ARGUMENT OF CELSUS AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS.

"THE Christians are accustomed to have private assemblies, which are forbidden by the law. For of assemblies some are public, and these are conformable to the law of the land; but others are secret, and these are such as are hostile to the laws; among which are the Love Feasts of the Christians *.
      * Why the Romans punished the Christians:

     "It is commonly regarded as a very curious and remarkable
     fact, that, although the Romans were disposed to tolerate
     every other religious sect, yet they frequently persecuted
     the Christians with unrelenting cruelty. This exception, so
     fatal to a peaceable and harmless sect, must have originated
     in circumstances which materially distin-...

"Men who irrationally assent to anything, resemble those who are delighted with jugglers and enchanters, &c. For as most of these are depraved characters, who deceive the vulgar, and persuade them to assent to whatever they please, this also takes place with the Christians. Some of these are not willing either to give or receive a reason for what they believe; but are accustomed to say, 'Do not investigate, but believe, your faith will save you.
     ...guished them from the votaries of every other religion. The
     causes and the pretexts of persecution may have varied at
     various periods; but there seems to have been one general
     cause which will readily be apprehended by those who are
     intimately acquainted with the Roman jurisprudence. From the
     most remote period of their history, the Romans had
     conceived extreme horror against all nocturnal meetings of a
     secret and mysterious nature. A law prohibiting nightly
     vigils in a temple has even been ascribed, perhaps with
     little probability, to the founder of their state. The laws
     of the twelve tables declared it a capital offence to attend
     nocturnal assemblies in the city. This, then, being the
     spirit of the law, it is obvious that the nocturnal meetings
     of the primitive Christians must have rendered them objects
     of peculiar suspicion, and exposed them to the animadversion
     of the magistrate. It was during the night that they usually
     held their most solemn and religious assemblies; for a
     practice which may be supposed to have arisen from their
     fears, seems to have been continued from the operation of
     other causes. Misunderstanding the purport of certain
     passages of Scripture, they were...

'For the wisdom of the world is bad, but folly is good*,'
"The world, according to Moses, was created at a certain time, and has from its commencement existed for a period far short of ten thousand years,—The world, however, is without a beginning; in consequence of which there have been from all eternity many conflagrations, and many deluges, among the latter of which the most recent is that of Deucalion**.
     ...led to imagine that the second advent, of which they lived
     in constant expectation, would take place during the night;
     and they were accustomed to celebrate nightly vigils at the
     tombs of the saints and martyrs. In this case, therefore,
     they incurred no penalties peculiar to the votaries of a new
     religion, but only such as equally attached to those who,
     professing the public religion of the state, were yet guilty
     of this undoubted violation of its laws."—Observations on
     the Study of the Civil Law, by Dr. Irving, Edin. 1820. p.
     11.

"It is not true that the primitive Christians held their assemblies in the night time to avoid the interruptions of the civil power: but the converse of that proposition is true in the utmost latitude; viz. that they met with molestations from that quarter, because their assemblies were nocturnal."—Elements of Civil Law, by Dr. Taylor, p. 579.
     * See Erasmus's Praise of Folly, towards the end.

     ** See on this subject the Tinusus of Plato.

"Goatherds and shepherds among the Jews, following Moses as their leader, and being allured by rustic deceptions, conceived that there is [only] one God.
"These goatherds and shepherds were of opinion that there is one God, whether they delight to call him the Most High, or Adonai, or Celestial, or Sabaoth, or to celebrate by any other name the fabricator of this world*; for they knew nothing farther. For it is of no consequence, whether the God who is above all things, is denominated, after the accustomed manner of the Greeks, Jupiter, or is called by any other name, such as that which is given to him by the Indians or Egyptians."
Celsus, assuming the person of a Jew, represents him as speaking to Jesus, and reprehending him for many things. And in the first place he reproaches him with feigning that he was born of a virgin; and says, that to his disgrace he was born in a Judaic village from a poor Jewess, who obtained the means
     * In the original there is nothing more than [—Greek—] i.
     e. this world; but it is necessary to read, conformably to
     the above translation, [—Greek—]. For the Jews did not
     celebrate the world, but the Maker of the world, by these
     names.

of subsistence by manual labour. He adds, That she was abandoned by her husband, who was a carpenter, because she had been found by him to have committed adultery. Hence, in consequence of being expelled by her husband, becoming an ignominious vagabond, she was secretly delivered of Jesus, who, through poverty being obliged to serve as a hireling in Egypt, learnt there certain arts for which the Egyptians are famous. Afterwards, returning from thence, he thought so highly of himself, on account of the possession of these [magical] arts, as to proclaim himself to be a God. Celsus also adds, That the mother of Jesus became pregnant with him through a soldier, whose name was Panthera*.
"Was therefore the mother of Jesus beautiful, and was God connected with her on account of her beauty, though he is not adapted to be in love with a corruptible body? Or is it not absurd to suppose that God would be enamoured of a woman who was neither fortunate nor of royal extraction, nor even scarcely known to her neighbours; and who was also hated and ejected by the carpenter her
     * The same thing is said of Jesus in a work called "The
     Gospel according to the Jews, or Toldoth Jesu." See Chap. I.
     and II. of that work.

husband, so as neither to be saved by her own credulity nor by divine power? These things, therefore, do not at all pertain to the kingdom of God."
Celsus, again personifying a Jew, says to Christ, "When you were washed by John, you say that the spectre of a bird flew to you from the air. But what witness worthy of belief saw this spectre? Or who heard a voice from heaven, adopting you for a son of God, except yourself, and some one of your associates, who was equally a partaker of your wickedness and punishment?
"Jesus having collected as his associates ten or eleven infamous men, consisting of the most wicked publicans and sailors, fled into different places, obtaining food with difficulty, and in a disgraceful manner."
Again, in the person of a Jew, Celsus says to Christ, "What occasion was there, while you were yet an infant, that you should be brought to Egypt, in order that you might not be slain? For it was not fit that a God should be afraid of death. But an angel came from heaven, ordering you and your associates to fly, lest being taken you should be put to death. For the great God [it seems] could not

preserve you, his own son, m your own country, but sent two angels on your account."
The same Jew in Celsus also adds, "Though we do not believe in the ancient fables, which ascribe a divine origin to Perseus, Amphion, Æacus, and Minos, yet at the same time their deeds are demonstrated to be mighty and admirable, and truly superhuman, in order that what is narrated of their origin may not appear to be improbable." But (speak-ing to Jesus) he says, "What beautiful or admirable thing have you said or done, though you was (sp) called upon in the temple to give some manifest sign that you were the son of God?"
Celsus, pretending not to disbelieve in the miracles ascribed to Christ, says to him, "Let us grant that these things were performed by you; but they are common with the works of enchanters, who promise to effect more wonderful deeds than these, and also with what those who have been taught by the Egyptians to perform in the middle of the forum for a few oboli; such as expelling dæmons from men, dissipating diseases by a puff, evocating the souls of heroes, exhibiting sumptuous suppers, and tables covered with food, which have no reality. These magicians also represent animals as moving, which are not in reality animals, but merely appear

to the imagination to be such.—Is it fit, therefore» that we should believe these men to be the sons of God, because they worked these wonders? Or ought we not rather to say, that these are the arts of depraved and unhappy men!"
Again the Jew says, "It is but recently, and as it were yesterday, since we punished Christ; and you, who are [in no respect superior to] keepers of oxen, have abandoned the laws of your ancestors and country. Why likewise do you begin from our sacred institutions, but afterwards in the progress [of your iniquity] despise them? For you have no other origin of your dogma, than our law. Many. other such persons also as Jesus was, may be seen by those who wish to be deceived. How too is it probable that we, who have declared to all men that a person would be sent by God as a punisher of the unjust, should treat him ignominiously, if such a person had appeared among us? Again: How can we think him to be a God, who, that I may omit other things, performed, as we learn, nothing that was promised? And when, being condemned by us, he was thought worthy of punishment, having concealed himself and fled, was most disgracefully made a prisoner; being betrayed by those whom he called his disciples? If, however, he was a God, it was not proper that he should either fly, or be led

away captive. And much less was it fit, that, being considered as a saviour and the son of the greatest God, and; also the messenger of this God, by his familiars and private associates, he should be deserted and betrayed by them. But what excellent general, who was the leader of many myriads of men, was ever betrayed by his soldiers? Indeed, this has not happened even to the chief of a band of robbers, though a man depraved, and the captain of men still more depraved than himself, when to his associates he appeared to be useful. But Christ, who was betrayed by those of whom he was the leader, though not as a good commander, nor in such a way as robbers would behave to their captain, could not obtain the benevolence of his deluded followers.—Many other things also, and such as are true, respecting Jesus might be adduced, though they are not committed to writing by his disciples; but these I willingly omit. His disciples also falsely pretended, that he foreknew and foretold every thing that happened to him.
"The disciples of Jesus, not being able to adduce any thing respecting him that was obviously manifest, falsely assert that he foreknew all things; and have written other things of a similar kind respecting lum. This, however, is just the same as if some one should assert that a certain person is a just

man, and notwithstanding this should show that he acted unjustly; that he is a pious man, and yet a murderer; and, though immortal, died; at the same time adding to all these assertions, that he had a foreknowledge of all things.
"These things Jesus said after he had previously declared that he was God, and it was entirely necessary that what he had predicted should take place. He therefore, though a God, induced his disciples and prophets, with whom he ate and drank, to become impious. It was, however, requisite that he should have been beneficial to all men, and particularly to his associates. No one likewise would think of betraying the man, of whose table he had been a partaker. But here the associate of the table of God became treacherous to him; God himself, which is still more absurd, making those who had been hospitably entertained by him to be his impious betrayers."
The Jew in Celsus also says, that "What is asserted by the Jewish prophets may be much more probably adapted to ten thousand other persons than to Jesus. Besides, the prophets say, that he who was to come would be a great and powerful king, and would be the lord of the whole earth, and of all nations and armies: but no one would

infer from such like symbols and rumours, and from such ignoble arguments, that Christ is the son of God.
"As the sun, which illuminates all other things, first shows himself [to be the cause of light], thus also it is fit that this should have been done by the son of God*. But the Christians argue sophistically, when they say that the son of God is the word itself. And the accusation is strengthened by this, that the word which was announced by the Christians to be the son of God, was not a pure and holy word, but a man who was most disgracefully punished and put to death.
"What illustrious deed did Jesus accomplish worthy of a God, who beholds from on high with contempt [the trifling pursuits of] men, and derides and considers as sport terrestrial events?
"Why too did not Jesus, if not before, yet now at least, [i. e. when he was brought before Pilate,] exhibit some divine indication respecting himself; liberate himself from this ignominy, and punish those
     * Celsus means that Christ should have given indubitable
     evidence, by his sayings, his deeds, and by all that
     happened to him, that he was the son of God.

who had insulted both him and his father? What kind of ichör also or blood dropped from his crucified body? was it,.....such as from the blest immortals flows?"*
The Jew in Celsus further adds: "Do you reproach us with this, O most faithful men, that we do not conceive Christ to be God, and that we do not accord with you in believing that he suffered these things for the benefit of mankind, in order that we also might despise punishment? Neither did he persuade any one while he lived, not even his own disciples, that he should be punished, and suffer as he did: nor did he exhibit himself [though a God] as one liberated from all evils.
"Certainly you Christians will not say, that Christ, when he found that he could not induce the inhabitants on the surface of the earth to believe in his doctrines, descended to the infernal regions, in order that he might persuade those that dwelt there. But if inventing absurd apologies by which you are ridiculously deceived, what should hinder others also, who have perished miserably, from being ranked among angels of a more divine order?"
     * See Iliad, V, ver. S40.

The Jew in Celsus further observes, on comparing Christ with robbers, "Some might in a similar manner unblushingly say of a robber and a homicide, who was punished for his crimes, that he was not a robber but a God; for he predicted to his associates that he should suffer what he did suffer.
"The disciples of Jesus, living with him, hearing his voice, and embracing his doctrines, when they saw that he was punished and put to death, neither died with nor for him, nor could be persuaded to despise punishment; but denied that they were his disciples. Why, therefore, do not you Christians [voluntarily] die with your master?"
The Jew in Celsus also says, that "Jesus made converts of ten sailors, and most abandoned publicans; but did not even persuade all these to embrace his doctrines.
"Is it not also absurd in the extreme, that so many should believe in the doctrines of Christ now he is dead, though he was not able to persuade any one [genuinely] while he was living?
"But the Christians will say, We believe Jesus to be the son of God, because he cured the lame and the blind, and, as you assert, raised the dead.

"O light and truth, which clearly proclaims in its own words, as you write, that other men, and these depraved and enchanters, will come among you, possessing similar miraculous powers! Christ also feigns that a certain being, whom he denominates Satan, will be the source of these nefarious characters: so that Christ himself does not deny that these arts possess nothing divine, and acknowledges that they are the works of depraved men. At the same time likewise, being compelled by truth, he discloses both the arts of others and his own. Is it not, therefore, a miserable thing, to consider, from the performance of the same deeds, this man to be a God, but others to be nothing more than enchanters? For why, employing his testimony, should we rather think those other workers of miracles to be more depraved than himself? Indeed Christ confesses that these arts are not indications of a divine nature, but of certain impostors, and perfectly wicked characters."
After this, the Jew in Celsus says to his fellow-citizens who believed in Jesus, as follows: "Let us grant you that Jesus predicted his resurrection: but how many others have employed such-like prodigies, in order by a fabulous narration to effect what they wished; persuading stupid auditors to believe in these miracles? Zamolxis among the

Scythians, who was a slave of Pythagoras, used this artifice; Pythagoras also himself, in Italy; and in Egypt, Rhampsinitus. For it is related of the latter that he played at dice with Ceres in Hades, and that he brought back with him as a gift from her a golden towel. Similar artifices were likewise employed by Orpheus among the Odryssians; by Protesilaus among the Thessalians; and by Hercules and Theseus in Tænarus. This, however, is to be considered,—whether any one who in reality died, ever rose again in the same body: unless you think that the narrations of others are fables,but that your catastrophe of the drama will be found to be either elegant or probable, respecting what was said by him who expired on the cross, and the earthquake, and the darkness, which then according to you ensued. To which may be added, that he who when living could not help himself, arose, as you say, after he was dead, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and his hands which had been perforated on the cross. But who was it that saw this? A furious woman, as you acknowledge, or some other of the same magical sect; or one who was under the delusion of dreams, and who voluntarily subjected himself to fallacious phantasms,—a thing which happens to myriads of the human race. Or, which is more probable, those who pretended to see this were such as wished to astonish others by

this prodigy, and, through a false narration of this kind, to give assistance to the frauds of other impostors.
"Is it to be believed that Christ, when he was alive, openly announced to all men what he was; but when it became requisite that he should procure a strong belief of his resurrection from the dead, he should only show himself secretly to one woman and to his associates?
"If also Christ wished to be concealed, why was a voice heard from heaven, proclaiming him to be the son of God? Or, if he did not wish to be concealed, why did he suffer punishment, and why did, he [ignominiously] die?"
The Jew in Celsus likewise adds, "These things therefore we have adduced to you from your own writings, than which we have employed no other testimony, for you yourselves are by them confuted. Besides, what God that ever appeared to men, did not procure belief that he was a God, particularly when he appeared to those who expected his advent? Or why was he not acknowledged by those, by whom he had been for a long time expected? We certainly hope for a resurrection in the body, and that we shall have eternal life. We

also believe that the paradigm and primary leader of this, will be he who is to be sent to us; and who will show that it is not impossible for God to raise any one with his body that he pleases."
After this, Celsus in his own person says, "The Christians and Jews most stupidly contend with each other, and this controversy of theirs about Christ differs in nothing from the proverb about the contention for the shadow of an ass*. There is also nothing venerable in the investigation of the Jews and Christians with each other; both of them believing that there was a certain prophecy from a divine spirit, that a saviour of the human race would appear on the earth, but disagreeing in their opinion whether he who was predicted had appeared or not.
"The Jews originating from the Egyptians deserted Egypt through sedition, at the same time despising the religion of the Egyptians. Hence the
     * This proverb is mentioned by Apuleius at the end of the
     Ninth Book of his Metamorphosis. There is also another Greek
     proverb mentioned by Menander, Plato, and many others,
     [—Greek—], concerning the shadow of an ass, which is said of
     those who are anxious to know things futile, frivolous, and
     entirely useless. These two proverbs Apuleius has merged
     into one.

same thing happened to the Christians afterwards, who abandoned the religion of the Jews, as to the Jews who revolted from the Egyptians; for the cause to both of their innovation was a seditious opposition to the common* and established rites of their country.
"The Christians at first, when they were few, had but one opinion; but when they became scattered through their multitude, they were again and again divided into sects, and each sect wished to have an establishment of its own. For this was what they desired to effect from the beginning.
"But after they were widely dispersed one sect opposed the other, nor did any thing remain common
to them except the name of Christians; and even this they were at the same time ashamed to leave as a common appellation: but as to other things, they were the ordinances of men of a different persuasion.
"What however is still more wonderful is this, that their doctrine may be [easily] confuted, as consisting of no hypothesis worthy of belief. But their
     * In the original  [—Greek—], but it is necessary to read,
     conformably to the above translation,  [—Greek—]

dissension among themselves, the advantage they derive from it, and their dread of those who are not of their belief, give stability to their faith.
"The Christians ridicule the Egyptians, though they indicated many and by no means contemptible things through enigmas, when they taught that honours should be paid to eternal ideas, and not, as it appears to the vulgar, to diurnal animals*." Celsus adds, that "The Christians stupidly introduce nothing more venerable than the goats and dogs of the Egyptians in their narrations respecting Jesus.
"What is said by a few who are considered as Christians, concerning the doctrine of Jesus and the precepts of Christianity, is not designed for the wiser, but for the more unlearned and ignorant part of mankind. For the following are their precepts: 'Let no one who is erudite accede to us, no one who is wise, no one who is prudent (for these things are thought by us to be evil); but let any one who is unlearned, who is stupid, who is an infant in understanding boldly come to us.' For the Christians openly acknowledge that such as these are worthy

     *  See on this subject the Treatise of Plutarch respecting
     Isis and Osiris.

to be noticed by their God; manifesting by this, that they alone wish and are able to persuade the ignoble, the insensate, slaves, stupid women, and little children and fools.
"We may see in the forum infamous characters and jugglers* collected together, who dare not show their tricks to intelligent men; but when they perceive a lad, and a crowd of slaves and stupid men, they endeavour to ingratiate themselves with such characters as these.
"We also may see in their own houses, wool-weavers, shoemakers, fullers, and the most illiterate and rustic men, who dare not say any thing in the presence of more elderly and wiser fathers of families; but when they meet with children apart from their parents, and certain stupid women with them, then they discuss something of a wonderful nature; such as that it is not proper to pay attention to parents and preceptors, but that they should be persuaded by them. For, say they, your parents and preceptors are delirious and stupid, and neither know what is truly good, nor are able to effect it, being prepossessed with trifles of an unusual nature. They
     * Celsus, as we are informed by Origen, compares the
     Christians with men of this description.

add, that they alone know how it is proper to live, and that if children are persuaded by them, they will be blessed, and also the family to which they belong. At the same time likewise that they say this, if they see any one of the wiser teachers of erudition approaching, or the father of the child to whom they are speaking, such of them as are more cautious defer their discussion to another time; but those that are more audacious, urge the children to shake off the reins of parental authority, whispering to them, that when their fathers and preceptors are present, they neither wish nor are able to unfold to children what is good, as they are deterred by the folly and rusticity of these men, who are entirely corrupted, are excessively depraved, and would punish them [their true admonishers]. They further add, that if they wish to be instructed by them, it is requisite that they should leave their parents and preceptors, and go with women and little children, who are their playfellows, to the conclave of women, or to the shoemaker's or fuller's shop, that they may obtain perfection [by embracing their doctrines].
"That I do not however accuse the Christians more bitterly than truth compels, may be conjectured from hence, that the criers who call men to other mysteries proclaim as follows: 'Let him approach,

whose hands are pure, and whose words are wise.' And again, others proclaim: 'Let him approach, who is pure from all wickedness, whose soul is not conscious of any evil, and who leads a just and upright life.' And these things are proclaimed by those who promise a purification from error. Let us now hear who those are that are called to the Christian mysteries. 'Whoever is a sinner, whoever is unwise, whoever is a fool, and whoever, in short, is miserable, him the kingdom of God will receive.' Do you not therefore call a sinner, an unjust man, a thief, a housebreaker, a wizard, one who is sacrilegious, and a robber of sepulchres? What other persons would the crier nominate, who should call robbers together?
"God, according to the Christians, descended to men; and, as consequent to this, it was fancied that he had left his own proper abode.
"God, however, being unknown among men [as the Christians say], and in consequence of this appearing to be in a condition inferior to that of a divine being, was not willing to be known, and therefore made trial of those who believed and of those who did not believe in him; just as men who have become recently rich, call on God as a witness of their abundant and entirely mortal ambition.

"The Christians have asserted nothing paradoxical or new concerning a deluge or a conflagration, but have perverted the doctrine of the Greeks and barbarians, that in long periods of time, and recursions and concursions of the stars, conflagrations and deluges take place; and also that after the last deluge, which was that of Deucalion, the period required, conformably to the mutation of wholes, a conflagration*. This the Christians, however, have perverted by representing God as descending with fire as a spy.
"Again, we will repeat and confirm by many arguments, an assertion which has nothing in it novel, but was formerly universally acknowledged. God is good, is beautiful and blessed, and his very nature consists in that which is most beautiful and the best. If therefore he descended to men, his nature must necessarily be changed. But the change must be from good to evil, and from the beautiful to the base, from felicity to infelicity, and from that which is most excellent to that which is most worthless. Who, however, would choose to be thus changed? Besides, to be changed and transformed pertains to that which is naturally mortal; but an invariable
     * See Taylor's translation of Proclus on the Timæus of
     Plato, Book I.

sameness of subsistence is the prerogative of an immortal nature. Hence God could never receive a mutation of this kind*.
"Either God is in reality changed, as the Christians say, into a mortal body,—and we have before shown that this is impossible; or he himself is not changed, but he causes those who behold him to think that he is, and thus falsifies himself, and involves others in error. Deception, however, and falsehood are indeed otherwise evil, and can only be [properly] employed by any one as a medicine, either in curing friends that are diseased or have some vicious propensity, or those that are insane, or for the purpose of avoiding danger from enemies. But no one who has vicious propensities, or is insane, is dear to Divinity. Nor does God fear any one, in order that by wandering he may escape danger**.
     * See a most admirable defence of the immutability of
     Divinity, by Proclus, in Taylor's Introduction to the Second
     and Third Books of Plato's Republic, in vol. i. of his
     translation of Plato's Works. See also Taylor's note at the
     end of vol. iii. of his translation of Pausanias, p. 235.

     ** The original of this sentence is, [—Greek—] the latter
     part of which, [—Greek—], is thus, erroneously translated
     by Spencer, "ut imposture opus habeat ad evadendum
     periculum."

"The Christians, adding to the assertions of the Jews, say that the son of God came on account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews, punishing Jesus and causing him to drink gall, raised the bile of God against them."
Celsus after this, in his usual way deriding both Jews and Christians, compares all of them to a multitude of bats, or to ants coming out of their holes, or to frogs seated about a marsh, or to earthworms that assemble in a corner of some muddy place, and contend with each other which of them are most noxious. He likewise represents them as saying, "God has manifested and predicted all things to us; and deserting the whole world and the celestial circulation, and likewise paying no attention to the widely-extended earth, he regards our concerns alone, to us alone sends messengers, and he will never cease to explore by what means we may always associate with him." He likewise resembles us to earthworms acknowledging that God exists; and he says that we earthworms, i. e. the Jews and Christians, being produced by God after him, are entirely similar to him. All things too are subject to us, earth and water, the air and the stars, and are ordained to be subservient to us*. Afterwards
     * This reminds me of the following beautiful lines in...

these earthworms add: "Now because some of us have sinned, God will come, or he will send his son, in order that he may burn the unjust, and that those who are not so may live eternally with him." And Celsus concludes with observing that "such assertions would be more tolerable if they were made by earthworms or frogs, than by Jews or Christians contending with each other."
Celsus, after having adduced, from the writings of the heathens, instances of those who contended for the antiquity of their race, such as the Athenians, Egyptians, Arcadians, and Phrygians, and also of those who have asserted that some among them were aborigines, says, that "the Jews being concealed in a corner of Palestine, men perfectly in-erudite, and who never had previously heard the same things celebrated by Hesiod and innumerable
     ...Epistle I. of Pope's Essay on Man, in which Pride is
     represented as saying:

     "For me kind nature wakes her genial power,
     Suckles each herb, and spreads out every flower;
     Annual for me the grape, the rose, renew
     The juice nectarious and the balmy dew.
     For me the mine a thousand treasures brings:
     For me health gushes from a thousand springs;
     Seas roll to waft me, suns to light me rise,
     My footstool earth, my canopy the skies."

other divine men, composed a most incredible and inelegant narration, that a certain man was fashioned by the hands of God, and inspired by him with the breath of life; that a woman was taken from the side of the man; that precepts were given to them by God; and that a serpent was adverse to these precepts. Lastly, they make the serpent to frustrate the commands of God: in all this, narrating a certain fable worthy only of being told by old women, and which most impiously makes God to be from the first imbecile, and incapable of persuading one man fashioned by himself to act in a way conformable to his will.
"The Christians are most impiously deceived and involved in error, through the greatest ignorance of the meaning of divine enigmas. For they make a certain being whom they call the Devil, and who in the Hebrew tongue is denominated Satan, hostile to God. It is therefore perfectly stupid and unholy to assert that the greatest God, wishing to benefit mankind, was incapable of accomplishing what he wished, through having one that opposed him, and acted contrary to his will. The son of God, therefore, was vanquished by the devil; and being punished by him, teaches us also to despise the punishments inflicted by him; Christ at the same time predicting that Satan would appear on

the earth, and, like himself, would exhibit great and admirable works, usurping to himself the glory of God. The son of God also adds, that it is not fit to pay attention to Satan, because he is a seducer, but that himself alone is worthy of belief. This, however, is evidently the language of a man who is an impostor earnestly endeavouring to prevent, and previously guarding himself against, the attempts of those who think differently from and oppose him. But, according to the Christians, the son of God is punished by the devil, who also punishes us in order that through this we may be exercised in endurance. These assertions, however, are perfectly ridiculous. For it is fit, I think, that the devil should be punished, and not that men should be threatened with punishment who are calumniated by him.
"Further still: If God, like Jupiter in the comedy, being roused from a long sleep, wished to liberate the human race from evils, why did he send only into a corner of the earth this spirit of whom you boast? though he ought in a similar manner to have animated many other bodies, and to have sent them to every part of the habitable globe. The comic poet indeed, in order to excite the laughter of the audience in the theatre, says that Jupiter, after he was roused from his sleep, sent Mercury to the Athenians and Lacedæmonsians:—but do not

you think that it is a much more ridiculous fiction to assert that God sent his son to the Jews?
"Many—and these, men whose names are not known,—both in temples and out of temples, and some also assembling in cities or armies, are easily excited from any casual cause, as if they possessed a prophetic power. Each of these likewise is readily accustomed to say, 'I am God, or the son of God, or a divine spirit. But I came because the world will soon be destroyed, and you, O men! on account of your iniquities will perish. I wish, however, to save you, and you shall again see me, returning with a celestial army. Blessed is he who now worships me; but I will cast all those who do not, into eternal fire, together with the cities and regions to which they belong. Those men also that do not now know the punishments which are reserved for them, shall afterwards repent and lament in vain: but those who believe in me I will for ever save.' Extending to the multitude these insane and perfectly obscure assertions, the meaning of which no intelligent man is able to discover,—for they are unintelligible and a mere nothing,—they afford an occasion to the stupid and to jugglers of giving to them whatever interpretation they please.
"Again, they do not consider, if the prophets of

the God of the Jews had predicted that this would be his son, why did this God legislatively ordain through Moses, that the Jews should enrich themselves and acquire power; should fill the earth with their progeny; and should slay and cut off the whole race of their enemies, which Moses did, as he says, in the sight of the Jews; and besides this, threatening that unless they were obedient to these his commands, he should consider them as his enemies;—why, after these things had been promulgated by God, did his son, a Nazarean man, exclude from any access to his father, the rich and powerful, the wise and renowned? For he says that we ought to pay no more attention than ravens do, to food and the necessaries of life*, and that we should be less concerned about our clothing than the lilies of the field. Again, he asserts, that to him who smites us on one cheek we should likewise turn the other**. Whether, therefore, does Moses or Jesus lie? Or, was the Father who sent Jesus forgetful of what he had formerly said to Moses? Or, condemning his own laws, did he alter his opinion, and send a messenger to mankind with mandates of a contrary nature?
     * Luke xii. 24.

     ** Luke vi. 29.

"The Christians again will say, How can God be known unless he can be apprehended by sense? To this we reply, that such a question is not the interrogation of man, nor of soul, but of the flesh. At the same time, therefore, let them hear, if they are capable of hearing any thing, as being a miserable worthless race, and lovers of body! If, closing the perceptive organs of sense, you look upward with the visive power of intellect, and, averting the eye of the flesh, you excite the eye of the soul, you will thus alone behold God*. And if you seek for the leader of this path, you must avoid impostors and enchanters, and those who persuade you to pay attention to [real] idols; in order that you may not be entirely ridiculous, by blaspheming as idols other things which are manifestly Gods**, and venerating that which is in reality more worthless than any image, and which is not even an image, but a dead body***; and by investigating a Father similar to it.
     * This is most Platonically said by Celsus.

     ** Such as the sun and moon, and the other heavenly bodies.

     *** The Emperor Julian in the fragments of his Arguments
     against the Christians, 'preserved by Cyril, says, speaking
     to the Christians: "You do not notice whether any thing is
     said by the Jews about holiness; but you emulate their rage
     and their bitterness, overturning temples and altars, and
     cutting the throats not only of those who remain firm in
     paternal institutes, but also of...

"There are essence and generation, the intelligible and the visible. And truth indeed subsists with essence, but error with generation*. Science, therefore, is conversant with truth, but opinion with generation. Intelligence also pertains to, or has the intelligible for its object; but what is visible is the object of sight. And intellect indeed knows the intelligible; but the eye knows that which is visible. What the sun therefore is in the visible region,—being neither the eye, nor sight, but the cause to the eye of seeing, and to the sight of its visive power, to all sensibles of their being generated, and to himself of being perceived;—this the supreme God [or the good] is in intelligibles: since he is neither intellect, nor intelligence, nor science, but is the cause, to intellect, of intellectual perception;
     ...those heretics who are equally erroneous with yourselves,
     and who do not lament a dead body in the same manner as you
     do. For neither Jesus nor Paul exhorted you to act in this
     manner. But the reason is, that they did not expect you
     would arrive at the power which you have obtained. For they
     were satisfied if they could deceive maid-servants and
     slaves, and through these married women, and such men as
     Cornelius and Sergius; among whom, if you can mention one
     that was at that time an illustrious character, (and these
     things were transacted under the reign of Tiberius or
     Claudius,) believe that I am a liar in all things."

     * Generation signifies the whole of that which is visible.

to intelligence, of its subsistence on account of him; to science, for its possession of knowledge for his sake, and to all intelligibles for their existence as such. He is likewise the cause to truth itself and to essence itself, of their existence, being himself beyond all intelligibles, by a certain ineffable power*. And these are the assertions of men who possess intellect. But if you understand any thing of what is here said, you are indebted to us for it. If, likewise, you think that a certain spirit descending from God announced to you things of a divine nature, this will be the spirit which proclaimed what I have above said, and with which ancient men being replete, have unfolded so many things of a most beneficial nature. If, therefore, you are unable to understand these assertions, be silent, and conceal your ignorance, and do not say that those are blind who see, and that those are lame who run,
     * This sentence in the original is as follows: [—Greek—].
     But it is requisite to read, conformably to the above
     translation, [—Greek—]. Celsus has derived what he here
     says from the Sixth Book of Plato's Republic, and what he
     says previous to this from the Timæeus of Plato.—See
     Taylor's translation of these Dialogues.

you at the same time possessing souls that are in every respect lame and mutilated, and living in body, viz. in that which is dead.
"How much better would it be for you, since you are desirous of innovation, to direct your attention to some one of the illustrious dead, and concerning whom a divine fable may be properly admitted! And if Hercules and Esculapius do not please you, and other renowned men of great antiquity, you may have Orpheus, a man confessedly inspired by a sacred spirit, and who suffered a violent death. But he perhaps has been adopted as a leader formerly by others. Consider Anaxarchus, therefore, who being thrown into a mortar, and bruised in the cruellest manner, most courageously despised the punishment, exclaiming, 'Bruise, bruise the sack of Anaxarchus, for you cannot bruise him.' This, indeed, was uttered by a certain truly divine spirit. Him, however, some physiologists have already vindicated to themselves. In the next place, consider Epictetus, who when his master twisted his leg violently, said, smiling gently and without being terrified, 'You will break my leg;' and when his master had broken his leg, only observed, 'Did I not tell you that you would break it? What thing of this kind did your God utter when

he was punished*? The sibyl, likewise, whose verses are used by some of you, is far more worthy to be regarded by you as the daughter of God. But now you have fraudulently and rashly inserted in her verses many things of a blasphemous nature**; and Christ, who in his life was most reprehensible, and in his death most miserable, you reverence as a God. How much more appropriately might you have bestowed this honour on Jonas when he was under the gourd, or on Daniel who was saved in the den of lions, or on others of whom more prodigious things than these are narrated!
"This is one of the precepts of the Christians: 'Do not revenge yourself on him who injures you; and if any person strikes you on one cheek, turn the other to him also.' And this precept indeed is of very great antiquity, but is recorded in a more rustic
     * Christ when on the cross exclaimed, "My God, my God, why
     hast thou forsaken me?" But Socrates in his Apology to his
     Judges, as recorded by Plato, most magnanimously said,
     "Anytus and Melitus may indeed put me to death, but they
     cannot injure me."

     ** The collection of the Sibylline Oracles which are now
     extant, are acknowledged by all intelligent men among the
     learned to be for the most part forgeries.—See the account
     of them by Fabricius in vol. i. of his Bibliootheca Græca,

manner by Christ. For Socrates is made by Plata in the Crito to speak as follows: 'It is by no means therefore proper to do an injury. By no means. Hence neither is it proper for him who is injured to revenge the injury, as the multitude think it is; since it is by no means fit to do an injury. It does not appear that it is. But what! is it proper or not, O Crito, to be malific? It certainly is not proper, Socrates. Is it therefore just or unjust for a man to be malific to him by whom he has been hurt? for in the opinion of the vulgar it is just. It is by no means just. For to be hurtful to men does not at all differ from injuring them. You speak the truth. Neither, therefore, is it proper to revenge an injury, nor to be hurtful to any man, whatever evil we may suffer from him.' These things are asserted by Plato, who also adds: 'Consider, therefore, well, whether you agree, and are of the same opinion with me in this; and we will begin with admitting, that it is never right either to do an injury, or revenge an injury on him who has acted badly towards us. Do you assent to this principle? For formerly it appeared, and now still appears, to me to be true.' Such, therefore, was the opinion of Plato, and which also was the doctrine of divine men prior to him. Concerning these, however, and other particulars which the Christians have corrupted, enough has been said. For he who

desires to search further into them, may easily be satisfied.
"But why is it requisite to enumerate how many things have been foretold with a divinely inspired voice, partly by prophetesses and prophets, and partly by other men and women under the influence of inspiration? What wonderful things they have heard from the adyta themselves! How many things have been rendered manifest from victims and sacrifices to those who have used them! How many from other prodigious symbols! And to some persons, divinely luminous appearances have been manifestly present. Of these things indeed the life of every one is full. How many cities, likewise, have been raised from oracles, and liberated from disease and pestilence! And how many, neglecting these, or forgetting them, have perished miserably! How many colonies have been founded from these, and by observing their mandates have been rendered happy! How many potentates and private persons have, from attending to or neglecting these, obtained a better or a worse condition! How many, lamenting their want of children, have through these obtained the object of their wishes! How many have escaped the anger of dæmons! How many mutilated bodies have been healed! And again, how many have immediately suffered for insolent behaviour in

sacred concerns! some indeed becoming insane on the very spot; others proclaiming their impious deeds, but others not proclaiming them before they perished; some destroying themselves, and others becoming a prey to incurable diseases. And sometimes a dreadful voice issuing from the adyta has destroyed them*.
"In the next place, is it not absurd that you should desire and hope for the resurrection of the body, as if nothing was more excellent or more honourable to us than this; and yet again, that you should hurl this same body into punishments, as a thing of a vile nature? To men, however, who are persuaded that this is true, and who are conglutinated to body, it is not worth while to speak of things of this kind. For these are men who in other respects are rustic and impure, without reason, and labouring under the disease of sedition. Indeed, those who hope that the soul or intellect will exist eternally, whether they are willing to call it pneumatic**, or an intellectual spirit holy and blessed, or a living soul, or the supercelestial and
     * See the scientific theory of Oracles unfolded in the Notes
     to Taylor's translation of Pausanias, vol. iii. p. 259.

     ** This is said conformably to the opinion of the Stoics.

incorruptible progeny of a divine and incorporeal nature*, or whatever other appellation they may think fit to give it; those who thus hope, (but I say this in accordance with Divinity,) in this respect think rightly, that those who have lived well in this life will be blessed, but that those who have been entirely unjust, will be involved in endless evils. And neither the Christians nor any other man were ever hostile to this dogma.
"Since men are bound to body, whether they are so for the sake of the dispensation of the whole of things, or in order that they may suffer the punishment of their offences, or in consequence of the soul through certain passions becoming heavy and tending downwards, till through certain orderly periods it becomes purified;—for according to Empedocles, it is necessary that
          'From the blest wandering thrice ten thousand times,
          Through various mortal forms the soul should pass.'—

     * This is asserted in accordance with the doctrine of the
     Platonists.

     ** This 30,000 times must not be considered mathematically;
     since it symbolically indicates a certain appropriate
     measure of perfection. For in units S is a perfect number,
     as having a beginning, middle, and end. And again, 10 is
     perfect, because it comprehends all numbers in itself.
     These numbers, however, were call-...

This being the case, it is requisite to believe that men are committed to the care of certain inspective guardians of this prison the body.
"That to the least of things, however, are allotted guardian powers, may be learnt from the Egyptians, who say that the human body is divided into thirty-six parts, and that dæmons* or certain etherial gods who are distributed into the same number of parts, are the guardians of these divisions of the body. Some also assert, that there is a much greater number of these presiding powers; different corporeal parts being under the inspection of different powers. The names of these also in the vernacular tongue of the Egyptians are Chnoumën, Chnachoumën, Knat, Sicat, Biou, Erou, Erebiou, Ramanor, Reianoor. What, therefore, should prevent him from making use of these and other powers, who wishes rather to be well than to be ill, to be fortunate rather than to be unfortunate, and to be liberated from such
     ...ed by the ancients perfect, in a different way from 6, 28,
     &c.; for these were thus denominated because they are equal
     to the sum of their parts.

     * i. e. beneficent dæmonss; for the ancients divided
     dæmonss into the beneficent and malevolent. They also
     considered the former as assisting the soul in its ascent to
     its pristine state of felicity; but the latter as of a
     punishing and avenging characteristic.

tormentors and castigators as these things are thought to be?*
"He, however, who invokes these powers ought to be careful, lest being conglutinated [as it were] to the worship of them, and to a love of the body, he should turn from and become oblivious of more excellent natures. For it is perhaps requisite not to disbelieve in wise men, who say that the greater part of circumterrestrial dæmons are conglutinated to generation, and are delighted with blood, with the odour and vapour of flesh, with melodies and with other things of the like kind**; to which being bound, they are unable to effect any thing superior to the sanction of the body, and the prediction of future events to men and cities. Whatever also pertains to mortal actions they know, and are able to bring to pass.
"If some one should command a worshiper of God either to act impiously, or to say any thing of a most disgraceful nature, he is in no respect whatever to be obeyed; but all trial and every kind of death are to be endured rather than to meditate,
     * Vid. Salmas.   In fine libri He Annis climactericis.

     ** See Book II. of Taylor's translation of Porphyry,—On
     Abstinence from Animal Food.

and much more to assert, any thing impious concerning God. But if any one should order us to celebrate the Sun or Minerva, we ought most gladly to sing hymns to their praise. For thus you will appear to venerate the supreme God in a greater degree *, if you also celebrate these powers: for piety when it passes through all things becomes more perfect".

THE WORLD CRUCIFIED SAVIORS.

ADDRESS TO THE CLERGY.
By Graves

FRIENDS and brethren—teachers of the Christian faith: Will you believe us when we tell you the divine claims of your religion are gone—all swept away by the "logic of history," and nullified by the demonstrations of science?

The recently opened fountains of historic law, many of whose potent facts will be found interspersed through the pages of this work, sweep away the last inch of ground on which can be predicated the least show for either the divine origin of the Christian religion, or the divinity of Jesus Christ.
For these facts demonstrate beyond all cavil and criticism, and with a logical force which can leave not the vestige of a doubt upon any unbiased mind, that all its doctrines are an outgrowth from older heathen systems. Several systems of religion essentially the same in character and spirit as that religion now known as Christianity, and setting forth the same doctrines, principles and precepts, and several personages filling a chapter in history almost identical with that of Jesus Christ, it is now known to those who are up with the discoveries and intelligence of the age, were venerated in the East centuries before a religion called Christian, or a personage called Jesus Christ were known to history.
Will you not, then, give it up that your religion is merely a human production, reconstructed from heathen materials—from oriental systems several thousand years older than yours—or will you continue, in spite of the unanimous and unalterable verdict of history, science, facts and logic, to proclaim to the world the now historically demonstrated error which you have so long preached, that God is the author of your religion, and Jesus Christ a Deity-begotten Messiah? Though you may have heretofore honestly believed these doctrines to be true, you can now no longer plead ignorance as an excuse for propagating such gigantic and serious errors, as they are now overwhelmingly demonstrated by a thousand facts of history to be untrue. You must abandon such exalted claims for your religion, or posterity will mark you as being "blind leaders of the blind." They will heap upon your honored names their unmitigated ridicule and condemnation. They will charge you as being either deplorably ignorant, or disloyal to the cause of truth. And shame and ignominy will be your portion.
The following propositions (fatal to your claims for Christianity) are established beyond confutation by the historical facts cited in this work, viz:—
1. There were many cases of the miraculous birth of Gods reported in history before the case of Jesus Christ.
2 Also many other cases of Gods being born of virgin mothers.
3. Many of these Gods, like Christ, were (reputedly) born on the 25th of December.
4. Their advent into the world, like that of Jesus Christ, is in many cases claimed to have been foretold by "inspired prophets."
5. Stars figured at the birth of several of them, as in the case of Christ.
6. Also angels, shepherds, and magi, or "wise men."
7. Many of them, like Christ, were claimed to be of royal or princely descent.
8. Their lives, like his, were also threatened in infancy by the ruler of the country.
9. Several of them, like him, gave early proof of divinity.
10. And, like him, retired from the world and fasted.
11. Also, like him, declared, "My kingdom is not of this world."
12. Some of them preached a spiritual religion, too, like his.
13. And were "anointed with oil," like him.
14. Many of them, like him, were "crucified for the sins of the world."
15. And after three days' interment "rose from the dead."
16. And, finally, like him, are reported as ascending back to heaven.
17. The same violent convulsions of nature at the crucifixion of several are reported.
18. They were nearly all called "Saviors," "Son of God," "Messiah," "Redeemer," "Lord," &c.
19. Each one was the second member of the trinity of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
20. The doctrines of "Original Sin," "Fall of Man," "The Atonement," "The Trinity," "The Word," "Forgiveness," "An Angry God," "Future Endless Punishment," etc., etc. (see the author's "Biography of Satan,") were a part of the religion of each of these sin-atoning Gods, as found set forth in several oriental bibles and "holy books," similar in character and spirit to the Christian's bible, and written, like it, by "inspired and holy men" before the time of either Christ or Moses (before Moses, in some cases, at least). All these doctrines and declarations, and many others not here enumerated, the historical citations of this work abundantly prove, were taught in various oriental heathen nations centuries before the birth of Christ, or before Christianity, as a religion, was known in the world.
Will you, then, after learning these facts, longer dare assert that Christianity is of divine emanation, or claim a special divine paternity for its author. Only the priest, who loves his salary more than the cause of truth (and I fear this class are numerous,) or who is deplorably ignorant of history, will have the effrontery or audacity to do so. For the historical facts herein set forth as clearly prove such assumptions to be false, as figures can demonstrate the truth of any mathematical problem. And no logic can overthrow, and no sophistry can set aside these facts.
They will stand till the end of time in spite of your efforts either to evade, ignore, or invalidate them.

HOW THE BIBLE WAS INVENTED?

How the Bible Was Invented
By Mangasarian M.

Many good people believe that the Bible was given by inspiration of God. The wording of my subject suggests that it is the work of men, and not always of honest men, either. Am I trying to offend people by intimating that the Bible was invented?

On the contrary, I am exposing myself to criticism by telling these good people the truth about the Bible, which their own preachers, for some reason or other, have withheld from them.
One of the texts in the Bible, attributed to Jesus, says that, It were better for a man to have a millstone tied about his neck, and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend, that is to say, unsettle the faith of, "one of these little ones." According to this saying of Jesus, a man must keep his questionings and his doubts to himself. He shall not talk where he is liable to upset the faith of some believing soul,—some aged mother, some Sunday-school lad or lassie. The man who will go about disturbing people's religious peace, deserves to be drowned with a millstone about his neck! What is your opinion of such a suggestion?
 
If you approve of this sentiment, attributed to the founder of Christianity, then the work which we are doing here, every Sunday, is quite wicked; a millstone around our necks is what we deserve, and the bottom of the sea is where we belong.
Psychologists tell us that there is great power in suggestion. With all my love and reverence for whatever is sweet and sane in the Gospels, I must protest against this text, because it is a suggestion to violence and persecution. If Jesus suggests a millstone for the neck of the heretic who upsets people's illusions and makes inquirers out of believers, and intimates further that drowning is too good for them, why not take the hint and act upon it? He expresses a wish, shall we not fulfill it? Alas, we know, too well, that in less enlightened ages, the suggestion of Jesus was not only carried out, but vastly improved upon—by the Spanish Inquisition, for instance.
Let us be fair. When a man is accused, it is his privilege to defend himself. If Jesus suggests that the investigator who unsettles people's beliefs should be drowned, before the suggestion is acted upon, the disturber should be given a chance to be heard. Would that be asking too much? Let us see, then, just what it means to command a man to suppress whatever might disturb a neighbor's faith: It means that if I am announced to speak on the Bible, I must say nothing to which the weakest or the most credulous among my hearers might object. If I do, I shall deserve to be tied to a millstone and drowned! But let us turn this proposition about to see how it would work: Having discovered a truth, and yearning in my soul to express it, suppose I were to say, that if any man in this audience shall scare me into silence,—shall cheat me out of the joy and duty of imparting that truth to my world, by threatening to be offended, or to be unsettled by it,—he ought to have a millstone tied to his neck and be cast into the sea. How would that do?
Again, an illustration, which I have used before, can with great aptness be repeated here: A woman is given a ring with a stone in it. Not being herself a connaisseur of precious stones, she is easily made to believe that her jewel is the most costly in the world. This is told her in order to make her happy, and to fancy herself as the possessor of a gem of great value. Observe, now, how much it costs to keep up this deception. All her friends have to agree to say nothing that may unsettle her faith in her imitation jewel. Indeed, they must pretend not to know the difference between the genuine and the sham stone. To preserve this woman's illusion, they must prevaricate and even openly lie, if pressed to do so, lest the poor woman's eyes should open, or her faith in her jewel be lost. Is it fair to demand so great a sacrifice to prolong the fantasy of a foolish woman?
Apply this illustration now to the Bible. Here are some people who have been told when they were young, that this book, which is placed in their hands, is a personal message to them from God. This makes the book, certainly, more precious than any jewel. God, the owner and disposer of everything, with his own hand has inscribed an epistle to them, and this is it! What joy! What a treasure! Now these people, not being students themselves, accepted implicitly what they were told by their teachers, just as the woman, not being an expert herself, took her jeweler's word about the value of the stone in her ring. In order not to offend this child-like faith in the Bible, word is sent out to everybody to hush. Hush! not a word! not a whisper!—Hush! hush! is the cry of all. To uphold this conspiracy of silence, arrangements are made to dictate what may and what may not be said in public. A preacher in praying or preaching might give away the secret,—he might inadvertently say something which may prick this pretty bubble of illusion. Hence, in the Catholic and Episcopal Churches, all the prayers are printed, and the preachers pray according to the book. Do you think the Church will let a man close his eyes and open his mouth and say whatever comes into his head? Indeed, not! He must pray by the book. In the protestant denominations there is the creed, to which you swear your allegiance before you can open your mouth in one of their churches, and the moment you are caught talking beyond what the creed allows, your ordination is taken from you and your mouth is shut. Dear me! all this regime is for the purpose of encouraging the conceit that man has been favored with a hand-written, personal message, from the Creator of the universe.
If this were all, we, ourselves, would not take notice of it. But we, too, are compelled to join this conspiracy of silence and suppression, and to lie in the interests of the delicate believers whose faith cannot stand the least strain. Darwin must beware how he writes about the origin of species, or the descent of man. Some believer, hugging ecstatically his Bible to his bosom, might read his books and lose his blissful conceit. Do not think, do not invent, do not announce your truth, ye philosophers, scientists and reformers! without first consulting the prejudices of the "little ones" in the faith; for if you unsettle the faith of a single believer, it were better that you were weighted down into the sea by a millstone hanging about your necks. And you, whose love and genius give us our daily victory over disease and error,—whose thought is our daily bread and beauty,—you, too, must hush, you must become sterile, or be content to speak by rote, lest you should disturb the repose of the believer who has laid himself down to sleep. The theological babe must not be awakened. It will bawl and cry if aroused, and better than cause one of these babes to cry, let there be no intellectual life in the world!
Our American author, Thoreau, was right when he said that, "The modern Christian is a man who has consented to say all the prayers in the liturgy, provided you will let him go straight to bed and sleep quietly afterward." That is to say, he does not wish to be disturbed. "All his prayers begin with," says Thoreau, "Now I lay me down to sleep." Sleep, seems to be his quest, intellectual as well as physical, "and he is forever looking forward to the time when he shall go to his 'long rest.'" He looks forward to a future of inactivity. All effort, especially intellectual effort, is distasteful to him, and is apt to offend and unsettle him. Hence the intellectual life must not be real; what must be real is the sleep.
Those of you who support these lectures, as well as those of you who only hear them, know that our position is the very reverse of what Jesus and the Church recommend. We do not believe in persecution. We do not even suggest that anybody should be drowned; but if our human nature is so depraved that persecution and murder are inevitable, then, in our humble opinion, it will be more economical to drown the people who will not permit a Darwin to give his thought to the world, than to drown a Darwin. The man who is offended at freedom of speech, can be dispensed with more safely than the man who avails himself of this divine privilege. If my freedom of speech offends my neighbor, his fear of freedom is a greater offense to me. Which of us deserves most to be drowned?
But in the next place the suggestion that people who rob their weaker fellows of their illusions should be drowned, even when it does not lead to persecution, is an encouragement to hypocrisy and imposture, as the story of the composition of the Bible which will now be told, shows.
You have to listen as closely as you can, if you do not wish to do me the injustice of misrepresenting me. I have traveled extensively in the Orient, and have conversed with and read the works of eminent scholars who have enjoyed a first-hand acquaintance with eastern people, and the unanimous testimony is that one of the besetting sins of Oriental races, is lying. It is not because the Asiatics are wickeder than European nations, for in other respects they are as good, if not better, than ourselves. The average of morality is perhaps about the same in all countries. But the notorious vice of all Asiatic peoples is lying. They lie with a freedom and a fluency,—with such plausibility and so straight a face,—that one can hardly distinguish their lie from their truth. Curious though it may seem, people who are given to lying are often the first to be deceived by their own lies. They

"Keep on till their own lies deceive them.

And oft' repeating, at length believed 'em."


Now, then, I am going to look this audience in the face, and then I am going to say just this:
The Bible is an Oriental book.
When, in reading the Bible, I find in it exaggeration, invention, and even unscrupulous misrepresentation, I am not astonished, because I know that it is an Oriental book. But the orthodox believer, in order to excuse or explain away, for instance, these violations of the law of veracity, resorts frequently to sophistry, subterfuge, and even, alas, to lies more unscrupulous than any found in the Bible. This is as sad as it is true. But to defend one lie, or to make it look like the truth, more lying becomes necessary.
There are numerous instances of the Oriental practice of lying in the Bible. Abraham suppressed the truth about his wife, and declared she was his sister. Jacob deceived his father, Isaac, and made him believe he was Esau, and stole his blessing. The same patriarch deceived his father-in-law, and stole his gods. God himself instructs Samuel to tell a falsehood to Saul, to whom he is sent on a mission. "I will send them a lying spirit," threatens Jehovah, when he is out of temper. And, in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul is Oriental enough, though in many respects a great soul, to resort to "craft and guile," and to be "all things to all men," and even to lie for the glory of God. Aside from this being his own policy, he imagined that it was also the policy of God. "And for this cause," he says in his Epistle to the Thessalonians, "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe in a lie." Reflect upon that. To send a delusion to people means to trip or trap them,—to catch them in a snare. People tell a falsehood, either to protect themselves, or to hurt others. God needed not to resort to this means to protect himself. Paul tells us he does this to hurt others. "God shall send them strong delusion, that they might believe a lie that they all might be damned." How could Paul, an exceptionally intelligent man, be guilty of such blasphemy? How could he so damage the character of the God he loved? My answer is that he was an Asiatic, and he did not look upon lying in the same light that Europeans do. The Asiatic conscience for veracity has never enjoyed a very high reputation. The Apostle Paul even boasts that, "being crafty, I caught you with guile."
A very curious controversy took place some years ago, between Herbert Spencer and a religious Weekly. Quoting the words of Paul to the Romans, where he says, "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, etc.," Spencer condemned Paul for this; the religious Weekly objected that Paul was only speaking ironically. And Mr. Spencer generously admitted that such a supposition was quite possible. We are ourselves willing to give Paul every opportunity to exonerate himself, and will not press the charge too vehemently against him. But whatever Paul may have meant in his argument with the Romans, what shall we say about his defense of "guile and craft," in his Epistle to the Thessalonians? And what about his general policy, to be all things to all men,—that is to say, to trim and compromise?
Moreover, the practice of the Church during the early centuries, confirms the criticism of such representative writers as Mosheim, Ellicott, Warburton, Lecky, Gibbon, Jortin, Gieseler, and other equally reliable authorities, that "The pernicious maxim that those who make it their business to deceive with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather of commendation than of censure."
"History forces upon us," writes Bishop Ellicott, "the recognition of pious fraud as a principle which was by no means inoperative in the earliest ages of Christianity." It reflects credit upon this Bishop,—this European,—to admit that the early Christians cultivated the Oriental practice of "lying for the glory of God." Eusebius, the saint who invented Constantine's vision of the cross, boasted that "he had written what redounded to the glory and suppressed whatever tended to the disgrace of religion."
"No faith with the heretics," was the cry of the Christian church for centuries.
My object in speaking of this is to show that even as our Oriental-born religion, brought over into Europe the germ of monasticism, religious intolerance, the practise of burning men and women alive,—absolutism in matters of faith, determining by authority of councils what shall and what shall not be the truth,—not one of which institutions previously existed in Europe; it also brought over, the Oriental practice of pious lying, and gave it a vogue which it had never before enjoyed in Europe.
It is universally admitted that beside the four Gospels which the churches believe to be genuine, there were, in the early centuries, hundreds of Gospels which have been rejected as spurious. Pause for a moment, and think of what that means. Why were there so many lying Gospels? The very fact that our four Gospels were chosen from a pile of manuscripts, everyone of which claimed to be genuine, is a sad commentary upon the morality of the early churchmen. I trust you duly appreciate the significance of this. What was it that gave an impetus to the industry of imposture? How explain the vogue which lying for religion enjoyed after the conversion of the Roman Empire? Was it so profitable to manufacture Gospels that everybody tried his hand at it? I cannot get away from the tremendous fact that by the admission of the churches themselves, there were a great number of apocryphal Gospels thrown upon the religious market as soon as Christianity became well established in Europe. What made lying so popular and profitable all at once? If it is true, and it is, that our four Gospels had to be voted upon from among a heap of other manuscripts; and if it is true, as one Church father reports, that a great number of manuscripts were placed under a table, and that prayers were then offered to induce the genuine Gospels to jump upon the table, and that four of them did so, while the rest, failing to jump upon the table, were disowned; and if it is also true, and we know it is, that some of the Christian fathers claimed that only four Gospels could be genuine because the earth has four corners, and four winds. If all this is true—then, speaking as a student of history, whether it unsettles you or not, I am constrained to say that this Oriental religion, as soon as it set foot in Europe, lifted both superstition and lying to the dignity of a vocation.
But when we come to the four Gospels themselves, pronounced to be canonical, do you know, my hearers, that there are upwards of 150,000 different readings of these same Gospels? That is to say, the same passages read one way in one manuscript, and another, in another, while they may be absent altogether from a third, etc. In view of all these facts, reflect upon the intelligence of the man who, Sunday after Sunday, holds up the Gospels as the infallible word of God. He does so because he is speaking by the creed, to which he has sworn allegiance for the rest of his life. One hundred and fifty thousand various readings of the New Testament! And think of the centuries of bloodshed and controversy over these various readings!
Open, if you please, your New Testaments and read the seventh verse of the fifth chapter of the first epistle of John, then look for the same verse in the Revised Version, and you will not find it there. After being regarded as the word of God for two thousand years, it has been expurgated. Today, according to one Bible (the King James Version), this passage is inspired; according to another Bible (the Revised Version), it is an imposture. Let me quote the text:
"For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."
What better proof of the Trinity do we need? On black and white, in the Bible, John, the Apostle, declares by the power of the Holy Ghost, that there are three in heaven, gives their names, and adds that these three are one.
Some lying scribe, some crabbed sectarian, some unconscionable copyist, bribed by his party, must have invented this text, which, for twenty centuries, has been worshiped as the word of God. Wicked sceptics, two thousand years ago, denounced the clumsy imposture, but they were silenced by the halter and the sword. It has taken the Christian Church nearly two thousand years to discover that the sceptics were right. It has taken the church two thousand years of evolution in honesty and intelligence to throw out this spurious text. It has taken the church, claiming to be under the guidance of the Spirit of God, twenty hundred years in which to acquire the courage and love of truth of the wicked sceptics who first called attention to this lie hiding behind an apostle's name. Reflect upon this! After using every means, even the most cruel, to force this Trinitarian text upon the world, the Revised Version blushes with shame to retain it any longer.
It would be unnecessary to multiply illustrations, but let my readers also consult the words in the margin of the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark, in the Revised Bible. Eleven entire verses of this chapter after having been palmed off for two thousand years as the word of God; after being repeatedly quoted as representing God's mind on matters of faith; after causing untold misery, cruel wars, persecutions, diabolical tortures, and more than all these, such mental anguish in millions of sensitive minds as no repentance can atone for,—these verses, among which is the following: "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole Creation.... He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned,"—has been placed under an interrogation mark. Ah, for how much misery is the above damnatory clause responsible! How many lives this leprous falsehood has blasted! How this cruel imposture, like a malignant cancer, ate away the sound parts in human nature, for twenty long centuries!
Among these eleven verses are also Jesus' promise of miraculous power to his disciples, such as casting out devils, juggling with live serpents, drinking deadly poisons, laying hands on the sick,—which has filled our world with charlatans without number. But now comes the Revised Version, and quietly dismisses from the Word of God these eleven Verses, with these words in the margin: "The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end (verse 20). Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel." Read the above carefully and reflect. The old translators suppressed all this information, and gave us to believe that we were not only reading the word of God, but the only word of God in existence. The revisers say, "Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel." Is not that edifying? How did they decide which "ending of the Gospel" to print as the Word of God? And why did the translators of the Bible wait two thousand years before they gave out this information? Is it to their increasing honesty that we owe this admission, or is it the increasing power of the non-churchgoing world which has compelled this admission from their lips? Yes, yes, pause and think of how an organization must have become gangrened with imposture to have successfully resisted every claim of truth and honor for two thousand years! This is a question of conscience as well as a question of knowledge. Why did the translators suppress the fact until a few years ago that, "Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel"?, and that "the two oldest Greek manuscripts and some other authorities omit from verse 9 to the end"? Time forbids me to give other illustrations of the—I regret to say it—manipulations of the Word of God by its custodians. The heart bleeds with mingled pain and indignation at the temerity and effrontery of the pious crew, who, to advance their "ism" or to make converts, did not hesitate to pervert history.
For two thousand years, for anyone to dare breathe a word against this Bible-inventing party, meant hell here and hereafter. Mark Antony invited Rome to weep over the prostrate form of assassinated Cæsar. I wish I could provoke you to a burning blush of indignation over the prostrate majesty of Europe and America at the feet of these unconscionable inventors of inspired texts. Blessed be the day which humbled the pride of the ecclesiastic, and wrested from his hands the power to suppress the truth!
But aside from doctoring their own Gospels, the early Christians did not hesitate to submit the writings of the great pagans,—Seneca, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonious, Marcus Aurelius and the Jewish historian, Josephus, to the same indignity, by slipping passages into their works favorable to the Christian religion. Perhaps I am to be blamed for taking this matter so seriously, but how can I help it? I feel the wrong, the shame, and the crime of it, deep in my bones—when I picture to myself an Asiatic scribbler, a sectarian, a clown, a rogue, a cheat, tampering with the works of a dead master,—pushing and squeezing his imposture into the mouth of the mighty dead,—defiling the thought of the philosopher with the foulness of his superstition! It makes my heart rise and knock with vehemence against my ribs until I feel as if they would break. Not only were individual passages invented and slipped into the Pagan writings, but a number of books were written and attributed to the greatest shining lights of the old Roman world. Dr. Gieseler, a prominent Christian historian of modern Germany, who has made, as most German students do, a painstaking study of the early centuries, says that, when the Christians were accused of inventing manuscripts, they "quieted their consciences respecting the forgery with the idea of their good intentions." "It was an age of literary fraud," declares Bishop Ellicott.
There is shown at the library in Jena, a letter purported to have been written by Publius Lentulus, the supposed predecessor of Pontius Pilate. The impostor who concocted this epistle and affixed the signature of a Roman governor to it, makes him tell the Roman Senate, "that there had appeared (in Judea) a man endowed with great powers, whose name is Jesus Christ." The earmarks of fraud are so plain that even the orthodox are ashamed of this clumsy manufacture. Another Gospel is attributed to Pontius Pilate. Nicodemus is made the author of still another. The Emperor Aurelius, is made to recommend the Christians to the Senate for their valor; Tiberius even gives his testimony in their favor; Jesus, himself, is made the author of a treatise in his own behalf; the Virgin Mary writes the story of her wonderful child; Adam, even, testifies to the truth of the Christian religion, though he is supposed to have lived nearly four thousand years before Jesus. There is no end to the list of inventions.
But one of the most daring forgeries is the following passage in Josephus:

"About that time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be right to speak of him as a man, for he was a performer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew after him many of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles. This same was the Christ. And though Pilate, by the judgment of the chief rulers among us, delivered him up to be crucified ... he showed himself alive on the third day...."
That this famous passage in Josephus is an interpolation, is now generally admitted. Breaking suddenly in the midst of a paragraph, the great Jewish historian pauses to announce that Jesus was the Christ, and that he really rose from the dead, etc., etc. This, if true, makes Josephus a Christian, which he was not. The early fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, never referred to this famous passage, which they certainly would have done, had such a passage existed. What better evidence could they desire in their controversy with the Jews than to point to this wonderful confession of their principal author and historian, that the Jesus whom they crucified was the Christ, and that he rose from the dead! But in the Josephus with which they were acquainted there was no such text. Origen, the Christian Father, admits in his writings that Josephus was not a believer in Christ. How, then, did this passage creep into the works of the Jewish historian? The man who discovered this passage in Josephus was the same man who invented Constantine's vision, and the fable of the Seventy, who, he says, shut up in seventy separate cells, produced the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, a translation, which, he adds, was surely the work of the Holy Ghost, because when the Seventy separate translations were compared, they were found to be in every detail alike, without even the difference of a punctuation mark in them all. To further prove this story, Eusebius tells us that he himself saw the seventy cells which the translators had occupied four hundred years before. This is the kind of churchman who first discovered the Josephus passage. After quoting the interpolated passage, Eusebius wonders how any Jew can have the impudence not to believe that Jesus was the Christ. In one of his essays, De Quincy says that only lunatics now believe in the genuineness of this passage, while a bishop of the Anglican Church,—Warburton—calls it "a stupid forgery."
But the early Christians made even the pagan gods to testify for Jesus. They composed verses in praise of the Christian religion and attributed them to the pagan Sibyls. The oracles of Rome were made to prophesy the coming of Christ,—his passion, and resurrection, and to admit their inferiority to him. For many hundred years these Sibylline verses were quoted as genuine, until the advancement of education laughed the disgraceful fabrication out of existence.
Again, pious ecclesiastics in their zeal for their "ism," invented also an Apostles' Creed, which the apostles never saw, and an Apostolic Constitution, containing directions how a Christian Church or State should be governed. They invented also the Decretal Epistles, by which Constantine transfers all his property to the Bishop of Rome,—his sword, his diadem, his throne,—and makes a prince of the pope, and an empire of his church. Here is the passage which was forged into Constantine's mouth by the Spanish priest Isidore:
"We ascribe to the See of St. Peter all dignity, all glory, all imperial power.... Besides, we give to Sylvester (bishop of Rome) and his successor, our palace of the Lateran which is beyond question the most beautiful place on earth. We give him our crown, our mitre, our diadem, and all our imperial vestments; we remit to him the imperial dignity. We give as a pure gift, to the holy pontiff, the city of Rome and all the Western cities of Italy, as well as the Western cities of other countries. In order to give place to him, we yield our dominion over all these provinces by removing the seat of our empire to Byzantium, considering it not right that a terrestrial emperor should preserve the least power where God had established the head of religion."
How lovely! No wonder that Cardinal Newman regarded Constantine as a pattern for all future monarchs.
But enough! Let us draw the curtain upon that early Christian age of invention and imposture. Why was it, we ask again, that Europe became a market for forgeries, immediately after its conversion to the Asiatic cult?
Yet we must not forget that hand in hand with this dishonest work of invention, went the shameful destruction of whatever was deemed unfavorable to the new religion. Many of the masterpieces of pagan literature were destroyed when they could not be tampered with. The rare volumes of history, philosophy and poetry were reduced to ashes, that they might not live to bear witness to the greatness of the pre-Christian world. Even as they destroyed the monuments and temples of Athens and Rome, they destroyed also the precious manuscripts of Greek and Roman authors. From the following confession of St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, we may gauge the temper of the early Christian Church: "I myself would willingly assume the guilt (of destroying pagan buildings) and say that 'I have set them in flames that there may be not a place left in which Christ is denied.'"
 
Let us now briefly, tell the story of the invention of the Old Testament: When Moses finished writing the book of the law, he called the elders of the people before him and commanded them to "take the book of the law and put it into the side" or the inside "of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness." The ark was a chest or box constructed after specific directions from God, and was placed in the holy place in the temple, under or behind a veil, which also covered the mercy seat upon the ark. As you must know, even Aaron the high priest was cautioned against approaching this place too often, for it was very holy. According to this account, God gives a book to his people, but he locks it up in a box, and places the box behind a veil, then fixes a seat upon the box which He Himself, occupies. How could the people, under these circumstances, get at the book? But it was not meant that they should. Ah, we have here a fine illustration of what we may call the craft of the priest, or priestcraft. They announce a revelation from God, but they will not permit anyone to take it home and read it. It is locked up in a box, and God himself is made to sit on the box.
The grass dies without air and light. The birds pine away in a cage. Even the worms which creep in damp holes, come out for a glimpse of the light, now and then; but the word of God hides in the darkness of the ark, and fears the searching gaze of man! Was it born to be buried in a wooden tomb,—born to be locked up in a shittim-wood chest,—born to blink at the light! Ah, the precious priests! The sun may be seen by everybody, the stars shine in the open, but the Word of God, like a bashful maid, shrinks from observation, and sneaks into a closet. To this day, the Catholics have to go to a closet—that is to say they have to secure permission, before they can read the Word of God.[1]
To show that we have Bible authority for the statements made above, we will quote from the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter xxxi, verse 24, etc:
"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished. That Moses commanded the Levites which bare the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, saying: Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee."
The directions are specific. And the people's reverence for the ark or the chest containing the inspired words of God increased a thousandfold.
Let us continue: The book of the law is now in the box, with the lid closed, and the deity sitting on the lid. Surely, it will be impossible for the book ever to get lost. But it did get lost. We will tell its story presently. But first let us speak of the jealousy with which the priests watched the ark. In times of war when the Jews were compelled to move the ark from one place to another, everybody was strictly forbidden from touching it, or looking into it. On one occasion, while they had the chest containing the two tables of stone and the Book of the Law, on an ox-cart, moving it to a place of safety, the cart jostled and the ark tipped. One of the drivers, Uzzah, instinctively, put forth his hand to steady the sacred chest. He was instantly killed. He touched the ark, and that was a crime. One must not even touch the box to save it from falling, much less read and investigate the book hidden therein. Every precaution was taken to protect the Bible from being investigated. God did not guard the tree of knowledge more zealously than did the priests the book of the law.
There were some people, however, who were curious enough to peep into the ark, in spite of the threats of the rabbis. To scare these people, the awful words,—sacrilege, impiety, profanity,—blasphemy,—were invented. When these failed, murder was resorted to. Listen to this story: The people of Beth-Shemesh, being of an inquiring mind, one day, they approached the ark and peeped into it, or tried to. Well; riot and massacre followed! The Lord "smote the men of Beth-Shemesh because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and three score and ten men,"—fifty thousand and seventy. The rabbis charged this wholesale massacre to the deity. All successful murderers do the same. But we must admit the priests took excellent care of the ark and its contents. Unfortunately, however, it is now nearly three thousand years since the ark was last heard of. Where is it now?
But to return to our story:
Many years after the time we are now speaking of, when King Solomon finished his magnificent temple, in Jerusalem, he ordered the ark to be opened. How he dared to disobey the priests, I cannot tell, but kings enjoy special privileges, and perhaps, he had never heard that there was a prohibition against even touching the ark. When the ark was opened, lo! and behold! the Book of the Law which Moses had commanded to be put inside the ark was not there.
It was not there!
In 2nd Kings, eighth chapter, ninth verse, we read that when they opened the ark:
"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone."
In other words, the book which we read about in the former quotation from the Bible, and which contained most valuable divine instructions to the people, had disappeared. The ark contained only two stones, which too, in due time, went the way of the book, and no one knows where they are at the present time. Ark and stones and book, as they are nowhere to be found, there is a bare possibility that they have returned to heaven whence they came.
But let us follow the story: The book was not in the ark.
What fate had befallen it? Was it never put there? When Uzzah, and the five thousand and seventy men were killed for touching the ark, was it empty? Solomon had the lid of the chest removed, and he found therein no "Book of the Law," which was ordered to be placed there "as a witness."
Then followed a stretch of centuries in which the Book of the Law is not heard of. Oblivion now began to spread its dusty wings upon the memory of it. Yet, suggests Saladin, the old world jogged along as usual; the sun rose and set; the moon, as ever before shed its romantic light upon sea and shore. Lovers paired, and children, like a flock of swallows, visited our earth. They toiled, grew old and died—without any Book of the Law.
There is a third chapter in the biography of the Bible. Three hundred and fifty years after Solomon had fallen asleep with his fathers, one morning,—I cannot tell whether it was on a fair or on a foul day, Hilkiah,—remember that name,—Hilkiah! the high priest, knocked on the door of Shaphan, King Josiah's private secretary, and begged for a private interview,—a tete-a-tete, as the French would say. Leaning over, he whispered in the ears of the King's minister, slowly and solemnly, as one who is burdened with some compelling news,—that—he—had—just—found—"The Book of the Law" which had been lost for three hundred and fifty years!
The two men paused and looked at each other for a moment. Yes, Hilkiah, the high priest, had found the book which had been lost for three hundred and fifty years! And where? In the Temple! Had the king's minister been in an inquiring mood, he might have asked some questions: Was the book lying there all these years and not a man stumbled upon it? Or was it just put there for Hilkiah to find it? If it had been lost for three hundred years or more, how could Hilkiah tell that the book he found was the same that Moses wrote and ordered kept in the shittim-wood chest? If Hilkiah made any changes in the book, how is the world to know which is Hilkiah's and which is Moses' contribution to the Bible? But the questions were not asked. Besides, faith can shut its small eye to even greater difficulties than are involved in Hilkiah's discovery.
When the King heard this extraordinary news, he must have doubted the word of the high priest, for he appointed a committee, whose names are given in the Bible, to present a report on this newly-found book. What did the committee do? Did it study the book? Did it invite native and foreign scholars to pronounce upon it? Did it encourage the noblest, bravest, most truthful men and women in the world to express their free opinion about it, or to cross-examine the high priest? Indeed not! The committee took the book and went to a medium. They believed that the prophetess Huldah, the medium, or the witch, was the sole person capable of passing upon the genuineness of inspired documents. No thinker, no conscientious student, patiently collecting facts, and fearlessly exposing error, could compare with the witch Huldah in inspiration. She was to the Jewish nation, at this time, what Plato and Aristotle were to the heathen Greeks. Huldah, the medium, represented the highest culture of the country and its people. She was the one light in Jerusalem. The confidence of Minot, Savage, Heber, Newton and publisher Funk, in Mrs. Piper, is not a circumstance to the faith of King Josiah's committee in prophetess Huldah. And she did not require time to study the book, or to make investigations. What kind of a prophetess would she have been if she could not answer any questions offhand?
Of course, Huldah's opinion was the Lord's opinion, because she began her decision with the words, "Thus saith the Lord." And although, like all mediums, she is very careful not to commit herself, she seems to have satisfied the delegation from the King that the priest, Hilkiah, had found the lost book of the law. For some reason which we are unable to divine the book was not put back into the Ark. Perhaps they had found a safer place.
How do Christian scholars explain this Hilkiah episode? Let us quote from the Encyclopedia Biblica, one of the best known commentaries on the Bible:—"What led Hilkiah to say that he had found the Book of the Law is not recorded." Perhaps it was not convenient to do so: "He may merely have meant," adds the commentator, feeling fearfully the strain of his orthodoxy, "Here is the best and fullest law-book, about which thou hast been asking." Is not this ingenious? "I have found the Book of the Law," may only have meant, according to this clergyman's interpretation, "Here is the best and fullest law-book about which thou hast been asking." But why should Hilkiah have meant one thing and said another? And what about the fact that Solomon failed to find the Book of the Law in the Ark, and that for three hundred and fifty years there is silence about this same book? And why did they go to medium Huldah, if everybody knew what the book was? But the explanations of the orthodox scholars which I have quoted prove what I said about the believer being compelled to twist and cramp his conscience even worse than the reputed authors of the Scriptures have done, in order to smooth over the offenses against truth and honor in the Bible.
The authors of the Encyclopedia Biblica are among the most scholarly and progressive of the Christian clergy, and their answer to questions about the High Priest Hilkiah is as good as can be expected, under the circumstances. But we know of a safer answer than that—silence.
There is a concluding chapter in the history of the Bible. It appears that when Jerusalem fell into the hands of the Persians, the city was pillaged, the temple destroyed, and the Book of the Law which Hilkiah had discovered, was burned. Once more, Israel is without a book. Driven into captivity, the Jews lived among the heathen without a temple and without a bible. Then Cyrus, the King of Persia, is represented in the book of Ezra, as issuing a proclamation to the Jews to return to their country and rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. At this time, Cyrus, graciously delivered to the Jews "the vessels of the house of the Lord, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods." Among the articles restored to the Temple, no mention is made of the Book of the Law. But Ezra, who is called "a scribe of the words of the commandment of the Lord," appears to have not only rebuilt the temple, but also to have restored the burned Book of the Law. In forty days, by the help of forty associates, everything that was ever reported to have been done of the Lord was put to writing and read aloud to the congregation which kept standing as Ezra read to them. Such is the story in the Book of Esdras.
That Ezra was the restorer of the destroyed law seems to have been the opinion of almost all the early church Fathers. "Whether you choose to call Moses the author of the Pentateuch, or Ezra the restorer of the same book, I make no objection," wrote St. Jerome. Clement, of Alexandria, another church Father, writes, that, "The writings having been destroyed, Ezra, the Levite, having become inspired, prophesied, restoring again all the old writings." Eusebius and Irenaeus seem to be of the same opinion, and the famous Tertullian, a pillar of the church, gives his testimony that, "Jerusalem having been destroyed by the Babylonian siege, it appears that every instrument of Jewish literature was restored by Esdras."
If Esdras, indeed, restored the burned book, which Hilkiah had found in the Temple after it had been lost for three hundred and fifty years, then, the question whether Moses was inspired or not,—a question which has vexed the world so much—loses all its importance. Was Ezra inspired? That is the crucial question? If he was not, how can Moses' inspiration help us since his writings were burned by the Persians, even if they were not stolen from the ark and revised by Hilkiah? The inventor of the Old Testament was Ezra, "a scribe of the words of the commandment of the Lord," that is to say, the clerk or amanuensis of God, a title which aptly describes not the interpreter, but the author of the Book of the Law. What kind of a man was this compiler or inventor of the Book of the Law? What does Christian Scholarship think of his character? Let us hear the doctors of divinity on Ezra.
The authors of the Encyclopedia Biblica whom we nave already quoted, admit that the man who bears the name of Ezra manipulated, if he did not invent, the narrative which he tells in the Bible:—"He partly mutilates it by removing a portion, partly makes it almost unintelligible by placing it in a connection to which it does not belong, and by making interpolations, etc." Could we ask for a stronger proof that the Bible is the work of men—and not of honest men, at that? But is it fair to include the whole Bible in this accusation? I wish I could feel that some portions of the Bible are free from suspicion, but I cannot. Alas! it is impossible to point to a single book in the Bible of the authorship of which we may speak with assurance. The marks of political and theological imposture in the Bible are like leopard's spots, they cannot be removed.
Well! It must not be thought that we have now disarmed the bibliolaters. They have still a powerful weapon left with which to defend the Bible: Suppose Ezra did compose or compile the Book! Is it not, nevertheless, true that the Bible teaches righteousness? The argument is something like this: The Bible may not be true, but it is very moral. In our opinion, however, it is even less moral than it is true. A book which commands murder, plunder, persecution for opinion sake, slavery and credulity of the most abject kind, can not very well be recommended as a moral text-book. Of course, there are in the Bible, as also in the Vedas or the Koran, splendid passages of truth and beauty, but by selecting only one set of passages and ignoring the rest any book could be made pure.
Matthew Arnold professes to have discovered in the Old Bible "the Eternal, not ourselves, making for Righteousness," one of his proofs being Ps. 50:23: "To him that ordereth his conversation right shall be shown the salvation of God." But the Revised Version has robbed the Oxford professor of his text by completely changing its meaning: "Whoso offereth the sacrifice of thanksgiving glorifieth me, and prepareth a way that I may show him the salvation of God" (See margin of Revised Version). There is nothing in the original about "ordering one's conduct or conversation right," it was put there by the translators whose moral culture was far superior to the authors they were rendering into English.
Moreover, Matthew Arnold, fully conceding the conclusions of the "higher critics," e. g., that the events narrated in the Bible are in most cases pure fabrications; that they are the work of myth-mongers who sought to pass as genuine and divine, documents which they had themselves forged for partisan purposes—who plagiarized from Assyrian liturgies, and wilfully misrepresented as well as interpolated the history of their nation—asks us, nevertheless, to look upon these political schemers and poseurs, as having but one all-consuming passion—righteousness!
In conclusion: The inspiration of the Bible is not a question of belief, it is a question of evidence. If believing a book inspired could make it so, then, the books of Mohammed and Buddha, of Confucius and Zoroaster, must be inspired too. In fact, any book could be made infallible, if believing it to be so, were all that was required. But does the evidence which I have offered prove that the Bible was invented? I sincerely believe it does, but still, I may be mistaken, and am therefore open to any evidence which may be furnished that the four gospels, for instance, were not invented by religious partisans, who, while suppressing their own names, paraded those of the apostles as their real authors, notwithstanding that the apostles had been dead long ago. I shall consider, conscientiously, any evidence which might be furnished that Ezra was not the real reproducer, if not the original author of the Jewish code, after his return from Babylonia. And, I promise to retract and apologize for the position I have maintained in this lecture, if the theologians, who are at home on this subject, will prove that there were no spurious gospels, no impostures, no lying manuscripts thrown upon the religious market as soon as the pagan state embraced Christianity, I will also listen to any arguments which may be produced to show that the Apostles' Creed was written by the apostles; that Constantine abdicated in favor of the pope; that the Pagan Sibyls prophesied of Christ, and that Josephus acknowledged Jesus to have been the Messiah.
I sincerely trust some learned divine into whose hands this lecture might fall, will present the other side, if he thinks there is another side, of the story I have presented. By the word invented it is not meant that the names, events, etc, were all manufactured, but that stories borrowed largely from mythical sources were edited and altered to serve partisan and political purposes.
And why have I told this story?
Do you know of any good reason, reader, why every other subject may be independently discussed or investigated, except religion? And do you know why, if Shakespeare can stand criticism, the Bible should shrink from it?
If it is possible to disagree with, or to advance beyond, Plato, Socrates, Spencer, Darwin, Goethe, Emerson,—please! why is it a heresy to differ from Moses, Solomon, Jonah or Jesus? Why is it proper to disagree with a Greek or a Roman, but blasphemy to disagree with a Jew?
The Bible has for centuries blocked the way of progress. As an infallible book it has enslaved conscience, and encouraged intolerance. To defend its many puerilities, and even immoral tales, men have resorted to casuistry and dissimulation. I believe that men will be more honest, more tolerant, more progressive, more independent and more manly, if they could be delivered from the bondage of the Bible. To overthrow its tyranny and to prove that a book can not be the master of living and growing men, to make man free, to raise him from his knees, to bring back the color to his cheeks white with fear, and to give to his arrested mind movement.

The Gospel of Evolution.

THE GOSPEL OF EVOLUTION

A new and better Gospel is now preached to men. That which has for a long time gone by the name of Gospel (good news) is neither news nor good. It is not news, for it has been preached for nearly nineteen centuries. Not that length of time alone could make it old and effete. But the Gospel of Christianity has not within itself that inherent and strong life of reality which makes even old truths to have a perennial freshness, an eternal youth, Nor is the Gospel of Christianity good. In the tales that it tells us of the past, in the advice that it gives us for the present, and in the hopes and threats it holds out for the future, it is a misleading guide, a poor philosopher, a false friend.
The legends have it that on the coming of the central figure of the discredited evangel the angels sang together: "Peace on earth, good will to men." It was a false alarm. Neither peace nor good will was forthcoming. But with the advent of this scientific gospel, the Gospel of Evolution, comes the possibility of "striking a universal peace through sea and land," the possibility of the universal brotherhood of man.
Perhaps we are all of us too anxious and too hopeful in the feeling that some one idea will save the world. The religious creeds of different races and times are the expression of this anxiety. We that have rejected all belief in the supernatural must take care that the same fancy that has spoilt the lives of so many does not mar our own. We must have a care lest we make too much of some truth, even though it be a scientific conclusion, based on scientific observation and reasoning. And we must not forget that, of all the great generalisations, that of Evolution is the one most likely to be thus regarded, for it is a generalisation of generalisations. The mind of man is always longing for some solid resting-place. Man wants to get back and back, to something certain. He wants to feel that, whatever happens, some one great principle stands fast. The children of the decrepit gospel dreamed that this was found in God. The children of the new Gospel know that in the indestructibility of matter and of motion, and in the infinite nature of the transformations of matter and motion, they have a solid fact on which to fall back when all else fails. Only it is very important to remember that, great as any idea may be, the mental effort needed for its understanding and its acquisition is to the individual of as much moment as the idea itself. The exercise of our faculties is of as great value to us as the results attained by the exercise. The old parental habit of asking of the school-boy or the school-girl: "What prizes have you gained?" is only one form of a general error. The question is not, "What prizes have you?" but "What have you learned?" We are coming to recognise this in some measure in our estimates of grown men and women. Still, however, to the vulgar, the measure of a man is the banker's balance. But the thoughtful, as yet few in number, although the number grows hourly, and even the commonplace people, if they are in the unaccustomed atmosphere of culture, are estimating the value of a human being by that which he actually does and is, rather than by the magnitude of the cheques he can draw.
What is, then, this Evolution? In the asking this question and in the attempt to answer we see how much happier is the position of the new gospel as compared with that of the old. The good news of Christianity, having no scientific and indeed no natural basis, has been Protean in its forms. These have been indefinitely varied according to the taste and fancy of the age and of the individual. The Gospel as preached by Messrs. Benson, Booth, Baldwin Brown, Spurgeon, Liddon, Moody, is somewhat mixed. But the new evangel is founded wholly on a natural and scientific basis. There may be slight differences of opinion as to matters of detail among its apostles and its disciples, but the fundamental principles are accepted by all. Upon these, no doubt, much less any dispute reigns.
Evolution is the name for the idea of the unity and continuity of phsenomena. The popular and unscientific notion was that there was not only an original effort on the part of the supernatural causing the natural, setting it going, in fact, but a continual interposition of the supernatural from without, controlling the natural. Evolution is the doctrine of non-intervention. According to this gospel, matter and motion are all in all. Matter is the convenient name for all that which can affect the senses of man. Motion is change of place, whether it be of large, palpable masses, as when the arm is raised, or of minute impalpable molecules, as when heat or electricity is at work.

BBC presenter under fire for saying Jesus Christ has had two dad

The presenter has received criticism for
accusing Christians of hypocrisy, by saying
Jesus had ‘two dads’ and ‘turned out
alright’.

Host Ciaran Varley, 28, made the comments on BBC Raw,
an online platform launched by the broadcaster in February,
in a bid to develop new talent and engage younger viewers
in current affairs.
BBC Raw is led by Mr Varley’s mother, Cheryl Varley, the
BBC’s social mobility executive.
During one episode fronted by Varley, he accuses the
Christian community of hypocrisy, due to their opposition to
same-sex marriage.
“Jesus himself had two dads [and] turned out alright”, he
says.
The same episode pokes fun at the Bible with an image of a
dinosaur in white robes and a halo, above a tagline about
God’s supposed views on sex.
Other episodes on the website show Varley – a comedian
who also works for CBBC – claim the Queen does not have
the right to discuss austerity, because she has “never done
a day’s graft in her life” and call Prime Minister David
Cameron a “f***ing idiot”.
His comments have come under criticism from a number of
MPs, including Tory MP Damian Collins, of the Commons
culture, media and sport committee, who said: ‘This is the
type of content the BBC should have nothing to do with, let
alone commission.
‘I can’t understand how this was allowed to happen,” an
outraged Collins told the Mail Online.
“It brings the BBC into disrepute … the BBC needs to explain
why money from [its] budget has been used to benefit
[family of staff].”
Labour MP Helen Goodman added that Ofcom should
consider looking “at whether they have breached the
broadcasting code.”
A BBC spokesman responded to the furore, saying: “We are
urgently working with the people involved in running the
scheme to ensure [BBC Raw] fully adheres to the BBC’s
rigorous editorial standards.