Chapter viii, 54 (woman dead): "And put them all out, and took her

by the hand, and called saying, Maid, arise." 55: "And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway," etc.

John ix, 1: "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man, which was blind from his birth." Verse 6: "When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay."

Luke xiv, 2: He cures a man of dropsy, etc.

That these cures were actually performed is not very probable, for the simple fact that the art of medicine was little known, and least known among the Jews.

That these four witnesses really were present at the time these operations were performed, we have no proof. Luke says Christ cures blindness by touch; John makes him use spit and clay. We are not told that he was trying experiments. Anyway, every operation was successful. Raising people from the dead was equally successful.

Why should we wonder that such miracles could be performed among the lower classes, rude, uneducated, and poor? They were ready to believe any kind of plausible deception; and it was among this class that he found his adherents.

These performances called miracles are supposed to have happened nearly two thousand years ago. At that time the masses were not to be compared to the masses of to-day in education, understanding, or in the progress made in every branch of art, science, literature, mechanics, etc.

The church Christianity has also progressed somewhat, and there can be no possible excuse for the priests of to-day affirming these pretended cures of Christ. They ought to know that the notions of these things are due to feebleness of intellect in the uncultured brain, to the lack of understanding and the gullibility of the masses. Christ and his disciples were as ignorant as the masses concerning medicine or the healing art. They knew absolutely nothing about it. At 325 A.D., later 318, fathers of the then existing Christian organizations approved of the entire contents. Nay, a large part of it may have been manufactured by them.

At this day there is no reason that men should not know better. Every man, whether priest or layman, ought to understand that so-called miraculous cures can be performed only by men, priests or others, that premeditatedly, with intent, cheat, swindle, and defraud some portion of the public, in consequence of the ignorance of the one, and the superior knowledge, shrewdness, and cunning of the other.

It is a flagrant abuse of authority, a miserable condition of our laws, a stupendous piece of bigotry, an outrage, that a man can be punished for speaking the truth, and it is an actual miracle that people are still so wonderfully stupid as to believe in the scandalous deception of the healing qualities of an old rag, a coat, pretended to have belonged to Christ or some one else. Recently we read in the daily paper, the Sun: "Berlin, Sept. 26.--In Treves, Herr Reichar has been sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment for ridiculing the holy coat and for attacking the Roman Catholic prelates because they encouraged the people to believe that it had healing qualities. His publisher, Herr Sonnenburg, was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment. The chief charge against them was blasphemy."

Even in this city, some miserable cheat or cheats attempted to perpetrate the same sort of scoundrelism in one of the Catholic churches.

During the recent cholera desolation in Hamburg, we read: "In all the churches services of prayer for the abatement of the plague have been held. They have been attended by crowds which have filled the buildings" (Sun).

In ancient times plagues were regarded as visitations from God; to-day we know that they are the products of filth and starvation. Sanitary measures and food for the starving are needed, instead of prayer. The churches would answer a far better purpose converted into soup-kitchens and healthy lodging-houses for the poor and homeless.

In Russia the condition is still worse. The degradation of the masses is extreme. Of the dreadful doings there we hear but the slightest echo. The Russian priest is an ignorant, intolerant, selfish, tyrannical brute. In time of cholera the clergy walk in procession through the streets in church garb, with banners, crosses, candles, chanting and praying, while the dirt, filth, and cholera poison lie all around them.

The pilgrimages to Lourdes are another ecclesiastical swindle. The poor, miserable dupes are enticed in order to be plundered. From the Tribune, "Zola at Lourdes," we quote: "Nothing could be more truly sensational than the annual pilgrimage thither, the flocking to that shrine of tens of thousands of devotees, dozens of special trains running to it daily; the daily processions, with thousands of priests and tens of thousands of the laity; the fervent prayers of the supplicants, and the wild exaltation of those that are miraculously healed--or who believe themselves to be healed.... So M. Zola, accompanied by Mme. Zola, were at Lourdes, and following the crowd, proceeded at once to the holy grotto. He found it surrounded by more than twenty thousand people, of both sexes and of all ages and conditions. Indeed in none of his novels is a more striking scene portrayed than that. In the afternoon the daily procession occurred. At its head marched no less than two thousand priests, monks, and nuns. Then came the holy sacrament, borne beneath a silken canopy. After it came the sick and the suffering who had come thither to be cured. These were cripples on crutches or leaning on the arms of friends; the blind, led by their friends or fellow-pilgrims; sick and deformed infants in their mothers' arms; here and there a cripple and a blind man arm in arm, relying upon each other, the one for support, the other for guidance. Behind these thousands came other thousands of suppliants, sightseers, perhaps some scoffers, while yet other thousands stood by and gazed upon the scene."

It is indeed a miracle that we have so many such persons at this stage of progressive civilization. But the church and its priests have exerted every influence to prevent its advance.

Fortunately the world at large has outgrown this childish nonsense to some extent. The development of our civil laws, with a greater knowledge of the natural laws, keep the church and priestly fanatics in subjection.

As to the resurrection of Christ's body, or anyone else's body, we may put it down as fabulous and untrue. Dead bodies do not rise--cannot rise. From the moment a body is dead the process of decomposition begins, and resuscitation is an impossibility. No one believes it, and the priest of this century even doubts it, though the manner of Christ's birth and death forms the creed of Christian believers, and reads as follows:

"I believe in God, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting."

Does anyone, except the most ignorant, believe any of the items contained in the above creed?

The men that composed the Old, and later the New Testament, may have been sincere in their belief, may have acted from pure motives, and I give them credit that their endeavors were honest, that they knew no better. They could not know the truth, have knowledge of the natural. Its forces, its capabilities, its phenomena--these were unknown to them. They erred, were mistaken in what they observed; that of itself is ample excuse for their opinions.

No such excuse exists at this present time, and no men or set of men, however organized, priestly or otherwise, should be permitted to delude and stupefy the more ignorant portion of a community.

The judge on the bench ought to know better than punish a man because he ridicules the efficacy of an old coat to cure miraculously. It is a disgrace to our civilization, and should not be tolerated.

We have a right to criticise any idea, opinion, set of opinions, or ceremonies, no matter how ancient, how originated or by whom entertained or put into practice.

We have as much right to protest against the truth or falsity of their statements, as any of our forefathers had in remote ages.

Any individual that permits his prejudices to get the better of his judgment, because he belongs to this or that church, is unfit to serve in a public capacity. The judge or magistrate that sentenced Reichar and Sonnenberg at Treves deserves to be branded as the greatest jackass that ever decorated a bench.

Ridicule is the only weapon that wipes out these shameful practices, that helps to enlighten the masses, that elevates their thoughts and makes their understanding.

It is disgraceful enough for the ancients to have crucified Christ for his opinions, beheaded Paul for his preaching, and crucified St. Peter for his energy.

Abraham had a right to have his opinions. He differed with the Chaldeans about their gods, ridiculed them, despised them, argued, reasoned, as best he knew how. He had to leave the land of his birth for his opinions.

Moses had a right to set up his Jehova, organize a nation, and fight under his banner. He forced a success with superior numbers and superior skill.

Coming to Christ, Paul and Peter had a right to their opinions. They suffered for their opinions, yet their opinions held.

We of to-day have a right to deny the truth of their opinion. We have a right to deny any part or the whole of their doctrine, their pretensions, their errors; we have a perfect right to decline to accept their say-so for proof of anyone's having done certain things by supernatural aid. And neither church nor priest can force people to believe in their absurdities, when our reason, understanding, and common sense tell us that it is neither true nor possible.

Few men are so dull that they do not recognize the fact that it is unpleasant, as well as unprofitable, for an organized body of men, whether church or other organization, who have prospered, gained influence, control and authority over men, territory or wealth, by means of certain ideas or opinions, to be interfered with or encroached upon by a new and opposing organized body, with new ideas or opinions, lest the former might lose some of their influence, control, or authority over men, territory, or wealth.

Selfishness and self-preservation lie at the root of this, and every aggressive movement will be hindered, checked, or prevented if possible.