish rituals long before the Christian +era, there are evidences that it was first addressed to Saturn. There +never was any form of religious worship which did not contain an +expression equivalent to _Our Father who art in heaven_. Even Jupiter +means _Our Father in the sky_. + +The name of Abram has many variations, and there is an important sense +in which he may be called “the father of many nations.” He was the +Esrael of the Chaldeans, the Israel of the Phœnicians, as the historian +Sanchoniathon distinctly alleges that their name for Saturn was Israel: +the names Abraham and Israel are used interchangeably in both the Old +and New Testaments, and among the Hindoos, the Greeks, the Persians, and +other nations he was the god Saturnus of the whole pagan world. Even +upon the dials of our “grandfathers’ clocks,” cherished in many families +as heirlooms in our day, his memory is kept green by the figure of the +god of Time. Scores of other similitudes between Saturn and Abraham +could here be introduced did space permit. Suffice it to say, Saturn in +fable married his own sister, who was a star; and so did Abraham, and +the name of his wife signifies a star. Both had many sons, but each had +a favorite son, and Saturn called his _Jeoud_, which implies an only +son, as Abraham so regarded Isaac. A learned English scholar has +suggested that the name “Jeoud” is the real origin of the name “Jew,” +and he assigns several philological and historical reasons for his +theory. It is certain in the minds of many profound and independent +investigators that the Jewish tribes originated in Arabia, and were +originally a mere religious order, and that their so-called history is +largely fabulous, and that their exodus is a comparatively modern novel +with an ancient date, as has been shown. + +Let us now take the best-remembered incident in the life of Abraham, the +attempted murder and the rescue of his son Isaac, and see what will come +of applying the symbolic instead of the literal interpretation to it. + +Let it be noted that this is not an original story. The ancient Hindoos +have one like it. King Haris-candra had no son. He prayed for one, and +promised that if one should be born to him he would sacrifice him to the +gods. One was born, and he named him Rohita. One day his father told him +of his promise to Varuna to offer him in sacrifice. The son bought a +substitute, and when he was about to be immolated he was marvellously +rescued. Then there is the well-known similar story written by the +Phœnician Sanchoniathon + +thirteen hundred years before our era. Then there is the Grecian story +of Agamemnon, to whom, when about to sacrifice his daughter, a stag was +furnished by a goddess as a substitute. There is another Grecian fable +in which a maiden was about to be sacrificed, and as the priest uplifted +his knife to shed her blood the victim suddenly disappeared, and a goat +of uncommon beauty stood in her place as a substitute. Another story +runs thus: In Sparta the maiden Helena was about to be immolated on the +altar of the gods, when an eagle carried off the knife of the priest and +laid it upon the neck of a heifer, which was sacrificed in her stead. +Similar stories might be produced from among many nations in the most +ancient times, long before the Jews picked this up in Babylon and +rewrote it, with modifications, so as to apply it to their mythical +progenitor; for this fable of Abraham’s offering was not written until +after their return from their Babylonish captivity—much nearer our own +time than is generally suspected. + +Regarded as an historic account of a real transaction, this story of the +attempted sacrifice of a beloved son by a venerable father is shocking +in the extreme, dishonoring alike to God and to Abraham. A good God +could not have done such an unnatural and cruel thing. He had no +occasion to try Abraham to find out how much faith he had. He knew that +already. Regarded as an astrological allegory, it is ingenious and +contains a moral lesson, to wit: obedience to the voice of God and the +hope of deliverance in the hour of extreme emergency. The defect in the +story is, that God could trifle with a loving child, and pretend to +require him to break one of his own commandments, “Thou shalt not kill,” +and subject him to its own penalty, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man +shall his blood be shed.” It would not have availed Abraham to plead +that God told him to murder his son, any more than it availed the +Pocasset crank when he pleaded that God had directed him to murder his +little daughter. The State of Massachusetts sent the semi-lunatic to a +safe place of confinement. This story of Abraham and Isaac has led to +scores and scores of murders of children by their fathers, just as the +passage in the Old Testament, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” +has been pleaded in justification of the cool, deliberate murder of +multitudes of men, women, and children on the charge of witchcraft. + +The literal interpretation of what is called infallible Scripture has +been the most bitter curse to deluded, priest-ridden humanity. It is the +“stock in trade” of ignorant and selfish ecclesiastics to-day. + +Let us look a little more closely at this Abraham-and-Isaac myth. +Abraham was the personification of Saturn, the god of Time, while Isaac +was the personification of the Sun. Abraham took Isaac up to +Hebron—which means _union or alliance_, and clearly indicates a union of +the ecliptic and equinoctial line—the very point at which the Ram of the +vernal equinox passed by, or, as might be poetically said, was caught in +a cloud or bush; so that the whole story was written long ages before in +the celestial heavens, and emblazoned in the skies at the return of each +vernal equinox. Writers on astro-theology point out details at great +length to support the symbolic interpretation, but it is enough for pur +purpose to merely give the keynote. Let the fact be specially noted that +the names of the patriarchs have an astrological meaning, + +and that the twelve sons of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, who became +the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel, have distinctly astrological +characters, fully indicated in Jacob’s dying blessing on his sons (Gen. +49) and in the corresponding “Song of Moses” (Deut. 33), on the banner +carried by the different tribes in their mythical march from Egypt to +Canaan; and that on the breastplate of the officiating high priest the +jewels correspond to the celestial signs of the solar zodiac; and +although Jacob had children by several different women and was a +first-class Mormon, his twelve sons are made to correspond with the +twelve months of the year and the twelve signs of the zodiac. This fact +is admitted by the orthodox author of _The Gospel in the Stars_. His +daughters are not considered worthy of notice, as that would have +spoiled the riddle. The philology and etymology of the name _Jacob_ has +suggestions of the serpent; and from his history he must have been a +snaky fellow from the first to the last. He was born with his hand upon +his brother’s “heel,” and he managed to cheat him out of his share of +his mother’s affections, and lied to his father, and conspired with his +mother to rob Esau, his brother, of his “blessing.” The stories of Laban +and Leah and Rachel all conform to the symbolic rather than the literal +hypothesis, as well as Jacob’s vision of the ladder, and his +wrestling-match with the angel, when he openly obtained the astrological +name of the children of Saturn—Israel. It must be admitted that the +allegorical hypothesis relieves the patriarchs of the charge of many +mean things, such as the heartless manner in which Abram treated Hagar +when Sarah got jealous, and the manner in which he treated Sarah herself +when he lied to the king through a selfish cowardice and gave his wife +over to the lusts of the monarch Abimelech, who was (or one bearing his +name) deceived by Isaac in regard to Rebekah by a similar trick (Gen. +26:1). Lot, the nephew of Abraham, was guilty of a meaner and more +unmanly act when he himself proposed to give over his two virgin +daughters to the worse than beastly lusts of a howling mob, to protect +two angels who were guests at his tent (Gen. 19:1-11). + +But theologians will never willingly admit that the Abraham of Genesis +was a myth. They well know the logical conclusion. They would have to +give up the “Abrahamic covenant,” which is the basis of sacerdotalism. +When Professor Driver, of the orthodox University of Oxford, recently +admitted only by implication that Abraham may have had no real personal +existence, and claimed that such hypothesis would not be injurious to +religion, his article was rejected and suppressed by the editor of an +orthodox paper in Philadelphia as dangerous. But to assume that all the +principal actors of Genesis and some other books were impersonations, +not persons, would not destroy the good things they are alleged to have +said and done. It is no more necessary to insist upon the real +personality of Abraham than to insist upon the literal existence of +Faithful and Great-Heart and other impersonations in _Pilgrim’s +Progress_. Nobody insists that the characters in the parables accredited +to Jesus must be taken in a literal sense. And yet it may be admitted +that the fictions of Scripture may have been suggested by some persons +and facts, just as in modern novels there generally is some person who +stands for the original of the story. This is eminently so in the novels +of Dickens and D’Israeli. Nevertheless, it is difficult to doubt that +the principal characters of the Old Testament are mythical, pure and +simple, as we find the originals in the older scriptures of different +nations, confessedly founded upon the solar and other forms of +Nature-worship. The feet is, that the only rational way to explain the +marvellous stories of the Hebrew Scriptures is by the well-known methods +of ancient symbolism. + +Let us now merely glance at some other Old-Testament fables. + +_Noah_ and his Deluge are mainly mythical, as this story is almost a +literal copy of the Chaldean, though found substantially in the writings +of many other nations. It readily fits the allegorical method of +interpretation in almost every particular. The Chaldean account as +written by Berosus, and found recently by the late George Smith of the +British Museum on the clay tablets, is so much like the story in Genesis +that the latter must have been copied from the former; and the slight +variations in the two narratives are no greater than might have been +expected as between Chaldea and Palestine. The Jews obtained it from +Babylon, as there is no mention made of this miracle in any book of the +Bible written before the Captivity. The books of Psalms, Proverbs, +Chronicles, Judges, Kings, etc. are silent on this subject. Josephus +defended the Noachian Deluge on the sole ground that an account of it +was held by the Chaldeans, never pretending that the Chaldean account +was taken from the Jewish record. + +But it is useless to dwell on the story of a universal deluge of water. +It is in the light of modern science physically impossible and absurd; +and such men as Buckland, Pye Smith, Hugh Miller, and Hitchcock, with +many other distinguished Christian scientists, give up the doctrine of a +universal deluge while claiming a partial one. And here, again, the +ancient astronomy comes in with an explanation of partial floods of +waters by the natural results of the “precession of the equinoxes,” in +which, at certain periods during the change of the polar axis of the +earth, great physical convulsions must follow, with wide eruptions of +water, making a partial overflow and suggesting the idea of a universal +deluge. Four such cataclysms must have occurred while the sun was making +one journey through the twelve zodiacal constellations. Prof. Huxley has +recently well said: “But the voice of archæology and historical +criticism still has to be heard, and it gives forth no uncertain sound. +The marvellous recovery of the records of an antiquity far superior to +any that can be ascribed to the Pentateuch, which has been effected by +the decipherers of cuneiform characters, has put us in possession of a +series once more, not of speculations, but of facts, which has a most +remarkable bearing upon the question of the trustworthiness of the +narrative of the Flood. It is established that for centuries before the +asserted migration of Terah from Ur of the Chaldees (which, according to +the orthodox interpreters of the Pentateuch, took place after the year +2000 b. c.) Lower Mesopotamia was the seat of a civilization in which +art and science and literature had attained a development formerly +unsuspected, or, if there were faint reports of it, treated as fabulous. +And it is also no matter of speculation, but a fact, that the libraries +of this people contain versions of a long epic poem, one of the twelve +books of which tells the story of a deluge which in a number of its +leading features corresponds to the story attributed to Berosus, no less +than with the story given in Genesis, with curious exactnesss. + +“Looking at the convergence of all these lines of evidence leads to the +one conclusion—that the story of the Flood in Genesis is merely a +version of one of the oldest pieces of purely fictitious literature +extant; that whether this is or is not its origin, the events asserted +in it to have taken place assuredly never did take place; further, that +in point of fact the story in the plain and logically necessary sense of +its words has long since been given up by orthodox and conservative +commentators of the Established Church.” + +The only rational interpretation of the extraordinary stories of the +Pentateuch and other scriptures is to regard them as mythical and +allegorical, borrowed from the astrological systems of more ancient +peoples. It is very difficult to present within the limits here allowed +what has grown into ponderous volumes in elucidating the matter in hand. + +The story of Jonah and the Fish, taken as a literal story, is +incredible, though the notorious Brooklyn preacher thinks that it must +be literally true, as that God might have so diluted the gastric juice +in the stomach of the fish as to make Jonah quite indigestible! This +whole story is found in earlier pagan writings, and is fully explained +by the astronomical phenomena. The earth is a huge fish in the ancient +mythology, and on December the 21st the sun (Jonah, the type) sinks into +its dark belly, and after three days—to wit, December 25th—it comes +forth. The Sun-god is on dry land again. + +There is a Hindoo fable much like this. In Grecian fable Hercules was +swallowed by a whale at Joppa, and is said to have lain three days in +his entrails. The Sun was called _Jona_, as can be shown from many +authorities. The nursery-tale of “Little Red Riding-Hood” was also a +sun-myth, mutilated in the English story, showing how the _Sun_ was +devoured by the _Black Wolf_ (Night), and came out unhurt. Scores of +similar sun-myths could be narrated. + +But there are geographical inaccuracies which show its mythical +character. Instead of Nineveh being “three days’ journey” from the coast +where Jonah was vomited out, it is distant some four hundred miles of +hill and plain, and the size of the city was not twenty by twelve miles, +but more nearly eight by three miles. Moreover, the city showed no signs +of decay till about two hundred and fifty years after the alleged +warning of Jonah. It is truly astounding that intelligent men can be so +blind. It was recently admitted by high Christian authority that there +is not a particle of proof for this story except that Jesus had referred +to Jonah as being “three days and nights in the whale’s belly.” If Jesus +did say this, he used it as an illustration. He probably stated a +current tradition, if he said it at all. + +Let us now try our key in the closet-door of the Samson story. + +According to the Bible account, Samson performed twelve principal +exploits; and if you will turn to any good dictionary of mythology you +will find a wonderful likeness to the twelve labors of Hercules in the +Greek myth of the Sun. Time can be taken to examine only one—the cutting +off of Samson’s hair while reposing in the lap of Delilah, and the +consequent loss of his strength. Professor Goldhizer says: “Long locks +of hair and a long beard are mythological attributes of the sun.”... +“When the powerful summer’s sun is succeeded by the weak rays of the +winter’s sun, its strength departs.” But as the sun becomes ascendant +again he renews his strength, just as Samson’s strength returned when +his hair grew out again. The seven locks represent the seven planetary +worlds. The constellation Virgo represents Samson’s wife; and Delilah, +in whose lap he dallied and lost his strength, represents the months of +autumn, before the winter came to hand him over to the Philistines, the +dreary time of the winter months. The story of Samson is found in the +sun-myths of all the Sun-worship-ping nations, and the story of Hercules +was known in an island colony of the Phœnicians five hundred years +before it was known in Greece; and the story is almost as old as +humanity itself. The very name Samson (or Samp-shon) in some languages +means the sun; and there is not an exploit recorded of him that does not +yield to the solar interpretation; and when modern ministers undertake +to explain how Samson caught three hundred foxes and set fire to their +tails, they never think to mention (if they happen to know it) that in +the ancient festival of Ceres a fox-hunt was enacted in the theatres of +Rome in which burning torches were bound to the foxes’ tails. We have an +explanation of this from Prof. Steinthal: “This was a symbolical +reminder of the damage done to the fields by mildew, called the ’red +fox’ in the last of April. It was at the time of the _Dog Star_ at which +the mildew was most to be feared; and if at that time great solar heat +followed too close upon the hoar-frost or dew of the cold nights, the +mischief raged like a burning fox through the corn-fields. Like the +lion, the fox is an animal that indicates the solar heat, being well +suited both by its color and long-haired tail.” Bou-chart gives a +similar explanation and application, and so do many other writers. It +remains for ministers of this nineteenth century to dole out the ancient +fables of the past as literal history to the grown-up children of +to-day. The story of Samson in all its details yields to the key of +ancient symbolism. Why not admit the fact that this is a solar myth, and +thus get clear of all the blasphemy and absurdities of a literal +interpretation? + +The incredibly absurd story of Joshua’s commanding the sun to stand +still for several hours has a rational explanation, regarded as a myth, +well known to initiates to set forth the correction of the calendar, so +as to make different periods correspondras one stops a clock to make it +agree with the ringing of the standard time by the town bell. There are +scores of parallels in ancient history. + +Regard Solomon as a sun-myth, and you have no difficulty about the size +of his family. The seven hundred wives and the three hundred concubines +represented so many stars. Even the narratives of David’s exploits with +the five kings, his “unpleasantness” with Saul, and his dalliance and +intrigue with Bathsheba yield to the astro-mythological key. + +The same is true of the story of the two she-bears that ate up the +forty-two children who called shorn Elisha “bald-head.” The prophet was +the Sun, denuded of his curls at a certain astronomical period; the two +bears were the constellations _Ursa Major and Ursa Minor_, the great +bear and the little bear; and the forty-two children were a group of +stars covered by the two bears, so that, figuratively, it might be said +they were “eaten up.” And yet the late Dr. Nehemiah Adams of Boston once +exclaimed: “I believe that the forty-two children who made fun of the +bald head of the prophet of God are now in hell.” He once wrote an +admirable book entitled _Agnes; or, The Little Key,_ but he failed to +find the skeleton key to unlock the solar fable of the prophet, the +saucy little children, and the voracious bears. + +Within the last few months Philadelphia has been the scene of a most +imposing ecclesiastical ceremony—the investiture of the Roman Catholic +archbishop with the pallium, a narrow band or sash made from wool grown +upon white lambs that had been blessed by the Pope on St. Agnes’ Day. We +heard the eloquent sermon of the archbishop of New York, and he +commenced his plausible discourse by tracing the pallium to the mantle +that fell from Elijah upon Elisha, the summer and winter sun, and was +worn by him after the translation of Elijah. But we try our skeleton +key, and find that Elijah represented the ascending summer sun, and +Elisha the sun of autumn; and when Elijah gained the greatest height, of +course his lessened rays, well called a “mantle,” fell upon the +bald-headed man representing the autumn. This is the whole story in +plain language, and this is the kind of stuff that ecclesiastical +man-millinery is made of. The crowd stared with admiration and wonder, +just as children are amused with their doll-babies, who are “sick” or +“well,” “naughty” or “good,” according to the whims of the “little +women” who dress and nurse them. There is a doll-baby period in every +child’s history, and it may be necessary to have a doll-baby period in +religion; but it does seem to some of us that it is about time for +full-grown women and men to doff their bibs and aprons, lay aside their +doll-babies and other ecclesiastical toys, and act as becomes men and +women of full growth. Even Paul said, “When I was a child, I spake as a +child, I understood as a child; but when I became a man, I put away +childish things.” It has been well said by a judicious writer: +“Intelligent readers, except revelationists, well know that the Hebrew +fables are myths which teem with history of a kind, if we can only +separate the wheat from the chaff. So also is the story of the Creation +in Genesis. We have a very valuable myth, though a purely phallic tale, +such as East Indians—and perhaps they only—can thoroughly comprehend. + +“We would not seek to detract from the great value of myths, for, +besides their own intrinsic worth, these stories also exhibit to us many +phases of ancient life and thought. Myths may be regarded as history +which we have not yet been able to read. We should not discard as untrue +or unhistorical any tale, biblical or other, as implying that it is +false and unworthy of consideration. On the contrary, we cannot too +earnestly and patiently ponder over every ancient tale, legend, or myth, +as they all have some foundation and instructive lesson. Whenever an +important myth has existed an important fact has doubtless been its +basis.” + + + + +CHAPTER VII. THE FABLE OF THE FALL + + +_“And calleth those things which be not as though they were.”—Rom. +4:17._ + + +THE prevailing belief of Christendom to-day is, that about six thousand +years ago, somewhere in Asia, the Supreme Creator took common clay and +moulded it into the form of a man, somewhat as a sculptor forms the +model from which the marble statue is to be constructed, and when shaped +to his liking he breathed into the clay model the breath of life, and it +became a living soul. This miraculous work is believed to have been +begun and completed on a particular day; so that in the morning the +earth contained not a man, but in the afternoon the full-grown, bearded +man stood up in his majesty and assumed supremacy over all living +things. This godlike man finding himself lonely, the Creator put him to +sleep, and opened his side and took therefrom a rib, out of which he +formed a woman, who was to be a companion, a wife, to the man; and from +this particular couple have come, by ordinary generation, all the people +dwelling upon the face of the earth. They are said to have been perfect, +but, unfortunately for their progeny, this perfection did not long +continue. Before they were blest with offspring they lost their +Creator’s favor by eating fruit from a forbidden tree, and became +fearfully demoralized, and, instead of begetting children endowed with +their own angelic qualities, they became the unhappy parents of a race +of moral monsters, of which we are all degraded and degenerate +descendants. + +The sacerdotal story of the fall of Adam and Eve is based upon the +assumption that it is to be received as literal history, revealed by the +Creator and written down in a book by a man specially chosen and +plenarily inspired; so that there can be no error or mistake in the +record. To question this narrative in its literal sense is most impious, +and subjects the doubter to the charge of favoring infidelity. + +While persons “professing and calling themselves Christians” cannot +agree regarding many things deemed by them matters of vital importance, +the fall of man is a matter in which they are fully agreed. The great +basic dogma which underlies all modern systems of theology, Romish and +Protestant, is the utter depravity of the human race through the fall of +Adam, dooming a large majority of the human family to eternal +punishment. + +How evil came into the world has been the most perplexing problem of the +ages. Before it the most gigantic minds have been covered with confusion +and paralyzed with doubt. Why sin and suffering should have been +permitted, not to say created, has never been made clear to the human +reason by any system of theology, Romish or Protestant. A few years ago +Dr. Edward Beecher published a book entitled _The Conflict of Ages_. +When reviewed by Dr. Charles Hodge in the _Princeton Review_ he entitled +his paper “Beecher’s Conflict;” but it was rightly called _The Conflict +of Ages_; it was not “Beecher’s Conflict,” and the explanation given by +theology only involves the question in greater doubt and difficulty. + +From the first dawning of human reason, even in the mind of inquisitive +childhood, questions like these have been revolved, if not formulated: +Did not God know, when he made Adam and Eve, that they would fall? Why, +then, did he create them? Why did he create a subtle serpent to tempt +them? Why did he create a tree the fruit of which was forbidden? Why did +he make the possible everlasting ruin of innumerable unborn mortals +depend on such a trivial act as the eating of a certain apple? Why did +he not destroy Adam and Eve after their first act of disobedience, and +thus prevent them from propagating a faithless progeny, which should +increase in geometrical progression until the number should be so great +as to exhaust calculation with weariness, stagger reason itself, and +transcend even the powers of the loftiest imagination to conceive? Why +are the teeming millions of the children of Adam held virtually +responsible for this single trivial act of disobedience by an unknown +remote ancestor myriads of ages ago? How could all men sin in him and +fall with him in the first transgression? How could the guilt of Adam’s +sin be imputed to his children? + +The circumstances connected with the degradation of man are so +extraordinary that it is not unreasonable to inquire whether the +narrative of the fall is a matter of supernatural revelation based upon +an historic occurrence, or whether it is purely mythical, portraying the +conceptions of the human mind as to the origin of evil at some remote +period of the world’s childhood. For the support of the dogma of total +depravity through the fall of Adam theologians rely primarily upon the +account in the book of Genesis. It is a notable fact that Adam and Eve +are not historically recognized in any other portion of the Old +Testament, and their very existence was totally ignored by the Teacher +of Nazareth, if the Gospels said to contain the only report of his +teachings are to be credited. Nobody pretends that Moses, the doubtful +author of the Pentateuch, wrote from personal knowledge; but it is +claimed that he wrote under inspiration of God, though there is not a +single intimation in Genesis or any other book that he was so inspired, +or that God had anything more to do with his writings than he had with +the writings of Homer, Herodotus, or John Milton. But the assumption +that the dogma of the fall through the sin of Adam was first revealed to +Moses—at most not more then eight or nine hundred years before the +Christian era—is plainly exploded by the fact that this story existed +among many nations centuries and centuries before Moses is said to have +been born or the writing called Genesis existed. + +It is not within the lines of our general purpose to here give in detail +the numerous legends—substantially the same, though differing in +particulars—regarding the introduction of sin into this world, found in +the writings of Hindoos, Persians, Etruscans, Phœnicians, Babylonians, +Chaldeans, Egyptians, Thibetans, and others. Any man who would now dare +to deny this statement regarding the prevalence of the story of the fall +centuries before the writing of Genesis existed would justly subject +himself to the charge of ignorance or dishonesty. + +Dr. Inman states that Adam is the Phallus and Eve the Yoni—in other +words, that Adam and Eve signify the same idea as Abraham and Sara, +Jacob and Leah, man and woman; thus embodying in the Hebrew the Hindoo +notion that all things sprang from Mahadeva and his Sacti, my lady Sara. +This deduction enables us at once to recognize, as did the early +Christians, the mythical character of the account of the fall; and we +must conclude that the story means that the male and female lived +happily together so long as each was without passion for the other, but +that when a union took place between them the woman suffered all the +miseries inseparable from pregnancy, and the man had to toil for a +family, whereas he had previously only thought of himself. The serpent +is the emblem of “desire,” indicated by the man and recognized by the +woman. “There is a striking resemblance between the Hindoo and Hebrew +myths. The first tells us that Mahadeva was the primary Being, and from +him arose the ‘Sacti.’ The second makes Adam the original, and Eve the +product of his right side—an idea which is readily recognizable in the +word _Benjamin_. After the creation, the Egyptian, Vedic, and Jewish +stories all place the woman beside a citron or pomegranate tree, or one +bearing both fruits; near this is a cobra or asp, the emblem of male +desire, because these serpents can inflate or erect themselves at will.” + +General Forlong thus discourses upon this subject: “Most cosmogonies +relate a phallic tale of two individuals Adam and Eve, meeting in a +garden of delight (Gan-Eden), and then being seduced by a serpent Ar +(Ar-i-man), Hoa, Op, or Orus, to perform the generative act, which it is +taught led to sin and trouble, and this long before we hear of a +spiritual god or of solar deities. These cosmogonies narrate a contest +between man and Nature, in which the former fell, and must ever fall, +for the laws of Sol and his seasons none can resist.”... “The Jews +learned most of their faith and fables from the great peoples of the +East; especially did they get the two cosmogonies, and that solar fable, +mixed with truth, of a serpent tempting a woman with the fruit of a +tree, of course in the fading or autumnal equinox, when only fruit +exists and all creation tries to save itself by shielding all the stores +of nature from the fierce onslaughts of angry Typhon when entering on +his dreary winter. The Gan-Eden fable was clearly an attempt by +Zoroastrians to explain to outsiders the difficult philosophical problem +of the origin of man and of good and evil. Mithras, they said—and the +Jews followed suit—is the good God, the incarnation of God, who dwells +in the beauteous orb of day; to which Christian Jews added that he was +born of a virgin in a cave which he illuminated.” + +“The tree of life mentioned in Gen. 3: 22 certainly appears,” says Mr. +Smith (Chal. Acct, p. 88), “to correspond to the sacred grove of Anu, +which a later fragment of the creation-tablets states was guarded by a +sword turning to all the four points of the compass; and there too we +have allusions to a thirst for knowledge, having been the cause of man’s +fall; the gods curse the dragon and Adam for the transgression. This +Adam was one of the Zalmat-qaqadi, or dark men, created by Hea or +Nin-Si-ku, a name pointing to Hea being a Nin or Creator, while Adam is +called Adami or Admi, the present Eastern term for man and the lingam, +and no proper name.” The impression that I get from the legends of +Izdubar, or the Flood, or even the creation-tablets, is simply that +these were religious revivals. Nearly every illustration of Mr. Smith’s +last volume shows the serpent as an evil influence. Now, if I am +right—and all I have read elsewhere tends to the same conclusion—then +all the tales as to a temptation by a serpent, a fall, are phallo-pythic +transmutations of faith, and have no more connection with the first +creation of man upon earth than have the flood, the ark, or +mountain-worship of Jews in the desert, or the destruction of Pytho by +Apollo in the early days of Delphi, etc. + +“The tree and serpent,” says Fergusson, “are symbolized in every +religious system which the world has known, not excepting the Hebrew and +Christian, The two together are typical of the reproductive powers of +vegetable and animal life. It is uncertain whether the Jewish tree of +life was borrowed from the Egyptians or Chaldeans; but the meaning was +in both cases the same, and we know that the Assyrian tree was a +life-giving divinity. And Moses, or the writer of Genesis, has +represented very much the same in his coiled serpent and love-apples, or +citrons, of the tree of life. + +“The writer of Genesis probably drew his idea of the two trees, that of +life and that of knowledge, from Egyptian and Zoroastrian story; for +criticism now assigns a comparatively late date to the writing of the +first Pentateuchal book. After Genesis no further notice is taken in the +Bible of the tree of knowledge. But that of life, or the tree which +gives life, seems several times alluded to, especially in Rev. 2: 7. The +lingam or pillar is the Eastern name for the tree which gives life. But +when this tree became covered with the inscriptions of all the past +ages, as in Egypt, then Toth, the Pillar, came to be called the tree of +knowledge.” + +But it must not be supposed that all Christian theologians of the +present day hold the historical and literal truth of the legend of the +fall of Adam. In several of the public libraries of Philadelphia may be +found a book entitled _Beginnings of History_, written by a learned +professor of Archaeology at the National Library of France—Professor +François Lenormant. It was republished by Scribner, New York, in 1886, +with an introduction by Francis Brown, associate professor of Biblical +Philology in the Presbyterian Union Theological Seminary of New York. It +is written from a Christian standpoint, and the writer is a firm +defender of the infallibility of the Hebrew Scriptures, and can never be +suspected of having any sympathy with modern rationalism. He not only +admits that the Edenic story of the introduction of sin, found in +Genesis, is a compilation made up from the Shemitic traditions of +Babylonians, Phœnicians, and other pagan peoples, but he has covered +page after page with proofs of this fact by learned and accurate +quotations from their numerous legends. He puts in the common plea of +lawyers, known as _confession and avoidance_, and takes the ground that +“the writer of the Hebrew Genesis took these fables from floating +tradition as he found them, and cleansed them of their impurities, +altered their polytheistic tendencies, made them monotheistic, and +otherwise so transformed them as to make them fit vehicles of spiritual +instruction by the Divine Spirit which inspired him.” + +This is an ingenious device, but it will hardly satisfy sound thinkers. +The question is, whether the story of Adam is historical truth or pagan +fiction. The highest scholarship pronounces it fiction, while certain +orthodox writers admit the fact “that God used prevailing but unreal +fancies to teach important truths.” + +The document in which the story of the fall is found is a confused, +inconsistent, and absurd compilation by at least two different writers, +representing each a different God, Jehovah and Elohim, the writers +contradicting each other in many particulars; and this feet is admitted +by candid Christian writers, and by none more frankly than the late Dean +Stanley of the English Establishment. The first account of creation ends +at the third verse of Gen. 2, and the second account begins with the +fourth verse and closes with the end of that chapter. In the first +account the man and woman are created together on the sixth and last day +of creation (Gen. 1:28). In the second account the beasts and birds are +created after the creation of the man and before the creation of the +woman; and it was not until after Adam had examined and named all the +beasts of the fields, and had failed to find among the apes, +chimpanzees, and ourangs a suitable companion for himself, that Eve was +made from one of Adam’s ribs, taken from his primeval anatomy while +under the influence of a divine anaesthetic (Gen. 2:7, 8, 15, 22). In +the first account man was made on the last day, and woman was made at +the same time; in the second account man was made after the plants and +herbs, but before fruit trees, beasts, and birds. So it would seem that, +inasmuch as woman was made after all things, she was an afterthought, a +sort of necessary evil for the solace and comfort of man. These +contradictions run through the whole of the first and second chapters of +Genesis, and plainly show that these narratives were compiled by two +different persons from vague traditions or from different written +documents. Had the Creator undertaken to write or dictate an account of +his own work, he certainly would not have contradicted himself six times +within the limit of a few lines. + +The credibility of the document in which is found the account of the +fall is further impaired by the fact that it contains statements openly +at variance with the demonstrations of science. It teaches not only that +the world was made in six days of twenty-four hours each, but that the +whole planetary system was made in a single day. “He made the stars +also.” The discoveries of modern science have lately driven our +sacerdotalists to a new and absurd interpretation of the story of +creation by alleging that the six days spoken of were not periods of +twenty-four hours each, but six indefinite periods of very long +duration. But it would be easy to furnish numerous admissions of +orthodox scholars that the six days of the creative week were intended +by the writers to describe ordinary days, of twenty-four hours each, and +not indefinite periods. Any other interpretation Professor Hitchcock has +pronounced “forced and unnatural, and therefore not to be adopted +without a very urgent necessity.” The venerable Moses Stuart, long +professor of Biblical Literature in the Andover Theological Seminary, +says: “When the sacred writer in Gen. 1 says the first day, the second +day, etc., there can be no possible doubt—none, I mean, for a +philologist, let a geologist think as he may—that a definite day of the +week is meant. What puts this beyond all question,” the learned +theologian adds, “is that the writer says specifically ‘the evening and +the morning were the first day,’ ‘the second day,’ etc. Now, is an +evening and a morning a period of some thousands of years?... If Moses +has given us an erroneous account of the creation, so be it. Let it come +out and let us have the whole truth.” The fact is, that the +indefinite-period hypothesis does not, after all the quirks and special +pleadings, overcome the difficulty. The question arises, Why six +indefinite periods? One indefinite period is as long as six or sixty. +There is nothing in geology to indicate six periods. One need only +consider the attempt to reconcile Genesis and geology to plainly see +that the Mosaic record was intended to be taken in its obvious sense. +The forced interpretations put upon the Hebrew story to make it appear +to be historical and literal truth make it more absurd than it would +otherwise appear. Think of Adam created (according to one account) on +the second day, and Eve on the sixth day, and then accept the hypothesis +that these creative days represent indefinite periods of thousands, if +not millions, of years to each day, so that four indefinite periods of +thousands of years passed away before Adam had his Eve to be his +helpmeet, and what a long, lonely time he must have had! Then how small +the human census must have been for unnumbered ages, and how strange the +fact that the same writer says that Adam “lived nine hundred and thirty +years, and he died;” that is to say, he died several hundred thousand +years before the rib was taken from his side to make him a wife! + +But the fact must be emphasized that it is quite useless to criticise +the so-called Mosaic narrative of the fall, because it is acknowledged +to be a huge myth or allegory by the best scholarship of modern times. +The Christian author of the _Beginnings of History_ has with profound +research actually produced and printed the stories of many ancient +peoples in contrast with the narrative in Genesis. He says in the +preface to his book: “This is the problem which I have been led to +examine in comparing the narrations of the Sacred Book with those +current long ages before the time of Moses among nations whose +civilization dated back into the remote past, with whom Israel was +surrounded, from among whom it came out. As far as I myself am +concerned, the conclusion from this study is not doubtful. That which we +read in the first chapter of Genesis is not an account dictated by God +himself, the possession of which was the exclusive privilege of the +chosen people. It is a tradition whose origin is lost in the night of +the remotest ages, and which all the great nations of Western Asia +possessed in common, with some variations. The very form given it in the +Bible is so closely related to that which has been lately discovered in +Babylon and Chaldea, it follows so exactly the same course, that it is +quite impossible for me to doubt any longer. + +The school of Alexandria in general, and Origen in particular, in the +first centuries of the Church interpreted the first chapters of Genesis +in the allegorical sense; in the sixteenth century the great Cardinal +Cajetan revived this system, and, bold as it may appear, it has never +been the object of any ecclesiastical censure.” + +It is well understood among men of learning that the whole story of +Eden, the talking serpent, and the sinning woman is a myth, and that all +nations of sun-worshippers have had substantially the same legend, and +their priests, poets, and philosophers have not hesitated to acknowledge +among themselves its fabulous character. That early Jewish and Christian +writers freely admitted the allegorical character of the narrative +ascribed to Moses is well known. Maimonides, a learned Jewish rabbi, +said: “One ought not to understand nor take according to the letter that +which is written in the Book of the Creation, nor have the ideas +concerning it that most men have, otherwise our ancient sages would not +have recommended us to carefully conceal the sense of it, and on no +account to raise the allegorical veil which conceals the truth it +contains. Taken according to the letter, this work gives the most absurd +and extravagant idea of divinity. Whoever shall discover the true sense +of it ought to be careful not to divulge it.” Philo, the great Jewish +authority, took the same ground, and wrote mainly to show the +allegorical character of all the sacred books. Josephus held similar +views, and so did Papias and many of the early Christian Fathers. Origen +said: “What man of good sense will ever persuade himself that there was +a first, second, and a third day, and that these days had each their +morning and evening without the not-yet-existing sun, moon, and stars? +What man sufficiently simple to believe that God, acting the part of a +gardener, planted a garden in the East—that the ‘tree of life’ was a +real tree, evident to the senses, whose fruit had the virtue of +preserving life?” etc. St. Augustine held the same views as to the +allegorical character of the so-called Mosaic account of the creation +and fall, and so did Tertullian, Clement, and Ambrose. Some of the early +Christian authorities carried this idea of the allegorical character of +the Scriptures so far as to apply it to the Gospels themselves. “There +are things therein” (said Origen) “which, taken in their literal sense, +are mere falsities and lies;” and St. Gregory asserted of the letter of +Scripture that “it is not only dead, but deadly;” while Athanasius +admonished us that “should we understand Sacred Writ according to the +letter we should fall into the most enormous blasphemies.” It seems to +have been fully realized in early times that there was no rational way +to interpret Moses and his writings but upon the allegorical hypothesis. +As the Mosaic account of the creation and the fall of man is so +evidently the same story that was suggested to the Persians and other +nations by the astronomical phenomena, we are forced to the conclusion +that this is the only key to unlock the mysteries of the first three +chapters of Genesis. If the original story is known to have been founded +upon the ancient astrological religion, the substantial copy in our +Jewish Scriptures must have the same basis. All the ancient religions +had their _Cabala_—secret words and initiations—and the Jewish and +Christian Scriptures are no exceptions, as is seen upon their very +surface. We may not have all their secrets—some of them may not be +proper things to write about in our day—but no fair man of intelligence +can successfully deny that many of those things which are absurd if +taken for historical truth are at once explained by reference to the +solar cults of the ancients. + +Many theologians have virtually admitted that there is nothing injurious +to the interests of true religion in the hypothesis here presented, but, +on the contrary, there is much that is truly beautiful and calculated to +elevate and inspire the devout mind. Even the distinguished Albertus, of +the twelfth Christian century, surnamed _the Great_ for his attainments +as a scholastic ecclesiastic, did not hesitate to write: “All the +mysteries of the incarnation of our Saviour Christ, and all the +circumstances of his marvellous life from his conception to his +ascension, are to be traced out in the constellations and are figured in +the stars.” “The Gospel in the Stars” was the significant advertisement +of a course of sermons recently delivered in a prominent Lutheran church +in Philadelphia by a learned doctor of divinity, and, though many of his +hearers thought that the title should have been “The Stars in the +Gospel,” it was certainly an evidence of progress and increasing light +to have a frank admission from such a source that all the truths of the +gospel and the doctrines of the Reformation were prefigured in the +celestial heavens and illustrated in the constellations of the solar +zodiac. + +This author admits the identity between the tenets of the astro-theology +of ancient sun-worshippers and the present dominant theology of +Christendom, but assumes that the original construction of the celestial +heavens and its fanciful division into constellations had reference to, +and in fact prefigured, what was literally fulfilled in Christianity. He +finds in the solar zodiac of Esne in Egypt as clear predictions of the +coming of Christ as he finds in Isaiah or any other Jewish prophet. +Thus, he “gives away” the whole argument, and unwittingly admits the +natural origin of all the distinctive tenets of modern dogmatic +theology. This last craze may well be regarded as a compound of +scientific trifling and theological, moonshine. + +But it is said by theologians that man is depraved, and that the present +moral status of humanity confirms the dogma of total depravity by +descent through fallen and depraved ancestors. This involves the +question, What is depravity? + +That man is not perfect in morality is as true as that he is not perfect +in body nor in mentality. But does not every one know by his own +experience and observation that human shortcomings mainly arise from a +want of perfect development and the influence of environment, rather +than from essential, innate viciousness? What is called “sin” should be +known as “undevelopment,” and, as real as is the law of heredity, it is +no more real than the law of environment. Where there is evidence of +hereditary evil tendencies it is not necessary to go back more than two +or three generations to find the source. + +But the fact must here be emphasized and continually kept in mind that +the story of Eden and the fall is substantially found in the annals of +many nations anterior to the existence of the Jewish tribes, varied only +in trivial matters. The story of the serpent in Eden is probably of +Aryan source, to which the conception of the satanic origin of evil was +attached after the Jews came into close contact with Persian dualistic +ideas. To doubt which was the original and which the copy, shows, +regarding the well-established facts of history, a want of information +so great as to make argument on this matter quite useless. + +The conclusion is inevitable that if the fall of Adam is a fiction, then +the entire system of evangelical theology is based upon a fiction; and +the fruit must be natural to the tree—a fictitious tree can only bear +fictitious fruit. Orthodox theologians, especially of the logical +Presbyterian stamp, realize that if they give up Adam and Eve as +progenitors of the entire human race, they give up the very +foundation-stones of the “redemptive scheme.” This accounts for +Presbyterian opposition to the doctrine of evolution. They are logical +enough to see that the second Adam as a Saviour in the evangelical sense +must share the fate of the first Adam; and so Professor Woodrow of South +Carolina has recently been degraded on account of his theory of +evolution. + +The world moves, and, as Professor Marsh of Yale College has well said, +“The doctrine of evolution is as thoroughly demonstrated as the +Copernican system of astronomy.” + +In the _Popular Science Monthly_ for October, 1890, we have a very able +article from Andrew D. White, LL.D., ex-president of Cornell University, +showing how completely science contradicts theology in regard to the +Edenic story. He shows that the tendency of the race has always been +upward from low beginnings. He further shows that Archbishop Whately and +the Duke of Argyll championed the Bible story, but were so conclusively +answered by Sir John Lubbock and Tylor that the views of the archbishop +were seen to be untenable, while the duke, as an honest man and a sound +thinker, was obliged to give up his former views and adopt the +scientific theory. The light thrown upon this subject by Herbert +Spencer, Buckle, Max Müller, and scores of other great scholars is among +the glories of the century now ending. The public declaration of the +celebrated Von Martius, of his conversion to the scientific view of the +story of the Fall, ought to make smaller men less confident of their +views on a subject they have never studied. + +In 1875, Commodore Vanderbilt endowed a university in Tennessee, and it +was put in charge of the Methodists. Dr. Alexander Winchell was called +to the chair of Geology. He was distinguished in his specialty by his +successful labors in another university. He openly taught “that man +existed before the period assigned to Adam, and that all the human race +could not have descended from Adam.” The Methodist bishop told him “that +such views were contrary to the plan of redemption.” The Methodist +Conference resolved “that they would have no more of this,” and +Professor Winchell was summarily dismissed from the chair, and the +position, with its salary, assigned to another. The State University of +Michigan recalled him to his former chair in that institution, where he +could teach _science_ regardless of the impotent thunders of _theology_. + +The fall of Adam is really the pivotal principle in dogmatic theology of +the orthodox variety. If the entire human race are not descendants of a +real, genuine, historical pair miraculously created (a pair almost +divine in perfections), and who by disobedience fell from their high +estate, and by their federal or representative character involved all +their countless descendants by natural generation and descent in the +same ruin,—if these things are not true, then what is called the +evangelical scheme is based upon a fiction, and is to be so treated, +regardless of the effect upon other theological doctrines. The dogma of +a sudden, special creation of a perfect man is not sustained by the +facts of history nor the science of palaeontology. Scientific +investigators find man, so far as the evidence of his remote existence +can be traced, very nearly allied to apes; and there is abundant +evidence to show that man has been improving in every respect as years +and cycles of years have rolled away. It is thus absolutely demonstrated +that the history of our race shows the rise or ascent of man from a very +low estate, instead of his “fall” from a condition of high perfection. + +But it does not follow, because man as we first find him was very much +like the anthropoid ape, that he is a lineal descendant of the ape. The +more rational hypothesis is, that both apes and man were evolved from +still lower animal forms by divergent lines, so that there is a relation +of a very distant cousinship existing between them. There is many a +fool-born jest about man and the monkey, oft repeated by _adcaptandum_ + +theologians who have never read Darwin’s _Origin of Species_ nor his +_Descent of Man_, and who therefore do not know that there is nothing in +these writings to justify such caricatures. + +The fact is, the evolution of man by slow and long-continued processes, +instead of his sudden miraculous creation on a certain day, is now as +well established as the law of gravitation, in the judgment of +scientists who are not hampered and blinded by preconceived theological +dogmas. It cannot be denied that the weight of scientific testimony is +very largely in favor of the _development_ of man, instead of a +miraculous and complete creation at a particular period of time. The +true ground will be found to be _creation by evolution_; and if our +purblind sacerdotalists had accepted this doctrine, as the brightest of +them have privately done, they would have saved themselves the disgrace +of becoming the laughing-stock of the scientific world. If man was +brought to his present high estate by a system of evolution, it is no +less the work of the Supreme Creator of the universe than if he had been +made from clay in an instant of time; and if the character of man, +mentally and morally, is admitted to be based on the degree of his +development, it would solve many a knotty question in theology and +morals. At any rate, the evolution hypothesis has many advantages over +the Church dogma, manifestly founded on a pagan fable. The fact is, +sacerdotalists have always been their own worst enemies, and have always +been defeated in their battles with science and a true philosophy. + +It is not intended to ignore the fact that legends of a paradisiacal +period, a real “golden age,” are found among all ancient peoples, also +of periods of general demoralization; but these legends can easily be +accounted for. It is a natural instinct in man to praise the past, and +to think that “the former times were better than the present.” We see +this among aged men and women to-day. Then it is well known that the +stream of human history has never run in an unbroken channel. Our race +has ever had its “ups and downs,” and, comparatively speaking, mankind +has had many _falls_ and _ascents_, while the general or ultimate +tendency and result have been ascending higher and higher. Moreover, the +golden age of Adam in Eden must have been very short, according to the +fable of Genesis, as the fall occurred before he had any children. What +a pity that Adam and Eve could not have maintained their innocence by +blind obedience until at least a son and daughter could have been born +to them! This may be considered irreverent, but everybody knows that, +outside of the pulpit and the Sun-day-school, the story of Adam and Eve +is hardly ever mentioned except as a huge joke, and that witty preachers +often take part in laughing at it. It is difficult to write about a +fiction otherwise than facetiously. + +I cannot refrain from again quoting Professor Huxley in summing up my +own conclusions in regard to this matter: + +“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one for a moment can doubt +that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical +trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the +Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history. The +identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the +interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no +evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned +to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and +sacrifices were not ordained by Jehovah; if the ‘ten words’ were not +written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a +mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the deluge a fiction; that +of the fall a legend; that of the creation the dream of a seer,—if all +these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no +more value as history than the stories of the regal period of Rome, what +is to be said of the Messianic doctrine which is so much less clearly +enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of +the New Testament, who on this theory have not merely accepted flimsy +fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of +Christian dogma upon legends and quicksands? + +“The antagonism between natural knowledge and the Pentateuch would be as +great if the speculations of our time had never been heard of. It arises +out of contradictions upon matters of fact. The books of ecclesiastical +authority declare that certain events happened in a certain fashion; the +books of scientific authority say they did not.” + +“What we are pleased to call religion now-a-days is for the most part +Hellenized Judaism; and, not un-frequently, the Hellenic element carries +with it a mighty remnant of old-world paganism and a great infusion of +the worst and weakest products of Greek scientific speculation; while +fragments of Persian and Babylonian—or rather Accadian—mythology burden +the Judaic contribution to the common stock. The antagonism of Science +is not to Religion, but to the heathen survivals and the bad philosophy +under which Religion herself is wellnigh crushed. Now, for my part, I +trust this antagonism will never cease, but that to the end of time true +Science will continue to fulfil one of her most beneficent functions, +that of relieving men from the burden of false Science which is imposed +upon them in the name of Religion.” + +The fact that well-dressed congregations do not laugh sacerdotalists to +scorn shows how safe it is to rely upon the credulity and indifference +of those who have been taught mere myths as real history from early +childhood. The day will come when even children will laugh in the faces +of priests when they seriously speak of the fall of Adam and Eve as a +matter of actual occurrence. The great curse of true religion to-day is +_literalism_, enforced by priestcraft, in regard to what relates to our +most sacred concerns. + +It is no part of our design to here explain the development theory as to +how man did originate from the lower forms of animal existence, but must +refer those who are willing to learn to such works as Darwin’s _Origin +of Species and Descent of Man_, Huxley’s _Man’s Place in Nature_, and to +scores of other books accessible to all. Perhaps ninety-nine-hundredths +of living working scientists repudiate the Adam-and-Eve story, and +regard it as a fable intended to illustrate what man’s attainments at +the time would not enable him to account for on natural principles. + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. SEARCH FOR THE “LAST ADAM” + + +_“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made +alive.”..._ + +_“And so it is written, the first Adam was made a living soul, the last +Adam was made a quickening spirit.”—1 Cob. 15: 22-45._ + + +THE claim of sacerdotalism is substantially as follows: Adam was the +first man and the sole progenitor of the entire human race. When he +fell, all his progeny “sinned in him and fell with him in the first +transgression.” Death was first introduced in the world by Adam’s sin, +and life is restored by Christ. Adam and Christ are the two great +representatives of death and life, of the fell and the restoration. The +Creator permitted this great calamity to happen, having purposed from +all eternity to redeem this degenerate race, or at least a portion of +it, from the terrible curse caused by Adam’s sin. In due time he did +incarnate himself, became man, human flesh and blood, by impregnating, +or “overshadowing,” a Jewish virgin, and so was born, by ordinary +generation, a human babe in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who was +called the Christ. After about thirty years this human-born God died to +make it possible to restore our race to its original moral status. This +is called the “redemptive scheme,” and is the sum and substance of +Christianity, and is fully set forth in what is very improperly called +the “Apostles’ Creed,” which is publicly recited in thousands of +churches every Sunday as an epitome of their belief. + +The story of this one first man, who sinned by eating an apple from a +certain forbidden tree, has been proved to be a _fable, a myth, an +allegory_. The legend may shadow forth certain natural truths, but it is +nevertheless a myth. The thing never occurred. The alleged facts are not +facts. There was no first Adam. There may have been some one whom +certain persons called the last Adam, but it is nevertheless true that +what is said of him was founded upon an _unreality_—a thing which never +happened. According to biblical chronology, the last Adam did not make +his advent until about four thousand years after the first Adam fell, +Even this seems to have been a long period to wait, but if we accept the +interpretation of certain modern writers, that which is called “the +beginning” in Genesis may have been forty thousand or four hundred +thousand years before the advent of Jesus. True, this would show certain +events to have been a very long way apart (for instance, the creation of +Eve after that of Adam) and would make the work of Christ in the +“redemptive act” occur ages and ages after the mischief was done. + +It is contended that the promise of the sending of a Saviour was made +the very day that the first Adam sinned, and that the salvation of the +sinner was conditioned upon man’s faith in, and acceptance of, the +promise that in due time, not mentioned, the last Adam should come and +repair all the mischief which the first Adam had caused. It is claimed +by sacerdotalists that the saying in Genesis 3: 15 is the first promise +of a Redeemer: “And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and +the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head +and thou shalt bruise his heel.” But these very words occur in the +pagan fables that were written long before the time that I Genesis was +written, and in some of these fables, much more consistently with the +passage above quoted, the woman is represented as standing with her heel +on the serpent’s head. Then it is claimed that the Creator accepted the +sacrifice of Abel because it was a _bloody_ sacrifice, prefiguring the +shedding of the _blood_ of + +Christ, and that he rejected the offering of Cain because there was no +_blood_ in it. We have looked in vain through the Old-Testament +Scriptures for a promise of the _last_ Adam who was to come and redeem +man, but have failed to find it. A system of “redemption” that is based +on expressions so enigmatical must have a very flimsy foundation upon +which to stand. It is like the assumption that women generally have an +aversion to reptiles because a serpent tempted Eve and brought so many +curses on the sex. To such miserable subterfuges will sacerdotalists +resort to maintain a theory. + +One of the first points emphasized in connection with the advent of +Jesus is the claim that it was _in exact fulfilment of Hebrew +prophecy_. Certain orthodox Christian writers claim that there are _two +hundred_ prophecies in the Old Testament relating to Jesus, while +certain other eminent German and English Christian scholars deny that +there is even one prophecy which does not admit of another and a more +rational explanation. The quotations from Old-Testament prophecies in +the Gospels are, to say the least, unfortunate, and rather suggest the +hypothesis that certain things, if done at all, were done to make the +history fit the prediction. + +Learned Bible critics contend that there is not to be found a single +example of such redemptive prophecy, even though the theory of the +double sense of prophecy be admitted. These predictions or hopes were +intended to apply to eminent characters in Hebrew history as +_deliverers_, and can only be applied to Jesus by a _forced and +unnatural_ construction; and, though Cyrus and others appeared, the +expectations of the Jews have not yet been realized, and some of them +are still awaiting _their_ Messiah, spurning the idea that the +predictions of their prophets were fulfilled in the humble Man of +Nazareth. + +One or two examples of so-called Messianic prophecies must suffice. +Matthew (27: 9) says the prophecy of “Jeremy the prophet” regarding the +thirty pieces of silver was fulfilled in the betrayal of Jesus; whereas +no such prophecy is found in Jeremiah, and, though similar words occur +in Zechariah, they have another obvious application. Then in Matthew +(chap. 2) Hosea is quoted to prove that Jesus dwelt in Egypt to fulfil +a prophecy, whereas it is evident (Hos. 11:1) that it was of Israel, not +Jesus, that those words were spoken. Again, in Matt. 22:41 the quotation +from the Psalms is obviously misapplied—“The Lord said unto my lord,” +etc.—as it was not written by David, but Nathan addressed it to David. +It was the poet that called David _lord_, which spoils the prophecy and +ruins the argument of the evangelist. Many things recorded in the New +Testament are unwittingly admitted to have been done to fulfil a +supposed prophecy—“that it might be fulfilled.” There is one very +amusing example of an attempt to fulfil an alleged prophecy—that of +Jesus dwelling in Nazareth, because it had been prophesied that he +should be called a Naz-arene, no such prophecy ever having been uttered. + +The Indian Yedas are full of alleged prophecies relating to coming +incarnations, and so are the Chinese sacred books. Even Zoroaster, who +lived 570 years b. c., prophesied; “A virgin shall conceive and bear a +son, and a star shall appear blazing at midday to announce his +appearance. When you behold the star (said he), follow it whithersoever +it leads you. Adore the mysterious child, offering him gifts with +profound humility. He is indeed the Almighty Word which created the +heavens. He is indeed your Lord and everlasting King” (_History of +Idolatry_, Faber, vol. ii. p. 92). It was believed that this prophecy +was fulfilled by the advent of the Persian god _Sosia_. It was common +among the ancients to presage the birth of a god by the appearance of a +mysterious star, and for astronomers to hasten to adore the new-born +deity and present him gifts. Greece, Rome, Arabia, and even Mexico, were +all familiar with _Messianic_ prophecies. Bishop Hawes says that “the +idea that God should in some extraordinary manner visit and dwell with +men is found in a thousand forms among ancient heathens.” + +The fact is, there is no promise or prophecy of a “last Adam” in the +Hebrew Scriptures. The Jews give a very different interpretation to +those utterances alleged to be Messianic, and the alleged types of Jesus +in the Old Testament are purely fanciful, and many of them are +exceedingly childish. The idea that Solomon and Moses and the scapegoat +were _types_ of Jesus is simply absurd, and not creditable to the +alleged antetype. There is no Jesus of Nazareth in the Hebrew oracles. + +The bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament were antedated by heathen +nations centuries before the Jews. The sacrificing of brute beasts was +heathenism pure and simple, to conciliate an imaginary anthropomorphic +god. Twenty generations of innocent animals slaughtered by divine +command in order to notify the world beforehand of the coming of the +last Adam, yet never saying so, seem to have failed to prepare the +people for the alleged spiritual sacrifice of Jesus. It was a signal +failure. If these bloody offerings were types of Jesus, there must have +been some resemblance. Wherein did it lie? A bullock was forced to the +altar; he died like any beast at the shambles. It made the sanctuary a +slaughter-house. The involuntary offering of an innocent lamb or pigeon +cannot be a type of a willing offering of a human being. The whole +scheme of bloody animal sacrifices is a type of nothing but the cruelty +of barbarism, and meant a good dinner and fat priests! It is generally +condemned by the Hebrew prophets as useless, and was entirely rejected +by those who “professed and called themselves Christians.” + +Since we can learn absolutely nothing that is rationally reliable +concerning the “last Adam” from the Old Testament, it becomes necessary +for us to consult comparatively modern history. The advent of Jesus was +made, if made at all within the historic period, scarcely nineteen +hundred years ago. If such a person appeared among men at that time, +there must be some written record of so wonderful an event by +contemporary parties. + +In the Jewish Talmud, a perfect wilderness of religious and secular +speculations, we find many spiteful and distorted allusions to one Jesus +who went into Egypt and learned sorcery and magic, and by such influence +raised a tumult among the people and led away a party of deluded +followers. Whether this was Jesus of Nazareth it is impossible to say. +There were many persons bearing similar names. + +There is at the present day much ignorance—or at least indifference—even +among intelligent Christians, to the fact that the very name of Jesus is +not of Hebrew, but of Greek origin, as indeed is the whole history of +his life as related in the four Gospels; and no one but those who have a +previous theory to uphold can believe that the people of Jerusalem +during the time of Christ spoke any other language than that spoken by +their forefathers. From this we will pass to other instances where the +name of Jesus is applied to others not named in the Gospels; and it will +be a matter of surprise to many to know that no less than fifteen, most +of them living at the time of the Christian era, are named by the Jewish +historian Josephus as bearing the name of Jesus: + + 1. Jesus, son of Josedek (Ant., xi. iii. 10, iv. 1). + 2. Jesus, sumamed Jason, son of Simon (Ant., xi. iii. 10, iv. 1). + 3. Jesus, son of Phabet (Ant., xv. ix. 3). + 4. Jesus, son of Sie (Ant., xvii. xiii. 1). + 5. Jesus, son of Damneus (Ant., xx. ix. 1). + 6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel (Ant., xx. ix. 4). + 7. Jesus, son of Sapphias ( Wars, ii. xx. 4). + 8. Jesus, son of Shaphat ( Wars, iii. ix. 7). + 9. Jesus, son of Ananus ( Wars, iv. iv. 9). + 10. Jesus, son of Ananus, a plebeian ( Wars, vi. v. 3). + 11. Jesus, son of Gamala (Life, 38, 41). + 12. Jesus, a high priest ( Wars, vi. ii. 2). + 13. Jesus, son of Thebuthi ( Wars, vi. viii. 3). + 14. Jesus, father of Elymas. + 15. Jesus, surnamed Barabbas. + +Josephus also refers to one Judas, a Gaulonite, who was a leader of the +people, and whose character and career answer in so many respects to +qualities credited to Jesus of Nazareth that it is supposed by many that +the name Jesus had been changed to Judas; and he also refers to other +Jesuses who are too much like the traditional Jesus of the Gospels in +many things to be mere coincidences. Then there was the _meek_ Jesus, +mentioned by Josephus, who lived during the reign of Albinus, who +prophesied such evil things, and who was scourged until his bones were +laid bare, and who uttered no reply, and in so many ways was like the +Jesus of tradition ( _Wars of the Jews_, book vi., chap. 5). Then we +have the mention of the Jesus, as is well known, who was the friend of +Simon and John and the “son of Sapphias,” who was the leader of a +seditious tumult, _who was betrayed by one of his followers_, and +defeated by Josephus himself when he was governor of Galilee, and put to +shame and confusion (_Life of Josephus_, sec. 12-14). + +This undoubtedly shows that nearly all that is claimed for Jesus of +Nazareth _might_ have been said as the substance of what was written by +Josephus concerning real historical persons called Jesus. This may +account for the conglomerate character and the many inconsistencies +ascribed to this Jesus of tradition. + +The failure of Jewish writers of the first century to recognize Jesus of +Nazareth, even in the most casual way, is a significant fact. Philo, the +celebrated writer of his day, was born about twenty years before the +Christian era, and spent his time in philosophical studies at that +centre of learning, Alexandria in Egypt. He labored diligently and wrote +voluminously to reconcile the teachings of Plato with the writings of +the Old Testament, and, though in the prime and vigor of manhood when +Jesus is said to have lived, and dwelling in the immediate vicinity of +Judea, and in the very city where Christianity was early introduced, yet +this learned, devout, and honest Jew makes no mention of Jesus of +Nazareth. + +Even more strange is the silence of Josephus, the Jewish historian, who +was born about A. d. 35, and lived and wrote extensively until after the +destruction of Jerusalem, and yet he never mentioned the name of Jesus. +The celebrated passage regarding Christ is known to be a forgery, and +the one respecting “James the brother of Jesus, called the Christ,” is +by no means worthy of confidence. It must be certain that in the first +century of our era Jesus of Nazareth did not attract the attention of +these fair and distinguished Jewish writers, if he in fact existed. + +In early times the name Jesus, as has been shown, was as common as the +names John or James, and when the name is mentioned it is impossible to +say who is referred to. The passage in Josephus referring to Jesus thus, +“About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be right to +call him a man,” etc., is acknowledged by celebrated Christian writers +to be a fraud. Its authenticity was given up as long ago as the time of +Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, author of the _Credibility of the Gospel +History_, and one of the most highly regarded of Christian writers. +Gibbon, too, decided it to be a forgery. Bishop Warburton, the +distinguished defender of Pope’s _Essay on Man_ against the charge of +atheism, and one of the most distinguished of Christian defenders, +agreed with Lardner. The Rev. Robert Taylor quotes many other Christian +writers as coinciding. The biographer of Josephus in the _Encyclopaedia +Britannica_ says the passage is unanimously regarded as spurious. Drs. +Oort, Hookyaas, and Xuenen, German Christian writers of great repute, in +the _Bible for Learners_ declare the passage to be “certainly spurious” +and “inserted by a later and a Christian hand.” + +Gibbon says it was forged between the time of Origen (a. d. 230) and +Eusebius (a. d. 315). The credit of the forgery, however, is generally +given to Eusebius, who first quoted it. The distinguished authors of the +_Bible for Learners_ distinctly state that Josephus never mentioned +Jesus, and cite Josephus’s close following of the atrocious career of +Herod up to the very last moments of his life, without mentioning the +slaughter of the innocents, as indubitable proof that Josephus knew +nothing of Jesus. Dr. Lardner gives these reasons why he regards the +passage as a forgery: + +“I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, +which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before +Eusebius. + +“Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or +word _Christ_ in any of his works, except the testimony above mentioned +and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother. + +“It interrupts the narrative. + +“The language is quite Christian. + +“It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and +could not have omitted quoting it had it been in the text. + +“It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning +Josephus. + +“Under the article ‘Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly +states that the historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the +least notice of Christ. + +“Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens +Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from Christian authors, nor +Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. + +“But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv. of the first book of that work, +Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, +did not acknowledge Christ.” + +The Rev. Dr. Giles, author of the _Christian Records_, adds to the +reasons for rejecting the passage, as follows: + +“Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus and the +style of his writings have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a +forgery interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious +Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus +should have taken no notice of the Gospels or of Christ their subject. +But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might +as well expect to gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles as to +find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It +is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of +Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have +written that _Jesus was the Christ?_ Such an admission would have proved +him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under +consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a +believer in the new religion; and thus the passage stands forth, like an +ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around +it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, +Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies +with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But +Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (i. 11), is the first who quotes +it, and our reliance on the judgment, or even honesty, of this writer is +not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works +as undoubtedly genuine.” + +Oxley in his great work 011 Egypt says: “However, I have found in some +papers that this discourse _was not written by Josephus, but by one +Caius, a presbyter._” + +Here, according to their own showing, what had passed for centuries as +the work of Josephus was a fraud perpetrated by a dignitary of the +Church. This is in perfect keeping with ancient custom. In addition to +all this, there is not an original manuscript of Josephus in existence, +nor one (that I have heard of) that dates farther back than the tenth or +eleventh century A. D. + +Another forged reference to Christ is found in the _Antiquities_, book +xx. chapter ix. section 1, where Josephus is made to speak of James, +“the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Some theologians who +reject the longer reference to Jesus accept this as genuine. But they do +it without reconciling the discrepancies between the stories regarding +the end of this same James. According to this passage, James was put to +death under the order of the high priest. But according to Hegesippus, a +converted Jew who wrote a history of the Christian Church about A. d. +170, James was killed in a tumult, not by sentence of a court. Clement +of Alexandria confirms this, and is quoted by Eusebius accordingly. +Eusebius also quotes the line from Josephus without noticing that the +two do not agree. The statement is quoted in various ways in the early +writers, and the conclusion is irresistible that the copies of Josephus +were tampered with by copyists. Even had Jesus lived and taught as +described in the Gospels, Josephus, an orthodox Jew, a priest, and +conservative government official, would never have given him the title +of Christ, or Messiah, a party leader for whom the Jews were looking to +free them from their Roman bondage. + +Among the great pagan writers of the first century of our era we find +absolutely nothing relating to Jesus of Nazareth. There was Seneca, +living not far from these times, and then the Elder and the Younger +Pliny, Tacitus, Plutarch, Galen, Epictetus, Marcus Antoninus—some of the +noblest men of the world. Let us look at some few fragments of testimony +that we have. One historian writes that “under a ringleader named +Chrestus the Jews raised a tumult.” In another place he refers to the +Christians as a class of men devoted to a “new and mischievous +superstition.” And Tacitus speaks of Judea as “the source of this evil.” +Another speaks of the Christians as “a sect hated for their crimes,” and +Suetonius gives Nero special praise for having done the most that he +could to wipe them off the face of the earth. In a _Life of Claudius_, +another Roman emperor, Christ is spoken of as “a restless, seditious +Jewish agitator.” Pliny the Younger, writing to the emperor about A. D. +104, when he was governor of Bithynia, says the Christians do not +worship the gods nor the emperors—as most of the people then did—nor +could they be induced to curse Christ. He says they met mornings for +virtuous vows, and chanted a hymn to Christ as to a god, and in the +evening they ate together a common meal. And after he had put them to +torture he said all he could find against them was “a perverse and +immoderate superstition.” Lucian, about the middle of the second +century, speaks of Jesus as the crucified Sophist. We do not know +certainly whether these references to Christ allude to Jesus of Nazareth +at all. _Chrestians_ and _Chrestus_ were designations in common use all +over the world, and the writers merely mentioned them as a sect well +known as creating some noise in the world. Certainly the language used +in describing them is not very complimentary. They may have referred to +the Essenes, who had their ideal Chrest. + +A modern writer has shown that the story of the persecution of +Christians by the emperor Nero (a. d. 54-68) is a modern fabrication. +Robert Taylor, in his _Diegesis_ published in 1829, proved that +Cornelius Tacitus never could have written the passage describing such +persecution. It has been demonstrated that the whole of the so-called +_Annals of Tacitus_, containing the celebrated passage, was forged by a +Papal secretary named Poggio Bracciolini. In 1422, while in the receipt +of a small salary under Martin V., he was tempted by an offer of five +hundred sequins (which would now be equal to fifty thousand dollars) to +engage in some mysterious literary work. Seven years later, six books of +what are now called the _Annals of Tacitus_ were brought to him by a +monk from Saxony. Then all Christendom rejoiced to learn that the +heathen Tacitus had mentioned Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate. +Poggio, though a father both spiritually and carnally, was not a husband +till the age of fifty-four. At seventy-two he accepted the office of +secretary to the republic of Florence, and at seventy-nine he died, +leaving five sons of his old age. Up to the last he was a busy student +and writer. Fifty-six years after his death his fourth son was secretary +to Pope Leo X., at which time the pope’s steward, stimulated by a +munificent reward, discovered the first six incomplete books of the +_Annals_, being the unfinished work of Poggio in his old age. + +The finding of ancient MSS. was a very lucrative business for scholars +in those days. It began with Petrarch, who died in 1374, and did not end +with Poggio, who died in 1459. Poggio discovered several orations of +Cicero, a history by Ammianus Marcollinus, and several other classic +works, besides the unclassic writings of Tertullian, the first Latin +Father. + +The modern fabrication of many of the ancient Latin and Greek MSS. is +now becoming apparent. Jean Hardouin, a French Jesuit, died in 1729, +aged eighty-three years. He was deeply versed in history, language, and +numismatology. At the age of forty-four he began to suspect that certain +writings of the Christian Fathers were spurious, and soon became +convinced that none of them were genuine. Then turning his attention to +the Greek and Latin classics, he found evidence sufficient to convince +him that most of those also were forgeries, being fabricated by the +Benedictine monks after the middle of the fourteenth century. + +Eusebius’s _Ecclesiastical History_, first found in Latin in the +fifteenth century and then in Greek in the six-teenth century, we have +no doubt is a probable forgery. And if so we have really no history of +the primitive Church except what may be found in the New Testament and a +few uncertain fragments of apocryphal literature, all much corrupted. + +The use of the word _Christus_ and _Christianus_ by the Latin writers is +sufficient evidence of modern fabrication. Ainsworth’s Latin Dictionary +has not the word Christus nor Christianus in the Latin part, but in the +part which gives the Latin equivalents of English words we find this: + +A Christian = Christianus. + +Christianism or Christianity = Christianismus. + +Christmas = Christianataliam festum. + +Now, the words Christus and Christianus are used by Tacitus, Suetonius, +Pliny (the younger), Tertullian, and all the succeeding Latin Fathers. + +_Christos_ in Greek is a very proper word, being a translation of the +Hebrew _mashiach_, meaning “anointed.” Therefore, the Latins would have +rendered it _unctus_. + +But the Benedictine monks who forged the literature of the pretended +Fathers, instead of translating _christos,_ audaciously transferred the +word, and thus the new word _Christus_, with a capital C, became an +additional name for the man-god of the Catholic Church. + +Now, we respectfully raise the query whether it is rational to suppose +that such wonderful things occurred in the little province of Palestine, +surrounded by learned sages and philosophers of the most enlightened +nations of the world, and not one direct and intelligent reference +should have been made to them? Is it not strange that we have no account +of the birth, sayings, and doings of this “last Adam,” who is said to +have come into this world on the most important mission, and yet we hear +nothing of him except in four or five little anonymous and dateless +pamphlets written a long while after the events are said to have +transpired? Since the New Testament contains _all_ that has been written +on this subject, is it not our highest duty to subject this book to the +most thorough examination? This we shall now proceed to do in the most +fearless manner, however startling the conclusions which may be reached. + + + + +CHAPTER IX. WHAT IS KNOWN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT + + +_“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and +they are they which testify of me.”—John 5: 39._ + + +WE of course use the above passage as a motto, as the writer must have +referred to the Old-Testament Scriptures, as the New Testament was not +yet in existence. As this book is the sole dependence in finding +evidence regarding Jesus, we naturally first inquire as to what is known +of it. We find this volume to be made up of _twenty-seven_ small tracts +or pamphlets, fastened together for the sake of convenience. + + (1) We have _four_ sketches, purporting to be brief biographies of + Jesus. + (2) Next we have a condensed history, called the _Acts of the + Apostles._ + (3) Then we have _twenty-one_ writings or letters addressed to + different churches or individuals in the epistolary form of + communication. + (4) And finally we have a _highly-wrought allegory_, partaking + somewhat of the form of both history and prophecy. + +We find that this volume of little pamphlets is called the “Authorized +Version” of the New Testament. + +We inquire who _authorized_ this version, and find that it was gotten up +by certain men, mainly Englishmen, in the year 1603 by the “special +command” of James, who is called “king of Great Britain, France, and +Ireland,” and who was addressed by these gentlemen, mostly clergymen, as +“the Most High and Mighty Prince, Defender of the Faith,” etc. + +It now becomes a matter of superlative importance to determine the basis +upon which this version of the New Testament was made. It is well known +that in 1881 a New Version was published, and Rev. Alexander Roberts, D. +D., a member of the committee of revisers, issued a little book entitled +_Companion to the Revised Version_, to be circulated with it. This is +the latest and highest authority by which to settle the question of the +_basis or standard_ of our “Authorized Version” of the New Testament. It +is stated on its title-page that it is “Translated out of the Original +Greek;” and it is safe and fair to let Dr. Roberts, the mouthpiece of +the New Version Committee, tell us upon what Greek manuscripts this +version of King James was based. After giving a history of the different +Greek editions of the New Testament (the _first_ of which was completed +in 1514, and its publication formally sanctioned by Pope Leo X. in +1520), he inquires, “Which of the foregoing Greek texts formed the +_original_ from which our common English translation was derived?” “To +this question the answer is, that Beza’s edition of 1589 was the one +usually followed.” Beza’s edition was based on Stevens’ edition of 1550, +and that was derived from the fourth edition of Erasmus, published in +1527. Beza, Stevens, Erasmus! In reference to the edition of Erasmus he +said himself, “It was rather tumbled headlong into the world than +edited.” But the question now comes up, What was the basis of the +edition of Erasmus? Dr. Roberts shall answer: “In the Gospels he +principally used a cursive MS. of the fifteenth or sixteenth +century,”... “admitted by all to be of a very _inferior character._”... +“He procured another MS. of the twelfth century or earlier, but Erasmus +was ignorant of its value and made little use of it.”... “In the Acts +and Epistles he chiefly followed a cursive MS. of the thirteenth or +fourteenth century, with occasional reference to another of the +fifteenth century.”... “For the Apocalypse he had only one mutilated +MS.” Dr. Roberts adds: “He had _no_ documentary materials for publishing +a complete edition of the Greek Testament.” + +The point we here raise is, that it is an admission made by the best +orthodox authority that our “_Authorized_ New Testament” was formed out +of MSS. dating no farther back than the twelfth, thirteenth, +fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, and that even these were +hastily and unskilfully used or not used at all. + +But the question naturally arises, Have not earlier MSS. come to light, +substantially confirming what we have in King James’ Version? The answer +is, that there are now in existence about two thousand MSS. containing +_parts_ of the New Testament, with about _one hundred and fifty +thousand_ variations, mostly trivial, but some very important; but no +scholar, orthodox or liberal, will dare to pretend that any of these +date any farther back than the fourth or fifth century; and he would be +a reckless man, feeling bound to lie for what he might regard as the +truth, who would contradict the admission of Dr. Roberts, that there are +only five copies of the New Testament, at all complete, of a greater +antiquity than the tenth century, nor who would dare to question the +statement of the Rev. George E. Merrell in his recent _Story of the +Manuscripts_, that “there is a wide gap of almost three centuries +between the original manuscripts of the evangelists and apostles and the +earliest copies of their writings which have yet been discovered.” +Whether there ever were _original_ manuscripts or _accurate_ copies are +questions which it would be prudent to hold for consideration until we +have made further investigations. When we reverently listen to our +ministers as they expound the Word, and learnedly tell us how certain +sentences should have been translated from the “original Greek,” let us +not laugh in their faces, but respectfully ask them whether they do not +know that there is _no original_ Greek Testament or any certified copy, +and that all we know upon these matters is highly conjectural and wholly +unauthenticated. + +The principal MSS. of the New Testament were unknown for a thousand +years after the Christian era—to wit, those from which our “Authorized” +New Testament was compiled—and their real origin cannot be traced, and +even their accepted date is purely a matter of conjecture. The +Alexandrian, Vatican, and Sinaitic MSS., supposed to date from the +fourth and fifth centuries, are of uncertain and suspicious origin, and +their date is a matter of simple guess by parties whose prepossessions +would incline them to make them as ancient as possible. How easy it is +for the best scholars to be imposed upon is shown from the fact that the +experts of the British Museum would probably have been swindled by the +recent Syrian forgery of the very ancient book of Deuteronomy but for +the discovery of the fact by a French scholar that the “ancient +document” was in fact only a year or two old, the product of a skilled +copyist! The fact is, little or nothing is actually _known_ by +historical and documentary verification of the origin or dates of the +MSS. upon which our New Testament is based. + +The next question that arises in a rational mind in this connection is +this: Have we in these twenty-seven little pamphlets all that has been +written upon the subjects to which they relate? The answer to this +question is very embarrassing. It is an undoubted fact that the +ecclesiastical council that selected the books composing the New +Testament had at least _fifty_ Gospels, from which they selected _four_, +and more than _one hundred_ Epistles, from which they selected +_seventeen_, and that from nearly a _score_ of books professing to be +records of the “Acts of the Apostles” they selected _one_, which +Chrysostom in the fifth century says “was not so much as known to many.” +Then there are _forty-one_ New-Testament books now extant, called +apocryphal, relating to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and +besides the canonical and apocryphal books extant there are +_sixty-eight_ New-Testament books mentioned by the Christian Fathers of +the first four centuries which are not now known to be in existence. +Besides these, more than _fifty_ books, written in the second century by +more than _twenty_ distinguished persons, have mysteriously disappeared. +The fact should also be emphasized that the adoption of the +New-Testament books in the early part of the fourth century, as we now +substantially have them, was followed by the _disappearance_ and +probable _destruction_ of all books that could throw light upon the +books received, and all the supposed copies of our Gospels to that +period have been lost or destroyed. The fact to be kept in mind is this, +that the New-Testament books which we now have were selected from scores +and hundreds of writings claiming equal authority by a few +self-appoint-ed men, who had very few qualifications and many +disqualifications for the work they undertook for all coming +generations. We have but a trifling proportion in number of the ancient +records regarding Jesus. + +But we now take up the little pamphlets as we have them, and try to +arrange them in order of time. The oldest writings of the New Testament +are the Epistles of Paul. And here we find ourselves embarrassed by the +fact that biblical criticism shows that not more than _five—some say +four_—of the Epistles ascribed to Paul were written by him—viz. First +Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, and +Romans. The other nine ascribed to Paul were doubtless written by +unknown second-century authors. The same uncertainty prevails in regard +to the authorship of several, if not all, of what are called the General +or Catholic Epistles, as well as of the Acts of the Apostles and the +book of Revelation. + +It is impossible to fix the dates of the New-Testament books except +approximately. There is a great diversity of opinion. The earliest were +probably written in the last half of the first century, and the latest +certainly in the last quarter of the second century. Certain it is that +no evidence can be found of the existence of our four Gospels until the +latter part of the second century, about one hundred and fifty years +after the alleged death of Jesus. It is therefore true what Prof. +Robertson Smith, D. D., the learned Scotch Presbyterian minister, +asserts, that our four Gospels are “unapostolic digests of the second +century.” From the Apostolic Epistles we learn nothing of the life and +teachings of Jesus. With Paul, Christ was an _idea_ rather than a +_person_. Not a syllable do we find in his writings of the miraculous +birth of Jesus, no reference to the Sermon on the Mount, much less to +the miracles ascribed to him. He rather boasted that he had learned +nothing of him from his disciples, but what he knew he had received at +the time of his own miraculous conversion. He dwells upon the _death_ +and spiritual _resurrection_ of Jesus, not upon his _life_; and the only +_words_ of Jesus quoted by Paul, “it is more blessed to give than to +receive,” are not found at all in the Gospels. All that Paul ever +claimed to know about Jesus as a person he learned in a vision, and it +is to be taken for what it is worth. + +We are absolutely driven to the Gospels for information regarding the +alleged founder of Christianity, his birth, his life, his teachings, and +his death. And here the fact should be faced that Jesus never wrote +anything about himself, his mission, or his doctrines. We should not +even know that he had learned the art of writing but for the incident +mentioned in one of the Gospels (John 8:6) that on a certain occasion he +stooped down and wrote in the sand; and now our learned New Versionists +come along and snatch this from us by declaring that the beautiful story +about the kind treatment of the woman taken in adultery is an +interpolation not found in the best early MSS., so that we are not even +sure that Jesus wrote anything even with his finger in the sand, or that +he even knew how to write! Nobody pretends that Jesus ever directed his +disciples or any one else to write down what he said and did, but, on +the other hand, he often forbade his disciples to tell what he said and +did; and much of what he is reported to have said was so obscure that +the disciples themselves continually misunderstood him. Two reasons have +been assigned for this omission of Jesus to write himself or to +commission others to write down his sayings. The first is, that he said +nothing which could not be found in then existing writings (as can +easily be shown), and the second is, that he was so sure that the world +was about to be destroyed, and that his own kingdom would so soon be set +up and established upon the general ruin, that it was useless to write +down what was said and done in the short remaining period of mundane +history. + +We have four brief sketches claiming to be biographies of Jesus, which +the Church claims as authentic, from which we must draw all our +information regarding Jesus. + +It is not necessary here to assign the reasons of learned critics for +their conclusion that the Gospel “according to” Mark is the older of the +four. But it is worthy of note that there is not in it _one word_ of +_the miraculous conception story_, and not a _hint_ of the bodily +resurrection and ascension of Jesus, as the critics have a way of +proving that the last chapter of Mark was added by a later hand. + +Then we are embarrassed by the testimony of Irenæus, Origen, Jerome, and +other Christian Fathers that the Gospel of Matthew was written in +Hebrew, while there are indubitable internal evidences that this Gospel, +as we have it, was written in Greek and by a Greek, and not a Jew, and +that it is really a _theological_ treatise written by some partisan for +ecclesiastical reasons, and that if Matthew ever wrote a Gospel, it has +been unfortunately lost or purposely destroyed. An early Christian sect, +called in derision Ebionites, are supposed to have had the Hebrew Gospel +of Matthew, and they were persecuted and stamped out for denying the +miraculous conception and divinity of Christ, and with them, some +critics suppose, perished the only genuine Gospel of Matthew. There is +little if any doubt that the first and second chapters of our Matthew, +giving an account of the miraculous birth and genealogy of Jesus, were +added when this fiction was incorporated into Christianity as necessary +to a divine Church establishment which should almost deify a hierarchy +and bring the common people into subjection. In reading Matthew’s Gospel +we should undoubtedly begin at chapter 3, and especially as the first +two chapters are absurd, contradictory, and inconsistent. If Jesus was +begotten by the Holy Ghost, it was not consistent or necessary to notice +the genealogy of Joseph, and there is nothing more bungling than the +genealogies of Mary and Joseph as given in Matthew and Luke. Indeed, the +name Matthew is not Jewish, and there are those who doubt if there ever +was such a man. It is a suggestive fact that the Egyptians had a +_Matthu_, and that he was the _registrar_, or keeper of their records. + +The Gospel ascribed to Luke he himself admits to be a résumé or +compilation of what had been written by others and was the prevalent +belief (Luke, chapter 1). In making a close analysis of this little +tract a learned German critic Schleiermacher, shows that it was probably +compiled from thirty-three different manuscripts. But since Luke himself +claims nothing more than the office of a collector, his work is a mere +digest of what others had written and a summary of what was then +believed by some persons. + +The Gospel according to John deserves a more careful and extended +notice, from the fact that it differs in so many particulars from the +other three Gospels. There is no evidence of the existence of this +writing until A. D. 175, when it was mentioned in the Clementine +Homilies,(1) and in 176, Theophilus of Antioch ascribed its authorship +to John. But nothing is more certain than that John the Evangelist did +not write this little book, as it contains internal evidence of its +Grecian origin, and that it could not have been written by one familiar +with Judaism and the geography of Palestine. Many of the best biblical +scholars, orthodox and rationalistic, admit this fact, and our Methodist +friends may amuse themselves at their leisure in reading a learned note +from the pen of their great commentator, Dr. Adam Clarke, at the close +of his exposition of the first chapter of John, in which he points out +thirty-five parallels between the writings of Philo the learned +Platonist and the Gospel of John, unwittingly showing that it must have +been written by an Alexandrian Greek. + + (1) These were spurious. + +And right here it is proper to expose an ancient fraud perpetuated in +the Church to the present day—to wit, that Papius and Polycarp, early +Christian writers, were personally acquainted with and instructed by +John, and that therefore a succession was established with the teachings +of Jesus himself, whose personal disciple John was. This story was +originated by Irenæus, and the fraud consists in confounding John the +son of Zebedee and Salome with one John who was said to be a presbyter +in Asia Minor. This ingenious device is clearly exposed by Reber in his +work—_The Enigmas of Christianity_. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, may be +called one of the _founders_ of the papal hierarchy, as he in the second +century attempted, but miserably failed, to furnish a catalogue of +bishops in orderly succession from the apostles; and soon after he was +followed in the same vain attempt by Tertullian, who first claimed +supremacy for the bishop of Rome, calling him “_epis-copus +episcoporum_,” a bishop of bishops. The fact is, it is not known who +wrote the fourth Gospel, but it is certain that it was not written by +the humble, amiable Galilean fisherman, but by a learned neo-Platonist, +who was familiar with the dialectics of the learned Gnostic +philosophers, and who desired most earnestly their complete suppression +as essential to the success of the fixed purpose of priests to establish +a Church, under an alleged divine commission, in which they were to be +the kings and princes. Priests have always been the corrupters and +perverters of truth for their own aggrandizement, and the Grecian +treatise palmed upon the Church as the Gospel of St. John is one of the +most illustrious examples. But for this so-called “Gospel” the existence +of the papal hierarchy, and the consequent priestly pretensions in +Protestant churches, would have been impossible. Enough has been +presented to show that we have no alternative but to depend upon the +synoptical Gospels, credited to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in our inquiry +as to Jesus. + +Now let us see just where we stand as to the sources of information to +which we are to look in learning whom Jesus was. + + 1. We are restricted to four, if not three, short biographies, + accredited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, only two of whom, + Matthew and John, were mentioned among the disciples of Jesus. + 2. That these sketches were written by those whose names they bear is + not supported by a particle of proof, but, on the other hand, + there is strong evidence that they were not written by the persons + to whom they are credited; and this is especially true in regard + to Matthew and John. Strictly speaking, our Gospels are anonymous. + 3. These documents are without date, both as to the time in which + they are written and the place of writing, and there is no proof + of their existence until more than one hundred and fifty years + after the alleged occurrence of the things recorded. + 4. That these four Gospels were selected from many other writings + most of which have been lost or destroyed. + 5. That the men who made our four Gospels canonical, and rejected all + the rest, were for the most part narrow, bigoted partisans, and + had good reasons of a selfish nature to reject whatever did not + favor their ambitious designs. + 6. We have no proof that the four Gospels made canonical by the early + ecclesiastical councils were the original writings of the + evangelists, even if we were sure that they wrote anything, nor + have we any proof that the copies adopted were genuine and + authentic and the best then extant. + 7. We have no proof that the copies we have are accurate copies of + the ones adopted by the councils, but we have proof positive, + admitted by the New Version-ists of 1881, that they contain many + interpolations and additions and many evidences of forgeries and + alterations by the ignorant, designing, and selfish ecclesiastics + of the mediaeval centuries known as the Dark Ages. + 8. That the Authorized Version read in the churches and in our + families is based upon MSS. dating from the twelfth to the + sixteenth century, and that only fragmentary MSS. and + unauthenticated copies are now in existence, dating from the + fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. + 9. That the copies we have bound up in our New Testament contradict + themselves and one another in a great many particulars, and + contain many statements which are geographically, historically, + and philosophically absurd and incredible. + 10. That, therefore, our Gospels are of uncertain authority and of + undoubted human origin, and are to be so regarded without a doubt. + +Now, it will be said that this is an infidel attack upon the New +Testament, and that it tends to the overthrow of the only religion that +can do the world any good. And yet, strange as it may appear, these +facts are presented in the best interests of true religion—presented +because they are true, and therefore best adapted, nay absolutely +essential, to the successful defense and propagation of virtue and +morality. + +The real infidels of the day are the theological liars and pretenders +who are wilfully ignorant, or too dishonest and cowardly to publish what +they know. Infidelity is breach of trust, disloyalty to truth. He who +would do the most good must tell the whole truth. If we regard the +Gospels as simple compilations from earlier documents and traditions, +with occasional additions and alterations to meet occasions and times, +we shall find in them very many things to admire and to adopt into our +problems of life and systems of morals, many things worthy of imitation, +many things to give courage and comfort in the struggle for existence, +many things which would be just as true and just as useful if they had +only been written yesterday by some one whom we have known from our +childhood. + +Regarding the Gospels as human, we can excuse their absurdities and +errors, and while we cast these errors aside we joyfully accept what is +true and good and beautiful; but by claiming for them what they are not +we bring even what is true into disrepute. + +It was a master-stroke of worldly wisdom and policy when Irenæus in the +second century (who first mentioned our four Gospels) sanctioned the +monstrous assumption of all ecclesiastical authority by divine right by +the bishops and priests, which power soon became centralized at Rome; +but it was the greatest misfortune of the ages for the cause of true +religion and sound morality. It not only made the Church of Rome with +its immense machinery a necessary result, but it made the not less false +systems of Protestant dogmatic theology possible. There is no use in +attempting to disguise the fact that the so-called scheme of redemption +is in principle and substance the same in the Catholic and orthodox +Protestant Churches. Many intelligent persons feel that they would as +soon belong to one as the other, while they secretly regard the +Romanists as logically the more consistent. + +The Romanists are strong in that they place the Church _first (jure +divino)_ and make the scriptures the product of the Church, and of +course subject to its interpretation. Protestants are weak in that they +make the Church subject to written scriptures, which were selected by +the founders of _Catholicism_, and then for centuries altered, forged, +interpolated, and manipulated by popes and priests to strengthen their +authority and secure the absolute submission of the people. + +The one fatal blunder of the Protestant Reformers was to found their +system of theology upon a written book of the origin of which so little +is known, and yet regarding which so much is known that it is impossible +for persons of a rational, judicial mind to accept it as an infallible +supernatural revelation. + +The conclusion is inevitable that in the absence of everything that, by +even a strain of language, can be called _evidence_ as to the +genuineness and authenticity, of our Gospels we cannot safely accept +them as an infallible authority in religious matters. We have a right to +examine them critically, just as we would read and study any other +ancient writings of uncertain authorship and date. + +The Reformation was in part the substitution of a _book_ which was +pronounced _infallible_, but which has proved to be very _fallible_, for +a Church which claimed infallibility, but which had shown itself not +only very fallible, but exceedingly corrupt and dangerous. Infallibility +belongs to neither men nor books. Infallibility in books is an +absurdity. A religion founded upon a printed book must submit to +examination of both the origin and character of that book, and must +shoulder the imperfections and errors which the discoveries of modern +research have fully exposed. The principles of true religion inherent in +human nature, an ineradicable constituent of the constitution of man, as +has been shown, are to-day obscured and shackled by the false position +in which its professed friends have placed it. It will be shown before +these papers are concluded that a religion manacled by a printed book +claiming infallibility, and made to depend solely upon an _historical +character_ who, if admitted to be historical, wrote nothing himself and +commissioned no one to write anything for him, and of whose verbal +teachings and actual mode of life we can never be sure,—a religion thus +encumbered must suffer great loss, if not total failure, as men shall +progress in knowledge and science shall uncover the past and demonstrate +the absurdities of the superstitious dogmas of the ancient faiths. It is +impossible to compress the largest brains of the nineteenth century into +the smallest skulls of the twelfth century. The true friend of religion +is the fearless man who dares attempt to rescue it from the accretions +and perversions of the Dark Ages, and to establish its eternal +principles of truth and righteousness in the very nature of man, in the +elevation of moral character, in strict agreement with the demonstrated +facts of the present, as opposed to the bigoted and degrading fancies of +the past. To defend religion from the follies of its mistaken champions, +and show that its foundations are secure and its ultimate triumph +certain, may now be denounced as treason to the Church, but in coming +years it will be seen to have been the work of men of whom the Church of +to-day is not worthy. + +The fact is, very little is known of the New Testament, but too much is +well known to receive it in _evidence_ in a matter of so much +importance. The narratives it contains would be _ruled out of court_ in +any civilized country on the globe. It is evidently a huge _compilation_ +of what was at best only _traditions_ among the nations of the earth, +and even these traditions, mixed and mangled as they are, must have +another and a more rational explanation than an historical or a literal +one. This book _cannot be an infallible divine revelation_. Let us see +whether we cannot find out what was really intended to be taught by the +different writers. + + + + +CHAPTER X. THE DRAMA OF THE GOSPELS + + +_“Great is the mystery of godliness.”—1 Tim. 3:16._ + +_“We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery.”—1 Cor. 2:7._ + +_“I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.”—1 Cor. 10:15._ + + +IN early times every prominent religious teacher had his own gospel, as +Paul asserts that he had his. The books that were canonized did not by +any means shape the belief of the early Christians, but, on the +contrary, their beliefs shaped the character of the books. “The question +of a ‘Catholic canon,’” says Professor Davidson, “was realized about the +same time as the idea of a Catholic Church.” The partisanship, low +trickery, and mob violence by which votes of councils were obtained to +establish ecclesiastical dogmas, the canonicity of Scriptures, etc., +were such as now-a-days characterize a political meeting in the slums of +an American city. + +While, therefore, we quote the statements of the Gospels to prepare the +way for the presentation of our points of argument, we do so only for +convenience. They cannot, by any rule of sound criticism, testimony of +contemporary writers, or even of spiritual discernment, be accepted as +historical. + +The composition of the four Gospels indicates in many ways that they +were originally collections of _religious stories_, each of which has a +moral of its own, like the fables of Æsop, or, more properly, the +narratives concerning Buddha given in the _Dhammapada_. This was a +common mode of writing in early times. History and biography were hardly +considered. Hence contradictions of verbal statement were not counted as +of any importance. This is probably the reason why the transcribers +neglected to remove the conflicts of statement and other inaccuracies +that abound in the Gospels. + +It is also more than probable that many parts of these works which have +a narrative form were later interpolations. The first two chapters of +Matthew and the first two in the Gospel according to Luke are +unequivocally of this character. The style and diction are conspicuously +unlike the language of the other parts of those works, as will appear on +the slightest notice. + +The oldest parts of the New Testament are the Epistles of Paul to the +Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, and Thessalonians. We will do well, +therefore, to study them a little while by themselves, without reference +to the Gospels and other documents, which were of later date. Paul +asserts that he possessed and promulgated a gospel distinct and +different from others, and he pronounced an anathema on the man or angel +that should teach any different one. The way that he became possessed of +it he sets forth as follows: He had no conference with any human being +whatsoever about the matter, nor had he anything to do with those who +were apostles before him, but he went into Arabia and afterward to +Damascus. A hint is furnished by Josephus in his history of his own life +which throws some light upon the purpose of this sojourn in Arabia. +There were members of the Essenean brotherhood living there who were +resorted to by individuals desiring instruction and discipline. Josephus +himself went thither for that purpose. Paul evidently had a similar +errand. He had been a Pharisee, but had embraced another faith. + +Why did he choose the Esseneans in preference to the Judean apostles? +The answer must be that he was more certain of learning their tenets +without adulteration. They were famous for their devotion to religious +study, their cultivation of sacred literature and the art of prophecy, +for their austerity, industry, and peculiar social organization. We +shall find upon comparison that this was very closely resembling what is +represented of the first believers at Jerusalem. They had their +episcopacy, their deacons or stewards, their Holy Scriptures, and +apostles or missionaries. These were numerous in Syria, Asia Minor, and +Egypt. As the Therapeutæ of the latter country resembled them, even to +the signification of their name (healers, ministers), the probability is +that the two were nearly identical. Eusebius, quoting the account of the +Egyptian communes as given by Philo the Jew, has remarked the close +similarity of their doctrines and customs with those of the apostolic +congregations, and declared that they were Christians and their writings +the Gospels. + +This, however, is not tenable, at least not tenable in the way that he +suggests. Unfortunately for his statement, the Essenean brothers +existed, with all the peculiarities described, long before the Christian +era. Josephus treats of them as flourishing as early as the time of +Jonathan, the first of the Maccabeans who held the office of high +priest. About that period the canon of the Old Testament was finally +collected. “Judas gathered together all those things that were lost by +reason of the war we had (with Antiochos Epiphanes and his successors), +and they remain with us” (2 Macc. 2: 14). The Maccabees or Asmoneans +were partisans of the sect known as Asideans (Chaldeans), and afterward +as Pharisees or Parsees. At this very period we first learn of the +Sadducees or Zadokites, who chiefly belonged to the hereditary lineage +of Aaron, and likewise of the Essenean fraternity. These last had their +own sacred books, and took no part in the worship and sacrifices of the +temple. In short, they were regarded as a people apart. Their books, we +have good reason to suppose, were different in tenor from those of the +Old Testament, and it is by no means improbable that they included the +scriptures written in Greek by the Alexandrians and now called the +Apocrypha. + +The designation _Minim_ may mean “observers of the heavens,” and the +Essenes appear to have been such. “Before sunrising,” says Josephus, +“they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers +which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a +supplication for its rising.” This illustrates the taunt to the +Pharisees, that they could discern the face of the sky in regard to the +weather, but could not read there the signs or symbols of the times, +which were also written there. + +The Saddukim were doubtless the disciples and partisans of Judas of +Galilee, or Gaulonitis beyond Jordan. This man and his colleague Sadduk +began their career at the time of the census or enrolment by Cyre-nius, +which took place after the displacing of Arche-laus, the son of Herod +I., from the throne of Judea. There are many plausible reasons for +identifying them with the apostolic congregation. They established a new +religious or philosophical sect, which Josephus declares had a great +many followers, and laid the foundations of the subsequent miseries of +the Jews. Their tenets agreed with those of the Pharisees; but, says the +historian, “they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that +God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They do not value any kinds of +death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and +friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord.” The Jewish +nation, Josephus declares, was infected with this doctrine to an +incredible degree. It is plain that the books interdicted in the +_Talmud_ pertained to the sect which followed these teachers, and +perhaps also to the Essenes. + +The Gospels show evidence of having been compiled from previous works. +The one ascribed to Mark is apparently the more original, being shorter, +more concise, and exhibiting fewer traces of having been tampered with. +The Gospel according to Matthew is from the same original, having whole +sentences in exactly the same words, but it is amplified and more +diffuse. Neither of these Gospels was recognized by Paul, and indeed +there is much reason to doubt whether he had ever seen them. If he +recognized any evangelic compilation as genuine, it was the one ascribed +to Luke; and even then the treatise must have been rewritten after his +period. + +There exists abundant reason for regarding the Essenean worship as more +or less identical with that of Mithras, the Persian “god of heaven.” +This appears to be sustained by a comparison of the cults. Thus, as has +been remarked, they permitted no discourse on secular concerns before +sunrise, but chanted prayers like the _Gathas_, as in supplication to +the divinity presiding over the sky. Their personal habits exhibited a +profound awe for the _Sun_. Their name itself was not peculiar to the +fraternity of Palestine and Arabia, but was borne by the ascetic priests +at Ephesus, whose manner of life was similar; and Plutarch informs us +that certain _osioi_ (another form of the name) performed mystic rites +in the temple of Apollo at Delphi in commemoration of Zagreus, the +sun-god of the Orphic religion, who was slain and resuscitated. + +The Persian theology is evidently the basis and source of Judaism. The +symbolism of the universe afforded a model for their religion. After the +conquest of Pontus and the pirate empire by Pompey, about 70 b. c., the +worship was introduced into the Roman empire. The verdict of Salamis was +thus reversed. The defeat of Xerxes, who was a zealous propagandist, had +assured the ascendency of Apollo at Delphi and Demeter at Eleusis over +the religion of Ahura Mazda; but the conquest of the Mithras-worshippers +by Pompey resulted in the introduction of their rites into every part of +the Roman world. From the river Euphrates to the Wall of Antoninus in +Britain, and into the forests of Germany, Mithraism everywhere +prevailed. For four centuries it disputed the supremacy with +Christianity; and even when it was proscribed and forbidden by imperial +authority, it still retained its hold upon the _pagani_ or inhabitants +of the rural districts. The Templars and other secret fraternities of +the Middle Ages were more or less similar in character to those of the +Parsee sun-god, and the rites which we have heard denounced as magic and +witchcraft were Mithraic ceremonies mingled with aboriginal customs. +Although the divinity is essentially Persian, we cannot but regard the +secret worship as an Assyrian institution. M. Lajard has given an +account of this cultus, which so generally supplanted the mystic worship +of the West. + +The story of the temptation of Jesus, if read intelligently “between the +lines,” will be seen to indicate the characteristics of the Mithraic +initiation. “Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by +John. And straightway coming up out of the water he saw the heavens +opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him; and there came a +voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well +pleased. And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness, and +he was there in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan +[Anra-mainyas], and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered +to him.” + +These different clauses relate to different parts of the mystic +ceremony. + +The sojourn of the apostle Paul in Arabia, it is apparent, was for a +purpose in close analogy with that of Jesus in the wilderness, as +already described. “It had pleased God,” he says, “to reveal [or unveil] +his Son in me;” so, without conferring with anybody, he set forth on his +holy errand, and upon his return began to preach a gospel which he +declares was not according to man nor taught in lessons, but was +received by the revelation. He was instructed at the fountain +intuitively, and so was “not a whit behind the chiefest apostles.” Hence +in the utmost intensity of feeling he proclaimed, “If we, or even an +angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you, let him be accursed.” +He goes on to recite the history of his career to show his entire +independence of Judaism and the other apostles, and dwells upon his +absolute rupture with Peter at Antioch on the ground of the adherence of +the latter to the discarded restrictions of that religion. + +The question now becomes pertinent, What is the purport of this “faith”? +In the fifteenth chapter of the First Corinthian Epistle he sets forth +the chief points as follows: “I delivered unto you first of all that +which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to +the Scriptures; also that he was buried, and that he rose again the +third day, according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, +and after that of above five hundred brethren at once; after that he was +seen of James, and then of all the apostles; and, last of all, he was +seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” + +It may appear strange to the common reader to be told that these +matters, which the apostle sets forth with so much apparent confidence, +are _mystic and arcane the transcript of older theologies and +constituted throughout of astrologie symbolism._ The ancient faiths of +the different peoples contain doctrines and dramatic narrative closely +analogous with the evangelic story of Jesus. The later Persians had the +legend of Saoshyas (the savior), the son of the virgin Eredatferi, who +conceives him in a miraculous manner. “He will appear and restore all +things, after which he will himself become subordinate, that the Creator +may be supreme and all in all.” + +In the Orphic drama, as it was performed by the Osians at the temple of +Apollo at Delphi, the birth of Zagreus of the holy maid Persephoneia as +the son of the Supreme Being, Zeus, is duly represented; then his +proposed heirship of the universe, his passion and death; and finally +his restoration again into life through a reincarnation as son of the +virgin Semelê under the new name of _Dionysos_. The myth was Assyrian, +Semelê being the same as Mylitta, the mystic mother, and her child, +Shamas Dian-nisi, or the personified Sun, the Judge or Lord of mankind. +_The death, resurrection, and glorification of this Son of God +were celebrated in the mystic dramas of several countries._ + +The legends of Atys in Asia Minor, of Adonis or Tammuz in Syria, of +Osiris in Egypt, were derived from the same source. They cover the same +field and have the same occult meaning. The apocalypse, or unveiling of +the mystic purport of the sacred dramas to those considered worthy and +competent to understand them, was the great object of initiation. The +Gospels were regarded formerly as accounts of a tragedy of analogous +character. The higher functionaries of the Roman Catholic Church, we +have reason to believe, have this same view, which is more than hinted +in several places. Paul speaks unequivocally in this way of his gospel +and the preaching or heralding of Jesus Christ, “_according to the +revelation or unfolding of the mystery now made known to all nations for +the obedience of faith._” When the disciples asked of Jesus why he spoke +to the common multitude in parables he makes this reply: “Unto you it is +given to know the mystery of the reign of God; but unto them that are +without all these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, +and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not understand.” + +In these religious stories there is a very similar general outline. +There is a divine parentage and a career given; then the Holy One is put +to death, the corpse is brought in for burial, the tragic occurrence is +mourned by women, and the ceremonial is concluded by his resuscitation +and ascension. There were varied phases of the representation, but they +always had an intimate relation to the _seasons of the year and the +analogous occurrences in the world of nature_. Thus the supposed death +more frequently occurred at the beginning of spring, and was mourned for +a lenten period of forty days, which the vernal equinox brought to a +close. Then funeral rites were performed, and after three days, in the +case of Adonis, it was fabled that the god arose and ascended into the +higher sky. In the Dionysia or Bacchic rite the god descended into hell, +the world of death, and brought thence his virgin mother, that they +might be glorified together. + +The Neo-Platonists taught that these occult rites were a form of +representing philosophic and religious dogmas as if in scenes of common +life by living persons, and of shadowing them by ceremonies and +processions. This is more than hinted by Plato himself, and is +undoubtedly true. The candidates were prepared for participation by long +periods of fasting and various purifications, moral and physical. The +Eleusinia consisted of a drama of several days in duration, in which the +abduction, or rather death, of Persephoné and the wanderings of her +mother Demeter served as the veil or _myesis_ to the doctrine of +resurrection and life of eternity. The author of _The Great Dionysiak +Myth_ has ably presented the various forms of the Bacchic rites with the +same basis and dénouement. Even the Hebrew Scriptures allude to the +matter. The “mourning for the only one” is mentioned by Jeremiah, Amos, +and Zechariah. + +That the story of Jesus was in like manner a drama for religious ends, +consisting of a miraculous parentage, a career of goodness, a passion, +death, resurrection, and ascension, is, to say the least, no improbable +solution of the question. + +It has also been noticed that the events of the seasons were denoted by +the mystic symbolism. The sun, stars, constellations, and earth are +commemorated in regard to their annual careers by these observances; +whether because they were essential to the physical well-being of man or +were especially appropriate for symbology different writers have +conjectured differently, according to their own mental peculiarities. +Probably both are right, so far as their views extend. + +It becomes us now to investigate the drama of the Gospels more +carefully. The mythologic story of Mithras was probably Assyrian in +detail, though Persian in first conception. It embraced the same notions +as were denoted by the mysteries of the Western peoples, and hence the +Mithraic worship in a very great degree superseded the arcane religions +of Asia Minor and Europe. Very naturally, as may easily be perceived, +the _framework of the Gospel narrative is on the basis of these rites._ +The influence of the other ancient faiths is also conspicuously +manifest. The physical, and particularly the astronomic, features are +everywhere present in the external structure of Christianity. Sir Isaac +Newton was quick to perceive that the festivals of the Church had been +fixed and arranged upon the observed phenomena of the heavens, and gave +a detailed list of correspondences. It was not prudent, however, even in +his time, for a man to say all he knew, and he carefully avoided the +drawing of any conclusions which might encourage further inquiry in that +direction. + +It has already been suggested that the gospel of Paul was at the bottom +Essenean and Mithraic; and in accordance with that hypothesis the +crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension would _be solar +and astrologic events_. The Essenes, as well as the other +Mithras-worshippers, adored the sun and greeted his rising with +invocations and sacred chants. The death and resurrection were +“according to the Scriptures.” In other words, they were duly set forth +after the manner of literal occurrences in the sacred books of the +Essenes long before Paul was born. The adepts of that fraternity +understood the matter, and the hostility which they and the other +disciples always exhibited toward the great apostle was because he +divulged too much. His writings contained many _dysnoetic_ matters, +Peter declared—many matters of higher knowledge improperly expressed, +which they that are unlearned and unstable might wrest to their own +hurt. According to the scriptures of the brotherhood, the drama of the +Gospel had its dénouement in the passion and tragedy of Jesus. Paul, +like a genuine adept, has accepted this narrative as the basis of his +gospel; nevertheless, as though aware that it is a figurative rather +than a literal occurrence, he nowhere speaks of the crucifixion as a +crime. + +We use the term _drama_ in this connection from a deliberate purpose, +because we believe it correct. It was the designation of the matters +represented in the Eleusinian, Dionysiac, and other arcane rites. The +theatre of the Greeks consisted of such tragic and other +representations, which were performed at the temples of Bacchus and +Æsculapius. Our modern theatre originated in like manner from the +mysteries and mir-acle-plays of the Middle Ages, in which monks and +priests acted the parts of the different persons of the Gospel drama. +The “Passion Play,” which excites so much interest in these modern +times, is very suggestive, but little understood by sacerdotalists. + +The Christian worship in the earlier centuries was not so unlike or +incongruous with the pagan customs as may have been supposed. The +emperor Hadrian, when in Egypt, was forcibly impressed with the apparent +identity of the worshippers of Serapis with those of Christ. “Those who +worship Serapis are Christians,” he declared, “and those who call +themselves Christian bishops are devotees of Serapis. The very patriarch +himself when he came into Egypt was said by some to worship Serapis and +by others to worship Christ.” + +The same ambiguity prevailed in the case of Christianity where it had +been in contact with the arcane worship of Mithras. Seel endeavors to +explain the matter as one of policy. He states that the early Christians +in Germany for the most part ostensibly paid worship to the Roman gods +in order to escape persecution. He makes a supposition as regards the +adoption of the secret religion. “It is by no means improbable,” says +he, “that under the permitted symbols of Mithras they worshipped the Son +of God and the mysteries of Christianity. In this point of view,” he +adds, “the Mithraic monuments so frequent in Germany are evidences of +the secret faith of the early Christian Romans.” We are not ready to +accept this notion that the Christians paid homage to one God, meaning +another at the same time, except on the hypothesis that they regarded +Mithras and Jesus as virtually the same personification. This conclusion +seems to be countenanced by Augustine, the celebrated bishop of Hippo. +“I know,” says he, “that the worshippers of the divinity in the cap [the +statues of Mithras were decorated with the red Phrygian or cardinal’s +cap] used to say, ‘Our god in the cap is Christian.’” + +That the crucifixion of Christ was not a literal historic occurrence +seems to require no argument. Besides, the first day of the Passover was +never a Friday, nor can it be according to the established principles of +the Jewish calendar. The account in the three synoptic Gospels is +therefore manifestly not correct as a literal occurrence; and the +unknown writer of the Gospel of John has lamely attempted to evade the +difficulty by placing the crucifixion on the day before the Passover. + +There was a mystic reason, however, for this statement of the synoptic +Gospels. The story of the crucifixion had the same occult meaning as +that of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. The forty days in +which Jesus “showed himself alive after his passion” corresponded with +the forty years of wandering in the wilderness. Hence, as the Israelites +left Egypt on the first day of the Passover, so Jesus was also crucified +on that day. Not being an historical event, one actually occurring, the +statement was permitted in order to preserve the harmony and identity of +the myths. + +As, however, the story is astrological, we need only explain that the +sun crossing the equinoctial line at the 21st of March is thus +crucified, the ecliptic and the equator constituting the real cross in +the form of the letter X. On the third day he appears ascending in the +northern hemisphere, and so is “raised again according to the +Scriptures.” + +Paul, while referring to these matters as _apparently historical_, never +departs from their _symbolic_ import. In fact, he dwells upon this so +emphatically that the events are only mentioned for the purpose of +indicating his meaning more definitely. “I am crucified with Christ,” +says he; “they that are of Christ have crucified the flesh with its +affections and lusts.” Nobody will for a moment imagine that this +crucifixion meant any physical violence, but only a çasting off of those +dispositions which are essentially unspiritual. “Our old man is +crucified,” Paul explains again, “in order that the body of sin might be +destroyed;... likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto +sin, but alive unto God.” This is the real meaning of the death and +resurrection as a spiritual matter. The external history which is so +much insisted upon by the partisans of the letter vanishes utterly away +before the eyes of him who perceives as well as sees, and understands +through intelligence rather than by scientific and logical reasoning. + +The early Fathers of the Church never scrupled to employ rites, symbols, +and other agencies which had been previously used by the various +priesthoods of the’ pagan worships. The entire biography of Jesus, as it +is set forth in the Gospels, exhibits unequivocally astrological +features, and a resemblance to the narratives of the gods so close as to +be equivalent almost to actual identity. The miraculous conception was +but a counterpart of many others: Atys, Adonis, Hercules, Bacchus, and +Æsculapius were fabled to have been sons of gods by human mothers. The +25th of December was also the birthday of Mithras; and Chrysostom, with +characteristic sophistry and equivocation, explains the matter and +justifies it as follows: “On this day also the birthday of Christ was +lately fixed at Rome, in order that while the heathen were busied with +their profane ceremonies the Christians might perform their holy rites +undisturbed.” He adds: “They call this the birthday of the Invincible +One: who so invincible as the Lord that overthrew and conquered death? +They style it the birthday of the sun; he is the Sun of righteousness of +whom Malachi speaks: ‘Upon you who fear my name the Sun of righteousness +shall arise with healing in his wings.’” + +At the very outset a serious difficulty is encountered. When the Roman +emperor Theodosius, fifteen centuries ago, decreed the universal +authority of the Christian Church, he commanded also that all books of +the philosophers and others not according to the new faith should be +destroyed. This leaves only the collection known as the _New Testament_ +and the writings of certain theologians, together with certain Gospels, +Epistles, and Apocalypses denominated apocryphal which were extant +during the earlier centuries of our era. In addition to this, there is +internal evidence in the writings now regarded as canonical that they +have been abridged, added to, and changed, so that the sense is more or +less obscured and doctrines are affirmed which were not in the original +documents. + +With the exception, perhaps, of some of the Epistles of Paul, James, and +First Peter there is no evidence, or even probability, that any other +book of the New Testament, whether Gospel, Epistle, or Apocalypse, was +written, or even known, by the individual whose name it bears. Indeed, +it is well known among students that the practice was formerly common to +append the name of some distinguished personage to a letter or treatise +and put it forth with this to commend it. “Our ancestors,” says the +philosopher Jamblichus, “used to inscribe their own writings with the +name of Hermès, he being as common property to all the priests.” Very +significant, therefore, is the clause “according to” which occurs in the +title of every one of the four Gospels. Each of them has been in +existence some fifteen or sixteen centuries “without father, without +mother,” or any other voucher or guarantee as evidence of the truth of +the statements which it contains. We have no obligation to hesitate in +our avowal that not one of the four reputed evangelists had anything to +do with the production to which his name is affixed. The works must +stand upon their intrinsic merits, and receive consideration +accordingly. + +Two centuries had passed away after the beginning of the present era +before the designation of _New Testament_ was used in connection with +any collection of writings, and before any special authority was claimed +for them. The men who first suggested their canonicity were Irenæus of +Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian of Carthage. Neither of +these men, so far as is known, made any attempt to demonstrate that any +book of the collection was genuine or authentic. Professor Davidson has +declared in regard to the scribes who made the copies of the books of +the _Old Testament_ that they did not refrain from changing what had +been written or inserting fresh matter. The same course has been taken +likewise with the text of the New Testament. Heretics and orthodox alike +added to its matter in order to establish their peculiar dogmas. The +text is nowhere pure. The doctrines of the Trinity, the Nativity of +Jesus, his Godhead and equality with the Father, the story of Mary, were +all introduced from Egypt and engrafted into the Gospels. + +Jesus is represented as having been born in a cave or stable at the +moment of midnight. At that period the constellation Virgo is cut +exactly in half by the eastern horizon, the sun itself being beneath in +the zodiacal sign of Capricorn, which was also called “the Stable of +Augeas” that Hercules was set to cleanse. Justin Martyr corroborates +this by stating that Christ was born when the sun (Mithras) takes his +birth in the stable of Augeas, coming as a second Hercules to cleanse a +foul world. Hence the rosary of the Roman Catholic Church has this +service: “Let us contemplate how the Blessed Virgin Mary, when the time +of her delivery was come, brought forth our Redeemer at midnight and +laid him in a manger.” + +By the cave, or _petra_, we may understand the cave of initiation, which +was always employed in ancient mystic rites. There was such a cave at +Bethlehem, and Jerome affirms that the mysteries of Adonis were +celebrated there in his time. Justin has preserved the tradition that +Mithras was born in a cave or petra, and Porphyry asserts that his rites +were observed in caves representing the vault of the heavens. The famous +declaration to Peter owes all its significance to this fact: “Thou art +Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I will build my Church; and the gates +of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys +of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall +be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be +loosed in heaven.” Undoubtedly, this passage is an interpolation; +nevertheless, it is susceptible of explanation. Jesus having asked the +twelve apostles who he was said to be, they reply: the “reincarnation” +of this or that prophet, as it was believed that such rebirth was usual +among men. Peter then avows that he is the Son of God. + +Significantly, Peter is not a Jewish proper name, but relates to +function. It is a Semitic word denoting an interpreter of oracles. The +priests of Apollo among the Gauls were denominated _paterœ_, as having +the gift of prophecy. The residence of Balaam the prophet was called +_Petur_, and there were oracles of Apollo at Patrai in Achaia and Patara +in Asia Minor. When, therefore, it is announced that the Church would be +built “upon this rock,” we may understand it to be the apostle’s +oracular utterance that Jesus was the Son of God. The Church that was +thus established consisted solely of adepts and initiates, the clergy +only, and the higher functionaries at that. The laity only _belong to_ +the Church: the others _are_ the Church. + +The Roman Catholic hierarchy have for centuries caused the fiction to be +promulgated that the apostle Peter founded the universal see of Rome. +This is like the mystic utterances of Jesus in speaking to the multitude +in parables. The pope, cardinals, and prelates know the real truth. +There never took place, so far as any historical evidence exists, any +visit, and much less the martyrdom, of the apostle Peter at Rome. The +pope is not the successor of any Christian apostle whatever, but only of +the pagan high priest. Under the republic and emperors the _pontifex +maximus_ was the supreme religious dignitary. Julius Cæsar held that +office. He presided over the worship and interpreted the sacred oracles. +It was a direction in the secret religion never to change the foreign +names. The Chaldaic designation of the supreme pontiff and hierophant +was _peter_. When the ancient worship was suppressed the Roman bishop +succeeded to the pontificate; and by this exaltation became vicar of the +Lord and successor of the peter or pagan pontiff of Rome. + +The tradition of the Magi or wise men coming from the east to worship +the infant Jesus, which was prefixed to the Gospel of Matthew, is pretty +well set forth by the names given them: _Kaspar_, the white one; +_Melchior_, the king of light; and _Balthasar_, the lord of treasures. +The additional legend that they travelled to Germany and were buried at +Cologne grew out of the fact that the Mithraic worship was prevalent in +that region. + +It should be borne in mind, while considering the astrologic character +of the story of Jesus, that the divis-ion of the apparent path of the +sun among the stars into the constellations which form the zodiac was +made and known throughout the Oriental world and employed in its +religious myths at an antiquity so remote as not to be known when the +plan was devised. Astrological correspondences are carefully maintained +all through the gospel narrative. The apostles represent the twelve +months, each of them being sent or commissioned to announce him (the +sun) to the people. + +The special events and their dates are commemorated by the Church so as +to be coincident with astrological data. The designation “Lamb of God” +comes directly from the fact that the crucifixion was placed at the time +the sun crosses the equinoctial line in March, and so entered the +zodiacal sign of Aries, the Lamb. He was thus “slain before the +foundation of the world,” or year, and takes away the sins or evils of +winter. Having descended into hell, or the winter period, he rises from +the dead. He is now enthroned; the four beasts, denoting the four chief +constellations in each quarter of the zodiacal circle—Taurus, Leo, +Aquila, and Aquarius—adore him, and the twenty-four elders (or hours) +fall down and worship him. The miracle of turning water into wine is +done every year, as Addison has sung,: + + “May the sun refine + The grape’s soft juice and mellow it to wine.” + +The curse of the fig tree is visited on every plant that is feeble and +poorly rooted when the sun’s heat comes upon it. John the Baptist says +of Jesus: “He must increase, but I must decrease.” The 24th of June, St. +John’s Day, is the last of the summer solstice, from which period the +days shorten, as, on the contrary, from the 25th of December, the natal +day of Jesus, they lengthen. “This is the sixth month with her that was +called barren,” said the angel Gabriel to Mary on the 25th of March, the +Annunciation, nine months before Christmas. On the 15th of August the +Church celebrates the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin into the heavenly +chamber of the King of kings, and accordingly the constellation Virgo +(or Astræa) also disappears, being eclipsed by the light and glory of +the sun. This disappearance continues seven days. Miriam, the virgin +sister of Moses and Aaron, doubtless also an astral character, was +secluded seven days while leprous. Three weeks later the sun has moved +on in the sky, permitting the constellation again to appear; and +accordingly the Church celebrates the 8th of September as the +anniversary of the nativity of the Blessed Virgin. + +The prominent pagan symbols which are now adopted by the Christian +prelacy are generally astronomical. Astrology and religion always went +hand in hand, and have not been legally divorced. At an earlier period +the sun entered the zodiacal sign of Taurus at the vernal equinox. This +fact led to the adoption of the bull or calf as a symbol of the Deity. +We notice this fact all over the ancient world, and in some modern +peoples that have not had a learned caste of priests. Every 2152 years +the zodiac shifts backward one sign—i. e. one-twelfth of its whole +extent. Hence, eventually, Aries, the Ram or Lamb, took the place of the +Bull to represent the god of spring. The paschal lamb, the ram-headed +god Amen of Egypt, and the lamb of Christian symbolism thus came into +existence. Since that the constellation Pisces has become the +equinoctial sign, and the Fish is the symbol of the Church. Hence the +bishop of Rome employs the seal of the fisherman, and the Gospel +narrative has made St. Peter a “fisher.” In this way the entire passion +of Jesus from the crucifixion to the ascension is astronomic. + +The Roman Catholic Church, having the superior understanding of the +matter, holds Protestants in derision for making a fetish of the Bible +and worshipping the sun, while not comprehending the matter +intelligently. Indeed, it is known by every intelligent priest that the +sun and phallic symbols characterize every world-religion. No matter +what attempts are made to disguise the matter, such is the fact. That +the sun is the light of the world needs but a mention; and so is Jesus +as the avatâr or personification. The cross on which he is impaled was a +symbol of the phallic worship thousands of years ago. The form may be an +X, f, or f, but it means the same. He is buried in winter and +resuscitated in the spring. + +Thus, to recapitulate: The Christian religion consists of the worship of +a divine being incarnated in human form in order to redeem fallen man, +born of a virgin, teaching immortality, working wonders, dying through +the machinations of the evil one, rising from death, re-ascending into +heaven, and to be the judge of the living and dead. The Mithraic +worship, its great rival and counterpart, was constituted with similar +imagery. The festivals appointed in honor of Mithras were fixed in +accordance with the seasons of the year, his birth being at the end of +the solstice in December, his death directly after the equinox in March. +Christ, being like Mithras, the personification of the sun and lord of +the cosmos, enacts a career on earth corresponding in its principal +parts to that of the sun in the heavens. The Holy Spirit as a wind or +atmosphere is the herald of his advent. The Virgin is the moon, the +mother of the sun and queen of heaven, just as she was in the pagan +world under different names. + +Often also at evening we witness the sun undergoing a bloody passion and +dying amid the reddened sky, leaving to the one whom he loves the moon +as his mother. + +So conscious is the Church of its descent in direct line from the former +paganism that it has adopted the symbols of its predecessor and placed +many of the old gods in its catalogue of saints along with the Assyrian +archangels. Bacchus appears there as St. Bacchus, St. Denis or +Dionysius, St. Liber, St. Eleutherius, St. Lyacus. Priapus is there as +St. Foutin, St. Cosmo, and St. Damian. The nymph Aura Placida is St. +Aura and St. Placida. There is also St. Bibiana, whose anniversary +occurs on the day of the Grecian festival of tapping the wine-casks. The +star Margarita has become St. Margaret, and Hippolytus the son of +Theseus, the hero-founder of the Athenian polity, has also been +canonized. The true image, or _veraicon_, has become St. Veronica, as +the supreme hierophant of Roman paganism is St. Peter. Then, too, there +are sainted dogmas personified, as St. Perpetua, St. Félicitas, St. +Rogatian, St. Donatian, etc. There are also St. Abraham, St. Michael, +St. Gabriel, St. David, and St. Patrick, whose anniversary falls on that +of his well-known predecessor, Pater Liber, the Roman Bacchus. The keys +of the Italian Janus and the Phrygian Kybelé are now held by the pope as +the keys of the kingdom of heaven. + +There is not a feature, symbol, ceremony, or dogma in the Church which +did not have a pagan prototype. Another fact is equally curious. While +the worship of Mithras is the evident origin of the Christian cultus, +the Lamas of Thibet in the heart of Asia also have ecclesiastical +orders, ceremonies, and other institutions which are the almost literal +counterpart of those of Rome. + +Whether there ever was really such an individual living on the earth as +Jesus of Nazareth becomes, in view of these facts, a minor question. +Myth, legend, tradition, and fancy have so transformed him that there is +no nucleus of original humanity left in sight. He is almost absolutely +without an historical mention. He has become a _myth, a +personification_, whether he was really a man or not. He is therefore an +_ideal_, and not _real_. The passages in Josephus are unquestionable +forgeries. Tacitus speaks of him as having been crucified under Pilate, +but in no way as an occurrence to be vouched for. Suetonius in his life +of Claudius Cæsar states that the emperor banished the Jews from Rome +because they raised sedition under the instigation of one Chrêstos. If +this is to be considered as meaning the reputed founder of the Christian +religion, the orthography of the name is very suggestive. Godfrey +Higgins declares in his _Anacalypsis_ that it was the original term +used, and was changed to Chreistos and Christ for ecclesiastical +reasons. He was of opinion also that transcribers had made these +alterations in the books of the New Testament. Chrêstos was a title of +Apollo and other divinities, and was conferred upon the better class of +citizens in certain Grecian states. Once the term is applied to Jesus in +the first Epistle of Peter: “The Lord is Chrëstos.” The probabilities +favor the supposition, the term Messiah, which is the Hebrew equivalent +for Christ, being nowhere used except in the fourth chapter of the +Gospel of John to designate Jesus, and that being a doubtful passage. + +There are few data remaining that indicate the character of Jesus. So +far as these are definitive they exhibit a close relationship to the +Essenean brotherhood. + +During the reign of Herod I., Hillel, a Babylonian, became president of +the Sanhedrim. He was thus the recognized head of the school, his +opponents being known as Shammaites. Both parties professed to be the +custodians of the Kabala or traditions of the ancients. These comprised +the arcane literature of the Jews, which was to be kept carefully away +from the laity. The Hillelites appear to have been more tenacious of +principles, but the Shammaites were very captious in regard to the +minutiae. The _Logia_, or aphorisms, imputed to Jesus accord with the +utterances of Hillel, and in a degree justify the opinion of the Rabbis. + +The relations of the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem and his early abode at +Nazareth are of the character of myth, and serve to indicate his +association with the Essenes. Bethlehem was the reputed birthplace of +King David, and afterward the prophet Micah, depicting the rise of +Hezekiah as the messiah and liberator of Judea from the Assyrian yoke, +assigns his origin to the same place. This latter prince could not have +been the son of Ahaz, whom he is said to have succeeded, having been +born when that king was but ten or eleven years old. That the dynasty of +Ahaz was overthrown is intimated in the declaration of Isaiah (7: 9), +and by his announcement of the accession of a new prince (9: 6, 7; 11:1, +etc.). The town of Bethlehem and the places about are enumerated in the +second chapter of First Chronicles as containing “the families of the +scribes,” “the Kenites,” from whom proceeded the Rechabites of later +times. These Kenites appear to have been a sacerdotal and literary +tribe, like the Magians of Media. They are said to have lived near the +city of palm trees (Judges 1:16), and to have removed into the southern +part of the Judean territory. Moses was described as having intermarried +and been adopted among them, and the kings Saul and David were more or +less familiar with them. Saul found them when be marched against the +Amalekites, and David sent them presents, as being accustomed in his +career as an outlaw to “haunt” their region. Elijah the prophet is said +to have gone into their country when he was driven out of the kingdom of +Samaria. + +The birth of Jesus at Bethlehem would seem, therefore, to have some +mystic reference to this people, as well as to the notion of a lineal +descent from David. His abode in the earlier years of life at Nazareth +was evidently a myth of kindred nature. Curiously enough, the writer of +the first chapter of Luke has represented Mary as a resident of +Nazareth, while the second chapter of Matthew describes Joseph as taking +up his abode there incidentally, fulfilling the word of the Essenean +prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene,” or Nazarite. The Esseneans +were also denominated _Nazarim_, and we may perceive the idea suggested +by the name that Jesus belonged to their body. It was a common mode of +writing, to describe an every-day occurrence in a form conveying a +mystic or occult meaning beneath the apparent statement. The character +of Jesus as a prophet and representative personage is thus actually +signified. His birth in the country of the Kenites and adepts betokened +his consecration and separation, while the residence at Nazareth +typified his Essenean relations. + +The congregation of disciples at Jerusalem and their sympathizers in +Palestine were designated as Nazore-ans and Ebionim. It is no great +stretch of imagination to presume them to have been an offshoot of the +Essenean brotherhood. These were zealous propagandists, and their modes +of life and action coincide very closely with those of the early Church. +The writers of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles describe the +apostles and their converts as living after the manner of an Essenean +commune. Jesus “ordained twelve that they should be with him;... and +they went into a house,” or became as one family. This was precisely +like the Essenes and Therapeutæ. “In the first place,” says Philo, “not +one of them has a house of his own which does not belong to all of +them.” For besides their living together in large societies, each house +is also open to every visiting brother of the order. “Furthermore, all +of them have one store of provisions and equal expenses; they have their +garments in common, as they do with their provisions. They reside +together, eat together, and have everything in common to an extent as it +is carried out nowhere else.” Hence we read without surprise that the +multitude came about them, so that they could not so much as eat bread. +The apostolic congregation is also described as imitating the same form +of living: “All that believed were together and had all things common; +and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all of them as +every one had need.... Neither said any of them that aught of the things +which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Neither +was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of +lands or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were +sold and laid them down at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made +unto every man as he had need.” For a time the apostles, it is stated, +were stewards of the whole body, teaching them and supplying them with +food, till finally seven Hellenistic Jews were selected and set apart +for that purpose. + +Eusebius comments upon the account given by Philo of the Therapeutæ, as +follows: “These facts appear to have been stated by a man (Philo), who +at least has paid attention to those that have expounded the sacred +writings. But it is highly probable that the ancient commentaries which +he says they have are the very Gospels and writings of the apostles, and +probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained +in the Epistle to the Hebrews and many others of St. Paul’s Epistles.... +Why need we add an account of their meetings, and the separate abodes of +men and women in these meetings, and the exercises performed by them, +which are still in vogue among us at the present day; and which, +especially at the festival of our Saviour’s passion, we are accustomed +to use in our fastings and watchings and in the study of the divine +word! All these the above-mentioned author has accurately described and +stated in his writings; and they are the same customs that are observed +by us alone at the present day, particularly the vigils of the great +festivals, and the exercises in them and the hymns that are commonly +recited among us. He states that whilst one sings gracefully with a +certain measure, the others, listening in silence, join in singing the +final clauses of the hymns; also that on the above-mentioned days they +lie on straw spread on the ground, and, to use his own words, they +abstain altogether from wine and taste no flesh. Water is their only +drink, and the relish of their bread, salt, and hyssop. Besides this, he +describes the grades of dignity among those who administer the +ecclesiastical services committed to them—those of the deacons and +president of the episcopate as the highest. But whosoever desires to +have a more accurate knowledge of these things may learn them from the +history already cited; but that Philo, when he wrote those statements, +had in view the first heralds of the gospel and the original practices +handed down from the apostles must be obvious to all” + +As if to afford further foundation for this conjecture of identity of +the early disciples with the Ebionites, the Greek word for this +designation, “ptochos,” usually translated “poor” and “beggar,” occurs +in the New Testament in a manner which often suggests that the Ebionites +are meant by the designation. + +“Happy the poor in spirit,” says the Sermon on the Mount; “for the +kingdom of the heavens is theirs.” “The gospel is preached to them” was +the message sent to John the Baptist in his prison at Macheras. “If thou +wilt be perfect,” says Jesus to the young man, “go, sell that thou hast, +and give to the poor.” In the Gospel according to St Luke (6: 20) Jesus +actually addresses his disciples as “ye poor,” or Ebionim. Lazarus is +called _Ptochos, or Ebioni_, in the sixteenth chapter. Paul sternly +rebukes the Galatian Christians for their conversion to Ebionism: “But +then, not having seen God, you were servants to those that are not gods; +but now having known God, or rather having been known by God, why do you +turn about again to the weak and beggarly elements?” + +Nevertheless, the conclusion of Eusebius, that the Essenes or Therapeutæ +were only Christians of the apostolic age, is impossible. They were of +greater antiquity, and flourished when Christians—or _Chrestians_, +whichever they may be—had never been heard of. The converse is more +probable by far—that the apostles and their Ebionite followers were +religionists after the form of the Essenes. + +We have indicated the evident similarity of these sectaries with the +Mithraic initiates, and the fact has also been shown that many of the +Christians of the first centuries also observed the rites of that +worship. That the astrological features of each were identical and are +manifest in the story of Jesus has also been illustrated. We may now +treat the final question, that of the person of Jesus himself. + +It is the easiest way just now to concede his physical existence, and +reject the marvels, exaggerations, and other incredibilities of the +Gospel narratives. A Roman Catholic writer of great acuteness has marked +out that very course. He explains his position so aptly that we will +reproduce the principal features, which certainly seem in a great degree +to sustain our proposition. “Where intellect sees an idea, an +abstraction,” says he, “religion sees a person. This involves a superior +development of the consciousness; inasmuch while intellect of itself, +having neither motive nor force, could not have created, personality +includes intellect and all else that is indispensable to action—namely, +feeling and energy.” + +He sets forth Christianity as a religion in Palestine “which consisted +in the worship of a Divine Being incarnated in human form in order to +redeem fallen man, born of a virgin, teaching immortality, working +wonders of benevolence, dying through the hostile machinations of the +spirit of evil, rising from death, reascend-ing into heaven, and +becoming judge of the dead. As representative of the sun the festivals +appointed in his honor were fixed in accordance with the seasons, his +birth being at the end of the winter solstice; his death at the spring +equinox; his rising soon afterward, and then his ascension into heaven, +whence he showers down benefits on man.” + +The same author indicates the Essenes as cherishing these beliefs: +“Deriving their tenets from the East, they believed in the Persian +dualism, regarded the sun as the impersonation of the Supreme Light, and +worshipped it in a modified way.” He adds: “To the sect of the Essenes +the originals of John the Baptist and Jesus must have belonged.” + +“We may possess a trustworthy account of the spirit that was in Jesus,” +he says again, “and yet be altogether in the dark respecting his precise +sayings and doings. The condition of the world at this period being such +as I have described, it was inevitable that any impressive personality +whose career enabled such things, with however small a modicum of truth, +to be predicated of it as were predicated of Jesus, should be seized +upon and appropriated to the purposes of a new religion.... + +“For the masses the spectacle of an heroic crusade against the +authority, respectability, and pharisaism of an established +ecclesiasticism, combined with complete self-devotion, with teaching of +the most absolute perfection in morals—a perfection readily recognizable +by the intuitive perceptions of all—and with a confident mysticism that +seemed to imply unbounded supernatural knowledge—_all characteristics of +the sect of Essenes to which he and the Baptist manifestly +belonged_,—these were amply sufficient to win belief in Jesus as a +divine personage. And especially so when they found him persistently +reported not only as having performed miracles in his life, but as +having shown that traditional superiority to all the limitation of +humanity which was ascribed to their previous divinities by rising from +the dead and ascending into heaven. Familiar as they were with the +notion of incarnations in which the sun played a principal part, and +accustomed to associate such events with virgin mothers impregnated by +deities, births in stables or caves, hazardous careers in the exercise +of benevolence, violent deaths, and descents into the kingdom of +darkness, resurrections and ascensions into heaven, to be followed by +the descent of blessings upon mankind,—it required but the suggestion +that Jesus of Nazareth was a new and nobler incarnation of the Deity, +who had so often before been incarnate and put to death for man’s +salvation, to transfer to him the whole paraphernalia of doctrine and +rite deemed appropriate to the office.” + +There appears no reasonable doubt of the relationship of Jesus to the +Essenean brothers. Not only does the name itself imply a personification +of that peculiar people, but he is represented as uttering their +distinctive doctrines. In the Sermon on the Mount he required from his +disciples, as did the Essenean teachers, a righteousness exceeding that +of the Scribes and Pharisees; and the Beatitudes are distinctly of the +same character. He prohibits the oath, as the Esseneans also did, +enjoined non-resistance to violent assault and forgiveness of injuries, +and exhorted to take no thought for the morrow, which he described as +serving Mammon. He also charged against divulging the interior +doctrines, comparing it to giving the holy bread to dogs and casting +pearls to the swine, the latter treading the precious jewels under foot +and the dogs turning to rend the giver. Indeed, the whole discourse is +one which a teacher of the fraternity would deliver to candidates. +“These things,” he declares, “are hid from the wise and prudent, but are +revealed to babes.” When his disciples demur at his rigid tenets in +regard to marriage, permitting divorce only for lewdness or false +religion, he sanctions their inference that it is not good to marry. “He +that is able to receive this doctrine,” added he, “let him receive it.” +To the young man who desired to know the way to perfection he first gave +a reproof for calling him good when there was no one so but the one God, +and then commanded him to sell all his possessions and give to the +_poor_, probably meaning the _Ebionim_. In the parable in Luke the rich +man after death is tormented, while the other, the _ptochos_ or Ebionite +Lazarus, is compensated in the lap of Abraham. Yet except the few cases +when the terms “brethren” and “disciple” are used there are few direct +references to the Essenes. But he is continually exhorting against the +doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and denouncing the former. +Meanwhile, he nowhere fills a page in history. He has left no mark of +his individual existence. + +We have observed that Judaism was chiefly the counterpart of Persian +Mazdaism, the Supreme Being, the seven Amesha-spentas, Yazatas, Evil +Spirit and devas, being reproduced in Jehovah with his angels and seven +archangels, Satan and his wicked crew. Essenism, in turn, appears to +have been a form of the Persian religion, including the worship of the +sun, astral and prophetic doctrines, occult science, a cultus and +sacraments; and as the Persian doctrines were ascribed to the unknown +Zarathustra, so those of the Essenean brotherhood are personified in the +character of a gifted teacher, born on the natal day of Mithras, +inculcating truth and right action, and in every way representing and +personifying the religious system. This was, as has been observed, a +common practice in former times. As soon as we consider _Jesus as +Essenism personified_ we find the difficulties vanish which every other +theory presents. But Essenism was much older than the Christian era, +despite the pretense of Eusebius of the absolute identity of Essenes and +the early Christians. We may also remark that there are fragments of +books in existence which treat of a Jew, the son of a soldier and +temple-woman, who exhibits characteristics of the Jesus of the Gospels +sufficient to intimate the identity of the two. They place his career in +the time of the earlier Asmonean kings, about the period when the +Essenes are first mentioned by that name. We do not attach great +importance to these works, except for the fact that they would not have +appeared, unless there had existed a comprehensive account of some kind, +parabolic or historic, to suggest their preparation. The _Toldoth +Jeshu_, or Generations of Jesus, to which we refer, has several +characteristics which are worth noting. The father of Jesus, being a +soldier, probably denoted a “soldier of Mithras,” and the alma or +Blessed Virgin, a Hebrew maiden set apart for a time, as was the +practice for young maids in Athens, to work and be initiated at the +temple. It is also asserted that Jesus spent a season in Egypt, where he +learned magic. The Therapeutæ had communes in that country as well as in +Arabia and Palestine, and were addicted to the study of medical +knowledge, astrology, and other arts, which, being derived from the Magi +or priest-caste of the East, were denominated magic. This term +originally carried with it no reproachful meaning, but meant all +learning of a liberal character, and occult science was only such +knowledge as was considered too sacred for profane individuals. “He who +pours water into a muddy well,” says Jamblichus, “does but disturb the +mud.” Doubtless the primitive Essenean gospel described Jesus as a young +man of rare qualities, the son of a Mithraic or Essenean adept, who was +instructed at the school of Alexandria or in the priest-colleges of +ancient Egypt, and became expert in the technic of religious and +scientific wisdom. Thus, the great Siddartha was taught by the Jaina +sage Mahavira before he became himself a teacher and a sage. As the +sacraments of the Church are like the observances of the Essenes and +those which are also celebrated at the Mithraic initiations, this is +abundantly plausible. The departure made by Paul and others from the +methods of the order afford the reason for the assigned origin of +Christianity at the period known as the “year of our Lord,” _Anno +Domini._ + +The original books from which the Gospels were compiled have perished. +There was a Gospel in the possession of the Ebionites carefully guarded +as a sacred or arcane book, a copy of which Jerome procured with great +difficulty, but which has since been lost and forgotten. The sect +disappeared, melting away into the church or the synagogue, and we now +read of them loaded with the opprobrious slanders of Irenæus and +Epiphanius. They were the original disciples in Judea, and were +subjected, in common with other Jews, to the hardships and persecutions +which followed upon the destruction of the national polity. This Hebrew +Gospel and such writings as the Catholic Epistles of James and Peter +contained their peculiar doctrines. They regarded Jesus as a teacher or +exemplar, but not as a superhuman being in any sense of the term. That +notion came from the pagans. + +Indeed, it was not their belief that such a man had literally existed. +The Doketæ (or Illusionists) held that he was a symbolic being, an +ideality. The Gnostics generally, whom Gibbon describes as “the most +polite, the most learned, and most wealthy of the Christian name,” +described him as an _aion_ or spiritual principle; and considered the +crucifixion as metaphorical and not a literal event. The real Christ, +Chrëstos or divine principle, they regarded as still in heaven, intact. + +The apostle Paul was the great innovator upon the Ebionite and Essenean +doctrines. He was too broad and far-seeing to overlook the fact that the +exclusiveness of Judaism would arrest any universal dissemination of the +faith in the world. Hence he struck out boldly on his own account. He +had a gospel, he declares to the Galatians, which he had received from +no man; it was not “_according_ to any man,” but a distinct, +differentiated matter, the apocalypse of Jesus Christ. “Let the man, or +even angel, that preaches any other gospel be anathema,” he declares. He +did not hesitate to denounce the Ebionist apostles, nor they in turn to +set him forth as an impostor, holding the doctrine of Balaam and +teaching faith without works or rites. At Antioch he withstood Peter to +the face, and declares him condemned. Writing to the Corinthians, he +denounces the schisms and deprecates the influence of Apollos, a Jew +from Alexandria. “I, the wise architect, have laid the foundation,” says +he, “but another has built upon it. That foundation is Christ.” It is +very plain, however, that the Christ that he taught was rather an ideal +than a literal personage. “I have seen the Lord,” he declares, and again +avows that he preached “Jesus Christ and the Crucified One.” Yet when he +refers to the death and resurrection he always treats of them as +figurative matters, pertaining to the spiritual and not to the corporeal +nature. A Christ that he had seen could but be a spiritual entity. +“Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” he declares, +“neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” This is a complete +setting aside of any gross, literal sense to be given to his language. +Others who received the gospel were crucified as Christ was, and rose +again to a new life while yet embodied in mortal flesh. He was the type, +the model, the exemplar, and they who believed were walking in his +footsteps. “Know ye not,” he asks the Roman believers, “that so many of +us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? We +then are buried with him by this baptism into his death; so that as +Christ was raised up from the dead, even so we should walk in a new +life. For if we have become planted together in the likeness of his +death, we are also, on the other hand, in that of his resurrection: +knowing this, that our old man was crucified together, that the body of +sin might be made inert, that we may no longer be enslaved to sin. If we +died with Christ, we believe that we will also live to him; being aware +that Christ having risen from the dead is no longer dying, death no +longer rules him. For wherein he died, he died to sin once for all; but +wherein he lives, he lives to God. So likewise reckon ye yourselves dead +to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” + +A spiritual crucifixion, death, and resurrection, in strict analogy with +the equinoctial crucifixion, death, and resurrection of the mystic +rites, is the foremost idea of this passage. The baptism of Jesus in the +river Jordan and his forty days’ temptation in the wilderness were of +the same character. There was no literal dying signified in the case. +Indeed, nobody knew better than Paul that the Jewish Sanhedrim did not +sit and that capital punishments were not inflicted at the period of the +Passover, the day of the crucifixion, being, according to the law, “a +day of holy convocation.” The crucifixion being figurative and suggested +by an astrological period, we are fully warranted in the hypothesis that +the victim likewise was a symbolic personage of an astral character. + +This ideal Jesus, with the emphatic but ambiguous phrase of Paul—“Him +crucified”—was not sufficient for the exigencies of the Christian +leaders of the subsequent century. The Gnostics and other cultured men +were satisfied, but the lower classes wanted a more tangible character, +a physical corporeity. The great want, therefore, was some proof of the +literal existence of the individual by the evidence of men that had seen +him and been familiar with him. This was now furnished by the production +of the three synoptic Gospels and their adoption in the place of other +evangelical literature. Afterward, Irenæus or some one with his approval +added the Gospel according to John. The fiction of an apostolic +succession was then originated, and forgery for religious purposes was a +general practice. The quarrels of Christians with Christians were for +centuries more scandalous than all the atrocities of actual martyrdom. + +Previous to this the Church had labored indefatigably and successfully +to destroy the influence and reputation of Paul. He was now taken into +favor; his Epistles were revised, interpolated, toned down, and accepted +as canonical. The Acts of the Apostles was next produced. It is a work +in two parts—one set apart to the story of the apostle Peter, and the +other to the achievements of Paul. The purpose evidently was to indicate +that the two were not at variance, but were laborers in the same field. +The work of harmonizing must have been difficult. In our day it would +not have been possible. Books cannot be got out of the way as in former +centuries, and inconsistencies of writers are sure to be exposed. + +Justin Martyr lived at Rome in the reign of the Antonines and wrote a +_Defence of the Christians_. Yet he makes no mention of “St. Peter the +first bishop.” He had never heard of him. Irenæus, however, did not +hesitate to say anything to advance the gospel, and accordingly boldly +asserts that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome; overlooking +their reciprocal animosity, and the fact that the Epistle of Paul to the +Romans addresses the “saints,” but makes no mention of a church. +Claudius had banished the Jews from Rome for their turbulent conduct +under the instigations of Chrestos, and the emperors Trajan and Adrian +seem to have known of Christians only from information which they had +derived solely from the provinces in the East. But all this made no +difficulty for Irenæus. This French prelate also declared that the +ministry of Jesus lasted upward of ten years; also that he lived to be +an elderly man. The anachronisms and bad geography of the Gospels are +notorious, but they do not compare with the absurdities of Irenæus. He +invented the name _Antichrist_, and hurled it with ferocious rage +whenever he had been assailed and hard pushed in controversy. He was +never so much in his element as when quarrelling; and his designation of +Irenæus (a man of peace) is one of the most stupendous misnomers ever +heard of. + +We have alluded to the fact that passages had been interpolated into the +Epistles of Paul. The object was to harmonize the Logos of Philo and his +school with the Christ or Chrêstos of the apostle. It would have been a +futile attempt if it had been made when Paul was castigating the +Corinthian Christians in regard to Apollos. A dead man’s words, however, +can be mutilated and perverted without his resistance. We accordingly +find the sturdy Hebrew diction of the apostle interlarded with Gnostic +utterances, and new epistles purporting to have been written by him +which give a different complexion to his doctrines. The _pleroma_ or +fulness which is treated of in the Epistle to the Ephesians was taken +bodily from the Gnostics. + +The pre-existence of Christ as the Creator of the world was asserted in +a spurious document purporting to be a letter from him to the +Colossians, and interpolations of a corresponding nature were made in +the genuine Corinthian Epistles. Thus in the famous chapter on the +resurrection we find the following sentiment of Philo in an amplified +form: “Man, being freed by the _Logos_ (or Word) from all corruption, +shall be entitled to immortality.” + +Gibbon has shown us that the first regular church government was +instituted at Alexandria. This is in keeping with the other facts. The +dogmas of an incarnate God, of the Trinity, and the sacred character of +the Blessed Virgin were all introduced into the creed by the influence +of the Alexandrians, and it would therefore seem to be legitimately +their right to institute the government. We have noticed already that +the Therapeutæ of that country had offices with similar titles and +functions as those now possessed by officers of the Church, and as they +and the Christians were closely allied, we have good reason for the +belief that they had united with the new organization in such numbers as +to outvote the original members. Certain it is, that thenceforth the +names of Essenes and Therapeutæ occurred no more. But the sect which +gave shape to the concept had thus, to a certain degree at least, +resumed control over the whole matter. + +That such an individual as Jesus Christ ever lived is entirely without +proof from history. We find Josephus making mention of one and another +who acquired notoriety. He describes Judas of Galilee as the founder of +a fourth philosophic sect, and tells of Jesus the son of Hanan who +predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple years before it +occurred. We observe similarity enough in his utterances to those of the +twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and in his deportment when brought +before the Roman governor to that described in the Gospels, to warrant +some little surmise of identity with the Jesus of the Gospels. But of +Jesus as the founder of the Christian religion, or more properly the +Ebionite sect, we have no such delineation. Of him we have only an +utterance which is a palpable forgery. + +This preaching of Jesus as a veritable individual of like passions with +other men, having a will not always consonant with the divine will, and +yet divine in qualities and attributes, has been very justly “to the +Jews a stumbling-block and to the Greeks foolishness.” Intelligent men, +however reverent and impartial, have been compelled to dissent. The +fanatic Tertullian in declaring his own position gave utterance to what +many felt to be the substance of the whole matter: “I reverence it +because it is contemptible; I adore it because it is absurd; I believe +it because it is impossible.” We are outgrowing a faith and veneration +so utterly childlike as to be fatuity itself. + +If we search for Jesus at Nazareth in Galilee, we shall not find a +footprint. If, however, we look for him in the testimonies of the +Nazarim and Essenes as the personification of their school of +philosophic thought, thus representing in concept the emanation of God +and the evolution of man as a spiritual being, we shall see him as he +is. Hence to surrender the popular notion of a literal man as an +infallible teacher and exemplar is not to renounce anything that is +vital in truth. We will only dispense with the paganism and +raan-worship. We eliminate the sensuous imagery, but preserve intact the +life, the power, and the energy. The parables and aphorisms which are in +the Gospels are as true, as wholesome, and inspiring as ever. Jesus the +ideal represents, and will continue to represent, all that was implied +in the arcane religions in the East. Upon this ground, therefore, it is +well that Christianity in its external forms as well as in its esoteric +principles should supplant the other worships. It repeats what there is +of value in them, and at the same time it comes more closely home to the +higher consciousness. In the personification of Jesus the true ideal of +our humanity is suggested. We are born of our earthly father and mother, +whose image and name we accordingly inherit, and we have to pass through +the pains and throes of a second birth as children of the celestial +parent. This was outlined distinctly by symbols in the initiations, and +the successful candidate, having overcome in the trial, was enthroned +and acknowledged as the son of the Most High. Hence Jesus sets forth in +the Gospel the last disclosure of the Esseneân rite: “Call no man father +on the earth, for one is your Father; he is in the heavens; and you are +brothers.” Paul repeats the sentiment in other words: “As many as are +led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God; heirs of God and +joint-heirs with Christ.” This idea, often too much lost sight of, lies +at the core of all real knowledge. The end of all worship, all +philosophic discipline, and all religious teaching is to open the way in +every mind to a higher perception and a profounder conscientiousness. + +Yet the suggestion of the angel at the sepulchre is pertinent—that we +forbear to seek for the living among the dead. The real enlightenment of +mankind comes not from teachers, but only from the fountains of interior +illumination. We have no call or occasion to go to this man or to that +man as a leader. It may be the province of individuals to stand out +conspicuously in order to indicate the next advance to be made. But when +each has thus performed his service, his glory is outshone by the +refulgent light which he has induced others to seek and obtain. + +We require no display of spiritual pyrotechnics. Enough for us that +there is truth, and that we have the intellect to perceive it—that there +is right, and we have the will to obey it. Neither a human God nor a +divine man can enlighten us further than this. There are freedom and +impulse for us to attain the highest degree of illumination of which we +are capable. The human aspiration soars beyond the path of the +lightning. In every noble idea, every worthy desire, we have a mediator +with God. The more silent the work, the more certain that the principle +of all life is performing it. In this is our eternity, and there is +nothing beyond. + + + + +CHAPTER XI. THE IDEAL CHRIST + + +_“What think ye of Christ? Whose son was he?”—Matt. 22: 42._ + + +NEARLY a quarter of a century ago (1868) a very remarkable pamphlet was +published by request of the Free Religious Association, written by that +remarkable man, the Rev. Samuel Johnson, a Unitarian minister and an +author of no little repute. The subject was _The Worship of Jesus._ It +had a very limited circulation, and the stereotype plates were destroyed +in the great Boston fire, and it is now very difficult to find a copy. + +Mr. Johnson takes the ground that “Christianity is a temporary step in +the divine growth of man through the worship of the ideal; and this hope +lies, not in pausing on this step as final, nor in proving the names and +personalities associated with it to be as valid for ever as they have +been in the past, but in that which underlies and governs the whole +process—_the law of religious idealization._ + +“This is no speculation; it is the positive law of progress, as history +presents it. To worship ideals is the condition of spiritual life. To +lose belief that there is somewhere a better than ourselves is to +gravitate downward to what is worse than ourselves. We grow better by +definite homage to a best. And this worship of ideals is a process of +idealization.... Man’s power of growth, therefore, resides in the +ability to shift his veneration.... + +“Ideals prove themselves to be idealizations, that they may point him on +to higher levels. This is religious progress.... + +“So a time comes when every religion that centres in an individual’s +prerogative of divinity falls under criticism, and is, so far, referred +to temporary causes. Christianity cannot escape this law. As a distinct +religion it is but Christism, and passes away, like Jehovism, before a +broader faith. Whether what succeeds it be called Theism or Pantheism, +this terminology of systems fails to express its scope. It is free +worship of the one infinite and eternal life of the spiritual, moral, +and physical universe.... + +“How, then, did the concentration of the religious sentiment upon Jesus +originate? Not, as the Church insists, in the undeniable rights of a +perfect Being to the everlasting allegiance of mankind, for there is no +evidence of his perfection, intellectual or spiritual, but in the fact +that the religious sentiment, at a certain stage of its historical +progress, demanded a single human centre, and knew how to satisfy its +own demand by its own process of idealization. + +“The ideal itself was sent in the soul of the age. It was bound to do +what it would with its materials by its own divine gift. It was the +creative force of the time. It is not the whole truth to say with +Merivale, then, that( the religion of Christ seized and developed, with +a divine energy, the latent yearnings of mankind for social combination, +having for its essence, in a human point of view, the doctrine of the +equality of man/ Rather did that religion catch a spirit of universality +already abroad in the age—not latent, but mighty to transform society, +to inspire both Hebrew Messiah and Gentile philosopher, _to make its god +in its own image_, and to transform the little Jewish sect at last into +a Church of civilization.... + +“And this, at least, is sure; always there is a man for the hour. +Somehow or other, a great demand will find satisfaction. But the man is +not what the hour reports him when it has crowned him with all that +faith and fancy can bestow, and set up, through him, its own special +demand as valid for all time. Future ages will revise, from a freer +standpoint, the image it transmits for their adoration.... + +“The earliest types and emblems of Christ-worship betray this powerful +element in its origination. Jesus is represented in the form of the old +deities and in conjunction with them. Between the images of Mercury +Criophorus and Apollo Nomius, and that of the ‘Good Shepherd/ the +transition is so gradual that it is hard to decide whether the picture +is pagan or Christian. In the Catacombs Jesus sits as Pluto on the +judgment-seat, with Mary as Proserpine, while Mercury leads in souls. +Still earlier emblems of Jesus, the Lamb, the Fish, the Ship, the Cross, +the Dove, are all associated with older heathen mysteries or +mythological beliefs, as are also the Christian festivals and rites. + +“And so the idealization of Jesus went on steadily and consistently till +it reached deification. The early Christian ‘apologists’ ridiculed the +human gods of the old polytheism, yet they did but concentrate the same +principle more perfectly in the form of their Christ. Hebrew monotheism +was indeed too strong in Paul to allow of his finding in Jesus more than +a man in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt. But this hovers very +close upon the larger desire of the nations. And later, in the Gospel of +John, the Gentile current has absorbed the Hebrew and the call for a +God-man is boldly met. A life of Jesus is here dramatically constructed, +not out of historical facts, nor even traditions, but out of that +preconceived ideal of an incarnate word attaching itself, in its longing +for actual and living substance, to the growing prestige of his name.... + +“The records of Jesus’ life have had to be idealized also; and these are +not, like his person, so dim and veiled as to leave the religions +imagination a certain margin of freedom, however inadequate, but a +definite statement of doctrines, doings, and claims; so that science, +philosophy, art, and morality have been taught to bow in his name to the +limitations of half-developed times and men. + +“It is not denied that by leaving out what we dislike we can find in the +New-Testament Jesus as noble an ideal as we will, though it can be only +of a purely interior individualism, unrelated to practical and political +functions. But we cannot ignore the many sources, apart from the real +life of Jesus, from which this feast of good things has been derived. +The New Testament is, in fact, not so much the record of a life as the +fruit of two ancient civilizations, the Oriental and Greek, of whose +confluence Christianity itself was the product.... + +“It is urged that we destroy the basis of religious unity when we take +away this historical and personal centre of faith. Men absolutely need, +it is said, that concrete form, that individuality, under which the +divine is represented to them in the Christ. There would be more cause +for this anxiety if it could be shown that they have ever possessed such +a centre. But what have they had, after all, but a common name for +ever-changing ideals? The belief that all eyes were turned to a common +authoritative centre was an illusion, which had its uses, indeed, but +becomes a breeder of strife in proportion as men learn the rights of +free inquiry. ‘Worship the Christ! follow Jesus!’ cry the ages. But who +is Jesus? and what is the Christ? The Jesus of Matthew is one, the +Christ of John is another, the ‘second Adam’ of Paul is a third. The +moral as well as the theological contents of the name vary with the ages +and the sects that appeal to it. As the Christ of Luther was not the +Christ of Augustine, nor his the Christ of James, so the Christ of the +Unitarian is one, of the Calvinist another. Whom the one will save, the +other will destroy; what to the one is moral wrong, to the other is +divine right; what love would require in the one, justice would +foreclose in the other. What common centre can the liberal Bible +scholars and the panic-stricken, text-ridden Revivalists find in the +name of Christ? All the warring sects have been ‘standing up for Jesus;’ +and which of them knows what Jesus was? The farther you get back toward +the original, the less sure do you feel of your own knowledge, and the +less right should you feel from what you know in part to assume that you +have found the appointed centre of religious thought. It would be easy +to show that unity is impossible so long as it is sought to found it on +the claims of a person to that position, since the mysterious +irrationality of such an office must keep the speculative faculties of +mankind in ceaseless self-contradiction and strife. It would be easy to +show that this claim of Jesus has been the perpetual root of dogmatic +warfare—that all barbarism of the Christian Church in past ages has come +of jealousy about the honor due the person of the Christ.” We offer no +apology for these long extracts from Mr. Johnson’s inimitable little +book of ninety pages. “He being dead yet speaketh,” and his words give +no uncertain sound. He was in advance of the times, and if his brethren +in the Unitarian ministry would regard Jesus, whom they almost deify, as +an _ideal_ (quite imperfect) that has come down to us from pagan +peoples, and cease to court the favor of the orthodox, they would have +more self-respect and more real regard from the thinking men of the age. + +We might as well now come directly to the question whether the Jesus of +the Gospels was an _ideal_ rather than a historical individual—an +_impersonation_ rather than a person. And here we take the broad ground +that whether there was a real man or not makes no difference whatever, +because the writings themselves are largely _ideal_, and so make the man +what he was not. No two persons worship the same God, the “personified +Infinite.” The conception of God must itself be limited and incomplete, +and therefore inadequate and largely ideal. No two persons believe in +the same Jesus, so there must be as many ideals as there are believers. +The habit of exaggerating, of deifying those whom we have been taught to +regard as the greatest and best, is a well-known disposition of the +human mind. Indeed, “the function of the Church is the cultivation of +the ideal.” This is so palpable that the legends of all religions +recognize this principle to such an extent that most of them represent +their “saviors” as having been born of virgin mothers. Catholics flock +to their temples and in parrot-like utterances worship an ideal Jesus +and an equally ideal Virgin, and thus cultivate only the ideal side of +their nature. It is very much easier to excite the imagination than to +convince the understanding; and this is the real secret of the strength +of Catholicism and of the weakness of Protestantism. Catholic worship is +mainly spectacular, an appeal to the senses, and is therefore attractive +alike to the uneducated and the educated. They believe the Gospels +_literally_, because they have had the principal incidents recorded in +them set forth before their eyes from their very birth, and they cannot +be reasoned out of what they have never been reasoned into. + +But we are told that Jesus must have been a real person or he never +could have exerted the influence that he has for the last eighteen +hundred years upon so many millions of people. Let us see: If Jesus ever +dwelt upon this earth, it must have been several hundred years ago. Not +one of the many millions who have worshipped him since his few years of +sojourn here but have done so in view of what they have heard of him or +read of him. They never saw him and never heard his voice. He wrote +nothing, and never authorized any one else to write anything. After the +lapse of nearly two centuries the four Gospels appeared. Very little is +told of him there. If you take out what is repeated concerning him +therein, you would not have, in length, what would make a modern sermon; +and that would be found full of contradictions, absurdities, and +impossibilities. Those who have believed on him have believed on what +they called _testimony_ concerning him; and that testimony would have +produced the same effect whether true or false if they really _believed_ +it. The real existence of an alleged person is not essential to excite +admiration if it is really _believed_ that he existed. The Swiss loved +and honored William Tell just as much as if he had not in these latter +years been proved a myth. The world’s history teems with the heroic +deeds of many noble persons (impersonations) who never had an existence, +and the literature of the race would greatly suffer by striking out all +that is fictitious. The reason that the ideal Christ has exerted so much +greater influence than any other impersonation is because so many +skilful artists have bestowed their best labor upon it, and because the +figure is so ancient and contains so many features that commend +themselves to the human mind and heart. + +We find in _Natural Genesis_, by the English poet Gerald Massey, a +passage which so beautifully portrays our own view of this subject that +we cannot forbear copying it: + +“It has often been said that if there were no historic Christ then the +writers who represented such a conception of the divine man must have +included amongst them one who was equal to the Christ. But the mythical +Christ was not the outcome of any such conception. It was not a work of +the individual mind at all, but of the human race—a crowning result of +evolution _versus_ any private conception of a hero. This was the hero +of all men, who never was and was never meant to be human, but from the +beginning was divine; a mythical hero without mortal model, and equally +without fault or flaw. This was the star-god who dawned through the +outermost darkness; this was the moon-god who brought the message of +renewal and immortality; this was the sun-god who came with the morning +to all men; this in the Kronian stage was the announcer of new life and +endless continuity at the opening of every cycle, and in the +psychotheistic phase the typical son of the Eternal as manifester and +representative in time. + +“As a mental model the Christ was elaborated by whole races of men, and +worked at continually, like the Apollo of Greek sculpture. Various +nations wrought at this ideal, which long-continued repetition evoked +from the human mind at last as it did the Greek god from the marble. + +“Egypt labored at the portrait for thousands of years before the Greeks +added their finishing touches to the type of the ever-youthful solar +god. It was Egypt that first made the statue live with her own life, and +humanized her ideal of the divine. Hers was the legend of supreme pity +and self-sacrifice so often told of the canonical Christ. She related +how the very god did leave the courts of heaven and come down as a +little child, the infant Horus born of the Virgin, through whom he took +flesh or descended into matter, < crossed the earth as a substitute/ +descended into Hades as the vivifier of the dead, their vicarious +justifier and redeemer, the first-fruits and leader of the resurrection +into eternal life. The Christian legends were first related of Horus, or +Osiris, who was the embodiment of divine goodness, wisdom, truth, and +purity—who personated ideal perfection in each sphere of manifestation +and every phase of power. This was the greatest hero that ever lived in +the mind of man—not in the flesh—to influence with transforming force; +the only hero to whom the miracles were natural because he was not +human. The canonical Christ only needed a translator, not a creator, a +transcriber of the ‘sayings’ and a collector of the ‘doings’ already +ascribed to the mythical Christ. + +“The humanized history is but the mythical drama made mundane. The +sayings and marvellous doings of Christ being pre-extant, the ‘spirit of +Christ,’ the ‘secret of Christ,’ the ‘sweet reasonableness of Christ’ +were all pre-Christian, and consequently could not be derived from any +‘personal founder’ of Christianity. They were extant before the great +delusion had turned the minds of men and the figure-head of Peter’s bark +had been mistaken for a portrait of the builder. + +“The Christ of the Gospels is in no sense an historical personage or a +supreme model of humanity—a hero who strove, and suffered, and failed to +save the world by his death. It is impossible to establish the existence +of an historical character even as an impostor. For such an one the two +witnesses, astronomical mythology and Gnosticism, completely prove an +alibi. The Christ is a popular lay figure that never lived, and a lay +figure of pagan origin—a lay figure that was once the Ram and afterward +the Fish; a lay figure that in human form was the portrait and image of +a dozen different gods. + +“The imagery of the Catacombs shows that the types there represented are +not the ideal figures of the human reality. They are the sole reality of +the centuries after the Christian era, because they had been in the +centuries long before. The symbolism, the allegories, the figures, and +types remained there just what they were to the Romans, Greeks, +Persians, and Egyptians, The iconography of the Catacombs absolutely +proves that the lay figure, as Christ, must have sat for the portraits +of Osiris, Horus the child, Mithras, Bacchus, Aristæus, Apollo, Pan, the +Good Shepherd. The lay figure or type is one all through. The portraits +are manifold, yet they all mean the mythical Christ under whatsoever +name. + +“The typical Christ, so far from being derived from the model man, has +been made up from the features of many gods, after a fashion somewhat +similar to those ‘pictorial averages’ portrayed by Mr. Galton, in which +the characteristics of various persons are photographed and fused in a +portrait—a composite likeness of twenty different persons merged in one +that is not _anybody_. + +“It is pitiful to track the poor faithful gleaners who picked up every +fallen fragment or scattered waif and stray of the mythos, and to watch +how they treasured every trait and tint of the ideal Christ to make up +the personal portrait of their own supposed real one. His mother, like +the other forms of the queen of heaven, had the color of the _mater +frugum_, the complexion of the golden corn; and a Greek Father of the +eighth century cites an early tradition of the Christians concerning the +_personnel_ of the Christ to the effect that in taking the form of Adam +he assumed features exactly like those of the Virgin, and his face was +of a _wheaten color_, like that of his mother. That is, he (the seed) +was _corn-complexioned_, as was the mother of corn, like Flava Keres, +Aurea Venus, the Golden Lakshmi, the Yellow Neitli; and the son was her +seed, which in Egypt was the corn brought forth at the vernal equinox, +and which was continued in the cult of Rome as the ‘bread-corn of the +elect.’ + +“In the chapter of ‘knowing the spirits of the East’ the Osirified +assumes the type of the virile and hairy Horus, the divine hawk of the +resurrection. This is called the type under which he desires to appear +before all men; and it is said, ‘his hair is on his shoulder when he +proceeds to the heaven.’ This long hair of the adult Horus reaching down +to the shoulders is a typical feature in the portraits of the Messiah, +the copy of the Kamite Christ made permanent by the art of the Gnostics. +The halo of Christ is the glory of the sun-god seen in his phantom phase +when the more physical type had become psychotheistic. Hence it is worn +by the child-Christ as the _karast_ mummy. It is the same halo that +illumined Horus and Iu-em-hept, Krishna and Buddha, and others of whom +the same old tales of deliverance and redemption were told and believed. +Yet the dummy ideal of paganism is supposed to have become doubly real +as the man-god standing with one foot in two worlds—one resting on the +ground of the fall from heaven, and the other on the physical +resurrection from the earth.” + +It is a well-known fact that many early Christian sects absolutely +denied the existence of Christ in the flesh, regarding him as a phantom. +It is very difficult to decide whether the apostle Paul believed in a +real or an ideal Christ. He wrote his Epistles before the Gospels were +written, and therefore could have learned nothing from that source. +Concerning the various appearances of Jesus after the resurrection, he +says: “Last of all, he was seen of me, as by one born out of due time,” +and this seems to bear out the conjecture that Jesus was an ideal, +inasmuch as it was not in the flesh that he saw him, and his refusal to +know him after the flesh indicates his strong preference for him as an +idea, and not as a person. Paul makes no mention of any miracle but that +of the resurrection, and that was manifestly a spiritual rather than a +physical fact. Moreover, he was a Pharisee, and it is difficult to see +how he could have “gloried in the cross” had he taken the cross in a +literal sense. He casts no reproach on the Jews for causing Jesus to +suffer, and never speaks of the crucifixion as a crime, nor shows a +particle of sympathy or compassion with the sufferer. He seems to have +been the real founder of Christianity, and might have had in view the +direct action of the solar divinity with whom Christ had become +associated. + +A careful analysis of the Pauline Epistles will show, we think, that the +Christ of Paul was an idea. And here it is important to bear in mind +that those who attributed to him at least ten Epistles he never wrote +would not scruple to alter, amend, interpolate, and change portions of +the Epistles he actually did write. Those who formed the system of +Christian ecclesiasticism never could afford to have a conscience. Those +Fathers of the second century who formed the foundations of the Catholic +hierarchy were most unscrupulous men. + +Of the _Gnostics_, Mr. Gerald Massey speaks as follows: + +“The ancient wisdom of Egypt and Chaldea lived on with the men who knew, +called the Gnostics. They had directly inherited the gnosis that +remained oral, the sayings uttered from mouth to ear that were to be +unwritten, the mysteries performed in secret, the science kept +concealed. The continuity of the astronomical mythos of Equinoctial +Christolatry and of the total typology is proved by the persistence of +the type—the ancient genitrix, the two sisters, the hebdomad of inferior +and superior powers, the trinity in unity represented by _Iao_ the +tetrads male and female, the double Horus, or Horus and Stauros, the +system of Æôns, the Karaite divinities, Harpocrates and Sut-Anubis, Isis +and Hathor. Theirs was the Christ not made flesh, but the manifester of +the seven powers and perfect star of the pleroma. The figure of eight, +which is a sign of the Nnu or associate gods in Egypt, who were the +primary Ogdoad, is reproduced as a gnostic symbol, a figure of the +pleroma and fellow-type of the eight-rayed star. The ‘Lamb of God’ was a +gnostic sign. ‘Lord, thou art the Lamb’ (and ‘our Light’) was a gnostic +formula. The ‘Immaculate Virgin’ was a gnostic type. On one of the sard +stones Isis stands before Serapis holding the sistrum in one hand, in +the other a wheatsheaf, the legend being ‘Immaculate is our Lady Isis,’ +which proves the continuity from Kam. + +“It was gnostic art that reproduced the Hathor-Meri and Horus of Egypt +as the Virgin and child-Christ of Rome, and the icons of characters +entirely ideal which served as the sole portraits of the _historical_ +Madonna and Jesus the Christ. The report of Irenæus sufficed to show the +survival of the true tradition. He complains of the oral wisdom of the +Gnostics, and says rightly they read from things unwritten—i. e. from +sources unknown to him and the Fathers in general. Chief of these +sources was the science of astronomy. He testifies that Marcus was +skilled in this form of the gnosis, and enables us to follow the line of +unbroken continuity, and to confute his own assertion that Gnosticism +had no existence prior to Marcion and Valentinus; which shows he did not +know, or else he denied the fact, that the Suttites, the Mandaites, the +Essenes, and Nazarenes were all Gnostics; all of which sects preceded +the cult of the carnalized Christ. Hippolytus informs us that Elkesai +said the Christ born of a Virgin was _œonian_. The Elkesites maintained +that Jesus the Christ had continually transformed and manifested in +various bodies at many different times. This shows they also were in +possession of the gnosis, and that the Christ and his repeated +incarnations were Kronian. Hence we are told that they occupied +themselves ‘with a bustling activity in regard to astronomical science.’ +Epiphanius also bears witness that the head and front of the gnostic +boast was astronomy, and that Manes wrote a work on astronomy, astronomy +being the root of the whole matter concerning Equinoctial Christolatry. +“Nothing is more astounding, on their own showing, than the ignorance of +the Fathers about the nature, the significance, the descent of +Gnosticism, and its rootage in the remotest past. They knew nothing of +evolution or the survival of types, and for them the new beginning with +Christ carnalized obliterated all that preceded. Such a thing as +priority, natural genesis, or the doctrine of development did not +trouble those who considered that the more the myth the greater was the +miracle which proved the divinity. + +“Also, it has been asserted from the time of Irenæus down to that of +Mansel that the Gnostic heretics of the second century invented a number +of spurious Gospels in imitation of or in opposition to the true gospel +of Christ, which has descended to us as canonical, authentic, and +historic. This is a popular delusion, false enough to damn all belief in +it from the beginning until now. The ignorance of the past manifested by +men like Irenæus is the measure of the value of their testimony to the +origines of Equinoctial Christolatry. They who pretend to know all +concerning the founding and the founder know nothing of the +foundations.... + +“Gnosticism, according to those who are ignorant of its origin and +relationships, was supposed and assumed to have originated in the second +century; the first being carefully avoided, only proves that the +A-Gnostics, who had literally adopted the pre-Christian types, and +believed they had been historically fulfilled, were then for the first +time becoming conscious of the cult that preceded theirs and face to +face with those who held them to be the heretics. Gnosticism was no +birth or new thing in the second century, it was no perverter or +corrupter of Christian doctrines divinely revealed, but the voice of an +older cult growing more audible in its protest against a superstition as +degrading and debasing now as when it was denounced by men like Tacitus, +Pliny, Julian, Marcus Aurelius, and Porphyry. For what could be more +shocking to any sense really religious than the belief that the very God +himself had descended on earth as an embryo in a virgin’s womb, to run +the risk of abortion and universal miscarriage during nine months in +utero, and then dying on a cross to save his own created world or a +portion of its people from eternal perdition? The opponents of the +latest superstition were too intelligent to accept a dying deity.... + +“Never were men more perplexed and bewildered than the A-Gnostic +Christians of the third and fourth centuries—who had started from a new +beginning altogether, which they had been taught to consider solely +historic—when they turned to look back for the first time to find that +an apparition of their faith was following them one way and confronting +them in another; a shadow that threatened to steal away their substance, +mocking them with its aërial unreality; the ghost of the body of truth +which they had embraced as a solid and eternal reality claiming to be +the rightful owner of their possessions; a phantom Christ without flesh +or bone; a crucifixion that only occurred in cloudland; a parody of the +drama of salvation performed in the air, with never a cross to cling to, +not a nail-wound to thrust the fingers into and hold on by, not one drop +of blood to wash away their sins. It was horrible. It was devilish. It +was the devil, they said, and thus they sought to account for Gnosticism +and fight down their fears. ‘You poor ignorant idiotai!’ said the +Gnostics, ‘you have mistaken the mysteries of old for modern history, +and accepted literally all that was only meant mystically.’—‘You spawn +of Satan!’ responded the Christians, ‘you are making the mystery by +converting our accomplished facts into your miserable fables; you are +dissipating and dispersing into thin air our only bit of solid foothold +in the world, stained with the red drops of Calvary. You are giving a +Satanic interpretation to the word of revelation and falsifying the +oracles of God. You are converting the solid facts of our history into +your new-fangled allegories.’—‘Nay,’ replied the Gnostics, ‘it is you +who have taken the allegories of mythology for historic facts.’ And they +were right. It was in consequence of their taking the allegorical +tradition of the fall for reality that the Christian Fathers considered +woman to be accursed, and called her a serpent, a scorpion, the devil in +feminine form.” + +The Gnostics are said by Gibbon to have been “the most polite, the most +learned, and the most wealthy of the Christian name.” They were finally +forbidden by Theodosias I. to assemble at their places of meeting or to +teach their doctrines. Their books, too, were burned, so that we have +now no full account of them. Only those who lied about them have been +permitted a hearing. + +The very fact that all the apparently historic events in the life of +Jesus have an astrological and metaphoric character lifts him out of the +category of physical humanity into that of the ideal. We may relegate +him thither, and yet leave no vacant place in the arena of common life. +This would be in perfect keeping with ancient usage. Among the reputed +founders of philosophic systems we have no evidence of the existence of +such great teachers as Manu, Kapila, Vyasa, Kanada, or Gotama, and the +founding of the principal commonwealths was ascribed to demigods and +fictitious eponymous heroes. Rome, Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and indeed +every ancient city of note, was said to be established after that +manner. Even leaders and teachers actually existing have been disguised +by myth or the characteristics of the doctrine which they taught. +Confucius and Zoroaster are hidden from view by the character assigned +to them by later writers. Even Socrates as he appears and speaks in the +Platonic _Dialogues_ is little else than a personification of the +Academic philosophy. When we consider that he is closely assimilated to +the sages and hero-gods of the other worships, and that every +significant point in his history conforms to astrological periods and to +similar characteristics in the pagan religions, we cannot well avoid the +conclusion that he too is an _ideal_. + +Mr. William Oxley of England, in his great work on Egypt, takes the +ground that the account we have of Jesus in the Gospels is substantially +drawn from Egyptian sources. + +Amenoph III. was one of the greatest of the old Egyptian kings. Amongst +other gigantic works, he built the temple at Luxor, much of which is +buried in sand and covered over by native houses. It is on the walls of +this temple that very remarkable sculptures are portrayed relating to +the birth, etc. of Amenoph III.; they are on the inner wall of the +sacred shrine, the holy of holies, and the sculptured scenes represent +the annunciation, the conception, the incarnation, birth, and adoration +of the divine man-child (Amenoph III.) born from Mut-em-Sa. The two +latter syllables mean “the Alone,” or Only One, and the whole title +means “the mother who gave birth to the Only One.” + +One fact is established beyond all cavil, and that is that the New +Testament is the product of an order of men well versed in astronomy, +and who by the aid of that science produced, on lines laid down by the +ancient Egyptian hierophants, a new version of the old myths and +allegories. We have as a fact the actual names and dates plagiarized +from an Egypto-Arabic source, which undoubtedly betrays its origin, and +the interpretation of this, and numberless instances besides, in strict +accordance with the astrological formula and system, with its +Graeco-Egyptian zodiacal pictorial representations. + +Oxley says: “_Apropos_ to this doctrine, I have in my possession two +statuettes—one dating from the twenty-second dynasty, 900 B. c.—of Isis, +crowned and nursing the babe Horus. On my return from Egypt through +Italy, I obtained a statuette of Mary, crowned and nursing the babe +Jesus, which is an exact copy of the Virgin and Child in the church of +St. Augustine in Rome. _The figures are identical_.” + +Face to face with such a fact, who dare assert that the Egyptian Isis +and Horus are a myth, and that the Christian Mary and Jesus are really +historical? Some simple-minded ones beguile themselves with the delusion +that these Egyptian and other heathen beliefs are prophecies of the real +Jesus who in the fulness of time came down from heaven and was born of a +virgin. But against this we have not only the actual claim of several +Egyptian kings to be the “son of God according to promise or prophecy” +(sixteen hundred years before Christ was born), but we have the fact of +a whole nation _for thousands of years_ resting their hopes of eternal +salvation upon a belief that “the son of God, Osiris, came down from +heaven, took upon himself the mortal form, was slain by wicked hands, +rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven, where he became the +great judge of all mankind.” + +What adds to the difficulty is that _no dates_ are given in the writings +of the early Christian authors, and, what is more, many of their names +are evidently _noms de plume_; for instance, the arch-heretic _Arius_ +and the great Nicene Council seem to resolve themselves simply into a +controversy relating to the sun-god under the form of _Aries_ (the Ram +or Lamb); and as to dates in connection therewith, they are simply +Masonic points with an astronomical reference and symbolical meaning. In +plain terms, nearly the whole of both the Old and New Testaments is an +allegorical record of astral, solar, and planetary phenomena, with +personages substituted for zodiacal signs; and with this key in hand the +Hermetic student can unravel the allegories which are presented in such +a form as to read like literal history. + +Our English name for the zodiacal sign referred to is the Ram, but in +Latin it is _Aries_, and _Nisan_ (which is the month of March). The +“sacred year” of all systems commences with this month and sign; hence +the _Arian_ heresy and the Council of _Nice_; which resolves itself into +a descriptive personified account of a conjunction of planets about the +definite fixing of the _first point of Aries_ as a basic point in time +in history, and which point is used in astronomical science to this day. +But the appearance of the Cross, with the letters I H S on the +planispherical chart, gives the key to the solution of the mystery. The +Church interprets these letters to stand for _Jesus Salvator Hominum_—i. +e. Jesus the Saviour of Men. The initiates read them as _numerals_, +which stand for 608; which is the exact period of a solar-lunar cycle—i. +e. the number of years which pass before the sun and moon occupy the +same relative positions in the heavens. + +According to the astral theology of ancient religious systems, this +cycle of 608 (or 600) years represented a Messianic period, at the +completion of which a new messiah or avatar or savior was born upon the +earth. + +The one prior to Jesus was _Cyrus_, who gave orders for the building of +the temple at Jerusalem just six hundred years before Christ. Manatheo +speaks of a “Cyrus,” son of Cambyses, first king of the twenty-second +dynasty, but no Cyrus appears in the Egyptian annals. The biblical Cyrus +is only another form of Osiris, and is in reality a sun-savior. The +Arabs used the same system, for their Mohammed comes in just about six +hundred years after Christ, and their era commences with their +commencement of a new year, which dates from 622 A. D. Even our latest +era—_Anno Domini_—did not come into general use until about one thousand +years after the event it is said to commemorate had passed. This epoch +was introduced into Italy in the sixth century by Dionysius the Little, +a Roman abbot, and it began to be used in Gaul in the eighth, but was +not generally followed until the ninth century. From extant charters in +England it is known to have been used a little before the ninth century, +but it did not come into common use for a century later. Time was, for +centuries after the alleged birth of Christ, calculated from January 1 +in the 4th of the 194th Olympiad, the 753d A. u. c. of the foundation of +Rome, and 4714th of the Julian period. + +The astro-theological foundation of the New Testament being +demonstrated, the actual date of the compilation of the matter becomes +of secondary importance, inasmuch as celestial phenomena are as true +today as they were when first used to symbolize the intellectual and +spiritual nature of man. As all nations that have any pretensions to be +considered civilized have had the same phenomena for their religious +systems, and as the path of the solar orb has been utilized for the +history of its various personifications, the question arises, Which out +of the many messiahs or sun-saviors are true, and which are false? As +has been already noted, the leading incidents in the memoirs of Osiris, +Buddha, Chrishna, and Jesus are identical in conception, but more or +less varied in expression according to the idiosyncrasies of the +writers. The logical and true method is to regard one and all as +allegorical symbols, clothed not merely with an eclectic +intellectuality, but vested with a moral power that can affect the heart +and conscience of men for good. + +The parentage of Christianism is in Egyptian Osirianism, while that of +what we understand as Judaism is attributable to Chaldean sources, both +converging to a common centre and finding a new expression through two +diverse orders, yet both equally versed in Cabalistic science, modified +by the eclectic influences which were active at the period of their +production. + +The ecclesiastical party, for reasons which are well understood, never +allowed the laity to be taught other than the literal and surface +meaning, while the mystic brotherhoods were forbidden by the rules of +their orders to make public the real meaning of the symbols, of which +only the highest degree of initiates were allowed to know. + +Mr. William Oxley further thinks that if it were possible to raise the +veil that obscures the historic past it would be found that the +divine-human ideal figure of Jesus Christ is the combination of the +Western _Hesus_ and Eastern _Christus_. This accounts for the title, +while the incidents in the life of the historic Apollonius of Tyana +would supply material for the personal narrative. In fact, the nervous +desire of ecclesiastical reviewers to suppress or explain away the too +patent similarity between his and the Gospel life of Jesus is a half +admission of there being a substratum of truth in the allegation. + +Oxley says: “Against the claim for a very high antiquity in regard to +even the Old Testament, we are confronted with the fact that all the +Hebrew words used in its compilation have their roots in the Arabic +language (or Aramaic, which closely borders upon the Arabic); and what +is not less strange is, that many of the so-called apocryphal writings +of the Christians are still extant in the same language. As Christian +productions this fact is inexplicable, but considered as _Chrestonian_ +tales or legends, it is easy to understand, seeing that they relate to +the humanized deity of that geographical district.” + +He concludes that Christianity, considered as a living spiritual truth, +is the gradual development of a system of thought, and is the resultant +of the highest and best conception of the human mind as an ideal of +purity and every virtue that it is capable of expressing; and, further, +that this ideal was presented to different nations long before the +Christian one was known, and that it was the literalizing or +personification of this _written ideal_ that afforded conditions for the +superstructure of ecclesiastical systems, dependent on a separate caste +of men set apart for the purpose of its support and propaganda. As these +men were able to grasp and wield power over the intellect, and even +persons, of their votaries, so in exact ratio the spiritual and +intellectual ideal (which is not a monad, but universal) was lost, and +the assumed historical personage is exalted at the expense of spiritual +liberty and the birthright prerogative of humanity. In short, the +supposed Founder of Christianity is not an historical personage, but an +old ideal presented in a newer and better and higher form than its +predecessors; and, further, this ideal is not dependent upon a past +historical, but is held up as the standard of attainment by humanity; +and as each realizes the truth within him or herself, then they will +find that the real “Christ” is not and was not an historical person, but +a spiritual life-giving principle within themselves. + +The records of history show that a dramatic Christ has come down the +stream of time from the earliest periods; from India through Egypt, +China, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Arabia, Asia Minor, and Palestine, +until the present time—from the Buddha of the Tauric constellations to +the Aries and Pisces of the modern Christ; and all his manifestations +possess the essential characteristics of the one sun-god. Midway between +Buddhists and the Christians appears the sublimely idealistic mythology +of Greece, shining all over with the glory of the solar legend. Very +prominent in this system is the god-man Prometheus. The name is +synonymous with _Logos_, which is used in the fourth Gospel in reference +to Jesus, and signifies a demi-deity; and Prometheus means _Providence_, +and is represented by the all-seeing Eye. We select him rather than +other notable impersonations, for the purpose of referring to the +wonderful Greek drama written by Æschylus (_Prometheus Bound_), which +was acted in the theatre of Athens at least five hundred years before +the Christian era. The plot was derived from material even then of great +antiquity, and contains all the essential features of the modern +“Passion Play” so beautifully portrayed upon canvas in our churches and +eloquently described by our ministers of the present day. No author ever +displayed greater powers of poetry in supporting through this Promethean +play the august character of this divine sufferer. We give a few lines +from Potter’s translation.: + + “I will speak, + Not as upbraiding them, but my own gifts + Commending. ’Twas I who brought sweet hope + To inhabit in their hearts; I brought + The fire of heaven to animate their clay, + And through the clouds of barbarous ignorance + Diffused the beams of knowledge. In a word, + Prometheus taught each useful art to man.” + +He was called upon to explain how his goodness could have brought upon +him such extreme suffering, and he says: + + “See what, a god, I suffer from the gods! + For mercy to mankind I am not deemed + Worthy of mercy; but in this uncouth + Appointment am fixed here, + A spectacle dishonorable to Jove! + On the throne of heaven scarce was he seated, + On the powers of heaven + He showered his various benefits, thereby + Confirming his sovereignty; but for unhappy mortals + Had no regard, but all the present race + Willed to extirpate and to form anew. + None save myself opposed his will. I dared, + And, boldly pleading, saved them from destruction— + Saved them from sinking to the realm of night; + For which oflënce I bow beneath these pains, + Dreadful to suffer, piteous to behold!” + +None remained to be witnesses of his dying agony but the chorus of +ever-faithful women, who bewailed and lamented him. The earth trembled +and the whole frame of nature was convulsed, and the curtain fell on the +sublimest scene ever presented to human sight—a _dying god!_ The +preternatural darkness was exhibited on the stage, and the most +agonizing and heartfelt sorrow manifested by the weeping audience. It +was the “Passion Play.” + +Let it be kept in mind that all of the incidents of the Gospels have +been acted in the theatres or illustrated in the sacred rites and +religious ceremonies of pagan peoples from time immemorial. Are not the +Gospels a plagiarized and adapted _drama?_ + +We close this chapter with a further quotation from Mr. Johnson: + +“I am not asserting that all this was pure fiction—that no one stood +where men imagined they saw a God on earth. But I do recognize the +extreme difficulty of satisfying a free and sincere mind as to how much +or how little did ‘happen,’ and the extreme hardihood of asserting at +this day that there was anything in the person or life of Jesus to vest +in him the claim to be the enduring definitive centre of religious +thought and association under any name or title whatsoever. Neither the +character of the records nor the manner of their origination authorizes +that postulate of perfection through which alone such claim could vest +in any being. The veneration of ages for his name deserves respect as +the satisfaction of a natural demand during a certain stage of human +progress. But it does not prove him an exception to the law that the +worship of personages must give way to the worship of principles—the +centrality of an individual to the centrality of ideas—the divinity or +‘lordship’ of a man to the deity of the infinitely wise and good. It +illustrates that law. Christism in due time passes, like polytheism, and +a larger faith succeeds. Thus the theory refutes itself. + +“The Christian idealization demands that all imperfections in the +New-Testament Jesus shall be ascribed to the misapprehensions of the +disciples and the ignorance of the biographers. It is confident that +Jesus must have been greater than the record shows. But we do not know +that he was even so great as the record shows. We are confidently told +that such an ideal as can be there discerned presupposes its actual—that +no man could have drawn such a character except from life. ‘Such a grand +figure is not hewn out of air.’ But it is quite possible to carry this +kind of divination too far. + +“If a man could be that, why could not a man or an age conceive that it +ought to be? All that can fairly be assumed is, that there must have +been an impressive life (or lives) behind all the construction; and this +is not denied. But the necessities of the religious life in that time +produced Jesus. Why could they not magnify their own product and improve +upon it ideally as they developed into new and larger demands? If we are +to insist that the idealizing faculty cannot go beyond actuality, no +meaning will be left to the word ideal, and no such faculty will remain. +This is the irony to which the old belief comes.... + +“A pure and simple worship of the Infinite and Eternal is the necessity +of philosophy; it is the goal of science; it is the true ground of trust +and prayer and love, of philosophic Theism and spiritual Pantheism +alike; it is the parent of prophets, of mystics, of reformers, of all +true builders of man’s social unity and religious communion.” + +No reasonable man can doubt that the Christ of Paul and the Gospels is +largely, if not altogether, ideal; and in the succeeding chapter we +proceed to give more specifically our reasons for thinking so. + + + + +CHAPTER XII. JESUS AND OTHER CHRISTS + + +_“Come now, let us reason together.”—Isa. 1:18._ + +_“Let me reason the case with thee.”—Jer. 12: 1._ + + +THAT there should be held so many different views concerning the +character and work of Christ is itself a very suggestive circumstance. +It implies that the evidence in the case is not direct and clear, and +that there are grounds for doubt and uncertainty. That honest, +well-meaning men should be left in doubt regarding the most wonderful +event in history, involving their salvation, is still more astounding. +One would suppose that if so wonderful an event as the incarnation of +God had taken place it would have been made so manifest that the most +skeptical could not doubt it. There seems to have been great neglect or +indifference regarding the matter. Contemporaneous history takes no +notice of Jesus, and the biographies that we have of him cannot be shown +to have had an existence until nearly two centuries after he is said to +have made his advent; and Paul, who had written concerning him before +these Gospels were compiled, was so ambiguous that the most learned +theologians differ as to whether he regarded the Christ as an actual +person or merely an impersonation. The early records of the life of +Christ, if any existed, seem to have been destroyed or lost, and there +are no original documents nor authenticated copies of such records. +There can be no true faith, no genuine intelligent belief, without +evidence; and where is the evidence? To believe without some reason for +believing is blind credulity. The most intelligent Christian writers do +not even pretend to have any documents relating to the existence of +Jesus that by any strain of language can be called evidence. + +Neander, an eminent Christian writer, author of a _Life of Christ_, +acknowledges in so many words his painful consciousness of the utter +lack of historic evidence in regard to him, his acts, and wonderful +performances. He demands, as an imperative necessity, to be permitted at +the beginning to take the most important matters for granted. He asks: +“What, then, is the special presupposition with which we must approach +the life of Christ? It is, in a word, the belief that Jesus Christ is +the Son of God in a sense that cannot be predicated of any human being, +the truth that Christ is God-man being presupposed.” Neander, by making +this confession, surrenders the whole question. There is no direct +evidence of the existence of such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, and all +fair-minded, intelligent Christian writers admit it. What is called +evidence is found only in the short sketches of the New Testament, which +have been shown to be no evidence at all. + +We might rest the case here. It is admitted that it cannot be _proved_ +that Jesus existed, and when we undertake to show to the contrary we +undertake to prove a negative—a thing which is never required in a court +of justice. Yet we do undertake it, and reverently invite the reader to +impartially consider the points in our case. + +There is in the biography of Jesus an utter want of _originality_. It is +a copy of other lives. It is a significant fact that all the principal +claims made for Jesus of Nazareth had been made for others long before +him. We can only mention a few. + +The birth of Buddha, like the birth of Jesus, was announced in the +heavens by an asterism on the horizon which is singularly called the +“Messianic star.” When Chrishna was born his star was pointed out by +Nared, a great astronomer. + +The birth of every East Indian _avatar_ was announced by celestial +signs. Even the Jews have similar traditions regarding Moses and +Abraham. Canon Farrar admits in his _Life of Christ_ that the Greeks and +Romans always held this idea of the birth and death of great men being +presaged by mysterious stars, and Tacitus affirms this regarding the +dethronement of Nero. All candid theologians admit that this doctrine of +the announcement of the birth of extraordinary persons by the appearance +of stars was a universal belief among ancient peoples. + +Luke is the only evangelist who records the fact that the birth of Jesus +was attended with the songs of angels from the heavenly world, and there +is good reason for believing that this professed compiler drew his +information from the apocryphal Gospel called “Protevangelion.” But +there is nothing novel in this idea, for the same thing had long before +been recorded of Chrishna at his birth, that “the quarters of the +horizon were irradiate with joy,”... that “the spirits and nymphs of +heaven danced and sang, and at midnight the clouds emitted low pleasing +sounds and poured down rain of flowers.” It is only necessary here to +state that similar demonstrations are alleged to have attended the +advent of other Hindoo saviors, and also of Confucius, of Osiris, of +Apollonius, of Apollo, of Hercules, and of Esculapius. + +It is certainly very singular that all the circumstances connected with +the birth of Jesus are recorded of several other persons long before. +Chrishna was cradled among shepherds, to whom his birth was first +announced, and the prophet Nared visited his father and mother and +declared the child to be of divine descent. An aged hermit named Asita, +like Simeon of our Gospels, visited the infant Buddha and predicted +wonderful things of his life and mission, and wept because he was too +old to see the day. Not only was the infant Chrishna adored by the +shepherds and magi, but was presented with “gifts of sandal-wood and +perfume,” very like “frankincense and myrrh;” and he was also presented +with gifts of “costly jewels and precious substances,” very like “gold.” +Substantially the same things are recorded of Mithras, the Persian +savior, of Socrates, and many of the Grecian and Roman demigods. + +It must suffice it to say that these incidents are too numerous and +circumstantial to be mere coincidences. King Kansa was jealous of the +infant Chrishna, and ordered a general slaughter of the infants under a +certain age and in a# certain district, just as Herod is falsely charged +with having done when Jesus was born; and as Joseph and Mary were warned +in a dream to flee into Egypt to save the young child’s life, so the +foster-father of Chrishna was warned of danger by a “heavenly voice,” +and he was taken to Mathura; and Canon Farrar, speaking of the sojourn +of Joseph, Mary, and the infant Jesus in Egypt, writes: “Ancient legends +say that they remained two years absent from Palestine, and lived at +Matarieh, a few miles northeast of Cairo.” This seems to be the same +legend, but the one regarding Chrishna is sculptured upon the rocks and +temples of India, while contemporary history makes no mention of the +slaughter of the innocents by Herod; and further embarrassment arises +from the fact that Herod was not king at that time, as the taxing under +Quirinus did not take place under the reign of Herod, he having been +dead for several years. + +It would be easy to present more than a score of instances in which +persons who came to be regarded as demigods and heroes had been obliged +to flee from the wrath of the reigning monarch at their birth, as is +recorded of the infant Jesus. In all centuries of olden times the +reigning monarch has generally been jealous of some mysterious child, +whose parents or caretakers were obliged to hide him away in some safe +resort. + +The long fast and temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, found in the +Gospel “according” to Matthew, have numerous parallels in the experience +of other Messiahs, even in minor details. The fast generally, as in the +case of Moses, the Ninevites, and Jesus, lasted forty days, but that of +Buddha continued forty-seven days, and in his weakness and attenuation +of body he was tempted by _Mara_, the prince of evil, who promised him +all the kingdoms of the earth, “universal empire,” on certain +conditions; but, like Jesus, he said, “Avaunt! get thee away from me!” +After the temptation and triumph both Buddha and Jesus were ministered +unto by visiting angels! Zoroaster, the founder of the Persian religion, +had a similar experience with the devil, of which there are fully +detailed reports. + +Both Chrishna and Jesus were precocious boys, disputing with doctors and +astonishing their teachers with their learning, which had not been +acquired in the usual way; and both wandered away from their parents and +became objects of anxiety and search to anxious mothers. Both preached a +celebrated sermon, wrought numerous and very similar miracles, were +hated and opposed by the priests of their day, and both suffered +premature violent deaths at about the same age, and then arose from the +dead. + +These parallels might be given to an indefinite extent, as they appear +in _Asiatic Researches_, by Sir William Jones; Upham’s _History and +Doctrine of Buddhism_; Hardy’s _Manual of Buddhism_; numerous other +ancient and modern writings on this subject; and the parallel facts +presented by these authorities are admitted by the most distinguished +Christian writers not a few. + +In regard to miracles it is thought best to say only a passing word. + +It is admitted by the ablest theologians of the orthodox schools that +miracles are indispensable to establish the claim of a special +supernatural revelation, and great reliance is made upon the miracles +accredited to the Christian Christ; and yet we find other saviors and +heroes credited not only with the same miracles substantially, but with +a larger number of even more wonderful miracles. It would be easy to +fill a large volume with the alleged miracles of Buddha and Chrishna, +and Prof. Max Müller affirms that the Buddhistic miracles “surpass in +wonderfulness the miracles of all other religions.” Zoroaster, Buddha, +Osiris, Isis, and Horus all wrought miracles, even the raising of the +dead; Serapis, Marduk, Bacchus, Esculapius, and Apollonius did the same; +and the early Christian Fathers admitted the reality of heathen +miracles, but very conveniently attributed them to the devil. In short, +it may safely be affirmed that more wonderful and better-authenticated +accounts of miracles are given of numerous other persons, both before +and after the advent of the Christian Christ, than are given of his +miracles in the Gospels. + +The Greeks were accustomed to say, “Miracles for fools,” and the Romans +shrewdly said, “The common people like to be deceived—deceived let them +be;” and even the Christian Father St. Chrysostom declared that +“miracles are proper only to excite sluggish and vulgar minds; men of +sense have no occasion for them.” The modern theological idea of proving +the record by the miracle, and the miracle by the record, has become too +transparent for even the most credulous. + +There is also great confusion about the time of the birth of Jesus, +though the Church in a sort of perfunctory manner settled this by saying +he was born December 25, A. D. One. But the Church adopted this date for +reasons of an astronomical character. More than one hundred different +dates, some extending back nearly a century, have been fixed as to his +birth, showing that no one knew anything about it. A blundering notice +of his birth assigns its date to the period when Cyrenius was governor +of Syria, and makes the enrolment ordered by that official the occasion +of Joseph’s temporary sojourn at Bethlehem when that event took place. +This enrolment, however, was not made till after the displacement of +Archelaus from the kingdom of Judea and some ten years or more after the +death of Herod, and the story is accordingly in direct contradiction +with the account of the flight of Joseph into Egypt, while Herod was +still alive, to preserve the life of his son from that monarch’s +jealousy. But what is very significant is the fact that when Cyrenius +commanded the enrolment Judas of Galilee arose and denounced it. He +established a distinct sect which continued till the overthrow of the +Jewish people. + +Josephus says: “When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus’s money, and +when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the +thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over Antony at Actium,” Antiq. +xviii. 2. The battle of Actium, in which Octavianus gained his final +victory over Antony, occurred in b. c. 31. Counting thirty-seven years, +would bring the date of the taxings down to A. d. 6. Archelaus after +reigning ten years was deposed for misconduct, and banished into Gaul. +Cyrenius, a Roman senator, had been sent by the government to settle up +his finances and take an account of the substance of the Jews, or, in +other words, to assess their property in order to apportion their taxes. +These things were done in the thirty-seventh year after the battle of +Actium, or in 6 A. d. Counting ten years back, we would be at the year 4 +b. c., or the year Archelaus began to reign. As Herod of course was dead +before Archelaus ascended the throne, he consequently died before Christ +was born, and hence the entire story of the slaying of the infants, the +journey of the wise men, and the flight into Egypt falls helplessly to +the ground. + +“But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, in the room of his +father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned +of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee.” Matt. +2:22. + +Here we have a strange state of affairs. Joseph and the young child +turned from Judea to Galilee when Archelaus was as powerful in the one +country as in the other, for his ethnarchy included both! + +In reading the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel we find an inexplicable +mystery. The very first verse reads: “The book of the generation of +Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Then in the +sixteenth verse it is said, “And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of +Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.” In the eighteenth, +nineteenth, and twentieth verses the Holy Ghost is represented as the +real Father of Jesus by a virgin; and his miraculous divine descent is +elsewhere specifically taught in the Gospels, and the divine Sonship of +Jesus has been accepted as a fact by the general Church—Roman Catholic, +Greek, and Protestant. + +On the other hand, there is proof positive, if the record is accepted, +that Jesus claimed for himself simple humanity, and consequent +inferiority and subjection to God; and Roman Catholics and orthodox +Protestants very conveniently settle these contradictions by affirming +that he was both God and man; while Unitarians reject the divinity of +Jesus, and by way of apology for so doing magnify his manhood so as to +make him quite divine, a human god. + +It would be easy to fill volumes with accounts, with very slight +variations, of the miraculous conception and birth of divine personages +born of virgin mothers, who, after laboring and suffering for the good +of men, came to a tragic death, which was generally followed by a +triumphant resurrection and subsequent deification. The cases are so +numerous that one hardly knows where to begin to enumerate them. It +would be easy to furnish a roll containing the names of scores of +incarnate deities, and it would be tedious to describe the many things +in which they substantially agree. + +According to some modern writers, supported by abundant sculptures in +temples, caves, and rocks, Vishnu, the second person of the Hindoo +trinity, has been incarnated eight or nine times, Buddha being the +first, Chrishna the eighth, and Gautama, also called Sakya-Muni, the +ninth. The fact that these alleged incarnations took place at uniform +intervals show their astronomical origin. + +Equally suggestive is the fact that there are so many peculiarities +connected with the birth of these gods, and also so many incidents in +their lives and deaths absolutely identical. + +The name of the mother of Buddha was _Maia_ and the same name was given +to the mother of the Greek Mercury and even to later divinities; which, +like the name Mary, typifies the sea and sometimes the month of May. + +Buddha had no earthly father, but was an immaculate conception of a ray +of celestial light through a virgin mother. Chrishna, the eighth Indian +incarnation, was born of the left intercostal rib of a virgin. His birth +was concealed through fear of the tyrant Kansa. He raised the dead and +wrought marvellous miracles, and washed the feet of the Brahmans. It +would be tedious to give details, as almost every incident recorded in +the Gospels of the life of the alleged Christian incarnation is recorded +in circumstantial detail of some ancient pagan deity. + +The fact is, that all the great nations of antiquity, and many of the +smaller tribes, have had very similar views as to divine manifestations +in human flesh; and you need only turn to the pages of any good +dictionary of mythology to verify the truth of this allegation. + +We might extend these analogies to an indefinite extent. The author of +_Bible Myths_ has specified about fifty particulars in which Jesus is +said to have resembled Buddha, and as many more particulars in the case +of Chrishna. Nobody having any knowledge of the world’s history will +doubt that these Indian divinities preceded the Judean Christ by several +centuries, as many distinguished writers, like Prof. Max Müller, have +admitted. + +We challenge the theologians to present one single prominent feature or +characteristic said to have been shown in the career of Jesus which did +not appear in several other alleged incarnations hundreds of years +before. The fact is, that the Christ of modern times is a perfect copy +of other Christs who preceded him. Not only are all ancient Oriental +scriptures full of incarnated divine saviors, but the same symbols and +ceremonies abound in their worship. Take the cross, for an example. In +ancient India the cross was as common as in modern Rome, and heathen +temples were built in the form of a cross centuries before papists and +Puseyites and their liberal imitators ever thought of such a thing. It +was a common symbol in the ancient worship of Egypt. It was a Druidic +emblem in Britain five hundred years before the introduction of +Christianity. Plato, the Grecian philosopher, four hundred or five +hundred years before Christ proclaimed the cross to be the best symbol +of the divinity next to the supreme. The worshippers of Serapis used it, +and Hadrian, the Roman emperor, as late as A. d. 130 mistook them for +Christians. The standard portrait of Jesus, so honored by modern +Christians, is a copy of the head of Serapis, the well-known sun-god, +according to the testimony of Mr. King in his able work, _Gnostics and +their Remains_ (p. 68). + +The same is true of baptism and the Eucharist, as ceremonies identical +with these, in their main aspects, existed among the ancient pagans. The +“Lord’s Supper” virtually was in use more than two hundred and fifty +years before Christ. Wherever Christian missionaries have gone they have +found substantially the same dogmas and religious observances, and +Tertullian, a Christian Father of the second century, conveniently +explained this fact by saying that the devil had taught the heathen +these same things to forestall the preaching of the missionaries. + +And yet Justin Martyr in the second century (a. d. 140), in defending +the Christian religion against the assaults of pagans, said: “For +declaring that the Logos, the first-begotten Son of God, our Master +Jesus Christ, to be born of a virgin without any human mixture, and to +be crucified and dead and to have arisen again into heaven, we say no +more in this than what you say of those whom you style the sons of +Jove.” Here is a distinct admission in the second century, from one in +high authority, that the doctrine of the death and resurrection of +miraculously-incarnated deities born of virgin mothers was well known +among pagans before the Christian era. + +But we are not done with Justin Martyr yet. In his Apology to the +emperor Hadrian he makes this most astonishing admission: “In saying +that all things were made in this beautiful order by God, what do we +seem to say more than Plato? When we teach a general conflagration, what +do we teach more than the Stoics? By opposing the worship of the works +of men’s hands we concur with Menander the comedian.... For you need not +be told what a parcel of sons the writers most in vogue among you assign +to Jove; there’s Mercury, Jove’s interpreter, in imitation of the Logos, +in worship among you. There’s Æsculapius, the physician, smitten by a +thunderbolt, and after that ascending into heaven. There’s Bacchus, torn +to pieces; and Hercules, burnt to get rid of his pains. There’s Pollux +and Castor, the sons of Jove by Leda, and Perseus by Danæ; and, not to +mention others, I would fain know why you always deify the departed +emperors, and have a fellow at hand to make affidavit that he saw Cæsar +mount to heaven from the funeral pile? + +“As to the Son of God, called Jesus, should we allow him to be nothing +more than man, yet the title of the Son of God is very justifiable, upon +the account of his wisdom, considering that you have your Mercury in +worship under the title of the Word and Messenger of God. + +“_As to the objection of our Jesus being crucified,_ I say that +suffering was common to all the forementioned sons of Jove, but only +they suffered another kind of death. As to his being born of a virgin, +you have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the lame and the +paralytic and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than +what you say of your Æsculapius.” + +St. Augustine says: “For the thing itself which is now called the +Christian religion really was known to the ancients, nor was not wanting +at any time from the beginning of the human race until the time when +Christ came in the flesh, from whence the true religion which had +previously existed began to be called Christian; and this in our day is +the Christian religion, not as having been wanting in former times, but +as having in later times received this name.” + +A fellow and tutor in Trinity College and lecturer on ancient history in +the University of Dublin (Mr. Mahaffy) closes one of his lectures in the +following manner: “There is, indeed, hardly a great or fruitful idea in +the Jewish or Christian system which has not its analogy in the +(ancient) Egyptian faith. The development of the one God into a +_trinity_; the incarnation of the mediating deity in a virgin, and +without a father; his conflict and his momentary defeat by the powers of +darkness; his partial victory (for the enemy is not destroyed); his +resurrection and reign over an eternal kingdom with his justified +saints; his distinction from, and yet identity with, the uncreate +incomprehensible Father, whose form is unknown and who dwelleth not in +temples made with hands,—_all these theological conceptions pervade the +oldest religion of Egypt_. So, too, the contrast and even the apparent +inconsistencies between our moral and theological beliefs—the +vacillating attribution of sin and guilt partly to moral weakness, +partly to the interference of evil spirits, and likewise of +righteousness to moral worth, and again to help of good genii or angels; +the immortality of the soul and its final judgment,—_all these things +have met us in the Egyptian ritual and moral treatises_. So, too, the +purely human side of morals and the catalogue of virtues and vices are +by natural consequences as like as are the theological systems. _But I +recoil from opening this great subject now; it is enough to have lifted +the veil and shown the scene of many a future contest._” + +Indeed, the ablest of the Christian Fathers never claimed that +Christianity was a new religion recently and specially revealed by +Jesus, but made many admissions quite to the contrary. Clarke in his +_Evidences_ says that the most ancient writers of the Church did not +scruple to acknowledge the Athenian Socrates a Christian. + +Clemens Alexandrinus, of the second century (a. d. 194), wrote: “And +those who lived according to the _Logos_ were really Christians that is +to say, those who practically accepted the Greek conception of a divine +incarnation were really Christians.” And why not, for is not John’s +Gospel an elaboration of the Neo-Platonism of the Greeks? and is not the +whole Christian scheme an ingenious combination of Judaism and Oriental +philosophy? + +Lactantius well said: “If there had been one to have collected the truth +that was scattered and diffused among the sects into one, and to have +reduced it into a system, there would indeed have been no difference +between him and us.” Could anything be more emphatic than this admission +of a Christian Father of the fourth century that Christianity is made up +of fragments of other religions? + +A volume might be filled with similar admissions from the highest +Christian authority, for it would be easy to show that it was the main +argument of Justin Martyr (a. d. 141) that the Christian religion +contained nothing that might not be found in all earlier religions, and +that therefore its votaries deserved toleration and protection rather +than persecution. + +Compare the following, furnished by Mr. Johnson, with the teachings of +Jesus: + +“When you have shut your doors and darkened your room, beware of saying +that you are alone, for you are not alone, for God is within, and your +genius is within, and what need have they of light to see what you are +doing?” (Epictet., i. 14); “Dare look up to God, and say, ‘Use me as +thou wilt. I am one with thee. I refuse nothing that seems good to thee. +Lead me whither thou wilt’” (ii. 16); “Be not angry with the erring, but +pity them rather” (i. 18); “Be patient, mild, ready to forgive, severe +to none, knowing that the soul is never willingly deprived of truth” +(ii. 22); “No need to lift up the hands or get close to the ears of an +image, so as to be heard. God is near thee, with thee, in thee. I tell +thee, Lucilius, a holy spirit dwells within us, beholder of our conduct” +(Seneca, Ep., xli.); “Between God and good men is friendship, yea, +necessary intimacy” (De Prov., i. 5); “What use in concealment from men? +Nothing is hid from God” (Ep., lxxxiii. 1); “God escapes the eyes; he is +seen by thought only” (Nat. Quest., vii. 30); “No temples are to be +built to him. He must be hallowed by each in his own breast” (Seneca, +quoted by Lactantius, Ind., vi. 25); “Man’s primal union is with God” +(Cicero, De Leg., i. 7); “Virtue is the same in God and man; man +therefore is in the likeness of God” (ibid.). + +We could multiply these quotations indefinitely, but we forbear. The +fact cannot be denied that Christianity is but the continuation and +modification of the old pagan religions, and that Egypt has to be +largely credited with supplying a great portion of the subject-matter of +our so-called “special revelation.” We could take up the sun-gods of +Egypt and show that all the titles and offices ascribed to them are +given to Jesus, and that often the very language is used. “Out of Egypt +have I called my Son” is emphatically true, but in a broader and wider +sense than is generally supposed. This will be more clearly shown +hereafter. + + + + +CHAPTER XIII. A REVERENT CRITIQUE ON JESUS + + +WE say “reverent” out of pure regard to the feelings of multitudes of +devout persons who verily believe that Jesus was and is God, and so any +criticism of him is simply blasphemous. This subject is not to be +treated in a light or frivolous manner. + +We say “reverent” also out of respect to a smaller number of so-called +_liberals_ who deny the divinity of Christ, but who nevertheless believe +that Jesus was the _one_ pre-eminently good and wise man, and that no +man equal to him ever existed or ever will exist upon the face of this +earth; that he was the special Son of God, the model man, worthy of +worship as the man who possessed so much of the divine spirit as to +entitle him to the place of honor and grateful remembrance among men for +all time and in all countries. + +We think it more honest and respectful to reverently inquire into the +evidences of his divine character, and not to accept with blind +credulity what other men say. We are endowed with reason, and it seems +to us proper that we should exercise our rational faculties, and not +ignore them altogether. Honest _doubt_ must be more acceptable to him, +_if_ he is God, than unreasoning faith. + +Now, we propose to look at him in the light of the New Testament, and +especially of the Gospels, assuming them to be authentic. We shall here +pass by his infancy and childhood (utterly ignoring the doubtful and +controverted passages concerning his immaculate conception and +miraculous birth), and take the first direct account we have of his +life. This commences when he was about _twelve_ years of age. We are +told that he accompanied his mother and putative father to Jerusalem, +whither they went to attend the feast of the Passover. Luke states that +he strayed away from his parents, who were greatly concerned for his +safety, but he was at length found in the temple among the doctors +asking and answering wonderful questions, so as to astonish all who +heard him with his wonderful knowledge. His mother gently reproved him +for giving them so much anxiety, and he answered back, rather +impatiently, “How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be +about my Father’s business?" But he went home with his parents and was +subject to them, and for at least eighteen years dwelt with them and his +brothers James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. The names of his several +sisters are not given. During these eighteen years he is supposed to +have learned the trade of a carpenter and worked with his reputed +father, who was a carpenter, spending the most vigorous portion of his +life in manual labor, only devoting about three years to his mission as +the Messiah. Now, Jesus is held up as an “example,” and we are “to +follow his steps,” and it does not appear that there was anything in his +example specially worthy of imitation for about thirty years. We must +find it in the last years of his earthly career if we find it at all. + +The first instance in which the evangelists bring Jesus forward as a +moral teacher is in the Sermon on the Mount. This discourse is supposed +by Christians to be the masterpiece of wisdom and deep spiritual +insight. While Matthew gives it as a complete discourse, Mark and Luke +intersperse the substance of the sermon throughout their Gospels; which +is strong presumptive proof that it was not delivered as a connected +discourse. Like the book of Proverbs, it seems to be a collection of the +moral sayings of former times, many of which can be pointed out, with +slight verbal alterations, in the writings of pagan authors and of more +modern Jews of the Hillel school. In fact, there is nothing in the +sermon which had not been taught by many others a long time before, +while there is much that is absurd and impracticable, not to say untrue +and unjust. Even the deep spirituality involved in recognizing the +spirit and intent of the law can be paralleled by several passages in +Buddhistic scriptures. The so-called “Golden Rule” was announced by +Confucius as an axiom nearly five centuries before the Christian era, +both in its positive and its negative form, while the same maxim is laid +down in most choice and beautiful language by Isocrates, Aristotle, +Sextus, Pittacus, Thales, and many others from three to six centuries +before Christ. + +The same is true of the Lord’s Prayer, though it is often asserted that +Jesus first taught the “Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.” +This is not true. The “Lord’s Prayer” is found in the ancient Jewish +rituals, and is entitled a “Prayer to the Father,” and the expression +“Our Father who art in heaven” is common to many, if not all, nations +and religions. + +While there are several things in the Sermon on the Mount truly +beautiful, there is nothing that is strictly _original_; there are many +sayings which show a great lack of knowledge, and that are positively +impracticable and immoral in their tendency. No Christian tries to keep +these sayings. It would lead to vagabondism and would convert a nation +into a crowd of tramps. It would be positively immoral to obey them. If +Jesus did not _intend_ that his teachings should be taken according to +the common sense of the words used, why did he not say so? What is +language for but to express one’s meaning? So far from teaching the +non-resistance of evil, in other places he runs into the extreme of +teaching revenge. (See Luke 10:10-12; Matt. 10:14, 15; Mark 6:11.) He +also sanctions the most gross injustice. He commends the unjust steward +(Luke 16:5-8), saying that he had “done wisely” in cheating his employer +by compounding with his creditors, and advises his hearers to make +“friends” of the “mammon of unrighteousness.” + +Moreover, whoever is familiar with the teachings ascribed to Jesus must +know that his first condition of discipleship is _the total surrender of +all worldly possessions and the non-accumulation of earthly treasures +thereafter_ (Matt. 16: 24; Luke 14: 26, 27; Matt. 19, etc.). Can words +be more emphatic than the utterances of Jesus reported in Matt. +6:19-34?—“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and +rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.”... “For +where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”... “Ye cannot +serve God and mammon.”... “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for +your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your +body, what ye shall put on.” This absolute unconcern about food and +raiment is emphasized by repeating the injunction twice: “Therefore take +no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, +Wherewithal shall we be clothed?”... “Take therefore no thought for the +morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.” + +The attempts of theologians to modify these precepts are most +preposterous. They tell us that Jesus meant to discourage _anxious_ +thought about worldly possessions and wants—that he intended to condemn +undue anxiety and worriment of mind; and they even assert that the +original word implies and justifies this rendering. To this it may be +replied, We cannot be certain as to what particular words Jesus used, as +we have no manuscripts of the Gospels dating back to within four hundred +years of his time, and the alleged copies that we have are not +authenticated; so that an argument, even if justified by learned +criticism, based upon the implied meaning of particular words is +useless, unless we are sure, as we cannot be, that Jesus used those very +words, and that he intended that his disciples and other unlearned and +uncritical hearers should accept the implied rather than the obvious +meaning. + +But, taking the words in the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels now most +approved by scholars, we deny that there is anything in them to justify +the interpolation of the word “anxious” between the words “no” and +“thought.” There is the highest classical authority for the assertion +that the verb employed here simply means to “care,” “to be careful,” “to +heed,” and is so translated in other portions of the New Testament, as, +for examples, in 1 Cor. 7: 32, 33, 34; Phil. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:7; and in +many other passages. When Paul exhorted the Philippians to be “careful +for nothing,” because the Lord was about to appear in judgment, he +obviously meant that it was not worth while to make any provision for +future bodily wants. + +It is a universally-admitted principle of critical interpretation that +the meaning of words in any given text must be determined from the +context, the connection in which the word occurs. It so happens that +Jesus has illustrated his doctrine in this connection so as to make it +impossible to doubt as to the meaning of the words employed: “Behold the +fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather +into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye much +better than they?”... “And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the +lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin, +and I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like +one of these.” + +The use of the illative word, “_wherefore_, if God so clothe the grass,” +and the word “_therefore_ take no thought,” show beyond doubt that Jesus +intended to teach, and did teach, that his disciples were to be as +indifferent to matters of food and clothing as are the birds of the air +and the flowers of the field. Not only did he use words that sanction +the utmost improvidence in regard to future bodily wants, but he gave +the sense in which his words were to be received by referring them to +the well-known unconcern of the birds and lilies. + +But it may be further shown what Jesus meant to teach by reference to +his own life and the lives of his first followers. There is little or no +evidence in the Gospels or elsewhere that Jesus or his first disciples +ever possessed any earthly goods whatever, or that they ever engaged in +any of the useful or wealth-producing avocations of the country in which +they lived. Matthew speaks of Jesus as the son of a carpenter, and Mark +calls him “the carpenter, the son of Mary.” The fervid imaginations of +modern writers have depicted Jesus as an apprentice to his father and +laboring at the carpenter’s trade, but there is no evidence that he ever +pushed a plane or drove a nail. There is no reason to believe that he +ever erected a house for others, and it is certain that he never built a +house for himself, for he has told us that “the foxes have holes and the +birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man has not where to lay his +head.” There is not in any of the Gospels one single word accredited to +Jesus in favor of industrial pursuits, not one syllable to justify the +accumulation of property, or any forethought whatever for sickness, for +helpless infancy, or tottering age. + +When Jesus sent out his disciples he expressly forbade them to make any +provision for food or raiment. He said, “Provide neither gold or silver +nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, +neither shoes, nor yet staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat.” +They were to throw themselves upon the charities of the world, accept +such things as were given them, and to manifest the utmost indifference +to worldly comforts. There is no evidence that any of the followers of +Jesus who listened to his personal instructions ever engaged in any +worldly avocation, except to catch a mess of fish when driven by hunger +to do so. They lived from “hand to mouth,” and if they had lived in our +day they would, every one of them, have been denominated “tramps,” and +would have been amenable to our modern laws of vagrancy. ’Tis true, +there seems to have been some sort of care about future possible wants, +but only on the communistic principle. They had a treasurer in the +person of Judas Iscariot, but no _individual_ possessions were allowed. +We are told (Acts 4: 26) regarding early Christians, “Neither was there +any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or +houses sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold, +and laid them down at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made unto +every man according as he had need.” In Acts 2:44, 45 the facts are also +fully set forth: “And all that believed were together and had all things +common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men +as every man had need.” Whatever was allowed as a community, it is +certain that no individual was allowed to accumulate or retain property +on his own personal account. + +In perfect consistency with the view here presented Jesus taught that +the possession of riches was almost sure to debar one from heaven—that +while it might be possible for a rich man to be saved, because all +things are possible with God, nevertheless it is “easier for a camel to +go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into +heaven.” Riches were always denounced by Jesus, and poverty eulogized as +if it were a virtue in itself, commending one to the favor of God and +greatly increasing his prospects for the heavenly inheritance. If the +triple testimony of the synoptical Gospels amounts to anything, it shows +beyond a doubt that Jesus would accept no man as a disciple who +continued in the possession of worldly property, or who accumulated +earthly riches, or who allowed himself to think of the future +necessaries of life, even food and clothing. At the same time, the most +promiscuous and profuse almsgiving was enjoined: “Sell all that thou +hast and give unto the poor,” was the literal injunction. “Give to him +that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou +away.” + +Besides this, he required absolute non-resistance: “But I say unto you +that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right +cheek turn to him the other also “And whosoever shall compel thee to go +a mile, go with him twain “And if any man will sue thee at the law and +take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” This is even more than +non-resistance; it is a reward for unprincipled men to impose upon you. +It would be impossible to state the principle of absolute non-resistance +in stronger language. But modern commentators tell us that Jesus did not +intend to be so understood—that he merely intended to condemn the spirit +of strife and retaliation. Why, then, did he not say so? Which shall we +accept—what Jesus plainly and repeatedly said, or what commentators say +he meant? + +What are we to say about the doctrine of _bodily mutilation_ taught in +the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5: 29, 30)? Theologians of to-day tell us +that these words are to be taken in a metaphorical sense—that to secure +salvation we must sacrifice every passion that would lead us into sin, +though it might be as dear as a right hand, foot, or eye. The reason +assigned by Jesus for enforcing this precept cannot be reconciled with +the assumption that it was intended to be figurative: “For it is +profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that +thy whole body should be cast into hell.” If by members of the body +Jesus _meant principles or passions_ that might tempt and entrap one +into evil, we must charge upon the precept the absurdity that it would +be better to enter into heaven with one evil principle or passion than +to be cast into hell with many evil principles and passions! The literal +interpretation is favored by the fact that in ancient times bodily +mutilation was recognized in religious matters. In Matt. 19:12, Jesus is +reported to have said, “And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves +eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, +let him receive it.” If this is not a sanction of bodily mutilation, +what can it mean? That it was understood literally by many early +Christians cannot be denied. The ascetics of the second century +practised the most extreme literal mortification of the flesh, and even +in the middle of the third century Origen, one of the most learned of +the Christian Fathers, destroyed his own manhood by bodily mutilation as +an act of piety. Much curious matter upon this subject may be found in +Mosheim’s _Ecclesiastical History_, page 310, and also Gibbon’s _Decline +and Fall_, chap. xv. and notes. + +The fairest and most reasonable way to ascertain what Jesus taught is to +study his own life, and then to follow his example. It will be somewhat +startling to many when we announce the proposition that the religion of +the Christian Gospels is monastic and ascetic in the extreme, and that +Jesus himself was an ascetic, and that he required his disciples to +become such. One thing is certain: No man can study the character of +Jesus and his teachings, his own life and the career of his immediate +disciples, without admitting the monkish character of their religion. It +was emphatically the religion of sorrow, the religion not only of +anti-naturalism, but of unnaturalism. It virtually said: “Whatever is +natural is wrong; whatever you desire is wrong. To do what is painful is +right, while to do what you want to do is certain ruin. Life must be one +incessant wail of suffering if it is to be followed with eternal +blessedness. The body is the enemy of the soul, and the world the enemy +of God. Worldly prosperity is a curse in disguise, while poverty and +want and persecution and suffering of all kinds are indications of the +divine favor.” (See _Secret of the East_, by Dr. Felix L. Oswald.) + +At the very commencement of his public career Jesus formed an alliance +with that hardiest of anchorites known as John the Baptist, and in all +the Gospels the close relationship between the missions of John and +Jesus is constantly recognized. It is a tradition of the early Church +that Jesus was never known to smile, and there is an implication in the +Gospels that his face was prematurely old. He recommended a life of +religious mendicancy and voluntary poverty as absolutely necessary for +admission to his kingdom. + +But there was scarce anything in the teachings of Jesus that had not +been insisted upon for hundreds of years before by the monks of India, +Egypt, and other countries. It is impossible to go into details, but no +man of reading will deny this allegation. Like the ancient monks, Jesus +practised long fastings and abstained from flesh meats, though he ate +fish and vegetables. He neither possessed nor sought to acquire any +worldly property. While going about the streets and the seashore +teaching by day, he generally resorted, like ancient monks, to the +mountains and wilderness at night, and his principal religious devotions +were performed in the darkness of midnight. He abstained from marriage, +and had but little regard for the domestic relations. Asceticism was the +distinguishing characteristic of the early Church, and the doctrine of +the community of goods was practically received by the Church for two +hundred years, and is so received by many to-day. + +So far from practically condemning the literal teachings of Jesus as we +find them in the Gospels, we take the ground that they were just what +might have been expected from one holding the doctrine that the world +was about to be destroyed and a new kingdom established upon the +regenerated earth, of which he was to be the king and his disciples the +princes. If there was anything definite in the teachings of Jesus, it +was the speedy coming of the end of the world. Carefully study the +twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, the thirteenth of Mark, and the +twenty-first of Luke if you have any doubts upon this subject. + +The attempt of theologians to make it appear that Jesus only referred to +the destruction of Jerusalem is most absurd. It virtually charges Jesus +with the inconsistency of giving information upon one subject when his +disciples desired information upon another. They asked him for signs +that should precede the destruction of the world, and he distinctly +affirmed, “This generation shall not pass away till all these things are +fulfilled;” “There be some standing here that shall not taste death till +they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matt. 16:28). The +doctrine of the almost _immediate_ end of all mundane things as they +then existed is the only key to unlock what seems so absurd in the +teachings of Jesus. If he believed what he taught as to the speedy end +of the world, it was perfectly consistent for him to condemn the holding +or accumulating of property, and to commend the most indiscriminate +almsgiving, the most absolute non-resistance, with bodily mortification +and mutilation, and a life of unworldliness and practical mendicancy and +poverty. Jesus and his disciples taught and acted just as men would +teach and act if they believed that the end of the world was at hand. +His disciples so understood him. + +In the year 960 A. d. there was in the Christian Church a revival of +this doctrine, and the speedy end of the world and the second coming of +Jesus were proclaimed with great earnestness. The clergy as a class +adopted it, and encouraged people to give away their possessions. A +universal panic prevailed; all business was suspended; men abandoned +their families, and multitudes undertook a pilgrimage to Palestine to +meet their returning Lord. + +It is hardly necessary to mention the craze of “Millerism” in 1843 in +this country, when many, in perfect consistency with their belief, gave +up their possessions and prepared their “ascension robes,” and waited +anxiously for the end. If the clergy of all denominations should now +unite in proclaiming just what Jesus predicted concerning the end of the +world, just in proportion as people sincerely believed the message they +would at once literally accept the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, +and act accordingly. + +This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that much of what Jesus +taught can only be understood and justified by his particular view and +representation of the almost immediate end of all earthly things; and +this understanding of the subject is much more creditable to Jesus as a +teacher than the assumption that he failed to make himself understood, +and that he did not mean what he said, though both he and his disciples +practically in their lives exemplified the unworldliness and asceticism +that he preached. + +We submit as a key to the enigmas of the Sermon on the Mount and other +hard sayings attributed to Jesus that he and his disciples believed and +taught that this world was about to be made new, that the then present +order was about to terminate, and that therefore earthly possessions and +pursuits were of no consequence, and even the domestic relations were of +little account. + +That the teachings and examples of Jesus (in many respects) cannot be +accepted by the people of the nineteenth century without a complete +overthrow of existing institutions and forms of civilization is a +self-evident fact. We must abandon all industrial pursuits, change all +our views of the rights of property, adopt the communistic principle and +policy, and lead lowly lives of self-denial and bodily mortification and +discomfort. + +We repeat that the teachings and example of Jesus were natural and +rational from his conviction of the approaching end of all things. + +It would be easy to point out many other things in the Sermon on the +Mount equally defective and offensive to reason and common sense, but we +forbear. We have dwelt upon this celebrated sermon at such length +because it is held up as a model of moral teaching. We pronounce it a +very inferior compilation of things good and bad, not at all +corresponding with proper ideas of practical morality, and not adapted +to the present necessities of civilization. + +What is said of the Sermon on the Mount may be said of many portions of +the alleged teachings of Jesus. We mention only a few instances. The +parable of the Unjust Steward justifies a worldly cunning and a +decidedly dishonest act (Luke 16:5-8). Jesus commends him, saying that +“he had done wisely” in cheating his principal, and advises his +disciples to “make to them friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.” A +more grossly dishonest act could not have been committed by a person +acting in a fiduciary capacity. To follow his example would overthrow +all business integrity and lead to universal knavery. + +In the parable of the Unjust Judge he gives a very low and +anthropomorphic view of God and the efficacy of prayer. It is this: A +certain woman went to a judge for a certain favor, and he would not +grant her request. She persisted, and finally he said, “Though I fear +not God nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me I will +avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.” Then the lesson +taught: “And shall not God avenge his own elect which cry unto him day +and night, though he bear long with them?” This certainly teaches that +if one teases and worries God long enough, he will answer the prayer +without regard to the rightfulness of the petition. Dr. Adam Clark says +in his _Commentary_ that the expression “she weary me” is a metaphor +taken from boxers, “who bruise each other about the face, _blacken the +eyes!_” We forbear to remark on this blasphemous doctrine. + +We pass on without specifying the manifestly unjust principles laid down +in the parables of the Laborers in the Vineyard, the Ten Talents, the +Great Feast, and other parables, the manner in which he treated the +woman of Canaan, the mystification and evasions he used, leaving her in +doubt with regard to his real meaning, and the many instances in which +he gave irrelevant answers and unfair and illogical conclusions. His +teachings were notable for their obscurity and ambiguity; he tells us he +did not desire to be understood; and no wonder that his most trusted +disciples wrangled about his true meaning and came to opposite +conclusions. His own family did not believe in him, and some persons +thought him insane. Indeed, his mysterious and enigmatical style is so +marked that it suggests whether, after all, what is said to have been +spoken by Jesus was not the utterances and traditions of initiates in +the second Christian century? + +The claim of autocratic official authority to forgive and punish, to +deny before God those who should deny him before men, to denounce whole +cities for want of faith in him, to come in God’s name to judge all +mankind, to proclaim everlasting punishment and declare that some should +never be forgiven, mars the beauty of Jesus’ character. A real +deficiency in his teaching was the absence of any explicit declaration +of human brotherhood. It is a remarkable feet that no clear statement of +this idea is recorded of Jesus. But the lack was supplied in a certain +form by Paul, whose broader ethnic experience and more liberal culture +made him recognize the demand more fully, and who was therefore bound to +have it satisfied in his religious ideal. This was easy, since he had +never seen Jesus, and could construct his personality as his own +reverence and sense of human need might prompt. + +The clearest statement of human brotherhood in the New Testament is that +ascribed to Paul: “God hath made of one blood all the nations of the +earth.” Yet even in Paul’s mind it seems to have been conditioned on +faith in his Master. All were “members of one another, whether Jew or +Gentile, bond or free;” but it was only in so far as they were, or were +fit to be, “in the body of Christ.” Cicero and Seneca rest human +brotherhood on broader and deeper foundations. “All are members of one +great body,” says Seneca also; but in what sense? “By the constitution +of nature, which makes us kindred, and more miserable in doing than in +receiving an injury; and by whose sway our hands are prepared for mutual +help.” Paul says, “In Christ is neither bond nor free.” But Seneca says +more broad-ly, “Virtue invites all, free-born, slaves, kings, exiles. It +asks no questions about rank or wealth. It is content with the bare +man.” Again, exhorting Nero, he says: “Do not ask how much of +manumission is endurable, but how much the nature of justice and good +will allows you which bids you spare even captives and persons bought +with a price. Let slaves find refuge before the statute; if all things +are permitted you (by custom and power) against a slave, there is that +which the common law of life forbids to be done to a man; for the slave +is of the same nature as yourself.” So Cicero says: “No other things are +so alike as we are to each other;” “There is no one of any nation who +cannot reach virtue by following the light of nature;” “The foundation +of law is that nature has made us for the love of mankind.” + +Other testimonies to like effect might easily be adduced from “heathen” +writers of that age. And the later Stoics do but echo the thought of +their predecessors from the days of Zeno and Cleanthes when they +reiterate in the broadest terms the belief that men are created for the +very purpose of mutual good. And Philo says: “We all are brothers by the +highest kind of kindredship, as children of reason;” “Slavery is +impious, as destroying the ordinances of nature, which generated all +equally and brought them up as if brethren, not in name only, but in +reality and truth.” But with the apostles of Christianity, as probably +with Jesus himself, brotherhood was inseparable from belief in “the +Christ.” + +But let us not overlook the facts that the Gospels attribute to Jesus +certain beliefs which our present knowledge positively contradicts, and +even sentiments and claims which the highest morality cannot approve. +For example, take his belief in diabolic possession; his claim of power +to forgive sins and to judge mankind with his disciples on twelve +thrones; his denunciation of cities that should not receive his +messengers; his official retaliation (Matt. 10: 33); the unpardonable +sin; his giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and to his +apostles the same powers; the second coming of the Son of man, with +destruction of the world and the coming judgment day within that +generation; condemning to endless punishment those who have not succored +believers; no salvation to those found unrepentant at his coming; the +sinning brother who will not hear the Church to be treated as a heathen; +his sweeping denunciation of Pharisees and Scribes; a personal devil and +an everlasting hell; power over deadly serpents and the taking of +poisons without injury; the working of miracles by faith, even to the +removing of mountains and tearing up trees, raising the dead, etc. etc. +etc. + +But not only are the teachings of Jesus subject to criticism, but his +acts are equally so. Take for an example the manner in which he +addressed his mother when found disputing with the doctors in the +temple, but more particularly hear his words to his mother at the +wedding in Cana. She told him that the wine had run out, and he answered +in the most uncouth manner, “_Woman_, what have I to do with _thee?_” +That is to say, of what concern was his mother to him, and what had he +to do with her trouble about the wine being out? Then the making of the +wine, upon which the people got drunk, was by no means worthy of +imitation. The quantity, according to some divines, was not less than +two or three hogsheads of intoxicating drink, enough to last the balance +of the week. The guests were already drunk, and, though the wine was +made out of water, it was nevertheless highly intoxicating. We might +also mention his rude answer when his mother desired to speak to him +(Mark 3: 21-35). At the time of his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem he +took an “ass and colt,” the private property of some person, without +permission, and the bystanders so understood it. He went immediately to +the temple and beat out with a whip all the merchants (whom he calls +thieves), all legitimate dealers in animals and doves for religious +sacrifice, and violently overthrew the tables of the money-changers, +whose business seems also to have been legitimate. This act was a +“breach of the peace,” and in any civilized country would have been +followed by arrest and imprisonment. It was not right that he should +assert his authority by such disorderly conduct, and that too upon the +eve of the celebration of a religious ceremony. When waited on by a most +respectable deputation of public men who served officially (Matt. 23: +21) and inquired of him “by what authority he did such things,” instead +of answering them frankly and making known to them his mission, he +raised an irrelevant question, and because they could not tell whether +“John’s baptism was from earth or heaven,” he refused to give any +apology or explanation of his most treasonable and violent actions. He +addressed the Scribes and Pharisees in the most extreme language, +calling them “vipers,” “blind guides,” “hypocrites,” “serpents,” etc., +and used fulminations that were calculated to excite the worst passions +and the most atrocious acts. He told them that they were “whited +sepulchres” and “fools.” When he was accepting the hospitalities of a +Pharisee (Luke 11:37-54) he abused and denounced both the host and his +guests. He is said to have looked on the Pharisees “with anger,” thus +violating what he taught. His unjustifiable conduct toward the “barren +fig tree” will not be overlooked. It was not the season for figs; he had +no right to expect to find fruit on that tree, yet he “cursed” it, and +here again destroyed private property without rendering an equivalent. +So with the swine of the Gadarenes. This story is childish and wicked, +and his action resulted in the destruction of animals which must have +been valued at about four thousand pounds sterling. He was also +chargeable with dissimulation greatly at variance with moral rectitude. +When his brothers would have him go to Jerusalem to attend the feast of +tabernacles he declined, and advised them to go without him. But when +they had gone, “then went up also to the feast, as it were in secret” +(John 7: 2-10). + +He certainly here practised deceit. When walking with the two disciples +to Emmaus he pretended to be another person, and when they arrived there +he “made as though he would go farther that is, he pretended what he did +not intend...” (Luke 24:13). He practised the utmost dissimulation in +several particulars in the affair of Judas, and carried it even farther +than the traitor. (Read and study Matt. 26: 46-50 and context.) + +We might pursue this subject indefinitely. It is enough for our present +purpose to affirm that many of the errors in natural philosophy, +physiology, astronomy, and other sciences that prevailed in that day are +implied or incorporated in the Gospels, with many prevailing +superstitions, and that there are more mistakes and a greater number of +contradictions in the four Gospels than in any other writings of the +same length now extant in any language. + +There is no one subject upon which so many books have been written as +what are called “harmonies of the Gospels.” There are now more than one +hundred such books extant, besides thousands that have gone out of +print. Long ago as the seventeenth century Thomas Munn of London +published such a book, on the title-page of which he states that he has +reconciled three thousand contradictions. What does all this imply? Has +it ever been found necessary to so reconcile the writings of Plato, +Socrates, Aristotle, Newton, or Bacon? Could not God make himself +understood? It is an acknowledged fact among juriste that the +discrepancies in the four Gospels would destroy the credibility of any +four witnesses in any intelligent court of law. + +We must here express our conviction that the Gospels, which profess to +give the life of Jesus, are not original, genuine productions, and it is +time to show how they came into existence and were palmed off by +ecclesiastics as the productions of those whose names they bear. + +About the time of the birth of Christianity almost every system of +philosophy and religion centred at Alexandria in Egypt. The Essenes, +though scattered throughout all the provinces of the Roman empire, had +their head-quarters at Alexandria, where existed a flourishing +university. To this centre of learning seekers after truth from all +countries of the globe found their way, and, comparing their various +systems, the result was the evolution of the Eclectic philosophy, made +up of what was regarded as the best of every known faith. + +Palestine and Egypt were geographically contiguous, and the commerce +between them was general and constant through Alexandria. Here the +various sects of Judaism came into direct contact with Greek and +Oriental thought and philosophy, with which they had been made quite +familiar during their captivity in Babylon. Pythagorean, Platonic, and +even Zoroastrian and Buddhistic speculations were rife—were in the very +air of Alexandria. It is notorious that in that city Christian theology +assumed a systematic form. The first and best Christian manuscripts were +Alexandrian, and so were the first bishops; so says Prof. Calvin E. +Stowe. + +It is impossible for any party to escape entirely from the influence of +its surroundings. How could a new sect eighteen hundred years ago escape +the influences that dominated the very atmosphere of Alexandria? +Christianity, so called, did not escape this influence, but in a short +time took an eclectic form made up of the then existing systems of faith +and philosophy, so that we now find in it ingredients taken from every +known system of religion and philosophy, including Judaism, Platonism, +Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism. + +Mosheim says this Eclectic philosophy, which “chose the good and +rejected the evil out of every system that had been propounded to +mankind,” was taught in the university of Alexandria when Christianity +came into existence. A very interesting question arises in this +connection, which few have paused to ponder—viz. What became of the +sects of the Essenes and Therapeutists after the commencement of the +Christian era? That they suddenly disappeared as sects is an historical +fact. But what became of them? Is there anything more natural than to +assume that they became the pioneers of the Christian Church, and, in +fact, that it was these people to whom the name “Christian” was first +given at Antioch? The entire New-Testament Scriptures are full of +phrases and allusions which clearly show the Essenean admixture, of +which many examples might be quoted. Even Eusebius, styled the “Father +of ecclesiastical history,” without whose writings little or nothing is +known of the early Christian Church, not only admits the close +resemblance between this sect and Christianity, but he even claims that +they were Christians. + +A thorough investigation of this matter drives one to the conclusion +that our Catholic Christianity came from Alexandria—virtually from the +Essenean monks who flourished before the Augustan age, and that their +writings are the foundation of our Gospels, re-edited, changed, and +interpolated to suit times and occasions. Catholicism is the undoubted +offshoot of Egyptian monkery, as Protestantism is an offshoot of +Catholicism, and improperly called a _Reformation_. Paul probably became +a sort of Martin Luther, and led the great schism from the Essenean +Church, and it was then from a certain time called Christian. The four +Greek Gospels of our New Testament were made up at Alexandria from +Egyptian asceticism, and consist largely of a union of Neo-Platonism +with Judaism, and is full of the occult and mystical so common in that +period. They were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as can +be _proved_, and he who is called Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more +than an Essenean impersonation. This view is honestly held by the +writer, and did space permit he could give many pertinent reasons for +it. Investigation in this direction would meet a rich reward. + +Many pious persons here confront us, and inquire reproachfully, “What is +the use of destroying the faith of the people in the Christian +religion?” This question implies what is not true, as it is farthest +possible from the object of these papers to ridicule or in any way to +bring religion into disrepute. It is not only good principle, but it is +also good policy, to always tell the truth. Why should we say, either +directly or by implication, that Christianity is a supernatural religion +when we know it to be of human origin, and can show just how, and when, +and where it grew out of then existing creeds and systems of philosophy? + +Is religion such a sham that it can best be subserved by falsehood and +imposture? We think not. And if we should adopt the Jesuistic maxims, +that “the end justifies the means” and that “pious intent hallows +deceit,” it is simply impossible in this inquisitive scientific age to +keep up a deception, however venerable for age and sacred from +association. Knowledge is on the increase, and the people will not for +ever wear bandages over their eyes, and, thus hoodwinked, swallow +without question whatever is put into their mouths by the dispensers of +theologic twaddle and priestly pap. Regarding Christianity as a special +divine revelation recently made, it will not stand scientific and +historic examination; but regarding it as of human origin, an evolution, +a product of that age of pessimism which resulted from the +disappointment of the Jews as to their national Messiah, and the +disintegration and coming decadence and downfall of the Roman empire, +coupled with the proclamation of the speedy destruction of the world +itself, it is just what might have been expected—a religion of +pessimism, of sorrow, of unworldliness, of evil forebodings. + +“When the devil got sick, the devil a monk would be.” When Charles IV. +of Spain was discomfited by the misfortunes of war, he sought solace in +embroidering a petticoat for the Virgin Mary. Rancé had a domestic +tragedy, and he founded the order of Trappist monks. Loyola would never +have founded Jesuitism if he had not first been disfigured and crippled +in a military siege. Dante was an exile when he wrote his _Inferno_, and +John Calvin was a dyspeptic and suffered from rheumatism, gout, and +stone when he wrote his _Institutes_. The most distinguished devotees to +the religion of self-reproach have always been sufferers from headache +and neuralgia, as “crippled foxes decry the vintage,” and grapes are +always sour that are beyond reach. + +The germs of Christianity grew out of the decaying carcasses of the +Jewish commonwealth and the Roman empire, and as the worship of sorrow +and unnaturalness it is not promotive of the highest virtue and the best +interests of human society. It is only when the distinctive asceticism +is eliminated and its extreme pessimism is destroyed by a rational +optimism that it becomes a real blessing to humanity. + +Every religion reflects the characteristics of the place and time of its +birth, and the gloomy and melancholic temperaments of the dwellers by +the Jordan, the Nile, and the Euphrates thoroughly permeated and +impregnated the sects of those countries. + +Regarding Christianity as of human origin, we are at liberty to cast +aside its lugubrious spirit, its impracticable unworldliness and +unnaturalness, and with higher esteem, and a more genuine heartfelt +appreciation, and a sincere acceptance and approval we are free to adopt +and glorify its general humane spirit under the divine impulse of the +universal Fatherhood of God. + +The real religious basis is that he serves God best who serves man best, +and the coming of the kingdom of God is concomitant with the coming of +the kingdom of man. + +The claim of infallibility is always suspicious, and there is no +finality in religious truth and progress; and it cannot be doubted that +the religion of the nineteenth century is as great an improvement upon +the religion of the first as our civilization, science, commerce, and +the mechanic arts are superior. Prof. Max Müller, of the orthodox +University of Oxford, well says: “The elements and roots of religion +were there as far back as we can trace the history of man, and the +history of religion, like the history of language, shows us throughout a +succession of new combinations of the same radical elements.” In no +system of religion is the principle of combination, of previously +existing forms of creed and conduct, so apparent as in the Christian +religion. It is the best because it is the latest of the great +religions, and contains the best selections and combinations of all +previously existing ones, Jewish and pagan. + +Our faith in the sublime moral precepts of Christianity is increased and +strengthened as we realize that they are thousands of years old, that +they are the accumulated products of the ages—an evolution from the +consummated wisdom of all previously existing religionists of all times +and countries. God’s real revelations to man are from within, and they +would not be any more divine if they were from without. Of nothing can +we be so sure as that God will take care of his own eternal truth, and +cause it to shine forth with more radiant splendor as knowledge shall +increase and true science shall learn to read more intelligently the +records of the divine character and will in the infallible book of +nature. + +Ecclesiastical tomtits may twitter and flutter, and theological owls may +look solemn and wise and hoot out their gloomy forebodings, but the true +ark of Nature’s covenant is safe.: + + “Ever the truth comes uppermost, + And ever is justice done.” + +The only safe position, because it is the only true one, is that there +is a God in the universe, and that it is the divine order to make known +his will by slow and uniform processes, and not by sudden and miraculous +revelations. + +The principle of evolution is just as true in its application to moral +and spiritual things as it is in regard to the material world, and +another Darwin will some day arise who will demonstrate the fact. +Indeed, this field is “ripe for the harvest,” as several new sciences, +not dreamed of until within a half century past, are revealing facts and +establishing principles which are sure to consign the old +supernaturalism to regions of superstition and priestcraft. + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. A FEW FRAGMENTS + + +_“Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.”—John +6:12._ + + +GNOSTICISM. + +SINCE preparing Chapter XI., on _The Ideal Christ_, and quoting freely +from Mr. Gerald Massey regarding the Gnostics, some doubts have been +suggested as to the soundness of his views. We have therefore carefully +reviewed this matter, and can find no reason to abate one tittle from +the conclusions presented by this painstaking and able writer. + +The word _gnosis_, meaning _knowledge_, does not apply exclusively to a +party or sect The Gnostics were not distinguished from Christians at +first by sectarian lines. The Epistles of Paul, both genuine and +spurious, recognize the gnosis, and there were Gnostic sects, as well as +individual Gnostics, both before and after the Christian era. The gnosis +consisted in knowing, and mainly in not accepting as historical and +literal what was really only allegorical. The chief Gnostic sects held +as _secret_ their essential doctrines, and at the same time they had an +exoteric statement which they gave to the common people. Even Paul, who +seems to have been a first-class Gnostic, preached one gospel publicly +to the Gentiles, and another which he gave “privately to them that were +of reputation” (Gal. 2: 2). His teachings were highly _Cabalistic_, and +he seems to have delighted in “mysteries.” He had no conference with any +of the other apostles as to what he should teach, but went to Arabia, +where he doubtless met the Essenean brotherhood, and probably learned +from them instead of the Judean teachers. The Essenes were famous for +the cultivation of sacred literature, and had their _personified_ +Christ, as we have reason to believe. Mr. C. Staniland Wake thinks, with +good reason, that the Essenes were Mithrasts, and that they worshipped +the sun, and Mithras, the Persian savior, was a personification of the +sun. The Essenes, according to Josephus, treated the sun with great +veneration, and offered certain prayers early in the morning, as if they +made supplication for its rising. The Essenes and Mithrasts were +Gnostics in that they held to a personified savior, and not a literal +man of flesh and blood. The symbolism of the universe afforded models +for the secrets of their religion, and their rites were introduced into +every part of the Roman empire—of course including Palestine—and for +nearly four centuries the Mithraic religion wellnigh overshadowed +Christianity. Much that was written of Jesus indicates the +characteristics of the secret initiations. It may appear strange to the +superficially informed when we affirm, as heretofore, that many of those +matters which Paul set forth with such seeming literalness were in fact +mystic and arcane, the transcript of older doctrines, and were made up +throughout of astrological symbolism. + +The systems of many ancient peoples centuries before Christianity +contain doctrines and dramatic stories closely analogous to the gospel +story of Jesus. The Neo-Platonists held that these occult rites were +merely a form of representing philosophic thought as if in scenes of +daily life. While Paul refers to certain matters as apparently +historical, he never overlooks their symbolic import. The interpolators +of his writings misrepresented his real views, as is evinced by internal +evidence in the writings themselves. + +The fourth Gospel, falsely credited to John, was written for the evident +purpose of opposing the Gnostic doctrine of Jesus not made flesh by +presenting the Neo-Platonic dogma of “the Word made flesh.” In many +places throughout the New Testament there is an implication that there +were those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh: “And every spirit +that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of +God” (1 John 1: 3). In 2 John, 7th verse, it is said: “For many +deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ +is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” How does +this comport with the assumption that the existence of the human Jesus +was never doubted in the apostolic age? The ignorant and disingenuous +ecclesiastics who wrote on Gnosticism in early ages always observed one +rule, and that was to represent it as a mere offshoot and corruption of +Christianity, invented because of disappointed ambition by apostates +from the religion established by the apostles. The Rev. Mr. King, in his +_Gnostics, and their Remains_, affirms that such representations “are +entirely false.” The truth is, that Gnosticism did not purport to be a +Christian system, except by a kind of syncretism to reconcile different +faiths. The Neo-Platonists attempted this, and Gnostics did the same on +an analogous plan. The historical existence of Jesus was little else +than a concession made to the unreasoning multitude, while the esoteric +doctrine was so much older as to make such an existence of no possible +account except as a piece of folk-lore to hang illustrations of +doctrines upon. This is the central idea of every branch of Gnosticism. +The forms set forth by different expositors are secondary and +incidental, liable to mislead those who attempt to place them in the +front and draw deductions from them; and hence Saturninus taught that +all that was considered physical in Jesus was only a phantasy, and that +what was from God was spiritual only, and not at all corporeal. As for +the writings of Tatian, they are “lost”—that is, destroyed—and we are +under no obligations to accept what his enemies have said of them. The +period was one in which calumny, slander, and forgery were the rule, as +well as the main dependence for refuting an adversary. We know nothing +of Cerinthus except through Epiphanius, whose reputation for truth and +veracity is so bad that he would make falsehood appear like truth by his +manner of telling it. Our evidence respecting Cerinthus comes chiefly +from Epiphanius, who once professed to be a Gnostic (Macosian), and +afterward turned Catholic, and, Judas-like, betrayed some scores of his +former associates, including seventy women, to the persecuting civil +authorities. + +The Ophites were certainly mystics, and read everything concerning Jesus +as a sacred allegory. Many think that _Christos_ was with them +_Chrëstos_, the good, the incarnation and associate of Sophia, “the +wisdom from on high.” The “wisdom religion” was extensively symbolized. +Pythagoras named his esoteric doctrine the _gnosis_ or “knowledge,” and +Plato used a similar expression to indicate the “interior knowledge.” +Marcion was evidently Persian and used Mithraic symbolism. The +ceremonials of Mithraism (red-cap Christians) and astral rites were +adopted by the Catholic Church, besides many other rites of paganism. +The Jewish _Cabala_ and the Gnostics had much in common. The Sethites +were of Jewish origin, and they held that Seth was the son of Sophia, +who had filled him with the divine gnosis, and that his descendants were +a spiritual race. + +The Mandaites were Gnostics, as their name indicates, and they found in +the system the older type of doctrine which obtained in Mesopotamia and +in the old and elaborate Babylonian religion. This is seen from the fact +that the names of the old pantheon were adopted. + +The variety of legends regarding Jesus show that he was not an +historical character. Deriving the bulk of their theosophy from beyond +the Euphrates, and even much from beyond the Indus, the early +ecclesiastics changed names, but retained their original ideas. Nearly +all Christian festivals are the equivalents of pagan observances, as is +well known. Prof. F. W. Newman denounces the assertions of Tischendorf +and Canon Westcott, concerning the Gnostics as “unworthy of scholars, +and only calculated to mislead readers, who most generally are ignorant +of the actual facts in in the case.” “The uncritical and inaccurate +character of the Fathers rendered them peculiarly liable to be misled by +forgone conclusions.” + +Oriental Christianity and Parseeism furnish a striking example of +religious syncretism. In the Gnostic basis itself it is not difficult to +recognize the general features of the religion of ancient Babylon, and +thus we are brought nearer to a solution of the problem as to the real +origin of Gnosticism in general. + +Dr. John Tulloch, principal of St. Andrew’s University and the writer of +the article on the Gnostics in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (ninth +edition), truly says: “The sources of Gnosticism are to be found in +diverse forms of religion and speculative culture antecedent to +Christianity, especially in the theology of the Alexandrian Jews as +represented in the writings of Philo, and again in the influences +flowing from the old Persian or Zarathustrian religion and the +Buddhistic faiths of the East.” He also says it is “the fact that the +spirit of Gnosticism and the language which it afterward developed were +in the air of the apostolic age, and that the last thing to seek in the +early Fathers is either accuracy of chronology or a clear sequence of +thought.” + +In Appletons’ New _American Cyclopedia_, under the title “Gnostics,” it +is said: “The Gnostics numbered two classes—the select few who were +admitted to the divine secrets, and the large class of common believers +who were not able to rise above the physical condition.” The point is +that the Gnostics had a _secret doctrine_ which their adversaries did +not know. The recognition of Jesus as an actual person was only +apparent, and hence different people differed in that respect. The +doctrine came from the far East, and teachers only sought to harmonize +it with the new worship, as they also did with Mithraism. The real +Gnostics were the spiritual men of the times, and mere externalists +could not understand them. It would be amusing if it were not so serious +to see men often affecting great learning, themselves not professing +orthodoxy, yet vehement for what can only be called Roman +ecclesiasticism. “The letter killeth,” and “the wise shall understand.” + +Many writers on Gnosticism seem to know no more than the cock on the +dunghill knows of the jewels that lie before him. The fact is, that the +writings of the so-called Fathers, and of the New Testament itself, have +come down to us percolated through Roman sacerdotalism, and must be +taken with many grains of allowance. There were many men named Jesus at +the commencement of the Christian era, but that a Jesus was crucified +and rose from the dead is not supported by a particle of evidence. The +anonymous author of the great English book, _Supernatural Religion_, has +shown how utterly valueless the Gospels are as sources of evidence; and +where else shall we look for an historical Jesus? We can have no faith +in historical “phantoms,” “aions,” and “illusions.” Neither pagan nor +Jewish contemporaneous history gives any countenance to the orthodox +claim of a personal, crucified, and risen Jesus. + +ORIGIN OF THE CHRIST STORY. + +The Gospels were doubtless compiled nearly two hundred years after the +beginning of the Christian era from the mythological and superstitious +lore that was then circulating in great abundance; and Christ himself is +only a mythological personage who, if such a person ever had any +existence at all, existed many centuries before the Christian era, and +was very different from the Christ of the Gospels, being originally +Æsculapius or some other character of the like fame, and serving only as +the basis of the Christian fable. It is certain that the primitive +teachers of Christianity converted to their own purposes the writings of +ancient poets and philosophers, mixing together the Oriental Gnosticism +and Greek philosophy, and palming them on the world in a new form as +things especially revealed to themselves. + +It may further be remarked that at a most early period of the Christian +era there appears to have been great doubts as to the real existence of +Christ. The Manichees, as Augustine informs us, denied that he was a +man, while others maintained that he was a man, but denied that he was a +God (August. Serm. xxxvii. c. 12). There is, therefore, considerable +force in the expressions of a modern writer that the being of no other +individual mentioned in history ever labored under such a deficiency of +evidence as to its reality, or ever was overset by a thousandth part of +the weight of positive proof that it was a creation of imagination only, +as that of Jesus Christ. His existence as a man has, from the earliest +day on which it can be shown to have been asserted, been earnestly and +strenuously denied; and that not by the enemies of the Christian faith, +but by the most intelligent, most learned, and most sincere of the +Christian name who have left to the world proofs of their intelligence +and learning in their writings and of their sincerity in their +sufferings. The existence of no individual of the human race that was +real and positive was ever by a like conflict of jarring evidence +rendered equivocal and uncertain. Nothing, however, is more common than +for some persons to assume an air of contempt, and to cry out that those +who deny that such a person as Jesus of Nazareth ever existed are +utterly unworthy of being answered. It is, truly, very convenient for +them thus to shelter themselves by assuming his existence as +incontrovertible, instead of fairly meeting historical facts which, to +say the least, render his existence very problemetical. It is to no +purpose to urge that it might as well be denied that no such a person as +Alexander the Great or Napoleon Bonaparte ever existed as to set at +defiance the evidence of the existence of Jesus. For the existence of +neither Alexander nor Napoleon was miraculous, and there never was on +earth one other real personage whose existence, as a real personage, was +denied and disclaimed even as soon as ever it was asserted, as was the +case with respect to the assumed personality of Christ. But the only +common character that runs through the whole body of the evidence of +heretics is, that they, one and all, from first to last, deny the +existence of Jesus Christ as a man, and, professing their faith in him +as a God and Saviour, yet uniformly and consistently hold the whole +story of his life and actions to be allegorical. The very earliest +Christian writings that have come down to us are of a controversial +character and written in attempted refutation of heresies. These +heresies must therefore have been of so much earlier date and prior +prevalence; they could not have been considered of sufficient +consequence to have called (as they seem to have done) for the entire +devotion and enthusiastic zeal of the orthodox party to extirpate or +keep them under, if they had not acquired deep root and become of +serious notoriety—an inference which leads directly to the conclusion +that they were of anterior origination to any date that has hitherto +been ascribed to the Gospel history. + +In accordance with the notion that Christ was a phantom, the writer of +the Commentaries which are attributed to Clement of Alexandria, +apparently quoting from the Gospel of Nicodemus, tells us that an +apostle attempted to touch the body of Christ, but in so doing found no +hardness of flesh and met with no resistance from it, although he thrust +his hand into the inner part of it. A similar idea is conveyed by Luke +where he says that Christ _vanished_ out of the sight of his disciples, +but yet shortly after stood in the midst of them—a notion consistent +only with that of an apparition (Luke 24: 31, 36). Similar remarks may +be made on the words of Christ to Thomas and Mary; to the latter he +says, “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father that is, I +am not to be felt;” and to the former he says, “Reach hither thy hand, +and thrust it into my side” (John 20:17, 27). Both these expressions, +contradictory as they are with regard to Jesus, still show that the +writer knew something of the notion entertained that Christ was a +_phantom_. Luke (24: 37, 39) also has words proving the same point, +where he says that the disciples, when they saw Christ after his +resurrection, thought they had seen a spirit and that he told them to +handle him. Marcion of Pontus, who flourished about A. D. 127, believed +Christ not to have been born of a virgin and to have grown up gradually, +but that he took the form of a man and _appeared_ as a man without being +born, and at once showed himself in Galilee in full maturity. Manes +also, according to the testimony of Socrates and others, “denied that +Christ was ever really born or had real human flesh, but asserted that +he was a mere phantom.” (See Lardner’s _Credibility_, vol. ii. p. 141.) +For men who entertained this notion of “the person of Christ,” his +sufferings, death, and resurrection were of course a delusion—were only +in appearance. Thus, according to Father Apelles, who wrote about A. D. +160, Christ was _not born_, nor was his body like ours, but consisted of +aërial and ethereal particles. Very probably, Apelles did not think it +unlikely that a body composed of such subtile matter as this should rise +from the grave and be capable of passing not only through the smallest +aperture, but even through solid matter. Barnabas, the companion of +Paul, in his Gospel had another way of disposing of the question of the +resurrection—namely, by denying that Christ was crucified at all, but +was taken up into the third heaven by four angels; that it was Judas +Iscariot who was crucified in his stead; and that Christ will not die +till the very end of the world (Toland’s _Nazarenus_, Letter i. chap. v. +p. 17.) The _Basilidians_, about the commencement of the second century, +disposed in a similar manner of the miracle of the resurrection by +asserting that it was not Christ, but Simon of Cyrene, who was crucified +instead of Jesus. + +Such are some of the various opinions of the origin of the story of +Christ’s resurrection. They are placed before the reader that he may +have a choice of theories. After matured reflection, however, he will, +most probably, come to the conclusion that this tale originated in the +same manner as “The Gospel of the Birth of Mary,” “The Gospels of the +Infancy of Christ,” “The Gospel of Nicodemus,” the epistolary +correspondence of Christ and Abgarus, of the Virgin Mary and Ignatius, +together with hundreds of other similar productions of the ages when +facts were not so much appreciated as fables in the form of books. If he +arrive at this conclusion, he will see no reason to believe that such a +personage as the Christ of the Gospels was ever crucified, much less +raised from the dead. + +ANCIENT ENIGMAS. + +It is amusing to observe how, in ancient times, the dark, enigmatical, +and allegorical style was practised, particularly in the East, by all +public teachers, both Jews and Gentiles. By this means they explained +away the fabulous tales current regarding their gods, and discoursed on +every branch of knowledge known to them. They deemed religion a mystery +not to be publicly explained, and always delivered its dogmas clothed in +dark allegories (_Oie. de Nat. Deor. lib. ii. iii.; Spencer de Legibus +Heb., p. 182; Clerici Hist. Eccles.,_ p. 23). The Egyptians and +Chaldeans were noted for their dark sayings (_Simon Hist crû. des +Comment_, p. 4). Gale (_Opuscula Mythologica_) gives an account of +several ancient books expressly written as instructions to interpret +allegories. The Greek poets, Homer not excepted, are by their scholiasts +regarded as treating of their gods in a mystical style. The Stoic +philosophers dressed the whole heathen theology in allegorical language +(_Cic. de Nat. Deor_., lib. ii.). The Pythagorean philosophy was taught +in enigmatical expressions, the meaning of which was studiously +concealed from the vulgar mind, and revealed even to the initiated only +gradually as their years of maturity were thought to qualify them for +its reception. Plato and his followers in the groves of Academia +practised the same mode of teaching religion, especially theogony. The +writings attributed to Paul the apostle, as has been shown, are replete +with mystical and enigmatical expressions. This he confesses, saying +that he spoke “the wisdom of God in a mystery,” “comparing spiritual +things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2: 7, 13). Accordingly, he regards the +history of Isaac and Ishmael as an allegory (Gal. 4: 22-25), which he +condescends to explain. The primitive Fathers of Christianity pursued +the same mode of communicating instruction and of defending their +religion against the pagans. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, +Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, all of them, were very expert in this +occult system, in imitation of the heathen philosophers, by whom most of +them had been educated. Eusebius (_Hist. Eccles_.y lib. vi. c. 19), +citing what he is pleased to call the assertions of Porphyry, writes +that Origen, having been educated in Greek literature, intermingled it +with the fictions of Christianity, that he dealt in the works of Plato, +Numenius, Cranius, Apollophanes, Longinus Moderatus, Nico-machus, +Chæremon, and Cornutus, and that he derived from these pagan authors the +allegorical mode of interpretation usual in the mysteries of the Greeks, +and applied it to the Jewish Scriptures. Thus, Origen’s mode of teaching +was identical with that of the pagans—a mode commended even by the +learned Dodwell (_Letters of Advice_, etc., p. 208), who says that the +pagan mystical arts of concealment are of use toward understanding the +Scriptures. The Jewish rabbis also delivered their doctrines in the same +obscure and mystical manner, as their Talmud, Cabala, Gemara, and other +books, besides what we call the Hebrew Scriptures, amply show. The +religious teachers of all the nations of antiquity thus delighting in +dark sayings, it is therefore by no means wonderful that the writers of +the Gospels, whoever they were, attribute similar enigmas to Jesus. This +accounts, in a measure, for the obscurity of the Gospels, while, +however, it traces their origin to a pagan source. + +GODS OF VIRGIN BIRTH. + +It is in perfect harmony with what has long ago been demonstrated by +some of the most critical writers, not only in English, but also in +other languages—namely, that the New Testament has been collected by +Eclectic monks—particularly Egyptian monks of Jewish extraction +connected with the Alexandrian college—from various legendary tales and +other documents then afloat, which they modified to answer their own +purposes, and which since their time have been considerably altered to +suit the requirements of different religious communities. + +The Christian apologists of the second and third centuries evinced no +lack of knowledge on this point. Justin Martyr, as already cited, in +addressing a Roman emperor, says that the Christians, by declaring Jesus +to be the Son of God, born of a virgin, said no more than the Romans +said of those whom they styled the 24 sons of Jupiter, such as Mercury, +Bacchus, Hercules, Pollux, and Castor; and as to Jesus, he repeats, +having been born of a virgin, the pagans had their Perseus, son of Jove +and the virgin Danaë, to balance this feature. Creusa, daughter of +Erectheus, was visited by the god Apollo, and in consequence became the +mother of the god Janus. A Chinese virgin by means of the rays of the +sun—regarded as a deity—became the mother of the god Fo, who acted as a +mediator between his followers and another superior god. The Hindoo +virgin Rohini in like miraculous manner gave birth to a god, one of the +Brahman trinity. Another Hindoo virgin, Devaci, as already observed, +having had an intercourse with the deity Yasudeva, became the mother of +an incarnate god whose name was Chrishna; whose birth was announced by +the appearance of a new star; whose life, when an infant, was sought in +vain by the reigning tyrant of the country; whose principal exploits +were killing a terrible serpent, holding a mountain on the tip of his +finger, washing the feet of the Brahmans, saving multitudes by his +miraculous power, raising many from the dead, dying to save the world +from sin and darkness, rising from the dead, and then ascending to his +heavenly seat in Vaicontha (Sir Wm. Jones’s Asiatic Researches, vol. i. +pp. 259-273). Somonocodom, who, according to the sacred books of the +Talapoins of Siam, was destined to save the world, was another personage +who had a virgin mother. The followers of Plato about two hundred years +after his death, but more than a century before the Christian era, +reported that he had been born of a virgin. + +The most ancient Alexandrian chronicles, which furnish ample proofs of +the universal prevalence of our gospel religion in Egypt for ages before +the Christian era, testify as follows: “To this day Egypt has +consecrated the pregnancy of a virgin and the nativity of her son, whom +they annually present in a cradle to the adoration of the people; and +when King Ptolemy, three hundred and fifty years before our Christian +era, demanded of the priests the significancy of this religious +ceremony, they told him it was a mystery.” (See _Christian Mythology +Unveiled_, p. 94.) + +Indeed, the fabulous lore of ancient times is teeming with the amours of +gods with virgins and the results thereof. Some writers have intimated +that such births were the consequences of the artful intrigues of the +pagan priests with holy virgins; but Dupuis, Albert, Alphonso, +Boulanger, and others have clearly shown “that these and similar tales, +which are revolting to common sense if taken literally, were originally, +in Oriental learning, astronomical and other allegories, conveying the +most sublime truths then known touching the revolutions of the heavenly +bodies and other physical and moral facts, while their meaning in after +ages was gradually perverted to answer other ends.” + +THE EPISTLES SILENT CONCERNING THE WORDS AND WORKS OF JESUS. + +It is a most remarkable fact that in none of the Epistles is there any +mention made of the various wonderful things narrated in the Gospels as +having been said and done by Christ. Indeed, there is scarcely an +allusion made in them to those astounding details with which every page +of the Gospels is replete. No mention is made in them of what the +Gospels state that Christ declared _regarding the day of +judgment_—nothing about Christ’s preternatural birth, his baptism, his +temptation by Satan, his denunciations of the different existing sects, +his precepts, his parables, his intimate acquaintance with publicans, +with Magdalene, with Mary and other women. Not one of his miracles is +detailed, and nothing is said of the marvellous circumstances which +attended his crucifixion and death, such as the sun darkening, the earth +quaking, the temple rending, rocks cleaving asunder, graves opening, the +dead rising and walking the streets of Jerusalem. These are matters +which, one would imagine, should occupy a very prominent position in all +the Epistles—should be relied upon by the writers respectively as facts +with which to attest and establish the truth of their doctrines, and +which would, of themselves, suffice to convince and convert the most +incredulous and obdurate mind. In the Epistles ascribed to Peter, James, +and John, who are said to have been eye- and ear-witnesses of what +Christ did and said, one would expect, certainly, to find frequent +details of the marvellous things said of Jesus in the Gospels. But Peter +does not so much as allude to the keys of heaven and hell which the +Gospels say were given him to keep, nor even to the fact that Jesus, +walking on the sea, enabled him also to do so and saved him from +drowning. Neither does he tell those to whom he writes that Jesus +conferred his blessing upon him when he pronounced him “the Christ, the +Son of the living God;” nor that Jesus, after he had suspiciously asked +him three times whether he loved him, and had as often received +affirmative answers, charged him to feed his flock. Of course we cannot +expect him to have recorded in his Epistles that Jesus graced him with +the epithet “Satan,” or that he denied the same Jesus thrice. If it was +the son of Zebedee who wrote “the General Epistle of James” (about the +authorship of which Christians have not as yet agreed), it would not +seem too great a tribute to his divine Master for him to refer to some +of his mighty words and deeds which he must have witnessed. Or if the +author is the brother of Jesus (which is not very likely, since all his +relatives except his mother shunned him), he could deplore the fact that +he and his brothers—Joses, Simon, and Judas—_did not believe_ in the +pretensions of their divine brother, Jesus. But the very name of Jesus +is mentioned, and that casually, only thrice in the whole Epistle. John, +“the beloved disciple,” could in one of his Epistles, or at least in +that which it is agreed he wrote—to the confirmation of the genuineness +of Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s Gospels—have adverted to that curious +incident of his mother asking Jesus to allow him and his brother James +to sit on each side of him in his kingdom; or could, with a mixture of +joy and sorrow, ruminate on the pleasure he had felt in accompanying +Peter to prepare the last Passover which they had eaten with their +divine Master, and bemoan the fatal disaster which shortly after +overtook his Lord. But he writes not one word about these remarkable +events, or about anything that occurred personally between him and +Jesus. Indeed, the writers of the Epistles totally ignore the contents +of the Gospels. How, then, is this fact to be accounted for? Did the +writers of the Epistles—whoever they were—know anything at all about the +contents of the present Gospels? Are we not entitled to infer that +either the churches, etc. to which these Epistles were addressed were +much older than the date of the Gospels, and even than the time at which +the Christ of the Gospels was born, or that, if the present Gospels then +existed, the authors of the Epistles knew nothing of them? + +CONCLUSION. + +We have seen that, so limited was the knowledge of Jesus of futurity, he +falsely prophesied the end of the world, the time of his own +resurrection, the perpetual praise of a woman who poured upon him a box +of ointment, and the signs which believers in Christianity would +manifest. We have also seen that a vast number of his precepts and +doctrines were obscure, contradictory, bigoted, absurd, and untrue, and +that much of his conduct was open to criticism. We have further seen +that he was deficient in knowledge of natural philosophy; that he +borrowed the best part of his doctrine from heathen mythology; that his +life, his teaching, and his practices were identical with those of +heathen monks who had preceded him; that, like many other human beings, +he feared death; that neither his own neighbors, nor kinsmen, nor even +his disciples, believed that he was, either in nature or power, superior +to other mortals; and that he himself avowed that the purpose for which +he had been ushered into the world was to send strife, division, fire, +and sword on earth, and to make “brother deliver up brother to death, +and the father the child, and incite children to rise up against their +parents and cause them to be put to death” (Matt. 10: 21). + +Such has been the result of our inquiry. But let it not be supposed that +there was nothing to admire in the alleged character and teachings of +the ideal Jesus. There are many exceedingly tender things mingled with +the arrogant and severe. His character, made up from many models, could +not be otherwise than inconsistent and contradictory. It is a perfect +mosaic, but such has been the reverence for Jesus, in view of the +extraordinary claims made for him, that men have closed their eyes to +his imperfections and faults, while they have greatly magnified his +virtues. We have known many persons in our day who as far excelled Jesus +in every noble and manly quality as the civilization and morality of the +nineteenth century are superior to those of the first. It has been well +said that Jesus, whether a person or an impersonation, will continue to +be the leader just so long as he _leads_; but he no longer leads. It is +found (assuming his personality) that he taught nothing but what had +been taught with equal distinctness before him, and that he taught much +not suited to this commercial age and to the wants of this nineteenth +century. While many persons profess to be disciples of Jesus, yet nobody +even pretends to conform their lives to his alleged teachings. Properly +speaking, there is not now a real Christian upon the face of the earth, +as no one attempts to practise the extreme precepts Christ is said to +have laid down in the so-called Sermon on the Mount. What is called +Christianity is proved and admitted to be an evolution from various +religions which were before it. The good in every religion is the same, +and men will go on weeding out the impure and imperfect, the fittest +only surviving. Christianity claims to be an infallible divine +revelation, and that it is complete in itself, and of course admits of +no progress. This is the difficulty between the old orthodoxy and the +new orthodoxy of the creeds. The Church carries no flag of truce. It +says, You _must_ believe! True men answer, We _cannot_ believe the +impossible and the absurd. There can be no doubt as to who will survive +in this struggle for existence. The “spirit of truth” is coming, and it +will “teach in all things.” + + + + +CHAPTER XV. BLOOD-SALVATION + + +_“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without +the shedding of blood there is no remission.”—Heb. 9: 22. “The blood of +Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”—! John 1: 5._ + + +IT would be tedious to quote even one-tenth of the passages from the New +Testament in which salvation is ascribed to the blood of Jesus. Indeed, +from Genesis to Revelation sacrificial blood seems to be the one +prominent theme. The salvation of Christ is emphatically the salvation +by blood, and this idea runs through the whole system of what is called +evangelical theology. Jeremy Taylor wrote about “lapping with the tongue +the blood from the Saviour’s open wounds,” suggesting the well-known +habit of the bloodthirsty dog. But Mr. Taylor was outdone by the late +Rev. Bishop Jesse T. Peck, when he frantically exclaimed, in the +presence of thousands of people at a religious mass-meeting, “We have +not enough _blood_ in our religion. I want to wade in the blood of +Calvary up to my armpits, and _wallow_ in it,” suggesting the well-known +habits of the filthy sow. But the Rev. T. D. Talmage, D. D., capped the +climax when, in his usual rhapsodical style, he exclaimed in a recent +sermon: “It seems to me as if all Heaven were trying to bid in your +soul. The first bid it makes is the tears of Christ at the tomb of +Lazarus; but that is not a high-enough price. The next bid Heaven makes +is the sweat of Gethsemane; but it is too cheap a price. The next bid +Heaven makes seems to be the whipped back of Pilate’s Hall; but it is +not a high-enough price. Can it be possible that Heaven cannot buy you +in? Heaven tries once more. It says: ‘I bid this time for that man’s +soul the torture of Christ’s martyrdom, the blood on his temple, the +blood on his cheek, the blood on his chin, the blood on his hand, the +blood on his side, the blood on his knee, the blood on his foot—the +blood in drops, the blood in rills, the blood in pools coagulated +beneath the cross; the blood that wet the tips of the soldier’s spear, +the blood that plashed warm in the faces of his enemies.’ Glory to God! +that bid wins it! The highest price that was ever paid for anything was +paid for your soul. Nothing could buy it but blood! The estranged +property is bought back. Take it. You have sold yourselves for naught; +and ye shall be redeemed without money.’ O atoning blood, cleansing +blood, life-giving blood, sanctifying blood, glorifying blood of Jesus! +Why not burst into tears at the thought that for thee he shed it—for +thee the hard-hearted, for thee the lost?” + +Henry III. of England was presented with a small portion of the blood of +Jesus, said to have been shed upon the cross, and to have been preserved +in a phial, duly attested by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and other +distinguished functionaries as genuine. It was carried in triumph +through the streets of London with rapturous shoutings by a large +procession, from St. Paul’s to Westminster Abbey, and the historian +testifies that it made all England radiant with glory. Indeed, there has +been enough of the so-called genuine blood that was shed on Calvary +given to the faithful to float the largest ship in the navy of Great +Britain. A sufficient quantity of the real cross upon which Jesus is +said to have been crucified has been preserved to erect the largest +temple the world ever contained. There is no end to the superstition on +this subject, all going to show how deep-seated is the credulity which +exists in the popular belief in regard to this matter. + +There are many illustrations which might be given of “blood-evocation” +among ancient pagans who regarded blood as the great arcanum of nature. + +But what was the _origin_ of the idea that blood is purifying, +cleansing, purging? There is nothing in the thing itself that suggests +this idea. Take a basinful of newly-drawn blood and set it upon the +table before you. It soon coagulates, and emits an offensive odor, so +that you are forced to hurry it from your presence. It is the very +opposite of _cleansing_. If you get a drop upon your finger, you +immediately wash it off. Indeed, some persons cannot stand the sight of +blood, and shrink from its touch as from a deadly poison. There must be +some reason for the idea that in some way blood is suggestive of +cleansing or purifying. Now, we go to _nature_ in search of knowledge. +There is only one phenomenon in which the shedding of blood is a natural +process, and that is when the young girl arrives at the stage of +_pubescence_, and in this case, and in this case only, does it suggest +the idea of _purification_. Before the period approaches nothing can be +more suggestive of the untidy than the unpubescent girl. She is +generally awkward, slouchy, and unattractive. But let the sanguineous +evidence of approaching womanhood appear, and how changed! Her +complexion becomes then most beautiful and bewitching. Her eyes sparkle +with a fire which cannot be described. Her once ungraceful form becomes +lithe, and her whole person changes in such a manner as to indicate that +some great thing has happened. She has been purified or cleansed. She is +a new creature. Old things have passed away. Each succeeding month she +has a similar experience until the full bloom of womanhood has passed +away. + +Indeed, we find among the primitive customs of ancient Africans a +special observance of the commencement of the catamenial period. Before +the arrival of the time of periodicity the young girl is of very little +account, and is not numbered as a member of the tribe. It is not +considered indecent for her to run around in a state of nudity until she +is fourteen years of age or until the evidence of pubescence appears. +Stanley says of certain African girls: “They wait with impatience the +day when they can be married and have a cloth to fold around their +bodies.” There was in use among certain ancient people, now worn by +Catholic priests, an apron known as the _peplum_, which was worn after +puberty. + +The tribal mark and totemic name were conferred in the _baptism of +blood_. A covenant was entered into which was written with menstruous +blood, because blood was the announcer of the female period of +pubescence. From time immemorial the Kaffirs have preserved the custom +of celebrating the first appearance of the menstrual flow. All the young +girls in the neighborhood meet together and make merry on the happy +occasion. We are told by Irenæus how the feminine _Logos_ was +represented in the mysteries of Marcus, and the wine was supposed to be +miraculously turned into blood, and Charis, who was superior to all +things, was thought to infuse her own blood into the cup. The cup was +handed to the women, who also consecrated it with an effusion of blood +proceeding from themselves. + +It would seem that the blood of Charis preceded the blood of Christ, and +it is doubtful whether there would have been any cleansing by the blood +of Christ if there had been no purification by the blood of Charis. Thus +Nature’s rubrics are written in _red_. The Eucharist is derived by +Clement of Alexandria from the mixture of the water and the Word, and he +identifies the Word with the blood of the grape. We give these delicate +hints for what they are worth. + +We have a deep conviction that the conception of the idea of +purification by blood had at first some connection with the natural +issue of blood at the commencement of periodicity in the female. In the +Eleusinian Mysteries, celebrated by pagans centuries before the paschal +supper of the Jews or the Lord’s Supper of Christians, the element of +blood was very conspicuously set forth, and Higgins has shown in his +_Anaealypsis_ that the sacrifice of bread and wine in religious +ceremonies was common among many ancient peoples, the wine representing +the blood. + +In 1885 a very remarkable book appeared, entitled _The Blood Covenant_, +by Rev. H. Clay Trumbull, D. D., and we have obtained the consent of +this author (whom we have the honor to recognize as an old and very dear +personal friend) “to use anything we please, in any way we please, +without giving any credit.” For this permission we are truly thankful, +though we only avail ourself of a few of the facts bearing upon the +point concerning which we write. + +Our author says: “One of these primitive rites, which is deserving of +more attention than it has yet received, as throwing light on many +important phases of Bible-teaching, is the rite of blood-covenanting—a +form of mutual covenanting by which two persons enter into the closest, +the most enduring, and the most sacred of compacts as friends and +brothers, or as more than brothers, through the intercommingling of +their blood by means of its mutual tasting or of its transfusion. This +rite is still observed in the unchanging East; and there are historic +traces of it from time immemorial in every quarter of the globe, yet it +has been strangely overlooked by biblical critics and biblical +commentators generally in these later centuries. + +“Although now comparatively rare, in view of its responsibilities and of +its indissolubleness, this covenant is sometimes entered into by +confidential partners in business or by fellow-travelers; again, by +robbers on the road, who would themselves rest fearlessly on its +obligations, and who could be rested on within its limits, however +untrustworthy they or their fellows might be to any other compact. Yet, +again, it is the chosen compact of loving friends—of those who are drawn +to it only by mutual love and trust. + +“There are, indeed, various evidences that the the of blood-covenanting +is reckoned in the East even a closer tie than that of natural +descent—that a ‘friend’ by this tie is nearer and is dearer, ‘sticketh +closer’ than a ‘brother’ by birth. We in the West are accustomed to say +that ‘ blood is thicker than water,’ but the Arabs have the idea that +blood is thicker than a mother’s milk. With them, any two children +nourished at the same breast are called ‘milk-brothers’ or ‘sucking +brothers;’ and the tie between such is very strong. + +“Lucian, the bright Greek thinker, writing in the middle of the second +century of our era, is explicit as to the nature and method of this +covenant as then practised in the East: ‘And this is the manner of it: +Thereupon, cutting our fingers, all simultaneously, we let the blood +drop into a vessel, and, having dipped the points of our swords into it, +both of us holding them together, we drink it. There is nothing which +can loose us from one another after that.’ + +“Yet, a little while earlier than Lucian, Tacitus gives record of this +rite of blood-brotherhood as practised in the East. He makes an +explanation: ‘It is the custom of Oriental kings, as often as they come +together to make covenant, to join right hands, to tie the thumbs +together, and to tighten them with a knot. Then, when the blood is thus +pressed to the finger-tips, they draw blood by a light stroke and lick +it in turn. This they regard as a divine covenant, made sacred, as it +were, by mutual blood or blended lives.’ + +“Sallust, the historian of Catiline’s conspiracy against Rome, says: +‘There were those who said at that time that Catiline at this +conference, when he inducted them into the oath of partnership in crime, +carried round in goblets human blood mixed with wine, and that, after +all had tasted of it with an imprecatory oath, as is men’s wont in +solemn rites, he opened to them his plans.’ Florus, a later Latin +historian, describing this conspiracy, says: ‘There was added the pledge +of the league—human blood—which they drank as it was borne round to them +in goblets.’ And yet later Tertullian suggests that it was their own +blood, mingled with wine, of which the fellow-conspirators drank +together. ‘Concerning the eating of blood and other such tragic dishes,’ +he says, ‘you read that blood drawn from the arms and tasted by one +another was the method of making covenant among certain nations.’ + +“As far back even as the fifth century before Christ we find an explicit +description of this Oriental rite of blood-covenanting. ‘Now, the +Scythians,’ says Herodotus, ‘make covenants in the following manner, +with whomsoever they make them: Having poured out wine into a great +earthen drinking-bowl, they mingle with it the blood of those making +covenant, striking the body with a small knife or cutting it slightly +with a sword. Thereafter they dip into the bowl sword, arrows, axe, and +javelin. But while they are doing this they utter many invokings, and +afterward not only those who make the covenant, but those of their +followers who are of the highest rank, drink off the wine mingled with +blood.’ + +“Again, Herodotus says of this custom in his day: ‘Now, the Arabians +reverence in a very high degree pledges between man and man. They make +these pledges in the following way: When they wish to make pledges to +one another, a third man, standing in the midst of the two, cuts with a +sharp stone the inside of the hands along the thumbs of the two making +the pledges. After that, plucking some woollen from the garments of each +of the two, he anoints with the blood seven stones as the “heap of +witness” which are set in the midst. While he is doing this he invokes +Dionysus and Urania. When this rite is completed, he that has made the +pledges introduces the stranger to his friends, or the fellow-citizen to +his fellows if the rite was performed with a fellow-citizen. + +“Going back, now, to the world’s most ancient records in the monuments +of Egypt, we find evidence of the existence of the covenant of blood in +those early days. So far was this symbolic thought carried that the +ancient Egyptians spoke of the departed spirit as having entered into +the nature, and, indeed, into the very being, of the gods by the rite of +tasting blood from the divine arm. + +“‘The Book of the Dead,’ as it is commonly called, is a group, or +series, of ancient Egyptian writings representing the state and the +needs and the progress of the soul after death. A copy of this funereal +ritual, ‘more or less complete according to the fortune of the deceased, +was deposited in the case of eveiy mummy. ‘As the Book of the Dead is +the most ancient, so it is undoubtedly the most important of the sacred +books of the Egyptians;’ it is, in fact, ‘according to Egyptian notions, +essentially an inspired work;’ hence its contents have an exceptional +dogmatic value. In this book there are several obvious references to the +rite of blood-covenanting. Some of these are in a chapter of the ritual +which was found transcribed in a coffin of the eleventh dynasty, thus +carrying it back to a period prior to the days of the patriarchs. + +“‘Give me your arm; I am made as ye,’ says the departed soul, speaking +to the gods. Then, in explanation of this statement, the pre-historic +gloss of the ritual goes on to say: ‘The blood is that which proceeds +from the member of the Sun after he goes along cutting himself,’ the +covenant blood which unites the soul and the god is drawn from the flesh +of Ra when he has cut himself in the rite of that covenant. By this +covenant-cutting the deceased becomes one with the covenanting gods. +Again, the departing soul, speaking as Osiris—or as the Osirian, which +every mummy represents—says: ‘I am the soul in his two halves.’ This was +at least two thousand years before the days of the Greek philosopher. +How much earlier it was recognized does not appear. + +“Moreover, a ‘red talisman,’ or red amulet, stained with ‘the blood of +Isis,’ and containing a record of the covenant, was placed at the neck +of the mummy as an assurance of safety to his soul. ‘When this book +[this amulet-record] has been made,’ says the ritual, ‘it causes Isis to +protect him.’ ‘If this book is known,’ says Horus, ‘he [the deceased] is +in the service of Osiris.... His name is like that of the gods.’” + +Dr. Trumbull properly remarks: + +“Thus in ancient Egypt, in ancient Canaan, in ancient Mexico, in modern +Turkey, in modern Russia, in modern India, and in modern Otaheite, in +Africa, in Asia, in America, in Europe, and in Oceanica, blood-giving +was life-giving. Life-giving was love-showing. Love-showing was a +heart-yearning after union in love and in life and in blood and in very +being. That was the primitive thought in the primitive religions of all +the world. + +“An ancient Chaldean legend, as recorded by Bero-sus, ascribes a new +creation of mankind to the mixture by the gods of the dust of the earth +with the blood that flowed from the severed head of the god Belus. ‘On +this account it is that men are rational and partake of divine +knowledge,’ says Berosus. The blood of the god gives them the life and +nature of a god. Yet, again, the early Phœnician and the early Greek +theogonies, as recorded by Sanchoniathon and by Hesiod, ascribe the +vivifying of mankind to the outpoured blood of the gods. It was from the +blood of Ouranos, or of Saturn, dripping into the sea and mingling with +its foam, that Venus was formed, to become the mother of her heroic +posterity. ‘The Orphies, which have borrowed so largely from the East,’ +says Lenormant, ‘said that the immaterial part of man, his soul, his +life, sprang from the blood of Dionysus Zagreus, whom... Titans had torn +to pieces, partly devouring his members.’ + +“Homer explicitly recognizes this universal belief in the power of blood +to convey life and to be a means of revivifying the dead. + +“Indeed, it is claimed, with a show of reason, that the very word +(_surquinu_) which was used for ‘altar’ in the Assyrian was primarily +the word for ‘table’—that, in fact, what was known as the ‘altar’ to the +gods was originally the table of communion between the gods and their +worshippers.” + +From the writings of Livingstone, the African explorer, as well as from +the reports of Stanley, it appears that the custom of blood-covenanting +is kept up in Africa in these modern times. + +Describing the ceremony, Livingstone says: “It is accomplished thus: The +hands of the parties are joined (in this case Pitsane and Sambanza were +the parties engaged). Small incisions are made on the clasped hands, on +the pits of the stomach of each, and on the right cheeks and foreheads. +A small quantity of blood is taken from these points, in both parties, +by means of a stalk of grass. The blood from one person is put into a +pot of beer, and that of the second into another; each then drinks the +other’s blood, and they are supposed to become perpetual friends or +relations. During the drinking of the beer some of the party continue +beating the ground with short clubs and utter sentences by way of +ratifying the treaty.” + +The primitive character of these customs is the more probable from the +fact that Livingstone first found them existing in a region where, in +his opinion, the dress and household utensils of the people are +identical with those represented on the monuments of ancient Egypt. + +Concerning the origin of this rite in this region, Cameron says: “This +custom of making brothers, I believe to be really of Semitic origin.” + +Henry M. Stanley, who was sent to rescue Livingstone, gives many +interesting accounts of his experience with the blood-covenanters. In +1871, Stanley encountered the forces of Mirambo, the greatest of African +warriors. They agreed to make “strong friendship” with each other. The +ceremony is thus described: + +“Manwa Sera, Stanley’s ‘chief captain,’ was requested to seal our +friendship by performing the ceremony of blood-brotherhood between +Mirambo and myself. Having caused us to sit fronting each other on a +straw carpet, he made an incision in each of our right legs, from which +he extracted blood, and, interchanging it, he exclaimed aloud, ’If +either of you break this brotherhood now established between you, may +the lion devour him, the serpent poison him, bitterness be in his food, +his friends desert him, his gun burst in his hands and wound him, and +everything that is bad do wrong to him until death.’” The same blood now +flowed in the veins of both Stanley and Mirambo. They were friends and +brothers in a sacred covenant—life for life. At the conclusion of the +covenant they exchanged gifts, as the customary ratification or +accompaniment of the compact. They even vied with each other in proofs +of their unselfish fidelity in this new covenant of friendship. + +Again and again, before and after this incident, Stanley entered into +the covenant of blood-brotherhood with representative Africans more than +fifty times, in some instances by the opening of his own veins; at other +times by allowing one of his personal escort to bleed for him. + +Thus we see that in ancient and modern times, among all people and in +all portions of the earth, this idea of blood-friendship prevailed. In +the primitive East, in the wild West, in the cold North, and in the +torrid South this rite shows itself. “It will be observed,” says Dr. +Trumbull, “that we have already noted proofs of the independent +existence of this rite of blood-brotherhood or blood-friendship among +the three great primitive divisions of the race—the Semitic, the +Hamitic, and the Japhetic; and this in Asia, Africa, Europe, America, +and the islands of the sea; again, among the five modern and more +popular divisions of the human family—Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, +Malay, and American. This fact in itself would seem to point to a common +origin of its various manifestations in the early Oriental home of the +now scattered peoples of the world. + +“The Egyptian amulet of blood-friendship was red, as representing the +blood of the gods. The Egyptian word for ’red’ sometimes stood for +’blood.’ The sacred directions in the Book of the Dead were written in +red; hence follows our word ‘rubric,’ The Rabbis say that when +persecution forbade the wearing of the phylacteries with safety, a red +thread might be substituted for this token of the covenant with the +Lord. It was a red thread which Joshua gave to Rahab as a token of her +covenant relations with the people of the Lord. The red thread in China +to-day binds the double cup from which the bride and bridegroom drink +their covenant draught of ‘wedding wine,’ as if in symbolism of the +covenant of blood. And it is a red thread which in India to-day is used +to bind a sacred amulet around the arm or the neck. Among the American +Indians scarlet, or red, is the color which stands for sacrifices or for +sacrificial blood in all their picture-painting; and the shrine, or +_tunkan_, which continues to have its devotees, ’is painted red, as a +sign of active or living worship.’ The same is true of the shrines in +India; the color red shows that worship is still living there; red +continues to stand for blood.” + +When a Jewish child is circumcised, it is commonly said of him that he +is caused “to enter into the covenant of Abraham and his godfather or +sponsor is called Baal-beerith, master of the covenant.” Moreover, even +down to modern times the rite of circumcision has included a +recognition, however unconscious, of the primitive blood-friendship +rite, by the custom of the a rabbi, God’s representative, receiving +into his mouth the prepuce or foreskin that is cut from the boy, and +thereby made a partaker of the blood mingled with the wine according to +the method described among the Orientals, in the rite of +blood-friendship, from the earliest days of history. We make this +statement on the testimony of Buxtorf, who is a recognized authority in +matters of Jewish customs, though he gives it in Latin, with a view of +limiting a knowledge of the facts. + +All that we have stated concerning the blood-covenant brings us nearer +and nearer to the disgusting and beastly habit of cannibalism. Dr. +Trumbull says: “It would even seem to be indicated, by all the trend of +historic facts, that cannibalism—gross, repulsive, inhuman +cannibalism—had its basis in man’s perversion of this outreaching of his +nature (whether that outreach-ing were first directed by revelation or +by divinely-given innate promptings) after inter-union and +intercommunion with God, after life in God’s life, and after growth +through the partaking of God’s food or of that food which represents +God. The studies of many observers in widely-different fields have led +both the rationalistic and the faith-filled student to conclude that in +_their_ sphere of observation it was a religious sentiment, and not a +mere animal craving—either through a scarcity of food or from a spirit +of malignity—that was at the bottom of cannibalistic practices there, +even if that field were an exception to the world’s fields generally. +And now we have a glimpse of the nature and workings of that religious +sentiment which prompted cannibalism wherever it has been practised. In +misdirected pursuance of this thought men have given the blood of a +consecrated human victim to bring themselves into union with God; and +then they have eaten the flesh of that victim which had supplied the +blood which made them one with God. This seems to be the basis of fact +in the premises, whatever may be the understood philosophy of the facts. +Why men reasoned thus may indeed be in question. That they reasoned thus +seems evident. Certain it is, that where cannibalism has been studied in +modern times it has commonly been found to have had originally a +religious basis; and the inference is a fair one that it must have been +the same wherever cannibalism existed in earlier times. Even in some +regions where cannibalism has long since been prohibited there are +traditions and traces of its former existence as a purely religious +rite. Thus, in India little images of flour paste or clay are now made +for decapitation or other mutilation in the temples, in avowed imitation +of human beings who were once offered and eaten there.” + +Réville, treating of the native religions of Mexico and Peru, comes to a +similar conclusion with Dorman, and he argues that the state of things +which was there was the same the world over, so for as it related to +cannibalism. “Cannibalism,” he says, “which is now restricted to a few +of the savage tribes who have remained closest to the animal life, was +once universal to our race. For no one would ever have conceived the +idea of offering to the gods a kind of food which excited nothing but +disgust and horror.” In this suggestion Réville indicates his conviction +that the primal idea of an altar was a table of blood-bought communion. + +There is something that looks very much like cannibalism in the sixth +chapter of John’s Gospel. The Jews murmured that Jesus spoke of himself +as the bread which came down from heaven, and inquired, “How can this +man give us of his flesh to eat? Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, +verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and +drink his blood ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh +and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the +last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He +that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. +As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he +that eateth me, he also shall live because of me. This is the bread +which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers did eat, and died; he +that eateth this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the +synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.” + +This was spoken nearly two years before he is said to have instituted +the memorial Supper, and has always been a mystery to commentators, +though they allege that the whole mystery is explained in John 6: 63: + +“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the +words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” This +seems to be very farfetched indeed—an afterthought. It did not satisfy +some of his disciples, for “from that time many of his disciples went +back, and walked no more with him.” + +From this simple idea of securing faithfulness by the transfusion of the +blood of two persons seems to have come the idea of _propitiating_ the +gods by offering them bloody sacrifices. In primitive times, among +barbarous and uncivilized peoples, the conception was universal that the +gods were very much like themselves, and that therefore they would be +pleased with presents. When offended they could be conciliated, and when +some crime had been committed they could be induced to forgive the +transgressor by some valuable offering, such as the first-fruits of the +soil or the most immaculate animals of the flock. This idea of obtaining +favors from the invisible powers was carried to such extremes that for +the honor of humanity we should feel inclined to doubt the monstrous +stories were they not so well attested. The offering of these sacrifices +became so degraded and disgusting by superstition that it ended in the +belief that the deity’s anger could be appeased, his revenge satisfied, +his vanity flattered, and that he could be made generally pleased, by +holocausts of human beings; so that the more costly the sacrifice, the +more certain was the deity to smile upon the donor. The Moloch-worship, +the mother placing the babe in the arms of the monstrous idol and seeing +it burned before her own eyes, seems to exhaust the horrors of human +ingenuity. We have only space to state that these abominations prevailed +over most of the heathen world when the Old-Testament rites and +ceremonies came into use among the Jews. We find the custom of offering +sacrifices in the early pages of Genesis, when it led to the first +murder. Cain’s sacrifice, sacerdotal-ists tell us, was not accepted by +Jehovah because there was no _blood_ in it, as there was in the offering +of Abel. Abraham was about to slay his own son when the blood of a ram +was provided instead; and, in fact, all the Bible patriarchs sacrificed, +and the exodus from Egypt itself was brought about under the pretence +that the people had to go to the desert to offer their accustomed +sacrifice. + +The Jews borrowed their idea of sacrifice from the heathen, and +sometimes were more heathenish than the heathens themselves. Thousands +and thousands of innocent animals were cruelly butchered for sacrifice, +as the Jews were full of Egyptian reminiscences on one hand and of +Canaanitish modes of worship on the other. It is said that Jehovah +allowed these abominations because of the ignorance of these people and +their hardness of heart, lest they might despise a naked religion and be +dazzled by the imposing ceremonies by which they were surrounded. The +whole system of bloody sacrifices was based upon anthropomorphic +conceptions of their Jehovah, to whom the “agreeable smell” of the blood +was a sweet satisfaction. The Jews adopted the very worst features of +paganism in regard to these bloody sacrifices, which they offered on all +occasions—so much so that their prophets cried out against them and +Jehovah himself denounced them. + +The life or blood of the animal was distinctly said to make “the +atonement for the soul.” This notion of a _representative_ victim is one +that belonged to the whole ancient world, as can be seen by reference to +any of the great cyclopaedias. It was _adopted_ by the Jews, not +_revealed_ to them by Jehovah. The scape-goat (Lev. 16) and many other +cases of seemingly expiatory sacrifices are embodiments of this idea, +which was adopted by Christianity directly from Judaism, whose priests +had adopted it from other people. + +The practice of bloody offerings was common to Hindoos, Assyrians, +Phœnicians, Greeks, and Northmen. There is a Hindoo ritual for human as +well as for brute animals set forth in _Asiatic Researches_. In +_Fragments of Sanchoniathon_, Kronos sacrifices his “only son” to his +father Ouranos, his “father in heaven.” Agamemnon sacrificed his +daughter, Iphigeneia, + +before going to Troy, and Polyxena, daughter of Priam, was immolated on +the tomb of Achilles to his manes. Repeatedly in the Punic wars children +of noble families were burned alive to Æsculapius, god of medicine. +Burning at the stake and hanging upon a gibbet were sacrifices to +appease the divine justice. In short, all bloody sacrifices were +propitiatory, to appease the rage of hunger in a famished god. Blood was +excellent, because its aroma was the vehicle of life, and so afforded +support to life. + +In Homer’s _Odyssey_, Ulysses slays animals before the ghosts of Hades, +and these run up to be nourished by the blood. He draws his sword, +rushes upon them, and drives them away. Then, selecting one with whom he +wishes to talk, he feeds him with the invigorating vapor, and the ghost +is then made strong enough to talk. + +But none of these sacrifices were strictly vicarious. The old gods were +angry at neglect, but never had the kind of justice that a sheep or goat +or cow could not appease. The Jews were not unfamiliar with human +sacrifices (Lev. 27:28,29; Judg. 11:30-39), and even the early +Christians are said to have offered bloody sacrifices of human beings. +The deification of Jesus to correspond with the apotheosis of other +personages required a divine parentage. This idea was not gotten up +until the second Christian century. Justin made Jesus a second god. But +the earlier Fathers did not connect the notion of the vicarious +atonement with that of original sin and total depravity. Basilides +maintained that penal suffering or suffering for purposes of justice of +necessity implies personal criminality in the sufferer, and therefore +cannot be endured by an innocent person as a substitute. + +Prof. Robertson Smith, LL.D., in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, in his +learned article on “Sacrifice," says part: “Where we find a practice of +sacrificing honorific gifts to the gods, we usually find also certain +other sacrifices which resemble those already characterized, to be +consumed in sacred ceremony, but differ from them, inasmuch as the +sacrifice—usually a living victim—is not regarded as a tribute of honor +to the god, but has a special or mystic significance. The most familiar +case of this second species of sacrifice is that which the Romans +distinguished from the _hostia honoraria_ by the name of _hostia +piacularis_. In the former case the deity accepts a gift; in the latter, +he demands a life. The former kind of sacrifice is offered by the +worshipper on the basis of an established relation of friendly +dependence on his divine lord; the latter is directed to appease the +divine anger or to conciliate the favor of a deity on whom the +worshipper has no right to count” (vol. xxi. p.. 132). + +_Piamlar Sacrifices_.—“The idea of substitution is widespread among all +early religions, and is found in honorific as well as piacular rites. In +all such cases the idea is that the substitute shall imitate as closely +as is possible or convenient the victim whose place it supplies; and so +in piacular ceremonies the god may indeed accept one life for another, +or certain select lives to atone for the guilt of a whole community; but +these lives ought to be of the guilty kin, just as in blood-revenge the +death of any kinsman of the manslayer satisfies justice. Hence such +rites as the Semitic sacrifices of children by their fathers [Moloch], +the sacrifice of Iphigeneia and similar cases among the Greeks, inasmuch +as something is given up by the worshippers nor the offering up +of boys to the goddess Mania at Rome.... + +“In advanced societies the tendency is to modify the horrors of the +ritual, either by accepting an effusion of blood without actually +slaying the victim—e. g. in the flagellation of the Spartan lads—or by a +further extension of the doctrine of substitution: the Romans, for +example, substituted puppets for the human sacrifices to Mania, and cast +rush dolls into the Tiber, at the yearly atoning sacrifice on the +Sublician Bridge. More usually, however, the life of an animal is +accepted by the god in place of a human life.... Among the Egyptians the +victim was marked with a seal bearing the image of a man bound and +kneeling with a sword at his throat. And often we find a ceremonial +laying of the sin to be expiated on the head of the victim (Herod, ii. +39; Lev. 4: 4, compared with 14: 21). + +“In such piacular rites the god demands only the life of the victim, +which is sometimes indicated by a special ritual with the blood (as +among the Hebrews the blood of the sin-offering was applied to the horns +of the altar or to the mercy-seat within the veil), and there is no +sacrificial meal. Thus, among the Greeks the carcase of the victim was +buried or cast into the sea [comp, with most important Hebrew +sin-offerings and sacrifice of children to Moloch—outside the camp or +city]. + +“When the flesh of the sacrifice is consumed by the priests, as with +certain Roman piacula and Hebrew sin-offerings, the sacrificial flesh is +seemingly a gift accepted by the deity and assigned by him to the +priests, so that the distinction between a honorific and a piacular +sacrifice is partly obliterated. But this is not hard to understand; for +just as a blood-rite takes the place of blood-revenge in human justice, +so an offence against the gods may in certain cases be redeemed by a +fine (e. g. Herod, ii. 65) or a sacrificial gift. This seems to have +been the origin of the Hebrew _trespass-offering_ (p. 136). + +“The most curious developments of piacular sacrifice take place in the +worship of deities of the totem type. Here the natural substitute for +the death of a criminal of the tribe is an animal of the kind with which +the worshippers and their god alike count kindred—an animal, that is, +which must not be offered in a sacrificial feast, and which indeed it is +impious to kill. Thus, Hecaté was invoked as a dog, and dogs were her +piacular sacrifices. And in like manner in Egypt the piacular sacrifice +of the cow-goddess Isis-Hathor was a bull, and the sacrifice was +accompanied by lamentations as at the funeral of a kinsman.” + +Under the head of _Mystical or Sacramental Sacrifices_—i. e. sacrifices +at initiations and in the _Mysteries_: “According to Julian, the +mystical sacrifices of the cities of the Roman empire were... offered +once or twice a year, and consisted of such victims as the dog of +Hecaté, which might not ordinarily be eaten or used to furnish forth the +tables of the gods.... The mystic sacrifices seem always to have had an +atoning efficacy; their special feature is that the victim is not simply +slain and burned or cast away, but that the worshippers partake of the +body and blood of the sacred animal, and that so his life passes, as it +were, into their lives and knits them to the deity in living communion. + +“In the Old Testament the heathen mysteries seem to appear as ceremonies +of initiation by which a man was introduced into a new worship.... But +originally the initiation must have been introduction into a particular +social community.... From this point of view the sacramental rites of +mystical sacrifice are a form of blood-covenant.... In all the forms of +blood-covenant, whether a sacrifice is offered or the veins of the +parties opened and their own blood used, the idea is the same: the bond +created is a bond of kindred, because one blood is now in the veins of +all who have shared the ceremony.” + +A learned friend writes me: “I doubt whether a real distinction can be +made between _propitiatory and expiatory_ sacrifices. Propitiation is by +expiation. The basic idea in all sacrifices of that nature appears to be +_substitution_; that is, something taking the place of the offender.... +It seems that the basis of all sacrifice is to be found in a +relationship, or _kinship_ (through blood), between the deity—who is +only the representative of the tribal head regarded as still living in +the spirit-world—and the worshipper. + +“I may add that the idea of pollution by wrongdoing—i. e. offending the +tribal deity—to be got rid of only by the shedding of blood, is not +unknown to so-called savages. This applies especially to offences +against chastity, as with the Mâlers of Rajmahal, India, and the Dyaks +of Borneo. The pig is the animal usually sacrificed—probably because it +is the most valuable animal food. The Pâdam Abors of Assam look upon all +crimes as public pollutions which require to be washed away by a public +sacrifice. Here we have the idea of cleansing by the application of +blood, and this appears to be the idea also with the Mâlers, and +probably among the aboriginal hill-tribes of India generally.” + +Mommsen, the Roman historian, says: “At the very core of the Latin +religion there lay that profound moral impulse which leads men to bring +earthly guilt and earthly punishment into relation with the world of the +gods, and to view the former as a crime against the gods, and the latter +as its expiation. The execution of the criminal condemned to death was +as much an expiatory sacrifice offered to the divinity as was the +killing of an enemy in just war; the thief who by night stole the fruits +of the field paid the penalty to Ceres on the gallows, just as the enemy +paid it to mother earth and the good spirits on the field of battle. The +fearful idea of substitution also meets us here: when the gods of the +community were angry, and nobody could be laid hold of as definitely +guilty, they might be appeased by one who voluntarily gave himself up +(_devovere se_).” + +But it was left for Anselm of Canterbury, late in the eleventh century, +to first formulate the doctrine of vicarious atonement. Before this +there seemed to be among the theologians the idea that in some way +Christ came to restore, at least in part, all that was lost in Adam. +During the first four centuries of the Christian era there seems to have +been no fixed opinion as to whether there was a ransom-price paid to God +or the devil. Under the article “Devil " in the Encyclopœdia Britannica +it is said: + +“He [the devil] was, according to Cyprian (_De Unitate Ecd_.), the +author of all heresies and delusions: he held man by reason of his sin +in rightful possession, and man could only be rescued from his power by +the ransom of Christ’s blood. This extraordinary idea of a payment or +satisfaction to the devil being made by Christ as the price of man’s +salvation is found both in Irenæus (Adv. Hcer., v. 1. 1.) and in Origen, +and may be said to have held its sway in the Church for a thousand +years. And yet Origen is credited with the opinion that, bad as the +devil was, he was not altogether beyond hope of pardon." + +It would be tedious to note the various views that have prevailed among +theologians to the present day. Some hold that the offering was made to +God to satisfy divine justice; others hold that it was a commercial +transaction—so much blood for so many souls; and still others regard the +whole as a governmental display to impress the world with a sense of the +hatefulness of sin. Calvinists seem to think that the atonement was only +made for the elect, but that the blood of Christ had sufficient merit to +save the whole world. Roman Catholics hold that it is the literal, +material blood of Christ that saves the sinner, and hence their extreme +belief in the dogma of _transubstantiation_, the real body and blood of +Jesus being offered in the sacrifice of the Mass, and taken by the +penitent in the Holy Communion. Protestants generally hold to a sort of +consubstantiation—a sort of real presence in the sacrament; while +persons of intelligence profess to believe that this whole theory of +blood-salvation is only to be accepted in a figurative sense. The fact +is, that the whole scheme of vicarious atonement is an ancient +superstition, though taught in the New Testament, and is absurd and +unphilosophical, and false in principle and in practice, as we shall +hereafter show. + +We leave altogether out of view the logical conclusion that if the blood +shed by Jesus was the blood of a man, it could have had no more efficacy +than the blood of any other human being, and that if the blood shed was +the blood of a God, the very mention of the thought is absurd and +blasphemous in the extreme. It is nonsense to say that it was the union +of the divine with the human nature that gave the blood of Christ its +peculiar efficacy—that the altar sanctifies the gift for if the blood +was changed by the man being united with the God, it was not human +blood, but the blood of a divine man. + +Now, there is no evidence that the blood of Jesus (supposing that he was +crucified) differed in its essential qualities from other human blood. +If analyzed by the chemist, it would have been found to contain only the +constituent particles which belong to human blood. The white and red +corpuscles and other chemical properties would have been found in it. + +_The dogma of blood-salvation as held by Romanists is cannibalism, pure +and simple, and as held by Protestants it is sheer superstition, without +one grain of reason to support it._ It has no analogy in nature, nor in +the philosophy of legal jurisprudence as held and practised by the most +enlightened nations of the world. + +It seems to us that the doctrine of vicarious atonement is not only +immoral, but demoralizing. It represents God as punishing the innocent +for the guilty to make it possible to forgive the guilty. This is +inconsistent with the eternal principles of justice and rightfulness. It +must have a demoralizing influence upon the mind and conscience of the +sinner, to be told that his sins are already atoned for, and he only +need to be cleansed by the blood of Christ; and this is to be obtained +by simple faith and trust! Believe that Jesus shed his blood for you, +and that he is waiting and anxious to apply it in washing away your +guilt, and it is done! Then as often as you sin afterward you need only +go through the same process to secure pardon! The easiness with which +sins may be blotted out and washed away must have a demoralizing +influence upon uneducated minds, though truly intelligent persons may +not reason in this way. The low state of morals among those who really +believe in this device for the forgiveness of sins may thus be accounted +for. The numerous defalcations and downright thefts among the higher +classes of Christians, and the petty lying and stealing among the great +mass of Catholics and Protestants, are notorious, and can be traced, we +think, to the easy methods of getting rid of the consequencees of +wrong-doing. Our prison-statistics are truly suggestive, and should be +carefully studied. Freethinkers are far in advance of Christians in the +matter of practical morality. Many of those whom the courts exclude as +witnesses, because they do not accept certain religious dogmas, are +pre-eminently truthful, and would sooner die than tell a falsehood. They +do not rely upon the blood of Jesus to wash away the vilest sins and +make them white as snow. + +Our statesmen are beginning to find out that our system of _pardon_ is +most pernicious. To relieve from the consequences of wrong-doing through +a divine contrivance of the vicarious sufferings of an innocent person, +and that human disobedience is made all right as to consequences by this +obedience of a divine-human person, does not commend itself to the +intelligence of this nineteenth century. The answer of theologians to +this charge is familiar and specious enough, but it is not practically +accepted by the common people. When a child enters the Sunday-school +room, and his eyes rest upon the conspicuous placard, “_Jesus Paid it +All_” the natural inference is there is nothing more to pay, nothing to +do but to accept the free gift. + +Thousands of ignorant persons, Catholics and Protestants, no doubt +secretly accept and rely upon this easy device to cover up their +numerous shortcomings and misdoings. This doctrine is a welcome one in +the murderer’s cell and upon the platform of the gallows. In thousands +of uncultivated minds the thought is no doubt deeply hidden that about +the surest way to get to heaven is to commit a murder and have the +“benefit of clergy,” and in due time to be “jerked to Jesus” (as +described by a Western journal) by the hangman’s rope. Why should it not +be so? The vicarious atonement has been made, and is being made in the +Mass, and they have only to accept it. Two priests or ministers actually +opposed the postponement of the execution of a certain murderer on the +ground that he then believed in Jesus, but that if execution was +postponed they did not know that he would continue to “believe,” and +that his soul might thus be lost! + +Suppose that our State authorities should proclaim in advance free +pardon and a princely palace to all lawbreakers on the simple condition +of trusting in the mediatorial interposition and substitution of +another, _already made and accepted_; what would be the effect on public +morals? The system of redemption and pardon set forth in the New +Testament is infinitely more than this, and must be demoralizing. All +public officers know the evil effects of the pardon system, and how even +the faintest hope of pardon encourages crime, and how certainly a free +pardon is almost sure to be followed by a life of increased criminality. + +There should be no such thing as pardon in our State jurisprudence—no +“board of pardons” and no “exercise of the executive clemency.” If a +convict is believed to have been wrongly imprisoned, or by +after-discovered evidence is found to be innocent, let no “pardon board” +or “executive” interfere, but let the case go back to the court that +convicted him or to one of like jurisdiction, and let the case be +judicially reviewed in the light of evidence; and if the accused is +found innocent, let him be honorably acquitted, or if guilty remanded to +prison. + +There is nothing in reason, philosophy, or science that approves the +theologie method of dealing with offenders. It violates every principle +of justice, and has not one single quality of rightfulness in it. It is +a fiction pure and simple, in form and in fact. Macaulay well said of +this redemptive scheme, “It resembles nothing so much as a forged bond, +with a forged release endorsed upon its back.” Gregg pungently put it +thus: “It looks very much like an impossible debt paid in inconceivable +coin; or a legal fiction purely gratuitous got rid of by what looks like +a legal chicanery purely fanciful. It gives unworthy conceptions of God +as one delighting in the blood of human beings, and even suggests the +disgusting practices of cannibalism. It is a relic of the ancient +barbaric fetichism borrowed from savages by sacerdotalists for purposes +of priestcraft, and should be scouted by all honest and intelligent +men.” + +The severely orthodox Rev. Professor Shedd, as well as Dr. Priestley, +admits that there was no scientific construction of the doctrine of the +atonement in the writings of the apostolic Fathers (_Hist, of Doc._, +vol. ii., p. 208). The doctrine was evidently manufactured when the +Romish Church was evolved out of the innumerable sects of early +Christendom, and was enforced by wholesale excommunication of dissenters +and the death penalty. Christianity was planted in Germany, Prussia, and +Sweden by military power. The Saxons were “converted” by Charlemagne. +All the secret religions have a god or demi-god put to death. Even the +Freemasons have Hiram Abiff. The death of Osiris was the central point +in the Egyptian system. He was killed by Seth or Typhon, and returned to +life as Rat-Amenti, the judge. In Egypt, Christianity moulded its +doctrines of the Trinity, atonement, and “mother of God.” The Osirian +theology was grafted on the Christian stock, if indeed the Christian +system was not an evolution of Osirianism; and of this the monstrous +concoction known as _vicarious atonement_ was made, and thrust down +men’s throats by threats of hell and the visits of the executioner. + +We might extend our remarks upon this subject indefinitely, but we have +not space. We have seen that _blood-salvation_ did not originate with +either Jews or Christians. Dr. Trumbull has proved this over and over +again, and Kurtz, an orthodox writer, has admitted this fact. He says: +“A comparison of the religious symbols of the Old Testament with those +of ancient heathendom shows that the ground and the starting-point of +those forms of religion which found their appropriate expressions in +symbols was the same in all cases; while the history of civilization +proves that on this point priority cannot be claimed by the Israelites. +But when instituting such an inquiry we shall also find that the symbols +which were transferred from the religions of nature to that of the +spirit first passed through the fire of divine purification, from which +they issued as the distinctive theology of the Jews, the dross of a +pantheistic deification of nature having been consumed.” All this is +very frank, but we should not overlook the fact, so clearly established, +that this doctrine of cleansing blood, so constantly taught in the New +Testament and proclaimed from every orthodox pulpit in the land, was not +a _divine revelation_ specially made to Jews or Christians, but has been +adopted and modified from the religions of nature, celebrated in all +parts of the world by the most barbarous peoples in the remotest periods +of time. Indeed, the more gross and savage the people, the more +disgusting has been this doctrine of _blood-salvation_. + +Dr. Trumbull could only think of two possible ways of explaining these +marvellous things: “How it came to pass that men everywhere were so +generally agreed on the main symbols of their religious yearnings, and +their religious hopes in this realm of their aspirations, is a question +which obviously admits of two possible answers. A common revelation from +God may have been given to primitive man, and all these varying yet +related indications of religious strivings and aim may be but the +perverted remains of the lessons of that misused or slighted revelation. +On the other hand, God may originally have implanted the germs of a +common religious thought in the mind of man, and then have adapted his +successive revelations to the outworking of those germs. Whichever view +of the probable origin of these common symbolisms, all the world over, +be adopted by any Christian student, the importance of the symbolisms +themselves, in their relation to the truths of revelation, is manifestly +the same."... “Because the primitive rite of blood-covenanting was well +known in the lands of the Bible at the time of the writing of the Bible, +for that very reason we are not to look to the Bible for a specific +explanation of the rite itself, even where there are incidental +references in the Bible to the rite and its observances; but, on the +other hand, we are to find an explanation of the biblical illustrations +of the primitive rite in the understanding of that rite which we gain +from outside sources." + +These assumptions are very flimsy stuff upon which to found the most +prominent and mysterious doctrine of the orthodox Christian religion, +making it the Alpha and Omega of the whole “_scheme of redemption_” To +witness the mummeries of Roman Catholic priests and the manipulations of +Protestant ministers in the celebration of the “Eucharistic Feast” or +“Holy Communion” is enough to lead a truly intelligent man to wonder why +these celebrants do not laugh each other in the face. Even our +Universalist and Unitarian ministers sometimes indulge in this heathen +diversion, though some of them deeply feel the absurdity of the rite, +and the consequent humiliation to which they are subjected. +Nevertheless, some of our most profound statesmen, when about to die, +call in a priest, Catholic or Protestant, to administer the heathen +ordinance. When will the world open its blind eyes, and learn that all +that God requires of men is to “walk humbly, love mercy, and deal +justly”? + +There is no difficulty in accepting the words of a God who is said to +have uttered the burning reproof to ritualists and hypocrites as +follows: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices? I delight +not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. Bring no more +vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and +sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity +even the solemn meeting. And when you spread your hands I will hide mine +eyes from you, yea, you make many prayers I will not hear, your hands +are full of blood. Wash ye, make you clean, put away the evil of your +doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well, seek +judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the +widows.” + +This doctrine of _bloodsalvation_ is, in our judgment, most +unphilosophical and even absurd. It originated, as we have shown, in the +most gross and anthropomorphic conceptions of God, and its solemn +celebration in orthodox churches is inseparable from the most ignorant +and superstitious rites of the most savage peoples. Its tendency must be +demoralizing. + + + + +CHAPTER XVI. THINGS THAT REMAIN + + +_“That those things which cannot be shaken may remain.”—Heb. 12: 27._ + + +IN the preceding chapters we have shown that in our judgment the time +has fully come for the fearless proclamation of the whole truth, +regardless of temporary consequences. + +We think that we have also shown that for many important reasons we +cannot expect the whole truth from the professional clergy. + +We have shown that the Jews are not the very ancient and numerous people +that they have been supposed to have been, and that many of their claims +are purely fabulous; and that this is specially true of their +Pentateuch, which Moses, supposing such a man to have lived, could not +have written. + +We have shown how extensively symbolism anciently prevailed in sacred +writings, how modern sacerdotalists have accepted as literal history and +matters of fact what was at first a romance or an allegory intended to +illustrate certain principles, and how the introduction of astral keys +can only explain many of the Old-Testament stories, which, taken +literally, are extremely absurd and foolish. + +We think we have shown that the “fall” of the mythical Adam and Eve is +an allegory, and not an historical fact, and that it is extremely +unfortunate that the whole system of dogmatic theology is made to depend +upon a mythus. + +We have gone in search of the “second Adam,” and have not found him, +except in the New Testament, and we have shown how utterly incomplete +and unsatisfactory that account is, not rising in any degree to the +character of evidence. + +We have shown that the Gospels are highly dramatic; that the Christ is +largely ideal; that many other persons before the Christian era claimed +all that was claimed for Jesus; and that he, his conduct, and alleged +sayings (he wrote nothing) are widely open to criticism. + +We have shown that the distinguishing feature of the New +Testament—blood-salvation—is not a special revelation, but that it has +been borrowed and modified and adapted from savages and from the most +ignorant and superstitious tribes; and that what is called the +“redemptive scheme” is full of absurdities and contradictions, and that +it is philosophically and naturally demoralizing in its tendency and +influence if its logical consequences are accepted. + +We now come to the practical question, _What have we left?_ Is there +anything in religion worth preserving? Indeed, is there anything +condemned in this book that is essential to the purest religion and the +highest morality? After doubting and throwing discredit on so much, have +we anything left worth preserving? Having cast so much of the cargo +overboard to lighten the ship, is the vessel worth saving? Having cast +away the accretions and superstitions of religion, we are only now just +prepared to defend its essential and sublime principles. Let us see what +remains. + + I. _Our Faith in God remains._—Not a God. The passage in the New + Testament (John 4: 24) admits that “a” is an interpolation. + There is no personality in God in a sense which implies + limitation. God is spirit, and so spirit is God. Even Professor + Hæckel, the German materialist, says: “This monistic idea of + God, which belongs to the future, has already been expressed by + Bruno in the following words: A spirit exists in all things, + and no body is so small but contains a part of the divine + substance within itself by which it is animated.” The words God + and religion have been so long associated with superstition and + priestcraft that many liberal thinkers have a repugnance to + both. But we must not let these perversions of sacerdotalism + rob us of good words. We can conceive of God as the _Over-all + and In-all Spirit of the Universe._ That spirit is causation, + and matter, its palpable form, is one of its manifestations. We + know that Nature’s method of making worlds and brutes and men + is by a uniform system of evolution, taking millions and + billions of years to carry on the work to the present time, and + that it is likely that it will take millions more to perfect + it. When asked what spirit is, we answer, We do not know; + neither do we know what electricity is, nor can we answer one + of a thousand questions that come up regarding the subtle and + occult qualities of matter. We see no difference between the + Unknowable of Herbert Spencer and the Unsearchable of Zophar in + the book of Job. The Unknown Power is the Noumenon, the + absolute Being in itself, the inner nature of force, motion, + and even of conscience. + +We have said, in substance, elsewhere: It is a great mistake to think of +God as outside of and distinct from the universe. If there be a God at +all, he is in the universe and in every part of it. We cannot properly +localize him, and say that he is present in one place and not in +another, or that he is in one place more than another. He must be +everywhere and in everything. Anthropomorphic (man-like) views of God +are what make atheists and agnostics. + +Men constantly talk of the laws of Nature, forgetting that law itself is +a product and cannot be a cause. The law of gravitation is not the cause +of gravitation. A self-originating and self-executing law is +unthinkable. The prevalence of law supposes the existence of a lawmaker +and a law-executor. We accept the law of evolution, but cannot conceive +of evolution independent of involution and an Evolver. + +It may be said that this is “begging the question” by assuming the +existence of an infinite God. But we deny that it is an assumption in +its last analysis. What is known as the scientific method leads +logically to the conclusion that there must be something that theists +generally name God. You may call it “protoplasm,” “molecular force,” the +“potentiality of matter,” or even matter itself; and when you tell us +what these words mean we will tell you what we mean by “God.” Possibly +we all mean the same thing. We know of the existence of God, as we know +other things, by palpable manifestations. + +Astronomers assumed the existence of Neptune from certain phenomena long +before its existence could be demonstrated; and if the discovery had +never been made the phenomena so long observed would have nevertheless +justified the conclusion that there must be some stupendous cause for +such unmistakable and marvellous perturbations. + +When men talk of the eternity of matter we do not even profess to +understand them. The most advanced scientists do not attempt to explain +one of a thousand mysteries in which the phenomena of the material world +is enshrouded. Why, then, should we be expected to explain where and how +and when God came into existence, or how he could have had an eternal +existence or be self-existent? We affirm no more of God than +materialists imply of matter, and we endow him with no attributes that +they do not virtually ascribe to matter. So far as assumption is +concerned, both stand on the same ground. They, indeed, call things by +different names, but mean about the same thing. What theists prefer to +call “the works of God” materialists call “Nature,” “cosmic laws,” +“spontaneous generation,” “the potency of matter,” “conservation of +energy," “correlation of force," and “natural selection." + +The fundamental error of modern scientists is that they limit their +investigations to the physical and palpable, while we have demonstrable +evidence of the existence of the spiritual and invisible. We know +nothing of matter but from its properties and manifestations, and we +have the same kind of evidence in regard to spirit, and know that it is +superior to gross matter, and therefore cannot be tested by the same +crucibles. In the very nature of things a great cause must ever be +imponderable and invisible. It cannot be weighed and measured, but must +ever remain intangible and incomprehensible. The spirit in physical man +in its relation to the Supreme Spirit is as the drop of water to the +ocean or the single glimmering ray to the full-orbed, refulgent sun. Men +may talk of “force correlation," and trace its progress and products, +but they must remain dumb as to the beginning or origin of force unless +they accept the doctrine of an _intelligent First Force_. There is no +way of accounting for the existence of spirit, of life, of intelligence, +but by premising the prior existence of spirit, life, and intelligence. +Like only causes like. An egg does not come from a stone, and the +ascidian did not come from a lifeless rock. + +The logical conclusion from the facts and principles herein suggested is +that there must be an intelligent First Cause of all things—an +all-pervading, fecundating, animating Spirit of the universe; and we +prefer to call this God. Science has taught us the processes of his +work, and denominates them the “laws of Nature.” In point of fact, as +little is known of the origin and essence of matter as of spirit, and +there is as good ground for agnosticism in the former as in the latter. +There is therefore no necessary conflict between true science and a +rational theism or monism. + +It is a rational proposition that something must have been before what +is called creation. There must have been an _intelligent potency_, and +that power theists call God. Materialism in its last analysis ascribes +to matter all that theists ascribe to God. It gives matter an eternal +self-existence—endows it with an inherent infinite intelligence and an +omnipotent potency. It spells “God” with six letters instead of three. +It makes a God of matter, and then denies his existence! + +We now submit that it is more rational to postulate the existence of an +eternal Supreme Intelligence and Power, the Creator and Ruler of all +things visible and invisible, who is the Author and Executor of the laws +by which both mind and matter are governed. This Supreme Being is alone +the Self-existent One, and what are called the properties and modes of +inert matter are but the proofs and manifestations of his eternal power +and Godhead. There cannot be a poem without a poet, nor a picture +without an artist. There cannot be a watch or other complex machine +without an inventor and artisan. The universe is the sublimest of all +poems, and Cicero well said that it would be easier to conceive that +Homer’s Iliad came from the chance shaking together of the letters of +the alphabet than that the atoms should have produced the cosmos without +a marshalling agency. The visible and palpable compel us to acknowledge +their counterpart in the invisible and intangible, and we cannot +rationally account for the origin of man without postulating the +existence of an Intelligence and Power greater than humanity. + +We are reproached for the inconsistency of believing in a Power we +cannot comprehend, and endowing him with attributes of which we can form +no just conceptions. Atheists do not seem to realize that they are +guilty of a greater inconsistency. They tell us that we believe in a +Being of whom we can form no conception, but they themselves must form +some conception of such a Being, else how could they deny his existence? + +There is no difficulty in admitting the existence of a Supreme Power if +we do not attempt to comprehend and describe it. Matthew Arnold says: +“We too would say ’God’ if the moment we said ’God, you would not +pretend that you know all about him.” His definition of God is indeed +vague, but vastly suggestive: “An enduring Power not ourselves that +makes for righteousness.” This suggests the moral element in the unknown +Power. There is not only a spiritual sense in man which recognizes the +supersensuous, but there is an indwelling witness to the eternal +principle of rightfulness. The sentiment of oughtness is inherent and +ineradicable. Every man who is not a moral idiot has a feeling that +certain things ought and ought not to be—that there is an essential +right and wrong. Human intuition sees and feels this mysterious Power +that answers to our Ego, and from which it proceeds; and this inward +conviction cannot be eradicated from the average mind by the pretensions +of science. The patient watcher in the dark room at the terminus of the +ocean cable sees in his suspended mirror the reflection of an electric +spark, and he at once recognizes it as a message from the operator three +thousand miles away. So God is seen by the aspiring and contemplative in +the concave mirror of man’s own spirit, and, though it is a mere +reflection, a spark, a flash, it clearly proves the existence of the +Central Magnet. It is this recognition of the moral element that forms +the basis of moral government and of that worshipfulness which has +manifested itself among all nations, barbarian and civilized. + +It is safe to assume that the average Atheism is disbelief in the God of +the dominant theology, and not in the Ultimate Power that makes for +righteousness. Vulgar, anthropomorphic conceptions of God, which endow +him with certain speculative attributes, are condemned by reason and +science; but nevertheless phenomena have something behind them, and +energy has something beneath it, and all things have something in them +which is the source of all phenomena and energy; and this enduring, +all-pervading Power is our sure guarantee of the order of the universe. +And this Power theists persist in calling God. Theologians may call this +Pantheism, but it is only seemingly so. There is a vast difference +between saying that everything is God, and that God is in everything. +The old watchmaker-mechanician idea, a God separate and outside of the +universe, has become obsolete, and science and reason and the law of +progressive development now compel men to reshape their conceptions of +God as identical with the Cosmos, plus the Eternal Power. + +Herbert Spencer has beautifully said: “But amid the mysteries, which +become the more mysterious the more they are thought about, there will +remain the one absolute certainty that man is ever in presence of an +Infinite and Eternal Energy, from which all things proceed.” The felt +and the seen have their fulness in the unseen and intangible, and the +visible impels us to seek its counterpart and complement in the +invisible. + + II. _Our Faith in Religion remains_.—And here the question comes + up, What is religion? The commonly-accepted meaning of the word + is as derived from the Latin _religare_, which means “to bind + back or to bind fast.” We do not accept the definition, because + it is suggestive of _bondage_. It implies a previous harmonious + relation with God which had been lost. It favors the dogmas of + the fall of Adam and man’s alleged reinstatement and “binding + back” to the divine allegiance, through what is called, in + theological parlance, a “redemptive scheme.” It is a + significant fact that Lactantius, a theologian of the early + part of the fourth century, was the first to apply the word + religion to “the bond of piety by which we are bound to God.” + Augustine of the fifth century followed his example, and so did + Servius about the same time; and their example has been + followed by theologians ever since, presumably because it + favors the dogmas of the fall of Adam and the redemption by + Christ. But the highest classical authorities derive the word + religion from _relegere_ or _religere_, signifying “to go + through or over and over again in reading, speech, or + thought—to review carefully and faithfully to ponder and + reflect with conscientious fidelity.” + +Cicero must have understood the original meaning and origin of the Latin +word, and he took this view of the subject. He lived more than three +hundred years before Lactantius, and he said: “But they who carefully +meditated, and as it were considered and reconsidered all those things +which pertained to the worship of the gods, were called religious, from +religere.” The word _religio_ was in common use in ancient Rome in the +sense of _scruple_, implying the consciousness of a natural obligation +wholly irrespective of the gods. The oldest popular meanings of the word +_religion_ were _faithfulness, sincerity, veracity, honor, +punctiliousness, and conscientiousness_.*(1) Religion, then, in its true +meaning, is the great fact of _duty_, of _oughtness_ or _right-fulness_, of +_conscience_ and _moral sense_. Its great business is to seek conformity to +one’s highest ideal. It consists in an _honest and persistent effort by +all appropriate means to realize ideal excellence and to transform into +actual character and practical life._ + + (1) See _A Study of Religion_, by Francis E. Abbot. + +Religion in this sense is universally approved. It is false religion +which is condemned. It is what some men would require you to believe in +spite of history, science, and self-consciousness. It is superstition, +bigotry, credulity, creed, sectarianism, that men detest. Religion is +innate and ineradicable in man, and there is a natural religion +concerning which man cannot be skeptical if he would. Bishop Butler has +well said that the morality of the gospel is “the republication of +natural religion and it would be easy to show the evolution of religion +from very small beginnings and how this work is going on to-day. + +Regarding religion as an evolution, a development, and not as something +as inflexible as a demonstrated proposition in mathematics, we are all +the while expecting an improvement. We have a right to expect that +Christianity should be better than more ancient religions, because it is +the latest; and so it is in many respects. But we have a right to expect +that this improvement will go on with the lapse of time. The religion of +the nineteenth century is an improvement on the religion of the first +century, but we are reaching forward to greater perfection. Even the +system of morals taught in the New Testament is defective. We want +something purer and better, and it is rapidly coming. All true religion +is natural, and its morality relates to the mutual and reciprocal claims +of men arising from organized society. If we are right in our dealings +with our fellow-men, we cannot be out of harmonious relations with God. +All happiness here and hereafter depends upon our knowledge of the order +of the universe and the conformation of our lives to it. It is +impossible to divorce true religion from real science, and the more we +know of the latter the more we shall have of the former. Whatever tends +to promote pure religion ought to be encouraged, and no man has any more +reason to be ashamed of his religion than he has to be ashamed of his +appetite. We sum up our ideas of religion by saying: Do all the good you +can to all the persons you can by all the means you can, and as long as +you can. + + III. _The Scriptures remain for just What they are._—Portions of the + Bible command our most profound reverence and our most + unqualified admiration. We respond heartily to some of the + truly excellent moral maxims of the Bible, and read with + rapture some of the selections of poetry from the Hebrew + prophets. But right in close connection we often find stories + of uncleanness, fornications, adulteries, and incests that the + vilest newspaper of to-day would not dare publish. Jael meanly + murders Sisera, and is praised for it, while the deceit and + treachery of Rahab are commended in the New Testament. The + story of Boaz and Ruth is only fit for a dime novel. Solomon’s + Song is full of lasciviousness. Abram lies. Moses gets mad. + David commits adultery and murders Uriah. Jacob is deceitful + and a trickster; and so on to the end. Polygamy is shown to + have been the rule, and not the exception, among Jehovah’s + favorites. War is everywhere tacitly justified, and slavery is + practised and not an abolitionist opens his mouth. We go to the + New Testament, and He who is called the “Perfect One” curses a + fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, drives out with + small cords men engaged in legitimate business, upsets their + tables, and uses the most violent and reproachful language + toward them. He shows want of respect for his mother, and is + ambiguous and evasive in his conversation with the woman of + Canaan—says he does not know whether he is going to the feast + at Jerusalem or not, and then straightway sets out for the Holy + City, and makes believe by his actions that he is going to one + place, when he is actually going to another. + +We want a higher morality than is taught in the Bible. We want higher +and more noble conceptions than are given in the parable of the “Unjust +Judge,” and more just and equitable principles than are taught in the +parable of the “Unjust Steward” or the “Laborers in the Vineyard” or the +“Ten Talents.” We want a morality that relates to this life rather than +to the next We do not want the possession of property held up as a +crime, and poverty represented as a virtue entitling one to a seat in +the future kingdom. We want good homes to live in now, rather than +“mansions in the skies.” We do not want a morality that appeals to +selfishness only, that discriminates in favor of celibacy, and that only +tolerates marriage as a remedy for lust, as taught in the seventh +chapter of First Corinthians. We want a higher morality than the +morality of even the New Testament. + +It is difficult to speak to ears polite of the obscenity of the Bible. +There are more than one hundred passages of the most coarse and vulgar +description. To print these in a book and send it through the United +States mails, if law were impartially administered, would put a man in +the penitentiary. There are entire chapters that reek with obscenity +from beginning to end. We cannot tell you about Onan, and Tamar, and Lot +and his two daughters, and scores of other obscene matters. There are +passages even in the New Testament that cannot be mentioned in the +presence of a virtuous woman. When we enter a lady’s parlor and see the +richly-gilded Bible upon the centre-table, we shudder as we remember the +obscenity that is contained between its costly lids. When we see a young +girl tripping along our streets, Bible in hand, we wonder if she knows +that she carries more obscenity than Byron ever wrote, than Shelley ever +dreamed of, than the vilest French novelist ever dared to print. + +We have very grave doubts about putting the Bible into the hands of +children. They are, through it, made familiar with much that is +demoralizing. We have many reasons for rejecting the dogma of the +plenary inspiration of the Scriptures and of their infallibility. These +fragmentary writings must be judged by their merits—by what they are. It +has been shown by the author of Supernatural Religion that we gain more +than we lose by taking this rational view of the Bible. An illusion is +lost, but a reality is gained which is full of hope and peace. The +unknown men who mostly wrote the little pamphlets which make up the +Bible probably did the best they knew—that is, they wrote according to +the degree of their development—but some of the writers were on a very +low plane. We should read these books and all other sacred writings of +all nations just as we study geology—as showing what was in the mind of +man when the books were written, ‘just as we learn from the earth’s +strata the history and order of the various periodic formations. The +bibles of the ages are accessible to every man who can read. All of them +contain much that is valuable, with much that is frivolous, +superstitious, and false. But these books belong to our race, and happy +is the man who knows how to use them wisely. He who rejects all makes as +great a mistake as he who accepts all. The true position is that the +Bible contains the best thoughts of many of the best men that have lived +in the ages of the past, expressed according to their light; and, while +their obvious errors should be rejected, whatever commends itself to our +reason, according to the best light of to-day, and to which each man’s +own inspiration and spiritual discernment responds, should be reverently +studied and highly esteemed. Religion is not a product of the Bible, but +the Bible is a product of religion—natural religion—though often +misunderstood and perverted. We do not throw aside the bibles, but +accept them for just what we find them to be worth. We eat the kernel +and throw away the shell. + + IV. Our most Implicit Faith in the Continuity of Life remains.—We + have no more confidence in Materialism than we have in Atheism. + We believe that some men at least are immortal—that the + intellectual and moral giants should be blotted out at death is + unthinkable. We find in this doctrine of a future state much + that has a moral tendency. It inspires self-respect and esteem. + It leads to a proper appreciation of humanity. It inspires hope + for the future. It affords comfort in bereavement. It furnishes + a proper motive for aspiration and progress. + +When we consider the millions of years that have been employed in +bringing man to his present high estate, it is rational to assume that a +capacity for such immense progress is good ground for faith in still +greater progress, so that there shall be no end to the advancement and +attainments of humanity. If primitive man was not immortal, there may +have been a time when he became immortal, just as there is a time when +the embryo becomes a conscious, breathing babe, and when the undeveloped +child begins to exercise the functions of rationality and becomes an +accountable being. It is not true that even the extreme Darwinian +doctrine is necessarily opposed to the doctrine of a future life for +man. On the contrary, its fundamental principles suggest the hypothesis +of immortality. + +If the “conservation of energy” is a true principle of science, it +favors the faith of man in the doctrine of a future life. Greatness and +goodness developed in man must be “conserved,” and how can it be done if +death is a destroyer? The “persistency of force” in the human +personality must at least be equal to the primary elements which environ +that personality. Is it rational to suppose that the sweep of evolution +which has brought man from such unfathomable depths will not carry him +up to still more illimitable heights? Are these vast achievements of +Nature to be so un-thriftily wasted? Do not the products of a past +eternity point unmistakably to still greater things in an eternity to +come? + +And, then, does not the scientific doctrine of the “indestructibility of +matter” favor the belief in life after death? + +The theory of “natural selection” also favors the doctrine of a future +life, and never appears so real and so beautiful as when we realize that +as man progresses in everything that is grand and good he voluntarily +falls in with this natural law, and of choice not only selects that +which is most to be desired, but by self-denial and almost superhuman +exertions strives to attain the highest ideal of his heavenly +aspirations. The unwearied effort of the most highly-developed men to +reach a higher perfection and a more exalted excellence is evidence that +Nature is true to herself, and that man will not be blotted out of +conscious existence just as he first clearly perceives the essential +difference between good and evil. Having tasted the fruit of the tree of +life, he is destined to live for ever. + +It is certainly a significant fact that the faith of man in, and a +desire for, a future life are strongest in his moments of greatest +mental and spiritual exaltation. If this is an illusion, it is strange +that it should be particularly vivid when he is in his most god-like +moods and when he is most in love with the beautiful, the true, and the +good. Is it possible for Nature to thus trifle with and deceive and +disappoint man when he is most serious and truthful, and when all the +elements of his better nature are in the ascendant and predominate over +everything that is gross and perishable? + +A future life and an immortal one must exist to enable man to reach that +perfection to which he aspires, and feels himself bound to attain as the +only end worthy of his being, and which, during the brief span of mortal +life, is never reached even by the most virtuous. Nature cannot be so +blind, so stupidly improvident, as to throw away her most precious +treasures, gathered by so much labor and suffering, and not permit man +to carry forward the great work, in which he has just began to succeed, +to that perfection to which all his aspirations unmistakably converge. + +Then every cultivated man realizes as age increases that his attainments +and successes in this ephemeral life fall far short of, and are +absolutely inadequate and disproportionate to, his inherent powers; and +it is irrational to conclude that his very existence is to be blotted +out and life itself become utterly extinct just as he has learned how to +live, and what life is, and what is his " being’s end and aim." We do +not desire to argue this question here: we only make a profession of our +faith. + + V. Our Faith in the Doctrine of Present and Future Rewards and + Punishments remains.—While it is irrational to accept the horrible + dogmas of sacerdotalism as to the eternal torments of the wicked, + it is equally unreasonable to believe that all men enter upon a + state of perfect happiness without regard to moral character. + +The doctrine of rewards and punishments after death is clearly suggested +by the principles of natural religion which have been recognized by all +men, pagan and Christian. That virtue brings its own reward and vice its +own punishment is a fact in the experience of men in this life. It must +be so in the life to come, as the order of the universe cannot be +changed by time or place. No valid objection can be made to the +principle of future punishment. But its nature and object must be taken +into the account. True punishment is never arbitrary nor vindictive. It +is remedial, reformatory, disciplinary, and has respect to the +constitution of moral government and the best interests and welfare of +its subjects. Suffering is a consequence of sin, not a judicial penalty, +and happiness is not a favor conferred by grace, but a legitimate +product of right being rather than of right doing. Men are rewarded or +punished, both in this life and the life to come, not so much for what +they have done or not done as for what they are. Suffering is intended +to put an end to that which causes suffering, and is for the good of the +sufferer. In this world and in all possible worlds sin must be a source +of suffering, and goodness a fountain of happiness. The degree of +happiness or misery of man after death must be in proportion to the +degree of his perfection or imperfection in character evolved during +life that will constitute his “meetness.” + +The same penal code must prevail in the next life that prevails here, +and it may be thus summarized: (1) Suffering is a consequence of +imperfection and wrong-doing. (2) Imperfection and wrong-doing will meet +their appropriate punishment in the future life as in this world. (3) +The effect will only continue so long as the cause exists. (4) Men will +for ever make their own heaven or hell, and there is good reason for +believing that the sufferings of many persons after death will be, +beyond all conception, awful in the extreme. (5) But the “immortal hope” +justifies the conclusion that all men will, sooner or later, be +established in holiness and happiness. + +In response to the question, _After death—what?_ the proper answer to +the interrogative is, _In life—what?_ Death is transition, not +transmutation. It is emigration, not Pythagorean transmigration. Change +of place does not make change of character. It is therefore reasonable +to conclude that a man after death is just what he was before death. +Every man will gravitate to his own place. There will be as many grades +of moral character after death as in this life, and therefore as many +heavens and hells. Misers and drunkards and libertines will still be +such. Those who love the pure and beautiful, the true, the right, the +unselfish, and the humane will still have the same desires and tastes +after death as before death, and will naturally gravitate to kindred +spirits. + +After mature reflection the conclusion must be reached that the greatest +happiness of which man is capable arises from three sources: (1) The +perception of new truth; (2) Its impartation to others; (3) Doing good +to others. A more rational conception of future blessedness than this is +impossible. + +If these views are correct, it is the highest wisdom to cherish and +cultivate on earth and during life the tastes, the desires, the +affections, the principles which in themselves constitute the highest +bliss of saints and angels in all possible worlds. And as to hell after +death, we have nothing to fear but the hell we may carry with us—the +hell of unholy lust, the hell of unsanctified passion, the hell of +selfishness, the hell which follows wrong living and wrong doing. + +But we must bring this book to a close. The writer is a firm believer in +God, in religion, and in morality; he accepts the Bible for just what it +is. He believes in the continuity of life after death and in future +rewards and punishments. If he believed that he had written anything in +this book to weaken faith in these doctrines, he would commit the +manuscript to the flames instead of to the printer. + + + + +INDEX + + +*A* + +Abraham a myth, 149 and his servant, 131 and phallic emblems, 131 and +Saturn, 150 offering Isaac—Parallels, 151- 154 + +Abrahamie Covenant, 155 + +Abydos and Bunsen’s Egyptian tables, 96 + +Adams, Dr., on forty-two children and the she-bears, 162 Capt. R. C., +how to dispense with ministers, 40 + +Admission of Albertus, 180 of Ambrose, 179 of Augustine, 321 of +Clemens Alexandrinus, 364 of Tertullian, 179 + +Alexandria, systems of religion prevalent in, 347 + +Anno Domini, invented in the sixth century, generally adopt-1 ed in the +tenth, 299 + +Aristotle, maxims of, disapproved, 24 + +Arnold, Matthew, his definition of God, 421 + +Assyrian cuneiform tablets, discovery 1873–74, 97 + +Athens and Sparta, date 1550 B.C., 108 + +Avatars, all announced by celestial signs, 309- 312 + +*B* + +Bagster’s Comprehensive Bible on the phallic oath, 132 + +Barlow on tree-worship, 125 + +Beatty, Hon. James, his opposition to salaried ministers, 40 + +Berosus on Chaldean history, 98 + +Blackstone on witches, 118 + +Blauvelt, Dr. A., 16 17 + +British Museum, manuscripts, 74 + +Brooks, Bishop, on insincerity in the pulpit, 43 + +Brotherhood of man, 342 343 + +Buckland on May music in Magdalen Church, 137 + +Buddha, died 377 years before Christ, 104 + +Budge, Dr., manuscripts classified by, 75 + +Burnet, Bishop, on the story of the creation, 146 + +Dr., on concealing the truth, 44 + +Burr, W. H., on area of Palestine and its population, 63-70. + +*C* + +Cardinal Cajetan’s admission, 178 + +Chaldean history, date of, 109 + +Child, Lydia Maria, and women at Ocean Grove, 136 + +Christ, doubts as to his existence, 367- 369 + +Christus and Christianus, evidence of modern fabrication, 207 + +Chrysostom on the 25th of December, 243 + +Cicero on symbolism, 122 + +Cicero’s definition of religion, 12 424 + +Circumcision originated in phallic-ism, more ancient than Judaism, 130 + +Clark, Dr. Adam, points ont thirty-five parallels to Philo in John’s +Gospels, 219 + +Clement, admission of, 179 + +Colenso, Bishop, collates from Pen-tateucn, 85 + +Confucius’s Golden Rule, 22 + +Constantine a pagan priest, 29 + +Cross very ancient, 318 + +*D* + +David’s nude dance, 132 + +Davidson, Prof., on “Catholic canon,” 227 + +Deluge, The, Jews obtained the account from Babylon, 156 + +Doketæ, 266 + +Draper on Pentateuch, 103 + +Driver, Prof., and Philadelphia editor, 155 + +*E* + +Edwards, Miss Amelia B., on date of Egyptian monarchy, 96 + +Elisha and she-bears explained, 162 + +Epistles, silence of, concerning the Gospels, 372 + +Essenes existed before Christianity, 230 identical with Mithraism, 232 +profound regard for the sun, 239 + +Eusebius regarded the Essenes as Christians, 229 + +Eusebius’s History a probable forgery, 206 + +*F* + +Farrar, Canon, on priestcraft, 48 + +Fisher, Prof., on decline of clerical authority, 42 + +Fisk, John, on glacial period, 95 + +Forlong, Gen., on Jews, 55 + +on area of Judea and Samaria, 59 + +Forlong, Gen., on prevalence of phallicism, 130 133 on the fall, 170 + +*G* + +Gnosticism, 355- 362 + +Gnostics, what they held, 267 + +Gerald Massey on, 280- 294 + +Gibbon on, 294 + +Golden Rule used by Confucius, Isocrates, Aristotle, Sixtus, Pittacus, +Thales, from three to six centuries before Christ, 327 + +Gospel in the Stars, 144 145 + +Grecian Argos, date of, 108 + +Gregory on ignorance and devotion, 44 + +*H* + +Hale, Dr., on insincerity in the pulpit, 42 + +Sir Matthew, condemns a witch to death, 118 + +Harmonies of the Gospels, 347 + +Herod died before Jesus was born, 315 + +Heyne on myths and philosophy, 123 + +Hindoo laws quoted, 105- 108 + +Hirsch, Rabbi, on Pentateuch, 119 120 + +Holmes, O. W., Rector and Doctor, 25 + +Huxley on clerical opposition to progress, 48 on the deluge, 157 158 +on the fall, 187 188 + +*I* + +I H S, numerals which stand for 308 explained, 298 Inman, Dr., on Adam +and Eve, 169 Irenœus the real founder of the Roman hierarchy, 220 + +*J* + +Jacob and Joseph, 121 + +Jefferson to Pickering, 46 to Dr. Cooper, 47 + +Jeoud, son of Saturn, origin of the name of Jew, 150 + +Jesus, Essenism personified, 264 + +Jesuses, many, 197 + +Jews, mongrels, 54 origin of, 55 real cause of exodus, 78 + +John’s Gospel first mentioned by Theophilus of Antioch in A. d. 176 +219 + +Johnson, Rev. Samuel, on the ideal Christ, 276- 281 also 305 306 323 +324 + +Jonah and the fish, with its parallel myths, 159 + +Jones, Sir William, on antiquity of the Vedas, 105 + +Josephus, forgery of passages relating to Jesus, numerous authorities +quoted, 200- 203]. + +joins the Essenes, 229 on the “burning bush,” 126 + +Joshua, and the sun standing still, 162 + +Justinian Code, origin of, 105 + +*K* + +Kaffirs celebrate the cataménial period, 381 + +Keys of Peter, an interpolation, 246 + +Knight, Richard Payne, on the “Worship of Priapus,” 130 + +*L* + +Lactantius, admissions of, 323 Lardner, Dr., on deceit, 44 admissions +of, 177 concerning fall, 173 Lenormant’s admission, 98 + +Le Renouf on origin of Egyptian civilization, 104 + +Lesley, Prof., on phallicism, 131 + +Lord’s Prayer very ancient, 327 + +Luther on Copernicus, 144 + +Lyell on delta of Mississippi, 95 + +*M* + +Mahaffy, Prof., on the identity of the Egyptian and Christian religions, +321 322 + +Manetheo on date of Egyptian monarchy, 97 + +Manning, Archbishop, consecration of, suggestive, 133 + +Manu, laws of 2680 _slocas_, 104 105 + +Maomonide8, admission as to the fall being allegorical, 178 + +Marius, story of, 24 + +Martyr’s, Justin, comparison of Christianity and other religions, 319- +321 + +Massey on the ideal Christ, 284 288 + +on symbolism, 123 + +Matthew, Gospel of, written in Hebrew according to Irenœus, Origen, and +Jerome, 217 + +Menes, date of reign, 96 + +Merrell, Rev. Geo. E., gap of three, centuries in MSS., 212 + +Miller, Dr., on examination of ministers, 33 + +Milman on deceit, 44 + +Mitchell, Prof., on mummy coffin, 143 + +Mithraism, its prevalence, 233 238 + +Moses, strange coincidences in the life of, 109- 112 a myth; horns, +147 and the Midianites and witches, 115 118 + +Mosheim on deceit, 43 + +MSS., date of, 213 + +Müller, Max, on dates, 104 + +Mutilation, bodily, 335 + +*N* + +Neander’s concession, 308 + +Neo-Platonists, what they taught, 237 + +Newton, Sir Isaac, what he perceived, 238 + +Nineveh not three days’ journey from the coast, 159 + +Noah and the deluge; Chaldean and other nations, 156 + +*O* + +Origen on the fall, 178 + +Orphic and other dramas, 235 + +Oswald, Dr. Felix L., quoted, 336 + +Oxley, William, accounts of Jesus from Egyptian sources, 296 + +concerning Egyptian statuettes, 296 301 on the Jews, 79 + +*P* + +Pagan contemporaneous with Jesus; authorities quoted, 204. + +Papius and Polycarp, not instructed by John the son of Zebedee, but +probably by John, a Presbyter of Asia Minor, 219 + +Paul’s genuine Epistles, 214 215 + +Paxson, Chief-Justice, open letter to, 121 + +Peck, Bishop, on blood, 277 + +Pentateuch, date of, 97 98 100 101 + +Peter’s name of Chaldaic origin, 248 + +Phallicism not necessarily obscene, 129 135 + +Philo, admission of, 178 + +Phœnicians, date of, 109 + +Plato on Homer’s poems, 122 + +Presbyterian serpent symbolism, 128 + +Proclus on Plato, 122 + +Prometheus, the god-man, 303 + +*R* + +Rachel sitting on the wedges, 132 + +Rameses II., Pharaoh of the captivity, 96 + +Reber exposes a fraud, 220 + +Religion, definition of, 12 + +Renan on religion, 12 + +Roberts, Dr. Alexander, Version 1881, 210 + +Roscoe, William, description of the consecration of Pope Alexander VI., +134 + +Ryan,’Bishop, installed, 31 163 + +*S* + +Sabbath observed 1100 years before the Hebrews existed, 113 + +Sacrifices, human, beasts, 397 398 + +Samson story and the twelve labors of Hercules; the foxes, 160 161 + +Sethi II., Egyptian king, his good old age, 96 + +Shedd, Prof., admission, 409 + +Smith, Dr. Robertson, on the Gospels, 215 on sacrifice, 398 etc. + +Spencer, Herbert, on infinite and eternal energy, 423 + +St. Patrick and the snakes, 128 + +Stanley on blood-friendship, 389 + +Stuart, Moses, on the “indefinite-period” theory, 175 + +*T* + +Tacitus, Annala of, forged, 205 + +Talmage on blood, 377 + +Talmud, Babylonian, 22 + +“wilderness of speculations/’ 196 + +Taylor, Jeremy, on blood, 377 + +Tertullian, fanatical expression of, 273 + +"Testimony," hint as to the origin of the word, 132 + +Theodosius, Emperor, ordered books burned, 244 294 + +Toldoth Jethu, 265 + +Trumbull on blood covenant, 382-389 + +Tyndall on religion, 11 + +*U* + +Ussher, Archbishop, his chronology, 95 + +*V* + +Vedio prophecies, 194 + +Virgin-born gods, 369 371 + +Von Martins, conversion of, 183 + +*W* + +Wake, C. Staniland, on Pentateuch, 101 + +Whately, Archbishop, converted by Sir John Lubbock and Taylor, 183 + +White, Andrew D., shows how science contradicts theology, 183 + +Winchell, Dr. Alexander, and the Methodists, 184 + +Witches executed, modern examples, 118 + +*Z* + +Zodiac, 140 141 age estimated, 143 + +Zoroaster prophesied of virgins, 194 + +THE END. + + + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ELIMINATOR; OR, SKELETON KEYS TO SACERDOTAL SECRETS *** + +***** This file should be named 39268-0.txt or 39268-0.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/3/9/2/6/39268/ + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will +be renamed. + +Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright +law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, +so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the +United States without permission and without paying copyright +royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part +of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, +and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following +the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use +of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for +copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very +easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation +of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project +Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may +do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected +by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark +license, especially commercial redistribution. + +START: FULL LICENSE + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full +Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or +destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound +by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the +person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph +1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the +Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual +works in the collection are in the public domain in the United +States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the +United States and you are located in the United States, we do not +claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, +displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as +all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope +that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily +comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when +you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are +in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, +check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this +agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, +distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any +other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country other than the United States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work +on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, +performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and + most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no + restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it + under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this + eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the + United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where + you are located before using this eBook. + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is +derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not +contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the +copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in +the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are +redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply +either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or +obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any +additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms +will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including +any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access +to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format +other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website +(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense +to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means +of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain +Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the +full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +provided that: + +* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has + agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid + within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are + legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty + payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in + Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation." + +* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all + copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue + all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm + works. + +* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + +* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than +are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing +from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of +the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set +forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project +Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may +contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate +or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or +other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or +cannot be read by your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium +with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you +with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in +lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person +or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second +opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If +the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing +without further opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO +OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of +damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement +violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the +agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or +limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or +unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the +remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, +including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of +the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this +or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of +computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It +exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations +from people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future +generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see +Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at +www.gutenberg.org + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by +U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, +Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up +to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website +and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without +widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND +DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular +state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To +donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in +the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not +necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper +edition. + +Most people start at our website which has the main PG search +facility: www.gutenberg.org + +This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + |