{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-2:some-mistakes-of-moses",
  "slug": "some-mistakes-of-moses",
  "title": "Some Mistakes of Moses",
  "subtitle": "He who endeavors to control the mind by force is a tyrant, and he who submits is a slave.",
  "excerpt": "A meticulous (and often hilarious) examination of the historical, scientific, and moral problems of the Pentateuch — the longest sustained piece of biblical criticism Ingersoll wrote.",
  "year": 1879,
  "volume": 2,
  "category": "Lecture",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/some-mistakes-of-moses/",
  "wordCount": 51341,
  "body": "I want to do what little I can to make my country truly free, to broaden\nthe intellectual horizon of our people, to destroy the prejudices born\nof ignorance and fear, to do away with the blind worship of the ignoble\npast, with the idea that all the great and good are dead, that the\nliving are totally depraved, that all pleasures are sins, that sighs\nand groans are alone pleasing to God, that thought is dangerous, that\nintellectual courage is a crime, that cowardice is a virtue, that a\ncertain belief is necessary to secure salvation, that to carry a cross\nin this world will give us a palm in the next, and that we must allow\nsome priest to be the pilot of our souls.\n\nUntil every soul is freely permitted to investigate every book, and\ncreed, and dogma for itself, the world cannot be free. Mankind will be\nenslaved until there is mental grandeur enough to allow each man to have\nhis thought and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can, upon\nall these questions differ, and yet grasp each other's hands as friends.\nIt is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we\nknow nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and\ndespise each other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination,\nor the Trinity, should make people imprison and burn each other\nseems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet in all countries where\nChristians have existed, they have destroyed each other to the exact\nextent of their power. Why should a believer in God hate an atheist?\nSurely the atheist has not injured God, and surely he is human, capable\nof joy and pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not be\nfar better to treat this atheist, at least, as well as he treats us?\n\nChristians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask\nis—not that they love their enemies, not that they love their friends\neven, but that they treat those who differ from them, with simple\nfairness.\n\nWe do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish Christians to so act that we\nwill not have to forgive them.\n\nIf all will admit that all have an equal right to think, then the\nquestion is forever solved; but as long as organized and powerful\nchurches, pretending to hold the keys of heaven and hell, denounce every\nperson as an outcast and criminal who thinks for himself and denies\ntheir authority, the world will be filled with hatred and suffering. To\nhate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all the creeds.\n\nThat which has happened in most countries has happened in ours. When\na religion is founded, the educated, the powerful—that is to say, the\npriests and nobles, tell the ignorant and superstitious—that is to\nsay, the people, that the religion of their country was given to their\nfathers by God himself; that it is the only true religion; that all\nothers were conceived in falsehood and brought forth in fraud, and that\nall who believe in the true religion will be happy forever, while all\nothers will burn in hell. For the purpose of governing the people, that\nis to say, for the purpose of being supported by the people, the priests\nand nobles declare this religion to be sacred, and that whoever adds to,\nor takes from it, will be burned here by man, and hereafter by God. The\nresult of this is, that the priests and nobles will not allow the people\nto change; and when, after a time, the priests, having intellectually\nadvanced, wish to take a step in the direction of progress, the people\nwill not allow them to change. At first, the rabble are enslaved by the\npriests, and afterwards the rabble become the masters.\n\nOne of the first things I wish to do, is to free the orthodox clergy.\nI am a great friend of theirs, and in spite of all they may say against\nme, I am going to do them a great and lasting service. Upon their necks\nare visible the marks of the collar, and upon their backs those of the\nlash. They are not allowed to read and think for themselves. They are\ntaught like parrots, and the best are those who repeat, with the fewest\nmistakes, the sentences they have been taught. They sit like owls upon\nsome dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and hoot the same old hoots\nthat have been hooted for eighteen hundred years. Their congregations\nare not grand enough, nor sufficiently civilized, to be willing that\nthe poor preachers shall think for themselves. They are not employed for\nthat purpose. Investigation regarded as a dangerous experiment, and the\nministers are warned that none of that kind of work will be tolerated.\nThey are notified to stand by the old creed, and to avoid all original\nthought, as a mortal pestilence. Every minister is employed like an\nattorney—either for plaintiff or defendant,—and he is expected to\nbe true to his client. If he changes his mind, he is regarded as\na deserter, and denounced, hated, and slandered accordingly. Every\northodox clergyman agrees not to change. He contracts not to find new\nfacts, and makes a bargain that he will deny them if he does. Such is\nthe position of a Protestant minister in this nineteenth century. His\ncondition excites my pity; and to better it, I am going to do what\nlittle I can.\n\nSome of the clergy have the independence to break away, and the\nintellect to maintain themselves as free men, but the most are compelled\nto submit to the dictation of the orthodox, and the dead. They are\nnot employed to give their thoughts, but simply to repeat the ideas of\nothers. They are not expected to give even the doubts that may suggest\nthemselves, but are required to walk in the narrow, verdureless path\ntrodden by the ignorance of the past. The forests and fields on either\nside are nothing to them. They must not even look at the purple hills,\nnor pause to hear the babble of the brooks. They must remain in the\ndusty road where the guide-boards are. They must confine themselves\nto the \"fall of man,\" the expulsion from the garden, the \"scheme of\nsalvation,\" the \"second birth,\" the atonement, the happiness of the\nredeemed, and the misery of the lost. They must be careful not to\nexpress any new ideas upon these great questions. It is much safer for\nthem to quote from the works of the dead. The more vividly they describe\nthe sufferings of the unregenerate, of those who attended theatres and\nballs, and drank wine in summer gardens on the Sabbath-day, and laughed\nat priests, the better ministers they are supposed to be. They must show\nthat misery fits the good for heaven, while happiness prepares the bad\nfor hell; that the wicked get all their good things in this life, and\nthe good all their evil; that in this world God punishes the people he\nloves, and in the next, the ones he hates; that happiness makes us bad\nhere, but not in heaven; that pain makes us good here, but not in hell.\nNo matter how absurd these things may appear to the carnal mind, they\nmust be preached and they must be believed. If they were reasonable,\nthere would be no virtue in believing. Even the publicans and sinners\nbelieve reasonable things. To believe without evidence, or in spite of\nit, is accounted as righteousness to the sincere and humble Christian.\n\nThe ministers are in duty bound to denounce all intellectual pride, and\nshow that we are never quite so dear to God as when we admit that we are\npoor, corrupt and idiotic worms; that we never should have been born;\nthat we ought to be damned without the least delay; that we are so\ninfamous that we like to enjoy ourselves; that we love our wives and\nchildren better than our God; that we are generous only because we are\nvile; that we are honest from the meanest motives, and that sometimes we\nhave fallen so low that we have had doubts about the inspiration of the\nJewish Scriptures. In short, they are expected to denounce all pleasant\npaths and rustling trees, to curse the grass and flowers, and glorify\nthe dust and weeds. They are expected to malign the wicked people in the\ngreen and happy fields, who sit and laugh beside the gurgling springs or\nclimb the hills and wander as they will. They are expected to point out\nthe dangers of freedom, the safety of implicit obedience, and to show\nthe wickedness of philosophy, the goodness of faith, the immorality of\nscience and the purity of ignorance.\n\nNow and then a few pious people discover some young man of a religious\nturn of mind and a consumptive habit of body, not quite sickly enough\nto die, nor healthy enough to be wicked. The idea occurs to them that\nhe would make a good orthodox minister. They take up a contribution, and\nsend the young man to some theological school where he can be taught to\nrepeat a creed and despise reason. Should it turn out that the young\nman had some mind of his own, and, after graduating, should change his\nopinions and preach a different doctrine from that taught in the school,\nevery man who contributed a dollar towards his education would feel that\nhe had been robbed, and would denounce him as a dishonest and ungrateful\nwretch.\n\nThe pulpit should not be a pillory. Congregations should allow the\nminister a little liberty. They should, at least, permit him to tell the\ntruth.\n\nThey have, in Massachusetts, at a place called Andover, a kind of\nminister factory, where each professor takes an oath once in five\nyears—that time being considered the life of an oath—that he has not,\nduring the last five years, and will not, during the next five years,\nintellectually advance. There is probably no oath that they could easier\nkeep. Probably, since the foundation stone of that institution was laid\nthere has not been a single case of perjury. The old creed is still\ntaught. They still insist that God is infinitely wise, powerful and\ngood, and that all men are totally depraved. They insist that the best\nman God ever made, deserved to be damned the moment he was finished.\nAndover puts its brand upon every minister it turns out, the same as\nSheffield and Birmingham brand their wares, and all who see the brand\nknow exactly what the minister believes, the books he has read, the\narguments he relies on, and just what he intellectually is. They know\njust what he can be depended on to preach, and that he will continue to\nshrink and shrivel, and grow solemnly stupid day by day until he reaches\nthe Andover of the grave and becomes truly orthodox forever.\n\nI have not singled out the Andover factory because it is worse than the\nothers. They are all about the same. The professors, for the most part,\nare ministers who failed in the pulpit and were retired to the seminary\non account of their deficiency in reason and their excess of faith. As\na rule, they know nothing of this world, and far less of the next; but\nthey have the power of stating the most absurd propositions with faces\nsolemn as stupidity touched by fear.\n\nSomething should be done for the liberation of these men. They should\nbe allowed to grow—to have sunlight and air. They should no longer\nbe chained and tied to confessions of faith, to mouldy books and\nmusty creeds. Thousands of ministers are anxious to give their honest\nthoughts. The hands of wives and babes now stop their mouths. They\nmust have bread, and so the husbands and fathers are forced to preach\na doctrine that they hold in scorn. For the sake of shelter, food and\nclothes, they are obliged to defend the childish miracles of the past,\nand denounce the sublime discoveries of to-day. They are compelled to\nattack all modern thought, to point out the dangers of science, the\nwickedness of investigation and the corrupting influence of logic. It is\nfor them to show that virtue rests upon ignorance and faith, while vice\nimpudently feeds and fattens upon fact and demonstration. It is a part\nof their business to malign and vilify the Voltaires, Humes, Paines,\nHumboldts, Tyndalls, Haeckels, Darwins, Spencers, and Drapers, and\nto bow with uncovered heads before the murderers, adulterers, and\npersecutors of the world. They are, for the most part, engaged in\npoisoning the minds of the young, prejudicing children against science,\nteaching the astronomy and geology of the Bible, and inducing all to\ndesert the sublime standard of reason.\n\nThese orthodox ministers do not add to the sum of knowledge. They\nproduce nothing. They live upon alms. They hate laughter and joy. They\nofficiate at weddings, sprinkle water upon babes, and utter meaningless\nwords and barren promises above the dead. They laugh at the agony of\nunbelievers, mock at their tears, and of their sorrows make a jest.\nThere are some noble exceptions. Now and then a pulpit holds a brave\nand honest man. Their congregations are willing that they should\nthink—willing that their ministers should have a little freedom.\n\nAs we become civilized, more and more liberty will be accorded to these\nmen, until finally ministers will give their best and highest thoughts.\nThe congregations will finally get tired of hearing about the patriarchs\nand saints, the miracles and wonders, and will insist upon knowing\nsomething about the men and women of our day, and the accomplishments\nand discoveries of our time. They will finally insist upon knowing how\nto escape the evils of this world instead of the next. They will ask\nlight upon the enigmas of this life. They will wish to know what we\nshall do with our criminals instead of what God will do with his—how\nwe shall do away with beggary and want—with crime and misery—with\nprostitution, disease and famine,—with tyranny in all its cruel\nforms—with prisons and scaffolds, and how we shall reward the honest\nworkers, and fill the world with happy homes! These are the problems\nfor the pulpits and congregations of an enlightened future. If Science\ncannot finally answer these questions, it is a vain and worthless thing.\n\nThe clergy, however, will continue to answer them in the old way, until\ntheir congregations are good enough to set them free. They will still\ntalk about believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, as though that were the\nonly remedy for all human ills. They will still teach that retrogression\nis the only path that leads to light; that we must go back, that faith\nis the only sure guide, and that reason is a delusive glare, lighting\nonly the road to eternal pain.\n\nUntil the clergy are free they cannot be intellectually honest. We can\nnever tell what they really believe until they know that they can safely\nspeak. They console themselves now by a secret resolution to be as\nliberal as they dare, with the hope that they can finally educate\ntheir congregations to the point of allowing them to think a little for\nthemselves. They hardly know what they ought to do. The best part of\ntheir lives has been wasted in studying subjects of no possible value.\nMost of them are married, have families, and know but one way of making\ntheir living. Some of them say that if they do not preach these foolish\ndogmas, others will, and that they may through fear, after all, restrain\nmankind. Besides, they hate publicly to admit that they are mistaken,\nthat the whole thing is a delusion, that the \"scheme of salvation\" is\nabsurd, and that the Bible is no better than some other books, and worse\nthan most.\n\nYou can hardly expect a bishop to leave his palace, or the pope to\nvacate the Vatican. As long as people want popes, plenty of hypocrites\nwill be found to take the place. And as long as labor fatigues, there\nwill be found a good many men willing to preach once a week, if other\nfolks will work and give them bread. In other words, while the demand\nlasts, the supply will never fail.\n\nIf the people were a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish—if\na little more enlightened, religion would perish!\n\nII. Free Schools.\n\nIt is also my desire to free the schools. When a professor in a college\nfinds a fact, he should make it known, even if it is inconsistent with\nsomething Moses said. Public opinion must not compel the professor to\nhide a fact, and, \"like the base Indian, throw the pearl away.\" With the\nsingle exception of Cornell, there is not a college in the United\nStates where truth has ever been a welcome guest. The moment one of the\nteachers denies the inspiration of the Bible, he is discharged. If he\ndiscovers a fact inconsistent with that book, so much the worse for the\nfact, and especially for the discoverer of the fact. He must not corrupt\nthe minds of his pupils with demonstrations. He must beware of\nevery truth that cannot, in some way be made to harmonize with the\nsuperstitions of the Jews. Science has nothing in common with religion.\nFacts and miracles never did, and never will agree. They are not in the\nleast related. They are deadly foes. What has religion to do with\nfacts? Nothing. Can there be Methodist mathematics, Catholic astronomy,\nPresbyterian geology, Baptist biology, or Episcopal botany? Why, then,\nshould a sectarian college exist? Only that which somebody knows should\nbe taught in our schools. We should not collect taxes to pay people for\nguessing. The common school is the bread of life for the people, and it\nshould not be touched by the withering hand of superstition.\n\nOur country will never be filled with great institutions of learning\nuntil there is an absolute divorce between Church and School. As long\nas the mutilated records of a barbarous people are placed by priest and\nprofessor above the reason of mankind, we shall reap but little benefit\nfrom church or school.\n\nInstead of dismissing professors for finding something out, let us\nrather discharge those who do not. Let each teacher understand that\ninvestigation is not dangerous for him; that his bread is safe, no\nmatter how much truth he may discover, and that his salary will not be\nreduced, simply because he finds that the ancient Jews did not know the\nentire history of the world.\n\nBesides, it is not fair to make the Catholic support a Protestant\nschool, nor is it just to collect taxes from infidels and atheists to\nsupport schools in which any system of religion is taught.\n\nThe sciences are not sectarian. People do not persecute each other on\naccount of disagreements in mathematics. Families are not divided about\nbotany, and astronomy does not even tend to make a man hate his father\nand mother. It is what people do not know, that they persecute each\nother about. Science will bring, not a sword, but peace.\n\nJust as long as religion has control of the schools, science will be an\noutcast. Let us free our institutions of learning. Let us dedicate them\nto the science of eternal truth. Let us tell every teacher to ascertain\nall the facts he can—to give us light, to follow Nature, no matter\nwhere she leads; to be infinitely true to himself and us; to feel that\nhe is without a chain, except the obligation to be honest; that he is\nbound by no books, by no creed, neither by the sayings of the dead nor\nof the living; that he is asked to look with his own eyes, to reason for\nhimself without fear, to investigate in every possible direction, and to\nbring us the fruit of all his work.\n\nAt present, a good many men engaged in scientific pursuits, and who\nhave signally failed in gaining recognition among their fellows, are\nendeavoring to make reputations among the churches by delivering weak\nand vapid lectures upon the \"harmony of Genesis and Geology.\" Like all\nhypocrites, these men overstate the case to such a degree, and so\nturn and pervert facts and words that they succeed only in gaining the\napplause of other hypocrites like themselves. Among the great scientists\nthey are regarded as generals regard sutlers who trade with both armies.\n\nSurely the time must come when the wealth of the world will not be\nwasted in the propagation of ignorant creeds and miraculous mistakes.\nThe time must come when churches and cathedrals will be dedicated to the\nuse of man; when minister and priest will deem the discoveries of the\nliving of more importance than the errors of the dead; when the truths\nof Nature will outrank the \"sacred\" falsehoods of the past, and when a\nsingle fact will outweigh all the miracles of Holy Writ.\n\nWho can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money\nwasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize\nmankind?\n\nWhen every church becomes a school, every cathedral a university, every\nclergyman a teacher, and all their hearers brave and honest\nthinkers, then, and not until then, will the dream of poet, patriot,\nphilanthropist and philosopher, become a real and blessed truth.\n\nIII. The Politicians.\n\nI would like also to liberate the politician. At present, the successful\noffice-seeker is a good deal like the centre of the earth; he weighs\nnothing himself, but draws everything else to him. There are so many\nsocieties, so many churches, so many isms, that it is almost impossible\nfor an independent man to succeed in a political career. Candidates are\nforced to pretend that they are Catholics with Protestant proclivities,\nor Christians with liberal tendencies, or temperance men who now and\nthen take a glass of wine, or, that although not members of any church\ntheir wives are, and that they subscribe liberally to all. The result of\nall this is that we reward hypocrisy and elect men entirely destitute of\nreal principle; and this will never change until the people become grand\nenough to allow each other to do their own thinking, our Government\nshould be entirely and purely secular. The religious views of a\ncandidate should be kept entirely out of sight. He should not be\ncompelled to give his opinion as to the inspiration of the Bible, the\npropriety of infant baptism, or the immaculate conception. All these\nthings are private and personal. He should be allowed to settle such\nthings for himself, and should he decide contrary to the law and will of\nGod, let him settle the matter with God. The people ought to be wise\nenough to select as their officers men who know something of political\naffairs, who comprehend the present greatness, and clearly perceive the\nfuture grandeur of our country. If we were in a storm at sea, with deck\nwave-washed and masts strained and bent with storm, and it was necessary\nto reef the top sail, we certainly would not ask the brave sailor who\nvolunteered to go aloft, what his opinion was on the five points of\nCalvinism. Our Government has nothing to do with religion. It is neither\nChristian nor pagan; it is secular. But as long as the people persist in\nvoting for or against men on account of their religious views, just so\nlong will hypocrisy hold place and power. Just so long will the\ncandidates crawl in the dust—hide their opinions, flatter those with\nwhom they differ, pretend to agree with those whom they despise; and\njust so long will honest men be trampled under foot. Churches are\nbecoming political organizations. Nearly every Catholic is a Democrat;\nnearly every Methodist in the North is a Republican.\n\nIt probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply\nupon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes,\nif there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this\nGovernment will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the\nhands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership,\nman is a slave.\n\nAll laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same\nspirit that kindled the fires of the auto da fe, and lovingly built\nthe dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing\nblasphemy—making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible,\nor to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself\non the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by\nimpudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An\ninfinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in\npartnership with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act\nthat laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one\nthinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine\nand imprisonment. It strikes me that God might write a book that would\nnot necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think\nit would be safe to say that a real God could produce a work that would\nexcite the admiration of mankind. Surely politicians could be better\nemployed than in passing laws to protect the literary reputation of the\nJewish God.\n\nIV. Man and Woman\n\nLet us forget that we are Baptists, Methodists,\n\nCatholics, Presbyterians, or Freethinkers, and remember only that we are\nmen and women. After all, man and woman are the highest possible titles.\nAll other names belittle us, and show that we have, to a certain extent,\ngiven up our individuality, and have consented to wear the collar of\nauthority—that we are followers. Throwing away these names, let us\nexamine these questions not as partisans, but as human beings with hopes\nand fears in common.\n\nWe know that our opinions depend, to a great degree, upon our\nsurroundings—upon race, country, and education. We are all the result\nof numberless conditions, and inherit vices and virtues, truths and\nprejudices. If we had been born in England, surrounded by wealth and\nclothed with power, most of us would have been Episcopalians, and\nbelieved in church and state. We should have insisted that the people\nneeded a religion, and that not having intellect enough to provide one\nfor themselves, it was our duty to make one for them, and then compel\nthem to support it. We should have believed it indecent to officiate in\na pulpit without wearing a gown, and that prayers should be read from\na book. Had we belonged to the lower classes, we might have been\ndissenters and protested against the mummeries of the High Church.\nHad we been born in Turkey, most of us would have been Mohammedans and\nbelieved in the inspiration of the Koran. We should have believed that\nMohammed actually visited heaven and became acquainted with an angel by\nthe name of Gabriel, who was so broad between the eyes that it required\nthree hundred days for a very smart camel to travel the distance. If\nsome man had denied this story we should probably have denounced him as\na dangerous person, one who was endeavoring to undermine the foundations\nof society, and to destroy all distinction between virtue and vice. We\nshould have said to him, \"What do you propose to give us in place\nof that angel? We cannot afford to give up an angel of that size for\nnothing.\" We would have insisted that the best and wisest men\nbelieved the Koran. We would have quoted from the works and letters of\nphilosophers, generals and sultans, to show that the Koran was the best\nof books, and that Turkey was indebted to that book and to that alone\nfor its greatness and prosperity. We would have asked that man whether\nhe knew more than all the great minds of his country, whether he was so\nmuch wiser than his fathers? We would have pointed out to him the fact\nthat thousands had been consoled in the hour of death by passages from\nthe Koran; that they had died with glazed eyes brightened by visions of\nthe heavenly harem, and gladly left this world of grief and tears.\nWe would have regarded Christians as the vilest of men, and on all\noccasions would have repeated \"There is but one God, and Mohammed is his\nprophet!\"\n\nSo, if we had been born in India, we should in all probability have\nbelieved in the religion of that country. We should have regarded the\nold records as true and sacred, and looked upon a wandering priest as\nbetter than the men from whom he begged, and by whose labor he lived.\nWe should have believed in a god with three heads instead of three gods\nwith one head, as we do now.\n\nNow and then some one says that the religion of his father and mother\nis good enough for him, and wonders why anybody should desire a better.\nSurely we are not bound to follow our parents in religion any more than\nin politics, science or art. China has been petrified by the worship\nof ancestors. If our parents had been satisfied with the religion of\ntheirs, we would be still less advanced than we are. If we are, in any\nway, bound by the belief of our fathers, the doctrine will hold good\nback to the first people who had a religion; and if this doctrine is\ntrue, we ought now to be believers in that first religion. In other\nwords, we would all be barbarians. You cannot show real respect to your\nparents by perpetuating their errors. Good fathers and mothers wish\ntheir children to advance, to overcome obstacles which baffled them, and\nto correct the errors of their education. If you wish to reflect credit\nupon your parents, accomplish more than they did, solve problems that\nthey could not understand, and build better than they knew. To sacrifice\nyour manhood upon the grave of your father is an honor to neither. Why\nshould a son who has examined a subject, throw away his reason and adopt\nthe views of his mother? Is not such a course dishonorable to both?\n\nWe must remember that this \"ancestor\" argument is as old at least as\nthe second generation of men, that it has served no purpose except to\nenslave mankind, and results mostly from the fact that acquiescence\nis easier than investigation. This argument pushed to its logical\nconclusion, would prevent the advance of all people whose parents were\nnot Freethinkers.\n\nIt is hard for many people to give up the religion in which they were\nborn; to admit that their fathers were utterly mistaken, and that the\nsacred records of their country are but collections of myths and fables.\n\nBut when we look for a moment at the world, we find that each nation has\nits \"sacred records\"—its religion, and its ideas of worship. Certainly\nall cannot be right; and as it would require a life time to investigate\nthe claims of these various systems, it is hardly fair to damn a man\nforever, simply because he happens to believe the wrong one. All these\nreligions were produced by barbarians. Civilized nations have contented\nthemselves with changing the religions of their barbaric ancestors, but\nthey have made none. Nearly all these religions are intensely selfish.\nEach one was made by some contemptible little nation that regarded\nitself as of almost infinite importance, and looked upon the other\nnations as beneath the notice of their god. In all these countries it\nwas a crime to deny the sacred records, to laugh at the priests, to\nspeak disrespectfully of the gods, to fail to divide your substance\nwith the lazy hypocrites who managed your affairs in the next world upon\ncondition that you would support them in this. In the olden time\nthese theological people who quartered themselves upon the honest\nand industrious, were called soothsayers, seers, charmers, prophets,\nenchanters, sorcerers, wizards, astrologers, and impostors, but now,\nthey are known as clergymen.\n\nWe are no exception to the general rule, and consequently have our\nsacred books as well as the rest. Of course, it is claimed by many of\nour people that our books are the only true ones, the only ones that the\nreal God ever wrote, or had anything whatever to do with. They insist\nthat all other sacred books were written by hypocrites and impostors;\nthat the Jews were the only people that God ever had any personal\nintercourse with, and that all other prophets and seers were inspired\nonly by impudence and mendacity. True, it seems somewhat strange that\nGod should have chosen a barbarous and unknown people who had little or\nnothing to do with the other nations of the earth, as his messengers to\nthe rest of mankind.\n\nIt is not easy to account for an infinite God making people so low in\nthe scale of intellect as to require a revelation. Neither is it easy to\nperceive why, if a revelation was necessary for all, it was made only\nto a few. Of course, I know that it is extremely wicked to suggest these\nthoughts, and that ignorance is the only armor that can effectually\nprotect you from the wrath of God. I am aware that investigators with\nall their genius, never find the road to heaven; that those who look\nwhere they are going are sure to miss it, and that only those who\nvoluntarily put out their eyes and implicitly depend upon blindness can\nsurely keep the narrow path.\n\nWhoever reads our sacred book is compelled to believe it or suffer\nforever the torments of the lost. We are told that we have the privilege\nof examining it for ourselves; but this privilege is only extended to\nus on the condition that we believe it whether it appears reasonable or\nnot. We may disagree with others as much as we please upon the meaning\nof all passages in the Bible, but we must not deny the truth of a single\nword. We must believe that the book is inspired. If we obey its every\nprecept without believing in its inspiration we will be damned just as\ncertainly as though we disobeyed its every word. We have no right to\nweigh it in the scales of reason—to test it by the laws of nature, or\nthe facts of observation and experience. To do this, we are told, is to\nput ourselves above the word of God, and sit in judgment on the works of\nour creator.\n\nFor my part, I cannot admit that belief is a voluntary thing. It seems\nto me that evidence, even in spite of ourselves, will have its weight,\nand that whatever our wish may be, we are compelled to stand with\nfairness by the scales, and give the exact result. It will not do to say\nthat we reject the Bible because we are wicked. Our wickedness must be\nascertained not from our belief but from our acts.\n\nI am told by the clergy that I ought not to attack the Bible; that I am\nleading thousands to perdition and rendering certain the damnation of my\nown soul. They have had the kindness to advise me that, if my object is\nto make converts, I am pursuing the wrong course. They tell me to use\ngentler expressions, and more cunning words. Do they really wish me\nto make more converts? If their advice is honest, they are traitors to\ntheir trust. If their advice is not honest, then they are unfair with\nme. Certainly they should wish me to pursue the course that will make\nthe fewest converts, and yet they pretend to tell me how my influence\ncould be increased. It may be, that upon this principle John Bright\nadvises America to adopt free trade, so that our country can become a\nsuccessful rival of Great Britain. Sometimes I think that even ministers\nare not entirely candid.\n\nNotwithstanding the advice of the clergy, I have concluded to pursue my\nown course, to tell my honest thoughts, and to have my freedom in this\nworld whatever my fate may be in the next.\n\nThe real oppressor, enslaver and corrupter of the people is the Bible.\nThat book is the chain that binds, the dungeon that holds the clergy.\nThat book spreads the pall of superstition over the colleges and\nschools. That book puts out the eyes of science, and makes honest\ninvestigation a crime. That book unmans the politician and degrades the\npeople. That book fills the world with bigotry, hypocrisy and fear.\nIt plays the same part in our country that has been played by \"sacred\nrecords\" in all the nations of the world.\n\nA little while ago I saw one of the Bibles of the Middle Ages. It was\nabout two feet in length, and one and a half in width. It had immense\noaken covers, with hasps, and clasps, and hinges large enough almost\nfor the doors of a penitentiary. It was covered with pictures of winged\nangels and aureoled saints. In my imagination I saw this book carried\nto the cathedral altar in solemn pomp—heard the chant of robed and\nkneeling priests, felt the strange tremor of the organ's peal; saw the\ncolored light streaming through windows stained and touched by blood\nand flame—the swinging censer with its perfumed incense rising to the\nmighty roof, dim with height and rich with legend carved in stone, while\non the walls was hung, written in light, and shade, and all the colors\nthat can tell of joy and tears, the pictured history of the martyred\nChrist. The people fell upon their knees. The book was opened, and the\npriest read the messages from God to man. To the multitude, the book\nitself was evidence enough that it was not the work of human hands. How\ncould those little marks and lines and dots contain, like tombs, the\nthoughts of men, and how could they, touched by a ray of light from\nhuman eyes, give up their dead? How could these characters span the vast\nchasm dividing the present from the past, and make it possible for the\nliving still to hear the voices of the dead?\n\nV. The Pentateuch\n\nThe first five books in our Bible are known as the Pentateuch. For a\nlong time it was supposed that Moses was the author, and among the\nignorant the supposition still prevails. As a matter of fact, it seems\nto be well settled that Moses had nothing to do with these books, and\nthat they were not written until he had been dust and ashes for hundreds\nof years. But, as all the churches still insist that he was the author,\nthat he wrote even an account of his own death and burial, let us speak\nof him as though these books were in fact written by him. As the\nChristians maintain that God was the real author, it makes but little\ndifference whom he employed as his pen.\n\nNearly all authors of sacred books have given an account of the creation\nof the universe, the origin of matter, and the destiny of the human\nrace, all have pointed out the obligation that man is under to his\ncreator for having placed him upon the earth, and allowed him to live\nand suffer, and have taught that nothing short of the most abject\nworship could possibly compensate God for his trouble and labor suffered\nand done for the good of man. They have nearly all insisted that we\nshould thank God for all that is good in life; but they have not all\ninformed us as to whom we should hold responsible for the evils we\nendure.\n\nMoses differed from most of the makers of sacred books by his failure\nto say anything of a future life, by failing to promise heaven, and to\nthreaten hell. Upon the subject of a future state, there is not one\nword in the Pentateuch. Probably at that early day God did not deem\nit important to make a revelation as to the eternal destiny of man.\nHe seems to have thought that he could control the Jews, at least, by\nrewards and punishments in this world, and so he kept the frightful\nrealities of eternal joy and torment a profound secret from the people\nof his choice. He thought it far more important to tell the Jews their\norigin than to enlighten them as to their destiny.\n\nWe must remember that every tribe and nation has some way in which, the\nmore striking phenomena of nature are accounted for. These accounts\nare handed down by tradition, changed by numberless narrators as\nintelligence increases, or to account for newly discovered facts, or for\nthe purpose of satisfying the appetite for the marvelous.\n\nThe way in which a tribe or nation accounts for day and night, the\nchange of seasons, the fall of snow and rain, the flight of birds,\nthe origin of the rainbow, the peculiarities of animals, the dreams\nof sleep, the visions of the insane, the existence of earthquakes,\nvolcanoes, storms, lightning and the thousand things that attract the\nattention and excite the wonder, fear or admiration of mankind, may be\ncalled the philosophy of that tribe or nation. And as all phenomena are,\nby savage and barbaric man accounted for as the action of intelligent\nbeings for the accomplishment of certain objects, and as these beings\nwere supposed to have the power to assist or injure man, certain things\nwere supposed necessary for man to do in order to gain the assistance,\nand avoid the anger of these gods. Out of this belief grew certain\nceremonies, and these ceremonies united with the belief, formed\nreligion; and consequently every religion has for its foundation a\nmisconception of the cause of phenomena.\n\nAll worship is necessarily based upon the belief that some being exists\nwho can, if he will, change the natural order of events. The savage\nprays to a stone that he calls a god, while the Christian prays to a god\nthat he calls a spirit, and the prayers of both are equally useful. The\nsavage and the Christian put behind the Universe an intelligent cause,\nand this cause whether represented by one god or many, has been, in all\nages, the object of all worship. To carry a fetich, to utter a prayer,\nto count beads, to abstain from food, to sacrifice a lamb, a child or an\nenemy, are simply different ways by which the accomplishment of the same\nobject is sought, and are all the offspring of the same error.\n\nMany systems of religion must have existed many ages before the art of\nwriting was discovered, and must have passed through many changes before\nthe stories, miracles, histories, prophecies and mistakes became fixed\nand petrified in written words. After that, change was possible only by\ngiving new meanings to old words, a process rendered necessary by the\ncontinual acquisition of facts somewhat inconsistent with a literal\ninterpretation of the \"sacred records.\" In this way an honest faith\noften prolongs its life by dishonest methods; and in this way the\nChristians of to-day are trying to harmonize the Mosaic account of\ncreation with the theories and discoveries of modern science.\n\nAdmitting that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, or that he gave\nto the Jews a religion, the question arises as to where he obtained\nhis information. We are told by the theologians that he received his\nknowledge from God, and that every word he wrote was and is the exact\ntruth. It is admitted at the same time that he was an adopted son of\nPharaoh's daughter, and enjoyed the rank and privilege of a prince.\nUnder such circumstances, he must have been well acquainted with the\nliterature, philosophy and religion of the Egyptians, and must have\nknown what they believed and taught as to the creation of the world.\n\nNow, if the account of the origin of this earth as given by Moses is\nsubstantially like that given by the Egyptians, then we must conclude\nthat he learned it from them. Should we imagine that he was divinely\ninspired because he gave to the Jews what the Egyptians had given him?\n\nThe Egyptian priests taught first, that a god created the original\nmatter, leaving it in a state of chaos; second, that a god moulded it\ninto form; third, that the breath of a god moved upon the face of\nthe deep; fourth, that a god created simply by saying \"Let it be;\"\nfifth, that a god created light before the sun existed.\n\nNothing can be clearer than that Moses received from the Egyptians the\nprincipal parts of his narrative, making such changes and additions as\nwere necessary to satisfy the peculiar superstitions of his own people.\n\nIf some man at the present day should assert that he had received from\nGod the theories of evolution, the survival of the fittest, and the\nlaw of heredity, and we should afterwards find that he was not only an\nEnglishman, but had lived in the family of Charles Darwin, we certainly\nwould account for his having these theories in a natural way, So, if\nDarwin himself should pretend that he was inspired, and had obtained\nhis peculiar theories from God, we should probably reply that his\ngrandfather suggested the same ideas, and that Lamarck published\nsubstantially the same theories the same year that Mr. Darwin was born.\n\nNow, if we have sufficient courage, we will, by the same course of\nreasoning, account for the story of creation found in the Bible. We\nwill say that it contains the belief of Moses, and that he received his\ninformation from the Egyptians, and not from God. If we take the account\nas the absolute truth and use it for the purpose of determining the\nvalue of modern thought, scientific advancement becomes impossible. And\neven if the account of the creation as given by Moses should turn out\nto be true, and should be so admitted by all the scientific world, the\nclaim that he was inspired would still be without the least particle\nof proof. We would be forced to admit that he knew more than we had\nsupposed. It certainly is no proof that a man is inspired simply because\nhe is right.\n\nNo one pretends that Shakespeare was inspired, and yet all the writers\nof the books of the Old Testament put together, could not have produced\nHamlet.\n\nWhy should we, looking upon some rough and awkward thing, or god in\nstone, say that it must have been produced by some inspired sculptor,\nand with the same breath pronounce the Venus de Milo to be the work\nof man? Why should we, looking at some ancient daub of angel, saint or\nvirgin, say its painter must have been assisted by a god?\n\nLet us account for all we see by the facts we know. If there are things\nfor which we cannot account, let us wait for light. To account for\nanything by supernatural agencies is, in fact to say that we do not\nknow. Theology is not what we know about God, but what we do not know\nabout Nature. In order to increase our respect for the Bible, it became\nnecessary for the priests to exalt and extol that book, and at the same\ntime to decry and belittle the reasoning powers of man. The whole\npower of the pulpit has been used for hundreds of years to destroy the\nconfidence of man in himself—to induce him to distrust his own powers\nof thought, to believe that he was wholly unable to decide any question\nfor himself, and that all human virtue consists in faith and obedience.\nThe church has said, \"Believe, and obey! If you reason, you will become\nan unbeliever, and unbelievers will be lost. If you disobey, you will\ndo so through vain pride and curiosity, and will, like Adam and Eve, be\nthrust from Paradise forever!\"\n\nFor my part, I care nothing for what the church says, except in so far\nas it accords with my reason; and the Bible is nothing to me, only in so\nfar as it agrees with what I think or know.\n\nAll books should be examined in the same spirit, and truth should be\nwelcomed and falsehood exposed, no matter in what volume they may be\nfound.\n\nLet us in this spirit examine the Pentateuch; and if anything appears\nunreasonable, contradictory or absurd, let us have the honesty and\ncourage to admit it. Certainly no good can result either from deceiving\nourselves or others. Many millions have implicitly believed this book,\nand have just as implicitly believed that polygamy was sanctioned by\nGod. Millions have regarded this book as the foundation of all\nhuman progress, and at the same time looked upon slavery as a divine\ninstitution. Millions have declared this book to have been infinitely\nholy, and to prove that they were right, have imprisoned, robbed\nand burned their fellow-men. The inspiration of this book has been\nestablished by famine, sword and fire, by dungeon, chain and whip, by\ndagger and by rack, by force and fear and fraud, and generations have\nbeen frightened by threats of hell, and bribed with promises of heaven.\n\nLet us examine a portion of this book, not in the darkness of our fear,\nbut in the light of reason.\n\nAnd first, let us examine the account given of the creation of this\nworld, commenced, according to the Bible, on Monday morning about five\nthousand eight hundred and eighty-three years ago.\n\nVI. Monday.\n\nMoses commences his story by telling us that in the beginning God\ncreated the heaven and the earth.\n\nIf this means anything, it means that God produced, caused to exist,\ncalled into being, the heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that\nhe formed the heaven and the earth of previously existing matter. Moses\nconveys, and intended to convey the idea that the matter of which the\nheaven and the earth are composed, was created.\n\nIt is impossible for me to conceive of something being created from\nnothing. Nothing, regarded in the light of a raw material, is a decided\nfailure. I cannot conceive of matter apart from force. Neither is it\npossible to think of force disconnected with matter. You cannot imagine\nmatter going back to absolute nothing. Neither can you imagine nothing\nbeing changed into something. You may be eternally damned if you do not\nsay that you can conceive these things, but you cannot conceive them.\n\nSuch is the constitution of the human mind that it cannot even think of\na commencement or an end of matter, or force.\n\nIf God created the universe, there was a time when he commenced to\ncreate. Back of that commencement there must have been an eternity. In\nthat eternity what was this God doing? He certainly did not think.\nThere was nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing had ever\nhappened. What did he do? Can you imagine anything more absurd than an\ninfinite intelligence in infinite nothing wasting an eternity?\n\nI do not pretend to tell how all these things really are; but I do\ninsist that a statement that cannot possibly be comprehended by any\nhuman being, and that appears utterly impossible, repugnant to every\nfact of experience, and contrary to everything that we really know, must\nbe rejected by every honest man.\n\nWe can conceive of eternity, because we cannot conceive of a cessation\nof time. We can conceive of infinite space because we cannot conceive\nof so much matter that our imagination will not stand upon the farthest\nstar, and see infinite space beyond. In other words, we cannot conceive\nof a cessation of time; therefore eternity is a necessity of the mind.\nEternity sustains the same relation to time that space does to matter.\n\nIn the time of Moses, it was perfectly safe for him to write an account\nof the creation of the world. He had simply to put in form the crude\nnotions of the people. At that time, no other Jew could have written\na better account. Upon that subject he felt at liberty to give his\nimagination full play. There was no one who could authoritatively\ncontradict anything he might say. It was substantially the same story\nthat had been imprinted in curious characters upon the clay records\nof Babylon, the gigantic monuments of Egypt, and the gloomy temples of\nIndia. In those days there was an almost infinite difference between\nthe educated and ignorant. The people were controlled almost entirely\nby signs and wonders. By the lever of fear, priests moved the world. The\nsacred records were made and kept, and altered by them. The people could\nnot read, and looked upon one who could, as almost a god. In our day it\nis hard to conceive of the influence of an educated class in a barbarous\nage. It was only necessary to produce the \"sacred record,\" and ignorance\nfell upon its face. The people were taught that the record was inspired,\nand therefore true. They were not taught that it was true, and therefore\ninspired.\n\nAfter all, the real question is not whether the Bible is inspired, but\nwhether it is true. If it is true, it does not need to be inspired. If\nit is true, it makes no difference whether it was written by a man or a\ngod. The multiplication table is just as useful, just as true as though\nGod had arranged the figures himself. If the Bible is really true,\nthe claim of inspiration need not be urged; and if it is not true, its\ninspiration can hardly be established. As a matter of fact, the truth\ndoes not need to be inspired. Nothing needs inspiration except a\nfalsehood or a mistake. Where truth ends, where probability stops,\ninspiration begins. A fact never went into partnership with a miracle.\nTruth does not need the assistance of miracle. A fact will fit every\nother fact in the Universe, because it is the product of all other\nfacts. A lie will fit nothing except another lie made for the express\npurpose of fitting it. After a while the man gets tired of lying, and\nthen the last lie will not fit the next fact, and then there is an\nopportunity to use a miracle. Just at that point, it is necessary to\nhave a little inspiration.\n\nIt seems to me that reason is the highest attribute of man, and that if\nthere can be any communication from God to man, it must be addressed\nto his reason. It does not seem possible that in order to understand a\nmessage from God it is absolutely essential to throw our reason away.\nHow could God make known his will to any being destitute of reason? How\ncan any man accept as a revelation from God that which is unreasonable\nto him? God cannot make a revelation to another man for me. He must make\nit to me, and until he convinces my reason that it is true, I cannot\nreceive it.\n\nThe statement that in the beginning God created the heaven and the\nearth, I cannot accept. It is contrary to my reason, and I cannot\nbelieve it. It appears reasonable to me that force has existed from\neternity. Force cannot, as it appears to me, exist apart from matter.\nForce, in its nature, is forever active, and without matter it could\nnot act; and so I think matter must have existed forever. To conceive\nof matter without force, or of force without matter, or of a time when\nneither existed, or of a being who existed for an eternity without\neither, and who out of nothing created both, is to me utterly\nimpossible. I may be damned on this account, but I cannot help it. In my\njudgment, Moses was mistaken.\n\nIt will not do to say that Moses merely intended to tell what God did,\nin making the heavens and the earth out of matter then in existence.\nHe distinctly states that in the beginning God created them. If this\naccount is true, we must believe that God, existing in infinite space\nsurrounded by eternal nothing, naught and void, created, produced,\ncalled into being, willed into existence this universe of countless\nstars.\n\nThe next thing we are told by this inspired gentleman is, that God\ncreated light, and proceeded to divide it from the darkness.\n\nCertainly, the person who wrote this believed that darkness was a thing,\nan entity, a material that could get mixed and tangled up with light,\nand that these entities, light and darkness, had to be separated. In his\nimagination he probably saw God throwing pieces and chunks of darkness\non one side, and rays and beams of light on the other. It is hard for a\nman who has been born but once to understand these things. For my part,\nI cannot understand how light can be separated from darkness. I had\nalways supposed that darkness was simply the absence of light, and that\nunder no circumstances could it be necessary to take the darkness away\nfrom the light. It is certain, however, that Moses believed darkness to\nbe a form of matter, because I find that in another place he speaks of\na darkness that could be felt. They used to have on exhibition at Rome a\nbottle of the darkness that overspread Egypt.\n\nYou cannot divide light from darkness any more than you can divide heat\nfrom cold. Cold is an absence of heat, and darkness is an absence of\nlight. I suppose that we have no conception of absolute cold. We know\nonly degrees of heat. Twenty degrees below zero is just twenty degrees\nwarmer than forty degrees below zero. Neither cold nor darkness are\nentities, and these words express simply either the absolute or partial\nabsence of heat or light. I cannot conceive how light can be divided\nfrom darkness, but I can conceive how a barbarian several thousand years\nago, writing upon a subject about which he knew nothing, could make a\nmistake. The creator of light could not have written in this way. If\nsuch a being exists, he must have known the nature of that \"mode of\nmotion\" that paints the earth on every eye, and clothes in garments\nseven-hued this universe of worlds.\n\nVII. Tuesday.\n\nWe are next informed by Moses that \"God of the waters, and let it divide\nthe waters from the waters;\" and that \"God made the firmament, and\ndivided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters\nwhich were above the firmament.\" What did the writer mean by the word\nfirmament? Theologians now tell us that he meant an \"expanse.\" This will\nnot do. How could an expanse divide the waters from the waters, so that\nthe waters above the expanse would not fall into and mingle with the\nwaters below the expanse? The truth is that Moses regarded the firmament\nas a solid affair. It was where God lived, and where water was kept. It\nwas for this reason that they used to pray for rain. They supposed that\nsome angel could with a lever raise a gate and let out the quantity of\nmoisture desired. It was with the water from this firmament that the\nworld was drowned when the windows of heaven were opened. It was in this\nsaid Let there be a firmament in the midst firmament that the sons of\nGod lived—the sons who \"saw the daughters of men that they were\nfair and took them wives of all which they chose.\" The issue of such\nmarriages were giants, and \"the same became mighty men which were of\nold, men of renown.\"\n\nNothing is clearer than that Moses regarded the firmament as a vast\nmaterial division that separated the waters of the world, and upon\nwhose floor God lived, surrounded by his sons. In no other way could he\naccount for rain. Where did the water come from? He knew nothing about\nthe laws of evaporation. He did not know that the sun wooed with amorous\nkisses the waves of the sea, and that they, clad in glorified mist\nrising to meet their lover, were, by disappointment, changed to tears\nand fell as rain.\n\nThe idea that the firmament was the abode of the Deity must have been in\nthe mind of Moses when he related the dream of Jacob. \"And he dreamed,\nand behold, a ladder set upon the earth and the top of it reached to\nheaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it; and\nbehold the Lord stood above it and said, I am the Lord God.\"\n\nSo, when the people were building the tower of Babel \"the Lord came down\nto see the city, and the tower which the children of men builded. And\nthe Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have all one language:\nand this they begin to do; and nothing will be restrained from them\nwhich they imagined to do. Go to, let us go down and confound their\nlanguage that they may not understand one another's speech.\"\n\nThe man who wrote that absurd account must have believed that God lived\nabove the earth, in the firmament. The same idea was in the mind of the\nPsalmist when he said that God \"bowed the heavens and came down.\"\n\nOf course, God could easily remove any person bodily to heaven, as it\nwas but a little way above the earth. \"Enoch walked with God, and he was\nnot, for God took him.\" The accounts in the Bible of the ascension of\nElijah, Christ and St. Paul were born of the belief that the firmament\nwas the dwelling-place of God. It probably never occurred to these\nwriters that if the firmament was seven or eight miles away, Enoch and\nthe rest would have been frozen perfectly stiff long before the journey\ncould have been completed. Possibly Elijah might have made the voyage,\nas he was carried to heaven in a chariot of fire \"by a whirlwind.\"\n\nThe truth is, that Moses was mistaken, and upon that mistake the\nChristians located their heaven and their hell. The telescope destroyed\nthe firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered\nthe ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his Mother infinitely\nabsurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem,\nand in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds.\n\nVIII. Wednesday.\n\nWe are next informed by the historian of creation, that after God had\nfinished making the firmament and had succeeded in dividing the waters\nby means of an \"expanse,\" he proceeded \"to gather the waters on the\nearth together in seas, so that the dry land might appear.\"\n\nCertainly the writer of this did not have any conception of the real\nform of the earth. He could not have known anything of the attraction of\ngravitation. He must have regarded the earth as flat and supposed that\nit required considerable force and power to induce the water to leave\nthe mountains and collect in the valleys. Just as soon as the water was\nforced to run down hill, the dry land appeared, and the grass began to\ngrow, and the mantles of green were thrown over the shoulders of the\nhills, and the trees laughed into bud and blossom, and the branches were\nladen with fruit. And all this happened before a ray had left the quiver\nof the sun, before a glittering beam had thrilled the bosom of a flower,\nand before the Dawn with trembling hands had drawn aside the curtains of\nthe East and welcomed to her arms the eager god of Day.\n\nIt does not seem to me that grass and trees could grow and ripen into\nseed and fruit without the sun. According to the account, this all\nhappened on the third day. Now, if, as the Christians say, Moses did not\nmean by the word day a period of twenty-four hours, but an immense and\nalmost measureless space of time, and as God did not, according to this\nview make any animals until the fifth day, that is, not for millions of\nyears after he made the grass and trees, for what purpose did he cause\nthe trees to bear fruit?\n\nMoses says that God said on the third day, \"Let the earth bring forth\ngrass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after\nhis kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so. And the\nearth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the\ntree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself after his kind; and God saw\nthat it was good, and the evening and the morning were the third day.\"\n\nThere was nothing to eat this fruit; not an insect with painted wings\nsought the honey of the flowers; not a single living, breathing thing\nupon the earth. Plenty of grass, a great variety of herbs, an abundance\nof fruit, but not a mouth in all the world. If Moses is right, this\nstate of things lasted only two days; but if the modern theologians are\ncorrect, it continued for millions of ages.\n\n\"It is now well known that the organic history of the earth can be\nproperly divided into five epochs—the Primordial, Primary, Secondary,\nTertiary, and Quaternary. Each of these epochs is characterized by\nanimal and vegetable life peculiar to itself. In the First will be found\nAlgae and Skulless Vertebrates, in the Second, Ferns and Fishes, in the\nThird, Pine Forests and Reptiles, in the Fourth, Foliaceous Forests and\nMammals, and in the Fifth, Man.\"\n\nHow much more reasonable this is than the idea that the earth was\ncovered with grass, and herbs, and trees loaded with fruit for millions\nof years before an animal existed.\n\nThere is, in Nature, an even balance forever kept between the total\namounts of animal and vegetable life. \"In her wonderful economy she must\nform and bountifully nourish her vegetable progeny—twin-brother life to\nher, with that of animals. The perfect balance between plant existences\nand animal existences must always be maintained, while matter courses\nthrough the eternal circle, becoming each in turn. If an animal be\nresolved into its ultimate constituents in a period according to the\nsurrounding circumstances, say, of four hours, of four months, of four\nyears, or even of four thousand years,—for it is impossible to deny\nthat there may be instances of all these periods during which the\nprocess has continued—those elements which assume the gaseous form\nmingle at once with the atmosphere and are taken up from it without\ndelay by the ever-open mouths of vegetable life. By a thousand pores\nin every leaf the carbonic acid which renders the atmosphere unfit for\nanimal life is absorbed, the carbon being separated, and assimilated to\nform the vegetable fibre, which, as wood, makes and furnishes our houses\nand ships, is burned for our warmth, or is stored up under pressure for\ncoal. All this carbon has played its part, and many parts in its time,\nas animal existences from monad up to man. Our mahogany of to-day has\nbeen many negroes in its turn, and before the African existed, was\nintegral portions of many a generation of extinct species.\"\n\nIt seems reasonable to suppose that certain kinds of vegetation-and\ncertain kinds of animals should exist together, and that as the\ncharacter of the vegetation changed, a corresponding change would take\nplace in the animal world. It may be that I am led to these conclusions\nby \"total depravity,\" or that I lack the necessary humility of spirit to\nsatisfactorily harmonize Haeckel and Moses; or that I am carried away by\npride, blinded by reason, given over to hardness of heart that I might\nbe damned, but I never can believe that the earth was covered with\nleaves, and buds, and flowers, and fruits before the sun with glittering\nspear had driven back the hosts of Night.\n\nIX. Thursday.\n\nAfter the world was covered with vegetation, it occurred to Moses that\nit was about time to make a sun and moon; and so we are told that on the\nfourth day God said, \"Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven\nto divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for\nseasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the\nfirmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so. And\nGod made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the\nlesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.\"\n\nCan we believe that the inspired writer had any idea of the size of the\nsun? Draw a circle five inches in diameter, and by its side thrust a pin\nthrough the paper. The hole made by the pin will sustain about the same\nrelation to the circle that the earth does to the sun. Did he know that\nthe sun was eight hundred and sixty thousand miles in diameter; that it\nwas enveloped in an ocean of fire thousands of miles in depth, hotter\neven than the Christian's hell, over which sweep tempests of flame\nmoving at the rate of one hundred miles a second, compared with which\nthe wildest storm that ever wrecked the forests of this world was but a\ncalm? Did he know that the sun every moment of time throws out as much\nheat as could be generated by the combustion of millions upon millions\nof tons of coal? Did he know that the volume of the earth is less than\none-millionth of that of the sun? Did he know of the one hundred and\nfour planets belonging to our solar system, all children of the sun? Did\nhe know of Jupiter eighty-five thousand miles in diameter, hundreds\nof times as large as our earth, turning on his axis at the rate of\ntwenty-five thousand miles an hour accompanied by four moons, making the\ntour of his orbit in fifty years, a distance of three thousand million\nmiles? Did he know anything about Saturn, his rings and his eight moons?\nDid he have the faintest idea that all these planets were once a part of\nthe sun; that the vast luminary was once thousands of millions of miles\nin diameter; that Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars were all\nborn before our earth, and that by no possibility could this world have\nexisted three days, nor three periods, nor three \"good whiles\" before\nits source, the sun?\n\nMoses supposed the sun to be about three or four feet in diameter and\nthe moon about half that size. Compared with the earth they were but\nsimple specks. This idea seems to have been shared by all the \"inspired\"\nmen. We find in the book of Joshua that the sun stood still, and the\nmoon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.\n\"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go\ndown about a whole day.\"\n\nWe are told that the sacred writer wrote in common speech as we do\nwhen we talk about the rising and setting of the sun, and that all he\nintended to say was that the earth ceased to turn on its axis \"for about\na whole day.\"\n\nMy own opinion is that General Joshua knew no more about the motions of\nthe earth than he did about mercy and justice. If he had known that the\nearth turned upon its axis at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and\nswept in its course about the sun at the rate of sixty-eight thousand\nmiles an hour, he would have doubled the hailstones, spoken of in the\nsame chapter, that the Lord cast down from heaven, and allowed the sun\nand moon to rise and set in the usual way.\n\nIt is impossible to conceive of a more absurd story than this about the\nstopping of the sun and moon, and yet nothing so excites the malice of\nthe orthodox preacher as to call its truth in question. Some endeavor\nto account for the phenomenon by natural causes, while others attempt\nto show that God could, by the refraction of light have made the sun\nvisible although actually shining on the opposite side of the earth. The\nlast hypothesis has been seriously urged by ministers within the last\nfew months. The Rev. Henry M. Morey of South Bend, Indiana, says \"that\nthe phenomenon was simply optical. The rotary motion of the earth was\nnot disturbed, but the light of the sun was prolonged by the same laws\nof refraction and reflection by which the sun now appears to be above\nthe horizon when it is really below. The medium through which the sun's\nrays passed may have been miraculously influenced so as to have caused\nthe sun to linger above the horizon long after its usual time for\ndisappearance.\"\n\nThis is the latest and ripest product of Christian scholarship upon\nthis question no doubt, but still it is not entirely satisfactory to me.\nAccording to the sacred account the sun did not linger, merely, above\nthe horizon, but stood still \"in the midst of heaven for about a\nwhole day,\" that is to say, for about twelve hours. If the air was\nmiraculously changed, so that it would refract the rays of the sun while\nthe earth turned over as usual for \"about a whole day,\" then, at the\nend of that time the sun must have been visible in the east, that is,\nit must by that time have been the next morning. According to this, that\nmost wonderful day must have been at least thirty-six hours in length.\nWe have first, the twelve hours of natural light, then twelve hours of\n\"refracted and reflected\" light. By that time it would again be morning,\nand the sun would shine for twelve hours more in the natural way, making\nthirty-six hours in all.\n\nIf the Rev. Morey would depend a little less on \"refraction\" and a\nlittle more on \"reflection,\" he would conclude that the whole story is\nsimply a barbaric myth and fable.\n\nIt hardly seems reasonable that God, if there is one, would either stop\nthe globe, change the constitution of the atmosphere or the nature of\nlight simply to afford Joshua an opportunity to kill people on that\nday when he could just as easily have waited until the next morning.\nIt certainly cannot be very gratifying to God for us to believe such\nchildish things.\n\nIt has been demonstrated that force is eternal; that it is forever\nactive, and eludes destruction by change of form. Motion is a form of\nforce, and all arrested motion changes instantly to heat. The earth\nturns upon its axis at about one thousand miles an hour. Let it be\nstopped and a force beyond our imagination is changed to heat. It has\nbeen calculated that to stop the world would produce as much heat as the\nburning of a solid piece of coal three times the size of the earth.\nAnd yet we are asked to believe that this was done in order that one\nbarbarian might defeat another. Such stories never would have been\nwritten, had not the belief been general that the heavenly bodies were\nas nothing compared with the earth.\n\nThe view of Moses was acquiesced in by the Jewish people and by the\nChristian world for thousands of years. It is supposed that Moses\nlived about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and although he was\n\"inspired,\" and obtained his information directly from God, he did not\nknow as much about our solar system as the Chinese did a thousand\nyears before he was born. \"The Emperor Chwenhio adopted as an epoch, a\nconjunction of the planets Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, which has\nbeen shown by M. Bailly to have occurred no less than 2449 years before\nChrist.\" The ancient Chinese knew not only the motions of the planets,\nbut they could calculate eclipses. \"In the reign of the Emperor\nChow-Kang, the chief astronomers, Ho and Hi were condemned to death for\nneglecting to announce a solar eclipse which took place 2169 B. C., a\nclear proof that the prediction of eclipses was a part of the duty of\nthe imperial astronomers.\"\n\nIs it not strange that a Chinaman should find out by his own exertions\nmore about the material universe than Moses could when assisted by its\nCreator?\n\nAbout eight hundred years after God gave Moses the principal facts about\nthe creation of the \"heaven and the earth\" he performed another miracle\nfar more wonderful than stopping the world. On this occasion he not\nonly stopped the earth, but actually caused it to turn the other way.\nA Jewish king was sick, and God, in order to convince him that he would\nultimately recover, offered to make the shadow on the dial go forward,\nor backward ten degrees. The king thought it was too easy a thing to\nmake the shadow go forward, and asked that it be turned back. Thereupon,\n\"Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord, and he brought the shadow\nten degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.\" I\nhardly see how this miracle could be accounted for even by \"refraction\"\nand \"reflection.\"\n\nIt seems, from the account, that this stupendous miracle was performed\nafter the king had been cured. The account of the shadow going backward\nis given in the eleventh verse of the twentieth chapter of Second Kings,\nwhile the cure is given in the seventh verse of the same chapter. \"And\nIsaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil,\nand he recovered.\"\n\nStopping the world and causing it to turn back ten degrees after that,\nseems to have been, as the boil was already cured by the figs, a useless\ndisplay of power.\n\nThe easiest way to account for all these wonders is to say that the\n\"inspired\" writers were mistaken. In this way a fearful burden is lifted\nfrom the credulity of man, and he is left free to believe the evidences\nof his own senses, and the demonstrations of science. In this way he can\nemancipate himself from the slavery of superstition, the control of the\nbarbaric dead, and the despotism of the church.\n\nOnly about a hundred years ago, Buffon, the naturalist, was compelled by\nthe faculty of theology at Paris to publicly renounce fourteen \"errors\"\nin his work on Natural History because they were at variance with the\nMosaic account of creation. The Pentateuch is still the scientific\nstandard of the church, and ignorant priests, armed with that, pronounce\nsentence upon the vast accomplishments of modern thought.\n\nX. \"he Made the Stars Also.\"\n\nMoses came very near forgetting about the stars, and only gave five\nwords to all the hosts of heaven. Can it be possible that he knew\nanything about the stars beyond the mere fact that he saw them shining\nabove him?\n\nDid he know that the nearest star, the one we ought to be the best\nacquainted with, is twenty-one billion of miles away, and that it is\na sun shining by its own light? Did he know of the next, that is\nthirty-seven billion miles distant? Is it possible that he was\nacquainted with Sirius, a sun two thousand six hundred and eighty-eight\ntimes larger than our own, surrounded by a system of heavenly bodies,\nseveral of which are already known, and distant from us eighty-two\nbillion miles? Did he know that the Polar star that tells the mariner\nhis course and guided slaves to liberty and joy, is distant from this\nlittle world two hundred and ninety-two billion miles, and that Capella\nwheels and shines one hundred and thirty-three billion miles beyond? Did\nhe know that it would require about seventy-two years for light to reach\nus from this star? Did he know that light travels one hundred and\neighty-five thousand miles a second? Did he know that some stars are so\nfar away in the infinite abysses that five millions of years are\nrequired for their light to reach this globe?\n\nIf this is true, and if as the Bible tells us, the stars were made after\nthe earth, then this world has been wheeling in its orbit for at least\nfive million years.\n\nIt may be replied that it was not the intention of God to teach geology\nand astronomy. Then why did he say anything upon these subjects? and if\nhe did say anything, why did he not give the facts?\n\nAccording to the sacred records God created, on the first day, the\nheaven and the earth, \"moved upon the face of the waters,\" and made\nthe light. On the second day he made the firmament or the \"expanse\" and\ndivided the waters. On the third day he gathered the waters into seas,\nlet the dry land appear and caused the earth to bring forth grass, herbs\nand fruit trees, and on the fourth day he made the sun, moon and stars\nand set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth.\nThis division of labor is very striking. The work of the other days is\nas nothing when compared with that of the fourth. Is it possible that\nit required the same time and labor to make the grass, herbs and fruit\ntrees, that it did to fill with countless constellations the infinite\nexpanse of space?\n\nXI. Friday.\n\nWe are then told that on the next day \"God the moving creatures that hath\nlife, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of\nheaven. And God created great whales and every living creature which the\nwaters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged\nfowl after his kind, and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them,\nsaying, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and\nlet fowl multiply in the earth.\"\n\nIs it true that while the dry land was covered with grass, and herbs,\nand trees bearing fruit, the ocean was absolutely devoid of life, and so\nremained for millions of years?\n\nIf Moses meant twenty-four hours by the word day, then it would make but\nlittle difference on which of the six days animals were made; but if the\nword said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly day was used to express\nmillions of ages, during which life was slowly evolved from monad up to\nman, then the account becomes infinitely absurd, puerile and foolish.\nThere is not a scientist of high standing who will say that in his\njudgment the earth was covered with fruit-bearing trees before the\nmoners, the ancestors it may be of the human race, felt in Laurentian\nseas the first faint throb of life. Nor is there one who will declare\nthat there was a single spire of grass before the sun had poured upon\nthe world his flood of gold.\n\nWhy should men in the name of religion try to harmonize the\ncontradictions that exist between Nature and a book? Why should\nphilosophers be denounced for placing more reliance upon what they know\nthan upon what they have been told? If there is a God, it is reasonably\ncertain that he made the world, but it is by no means certain that he is\nthe author of the Bible. Why then should we not place greater confidence\nin Nature than in a book? And even if this God made not only the world\nbut the book besides, it does not follow that the book is the best part\nof creation, and the only part that we will be eternally punished for\ndenying. It seems to me that it is quite as important to know something\nof the solar system, something of the physical history of this globe,\nas it is to know the adventures of Jonah or the diet of Ezekiel. For my\npart, I would infinitely prefer to know all the results of scientific\ninvestigation, than to be inspired as Moses was. Supposing the Bible to\nbe true; why is it any worse or more wicked for Freethinkers to deny\nit, than for priests to deny the doctrine of evolution, or the dynamic\ntheory of heat? Why should we be damned for laughing at Samson and his\nfoxes, while others, holding the Nebular Hypothesis in utter contempt,\ngo straight to heaven? It seems to me that a belief in the great truths\nof science are fully as essential to salvation, as the creed of any\nchurch. We are taught that a man may be perfectly acceptable to God\neven if he denies the rotundity of the earth, the Copernican system, the\nthree laws of Kepler, the indestructibility of matter and the attraction\nof gravitation. And we are also taught that a man may be right upon\nall these questions, and yet, for failing to believe in the \"scheme of\nsalvation,\" be eternally lost.\n\nXII. Saturday.\n\nOn this, the last day of creation, God said;—\n\n\"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle\nand creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was\nso. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after\ntheir kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind;\nand God saw that it was good.\"\n\nNow, is it true that the seas were filled with fish, the sky with fowls,\nand the earth covered with grass, and herbs, and fruit bearing trees,\nmillions of ages before there was a creeping thing in existence? Must\nwe admit that plants and animals were the result of the fiat of some\nincomprehensible intelligence independent of the operation of what are\nknown as natural causes? Why is a miracle any more necessary to account\nfor yesterday than for to-day or for to-morrow?\n\nIf there is an infinite Power, nothing can be more certain than that\nthis Power works in accordance with what we call law, that is, by and\nthrough natural causes. If anything can be found without a pedigree of\nnatural antecedents, it will then be time enough to talk about the fiat\nof creation. There must have been a time when plants and animals did not\nexist upon this globe. The question, and the only question is, whether\nthey were naturally produced. If the account given by Moses is true,\nthen the vegetable and animal existences are the result of certain\nspecial fiats of creation entirely independent of the operation of\nnatural causes. This is so grossly improbable, so at variance with the\nexperience and observation of mankind, that it cannot be adopted without\nabandoning forever the basis of scientific thought and action.\n\nIt may be urged that we do not understand the sacred record correctly.\nTo this it may be replied that for thousands of years the account of\nthe creation has, by the Jewish and Christian world, been regarded as\nliterally true. If it was inspired, of course God must have known just\nhow it would be understood, and consequently must have intended that\nit should be understood just as he knew it would be. One man writing to\nanother, may mean one thing, and yet be understood as meaning something\nelse. Now, if the writer knew that he would be misunderstood, and also\nknew that he could use other words that would convey his real meaning,\nbut did not, we would say that he used words on purpose to mislead, and\nwas not an honest man.\n\nIf a being of infinite wisdom wrote the Bible, or caused it to be\nwritten, he must have known exactly how his words would be interpreted\nby all the world, and he must have intended to convey the very meaning\nthat was conveyed. He must have known that by reading that book, man\nwould form erroneous views as to the shape, antiquity, and size of this\nworld; that he would be misled as to the time and order of creation;\nthat he would have the most childish and contemptible views of the\ncreator; that the \"sacred word\" would be used to support slavery and\npolygamy; that it would build dungeons for the good, and light fagots\nto consume the brave, and therefore he must have intended that these\nresults should follow. He also must have known that thousands and\nmillions of men and women never could believe his Bible, and that the\nnumber of unbelievers would increase in the exact ratio of civilization,\nand therefore, he must have intended that result.\n\nLet us understand this. An honest finite being uses the best words, in\nhis judgment, to convey his meaning. This is the best he can do, because\nhe cannot certainly know the exact effect of his words on others. But an\ninfinite being must know not only the real meaning of the words, but the\nexact meaning they will convey to every reader and hearer. He must know\nevery meaning that they are capable of conveying to every mind. He must\nalso know what explanations must be made to prevent misconception. If\nan infinite being cannot, in making a revelation to man, use such words\nthat every person to whom a revelation is essential will understand\ndistinctly what that revelation is, then a revelation from God through\nthe instrumentality of language is impossible, or it is not essential\nthat all should understand it correctly. It may be urged that millions\nhave not the capacity to understand a revelation, although expressed in\nthe plainest words. To this it seems a sufficient reply to ask, why a\nbeing of infinite power should create men so devoid of intelligence,\nthat he cannot by any means make known to them his will? We are told\nthat it is exceedingly plain, and that a wayfaring man, though a fool,\nneed not err therein. This statement is refuted by the religious history\nof the Christian world. Every sect is a certificate that God has not\nplainly revealed his will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a\ndifferent meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation,\nthere have been ages of war, and centuries of sword and flame. If\nwritten by an infinite God, he must have known that these results must\nfollow; and thus knowing, he must be responsible for all.\n\nIs it not infinitely more reasonable to say that this book is the work\nof man, that it is filled with mingled truth and error, with mistakes\nand facts, and reflects, too faithfully perhaps, the \"very form and\npressure of its time\"?\n\nIf there are mistakes in the Bible, certainly they were made by man. If\nthere is anything contrary to nature, it was written by man. If there is\nanything immoral, cruel, heartless or infamous, it certainly was never\nwritten by a being worthy of the adoration of mankind.\n\nXIII. Let Us Make Man.\n\nWe are next informed by the author of the Pentateuch that God said \"Let\nus make man in our image, after our likeness,\" and that \"God created man\nin his own image, in the image of God created he him—male and female\ncreated he them.\"\n\nIf this account means anything, it means that man was created in the\nphysical image and likeness of God. Moses while he speaks of man as\nhaving been made in the image of God, never speaks of God except as\nhaving the form of a man. He speaks of God as \"walking in the garden\nin the cool of the day;\" and that Adam and Eve \"heard his voice.\" He is\nconstantly telling what God said, and in a thousand passages he refers\nto him as not only having the human form, but as performing actions,\nsuch as man performs. The God of Moses was a God with hands, with feet,\nwith the organs of speech.\n\nA God of passion, of hatred, of revenge, of affection, of repentance; a\nGod who made mistakes:—in other words, an immense and powerful man.\n\nIt will not do to say that Moses meant to convey the idea that God made\nman in his mental or moral image. Some have insisted that man was made\nin the moral image of God because he was made pure. Purity cannot be\nmanufactured. A moral character cannot be made for man by a god.\nEvery man must make his own moral character. Consequently, if God\nis infinitely pure, Adam and Eve were not made in his image in that\nrespect. Others say that Adam and Eve were made in the mental image\nof God. If it is meant by that, that they were created with reasoning\npowers like, but not to the extent of those possessed by a god, then\nthis may be admitted. But certainly this idea was not in the mind of\nMoses. He regarded the human form as being in the image of God, and for\nthat reason always spoke of God as having that form. No one can read\nthe Pentateuch without coming to the conclusion that the author supposed\nthat man was created in the physical likeness of Deity. God said \"Go to,\nlet us go down.\" \"God smelled a sweet savor;\" \"God repented him that he\nhad made man;\" \"and God said;\" and \"walked;\" and \"talked;\" and \"rested.\"\nAll these expressions are inconsistent with any other idea than that the\nperson using them regarded God as having the form of man.\n\nAs a matter of fact, it is impossible for a man to conceive of a\npersonal God, other than as a being having the human form. No one can\nthink of an infinite being having the form of a horse, or of a bird, or\nof any animal beneath man. It is one of the necessities of the mind to\nassociate forms with intellectual capacities. The highest form of which\nwe have any conception is man's, and consequently, his is the only form\nthat we can find in imagination to give to a personal God, because all\nother forms are, in our minds, connected with lower intelligences.\n\nIt is impossible to think of a personal God as a spirit without form.\nWe can use these words, but they do not convey to the mind any real and\ntangible meaning. Every one who thinks of a personal God at all, thinks\nof him as having the human form. Take from God the idea of form; speak\nof him simply as an all pervading spirit—which means an all pervading\nsomething about which we know nothing—and Pantheism is the result.\n\nWe are told that God made man; and the question naturally arises, how\nwas this done? Was it by a process of \"evolution,\" \"development;\" the\n\"transmission of acquired habits;\" the \"survival of the fittest,\" or was\nthe necessary amount of clay kneaded to the proper consistency, and then\nby the hands of God moulded into form? Modern science tells that man has\nbeen evolved, through countless epochs, from the lower forms; that he\nis the result of almost an infinite number of actions, reactions,\nexperiences, states, forms, wants and adaptations. Did Moses intend\nto convey such a meaning, or did he believe that God took a sufficient\namount of dust, made it the proper shape, and breathed into it the\nbreath of life? Can any believer in the Bible give any reasonable\naccount of this process of creation? Is it possible to imagine what\nwas really done? Is there any theologian who will contend that man\nwas created directly from the earth? Will he say that man was made\nsubstantially as he now is, with all his muscles properly developed for\nwalking and speaking, and performing every variety of human action?\nThat all his bones were formed as they now are, and all the relations of\nnerve, ligament, brain and motion as they are to-day?\n\nLooking back over the history of animal life from the lowest to\nthe highest forms, we find that there has been a slow and gradual\ndevelopment; a certain but constant relation between want and\nproduction; between use and form. The Moner is said to be the simplest\nform of animal life that has yet been found. It has been described as\n\"an organism without organs.\" It is a kind of structureless structure;\na little mass of transparent jelly that can flatten itself out, and can\nexpand and contract around its food. It can feed without a mouth, digest\nwithout a stomach, walk without feet, and reproduce itself by simple\ndivision. By taking this Moner as the commencement of animal life, or\nrather as the first animal, it is easy to follow the development of the\norganic structure through all the forms of life to man himself. In this\nway finally every muscle, bone and joint, every organ, form and function\nmay be accounted for. In this way, and in this way only, can the\nexistence of rudimentary organs be explained. Blot from the human mind\nthe ideas of evolution, heredity, adaptation, and \"the survival of\nthe fittest,\" with which it has been enriched by Lamarck, Goethe,\nDarwin, Haeckel and Spencer, and all the facts in the history of animal\nlife become utterly disconnected and meaningless.\n\nShall we throw away all that has been discovered with regard to organic\nlife, and in its place take the statements of one who lived in the\nrude morning of a barbaric day? Will anybody now contend that man was a\ndirect and independent creation, and sustains and bears no relation to\nthe animals below him? Belief upon this subject must be governed at\nlast by evidence. Man cannot believe as he pleases. He can control his\nspeech, and can say that he believes or disbelieves; but after all, his\nwill cannot depress or raise the scales with which his reason finds the\nworth and weight of facts. If this is not so, investigation, evidence,\njudgment and reason are but empty words.\n\nI ask again, how were Adam and Eve created? In one account they are\ncreated male and female, and apparently at the same time. In the next\naccount, Adam is made first, and Eve a long time afterwards, and from a\npart of the man. Did God simply by his creative fiat cause a rib slowly\nto expand, grow and divide into nerve, ligament, cartilage and flesh?\nHow was the woman created from a rib? How was man created simply from\ndust? For my part, I cannot believe this statement.\n\nI may suffer for this in the world to come; and may, millions of years\nhence, sincerely wish that I had never investigated the subject, but had\nbeen content to take the ideas of the dead. I do not believe that any\ndeity works in that way. So far as my experience goes, there is an\nunbroken procession of cause and effect. Each thing is a necessary link\nin an infinite chain; and I cannot conceive of this chain being broken\neven for one instant. Back of the simplest moner there is a cause,\nand back of that another, and so on, it seems to me, forever. In my\nphilosophy I postulate neither beginning nor ending.\n\nIf the Mosaic account is true, we know how long man has been upon this\nearth. If that account can be relied on, the first man was made about\nfive thousand eight hundred and eighty-three years ago. Sixteen hundred\nand fifty-six years after the making of the first man, the inhabitants\nof the world, with the exception of eight people, were destroyed by\na flood. This flood occurred only about four thousand two hundred and\ntwenty-seven years ago. If this account is correct, at that time, only\none kind of men existed. Noah and his family were certainly of the same\nblood. It therefore follows that all the differences we see between the\nvarious races of men have been caused in about four thousand years. If\nthe account of the deluge is true, then since that event all the ancient\nkingdoms of the earth were founded, and their inhabitants passed through\nall the stages of savage, nomadic, barbaric and semi-civilized life;\nthrough the epochs of Stone, Bronze and Iron; established commerce,\ncultivated the arts, built cities, filled them with palaces and temples,\ninvented writing, produced a literature and slowly fell to shapeless\nruin. We must believe that all this has happened within a period of four\nthousand years.\n\nFrom representations found upon Egyptian granite made more than three\nthousand years ago, we know that the negro was as black, his lips as\nfull, and his hair as closely curled then as now. If we know anything,\nwe know that there was at that time substantially the same difference\nbetween the Egyptian and the Negro as now. If we know anything, we know\nthat magnificent statues were made in Egypt four thousand years before\nour era—that is to say, about six thousand years ago. There was at\nthe World's Exposition, in the Egyptian department, a statue of king\nCephren, known to have been chiseled more than six thousand years ago.\nIn other words, if the Mosaic account must be believed, this statue was\nmade before the world. We also know, if we know anything, that men lived\nin v Europe with the hairy mammoth, the cave bear, the rhinoceros, and\nthe hyena. Among the bones of these animals have been found the stone\nhatchets and flint arrows of our ancestors. In the caves where they\nlived have been discovered the remains of these animals that had been\nconquered, killed and devoured as food, hundreds of thousands of years\nago.\n\nIf these facts are true, Moses was mistaken. For my part, I have\ninfinitely more confidence in the discoveries of to-day, than in the\nrecords of a barbarous people. It will not now do to say that man has\nexisted upon this earth for only about six thousand years. One can\nhardly compute in his imagination the time necessary for man to emerge\nfrom the barbarous state, naked and helpless, surrounded by animals far\nmore powerful than he, to progress and finally create the civilizations\nof India, Egypt and Athens. The distance from savagery to Shakespeare\nmust be measured not by hundreds, but by millions of years.\n\nXIV. Sunday.\n\n\"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he\nrested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God\nblessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had\nrested from all his work which God created and made.\"\n\nThe great work had been accomplished, the world, the sun, and moon, and\nall the hosts of heaven were finished; the earth was clothed in\ngreen, the seas were filled with life, the cattle wandered by the\nbrooks—insects with painted wings were in the happy air, Adam and Eve\nwere making each others acquaintance, and God was resting from his work.\nHe was contemplating the accomplishments of a week.\n\nBecause he rested on that day he sanctified it, and for that reason and\nfor that alone, it was by the Jews considered a holy day. If he only\nrested on that day, there ought to be some account of what he did the\nfollowing Monday. Did he rest on that day? What did he do after he\ngot rested? Has he done anything in the way of creation since Saturday\nevening of the first week?\n\nIt is now claimed by the \"scientific\" Christians that the \"days\" of\ncreation were not ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, but immensely\nlong periods of time. If they are right, then how long was the seventh\nday? Was that, too, a geologic period covering thousands of ages?\nThat cannot be, because Adam and Eve were created the Saturday evening\nbefore, and according to the Bible that was about five thousand eight\nhundred and eighty-three years ago. I cannot state the time exactly,\nbecause there have been as many as one hundred and forty different\nopinions given by learned Biblical students as to the time between the\ncreation of the world and the birth of Christ. We are quite certain,\nhowever, that, according to the Bible, it is not more than six thousand\nyears since the creation of Adam. From this it would appear that the\nseventh day was not a geologic epoch, but was in fact a period of less\nthan six thousand years, and probably of only twenty-four hours.\n\nThe theologians who \"answer\" these things may take their choice. If they\ntake the ground that the \"days\" were periods of twenty-four hours, then\ngeology will force them to throw away the whole account. If, on the\nother hand, they admit that the days were vast \"periods,\" then the\nsacredness of the Sabbath must be given up.\n\nThere is found in the Bible no intimation that there was the least\ndifference in the days. They are all spoken of in the same way. It may\nbe replied that our translation is incorrect. If this is so, then only\nthose who understand Hebrew, have had a revelation from God, and all the\nrest have been deceived.\n\nHow is it possible to sanctify a space of time? Is rest holier than\nlabor? If there is any difference between days, ought not that to be\nconsidered best in which the most useful labor has been performed?\n\nOf all the superstitions of mankind, this insanity about the \"sacred\nSabbath\" is the most absurd. The idea of feeling it a duty to be solemn\nand sad one-seventh of the time! To think that we can please an infinite\nbeing by staying in some dark and sombre room, instead of walking in the\nperfumed fields! Why should God hate to see a man happy? Why should it\nexcite his wrath to see a family in the woods, by some babbling stream,\ntalking, laughing and loving? Nature works on that \"sacred\" day. The\nearth turns, the rivers run, the trees grow, buds burst into flower, and\nbirds fill the air with song. Why should we look sad, and think about\ndeath, and hear about hell? Why should that day be filled with gloom\ninstead of joy?\n\nA poor mechanic, working all the week in dust and noise, needs a day of\nrest and joy, a day to visit stream and wood—a day to live with wife\nand child; a day in which to laugh at care, and gather hope and strength\nfor toils to come. And his weary wife needs a breath of sunny air, away\nfrom street and wall, amid the hills or by the margin of the sea, where\nshe can sit and prattle with her babe, and fill with happy dreams the\nlong, glad day.\n\nThe \"Sabbath\" was born of asceticism, hatred of human joy, fanaticism,\nignorance, egotism of priests and the cowardice of the people. This\nday, for thousands of years, has been dedicated to superstition, to the\ndissemination of mistakes, and the establishment of falsehoods. Every\nFreethinker, as a matter of duty, should violate this day. He should\nassert his independence, and do all within his power to wrest the\nSabbath from the gloomy church and give it back to liberty and joy.\nFreethinkers should make the Sabbath a day of mirth and music; a day to\nspend with wife and child—a day of games, and books, and dreams—a day\nto put fresh flowers above our sleeping dead—a day of memory and hope,\nof love and rest.\n\nWhy should we in this age of the world be dominated by the dead? Why\nshould barbarian Jews who went down to death and dust three thousand\nyears ago, control the living world? Why should we care for the\nsuperstition of men who began the Sabbath by paring their nails,\n\"beginning at the fourth finger, then going to the second, then to the\nfifth, then to the third, and ending with the thumb?\" How pleasing\nto God this must have been. The Jews were very careful of these nail\nparings. They who threw them upon the ground were wicked, because Satan\nused them to work evil upon the earth. They believed that upon the\nSabbath, souls were allowed to leave purgatory and cool their\nburning souls in water. Fires were neither allowed to be kindled nor\nextinguished, and upon that day it was a sin to bind up wounds. \"The\nlame might use a staff, but the blind could not.\" So strict was the\nSabbath kept, that at one time \"if a Jew on a journey was overtaken\nby the 'sacred day' in a wood, or on the highway, no matter where, nor\nunder what circumstances, he must sit down,\" and there remain until the\nday was gone. \"If he fell down in the dirt, there he was compelled to\nstay until the day was done.\" For violating the Sabbath, the punishment\nwas death, for nothing short of the offender's blood could satisfy the\nwrath of God. There are, in the Old Testament, two reasons given for\nabstaining from labor on the Sabbath:—the resting of God, and the\nredemption of the Jews from the bondage of Egypt.\n\nSince the establishment of the Christian religion, the day has been\nchanged, and Christians do not regard the day as holy upon which God\nactually rested, and which he sanctified. The Christian Sabbath, or\nthe \"Lord's day\" was legally established by the murderer Constantine,\nbecause upon that day Christ was supposed to have risen from the dead.\n\nIt is not easy to see where Christians got the right to disregard the\ndirect command of God, to labor on the day he sanctified, and keep as\nsacred, a day upon which he commanded men to labor. The Sabbath of God\nis Saturday, and if any day is to be kept holy, that is the one, and not\nthe Sunday of the Christian.\n\nLet us throw away these superstitions and take the higher, nobler\nground, that every day should be rendered sacred by some loving act,\nby increasing the happinesss of man, giving birth to noble thoughts,\nputting in the path of toil some flower of joy, helping the unfortunate,\nlifting the fallen, dispelling gloom, destroying prejudice, defending\nthe helpless and filling homes with light and love.\n\nXV. The Necessity for a Good Memory.\n\nIt must not be forgotten that there are two accounts of the creation\nin Genesis. The first account stops with the third verse of the second\nchapter. The chapters have been improperly divided. In the original\nHebrew the Pentateuch was neither divided into chapters nor verses.\nThere was not even any system of punctuation. It was written wholly with\nconsonants, without vowels, and without any marks, dots, or lines to\nindicate them.\n\nThese accounts are materially different, and both cannot be true. Let us\nsee wherein they differ.\n\nThe second account of the creation begins with the fourth verse of the\nsecond chapter, and is as follows:\n\n\"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they\nwere created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the\nheavens.\n\n\"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb\nof the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain\nupon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.\n\n\"But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of\nthe ground.\n\n\"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed\ninto his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.\n\n\"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put\nthe man whom he had formed.\n\n\"And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is\npleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the\nmidst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.\n\n\"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it\nwas parted and became into four heads.\n\n\"The name of the first is Pison; that is it which compasseth the whole\nland of Havilah, where there is gold.\n\n\"And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx\nstone.\n\n\"And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that\ncompasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.\n\n\"And the name of the third river is Hiddekel; that is it which goeth\ntoward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.\n\n\"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to\ndress it and to keep it.\n\n\"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden\nthou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and\nevil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof\nthou shalt surely die.\n\n\"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I\nwill make him an helpmeet for him.\n\n\"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and\nevery fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would\ncall them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was\nthe name thereof.\n\n\"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to\nevery beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helpmeet\nfor him.\n\n\"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept;\nand he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;\n\n\"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and\nbrought her unto the man.\n\n\"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she\nshall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.\n\n\"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave\nunto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.\n\n\"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.\"\n\nOrder of creation in the first account:\n\n1. The heaven and the earth, and light were made.\n\n2. The firmament was constructed and the waters divided.\n\n3. The waters gathered into seas—and then came dry land, grass, herbs\nand fruit trees.\n\n4. The sun and moon. He made the stars also.\n\n5. Fishes, fowls, and great whales.\n\n6. Beasts, cattle, every creeping thing, man and woman.\n\nOrder of creation in the second account:\n\n1. The heavens and the earth.\n\n2. A mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole face of the\nground.\n\n3. Created a man out of dust, by the name of Adam.\n\n4. Planted a garden eastward in Eden, and put the man in it.\n\n5. Created the beasts and fowls.\n\n6. Created a woman out of one of the man's ribs.\n\nIn the second account, man was made before the beasts and fowls. If\nthis is true, the first account is false. And if the theologians of our\ntime are correct in their view that the Mosaic day means thousands of\nages, then, according to the second account, Adam existed millions of\nyears before Eve was formed. He must have lived one Mosaic day before\nthere were any trees, and another Mosaic day before the beasts and fowls\nwere created. Will some kind clergymen tell us upon what kind of food\nAdam subsisted during these immense periods?\n\nIn the second account a man is made, and the fact that he was without a\nhelpmeet did not occur to the Lord God until a couple \"of vast periods\"\nafterwards. The Lord God suddenly coming to an appreciation of the\nsituation said, \"It is not good that the man should be alone. I will\nmake him an helpmeet for him.\"\n\nNow, after concluding to make \"an helpmeet\" for Adam, what did the Lord\nGod do? Did he at once proceed to make a woman? No. What did he do? He\nmade the beasts, and tried to induce Adam to take one of them for \"an\nhelpmeet.\" If I am incorrect, read the following account, and tell me\nwhat it means:\n\n\"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I\nwill make him an helpmeet for him.\n\n\"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and\nevery fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would\ncall them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was\nthe name thereof.\n\n\"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to\nevery beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet\nfor him.\"\n\nUnless the Lord God was looking for an helpmeet for Adam, why did\nhe cause the animals to pass before him? And why did he, after the\nmenagerie had passed by, pathetically exclaim, \"But for Adam there was\nnot found an helpmeet for him\"?\n\nIt seems that Adam saw nothing that struck his fancy. The fairest ape,\nthe sprightliest chimpanzee, the loveliest baboon, the most bewitching\norangoutang, the most fascinating gorilla failed to touch with love's\nsweet pain, poor Adam's lonely heart. Let us rejoice that this was so.\nHad he fallen in love then, there never would have been a Freethinker in\nthis world.\n\nDr. Adam Clarke, speaking of this remarkable proceeding says:—\"God\ncaused the animals to pass before Adam to show him that no creature yet\nformed could make him a suitable companion; that Adam was convinced that\nnone of these animals could be a suitable companion for him, and that\ntherefore he must continue in a state that was not good (celibacy)\nunless he became a further debtor to the bounty of his maker, for among\nall the animals which he had formed, there was not a helpmeet for Adam.\"\n\nUpon this same subject, Dr. Scott informs us \"that it was not conducive\nto the happiness of the man to remain without the consoling society,\nand endearment of tender friendship, nor consistent with the end of his\ncreation to be without marriage by which the earth might be replenished\nand worshipers and servants raised up to render him praise and glory.\nAdam seems to have been vastly better acquainted by intuition or\nrevelation with the distinct properties of every creature than the most\nsagacious observer since the fall of man.\n\n\"Upon this review of the animals, not one was found in outward form his\ncounterpart, nor one suited to engage his affections, participate in his\nenjoyments, or associate with him in the worship of God.\"\n\nDr. Matthew Henry admits that \"God brought all the animals together\nto see if there was a suitable match for Adam in any of the numerous\nfamilies of the inferior creatures, but there was none. They were all\nlooked over, but Adam could not be matched among them all. Therefore God\ncreated a new thing to be a helpmeet for him.\"\n\nFailing to satisfy Adam with any of the inferior animals, the Lord God\ncaused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and while in this sleep took out\none of Adam's ribs and \"closed up the flesh instead thereof.\" And out of\nthis rib, the Lord God made a woman, and brought her to the man.\n\nWas the Lord God compelled to take a part of the man because he had used\nup all the original \"nothing\" out of which the universe was made? Is it\npossible for any sane and intelligent man to believe this story? Must a\nman be born a second time before this account seems reasonable?\n\nImagine the Lord God with a bone in his hand with which to start\na woman, trying to make up his mind whether to make a blonde or a\nbrunette!\n\nJust at this point it may be proper for me to warn all persons from\nlaughing at or making light of, any stories found in the \"Holy Bible.\"\nWhen you come to die, every laugh will be a thorn in your pillow. At\nthat solemn moment, as you look back upon the records of your life, no\nmatter how many men you may have wrecked and ruined; no matter how many\nwomen you have deceived and deserted, all that can be forgiven; but\nif you remember then that you have laughed at even one story in God's\n\"sacred book\" you will see through the gathering shadows of death the\nforked tongues of devils, and the leering eyes of fiends.\n\nThese stories must be believed, or the work of regeneration can never be\ncommenced. No matter how well you act your part, live as honestly as you\nmay, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, divide your last farthing\nwith the poor, and you are simply traveling the broad road that leads\ninevitably to eternal death, unless at the same time you implicitly\nbelieve the Bible to be the inspired word of God.\n\nLet me show you the result of unbelief. Let us suppose, for a moment,\nthat we are at the Day of Judgment, listening to the trial of souls\nas they arrive. The Recording Secretary, or whoever does the\ncross-examining, says to a soul:\n\nWhere are you from?\n\nI am from the Earth.\n\nWhat kind of a man were you?\n\nWell, I don't like to talk about myself. I suppose you can tell by\nlooking at your books.\n\nNo, sir. You must tell what kind of a man you were.\n\nWell, I was what you might call a first-rate fellow. I loved my wife and\nchildren. My home was my heaven. My fireside was a paradise to me. To\nsit there and see the lights and shadows fall upon the faces of those I\nloved, was to me a perfect joy.\n\nHow did you treat your family?\n\nI never said an unkind word. I never caused my wife, nor one of my\nchildren, a moments pain.\n\nDid you pay your debts?\n\nI did not owe a dollar when I died, and left enough to pay my funeral\nexpenses, and to keep the fierce wolf of want from the door of those I\nloved.\n\nDid you belong to any church?\n\nNo, sir. They were too narrow, pinched and bigoted for me, I never\nthought that I could be very happy if other folks were damned.\n\nDid you believe in eternal punishment?\n\nWell, no. I always thought that God could get his revenge in far less\ntime.\n\nDid you believe the rib story?\n\nDo you mean the Adam and Eve business?\n\nYes! Did you believe that?\n\nTo tell you the God's truth, that was just a little more than I could\nswallow.\n\nAway with him to hell!\n\nNext!\n\nWhere are you from?\n\nI am from the world too.\n\nDid you belong to any church?\n\nYes, sir, and to the Young Men's Christian Association besides.\n\nWhat was your business?\n\nCashier in a Savings Bank.\n\nDid you ever run away with any money?\n\nWhere I came from, a witness could not be compelled to criminate\nhimself.\n\nThe law is different here. Answer the question. Did you run away with\nany money?\n\nYes, sir.\n\nHow much?\n\nOne hundred thousand dollars.\n\nDid you take anything else with you?\n\nYes, sir.\n\nWell, what else?\n\nI took my neighbor's wife—we sang together in the choir.\n\nDid you have a wife and children of your own? Yes, sir.\n\nAnd you deserted them?\n\nYes, sir, but such was my confidence in God that I believed he would\ntake care of them.\n\nHave you heard of them since?\n\nNo, sir.\n\nDid you believe in the rib story?\n\nBless your soul, of course I did. A thousand times I regretted that\nthere were no harder stories in the Bible, so that I could have shown my\nwealth of faith.\n\nDo you believe the rib story yet?\n\nYes, with all my heart.\n\nGive him a harp!\n\nWell, as I was saying, God made a woman from Adam's rib. Of course, I do\nnot know exactly how this was done, but when he got the woman finished,\nhe presented her to Adam. He liked her, and they commenced house-keeping\nin the celebrated Garden of Eden.\n\nMust we, in order to be good, gentle and loving in our lives, believe\nthat the creation of woman was a second thought? That Jehovah really\nendeavored to induce Adam to take one of the lower animals as an\nhelpmeet for him? After all, is it not possible to live honest and\ncourageous lives without believing these fables? It is said that from\nMount Sinai God gave, amid thunderings and lightnings, ten commandments\nfor the guidance of mankind; and yet among them is not found—\"Thou\nshalt believe the Bible.\"\n\nXVI. The Garden.\n\nIn the first account we are told that God made man, male and female,\nand said to them \"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and\nsubdue it.\"\n\nIn the second account only the man is made, and he is put in a garden\n\"to dress it and to keep it.\" He is not told to subdue the earth, but to\ndress and keep a garden.\n\nIn the first account man is given every herb bearing seed upon the face\nof the earth and the fruit of every tree for food, and in the second,\nhe is given only the fruit of all the trees in the garden with the\nexception \"of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil\" which was a\ndeadly poison.\n\nThere was issuing from this garden a river that was parted into four\nheads. The first of these, Pison, compassed the whole land of Havilah,\nthe second, Gihon, that compassed the whole land of Ethiopia.\n\nThe third, Heddekel, that flowed toward the east of Assyria, and the\nfourth, the Euphrates. Where are these four rivers now? The brave prow\nof discovery has visited every sea; the traveler has pressed with weary\nfeet the soil of every clime; and yet there has been found no place from\nwhich four rivers sprang. The Euphrates still journeys to the gulf, but\nwhere are Pison, Gihon and the mighty Heddekel? Surely by going to the\nsource of the Euphrates we ought to find either these three rivers or\ntheir ancient beds. Will some minister when he answers the \"Mistakes of\nMoses\" tell us where these rivers are or were? The maps of the world are\nincomplete without these mighty streams. We have discovered the sources\nof the Nile; the North Pole will soon be touched by an American; but\nthese three rivers still rise in unknown hills, still flow through\nunknown lands, and empty still in unknown seas.\n\nThe account of these four rivers is what the Rev. David Swing would call\n\"a geographical poem.\" The orthodox clergy cover the whole affair with\nthe blanket of allegory, while the \"scientific\" Christian folks talk\nabout cataclysms, upheavals, earthquakes, and vast displacements of the\nearth's crust.\n\nThe question, then arises, whether within the last six thousand years\nthere have been such upheavals and displacements? Talk as you will about\nthe vast \"creative periods\" that preceded the appearance of man; it\nis, according to the Bible, only about six thousand years since man was\ncreated. Moses gives us the generations of men from Adam until his day,\nand this account cannot be explained away by calling centuries, days.\n\nAccording to the second account of creation, these four rivers were\nmade after the creation of man, and consequently they must have been\nobliterated by convulsions of Nature within six thousand years.\n\nCan we not account for these contradictions, absurdities, and falsehoods\nby simply saying that although the writer may have done his level best,\nhe failed because he was limited in knowledge, led away by tradition,\nand depended too implicitly upon the correctness of his imagination?\nIs not such a course far more reasonable than to insist that all these\nthings are true and must stand though every science shall fall to mental\ndust?\n\nCan any reason be given for not allowing man to eat of the fruit of the\ntree of knowledge? What kind of tree was that? If it is all an allegory,\nwhat truth is sought to be conveyed? Why should God object to that fruit\nbeing eaten by man? Why did he put it in the midst of the garden? There\nwas certainly plenty of room outside. If he wished to keep man and this\ntree apart, why did he put them together? And why, after he had eaten,\nwas he thrust out? The only answer that we have a right to give, is\nthe one given in the Bible. \"And the Lord God said, Behold the man has\nbecome as one of us to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth\nhis hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:\nTherefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till\nthe ground from whence he was taken.\"\n\nWill some minister, some graduate of Andover, tell us what this means?\nAre we bound to believe it without knowing what the meaning is? If it is\na revelation, what does it reveal? Did God object to education then, and\ndoes that account for the hostile attitude still assumed by theologians\ntoward all scientific truth? Was there in the garden a tree of life, the\neating of which would have rendered Adam and Eve immortal? Is it true,\nthat after the Lord God drove them from the garden that he placed upon\nits Eastern side \"Cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way\nto keep the way of the tree of life?\" Are the Cherubim and the flaming\nsword guarding that tree still, or was it destroyed, or did its rotting\ntrunk, as the Rev. Robert Collyer suggests, \"nourish a bank of violets\"?\n\nWhat objection could God have had to the immortality of man? You\nsee that after all, this sacred record, instead of assuring us of\nimmortality, shows us only how we lost it. In this there is assuredly\nbut little consolation.\n\nAccording to this story we have lost one Eden, but nowhere in the Mosaic\nbooks are we told how we may gain another. I know that the Christians\ntell us there is another, in which all true believers will finally be\ngathered, and enjoy the unspeakable happiness of seeing the unbelievers\nin hell; but they do not tell us where it is.\n\nSome commentators say that the Garden of Eden was in the third\nheaven—some in the fourth, others have located it in the moon, some\nin the air beyond the attraction of the earth, some on the earth, some\nunder the earth, some inside the earth, some at the North Pole, others\nat the South, some in Tartary, some in China, some on the borders of the\nGanges, some in the island of Ceylon, some in Armenia, some in Africa,\nsome under the Equator, others in Mesopotamia, in Syria, Persia, Arabia,\nBabylon, Assyria, Palestine and Europe. Others have contended that\nit was invisible, that it was an allegory, and must be spiritually\nunderstood.\n\nBut whether you understand these things or not, you must believe them.\nYou may be laughed at in this world for insisting that God put Adam into\na deep sleep and made a woman out of one of his ribs, but you will be\ncrowned and glorified in the next. You will also have the pleasure of\nhearing the gentlemen howl there, who laughed at you here. While you\nwill not be permitted to take any revenge, you will be allowed to\nsmilingly express your entire acquiescence in the will of God. But where\nis the new Eden? No one knows. The one was lost, and the other has not\nbeen found.\n\nIs it true that man was once perfectly pure and innocent, and that\nhe became degenerate by disobedience? No. The real truth is, and the\nhistory of man shows, that he has advanced. Events, like the pendulum of\na clock have swung forward and back ward, but after all, man, like\nthe hands, has gone steadily on. Man is growing grander. He is not\ndegenerating. Nations and individuals fail and die, and make room\nfor higher forms. The intellectual horizon of the world widens as the\ncenturies pass. Ideals grow grander and purer; the difference between\njustice and mercy becomes less and less; liberty enlarges, and love\nintensifies as the years sweep on. The ages of force and fear, of\ncruelty and wrong, are behind us and the real Eden is beyond. It is said\nthat a desire for knowledge lost us the Eden of the past; but whether\nthat is true or not, it will certainly give us the Eden of the future.\n\nXVII. The Fall.\n\nWe are told that the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field,\nthat he had a conversation with Eve, in which he gave his opinion about\nthe effect of eating certain fruit; that he assured her it was good to\neat, that it was pleasant to the eye, that it would make her wise; that\nshe was induced to take some; that she persuaded her husband to try it;\nthat God found it out, that he then cursed the snake; condemning it to\ncrawl and eat the dust; that he multiplied the sorrows of Eve, cursed\nthe ground for Adam's sake, started thistles and thorns, condemned man\nto eat the herb of the field in the sweat of his face, pronounced the\ncurse of death, \"Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return,\" made\ncoats of skins for Adam and Eve, and drove them out of Eden.\n\nWho, and what was this serpent? Dr. Adam Clarke says:—\"The serpent must\nhave walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment.\nThat he was endued with the gift of speech, also with reason. That these\nthings were given to this creature. The woman no doubt having often seen\nhim walking erect, and talking and reasoning, therefore she testifies\nno sort of surprise when he accosts her in the language related in\nthe text. It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or\norangoutang kind is here intended, and that Satan made use of this\ncreature as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his\nmurderous purposes against the life of the soul of man. Under this\ncreature he lay hid, and by this creature he seduced our first parents.\nSuch a creature answers to every part of the description in the text. It\nis evident from the structure of its limbs and its muscles that it might\nhave been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing else than\nthe sovereign controlling power could induce it to put down hands—in\nevery respect formed like those of man—and walk like those creatures\nwhose claw-armed parts prove them to have been designed to walk on\nall fours. The stealthy cunning, and endless variety of the pranks\nand tricks of these creatures show them even now to be wiser and more\nintelligent than any other creature, man alone excepted. Being obliged\nto walk on all fours and gather their food from the ground, they are\nliterally obliged to eat the dust; and though exceeding cunning,\nand careful in a variety of instances to separate that part which is\nwholesome and proper for food from that which is not so, in the article\nof cleanliness they are lost to all sense of propriety. Add to this\ntheir utter aversion to walk upright; it requires the utmost discipline\nto bring them to it, and scarcely anything offends or irritates them\nmore than to be obliged to do it. Long observation of these animals\nenables me to state these facts. For earnest, attentive watching, and\nfor chattering and babbling they (the ape) have no fellows in the animal\nworld. Indeed, the ability and propensity to chatter, is all they have\nleft of their original gift of speech, of which they appear to have been\ndeprived at the fall as a part of their punishment.\"\n\nHere then is the \"connecting link\" between man and the lower creation.\nThe serpent was simply an orang-outang that spoke Hebrew with the\ngreatest ease, and had the outward appearance of a perfect gentleman,\nseductive in manner, plausible, polite, and most admirably calculated to\ndeceive.\n\nIt never did seem reasonable' to me that a long, cold and disgusting\nsnake with an apple in his mouth, could deceive anybody; and I am glad,\neven at this late date to know that the something that persuaded Eve to\ntaste the forbidden fruit was, at least, in the shape of a man.\n\nDr. Henry does not agree with the zoological explanation of Mr. Clark,\nbut insists that \"it is certain that the devil that beguiled Eve is the\nold serpent, a malignant by creation, an angel of light, an immediate\nattendant upon God's throne, but by sin an apostate from his first\nstate, and a rebel against God's crown and dignity. He who attacked\nour first parents was surely the prince of devils, the ring leader in\nrebellion. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, because it is\na specious creature, has a spotted, dappled skin, and then, went erect.\nPerhaps it was a flying serpent which seemed to come from on high, as a\nmessenger from the upper world, one of the seraphim; because the serpent\nis a subtile creature. What Eve thought of this serpent speaking to her,\nwe are not likely to tell, and, I believe, she herself did not know\nwhat to think of it. At first, perhaps, she supposed it might be a good\nangel, and yet afterwards might suspect something amiss. The person\ntempted was a woman, now alone, and at a distance from her husband,\nbut near the forbidden tree. It was the devil's subtlety to assault the\nweaker vessel with his temptations, as we may suppose her inferior to\nAdam in knowledge, strength and presence of mind. Some think that Eve\nreceived the command not immediately from God, but at second hand from\nher husband, and might, therefore, be the more easily persuaded to\ndiscredit it. It was the policy of the devil to enter into discussion\nwith her when she was alone. He took advantage by finding her near the\nforbidden tree. God permitted Satan to prevail over Eve, for wise and\nholy ends. Satan teaches men first to doubt, and then to deny. He makes\nskeptics first, and by degrees makes them atheists.\"\n\nWe are compelled to admit that nothing could be more attractive to a\nwoman than a snake walking erect, with a \"spotted, dappled skin,\" unless\nit were a serpent with wings. Is it not humiliating to know that our\nancestors believed these things? Why should we object to the Darwinian\ndoctrine of descent after this?\n\nOur fathers thought it their duty to believe, thought it a sin to\nentertain the slightest doubt, and really supposed that their credulity\nwas exceedingly, gratifying to God. To them, the story was entirely\nreal. They could see the garden, hear the babble of waters, smell the\nperfume of flowers. They believed there was a tree where knowledge grew\nlike plums or pears; and they could plainly see the serpent coiled amid\nits rustling leaves, coaxing Eve to violate the laws of God.\n\nWhere did the serpent come from? On which of the six days was he\ncreated? Who made him? Is it possible that God would make a successful\nrival? He must have known that Adam and Eve would fall. He knew what\na snake with a \"spotted, dappled skin\" could do with an inexperienced\nwoman. Why did he not defend his children? He knew that if the serpent\ngot into the garden, Adam and Eve would sin, that he would have to drive\nthem out, that afterwards the world would be destroyed, and that he\nhimself would die upon the cross.\n\nAgain, I ask what and who was this serpent? He was not a man, for only\none man had been made. He was not a woman. He was not a beast of the\nfield, because \"he was more subtile than any beast of the field which\nthe Lord God had made.\" He was neither fish nor fowl, nor snake, because\nhe had the power of speech, and did not crawl upon his belly until after\nhe was cursed. Where did this serpent come from? Why was he not kept out\nof the garden? Why did not the Lord God take him by the tail and snap\nhis head off? Why did he not put Adam and Eve on their guard about this\nserpent? They, of course, were not acquainted in the neighborhood, and\nknew nothing about the serpent's reputation for truth and veracity\namong his neighbors. Probably Adam saw him when he was looking for \"an\nhelpmeet\" and gave him a name, but Eve had never met him before. She was\nnot surprised to hear a serpent talk, as that was the first one she had\never met. Every thing being new to her, and her husband not being with\nher just at that moment, it need hardly excite our wonder that she\ntasted the fruit by way of experiment. Neither should we be surprised\nthat when she saw it was good and pleasant to the eye, and a fruit to\nbe desired to make one wise, she had the generosity to divide with her\nhusband.\n\nTheologians have filled thousands of volumes with abuse of this serpent,\nbut it seems that he told the exact truth. We are told that this serpent\nwas, in fact, Satan, the greatest enemy of mankind, and that he entered\nthe serpent, appearing to our first parents in its body. If this is\nso, why should the serpent have been cursed? Why should God curse the\nserpent for what had really been done by the devil? Did Satan remain\nin the body of the serpent, and in some mysterious manner share his\npunishment? Is it true that when we kill a snake we also destroy an evil\nspirit, or is there but one devil, and did he perish at the death of\nthe first serpent? Is it on account of that transaction in the Garden\nof Eden, that all the descendants of Adam and Eve known as Jews and\nChristians hate serpents?\n\nDo you account for the snake-worship in Mexico, Africa and India in the\nsame way?\n\nWhat was the form of the serpent when he entered the garden, and in what\nway did he move from place to place? Did he walk or fly? Certainly he\ndid not crawl, because that mode of locomotion was pronounced upon him\nas a curse. Upon what food did he subsist before his conversation with\nEve? We know that after that he lived upon dust, but what did he eat\nbefore? It may be that this is all poetic; and the truest poetry is,\naccording to Touchstone, \"the most feigning.\"\n\nIn this same chapter we are informed that \"unto Adam also and to his\nwife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them.\" Where did\nthe Lord God get those skins? He must have taken them from the animals;\nhe was a butcher. Then he had to prepare them; he was a tanner. Then\nhe made them into coats; he was a tailor. How did it happen that they\nneeded coats of skins, when they had been perfectly comfortable in a\nnude condition? Did the \"fall\" produce a change in the climate?\n\nIs it really necessary to believe this account in order to be happy\nhere, or hereafter? Does it tend to the elevation of the human race to\nspeak of \"God\" as a butcher, tanner and tailor?\n\nAnd here, let me say once for all, that when I speak of God, I mean\nthe being described by Moses; the Jehovah of the Jews. There may be for\naught I know, somewhere in the unknown shoreless vast, some being whose\ndreams are constellations and within whose thought the infinite exists.\nAbout this being, if such an one exists, I have nothing to say. He has\nwritten no books, inspired no barbarians, required no worship, and has\nprepared no hell in which to burn the honest seeker after truth.\n\nWhen I speak of God, I mean that god who prevented man from putting\nforth his hand and taking also of the fruit of the tree of life that\nhe might live forever; of that god who multiplied the agonies of woman,\nincreased the weary toil of man, and in his anger drowned a world—of\nthat god whose altars reeked with human blood, who butchered babes,\nviolated maidens, enslaved men and filled the earth with cruelty and\ncrime; of that god who made heaven for the few, hell for the many,\nand who will gloat forever and ever upon the writhings of the lost and\ndamned.\n\nXVIII. Dampness.\n\n\"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the\nearth, and daughters were born unto them.\n\n\"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and\nthey took them wives of all which they chose.\n\n\"And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that\nhe also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.\n\n\"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that\nwhen the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare\nchildren to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of\nrenown.\n\n\"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and\nthat every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil\ncontinually.\n\n\"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it\ngrieved him at his heart.\n\n\"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face\nof the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls\nof the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.\"\n\nFrom this account it seems that driving Adam and Eve out of Eden did not\nhave the effect to improve them or their children. On the contrary, the\nworld grew worse and worse. They were under the immediate control and\ngovernment of God, and he from time to time made known his will; but in\nspite of this, man continued to increase in crime.\n\nNothing in particular seems to have been done. Not a school was\nestablished. There was no written language. There was not a Bible in the\nworld. The \"scheme of salvation\" was kept a profound secret. The five\npoints of Calvinism had not been taught. Sunday schools had not been\nopened. In short, nothing had been done for the reformation of the\nworld. God did not even keep his own sons at home, but allowed them to\nleave their abode in the firmament, and make love to the daughters\nof men. As a result of this, the world was filled with wickedness and\ngiants to such an extent that God regretted \"that he had made man on the\nearth, and it grieved him at his heart.\"\n\nOf course God knew when he made man, that he would afterwards regret\nit. He knew that the people would grow worse and worse until destruction\nwould be the only remedy. He knew that he would have to kill all except\nNoah and his family, and it is hard to see why he did not make Noah and\nhis family in the first place, and leave Adam and Eve in the original\ndust. He knew that they would be tempted, that he would have to drive\nthem out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life;\nthat the whole thing would be a failure; that Satan would defeat his\nplan; that he could not reform the people; that his own sons would\ncorrupt them, and that at last he would have to drown them all except\nNoah and his family. Why was the Garden of Eden planted? Why was the\nexperiment made? Why were Adam and Eve exposed to the seductive arts of\nthe serpent? Why did God wait until the cool of the day before looking\nafter his children? Why was he not on hand in the morning?\n\nWhy did he fill the world with his own children, knowing that he would\nhave to destroy them? And why does this same God tell me how to raise my\nchildren when he had to drown his?\n\nIt is a little curious that when God wished to reform the ante-diluvian\nworld he said nothing about hell; that he had no revivals, no\ncamp-meetings, no tracts, no outpourings of the Holy Ghost, no baptisms,\nno noon prayer meetings, and never mentioned the great doctrine of\nsalvation by faith. If the orthodox creeds of the world are true, all\nthose people went to hell without ever having heard that such a place\nexisted. If eternal torment is a fact, surely these miserable wretches\nought to have been warned. They were threatened only with water when\nthey were in fact doomed to eternal fire!\n\nIs it not strange that God said nothing to Adam and Eve about a future\nlife; that he should have kept these \"infinite verities\" to himself and\nallowed millions to live and die without the hope of heaven, or the fear\nof hell?\n\nIt may be that hell was not made at that time. In the six days of\ncreation nothing is said about the construction of a bottomless pit, and\nthe serpent himself did not make his appearance until after the creation\nof man and woman. Perhaps he was made on the first Sunday, and from that\nfact came, it may be, the old couplet,\n    \"And Satan still some mischief finds\n    For idle hands to do.\"\n\nThe sacred historian failed also to tell us when the cherubim and the\nflaming sword were made, and said nothing about two of the persons\ncomposing the Trinity. It certainly would have been an easy thing to\nenlighten Adam and his immediate descendants. The world was then only\nabout fifteen hundred and thirty-six years old, and only about three\nor four generations of men had lived. Adam had been dead only about six\nhundred and six years, and some of his grandchildren must, at that time,\nhave been alive and well.\n\nIt is hard to see why God did not civilize these people. He certainly\nhad the power to use, and the wisdom to devise the proper means. What\nright has a god to fill a world with fiends? Can there be goodness in\nthis? Why should he make experiments that he knows must fail? Is there\nwisdom in this? And what right has a man to charge an infinite being\nwith wickedness and folly?\n\nAccording to Moses, God made up his mind not only to destroy the people,\nbut the beasts and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air. What\nhad the beasts, and the creeping things, and the birds done to excite\nthe anger of God? Why did he repent having made them? Will some\nChristian give us an explanation of this matter? No good man will\ninflict unnecessary pain upon a beast; how then can we worship a god who\ncares nothing for the agonies of the dumb creatures that he made?\n\nWhy did he make animals that he knew he would destroy? Does God delight\nin causing pain? He had the power to make the beasts, and fowls, and\ncreeping things in his own good time and way, and it is to be presumed\nthat he made them according to his wish. Why should he destroy them?\nThey had committed no sin. They had eaten no forbidden fruit, made no\naprons, nor tried to reach the tree of life. Yet this god, in blind\nunreasoning wrath destroyed \"all flesh wherein was the breath of life,\nand every living thing beneath the sky, and every substance wherein was\nlife that he had made.\"\n\nJehovah having made up his mind to drown the world, told Noah to make\nan Ark of gopher wood three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and\nthirty cubits high. A cubit is twenty-two inches; so that the ark was\nfive hundred and fifty feet long, ninety-one feet and eight inches wide\nand fifty-five feet high. This ark was divided into three stories, and\nhad on top, one window twenty-two inches square. Ventilation must have\nbeen one of Jehovah's hobbies. Think of a ship larger than the Great\nEastern with only one window, and that but twenty-two inches square!\n\nThe ark also had one door set in the side thereof that shut from the\noutside. As soon as this ship was finished, and properly victualed, Noah\nreceived seven days notice to get the animals in the ark.\n\nIt is claimed by some of the scientific theologians that the flood was\npartial, that the waters covered only a small portion of the world, and\nthat consequently only a few animals were in the ark. It is impossible\nto conceive of language that can more clearly convey the idea of a\nuniversal flood than that found in the inspired account. If the flood\nwas only partial, why did God say he would \"destroy all flesh wherein\nis the breath of life from under heaven, and that every thing that is\nin the earth shall die\"? Why did he say \"I will destroy man whom I have\ncreated from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping\nthing and the fowls of the air\"? Why did he say \"And every living\nsubstance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the\nearth\"? Would a partial, local flood have fulfilled these threats?\n\nNothing can be clearer than that the writer of this account intended to\nconvey, and did convey the idea that the flood was universal. Why should\nChristians try to deprive God of the glory of having wrought the most\nstupendous of miracles? Is it possible that the Infinite could not\noverwhelm with waves this atom called the earth? Do you doubt his power,\nhis wisdom or his justice?\n\nBelievers in miracles should not endeavor to explain them. There is but\none way to explain anything, and that is to account for it by natural\nagencies. The moment you explain a miracle, it disappears. You should\ndepend not upon explanation, but assertion. You should not be driven\nfrom the field because the miracle is shown to be unreasonable. You\nshould reply that all miracles are unreasonable. Neither should you be\nin the least disheartened if it is shown to be impossible. The possible\nis not miraculous. You should take the ground that if miracles were\nreasonable, and possible, there would be no reward paid for believing\nthem. The Christian has the goodness to believe, while the sinner asks\nfor evidence. It is enough for God to work miracles without being called\nupon to substantiate them for the benefit of unbelievers.\n\nOnly a few years ago, the Christians believed implicitly in the literal\ntruth of every miracle recorded in the Bible. Whoever tried to explain\nthem in some natural way, was looked upon as an infidel in disguise,\nbut now he is regarded as a benefactor. The credulity of the church is\ndecreasing, and the most marvelous miracles are now either \"explained,\"\nor allowed to take refuge behind the mistakes of the translators, or\nhide in the drapery of allegory.\n\nIn the sixth chapter, Noah is ordered to take \"of every living thing\nof all flesh, two of every sort into the ark—male and female.\" In the\nseventh chapter the order is changed, and Noah is commanded, according\nto the Protestant Bible, as follows: \"Of every clean beast thou shalt\ntake to thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts that are\nnot clean, by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by\nsevens, the male and the female.\"\n\nAccording to the Catholic Bible, Noah was commanded—-\"Of all clean\nbeasts take seven and seven, the male and the female. But of the beasts\nthat are unclean two and two, the male and the female. Of the fowls also\nof the air seven and seven, the male and the female.\"\n\nFor the purpose of belittling this miracle, many commentators have\ntaken the ground that Noah was not ordered to take seven males and seven\nfemales of each kind of clean beasts, but seven in all. Many Christians\ncontend that only seven clean beasts of each kind were taken into the\nark—three and a half of each sex.\n\nIf the account in the seventh chapter means anything, it means first,\nthat of each kind of clean beasts, fourteen were to be taken, seven\nmales, and seven females; second, that of unclean beasts should be\ntaken, two of each kind, one of each sex, and third, that he should\ntake of every kind of fowls, seven of each sex.\n\nIt is equally clear that the command in the 19th and 20th verses of the\n6th chapter, is to take two of each sort, one male and one female. And\nthis agrees exactly with the account in the 7th, 8th, 9th, 14th, 15th,\nand 16th verses of the 7th chapter.\n\nThe next question is, how many beasts, fowls and creeping things did\nNoah take into the ark?\n\nThere are now known and classified at least twelve thousand five hundred\nspecies of birds. There are still vast territories in China, South\nAmerica, and Africa unknown to the ornithologist.\n\nOf the birds, Noah took fourteen of each species, according to the 3d\nverse of the 7th chapter, \"Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male\nand the female,\" making a total of 175,000 birds.\n\nAnd right here allow me to ask a question. If the flood was simply a\npartial flood, why were birds taken into the ark? It seems to me that\nmost birds, attending strictly to business, might avoid a partial flood.\n\nThere are at least sixteen hundred and fifty-eight kinds of beasts. Let\nus suppose that twenty-five of these are clean. Of the clean, fourteen\nof each kind—seven of each sex—were taken. These amount to 350. Of\nthe unclean—two of each kind, amounting to 3,266. There are some six\nhundred and fifty species of reptiles. Two of each kind amount to 1,300.\nAnd lastly, there are of insects including the creeping things, at least\none million species, so that Noah and his folks had to get of these into\nthe ark about 2,000,000.\n\nAnimalculae have not been taken into consideration. There are probably\nmany hundreds of thousands of species; many of them invisible; and\nyet Noah had to pick them out by pairs. Very few people have any just\nconception of the trouble Noah had.\n\nWe know that there are many animals on this continent not found in the\nOld World. These must have been carried from here to the ark, and then\nbrought back afterwards. Were the peccary, armadillo, ant-eater, sloth,\nagouti, vampire-bat, marmoset, howling and prehensile-tailed monkey, the\nraccoon and muskrat carried by the angels from America to Asia? How did\nthey get there? Did the polar bear leave his field of ice and journey\ntoward the tropics? How did he know where the ark was? Did the kangaroo\nswim or jump from Australia to Asia? Did the giraffe, hippopotamus,\nantelope and orang-outang journey from Africa in search of the ark? Can\nabsurdities go farther than this?\n\nWhat had these animals to eat while on the journey? What did they eat\nwhile in the ark? What did they drink? When the rain came, of course\nthe rivers ran to the seas, and these seas rose and finally covered the\nworld. The waters of the seas, mingled with those of the flood, would\nmake all salt. It has been calculated that it required, to drown the\nworld, about eight times as much water as was in all the seas. To find\nhow salt the waters of the flood must have been, take eight quarts of\nfresh water, and add one quart from the sea. Such water would create\ninstead of allaying thirst. Noah had to take in his ark fresh water for\nall his beasts, birds and living things. He had to take the proper food\nfor all. How long was he in the ark? Three hundred and seventy-seven\ndays! Think of the food necessary for the monsters of the ante-diluvian\nworld!\n\nEight persons did all the work. They attended to the wants of 175,000\nbirds, 3,616 beasts, 1,300 reptiles, and 2,000,000 insects, saying\nnothing of countless animalculae.\n\nWell, after they all got in, Noah pulled down the window, God shut the\ndoor, and the rain commenced.\n\nHow long did it rain?\n\nForty days.\n\nHow deep did the water get?\n\nAbout five miles and a half.\n\nHow much did it rain a day?\n\nEnough to cover the whole world to a depth of about seven hundred and\nforty-two feet.\n\nSome Christians say that the fountains of the great deep were broken up.\nWill they be kind enough to tell us what the fountains of the great deep\nare? Others say that God had vast stores of water in the center of the\nearth that he used on that occasion. How did these waters happen to run\nup hill?\n\nGentlemen, allow me to tell you once more that you must not try to\nexplain these things. Your efforts in that direction do no good, because\nyour explanations are harder to believe than the miracle itself. Take my\nadvice, stick to assertion, and let explanation alone.\n\nThen, as now, Dhawalagiri lifted its crown of snow twenty-nine thousand\nfeet above the level of the sea, and on the cloudless cliffs of\nChimborazo then, as now, sat the condor; and yet the waters rising seven\nhundred and twenty-six feet a day—thirty feet an hour, six inches\na minute,—rose over the hills, over the volcanoes, filled the vast\ncraters, extinguished all the fires, rose above every mountain peak\nuntil the vast world was but one shoreless sea covered with the\ninnumerable dead.\n\nWas this the work of the most merciful God, the father of us all? If\nthere is a God, can there be the slightest danger of incurring his\ndispleasure by doubting even in a reverential way, the truth of such a\ncruel lie? If we think that God is kinder than he really is, will our\npoor souls be burned for that?\n\nHow many trees can live under miles of water for a year? What became of\nthe soil washed, scattered, dissolved, and covered with the debris of\na world? How were the tender plants and herbs preserved? How were the\nanimals preserved after leaving the ark? There was no grass except such\nas had been submerged for a year. There were no animals to be devoured\nby the carnivorous beasts. What became of the birds that fed on worms\nand insects? What became of the birds that devoured other birds?\n\nIt must be remembered that the pressure of the water when at the highest\npoint—say twenty-nine thousand feet, would have been about eight\nhundred tons on each square foot. Such a pressure certainly would have\ndestroyed nearly every vestige of vegetable life, so that when the\nanimals came out of the ark, there was not a mouthful of food in the\nwide world. How were they supported until the world was again clothed\nwith grass? How were those animals taken care of that subsisted on\nothers? Where did the bees get honey, and the ants seeds? There was not\na creeping thing upon the whole earth; not a breathing creature beneath\nthe whole heavens; not a living substance. Where did the tenants of the\nark get food?\n\nThere is but one answer, if the story is true. The food necessary\nnot only during the year of the flood, but sufficient for many months\nafterwards, must have been stored in the ark.\n\nThere is probably not an animal in the world that will not, in a year,\neat and drink ten times its weight. Noah must have provided food and\nwater for a year while in the ark, and food for at least six months\nafter they got ashore. It must have required for a pair of elephants,\nabout one hundred and fifty tons of food and water. A couple of mammoths\nwould have required about twice that amount. Of course there were other\nmonsters that lived on trees; and in a year would have devoured quite a\nforest.\n\nHow could eight persons have distributed this food, even if the ark had\nbeen large enough to hold it? How was the ark kept clean? We know how it\nwas ventilated; but what was done with the filth? How were the animals\nwatered? How were some portions of the ark heated for animals from the\ntropics, and others kept cool for the polar bears? How did the animals\nget back to their respective countries? Some had to creep back about\nsix thousand miles, and they could only go a few feet a day. Some of the\ncreeping things must have started for the ark just as soon as they were\nmade, and kept up a steady jog for sixteen hundred years. Think of\na couple of the slowest snails leaving a point opposite the ark and\nstarting for the plains of Shinar, a distance of twelve thousand miles.\nGoing at the rate of a mile a month, it would take them a thousand\nyears. How did they get there? Polar bears must have gone several\nthousand miles, and so sudden a change in climate must have been\nexceedingly trying upon their health. How did they know the way to go?\nOf course, all the polar bears did not go. Only two were required. Who\nselected these?\n\nTwo sloths had to make the journey from South America. These creatures\ncannot travel to exceed three rods a day. At this rate, they would make\na mile in about a hundred days. They must have gone about six thousand\nfive hundred miles, to reach the ark. Supposing them to have traveled by\na reasonably direct route, in order to complete the journey before Noah\nhauled in the plank, they must have started several years before the\nworld was created. We must also consider that these sloths had to board\nthemselves on the way, and that most of their time had to be taken up\ngetting food and water. It is exceedingly doubtful whether a sloth could\ntravel six thousand miles and board himself in less than three thousand\nyears.\n\nVolumes might be written upon the infinite absurdity of this most\nincredible, wicked and foolish of all the fables contained in that\nrepository of the impossible, called the Bible. To me it is a matter\nof amazement, that it ever was for a moment believed by any intelligent\nhuman being.\n\nDr. Adam Clarke says that \"the animals were brought to the ark by the\npower of God, and their enmities were so removed or suspended, that the\nlion could dwell peaceably with the lamb, and the wolf sleep happily by\nthe side of the kid. There is no positive evidence that animal food was\never used before the flood. Noah had the first grant of this kind.\"\n\nDr. Scott remarks, \"There seems to have been a very extraordinary\nmiracle, perhaps by the ministration of angels, in bringing two of every\nspecies to Noah, and rendering them submissive, and peaceful with each\nother. Yet it seems not to have made any impression upon the hardened\nspectators. The suspension of the ferocity of the savage beasts during\ntheir continuance in the ark, is generally considered as an apt figure\nof the change that takes place in the disposition of sinners when they\nenter the true church of Christ.\"\n\nHe believed the deluge to have been universal. In his day science had\nnot demonstrated the absurdity of this belief, and he was not compelled\nto resort to some theory not found in the Bible. He insisted that \"by\nsome vast convulsion, the very bowels of the earth were forced upwards,\nand rain poured down in cataracts and water-spouts, with no intermission\nfor forty days and nights, and until in every place a universal deluge\nwas effected.\n\n\"The presence of God was the only comfort of Noah in his dreary\nconfinement, and in witnessing the dire devastation of the earth and its\ninhabitants, and especially of the human species—of his companions, his\nneighbors, his relatives—all those to whom he had preached, for whom he\nhad prayed and over whom he had wept, and even of many who had helped to\nbuild the ark.\n\n\"It seems that by a peculiar providential interposition, no animal of\nany sort died, although they had been shut up in the ark above a year;\nand it does not appear that there had been any increase of them during\nthat time.\n\n\"The Ark was flat-bottomed—square at each end—roofed like a house so\nthat it terminated at the top in the breadth of a cubit. It was divided\ninto many little cabins for its intended inhabitants. Pitched within and\nwithout to keep it tight and sweet, and lighted from the upper part.\nBut it must, at first sight, be evident that so large a vessel, thus\nconstructed, with so few persons on board, was utterly unfitted to\nweather out the deluge, except it was under the immediate guidance and\nprotection of the Almighty.\"\n\nDr. Henry furnished the Christian world with the following:—\n\n\"As our bodies have in them the humors which, when God pleases, become\nthe springs and seeds of mortal disease, so the earth had, in its\nbowels, those waters which, at God's command, sprung up and flooded it.\n\n\"God made the world in six days, but he was forty days in destroying it,\nbecause he is slow to anger.\n\n\"The hostilities between the animals in the ark ceased, and ravenous\ncreatures became mild and manageable, so that the wolf lay down with the\nlamb, and the lion ate straw like an ox.\n\n\"God shut the door of the ark to secure Noah and to keep him safe, and\nbecause it was necessary that the door should be shut very close lest\nthe water should break in and sink the ark, and very fast lest others\nmight break it down.\n\n\"The waters rose so high that not only the low flat countries were\ndeluged, but to make sure work and that none might escape, the tops of\nthe highest mountains were overflowed fifteen cubits. That is, seven\nand a half yards, so that salvation was not hoped for from hills or\nmountains.\n\n\"Perhaps some of the people got to the top of the ark, and hoped to\nshift for themselves there. But either they perished there for want of\nfood, or the dashing rain washed them off the top. Others, it may be,\nhoped to prevail with Noah for admission into the ark, and plead old\nacquaintance.\n\n\"'Have we not eaten and drank in thy presence? Hast thou not preached in\nour streets?' 'Yea,' said Noah, 'many a time, but to little purpose. I\ncalled but ye refused; and now it is not in my power to help you. God\nhas shut the door and I cannot open it.'\n\n\"We may suppose that some of those who perished in the deluge had\nthemselves assisted Noah, or were employed by him in building the ark.\n\n\"Hitherto, man had been confined to feed only upon the products of the\nearth. Fruits, herbs and roots, and all sorts of greens, and milk, which\nwas the first grant; but the flood having perhaps washed away much\nof the fruits of the earth, and rendered them much less pleasant and\nnourishing, God enlarged the grant and allowed him to eat flesh, which\nperhaps man never thought of until now, that God directed him to it. Nor\nhad he any more desire to it than the sheep has to suck blood like the\nwolf. But now, man is allowed to feed upon flesh as freely and safely as\nupon the green herb.\"\n\nSuch was the debasing influence of a belief in the literal truth of the\nBible upon these men, that their commentaries are filled with passages\nutterly devoid of common sense.\n\nDr. Clarke speaking of the mammoth says:\n\n\"This animal, an astonishing proof of God's power, he seems to have\nproduced merely to show what he could do. And after suffering a few of\nthem to propagate, he extinguished the race by a merciful providence,\nthat they might not destroy both man and beast.\n\n\"We are told that it would have been much easier for God to destroy all\nthe people and make new ones, but he would not want to waste anything\nand no power or skill should be lavished where no necessity exists.\n\n\"The animals were brought to the ark by the power of God.\"\n\nAgain gentlemen, let me warn you of the danger of trying to explain a\nmiracle. Let it alone. Say that you do not understand it, and do not\nexpect to until taught in the schools of the New Jerusalem. The more\nreasons you give, the more unreasonable the miracle will appear. Through\nwhat you say in defence, people are led to think, and as soon as they\nreally think, the miracle is thrown away.\n\nAmong the most ignorant nations you will find the most wonders, among\nthe most enlightened, the least. It is with individuals, the same as\nwith nations. Ignorance believes, Intelligence examines and explains.\n\nFor about seven months the ark, with its cargo of men, animals and\ninsects, tossed and wandered without rudder or sail upon a boundless\nsea. At last it grounded on the mountains of Ararat; and about three\nmonths afterward the tops of the mountains became visible. It must not\nbe forgotten that the mountain where the ark is supposed to have first\ntouched bottom, was about seventeen thousand feet high. How were the\nanimals from the tropics kept warm? When the waters were abated it would\nbe intensely cold at a point seventeen thousand feet above the level of\nthe sea. May be there were stoves, furnaces, fire places and steam coils\nin the ark, but they are not mentioned in the inspired narrative. How\nwere the animals kept from freezing? It will not do to say that Ararat\nwas not very high after all.\n\nIf you will read the fourth and fifth verses of the eight chapter you\nwill see that although \"the ark rested in the seventh month, on the\nseventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat, it was not\nuntil the first day of the tenth month that the tops of the mountains\ncould be seen.\" From this it would seem that the ark must have rested\nupon about the highest peak in that country. Noah waited forty days\nmore, and then for the first time opened the window and took a breath\nof fresh air. He then sent out a raven that did not return, then a dove\nthat returned. He then waited seven days and sent forth a dove that\nreturned not. From this he knew that the waters were abated. Is it\npossible that he could not see whether the waters had gone? Is it\npossible to conceive of a more perfectly childish way of ascertaining\nwhether the earth was dry?\n\nAt last Noah \"removed the covering of the ark, and looked and behold the\nface of the ground was dry,\" and thereupon God told him to disembark. In\nhis gratitude Noah built an altar and took of every clean beast and of\nevery clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings. And the Lord smelled a\nsweet savor and said in his heart that he would not any more curse the\nground for man's sake. For saying this in his heart the Lord gives as a\nreason, not that man is, or will be good, but because \"the imagination\nof man's heart is evil from his youth.\" God destroyed man because \"the\nwickedness of man was great in the earth, and _because every imagination\nof the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually_.\" And he\npromised for the same reason not to destroy him again. Will some\ngentleman skilled in theology give us an explanation?\n\nAfter God had smelled the sweet savor of sacrifice, he seems to have\nchanged his idea as to the proper diet for man. When Adam and Eve were\ncreated they were allowed to eat herbs bearing seed, and the fruit of\ntrees. When they were turned out of Eden, God said to them \"Thou shalt\neat the herb of the field.\" In the first chapter of Genesis the \"green\nherb\" was given for food to the beasts, fowls and creeping things. Upon\nbeing expelled from the garden, Adam and Eve, as to their food, were\nput upon an equality with the lower animals. According to this, the\nante-diluvians were vegetarians. This may account for their wickedness\nand longevity.\n\nAfter Noah sacrificed, and God smelled the sweet savor; he said—\"Every\nmoving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb\nhave I given you all things.\" Afterward this same God changed his mind\nagain, and divided the beasts and birds into clean and unclean, and made\nit a crime for man to eat the unclean. Probably food was so scarce when\nNoah was let out of the ark that Jehovah generously allowed him to eat\nanything and everything he could find.\n\nAccording to the account, God then made a covenant with Noah to the\neffect that he would not again destroy the world with a flood, and as\nthe attesting witness of this contract, a rainbow was set in the cloud.\nThis bow was placed in the sky so that it might perpetually remind God\nof his promise and covenant. Without this visible witness and reminder,\nit would seem that Jehovah was liable to forget the contract, and drown\nthe world again. Did the rainbow originate in this way? Did God put it\nin the cloud simply to keep his agreement in his memory?\n\nFor me it is impossible to believe the story of the deluge. It seems so\ncruel, so barbaric, so crude in detail, so absurd in all its parts,\nand so contrary to all we know of law, that even credulity itself is\nshocked.\n\nMany nations have preserved accounts of a deluge in which all people,\nexcept a family or two, were destroyed. Babylon was certainly a city\nbefore Jerusalem was founded. Egypt was in the height of her power when\nthere were only seventy Jews in the world, and India had a literature\nbefore the name of Jehovah had passed the lips of superstition. An\naccount of a general deluge \"was discovered by George Smith, translated\nfrom another account that was written about two thousand years before\nChrist.\" Of course it is impossible to tell how long the story had\nlived in the memory of tradition before it was reduced to writing by the\nBabylonians. According to this account, which is, without doubt, much\nolder than the one given by Moses, Tamzi built a ship at the command of\nthe god Hea, and put in it his family and the beasts of the field. He\npitched the ship inside and outside with bitumen, and as soon as it was\nfinished, there came a flood of rain and \"destroyed all life from the\nface of the whole earth. On the seventh day there was a calm, and the\nship stranded on the mountain Nizir.\" Tamzi waited for seven days more,\nand then let out a dove. Afterwards, he let out a swallow, and that, as\nwell as the dove returned. Then he let out a raven, and as that did not\nreturn, he concluded that the water had dried away, and thereupon\nleft the ship. Then he made an offering to god, or the gods, and \"Hea\ninterceded with Bel,\" so that the earth might never again be drowned.\n\nThis is the Babylonian story, told without the contradictions of the\noriginal. For in that, it seems, there are two accounts, as well as\nin the Bible. Is it not a strange coincidence that there should be\ncontradictory accounts mingled in both the Babylonian and Jewish\nstories?\n\nIn the Bible there are two accounts. In one account, Noah was to take\ntwo of all beasts, birds, and creeping things into the ark, while in the\nother, he was commanded to take of clean beasts, and all birds by\nsevens of each kind. According to one account, the flood only lasted\none hundred and fifty days—as related in the third verse of the eighth\nchapter; while the other account fixes the time at three hundred and\nseventy-seven days. Both of these accounts cannot be true. Yet in order\nto be saved, it is not sufficient to believe one of them—you must\nbelieve both.\n\nAmong the Egyptians there was a story to the effect that the great god\nRa became utterly maddened with the people, and deliberately made up his\nmind that he would exterminate mankind. Thereupon he began to destroy,\nand continued in the terrible work until blood flowed in streams, when\nsuddenly he ceased, and took an oath that he would not again destroy the\nhuman race. This myth was probably thousands of years old when Moses was\nborn.\n\nSo, in India, there was a fable about the flood. A fish warned Manu\nthat a flood was coming. Manu built a \"box\" and the fish towed it to a\nmountain and saved all hands.\n\nThe same kind of stories were told in Greece, and among our own Indian\ntribes. At one time the Christian pointed to the fact that many nations\ntold of a flood, as evidence of the truth of the Mosaic account; but\nnow, it having been shown that other accounts are much older, and\nequally reasonable, that argument has ceased to be of any great value.\n\nIt is probable that all these accounts had a common origin. They were\nlikely born of something in nature visible to all nations. The idea of a\nuniversal flood, produced by a god to drown the world on account of\nthe sins of the people, is infinitely absurd. The solution of all these\nstories has been supposed to be, the existence of partial floods in most\ncountries; and for a long time this solution was satisfactory. But the\nfact that these stories are greatly alike, that only one man is warned,\nthat only one family is saved, that a boat is built, that birds are sent\nout to find if the water had abated, tend to show that they had a common\norigin. Admitting that there were severe floods in all countries; it\ncertainly cannot follow that in each instance only one family would be\nsaved, or that the same story would in each instance be told. It may be\nurged that the natural tendency of man to exaggerate calamities, might\naccount for this agreement in all the accounts, and it must be admitted\nthat there is some force in the suggestion. I believe, though, that the\nreal origin of all these myths is the same, and that it was originally\nan effort to account for the sun, moon and stars. The sun and moon\nwere the man and wife, or the god and goddess, and the stars were their\nchildren. From a celestial myth, it became a terrestrial one; the air,\nor ether-ocean became a flood, produced by rain, and the sun moon and\nstars became man, woman and children.\n\nIn the original story, the mountain was the place where in the far east\nthe sky was supposed to touch the earth, and it was there that the ship\ncontaining the celestial passengers finally rested from its voyage. But\nwhatever may be the origin of the stories of the flood, whether told\nfirst by Hindu, Babylonian or Hebrew, we may rest perfectly assured that\nthey are all equally false.\n\nXIX. Bacchus and Babel.\n\nAs soon as Noah had disembarked, he proceeded to plant a vineyard, and\nbegan to be a husbandman; and when the grapes were ripe he made wine and\ndrank of it to excess; cursed his grandson, blessed Shem and Japheth, and\nafter that lived for three hundred and fifty years. What he did during\nthese three hundred and fifty years, we are not told. We never hear of\nhim again. For three hundred and fifty years he lived among his sons,\nand daughters, and their descendants. He must have been a venerable man.\nHe was the man to whom God had made known his intention of drowning the\nworld. By his efforts, the human race had been saved. He must have been\nacquainted with Methuselah for six hundred years, and Methuselah was\nabout two hundred and forty years old, when Adam died. Noah must himself\nhave known the history of mankind, and must have been an object of\nalmost infinite interest; and yet for three hundred and fifty years he\nis neither directly nor indirectly mentioned. When Noah died, Abraham\nmust have been more than fifty years old; and Shem, the son of Noah,\nlived for several hundred years after the death of Abraham; and yet he\nis never mentioned. Noah when he died, was the oldest man in the whole\nworld by about five hundred years; and everybody living at the time of\nhis death knew that they were indebted to him, and yet no account is\ngiven of his burial. No monument was raised to mark the spot. This,\nhowever, is no more wonderful than the fact that no account is given of\nthe death of Adam or of Eve, nor of the place of their burial. This may\nall be accounted for by the fact that the language of man was confounded\nat the building of the tower of Babel, whereby all tradition may have\nbeen lost, so that even the sons of Noah could not give an account of\ntheir voyage in the ark; and, consequently, some one had to be directly\ninspired to tell the story, after new languages had been formed.\n\nIt has always been a mystery to me how Adam, Eve, and the serpent were\ntaught the same language. Where did they get it? We know now, that\nit requires a great number of years to form a language; that it is of\nexceedingly slow growth. We also know that by language, man conveys to\nhis fellows the impressions made upon him by what he sees, hears, smells\nand touches. We know that the language of the savage consists of a few\nsounds, capable of expressing only a few ideas or states of the\nmind, such as love, desire, fear, hatred, aversion and contempt. Many\ncenturies are required to produce a language capable of expressing\ncomplex ideas. It does not seem to me that ideas can be manufactured by\na deity and put in the brain of man. These ideas must be the result of\nobservation and experience.\n\nDoes anybody believe that God directly taught a language to Adam and\nEve, or that he so made them that they, by intuition spoke Hebrew, or\nsome language capable of conveying to each other their thoughts? How did\nthe serpent learn the same language? Did God teach it to him, or did he\nhappen to overhear God, when he was teaching Adam and Eve? We are told\nin the second chapter of Genesis that God caused all the animals to pass\nbefore Adam to see what he would call them. We cannot infer from this\nthat God named the animals and informed Adam what to call them. Adam\nnamed them himself. Where did he get his words? We cannot imagine a man\njust made out of dust, without the experience of a moment, having the\npower to put his thoughts in language. In the first place, we cannot\nconceive of his having any thoughts until he has combined, through\nexperience and observation, the impressions that nature had made upon\nhim through the medium of his senses. We cannot imagine of his knowing\nanything, in the first instance, about different degrees of heat, nor\nabout darkness, if he was made in the day-time, nor about light, if\ncreated at night, until the next morning. Before a man can have what we\ncall thoughts, he must have had a little experience. Something must have\nhappened to him before he can have a thought, and before he can express\nhimself in language. Language is a growth, not a gift. We account now\nfor the diversity of language by the fact that tribes and nations have\nhad different experiences, different wants, different surroundings, and,\none result of all these differences is, among other things, a difference\nin language. Nothing can be more absurd than to account for the\ndifferent languages of the world by saying that the original language\nwas confounded at the tower of Babel.\n\nAccording to the Bible, up to the time of the building of that tower,\nthe whole earth was of one language and of one speech, and would have so\nremained until the present time had not an effort been made to build\na tower whose top should reach into heaven. Can any one imagine what\nobjection God would have to the building of such a tower? And how could\nthe confusion of tongues prevent its construction? How could language\nbe confounded? It could be confounded only by the destruction of memory.\nDid God destroy the memory of mankind at that time, and if so, how?\nDid he paralyze that portion of the brain presiding over the organs\nof articulation, so that they could not speak the words, although they\nremembered them clearly, or did he so touch the brain that they\ncould not hear? Will some theologian, versed in the machinery of the\nmiraculous, tell us in what way God confounded the language of mankind?\n\nWhy would the confounding of the language make them separate? Why would\nthey not stay together until they could understand each other? People\nwill not separate, from weakness. When in trouble they come together\nand desire the assistance of each other. Why, in this instance, did they\nseparate? What particular ones would naturally come together if nobody\nunderstood the language of any other person? Would it not have been just\nas hard to agree when and where to go, without any language to express\nthe agreement, as to go on with the building of the tower?\n\nIs it possible that any one now believes that the whole world would be\nof one speech had the language not been confounded at Babel? Do we not\nknow that every word was suggested in some way by the experience of men?\nDo we not know that words are continually dying, and continually being\nborn; that every language has its cradle and its cemetery—its buds, its\nblossoms, its fruits and its withered leaves? Man has loved, enjoyed,\nhated, suffered and hoped, and all words have been born of these\nexperiences.\n\nWhy did \"the Lord come down to see the city and the tower\"? Could he\nnot see them from where he lived or from where he was? Where did he come\ndown from? Did he come in the daytime, or in the night? We are taught\nnow that God is everywhere; that he inhabits immensity; that he is in\nevery atom, and in every star. If this is true, why did he \"come down to\nsee the city and the tower?\" Will some theologian explain this?\n\nAfter all, is it not much easier and altogether more reasonable to say\nthat Moses was mistaken, that he knew little of the science of language,\nand that he guessed a great deal more than he investigated?\n\nXX. Faith in Filth.\n\nNo light whatever is shed upon what passed in the world after the\nconfounding of language at Babel, until the birth of Abraham. But,\nbefore speaking of the history of the Jewish people, it may be proper\nfor me to say that many things are recounted in Genesis, and other books\nattributed to Moses, of which I do not wish to speak. There are many\npages of these books unfit to read, many stories not calculated, in my\njudgment, to improve the morals of mankind. I do not wish even to call\nthe attention of my readers to these things, except in a general way. It\nis to be hoped that the time will come when such chapters and passages\nas cannot be read without leaving the blush of shame upon the cheek of\nmodesty, will be left out, and not published as a part of the Bible. If\nthere is a God, it certainly is blasphemous to attribute to him the\nauthorship of pages too obscene, beastly and vulgar to be read in the\npresence of men and women.\n\nThe believers in the Bible are loud in their denunciation of what they\nare pleased to call the immoral literature of the world; and yet few\nbooks have been published containing more moral filth than this inspired\nword of God. These stories are not redeemed by a single flash of wit or\nhumor. They never rise above the dull details of stupid vice. For one,\nI cannot afford to soil my pages with extracts from them; and all such\nportions of the Scriptures I leave to be examined, written upon, and\nexplained by the clergy. Clergymen may know some way by which they can\nextract honey from these flowers. Until these passages are expunged\nfrom the Old Testament, it is not a fit book to be read by either old\nor young. It contains pages that no minister in the United States would\nread to his congregation for any reward whatever. There are chapters\nthat no gentleman would read in the presence of a lady. There are\nchapters that no father would read to his child. There are narratives\nutterly unfit to be told; and the time will come when mankind will\nwonder that such a book was ever called inspired.\n\nI know that in many books besides the Bible, there are immodest lines.\nSome of the greatest writers have soiled their pages with indecent\nwords. We account for this by saying that the authors were human; that\nthey catered to the taste and spirit of their times. We make excuses,\nbut at the same time regret that in their works they left an impure\nword. But what shall we say of God? Is it possible that a being of\ninfinite purity—the author of modesty, would smirch the pages of his\nbook with stories lewd, licentious and obscene? If God is the author of\nthe Bible, it is, of course, the standard by which all other books can,\nand should be measured. If the Bible is not obscene, what book is? Why\nshould men be imprisoned simply for imitating God? The Christian world\nshould never say another word against immoral books until it makes the\ninspired volume clean. These vile and filthy things were not written\nfor the purpose of conveying and enforcing moral truth, but seem to\nhave been written because the author loved an unclean thing. There is\nno moral depth below that occupied by the writer or publisher of obscene\nbooks, that stain with lust, the loving heart of youth. Such men should\nbe imprisoned and their books destroyed. The literature of the world\nshould be rendered decent, and no book should be published that cannot\nbe read by, and in the hearing of the best and purest people. But as\nlong as the Bible is considered as the work of God, it will be hard\nto make all men too good and pure to imitate it; and as long as it is\nimitated there will be vile and filthy books. The literature of our\ncountry will not be sweet and clean until the Bible ceases to be\nregarded as the production of a god.\n\nWe are continually told that the Bible is the very foundation of modesty\nand morality; while many of its pages are so immodest and immoral that\na minister, for reading them in the pulpit, would be instantly denounced\nas an unclean wretch. Every woman would leave the church, and if the men\nstayed, it would be for the purpose of chastising the minister.\n\nIs there any saving grace in hypocrisy? Will men become clean in speech\nby believing that God is unclean? Would it not be far better to admit\nthat the Bible was written by barbarians in a barbarous, coarse and\nvulgar age? Would it not be safer to charge Moses with vulgarity,\ninstead of God? Is it not altogether more probable that some ignorant\nHebrew would write the vulgar words? The Christians tell me that God is\nthe author of these vile and stupid things? I have examined the question\nto the best of my ability, and as to God my verdict is:—Not guilty.\nFaith should not rest in filth.\n\nEvery foolish and immodest thing should be expunged from the Bible.\nLet us keep the good. Let us preserve every great and splendid thought,\nevery wise and prudent maxim, every just law, every elevated idea, and\nevery word calculated to make man nobler and purer, and let us have the\ncourage to throw the rest away. The souls of children should not\nbe stained and soiled. The charming instincts of youth should not be\ncorrupted and defiled. The girls and boys should not be taught that\nunclean words were uttered by \"inspired\" lips. Teach them that these\nwords were born of savagery and lust. Teach them that the unclean is the\nunholy, and that only the pure is sacred.\n\nXXI. The Hebrews.\n\nAfter language had been confounded and the people scattered, there\nappeared in the land of Canaan a tribe of Hebrews ruled by a chief or\nsheik called Abraham. They had a few cattle, lived in tents, practiced\npolygamy, wandered from place to place, and were the only folks in the\nwhole world to whom God paid the slightest attention. At this time\nthere were hundreds of cities in India filled with temples and palaces;\nmillions of Egyptians worshiped Isis and Osiris, and had covered their\nland with marvelous monuments of industry, power and skill. But these\ncivilizations were entirely neglected by the Deity, his whole attention\nbeing taken up with Abraham and his family.\n\nIt seems, from the account, that God and Abraham were intimately\nacquainted, and conversed frequently upon a great variety of subjects.\nBy the twelfth chapter of Genesis it appears that he made the following\npromises to Abraham. \"I will make of thee a great nation, and I will\nbless thee, and make thy name great: and thou shalt be a blessing. And I\nwill bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.\"\n\nAfter receiving this communication from the Almighty, Abraham went into\nthe land of Canaan, and again God appeared to him and told him to take\na heifer three years old, a goat of the same age, a sheep of equal\nantiquity, a turtle dove and a young pigeon. Whereupon Abraham killed\nthe animals \"and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one\nagainst another.\" And it came to pass that when the sun went down and\nit was dark, behold a smoking furnace and a burning lamp that passed\nbetween the raw and bleeding meat. The killing of these animals was\na preparation for receiving a visit from God. Should an American\nmissionary in Central Africa find a negro chief surrounded by\na butchered heifer, a goat and a sheep, with which to receive a\ncommunication from the infinite God, my opinion is, that the missionary\nwould regard the proceeding as the direct result of savagery. And if\nthe chief insisted that he had seen a smoking furnace and a burning\nlamp going up and down between the pieces of meat, the missionary would\ncertainly conclude that the chief was not altogether right in his mind.\n\nIf the Bible is true, this same God told Abraham to take and sacrifice\nhis only son, or rather the only son of his wife, and a murder would\nhave been committed had not God, just at the right moment, directed him\nto stay his hand and take a sheep instead.\n\nGod made a great number of promises to Abraham, but few of them were\never kept. He agreed to make him the father of a great nation, but he\ndid not. He solemnly promised to give him a great country, including all\nthe land between the river of Egypt and the Euphrates, but he did not.\n\nIn due time Abraham passed away, and his son Isaac took his place at\nthe head of the tribe. Then came Jacob, who \"watered stock\" and enriched\nhimself with the spoil of Laban. Joseph was sold into Egypt by his\njealous brethren, where he became one of the chief men of the kingdom,\nand in a few years his father and brothers left their own country and\nsettled in Egypt. At this time there were seventy Hebrews in the world,\ncounting Joseph and his children. They remained in Egypt two hundred and\nfifteen years. It is claimed by some that they were in that country for\nfour hundred and thirty years. This is a mistake. Josephus says they\nwere in Egypt two hundred and fifteen years, and this statement is\nsustained by the best biblical scholars of all denominations. According\nto the 17th verse of the 3rd chapter of Galatians, it was four hundred\nand thirty years from the time the promise was made to Abraham to\nthe giving of the law, and as the Hebrews did not go to Egypt for two\nhundred and fifteen years after the making of the promise to Abraham,\nthey could in no event have been in Egypt more than two hundred and\nfifteen years. In our Bible the 40th verse of the 12th chapter of\nExodus, is as follows:—\n\n\"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was\nfour hundred and thirty years.\"\n\nThis passage does not say that the sojourning was all done in Egypt;\nneither does it say that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt four\nhundred and thirty years; but it does say that the sojourning of the\nchildren of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty\nyears. The Vatican copy of the Septuagint renders the same passage as\nfollows:—\n\n\"The sojourning of the children of Israel which they sojourned in Egypt,\nand in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years.\"\n\nThe Alexandrian version says:—\"The sojourning of the children of Israel\nwhich they and their fathers sojourned in Egypt, and in the land of\nCanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.\"\n\nAnd in the Samaritan Bible we have:—\"The sojourning of the children of\nIsrael and of their fathers which they sojourned in the land of Canaan,\nand in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.\"\n\nThere were seventy souls when they went down into Egypt, and they\nremained two hundred and fifteen years, and at the end of that time they\nhad increased to about three million. How do we know that there were\nthree million at the end of two hundred and fifteen years? We know it\nbecause we are informed by Moses that \"there were six hundred thousand\nmen of war.\" Now, to each man of war, there must have been at least five\nother people. In every State in this Union there will be to each voter,\nfive other persons at least, and we all know that there are always more\nvoters than men of war. If there were six hundred thousand men of war,\nthere must have been a population of at least three million. Is it\npossible that seventy people could increase to that extent in two\nhundred and fifteen years? You may say that it was a miracle; but\nwhat need was there of working a miracle? Why should God miraculously\nincrease the number of slaves? If he wished miraculously to increase the\npopulation, why did he not wait until the people were free?\n\nIn 1776, we had in the American Colonies about three millions of people.\nIn one hundred years we doubled four times: that is to say, six, twelve,\ntwenty-four, forty-eight million,—our present population.\n\nWe must not forget that during all these years there has been pouring\ninto our country a vast stream of emigration, and that this, taken\nin connection with the fact that our country is productive beyond all\nothers, gave us only four doubles in one hundred years. Admitting that\nthe Hebrews increased as rapidly without emigration as we, in this\ncountry, have with it, we will give to them four doubles each century,\ncommencing with seventy people, and they would have, at the end of\ntwo hundred years, a population of seventeen thousand nine hundred and\ntwenty. Giving them another double for the odd fifteen years and there\nwould be, provided no deaths had occurred, thirty-five thousand eight\nhundred and forty people. And yet we are told that instead of having\nthis number, they had increased to such an extent that they had six\nhundred thousand men of war; that is to say, a population of more than\nthree millions?\n\nEvery sensible man knows that this account is not, and cannot be true.\nWe know that seventy people could not increase to three million in two\nhundred and fifteen years.\n\nAbout this time the Hebrews took a census, and found that there were\ntwenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three first-born males.\nIt is reasonable to suppose that there were about as many first-born\nfemales. This would make forty-four thousand five hundred and forty-six\nfirst-born children. Now, there must have been about as many mothers\nas there were first-born children. If there were only about forty-five\nthousand mothers and three millions of people, the mothers must have had\non an average about sixty-six children apiece.\n\nAt this time, the Hebrews were slaves, and had been for two hundred and\nfifteen years. A little while before, an order had been made by the\nEgyptians that all the male children of the Hebrews should be killed.\nOne, contrary to this order, was saved in an ark made of bullrushes\ndaubed with slime. This child was found by the daughter of Pharaoh, and\nwas adopted, it seems, as her own, and, may be, was. He grew to be\na man, sided with the Hebrews, killed an Egyptian that was smiting a\nslave, hid the body in the sand, and fled from Egypt to the land of\nMidian, became acquainted with a priest who had seven daughters, took\nthe side of the daughters against the ill-mannered shepherds of that\ncountry, and married Zipporah, one of the girls, and became a shepherd\nfor her father. Afterward, while tending his flock, the Lord appeared to\nhim in a burning bush, and commanded him to go to the king of Egypt and\ndemand from him the liberation of the Hebrews. In order to convince him\nthat the something burning in the bush was actually God, the rod in his\nhand was changed into a serpent, which, upon being caught by the tail,\nbecame again a rod. Moses was also told to put his hand in his bosom,\nand when he took it out it was as leprous as snow. Quite a number of\nstrange things were performed, and others promised. Moses then agreed to\ngo back to Egypt provided his brother could go with him. Whereupon\nthe Lord appeared to Aaron, and directed him to meet Moses in the\nwilderness. They met at the mount of God, went to Egypt, gathered\ntogether all the elders of the children of Israel, spake all the words\nwhich God had spoken unto Moses, and did all the signs in the sight of\nthe people. The Israelites believed, bowed their heads and worshiped;\nand Moses and Aaron went in and told their message to Pharaoh the king.\n\nXXII. The Plagues.\n\nThree millions of people were in slavery. They were treated with the\nutmost rigor, and so fearful were their masters that they might, in\ntime, increase in numbers sufficient to avenge themselves, that they\ntook from the arms of mothers all the male children and destroyed\nthem. If the account given is true, the Egyptians were the most cruel,\nheartless and infamous people of which history gives any record. God\nfinally made up his mind to free the Hebrews; and for the accomplishment\nof this purpose he sent, as his agents, Moses and Aaron, to the king\nof Egypt. In order that the king might know that these men had a divine\nmission, God gave Moses the power of changing a stick into a serpent,\nand water into blood. Moses and Aaron went before the king, stating that\nthe Lord God of Israel ordered the king of Egypt to let the Hebrews\ngo that they might hold a feast with God in the wilderness. Thereupon\nPharaoh, the king, enquired who the Lord was, at the same time stating\nthat he had never made his acquaintance, and knew nothing about him.\nTo this they replied that the God of the Hebrews had met with them, and\nthey asked to go a three days journey into the desert and sacrifice\nunto this God, fearing that if they did not he would fall upon them with\npestilence or the sword. This interview seems to have hardened Pharaoh,\nfor he ordered the tasks of the children of Israel to be increased; so\nthat the only effect of the first appeal was to render still worse the\ncondition of the Hebrews. Thereupon, Moses returned unto the Lord and\nsaid, \"Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people? Why is\nit that thou hast sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy\nname he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered thy\npeople at all.\"\n\nApparently stung by this reproach, God answered:—\n\n\"Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharoah; for with a strong hand\nshall he let them go; and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of\nhis land.\"\n\nGod then recounts the fact that he had appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and\nJacob, that he had established a covenant with them to give them the\nland of Canaan, that he had heard the groanings of the children of\nIsrael in Egyptian bondage; that their groanings had put him in mind of\nhis covenant, and that he had made up his mind to redeem the children\nof Israel with a stretched-out arm and with great judgments. Moses then\nspoke to the children of Israel again, but they would listen to him no\nmore. His first effort in their behalf had simply doubled their trouble\nand they seemed to have lost confidence in his power. Thereupon Jehovah\npromised Moses that he would make him a god unto Pharaoh, and that\nAaron should be his prophet, but at the same time informed him that his\nmessage would be of no avail; that he would harden the heart of Pharaoh\nso that he would not listen; that he would so harden his heart that he\nmight have an excuse for destroying the Egyptians. Accordingly, Moses\nand Aaron again went before Pharaoh. Moses said to Aaron;—\"Cast down\nyour rod before Pharaoh,\" which he did, and it became a serpent. Then\nPharaoh not in the least surprised, called for his wise men and\nhis sorcerers, and they threw down their rods and changed them into\nserpents. The serpent that had been changed from Aaron's rod was, at\nthis time crawling upon the floor, and it proceeded to swallow the\nserpents that had been produced by the magicians of Egypt. What became\nof these serpents that were swallowed, whether they turned back into\nsticks again, is not stated. Can we believe that the stick was changed\ninto a real living serpent, or did it assume simply the appearance of a\nserpent? If it bore only the appearance of a serpent it was a deception,\nand could not rise above the dignity of legerdemain. Is it necessary to\nbelieve that God is a kind of prestigiator—a sleight-of-hand performer,\na magician or sorcerer? Can it be possible that an infinite being would\nendeavor to secure the liberation of a race by performing a miracle that\ncould be equally performed by the sorcerers and magicians of a barbarian\nking?\n\nNot one word was said by Moses or Aaron as to the wickedness of\ndepriving a human being of his liberty. Not a word was said in favor\nof liberty. Not the slightest intimation that a human being was justly\nentitled to the product of his own labor. Not a word about the cruelty\nof masters who would destroy even the babes of slave mothers. It seems\nto me wonderful that this God did not tell the king of Egypt that no\nnation could enslave another, without also enslaving itself; that it was\nimpossible to put a chain around the limbs of a slave, without putting\nmanacles upon the brain of the master. Why did he not tell him that a\nnation founded upon slavery could not stand? Instead of declaring these\nthings, instead of appealing to justice, to mercy and to liberty, he\nresorted to feats of jugglery. Suppose we wished to make a treaty with\na barbarous nation, and the President should employ a sleight-of-hand\nperformer as envoy extraordinary, and instruct him, that when he came\ninto the presence of the savage monarch, he should cast down an umbrella\nor a walking stick, which would change into a lizard or a turtle; what\nwould we think? Would we not regard such a performance as beneath the\ndignity even of a President? And what would be our feelings if the\nsavage king sent for his sorcerers and had them perform the same feat?\nIf such things would appear puerile and foolish in the President of a\ngreat republic, what shall be said when they were resorted to by the\ncreator of all worlds? How small, how contemptible such a God appears!\nPharaoh, it seems, took about this view of the matter, and he would not\nbe persuaded that such tricks were performed by an infinite being.\n\nAgain, Moses and Aaron came before Pharaoh as he was going to the\nriver's bank, and the same rod which had changed to a serpent, and,\nby this time changed back, was taken by Aaron, who, in the presence of\nPharaoh, smote the water of the river, which was immediately turned to\nblood, as well as all the water in all the streams, ponds, and pools, as\nwell as all water in vessels of wood and vessels of stone in the entire\nland of Egypt. As soon as all the waters in Egypt had been turned\ninto blood, the magicians of that country did the same with their\nenchantments. We are not informed where they got the water to turn into\nblood, since all the water in Egypt had already been so changed. It\nseems from the account that the fish in the Nile died, and the river\nemitted a stench, and there was not a drop of water in the land of\nEgypt that had not been changed into blood. In consequence of this, the\nEgyptians digged \"around about the river\" for water to drink. Can we\nbelieve this story? Is it necessary to salvation to admit that all the\nrivers, pools, ponds and lakes of a country were changed into blood, in\norder that a king might be induced to allow the children of Israel the\nprivilege of going a three days journey into the wilderness to make\nsacrifices to their God?\n\nIt seems from the account that Pharaoh was told that the God of the\nHebrews would, if he refused to let the Israelites go, change all the\nwaters of Egypt into blood, and that, upon his refusal, they were so\nchanged. This had, however, no influence upon him, for the reason that\nhis own magicians did the same. It does not appear that Moses and Aaron\nexpressed the least surprise at the success of the Egyptian sorcerers.\nAt that time it was believed that each nation had its own god. The\nonly claim that Moses and Aaron made for their God was, that he was the\ngreatest and most powerful of all the gods, and that with anything like\nan equal chance he could vanquish the deity of any other nation.\n\nAfter the waters were changed to blood Moses and Aaron waited for seven\ndays. At the end of that time God told Moses to again go to Pharaoh and\ndemand the release of his people, and to inform him that, if he refused,\nGod would strike all the borders of Egypt with frogs. That he would make\nfrogs so plentiful that they would go into the houses of Pharaoh, into\nhis bedchamber, upon his bed, into the houses of his servants, upon his\npeople, into their ovens, and even into their kneading troughs.\nThis threat had no effect whatever upon Pharaoh. And thereupon Aaron\nstretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came\nup and covered the land. The magicians of Egypt did the same, and with\ntheir enchantments brought more frogs upon the land of Egypt.\n\nThese magicians do not seem to have been original in their ideas, but\nso far as imitation is concerned, were perfect masters of their art. The\nfrogs seem to have made such an impression upon Pharaoh that he sent\nfor Moses and asked him to entreat the Lord that he would take away the\nfrogs. Moses agreed to remove them from the houses and the land, and\nallow them to remain only in the rivers. Accordingly the frogs died out\nof the houses, and out of the villages, and out of the fields, and the\npeople gathered them together in heaps. As soon as the frogs had left\nthe houses and fields, the heart of Pharaoh became again hardened, and\nhe refused to let the people go.\n\nAaron then, according to the command of God, stretched out his hand,\nholding the rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in\nman and in beast, and all the dust became lice throughout the land of\nEgypt. Pharaoh again sent for his magicians, and they sought to do\nthe same with their enchantments, but they could not. Whereupon the\nsorcerers said unto Pharaoh: \"This is the finger of God.\"\n\nNotwithstanding this, however, Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go.\nGod then caused a grievous swarm of flies to come into the house of\nPharaoh and into his servants' houses, and into all the land of Egypt,\nto such an extent that the whole land was corrupted by reason of the\nflies. But into that part of the country occupied by the children of\nIsrael there came no flies. Thereupon Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron\nand said to them: \"Go, and sacrifice to your God in this land.\" They\nwere not willing to sacrifice in Egypt, and asked permission to go on a\njourney of three days into the wilderness. To this Pharaoh acceded, and\nin consideration of this Moses agreed to use his influence with the Lord\nto induce him to send the flies out of the country. He accordingly told\nthe Lord of the bargain he had made with Pharaoh, and the Lord agreed to\nthe compromise, and removed the flies from Pharaoh and from his servants\nand from his people, and there remained not a single fly in the land of\nEgypt. As soon as the flies were gone, Pharaoh again changed his mind,\nand concluded not to permit the children of Israel to depart. The Lord\nthen directed Moses to go to Pharaoh and tell him that if he did not\nallow the children of Israel to depart, he would destroy his cattle, his\nhorses, his camels and his sheep; that these animals would be afflicted\nwith a grievous disease, but that the animals belonging to the Hebrews\nshould not be so afflicted. Moses did as he was bid. On the next day all\nthe cattle of Egypt died; that is to say, all the horses, all the asses,\nall the camels, all the oxen and all the sheep; but of the animals owned\nby the Israelites, not one perished. This disaster had no effect upon\nPharaoh, and he still refused to let the children of Israel go. The Lord\nthen told Moses and Aaron to take some ashes out of a furnace, and\ntold Moses to sprinkle them toward the heavens in the sight of Pharaoh;\nsaying that the ashes should become small dust in all the land of Egypt,\nand should be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast\nthroughout all the land.\n\nHow these boils breaking out with blains, upon cattle that were already\ndead, should affect Pharaoh, is a little hard to understand. It must\nnot be forgotten that all the cattle and all beasts had died with the\nmurrain before the boils had broken out.\n\nThis was a most decisive victory for Moses and Aaron. The boils were\nupon the magicians to that extent that they could not stand before\nMoses. But it had no effect upon Pharaoh, who seems to have been a man\nof great firmness. The Lord then instructed Moses to get up early in the\nmorning and tell Pharaoh that he would stretch out his hand and smite\nhis people with a pestilence, and would, on the morrow, cause it to rain\na very grievous hail, such as had never been known in the land of Egypt.\nHe also told Moses to give notice, so that they might get all the cattle\nthat were in the fields under cover. It must be remembered that all\nthese cattle had recently died of the murrain, and their dead bodies had\nbeen covered with boils and blains. This, however, had no effect, and\nMoses stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and the Lord sent thunder,\nand hail and lightning, and fire that ran along the ground, and the hail\nfell upon all the land of Egypt, and all that were in the fields, both\nman and beast, were smitten, and the hail smote every herb of the field,\nand broke every tree of the country except that portion inhabited by the\nchildren of Israel; there, there was no hail.\n\nDuring this hail storm Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron and admitted\nthat he had sinned, that the Lord was righteous, and that the Egyptians\nwere wicked, and requested them to ask the Lord that there be no more\nthunderings and hail, and that he would let the Hebrews go. Moses agreed\nthat as soon as he got out of the city he would stretch forth his hands\nunto the Lord, and that the thunderings should cease and the hail should\nstop. But, when the rain and the hail and the thundering ceased, Pharaoh\nconcluded that he would not let the children of Israel go.\n\nAgain, God sent Moses and Aaron, instructing them to tell Pharaoh that\nif he refused to let the people go, the face of the earth would be\ncovered with locusts, so that man would not be able to see the ground,\nand that these locusts would eat the residue of that which escaped from\nthe hail; that they would eat every tree out of the field; that they\nwould fill the houses of Pharaoh and the houses of all his servants, and\nthe houses of all the Egyptians. Moses delivered the message, and went\nout from Pharaoh. Some of Pharaoh's servants entreated their master\nto let the children of Israel go. Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron and\nasked them, who wished to go into the wilderness to sacrifice. They\nreplied that they wished to go with the young and old; with their sons\nand daughters, with flocks and herds. Pharaoh would not consent to this,\nbut agreed that the men might go. Thereupon Pharaoh drove Moses and\nAaron out of his sight. Then God told Moses to stretch forth his hand\nupon the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they might come up and eat\nevery herb, even all that the hail had left. \"And Moses stretched out\nhis rod over the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought an east wind all\nthat day and all that night; and when it was morning the east wind\nbrought the locusts; and they came up over all the land of Egypt and\nrested upon all the coasts covering the face of the whole earth, so that\nthe land was darkened; and they ate every herb and all the fruit of the\ntrees which the hail had left, and there remained not any green thing\non the trees or in the herbs of the field throughout the land of Egypt.\"\nPharaoh then called for Moses and Aaron in great haste, admitted that\nhe had sinned against the Lord their God and against them, asked their\nforgiveness and requested them to intercede with God that he might take\naway the locusts. They went out from his presence and asked the Lord to\ndrive the locusts away, \"And the Lord made a strong west wind which took\naway the locusts, and cast them into the Red Sea so that there remained\nnot one locust in all the coasts of Egypt.\"\n\nAs soon as the locusts were gone, Pharaoh changed his mind, and, in the\nlanguage of the sacred text, \"the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that\nhe would not let the children of Israel go.\"\n\nThe Lord then told Moses to stretch out his hand toward heaven that\nthere might be darkness over the land of Egypt, \"even darkness which\nmight be felt.\" \"And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and\nthere was a thick darkness over the land of Egypt for three days during\nwhich time they saw not each other, neither arose any of the people from\ntheir places for three days; but the children of Israel had light in\ntheir dwellings.\"\n\nIt strikes me that when the land of Egypt was covered with thick\ndarkness—so thick that it could be felt, and when light was in the\ndwellings of the Israelites, there could have been no better time for\nthe Hebrews to have left the country.\n\nPharaoh again called for Moses, and told him that his people could go\nand serve the Lord, provided they would leave their flocks and herds.\nMoses would not agree to this, for the reason that they needed the\nflocks and herds for sacrifices and burnt offerings, and he did not know\nhow many of the animals God might require, and for that reason he could\nnot leave a single hoof. Upon the question of the cattle, they divided,\nand Pharaoh again refused to let the people go. God then commanded Moses\nto tell the Hebrews to borrow, each of his neighbor, jewels of silver\nand gold. By a miraculous interposition the Hebrews found favor in the\nsight of the Egyptians so that they loaned the articles asked for. After\nthis, Moses again went to Pharaoh and told him that all the first-born\nin the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh upon the throne,\nunto the first-born of the maid-servant who was behind the mill, as well\nas the first-born of beasts, should die.\n\nAs all the beasts had been destroyed by disease and hail, it is\ntroublesome to understand the meaning of the threat as to their\nfirst-born.\n\nPreparations were accordingly made for carrying this frightful threat\ninto execution. Blood was put on the door-posts of all houses inhabited\nby Hebrews, so that God, as he passed through that land, might not be\nmistaken and destroy the first-born of the Jews. \"And it came to pass\nthat at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt,\nthe first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the throne, and the first-born of\nthe captive who was in the dungeon. And Pharaoh rose up in the night,\nand all his servants, and all the Egyptians, and there was a great cry\nin Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead.\"\n\nWhat had these children done? Why should the babes in the cradle be\ndestroyed on account of the crime of Pharaoh? Why should the cattle be\ndestroyed because man had enslaved his brother? In those days women and\nchildren and cattle were put upon an exact equality, and all considered\nas the property of the men; and when man in some way excited the wrath\nof God, he punished them by destroying all their cattle, their wives,\nand their little ones. Where can words be found bitter enough to\ndescribe a god who would kill wives and babes because husbands and\nfathers had failed to keep his law? Every good man, and every good\nwoman, must hate and despise such a deity.\n\nUpon the death of all the first-born Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron,\nand not only gave his consent that they might go with the Hebrews into\nthe wilderness, but besought them to go at once.\n\nIs it possible that an infinite God, creator of all worlds and sustainer\nof all life, said to Pharaoh, \"If you do not let my people go, I will\nturn all the water of your country into blood,\" and that upon the\nrefusal of Pharaoh to release the people, God did turn all the waters\ninto blood? Do you believe this?\n\nDo you believe that Pharaoh even after all the water was turned to\nblood, refused to let the Hebrews go, and that thereupon God told him he\nwould cover his land with frogs? Do you believe this?\n\nDo you believe that after the land was covered with frogs Pharaoh still\nrefused to let the people go, and that God then said to him, \"I will\ncover you and all your people with lice?\" Do you believe God would make\nthis threat?\n\nDo you also believe that God told Pharaoh, \"It you do not let these\npeople go, I will fill all your houses and cover your country with\nflies?\" Do you believe God makes such threats as this?\n\nOf course God must have known that turning the waters into blood,\ncovering the country with frogs, infesting all flesh with lice, and\nfilling all houses with flies, would not accomplish his object, and that\nall these plagues would have no effect whatever upon the Egyptian king.\n\nDo you believe that, failing to accomplish anything by the flies, God\ntold Pharaoh that if he did not let the people go he would kill his\ncattle with murrain? Does such a threat sound God-like?\n\nDo you believe that, failing to effect anything by killing the cattle,\nthis same God then threatened to afflict all the people with boils,\nincluding the magicians who had been rivaling him in the matter of\nmiracles; and failing to do anything by boils, that he resorted to hail?\nDoes this sound reasonable? The hail experiment having accomplished\nnothing, do you believe that God murdered the first-born of animals and\nmen? Is it possible to conceive of anything more utterly absurd, stupid,\nrevolting, cruel and senseless, than the miracles said to have been\nwrought by the Almighty for the purpose of inducing Pharaoh to liberate\nthe children of Israel?\n\nIs it not altogether more reasonable to say that the Jewish people,\nbeing in slavery, accounted for the misfortunes and calamities, suffered\nby the Egyptians, by saying that they were the judgments of God?\n\nWhen the Armada of Spain was wrecked and scattered by the storm, the\nEnglish people believed that God had interposed in their behalf,\nand publicly gave thanks. When the battle of Lepanto was won, it was\nbelieved by the Catholic world that the victory was given in answer to\nprayer. So, our fore-fathers in their Revolutionary struggle saw, or\nthought they saw, the hand of God, and most firmly believed that they\nachieved their independence by the interposition of the Most High.\n\nNow, it may be that while the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians,\nthere were plagues of locusts and flies. It may be that there were\nsome diseases by which many of the cattle perished. It may be that a\npestilence visited that country so that in nearly every house there\nwas some one dead. If so, it was but natural for the enslaved and\nsuperstitious Jews to account for these calamities by saying that they\nwere punishments sent by their God. Such ideas will be found in the\nhistory of every country.\n\nFor a long time the Jews held these opinions, and they were handed from\nfather to son simply by tradition. By the time a written language had\nbeen produced, thousands of additions had been made, and numberless\ndetails invented; so that we have not only an account of the plagues\nsuffered by the Egyptians, but the whole woven into a connected story,\ncontaining the threats made by Moses and Aaron, the miracles wrought by\nthem, the promises of Pharaoh, and finally the release of the Hebrews,\nas a result of the marvelous things performed in their behalf by\nJehovah.\n\nIn any event it is infinitely more probable that the author was\nmisinformed, than that the God of this universe was guilty of these\nchildish, heartless and infamous things. The solution of the whole\nmatter is this:—Moses was mistaken.\n\nXXIII. The Flight.\n\nThree millions of people, with their flocks and herds, with borrowed\njewelry and raiment, with unleavened dough in kneading troughs bound in\ntheir clothes upon their shoulders, in one night commenced their journey\nfor the land of promise. We are not told how they were informed of the\nprecise time to start. With all the modern appliances, it would require\nmonths of time to inform three millions of people of any fact.\n\nIn this vast assemblage there were six hundred thousand men of war, and\nwith them were the old, the young, the diseased and helpless. Where were\nthose people going? They were going to the desert of Sinai, compared\nwith which Sahara is a garden. Imagine an ocean of lava torn by\nstorm and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at by a Gorgon and changed\ninstantly to stone! Such was the desert of Sinai.\n\nAll of the civilized nations of the world could not feed and support\nthree millions of people on the desert of Sinai for forty years. It\nwould cost more than one hundred thousand millions of dollars, and would\nbankrupt Christendom. They had with them their flocks and herds, and the\nsheep were so numerous that the Israelites sacrificed, at one time, more\nthan one hundred and fifty thousand first-born lambs. How were these\nflocks supported? What did they eat? Where were meadows and pastures for\nthem? There was no grass, no forests—nothing! There is no account\nof its having rained baled hay, nor is it even claimed that they were\nmiraculously fed. To support these flocks, millions of acres of pasture\nwould have been required. God did not take the Israelites through the\nland of the Philistines, for fear that when they saw the people of that\ncountry they would return to Egypt, but he took them by the way of\nthe wilderness to the Red Sea, going before them by day in a pillar of\ncloud, and by night, in a pillar of fire.\n\nWhen it was told Pharaoh that the people had fled, he made ready\nand took six hundred chosen chariots of Egypt, and pursued after the\nchildren of Israel, overtaking them by the sea. As all the animals had\nlong before that time been destroyed, we are not informed where Pharaoh\nobtained the horses for his chariots. The moment the children of Israel\nsaw the hosts of Pharaoh, although they had six hundred thousand men\nof war, they immediately cried unto the Lord for protection. It is\nwonderful to me that a land that had been ravaged by the plagues\ndescribed in the Bible, still had the power to put in the field an army\nthat would carry terror to the hearts of six hundred thousand men of\nwar. Even with the help of God, it seems, they were not strong enough\nto meet the Egyptians in the open field, but resorted to strategy. Moses\nagain stretched forth his wonderful rod over the waters of the Red Sea,\nand they were divided, and the Hebrews passed through on dry land, the\nwaters standing up like a wall on either side. The Egyptians pursued\nthem; \"and in the morning watch the Lord looked into the hosts of the\nEgyptians, through the pillar of fire,\" and proceeded to take the wheels\noff their chariots. As soon as the wheels were off, God told Moses to\nstretch out his hand over the sea. Moses did so, and immediately \"the\nwaters returned and covered the chariots and horsemen and all the hosts\nof Pharaoh that came into the sea, and there remained not so much as one\nof them.\"\n\nThis account may be true, but still it hardly looks reasonable that God\nwould take the wheels off the chariots. How did he do it? Did he pull\nout the linch-pins, or did he just take them off by main force?\n\nWhat a picture this presents to the mind! God the creator of the\nuniverse, maker of every shining, glittering star, engaged in pulling\noff the wheels of wagons, that he might convince Pharaoh of his\ngreatness and power!\n\nWhere were these people going? They were going to the promised land.\nHow large a country was that? About twelve thousand square miles. About\none-fifth the size of the State of Illinois. It was a frightful country,\ncovered with rocks and desolation. How many people were in the promised\nland already? Moses tells us there were seven nations in that country\nmightier than the Jews. As there were at least three millions of Jews,\nthere must have been at least twenty-one millions of people already in\nthat country. These had to be driven out in order that room might be\nmade for the chosen people of God.\n\nIt seems, however, that God was not willing to take the children of\nIsrael into the promised land immediately. They were not fit to inhabit\nthe land of Canaan; so he made up his mind to allow them to wander upon\nthe desert until all except two, who had left Egypt, should perish. Of\nall the slaves released from Egyptian bondage, only two were allowed to\nreach the promised land!\n\nAs soon as the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea, they found themselves\nwithout food, and with water unfit to drink by reason of its bitterness,\nand they began to murmur against Moses, who cried unto the Lord, and\n\"the Lord showed him a tree.\" Moses cast this tree into the waters,\nand they became sweet. \"And it came to pass in the morning the dew lay\naround about the camp; and when the dew that lay was gone, behold,\nupon the face of the wilderness lay a small round thing, small as the\nhoar-frost upon the ground. And Moses said unto them, this is the bread\nwhich the Lord hath given you to eat.\" This manna was a very peculiar\nthing. It would melt in the sun, and yet they could cook it by seething\nand baking. One would as soon think of frying snow or of broiling\nicicles. But this manna had another remarkable quality. No matter how\nmuch or little any person gathered, he would have an exact omer; if he\ngathered more, it would shrink to that amount, and if he gathered less,\nit would swell exactly to that amount. What a magnificent substance\nmanna would be with which to make a currency—shrinking and swelling\naccording to the great laws of supply and demand!\n\n\"Upon this manna the children of Israel lived for forty years, until\nthey came to a habitable land. With this meat were they fed until\nthey reached the borders of the land of Canaan.\" We are told in the\ntwenty-first chapter of Numbers, that the people at last became tired\nof' the manna, complained of God, and asked Moses why he brought\nthem out of the land of Egypt to die in the wilderness. And they\nsaid:—\"There is no bread, nor have we any water. Our soul loatheth this\nlight food.\"\n\nWe are told by some commentators that the Jews lived on manna for forty\nyears; by others that they lived upon it for only a short time. As\na matter of fact the accounts differ, and this difference is the\nopportunity for commentators. It also allows us to exercise faith in\nbelieving that both accounts are true. If the accounts agreed, and were\nreasonable, they would be believed by the wicked and unregenerated. But\nas they are different and unreasonable, they are believed only by the\ngood. Whenever a statement in the Bible is unreasonable, and you believe\nit, you are considered quite a good Christian. If the statement is\ngrossly absurd and infinitely impossible, and you still believe it, you\nare a saint.\n\nThe children of Israel were in the desert, and they were out of water.\nThey had nothing to eat but manna, and this they had had so long that\nthe soul of every person abhorred it. Under these circumstances they\ncomplained to Moses. Now, as God is infinite, he could just as well have\nfurnished them with an abundance of the purest and coolest of water, and\ncould, without the slightest trouble to himself, have given them three\nexcellent meals a day, with a generous variety of meats and vegetables,\nit is very hard to see why he did not do so. It is still harder to\nconceive why he fell into a rage when the people mildly suggested that\nthey would like a change of diet. Day after day, week after week, month\nafter month, year after year, nothing but manna. No doubt they did\nthe best they could by cooking it in different ways, but in spite of\nthemselves they began to loathe its sight and taste, and so they asked\nMoses to use his influence to secure a change in the bill of fare.\n\nNow, I ask, whether it was unreasonable for the Jews to suggest that a\nlittle meat would be very gratefully received? It seems, however, that\nas soon as the request was made, this God of infinite mercy became\ninfinitely enraged, and instead of granting it, went into partnership\nwith serpents, for the purpose of punishing the hungry wretches to whom\nhe had promised a land flowing with milk and honey.\n\nWhere did these serpents come from? How did God convey the information\nto the serpents, that he wished them to go to the desert of Sinai and\nbite some Jews? It may be urged that these serpents were created for the\nexpress purpose of punishing the children of Israel for having had the\npresumption, like Oliver Twist, to ask for more.\n\nThere is another account in the eleventh chapter of Numbers, of the\npeople murmuring because of their food. They remembered the fish, the\ncucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions and the garlic of Egypt,\nand they asked for meat. The people went to the tent of Moses and asked\nhim for flesh. Moses cried unto the Lord and asked him why he did not\ntake care of the multitude. God thereupon agreed that they should have\nmeat, not for a day or two, but for a month, until the meat should come\nout of their nostrils and become loathsome to them. He then caused a\nwind to bring quails from beyond the sea, and cast them into the camp,\non every side of the camp around about for the space of a days journey.\nAnd the people gathered them, and while the flesh was yet between their\nteeth the wrath of God being provoked against them, struck them with\nan exceeding great plague. Serpents, also, were sent among them, and\nthousands perished for the crime of having been hungry.\n\nThe Rev. Alexander Cruden commenting upon this account says:—\n\n\"God caused a wind to rise that drove the quails within and about the\ncamp of the Israelites; and it is in this that the miracle consists,\nthat they were brought so seasonably to this place, and in so great\nnumbers as to suffice above a million of persons above a month. Some\nauthors affirm, that in those eastern and southern countries, quails\nare innumerable, so that in one part of Italy within the compass of five\nmiles, there were taken about an hundred thousand of them every day for\na month together; and that sometimes they fly so thick over the sea,\nthat being weary they fall into ships, sometimes in such numbers, that\nthey sink them with their weight.\"\n\nNo wonder Mr. Cruden believed the Mosaic account.\n\nMust we believe that God made an arrangement with hornets for the\npurpose af securing their services in driving the Canaanites from\nthe land of promise? Is this belief necessary unto salvation? Must we\nbelieve that God said to the Jews that he would send hornets before them\nto drive out the Canaanites, as related in the twenty-third chapter of\nExodus, and the second chapter of Deuteronomy? How would the hornets\nknow a Canaanite? In what way would God put it in the mind of a hornet\nto attack a Canaanite? Did God create hornets for that especial purpose,\nimplanting an instinct to attack a Canaanite, but not a Hebrew? Can\nwe conceive of the Almighty granting letters of marque and reprisal to\nhornets? Of course it is admitted that nothing in the world would\nbe better calculated to make a man leave his native land than a few\nhornets. Is it possible for us to believe that an infinite being would\nresort to such expedients in order to drive the Canaanites from their\ncountry? He could just as easily have spoken the Canaanites out of\nexistence as to have spoken the hornets in. In this way a vast amount of\ntrouble, pain and suffering would have been saved. Is it possible that\nthere is, in this country, an intelligent clergyman who will insist that\nthese stories are true; that we must believe them in in order to be good\npeople in this world, and glorified souls in the next?\n\nWe are also told that God instructed the Hebrews to kill the Canaanites\nslowly, giving as a reason that the beasts of the field might increase\nupon his chosen people. When we take into consideration the fact that\nthe Holy Land contained only about eleven or twelve thousand square\nmiles, and was at that time inhabited by at least twenty-one millions of\npeople, it does not seem reasonable that the wild beasts could have been\nnumerous enough to cause any great alarm. The same ratio of population\nwould give to the State of Illinois at least one hundred and twenty\nmillions of inhabitants. Can anybody believe that, under such\ncircumstances, the danger from wild beasts could be very great? What\nwould we think of a general, invading such a State, if he should order\nhis soldiers to kill the people slowly, lest the wild beasts might\nincrease upon them? Is it possible that a God capable of doing the\nmiracles recounted in the Old Testament could not, in some way, have\ndisposed of the wild beasts? After the Canaanites were driven out, could\nhe not have employed the hornets to drive out the wild beasts? Think of\na God that could drive twenty-one millions of people out of the promised\nland, could raise up innumerable stinging flies, and could cover\nthe earth with fiery serpents, and yet seems to have been perfectly\npowerless against the wild beasts of the land of Canaan!\n\nSpeaking of these hornets, one of the good old commentators, whose\nviews have long been considered of great value by the believers in the\ninspiration of the Bible, uses the following language:—\"Hornets are a\nsort of strong flies, which the Lord used as instruments to plague\nthe enemies of his people. They are of themselves very troublesome and\nmischievous, and those the Lord made use of were, it is thought, of an\nextraordinary bigness and perniciousness. It is said they live as the\nwasps, and that they have a king or captain, and pestilent stings\nas bees, and that, if twenty-seven of them sting man or beast, it is\ncertain death to either. Nor is it strange that such creatures did drive\nout the Canaanites from their habitations; for many heathen writers give\ninstances of some people driven from their seats by frogs, others by\nmice, others by bees and wasps. And it is said that a Christian city,\nbeing besieged by Sapores, king of Persia, was delivered by hornets; for\nthe elephants and beasts being stung by them, waxed unruly, and so the\nwhole army fled.\"\n\nOnly a few years ago, all such stories were believed by the Christian\nworld; and it is a historical fact, that Voltaire was the third man of\nany note in Europe, who took the ground that the mythologies of Greece\nand Rome were without foundation. Until his time, most Christians\nbelieved as thoroughly in the miracles ascribed to the Greek and Roman\ngods as in those of Christ and Jehovah. The Christian world cultivated\ncredulity, not only as one of the virtues, but as the greatest of them\nall. But, when Luther and his followers left the Church of Rome, they\nwere compelled to deny the power of the Catholic Church, at that time,\nto suspend the laws of nature, but took the ground that such power\nceased with the apostolic age. They insisted that all things now\nhappened in accordance with the laws of nature, with the exception of a\nfew special interferences in favor of the Protestant Church in answer\nto prayer. They taught their children a double philosophy: by one, they\nwere to show the impossibility of Catholic miracles, because opposed to\nthe laws of nature; by the other, the probability of the miracles of the\napostolic age, because they were in conformity with the statements of\nthe Scriptures. They had two foundations: one, the law of nature, and\nthe other, the word of God. The Protestants have endeavored to carry\non this double process of reasoning, and the result has been a gradual\nincrease of confidence in the law of nature, and a gradual decrease of\nconfidence in the word of God.\n\nWe are told, in this inspired account, that the clothing of the Jewish\npeople did not wax old, and that their shoes refused to wear out. Some\ncommentators have insisted that angels attended to the wardrobes of the\nHebrews, patched their garments, and mended their shoes. Certain it is,\nhowever, that the same clothes lasted them for forty years, during the\nentire journey from Egypt to the Holy Land. Little boys starting out\nwith their first pantaloons, grew as they traveled, and their clothes\ngrew with them.\n\nCan it be necessary to believe a story like this? Will men make better\nhusbands, fathers, neighbors, and citizens, simply by giving credence\nto these childish and impossible things? Certainly an infinite God could\nhave transported the Jews to the Holy Land in a moment, and could, as\neasily, have removed the Canaanites to some other country. Surely there\nwas no necessity for doing thousands and thousands of petty miracles,\nday after day for forty years, looking after the clothes of three\nmillions of people, changing the nature of wool and linen and leather,\nso that they would not \"wax old.\" Every step, every motion, would wear\naway some part of the clothing, some part of the shoes. Were these\nparts, so worn away, perpetually renewed, or was the nature of things\nso changed that they could not wear away? We know that whenever matter\ncomes in contact with matter, certain atoms, by abrasion, are lost. Were\nthese atoms gathered up every night by angels, and replaced on the soles\nof the shoes, on the elbows of coats, and on the knees of pantaloons, so\nthat the next morning they would be precisely in the condition they were\non the morning before? There must be a mistake somewhere.\n\nCan we believe that the real God, if there is one, ever ordered a man\nto be killed simply for making hair oil, or ointment? We are told in\nthe thirtieth chapter of Exodus, that the Lord commanded Moses to take\nmyrrh, cinnamon, sweet calamus, cassia, and olive oil, and make a\nholy ointment for the purpose of anointing the tabernacle, tables,\ncandlesticks and other utensils, as well as Aaron and his sons; saying,\nat the same time, that whosoever compounded any like it, or whoever put\nany of it on a stranger, should be put to death. In the same chapter,\nthe Lord furnishes Moses with a recipe for making a perfume, saying,\nthat whoever should make any which smelled like it, should be cut off\nfrom his people. This, to me, sounds so unreasonable that I cannot\nbelieve it. Why should an infinite God care whether mankind made\nointments and perfumes like his or not? Why should the Creator of all\nthings threaten to kill a priest who approached his altar without having\nwashed his hands and feet? These commandments and these penalties would\ndisgrace the vainest tyrant that ever sat, by chance, upon a throne.\nThere must be some mistake. I cannot believe that an infinite\nIntelligence appeared to Moses upon Mount Sinai having with him a\nvariety of patterns for making a tabernacle, tongs, snuffers and dishes.\nNeither can I believe that God told Moses how to cut and trim a coat for\na priest. Why should a God care about such things? Why should he insist\non having buttons sewed in certain rows, and fringes of a certain color?\nSuppose an intelligent civilized man was to overhear, on Mount Sinai,\nthe following instructions from God to Moses:—\n\n\"You must consecrate my priests as follows:—You must kill a bullock\nfor a sin offering, and have Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the\nhead of the bullock. Then you must take the blood and put it upon the\nhorns of the altar round about with your finger, and pour some blood at\nthe bottom of the altar to make a reconciliation; and of the fat that\nis upon the inwards, the caul above the liver and two kidneys, and\ntheir fat, and burn them upon the altar. You must get a ram for a burnt\noffering, and Aaron and his sons must lay their hands upon the head of\nthe ram. Then you must kill it and sprinkle the blood upon the altar,\nand cut the ram into pieces, and burn the head, and the pieces, and the\nfat, and wash the inwards and the lungs in water and then burn the whole\nram upon the altar for a sweet savor unto me. Then you must get another\nram, and have Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the head of that,\nthen kill it and take of its blood, and put it on the top of Aaron's\nright ear, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the great toe of\nhis right foot. And you must also put a little of the blood upon the\ntop of the right ears of Aaron's sons, and on the thumbs of their right\nhands and on the great toes of their right feet. And then you must take\nof the fat that is on the inwards, and the caul above the liver and the\ntwo kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder, and out of a basket\nof unleavened bread you must take one unleavened cake and another of oil\nbread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat of the right shoulder. And\nyou must take of the anointing oil, and of the blood, and sprinkle it on\nAaron, and on his garments, and on his sons' garments, and sanctify\nthem and all their clothes.\"—Do you believe that he would have even\nsuspected that the creator of the universe was talking?\n\nCan any one now tell why God commanded the Jews, when they were upon the\ndesert of Sinai, to plant trees, telling them at the same time that they\nmust not eat any of the fruit of such trees until after the fourth year?\nTrees could not have been planted in that desert, and if they had been,\nthey could not have lived. Why did God tell Moses, while in the desert,\nto make curtains of fine linen? Where could he have obtained his flax?\nThere was no land upon which it could have been produced. Why did he\ntell him to make things of gold, and silver, and precious stones, when\nthey could not have been in possession of these things? There is but one\nanswer, and that is, the Pentateuch was written hundreds of years after\nthe Jews had settled in the Holy Land, and hundreds of years after Moses\nwas dust and ashes.\n\nWhen the Jews had a written language, and that must have been long after\ntheir flight from Egypt, they wrote out their history and their laws.\nTradition had filled the infancy of the nation with miracles and special\ninterpositions in their behalf by Jehovah. Patriotism would not allow\nthese wonders to grow small, and priestcraft never denied a miracle.\nThere were traditions to the effect that God had spoken face to face\nwith Moses; that he had given him the tables of the law, and had, in a\nthousand ways, made known his will; and whenever the priests wished to\nmake new laws, or amend old ones, they pretended to have found something\nmore that God said to Moses at Sinai. In this way obedience was more\neasily secured. Only a very few of the people could read, and, as a\nconsequence, additions, interpolations and erasures had no fear of\ndetection. In this way we account for the fact that Moses is made to\nspeak of things that did not exist in his day, and were unknown for\nhundreds of years after his death.\n\nIn the thirtieth chapter of Exodus, we are told that the people, when\nnumbered, must give each one a half shekel after the shekel of the\nsanctuary. At that time no such money existed, and consequently the\naccount could not, by any possibility, have been written until after\nthere was a shekel of the sanctuary, and there was no such thing until\nlong after the death of Moses. If we should read that Caesar paid his\ntroops in pounds, shillings and pence, we would certainly know that the\naccount was not written by Caesar, nor in his time, but we would know\nthat it was written after the English had given these names to certain\ncoins.\n\nSo, we find, that when the Jews were upon the desert it was commanded\nthat every mother should bring, as a sin offering, a couple of doves to\nthe priests, and the priests were compelled to eat these doves in the\nmost holy place. At the time this law appears to have been given, there\nwere three million people, and only three priests, Aaron, Eleazer and\nIthamar. Among three million people there would be, at least, three\nhundred births a day. Certainly we are not expected to believe that\nthese three priests devoured six hundred pigeons every twenty-four\nhours.\n\nWhy should a woman ask pardon of God for having been a mother? Why\nshould that be considered a crime in Exodus, which is commanded as a\nduty in Genesis? Why should a mother be declared unclean? Why should\ngiving birth to a daughter be regarded twice as criminal as giving birth\nto a son? Can we believe that such laws and ceremonies were made and\ninstituted by a merciful and intelligent God? If there is anything in\nthis poor world suggestive of, and standing for, all that is sweet,\nloving and pure, it is a mother holding in her thrilled and happy arms\nher prattling babe. Read the twelfth chapter of Leviticus, and you will\nsee that when a woman became the mother of a boy she was so unclean\nthat she was not allowed to touch a hallowed thing, nor to enter the\nsanctuary for forty days. If the babe was a girl, then the mother was\nunfit for eighty days, to enter the house of God, or to touch the sacred\ntongs and snuffers. These laws, born of barbarism, are unworthy of our\nday, and should be regarded simply as the mistakes of savages.\n\nJust as low in the scale of intelligence are the directions given in the\nfifth chapter of Numbers, for the trial of a wife of whom the husband\nwas jealous. This foolish chapter has been the foundation of all appeals\nto God for the ascertainment of facts, such as the corsned, trial by\nbattle, by water, and by fire, the last of which is our judicial oath.\nIt is very easy to believe that in those days a guilty woman would\nbe afraid to drink the water of jealousy and take the oath, and that,\nthrough fear, she might be made to confess. Admitting that the deception\ntended not only to prevent crime, but to discover it when committed,\nstill, we cannot admit that an honest god would, for any purpose, resort\nto dishonest means. In all countries fear is employed as a means of\ngetting at the truth, and in this there is nothing dishonest, provided\nfalsehood is not resorted to for the purpose of producing the fear.\nProtestants laugh at Catholics because of their belief in the efficacy\nof holy water, and yet they teach their children that a little holy\nwater, in which had been thrown some dust from the floor of the\nsanctuary, would, work a miracle in a woman's flesh. For hundreds of\nyears our fathers believed that a perjurer could not swallow a piece of\nsacramental bread. Such stories belong to the childhood of our race, and\nare now believed only by mental infants and intellectual babes.\n\nI cannot believe that Moses had in his hands a couple of tables of\nstone, upon which God had written the Ten Commandments, and that when he\nsaw the golden calf, and the dancing, that he dashed the tables to the\nearth and broke them in pieces. Neither do I believe that Moses took a\ngolden calf, burnt it, ground it to powder, and made the people drink it\nwith water, as related in the thirty-second chapter of Exodus.\n\nThere is another account of the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses,\nin the nineteenth and twentieth chapters of Exodus. In this account not\none word is said about the people having made a golden calf, nor about\nthe breaking of the tables of stone. In the thirty-fourth chapter of\nExodus, there is an account of the renewal of the broken tables of\nthe law, and the commandments are given, but they are not the same\ncommandments mentioned in the twentieth chapter. There are two accounts\nof the same transaction. Both of these stories cannot be true, and yet\nboth must be believed. Any one who will take the trouble to read\nthe nineteenth and twentieth chapters, and the last verse of the\nthirty-first chapter, the thirty-second, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth\nchapters of Exodus, will be compelled to admit that both accounts cannot\nbe true.\n\nFrom the last account it appears that while Moses was upon Mount Sinai\nreceiving the commandments from God, the people brought their jewelry\nto Aaron and he cast for them a golden calf. This happened before any\ncommandment against idolatry had been given. A god ought, certainly,\nto publish his laws before inflicting penalties for their violation. To\ninflict punishment for breaking unknown and unpublished laws is, in\nthe last degree, cruel and unjust. It may be replied that the Jews knew\nbetter than to worship idols, before the law was given. If this is so,\nwhy should the law have been given? In all civilized countries, laws are\nmade and promulgated, not simply for the purpose of informing the people\nas to what is right and wrong, but to inform them of the penalties to be\nvisited upon those who violate the laws. When the Ten Commandments\nwere given, no penalties were attached. Not one word was written on\nthe tables of stone as to the punishments that would be inflicted for\nbreaking any or all of the inspired laws. The people should not have\nbeen punished for violating a commandment before it was given. And yet,\nin this case, Moses commanded the sons of Levi to take their swords and\nslay every man his brother, his companion, and his neighbor. The brutal\norder was obeyed, and three thousand men were butchered.. The Levites\nconsecrated themselves unto the Lord by murdering their sons, and their\nbrothers, for having violated a commandment before it had been given.\n\nIt has been contended for many years that the Ten Commandments are the\nfoundation of all ideas of justice and of law. Eminent jurists have\nbowed to popular prejudice, and deformed their works by statements to\nthe effect that the Mosaic laws are the fountains from which sprang all\nideas of right and wrong. Nothing can be more stupidly false than such\nassertions. Thousands of years before Moses was born, the Egyptians\nhad a code of laws. They had laws against blasphemy, murder, adultery,\nlarceny, perjury, laws for the collection of debts, the enforcement\nof contracts, the ascertainment of damages, the redemption of property\npawned, and upon nearly every subject of human interest. The Egyptian\ncode was far better than the Mosaic.\n\nLaws spring from the instinct of self-preservation. Industry objected\nto supporting idleness, and laws were made against theft. Laws were made\nagainst murder, because a very large majority of the people have always\nobjected to being murdered. All fundamental laws were born simply of the\ninstinct of self-defence. Long before the Jewish savages assembled at\nthe foot of Sinai, laws had been made and enforced, not only in Egypt\nand India, but by every tribe that ever existed.\n\nIt is impossible for human beings to exist together, without certain\nrules of conduct, certain ideas of the proper and improper, of the right\nand wrong, growing out of the relation. Certain rules must be made,\nand must be enforced. This implies law, trial and punishment. Whoever\nproduces anything by weary labor, does not need a revelation from heaven\nto teach him that he has a right to the thing produced. Not one of\nthe learned gentlemen who pretend that the Mosaic laws are filled with\njustice and intelligence, would live, for a moment, in any country where\nsuch laws were in force.\n\nNothing can be more wonderful than the medical ideas of Jehovah. He\nhad the strangest notions about the cause and cure of disease. With\nhim everything was miracle and wonder. In the fourteenth chapter of\nLeviticus, we find the law for cleansing a leper:—\"Then shall the\npriest take for him that is to be cleansed, two birds, alive and clean,\nand cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest shall command\nthat one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel, over running\nwater. As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and\nthe scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them, and the living bird,\nin the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. And he\nshall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, seven\ntimes, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird\nloose into the open field.\"\n\nWe are told that God himself gave these directions to Moses. Does\nanybody believe this? Why should the bird be killed in an earthen\nvessel? Would the charm be broken if the vessel was of wood? Why over\nrunning water? What would be thought of a physician now, who would\ngive a prescription like that?\n\nIs it not strange that God, although he gave hundreds of directions for\nthe purpose of discovering the presence of leprosy, and for cleansing\nthe leper after he was healed, forgot to tell how that disease could be\ncured? Is it not wonderful that while God told his people what animals\nwere fit for food, he failed to give a list of plants that man might\neat? Why did he leave his children to find out the hurtful and the\npoisonous by experiment, knowing that experiment, in millions of cases,\nmust be death?\n\nWhen reading the history of the Jewish people, of their flight from\nslavery to death, of their exchange of tyrants, I must confess that my\nsympathies are all aroused in their behalf. They were cheated,\ndeceived and abused. Their god was quick-tempered, unreasonable, cruel,\nrevengeful and dishonest. He was always promising but never performed.\nHe wasted time in ceremony and childish detail, and in the exaggeration\nof what he had done. It is impossible for me to conceive of a character\nmore utterly detestable than that of the Hebrew god. He had solemnly\npromised the Jews that he would take them from Egypt to a land flowing\nwith milk and honey. He had led them to believe that in a little while\ntheir troubles would be over, and that they would soon in the land of\nCanaan, surrounded by their wives and little ones, forget, the stripes\nand tears of Egypt. After promising the poor wanderers again and again\nthat he would lead them in safety to the promised land of joy and\nplenty, this God, forgetting every promise, said to the wretches in his\npower:—\"Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness and your children\nshall wander until your carcasses be wasted.\" This curse was the\nconclusion of the whole matter. Into this dust of death and night faded\nall the promises of God. Into this rottenness of wandering despair fell\nall the dreams of liberty and home. Millions of corpses were left to rot\nin the desert, and each one certified to the dishonesty of Jehovah. I\ncannot believe these things. They are so cruel and heartless, that my\nblood is chilled and my sense of justice shocked. A book that is equally\nabhorrent to my head and heart, cannot be accepted as a revelation from\nGod.\n\nWhen we think of the poor Jews, destroyed, murdered, bitten by serpents,\nvisited by plagues, decimated by famine, butchered by each other,\nswallowed by the earth, frightened, cursed, starved, deceived, robbed\nand outraged, how thankful we should be that we are not the chosen\npeople of God. No wonder that they longed for the slavery of Egypt, and\nremembered with sorrow the unhappy day when they exchanged masters.\nCompared with Jehovah, Pharaoh was a benefactor, and the tyranny of\nEgypt was freedom to those who suffered the liberty of God.\n\nWhile reading the Pentateuch, I am filled with indignation, pity and\nhorror. Nothing can be sadder than the history of the starved and\nfrightened wretches who wandered over the desolate crags and sands of\nwilderness and desert, the prey of famine, sword, and plague. Ignorant\nand superstitious to the last degree, governed by falsehood, plundered\nby hypocrisy, they were the sport of priests, and the food of fear. God\nwas their greatest enemy, and death their only friend.\n\nIt is impossible to conceive of a more thoroughly despicable, hateful,\nand arrogant being, than the Jewish god. He is without a redeeming\nfeature. In the mythology of the world he has no parallel. He, only, is\nnever touched by agony and tears. He delights only in blood and pain.\nHuman affections are naught to him. He cares neither for love nor music,\nbeauty nor joy. A false friend, an unjust judge, a braggart, hypocrite,\nand tyrant, sincere in hatred, jealous, vain, and revengeful, false in\npromise, honest in curse, suspicious, ignorant, and changeable, infamous\nand hideous:—such is the God of the Pentateuch.\n\nXXIV. Confess and Avoid\n\nThe scientific Christians now admit that the Bible is not inspired in\nits astronomy, geology, botany, zoology, nor in any science. In other\nwords, they admit that on these subjects, the Bible cannot be depended\nupon. If all the statements in the Scriptures were true, there would be\nno necessity for admitting that some of them are not inspired. A\nChristian will not admit that a passage in the Bible is uninspired,\nuntil he is satisfied that it is untrue. Orthodoxy itself has at last\nbeen compelled to say, that while a passage may be true and uninspired,\nit cannot be inspired if false.\n\nIf the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy and geology when\nthe Bible was introduced among them, as they do now, there never could\nhave been one believer in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of\nthe various parts of the Bible had known as much about the sciences as\nis now known by every intelligent man, the book never could have\nbeen written. It was produced by ignorance, and has been believed and\ndefended by its author. It has lost power in the proportion that man\nhas gained knowledge. A few years ago, this book was appealed to in the\nsettlement of all scientific questions; but now, even the clergy\nconfess that in such matters, it has ceased to speak with the voice\nof authority. For the establishment of facts, the word of man is now\nconsidered far better than the word of God. In the world of science,\nJehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. All that God\ntold Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes\ncompared to the discoveries of Descartes, Laplace, and Humboldt. In\nmatters of fact, the Bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard.\nScience has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years\nago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the\nBible. The tables have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring to\nprove that the Bible is not inconsistent with Science. The standard has\nbeen changed.\n\nFor many ages, the Christians contended that the Bible, viewed simply as\na literary performance, was beyond all other books, and that man without\nthe assistance of God could not produce its equal. This claim was made\nwhen but few books existed, and the Bible, being the only book generally\nknown, had no rival. But this claim, like the other, has been abandoned\nby many, and soon will be, by all. Com pared with Shakespeare's \"book\nand volume of the brain,\" the \"sacred\" Bible shrinks and seems as feebly\nimpotent and vain, as would a pipe of Fan, when some great organ, voiced\nwith every tone, from the hoarse thunder of the sea to the winged warble\nof a mated bird, floods and fills cathedral aisles with all the wealth\nof sound.\n\nIt is now maintained—and this appears to be the last fortification\nbehind which the doctrine of inspiration skulks and crouches—that the\nBible, although false and mistaken in its astronomy, geology, geography,\nhistory and philosophy, is inspired in its morality. It is now claimed\nthat had it not been for this book, the world would have been inhabited\nonly by savages, and that had it not been for the Holy Scriptures, man\nnever would have even dreamed of the unity of God. A belief in one God\nis claimed to be a dogma of almost infinite importance, that with out\nthis belief civilization is impossible, and that this fact is the sun\naround which all the virtues revolve. For my part, I think it infinitely\nmore important to believe in man. Theology is a superstition—Humanity a\nreligion.\n\nXxv. \"inspired\" Slavery\n\nPerhaps the Bible was inspired upon the subject of human slavery. Is\nthere, in the civilized world, to-day, a clergyman who believes in the\ndivinity of slavery? Does the Bible teach man to enslave his brother? If\nit does, is it not blasphemous to say that it is inspired of God? If\nyou find the institution of slavery upheld in a book said to have been\nwritten by God, what would you expect to find in a book inspired by the\ndevil? Would you expect to find that book in favor of liberty? Modern\nChristians, ashamed of the God of the Old Testament, endeavor now to\nshow that slavery was neither commanded nor opposed by Jehovah. Nothing\ncan be plainer than the following passages from the twenty-fifth chapter\nof Leviticus. \"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn\namong you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with\nyou, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.\nAnd ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to\ninherit them for a possession, they shall be your bondmen forever. Both\nthy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the\nheathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen, and\nbondmaids.\"\n\nCan we believe in this, the Nineteenth Century, that these infamous\npassages were inspired by God? that God approved not only of human\nslavery, but instructed his chosen people to buy the women, children and\nbabes of the heathen round about them? If it was right for the Hebrews\nto buy, it was also right for the heathen to sell. This God, by\ncommanding the Hebrews to buy, approved of the selling of sons and\ndaughters. The Canaanite who, tempted by gold, lured by avarice, sold\nfrom the arms of his wife the dimpled babe, simply made it possible for\nthe Hebrews to obey the orders of their God. If God is the author of\nthe Bible, the reading of these passages ought to cover his cheeks with\nshame. I ask the Christian world to-day, was it right for the heathen\nto sell their children? Was it right for God not only to uphold, but to\ncommand the infamous traffic in human flesh? Could the most revengeful\nfiend, the most malicious vagrant in the gloom of hell, sink to a lower\nmoral depth than this?\n\nAccording to this God, his chosen people were not only commanded to buy\nof the heathen round about them, but were also permitted to buy each\nother for a term of years. The law governing the purchase of Jews is\nlaid down in the twenty-first chapter of Exodus. \"If thou buy a Hebrew\nservant, six years shall he serve: and in the seventh he shall go out\nfree for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself:\nif he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master\nhave given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the\nwife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by\nhimself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my\nwife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall\nbring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto\nthe door-post: and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl:\nand he shall serve him forever.\"\n\nDo you believe that God was the author of this infamous law? Do you\nbelieve that the loving father of us all, turned the dimpled arms of\nbabes into manacles of iron? Do you believe that he baited the dungeon\nof servitude with wife and child? Is it possible to love a God who would\nmake such laws? Is it possible not to hate and despise him?\n\nThe heathen are not spoken of as human beings. Their rights are never\nmentioned. They were the rightful food of the sword, and their bodies\nwere made for stripes and chains.\n\nIn the same chapter of the same inspired book, we are told that, \"if a\nman smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he dies under his\nhand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day\nor two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.\"\n\nMust we believe that God called some of his children the money of\nothers? Can we believe that God made lashes upon the naked back, a\nlegal tender for labor performed? Must we regard the auction block as an\naltar? Were blood hounds apostles? Was the slave-pen a temple? Were the\nstealers and whippers of babes and women the justified children of God?\n\nIt is now contended that while the Old Testament is touched with the\nbarbarism of its time, that the New Testament is morally perfect, and\nthat on its pages can be found no blot or stain. As a matter of fact,\nthe New Testament is more decidedly in favor of human slavery than the\nold.\n\nFor my part, I never will, I never can, worship a God who upholds the\ninstitution of slavery. Such a God I hate and defy. I neither want his\nheaven, nor fear his hell.\n\nXxxvi. \"inspired\" Marriage\n\nIs there an orthodox clergyman in the world, who will now declare that\nhe believes the institution of polygamy to be right? Is there one who\nwill publicly declare that, in his judgment, that institution ever was\nright? Was there ever a time in the history of the world when it was\nright to treat woman simply as property? Do not attempt to answer these\nquestions by saying, that the Bible is an exceedingly good book, that we\nare indebted for our civilization to the sacred volume, and that without\nit, man would lapse into savagery, and mental night. This is no answer.\nWas there a time when the institution of polygamy was the highest\nexpression of human virtue? Is there a Christian woman, civilized,\nintelligent, and free, who believes in the institution of polygamy? Are\nwe better, purer, and more intelligent than God was four thousand years\nago? Why should we imprison Mormons, and worship God? Polygamy is just\nas pure in Utah, as it could have been in the promised land. Love and\nVirtue are the same the whole world round, and Justice is the same in\nevery star. All the languages of the world are not sufficient to express\nthe filth of polygamy. It makes of man, a beast, of woman, a trembling\nslave. It destroys the fireside, makes virtue an outcast, takes from\nhuman speech its sweetest words, and leaves the heart a den, where crawl\nand hiss the slimy serpents of most loathsome lust. Civilization rests\nupon the family. The good family is the unit of good government. The\nvirtues grow about the holy hearth of home—they cluster, bloom, and\nshed their perfume round the fireside where the one man loves the one\nwoman. Lover—husband—wife—mother—father—child—home!—? without\nthese sacred words, the world is but a lair, and men and women merely\nbeasts.\n\nWhy should the innocent maiden and the loving mother worship the\nheartless Jewish God? Why should they, with pure and stainless lips,\nread the vile record of inspired lust?\n\nThe marriage of the one man to the one woman is the citadel and fortress\nof civilization. Without this, woman becomes the prey and slave of lust\nand power, and man goes back to savagery and crime. From the bottom of\nmy heart I hate, abhor and execrate all theories of life, of which the\npure and sacred home is not the corner-stone. Take from the world the\nfamily, the fireside, the children born of wedded love, and there is\nnothing left. The home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily with\na heart of fire—the fairest flower in all the world.\n\nXxvii. \"inspired\" War\n\nIf the Bible be true, God commanded his chosen people to destroy men\nsimply for the crime of defending their native land. They were not\nallowed to spare trembling and white-haired age, nor dimpled babes\nclasped in the mothers' arms. They were ordered to kill women, and to\npierce, with the sword of war, the unborn child. \"Our heavenly Father\"\ncommanded the Hebrews to kill the men and women, the fathers, sons and\nbrothers, but to preserve the girls alive. Why were not the maidens also\nkilled? Why were they spared? Read the thirty-first chapter of Numbers,\nand you will find that the maidens were given to the soldiers and the\npriests. Is there, in all the history of war, a more infamous thing than\nthis? Is it possible that God permitted the violets of modesty, that\ngrow and shed their perfume in the maiden's heart, to be trampled\nbeneath the brutal feet of lust? If this was the order of God, what,\nunder the same circumstances, would have been the command of a devil?\nWhen, in this age of the world, a woman, a wife, a mother, reads this\nrecord, she should, with scorn and loathing, throw the book away. A\ngeneral, who now should make such an order, giving over to massacre\nand rapine a conquered people, would be held in execration by the whole\ncivilized world. Yet, if the Bible be true, the supreme and infinite God\nwas once a savage.\n\nA little while ago, out upon the western plains, in a little path\nleading to a cabin, were found the bodies of two children and their\nmother. Her breast was filled with wounds received in the defence of her\ndarlings. They had been murdered by the savages. Suppose when looking at\ntheir lifeless forms, some one had said, \"This was done by the command\nof God!\" In Canaan there were countless scenes like this. There was\nno pity in inspired war. God raised the black flag, and commanded his\nsoldiers to kill even the smiling infant in its mother's arms. Who\nis the blasphemer; the man who denies the existence of God, or he who\ncovers the robes of the Infinite with innocent blood?\n\nWe are told in the Pentateuch, that God, the father of us all, gave\nthousands of maidens, after having killed their fathers, their mothers,\nand their brothers, to satisfy the brutal lusts of savage men. If there\nbe a God, I pray him to write in his book, opposite my name, that I\ndenied this lie for him.\n\nXxviii. \"inspired\" Religious Liberty\n\nAccording to the Bible, God selected the Jewish people through whom to\nmake known the great fact, that he was the only true and living God. For\nthis purpose, he appeared on several occasions to Moses—came down to\nSinai's top clothed in cloud and fire, and wrought a thousand miracles\nfor the preservation and education of the Jewish people. In their\npresence he opened the waters of the sea. For them he caused bread to\nrain from heaven. To quench their thirst, water leaped from the dry and\nbarren rock. Their enemies were miraculously destroyed; and for forty\nyears, at least, this God took upon himself the government of the Jews.\nBut, after all this, many of the people had less confidence in him than\nin gods of wood and stone. In moments of trouble, in periods of\ndisaster, in the darkness of doubt, in the hunger and thirst of famine,\ninstead of asking this God for aid, they turned and sought the help of\nsenseless things. This God, with all his power and wisdom, could not\neven convince a few wandering and wretched savages that he was more\npotent than the idols of Egypt. This God was not willing that the Jews\nshould think and investigate for themselves. For heresy, the penalty was\ndeath. Where this God reigned, intellectual liberty was unknown. He\nappealed only to brute force; he collected taxes by threatening plagues;\nhe demanded worship on pain of sword and fire; acting as spy,\ninquisitor, judge and executioner.\n\nIn the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, we have the ideas of God as to\nmental freedom. \"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or\nthe wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice\nthee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast\nnot known, thou nor thy fathers; namely of the gods of the people which\nare around about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one\nend of the earth even unto the other end of the earth, Thou shalt not\nconsent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity\nhim, neither shalt thou spare him, neither shalt thou conceal him. But\nthou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put\nhim to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And thou shalt\nstone him with stones that he die.\"\n\nThis is the religious liberty of God; the toleration of Jehovah. If\nI had lived in Palestine at that time, and my wife, the mother of my\nchildren, had said to me, \"I am tired of Jehovah, he is always asking\nfor blood; he is never weary of killing; he is always telling of his\nmight and strength; always telling what he has done for the Jews,\nalways asking for sacrifices; for doves and lambs—blood, nothing\nbut blood.—Let us worship the sun. Jehovah is too revengeful, too\nmalignant, too exacting. Let us worship the sun. The sun has clothed the\nworld in beauty; it has covered the earth with flowers; by its divine\nlight I first saw your face, and my beautiful babe.\"—If I had obeyed\nthe command of God, I would have killed her. My hand would have been\nfirst upon her, and after that the hands of all the people, and she\nwould have been stoned with stones until she died. For my part, I would\nnever kill my wife, even if commanded so to do by the real God of this\nuniverse. Think of taking up some ragged rock and hurling it against the\nwhite bosom filled with love for you; and when you saw oozing from\nthe bruised lips of the death wound, the red current of her sweet\nlife—think of looking up to heaven and receiving the congratulations of\nthe infinite fiend whose commandment you had obeyed!\n\nCan we believe that any such command was ever given by a merciful and\nintelligent God? Suppose, however, that God did give this law to the\nJews, and did tell them that whenever a man preached a heresy, or\nproposed to worship any other God that they should kill him; and suppose\nthat afterward this same God took upon himself flesh, and came to this\nvery chosen people and taught a different religion, and that thereupon\nthe Jews crucified him; I ask you, did he not reap exactly what he\nhad sown? What right would this God have to complain of a crucifixion\nsuffered in accordance with his own command?\n\nNothing can be more infamous than intellectual tyranny. To put chains\nupon the body is as nothing compared with putting shackles on the brain.\nNo god is entitled to the worship or the respect of man who does not\ngive, even to the meanest of his children, every right that he claims\nfor himself.\n\nIf the Pentateuch be true, religious persecution is a duty. The dungeons\nof the Inquisition were temples, and the clank of every chain upon\nthe limbs of heresy was music in the ear of God. If the Pentateuch was\ninspired, every heretic should be destroyed; and every man who advocates\na fact inconsistent with the sacred book, should be consumed by sword\nand flame.\n\nIn the Old Testament no one is told to reason with a heretic, and not\none word is said about relying upon argument, upon education, nor upon\nintellectual development—nothing except simple brute force. Is there\nto-day a Christian who will say that four thousand years ago, it was\nthe duty of a husband to kill his wife if she differed with him upon\nthe subject of religion? Is there one who will now say that, under such\ncircumstances, the wife ought to have been killed? Why should God be so\njealous of the wooden idols of the heathen? Could he not compete with\nBaal? Was he envious of the success of the Egyptian magicians? Was it\nnot possible for him to make such a convincing display of his power as\nto silence forever the voice of unbelief? Did this God have to resort to\nforce to make converts? Was he so ignorant of the structure of the human\nmind as to believe all honest doubt a crime? If he wished to do away\nwith the idolatry of the Canaanites, why did he not appear to them? Why\ndid he not give them the tables of the law? Why did he only make known\nhis will to a few wandering savages in the desert of Sinai? Will some\ntheologian have the kindness to answer these questions? Will some\nminister, who now believes in religious liberty, and eloquently\ndenounces the intolerance of Catholicism, explain these things; will he\ntell us why he worships an intolerant God? Is a god who will burn a soul\nforever in another world, better than a Christian who burns the body for\na few hours in this? Is there no intellectual liberty in heaven? Do the\nangels all discuss questions on the same side? Are all the investigators\nin perdition? Will the penitent thief, winged and crowned, laugh at the\nhonest folks in hell? Will the agony of the damned increase or decrease\nthe happiness of God? Will there be, in the universe, an eternal _auto\nda fe?_\n\nXXIX. Conclusion\n\nIf the Pentateuch is not inspired in its astronomy, geology, geography,\nhistory or philosophy, if it is not inspired concerning slavery,\npolygamy, war, law, religious or political liberty, or the rights of\nmen, women and children, what is it inspired in, or about? The unity\nof God?—that was believed long before Moses was born. Special\nprovidence?—that has been the doctrine of ignorance in all ages.\nThe rights of property?—theft was always a crime. The sacrifice of\nanimals?—that was a custom thousands of years before a Jew existed.\nThe sacredness of life?—there have always been laws against murder.\nThe wickedness of perjury?—truthfulness has always been a virtue.\nThe beauty of chastity?—the Pentateuch does not teach it. Thou shalt\nworship no other God?—that has been the burden of all religions.\n\nIs it possible that the Pentateuch could not have been written by\nuninspired men? that the assistance of God was necessary to produce\nthese books? Is it possible that Galileo ascertained the mechanical\nprinciples of \"Virtual Velocity,\" the laws of falling bodies and of all\nmotion; that Copernicus ascertained the true position of the earth and\naccounted for all celestial phenomena; that Kepler discovered his three\nlaws—discoveries of such importance that the 8th of May, 1618, may be\ncalled the birthday of modern science; that Newton gave to the world\nthe Method of Fluxions, the Theory of Universal Gravitation, and the\nDecomposition of Light; that Euclid, Cavalieri, Descartes, and Leibnitz,\nalmost completed the science of mathematics; that all the discoveries\nin optics, hydrostatics, pneumatics and chemistry, the experiments,\ndiscoveries, and inventions of Galvani, Volta, Franklin and Morse, of\nTrevethick, Watt and Fulton and of all the pioneers of progress—that\nall this was accomplished by uninspired men, while the writer of the\nPentateuch was directed and inspired by an infinite God? Is it possible\nthat the codes of China, India, Egypt, Greece and Rome were made by man,\nand that the laws recorded in the Pentateuch were alone given by\nGod? Is it possible that AEschylus and Shakespeare, Burns, and Beranger,\nGoethe and Schiller, and all the poets of the world, and all their\nwondrous tragedies and songs, are but the work of men, while no\nintelligence except the infinite God could be the author of the\nPentateuch? Is it possible that of all the books that crowd the\nlibraries of the world, the books of science, fiction, history and song,\nthat all save only one, have been produced by man? Is it possible that\nof all these, the Bible only is the work of God?\n\nIf the Pentateuch is inspired, the civilization of our day is a mistake\nand crime. There should be no political liberty. Heresy should be\ntrodden out beneath the bigot's brutal feet. Husbands should divorce\ntheir wives at will, and make the mothers of their children houseless\nand weeping wanderers. Polygamy ought to be practiced; women should\nbecome slaves; we should buy the sons and daughters of the heathen and\nmake them bondmen and bondwomen forever. We should sell our own flesh\nand blood, and have the right to kill our slaves. Men and women should\nbe stoned to death for laboring on the seventh day. \"Mediums,\" such\nas have familiar spirits, should be burned with fire. Every vestige of\nmental liberty should be destroyed, and reason's holy torch extinguished\nin the martyr's blood.\n\nIs it not far better and wiser to say that the Pentateuch while\ncontaining some good laws, some truths, some wise and useful things is,\nafter all, deformed and blackened by the savagery of its time? Is it not\nfar better and wiser to take the good and throw the bad away?\n\nLet us admit what we know to be true; that Moses was mistaken about a\nthousand things; that the story of creation is not true; that the Garden\nof Eden is a myth; that the serpent and the tree of knowledge, and the\nfall of man are but fragments of old mythologies lost and dead; that\nwoman was not made out of a rib; that serpents never had the power of\nspeech; that the sons of God did not marry the daughters of men; that\nthe story of the flood and ark is not exactly true; that the tower of\nBabel is a mistake; that the confusion of tongues is a childish thing;\nthat the origin of the rainbow is a foolish fancy; that Methuselah did\nnot live nine hundred and sixty-nine years; that Enoch did not leave\nthis world, taking with him his flesh and bones; that the story of Sodom\nand Gomorrah is somewhat improbable; that burning brimstone never fell\nlike rain; that Lot's wife was not changed into chloride of sodium; that\nJacob did not, in fact, put his hip out of joint wrestling with God;\nthat the history of Tamar might just as well have been left out; that a\nbelief in Pharaoh's dreams is not essential to salvation; that it makes\nbut little difference whether the rod of Aaron was changed to a serpent\nor not; that of all the wonders said to have been performed in Egypt,\nthe greatest is, that anybody ever believed the absurd account; that\nGod did not torment the innocent cattle on account of the sins of their\nowners; that he did not kill the first born of the poor maid behind\nthe mill because of Pharaoh's crimes; that flies and frogs were not\nministers of God's wrath; that lice and locusts were not the executors\nof his will; that seventy people did not, in two hundred and fifteen\nyears, increase to three million; that three priests could not eat\nsix hundred pigeons in a day; that gazing at a brass serpent could not\nextract poison from the blood; that God did not go in partnership with\nhornets; that he did not murder people simply because they asked for\nsomething to eat; that he did not declare the making of hair oil\nand ointment an offence to be punished with death; that he did not\nmiraculously preserve cloth and leather; that he was not afraid of wild\nbeasts; that he did not punish heresy with sword and fire; that he was\nnot jealous, revengeful, and unjust; that he knew all about the sun,\nmoon, and stars; that he did not threaten to kill people for eating the\nfat of an ox; that he never told Aaron to draw cuts to see which of two\ngoats should be killed; that he never objected to clothes made of woolen\nmixed with linen; that if he objected to dwarfs, people with flat noses\nand too many fingers, he ought not to have created such folks; that\nhe did not demand human sacrifices as set forth in the last chapter\nof Leviticus; that he did not object to the raising of horses; that he\nnever commanded widows to spit in the faces of their brothers-in-law;\nthat several contradictory accounts of the same transaction cannot all\nbe true; that God did not talk to Abraham as one man talks to another;\nthat angels were not in the habit of walking about the earth eating veal\ndressed with milk and butter, and making bargains about the destruction\nof cities; that God never turned himself into a flame of fire, and lived\nin a bush; that he never met Moses in a hotel and tried to kill him;\nthat it was absurd to perform miracles to induce a king to act in a\ncertain way and then harden his heart so that he would refuse; that God\nwas not kept from killing the Jews by the fear that the Egyptians would\nlaugh at him; that he did not secretly bury a man and then allow the\ncorpse to write an account of the funeral; that he never believed the\nfirmament to be solid; that he knew slavery was and always would be a\nfrightful crime; that polygamy is but stench and filth; that the brave\nsoldier will always spare an unarmed foe; that only cruel cowards\nslay the conquered and the helpless; that no language can describe the\nmurderer of a smiling babe; that God did not want the blood of doves and\nlambs; that he did not love the smell of burning flesh; that he did not\nwant his altars daubed with blood; that he did not pretend that the sins\nof a people could be transferred to a goat; that he did not believe in\nwitches, wizards, spooks, and devils; that he did not test the virtue of\nwoman with dirty water; that he did not suppose that rabbits chewed the\ncud; that he never thought there were any four-footed birds; that he did\nnot boast for several hundred years that he had vanquished an Egyptian\nking; that a dry stick did not bud, blossom, and bear almonds in one\nnight; that manna did not shrink and swell, so that each man could\ngather only just one omer; that it was never wrong to \"countenance the\npoor man in his cause;\" that God never told a people not to live in\npeace with their neighbors; that he did not spend forty days with Moses\non Mount Sinai giving him patterns for making clothes, tongs, basins,\nand snuffers; that maternity is not a sin; that physical deformity is\nnot a crime; that an atonement cannot be made for the soul by shedding\ninnocent blood; that killing a dove over running water will not make its\nblood a medicine; that a god who demands love knows nothing of the human\nheart; that one who frightens savages with loud noises is unworthy the\nlove of civilized men; that one who destroys children on account of\nthe sins of their fathers is a monster; that an infinite god never\nthreatened to give people the itch; that he never sent wild beasts to\ndevour babes; that he never ordered the violation of maidens; that\nhe never regarded patriotism as a crime; that he never ordered the\ndestruction of unborn children; that he never opened the earth and\nswallowed wives and babes because husbands and fathers had displeased\nhim; that he never demanded that men should kill their sons and\nbrothers, for the purpose of sanctifying themselves; that we cannot\nplease God by believing the improbable; that credulity is not a virtue;\nthat investigation is not a crime; that every mind should be free;\nthat all religious persecution is infamous in God, as well as man; that\nwithout liberty, virtue is impossible; that without freedom, even love\ncannot exist; that every man should be allowed to think and to express\nhis thoughts; that woman is the equal of man; that children should be\ngoverned by love and reason; that the family relation is sacred; that\nwar is a hideous crime; that all intolerance is born of ignorance and\nhate; that the freedom of today is the hope of to-morrow; that the\nenlightened present ought not to fall upon its knees and blindly worship\nthe barbaric past; and that every free, brave and enlightened man should\npublicly declare that all the ignorant, infamous, heartless, hideous\nthings recorded in the \"inspired\" Pentateuch are not the words of God,\nbut simply \"Some Mistakes of Moses.\"\n"
}