Produced by David Widger






MISTAKES of MOSES

By Robert G. Ingersoll.

The Destroyer Of Weeds, Thistles And Thorns, Is A Benefactor Whether He
Soweth Grain Or Not.

1880.


MRS. SUE M. FARRELL

IN LAW MY SISTER;

AND IN FACT MY FRIEND,

THIS VOLUME,

AS A TOKEN OF RESPECT AND LOVE,

IS DEDICATED.




PREFACE.

For many years I have regarded the Pentateuch simply as a record of a
barbarous people, in which are found a great number of the ceremonies
of savagery, many absurd and unjust laws, and thousands of ideas
inconsistent with known and demonstrated facts. To me it seemed almost
a crime to teach that this record was written by inspired men; that
slavery, polygamy, wars of conquest and extermination were right, and
that there was a time when men could win the approbation of infinite
Intelligence, Justice, and Mercy, by violating maidens and by butchering
babes. To me it seemed more reasonable that savage men had made these
laws; and I endeavored in a lecture, entitled "Some Mistakes of Moses,"
to point out some of the errors, contradictions, and impossibilities
contained in the Pentateuch. The lecture was never written and
consequently never delivered twice the same. On several occasions it was
reported and published without consent, and without revision. All these
publications were grossly and glaringly incorrect. As published, they
have been answered several hundred times, and many of the clergy are
still engaged in the great work. To keep these reverend gentlemen from
wasting their talents on the mistakes of reporters and printers, I
concluded to publish the principal points in all my lectures on this
subject. And here, it may be proper for me to say, that arguments cannot
be answered by personal abuse; that there is no logic in slander, and
that falsehood, in the long run, defeats itself. People who love their
enemies should, at least, tell the truth about their friends. Should it
turn out that I am the worst man in the whole world, the story of the
flood will remain just as improbable as before, and the contradictions
of the Pentateuch will still demand an explanation.

There was a time when a falsehood, fulminated from the pulpit, smote
like a sword; but, the supply having greatly exceeded the demand,
clerical misrepresentation has at last become almost an innocent
amusement. Remembering that only a few years ago men, women, and even
children, were imprisoned, tortured and burned, for having expressed
in an exceedingly mild and gentle way, the ideas entertained by me, I
congratulate myself that calumny is now the pulpit's last resort. The
old instruments of torture are kept only to gratify curiosity; the
chains are rusting away, and the demolition of time has allowed even the
dungeons of the Inquisition to be visited by light. The church, impotent
and malicious, regrets, not the abuse, but the loss of her power, and
seeks to hold by falsehood what she gained by cruelty and force, by
fire and fear. Christianity cannot live in peace with any other form of
faith. If that religion be true, there is but one savior, one inspired
book, and but one little narrow grass-grown path that leads to heaven.
Such a religion is necessarily uncompromising, unreasoning, aggressive
and insolent. Christianity has held all other creeds and forms in
infinite contempt, divided the world into enemies and friends, and
verified the awful declaration of its founder--a declaration that
wet with blood the sword he came to bring, and made the horizon of a
thousand years lurid with the fagots' flames.

Too great praise challenges attention, and often brings to light a
thousand faults that otherwise the general eye would never see. Were we
allowed to read the bible as we do all other books, we would admire its
beauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and account for all its absurd,
grotesque and cruel things, by saying that its authors lived in rude,
barbaric times. But we are told that it was written by inspired men;
that it contains the will of God; that it is perfect, pure, and true in
all its parts; the source and standard of all moral and religious truth;
that it is the star and anchor of all human hope; the only guide for
man, the only torch in Nature's night. These claims are so at variance
with every known recorded fact, so palpably absurd, that every free,
unbiased soul is forced to raise the standard of revolt.

We read the pagan sacred books with profit and delight. With myth and
fable we are ever charmed, and find a pleasure in the endless repetition
of the beautiful, poetic, and absurd. We find, in all these records of
the past, philosophies and dreams, and efforts stained with tears,
of great and tender souls who tried to pierce the mystery of life and
death, to answer the eternal questions of the Whence and Whither, and
vainly sought to make, with bits of shattered glass, a mirror that
would, in very truth, reflect the face and form of Nature's perfect
self.

These myths were born of hopes, and fears, and tears, and smiles, and
they were touched and colored by all there is of joy and grief between
the rosy dawn of birth, and death's sad night. They clothed even the
stars with passion, and gave to gods the faults and frailties of the
sons of men. In them, the winds and waves were music, and all the lakes,
and streams, and springs,--the mountains, woods and perfumed dells were
haunted by a thousand fairy forms. They thrilled the veins of Spring
with tremulous desire; made tawny Summer's billowed breast the throne
and home of love; filled Autumns arms with sun-kissed grapes, and
gathered sheaves; and pictured Winter as a weak old king who felt,
like Lear upon his withered face, Cordelia's tears. These myths, though
false, are beautiful, and have for many ages and in countless ways,
enriched the heart and kindled thought. But if the world were taught
that all these things are true and all inspired of God, and that eternal
punishment will be the lot of him who dares deny or doubt, the sweetest
myth of all the Fable World would lose its beauty, and become a scorned
and hateful thing to every brave and thoughtful man.

Robert G. Ingersoll.

Washington, D. C, _Oct. 7th, 1879_




I. SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES

HE WHO ENDEAVORS TO CONTROL THE MIND BY FORCE IS A TYRANT, AND HE WHO
SUBMITS IS A SLAVE.

I want to do what little I can to make my country truly free, to broaden
the intellectual horizon of our people, to destroy the prejudices born
of ignorance and fear, to do away with the blind worship of the ignoble
past, with the idea that all the great and good are dead, that the
living are totally depraved, that all pleasures are sins, that sighs
and groans are alone pleasing to God, that thought is dangerous, that
intellectual courage is a crime, that cowardice is a virtue, that a
certain belief is necessary to secure salvation, that to carry a cross
in this world will give us a palm in the next, and that we must allow
some priest to be the pilot of our souls.

Until every soul is freely permitted to investigate every book, and
creed, and dogma for itself, the world cannot be free. Mankind will be
enslaved until there is mental grandeur enough to allow each man to have
his thought and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can, upon
all these questions differ, and yet grasp each other's hands as friends.
It is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we
know nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and
despise each other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination,
or the trinity, should make people imprison and burn each other
seems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet in all countries where
Christians have existed, they have destroyed each other to the exact
extent of their power. Why should a believer in God hate an atheist?
Surely the atheist has not injured God, and surely he is human, capable
of joy and pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not be
far better to treat this atheist, at least, as well as he treats us?

Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask
is--not that they love their enemies, not that they love their friends
even, but that they treat those who differ from them, with simple
fairness.

We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish Christians to so act that we
will not have to forgive them. If all will admit that all have an equal
right to think, then the question is forever solved; but as long as
organized and powerful churches, pretending to hold the keys of heaven
and hell, denounce every person as an outcast and criminal who thinks
for himself and denies their authority, the world will be filled with
hatred and suffering. To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of
all the creeds.

That which has happened in most countries, has happened in ours. When
a religion is founded, the educated, the powerful--that is to say, the
priests and nobles, tell the ignorant and superstitious--that is to
say, the people, that the religion of their country was given to their
fathers by God himself; that it is the only true religion; that all
others were conceived in falsehood and brought forth in fraud, and that
all who believe in the true religion will be happy forever, while all
others will burn in hell. For the purpose of governing the people, that
is to say, for the purpose of being supported by the people, the priests
and nobles declare this religion to be sacred, and that whoever adds to,
or takes from it, will be burned here by man, and hereafter by God. The
result of this is, that the priests and nobles will not allow the people
to change; and when, after a time, the priests, having intellectually
advanced, wish to take a step in the direction of progress, the people
will not allow them to change. At first, the rabble are enslaved by the
priests, and afterwards the rabble become the masters.

One of the first things I wish to do, is to free the orthodox clergy.
I am a great friend of theirs, and in spite of all they may say against
me, I am going to do them a great and lasting service. Upon their necks
are visible the marks of the collar, and upon their backs those of the
lash. They are not allowed to read and think for themselves. They are
taught like parrots, and the best are those who repeat, with the fewest
mistakes, the sentences they have been taught. They sit like owls upon
some dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and hoot the same old hoots
that have been hooted for eighteen hundred years. Their congregations
are not grand enough, nor sufficiently civilized, to be willing that
the poor preachers shall think for themselves. They are not employed for
that purpose. Investigation is regarded as a dangerous experiment,
and the ministers are warned that none of that kind of work will be
tolerated. They are notified to stand by the old creed, and to avoid
all original thought, as a mortal pestilence. Every minister is employed
like an attorney--either for plaintiff or defendant,--and he is expected
to be true to his client. If he changes his mind, he is regarded as
a deserter, and denounced, hated, and slandered accordingly. Every
orthodox clergyman agrees not to change. He contracts not to find new
facts, and makes a bargain that he will deny them if he does. Such is
the position of a protestant minister in this Nineteenth Century. His
condition excites my pity; and to better it, I am going to do what
little I can.

Some of the clergy have the independence to break away, and the
intellect to maintain themselves as free men, but the most are compelled
to submit to the dictation of the orthodox, and the dead. They are
not employed to give their thoughts, but simply to repeat the ideas of
others. They are not expected to give even the doubts that may suggest
themselves, but are required to walk in the narrow, verdureless path
trodden by the ignorance of the past. The forests and fields on either
side are nothing to them. They must not even look at the purple hills,
nor pause to hear the babble of the brooks. They must remain in the
dusty road where the guide-boards are. They must confine themselves
to the "fall of man" the expulsion from the garden, the "scheme of
salvation," the "second birth," the atonement, the happiness of the
redeemed, and the misery of the lost. They must be careful not to
express any new ideas upon these great questions. It is much safer for
them to quote from the works of the dead. The more vividly they describe
the sufferings of the unregenerate, of those who attended theatres and
balls, and drank wine in summer gardens on the sabbath-day, and laughed
at priests, the better ministers they are supposed to be. They must show
that misery fits the good for heaven, while happiness prepares the bad
for hell; that the wicked get all their good things in this life, and
the good all their evil; that in this world God punishes the people he
loves, and in the next, the ones he hates; that happiness makes us bad
here, but not in heaven; that pain makes us good here, but not in hell.
No matter how absurd these things may appear to the carnal mind, they
must be preached and they must be believed. If they were reasonable,
there would be no virtue in believing. Even the publicans and sinners
believe reasonable things. To believe without evidence, or in spite of
it, is accounted as righteousness to the sincere and humble christian.

The ministers are in duty bound to denounce all intellectual pride, and
show that we are never quite so dear to God as when we admit that we are
poor, corrupt and idiotic worms; that we never should have been born;
that we ought to be damned without the least delay; that we are so
infamous that we like to enjoy ourselves; that we love our wives and
children better than our God; that we are generous only because we are
vile; that we are honest from the meanest motives, and that sometimes we
have fallen so low that we have had doubts about the inspiration of the
Jewish scriptures. In short, they are expected to denounce all pleasant
paths and rustling trees, to curse the grass and flowers, and glorify
the dust and weeds. They are expected to malign the wicked people in the
green and happy fields, who sit and laugh beside the gurgling springs or
climb the hills and wander as they will. They are expected to point out
the dangers of freedom, the safety of implicit obedience, and to show
the wickedness of philosophy, the goodness of faith, the immorality of
science and the purity of ignorance.

Now and then, a few pious people discover some young man of a religious
turn of mind and a consumptive habit of body, not quite sickly enough
to die, nor healthy enough to be wicked. The idea occurs to them that
he would make a good orthodox minister. They take up a contribution, and
send the young man to some theological school where he can be taught to
repeat a creed and despise reason. Should it turn out that the young
man had some mind of his own, and, after graduating, should change his
opinions and preach a different doctrine from that taught in the school,
every man who contributed a dollar towards his education would feel that
he had been robbed, and would denounce him as a dishonest and ungrateful
wretch.

The pulpit should not be a pillory. Congregations should allow the
minister a little liberty. They should, at least, permit him to tell the
truth.

They have, in Massachusetts, at a place called Andover, a kind of
minister factory, where each professor takes an oath once in five
years--that time being considered the life of an oath--that he has not,
during the last five years, and will not, during the next five years,
intellectually advance. There is probably no oath that they could easier
keep. Probably, since the foundation stone of that institution was laid
there has not been a single case of perjury. The old creed is still
taught. They still insist that God is infinitely wise, powerful and
good, and that all men are totally depraved. They insist that the best
man God ever made, deserved to be damned the moment he was finished.
Andover puts its brand upon every minister it turns out, the same as
Sheffield and Birmingham brand their wares, and all who see the brand
know exactly what the minister believes, the books he has read, the
arguments he relies on, and just what he intellectually is. They know
just what he can be depended on to preach, and that he will continue to
shrink and shrivel, and grow solemnly stupid day by day until he reaches
the Andover of the grave and becomes truly orthodox forever.

I have not singled out the Andover factory because it is worse than the
others. They are all about the same. The professors, for the most part,
are ministers who failed in the pulpit and were retired to the seminary
on account of their deficiency in reason and their excess of faith. As
a rule, they know nothing of this world, and far less of the next; but
they have the power of stating the most absurd propositions with faces
solemn as stupidity touched by fear.

Something should be done for the liberation of these men. They should
be allowed to grow--to have sunlight and air. They should no longer
be chained and tied to confessions of faith, to mouldy books and
musty creeds. Thousands of ministers are anxious to give their honest
thoughts. The hands of wives and babes now stop their mouths. They
must have bread, and so the husbands and fathers are forced to preach
a doctrine that they hold in scorn. For the sake of shelter, food and
clothes, they are obliged to defend the childish miracles of the past,
and denounce the sublime discoveries of to-day. They are compelled to
attack all modern thought, to point out the dangers of science, the
wickedness of investigation and the corrupting influence of logic. It is
for them to show that virtue rests upon ignorance and faith, while vice
impudently feeds and fattens upon fact and demonstration. It is a part
of their business to malign and vilify the Voltaires, Humes, Paines,
Humboldts, Tyndals, Hæckels, Darwins, Spencers, and Drapers, and to bow
with uncovered heads before the murderers, adulterers, and persecutors
of the world. They are, for the most part, engaged in poisoning the
minds of the young, prejudicing children against science, teaching
the astronomy and geology of the bible, and inducing all to desert the
sublime standard of reason.

These orthodox ministers do not add to the sum of knowledge. They
produce nothing. They live upon alms. They hate laughter and joy. They
officiate at weddings, sprinkle water upon babes, and utter meaningless
words and barren promises above the dead. They laugh at the agony of
unbelievers, mock at their tears, and of their sorrows make a jest.
There are some noble exceptions. Now and then a pulpit holds a brave
and honest man. Their congregations are willing that they should
think--willing that their ministers should have a little freedom.

As we become civilized, more and more liberty will be accorded to these
men, until finally ministers will give their best and highest thoughts.
The congregations will finally get tired of hearing about the patriarchs
and saints, the miracles and wonders, and will insist upon knowing
something about the men and women of our day, and the accomplishments
and discoveries of our time. They will finally insist upon knowing how
to escape the evils of this world instead of the next. They will ask
light upon the enigmas of this life. They will wish to know what we
shall do with our criminals instead of what God will do with his--how
we shall do away with beggary and want--with crime and misery--with
prostitution, disease and famine,--with tyranny in all its cruel
forms--with prisons and scaffolds, and how we shall reward the honest
workers, and fill the world with happy homes! These are the problems
for the pulpits and congregations of an enlightened future. If Science
cannot finally answer these questions, it is a vain and worthless thing.

The clergy, however, will continue to answer them in the old way, until
their congregations are good enough to set them free. They will still
talk about believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, as though that were the
only remedy for all human ills. They will still teach that retrogression
is the only path that leads to light; that we must go back, that faith
is the only sure guide, and that reason is a delusive glare, lighting
only the road to eternal pain.

Until the clergy are free they cannot be intellectually honest. We can
never tell what they really believe until they know that they can safely
speak. They console themselves now by a secret resolution to be as
liberal as they dare, with the hope that they can finally educate
their congregations to the point of allowing them to think a little for
themselves. They hardly know what they ought to do. The best part of
their lives has been wasted in studying subjects of no possible value.
Most of them are married, have families, and know but one way of making
their living. Some of them say that if they do not preach these foolish
dogmas, others will, and that they may through fear, after all, restrain
mankind. Besides, they hate publicly to admit that they are mistaken,
that the whole thing is a delusion, that the "scheme of salvation" is
absurd, and that the bible is no better than some other books, and worse
than most.

You can hardly expect a bishop to leave his palace, or the pope to
vacate the Vatican. As long as people want popes, plenty of hypocrites
will be found to take the place. And as long as labor fatigues, there
will be found a good many men willing to preach once a week, if other
folks will work and give them bread. In other words, while the demand
lasts, the supply will never fail.

If the people were a little more ignorant, astrology would flourish--if
a little more enlightened, religion would perish!




II. FREE SCHOOLS

It is also my desire to free the schools. When a professor in a college
finds a fact, he should make it known, even if it is inconsistent with
something Moses said. Public opinion must not compel the professor to
hide a fact, and, "like the base Indian, throw the pearl away." With the
single exception of Cornell, there is not a college in the United
States where truth has ever been a welcome guest. The moment one of the
teachers denies the inspiration of the bible, he is discharged. If he
discovers a fact inconsistent with that book, so much the worse for the
fact, and especially for the discoverer of the fact. He must not corrupt
the minds of his pupils with demonstrations. He must beware of
every truth that cannot, in some way be made to harmonize with the
superstitions of the Jews. Science has nothing in common with religion.
Facts and miracles never did, and never will agree. They are not in the
least related. They are deadly foes. What has religion to do with
facts? Nothing. Can there be Methodist mathematics, Catholic astronomy,
Presbyterian geology, Baptist biology, or Episcopal botany? Why, then,
should a sectarian college exist? Only that which somebody knows should
be taught in our schools. We should not collect taxes to pay people for
guessing. The common school is the bread of life for the people, and it
should not be touched by the withering hand of superstition.

Our country will never be filled with great institutions of learning
until there is an absolute divorce between Church and School. As long
as the mutilated records of a barbarous people are placed by priest and
professor above the reason of mankind, we shall reap but little benefit
from church or school.

Instead of dismissing professors for finding something out, let us
rather discharge those who do not. Let each teacher understand that
investigation is not dangerous for him; that his bread is safe, no
matter how much truth he may discover, and that his salary will not be
reduced, simply because he finds that the ancient Jews did not know the
entire history of the world.

Besides, it is not fair to make the Catholic support a Protestant
school, nor is it just to collect taxes from infidels and atheists to
support schools in which any system of religion is taught.

The sciences are not sectarian. People do not persecute each other on
account of disagreements in mathematics. Families are not divided about
botany, and astronomy does not even tend to make a man hate his father
and mother. It is what people do not know, that they persecute each
other about. Science will bring, not a sword, but peace.

Just as long as religion has control of the schools, science will be an
outcast. Let us free our institutions of learning. Let us dedicate them
to the science of eternal truth. Let us tell every teacher to ascertain
all the facts he can--to give us light, to follow Nature, no matter
where she leads; to be infinitely true to himself and us; to feel that
he is without a chain, except the obligation to be honest; that he is
bound by no books, by no creed, neither by the sayings of the dead nor
of the living; that he is asked to look with his own eyes, to reason for
himself without fear, to investigate in every possible direction, and to
bring us the fruit of all his work.

At present, a good many men engaged in scientific pursuits, and who
have signally failed in gaining recognition among their fellows, are
endeavoring to make reputations among the churches by delivering weak
and vapid lectures upon the "harmony of Genesis and Geology." Like all
hypocrites, these men overstate the case to such a degree, and so
turn and pervert facts and words that they succeed only in gaining the
applause of other hypocrites like themselves. Among the great scientists
they are regarded as generals regard sutlers who trade with both armies.

Surely the time must come when the wealth of the world will not be
wasted in the propagation of ignorant creeds and miraculous mistakes.
The time must come when churches and cathedrals will be dedicated to the
use of man; when minister and priest will deem the discoveries of the
living of more importance than the errors of the dead; when the truths
of Nature will outrank the "sacred" falsehoods of the past, and when a
single fact will outweigh all the miracles of Holy Writ.

Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money
wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize
mankind?

When every church becomes a school, every cathedral a university, every
clergyman a teacher, and all their hearers brave and honest
thinkers, then, and not until then, will the dream of poet, patriot,
philanthropist and philosopher, become a real and blessed truth.




III. THE POLITICIANS.

I would like also to liberate the politician. At present, the successful
office-seeker is a good deal like the centre of the earth; he weighs
nothing himself, but draws everything else to him. There are so many
societies, so many churches, so many isms, that it is almost impossible
for an independent man to succeed in a political career. Candidates are
forced to pretend that they are catholics with protest-ant proclivities,
or christians with liberal tendencies, or temperance men who now and
then take a glass of wine, or, that although not members of any church
their wives are, and that they subscribe liberally to all. The result of
all this is that we reward hypocrisy and elect men entirely destitute of
real principle; and this will never change until the people become grand
enough to allow each other to do their own thinking.

Our government should be entirely and purely secular. The religious
views of a candidate should be kept entirely out of sight. He should not
be compelled to give his opinion as to the inspiration of the bible,
the propriety of infant baptism, or the immaculate conception. All these
things are private and personal. He should be allowed to settle such
things for himself, and should he decide contrary to the law and will
of God, let him settle the matter with God. The people ought to be wise
enough to select as their officers men who know something of political
affairs, who comprehend the present greatness, and clearly perceive the
future grandeur of our country. If we were in a storm at sea, with deck
wave-washed and masts strained and bent with storm, and it was necessary
to reef the top sail, we certainly would not ask the brave sailor who
volunteered to go aloft, what his opinion was on the five points of
Calvinism. Our government has nothing to do with religion. It is neither
christian nor pagan; it is secular. But as long as the people persist in
voting for or against men on account of their religious views, just
so long will hypocrisy hold place and power. Just so long will the
candidates crawl in the dust--hide their opinions, flatter those with
whom they differ, pretend to agree with those whom they despise; and
just so long will honest men be trampled under foot. Churches are
becoming political organizations. Nearly every Catholic is a democrat;
nearly every Methodist in the North is a republican.

It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply
upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes,
if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this
government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the
hands of any church. Wherever the bible and sword are in partnership,
man is a slave.

All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same
spirit that kindled the fires of the _auto da fe_, and lovingly built
the dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing
blasphemy--making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the bible,
or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself
on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by
impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An
infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in
partnership with state legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act
that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one
thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine
and imprisonment. It strikes me that God might write a book that would
not necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think
it would be safe to say that a real God could produce a work that would
excite the admiration of mankind. Surely politicians could be better
employed than in passing laws to protect the literary reputation of the
Jewish God.




IV. MAN AND WOMAN

Let us forget that we are Baptists, Methodists, Catholics,
Presbyterians, or Free-thinkers, and remember only that we are men and
women. After all, _man_ and _woman_ are the highest possible titles.
All other names belittle us, and show that we have, to a certain extent,
given up our individuality, and have consented to wear the collar of
authority--that we are followers. Throwing away these names, let us
examine these questions not as partisans, but as human beings with hopes
and fears in common.

We know that our opinions depend, to a great degree, upon our
surroundings--upon race, country, and education. We are all the result
of numberless conditions, and inherit vices and virtues, truths and
prejudices. If we had been born in England, surrounded by wealth and
clothed with power, most of us would have been Episcopalians, and
believed in Church and State. We should have insisted that the people
needed a religion, and that not having intellect enough to provide one
for themselves, it was our duty to make one for them, and then compel
them to support it. We should have believed it indecent to officiate in
a pulpit without wearing a gown, and that prayers should be read from
a book. Had we belonged to the lower classes, we might have been
dissenters and protested against the mummeries of the High Church.
Had we been born in Turkey, most of us would have been Mohammedans and
believed in the inspiration of the Koran. We should have believed that
Mohammed actually visited Heaven and became acquainted with an angel by
the name of Gabriel, who was so broad between the eyes that it required
three hundred days for a very smart camel to travel the distance. If
some man had denied this story we should probably have denounced him as
a dangerous person, one who was endeavoring to undermine the foundations
of society, and to destroy all distinction between virtue and vice. We
should have said to him, "What do you propose to give us in place
of that angel? We cannot afford to give up an angel of that size for
nothing." We would have insisted that the best and wisest men
believed the Koran. We would have quoted from the works and letters of
philosophers, generals and sultans, to show that the Koran was the best
of books, and that Turkey was indebted to that book and to that alone
for its greatness and prosperity. We would have asked that man whether
he knew more than all the great minds of his country, whether he was so
much wiser than his fathers? We would have pointed out to him the fact
that thousands had been consoled in the hour of death by passages from
the Koran; that they had died with glazed eyes brightened by visions of
the heavenly harem, and gladly left this world of grief and tears.
We would have regarded Christians as the vilest of men, and on all
occasions would have repeated "There is but one God, and Mohammed is his
prophet!"

So, if we had been born in India, we should in all probability have
believed in the religion of that country. We should have regarded the
old records as true and sacred, and looked upon a wandering priest as
better than the men from whom he begged, and by whose labor he lived.
We should have believed in a god with three heads instead of three gods
with one head, as we do now.

Now and then some one says that the religion of his father and mother
is good enough for him, and wonders why anybody should desire a better.
Surely we are not bound to follow our parents in religion any more than
in politics, science or art. China has been petrified by the worship
of ancestors. If our parents had been satisfied with the religion of
theirs, we would be still less advanced than we are. If we are, in any
way, bound by the belief of our fathers, the doctrine will hold good
back to the first people who had a religion; and if this doctrine is
true, we ought now to be believers in that first religion. In other
words, we would all be barbarians. You cannot show real respect to your
parents by perpetuating their errors. Good fathers and mothers wish
their children to advance, to overcome obstacles which baffled them, and
to correct the errors of their education. If you wish to reflect credit
upon your parents, accomplish more than they did, solve problems that
they could not understand, and build better than they knew. To sacrifice
your manhood upon the grave of your father is an honor to neither. Why
should a son who has examined a subject, throw away his reason and adopt
the views of his mother? Is not such a course dishonorable to both?

We must remember that this "ancestor" argument is as old at least as
the second generation of men, that it has served no purpose except to
enslave mankind, and results mostly from the fact that acquiescence
is easier than investigation. This argument pushed to its logical
conclusion, would prevent the advance of all people whose parents were
not free-thinkers.

It is hard for many people to give up the religion in which they were
born; to admit that their fathers were utterly mistaken, and that the
sacred records of their country are but collections of myths and fables.

But when we look for a moment at the world, we find that each nation has
its "sacred records"--its religion, and its ideas of worship. Certainly
all cannot be right; and as it would require a life time to investigate
the claims of these various systems, it is hardly fair to damn a man
forever, simply because he happens to believe the wrong one. All these
religions were produced by barbarians. Civilized nations have contented
themselves with changing the religions of their barbaric ancestors, but
they have made none. Nearly all these religions are intensely selfish.
Each one was made by some contemptible little nation that regarded
itself as of almost infinite importance, and looked upon the other
nations as beneath the notice of their god. In all these countries it
was a crime to deny the sacred records, to laugh at the priests, to
speak disrespectfully of the gods, to fail to divide your substance
with the lazy hypocrites who managed your affairs in the next world upon
condition that you would support them in this. In the olden time
these theological people who quartered themselves upon the honest
and industrious, were called soothsayers, seers, charmers, prophets,
enchanters, sorcerers, wizards, astrologers, and impostors, but now,
they are known as clergymen.

We are no exception to the general rule, and consequently have our
sacred books as well as the rest. Of course, it is claimed by many of
our people that our books are the only true ones, the only ones that the
real God ever wrote, or had anything whatever to do with. They insist
that all other sacred books were written by hypocrites and impostors;
that the Jews were the only people that God ever had any personal
intercourse with, and that all other prophets and seers were inspired
only by impudence and mendacity. True, it seems somewhat strange that
God should have chosen a barbarous and unknown people who had little or
nothing to do with the other nations of the earth, as his messengers to
the rest of mankind.

It is not easy to account for an infinite God making people so low in
the scale of intellect as to require a revelation. Neither is it easy to
perceive why, if a revelation was necessary for all, it was made only
to a few. Of course, I know that it is extremely wicked to suggest these
thoughts, and that ignorance is the only armor that can effectually
protect you from the wrath of God. I am aware that investigators with
all their genius, never find the road to heaven; that those who look
where they are going are sure to miss it, and that only those who
voluntarily put out their eyes and implicitly depend upon blindness can
surely keep the narrow path.

Whoever reads our sacred book is compelled to believe it or suffer
forever the torments of the lost. We are told that we have the privilege
of examining it for ourselves; but this privilege is only extended to
us on the condition that we believe it whether it appears reasonable or
not. We may disagree with others as much as we please upon the meaning
of all passages in the bible, but we must not deny the truth of a single
word. We must believe that the book is inspired. If we obey its every
precept without believing in its inspiration we will be damned just as
certainly as though we disobeyed its every word. We have no right to
weigh it in the scales of reason--to test it by the laws of nature, or
the facts of observation and experience. To do this, we are told, is to
put ourselves above the word of God, and sit in judgment on the works of
our creator.

For my part, I cannot admit that belief is a voluntary thing. It seems
to me that evidence, even in spite of ourselves, will have its weight,
and that whatever our wish may be, we are compelled to stand with
fairness by the scales, and give the exact result. It will not do to say
that we reject the bible because we are wicked. Our wickedness must be
ascertained not from our belief but from our acts.

I am told by the clergy that I ought not to attack the bible; that I am
leading thousands to perdition and rendering certain the damnation of my
own soul. They have had the kindness to advise me that, if my object is
to make converts, I am pursuing the wrong course. They tell me to use
gentler expressions, and more cunning words. Do they really wish me
to make more converts? If their advice is honest, they are traitors to
their trust. If their advice is not honest, then they are unfair with
me. Certainly they should wish me to pursue the course that will make
the fewest converts, and yet they pretend to tell me how my influence
could be increased. It may be, that upon this principle John Bright
advises America to adopt free trade, so that our country can become a
successful rival of Great Britain. Sometimes I think that even ministers
are not entirely candid.

Notwithstanding the advice of the clergy, I have concluded to pursue my
own course, to tell my honest thoughts, and to have my freedom in this
world whatever my fate may be in the next.

The real oppressor, enslaver and corrupter of the people is the bible.
That book is the chain that binds, the dungeon that holds the clergy.
That book spreads the pall of superstition over the colleges and
schools. That book puts out the eyes of science, and makes honest
investigation a crime. That book unmans the politician and degrades the
people. That book fills the world with bigotry, hypocrisy and fear.
It plays the same part in our country that has been played by "sacred
records" in all the nations of the world.

A little while ago I saw one of the bibles of the Middle Ages. It was
about two feet in length, and one and a half in width. It had immense
oaken covers, with hasps, and clasps, and hinges large enough almost
for the doors of a penitentiary. It was covered with pictures of winged
angels and aureoled saints. In my imagination I saw this book carried
to the cathedral altar in solemn pomp--heard the chant of robed and
kneeling priests, felt the strange tremor of the organ's peal; saw the
colored light streaming through windows stained and touched by blood
and flame--the swinging censer with its perfumed incense rising to the
mighty roof, dim with height and rich with legend carved in stone, while
on the walls was hung, written in light, and shade, and all the colors
that can tell of joy and tears, the pictured history of the martyred
Christ. The people fell upon their knees. The book was opened, and the
priest read the messages from God to man. To the multitude, the book
itself was evidence enough that it was not the work of human hands. How
could those little marks and lines and dots contain, like tombs, the
thoughts of men, and how could they, touched by a ray of light from
human eyes, give up their dead? How could these characters span the vast
chasm dividing the present from the past, and make it possible for the
living still to hear the voices of the dead?




V. THE PENTATEUCH

The first five books in our bible are known as the Pentateuch. For
a long time it was supposed that Moses was the author, and among the
ignorant the supposition still prevails. As a matter of fact, it seems
to be well settled that Moses had nothing to do with these books, and
that they were not written until he had been dust and ashes for hundreds
of years. But, as all the churches still insist that he was the author,
that he wrote even an account of his own death and burial, let us
speak of him as though these books were in fact written by him. As the
christians maintain that God was the real author, it makes but little
difference whom he employed as his pen, or clerk.

Nearly all authors of sacred books have given an account of the creation
of the universe, the origin of matter, and the destiny of the human
race. Nearly all have pointed out the obligation that man is under to
his creator for having placed him upon the earth, and allowed him to
live and suffer, and have taught that nothing short of the most abject
worship could possibly compensate God for his trouble and labor suffered
and done for the good of man. They have nearly all insisted that we
should thank God for all that is good in life; but they have not all
informed us as to whom we should hold responsible for the evils we
endure.

Moses differed from most of the makers of sacred books by his failure
to say anything of a future life, by failing to promise heaven, and to
threaten hell. Upon the subject of a future state, there is not one
word in the Pentateuch. Probably at that early day God did not deem
it important to make a revelation as to the eternal destiny of man.
He seems to have thought that he could control the Jews, at least, by
rewards and punishments in this world, and so he kept the frightful
realities of eternal joy and torment a profound secret from the people
of his choice. He thought it far more important to tell the Jews their
origin than to enlighten them as to their destiny.

We must remember that every tribe and nation has some way in which, the
more striking phenomena of nature are accounted for. These accounts
are handed down by tradition, changed by numberless narrators as
intelligence increases, or to account for newly discovered facts, or for
the purpose of satisfying the appetite for the marvelous.

The way in which a tribe or nation accounts for day and night, the
change of seasons, the fall of snow and rain, the flight of birds,
the origin of the rainbow, the peculiarities of animals, the dreams
of sleep, the visions of the insane, the existence of earthquakes,
volcanoes, storms, lightning and the thousand things that attract the
attention and excite the wonder, fear or admiration of mankind, may be
called the philosophy of that tribe or nation. And as all phenomena are,
by savage and barbaric man accounted for as the action of intelligent
beings for the accomplishment of certain objects, and as these beings
were supposed to have the power to assist or injure man, certain things
were supposed necessary for man to do in order to gain the assistance,
and avoid the anger of these gods. Out of this belief grew certain
ceremonies, and these ceremonies united with the belief, formed
religion; and consequently every religion has for its foundation a
misconception of the cause of phenomena.

All worship is necessarily based upon the belief that some being exists
who can, if he will, change the natural order of events. The savage
prays to a stone that he calls a god, while the christian prays to a god
that he calls a spirit, and the prayers of both are equally useful. The
savage and the christian put behind the Universe an intelligent cause,
and this cause whether represented by one god or many, has been, in all
ages, the object of all worship. To carry a fetich, to utter a prayer,
to count beads, to abstain from food, to sacrifice a lamb, a child or an
enemy, are simply different ways by which the accomplishment of the same
object is sought, and are all the offspring of the same error.

Many systems of religion must have existed many ages before the art of
writing was discovered, and must have passed through many changes before
the stories, miracles, histories, prophesies and mistakes became fixed
and petrified in written words. After that, change was possible only by
giving new meanings to old words, a process rendered necessary by the
continual acquisition of facts somewhat inconsistent with a literal
interpretation of the "sacred records." In this way an honest faith
often prolongs its life by dishonest methods; and in this way the
Christians of to-day are trying to harmonize the Mosaic account of
creation with the theories and discoveries of modern science.

Admitting that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, or that he gave
to the Jews a religion, the question arises as to where he obtained
his information. We are told by the theologians that he received his
knowledge from God, and that every word he wrote was and is the exact
truth. It is admitted at the same time that he was an adopted son of
Pharaoh's daughter, and enjoyed the rank and privilege of a prince.
Under such circumstances, he must have been well acquainted with the
literature, philosophy and religion of the Egyptians, and must have
known what they believed and taught as to the creation of the world.

Now, if the account of the origin of this earth as given by Moses is
substantially like that given by the Egyptians, then we must conclude
that he learned it from them. Should we imagine that he was divinely
inspired because he gave to the Jews what the Egyptians had given him?

The Egyptian priests taught _first_, that a god created the original
matter, leaving it in a state of chaos; _second_, that a god moulded it
into form; _third_, that the breath of a god moved upon the face of
the deep; _fourth_, that a god created simply by saying "Let it be;"
_fifth_, that a god created light before the sun existed.

Nothing can be clearer than that Moses received from the Egyptians the
principal parts of his narrative, making such changes and additions as
were necessary to satisfy the peculiar superstitions of his own people.

If some man at the present day should assert that he had received from
God the theories of evolution, the survival of the fittest, and the
law of heredity, and we should afterwards find that he was not only an
Englishman, but had lived in the family of Charles Darwin, we certainly
would account for his having these theories in a natural way, So, if
Darwin himself should pretend that he was inspired, and had obtained
his peculiar theories from God, we should probably reply that his
grandfather suggested the the same ideas, and that Lamarck published
substantially the same theories the same year that Mr. Darwin was born.

Now, if we have sufficient courage, we will, by the same course of
reasoning, account for the story of creation found in the bible. We
will say that it contains the belief of Moses, and that he received his
information from the Egyptians, and not from God. If we take the account
as the absolute truth and use it for the purpose of determining the
value of modern thought, scientific advancement becomes impossible. And
even if the account of the Creation as given by Moses should turn out
to be true, and should be so admitted by all the scientific world, the
claim that he was inspired would still be without the least particle
of proof. We would be forced to admit that he knew more than we had
supposed. It certainly is no proof that a man is inspired simply because
he is right.

No one pretends that Shakespeare was inspired, and yet all the writers
of the books of the Old Testament put together, could not have produced
Hamlet.

Why should we, looking upon some rough and awkward thing, or god in
stone, say that it must have been produced by some inspired sculptor,
and with the same breath pronounce the _Venus de Milo_ to be the work
of man? Why should we, looking at some ancient daub of angel, saint or
virgin, say its painter must have been assisted by a god?

Let us account for all we see by the facts we know. If there are things
for which we cannot account, let us wait for light. To account for
anything by supernatural agencies is, in fact to say that we do not
know. Theology is not what we know about God, but what we do not know
about Nature. In order to increase our respect for the bible, it became
necessary for the priests to exalt and extol that book, and at the same
time to decry and belittle the reasoning powers of man. The whole
power of the pulpit has been used for hundreds of years to destroy the
confidence of man in himself--to induce him to distrust his own powers
of thought, to believe that he was wholly unable to decide any question
for himself, and that all human virtue consists in faith and obedience.
The Church has said, "Believe, and obey! If you reason, you will become
an unbeliever, and unbelievers will be lost. If you disobey, you will
do so through vain pride and curiosity, and will, like Adam and Eve, be
thrust from paradise forever!"

For my part, I care nothing for what the Church says, except in so far
as it accords with my reason; and the bible is nothing to me, only in so
far as it agrees with what I think or know.

All books should be examined in the same spirit, and truth should be
welcomed and falsehood exposed, no matter in what volume they may be
found.

Let us in this spirit examine the Pentateuch; and if anything appears
unreasonable, contradictory or absurd, let us have the honesty and
courage to admit it. Certainly no good can result either from deceiving
ourselves or others. Many millions have implicitly believed this book,
and have just as implicitly believed that polygamy was sanctioned by
God. Millions have regarded this book as the foundation of all
human progress, and at the same time looked upon slavery as a divine
institution. Millions have declared this book to have been infinitely
holy, and to prove that they were right, have imprisoned, robbed
and burned their fellow men. The inspiration of this book has been
established by famine, sword and fire, by dungeon, chain and whip, by
dagger and by rack, by force and fear and fraud, and generations have
been frightened by threats of hell, and bribed with promises of heaven.

Let us examine a portion of this book, not in the darkness of our fear,
but in the light of reason.

And first, let us examine the account given of the Creation of this
world, commenced, according to the bible, on Monday morning about five
thousand eight hundred and eighty-three years ago.




VI. MONDAY

Moses commences his story by telling us that in the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth.

If this means anything, it means that God produced, caused to exist,
called into being, the heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that
he formed the heaven and the earth of previously existing matter. Moses
conveys, and intended to convey the idea that the matter of which the
heaven and the earth are composed, was created.

It is impossible for me to conceive of something being created from
nothing. Nothing, regarded in the light of a raw material, is a decided
failure. I cannot conceive of matter apart from force. Neither is it
possible to think of force disconnected with matter. You cannot imagine
matter going back to absolute nothing. Neither can you imagine nothing
being changed into something. You may be eternally damned if you do not
say that you can conceive these things, but you cannot conceive them.

Such is the constitution of the human mind that it cannot even think of
a commencement or an end of matter, or force.

If God created the universe, there was a time when he commenced to
create. Back of that commencement there must have been an eternity. In
that eternity what was this God doing? He certainly did not think.
There was nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing had ever
happened. What did he do? Can you imagine anything more absurd than an
infinite intelligence in infinite nothing wasting an eternity?

I do not pretend to tell how all these things really are; but I do
insist that a statement that cannot possibly be comprehended by any
human being, and that appears utterly impossible, repugnant to every
fact of experience, and contrary to everything that we really know, must
be rejected by every honest man.

We can conceive of eternity, because we cannot conceive of a cessation
of time. We can conceive of infinite space because we cannot conceive
of so much matter that our imagination will not stand upon the farthest
star, and see infinite space beyond. In other words, we cannot conceive
of a cessation of time; therefore eternity is a necessity of the mind.
Eternity sustains the same relation to time that space does to matter.

In the time of Moses, it was perfectly safe for him to write an account
of the creation of the world. He had simply to put in form the crude
notions of the people. At that time, no other Jew could have written
a better account. Upon that subject he felt at liberty to give his
imagination full play. There was no one who could authoritatively
contradict anything he might say. It was substantially the same story
that had been imprinted in curious characters upon the clay records
of Babylon, the gigantic monuments of Egypt, and the gloomy temples of
India. In those days there was an almost infinite difference between
the educated and ignorant. The people were controlled almost entirely
by signs and wonders. By the lever of fear, priests moved the world. The
sacred records were made and kept, and altered by them. The people could
not read, and looked upon one who could, as almost a god. In our day it
is hard to conceive of the influence of an educated class in a barbarous
age. It was only necessary to produce the "sacred record," and ignorance
fell upon its face. The people were taught that the record was inspired,
and therefore true. They were not taught that it was true, and therefore
inspired.

After all, the real question is not whether the bible is inspired, but
whether it is true. If it is true, it does not need to be inspired. If
it is true, it makes no difference whether it was written by a man or a
god. The multiplication table is just as useful, just as true as though
God had arranged the figures himself. If the bible is really true,
the claim of inspiration need not be urged; and if it is not true, its
inspiration can hardly be established. As a matter of fact, the truth
does not need to be inspired. Nothing needs inspiration except a
falsehood or a mistake. Where truth ends, where probability stops,
inspiration begins. A fact never went into partnership with a miracle.
Truth does not need the assistance of miracle. A fact will fit every
other fact in the Universe, because it is the product of all other
facts. A lie will fit nothing except another lie made for the express
purpose of fitting it. After a while the man gets tired of lying, and
then the last lie will not fit the next fact, and then there is an
opportunity to use a miracle. Just at that point, it is necessary to
have a little inspiration.

It seems to me that reason is the highest attribute of man, and that if
there can be any communication from God to man, it must be addressed
to his reason. It does not seem possible that in order to understand a
message from God it is absolutely essential to throw our reason away.
How could God make known his will to any being destitute of reason? How
can any man accept as a revelation from God that which is unreasonable
to him? God cannot make a revelation to another man for me. He must make
it to me, and until he convinces my reason that it is true, I cannot
receive it.

The statement that in the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth, I cannot accept. It is contrary to my reason, and I cannot
believe it. It appears reasonable to me that force has existed from
eternity. Force cannot, as it appears to me, exist apart from matter.
Force, in its nature, is forever active, and without matter it could
not act; and so I think matter must have existed forever. To conceive
of matter without force, or of force without matter, or of a time when
neither existed, or of a being who existed for an eternity without
either, and who out of nothing created both, is to me utterly
impossible. I may be damned on this account, but I cannot help it. In my
judgment, Moses was mistaken.

It will not do to say that Moses merely intended to tell what God did,
in making the heavens and the earth out of matter then in existence.
He distinctly states that in the _beginning_ God created them. If this
account is true, we must believe that God, existing in infinite space
surrounded by eternal nothing, naught and void, created, produced,
called into being, willed into existence this universe of countless
stars.

The next thing we are told by this inspired gentleman is, that God
created light, and proceeded to divide it from the darkness.

Certainly, the person who wrote this believed that darkness was a thing,
an entity, a material that could get mixed and tangled up with light,
and that these entities, light and darkness, had to be separated. In his
imagination he probably saw God throwing pieces and chunks of darkness
on one side, and rays and beams of light on the other. It is hard for a
man who has been born but once to understand these things. For my part I
cannot understand how light can be separated from darkness. I had always
supposed that darkness was simply the absence of light, and that under
no circumstances could it be necessary to take the darkness away from
the light. It is certain, however, that Moses believed darkness to be
a form of matter, because I find that in another place he speaks of a
darkness that could be felt. They used to have on exhibition at Rome a
bottle of the darkness that overspread Egypt.

You cannot divide light from darkness any more than you can divide heat
from cold. Cold is an absence of heat, and darkness is an absence of
light. I suppose that we have no conception of absolute cold. We know
only degrees of heat. Twenty degrees below zero is just twenty degrees
warmer than forty degrees below zero. Neither cold nor darkness are
entities, and these words express simply either the absolute or partial
absence of heat or light. I cannot conceive how light can be divided
from darkness, but I can conceive how a barbarian several thousand years
ago, writing upon a subject about which he knew nothing, could make a
mistake. The creator of light could not have written in this way. If
such a being exists, he must have known the nature of that "mode of
motion" that paints the earth on every eye, and clothes in garments
seven-hued this universe of worlds.




VII. TUESDAY

We are next informed by Moses that "God said Let there be a firmament in
the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters;"
and that "God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament."

What did the writer mean by the word firmament? Theologians now tell
us that he meant an "expanse." This will not do. How could an expanse
divide the waters from the waters, so that the waters above the expanse
would not fall into and mingle with the waters below the expanse? The
truth is that Moses regarded the firmament as a solid affair. It was
where God lived, and where water was kept. It was for this reason that
they used to pray for rain. They supposed that some angel could with a
lever raise a gate and let out the quantity of moisture desired. It was
with the water from this firmament that the world was drowned when the
windows of heaven were opened. It was in this firmament that the sons
of God lived--the sons who "saw the daughters of men that they were
fair and took them wives of all which they chose." The issue of such
marriages were giants, and "the same became mighty men which were of
old, men of renown."

Nothing is clearer than that Moses regarded the firmament as a vast
material division that separated the waters of the world, and upon
whose floor God lived, surrounded by his sons. In no other way could he
account for rain. Where did the water come from? He knew nothing about
the laws of evaporation. He did not know that the sun wooed with amorous
kisses the waves of the sea, and that they, clad in glorified mist
rising to meet their lover, were, by disappointment, changed to tears
and fell as rain.

The idea that the firmament was the abode of the Deity must have been in
the mind of Moses when he related the dream of Jacob. "And he dreamed,
and behold, a ladder set upon the earth and the top of it reached to
heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it; and
behold the Lord stood above it and said, I am the Lord God."

So, when the people were building the tower of Babel "the Lord came down
to see the city, and the tower which the children of men builded. And
the Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have all one language:
and this they begin to do; and nothing will be restrained from them
which they imagined to do. Go to, let us go down and confound their
language that they may not understand one another's speech."

The man who wrote that absurd account must have believed that God lived
above the earth, in the firmament. The same idea was in the mind of the
Psalmist when he said that God "bowed the heavens and came down."

Of course, God could easily remove any person bodily to heaven, as it
was but a little way above the earth. "Enoch walked with God, and he was
not, for God took him." The accounts in the bible of the ascension of
Elijah, Christ and St. Paul were born of the belief that the firmament
was the dwelling-place of God. It probably never occurred to these
writers that if the firmament was seven or eight miles away, Enoch and
the rest would have been frozen perfectly stiff long before the journey
could have been completed. Possibly Elijah might have made the voyage,
as he was carried to heaven in a chariot of fire "by a whirlwind."

The truth is, that Moses was mistaken, and upon that mistake the
christians located their heaven and their hell. The telescope destroyed
the firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered
the ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his Mother infinitely
absurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem,
and in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds.




VIII. WEDNESDAY

We are next informed by the historian of Creation, that after God had
finished making the firmament and had succeeded in dividing the waters
by means of an "expanse," he proceeded "to gather the waters on the
earth together in seas, so that the dry land might appear."

Certainly the writer of this did not have any conception of the real
form of the earth. He could not have known anything of the attraction of
gravitation. He must have regarded the earth as flat and supposed that
it required considerable force and power to induce the water to leave
the mountains and collect in the valleys. Just as soon as the water was
forced to run down hill, the dry land appeared, and the grass began to
grow, and the mantles of green were thrown over the shoulders of the
hills, and the trees laughed into bud and blossom, and the branches were
laden with fruit. And all this happened before a ray had left the quiver
of the sun, before a glittering beam had thrilled the bosom of a flower,
and before the Dawn with trembling hands had drawn aside the curtains of
the East and welcomed to her arms the eager god of Day.

It does not seem to me that grass and trees could grow and ripen into
seed and fruit without the sun. According to the account, this all
happened on the third day. Now, if, as the christians say, Moses did not
mean by the word day a period of twenty-four hours, but an immense and
almost measureless space of time, and as God did not, according to this
view make any animals until the fifth day, that is, not for millions of
years after he made the grass and trees, for what purpose did he cause
the trees to bear fruit?

Moses says that God said on the third day, "Let the earth bring forth
grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after
his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so. And the
earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the
tree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself after his kind; and God saw
that it was good, and the evening and the morning were the third day."

There was nothing to eat this fruit; not an insect with painted wings
sought the honey of the flowers; not a single living, breathing thing
upon the earth. Plenty of grass, a great variety of herbs, an abundance
of fruit, but not a mouth in all the world. If Moses is right, this
state of things lasted only two days; but if the modern theologians are
correct, it continued for millions of ages.

"It is now well known that the organic history of the earth can be
properly divided into five epochs--the Primordial, Primary, Secondary,
Tertiary, and Quaternary. Each of these epochs is characterized by
animal and vegetable life peculiar to itself.. In the First will be
found Algae and Skull-less Vertebrates, in the Second, Ferns and Fishes,
in the Third, Pine Forests and Reptiles, in the Fourth, Foliaceous
Forests and Mammals, and in the Fifth, Man."

How much more reasonable this is than the idea that the Earth was
covered with grass, and herbs, and trees loaded with fruit for millions
of years before an animal existed.

There is, in Nature, an even balance forever kept between the total
amounts of animal and vegetable life. "In her wonderful economy she must
form and bountifully nourish her vegetable progeny--twin-brother life to
her, with that of animals. The perfect balance between plant existences
and animal existences must always be maintained, while matter courses
through the eternal circle, becoming each in turn. If an animal be
resolved into its ultimate constituents in a period according to the
surrounding circumstances, say, of four hours, of four months, of four
years, or even of four thousand years,--for it is impossible to deny
that there may be instances of all these periods during which the
process has continued--those elements which assume the gaseous form
mingle at once with the atmosphere and are taken up from it without
delay by the ever-open mouths of vegetable life. By a thousand pores
in every leaf the carbonic acid which renders the atmosphere unfit for
animal life is absorbed, the carbon being separated, and assimilated to
form the vegetable fibre, which, as wood, makes and furnishes our houses
and ships, is burned for our warmth, or is stored up under pressure for
coal. All this carbon has played its part, and many parts in its time,
as animal existences from monad up to man. Our mahogany of to-day has
been many negroes in its turn, and before the African existed, was
integral portions of many a generation of extinct species."

It seems reasonable to suppose that certain kinds of vegetation
and certain kinds of animals should exist together, and that as the
character of the vegetation changed, a corresponding change would take
place in the animal world. It may be that I am led to these conclusions
by "total depravity," or that I lack the necessary humility of spirit to
satisfactorily harmonize Haeckel and Moses; or that I am carried away by
pride, blinded by reason, given over to hardness of heart that I might
be damned, but I never can believe that the earth was covered with
leaves, and buds, and flowers, and fruits before the sun with glittering
spear had driven back the hosts of Night.




IX. THURSDAY

After the world was covered with vegetation, it occurred to Moses that
it was about time to make a sun and moon; and so we are told that on the
fourth day God said, "Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven
to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for
seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so. And
God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also."

Can we believe that the inspired writer had any idea of the size of the
sun? Draw a circle five inches in diameter, and by its side thrust a pin
through the paper. The hole made by the pin will sustain about the same
relation to the circle that the earth does to the sun. Did he know that
the sun was eight hundred and sixty thousand miles in diameter; that it
was enveloped in an ocean of fire thousands of miles in depth, hotter
even than the christian's hell, over which sweep tempests of flame
moving at the rate of one hundred miles a second, compared with which
the wildest storm that ever wrecked the forests of this world was but a
calm? Did he know that the sun every moment of time throws out as much
heat as could be generated by the combustion of millions upon millions
of tons of coal? Did he know that the volume of the Earth is less than
one-millionth of that of the sun? Did he know of the one hundred and
four planets belonging to our solar system, all children of the sun? Did
he know of Jupiter eighty-five thousand miles in diameter, hundreds
of times as large as our earth, turning on his axis at the rate of
twenty-five thousand miles an hour accompanied by four moons, making the
tour of his orbit in fifty years, a distance of three thousand million
miles? Did he know anything about Saturn, his rings and his eight moons?
Did he have the faintest idea that all these planets were once a part of
the sun; that the vast luminary was once thousands of millions of miles
in diameter; that Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars were all
born before our earth, and that by no possibility could this world have
existed three days, nor three periods, nor three "good whiles" before
its source, the sun?

Moses supposed the sun to be about three or four feet in diameter and
the moon about half that size. Compared with the earth they were but
simple specks. This idea seems to have been shared by all the "inspired"
men. We find in the book of Joshua that the sun stood still, and the
moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.
"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go
down about a whole day."

We are told that the sacred writer wrote in common speech as we do
when we talk about the rising and setting of the sun, and that all he
intended to say was that the earth ceased to turn on its axis "for about
a whole day."

My own opinion is that General Joshua knew no more about the motions of
the earth than he did about mercy and justice. If he had known that the
earth turned upon its axis at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and
swept in its course about the sun at the rate of sixty-eight thousand
miles an hour, he would have doubled the hailstones, spoken of in the
same chapter, that the Lord cast down from heaven, and allowed the sun
and moon to rise and set in the usual way.

It is impossible to conceive of a more absurd story than this about the
stopping of the sun and moon, and yet nothing so excites the malice of
the orthodox preacher as to call its truth in question. Some endeavor
to account for the phenomenon by natural causes, while others attempt
to show that God could, by the refraction of light have made the sun
visible although actually shining on the opposite side of the earth. The
last hypothesis has been seriously urged by ministers within the last
few months. The Rev. Henry M. Morey of South Bend, Indiana, says "that
the phenomenon was simply optical. The rotary motion of the earth was
not disturbed, but the light of the sun was prolonged by the same laws
of refraction and reflection by which the sun now appears to be above
the horizon when it is really below. The medium through which the sun's
rays passed may have been miraculously influenced so as to have caused
the sun to linger above the horizon long after its usual time for
disappearance."

This is the latest and ripest product of christian scholarship upon
this question no doubt, but still it is not entirely satisfactory to me.
According to the sacred account the sun did not linger, merely, above
the horizon, but stood still "in the midst of heaven for about a
whole day," that is to say, for about twelve hours. If the air was
miraculously changed, so that it would refract the rays of the sun while
the earth turned over as usual for "about a whole day," then, at the
end of that time the sun must have been visible in the east, that is,
it must by that time have been the next morning. According to this, that
most wonderful day must have been at least thirty-six hours in length.
We have first, the twelve hours of natural light, then twelve hours of
"refracted and reflected" light. By that time it would again be morning,
and the sun would shine for twelve hours more in the natural way, making
thirty-six hours in all.

If the Rev. Morey would depend a little less on "refraction" and a
little more on "reflection," he would conclude that the whole story is
simply a barbaric myth and fable.

It hardly seems reasonable that God, if there is one, would either stop
the globe, change the constitution of the atmosphere or the nature of
light simply to afford Joshua an opportunity to kill people on that
day when he could just as easily have waited until the next morning.
It certainly cannot be very gratifying to God for us to believe such
childish things.

It has been demonstrated that force is eternal; that it is forever
active, and eludes destruction by change of form. Motion is a form of
force, and all arrested motion changes instantly to heat. The earth
turns upon its axis at about one thousand miles an hour. Let it be
stopped and a force beyond our imagination is changed to heat. It has
been calculated that to stop the world would produce as much heat as the
burning of a solid piece of coal three times the size of the earth.
And yet we are asked to believe that this was done in order that one
barbarian might defeat another. Such stories never would have been
written, had not the belief been general that the heavenly bodies were
as nothing compared with the earth.

The view of Moses was acquiesced in by the Jewish people and by the
Christian world for thousands of years. It is supposed that Moses
lived about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and although he was
"inspired," and obtained his information directly from God, he did not
know as much about our solar system as the Chinese did a thousand
years before he was born. "The Emperor Chwenhio adopted as an epoch, a
conjunction of the planets Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, which has
been shown by M. Bailly to have occurred no less than 2449 years before
Christ." The ancient Chinese knew not only the motions of the planets,
but they could calculate eclipses. "In the reign of the Emperor
Chow-Kang, the chief astronomers, Ho and Hi were condemned to death for
neglecting to announce a solar eclipse which took place 2169 B. C, a
clear proof that the prediction of eclipses was a part of the duty of
the imperial astronomers."

Is it not strange that a Chinaman should find out by his own exertions
more about the material universe than Moses could when assisted by its
Creator?

About eight hundred years after God gave Moses the principal facts about
the creation of the "heaven and the earth" he performed another miracle
far more wonderful than stopping the world. On this occasion he not
only stopped the earth, but actually caused it to turn the other way.
A Jewish king was sick, and God, in order to convince him that he would
ultimately recover, offered to make the shadow on the dial go forward,
or backward ten degrees. The king thought it was too easy a thing to
make the shadow go forward, and asked that it be turned back. Thereupon,
"Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord, and he brought the shadow
ten degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." I
hardly see how this miracle could be accounted for even by "refraction"
and "reflection."

It seems, from the account, that this stupendous miracle was performed
after the king had been cured. The account of the shadow going backward
is given in the eleventh verse of the twentieth chapter of Second Kings,
while the cure is given in the seventh verse of the same chapter. "And
Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil,
and he recovered."

Stopping the world and causing it to turn back ten degrees after that,
seems to have been, as the boil was already cured by the figs, a useless
display of power.

The easiest way to account for all these wonders is to say that the
"inspired" writers were mistaken. In this way a fearful burden is lifted
from the credulity of man, and he is left free to believe the evidences
of his own senses, and the demonstrations of science. In this way he can
emancipate himself from the slavery of superstition, the control of the
barbaric dead, and the despotism of the church.

Only about a hundred years ago, Buffon, the naturalist, was compelled by
the faculty of theology at Paris to publicly renounce fourteen "errors"
in his work on Natural History because they were at variance with the
Mosaic account of creation. The Pentateuch is still the scientific
standard of the church, and ignorant priests, armed with that, pronounce
sentence upon the vast accomplishments of modern thought.




X. "HE MADE THE STARS ALSO."

Moses came very near forgetting about the stars, and only gave five
words to all the hosts of heaven. Can it be possible that he knew
anything about the stars beyond the mere fact that he saw them shining
above him?

Did he know that the nearest star, the one we ought to be the best
acquainted with, is twenty-one billion of miles away, and that it is
a sun shining by its own light? Did he know of the next, that is
thirty-seven billion miles distant? Is it possible that he was
acquainted with Sirius, a sun two thousand six hundred and eighty-eight
times larger than our own, surrounded by a system of heavenly bodies,
several of which are already known, and distant from us eighty-two
billion miles? Did he know that the Polar star that tells the mariner
his course and guided slaves to liberty and joy, is distant from this
little world two hundred and ninety-two billion miles, and that Capella
wheels and shines one hundred and thirty-three billion miles beyond? Did
he know that it would require about seventy-two years for light to
reach us from this star? Did he know that light travels one hundred and
eighty-five thousand miles a second? Did he know that some stars are
so far away in the infinite abysses that five millions of years are
required for their light to reach this globe?

If this is true, and if as the bible tells us, the stars were made after
the earth, then this world has been wheeling in its orbit for at least
five million years.

It may be replied that it was not the intention of God to teach geology
and astronomy. Then why did he say anything upon these subjects? and if
he did say anything, why did he not give the facts?

According to the sacred records God created, on the first day, the
heaven and the earth, "moved upon the face of the waters," and made
the light. On the second day he made the firmament or the "expanse" and
divided the waters. On the third day he gathered the waters into seas,
let the dry land appear and caused the earth to bring forth grass, herbs
and fruit trees, and on the fourth day he made the sun, moon and stars
and set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth.
This division of labor is very striking. The work of the other days is
as nothing when compared with that of the fourth. Is it possible that
it required the same time and labor to make the grass, herbs and fruit
trees, that it did to fill with countless constellations the infinite
expanse of space?




XI. FRIDAY

We are then told that on the next day "God said, Let the waters bring
forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, and fowl that may
fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created
great whales and every living creature which the waters brought forth
abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind, and
God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and
multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the
earth."

Is it true that while the dry land was covered with grass, and herbs,
and trees bearing fruit, the ocean was absolutely devoid of life, and so
remained for millions of years?

If Moses meant twenty-four hours by the word day, then it would make but
little difference on which of the six days animals were made; but if
the word day was used to express millions of ages, during which life was
slowly evolved from monad up to man, then the account becomes infinitely
absurd, puerile and foolish. There is not a scientist of high standing
who will say that in his judgment the earth was covered with fruit
bearing trees before the moners, the ancestors it may be of the human
race, felt in Laurentian seas the first faint throb of life. Nor is
there one who will declare that there was a single spire of grass before
the sun had poured upon the world his flood of gold.

Why should men in the name of religion try to harmonize the
contradictions that exist between Nature and a book? Why should
philosophers be denounced for placing more reliance upon what they know
than upon what they have been told? If there is a God, it is reasonably
certain that he made the world, but it is by no means certain that
he is-the author of the bible. Why then should we not place greater
confidence in Nature than in a book? And even if this God made not only
the world but the book besides, it does not follow that the book is
the best part of Creation, and the only part that we will be eternally
punished for denying. It seems to me that it is quite as important to
know something of the solar system, something of the physical history
of this globe, as it is to know the adventures of Jonah or the diet of
Ezekiel. For my part, I would infinitely prefer to know all the results
of scientific investigation, than to be inspired as Moses was.
Supposing the bible to be true; why is it any worse or more wicked
for free-thinkers to deny it, than for priests to deny the doctrine of
Evolution, or the dynamic theory of heat? Why should we be damned for
laughing at Samson and his foxes, while others, holding the Nebular
Hypothesis in utter contempt, go straight to heaven? It seems to me
that a belief in the great truths of science are fully as essential to
salvation, as the creed of any church. We are taught that a man may
be perfectly acceptable to God even if he denies the rotundity of
the earth, the Copernican system, the three laws of Kepler, the
indestructibility of matter and the attraction of gravitation. And we
are also taught that a man may be right upon all these questions, and
yet, for failing to believe in the "scheme of salvation," be eternally
lost.




XII. SATURDAY

On this, the last day of creation, God said:--"Let the earth bring forth
the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing and beast
of the earth after his kind; and it was so. And God made the beast of
the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing
that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was
good."

Now, is it true that the seas were filled with fish, the sky with fowls,
and the earth covered with grass, and herbs, and fruit bearing trees,
millions of ages before there was a creeping thing in existence? Must
we admit that plants and animals were the result of the fiat of some
incomprehensible intelligence independent of the operation of what are
known as natural causes? Why is a miracle any more necessary to account
for yesterday than for to-day or for to-morrow?

If there is an infinite Power, nothing can be more certain than that
this Power works in accordance with what we call law, that is, by and
through natural causes. If anything can be found without a pedigree of
natural antecedents, it will then be time enough to talk about the fiat
of creation. There must have been a time when plants and animals did not
exist upon this globe. The question, and the only question is, whether
they were naturally produced. If the account given by Moses is true,
then the vegetable and animal existences are the result of certain
special fiats of creation entirely independent of the operation of
natural causes. This is so grossly improbable, so at variance with the
experience and observation of mankind, that it cannot be adopted without
abandoning forever the basis of scientific thought and action.

It may be urged that we do not understand the sacred record correctly.
To this it may be replied that for thousands of years the account of
the creation has, by the Jewish and Christian world, been regarded as
literally true. If it was inspired, of course God must have known just
how it would be understood, and consequently must have intended that
it should be understood just as he knew it would be. One man writing to
another, may mean one thing, and yet be understood as meaning something
else. Now, if the writer knew that he would be misunderstood, and also
knew that he could use other words that would convey his real meaning,
but did not, we would say that he used words on purpose to mislead, and
was not an honest man.

If a being of infinite wisdom wrote the bible, or caused it to be
written, he must have known exactly how his words would be interpreted
by all the world, and he must have intended to convey the very meaning
that was conveyed. He must have known that by reading that book, man
would form erroneous views as to the shape, antiquity, and size of this
world; that he would be misled as to the time and order of creation;
that he would have the most childish and contemptible views of the
creator; that the "sacred word" would be used to support slavery and
polygamy; that it would build dungeons for the good, and light fagots
to consume the brave, and therefore he must have intended that these
results should follow. He also must have known that thousands and
millions of men and women never could believe his bible, and that the
number of unbelievers would increase in the exact ratio of civilization,
and therefore, he must have intended that result.

Let us understand this. An honest finite being uses the best words, in
his judgment, to convey his meaning. This is the best he can do, because
he cannot certainly know the exact effect of his words on others. But an
infinite being must know not only the real meaning of the words, but the
exact meaning they will convey to every reader and hearer. He must know
every meaning that they are capable of conveying to every mind. He must
also know what explanations must be made to prevent misconception. If
an infinite being cannot, in making a revelation to man, use such words
that every person to whom a revelation is essential will understand
distinctly what that revelation is, then a revelation from God through
the instrumentality of language is impossible, or it is not essential
that all should understand it correctly. It may be urged that millions
have not the capacity to understand a revelation, although expressed in
the plainest words. To this it seems a sufficient reply to ask, why a
being of infinite power should create men so devoid of intelligence,
that he cannot by any means make known to them his will? We are told
that it is exceedingly plain, and that a wayfaring man, though a fool,
need not err therein. This statement is refuted by the religious history
of the christian world. Every sect is a certificate that God has not
plainly revealed his will to man. To each reader the bible conveys a
different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation,
there have been ages of war, and centuries of sword and flame. If
written by an infinite God, he must have known that these results must
follow; and thus knowing, he must be responsible for all.

Is it not infinitely more reasonable to say that this book is the work
of man, that it is filled with mingled truth and error, with mistakes
and facts, and reflects, too faithfully perhaps, the "very form and
pressure of its time?"

If there are mistakes in the bible, certainly they were made by man. If
there is anything contrary to nature, it was written by man. If there is
anything immoral, cruel, heartless or infamous, it certainly was never
written by a being worthy of the adoration of mankind.




XIII. LET US MAKE MAN

We are next informed by the author of the Pentateuch that God said "Let
us make man in our image, after our likeness," and that "God created man
in his own image, in the image of God created he him--male and female
created he them."

If this account means anything, it means that man was created in the
physical image and likeness of God. Moses while he speaks of man as
having been made in the image of God, never speaks of God except as
having the form of a man. He speaks of God as "walking in the garden
in the cool of the day;" and that Adam and Eve "heard his voice." He is
constantly telling what God said, and in a thousand passages he refers
to him as not only having the human form, but as performing actions,
such as man performs. The God of Moses was a God with hands, with feet,
with the organs of speech.

A God of passion, of hatred, of revenge, of affection, of repentance; a
God who made mistakes:--in other words, an immense and powerful man.

It will not do to say that Moses meant to convey the idea that God made
man in his mental or moral image. Some have insisted that man was made
in the moral image of God because he was made pure. Purity cannot be
manufactured. A moral character cannot be made for man by a god.
Every man must make his own moral character. Consequently, if God
is infinitely pure, Adam and Eve were not made in his image in that
respect. Others say that Adam and Eve were made in the mental image
of God. If it is meant by that, that they were created with reasoning
powers like, but not to the extent of those possessed by a god, then
this may be admitted. But certainly this idea was not in the mind of
Moses. He regarded the human form as being in the image of God, and for
that reason always spoke of God as having that form. No one can read
the Pentateuch without coming to the conclusion that the author supposed
that man was created in the physical likeness of Deity. God said "Go to,
let us go down." "God smelled a sweet savor;" "God repented him that he
had made man;" "and God said;" and "walked;" and "talked;" and "rested."
All these expressions are inconsistent with any other idea than that the
person using them regarded God as having the form of man.

As a matter of fact, it is impossible for a man to conceive of a
personal God, other than as a being having the human form. No one can
think of an infinite being having the form of a horse, or of a bird, or
of any animal beneath man. It is one of the necessities of the mind to
associate forms with intellectual capacities. The highest form of which
we have any conception is man's, and consequently, his is the only form
that we can find in imagination to give to a personal God, because all
other forms are, in our minds, connected with lower intelligences.

It is impossible to think of a personal God as a spirit without form.
We can use these words, but they do not convey to the mind any real and
tangible meaning. Every one who thinks of a personal God at all, thinks
of him as having the human form. Take from God the idea of form; speak
of him simply as an all pervading spirit--which means an all pervading
something about which we know nothing--and Pantheism is the result.

We are told that God made man; and the question naturally arises, how
was this done? Was it by a process of "evolution," "development;" the
"transmission of acquired habits;" the "survival of the fittest," or was
the necessary amount of clay kneaded to the proper consistency, and then
by the hands of God moulded into form? Modern science tells that man has
been evolved, through countless epochs, from the lower forms; that he
is the result of almost an infinite number of actions, reactions,
experiences, states, forms, wants and adaptations. Did Moses intend
to convey such a meaning, or did he believe that God took a sufficient
amount of dust, made it the proper shape, and breathed into it the
breath of life? Can any believer in the bible give any reasonable
account of this process of creation? Is it possible to imagine what
was really done? Is there any theologian who will contend that man
was created directly from the earth? Will he say that man was made
substantially as he now is, with all his muscles properly developed for
walking and speaking, and performing every variety of human action?
That all his bones were formed as they now are, and all the relations of
nerve, ligament, brain and motion as they are to-day?

Looking back over the history of animal life from the lowest to
the highest forms, we find that there has been a slow and gradual
development; a certain but constant relation between want and
production; between use and form. The Moner is said to be the simplest
form of animal life that has yet been found. It has been described as
"an organism without organs." It is a kind of structureless structure;
a little mass of transparent jelly that can flatten itself out, and can
expand and contract around its food. It can feed without a mouth, digest
without a stomach, walk without feet, and reproduce itself by simple
division. By taking this Moner as the commencement of animal life, or
rather as the first animal, it is easy to follow the development of the
organic structure through all the forms of life to man himself. In this
way finally every muscle, bone and joint, every organ, form and function
may be accounted for. In this way, and in this way only, can the
existence of rudimentary organs be explained. Blot from the human mind
the ideas of evolution, heredity, adaptation, and "the survival of the
fittest," with which it has been enriched by Lamarck, Goethe, Darwin,
Hæckel and Spencer, and all the facts in the history of animal life
become utterly disconnected and meaningless.

Shall we throw away all that has been discovered with regard to organic
life, and in its place take the statements of one who lived in the
rude morning of a barbaric day? Will anybody now contend that man was a
direct and independent creation, and sustains and bears no relation to
the animals below him? Belief upon this subject must be governed at
last by evidence. Man cannot believe as he pleases. He can control his
speech, and can say that he believes or disbelieves; but after all, his
will cannot depress or raise the scales with which his reason finds the
worth and weight of facts. If this is not so, investigation, evidence,
judgment and reason are but empty words.

I ask again, how were Adam and Eve created? In one account they are
created male and female, and apparently at the same time. In the next
account, Adam is made first, and Eve a long time afterwards, and from a
part of the man. Did God simply by his creative fiat cause a rib slowly
to expand, grow and divide into nerve, ligament, cartilage and flesh?
How was the woman created from a rib? How was man created simply from
dust? For my part, I cannot believe this statement. I may suffer for
this in the world to come; and may millions of years hence, sincerely
wish that I had never investigated the subject, but had been content
to take the ideas of the dead. I do not believe that any Deity works in
that way. So far as my experience goes, there is an unbroken procession
of cause and effect. Each thing is a necessary link in an infinite
chain; and I cannot conceive of this chain being broken even for one
instant. Back of the simplest moner there is a cause, and back of
that another, and so on, it seems to me, forever. In my philosophy I
postulate neither beginning nor ending.

If the Mosaic account is true, we know how long man has been upon this
earth. If that account can be relied on, the first man was made about
five thousand eight hundred and eighty-three years ago. Sixteen hundred
and fifty-six years after the making of the first man, the inhabitants
of the world, with the exception of eight people, were destroyed by
a flood. This flood occurred only about four thousand two hundred and
twenty-seven years ago. If this account is correct, at that time, only
one kind of men existed: Noah and his family were certainly of the same
blood. It therefore follows that all the differences we see between the
various races of men have been caused in about four thousand years. If
the account of the deluge is true, then since that event all the ancient
kingdoms of the earth were founded, and their inhabitants passed through
all the stages of savage, nomadic, barbaric and semi-civilized life;
through the epochs of Stone, Bronze and Iron; established commerce,
cultivated the arts, built cities, filled them with palaces and temples,
invented writing, produced a literature and slowly fell to shapeless
ruin. We must believe that all this has happened within a period of four
thousand years.

From representations found upon Egyptian granite made more than three
thousand years ago, we know that the negro was as black, his lips as
full, and his hair as closely curled then as now. If we know anything,
we know that there was at that time substantially the same difference
between the Egyptian and the Negro as now. If we know anything, we know
that magnificent statues were made in Egypt four thousand years before
our era--that is to say, about six thousand years ago. There was at
the World's Exposition, in the Egyptian department, a statue of king
Cephren, known to have been chiseled more than six thousand years ago.
In other words, if the Mosaic account must be believed, this statue was
made before the world. We also know, if we know anything, that men lived
in Europe with the hairy mammoth, the cave bear, the rhinoceros, and
the hyena. Among the bones of these animals have been found the stone
hatchets and flint arrows of our ancestors. In the caves where they
lived have been discovered the remains of these animals that had been
conquered, killed and devoured as food, hundreds of thousands of years
ago.

If these facts are true, Moses was mistaken. For my part, I have
infinitely more confidence in the discoveries of to-day, than in the
records of a barbarous people. It will not now do to say that man has
existed upon this earth for only about six thousand years. One can
hardly compute in his imagination the time necessary for man to emerge
from the barbarous state, naked and helpless, surrounded by animals far
more powerful than he, to progress and finally create the civilizations
of India, Egypt and Athens. The distance from savagery to Shakespeare
must be measured not by hundreds, but by millions of years.




XIV. SUNDAY

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he
rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God
blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had
rested from all his work which God created and made."

The great work had been accomplished, the world, the sun, and moon, and
all the hosts of heaven were finished; the earth was clothed in
green, the seas were filled with life, the cattle wandered by the
brooks--insects with painted wings were in the happy air, Adam and Eve
were making each other's acquaintance, and God was resting from his
work. He was contemplating the accomplishments of a week.

Because he rested on that day he sanctified it, and for that reason and
for that alone, it was by the Jews considered a holy day. If he only
rested on that day, there ought to be some account of what he did the
following Monday. Did he rest on that day? What did he do after he
got rested? Has he done anything in the way of creation since Saturday
evening of the first week?

It is, now claimed by the "scientific" christians that the "days" of
creation were not ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, but immensely
long periods of time. If they are right, then how long was the seventh
day? Was that, too, a geologic period covering thousands of ages?
That cannot be, because Adam and Eve were created the Saturday evening
before, and according to the bible that was about five thousand eight
hundred and eighty-three years ago. I cannot state the time exactly,
because there have been as many as one hundred and forty different
opinions given by learned biblical students as to the time between the
creation of the world and the birth of Christ. We are quite certain,
however, that, according to the bible, it is not more than six thousand
years since the creation of Adam. From this it would appear that the
seventh day was not a geologic epoch, but was in fact a period of less
than six thousand years, and probably of only twenty-four hours.

The theologians who "answer" these things may take their choice. If they
take the ground that the "days" were periods of twenty-four hours, then
geology will force them to throw away the whole account. If, on the
other hand, they admit that the days were vast "periods," then the
sacredness of the sabbath must be given up.

There is found in the bible no intimation that there was the least
difference in the days. They are all spoken of in the same way. It may
be replied that our translation is incorrect. If this is so, then only
those who understand Hebrew, have had a revelation from God, and all the
rest have been deceived.

How is it possible to sanctify a space of time? Is rest holier than
labor? If there is any difference between days, ought not that to be
considered best in which the most useful labor has been performed?

Of all the superstitions of mankind, this insanity about the "sacred
sabbath" is the most absurd. The idea of feeling it a duty to be solemn
and sad one-seventh of the time! To think that we can please an infinite
being by staying in some dark and sombre room, instead of walking in the
perfumed fields! Why should God hate to see a man happy? Why should it
excite his wrath to see a family in the woods, by some babbling stream,
talking, laughing and loving? Nature works on that "sacred" day. The
earth turns, the rivers run, the trees grow, buds burst into flower, and
birds fill the air with song. Why should we look sad, and think about
death, and hear about hell? Why should that day be filled with gloom
instead of joy?

A poor mechanic, working all the week in dust and noise, needs a day of
rest and joy, a day to visit stream and wood--a day to live with wife
and child; a day in which to laugh at care, and gather hope and strength
for toils to come. And his weary wife needs a breath of sunny air, away
from street and wall, amid the hills or by the margin of the sea, where
she can sit and prattle with her babe, and fill with happy dreams the
long, glad day.

The "sabbath" was born of asceticism, hatred of human joy, fanaticism,
ignorance, egotism of priests and the cowardice of the people. This
day, for thousands of years, has been dedicated to superstition, to the
dissemination of mistakes, and the establishment of falsehoods. Every
Freethinker, as a matter of duty, should violate this day. He should
assert his independence, and do all within his power to wrest the
sabbath from the gloomy church and give it back to liberty and joy.
Freethinkers should make the sabbath a day of mirth and music; a day to
spend with wife and child--a day of games, and books, and dreams--a day
to put fresh flowers above our sleeping dead--a day of memory and hope,
of love and rest.

Why should we in this age of the world be dominated by the dead? Why
should barbarian Jews who went down to death and dust three thousand
years ago, control the living world? Why should we care for the
superstition of men who began the sabbath by paring their nails,
"beginning at the fourth finger, then going to the second, then to the
fifth, then to the third, and ending with the thumb?" How pleasing
to God this must have been. The Jews were very careful of these nail
parings. They who threw them upon the ground were wicked, because Satan
used them to work evil upon the earth. They believed that upon the
Sabbath, souls were allowed to leave purgatory and cool their
burning souls in water. Fires were neither allowed to be kindled nor
extinguished, and upon that day it was a sin to bind up wounds. "The
lame might use a staff, but the blind could not." So strict was the
sabbath kept, that at one time "if a Jew on a journey was overtaken
by the 'sacred day' in a wood, or on the highway, no matter where, nor
under what circumstances, he must sit down," and there remain until the
day was gone. "If he fell down in the dirt, there he was compelled to
stay until the day was done." For violating the sabbath, the punishment
was death, for nothing short of the offender's blood could satisfy the
wrath of God. There are, in the Old Testament, two reasons given for
abstaining from labor on the sabbath:--the resting of God, and the
redemption of the Jews from the bondage of Egypt.

Since the establishment of the Christian religion, the day has been
changed, and Christians do not regard the day as holy upon which God
actually rested, and which he sanctified. The Christian Sabbath, or
the "Lord's day" was legally established by the murderer Constantine,
because upon that day Christ was supposed to have risen from the dead.

It is not easy to see where Christians got the right to disregard the
direct command of God, to labor on the day he sanctified, and keep as
sacred, a day upon which he commanded men to labor. The sabbath of God
is Saturday, and if any day is to be kept holy, that is the one, and not
the Sunday of the Christian.

Let us throw away these superstitions and take the higher, nobler
ground, that every day should be rendered sacred by some loving act,
by increasing the happinesss of man, giving birth to noble thoughts,
putting in the path of toil some flower of joy, helping the unfortunate,
lifting the fallen, dispelling gloom, destroying prejudice, defending
the helpless and filling homes with light and love.




XV. THE NECESSITY FOR A GOOD MEMORY

It must not be forgotten that there are two accounts of the creation
in Genesis. The first account stops with the third verse of the second
chapter. The chapters have been improperly divided. In the original
Hebrew the Pentateuch was neither divided into chapters nor verses.
There was not even any system of punctuation. It was written wholly with
consonants, without vowels, and without any marks, dots, or lines to
indicate them.

These accounts are materially different, and both cannot be true. Let us
see wherein they differ.

The second account of the creation begins with the fourth verse of the
second chapter, and is as follows:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the
heavens.

"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain
upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

"But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of
the ground.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put
the man whom he had formed.

"And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the
midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it
was parted and became into four heads.

"The name of the first is Pison; that is it which compasseth the whole
land of Havilah, where there is gold.

"And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx
stone.

"And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that
compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

"And the name of the third river is Hiddekel; that is it which goeth
toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to
dress it and to keep it.

"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden
thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die.

"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I
will make him an helpmeet for him.

"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and
every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would
call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was
the name thereof.

"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to
every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helpmeet
for him.

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept;
and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and
brought her unto the man.

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she
shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

Order of creation in the first account:

1. The heaven and the earth, and light were made.

2. The firmament was constructed and the waters divided.

3. The waters gathered into seas--and then came dry land, grass, herbs
and fruit trees.

4. The sun and moon. He made the stars also.

5. Fishes, fowls, and great whales.

6. Beasts, cattle, every creeping thing, man and woman.

Order of creation in the second account:

1. The heavens and the earth.

2. A mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole face of the
ground.

3. Created a man out of dust, by the name of Adam.

4. Planted a garden eastward in Eden, and put the man in it.

5. Created the beasts and fowls.

6. Created a woman out of one of the man's ribs.

In the second account, man was made _before_ the beasts and fowls. If
this is true, the first account is false. And if the theologians of our
time are correct in their view that the Mosaic day means thousands of
ages, then, according to the second account, Adam existed millions of
years before Eve was formed. He must have lived one Mosaic day before
there were any trees, and another Mosaic day before the beasts and fowls
were created. Will some kind clergymen tell us upon what kind of food
Adam subsisted during these immense periods?

In the second account a man is made, and the fact that he was without a
helpmeet did not occur to the Lord God until a couple "of vast periods"
afterwards. The Lord God suddenly coming to an appreciation of the
situation said, "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will
make him a helpmeet for him."

Now, after concluding to make "an helpmeet" for Adam, what did the Lord
God do? Did he at once proceed to make a woman? No. What did he do? He
made the beasts, and tried to induce Adam to take one of them for "an
helpmeet." If I am incorrect, read the following account, and tell me
what it means:

"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I
will make him an helpmeet for him.

"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and
every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would
call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was
the name thereof.

"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to
every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet
for him."

Unless the Lord God was looking for an helpmeet for Adam, why did
he cause the animals to pass before him? And why did he, after the
menagerie had passed by, pathetically exclaim, "But for Adam there was
not found an helpmeet for him?"

It seems that Adam saw nothing that struck his fancy. The fairest ape,
the sprightliest chimpanzee, the loveliest baboon, the most bewitching
orangoutang, the most fascinating gorilla failed to touch with love's
sweet pain, poor Adam's lonely heart. Let us rejoice that this was so.
Had he fallen in love then, there never would have been a Freethinker in
this world.

Dr. Adam Clark, speaking of this remarkable proceeding says:--"God
caused the animals to pass before Adam to show him that no creature yet
formed could make him a suitable companion; that Adam was convinced that
none of these animals could be a suitable companion for him, and that
therefore he must continue in a state that was not good (celibacy)
unless he became a further debtor to the bounty of his maker, for among
all the animals which he had formed, there was not a helpmeet for Adam."

Upon this same subject, Dr. Scott informs us "that it was not conducive
to the happiness of the man to remain without the consoling society,
and endearment of tender friendship, nor consistent with the end of his
creation to be without marriage by which the earth might be replenished
and worshipers and servants raised up to render him praise and glory.
Adam seems to have been vastly better acquainted by intuition or
revelation with the distinct properties of every creature than the most
sagacious observer since the fall of man.

"Upon this review of the animals, not one was found in outward form his
counterpart, nor one suited to engage his affections, participate in his
enjoyments, or associate with him in the worship of God."

Dr. Matthew Henry admits that "God brought all the animals together
to see if there was a suitable match for Adam in any of the numerous
families of the inferior creatures, but there was none. They were all
looked over, but Adam could not be matched among them all. Therefore God
created a new thing to be a helpmeet for him."

Failing to satisfy Adam with any of the inferior animals, the Lord God
caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and while in this sleep took out
one of Adam's ribs and "closed up the flesh instead thereof." And out of
this rib, the Lord God made a woman, and brought her to the man.

Was the Lord God compelled to take a part of the man because he had used
up all the original "nothing" out of which the universe was made? Is it
possible for any sane and intelligent man to believe this story? Must a
man be born a second time before this account seems reasonable?

Imagine the Lord God with a bone in his hand with which to start
a woman, trying to make up his mind whether to make a blonde or a
brunette!

Just at this point it may be proper for me to warn all persons from
laughing at or making light of, any stories found in the "Holy Bible."
When you come to die, every laugh will be a thorn in your pillow. At
that solemn moment, as you look back upon the records of your life, no
matter how many men you may have wrecked and ruined; no matter how many
women you have deceived and deserted, all that can be forgiven; but
if you remember then that you have laughed at even one story in God's
"sacred book" you will see through the gathering shadows of death the
forked tongues of devils, and the leering eyes of fiends.

These stories must be believed, or the work of regeneration can never be
commenced. No matter how well you act your part, live as honestly as you
may, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, divide your last farthing
with the poor, and you are simply traveling the broad road that leads
inevitably to eternal death, unless at the same time you implicitly
believe the bible to be the inspired word of God.

Let me show you the result of unbelief. Let us suppose, for a moment,
that we are at the Day of Judgment, listening to the trial of souls
as they arrive. The Recording Secretary, or whoever does the
cross-examining, says to a soul:

Where are you from?

I am from the Earth.

What kind of a man were you?

Well, I don't like to talk about myself. I suppose you can tell by
looking at your books.

No sir. You must tell what kind of a man you were.

Well, I was what you might call a first-rate fellow. I loved my wife and
children. My home was my heaven. My fireside was a paradise to me. To
sit there and see the lights and shadows fall upon the faces of those I
loved, was to me a perfect joy.

How did you treat your family?

I never said an unkind word. I never caused my wife, nor one of my
children, a moment's pain.

Did you pay your debts?

I did not owe a dollar when I died, and left enough to pay my funeral
expenses, and to keep the fierce wolf of want from the door of those I
loved.

Did you belong to any church?

No sir. They were too narrow, pinched and bigoted for me, I never
thought that I could be very happy if other folks were damned.

Did you believe in eternal punishment?

Well, no. I always thought that God could get his revenge in far less
time.

Did you believe the rib story?

Do you mean the Adam and Eve business?

Yes! Did you believe that?

To tell you the God's truth, that was just a little more than I could
swallow.

Away with him to hell!

Next!

Where are you from? I am from the world too.

Did you belong to any church?

Yes sir, and to the Young Men's Christian Association besides.

What was your business?

Cashier in a Savings Bank.

Did you ever run away with any money?

Where I came from, a witness could not be compelled to criminate
himself.

The law is different here. Answer the question. Did you run away with
any money?

Yes sir.

How much?

One hundred thousand dollars.

Did you take anything else with you?

Yes sir.

Well, what else?

I took my neighbor's wife--we sang together in the choir.

Did you have a wife and children of your own?

Yes sir.

And you deserted them?

Yes sir, but such was my confidence in God that I believed he would take
care of them.

Have you heard of them since?

No sir.

Did you believe in the rib story?

Bless your soul, of course I did. A thousand times I regretted that
there were no harder stories in the bible, so that I could have shown my
wealth of faith.

Do you believe the rib story yet?

Yes, with all my heart.

Give him a harp!

Well, as I was saying, God made a woman from Adam's rib. Of course, I do
not know exactly how this was done, but when he got the woman finished,
he presented her to Adam. He liked her, and they commenced house-keeping
in the celebrated garden of Eden.

Must we, in order to be good, gentle and loving in our lives, believe
that the creation of woman was a second thought? That Jehovah really
endeavored to induce Adam to take one of the lower animals as an
helpmeet for him? After all, is it not possible to live honest and
courageous lives without believing these fables? It is said that from
Mount Sinai God gave, amid thunderings and lightnings, ten commandments
for the guidance of mankind; and yet among them is not found--"Thou
shalt believe the Bible."




XVI. THE GARDEN

In the first account we are told that God made man, male and female,
and said to them "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and
subdue it."

In the second account only the man is made, and he is put in a garden
"to dress it and to keep it." He is not told to subdue the earth, but to
dress and keep a garden.

In the first account man is given every herb bearing seed upon the face
of the earth and the fruit of every tree for food, and in the second,
he is given only the fruit of all the trees in the garden with the
exception "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which was a
deadly poison.

There was issuing from this garden a river that was parted into four
heads. The first of these, Pison, compassed the whole land of Havilah,
the second, Gihon, that compassed the whole land of Ethiopia, the third,
Heddekel, that flowed toward the east of Assyria, and the fourth, the
Euphrates. Where are these four rivers now? The brave prow of discovery
has visited every sea; the traveler has pressed with weary feet the soil
of every clime; and yet there has been found no place from which four
rivers sprang. The Euphrates still journeys to the gulf, but where are
Pison, Gihon and the mighty Heddekel? Surely by going to the source
of the Euphrates we ought to find either these three rivers or their
ancient beds. Will some minister when he answers the "Mistakes of
Moses" tell us where these rivers are or were? The maps of the world are
incomplete without these mighty streams. We have discovered the sources
of the Nile; the North Pole will soon be touched by an American; but
these three rivers still rise in unknown hills, still flow through
unknown lands, and empty still in unknown seas.

The account of these four rivers is what the Rev. David Swing would call
"a geographical poem." The orthodox clergy cover the whole affair with
the blanket of allegory, while the "scientific" christian folks talk
about cataclysms, upheavals, earthquakes, and vast displacements of the
earth's crust.

The question, then arises, whether within the last six thousand years
there have been such upheavals and displacements? Talk as you will about
the vast "creative periods" that preceded the appearance of man; it
is, according to the bible, only about six thousand years since man was
created. Moses gives us the generations of men from Adam until his day,
and this account cannot be explained away by calling centuries, days.

According to the second account of creation, these four rivers were
made after the creation of man, and consequently they must have been
obliterated by convulsions of Nature within six thousand years.

Can we not account for these contradictions, absurdities, and falsehoods
by simply saying that although the writer may have done his level best,
he failed because he was limited in knowledge, led away by tradition,
and depended too implicitly upon the correctness of his imagination?
Is not such a course far more reasonable than to insist that all these
things are true and must stand though every science shall fall to mental
dust?

Can any reason be given for not allowing man to eat of the fruit of the
tree of knowledge? What kind of tree was that? If it is all an allegory,
what truth is sought to be conveyed? Why should God object to that fruit
being eaten by man? Why did he put it in the midst of the garden? There
was certainly plenty of room outside. If he wished to keep man and this
tree apart, why did he put them together? And why, after he had eaten,
was he thrust out? The only answer that we have a right to give, is
the one given in the bible. "And the Lord God said, Behold the man has
become as one of us to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth
his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:
Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till
the ground from whence he was taken."

Will some minister, some graduate of Andover, tell us what this means?
Are we bound to believe it without knowing what the meaning is? If it is
a revelation, what does it reveal? Did God object to education then, and
does that account for the hostile attitude still assumed by theologians
towards all scientific truth? Was there in the garden a tree of life,
the eating of which would have rendered Adam and Eve immortal? Is it
true, that after the Lord God drove them from the garden that he placed
upon its Eastern side "Cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every
way to keep the way of the tree of life?" Are the Cherubims and the
flaming sword guarding that tree yet, or was it destroyed, or did its
rotting trunk, as the Rev. Robert Collyer suggests "nourish a bank of
violets?"

What objection could God have had to the immortality of man? You
see that after all, this sacred record, instead of assuring us of
immortality, shows us only how we lost it. In this there is assuredly
but little consolation.

According to this story we have lost one Eden, but nowhere in the Mosaic
books are we told how we may gain another. I know that the Christians
tell us there is another, in which all true believers will finally be
gathered, and enjoy the unspeakable happiness of seeing the unbelievers
in hell; but they do not tell us where it is.

Some commentators say that the Garden of Eden was in the third
heaven--some in the fourth, others have located it in the moon, some
in the air beyond the attraction of the earth, some on the Earth, some
under the Earth, some inside the Earth, some at the North Pole, others
at the South, some in Tartary, some in China, some on the borders of the
Ganges, some in the island of Ceylon, some in Armenia, some in Africa,
some under the Equator, others in Mesopotamia, in Syria, Persia, Arabia,
Babylon, Assyria, Palestine and Europe. Others have contended that
it was invisible, that it was an allegory, and must be spiritually
understood.

But whether you understand these things or not, you must believe them.
You may be laughed at in this world for insisting that God put Adam into
a deep sleep and made a woman out of one of his ribs, but you will be
crowned and glorified in the next You will also have the pleasure of
hearing the gentlemen howl there, who laughed at you here. While you
will not be permitted to take any revenge, you will be allowed to
smilingly express your entire acquiescence in the will of God. But where
is the new Eden? No one knows. The one was lost, and the other has not
been found.

Is it true that man was once perfectly pure and innocent, and that
he became degenerate by disobedience? No. The real truth is, and the
history of man shows, that he has advanced. Events, like the pendulum
of a clock have swung forward and backward, but after all, man, like
the hands, has gone steadily on. Man is growing grander. He is not
degenerating. Nations and individuals fail and die, and make room
for higher forms. The intellectual horizon of the world widens as the
centuries pass. Ideals grow grander and purer; the difference between
justice and mercy becomes less and less; liberty enlarges, and love
intensifies as the years sweep on. The ages of force and fear, of
cruelty and wrong, are behind us and the real Eden is beyond. It is said
that a desire for knowledge lost us the Eden of the past; but whether
that is true or not, it will certainly give us the Eden of the future.




XVII. THE FALL

We are told that the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the
field, that he had a conversation with Eve, in which he gave his opinion
about the effect of eating certain fruit; that he assured her it was
good to eat, that it was pleasant to the eye, that it would make her
wise; that she was induced to take some; that she persuaded her husband
to try it; that God found it out, that he then cursed the snake;
condemning it to crawl and eat the dust; that he multiplied the sorrows
of Eve, cursed the ground for Adam's sake, started thistles and thorns,
condemned man to eat the herb of the field in the sweat of his face,
pronounced the curse of death, "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou
return," made coats of skins for Adam and Eve, and drove them out of
Eden.

Who, and what was this serpent? Dr. Adam Clark says:--"The serpent must
have walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment.
That he was endued with the gift of speech, also with reason. That these
things were given to this creature. The woman no doubt having often seen
him walking erect, and talking and reasoning, therefore she testifies
no sort of surprise when he accosts her in the language related in
the text. It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or
orangoutang kind is here intended, and that satan made use of this
creature as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his
murderous purposes against the life of the soul of man. Under this
creature he lay hid, and by this creature he seduced our first parents.
Such a creature answers to every part of the description in the text. It
is evident from the structure of its limbs and its muscles that it might
have been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing else than
the sovereign controlling power could induce it to put down hands--in
every respect formed like those of man--and walk like those creatures
whose claw-armed parts prove them to have been designed to walk on
all fours. The stealthy cunning, and endless variety of the pranks
and tricks of these creatures show them even now to be wiser and more
intelligent than any other creature man alone excepted. Being obliged
to walk on all fours and gather their food from the ground, they are
literally obliged to eat the dust; and though exceeding cunning,
and careful in a variety of instances to separate that part which is
wholesome and proper for food from that which is not so, in the article
of cleanliness they are lost to all sense of propriety. Add to this
their utter aversion to walk upright; it requires the utmost discipline
to bring them to it, and scarcely anything offends or irritates them
more than to be obliged to do it. Long observation of these animals
enables me to state these facts. For earnest, attentive watching, and
for chattering and babbling they (the ape) have no fellows in the animal
world. Indeed, the ability and propensity to chatter, is all they have
left of their original gift of speech, of which they appear to have been
deprived at the fall as a part of their punishment."

Here then is the "connecting link" between man and the lower creation.
The serpent was simply an orang-outang that spoke Hebrew with the
greatest ease, and had the outward appearance of a perfect gentleman,
seductive in manner, plausible, polite, and most admirably calculated to
deceive.

It never did seem reasonable to me that a long, cold and disgusting
snake with an apple in his mouth, could deceive anybody; and I am glad,
even at this late date to know that the something that persuaded Eve to
taste the forbidden fruit was, at least, in the shape of a man.

Dr. Henry does not agree with the zoological explanation of Mr. Clark,
but insists that "it is certain that the devil that beguiled Eve is the
old serpent, a malignant by creation, an angel of light, an immediate
attendant upon God's throne, but by sin an apostate from his first
state, and a rebel against God's crown and dignity. He who attacked
our first parents was surely the prince of devils, the ring leader in
rebellion. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, because it is
a specious creature, has a spotted, dappled skin, and then, went erect.
Perhaps it was a flying serpent which seemed to come from on high, as a
messenger from the upper world, one of the seraphim; because the serpent
is a subtile creature. What Eve thought of this serpent speaking to her,
we are not likely to tell, and, I believe, she herself did not know
what to think of it. At first, perhaps, she supposed it might be a good
angel, and yet afterwards might suspect something amiss. The person
tempted was a woman, now-alone, and at a distance from her husband,
but near the forbidden tree. It was the devil's subtlety to assault the
weaker vessel with his temptations, as we may suppose her inferior to
Adam in knowledge, strength and presence of mind. Some think that Eve
received the command not immediately from God, but at second hand from
her husband, and might, therefore, be the more easily persuaded to
discredit it. It was the policy of the devil to enter into discussion
with her when she was alone. He took advantage by finding her near the
forbidden tree. God permitted Satan to prevail over Eve, for wise and
holy ends. Satan teaches men first to doubt, and then to deny. He makes
skeptics first, and by degrees makes them atheists."

We are compelled to admit that nothing could be more attractive to a
woman than a snake walking erect, with a "spotted, dappled skin," unless
it were a serpent with wings. Is it not humiliating to know that our
ancestors believed these things? Why should we object to the Darwinian
doctrine of descent after this?

Our fathers thought it their duty to believe, thought it a sin to
entertain the slightest doubt, and really supposed that their credulity
was exceedingly gratifying to God. To them, the story was entirely real.
They could see the garden, hear the babble of waters, smell the perfume
of flowers. They believed there was a tree where knowledge grew like
plums or pears; and they could plainly see the serpent coiled amid its
rustling leaves, coaxing Eve to violate the laws of God.

Where did the serpent come from? On which of the six days was he
created? Who made him? Is it possible that God would make a successful
rival? He must have known that Adam and Eve would fall. He knew what
a snake with a "spotted, dappled skin" could do with an inexperienced
woman. Why did he not defend his children? He knew that if the serpent
got into the garden, Adam and Eve would sin, that he would have to drive
them out, that afterwards the world would be destroyed, and that he
himself would die upon the cross.

Again, I ask what and who was this serpent? He was not a man, for only
one man had been made. He was not a woman. He was not a beast of the
field, because "he was more subtile than any beast of the field which
the Lord God had made." He was neither fish nor fowl, nor snake, because
he had the power of speech, and did not crawl upon his belly until after
he was cursed. Where did this serpent come from? Why was he not kept out
of the garden? Why did not the Lord God take him by the tail and snap
his head off? Why did he not put Adam and Eve on their guard about this
serpent? They, of course, were not acquainted in the neighborhood, and
knew nothing about the serpent's reputation for truth and veracity
among his neighbors. Probably Adam saw him when he was looking for "an
helpmeet," and gave him a name, but Eve had never met him before. She
was not surprised to hear a serpent talk, as that was the first one she
had ever met. Every thing being new to her, and her husband not being
with her just at that moment, it need hardly excite our wonder that she
tasted the fruit by way of experiment. Neither should we be surprised
that when she saw it was good and pleasant to the eye, and a fruit to
be desired to make one wise, she had the generosity to divide with her
husband.

Theologians have filled thousands of volumes with abuse of this serpent,
but it seems that he told the exact truth. We are told that this serpent
was, in fact, Satan, the greatest enemy of mankind, and that he entered
the serpent, appearing to our first parents in its body. If this is
so, why should the serpent have been cursed? Why should God curse the
serpent for what had really been done by the devil? Did Satan remain
in the body of the serpent, and in some mysterious manner share his
punishment? Is it true that when we kill a snake we also destroy an evil
spirit, or is there but one devil, and did he perish at the death of
the first serpent? Is it on account of that transaction in the garden
of Eden, that all the descendents of Adam and Eve known as Jews and
Christians hate serpents?

Do you account for the snake-worship in Mexico, Africa and India in the
same way?

What was the form of the serpent when he entered the garden, and in what
way did he move from place to place? Did he walk or fly? Certainly he
did not crawl, because that mode of locomotion was pronounced upon him
as a curse. Upon what food did he subsist before his conversation with
Eve? We know that after that he lived upon dust, but what did he eat
before? It may be that this is all poetic; and the truest poetry is,
according to Touchstone, "the most feigning."

In this same chapter we are informed that "unto Adam also and to his
wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them." Where did
the Lord God get those skins? He must have taken them from the animals;
he was a butcher. Then he had to prepare them; he was a tanner. Then
he made them into coats; he was a tailor. How did it happen that they
needed coats of skins, when they had been perfectly comfortable in a
nude condition? Did the "fall" produce a change in the climate?

Is it really necessary to believe this account in order to be happy
here, or hereafter? Does it tend to the elevation of the human race to
speak of "God" as a butcher, tanner and tailor?

And here, let me say once for all, that when I speak of God, I mean
the being described by Moses: the Jehovah of the Jews. There may be for
aught I--know, somewhere in the unknown shoreless vast, some being whose
dreams are constellations and within whose thought the infinite exists.
About this being, if such an one exists, I have nothing to say. He has
written no books, inspired no barbarians, required no worship, and has
prepared no hell in which to burn the honest seeker after truth.

When I speak of God, I mean that god who prevented man from putting
forth his hand and taking also of the fruit of the tree of life that
he might live forever; of that god who multiplied the agonies of woman,
increased the weary toil of man, and in his anger drowned a world--of
that god whose altars reeked with human blood, who butchered babes,
violated maidens, enslaved men and filled the earth with cruelty and
crime; of that god who made heaven for the few, hell for the many,
and who will gloat forever and ever upon the writhings of the lost and
damned.




XVIII. DAMPNESS.

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the
earth, and daughters were born unto them.

"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and
they took them wives of all which they chose.

"And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that
he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare
children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of
renown.

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and
that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually.

"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him at his heart.

"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the
face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the
fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

From this account it seems that driving Adam and Eve out of Eden did not
have the effect to improve them or their children. On the contrary, the
world grew worse and worse. They were under the immediate control and
government of God, and he from time to time made known his will; but in
spite of this, man continued to increase in crime.

Nothing in particular seems to have been done. Not a school was
established. There was no written language. There was not a bible in the
world. The "scheme of salvation" was kept a profound secret. The five
points of Calvinism had not been taught. Sunday schools had not been
opened. In short, nothing had been done for the reformation of the
world. God did not even keep his own sons at home, but allowed them to
leave their abode in the firmament, and make love to the daughters
of men. As a result of this, the world was filled with wickedness and
giants to such an extent that God regretted "that he had made man on
the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

Of course God knew when he made man, that he would afterwards regret
it. He knew that the people would grow worse and worse until destruction
would be the only remedy. He knew that he would have to kill all except
Noah and his family, and it is hard to see why he did not make Noah and
his family in the first place, and leave Adam and Eve in the original
dust. He knew that they would be tempted, that he would have to drive
them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life;
that the whole thing would be a failure; that Satan would defeat his
plan; that he could not reform the people; that his own sons would
corrupt them, and that at last he would have to drown them all except
Noah and his family. Why was the garden of Eden planted? Why was the
experiment made? Why were Adam and Eve exposed to the seductive arts of
the serpent? Why did God wait until the cool of the day before looking
after his children? Why was he not on hand in the morning?

Why did he fill the world with his own children, knowing that he would
have to destroy them? And why does this same God tell me how to raise my
children when he had to drown his?

It is a little curious that when God wished to reform the ante-diluvian
world he said nothing about hell; that he had no revivals, no
camp-meetings, no tracts, no outpourings of the Holy Ghost, no baptisms,
no noon prayer meetings, and never mentioned the great doctrine of
salvation by faith. If the orthodox creeds of the world are true, all
those people went to hell without ever having heard that such a place
existed. If eternal torment is a fact, surely these miserable wretches
ought to have been N warned. They were threatened only with water when
they were in fact doomed to eternal fire!

Is it not strange that God said nothing to Adam and Eve about a future
life; that he should have kept these "infinite verities" to himself and
allowed millions to live and die without the hope of heaven, or the fear
of hell?

It may be that hell was not made at that time. In the six days of
creation nothing is said about the construction of a bottomless pit, and
the serpent himself did not make his appearance until after the creation
of man and woman. Perhaps he was made on the first Sunday, and from that
fact came, it may be, the old couplet,

     "And Satan still some mischief finds
     For idle hands to do."

The sacred historian failed also to tell us when the cherubim and the
flaming sword were made, and said nothing about two of the persons
composing the trinity. It certainly would have been an easy thing to
enlighten Adam and his immediate descendants. The world was then only
about fifteen hundred and thirty-six years old, and only about three
or four generations of men had lived. Adam had been dead only about
six hundred and six years, and some of his grand children must, at that
time, have been alive and well.

It is hard to see why God did not civilize these people. He certainly
had the power to use, and the wisdom to devise the proper means. What
right has a god to fill a world with fiends? Can there be goodness in
this? Why should he make experiments that he knows must fail? Is there
wisdom in this? And what right has a man to charge an infinite being
with wickedness and folly?

According to Moses, God made up his mind not only to destroy the people,
but the beasts and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air. What
had the beasts, and the creeping things, and the birds done to excite
the anger of God? Why did he repent having made them? Will some
christian give us an explanation of this matter? No good man will
inflict unnecessary pain upon a beast; how then can we worship a god who
cares nothing for the agonies of the dumb creatures that he made?

Why did he make animals that he knew he would destroy? Does God delight
in causing pain? He had the power to make the beasts, and fowls, and
creeping things in his own good time and way, and it is to be presumed
that he made them according to his wish. Why should he destroy them?
They had committed no sin. They had eaten no forbidden fruit, made no
aprons, nor tried to reach the tree of life. Yet this god, in blind
unreasoning wrath destroyed "all flesh wherein was the breath of life,
and every living thing beneath the sky, and every substance wherein was
life that he had made."

Jehovah, having made up his mind to drown the world, told Noah to make
an Ark of gopher wood three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and
thirty cubits high. A cubit is twenty-two inches; so that the ark was
five hundred and fifty feet long, ninety-one feet and eight inches wide
and fifty-five feet high. This ark was divided into three stories, and
had on top, one window twenty-two inches square. Ventilation must have
been one of Jehovah's hobbies. Think of a ship larger than the Great
Eastern with only one window, and that but twenty-two inches square!

The ark also had one door set in the side thereof that shut from the
outside. As soon as this ship was finished, and properly victualed, Noah
received seven days notice to get the animals in the ark.

It is claimed by some of the scientific theologians that the flood was
partial, that the waters covered only a small portion of the world, and
that consequently only a few animals were in the ark. It is impossible
to conceive of language that can more clearly convey the idea of a
universal flood than that found in the inspired account. If the flood
was only partial, why did God say he would "destroy all flesh wherein
is the breath of life from under heaven, and that every thing that is
in the earth shall die?" Why did he say "I will destroy man whom I have
created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping
thing and the fowls of the air?" Why did he say "And every living
substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the
earth?" Would a partial, local flood have fulfilled these threats?

Nothing can be clearer than that the writer of this account intended to
convey, and did convey the idea that the flood was universal. Why should
christians try to deprive God of the glory of having wrought the most
stupendous of miracles? Is it possible that the Infinite could not
overwhelm with waves this atom called the Earth? Do you doubt his power,
his wisdom or his justice?

Believers in miracles should not endeavor to explain them. There is but
one way to explain anything, and that is to account for it by natural
agencies. The moment you explain a miracle, it disappears. You should
depend not upon explanation, but assertion. You should not be driven
from the field because the miracle is shown to be unreasonable. You
should reply that all miracles are unreasonable. Neither should you be
in the least disheartened if it is shown to be impossible. The possible
is not miraculous. You should take the ground that if miracles were
reasonable, and possible, there would be no reward paid for believing
them. The christian has the goodness to believe, while the sinner asks
for evidence. It is enough for God to work miracles without being called
upon to substantiate them for the benefit of unbelievers.

Only a few years ago, the christians believed implicitly in the literal
truth of every miracle recorded in the bible. Whoever tried to explain
them in some natural way, was looked upon as an infidel in disguise,
but now he is regarded as a benefactor. The credulity of the Church is
decreasing, and the most marvelous miracles are now either "explained,"
or allowed to take refuge behind the mistakes of the translators, or
hide in the drapery of allegory.

In the sixth chapter, Noah is ordered to take "of every living thing
of all flesh, two of every sort into the ark--male and female." In the
seventh chapter the order is changed, and Noah is commanded, according
to the Protestant bible, as follows: "Of every clean beast thou shalt
take to thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts that are
not clean, by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by
sevens, the male and the female."

According to the Catholic bible, Noah was commanded--"Of all clean
beasts take seven and seven, the male and the female. But of the beasts
that are unclean two and two, the male and the female. Of the fowls also
of the air seven and seven, the male and the female."

For the purpose of belittling this miracle, many commentators have
taken the ground that Noah was not ordered to take seven males and seven
females of each kind of clean beasts, but seven in all. Many christians
contend that only seven clean beasts of each kind were taken into the
ark--three and a half of each sex.

If the account in the seventh chapter means anything, it means _first_,
that of each kind of clean beasts, fourteen were to be taken, seven
males, and seven females; _second_, that of unclean beasts should be
taken, two of each kind, one of each sex, and _third_, that he should
take of every kind of fowls, seven of each sex.

It is equally clear that the command in the 19th and 20th verses of the
6th chapter, is to take two of each sort, one male and one female. And
this agrees exactly with the account in the 7th, 8th, 9th, 14th. 15th,
and 16th verses of the 7th chapter.

The next question is, how many beasts, fowls and creeping things did
Noah take into the ark?

There are now known and classified at least twelve thousand five hundred
species of birds. There are still vast territories in China, South
America, and Africa unknown to the ornithologist. Of the birds, Noah
took fourteen of each species, according to the 3d verse of the 7th
chapter, "Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female,"
making a total of 175,000 birds.

And right here allow me to ask a question. If the flood was simply a
partial flood, why were birds taken into the ark? It seems to me that
most birds, attending strictly to business, might avoid a partial flood.

There are at least sixteen hundred and fifty-eight kinds of beasts. Let
us suppose that twenty-five of these are clean. Of the clean, fourteen
of each kind--seven of each sex--were taken. These amount to 350. Of
the unclean--two of each kind, amounting to 3,266. There are some six
hundred and fifty species of reptiles. Two of each kind amount to-1,300.
And lastly, there are of insects including the creeping things, at least
one million species, so that Noah and his folks had to get of these into
the ark about 2,000,000.

Animalculae have not been taken into consideration. There are probably
many hundreds of thousands of species; many of them invisible; and
yet Noah had to pick them out by pairs. Very few people have any just
conception of the trouble Noah had.

We know that there are many animals on this continent not found in the
Old World. These must have been carried from here to the ark, and then
brought back afterwards. Were the peccary, armadillo, ant-eater, sloth,
agouti, vampire-bat, marmoset, howling and prehensile-tailed monkey, the
raccoon and muskrat carried by the angels from America to Asia? How did
they get there? Did the polar bear leave his field of ice and journey
toward the tropics? How did he know where the ark was? Did the kangaroo
swim or jump from Australia to Asia? Did the giraffe, hippopotamus,
antelope and orang-outang journey from Africa in search of the ark? Can
absurdities go farther than this?

What had these animals to eat while on the journey? What did they eat
while in the ark? What did they drink? When the rain came, of course
the rivers ran to the seas, and these seas rose and finally covered the
world. The waters of the seas, mingled with those of the flood, would
make all salt. It has been calculated that it required, to drown the
world, about eight times as much water as was in all the seas. To find
how salt the waters of the flood must have been, take eight quarts of
fresh water, and add one quart from the sea. Such water would create
instead of allaying thirst. Noah had to take in his ark fresh water for
all his beasts, birds and living things. He had to take the proper food
for all. How long was he in the ark? Three hundred and seventy-seven
days! Think of the food necessary for the monsters of the ante-diluvian
world!

Eight persons did all the work. They attended to the wants of 175,000
birds, 3,616 beasts, 1,300 reptiles, and 2,000,000 insects, saying
nothing of countless animalculae.

Well, after they all got in, Noah pulled down the window, God shut the
door, and the rain commenced.

How long did it rain?

Forty days.

How deep did the water get?

About five miles and a half.

How much did it rain a day?

Enough to cover the whole world to a depth of about seven hundred and
forty-two feet.

Some Christians say that the fountains of the great deep were broken up.
Will they be kind enough to tell us what the fountains of the great deep
are? Others say that God had vast stores of water in the center of the
earth that he used on that occasion. How did these waters happen to run
up hill?

Gentlemen, allow me to tell you once more that you must not try to
explain these things. Your efforts in that direction do no good, because
your explanations are harder to believe than the miracle itself. Take my
advice, stick to assertion, and let explanation alone.

Then, as now, Dhawalagiri lifted its crown of snow twenty-nine thousand
feet above the level of the sea, and on the cloudless cliffs of
Chimborazo then, as now, sat the condor; and yet the waters rising seven
hundred and twenty-six feet a day--thirty feet an hour, six inches
a minute,--rose over the hills, over the volcanoes, filled the vast
craters, extinguished all the fires, rose above every mountain peak
until the vast world was but one shoreless sea covered with the
innumerable dead.

Was this the work of the most merciful God, the father of us all? If
there is a God, can there be the slightest danger of incurring his
displeasure by doubting even in a reverential way, the truth of such a
cruel lie? If we think that God is kinder than he really is, will our
poor souls be burned for that?

How many trees can live under miles of water for a year? What became of
the soil washed, scattered, dissolved, and covered with the _debris_ of
a world? How were the tender plants and herbs preserved? How were the
animals preserved after leaving the ark? There was no grass except such
as had been submerged for a year. There were no animals to be devoured
by the carnivorous beasts. What became of the birds that fed on worms
and insects? What became of the birds that devoured other birds?

It must be remembered that the pressure of the water when at the highest
point--say twenty-nine thousand feet, would have been about eight
hundred tons on each square foot. Such a pressure certainly would have
destroyed nearly every vestige of vegetable life, so that when the
animals came out of the ark, there was not a mouthful of food in the
wide world. How were they supported until the world was again clothed
with grass? How were those animals taken care of that subsisted on
others? Where did the bees get honey, and the ants seeds? There was not
a creeping thing upon the whole earth; not a breathing creature beneath
the whole heavens; not a living substance. Where did the tenants of the
ark get food?

There is but one answer, if the story is true. The food necessary
not only during the year of the flood, but sufficient for many months
afterwards, must have been stored in the ark.

There is probably not an animal in the world that will not, in a year,
eat and drink ten times its weight. Noah must have provided food and
water for a year while in the ark, and food for at least six months
after they got ashore. It must have required for a pair of elephants,
about one hundred and fifty tons of food and water. A couple of mammoths
would have required about twice that amount. Of course there were other
monsters that lived on trees; and in a year would have devoured quite a
forest.

How could eight persons have distributed this food, even if the ark had
been large enough to hold it? How was the ark kept clean? We know how it
was ventilated; but what was done with the filth? How were the animals
watered? How were some portions of the ark heated for animals from the
tropics, and others kept cool for the polar bears? How did the animals
get back to their respective countries? Some had to creep back about
six thousand miles, and they could only go a few feet a day. Some of the
creeping things must have started for the ark just as soon as they were
made, and kept up a steady jog for sixteen hundred years. Think of
a couple of the slowest snails leaving a point opposite the ark and
starting for the plains of Shinar, a distance of twelve thousand miles.
Going at the rate of a mile a month, it would take them a thousand
years. How did they get there? Polar bears must have gone several
thousand miles, and so sudden a change in climate must have been
exceedingly trying upon their health. How did they know the way to go?
Of course, all the polar bears did not go. Only two were required. Who
selected these?

Two sloths had to make the journey from South America. These creatures
cannot travel to exceed three rods a day. At this rate, they would make
a mile in about a hundred days. They must have gone about six thousand
five hundred miles, to reach the ark. Supposing them to have traveled by
a reasonably direct route, in order to complete the journey before Noah
hauled in the plank, they must have started several years before the
world was created. We must also consider that these sloths had to board
themselves on the way, and that most of their time had to be taken up
getting food and water. It is exceedingly doubtful whether a sloth could
travel six thousand miles and board himself in less than three thousand
years.

Volumes might be written upon the infinite absurdity of this most
incredible, wicked and foolish of all the fables contained in that
repository of the impossible, called the bible. To me it is a matter
of amazement, that it ever was for a moment believed by any intelligent
human being.

Dr. Adam Clark says that "the animals were brought to the ark by the
power of God, and their enmities were so removed or suspended, that the
lion could dwell peaceably with the lamb, and the wolf sleep happily by
the side of the kid. There is no positive evidence that animal food was
ever used before the flood. Noah had the first grant of this kind."

Dr. Scott remarks, "There seems to have been a very extraordinary
miracle, perhaps by the ministration of angels, in bringing two of every
species to Noah, and rendering them submissive, and peaceful with each
other. Yet it seems not to have made any impression upon the hardened
spectators. The suspension of the ferocity of the savage beasts during
their continuance in the ark, is generally considered as an apt figure
of the change that takes place in the disposition of sinners when they
enter the true church of Christ."

He believed the deluge to have been universal. In his day science had
not demonstrated the absurdity of this belief, and he was not compelled
to resort to some theory not found in the bible. He insisted that "by
some vast convulsion, the very bowels of the earth were forced upwards,
and rain poured down in cataracts and water-spouts, with no intermission
for forty days and nights, and until in every place a universal deluge
was effected.

"The presence of God was the only comfort of Noah in his dreary
confinement, and in witnessing the dire devastation of the earth and its
inhabitants, and especially of the human species--of his companions, his
neighbors, his relatives--all those to whom he had preached, for whom he
had prayed and over whom he had wept, and even of many who had helped to
build the ark.

"It seems that by a peculiar providential interposition, no animal of
any sort died, although they had been shut up in the ark above a year;
and it does not appear that there had been any increase of them during
that time.

"The Ark was flat-bottomed--square at each end--roofed like a house so
that it terminated at the top in the breadth of a cubit. It was divided
into many little cabins for its intended inhabitants. Pitched within and
without to keep it tight and sweet, and lighted from the upper part.
But it must, at first sight, be evident that so large a vessel, thus
constructed, with so few persons on board, was utterly unfitted to
weather out the deluge, except it was under the immediate guidance and
protection of the Almighty."

Dr. Henry furnished the Christian world with the following:--

"As our bodies have in them the humors which, when God pleases, become
the springs and seeds of mortal disease, so the earth had, in its
bowels, those waters which, at God's command, sprung up and flooded it.

"God made the world in six days, but he was forty days in destroying it,
because he is slow to anger.

"The hostilities between the animals in the ark ceased, and ravenous
creatures became mild and manageable, so that the wolf lay down with the
lamb, and the lion ate straw like an ox.

"God shut the door of the ark to secure Noah and to keep him safe, and
because it was necessary that the door should be shut very close lest
the water should break in and sink the ark, and very fast lest others
might break it down.

"The waters rose so high that not only the low flat countries were
deluged, but to make sure work and that none might escape, the tops of
the highest mountains were overflowed fifteen cubits. That is, seven
and a half yards, so that salvation was not hoped for from hills or
mountains.

"Perhaps some of the people got to the top of the ark, and hoped to
shift for themselves there. But either they perished there for want of
food, or the dashing rain washed them off the top. Others, it may be,
hoped to prevail with Noah for admission into the ark, and plead old
acquaintance.

"'Have we not eaten and drank in thy presence? Hast thou not preached
in our streets? 'Yea,' said Noah, 'many a time, but to little purpose.
I called but ye refused; and now it is not in my power to help you. God
has shut the door and I cannot open it.'

"We may suppose that some of those who perished in the deluge had
themselves assisted Noah, or were employed by him in building the ark.

"Hitherto, man had been confined to feed only upon the products of the
earth. Fruits, herbs and roots, and all sorts of greens, and milk, which
was the first grant; but the flood having perhaps washed away much
of the fruits of the earth, and rendered them much less pleasant and
nourishing, God enlarged the grant and allowed him to eat flesh, which
perhaps man never thought of until now, that God directed him to it. Nor
had he any more desire to it than the sheep has to suck blood like the
wolf. But now, man is allowed to feed upon flesh as freely and safely as
upon the green herb."

Such was the debasing influence of a belief in the literal truth of the
bible upon these men, that their commentaries are filled with passages
utterly devoid of common sense.

Dr. Clark speaking of the mammoth says:

"This animal, an astonishing proof of God's power, he seems to have
produced merely to show what he could do. And after suffering a few of
them to propagate, he extinguished the race by a merciful providence,
that they might not destroy both man and beast.

"We are told that it would have been much easier for God to destroy all
the people and make new ones, but he would not want to waste anything
and no power or skill should be lavished where no necessity exists.

"The animals were brought to the ark by the power of God."

Again gentlemen, let me warn you of the danger of trying to explain a
miracle. Let it alone. Say that you do not understand it, and do not
expect to until taught in the schools of the New Jerusalem. The more
reasons you give, the more unreasonable the miracle will appear. Through
what you say in defence people are led to think, and as soon as they
really think, the miracle is thrown away.

Among the most ignorant nations you will find the most wonders, among
the most enlightened, the least. It is with individuals, the same as
with nations. Ignorance believes, Intelligence examines and explains.

For about seven months the ark, with its cargo of men, animals and
insects, tossed and wandered without rudder or sail upon a boundless
sea. At last it grounded on the mountains of Ararat; and about three
months afterwards the tops of the mountains became visible. It must not
be forgotten that the mountain where the ark is supposed to have first
touched bottom, was about seventeen thousand feet high. How were the
animals from the tropics kept warm? When the waters were abated it would
be intensely cold at a point seventeen thousand feet above the level of
the sea. May be there were stoves, furnaces, fire places and steam coils
in the ark, but they are not mentioned in the inspired narrative. How
were the animals kept from freezing? It will not do to say that Ararat
was not very high after all.

If you will read the fourth and fifth verses of the eight chapter you
will see that although the ark rested in the seventh month, on the
seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat, it was not
until the first day of the tenth month "that the tops of the mountains
could be seen." From this it would seem that the ark must have rested
upon about the highest peak in that country. Noah waited forty days
more, and then for the first time opened the window and took a breath
of fresh air. He then sent out a raven that did not return, then a dove
that returned. He then waited seven days and sent forth a dove that
returned not. From this he knew that the waters were abated. Is it
possible that he could not see whether the waters had gone? Is it
possible to conceive of a more perfectly childish way of ascertaining
whether the earth was dry?

At last Noah "removed the covering of the ark, and looked and behold the
face of the ground was dry," and thereupon God told him to disembark. In
his gratitude Noah built an altar and took of every clean beast and of
every clean fowl, and offered "burnt offerings". And the Lord smelled a
sweet savor and said in his heart that he would not any more curse the
ground for man's sake. For saying this in his heart the Lord gives as a
reason, not that man is, or will be good, but because "the imagination
of man's heart is evil from his youth." God destroyed man because "the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and _because every imagination
of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually_." And he
promised for the same reason not to destroy him again. Will some
gentleman skilled in theology give us an explanation?

After God had smelled the sweet savor of sacrifice, he seems to have
changed his idea as to the proper diet for man. When Adam and Eve were
created they were allowed to eat herbs bearing seed, and the fruit of
trees. When they were turned out of Eden, God said to them "Thou shalt
eat the herb of the field." In the first chapter of Genesis the "green
herb" was given for food to the beasts, fowls and creeping things. Upon
being expelled from the garden, Adam and Eve, as to their food, were
put upon an equality with the lower animals. According to this, the
ante-diluvians were vegetarians. This may account for their wickedness
and longevity.

After Noah sacrificed, and God smelled the sweet savor; he said--"Every
moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb
have I given you all things." Afterwards this same God changed his mind
again, and divided the beasts and birds into clean and unclean, and made
it a crime for man to eat the unclean. Probably food was so scarce when
Noah was let out of the ark that Jehovah generously allowed him to eat
anything and everything he could find.

According to the account, God then made a covenant with Noah to the
effect that he would not again destroy the world with a flood, and as
the attesting witness of this contract, a rainbow was set in the cloud.
This bow was placed in the sky so that it might perpetually remind God
of his promise and covenant. Without this visible witness and reminder,
it would seem that Jehovah was liable to forget the contract, and drown
the world again. Did the rainbow originate in this way? Did God put it
in the cloud simply to keep his agreement in his memory?

For me it is impossible to believe the story of the deluge. It seems so
cruel, so barbaric, so crude in detail, so absurd in all its parts,
and so contrary to all we know of law, that even credulity itself is
shocked.

Many nations have preserved accounts of a deluge in which all people,
except a family or two, were destroyed. Babylon was certainly a city
before Jerusalem was founded. Egypt was in the height of her power when
there were only seventy Jews in the world, and India had a literature
before the name of Jehovah had passed the lips of superstition. An
account of a general deluge "was discovered by George Smith, translated
from another account that was written about two thousand years before
Christ." Of course it is impossible to tell how long the story had
lived in the memory of tradition before it was reduced to writing by the
Babylonians. According to this account, which is, without doubt, much
older than the one given by Moses, Tamzi built a ship at the command of
the god Hea, and put in it his family and the beasts of the field. He
pitched the ship inside and outside with bitumen, and as soon as it was
finished, there came a flood of rain and "destroyed all life from the
face of the whole earth. On the seventh day there was a calm, and the
ship stranded on the mountain Nizir." Tamzi waited for seven days more,
and then let out a dove. Afterwards, he let out a swallow, and that, as
well as the dove returned. Then he let out a raven, and as that did not
return, he concluded that the water had dried away, and thereupon
left the ship. Then he made an offering to god, or the gods, and "Hea
interceded with Bel," so that the earth might never again be drowned.

This is the Babylonian story, told without the contradictions of the
original. For in that, it seems, there are two accounts, as well as
in the bible. Is it not a strange coincidence that there should be
contradictory accounts mingled in both the Babylonian and Jewish
stories?

In the bible there are two accounts. In one account, Noah was to take
two of all beasts, birds, and creeping things into the ark, while in the
other he was commanded to take of clean beasts, and all birds by
sevens of each kind. According to one account, the flood only lasted
one hundred and fifty days--as related in the third verse of the eighth
chapter; while the other account fixes the time at three hundred and
seventy-seven days. Both of these accounts cannot be true. Yet in order
to be saved, it is not sufficient to believe one of them--you must
believe both.

Among the Egyptians there was a story to the effect that the great god
Ra became utterly maddened with the people, and deliberately made up his
mind that he would exterminate mankind. Thereupon he began to destroy,
and continued in the terrible work until blood flowed in streams, when
suddenly he ceased, and took an oath that he would not again destroy the
human race. This myth was probably thousands of years old when Moses was
born.

So, in India, there was a fable about the flood. A fish warned Manu
that a flood was coming. Manu built a "box" and the fish towed it to a
mountain and saved all hands.

The same kind of stories were told in Greece, and among our own Indian
tribes. At one time the christian pointed to the fact that many nations
told of a flood, as evidence of the truth of the Mosaic account; but
now, it having been shown that other accounts are much older, and
equally reasonable, that argument has ceased to be of any great value.

It is probable that all these accounts had a common origin. They were
likely born of something in nature visible to all nations. The idea of a
universal flood, produced by a god to drown the world on account of
the sins of the people, is infinitely absurd. The solution of all these
stories has been supposed to be, the existence of partial floods in most
countries; and for a long time this solution was satisfactory. But the
fact that these stories are greatly alike, that only one man is warned,
that only one family is saved, that a boat is built, that birds are sent
out to find if the water had abated, tend to show that they had a common
origin. Admitting that there were severe floods in all countries; it
certainly cannot follow that in each instance only one family would be
saved, or that the same story would in each instance be told. It may be
urged that the natural tendency of man to exaggerate calamities, might
account for this agreement in all the accounts, and it must be admitted
that there is some force in the suggestion, I believe, though, that the
real origin of all these myths is the same, and that it was originally
an effort to account for the sun, moon and stars. The sun and moon
were the man and wife, or the god and goddess, and the stars were their
children. From a celestial myth, it became a terrestrial one; the air,
or ether-ocean became a flood, produced by rain, and the sun moon and
stars became man, woman and children.

In the original story, the mountain was the place where in the far east
the sky was supposed to touch the earth, and it was there that the ship
containing the celestial passengers finally rested from its voyage. But
whatever may be the origin of the stories of the flood, whether told
first by Hindu, Babylonian or Hebrew, we may rest perfectly assured that
they are all equally false.




XIX. BACCHUS AND BABEL

As soon as Noah had disembarked, he proceeded to plant a vineyard, and
began to be a husbandman; and when the grapes were ripe he made wine and
drank of it to excess; cursed his grandson, blessed Shem and Japheth,
and after that lived for three hundred and fifty years. What he did
during these three hundred and fifty years, we are not told. We never
hear of him again. For three hundred and fifty years he lived among
his sons, and daughters, and their descendants. He must have been a
venerable man. He was the man to whom God had made known his intention
of drowning the world. By his efforts, the human race had been saved.
He must have been acquainted with Methuselah for six hundred years, and
Methuselah was about two hundred and forty years old, when Adam died.
Noah must himself have known the history of mankind, and must have been
an object of almost infinite interest; and yet for three hundred and
fifty years he is neither directly nor indirectly mentioned. When Noah
died, Abraham must have been more than fifty years old; and Shem, the
son of Noah, lived for several hundred years after the death of Abraham;
and yet he is never mentioned. Noah when he died, was the oldest man in
the whole world by about five hundred years; and everybody living at
the time of his death knew that they were indebted to him, and yet no
account is given of his burial. No monument was raised to mark the spot.
This, however, is no more wonderful than the fact that no account is
given of the death of Adam or of Eve, nor of the place of their burial.
This may all be accounted for by the fact that the language of man was
confounded at the building of the tower of Babel, whereby all tradition
may have been lost, so that even the sons of Noah could not give an
account of their voyage in the ark; and, consequently, some one had to
be directly inspired to tell the story, after new languages had been
formed.

It has always been a mystery to me how Adam, Eve, and the serpent were
taught the same language. Where did they get it? We know now, that
it requires a great number of years to form a language; that it is of
exceedingly slow growth. We also know that by language, man conveys to
his fellows the impressions made upon him by what he sees, hears, smells
and touches. We know that the language of the savage consists of a few
sounds, capable of expressing only a few ideas or states of the
mind, such as love, desire, fear, hatred, aversion and contempt. Many
centuries are required to produce a language capable of expressing
complex ideas. It does not seem to me that ideas can be manufactured by
a deity and put in the brain of man. These ideas must be the result of
observation and experience.

Does anybody believe that God directly taught a language to Adam and
Eve, or that he so made them that they, by intuition spoke Hebrew, or
some language capable of conveying to each other their thoughts? How did
the serpent learn the same language? Did God teach it to him, or did he
happen to overhear God, when he was teaching Adam and Eve? We are told
in the second chapter of Genesis that God caused all the animals to pass
before Adam to see what he would call them. We cannot infer from this
that God named the animals and informed Adam what to call them. Adam
named them himself. Where did he get his words? We cannot imagine a man
just made out of dust, without the experience of a moment, having the
power to put his thoughts in language. In the first place, we cannot
conceive of his having any thoughts until he has combined, through
experience and observation, the impressions that nature had made upon
him through the medium of his senses. We cannot imagine of his knowing
anything, in the first instance, about different degrees of heat, nor
about darkness, if he was made in the day-time, nor about light, if
created at night, until the next morning. Before a man can have what we
call thoughts, he must have had a little experience. Something must have
happened to him before he can have a thought, and before he can express
himself in language. Language is a growth, not a gift. We account now
for the diversity of language by the fact that tribes and nations have
had different experiences, different wants, different surroundings, and,
one result of all these differences is, among other things, a difference
in language. Nothing can be more absurd than to account for the
different languages of the world by saying that the original language
was confounded at the tower of Babel.

According to the bible, up to the time of the building of that tower,
the whole earth was of one language and of one speech, and would have so
remained until the present time had not an effort been made to build
a tower whose top should reach into heaven. Can any one imagine what
objection God would have to the building of such a tower? And how could
the confusion of tongues prevent its construction? How could language
be confounded? It could be confounded only by the destruction of memory.
Did God destroy the memory of mankind at that time, and if so, how?
Did he paralyze that portion of the brain presiding over the organs
of articulation, so that they could not speak the words, although they
remembered them clearly, or did he so touch the brain that they
could not hear? Will some theologian, versed in the machinery of the
miraculous, tell us in what way God confounded the language of mankind?

Why would the confounding of the language make them separate? Why would
they not stay together until they could understand each other? People
will not separate, from weakness. When in trouble they come together
and desire the assistance of each other. Why, in this instance, did they
separate? What particular ones would naturally come together if nobody
understood the language of any other person? Would it not have been just
as hard to agree when and where to go, without any language to express
the agreement, as to go on with the building of the tower?

Is it possible that any one now believes that the whole world would be
of one speech had the language not been confounded at Babel? Do we not
know that every word was suggested in some way by the experience of men?
Do we not know that words are continually dying, and continually being
born; that every language has its cradle and its cemetery--its buds, its
blossoms, its fruits and its withered leaves? Man has loved, enjoyed,
hated, suffered and hoped, and all words have been born of these
experiences.

Why did "the Lord come down to see the city and the tower?" Could he
not see them from where he lived or from where he was? Where did he come
down from? Did he come in the daytime, or in the night? We are taught
now that God is everywhere; that he inhabits immensity; that he is in
every atom, and in every star. If this is true, why did he "come down to
see the city and the tower?" Will some theologian explain this?

After all, is it not much easier and altogether more reasonable to say
that Moses was mistaken, that he knew little of the science of language,
and that he guessed a great deal more than he investigated?




XX. FAITH IN FILTH

No light whatever is shed upon what passed in the world after the
confounding of language at Babel, until the birth of Abraham. But,
before speaking of the history of the Jewish people, it may be proper
for me to say that many things are recounted in Genesis, and other books
attributed to Moses, of which I do not wish to speak. There are many
pages of these books unfit to read, many stories not calculated, in my
judgment, to improve the morals of mankind. I do not wish even to call
the attention of my readers to these things, except in a general way. It
is to be hoped that the time will come when such chapters and passages
as cannot be read without leaving the blush of shame upon the cheek of
modesty, will be left out, and not published as a part of the bible.
If there is a God, it certainly is blasphemous to attribute to him the
authorship of pages too obscene, beastly and vulgar to be read in the
presence of men and women.

The believers in the bible are loud in their denunciation of what they
are pleased to call the immoral literature of the world; and yet few
books have been published containing more moral filth than this inspired
word of God. These stories are not redeemed by a single flash of wit or
humor. They never rise above the dull details of stupid vice. For one,
I cannot afford to soil my pages with extracts from them; and all such
portions of the Scriptures I leave to be examined, written upon, and
explained by the clergy. Clergymen may know some way by which they can
extract honey from these flowers. Until these passages are expunged
from the Old Testament, it is not a fit book to be read by either old
or young. It contains pages that no minister in the United States would
read to his congregation for any reward whatever. There are chapters
that no gentleman would read in the presence of a lady. There are
chapters that no father would read to his child. There are narratives
utterly unfit to be told; and the time will come when mankind will
wonder that such a book was ever called inspired.

I know that in many books besides the bible there are immodest lines.
Some of the greatest writers have soiled their pages with indecent
words. We account for this by saying that the authors were human; that
they catered to the taste and spirit of their times. We make excuses,
but at the same time regret that in their works they left an impure
word. But what shall we say of God? Is it possible that a being of
infinite purity--the author of modesty, would smirch the pages of his
book with stories lewd, licentious and obscene? If God is the author of
the bible, it is, of course, the standard by which all other books can,
and should be measured. If the bible is not obscene, what book is? Why
should men be imprisoned simply for imitating God? The christian world
should never say another word against immoral books until it makes the
inspired volume clean. These vile and filthy things were not written
for the purpose of conveying and enforcing moral truth, but seem to
have been written because the author loved an unclean thing. There is
no moral depth below that occupied by the writer or publisher of obscene
books, that stain with lust, the loving heart of youth. Such men should
be imprisoned and their books destroyed. The literature of the world
should be rendered decent, and no book should be published that cannot
be read by, and in the hearing of the best and purest people. But as
long as the bible is considered as the work of God, it will be hard
to make all men too good and pure to imitate it; and as long as it is
imitated there will be vile and filthy books. The literature of our
country will not be sweet and clean until the bible ceases to be
regarded as the production of a god.

We are continually told that the bible is the very foundation of modesty
and morality; while many of its pages are so immodest and immoral that
a minister, for reading them in the pulpit, would be instantly denounced
as an unclean wretch. Every woman would leave the church, and if the men
stayed, it would be for the purpose of chastising the minister.

Is there any saving grace in hypocrisy? Will men become clean in speech
by believing that God is unclean? Would it not be far better to admit
that the bible was written by barbarians in a barbarous, coarse and
vulgar age? Would it not be safer to charge Moses with vulgarity,
instead of God? Is it not altogether more probable that some ignorant
Hebrew would write the vulgar words? The christians tell me that God is
the author of these vile and stupid things? I have examined the question
to the best of my ability, and as to God my verdict is:--Not guilty.
Faith should not rest in filth.

Every foolish and immodest thing should be expunged from the bible.
Let us keep the good. Let us preserve every great and splendid thought,
every wise and prudent maxim, every just law, every elevated idea, and
every word calculated to make man nobler and purer, and let us have
the courage to throw the rest away. The souls of children should not
be stained and soiled. The charming instincts of youth should not be
corrupted and defiled. The girls and boys should not be taught that
unclean words were uttered by "inspired" lips. Teach them that these
words were born of savagery and lust. Teach them that the unclean is the
unholy, and that only the pure is sacred.




XXI. THE HEBREWS

After language had been confounded and the people scattered, there
appeared in the land of Canaan a tribe of Hebrews ruled by a chief or
sheik called Abraham. They had a few cattle, lived in tents, practiced
polygamy, wandered from place to place, and were the only folks in the
whole world to whom God paid the slightest attention. At this time
there were hundreds of cities in India filled with temples and palaces;
millions of Egyptians worshiped Isis and Osiris, and had covered their
land with marvelous monuments of industry, power and skill. But these
civilizations were entirely neglected by the Deity, his whole attention
being taken up with Abraham and his family.

It seems, from the account, that God and Abraham were intimately
acquainted, and conversed frequently upon a great variety of subjects.
By the twelfth chapter of Genesis it appears that he made the following
promises to Abraham. "I will make of thee a great nation, and I will
bless thee, and make thy name great: and thou shalt be a blessing. And I
will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."

After receiving this communication from the Almighty, Abraham went into
the land of Canaan, and again God appeared to him and told him to take
a heifer three years old, a goat of the same age, a sheep of equal
antiquity, a turtle dove and a young pigeon. Whereupon Abraham killed
the animals "and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one
against another." And it came to pass that when the sun went down and
it was dark, behold a smoking furnace and a burning lamp that passed
between the raw and bleeding meat. The killing of these animals was
a preparation for receiving a visit from God. Should an American
missionary in Central Africa find a negro chief surrounded by
a butchered heifer, a goat and a sheep, with which to receive a
communication from the infinite God, my opinion is, that the missionary
would regard the proceeding as the direct result of savagery. And if
the chief insisted that he had seen a smoking furnace and a burning
lamp going up and down between the pieces of meat, the missionary would
certainly conclude that the chief was not altogether right in his mind.

If the bible is true, this same God told Abraham to take and sacrifice
his only son, or rather the only son of his wife, and a murder would
have been committed had not God, just at the right moment, directed him
to stay his hand and take a sheep instead.

God made a great number of promises to Abraham, but few of them were
ever kept. He agreed to make him the father of a great nation, but he
did not. He solemnly promised to give him a great country, including all
the land between the river of Egypt and the Euphrates, but he did not.

In due time Abraham passed away, and his son Isaac took his place at
the head of the tribe. Then came Jacob, who "watered stock" and enriched
himself with the spoil of Laban. Joseph was sold into Egypt by his
jealous brethren, where he became one of the chief men of the kingdom,
and in a few years his father and brothers left their own country and
settled in Egypt. At this time there were seventy Hebrews in the world,
counting Joseph and his children. They remained in Egypt two hundred and
fifteen years. It is claimed by some that they were in that country for
four hundred and thirty years. This is a mistake. Josephus says they
were in Egypt two hundred and fifteen years, and this statement is
sustained by the best biblical scholars of all denominations. According
to the 17th verse of the 3rd chapter of Galatians, it was four hundred
and thirty years from the time the promise was made to Abraham to
the giving of the law, and as the Hebrews did not go to Egypt for two
hundred and fifteen years after the making of the promise to Abraham,
they could in no event have been in Egypt more than two hundred and
fifteen years. In our bible the 40th verse of the 12th chapter of
Exodus, is as follows:--

"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was
four hundred and thirty years."

This passage does not say that the sojourning was all done in Egypt;
neither does it say that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt four
hundred and thirty years; but it does say that the sojourning of the
children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty
years. The Vatican copy of the Septuagint renders the same passage as
follows:--

"The sojourning of the children of Israel which they sojourned in Egypt,
and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years."

The Alexandrian version says:--"The sojourning of the children of Israel
which they and their fathers sojourned in Egypt, and in the land of
Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years."

And in the Samaritan bible we have:--"The sojourning of the children of
Israel and of their fathers which they sojourned in the land of Canaan,
and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years."

There were seventy souls when they went down into Egypt, and they
remained two hundred and fifteen years, and at the end of that time they
had increased to about three million. How do we know that there were
three million at the end of two hundred and fifteen years? We know it
because we are informed by Moses that "there were six hundred thousand
men of war." Now, to each man of war, there must have been at least five
other people. In every State in this Union there will be to each voter,
five other persons at least, and we all know that there are always more
voters than men of war. If there were six hundred thousand men of war,
there must have been a population of at least three million. Is it
possible that seventy people could increase to that extent in two
hundred and fifteen years? You may say that it was a miracle; but
what need was there of working a miracle? Why should God miraculously
increase the number of slaves? If he wished miraculously to increase the
population, why did he not wait until the people were free?

In 1776, we had in the American Colonies about three millions of people.
In one hundred years we doubled four times: that is to say, six, twelve,
twenty-four, forty-eight million,--our present population.

We must not forget that during all these years there has been pouring
into our country a vast stream of emigration, and that this, taken
in connection with the fact that our country is productive beyond all
others, gave us only four doubles in one hundred years. Admitting that
the Hebrews increased as rapidly without emigration as we, in this
country, have with it, we will give to them four doubles each century,
commencing with seventy people, and they would have, at the end of
two hundred years, a population of seventeen thousand nine hundred and
twenty. Giving them another double for the odd fifteen years and there
would be, provided no deaths had occurred, thirty-five thousand eight
hundred and forty people. And yet we are told that instead of having
this number, they had increased to such an extent that they had six
hundred thousand men of war: that is to say, a population of more than
three millions!

Every sensible man knows that this account is not, and cannot be true.
We know that seventy people could not increase to three million in two
hundred and fifteen years.

About this time the Hebrews took a census, and found that there were
twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three first born males.
It is reasonable to suppose that there were about as many first born
females. This would make forty-four thousand five hundred and forty-six
first born children. Now, there must have been about as many mothers
as there were first born children. If there were only about forty-five
thousand mothers and three millions of people, the mothers must have had
on an average about sixty-six children apiece.

At this time, the Hebrews were slaves, and had been for two hundred
and fifteen years. A little while before, an order had been made by the
Egyptians that all the male children of the Hebrews should be killed.
One, contrary to this order, was saved in an ark made of bullrushes
daubed with slime. This child was found by the daughter of Pharaoh, and
was adopted, it seems, as her own, and, may be, was. He grew to be
a man, sided with the Hebrews, killed an Egyptian that was smiting a
slave, hid the body in the sand, and fled from Egypt to the land of
Midian, became acquainted with a priest who had seven daughters, took
the side of the daughters against the ill-mannered shepherds of that
country, and married Zipporah, one of the girls, and became a shepherd
for her father. Afterward, while tending his flock, the Lord appeared to
him in a burning bush, and commanded him to go to the king of Egypt and
demand from him the liberation of the Hebrews. In order to convince him
that the something burning in the bush was actually God, the rod in his
hand was changed into a serpent, which, upon being caught by the tail,
became again a rod. Moses was also told to put his hand in his bosom,
and when he took it out it was as leprous as snow. Quite a number of
strange things were performed, and others promised. Moses then agreed to
go back to Egypt provided his brother could go with him. Whereupon
the Lord appeared to Aaron, and directed him to meet Moses in the
wilderness. They met at the mount of God, went to Egypt, gathered
together all the elders of the children of Israel, spake all the words
which God had spoken unto Moses, and did all the signs in the sight of
the people. The Israelites believed, bowed their heads and worshiped;
and Moses and Aaron went in and told their message to Pharaoh the king.




XXII. THE PLAGUES

Three millions of people were in slavery. They were treated with the
utmost rigor, and so fearful were their masters that they might, in
time, increase in numbers sufficient to avenge themselves, that they
took from the arms of mothers all the male children and destroyed
them. If the account given is true, the Egyptians were the most cruel,
heartless and infamous people of which history gives any record. God
finally made up his mind to free the Hebrews; and for the accomplishment
of this purpose he sent, as his agents, Moses and Aaron, to the king
of Egypt. In order that the king might know that these men had a divine
mission, God gave Moses the power of changing a stick into a serpent,
and water into blood. Moses and Aaron went before the king, stating that
the Lord God of Israel ordered the King of Egypt to let the Hebrews
go that they might hold a feast with God in the wilderness. Thereupon
Pharaoh, the king, enquired who the Lord was, at the same time stating
that he had never made his acquaintance, and knew nothing about him.
To this they replied that the God of the Hebrews had met with them, and
they asked to go a three days journey into the desert and sacrifice
unto this God, fearing that if they did not he would fall upon them with
pestilence or the sword. This interview seems to have hardened Pharaoh,
for he ordered the tasks of the children of Israel to be increased; so
that the only effect of the first appeal was to render still worse the
condition of the Hebrews. Thereupon, Moses returned unto the Lord and
said "Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people? Why is it
that thou hast sent me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name
he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered thy people
at all."

Apparently stung by this reproach, God answered:--

"Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharoah; for with a strong hand
shall he let them go; and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of
his land."

God then recounts the fact that he had appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, that he had established a covenant with them to give them the
land of Canaan, that he had heard the groanings of the children of
Israel in Egyptian bondage; that their groanings had put him in mind of
his covenant, and that he had made up his mind to redeem the children
of Israel with a stretched out arm and with great judgments. Moses then
spoke to the children' of Israel again, but they would listen to him no
more. His first effort in their behalf had simply doubled their trouble
and they seemed to have lost confidence in his power. Thereupon Jehovah
promised Moses that he would make him a god unto Pharaoh, and that
Aaron should be his prophet, but at the same time informed him that his
message would be of no avail; that he would harden the heart of Pharaoh
so that he would not listen; that he would so harden his heart that he
might have an excuse for destroying the Egyptians. Accordingly, Moses
and Aaron again went before Pharaoh. Moses said to Aaron;--"Cast down
your rod before Pharaoh," which he did, and it became a serpent. Then
Pharaoh not in the least surprised, called for his wise men and
his sorcerers, and they threw down their rods and changed them into
serpents. The serpent that had been changed from Aaron's rod was, at
this time crawling upon the floor, and it proceeded to swallow the
serpents that had been produced by the magicians of Egypt. What became
of these serpents that were swallowed, whether they turned back into
sticks again, is not stated. Can we believe that the stick was changed
into a real living serpent, or did it assume simply the appearance of a
serpent? If it bore only the appearance of a serpent it was a deception,
and could not rise above the dignity of legerdemain. Is it necessary
to believe that God is a kind of prestigiator--a sleight-of-hand
per-former, a magician or sorcerer? Can it be possible that an infinite
being would endeavor to secure the liberation of a race by performing a
miracle that could be equally performed by the sorcerers and magicians
of a barbarian king?

Not one word was said by Moses or Aaron as to the wickedness of
depriving a human being of his liberty. Not a word was said in favor
of liberty. Not the slightest intimation that a human being was justly
entitled to the product of his own labor. Not a word about the cruelty
of masters who would destroy even the babes of slave mothers. It seems
to me wonderful that this God did not tell the king of Egypt that no
nation could enslave another, without also enslaving itself; that it was
impossible to put a chain around the limbs of a slave, without putting
manacles upon the brain of the master. Why did he not tell him that a
nation founded upon slavery could not stand? Instead of declaring these
things, instead of appealing to justice, to mercy and to liberty, he
resorted to feats of jugglery. Suppose we wished to make a treaty with
a barbarous nation, and the president should employ a sleight-of-hand
performer as envoy extraordinary, and instruct him, that when he came
into the presence of the savage monarch, he should cast down an umbrella
or a walking stick, which would change into a lizard or a turtle; what
would we think? Would we not regard such a performance as beneath the
dignity even of a president? And what would be our feelings if the
savage king sent for his sorcerers and had them perform the same feat?
If such things would appear puerile and foolish in the president of a
great republic, what shall be said when they were resorted to by the
creator of all worlds? How small, how contemptible such a God appears!
Pharaoh, it seems, took about this view of the matter, and he would not
be persuaded that such tricks were performed by an infinite being.

Again, Moses and Aaron came before Pharaoh as he was going to the river
s bank, and the same rod which had changed to a serpent, and, by this
time changed back, was taken by Aaron, who, in the presence of Pharaoh,
smote the water of the river, which was immediately turned to blood, as
well as all the water in all the streams, ponds, and pools, as well as
all water in vessels of wood and vessels of stone in the entire land of
Egypt. As soon as all the waters in Egypt had been turned into blood,
the magicians of that country did the same with their enchantments. We
are not informed where they got the water to turn into blood, since
all the water in Egypt had already been so changed. It seems from the
account that the fish in the Nile died, and the river emitted a stench,
and there was not a drop of water in the land of Egypt that had not been
changed into blood. In consequence of this, the Egyptians digged "around
about the river" for water to drink. Can we believe this story? Is it
necessary to salvation to admit that all the rivers, pools, ponds and
lakes of a country were changed into blood, in order that a king might
be induced to allow the children of Israel the privilege of going a
three days journey into the wilderness to make sacrifices to their God?

It seems from the account that Pharaoh was told that the God of the
Hebrews would, if he refused to let the Israelites go, change all the
waters of Egypt into blood, and that, upon his refusal, they were so
changed. This had, however, no influence upon him, for the reason that
his own magicians did the same. It does not appear that Moses and Aaron
expressed the least surprise at the success of the Egyptian sorcerers.
At that time it was believed that each nation had its own god. The
only claim that Moses and Aaron made for their God was, that he was the
greatest and most powerful of all the gods, and that with anything like
an equal chance he could vanquish the deity of any other nation.

After the waters were changed to blood Moses and Aaron waited for seven
days. At the end of that time God told Moses to again go to Pharaoh and
demand the release of his people, and to inform him that, if he refused,
God would strike all the borders of Egypt with frogs. That he would make
frogs so plentiful that they would go into the houses of Pharaoh, into
his bedchamber, upon his bed, into the houses of his servants, upon his
people, into their ovens, and even into their kneading troughs,
This threat had no effect whatever upon Pharaoh, And thereupon Aaron
stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came
up and covered the land. The magicians of Egypt did the same, and with
their enchantments brought more frogs upon the land of Egypt These
magicians do not seem to have been original in their ideas, but so far
as imitation is concerned, were perfect masters of their art. The frogs
seem to have made such an impression upon Pharaoh that he sent for Moses
and asked him to entreat the Lord that he would take away the frogs.
Moses agreed to remove them from the houses and the land, and allow
them to remain only in the rivers. Accordingly the frogs died out of the
houses, and out of the villages, and out of the fields, and the people
gathered them together in heaps. As soon as the frogs had left the
houses and fields, the heart of Pharaoh became again hardened, and he
refused to let the people go.

Aaron then, according to the command of God, stretched out his hand,
holding the rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in
man and in beast, and all the dust became lice throughout the land of
Egypt. Pharaoh again sent for his magicians, and they sought to do
the same with their enchantments, but they could not. Whereupon the
sorcerers said unto Pharaoh: "This is the finger of God."

Notwithstanding this, however, Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go.
God then caused a grievous swarm of flies to come into the house of
Pharaoh and into his servants' houses, and into all the land of Egypt,
to such an extent that the whole land was corrupted by reason of the
flies. But into that part of the country occupied by the children of
Israel there came no flies. Thereupon Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron
and said to them: "Go, and sacrifice to your God in this land." They
were not willing to sacrifice in Egypt, and asked permission to go on a
journey of three days into the wilderness. To this Pharaoh acceded, and
in consideration of this Moses agreed to use his influence with the Lord
to induce him to send the flies out of the country. He accordingly told
the Lord of the bargain he had made with Pharaoh, and the Lord agreed to
the compromise, and removed the flies from Pharaoh and from his servants
and from his people, and there remained not a single fly in the land of
Egypt. As soon as the flies were gone, Pharaoh again changed his mind,
and concluded not to permit the children of Israel to depart. The Lord
then directed Moses to go to Pharaoh and tell him that if he did not
allow the children of Israel to depart, he would destroy his cattle, his
horses, his camels and his sheep; that these animals would be afflicted
with a grievous disease, but that the animals belonging to the Hebrews
should not be so afflicted. Moses did as he was bid. On the next day all
the cattle of Egypt died; that is to say, all the horses, all the asses,
all the camels, all the oxen and all the sheep; but of the animals owned
by the Israelites, not one perished. This disaster had no effect upon
Pharaoh, and he still refused to let the children of Israel go. The Lord
then told Moses and Aaron to take some ashes out of a furnace, and
told Moses to sprinkle them toward the heavens in the sight of Pharaoh;
saying that the ashes should become small dust in all the land of Egypt,
and should be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast
throughout all the land.

How these boils breaking out with blains, upon cattle that were already
dead, should affect Pharaoh, is a little hard to understand. It must
not be forgotten that all the cattle and all beasts had died with the
murrain before the boils had broken out This was a most decisive victory
for Moses and Aaron. The boils were upon the magicians to that extent
that they could not stand before Moses. But it had no effect upon
Pharaoh, who seems to have been a man of great firmness. The Lord then
instructed Moses to get up early in the morning and tell Pharaoh that he
would stretch out his hand and smite his people with a pestilence, and
would, on the morrow, cause it to rain a very grievous hail, such as
had never been known in the land of Egypt. He also told Moses to give
notice, so that they might get all the cattle that were in the fields
under cover. It must be remembered that all these cattle had recently
died of the murrain, and their dead bodies had been covered with boils
and blains. This, however, had no effect, and Moses stretched forth his
hand toward heaven, and the Lord sent thunder, and hail and lightning,
and fire that ran along the ground, and the hail fell upon all the land
of Egypt, and all that were in the fields, both man and beast, were
smitten, and the hail smote every herb of the field, and broke every
tree of the country except that portion inhabited by the children of
Israel; there, there was no hail.

During this hail storm Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron and admitted
that he had sinned, that the Lord was righteous, and that the Egyptians
were wicked, and requested them to ask the Lord that there be no more
thunderings and hail, and that he would let the Hebrews go. Moses agreed
that as soon as he got out of the city he would stretch forth his hands
unto the Lord, and that the thunderings should cease and the hail should
stop. But, when the rain and the hail and the thundering ceased, Pharaoh
concluded that he would not let the children of Israel go.

Again, God sent Moses and Aaron, instructing them to tell Pharaoh that
if he refused to let the people go, the face of the earth would be
covered with locusts, so that man would not be able to see the ground,
and that these locusts would eat the residue of that which escaped from
the hail; that they would eat every tree out of the field; that they
would fill the houses of Pharaoh and the houses of all his servants, and
the houses of all the Egyptians. Moses delivered the message, and went
out from Pharaoh. Some of Pharaoh's servants entreated their master
to let the children of Israel go. Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron and
asked them, who wished to go into the wilderness to sacrifice. They
replied that they wished to go with the young and old; with their sons
and daughters, with flocks and herds. Pharaoh would not consent to this,
but agreed that the men might go. There upon Pharaoh drove Moses and
Aaron out of his sight. Then God told Moses to stretch forth his hand
upon the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they might come up and eat
every herb, even all that the hail had left. "And Moses stretched out
his rod over the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought an East wind all
that day and all that night; and and when it was morning the East wind
brought the locusts; and they came up over all the land of Egypt and
rested upon all the coasts covering the face of the whole earth, so that
the land was darkened; and they ate every herb and all the fruit of the
trees which the hail had left, and there remained not any green thing
on the trees or in the herbs of the field throughout the land of Egypt."
Pharaoh then called for Moses and Aaron in great haste, admitted that
he had sinned against the Lord their God and against them, asked their
forgiveness and requested them to intercede with God that he might take
away the locusts. They went out from his presence and asked the Lord to
drive the locusts away, "And the Lord made a strong west wind which took
away the locusts, and cast them into the Red Sea so that there remained
not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt."

As soon as the locusts were gone, Pharaoh changed his mind, and, in the
language of the sacred text, "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that
he would not let the children of Israel go."

The Lord then told Moses to stretch out his hand toward heaven that
there might be darkness over the land of Egypt, "even darkness which
might be felt." "And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and
there was a thick darkness over the land of Egypt for three days during
which time they saw not each other, neither arose any of the people from
their places for three days; but the children of Israel had light in
their dwellings."

It strikes me that when the land of Egypt was covered with thick
darkness--so thick that it could be felt, and when light was in the
dwellings of the Israelites, there could have been no better time for
the Hebrews to have left the country.

Pharaoh again called for Moses, and told him that his people could go
and serve the Lord, provided they would leave their flocks and herds.
Moses would not agree to this, for the reason that they needed the
flocks and herds for sacrifices and burnt offerings, and he did not know
how many of the animals God might require, and for that reason he could
not leave a single hoof. Upon the question of the cattle, they divided,
and Pharaoh again refused to let the people go. God then commanded Moses
to tell the Hebrews to borrow, each of his neighbor, jewels of silver
and gold. By a miraculous interposition the Hebrews found favor in the
sight of the Egyptians so that they loaned the articles asked for. After
this, Moses again went to Pharaoh and told him that all the first-born
in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh upon the throne,
unto the first-born of the maid-servant who was behind the mill, as well
as the first-born of beasts, should die.

As all the beasts had been destroyed by disease and hail, it is
troublesome to understand the meaning of the threat as to their
first-born.

Preparations were accordingly made for carrying this frightful threat
into execution. Blood was put on the door-posts of all houses inhabited
by Hebrews, so that God, as he passed through that land, might not be
mistaken and destroy the first-born of the Jews. "And it came to pass
that at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt,
the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the throne, and the first-born of
the captive who was in the dungeon. And Pharaoh rose up in the night,
and all his servants, and all the Egyptians, and there was a great cry
in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead."

What had these children done? Why should the babes in the cradle be
destroyed on account of the crime of Pharaoh? Why should the cattle be
destroyed because man had enslaved his brother? In those days women and
children and cattle were put upon an exact equality, and all considered
as the property of the men; and when man in some way excited the wrath
of God, he punished them by destroying all their cattle, their wives,
and their little ones. Where can words be found bitter enough to
describe a god who would kill wives and babes because husbands and
fathers had failed to keep his law? Every good man, and every good
woman, must hate and despise such a deity.

Upon the death of all the first-born Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron,
and not only gave his consent that they might go with the Hebrews into
the wilderness, but besought them to go at once.

Is it possible that an infinite God, creator of all worlds and sustainer
of all life, said to Pharaoh, "If you do not let my people go, I will
turn all the water of your country into blood," and that upon the
refusal of Pharaoh to release the people, God did turn all the waters
into blood? Do you believe this?

Do you believe that Pharaoh even after all the water was turned to
blood, refused to let the Hebrews go, and that thereupon God told him he
would cover his land with frogs? Do you believe this?

Do you believe that after the land was covered with frogs Pharaoh still
refused to let the people go, and that God then said to him, "I will
cover you and all your people with lice?" Do you believe God would make
this threat?

Do you also believe that God told Pharaoh, "If you do not let these
people go, I will fill all your houses and cover your country with
flies?" Do you believe God makes such threats as this?

Of course God must have known that turning the waters into blood,
covering the country with frogs, infesting all flesh with lice, and
filling all houses with flies, would not accomplish his object, and that
all these plagues would have no effect whatever upon the Egyptian king.

Do you believe that, failing to accomplish anything by the flies, God
told Pharaoh that if he did not let the people go he would kill his
cattle with murrain? Does such a threat sound God-like?

Do you believe that, failing to effect anything by killing the cattle,
this same God then threatened to afflict all the people with boils,
including the magicians who had been rivaling him in the matter of
miracles; and failing to do anything by boils, that he resorted to hail?
Does this sound reasonable? The hail experiment having accomplished
nothing, do you believe that God murdered the first-born of animals and
men? Is it possible to conceive of anything more utterly absurd, stupid,
revolting, cruel and senseless, than the miracles said to have been
wrought by the Almighty for the purpose of inducing Pharaoh to liberate
the children of Israel?

Is it not altogether more reasonable to say that the Jewish people,
being in slavery, accounted for the misfortunes and calamities, suffered
by the Egyptians, by saying that they were the judgments of God?

When the Armada of Spain was wrecked and scattered by the storm, the
English people believed that God had interposed in their behalf,
and publicly gave thanks. When the battle of Lepanto was won, it was
believed by the catholic world that the victory was given in answer to
prayer. So, our fore-fathers in their revolutionary struggle saw, or
thought they saw, the hand of God, and most firmly believed that they
achieved their independence by the interposition of the Most High.

Now, it may be that while the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians,
there were plagues of locusts and flies. It may be that there were
some diseases by which many of the cattle perished. It may be that a
pestilence visited that country so that in nearly every house there
was some one dead. If so, it was but natural for the enslaved and
superstitious Jews to account for these calamities by saying that they
were punishments sent by their God. Such ideas will be found in the
history of every country.

For a long time the Jews held these opinions, and they were handed from
father to son simply by tradition. By the time a written language had
been produced, thousands of additions had been made, and numberless
details invented; so that we have not only an account of the plagues
suffered by the Egyptians, but the whole woven into a connected story,
containing the threats made by Moses and Aaron, the miracles wrought by
them, the promises of Pharaoh, and finally the release of the Hebrews,
as a result of the marvelous things performed in their behalf by
Jehovah.

In any event it is infinitely more probable that the author was
misinformed, than that the God of this universe was guilty of these
childish, heartless and infamous things. The solution of the whole
matter is this:--Moses was mistaken.




XXIII. THE FLIGHT

Three millions of people, with their flocks and herds, with borrowed
jewelry and raiment, with unleavened dough in kneading troughs bound in
their clothes upon their shoulders, in one night commenced their journey
for the land of promise. We are not told how they were informed of the
precise time to start. With all the modern appliances, it would require
months of time to inform three millions of people of any fact.

In this vast assemblage there were six hundred thousand men of war, and
with them were the old, the young, the diseased and helpless. Where were
those people going? They were going to the desert of Sinai, compared
with which Sahara is a garden. Imagine an ocean of lava torn by storm
and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at by a Gorgon and changed instantly
to stone! Such was the desert of Sinai.

All of the civilized nations of the world could not feed and support
three millions of people on the desert of Sinai for forty years. It
would cost more than one hundred thousand millions of dollars, and would
bankrupt Christendom. They had with them their flocks and herds, and the
sheep were so numerous that the Israelites sacrificed, at one time, more
than one hundred and fifty thousand first-born lambs. How were these
flocks supported? What did they eat? Where were meadows and pastures for
them? There was no grass, no forests--nothing! There is no account
of its having rained baled hay, nor is it even claimed that they were
miraculously fed. To support these flocks, millions of acres of pasture
would have been required. God did not take the Israelites through the
land of the Philistines, for fear that when they saw the people of that
country they would return to Egypt, but he took them by the way of
the wilderness to the Red Sea, going before them by day in a pillar of
cloud, and by night, in a pillar of fire.

When it was told Pharaoh that the people had fled, he made ready
and took six hundred chosen chariots of Egypt, and pursued after the
children of Israel, overtaking them by the sea. As all the animals had
long before that time been destroyed, we are not informed where Pharaoh
obtained the horses for his chariots. The moment the children of Israel
saw the hosts of Pharaoh, although they had six hundred thousand men
of war, they immediately cried unto the Lord for protection. It is
wonderful to me that a land that had been ravaged by the plagues
described in the bible, still had the power to put in the field an army
that would carry terror to the hearts of six hundred thousand men of
war. Even with the help of God, it seems, they were not strong enough
to meet the Egyptians in the open field, but resorted to strategy. Moses
again stretched forth his wonderful rod over the waters of the Red Sea,
and they were divided, and the Hebrews passed through on dry land, the
waters standing up like a wall on either side. The Egyptians pursued
them; "and in the morning watch the Lord looked into the hosts of the
Egyptians, through the pillar of fire," and proceeded to take the wheels
off their chariots. As soon as the wheels were off, God told Moses to
stretch out his hand over the sea. Moses did so, and immediately "the
waters returned and covered the chariots and horsemen and all the hosts
of Pharaoh that came into the sea, and there remained not so much as one
of them."

This account may be true, but still it hardly looks reasonable that God
would take the wheels off the chariots. How did he do it? Did he pull
out the linch-pins, or did he just take them off by main force?

What a picture this presents to the mind! God the creator of the
universe, maker of every shining, glittering star, engaged in pulling
off the wheels of wagons, that he might convince Pharaoh of his
greatness and power!

Where were these people going? They were going to the promised land.
How large a country was that? About twelve thousand square miles. About
one-fifth the size of the State of Illinois. It was a frightful country,
covered with rocks and desolation. How many people were in the promised
land already? Moses tells us there were seven nations in that country
mightier than the Jews. As there were at least three millions of Jews,
there must have been at least twenty-one millions of people already in
that country. These had to be driven out in order that room might be
made for the chosen people of God.

It seems, however, that God was not willing to take the children of
Israel into the promised land immediately. They were not fit to inhabit
the land of Canaan; so he made up his mind to allow them to wander upon
the desert until all except two, who had left Egypt, should perish. Of
all the slaves released from Egyptian bondage, only two were allowed to
reach the promised land!

As soon as the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea, they found themselves
without food, and with water unfit to drink by reason of its bitterness,
and they began to murmur against Moses, who cried unto the Lord, and
"the Lord showed him a tree." Moses cast this tree into the waters,
and they became sweet. "And it came to pass in the morning the dew lay
around about the camp; and when the dew that lay was gone, behold,
upon the face of the wilderness lay a small round thing, small as the
hoar-frost upon the ground. And Moses said unto them, this is the bread
which the Lord hath given you to eat." This manna was a very peculiar
thing. It would melt in the sun, and yet they could cook it by seething
and baking. One would as soon think of frying snow or of broiling
icicles. But this manna had another remarkable quality. No matter how
much or little any person gathered, he would have an exact omer; if he
gathered more, it would shrink to that amount, and if he gathered less,
it would swell exactly to that amount. What a magnificent substance
manna would be with which to make a currency--shrinking and swelling
according to the great laws of supply and demand!

"Upon this manna the children of Israel lived for forty years, until
they came to a habitable land. With this meat were they fed until
they reached the borders of the land of Canaan." We are told in the
twenty-first chapter of Numbers, that the people at last became tired of
the manna, complained of God, and asked Moses why he brought them out of
the land of Egypt to die in the wilderness. And they said:--"There is no
bread, nor have we any water. Our soul loatheth this light food."

We are told by some commentators that the Jews lived on manna for forty
years; by others that they lived upon it for only a short time. As
a matter of fact the accounts differ, and this difference is the
opportunity for commentators. It also allows us to exercise faith in
believing that both accounts are true. If the accounts agreed, and were
reasonable, they would be believed by the wicked and unregenerated. But
as they are different and unreasonable, they are believed only by the
good. Whenever a statement in the bible is unreasonable, and you believe
it, you are considered quite a good christian. If the statement is
grossly absurd and infinitely impossible, and you still believe it, you
are a saint.

The children of Israel were in the desert, and they were out of water.
They had nothing to eat but manna, and this they had had so long that
the soul of every person abhorred it. Under these circumstances they
complained to Moses. Now, as God is infinite, he could just as well have
furnished them with an abundance of the purest and coolest of water, and
could, without the slightest trouble to himself, have given them three
excellent meals a day, with a generous variety of meats and vegetables,
it is very hard to see why he did not do so. It is still harder to
conceive why he fell into a rage when the people mildly suggested that
they would like a change of diet. Day after day, week after week, month
after month, year after year, nothing but manna. No doubt they did
the best they could by cooking it in different ways, but in spite of
themselves they began to loathe its sight and taste, and so they asked
Moses to use his influence to secure a change in the bill of fare.

Now, I ask, whether it was unreasonable for the Jews to suggest that a
little meat would be very gratefully received? It seems, however, that
as soon as the request was made, this God of infinite mercy became
infinitely enraged, and instead of granting it, went into, partnership
with serpents, for the purpose of punishing the hungry wretches to whom
he had promised a land flowing with milk and honey.

Where did these serpents come from? How did God convey the information
to the serpents, that he wished them to go to the desert of Sinai and
bite some Jews? It may be urged that these serpents were created for the
express purpose of punishing the children of Israel for having had the
presumption, like Oliver Twist, to ask for more.

There is another account in the eleventh chapter of Numbers, of the
people murmuring because of their food. They remembered the fish, the
cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions and the garlic of Egypt,
and they asked for meat The people went to the tent of Moses and asked
him for flesh. Moses cried unto the Lord and asked him why he did not
take care of the multitude. God thereupon agreed that they should have
meat, not for a day or two, but for a month, until the meat should come
out of their nostrils and become loathsome to them. He then caused a
wind to bring quails from beyond the sea, and cast them into the camp,
on every side of the camp around about for the space of a days journey.
And the people gathered them, and while the flesh was yet between their
teeth the wrath of God being provoked against them, struck them with
an exceeding great plague. Serpents, also, were sent among them, and
thousands perished for the crime of having been hungry.

The Rev. Alexander Cruden commenting upon this account says:--

"God caused a wind to rise that drove the quails within and about the
camp of the Israelites; and it is in this that the miracle consists,
that they were brought so seasonably to this place, and in so great
numbers as to suffice above a million of persons above a month. Some
authors affirm, that in those eastern and southern countries, quails
are innumerable, so that in one part of Italy within the compass of five
miles, there were taken about an hundred thousand of them every day for
a month together; and that sometimes they fly so thick over the sea,
that being weary they fall into ships, sometimes in such numbers, that
they sink them with their weight."

No wonder Mr. Cruden believed the Mosaic account.

Must we believe that God made an arrangement with hornets for the
purpose of securing their services in driving the Canaanites from
the land of promise? Is this belief necessary unto salvation? Must we
believe that God said to the Jews that he would send hornets before them
to drive out the Canaanites, as related in the twenty-third chapter of
Exodus, and the seventh chapter of Deuteronomy? How would the hornets
know a Canaanite? In what way would God put it in the mind of a hornet
to attack a Canaanite? Did God create hornets for that especial purpose,
implanting an instinct to attack a Canaanite, but not a Hebrew? Can
we conceive of the Almighty granting letters of marque and reprisal to
hornets? Of course it is admitted that nothing in the world would
be better calculated to make a man leave his native land than a few
hornets. Is it possible for us to believe that an infinite being would
resort to such expedients in order to drive the Canaanites from their
country? He could just as easily have spoken the Canaanites out of
existence as to have spoken the hornets in. In this way a vast amount of
trouble, pain and suffering would have been saved. Is it possible that
there is, in this country, an intelligent clergyman who will insist that
these stories are true; that we must believe them in in order to be good
people in this world, and glorified souls in the next?

We are also told that God instructed the Hebrews to kill the Canaanites
slowly, giving as a reason that the beasts of the field might increase
upon his chosen people. When we take into consideration the fact that
the Holy Land contained only about eleven or twelve thousand square
miles, and was at that time inhabited by at least twenty-one millions of
people, it does not seem reasonable that the wild beasts could have been
numerous enough to cause any great alarm. The same ratio of population
would give to the State of Illinois at least one hundred and twenty
millions of inhabitants. Can anybody believe that, under such
circumstances, the danger from wild beasts could be very great? What
would we think of a general, invading such a state, if he should order
his soldiers to kill the people slowly, lest the wild beasts might
increase upon them? Is it possible that a God capable of doing the
miracles recounted in the Old Testament could not, in some way, have
disposed of the wild beasts? After the Canaanites were driven out, could
he not have employed the hornets to drive out the wild beasts? Think of
a God that could drive twenty-one millions of people out of the promised
land, could raise up innumerable stinging flies, and could cover
the earth with fiery serpents, and yet seems to have been perfectly
powerless against the wild beasts of the land of Canaan!

Speaking of these hornets, one of the good old commentators, whose
views have long been considered of great value by the believers in the
inspiration of the bible, uses the following language:--"Hornets are a
sort of strong flies, which the Lord used as instruments to plague
the enemies of his people. They are of themselves very troublesome and
mischievous, and those the Lord made use of were, it is thought, of an
extraordinary bigness and perniciousness. It is said they live as the
wasps, and that they have a king or captain, and pestilent stings
as bees, and that, if twenty-seven of them sting man or beast, it is
certain death to either. Nor is it strange that such creatures did drive
out the Canaanites from their habitations; for many heathen writers give
instances of some people driven from their seats by frogs, others by
mice, others by bees and wasps. And it is said that a christian city,
being besieged by Sapores, king of Persia, was delivered by hornets; for
the elephants and beasts being stung by them, waxed unruly, and so the
whole army fled."

Only a few years ago, all such stories were believed by the christian
world; and it is a historical fact, that Voltaire was the third man of
any note in Europe, who took the ground that the mythologies of Greece
and Rome were without foundation. Until his time, most christians
believed as thoroughly in the miracles ascribed to the Greek and Roman
gods as in those of Christ and Jehovah. The christian world cultivated
credulity, not only as one of the virtues, but as the greatest of them
all. But, when Luther and his followers left the church of Rome, they
were compelled to deny the power of the catholic church, at that time,
to suspend the laws of nature, but took the ground that such power
ceased with the apostolic age. They insisted that all things now
happened in accordance with the laws of nature, with the exception of a
few special interferences in favor of the protestant church in answer
to prayer. They taught their children a double philosophy: by one, they
were to show the impossibility of catholic miracles, because opposed to
the laws of nature; by the other, the probability of the miracles of the
apostolic age, because they were in conformity with the statements of
the scriptures. They had two foundations: one, the law of nature, and
the other, the word of God. The protestants have endeavored to carry
on this double process of reasoning, and the result has been a gradual
increase of confidence in the law of nature, and a gradual decrease of
confidence in the word of God.

We are told, in this inspired account, that the clothing of the Jewish
people did not wax old, and that their shoes refused to wear out. Some
commentators have insisted that angels attended to the wardrobes of the
Hebrews, patched their garments, and mended their shoes. Certain it is,
however, that the same clothes lasted them for forty years, during the
entire journey from Egypt to the Holy Land. Little boys starting out
with their first pantaloons, grew as they traveled, and their clothes
grew with them.

Can it be necessary to believe a story like this? Will men make better
husbands, fathers, neighbors, and citizens, simply by giving credence
to these childish and impossible things? Certainly an infinite God could
have transported the Jews to the Holy Land in a moment, and could, as
easily, have removed the Canaanites to some other country. Surely there
was no necessity for doing thousands and thousands of petty miracles,
day after day for forty years, looking after the clothes of three
millions of people, changing the nature of wool, and linen, and leather,
so that they would not "wax old." Every step, every motion, would wear
away some part of the clothing, some part of the shoes. Were these
parts, so worn away, perpetually renewed, or was the nature of things
so changed that they could not wear away? We know that whenever matter
comes in contact with matter, certain atoms, by abrasion, are lost. Were
these atoms gathered up every night by angels, and replaced on the soles
of the shoes, on the elbows of coats, and on the knees of pantaloons, so
that the next morning they would be precisely in the condition they were
on the morning before? There must be a mistake somewhere.

Can we believe that the real God, if there is one, ever ordered a man
to be killed simply for making hair oil, or ointment? We are told in
the thirtieth chapter of Exodus, that the Lord commanded Moses to take
myrrh, cinnamon, sweet calamus, cassia, and olive oil, and make a
holy ointment for the purpose of anointing the tabernacle, tables,
candlesticks and other utensils, as well as Aaron and his sons; saying,
at the same time, that whosoever compounded any like it, or whoever put
any of it on a stranger, should be put to death. In the same chapter,
the Lord furnishes Moses with a recipe for making a perfume, saying,
that whoever should make any which smelled like it, should be cut off
from his people. This, to me, sounds so unreasonable that I cannot
believe it. Why should an infinite God care whether mankind made
ointments and perfumes like his or not? Why should the Creator of all
things threaten to kill a priest who approached his altar without having
washed his hands and feet? These commandments and these penalties would
disgrace the vainest tyrant that ever sat, by chance, upon a throne.
There must be some mistake. I cannot believe that an infinite
Intelligence appeared to Moses upon Mount Sinai having with him a
variety of patterns for making a tabernacle, tongs, snuffers and dishes.
Neither can I believe that God told Moses how to cut and trim a coat for
a priest. Why should a God care about such things? Why should he insist
on having buttons sewed in certain rows, and fringes of a certain color?
Suppose an intelligent civilized man was to overhear, on Mount Sinai,
the following instructions from God to Moses:--

"You must consecrate my priests as follows:--You must kill a bullock
for a sin offering, and have Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the
head of the bullock. Then you must take the blood and put it upon the
horns of the altar round about with your finger, and pour some blood at
the bottom of the altar to make a reconciliation; and of the fat that
is upon the inwards, the caul above the liver and two kidneys, and
their fat, and burn them upon the altar. You must get a ram for a burnt
offering, and Aaron and his sons must lay their hands upon the head of
the ram. Then you must kill it and sprinkle the blood upon the altar,
and cut the ram into pieces, and burn the head, and the pieces, and the
fat, and wash the inwards and the lungs in water and then burn the whole
ram upon the altar for a sweet savor unto me. Then you must get another
ram, and have Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the head of that,
then kill it and take of its blood, and put it on the top of Aaron s
right ear, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the great toe of
his right foot. And you must also put a little of the blood upon the
top of the right ears of Aaron's sons, and on the thumbs of their right
hands and on the great toes of their right feet. And then you must take
of the fat that is on the inwards, and the caul above the liver and the
two kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder, and out of a basket
of unleavened bread you must take one unleavened cake and another of oil
bread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat of the right shoulder. And
you must take of the anointing oil, and of the blood, and sprinkle it on
Aaron, and on his garments, and on his sons garments, and sanctify
them and all their clothes."--Do you believe that he would have even
suspected that the creator of the universe was talking?

Can any one now tell why God commanded the Jews, when they were upon the
desert of Sinai, to plant trees, telling them at the same time that they
must not eat any of the fruit of such trees until after the fourth year?
Trees could not have been planted in that desert, and if they had been,
they could not have lived. Why did God tell Moses, while in the desert,
to make curtains of fine linen? Where could he have obtained his flax?
There was no land upon which it could have been produced. Why did he
tell him to make things of gold, and silver, and precious stones, when
they could not have been in possession of these things? There is but one
answer, and that is, the Pentateuch was written hundreds of years after
the Jews had settled in the Holy Land, and hundreds of years after Moses
was dust and ashes.

When the Jews had a written language, and that must have been long after
their flight from Egypt, they wrote out their history and their laws.
Tradition had filled the infancy of the nation with miracles and special
interpositions in their behalf by Jehovah. Patriotism would not allow
these wonders to grow small, and priestcraft never denied a miracle.
There were traditions to the effect that God had spoken face to face
with Moses; that he had given him the tables of the law, and had, in a
thousand ways, made known his will; and whenever the priests wished to
make new laws, or amend old ones, they pretended to have found something
more that God said to Moses at Sinai. In this way obedience was more
easily secured. Only a very few of the people could read, and, as a
consequence, additions, interpolations and erasures had no fear of
detection. In this way we account for the fact that Moses is made to
speak of things that did not exist in his day, and were unknown for
hundreds of years after his death.

In the thirtieth chapter of Exodus, we are told that the people, when
numbered, must give each one a half shekel after the shekel of the
_sanctuary_. At that time no such money existed, and consequently the
account could not, by any possibility, have been written until after
there was a shekel of the sanctuary, and there was no such thing until
long after the death of Moses. If we should read that Cæsar paid his
troops in pounds, shillings and pence, we would certainly know that the
account was not written by Cæsar, nor in his time, but we would know
that it was written after the English had given these names to certain
coins.

So, we find, that when the Jews were upon the desert it was commanded
that every mother should bring, as a sin offering, a couple of doves to
the priests, and the priests were compelled to eat these doves in the
most holy place. At the time this law appears to have been given, there
were three million people, and only three priests, Aaron, Eleazer and
Ithamar. Among three million people there would be, at least, three
hundred births a day. Certainly we are not expected to believe that
these three priests devoured six hundred pigeons every twenty-four
hours.

Why should a woman ask pardon of God for having been a mother? Why
should that be considered a crime in Exodus, which is commanded as a
duty in Genesis? Why should a mother be declared unclean? Why should
giving birth to a daughter be regarded twice as criminal as giving birth
to a son? Can we believe that such laws and ceremonies were made and
instituted by a merciful and intelligent God? If there is anything in
this poor world suggestive of, and standing for, all that is sweet,
loving and pure, it is a mother holding in her thrilled and happy arms
her prattling babe. Read the twelfth chapter of Leviticus, and you will
see that when a woman became the mother of a boy she was so unclean
that she was not allowed to touch a hallowed thing, nor to enter the
sanctuary for forty days. If the babe was a girl, then the mother was
unfit for eighty days, to enter the house of God, or to touch the sacred
tongs and snuffers. These laws, born of barbarism, are unworthy of our
day, and should be regarded simply as the mistakes of savages.

Just as low in the scale of intelligence are the directions given in the
fifth chapter of Numbers, for the trial of a wife of whom the husband
was jealous. This foolish chapter has been the foundation of all appeals
to God for the ascertainment of facts, such as the corsned, trial by
battle, by water, and by fire, the last of which is our judicial oath.
It is very easy to believe that in those days a guilty woman would
be afraid to drink the water of jealousy and take the oath, and that,
through fear, she might be made to confess. Admitting that the deception
tended not only to prevent crime, but to discover it when committed,
still, we cannot admit that an honest god would, for any purpose, resort
to dishonest means. In all countries fear is employed as a means of
getting at the truth, and in this there is nothing dishonest, provided
falsehood is not resorted to for the purpose of producing the fear.
Protestants laugh at catholics because of their belief in the efficacy
of holy water, and yet they teach their children that a little holy
water, in which had been thrown some dust from the floor of the
sanctuary, would work a miracle in a woman's flesh. For hundreds of
years our fathers believed that a perjurer could not swallow a piece of
sacramental bread. Such stories belong to the childhood of our race, and
are now believed only by mental infants and intellectual babes.

I cannot believe that Moses had in his hands a couple of tables of
stone, upon which God had written the ten commandments, and that when he
saw the golden calf, and the dancing, that he dashed the tables to the
earth and broke them in pieces. Neither do I believe that Moses took a
golden calf, burnt it, ground it to powder, and made the people drink it
with water, as related in the thirty-second chapter of Exodus.

There is another account of the giving of the ten commandments to Moses,
in the nineteenth and twentieth chapters of Exodus. In this account not
one word is said about the people having made a golden calf, nor about
the breaking of the tables of stone. In the thirty-fourth chapter of
Exodus, there is an account of the renewal of the broken tables of
the law, and the commandments are given, but they are not the same
commandments mentioned in the twentieth chapter. There are two accounts
of the same transaction. Both of these stories cannot be true, and yet
both must be believed. Any one who will take the trouble to read
the nineteenth and twentieth chapters, and the last verse of the
thirty-first chapter, the thirty-second, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth
chapters of Exodus, will be compelled to admit that both accounts cannot
be true.

From the last account it appears that while Moses was upon Mount Sinai
receiving the commandments from God, the people brought their jewelry
to Aaron, and he cast for them a golden calf. This happened before any
commandment against idolatry had been given. A god ought, certainly,
to publish his laws before inflicting penalties for their violation. To
inflict punishment for breaking unknown and unpublished laws is, in
the last degree, cruel and unjust. It may be replied that the Jews knew
better than to worship idols, before the law was given. If this is so,
why should the law have been given? In all civilized countries, laws are
made and promulgated, not simply for the purpose of informing the people
as to what is right and wrong, but to inform them of the penalties to be
visited upon those who violate the laws. When the ten commandments
were given, no penalties were attached. Not one word was written on
the tables of stone as to the punishments that would be inflicted for
breaking any or all of the inspired laws. The people should not have
been punished for violating a commandment before it was given. And yet,
in this case, Moses commanded the sons of Levi to take their swords and
slay every man his brother, his companion, and his neighbor. The brutal
order was obeyed, and three thousand men were butchered. The Levites
consecrated themselves unto the Lord by murdering their sons, and their
brothers, for having violated a commandment before it had been given.

It has been contended for many years that the ten commandments are the
foundation of all ideas of justice and of law. Eminent jurists have
bowed to popular prejudice, and deformed their works by statements to
the effect that the Mosaic laws are the fountains from which sprang all
ideas of right and wrong. Nothing can be more stupidly false than such
assertions. Thousands of years before Moses was born, the Egyptians
had a code of laws. They had laws against blasphemy, murder, adultery,
larceny, perjury, laws for the collection of debts, the enforcement
of contracts, the ascertainment of damages, the redemption of property
pawned, and upon nearly every subject of human interest. The Egyptian
code was far better than the Mosaic.

Laws spring from the instinct of self-preservation, Industry objected
to supporting idleness, and laws were made against theft. Laws were made
against murder, because a very large majority of the people have always
objected to being murdered. All fundamental laws were born simply of the
instinct of self-defence. Long before the Jewish savages assembled at
the foot of Sinai, laws had been made and enforced, not only in Egypt
and India, but by every tribe that ever existed.

It is impossible for human beings to exist together, without certain
rules of conduct, certain ideas of the proper and improper, of the right
and wrong, growing out of the relation. Certain rules must be made,
and must be enforced. This implies law, trial and punishment. Whoever
produces anything by weary labor, does not need a revelation from heaven
to teach him that he has a right to the thing produced. Not one of
the learned gentlemen who pretend that the Mosaic laws are filled with
justice and intelligence, would live, for a moment, in any country where
such laws were in force.

Nothing can be more wonderful than the medical ideas of Jehovah. He
had the strangest notions about the cause and cure of disease. With
him everything was miracle and wonder. In the fourteenth chapter of
Leviticus, we find the law for cleansing a leper:--"Then shall the
priest take for him that is to be cleansed, two birds, alive and clean,
and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest shall command
that one of the birds be killed in an _earthen_ vessel, over _running_
water. As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and
the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them, and the living bird,
in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. And he
shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, seven
times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird
loose into the open field."

We are told that God himself gave these directions to Moses. Does
anybody believe this? Why should the bird be killed in an _earthen_
vessel? Would the charm be broken if the vessel was of wood? Why over
_running_ water? What would be thought of a physician now, who would
give a prescription like that?

Is it not strange that God, although he gave hundreds of directions for
the purpose of discovering the presence of leprosy, and for cleansing
the leper after he was healed, forgot to tell how that disease could be
cured? Is it not wonderful that while God told his people what animals
were fit for food, he failed to give a list of plants that man might
eat? Why did he leave his children to find out the hurtful and the
poisonous by experiment, knowing that experiment, in millions of cases,
must be death?

When reading the history of the Jewish people, of their flight from
slavery to death, of their exchange of tyrants, I must confess that my
sympathies are all aroused in their behalf. They were cheated, deceived
and abused. Their god was quick-tempered unreasonable, cruel, revengeful
and dishonest. He was always promising but never performed. He wasted
time in ceremony and childish detail, and in the exaggeration of what
he had done. It is impossible for me to conceive of a character more
utterly detestable than that of the Hebrew god. He had solemnly promised
the Jews that he would take them from Egypt to a land flowing with
milk and honey. He had led them to believe that in a little while their
troubles would be over, and that they would soon in the land of Canaan,
surrounded by their wives and little ones, forget the stripes and tears
of Egypt. After promising the poor wanderers again and again that he
would lead them in safety to the promised land of joy and plenty, this
God, forgetting every promise, said to the wretches in his power:--"Your
carcasses shall fall in this wilderness and your children shall wander
until your carcasses be wasted." This curse was the conclusion of the
whole matter. Into this dust of death and night faded all the promises
of God. Into this rottenness of wandering despair fell all the dreams
of liberty and home. Millions of corpses were left to rot in the desert,
and each one certified to the dishonesty of Jehovah. I cannot believe
these things. They are so cruel and heartless, that my blood is chilled
and my sense of justice shocked. A book that is equally abhorrent to my
head and heart, cannot be accepted as a revelation from God.

When we think of the poor Jews, destroyed, murdered, bitten by serpents,
visited by plagues, decimated by famine, butchered by each, other,
swallowed by the earth, frightened, cursed, starved, deceived, robbed
and outraged, how thankful we should be that we are not the chosen
people of God. No wonder that they longed for the slavery of Egypt,
and remembered with sorrow the unhappy day when they exchanged masters.
Compared with Jehovah, Pharaoh was a benefactor, and the tyranny of
Egypt was freedom to those who suffered the liberty of God.

While reading the Pentateuch, I am filled with indignation, pity and
horror. Nothing can be sadder than the history of the starved and
frightened wretches who wandered over the desolate crags and sands of
wilderness and desert, the prey of famine, sword, and plague. Ignorant
and superstitious to the last degree, governed by falsehood, plundered
by hypocrisy, they were the sport of priests, and the food of fear. God
was their greatest enemy, and death their only friend.

It is impossible to conceive of a more thoroughly despicable, hateful,
and arrogant being, than the Jewish god. He is without a redeeming
feature. In the mythology of the world he has no parallel. He, only, is
never touched by agony and tears. He delights only in blood and pain.
Human affections are naught to him. He cares neither for love nor music,
beauty nor joy. A false friend, an unjust judge, a braggart, hypocrite,
and tyrant, sincere in hatred, jealous, vain, and revengeful, false in
promise, honest in curse, suspicious, ignorant, and changeable, infamous
and hideous:--such is the God of the Pentateuch.




XXIV. CONFESS AND AVOID

The scientific christians now admit that the bible is not inspired in
its astronomy, geology, botany, zoology, nor in any science. In other
words, they admit that on these subjects, the bible cannot be depended
upon. If all the statements in the scriptures were true, there would
be no necessity for admitting that some of them are not inspired. A
christian will not admit that a passage in the bible is uninspired,
until he is satisfied that it is untrue. Orthodoxy itself has at last
been compelled to say, that while a passage may be true and uninspired,
it cannot be inspired if false.

If the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy and geology when
the bible was introduced among them, as they do now, there never could
have been one believer in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of
the various parts of the bible had known as much about the sciences as
is now known by every intelligent man, the book never could have
been written. It was produced by ignorance, and has been believed and
defended by its author. It has lost power in the proportion that man
has gained knowledge. A few years ago, this book was appealed to in the
settlement of all scientific questions; but now, even the clergy
confess that in such matters, it has ceased to speak with the voice
of authority. For the establishment of facts, the word of man is now
considered far better than the word of God. In the world of science,
Jehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. All that God
told Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes
compared to the discoveries of Des Cartes, La Place, and Humboldt. In
matters of fact, the bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard.
Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years
ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the
bible. The tables have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring to
prove that the bible is not inconsistent with Science. The standard has
been changed.

For many ages, the christians contended that the bible, viewed simply as
a literary performance, was beyond all other books, and that man without
the assistance of God could not produce its equal. This claim was made
when but few books existed, and the bible, being the only book generally
known, had no rival. But this claim, like the other, has been abandoned
by many, and soon will be, by all. Compared with Shakespeare's "book
and volume of the brain," the "sacred" bible shrinks and seems as feebly
impotent and vain, as would a pipe of Pan, when some great organ, voiced
with every tone, from the hoarse thunder of the sea to the winged warble
of a mated bird, floods and fills cathedral aisles with all the wealth
of sound.

It is now maintained--and this appears to be the last fortification
behind which the doctrine of inspiration skulks and crouches--that the
bible, although false and mistaken in its astronomy, geology, geography,
history and philosophy, is inspired in its morality. It is now claimed
that had it not been for this book, the world would have been inhabited
only by savages, and that had it not been for the holy scriptures, man
never would have even dreamed of the unity of God. A belief in one God
is claimed to be a dogma of almost infinite importance, that without
this belief civilization is impossible, and that this fact is the sun
around which all the virtues revolve, For my part, I think it infinitely
more important to believe in man. Theology is a superstition--Humanity a
religion.




XXV. "INSPIRED" SLAVERY

Perhaps the bible was inspired upon the subject of human slavery. Is
there, in the civilized world, today, a clergyman who believes in the
divinity of slavery? Does the bible teach man to enslave his brother? If
it does, is it not blasphemous to say that it is inspired of God? If
you find the institution of slavery upheld in a book said to have been
written by God, what would you expect to find in a book inspired by the
devil? Would you expect to find that book in favor of liberty? Modern
christians, ashamed of the God of the Old Testament, endeavor now to
show that slavery was neither commanded nor opposed by Jehovah. Nothing
can be plainer than the following passages from the twenty-fifth chapter
of Leviticus. "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn
among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with
you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to
inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-men forever. Both
thy bond-men, and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of
the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bond-men, and
bond-maids."

Can we believe in this, the Nineteenth Century, that these infamous
passages were inspired by God? that God approved not only of human
slavery, but instructed his chosen people to buy the women, children and
babes of the heathen round about them? If it was right for the Hebrews
to buy, it was also right for the heathen to sell. This God, by
commanding the Hebrews to buy, approved of the selling of sons and
daughters. The Canaanite who, tempted by gold, lured by avarice, sold
from the arms of his wife the dimpled babe, simply made it possible for
the Hebrews to obey the orders of their God. If God is the author of
the bible, the reading of these passages ought to cover his cheeks with
shame. I ask the christian world to-day, was it right for the heathen
to sell their children? Was it right for God not only to uphold, but to
command the infamous traffic in human flesh? Could the most revengeful
fiend, the most malicious vagrant in the gloom of hell, sink to a lower
moral depth than this?

According to this God, his chosen people were not only commanded to buy
of the heathen round about them, but were also permitted to buy each
other for a term of years. The law governing the purchase of Jews is
laid down in the twenty-first chapter of Exodus. "If thou buy a Hebrew
servant, six years shall he serve: and in the seventh he shall go out
free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself:
if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master
have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the
wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by
himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my
wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall
bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto
the door-post: and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl:
and he shall serve him forever."

Do you believe that God was the author of this infamous law? Do you
believe that the loving father of us all, turned the dimpled arms of
babes into manacles of iron? Do you believe that he baited the dungeon
of servitude with wife and child? Is it possible to love a God who would
make such laws? Is it possible not to hate and despise him?

The heathen are not spoken of as human beings. Their rights are never
mentioned. They were the rightful food of the sword, and their bodies
were made for stripes and chains.

In the same chapter of the same inspired book, we are told that, "if a
man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he dies under his
hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day
or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money."

Must we believe that God called some of his children the money of
others? Can we believe that God made lashes upon the naked back, a
legal tender for labor performed? Must we regard the auction block as an
altar? Were blood hounds apostles? Was the slave-pen a temple? Were the
stealers and whippers of babes and women the justified children of God?

It is now contended that while the Old Testament is touched with the
barbarism of its time, that the New Testament is morally perfect, and
that on its pages can be found no blot or stain. As a matter of fact,
the New Testament is more decidedly in favor of human slavery than the
old.

For my part, I never will, I never can, worship a God who upholds the
institution of slavery. Such a God I hate and defy. I neither want his
heaven, nor fear his hell.




XXVI. "INSPIRED" MARRIAGE

Is there an orthodox clergyman in the world, who will now declare that
he believes the institution of polygamy to be right? Is there one who
will publicly declare that, in his judgment, that institution ever was
right? Was there ever a time in the history of the world when it was
right to treat woman simply as property? Do not attempt to answer these
questions by saying, that the bible is an exceedingly good book, that we
are indebted for our civilization to the sacred volume, and that without
it, man would lapse into savagery, and mental night. This is no answer.
Was there a time when the institution of polygamy was the highest
expression of human virtue? Is there a christian woman, civilized,
intelligent, and free, who believes in the institution of polygamy? Are
we better, purer, and more intelligent than God was four thousand years
ago? Why should we imprison Mormons, and worship God? Polygamy is just
as pure in Utah, as it could have been in the promised land. Love and
Virtue are the same the whole world round, and Justice is the same in
every star. All the languages of the world are not sufficient to express
the filth of polygamy. It makes of man, a beast, of woman, a trembling
slave. It destroys the fireside, makes virtue an outcast, takes from
human speech its sweetest words, and leaves the heart a den, where crawl
and hiss the slimy serpents of most loathsome lust. Civilization rests
upon the family. The good family is the unit of good government. The
virtues grow about the holy hearth of home--they cluster, bloom, and
shed their perfume round the fireside where the one man loves the one
woman. Lover--husband--wife--mother--father--child--home!--without these
sacred words, the world is but a lair, and men and women merely beasts.

Why should the innocent maiden and the loving mother worship the
heartless Jewish God? Why should they, with pure and stainless lips,
read the vile record of inspired lust?

The marriage of the one man to the one woman is the citadel and fortress
of civilization. Without this, woman becomes the prey and slave of lust
and power, and man goes back to savagery and crime. From the bottom of
my heart I hate, abhor and execrate all theories of life, of which the
pure and sacred home is not the corner-stone. Take from the world the
family, the fireside, the children born of wedded love, and there is
nothing left. The home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily with
a heart of fire--the fairest flower in all the world.




XXVII. "INSPIRED" WAR

If the bible be true, God commanded his chosen people to destroy men
simply for the crime of defending their native land. They were not
allowed to spare trembling and white-haired age, nor dimpled babes
clasped in the mothers' arms. They were ordered to kill women, and to
pierce, with the sword of war, the unborn child. "Our heavenly Father"
commanded the Hebrews to kill the men and women, the fathers, sons and
brothers, but to preserve the girls alive. Why were not the maidens also
killed? Why were they spared? Read the thirty-first chapter of Numbers,
and you will find that the maidens were given to the soldiers and the
priests. Is there, in all the history of war, a more infamous thing than
this? Is it possible that God permitted the violets of modesty, that
grow and shed their perfume in the maiden's heart, to be trampled
beneath the brutal feet of lust? If this was the order of God, what,
under the same circumstances, would have been the command of a devil?
When, in this age of the world, a woman, a wife, a mother, reads this
record, she should, with scorn and loathing, throw the book away. A
general, who now should make such an order, giving over to massacre
and rapine a conquered people, would be held in execration by the whole
civilized world. Yet, if the bible be true, the supreme and infinite God
was once a savage.

A little while ago, out upon the western plains, in a little path
leading to a cabin, were found the bodies of two children and their
mother. Her breast was filled with wounds received in the defence of her
darlings. They had been murdered by the savages. Suppose when looking at
their lifeless forms, some one had said, "This was done by the command
of God!" In Canaan there were countless scenes like this. There was
no pity in inspired war. God raised the black flag, and commanded his
soldiers to kill even the smiling infant in its mother's arms. Who
is the blasphemer; the man who denies the existence of God, or he who
covers the robes of the Infinite with innocent blood?

We are told in the Pentateuch, that God, the father of us all, gave
thousands of maidens, after having killed their fathers, their mothers,
and their brothers, to satisfy the brutal lusts of savage men. If there
be a God, I pray him to write in his book, opposite my name, that I
denied this lie for him.




XXVIII. "INSPIRED" RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

According to the bible, God selected the Jewish people through whom to
make known the great fact, that he was the only true and living God. For
this purpose, he appeared on several occasions to Moses--came down to
Sinai's top clothed in cloud and fire, and wrought a thousand miracles
for the preservation and education of the Jewish people. In their
presence he opened the waters of the sea. For them he caused bread to
rain from heaven. To quench their thirst, water leaped from the dry and
barren rock. Their enemies were miraculously destroyed; and for forty
years, at least, this God took upon himself the government of the Jews.
But, after all this, many of the people had less confidence in him
than in gods of wood and stone. In moments of trouble, in periods of
disaster, in the darkness of doubt, in the hunger and thirst of famine,
instead of asking this God for aid, they turned and sought the help of
senseless things. This God, with all his power and wisdom, could not
even convince a few wandering and wretched savages that he was more
potent than the idols of Egypt. This God was not willing that the Jews
should think and investigate for themselves. For heresy, the penalty
was death. Where this God reigned, intellectual liberty was unknown. He
appealed only to brute force; he collected taxes by threatening
plagues; he demanded worship on pain of sword and fire; acting as spy,
inquisitor, judge and executioner.

In the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, we have the ideas of God as to
mental freedom. "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or
the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice
thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast
not known, thou nor thy fathers; _namely_ of the gods of the people
which are around about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from
the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth, Thou
shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine
eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare him, neither shalt thou conceal
him. But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him
to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And thou
shalt stone him with stones that he die."

This is the religious liberty of God; the toleration of Jehovah. If
I had lived in Palestine at that time, and my wife, the mother of my
children, had said to me, "I am tired of Jehovah, he is always asking
for blood; he is never weary of killing; he is always telling of his
might and strength; always telling what he has done for the Jews,
always asking for sacrifices; for doves and lambs--blood, nothing
but blood.--Let us worship the sun. Jehovah is too revengeful, too
malignant, too exacting. Let us worship the sun. The sun has clothed the
world in beauty; it has covered the earth with flowers; by its divine
light I first saw your face, and my beautiful babe."--If I had obeyed
the command of God, I would have killed her. My hand would have been
first upon her, and after that the hands of all the people, and she
would have been stoned with stones until she died. For my part, I would
never kill my wife, even if commanded so to do by the real God of this
universe. Think of taking up some ragged rock and hurling it against the
white bosom filled with love for you; and when you saw oozing from
the bruised lips of the death wound, the red current of her sweet
life--think of looking up to heaven and receiving the congratulations of
the infinite fiend whose commandment you had obeyed!

Can we believe that any such command was ever given by a merciful and
intelligent God? Suppose, however, that God did give this law to the
Jews, and did tell them that whenever a man preached a heresy, or
proposed to worship any other god that they should kill him; and suppose
that afterward this same God took upon himself flesh, and came to this
very chosen people and taught a different religion, and that thereupon
the Jews crucified him; I ask you, did he not reap exactly what he
had sown? What right would this God have to complain of a crucifixion
suffered in accordance with his own command?

Nothing can be more infamous than intellectual tyranny. To put chains
upon the body is as nothing compared with putting shackles on the brain.
No god is entitled to the worship or the respect of man who does not
give, even to the meanest of his children, every right that he claims
for himself.

If the Pentateuch be true, religious persecution is a duty. The dungeons
of the Inquisition were temples, and the clank of every chain upon
the limbs of heresy was music in the ear of God. If the Pentateuch was
inspired, every heretic should be destroyed; and every man who advocates
a fact inconsistent with the sacred book, should be consumed by sword
and flame.

In the Old Testament no one is told to reason with a heretic, and not
one word is said about relying upon argument, upon education, nor upon
intellectual development--nothing except simple brute force. Is there
to-day a christian who will say that four thousand years ago, it was
the duty of a husband to kill his wife if she differed with him upon
the subject of religion? Is there one who will now say that, under such
circumstances, the wife ought to have been killed? Why should God be so
jealous of the wooden idols of the heathen? Could he not compete with
Baal? Was he envious of the success of the Egyptian magicians? Was it
not possible for him to make such a convincing display of his power as
to silence forever the voice of unbelief? Did this God have to resort to
force to make converts? Was he so ignorant of the structure of the human
mind as to believe all honest doubt a crime? If he wished to do away
with the idolatry of the Canaanites, why did he not appear to them? Why
did he not give them the tables of the law? Why did he only make known
his will to a few wandering savages in the desert of Sinai? Will some
theologian have the kindness to answer these questions? Will some
minister, who now believes in religious liberty, and eloquently
denounces the intolerance of Catholicism, explain these things; will he
tell us why he worships an intolerant God? Is a god who will burn a soul
forever in another world, better than a christian who burns the body for
a few hours in this? Is there no intellectual liberty in heaven? Do the
angels all discuss questions on the same side? Are all the investigators
in perdition? Will the penitent thief, winged and crowned, laugh at the
honest folks in hell? Will the agony of the damned increase or decrease
the happiness of God? Will there be, in the universe, an eternal _auto
da fe?_




XXIX. CONCLUSION

If the Pentateuch is not inspired in its astronomy, geology, geography,
history or philosophy, if it is not inspired concerning slavery,
polygamy, war, law, religious or political liberty, or the rights of
men, women and children, what is it inspired in, or about? The unity
of God?--that was believed long before Moses was born. Special
providence?--that has been the doctrine of ignorance in all ages.
The rights of property?--theft was always a crime. The sacrifice of
animals?--that was a custom thousands of years before a Jew existed.
The sacredness of life?--there have always been laws against murder.
The wickedness of perjury?--truthfulness has always been a virtue.
The beauty of chastity?--the Pentateuch does not teach it. Thou shalt
worship no other God?--that has been the burden of all religions.

Is it possible that the Pentateuch could not have been written by
uninspired men? that the assistance of God was necessary to produce
these books? Is it possible that Galileo ascertained the mechanical
principles of "Virtual Velocity," the laws of falling bodies and of all
motion; that Copernicus ascertained the true position of the earth and
accounted for all celestial phenomena; that Kepler discovered his three
laws--discoveries of such importance that the 8th of May, 1618, may be
called the birth-day of modern science; that Newton gave to the world
the Method of Fluxions, the Theory of Universal Gravitation, and
the Decomposition of Light; that Euclid, Cavalieri, Des Cartes, and
Leibnitz, almost completed the science of mathematics; that all the
discoveries in optics, hydrostatics, pneumatics and chemistry, the
experiments, discoveries, and inventions of Galvani, Volta, Franklin
and Morse, of Trevethick, Watt and Fulton and of all the pioneers of
progress--that all this was accomplished by uninspired men, while the
writer of the Pentateuch was directed and inspired by an infinite God?
Is it possible that the codes of China, India, Egypt, Greece and Rome
were made by man, and that the laws recorded in the Pentateuch were
alone given by God? Is it possible that Æschylus and Shakespeare, Burns,
and Beranger, Goethe and Schiller, and all the poets of the world, and
all their wondrous tragedies and songs are but the work of men, while
no intelligence except the infinite God could be the author of the
Pentateuch? Is it possible that of all the books that crowd the
libraries of the world, the books of science, fiction, history and song,
that all save only one, have been produced by man? Is it possible that
of all these, the bible only is the work of God?

If the Pentateuch is inspired, the civilization of of our day is a
mistake and crime. There should be no political liberty. Heresy should
be trodden out beneath the bigot's brutal feet. Husbands should divorce
their wives at will, and make the mothers of their children houseless
and weeping wanderers. Polygamy ought to be practiced; women should
become slaves; we should buy the sons and daughters of the heathen and
make them bondmen and bondwomen forever. We should sell our own flesh
and blood, and have the right to kill our slaves. Men and women should
be stoned to death for laboring on the seventh day. "Mediums," such
as have familiar spirits, should be burned with fire. Every vestige of
mental liberty should be destroyed, and reason's holy torch extinguished
in the martyr's blood.

Is it not far better and wiser to say that the Pentateuch while
containing some good laws, some truths, some wise and useful things is,
after all, deformed and blackened by the savagery of its time? Is it not
far better and wiser to take the good and throw the bad away?

Let us admit what we know to be true; that Moses was mistaken about a
thousand things; that the story of creation is not true; that the garden
of Eden is a myth; that the serpent and the tree of knowledge, and the
fall of man are but fragments of old mythologies lost and dead; that
woman was not made out of a rib; that serpents never had the power of
speech; that the sons of God did not marry the daughters of men; that
the story of the flood and ark is not exactly true; that the tower of
Babel is a mistake; that the confusion of tongues is a childish thing;
that the origin of the rainbow is a foolish fancy; that Methuselah did
not live nine hundred and sixty-nine years; that Enoch did not leave
this world, taking with him his flesh and bones; that the story of Sodom
and Gomorrah is somewhat improbable; that burning brimstone never fell
like rain; that Lot's wife was not changed into chloride of sodium; that
Jacob did not, in fact, put his hip out of joint wrestling with God;
that the history of Tamar might just as well have been left out; that a
belief in Pharaoh's dreams is not essential to salvation; that it makes
but little difference whether the rod of Aaron was changed to a serpent
or not; that of all the wonders said to have been performed in Egypt,
the greatest is, that anybody ever believed the absurd account; that
God did not torment the innocent cattle on account of the sins of their
owners; that he did not kill the first born of the poor maid behind
the mill because of Pharaoh's crimes; that flies and frogs were not
ministers of God's wrath; that lice and locusts were not the executors
of his will; that seventy people did not, in two hundred and fifteen
years, increase to three million; that three priests could not eat
six hundred pigeons in a day; that gazing at a brass serpent could not
extract poison from the blood; that God did not go in partnership with
hornets; that he did not murder people simply because they asked for
something to eat; that he did not declare the making of hair oil
and ointment an offence to be punished with death; that he did not
miraculously preserve cloth and leather; that he was not afraid of wild
beasts; that he did not punish heresy with sword and fire; that he was
not jealous, revengeful, and unjust; that he knew all about the sun,
moon, and stars; that he did not threaten to kill people for eating the
fat of an ox; that he never told Aaron to draw cuts to see which of two
goats should be killed; that he never objected to clothes made of woolen
mixed with linen; that if he objected to dwarfs, people with flat noses
and too many fingers, he ought not to have created such folks; that
he did not demand human sacrifices as set forth in the last chapter
of Leviticus; that he did not object to the raising of horses; that he
never commanded widows to spit in the faces of their brothers-in-law;
that several contradictory accounts of the same transaction cannot all
be true; that God did not talk to Abraham as one man talks to another;
that angels were not in the habit of walking about the earth eating veal
dressed with milk and butter, and making bargains about the destruction
of cities; that God never turned himself into a flame of fire, and lived
in a bush; that he never met Moses in a hotel and tried to kill him;
that it was absurd to perform miracles to induce a king to act in a
certain way and then harden his heart so that he would refuse; that God
was not kept from killing the Jews by the fear that the Egyptians would
laugh at him; that he did not secretly bury a man and then allow the
corpse to write an account of the funeral; that he never believed the
firmament to be solid; that he knew slavery was and always would be a
frightful crime; that polygamy is but stench and filth; that the brave
soldier will always spare an unarmed foe; that only cruel cowards
slay the conquered and the helpless; that no language can describe the
murderer of a smiling babe; that God did not want the blood of doves and
lambs; that he did not love the smell of burning flesh; that he did not
want his altars daubed with blood; that he did not pretend that the sins
of a people could be transferred to a goat; that he did not believe in
witches, wizards, spooks, and devils; that he did not test the virtue of
woman with dirty water; that he did not suppose that rabbits chewed the
cud; that he never thought there were any four-footed birds; that he did
not boast for several hundred years that he had vanquished an Egyptian
king; that a dry stick did not bud, blossom, and bear almonds in one
night; that manna did not shrink and swell, so that each man could
gather only just one omer; that it was never wrong to "countenance the
poor man in his cause;" that God never told a people not to live in
peace with their neighbors; that he did not spend forty days with Moses
on Mount Sinai giving him patterns for making clothes, tongs, basins,
and snuffers; that maternity is not a sin; that physical deformity is
not a crime; that an atonement cannot be made for the soul by shedding
innocent blood; that killing a dove over running water will not make its
blood a medicine; that a god who demands love knows nothing of the human
heart; that one who frightens savages with loud noises is unworthy the
love of civilized men; that one who destroys children on account of
the sins of their fathers is a monster; that an infinite god never
threatened to give people the itch; that he never sent wild beasts to
devour babes; that he never ordered the violation of maidens; that
he never regarded patriotism as a crime; that he never ordered the
destruction of unborn children; that he never opened the earth and
swallowed wives and babes because husbands and fathers had displeased
him; that he never demanded that men should kill their sons and
brothers, for the purpose of sanctifying themselves; that we cannot
please God by believing the improbable; that credulity is not a virtue;
that investigation is not a crime; that every mind should be free;
that all religious persecution is infamous in God, as well as man; that
without liberty, virtue is impossible; that without freedom, even love
cannot exist; that every man should be allowed to think and to express
his thoughts; that woman is the equal of man; that children should be
governed by love and reason; that the family relation is sacred; that
war is a hideous crime; that all intolerance is born of ignorance and
hate; that the freedom of today is the hope of to-morrow; that the
enlightened present ought not to fall upon its knees and blindly worship
the barbaric past; and that every free, brave and enlightened man should
publicly declare that all the ignorant, infamous, heartless, hideous
things recorded in the "inspired" Pentateuch are not the words of God,
but simply "Some Mistakes of Moses."





A TRIBUTE

TO

Ebon C. ingersoll,

BY HIS BROTHER

Robert.

Dec. 12, 1831. MAY 31, 1879.

A Tribute to Ebon C. Ingersoll,

By his Brother Robert.

THE RECORD OF A GENEROUS LIFE RUNS LIKE A VINE AROUND THE MEMORY OF OUR
DEAD, AND EVERY SWEET, UNSELFISH ACT IS NOW A PERFUMED FLOWER.

Dear Friends: I am going to do that which the dead oft promised he would
do for me.

The loved and loving brother, husband, father, friend, died where
manhood's morning almost touches noon, and while the shadows still were
falling toward the west.

He had not passed on life's highway the stone that marks the highest
point; but, being weary for a moment, he lay down by the wayside, and,
using his burden for a pillow, fell into that dreamless sleep that
kisses down his eyelids still. While yet in love with life and raptured
with the world, he passed to silence and pathetic dust.

Yet, after all, it may be best, just in the happiest, sunniest hour
of all the voyage, while eager winds are kissing every sail, to dash
against the unseen rock, and in an instant hear the billows roar above a
sunken ship. For whether in mid sea or 'mong the breakers of the farther
shore, a wreck at last must mark the end of each and all. And every
life, no matter if its every hour is rich with love and every moment
jeweled with a joy, will, at its close, become a tragedy as sad and deep
and dark as can be woven of the warp and woof of mystery and death.

This brave and tender man in every storm of life was oak and rock; but
in the sunshine he was vine and flower. He was the friend of all heroic
souls. He climbed the heights, and left all superstitions far below,
while on his forehead fell the golden dawning, of the grander day.

He loved the beautiful, and was with color, form, and music touched to
tears. He sided with the weak, the poor, and wronged, and lovingly
gave alms. With loyal heart and with the purest hands he faithfully
discharged all public trusts.

He was a worshipper of liberty, a friend of the oppressed. A thousand
times I have heard him quote these words: "_For Justice all place a
temple, and all season, summer!_" He believed that happiness was the
only good, reason the only torch, justice the only worship, humanity the
only religion, and love the only priest. He added to the sum of human
joy; and were every one to whom he did some loving service to bring a
blossom to his grave, he would sleep to-night beneath a wilderness of
flowers.

Life is a narrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of two
eternities. We strive in vain to look beyond the heights. We cry aloud,
and the only answer is the echo of our wailing cry. From the voiceless
lips of the unreplying dead there comes no word; but in the night of
death hope sees a star and listening love can hear the rustle of a wing.

He who sleeps here, when dying, mistaking the approach of death for the
return of health, whispered with his latest breath, "I am better now."
Let us believe, in spite of doubts and dogmas, of fears and tears, that
these dear words are true of all the countless dead.

And now, to you, who have been chosen, from among the many men he loved,
to do the last sad office for the dead, we give his sacred dust.

Speech cannot contain our love. There was, there is, no gentler,
stronger, manlier man.










End of Project Gutenberg's Mistakes of Moses, by Robert G. Ingersoll