|
Sixteen Crucified Saviours ~ 6 (Christianity Before Christ, by Kersey Graves. 1875)
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Library Index
of Divine Incarnation The incarnation of an infinite God is a shocking absurdity, and an infinite impossibility. We ask in all solemn earnestness, and in the name of the intuitive monitions of an unshackled reason and an unbiased conscience, can, any man in his sober senses, who has been in the habit of reflecting before he believes, entertain for a moment the monstrous absurdity that the Almighty and Infinite Maker of the universe was once reduced to a little wailing infant, lying in senseless and helpless weakness on the lap of its mother, unable to walk a step, or lisp a word, or do aught but cry with pain or for nourishment stored in the mother’s breast? What! Almighty God fallen from his burnished, dazzling throne in the lofty heavens, and reduced to helpless, senseless babyhood! Omnipotence shorn of all power but to breathe, and cry, and smile! What! that Omniscient Being, who ‘leads one world by day, and ten thousand more by night,’ becoming suddenly transformed into a human bantling, which knows no higher enjoyment than that of being ‘pleased with a rattle, and tickled with a straw!’ Who can believe it?, who dare believe it, if he would escape the charge of blasphemy? Then say not that ‘the man Christ Jesus,’ though standing at the top of the ladder of moral manhood, and high above the common plane of humanity, was yet a God – ‘the Infinite Ruler of the infinite universe.’ Who can believe that that Being, whose existence stretches to an eternity beyond human conception, yea, whom ‘the heaven of heavens cannot contain,’ was ever cooped up in a human body, reduced so near to nothing in dimensions as to be susceptible (as was Jesus) of being weighed in scales, and measured with a yardstick? 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:
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.)
of the Divine Incarnation 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.
of the Divine Incarnation 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:
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
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.
(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:
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:
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.
of Heathen Origin
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.
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:
|
