Part 21

Respecting the authorship of these fables, we are told that the book which contains them, as well as the other four books of the Pentateuch, were written by Moses, under the inspiration of what is called the holy ghost; but when we examine these books we find that this is without doubt false, for it is not possible for any man to record his own death and burial, and the lives of a succession of prophets who lived after him, as is done in the last chapter of Deuteronomy. Then, again, in the seventh chapter of Genesis clean and unclean beasts are mentioned in connexion with the ark fable, whereas, according to the Bible, clean and unclean beasts were not declared such until 600 years after Moses is said to have died; which proves that Genesis was not written before that late period. The town of Dan is also mentioned in the fourteenth chapter, which town had no existence until 331 years after the recorded death of Moses. In chap. XXXVI. a list is given of all the kings that reigned over Edom “before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,” proving once more that this book was not written until long after kings had reigned over Israel. Numerous other passages might be quoted to show that Moses could not have written the books that are ascribed to him. To cut the matter short, however, we are told in the 2nd apocryphal book of Ezra that he and his clerks wrote all the books of Moses; and in Chronicles and Kings that Shaphan discovered the writings in an old chest.

We find, therefore, not only that these fables of the creation and fall are not true records, but that it is not known who wrote them, although suspicion attaches to one Ezra; and yet we are expected to hang our chances of salvation upon them. We are handed these books and told by a priest that they were originally derived from god. Now instead of believing the man, and taking no pains to find out what the volume really contains, as is unfortunately the habit of most people, our duty is clearly to investigate the matter, and try to find out whether that priest speaks the truth or not, whether he has any sort of interest in making us believe the volume to be the word of god, or, assuming that he himself honestly believes it to be so, whether he is a sufficient authority on the point. Let us, for instance, take the case of a stranger to the Christian faith, one who never heard of the Bible or its gods, and who meets a Christian priest in the backwoods of America. The holy one informs the stranger that he possesses a book which has been written by god, through the medium of the inspired minds of a number of holy men. Would you consider the stranger to be a man of sound mental faculties if he at once accepted the word of the parasite, and shaped his whole career according to the teaching of that book? Most assuredly not. The most natural thing for the stranger to do would be to stare in amazement at the saint, and wonder whether he was quite right in his mind. Observing that the priest was really in earnest, and apparently of sane mind, he would parley with him, asking where he procured his book from; who were the very holy parties who had been inspired to write it; when and where they lived; and who knew anything about them: in short he would demand from the unctions one his credentials before believing such an astounding assertion as that god wrote a book. The replies would be after this fashion. The book was derived in the first instance from a publisher’s shop, where it had been printed with lead type and black ink, from another printed copy, which had been printed from another copy, and so on back to the first printed edition, which was copied from a translation of various Hebrew and Greek ‘originals.’ It was about two thousand years, he would say, since some of these ‘originals’ were written, and the remainder were supposed to be of much earlier date; but who the actual writers were he could not tell, although it was beyond doubt they were guided by god’s inspiration, for it was so declared in the writings themselves, which had never yet been doubted, except by a few naughty men who were now in hell. Do you think this would be good enough for the stranger? Of course not. Then, in the name of common sense, why should we accept these Bible books without enquiry? To accept any anonymous writings in blind faith as being the production of particular individuals, without corroborative evidence, is the act of a fool, not of a wise man. A sensible person will make some enquiry about them before accepting them.

Unfortunately for ourselves it is only lately that people have been wise or bold enough to use their reasoning faculties in these matters, the consequence being that the ordinary mind is now almost unequal to the task of unravelling the net which has been so cunningly spun around society by the Christian church. A careful investigation of the matter, however, leads to the inference that about B.C. 250 or 300 the Jewish chief priest Ezra, assisted by a number of clerks, commenced to form a national history out of the various legends they had picked up in their long wanderings, soon producing what are now known as the books of Judges (from the 3rd chap.), Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, which, together with the poems and incantations of various men of the tribes, they set forth as the divinely inspired history of their people. Not long afterwards the Persian system of creation, and story of the fall of man were committed to manuscript, and adapted to the requirements of the Jewish people by the substitution of their race in place of the Chaldeans as the chosen people of god; and thus were produced the books of the Pentateuch, with Joshua, and the two first chapters of Judges. This explains why the stories of the creation, fall, flood, tower of Babel, etc., are never mentioned in any of the books of the Bible after Genesis for the space of about a thousand years; why in all the books from Joshua as far as II. Kings the name of Moses is never met with, the most remarkable man in the whole Jewish history; and why such names as Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Ham, Japhet, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never occur again after Genesis till the time of the so-called return from Babylon.

The real meaning of the Chaldean and Jewish stories of the creation and fall, which were derived originally from the constellations above, it would take too long here to unfold, but the riddle has been explained in my “Popular Faith Unveiled,” to which those who desire to further pursue the subject are referred.

For nearly two thousand years Christianity, based on these fables of the creation and fall, has had an unfettered career throughout Europe, its avowed object being to bring salvation to men in the next world, and to teach the doctrines of love, forbearance, humility and charity while in this world. Respecting the bringing of salvation to men in the next world, we cannot well determine to what extent the religion has been successful; but with regard to its earthly mission it has signally and utterly failed. The two thousand years have passed away and still the evils surrounding us continue, and are even intensified; poverty, misery, immorality and tyranny exist as of old, in spite of the promise to the church that she should be helped, even to the end, by the divine power. So far from love, charity, forbearance and humility being inculcated by the church, we find the followers of the meek and lowly one occupying high and lucrative offices, one declaring himself the vice-regent of god on earth, and others, in our own country, being in receipt of salaries ranging from fifteen and ten thousand pounds annually to two or three hundred, driving their carriages, sporting livery servants and cockades, stiling themselves as Reverend, Very Reverend, Venerable, Most Reverend Father in God, Right Honorable and other titles expressive of superior quality of make; and all in a constant state of warfare amongst themselves. One cannot take up a daily paper without seeing an instance of clerical intolerance, hatred, envy or malice. The Romanist damns the Protestant; the churchman rides the high horse over the dissenter, and would like to deprive him of what is vulgarly considered to be decent burial; the evangelicals denounce the high church party; the nonconformist bodies are all at constant war with each other on points of doctrine; and while all are eaten up with pride, egotism, selfishness, greed and mutual hatred, each sect declares itself to be the genuine teacher of love, forbearance, humility and charity.

As a body the church has from the first opposed all progress. As early as the year 414 Bishop Cyril’s mob brained the learned Hypatia in a Christian church, for the heinous crime of teaching mathematics. The Pope and his pious court attempted to prevent the art of printing becoming known in Europe. Copernicus was excommunicated for the sin of announcing the grand truth that the earth revolves round the sun. Galileo rotted in the prison of the Inquisition for daring to say that the earth rotates on its axis. Bruno was burnt at the stake for declaring his belief in the Copernican philosophy. Newton’s theory of gravitation was denounced by the church. Descartes, Kepler, Locke, Laplace and Darwin all were abused and insulted by the holy ones for their heretical writings, which have brought us such blessings. The church opposed the abolition of slavery, both here and in America, the bishops in the House of Lords applauding king George when he said that slavery was a useful institution because it was taught in the holy Bible, and the southern States of the Union appealing to the ‘word of god’ in justification of their cruelty. The burning of witches, taught in the Bible, was vigorously encouraged by the church; and the cruel horrors of the Inquisition are too well known to need description. All measures of reform in our own country have been opposed by bishops and nobles together; the church and the state having aided each other in trampling on the people’s rights, and enslaving both their minds and bodies. In spite of the present very apparent poverty and misery, the people are exhorted by the church to increase and multiply, being told that it is a blessed thing to have one’s quiver full, and that it is wicked to listen to those who preach conjugal prudence, small families, and social thrift. In short the Christian religion has entirely failed in its mission, being a standing menace to all progress, and a cause of unceasing animosity all over Europe.

Do we imagine that all the priests and ministers of the Christian church believe the fables of the creation and fall? I would stake my existence on it that if we were to cut off their salaries there would be barely half a dozen parsons in each denomination who would stick to their soul-saving business. Their trinity is supposed to consist of god the father, god the son, and god the holy ghost; but if we represent the first by the letter l, the second by s, and the third by d, we should be much nearer the mark. £. s. d. is the Christian trinity, and pew rents, tithes, etc., the means by which the one thing needful is kept up. Ten million pounds sterling are annually spent in supporting the clergy of the established church alone, while poverty, wretchedness and crime confront us at every turn. The struggling workers of this country, not content with having to contribute towards the payment of £29,000,000 annually, as interest on the national debt resulting from accumulated religious war charges, are foolish enough to spend more than a third of this amount in keeping a host of state-made drones, who oppose all progress, drain the hard earnings from the workers, and assume haughty airs towards their poor dupes. In the face of the depressed state of our trade, and the poverty and misery around us, it is appalling to think of the enormous quantity of money that annually drifts into the pockets of these human parasites, both episcopalian and nonconformist alike.

We know well enough that the large majority of those laymen who profess to believe the fall and redemption scheme do not really believe it at all, but play the part of the believer in order to serve their own private interests. The laity may be divided into four classes:—1st, those few honest and sincere men who deceive themselves by imagining that they can really believe such unreasonable doctrines, and who attempt by their means to do what could be done so very much better without them. 2nd, those who are deficient in education and mental power, and who will accept anything the priest tells them, no matter how absurd. 3rd, those who have some little education but very little brain power, and who consider themselves very important members of society, when in reality the world does not know them even by name. They resent in their little minds the silent affront offered to them by their fellows, who, they think, ought to know their superior worth; and they look around for a little church or chapel, where the stream of intellect is sufficiently thin to allow of their feeble mental power being perceived. They join, take a leading part in the performances, carry the collecting box, open pew doors, hand hymn-books to strangers, and are happy in the consciousness of their importance, being gazed at Sunday after Sunday by an admiring congregation. Were these folk obliged to do their religious work under cover of masks, their names being at the same time studiously concealed from the congregation, the race of pew openers, box carriers, etc., would soon die out; but as it is, vanity, egotism and pomposity yet keep the race alive. The fourth class consists of sharp business men, with plenty of brains and fair average education, who join a church with a large congregation, and adopt the particular creed in vogue there, as a means of pushing their business, by assuming a mien of pious “respectability.” These are the men, devoid of all honour, who forfeit their manhood at the shrine of hypocrisy, and who ought more particularly to be shewn up in their true colors. Without these four classes the religion of the fall and redemption scheme would soon become a thing of the past. No mention has been made of the ladies, who, according to some rude and ungallant people, look forward to the lord’s day as one on which they can display their new bonnets, procure food for another week’s gossip, or hold sweet communion with the unmarried curate—all for Jesus. It is unnecessary to say that this may not be true, and that a higher and nobler motive may prompt the ardent zeal of the fair sex.

Do not believe the parsons when they tell you that your souls are in jeopardy for rejecting the Christian doctrines; the truth is that their incomes are in danger, not your souls. Take care not to follow their evil advice that it is a blessed thing to have your quiver full, and that the lord loves a cheerful giver. Have small families, being careful to bring into the world only as many as you can decently provide for, so as to give them a fair chance in the world; and let your creditors and your saving-banks, and not your lord, have your spare cash—your lord being but another name for your parson. When they tell you that you must take no thought for the morrow, and must not lay up treasure on earth, where moths and rust corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal, give them the cold shoulder, insure your life in some sound office, and leave the laws of the country in which you live to take care of the thieves, and their reverences to look after the moths and rust.

It will, no doubt, be urged that Christianity has done, and is doing a great good in the world. This I emphatically deny. I readily admit that some good has been effected in the name of Christianity, but deny that the fall and redemption religion has been the cause. The same amount of good would have resulted with any other religion, and much more with no religion at all. All the good that has ever been effected in the world has emanated from lofty individual minds; but as chance has had it, the majority of these men in the past have been Christians, simply because that religion has prevailed in Europe for nearly two thousand years. In the present day this is not the case; and it is a fact beyond contradiction that all the leaders of thought of our time are men who have rejected the fables of the creation and fall as given in Genesis, together with the consequent redemption scheme, as false and vain. John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin, Tyndal, Carpenter, Huxley, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Rénan, Victor Hugo, Schopenhauer, Haeckel, and in fact every other modern leader of thought, have rejected the orthodox faith; and yet we look forward to the future with bright hope, expecting a steady progress in man’s general welfare. Even when Christians themselves in days long gone by, attempted to introduce any useful reform, their church invariably persecuted them, as for instance Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno, Luther, etc.; and the only Christian priest who ever propounded any theory which was calculated to be a lasting boon to society was Malthus, who declared that over population was the great cause of all misery, and that until people were taught conjugal prudence it was useless to attempt to ameliorate their social condition. This friend of humanity was bitterly denounced by the church, and to this day his followers are held in contempt, notwithstanding that the Malthusian principles are now endorsed by the leading social scientists, and that it is as clear as the sun at noon day that within the short space of 45 years the present population of this country—now about 36,000,000—will have doubled itself. The people now cannot support themselves, so how they will manage when the population is 72,000,000 it is hard to say. What with over population and land monopoly the future has indeed some terrible social evils in store for us.

Individual Christians undoubtedly have done something towards making their fellows happy, but not so Christianity, as witness the Inquisition and other enormities of the middle ages. But do the Jews, Unitarians and Infidels of to day do nothing for their fellows? What about Sir Moses Montefiore, who rejects the atonement? Have not the Agnostics just founded the Whitminster College for purely secular education? And what do we not owe to those heterodox scientists just mentioned? It is the fashion with some people to give the name of Christianity to the morality of this century; but this very ingenuous attempt to clothe one of the most immoral of the world’s religions with the garment of righteousness carries no weight for the scholar and the historian. There is as much difference between the morality of to day and the genuine Christian religion as there is between the north and south poles. The two are the exact antitheses of each other. The real reason that the human race has in the last hundred years so rapidly advanced in intellectual qualities and moral progress is not because it has become more Christian in its character but because it has gradually shaken off the yoke of Christianity piece by piece. The whole Mosaic cosmogony, with its flat earth theory, creation of man, etc., as taught in Genesis, has been destroyed by Copernicus, Newton, Laplace and Darwin; slavery has been abolished; witches are no longer burnt at the stake; polygamy is discountenanced; and human sacrifice, murder, rapine, theft and personal assaults are no longer justified. All these immoralities are distinctly and prominently taught in the Christian Bible, but have been expunged from the moral code of this century. Were Christianity now dead instead of dying the same amount of good would accrue to the race as before; and, judging from past history, there would be a very vast decrease in the opposition that has for two thousand years been offered to progress.

The question after all is not what Christianity has done, but whether or not its story is a true one. As already stated, if the creation and fall stories are not true the whole scheme of Christianity, with its god-man and its sacraments, is a fraud and a delusion. No religion that cannot bear the test of reason, and be maintained on a public platform can be founded on truth. If the Christian story be true there is no need for the holy ones to secure themselves behind the fortifications of ’coward’s castle’ every Sunday to preach their doctrines; the open platform being a more suitable place from which to propagate the truth. But what are the facts? The man who dares to submit the religion to the test of reason, or even to discourse publicly upon evolution or any other scientific theory that is likely to interfere with the steady flow of bullion into the collection box, is denounced from the pulpit, the holy ones branding him as a dangerous infidel, and using all the means in their power to blacken his character and to insidiously undermine his business. The challenge to debate is never accepted.

The question before us is a momentous one. Creation or Evolution? Moses or Darwin? We cannot follow both.

WORKS BY DR. H. J. HARDWICKE.

_Demy 8vo., pp. 202, price 10/-_

MEDICAL EDUCATION AND PRACTICE IN ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD.

“This book contains a fund of information.... The whole is preceded by an introduction, which is worth the attention of all persons taking a broad interest in medical education.... Some weaknesses in home and foreign regulations are lightly passed over, and it may well be that such a mass of statement will, on experience, be found to be defective at points. But we accept it gratefully, as an attempt to supply a very great want, and we commend some of the reflections of the author on the defects of our own system to all whom it may concern.”—_Lancet._

“Here the reader will find information respecting the educational bodies, examinations, and medical laws of every civilised state, and he will also come to the humiliating confession that though there exist a good many time-honoured institutions in the United States, and an anxiety to put matters on a scientific footing in others, yet farther south the condition of medicine is as bad as can possibly be imagined.’ ... But the authorities, and not Dr. Hardwicke, are responsible for this, and we cordially thank him for his decidedly useful addition to our knowledge of medical education in other countries.”—_Medical Press and Circular._

“A good deal of information will be found in a useful book entitled, ‘Medical Education and Practice in all Parts of the World,’ by Dr. H. J. Hardwicke.”—_British Medical Journal._

“A book which ought to cut the ground from beneath all bogus diploma-dealers.”—_Medical Times and Gazette._

“This volume, extending to 202 pages, with double columns, really contains the information which the title-page promises. It must have cost the author a great amount of trouble. It is a useful guide for all entrants to the profession, those especially who contemplate settling in foreign parts. It will do good also indirectly by letting those schools whose education is defective see what other schools are doing, and so be the means of stimulating them to aim at higher things. To be informed, for example, that medical teaching in Japan is already treading on the heels of some of our British schools cannot fail to do good.”—_Edinburgh Medical Journal._

“Dr. Hardwicke’s book will prove a valuable source of information to those who may desire to know the conditions upon which medical practice is or may be pursued in any or every country of the world, even to the remotest corners of the earth. The work has been compiled with great care, and must have required a vast amount of labour and perseverance on the part of its author.”—_Dublin Medical Journal._