CHAPTER VIII.

CHARACTER AND TEACHINGS.

470

Who was Jesus Christ?

Mark: He was the son of man.

Matthew and Luke: He was the Son of God.

John: He was God himself.

In the Four Gospels are presented three entirely different conceptions of the Christ. In Mark he is represented as the son of human parents--the Messiah--but simply a man. In Matthew and Luke we have the story of the miraculous conception--he is represented as the Son of God. In John he is declared to be God himself. "In the beginning was the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (i, 1).

According to Mark Christ is a man; according to Matthew and Luke, a demi-god; according to John, a God.

Voltaire thus harmonizes these discordant conceptions: "The son of God is the same as the son of man; the son of man is the same as the son of God. God, the father, is the same as Christ, the son; Christ, the son, is the same as God, the father. This language may appear confused to unbelievers, but Christians will readily understand it."

This is quite as intelligible as the Christian Confession of Faith, Article II of which reads as follows: "The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man."

"The theological Christ is the impossible union of the human and divine--man with the attributes of God, and God with the limitations and weaknesses of man."--Ingersoll.

471

Is God a visible Being?

Jacob: "I have seen God face to face" (Genesis xxxii, 30).

John: "No man hath seen God at any time" (i, 18).

472

How many Gods are there?

Mark: One.

John: Three.

Mark teaches the doctrine of Unitarianism (Monotheism), or one God. John teaches, not the doctrine of Unitarianism or one God, nor yet the doctrine of Trinitarianism or three Gods in one, but the doctrine of Tritheism or three distinct Gods, separate and independent of each other.

473

Is the doctrine of the Trinity taught in the New Testament?

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 John v, 7).

This is the only passage in the New Testament which clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, and this passage is admitted by all Christian scholars to be an interpolation.

When the modern version of the New Testament was first published by Erasmus it was criticised because it contained no text teaching the doctrine of the Trinity. Erasmus promised his critics that if a manuscript could be found containing such a text he would insert it. The manuscript was "found," and the text quoted appeared in a later edition. Concerning this interpolation Sir Isaac Newton, in a letter to a friend, which was afterward published by Bishop Horsley, says: "When the adversaries of Erasmus had got the Trinity into his edition, they threw by their manuscript as an old almanac out of date."

Alluding to the doctrine of the Trinity, Thomas Jefferson says: "It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three, and yet, that the one is not three, and the three not one.... But this constitutes the craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies" (Jefferson's Works, vol. iv, p. 205, Randolph's ed.).

Again Jefferson says: "The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs" (Ibid, p. 360).

474

Was Christ the only begotten Son of God?

John: He was "the only begotten Son of God" (iii, 18).

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them" (Genesis vi, 4).

475

By what agency and when was the Christ begotten?

Matthew and Luke: By the Holy Ghost at the time of his conception by the Virgin Mary.

According to Justin the Holy Ghost begat the Christ, not at the conception of Jesus, as claimed by these Evangelists, but at his baptism. At his baptism the voice from heaven said: "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee" (Dialogues 88).

The correctness of Justin's statement is corroborated by Hebrews: "Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee" (v, 5). Christ's priesthood began at his baptism.

476

Of what gender is the Holy Ghost?

Matthew (Greek Ver.): Masculine gender.

Matthew (Hebrew Ver.): Feminine gender.

The Holy Ghost (Spirit), as was noted in a previous chapter, was with the Greeks of masculine gender, with the Jews of feminine gender. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, which, it is claimed, was the original Gospel of Matthew, represented Jesus as saying, "Just now my mother, the Holy Ghost, laid hold on me."

If the Holy Ghost was the mother of Jesus did he have two mothers? According to our Greek version of Matthew, as well as that of Luke, he had one mother and three reputed fathers--God, the Holy Ghost, and Joseph.

477

Christ, it is affirmed, was born of Mary. If so, what relation did she bear to him?

1. If he was born of Mary she was his mother.

2. She "being with child by the Holy Ghost," and Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one, she bore to him the relation of wife.

3. God being the Father of all mankind, and God and Christ being one, she was his daughter.

4. She being the daughter of God, and Christ being the Son of God, she was therefore his sister.

Consequently Mary bore to him the relation of mother, wife, daughter and sister.

478

The greater portion of the Christian church affirms the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is claimed that Jesus was her only child and that the conception and birth of him did not destroy her virginity. Is this confirmed by the Evangelists?

It is not. Matthew and Mark say: "Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. xiii, 55, 56; Mark vi, 3). Luke (viii, 19) and John (vii, 3) both declare that he had brothers.

To maintain this dogma it is affirmed that by "brethren and sisters" is meant cousins. Dr. Farrar, who in regard to this as in regard to most disputed points, assumes a non-committal or conciliatory attitude, concedes that "the natural supposition that, after the miraculous conception of our Lord, Joseph and Mary lived together in the married state, and that James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon, with daughters, whose names are not recorded, were subsequently born to them," is "in accordance certainly with the prima facie evidence of the Gospels" (Life of Christ, p. 51).

479

Who did Mary say was the father of Jesus?

Luke: When he remained behind in Jerusalem, and they found him in the temple, "his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father [Joseph] and I have sought thee sorrowing" (ii, 48).

To believe that a Jewish virgin was overshadowed by a spirit, and miraculously conceived and bore a child, requires more convincing proof than the dream of a credulous lover. We ought at least to have the testimony of the mother. But we have it not. She testifies that Joseph is his father.

480

What did Jesus' neighbors say regarding his paternity?

Matthew: They said, "Is not this the carpenter's [Joseph's] son?" (xiii, 55.)

Luke: "They said, Is not this Joseph's son?" (iv, 22.)

John: "They said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph?" (vi, 42.)

The Rev. Dr. Crapsey, of the Episcopal church, in his work on "Religion and Politics" (p. 289), makes this significant admission regarding the divine origin of Jesus: "The fact of his miraculous birth was unknown to himself, unknown to his mother, and unknown to the whole Christian community of the first generations."

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, wrote: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (Jefferson Works, vol. iv, p. 365, Randolph's ed.).

481

Who did Peter declare him to be?

"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God" (Acts ii, 22).

Who did Paul declare him to be?

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy ii, 5).

The Christ of Peter and Paul was not a God, but a man--a man upon whom had been bestowed divine gifts--but yet a man.

482

What testimony is ascribed to Paul?

"Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy iii, 16).

This is a gross perversion of Scripture for the purpose of making Paul a witness to Christ's divinity. Regarding this text and the Trinitarian text inserted in 1 John, Sir Isaac Newton, in his letter previously quoted from, says:

"What the Latins have done in this text (1 John v, 7) the Greeks have done to Paul (1 Tim. iii, 16). They now read, 'Great is the mystery of godliness; God manifest in the flesh'; whereas all the churches for the first four or five hundred years, and the authors of all the ancient versions, Jerome as well as the rest, read, 'Great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh.' Our English version makes it yet a little stronger. It reads, 'Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.'"

In conclusion Newton says: "If the ancient churches, in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not why we should be so fond of them now the debate is over."

483

Christ is declared by the Christian creed to be "the very and eternal God." God, it is claimed, is omnipotent. Was Christ omnipotent?

"The Son can do nothing of himself" (John v, 19).

"I can of mine own self do nothing" (30).

484

God is omniscient. Was Christ omniscient?

Referring to his second advent he says: "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, ... neither the Son" (Mark xiii, 32).

485

God is omnipresent. Was Christ omnipresent?

"I am glad for your sakes that I was not there" (John xi, 15).

"Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come" (vii, 36).

"And now I am no more in the world" (xvii, 11).

486

God is self-existent. Was Christ self-existent?

"I live by the Father" (John vi, 57).

"He liveth by the power of God" (2 Corinthians xiii, 4).

487

Did Christ have a preexistence?

"Before Abraham was, I am" (John viii, 58).

According to the Synoptics his existence began with his life on earth.

488

Was he infinite in wisdom?

Luke: He "increased in wisdom" (ii, 52).

If he increased in wisdom his knowledge was limited, and limitation of knowledge is not an attribute of an infinite God.

489

Was he infinite in goodness?

"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God" (Mark x, 18).

490

Was he infinite in mercy?

"He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi, 16).

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire" (Matthew xxv, 41).

"Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida!... It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of Judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell" (Matthew xi, 20-23).

491

His resurrection is adduced as the chief argument in proof of his divinity. Did he raise himself from the dead?

Peter: He did not. God raised him. "Jesus Christ of Nazareth, ... whom God raised from the dead" (Acts iv, 10).

If Christ, then, did not rise from the dead by his own volition, was his resurrection any proof of his divinity? No more than the resurrection of Lazarus was proof of Lazarus's divinity.

492

His miraculous conception is adduced as another proof of his divinity. Is this the only miraculous conception claimed in the Bible?

It is not. Isaac, Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist are all claimed to have been miraculously conceived (Genesis xviii, 10, 11; xxi, 1-3; Judges xiii, 2, 3, 24; 1 Samuel i, 9-11, 20; Luke i, 7-13).

493

His miracles, it is claimed, attest his divinity. Were he and his disciples the only ones who performed miracles?

These alleged miracles were performed before his time--the Old Testament abounds with them--and they have been performed since his time. They were performed by others in his own time--were performed by those who ignored and rejected him--were performed by the disciples of Satan himself (Matthew vii, 22; xii, 27; Mark ix, 38; xiii, 22; Luke ix, 49).

"Supernatural Religion" says: "The supposed miraculous evidence for the divine revelation, moreover, is without any special divine character, being avowedly common also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or details. Similar miracles to those which are supposed to attest it are reported long antecedent to the promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to convince the people to whom the revelation was primarily addressed. The selection of such evidence, for such a purpose, is much more characteristic of human weakness than of divine power" (p. 699).

Archbishop Trench says: "Side by side with the miracles which serve for the furthering of the kingdom of God runs another line of wonders, the counter-workings of him who is ever the ape of the Most High.... This fact that the kingdom of lies has its wonders no less than the kingdom of truth, is itself sufficient evidence that miracles cannot be appealed to absolutely and finally, in proof of the doctrine which the worker of them proclaims" (Miracles of Our Lord, p. 22).

The miracles of Christ, like the miracles of Satan, existed only in the minds of his credulous and deluded followers.

"Ye shall have miracles, aye, sound ones too, Seen, heard, attested, everything but true."

--Thomas Moore.

494

Prophecy is appealed to in support of his divinity. It is claimed that the writers of the Old Testament predicted his coming. Do such predictions exist?

In his work on "The Bible," as well as in a previous chapter of this work, the writer has shown that there is not a single passage in the Old Testament that, in the original text, refers in the remotest degree to Jesus Christ.

Greg shows that much of Old Testament history, like Deuteronomy, is presented in the form of anticipatory narrative. To the Christian argument that the Messianic predictions, at least, were written long anterior to the time of Christ, he replies: "This is true, and the argument would have all the force which is attributed to it, were the objectors able to lay their fingers on a single Old Testament prediction clearly referring to Jesus Christ, intended by the utterers of it to relate to him, prefiguring his character and career, and manifestly fulfilled in his appearance on earth. This they cannot do. Most of the passages usually adduced as complying with these conditions, referred, and were clearly intended to refer, to eminent individuals in Israelitish history; many are not prophecies at all; the Messiah, the anointed deliverer, expected by the Jews, hoped for and called for by their poets and prophets, was of a character so different, and a career so opposite, to those of the meek, lowly, long-suffering Jesus, that the passages describing the one never could have been applied to the other, without a perversion of ingenuity, and a disloyal treatment of their obvious signification, which, if employed in any other field than that of theology, would have met with the prompt discredit and derision they deserve" (Creed of Christendom, pp. 135, 136).

495

His own prescience is cited in proof of his divinity. The destruction of the temple by the Romans, it is claimed, was a wonderful instance of the fulfillment of prophecy. But did his so-called prophecy have reference to this event?

No one can read this prophecy (Matthew xxiv, 1-3) and then honestly contend that it did. He clearly refers to his second coming and the end of the world when the temple, in common with all sublunary things, shall be destroyed. In the verse immediately following this prediction, his disciples say: "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

But even if this so-called prophecy had referred to this event it is rendered nugatory by the fact that the book containing it was not composed until a hundred years after the destruction of the temple.

496

When was Christ's second coming and the end of terrestrial things to take place?

"There be some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew xvi, 28).

"This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled" (Luke xxi, 32).

Seventy-five generations have passed, and still the world rolls on, unmoved by Christ's and Mother Shipton's prophecies.

497

Did the Apostles believe that the second coming of Christ and the end of the world were at hand?

Peter: "The end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter iv, 7).

James: "The coming of the Lord draweth nigh" (James v, 8).

John: "Ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last time" (1 John ii, 18).

Paul: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thessalonians iv, 16, 17).

Renan, ever ready to palliate or overlook the errors of his hero, frankly admits that the predictions concerning his second advent and the end of the world were a dismal failure. "It is evident, indeed," he says, "that such a doctrine, taken by itself in a literal manner, had no future. The world, in continuing to exist, caused it to crumble. One generation of man at the most was the limit of its endurance. The faith of the first Christian generation is intelligible, but the faith of the second generation is no longer so. After the death of John, or of the last survivor, whoever he might be, of the group which had seen the master, the word of Jesus was convicted of falsehood" (Life of Jesus, pp. 203, 204).

498

To what extent was the gospel to be preached before his second coming?

"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come" (Matthew x, 23).

"The gospel must first be published among all nations" (Mark xiii, 10).

499

Did Jesus claim to be the Christ or Messiah from the first?

John: He did. Early in his ministry "The woman [of Samaria] saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he" (iv, 25, 26).

Synoptics: He did not announce his Messiahship until late in his ministry.

500

Who where the first to recognize his divinity?

Synoptics: Devils and unclean spirits (Matthew viii, 28, 29; Mark iii, 11, 12; Luke iv, 41).

501

What is said of Jesus in Hebrews?

"Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels" (ii, 9).

"Being made so much better than the angels" (i, 4).

502

What did he say respecting his identity with God?

"My Father and I are one" (John x, 30).

"My Father is greater than I" (xiv, 28).

503

How did he attempt to establish his claims?

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me" (John viii, 17, 18).

But if "I and my Father are one," how does that fulfill the law?

504

What did he say regarding the truthfulness of his testimony concerning himself?

"Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true" (John viii, 14).

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (v. 31).

505

Did Jesus' neighbors believe in his divinity?

Matthew: "When he was come into his own country," and to his own home, "He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief" (xiii, 54, 58).

506

What opinion did his friends entertain of him?

Mark: "And when his friends heard of it [his work], they went out to lay hold on him; for they said, He is beside himself" (iii, 21).

507

Did even his brothers believe in him?

John: "Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him" (vii, 2-5).

These three passages are fatal to the claim of Christ's divinity. If he was unable to convince his neighbors, his friends, or even his own family of his divinity he was not divine. Much less was he the "very God," as claimed.

According to the Christian scheme, man by his disobedience fell--was lost. God desired to save him. Christ--God manifest in the flesh--came on earth for this purpose. What was required of man to secure salvation? Simply to believe that Jesus was the Christ. In order for him to believe this what was necessary? That Jesus should convince him that he was divine. If he was all-powerful he could have done this; if he was all-just he would have done this. Did he do this? His own race rejected him. Disbelief in Christ's divinity disproves his divinity.

508

The writings of the New Testament are adduced as the evidences of Christ's divinity and the divine character of Christianity. Do the writers of the New Testament claim to be inspired?

With the possible exception of the author of Revelation, they do not. Paul says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." But the "scripture" of Paul was the scripture of the Old Testament. His words have no reference whatever to the writings of the New which did not exist in his time.

If the New Testament is not inspired and infallible, what follows?

"If the New Testament is defective the church itself is in error, and must be given up as a deception."--Dr. Tischendorf.

"It is not a word too much to say that the New Testament abounds with errors."--Dean Alford.

509

What is said of the Apocryphal Gospels which appeared in the early ages of the church?

"Several histories of his [Christ's] life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose intentions perhaps were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all; productions appeared which were imposed upon the world by fraudulent men, as the writings of the holy Apostles."--Mosheim.

Is the above less true of the books we are reviewing? Are not these writings "full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders"? Do not these writings display "the greatest superstition and ignorance"? Have not these writings been "imposed upon the world by fraudulent men, as the writings of the holy (?) Apostles"?

If some of these apocryphal Gospels had been accepted as canonical, and the canonical Gospels had been rejected as apocryphal, these canonical Gospels would appear as untruthful and foolish to Christians as the apocryphal Gospels do.

510

Let us examine the religious teachings ascribed to Christ. For what purpose was his blood shed?

"This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many" (Mark xiv, 24).

"This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you" (Luke xxii, 20).

"This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS" (Matthew xxvi, 28).

The above is one of the most significant discrepancies in the Bible. The Atonement is the chief doctrine connected with Christ and orthodox Christianity. The text quoted from Matthew is the only text in the Four Gospels which clearly teaches this doctrine. Two other texts (Matthew xx, 28; John i, 29) are adduced in support of it, but do not clearly teach it. Now Matthew has falsely ascribed to Jesus the revelation of the Atonement, or Mark and Luke have either ignorantly or intentionally omitted this greatest of Christian doctrines. They contain no mention of the Atonement as understood by orthodox Christians.

511

For whom did he say his blood was shed?

"This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many [interpreted by the church to mean all mankind]" (Mark xiv, 24).

"This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you [addressed to his disciples alone]" (Luke xxii, 20).

512

Was his blood really shed?

The crucifixion was not a bloody death, and aside from the self-confuted story of John about blood and water flowing from his corpse, the Evangelists do not state that a drop of blood was shed.

513

Christ, it is affirmed, was both God and man. Was it the human, or the divine part of him that suffered death?

If only the human, this sacrifice was not an exceptional one, for thousands have died for their fellow men. If the divine part was sacrificed does God cease to exist?

514

His death is called an infinite sacrifice. If only the man died can this be true?

The offering of a finite being, it must be admitted, would not constitute an infinite sacrifice.

515

If the God was crucified does he suffer endless pain?

If not, then his suffering was not infinite, and the sacrifice in this case was not an infinite one.

516

If God died, but subsequently rose from the dead, was there not an interregnum when the universe was without a ruler?

If so, then it must be conceded that the existence of the universe is not dependent upon the existence of God.

517

Are all mankind to be saved by Christ?

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me" (John xii, 32).

"Many be called but few chosen" (Matthew xx, 16).

518

What does Paul affirm concerning the Atonement?

"Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians xv, 3).

By "scriptures" Paul means the Old Testament, and according to the scriptures of the Old Testament, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins" (Deuteronomy xxiv, 16).

Like nearly all the doctrines ascribed to Christ, the atonement is in the highest degree unjust and absurd. Referring to this doctrine, Lord Byron says: "The basis of your religion is injustice. The Son of God, the pure, the immaculate, the innocent, is sacrificed for the guilty. This proves his heroism, but no more does away with man's sin than a schoolboy's volunteering to be flogged for another would exculpate a dunce from negligence."

Greg justly charges Christians with "holding the strangely inconsistent doctrine that God is so just that he could not let sin go unpunished, yet so unjust that he could punish it in the person of the innocent." "It is for orthodox dialectics," he says, "to explain how Divine Justice can be impugned by pardoning the guilty, and yet vindicated by punishing the innocent!" (Creed of Christendom, pp. 338, 339.)

519

It is claimed that the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. Through whom was this sacrifice secured?

All: Judas Iscariot procured it, and Pilate and the Jews offered it.

Are not Christians, then, in condemning these men, ungrateful to their greatest benefactors? A man is dangerously ill. The druggist provides a remedy, the physician administers it and saves his life. When restored does he show his gratitude by praising the drug and damning the doctor?

520

In permitting the crucifixion of Jesus, who committed the greater sin, Pilate or God?

John: "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he [God] that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (xix, 11).

Hon. Allan L. McDermott, in his memorable speech in Congress, in 1906, protesting against the persecution of Jews by Christians, said: "If an omnipotent God orders anything done, the human instruments selected to carry out his orders cannot be charged with the acts commanded. The doctrine of repondeat superior applies. If what happened could have been prevented by the Romans or by the Jews, then the New Testament is worthless. Let us assume that the Jews crucified Christ. Could they have done otherwise? Were they greater than God? According to the Bible, the crucifixion was arranged for by the Father. Why blame the Jews or the Romans or any other mortals? They did not know what they were doing. The Roman soldiers did not believe that they were crucifying the son of God; they did not know they were crucifying God himself. Why blame the instruments? Why persecute the descendants? According to the Synoptic Gospels and according to John, the arrangements for the crucifixion--every detail--were made by Almighty God, and were known to Christ."

521

What was the character of his death?

Homicide. "Jesus of Nazareth, a man ... ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts ii, 22, 23).

Regicide. "The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Luke i, 32). "This is the King of the Jews" (xxiii, 38). "There they crucified him" (33).

Deicide. "The Word [Christ] was God" (John i, 1). "I and my Father are one" (x, 30). "They crucified him" (xix, 18).

Suicide. "I [Christ] lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself" (John x, 17, 18).

522

What did Jesus teach respecting the resurrection of the dead and the doctrine of immortality?

"For the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth" (John v, 28, 29).

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life" (39).

"As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more."--Job (vii, 9).

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."--Psalms (cxlvi, 4).

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts.... As one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, so that man hath no preeminence over a beast."--Ecclesiastes (iii, 19).

523

His resurrection is accepted by Christians as a proof and type of man's resurrection and immortality. What was the nature of his resurrection?

According to all of the Evangelists it was merely a reanimation of his undecayed body. Other bodies supposedly dead have been revived, but neither these resuscitations nor the supposed reanimation of Jesus' corpse affords proof that bodies which ages ago crumbled into dust and whose particles subsequently entered into the composition of myriads of other bodies will be reunited into the original beings. And as Jesus almost immediately disappeared after his alleged resurrection and has never since been seen this resurrection did not evince his own immortality, much less that of mankind in general.

524

Did Christ descend into hell?

Peter: He did (Acts ii, 31; 1 Peter iii, 19).

Peter states that "his soul was not left in hell," which necessitates the assumption of his having gone there. He also declares that after his death he "went and preached unto the spirits in prison [hell]."

The Confession of Faith (Art. III) says: "As Christ died for us, and was buried; so also is it to be believed that he went down into hell."

For what purpose did Christ descend into hell and preach to its inhabitants? If it was to redeem them his mission was fruitless; if it was not to redeem them his mission was useless.

Early Christian writers almost uniformly spelled the name of Christ, not "Christos" (the Anointed), but "Chrestos." Chrestos was a Pagan name given to the judge of Hades in the lower world.

525

What is taught regarding justification by faith and justification by works?

Paul: "A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, ... for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians ii, 16). "If righteousness come by the law then Christ is dead in vain" (21). "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Romans iv, 5). "Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (iii, 28).

James: "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (ii, 20). "Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (24).

The church accepts the teachings of Paul and condemns or ignores the teachings of James. Martin Luther, in his "Table Talk," thus defines the position of the Protestant church: "He that says the gospel requires works for salvation, I say flat and plain he is a liar." "Every doer of the law and every moral worker is accursed, for he walketh in the presumption of his own righteousness." "If men only believe enough in Christ they can commit adultery and murder a thousand times a day without periling their salvation." Luther rejected and denounced the book of James because it teaches the efficacy of good works.

The English "Confession of Faith" affirms the following: "That we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort" (Art. XI). "Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of the Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ.... Yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin" (Art. XIII).

"Morality! thou deadly bane, Thy tens o' thousands thou hast slain! Vain is his hope, whose stay and trust is In moral mercy, truth and justice!

"No--stretch a point to catch a plack; Abuse a brother to his back;

Be to the poor like onie whunstane, And haud their noses to the grunstane; Ply ev'ry art o' legal thieving: No matter, stick to sound believing.

"Learn three-mile prayers, and half-mile graces, Wi weel-spread loaves, and lang wry faces, Grunt up a solemn, lengthen'd groan, And damn a' parties but your own: I'll warrant, then, ye're nae deceiver, A steady, sturdy, staunch believer."

--Robert Burns.

526

What does Christ teach regarding salvation?

"Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (John xi, 26).

"He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already" (iii, 18).

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life" (36).

A demand so preposterous could have been made only in support of claims that were realized to be untenable. Credulity was appealed to because convincing evidence could not be adduced. Claims which reason rejects are manifestly false, and it is only by a renunciation of reason that they can be accepted as true.

The absurdity of this requirement of Christ is thus exposed by the poet Shelley: "This is the pivot upon which all religions turn; they all assume that it is in our power to believe or not to believe: whereas the mind can only believe that which it thinks true. A human being can only be supposed accountable for those actions which are influenced by his will. But belief is utterly distinct from and unconnected with volition: it is the apprehension of the agreement or disagreement of the ideas that compose any proposition. Belief is a passion or involuntary operation of the mind, and, like other passions, its intensity is precisely proportionate to the degree of excitement. Volition is essential to merit or demerit. But the Christian religion attaches the highest possible degree of merit and demerit to that which is worthy of neither, and which is totally unconnected with the peculiar faculty of the mind whose presence is essential to their being" (Notes to Queen Mab).

527

Did Christ abrogate the Mosaic law?

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" (Matthew v, 18).

"The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the Kingdom of God is preached" (Luke xvi, 16).

Paul: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Galatians iii, 24, 25). "But now we are delivered from the law" (Romans vii, 6).

"Christ certainly did come to destroy the law and the prophets."--Henry Ward Beecher.

528

What is taught regarding the forgiveness of sin?

"He [God] is faithful and just to forgive sins" (1 John i, 9).

"The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins" (Mark ii, 10).

"Today I offer you the pardon of the gospel--full pardon, free pardon. I do not care what your crime has been. Though you say you have committed a crime against God, against your own soul, against your fellow-man, against your family, against the day of judgment, against the cross of Christ--whatever your crime has been, here is pardon, full pardon, and the very moment you take that pardon your heavenly Father throws his arms about you and says: 'My son, I forgive you. It is all right. You are as much in my favor now as if you never had sinned.'"--Dr. Talmage.

This doctrine of forgiveness of sin is a premium on crime. "Forgive us our sins" means "Let us continue in our iniquity." It is one of the most pernicious of doctrines, and one of the most fruitful sources of immorality. It has been the chief cause of making Christian nations the most immoral of nations. In teaching this doctrine Christ committed a sin for which his death did not atone, and which can never be forgiven. There is no forgiveness of sin. Every cause has its effect; every sinner must suffer the consequences of his sins.

529

What is taught regarding future rewards and punishments?

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi, 16).

These words, while appearing in the unauthentic appendix to Mark, yet express clearly the alleged teachings of Jesus. Above all they have formed the key note of orthodox Christianity in all ages of the church.

Between the lines of this passage the eye of the unfettered mind discerns in large capitals the word FRAUD. These words are the words of an impostor. Had Jesus been divine he would not have been compelled to resort to bribes and threats to secure the world's adherence. Had he even been a sincere man he would not have desired converts on such terms. These words are either the utterance of a false Messiah, conscious of his impotency, or the invention of priests who intended them to frighten the ignorant and credulous into an acceptance of their faith.

Concerning this teaching Col. Ingersoll says: "Redden your hands with human blood; blast by slander the fair fame of the innocent; strangle the smiling child upon its mother's knees; deceive, ruin, and desert the beautiful girl who loves and trusts you, and your case is not hopeless. For all this, and for all these, you may be forgiven. For all this, and for all these, that bankrupt court established by the gospel will give you a discharge; but deny the existence of these divine ghosts, of these gods, and the sweet and tearful face of Mercy becomes livid with eternal hate. Heaven's golden gates are shut, and you, with an infinite curse ringing in your ears, with the brand of infamy upon your brow, commence your endless wanderings in the lurid gloom of hell--an immortal vagrant, an eternal outcast, a deathless convict."

"A gloomy heaven above opening its jealous gates to the nineteen-thousandth part of the tithe of mankind! And below an inexorable Hell expanding its leviathan jaws for the vast residue of mortals! O doctrine comfortable and healing to the weary wounded soul of man!"--Robert Burns.

530

Did he teach the doctrine of endless punishment?

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment" (Matthew xxv, 46).

That is the most infamous passage in all literature. It is the language, not of an incarnate God, but of an incarnate devil. The being who gave utterance to those words deserves not the worship, but the execration of mankind. The priests who preach this doctrine of eternal pain are fiends. There is misery enough in this world without adding to it the mental anguish of this monstrous lie.

Less than a hundred years ago, when Christ was yet believed to be divine, in nearly every pulpit, to frighten timid and confiding mothers, dimpled babes were consigned to the red flames of this eternal hell. Then came the preachers of humanity--the Ballous, the Channings, the Parkers and the Beechers--preachers with hearts and brains, who sought to humanize this heavenly demon, to make of him a decent man, and civilize his fiendish priests. To these men is due the debt of everlasting gratitude. With the return of every spring the emancipated of the race should build above their sacred dust a pyramid of flowers.

Not by the sects known as Universalists and Unitarians, small in numbers, though in the character of their adherents the greatest of the Christian sects, must we estimate the importance of the work of Ballou and Channing and other Liberal ministers. The influence of their teachings has permeated every Christian sect, and quickened every humane conscience. In the minds of all intelligent Christians, largely as the result of their labors, this heartless demon and this cruel dogma are dead. In their creeds they still survive. They are ashamed of the dogma; they abhor it. They should abhor its author, and banish both.

"What! I should call on that Infinite Love that has served us so well? Infinite cruelty rather, that made everlasting hell, Made us, foreknew us, foredoom'd us, and does what he will with his own; Better our dead brute mother who never has heard us groan."

--Tennyson.

531

Is it possible to fall from grace?

Peter: "If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning" (2 Peter ii, 20).

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John x, 27, 28).

"There is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized."--Confession of Faith, Art. IX.

532

Is baptism essential to salvation?

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark xvi, 16).

"Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (John iii, 5).

"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them" (Matthew xxviii, 19).

Was the penitent thief baptized?

Paul says: "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.... For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians i, 14, 17).

533

What constitutes Christian baptism, immersion or sprinkling?

With millions of Bibles in circulation, the Christian does not know. If he affirms, as many scholars affirm, that immersion is the mode authorized by the Bible, then he must admit that the greater portion of Christendom has rejected this mode and adopted one not authorized by the Scriptures.

To whom is this rite to be administered, to both adults and infants, or to adults alone?

After eighteen centuries of controversy; after employing millions of priests to interpret the Scriptures; after Anabaptists and Pedobaptists have baptized their swords in each others' blood, the church is not prepared to answer.

534

Did Christ command his disciples to repeat and perpetuate the observance of the Eucharist?

Luke: He did. "This do in remembrance of me."

Matthew, Mark and John: He did not.

It is admitted by Dr. Westcott and others that the earlier versions of Luke did not contain the injunction quoted. Christ, then, according to the Four Gospels did not institute the Eucharist as a sacrament to be observed by his disciples and the church. Referring to the Twelve Apostles, the Rev. Dr. Minot J. Savage says: "They knew nothing about any sacraments; they had not been instituted" (What is Christianity?).

535

What did he teach in regard to the efficacy of prayer?

"All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive" (Matthew xxi, 22).

This is one of the cardinal doctrines of his religion. He is continually impressing upon the minds of his hearers the necessity and the efficacy of prayer. Referring to this doctrine, Greg says:

"This doctrine has in all ages been a stumbling block to the thoughtful. It is obviously irreconcilable with all that reason and revelation teach us of the divine nature; and the inconsistency has been felt by the ablest of the Scripture writers themselves. Various and desperate have been the expedients and suppositions resorted to, in order to reconcile the conception of an immutable, all-wise, all-foreseeing God, with that of a father who is turned from his course by the prayers of his creatures. But all such efforts are, and are felt to be, hopeless failures. They involve the assertion and negation of the same proposition in one breath. The problem remains still insoluble; and we must either be content to leave it so, or we must abandon one or other of the hostile premises.

"The religious man, who believes that all events, mental as well as physical, are pre-ordered and arranged according to the decrees of infinite wisdom, and the philosopher, who knows that, by the wise and eternal laws of the universe, cause and effect are indissolubly chained together, and that one follows the other in inevitable succession--equally feel that this ordination--this chain--cannot be changed at the cry of man. To suppose that it can is to place the whole harmonious system of nature at the mercy of the weak reason and the selfish wishes of humanity. If the purposes of God were not wise, they would not be formed: if wise, they cannot be changed, for then they would become unwise. To suppose that an all-wise Being would alter his designs and modes of proceeding at the entreaty of an unknowing creature, is to believe that compassion would change his wisdom into foolishness.... If the universe is governed by fixed laws, or (which is the same proposition in different language), if all events are pre-ordained by the foreseeing wisdom of an infinite God, then the prayers of thousands of years and generations of martyrs and saints cannot change or modify one iota of our destiny. The proposition is unassailable by the subtlest logic. The weak, fond affections of humanity struggle in vain against the unwelcome conclusion" (Creed of Christendom, pp. 322, 323).

536

Where are we commanded to pray?

"When thou prayest enter into thy closet" (Matthew vi, 6).

How long ought we to continue in prayer?

"Men ought always to pray" (Luke xviii, 1).

537

Did Christ assume for himself the power of answering petitions?

"Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do" (John xiv, 13). But soon realizing that his capital was too small to conduct a business of such magnitude, he was compelled to announce that, "Whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you" (xv, 16).

538

Does God know our wants?

"Your father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him" (Matthew vi, 8).

Then what is the use of prayer? Is God a mischievous urchin taunting his hungry dog with a morsel of bread, and shouting, "Beg, Tray, beg!"?

539

What portion of their goods did he require the rich to give the poor to obtain salvation?

Rich Ruler, No. 1: "Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke xviii, 18.)

Jesus: "Sell all that thou hast and distribute unto the poor" (22).

Rich Ruler, No. 2: "Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor" (Luke xix, 8).

Jesus: "This day is salvation come to this house" (9).

540

What did he teach respecting the publicity of good works?

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works" (Matthew v, 16).

"Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men to be seen of them" (vi, 1, New Ver.).

541

What original rules of table observance did he teach his disciples?

Matthew: To abstain from washing their hands before eating. "They wash not their hands when they eat bread" (xv, 2).

John: To wash their feet after eating. "He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel and girded himself. After that he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded" (xiii, 4, 5).

The proneness of Christ's followers to neglect his ordinances and precepts which require some sacrifice or effort to obey, and the readiness with which they observe those which do not, find a fitting illustration in the reception accorded these teachings. While the early Christians, many of them, accepted the first as a religious obligation not to be violated, the second was ignored. Writing of Christian monks and nuns, Lecky says: "The cleanliness of the body was regarded as a pollution of the soul, and the saints who were most admired had become one hideous mass of clotted filth. St. Athanasius relates with enthusiasm how St. Antony, the patriarch of monachism, had never, to extreme old age, been guilty of washing his feet.... St. Abraham the hermit, however, who lived for fifty years after his conversion, rigidly refused from that date to wash either his face or feet.... St. Euphraxia joined a convent of one hundred and thirty nuns, who never washed their feet, and who shuddered at the mention of a bath" (European Morals, Vol. II, pp. 109, 110).

542

What religious formula is to be found in the New Testament?

"In the name of Jesus."

"In the name of Jesus" the disciples cast out devils and performed other miracles; "In the name of Jesus" they baptized their converts; "In the name of Jesus" salvation was secured. This formula, with various modifications, is in general use in the church today. It betrays the heathen origin of Christianity. Referring to its use Prof. Meinhold of Bonn University says: "Name and person were at one time closely combined, and elementary religious ideas were connected with the words. He who knew the name of a divinity and could pronounce it was in this way able to secure a blessing. It was the use of the name of Jesus in the sacraments that made them effective, in the spirit of sorcery. This idea came from the lowest type of religious thought, reflected in religious mysteries in the days of Jesus, and was embodied in the earliest Christianity."

543

What is taught respecting the use of oaths?

God: "Swear by my name" (Jeremiah xii, 16).

Christ: "Swear not at all" (Matthew v, 34).

544

What opposing rules of proselytism did Christ promulgate?

"He that is not with me is against me" (Luke xi, 23).

"He that is not against us is for us" (Luke ix, 50).

545

What is to befall him that hath nothing?

"Whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath" (Matthew xiii, 12).

Ex nihilo nihil fit.

546

What did he say would be the fate of those who took up the sword?

"They that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew xxvi, 52).

He evidently considered this commendable, for he immediately issued the following command to his disciples:

"He that hath no sword let him sell his garments and buy one" (Luke xxii, 36).

547

What did he say regarding the fear of death?

"Be not afraid of them that kill the body" (Luke xii, 4).

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him" (John vii, 1).

548

What is to be the earthly reward of those that follow Christ?

"There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive a hundred fold now in this time" (Mark x, 29, 30).

"Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?" (1 Peter iii, 13.)

"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew xi, 30).

"In the world ye shall have tribulation" (John xvi, 33).

"Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" (Luke xxi, 17).

"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim. iii, 12).

"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth" (Hebrews xii, 6).

549

What promise did Christ make to Paul at the commencement of his ministry?

"I am with thee and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee" (Acts xviii, 10).

"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned" (2 Corinthians xi, 24, 25).

550

How are Christ's true followers to be distinguished from those of the devil?

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (1 John iii, 9).

"He that committeth sin is of the devil" (8).

Judged by this standard what is the comparative strength of these sovereigns' subjects?

"There is no man that sinneth not" (1 Kings viii, 46).

"There is not a just man upon earth" (Ecclesiastes vii, 20).

"There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans iii, 10).

551

Great stress is placed upon the moral teachings of Jesus. What did he teach? Did he advocate industry and frugality?

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth" (Matthew vi, 19).

"Take no thought for your life what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on" (25).

"Take therefore no thought for the morrow" (34).

552

What were the early Christians?

Acts: They were Communists. "They had all things common.... For as many as were possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need" (iv, 32-35).

Most Christians condemn Communism; but was the Communism of nineteen hundred years ago better than the Communism of today? To condemn Communism is to condemn primitive Christianity. Yet, Christians profess to abhor the Communistic ideas of modern teachers, while they worship as a God the founder of this Communistic sect of Palestine.

553

What did he teach respecting poverty and wealth?

"Blessed be ye poor" (Luke vi, 20).

"Woe unto you that are rich" (24).

Poverty is a curse; wealth honestly acquired and wisely used is a blessing. "The rich man's wealth is his strong city: the destruction of the poor is their poverty" (Proverbs x, 15).

554

In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, what befell the representatives of vagrancy and respectability?

"The beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom" (Luke xvi, 22).

"The rich man also died, ... and in hell he lifted up his eyes" (22, 23).

"See the red flames around him twine Who did in gold and purple shine!

"While round the saint so poor below, Full rivers of salvation flow.

"Jesus, my Lord, let me appear The meanest of thy creatures here."

555

Why was Dives' request that his brothers be informed of their impending fate refused?

"They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them" (Luke xvi, 29).

Moses and the prophets do not teach the doctrine of endless punishment, nor even that of a future existence, much less that the mere possession of wealth, acquired perhaps by honest industry, is a crime which can be expiated only by the sufferings of an endless hell.

Christ's Kingdom was a kingdom of vagrants and paupers. "A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew xix, 23). "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (24).

556

While at the temple with his disciples what act did he commend?

Mark and Luke: That of the poor widow who threw two mites into the treasury (Mark xii, 43; Luke xxi, 3).

This widow's offering illustrates the characteristic generosity of the poor and the heartless greed of the church. This text has enabled a horde of indolent priests to prey upon widows and orphans; to filch the scanty earnings of the poor, and live like parasites upon the weak and sickly calves of humanity.

557

Did he practice the virtue of temperance?

"The Son of Man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber" (Luke vii, 34).

558

What was his first miracle?

John: "There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee.... And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.... And there were set there six water pots of stone, ... containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim" (ii, 1-7). This water he turned into wine.

Here is Christ supplying a party already "well drunk" with more than one hundred gallons of wine. As they were intoxicated when he performed the miracle, would it not have been better for them and better for the millions who have accepted him as a moral guide, if at the beginning of the feast he had turned the wine into water?

The morality taught by Jesus suffers in comparison with that taught by Mohammed. Mohammed prohibited the use of intoxicating drink, and the Mohammedans are a temperate people; Jesus sanctioned the use of intoxicating drink, and the Christian world abounds with drunkenness.

Referring to the miracle at Cana, Strauss says: "Not only, however, has the miracle been impeached in relation to possibility, but also in relation to utility and fitness. It has been urged both in ancient and modern times, that it was unworthy of Jesus that he should not only remain in the society of drunkards, but even further their intemperance by an exercise of his miraculous power" (Leben Jesu, p. 584).

559

Did he oppose slavery?

All: He did not.

"Slavery was incorporated into the civil institutions of Moses; it was recognized accordingly by Christ and his apostles."--Rev. Dr. Nathan Lord, President of Dartmouth College.

"At the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst forms prevailed over the world. The Savior found it around him in Judea; the apostles met with it in Asia, Greece and Italy. How did they treat it? Not by denunciation of slave-holding as necessarily sinful."--Prof. Hodge of Princeton.

"I have no doubt if Jesus Christ were now on earth that he would, under certain circumstances, become a slaveholder."--Rev. Dr. Taylor of Yale.

Rousseau says: "Christ preaches only servitude and dependence.... True Christians are made to be slaves."

560

What did the apostles teach?

Peter: "Servants [slaves], be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (1 Peter ii, 18).

Paul: "Let as many servants [slaves] as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor" (1 Timothy vi, 1). "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling" (Ephesians vi, 5).

The Rev. Dr. Wilbur Fisk, president of Wesleyan University, says: "The New Testament enjoins obedience upon the slave as an obligation due to a present rightful authority."

561

Did he favor marriage?

Matthew: He advocated celibacy, and even self-mutilation as preferable to marriage (xix, 10-12).

Following this teaching of their Master, Christians, many of them, have condemned marriage. A Christian pope, Siricius, branded it as "a pollution of the flesh." St. Jerome taught that the duty of the saint was to "cut down by the axe of Virginity the wood of Marriage." Pascal says: "Marriage is the lowest and most dangerous condition of the Christian."

G. W. Foote of England says: "Jesus appears to have despised the union of the sexes, therefore marriage, and therefore the home. He taught that in heaven, where all is perfect, there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage."

"Monks and nuns innumerable owe to this evil teaching their shriveled lives and withered hearts."--Mrs. Besant.

562

What did he encourage women to do?

Luke: To leave their husbands and homes, and follow and associate with him and his roving apostles--"Mary, called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance" (viii, 2, 3).

563

What did he say respecting children?

"Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not."

But it was only the children of Jews he welcomed. The afflicted child of a Gentile he spurned as a dog. When the woman of Canaan desired him to heal her daughter, he brutally replied: "It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs" (Matthew xv, 26). The soldiers who spit on Jesus in Pilate's hall did not do a meaner thing than Jesus did that day. And if he afterwards consented to cure the child it was not as an act of humanity to the sufferer, but as a reward for the mother's faith in him.

Concerning this brutal act of Jesus, Helen Gardener says: "Do you think that was kind? Do you think it was godlike? What would you think of a physician, if a woman came to him distressed and said, 'Doctor, come to my daughter; she is very ill. She has lost her reason, and she is all I have!' What would you think of the doctor who would not reply at all at first, and then, when she fell at his feet and worshiped him, answered that he did not spend his time doctoring dogs? Would you like him as a family physician? Do you think that, even if he were to cure the child then, he would have done a noble thing? Is it evidence of a perfect character to accompany a service with an insult? Do you think that a man who could offer such an indignity to a sorrowing mother has a perfect character, is an ideal God?"

564

He enjoined the observance of the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother." Did he respect it himself?

More striking examples of filial ingratitude are not to be found than are exhibited in the Gospel history of Jesus Christ. When visiting Jerusalem with his parents, he allows them to depart for home without him, thinking that he is with another part of the company; and when they return to search for him and find him, he manifests no concern for the trouble he has caused; when during his ministry his mother and brothers are announced, he receives them with a sneer; at the marriage feast, when his mother kindly speaks to him, he brutally exclaims, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" Throughout the Four Gospels not one respectful word to that devoted mother is recorded. Even in his last hours, when the mental anguish of that mother must have equaled his own physical suffering, not one word of comfort or farewell greeting escapes from his lips; but the same studied disrespect that has characterized him all his life is exhibited here.

565

Did he not promote domestic strife?

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Luke xii, 51-53).

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew x, 34, 35).

566

What did he require of his disciples?

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke xiv, 26).

It is scarcely possible in this age of enlightenment and unbelief to realize what sorrows and miseries these accursed teachings of Christ once caused. The eminent historian Lecky, in his "History of European Morals," has attempted to describe some of their awful consequences. From his pages I quote the following:

"To break by his ingratitude the heart of the mother who had borne him, to persuade the wife who adored him that it was her duty to separate from him forever, to abandon his children, uncared for and beggars, to the mercies of the world, was regarded by the true hermit as the most acceptable offering he could make to his God. His business was to save his own soul. The serenity of his devotion would be impaired by the discharge of the simplest duties to his family. Evagrius, when a hermit in the desert, received, after a long interval, letters from his father and mother. He could not bear that the equable tenor of his thought should be disturbed by the recollection of those who loved him, so he cast the letters unread into the fire. A man named Mutius, accompanied by his only child, a little boy of eight years old, abandoned his possessions and demanded admission into a monastery. The monks received him, but they proceeded to discipline his heart. 'He had already forgotten that he was rich; he must next be taught to forget that he was a father.' His little child was separated from him, clothed in rags, subjected to every form of gross and wanton hardship, beaten, spurned and ill-treated. Day after day the father was compelled to look upon his boy wasting away with sorrow, his once happy countenance forever stained with tears, distorted by sobs of anguish. But yet, says the admiring biographer, 'though he saw this day by day, such was his love for Christ, and for the virtue of obedience, that the father's heart was rigid and unmoved' (Vol. ii, 125, 126).

"He [St. Simeon Stylites] had been passionately loved by his parents, and, if we may believe his eulogist and biographer, he began his saintly career by breaking the heart of his father, who died of grief at his flight. His mother, however, lingered on. Twenty-seven years after his disappearance, at a period when his austerities had made him famous, she heard for the first time where he was and hastened to visit him. But all her labor was in vain. No woman was admitted within the precincts of his dwelling, and he refused to permit her even to look upon his face. Her entreaties and tears were mingled with words of bitter and eloquent reproach. 'My son,' she is represented as having said, 'why have you done this? I bore you in my womb, and you have wrung my soul with grief. I gave you milk from my breast, you have filled my eyes with tears. For the kisses I gave you, you have given me the anguish of a broken heart; for all that I have done and suffered for you, you have repaid me by the most cruel wrongs.' At last the saint sent a message to her to tell her that she would soon see him. Three days and three nights she had wept and entreated in vain, and now, exhausted with grief and age and privation, she sank feebly to the ground and breathed her last sigh before that inhospitable door. Then for the first time the saint, accompanied by his followers, came out. He shed some pious tears over the corpse of his murdered mother, and offered up a prayer consigning her soul to heaven" (Ibid, 130).

567

Did he not indulge in vituperation and abuse?

"Ye fools and blind" (Matthew xxiii, 17).

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" (14).

"All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers" (John x, 8).

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matthew xxiii, 33.)

Regarding these abusive epithets of Christ, Prof. Newman says: "The Jewish nation may well complain that they have been cruelly slandered by the gospels. The invectives have been burnt into the heart of Christendom, so that the innocent Jews, children of the dispersion, have felt in millennial misery--yes, and to this day feel--the deadly sting of these fierce and haughty utterances" (Jesus Christ, p. 25).

568

Relate his treatment of the Pharisee who invited him to dine with him.

Luke: "And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him; and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools ... hypocrites!" (xi, 37-44.)

Was such insolence of manners on the part of Jesus calculated to promote the interest of the cause he professed to hold so dear at heart? Supposing a Freethinker were to receive an invitation to dine with a Christian friend and were to repay the hospitality of his host with rudeness and abuse, interrupting the ceremony of "grace" with an oath or a sneer, and showering upon the head of his friend such epithets as "hypocrite" and "fool." Would such insolent behavior have a tendency to gain for him the world's esteem or aid the cause he represents? And are we to approve in a God conduct that we regard as detestable in a man? It may be urged that God is not subject to the rules of human conduct. Grant it; but is it necessary for him in order to exhibit his divine character to assume the manners of a brute?

569

Do the Pharisees deserve the sweeping condemnation heaped upon them by Christ and his followers?

In marked contrast to the diatribes of Jesus is the testimony of Josephus: "Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly [plainly], and despise delicacies in diet, and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them, they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason's dictates for practice.... The cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives, and their discourses also" (Antiquities, Book xviii, chap. i, sec. 3).

Paul, the Christian, when arraigned before Agrippa, believed that no loftier testimonial to his character could be adduced than the fact that he had been a Pharisee (Acts xxvi, 4, 5).

570

What is said in regard to his purging the temple?

John: "And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables" (ii, 13-15).

No currency but the Jewish was accepted in the temple, while doves, lambs, and other animals were required for offerings. These persons performed the very necessary office of supplying the Jews with offerings and exchanging Jewish coins for the Roman money then in general circulation. What right he had to interfere with the lawful business of these men, and especially in the manner in which he did, it is difficult to understand.

571

Describe the cursing of the fig tree.

Matthew: "Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away" (xxi, 18, 19).

Jesus cursed a living tree and it died; Mohammed blessed a dead tree and it lived.

The alleged conduct of Jesus on many occasions, notably his harsh treatment of his mother, his abuse of the Pharisees, his purging the temple and his cursing the fig tree, is not the conduct of a rational being, but rather that of a madman. If these stories be historical they would indicate that he was not wholly responsible for his words and acts. Dr. Jules Soury, of the University of France, believes that he was the victim of an incurable mental disorder. In a work on morbid psychology, entitled "Studies on Jesus and The Gospels," Dr. Soury cites a long array of seemingly indisputable facts in support of his theory. From his preface to the work, I quote the following:

"Jesus the God, gone down in his glory, like a star sunk beneath the horizon but still shedding a few faint rays on the world, threw a halo round the brow of Jesus the Prophet. In the dull glow of that twilight, in the melancholy but charming hour when everything seemed wrapped in vague, ethereal tints, Jesus appeared to Strauss and Renan such as he had shown himself to his first disciples, the Master par-excellence, a man truly divine. Then came the night; and as darkness descended on those flickering gospel beginnings there remained nought to be descried through the obscurity of dubious history, but dimly looming, the portentous outline of the gibbet and its victim.

"In the present work Jesus makes his appearance, perhaps for the first time, as a sufferer from a grave malady, the course of which we have attempted to trace.

"The nervous, or cerebral disorder, at first congestive and then inflammatory, under which he labored, was not only deep-seated and dangerous--it was incurable. Among us at the present time that affection may be seen daily making kings, millionaires, popes, prophets, saints, and even divinities of poor fellows who have lost their balance; it has produced more than one Messiah.

"If we be right in the interpretation of data which has been followed in the study of morbid psychology, Jesus, at the time of his death, was in a somewhat advanced stage of this disorder, He was, to all appearance, cut off opportunely; the gibbet saved him from actual madness.

"The diagnosis which we have ventured to draw is based on three sets of facts which are attested by the most ancient and trustworthy of the witnesses of his career.

"1. Religious excitement, then general in Palestine, drove Jesus to the wilderness, where he lived some time the life of a recluse, as those who considered themselves to have the prophetic mission often