



Produced by David Widger





THE WORLD'S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIORS

OR, CHRISTIANITY BEFORE CHRIST

CONTAINING NEW, STARTLING, AND EXTRAORDINARY REVELATIONS IN RELIGIOUS
HISTORY, WHICH DISCLOSE THE ORIENTAL ORIGIN OF ALL THE DOCTRINES,
PRINCIPLES, PRECEPTS, AND MIRACLES OF THE CHRISTIAN NEW TESTAMENT, AND
FURNISHING A KEY FOR UNLOCKING MANY OF ITS SACRED MYSTERIES, BESIDES
COMPRISING THE HISTORY OF 16 HEATHEN CRUCIFIED GODS.

By Kersey Graves




PREFACE.

INVERSELY to the remoteness of time has been man's ascent toward the
temple of knowledge. Truth has made its ingress into the human mind
in the ratio by which man has attained the capacity to receive and
appreciate it Hence, as we tread back the meandering pathway of human
history, every step in the receding process brings us to a lower plane
of intelligence and a state of mind more thoroughly encrusted with
ignorance and superstition. It is, therefore, no source of surprise to
learn, when we take a survey of the world two or three thousand years
in the past, that every religious writer of that era committed errors on
every subject which employed his pen, involving a scientific principle.
Hence, the bible, or sacred book, to which he was a contributor, is
now found to bear the marks of human imperfection. For the temple of
knowledge was but partially reared, and its chambers but dimly lighted
up. The intellectual brain was in a dark, feeble and dormant condition.
Hence, the moral and religious feelings were drifted about without a
pilot on the turbulent waves of superstition, and finally stranded on
the shoals of bigotry. The Christian bible, like other bibles, having
been written in an age when science was but budding into life, and
philosophy had attained but a feeble growth, should be expected to teach
many things incompatible with the principles of modern science.
And accordingly it is found to contain, like other bibles, numerous
statements so obviously at war with present established scientific
truths that almost any school-boy, at the present day, can demonstrate
their falsity. Let the unbiased reader examine and compare the oriental
and Christian bibles together, and he will note the following facts,
viz:--

1. That the cardinal religious conceptions of all bibles are essentially
the same--all running in parable grooves.

2. That every chapter of every bible is but a transcript of the mental
chart of the writer.

3. That no bible, pagan or Christian, contains anything surpassing the
natural, mental and moral capacity of the writer to originate. And hence
no divine aid or inspiration was necessary for its production.

4. That the moral and religious teachings of no bible reach a higher
altitude than the intelligence and mental development of the age and
country which produced it.

5. That the Christian bible, in some respects, is superior to some of
the other bibles, but only to the extent to which the age in which it
was written was superior in intelligence and natural mental capacity to
the era in which the older bibles were penned; and that this superiority
consists not its more exalted religious conceptions, but only in the
fact that, being of more modern origin, the progress of mind had worn
away some of the legendary rubbish of the past. Being written in a later
and more enlightened age, it is consequently a little less encrusted
with mythological tradition and oriental imagery. Though not free from
these elements, it possesses them in less degree. And by comparing
Christ's history with those of the oriental Gods, it will be found:--

1. That he taught no new doctrine or moral precept.

2. That he inculcated the same religion and morality, which he
elaborated, as other moral teachers, to great extremes.

3. That Christ differs so little in his character, preaching, and
practical life from some of the oriental Gods, that no person whose
mind is not deplorably warped and biased by early training can call one
divine while he considers the other human.

4. That if Christ was a God, then all were Gods.

The Author.




PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

The author desires to say that this work has been carefully reviewed
and corrected, and some additions made, embracing two chapters from "the
Bible of Bibles," and some explanatory notes, and is now able to place
before the reader a greatly improved edition.

The author also desires to say here, that the many flattering letters
he has received from various parts of the country, from those who have
supplied themselves with the work, excites in his mind the hope it will
ultimately effect something towards achieving the important end sought
to be attained by its publication--the banishment of that wide-spread
delusion comprehended in the belief in an incarnate, virgin-born God,
called Jesus Christ, and the infallibility of his teachings, with the
numerous evils growing legitimately out of this belief--among the
most important of which is, its cramping effect upon the mind of the
possessor, which interdicts its growth, and thus constitutes a serious
obstacle to the progress both of the individual and of society. And such
has been the blinding effect of this delusion upon all who have fallen
victims to its influence, that the numerous errors and evils of our
popular system of religious faith, which constitutes its legitimate
fruits, have passed from age to age, unnoticed by all except scientific
and progressive minds, who are constantly bringing these errors and
evils to light. This state of things has been a source of sorrow and
regret to every philanthropist desiring the welfare of the race. And if
this work shall achieve anything towards arresting this great evil, the
author will feel that he is amply compensated for the years of toil and
mental labor spent in its preparation.

Note.--As the different works consulted have assigned different dates
for the same event, the author has, in one or two cases, followed their
example, accepting them as authority; as in the date of the birth and
death of the Gods of Mexico. The reader will also notice that the name
of the same God is found in different countries. Example--Adonis and
Bacchus are found amongst the Gods of both Greece and Egypt.




EXPLANATION

"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors." What an imposing title for a
book! What startling developments of religious history it implies! Is
it founded on fact or on fiction? If it has a basis of truth, where was
such an extraordinary mine of sacred lore discovered? Where were such
startling facts obtained as the title of the work suggests. These
queries will doubtless arise as soliloquies in the minds of many readers
on glancing at the title-page. And the author is disposed to gratify
this natural and most probable, in some cases, excited curiosity by a
brief explanation. In doing this, he deems it only necessary, to state
that many of the most important facts collated in this work were derived
from Sir Godfrey Higgins' Anacalypsis, a work as valuable as it is
rare--a work comprising the result of twenty years' labor, devoted to
the investigation of religious history. And although embodying many
important historical facts which should have commanded for it a
word-wide circulation, but a few copies of this invaluable treasury of
religious knowledge have ever found their way into this country. One
of these copies the author of this work obtained, at no inconsiderable
expense, long enough to glean from its pages such facts as he presumed
would be most interesting and instructive to the general reader, some
of which will be found in nearly every chapter of this volume. With
the facts and materials derived from this source, and two hundred other
unimpeachable historical records, the present work might have been
swelled to fourfold its present size without exhausting the author's
ample store of materials and would have possessed such unwieldy
dimensions but for a strict conformity to the most rigid rules of
eclecticism and condensation. Encouraged by the extensive demand for his
former work, "The Biography of Satan," which has passed through seven
editions, the author cherishes the hope that the present work will
meet with a circulation commensurate with the importance of the many
invaluable facts which it contains. For he possesses the sad conviction
that the many religious errors and evils which it is the object of
this work to expose, operate very seriously to <DW44> the moral and
intellectual growth and prosperity of all Christian countries. They have
the effect to injure mentally, morally and religiously the great body of
Christian professors.

Dr. Prince, of Long Island (now deceased), wrote to the author,
respecting the thirty-fifth chapter of this work, entitled "The Logical
View of the Incarnation," after he had seen it in the columns of a
newspaper, "It is a masterly piece of logic, and will startle, if it
does not revolutionize, the orthodox world. And the chapters comprising
'The Philosophical View,' and 'The Physiological View,' were afterward
pronounced specimens of profound and unanswerable logical reasoning." We
thus call the reader's attention to these chapters in advance, in order
to induce that thorough attention to their facts and arguments which
will result in banishing from his mind the last vestiges of a belief (if
he entertain any) in the doctrine of the divine incarnation.


IMPORTANT FACTS CONSTITUTING THE BASIS OF THIS WORK.

IGNORANCE of science and ignorance of history are the two great bulwarks
of religious error. There is scarcely a tenet of religious faith now
propagated to the world by the professed disciples of Christ but that,
if subjected to a rigid test in the ordeal of modern science would be
found to contain more or less error. Vast acquisitions have been made
in the fields of science and history within the last half century, the
moral lessons of which have done much to undermine and unsettle our
popular system of religious faith, and to bring into disrepute or
effectually change many of its long-cherished dogmas. The scientific and
historical facts thus brought before the intelligent public, have served
as keys for explaining many of the doctrines comprised in the popular
creed. They have poured a flood of light upon our whole system of
religion as now taught by its popular representatives, which have
had the effect to reveal many of its errors to those who have had the
temerity, or the curiosity, to investigate it upon these grounds. Many
of the doctrines and miraculous events which have always been assigned a
divine emanation by the disciples of the Christian faith, are, by these
scientific and historical disclosures, shown to be explainable upon
natural grounds, and to have exclusively a natural basis. Some of them
are shown to be solvable by recently developed spiritual laws, while
others are proven to be founded wholly in error. The intelligent
community are now acquainted with many of these important facts, so that
no man of science can be found in this enlightened age who can popularly
be termed a Christian. No man can be found in any Christian country who
has the established reputation of being a man of science, or who has
made any proficiency in the whole curriculum of the sciences, whose
creed, when examined by an orthodox committee, would not be pronounced
unsound. It is true that many of the scientific class, not possessing
the conviction that duty imposes the moral necessity of making living
martyrs of themselves, have refrained from fully avowing or disclosing
to the public their real convictions of the popular faith.

The changes and improvements in religious ideas now observant in the
most intelligent portion of the community, are due in part to the rapid
progress of scientific discovery and the dissemination of scientific
knowledge in Christian countries. The explorer in the field of religious
history, however, comes in here for his meed of praise. New stores of
historic facts and data may be reckoned among the recent acquisitions
of the laborious archeologist; new fountains of religious history have
recently been unsealed, which have had the effect to reveal many errors
and false claims set up for the current religion of Christendom--a
religion long regarded as settled and stereotyped. For many centuries
subsequent to the establishment of the Christian religion, but little
was known by its disciples of the character, claims and doctrines of
the oriental systems of worship. These religions, in fact, were scarcely
known to exist, because they had long been veiled in secrecy. They were
found, in some cases, enshrined in religious books printed or written in
a language so very ancient and obscure, as to bid defiance for
centuries to the labors of the most indefatigable, profound and erudite
archeological scholar to decipher it. That obstacle is now partially
surmounted.

The recent translation for the first time of the Hindoo Vedas into
the English language (the oldest bible now extant or ever written) has
revealed to the unwelcome gaze of the Christian reader the startling
fact that "the heathen" had long been in possession of "holy books,"
possessing essentially the same character, and teaching essentially the
same doctrines as the Christian bible--there being, as Horace Greeley
expressed it, "No doctrine of Christianity but what has been anticipated
by the Vedas." (See Vol. II., Chap. i, of this work.)

If, then, this heathen bible (compiled, according to the Christian
missionary, Rev. D. G Allen, 1400 B. C.), contains all the doctrines of
Christianity, then away goes over the dam all claim for the Christian
bible as an original bible as an original revelation, or a work of
divine inspiration.

Bibles are thus shown to be of heathen and human origin, instead of
heavenly and divine authorship, as claimed for them by their respective
disciples--the Christian bible forming no exception to this statement.
The latter, being essentially like other bibles, it must, of course,
have had the same or a similar origin--a fact which, though it may be
new and startling to millions, will be universally accepted as truth
before the lapse of many generations, and a fact which confronts with
open denial the claims of two hundred millions of Christian professors,
who assert with unscrupulous boldness that every doctrine, principle and
precept of their bible is of divine emanation.

How utterly groundless and untenable is such a claim when arranged by
the side of modern discoveries in religious history!

Equally unsupportable is the declaration that "there is no other name
given under heaven whereby men can be saved, than that of Jesus Christ
and him crucified," when viewed in the light of the modern explorations
of Sir Godfrey Higgins, which have disclosed the history of nearly a
score of crucified Gods and sin-atoning Saviors, who, we have equal
proof, died for the sins of mankind.

Thus, the two prime articles of the Christian faith--Revelation and
Crucifixion--are forever established as human and heathen conceptions.
And the hope might be reasonably entertained that the important
historical facts disclosed in this work will have the effect to open the
eyes of the professors of the Christian religion to see their serious
error in putting forth such exalted claims for their bible and their
religion as that of being perfect products of infinite wisdom, did
not the past history of all religious countries furnish sad proof that
reason and logic, and even the most cogent and convincing facts of
science and history often prove powerless when arrayed against a
religious conviction, enstamped upon the mind for thousands of years in
the past, and transmitted from parent to child until it has grown to a
colossal stature, and become a part of the living tissues of the soul.

No matter how glaringly absurd, how palpably erroneous, or how
demonstrably false an opinion or doctrine is shown to be, they
cannot see it, but will still continue to hug it to their bosoms as a
divinely-revealed truth. No facts or evidence can prove an overmatch for
the inherited convictions of a thousand generations. In this respect the
Mahomedan, the Hindoo and the Christian all stand upon a level. It is
about as easy to convince one as the other of their easily demonstrated
errors.


RELIGION OF NATURAL ORIGIN.

Among the numerous errors traceable in the history of every religious
sect, commemorated in the annals of the world, none possesses a
more serious character, or has been attended with more deplorable
consequences, than that of assigning a wrong origin to religion. Every
bible, every sect, every creed, every catechism, and every orthodox
sermon teaches that "religion is the gift of God," that "it is infused
into the soul by the spirit and power of the Lord." Never was a greater
mistake ever committed. Every student of anthropology, every person who
has read any of the numerous modern works on mental science, and tested
their easily-demonstrated facts, knows that religion is of _natural_ and
not _supernatural_ origin; that it is a natural element of the
_human mind_, and not a "_direct gift from God_;" that it grows as
spontaneously out of the soul as flowers spring out of the ground. It is
as natural as eating, sleeping or breathing. This conclusion is not the
offspring of mere imagination. It is no hastily-concocted theory, but an
oft-demonstrated and scientifically-established fact, which any person
can test the truth of for himself.

And this modern discovery will, at no distant day, revolutionize
all systems of religious faith in existence, and either dissolve and
dissipate them, or modify and establish them upon a more natural and
enduring basis, expurgated of their dogmatic errors.

Let us, then, labor to banish the wide-spread delusion believed and
taught by a thousand systems of worship--Jew, Pagan and Christian--that
"religion is of supernatural or divine origin," and the many ruinous
errors; senseless dogmas and deplorable soul-crushing superstitions
so thoroughly inwrought into the Christian system will vanish like fog
before the morning sun, and be replaced by a religion which sensible,
intelligent and scientific men and women can accept, and will delight to
honor and practice.




ADDRESS TO THE CLERGY.

FRIENDS and brethren--teachers of the Christian faith: Will you believe
us when we tell you the divine claims of your religion are
gone--all swept away by the "logic of history," and nullified by the
demonstrations of science?

The recently opened fountains of historic law, many of whose potent
facts will be found interspersed through the pages of this work, sweep
away the last inch of ground on which can be predicated the least show
for either the divine origin of the Christian religion, or the divinity
of Jesus Christ.

For these facts demonstrate beyond all cavil and criticism, and with
a logical force which can leave not the vestige of a doubt upon any
unbiased mind, that all its doctrines are an outgrowth from older
heathen systems. Several systems of religion essentially the same in
character and spirit as that religion now known as Christianity, and
setting forth the same doctrines, principles and precepts, and several
personages filling a chapter in history almost identical with that of
Jesus Christ, it is now known to those who are up with the discoveries
and intelligence of the age, were venerated in the East centuries before
a religion called Christian, or a personage called Jesus Christ were
known to history.

Will you not, then, give it up that your religion is merely a human
production, reconstructed from heathen materials--from oriental systems
several thousand years older than yours--or will you continue, in spite
of the unanimous and unalterable verdict of history, science, facts and
logic, to proclaim to the world the now historically demonstrated
error which you have so long preached, that God is the author of your
religion, and Jesus Christ a Deity-begotten Messiah? Though you may have
heretofore honestly believed these doctrines to be true, you can now no
longer plead ignorance as an excuse for propagating such gigantic
and serious errors, as they are now overwhelmingly demonstrated by a
thousand facts of history to be untrue. You must abandon such exalted
claims for your religion, or posterity will mark you as being "blind
leaders of the blind." They will heap upon your honored names their
unmitigated ridicule and condemnation. They will charge you as being
either deplorably ignorant, or disloyal to the cause of truth. And shame
and ignominy will be your portion.

The following propositions (fatal to your claims for Christianity) are
established beyond confutation by the historical facts cited in this
work, viz:--

1. There were many cases of the miraculous birth of Gods reported in
history before the case of Jesus Christ.

2 Also many other cases of Gods being born of virgin mothers.

3. Many of these Gods, like Christ, were (reputedly) born on the 25th of
December.

4. Their advent into the world, like that of Jesus Christ, is in many
cases claimed to have been foretold by "inspired prophets."

5. Stars figured at the birth of several of them, as in the case of
Christ.

6. Also angels, shepherds, and magi, or "wise men."

7. Many of them, like Christ, were claimed to be of royal or princely
descent.

8. Their lives, like his, were also threatened in infancy by the ruler
of the country.

9. Several of them, like him, gave early proof of divinity.

10. And, like him, retired from the world and fasted.

11. Also, like him, declared, "My kingdom is not of this world."

12. Some of them preached a spiritual religion, too, like his.

13. And were "anointed with oil," like him.

14. Many of them, like him, were "crucified for the sins of the world."

15. And after three days' interment "rose from the dead."

16. And, finally, like him, are reported as ascending back to heaven.

17. The same violent convulsions of nature at the crucifixion of several
are reported.

18. They were nearly all called "Saviors," "Son of God," "Messiah,"
"Redeemer," "Lord," &c.

19. Each one was the second member of the trinity of "Father, Son and
Holy Ghost."

20. The doctrines of "Original Sin," "Fall of Man," "The Atonement,"
"The Trinity," "The Word," "Forgiveness," "An Angry God," "Future
Endless Punishment," etc., etc. (see the author's "Biography of Satan,")
were a part of the religion of each of these sin-atoning Gods, as
found set forth in several oriental bibles and "holy books," similar in
character and spirit to the Christian's bible, and written, like it,
by "inspired and holy men" before the time of either Christ or Moses
(before Moses, in some cases, at least). All these doctrines and
declarations, and many others not here enumerated, the historical
citations of this work abundantly prove, were taught in various
oriental heathen nations centuries before the birth of Christ, or before
Christianity, as a religion, was known in the world.

Will you, then, after learning these facts, longer dare assert that
Christianity is of divine emanation, or claim a special divine paternity
for its author. Only the priest, who loves his _salary_ more than
the cause of _truth_ (and I fear this class are numerous,) or who is
deplorably ignorant of history, will have the effrontery or audacity to
do so. For the historical facts herein set forth as clearly prove such
assumptions to be false, as figures can demonstrate the truth of any
mathematical problem. And no logic can overthrow, and no sophistry can
set aside these facts.

They will stand till the end of time in spite of your efforts either to
evade, ignore, or invalidate them.

We will here briefly state:--


WHY ALL THE ANCIENT RELIGIONS WERE ALIKE.

Two causes are obviously assignable for Christianity in all its
essential features and phases, being so strikingly similar to the
ancient pagan systems which preceded it, as also the close analogies of
all the principal systems, whose doctrines and practical teachings have
found a place on the pages of history.

1. The primary and constituent elements and properties of human nature
being essentially the same in all countries and all centuries, and the
feeling called Religion being a spontaneous outgrowth of the devotional
elements of the human mind, the coincidence would naturally produce
similar feelings, similar thoughts, similar views and similar doctrines
on the subject of religion in different countries, however widely
separated. This accounts in part for the analogous features observable
in all the primary systems of religious faith, which have flourished in
the past ages.

2. A more potent cause, however, for the proximate identity extending
to such an elaborate detail, as is evinced by the foregoing schedule,
is found in the historical incident which brought the disciples of the
various systems of worship together, face to face, in the then grand
religious emporium of the world--the royal and renowned city of
Alexandria, the capital of Egypt Here, drawn together by various motives
and influences, the devotee of India (the devout disciple of
Buddhism), the ever-prayerful worshipper of "Mithra, the Mediator," the
representatives of the crucified Quexalcoate of Mexico, the self-denying
Essene, the superstitious Egyptian, the godly Chaldean, the imitative
Judean founders of Christianity, and the disciples of other sin-atoning
Gods, met and interchanged ideas, discussed their various dogmas,
remolded their doctrines, and recast and rehabilitated their systems
of religious faith by borrowing from each other, and from other systems
there represented. In this way all became remarkably similar and alike
in all their doctrines and details. And thus the mystery is solved,
and the singular resemblance of all the ancient systems of religion
satisfactorily accounted for. (For a fuller explanation of this matter,
see Chapters XXX. and XXXI. of this work.)

In conclusion, please note the following points:--

1. The religious conceptions of the Old Testament are as easily traced
to heathen sources as those of the New Testament. But we are compelled
to exclude such an exposition from this work.

2. The comparative exhibition of the doctrines and teachings of twenty
bibles which proves them to be in their leading features essentially
alike (originally designed for this volume), is found to be, when
completed, of sufficient magnitude to constitute a volume of itself.

3. Here I desire to impress upon the minds of my clerical brethren the
important fact, that the gospel histories of Christ were written by men
who had formerly been Jews (see Acts xxi. 20), and probably possessing
the strong proclivity to imitate and borrow which their bible shows
was characteristic of that nation; and being written many years after
Christ's death, according to that standard Christian author, Dr.
Lardner, it was impossible, under such circumstances, for them to
separate (if they had desired to) the real facts and events of his life
from the innumerable fictions and fables then afloat everywhere relative
to the heathen Gods who had pre-enacted a similar history. Two reasons
are thus furnished for their constructing a history of Christ almost
identical with that of other Gods, as shown in chapters XXX., XXXI. and
XXXII. of this work.

4. The singular and senseless defense of your now tottering system
we have known to be attempted by members of your order, by the
self-complacent soliloquy "Christianity, whether divine or human, is
good enough for me." But such a subterfuge betrays both a weak mind
and a weak cause. The disciples of all the oriental systems cherished
a similar feeling and a similar sentiment. And the deluded followers
of Brigham Young exclaimed in like manner, "I want nothing better than
Mormonism." "Snakes, lizards and frogs are good enough for me," a South
Sea Islander once exclaimed to a missionary, when a reform diet was
proposed. Such logic, if universally adopted, would keep the world
eternally in barbarism. No progress can be made where such sentiments
prevail. The truth is, no system of religion, whatever its ostensible
marks of perfection, can long remain "good enough" for aspiring
and progressive minds, unless occasionally improved, like other
institutions. And then it should be borne in mind, that our controversy
does not appertain so much to the character as to the origin of the
Christian religion. Our many incontrovertible proofs, that it is
of human and heathen origin, proves at the same time that it is an
imperfect system, and as such, needing occasional improvement, like
other institutions. And its assumed perfection and divine origin which
have always guarded it from improvement, amply accounts for its present
corrupt, immoral, declining and dying condition. And it will ere long
die with paralysis, unless its assumption of divine perfection is soon
exchanged for the principles of improvement and reconstruction. This
policy alone can save it.

5. We will here notice another feeble, futile and foolish expedient we
have known resorted to by persons of your order to save your sinking
cause when the evidence is presented with such cogency as to admit of no
disproof, that all the important doctrines of Christianity were taught
by older heathen systems before the era of Christ The plea is, that
those systems were mere types, or ante-types, of the Christian religion.
But this plea is of itself a borrowed subterfuge of heathenism, and is
moreover devoid of evidence. The ancient Egyptians, also the Greeks,
claimed that Brahminism was a type, or ante-type, of their religious
systems. And Mahomedans now claim that both Judaism and Christianity
were designed by God as foreshadowing types of religion of the Koran.
And the disciples of more than a thousand systems of religion which have
flourished in past ages, could have made such logic equally available in
showing, in each case, that every system preceding theirs was designed
by Infinite Wisdom as simply a typical or ante-typical forerunner of
theirs. How ridiculous and senseless, therefore, is the argument thus
shown to be when critically examined in the light of history! So much so
as scarcely to merit a serious notice.

6. Here permit us to say that we believe Christianity to be not only
of human origin, but of natural origin also; I that is, a natural
outgrowth, like other systems, of the religious elements of the human
mind--a hypothesis which accounts most beautifully for the numerous
human imperfections now visible in nearly every line of its teachings.

Those imperfections correspond exactly to the imperfect minds which
produced it.

7. And we believe that the principle teacher of Christianity, "the man
Christ Jesus," possessed a very exalted and superior mind for that age
in the moral and religious departments, and in the intellectual to some
extent also. But his superiority in these respects was not probably
greater than that of Zera Colburn or Henry Salford in the mathematical
department. And all probably derived their peculiar extraordinary traits
of mind from the same causes--that of strong psychological influence
impressed upon the mind of the mothers prior to their births. Had these
ante-natal influences been as well understood then as now, we presume
Christ would have escaped the fate of an exaltation to the Godhead.

     [The author, stating the above, demonstrates that same
     assumption of a _truth_ which he criticises in the
     Christians, Mohamedens and other proponents of religions.
     _Ed._]

8. In conclusion, permit us to say that the numerous and overwhelming
facts of this work render it utterly impossible that the exalted claims
you put forth for your religion and its assumed author (that of a divine
character) can be true. And posterity will so decide, whether you do or
not.

Cherishing for you naught but feelings of kindness and brotherly love,
and desiring to promote the truth, we will answer any question, or
discuss any proposition embraced in this work you may desire.

Your brother,

Kersey Graves.




THE WORLD'S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIORS.




CHAPTER I. RIVAL CLAIMS OF THE SAVIORS

IT is claimed by the disciples of Jesus Christ, that he was of
supernatural and divine origin; that he had a human being for a mother,
and a God for his father; that, although he was woman-conceived, he
was Deity-begotten, and molded in the human form, but comprehending in
essence a full measure of the infinite Godhead; thus making him half
human and half divine in his sublunary origin. It is claimed that he was
full and perfect God, and perfect man; and while he was God, he was also
the son of God, and as such was sent down by his father to save a fallen
and guilty world; and that thus his mission pertained to the whole human
race; and his inspired seers are made to declare that ultimately every
nation, tongue, kindred, and people under heaven will acknowledge
allegiance to his government, and concede his right to reign and rule
the world; that "every knee must bow, and every tongue confess that
Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

But we do not find that this prophecy has ever been or is likely to be
fulfilled. We do not observe that this claim to the infinite deityship
of Jesus Christ has been or is likely to be universally conceded. On
the contrary, it is found that by a portion, and a large portion of the
people of even those nations now called Christian, this claim has
been steadily and unswervingly controverted, through the whole line of
history, stretching through the nearly two thousand years which have
elapsed since his advent to earth.

Even some of those who are represented to have been personally
acquainted with him--aye! some of his own brethren in the flesh,
children in the same household, children of the same mother--had the
temerity to question the tenableness of his claim to a divine emanation.
And when we extend our researches to other countries, we find this
claim, so far from being conceded, is denied and contested by whole
nations upon other grounds. It is met and confronted by rival claims.

Upon this ground hundreds of millions of the established believers
in divine revelation--hundreds of millions of believers in the divine
character and origin of religion--eject the pretentions set up for Jesus
Christ. They admit both a God and a Savior, but do not accept Jesus of
Nazareth as being either. They admit a Messiah, but not the Messiah;
these nations contend that the title is misplaced which makes "the man
Christ Jesus" the Savior of the world. They claim to have been honored
with the birth of the true Savior among them, and defend this claim
upon the ground of priority of date. They aver that the advent of their
Messiahs were long prior to that of the Christians', and that this
circumstance adjudicates for them a superiority of claim as to having
had the true Messiah born upon their soil.

It is argued that, as the story of the incarnation of the Christians'
Savior is of more recent date than that of these oriental and ancient
religions (as is conceded by Christians themselves), the origin of the
former is thus indicated and foreshadowed as being an outgrowth from,
if not a plagiarism upon the latter--a borrowed copy, of which the pagan
stories furnish the original. Here, then, we observe a rivalship of
claims, as to which of the remarkable personages who have figured in
the world as Saviors, Messiahs, and Sons of God, in different ages and
different countries, can be considered the true Savior and "sent of God"
or whether all should be, or the claims of all rejected.

For researches into oriental history reveal the remarkable fact that
stories of incarnate Gods answering to and resembling the miraculous
character of Jesus Christ have been prevalent in most if not all the
principal religious heathen nations of antiquity; and the accounts and
narrations of some of these deific incarnations bear such a striking
resemblance to that of the Christian Savior--not only in their general
features, but in some cases in the most minute details, from the legend
of the immaculate conception to that of the crucifixion, and subsequent
ascension into heaven--that one might almost be mistaken for the other.

More than twenty claims of this kind--claims of beings invested with
divine honor (deified)--have come forward and presented themselves at
the bar of the world with their credentials, to contest the verdict of
Christendom, in having proclaimed Jesus Christ, "the only son, and sent
of God:" twenty Messiahs, Saviors, and Sons of God, according to history
or tradition, have, in past times, descended from heaven, and taken upon
themselves the form of men, clothing themselves with human flesh,
and furnishing incontestable evidence of a divine origin, by various
miracles, marvelous works, and superlative virtues; and finally these
twenty Jesus Christs (accepting their character for the name) laid the
foundation for the salvation of the world, and ascended back to heaven.

1. Chrishna of Hindostan.

2. Budha Sakia of India.

3. Salivahana of Bermuda.

4. Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt.

5. Odin of the Scandinavians.

6. Crite of Chaldea.

7. Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.

8. Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phenicia.

9. Indra of Thibet.

10. Bali of Afghanistan.

11. Jao of Nepaul.

12. Wittoba of the Bilingonese.

13. Thammuz of Syria.

14. Atys of Phrygia.

15. Xamolxis of Thrace.

16. Zoar of the Bonzes.

17. Adad of Assyria.

18. Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam.

19. Alcides of Thebes.

20. Mikado of the Sintoos.

21. Beddru of Japan.

22 Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids.

23. Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls.

24. Cadmus of Greece.

25. Hil and Feta of the Mandaites.

26. Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico.

27. Universal Monarch of the Sibyls.

28. Ischy of the Island of Formosa.

29. Divine Teacher of Plato.

30. Holy One of Xaca.

31. Fohi and Tien of China.

32. Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece.

33. Ixion and Quirinus of Rome.

34. Prometheus of Caucasus.

35. Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia.

These have all received divine honors, have nearly all been worshiped
as Gods, or sons of God; were mostly incarnated as Christs, Saviors,
Messiahs, or Mediators; not a few of them were reputedly born of
virgins; some of them filling a character almost identical with that
ascribed by the Christian's bible to Jesus Christ; many of them,
like him, are reported to have been crucified; and all of them, taken
together, furnish a prototype and parallel for nearly every important
incident and wonder-inciting miracle, doctrine and precept recorded
in the New Testament, of the Christian's Savior. Surely, with so many
Saviors the world cannot, or should not, be lost.

We have now presented before us a two-fold ground for doubting and
disputing the claims put forth by the Christian world in behalf of "Our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." In the first place, allowing the question
to be answered in the affirmative as to whether he was really a Savior,
or supernatural being, or more than a mere man, a negative answer to
which seems to have been sprung (as previously intimated) at the very
hour of his birth, and that by his kindred, his own nearest relatives;
as it is declared, "his own brethren did not believe on him"--a
skepticism which has been growing deeper and broader from that day to
this.

And now, upon the heel of this question, we find another formidable
query to be met and answered, viz.: Was he (Christ) the only Savior,
seeing that a multitude of similar claims are now upon our council-board
to be disposed of?

We shall, however, leave the theologians of the various religious
schools to adjust and settle this difficulty among themselves. We shall
leave them to settle the question as best they can as to whether Jesus
Christ was the only son and sent of God--"the only begotten of the
Father," as John declares him to be (John i. 14)--in view of the fact
that long prior to his time various personages, in different nations,
were invested with the title "Son of God," and have left behind them
similar proofs and credentials of the justness of their claims to such
a title, if being essentially alike--as we shall prove and demonstrate
them to be--can make their claims similar.

We shall present an array of facts and historical proofs, drawn from
numerous histories and the Holy Scriptures and bibles appertaining to
these various Saviors, and which include a history of their lives
and doctrines, that will go to show that in nearly all their leading
features, and mostly even in their details, they are strikingly similar.

A comparison, or parallel view, extended through their sacred histories,
so as to include an exhibition presented in parallels of the teachings
of their respective bibles, would make it clearly manifest that, with
respect to nearly every important thought, deed, word, action, doctrine,
principle, precept, tenet, ritual, ordinance or ceremony, and even
the various important characters or personages, who figure in their
religious dramas as Saviors, prophets, apostles, angels, devils, demons,
exalted or fallen genii--in a word, nearly every miraculous or marvelous
story, moral precept, or tenet of religious faith, noticed in either
the Old or New Testament Scriptures of Christendom--from the Jewish
cosmogony, or story of creation in Genesis, to the last legendary tale
in St. John's "Arabian Nights" (alias the Apocalypse)--there is to be
found an antitype for, or outline of, somewhere in the sacred records
or bibles of the oriental heathen nations, making equal if not higher
pretention to a divine emanation and divine inspiration, and admitted by
all historians, even the most orthodox, to be of much more ancient date;
for while Christians only claim, for the earthly advent of their Savior
and the birth of their religion, a period less than nineteen hundred
years in the past, on the contrary, most of the deific or divine
incarnations of the heathen and their respective religions are, by the
concurrent and united verdict of all history, assigned a date several
hundred or several thousand years earlier, thus leaving the inference
patent that so far as there has been any borrowing or transfer of
materials from one system to another, Christianity has been the
borrower.

And as nearly the whole outline and constituent parts of the Christian
system are found scattered through these older systems, the query is at
once sprung as to whether Christianity did not derive its materials
from these sources--that is, from heathenism, instead of from high
heaven--as it claims.




CHAPTER II. MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

NEARLY all religious history is prophetic of the coming of Saviors,
Messiahs, Redeemers, and virgin-born Gods. Most religious countries, and
more than a score of religious systems, had a standing prophecy that a
divine deliverer would descend from heaven and relieve them from their
depressed state, and ameliorate their condition. And in most cases that
prophecy was believed to have been fulfilled by the birth of a being,
who, as he approached the goal of moral and intellectual manhood
exhibited such remarkable proof of superiority of mind as to be readily
accepted as the promised Messiah.

We can only find room for a few citations and illustrations in proof
of this statement. Many texts have been hunted out and marked in the
Christian bible, by interested priests, as prophetic of the coming and
mission of Christ. But a thorough, candid, and impartial investigation
will convince any reader that _none of these texts_ have the remotest
allusion to Christ, nor were they intended to have. On the contrary,
most of them refer to events already past. The others are the
mere ebullitions of pent-up feelings hopefully prayerful in their
anticipation of better times, but very indefinite as to the period and
the agencies or means in which, or by which, the desired reformation was
to be brought about. A divine man was prayed for and hopefully expected.
But no such being as Jesus Christ is anticipated, or alluded to, or
dreamed of, by the prophecies. And it requires the most unwarrantable
distortion to make one text refer to him.

But this perversion has been wrought on many texts. We will cite one
case in proof. In Isaiah's "famous prophecy" so-called, the phrase "Unto
us a child is born" (Isa. ix. 6), the context clearly shows, refers to
the prophet's own child, and the past tense, "is born," is an evidence
the child was then born. And the title "Mighty God," found in the text,
Dr. Beard shows should have been translated "the Mighty Hero," thus
proving it has no reference to a God. And "the Everlasting Father"
should have been rendered, according to this Christian writer, "the
Father of the Everlasting Age." And other texts often quoted as
prophecies by biased Christian writers, the doctor proves, are
erroneously translated, and have no more reference to Christ than to
Mahomet.

It is true the Jews, in common with other nations, cherished strong
anticipations of the arrival of a Mighty Deliverer amongst them; and
this august personage some of them supposed would be a God, or a God-man
(a demi-God). Hence, such prophetic utterances as "Behold, a king shall
reign in righteousness" (Isa. xxxii. i), "And all nations shall flow
unto Zion" (Isa. ii. 2).

The Hindoo Budhists long previously indulged similar anticipations with
respect to the triumph of their religion. Hence, their seers prophesied
that at the end of the Cali Yug period, a divine child (Avatar, or
Savior) would be born, who would understand the divine writings (the
Holy Scriptures) and the sciences, without the labor of learning them.
"He will supremely understand all things." "He will relieve the earth of
sin, and cause justice and truth to reign everywhere. And will bring the
whole earth into the acceptance of the Hindoo religion." And the Hindoo
prophet Bala also predicted that a divine Savior would "become incarnate
in the house of Yadu, and issue forth to mortal birth from the womb of
Devaci (a Holy Virgin), and relieve the oppressed earth of its load of
sin and sorrow." Much more similar language may be found in their holy
bible, the Vedas. Colonel Wilford tells us the advent of their Savior
Chrishna occurred in exact fulfillment of prophecy found in their sacred
books.

And the Chinese bible also contains a number of Messianic prophecies.
In one of the five volumes a prophecy runs thus: "The Holy one, when he
comes, will unite in himself all the virtues of heaven and earth. By his
justice the world will be established in righteousness. He will labor
and suffer much,.... and will finally offer up a sacrifice worthy of
himself," i. e., worthy of a God. And a singular animal, called the
Kilin (signifying the Lamb of God), was seen in the yard, with a stone
in its mouth, on which was inscribed a prophecy of the event. And when
the young God (Chang-ti) was born, in fulfillment of this prophecy,
heavenly music, and angels and shepherds attended the scene. (See
"History of China," by Martinus; also Halde's "History of China.")

We will also give place to a Messianic prophecy of Persia. Mr. Faber,
an English writer, in his "History of Idolatry," tells us that Zoroaster
prophetically declared, that "A virgin should conceive and bear a son,
and a star would appear blazing at midday to signalize the occurrence."
"When you behold the star," said he to his followers, "follow it
whithersoever it leads you. Adore the mysterious child, offering him
gifts with profound humility. He is indeed the Almighty Word which
created the heavens. He is indeed your Lord and everlasting Ring"
(Faber, vol. ii. p. 92). Abulfaragius, in his "Historia Dynastarium,"
and Maurice, in his "Indian Skeptics Refuted," both speak of this
prophecy, fulfilled, according to Mr. Higgins, by the advent of the
Persian and Chaldean God Josa. And Chalcidus (of the second century), in
his "Comments on the Times of Plato," speaks of "a star which presaged
neither disease nor death, but the descent of a God amongst men, and
which is attested by Chaldean astronomers, who immediately hastened to
adore the newborn deity, and present him gifts."

We are compelled to omit, for the want of room, the notice of numerous
Messianic prophecies found in the sacred writings of Egypt, Greece,
Rome, Mexico, Arabia, and other countries, all of which tend to show
that the same prophetic spirit pervaded all religious countries,
reliable only to the extent it might have issued from an interior
spiritual vision, or have been illuminated by departed spirits. And we
find as much evidence that these pagan prophecies were inspired, and
also fulfilled, as those found in Jew-Christian bible, thus reducing all
to a common level. The possibility of the interior vision being expanded
and illuminated by spiritual beings, so as to enable the possessor to
forestall the occurrence of future events, we, however, by no means
deny, since we have abundant proof of it in connection with the
practical history of modern spiritualism. (See Chapter XXXIV., section
2).




CHAPTER III. PROPHECIES BY THE FIGURE OF A SERPENT

The Seed of the Woman Bruising the Serpent's Head.

"AND I will put emnity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed. It shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his
heel." (Gen. ill. 15.) This text is often cited by Christian writers and
controversialists as prefiguring the mission of the Christian Savior,
viz., the destruction of the serpent, alias the devil. St. John calls
"the grand adversary of souls which deceiveth the whole world," "the
dragon, the serpent, the devil, and Satan." (Rev. xii. 8.) The serpent,
then, is the devil; that is, the dragon, the serpent, the devil and
Satan are all one. The object of this chapter is to show the origin of
the singular figure set forth in the first text quoted, and to prove
that those Christian writers who assume it to be a revelation from
heaven were profoundly ignorant of oriental history, as the same figure
is found in several heathen systems of older date, as we will now cite
the facts to prove.

Some of the saviors or demigods of Egypt, India, Greece, Persia, Mexico
and Etruria are represented as performing the same drama with the
serpent or devil. "Osiris of Egypt (says Mr. Bryant) bruised the head
of the serpent after it had bitten his heel." Descending to Greece, Mr.
Faber relates that, "on the spheres Hercules is represented in the act
of contending with the serpent, the head of which is placed under his
foot; and this serpent guarded the tree with golden fruit in the midst
of the garden Hesperides"--Eden. (Origin of Idolatry, vol. i. p. 443.)
"And we may observe," says this author, "the same tradition in the
Phoenician fable of Ophion or Ophiones." (Ibid.) In Genesis the serpent
is the subject of two legends. But here it will be observed that they
are both couched in one.

Again, it is related by more than one oriental writer that Chrishna of
India is represented on some very ancient sculptures and stone monuments
with his heel on the head of a serpent. Mr. Maurice, in his Indian
Antiquities, vol. ii., speaks of "Chrishna crushing the head of a
serpent with his foot," and pronounces the striking similarity of this
story with that found in the Christian bible as "very mysterious."
Another author tells us "The image of Chrishna is sculptured in the
ancient temples of India, sometimes wreathed in the folds of a serpent
which is biting his foot, and sometimes treading victoriously on
the head of a serpent." (Prog. Rel. Ideas, vol. i.) In the Mexican
Antiquities, vol. vi., we are told, "A messenger from heaven announced
to the first woman created (Suchiquecul), that she should bear a son who
should bruise the serpent's head, and then presented her with a rose."
Here is the origin of the Genesis legend, the rose being the fruit of
the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil." "The ancient Persians,"
says Volney, in his "Ruin of Empires," p. 169, "had the tradition of a
virgin, from whom they predicted would be born, or would spring up, a
shoot (a son) that would crush the serpent's head, and thus deliver the
world from sin." And both the serpent and the virgin, he tells us,
are represented imaginarily in the heavens, and pictured on their
astronomical globes and spheres, as on those of the Romish Christian.
(See Burritt's Geography of the Heavens.)

In the ancient Etrurian story, instead of "the seed of the woman" (the
virgin), it is the woman herself who is represented as standing with one
foot on the head of a serpent, which has the twig of an apple tree in
its mouth to which an apple is suspended (the forbidden fruit), while
its tail is twisted around a celestial globe, thus reminding us of St.
John's dragon hauling down one-third of the stars with his tail. (See
Rev. xii. 4.) In the ancient celestial diagram of the Etrurian, the head
of the virgin is surmounted with a crown of stars--doubtless the same
legend from which St. John borrowed his metaphor of a "a woman with
a crown of twelve stars on her head." (Rev. xiii.) "The _Regina
Stellarum_" (Queen of the Stars), spoken of in some of the ancient
systems appertains to the same fable. Also the tradition of Achilles
of Greece being invulnerable in the heel, as related by Homer. The last
clause of the first text quoted reads "_It_ shall bruise thy head"--a
very curious prophetic reference to the savior of the world, if the text
refers to him, to represent him as being of the neuter gender, for the
neuter pronoun _it_ always refers to a thing without sex.

In the further exposition of the serpent tradition, we are now brought
to notice, and will trace to its origin, the story of the original
transgression and fall of man--two cardinal doctrines of the Christian
religion. Like every other tenet of the Christian faith, we find these
doctrines taught in heathen systems much older than Christianity, and
whose antiquity antedates even the birth of Moses. We will first notice
the Persian tradition. "According to the doctrine of the Persians," says
the Rev. J. C. Pitrat, "Meshia and Meshiane, the first man and first
woman, were pure, and submitted to Ormuzd, their maker. But Ahriman (the
evil one) saw them, and envied them their happiness. He approached them
under the form of a serpent, presented fruits to them, and persuaded
them that he was the maker of man, of animals, of plants, and of the
beautiful universe in which they dwelt. They believed it. Since that
time Ahriman was their master. Their natures became corrupt, and this
corruption infested their whole posterity." This story is taken from the
Vandidatsade of the Persians, pp. 305 and 428.

The Indian or Hindoo story is furnished us by the Rev. Father Bouchat,
in a letter to the bishops of Avranches, and runs thus: "Our Hindoos say
the Gods tried by all means to obtain immortality. After many inquiries
and trials, they conceived the idea that they would find it in the tree
of life, which is the Chorcan (paradise). In fact they succeeded, and
by eating once in a while of the fruits of that tree, they kept the
precious treasure they so much valued. A famous snake, named Cheiden,
saw that the tree of life had been found by the Gods of the second
order. As probably he had been intrusted with guarding that tree,
he became so angry because his vigilance had been deceived, that he
immediately poured out an enormous quantity of poison, which spread over
the whole earth." How much like this story is the story of St. John,
"And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman
that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood!" (Rev. xii.
15.)

The idea of a snake or serpent inundating the earth from its mouth, as
taught in both stories is so novel, and so far removed from the sphere
of natural causes and possible events, that we are compelled to the
conclusion that one is borrowed from the other, or both from a common
original.

And as facts cited in other chapters prove beyond dispute that the
Hindoo system, containing this story, extends in antiquity far beyond
the time of Moses, the question is thus settled as to which system
borrowed the story from the other.

Before closing the chapter, we wish to call the attention of the reader
to the important fact that three out of four of the cardinal doctrines
of the Christian faith are taught in the two heathen mythological
stories of creation just presented, viz.:--

1. Original sin.

2. The fall of man caused by a serpent

3. The consequent corruption and depravity of the human race.

These doctrines, then, it must be admitted, are of heathen origin, and
not, as Christians claim, "important truths revealed from heaven." For
a historical exposition of the other cardinal doctrine of the Christian
faith, viz., man's restoration by the atonement achieved through the
crucifixion of a God, see Chapters xvi. and xxi.




CHAPTER IV. MIRACULOUS AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE GODS

THE ancients very naturally concluded that an offspring of God (a son
of God) should have a purer, higher and holier maternal origin than is
incident to the lot of mortals, and this was to constitute one of the
evidences of his emanation from the Deity--that is, of his supernatural
or divine origin. He, as a matter of course, must not only have
a different origin, but one in the highest degree superior and
supernatural. He must not only be able to claim the highest _paternal_
origin, but the highest _maternal_ also. And on the part of the mother,
a sexual connection with the great Potentate of heaven would evince for
her offspring the very acme of superiority with respect to his origin,
moral perfection and authority. That the Savior was born of a woman
could not possibly be made a matter of concealment. But his paternal
parentage was not so obvious and apparent to general observation, being
cognizant alone to the mother. This circumstance furnished the most
propititious opportunity to concoct the story that "The Most High" had
condescended and descended to become both a father and a grandfather to
a human being, or a being apparently human at least.

We say grandfather, because, if God (as the Christian bible itself
frequently asserts, both directly and by implication) is father of the
whole human family, then he was father to the maternal parent; so that
her son, though deriving existence from him, would be his grandson as
well as his son. Hence the corollary, _Jesus Christ was a grandson
of God as well as a son of God_, and Jehovah both his father and
grandfather.

Again, to make the origin and character of the God and Savior stand
higher for purity, and partake in the highest degree of the miraculous,
the impression must go abroad that he was born of a woman _while she was
yet a maiden_--i. e., before she was contaminated by illicit association
with the masculine sex. Hence, nearly all the saviors were reputedly
born of virgins. And the process of birth, too, was out of the line of
natural causes, in order to invest the character of the savior with the
_ne plus ultra_ of the miraculous.

And hence it is related of Jesus Christ (in an Apocryphal Gospel), of
Chrishna of India, and other saviors, that they were born through the
mother's side.

It is true our present canonical gospels are silent as to the manner
of Christ's birth; but one of the Apocryphal gospels, which gives the
matter in fuller detail, and whose authority in the earlier ages of the
Christian church was not disputed, declares that the manner of his birth
was as related above. And, besides, some of the early Christian fathers
fully indorsed the story. The same is related in the pagan bibles of
heathen Gods. The motives which originated the reports of the immaculate
conception of the Saviors, it may be further remarked, were of a
two-fold character:--

1. To establish their spotless origin (as the word immaculate means
spotless.)

2. To make it appear that there was a Deific power and agency concerned
in their conception.

And we may observe here that it is not the Saviors alone who are
reported to have been ushered into tangible existence without a human
father, but it is declared of beings known and acknowledged to be men,
as Plato, Pythagoras, Alexander, Augustus and a number of others. Of
Plato an author remarks, "He was born of Paretonia, and begotten of
Apollo, and not Ariston, his father." Both the manner, or process,
and the source of the influence by which the Gods and Saviors were
generated, seem to have been different in different countries, though
the idea of "overshadowing with the Holy Ghost" seems to have been most
current. Mr. Higgins says that "the Supreme First Cause was generally
believe to overshadow, or in some other mysterious manner to impregnate,
the mother of the God, or personage" (vol. i. 378). We are told that
Pythais, the mother of Pythagoras, five hundred and fifty years B. C.,
conceived by a spectre or ghost (of course the Holy Ghost) of the God
Apollo, or God Sol.

In Malcolm's "History of Persia" (vol. i. 494) the author tells us that
"Zoroaster was born of an immaculate conception by a ray from the Divine
Reason." The immaculate conception of Juno of Greece is thus described
by the poet:--

     "Juno touched the flower;
     Its wondrous virtues such,
     She touched it, and grew pregnant at the touch;
     Then entered Thrace--the Propontic shore;
     When mistress of her touch,
     God Mars she bore."

This case may certainly be set down as the _ne plus ultra_ of etiquette
with respect to sexual commerce or purity of conception. The sweet odor
of an expanded flower, we are here taught, is adequate to the conception
and production of a God. Here we have "the immaculate conception" in the
superlative degree, and while much more beautiful and grand it cannot be
more senseless or unreasonable than the conception by a ghost. It proves
at least that the doctrine of the immaculate conception is of very
ancient date. And this fastidious maiden lady and immaculate virgin,
Juno, not only conceived the God Mars by the touch of a flower, but she
also (so the story reads) conceived Vulcan by being overshadowed by the
wind--exactly a parallel case with that of the virgin Mary, as we find
that ghost, in the original, means wind. Thus we observe that Vulcan,
long before Jesus Christ, was "born of the Holy Ghost," i. e., both were
conceived by the "Holy Wind." And the author of the "Perennial Calendar"
speaks of the miraculous conception of Juno Jugulis, "the blessed virgin
queen of heaven," and describes it as falling on the second of February,
the very day which the early Christians celebrated with a festival, as
being the date of the conception of the "ever Blessed Virgin Mary."

Of the ancient Mexicans, it is said "they had the immaculate conception,
the crucifixion, and the resurrection after three days." (Mex. Antiq.,
vol. i.) And in an ancient work called "Codex Vaticanus," the immaculate
conception is spoken of as a part of the history of Quexalcote, the
Mexican Savior. "Suchiquecal," says the Mexican Antiquities, "was called
the Queen of Heaven. She conceived a son without connection with a
man"--a very obvious case of immaculate conception.

Alvarez Semedo, in his "History of China," page 89, speaks of a sect in
that country who worshiped a Savior known as Xaca, who was reputedly
conceived of his mother, Maia, by a white elephant, which she saw in her
sleep, and "for greater purity, she brought him forth from one of
her sides." Colonel Tod, of England, tells us in his "History of the
Rajahs," page 57, that Yu, the first Chinese monarch, was conceived by
his mother being struck with a star while traveling.

In the case of Christ, it will be recollected, the star did not appear
till after his birth. But here the star is the author and agent of the
conception.

According to Ranking's "History of the Moguls," page 178, Tamerlane's
mother (of Bermuda) professedly conceived by having had sexual
intercourse with "the God of Day." The mother of Ghengis Khan, of
Tartary, "being too modest to claim that she was the mother of the son
of God, said only that he was the _son of the sun_." (History of Mogul,
page 65.)

Both Julis and Osiris of Egypt are spoken of by some authors as having
been honored with a divine immaculate conception--the former being
the son of the beautiful virgin Cronis Celestine, and "begotten by the
Father of all Gods."

Both Budha and Chrishna, of India, are reported as having been
immaculately conceived. The mother of the latter (God) was (as the
Hindoo Holy Book declares) overshadowed by the Supreme God, Brahma,
while the spirit-author of the conception (that is, the Holy Ghost) was
Naraan. The mother of Apollonius of Cappadocia, who was cotemporary
with Jesus Christ (according to his history by Philostratus)--and his
(Apollonius') disciple Damis testifies to the same effect gave birth
to this God and rival Savior of Jesus Christ, by having been previously
"overshadowed" by the supreme God Proteus. For the corporeal existence
and earthly career of Augustus Caesar, the world has ostensibly to
acknowledge itself indebted to the "overshadowing" influence and
generating power of Jove, by whose divine influence he was immaculously
conceived in the temple of Apollo, according to the statement of Nimrod,
his biographer. The virgin mother Shing-Mon of China furnishes another
case of immaculate conception. Possessing a sensibility too lofty and
too refined to descend to the ordinary routine of the world, she gave
birth to the God Yu from previous conception by a water lily. This
case, with respect to the degree of procreative delicacy and refinement
evinced, may be classed with that of Juno of Greece. Here it may be
noted as a curious circumstance, that several of the virgin mothers
of Gods and great men are specifically represented as going ten months
between conception and delivery. The mothers of Hercules, Sakia,
Guatama, Scipio, Arion, Solomon and Jesus Christ may be mentioned as
samples of this character. This tradition probably grew out of the
established belief in the ten sacred cycles which constitute the great
prospective and portentous millennial epoch, as described in Chapter
XXX. Arion, mentioned above, is represented as being both miraculously
and immaculously conceived by the Gods in the citadel of Byrsa.

In view of the foregoing facts, drawn from accredited histories,
the reader will readily concede that the tradition of the miraculous
conceptions of Gods (sons of God), Saviors and Messiahs was very
prevalent in the world at a very ancient period of time, and long before
the mother of Jesus was "overshadowed by the Most High." Indeed, says
Mr. Higgins, "the belief in the immaculate conception extended to
every nation in the world." And Grote, referring to Greece, makes the
remarkable declaration, that "the furtive pregnancy of young women,
often by a God, is one of the most frequently recurring incidents in
the legendary narratives of the country." And we find that both the
prevalency and great antiquity of the doctrine of the immaculate
conception among the heathen is conceded by Christian writers themselves
(of former ages) in their attempts to find arguments and commendatory
precedents to justify their own belief in the doctrine. For proof of
this, we need only cite the Christian writer Mr. Bailey, who remarks,
"What I have said of St. Augustine is applicable also to Origen
and Lactanius, who have endeavored to persuade us of the immaculate
virginity of the mother of Jesus Christ by the example of similar events
stored by the heathen." Here we have several Christian authorities cited
by another writer, also a Christian, for placing the doctrine of the
immaculate conception among the heathen legends in ages long anterior to
Christ.

With respect to the degree of credence to be attached to the story
of the immaculate conception of the mother of Jesus, it need only be
observed that there was no other person concerned in the transaction but
herself who could possess positive, absolute knowledge of the parentage.
And she, let it be noted, settles the matter forever, by virtually
affirming that Joseph was his father in the declaration addressed to
Jesus when she found him in the temple, "_I and thy father_ have sought
thee sorrowing." (Luke ii. 48.) No one will dispute that the father here
spoken of was Joseph, which amounts to a positive declaration by the
mother, that Joseph was Jesus' father.


IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND MIRACULOUS BIRTH OF THE CHRISTIAN SAVIOR.

The following considerations exhibit some of the numerous absurdities
involved in the story of the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ.

1. The evangelical narratives show that Christ himself did not claim to
have a miraculous birth. He did not once allude to such an event; while
if, as Christians claim, it is the principal evidence of his deityship,
he certainly would have done so.

2. His paternal genealogy, as made out by Matthew and Luke, completely
disproves the story of his miraculous conception by a virgin. For they
both trace his lineage through Joseph, which they could not do only on
the assumption that Joseph was his father. This, of course, disproves
his sireship by the Holy Ghost, ergo, the miraculous conception. It
is the lineage and parentage of Joseph, and not Mary, that is given
in tracing back his ancestry to the royal household--a fact which
completely overthrows the story of his miraculous birth.

3. And the fact that his _own disciple_ (Philip) declared him to be the
_son of Joseph_, and that several texts show that it was the current
impression, is still further confirmation of the conclusion.

4. We find the story of the immaculate conception resting entirely upon
the slender foundation comprised in the legends of an angel and a dream.
We are told that Mary got it by an angel, and Joseph by a dream. And
through these sources we have the whole groundwork and foundation of the
story of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

5. It should be noticed that we have neither Joseph's nor Mary's report
of these things, but only Matthew and Luke's version of the affair.
And we are not informed that either of them ever saw or conversed with
Joseph or Mary on the subject. It is probable they got it from Dame
Rumor, with her thousand tongues.

6. If Christ were a miraculously born God, is it possible his mother
would have reproved him for misconduct when she found him in the temple,
as she must have known his character?

7. If Mary was miraculously conceived, why was the important secret kept
so long from Joseph? Why did she keep the "wool drawn over his eyes"
till an angel had to be sent from heaven to let him into the secret?

8. If she were a virtuously-minded woman, why did she thus attempt to
deceive him?

9. Why did not God inform Joseph by "inspiration" instead of employing
the roundabout way of sending an angel to do it?

10. We are told that "Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost." But
as we are not informed who found it out, or who made the discovery, or
how it was made, is it not thus left in a very suspicious aspect?

11. As the whole affair seems to have been based on dreams, and was
carried on through dreams, and has no better foundation than dreams, why
should we consider it entitled to any better credit than similar stories
found in works on heathen mythology?

12. And would it not prove that Christianity is rather a dreamy
religion?

13. Should not the astounding and incredible report of the birth of a
God be based on a better foundation than that of dreams and angels and
the legends of oriental mythology, to entitle it to the belief of an
intelligent and scientific age?

14. Or can any man of science entertain for a moment the superlative
solecism of an Infinite God by any special act "overshadowing" a finite
human female, especially as modern science teaches us that God is both
male and female, and as much one as the other?

15. As history teaches us the ancient orientalists believed that sexual
commerce is sinful and contaminating to the child thus begotten and
born, and hence had their incarnate Gods sent into the world through
human virgins, can any unbiased mind resist the conviction that this is
the source of the origin of the story of Christ's immaculate conception?

16. And finally, if it were necessary for Christ to come into the world
in such a way as to avoid the impure channel of human conception and
parturition, why did he not descend directly from heaven in person? Why
could he not "descend on the clouds" by his first advent, as the bible
says he will do when he makes his second advent?

17. Would not this course have furnished a hundred fold more convincing
proof and demonstration of his divine power and divine attributes than
the ridiculous story and inscrutable mystery of the divine conception,
which is not susceptible of either investigation or proof?




CHAPTER V. VIRGIN MOTHERS AND VIRGIN-BORN GODS

THE report in authentic history of a case of a virtuous woman giving
birth to a child with the usual form, and possessing the usual
characteristics of a human being, and who should testify she had no male
partner in the conception, might in an age of miracles and ignorance
of natural law, be believed with implicit credulity. But in an age of
intelligence, when the keys of science have unlocked the sacred shrines
and hallowed vaults of sacerdotal mysteries, and modern researches of
history have laid bare the fact that most ancient religious countries
abound in reports of this character, a profound and general skepticism
must be the result, and a total rejection of their truth by all men of
science and historic intelligence.

Many are the cases noted in history of young maidens claiming a
paternity for their male offspring by a God.

In Greece it became so common that the reigning king issued an edict,
decreeing the death of all young women who should offer such an insult
to deity as to lay to him the charge of begetting their children. The
virgin Alcmene furnishes a case of a young woman claiming God as the
father of her offspring, when she brought forth the divine Redeemer
Alcides, 1280 years B. C. And Ceres, the virgin mother of Osiris,
claimed that he was begotten by the "father of all Gods." Mr. Kenrick
tells us the likeness of this virgin mother, with the divine child
in her arms, may now be seen represented in sculpture on some of the
ancient, ruined temples of that ruined empire. And Mr. Higgins makes
the broad declaration that "the worship of this virgin mother, with her
God-begotten child, prevailed everywhere." This author also quotes Mr.
Riquord as saying, this son of God "was exhibited in effigy, lying in
a manger, in the same manner the infant Jesus was afterward laid in the
cave at Bethlehem." Mr. Higgins further testifies that the worship of
this virgin God-mother (that is, the God and the mother) is of very
ancient date and universal prevalence in all the eastern countries, as
is proved by sculptured figures bearing the marks of great age.

In corroboration of this statement we might cite many cases, if our
space would permit, from the religious records of India, Egypt, Persia,
Greece, Rome, Mexico, Thibet, etc. Maia, mother of Sakia and Yasoda of
Chrishna; Celestine, mother of the crucified Zulis; Chimalman, mother of
Quex-alcote; Semele, mother of the Egyptian Bacchus, and Minerva, mother
of the Grecian Bacchus; Prudence, mother of Hercules; Alcmene, mother of
Alcides; Shing-Mon, mother-of Yu, and Mayence, mother of Hesus, were
all as confidently believed to be pure, holy and chaste virgins,
while giving birth to these Gods, sons of God, Saviors and sin-atoning
Mediators, as was Mary, mother of Jesus, and long before her time.

Mr. Higgins remarks that the mother was still held to be a virgin, even
after she had given birth to other children besides the deity-begotten
bantling, which furnishes another striking parallel to the history of
Mary, as she was still called a virgin after she had given birth to
Jesus and his brothers James and John. And it is an incident worth
noticing here, that, in the case of Mayence, virgin-mother of the
God-sired Hesus of the Druids, the ancient traditions of the country,
more than two thousand years old, represent her body as being enveloped
in light, and a crown of twelve stars upon her head, corresponding
exactly to the apocalyptic figure described by the mystagogue, St. John,
in the twelfth chapter of his Revelation. She is also represented with
her foot on the head of a serpent, according to Davie's "Universal
Etymology." (Vide the case of the seed of the woman bruising the
serpent's head, Gen. iii. 15.)

Auguste Nichols tells us, in his "Philosophical Essays on Christianity,"
that Io is called, in Eschylus, "the Chaste Virgin," and her son "the
Son of God." (For other similar cases, see Guigne's History of the
Huns.) Gonzales informs us he found on an ancient temple in India the
Latin inscription _Patiuro virginis_, "the virgin about to bring forth."
And similar inscriptions have been found on pagan temples in the country
of the ancient Gauls. (For proof, see Riquord's Theology of the Ancient
Gauls, Chapter X.) "He who hath ears to hear, let him hear," and
treasure up these facts. According to Chinese history there were two
beings--Tien and Chang-Ti--worshiped in that country as Gods more than
twenty-five hundred years ago, born of virgins "who knew no man." The
mother of the mighty and the almighty God Hercules, we are told, "knew
only Jove."

If history and tradition, then, are to be credited, God had many "well
beloved sons," born of pious and holy virgins, besides Jesus Christ. And
some of them are represented as being his "only begotten," and others his
"first begotten," sons. And all these cases appear to be equally as well
authenticated as the story of Jesus Christ. All stand upon a level, the
same kind and the same amount of evidence being offered in each case.

Here we will note it as a curious circumstance, that several of the
above-named Saviors are represented as being black, Jesus Christ
included with this number.

There is as much evidence that the Christian Savior was a black man,
or at least a dark man, as there is of his being the son of the Virgin
Mary, or that he once lived and moved upon the earth. And that evidence
is the testimony of his disciples, who had nearly as good an opportunity
of knowing what his complexion was as the evangelists, who omit to say
anything about it. In the pictures and portraits of Christ by the early
Christians, he is uniformly represented as being black. And to make this
the more certain, the red tinge is given to the lips; and the only text
in the Christian bible quoted by orthodox Christians, as describing his
complexion, represents it as being black. Solomon's declaration, "I am
black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem" (Sol. i. 5), is often
cited as referring to Christ. According to the bible itself, then, Jesus
Christ was a black man.

Let us suppose that, at some future time, he makes his second advent to
the earth, as some Christians anticipate he will do, and that he comes
in the character of a sable Messiah, how would he be received by our
<DW64>-hating Christians, of sensitive olfactory nerves? Would they
worship a <DW64> God? Let us imagine he enters one of our fashionable
churches, with his "rough and ready" linsey-woolsey, seamless
garment on, made of wild sea-grass, thus presenting a very forbidding
appearance, and what would be the result? Would the sexton show him to
a seat? Would he not rather point to the door, and exclaim, "Get out of
here; no place here for <DW65>s?" What a ludicrous series of ideas is
thus suggested by the thought that Jesus Christ was a "darkey."

And the tradition of divine Saviors being born of undefiled and
undeflowered virgins has an astronomical chapter we must not omit
to notice. The virgin, with her God-begotten child, was pictured
imaginarily in the heavens from time immemorial. They are represented on
the Hindoo zodiac, at least three thousand years old, and on the ancient
Egyptian planispheres. And if you will examine "Burritt's Geography of
the Heavens," you will find the infant God-son (the sun) is represented
as being born into a new year on the 25th of December (the very date
assigned for Christ's birth), and may be seen rising over the eastern
horizon, out of Mary, Maria, or Mare (the Latin for _sea_), with the
infant God in her arms, being heralded and preceded by a bright star,
which rises immediately preceding the virgin and her child, thus
suggesting the text, "We have seen his star in the east, and have come
to worship him." (Matt. ii.8.) Such facts led the learned Alphonso to
exclaim, "The adventures of Jesus Christ are all depicted among the
stars."

And such facts fasten the conviction on our mind that the stories of
Gods cohabiting with young maids or virgins, and begetting other
Gods, is of astrological origin--the story of Jesus Christ included. A
critical research shows that astronomy and religion were interblended,
interwoven, and confounded together at a very early period of time, so
indissolubly, that it now becomes impossible to separate them.




CHAPTER VI. STARS POINT OUT THE TIME AND THE SAVIORS' BIRTH-PLACE

PROFUSION of evidence is furnished at every step along the devious
pathway of sacred history, tending to show that all the systems of
worship which have existed in the past have had a dip in "the halo
of the heavenly orbs," and hence shine with a light derived from that
source.

We find the stars acting directly a conspicuous part at the births
of several of the Saviors, besides figuring in some cases by marking
important events in their subsequent history.

Mr. Higgins remarks that "Among the ancients there seems to have been a
very general idea that the arrival of Gods and great personages who
were expected to come, would be announced by a star." And the cases of
Abraham, Caesar, Pythagoras, Yu, Chrishna, and Christ, may be cited in
proof of this declaration. A star figured either before or at the birth
of each, according to their respective histories.

And it is a historical fact that should be noted here that the practice
of calculating nativities by the stars was in vogue in the era and
country of Christ's birth, and had been for a long period previously in
various countries. "We have seen his star in the east, and have come to
worship him." (Matt. ii. i.) Now mark, here, it was not _the star_,
nor _a star_, but "_his star_;" thus disclosing its unmistakable
astrological features. Mr. Faber (in his "Origin of Idolatry," vol. ii.
p. 77) reports Zoroaster (600 B. C.) as prophetically announcing to "the
wise men" of that country that a Savior would be born, "attended by a
star at noonday." For a fuller exposition of this case see Chapter II.

In the history of the Hindoo Savior Chrishna, we are told that "as soon
as Nared, who, having heard of his fame, had examined the stars, he
declared him to be from God;" i. e., the Son of God' The Roman Calcidius
speaks of "a wonderful star, presaging the descent of a God amongst
men." (See Maurice's "Indian Skeptics Refuted," p. 62.) Quite suggestive
of the star "apprising the wise men" of Christ's descent from above. And
a star is said to have foretokened the birth of the Roman Julius Caesar.
The Chinese God Yu was not only heralded by a star, but conceived and
brought to mortal birth by a star.

In Numbers xxiv. 17, it is declared "There shall come a star out of
Jacob," etc. This is a text often quoted by Christian writers as having
a prophetic reference to the Christian Messiah. But the same text
declares further, "It shall destroy the children of Seth," a prediction
which no rational interpretation can make apply to Jesus Christ. And
then we find this star of Jacob or Judah (the same) represented on
astronomical maps as a prominent star in the constellation Virgo (the
Virgin), fancifully termed by the Hebrew Ephraim.

It was known in the Syrian, Arabian and Persian systems of astronomy as
Messaeil (suggestive of Messiah), and was considered the ruling genius
of the constellation.

The "star of Jacob," then, was simply a figure borrowed from the ancient
pagan systems of astronomy, in which they fancifully represent a virgin
rising with an infant Messiah (Messaeil) in her arms. Messaeil is, when
analyzed, Messaeh-el (Messiah-God), and is found in the constellation
Virgo, which commences rising at midnight, on the 25th of December, with
this "star in the east" in her arms--the star which piloted "the wise
men." The whole thing, then, is evidently an astronomical legend.

Albert the Great, in his "Book on the Universe," tells us, "The sign
of the celestial virgin rises above the horizon, at the moment we find
fixed for the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ." To which we will add the
declaration of Sir William Drummond, who, in his "Odipus Judaicus," p.
27, most significantly remarks, "The anointed of _El_ the male infant,
who rises in the arms of Virgo, was called Jesus by the Hebrews,... and
was hailed as the anointed king or Messiah"--still further proof of the
astrological origin of the story.

Dr. Hales, in his "Chronology," calls Christ "the star of our
salvation, the true Apollo, the sun of righteousness"--all of which are
astronomical terms.

And here we may recur to the fact that some of the early inhabitants
of the earth regarded a star as a thing of life, because it appeared
to move, and acted as though controlled by a living spirit. And this
fetchic idea we observe lurking amongst the borrowed orientalisms of the
Jewish Old Testament. The representation of the morning stars joining
in a chorus and singing together (see Job xxxviii. 9), is an instance of
this kind of fetchic conception.

And then we find a much stronger and more conclusive case in the New
Testament, where Matthew represents a star as breaking loose from its
orbit, and traveling some millions of miles, in order to stand over the
young child Jesus, as he lay amongst the oxen and asses in a stable.
(See Matt. ii. 7.) Wonderfully accommodating star indeed! How did its
inhabitants feel while thus traveling with the velocity of lightning?
This achievement would not only require life, but an active
intelligence, on the part of the star, as it is represented as being an
act of the planet itself.

"All nations," says Mr. Higgins, "once believed that the planetary
bodies or their inhabitants controlled the affairs of men, and even
their births." Hence the cant phrases, "My stars," "He is ill-starred,"
etc., in use then, and still in use at the present day. The good or ill
luck of a person was attributed to the good or evil stars which it was
believed ruled at the hour of his birth.

We find a counterpart to the story of Matthew's traveling star in
Virgil's writings, who declares (60 B. C.) that a star guided AEneas in
a journey westward from Troy. In the days of Pliny (see his "Natural
History," Book II.), the people of Rome fancied they saw a God in a star
or comet in the form of a man. The Apocryphal book of Seth relates that
a star descended from heaven and lighted on a mountain, in the midst of
which a divine child was seen bearing a cross. Christ betrays the same
ignorance of astronomy, when he speaks of "the stars falling from heaven
to the earth." (See Matt. xxiv. 29.) For if there could be any falling
in the case, the falling would be in the other direction, and the earth
would fall to the stars, as larger bodies always attract smaller ones.

As shown above, the stupendous orbs of night were represented by Jew,
Pagan and Christian as breaking away from their orbits, and running
hither and thither, like a fly on a ceiling, or a ball from a
sky-rocket, being regarded as mere jack-a-lanterns, that could appear
anywhere at any time creative fancy might dictate or require; while
science teaches that the stars are stupendous orbs, some of them a
thousand times larger than the planet on which we live, and that they
could not depart one rod from their accustomed orbits without breaking
up the whole planetary system, and destroying the universe.

And then observe the absurdity in Matthew's story, which teaches that
the wise men followed the star in the east, when they, coming from the
east, were, as a matter of course, traveling westward, which would place
the star to their backs. That must be a _sui generis_ pilot or guide
which follows after, instead of going before. Omitting further citations
from history, we will only observe further that the ancient Hindoos,
Egyptians, Chaldeans, Syrians, Mexicans, etc., took great account of
stars, and employed them on all important occasions, especially on long
journeys and at the births of Gods and great personages--a circumstance
which aids in explaining the star chapter in the gospel history of
Christ.




CHAPTER VII. ANGELS, SHEPHERDS AND MAGI VISIT THE INFANT SAVIORS

IN an age when Gods and men were on the most familiar terms, and when
the character of one furnished a transcript for the other, and when
each consented to act a reciprocal part towards elevating, honoring and
glorifying the other, the birth of a God or Messiah was, as a matter
of course, regarded as an event of sufficient importance to attract
the attention of the great ones of the earth, and even the denizens of
heaven also.

And hence we find it related in the history of several of the
God-begotten Saviors of antiquity, that as soon as they were born into
the world they were visited by "wise men from a distance" (or Magi, as
they were called by the Persians and Brahmins). And in some cases they
were likewise waited upon and adored by the neighboring shepherds; and
even celestial spirits are reported in some instances as leaving their
star-gilt homes to wing their way to the humble mansion, the rude
tenement, containing a new-born God, that they might honor and adore
"the Savior of men, the Savior of the world."

The sacred biographies of both Confucius and Christ furnish examples
of the angel host forsaking their golden pavilions in the skies to pay
their devoirs to a Deity-begotten bantling, sent down by the "Father of
Mercies," to save a guilt-laden world. And in both cases the Magi are
reported as assembling to present their offerings to the infant God.

In the case of Confucius (born 598 B. C.), it is declared, "Five wise
men from a distance came to the house, celestial music was heard in the
skies, and angels attended the scene." (See the Five Volumes.) Now let
us observe how strikingly similar to this ancient legend, in each of the
several characteristics, is the Christian story. Matthew (ii. 1) speaks
of "wise men from the east" journeying to Jerusalem to visit the infant
Christ, soon after his birth, amongst the mules and oxen in a stable,
though he omits to state the number of itinerant adorers who presented
themselves on the occasion.

The Persian story is more specific, as it gives the number of Magi who
visited the young Savior of that country as five.

Luke (ii. 13) speaks of "a multitude of the heavenly host praising God,"
in gratulation of the birth of the Judean Savior. Now, when we bear in
mind that one method of praising God, with the orientals, was by
music, as we will at once observe that this is only another mode of
proclaiming, as in the case of Confucius, that "celestial music was
heard in the skies."

And "angels attended the scene" of Confucius' birth. So, likewise, Luke
(ii. 15) relates that the angels, after rejoicing with the shepherds on
the occasion of the birth of Christ, "went away into heaven."

How complete the parallel! and, but for the digression, and monopoly of
space, we might trace it much further, and show that Confucius, like
Christ, had twelve chosen disciples; that he was descended from a royal
house of princes, as Christ from the royal house of David; that he,
in like manner, retired for a long period from the noise and bustle of
society into religious contemplative seclusion; that he inculcated the
same Golden Rule of doing to others as we desire them to act toward us,
and other moral maxims equal in importance to anything that can be found
in the Christian Scriptures, etc.

But to the line of history. Other Saviors at birth, we are told, were
visited by both angels and shepherds, also "wise men," at least great
men. Chrishna, the eighth avatar of India (1200 B. C.) (so it is related
by the "inspired penman" of their pagan theocracy) was visited by
angels, shepherds and prophets (avatars). "Immediately after his birth
he was visited by a chorus of devatas (angels), and surrounded by
shepherds, all of whom were impressed with the conviction of his future
greatness." We are informed further that "gold, frankincense and myrrh"
were presented to him as offerings.

The well-known modern traveler, Mr. Ditson, who visited India but a
few years since, uses the emphatic declaration, "In fact, as soon as
Chrishna was born he was saluted by a chorus of devatas, or angels." In
the evangelical narrative of the Christian Savior an angel is reported
to have saluted his mother thus: "Hail, thou that art highly favored;
the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women." (Luke, i. 28.) And
in the next chapter the angel is reported as joining with "the heavenly
host" in praising God. A similar report is found in the Hindoo bible
(the Ramayana), appertaining to the mother of the eighth Savior, of whom
it is declared "Brahma and Siva, with a host of attending spirits, came
to her and sang, 'In thy delivery, O favored among women, all nations
shall have cause to exult.'" And when the celestial infant (Chrishna)
appeared (it is related in a subsequent chapter), "a chorus of heavenly
spirits saluted him with hymns; the whole room was illuminated by
his light, and the countenance of his father and mother shone with
brightness and glory (by reflection), their understandings were opened
so that they knew him to be the Preserver of the world, and they began
to worship him." The last text here quoted brings to mind Luke xxiv.
45, which declares, "Then he (Christ) opened their (his parents)
understandings."

The ninth avatar of India (Sakia) furnishes to some extent a similar
parallel. According to the account of an exploration made in India, and
published in the New York Correspondent of 1828, "There is on a silver
plate in a cave in India an inscription stating that about the time of
the advent of Budha Sakia (600 B. C.), a saint in the woods learned by
inspiration that another avatar (Messiah or Savior) had appeared in the
house of Rajah of Lailas. Learning which, he flew through the air to the
place, and when he beheld the new-born Savior he declared him to be the
great avatar (Savior or prophet), and that he was destined to establish
a new religion"--the New Covenant Religion.

We next draw on the history of Greece. It is authentically related
of Pythagoras (600 B.), that his fame having reached Miletas and
neighboring cities, men renowned for wisdom (wise men) came to visit
him. (Progress of Religious Ideas, vol. i.) In the Anacalypsis we are
told that "Magi came from the East to offer gifts at Socrates' birth,
bringing gold, frankincense and myrrh," the same kind of offering as
that presented to the two divine infants Chrishna and Christ, according
to their respective "inspired" biographers. (See Matt. ii. 4, and the
Ramayana).

And the legend of Mithra, of Persia, might also be included in our
category of comparison, if we had space for it. All the four Saviors
last named (if Socrates may be called such) are reported as having been
honored and enriched with aromatic offerings at their respective births.
And we have the statement from Mr. Higgins, that the same assortment of
spices (with the gold) constituted the materials offered as gifts to
the sun, in Persia more than three thousand years ago; and likewise in
Arabia near the same era. And it may be stated here, that an ancient
historic account of Zoroaster of Persia (6,000 B. C., according to
Pliny and Aristotle), speaks of his having also been visited by Magi, or
"Magia," at the period of his earthly advent.

And it is, perhaps, well to note in this place, that "Magi" is the term
used in the Apocryphal Gospels, to designate the "wise men" who visited
Christ at birth; and that Magi, Magic and Magician are but variations of
the same word, at least derivations from the same root, all suggesting
a wisdom correlated to the Gods. Osiris, an incarnate deity of Egypt, we
may cite as another case of an infantile God receiving signal honors and
eclat at birth, as he was visited while yet in the cradle by a host of
admiring adorers. "People flocked from all parts of the world to behold
the heaven-born infant." Such a world-wide fame must have had the effect
to attract, with the numerous crowd who thronged to see and worship him,
no small number of "wise men."

At this stage of our historical exposition, we will suggest it as rather
a singular circumstance that the divine Father, in his infinite wisdom,
should have chosen to reveal the intelligence of the birth of his son
Jesus Christ to a set of nomadic heathen idolaters hundreds of miles
distant (though known as "wise men" because of their skill in astrology)
before he made it known to his own "chosen people" (the Jews), who had
ever regarded themselves as the recipients of his special favors. And
perhaps it is still more singular that these pagan pedestrians should
have been denominated "wise men," while men of God's own election,
according to the Christian bible, were often stigmatized and denounced
as "fools," a ".generation of vipers," etc. But it so happens that
"human reason" finds many Incongruities in "Divine Revelations."




CHAPTER VIII. THE TWENTY-FIFTH OF DECEMBER THE BIRTHDAY OF THE GODS.

DIVESTED of all explanation, the announcement of the fact that the time
of the birth of many of the incarnated Gods and Saviors of antiquity was
fixed at the same period, and this period the twenty-fifth of December,
celebrated all over Christendom as the birthday of Jesus Christ, would
sound marvelously strange, especially when it is noticed that this
period formerly dated the birth of a new year--the birth of King
Sol. And when we find that the ancient pagans were in the habit of
celebrating this venerated twenty-fifth of December as the birthday
of their Gods in the same manner Christians now celebrate it as the
birthday of Christ, we are driven to admit that something more than mere
fortuitous accident must be adduced to account for the coincidence.

According to Dr. Lightfoot, the temple of Jerusalem was employed in
celebrating the birthday of a pagan God (Adonis) on the very night
Christians assign for the birth of Christ. And Robert Taylor informs us
that nearly all the nations of the East were once in the habit of rising
at midnight to celebrate the birthday of their Gods, on the twenty-fifth
of December. And to this statement Mr. Higgins adds that, "At the first
moment after midnight of the twenty-fourth of December, the ancient
nations celebrated the accouchement of the queen of heaven and celestial
virgin, and the birth of the God Sol, the Infant Savior, and the God of
Day."

Bacchus of Egypt, Bacchus of Greece, Adonis of Greece, Chrishna of
India, Chang-ti of China, Chris of Chaldea, Mithra of Persia, Sakia of
India, Jao Wapaul (a crucified Savior of ancient Britain), were all
born on the twenty-fifth of December, according to their respective
histories. Chrishna is represented to have been born at midnight on the
twenty-fifth of the month Savarana, which answers to our December, and
millions of his disciples celebrated his birthday by decorating their
houses with garlands and gilt paper, and the bestowment of presents to
friends. The Rev. Mr. Barret tells us, "It was once common for the women
in Rome to perambulate the streets on the twenty-fifth of December,
singing in a loud voice, 'Unto us a child is born this day.'"

The twenty-fifth of December, then, it will be observed, was marked as
the birthday of the incarnated Gods, Saviors, and Sons of God, of many
of the religious systems of antiquity, long prior to the birth of Christ
And why his birth was fixed at that date is not hard to account for.
According to the celebrated Christian writer Mr. Goodrich, the Christian
world had no chronology and recorded no dates for several centuries
after the commencement of the Christian era. (See History of all
Nations, p. 23.) No event of their history was marked by dates for
nearly four hundred years. Hence, the time of Christ's birth is
altogether a matter of conjecture, as is also every other event noticed
in the Christian bible. This is proved by the fact that the ablest
Christian writers and chronologists differ to the extent of thirty-five
hundred years in fixing the time of every event in the bible. A Mr.
Kennedy presents us with three hundred different chronological systems,
by different Christian writers, all founded on the bible, and proving
that the date of its various events are inextricably involved in a
labyrinth of doubt, darkness and uncertainty.

Relative to the time of Christ's birth, the "Encyclopedia Britannica"
says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions
of different authors concerning the year the Messiah appeared on
earth--many of them celebrated writers." (Art. Chron.) Mark the
declaration--one hundred and thirty-three different opinions as to the
year Christ was born in; one hundred and thirty-three different years
fixed on by different Christian chronologists as the time of the birth
of the most extraordinary and most noted being, as Christians would
have us believe, that ever appeared on earth. Think of an omnipotent God
descending from heaven, performing astounding miracles, and presenting
other proofs of being a God, and yet not one of the three hundred
writers of that era take any notice of him, or make any note of
his birth or any event of his life. This circumstance is of itself
sufficient to banish and dissipate all faith in his divinity.

It is evident, from the facts just presented, that all systems of
Christian chronology are founded on mere conjecture, and hence should
be rejected as worthless. What event of Christ's life, then, can be
accepted as certain, when no record was made of it till the time was
forgotten, and none for at least half a century after the dawn of the
Christian era, according to Dr. Lardner, when nearly all who witnessed
it must have been dead?

We think the most reasonable conclusion in the case is, that Christ,
instead of performing those Munchausen prodigies attributed to him--such
as casting out devils, raising the dead, controlling the elements of
nature, etc.--led such an ordinary, obscure life--excelling only in
healing the sick and other noble deeds of charity and philanthropy--that
he attracted but little notice by the higher classes, or by anybody but
those of a similar turn of mind, till he was deified by Constantine, in
the year 325 A. D. Hence, the time of his birth was not recorded, and
was forgotten. Consequently, the twenty-fifth of December was selected
as his birthday, because it was the birthday of other Gods, and because
it was regarded by the heathen, from time immemorial, as the birthday
of Sol, the glorious luminary of heaven, it being the period he is born
again into a new year, and "commences again his journey and his life;"
and because, also, this epoch was, as Sharon Turner informs us, in his
"History of the Anglo-Saxons," the commencement of a new year up to the
tenth century.

These events signalized the twenty-fifth of December, and made it a
period of sufficient importance to lead the early Christians to suppose
it must have been the birthday of their Messiah. Mosheim, however,
confesses that the day or the year in which it happened "has not been
fixed with certainty, notwithstanding the profound researches of the
learned." So that it is still an open question as to when Christ was
born. What day of the month, what year, or what century it took place
in, is still unknown. This circumstance is, as before suggested,
sufficient of itself to utterly prostrate all faith in the divine claims
for Jesus Christ. What would be thought of a witness who should testify
in court to the truth of an occurrence of which he did not know the
year, or even the century, in which it took place, or who could come no
nearer than one hundred and thirty-three years in fixing or guessing at
the time. Would the court accept such testimony?




CHAPTER IX. TITLES OF THE SAVIORS

THE various deific titles applied to Jesus Christ in the New Testament
are regarded by some Christian writers as presumptive evidence of his
divinity. But the argument proves too much for the case; as we find the
proof in history that many other beings, whom Christians regard as
men, were honored and addressed by the same titles, such as God, Lord,
Savior, Redeemer, Mediator, Messiah, etc.

The Hindoo Chrishna, more than two thousand years ago, was prayerfully
worshiped as "God the Most High." His disciple Amarca once addressed
him thus: "Thou art the Lord of all things, the God of the universe, the
emblem of mercy, the bestower of salvation. Be propitious O most High
God," etc. Here he is addressed both as Lord and God. He is also styled
"God of Gods."

Adonis of Greece was addressed as "God Supreme," and Osiris of Egypt as
"the Lord of Life." In Phrygia, it was "Lord Atys," as Christians say,
"Lord Jesus Christ" Narayan of Bermuda was styled the "Holy Living God."
The title "Son of God" was so common in nearly all religious countries
as to excite but little awe or attention.

St. Basil says, "Every uncommonly good man was called 'the Son of God.'"
The "Asiatic Researches" says, "the Tamulese adored a divine Son of
God," and Thor of the Scandinavians was denominated "the first-born Son
of God" and so was Chrishna of India, and other demigods.

It requires, therefore, a wide stretch of faith to believe that
Jesus Christ was in any peculiar sense "the Son of God," because so
denominated, or "the only begotten Son of God," when so many others are
reported in history bearing that title.

The title Savior is found in the legends of every religious country. So
also God, Redeemer, and Mediator. "When a Mogul or Thibetan is asked
who is Chrishna," says the Christian missionary Hue, "the reply is,
instantly, 'the Savior of men.'" Budha was known as "the Savior, Creator
and Wisdom of God," and Mithra as both Mediator and Savior, also as "the
Redeemer," and Chrishna as "the Divine Redeemer," also "the Redeemer
of the World." The terms Mediator and Intercessor were also frequently
applied to him by his disciples. And both he and Quexalcote were hailed
as "the Messiah." In short, most ancient religious nations were honored
with or expected a Messiah.

Was Jesus Christ the "Lamb of God?" (John i. 9.) So was Chrishna styled
"the Holy Lamb." The Mexicans, preferring a full-grown sheep, had their
"Ram of God." The Celts had their "Heifer of God," and the Egyptians
their "Bull of God." All these terms are ludicrous emblems of Deity,
representing him as a quadruped, as the title "Lamb of God" does Jesus
Christ, a term no less ludicrous than the titles of the pagan Gods as
cited above.

And was Christ "the True Light?" (John i. 9.) So was Chrishna likewise
called "the True Light," also "the Giver of Light," "the Inward Light,"
etc. Osiris was "the Redeemer of Light," and Pythagoras was both "Light
and Truth." Apollonius was styled the "True Light of the World;" while
Simon Magus was called "the Light of all Men."

Several nations had also their Christs, though in many cases the word is
differently spelled. Chrest, the Greek mode of spelling Christ, may
be found on several of the ancient tombstones of that country. The
Christian writer Elsley, in his "Annotations of the Gospels" (vol. i. p.
25), spells the word Christ in this manner, Chrest The people of
Loretto had a black Savior, called Chrest, or Christ. Lucian, in his
"Philopatris," admits the ancient Gentiles had the name of Christ, which
shows it was a heathen title. The Chaldeans had their Chris, the Hindoos
their Chrishna, the Greeks their Chrest, and the Christians their
Christ, all, doubtless, derived from the same original root.

As for Jesus, it was a common name among the Jews long before the advent
of Christ. Josephus refers to seven or eight persons by that name, as
"Jesus, brother of Onias," "Jesus, son of Phabet," etc. Joshua in the
Greek form, Jesus, was in still more common use.

Again, was Jesus Christ "the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the
End?" so, likewise, Chrishna proclaimed, "I am the Beginning, the
Middle, and the End." Osiris and Chrishna were both proclaimed "Judge of
the Dead," as Jesus was "Judge of quick and dead." Isaiah represents the
Father as proclaiming, "I am Jehovah; besides me there is no Savior."
(Isa. xliii. 11.) With what consistency, then, can Christ be called
"_the Savior_," if there is but _one Savior_, and that is the Father?

And other divine titles besides those above named--in fact, all those
applied to Christ--are found used also in reference to the older pagan
gods, and hence prove nothing.


ORIGIN OF THE TERMS MEDIATOR, INTERCESSOR, ETC.

Several causes contributed to originate a belief in the offices
imaginarily assigned to divine God-descended Mediators, Redeemers, and
Intercessors.

1. In the first place, the Great Supreme God was believed to be too far
off and too aristocratic to be on familiar terms with his subjects,
or at all times accessible to their prayers. Hence, was gotten up a
"Mediator," or middle God, to stand midway between the Great Supreme and
the people, and transmit messages one from the other, and thus serve
as agent for both parties. Confirmatory of this statement is the
declaration of Mamoides, in his "Guide to the Erring," that "the ancient
Sabeans conceived the principal God, on account of his great distance,
to be inaccessible; and hence, in imitation of the people in their
conduct toward their king, who had to address him through a person
appointed for the purpose, they imaginarily employed a middle divinity,
who was called a Mediator, to present their claims to the Supreme God."
Here the whole secret is out, the whole thing is explained, and we now
understand why Christ is called a Mediator, Intercessor, "Advocate with
the Father," etc.

2. Again, the Supreme God was supposed to be frequently angry with the
people, and threatening to punish if not to destroy them. "I will punish
the multitude." (Jer. xlvi. 25.) "I will destroy the people." (Ex.
xxiii. 27). Hence, this middle divinity, this second person of the
trinity, stepped in to plead and intercede on their behalf, being, as we
must presume, a better-natured and more merciful being than the
Father. And thus interceding, he received the titles of Intercessor and
"Advocate with the Father." (1 John, ii. 1.)

3. The principal circumstance, however, which led to the conception of
a divine Savior was the desire to find some way to continue in sin and
wrong-doing and escape its natural and legitimate consequences; in other
words, to evade the penalty. Hence, it came to be believed that people
might run riot in sin, and plunge into the indulgence of their passions
and their lusts, till the hour of death approached, when they would have
nothing to do but to ask forgiveness, and cast the burden of their sins
and sufferings on the merits of "a crucified Savior and Redeemer,"
who "suffered once for all, that we might escape," and thus dodge the
penalty for sin. It was, as Mr. Fleurbach expresses it, "A realized
wish to be free from the laws of morality, and escape the natural
consequences of wrong doing."




CHAPTER X. THE SAVIORS OF ROYAL DESCENT, BUT HUMBLE BIRTH

WE have the singular coincidence presented in the histories of several
of the Saviors of their lineal descent through a line of kings or
princes, and yet commencing their probationary life under the most
humble and adverse circumstances--being born in stables, caves, and
other inauspicious situations.

The story of their royal blood was calculated to add dignity to their
characters, while their humble birth in the midst of poverty, and
unmarked by ostentation, would evince their humility, meekness,
condescension, and absence of pride, and thus proclaim a lesson of
humility and resignation to their disciples and followers.

Here, seems to be plainly indicated the motives for assigning them to
such a birth, and such a character.

Christ's lineal descent, it will be remembered, is professedly traced
(though in a very zig-zag, disjointed manner) from the royal house of
David. And yet his royal blood did not save him from the most ignoble
and ignominious birth, and obscure exordium of his earth life.

A singular story, and yet a similar story, is told of the Indian Savior
Chrishna, who was, according to the Rev. Mr. Allen (India, p. 379) of
the royal house of Kousa, traced back through many generations. Yet,
in order to teach the world a lesson of true humility, and administer a
just reprehension to pride, he submitted to be born in a cave, amid the
denizens of subterranean abodes. And here let it be noted, the best and
most orthodox writers concede that while Christ is said to have born
in a manger, that manger was in a cave. Mr. Fleetwood (a very popular
Christian writer) testifies in this matter that "the Greek fathers
generally agree that the place of Christ's birth was a cave." (Life of
Christ, p. 568.) Then the coincidence in this respect between Christ and
Chrishna may be set down as complete.

We have no means of learning how many of the Saviors were of royal
blood, as the genealogy of some of them is not given. But those whose
lineal descent is furnished us are almost uniformly traced to or evinced
as springing from royal parentage, and practical humility--so far as it
can be taught by an unostentatious birth--is a lesson taught by nearly
all. Budha Sakia of Hindostan is directly traced through a royal
pedigree.

Speaking on this point, one writer remarks: "Tradition affirms that his
mother was betrothed to a rajah, and of course her son belonged to
the same royal caste that Chrishna did during his existence on earth."
(Prog. Rel. Ideas, vol, i. 84.)

"The Great Prophet" of Arabia (Mahomet) not only commenced his earthly
career in a humble situation, but resembled Christ in having "nowhere to
lay his head." It is said of the Great Prophet, "A cloak spread on the
ground served him for a bed, and a skin filled with date leaves was his
pillow." The genealogy of the God Yu (of China) is traced through a line
of princes to a very remote origin, while his whole life was a lesson of
practical humility, and proclaimed at every step, "This is the way; walk
ye in it."




CHAPTER XI. CHRIST'S GENEALOGY

IN order to exalt the dignity and character of the Christian Messiah
still higher than a mere claim for a divine origin paternally would have
the effect to do, two of his assumed to be inspired biographers have set
up for him a claim to a royal lineage through the maternal line.

Hence, they tell us that he descended from and through a line of kings
embracing the house of David. But in presenting the names, and the
number of generations, in their attempts to make out this royal
distinction, this kingly exaltation of birth, they exhibit a most
egregious bungle, and the most barefaced tissue of discrepancies. For
they not only differ widely with each other in this matter, but differ
with the Old Testament genealogy, and differ with those texts which give
the maternal ancestry of Jesus.

Indeed, though varying as wide as the poles from each other, they both
miss Jesus and arrive at Joseph in tracing down the generations from
Abraham (unless we assume they intended to represent Joseph as being his
father).

Luke, in his gospel, names and counts off forty-one generations from
David to Joseph, though he had previously represented it as being
forty-two; but Matthew says that "from Abraham to David are fourteen
generations," but according to his own showing, and according to his own
list of names, there are but thirteen. And then he tells us there are
but fourteen generations from David to the carrying away into Babylon.
BUt according to the Old Testament genealogy (see i Chron. iii.) there
were eighteen.

And then the names comprised in the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke
are so widely different from that found in Chronicles, as to set all
analogy and agreement at defiance.

In fact, in their whole list of names, from David down to Joseph, they
only come together twice. Their names are all different but two, that of
Salathiel and Zorobabel, which names alone are found in both lists.

Matthew tells us that the son of David, through whom Joseph descended,
was Solomon, but Luke says it was Nathan. The next name in Matthew's
list is that of Roboam, but the corresponding name in Luke's list is
Mattatha. Matthew's next name is Abia, which Luke gives as Menan, while
Chronicles differs from both, and gives it as Abijah. Matthew says Joram
begat Ozias, but Chronicles virtually declares Joram had no such son,
although he had a great-great-grandson Uzziah. But Luke says, in effect,
there was no such person in the genealogical tree, or family line,
as either Joram, Ozias or Uzziah. Matthew says again, "Josias begat
Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to
Babylon." (Matt. i. ii.)

But Chronicles declares that Jechonias was Jehoiakim's son, and not
Josiah's, and that Josiah had no such son. And, besides, we learn, from
2 Kings xiii., that Josiah was killed eleven years before the exile
to Babylon, and could not well beget a son after he had been defunct a
tenth of a century.

Matthew, after naming twenty-four generations as filling out the line,
and making it complete between David and Jacob, concludes by saying,
"and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary."

But Luke, antecedent to spinning out his list to fourteen generations
more than Matthew, i. e., making it fourteen generations longer,
declares that "Joseph was the son of Heli." So that Joseph either had
two fathers, Jacob and Heli; or Matthew or Luke, or both, were most
egregiously mistaken, with all their "inspiration."

Again, Luke says that Salathiel was the son of Neri; but Chronicles
says he was the son of Jechonias. And after Chronicles had registered
Zorobabel as the son of Penniah, Matthew and Luke, assuming to become
"wise above what was written," both declare that he was the son of
Salathiel. They agree here in contradicting Chronicles, which is
the only instance but one of their agreement in the whole list of
progenitors from David to Joseph.

With this exception they contradict each other all the way through, and
in many instances that of Chronicles, too.

This is a strange way, indeed, of proving Jesus Christ to have had two
fathers!--to be both the son of God and son of David! And it is still
stranger that they should trace his genealogy to Joseph, if they did
not consider him Joseph's son. Otherwise, the genealogy of "Sinbad the
Sailor," or "Harry Haulaway," would have been as apropos.

Such are the beautiful harmony and agreement in the words of "divine
inspiration" which Christians prate so much about.

And all this appears to be the result of an attempt to elevate the man
Christ Jesus to a level with the demigods of antiquity, nearly all
of whom claimed to be of royal or princely descent. Such continual
blundering, guessing, cross-firing, and clashing of names as is
exhibited in the foregoing exposition, reminds us of the Hibernian's
reply when asked for the number and names of his brothers:

"Well, sir, I have fourteen brothers, and they are all named Bill but
Bob--his name is Tom."

Matthew and Luke's attempt to exalt and dignify the character of Christ
by making out for him a pure, holy and royal lineage we find, upon a
critical examination not only proved a very signal but a very singular
and ludicrous failure, for all his female anchors who are brought to
notice were persons of libidinous or licentious tendencies, according to
their own biblical history.

"It is remarkable," says Dr. Alexander Walker, (a Christian writer, in
his work on Woman, p. 330), "that in the genealogy of Christ only four
women are named: Thamar, who seduced the father of her late husband, and
Rachel, a common prostitute, and Ruth, who, instead of marrying one
of her cousins, went to bed with another of them, and Bathsheba, an
adulteress, who espoused David, the murderer of her first husband."

What a pedigree for an incarnate God--a being ostensibly of spotless
origin! though his impure ancestral origin does not detract from the
high moral character and distinguished moral life which marks the
history of "the man Christ Jesus," many incidents of whose life show him
to have been what is now known as a spiritual medium.




CHAPTER XII. THE WORLD'S SAVIORS SAVED FROM DESTRUCTION IN INFANCY

OF course such an extraordinary circumstance as the birth of a God into
the world must be marked with unusual incidents and great eclat. This
was first exhibited by angels, shepherds, prophets, magi or "wise men,"
flocking around their cradles. In the second place we observe an unusual
display of divine power and providential care on the part of the great
Father God, who was still left in heaven to save the young saviors
through their infancy.

It is certainly a remarkable circumstance that so many of the infant
Saviors should have been threatened with the most imminent danger of
destruction, and yet in every case miraculously preserved, and thus were
the _Saviors saved_.

A jealousy seems to have existed in several instances in the mind of
the tyrant king or ruler of the country that the young Saviors and
prospective spiritual rulers (who were mostly of royal descent) would
ultimately acquire such favor with the people, by such a display of
superior power and greatness of mind, as to endanger his retaining
peaceable possession of the secular throne; to express it in brief, he
feared the young God would prove a rival king, and hence took measures
to destroy him.

In the case of the Christian Savior we are told that an angel, or "the
angel," warned Joseph (the assumed father) to take the young Savior and
God and flee with him into Egypt, because "Herod the king sought to
destroy the young child's life," and had, in order to effect this end,
decreed the destruction of all the children under two years old. And
Joseph heeded the divine warning, and fled as directed. An angel and a
dream, then, it will be observed, were the instrumentalities used to
save the young Judean Savior from massacre.

And strange as it may seem, we find the same agencies had been
previously employed to effect the rescue of other Saviors likewise and
similarly threatened.

In the case of Chrishna of India, in particular, the similitude is very
striking in nearly every feature of the whole story.

In the first place there is the angel warning. In the Christian story we
are not specifically informed how the tyrant Herod first became apprised
of the birth of the Judean Savior. The Hindoo story is fuller, and
indicates that the angel was not only sufficiently thoughtful to warn
the parents to flee from a danger which threatened to dispossess them of
a divine child, and the world of a Savior, but was condescending enough
to apprise the tyrant ruler (Cansa) of his danger likewise--as we are
told he heard an angel voice announcing that a rival ruler was born in
his kingdom.

And hence, like Herod, he set about concocting measures to destroy him
without a direct attack. Why either of them should have taken such a
circuitous or roundabout way of killing an infant, when the life of the
strongest man, and every man in their kingdoms, was at their instant
disposal, "divine inspiration" does not inform us.

But so it was. And we must not seek to "become wise above what is
written" in their bibles. Herod's decree required the destruction of
all infants under two years of age (see Matt. ii. 16)--first ordering,
however, "Go, and search diligently for the young child." (Matt. ii. 8.)
Cansa's decree ran thus: "Let active search be made for whatever young
children there may be upon earth, and let every boy in whom there may be
found signs of unusual greatness be slain without remorse."

Now, let it be specially noticed that there is to this day in the
cave temple at Elephanta, in India, the sculptured likeness of a
king represented with a drawn sword, and surrounded with slaughtered
infants--admitted by all writers to be much older than Christianity. Mr
Forbes, in his "Oriental Memories," vol. iii. p. 447, says, "The figures
of the slaughtered infants in the cave of Elephanta represent them as
being all boys, who are surrounded by groups of figures of men and women
in the act, apparently, of supplicating for those children." And Mr.
Higgins testifies relative to the case, that Chrishna was carried away
by night, and concealed in a region remote from his natal place, for
fear of a tyrant whose destroyer it had been foretold he would become,
who, for that reason, had ordered all the male children born at that
time to be slain. Sculptures in Elephanta attest the story where the
tyrant is represented as destroying the children. The date of this
sculpture is of the most remote antiquity. "He who hath ears to hear,
let him hear," and deduce the pregnant inference. Joseph and Mary fled
with the young Judean God into Egypt; Chrishna's parents likewise fled
with the young Hindoo Savior to Gokul.

Now, let us observe for a moment the chain or category or resemblance.

1. There was an angel warning in each case relative to the impending
danger.

2. The governor or ruler was hostile in each case to the mission of the
young Savior.

3. A bloody decree was issued in both cases, having for its object the
destruction of these infant Messiahs.

4. The hurried flight of the parents takes place in each case.

5. And it may be remarked further, that the "Gospel of the Infancy of
Jesus," once believed by the Christian world to be "inspired," and which
for hundreds of years passed current as divine authority, relates that
Christ and his parents sojourned for a time at a place called Matarea,
or Mathura, as Sir William Jones spells it, who says it was the birth
place of Chrishna.

It is further related in the case of Chrishna, that as he and his
parents approached the River Jumna in their flight, the waters "parted
hither and thither," so that they passed over "dry shod," like Moses and
the Israelites in crossing the Red Sea. And here let it be noted that
the representation of this flight, which is said to have occurred at
midnight, is like that of the massacre perpetuated and attested by
imperishable monuments of stone bearing evidence of being now several
thousand years old.

Sir William Jones says:--

"The Indian incarnate God Chrishna, the Hindoos believe, had a virgin
mother of the royal race, who was sought to be destroyed in his infancy
about nine hundred years before Christ. It appears that he passed his
life in working miracles, and preaching, and was so humble as to wash
his friends' feet; at length, dying, but rising from the dead, he
ascended into heaven in the presence of a multitude." The Cingalese
relate nearly the same things of their "Budha." And several authors of
Egyptian history refer to a story perpetuated in the Egyptian legends
concerning the God Osiris, who was threatened with destruction by the
tyrant Amulius, to save whom his parents fled and concealed him in an
arm of the River Nile, as Christ was concealed in the same country, and,
for aught that appears to the contrary, in the same locality. The
mother of another and older Savior of Egypt fled by a timely warning to
Epidamis before the birth of the divine child, and was there delivered
of "our Lord and Savior," Horus. And the earthly or adopted father
of the Grecian Savior, and God, Alcides, had to flee with him and his
mother to Galem for protection from threatening danger.

In the ninth and tenth volumes of the "Asiatic Researches," we find the
story of the "only begotten" or "first begotten son of God," Salvahana,
of Cape Comorin, son of a virgin mother (as were all the other Saviors
referred to), and a carpenter by the name of Taishnea. (It will be
remembered that Joseph, "foster-father of Jesus," was a carpenter.) The
story of this "Son of God" presents several features very similar to
that relating to Jesus. Sir William Jones, Colonel Wilford, and the Rev.
Mr. Maurice all confess to the antiquity of this story, as originating
before the birth of Christ. Speaking of Zoroaster of Persia (another
case), 600 B. C., an author remarks, "Tradition reports that his mother
had alarming dreams of evil spirits seeking to destroy the child to whom
she was about to give birth. But a good spirit came to rescue him, and
consoled her by saying, 'Fear not; God Ormuzd will protect the infant,
who has sent him as a prophet to the people and the world who are
waiting for him."

China, too, presents us with a case of the threatened destruction of
a Savior in infancy, evidently recorded more than two thousand five
hundred years ago. It is the case of the God Yu, who was concealed in a
manner similar to that of Moses--a commemoration of the story of which
is perpetuated by an image or picture of the virgin mother with a babe
upon her knee--sometimes in her arms. Now, let it be noted that these
virgin-born Gods, who, we are told, came "to save the world," could not
save themselves, but had to be protected and saved by other Gods.

Without pursuing the subject further in detail, we may mention by way
of recapitulation, that Chrishna, Alcides, Zoraster, Salvahana, Yu, to
which list we may add Bacchus, Romulus, Moses and Cyrus, according to
their reputed history, were threatened with death and destruction, but
were providentially and miraculously preserved. The case of Augustus
is related by Suetonius, that of Romulus by Livy, and that of Cyrus by
Herodotus. It will be recollected that Pharaoh, like Herod, in order
to reach the infant Moses, ordered the massacre of all the male infants
(Herod making no distinction of sex), in order that he might, by this
singular and circuitous method, reach the object of his jealousy and
malignity without passing a direct sentence of death upon him.

The whole story of Herod's slaughter edict, with the familiar history
of its execution, like nearly every other miraculous incident related
in "The Holy Scriptures," which detail their histories, are traceable in
the skies. Herod, we are told, literally means hero of the skin--a term
applied also to Hercules, a personification of the sun--because the
sun, on entering the constellation of the Zodiac in July, was supposed
or assumed to invest himself with the skin of the lion, and this became
"the hero of the skin," or a hero with a new skin. Now this solar Herod,
passing through the astronomical twins and young infants of May, was
said to destroy them, though the word destroy is in the Greek anairean,
which any person, on turning to the Greek lexicon, will observe means
also to take away, pass through, or withdraw from, so that Pharaoh more
properly passed through the infants than destroyed them.

The text, "In Rama there was a voice heard," "Rachel weeping for her
children," etc., is quoted by a writer (Strauss) as referring to the
children slaughtered by Pharaoh. Let two things be noticed here: 1. Rama
is the Indian and Phoenician name for the zodiac. 2. Rachel had but two
children to weep for--Joseph and Benjamin--just the number found in the
fifth sign, or May sign, of the zodiac. And Venus, among the ancient
Assyrians and Phoenicians, was in tears when the sun, in his annual cross
through the heavens, passed through or over the astronomical Twins
(Gemini), doubtless fearfully apprehending their destruction.

The case of the massacre is an illustration and example of the manner in
which all the miraculous stories related in the Christian Scriptures,
as having been practically exemplified in the life of Jesus Christ, are
traceable to older sources, frequently terminating among the stars.


SECTION II.--INCREDIBILITY OF THE STORY OF THE MASSACRE OF THE HEBREW
INFANTS.

1. It is a cogent and potent fact, calculated to render the story of the
murder of the Hebrew children by Herod wholly incredible, that not
one writer of that age, or that nation, or any other nation, makes any
mention of the circumstance.

2. Even the Rabbinical writers who detail his wicked life so minutely,
and who bring to his charge so many flagitious acts, fail to record
any notice of this horrible and atrocious deed, which must have been
published far and wide, and known to all the writers of that age and
country, had it occurred.

3. And still more logically ruinous to the credit of the story is
the omission of Josephus to throw out one hint that such a wholesale
slaughter ever took place in Judea. And yet he not only lived in that
country, but was related to Herod's wife, and regarded him as his most
implacable enemy, and professes to write out the whole history of his
wicked life in the most minute detail, devoting thirty-seven chapters of
his large work to this subject, and apparently enumerates every evil
act of his life. And yet Josephus says not a word about his inhuman and
infamous butchery of the babes which Matthew charges him with (about
fourteen thousand in number)--a bloody deed, unmatched in the annals of
tyranny. Such facts prove the story not only incredible, but impossible.
Josephus could not and would not have omitted to notice this the most
notorious and nefarious act of his life, had it occurred. It, therefore,
could not have occurred. And it is almost equally incredible that
Roman historians, who furnish us with a particular account of Herod's
character, should pass over in silence such a villainous and bloody
deed.

4. And then some of our ablest and most reliable chronologists have
shown that Herod was not living at the time this bloody decree should
have been issued by him; that he died about three years prior to that
period, and hence could have been guilty of no such villainy, and
highhanded murder, and cruel infanticide.

5. And even if living, he would have been an old man (not less than
sixty-eight according to Josephus). Hence, he could not have calculated
on surviving long enough for the son of a village carpenter, then a
babe, to oust him from his throne.

6. It is wholly incredible, also, that Herod should have adopted such a
roundabout method of destroying the object of his fear and envy when he
could have singled him out, and put him to death at once, and thus avoid
the felonious act of breaking the hearts of thousands of parents, and
his most loyal subjects, too.

7. From the foregoing considerations, we endorse the sentiment of the
Rev. Edward Evanson, that it is "an incredible, borrowed fiction."




CHAPTER XIII. THE SAVIORS EXHIBIT EARLY PROOFS OF DIVINITY.

OF course, all Gods must be heroes--physically or intellectually, or
both. The more danger they encounter, and the earlier they manifest a
precocious or preternatural smartness, the more like Gods.

And hence we find several of the Saviors in very early childhood
displaying great physical prowess in meeting and conquering danger,
while others exhibit their superiority mentally by vanquishing their
opponents in argument. Christ first began to exhibit proof of his divine
character and greatness by meeting and silencing the doctors in the
temple when only about twelve years of age.

And similar proofs of divinity at or near this age is found in the
history of some of the pagan Saviors.

Of Christ it is declared, "There went out a fame of him through all the
region round about." (Luke iv. 14.) And of the Grecian Esculapius it
is likewise declared, "The voice of fame soon published the birth of a
miraculous child," and "the people flocked from all quarters to behold
him." Of Confucius of China it is declared, "His extensive knowledge
and great wisdom soon made him known, and kings were governed by his
counsels, and the people adored him wherever he went." And it is further
declared of this "Divine Man," that he seemed to arrive at reason and
the perfect use of his faculties almost from infancy. It is reported of
the God Chang-ti, that when questioned on the subject of government and
the duties of princes and rulers while yet a child, his answers were
such as to astonish the whole empire by his knowledge and wisdom.

It is related of a Grecian God that he demolished the serpents which
attempted to bite or destroy him while in his cradle. "The proof of
Osiris's divinity was a blaze of light shining around his cradle soon
after he was born. Relative to Pythagoras of the same country, we have
it upon the authority of a Christian writer, that he exhibited such a
remarkable character, even in youth, as to attract the attention of all
who saw and heard him speak." And the author further testifies of
him that he "never was at any time overcome with anger, laughter, or
perturbation of mind or precipitation of conduct." "His fame having
reached Miletus and neighboring cities," it is said by another writer,
"the people flocked to see and hear him, and he was reverenced by
multitudes."

Luke declares of Christ, that the people "were astonished at his
understanding and answers." (Luke ii. 47.) And the "Gospel of the
Infancy" tells us that his tutor Zacheas was astonished at his learning,
which reminds us of the statement found in "The Divine Word" of the
Hindoos (The Mahabarat), that the parents of the Savior Chrishna, in
making arrangements to give him an education, sent him to a learned
Brahmin as tutor, whom he instantly astonished with his vast learning,
and under whose tuition he mastered the whole circle of sciences in a
day and a night. "Men, seeing the wonders performed by this child, told
Nanda (his adopted father) that this could not possibly be his son."

It is told of Budha Sakia of India that, "as soon as he was born, a
light shone around his cradle, when he stood up and proclaimed his
mission, and that the River Ganges daring this time rose in a miraculous
manner, which was stilled by his divine power, as Christ stilled the
tempest on the sea." "He was born," says the New American Cyclopedia
(vol. iv. p. 61), "amidst great miracles, and soon as born, most
solemnly proclaims his mission."

Of Narayan, "the Holy," it is declared that "mysterious words dropped
from his lips on various occasions, giving hints of his divine nature
and the purposes for which he had come down to the earth." (Prog. Rel.
Ideas, vol. i. p. 128.) The divine power and mission of Yu of China was
very early evinced by the display of great miracles.

And here let us observe that some of the Old Testament or Jewish
heroes--as Moses, Solomon and Samuel--are reported as exhibiting great
superiority of mind in very early life; thus proving (it was thought)
that if they were not Gods, they were at least from God--that is,
endowed by him with divine power while yet mere children. Thus the
histories of all Gods and divine personages run in parallel grooves.




CHAPTER XIV. THE SAVIORS; KINGDOMS NOT OF THIS WORLD

Retirement and Forty Days' Fasting.

CHRIST taught, "My kingdom is not of this world."

And we find that most of the other Saviors virtually and practically
taught the same doctrine.

The first practical evincement of it was exhibited by retiring from the
world; that is, they retired from the noise and commotion, from the
busy scenes of life, into some sequestered spot excluded from human
observation. Christ is reported to have withdrawn from society, and to
have spent some forty days in the wilderness fasting and being tempted
by Satan--a man of straw conjured up in order to furnish the hero God
something to combat with, that he might thereby exhibit practical proof
of his divine power and prowess. It was simply the two kings or rulers
of two hostile kingdoms (heaven and hell) contending for the mastery.

Lord Kingsborough tells us, "The ancient Mexicans had a forty days' fast
in honor and memory of one of their demigods or Saviors, who was
tempted forty days on a mountain. He is called 'the Morning Star'." Mr.
Kingsborough (being a Christian) remarks, "These things are very curious
and mysterious."

It is said of "the Son of God" and Savior Chrishna that "he imparted
his doctrines and precepts in the silent depths of the forest." Of the
Egyptian God Osiris, we are informed in his sacred legends, that "he
observed both fasting and penance," while Pythagoras of Greece spent
several years in meditation and retirement in a cave, and was much given
to fasting, and often inculcated the doctrine of "forsaking the world"
and "the things thereof." He taught these things both by precept and
example, even to "the forsaking of relations." Both Confucius and the
Divine Savior Chang-ti of China, "in order to attain to a more perfect
state of holiness," spent several years in retirement and "divine
meditation," the former in a wilderness, the latter on a mountain, and
fasted, and their disciples after them often fasted in a very devout
manner. The Persian Zoroaster also spent several years in retirement and
"contemplation on true holiness"--partly in a wilderness and partly on a
"holy mountain," "holy mountains" being the favorite places of resort of
most of the holy Saviors, holy Gods, and holy men of antiquity. One of
the most ancient Saviors, Thammuz, is reported to have spent "twelve
years in devout and contemplative retirement from the busy world."
According to the Christian bible, Moses, Elijah, and Christ, each fasted
forty days, and a Mexican Savior, too (Quexalcote), spent forty days in
a similar manner, and other cases are so reported.

We may institute the inquiry here, "How happens this coincidence?"

The answer is indicated by "the Hierophant," which says, "Jesus in his
baptism and forty days' fast imitated the passage of the sun through the
constellation Aquarius, where John, Joannes, or Janus the baptizer had
his domicile, and baptized the earth with his yearly rains." Having been
baptized in Jordan, he fasted forty days in the wilderness, in imitation
of the passage of the sun from the constellation Aquarius through the
Fishes to the Lamb or Ram of March. During the forty days when the sun
is among the Fishes (in the sign of the Fish) the faithful Catholics,
Episcopalians and Mahommedans abstain from meat and live upon the fishes
during the season of Lent, as did the Jews and pagans, and did also
Jesus, "to fulfill all righteousness."




CHAPTER XV. THE SAVIORS WERE REAL PERSONAGES

IT is unwarrantably assumed by Christian writers that the incarnated
Gods and crucified Saviors of the pagan religions were all either mere
fabulous characters, or ordinary human beings invested with divine
titles, and divine attributes; while, on the other hand, the assumption
is put forth with equal boldness that Jesus Christ was a real divine
personage, "seen and believed on in the world, and finally crucified on
Mount Calvary."

But we do not find the facts in history to warrant any such assumptions
or any such distinctions. They all stand in these respects upon the same
ground and on equal footing.

And their respective disciples point to the same kind of evidence to
prove their real existence and their divine character, and to prove
that they once walked and talked amongst men, as well as now sit on the
eternal throne in heaven "at the right hand of the father." And we
find even Christian writers admitting the once _bona fide_ or personal
existence on earth of most of the pagan Saviors.

As to the two chief incarnated Gods of India--Chrishna and Sakia--there
is scarcely "a peg left to hang a doubt upon" as to the fact of their
having descended to the earth, taken upon themselves the form of men,
and having been worshiped as veritable Gods.

Indeed, we believe but few of the missionaries who have visited that
country question the statement and general belief prevalent there of
their once personal reality. Col. Todd, in his "History of the Rajahs"
(p. 44), says: "We must discard the idea that the Mahabaret, the
history of Rama, of Chrishna, and the five Padua brothers are mere
allegories; colossal figures, ancient temples, and caves inscribed
with characters yet unknown, confirm the reality, and their race, their
cities, and their coins yet exist." To argue further the personal reality
of this crucified God would be a waste of words, as it is generally
admitted, both by historical writers and missionaries.

Mr. Higgins declares, "Chrishna lived at the conclusion of the brazen
age, which is calculated to have been eleven hundred or twelve hundred
years before Christ." Here is a very positive and specific declaration
as to his tangible actuality. Col. Dow, Mr. Robinson, and others use
similar language.

Relative to Bacchus, of whose history many writers have spoken as being
wholly fabulous or fictitious, Diodorus Siculus says (lib. iii. p. 137),
"the Libyans claim Bacchus, and say that he was the son of Ammon, a
king of Libya; that he built a temple to his father, Ammon." And that
world-wide famous historian (Mr. Goodrich) is still more explicit, if
possible, as to his material entity. After giving it directly as his
opinion that there was such a being, he says, "He planted vine-yards and
fig-trees, and erected many noble cities." He moreover tells us, "His
skill in legislation and agriculture is much praised" (p. 499).

With respect to Osiris of Egypt, another God-Savior, Mr. Hittle declares
unqualifiedly that "Herodotus saw the tomb of Osiris, at Sais nearly
five centuries before Christ" (vol. i. p. 246). Rather a strong evidence
of his previous personality certainly, but not more so than that
furnished by the _New York Journal of Commerce_ a few years since,
relative to the Egyptian Apis or Thulis, whose theophany was annually
celebrated, at the rising of the Nile, with great festivities and
devotion, several thousand years ago. The Paris correspondent of
that journal, after speaking of Mr. Auguste Marietta's travels, "a
distinguished scientific gentleman who for four years past had been
employed by the French Government in making Egyptian researches," having
returned home, says, "The most important of Mr. Marietta's discoveries
was the tomb of Apis (Thulis), a monument excavated entirely in
lime-rock." "There are (he says in conclusion) epitaphs, forming a
chronological record of each of the Apis buried in the common tomb. The
sculpture is of the date of the Pyramids, and the statues are in
the best state of preservation; the colors are perfectly bright The
execution is admirable, and they convey an exact idea of the physical
character of the primitive population."

The New American Cyclopedia (art. Apis) in speaking of this Egyptian
God, tells us his lifetime was twenty-five years; in harmony with one of
the theologico-astronomical cycles of the Egyptians. The same work and
volume (p. 132), in speaking of the real existence of Adonis of Greece,
tells us, upon the authority of the poet Panyasis, that he was a
veritable son of Theias, king of Syria.

But of all the characters who figured in the mythological works or
lawless rhapsodies of the ancients, and worshiped by them as crucified
Gods and sin-atoning Saviors, none has, perhaps, been so indubitably, so
positively, and so universally set down as mythological or fabulous as
that of Prometheus of Caucasus.

And yet Mr. Lempriere, D. D., tells us in his Classical Dictionary that
he was the son of Japetus. Sir Isaac Newton says he was a descendant of
the famous African Sesostris; while that erudite and masterly historian
(Mr. Higgins) seems to have entertained no doubt of his personal esse;
nor, indeed, of many, if any, of the pagan Saviors, as the following
declaration will show. He says, "Finding men in India and other
countries of the same name of the inferior Gods (as it is quite common
to name men for them) has led some to conclude that those deified men
never existed, but are merely mythological names of the sun. True, the
first supreme God of every nation (not excepting the Jews) was the sun.
But more modernly the names were transferred to men." Again, he says,
"Inasmuch as some of them are found to have been real bona fide human
beings, there is nothing unreasonable in concluding that all were" And
if we take into consideration the true and indisputable fact that the
priests had everything at their disposal, and the strongest motives for
concealing and suppressing, not to say garbling and destroying evidence,
it is not to be wondered at that the histories of some of these Gods
should be somewhat obscure and ambiguous. Further on he declares, "In
every case the Savior was incarnate, and in nearly every case the place
in which he was actually born was exhibited to the people." And upon the
authority of the Hierophant, we will add, the memories of many of them
have been consecrated and perpetuated by tombs placed beside their
temples, which is perhaps the most convincing species of evidence that
could be offered.

The evidence, then, is precisely of the same character as that offered
in the case of Jesus Christ to prove that the pagan Saviors did really
possess a substantial, earthly and bodily existence. Though it is true
that it never has been universally conceded or believed by Christian
themselves that Jesus Christ ever had a personal or corporeal existence
on earth.

Cotilenius, in a note on Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, written in
the third century of the Christian era, declares that "it is as absurd
to deny the doctrine which taught that Jesus Christ's body was a phantom
as to deny that the sun shone at midday." His physical body of course
was meant, for it appears he believed in his eternal existence as a
spirit in heaven.

And we find whole sects advocating similar views in the early ages of
the Christian church. "One of the most primitive and learned sects,"
says a writer, "were the Manicheans, who denied that Jesus Christ ever
existed in flesh and blood, but believed him to be a God in spirit only;"
others denied him to be a God, but believed him to have been a prophet,
or inspired character, like the Unitarians of the present day. Some
denied his crucifixion, others asserted it. It is more than probable
that this was the cause of dispute between Paul and Barnabas, mentioned
in the Acts of the Apostles, seeing that Paul had laid such peculiar
emphasis on "Jesus Christ and him crucified."

And this conclusion is corroborated by its being expressly stated in the
Gospel of Barnabas that "Jesus Christ was not crucified, but was carried
to heaven by four angels." "There was a long list," says the same
writer, "from the earliest times, of sincere Christians who denied that
Jesus Christ rose from the dead;" while, as we may remark here, there
could not have been at that early date any grounds for denying these
things, had he really figured in the world in the miraculous and
extraordinary and public manner as that related in the Gospels.




CHAPTER XVI. SIXTEEN SAVIORS CRUCIFIED

"For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ
and him crucified." (i Cor. ii. 2.) There must have existed a very
considerable amount of skepticism in the community as to the truth of
the report of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the country and era of
its occurrence to make it necessary thus to erect it into an important
dogma, and make it imperative to believe it There must have been a large
margin for distrusting its truth.

The determination not to know anything but the crucifixion of Jesus
Christ was narrowing down his knowledge to rather a small compass.

And such a resolution would necessarily preclude him from acquainting
himself with the history of any other cases of crucifixion that might
have occurred before that of his own favorite Messiah. "What! Was
there ever a case of crucifixion beside that of Jesus Christ?" a good
Christian brother or sister sometimes exclaims, when the world's sixteen
crucified Saviors are spoken of.

We meet the question with the reply, You seem to be a disciple of
Paul, whose position would not allow him to know of any other cases of
crucifixion but that of Jesus Christ. Hence, he may have considered it
meritorious to perpetuate his ignorance on the subject And you, perhaps,
are ignorant from the same cause.

It is the nature of all religions based on fear and unchangeable dogmas,
to deter and thus exclude its disciples from all knowledge adverse
to their own creeds. And sometimes their own religious systems are
magnified to such an exalted appreciation above all others as to lead
them to destroy the evidence of the existence of the latter for fear of
their ultimate rivalry.

Mr. Taylor informs us that some of the early disciples of the Christian
faith demolished accessible monuments representing and memorializing the
crucifixion of the ancient oriental sin-atoning Gods, so that they are
now unknown in the annals of Christian history. Hence, the surprise
excited in the minds of Christian professors when other cases are
mentioned.

Such influences as referred to above have shut out from the minds of the
disciples of several religious systems a knowledge of all crucified Gods
but their own. Hence, the Hindoo rejoices in knowing only "Chrishna and
him crucified." The Persian entwines around his heart the remembrance
only of the atoning sufferings on the cross of Mithra the Mediator. The
Mexican daily sends up his earnest, soul-breathing prayer for the return
of the spirit of his crucified Savior--Quexalcote. While the Caucasian,
with equal devotion, chants daily praises to his slain "Divine
Intercessor" for voluntarily offering himself upon the cross for the
sins of a fallen race. And the Christian disciple hugs to his bosom
the bloody cross of the murdered Jesus, unhaunted by the suspicion that
other Gods died for the sins of man long anterior to the advent of the
immaculate Nazarene.

We will now lay before the reader a brief account of the crucifixion of
more than a dozen virgin-born Gods and sin-atoning Saviors, predicated
upon facts which have escaped the hands of the Christian iconoclasts
determined to know only Jesus Christ crucified. We will first notice the
case of the Indian God--Chrishna.


I.--CRUCIFIXION OF CHRISHNA OF INDIA, 1200 B. C.

Among the sin-atoning Gods who condescended in ancient times to forsake
the throne of heaven, and descend upon the plains of India, through
human birth, to suffer and die for the sins and transgressions of the
human race, the eighth Avatar, or Savior, may be considered the most
important and the most exalted character, as he led the most conspicuous
life, and commanded the most devout and the most universal homage. And
while some of the other incarnate demigods were invested with only a
limited measure of the infinite deityship, Chrishna, according to the
teachings of their New Testament (the Ramazand), comprehended in himself
"a full measure of the God-head bodily." The evidence of his having been
crucified is as conclusive as any other sacrificial or sin-atoning God,
whose name has been memorialized in history, or embalmed as a sacred
idol in the memories of his devout worshipers.

Mr. Moore, an English traveler and writer, in a large collection of
drawings taken from Hindoo sculptures and monuments, which he has
arranged together in a work entitled "The Hindoo Pantheon," has one
representing, suspended on the cross, the Hindoo crucified God and Son
of God, "our Lord and Savior" Chrishna, with holes pierced in his
feet, evidently intended to represent the nail-holes made by the act of
crucifixion. Mr. Higgins, who examined this work, which he found in the
British Museum, makes a report of a number of the transcript drawings
intended to represent the crucifixion of this oriental and mediatorial
God, which we will here condense. In plate ninety-eight this Savior is
represented with a hole in the top of one foot, just above the toes,
where the nail was inserted in the act of crucifixion.

In another drawing he is represented exactly in the form of a Romish
Christian crucifix, but not fixed or fastened to a tree, though the legs
and feet are arranged in the usual way, with nail-holes in the latter.
There is a halo of glory over it, emanating from the heavens above,
just as we have seen Jesus Christ represented in a work by a Christian
writer, entitled "Quarles' Emblems," also in other Christian books. In
several of the icons (drawings) there are marks of holes in both feet,
and in others of holes in the hands only. In the first drawing which
he consulted the marks are very faint, so as to be scarcely visible.
In figures four and five of plate eleven the figures have nail-holes in
both feet, while the hands are not represented. Figure six has on it the
representation of a round hole in the side. To his collar or shirt hangs
an emblem of a heart, represented in the same manner as those attached
to the imaginary likenesses of Jesus Christ, which may now be found in
some Christian countries Figure ninety-one has a hole in one foot and a
nail through the other, and a round nail or pin mark in one hand only,
while the other is ornamented with a dove and a serpent (both emblems of
deity in the Christian's bible).

Now, we raise the query here, and drive it into the innermost temple
of the Christian's conscience, with the overwhelming force of the
unconquerable logic of history--_What does all this mean?_

And if they will only let conviction have its perfect work while
answering this question unhampered by the inherited prejudices of
a thousand years, they can henceforth rejoice in the discovery of a
glorious historical truth, calculated to disenthrall their minds from
the soul-cramping superstitions of crosses, crucifixions and bloody
atonements on which they have been accustomed to hang the salvation of
the world.

If the credibility of the relation of these incidents going to prove
an astonishing coincidence in the sacred histories of the Hindoo and
Christian Saviors, and demonstrating the doctrine of the crucifixion
as having been practically realized, and preached to the world long
anterior to the offering of a God "once for all" on Mount Calvary;
if its credibility rested on mere _ex parte_ testimony, mere pagan
tradition, or even upon the best digested and most authentic annals of
the past that have escaped the ravages of time, there might still be a
forlorn hope for the stickler for the Christian faith now struggling
in the agonies of a credal skepticism, that the whole thing has been
plagiarized from the Christian Gospels. For paper and parchment history
can be--and has been--mutilated. But the verity of this account rests
upon no such a precarious basis. Its antiquity, reaching far beyond
the Christian era, is corroborated and demonstrated by imperishable
monuments, deep-chiseled indentures burrowed into the granite rock,
which bid defiance to the fingers of time, and even the hands of the
frenzied iconoclast, to destroy or deface, though impelled and spurred
on to the effort by the long-cherished conviction burning in his soul,
that the salvation of the human race depends upon believing that "there
is no other name given under heaven whereby men can be saved" than his
own crucified God, and that all others are but thieves, robbers and
antichrists. Some of the disciples of the oriental systems cherished
this conviction, and Christians and Mahommedans seem to have inherited
it in magnified proportions.

Hence, we are credibly informed that some of the earlier Christian
saints, having determined, like Paul, "to know only Jesus Christ and him
crucified," made repeated efforts to obliterate these sacred facts (so
fatally damaging to their one-sided creeds) from the page of history.
Mr. Higgins suggests that if we could have persons less under the
influence of sectarian prejudice to visit, examine, and report on
the sculptures and monuments of India, covered over as they are with
antiquated and significant figures appertaining to and illustrating
their religious history, we might accumulate still more light bearing
upon the history of the crucifixion of the Savior and sin-atoning
Chrishna. "Most of our reports," he declares, "are fragmentary, if not
one-sided, having come through the hands of Christian missionaries,
bishops and priests."

He informs us that a report on the Hindoo religion, made out by a
deputation from the British Parliament, sent to India for the purpose of
examining their sacred books and monuments, being left in the hands of
a Christian bishop at Calcutta, and with instructions to forward it
to England, was found, on its arrival in London, to be so horribly
mutilated and eviscerated as to be scarcely cognizable. The account of
the crucifixion was gone---cancelled out. The inference is patent.

And we have it upon the authority of this same reliable and truthful
writer (Sir Godfrey Higgins) that the author of the Hindoo Pantheon (Mr.
Moor), after having announced his intention to publish it to the world,
was visited and labored with by some of his devout Christian neighbors
zealous "for the faith once delivered to the saints," who endeavored to
dissuade him from publishing such facts to the world as he represented
his book to contain, for fear it would have the effect to unsettle
the faith of some of the weak brethren (some of the weak-kneed church
members) in the soul-saving religion of Jesus Christ, by raising
doubts in their minds as to the originality of the gospel story of the
crucifixion of Christ, or at least of his having been crucified as a God
for a sin-offering. His crucifixion is a possible event. It may be
thus far a true narrative, but the adjunct of the atonement, with its
efficacy to obliterate the effects of sin, connected with the idea that
an infinite, omnipotent and self-existent God was put to death, when a
human form was slain upon the cross--never, no, never. It is a thought
too monstrous to find lodgment in an enlightened human mind.

Another case evincing the same spirit as that narrated above is found in
the circumstance of a Christian missionary (a Mr. Maurice) publishing
a historical account of this man-god or demigod of the Hindoos, and
omitting any allusion to his crucifixion; this was entirely left out,
apparently from design. His death, resurrection and ascension were
spoken of, but the crucifixion skipped over. He could not have been
ignorant of this chapter in his history as the writers preceding him,
from whom he copied, had related it.

Among this number may be mentioned the learned French writer
Monsieur Guigniant, who, in his "Religion of the Ancients," speaks so
specifically of the crucifixion of this God, as to name the circumstance
of his being nailed to a tree. He also states, that before his exit he
made some remarkable prophecies appertaining to the crimes and miseries
of the world in the approaching future, reminding us of the wars and
rumors of wars predicted by the Christian Messiah. Mr. Higgins names the
same circumstance.

We have it upon the authority of more than one writer on Hindoo or
Indian antiquities that there is a rock temple at Mathura in the form
of a cross, and facing the four cardinal points of the compass, which
is admitted by all beholders as presenting the proof in bold relief of
extreme age, and inside of this temple stands a statue of "the Savior
of men," Chrishna of India, presenting the proof of being coeval in
construction with the temple itself by the circumstance of its being
cut out of the same rock and constituting a part of the temple. (Further
citations of this character will be found under the head of Parallels,
Chapter XXXII.)

Thus we have the proof deeply and indelibly carved in the old,
time-chiseled rocks of India--that their "Lord and Savior Chrishna"
atoned for the sins of a grief-stricken world by "pouring out his blood
as a propitiatory offering" while stretched upon the cross. No wonder,
in view of such historic bulwarks, Col. Wiseman, for ten years a
Christian missionary should have exclaimed, "Can we be surprised that
the enemies of our holy religion should seize upon this legend (the
crucifixion of Chrishna) as containing the original of our gospel
history?"

Christian reader, please ponder over the facts of this chapter, and let
conviction have its perfect work.


LIFE, CHARACTER, RELIGION, AND MIRACLES OF CHRISHNA.

The history of Chrishna Zeus (or Jeseus, as some writers spell it) is
contained principally in the Baghavat Gita, the episode portion of the
Mahabaret bible. The book is believed to be divinely inspired, like all
other bibles; and the Hindoos claim for it an antiquity of six thousand
years. Like Christ, he was of humble origin, and like him had to
encounter opposition and persecution.

But he seems to have been more successful in the propagation of his
doctrines; for it is declared, "he soon became surrounded by many
earnest followers, and the people in vast multitudes followed him,
crying aloud, 'This is indeed the Redeemer promised to our fathers.'"
His pathway was thickly strewn with miracles, which consisted in healing
the sick, curing lepers, restoring the dumb, deaf and the blind, raising
the dead, aiding the weak, comforting the sorrow-stricken, relieving the
oppressed, casting out devils, etc. He come not ostensibly to destroy
the previous relgion, but to purify it of its impurities, and to preach
a better doctrine. He came, as he declared, "to reject evil and restore
the reign of good, and redeem man from the consequences of the fall,
and deliver the oppressed earth from its load of sin and suffering." His
disciples believed him to be God himself, and millions worshiped him as
such in the time of Alexander the Great, 330 B. C.

The hundreds of counterparts to the history of Christ, proving their
histories to be almost identical, will be found enumerated in Chapter
XXXII., such as--1. His miraculous birth by a virgin. 2. The mother and
child being visited by shepherds, wise men and the angelic host, who
joyously sang, "In thy delivery, O favored among women, all nations
shall have cause to exult." 3. The edict of the tyrant ruler Cansa,
ordering all the first born to be put to death. 4. The miraculous escape
of the mother and child from his bloody decree by the parting of the
waves of the River Jumna to permit them to pass through on dry ground.
5. The early retirement of Chrishna to a desert. 6. His baptism or
ablution in the River Ganges, corresponding to Christ's baptism in
Jordan. 7. His transfiguration at Madura, where he assured his disciples
that "present or absent, I will always be with you." 8. He had a
favorite disciple (Arjoon), who was his bosom friend, as John was
Christ's. 9. He was anointed with oil by women, like Christ. 10. A
somewhat similar fish story is told of him--his disciples being enabled
by him to catch large draughts of the finny prey in their nets. (For
three hundred other similar parallels, see Chapter XXXII.)

Like Christ, he taught much by parables and precepts. A notable sermon
preached by him is also reported, which we have not space for here.

On one occasion, having returned from a ministerial journey, as he
entered Madura, the people came out in crowds to meet him, strewing the
ground with the branches of cocoa-nut trees, and desiring to hear him.
He addressed them in parables--the conclusion and moral of one of which,
called the parable of the fishes, runs thus: "And thus it is, O people
of Madura, that you ought to protect the weak and each other, and not
retaliate upon an enemy the wrongs he may have done you." Here we see
the peace doctrine preached in its purity. "And thus it was," says a
writer, "that Chrishna spread among the people the holy doctrines of
purest morality, and initiated his hearers into the exalted principles
of charity, of self-denial, and self-respect at a time when the desert
countries of the west were inhabited only by savage tribes;" and we
will add, long before Christianity was thought of. Purity of life
and spiritual insight, we are told, were distinguishing traits in the
character of this oriental sin-atoning Savior, and that "he was often
moved with compassion for the downtrodden and the suffering."

A Budhist in Ceylon, who sent his son to a Christian school, once
remarked to a missionary, "I respect Christianity as a help to Budhism."
Thus is disclosed the fact that the motives of some of "the heathen"
in sending to Christian schools is the promotion of their own religion,
which they consider superior, and in many respects most of them are.
(For proof, see Chapter on Bibles.)

We have the remarkable admission of the _Christian Examiner_ that "the
best precepts of the (Christian) bible are contained in the Hindoo
Baghavat." Then it is not true that "Christ spake as man never spake."
And if his "best precepts" were previously recorded in an old heathen
bible, then they afford no proof of his divinity. This suicidal
concession of the _Examiner_ pulls up the claims of orthodox
Christianity by the roots.

And many of the precepts uttered by Chrishna display a profound wisdom
and depth of thought equal to any of those attributed to Jesus Christ.
In proof of the statement, we will cite a few examples out of the
hundreds in our possession:--

1. Those who do not control their passions cannot act properly toward
others.

2. The evils we inflict upon others follow us as our shadows follow our
bodies.

3. Only the humble are beloved of God.

4. Virtue sustains the soul as the muscles sustain the body.

5. When the poor man knocks at your door, take him and administer to
his wants, for the poor are the chosen of God. (Christ said, "God hath
chosen the poor.")

6. Let your hand be always open to the unfortunate.

7. Look not upon a woman with unchaste desires.

8. Avoid envy, covetousness, falsehood, imposture and slander, and
sexual desires.

9. Above all things, cultivate love for your neighbor.

10. When you die you leave your worldly wealth behind you, but your
virtues and vices follow you.

11. Contemn riches and worldly honor.

12. Seek the company of the wicked in order to reform them.

13. Do good for its own sake, and expect not your reward for it on
earth.

14. The soul is immortal, but must be pure and free from all sin and
stain before it can return to Him who gave it.

15. The soul is inclined to good when it follows the inward light.

16. The soul is responsible to God for its actions, who has established
rewards and punishments.

17. Cultivate that inward knowledge which teaches what is right and
wrong.

18. Never take delight in another's misfortunes.

19. It is better to forgive an injury than to avenge it

20. You can accomplish by kindness what you cannot by force.

21. A noble spirit finds a cure for injustice by forgetting it.

22. Pardon the offense of others, but not your own.

23. What you blame in others do not practice yourself.

24. By forgiving an enemy you make many friends.

25. Do right from hatred of evil, and not from fear of punishment.

26. A wise man corrects his own errors by observing those of others.

27. He who rules his temper conquers his greatest enemy.

28. The wise man governs his passions, but the fool obeys them.

29. Be at war with men's vices, but at peace with their persons.

30. There should be no disagreement between your lives and your
doctrine.

31. Spend every day as though it were the last.

32. Lead not one life in public and another in private.

33. Anger in trying to torture others punishes itself.

34. A disgraceful death is honorable when you die in a good cause.

35. By growing familiar with vices, we learn to tolerate them easily.

36. We must master our evil propensities, or they will master us.

37. He who has conquered his propensities rules over a kingdom.

38. Protect, love and assist others, if you would serve God.

39. From thought springs the will, and from the will action, true or
false, just or unjust.

40. As the sandal tree perfumes the axe which fells it, so the good man
sheds fragrance on his enemies.

41. Spend a portion of each day in pious devotion.

42. To love the virtues of others is to brighten your own.

43. He who gives to the needy loses nothing himself.

44. A good, wise and benevolent man cannot be rich.

45. Much riches is a curse to the possessor.

46. The wounds of the soul are more important than those of the body.

47. The virtuous man is like the banyan tree, which shelters and
protects all around it.

48. Money does not satisfy the love of gain, but only stimulates it.

49. Your greatest enemy is in your own bosom.

50. To flee when charged is to confess your guilt.

51. The wounds of conscience leave a scar.

Compare these fifty-one precepts of Chrishna with the forty-two precepts
of Christ, and you must confess they suffer nothing by the comparison.
If we had space we would like to quote also from the Vedas. We will
merely cite a few examples relative to woman.

1. He who is cursed by woman is cursed by God.

2. God will punish him who laughs at woman's sufferings.

3. When woman is honored, God is honored.

4. The virtuous woman will have but one husband, and the right-minded
man but one wife.

5. It is the highest crime to take advantage of the weakness of woman.

6. Woman should be loved, respected and protected by husbands, fathers
and brothers, etc. (For more, see Chapter on Bibles.)

Before we close this chapter we must anticipate and answer an objection.
It will be said that the reported amours of Chrishna and his reencounter
with Cansa constitute a criticism on his character. If so, we will point
to Christ's fight or angry combat with the money-changers in the temple
as an offset to it And then it should be remembered that Chrishna's
disciples claim that these stories are mere fable, or allegorical, and
are not found in the most approved or canonical writings.


II.--CRUCIFIXION OF THE HINDOO SAKIA, 600 B. C.

How many Gods who figured in Hindoo history suffered death upon the
cross as atoning offerings for the sins of mankind is a point not
clearly established by their sacred books. But the death of the God
above named, known as Sakia, Budha Sakia, or Sakia Muni, is distinctly
referred to by several writers, both oriental and Christian, though
there appears to be in Budhist countries different accounts of the death
of the famous and extensively worshiped sin-atoning Saviors.

In some countries, the story runs, a God was crucified by an arrow being
driven through his body, which fastened him to a tree; the tree,
with the arrow thus projecting at right angles, formed the cross,
emblematical of the atoning sacrifice.

Sakia, an account states, was crucified by his enemies for the humble
act of plucking a flower in a garden--doubtless seized on as a mere
pretext, rather than as being considered a crime.

One of the accusations brought against Christ, it will be remembered,
was that of plucking the ripened ears of corn on the Sabbath. And it is
a remarkable circumstance, that in the pictures of Christian countries
representing the virgin Mary with the infant Jesus in her arms, either
the child or the mother is frequently represented with a bunch of
flowers in the hand.

Here, let it be noted, the association of flowers with divinely born
Saviors, in India, is indicated in the religious books of that country
to have originated from the conception of the virgin parting with the
flowers of her virginity by giving birth to a divine child, whereby she
lost the immortality of her physical nature, it being transferred by
that act to her Deity-begotten son. And from this circumstance, Sakia
is represented as having been crucified for abstracting a flower from a
garden. That his crucifixion was designed as a sin-atoning offering, is
evident from the following declaration found in his sacred biography,
viz.: "He in mercy left Paradise, and came down to earth because he was
filled with compassion for the sins and miseries of mankind. He sought
to lead them into better paths, and took their sufferings upon himself
that he might expiate their crimes and mitigate the punishment they must
otherwise inevitably undergo." (Prog. Rel. Ideas, vol. i. p. 86.)

He believed and taught his followers that all sin is inevitably
punished, either in this or the future life; and so great were his
sympathy and tenderness, that he condescended to suffer that punishment
himself, by an ignominious death upon the cross, after which he
descended into Hades (Hell), to suffer for a time (three days) for the
inmates of that dreadful and horrible prison, that he might show he
sympathized with them. After his resurrection, and before his ascension
to heaven, as well as during his earthly sojourn, he imparted to the
world some beautiful, lofty, and soul-elevating precepts.

"The object of his mission," says a writer, "was to instruct those who
were straying from the right path, and expiate the sins of mortals by
his own suffering, and procure for them a happy entrance into Paradise
by obedience to his precepts and prayers to his name." (Ibid.) "His
followers always speak of him as one with God from all eternity."
(Ibid.) His most common title was "the Savior of the World." He was also
called "the Benevolent One," "the Dispenser of Grace," "the Source of
Life," "the Light of the World," "the True Light," etc.

His mother was a very pure, refined, pious and devout woman; never
indulged in any impure thoughts, words or actions. She was so much
esteemed for her virtues and for being the mother of a God, that an
escort of ladies attended her wherever she went. The trees bowed before
her as she passed through the forest, and flowers sprang up wherever her
foot pressed the ground. She was saluted as "the Holy Virgin, Queen of
Heaven."

It is said that when her divine child was born, he stood upright and
proclaimed, "I will put an end to the sufferings and sorrows of the
world." And immediately a light shone around about the young Messiah. He
spent much time in retirement, and like Christ in another respect, was
once tempted by a demon who offered him all the honors and wealth of the
world. But he rebuked the devil, saying, "Be gone; hinder me not."

He began, like Christ, to preach his gospel and heal the sick when about
twenty-eight years of age. And it is declared, "the blind saw, the deaf
heard, the dumb spoke, the lame danced and the crooked became straight."
Hence, the people declared, "He is no mortal child, but an incarnation
of the Deity." His religion was of a very superior character. He
proclaimed, "My law is a law of grace for all." His religion knew no
race, no sex, no caste, and no aristocratic priesthood.

"It taught," says Max Muller, "the equality of all men, and the
brotherhood of the human race." "All men, without regard to rank, birth
or nation," says Dunckar, "form, according to Budha's view, one great
suffering association in this earthly vale of tears; therefore,
the commandments of love, forbearance, patience, compassion, pity,
brotherliness of all men." Klaproth (a German professor of oriental
languages) says this religion is calculated to ennoble the human race.
"It is difficult to comprehend," says a French writer (M. Leboulay),
"how men, not assisted by revelation, could have soared so high, and
approached so near the truth."

Dunckar says this oriental God "taught self-denial, chastity,
temperance, the control of the passions, to bear injustice from others,
to suffer death quietly, and without hate of your persecutor, to
grieve not for one's own misfortunes, but for those of others." An
investigation of their history will show that that they lived up to
these moral injunctions. "Besides the five great commandments," says a
Wesleyan missionary (Spense Hardy) in his Dahmma Padam, "every shade
of vice, hypocrisy, anger, pride, suspicion, greediness, gossiping, and
cruelty to animals is guarded against by special precepts. Among the
virtues, recommended, we find not only reverence for parents, care for
children, submission to authority, gratitude, moderation in all things,
submission in time of trial, equanimity at all times, but virtues,
unknown in some systems of morality, such as the duty of forgiving
injuries, and not rewarding evil for evil." And we will add, both
charity and love are specially recommended.

We have it also upon the authority of Dunckar that "Budha proclaimed
that salvation and redemption have come for all, even the lowest
and most abject classes." For he broke down the iron caste of the
Brahminical code which had so long ruled India, and aimed to place all
mankind upon a level. His followers have been stigmatize! by Christian
professors as "idolaters." But Sir John Bowling, in his "Kingdom and
People of Siam," denies that they are idolaters--"because," says he, "no
Budhist believes his image to be God, or anything more than an outward
representation of Deity." Their deific images are looked upon with the
same views and feelings as a Christian venerates the photograph of his
deceased friend. Hence, if one is an idolater, the other is also. With
respect to the charge of polytheism, Missionary Hue says, "that although
their religion embraces many inferior deities, who fill the same
offices that angels do under the Christian system, yet,"--adds M.
Hue--"monotheism is the real character of Buddhism;" and confirms the
statement by the testimony of a Thibetan.

It should be noted here that although Budhism succeeded in converting
about three hundred millions, or one-third of the inhabitants of the
globe, it was never propagated by the sword, and never persecuted the
disciples of other religions. Its conquests were made by a rational
appeal to the human mind. Mr. Hodgson says, "It recognizes the infinite
capacity of the human intellect." And St. Hilaire declares, "Love for
all beings is its nucleus; and to love our enemies, and not prosecute,
are the virtues of this people." Max Muller says, "Its moral code, taken
by itself, is one of the most perfect the world has ever known."

Its five commandments are:--

1. Thou shalt not kill.

2. Thou shalt not steal.

3. Thou shalt not commit adultery or any impurity.

4. Thou shall not lie.

5. Thou shalt not intoxicate thyself.

To establish the above cited doctrines and precepts, Budha sent forth
his disciples into the world to preach his gospel to every creature. And
if any convert had committed a sin in word, thought or deed, he was to
confess and repent. One of the tracts which they distributed declares,
"There is undoubtedly a life after this, in which the virtuous may
expect the reward of their good deeds.... Judgment takes place
immediately after death."

Budha and his followers set an example to the world of enduring
opposition and persecution with great patience and non-resistance. And
some of them suffered martyrdom rather than abandon their principles,
and gloried in thus sealing their doctrines with their lives.

A story is told of a rich merchant by the name of Purna, forsaking all
to follow his lord and master; and also of his encountering and talking
with a woman of low caste at a well, which reminds us of similar
incidents in the history of Christ. But his enemies, becoming jealous
and fearful of his growing power, finally crucified him near the foot
of the Nepaul mountains, about 600 B. C. But after his death, burial and
resurrection, we are told he ascended back to heaven, where millions of
his followers believed he had existed with Brahma from all eternity.

[Note.--In the cases of crucifixion which follow, nothing like accuracy
can be expected with respect to the dates of their occurrence, as all
history covering the period beyond the modern era, or prior to the
time of Alexander the Great (330 B. C.) is involved in a labyrinth of
uncertainty with respect to dates. Hence, bible chronologists differ
to the extent of three thousand years with respect to the time of every
event recorded in the Old Testament. Compare the Hebrew and Septuagint
versions of the bible: The former makes the world three thousand nine
hundred and forty four, and the latter five thousand two hundred and
seventy years old at the birth of Christ--a difference of thirteen
hundred and twenty-six years. And other translations differ still more
widely. All the cases of crucifixion which follow occurred before the
time of Christ, but the exact time of many of them cannot be fixed with
certainty. ]


III.--THAMMUZ OF SYRIA CRUCIFIED, 1160 B. C.

The history of this God is furnished us in fragments by several writers,
portions of which will be found in other chapters of this work. The
fullest history extant of this God-Savior is probably that of Ctesias
(400 B. C.), author of "Persika." The poet has perpetuated his memory in
rhyme.

     "Trust, ye saints, your Lord restored,
     Trust ye in your risen Lord;
     For the pains which Thammuz endured
     Our salvation have procured."

Mr. Higgins informs us (Anac. vol. i. p. 246) that this God was
crucified at the period above named, as a sin-atoning offering The
stanza just quoted is predicated upon the following Greek text,
translated by Godwin: "Trust ye in God, for out of his loins salvation
has come unto us." Julius Firmicus speaks of this God "rising from the
dead for the salvation of the world." The Christian writer Parkhurst
alludes to this Savior as preceding the advent of Christ, and as filling
to some extent the same chapter in sacred history.


IV.--CRUCIFIXION OF WITTOBA OF THE TELINGONESS, 552 B. C.

We have a very conclusive historical proof of the crucifixion of this
heathen God. Mr. Higgins tells us, "He is represented in his history
with nail-holes in his hands and the soles of his feet." Nails, hammers
and pincers are constantly seen represented on his crucifixes, and are
objects of adoration among his followers. And the iron crown of Lombardy
has within it a nail of what is claimed as his true original cross,
and is much admired and venerated on that account. The worship of
this crucified God, according to our author, prevails chiefly in the
Travancore and other southern countries in the region of Madura.


V.--IAO OF NEPAUL CRUCIFIED, 622 B. C.

With respect to the crucifixion of this ancient Savior, we have this
very definite and specific testimony that "he was crucified on a tree
in Nepaul." (See Georgius, p. 202.) The name of this incarnate God and
oriental Savior occurs frequently in the holy bibles and sacred books of
other countries. Some suppose that lao (often spelt Jao) is the root of
the name of the Jewish God Jehovah.


VI.--HESUS OF THE CELTIC DRUIDS CRUCIFIED, 834 B. C.

Mr. Higgins informs us that the Celtic Druids represent their God Hesus
as having been crucified with a lamb on one side and an elephant on the
other, and that this occurred long before the Christian era. Also that a
representation of it may now be seen upon "the fire-tower of Brechin."

In this symbolical representation of the crucifixion, the elephant,
being the largest animal known, was chosen to represent the magnitude
of the sins of the world, while the lamb, from its proverbial innocent
nature, was chosen to represent the innocency of the victim (the God
offered as a propitiatory sacrifice). And thus we have "the Lamb of
God taking away the sins of the world"--symbolical language used with
respect to the offering of Jesus Christ. And here is indicated very
clearly the origin of the figure. It is evidently borrowed from the
Druids. We have the statement of the above writer that this legend was
found amongst the Canutes of Gaul long before Jesus Christ was known to
history. (See Anac. vol. ii. p. 130.)


VII.--QUEXALCOTE OF MEXICO CRUCIFIED, 587 B. C.

Historical authority, relative to the crucifixion of this Mexican God,
and to his execution upon the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice for the
sins of mankind, is explicit, unequivocal and ineffaceable. The evidence
is tangible, and indelibly engraven upon steel and metal plates. One
of these plates represents him as having been crucified on a mountain;
another represents him as having been crucified in the heavens, as St.
Justin tells us Christ was. According to another writer, he is sometimes
represented as having been nailed to a cross, and by other accounts as
hanging with a cross in his hand. The "Mexican Antiquities" (vol. vi.
p. 166) says, "Quexalcote is represented in the paintings of 'Codex
Borgianus' as nailed to the cross." Sometimes two thieves are
represented as having been crucified with him.

That the advent of this crucified Savior and Mexican God was long
anterior to the era of Christ, is admitted by Christian writers, as we
have shown elsewhere. In the work above named "Codex Borgianus," may
be found the account, not only of his crucifixion, but of his death,
burial, descent into hell, and resurrection on the third day. And
another work, entitled "Codex Vaticanus," contains the story of his
immaculate birth by a virgin mother by the name of Chimalman.

Many other incidences are found related of him in his sacred biography,
in which we find the most striking counterparts to the more modern
gospel story of Jesus Christ, such as his forty days' temptation and
fasting, his riding on an ass, his purification in the temple, his
baptism and regeneration by water, his forgiving of sins, being anointed
with oil, etc. "All these things, and many more, found related of this
Mexican God in their sacred books," says Lord Kingsborough (a Christian
writer), "are curious and mysterious." (See the books above cited.)


VIII.--QUIRINUS OF ROME CRUCIFIED, 506 B. C.

The crucifixion of this Roman Savior is briefly noticed by Mr. Higgins,
and is remarkable for presenting (like other crucified Gods) several
parallel features to that of the Judean Savior, not only in the
circumstances related as attending his crucifixion, but also in a
considerable portion of his antecedent life.

He is represented, like Christ:--

1. As having been conceived and brought forth by a virgin.

2. His life was sought by the reigning king (Amulius),

3. He was of royal blood, his mother being of kingly descent.

4. He was "put to death by wicked hands"--i. e., crucified.

5. At his mortal exit the whole earth is said to have been enveloped in
darkness, as in the case of Christ, Chrishna, and Prometheus.

6. And finally he is resurrected, and ascends back to heaven.


IX.--(AESCHYLUS) PROMETHEUS CRUCIFIED, 547 B. C.

In the account of the crucifixion of Prometheus of Caucasus, as
furnished by Seneca, Hesiod, and other writers, it is stated that he was
nailed to an upright beam of timber, to which were affixed extended arms
of wood, and that this cross was situated near the Caspian Straits. The
modern story of this crucified God, which represents him as having been
bound to a rock for thirty years, while vultures preyed upon his vitals,
Mr. Higgins pronounces an impious Christian fraud. "For," says this
learned historical writer, "I have seen the account which declares
he was nailed to a cross with hammer and nails." (Anac. vol. i. 327.)
Confirmatory of this statement is the declaration of Mr. Southwell, that
"he exposed himself to the wrath of God in his zeal to save mankind."

The poet, in portraying his propitiatory offering, says

     "Lo! streaming from the fatal tree
     His all atoning blood,
     Is this the Infinite?--
     Yes, 'tis he,
     Prometheus, and a God!

     "Well might the sun in darkness hide,
     And veil his glories in,
     When God, the great Prometheus, died
     For man the creature's sin."

The "New American Cyclopedia" (vol. i. p. 157) contains the following
significant declaration relative to this sin-atoning oriental Savior:
"It is doubtful whether there is to be found in the whole range of Greek
letters deeper pathos than that of the divine woe of the beneficent
demigod Prometheus, crucified on his Scythian crags for his love to
mortals." Here we have first-class authority for the crucifixion of this
oriental God.

In Lempriere's "Classical Dictionary," Higgins' "Anacalypsis," and other
works, may be found the following particulars relative to the final exit
of the God above named, viz.:--

1. That the whole frame of nature became convulsed.

2. The earth shook, the rocks were rent, the graves were opened, and in
a storm, which seemed to threaten the dissolution of the universe, the
solemn scene forever closed, and "Our Lord and Savior" Prometheus gave
up the ghost.

"The cause for which he suffered," says Mr. Southwell, "was his love for
the human race." Mr. Taylor makes the statement in his Syntagma (p. 95),
that the whole story of Prometheus' crucifixion, burial and resurrection
was acted in pantomime in Athens five hundred years before Christ, which
proves its great antiquity. Minutius Felix, one of the most popular
Christian writers of the second century (in his "Octavius," sect. 29),
thus addresses the people of Rome: "Your victorious trophies not only
represent a simple cross, but a cross with a man on it," and this man
St. Jerome calls a God.

These coincidences furnish still further proof that the tradition of the
crucifixion of Gods has been very long prevalent among the heathen.


X.--CRUCIFIXION OF THULIS OF EGYPT, 1700 B. C.

Thulis of Egypt, whence comes "Ultima Thule," died the death of the
cross about thirty-five hundred years ago.

Ultima Thule was the island which marked the ultimate bounds of the
extensive empire of this legitimate descendant of the Gods.

This Egyptian Savior appears also to have been known as Zulis, and with
this name--Mr. Wilkison tells us--"his history is curiously illustrated
in the sculptures, made seventeen hundred years B. C., of a small,
retired chamber lying nearly over the western adytum of the temple-" We
are told twenty-eight lotus plants near his grave indicate the number
of years he lived on the earth. After suffering a violent death, he
was buried, but rose again, ascended into heaven, and there became "the
judge of the dead," or of souls in a future state. Wilkison says he came
down from heaven to benefit mankind, and that he was said to be "full of
grace and truth."


XI.--CRUCIFIXION OF INDRA OF THIBET, 725 B. C.

The account of the crucifixion of the God and Savior Indra may be found
in Georgius, Thibetinum Alphabetum, p. 230. A brief notice of the case
is all we have space for here. In the work just referred to may be found
plates representing this Thibetan Savior as having been nailed to
the cross. There are five wounds, representing the nailholes and the
piercing of the side. The antiquity of the story is beyond dispute.

Marvelous stories are told of the birth of the Divine Redeemer. His
mother was a virgin of black complexion, and hence his complexion was
of the ebony hue, as in the case of Christ and some other sin-atoning
Saviors. He descended from heaven on a mission of benevolence, and
ascended back to the heavenly mansion after his crucifixion. He led
a life of strict celibacy, which, he taught, was essential to true
holiness. He inculcated great tenderness toward all living beings. He
could walk upon the water or upon the air; he could foretell future
events with great accuracy. He practiced the most devout contemplation,
severe discipline of the body and mind, and acquired the most complete
subjection of his passions. He was worshiped as a God who had existed
as a spirit from all eternity, and his followers were called "Heavenly
Teachers."


XII.--ALCESTOS OF EURIPIDES CRUCIFIED, 600 B. C.

The "English Classical Journal" (vol. xxxvii.) furnishes us with the
story of another crucified God, known as Alcestos--a female God or
Goddess; and in this respect, it is a novelty in sacred history, being
the first, if not the only example of a feminine God atoning for the
sins of the world upon the cross. The doctrine of the trinity and
atoning offering for sin was inculcated as a part of her religion.


XIII.--ATYS OF PHRYGIA CRUCIFIED, 1170 B. C.

Speaking of this crucified Messiah, the Anacalypsis informs us that
several histories are given of him, but all concur in representing
him as having been an atoning offering for sin. And the Latin phrase
"suspensus lingo," found in his history, indicates the manner of his
death. He was suspended on a tree, crucified, buried and rose again.


XIV.--CRITE OF CHALDEA CRUCIFIED, 1200 B. C.

The Chaldeans, as Mr. Higgins informs us, have noted in their sacred
books the account of the crucifixion of a God with the above name. He
was also known as "the Redeemer," and was styled "the Ever Blessed Son
of God," "the Savior of the Race," "the Atoning Offering for an Angry
God." And when he was offered up, both heaven and earth were shaken to
their foundations.


XV.--BALI OF ORISSA CRUCIFIED, 725 B. C.

We learn by the oriental books, that in the district of country known
as Orissa, in Asia, they have the story of a crucified God, known by
several names, including the above, all of which, we are told, signify
"Lord Second," having reference to him as the second person or second
member of the trinity, as most of the crucified Gods occupied that
position in the trial of deities constituting the trinity, as indicated
by the language "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," the Son, in all cases,
being the atoning offering, "the crucified Redeemer," and the second
person of the trinity. This God Bali was also called Baliu, and
sometimes Bel. The Anacalypsis informs us (vol. i. 257) that monuments
of this crucified God, bearing great age, may be found amid the ruins
of the magnificent city of Mahabalipore, partially buried amongst the
figures of the temple.


XVI.--MITHRA OF PERSIA CRUCIFIED, 600 B. C.

This Persian God, according to Mr. Higgins, was "slain upon the cross to
make atonement for mankind, and to take away the sins of the world." He
was reputedly born on the twenty-fifth day of December, and crucified on
a tree. It is a remarkable circumstance that two Christian writers (Mr.
Faber and Mr. Bryant) both speak of his "being slain," and yet both omit
to speak of the manner in which he was put to death. And the same policy
has been pursued with respect to other crucified Gods of the pagans, as
we have shown elsewhere.

Our list is full, or we might note other cases of crucifixion. Devatat
of Siam, Ixion of Rome, Apollonius of Tyana in Cappadocia, are all
reported in history as having "died the death of the cross."

Ixion, 400 B. C., according to Nimrod, was crucified on a wheel, the
rim representing the world, and the spokes constituting the cross. It is
declared, "He bore the burden of the world" (that is, "the sins of
the world") on his back while suspended on the cross. Hence, he was
sometimes called "the crucified spirit of the world."

With respect to Apollonius, it is a remarkable, if not a suspicious
circumstance that should not be passed unnoticed, that several Christian
writers, while they recount a long list of miracles and remarkable
incidents in the life of this Cappadocian Savior, extending through his
whole life, and forming a parallel to similar incidents of the Christian
Savior, not a word is said about his crucifixion.

And a similar policy has been pursued with respect to Mithra and other
sin-atoning Gods, including Chrishna and Prometheus, as before noticed.

This important chapter in their history has been omitted by Christian
writers for fear the relation of it would damage the credibility of the
crucifixion of Christ, or lessen its spiritual force. For, like
Paul, they were "determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and
him crucified" (i Cor. ii. 2) i. e., to _know_ no other God had been
crucified but _Jesus Christ_. They thus exalted the tradition of the
crucifixion into the most important dogma of the Christian faith. Hence,
their efforts to conceal from the public a knowledge of the fact that it
is of pagan origin.

By reference to Mackey's "Lexicon of Freemasonry" (p. 35) we learn that
Freemasons secretly taught the doctrine of the crucifixion, atonement
and resurrection long anterior to the Christian era, and that similar
doctrines were taught in "all the ancient mysteries," thus proving that
the conception of these tenets of faith existed at a very early period
of time.

And it may be noted here, that the doctrine of salvation by crucifixion
had likewise, with most of the ancient forms of religious faith, an
astronomical representation--i. e., a representation in astronomical
symbols. According to the emblematical figures comprised in their astral
worship, people were saved by the sun's crucifixion or crossification,
realized by _crossing_ over the equinoctial line into the season of
spring, and thereby gave out a saving heat and light to the world and
stimulated the generative organs of animal and vegetable life. It was
from this conception that the ancients were in the habit of carving or
painting the organs of generation upon the walls of their holy temples.
The blood of the grape, which was ripened by the heat of the sun, as he
crossed over by resurrection into spring, (i. e., was crucified), was
symbolically "the blood of the cross," or "the blood of the Lamb."

If we should be met here with the statement, that the stories of the
ancient crucifixions of Gods were mere myths or fables, unwarrantably
saddled on to their histories as mere romance, and have no foundation in
fact, we reply--there is as much ground for suspecting the same thing as
being true of Jesus Christ.

One of the most celebrated and most frequently quoted Christian writers
of the ancient bishops (Irenaeus) declares upon the authority of the
martyr Polycarp, who claimed to have got it from St. John and all the
elders of Asia, that Jesus Christ was not crucified, but lived to be
about fifty years old.

We find there has always been a margin for doubt amongst his own
followers as to the fact of his crucifixion.

Many of the early Christians and cotemporary Jews and Gentiles doubted
it, and some openly disputed its ever having taken place. Others
bestowed upon it a mere spiritual signification, and not a few
considered it symbolical of a "holy life." One circumstance, calculated
to lead to the entire discredit of the story of the crucifixion of
Christ, is the relation, in connection with it, of a violent convulsion
of nature, and the resurrection of the long-buried saints--events not
supported by any authentic cotemporaneous history, sacred or profane.
(See Chap. XVII., Aphanasia).

And as these events must be set down as fabulous, they leave the mind
in doubt with respect to the fact of the crucifixion itself, especially
when the many absurdities involved in the doctrine of the crucifixion
are brought to view, in connection with it, some of them so palpably
erroneous that an unlettered savage could see and point them out.

The Indian chief Red Jacket is reported to have replied to the Christian
missionaries, when they urged upon his attention the benefits of
Christ's death by crucifixion, "Brethren, if you white men murdered the
son of the Great Spirit, we Indians have nothing to do with it, and it
is none of our affair. If he had come among us, we would not have killed
him. We would have treated him well. You must make amends for that crime
yourselves."

This view of the crucifixion suggested to the mind of an illiterate
heathen we deem more sensible and rational than that of the orthodox
Christians, which makes it a meritorious act and a moral necessity. For
this would not only exonerate Judas from any criminality or guilt for
the part he took in the affair, but would entitle him as well as Christ
to the honorable title of a "Savior" for performing an act without which
the crucifixion and consequent salvation of the world could not have
been effected. If it was necessary for Christ to suffer death upon the
cross as an atonement for sin, then the act of crucifixion was right,
and a monument should be erected to the memory of Judas for bringing it
about. We challenge Christian logic to find a flaw in this argument.

And another important consideration arises here. If the inhabitants of
this planet required the murderous death of a God as an atonement, we
must presume that the eighty-five millions of inhabited worlds recently
discovered by astronomers are, or have been, in equal need of a divine
atonement. And this would require the crucifixion of eighty-five
millions of Gods. Assuming one of these Gods to be crucified every
minute, the whole would occupy a period of nearly twenty years. This
would be killing off Gods at rather a rapid rate, and would make
the work of the atonement and salvation a very murderous and bloody
affair--a conception which brings to the mind a series of very revolting
reflections.

The conception of Gods coming down from heaven, and being born of
virgins, and dying a violent death for the moral blunders of the people,
originated in an age of the world when man was a savage, and dwelt
exclusively upon the animal plane, and blood was the requisition for
every offense. And it was an age when no world was known to exist but
the one we inhabit. The stars were then supposed to be mere blazing
tapers set in the azure vault to light this pygmy planet, or peep-holes
for Gods to look out of heaven, to see and learn what is going on below.
Such conceptions are in perfect keeping with the doctrine of the
atoning crucifixion of Gods, which could never have originated or been
entertained for a moment by an astronomer, with a knowledge of the
existence of innumerable inhabited worlds. For as there is to the
monotheistic Christian but one God, or Son of God, to be offered, he
must be incarnated and crucified every day for a thousand years to make
a sin-offering for each of these worlds--a conception too monstrous and
preposterous to find a lodgment in a rational mind.


ORIGIN OF THE BELIEF OF THE CRUCIFIXION OF GODS.

It has always been presumed that death, and especially death by
crucifixion, involved the highest state of suffering possible to be
endured by mortals. Hence, the Gods must suffer in this way as an
example of courage and fortitude, and to show themselves willing
to undergo all the affliction and misery incident to the lot, and
unavoidable to the lives, of their devoted worshipers. They must not
only be equal, but superior to their subjects in this respect Hence,
they would not merely die, but choose, or at least uncomplainingly
submit to the most ignoble and ignominious mode of suffering death
that could be devised, and that was crucifixion. This gave the highest
finishing touch to the drama.

And thus the legend of the crucifixion became the crowning chapter, the
aggrandizing episode in the history of their lives. It was presumed that
nothing less than a God could endure such excruciating tortures without
complaining.

Hence, when the victim was reported to have submitted with such
fortitude that no murmur was heard to issue from his lips, this
circumstance of itself was deemed sufficient evidence of his Godship.
The story of the crucifixion, therefore, whether true or false, deified
or helped deify many great men and exalt them to the rank of Gods.
Though some of the disciples of Budhism, and some of the primitive
professors of Christianity also (including, according to Christian
history, Peter and his brother Andrew), voluntarily chose this mode
of dying in imitation of their crucified Lord, without experiencing,
however, the desired promotion to divine honors. They failed of an
exaltation to the deityship, and hence are not now worshiped as Gods.

Christian reader, what can you now make of the story of the crucifixion
of Jesus Christ but a borrowed legend--at least the story of his being
crucified _as a God!_

Note.--The author desires it to be understood with respect to the cases
of crucifixion here briefly narrated, that they are not vouched foras
actual occurrences, of which there is much ground to doubt. It has
neither been his aim or desire to prove them to be real historical
events, nor to establish any certain number of cases. Indeed, he deems
it unimportant to know, if it could be determined, whether they are fact
or fiction, or whether one God was crucified, or many. The moral lesson
designed to be taught by this chapter is, simply, that the belief in
the crucifixion of Gods was prevalent in various oriental or heathen
countries long prior to the reported crucifixion of Christ. If
this point is established--which he feels certain no reader will
dispute--then he is not concerned to know whether he has made out
sixteen cases of crucifixion or not. Six will prove it as well as
sixteen. In fact, one case is sufficient to establish the important
proposition in view. The reader is, therefore, left to decide each case
for himself, according as he may value the evidence presented. More
authorities could have been adduced, and a more extended history
presented of each God brought to notice. But this would have operated to
exclude other matter, which the author considers of more importance.




CHAPTER XVII. THE APHANASIA, OR DARKNESS AT THE CRUCIFIXION.

MATTHEW tells us (xxvii. 31) that when Christ was crucified, there was
darkness all over the land for three hours, and "the earth did quake,
and the rocks were rent, and many of the saints came out of their
graves."

Here we have a series of events spoken of so strange, so unusual and
so extraordinary that, had they occurred, they must have attracted the
attention of the whole world--especially the amazing scene of the sun's
withdrawing his light and ceasing to shine, and thereby causing an
almost total darkness near the middle of the day. And yet no writer
of that age or country, or any other age or country, mentions the
circumstance but Matthew. A phenomenon so terrible and so serious in its
effects as literally to unhinge the planets and partially disorganize
the universe must have excited the alarm and amazement of the whole
world, and caused a serious disturbance in the affairs of nations. And
yet strange, superlatively strange, not one of the numerous historians
of that age makes the slightest allusion to such an astounding event.

Even Seneca and the elder Pliny, who so particularly and minutely
chronicle the events of those times, are as silent as the grave relative
to this greatest event in the history of the world. Nor do Mark, Luke
or John, who all furnish us with a history of the crucifixion, make the
slightest hint at any of these wonder-exciting events, except Mark's
incidental allusion to the darkness.

Gibbon says, "It happened during the life of Seneca and the elder
Pliny, who must have experienced its immediate effects, or received the
earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a
labored work, has recorded all the phenomena of Nature's earthquakes,
meteors and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect.
Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest
phenomenon, to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation
of the world." (Gibbon, p. 451.)

2. With reference to the "bodies" of the dead saints coming out of their
tombs (for it is declared their "bodies arose," see Matt, xxvii. 52), many
rather curious and puzzling questions might be started, which would at
once disclose its utter absurdity.

We might ask, for example

1. Who were those "many saints" who came out of their graves, seeing
there were as yet but few Christians to occupy graves, if they had been
all dead, as the enumeration at Antioch made out only one hundred and
twenty? (See Acts.) 2. How long had they lain in their graves?

3. How long since their bodies had turned to dust, and been food for
worms? 4. And would not those worms have to be hunted up and required to
disgorge the contents of their stomachs in order to furnish the saints
with the materials for their bodies again? 5. And were the shrouds or
grave clothes of those saints also resurrected? or did they travel about
in a state of nudity? 6. For what purpose were they re-animated? 7. And
should not Matthew have furnished us, by way of proof, with the names
of some of these ghostly visitors? 8. How long did they live the second
time? 9. Did they die again, or did they ascend to heaven with their
new-made bodies? 10. What business did they engage in? 11. Why have we
not some account of what they said and did? 12. And what finally became
of them?

Until these questions are rationally answered, the story must be
regarded as too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.

3. Nearly all the phenomena represented as occurring at the crucifixion
of Christ are reported to have been witnessed also at the final exit
of Senerus, an ancient pagan demigod, who figured in history at a still
more remote period of time. And similar incidents are related likewise
in the legendary histories of several other heathen demigods and great
men partially promoted to the honor of Gods. In the time-honored records
of the oldest religion in the world, it is declared, "A cloud surrounded
the moon; and the sun was darkened at noonday, and the sky rained fire
and ashes during the crucifixion of the Indian God Chrishna." In the
case of Osiris of Egypt, Mr. Southwell says, "As his birth had been
attended by an eclipse of the sun, so his death was attended by a still
greater darkness of the solar orb." At the critical juncture of the
crucifixion of Prometheus, it is declared, "The whole frame of nature
became convulsed, the earth shook, the rocks were rent, the graves
opened, and in a storm which threatened the dissolution of the universe,
the scene closed" (Higgins). According to Livy, the last hours of the
mortal demise of Romulus were marked by a storm and by a solar eclipse.

And similar stories are furnished us by several writers of Caesar and
Alexander the Great. With respect to the latter, Mr. Nimrod says, "Six
hours of darkness formed his aphanasia, and his soul, like Polycarp's,
was seen to fly away in the form of a dove." (Nimrod, vol. iii. p.
458.) "It is remarkable," says a writer, "what a host of respectable
authorities vouch for an acknowledged fable--the preternatural darkness
which followed Caesar's death." Gibbon alludes to this event when he
speaks of "the singular defect of light which followed the murder of
Caesar." He likewise says, "This season of darkness had already been
celebrated by most of the poets and historians of that memorable age."
(Gibbon, p. 452.) It is very remarkable that Pliny speaks of a darkness
attending Caesar's death, but omits to mention such a scene as attending
the crucifixion of Christ. Virgil also seeks to exalt this royal
personage by relating this prodigy. (See his Georgius, p. 465.) Another
writer says, "Similar prodigies were supposed or said to accompany the
great men of former days."

Let the reader make a note of this fact--that the same story was told
of the graves opening, and the dead rising at the final mortal exit of
several heathen Gods and several great men long before it was penned as
a chapter in the history of Christ.

Shakespeare, in his Hamlet says:--

     "In the most high and palmy days of Rome,
     A little ere the mighty Julius fell--
     The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead
     Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets."

These historical citations strongly press the conclusion that this
portion of the history of Christ was borrowed from old pagan legends.

4. Many cases are recorded in history of the light of the sun being
obscured at midday so as to result in almost total darkness, when it was
known not to be produced by an eclipse. And it is probable that these
natural events furnish the basis in part for those wild legends we have
brought to notice. Humboldt relates in his Cosmos, that, "in the year
358, before the earthquake of Numidia, the darkness was very dense for
two or three hours." Another obscuration of the sun took place in the
year 360, which lasted five or six hours, and was so dense that the
stars were visible at midday. Another circumstance of this kind was
witnessed on the nineteenth of May, 1730, which lasted eight hours. And
so great was the darkness, that candles and lamps had to be lighted at
midday to dine by. Similar events are chronicled for the years 1094,
1206, 1241, 1547, and 1730. And if any such solar obscurations occurred
near the mortal exit of any of the Gods above named, of course they
would be seized on as a part of their practical history wrought up into
hyperbole, and interwoven in their narratives, to give eclat to the
pageantry of their biographies--a fact which helps to solve the mystery.


ORIGIN OF THE STORY OF THE APHANASIA AT THE CRUCIFIXION.

There is but little ground to doubt but that the various stories of a
similar character then current in different countries, as shown above,
first suggested the thought to Christ's biographers of investing
history with the incredible events reported as being connected with the
crucifixion. The principal motive, however, seems to have grown out of a
desire to fulfill a prophecy of the Jewish prophet Joel, as we may find
many of the important miraculous events ingrafted into Christ's history
were recorded by way of fulfilling some prophecy. "That the prophecy
might be fulfilled" is the very language his evangelical biographers
use.

Joel's prediction runs thus: "And I will show wonders in the heavens,
and in the earth, flood and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall
be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great
and terrible day of the Lord come." (Joel ii. 30.) A little impartial
investigation will satisfy any unprejudiced mind that this poetic
rhapsody has not the most remote allusion to the closing events in the
life of Christ, and was not intended to have.

But his biographers, writing a long time after his death, supposing and
assuming that this and various other texts, which they quote from the
prophets, had reference to him, and had been fulfilled, incorporated it
into his history as a part of his practical life. The conviction that
the prophecy _must have been fulfilled_, without knowing that it had,
added to similar stories of other Gods, with which Christ's history
became confounded, misled them into the conclusion that they were
warranted in assuming that the incredible events they name were really
witnessed at the mortal termination of Christ's earthly career, when
they did not know it, and could not have known it.

This view of the case becomes very rational and very forcible when we
observe various texts quoted from the prophets by the gospel writers,
or, rather, most butcheringly misquoted, tortured or distorted into
Messianic prophecies, when the context shows they have no reference to
Christ whatever.




CHAPTER XVIII. DESCENT OF THE SAVIORS INTO HELL.

THE next most important event in the histories of the Saviors after
their crucifixion, and the act of giving up the ghost, is that of their
descent into the infernal regions. That Jesus Christ descended into hell
after his crucifixion is not expressly taught in the Christian bible,
but it is a matter of such obvious inference from several passages of
scripture, the early Christians taught it as a scriptural doctrine. Mr.
Sears, a Christian writer, tells us that "on the doctrine of Christ's
underground mission the early Christians were united.... It was a point
too well settled to admit of dispute." (See Foregleams of Immortality,
p. 262).

And besides this testimony, the "Apostles' Creed" teaches the doctrine
explicitly, which was once as good authority throughout Christendom as
the bible itself; indeed, it may be considered as constituting a part
of the bible prior to the council of Nice (A. D. 325), being supposed
to have been written by the apostles themselves. It declares that "Jesus
Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified (dead) and buried.
He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead," etc.
This testimony is very explicit.

And Peter is supposed to refer to the same event when he says, "being
put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit, by which also
he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." (i Peter iii. 18.) The
word prison, which occurs in this text, has undoubted reference to the
Christian fabled hell. For no possible sense can be attached to the
word prison in this connection without such a construction. Where have
spirits ever been supposed to be imprisoned but in hell? And then we
find a text in the Acts of the Apostles, which seems to remove all
doubt in the case, and banishes at once all ground for dispute. It is
explicitly stated that "his soul was not left in hell, neither did his
flesh see corruption." (Adis ii. 31.) Why talk about his soul not
being left in hell if it had never been there? Language could hardly be
plainer. The most positive declaration that Christ did descend into hell
could not make it more certainly a scriptural Christian doctrine.

We, then, rest the case here, and proceed to enumerate other cases of
Gods and Saviors descending into Pandemonium (the realms of Pluto)
long before Jesus Christ walked on the water or on the earth. It is
unquestionably stated in the Hindoo bible, written more than three
thousand years ago, that the Savior Chrishna "went down to hell to
preach to the inmates of that dark and dreary prison, with the view of
reforming them, and getting them back to heaven, and was willing himself
to suffer to abridge the period of their torment." And certainly, in the
midst of the fire and smoke of brimstone, it could not have been hard
to effect their conversion or repentance. One writer tells us that "so
great was his (Chrishna's) tenderness, that he even descended into
hell to teach souls in bondage." Now observe how much "teaching souls in
bondage" sounds like "preaching to souls in prison," as Peter represents
Christ as doing. And can any reader doubt that the meaning in the two
cases is the same? And must we not confess that we are greatly indebted
to the Hindoo bible for an explanation of the two occult and mysterious
texts which I have quoted from the Christian bible, and which have
puzzled so many learned critics to explain, or find a meaning for?

We have another case of a God descending into hell in the person or
spirit of the Savior Quexalcote of Mexico, (300 B. C.) The story will
be found in the Codex Borgianus, wherein is related the account of
his death, and burial after crucifixion, his descent into hell, and
subsequent resurrection. Of Adonis of Greece it is declared, that
"after his descent into hell, he rose again to life and immortality."
Prometheus of Caucasus (600 B. C.) likewise is represented as "suffering
and descending into hell, rising again from the dead, and ascending
to heaven." Horus of Greece is described as "first reigning a thousand
years, then dying, and being buried for three days, at the end of which
time he triumphed over Typhon, the evil principle, and rose again to
life evermore." And Osiris of Egypt also is represented as making a
descent into hell, and after a period of three days rose again.

Homer and Virgil speak of several cases of descent into Pluto's
dominions. Hercules, Ulysses and AEneas are represented as performing the
hellward journey on, as we infer, benevolent missions. Higgins remarks,
"The Gods became incarnate, and descended into hell to teach humility
and set an example of suffering."

The story of their descent into hell was doubtless invented to
find employment for them during their three days of hibernation or
conservation in the tomb, that they might not appear to be really dead
nor idle in the time, and as a still further proof of their matchless
and unrivalled capacity and fortitude for suffering.

And the story of the three days' entombment is likewise clearly
traceable in appearance to the astronomical incident of the sun's lying
apparently dead, and buried, and motionless for nearly three days at the
period of the vernal epoch, from the twenty-first to the twenty-fifth
of March. It was a matter of belief or fancy that the sun remained
stationary for about three days, when he gradually rose again
"into newness of life." And hence, this period or era was chosen to
figuratively represent the three days' descent of the Gods into hell.
We are told that the Persians have an ancient astronomical figure
representing the descent of a God, divine, into hell, and returning at
the time that Orsus, the goddess of spring, had conquered the God or
genus of winter, after the manner St. John describes the Lamb of God
(see Rev. xii) as conquering the dragon, which may be interpreted as
the Scorpion or Dragon of the first month of winter (October) being
conquered by the Lamb of March or spring.




CHAPTER XIX. RESURRECTION OF THE SAVIORS

WE find presented in the canonized histories of several of the demigod
Saviors the following remarkable coincidences appertaining to their
death:--

1. Their resurrection from the dead.

2. Their lying in the tomb just three days.

3. The resurrection of several of them about the time of the vernal
equinox. The twenty-fifth of March is the period assigned by the
Christian world generally for the resurrection of Christ, though some
Christian writers have assigned other dates for this event. They all
agree, however, that Christ rose from the dead, and that this occurred
three days after the entombment. Bishop Theophilus of Cesarea remarks,
relative to this event, "Since the birth of Christ is celebrated on the
twenty-fifth of December,.... so also should the resurrection of Jesus
be celebrated on the twenty-fifth of March, on whatever day of the week
it may fall, the Lord having risen again on that day." (Cent. ii. Call,
p. 118.) "All the ancient Christians," says a writer, "were persuaded
that Christ was crucified on the twenty-third of March, and rose
from the dead on the twenty-fifth." And accordingly Constantine and
cotemporary Christians celebrated the twenty-fifth of March with
great eclat as the date of the resurrection. The twenty-third and
twenty-fifth, including the twenty-fourth, would comprise a period of
three days, the time of the entombment.

Now mark, Quexalcote of Mexico, Chris of Chaldea, Quirinus of Rome,
Prometheus of Caucasus, Osiris of Egypt, Atys of Phrygia, and "Mithra
the Mediator" of Persia did, according to their respective histories,
rise from the dead after three days' burial, and the time of their
resurrection is in several cases fixed for the twenty-fifth of March.
And there is an account more than three thousand years old of the Hindoo
crucified Savior Chrishna, three days after his interment, forsaking
"the silent bourn, whence (as we are told) no traveler ever returns,"
and laying aside the moldy cerements of the dead, again walking forth
to mortal life, to be again seen, recognized, admired, and adored by his
pious, devout and awe-stricken followers, and thus present to the gaze
of a hoping yet doubting world "the first fruits of the resurrection."

At the annual celebration of the resurrection of the Persian Savior
"Mithra the Mediator," more than three thousand years ago, the priests
were in the habit of exclaiming in a solemn and loud voice, "Cheer up,
holy mourners; your God has come again to life; his sorrows and his
sufferings will save you." (See Pitrat, p. 105.) The twenty-fifth of
March was with the ancient Persians the commencement of a new year,
and on that day was celebrated "the feast of the Neurone," and by the
ancient Romans "the festival of the Hilaria." And we find the ancients
had both the crucifixion and resurrection of a God symbolically and
astronomically represented among the plants. "Their foundation," says
Clement of Alexandria, "was the fictitious death and resurrection of
the sun, the soul of the world, the principle of life and motion."
The inauguration of spring (the twenty-fifth of March), and the summer
solstice (the twenty-fifth of June), were both important periods with
the ancients.

Hence, the latter period was fixed on as the birthday of John the
Baptist (as marked in the almanacs), when the sun begins to decline
southward--that is, decrease. How appropriately, therefore, John is made
to say, "I shall decrease, but he shall increase." And the consecrated
twenty-fifth of March is also the day marked in our calendars as the
date of the conception and annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And
it was likewise the period of the conception of the ancient Roman Virgin
Asteria, and of the ever-chaste and holy virgin Iris, as well as the
time of the conjugal embrace of the solar and lunar potentates of
the visible universe. May we not, then, very appropriately exclaim of
religion and astronomy, "what God hath joined together, let no man put
asunder."

Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

With respect to the physical resurrection of the Christian Savior, it
may be observed that, aside from the physical impossibility of such an
occurrence, the account, as reported to us by his four "inspired" Gospel
biographers, are so palpably at variance with each other, so entirely
contradictory in their reports, as to render their testimony as
infallible writers utterly unworthy of credence, and impels us to
the conclusion that the event is both physically and historically
incredible. There is scarcely one incident or particular in which they
all agree. They are at loggerheads,--

1. With respect to the time of its discovery.

2. The persons who made the discovery (for no witness claims to have
seen it).

3. With respect to what took place at the sepulchre.

4. What Peter saw and did there.

5. And as to what occurred afterward, having a relation to that event.

1. Relative to the time the witness or witnesses visited the sepulchre
and learned of the resurrection, Matthew (chap. xxviii.) tells us, "It
was at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn;" but according to
Mark (xvi.), the "Sabbath was past, and the sun was rising;" while
John (chap. xx) declares "it was yet dark." Now there is certainly some
difference between the three periods, "the dawning of the day," "the
rising of the sun," and "the darkness of night." If the writers were
_divinely_ inspired, there would be a perfect agreement.

2. With respect to the persons who first visited the sepulchre, Matthew
states that it was Mary Magdalene and another Mary; but Luke says it
was "Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other
women;" while, according to John (and he virtually reiterates it),
Mary Magdalene went alone. It will be observed, then, that the first
"inspired" and "infallible" witness testifies there were two women; the
second that there were four; and the third witness declares there was
but one. What beautiful harmony! No court in the civilized world would
accept such discordant testimony!

3. And in relation to what took place at the tomb, Matthew testifies
that "the angel of the Lord" sat upon a stone at the door of the
sepulchre, and told the women their Lord was risen. But Luke steps
forward here, and avers that instead of an angel they found two men
there, not outside, but inside, and not sitting, but standing. But Mark
sets the testimony of both these "inspired" witnesses aside by affirming
there was but one man there, and he was sitting. While Matthew says
"they," St. John says "she" (speaking of the person or persons who left
the sepulchre). According to Matthew the angel who rolled away the stone
from the sepulchre sent a message to the disciples. But Mark affirms
that it was not an "angel" outside, but a "young man" inside, who did
this. And here the question naturally arises: Why was it necessary for
a being who could say, "I have power to lay down my life and take it
up again" (John), to have an angel to roll away the stone from the
sepulchre. Certainly, if he possessed such omnipotent power, he needed
no aid from any being to perform such an act.

4. And relative to Peter's visit to the tomb, there is a total disparity
in the testimony of the witnesses. According to Luke, he did not go into
the sepulchre, but only stooped down and looked in. But Mark affirms he
did go in, and that it was the disciple who went with him who stooped
down.

5. And with respect to the events which occurred immediately subsequent
to the resurrection, there is no less discrepancy, no nearer agreement,
in the testimony of the evangelical witnesses. Matthew says that when
Christ's disciples first met him after the resurrection, they worshiped
him, and held him by the feet. (Matt, xxviii. 9) Strange, indeed, and
wholly incredible, if John is a reliable witness, for he affirms he did
not allow even his best and dearest friend (Mary) to touch him. And then
John combats this testimony of his by declaring he invited the skeptical
Thomas, not only to touch him, but to thrust his hand into his side for
tangible proof of his identity.

6. And why, let us ask here, was not the skeptical Thomas damned for
his doubting, when we, who live thousands of miles from the place,
and nearly two thousand years from the time, are often told by the
priesthood we must "believe or be damned?"

7. And if Thomas was really convinced by this occurrence, or if it ever
took place, why have we no account of his subsequent life? What good was
effected by his convincement if he never said or did anything afterward?

8. John tells us Mary first saw Christ, after his resurrection, at the
tomb, but Matthew says it was on her way home she first saw him.

9. We are told by Luke (xxiv. 36) that when Christ appeared to his
disciples on a certain occasion, they were frightened, supposing it
to be a spirit. But John (xx. 20) says they were glad. Which must we
believe?

10. According to Matthew, the disciples were all present on this
occasion; but according to John, Thomas was not there.

11. Here let it be noted that none of the narrators claim to have seen
Christ rise from the tomb, nor to have got it from anybody who did see
it The only proof in this case is their declaration, "It came to pass."

12. And we are prompted to ask here, how "it came to pass" that the
chief priests and pharisees cherished sufficient faith in Christ's
resurrection to set a watch for it, as Matthew reports, when his own
disciples were too faithless in such an event to be present, or to
believe he had risen after the report reached their ears; for we are
told some doubted. (See Matt, xxiii.)

13. And how came Matthew to know the soldiers were bribed to say
Christ's body was stolen away by his disciples, when the disclosures of
such a secret would have been death under the Roman government.

14. And their confession of being asleep, as related by Matthew, would
have subjected them to the same fatal penalty by the civil rulers of
Rome.

15. And if the soldiers were all asleep, can we not suggest several ways
the body may have disappeared without being restored to life?

16. And here we would ask if Christ rose from the dead in order to
convince the world of his divine power, why did not the event take
place in public? Why was it seen only by a few credulous and interested
disciples?

17. And if such an astonishing and miraculous event did occur, why does
not one of the numerous cotemporary writers of those times make any
allusion to it? Neither Pliny, Tacitus, nor Josephus, who detail the
events very minutely, not only of those times, but of that very country,
says a word about such a wonder-exciting occurrence. This fact of itself
entirely overthrows the credibility of the story.

18. And the fact that several Christian sects, which flourished near
those times, as the Corinthians and Carpocratians, etc., rejected the
story in toto, furnishes another powerful argument for discrediting it.

19. And then add to this fact that his own chosen followers were
upbraided for their unbelief in the matter.

20. And what was Christ doing during the forty days between his
resurrection and ascension, that he should only be seen a few times,
and but a few minutes at a time, and by but a few persons, and those
interested?

21. And we would ask, likewise,--What more can be proved by Christ's
physical resurrection than that of the resurrection of Lazarus, the
widow's son, and several cases related in the Old Testament, or the
numerous cases reported in oriental history?

22. And what analogy is there in the resurrection of the dead body of a
perfect and self-existent God and that of vile man?

23. And why should Christ be called "the first fruits of the
resurrection," when so many cases are reported as occurring before his?

24. And why do Christians build their hopes of immortality almost
entirely upon Christ's alleged resurrection, in view of the numerous
facts we have cited showing it to be a mere sandy foundation?

25. Of course no person who believes in modern spiritualism will
discredit the story of Christ being visually recognized after his death
_as a spirit_--for they have ocular proof that many such cases have
occurred within the last decade of years. But it is the story of his
physical resurrection we are combating--the reanimation of his flesh
and bones after having been subjected three days to the laws of
decomposition. Neither science nor sense can indorse such a story.

26. It was a very easy matter, and very natural to mistake Christ's
spiritual body for his physical body; for such mistakes have been made a
thousand times in the world's history.

27. Is it not strange, in view of the countless defects in the story of
Christ's physical resurrection as enumerated above, that the orthodox
Christian world should rely upon it as the great sheet anchor of their
faith, and as their chief and almost their only hope of immortal life?




CHAPTER XX. REAPPEARANCE AND ASCENSION OF THE SAVIORS.

MANY cases are related by their respective sacred narratives of the
ancient Saviors, and other beings possessing the form of man, and
previously recognized as men, reappearing to their disciples and
friends, after having been consigned to the tomb for three days, or a
longer or shorter period of time, and of their final ascension to the
house of many mansions.

It is related of the Indian or Hindoo Savior Chrishna, that after having
risen from the dead, he appeared again to his disciples. "He ascended
to Voiacantha (heaven), to Brahma," the first person of the trinity (he
himself being the second), and that as he ascended, "all men saw him,
and exclaimed, 'Lo! Chrishna's soul ascends to his native skies.'"
And it is further related that, "attended by celestial spirits,.... he
pursued by his own light the journey between earth and heaven, to the
bright paradise whence he had descended."

Of the ninth incarnation of India, the Savior Sakia, it is declared,
that he "ascended to the celestial regions", and his pious and devout
disciples point the skeptic to indelible impressions and ineffaceable
footprints on the rocks of a high mountain as an imperishable proof of
the declaration that he took his last leave of earth and made his ascent
from that point.

It is related of the crucified Prometheus, likewise, that after having
given up the ghost on the cross, "descended to hell", Christ's soul was
"not left in hell," see Acts ii. 31), "he rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven."

And then it is declared of the Egyptian Savior Alcides, that "after
having been seen a number of times, he ascended to a higher life," going
up, like Elijah, in "a chariot of fire."

The story of the crucifixion of Quexalcote of Mexico, followed by his
burial, resurrection and ascension, is distinctly related in the "holy"
and inspired "gospels" of that country, which Lord Kingsborough admitted
to be more than two thousand years old.

Of Laotsi of China, it is said that when "he had completed his mission
of benevolence, he ascended bodily alive into the paradise above."
(Prog, of Rel. Ideas, vol. 214.) And it is related of Fo of the same
country, that having completed his glorious mission on earth, he
"ascended back to paradise, where he had previously existed from all
eternity."

It is related also in the ancient legends, that the Savior or God
Xamalxis of Thrace, having died, and descended beneath the earth, and
remained there three years, made his appearance again in the fourth year
after his death, as he had previously foretold, and eventually ascended
to heaven about 600 B. C. Even some of the Hindoo saints are reported
in their "holy" and time-honored books to have been seen ascending to
heaven. "And impressions on the rocks are shown," says an author, "said
to be of footprints they had left when they ascended."

It is related both by the Grecian biographer Plutarch, in his life
of Romulus, and by a Roman historian, that the great founder of Rome
(Romulus) suddenly ascended in a tempest during a solar eclipse, about
713 B. C. And Julius Proculis, a Roman senator of great fame and high
reputation, declared, under solemn oath, that he saw him, and talked
with him after his death.


ASTRONOMICAL VERSION OF THE STORY.

Before dismissing this chapter, we may state that, in common with most
other religious conceptions, the doctrine of the ascension has in the
ancient legends an astronomical representation.

Having said that a planet was buried because it sunk below the horizon,
when it returned to light and gained its state of eminence, they spoke
of it as dead, risen again, and ascended into heaven. (Volney, p. 143.)
What is the story of the ascension of Christ worth in view of these
ancient pagan traditions of earlier origin?


ASCENSION OF THE CHRISTIAN SAVIOR.

1. The different scriptural accounts of the ascension of Christ are,
like the different stories of the resurrection, quite contradictory,
and, hence, entitled to as little credit. In Luke (xxiv.), he is
represented as ascending on the evening of the third day after the
crucifixion. But the writer of Acts (i. 3) says he did not ascend
till forty days after his resurrection; while, according to his own
declaration to the thief on the cross, "This day shalt thou be with me
in paradise," he must have ascended on the same day of his crucifixion.
Which statement must we accept as inspired, or what is proved by such
contradictory testimony?

2. Which must we believe, Paul's declaration that he was seen by above
_five hundred of the brethren_ at once (1 Cor. xv. 6), or the statement
of the author of the Acts (i. 15), that there were _but one hundred and
twenty brethren in all after that period?_

3. How would his ascension do anything toward proving his divinity,
unless it also proves the divinity of Enoch and Elijah, who are reported
to have ascended long prior to that era?

4. As these stories of the ascension of Christ, according to Lardner,
were written many years after his crucifixion. Is it not hence probable
they grew out of similar stories relative to the heathen Gods long
previously prevalent in oriental countries?

5. As these gospel writers could not have been present to witness the
ascension, as it must have occurred before their time of active life,
does not this fact of itself seriously damage the credibility of the
accounts, and more especially as neither Mark nor Luke, who are the only
reporters of the occurrence, were not disciples of Christ at the time,
while Matthew and John, who were, say nothing about it?--another fact
which casts a shade on the credibility of the story.




CHAPTER XXI. THE ATONEMENT--ITS ORIENTAL OR HEATHEN ORIGIN.

THERE were various practices in vogue amongst the orientalists, which
originated with the design of appeasing the anger, and propitiating
the favor of a presumed to be irascible deity. Most of these practices
consisted in some kind of sacrifice or destructive offering called the
"atonement." But here let it be observed, that the doctrine of atonement
for sin, by sacrifice, was unfolded by degrees, and that the crucifixion
of a God was not the first practical exhibition of it. On the contrary,
it appears to have commenced with the most valueless or cheapest species
of property then known. And from this starting-point ascended gradually,
so as finally to embody the most costly commodities; and did not stop
here, but reached forward till it laid its murderous hands on human
beings, and immolated them upon its bloody altars. And finally, to cap
the climax, it assumed the effrontery to drag a God off the throne
of heaven, to stanch its blood-thirsty spirit, as evinced by Paul's
declaration, "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of
sin." Rather a bloody doctrine, and one which our humanity rejects with
instinctive horror.

We will trace the doctrine of the atonement briefly through its
successive stages of growth and development.

The idea seems to have started very early in the practical history of
the human race, that the sacrifice and consequent deprivation of earthly
goods, or some terrestial enjoyment, would have the effect to mitigate
the anger, propitiate the favor, and obtain the mercy of an imaginary
and vengeful God. This idea obviously was suggested by observing that
their earthly rulers always smiled, and became less rigorous in their
laws, and milder in their treatment of their subjects, when they made
them presents of some valuable or desirable commodity. They soon learned
that such offerings had the effect to check their cruel and bloody mode
of governing the people; so that when their houses were shaken down,
or swallowed up by earthquakes, the trees riven by lightning, and
prostrated by storms, and their cattle swept away by floods, supposing
it to be the work of an angry God, the thought arose in their minds at
once, that perhaps his wrath could be abated by the same expedient as
that which had served in the case of their mundane lords--that of making
presents of property. But as this property could not be carried up to
the celestial throne, the expedient was adopted of burning it, so that
the substance or quintessence of it would be conveyed up to the heavenly
Potentate in the shape of steam and smoke, which would make for him, as
the Jews express it, "a sweet-smelling savor." Abundant and conspicuous
is the evidence in history to show that the custom of burnt-offerings
and atonements for sin originated in this way.

The first species of property made use of for burnt-offerings appears to
have been the fruits of the earth--vegetables, fruits, roots, etc.,--the
lowest kind of property in point of value. But the thought soon
naturally sprang up in the mind of the devotee, that a more valuable
offering would sooner and more effectually secure the divine favor.
Hence, levies were made on living herds of cattle, sheep, goats and
other domestic animals. This was the second step in the ascending scale
toward Gods.

And here we find the key to open and solve the mystery of Jehovah's
preferring Abel's offering to Cain's. While the latter consisted in mere
inanimate substances, the former embraced the firstlings of the flock--a
higher and more valuable species of property, and quite sufficient
to induce the selfish Jehovah to prefer Abel's offering to Cain's, or
rather for the selfish Jews to cherish this conception. In all nations
where offerings were made, the conclusion became established in the
minds of the people that the amount of God's favor procured in this way
must be proportionate to the value of the commodity or victim offered
up--a conviction which ultimately led to the seizure of human beings for
the atoning offerings, which brings us to the third stage of growth in
the atonement doctrine. Children frequently constituted the victims in
this case. The sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, as related in Judges
xi. 30, and other cases cited by bible writers, (Isaiah xxxii. 25), and
modern Christian authors, prove that this practice was in vogue among
"God's holy people."

One step more (constituting the _fourth_ stage of development) brings us
to the sacrifice of Gods. The climax is now reached; the conception can
go no higher. The ancient Birmese taught that while common property in
burnt-offerings would procure the temporary favor of the ruling God, the
sacrifice of human beings would secure his good pleasure for a thousand
years, and cancel out all the sins committed in that period. And when
one of the three Gods on the throne of heaven was dragged down, or
_voluntarily came down_ (as some of the sects taught), and was put to
death on the cross as an atonement for sin, such was the value of the
victim, such the magnitude of the offering, that it "atoned for _all_
sin, past, present and future, for all the human race."

The Hindoos, cherishing this conception, taught that the crucifixion of
their sin-atoning Savior Chrishna (1200 B. C.) put an end to both animal
and human sacrifices, and accordingly such offerings ceased in most
Hindoo countries centuries ago. Thus far back in the mire and midnight
of human ignorance, and amid the clouds of mental darkness, while man
dwelt upon the animal plane, and was governed by his brutal feelings,
and "blood for blood" was the requisition for human offenses, originated
the bloody, savage and revolting doctrine of the atonement.

Another mode of adjudicating the sins of the people in vogue in some
countries anterior to the custom of shedding blood as an expiation, was
that of packing them on the back, head, or horns of some animal by
a formal hocus-pocus process, and then driving the animal into a
wilderness, or some other place so remote that the brute could not find
its way back amongst the people with its cargo of sins. The cloth or
fabric used for inclosing the sins and iniquities of the people was
usually of a red or scarlet color--of the semblance of blood. In fact,
it was generally dipped in blood. This, being lashed to the animal,
would of course be exposed to the weather and the drenching rains, would
consequently, in the course of time, fade and become white. Hence, we
have the key to Isaiah's declaration, "Though your sins be (red) as
scarlet, they shall become (white) as wool." (See Isaiah, i. 18.) And
thus the meaning of this obscure text is clearly explained by tracing
its origin to its oriental source.

And there are many other texts in the Christian bible which might be
elucidated in a similar manner by using oriental tradition, or oriental
sacred books, as a key to unlock and explain their meaning. We have
stated above that some animal was made use of by different nations to
convey the imaginary load of the people's sins out of the country.
For this purpose the Jews had their "scapegoat," the Egyptians their
"scape-ox," the Hindoos their "scape-horse," the Chaldeans their
"scape-ram," the Britons their "scape-bull," the Mexicans their
"scape-lamb" and "scape-mouse," the Tamalese their "scape-hen," and
the Christians at a later period their _scape-God_. Jesus Christ may
properly be termed the scape-God of orthodox Christians, as he stands in
the same relation to his disciples, who believe in the atonement, as the
goat did to the Jews, and performs the same end and office. The goat and
the other sin-offering animals took away the sin of the nation in each
case respectively. In like manner Jesus Christ takes away the sin of
the world, being called "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the
world." (John i. 29.) And more than two thousand years ago the Mexicans
sacrificed a lamb as an atonement, which they called "the Lamb
of God"--the same title scripturally applied to Jesus Christ. The
conception in each case is, then, the same--that of the atonement for
sin by the sacrifice of an innocent victim.

The above citations show that the present custom of orthodox
Christendom, in packing their sins upon the back of a God, is just
the same substantially as that of various heathen nations, who were
anciently in the habit of packing them upon the backs of various dumb
animals. If some of our Christian brethren should protest against our
speaking of the church's idea of atonement as that of packing their sins
upon the back of a God, we will here prove the appropriateness of the
term upon the authority of the bible. Peter expressly declares Christ
bore our sins upon his own body on a tree (see 1 Peter ii. 24), just
as the Jews declared the _goat bore their_ sins on his body, and the
ancient Brahmins taught that the bulls and the heifers bore theirs away,
etc., which shows that the whole conception is of purely heathen
origin. And hereafter, when they laugh at the Jewish superstition of
a scape-goat, let them bear in mind that more sensible and intelligent
people may laugh in turn at their superstitious doctrine of a scape-God.

These superstitious customs were simply expedients of different nations
to evade the punishment of their sins--an attempt to shift their
retributive consequences on to other beings. The divine atonement more
especially possessed this character. This system teaches that the son
of God and Savior of the world was sent down and incarnated, in order to
die for the people, and thus suffer by proxy the punishment meted out
by divine wrath for the sins of the whole world. The blood of a God must
atone for the sins of the whole human family, as rams, goats, bullocks
and other animals had atoned for the sins of families and nations under
older systems. Thus taught Brahminism, Budhism, Persianism, and other
religious systems, before the dawn of Christianity. The nucleus of the
atoning system is founded in the doctrine, "Without the shedding of
blood there is no remission for sin" (Rom. v. 9)--a monstrous and
morally revolting doctrine--a doctrine which teaches us that _somebodys_
blood must be shed, somebody's veins and arteries depleted, for every
trivial offense committed against the moral law. Somebody must pay the
penalty in blood, somebody must be slaughtered for every little foible
or peccadillo or moral blunder into which erring man may chance to
stumble while upon the pilgrimage of life, while journeying through the
wilderness of time, even if a God has to be dragged from his throne in
heaven, and murdered to accomplish it. Nothing less will mitigate the
divine wrath.

Whose soul--possessing the slightest moral sensibility--does not
inwardly and instinctively revolt at such a doctrine? We would not teach
it to the world, for it is founded in butchery and bloodshed, and is
an old pagan superstition, which originated far back in the midnight of
mental darkness and heathen ignorance, when the whole human race were
under the lawless sway of their brutal propensities, and when the
ennobling attributes of love, mercy and forgiveness had as yet found
no place, no abiding home, in the human bosom. The bloody soul of the
savage first gave it birth. We hold the doctrine to be a a high-handed
insult to the All-loving Father, who, we are told, is "long-suffering in
mercy," and "plentiful in forgiveness," to charge _Him_ with sanctioning
such a doctrine, much less with originating it.

There is no "mercy or forgiveness" in putting an innocent being to death
for any pretext whatever. And for the Father to consent to the brutal
assassination of His own innocent Son upon the cross to gratify an
implacable revenge toward his own children, the workmanship of his own
hands, rather than forgive a moral weakness implanted in their natures
by a voluntary act of his own, and for which consequently he alone ought
to be responsible, would be nothing short of murder in the first degree.

We cherish no such conception. We cannot for a moment harbor a
blasphemous doctrine, which represents the Universal Father as being a
bloody-minded and murderous being, instead of a being of infinite love,
infinite wisdom, and infinite in all the moral virtues. Such a character
would be a deep-dyed stigma upon any human being. And no person actuated
by a strict sense of justice would accept salvation upon any such terms
as that prescribed by the Christian atonement.

It is manifestly too unjust, too devoid of moral principle, besides
being a flagrant violation of the first principles of civil and criminal
jurisprudence. It is a double wrong to punish the innocent for the
guilty. It is the infliction of injustice on the one hand, and the
omission of justice on the other. It inflicts the highest penalty of
the law upon an innocent being, whom that law ought to shield from
punishment, while it exculpates and liberates the guilty party, whose
punishment the moral law demands. It robs society of a useful man on
the one hand, and turns a moral pest upon community on the other,
thus committing a twofold wrong, or act of injustice. No court in any
civilized country would be allowed to act upon such a principle; and
the judge who should indorse it, or favor a law, or principle, which
punishes the innocent for the guilty, would be ruled off the bench at
once.

Here, however, we are sometimes met with the plea, that the offering
of Jesus Christ was a voluntary act, that it was made with his own
free will. But the plea don't do away with either the injustice or
criminality of the act.

No innocent person has a right to suffer for the guilty, and the
courts have no right to accept the offer or admit the substitute. An
illustration will show this. If Jefferson Davis had been convicted of
the crime of treason, and sentenced to be hung, and Abraham Lincoln had
come forward and offered to be stretched upon the gallows in his place,
is there a court in the civilized world which would have accepted the
substitute, and hung Lincoln, and liberated Davis? To ask the question
is but to answer it. It is an insult to reason, law and justice to
entertain the proposition.

The doctrine of the atonement also involves the infinite absurdity of
God punishing himself to appease his own wrath. For if "the fullness of
the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily" (as taught in Col. ii. 9), then
his death was the death of God--that is, a divine suicide, prompted and
committed by a feeling of anger and revenge, which terminated the life
of the Infinite Ruler--a doctrine utterly devoid of reason, science
or sense. We are sometimes told man owes a debt to his Maker, and the
atonement pays that debt. To be sure! And to whom is the debt owing, and
who pays it? Why, the debt is owing to God, and God (in the person of
Jesus Christ) pays it--pays it to himself. We will illustrate. A man
approaches his neighbor, and says, "Sir, I owe you a thousand dollars,
but can never pay it." "Very well, it makes no difference," replies the
claimant, "I will pay it myself;" and forthwith thrusts his hand into
his right pocket and extracts the money, transfers it to the left pocket
and exclaims--"There, the debt is paid!" A curious way of paying debts,
and one utterly devoid of sense. And yet the orthodox world have adopted
it for their God. We find, however, that they carefully avoid practicing
this principle themselves in their dealings with each other. When they
have a claim against a neighbor, we do not find them ever thrusting
their hands into their own pockets to pay it off, but sue him, and
compel him to pay--if he refuses to do it without compulsion--thus
proving they do not consider it a correct principle of trade.

But we find, upon further investigation, that the assumed debt is not
paid--after all.

When a debt is paid, it is canceled, and dismissed from memory, and
nothing more said about it. But in this case the sinner is told he
must still suffer the penalty for every sin he commits, notwithstanding
Christ died to atone for and cancel that sin.

Where, then, is the virtue of the atonement? Like other doctrines of
the orthodox creed, it is at war with reason and common sense, and every
principle of sound morality, and will be marked by coming ages as a
relic of barbarism.




CHAPTER XXII. THE HOLY GHOST OF ORIENTAL ORIGIN

OF all the weird, fanciful, and fabulous stories appertaining to the
Gods and other spiritual entities of the olden times, whose capricious
adventures we find so profusely narrated in oriental mythology--of
all the strange, mythical and mystical feats, and ever-varying and
ever-diverging changes in the shape, appearance, sex, and modes of
manifestation which characterize the hobgoblins or ghostly beings which
comprise the esoteric stock of the ancient mysteries, that appertaining
to the third member of "the hypostatic union," the Holy Ghost, seems to
stand pre-eminent. And I propose here to submit the facts to show that
the Holy Ghost story of the Christian Gospels, like the more ancient
pagan versions of the same story, is marked by the same wild, discordant
and legendary characteristics which abound in all the accounts of gods
and ghosts found recorded in the religious books of various nations.

The following brief exposition of the history and exploits of this
anomalous, nondescript, chameleon-like being will clearly evince that
the same fanciful, metaphorical and fabulous changes in the size, shape,
sex and appearance of this third limb of the triune God are found in the
Christian Scriptures which are disclosed in the more ancient oriental
traditions.

We will first exhibit a classification of the names and characteristics
of this imaginary being drawn from the gospels and epistles of the
Christian bible, by which it will be observed that scarcely any two
references to it agree in assigning it the same character or attributes.

1. In John xiv. 26, the Holy Ghost is spoken of as a person or personal
God.

2. In Luke iii. 22, the Holy Ghost changes, and assumes the form of a
dove.

3. In Matt. xiii. 16, the Holy Ghost becomes a spirit

4. In John i. 32, the Holy Ghost is presented as an inanimate, senseless
object.

5. In John v. 7, the Holy Ghost becomes a God--the third member of the
Trinity.'

6. In Acts ii. 1, the Holy Ghost is averred to be "a mighty, rushing
wind."

7. In Acts x. 38, the Holy Ghost, we infer, from its mode of
application, is an ointment.

8. In John xx. 22, the Holy Ghost is the breath, as we legitimately
infer by its being breathed into the mouth of the recipient after the
ancient oriental custom.

9. In Adis ii. 3, we learn the Holy Ghost "sat upon each of them,"
probably in the form of a bird, as at Jesus' baptism.

10. In Adis ii. 1, the Holy Ghost appears as "cloven tongues of fire."

11. In Luke ii. 26, the Holy Ghost is the author of a revelation or
inspiration.

12. In Adis viii. 17, the Holy Ghost is a magnetic aura imparted by the
"laying on of hands."

13. In Mark i. 8, the Holy Ghost is a medium or element for baptism.

14. In Adis xxviii. 25, the Holy Ghost appears with vocal organs, and
speaks.

15. In Heb. vi. 4, the Holy Ghost is dealt out or imparted by measure.

16. In Luke iii. 22, the Holy Ghost appears with a tangible body.

17. In Luke i. 5, and many other texts, we are taught people are filled
with the Holy Ghost.

18. In Matt. xi. 15, the Holy Ghost falls upon the people as a
ponderable substance.

19. In Luke iv. 1, the Holy Ghost is a God within a God--"Jesus being
full of the Holy Ghost."

20. In Acts xxi. 11, the Holy Ghost is a being of the masculine or
feminine gender--"Thus saith the Holy Ghost," etc.

21. In John i. 32, the Holy Ghost is of the neuter gender--"It (the
Holy Ghost) abode upon him."

22. In Matt. i. 18, the Holy Ghost becomes a vicarious agent in the
procreation of another God; that is, this third member of the Trinity
aids the first member (the Father) in the creation or generation of the
second member of the triad of bachelor Gods--the Word, or Savior, or Son
of God.

Such are the ever-shifting scenes presented in the Scripture panorama
of the Holy Ghost. Surpassing the fabulous changes of some of the more
ancient demigods, the Christian Holy Ghost undergoes (as is shown by
the above-quoted texts) a perpetual metathesis or metamorphosis--being
variously presented on different occasions as a personal and rational
being, a dove, a spirit, an inanimate object, a God, the wind or a wind,
an ointment, the breath or a breath, cloven tongue of fire, a bird, or
some other flying recumbent animal, a revelator or divine messenger,
a medium or element for baptism, an intelligent, speaking being, a
lifeless, bodiless, sexless being, a measurable fluid substance, a being
possessing a body, ponderable, unconscious substance, a God dwelling
within a God, and, finally--though really first in order--the author
or agent of the incarnation of the second God in the Trinity (Jesus
Christ).

That many of these fabulous conceptions were drawn from mythological
sources will be made manifest by the following facts of history:--

1. _The Holy Ghost in the shape of a bird, a dove or a pigeon._ This is
proven to be a very ancient pagan tradition, as it is found incorporated
in several of the oriental religious systems. In ancient India, whose
prolific spiritual fancies constitute the primary parentage of nearly
all the doctrines, dogmas and superstitions found incorporated in
the Christian Scriptures, a dove was uniformly the emblem of the Holy
Spirit, or Spirit of God. Confirmatory of this statement, we find the
declaration in the Anacalypsis, that a "dove stood for or represented
a third member of the Trinity, and was the regenerator or regeneratory
power." This meets the Christian idea of "regeneration and renewing
of the Holy Ghost." (Titus iii. 5.) A person being baptized under the
Brahminical theocracy was said to be "regenerated and born again," or, as
the above-quoted writer expresses it, "They were born into the spirit,
or the spirit into them"--that is, the "dove into or upon them," (As vide
the case of the Christian's "Holy Ghost descending in bodily shape like
a dove," and alighting on Christ's head at baptism, as related in Luke
iii. 22.) In ancient Rome a dove or pigeon was the emblem of the female
procreative energy, and frequently a legendary spirit, the accompaniment
of Venus. And hence, as a writer remarks, "It is very appropriately
represented as descending at baptism in the character of the third
member of the Trinity." The same writer tells us, "The dove fills the
Grecian oracles with their spirit and power." We find the dove, also,
in the romantic eclogues of ancient Syria. In the time-chiseled Syrian
temple of Hierapolis, Semiramis is represented with a dove on her head,
thus constituting the prototype of the dove on the head of the Christian
Messiah at baptism. And a dove was in more than one of the ancient
religious systems--"The Spirit of God (Holy Ghost) moving on the face of
the waters" at creation, as implied in Gen. i. 2, though a pigeon, was
often indiscriminately substituted. In Howe's "Ancient Mysteries" it is
related that "in St. Paul's Cathedral, at the feast of Whitsuntide, the
descent of the Holy Ghost was performed by a white pigeon being let fly
out of a hole in the midst of the roof of the great aisle." The dove
and the pigeon, being but slight variations of the same species of the
feathered tribe, were used indiscriminately.

2. As evinced above, the Holy Ghost was the third member of the Trinity
in several of the oriental systems. Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or
Father, Word and Holy Ghost (1 John v. 7), are familiar Christian
terms to express the divine triad, which shows the Holy Ghost to be
the acknowledged third member of the Christian Trinity. And, as already
suggested, the same is true of the more ancient systems. "The Holy
Spirit and the Evil Spirit were, each in their turn (says Mr. Higgins),
third member of the Trinity." We might, if space would allow, draw
largely upon the ancient defunct systems in proof of this statement. "In
these triads (says Mr. Hillell) the third member, as might be supposed,
was not of equal rank with the other two." And hence, in the Theban
Trinity, Khonso was inferior to Arion and Mant. In the Hindoo triad,
Siva was subordinate to Brahma and Vishnu. And a score of similar
examples might be adduced from the fancy-constructed trinities of other
and older oriental religious systems (but for the inflexible rule of
brevity which forbids their presentation here), with all of which the
more modern Holy Ghost conception of the Christian world is an exact
correspondence, as this imaginary, fabulous being is less conspicuous
than and has always stood third in rank with the Father and second
to the Son, alias the Word, and is now seldom addressed in practical
Christian devotion; and thus the analogy is complete. Mr. Maurice
says, "This notion of a third person in the Deity (the Holy Ghost) was
diffused among all the nations of the earth." (See Ind. Antiq. vol. iv.
p. 75a) And Mr. Worseley, in his "Voyage" (vol. i. p. 259), avers this
doctrine to be "of very great antiquity, and generally received by all
the Gothic and Celtic nations."

3. The Holy Ghost was the Holy Breath which, in the Hindoo traditions,
moved on the face of the waters at creation, and imparted life and
vitality into everything created. A similar conception is recognized in
the Christian Scriptures. In Psalms xxxiii. 6, we read, "By the Word of
the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath
of his mouth." Here is the Brahminical conception, square out, of the
act of creation by the Divine Breath, which is the Holy Ghost, the same,
also, which was breathed into Adam, by which he became "a living soul."
M. Dubois observes, "The Prana, or principle of life, of the Hindoos is
the breath of life by which the Creator (Brahma) animates the clay, and
man became a living soul." (Page 293.)

4. Holy Ghost, Holy Breath and Holy Wind appear to have been synonymous
and convertible terms for the living vocal emanations from the mouth of
the Supreme God, as memorialized in several of the pagan traditions.
The last term (Holy Wind) is suggested by "the mighty rushing wind from
heaven" which filled the house, or church, on the day of Pentecost. (See
Acts ii. 2.) Several of the old religious systems recognize "the
Holy Wind" as a term for the Holy Ghost. The doxology (reported by a
missionary) in the religious service of the Syrian worship runs thus:--

     "Praise to the Holy Spiritual Wind, which is the Holy Ghost;
     Praise to the three persons which are one true God."

Some writers maintain that the Hebrew _Ruk Aliem._ translated "Spirit of
God" (Gen. i. 2) in our version, should read, "Wind of the Gods." And
we find that the word _pneuma_ of our Greek New Testament, is sometimes
translated "Ghost" and sometimes "Wind," as best suited the fancy of the
translators. In John iii. 5, we find the word Spirit, and in verse eight
both Wind and Spirit are found; and in Luke i. 35, we observe the term
Holy Ghost--all translated from the same word. Let it be specially
noted that in the Greek Testament the word _pneuma_ is used in all these
cases, thus proving that Spirit, Holy Ghost and Wind are used in the
Christian Scriptures as synonymous terms; and proving, also, that an
unwarranted license has been assumed by translators in rendering the
same word three different ways. M. Auvaroff, in his "Essays on the
Eleusinian Mysteries," speaks of "the torch being ignited at the command
of Hermes of Egypt, the spiritual agent in the workshop of creation,"
relative to which statement a writer remarks, "Hermes appears in
this instance as a personification of Wind or Spirit, as in the
bible (meaning the Christian bible), God, Wind and Spirit are often
interchangeable terms, and the Word appears to be from the same windy
source."

5. _The Holy Ghost as "a tongue of fire, which sat upon each of
them" (the apostles)_. (See Acts. ii. 3.) Even this conception is an
orientalism. Mr. Higgins tells us that "Budha, an incarnate God of the
Hindoos (three thousand years ago), is often seen with a glory or tongue
of fire upon his head." And the tradition of the visible manifestation
of the Holy Ghost by fire was prevalent among the ancient Budhists,
Celts, Druids and Etrurians. In fact, as our author truly remarks, "The
Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, when visible, was always in the form of fire
(or a bird), and was always accompanied with wisdom and power." Hence,
is disclosed the origin of the ancient custom amongst the Hindoos,
Persians and Chaldeans, of making offerings to the solar fire, emblem of
the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.

6. _Inspiration by the Holy Ghost_ (Luke ii. 26.) "Holy men of God,"
including some of the prophets, are claimed to have been inspired by the
Holy Ghost (See 2 Peter i. 21; Acts xxviii. 25.) In like manner, as
we are informed by Mr. Cleland in his "Specimens" (see Appendix), the
ancient Celts were not only "moved by the Holy Ghost" in their divine
decrees and prophetic utterances, but they claimed that their Salic laws
(seventy-two in number) were inspired by the "Salo Ghost" (Holy Ghost),
known also as "the Wisdom of the Spirit, or the Voice of the Spirit."
This author several times alludes to the fact, and exhibits the proof,
that the doctrine of the Holy Ghost was known to this ancient people.

7. _The Holy Ghost imparted by "the laying on of hands_." This, too, is
an ancient oriental custom. "And by the imposition of hands on the head
of the candidate," says Mr. Cleland, speaking of the Celts, "the Holy
Ghost, or Holy Spirit, was conveyed." And thus was the Holy Spirit,
Ghost, Gas, Wind, Electrical Fire or Spirit of Authority imparted to the
hierophant or gospel novitiate. "And their public assemblies," continues
our author, "were always opened by an invocation to the Holy Ghost."

8. _Baptism by or into the Holy Ghost accompanied with fire_. (Matt.
iii. 11.) This rite, too, is traceable to a very ancient period, and was
practiced by several of the old symbolical and mythological systems.
The Tuscans, or Etrurians, baptized with fire, wind (ghost) and water.
Baptism into the first member of the Trinity (the Father) was with fire;
baptism into the second member of the Trinity (the Word) was with water;
while baptism into the third member of the Trinity (the Holy Ghost,
or Holy Spirit) consisted of the initiatory spiritual or symbolical
application of gas, gust, ghost, wind, or spirit. It appears from
"Herbert's Travels," that, in "ancient countries", the child was taken to
the priest, who named him (christened him) before the sacred fire after
which ceremony he was sprinkled with "holy water" from a vessel made of
the sacred tree known as "The Holme."

9. _The Holy Ghost imparted by breathing_. (See John xx. 22).
"Sometimes," says Mr. Higgins, relative to this custom among the ancient
heathen, "the priest blew his breath upon the child, which was then
considered baptized by _air, spiritus sanctus,_ or ghost--i. e., baptism
by the Holy Ghost." In case of baptism, a portion of the Holy Ghost
was supposed to be transferred from the priest to the candidate. "The
practice of breathing in or upon," says our author, "was quite common
among the ancient heathen."

10. _The Holy Ghost as the agent in divine conception, or the
procreation of other Gods_. Jesus is said to have been conceived by
the Holy Ghost (see Matt. i. 18), and we find similar claims instituted
still more anciently for other incarnate demigods. In the Mexican
Trinity, Y, Zona was the father, Bacal the Word, and Eckvah the Holy
Ghost, by the last of whom Chimalman conceived and brought forth the
enfleshed God Quexalcote. (See Mex. Ant., vol. vi. p. 1650.) In the
Hindoo mythos, Sakia was conceived by the Holy Ghost Nara-an.

Other cases might be cited, proving the same point.

Thus, we observe that the various heterogeneous conceptions, discordant
traditions, and contradictory superstitions appertaining to that
anomalous nondescript being known as the Holy Ghost, are traceable to
various oriental countries, and to a very remote antiquity.

We will only occupy space with one or two more historical citations of a
general nature, tending to prove the prevalence of this ghostly myth
in other countries, not yet cited. "Tell me, O thou strong in fire!"
ejaculated Sesostris of Egypt, to the oracle, as reported by Manetho,
"who before me could subjugate all things, and who shall after me?" But
the oracle rebuked him, saying, "First God, then the Word, and with them
the Spirit." (See Nimrod, vol. i. p. 119.) "And Plutarch, in his 'Life
of Numa,'" says our oft-quoted author, "shows that the incarnation of
the Holy Spirit was known both to the ancient Romans and Egyptians."

The doctrine is thus shown to have been nearly universal.


ORIGIN OF THE HOLY GHOST SUPERSTITION.

The origin of the tradition respecting this fabulous and mythical being
is easily traced to the ancient Brahminical trifold conception of the
Deity, in which stands, in Trinity order, first, the God of power or
might--Brahma or Brahm (the Father); second, the God of creation--the
Word--answering to John's creative Word (see John i. 3); and third, the
God of generation and regeneration--the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. The
last member of the triune conception of the Deity was considered, under
the Brahminical theocracy, the _living, vital, active, life-imparting
agent_ in both the first and second births of men and the gods.

It will be borne in mind by the reader that the Holy Ghost is
represented in the Christian Scripture as being the active generating
agent of Christ's conception, he being, as Matthew declares, "conceived
by the Holy Ghost." The Holy Ghost was also the regenerating agent at
his baptism. Although the specific object of the descent of the Holy
Ghost on that occasion is not stated by Luke, who relates it; although
it is not stated for what purpose the Holy Spirit, after assuming the
form of a bird, alighted and sat upon his head, yet the motive is fully
disclosed in the older mythical religions, where we find the matter in
fuller detail.

Baptism itself is claimed by all its Christian votaries as regenerating
or imparting a new spiritual life; and this new spiritual life was
believed by several nations, as before stated, to make its appearance in
the character and shape of a bird--sometimes a pigeon, sometimes a dove;
and thus the origin of this tradition is most clearly and unmistakably
exposed.

As the foregoing historical exposition exhibits the Holy Ghost as
performing several distinct and discordant offices, so we likewise find
it possessing at least two distinct genders, the masculine and neuter,
i. e., no gender--changing, ghost-like, from one to the other, as
occasion seemed to require.

From all these metamorphoses it is shown and demonstrated that the
sexual and other changes of this "mysterious" being equal many of the
demigods of mythology. The primary windy conception of the Holy Ghost
is traceable to that early period of society when the rude and untutored
denizens of the earth, in their profound ignorance of natural causes,
were very easily and naturally led into the belief that wherever there
was motion there was a God, or the active manifestation of a God,
whether it was in the wind, breath, water, fire, or the sun.

Hence, the Buddhists had their god _Vasus_ who manifested himself
variously in the shape or character of fire, wind, storms, gas,
ghosts, gusts, and the breath, thus constituting a very nearly-allied
counterpart to the Christian Holy Ghost, which Mr. Parkhurst tells us
originally meant "air in motion." This god was believed to have sprung
from the supreme, primordial God, which the ancient Brahmins and
Buddhists generally believed was constituted of a fine, spiritual
substance,--aura, anima, wind, ether, igneous fluid, or electrical fire,
i. e., fire from the sun, giving rise to "baptism by fire" and hence, the
third God, or third member of the Trinity, subsequently arising out of
this compound being, was also necessarily composed of or consisted of
the same properties--all of which were believed to be correlated, if not
identical.

Such is a complete, though brief, historical elucidation of that
mysterious, imaginary being so corporally intangible that Faustus, of
the third century, declared respecting it, "The Holy Spirit, the third
majesty, has the air for his residence." And it is a fabulous God whose
scriptural biography is invested with so many ludicrous and abstruse
incidents as to incite several hundred Christian writers to labor
hard with a "godly zeal," by a reconstruction of "God's Word" and
a rehabiliment of the ghostly texts, to effect some kind of a
reconciliation of the story with reason and common sense--with what
success the reader is left to judge.


THE UNPARDONABLE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST.

Before dismissing our ghostly narrative, it may effect something in the
way of mitigating the anxious fears of some of our Christian brothers
and sisters to explain the nature of "the sin against the Holy Ghost,"
and assign the reason for its being unpardonable. The sin against the
Holy Ghost consisted, according to the ancient Mexican traditions, in
resisting its operations in the second birth--that is, the regeneration
of the heart or soul by the Holy Ghost. And as the rectification of the
heart or soul was a prominent idea with Christ, there is scarcely any
ground to doubt but that this was the notion he cherished of the nature
of the sin against the Holy Ghost. And it was considered unpardonable,
simply because as the pardoning and cleansing process consisted in,
or was at least always accompanied with baptism by water, in which
operation the Holy Ghost was the agent in effecting a "new birth,"
therefore, when the ministrations or operations of this indispensable
agent were resisted or rejected, there was no channel, no means, no
possible mode left for the sinner to find a renewed acceptance with God.
When a person sinned against the Father or the Word (the Son), he could
find a door of forgiveness through the baptizing processes spiritual
or elementary, of the Holy Ghost. But an offense committed against this
third limb of the Godhead had the effect to close and bar the door so
that there could be "no forgiveness, either in this life or that which
is to come." To sin against the Holy Ghost was to tear down the scaffold
by which the door of heaven was to be reached.

And thus it is explained the great "_mystery of godliness_," the
"unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost," which, on account of the
frightful penalty annexed to it, while it is impossible to learn what it
consists in--it being undefined and undefinable--has caused thousands,
and probably millions, of the disciples of the Christian faith the most
agonizing hours of alarm and despair.




CHAPTER XXIII. THE DIVINE "WORD" OF ORIENTAL ORIGIN.

The Word as Creator, as Second Person of the Trinity, and its
Pre-Existence.


THE WORD OF ORIENTAL ORIGIN.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God." (John i. i.) The doctrine of the divine creative word (from
the Greek Logos) appears to have been coeval in its origin with that of
the Trinity, if not inseparably connected with it, as it constitutes the
second member of the Trinity of "Father, Word, and Holy Ghost" in most
of the ancient systems of religion. Works on heathen mythology show that
it was anciently a very prevalent custom to personify ideas, thoughts
and words into angels and Gods. Words were first personated, and
transformed into men, then into angels, and finally into Gods.

And here is foreshadowed the origin of John's personification of "the
Word made flesh." It was simply the word of the supreme God as it
escaped from his mouth, assuming the form and characteristics of a
divine being like himself, and taking position as a secondary God and
second member of the Trinity. This was the orient conception, and it
appears to have been John's. He evidently had no thought of Christ
experiencing human birth, at first, or being born of a woman, but
believed, like some of the orientalists, that he came out of the mouth
of the Father, and was thus "made flesh." (John i. 2.) Not a word of
Christ being born is found in John's Gospel, till after his existence as
the Word is spoken of. (See first note in back of book.)


THE WORD AS CREATOR.

John also represents the Word as having been the Creator. "All things
were made by him." (John i. 3.) And Peter declares, "By the word of God
the heavens were of old." (2 iii. 5.) Now, let it be observed here, as
a notable circumstance, that the Chinese bible, much older than the
Christian's New Testament, likewise declares, "God pronounced the
primeval Word, and his own eternal and glorious abode sprang into
existence." Mr. Guizot, in a note on Gibbon's work, says, "According to
the Zend-Avesta (the Persian bible, more than three thousand years old),
it is by the Word, more ancient than the world, that Ormuzd created the
universe."

In like manner the sacred writings of the ancient Thibetans speak of
"the Word which produced the world"--an exact counterpart to John's
declaration, "All things were made by him." And the ancient Greek writer
Amelias, speaking of the God Mercury, says, "And this plainly was
the Logos (the Word), by whom all things were made, he being himself
eternal," as Heraclitus would say,.... He assumed to be with God, and
to be God, and in him everything that was made, has its life and being,
who, descending into body, and putting on flesh, took the appearance of
a man, though still retaining the majesty of his nature. Here is
"the Word made flesh" set forth in most explicit terms. The Psalmist
exclaims, "By the Word of God were the heavens made, and all the host of
them by the Breath of his mouth." (Ps. xxxiii. 6.) Here is disclosed not
only the conception of the Word as Creator, but also the Word and the
Breath as synonymous terms, both of which conceptions oriental history
amply proves to be of heathen derivation.

It was anciently believed that the Word and Breath of God were the same,
and possessed a vitalizing power, which, as they issued from his mouth,
might be transformed into another being known as a secondary God. Both
the Jews and the Christians seem to have inherited this belief, as
evinced by the foregoing quotations from their bible. The most ancient
tradition taught that the Word emanated from the mouth of the principal
God, and "became flesh," that is, took form, as the ancient Brahmins
expressed it, for the special purpose of serving as agent in the work of
creation, that is, to become the creator of the external universe. St.
John evidently borrowed this idea. Read his first chapter.


PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE WORD.

The pre-existence or previous existence of the Word, antecedent to the
date of its metamorphosis into the human form, we find taught in several
of the ancient systems of religion, as well as the more modern Christian
system. Several texts in the Christian New Testament set forth the
doctrine quite explicitly. Christ, as the Divine Word, declared, "Before
Abraham was I am," and that he had an existence with the Father before
the foundation of the world, etc., which is a distinct avowal of the
doctrine of pre-existence.

But oriental history proves the doctrine is much older than
Christianity.

The Hindoo very anciently taught that "the Word had existed with God
from all eternity, and when spoken it became a glorious form, the
aggregate embodiment of all the divine ideas, and performed the work of
creation." And of Chrishna, it is affirmed that "while upon the earth he
existed also in heaven." (See Baghavat Gita.)

In like manner it is declared of an Egyptian God, that "though he was
born into the world, he existed with his father God before the world was
made." And parallel to this is the statement of the Chinese bible, that
"though the Holy Word (Chang-si) will be born upon the earth, yet he
existed before anything was made." Even for Pythagoras it was claimed
he existed in heaven before he was born upon the earth. Mr. Higgins,
in summing up the matter, declares, "All the old religions believed
the world was created by the Word, and that this Word existed before
creation" (Ana., vol. ii. p. 77), which clearly indicates the source of
St John's creative Word.


THE DUAL OR TWO-FOLD NAME OF THE WORD.

In most cases the living Divine Word was known by different names and
titles, prior to the era of its assuming the mortal form, from that by
which it was known after its fleshly investment.

Among the ancient Persians, the name for the divine spiritual Word was
Honover. After its human birth, it was called "Mithra the Mediator."
The Hindoo oriental term for the primeval Word was Om, or Aum. After
assuming its most important incarnate form, it was known as Chrishna.
The Chinese Holy Interior Word was Om-i-to, and its principal
incarnation was Chang-ti or Ti-en-ti. The Japanese also proclaimed
their belief in a Divine Word before the Christian era, which, in their
language, was Amina. They taught, like John, that it came forth from the
mouth of the Supreme God (Brahm) to perform the work of creation, after
which, it was known as Sakia. And that popular Christian writer, Mr.
Milman, informs us that the Jewish founders of Christianity believed in
an original Divine Word, which they call Memra. When it descended to the
earth, and "became flesh, and dwelt amongst us" (John i. 4.) according
to the evangelist John, it was known as Jesus Christ. Mr. Milman states
also, that "the appellation to the Word is found in the Indian (Hindoo),
Persian, the Platonic, and the Alexandrian systems." (Hist, of Chr.,
Book I., Chap. 2.)

Thus, the question is settled by Christian testimony--that the various
conceptions of the Divine Word are of heathen origin.


THE WORD AS A SECOND MEMBER OF THE TRINITY.

"There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost." (1 John v. 7.) Observe, the Word is the second person
in the Trinity. And this was its post in the Brahman, Hindoo, Persian,
and other systems. "All religions," says a writer, "which taught the
existence of the Word as a great primeval spirit, represent him as
secondary to the supreme." (P. R. 3, vol. ii. p. 336.) "The Hindoos
reverenced it next to Brahm." Mr. Higgins cuts the matter short by
declaring "The Logos, or Word, was the second person of the Trinity
in all the ancient systems, as in the Christian system," which again
indicates its heathen origin.


THE WORD AS A BIBLICAL TITLE.

"The Word," "the Holy Word," "the Divine Word," etc., are terms now
frequently applied to the Christian bible, without any suspicion of
their heathen origin. The Zend-Avesta, the Persian bible, was always
called "The Living Word of God," for that is the meaning of the term
Zend-Avesta, and the oldest bible in the world is the Vedas, and
it means both Word and Wisdom. Om, the Egyptian's Holy Word, they
frequently applied both to their incarnate Gods and to their sacred
writings.

The practice of calling bibles "The Word of God" originated from the
belief that, when the incarnate Word left the earth and returned to
heaven, he infused a portion of his living spirits into the divine
writings which contained his history and his doctrines, and which he
himself had prompted his disciples to write as his "Last Revelation to
man." They then must contain a portion of him, i. e., a portion of the
Holy Word--hence, both were called "The Holy Word."

And this heathen custom Christians borrowed.


ORIGIN OF THE WORD AS CREATOR.

The motive which prompted a belief in the creative Word may be styled a
theological necessity. It was believed that the principal God, like
the rulers of earth, was too aristocratic to labor with his own hands.
Hence, another God was originated to perform the work of creation, and
called "The Word."

The origin of the creative Word is still further indicated by
Blackwood's Magazine.

It says:--

"Creation became impossible to a being already infinite, and was a
derogation to a being already perfect. Some lower God, some Avatar, must
be interposed (as an emanation from the mouth of the God supreme) to
perform the subordinate task of creation. Hence, originated and came
forth the Word as Creator."




CHAPTER XXIV. THE TRINITY VERY ANCIENTLY A CURRENT HEATHEN DOCTRINE

"THERE are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." (i John v. 7.) This text,
which evidently discloses a belief in the existence of three separate
and distinct beings in the Godhead, sets forth a doctrine which was
anciently of almost universal prevalence. Nearly every nation, whether
oriental or occidental, whose religious faith has been commemorated
in history, discloses in its creed a belief in the trifold nature and
triune division of the Deity. St. Jerome testifies unequivocally, "All
the ancient nations believed in the Trinity."

And a volume of facts and figures might be cited here, if we had space
for them, in proof of this statement A text from one of the Hindoo
bibles, (the Puranas) will evince the antiquity and prevalence of this
belief in a nation of one hundred and fifty millions of people more than
two thousand years ago. "O you three Lords!" ejaculated Attencion, "know
that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the
true divinity that I may address to him alone my vows and adorations."
The three Gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, becoming manifest to him,
replied, "Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between
us. What to you appears such is only by semblance. The single being
appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation and
destruction but he is one."

Now, reader, note the remark here, that the ancient Christian fathers
almost universally and unanimously proclaimed the doctrine of the
Trinity as one of the leading tenets of the Christian faith, and as a
doctrine derived directly by revelation from heaven. But here we find
it most explicitly set forth by a disciple of a pagan religion more
than three thousand years ago, as the Christian missionary D. O. Allen
states, that the Hindoo bible, in which it was found was compiled
fourteen hundred years before Christ, and written at a still earlier
period. And we find the same doctrine very explicitly taught in the
ancient Brahmin, Persian, Chaldean, Chinese, Mexican and Grecian systems
--all much older than Christianity.

No writer ever taught or avowed a belief in any tenet of religious faith
more fully or plainly than Plato sets forth, the doctrine of the Trinity
in his Phaedon, written four hundred years B. C. And his terms are found
to be in most striking conformity to the Christian doctrine on this
subject, as taught in the New Testament Plato's first term for the
Trinity was in Greek--1. To Agathon, the supreme God or Father. 2. The
Logos, which is the Greek term for the Word. And, 3. Psyche, which the
Greek Lexicon defines to mean "soul, spirit or ghost"--of course, the
Holy Ghost. Here we have the three terms of the Christian Trinity,
Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, as plainly taught as language can express
it, thus making Plato's exposition of the Trinity and definition of its
terms, published four hundred years B. C., identical in meaning with
those of St. John's, as found in his Gospel, and contained in the above
quoted text. Where, then, is the foundation for the dogmatic claim
on the part of the Christian professors for the divine origin of the
Trinity doctrine?

We will here cite the testimony of some Christian writers to prove
that the Trinity is a pagan-derived doctrine. A _Christian bishop_,
Mr. Powell, declares, "I not only confess but I _maintain_, such a
similitude of Plato's and John's Trinity doctrines as bespeaks a common
origin." (Thirteenth letter to Dr. Priestley.) What is that you say,
bishop? "A common origin." Then you concede both are heaven-derived, or
both heathen-derived. If the former, then revelation and heathenism are
synonymous terms. If the latter, then Christianity stands on a level
with heathen mythology. Which horn of the dilemma will you choose? St.
Augustine confessed he found the beginning of John's Gospel in Plato's
Phaedon, which is a concession of the whole ground.

Another writer, Chataubron, speaks of an ancient Greek inscription
on the great obelisk at Rome, which reads--1. The Mighty God. 2. The
Begotten of God as Christ is declared to be "the only begotten of the
Father" (John i. 14). And, 3. "Apollo the Spirit"--the Holy Spirit or
Holy Ghost--thus presenting in plain language the three terms of the
Trinity. And Mr. Cudworth, in corroboration of this report, says, "The
Greeks had a first God, and second God, and third God, and the second
was begotten by the first. And yet for all that," continues Mr.
Cudworth, "they considered all these one."

In the Platonic or Grecian Trinity, the first person was considered the
planner of the work of creation, the second person the creator, and
the third person the ghost or spirit which moved upon the face of the
waters, and infused life into the mighty deep at creation--the same
Holy Ghost which descended from heaven to infuse life into the waters at
Christ's baptism; thus, the resemblance is complete. Mr. Basnage quotes
a Christian writer of the fifth century as declaring, "The Athenian sage
Plato marvelously anticipated one of the most important and mysterious
doctrines of the Christian religion"--meaning the Trinity--an important
concession truly.

The oldest and probably the original form of the Trinity is that found
in the Brahmin and Hindoo systems--the terms of which are--i. Brahma,
the Father or supreme God. 2. Vishnu, the incarnate Word and Creator. 3.
Siva, the Spirit of God, i. e., the Holy Spirit or Ghost--each answering
to corresponding terms of the Christian Trinity, and yet two thousand
years older, according to Dr. Smith.

We have not allowable space for other facts and citations (as this work
is designed as a mere epitome), although we have but entered upon the
threshold of the evidence tending to prove that the Christian Trinity
was born of heathen parents, that it is an offspring of heathen
mythology, like other doctrines of the Christian faith, claimed by its
disciples as the gift of divine revelation.

Here let it be noted as a curious chapter in sacred history that the
numerous divine Trinities which have constituted a part of nearly every
religious system ever propagated to the world were composed, in every
case, of male Gods. No female has ever yet been admitted into the triad
of Gods composing the orthodox Trinity. Every member of the Trinity in
every case is a male, and an old bachelor--a doctrine most flagrantly at
war with the principles of modern philosophy.

For this science teaches us that the endowment of a being with either
male or female organs, presupposes the existence of the other sex; and
that either sex, without the other would be a ludicrous anomaly, and a
ludicrous distortion of nature unparalleled in the history of science.
As sexual organs create an imperious desire for the other sex, no male
or female could long enjoy full happiness in the absence of the other
party. What an unhappy, lonesome place, therefore, the orthodox heaven
must have been, during the eternity of the past, with no society but old
bachelors! The Trinity was constituted of males simply because woman has
always been considered a mere cipher in society--a mere tool for man's
convenience, an appendage to his wants. Hence, instead of having a place
among the Gods she led the practical life of a servant and a menial,
which accounts for her exclusion from the Trinity. But the time is
coming when she will rule both heaven and earth with the omnipotent
power of her love nature. Then we shall have no "war in heaven," and no
fighting on earth.




CHAPTER XXV. ABSOLUTION, AND THE CONFESSION OF SINS, OF HEATHEN ORIGIN

SOME Christian writers have labored to make it appear that this is
exclusively a Christian doctrine, while others have labored as hard to
get it out of their bible, or make the people believe that it is not
therein taught.

We shall show, upon scriptural and historical authority, that both are
wrong.

There can be no question as to this rite having existed outside of
Christianity, or of its being much older than Christianity. History
proves both. Nor can it be successfully denied that it is taught in the
Christian Scriptures, both the confessing of sins and that of forgiving
sins. The apostle James, with respect to the former, is quite explicit.
He enjoins, emphatically, "Confess your faults one to another." (James
v. 16.) The practice of forgiving sins is also enjoined. "Forgiving one
another" is recommended both in Ephesians (iv. 32) and Colossians. (iii.
13). "And whatsoever ye shall lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
(Matthew xviii 18), is interpreted as conferring the power to forgive
sins.

And then we remark that the practices both of confessing and forgiving
sins are very ancient pagan rites and customs. Speaking of their
prevalence in ancient India, the author of the Anacalypsis remarks, "The
person offering sacrifices made a verbal confession of his sins, and
received absolution." Auricular confession was also practiced among
the ancient Mithriacs, or Persians, and the Parsees proper of the
same country. Mr. Volney tells us, "They observed all the Christian
sacraments, even to the laying on of hands in the confirmation." (211.)
And the Christian Tertullian also tells us that "The priests of Mithra
promised absolution from sin on confession and baptism," while another
author adds, that "on such occasions Mithra marked his followers (the
servants of God) in their foreheads," and that "he celebrated the
sacrifice of bread, which is the resurrection."

In the collection of the Jewish laws called "The Mishna," we are
told the Jews confessed their sins by placing their hands upon a calf
belonging to the priest, and that this was called "the Confession of
Calves." (See Mishna, tom. ii. p. 394.) Confessing sins was practiced in
ancient Mexico; also under Numa of Rome, whose priests, we are informed,
had to clear their consciences by confessing their sins before they
could offer sacrifices. The practice of confessing and forgiving sins
as recommended in the Christian bible, and practiced by some of
the Christian sects, has been the source of much practical evil by
furnishing a pretext and license, to some extent, for the commission
of crime and sin. While sins can be so easily obliterated they will
be committed--perpetrated without much remorse or restraint. "In China
(says the Rev. Mr. Pitrat, 232), the invocation of Omito is sufficient
to remit the punishment of the greatest crimes." The same author tells
us, "The ancient initiation of the pagans had tribunals of penance,
where the priests, under the name of _Roes_, heard from the mouth of the
sinners themselves the avowal of their sins of which their souls were
to be purified, and from the punishment of which they wished to be
exempted." (Page 37.) The granting of absolution for sin or misconduct
among the early primitive Christians was so common, St. Cyprian informs
us, that "thousands of reprieves were granted daily," which served as an
indirect license to crime. And thus the doctrine of divine forgiveness,
as taught by pagans and Christians, has proved to be demoralizing in its
effects upon society.




CHAPTER XXVI. ORIGIN OF BAPTISM BY WATER, FIRE, BLOOD AND THE HOLY GHOST

BAPTISM, in some of its various forms, is a very ancient rite, and was
extensively practiced in several oriental countries. It was administered
in a great varieties of forms, and with the use of different elements.
Water was the most common, but fire and air, wind, spirit ghost were
also used; and both the living and the dead were made the subjects of
its solemn and imposing ceremonies.

We will notice each of these modes of baptism separate--appropriating a
brief space to each.

1. Baptism by Water.

"Baptism by water," says Mr. Higgins, "is a very old rite, being
practised by the followers of Zoroaster, by the Romans, the Egyptians,
and other nations." It was also vogue among the ancient Hindoos at
a still earlier day Their mode of administering it was to dip the
candidate for immersion three times in the watery element, in the same
manner as is now practiced by some of the Christian sects during the
performance of which the hierophant would ejaculate the following prayer
and ceremony: "O Lord this man is impure, like the mud of this stream!
But as thou cleanse and deliver his soul from sin as the water cleanses
his body." They believed that water possesses the virtue of purifying
both soul and body--the latter from filth and the former from sin. The
ancient Mexican, Persians, Hindoos and Jews were in the habit of
baptizing their infants soon after they were born. And the water used
for this purpose was called "the water of regeneration." Paul speaks of
being "saved by the washing of regeneration." (See Titus iii. 5.) Those
who touched these infants before they were baptized were deemed impure.
And as this was unavoidable on the part of the mothers, they were
required, as in the cases of the mothers of Chrishna and Christ, to
present themselves on the eighth day after accouchement to the priest in
the temple to be purified. The Romans chose the eighth day for girls and
the ninth for boys. The child was usually named (christened) at the time
it was baptized. And in India, the name, or God's name, or some other
mark, was engraven or written on the forehead. This custom is several
times recognized in the Christian bible, both in the old and in the New
Testament. (See Ezek. ix 4; Rev. xiv. 9; xix. 20, etc.) John speaks of a
mark being made on the forehead. (See Rev. xiii. 16.) Also of the name
of God being written on the forehead. (Rev. iii. 12.)


THE DOVE DESCENDING AT BAPTISM.

At this stage of our inquiry it may be stated that several of the
ancient religious orders had the legend of a dove or pigeon descending at
baptism--a counterpart to the evangelical story of "the Spirit of God
descending in bodily shape like a dove," and alighting on the head of
Jesus Christ while being baptized by John in Jordan. (See Luke iii. 22.)
It will be observed here that the spirit, or soul, of God descended not
only in the manner, but in "bodily shape like a dove." This accords with
the tradition anciently prevalent among the Hindoos, Mexicans, Greeks,
Romans and Persians, or Babylonians, that all souls, or spirits,
possessed, or were capable of assuming, the form of a dove. Hence, it is
reported of Polycarp, Semiramis, Caesar and others, that at death their
souls, or spirits, were seen to leave the body in "bodily shape like
a dove" and ascend to heaven. "The Divine Love, or Eros," says Mr.
Higgins, "was supposed by the oriental heathen to descend often in the
form of a dove to bless the candidate for baptism." These traditions,
doubtless, gave rise to the story of the dove descending at Christ's
baptism--that is God in the shape of a dove, for that is clearly the
meaning of the text. We are also informed by our author just quoted,
that a dove stood for and represented, among the orientalists, the third
person of the Trinity, as it does in the gospel story of Christ--he
being the second member of the Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy
Ghost. It was considered "the regenerator, or regenerating spirit," and
persons being baptized were said to be "born again" into the spirit or
the spirit into them; that is, the dove into or upon them.

What a master-key is furnished by these oriental religions for solving
the mysteries of the Christian bible! How much more lucid than Divine
Revelation--so-called!

We will quote again from Higgins: "Among all nations, from the
very earliest period, water has been used as a species of religious
sacrament. Because, as it dripped from the clouds, it was observed
to have the power of reviving drooping nature and creating anew, or
regenerating the whole vegetable kingdom in spring, it was hence chosen
as an emblem of spiritual regeneration and a medium of baptism. Water
was the element by means of which everything was born again through the
agency of the Eros, Dove, or Divine Love." And, hence, the ceremony of
dipping or plunging (or, as it is modernly termed, baptizing) came into
vogue for the remission of sins and "the regeneration into a new and
more holy life."

Some streams were supposed to have more efficacy in these respects than
others. Hence, nearly all religious nations had their "Holy Rivers,"
"Holy Water," "Sacred Pools," etc. The Hindoos resorted to the "Holy
Ganges," the Egyptians to the "Holy Nile," the Chaldeans and Persians
to the "Holy Euphrates," the Greeks to their "Holy Lustral Water," the
Italians to the river Po, and the Jews and Christians to their holy
river Jordan. If Jordan was not called "holy," it was undoubtedly
considered so, else why did Elisha order Naaman to wash seven times
in that stream instead of Damascus, which was much nearer and more
accessible? And why was Christ baptized in Jordan? "And all the land of
Judea, and they of Jerusalem, were baptized in Jordan, confessing their
sins." (Matt iii. vi.) Why, as several streams were handier to a large
portion of the candidates, simply because Jordan was considered to be
"more holy." And Christians had their sacred pool of Bethesda, as the
Hindoos had their Sahar.

The rite of baptism was at first generally practiced in caves--as were
also other religious rites; and as these caves were often difficult of
access, and their mouths, doors or gates narrow and difficult to enter,
they fully exemplify Christ's declaration, "Straight is the gate and
narrow is the way that leadeth unto life." (Matt. vii. 14.) And when
he declared, "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot
enter the kingdom of heaven" (John iii. 5) he was only seconding the
exhortation of the priests to enter these subterranean vaults and be
baptized after the oriental and Jewish custom. Thus originated baptism
by water in the form of dipping, or immersion.


BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING.

Owing to the scarcity of water in some countries, and its entire absence
in others, and the fatal effects sometimes resulting from the practice
of baptizing infants and invalids by immersion, a new mode of baptism
eventually sprung up, now known as "sprinkling," in which sometimes
water and sometimes blood was used. Virgil, Ovid and Cicero all speak
of its prevalence amongst the ancient Romans or Latins. We are informed
that the ancient Jews practiced it upon their women while in a state of
nudity, the ceremony being administered by three rabbis, or priests. But
the custom finally gave way to one more consonant with decorum. Blood,
being considered "the life thereof" of man, was deemed more efficacious
than water, and hence was often used in lieu of that element. The Greeks
kept a "holy vessel" for this purpose, known as the Facina. The Romans
used a brush, which may now be seen engraven upon some of their ancient
coins and sculptured on their ancient temples. The Hindoos and Persians
used a branch of laurel or some other shrub for sprinkling the repentant
candidate, whether water or blood was used.

In some countries the rite was practiced as a talisman against evil
spirits. The Mexicans never approached their altars without sprinkling
them with blood drawn from their own bodies, as the Jews sprinkled the
walls and door-posts of their temples with blood under the requisition
of the Levitical code. This mode of fancied purification by sprinkling
either with water or blood we find recognized, and apparently
sanctioned, in the Christian bible, both in the Old and New Testaments.
Ezekiel says, "I will sprinkle clean water on you." (Ezek. xxxvi. 25.)
Peter uses the phrase, "The sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."
(1 Peter i. 2.) And Paul makes use of the expression, "The blood of
sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel" (Heb. xii.
24), which we regard as an indirect sanction of the senseless heathen
idea of effecting spiritual purification by drops of blood. (See
Potter's Antiquities and Herbert's Travels.)


BAPTISM BY FIRE.

Baptism by fire was a form or mode of application which seems to have
been introduced from the belief that it was productive of a higher
degree of purification. There were several ways of using fire in the
baptismal rite. In some cases the candidate for immortality ran through
blazing streams of fire--a custom which was called "the baptism of
fire." M. de Humboldt, in his "Views of the Cordilleras and Monuments
of America," informs us it prevailed in India, Chaldea and Syria,
and throughout eastern Asia. It appears to have been gotten up as
a substitute for sun-worship, as this luminary was believed to be
constituted of fire, though in reality there never was any such thing as
sun or solar worship. Christian writers represent the ancient Persians
as has having been addicted to solar worship. But Firdausi, Cudworth
and other authors declare that neither they nor any other nation ever
worshiped the sun, but merely an imaginary Deity supposed to reside in
the sun. Heathen nations have been charged with many things of which
they were not guilty; though it is true that in the spirit of Christ's
exhortation, "Whosoever loseth his life for my sake shall find it,"
some of the candidates for the fiery ordeal voluntarily sacrificed their
lives in the operation, under the persuasion that it was necessary to
purify the soul, and would enable them to ascend to higher posts or
planes of enjoyment in the celestial world. And some of them were taught
that sins not expurgated by fire, or some other efficaciously renovating
process in this life, would be punished by fire in the life to come.
Here we will mention that there is a seeming recognition of this ancient
heathen rite in both departments of the Christian's bible. Isaiah says,
"When thou walkest through fire thou shalt not be burned." (lxiii.
2.) And the Baptist John recognizes three modes of baptism: "I indeed
baptize you with water, but he that cometh after me shall baptize you
with fire and the Holy Ghost." (Matt. iii. 11). And Paul teaches the
necessity of being purified by fire. (See i Cor. iii. 15.) So it is both
a heathen and a Christian idea.


BAPTISM BY THE HOLY GHOST.

This fanciful ceremony is both a Christian and a heathen rite, and is
undoubtedly of heathen origin. The mode of applying it was to breathe
into or upon the seeker for divine favors. This was done by the priest,
who, it was believed, imparted the Spirit of God by the process. The
custom, Mr. Herbert informs us, was anciently quite common in oriental
countries, and was at a later date borrowed by Christ and his apostles
and incorporated into the Christian ceremonies. We find that Christ not
only sanctioned it but practised it, as it is declared when he met his
disciples after his resurrection "he breathed on them, and saith unto
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." (John xx. 22.)

And the following language of Ezekiel is evidently a sanction of the
same heathen custom: "Thus saith the Lord God, Come from the four winds,
O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live." (xxxvii.
9.) Let it be borne in mind here that breath, air, wind, spirit and
ghost were used as synonymous terms, according to Mr. Parkhurst (see
Chap. XXII.), and this breathing was supposed to impart spiritual life,
being nothing less than the Spirit of God, the same as that breathed
into Adam when "he became a living soul." (See Gen. ii. 7.) For a fuller
exposition see Chapter XXII.


BAPTISM OF OR FOR THE DEAD.

It was customary among the Hindoos and other nations to postpone baptism
till near the supposed terminus of life, in order that the ablution
might extinguish all the sins and misdeeds of the subject's earthly
probation. But it sometimes happened that men and women were killed, or
died unexpectedly, before the rite was administered. And as it would
not do for these unfortunate souls to be deprived of the benefit of this
soul-saving ordinance, the custom was devised of baptizing the defunct
body, or more commonly some living person in its stead. The method of
executing the latter expedient, according to St. Chrysostom, was to
place some living person under the bed or couch on which the corpse
was reclining, when the defunct was asked if he would be baptized. The
living man, responding for the dead, answered in the affirmative. The
corpse was then taken and dipped in a vessel prepared for the purpose.
This silly practice was in vogue among the early Christians, and Paul
seems to regard it as an important custom. "Else what shall they do
which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all." (i Cor.
xv. 9.)

The inference derivable from this text is, that Paul held that the labor
of baptizing the dead would be lost in the event of the falsification of
the doctrine of the resurrection, but otherwise it would be valid--which
evinces his faith in the senseless and superstitious practice. It will
be observed from the historical exposition of this chapter that all the
various ancient heathen modes and rites of baptism have been practiced
by Christians, and are sanctioned by their bible.




CHAPTER XXVII. THE SACRAMENT OR EUCHARIST OF HEATHEN ORIGIN

AT the feast of the Passover, Christ is represented, while distributing
bread to his disciples, to have said, "Take, eat; this is my body"
(Matt. xxvi. 26); and while handing round the consecrated cup, he
enjoined, "Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new covenant,
which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (xxvi. 27). Here is
a very clear and explicit indorsement of what is generally termed "the
Eucharist or Sacrament." And nothing can be more susceptible of proof
than that this rite or ordinance is of pagan origin, and was practically
recognized many centuries prior to the dawn of the Christian era.

So we observe, by the text above quoted, the Christian Savior and
Lawgiver copied, or reproduced, an old pagan rite as a part of his
professedly new and spiritual system, one of the most ancient and
widely-extended formulas of pagandom. And stranger still, the catechisms
of the Christian church represent this ordinance as having originated in
the design and motive to keep the ancient Christian world in remembrance
of the death and sufferings and sacrifice of Christ, while we find it
existing long prior to his time, both among Jews and pagans, this being
virtually admitted in the bible itself, so far as respects the pagans,
thus proving that it did not originate with Christ, and therefore is
not of Christian origin. For in Gen. viv. 18, we read, "And Melchisedek,
king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine, and he was the priest
of the Most High God." Because the Melchisedek here spoken of is
represented as being "a priest of the Most High God," and showed so much
respect to Abraham, it is presumed and assumed, by Christian writers,
that he was a Jewish priest and king; and Mr. Faber (vol. i. p. 72)
calls him "an incarnation of the son of God." But there is no intimation
throughout the Jewish Scriptures of the Jews ever having had a king or
priest by that name. And besides, Eupolemus (vol. i. p. 39), tells
us that the temple of Melchisedek was the temple of Jupiter, in which
Pythagoras studied philosophy. Then, again, according to some writers,
the name is synonymous with Moloch, the God of war among the Greeks.
Strange, then, that Melchisedek should be claimed as a priest and king
among the Jews. Be this as it may, the case proves that the ceremony of
offering bread and wine existed long before the era of Jesus Christ.

And then we have much more and much stronger proof of this fact than
is here furnished. The Christian Mr. Faber virtually admits it, when he
tells us, "The devil led the heathen to anticipate Christ with respect
to several things, as the mysteries of the Eucharist, etc." "And this
very solemnity (says St Justin) the evil spirit introduced into the
mysteries of Mithra." (Reeves, Justin, p. 86.) Mr. Higgins observes, "It
was instituted hundreds of years before the Lord's death took place."
Amongst the ancient religious orders and nations who practiced this
rite, we may name the Essenes, Persians, Pythagoreans, Gnostics,
Brahmins and Mexicans. For proof of its existence and antiquity among
the last-named nation, we refer the reader to the "Travels" (chap. ii.)
of that Christian writer, Father Acosta. Mr. Marolles, in his Memoirs
(p. 215) quotes Tibullus as saying, "The pagan appeased the divinity
with holy bread." And Tibullus, in a panegyric on Marcella, wrote, "A
little cake, a little morsel of bread, appeased the divinities."

And here we discover the idea which originated the ceremony. It was
started, like animal sacrifices, for the purpose of appeasing the wrath
or propitiating the favor of the angry Gods. Tracing the conception
still further in the rear of its progress, and apparently to its primary
inception, Mr. Higgins observes, "The whole paschal supper (the Lord's
supper with the Christians) was in fact a festival of joy to celebrate
the passage of the sun across the equinox of spring."

We find one pagan writer who had intelligence enough to ridicule this
senseless ceremonial custom, called "the sacrament." Cicero, some
forty years before Christ, shows up the doctrine of the sacrament, or
substantiation, in its true light. He asks, "How can a man be so stupid
as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?" A writer quoted above
says, "Mass, or the sacrifice of bread and wine, was common to many
ancient nations." (Anac. vol. ii. p. 62.) According to Alnetonae, the
ancient Brahmins had a kind of Eucharist called "prajadam." And the same
writer informs us that the ancient Peruvians, "after sacrificing a lamb,
mingled his blood with flour, and distributed it among the people."
Writers on Grecian mythology relate that Ceres, the goddess of corn,
gave her flesh to eat, and that Bacchus, the God of wine, gave blood to
drink. Nor is there any evidence that Christ and his followers made a
better use, or different use, or a more spiritual application of the
sacrament, or ceremonial offering of bread and wine, than the pagans
did, though some have claimed this. It was a species of symbolism with
both, notwithstanding Mr. Glover, a Christian writer, declares, that
"in the sacrament of the altar are the natural body and blood of Christ,
verily and indeed." (See Glover's Remarks on Bishop Marsh's Compendious
Review.) It may be noted here that the Persians, Pythagoreans, Essenes
and Gnostics used water instead of wine, and that this mode of practice
was less objectionable than that of the Christians, who (as sad
experience proves) have too often laid the foundation for the ruin of
some poor unsuspecting devotee, by luring him to the fatal fascination
of the intoxicating bowl, by holding the sacred and ceremonial wine to
his lips, while administering the sacrament or the Lord's supper.




CHAPTER XXVIII. ANOINTING WITH OIL OF ORIENTAL ORIGIN

THE custom and ceremony of anointing with oil by way of imparting some
fancied spiritual power and religious qualification seems to have been
extensively practiced by the Jews and primitive Christians, and still
more anciently by various oriental nations. Mark (xiv. 4), reports Jesus
Christ as speaking commendingly of the practice, by which it was evident
he was in favor of the superstitious custom. The apostle James not only
sanctions it, but recommends it in the most specific language. "Is any
sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church, and let them
pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." (James
v. 14.)

The practice of greasing or smearing with oil, it may be noted here, was
in vogue from other motives besides the one here indicated. We find
the statement in the New American Cyclopedia (vol. i. p. 620), that
anointing with perfumed oil was in common use among the Greeks and
Romans as a mark of hospitality to guests. And modern travelers in
the East still find it a custom for visitors to be sprinkled with
rose-water, or their head, face and beard "anointed with olive oil."
"Anointing," we are also told, "is an ancient and still prevalent custom
throughout the East, by pouring aromatic oils on persons as a token of
honor.... It was also employed in consecrating priests, prophets and
kings, and the places and instruments appointed for worship." (Ibid.)
Joshua anointed the ten stones he set up in Jordan, and Jacob the stone
on which he slept at the time of his great vision.

The early Christians were in the habit of anointing the altars, and even
the walls, of the churches, in the same manner as the images, obelisks,
statues, etc., had long been consecrated by the devotees of the oriental
systems. Aaron, Saul, David, Solomon, and even Jesus Christ were
anointed with oil in the same way. David Malcom, in his "Essay on the
Antiquity of the Britons," p. 144, says, "The Mexican king was anointed
with Holy Unction by the high priest while dancing before the Lord."
Vide the case of David "dancing before the Lord with all his might." Dr.
Lightfoot, in his "Harmony of the New Testament," speaks of the custom
among the Jews of anointing the sick on the Sabbath day (see Works, vol.
i, p. 333; also Toland, Sect. Naz. p. 54), as afterwards recommended by
the apostle James, as shown above. This accords exactly with the method
of treating the sick in ancient India and other heathen countries
several thousand years ago. For proof consult Hyde, Bryant, Tertullian
and other writers. The custom of anointing the sick, accompanied with
prayer and other ceremonies, was quite fashionable in the East long
before the birth of either Jesus or James. One writer testifies that
"the practice of anointing with oil, so much in vogue among the Jews,
and sanctioned by Christ and his followers, was held in high esteem in
nearly all the Eastern religions."

The foregoing historical facts furnish still further proof that
Christianity is the offspring of heathenism.




CHAPTER XXIX. HOW MEN, INCLUDING JESUS CHRIST, CAME TO BE WORSHIPED AS
GODS


JESUS CHRIST A DEMIGOD, ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN WRITERS.

IT is truly surprising to observe the damaging concessions of some of
the early Christian writers, ruinous to the dogmas of their own faith
with respect to the divinity of Jesus Christ, placing him, as they do,
on an exact level with the heathen demigods, proving that the belief in
his divinity originated in the same manner the belief in theirs did,
by which it is clearly shown to be a pagan derived doctrine. Several
Christian writers admit the belief in earth-born Gods (called Sons of
Gods), and their coming into the world by human birth was prevalent
among the heathen long prior to the time of Christ. Hear the proof.

We will first quote St. Justin relative to the prevalence of the belief
among the ancient Greeks and Romans. Addressing them, he says, "The
title of Son of God (As applied to Jesus Christ) is very justifiable
upon the account of his wisdom, considering you have your Mercury in
your worship, under the title of Word or Messenger of God." (Reeves
Apol. p. 76.) Here is the proof that the tradition of the Son of God
coming into the world, and "the Word becoming flesh," was established
amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans long prior to the era of
Christianity, or the birth of Christ.

And yet more than a hundred millions of Christian professors can now be
found, who, in their historic ignorance, suppose St. John was the first
writer who taught the doctrine of "the Word becoming flesh," and that
Jesus Christ was "the first and only begotten Son of God" who ever made
his appearance on earth. How true it is that "ignorance is the mother of
devotion" to creeds.

How "the man Christ Jesus" came to be worshiped as a God, is pretty
clearly indicated by Bishop Horne, who shows that the doctrine of the
incarnation was of universal prevalence long before Jesus Christ came
into the flesh. He says, "That God should, in some extraordinary manner,
visit and dwell with man, is an idea, which, as we read the writings of
the ancient heathen, meets us in a thousand different forms." If,
then, the tradition of God being born into the world was so universally
established in heathen countries before the Christian era, as here
shown, why should not, and why will not, our good Christian brethren
dismiss their prejudices, and tear the scales from their eyes, so as
to see that this universal belief would as naturally lead to the
deification and worship of "the man Christ Jesus" as water flows down a
descending plane?

And, certainly a thousand times more reasonable is the assumption
that his deification originated in this way, than that, with all his
frailties and foibles, he was entitled to the appellation of a God--a
conclusion strongly corroborated by the testimony of that able Christian
writer, Mr. Norton, who tells us that "many of the first Christians
being converts from Gentileism, their imaginations were familiar with
the reputed incarnation of heathen deities." How natural it would be for
such converts to worship "the man Christ Jesus" as a God on account of
his superior manhood!

Again, that ancient pillar of the Christian church, St. Justin, concedes
that the ancient oriental heathen held all the cardinal doctrines of
the Christian faith relating to the incarnation long prior to the
introduction and establishment of Christianity. Hear him: Addressing the
pagans, he says, "For by declaring the Logos the first begotten Son of
God, our Master, Jesus Christ, to be born of a virgin without any human
mixture, and to be crucified, and dead, and to have risen again into
heaven, we say no more in this than what you say of those whom you style
the sons of Jove." (Reeves, Apol. vol. i. p. 69.) Now, Christian reader,
mark the several important admissions which are made here:--

1. Here is traced to ancient heathen tradition the belief in an
incarnate Son of God.

2. The doctrine of a "first begotten Son of God."

3. Of his being born of a virgin.

4. Of his crucifixion.

5. Of his resurrection.

6. Of his final ascension into heaven.

All these cardinal doctrines of Christianity are here shown to have been
in existence, and to have been preached by pagan priests long anterior
to the Christian era, thus entirely oversetting the common belief of
Christendom that these doctrines were never known or preached in the
world until heralded by the first disciples of the Christian religion.
A fatal mistake, truly! This suicidal admission of St Justin (a standard
Christian writer) thus entirely uptrips all pretensions to originality
in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and shows it to be
a mere travesty of the more ancient heathen systems.

And we have still other testimony to corroborate this conclusion. The
French writer Bazin says, "The most ancient histories are those of Gods
becoming incarnate in order to govern mankind." Again he says, "The
idea sprang up everywhere from confused ideas of God, which prevailed
everywhere among mankind that Gods formerly descended upon earth. The
fertile imagination of the people of various nations converted men into
Gods."

And to the same effect is the declaration of Mr. Higgins, that "there
was incarnate Gods in all religions." Sadly beclouded and warped indeed
must be that mind which cannot see that here is set in as plain view as
the cloudless sun at noonday, the origin of the deification of "the man
Christ Jesus." No unbiased mind can possibly stave off the conclusion
that such a universal prevalence of the practice of God-making
throughout the religious world would cause such a man as Jesus Christ
to be worshiped as a God--especially when we look at the various motives
which promoted men to Gods, which we will now present.


MOTIVES TO INCARNATION, OR THE CAUSE OF MEN BEING WORSHIPED AS GODS.

The causes which led to the conception of Gods and Sons of God becoming
clothed in human flesh--the manner in which the absurd idea originated
of an infinite being descending from heaven, assuming the form of a man,
being born of a pure and spotless virgin, and finally being killed by
his own children, the subjects of his own government, are palpably plain
and easily understood' in the light of oriental history.

And at the same time it is so shockingly absurd, that the rapid march
of science and civilization will soon inaugurate the era when the man
or woman who shall still be found clinging to these childish and
superstitious conceptions--the offspring of ignorance, and the relics
of barbarism, and a certain proof of undeveloped or unenlightened
minds--will be looked upon as deplorably ignorant and superstitious. We
will proceed to enumerate some of the causes which promoted men to the
dignity of Gods.

1. God must come down to suffer and sympathize with the people.

The people of all ancient religious countries were so externally-minded,
that they demanded a God whom they could know by virtue of his
corporeity, really sympathized with their sorrows, their sufferings,
their wrongs, and their oppressions, and, like Jesus Christ, "touched
with a feeling of our infirmities" (Heb. iv. 15)--a God so far invested
with human attributes, human frailties, and human sympathies, that
he could shoulder their burdens and their infirmities, and take upon
himself a portion of their sufferings. Hence it is said of Christ,
"himself took our infirmities." (Matt. iii. 17.)

The same conception runs through the pagan systems. One writer sets
forth the matter thus: "The Creator occasionally assumed a mortal form
to assist mankind in great emergencies" (as Jesus Christ was afterward
reported as being the Creator. See Col. i. 16.) "And as repeated
sojourners on earth in various capacities, they (the Saviors) became
practically acquainted with all the sorrows and temptations of humanity,
and could justly judge of its sins while they sympathized with its
weaknesses and its sufferings. When they again returned to the higher
regions (heaven), they remembered the lower forms they had dwelt
amongst, and felt a lively interest in the world they had once
inhabited. They could penetrate even the secret thoughts of mortals."

The people then demanding a God of sympathy and suffering (as shown
above), their credulous imaginations would not be long in finding one.
Let a man rise up in society endowed with an extraordinary degree of
spirituality and sympathy for human suffering; let him, like Chrishna,
Pythagoras, Christ, and Mahomet, spend his time in visiting the hovels
of the poor, or consoling their sorrows, laboring to mitigate their
griefs, and in performing acts of charity, disinterested alms and deeds
of benevolence, kindness and love, and so certain would he sooner or
later command the homage of a God. For this was always the mode adopted,
in an ignorant, undeveloped, and unenlightened age, for accounting
not merely for moral greatness, but for every species of mental and
physical superiority, as will be hereafter shown. We will proceed to
notice the second cause of men being invested with divine attributes.

2. The people must and would have an external God they could see, hear,
and talk to.

All the oriental nations, as well as Christian, taught that "God was
a spirit," but no nation or class of people, not even the founders of
Christianity, entertained a consistent view of the doctrine. Only a
few learned philosophers saw the scientific impossibility of an
infinite spirit being crowded into the human form. Hence they alone
were contented to "worship God in spirit and in truth." Every religious
nation went counter to the spirit of this injunction in worshiping for a
God a being in the human form. Even the founders of Christianity, though
making high claims to spirituality, were too gross, too sensuous in
their conceptions, too externally-minded, and too idolatrous in their
feelings and proclivities, to be content to "worship God in spirit."
Hence their deification of the "man Christ Jesus" to answer the
requisition of an external worship, by which they violated the command
to "worship God as a spirit." That the practice of promoting men to the
Godhead originated with minds on the external plane, and evinces a want
of spiritual development, is clearly set forth by the author of "The
Nineteenth Century" (a Christian writer) who tells us, "The idea of the
primitive ages were wholly sensuous, and the masses did not believe in
anything except that which they could touch, see, hear and taste." A
true description, no doubt, of the ancient pagan worshipers of demigods.
But we warn the Christian reader not to cast anchor here, for we have
at our elbow abundance of Christian testimony from the pens of the very
oracles of the church to prove that the same state of things, the
same state of society, the same state of mind, the same proclivity for
God-making, existed with the people among whom Christ was born, and
that it was owing to this sensuous, idolatrous state of mind among his
disciples that he received the homage and title of a God.

Hence the famous Archbishop Tillotson says, "Another very common notion,
and rife in the heathen world, and a great source of their idolatry, was
their deification of great men fit to be worshiped as Gods."... "There
was a great inclination in mankind to the worship of a visible Deity.
So God was pleased to appear in our nature, that they who were fond of a
visible Deity might have one, even a true and natural incarnation of God
the Father, the express image of his person." Now, we enjoin the reader
to mark this testimony well, and impress it indelibly upon his memory.
According to this orthodox Christian bishop, Jesus Christ appeared on
earth as a God in condescension to the wishes of a people too devoid of
spirituality, and too strongly inclined to idolatry, to worship God as a
spirit. For he admits the worship of a God-man or a man-God is a species
of idolatry. This tells the whole story of the apotheosis of "the man
Christ Jesus." We have no doubt but that here is suggested one of the
true causes of his elevation to the Deityship. Again he says, "The world
was mightily bent on addressing their requests and supplications, not to
the Deity immediately, but by some Mediator between the Gods and men."
(See Wadsworth's Eccles. Biog. p. 172.) Here, then, we have the most
conclusive proof that the belief in mediators is of pagan origin. We
will now hear from another archbishop on this subject. In his "Caution
to the Times" (p, 71 ), Archbishop Whately says, "As the Infinite Being
is an object too remote and incomprehensible for our minds to dwell
upon, he has manifested himself in his Son, the man Jesus Christ"
Precisely so 1 just the kind of reasoning employed to account for the
worship of man-Gods among the heathen. This logic fits one case as well
as the other.

The Christian writer F. D. Maurice declares in like manner, "We accept
the fact of the incarnation (of Jesus Christ), because we feel that it
is impossible to know the absolute invisible God without an incarnation,
as man needs to know him, and craves to know him." (Logical Essay, p.
79.) Here is more pagan logic--the same reasoning they employed to prove
the divinity of their Saviors and demigods. And the Rev. Dr. Thomas
Arnold declares, "It (the incarnation of Christ) was very necessary,
especially at a time when men were so accustomed to worship their
highest Gods under the form of men" (Sermon on Christian Life, p. 61.)
Let the reader attentively observe the explicit avowal here made, and
mark well its pregnant inferences. He makes Jesus Christ come into the
world in condescension to the idolatrous rivalry of the Jews to be up
with the heathen nations in worshiping God in the form of man; that
is, the founders of Christianity, having been Jews, disclosed the true
Jewish character in running after and adopting the customs of heathen
countries then so rife--that of hunting up a great man, and making him
a God--which was only one case out of many of the Jews adopting some
of the numerous forms of idolatry and other religious customs of their
heathen neighbors. Their whole history, as set forth in the Bible,
proves, as we have shown in another chapter, that they were strongly
prone to such acts. It is not strange, therefore, that they should and
did convert "the man Christ Jesus" into a God. We will now listen to
another Christian writer, the notable and noteworthy Dr. T. Chambers.
"Whatever the falsely or superstitiously fearful imagination conjures up
because of God being at a distance, can only be dispelled by God being
brought nigh to us.... The veil which hides the unseen God from the eyes
of mortals must be somehow withdrawn." (Select Works, vol. iii. p. 161.)
Most significant indeed is this species of reasoning. It is the same
kind of logic which had led to the promotion of more than a score of
great men to the Godhead among the ancient heathen. "The veil which
hides the unseen God must be removed'" says Dr. Chambers; and so had
reasoned in soliloquy a thousand pagans long before, when determined to
worship men for Gods. It is simply saying, "We are too carnally-minded
to worship God in spirit; we must and will have a God of flesh and
blood--a God who can be recognized by the external senses;" he must
"become flesh, and dwell amongst us." (See John i. 14.) Our author
continues: "Now all this (removing the veil from the unseen God) has
been done once, and done only once in the person of Jesus Christ."
(Ibid.) Mistake, most fatal mistake, brother Chambers! It has been done
more than a score of times in various heathen countries--a fact which
proves you ignorant of oriental history.

Now let the reader mark the foregoing citations from standard Christian
authors, setting forth some of the reasons which led the founders of
Christianity to adopt a visible man-God in their worship in the
person of Jesus Christ, Language could hardly be used to prove more
conclusively that the whole thing grew out of an idolatrous proclivity
to man-worship,--that is, the gross, sensuous, carnally-minded
propensity to worship an extetnal, visible God,--proving, with the
corroborative evidence of many other facts, that they were not a whit
above the heathen in spiritual development. The reason employed by the
Thibetan for the worship of the Hindoo Chrishna as a God, tells the
whole story of the worship and the deification of Jesus Christ "We could
not always have God behind the clouds; so we had him come down where we
could see him." This is the same kind of reasoning made use of by the
Christian writer above quoted, all of which discloses a state of mind
among both heathen and Christians that would not long rest satisfied
without deifying somebody, in order to have a visible God to worship. And
hence Christians deified "the man Christ Jesus" for this purpose.

"The more externally minded (says Fleurbach), the greater was the
determination to worship a personal God"--God in the form of man. And as
the Jewish founders of Christianity (as every chapter of their history
demonstrates) were dwelling on the external plane, it was not an act
of direct innovation, therefore, for them to fall into the habit of
worshiping the personal Jesus as a God. It involved no serious incursion
on previous thoughts or habits. And warped and blinded, indeed, must be
that mind which cannot here discover the true key to the apotheosis of
Jesus--one of the real causes of his being stripped of his manhood, and
advanced to the Godhead. It was as naturally to be expected from the
then state of the religious world, and the state of the Jewish mind
concerned in the founding of Christianity, as that an autumnal crop of
fruit should succeed the bloom of spring.

Let it be specially noted, that all the Christian writers above cited
tell us, in effect, that God sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world
to be worshiped as a God in condescension to the ignorance and
superstitious tendencies, and we will add, idolatrous proclivities of
the people. From this stand-point we challenge the world to show why
God may not have sent the oriental Saviors into the world for the
same reason--that is, in condescension to the prejudices of the devout
worshipers under the heathen systems. Why, then, is there not as
much probability that he did do so? Why would he not be as likely to
accommodate their ignorance and prejudices in this way as those of the
founders of the Christian system. This question we shall keep standing
before the Christian world till it is answered, and we challenge them to
meet it, and overthrow it if they can.

3. Men deified on account of mental and moral superiority.

The ancient nations, in their entire ignorance of the philosophy of the
human mind, and the laws controlling its actions, always accounted for
the appearance of great men amongst them by supposing them to be Gods.
Every country occasionally produced a man, who, by virtue of natural
superiority, rose so high in the scale of moral and intellectual
greatness as to fill the ideal of the people with respect to the
characteristics of a God. So low, so limited, so narrow, so greatly
circumscribed were the conceptions of deity, of the undeveloped and
intellectually dwarfed minds of all religious countries in that age,
that a man had to rise but a few degrees above the common level of the
populace to become a God. He could "easily fill the bill," and exhibit
all the qualities they assigned to the highest God in the heavens.
And this is as true of the Jewish mind as that of any other nation, a
portion of whom adored Jesus as a God. Or if they lacked anything in
natural inclination, they made it up by imitation, a propensity which
they possessed in no small degree, that is, a proneness to imitate the
customs of other nations.

Mr. Higgins tells us that "men of brilliant intellects and high moral
attainments, and great healers (of which Christ was one), were almost
certain to be deified." In like manner Archbishop Tillotson says, "they
deified famous and eminent persons by advancing them after their death
to the dignity of an inferior kind of Gods fit to be worshiped by men
on earth." Mark the expression, "after their death" We have shown in
another chapter that Jesus Christ was not generally considered a God,
even by his followers, till more than three hundred years after
his death, when Constantine declared him to be "God of very God"--a
circumstance of itself sufficient to establish the conclusion that
he did not possess this character. A God would be adored as such by
everybody while living, but a man's worshipers rise up after his death,
as in the case of "the man Christ Jesus." Great mental endowments,
or great moral attainments, would, in most countries, bring the most
ignorant down on their knees to worship such a man as a God. But it
re-quired years, and sometimes centuries, to get him fully established
among the Gods. This is as true of Jesus Christ as the other
human-descended deities. Whatever amount of homage Jesus might have
received while living, any person who will institute a thorough,
unbiased scrutiny in the case will discover that it was his great
healing powers and superior mental qualities which finally deified him.
His ignorant admirers knew no way of accounting for such extraordinary
qualities but to suppose him to be the embodiment of infinite wisdom.
Like the Chinaman who exclaimed, "See the God in that man," when an
Englishman cured a young woman of partial blindness by anointing her eyes
with kerosene. Such a deed would deify almost any man, in almost any
country, before the dawn of letters and the recognition of the science
of mind.

The missionary Rev. D. O. Allen's method of accounting for the
deification of the Hindoo God Chrishna is so suggestive, that we here
present it. He tells us that "as the exploits ascribed to Chrishna
exceed mere human power, the difficulty was removed by placing him among
the incarnations of Vishnu." (India, Ancient and Modern, p. 26.) Exactly
so! We are glad of such historic information. We hope the Christian
reader will note the lesson it suggests. For certainly, every reader,
who has not had his reason shipwrecked on the shoals of a blind and
dogmatic theology, can see here a key to unlock the great mystery of
the Christian incarnation--the divinity of Jesus Christ As some of the
exploits of Chrishna were supposed to "exceed mere human power," we
are told the difficulty was explained by imagining him to be a God. How
powerful the suggestion! how conclusive the explanation, not only for
the Godhood of this sin-atoning Savior, but for that of "our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ," and all the other Lords, and Gods, and Saviors of
antiquity! A single hint will sometimes explain whole volumes of obscure
history, as does this of the Rev. Christian Hindoo missionary D. O.
Allen. And surely, most deplorably blinded by superstition must be the
two hundred millions of Christ worshipers, the three hundred millions
who worship Chrishna, the one hundred and twenty million adorers of
Confucius, the fifty millions of suppliants of Mithra the Mediator, and
the one hundred and fifty millions of followers of Mahomet, who cannot
see here a satisfactory solution of the deityship of all these Gods, and
all the other man-Gods of antiquity.

The question is sometimes asked, How could two hundred millions of
people come to believe that Jesus was a God merely because of his
superiority as a man? We will answer by pointing to the history of the
Hindoo Chrishna, and by asking the same question with respect to his
Godhead. How could three hundred millions of people be brought to
believe in his divinity, and worship him as a God, merely because he was
a superior human being? One question is as easily answered as the other,
and posterity will answer both questions alike. When we observe it
taught as an important and easily learned lesson of history, and one
based on a thousand facts, that no man could rise to intellectual
greatness or moral distinction in the era in which Christ was born
without being advanced to the dignity of a God, and worshiped as such,
it is really a source of humility and sorrow to every unshackled lover
of truth and humanity to reflect that there are so many millions of
people whose mental vision is so beclouded by a dogmatic and inexorable
theology that they cannot see the logical potency of these facts,--that
they cannot be even moved by this great and overwhelming amount of
evidence against the divinity dogma, and observe that it explodes it
into a thousand fragments, but still cling to the delusion that "the
man Christ Jesus," with all the human qualities and human frailties
with which his own history (the Gospels) invest him, was nevertheless
a God,--ay, the monstrous delusion that any being possessing a _finite
form_ could be an _infinite being_--a most self-evident and shocking
absurdity. And we challenge all Christendom to show, or approximate one
inch toward showing, that there was sufficient difference between Christ
and Chrishna to require us to accept one as a man and the other as a
God. It cannot be done.

We have shown, then, by the foregoing exposition, that one cause of the
deification of men was simply an attempt to solve the problem of
human greatness,--an attempt to account for the moral and intellectual
superiority of men which enabled them to perform deeds and otherwise
exhibit a character far above the capacity of the multitude to
comprehend, and which they could find no other way to account for than
to suppose them to be Gods, while the low and groveling conceptions
which most religious nations, and especially the Jews, had formed of
the character and essential attributes of the Infinite Deity (often
investing him with the most ignoble human attributes, human passions,
and human imperfections), made it perfectly easy to convert their great
men by imagination into Gods. The Jews represented God not only as
a coming down from heaven in propria persona, and walking, talking,
wrestling, &c., as a man (on one occasion we are told he and Jacob
scuffled all night), but he is often represented as acting the part of
a wicked man, such as lying (see 2 Chron. v. 22), getting mad (see Deut.
i. 37), swearing, sanctioning the highhanded and demoralizing crimes of
stealing (see Ex. iii. 2), of robbery (see Ex. xii. 36), of murder (see
Deut. xiii. 2) and even fornication (see Gen. xxxi. 1, and Num. xxxi)
and thus they invested Diety with such mean, low, despicable attributes
as to reduce his moral character to a level with the most immoral man in
society. So that it was very easy, if not very natural, to elevate their
great men (if it really required any elevation) to a level with their
God.

Men and Gods were in character and conception so nearly alike, that it
was easy to bring them on a level, or to mistake one for the other. And
hence it is we find an incarnated God, Savior, Son of God, Redeemer,
&c., figuring in the early history of nearly every oriental religious
nation whose name and history has descended to us. Indeed, the practice
of deifying men, or mistaking men for Gods, was once so common, so
nearly universal, that it must require a mind very ignorant of oriental
history to adore Jesus Christ as having been the only character of this
kind who figured in the religious world. It was, as before suggested,
deemed the most rational way of accounting for the marked superiority
among men, to suppose that some men had a divine birth, and were
begotten by the great Infinite Deity himself, and descended to the earth
through the purest human (virgin) channel.

As Mr. Higgins remarks, "Every person who possessed a striking
superiority of mind, either for talent or goodness, was supposed
anciently to have a portion of the divine mind or essence incorporated
or incarnated in him." The Jews had a number of men whose names imply a
participation in the divine nature, among which we will cite Elijah and
Elisha (El-i-jah and El-i-sha), El being the Hebrew name or term for
God, while Jah is Jehovah (see Ps. lxviii. 4), and Sha means a Savior.
Elijah, then, is an approximation to God--Jehovah, and Elisha is
God--a Savior. The character of men and Gods were cast in molds so
approximately similar, so nearly identical, as to make the transition,
or change from one to the other, so slight and easy; either of men into
Gods or Gods into men, that several nations went so far as to teach
that a man might by his own natural exertions, his own voluntary powers,
raise himself to a level with the Diety, and thereby become a God.

Mr. Ritter in his "History of Ancient Philosophy" (Chap. II.), tells
us that some of the Budhist sect held that "a man by freeing himself
by holiness of conduct from the obstacles of nature, may deliver his
fellows from the corruption of the times, and become a benefactor and
redeemer of his race, and also even become a God"--a "Budha"--i. e., a
Savior and Son of God. Singular enough that the Christian should
object to this doctrine as being rather blasphemous, when his own bible
abundantly and explicitly teaches the same doctrine in effect!

We find the same thing substantially taught over and over again in the
Christian Scriptures. "Be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is
perfect" (Matt. v. 18), requires a man to become morally perfect as God,
which is all that the Budhist precept requires or contemplates, and no
man can become perfect as God without becoming a God. But we are not
left to mere inference in the matter, We have the doctrine several times
expressed and unquestionably taught in the Christian bible of man's
power and prerogative to become either a God or Son of God. "Said I not
that ye are Gods?" (Ex. iv. 16). "Behold now, we are the sons of God."
(i John i. 2.)

Here is the Budhist doctrine as explicitly stated as it can be taught.
It is, then, a Christian bible doctrine as well as a pagan doctrine,
that man can become a God, and that God can be born of woman, and
thereby invested with all the frail and imperfect attributes of man. It
cannot be considered a matter of marvel, therefore, that so many of the
good, the great, and the wise men of almost every country, including
"the man Christ Jesus," should be honored and adored with the titles
of Deity, and worshiped as God absolute, "Son of God," "Savior,"
"Redeemer," "Intercessor" "Mediator," &c.

4. God comes down and is incarnated to fight and conquer the devil. We
will proceed to enumerate other causes and motives which conspired in
various cases to invest some one or more of the great men of a nation
with divine honors, and adore them as veritable Gods and Saviors "come
down to us in the form of men." It was a tenant of faith with most of
the ancient religions, that almost at the dawn of human existence a
devil or evil principle found its way into the world, to the great
discomfiture of man and the no small annoyance of the Supreme Creator
himself, and that hence there must needs be a Savior, a Redeemer, an
Intercessor to combat and if possible "destroy the devil and his works."

For this purpose appeared the Savior Chrishna, in India, the Savior
Osiris, in Egypt, the God or Mediator Mithra, in Persia, the Redeemer
Quexalcote, in Mexico, the Savior Jesus Christ, in Judea, &c. In the
initiatory chapter on the transgression and fall of man, some of the
oriental bibles graphically describe the scene of "the war in heaven"--a
counterpart to the story of St. John, as found in the twelfth chapter
of Revelation, wherein Michael and the dragon are represented as the
captains and commander-in-chief of their respective embattled hosts,
and in which the former was crowned as victor in the contest, as he
succeeded in vanquishing and "casting out the evil one." In the pagan
military drama the scene of the war in heaven is transferred to the
earth. A God, a Savior (a Son of God), comes down to put a stop to the
machinations of the "Evil One," i. e., to "destroy the devil and his
works" as we are told Christ came for that purpose. (1 John iii. 8 ) See
the Author's "Biography of Satan."

The Egyptian story runs thus: "Osiris appeared on earth to benefit
mankind, and after he had performed the duties of his mission, and had
fallen a sacrifice to Typhon (the devil, or evil principle), which,
however, he eventually overcame ('overcame the wicked one,' 1 John ii.
11), by rising from the dead, after being crucified, he became the
judge of mankind in a future state." (See Kerrick's "Ancient Egypt",
also Wilkinson's "Egypt.")

The Budhist, or Hindoo, version of the story is on this wise: "The
prince (of darkness), or evil spirit, Ravana, or Mahesa, got into a
contest and a war with the divine hero Rama, in which the latter proved
victorious, and put to flight the army of 'the wicked one,' but not till
after considerable injury had been done to the human family, and the
whole order of the universe subverted; to rectify which, and to achieve
a final and complete triumph over Ravana (the devil) and his works,
and thus save the human race from utter destruction, the gods besought
Vishnu (the second person of the Trinity) to descend to the earth and
take upon himself the form and flesh of man. And it was argued that as
the mission appertained to man, the God Vishnu, when he descended to the
earth in the capacity of a Savior, should become half man and half God,
and that the most feasible way to accomplish this end was for him to be
born of a woman."

And that the glory and honor of his triumph over Ravana, the devil,
would be greater if achieved in this capacity than if he were to come
down from heaven and conquer Ravana wholly with his attributes as a God,
or wholly in his divine character--i.e., as absolute God, uninvested
with human nature. The suggestion was approved by Vishnu, who descended
and took upon himself "the form of man" ("the form of a servant"--Phil.
ii. 7). And that his metamorphosis or earth-born life might be
the purer, it was decided that he should be born of a woman wholly
uncontaminated with man--that is, a virgin. And thus, far back in the
midnight of mythology and fable, originated the story of divine Saviors
and Gods being born of virgins--a conception now found incorporated in
the religious histories of various ancient nations.

And now let us observe how substantially the Christian story of a Savior
conforms to the above. Jesus, like the Saviors of India and Egypt, was
believed to be a man-God--half man and half God, and reputedly he came
into the world, like them, to "destroy the devil and his works," or
the works of the devil--that is, to put an end to the evil or malignant
principle introduced into the world by the serpent in the garden
of Eden; as it is declared "the seed of the woman shall bruise the
serpent's head" (Gen. iii. 15)--which is interpreted as referring to
Christ. And like these and various other pagan Saviors Jesus is assigned
the highest and most ennobling human origin--a birth from a virgin. And,
as in the instances above named, Jesus had also several encounters with
the devil; first in the wilderness, then on a mountain, and finally,
like them, falls a sacrifice to his insidious, malignant power acting
through the agency and mediumship of Judas Iscariot; for his betrayal
is ascribed wholly to Satan, whom John called the serpent, entering into
Judas and prompting the act. (See Rev. xii. 3). And thus Christ, like
the other saviors, falls a victim to the serpentine or satanic power
acting through the instrumentality of a Judas Iscariot; but finally,
triumphed, like the Savior of Egypt (Osiris), by rising from the
dead--"the first fruits of immortality." And thus the stories run
parallel--the more modern Christian with the more ancient pagan.

     (For a full exposition of the belief and traditions
     respecting a devil and a hell in all ages and all countries,
     see the Author's "Biography of Satan.")




CHAPTER XXX. SACRED CYCLES EXPLAINING THE ADVENT OF THE GODS

The Master-Key to the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Extraordinary Revelations in History and Science.

RECENT explorations in the field of oriental sacred history have
revealed to the antiquarian some curious and deeply interesting facts
appertaining to traditions founded on, and growing out of, astronomical
phenomena and changes in the visible heavens, which throw much light on,
and go far toward elucidating and furnishing a satisfactory explanation
of many of the "mysteries" of the Christian bible. The works which we
have consulted, containing the reports and results of researches of this
character, tend to elucidate and establish the following conclusions:--

1. That anciently, in religious countries, time was divided into Cycles,
Aetas, or Neros.

2. That these measures of time grew out of, and represented periodical
changes, or periodically occurring phenomena in the astronomical
heavens.

3. That some religious nations had three Cycular periods of different
lengths, representing three orders and degrees of miraculous births.
In India the length of the first or shorter Cycle was thirty days,
the length of one moon or month. Every change of the moon marked an
important event in their religious history. Each change was supposed to
denote the birth of some angel or celestial being known as an Eon.
The second Cycular period was of six hundred years' duration, and
was founded on a text of the sacred book of India, known as the Surya
Sidhanta, which declares "the equinoctial point moves eastward one
degree in thirty times twenty years" (thirty times twenty being 600). At
every occurrence of this equinoctial change hightened by an eclipse of
the sun or moon, or some other wonder-exciting phenomenon, a God was
supposed to be born. Such a marvelous and terror-inspiring event, in
the apprehensions of the credulous and superstitious populace of an
unscientific age, could not be designed for anything less than the birth
of a God or Divine Savior. Their theology teaches that such was the
wickedness of man, that a God had to descend from heaven, and suffer and
die for the people, in some way, every six hundred years.

And this period was announced by the God's causing a collision of the
sun and moon, or some other terror-exciting phenomena in the heavens
above or the earth beneath. When one of these six hundred Cycular
periods was about to expire, and another commence, every remarkable
phenomenon in the heavens was watched and interpreted as being connected
with it. And some person born at that period, who exhibited any
remarkable or extraordinary trait of character, was certain to be
promoted to the Godhead, as being miraculously born and brought forth
for the special occasion. He was the Avatar Savior or Messiah for that
Cycle. There were two extraordinary events to be accounted for--one was
the display of unusual and terror-exciting phenomena in the heavens, and
the other the birth of extraordinary men on earth. And it was natural
for an ignorant age to associate them together, and make one aid in
accounting for the other. And as these celestial phenomena were only
witnessed at intervals distant apart, the thought naturally arose, and
the conclusion was easily established, that they came periodically, and
for the special purpose of heralding the birth of a God.

And as tradition reported that similar events were witnessed six hundred
years before the conviction was fixed in the popular mind, this was the
established period intervening between these great epochs. And thus
the six hundred year Cycular tradition became established in India, and
finally spread through all the Eastern countries. We find traces of it
in Egypt, Syria, Persia, Chaldea, China, Italy, and Judea. And the proof
that the deification of great men in some countries grew out of this
Cycular tradition is found in the fact that many of them were born at
the commencement of Cycles. The Hindoos are able to recount the names
of ten sin-atoning Saviors who made their appearance on earth at these
regular intervals of six hundred years. The name of the first Avatar
Mediator and Savior who forsook the throne of heaven to come down and
die for the people was Matsa. Tradition and the sacred books fix his
birth at about six thousand years B. C. The names and advent of the
other sin-atoning Saviors occur in the following order: 2. Vurahay, 3.
Kurma, 4. Nursu, 5. Waman, 6. Pursuram, 7. Kama, 8. Chrishna, 9. Sakia,
10. Salavahana. The last named Savior was cotemporary with Jesus Christ.
The God and Savior Sakia was born six hundred years B. C. "Our Lord
and Savior" and "Son of God," Chrisna, was immaculately conceived and
miraculously born, according to Higgins, 1200 B. C.

A circumstance strongly confirming the conclusion that Cycular periods
had much to do with the promotion of men to the dignity of Gods is, that
most of the deified personages reported in history were, according to
the best authorities, born near the commencement of Cycles. Recurring
back to the eighth Cycle, we observe the advent of that period of
Chrishna, Zoroaster 2d, Bali, Thammuz, Atys, Osiris, and several others.
At the commencement of the ninth Cycle appeared Sakia, Quexalcote,
Zoroaster 2d, Xion, Qairious, Prometheus, Mithra and many others.

The tenth Cycle brought in Jesus Christ, Salavhana, Apollonious, and
others that might be named. Mahomet succeeded Jesus Christ just six
hundred years (he was born in the year 600 A. D.), which inaugurated
another Cycle. Many facts are recorded in history proving the prevalence
and sacredness of the Cycle idea in different countries. The story
in Egypt of the bird called the Phoenix, being hatched, according to
tradition, just 600 years B. C., and living to be just six hundred years
old, and having the power to renew itself every six hundred years, shows
the prevalence of the Cycular tradition in that country.

We have the statement upon the records of history that when the first
six hundred years after the foundation of Rome were about to expire,
the people became greatly excited with the apprehension that some
extraordinary event, must attend the occasion. And but for the influence
of the philosophers, some extraordinary man would have been hunted up
and promoted to divine honor as being the God born for that Cycle. The
writings of Plato, Plutarch, Ovid, Cicero, Virgil, and Aristotle, all
evince a belief in Cycles, and the belief that ten Cycles, or Aetas,
were the measure, for the duration of the world. According to M. Faber,
a new-born Savior was always expected to make his appearance at the
commencement of one of these Cycles. Hence the deification of those
personages above named, and many others that might be named. It is a
remarkable circumstance that the Jewish bible should speak of Noah as
being six hundred years old at the commencement of the flood, when it
was a tradition amongst the ancient Egyptians that the ushering in of
the six hundreth year Cycle was to be attended with a flood.

And the time antecedent to Noah after creation, was the measure of three
Cycles, according to the chronology of the Samaritan bible, it being
6004-600+600= 1800 years from Adam to Noah. It is an interesting fact
that those enigmatical figures made use of by Daniel, as also some of
those found in the Apocalypse, are susceptible of a Cycular explanation.
These occult prophecies, as they are supposed to be, which have puzzled
and bewildered many thousands of Christian minds and bible expounders
in their attempt to evolve their signification, are susceptible of a
Cycular explanation. They are of easy solution on a Cycular basis, or
with the Cycular key.

Take, for example, Daniel's famous prophecy (so called) of the seventy
weeks, as found in the ninth chapter, announcing the advent of a Messiah
at the end of that period. We find by a calculation based on Tyson's
"Historical Atlas," and Haskell's "Chronology and Universal History,"
that Daniel lived in the hundred and tenth year of the ninth Cycle, at
which time the prefigure seems to have been used. Assuming this as a
basis, and multiplying seventy weeks by seven, to convert it into years,
as Christian essayists are accustomed to doing, and we have as the
result 70x7=490, which being added to one hundred and ten, the year that
gave birth to the prophesy, makes six hundred, which exactly completes
the Cycle, and furnishes a simple and beautiful explanation of a
mystical figure, on which many thousands of conjectures, speculations,
and guesses have been founded, but on which they have failed to throw
any light.

The 70x70=490 years, were wanting to complete the Cycle; and when this
rolled away, it brought a new Cycle, and with it a new sin-atoning
Savior was always expected in some countries (the country in which
Daniel lived being one of this number); a new Messiah (or sin-atoning
Savior), and some great man born at that time, was fixed upon and
deified as being that Messiah. Hence the Jews, in imitation of their
neighbors, yielding to their strong proclivities to borrow from and copy
after heathen nations, selected "the man Christ Jesus" as their Messiah
and Savior. The mystical era of Daniel, signified by "a time, times, and
the dividing of time" (Dan. vii. 25), or, as St. John has it, "a time,
times, and a half time" (see Rev. xii. 14) is explainable by the same
Cycular key.

Some writers have conjectured that Daniel was a Chaldean priest. If so,
he must have had a knowledge of their astronomical Cycle of two
thousand one hundred and sixty years, which completed the period of the
precession of the equinoxes. Explained by this Cycle, his "time, times,
and dividing of time, or half time," or "a time, another time, and
a half time," as some writers have rendered it, would be 2160 f
2160-I-1080 5400; nine Cycles exactly, as 600X9= 5400. Add this to the
Cycle in which he lived, and we have 5400+600=6000, the great Millennial
Cycle, when not only a new Savior and Messiah was to be born, but a new
world also. Both the long and short Cycle (and one was a measure of the
other) were expected to expire at that time, according to a Chaldean
tradition. And thus is beautifully explained another "deep, dark and
unfathomable mystery," which thousands of devout minds have exhausted
their ingenuity in trying to find a meaning for. Again, look at the
frightful nightmare visions of Daniel and the author of the Apocalypse,
in which they saw a monstrous beast with seven heads and ten horns,
though Daniel mentions only the horns. The seven heads were, in all
probability, the seven auspicious months of the year in which some of
the nations revealed in the enjoyment of, and praised and celebrated
their fruitful, bountiful blessings, the year being divided into two
seasons, seven summer months and five winter months.

Now, let it be noted, St. John lived near the tenth Cycle, which answers
to the ten horns of the beast. Hence is most forcibly suggested that
interpretation of the figure. Daniel's ten horns should have been
translated eleven horns, as he lived in the ninth Cycle, though so near
the tenth, that he probably constructed his figure on the tenth. And
Daniel's prophetic declaration (so considered), found in the eighth
chapter, that it would be two thousand three hundred days until the
sanctuary should be closed, is explainable in the same manner. According
to Mr. Irving, Mr. Frere, and other writers, there was a large fraction
over the three hundred days, making it nearer four hundred, and hence
might have been so rendered, which would make 20004-400=2400; the exact
length of four Cycles, 600x4=2400. And their are other mystical
figures, frightful visions, and occult metaphors found in the Apocalypse
susceptible of a Cycular solution. The Cycle is the true key for
unlocking many of the ancient mysteries of various religions. The
Chinese have always reckoned by Cycles of sixty years, instead of by
centuries. (See New Am. Encyclop. vol. v. p. 105.)

We will now bestow a brief notice on the Millennial Cycle: the
sacred period of 6000 years, composed of ten of the smaller Cycles,
600x10=6000. Dr. Hales says, "A tradition of Millennial ages prevailed
throughout the east, and finally reached the west." (Chron. vol. i. p.
44.) We are told by astronomers that if the angle which the plane of the
ecliptic forms with the plane of the Equator had decreased gradually, as
it was once supposed to do, the two planes would coincide in about six
thousand years--a period which comprises ten of the smaller Cycles,
600X10 =6000. And it was very easy and very natural for an ignorant and
superstitious age to conclude that such a prodigious, astounding, and
awful event as that of two stupendous orbits or planes coming in contact
with each other, should be attended with some direful and calamitous
event, and with a tremendous display of divine power. Nothing less than
an entire revolution, if not the total destruction of the world, could
comport with the majesty and magnitude of such an event.

And this great crisis was to bring down the Omnipotent Divine Judge from
the throne of heaven; that is, the Almighty being who caused it was to
come down, or send his Son to call the nations to judgment, and drown
the world, or set it on fire. The first destruction according to the
tradition of the Chaldeans, Persians, Assyrians, Mexicans, and some
other nations, was to be by water, and the next by fire, when the
oceans, seas, and lakes were to be converted into ashes. And Christ's
apostles seemed to have cherished this tradition. Peter says, "whereby
the world that was then, being overflowed by water, perished. But the
heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment," (2 Peter iii. 6.) This
was a pagan belief long prior to the era of Peter. Josephus says, "Adam
predicted that the world would be twice destroyed, once by water,
next by fire." A writer says, "A glorious, blissful future attends the
destruction of the world by fire, and the reappearance of Vishnu (i. e.,
eleventh incarnation of Vishnu) has been for several thousand years the
hopeful anticipation of India." "The last coming of Vishnu in power and
glory," says another writer, "to consummate the final overthrow of evil,
sin, and death, is so firmly fixed in the minds of the devotees,
that they have an annual festival in commemoration of their prophesy
referring to it, at which they exclaim, in a loud voice, 'When will the
Divine Helper come? when will the Deliverer appear?'"

At the consummation of this event, "a comet will roll under the moon and
set the world on fire;" so affirms their bible. And the Persian bible,
the Zend-Avesta, in like manner predicts that "a star, with a tail in
course of its revolution, will strike the earth and set it on fire."
Seneca predicts that "the time will come when the world will be wrapped
in flames, and the opposite powers in conflict will mutually destroy
each other."

Ovid prophesies poetically,--

     "For thus the stern, unyielding Fates decree.
     That earth, air, heaven, with the capacious sea,
     All shall fall victims to devouring fire,
     And in fierce flames the blazing orbs expire."
     Lucian, in a like spirit, exclaims,--

     "One vast, appointed flame, by Fate's decree,
     Shall waste yon azure heavens, the earth and sea."

The Egyptians marked their houses with red, to indicate that the world
would be destroyed by fire. Orpheus, 1200 B. C., at the inauguration
of the eighth Cycle, entertained fearful forebodings of the speedy
destruction of the world by water or fire. Some nations held that
the alternate destruction of the world by water and fire had already
occurred, and would occur again. Theopompus informs us that some of the
orientalists believed that "the God of light and the God of darkness
reigned by turn every six thousand years" (commencing with an
astronomical Cycle of course), and that during this period the other
was held in subjection, which finally resulted in "a war in heaven;" a
counterpart to St. John's story. (See Rev. chap. xii.)

This accords with Volney's statement, that "it was recorded in the
sacred books of the Persians and Chaldeans that the world, composed of
a total revolution of twelve thousand periods, was divided into two
partial revolutions of six thousand years each--one being the reign of
good, and the other the reign of evil." (Ruins, p. 244.) This belief was
disseminated through most of the nations. One of these revolutions was
produced, some believed, by a concussion of worlds, which displaced the
ocean and seas, and thus produced a general flood, which drowned every
living thing on the earth. The next revolution will be caused by a
collision of worlds, which will produce fire, and burn the earth to
ashes.

Now, let it be noted that all of these grand epochs were founded on
Cycles, and accompanied by the tradition of a God being born upon the
earth (conceived by a virgin maid), or descending in person; that is,
men were promoted to the Godhead. And in this way Jesus Christ was
deified. Volney explains the matter thus: "Now, according to the Jewish
computation, six thousand years had nearly elapsed since the supposed
creation of the world (according to their chronology). This coincidence
produced considerable fermentation in the minds of the people. Nothing
was thought of but the approaching termination. The great Mediator and
Final Judge was expected, and his advent desired, that an end might be
put to their calamities." (Ruins, p. 168).

Mr. Higgins corroborates this statement, when he tells us that "about
the time of the Caesars, there seems to have been a general expectation
that some Great One was to appear. And finally, when the Cycle had
passed, the people, the Jew-Christians, began to look about to see who
that Great One was. Some fixed on Herod, some on Julius Caesar, and some
on others. But finally public opinion settled on one Jesus of Nazareth,
on account of his superiority in morals and intellect, while the Hindoos
deified Salavahana, the Greeks Apollonious, &c." And thus science and
history join hand in hand to explain most beautifully and conclusively
the greatest mystery that ever brought two hundred millions of people
daily upon their knees--the apotheosis, or deification of "the man
Christ Jesus."




CHAPTER XXXI. CHRISTIANITY DERIVED FROM HEATHEN AND ORIENTAL SYSTEMS

MORE than twenty thousand sermons are preached in the Christian pulpits,
on every recurring Sabbath, to convince the people that the religion and
morality taught and practiced by Jesus Christ was of divine emanation,
and was never before taught in the world,--that his system of
morality was without a parallel, and his practical life without a
precedent,--that the doctrine of self-denial, humility, unselfishness,
benevolence, and charity,--also devout piety, kind treatment of enemies,
and love for the human race, which he preached and practiced, had never
before been exemplified in the life and teachings of any individual or
nation. But a thorough acquaintance with the history and moral systems
of some of the oriental nations, and the practical lives of piety and
self-denial exemplified in their leading men long anterior to the birth
of Christ, and long before the name of Christianity was anywhere
known, must convince any unprejudiced mind that such a claim is
without foundation. And to prove it, we will here institute a critical
comparison between Christianity and some of the older systems with
respect to the essential spirit of their teachings, and observe how
utterly untenable and groundless is the dogmatic assumption which claims
for the Christian religion either any originality or any superiority. Of
course if their is nothing new or original, there is nothing superior.

We will first arrange Christianity side by side with the ancient system
known as Essenism--a religion whose origin has never been discovered,
though it is known that the Essenes existed in the days of Jonathan
Maccabeus, B. C. 150, and that they were of Jewish origin, and
constituted one of the three Jewish sects (the other two being Pharisees
and Sadducees). We have but fragments of their history as furnished by
Philo, Josephus, Pliny, and their copyists, Eusebius, Dr. Ginsburg, and
others, on whose authority we will proceed to show that Alexandrian and
Judean Essenism was identically the same system in spirit and essence as
its successor Judean Christianity; in other words, Judean Christianity
teaches the same doctrines and moral precepts which had been previously
inculcated by the disciples of the Essenian religion.


A PARALLEL EXHIBITION OF THE PRECEPTS AND PRACTICAL LIVES OF CHRIST AND
THE ESSENES.

We will condense from Philo, Josephus, and other authors.

1. Philo says, "It is our first duty to seek the kingdom of God and his
righteousness so the Essenes believed and taught."

_Scripture parallel._ "Seek first the kingdom of God, and his
righteousness, and all else shall be added." (Matt. vi. 33; Luke xii. 31.)

2. Philo says, "They abjured all amusements, all elegances, and all
pleasures of the senses."

_Scripture parallel._ "Forsake the world and the things thereof."

3. The Essenes say, "Lay up nothing on earth, but fix your mind solely
on heaven."

_Scripture parallel._ "Lay not up treasures on earth," &c.

4. "The Essenes, having laid aside all the anxieties of life," says
Philo, "and leaving society, they make their residence in solitary wilds
and in gardens."

_Scripture parallel._ "They wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and
in dens, and in caves of the earth." (Heb. xi. 38.)

5. Josephus says, "They neither buy nor sell among themselves, but give
of what they have to him that wanteth."

_Scripture parallel._ "And parted them (their goods) to all men as every
man had need." (Acts ii. 45.)

6. Eusebius says, "Even as it is related in the Acts of the Apostles,
all (the Esseues)... were wont to sell their possessions and their
substance, and divide among all according as any one had need, so that
there was not one among them in want."

_Scripture parallel_. "Neither was their any among them that lacked, for
as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the
price of the things that were sold, &c." (Acts iv. 34.)

7. Eusebius says, "For whoever, of Christ's disciples, were owners of
estates or houses, sold them, and brought the price thereof, and laid
them at the apostles' feet, and distribution was made as every one had
need. So Philo relates things exactly similar of the Essenes."

_Scripture parallel._ (The text above quoted.)

8. "Philo tells us (says Eusebius) that the Essenes forsook father,
mother, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, for their religion."

_Scripture parallel._ "Whosoever forsaketh not father and mother, houses
and lands, &c. cannot be my disciples."

9. "Their being sometimes called _monks_ was owing to their abstraction
from the world," says Eusebius.

_Scripture parallel._ "They are not of the world, even as I am not of
the world." (John xvii. 16.)

10. "And the name Ascetics was applied to them on account of their rigid
discipline, their prayers, fasting, self-mortification, &c., as they
made themselves eunuchs."

_Scripture parallel._ "There be eunuchs which have made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake."

11. "They maintained a perfect community of goods, and an equality of
external rank." (Mich. vol. iv. p. 83.)

_Scripture parallel._ "Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be
your servant." (Matt. xx. 27.)

12. "The Essenes had all things in common, and appointed one of their
number to manage the common bag." (Dr. Ginsburg.)

_Scripture parallel_ "And had all things in common." (Acts ii. 44; see
also Acts iv. 32.)

13. "All ornamental dress they (Essenes) detested." (Mich. vol. iv. p.
83.)

_Scripture parallel_. "Whose adorning let it not be that outward
adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, and putting on of
apparel." (1 Peter iii. 3.)

14. "They would call no man master." (Mich.)

_Scripture parallel._ "Be not called Rabbi, for one is your Master."
(Matt, xxiii. 8.)

15. "They said the Creator made all mankind equal." (Mich.)

_Scripture parallel._ "God hath made of one blood all them that dwell
upon the earth."

16. "They renounced oaths, saying, He who cannot be believed without
swearing is condemned already." (Mich.)

_Scripture parallel._ "Swear not at all."

17. "They would not eat anything which had blood in it, or meat which
had been offered to idols. Their food was hyssop, and bread, and salt;
and water their only drink." (Mich.)

_Scripture parallel_. "That ye abstain from meat offered to idols, and
from blood." (Acts xv. 29.)

18. "Take nothing with them, neither meat or drink, nor anything
necessary for the wants of the body."

_Scripture parallel._ "Take nothing for your journey; neither staves nor
script; neither bread, neither money, neither have two coats apiece."

19. "They expounded the literal sense of the Holy Scriptures by
allegory."

_Scripture parallel._ "Which things are an allegory." (Gal. iv. 24.)

20. "They abjured the pleasures of the body, not desiring mortal
offspring, and they renounced marriage, believing it to be detrimental
to a holy life." (Mich.)

_Scripture parallel._ It will be recollected that neither Jesus nor Paul
ever married, and that they discouraged the marriage relation.
Christ says, "They that shall be counted worthy of that world and the
resurrection neither marry nor are given in marriage." And Paul says,
"The unmarried careth for the things of the Lord." (i Cor. vii. 32.)

21. "They strove to disengage their minds entirely from the world."

_Scripture parallel_. "If any man love the world, the love of the Father
is not in him."

22. "Devoting themselves to the Lord, they provide not for future
subsistence."

_Scripture parallel._ "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat
and drink," &c.

23. "Regarding the body as a prison, they were ashamed to give it
sustenance." (c. ii. 71.)

_Scripture parallel._ "Who shall change our _vile_ bodies?" (Phil. iii.
21.)

24. "They spent nearly all their time in silent meditation and inward
prayer." (c. ii. 71.)

_Scripture parallel._ "Men ought always to pray." (Luke xviii. 1.) "Pray
without ceasing." (1 Thess. v. 17.)

25. "Believing the poor were the Lord's favorites, they vowed perpetual
chastity and poverty." (c. ii. 71.)

_Scripture parallel_. "Blessed be ye poor." (Luke vi. 20.) "Hath not God
chosen the poor?" (James ii. 5.)

26. "They devoted themselves entirely to contemplation in divine
things." (c. ii. 71.)

_Scripture parallel_. "Mediate upon these (divine) things; give thyself
wholly to them." (1 Tim. iv. 15.)

27. "They fasted often, sometimes tasting food but once in three or even
six days."

_Scripture parallel._ Christ's disciples were "in fastings often." (2
Cor. xi. 27; see also v. 34.)

28. "They offered no sacrifices, believing that a serious and devout
soul was most acceptable." (c. ii. 71.)

_Scripture parallel._ "There is no more offering for sin." (Heb. x. 18.)

29. "They believed in and practiced baptizing the dead." (c. ii. 71.)

_Scripture parallel._ "Else what shall they do which are baptized for
the dead." (1 Cor. xv. 29.)

30. "They gave a mystical sense to the Scriptures, disregarding the
letter."

_Scripture parallel._ "The letter killeth, but the spirit maketh alive."
(1 Cor. iii. 6.)

31. "They taught by metaphors, symbols, and parables."

_Scripture parallel._ "Without a parable spake he not unto them." (Matt.
xiii. 34.)

32. "They had many mysteries in their religion which they were sworn to
keep secret."

_Scripture parallel._ "To you it is given to know the mysteries of
the kingdom; to them it is not given." (Matt xiii. 11.) "Great is the
mystery of godliness."

33. "They had in their churches, bishops, elders, deacons, and priests."

_Scripture parallel._ "Ordained elders in every church." (Acts xiv. 23.)
For "deacons," see 1 Tim. iii. 1.

34. "When assembled together they would often sing psalms."

_Scripture parallel._ "Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms."
(Col. iii. 16.)

35. "They healed and cured the minds and bodies of those who joined
them."

_Scripture parallel_ "Healing all manner of sickness," &c. (Matt iv.
23.)

36. "They practiced certain ceremonial purifications by water."

_Scripture parallel_. "The accomplishment of the days of purification."
(Acts xxi. 26.)

37. "They assembled at the Sabbath festivals clothed in white garments."

_Scripture parallel_ "Shall be clothed in white garments." (Rev. iii.
4.)

38. "They disbelieved in the resurrection of the external body."

_Scripture parallel_ "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a
spiritual body." (1 Cor. xv. 44.)

39. Pliny says, "They were the only sort of men who lived without money
and without women."

_Scripture parallel_\ "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1
Tim. vi. 10.) Christ's disciples travelled without money and without
scrip, and "eschew the lusts of the flesh."

40. "They practiced the extremest charity to the poor." (c. ii. 71.)

_Scripture parallel_ "Bestow all thy goods to feed the poor." (1 Cor.
xiii. 3.)

41. "They were skillful in interpreting dreams, and in foretelling
future events."

_Scripture parallel_ "Your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your
old men shall dream dreams." (Acts ii. 17.)

42. "They believed in a paradise,... and in a place of never-ending
lamentations."

_Scripture parallel_ "Life everlasting." (Gal. viii. 8.) "Weeping,
wailing, and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. xiii. 42.)

43. "They affirmed," says Josephus, "that God foreordained all the
events of human life."

_Scripture parallel_' "Foreordained before the foundation of the world."
(1 Peter.)

44. "They believed in Mediators between God and the souls of men."

_Scripture parallel_. "One Mediator between God and men." (1 Tim. ii.
5.)

45. "They practiced the pantomimic representation of the death, burial,
and resurrection of God"--Christ the Spirit.

_Scripture parallel_. With respect to the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ, see 1 Cor. xv. 4.

46. "They inculcated the forgiveness of injuries."

_Scripture parallel_. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke xxiii. 34.)

47. "They totally disapproved of all war."

_Scripture parallel_ "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight." (John xviii. 36.)

48. "They inculcated obedience to magistrates, and to the civil
authorities."

_Scripture parallel_. "Obey them which have the rule over you." (Heb.
xiii. 17; xxvi. 65.)

49. "They retired within themselves to receive interior revelations of
divine truth." (c. ii. 71.)

_Scripture parallel_. "Every one of you hath a revelation." (1 Cor. xiv.
26.)

50. "They were scrupulous in speaking the truth."

_Scripture parallel_ "Speaking all things in truth." (2 Cor. vii. 14.)

51. "They perform many wonderful miracles."

_Scripture parallel_ Many texts teach us that Christ and his apostles
did the same.

52. "Essenism put all its members upon the same level, forbidding the
exercise of authority of one over another." (Dr. Ginsburg.)

_Scripture parallel_. Christ did the same. For proof, see Matt. xx. 25;
Mark ix. 35.

53. "Essenism laid the greatest stress on being meek and lowly in
spirit." (Dr. Ginsburg.)

_Scripture parallel_. See Matt. v. 5; ix. 28.

54. "The Essenes commended the poor in spirit, those who hunger and
thirst after righteousness, and the merciful, and the pure in heart."
(Dr Ginsburg.)

_Scripture parallel_. For proof that Christ did the same, see Matt.

55. "The Essenes commended the peacemakers." (Dr. Ginsburg.)

_Scripture parallel_. "Blessed are the peacemakers."

56. "The Essenes declared their disciples must cast out evil spirits,
and perform miraculous cures, as signs and proof of their faith." (Dr.
Ginsburg.)

_Scripture parallel_. Christ's disciples were to cast out devils, heal
the sick, and raise the dead, &c., as signs and proof of their faith.
(Mark xvi. 17.)

57. "They sacrificed the lusts of the flesh to gain spiritual
happiness."

_Scripture parallel_. "You abstain from fleshly lusts." (1 Peter ii.
11.)

58. "The breaking of bread was a veritable ordinance among the Essenes."

_Scripture parallel_. "He (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake
it." (Luke xxii. 19.)

59. "The Essenes enjoined the loving of enemies." (Philo.)

_Scripture parallel_. So did Christ say, "Love your enemies," &c.

60. The Essenes enjoined, "Doing unto others as you would have them do
unto you."

_Scripture parallel_' The Confucian golden rule, as taught by Christ.

This parallel might be extended much further, but we will proceed to
present the reader with a general description of Essenism, as furnished
us by Philo, Josephus, and some Christian writers. Philo, who was born
in Alexandria 20 B. C., and lived to 60 A. D., and who was himself
an Essenian Jew, in his account of them, says, "They do not lay up
treasures of gold or silver,... but provide themselves only with the
necessities of life." Paul afterwards, having caught the same spirit,
advises the same course of life. "Having food and raiment, therewith be
content." Contentment of mind they regarded as the greatest of riches.
They make no instruments of war. They repudiate every inducement to
covetousness. None are held as slaves, but all are free, and serve
each other. They are instructed in piety and holiness, righteousness,
economy, &c. They are guided by a threefold rule: love of God, love of
virtue, and love of mankind. Of their love of God they give innumerable
demonstrations, which is found in their constant and unalterable
holiness throughout the whole of their lives, their avoidance of oaths
and falsehoods, and their firm belief that God is the source of all
good, but of nothing evil. "Of their love of virtue they give proof in
their contempt for money, fame, and pleasures, their continence, easy
satisfying of their wants, their simplicity, modesty," &c. Their love
of man is proved by their benevolence and equality, and their having all
things in common, which is beyond all deception. They reverence and take
care of the aged, as children do their parents. (Condensed from Philo's
treatise, "Every Virtuous Man is Free.")

Josephus, 37 A. D., and who was also at one time a member of the
Essenian Brotherhood, furnishes another fragmentary account of the
Essenes in his "Jewish Wars," of which the following is the substance:--

"They love each other more than others (that is, are "partial to the
household of faith"); they despise riches, and have all things in
common, so that there is neither abjectness of poverty nor distinction
of riches among them; they change neither garments nor shoes till they
are worn out or become unfit for use; they neither buy nor sell among
themselves; their piety is extraordinary; they never speak about wordly
matters before sunrise; they are girt about with a linen apron, and have
a baptism of cold water; they eat but one kind of a food at a time, and
commence with a prayer, and the priest must say grace before any one
eats (that is, breaks and blesses as Christ did); they also return
thanks after eating, and then put off their white garments; strangers
were made welcome at their tables without money and without price; they
give food to the hungry and the needy and show mercy to all; they curb
their passions, restrain their anger, and claim to be ministers of
peace; an oath they regard as worse than perjury; they excommunicate
offenders ('Go tell it to the churches, says Christ); they condemn
finery in dress; though condemning in most solemn terms oaths, members
were admitted to the secret brotherhood by an oath ('See thou tell
no man,' said Christ); they endured pain with heroic fortitude, and
regarded an honorable death as better than long life; they read and
study their Holy Scriptures from youth, often prophesy, and it was very
seldom they failed in their predictions."

Dr. Ginburg's testimony, abridged, is as follows:--

"The Essenes had a high appreciations of the inspired law of God. The
highest aim of their lives was to become fit temples of the Holy
Ghost (see i Cor. vi. 19); also to perform miraculous cures, and to be
spiritually qualified for forerunners of the Messiah. They taught the
duty of mortifying the flesh and the lusts thereof, and to become
meek and lowly in spirit; they answered by yea, yea, and nay, nay (see
Matt.), scrupulously avoiding oaths; they avoided impure contact with
the heathen and the world's people, and lived retired from the world,
being in numbers about four thousand; they strove to be like the angels
of heaven; there were no rich and poor, or masters and servants, amongst
them; they lived peaceably with all men; a mysterious silence was
observed while eating; a solemn oath was required on becoming a member
of the secret order, which required three things:

1. Love of God;

2. Merciful justice to all men, and to avoid the wicked, and help the
righteous;

3. Purity of character, which implied love of truth, hatred of
falsehood, and strict observance of 'the mysteries of godliness' to
outsiders--that is, 'heathen and publicans;' they endured suffering for
righteousness' sake, with rejoicings, and even _sought_ it; regarding
the body as a prison for the soul, they desired the time to come to
escape from it; they recognized eight different stages of spiritual
growth and perfection: 1. Bodily purity; 2. Celibacy; 3. Spiritual
purity; 4. The suppression of anger and malice, and the cultivation of a
meek, lowly spirit; 5. The attainment of true holiness; 6. Becoming fit
temples for the Holy Ghost; 7. The ability to perform miraculous cures,
and raise the dead; 8. Becoming forerunners of the Messiah; and finally
they took a solemn vow to exercise, piety toward God and justice toward
all men, to hate the wicked, assist the good to keep clear of theft and
unrighteous gains, to conceal none of their 'mysteries of godliness'
from each other, or disclose them to others. 'Great is the mystery of
godliness' ('See thou tell no man'); they were to walk humbly with God,
shun bad society, forgive their enemies, sacrifice their passions, and
crucify the lusts of the flesh; they disregarded bodily suffering,
and even gloried in martyrdom, preaching and singing to God amid their
sufferings; but in their domestic habits they were extremely filthy;
they wore their clothes until they became ragged, filthy, and offensive,
never changing them till they were wore out; their food consisted
of bread and water, and wild roots and fruits of the palm tree; they
enjoined their duty, not only of forgiving their enemies, but of seeking
to benefit them, and of even blessing the destroyer who took life and
property. Such was the religion, such the moral system, such the devout
piety, and such the practical lives of the Essenian Jews, a religious
sect which flourished in Alexandria and Judea several hundred
years before the birth of Christ, and went out of history the hour
Christianity came in.

Now, as the foregoing exposition shows that Essenism and Christianity
are most strikingly alike in all their essential features, that the
former system contains nearly every important doctrine and precept of
the Christian religion, the question occurs here as one of momentous
import, how is this striking resemblance, this identity of character
of the two religions, to be accounted for? Does it not go far toward
proving that Christianity is an outgrowth, a legitimate offspring,
of Judean Essenism? Indeed, are we not absolutely driven to such a
conclusion? Let us briefly recite some of the important facts brought
to light by the investigation of the character and history of these two
religions, and see if those facts do not bring them together and weld
them as one system--as one and the same religion.

1. Both are alike, and Essenism is much the older system.

2. Both religions are an outgrowth of Judaism.

3. Both were known and taught in Judea and in Alexandria.

4. Josephus living in Judea, and Philo in Alexandria, neither of them
speaks of Christianity, or refers to any such religion by that name, and
yet both describe a religion inculcating the same doctrines and moral
precepts, which they call Essenism.

Is not this very nearly conclusive proof that Essenism was only
another name for Christianity--that it had not yet changed its name to
Christianity? That famous standard author, Mr. Gibbon, was evidently of
this opinion when he said, "Whether, indeed, the first of that sect (the
Essenes) took the name of Christian when the appellation of Christian
had as yet been nowhere announced, it is by no means necessary to
discuss." (Book II. chap. xvi.) Here is evidence that Gibbon believed
that the Essenes, after having borne that name for centuries, changed
the appellation to Christian. And we find still stronger language than
this in the writings of the same author expressive of this opinion. In
a note to chapter xv. he says, "It is probable that the Therapeuts
(Essenes) changed their name to Christians, as some writers affirm, and
adopted some new articles of faith." Here the position is assumed that
the Christian religion is an outgrowth of Essenism, that is, merely
a continuation of that religion under a change of name, with a slight
modification of its creed.

5. And then we have the declaration of Christian writers, expressed in
the most positive terms, that Essenism and Christianity were the
same religion, the former name being used at an earlier period. Hear
Eusebius, a standard ecclesiastical writer of the fourth century. He
asserts positively, "Those ancient Therapeuts (Essenes) were Christians,
and their ancient writings were our gospels." (Eccl. Hist. p. 63.) Hark!
Hark! my good Christian reader, here is one of your own sworn witnessess
testifying that the Essenes originated and established the Christian
religion; i. e., the religion now known by that name. Will you then give
it up? If not, we have other testimony of a similar character, rendering
the proposition still stronger. Robert Taylor declares, "The learned
Basnage has shown that the Essenes were really Christians centuries
before Christ, and that they were actually in possession of those very
writings which are now our Gospels and Epistles." (p. 81.) And then we
have the declaration of the author of "Christ the Spirit" (p. no), that
"the Christians were the later Essenes--that is, the Essenes of the time
of Eusebius under a changed name, that name having been made at Antioch,
where the disciples were first called Christian." The same writer
suggests that "their sacred books are our sacred books." We will now
hear Eusebius again: "It is highly probable that their (the Essenes')
ancient commentaries, which Philo says the Essenes have, are the very
Gospels and writings of the Apostles."

Based upon this conclusion, he calls the Essenes "the first heralds of
the gospel." "I find it, therefore, most probable," says Mr. Weilting,
"that Jesus and John belonged literally to the society of the Essenes."
And then the New American Encyclopedia furnishes us with the testimony
of a very able English author of the last century (De Quincy), who
concurs with all the writers cited above. "Mr. De Quincy (it says)
identified the Essenes as being the early Christians; i. e., the early
Christians were known as Essenes. Such testimony, coming from such a
source, is entitled to much weight." (Vol. i. p. 157.) And to the same
effect is the testimony of Bishop Marsh, who admits that our Gospels
were drawn from those of the Essenes. (See his edition of Michaelis'
translation of the New Testament.)

Thus far historical _writers_. We will now lay before the reader some
historical _facts_, fraught with unanswerable logical potency, and
pointing to the same conclusion. It is a fact, and one of deep logical
import, and tending to corroborate the conclusion of some of the writers
cited above, who tell us the Christian Gospels were first composed by
the Essenes; that the language in which those Gospels were originally
written was Greek, the language in which the Alexandrian Essenes always
wrote, while the evangelical writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
being illiterate fishermen, could have had no knowledge of any but
the Jewish, their own mother-tongue,--at least it is susceptible of
satisfactory proof that they never wrote in any other language. Hence
the conclusion is irresistible that they were not the original authors
of the Gospels.

The works of several authors are now lying at our elbow, who express
the conviction unequivocally that the Gospels were copied, if not
translated, from older writings. Mr. Le Clerc, one of the ablest writers
of his time, maintained this position, and did it ably. Another writer,
a Mr. Hatfield, was awarded a prize in 1793, by the theological faculty
of Gottingen, for an essay, in which the position was ably argued that
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not the authors of the books which
bear their names, but were mere copyists. Dr. Lessing and others concur
with him in this conclusion. A circumstance confirming this verdict is
found in the fact that the word _church_ occurs in our Gospels, which
were written before such an institution was established by those who
were then called Christians.

"Go tell it to the church" (Matt, xviii. 17) was uttered before any
steps had been taken by the then representatives of the Christian faith
to organize such a body--an evidence this, that he alluded to the church
of the Essenes, as there were no other churches in existence at the
time; which leaves the inference patent and irresistible that he and
his disciples were Essenes, perhaps then under the changed name of
Christians. Centuries prior to that era the Essenes had not only
churches, but their whole ecclesiastical nomenclature of bishops,
deacons, elders, priests, disciples, scriptures, gospels, epistles,
psalms, hymns, mystery, allegory, &c. If Christianity was re-established
in the days of Christ and his apostles, they had nothing to originate,
either with respect to doctrines, precepts, church polity, or
ecclesiastical terms--all being established for them centuries before
that era. With these facts in view, it seems impossible that the two
religious orders--Essenes and Christians--could have been in existence
at the same time as separate institutions. The former must have ended
when the latter commenced.

Josephus says, "the Essenes were scattered far and wide, and were in
every city," being quite numerous in Judea in his time. But he makes no
reference to any sect or religious order by the title of Christian--a
strong inferential evidence, upon sound priori reasoning, that
Christianity as yet was sailing under another name. Josephus must have
known and named the fact, had there been a Christian sect or disciple
there bearing that name. Impossible otherwise. We are then (upon the
logical force of these and many other facts) driven to the conclusion
that Christianity began when Essenism ended, and the change was only in
name. I challenge the whole Christian world to find the historical proof
that Christianity commenced one hour before the termination of Essenism,
or of Essenism overlapping the Christian religion so far as to survive
one day beyond or after its birth. I will confront them with the logic
of dates, and defy them to find any proof except their own unauthorized,
unauthenticated, and fictitious chronology, that a Christian was ever
known in any country by that name prior to the time of Tacitus, 104
A.D., who is the first of the three hundred writers of that era that
makes any mention of Christianity, Christ, or a Christian. This was long
after Josephus' time, which accounts most satisfactory for his omitting
any allusion to Christ or Christianity. That religion had not yet
dropped the name of Essenism and adopted that of Christianity.

Now, hard indeed must distorted reason fight the ramparts of logic and
history to resist the conviction, in view of the foregoing facts, that
Christianity is simply an outcropping of Essenism, either direct or
through Budhism. And even if it were possible to prove that the two
religions never became welded together, yet it is not possible to
disprove the striking identity of their doctrines, and the spirit of
their precepts, and the practical lives of their disciples. And this
identity, coupled with the fact that Essenism is the older system, is
of itself most superlatively fatal to all pretension or claim to
originality for the doctrines of the Christian faith.

It is a matter of no importance whether Christianity was originally
known by another name, so long as it can be shown that its doctrines
had all been preached and proclaimed to the world centuries prior to
the date assigned for its origin. And this is proved by the long list of
paralellisms presented in the incipient pages of this chapter. And this
proof explodes the pretensions of Christianity to an "original divine
revelation," and brings it down to a level with pagan orientalism. And
the fact that it sprang up in a country where its doctrine had long been
taught by pagans and orientalists, must produce the conviction, deep and
indelible, in all unbiased minds, that orientalism was the mother and
heathenism the father of the Christian religion, even in the absence of
any other proof. In fact, no other proof can be needed.

And what are the arguments, it may be well here to inquire, with
which orthodox Christians attempt to meet, combat, and vanquish the
overwhelming mass of historical facts and historical testimonies we
have presented in preceding pages, tending to prove and demonstrate the
oriental origin of their religion and its identity with Essenism? Their
whole argument is comprised in the naked postulate of the Rev. Mr.
Paideaux, D. D., that "the Essenes did not believe in the resurrection
of the physical body (but believed in a spiritual resurrection),
and omit from their creed the Trinity and Incarnation doctrine, and
therefore they could not have been the originators of the Christian
religion;" but this argument is as easily demolished as a cobweb, as the
following facts will prove:--

1. We have but a fragment of the Essenian religion,--but one end of
their creed,--mere scraps furnished us by Philo, Josephus, and Pliny. We
have none of their sacred books apart from the Christian New Testament.

2. They had secret books, as we have shown, in which doctrines were
taught which they regarded as _too sacred to be thrown before the
public_, as "pearls before swine." And no doctrines were regarded as
more sacred or secret in that age than the doctrines of the Trinity and
Incarnation. Christ's injunction, "See thou tell no man," was probably
their motto, which prevented the publicity of a portion of their
doctrines. And as their sacred books, containing their doctrines,
perished with the extinction of the sect (except those now found in
the Christian New Testament), a full knowledge of their doctrines,
therefore, never reached the public mind. All religious sects had
secret doctrines, designated as "Mysteries of Godliness," including
the principal Jewish sects and the earliest Christian churches. It is,
therefore, highly probable that if we were in possession of all their
sacred books, we would be in possession of the proof that they believed
and taught in their monasteries the doctrines above named. But we are
not left to mere inference that the Essenes' creed did include the
doctrines of the Trinity and the Divine Incarnation. We find skeletons
of these doctrines scattered along the line of their history. Philo
himself, an Essene teacher, most distinctly teaches the doctrine of "the
Incarnation of the Divine Word or Logos." And "Son of God," "Mediator,"
"Intercessor," and "Messiah," were familiar words with him. The idea
often reappears in his writings, that the "Word could become flesh;"
that the Son of God could appear as a personality, and return to the
bosom of the Father. Moreover, one writer informs us that the Essenes
celebrated the birth and death of a Divine Savior as a "Mystery of
Godliness." And they claimed in their earlier history to be "forerunners
of the Messiah"--a claim which would soon bring a Messiah before the
world, that is, lead them to deify and worship some great man as "_The
Messia_."

As for the doctrine of the Trinity, we have the authority of Eusebius
that they taught this doctrine too. So that it is not true that they
did not recognize these two prime articles of the Christian faith, the
Incarnation and Trinity doctrines. Some modern Christians assert that
the Essenes not only omitted to teach these doctrines, but that, on the
other hand, they taught other doctrines not taught in the Christian New
Testament. This is not improbable. For the Christian religion has been
characterized by frequent changes in its doctrines in every stage of its
practical history, as was also the Jewish religion which preceded it,
and from which it emanated. Judaism is a perpetual series of changes. It
changed even the name of its God from Elohim to Jehovah. Its leader and
founder Abram was changed to Abraham, and his grandson and successor
from Jacob to Israel. And we have the works of many Christian writers
in our possession who prove by their own bible that the Jews made many
changes in their religious polity and religious doctrines. This is more
especially observable when they came in contact with nations teaching
a different religion. Their whole history shows they were prone to
imitate, and borrow, and always did borrow on such occasions, and
engraft the new doctrines thus obtained into their own creed, and thus
effected important changes in their religion. We have the authority of
Dr. Campbell for saying the Jews never believed and taught the doctrine
of future punishment (and other doctrines that might be named) till
after they were brought in contact with Persians in Babylon who had long
taught these doctrines. (See Dissertation VI. ) And Dr. Enfield declares
their theological opinions underwent thorough changes during this period
of seventy years' captivity. Even their national title was changed at
one period from Israelites to Jews. With all these changes of names,
titles, and doctrines in view, it is not incredible that one of the
Jewish sects should change its name from Essenes to Christians, and with
this change modify some of the doctrines. And more especially as their
title, according to Dr. Ginsburg, had been changed before from Chassidim
to Essenes. And Philo at one period calls them Therapeuts, while
Eusebius says the Therapeuts were Christians. Put this and that
together, and the question is forever settled.

Now, with all this overwhelming mass of historical evidence before us,
"piled mountain high," tending to prove the truth of the proposition
that Christianity is the offspring and outgrowth of ancient Judean
Essenism, we feel certain that no sophistry, from interested charlatans
or stereotyped creed worshipers, can stave off or obliterate the
conviction in unprejudiced minds, that the proposition is most amply
proven.

We will now collate Christianity with another ancient religious system,
which we are certain it will not be disputed, after the comparison
is critically examined, contains the sum total of the doctrines and
teachings of Christianity in all their details.




CHAPTER XXXII. THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX STRIKING ANALOGIES BETWEEN
CHRIST AND CHRISHNA


I. THEIR MIRACULOUS HISTORY AND LEADING PRINCIPLES.

1. The advent of each Savior was miraculously foretold by prophets.

2. The fallen and degenerate condition of the human race is taught in
the religion of each.

3. A plan of restoration or salvation is provided for in each case.

4. A divine Savior is considered necessary in both cases.

5. The necessity of atoning for sin is taught in the religion of each.

6. A God, or Son of God, is selected as the victim for the atoning
sacrifice in each case.

7. This God is sent down from heaven in each case in the form of a man.

8. The God or Savior in each case is the second person of the Trinity.

9. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was held to be really God incarnate.

10. The mission of each Savior is the same.

11. There is a resemblance in name-Chrishna and Christ.

12. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was incarnated and born of a woman.

13. The mother in each case was a holy virgin.

14. The same peculiarities of a miraculous conception and birth are
related of each.

15. Each had an adopted earthly father.

16. The father of Chrishna, as well as that of Christ, was a carpenter.

17. God is claimed as the real father in both cases.

18. A Spirit or Ghost was the author of the conception of each.

19. There was rejoicing on earth when each Savior was born.

20. There was also joy in heaven at the birth and advent of each.

21. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was of royal descent.

22. Their mothers were both reputedly pious women.

23. The names of two mothers are somewhat similar--Mary and Maia.

24. Each had a special female friend--Elizabeth in the one case, and the
wife of Nanda in the other.

25. Neither Savior was born in a house, but both in obscure situations.

26. Both were born on the 25th of December.

27. Both, at birth, were visited by wise men and shepards.

28. The visitors conducted by a star in each case.

29. The rite of purification observed by the mothers of each.

30. An angel warning of impending danger in each case.

31. The incumbent ruler was hostile in each case.

32. A bloody decree in each case for the destruction of the infant
Savior.

33. A flight of the parents takes place in both cases.

34. The parents of one sojourned at Muturea, the other at Mathura.

35. Each Savior had a forerunner--John the Baptist in one case, Bali
Rama in the other.

36. Both were preternaturally smart in childhood.

37. Each disputed with and vanquished learned opponents.

38. Both became objects of search by their parents.

39. And both occasioned anxiety, if not sorrow, to their parents.

40. The mother of each had other children--that is children begotten by
man as well as God.

41. Both Saviors retired to, and spent considerable time in the
wilderness.

42. The religious rite of "fasting" was practiced by each Savior.

43. Each delivered a noteworthy sermon, or series of moral lessons.

44. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was called and considered God.

45. Each was both God and the Son of God (so regarded).

46. "Savior" was one of the divine titles of each.

47. Each was designated "the Savior of man," "the Savior of the world,"
&c.

48. Both expressed a desire to "save all."

49. Each sustained the character of a Messiah.

50. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was a Redeemer.

51. Each Savior was called "Shepard."

52. Both were believed to be the Creator of the world.

53. Each is sometimes spoken of, also, as only an agent in the creation.

54. Both were the "Light and Life" of men.

55. Each "brought life and immortality to light."

56. Both are represented as "the seed of the woman bruising the
serpent's head."

57. Was Christ a "Dispenser of grace," so was the Hindoo Savior.

58. One was "the lion of the tribe of Judah," the other "the lion of the
tribe of Saki."

59. Christ was "the Beginning of the End," Chrishna "the Beginning, the
Middle, and the End."

60. Both proclaimed, "I am the Resurrection."

61. Each was "the way to the Father."

62. Both represented emblematically "the Sun of Righteousness."

63. Each is figuratively represented as being "all in all."

64. Both speak of having existed prior to human birth.

65. A dual existence--an existence in both heaven and earth at once--is
claimed by or for both.

66. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was "without sin."

67. Both assumed the divine prerogative of forgiving sins.

68. The mission of each was to deliver from sin.

69. Both came to destroy the devil and his works.

70. The doctrine of the "atonement" is practically realized in each
case.

71. Each made a voluntary offering for the sins of the world.

72. Both were human as well as divine.

73. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was worshiped as God absolute.

74. Each was regarded as "the Lord from Heaven."

75. Chrishna, as well as Christ, had applied to him all the attributes
of God.

76. Was Christ omniscient, so was Chrishna.

77. Was one omnipotent, so was the other (so believed).

78. And both are represented as being omnipresent.

79. Each was believed to be divinely perfect.

80. Was one "Lord of lords," so was the other.

81. Each embodied the "power and wisdom of God."

82. All power was committed unto each (so claimed).

83. Chrishna performed many miracles as well as Christ.

84. One of the first miracles of each was the cure of a leper.

85. Each healed "all manner of diseases."

86. The work of casting out devils constitutes a part of the mission of
each.

87. Each practically proved his power to raise the dead.

88. A miracle appertaining to a tree is related of both.

89. Both could read the thoughts of the people.

90. The power to detect and eject evil spirits was claimed by both.

91. Both had the keys or control of death.

92. Each led an extraordinary life.

93. Each had a character for supernatural greatness.

94. Both possesed or claimed a oneness with the Father.

95. A "oneness with his Lord and Master" is claimed, also, for the
disciples of each.

96. A strong reciprocal affection between Master and disciple in each
case.

97. Each offers to shoulder the burdens of his disciples.

98. A portion of the life of each was spent in preaching.

99. Both made converts by their miracles and preaching.

100. A numerous retinue of believers springs up in each case.

101. Both had commissioned apostles to proclaim their religion.

102. Each was an innovator upon the antecedent religion.

103. A beautiful reform in religion was inaugurated by each Savior.

104. Each opposed the existing popular priesthood.

105. Both abolished the law of lineal descent in the ancient priesthood.

106. Each was an object of conspiracy by his enemies.

107. Humility and external poverty distinguished the life of each.

108. Each denounced riches and rich men, and loathed and detested
wealth.

109. Both had a character for meekness.

110. Chastity or unmarried life was a distinguishing characteristic of
each.

111. Mercy was a noteworthy characteristic of each.

112. Both were censured for associating with sinners.

113. Each was a special friend to the poor.

114. A poor widow woman receives marked attention by each.

115. Each encounters a gentile woman at a well.

116. Both submitted unresistingly to injuries and insults.

117. General practical philanthropy and impartiality marks the life of
each Savior.

118. Each took more pleasure in repentant sinners than in virtuous
saints.

119. Both practically disclosed God's attempt to reconcile the world to
himself.

120. The closing incidents in the earth-life of each were strikingly
similar.

121. A memorable last supper marked the closing career of both.

122. Both were put to death by "wicked hands."

123. Chrishna, as well as Christ, was crucified.

124. Darkness attended the crucifixion of each.

125. Both were crucified between two thieves.

126. Each is reported to have forgiven his enemies.

127. The age of each at death corresponds (being between thirty and
thirty-six years).

128. Each, after giving up the ghost, descends into hell.

129. The resurrection from the dead is a marked period in the history of
each.

130. Each ascends to heaven after his resurrection.

131. Many people are reported to have witnessed the ascension in each
case.

132. Each is reported as having both descended and ascended.

133. The head of each, while living on earth, was anointed with oil.


II. DOCTRINES.

134. There is a similarity in the doctrines of their respective
religions.

135. The same doctrines are propagated by the disciples of each.

136. The doctrine of future rewards and punishments is a part of each
system.

137. Analogous views of heaven are found in each system.

138. A third heaven is spoken of in each system.

139. All sin must be punished according to the bible teachings of each.

140. Each has a hell provided for the wicked.

141. Both teach a hell of darkness and a hell of light.

142. An immortal worm finds employment in the hell of each system ("the
worm that dieth not.")

143. The arch-demon of the under world uses brimstone for fuel in one
case, and oil in the other.

144. The motive for future punishment is in both cases the same.

145. Each has a purgatory or sort of half-way house.

146. Special divine judgments on nations are taught by each.

147. A great and final day of judgment is taught by each.

148. A general resurrection also is taught in each religion.

149. That there is a "Judge of the dead" is a doctrine of each.

150. Two witnesses are to report on human actions in the final assizes.

151. We are furnished in each case with the dimension of heaven or "the
holy city."

152. Man is enjoined to strive against temptation to sin by each.

153. And repentance for sin is a doctrine taught by the bible of each.

154. Each has a prepared city for a paradise.

155. The bibles of both teach that we have no continuing city here.

156. Souls are carried to heaven by angels, as in the instance of
Lazarus, in each case.

157. A belief in angels or spirits is a tenant of each religion.

158. The doctrine of fallen or evil angels is found in both system.

159. Obsession by wicked or evil spirits is taught by each.

160. Both teach that sickness or disease is caused by evil spirits.

161. Each has a king-devil or arch-demon with a posse of subalterns or
evil spirits.

162. Both bibles record the story of a "hellaballoo" or war in heaven.

163. Both teach that an evil man can neither do nor speak a good thing.

164. Both teach that sin is a disadvantage in the present life as well
as in the future.

165. The doctrine of free will or free agency is taught by each.

166. Predestination seems to be inferentially taught by each.

167. In each case man is a prize in a lottery, with God and the devil
for ticket-holders.

168. Both make the devil (or devils) a scape-goat for sin.

169. Both teach the devil or evil spirits as the primary cause of all
evil.

170. The destiny of both body and soul is pointed out by each.

171. The true believers are known as "saints" under both systems.

172. Saints with "white robes" are spoken of by each.

173. Both specify "the Word of Logos" as God.

174. Wisdom, too, is personified as God by the holy Scriptures of each.

175. Both teach that God may be known by his works.

176. The doctrine of one supreme God is taught in each bible.

177. Light and truth are important words in the religious nomenclature
of each.

178. Both profess a high veneration for truth.

179. "Where the treasure is, there is the heart also," is taught by
each.

180. "Seek and ye shall find" is a condition prescribed by each.

181. Religious toleration is a virtue professed by both.

182. All nations are professedly based on an equality by each.

183. Both, however, enjoin partiality to "the household of faith."

184. The doors of salvation are thrown open to high and low, rich and
poor, by each.

185. Each professes to have "the only true and saving faith."

186. There is a mystery in the mission of each Savior.

187. "Rama" is a well known word in the bible of each.

188. "The understanding of the wise" is a phrase in each.

189. Both speak figuratively of "the blind leading the blind."

190. "A new heaven and a new earth" is spoken of by each.

191. The doctrine of a Trinity in the Godhead is taught by each.

192. Baptism by water is a tenant and ordinance of each.

193. "Living water" is a metaphor found in each.

194. Baptism by fire seems also to be recognized by each.

195. Fasting is emphatically enjoined by each.

196. Sacrifices are of secondary importance in each system, and are
partially or wholly abandoned by each.

197. The higher law is paramount to ceremonies in each religion.

198. The bible of each religion literally condemns idolatry.

199. Both also make concessions to idolatry.

200. Polygamy is not literally encouraged nor openly condemned by
either.

201. The power to forgive sins is conferred on the disciples of each.

202. The doctrine of blasphemy is recognized by each.

203. Pantheism, or the reciprocal in-being of God in nature and nature
in God, is taught by both.


III. BIBLES AND HOLY SCRIPTURES.

204. Each has a bible which is the idolized fountain of all religious
teaching.

205. Both have an Old Testament and a New Testament, virtually.

206. The New Testament inaugurates a new and reform system of religion
in each case.

207. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" is the faith of the
disciples of each.

208. Each system claimed to have its inspired men to write its
scriptures.

209. Both hold a spiritual qualification necessary to understand their
bibles.

210. It is a sin to become "wise beyond what is written" in their
respective bibles.

211. Both recommend knowing the Scriptures in youth.

212. Alteration of their respective bibles is divinely interdicted.

213. The bible is an infallible rule of faith and practice in both
cases.

214. "All scripture is profitable for doctrine" is the faith of each.

215. Both explain away the errors of their bibles.


IV. SPIRITUALITY OF THE TWO RELIGIONS.

216. The religion of Chrishna is pre-eminently spiritual no less than
Christ's.

217. Both teach that "to be carnally minded is death."

218. External rites are practically dispensed with in each religion.

219. The spiritual law written on the heart is recognized by each.

220. "God is within you," Budhists teach as well as Christians.

221. Both recognize an invisible spiritual Savior.

222. "God dwells in the heart," say Hindoo as well as Christians.

223 An inward recognition of the divine law is amply seen in both.

224. Both confess allegiance to an inward monitor.

225. The doctrine of inspiration and internal illumination is found in
both.

226. The indwelling Comforter is believed in by both.

227. Both also teach that religion is an inward work.

228. Both speak of being born again--i. e., the second birth.

229. A spiritual body is also believed in by both.

230. "Spiritual things are incomprehensible to the natural man" say
each.

231. God's spiritually sustaining power Budhists also acknowledge.

232. Both give a spiritual interpretation to their bibles.

233. Each has a new and more interior law superseding the old law.

234. The spiritual cross--self-denial or asceticism--is a prominent
feature of each religion.

235. The duty of renouncing and abandoning the external world is
solemnly enjoined by each.

236. Budhists renounce the world more practically than Christians.

237. Withdrawal or seclusion from society is recommended by each.

238. Bodily suffering as a benefit to the soul is encouraged by each.

239. Voluntary suffering for righteousness' sake is a virtue with each.

240. The cross is a religious emblem in each system.

241. Both glory in "the religion of the cross" as better than a religion
without suffering.

242. Hence both teach "the greater the cross the greater the crown."

243. Earthly pleasures are regarded as evil by both.

244. Contempt for the body as an enemy to the soul is visible in both.

245. Retirement for religious contemplation is a duty with each.

246. The forsaking of relations is also enjoined by each.

247. Spiritual relationship is superior to external relationship with
both.

248. "To die is great gain" we are taught by each.

249. A subjugation of the passions is a religious duty with each.

250. The road to heaven is a narrow one with each.

251. The same state of religious perfection is aspired to by the
disciples of each.


V. THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR BELIEF.

252. Faith is an all-important element and doctrine with each.

253. Heresy, or want of faith, is a sin of great magnitude with both.

254. Faith in the Savior is a condition to salvation by both.

255. Confessing the Savior is also required in both cases.

256. "Believe or be damned" is the condition or profess to believe the
terrible sine qua non to salvation by each.

257. Skeptics or unbelievers are with both the chief of sinners.

258. "Faith can remove mountains," either with a Bud-hist or a
Christian.

259. Both contrast faith with works.

260. Faith without works is dead--so teach both Bud-hists and
Christians.


VI. THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF PRAYER.

261. Prayer is an important rite in each religion.

262. Private or secret prayer is recommended by both.

263. Each has also a formula of prayer.

264. "Pray without ceasing" is a Budhist as well as a Christian
injunction.

265. Praying to their respective Saviors in sickness and in health is a
custom with both.

266. The custom of praying for the dead is recognized in each system.


VII. TREATMENT OF ENEMIES.

267. It is a Hindoo as well as a Christian injunction to treat enemies
kindly.

268. Passive submission to injuries and abuse is enjoined by both.

269. The holy Scriptures of both require us to pray for enemies, and
feed them.

270. And even love to enemies is a part of the spirit of each religion.


VIII. THE MILLENNIUM.

271. Hindoos, like Christians, prophesy of a great millennial era.

272. There is a remarkable similarity in their notions with respect to
it.

273. Both anticipate a second advent or new Savior on the occasion.

274. The destruction of the world also is to take place in both cases.

275. And an entire renovation and a new order of things are to be
established in each case.


IX. MIRACLES.

276. There is almost a constant display of miraculous power in each
system.

277. The disciples of both are professedly endowed with this power.

278. Miraculous cures of the lame, the blind, and the sick are reported
in both cases.

279. Miracles of handling poisonous reptiles with impunity are reported
by both.

280. Swallowing deadly poison is enjoined by Christians and practiced by
Hindoos.

281. Many cases of the miraculous ejection of devils are reported by
both.

282. The miracle of thought-reading is displayed by both.

283. The saints in both cases are reported as raising the dead.


X. PRECEPTS.

284. "The kingdom of heaven" was to be sought first of all things in
each case.

285. Love to God is a paramount obligation under each system.

286. And the worship of God is an essential requisition in each
religious polity.

287. "Cease to do evil and learn to do well" is virtually enjoined by
each.

288. An inward knowledge of God is taught as essential by both systems.

289. A reliance on works is discouraged by both.

290. Purity of heart is inculcated by Hindoos as well as Christians.

291. Speak and think evil of no man is a gospel injunction of each.

292. A love of all beings is more prominently the spirit of Budhism than
that of Christianity.

293. The practice of strict godly virtue is enjoined by both.

294. Moderation and temperance are recommended by both.

295. Patience is a virtue in each religion.

296. The duty of controlling our thoughts is taught by each.

297. Charity has a high appreciation by each.

298. Both make the poor objects of attention.

299. The practice of hospitality is recommended by each.

300. Humility is a duty and a virtue under both systems.

301. Mirthfulness or light conversation is forbidden by each.

302. Purity of life is a duty with Hindoos as well as Christians.

303. Chasteness in conversation is inculcated by both.

304. "Respect to persons" is a sin in the moral polity of both.

305. Alms-giving is religiously enjoined by the holy Scriptures of both.

306. Both teach that "it is better to give than to receive."

307. Loyalty to rulers is a moral requisition of each system.

308. Honor to father and mother is esteemed a great virtue by both.

309. The correct training of children is with each a scriptural duty.

310. "Look not upon a woman" is more than hinted by each.

311. The reading of the holy Scriptures is enjoined by both.

312. Lying or falsehood is with each a sin of great magnitude.

313. Swearing is discountenanced by both religions.

314. Theft or stealing is specially condemned by both.

315. Both deprecate and condemn the practice of war.

316. Both discountenance fighting.

317. Neither of them professes to believe in slavery.

318. Drunkenness and the use of wine are more specifically condemned by
the Hindoo religion.

319. Adultery and fornication are heinous sins in the eyes of both.

320. Both condemn covetousness as a great sin.

321. Budhists more practically condemn anger than Christians do.


XI. MISCELLANEOUS ANALOGIES.

322. Both have their apocryphal as well as their canonical Scriptures.

323. Stories are found in the bible of each which would be rejected if
found elsewhere.

324. Both make their bible a finality in matters of faith.

325. Both have had their councils and commentaries to reveal theis
bibles over again.

326. Numerous schisms, divisions, sects, and creeds have sprung up in
each.

327. Various religious reforms have sprung up under each.

328. Conversion from one religious sect to another is common to both.

329. Both religions have been troubled with numerous skeptics or
infidels.

330. Both have often resorted to new interpretations for their bibles to
suit the times.

331. The unconverted are stigmatized by each.

332. "Knock and it shall be opened" is the invitation of each.

333. Public confession of sins in class-meetings is known to each.

334. Death-bed repentance often witnessed under both religious systems.

335. A belief in haunted houses incident to the religious countries of
both.

336. A superior respect for woman claimed by each.

337. An idolatrous veneration for religious ancestors by each.

338. Each sustain a numerous horde of expensive priests.

339. A divine call or illumination to preach claimed by each.

340. Religious martyrdom the glory of each.

341. Both have encountered "perils by sea and land" for their religion.

342. He who loseth his life (for his religion) shall find it, say both.

343. Both in ancient times suffered much persecution.

344. The disciples of both have suffered death without flinching from
the faith.

345. Each sent numerous missionaries abroad to preach and convert.

346. And, finally, each cherished the hope of converting the world to
their religion.


The author has in his possession historical quotations to prove the
truth of each one of the above parallels. He has all the historical
facts on which they were constructed found in and drawn from the
sacred books of the Hindoo religion and the works of Christian writers
descriptive of their religion. But they would swell the present volume
to unwieldy dimensions, and far beyond its proper and prescribed limits,
to present them here; they are therefore reserved for the second volume,
and may be published in pamphlet form also.

In proof of the correctness of the foregoing comparative analogies,
we will now summon the testimony of various authors setting forth the
historical character of the Hindoo God Chrishna, and the essential
nature of his religion, so far as it approximates in its doctrines
and moral teachings to the Christian religion. We will first hear from
Colonel Wiseman, for ten years a Christian missionary in India.

"There is one Indian (Hindoo) legend of considerable importance" says
this writer... "This is the story of Chrishna, the Indian Apollo. In
native legends he is represented as an Avatar, or incarnation of the
Divinity. At his birth, choirs of Devitas (angels) sung hymns of praise,
while shepherds surrounded his cradle. It was necessary to conceal his
birth from the tyrant ruler, Cansa, to whom it had been foretold that
the infant Savior should destroy him. The child escaped with his parents
beyond the coast of Lamouna. For a time he lived in obscurity, and then
commenced a public life distinguished for prowess and beneficence.
He washed the feet of the Brahmins, and preached the most excellent
doctrines; but at length the power of his enemies prevailed.... Before
dying, he foretold the miseries which would take place in the Cali-yuga,
or wicked age (Dark Age) of the world."

"Chrishna (says another writer) taught his followers that they alone
were the true believers of the saving faith; throwing down the barriers
of caste, and elevating the dogmas of their faith above the sacerdotal
class, he admitted every one who felt an inward desire to the ministry
to the preaching of their religion. A system thus associating itself
with the habits, feelings, and personal advantages of its disciples
could not fail to make rapid progress." (Upham's History. Doctrines of
Budhism.)

"Budhism inculcates benevolence, tenderness, forgiveness of injuries,
and love of enemies; and forbids sensuality, love of pleasure, and
attachment to worldly objects." (Judson).

"At the moment of his (Chrishna's) conception a God left heaven to enter
the womb of his mother (a virgin). Immediately after his birth he was
recognized as a divine personage, and it was predicted that he would
surpass all previous divine incarnations in holiness. Every one adored
him, saluting him as 'the God of Gods.' When twenty years of age he went
into a desert, and lived there in the austerest retirement, poverty,
simplicity, and virtue, spending his whole time in religious
contemplation. He was tempted in various ways, but his self-denial
resisted all the seductive approaches of sin. He declared, 'Religion
is my essence.' He experienced a lively opposition from the priests
attached to the ancient creeds (as Christ subsequently did). But he
triumphed over all his enemies after holding a discussion with them (as
Christ did with the doctors in the Temple). He revised the existing code
of morals and the social law. He reduced the main principles of morality
to four, viz: _mercy, aversion to cruelty, unbounded sympathy for all
animated beings and the strictest adherence to the moral law._ He also
gave a decalogue of commandments, viz.: 1. Not to kill. 2. Not to steal.
3. To be chaste. 4. Not to testify falsely. 5. Not to lie. 6. Not to
swear. 7. To avoid all impure words. 8. To be disinterested. 9. Not to
take revenge. 10. And not to be superstitious. This code of morals
was firmly established in the hearts of his followers." (Abridged from
Hardy's Manual of Budhism.)

"It was prophesied in olden times that a person would arise and redeem
Hindostan from 'the yoke of bondage.' At midnight, when the birth of
Chrishna was taking place, the clouds emitted low music, and poured
down a rain of flowers. The celestial child was greeted with hymns by
attending spirits.

"The room was illuminated by his light, and the countenances of his
father and mother emitted rays of glory, and they bowed in worship.'
'The people believed he was a God.' They eagerly caught the words which
fell from his lips, which taught his divine mission, and they called him
the 'Holy One,' and finally the 'Living God.' He performed miraculous
cures. At his birth a marvelous light illumined the earth. His followers
baptised, and performed miraculous cures. And he, when a child,
attracted attention by his miracles. While attending the herds with his
foster-father a great serpent poisoned the river, which caused the death
of cows and shepherd-boys when they drank of it, whom Chrishna restored
to life by a look of divine power. His life was devoted to mercy and
charity. He left paradise from pure compassion, to die for suffering
sinners. He sought to lead men to better paths and lives of virtue
and rectitude. He suffered to atone for the sins of the world; and the
sinner, through faith in him, can be saved. Christ and Chrishna both
taught the equality of man. Prayers addressed to Chrishna were after
this fashion: 'O thou Supreme One! thy essence is inscrutable. Thou art
all in all. The understanding of man cannot reach thy Almighty Power.
I, who know nothing, fly to thee for protection. Show mercy unto me, and
enable me to see and know thee.' Chrishna replies, 'Have faith in me.
No one who worships me can perish. Address thyself to me as the
only asylum. I will deliver thee from sin. I am animated with equal
benevolence toward all beings. I know neither hatred nor partiality.
Those who adore me devoutly are in me and I in them'"--"Christ within
you the hope of glory." (Abridged from Mr. Tuttle.)

"If we consider that Budhism proclaimed the equality of all men and
women in the sight of God, that it denounced the impious pretensions
of the most mischievous priesthood the world ever saw, and that it
inculcated a pure system of practical morality, we must admit that
the innovation was as advantageous as it was extensively spread and
adopted." (Hue's Journey through China, chap. v.)

"To Chrishna the Hindoos were indebted for a code of pure and practical
morality, which inculcated charity and chastity, performance of good
works, abstinence from evil, and general kindness to all living things."
(Cunningham.)

"Budhism never confounds right or wrong, and never excuses any sin"
(Catharine Beecher.)

"He (Chrishna) honored humanity by his virtues." (St Hilaire.)

"It is probable that every incident in his (Chrisna's) life is founded
in fact, which, if separated from surrounding fable, would afford
a history that would scarce have any equal in the importance of the
lessons it would teach." (Hardy's Manual of Budhism.)

"He (Chrishna) undertakes and counsels a constant struggle against the
body. In his eyes the body is the enemy of man's soul (as Paul thought
when he spoke of 'our vile bodies.') He aims to subdue the body and the
burning passions which consume it.... He requires humility, disregard of
wordly wealth, patience and resignation in adversity, love to enemies,
religious tolerance, horror at falsehood, avoidance of frivolous
conversation, consideration and esteem for women, sanctity of the
marriage relation, non-resistance to evil, confession of sins, and
conversion." (St. Hilaire.)

"Budhism has been called the Christianity of the East." (Abel Remuset.)

"The doctrine and practical piety of their bible (the Baghavat Gita)
bear a strong resemblance to those of the Holy Scriptures. It has
scarcely a precept or principle that is not found in the (Christian)
bible. And were the people to live up to its principles of peace
and love, oppression and injury would be known no more within their
borders... It has no mythology of obscene and ferocious deities, no
sanguinary or impure observances, no self-inflicting tortures, no
tyrannizing priesthood, no confounding of right and wrong by making
certain iniquities laudable in worship. In its moral code, its
description of the purity and peace of the first ages, and the
shortening of man's life by sin, it seems to follow genuine traditions.
In almost every respect it seems to be the best religion ever invented
by man." (Rev. H. Malcom's Travels in Asia.)

"If the morality of Budhism be examined, its exhortations to guard the
will, to curb the thoughts, to exercise kindness towards others,
to abstain from wrong to all, it propounds a very high standard of
practice." (Upham's Doctrines and History of Budhism.)

"It seeks the highest triumphants of humanity in the exercise of
devotion, self-contemplation, and self-denial." (Theogony of the Hindoos,
by Bjornsjerma.)

"And the doctrines of Budhism are not alone in the beauty of their
sentiments and the excellence of much of their morality. 'It is not
permitted to you to return evil for evil' is one of the sentiments of
Socrates." (Rev. H. S. Hardy's Eastern Monachism.)

"Budhism insists on the necessity of taking the intellectual faculties
for guides in philosophical researches." (Tiberghien.)

"It sought to wean mankind from the pleasures and vanities of life
by pointing to the transitoriness of all human enjoyment." (Smith's
Mongolia.)

"The principal characteristics of Budhism are the doctrines of mildness
and the universal brotherhood of man." (Ibid.)

"Life is a state of probation and misery, according to Budhism."
(Upham, chap. vi.)

"The Brahmins found fault with him (Chrishna) for receiving as
disciples the outcasts of Hindoo society (as the Jews did Christ for
fellowshipping publicans and sinners). But he (Chrishna) replied, 'My
law is a law of mercy to all.'" (Hue's Voyages through China.)

"Budhism attracted and furnished consolation for the poor and
unfortunate." (Ibid.)

"Budhism is a rationalistic and reform system as compared with
Brahminism. Landresse expresses his high admiration of the heroism with
which the Budhist missionaries before Christ crossed streams and seas
which had arrested armies, and traversed deserts and mountains upon
which no caravans dared to venture, and braved dangers and surmounted
obstacles which had defied the omnipotence of the emperors." (A note on
Landresse's _Foe Koui Ki._)

"If we addressed a Mogul or Thibetan this question, Who is Chrishna?
the reply was, instantly, 'The Savior of men.'" (Hue's Journey through
China.)

"Chrishna, the incarnate Deity of the Sanscrit romance continues to this
hour the darling God of the women of India.... Chrishna was the person
of Vishnu (God) himself in the human form." (Asiat. Researches, 260).

"Respectable natives told me that some of the missionaries had told them
that they were even now almost Christians" (owing to the two religions
being so nearly alike). (Ibid).

"All that converting the Hindoos to Christianity does for them is to
change the object of their worship from Chrishna to Christ." (Robert
Cheyne.)

"Brahminism or Budhism in some of its forms is said to constitute the
religion of considerably more than half the human race. It teaches the
existence of one supreme eternal, and uncreated God, called Brahma, who
created the world through Chrishna, the second member of the Trinity."
Paul says, God created the world through Jesus Christ, the second member
of the Christian Trinity. (Eph. iii. 9.) How striking the resemblance!
"The doctrine of the incarnation, the descent of the Deity upon earth,
and his manifestation in a human form for the redemption of mankind,
seems to have existed in the shape of prophecy or fact in all ages of
the world. Hindooism teaches nine of these incarnations. Furthermore, it
teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, the fall and redemption of man,
and a state of future rewards and punishments in a future life.... This
religion in chief of Asia is traceable to remote ages. The doctrine of
the Trinity is represented in the Elephantine cavern, and taught in
the Mahabarat, which goes back for its origin nearly two thousand years
before Christ." (New York Sunday Despatch, 1855.)

"In the year 3600, Chrishna descended to the earth for the purpose of
defeating the evil machinations of Chivan (the devil), as Christ 'came
to destroy the devil and his works.' (See John iii. 8.) After a fierce
combat with the devil, or serpent, he defeated him by bruising his
head--he receiving, during the contest, a wound in the heel. ('It [the
serpent] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.'--Gen.
iii. 15.) He died at last between two thieves.... He lead a pure and
holy life, and was a meek, tender, and benevolent being, and enjoined
charity, hospitality, and mercy, and forbade lying, prevarication,
hypocrisy, and overreaching in dealing, and pilfering, and theft, and
violence toward any being." (Lecture before the Free Press Association
in 1827.)

"The birthplace of the Hindoo hero (Chrishna) is called Mathura, which
is easily changed, and by correct translation becomes Maturea, the place
where Christ is said to have stopped, between Nazareth and Egypt... To
show his humility he washed the feet of the Brahmins (as Christ is said
to have washed the feet of the Jews--see John xiii. 14). One day a
woman came to him and anointed his hair with oil, in return for which
he healed her maladies. One of his first miracles was that of healing
a leper, like Christ (See Mark i. 4). Finally, he was crucified, then
descended to Hades. (It is said of Christ, 'his soul was not left in
hell.'--Acts ii. 31.) He (Chrishna) rose from the dead and ascended to
Voicontha (heaven.)" (Higgin's Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 239).

Now, we ask, is it any wonder, in view of the foregoing historical
exposition, that Eusebius should exclaim, "The religion of Jesus
Christ is neither new nor strange?" (Eccl. Hist. ch. iv.) Truly did
St. Augustine say, "This, in our day, is the Christian religion, not
as having been unknown in former times, but as having recently received
that name."

Here, then, we pause to ask our good Christian reader, _Where is your
original Christianity now?_ or what constitutes the revealed religion
of Jesus Christ? or where is the evidence that any new religion was
revealed by him or preached by him, seeing we have all his religion, as
shown by the foregoing historical citations, included in an old heathen
system more than a thousand years old when Jesus Christ was born?
We find it all here in this old oriental system of Budhism--_every
essential part, particle and principle_ of it. We find Christianity all
here--its Alpha and Omega, its beginning and end. We find it here in
all its details,--its root, essence, and entity,--all its "revealed
doctrines," religious ideas, beautiful truths, senseless dogmas and
oriental phantoms. Not, a doctrine, principle, or precept of the
Christian system, but that is here proclaimed to the world ages before
"the angels announced the birth of a divine babe in Bethlehem." Will
you, then, persist in claiming that "truth, life, and immortality came
by Jesus Christ," and that "Christ came to preach a new gospel to the
world, and to set forth a new religion never before heard amongst men"
(to use the language of Archbishop Tillotson), when the historical facts
cited in this work demonstrate a hundred times over that such a position
is palpably erroneous? Will you still persist, with all those undeniable
facts staring you in the face (proving and reproving, with overwhelming
demonstration, that the statement is untrue), in declaring that "the
religion of Jesus Christ is the only true and soul-saving religion, and
all other systems are mere straw, stubble, tradition, and superstition"
(as asserted by a popular Christian writer), when no mathematician ever
demonstrated a scientific problem more clearly than we have proved in
these pages that all the principle systems of the past, by no means
excepting Christianity, are essentially alike in every important
particular--all of their cardinal doctrines being the same, differing
only in unimportant details?

Seeing, then, that all systems of religion have been found to be
essentially alike in spirit and in practice, the all-important question
arises here, What is the true cause assignable for this striking
resemblance? How is it to be accounted for? Perhaps some of our good
Christian readers, unacquainted with history, may cherish the thought
that all the oriental systems brought to notice are but imitations of
Christianity; that they were reconstructed out of materials obtained
from that source; that Christianity is the parent, and they the
off-spring. But, alas for their long-cherished idol, those who
entertain such forlorn hopes are "sowing to the wind, and are doomed to
disappointment." With the exception of Mahomedanism alone, Christianity
is the youngest system in the whole catalogue. The historical facts to
prove this statement are voluminous. But as it needs no proof to those
who have read religious history, but little space will be occupied
with citations for this purpose. With respect to the antiquity of the
principal oriental system, we need only to quote the testimony of Sir
William Jones, a devout Christian writer, who spent years in India,
and whose testimony will be accepted by any person acquainted with his
history. He makes the emphatic declaration, "That the name of Chrishna,
and the general outline of his history, were long anterior to the birth
of our Savior, and probably to the time of Homer (900 b. C.) we know
very certainly." (Asiat. Res. vol. i. p. 254.) No guess-work about it.
"_We know very certainly_."

And being a scholar, a traveler, and a sojourner among the Hindoos, and
well versed in their history, no person ever had a better opportunity
to know than he. We will hear this renowned author further. "In the
Sanscrit dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have
the whole history of the incarnate deity (Chrishna), born of a virgin,
and miraculously escaping in his infancy from the reigning tyrant of
his country (Cansa). He passed a life of the most extraordinary and
incomprehensible devotion. His birth was concealed from the tyrant
Cansa, to whom it had been predicted that one born at that time, and in
that family, would destroy him;" i. e., destroy his power. (Asiat.
Res. vol. i. p. 273.) This writer also states that the first Christian
missionaries who entered India were astonished to find there a religion
so near like their own, and could only account for it by supposing
that the devil, foreseeing the advent of Christ, originated a system of
religion in advance of his, and "just like it." Stated in other words,
he got out the second edition of the gospel plan of salvation before the
first edition was published or had an existence. Rather a smart trick
this, thus to outwit God Almighty.

With respect to the vast antiquity of the Hindoo oriental religion,
which indicates it as being not only the source from which the materials
of the Christian religion were drawn, but as being the parent of all the
leading systems, with their three thousand subordinate branches which
existed at a much earlier period than Christianity, we need only point
to the deep chiseled sculptures and imperishable monuments enstamped
on their time-honored temples, tombs, altars, vases, columns, pagodas,
ruined towers, &c., which, with contemporary inscriptions, warrant us
in antedating the religion of the Himmalehas far beyond the authentic
records of any other religion that has floated down to us on the stream
of time. The numerous images of their crucified Gods, Chrishna and Saki,
emblazoned on their old rock temples in various parts of the country,
some of which are constructed of clay porphyry, now the very hardest
species of rock, with their attendant inscriptions in a language so very
ancient as to be lost to the memory of man, vie with the Sanscrit in
age, the oldest deciphered language in the world.

All these and a hundred corroboratory historical facts fix on India as
being the birthplace of the mother of all religions now existing, or
that ever had an existence, while the great workshop in which they were
subsequently remodeled was in Alexandria in Egypt, whose theological
schools furnished the model for nearly every system now found noticed
on the page of history--Christianity of course included. So much for
the unrivaled antiquity of the Hindoo religion. Now, the more important
query arises, What relationship does ancient heathen or Hindoo Budhism
bear to Christianity? What is the evidence that the latter is an
outgrowth of the former? As an answer to this question, the reader will
please note the following facts of history:--

1. Alexandria, the home of the world's great conqueror, was at one
period of time the great focal center for religious speculation and
propagandism, the great emporium for religious dogmas throughout the
East, and a place of resort for the disciples of nearly every system of
religious faith then existing.

2. In this capital city, comprising about five hundred thousand
inhabitants, were established a voluminous library, and vast theological
schools, in which men of every religious order, and of every phase of
faith, met and exchanged religious ideas, and borrowed new doctrines,
with which they remodeled their former systems of faith, amounting in
some cases to an entire change of their long-established creeds.

3. In these theological schools the Jewish sect, which afterward became
the founders of Christianity, were extensively represented; for, let it
be noted, its first disciples and founders had all been Jews, probably
of the Essene sect. "For a long time the Christians were but a Jewish
sect," says M. Reuss' "History of Christian Theology." Alexander had,
previous to this time (that is, about 330 b. c.), subjected the whole
of Western Asia to his dominions, including, of course, "The Holy
Land"--Judea.

4. By this act a large portion of the Jewish nation were transferred
from their own country to Alexandria. And this number was afterward
vastly increased by Alexander's successor, Ptolemy Sotor, who carried off
and settled in that credal city one hundred thousand more Jews.

5. As the result, in part, of these repeated calamities, "the Lord's
chosen people" were literally broken up. They lost their law, lost their
leader and lawgiver, lost their language, lost the control of their
country, the "_Promised Land"_ which (they verily believed) the Lord
had deeded to them _in fee simple_, and ratified in the high court
of heaven, and had declared they should hold and possess forever. And
finally they partially lost their nationality, being literally dissolved
and broken up; and were finally almost lost to history--the ten tribes
disappearing entirely.

6. The Jews had ever manifested a proneness for copying after the
religious customs of their heathen neighbors, and engrafting their
doctrines into their own creeds, as their bible history furnishes ample
proof.

7. In Alexandria a very superior opportunity was afforded for doing
this, excelling in this respect any previous period of their history.

8. The shattered condition of their own religion, with all its
conventional creeds, customs, and ceremonies, now suspended and
literally prostrated, as above shown, vastly augmented the temptation
ever rife with them to make another change in their religion, and
subject their creed to another installment of new doctrines, by which it
became Christianity.

9. The liberal character and tolerant spirit of the political and
religious institutions of the kingdom of Alexandria, with its vast
and attractive library of two hundred thousand volumes, established
principally by Ptolemy Phila-delphus, with other attractive features
already pointed out, furnished great facilities, as well as increased
temptations to religious propagandists to absorb new theories, and make
new creeds out of the vast medley of religious doctrines and speculative
dogmas preached and propagated in that royal city by the disciples and
representatives of nearly every religious system then in existence,
brought together by the attractions above specified.

10. Hence every consideration would lead us to conclude, taken in
connection with the facts above stated, and the well-known borrowing
proclivity and imitative propensity of the Jews, that they would not,
and could not, withstand the overweening and overpowering temptation to
make another radical change in their religion by a new draught on the
boundless reservoir of speculative ideas, religious tenets, and specious
theories then glowing in the popular schools of Alexandria.

11. All the facts above enumerated would impel us to the conclusion that
the Jews would--and every page of history touching the matter proves
they did--make important changes in their religion by this contact with
the oriental systems, as they had repeatedly done before. Some of this
proof we will here present, to show how they originated Christianity.

12. "The schools of Alexandria" says Mr. Enfield, a Christian writer,
"by pretending to teach sublime doctrines concerning God and divine
things, enticed men of different countries and religions, and among the
rest the Jews, to study its mysteries, and incorporate them with their
own.... The Jewish faith mixed with the Pythagorean, and afterward with
the Egyptian oriental theology" (that is, they became Essenes in the
Grecian school of Pythagoras, who taught the doctrines of that religious
order, then Bud-hists in the Egyptian schools of Alexandria). And
finally, with Christ as their leader, who taught the doctrines of
both schools (they being essentially alike), they assumed the name of
Christian in honor of him, and thus is Christianity from Essene Budhism.

13. Beers in his "History of the Jews," sustains the above statement by
the declaration that the Essenian Jews "fled to Egypt at the time of the
Babylonian captivity, and there became acquainted with the Pythagorean
philosophy, and ingrafted it upon the religion of Moses," which would
make them Essenian Budhists--for Cunningham assures us that "the
doctrine of Pythagoras were intensely Budhistic." (Philsa. Topus, chap.
x.)

14. We will condense a few more historical testimonies relative to the
entire change of the Jewish faith, while in Alexandria, as well as on
other occasions, to show how easy and natural it was for that portion of
the Jews who afterward became the founders of Christianity to slide into
and adopt Essenian Budhism, whose doctrines they took to constitute the
Christian religion.

15. Mr. Gibbon (chap. xxi.) declares that the theological opinions
of the Jews underwent great changes by their contact with the various
foreigners they found in Alexandria. Mr. Tytler likewise, in his
"Universal History," assures us that the Jewish religion "became
_totally changed by the intermixture of heathen doctrines_." Dr.
Campbell also testifies that "their views came pretty much to coincide
with those of the pagans." (See his Dissertation, vi.) And the author of
"_The Expositor_ for 1854" complains that the pagan "theology stole upon
them from every quarter, and mingled in all the views of the then known
tribes, so that by the year 150 b. c., it had wrought visible changes in
their notions and habits of thought." (P. 423.) Here we have the proof
that the whole Jewish religion underwent a change in Alexandria.

16. Now, most, certainly a nation or sect professing a religion so
easily changed, and possessing a character so fickle, or so
irrepressible as to yield on every slight occasion, and embrace every
opportunity to imbibe new religious ideas and doctrines, would easily,
if not naturally, slide into the adoption of the religious system then
promulgated in Alexandria under the name of Budhism, and afterward
remodeled or transformed, and called Christianity.

17. The Jews of the Essenian order, as we have in part shown in a
previous chapter, set forth in their creed all the leading doctrines now
comprised in the Christian religion hundreds of years before the advent
of Christ, not excepting the doctrine of the divine incarnation and its
adjuncts, as these concomitants of the present popular faith, we will
now prove, were not unknown to the Jewish theology, but constituted
a part of the religion of some of the principal Jewish sects. That
standard Christian author, Mr. Milman, in his "History of Christianity,"
tells us that "the doctrine of the incarnation ('God manifest in the
flesh') was the doctrine from the Ganges, and even the shores of the
Yellow Sea to the Ilissus. It was the fundamental principle of
the Indian Budhist religion and philosophy. It was the basis of
Zoroasterism. It was pure Platonism. It was Platonic Judaism in the
Alexandrian school." Here it is positively declared, by a popular
Christian writer, whose work is a part of nearly every popular library
in Christiandom as a standard authority, that the appearance of God
amongst men in the human form, by human birth, was a doctrine of
the Jewish religion in some of its branches, especially the Essenian
branch--further proof that Christianity originated nothing, and gave
utterance to no new doctrine or precepts, and performed no new miracles.
Where, then, is the claim for its originality? On what ground is it
predicated? Please answer us, good Christian brother.

18. It is a question of no importance, if it could be settled, whether
Christianity is a direct outgrowth from one of the new-fangled sects
of Judaism, or whether it derived a portion of its doctrines from this
source and the balance from ascetic Budhism. Yet we regard it as an
incontrovertible proposition that it all grew out of Budhism originally,
either directly or indirectly.

19. Christ may have received his doctrines secondhanded, all or a
portion from the Essenian Jews; for that sect held all the leading
doctrines of Budhism (as we have shown in a previous chapter), which now
goes under the name of the religion of Jesus Christ.

20. Or we may indulge the not unreasonable hypothesis that the founders
of Christianity, who republished the doctrines of Budhism and adopted
them as their own, received them all direct from the disciples of that
religious order; for "they were everywhere," as one writer (Mr. Taylor)
declares, speaking of their extensive travels to propagate their
doctrines through the world. And it was about that period, as Mr.
Goodrich informs us, they sent out nine hundred missionaries, who made
six millions of converts,--a small fraction of their present
number (three hundred and eighty millions, as given by some of our
geographies),--one third more than the entire census of Christendom, and
six times the number of believers in the Christian religion, if we omit
Greeks and Catholics. "It is." as a writer remarks, "the oldest and
most widely spread religion in the world." And, whatever hypothesis may
be adduced to account for the fact, Christianity is now all Budhism.

21. It is impossible, with the historic darkness which at present
environs and beclouds our pathway, to determine at what period or in
what manner Christ became an Essene,--whether he was born of Essenian
parents, or became a convert to the faith,--because the whole period of
his life, with the exception of about three years, is a total blank in
history. There is but one incident related of his movements by his
bible biographers prior to his twenty-seventh year, leaving more than
a quarter of a century of his probably active life unreported--a period
that may have witnessed several important changes in his religion. We
have not even his ancestry reported in his scriptural biography, in
either parental line, unless we assume Joseph to have been his father.
The parental lineage of his mother is entirely omitted Had we his
line of ancestry, or could we trace him back to his national or family
origin, we doubt not but we should there find a clue to the origin of
his religion. We should find his ancestors were Essenian Jews.

22. Nor can we fix the date when Essenian Budhism among the Jews
received the name of Christianity for a similar reason. There is a
link--a chain of events of four hundred years left out of the bible
between Judaism and Christianity--thus lacking four hundred years of
connecting the two religions together, or of showing how the latter
grew out of the former. Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament,
antedates the first events of Christian history four centuries, or
twelve generations, thus leaving a wide and dark gap between them. And
besides, we cannot find the name of Christ or Christianity mentioned in
any of the contemporary histories of that era till one hundred and four
years after the time fixed for Christ's birth by Christendom; Tacitus
being the first writer who names either, and this was at that date.

23. These facts disclose the whole secret with respect to the mystery
and darkness thrown around the origin of the Christian religion--the
how, the when, and the where of its origin. That chapter of Christian
history is left out of the record. The bible account itself is
but fragmentary, as it leaves nine tenths of Christ's history a
blank,--twenty-seven years out of the thirty,--and omits all mention of
his ancestors beyond his grandmother, and leaves even the time of his
birth a blank. "The researches of the learned," says Mr. Mosheim (a
standard Christian author), "though long and ably conducted, have been
unable to fix the time of Christ's birth with certainty." (Eccl. Hist.
p. 23.) Wonderful admission, truly, as it is an evidence that nothing
else can be fixed "with certainty," with respect to the history of
"the man Christ Jesus," only that his doctrines and precepts were all
borrowed perhaps during the twenty-seven dark and mysteries years of his
life, if not an Essene by birth.

24. There is no escaping the conclusion that Christianity is a _borrowed
system_--an outgrowth and remodeling of Budhism, with a change of name
only. A thousand facts of history prove and proclaim it, and the verdict
of posterity will be unanimous in affirming it.

25. From the almost endless chain of analogies, exhibiting a striking
resemblance even in their minute details of Christianity and Budhism,
we are compelled to conclude that one furnished the materials for the
other; that one is the offspring--the legitimate child--of the other.
And as it is a settled historical fact that Budhism is much the older
system, there is hence no difficulty in determining which is the parent
and which is the child.

26. In the Hindoo story of the creation of the human race, we find Adimo
and Heva given as the names of the first man and woman answering to
our Adam and Eve. And our Shem, Ham, and Japheth are traceable to their
Sherma, Hama, and Jiapheta; the difference in the mode of spelling is
probably owing to the difference in the languages. And under the new era
we have Christ Jesus answering to their Chrishna Zeus, as some writers
give the name of the eighth Avatar. And for Maia, a godmother, we have
Mary. And other similar analogies might be pointed out besides the long
string of strikingly similar events previously presented in the history
of the two Saviors (Christ and Chrishna), amounting to hundreds.

27. Such an almost countless list of similar and nearly identical
incidents bids defiance, and absolutely sets at naught all attempts
to account for it as a mere fortuitous accident. There is no
other explanation possible but that Christianity is a re-vamp or
re-establishment of Budhism.

28. Here let it be noted that Christianity was not the only religion
which was rehabilitated in the Alexandrian schools. On the contrary, all
the popular oriental systems then in active being had long previously
passed through the same representative theological schools and
creed-making institutions of that royal and commercial city. All were
remodeled in its theological workshops--a fact which accounts most
conclusively for the same train of religions ideas and historical
incidents being found in the later sacred books of each. And besides,
Sir William Jones says, "The disciples of these various systems of
religion had intercourse with each other long before the time of Christ,
which would necessarily bring about a uniformity in the doctrines and
general character of each system."

29. The disciples of all the religious systems cited their initiatory
miracles as a proof of being on familiar terms with God Almighty. They
all (as is claimed) healed the sick; all restored the deaf, the dumb,
and the blind; all cast out devils, and all raised the dead. (See
chapter on Parallels.) In fact, all their miracles and legendary marvels
run in parallel lines, because all were recast in the same creed-mold
in Alexandria. A coincidence is thus beautifully explained, which would
otherwise be hard to account for.

30. Mr. Gibbon says, "It was in the school of Alexandria that the
Christian theology appears to have assumed a regular and scientific
form" (Decline, &c., chap. xv.); that is, the regular and scientific
form of Budhism or Essenism.

31. Pregnant with meaning is the text, "It was in the city of Antioch
the disciples were first called Christians." (Acts xi. 36.) Here is
conclusive proof that the disciples of the Christian faith were not
always known by the same name, and were not at first called Christians.
Then what were they called during the earlier years of their history?

Here is a great and important query, and one involving a momentous
problem. Couple the two facts together, that the disciples were first
known as Christians at Antioch, and that the Essenian order of believers
expired and went out of history about that period, and the question is
at once and forever satisfactorily settled. It was not an infrequent act
on making important changes in a religion, and adopting some new items
of faith to change the title of the system, and give it a new name.

After Alexander Campbell had made some modifications in his previous
religious faith, and started a new church, his followers were popularly
called Campbellites. Elias Hicks ingrafted some reform ideas into the
Quaker faith, and instituted a new society of that order. Hence, and
henceforth, his disciples were known as Hicksites. In like manner Jesus
Christ having made some innovations in his inherited Jewish faith (which
was of the Essene stamp) by ingrafting more of the Budhist doctrine into
it, his followers were henceforth called Christians. How complete the
analogy! Here let it be borne in mind, as powerfully confirmatory of
this conclusion, that the first Christians were (as history affirms)
"merely reformatory Jews." The twelve chosen were all Jews, probably of
the Essene order. According to the Rev. Mr. Prideaux (Jewish History),
the Jews of this order were first called Israelites, in common with the
other tribes; then Chassidim; and thirdly Essenes. And finally, after
the Essenian Jesus Christ, with some new radical ideas, proclaimed, "Ye
have heard it hath been said by them of old time" thus and so, "but I
say unto you" differently. The title was again changed, and they adopted
or received the name of Christians--the Essenes going out of history
at the very date Christians first appear in history. Put this and that
together, and the chain is welded. Thus we can as easily trace the
origin of Christianity as we can trace the origin of a root running
beneath the soil in the direction of a certain tree. History, then,
proclaims that to the honest, pious, deeply-devout, self-denying, yet
ignorant, slothful, and filthy Budhistic Essenes must be awarded the
honor or dishonor of giving birth to that system of religion now known
as Christianity.


CHRISHNA AS A GOD--ADDITIONAL FACTS.

The following additional facts relative to the history, character, life,
and teachings of Zeus Chrishna, or Jeseus Christna (as styled by one
writer) are drawn mostly from the Vedas, Baghavat, Gita (Bible in
India).

1. _His Virgin Mother, her Character_.--The holy book declares, that
"through her the designs of God were accomplished. She was pure and
chaste; no animal food ever touched her lips; honey and milk were her
sustenance; her time was spent in solitude, lost in the contemplation of
God who showered upon her innumerable blessings; she looked upon death
as the birth to a new and better life; when she traveled, a column of
fire in the heavens went before her to guide her. One evening, as
she was praying, she heard celestial music, and fell into a profound
ecstasy, and being overshadowed by the spirit of God, she conceived the
God Chrishna." (Baghavat, Gita).

2. _Chrishna, his Life and Mission_.--This sin-atoning God was about
sixteen when he commenced active life. Like Christ, he chose twelve
disciples to aid him in propagating his doctrines. "He spent his time
working miracles, resuscitating the dead, healing lepers, restoring
the deaf and the blind, defending the weak against the strong, and the
oppressed against the oppressor, and in proclaiming his divine mission
to redeem man from original sin, and banish evil, and restore the reign
of good." (Baghavat, Gita.) It is declared that he came to teach peace,
charity, love to man, self-respect, the practice of good for its own
sake, and faith in the inexhaustible goodness of the Creator; also to
preach the immortality of the soul, and the doctrine of future rewards
and punishments, and to vanquish the prince of darkness, Rakshas. It is
further declared that "Brahma sent his son (Chrishna) upon the earth to
die for the salvation of man." "His lofty precepts and the purity of his
life spread his fame throughout all India, and finally won for him
more than three millions of followers." "He inculcated the sublimest
doctrines, and the purest morals, and the grand principles of charity
and self-denial." "He forbade revenge, and commanded to return good
for evil, and consoled the feeble and the unhappy." "He lived poor, and
loved the poor." "He lived chaste, and enjoined chastity." "Problems the
most lofty, and morals the most pure and sublime, and the future destiny
of man, were themes which engaged his most profound attention."

"Chrishna, we will venture to say (says the Bible in India) was the
greatest of philosophers, not only of India, but of the entire world."
"He was the grandest moral figure of ancient times." (Bible in India.)
"Chrishna was a moralist and a philosopher." "We should admire his moral
lessons, so sublime and so pure." "He was recognized as the 'Divine
Word.'" "He received the title of Jeseus, which means pure Essense."
Chrishna signifies the "Promised of God," the "Messiah." "When he
preached, he often spoke from a mount. He also spoke in parables.
'Parable plays a great part in the familiar instructions of this Hindoo
Redeemer.'" He relates a very interesting parable of a fisherman who
was much persecuted by his neighbors, but who in the time of a severe
famine, when the people were suffering and dying for the want of food,
being so noble as to return good for evil, he carried food to these same
persecuting enemies, and thus saved them from starvation. "Therefore,"
said he "do good to all, both the evil and the good, even your enemies."

His addresses to the people were simple, but to his disciples they were
elevated and philosophical. Such was the wisdom of his sermons and his
parables, that the people crowded around him, eager to behold and hear
him, "saying, This is indeed the Redeemer promised to our Fathers."
Great multitudes followed him, exclaiming, "This is he who resuscitates
the dead, and heals the lame, and the deaf, and the blind." On one
occasion, as he entered Madura (as Christ once entered Jerusalem), "the
people came out in flocks to meet him, and strewed branches in his way."
On another occasion two women approached him, anointed him with oil,
and worshiped him. When the people murmured at this waste, he replied,
"Better is a little given with an humble heart than much given with
ostentation." Such was his sense of decorum, that he admonished some
girls he once observed playing in a state of nudity on the bank of a
river after bathing. They repented, asked his forgiveness, and reformed.
"The followers of Chrishna practiced all the virtues, and observed a
complete abnegation of self (self-denial), and lived poor, hoping for a
reward in the future life. They occupied all their time in the service
of their Divine Master. Pure and majestic was their worship." Chrishna
had a favorite disciple _Adjaurna_, who sustained to him the relation of
John to Christ, while Angada acted the part of Judas by following him to
the Ganges and betraying him.

3. _His last Hours_.--"When Chrishna knew his hour had come, forbidding
his disciples to follow him, he repaired to the bank of the River
Ganges; and having performed three ablutions, he knelt down, and looking
up to heaven, he prayed to Brahma." While nailed to the cross, the
tree on which he was suspended became suddenly covered with great red
flowers, which diffused their fragrance all around. And it is said
he often appeared to his disciples after his death "in all his divine
majesty."

4. _The second Advent of Chrishna_.--"There is not a Hindoo or a Brahmin
who does not look upon the second coming of Chrishna as an established
article of faith." Their holy bibles (the Vedas and Gita) prophesy of
him thus: "He shall come crowned with lights; he shall come, and the
heavens and the earth shall be joyous; the stars shall pale before
his splendor; the earth will be too small to contain him, for he is
infinite, he is Almighty, he is Wisdom, he is Beauty, he is all and in
all; and all men, all animated beings, beasts, birds, trees, and plants,
will chant his praises; he will regenerate all bodies, and purify all
souls." "He will be as sweet as honey and ambrosia, and as pure as
the lamb without spot, or as the lips of a virgin. All hearts will be
transported with joy. From the rising to the setting of the sun it will
be a day of joy and exultation, when this God shall manifest his power
and his glory, and reconcile the world unto himself." Such are a few of
the prophetic utterances of his devout and prayerful disciples.

"We find," says a writer, "in all the theogonies of different countries
the hope of the advent of a God (either his first or his second
coming)--a hope which sprang from a sense of their own imperfections and
sufferings, which naturally induced them to look for a divine Redeemer."

5. _Precepts of Chrishna_.--Numerous are the prescriptive admonitions
found in the holy books which set forth the religion of "this heathen
demigod" (so called by Christian professors). They appertain to all
the duties of life, but are too numerous to be quoted here. Those
appertaining to woman enjoin the most sacred regard for her rights,
such as "woman should be protected with tenderness, and shielded with
fostering solicitude." "There is no crime more odious than to persecute
woman, or take advantage of her weakness." "Degrade woman and you
degrade man." For other similar precepts, see Chapter XXXII. The
injunctions to read their holy bible (the Vedas, &c.) are quite
numerous, such as, "Let him study the holy Scriptures unceasingly"
"Pray night and morning, and read the holy Scriptures in the attitude
of devotion." And many of them read it through upon their knees. (See
Chap. XLIV.) We have not space for a further exposition of this subject
here; but it will be found more fully set forth in the pamphlet, "Christ
and Chrishna Compared," which will, perhaps, become an Appendix to this
work.

It may be objected that there are precepts and stories to be found in
the religion of this Hindoo God (Chrishna), which reflect but
little credit or honor upon that religion. This is true. And similar
reflections would materially damage the religion of Christianity also.
The story of Christ beating and maltreating the money-changers in the
temple, his cursing an innocent, unoffending, and unconscious fig tree,
and his indulgence in profane swearing at his enemies,--"O ye fools
and blind, ye generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation
of hell!"--does not reflect any credit upon his religion, viewed as
a system. Defects, then, may be found in both systems. In viewing the
analogies of the two religions, it should be noted that the Hindoos
claim, with a forcible show of facts and logic, that the religion of
Christianity grew out of theirs. It has not been long since a learned
Hindoo maintained this position in a public debate with a missionary.
If all these facts effect nothing in the way of inducing the Christian
clergy to confess the falsity of their position in claiming their
religion to be a direct emanation from God, it will be a sad commentary
upon either their intelligence or their honesty.

These historical facts, with those set forth in the preceding chapters,
prove that the religion called Christianity, instead of being, as
Christians claim, "the product of the Divine Mind," is the product
of "heathen" minds; i. e., a spontaneous outgrowth of the moral and
religious elements of the human mind. And therefore, for God to have
revealed it over again to the founders of Christianity would have been
superfluous, and a proof of his ignorance of history.

Note.--The author deems it proper to state here, with respect to the
comparison between Christ and Chrishna, that some of the doctrines which
he has selected as constituting a part of the religion of the Hindoo
Savior, are not found in the reported teachings of that deified
moralist. But as they appear to breathe forth the same spirit, it is
presumed he would have indorsed them, had they come under his notice. As
Christians assume the liberty to arrange the doctrines of Paul and Peter
under the head of Christianity because claimed to be in consonance with
the religion of Christ, though not all taught by him, the author, in
like manner, has assumed, that some doctrines taught by other systems
and religious teachers of India accord with those taught by Chrishna,
and hence has arranged them with his. The author's purpose is not to set
forth the doctrines of any sect, any system, or any religious teacher,
but to show that all the doctrines of Christianity are traceable to
ancient India. But whether taught by this sect or that sect, it is
foreign to our purpose to inquire; and hence, for convenience, he has
arranged them all into one system, and designated them Chrishnianity
(borrowing a new term). There can be no more impropriety, he presumes,
in arranging the doctrines of the various conflicting sects of India
into one system (including even Brahminism and Budhism), than to
arrange, as Christians do, the doctrines taught by the antagnostic
system of Catholicism and Protestantism, and their six hundred
conflicting sects, under the head of Christianity. Hence, Christians, of
course, will not fault the arrangement. The classification above alluded
to comprises, in part, the religion of many of the Hindoo sects,
but does not set forth all their doctrines, only those analogous to
Christianity. Chrishna was a Vishnuite, and not a Brahmin, as some
writers assume. He and Christ were both reformers, and departed from the
ancient faith. Vishnuism appears to have finally centered in Budhism.




CHAPTER XXXIII. APOLLONIUS, OSIRIS, MAGUS, ETC.--GODS


MIRACULOUS ACHIEVEMENTS OF OTHER GODS AND DEMI-GODS OF ANTIQUITY.

THE age in which Christ flourished, as before remarked, was
pre-eminently an age of miracle. The practice of thaumaturgy, and the
legends invested with the display of the miracle-working power, both
preceding and subsequent to that era, rose to a great height. "All
nations of that time," says a writer, "were mightily bent on working
miracles." And the disciples who acted the part of biographers for the
various crucified Gods and sin-atoning Saviors, throughout the East,
seemed to vie with each other in setting off the lives and histories of
their favorite objects of worship respectively, with marvelous exploits
and the pageantry of the most astounding prodigies. And the miracles
in each case were pretty much of the same character, thus indicating a
common course for their origin,--all probably having been cast in the
same mold--in the theological schools of the once famous, world-renowned
city of Alexandria, the capital of Egypt. Having, in the preceding
chapters, presented the miraculous achievements of the Hindoo Gods,
Chrishna and Saki, we will here bring to notice those of other Gods.


THE MIRACLES RECORDED OF ALCIDES, OSIRIS, AND OTHER GODS OF EGYPT.

1. We have the miraculous birth by a virgin in the case of Alcides.

2. Osiris, while a sucking infant in his cradle, killed two serpents
which came to destroy him.

3. Alcides performed many miraculous cures.

4. According to Ovid he cured by a miracle the daughter of Archiades.

5. Also the wife of Theogenes, after the doctors had given her up.

6. And both these Gods converted water into wine.

7. Both of them frequently cast out devils.

8. Julius declares Alcides raised Tyndarus and Hippo-litus from the
dead.

9. When Zulis was crucified, the sun became dark and the moon refused to
shine.

10. Both he and Osiris were resurrected by a miracle.

12. Both ascend to heaven in sight of many witnesses.

12. And finally we are told that from Alexandria the whole empire became
filled with the fame of these miracle-workers, who restored the blind to
sight, cured the paralytic, caused the dumb to speak, the lame to walk,
&c. All these miracles were as credibly related of these Gods as similar
miracles of Jesus Christ.


MIRACLES PERFORMED BY PYTHAGORAS AND OTHER GODS OF GREECE.

1. Pythagoras was a spirit in heaven before he was born on earth.

2. His birth was miraculously foretold.

3. His mother conceived him by a specter (the Holy Ghost).

4. His mother (Pytheas) was a holy virgin of great moral purity.

5. Plato's mother, Paretonia (says Olympiodorus), conceived him by the
God Apollo.

6. Pythagoras in his youth astonishes the doctors by his wisdom.

7. Was worshiped as the "Son of God," "Paraclete," "Child of Divinity,"
&c.

8. Coaid see events many ages in the future (says Richardson, his
biographer).

9. Could bring down the eagle from his lofty height by command.

10. Could approach and subdue the wild, ferocious Daunian bear.

11. Could, like Christ, appear at two places at once.

12. Could walk on the water and travel on the air.

13. Could discern and read the thoughts of his disciples.

14. Could handle poisonous reptiles with impunity.

15. Cured all manner of diseases.

16. Restored sight to the blind.

17. He "cast out devils."

18. Jamblicus says he could allay storms on the sea.

19. Raised several persons from the dead.

20. And, finally, "a thousand other wonderful things are told of him,"
says Jamblicus.

With respect to his character, it is said that "for humility, and
practical goodness, and the wisdom of his moral precepts, he stood
without a rival." He discarded bloody sacrifices, discouraged wars,
forbade the use of wine and other intoxicating drinks, enjoined the
forgiveness of enemies and their kind treatment, and also respect to
parents. He was a special friend to the poor, and taught that they
were the favorites of God. "Blessed are ye poor." He practiced and
recommended the silent worship of God. He retired from the world, and
often fasted, and was a great enemy to riches (like Jesus Christ). He
considered poverty a virtue, and despised the pomp of the world. He
recommended (like Christ) the abandonment of parents, relations, and
friends, houses and lands, &c., for religion's sake. His disciples, like
those of Christ, had a common treasury and a general community of goods,
to which all had free access, so that there was no poverty or suffering
amongst them while the supply lasted. All shared alike. In fact, with
respect to the spirit of his precepts, his moral lessons, and nearly his
whole practical life, he bore a striking resemblance to Jesus Christ,
and presented the same kind of evidence, and equally convincing
evidence, of being a God. And as he was born into the world five hundred
and fifty-four years before Christ, the latter probably obtained the
materials of his moral system from that Grecian teacher, or in the same
school of the Essenian Budhists, in which both Pythagoras and Christ
appear to have taken lessons.


MIRACLES OF THE ROMAN GODS QUIRINUS AND PROMETHEUS.

1. Prometheus was honored with a miraculous birth.

2. Quirinus was miraculously preserved in infancy, when threatened with
destruction by the tyrant ruler Amulius.

3. He performed the miracles, according to Seneca and Hesiod, of curing
the sick, restoring the blind, raising the dead, and casting out devils.

4. Both these Gods were crucified amid signs, and wonders, and miracles.

5. All nature was convulsed, and the saints arose when they were
crucified.

6. The sun was also darkened, and refused to shine.

7. Both descended to hell, and rose from it by divine power.

8. And Prometheus was seen to ascend to heaven.

We cite these lists of miraculous events as if real facts, not because
we believe they were such, but as possessing the same degree of
credibility as those related of Jesus Christ.


MIRACLES AND RELIGION OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA.

1. Everything was subject to his miraculous power.

2. He performed many miraculous cures.

3. He restored sight to the blind.

4. He cast out devils, which sometimes "cut up" like those of Christ

5. He enabled the lame to walk.

6. He re-animated the dead.

7. He could read the thoughts of bystanders.

8. Sometimes disappeared in a miraculous manner.

9. Caused a tree to bloom, while Christ made another tree to wither
away.

10. The laws of nature obeyed him.

11. Could speak in many languages he had never learned.

12. Was at one time transfigured, like Christ

13. His birth was miraculously foretold by an angel.

14. Was born of a spotless virgin.

15. There were demonstrations of joy and singing at his birth.

16. Exhibited proofs in infancy of being a God.

17. Manifested extraordinary wisdom in childhood.

18. He was called "the Son of God."

19. Also "the image of the Eternal Father manifested in the flesh."

20. He was also styled "a prophet."

21. Like Christ, he retired into mystic silence.

22. His religion was one of exalted spirituality.

23. He taught the doctrine of "the Inner Life."

24. He possessed exalted views of purity and holiness.

25. Like Christ, he was a religious ascetic.

26. His religion, as in the case of Christ, forbade him to marry.

27. He ate no animal food, and would wear no woolen garments.

28. Gave his substance to the poor.

29. Eschewed love for wine and women.

30. Refrained from artificial ornaments and sumptuous living.

31. He was a high-toned moral reformer.

32. He condemned external sacrifices.

33. Also condemned gladiatorial shows.

34. He religiously opposed dancing and sexual pleasures.

35. He recommended the pursuit of wisdom.

36. Was of a serene temper, and never got angry.

37. Was a true prophet, foresaw and foretold many future events.

38. Foresaw a plague, and stopped it after it had commenced.

39. Crowds were attracted by his great miracles and his wisdom.

40. He disputed with and vanquished the wise men of Greece and Asia, as
Christ did the learned doctors in the temple.

41. When imprisoned by Domitian and loaded with chains, he disinthralled
himself by divine power.

42. He was followed by crowds when entering Alexandria, like Christ when
entering Jerusalem.

43. Was crucified amidst a display of divine power.

44. He rose from the dead.

45. Appeared to his disciples after his resurrection.

46. Like Christ, he convinced a Tommy Didymus by getting him to feel the
print of the nails in his hands and feet.

47. Was seen by many witnesses after his resurrection, and was hailed by
them as the "God Incarnate," "the Lord from Heaven."

48. He finally ascended back to heaven, and now "sits at the right hand
of the Father," pleading for a sinful world.

49. When he entered the temple of Diana, "a voice from above was heard
saying, 'Come to heaven."

50. Accordingly he was seen no more on earth only as a spirit

The reader will observe that the foregoing list of analogies, drawn from
the history of Apollonius, as furnished us by his disciple Damos and his
biographer Philostratus, are found also, in almost every particular, in
the history of Jesus Christ. And the list might have been extended.
It is declared, "A beauty shone in his countenance, and the words he
uttered were divine," which reminds us of Christ's transfiguration. And
his "staying a plague at Ephesus" revives the case of Christ stilling
the tempest on the waters. Now, the question very naturally arises here,
How came the histories of Apollonius and Christ to be so strikingly
alike? Was one plagiarized from the other? As for the miraculous history
of Apollonius being reconstructed from that of Jesus Christ, as some
Christians have assumed, there is not the slightest foundation for such
a conclusion, as the following facts will show, viz.:--

1. The Cappadocian Savior (Apollonius) was born several years anterior
to the advent of the Christian Savior, and appeared at an earlier date
upon the stage of active life, and thus got the start of Christ in
the promulgations of his doctrines and the exhibition of his miracles.
Christ's active life, Christians concede and the bible proves, did not
commence till about his twenty-eighth or thirtieth year, which was long
after Apollonius had inaugurated his religion, and long after he had
commenced the promulgation of his doctrines, and attested them by
wonderful miracles, according to his biographer Philostratus.

2. The New American Cyclopedia tells us, "Apollonius labored for the
purity of Paganism, and to sustain its tottering edifice against the
assaults of the Christians." So that, being placed in a hostile attitude
toward the representatives of the Christian faith, it is not likely he
would condescend to borrow their doctrines and the miraculous history of
their incarnate God, to invest his own life with. He was probably one of
the "anti-Christs" spoken of in the New Testament; but this circumstance
reflects nothing dishonorable upon his character; for some of those
distinguished personages denounced as "anti-Christ," by Christ's gospel
biographers, were, according to impartial history, noble, honest, and
righteous men. Their only offense consisted in robbing Christ of his
divine laurels, by claiming similar titles, and claiming to perform the
same kind of miracles; and there is as much proof that they did achieve
these prodigies as that Christ did.

3. The early Christian writers conceded that Apollonius and the other
oriental Gods did perform the miracles which are ascribed to them
by their respective disciples, but accounted for it by the childish
expedient of obsession. Christ was assumed to perform miracles by
divine power, they by the power of the devil--a childish and senseless
distinction truly, and one which can have no logical force in this
enlightened age.


MIRACLES AND CLAIMS FOR SIMON MAGUS. B. C.

1. It is declared, "he was in the beginning with God."

2. That "he existed with God from all eternity."

3. That "he took upon himself the form of a man."

4. That "he was the Son of God," "the Word," &c.

5. That "he was the second person in the godhead."

6. That "he came down to destroy the devil and his works."

7. That "he was the image of the Eternal Father."

8. That "he was the first-born Son of God."

9. That he could control the elements.

10. That he could walk on the air as Christ did on the water.

11. Could move anything by the command, "Be thou removed."

12. That he could raise the dead.

13. That he could transform himself into the image of any man.

14. That he was "the Paraclete, or Comforter."

15. That he came to "redeem the world from sin."

16. Finally, he was the world's "Savior," "Redeemer," "the Only Begotten
of the Father," and "through his name men are to be saved."

The reader will call to mind that this Simon Magus is mentioned and
condemned in the Acts of the Apostles, for offering to pay Peter for a
bestowment of the gift of the Holy Ghost. And yet every philosopher
in this age must concede that Magus' assumption in the case is more
sensible and philosophical than that of Peter's. For the latter calls it
"a gift from God," whereas every person now acquainted with the
nature, principles, and science of animal magnetism, knows that such
manifestation as that which Peter ascribes to God and the Holy Ghost, is
a simple natural phenomenon; and that, consequently, it can be no more a
violation of the rules of propriety to pay for the labor of making such
developments than it is to pay a teacher for developing the mind of a
child. It was certainly a greater act of courtesy to offer to pay for
it than to demand it as a gratuitous favor. Hence we infer he excelled
Peter in his demeanor as a gentleman, especially as he bore Peter's
severe reprimand with patience, and apparently with a better spirit
than that which dictated it. And we may remark here, also, that
notwithstanding this Samaritan Jew is so unsparingly denounced by the
godly Peter, and by the early Christian fathers also, yet we have the
historical proof that he was an Honest, pious, and ardently devout man.
His whole life was absorbed in the cause of religion, and his whole soul
devoted to his religious duties and the worship of his God. Hence we
think Peter's rebuke was uncalled for.

Let the reader note the fact here that there are three circumstances
amply sufficient to account for bibles and religious books being
profusely supplied with the reports of groundless miracles.

1. As everybody then believed in miracles (at least everybody who dared
speak) there was nobody to investigate the reports of such occurrences,
to learn whether they were true or false.

2. The few who attempted to disprove the truth of those miraculous
occurrences now found reported in sacred history, had their books
burned, as in the case of Porphyry and Celsus, in the early history of
Christianity, who called in question the truth of bible miracles.

3. These marvelous facts were not usually recorded till long after the
period in which they are said to have occurred, when the witnesses had
left the stage of time, and every event exciting ay attention had grown
to a monstrous prodigy. These circumstances, in an age of boundless
credulity and scientific ignorance, which magnified every phenomenon,
and looked upon every natural event as a direct display of divine power,
accounts most fully and satisfactorily for the burdensome repetition of
groundless miraculous stories found upon nearly every page of the sacred
history of every religious nation, without driving us to the necessity
of challenging the veracity of the writers who recorded them. They may
all have been honest men.


CONFUCIUS OF CHINA, BORN 551 B. C.

This moral teacher, religious chieftain, and philosopher, though not
subjected to the ignominious death of the cross, deserves a passing
notice for the excellency of his morals and the acquisition of a
world-wide fame. In the following particulars his history bears a strong
analogy to that of Jesus Christ.

1. He commenced as a religious teacher when about thirty years of age.

2. The Golden Rule (see Chap. XXXIV.) was his favorite maxim.

3. Most of his moral maxims were sound and of a high order. The New
American Cyclopedia says (vol. v. p. 604), "His writings approach the
Christian standard of morality;" and in some respects they excel.

4. He traveled in different countries, preaching and teaching his
doctrines.

5. He made a host of converts, amounting now to one hundred and fifty
millions.

6. His religion and morals have been propagated by apostles and
missionaries, some of whom are now traveling in this country, laboring
to convert Christians to their superior religion and morals. "There was
a time," says the work above quoted, "when European philosophers vied
with each other in extolling Confucius as one of the sublimest teachers
of truth among mankind."

In the following respects his teachings were superior to those of
Christ:--

1. He taught that "the knowledge of one's self is the basis of all real
advances in morals and manners." A lesson Christ neglected to teach.

2. "The duties man owes to society and himself are minutely defined by
Confucius," says the Cyclopedia. Another important work Christ partially
omitted.

He constructed several hundred beautiful and instructive moral maxims,
which we have not space for here, and which amply prove that "the
holiest truths were inculcated by pagan philosophers."




CHAPTER XXXIV. THE THREE PILLARS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH--MIRACLES,
PROPHECIES, AND PRECEPTS

WHEN Christians are asked for the proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ,
they point to his miracles and precepts, and the Messianic prophecies,
said to have been fulfilled by his coming. And the same kind of evidence
is adduced to prove the divine claims of their bible and its religion,
including the Old Testament, which contains the prophecies. Their
divine origin and supernatural character are claimed to be proved by the
miracles, prophecies, and precepts found recorded in the Holy Book. All,
then, stand or fall together--the divinity of Christ, and the divinity
of the bible and its religion, all, rest on this threefold argument.
All, it is claimed, are attested and proved by a threefold display of
divine power, manifested,--

1. By the performance of various acts, transcending human power and the
laws of nature, called Miracles.

2. By the discernment of events lying in the future which no human
sagacity or prescience could have foreseen, unless aided by Omniscience;
the display of such power being called Prophecy.

3. By the enunciation of Moral Precepts beyond the mental capacity of
human beings to originate.

These three propositions cover the whole ground. They constitute the
three grand pillars of the Christian faith, which, if shown to be
untenable, must prostrate the whole superstructure to the ground. We
will examine each separately, commencing with miracles.

I. Miracles the first Pillar of the Christian Faith.

We will not occupy space in discussing the various meanings assigned to
the word miracle by different writers, but take the popular definition
as given above, and proceed to inquire how much evidence can be deduced
from the miracles represented as having been performed by Jesus Christ,
toward proving his divinity and the truth of his religion. In the first
place, it should be borne in mind that Christianity is not the only
religion which appeals to miracles as a proof of its divine authorship.
More than three hundred systems and sects are reported in history, most
of which have, from time immemorial, gloried in being able to wield this
knock-down argument as they claim it to be, in support of the truth and
divine authenticity of their various systems of faith. We have briefly
noticed some of the miraculous achievements reported in their sacred
books, and ascribed to their Gods and sin-atoning Saviors, and compare
them with similar ones related of Jesus Christ, commencing with Pagan
Miracles.

As the whole pathway of religious history is thickly be-studded with
miracles wrought in all ages and countries, and every page of the
oriental bibles and religious books is literally loaded down with the
relation of these marvelous prodigies said to have been wrought by their
Gods, Demigods, and crucified Saviors, it places a writer in a quandary
to know where to begin to make a selection. We will express no opinion
here as to whether these astounding feats were ever witnessed or not;
but will merely state that they come to us as well authenticated as
those reported in the Christian bible. There is as much evidence that
Zoroaster, at the request of King Gustaph, caused a tree to spring up
in a man's yard forthwith, of such magnificent proportions that no rope
could be found large enough to reach around it, as that Jesus Christ
caused a fig tree to wither away by merely cursing it. And we have
the same kind of evidence that the Hindoo Messiah, Chrishna, of
India, restored two boys to life who had been killed by the bites of
serpents, as that Jesus Christ resurrected Lazarus and the widow's son
of Nain; and as much proof that Bacchus turned water into wine, as that
Jesus performed this act six hundred years after. And a hundred other
similar comparisons might be drawn. The evidence of the truth of these
performances in both cases, pagan and Christian, is simply the report
of the writer. If there are any exceptions to be made in either case of
better evidence, it will be found in favor of pagan religion; for its
adherents are able in many cases to point to imperishable monuments of
stone erected in commemoration of their miracles. And Mr. Goodrich tells
us this is the highest species of evidence that can be offered to prove
the truth of any ancient event. But as Christians, on the other hand,
can find no such evidence to prove the performance of any miracles
reported in their bible, it will be seen at once that the pagan miracles
are the best authenticated. The famous historian Pausanias states upon
current authority that Esculapius raised several persons from the
dead, and names Hippolytus among the number, and then points to a
stone monument erected as a proof of the occurrence--thus furnishing,
according to Christian logic, the most conclusive proof of one of the
most astounding miracles ever wrought. And yet no philosopher or man
of science in this age can credit the literal truth of the story. But a
spiritualist can easily conceive that he and others might have mistaken
the risen spirits of those resurrected persons for their physical
bodies, because they know that many mistakes of this kind have occurred
in modern times.

We might refer to many other cases of pagan miracles attested by
monumental evidence if our space would permit--such as the names of many
persons engraven upon the walls of the Temple of Serapis, miraculously
carved by the God Esculapius. Strabo tells us the ancient temples are
full of tablets describing miraculous cures performed by virgin-born
Gods of those times, and names a case of two blind men being restored to
sight by the son of God Alcides in the presence of a large multitude
of people, "who acknowledged the miraculous power of the God with
loud acclaim." Many spiritualists at the present day know by practical
experience how these "miraculous cures" were performed. Without
continuing the citation of cases, suffice it to say, the sin-atoning
Gods of the orientals are reported as performing the same train of
miracles assigned to Jesus Christ, such as performing astonishing cures,
casting out devils, raising the dead, &c. Now, sadly warped indeed by
education must be that mind which cannot see that if the account of
such prodigies, reported in the history of Jesus Christ, can do anything
towards proving him to have been a God, then the world must have been
full of Gods long before his time. It is impossible to dodge or evade
such a conclusion.

Christians are in the habit of assuming that all the miraculous reports
in the bible are unquestionably true, while those reported in pagan
bibles are mere fables and fiction. But if they will reverse this
proposition, it can be easier supported, because we have shown their
miracles are better attested and authenticated. Their own bible admits
that the heathen not only could and did perform miracles, but miraculous
prodigies of the most astonishing character, equal to anything reported
in their own religious history--such as transmuting water into blood,
sticks into serpents, and stones into frogs. In a word, it is admitted
they performed all the miraculous feats of Moses with the single
exception of turning dust into lice. But certainly making lice was not
a more difficult achievement than that of making frogs, and this is
admitted they did do successfully.

Hence it will be seen that the Egyptian pagans made as great a display
of divine or miraculous power as "God's Holy People," according to the
admission of the bible itself. And there is no intimation that the mode
of performing the miracles was not the same in both cases, but a strong
probability exists that it was, a conclusion confirmed by the bible
report of the case which leads us to infer that they performed the
miracles in the same way Moses did. For it is said, "The Egyptians did
so with their enchantments"--that is, with the "enchanting rod" used
on such occasions by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and other
nations, including also the Jews. Now, as Moses always used the
"enchanting rod" in performing miracles, called by him "the rod of God,
the rod of divination," &c. (see Ex. iv. ), there is thus furnished the
most satisfactory proof that he performed his miracles on this occasion,
as well as all other occasions, by the same stratagem as the Egyptians
and other nations did. And even if the mode adopted by the Egyptians had
been different, it is still admitted they performed the miracles. In
the name of reason and common sense, then, we ask if such facts as here
presented with the case just referred to do not forever prostrate and
annihilate all arguments based on miracles toward proving the divine
character or divine origin of the religion of the bible, or towards
proving

Jesus Christ, or any other being reported to have performed miracles, as
possessing divine attributes?


CATHOLIC MIRACLES.

Some of the most astonishing and best authenticated miracles ever
performed by any religious sect we find reported in the history of the
Roman Catholic church, looked upon and styled by the Protestants "the
mother of Harlots and Abomination." And yet there is much stronger proof
that the Catholic religion has the divine sanction, if miracles can
furnish such proof. The editor of "The Official Memoirs" declares that
during the Italian war in 1797, several pictures of the virgin Mary,
situated in different parts of the country, were seen to open and shut
their eyes for the space of six or seven months, and that no less than
sixty thousand people actually saw this miracle performed, including
many bishops, deacons, cardinals, and other officers of the church,
whose names are given. And Forsyth's Italy (p. 344), written by a highly
accredited author, tells us that a withered elm tree was suddenly
restored to full life and vigor by coming in contact with the body of
St. Zenobis, and that this miracle took place in the most public part
of the town, in the presence of many thousands of people; that "it is
recorded by contemporary historians, and inscribed upon a marble column
now standing where the tree stood."

Now, the question may be asked here, Would the people have allowed such
an impudent trick to insult them as the erection of a monument for an
event that never took place? If not, how is the matter to be explained?
These are only specimens of a hundred more Catholic miracles of an
astonishing character at our command. Several queries may be entertained
in the solution of these stories. 1st, Were some phenomena really
witnessed on which these stories were constructed, but which got
magnified from a molehill to a mountain before they found their way
into history? or, 2d, Were they manufactured as a pious fraud, which was
rather a fashionable business with the early disciples of the Christian
faith, according to Mr. Mosheim? Whatever answer may be given to these
questions will explain the miracles of the Christian bible, excepting
those which can be accounted for on natural principles.


SATANIC MIRACLES.

Among all the workers of miracles reported in the bible the devil seems
to have been pre-eminent, and hence must come in for the better end of
the argument toward proving him to have been a God. No miracle could
excel the act of his "transforming himself into an angel of light," as
stated in 2 Cor. xi. 14. It is not transcended by any other case, not
even by Christ's transfiguration. And according to Paul he was endowed
"with all power, and signs, and lying wonders." (Thess. ii. 9.) If,
then, he possessed "all power," Christ, and no other God, could have
possessed a miraculous power superior to his, for "all" comprehends the
whole, beyond which nothing can reach. Where, then, is the evidence
to come from to prove that Christ was a God, because he was
a miracle-worker, or his religion divine, because attested by
miracles--seeing the devil performed some of the most difficult miracles
ever wrought? Should we not then change his title from that of a demon
to a God, and place his religion amongst the divinely endowed systems?
St. John represents the "Evil One" as having power to make "fire come
down from heaven in the sight of men," and "to deceive those that dwell
on the earth by means of those miracles which he hath power to do."
(Rev. xiii.)

Here the question arises, What can a miracle prove, what end can
it serve, or what good can possibly arise from the display of the
miracle-working power, when it is liable "to deceive those that
dwell upon the earth?" Certainly, therefore, it proves nothing, and
accomplishes nothing. And may not the apostles themselves have been
deceived in ascribing some of the miracles they record to Jesus
instead of the devil? Certainly we are drifted upon the quicksands of
uncertainty by such a display of the miracle-working power, and are
obnoxious to most fatal deception, which proves the total inutility and
futility of such prodigies.


CHRIST'S MIRACLES NOT HIS OWN, BUT WROUGHT THROUGH HIM AND NOT BY HIM.

How could Christ's miracles, assuming they were wrought, do anything
toward proving his divinity, when he did not claim to be their author,
but merely the agent or instrument in the hands of the Father, like the
apostles, who are reported to have performed the same miracles? "The
Father he doeth the work," is his own declaration. And the Apostles seem
to have accepted his word, and his view of the matter. For proof listen
to Peter: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man
approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which
God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves do know." (Acts ii.
22.) Let it be noted, then, the Christ's miracles were not performed by
him as a God, but as "a man approved of God;" he was the mere medium or
instrument in the case--a fact which banishes at once all grounds for
controversy relative to his miracles serving the purpose of attesting
his divinity, especially when it is conceded that men, magicians, and
devils could achieve the same feats.


CHRIST'S MIRACLES DID NOT CONVINCE THE PEOPLE.

As the miracles of Christ seem to have had little effect toward
convincing the people of his claims to the godhead, it is evident they
could have been but little superior to those performed by others, and
therefore not designed, at least not calculated, to convince them that
he was a God. The frequent instances in which he upbraids the people for
their unbelief, and calls them fools, "slow of heart," &c., is a proof
of this statement.


CHRIST'S MIRACLES NOT DESIGNED TO CONVINCE THE PEOPLE.

A circumstance involving pretty strong proof that Christ's miraculous
achievements were not considered as evidence of his divinity, is the
fact that they were frequently performed in private, sometimes in the
night, and often under the injunction of secrecy. "See thou tell no
man," was the injunction, after the feat was performed, perhaps, in a
private room. How can such facts be reconciled with the assumption that
his miracles were designed to convince the people of his claims to the
Divine Entity, as Christians frequently assert, when the people were not
allowed to witness them, nor his disciples even to report them? Who
can believe that he was a Divine Being, or Messiah, when he charged his
disciples to "tell no man" that he was such a Being? Such incongruities
verge to a contradiction. It is a logical contradiction to say that
private miracles were designed to dissolve public skepticism. And yet
many, if not most, of his reputed miraculous achievements were of this
character. When he cured a blind man, he not only "led him out of the
town" (Mark viii. 23), but forbid him, when his sight was restored,
returning to the city, for fear he would publish it. When he resurrected
Lazarus, he did not call the whole country around to witness it, but
performed the act before a private party. The reanimation of Jairus's
daughter was in the same concealed manner, in a private room, where
nobody was admitted but his three confidential disciples (Peter, James,
and John) and the parents, none of whom make any report of the case.
How, therefore, the reporter (Mark) found it out, when he was not
present, and none of the party were allowed to tell it to anybody, or
why he should betray his trust by publishing it, if he was informed of
it, is a "mystery of Godliness" not easily divined.

When Christ cleansed the leper, he sent him to the priest, enjoining him
to "say nothing to any man." The dumb, when restored to speech, was not
allowed to exhibit any practical proof of the fact by using his tongue.
His miraculous perambulation on the surface of the sea (walking on
the water) was not only alone, but in the dark. His transfiguration,
likewise, according to Dr. Barnes, took place in the night, his three
favorite companions being the only witnesses, and they "heavy with
sleep." And finally, the crowning miracle of all, the resurrection,
is not only represented as taking place in the night, but without one
substantial or terrestrial witness to report it. Verily such facts as
these are not calculated to augment the faith jr work the conviction
of a skeptic that these miracles were ever performed, seeing so few are
reported as witnessing them, and even their testimony is not given. We
have not the testimony of one person who claims to have been present and
seen these wonders performed. Such facts are calculated to cast distrust
upon the whole matter, especially when taken in connection with the
fact that nine tenths of his life form a perfect blank in history. Is
it possible, we ask, to reconcile such a fact with the belief of his
divinity? Is it possible a God could lead a private life, or live
twenty-seven years on earth, and do nothing worthy of note--a God known
to nobody and noticed by nobody? Most transcendingly absurd is such a
thought. Had Christ possessed the character that is claimed for him, not
an hour of his life could have passed unaccompanied by some remarkable
incident that would have been heralded abroad, and its record indelibly
engraven upon the page of history; but instead of this, his acts were
too commonplace to be noticed.


ALL HISTORY IGNORES HIM.

The fact that no history, sacred or profane,--that not one of the three
hundred histories of that age,--makes the slightest allusion to Christ,
or any of the miraculous incidents ingrafted into his life, certainly
proves, with a cogency that no logic can overthrow, no sophistry can
contradict, and no honest skepticism can resist, that there never was
such a miraculously endowed being as his many orthodox disciples claim
him to have been. The fact that Christ finds no place in the history of
the era in which he lived,--that not one event of his life is recorded
by anybody but his own interested and prejudiced biographers,--settles
the conclusion, beyond cavil or criticism, that the godlike achievements
ascribed to him are naught but fable or fiction. It not only proves
he was not miraculously endowed, but proves he was not even naturally
endowed to such an extraordinary degree as to make him an object of
general attention. It would be a historical anomaly without a precedent,
that Christ should have performed any of the extraordinary acts
attributed to him in the Gospels, and no Roman or Grecian historian, and
neither Philo nor Josephus, both writing in that age, and both living
almost on the spot where they are said to have been witnessed, and both
recording minutely all the religious events of that age and country,
make the slightest mention of one of them, nor their reputed authors.
Such a historical fact banishes the last shadow of faith in their
reality.

It is true a few lines are found in one of Josephus's large works
alluding to Christ. But it is so manifestly a forgery, that we believe
all modern critics of any note, even of the orthodox school, reject it
as a base interpolation. Even Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders
of the Christian faith that ever wielded a pen in its support, and who
has written ten large volumes to bolster it up, assigns nine cogent
reasons (which we would insert here if we had space) for the conclusion
that Josephus could not have penned those few lines found in his
"Jewish Antiquities" referring to Christ. No Jew could possibly use such
language. It would be a glaring absurdity to suppose a leading Jew
could call Jesus "The Christ," when the whole Jewish nation have ever
contested the claim with the sternest logic, and fought it to the bitter
end. "It ought, therefore" (says Dr. Lardner, for the nine reasons which
he assigns), "to be forever discarded from any place among the evidences
of Christianity." (Life of Lardner by Dr. Kippis, p. 23.)

As the passage is not found in any edition of Josephus prior to the era
of Eusebius, the suspicion has fastened upon that Christian writer as
being its author, who argued that falsehood might be used as a medicine
for the benefit of the churches. (See his Eccles. Hist.) Origen, who
lived before Eusebius, admitted Josephus makes no allusion to Christ. Of
course the passage was not, then, in Josephus. One or two other similar
passages have been found, in other authors of that era, which it is not
necessary to notice here, as they are rejected by Christian writers. It
must be conceded, therefore, that the numerous histories covering the
epoch of the birth of Christ chronicle none of the astounding feats
incorporated in his Gospel biographies as signalizing his earthly
career, and make no mention of the reputed hero of these achievements,
either by name or character. The conclusion is thus irresistibly forced
upon us, not only that he was not a miracle-worker, but that he must
have led rather an obscure life, entirely incompatible with his being
a God or a Messiah, who came "to draw all men unto him." And it should
also be noted here that none of Christ's famous biographers, Matthew,
Mark, Luke, or John, are honored with a notice in history till one
hundred and ninety years after the birth of Christ. And then the notice
was by a Christian writer (Ireneus).

"We look in vain," says a writer, "for any cotemporary notice of the
Gospels, or Christ the subject of the Gospels, outside of the New
Testament. So little was this 'king of the Jews' known, that the Romans
were compelled to pay one of his apostles to turn traitor and act as
guide before they could find him. It is impossible to observe this
negative testimony of all history against Christ and his miracles, and
not be struck with amazement, and seized with the conviction that he
was not a God, and not a very extraordinary man." Who can believe that a
God, from off the throne of heaven, could make his appearance on earth,
and while performing the most astounding miracles ever recorded in
any history, or that ever excited the credulity of any people, and be
finally publicly crucified in the vicinity of a great city, and yet all
the histories written in those times, both sacred and profane, pass over
with entire silence the slightest notice of any of these extraordinary
events. Impossible--most self-evidently impossible!! And when we find
that this omission was so absolute that no record was made of the day or
year of his birth by any person in the era in which he lived, and that
they were finally forgotten, and hence that there are, as a writer
informs us, no less then one hundred and thirty-three different opinions
about the matter, the question assumes a still more serious aspect. From
the logical potency of these facts we are driven to the conclusion that
Christ received but little attention outside of the circle of his own
credulous and interested followers, and consequently stands on a level
with Chrishna of India, Mithra of Persia, Osiris of Egypt, and other
demigods of antiquity, all whose miraculous legends were ingrafted in
their histories long after their death. This leads us to consider


HOW CHRIST'S INCREDIBLE LEGENDS GOT INTO HIS HISTORY.

There is a remarkably easy and satisfactory way of accounting for
all the marvelous feats and incredible stories found in the Gospel
narratives of Jesus Christ, without assuming their reality or any
intentional fraud or falsehood by the writers. When we learn that none
of his evangelical biographies were penned (as Dr. Lardner affirms)
till long after his death, we are no longer puzzled for a moment to
understand exactly how many statements wholly incredible and morally
impossible crept into his history, without challenging or calling
in question the veracity or honesty of the writer. Perhaps the most
powerful cord of moral conviction which holds the Christian professor to
a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, is the difficulty of bringing
himself to believe that the numerous miracles ascribed to him in the
Gospels are merely the work of fiction, fabricated without a basis of
truth, when they were evidently penned by men of the deepest piety and
the strictest moral integrity. We ourselves were once environed
with this difficulty. But it stands in our way no longer. We are
disenthralled. We have solved the problem. We have found the true
explanation. The key and clew to the whole secret is found in the simple
fact, admitted by Christian writers and evidenced by the bible itself,
that _no history of Christ's practical life was written out by a person
claim-ing to have been an eyewitness_ of the events reported, nor until
every incident and act of the noble-minded Nazarene had had ample
time to become enormously magnified and distorted by rumor, fable, and
fiction; so that it was impossible to discriminate or separate the real
from the unreal, the true from the false, in his partly-forgotten life.
It could not be done. A true history could not then be, nor have been
written under such circumstances. It is manifestly impossible. The
time for writing each Gospel is fixed by Dr. Lardner as follows, viz.:
Matthew 62 A. D., Mark 64 A. D., Luke 63 or 64 A. D., and John 68 A. D.;
thus allowing ample time for every noteworthy incident of his life to
grow from molehills to mountains, and to swell into fiction, fable, and
prodigy, a tendency to which was then very rife and very prevalent in
all religious countries. Having made a note of this fact, let the
reader treasure in memory, as another equally important fact, that the
biography of no man of note who figured in that era, or who lived prior
to the dawn of letters (if penned many years after his death, as was
frequently the case), is free from a large percentage of extravagant
detail, and simple incidents magnified into miracles. This was the
uncurbed tendency of the age which ultimated into universal custom.

The simplest incident in every man's life, who exhibited mind enough to
attract attention, by rolling from year to year, and passing from mouth
to mouth, invariably got to be finally swelled into such undue and
enormous proportions, that it could only be accounted for by assuming
the actor to have been a God. In this way many men of different
countries, who had made a mark in the world, received divine honors
and divine attributes, including such characters as Chrishna of India,
Mithra of Persia, Quirinus of Rome, Eras of the Druids, Quexalcote of
Mexico, Jesus Christ of Judea, and many others who might be mentioned.
This circumstance deified them. The evidence of history to prove this
declaration is abundant and irresistible.


POSTHUMOUS HISTORIES ALONE DEIFIED MEN.

To the two important facts above cited, viz., that Jesus Christ's
evangelical histories were all written long after his death, and that
unwritten histories of great men always become swollen and distorted
with the lapse of time, let the reader add the equally significant
fact that there is in all cases a vast difference in the biographies of
famous men, penned during their actual lives, or immediately subsequent
to their death, while every act and incident of their career was fresh
and vigorous in the minds and memories of the cotemporaneous people,
and before the ball of exaggerated rumor was set rolling, compared
with those written at a later date, after molehills of fact had become
mountains of fiction. The former are natural and reasonable, the latter
unnatural and extravagant, and often fabulous. We will cite a few cases
in proof. Let the reader compare the biographical sketches of Alexander
the Great written near the epoch of his practical life, and those
composed since the dawn of the Christian era, and he will find that the
posthumous notices of him alone contain the story of the sun becoming
obscured, and the earth developed in darkness, at the time of his mortal
exit. It will be found, also, that Virgil's account of "the sheeted
dead," rising from their graves at the time of Caesar's death, and which
was written long after that famous hero left the stage of action, is
omitted in all the cotemporary notices of that monarch, having crept in
subsequently.

In like manner, the various miracles recorded of Pythagoras by his
biographer Jamblicus,--such as his walking on the air, stilling
the tempest, raising the dead, &c.,--are not related of him by any
cotemporaneous writers who lived in the era of his practical life. And
let the reader compare, also, Damos' life of Apollonius with that of
his later biography by Philostratus, as an illustration of the same
historical fact. Mahomet and his biograhers might be included in the
same category. It is a remarkable circumstance that neither Mahomet
himself nor any of his immediate followers claim for him more than
the humble title of prophet, or "God's holy prophet," while his later
admirers and devout disciples have elevated him to the throne of heaven,
and given him a seat among the Gods.

And this historical analysis might be extended much farther if
necessary. But cases enough have been cited to prove the principle and
establish the proposition. And what is the lesson taught by these
facts? A deeply-instructive and all-important one. From the foregoing
historical illustrations we are impelled to the important conclusion,
that the tissue of extravagant and incredible stories of demigod
performances which run as a vein of fiction through the Gospel
narrations of Jesus Christ, all grow out of long-continued rumor, in
an age when the imagination was untamed and unbounded, and credulity
uncurbed by a practical knowledge of the principles of science, and
consequently the pen of the historian had lawless scope. All difficulty
then vanishes, and the question is put forever at rest by assuming that
if the Gospel histories of Jesus had been written by men who claimed to
record only what they saw and heard themselves, we should have a more
credible and instructive history of the great Judean reformer, freed
from those Munchausen prodigies and that wild romance which mar the
beauty and credibility of those now in popular use. This conclusion is
not only natural, but irresistible, to a mind untrammeled by education
and unbefogged by priestcraft. All that is wanting to convince us
that miracles constitute no part of the real history of Christ, is a
cotemporary instead of a posthumous biography--a history written in the
age which knew him, and by an unprejudiced writer who witnessed all his
movements. And we are perfectly willing to risk our reputation in this
life, and our salvation in the next, by stating our conviction that this
will be the unanimous verdict of posterity before fifty generations pass
away.


CHRIST'S MIRACLES RECONSTRUCTED FROM FORMER MIRACLES.

There are other circumstances than those noticed in the preceding
chapter, which can aid us very materially in solving the problem
of Christ's divinity; or, in other words, can aid us in tracing his
miracles to their origin, and thus confirm the truth of the preceding
proposition. Moses and the prophets were considered by the evangelists
antetypes or archetypes of the coming Savior. Hence some of the more
important incidents of their lives were hunted up and worked over again,
to make them fit the life of Christ as the Messiah, reconstructed and
applied to him as the second Moses, and a new prophet; for Moses is
represented as saying, "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up
like unto me." Hence Moses comes in with the prophets as an antetype of
Christ. The transfiguration of Christ is therefore constituted after
the model of the transfiguration of Moses on Mount Sinai. And Christ is
represented as raising the dead, not only because Elijah and Elisha had
performed such miracles, but did it under circumstances which prove,
as they suppose, he possessed superior power. For while they could only
reanimate the body immediately after the breath had left it, Christ
could raise a man after he had been dead four days (the case of
Lazarus). Hence the New Prophet was superior to the old, and more like
a God--the thing they desired to prove. Both Elijah and Christ are
represented as raising a widows son,--Elijah being considered the
special prototype of Christ, who, many believed, had re-appeared under
the changed name of Elias. (See John v. 17.) And then we observe that
while Elisha exhausted his skill in making three gallons of oil, Christ
could make thirty gallons of wine--another proof of the superiority of
the New Prophet. Then, again, the miracle of feeding one hundred
men with twenty loaves is far excelled by the latter, who feeds five
thousand men with five loaves. And both prophets, Elisha and Christ,
encountered unfordable streams in their travels; the expedient of the
former is to make a passage, but Christ performed the greater miracle
of walking on the surface. And while Moses had to send the leper without
the camp before he could heal him, Christ could heal him instantly with
a single touch. The same slaughter of the infants is commanded by Herod,
in order to destroy Christ, that Pharaoh had ordered to effect the
destruction of Moses. And thus many of the miracles of Jesus can be
accounted for as reconstructions of former miracles. It was simply a
competition or rivalry between the New Messianic prophet and the old
prophets. The New Prophet excels and comes off victorious in every case,
and is thus considered to be a God. The object of the competition is to
show that while the prophets, assisted by God, could perform marvelous
deeds, Christ, being God himself, could perform greater. This was to be
the proof of his being a God, that he could outvie the servants of God
in every miraculous thing ascribed to them. This was one way adopted to
prove his divinity.


CHRIST'S MIRACLES MANUFACTURED FROM PROPHECIES.

Several of Christs miracles seem to have grown out of the Messianic
prophecies; that is, were manufactured in order to fulfill the
prophecies. There was, as we learn by the Gospels, an impression deep
and wide-spread among the disciples of Christ, that the Old Testament
was full of texts foretelling the advent of their Messiah, and
foreshadowing his practical life. Under this conviction, a number of
passages are quoted in the Gospels from the prophets as referring to
Christ, but which, however, the context shows could not possibly have
been written with any such thought or intention. Matthew has five
miracles appertaining to Christ, built on prophecies, in his first two
chapters. And they are represented as taking place "in order that the
prophecy might be fulfilled," that is, Matthew, writing sixty-four years
after Christ's advent, assumes those miracles had taken place because
the prophecy required their performance, and hence recorded it as a fact
without knowing it to be such. A great deal of that kind of license was
assumed in that and subsequent ages, as the facts of history are ample
to prove. It was done under the religious conviction that the cause of
God and the church required it to be done, and that therefore it was
justifiable.


STRICT VERACITY NOT REQUIRED OR OBSERVED.

It is by no means necessary to assume that the recorders of the New
Testament miracles knew they had been performed, or that they would
hesitate to record them as facts because they did not know them to be
such. We are under no moral obligation to suppose they knew anything
about it. People in that age were not so nice or so morally exact, as
to require proof of a thing before they stated it, or never to state it
unless they had the proof for its being true. We would be Very far
from accusing the apostolic writers of malicious falsehood, or criminal
misrepresentation. But we find that the disciples of all religions, in
that age of the world, considered it not only allowable, but a religious
duty, in the absence of knowledge, to supply omissions by guess-work
or conjecture; that is, to use assumption in the place of proof, and to
state that a thing was so when there was no proof of it whatever, and
even when the proof was against it. All religious history is full of the
exhibition of this kind of elasticity of conscience. Even a species of
pious lying was considered justifiable in many cases. Paul furnishes
evidence of this, when he says, "If the truth of God hath more abounded
through my lie unto his glory, why am I judged a sinner?" (Rom. iii.
16.) "No sin to lie for the glory of God," seems to be the teaching of
this text. Although Paul does not clearly disclose for what purpose
this policy was employed, yet it can easily be inferred. A part of
the important business of the New Testament writers was to build a
reputation for Christ and his inspired band of disciples for working
miracles. A fame for achieving "signs and wonders" was the great set
off of the age. There seems to have been an almost boundless competition
amongst the disciples of the various religious orders, including Jews,
Pagans, and Christians, as to who could, or whose God could outstrip all
competitors in achieving astonishing prodigies that should set the laws
of nature at defiance. And no devout disciple, who had good inventive
powers, would allow any rival to outdo him. Nothing could authenticate
the claim of the adopted Messiah to the throne or heaven, or a
participation in the Divine Essence, like a miraculous display of divine
power. Hence the history of all the Gods and demi-gods of the illiterate
ages, including that of Christ, is loaded down with miraculous feats.
There is the clearest proof that Christ's disciples were in this general
rivalry--this universal miracle-working _melee_.

Two things very necessary to be accomplished, in the estimation of the
apostles, were, first, to show that Christ outdid the heathen Gods,
and even the prophets, in the display of the wonder-exciting miraculous
power, and thus proved his divinity; and second, that the prophecies had
been fulfilled in his coming and his practical life. And there is reason
to believe all the New Testament miracles are founded on and grew out of
prophecy. For, although we do not find prophecies in the Old Testament
for every miracle related of Christ, yet it is probable, if we had the
Book of God, "the Book of Jehu," "the Like of Hezekiah," and other
lost books mentioned in the Old Testament, we should find the supposed
prophecy for every miracle of the New Testament. We should there find
the key to every miracle. The true explanation of the matter seems to
be, that the apostolic writers, looking through the Old Testament, and
finding texts therein which they believed to be prophetic of the display
of the miraculous power of Jesus, and passages which they religiously
believed foreshadowed his coming and mission, or some important event
in his history, they were impressed with the deepest conviction that God
would not suffer any prophecy to go unfulfilled. But when they sat down
to write the history of their Messiah, long after his death, they found
they had not the evidence before them that the prophecies had been
fulfilled. A third of a century had rolled away since his history had
been practically before the people. The subject of their narrative had
long since gone to "the house of many mansions," and left not a note, or
scratch of a pen, of any act of his life behind him. And the current of
time had washed away, or partially obliterated, nearly every event
of his earthly career. The witnesses had nearly all left the stage of
action, and their voices were forever hushed in the silent tomb. What
was to be done in such an emergency? It was all-important to show that
the prophecies had been fulfilled to the letter in his practical life.
This quandary, however, did not beset them long. The difficulty was
easily surmounted. Every religious country, including Judea, was full
of miraculous legends and astonishing prodigies appertaining to the
terrestrial movements of their Gods and demigods, some of which had
floated down on the stream of tradition from time immemorial. And all
had become blended, confounded, and mixed up together, until it was
impossible to know whence they originated, where they belonged, or to
what God they appertained. These miraculous stories were so numerous,
and so varied in character, that there was no little difficulty in
finding which seemed to be the fulfillment of any Messianic prophecy
that had been or might be found in the Old Testament; and thus of the
hundreds of miraculous stories afloat, one was picked out and assumed
to be the fulfillment of the prophecy. With the countless number of such
stories before them, which had been for half a century current in the
community, they set themselves to work to select and reject, prune and
remodel, honestly believing that this miracle was intended to fulfill
this prophecy, and that miracle that prophecy, &c. And accordingly we
now find it so stated in the New Testament. As, for example, a story had
long been going the rounds that the parents of a young God had to flee
with him out of the country, to save his life from being destroyed by
its jealous ruler. This they supposed must of course refer to Jesus,
because they had found a supposed prophecy of such an event in the
Jewish bible, when a more thorough acquaintance with history would have
taught them that the story did not refer to the ruler of Judea (Herod),
but to Cansa, an ancient, jealous, despotic king, who ruled India at a
much earlier period. And the story of the darkness at the crucifixion
they incorporated as a part of the history of Jesus, because they had
seen a text in Joel which they supposed presaged such an event, while,
if they had been well versed in oriental history, they would have known
that it had long been recorded as the last chapter in the earthly drama
of the Hindoo God Chrishna. And so of the other miracles now found
related as a part of the history of Jesus. A historical investigation of
the matter would have shown the Gospel writers that they were a part of
the written history of other and more ancient Gods, and had never
formed a part of the practical life of Jesus, or been realized in his
experience. This is a more charitable and honorable explanation of the
matter than that found in the assumption of some other writers, that
every miracle was constructed for the occasion--that it is a sheer
fabrication; and yet there are some plausible grounds for this solution
of the case.

These critical writers tell us there was a religious persuasion deeply
enstamped upon the minds of all religious countries, that God often
justified a departure from the truth--the conscientious or veracious
faculty being in that age but feebly developed. And the bible itself
is full of evidence to establish the allegation. The prophets often
disclose it, and the apostles were their strict imitators. Ezekiel
represents God as saying, "If a prophet is deceived, I the Lord deceived
that prophet." (Ezek. xiv. 9.) And Jeremiah asks God, "Wilt thou be to
me as a liar?" (Jer. xv. 8.) While the writer of Kings represents God
as putting a lying spirit into the mouth of his own prophets, (i Kings
xxii. 23.) And most certainly if God himself might thus habitually
depart from the truth, it was an ample warrant for his apostles, as well
as the prophets, to adopt the same expedient. The case of Paul lying for
the glory of God, which we have cited from Romans iii. 4, proves they
were morally capable of doing this. Mosheim tells us that among the
early Christians, "it was an almost universally adopted maxim, that it
was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by so doing they could
promote the interest of the church." (Mosh. vol. i. p. 198.) And Mr.
Higgins informs us that "great numbers, of every age and of every
religion, have been guilty of systematic frauds and falsehoods
to support their religions, to an extent of which we can have no
conception. They not only practiced it, but they reduced it to system.
They avowed it, and they justified it by declaring it to be meritorious
to lie in a good cause." (Ana. vol. i. p. 143.) The reader who can
hesitate to credit these statements only betrays his ignorance of the
moral weakness of human nature, and the imperfect growth in that era of
the veracious faculty, which consequently had but a feeble voice in
the councils of the mind. Even the most pious and devout professors
of religion did not consider a rigid conformity to truth necessary, or
morally obligatory, in their labors to promote the glory of God and the
salvation of souls. And when direct falsehood was not resorted to, the
writer still allowed himself to color, magnify, and invent largely; that
is, to draw copiously upon the resources of his imagination, in the way
of supplying omissions and defects, and filling out missing links in the
chain of history. And hence it is that all ancient sacred history is so
profusely inlaid with stories and statements manifestly fabricated
for the occasion, without any historical support, and therefore wholly
incredible. Let the Christian reader not, however, misapprehend us by
supposing we wish to drive him to the extreme alternative of accepting
this as the true explanation, or as indicating the real origin of the
incredible stories and senseless miraculous feats interwoven into the
Gospel life of Jesus. We only offer it as a plausible, but not as the
probable explanation. The above citations from the Scriptures and other
history prove most clearly that sacred writers were morally capable of
fabricating or manufacturing history to supply assumed omissions. And
this explanation is twofold more reasonable than to accept the miracles
as real occurrences, for such a belief would be at war with common
sense, and prostrate our reason beneath our feet. But there is no
necessity of adopting lying hypotheses, while the borrowing theory
is amply adequate to account for every Gospel miracle. There is not a
miraculous story or incredible legend incorporated in the New Testament
as a part of the history of Jesus, that was not afloat in some shape or
form, on the wings of tradition in nearly every religious country,
ages before his birth. The model for each and every miracle was already
constructed, was already in the market, and already a part of the
history or tradition of other and older Gods. And all that was wanted
to make it appear as a part of the history of the Christian's deified
Jesus, was to fill in names and dates. Yes, history with a hundred
tongues proclaims it as the real explanation of the incredible and
the impossible in the history of Jesus Christ. And the evidence is so
voluminous and so overwhelming to disprove the common Christian dogma
which makes the son of Joseph and Mary a miracle-working God (a portion
of which we have presented under the several propositions of this
chapter), that it really demolishes the last timber in the Christian
fabric, and leaves it a heap of ruins. And we are certain that if we
could divest the Christian reader's mind, for a few moments, of an
inherited and fostered prejudice, he would see that our explanation
is much more rational, more probable, more beautiful than the popular
belief, which degrades the illustrious Judean reformer to a level with
the heathen thaumaturgist, and gives him the same undignified reputation
as a miracle-worker.

But we are sometimes told we are under as much moral obligation to
believe in the miracles reported of Jesus, as to believe in any other
portion of his history; that we must accept his Gospel history as a
whole, or reject it in toto. But this is manifestly a false assumption,
and one easily exploded. No person who is acquainted with Grecian
history doubts that Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia, and
founded a city in Egypt bearing his own name. Yet not one of those
readers will credit for a moment what one of his biographers relates
of him, that he stopped the sun in its course, or that he had no human
father. We all accept Pythagoras as a real entity, while we reject the
story of his walking on the air. Are we morally bound to accept Romulus
and Remus, founders of Rome, as mere fabulous beings, because their
biographers relate the incredible story of their being suckled by a
wolf? Many other illustrations might be given in proof of the falsity of
the assumption that, because a portion of a man's biography is found
to be incredible, the whole must be rejected as false, as unworthy of
credence. This would be to annihilate history. For no biography of any
person, and no history of any nation, can be accepted as plenarily pure,
unmixed truth. There is always more or less chaff with the grain, and it
is our privilege and our duty to separate them. And by so doing we not
only confer a favor on the cause of truth, but add to the luster and
honor of the name of the deceased reformer; and especially is this true
of the renowned Judean philanthropist and reformer. Much more lovely
and beautiful would his evangelical history stand before the world
if stripped of the wild, the weird, and the miraculous. Much more
interesting is he when viewed and venerated as a man than when
worshipped as a God, guilty of the frequent violation of his own laws,
by the display of the miracle-working power.

And much more beautiful and much more rational is the doctrine which
accepts every event that ever occurred as the legitimate and harmonious
operation of the great machinery of nature, than as the smart trick,
the lawless caprice or wild feat, of an arbitrary, wonder-exciting God,
performed not to make the people better, more moral or more righteous
(for miracles cannot do this), but merely to make them gape and stare,
and shout, What a smart God we have got!

And then the belief in miracles involves an utter repudiation of all
law, all order, and all system, and introduces in their stead chaos,
anarchy, and universal confusion. It is simply "the doctrine of
chance." which all orthodox Christendom professes to deprecate and
execrate as the quintessence of atheism. But they make a mistake;
"chance" is more legitimately the fruit of miracle than of atheism; an
assertion which we will here briefly prove.

If the sun may be arrested in his course through the heavens, "the moon
turned into blood," and "the stars fall from the heaven,"--sticks turned
into serpents, water into blood, and dust into lice,--all of which
orthodox Christians profess to believe were witnessed in the days of
Moses and Christ, then everything is thrown upon the wheel of chance;
everything is involved in uncertainty. If the course of nature could be
arrested, or the natural qualities of objects changed by the prayer of
a prophet, patriarch, or apostle, then the food set before us to eat may
suddenly, in compliance with the prayers of some absent saint, become
a deadly poison; the clothes we wear may be instantly transformed into
virulent adders, which may inflict the fatal sting before we suspect it;
some favorite servant of God (a Moses or an Elijah) might be this
moment praying to God to stop the dews from falling, or the rain from
descending for the next three months, or three years, as the latter is
reported as doing (see James v. 17), so that we could not plant with any
certainty that the seed would grow, or that we should be rewarded by
a crop. Such would be the incertitude, such the "chance" against us
in everything in which we might engage, if it were true that God ever
intercepts the action of his laws by working a miracle, that we should
eventually become discouraged by this chaos of "chance," the wheels of
industry would stop, and the car of civilization go backward. If it were
true, as taught by orthodox Christians, that "God in his providence," or
"God in the dispensation of his providence," often "visits people with
sickness," then it would be useless to study the laws of health with a
view of complying with them. For we could not know in any case whether
our sickness had been brought upon us by, an "overruling providence,"
or by our own imprudence. Our inventives to study and comply with these
laws, if there could be any, would consequently be very weak indeed,
for we might comply with every physiological requisition, and yet
there would be several "chances," against us that to-morrow we may be
stretched upon a "sick bed and rolling pillow by the visitation of God."
Thus the doctrine of miracles is shown to be pre-eminently the doctrine
of "chance."

The doctrine of miraculous agency makes God an imperfect being, by
implying that his laws were defective in their original construction,
that by mistake he left some emergency unprovided for, and now has to
supply the omission by an afterclap exercise of power. Or if his laws
were originally perfect, then the working of a miracle would disturb
them, and make them imperfect; if originally imperfect, then God
himself must have been imperfect, and hence no God at all. Think of a
wonderworking God violating, suspending, or intercepting his own laws.
Such a God would be a puerile, short-sighted being, that only ignorant
and uncultivated minds could admire and adore.

The age of miracles, however, is gone. The belief in divine prodigies
has receded before the advancing genius of civilization. It has
died away in the exact ratio of the progress of science and general
intelligence. And a thorough acquaintance with nature's laws will banish
the last vestige of such a belief. Hence it is that the most illiterate
and ignorant nations and tribes have always been able to recount the
longest list of miraculous prodigies achieved by a disorderly God, who
seems to have taken pleasure in violating his own laws, or suspending
them, for the most trivial purposes.

Yes, the time is approaching when the belief in a "miraculous
interposition" or "special providences" must pass away under the lights
of science and civilization, and be numbered amongst the things which
have been and can be no more, and men will cherish more noble and
elevated ideas of the great Ruler of the universe, who is infinite
in order, infinite in wisdom, ay, infinite in all his attributes and
virtues, ever unchangeably the same.


II. Prophecy, the second Pillar of the Christian Faith, proves as much
for Heathenism and Spiritualism.

Truthful prophecy, attested to be such by its fulfillment, is assumed to
be one of the basic pillars and one of the main proofs of the truth of
the Christian religion. But the following consideration will show that
this assumption has no logical force, or real, tangible foundation.

First. Every ancient system of religion had its prophets and seers, who
professed to be able to foresee events of the future. And we find but
little difference in the proofs each one has left to the world that they
possessed this power, if we except the Greeks and Romans, some of whom
evidently excelled all the Jewish prophets in their ability to take
cognizance of events lying behind the curtain of time. Tacitus, the
Latin historian, prophesied the downfall of the Roman empire and its
attendant calamities more than five hundred years before its occurrence,
which was fulfilled to the letter. And Solon, one of the seven wise men
of Greece, foresaw and foretold a series of calamities which befell
the Athenians two hundred years before they were realized. A still more
remarkable example is furnished in the history of Marcus Tullius Cicero,
who, writing of the future, with his mind fixed on the west, about 50 B.
C., exclaimed, "There will arise after many ages (if we may credit the
Sibylline oracles), a hero who will deliver his oppressed countrymen
from bondage"--a prophecy most signally fulfilled in the life of
General Washington. Many other examples of heathen prophecy and their
fulfillment might be cited, if we had space for them.

Second. The history of modern spiritualism furnishes many cases of
future events being predicted long before they took place. In fact, many
of the most important events of modern times which have occurred in this
and other countries, were foreseen and foretold by spiritual seers known
as "seeing mediums," when there was not the slightest probability that
such events would ever occur. We will cite one or two cases, by way
of proof and illustration. A few years ago John P. Coles, of New York,
known as a spiritual medium, prophesied, when under spirit control,
that Nicholas of Russia would shortly have difficulty with his secretary
Menzicoff, and just three months from that time would die--a prediction
that was fulfilled to the very letter and to the very hour. And yet
there was not the slightest probability, externally indicated, at the
time the prophecy was uttered, that either of these events would ever be
realized. And this prophecy, let it be noted, was published in the New
York Times at least two months before it was verified, thus proving that
the prediction was not an "afterclap" affair, but preceded the event.
Take another example. The serious calamity which befell the ill-fated
steamer known as the Arctic, which was lost at sea a number of years
ago, with all on board, was prophetically described in minute detail,
by a spirit medium, several months before it occurred; and was seen and
described by another medium, while taking place more than a thousand
miles distant. The proof is at our command. And the late disastrous
war was foreseen and described by Cora Tappan, of New York, and other
mediums, and its principal events pointed out long before the war broke
out--a fact which is now a matter of history. These are only a few cases
out of hundreds that might be cited of a similar character, drawn from
the practical history of modern spiritualism. If, then, prophecy can do
anything toward the truth or divine emanation of the Christian religion,
it must do the same for the heathen and spiritual systems. And thus
proving too much, it proves nothing at all.

Third. The Jewish prophecies not fulfilled. We have examined critically
the various texts of the Christian bible called prophecies, and find
that, if claimed as predictions of the future events beyond the powers
of the natural mind to foresee, they have all failed. But few of them
have been fulfilled in any sense, and those few required no divine
prescience to foresee the result. Many events have transpired in every
country, which the natural sagacity of the most observant minds in that
country had anticipated as the result of natural causes, such as the
ravages and downfall of cities and the overthrow of empires by the
merciless hand of war. The Jewish prophet, fostering a spirit of envy
and enmity towards Egypt, Babylon, and other superior kingdoms, because
they had been overpowered by them and long held in subjection to
their superior sway, were always prophesying evil things of these
principalities. And though some of the evils which constituted the
burden of prophecy might have been reasonably anticipated as natural
occurrences, it is a signal fact they never transpired at all,--such
as the total destruction of Babylon, Tyre, Damascus, and other cities
belonging to those hostile kingdoms the Jews so much envied and
execrated. Look, for proof, at the case of Damascus. The prophets
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, all poured out their fulminatory thunders
upon this city. Isaiah declared it should be a "ruinous heap." (Isa.
xvii. I.) And Jeremiah predicted its destruction by fire. (Jer. xlix.
27.) And yet, notwithstanding these predictions of ruin, Damascus still
stands as "one of the paradises of the earth," as one writer styles it,
with a population, according to Burckhart, of not less than two hundred
and fifty thousand, being one of the most magnificent and prosperous
commercial cities on the globe. Instead of being blotted out of
existence, as the Jewish prophets prayed and predicted, it has suffered
less by ravages of war and the scythe of time than almost any other city
of the east. It has stood nearly three thousand years without becoming
a "ruinous heap," or being consumed by fire or destroyed by war. (Jer.
xlix. 26.) And the prophecy against Tyre has most signally failed also.
Ezekiel declared it should be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, and never be
found again. (Ezek. xxvi.-xxix.) But two hundred and fifty years after
Nebuchadnezzar's time Alexander found it a strong commercial city. And
it still contains a population of five thousand or more. St. Jerome, of
the fourth century, declared it to be then the finest city of Phoenicia,
and was astonished that Ezekiel's prophecy had so utterly failed.

And Isaiah's famous prediction against Babylon furnishes another proof
of the utter failure of Jewish prophecy. He declared, after predicting
its destruction, "It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt
in from generation to generation, neither shall the Arabian pitch tent
there." (Isa. xiii. 20.) Of course he desired it should be so. But,
unfortunately for his credit as a prophet, it never suffered such a
calamity. On the contrary, according to Layard and Rawlinson, British
commissioners who recently visited the place, it now presents "all the
activity of a hive of bees" (to use Layard's language), and contains
several thousand inhabitants, though its name is, since rebuilt, called
Hillah. And thus the prophecy is falsified. "No," exclaims a good
Christian brother, in forlorn hope, it may be fulfilled yet. But if he
will examine the language of the prophecy, he will find he is entirely
cut off from this "saving clause." The prophet says, "Her time is near
to come, and her days shall not be prolonged." (Isa. xiii. 22.) Thus it
is evident the prophecy was to be fulfilled in that age and generation.
The failure, then, is absolute and indisputable. And these are but mere
samples of the complete failure of every text called a prophecy, when
applied to the prognostication of future events. Numerous texts can
be found in the prophets auguring evil for Egypt, which have made
no approximation toward fulfillment. Ezekiel prophesied "the fall of
Egypt," "the desolation of Egypt," "the destruction of Egypt," &c.,
not one of which calamities has ever been realized in her experience.
Prophecies respecting the restoration of the lost tribes and the
perpetuity of the Israelitish throne are complete failures; also all
"the Messianic prophecies," so called. (See Chap. II.) With respect
to the prophecy on Babylon, it may be further observed that while the
prophet declares, "Neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there" (Isa.
xiii. 22), Layard declares that is the very thing they did do while
he was there. He says he saw a number of Arabian tents pitched on
the ground; thus proving a failure of the prophecy all round in every
particular. (See note page Fourth). The bible itself is a witness that
truthful prophecy can do nothing toward authenticating a religion,
or toward proving the prophet divinely inspired. The same damaging
concession is made here as in the case of miracles, that a heathen and
an unbeliever could and did succeed as well as the true disciples of the
faith. The proof of this statement is found in the history of Balaam.
His figurative representation of a star coming out of Jacob and
a scepter out of Judah (see Numb. chap. xxiv.) is often quoted
by Christian writers as presaging or prefiguring the coming of
Christ,--thus making a heathen and an unbeliever the oracle of a
Messianic prophecy, and a heathen, too, of sinful and ungodly habits.
So that the Christian subterfuge is not available here, that "God might
make a righteous man of any nation the vehicle of prophecy." For we have
the express declaration of the bible itself that he was not a righteous
man, but the very reverse. Peter tells us, "He loved the wages of
unrighteousness," at the very time this prophecy so called was uttered
( see 2 Peter ii. 13 ), which prostrates forever the Christian plea the
"he might have possessed the true spirit of prophecy by virtue of being
a righteous man," and drives us to the admission that an unconverted
savage and ungodly heathen unbeliever could make a true prophecy. It not
being necessary, then, to be a Jew, or a Christian, or a believer, or
even a moral man, to foresee or foretell the far-off important events
of the future, the argument falls forever to the ground that the
fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies, if admitted to have been
fulfilled, could do anything toward proving the truth or divine
acceptance of the religion of the bible, or its superiority over any
heathen or oriental religion then or subsequently known to history, as
they all present the same evidence of being endowed with the true spirit
of prophecy. All argument for Christianity based on the prophecies,
or "the gift of prophecy," is, then, forever at an end, as it has been
shown that the power to foretell future events is not restricted by
the bible itself to any nation, to any religion, to any faith, to any
belief, or to any moral or religious qualification. What, then, is
prophecy worth, or what does it prove? Another case, and one similar to
that of Balaam in its essential points, is found in the New Testament.
Caiaphas, though not claiming to be any part of a believer, utters a
prophecy in the interest of the Christian religion for which the bible
itself gives him full credit as a prophet. Here, then, is another case
of a heathen stealing the Christian's thunder, and another proof that
the spirit of true prophecy has never been confined to any nation or
any religion; and hence, according to the teachings of the bible
itself, does nothing at all toward establishing the exalted claims of
Christianity, or toward proving its superiority over other systems of
religion.


III. Moral Precepts the third Pillar of the Christian Faith.

It is declared, in view of the many wise precepts which issued from the
mouth of Jesus Christ, that "he spake as never man spake." (John vii.
46.) If this were true, then Gods must have been very numerous prior to
the Christian era. For there is not one of the moral maxims or preceptive
commands which he gave utterance to that cannot be found literally or
substantially in the older bibles of other nations, or the writings
of the Greek philosophers, and the religious dissertations of heathen
moralists, who gave out moral and religious lessons for the instruction
of the world long prior to the birth of Christ. Even the Golden Rule,
which Christian writers, ignorant or oriental history, have erroneously
ascribed to Jesus Christ, and lauded him as being the author of, is
found variously expressed in the writings of several heathen or oriental
nations. We find it in the Chinese bible at least live hundred years
older than ours, almost word for word as Jesus uttered it. We will here
present it as expressed by different writers.

1. Golden Rule by Confucius, 500 B. C.

"Do unto another what you would have him do unto you, and do not to
another what you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law
alone. It is the foundation of all the rest."

2. Golden Rule by Aristotle, 385 B. C.

"We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act
toward us."

3. Golden Rule by Pittacus, 650 B. C.

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him."

4. Golden Rule by Thales, 464 B. C.

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."

5. Golden Rule by Isocrates, 338 B. C.

"Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you."

6. Golden Rule by Aristippus, 365 B. C.

"Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for
another's welfare as your own."

7. Golden Rule by Sextus, a Pythagorean, 406 B. C.

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them."

8. Golden Rule by Hillel, 50 B. C.

"Do not to others what you would not like others to do to you."

Here is the Golden Rule proclaimed by seven heathen moralists and a
Jew long before it was republished by the founder of Christianity;
thus proving it to be of heathen origin, and proving that it does not
transcend the natural capacity of the human brain to originate, and
hence needs no God to reveal it. Indeed, it is one of the most natural
sentiments of the human mind. "Would I like to be treated thus?" is
the first thought which naturally arises in the mind of a person
when maltreating a neighbor; thus showing that the Golden Rule is a
spontaneous utterance of the moral feelings of the human mind.


LOVE AND KIND TREATMENT OF ENEMIES.

Love to enemies is considered to be another praiseworthy precept, which
Christ has erroneously the credit of being the author of. We have heard
the declaration made in the Christian pulpit, that Jesus Christ was the
first moral teacher who inculcated love to enemies; a most transcendent
error, as the following historical citations will show. Most of the
religious books and religious teachers of the ancient oriental heathen
breathe forth a spirit of love and kindness toward enemies.

The following is from the old Persian bible, the Sadder:--

1.

     "Forgive thy foes, nor that alone;
     Their evil deeds with good repay;
     Fill those with joy who leave thee none,
     And kiss the hand upraised to slay."

The Christian bible would be searched in vain to find a moral sentiment
or precept superior to this. Certainly it is the loftiest sentiment of
kindness toward enemies that ever issued from human lips, or was ever
penned by mortal man. And yet it is found in an old heathen bible. Think
of "kissing the hand upraised to slay." Never was love, and kindness,
and forbearance toward enemies more sublimely expressed than in the old
Persian ballad.

2. "Treat thine enemy as though a friend, and he will become thy
friend," was expressed by Publius Syrus, a Roman slave, which is a wiser
admonition than that of Christ, "Love thine enemy," as it is a moral
impossibility.

3. "All nature cries aloud, 'Shall man do less than heal the smiter, and
the railer bless?'" (Hafiz, a Mahomedan.)

4. "Bridle thine anger, and forgive thine enemy; give unto him who takes
from thee." (Koran, Mahomedan bible. )

5. "Let no man be offended with those who are angry at him, but reply
gently to those who curse him." (Code of Menu.)

6. "Let him endure injuries, and despise no one." (Ibid.)

7. "Commit no hostile action for your own preservation." (Ibid.)

8. "To be revenged on enemies, become more virtuous." (Diogenes.)

9. "To strike a man, or vex him with words, is a sin." (Zend-Avesta,
Persian bible.)

10. "Even the intention to strike is a sin." (Ibid.)

11. "Desire not the death of thine enemy." (Confucius.)

12. "Acknowledge benefits, but never revenge injuries." (Ibid.)

13. "We may dislike an enemy without desiring revenge." (Ibid.)

14. "Pardon the offenses of others, but never your own." (Publius
Syrus.)

15. "The noble spirit cures injustice by forgiving it." (Ibid.)

16. "It is much better to be injured than to kill a man." (Pythagoras.)

17. "You can accomplish by kindness what you cannot by force." (Publius
Syrus.)

18. "Better overlook an injury than avenge it." (Publius Syrus.)

19. "It is enough to think ill of an enemy without avenging it."
(Publius Syrus.)

20. "It is a kingly spirit to return good deeds for evil ones." (Ibid.)

21.

     "Learn for yon orient shell to love thy foe,
     And store with pearls the hand that brings thee woe;
     Flee, like yon rock, from base, vindictive pride,
     Emblaze with gems the wrist that rends thy side."

     (Hafiz.)

22. "To revenge yourself on an enemy, make him your friend."
(Pythagoras.)

23. "It is not permitted to a man who has received an injury to revenge
it by doing another." (Socrates, in his Crito.)

24. "Seek him who turns thee out, and pardon him who injures thee."
(Koran.)

25. "Return not evil for evil." (Socrates.)

26. "Endure all things if you would serve God." (Sextus.)

27. "Desire to be able to benefit your enemies." (Ibid.)

28. "Receive an injury rather than do one." (Publius Syrus.)

29. "Be at war with men's vices, but at peace with their persons."
(Ibid.)

30. "Cultivate friendship for an enemy." (Pittacus.)

31. "Be kind to your friends that they may continue so, and to your
enemies that they may become so." (Ibid.)

32. "Prevent injuries if possible; if not, do not revenge them." (Ibid.)

33. "An enemy should not be hated, but cured." (Seneca.)

34. "To act unkindly toward an enemy will increase his hate."
(Antonius.)

35. "Be to everybody kind and friendly." (Ibid.)

36. "Speak evil of no one, not even your enemies." (Pittacus.)

Thus it will be observed that love and kindness toward all mankind, both
friends and enemies, is not confined to the teachings of Christ or
to the Christian religion, as many have erroneously supposed, but
is unquestionably a natural sentiment of the moral instinct or moral
impulses of the human mind, and hence is no proof that their teacher is
either a God or divinely inspired.

And we have in our possession nearly eight hundred more precepts (see
vol. ii.) from the pens or mouths of the ancient heathen, enjoining just
and kind treatment of women, and setting forth nearly all the duties of
life, and teaching the immortality of the soul, &c. And these precepts
breathe the same lofty moral sentiment and moral feeling as those quoted
above. How ignorant and how conceited must be the Christian professor
who supposes all goodness is confined to Christianity, or that it even
possesses any great superiority over other religious systems! And
how completely the three foregoing parts of this chapter, "Miracles,"
"Prophecies," and "Precepts," prostrate the divine claims of
Christianity, and leave not an inch of ground for them to rest upon!




CHAPTER XXXV. LOGICAL OR COMMON SENSE VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE
INCARNATION

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

We ask again, Who, from the deepest depths of his inmost, enlightened
consciousness, can believe such revolting, such atheistical doctrine
as this? Or who will venture to descend still lower, and conceive of
an Almighty, Omnipresent Being, who fills all space above, around, and
beneath, "from infinity below to yon fixed star above," and millions
upon millions of miles beyond it, sinking and dwindling to that mere
mite, speck, or monad state and condition comprehended in the initiatory
step of embryonic existence? And then think of the Almighty, Omnipotent
Creator of the universe lying in a manger with four-footed beasts and
creeping things, sleeping with oxen and asses in a stable. Next he
is seen an urchin on the street playing with marbles and jack-knives,
absorbed and forgetful of the world around him. Who can believe that
awfully majestic Being, who is represented by his own inspired book as
being so transcendently grand and awe-inspiring that "no man san see
him and live" (Ex. xxxiii. 20), was not only daily seen by hundreds and
thousands, but was on such familiar terms with men, that they regarded
him as their companion, and equal, and even sometimes coolly reprimanded
him for supposed misdemeanors and errors? Could they believe this to be
Almighty God? Impossible! Impossible! And then who can believe that that
infinite Being, whom we have been taught to regard as absolutely and
eternally unchangeable, could become subject to hunger and thirst
(as did Jesus)? Or who can believe that the eternally and unceasingly
watchful Omnipotent Deity, whose eye, we are told, "never slumbers,"
could sink into unconscious sleep, become "to dumb forgetfulness a
prey," night after night, for thirty years, oblivious, and unconscious
of the world around him? Think of a being of incomprehensible majesty,
dignity, and power, able to "shake the heavens and the earth also,"
being unable to protect himself from insult, and was therefore derided
and "spit upon," and finally overcome by his enemies, as is related of
Jesus. Can any man believe, who has not made shipwreck of his senses, or
banished Reason from her courts, that God 'Almighty, who comprehends
in himself the most absolute and boundless perfection of goodness and
wisdom, was tempted by demons, devils, and crawling serpents? Who can
believe that the Lord, who owns "the cattle upon a thousand hills"
(Psalm 1. io), and the countless host of worlds besides, that wheel
their course through infinite space, had not "where to lay his head"?
Who can believe that that was the all-wise, omnipotent, and omnipresent
God, possessing all power in heaven above and the earth beneath, who was
betrayed by weak, finite mortals? What! the Almighty Creator betrayed by
a puny being of his own creation into the hands of his disobedient and
rebellious children? Why could he not, if possessing "power to lay
down his life, and take it up again" (John x. 17), cause that all these
children of his (as we must assume they were, if he was Almighty God,
and hence the Father of all) should love him, instead of hating him?
Can any man believe that Jesus was possessed with omnipotent power
while standing to be whipped (scourged) by Pontius Pilate, or that
he possessed a power above that of finite mortals while in the act of
praying, with such extreme ardor that the sweat dropped from his face,
that the cup of death might pass from his lips, or while calling for an
angel to support him in the hour of his mortal dissolution? or that He,
"by whom all things exist," could cease himself to exist, by dying upon
the cross between malefactors? Think of this, reader! and think of the
eternal Creator, the infinite Deity, the omnipotent Jehovah, the Maker
of worlds as numberless as the sands upon the sea-shore for multitude,
fainting, bleeding, dying, and pouring out his own blood to appease his
own wrath; dying an ignominious death to satisfy an implacable revenge!
Away with such insulting mockery, such blasphemous flummery! It can
only find place in the dark chambers of an unenlightened mind.

Well has Watts said of Locke's skepticism,--

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

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

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

I ask, and drive home the query to your inward consciousness, and the
inmost temples of your sacred reason:

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

     Note. The words Creator, Maker, &c., are used from a
     Christian standpoint Science knows no Creator.




CHAPTER XXXVI. PHILOSOPHICAL ABSURDITIES OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE
INCARNATION

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

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

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

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

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




CHAPTER XXXVII. PHYSIOLOGICAL ABSURDITIES OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE
INCARNATION

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

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

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




CHAPTER XXXVIII. A HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST.

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

As far back as 1200 B. C., sacred records were extant and traditions
were current, in the East, which taught that the heathen Savior
(Chrishna) was, 1st, Immaculately conceived and born of a spotless
virgin, "who had never known man." 2d, That the author of, or agent in,
the conception, was a spirit or ghost (of course a Holy Ghost). 3d,
That he was threatened in early infancy with death by the ruling tyrant,
Cansa. 4th, That his parents had, consequently, to flee with him to
Gokul for safety. 5th, That all the young male children under two years
of age were slain by an order issued by Cansa, similar to that of Herod
in Judea. 6th, That angels and shepherds attended his birth. 7th, That
his birth and advent occurred on the 25th of December. 8th, That it
occurred in accordance with previous prophecy. 9th, That he was presented
at birth with frankincense, myrrh, &c. 10th, That he was saluted and
worshipped as "the Savior of men," according to the report of the late
Christian Missionary Huelith, That he led a life of humility and
practical moral usefulness. 12th, That he wrought various astounding
miracles, such as healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind,
casting out devils, raising the dead to life, &c. 13th, That he was
finally put to death upon the cross (i. e., crucified) between two
thieves. 14th. After which he descended to hell, rose from the dead,
and ascended back to heaven "in the sight of all men," as his biblical
history declares. For hundreds of other similar parallels, including his
doctrines and precepts, see Chapter XXXII.

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

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

We find, also, several well-authenticated instances of raising the dead
to life, in works portraying the miraculous achievements of the Egyptian
Gods, the relation being given in such specific detail in some cases
that the names of the reanimated dead are furnished. Tyndarus and
Hypolitus were instances of this kind, both (according to Julius) having
been raised from the dead. Descending the line of history, until we
arrive at the confines of Grecian theology, we find here the same train
of marvelous events recorded in the histories of their virgin-born Gods,
as we have shown in Chapter XXXIII., such as their healing the sick and
the <DW36>s, causing the blind to see, the lame to walk, the dead to be
resuscitated to life, &c. And cases, as we have shown, are reported of
their reading the thoughts of their disciples, as Jesus did those of
the woman of Samaria. Apollonius declares he knew many Hindoo saints to
perform this achievement with entire strangers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




CHAPTER XXXIX. THE SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY.

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

1. The essential attributes of a self-existing God and Creator, and
"Upholder of all things." are infinitude, omnipotence, omniscience,
and omnipresence, and any being not possessing all these attributes to
repletion, or possessing any quality or characteristic in the slightest
degree incompatible with any one of these attributes, cannot be a God
in a divine sense, but must of necessity be a frail, fallible, finite
being.

2. Jesus Christ disclaims, hundreds of times over, directly or
impliedly, the inherent possession of any one of these divine
attributes.

3. His evangelical biographers have invested him with the entire
category of human qualities and characteristics, each one of which
is entirely unbefitting a God, and taken together are the only
distinguishing characteristics by which we can know a man from a God.

4. Furthermore, there issued from his own mouth various sayings and
concessions most fatal to the conception of his being a God.

5. His devout biographers have reported various actions and movements
in his practical life which we are compelled to regard as absolutely
irreconcilable with the infinite majesty, lofty character, and supreme
attributes of an almighty Being.

6. These human qualities were so obvious to all who saw him and all
who became acquainted with him, that doubts sprang up among his own
immediate followers, which ultimately matured into an open avowal of
disbelief in his divinity in that early age.

7. Upon the axiomatical principles of philosophy it is an utter and
absolute impossibility to unite in repletion the divine and the human in
the same being.

8. And then Christ had a human birth.

9. He was constituted in part, like human beings, of flesh and blood.

10. He became, on certain occasions, "an hungered," like finite beings.

11. He also became thirsty (John xix. 28), like perishable mortals.

12. He often slept, like mortals, and thus became "to dumb forgetfulness
a prey."

13. He sometimes became weary, like human beings. (See John iv. 6.)

14. He was occasionally tempted, like fallible mortals. (Matt. iv. 1.)

15. His "soul became exceeding sorrowful," as a frail, finite being.
(Matt. xxvi. 38.)

16. He disclosed the weakness of human passion by weeping. (John xi.
35.)

17. He was originally an imperfect being, "made perfect through
suffering." (Heb. ii. 10.)

18. He "increased in wisdom and stature" (Luke ii. 52); therefore he
must have possessed finite, changeable, mortal attributes.

19. And he finally died and was buried, like all perishable mortals. He
could not possibly, from these considerations, have been a God. It
is utterly impracticable to associate with or comprehend, in a God of
infinite powers and infinite attributes, all or any of these finite
human qualities.

20. Dark, intellectually dark, indeed, must be that mind, and sunk,
sorrowfully sunk in superstition, that can worship a being as the great
omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "I AM," who possessed all those
qualities which were constitutionally characteristic of the pious, the
noble, the devout, the Godlike, yet finite and fallible Jesus, according
to his own admissions and the representations of his own interested
biographers.

21. The only step which the disciples of the Christian faith have made
toward disproving or setting aside these arguments, objections, and
difficulties, is that of assigning the incarnate Jesus a double or
twofold nature--the amalgamation of the human and divine; a postulate
and a groundless assumption, which we have proved and demonstrated by
thirteen arguments, which we believe to be unanswerable, is not only
absurd, illogical, and impossible, but foolish and ludicrous in the
highest degree. (See vol. ii.)

22. This senseless hypothesis, and every other assumption and argument
made use of by the professors of the Christian faith to vindicate their
favorite dogma of the divinity of Jesus, we have shown to be equally
applicable to the demigods of the ancient heathen, more than twenty
of whom were invested with the same combination of human and divine
qualities which the followers and worshippers of Jesus claim for him.

23. Testimony of the Father against the divinity of the Son. The Father
utterly precludes the Son from any participation in the divine essence,
or any claim in the Godhead, by such declarations as the following: "I
am Jehovah, and beside me there is no Savior." (Isaiah xliii. 11.) How,
then, we would ask, can Jesus Christ be the Savior? "I, Jehovah, am thy
Savior and thy Redeemer." Then Christ can be neither the Savior nor
Redeemer. "There is no God else beside me, a just God and a Savior;
there is none beside me." (Isaiah xiv. 21.) So the Father virtually
declares, according to "the inspired prophet Isaiah," that the Son, in a
divine sense, cannot be either God, Savior, or Redeemer. Again, "I am
Jehovah, thy God, and thou shalt not acknowledge a God beside me."
(Hosea xiii. 4.) Here Christ is not only by implication cut off from the
Godhead, but positively prohibited from being worshipped as God. And
thus the testimony of the Father disproves and sets aside the divinity
of the Son.

24. Testimony of the mother. When Mary found, after a long search,
her son Jesus in the temple, disputing with the doctors, and chided or
reproved him for staying from home without the consent of his parents,
and declared, "thy father and I sought thee, sorrowing" (Luke ii. 48),
she proclaimed a twofold denial of his divinity. In the first place it
cannot be possible that she regarded her son Jesus as "that awful Being,
before whom e'en the devout saints bow in trembling fear," when she used
such language and evinced such a spirit as she did. "Why hast thou thus
dealt with us?" (Luke ii. 48) is her chiding language. And then, when
she speaks of Joseph as his father, "thy father and I," she issues a
declaration against his divinity which ought to be regarded as settling
the question forever. For who could know better than the mother, or
rather, who could know but the mother, who the father of the child Jesus
was? And as she acknowledges it was Joseph, she thus repudiates the
story of the immaculate conception, which constitutes the whole basis
for the claim of his divinity. Hence the testimony of the mother, also,
disproves his title to the Godhead.

25. Testimony or disclaimer of the Son. We will show by a specific
citation of twenty-five texts that there is not one attribute
comprehended in or peculiar to a divine and infinite Being, but that
Christ rejects as applicable to himself--that he most conclusively
disclaims every attribute of a divine Being, both by precept and
practice, and often in the most explicit language.

26. By declaring, "The Son can do nothing of himself" (John v. 19),
he most emphatically disclaims the attribute of omnipotence. For an
omnipotent Being can need no aid, and can accept of none.

27. When he acknowledged and avowed his ignorance of the day of
judgment, which must be presumed to be the most important event in the
world's history, he disclaimed the attribute of omniscience. "Of that
day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only."
(Matt. xxiv. 36.) Now, as an omniscient Being must possess all
knowledge, his avowed ignorance in this case is a confession he was not
omniscient, and hence not a God.

28. And when he declares, "I am glad for your sakes I was not there" (at
the grave of Lazarus), he most distinctly disavows being omnipresent,
and thus denies to himself another essential attribute of an infinite
God.

29. And the emphatic declaration, "I live by the Father" (John vi. 57),
is a direct disclaimer of the attributes of self-existence; as a being
who lives by another cannot be self-existent, and, per consequence, not
the infinite God.

30 He disclaims possessing infinite goodness, another essential
attribute of a supreme divine Being. "Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is God." (Mark x. 18.)

31. He disclaim divine honors, and directed them to the father. "I honor
my Father." (John viii. 49.) "I receive not honor from men." (John v.
41.)

32. He recommended supreme worship to the Father, and not to himself.
"The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth."
(John iv. 21.)

33. He ascribed supreme dominion to the Father. "Thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory forever." (Matt. vi. 13.)

34. It will be seen, from the foregoing text, that Christ also
acknowledges that the kingdom is the Father's. A God without a kingdom
would be a ludicrous state of things.

35. He conceded supreme authority to the Father.

"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John vii. 16.)

36. He considered the Father as the supreme protector and preserver of
even his own disciples. "I pray that thou shouldst keep them from the
evil." (John xvii. 15.) What, omnipotence not able to protect his own
disciples?

37. In fine, he humbly acknowledged that his power, his will, his
ministry, his mission, his authority, his works, his knowledge, and his
very life, were all from, and belonged to and were under the control of,
the Father. "I can do nothing of myself;" "I came to do the will of him
that sent me." "The Father that dwelleth within me, he doeth the work,"
&c. "A God within a God," is an old pagan Otaheitan doctrine.

38. He declared that even spiritual communion was the work of the
Father. (See John vi. 45.)

39. He acknowledged himself controlled by the Father. (See John v. 30.)

40. He acknowledged his entire helplessness and dependence on the
Father. "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father
do." (John v. 19.)

41. He acknowledged that even his body was the work of his Father; in
other words, that he was dependent on his Father for his physical life.
(See Heb. xvi. 5.)

42. And more than all, he not only called the Father "the only true God"
(John xvii. 3), but calls him "my Father and my God." (John xx. 17.)
Now, it would be superlative nonsense to consider a being himself a
God, or the God, who could use such language as is here ascribed to the
humble Jesus. This text, this language, is sufficient of itself to
show that Christ could not have laid any claim to the Godhead on any
occasion, unless we degrade him to the charge of the most palpable and
shameful contradiction.

43. He uniformly directed his disciples to pray, not to him, but the
Father. (See Matt. vi. 6.)

44. On one occasion, as we have cited the proof (in Matt. xi. 11), he
even acknowledged John the Baptist to be greater than he; while it
must be patent to every reader that no man could be greater than the
almighty, supreme Potentate of heaven and earth, in any sense whatever.

45. Testimony of the disciples. Another remarkable proof of the human
sireship of Jesus is, that one of his own disciples--ay, one of the
chosen twelve, selected by him as being endowed with a perfect knowledge
of his character, mission, and origin--this witness, thus posted and
thus authorized, proclaims, in unequivocal language, that Jesus was the
son of Joseph. Hear the language of Philip addressed to Nathanael.
"We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did
write--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John i. 45.) No language
could be more explicit, no declaration more positive, that Jesus was the
son of Joseph. And no higher authority could be adduced to settle the
question, coming as it does from "headquarters." And what will, or
what can, the devout stickler for the divinely paternal origin of Jesus
Christ do with such testimony? It is a clincher which no sophistry can
set aside, no reasoning can grapple with, and no logic overthrow.

46. His disciples, instead of representing him as being "the only true
God," often speak of him in contradistinction to God.

47. They never speak of him as the God Christ Jesus, but as "the man
Christ Jesus." ( 1 Tim. ii. 5.) "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of
God." (Acts ii. 23.) It would certainly be blasphemy to speak of the
Supreme Being as "a man approved of God." Christian reader, reflect upon
this text. "By that man whom he (die Father) hath ordained" (Acts xvii.
3), by the assumption of the Godhead of Christ, we would be presented
with the double or twofold solecism, 1st. Of God being "ordained" by
another God; and 2d. That of his being blasphemously called a "man."

48. Paul's declaration has been cited, that "unto us there is but one
God--the Father." ( 1 Cor. iv. 8. ) Now, it is plain to common sense,
that if there is but one God, and that God is comprehended in the
Father, then Christ is entirely excluded from the Godhead.

49. If John's declaration be true, that "no man hath seen God at any
time" (John iv. 12), then the important question arises, How could
Christ be God, as he was seen by thousands of men, and seen hundreds of
times?

50. God the Father is declared to be the "One," "the Holy One," "the
only One," &c., more than one hundred times, as if purposely to exclude
the participation of any other being in the Godhead.

51. This one, this only God, is shown to be the Father alone in more
than four thousand texts, thirteen hundred and twenty-six of which are
found in the New Testament.

52. More than fifty texts have been found which declare, either
explicitly or by implication, that God the Father has no equal, which
effectually denies or shuts out the divine equality of the Son. "To whom
will ye liken me, or shall I be equal with, saith the holy One." (Isaiah
xl. 25.)

53. Christ in the New Testament is called "man," and "the Son of
man," eighty-four times,--egregious and dishonorable misnomers, most
certainly, to apply to a supreme and infinite Deity. On the other hand,
he is called God but three times, and denominates himself "the Son of
God" but once, and that rather obscurely.

54. The Father is spoken of, in several instances, as standing in the
relation of God to the Son, as "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts
iii. 2.) "Ye are Christ's, and Christ is Gods." (i Cor. xi. 3.) Now,
the God of a God is a polytheistic, heathen conception; and 1 no
meaning or interpretation, as we have shown, can be I forced upon such
texts as these, that will not admit a plurality of Gods, if we admit
the titles as applicable to Christ, or that his scriptural biographers
intend to apply such a title in a superior or supreme sense.

55. Many texts make Christ the mere tool, agent, image, servant, or
representative of God, as Christ, "the image of God" (Heb. i. 3),
Christ, the appointed of God (Heb. iii. 1), Christ, "the servant of God"
(Matt. xii. | 18), &c. To consider a being thus spoken of as himself the
supreme God, is, as we have demonstrated, the very climax of absurdity
and nonsense. To believe "the servant of God" is God himself,--that is,
the servant of himself,--and that God and his "image" are the same, is
to descend within one step of buffoonery.

56. And then it has been ascertained that there are more than three
hundred texts which declare, either expressly or by implication,
Christ's subordination to and dependence on the Father, as, "I can do
nothing of myself;" "Not mine, but his that sent me;" "I came to do the
will of him that sent me" (John iv. 34); "I seek the will of my Father,"
&c.

57. And more than one hundred and fifty texts make the Son inferior to
the Father, as "the Son knoweth not, but the Father does" (Mark viii.
32); "My Father is greater than I;" "The Son can do nothing of himself"
(John v. 19), &c.

58. There are many divine titles applied to the Father which are never
used in reference to the Son, as "Jehovah," "The Most High," "God
Almighty," "The Almighty," &c.

On the other hand, those few divine epithets or titles which are used in
application to Jesus Christ, as Lord, God, Savior, Redeemer,
Intercessor, &c., it has been shown were all used prior to the birth of
Christ, in application to beings known and acknowledged to be men, and
some of them are found so applied in the bible itself; as, for example,
Moses is called a God in two instances, as we have shown, and cited the
proof (in Ex. iv. 16, vii. 1), while the title of Lord is applied to men
at this day, even in Christian countries. And instances have been cited
in the bible of the term Savior being applied to men, both in the
singular and plural numbers. (See 2 Kings xiii. 5, and Neh. ix. 27.)
Seeing, then, that the most important divine titles which the writers of
the New Testament have applied to Jesus were previously used in
application to men, known and admitted to be such, it is therefore at
once evident that those titles do nothing toward proving him to be the
Great Divine Being, as the modern Christian world assume him to be, even
if we base the argument wholly on scriptural grounds. While, on the
other hand, we have demonstrated it to be an absolute impossibility to
apply with any propriety or any sense to a divine infinite omnipotent
Being those finite human qualities which are so frequently used with
reference to Jesus throughout the New Testament. And hence, even if we
should suppose or concede that the writers of the New Testament did
really believe him to be the great Infinite Spirit, or the almighty,
omnipotent God,'we must conclude they were mistaken, from their own
language, from their own description of him, as well as his own virtual
denial and rejection of such a claim, when he applied to himself, as he
did in nine cases out of ten, strictly finite human qualities and human
titles (as we have shown), wholly incompatible with the character of an
infinite divine Being. We say, from the foregoing considerations, if the
primitive disciples of Jesus did really believe him to be the great
Infinite, both their descriptions of him and his description or
representation of himself, would amply and most conclusively prove that
they were mistaken. At least we are compelled to admit that there is
either an error in applying divine titles to Jesus, or often an error in
describing his qualities and powers, by himself and his original
followers, as there is no compatibility or agreement between the two.
Divine titles to such a being as they represent him to be, would be an
egregious misnomer. We say, then, that it must be clearly and
conclusively evident to every unbiased mind, from evidence furnished by
the bible itself, that if the divine titles applied to Jesus were
intended to have a divine significance, then they are misapplied. Yet we
would not here conclude an intentional misrepresentation in the case,
but simply a mistake growing out of a misconception, and the very
limited childish conception, of the nature, character, and attributes
of the "great positive Mind," so universally prevalent in that
semi-barbarous age, and the apparently total ignorance of the
distinguishing characteristics which separate the divine and the human.
We will illustrate: some children, on passing through a wild portion of
the State of Maine recently, reported they encountered a bear; and to
prove they could not be mistaken in the animal, they described it as
being a tall, slight-built animal, with long slender legs, of yellowish
auburn hue, a short, white, bushy tail, cloven feet, large branchy
horns, &c. Now, it will be seen at once that, while their description of
the animal is evidently in the main correct, they had simply mistaken a
deer for a bear, and hence misnamed the animal.

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




CHAPTER XL. A METONYMIC VIEW OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST

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

"My Son is greater than I." (John vii. 28.)

"God can do nothing of himself." (John v. 19.)

"I must be about my Son's business." (Luke ii. 49.)

"The kingdom of heaven is not mine to give, but the Son's." (Matt. xx.
23.)

"I am come in my Son's name, and ye receive me not" (John v. 43.)

"God cried, Jesus, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. xiii. 28.)

"No man hath seen Jesus at any time." (1 John i. 5-)

"Jesus created all things by his Son." (Eph. iii. 9.)

"God sat down (in heaven) at the right hand of Jesus." (Luke xxii. 69.)

"There is one Jesus, one mediator between Jesus and men." (Gal. iii.
20.)

"Jesus gave his only begotten Father." (1 John iv. 9)

"God knows not the hour, but Jesus does." (Mark viii. 32.)

"God is the servant of Jesus." (Mark xii. 18.)

"God is ordained by Jesus." (Acts xvii. 31.)

"The head of God is Christ." (Eph. i. 3.)

"We have an advocate with Jesus, God the righteous." (1 John ii. 1.)

"Jesus gave all power to God." (Matt, xxviii. 18.)

"God abode all night in prayer to Jesus." (Luke vi. 12.)

"God came down from heaven to do the will of Jesus." (John vi. 38.)

"Jesus has made the Father his high priest." (Heb. x. 24.)

"Last of all, the Son sent the Father." (Matt. xxi. 39.)

"Jesus will save the world by that God whom he hath ordained."

"Jesus is God of the Father." (John xx. 17.)

"Jesus hath exalted God, and given him a more excellent name." (Phil.
ii. 9.)

"Jesus hath made God a little lower than the angels." (Heb. ii. 9.)

"God can do nothing except what he seeth Jesus do." (John v. 19.)

Now, the question arises, Is the above representation a true one? Most
certainly it must be, if Jesus and the Father are but one almighty
Being. A change of names and titles cannot alter the truth nor the
sense.

To say that Chief Justice Chase has gone south; Secretary Chase has gone
south; Governor Chase has gone south; Ex-Senator Chase has gone south,
or Salmon P. Chase has gone south, are affirmations equally true and
equally sensible, because they all have reference to the same being; the
case is to plain to need argument.

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




CHAPTER XLI. THE PRECEPTS AND PRACTICAL LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST; HIS TWO
HUNDRED ERRORS

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


MORAL AND RELIGIOUS ERRORS.

1. The first moral precept in the teachings of Christ, which we will
bring to notice, is one of a numerous class, which may very properly
be arranged under the head of Moral Extremism. We find many of his
admonitions of this character. Nearly everything that is said is
oversaid, carried to extremes--thus constituting an overwrought,
extravagant system of morality, impracticable in its requisitions; as,
for example, "Take no thought for the morrow." (Matt, v.) If the spirit
of this injunction were carried out in practical life, there would be
no grain sown and no seed planted in spring, no reaping done in harvest,
and no crop garnered in autumn; and the result would be universal
starvation in less than twelve months. But, fortunately for society, the
Christian world have laid this positive injunction upon the table under
the rule of "indefinite postponement."

2. Christ's assumed-to-be most important requisition is found in the
injunction, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness,
and all else shall be added unto you." (Matt. vi. 33.) His early
followers understood by this injunction, and doubtless understood it
correctly, that they were to spend their lives in religious devotion,
and neglect the practical duties of life, leaving "Providence" to take
care of their families--a course of life which reduced many of them to
the point of starvation.

3. The disciple of Christ is required, "when smitten on one cheek," to
turn the other also that is, when one cheek is pommeled into a jelly by
some vile miscreant or drunken wretch, turn the other, to be smashed up
in like manner. This is an extravagant requisition, which none of his
modern disciples even attempt to observe.

4. "Resist not evil" (Matt. v. 34) breathes forth a kindred spirit. This
injunction requires you to stand with your hands in your pocket while
being maltreated so cruelly and unmercifully that the forfeiture of
your life may be the consequence--at least Christ's early followers so
understood it.

5. The disciple of Christ is required, when his cloak is formally
wrested from him, to give up his coat also. (See Matt, v.) And to carry
out the principle, if the marauder demands it, he must next give up his
boots, then his shirt, and thus strip himself of all his garments, and
go naked. This looks like an invitation and bribe to robbery.

6. "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth." (Matt. vi. 19.) This
is another positive command of Christ, which the modern Christian world,
by common consent, have laid on the table under the rule of "indefinite
postponement," under the conviction that the wants of their families and
the exigencies of sickness and old age cannot be served if they should
live up to such an injunction.

7. "Sell all that thou hast,... and come and follow me," is another
command which bespeaks more piety than wisdom, as all who have attempted
to comply with it have reduced their families to beggary and want.

8. "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
Then he must hate it, as there are but the two principles, and "from
hate proceed envy, strife, evil surmisings, and persecution." Evidently
the remedy in this case for "worldly-mindedness" is worse than the
disease.

9. "He that cometh to me, and hateth not father, mother, brother, and
sister, &c., cannot be my disciple." (Luke xiv. 26). This breathes forth
the same spirit as the last text quoted above. Many learned expositions
have been penned by Christian writers to make it appear, that hate in
this case does not mean hate. But certainly it would be a slander upon
infinite wisdom to leave it to be inferred that he could not say or
"inspire" his disciples to say exactly what he meant, and to say it so
plainly as to leave no possibility of being misunderstood, or leave any
ground for dispute about the meaning.

10. "Rejoice and be exceeding glad" when persecuted. (Matt. v. 4.) Now,
as a state of rejoicing is the highest condition of happiness that can
be realized, such advice must naturally prompt the religious zealot
to court persecution, in order to obtain complete happiness, and
consequently to pursue a dare-devil life to provoke persecution.

11. "Whosoever shall seek to save his life, shall lose it," &c. (Luke
xvii. 33.) Here is displayed the spirit of martyrdom which has made
millions reckless of life, and goaded on the frenzied bigot to seek the
fiery fagot and the halter. We regard it as another display of religious
fanaticism.

12. "Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake." (Matt. x. 12.)
How repulsive must have been their doctrines or their conduct! No
sensible religion could excite the universal hatred of mankind. For it
would contain something adapted to the moral, religious, or spiritual
taste of some class or portion of society, and hence make it and its
disciples loved instead of hated. And then how could they be "hated of
all men," when not one man in a thousand ever heard of them? Here is
more of the extravagance of religious enthusiasm.

13. "Shake off the dust of your feet" against those who cannot see
the truth or utility of your doctrines. (Matt. x. 14.) Here Christ
encourages in his disciples a spirit of contempt for the opinions of
others calculated to make them "hated." A proper regard for the rules of
good-breeding would have forbidden such rudeness toward strangers for a
mere honest difference of opinion.

14. "Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor scrip, nor purse"
(Mark vi. 8); that is "sponge on your friends, and force yourselves on
your enemies," the latter class of which seem to have been much the most
numerous. A preacher who should attempt to carry out this advice at the
present day would be stopped at the first toll-gate, and compelled to
return. Here is more violation of the rules of good-breeding, and the
common courtesies of civilized life.

15. "Go and teach all nations," &c. Why issue an injunction that could
not possibly be carried out? It never has been, and never will be,
executed, for three-fourths of the human race have never yet heard of
Christianity. It was not, therefore, a mark of wisdom, or a superior
mind, to issue such an injunction.

16. "And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned." What intolerance, bigotry, relentless
cruelty, and ignorance of the science of mind are here displayed! No
philosopher would give utterance to, or indorse such a sentiment.
It assumes that belief is a creature of the will, and that a man
can believe anything he chooses, which is wide of the truth. And the
assumption has been followed by persecution, misery, and bloodshed.

17. "All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall
receive." (Matt. xxi. 22.) Here is an entire negation of natural law in
the necessity of physical labor as a means to procure the comforts of
life. When anything is wanted in the shape of food or raiment, it is
to be obtained, according to this text, by going down on your knees
and asking God to bestow it. But no Christian ever realized "all things
whatsoever asked for in prayer," thought "believing with all his heart"
he should obtain it. The author knows, by his own practical experience,
that this declaration is not true. This promise has been falsified
thousands of times by thousands of praying Christians.

18. "Be not called rabbi." "Call no man your father." (Matt, xxiii.)
The Christian world assume that much of what Christ taught is mere idle
nonsense, or the incoherent utterings of a religious fanatic; for
they pay no more practical attention to it than the barking of a dog.
And here is one command treated in this manner: "Call no man father."
Where is the Christian who refuses to call his earthly sire a father?

19. "Call no man master." (Matt, xxiii.) And yet mister, which is the
same thing, is the most common title in Christendom.

20. He who enunciates the two words, "'Thou fool.' shall be in danger of
hell fire." (Matt, xxii.) Mercy! Who, then, can be saved? For there is
probably not a live Christian in the world who has not called somebody a
"fool," when he knew him to be such, and could not with truthfulness be
called anything else. Here, then, is another command universally ignored
and "indefinitely postponed."

21. "Swear not at all, neither by heaven nor earth." (Matt, v.) And yet
no Christian refuses to indulge in legal, if not profane, swearing which
the text evidently forbids.

22. "Men ought always to pray." (Luke xviii.) No time to be allowed for
eating or sleeping. More religious fanaticism.

23. "Whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant" (Matt.
xx. 27); that is, no Christian professor shall be a president, governor,
major-general, deacon, or priest. Another command laid on the table.

24. "Love your enemies." (Matt. v. 44.) Then what kind of feeling should
we cultivate toward friends? And how much did he love his enemies when
he called them "fools," "liars," "hypocrites," "generation of vipers,"
&c.? And yet he is held up as "our" example in love, meekness,
and forbearance. But no man ever did love an enemy. It is a moral
impossibility, as much so as to love bitter or nauseating food.
The advice of the Roman slave Syrus is indicative of more sense and
wisdom--"Treat your enemy kindly, and thus make him a friend."

25. We are required to forgive an enemy four hundred and ninety times;
that is, "seventy times seven." (Matt, vii.) Another outburst of
religious enthusiasm; another proof of an overheated imagination.

26. "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matt. v.
48.) Here is more of the religious extravagance of a mind uncultured
by science. For it is self-evident that human beings can make no
approximation to divine perfection. The distance between human
imperfection and a perfect God is, and ever must be, infinite.

27. Christ commended those who "became eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven's sake" (Matt. xix. 12)--a custom requiring a murderous,
self-butchering process; destructive of the energies of life and the
vigor of manhood, and rendering the subject weak, effeminate, and
mopish, and unfit for the business of life. It is a low species of
piety, and discloses a lamentable lack of a scientific knowledge of the
true functions of the sexual organs on the part of Jesus.

28. Christ also encouraged his disciples to "pluck out the eye," and
"cut off the hand," as a means of rendering it impossible to perpetrate
evil with those members. And we would suggest, if such advice is
consistent with sound reasoning, the head also should be cut off, as a
means of more effectually carrying out the same principle. Such advice
never came from the mouth of a philosopher. It is a part of Christ's
system of extravagant piety.

29. He also taught the senseless, oriental tradition of "the
unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost"--a fabulous being who figured
more anciently in the history of various countries. (See Chapter
XXII.) No philosopher or man of science could harbor such childish
misconceptions as are embodied in this tradition, which neither
describes the being nor explains the nature of the sin.

30. We find many proofs, in Christ's Gospel history, that he believed
in the ancient heathen tradition which taught that disease is caused by
demons and evil spirits. (See Luke vii. 21, and viii. 2.)

31. Many cases are reported of his relieving the obsessed by casting out
the diabolical intruders, in imitation of the oriental custom long in
vogue in various countries, by which he evinced a profound ignorance of
the natural causes of disease.

32. Christ also taught the old pagan superstition that "God is a God of
anger," while modern science teaches that it would be as impossible for
a God of perfect and infinite attributes to experience the feeling of
anger as to commit suicide; and recent discoveries in physiology prove
that anger is a species of suicide, and that it is also a species of
insanity. Hence an angry God would be an insane God--an omnipotent
lunatic, "ruling the kingdom of heaven," which would make heaven a
lunatic asylum, and rather a dangerous place to live.

33. And Christ's injunction to "fear God" also implies that he is an
angry being. (See Luke xxiii. 40.) But y past history proves that "the
fear of God" has always been the great lever of priestcraft, and the
most paltry and pitiful motive that ever moved the human mind. It has
paralyzed the noblest intellects, crushed the elasticity of youth, and
augmented the hesitating indecision of old age, and finally filled the
world with cowardly, trembling slaves. No philosopher will either love
or worship a God he fears. "The fear of the Lord" is a very ancient
heathen superstition.

34. The inducement Christ holds out for leading a virtuous life by
the promise of "Well done, thou good and faithful servant," bespeaks a
childish ignorance of the nature of the human mind and the true science
of life. It ranks with the promise of the nurse of sugar-plums to the
boy if he would keep his garments unsoiled. (For the remainder of the
two hundred errors of Christ, see Vol. II.)

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


THE SCIENTIFIC ERRORS OF CHRIST.

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

1. He never made any use of the word "philosophy."

2. Never gave utterance to the word "science."

3. Never spoke of a natural law, or assigned a natural cause for
anything. The fact that he never made use of these words now so current
in all civilized countries, is evidence that he was totally ignorant of
these important branches of knowledge, the cultivation of which is now
known to be essential to the progress of civilization. And yet it
is claimed his religion has been a great lever in the advancement of
civilization. But this is a mistake--a solemn mistake, as elsewhere
shown. (See Chap. XLV.)

4. Everything to Christ was miracle; everything was produced and
controlled by the arbitrary power of an angry or irascible God.
He evidently had no idea of a ruling principle in nature or of the
existence of natural law, as controlling any event he witnessed. Hence
he set no bounds to anything, and recognized no limits to the possible.
He believed God to be a supernatural personal being, who possessed
unlimited power, and who ruled and controlled everything by his
arbitrary will, without any law or any limitation to its exercises.
Hence he told his disciples they would have anything they prayed for in
faith; that by faith they could roll mountains into the sea, or bring
to a halt the rolling billows of the mighty deep. He evidently believed
that the forked lightning, the out-bursting earth-shaking thunder,
and the roaring, heaving volcano were but pliant tools or obsequious
servants to the man of faith. And he displays no less ignorance of the
laws of mind than the laws of nature; thus proving him to have been
neither a natural, moral, nor mental philosopher. He omitted to teach
the great moral lessons learned by human experience, of which he was
evidently totally ignorant.

5. He never taught that the practice of virtue contains its own reward.

6. That the question of right and wrong of any action is to be decided
by its effect upon the individual, or upon society.

7. That no life can be displeasing to God which is useful to man.

8. And he omitted to teach the most important lesson that can engage
the attention of man, viz.: that the great purpose of life is
self-development.

9. That no person can attain or approximate to real happiness without
bestowing a special attention to the cultivation and exercise of all
the mental and physical faculties, so far as to keep them in a healthy
condition. None of the important lessons above named are hinted at in
his teachings, which, if punctually observed, would do more to advance
the happiness of the human race than all the sermons Christ or Chrishna
ever preached, or ever taught.

10. And then he taught many doctrines which are plainly contradicted by
the established principle of modern science, such as,--

11. Diseases being produced by demons, devils, or wicked spirits. (See
Mark ix. 20.)

Christ nowhere assigns a natural cause for disease, or a scientific
explanation for its cure.

12. His rebuking a fever discloses a similar lack of scientific
knowledge. ( See Luke iv. 39.)

13. His belief in a literal hell and a lake of fire and brimstone (see
Matt, xviii. 8) is an ancient heathen superstition science knows nothing
about, and has no use for.

14. His belief in a personal devil also (see Matt. xvii. 88), which is
another oriental tradition, furnishes more sad proof of an utter want of
scientific knowledge, as science has no place for and no use for such a
being.

15. Christ taught the unphilosophical doctrine of repentance, as he
declared he "came to call sinners to repentance" (Matt. ix. 13)--a
mental process, which consists merely in a revival of early impressions,
and often leads a person to condemn that which is right, as well as that
which is wrong. (For proof, see Chapter XLIII.)

16. The doctrine of "forgiveness," which Christ so often inculcated,
is also at variance with the teachings of science, as it can do nothing
toward changing the nature of the act forgiven, or toward cancelling its
previous effects upon society. Science teaches that every crime has its
penalty attached to it, which no act of forgiveness, by God or man, can
arrest or set aside.

17. But nothing evinces, perhaps, more clearly Christ's total lack of
scientific knowledge than his holding a man responsible for his belief,
and condemning for disbelief, as he does in numerous instances (see Mark
xvi. 16), for a man could as easily control the circulation of the blood
in his veins as control his belief. Science teaches that belief depends
upon evidence, and without it, it is impossible to believe, and with
it, it is impossible to disbelieve. How foolish and unphilosophical,
therefore, to condemn for either belief or disbelief!

18. The numerous cases in which Christ speaks of the heart as being
the seat of consciousness, instead of the brain, evinces a remarkable
ignorance of the science of mental philosophy. He speaks of an "upright
heart," "a pure heart," &'c., when "an upright liver," "a pure liver,"
would be as sensible, as the latter has as much to do with the character
as the former.

19. And the many cases in which he makes it meritorious to have a right
"faith," and places it above reason, and assumes it to be a voluntary
act, shows his utter ignorance of the nature of the human mind.

20. And Christ evinced a remarkable ignorance of the cause of physical
defects, when he told his hearers a certain man was born blind, in order
that he might cure him. (Matt. vii. 22.)

21. And Christ's declaration, that those who marry are not worthy of
being saved (see Luke xx. 34), shows that he was very ignorant of the
nature of the sexual functions of the human system.

22. Nothing could more completely demonstrate a total ignorance of the
grand science of astronomy than Christ's prediction of the stars falling
to the earth. (See Luke xxi. 25.)

23. And the conflagration of the world, "the gathering of the elect,"
and the realization of a fancied millennium, which he several times
predicted would take place in his time, "before this generation pass
away" (Matt, xxiv. 34), proves a like ignorance, both of astronomy and
philosophy.

24. And his cursing of the fig tree for not bearing fruit in the winter
season (see Matt. xxi. 20), not only proves his ignorance of the laws of
nature, but evinces a bad temper.

25. Christ indorses the truth of Noah's flood story (see Luke xvii. 27),
which every person at the present day, versed in science and natural
law, knows is mere fiction, and never took place.

And numerous other errors, evincing the most profound ignorance of
science and natural law, might be pointed out in Christ's teachings,
if we had space for them. It has always been alleged by orthodox
Christendom, that Christ's teaching and moral system are so faultless as
to challenge criticism, and so perfect as to defy improvement. But this
is a serious mistake. For most of his precepts and moral inculcations
which are not directly at war with the principles of science, or do not
involve a flagrant violation of the laws of nature, are, nevertheless,
characterized by a lawless and extravagant mode of expression peculiar
to semi-savage life, and which, as it renders it impossible to reduce
them to practice, shows they could not have emanated from a philosopher,
or man of science, or a man of evenly-balanced mind. They impose upon
the world a system of morality, pushed to such extremes that its own
professed admirers do not live it out, or even attempt to do so. They
long ago abandoned it as an impracticable duty. We will prove this by
enumerating most of its requisitions, and showing that they are daily
violated and trampled under foot by all Christendom. Where can the
Christian professor be found who, 1. "takes no thought for the morrow"
or, 2. who "lays not up treasure on earth," or, at least, tries to do
it; or, 3. who "gives up all his property to the poor;" or who, "when
his cloak is wrested from him by a robber," gives up his coat also;
or who calls no man master or mister (the most common title in
Christendom); or who calls no man father (if he has a father); or who
calls no man a fool (when he knows he is a fool); or who, when one cheek
is pommeled into a jelly by some vile miscreant or drunken wretch,
turns the other to be battered up in the same way; or who prays without
ceasing; or who rejoices when persecuted; or who forgives an enemy four
hundred and ninety times (70 times 7); or who manifests by his practical
life that he loves his enemies (the way he loves him is to report him to
the grand jury, or hand him over to the sheriff); or who forsakes
houses and land, and everything, "for the kingdom of heaven's sake." No
Christian professor lives up to these precepts, or any of them, or even
tries to do so. To talk, therefore, of finding a practical Christian,
while nearly the whole moral code of Christ is thus daily and habitually
outraged and trampled under foot by all the churches and every one of
the two hundred millions of Christian professors, is bitter irony and
supreme solecism. We would go five hundred miles, or pay five hundred
dollars, to see a Christian. If a man can be a Christian while openly
and habitually violating every precept of Christ, then the word has no
meaning. These precepts, the Christian world finding to be impossible
to practice, have unanimously laid upon the table under the rule of
"indefinite postponement." They are the product of a mind with an
ardent temperament, and the religious faculties developed to excess, and
unrestrained by scientific or intellectual culture. A similar vein
of extravagant religious duty is found in the Essenian, Budhist, and
Pythagorean systems. As Zera Colburn possessed the mathematical faculty
to excess, and Jenny Lind the musical talent, Christ in like manner was
all religion. And from the extreme ardor of his religious feeling, thus
derived, sprang his extravagant notions of the duties of life. This
peculiarity of his organization explains the whole mystery.


CHRIST AS A MAN, AND CHRIST AS A SECTARIAN.

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

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




CHAPTER XLII. CHRIST AS A SPIRITUAL MEDIUM

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

1. The many instantaneous cures which he wrought, as reported in his
Gospel narrative, performed in the same manner that "spirit doctors" now
heal the sick, prove that he was an excellent "healing medium."

2. His declaration to Nathanael, "When thou wast under the fig tree, I
saw thee," and his recounting to the woman of Samaria the deeds of
her past life (acts similar to which are now performed every day by
spiritualists), are evidence that he was also a "clairvoyant medium."

3. His walking on the water (if the story is true), as D. D. Home has
frequently, within the past few years, walked or floated on the air
in the presence of many witnesses (including men of science, royal
personages, and members of parliament), entitles him to the appellation
of a "physical medium."

4. And the circumstance of his pointing his disciples to the mark of
the spear in his side, and the print of the nails in his hands, while
amongst them as a spirit, has led many spiritualists to conclude he was
also a "medium for materialization." His spirit was made to present the
peculiar marks which had been inflicted upon his physical body, cases
parallel to which are now witnessed every day by modern spiritualists.
Hundreds of cases have occurred of departed spirits presenting
themselves to their friends with all the peculiar marks which their
physical bodies had long worn while in the earth life. And the former
physical wounds have often been exhibited by the spirit in the same
manner Christ exhibited his. And thus spiritualism explains the
phenomenon which otherwise would be entirely incredible.

5. And there is yet another phase of mediumship which Christ often
exhibited in his practical life. He claimed to have frequent intercourse
with some invisible being, whom he called "the Father." But as modern
science has settled the question of the personality of God in the
negative, we are led to conclude that Christ, like many eminent persons
since his time, mistook some finite spirit for the great infinite but
impersonal Father spirit--though his attendant invisible companion
was probably a spirit of a very high order. And the great beauty and
grandeur of his life are exhibited by his frequent intercourse with and
dependence upon this his "guardian spirit." He declared he did nothing
of himself, so dependent was he upon his invisible guide. And the
strongest proof that he had a spirit companion, which he often looked to
for counsel and aid, and that this was the being he called the Father,
is furnished by the fact, that when he prayed to the Father, his
petition was answered by an angel spirit. (See Luke xxii. 44.) And there
is no account and no evidence of any invisible or spiritual being ever
presenting itself to him but an angel or spirit. That he should have
supposed this spirit to be the great infinite Father God was very
natural. Thousands since, and some before his time, committed a
similar mistake. The author has known several persons who had long had
intercourse with some invisible being they supposed to be God, who have
recently, by the light afforded by modern spiritualism, become entirely
convinced that they had simply mistaken a finite spirit for the great
Infinite Spirit. And did Christ live in our day, he would probably be
rescued from a similar error in the same way. In conclusion, we will
remark that it was doubtless his frequent displays of several very
remarkable phases of spiritual mediumship that contributed much to lead
the people into the error of supposing him to be God. And this fact will
yet be known.




CHAPTER XLIII. CONVERSION, REPENTANCE, AND "GETTING RELIGION" OF HEATHEN
ORIGIN


THEIR NUMEROUS EVILS AND ABSURDITIES.

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

1. Its historical errors.

2. Its logical errors.

3. Its philosophical or scientific errors.

4. Its moral evils.

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

2d. _The Logical Absurdities of the Doctrine of Conversion_.--There
are several circumstances which point, unmistakably as the needle to the
pole, to the mundane origin of the phenomenon of conversion.

The character of many of the priestly conductors who "run the battery,"
is sufficient of itself to preclude the hypothesis of any divine agency
in the matter. The most powerful revivalist we ever knew, the priest who
could convert an audience the quickest, and bring down sinners to the
mourners' bench faster than any other clergyman we ever heard "dealing
out damnation" to the people, was a broad-shouldered, muscular,
stentorian-voiced circuit rider of the "Buckeye State," who, as was
afterward learned, was guilty of perpetrating some of the blackest
crimes that ever blotted the page of human history, at the very time of
his most successful career in the way of "convicting souls of sin, and
converting them to God." He was apprehended by the officers of the law
in the midst of one of his most flourishing revivals, under the twofold
charge, i. Of being the father of an illegitimate child, the young
mother of which was a member of his church; 2. Of defrauding one of his
neighbors in a trade, to the amount of nearly a thousand dollars--both
of which charges he was convicted of. A similar case, but possessing
some worse features, occurred a few years since in the county in which
the author now resides. A preacher, who had had criminal connection with
a young woman of his church, in order to conceal his guilt resorted to
the damnable expedient of administering poison to his victim shortly
before his illicit intercourse with her would have been made manifest
by the birth of a child, thus committing a double murder. He was
apprehended for the crime while carrying on "a most glorious revival,"
as it was styled by some of the deluded congregation. Now to ascribe the
irresistible power which these two preachers exerted over their audience
(in the way of "converting them to God") to a divine source, as they
claimed for it, would be to trifle with common sense, common decency,
and all honorable conceptions of a God. These reverend scamps often
instituted the high claim of being "called of God" to their ministerial
labors. But if we concede the claim, we should have to conclude that God
knew but little about them, for he certainly would not knowingly employ
such moral outlaws upon such an important mission.

Having thus briefly spoken of the character of some of the actors and
agents in the work of conversion, we will now glance at the character of
some of the religions and religious ideas, and moral course of conduct,
to which the sinner is converted. It is evident that if an All-wise God
had anything to do in the process of converting people to any system
of religion, he would also convert them to correct moral habits. But in
many cases, after conversion they are no nearer right in this respect,
and in some cases further from it than before being thus sanctified.
In some cases their religion becomes worse, their religious ideas less
sensible, and their moral conduct more objectionable, by "the change of
heart" in "getting religion." Mr. Spencer informs us that the Vewas, a
sect or tribe of the Feegees, often cry for hours under conviction for
sin. And what is that sin? Why, the neglect to offer sacrifices to their
God. And those sacrifices consist in human beings, sometimes their own
children. And their conviction, conversion, and repentance only make
them more diligent in practicing this crime. It is evident, then, that
their religion is at war with their humanity, and the former always
triumphs in the contest. They are addicted to cannibalism, infanticide,
and polygamy. But as the process of "getting religion" never makes
anybody more intelligent, the "change of heart," with the Vewas, never
changes their views, or opens their eyes to see the enormity of their
crimes. In "getting religion" people get neither sense, knowledge, nor
morality. They get neither a larger stock, nor an improved quality, of
either. Their moral conduct is not often sensibly improved, materially
or permanently.

3d. _Scientific Errors, and Scientific Explanations of Conversion_.--The
phenomena of conversion and "getting religion" are so easily explained
in the light of science and philosophy, and that explanation is
susceptible of so many proofs and demonstrations, that it seems
remarkably strange that any persons claiming to be intelligent, and
situated in the focal, scientific light of the nineteenth century,
should still be hampered with the delusion that such phenomena are the
direct display of the power of God. It requires but little investigation
and reflection to convince any person that what is called conversion,
and "repentance for sin," is nothing but the revival of early
educational impressions resuscitated by the influence of mind on mind.
No person has ever been known to get or embrace a religion he was not
biased in favor of prior to the time of his conversion, unless we except
a few weak-minded persons negative to any influence, and convertible
to any religion the priest may urge upon their attention. A very strong
proof of this statement is furnished by the history of the Christian
missionary enterprise. The reports of travelers and sojourners in India
show, that with two hundred years' labor, and two hundred missionaries
in the field during a part of that period, the churches have not
succeeded in converting one in ten thousand of the Hindoos to the
Christian religion--unless we except those who, while children, were
sent to Christian schools instituted by the missionaries for the special
purpose of converting and warping the young mind, and welding it to the
Christian faith before It should receive an unchangeable and unyielding
bias in favor of another religion. So fruitless has been the effort
to convert to Christianity those who were already established in the
religion of the country, that, according to the estimate of Colonel Dow,
each convert, on an average, has cost the missionary enterprise not
less than ten thousand dollars. An intelligent Hindoo, while lecturing
recently in London, made the remarkable statement, that conversions
which are made to the Christian religion are not amongst the intelligent
or learned classes, but are confined to the low, ignorant, and
superstitious classes, "who have not sense or intelligence enough to
perceive the difference between the _religion they are converted to,
and that which they are converted from._" And the effort to convert the
Mahomedans, Chinese, Persians, and the disciples of other religions has
been attended with the same fruitless results--all seeming to warrant
the conclusion that God can do but little toward converting any nation
to Christianity which has always been biased in favor of another
religion. The reason why people are so easily converted from one sect to
another in Christian countries is owing to the fact that their religious
convictions are unsettled. The members of the different Christian sects
are all mixed up together in the various settlements throughout the
country, and are brought in daily contact with each other in the busy
scenes of life.

Hence the children have the seeds of Methodism, Presbyterianism,
Baptistism, Quakerism, and various other isms implanted in their minds
in very early life. And which one of these will ultimately predominate
depends upon what priest they fall victims to first. Having thus the
germs of so many religious isms implanted in their minds, they are
easily shifted about, and converted from one sect to another. And this
shuttlecock process is called "getting religion," while, if they had
lived in a country where only one form of religion exists, they would be
as hard to convert as Mahomedans and Hindoos.

_Repentance_.--Much importance is attached by the orthodox churches
to the act of getting religion in the dying hour,--called "death-bed
repentance,"--as if the person were better capable of discriminating
between right and wrong when his brain is deranged with fever, and his
whole system racked with disease and pain, than when in health. Such
repentance can do nothing more than prove the honesty of the dying man
or woman. For very often their doctrines, or religious belief, will be
found no nearer right, and sometimes more erroneous after repentance
than before, as repentance merely consists in the return to early
impressions--the revival of former convictions, which may be either
right or wrong, and are about as likely to be the latter as the former.
No instance can be found of a person condemning a wrong act, or a wrong
course of life, in his dying moments, unless he had previously believed
it to be wrong, or if he had always believed it to be right. How much,
then, does repentance do toward deciding what is right and what is
wrong? Mahomedanism we know to be deeply fraught with error, but we
never read nor heard of an instance of the many millions who had been
educated to believe it is right, condemning it on their death-beds, or
repenting for not having embraced Christianity, and led the life of
a Christian, or for adoring Mahomet instead of Jesus Christ. On the
contrary we have a well-authenticated instance of a Mahomedan (a Mr.
Merton) who had embraced Christianity, and lived the life of a Christian
for many years, renouncing it all, and returning to his primitive faith,
when he was taken sick and became apprehensive he was going to die:
his early religious impressions, returning involuntarily, wiped out
his Christianity, and he died glorying in Mahomedanism. And we have an
equally well authenticated case of an Indian of the Choctaw tribe, who
had been taught to believe from early life that the white man was his
natural enemy, and that it was his right and duty to kill him, repenting
on his death-bed for having a short time previously neglected, when the
opportunity presented, to despatch a "pale face" he met in his travels.
Instead of killing him, he yielded for the moment to the impulse of his
better feelings, and passed him by. But on reviewing his past life
at the approach of death, he came to the conclusion he had sinned in
omitting to kill this man, and he grieved and lamented sorely over
this dereliction of apprehended duty. Here we have a case of repentance
sanctioning murder. Must we, therefore, conclude that murder is morally
right, or a righteous act? Certainly, according to orthodox logic.

Their religious tracts assume that repentance is always for the right,
and is _prima facie_ evidence of being right. If not, what does it
prove, or what moral value is it? According to orthodox teaching, being
"a murderer at heart," he was as consignable to perdition as if he had
committed the act. There is no escaping the conclusion, therefore, that
his repentance landed him in hell, or else proves murder to be right
according to orthodox logic.

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

1st. That repentance grows out of education.

2d. That it depends entirely upon previous convictions as to what it may
sanction, and what it may condemn.

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

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

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




CHAPTER XLIV. THE MORAL LESSONS OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY.

1. The most important lesson deducible from all the religious systems,
commemorated in history, and noticed in this work, is, that all
religious conceptions, whether in the shape of doctrine, precept,
prophecy, prayer, religious devotion, or a belief in miracles, are a
spontaneous outgrowth of the moral and religious elements of the human
mind. And to assign them a higher origin is to ignore the developments
of modern science, and insult the highest intelligence of the age.

2. From the elevated scientific plane occupied by the most enlightened
portion of the present age, there is no difficulty in finding a
satisfactory solution for every event, every occurrence, and every
performance recorded in any of the numerous bibles which have long been
afloat in the world, and which have always constituted the sole basis
for the claim to a divine origin of all the religious systems of the
past; so that such a claim can be no longer vindicated by historically
intelligent people.

3. We have shown in this work that all the miraculous incidents related
in the history of Jesus Christ as a proof of his divinity can find a
more rational explanation than that which assigns them to divine agency.
Some of them are now known to lie within the natural capacity of the
human mind to achieve, others are explained by recently discovered
natural laws. Another class are now well understood mental or nervous
phenomena. Other stories, now regarded by the Christian world as
referring to miraculous achievements, were probably designed by the
writer as mere fable or metaphor. All the events in Christ's history, we
have shown, are susceptible of a hundred fold more rational explanation
than that which regards them as the feats of a God in violation of his
own laws.

4. We have also shown that the same marvelous incidents now found
incorporated in the Gospel history of Jesus Christ were related long
previously as a part of the sacred history of other Gods; such as
being miraculously conceived and born of a virgin; born on the 25th of
December; visited in infancy by angels and shepherds;' threatened by the
ruler of the country; being of royal lineage; receiving the same divine
titles; performing the same miracles, &c.

In a word, we have shown that various heathen Gods and Demigods had,
long before Christ's advent, filled the same chapter in history now
reported of him in the Christian New Testament. All these stories of
the heathen Gods prove as conclusively as any scientific problem can be
demonstrated by figures, that the same stories related of Jesus Christ
have no other foundation than that of heathen tradition. And will the
Christian world, then, hereafter stultify their common sense by ignoring
these facts of history so fatal to their claims? Past history points to
an affirmative answer to this question, as we will illustrate.

In the early history of this country, several reports were published
of showers of blood being seen to fall in some of the sea-coast states,
which were regarded as a divine judgment. But the use of the telescope
revealed the fact that it was the ordure of butterflies, as those
insects were seen at the time in vast swarms. But the devout Christian,
whose faith in his religion has always been proof against the
demonstrations of science, would give it up. He would not accept the
butterfly explanation, but continued to teach his children that it came
from God out of heaven as a manifestation of displeasure toward the
sins of the people. And it now remains to be seen whether Christian
professors at the present day will manifest a similar folly by standing
out against the demonstrated truths and facts of this work.

5. We here cite it as the last and most sorrowful lesson of history,
that no facts, no proofs, no demonstrations of science can eradicate
religious errors from the human mind, if instilled in early life, and
never disturbed till the possessor arrives at mature age or middle life.




CHAPTER XLV. CONCLUSION AND REVIEW.

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

1. Several persons, who examined this work before it went to press, have
expressed the opinion that it must exert a powerful influence in the
way of producing an entire revolution in the religion of orthodox
Christendom sooner or later. But this must of course be the work of
time, as moral revolutions are not the work of a day. When the human
system has been long prostrated with chronic disease, no system
of medication can restore it at once to health. The same principle
governing the mind makes it morally impossible to eradicate its
deeply-seated moral and religious errors in a day by even the
presentation of the most powerful and convincing truths and
demonstrations that can be brought to bear or operate upon the human
judgment. The mind instinctively repels everything (no difference how
true or how beautiful) that conflicts with its long-established opinions
and convictions. The fires of truth usually require much time to burn
their way through those incrustations of moral and religious error which
often environ the human mind as the products of a false education. But
when they once enter, the work of convincement is complete.

2. It has been stated that the resemblance between Christianity and the
more ancient heathen systems is complete and absolute throughout in all
their essential doctrines, and principles, and precepts. And if it shall
be found, on a critical reading of this work after it comes from the
press, that there is one feature of Christianity which has not been
traced to pagan origin, or that any points of resemblance have been
omitted, they will be supplied in an appendix.

3. It has been stated that a transfiguration is related of Chrishna of
India (1200 B. C.) in the Hindoo bible (the Baghavat Gita), which is
strikingly similar to that of Christ. We will here present the proof.
"Abandoning the mortal form, he (Chrishna) appeared to his disciples in
all the divine eclat of his Divine Majesty, his brow encircled with such
a brilliant light that Adjouma and the other disciples, unable to bear
it, fell with their faces in the dust, and prayed the Lord (Chrishna) to
pardon their unworthiness. He replied, 'Have you not faith in me? Know
ye not, that whether present or absent in body, I will be ever present
with you to guard and protect you?'" (Gaghavat Gita.) How remarkable
this to the story of Christ's transfiguration!

4. Some readers, perhaps, will be surprised to observe that we have
named so many crucified gods to whom some writers assign a different
death. But we have followed, as we believe, the best authorities in
doing so.

5. In our work, "The Bibles of Bibles," we have shown that the score of
bibles which have been extant in the world teach essentially the same
doctrines, principles, and precepts. There are to be found in the old
pagan bibles the same grand and beautiful truths mixed up with the same
mind-enslaving errors and deleterious superstitions as those contained
in the Christian bible. And the same exalted claim is set up by the
disciples of each for their respective holy books--that of being a
direct revelation from God, and inspired at the fountain of infinite
wisdom. And all were exalted, adored, and idolized by their respective
admirers, as containing a perfect embodiment of truth, without any
admixture of error. The ancient Persians carried their bibles in their
bosoms, and read them and prayed over them daily. The Hindoos often read
their bible through on their bended knees, and sometimes committed it
all to memory. The Baghavat has the following text: "The most important
of all duties is to study the Holy Scriptures, which is the word of
Brahma and Chrishna, revealed to the world." Some of the Mahomedans
claim that immortal life can only be obtained by reading the Koran, and
that the reading of it is essential to the progress and practice of good
morals, and the advancement of civilization; and that it will ultimately
reform and civilize the world. Both they and the Hindoos, like the
Christian world, have numerous commentaries, explaining the obscure
texts of their bibles, and aiming to reconcile their teachings with
reason and science. And the disciples of all bibles had a mode of doing
away with the immoral teachings, and concealing the worst features
of their sacred books by bestowing on them a spiritual meaning, as
Christians do theirs, thus dressing up error in the guise of truth. The
Hindoo bible, the Mahomedan bible, and other holy books, consign those
who disbelieve in their teachings to eternal damnation, denouncing them
as infidels. In this respect, also, they are like the Christian's bible.

6. "But then, after all (as some good pious Christian will probably
exclaim after reading this work), the bible and Christianity are
essential to the progress of good morals, and the advancement of the
cause of civilization, and the civilized world would sink into a state
of heathen darkness, demoralization, and savagism without them; for
every enlightened nation owes its present moral and intellectual
greatness to the Christian bible and the Christian religion, and
would relapse into barbarism without them." This is a mistake, a most
egregious mistake, my good brother Christian, as the following facts of
history will show:--

1. There are heathen nations now existing who never saw a bible, and
others which flourished in the past, before our bible was written, who
nevertheless attained to a higher state of morals, and a higher state
of civilization in some respects, than any Christian nation known to
history. A whole volume of facts might be adduced, if we had space for
them, drawn from the ablest and most reliable authorities, to prove that
India, Egypt, Greece, and other countries had reached a high state of
civilization centuries before Christianity or any of its founders
were even heat'd of, or made their appearance in the world. India was
distinguished for her teaming, her laws, her legislation, her civil
courts, her judicial tribunals, her astronomers, her poets, her
philosophers, her writers, her moralists, her libraries, her men of
literature, and her good morals before Moses was found in the bulrushes.

Jacolliot says, "India gave civilization to the world." Egypt borrowed
of India, the Greeks of the Egyptians, and the Jews and Christians are
indebted to the Greeks for both their morals and their civilization.
Dubois, a Christian missionary, in his "Memoirs of India,"
testifies that "kindness, justice, humanity, good faith, compassion,
disinterestedness, and in fact nearly all the moral virtues, were
familiar to the ancient Brahmans and Hindoos, and they taught them both
by precept and example." Can as much be said of any Christian nation?
Certainly not. And the Rev. D. O. Allen says they were distinguished for
all the arts and refinement of civilized life--thus placing them on the
highest plane of civilization and moral elevation. And other nations
might be referred to. Egypt had her vast temples of science, Chaldea her
astronomical observatories, and Greece her distinguished academies of
learning, her profound philosophers, and her high-toned moral writers
and moral teachers, while the Jews, "God's holy people." were in a
state of semibarbarism. So affirms the Rev. Albert Barnes.

2. No advancement has often been made in morals or civilization in any
country by the introduction of the Christian bible or the Christian
religion. It is the arts and sciences which accompany or follow the
bible which do the work. A proof of this statement is found in the
fact, that no improvement takes place in the morals of the people by
the introduction of the bible till the arts and sciences are also
introduced amongst them. On the contrary, the morals of many
deteriorate by reading the bible alone, because it sanctions as well as
condemns every species of crime then known to society. (For proof see
Chap. XXXIX. of this work.) That India has become corrupted and sunk in
morals since the introduction of the Christian bible, is admitted by the
Rev. D. O. Allen, for twenty-five years a missionary in that country.
But science, especially moral science, imparts a different influence. It
explains the nature of crimes, and teaches and demonstrates that a life
of honesty and virtue can alone produce true and real happiness, while
the bible augments the temptation to commit sin by teaching that "it
is a sweet morsel to be rolled under the tongue," and that its punitive
effects may be entirely escaped by an act of divine forgiveness. But
science, either directly or by the enlightening of the mind, teaches and
convinces the wrong-doer that there is no escape from the evil effects
of a wrong or wicked act, and that sin is not a "sweet morsel," but
ultimately a _bitter pill_. And thus it arrests the demoralizing effects
of this pernicious doctrine of the Christian bible.

3. It may startle some of the bible devotees to be told that their
sacred book, instead of being a prompter to civilization and good
morals, is really a hindrance to those ends; and that consequently
nations without bibles advance faster in these respects than those
who are well supplied with this book. But the facts of history seem
to establish this as a fact. As a proof we will contrast the present
condition of heathen Japan with that of Christian Abyssinia. Colonel
Hall and Dr. Oliphant both testify that no drunkenness, no fighting,
no quarreling, no thefts, no robberies, no rapes, no fornication, no
domestic feuds or broils, and no fraudulent dealing take place in Japan.
No locks or keys are used, for none are needed. There is no disposition
to steal, or even to cheat, or overreach in dealing. But in Christian
Abyssinia, on the other hand, according to Mr. Goodrich, where bibles
and churches are numerous, and preaching and praying are heard every
day, nearly all the crimes above enumerated are daily committed. The
people go naked, eat raw flesh, cheat, lie, and murder, and practice
polygamy. Such a thing as a legitimate child, he tells us, is not known.
And thus it has been for fifteen hundred years, while in the daily
practice of reading their bible. The arts and sciences have never been
introduced amongst them. And this fact explains the cause of their
continued moral degradation.

4. According to Noah Webster, the cultivation of the arts and sciences
is essential to the progress of civilization and good morals. But bible
religion knows nothing about the arts and sciences. It don't even use
the words. Paul uses the word science only once, and then to condemn it.
But Jesus omits any allusion to science, philosophy, or natural law.
So thoroughly convinced were the early disciples of the Christian faith
that the teachings of their bible are inimical to the arts and sciences,
that they destroyed works of art wherever they could find them, and
opposed with a deadly aim every new discovery in the sciences.

5. As bibles represent only the morals and state of society in the
age in which they are written, and are not allowed to be altered or
transcended, they thus hold their disciples back in all coming time, and
compel them to teach and practice the morals of that semi-barbarous
age as found taught in their bibles. And thus bibles prevent the moral
growth of the people as effectually as the Chinese wooden shoes prevent
the growth of the feet. For a fuller exposition of this matter, see The
Bible of Bibles, Chap. XIV.




NOTES


NOTE OF EXPLANATION.

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


NOTE TO PAGE 178.

It may not be improper to explain more fully the reason for the opinion
expressed on page 178, that the Gospel writer John did not believe that
Christ first came into existence through human birth, but believed that
he, like some of the oriental Gods, was "The Word" personified, without
the process of birth; though he may, like the heathen orientalists,
have cherished the tradition that the second God in the trinity (as he
represents Christ to be), after having sprung into existence as "The
Word" was subsequently subjected to human birth. Either so, or else
his allusion to "the mother of Christ" was done in condescension to the
general belief among the people, that he had a human mother. Be that as
it may, he declares, '"His Word was made flesh" (John i. 14); nearly the
same language used by the orientalists,--which with them did not imply
human birth. And the declaration, "All things were made by him" (John i.
3), is proof positive he believed in Christ's existence as the creator,
before his human birth. Much of John's language is so strikingly similar
to that employed by the disciples of some of the oriental religions, who
believed that a second God emanated from the mouth of the Supreme, to
perform the act of creation, that we cannot resist the conviction that
this was John's belief; especially as many of them believed, like him,
that this creative "Word" became afterward a subject of human birth.
Thus, as we conceive, the proposition is established.


NOTE TO PAGE 346.

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






End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, by
Kersey Graves

*** 