We ask again, Who, from the deepest depths of his inmost, enlightened consciousness, can believe such revolting, such atheistical doctrine as this? Or who will venture to descend still lower, and conceive of an Almighty, Omnipresent Being, who fills all space above, around, and beneath, ‘from infinity below to yon fixed star above,’ and millions upon millions of miles beyond it, sinking and dwindling to that mere mite, speck, or monad state and condition comprehended in the initiatory step of embryonic existence? And then think of the Almighty, Omnipotent Creator of the universe lying in a manger with four-footed beasts and creeping things, sleeping with oxen and asses in a stable. Next he is seen an urchin on the street playing with marbles and jack-knives, absorbed and forgetful of the world around him. Who can believe that awfully majestic Being, who is represented by his own inspired book as being so transcendently grand and awe-inspiring that ‘no man can see him and live’ (Ex. xxxiii. 20), was not only daily seen by hundreds and thousands, but was on such familiar terms with men, that they regarded him as their companion, and equal, and even sometimes coolly reprimanded him for supposed misdemeanours and errors? Could they believe this to be Almighty God? Impossible! Impossible! And then who can believe that that infinite Being, whom we have been taught to regard as absolutely and eternally unchangeable, could become subject to hunger and thirst (as did Jesus)? Or who can believe that the eternally and unceasingly watchful Omnipotent Deity, whose eye, we are told, ‘never slumbers,’ could sink into unconscious sleep, become ‘to dumb forgetfulness a prey,’ night after night, for thirty years, oblivious, and unconscious of the world around him?

Think of a being of incomprehensible majesty, dignity, and power, able to ‘shake the heavens and the earth also,’ being unable to protect himself from insult, and was therefore derided and ‘spit upon,’ and finally overcome by his enemies, as is related of Jesus. Can any man believe, who has not made shipwreck of his senses, or banished Reason from her courts, that God Almighty, who comprehends in himself the most absolute and boundless perfection of goodness and wisdom, was tempted by demons, devils, and crawling serpents? Who can believe that the Lord, who owns ‘the cattle upon a thousand hills’ (Psalm 1. 10), and the countless host of worlds besides, that wheel their course through infinite space, had not ‘where to lay his head’? Who can believe that that was the all-wise, omnipotent, and omnipresent God, possessing all power in heaven above and the earth beneath, who was betrayed by weak, finite mortals? What! the Almighty Creator betrayed by a puny being of his own creation into the hands of his disobedient and rebellious children? Why could he not, if possessing ‘power to lay down his life, and take it up again’ (John x. 17), cause that all these children of his (as we must assume they were, if he was Almighty God, and hence the Father of all) should love him, instead of hating him? Can any man believe that Jesus was possessed with omnipotent power while standing to be whipped (scourged) by Pontius Pilate, or that he possessed a power above that of finite mortals while in the act of praying, with such extreme ardour that the sweat dropped from his face, that the cup of death might pass from his lips, or while calling for an angel to support him in the hour of his mortal dissolution? or that He, ‘by whom all things exist,’ could cease himself to exist, by dying upon the cross between malefactors? Think of this, and think of the eternal Creator, the infinite Deity, the omnipotent Jehovah, the Maker of worlds as numberless as the sands upon the sea-shore for multitude, fainting, bleeding, dying, and pouring out his own blood to appease his own wrath; dying an ignominious death to satisfy an implacable revenge! Away with such insulting mockery, such blasphemous flummery! It can only find place in the dark chambers of an unenlightened mind.

Well has Watts said of Locke’s skepticism:

‘Reason could scarcely sustain to see,
Or bear the infant Deity:
A ransomed world, a bleeding God,
And heaven appeased by flowing blood,
Were themes too painful to be understood.’

Yes, and too painful to be believed, too, Mr. Watts! Here we have a ‘bleeding God,’ an ‘infant Deity,’ and a vengeful God, appeased by murder and streams of ‘flowing blood.’ Gracious heavens! Whose reason does not revolt at such a picture? Whose soul does not sicken at the thought, and who would not prefer, infinitely prefer, to sink to annihilation, if not to perdition itself, to being thus saved by navigating a river of blood? Dr. South hits off some of the absurdities involved in the Christian doctrine of the incarnation so forcibly and so lucidly, that we cannot resist the temptation to subjoin here a few extracts from his sermon on the subject. ‘But now,’ says this Christian clergyman, ‘was there ever any wonder comparable to this, to behold the Lord (Jesus Christ) thus clothed in flesh, the Creator of all things, humbled, not only to the company, but also to the cognition, of his creatures? It is as if one should imagine the whole world not only represented upon, but also contained in, one of our own artificial globes, or the body of the sun enveloped in a cloud as big as a man’s hand, all of which would be looked upon as astonishing impossibilities, and yet is as short of the other as the finite is of the infinite, between which the disparity is immeasurable. It is, as it were, to cancel the essential distances of things, to remove the bounds of nature, to bring heaven and earth, and what is more, both ends of the contradiction, together. Men cannot persuade themselves that a Deity and infinity should lie within so narrow a compass as the dimensions of a human body; that omnipotence, omnipresence should ever be wrapped in swaddling clothes, and debased to the homely usage of a stable and a manger; that the glorious Artificer of the whole universe, who spread out the heaven like a curtain, and laid the foundations of the earth, could ever turn carpenter, and exercise an inglorious trade in a little cell. They cannot imagine that He who once created and at present governs the world, and shall hereafter judge the world, should be abased in all his concerns and relations, be scourged, spit upon, mocked and at last crucified. All which are passages which lie extremely close to the notions of conceptions which reason has made to itself of that high and impossible perfection that resided in the divine Creator.’ (Sermon, 1665.) Dr. South, it will be observed, admits that the doctrine of the divine incarnation involves many palpable absurdities and contradictions, and lies directly across the path of reason. Fatal admission to the doctrine of the deityship of Christ, but true, as his own elucidation of the subject demonstrates. To the author, since he first subjected the question to a logical scrutiny, and looked at it with an unbiased mind, it presents difficulties insurmountable, and absurdities innumerable. He can imagine nothing more transcendently shocking, revolting, and dwarfing to the mind, both morally and intellectually, than the thought of believing that a being born of and suckled by a woman, and possessing the mere form and dimensions of a man, can be regarded as the great Almighty and Omnipotent God, the Creator of unnumbered worlds, millions of which are larger than this planet, on which Jesus was born.

And then, look for a moment at some of the many childish incongruities and logical difficulties this giant absurdity drags with it. It represents Almighty God as coming into the world through the hands of a midwife, as passing through the process of gestation and parturition. It insults our reason with the idea that the great, infinite Jehovah could be moulded into the human form – a thought that is shocking to the moral sense, and withering, cramping, and dwarfing to the intellectual mind, imposing upon it a heavy drag-chain which checks its expansion, and forbids its onward progress. Christians tell us that the human and the divine were united in ‘the man Christ Jesus.’ But this is a Monstrous absurdity, which no truly rational and unbiased mind can accept for an instant – that of hitching, splicing, tying, or dovetailing together finite man with the infinite Jehovah, that of amalgamating and commingling human foibles with divine perfection. Think of wedding mortal weakness to omnipotent power, local man with the omnipresent Deity I Think of compounding the creature and the Creator in one and the same being! Think of the omnipresent ‘I AM,’ whose illimitable existence stretches far away throughout the expansive arena of a boundless universe, occupying a dwelling within the narrow confines of the human temple! As well essay to crowd the universe into your pocket, or the Himalayas Mountains into a thimble. On the other hand, think of a small compound of flesh, blood, and bones, a few feet in dimensions, and weighing perhaps not more than one hundred and fifty pounds avoirdupois, containing that infinite, omnipresent Being, whom, we are told (we repeat the quotation), ‘the heaven of heavens cannot contain’! And more than all, I ask you if you can accept for a moment, without the immolation of your common sense, and the trampling of your reason beneath you feet, the monstrous thought that that mighty and almighty Architect who created the countless myriad upon myriad of ponderous worlds, which now roll in majestic order and eternal rotation along the great cerulean causeway of heaven, that mighty Architect who, from time beyond human computation, has been rolling out orb after orb, world after world, if not myriad at a time, ten thousand times, ten thousand of which would dwindle our little pygmy, Lilliputian planet into insignificance, if compared with it in size.

I ask, and drive home the query to your inward consciousness, and the inmost temples of your sacred reason, Can you believe, after a moment’s reflection, that a Being who is too vast, infinitely too vast in power and ubiquity to be grasped by the human understanding, did become (as did the finite and humble Jesus) a helpless, senseless, unconscious, human infant; a suckling, crying, squalling babe, powerless of speech, and unable to walk?, worse, more startling still, we are shocked with the thought that this mighty World-builder, this infinite, omnipotent Creator, was reduced so near to the verge of nonentity, so near to the last glimmering spark or speck of existence, and the world so near without a God, as to become an inanimate foetus – a monad in the matrix of a human virgin? Shocking the thought! Blasphemous the doctrine! Believe it who will; believe it who can! We cannot; we would not; we are infinitely beyond it. Such a belief may be deposited by educational tradition in the affections, but to enter the temple of Reason, it never did, it never can. She never unbarred her doors to admit such monstrous, such enormous incongruities. And all these logical absurdities, and a thousand more, grow legitimately out of the doctrine of the divine incarnation – out of the postulate which would (following in the line of the pagan superstitions) elevate the finite, humble, mortal Jesus to the throne of heaven, the exclusive prerogative of Almighty God. Come away, my Christian friends, from such disparaging, such dishonourable views of the Deity, such blasphemous caricatures of Almighty God. Come away from such morally darkening and such intellectually dwarfing superstitions, the mouldering relics of oriental mythology, the expiring embers of childish credulity and tradition, which originated far back in the dark cradle of human existence, in the infancy of an undeveloped age, ruled by ignorance, superstition, and priestcraft. Yet millions of people laying claim to sense and intelligence, even now profess to believe it! Talk not to me of infidelity or blasphemy for denying the divinity or Godhead of Jesus Christ. The blasphemy lies in the other direction. The infidelity is with the opposite party. It is with those who thus make the dignity and character of Deity the sport of childish baubles, the game of priestly tawdryism. And be assured, dear friends, one and all, that coming generations will mark the man who now worships ‘the man Christ Jesus’ as being ‘very God’ as an idolater, if not a blasphemer – for worshipping a finite man for an infinite God, even though the motives for such worship may be as pure as the pearly stream that issues forth from the golden fount which rolls and sparkles beneath the throne of Almighty God.

(The words Creator, Maker, etc., are used from a Christian standpoint. Science knows no Creator.)

There is a philosophical principle underlying the doctrine of the Divine Incarnation, whose logical deductions completely overthrow the claim of Jesus of Nazareth to the Godhead, and which we regard as settling the question as conclusively as any demonstrated problem in mathematics. This argument is predicated upon the philosophical axiom, that two infinite beings of any description of conception, cannot exist, either in whole or in part, at the same time; and per consequence, it is impossible that the Father and Son should both be God in a divine sense, either conjointly or separately. The word infinite comprehends all; it covers the whole ground; it fills the immensity of the universe, and fills it to repletion, so that there is no room left for any other being to exist. And whoever and whatever does exist must constitute a part of this infinite whole.

Now, the Christian world concedes (for it is the teaching of their Scriptures), that the Father is God, always and truly, perfect, complete, and absolute; that there is nothing wanting in him to constitute him God in the most comprehensive and absolute sense of the term; that he is all we can conceive of as constituting God, ‘the one only true God’ (John xvii. 3), and was such from all eternity, before Jesus Christ was born into the world; and Paul puts the keystone into the arch by proclaiming, ‘To us there is but one God, the Father.’ (i Cor. viii. 6.) Hence we have here a logical proposition (despite the sophistry of Christendom) as impregnable as the rocks of Gibraltar, that the Father alone is or can be God, which effectively shuts out every other and all other beings in the universe from any participation in the Godhead with the Father. And thus this parity of reasoning demonstrates that the very moment you attempt to make Christ God, or any part of the Godhead, you attempt a philosophical impossibility. You cannot introduce another being as God in the infinite sense until the first-named infinite God is dethroned and put out of existence, and this, of course, is a self-evident impossibility. If it were not such, then we should have two Gods, both absolute and infinite. On the other hand, if that other being (who with the Christians is Jesus Christ, with the Hindus Krishna, with the Buddhists Saki, etc.) is introduced as only a part of the infinite and perfect God, then it is evident to every mind with the least philosophical perception, that some change or alteration must take place in the latter before such a union can be effected. But such a change, or any alteration, in a perfect infinite being would at once reduce him to a changeable and finite being, and thus he would cease to be God. For it is a clear philosophical and mathematical axiom, that a perfect and infinite being cannot become more than infinite. And if he could and should become less than infinite, he would at once become finite, and thus lose all the attributes of the Godhead. To say or assume, then, that Christ was God in the absolute or divine sense, and the Father also God absolute, and yet that there is but one God, or that the two could in any manner be united, so as to constitute but one God, is not only a glaring solecism, but a positive contradiction in terms, and an utter violation of the first axiomatic principles of philosophy and mathematics. It also asserts the illogical hypothesis, that a part can be equal to the whole; it first assumes the Father to be absolutely God, then assumes the Son also to be absolutely God, and finally assumes each to be only a part, and has to unite them to make a whole and complete God; and thereby culminates the theological farce. Such is Christian ratiocination.

Again, it is conceded by Christians, that the Father is an omnipresent being; and we have shown that it is a mathematical impossibility for two omnipresent beings, or two beings possessing any infinite attributes, to exist at one and the same time. Hence the clear logical deduction that the Son could not be omnipresent, and per sequence, not God. Again, we have another philosophical maxim or axiom familiar to every schoolboy, that no two substances or beings can occupy the same place at the same time; the first must be removed before the second can by any possibility be introduced, in order thus to make room for the latter. But as omnipresent means existing everywhere, there can be no place to remove on omnipresent being to, or rather there can be no place or space he can be withdrawn from in order to make room for another being, without his ceasing to be omnipresent himself, and thereby ceasing to be God.

It is thus shown to be a demonstrable truth that the omnipresence of the Father does and must exclude that of the Son, and thus exclude the possibility of his apotheosis or incarnated deityship. In other words, it is established as a scientific principle upon a philosophical and mathematical basis, that Jesus Christ was not and could not be ‘the great I AM,’ ‘the only true God.’

We will notice one other philosophical absurdity involved in the doctrine of the divine incarnation – the other solecism comprehended in the childish notion which invests the infinite God with finite attributes. It is a well-established and well-understood axiom in philosophy, that ‘the less cannot be made to contain the greater.’ A pint bottle cannot be made to contain a quart of wine. For the same reason a finite body cannot contain an infinite spirit. Hence philosophy presses the conclusion that ‘the man Christ Jesus’ could not have comprehended in himself ‘the Godhead bodily,’ inasmuch as it would have required the infinite God to be incorporated in a finite human body. We are therefore compelled to reject the doctrine of the incarnate divinity, the belief in the deityship of Jesus Christ, because (with many other reasons enumerated elsewhere) it involves a direct tilt against some of the plainest principles of science, and challenges – virtually overthrows – some of the fundamental laws of both natural and moral philosophy. No philosopher, therefore, does or can believe in the absolute divinity of Jesus Christ.

There is also a physiological principle comprised in the doctrine of the Divine Incarnation fatal in its practical and logical application to the divinity of Jesus Christ, and all the other incarnate or flesh-invested Gods of antiquity. It is evidently fraught with much logical force. It is based upon the law of mental and physical correspondence. As is the physical conformation, so is the mentality, is a law of analogy which pilots us to nearly all our practical knowledge of the natural world. A knowledge of either serves as an index to the other.

When we observe an animal possessing that physical form and construction peculiar to its species, we expect to find it practically exhibiting the nature, character, disposition, and habits peculiar to that class of animals. If it possesses, for example, the conformation of a sheep, we infer at once that it has the disposition of a sheep, and we are never disappointed in this conclusion. And when we encounter an animal with the tiger form, we expect to see exhibited the tiger spirit. If it possesses the well-known physical conformation of the tiger, we are never deceived or misled when we assign it a predatory disposition. If it is a tiger form, it is sure to be a tiger in character and habits. And so of all the genera and species of animals that range upon the face of the globe. We may travel through the whole field of animated nature, and observe the infallible operation of this beautiful law of correspondence till we come, however, to the crowning work of God, called Man. Here we find this law, this beautiful chain of analogy, broken by the doctrine of the ‘divine incarnation.’ God becomes a man, at least is made to exhibit every external appearance of a man. All external distinction between God and man is thus obliterated. So that the very first being we meet in the street or on the highway possessing the form, size, and physical conformation of a man, and presenting every other external appearance of being a man, may nevertheless be a God. And no less is this objection practically exemplified, and not less is the infraction of this beautiful law of analogy observable in the case of Jesus Christ, than in the numerous other incarnate Gods and demigods of antiquity. Being in appearance a man, how was he to be, or how could he be, visually distinguished from a man? Or how could those men who were contemporary with him, know, as they approached him, or as they approached each other, whether they were meeting a man or a God? Seeing that ‘he was found in fashion as a man’ (Phil. ii. 8), either he might be mistaken for a man, or they for a God. They were constantly liable to be confounded. If, then, the infinite deityship was lodged in the person of Jesus Christ, it is evident that that important fundamental law of nature – ‘as is the form, so is the character’ – was utterly annulled, prostrated, annihilated, and banished from the world by the act. So that all was, and is henceforth and forever, chaos, confusion, and uncertainty. For if the principle can be violated in one instance, it may be in another, and in thousands of cases, ad infinitum. If one case could be allowed to occur, the principle is established, and nature’s universal chain of analogy is broken and destroyed; for to intercept the law is to ‘break the tenth and ten thousandth link alike.’

Hence it is evident that if a being resembling a man may be a God, an animal resembling a cow may be a horse, and yonder stick a poisonous adder; and fatal may be the consequences, in thousands of instances, in judging or inferring the nature and character of an animal by its form and size. A supposed innocent animal might be a deadly enemy, or vice versa. Can we then believe, or dare we believe, a doctrine so atheistical in its tendencies as that the Infinite Deity was incorporated in the person of the meek and lowly Jesus, when it would thus set at naught, violate, prostrate, and utterly cancel from the world one of God’s own fundamental laws, and one of the essential principles of natural science, and banish forever the coordinate harmony of the universe, and thus inaugurate a state of universal disorder, incertitude, anarchy, and misrule into the otherwise beautifully law-governed, well-regulated domain of nature? Certainly, most certainly not! If the incarnation of the Deity, should or could take place, there should be something strikingly peculiar – infinitely peculiar – in his figure, size, and general appearance, in order to make him susceptible of being distinguished from the human. Otherwise, men would be liable to be constantly mistaking and worshiping each other for the Great Almighty and Ubiquitous God, and thus constantly blundering into idolatry. And we actually find several cases reported in the Scriptures (mark the fact well) of men – the saints themselves, being led into this error; being led to commit ‘the high-handed sin of idolatry’ in consequence of their previous acceptance of the belief in a man-God – that is, a God of human size and type. St. John, in two instances, was in the act of worshipping a being possessing the human form, whom he mistook for the omnipotent and omnipresent God. (See Rev. xix. 10, and xxii. 4.) Having, perhaps, been taught that ‘the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ Jesus,’ he probably mistook the being he met for Him, and hence offered to worship him. If, then, Christ’s own ‘inspired disciples’ could thus be betrayed into ‘the sin of idolatry’ by having abolished the infinite distinction between the divine and the human, we surely find here a very weighty argument against such a leveling and equalising doctrine. And certainly nothing could be better calculated to promote ‘the sin of idolatry’ than thus to obliterate the broad, the infinitely grand line of demarcation between the infinite God and his finite creature man. Indeed, may we not here find the very origin and the cause of the now general prevalence of idolatry in pagan countries? Is it not directly traceable to the demolition of the broad, high, and insurmountable wall of distinction which ought forever to stand between a God of infinite attributes, and a being caged up in the human form? Certainly, most certainly it is. Hence here I would ask, How can Christians, after subscribing to the doctrine, ‘that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in the man Christ Jesus’ (as Paul very appropriately calls him), condemn the people of any age or nation for worshipping as God their fellow-beings – that is, beings with the human form? Certainly the man who could believe that the infinite God could be comprehended or incorporated in the person of Jesus, could easily be brought to believe that the Grand Lama of Tibet is a proper object of divine worship. He only lacks the substitution of names. Substitute the Grand Lama for that of Jesus Christ, and the thing is done. And idolatry thus becomes an easily established institution, and its abolition in any country an absolute moral impossibility.

A most fatal distrust is thrown upon the miraculous portions of the history of Jesus Christ, as found in his Gospel narratives, by the discovery of the fact (brought to light through recent archaeological researches), that the same marvellous feats, the same miraculous incidents, which were recorded in his life, were long previously engrafted into the sacred biographies of Gods and demigods no less adored and worshipped as beings possessing divine attributes. We shall leave others to account for the long list of astonishing coincidences, as we proceed to recapitulate and abridge from previous chapters, the almost innumerable parallel incidents running through the legendary history of the many demigods and sin-atoning saviours of antiquity. The historical vouchers are given. We shall first direct attention to the long string of corresponding events recorded in the sacred histories of ancient Hindu Gods, as compared with those of Jesus Christ at a much later period.

As far back as 1,200 BC, sacred records were extant and traditions were current, in the East, which taught that the heathen Saviour (Krishna) was, 1st, Immaculately conceived and born of a spotless virgin, ‘who had never known man.’ 2d, That the author of, or agent in, the conception, was a spirit or ghost (of course a Holy Ghost). 3d, That he was threatened in early infancy with death by the ruling tyrant, Cansa. 4th, That his parents had, consequently, to flee with him to Gokul for safety. 5th, That all the young male children under two years of age were slain by an order issued by Cansa, similar to that of Herod in Judea. 6th, That angels and shepherds attended his birth. 7th, That his birth and advent occurred on the 25th of December. 8th, That it occurred in accedence with previous prophecy. 9th, That he was presented at birth with frankincense, myrrh, etc. 10th, That he was saluted and worshipped as ‘the Saviour of men,’ according to the report of the late Christian Missionary Huc. 11th, That he led a life of humility and practical moral usefulness. 12th, That he wrought various astounding miracles, such as healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, casting out devils, raising the dead to life, etc. 13th, That he was finally put to death upon the cross (that is, crucified) between two thieves. 14th. After which he descended to hell, rose from the dead, and ascended back to heaven ‘in the sight of all men,’ as his biblical history declares. For hundreds of other similar parallels, including his doctrines and precepts, see Chapter XXXII.

Now, all these were matters of the firmest belief, more than three thousand years ago, in the minds of millions of the most devout worshippers that ever bowed the knee in humble prayer to the Father of Mercies. One can draw his own deduction.

And then we have presented similar brief lists of parallels in Chapter XXIII, comprised in a comparative view of the miraculous lives of the Judean and Egyptian Saviours, Christ, Alcides, Osiris, Tulis, etc. In this analogous exhibition, it will be observed the Egyptian Gods are reported, as remotely as 900 BC, as performing, besides several of the miraculous achievements enumerated above, other miracles equally indicative of divine power, such as converting water into wine, causing ‘rain to descend from heaven,’ etc. And on the occasion of the crucifixion of Tulis we are told ‘the sun became darkened and the moon refused to shine.’

We find, also, several well-authenticated instances of raising the dead to life, in works portraying the miraculous achievements of the Egyptian Gods, the relation being given in such specific detail in some cases that the names of the reanimated dead are furnished. Tyndarus and Hypolitus were instances of this kind, both (according to Julius) having been raised from the dead. Descending the line of history, until we arrive at the confines of Grecian theology, we find here the same train of marvellous events recorded in the histories of their virgin-born Gods, as we have shown in Chapter XXXIII, such as their healing the sick and the cripples, causing the blind to see, the lame to walk, the dead to be resuscitated to life, etc. And cases, as we have shown, are reported of their reading the thoughts of their disciples, as Jesus did those of the woman of Samaria. Apollonius declares he knew many Hindu saints to perform this achievement with entire strangers.

Likewise Apollonius of Tyana and Simon Magus, both contemporary with Jesus Christ, we have arranged in the historic parallel (see Chapter XXXIII), with their long train of miracles, constituting an exact counterpart with those related in the Gospel history of Christ, and including in Apollonius’s case, besides those specified in the histories of the Gods above named, the miracle of transfiguration, the resurrection from the dead, his visible ascent to heaven, etc., while Simon Magus was very expert in casting out devils, raising the dead, allaying storms, walking on the sea, etc.

But without recapitulating further, we will recite some new historic facts not embraced in any of the preceding chapters of this work, and tending to demonstrate still further the universal analogy of all religions, past and present, in their claims for a miraculous power for their Gods and incarnate Saviours. The ‘New York Correspondent,’ published in 1828, furnishes us the following brief history of an ancient Chinese God, known as Beddou:

‘All the Eastern writers agree in placing the birth of Beddou 1027 BC The doctrines of this Deity prevailed over Japan, China, and Ceylon. According to the sacred tenets of his religion, ‘God is incessantly rendering himself incarnate,’ but his greatest and most solemn incarnation was three thousand years ago, in the province of Cashmere, under the name of Fot, or Beddou. He was believed to have sprung from the right intercostal of a virgin of the royal blood, who, when she became a mother, did not the less continue to be a virgin; that the king of the country, uneasy at his birth, was desirous to put him to death, and hence caused all the males that were born at the same period to be put to death, and also that, being saved by shepherds, he lived in the desert to the age of thirty years, at which time he opened his commission, preaching the doctrines of truth, and casting out devils; that he performed a multitude of the most astonishing miracles, spent his life fasting, and in the severest mortifications, and at his death bequeathed to his disciples the volume in which the principles of his religion are contained.’

Here, it will be observed, are some very striking counterparts to the miraculous incidents found related in the Gospel history of Jesus Christ. And no less analogous is the no less well-authenticated story of Quexalcote of Mexico, which the Rev. Mr. Maurice concedes to be, and Lord Kingsborough and Niebuhr (in his history of Rome) prove to be much older than the Gospel account of Jesus Christ. According to Maurice’s ‘Ind. Ant.,’ Humboldt’s ‘Researches in Mexico,’ Lord Kingsborough’s ‘Mexican Ant.,’ and other works, the incarnate God Quexalcote was born (about 300 BC) of a spotless virgin, by the name Chimalman, and led a life of the deepest humility and piety; retired to a wilderness, fasted forty days, was worshipped as a God, and was finally crucified between two thieves; after which he was buried and descended into hell, but rose again the third day. The following is a part of Lord Kingsborough’s testimony in the case: ‘The temptation of Qtlexalcote, the fast of forty days ordained by the Mexican ritual, the cup with which he was presented to drink (on the cross), the reed which was his sign, the ‘Morning Star,’ which he is designated, the ‘Teoteepall, or Divine Stone,’ which was laid on his altar, and which was likewise an object of adoration, – all these circumstances, connected with many others relating to Quexalcote of Mexico, but which are here omitted, are very curious and mysterious.’ (Vol. Vi. p. 237, of Mexican Ant.)

Again ‘Quexalcote is represented, in the painting of Codex Borgianus, as nailed to the cross.’ (See Mex. Ant. vol. vi. p. 166.) One plate in this work represents him as being crucified in the heavens, one as being crucified between two thieves. Sometimes he is represented as being nailed to the cross, and sometimes as hanging with the cross in his hands. The same work speaks of his burial, descent into hell, and his resurrection; while the account of his immaculate conception and miraculous birth are found in a work called ‘Codex Vaticanus.’

Other parallel incidents could be cited, if we had space for them, appertaining to the history of this Mexican God. And parallels might also be constructed upon the histories of other ancient Gods – as that of Saki of India, Salivahana of Bermuda, Hesus, or Eros, of the Celtic Druids, Mithra of Persia, Hil and Feta of the Mandaites, etc.

But we will close with the testimony of a French philosopher (Bagin) on the subject of deific incarnations. This writer says, ‘The most ancient histories are those of Gods who became incarnate in order to govern mankind. All those fables are the same in spirit, and sprang up everywhere from confused ideas, which have universally prevailed among mankind – that Gods formerly descended upon earth.’

Now, we ask the Christian – and it will be the first query of every man whose religious faith has not made shipwreck of his reason – ‘What does all this mean? How are you going to sustain the declaration that Jesus Christ was the only son and sent of God, in view of these historic facts? Where are the superior credentials of his claim? How will you prove his apparently legendary history (that is, the miraculous portion of his history) to be real, and the others false?’ We boldly aver it cannot be done. Please answer these questions, or relinquish your doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

The monstrous scientific paradox (as coming ages will regard it) comprehended in the conception of an almighty, omnipresent, and infinite Being, ‘the Creator of innumerable worlds,’ (‘by him [Christ] were all things made that were made,’ John i. 3-10), being born of a frail and finite woman, as taught by both the oriental and Christian religion, is so exceedingly shocking to every rational mind, which has not been sadly warped, perverted, and coerced into the belief by early psychological influence, that we would naturally presume that those who, on the assumption of the remotest possibility of its truth, should venture to put forth a doctrine so glaringly unreasonable and so obviously untenable, would of course vindicate it and establish it by the strongest arguments and by the most unassailable and most irrefragable proofs; and that in setting forth a doctrine so manifestly at war with every law and analogy of nature and every principle of science, no language should have been used, nor the slightest admission made, that could possibly lead to the slightest degree of suspicion that the original authors and propagators of this doctrine had either any doubt of the truth of the doctrine themselves, or were wanting in the most ample, the most abundant proof to sustain it. No language, no text, not a word, not a syllable should have been used making the most remote concession damaging to the validity of the doctrine, so that not ‘the shadow of a shade of doubt’ could be left on any mind of its truth. Omnipotent indeed should be the logic, and irresistible the proof, in support of a thesis or a doctrine which so squarely confronts and contradicts all the observation, all the experience, the whole range of scientific knowledge, and the common sense of mankind. How startling then, to every devout and honest professor of the Christian faith ought to be the recent discovery of the fact, that the great majority of the texts having any bearing upon the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ – a large majority of the passages in the very book on which the doctrine is predicated, and which is acknowledged as the sole warranty for such a belief – are actually at variance with the doctrine, and actually amount to its virtual denial and overthrow. For we find, upon a critical examination of the matter, that at least three-fourths of the texts, both in the Gospels and Epistles, which relate to the divinity of Christ, specifically or by implication either teach a different and a contrary doctrine, or make concessions entirely fatal to it, by investing him with finite human qualities utterly incompatible with the character and attributes of a divine or infinite Being. How strange, then, how superlatively strange, that millions should yet hold to such a strange ‘freak of nature,’ such a dark relic of oriental heathenism, such a monstrous, foolish and childish superstition, as that which teaches the infinite Creator and ‘Upholder of the universe’ could be reduced so near to nonentity, as was required to pass through the ordinary stages of human generation, human birth, and human parturition – a puerile notion which reason, science, nature, philosophy, and common sense, proclaim to be supremely absurd and self-evidently impossible, and which even the Scriptures fail to sustain – a logical, scriptural exposition, of which we will here present a brief summary:

1. The essential attributes of a self-existing God and Creator, and ‘Upholder of all things,’ are infinitude, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, and any being not possessing all these attributes to repletion, or possessing any quality or characteristic in the slightest degree incompatible with any one of these attributes, cannot be a God in a divine sense, but must of necessity be a frail, fallible, finite being.
2. Jesus Christ disclaims, hundreds of times over, directly or impliedly, the inherent possession of any one of these divine attributes.
3. His evangelical biographers have invested him with the entire category of human qualities and characteristics, each one of which is entirely unbefitting a God, and taken together are the only distinguishing characteristics by which we can know a man from a God.
4. Furthermore, there issued from his own mouth various sayings and concessions most fatal to the conception of his being a God.
5. His devout biographers have reported various actions and movements in his practical life which we are compelled to regard as absolutely irreconcilable with the infinite majesty, lofty character, and supreme attributes of an almighty Being.
6. These human qualities were so obvious to all who saw him and all who became acquainted with him, that doubts sprang up among his own immediate followers, which ultimately matured into an open avowal of disbelief in his divinity in that early age.
7. Upon the axiomatical principles of philosophy it is an utter and absolute impossibility to unite in repletion the divine and the human in the same being.
8. And then Christ had a human birth.
9. He was constituted in part, like human beings, of flesh and blood.
10. He became, on certain occasions, ‘an hungered,’ like finite beings.
11. He also became thirsty (John xix. 28), like perishable mortals.
12. He often slept, like mortals, and thus became ‘to dumb forgetfulness a prey.’
13. He sometimes became weary, like human beings. (See John iv. 6.)
14. He was occasionally tempted, like fallible mortals. (Matt. iv. i.)
15. His ‘soul became exceeding sorrowful,’ as a frail, finite being. (Matt. xxvi. 38.)
16. He disclosed the weakness of human passion by weeping. (John xi. 35.)
17. He was originally an imperfect being, ‘made perfect through suffering.’ (Heb. ii. 10.)
18. He ‘increased in wisdom and stature’ (Luke ii. 52); therefore he must have possessed finite, changeable, mortal attributes.
19. And he finally died and was buried, like all perishable mortals. He could not possibly, from these considerations, have been a God. It is utterly impracticable to associate with or comprehend, in a God of infinite powers and infinite attributes, all or any of these finite human qualities.
20. Dark, intellectually dark, indeed, must be that mind, and sunk, sorrowfully sunk in superstition, that can worship a being as the great omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent ‘I AM,’ who possessed all those qualities which were constitutionally characteristic of the pious, the noble, the devout, the Godlike, yet finite and fallible Jesus, according to his own admissions and the representations of his own interested biographers.
21. The only step which the disciples of the Christian faith have made toward disproving or setting aside these arguments, objections, and difficulties, is that of assigning the incarnate Jesus a double or twofold nature – the amalgamation of the human and divine; a postulate and a groundless assumption, which we have proved and demonstrated by thirteen arguments, which we believe to be unanswerable, is not only absurd, illogical, and impossible, but foolish and ludicrous in the highest degree. (See vol. ii.)
22. This senseless hypothesis, and every other assumption and argument made use of by the professors of the Christian faith to vindicate their favourite dogma of the divinity of Jesus, we have shown to be equally applicable to the demigods of the ancient heathen, more than twenty of whom were invested with the same combination of human and divine qualities which the followers and worshippers of Jesus claim for him.
23. Testimony of the Father against the divinity of the Son. The Father utterly precludes the Son from any participation in the divine essence, or any claim in the Godhead, by such declarations as the following: ‘I am Jehovah, and beside me there is no Saviour.’ (Isaiah xliii. ii.) How, then, we would ask, can Jesus Christ be the Saviour? ‘I, Jehovah, am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer.’ Then Christ can be neither the Saviour nor Redeemer. ‘There is no God else beside me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.’ (Isaiah xiv. 21.) So the Father virtually declares, according to ‘the inspired prophet Isaiah,’ that the Son, in a divine sense, cannot be either God, Saviour, or Redeemer. Again, ‘I am Jehovah, thy God, and thou shalt not acknowledge a God beside me.’ (Hosea xiii. 4.) Here Christ is not only by implication cut off from the Godhead, but positively prohibited from being worshipped as God. And thus the testimony of the Father disproves and sets aside the divinity of the Son.
24. Testimony of the mother. When Mary found, after a long search, her son Jesus in the temple, disputing with the doctors, and chided or reproved him for staying from home without the consent of his parents, and declared, ‘thy father and I sought thee, sorrowing’ (Luke ii. 48), she proclaimed a twofold denial of his divinity. In the first place it cannot be possible that she regarded her son Jesus as ‘that awful Being, before whom even the devout saints bow in trembling fear,’ when she used such language and evinced such a spirit as she did. ‘Why hast thou thus dealt with us?’ (Luke ii. 48) is her chiding language. And then, when she speaks of Joseph as his father, ‘thy father and I,’ she issues a declaration against his divinity which ought to be regarded as settling the question forever. For who could know better than the mother, or rather, who could know but the mother, who the father of the child Jesus was? And as she acknowledges it was Joseph, she thus repudiates the story of the immaculate conception, which constitutes the whole basis for the claim of his divinity. Hence the testimony of the mother, also, disproves his title to the Godhead.
25. Testimony or disclaimer of the Son. We will show by a specific citation of twenty-five texts that there is not one attribute comprehended in or peculiar to a divine and infinite Being, but that Christ rejects as applicable to himself – that he most conclusively disclaims every attribute of a divine Being, both by precept and practice, and often in the most explicit language.
26. By declaring, ‘The Son can do nothing of himself’ (John v. 19), he most emphatically disclaims the attribute of omnipotence. For an omnipotent Being can need no aid, and can accept of none.
27. When he acknowledged and avowed his ignorance of the day of judgment, which must be presumed to be the most important event in the world’s history, he disclaimed the attribute of omniscience. ‘Of that day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only.’ (Matt. xxiv. 36.) Now, as an omniscient Being must possess all knowledge, his avowed ignorance in this case is a confession he was not omniscient, and hence not a God.
28. And when he declares, ‘I am glad for your sakes I was not there’ (at the grave of Lazarus), he most distinctly disavows being omnipresent, and thus denies to himself another essential attribute of an infinite God.
29. And the emphatic declaration, ‘I live by the Father’ (John vi. 57), is a direct disclaimer of the attributes of self-existence; as a being who lives by another cannot be self-existent, and, per consequence, not the infinite God.
30. He disclaims possessing infinite goodness, another essential attribute of a supreme divine Being. ‘Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God.’ (Mark x. 18.)
31. He disclaim divine honours, and directed them to the father. ‘I honour my Father.’ (John viii. 49.) ‘I receive not honour from men.’ (John v. 41.)
32. He recommended supreme worship to the Father, and not to himself. ‘The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth.’ (John iv. 21.)
33. He ascribed supreme dominion to the Father. ‘Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever.’ (Matt. vi. 13.)
34. It will be seen, from the foregoing text, that Christ also acknowledges that the kingdom is the Father’s. A God without a kingdom would be a ludicrous state of things.
35. He conceded supreme authority to the Father. ‘My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.’ (John vii. 16.)
36. He considered the Father as the supreme protector and preserver of even his own disciples. ‘I pray that thou shouldst keep them from the evil.’ (John xvii. 15.) What, omnipotence not able to protect his own disciples?
37. In fine, he humbly acknowledged that his power, his will, his ministry, his mission, his authority, his works, his knowledge, and his very life, were all from, and belonged to and were under the control of the Father. ‘I can do nothing of myself;’ ‘I came to do the will of him that sent me;’ ‘The Father that dwelleth within me, he doeth the work,’ etc. ‘A God within a God,’ is an old pagan Otaheitan doctrine.
38. He declared that even spiritual communion was the work of the Father. (See John vi. 45.)
39. He acknowledged himself controlled by the Father. (See John v. 30.)
40. He acknowledged his entire helplessness and dependence on the Father. ‘The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.’ (John v. 19.) 41. He acknowledged that even his body was the work of his Father; in other words, that he was dependent on his Father for his physical life. (See Heb. xvi. 5.)
41. And more than all, he not only called the Father ‘the only true God’ (John xvii. 3), but calls him ‘my Father and my God.’ (John xx. 17.) Now, it would be superlative nonsense to consider a being himself a God, or the God, who could use such language as is here ascribed to the humble Jesus. This text, this language, is sufficient of itself to show that Christ could not have laid any claim to the Godhead on any occasion, unless we degrade him to the charge of the most palpable and shameful contradiction.
42. He uniformly directed his disciples to pray, not to him, but the Father. (See Matt. vi. 6.)
43. On one occasion, as we have cited the proof (in Matt. xi. ii), he even acknowledged John the Baptist to be greater than he; while it must be patent to everyone that no man could be greater than the almighty, supreme Potentate of heaven and earth, in any sense whatever.
44. Testimony of the disciples. Another remarkable proof of the human sireship of Jesus is, that one of his own disciples – one of the chosen twelve, selected by him as being endowed with a perfect knowledge of his character, mission, and origin – this witness, thus posted and thus authorised, proclaims, in unequivocal language, that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Hear the language of Philip addressed to Nathanael. ‘We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’ (John i. 45.) No language could be more explicit, no declaration more positive, that Jesus was the son of Joseph. And no higher authority could be adduced to settle the question, coming as it does from ‘headquarters.’ And what will, or what can, the devout stickler for the divinely paternal origin of Jesus Christ do with such testimony? It is a clincher which no sophistry can set aside, no reasoning can grapple with, and no logic overthrow.
45. His disciples, instead of representing him as being ‘the only true God,’ often speak of him in contradistinction to God.
46. They never speak of him as the God Christ Jesus, but as ‘the man Christ Jesus.’ (i Tim. ii. 5.) ‘Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God.’ (Acts ii. 23.) It would certainly be blasphemy to speak of the Supreme Being as ‘a man approved of God.’ May the good Christian reflect upon this text: ‘By that man whom he (the Father) hath ordained’ (Acts xvii. 3), by the assumption of the Godhead of Christ, we would be presented with the double or twofold solecism, 1st. Of God being ‘ordained’ by another God; and 2d. That of his being blasphemously called a ‘Man.’
47. Paul’s, declaration has been cited, that ‘unto us there is but one God – the Father.’ (i Cor. iv. 8.) Now, it is plain to common sense, that if there is but one God, and that God is comprehended in the Father, then Christ is entirely excluded from the Godhead.
48. If John’s declaration be true, that ‘no man hath seen God at any time’ (John iv. 12), then the important question arises, How could Christ be God, as he was seen by thousands of men, and seen hundreds of times?
49. God the Father is declared to be the ‘One,’ ‘the Holy One,’ ‘the only One,’ etc., more than one hundred times, as if purposely to exclude the participation of any other being in the Godhead.
50. This one, this only God, is shown to be the Father alone in more than four thousand texts, thirteen hundred and twenty-six of which are found in the New Testament.
51. More than fifty texts have been found which declare, either explicitly or by implication, that God the Father has no equal, which effectively denies or shuts out the divine equality of the Son. ‘To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal with, saith the holy One.’ (Isaiah XI. 25.)
52. Christ in the New Testament is called ‘man,’ and ‘the Son of man,’ eighty-four times – egregious and dishonourable misnomers, most certainly, to apply to a supreme and infinite Deity. On the other hand, he is called God but three times, and denominates himself ‘the Son of God’ but once, and that rather obscurely.
53. The Father is spoken of, in several instances, as standing in the relation of God to the Son, as ‘the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ (Acts iii. 2.) ‘Ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.’ (i Cor. xi. 3.) Now, the God of a God is a polytheistic, heathen conception; and no meaning or interpretation, as we have shown, can be forced upon such texts as these, that will not admit a plurality of Gods, if we admit the titles as applicable to Christ, or that his scriptural biographers intend to apply such a title in a superior or supreme sense.
54. Many texts make Christ the mere tool, agent, image, servant, or representative of God, as Christ, ‘the image of God’ (Heb. i. 3), Christ, the appointed of God (Heb. iii. i), Christ, ‘the servant of God’ (Matt. xii. 18), etc. To consider a being thus spoken of as himself the supreme God, is, as we have demonstrated, the very climax of absurdity and nonsense. To believe ‘the servant of God’ is God himself – that is, the servant of himself – and that God and his ‘image’ are the same, is to descend within one step of buffoonery.
55. And then it has been ascertained that there are more than three hundred texts which declare, either expressly or by implication, Christ’s subordination to and dependence on the Father, as, ‘I can do nothing of myself;’ ‘Not mine, but his that sent me;’ ‘I came to do the will of him that sent me’ (John iv. 34); ‘I seek the will of my Father,’ etc.
56. And more than one hundred and fifty texts make the Son inferior to the Father, as ‘the Son knoweth not, but the Father does’ (Mark viii. 32); ‘MY Father is greater than I;’ ‘The Son can do nothing of himself’ (John v. 19), etc.
57. There are many divine titles applied to the Father which are never used in reference to the Son, as ‘Jehovah,’ ‘The Most High,’ ‘God Almighty,’ ‘The Almighty,’ etc.

On the other hand, those few divine epithets or titles which are used in application to Jesus Christ, as Lord, God, Saviour, Redeemer, Intercessor, etc., it has been shown were all used prior to the birth of Christ, in application to beings known and acknowledged to be men, and some of them are found so applied in the bible itself; as, for example, Moses is called a God in two instances, as we have shown, and cited the proof (in Ex. iv. 16, vii. i), while the title of Lord is applied to man at this day, even in Christian countries. And instances have been cited in the bible of the term Saviour being applied to men, both in the singular and plural numbers. (See 2 Kings xiii. 5, and Neh. ix. 27.) Seeing, then, that the most important divine titles which the writers of the New Testament have applied to Jesus were previously used in application to men, known and admitted to be such, it is therefore at once evident that those titles do nothing toward proving him to be the Great Divine Being, as the modern Christian world assume him to be, even if we base the argument wholly on scriptural grounds. While, on the other hand, we have demonstrated it to be an absolute impossibility to apply with any propriety or any sense to a divine infinite omnipotent Being those finite human qualities which are so frequently used with reference to Jesus throughout the New Testament. And hence, even if we should suppose or concede that the writers of the New Testament did really believe him to be the great Infinite Spirit, or the almighty, omnipotent God, we must conclude they were mistaken, from their own language, from their own description of him, as well as his own virtual denial and rejection of such a claim, when he applied to himself, as he did in nine cases out of ten, strictly finite human qualities and human titles (as we have shown), wholly incompatible with the character of an infinite divine Being. We say, from the foregoing considerations, if the primitive disciples of Jesus did really believe him to be the great Infinite, both their descriptions of him and his description or representation of himself, would amply and most conclusively prove that they were mistaken. At least we are compelled to admit that there is either an error in applying divine titles to Jesus, or often an error in describing his qualities and powers, by himself and his original followers, as there is no compatibility or agreement between the two. Divine titles to such a being as they represent him to be, would be an egregious misnomer. We say, then, that it must be clearly and conclusively evident to every unbiased mind, from evidence furnished by the bible itself, that if the divine titles applied to Jesus were intended to have a divine significance, then they are misapplied. Yet we would not here conclude an intentional misrepresentation in the case, but simply a mistake growing out of a misconception, and the very limited childish conception, of the nature, character, and attributes of the ‘great positive Mind,’ so universally prevalent in that semi-barbarous age, and the apparently total ignorance of the distinguishing characteristics which separate the divine and the human. We will illustrate: some children, on passing through a wild portion of the State of Maine recently, reported they encountered a bear; and to prove they could not be mistaken in the animal, they described it as being a tall, slight-built animal, with long slender legs, of yellowish auburn hue, a short, white, bushy tail, cloven feet, large branchy horns, etc. Now, it will be seen at once that, while their description of the animal is evidently in the main correct, they had simply mistaken a deer for a bear, and hence misnamed the animal.

In like manner we must conclude, from the repeated instances in which Christ’s biographers have ascribed to him all the foibles, frailties, and finite qualities and characteristics of a human being, that if they have in any instance called him a God in a divine sense, it is an egregious misnomer. Their description of him makes him a man, and but a man, whatever may have been their opinion with respect to the propriety of calling him a God. And if the two do not harmonise, the former must rule the judgment in all cases. The truth is, the Jewish founders of Christianity entertained such a low, narrow, contracted, and mean opinion of Deity and the infinite distinction and distance between the divine and the human, that their theology reduced him to a level with man; and hence they usually described him as a man.

If Jesus Christ were truly God, or if there existed such a coequal and co-essential oneness between the Father and the Son that they constituted but one being or divine essence, then what is true of one is true of the other, and a change of names and titles from one to the other cannot alter the sense of the text. Let us, then, substitute the titles found applied to the Son in the New Testament, to the Father, and observe the effect

• ‘My Son is greater than I.’ (John vii. 28.)
• ‘God can do nothing of himself.’ (John v. 19.)
• ‘I must be about my Son’s business.’ (Luke ii. 49.)
• ‘The kingdom of heaven is not mine to give, but the Son’s.’ (Matt. xx. 23.)
• ‘I am come in my Son’s name, and ye receive me not.’ (John v. 43.)
• ‘God cried, Jesus, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Matt. xiii. 28.)
• ‘No man hath seen Jesus at any time.’ (i John i. 5.)
• ‘Jesus created all things by his Son.’ (Eph. iii. 9.)
• ‘God sat down (in heaven) at the right hand of Jesus.’ (Luke xxii. 69.)
• ‘There is one Jesus, one mediator between Jesus and men.’ (Gal. iii. 20.)
• ‘Jesus gave, his only begotten Father.’ (i John iv. 9.)
• ‘God knows not the hour, but Jesus does.’ (Mark viii. 32.)
• ‘God is the servant of Jesus.’ (Mark xii. 18.)
• ‘God is ordained by Jesus.’ (Acts xvii. 31.)
• ‘The head of God is Christ.’ (Eph. i. 3.)
• ‘We have an advocate with Jesus, God the righteous.’ (i John ii. i.)
• ‘Jesus gave all power to God.’ (Matt. xxviii. 18.)
• ‘God abode all night in prayer to Jesus.’ (Luke vi. 12.)
• ‘God came down from heaven to do the will of Jesus.’ (John vi. 38.)
• ‘Jesus has made the Father his high priest.’ (Heb. x. 24.)
• ‘Last of all, the Son sent the Father.’ (Matt. xxi. 39.)
• ‘Jesus will save the world by that God whom he hath ordained.’
• ‘Jesus is God of the Father.’ (John xx. 17.)
• ‘Jesus hath exalted God, and given him a more excellent name.’ (Phil. ii. 9.)
• ‘Jesus hath made God a little lower than the angels.’ (Heb. ii. 9.)
• ‘God can do nothing except what he seeth Jesus do.’ (John v. 19.)

Now, the question arises, Is the above representation a true one? Most certainly it must be, if Jesus and the Father are but one almighty Being. A change of names and titles cannot alter the truth nor the sense. To say that Chief Justice Chase has gone south; Secretary Chase has gone south; Governor Chase has gone south; Ex-Senator Chase has gone south, or Salmon P. Chase has gone south, are affirmations equally true and equally sensible, because they all have reference to the same being; the case is to plain to need argument.

The above reversal of names and titles of Jesus and the Father may sound very unpleasant and rather grating to Christ-adoring Christians, simply because it is the transposition of the titles of two very scripturally dissimilar beings, instead of being, as generally taught by orthodox Christians, ‘one in essence, one in mind, one in body or being, and one in name,’ as the Rev. Mr. Barnes affirms. Most self-evidently false is his statement, based solely on scriptural ground. If Jesus is ‘very God,’ and there is but one God, then the foregoing transposition cannot mar the sense nor altar the truth of one text quoted.

The exaltation of men to the character and homage of divine beings has always had the effect to draw a veil over their errors and imperfections, so as to render them imperceptible to those who worship them as Gods. This is true of nearly all the deified men of antiquity, who were adored as incarnate divinities, among which may be included the Christian’s man-God, Jesus Christ. The practice of the followers of these Gods has been, when an error was pointed out in their teachings, brought to light by the progress of science and general intelligence, to bestow upon the text some new and unwarranted meaning, entirely incompatible with its literal reading, or else to insist with a godly zeal on the correctness of the sentiment inculcated by the text, and thus essay to make error pass for truth. In this way millions of the disciples of these Gods have been misled and blinded, and made to believe by their religious teachers and their religious education, that everything taught by their assumed-to-be divine exemplars is perfect truth, in perfect harmony with science, sense, and true morals. Indeed, the perversion of the mind and judgment by a religious education has been in many cases carried to such an extreme as to cause their devout and prejudiced followers either to entirely overlook and ignore their erroneous teachings, or to magnify them into God-given truths, and thus, as before stated, clothe error with the livery of truth. This state of things, it has long been noticed by unprejudiced minds, exists amongst the millions of professed believers in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Hence the errors, both in his moral lessons and his practical life, have passed from age to age unnoticed, because his pious and awe-stricken followers, having been taught that he was a divine teacher, have assumed that his teachings must all be true; and hence, too, have instituted no scrutiny to determine their truth or falsity. But we will now proceed to show that the progress of science and general intelligence has brought to light many errors, not only in his teachings, but in his practical life also.

1. The first moral precept in the teachings of Christ, which we will bring to notice, is one of a numerous class, which may very properly be arranged under the head of Moral Extremism. We find many of his admonitions of this character. Nearly everything that is said is over-said, carried to extremes – thus constituting an over-wrought, extravagant system of morality, impracticable in its requisitions; as, for example, ‘Take no thought for the morrow.’ (Matt. v.) If the spirit of this injunction were carried out in practical life, there would be no grain sown and no seed planted in spring, no reaping done in harvest, and no crop garnered in autumn; and the result would be universal starvation in less than twelve months. But, fortunately for society, the Christian world have laid this positive injunction upon the table under the rule of ‘indefinite postponement.’
2. Christ’s assumed-to-be most important requisition is found in the injunction, ‘Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all else shall be added unto you.’ (Matt. vi. 33.) His early followers understood by this injunction, and doubtless understood it correctly, that they were to spend their lives in religious devotion, and neglect the practical duties of life, leaving ‘Providence’ to take care of their families – a course of life which reduced many of them to the point of starvation.
3. The disciple of Christ is required, ‘when smitten on one cheek, to turn the other also;’ that is, when one cheek is pummeled into a jelly by some vile miscreant or drunken wretch, turn the other, to be smashed up in like manner. This is an extravagant requisition, which none of his modern disciples even attempt to observe.
4. ‘Resist not evil’ (Matt. v. 34) breathes forth a kindred spirit. This injunction requires you to stand with your hands in your pocket while being maltreated so cruelly and unmercifully that the forfeiture of your life may be the consequence – at least Christ’s early followers so understood it.
5. The disciple of Christ is required, when his cloak is formally wrested from him, to give up his coat also. (See Matt. v.) And to carry out the principle, if the marauder demands it, he must next give up his boots, then his shirt, and thus strip himself of all his garments, and go naked. This looks like an invitation and bribe to robbery.
6. ‘Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth.’ (Matt. vi. 19.) This is another positive command of Christ, which the modern Christian world, by common consent, have laid on the table under the rule of ‘indefinite postponement,’ under the conviction that the wants of their families and the exigencies of sickness and old age cannot be served if they should live up to such an injunction.
7. ‘Sell all that thou hast ... and come and follow me,’ is another command which bespeaks more piety than wisdom, as all who have attempted to comply with it have reduced their families to beggary and want.
8. ‘If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.’ Then he must hate it, as there are but the two principles, and ‘from hate proceed envy, strife, evil surmising, and persecution.’ Evidently the remedy in this case for ... worldly-mindedness’ is worse than the disease.
9. ‘He that cometh to me, and hateth not father, mother, brother, and sister, etc., cannot be my disciple.’ (Luke xiv. 26). This breathes forth the same spirit as the last text quoted above. Many learned expositions have been penned by Christian writers to make it appear. that hate in this case does not mean hate. But certainly it would be a slander upon infinite wisdom to leave it to be inferred that he could not say or ‘inspire’ his disciples to say exactly what he meant, and to say it so plainly as to leave no possibility of being misunderstood, or leave any ground for dispute about the meaning.
10. ‘Rejoice and be exceeding glad’ when persecuted. (Matt. v. 4.) Now, as a state of rejoicing is the highest condition of happiness that can be realised, such advice must naturally prompt the religious zealot to court persecution, in order to obtain complete happiness, and consequently to pursue a dare-devil life to provoke persecution.
11. ‘Whosoever shall seek to save his life, shall lose it,’ etc. (Luke xvii. 33.) Here is displayed the spirit of martyrdom which has made millions reckless of life, and goaded on the frenzied bigot to seek the fiery faggot and the halter. We regard it as another display of religious fanaticism.
12. ‘Ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.’ (Matt. x. 12.) How repulsive must have been their doctrines or their conduct! No sensible religion could excite the universal hatred of mankind. For it would contain something adapted to the moral, religious, or spiritual taste of some class or portion of society, and hence make it and its disciples loved instead of hated. And then how could they be ‘hated of all men,’ when not one man in a thousand ever heard of them? Here is more of the extravagance of religious enthusiasm.
13. ‘Shake off the dust of your feet’ against those who cannot see the truth or utility of your doctrines. (Matt. x. 14.) Here Christ encourages in his disciples a spirit of contempt for the opinions of others calculated to make them ‘hated.’ A proper regard for the rules of good-breeding would have forbidden such rudeness toward strangers for a mere honest difference of opinion.
14. ‘Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor scrip, nor purse’ (Mark vi. 8); that is ‘sponge on your friends, and force yourselves on your enemies,’ the latter class of which seem to have been much the most numerous. A preacher who should attempt to carry out this advice at the present day would be stopped at the first toll-gate, and compelled to return. Here is more violation of the rules of good-breeding, and the common courtesies of civilised life.
15. ‘Go and teach all nations,’ etc. Why issue an injunction that could not possibly be carried out? It never has been, and never will be, executed, for three-fourths of the human race have never yet heard of Christianity. It was not, therefore, a mark of wisdom, or a superior mind, to issue such an injunction.
16. ‘And he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’ What intolerance, bigotry, relentless cruelty, and ignorance of the science of mind are here displayed! No philosopher would give utterance to, or endorse such a sentiment. It assumes that belief is a creature of the will, and that a man can believe anything he chooses, which is wide of the truth. And the assumption has been followed by persecution, misery, and bloodshed.
17. ‘All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.’ (Matt. xxi. 22.) Here is an entire negation of natural law in the necessity of physical labor as a means to procure the comforts of life. When anything is wanted in the shape of food or raiment, it is to be obtained, according to this text, by going down on your knees and asking God to bestow it. But no Christian ever realised ‘all things whatsoever asked for in prayer,’ thought ‘believing with all his heart’ he should obtain it. The author knows, by his own practical experience, that this declaration is not true. This promise has been falsified thousands of times by thousands of praying Christians.
18. ‘Be not called rabbi.’ ‘Call no man your father.’ (Matt. xxiii.) The Christian world assume that much of what Christ taught is mere idle nonsense, or the incoherent utterings of a religious fanatic; for they pay no more practical attention to it than the barking of a dog. And here is one command treated in this manner: ‘Call no man father.’ Where is the Christian who refuses to call his earthly sire a father?
19. ‘Call no man master.’ (Matt. xxiii.) And yet mister, which is the same thing, is the most common title in Christendom.
20. He who enunciates the two words, ‘‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.’ (Matt. xxii.) Mercy! Who, then, can be saved? For there is probably not a live Christian in the world who has not called somebody a ‘fool,’ when he knew him to be such, and could not with truthfulness be called anything else. Here, then, is another command universally ignored and ‘indefinitely postponed.’
21. ‘Swear not at all, neither by heaven nor earth.’ (Matt. v.) And yet no Christian refuses to indulge in legal, if not profane, swearing which the text evidently forbids.
22. ‘Men ought always to pray.’ (Luke xviii.) No time to be allowed for eating or sleeping. More religious fanaticism.
23. ‘Whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant’ (Matt. xx. 27); that is, no Christian professor shall be a president, governor, major-general, deacon, or priest. Another command laid on the table.
24. ‘Love your enemies.’ (Matt. v. 44.) Then what kind of feeling should we cultivate toward friends? And how much did he love his enemies when he called them ‘fools’ ‘liars,’ ‘hypocrites,’ ‘generation of vipers,’ etc.? And yet he is held up as ‘our’ example in love, meekness, and forbearance. But no man ever did love an enemy. It is a moral impossibility, as much so as to love bitter or nauseating food. The advice of the Roman slave Syrus is indicative of more sense and wisdom – ‘Treat your enemy kindly, and thus make him a friend.’
25. We are required to forgive an enemy four hundred and ninety times; that is, ‘seventy times seven.’ (Matt. vii.) Another outburst of religious enthusiasm; another proof of an overheated imagination.
26. ‘Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.’ (Matt. v. 48.) Here is more of the religious extravagance of a mind uncultured by science. For it is self-evident that human beings can make no approximation to divine perfection. The distance between human imperfection and a perfect God is, and ever must be, infinite.
27. Christ commended those who ‘became eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake’ (Matt. xix. 12) – a custom requiring a murderous, self-butchering process; destructive of the energies of life and the vigour of manhood, and rendering the subject weak, effeminate, and mopish, and unfit for the business of life. It is a low species of piety, and discloses a lamentable lack of a scientific knowledge of the true functions of the sexual organs on the part of Jesus.
28. Christ also encouraged his disciples to ‘pluck out the eye,’ and ‘cut off the hand,’ as a means of rendering it impossible to perpetrate evil with those members. And we would suggest, if such advice is consistent with sound reasoning, the head also should be cut off, as a means of more effectively carrying out the same principle. Such advice never came from the mouth of a philosopher. It is a part of Christ’s system of extravagant piety.
29. He also taught the senseless, oriental tradition of ‘the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost’ – a fabulous being who figured more anciently in the history of various countries. (See Chapter XXII.) No philosopher or man of science could harbour such childish misconceptions as are embodied in this tradition, which neither describes the being nor explains the nature of the sin.
30. We find many proofs, in Christ’s Gospel history, that he believed in the ancient heathen tradition which taught that disease is caused by demons and evil spirits. (See Luke vii. 21, and viii. 2.)
31. Many cases are reported of his relieving the obsessed by casting out the diabolical intruders, in imitation of the oriental custom long in vogue in various countries, by which he evinced a profound ignorance of the natural causes of disease.
32. Christ also taught the old pagan superstition that ‘God is a God of anger,’ while modern science teaches that it would be as impossible for a God of perfect and infinite attributes to experience the feeling of anger as to commit suicide; and recent discoveries in physiology prove that anger is a species of suicide, and that it is also a species of insanity. Hence an angry God would be an insane God – an omnipotent lunatic, ‘ruling the kingdom of heaven,’ which would make heaven a lunatic asylum, and rather a dangerous place to live.
33. And Christ’s injunction to ‘fear God’ also implies that he is an angry being. (See Luke xxiii. 40.) But past history proves that ‘the fear of God’ has always been the great lever of priestcraft, and the most paltry and pitiful motive that ever moved the human mind. It has paralysed the noblest intellects, crushed the elasticity of youth, and augmented the hesitating indecision of old age, and finally filled the world with cowardly, trembling slaves. No philosopher will either love or worship a God he fears. ‘The fear of the Lord’ is a very ancient heathen superstition.
34. The inducement Christ holds out for leading a virtuous life by the promise of ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant,’ bespeaks a childish ignorance of the nature of the human mind and the true science of life. It ranks with the promise of the nurse of sugar-plums to the boy if he would keep his garments unsoiled.

(Unfortunately we do not have room here for the remainder of the two hundred errors of Christ.)

There are many other errors found in the precepts and practical life of Jesus Christ (which we are compelled to omit an exposition of here), such as his losing his temper, and abusing the money-changers by overthrowing their counting-table, and expelling them from the temple with a whip of cords when engaged in a lawful and laudable business; his getting mad at and cursing the fig tree; his dooming Capernaum to hell in a fit of anger; his being deceived by two of his disciples (Peter and Judas), which prompted him to call them devils; his implied approval of David, with his fourteen crimes and penitentiary deeds, and also Abraham, with his falsehoods, polygamy, and incest, and his implied sanction of the Old Testament, with all its errors and numerous crimes; his promise to his twelve apostles to ‘sit upon the twelve thrones of Israel’ in heaven, thus evincing a very limited and childish conception of the enjoyments of the future life; his puerile idea of sin, consisting in a personal affront to a personal God; his omission to say anything about human freedom, the inalienable rights of man, etc.

That Jesus Christ was neither a natural or moral philosopher is evident from the following facts:

1. He never made any use of the word ‘philosophy.’
2. Never gave utterance to the word ‘Science.’
3. Never spoke of a natural law, or assigned a natural cause for anything. The fact that he never made use of these words now so current in all civilised countries, is evidence that he was totally ignorant of these important branches of knowledge, the cultivation of which is now known to be essential to the progress of civilisation. And yet it is claimed his religion has been a great lever in the advancement of civilisation. But this is a mistake – a solemn mistake, as elsewhere shown.
4. Everything to Christ was miracle; everything was produced and controlled by the arbitrary power of an angry or irascible God. He evidently had no idea of a ruling principle in nature or of the existence of natural law, as controlling any event he witnessed. Hence he set no bounds to anything, and recognised no limits to the possible. He believed God to be a supernatural personal being, who possessed unlimited power, and who ruled and controlled everything by his arbitrary will, without any law or any limitation to its exercises. Hence he told his disciples they would have anything they prayed for in faith; that by faith they could roll mountains into the sea, or bring to a halt the rolling billows of the mighty deep. He evidently believed that the forked lightning, the outbursting earth-shaking thunder, and the roaring, heaving volcano were but pliant tools or obsequious servants to the man of faith. And he displays no less ignorance of the laws of mind than the laws of nature; thus proving him to have been neither a natural, moral, nor mental philosopher. He omitted to teach the great moral lessons learned by human experience, of which he was evidently totally ignorant.
5. He never taught that the practice of virtue contains its own reward.
6. That the question of right and wrong of any action is to be decided by its effect upon the individual, or upon society.
7. That no life can be displeasing to God which is useful to man.
8. And he omitted to teach the most important lesson that can engage the attention of man, viz.: that the great purpose of life is self-development.
9. That no person can attain or approximate to real happiness without bestowing a special attention to the cultivation and exercise of all the mental and physical faculties, so far as to keep them in a healthy condition. None of the important lessons above named are hinted at in his teachings, which, if punctually observed, would do more to advance the happiness of the human race than all the sermons Christ or Krishna ever preached, or ever taught.
   And then he taught many doctrines which are plainly contradicted by the established principle of modern science, such as:
10. Diseases being produced by demons, devils, or wicked spirits. (See Mark ix. 20.) Christ nowhere assigns a natural cause for disease, or a scientific explanation for its cure.
11. His rebuking a fever discloses a similar lack of scientific knowledge. (See Luke iv. 39.)
12. His belief in a literal hell and a lake of fire and brimstone (see Matt. xviii. 8) is an ancient heathen superstition science knows nothing about, and has no use for.
13. His belief in a personal devil also (see Matt. xvii. 88), which is another oriental tradition, furnishes more sad proof of an utter want of scientific knowledge, as science has no place for and no use for such a being.
14. Christ taught the unphilosophical doctrine of repentance, as he declared he ‘came to call sinners to repentance’ (Matt. ix. 13) – a mental process, which consists merely in a revival of early impressions, and often leads a person to condemn that which is right, as well as that which is wrong. (For proof, see Chapter XLIII.)
15. The doctrine of ‘forgiveness,’ which Christ so often inculcated, is also at variance with the teachings of science, as it can do nothing toward changing the nature of the act forgiven, or toward cancelling its previous effects upon society. Science teaches that every crime has its penalty attached to it, which no act of forgiveness, by God or man, can arrest or set aside.
16. But nothing evinces, perhaps, more clearly Christ’s total lack of scientific knowledge than his holding a man responsible for his belief, and condemning for disbelief, as he does in numerous instances (see Mark xvi. 16), for a man could as easily control the circulation of the blood in his veins as control his belief. Science teaches that belief depends upon evidence, and without it, it is impossible to believe, and with it, it is impossible to disbelieve. How foolish and unphilosophical, therefore, to condemn for either belief or disbelief!
17. The numerous cases in which Christ speaks of the heart as being the seat of consciousness, instead of the brain, evinces a remarkable ignorance of the science of mental philosophy. He speaks of an ‘upright heart,’ ‘a pure heart,’ etc., when ‘an upright liver,’ ‘a pure liver,’ would be as sensible, as the latter has as much to do with the character as the former.
18. And the many cases in which he makes it meritorious to have a right ‘faith,’ and places it above reason, and assumes it to be a voluntary act, shows his utter ignorance of the nature of the human mind.
19. And Christ evinced a remarkable ignorance of the cause of physical defects, when he told his hearers a certain man was born blind, in order that he might cure him. (Matt. Vii. 22.)
20. And Christ’s declaration, that those who marry are not worthy of being saved (see Luke xx. 34), shows that he was very ignorant of the nature of the sexual functions of the human system.
21. Nothing could more completely demonstrate a total ignorance of the grand science of astronomy than Christ’s prediction of the stars falling to the earth. (See Luke xxi. 25.)
22. And the conflagration of the world, ‘the gathering of the elect,’ and the realisation of a fancied millennium, which he several times predicted would take place in his time, ‘before this generation pass away’ (Matt. xxiv. 34), Proves a like ignorance, both of astronomy and philosophy.
23. And his cursing of the fig tree for not bearing fruit in the winter season (see Matt. xxi. 20), not only proves his ignorance of the laws of nature, but evinces a bad temper.
24. Christ endorses the truth of Noah’s flood story (see Luke xvii. 27), which every person at the present day, versed in science and natural law, knows is mere fiction, and never took place.

And numerous other errors, evincing the most profound ignorance of science and natural law, might be pointed out in Christ’s teachings, if we had space for them. It has always been alleged by orthodox Christendom, that Christ’s teaching and moral system are so faultless as to challenge criticism, and so perfect as to defy improvement. But this is a serious mistake. For most of his precepts and moral inculcations which are not directly at war with the principles of science, or do not involve a flagrant violation of the laws of nature, are, nevertheless, characterised by a lawless and extravagant mode of expression peculiar to semi-savage life, and which, as it renders it impossible to reduce them to practice, shows they could not have emanated from a philosopher, or man of science, or a man of evenly-balanced mind. They impose upon the world a system of morality, pushed to such extremes that its own professed admirers do not live it out, or even attempt to do so. They long ago abandoned it as an impracticable duty. We will prove this by enumerating most of its requisitions, and showing that they are daily violated and trampled under foot by all Christendom. Where can the Christian professor be found who:

1. ‘Takes no thought for the morrow’
2. Who ‘lays not up treasure on earth,’ or, at least, tries to do it.
3. Who ‘gives up all his property to the poor;’ or who, ‘when his cloak is wrested from him by a robber,’ gives up his coat also … or who calls no man master or mister (the most common title in Christendom); or who calls no man father (if he has a father) or who calls no man a fool (when he knows he is a fool); or who, when one cheek is pummeled into a jelly by some vile miscreant or drunken wretch, turns the other to be battered up in the same way; or who prays without ceasing; or who rejoices when persecuted; or who forgives an enemy four hundred and ninety times (70 times 7); or who manifests by his practical life that he loves his enemies (the way he loves him is to report him to the grand jury, or hand him over to the sheriff); or who forsakes houses and land, and everything, ‘for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.’

No Christian professor lives up to these precepts, or any of them, or even tries to do so. To talk, therefore, of finding a practical Christian, while nearly the whole moral code of Christ is thus daily and habitually outraged and trampled under foot by all the churches and every one of the two hundred millions of Christian professors, is bitter irony and supreme solecism. We would go five hundred miles, or pay five hundred dollars, to see a Christian. If a man can be a Christian while openly and habitually violating every precept of Christ, then the word has no meaning. These precepts, the Christian world finding to be impossible to practice, have unanimously laid upon the table under the rule of ‘indefinite postponement.’ They are the product of a mind with an ardent temperament, and the religious faculties developed to excess, and unrestrained by scientific or intellectual culture. A similar vein of extravagant religious duty is found in the Essenian, Buddhist, and Pythagorean systems. As Zera Colburn possessed the mathematical faculty to excess, and Jenny Lind the musical talent, Christ in like manner was all religion. And from the extreme ardour of his religious feeling, thus derived, sprang his extravagant notions of the realities of life. This peculiarity of his organisation explains the whole mystery.

To every observant and unbiased mind a strange contrast must be visible in the practical life of Jesus Christ when viewed in his twofold capacity of a man and a priest. While standing upon the broad plane of humanity, with his deep sympathetic nature directed toward the poor, the unfortunate, and the downtrodden, there often gushed forth from his impassioned bosom the most sublime expressions of pity, and the strongest outburst of commiseration for wrongs and sufferings, and his noble goodness and tender love yearned with a throbbing heart to relieve them. But the moment he put on the sacerdotal robe, and assumed the character of a priest, that moment, if any one crossed his path by refusing to yield to his requisitions of faith, or dissented from his religious creed, his whole nature was seemingly changed. It was no longer, ‘Blessed are ye,’ but ‘Cursed are ye,’ or ‘Woe unto you.’ Like the founders of other religious systems, he, was ardent toward friends and bitter toward enemies, and extolled his own religion, while he denounced all others. His way was the only way, and all who did not walk therein, or conform thereto, were loaded with curses and imprecations, and all who could not accomplish the impossible mental achievement of believing everything he set forth or urged upon their credence, and that, too, without evidence, were to be eternally damned. All who climbed up any other way were thieves and robbers. All who professed faith in any other religion than his were on the road to hell. Like the oriental Gods, he taught that the world was to be saved through faith in him and his religion. All who did not honour him were to be dishonoured by the Father. And ‘without faith (in him and his religion), it is impossible to please God.’ He declared that all who were not for him were against him; and all who were not on the same road are ‘heathens and publicans.’ His disciples were enjoined to shake off the dust from their feet as a manifestation of displeasure toward those who could not conscientiously subscribe to their creeds and dogmas. Thus we discover a strong vein of intolerance and sectarianism in the religion of the otherwise, and in other respects, the kind and loving Jesus. Though most benignantly kind and affectionate while moving and acting under the controlling impulses of his lofty manhood, yet when his ardent religious feelings were touched, he became chafed, irritated, and sometimes intolerant. He then could tolerate no such thing as liberty of conscience, or freedom of thought, or the right to differ with him in religious belief. His extremely ardent devotional nature, when roused into action in defence of a stereotyped faith, eclipsed his more noble, lofty, and lovely traits, and often dimmed his mental vision, thus presenting in the same individual a strange medley, and a strange contrast of the most opposite traits of character. That such a being should have been considered and worshipped as a God, and for the very reason that he possessed such strange, contradictory traits of character, and often let his religion run riot with his reason, will be looked upon by posterity as one of the strangest chapters in the history of the human race. But so it is. Extraordinary good qualities, though intermingled with many errors and human foibles, have deified many men.

(One Christian writer alleges, in defence of the objectionable precepts of Jesus Christ, that ‘He taught some errors in condescension to the ignorance of the people.’ If this be true, that he taught both truth and falsehood, then the question arises, How can we know which is which? By what rule can we discriminate them, as he himself furnishes none? Or how are we to determine that he taught truth at all? And then this plea would account for and excuse all the errors found in the teachings of the oriental Gods. If it will apply in one case, it will in the other. And thus it proves too much.)

There are many incidents related in the life of Christ, which, when critically examined, furnish abundant evidence that he was what is now known as a spiritual medium. He unquestionably represented, and often practically exhibited, several important phases of mediumship.

1. The many instantaneous cures which he wrought, as reported in his Gospel narrative, performed in the same manner that ‘spirit doctors’ now heal the sick, prove that he was a ‘healing medium.’
2. His declaration to Nathanael, ‘When thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee,’ and his recounting to the woman of Samaria the deeds of her past life (acts similar to which are now performed every day by spiritualists), are evidence that he was also a ‘clairvoyant medium.’
3. His walking on the water (if the story is true), as D.D. Home has frequently, within the past few years, walked or floated on the air in the presence of witnesses (including men of science, royal personages, and members of parliament.), entitles him to the appellation of a ‘physical medium.’
4. And the circumstance of his pointing his disciples to the mark of the spear in his side, and the print of the nails in his hands, while amongst them as a spirit, has led many spiritualists to conclude he was also a ‘medium for materialisation.’ His spirit was made to present the peculiar marks which had been inflicted upon his physical body, cases parallel to which are now witnessed by modern spiritualists. Hundreds of cases have occurred of departed spirits presenting themselves to their friends with all the peculiar marks which their physical bodies had long worn while in the earth life. And the former physical wounds have often been exhibited by the spirit in the same manner Christ exhibited his. And thus spiritualism explains the phenomenon which otherwise would be entirely incredible.
5. And there is yet another phase of mediumship which Christ often exhibited in his practical life. He claimed to have frequent intercourse with some invisible being, whom he called ‘the Father.’ But as modern science has settled the question of the personality of God in the negative, we are led to conclude that Christ, like many eminent persons since his time, mistook some finite spirit for the great infinite but impersonal Father spirit – though his attendant invisible companion was probably a spirit of a very high order. And the great beauty and grandeur of his life are exhibited by his frequent intercourse with and dependence upon this his ‘guardian spirit.’ He declared he did nothing of himself, so dependent was he upon his invisible guide. And the strongest proof that he had a spirit companion, which he often looked to for counsel and aid, and that this was the being he called the Father, is furnished by the fact, that when he prayed to the Father, his petition was answered by an angel spirit. (See Luke xxii. 44.) And there is no account and no evidence of any invisible or spiritual being ever presenting itself to him but an angel or spirit. That he should have supposed this spirit to be the great infinite Father God was very natural. Thousands since, and some before his time, committed a similar mistake. There are many persons who had long had intercourse with some invisible being they supposed to be God, who have recently, by the light afforded by spiritualism, become entirely convinced that they had simply mistaken a finite spirit for the great Infinite Spirit. And did Christ live in our day, he would probably be rescued from a similar error in the same way. In conclusion, we will remark that it was doubtless his frequent displays of several very remarkable phases of spiritual mediumship that contributed much to lead the people into the error of supposing him to be God. And this fact will yet be known.

Of all the follies ever enacted or exhibited under the sun, and of all the ignorance of history, science, and human nature ever displayed in the history of the human race, that which stands out in bold relief, as pre-eminent, is the fashionable custom of conversion, or ‘getting religion.’ When the evidence lies all around us as thick as the fallen leaves of autumn, clustering on the pages of history, and proclaimed by every principle of mental science, that what is called conversion is nothing but a mental and temperamental or nervous phenomenon – a psychological process – how can we rank those amongst intelligent people who still claim it to be ‘the power of God operating upon the soul of the sinner’? Ignorance is the only plea that can acquit them of the charge of imbecility. The number who daily fall victims to this priestly delusion in various parts of the country may be reckoned by thousands. We propose in this chapter to exhibit some of the evils and absurdities of this wide-spread delusion and religious mono-mania. To do so the more effectively, we will arrange the presentation of the subject under four separate heads.

1. Its Historical Errors: Can we conceive it possible that the thousands of priests who are now employed in ‘converting souls to God’ are so ignorant of history as not to know that it is an old pagan custom? That it was prevalent in heathen countries long before a single soul was converted to Christianity, and is carried on to some extent now, both among pagans and Mohammedans? From such facts it would appear (viewing the matter from the Christian stand-point) that God is indifferent as to what kind of religion, or what sort of religious nonsense, people are converted to, or whether it is truth or error they embrace, or whether it is a true religion or a false one they imbibe, so he gets them converted. According to Mr. Higgins, the practice of converting people from one Sect to another by the popular priesthood was prevalent under the ancient Persian system, and was carried on there quite extensively more than three thousand years ago; and the process was essentially the same as that now in vogue amongst modern Methodists, and the effect the same. At their large revival meetings the whole congregation would sometimes become so affected under the eloquent ministrations of the officiating priest, as to cry, and shout, and prostrate themselves upon the ground, which was afterward found to be drenched with their tears; and on these occasions they would confess their sins to each other, and to their priests; and yet those very sins they condemned were, perhaps, amongst the best acts of their lives, while their real crimes were overlooked and justified, instead of being condemned, thus showing that an honest, just, and sensible God could have had nothing to do with it. And we have reports of similar scenes witnessed more recently among the Mohammedans. Major Denham furnishes us an account of some ‘revival meetings’ he attended a few years since in Arabia, carried on by one of the Mohammedan sects. On one occasion the effect of the discourse of the preacher upon the audience in the way of ‘converting souls to God’ was so powerful, that he could only convince himself that he was not in a Methodist revival meeting by a knowledge of his geographical position. The preacher’s name was Malem Chadily, and here is a specimen of some of his language. ‘Turn, turn, sinner, unto God; confess he is good, and that Mohammed is his prophet; wash, and become clean of your sins, and paradise is open before you: without this nothing can save you from eternal fire.’ During this earnest appeal (says the major), tears flowed plentifully, and everybody appeared to be affected. One of his hearers, becoming converted, shouted, ‘Your words pierce my soul,’ and fell upon the floor. Now let it be borne in mind, that Mohammed is stigmatised and condemned by the Christian churches as ‘a false prophet,’ and his religion denounced as ‘a system of fraud,’ ‘a false religion,’ etc. Of course, then, Christians will not argue, nor admit, that conversion, and ‘getting religion,’ in this case, is the work of God. A just God would have nothing to do in converting people to ‘a false religion.’ What explanation shall we adopt for it then? To assume it to be the work of the devil (the dernier resort for all religious difficulties), and conversions among Christians the work of God, when both are so clearly and obviously alike, is to insult common sense. To assume that two things, exactly alike in character, can be exactly and diametrically unlike in origin, is a scientific paradox which no person of common intelligence can swallow, or accept for a moment. Both, then, we must admit, have the same origin.
2. The Logical Absurdities of the Doctrine of Conversion: There are several circumstances which point unmistakably as the needle to the pole, to the mundane origin of the phenomenon of conversion.

The character of many of the priestly conductors who ‘run the battery,’ is sufficient of itself to preclude the hypothesis of any divine agency in the matter. The most powerful revivalist we ever knew, the priest who could convert an audience the quickest, and bring down sinners to the mourners’ bench faster than any other clergyman we ever heard ‘dealing out damnation’ to the people, was a broad-shouldered, muscular, stentorian-voiced circuit rider of the ‘Buckeye State,’ who, as was afterward learned, was guilty of perpetrating some of the blackest crimes that ever blotted the page of human history, at the very time of his most successful career in the way of ‘convicting souls of sin, and converting them to God.’ He was apprehended by the officers of the law in the midst of one of his most flourishing revivals, under the twofold charge:

1. Of being the father of an illegitimate child, the young mother of which was a member of his church.
2. Of defrauding one of his neighbours in a trade to the amount of nearly a thousand dollars.
   Both of which charges he was convicted of. A similar case, but possessing some worse features, occurred a few years since in the county in which the author now resides. A preacher, who had had criminal connection with a young woman of his church, in order to conceal his guilt resorted to the damnable expedient of administering poison to his victim shortly before his illicit intercourse with her would have been made manifest by the birth of a child. He was apprehended for the crime while carrying on ‘a most glorious revival,’ as it was styled by some of the deluded congregation. Now to ascribe the irresistible power which these two preachers exerted over their audience (in the way of ‘converting them to God’) to a divine source, as they claimed for it, would be to trifle with common sense, common decency, and all honourable conceptions of a God. These reverend scamps often instituted the high claim of being ‘called of God’ to their ministerial labours. But if we concede the claim, we should have to conclude that God knew but little about them, for he certainly would not knowingly employ such moral outlaws upon such an important mission.
   Having thus briefly spoken of the character of some of the actors and agents in the work of conversion, we will now glance at the character of some of the religions and religious ideas, and moral course of conduct, to which the sinner is converted. It is evident that if ad All-wise God had anything to do in the process of converting people to any system of religion, he would also convert them to correct moral habits. But in many cases, after conversion they are no nearer right in this respect, and in some cases further from it than before being thus sanctified. In some cases their religion becomes worse, their religious ideas less sensible, and their moral conduct more objectionable, by ‘the change of heart’ in ‘getting religion.’ Mr. Spencer informs us that the Vewas, a sect or tribe of the Feegees, often cry for hours under conviction for sin. And what is that sin? Why, the neglect to offer sacrifices to their God. And those sacrifices consist in human beings, sometimes their own children. And their conviction, conversion, and repentance only make them more diligent in practicing this crime. It is evident, then, that their religion is at war with their humanity, and the former always triumphs in the contest. They are addicted to cannibalism, infanticide, and polygamy. But as the process of ‘getting religion’ never makes anybody more intelligent, the ‘change of heart,’ with the Vewas, never changes their views, or opens their eyes to see the enormity of their crimes. In ‘getting religion’ people get neither sense, knowledge, nor morality. They get neither a larger stock, nor an improved quality, of either. Their moral conduct is not often sensibly improved, materially or permanently.
3. Scientific Errors, and Scientific Explanations of Conversion: The phenomena of conversion and ‘getting religion’ are so easily explained in the light of science and philosophy, and that explanation is susceptible of so many proofs and demonstrations, that it seems remarkably strange that any persons claiming to be intelligent, and situated in the focal, scientific light of the nineteenth century, should still be hampered with the delusion that such phenomena are the direct display of the power of God. It requires but little investigation and reflection to convince any person that what is called conversion, and ‘repentance for sin,’ is nothing but the revival of early educational impressions resuscitated by the influence of mind on mind. No person has ever been known to get or embrace a religion he was not biased in favour of prior to the time of his conversion, unless we except a few weak-minded persons negative to any influence, and convertible to any religion the priest may urge upon their attention. A very strong proof of this statement is furnished by the history of the Christian missionary enterprise. The reports of travellers and sojourners in India show, that with two hundred years’ labor, and two hundred missionaries in the field during a part of that period, the churches have not succeeded in converting one in ten thousand of the Hindus to the Christian religion – unless we except those who, while children, were sent to Christian schools instituted by the missionaries for the special purpose of converting and warping the young mind, and welding it to the Christian faith before it should receive an unchangeable and unyielding bias in favour of another religion. So fruitless has been the effort to convert to Christianity those who were already established in the religion of the country, that, according to the estimate of Colonel Dow, each convert, on an average, has cost the missionary enterprise not less than ten thousand dollars. An intelligent Hindu, while lecturing recently in London, made the remarkable statement, that conversions which are made to the Christian religion are not amongst the intelligent or learned classes, but are confined to the low, ignorant, and superstitious classes, ‘who have not sense or intelligence enough to perceive the difference between the religion they are converted to, and that which they are converted from.’ And the effort to convert the Mohammedans, Chinese, Persians, and the disciples of other religions has been attended with the same fruitless results – all seeming to warrant the conclusion that God can do but little toward converting any nation to Christianity which has always been biased in favour of another religion. The reason why people are so easily converted from one sect to another in Christian countries is owing to the fact that their religious convictions are unsettled. The members of the different Christian sects are all mixed up together in the various settlements throughout the country, and are brought in daily contact with each other in the busy scenes of life.
   Hence the children have the seeds of Methodism, Presbyterianism, Baptistism, Quakerism, and various other isms implanted in their minds in very early life. And which one of these will ultimately predominate depends upon what priest they fall victims to first. Having thus the germs of so many religious isms implanted in their minds, they are easily shifted about, and converted from one sect to another. And this shuttlecock process is called getting religion,’ while, if they had lived in a country where only one form of religion exists, they would be as hard to convert as Mohammedans and Hindus.
4. Repentance: Much importance is attached by the orthodox churches to the act of getting religion in the dying hour – called ‘death-bed repentance’ – as if the person were better capable of discriminating between right and wrong when his brain is deranged with fever, and his whole system racked with disease and pain, than when in health. Such repentance can do nothing more than prove the honesty of the dying man or woman. For very often their doctrines, or religious belief, will be found no nearer right, and sometimes more erroneous after repentance than before, as repentance merely consists in the return to early impressions – the revival of former convictions, which may be either right or wrong and are about as likely to be the latter as the former, No instance can be found of a person condemning a wrong act, or a wrong course of life, in his dying moments, unless he had previously believed it to be wrong, or if he had always believed it to be right. How much, then, does repentance do toward deciding what is right and what is wrong? Mohammedanism we know to be deeply fraught with error, but we never read nor heard of an instance of the many millions who had been educated to believe it is right, condemning it on their death-beds, or repenting for not having embraced Christianity, and led the life of a Christian, or for adoring Mohammed instead of Jesus Christ. On the contrary we have a well-authenticated instance of a Mohammedan (a Mr. Merton) who had embraced Christianity, and lived the life of a Christian for many years, renouncing it all, and returning to his primitive faith, when he was taken sick and became apprehensive he was going to die: his early religious impressions, returning involuntarily, wiped out his Christianity, and he died glorying in Mohammedanism. And we have an equally well authenticated case of an Indian of the Choctaw tribe, who had been taught to believe from early life that the white man was his natural enemy, and that it was his right and duty to kill him, repenting on his death-bed for having a short time previously neglected, when the opportunity presented, to dispatch a ‘pale face’ he met in his travels. Instead of killing him, he yielded for the moment to the impulse of his better feelings, and passed him by. But on reviewing his past life at the approach of death, he came to the conclusion he had sinned in omitting to kill this man, and he grieved and lamented sorely over this dereliction of apprehended duty. Here we have a case of repentance sanctioning murder. Must we, therefore, conclude that murder is morally right, or a righteous act? Certainly, according to orthodox logic.
   Their religious tracts assume that repentance is always for the right, and is prima facie evidence of being right. If not, what does it prove, or of what moral value is it? According to orthodox teaching, being ‘a murderer at heart,’ he was as consignable to perdition as if he had committed the act. There is no escaping the conclusion, therefore, that his repentance landed him in hell, or else proves murder to be right according to orthodox logic.

We have known Quakers to leave their dying testimony against water baptism; and Baptists, with their last breath, declare it is right, and a sin to neglect it. Which is right? Who can tell? We have also known Quakers to condemn dancing in their dying hours, but Shakers never; because one had been taught that it is wrong, and the other that it is right. And which testimony must we accept? Mohammedans often, when approaching the confines of time, repent (sometimes in tears) for not having lived out more rigidly the injunctions of the Koran, but never regret not having been Christians. They often call upon Mohammed to aid them through the gates of death: but not one of the million who die every year ever calls upon Jesus Christ. What, then, does such a conflicting jargon of death-bed repentance prove? What good can grow out of it, or what moral value can possibly attach to it? It establishes simply two principles:

1. That repentance grows out of education.
2. That it depends entirely upon previous convictions as to what it may sanction, and what it may condemn.

No Christian ever repents in favour of Mohammedanism; and no Mohammedan ever lifts up his dying voice in favour of Christianity as being superior to his own religion; and no Hindu has ever been known to indulge in death-bed lamentation for not having previously embraced either Christianity or Mohammedanism; because their earlier education never turned their minds in that direction. The mind has to be educated over again before it can embrace a new religion, or even condemn a wrong act, which, up to that period, it had always believed to be right.

Hence it is evident repentance may lead a person to condemn what is right and sanction what is wrong. How profoundly ignorant of religious history and mental science must those persons therefore be who attach any importance to those diseased and often incoherent utterances, called ‘death-bed recantations,’ or who believe a thing the sooner because sanctioned by a dying man or woman, or that they do anything toward proving what is right or what is wrong with respect to either our belief or our moral conduct! And yet we find the orthodox churches printing every year, through their tract societies, stories of death-bed repentance in tract form, and scattering them over the country by the million. As they prove nothing but the honesty of the dying man or woman, they are not worth the paper on which they are printed.

The phenomenon of repentance is simply the operation of a natural law, by which the last impressions made upon the mind are generally cancelled from the memory first, by the progress of fever and disease, thus leaving the earlier impressions to rule the judgment. The person is then virtually a child, controlled by his early youthful convictions, with which, if his late belief and conduct disagree, it causes a mental conflict, called repentance. Thus, instead of being the visitation of God, as Christians claim, repentance is shown to be the product of natural causes. The conclusion is thus established beyond disproof, that the mental processes called conversion, repentance, and ‘getting religion’ are simply natural psychological operations, depending upon education, organisation, and intelligence. They depend also upon intellect and scientific knowledge. For persons of large intellectual brains, or extensive scientific culture, never fall victims to these mental derangements. Hence those priests who claim God as their author are either deplorably and inexcusably ignorant, or lacking in moral honesty.

1. The most important lesson deducible from all the religious systems, commemorated in history, and noticed in this work, is, that all religious conceptions, whether in the shape of doctrine, precept, prophecy, prayer, religious devotion, or a belief in miracles, are a spontaneous outgrowth of the moral and religious elements of the human mind. And to assign them a higher origin is to ignore the developments of modern science, and insult the highest intelligence of the age.
2. From the elevated scientific plane occupied by the most enlightened portion of the present age, there is no difficulty in finding a satisfactory solution for every event, every occurrence, and every performance recorded in any of the numerous bibles which have long been afloat in the world, and which have always constituted the sole basis for the claim to a divine origin of all the religious systems of the past; so that such a claim can be no longer vindicated by historically intelligent people.
3. We have shown in this work that all the miraculous incidents related in the history of Jesus Christ as a proof of his divinity can find a more rational explanation than that which assigns them to divine agency. Some of them are now known to be within the natural capacity of the human mind to achieve, others are explained by recently discovered natural laws. Another class are now well understood mental or nervous phenomena. Other stories now regarded by the Christian world as referring to miraculous achievements, were probably designed by the writer as mere fable or metaphor. All the events in Christ’s history, we have shown, are susceptible of a hundred fold more rational explanation than that which regards them as the feats of a God in violation of his own laws.
4. We have also shown that the same marvellous incidents now found incorporated in the Gospel history of Jesus Christ were related long previously as a part of the sacred history of other Gods; such as being miraculously conceived and born of a virgin; born on the 25th of December; visited in infancy by angels and shepherds; threatened by the ruler of the country; being of royal lineage; receiving the same divine titles; performing the same miracles, etc.
   In a word, we have shown that various heathen Gods and Demigods had, long before Christ’s advent, filled the same chapter in history now reported of him in the Christian New Testament. All these stories of the heathen Gods prove as conclusively as any scientific problem can be demonstrated by figures, that the same stories related of Jesus Christ have no other foundation than that of heathen tradition. And will the Christian world, then, hereafter stultify their common sense by ignoring these facts of history so fatal to their claims? Past history points to an affirmative answer to this question, as we will illustrate.
   In the early history of this country, several reports were published of showers of blood being seen to fall in some of the sea-coast states, which were regarded as a divine judgment. But the use of the telescope revealed the fact that it was the ordure of butterflies, as those insects were seen at the time in vast swarms. But the devout Christian, whose faith in his religion has always been proof against the demonstrations of science, would not give it up. He would not accept the butterfly explanation, but continued to teach his children that it came from God out of heaven as a manifestation of displeasure toward the sins of the people. And it now remains to be seen whether Christian professors at the present day will manifest a similar folly by standing out against the demonstrated truths and facts of this work.
5. We here cite it as the last and most sorrowful lesson of history, that no facts, no proofs, no demonstrations of science can eradicate religious errors from the human mind, if instilled in early life, and never disturbed till the possessor arrives at mature age or middle life.

In writing the concluding chapter of this work, we deem it proper to re-state some points, and elaborate others, and anticipate some objections to some of the positions advanced. Each division of the subject will be marked by a separate figure, and treated in a brief and succinct manner, as follows:

1. Several persons, who examined this work before it went to press, have expressed the opinion that it must exert a powerful influence in the way of producing an entire revolution in the religion of orthodox Christendom sooner or later. But this must of course be the work of time as moral revolutions are not the work of a day. When the human system has been long prostrated with chronic disease, no system of medication can restore it at once to health. The same principle governing the mind makes it morally impossible to eradicate its deeply-seated moral and religious errors in a day by even the presentation of the most powerful and convincing truths and demonstrations that can be brought to bear or operate upon the human judgment. The mind instinctively repels everything (no difference how true or how beautiful) that conflicts with its long-established opinions and convictions. The fires of truth usually require much time to burn their way through those encrustations of moral and religious error which often environ the human mind as the products of a false education. But when they once enter, the work of convincement is complete.
2. It has been stated that the resemblance between Christianity and the more ancient heathen systems is complete and absolute throughout in all their essential doctrines, and principles, and precepts. And if it shall be found, on a critical reading of this work after it comes from the press, that there is one feature of Christianity which has not been traced to pagan origin, or that any points of resemblance have been omitted, they will be supplied in an appendix.
3. It has been stated that a transfiguration is related of Krishna of India (1200 BC) in the Hindu bible (the Baghavat Gita), which is strikingly similar to that of Christ. We will here present the proof. ‘Abandoning the mortal form, he (Krishna) appeared to his disciples in all the divine eclat of his Divine Majesty, his brow encircled with such a brilliant light that Arjuna and the other disciples, unable to bear it, fell with their faces in the dust, and prayed the Lord (Krishna) to pardon their unworthiness. He replied, ‘Have you not faith in me? Know ye not, that whether present or absent in body, I will be ever present with you to guard and protect you?’’ (Bhagavat Gita.) How remarkable this to the story of Christ’s transfiguration!
4. Some readers, perhaps, will be surprised to observe that we have named so many crucified gods to whom some writers assign a different death. But we have followed, as we believe, the best authorities in doing so.
5. In our work, ‘The Bibles of Bibles,’ we have shown that the score of bibles which have been extant in the world teach essentially the same doctrines, principles, and precepts. There are to be found in the old pagan bibles the same grand and beautiful truths mixed up with the same mind-enslaving errors and deleterious superstitions as those contained in the Christian bible. And the same exalted claim is set up by the disciples of each for their respective holy books – that of being a direct revelation from God, and inspired at the fountain of infinite wisdom. And all were exalted, adored, and idolised by their respective admirers, as containing a perfect embodiment of truth, without any admixture of error. The ancient Persians carried their bibles in their bosoms, and read them and prayed over them daily. The Hindus often read their bible through on their bended knees, and sometimes committed it all to memory. The Baghavat has the following text: ‘The most important of all duties is to study the Holy Scriptures, which is the word of Brahma and Krishna, revealed to the world.’ Some of the Mohammedans claim that immortal life can only be obtained by reading the Koran, and that the reading of it is essential to the progress and practice of good morals, and the advancement of civilisation; and that it will ultimately reform and civilise the world. Both they and the Hindus, like the Christian world, have numerous commentaries, explaining the obscure texts of their bibles, and aiming to reconcile their teachings with reason and science. And the disciples of all bibles had a mode of doing away with the immoral teachings, and concealing the worst features of their sacred books by bestowing on them a spiritual meaning, as Christians do theirs, thus dressing up error in the guise of truth. The Hindu bible, the Mohammedan bible, and other holy books, consign those who disbelieve in their teachings to eternal damnation, denouncing them as infidel’s. In this respect, also, they are like the Christian’s bible.
6. ‘But then, after all (as some good pious Christian will probably exclaim after reading this work), the bible and Christianity are essential to the progress of good morals, and the advancement of the cause of civilisation, and the civilised world would sink into a state of heathen darkness, demoralisation, and savagism without them; for every enlightened nation owes its present moral and intellectual greatness to the Christian bible and the Christian religion, and would relapse into barbarism without them.’ This is a mistake, a most egregious mistake, my good brother Christian, as the following facts of history will show:

1. There are heathen nations now existing who never saw a bible, and others which flourished in the past, before our bible was written, who nevertheless attained to a higher state of morals, and a higher state of civilisation in some respects, than any Christian nation known to history. A whole volume of facts might be adduced, if we had space for them, drawn from the ablest and most reliable authorities, to prove that India, Egypt, Greece, and other countries had reached a high state of civilisation centuries before Christianity or any of its founders were even heard of, or made their appearance in the world. India was distinguished for her learning, her laws, her legislation, her civil courts, her judicial tribunals, her astronomers, her poets, her philosophers, her writers, her moralists, her libraries, her men of literature, and her good morals before Moses was found in the bulrushes. Jacolliot says, ‘India gave civilisation to the world.’ Egypt borrowed of India, the Greeks of the Egyptians, and the Jews and Christians are indebted to the Greeks for both their morals and their civilisation. Dubois, a Christian missionary, in his ‘Memoirs of India,’ testifies that ‘kindness, justice, humanity, good faith, compassion, disinterestedness, and in fact nearly all the moral virtues, were familiar to the ancient Brahmans and Hindus, and they taught them both by precept and example.’ Can as much be said of any Christian nation? Certainly not. And the Rev. D.O. Allen says they were distinguished for all the arts and refinement of civilised life – thus placing them on the highest plane of civilisation and moral elevation. And other nations might be referred to. Egypt had her vast temples of science, Chaldea her astronomical observatories, and Greece her distinguished academies of learning, her profound philosophers, and her high-toned moral writers and moral teachers, while the Jews, ‘God’s holy people,’ were in a state of semi-barbarism. So affirms the Rev. Albert Barnes.
2. No advancement has often been made in morals or civilisation in any country by the introduction of the Christian bible or the Christian religion. It is the arts and sciences which accompany or follow the bible which do the work. A proof of this statement is found in the fact, that no improvement takes place in the morals of the people by the introduction of the bible till the arts and sciences are also introduced amongst them. On the contrary, the morals of many deteriorate by reading the bible alone, because it sanctions as well as condemns every species of crime then known to society, (For proof see Chap. XXXIX. of this work.) That India has become corrupted and sunk in morals since the introduction of the Christian bible, is admitted by the Rev. D.O. Allen, for twenty-five years a missionary in that country. But science, especially moral science, imparts a different influence. It explains the nature of crimes, and teaches and demonstrates that a life of honesty and virtue can alone produce true and real happiness, while the bible augments the temptation to commit sin by teaching that ‘it is a sweet morsel to be rolled under the tongue,’ and that its punitive effects may be entirely escaped by an act of divine forgiveness. But science, either directly or by the enlightening of the mind, teaches and convinces the wrong-doer that there is no escape from the evil effects of a wrong or wicked act, and that sin is not a sweet morsel,’ but ultimately a bitter pill. And thus it arrests the demoralising effects of this pernicious doctrine of the Christian bible.
3. It may startle some of the bible devotees to be told that their sacred book, instead of being a prompter to civilisation and good morals, is really a hindrance to those ends; and that consequently nations without bibles advance faster in these respects than those who are well supplied with this book. But the facts of history seem to establish this as a fact. As a proof we will contrast the present condition of heathen Japan with that of Christian Abyssinia. Colonel Hall and Dr. Oliphant both testify that no drunkenness, no fighting, no quarrelling, no thefts, no robberies, no rapes, no fornication, no domestic feuds or broils, and no fraudulent dealing take place in Japan. No locks or keys are used, for none are needed. There is no disposition to steal, or even to cheat, or overreach in dealing. But in Christian Abyssinia, on the other hand, according to Mr. Goodrich, where bibles and churches are numerous, and preaching and praying are heard every day, nearly all the crimes above enumerated are daily committed. The people go naked, eat raw flesh, cheat, lie, and murder, and practice polygamy. Such a thing as a legitimate child, he tells us, is not known. And thus it has been for fifteen hundred years, while in the daily practice of reading their bible. The arts and sciences have never been introduced amongst them. And this fact explains the cause of their continued moral degradation.
4. According to Noah Webster, the cultivation of the arts and sciences is essential to the progress of civilisation and good morals. But bible religion knows nothing about the arts and sciences. It don’t even use the words, Paul uses the word science only once, and then to condemn it. But Jesus omits any allusion to science, philosophy, or natural law. So thoroughly convinced were the early disciples of the Christian faith that the teachings of their bible are inimical to the arts and sciences, that they destroyed works of art wherever they could find them, and opposed with a deadly aim every new discovery in the sciences even unto this day.
5. As bibles represent only the morals and state of society in the age in which they are written, and are not allowed to be altered or transcended, they thus hold their disciples back in all coming time, and compel them to teach and practice the morals of that semi-barbarous age as found taught in their bibles. And thus bibles prevent the moral growth of the people as effectively as the Chinese wooden shoes prevent the growth of the feet of young girls.

We have traced Christianity to Essenism. This may need a fuller explanation than we have yet devoted to this point, though we have stated several times we consider them essentially one. The Essenes had their ‘Exoteric’ and their ‘Esoteric’ doctrines. The latter, which seems to have included the incarnation, atonement, trinity, and all the other Buddhist doctrines (and now included in the term Christianity), they never published to the world. Hence we set forth only their Exoteric doctrines. But as Philo, Milman, Tytler, and other eminent authors show they held all the doctrines of Buddhism, we assume they were a Buddhist sect. Hence, when we speak of Christianity growing out of Buddhism, we mean Buddhism under the name of Essenism. We believe Christianity is from Essenism and Buddhism both, because they are essentially one; and that Christianity is merely a continuation of Buddhism as taught by the Essenian sect of Buddhists. Hence we have sometimes used the term Essenism, and sometimes the term Buddhism, as being the fountain head of Christianity. We have stated Christ may have been an Essene either by birth or by conversion. But our conviction now is, that he was one by birth. And we now think it probable that that portion of the Jewish nation which became known as Essenes sprang up in the Buddhist school of Pythagoras, in Alexandria, in the second or third century before Christ, and thus became Essenian Buddhists; that is, a sect of Jewish Buddhists who called themselves Essenes. And consequently, neither Christ nor his disciples made any changes in the Essenian religion, when they changed its name to Christianity, except to engraft a few unimportant tenets borrowed from the principal Buddhist sect. We are now convinced that Essenism was complete Buddhism, that Christ was born of Essene parents, and that no important changes were made by dropping the term Essenism, and adopting the term Christianity in its place.

It may not be improper to explain more fully the reason for the opinion that the Gospel writer John did not believe that Christ first came into existence through human birth, but believed that he, like some of the oriental Gods, was ‘The Word’ personified, without the process of birth; though he may, like the heathen orientalists, have cherished the tradition that the second God in the trinity (as he represents Christ to be), after having sprung into existence as ‘The Word,’ was subsequently subjected to human birth. Either so, or else his allusion to ‘the mother of Christ’ was done in condescension to the general belief among the people, that he had a human mother. Be that as it may, he declares, ‘The Word was made flesh’ (John i. 14); nearly the same language used by the orientalists, – which with them did not imply human birth. And the declaration, ‘All things were made by him’ (John i. 3), is proof positive he believed in Christ’s existence as the creator, before his human birth. Much of John’s language is so strikingly similar to that employed by the disciples of some of the oriental religions, who believed that a second God emanated from the mouth of the Supreme, to perform the act of creation, that we cannot resist the conviction that this was John’s belief; especially as many of them believed, like him, that this creative ‘Word’ became afterward a subject of human birth. Thus, as we conceive, the proposition is established.

Our most reliable authorities testify that Babylon never was destroyed, but successfully resisted, for one hundred and fifty years after Isaiah’s time, many of the most powerful sieges, and ‘the mightiest munitions of war,’ conducted by seven of the most skilful generals that ever wielded the sword – Cyrus, Darius, Alexander the Great, Antigonus, Demetrius, Poliorcetes, and Antiochus. She then gradually declined by the removal of her inhabitants to other and newer cities; thus falsifying the prediction of Jeremiah (li. 8), ‘Her end has come,’ and of Isaiah (xiii. 22), ‘Her days shall not be prolonged,’ and that ‘desolation shall come upon her in a day,’ and her destruction shall be effected suddenly – all of which are falsified by the facts just presented. And even if Babylon had been destroyed, the present existence of Hillah, built in 1101 upon the same spot, with a population, according to Wellstead, of twenty-five thousand, is a signal overthrow of Jeremiah’s prophecy, that it ‘shall become a wilderness, wherein no man dwelleth’ (Ii. 43), and of Isaiah, also, that it should not be dwelt in from generation to generation. Jeremiah first predicted that her sea and springs should dry up (Ii. 38), and then declared the waves of the sea should come upon her (Ii. 42); and finally, that she should sink to rise no more (Ii. 64). And Isaiah’s prediction of ruin and destruction included with Babylon, ‘the land of the Chaldeans’ (1. 39), which was then, and is yet, a great commercial country, with an annual revenue at this time, according to Harvey Brydges, of a million pounds sterling. Here, then, is a long series of prophecies falsified. Our authority for saying that Hillah occupies the site of ancient Babylon is Malte-Brun’s Geography (page 655), which declares, ‘Hillah is situated within the precincts of Babylon;’ thus proving it is not ‘a wilderness, wherein no man dwelleth.’ Had we, space, we should present an extended view of the prophecies.

  Library Index

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Design ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- .  All Rights Reserved.