The object in selecting and presenting the list of texts quoted in this chapter is to show that Bible writers entertained a very low and dishonorable conception of the "all-loving Father," and that, on this account, the reading of these caricatures of Infinite Wisdom must have a demoralizing effect upon those who habitually read them, and accept them as truth. Even if they were all accepted as metaphors, or mere figures of speech, that would not prevent or destroy their injurious effect upon the mind; for descriptions by metaphor or pictures have the same effect upon the mind as literal descriptions or representations. And what must be the effect upon the mind of the ignorant heathen who read the Book with no suspicion of its being aught but reality, as much of it was unquestionably designed to be?
1. "There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it" (2 Sam. xxil. 9). Suggestion of a volcano.
2. "He had horns coming out of his hand" (Hab. ill. 4).
3. "Out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword" (Rev. 1.16). Rather a frightful monster to look at.
4. "He shall mightily roar from his habitation" (Jer. xxv. 30). Wonder if it frightened the saints in glory.
6. "He shall give a shout, as they that tread the grapes" (Jer. xxv. 30).
6. "He awaked as one out of sleep" (Ps. lxxviii. 60). The presumption would be he had been asleep.
7. "And like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine" (Ps. lxxviii. 65). Would not this lead to the conclusion he was drunk?
8. In his anger he persecuted and slew without pity (Lam. iii. 43). Good authority for persecuting and killing enemies. No wonder all Christendom is noted for persecution and bloodshed.
9. "His fury is poured out like fire" (Nah. i. 0). Rather a frightful God.
10. "The rocks are thrown down by him" (Nah. i. 6). Throwing stones is rather a ludicrous business for a God to engage in.
11. He became angry, and sware (Ps. xcv. 11). It is easy to see why swearing is so common in Christian countries.
12. He burns with anger (Isa. xxx. 27). Who would wish to live in heaven with such a being?
13. "His lips are full of indignation" (Isa. xxx. 27). Who saw his lips? and what peculiar aspect did they present to lead to this conclusion?
14. "And his tongue as a devouring fire" (Isa. xxx. 27). How came the writer to see his tongue?
15. He "is a jealous God" (Exod. xxxiv. 14). Jealous of what? "Jealousy is a hateful fiend" (Cato).
16. "He shall stir up Jealousy like a man of war" (Isa. xiii. 13). Of course, if he indulged in jealousy himself, his example would stir up this vile passion in others.
17. He rides upon horses (Ilab. iii. 8). In what part of the universe are those horses kept? and how many does he ride at a time?
18. "He shall cry, yea, roar" (Isa. xlii. 13). Rather a frightful object.
19. "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision" (Ps. ii. 4). "But thou, O Lord, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision" (Ps. iii. 8). Who ever heard him laugh?
20. "The Lord is a man of war" (Exod. xv. 3). What kind of arms does he use?
21. "I will make mine arrows drunk with blood" (Deut. xxx 11. 42). A good archer.
22. "They have provoked me to anger."—"Anger shows great weakness of mind" (William Penn).
23. "I will heap mischief upon them."—"Mischief-makers are enemies to society" (Socrates).
24. "I will spend my arrows upon them" (Deut. xxxii. 23). "Arrows are the weapons of savages" (Goodrich).
25. "A fire is kindled in mine anger" (Deut. xxxii. 22). "Anger resteth in the bosom of tools" (Solomon).
26. "I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents" (Deut. xxxii. 24). This exhibits a more fiendish spirit than that of Nero.
27. "I myself will fight against you in anger and fury and great wrath" (Jer. xxi. 5). "Anger and fury disclose a weak and unbalanced mind" (Publius Syrus).
23. "I will laugh at your calamity" (Prov. 1. 20). "Only brutal savages can be happy while others are miserable" (Publius Syrus).
20. "I frame evil against you" (Jer. xviii. 11). Who, then, can deny that God is the author of evil?
30. The spirit said, "I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets" (1 Kings xxii. 22). Of course, then, all the lies they told would be his, and not theirs.
31. "If I whet my glittering sword" (Deut. xxxii. 41). What a frightful picture for the all-loving Father!
32. "Spare them not, but destroy both men and beasts, infant and suckling" (1 Sam. xv. 8). We would neither worship such a God on earth, or dwell with him in heaven.
83. "He was unto me as a bear lying in wait, and as a lion in secret places" (Lam. ill. 10). Think of the God of the universe descending from heaven, and crouching in ambush, like bears and lions, to spring upon the unsuspecting traveler! The tendency of such a thought is to weaken both moral and intellectual growth.
31. He will "cry like a travailing woman" (Isa. xlii. 14).
35. He is full of vengeance and wrath, and is furious (Nah. 1. 2). A savage monster. Who would worship such a God?
36. "The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs" (Deut. xxxii. 25).
37. "The sword shall devour, and make drunk with their blood" (Jer. 10).
The language of the above is blasphemous and shocking to refined feelings, whether accepted as literal or figurative.
Though but just begun, we will pursue this sickening theme no further at present. It is an unpleasant task to pen these shocking pictures of "Divine Goodness;" but the time has arrived when these evils should be fully exposed, that Christian professors may see the error of preaching the doctrines of the semi-barbarous ages, which have the effect to dwarf the intellect and repress the growth of every healthy moral emotion of the mind, and thus retard the moral and intellectual progress of society. Such considerations loudly call for a full exposition of the errors and evils of biblical theology, so long concealed under the sacred garb of "inspiration."
Note.—This chapter might easily be extended to a hundred pages of similar examples.
In "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors," under the head of "The Two Hundred Errors of Christ," the author has pointed out sixty errors in his teachings and practical life. It was the intention or the author to have completed the exposition in this chapter; but he has discovered that a full and thorough elucidation of all the errors would swell this volume beyond its proper size. He has therefore concluded to present a mere abstract of one hundred and fifty of those errors in this work, and reserve a fuller exposition to be comprised in a pamphlet to be published soon, and to contain also thirteen powerful and unanswerable arguments exposing the numerous absurdities and impossibilities of the orthodox theory that Christ possessed two natures, human and divine,—that he was both God and man. This assumption is known as "the hypostatic union," or dual nature of Christ. The pamphlet, comprising these two subjects, can be had when published, of the usual booksellers or the author, for twenty-five cents.
The admirers and worshipers of Jesus Christ adore him as a being of absolute perfection,—perfect in intelligence, perfect in wisdom? perfect in power, perfect in judgment, perfect in his practical life, and perfect in his moral inculcations. We are told, "He spake as never man spake;" and, finally, that he taught a system of religion and morals so absolutely faultless as to challenge the criticism of the world, and so perfect as to defy improvement: and to doubt or disbelieve this dogmatic assumption is to peril our eternal salvation. With this kind of teaching and preaching in the Christian pulpit for nearly two thousand years, it is not strange that the great mass of Christian professors have been blinded and kept in ignorance with respect to his numerous errors, which modern science has brought to light both in teachings and his practical life, a portion of which will be found briefly noticed in this chapter under three heads: viz., (1) "Christ's Moral and Religious Errors," (2) "Christ's Scientific Errors," (3) "Christ's Errors of Omission."
In "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" we have, under the above heading, shown (1) that Christ possessed a very ardent religious nature; (2) that he was unenlightened by scientific culture, (3) and that consequently he often indulged in the most extravagant views of the duties of life; (4) that he inculcated a moral and religious system carried to such extremes as to render its obligations utterly impossible to be reduced to practice; (5) that his injunction, "Take no thought for to-morrow," is of impracticable application, and never has been lived up to by any of his disciples in that age or since; (6) that, if reduced to practice, it would starve the world to death in less than twelve months; (7) that his injunction, "Lay not up treasures on earth" (Matt. vi. 19), has been ignored and trampled under foot by the whole Christian world; (8) that his injunction to his disciples to part with all their property (Matt. xix. 21) would soon fill the world with paupers; (9) that his promise to supply all the necessaries of life to those who shall "seek first the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. vi. 33) has never been fulfilled; (10) that his injunctions, "Resist not evil," (11) when smitten on one cheek, turn the other also, are virtual invitations to personal abuse; (12) that his mandate, "Love not the world;" (13) also, "to hate father and mother, brother and sister," &c. (Luke xiv. 26); (14) also, to give up voluntarily our garments when attacked by a robber (Matt. v. 40); (15) also, to make no defense of our lives when they are sought by murderers (Luke xvii. 33), are all extravagant, unnatural, and unreasonable moral obligations; (16) that his declaration to his disciples, that they would be "hated by all men" (Matt. x. 22). (17) and his injunction to shake off the dust of their feet against their skeptical hearers, (18) and "go and teach all nations," (19) and "take nothing for your journey" (Mark. vi. 8), are all indications of a mind run wild with religious fanaticism; (20) as is also the declaration, "He that believeth not shall be damned;" (21) and "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" is equally unreasonable; (22) that all things asked for in prayer believing has never been realized by any person; (23) that it sets aside all natural laws. (24) It is calculated to encourage idleness and sloth, (25) and thus bring on misery and starvation. (26) The commands to "call no man 'father;'" (27) also, "Call no man 'a fool;'" (28) also, to "pray without ceasing;" (29) also, to forgive our enemies four hundred and ninety times ("seventy times seven"); (30) also, to "love your enemies" (Matt. v. 46); (31) also, to pluck out our eyes and cut off our hands if they offend us; (32) and, also, to become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, are utterances which bespeak a mind devoid of a knowledge of either natural or moral philosophy; (33) as does also the injunction to become perfect as (God) our Father in heaven (Matt. v. 48). (34) His belief in an angry God; (35) his injunction to fear God (Matt. x. 28); (36) his advice to his followers to live like the lilies of the field (Matt. vi. 26); (37) his statement that "the meek should inherit the earth," (38) that his disciples would be hated by all men; (39) his reasons for forbidding them to swear; (40) his blessing on the poor; (41) his denunciation of the rich; (42) his parable of Dives; (43) his encouragement to mourn; (44) his blessing on the pure in heart, (45) and on the hungry and thirsty; (46) his choosing the ignorant for companions; (47) his setting the mother against the daughter (Matt. x. 36); (48) his getting angry (Matt, xxi. 12); (49) his treatment of his mother, (50) also of the money-changers, (51) and of the Pharisees; (52) his usurpation of property (Matt. xxi. 2); (53) his calling men "fools and hypocrites," (54) also "vipers," (55) and "children of the Devil" (John viii. "); (56) his enjoining his disciples to shake off the dust of their feet against them, (57) and to call no man "rabbi," (58) and no man "master;" (59) his falsehood about going to Jerusalem (John vii. 8); (60) his substituting water for wine; (61) his strong sectarianism (John x. 1); (62) his treatment of the Gentiles (Matt. x. 5); (63) his threat toward Jerusalem; (64) his calling honest men "robbers" (John x. 8); (65) his denunciation of Sodom and Gomorrah, (66) and Chorazin and Bethsaida (Matt, xi. 21), (67) and Capernaum; (68) his answer to the woman of Samaria, (69) and his calling Peter "Satan;" (70) his hatred of the world, (71) and contempt of life,—all these precepts and practices, when critically examined, are found to be at variance with the laws of moral science as taught in this enlightened age, which establishes the fact that Christ was no moral philosopher.
The following scientific errors of Christ, a portion of which are exposed in "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors," show that he was neither a natural nor a moral philosopher: (1) He assumed that disease is produced by demons, or evil spirits. (2) He generally treated disease, not as the result of natural causes, but as produced by evil beings. (3) His rebuking a fever (Luke iv. 39) discloses an ignorance of the science of physiology. (4) His declaration about the stars falling (Matt. xxiv. 29) evinces his ignorance of astronomy; (5) as does also his belief in the conflagration of the world (Matt. xxiv. 34). (6) His belief in a personal devil (Matt. xvii. 18), (7) also his belief in a literal hell (Matt. xviii. 8), (8) also a belief in the unphilosophical doctrine of repentance (Mark ii. 17), (9) and also that of divine forgiveness (Matt. vi. 12); (10) his repeated assumption that belief is a voluntary act of the mind; (11) his frequent reference to the heart as being the seat of consciousness; (12) the great importance he attaches to a right faith; (13) his unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost; (14) his superstitious idea of casting out devils; (15) his comparing faith to a grain of mustard-seed (Matt. xi. 23); (16) the promise of "well done" (Matt. xxv. 21) as a reward for well-doing; (17) his statement about man increasing his stature, (18) and about two men joining in prayer (Matt, xviii.19); (19) his promise to come in the clouds of heaven (Matt, xxiv. 30); (20) the time that event was to take place (Matt. x. 23); (21) his penalty for wrong-doing, or sin; (22) his penalty for falsehood (John viii. 44); (23) his superstitious belief in an undying worm; (24) his penalty for idle words; (25) his statement about speaking in new tongues (Mark xvi. 17), (26) about handling poisonous serpents, (27) also swallowing deadly poisons, (28) and that these acts should furnish a proof of divine power; (29) his frequent confabs with imaginary devils; (30) his views of the marriage relation (Luke xx. 34); (31) why a certain man was born blind (Matt. vii. 22); (32) his ignorance of the natural causes of physical defects; (33) his conduct toward the fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 20); (34) his statement relative to the Queen of Sheba, (35) and relative to Noah's flood (Luke xvii. 27); (36) his frequent denunciation of unbelievers; (37) his injunction to become perfect as God; (38) his erroneous views of love, (39) and of the peacemakers, (40) and of the tax-gatherers, (41) and of divorce; (42) his views of alms; (43) his statement about Moses (John v. 46), (44) about Nicodemus, (45) about bearing witness, (46) about letting our light shine, (47) about his disciples praying, (48) about praying for the kingdom of heaven, (49) about the law (Matt. v. 17), (50) about his being the Christ (Matt, x. 23), (51) about performing miracles, (52) about bringing a sword, (53) about his disciples sitting on the twelve thrones, (54) about judges in heaven, (55) about the fate of Judas; (56) his deception by Judas; (57) his mistake about Peter; (58) his promise to the sons of Zebedee (Matt. xx. 23); (59) his parable of the unjust judge; (60) his new commandment; (61) his promise of a hundred-fold reward; (62) his ideas about paying tribute, (63) also about marrying a divorced woman; (64) his promising Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven; (65) his declaration relative to binding things in heaven; (66) his notion of merit in religious belief, (67) and that faith is the gift of God; (68) his ideas of lust, (69) and about earthly treasures, (70) also treasure in heaven, (71) about tombstones, (72) and about an arbitrary personal God; (73) his ignorance of science and natural law. (74) He never spoke of a natural law, (75) nor used the word "science," (76) nor "natural philosophy." (77) And, finally, his spending nine-tenths of his time in idleness or obscurity is historic, scientific, and practical proof against his divinity. From all the facts and precepts enumerated above, we are compelled to conclude he was no philosopher, and was ignorant of the principles of natural science. And this accounts for the numerous scientific errors which abound in all his teachings and preachings and his whole practical life, as set forth in the work of which this is a synopsis.
Had Christ been an all-wise and omniscient God,—the character his orthodox disciples claim for him,—he would have noticed and understood, and consequently have condemned, various demoralizing practices, customs, and institutions then existing in society. He would also have discovered and taught the grand moral and scientific truths and principles which have since been brought to light, and have proved such signal blessings to society, so that the world could have enjoyed them two thousand years ago.
(1) He would, in the first place, have discovered and exposed the evils of the despotic form of government which he lived, (2) and have suggested a better system. (3) He would have taught the people the beauties and benefits of a true democracy, (4) and would have exposed the evils of physical as well as mental slavery; (5) also the deleterious and demoralizing effects of intoxicating drink, instead of manufacturing it. (See John ii. 7-9.) (6) He would also have exposed the errors and evils of the many popular religious superstitions then and there prevalent, instead of indorsing them. (7) He would have taught the science of anthropology as essential to human happiness, (8) including the principles of mental science; (9) and likewise the true principles of moral science, (10) and the necessity of mental culture, (11) and the most important lesson of all,—that of self-development. (12) He would have taught the people that every thing is controlled by natural law, (13) instead of by the caprices of an angry God. (14) He would have taught the people that right and wrong are natural principles; (15) that virtue contains its own reward, (16) and sin or crime its own punishment. (17) He would have taught the science of life and the laws of health as essential to human happiness; (18) and that the violation of natural law must be attended with suffering; (19) and that every immoral act a man commits against another must injure himself, (20) and destroy his true happiness, (21) and tend to make him a victim to his own passions. (22) He would have taught the true principles of mental freedom, (23) and the rights of conscience in matters of belief; (24) and that man is responsible to himself alone for his belief. (25) And, finally, he would have taught the modern doctrine of evolution as furnishing the true and philosophical solution of all human actions, both good and bad. Certainty a being possessing infinite wisdom could have discovered and brought to light these grand practical truths, and thus greatly augmented the sum of human happiness, instead of leaving the world to drag on in suffering ignorance. And his omitting to do it must be characterized as an error of omission. For a fuller exposition, see the pamphlet.
Christ's apostles, although reputedly inspired, were very far from being exemplary characters. Quarrels, jealousies, and emulations are frequently disclosed in their practical lives. We are told there were "envyings and jealousies and divisions" among them (1 Cor. iii. 8), and that "they disputed among themselves who should be the greatest" (Mark ix. 34). This implies that there was selfishness and worldly ambition at the bottom of their movements. Paul also represents them as "defrauding" and lawing each other (1 Cor. vi. 7,8); and Paul himself had a serious quarrel with Barnabas, as we are told: "The contention was so sharp that they departed asunder one from the other" (Acts xv. 36). These incidents in the practical lives of the apostles show that they were frail and fallible mortals, and under the control of selfish feelings like the rest of us, and that their "inspiration," if they possessed any, was not of a very high order. Such men are very unsuitable examples for the heathen to imitate, as they are impliedly recommended to do when the Bible is placed in their hands.
With respect to the doctrines taught by the apostles or New-Testament writers, we will here assume the liberty to say they contain more errors than we can allow space to enumerate. For those of Paul and Peter we shall appropriate a separate chapter, but will only cite a few of the errors of the other New-Testament writers as mere samples of others. James's superstitious idea of curing the sick by prayer and oil we have already noticed (chapter xli.). He also indorses the foolish and incredible story of Elijah controlling the elements so as to cause a three-years' drought (chap. v. 17). He tells us we can get wisdom by simply asking it of God (chap. i. 5). Then why do millions of people devote years to hard mental labor to acquire it? He speaks approvingly of the practical life of Abraham, also of the miserable harlot Rahab (chap. ii. 23, 25), and avows his belief in a devil, &c. John also avows his belief in this superstition (1 John ii. 13), and likewise in the bloody atonement (1 John i. 7) and the doctrine of predestination (1 John v. 18); and, worse than all, he issues the bigoted mandate, "Receive no man into your house" who does not preach the doctrine I do (2 John i. 10). Jude indorses the foolish story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the contest between Michael and the Devil, the second advent, a day of general judgment, &c. These will do for specimens of apostolic errors.
Paul, standing at the head of the Church in the apostolic age, and being the principal New-Testament writer and the principal teacher and doctrinal expounder of the New Covenant, or gospel dispensation, his practical life and his doctrines must therefore be regarded as constituting a part, if not the principal part, of the basis of the Christian religion. We shall therefore make no apology for presenting here a brief exposition of his character and his doctrines; and we shall show that both present numerous defects and inconsistent and contradictory features.
1. In his First Epistle to Timothy (i. 13) he states that he had been "a blasphemer and persecutor, and injurious", and confesses that he was particeps criminis in the martyrdom of Stephen; yet, in the Acts of the Apostles, he declares, "I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day" (Acts xxiii. 1). Here is one specimen of his many incongruous statements.
2. He relates the account of his miraculous conversion three times, and in three different ways. In the first statement he says, "The men stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts ix. 7). In the second account he says, "They heard not the voice that spake to me" (Acts xxii. 9). In the third statement, when relating the case to King Agrippa, he says, "They were all fallen to the earth" (Acts xxvi. 14); while, in the first account, he had stated, "The men stood speechless." It is evident they could not stand speechless while they were all fallen to the earth.
3. In one account he states that Jesus told him to stand up, and receive his mission; but in another place he says he was ordered to go to Damascus to receive the message.
4. He told the king that he showed himself first at Damascus, and then at Jerusalem (Acts xxvi. 20); but in his Epistle to the Galatians he declares that he did not go to Jerusalem.
5. Again he says he went to Jerusalem, and Barnabas took him by the hand, and brought him to the apostles (Acts ix. 27).
6. And then, again, to the Galatians he declares he saw none of the apostles,n"save James, the Lord's brother" (Gal. i. 13).
7. In 1 Cor. x. 35 he says, "I please all men in all things;" but in Gal. i. 10 he says, "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of God." Here, then, is another palpable contradiction.
8. In Rom. xi. 5 he speaks of the "election of grace;" but in Tit. xi. 9 he says the grace of God has appeared to all.
9. In his letter to Timothy he says, "God will have all men to be saved" (1 Tim. ii. 4): but in Rom. ix. 22 he speaks of "the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction;" and in Rom. ix. 27 he says, "A remnant shall be saved." All will not be saved if only a remnant are saved.
10. When about embarking for Rome he stated, "I perceive the voyage will be of much hurt and damage to life" (Acts xxvii. 10); yet on the voyage he declared, "There shall be no loss of any man's life among you" (Acts xxvii. 22). An "inspired apostle" and oracle of God should be punctiliously accurate in all cases, or all his statements will be brought under distrust, and it will be impossible to arrive at the truth in the case; or, in any case, all will be involved in doubt and conjecture.
11. Paul's errors in doctrinal inculcations are numerous. His confession to the Corinthians, that, "being crafty, I caught you with guile" (2 Cor. xii. 16), sets forth a bad example, and indicates a bad system of morals, which is calculated to have a demoralizing effect upon Bible readers and believers, especially the heathen and the youth of Christian countries.
12. And his statement that the truth of God "hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory" (Rom. iii. 7), is still more demoralizing in its tendencies. Many have looked upon it as a justification for lying. It seems to imply that lying is all right if done for the glory of God; and as he states in 1 Cor. x. 31, that whatsoever we do should be done to the glory of God, it logically follows that lying is justifiable in all cases. And Mr. Higgins states that such doctrine had the effect to reduce lying to a system among the early Christians, and that they considered it a duty to lie when the interest of the Church could be promoted by it. A book inculcating such bad morality should not be circulated amongst the heathen.
13. Paul's reason for recommending a life of single blessedness is deserving of notice. He says the unmarried man careth for the things of the Lord; but the married man careth for the things of the world,—"how he may please his wife" (1 Cor. vii. 33). The last act he named here does not trouble men much nowadays, at least after the honeymoon is passed; and a man who considers God worthy of more attention than wives, as Paul did, would not be likely to bestow a very high appreciation on the latter. But the greatest objection to the doctrine is, that, if practically carried out in accordance with his recommendation, there would soon be no wives to please. 14. We must notice another objectionable doctrine of Paul with respect to marriage. Instead of acknowledging an honorable and virtuous motive for marriage, he would tolerate it as the least of two evils; that is, as a means of mitigating a burning lust (1 Cor. vii. 9). This makes marriage a mere animal attraction,—the union of a man and woman drawn together from lustful motives. Paul advises bachelors not to marry or touch a woman, but remain single like himself (1 Cor. vii? 1). But such advice, if practically complied with, would soon depopulate the globe. If not so strongly adverse to human nature, it would doubtless ere this have filled the world, first with Shakers, and then with the graves of an extinct race.
15. Paul says to the Romans (Rom. vii. 17), "It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I prove... that in my flesh dwelleth no good thing." Here are taught two erroneous doctrines: (1) The essentially corrupt and sinful nature of the human body, taught anciently by the Hindoo ascetics; (2) that sin or the Devil operates on the mind independent of the human will or volition, which savors of fatalism. And his statement that some vessels are made to honor, and some to dishonor (Rom. ix. 21), seems unequivocally to set forth the same doctrine. Many commentators have puzzled their brains over it to make it mean something else, but with ill success the declaration is not, that men become vessels of honor and dishonor, but that they are made so.
16. Paul's exhortation to servants to be obedient to their masters has furnished pious Christian slaveholders a good text to preach from throughout slaveholding Christendom, and has done much to rivet the chains tighter upon the limbs of the slave.
17. When Paul calls the Cretans "liars, evil beasts," &c., he descends to a low position, both in the scale of manners and morals: he is not only uncivil, but exhibits bad passions. They did not merit such personal abuse, as they had never done him an injury, at least we have no proof of it.
18. Paul tells us that God sends people a strong delusion, that they may believe a lie and be damned (2 Thess. ii. 12). More fatalism. To delude people with lies in order to damn them is worse than hardening Pharaoh's heart in order to find a pretext for drowning him. Let it be borne in mind, that, if there is any spiritual signification justly assignable to, this text, it can only benefit the few, as the common people always accept language with its common signification. But can we assume that Paul was such a blunderer that he frequently used language conveying exactly the opposite meaning from that intended, and that in this way he taught fatalism and when he did not intend to do so? And then, he was inspired, is it not a slander upon Infinite Wisdom to assume that God was so ignorant of human language that he put these pernicious doctrines in Paul's mouth by mistake? One or the other of these conclusions we are driven to accept, in order to save Paul from condemnation; but this only saves his moral character at the expense of his good sense. The most rational assumption appears to be, that Paul lived in an age and country which knew nothing of mental or moral science, and honestly believed and taught these pernicious doctrines. We will now learn something about the moral code of bachelors.
19. "I suffer not a woman to speak in the church." "It is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Cor. xiv. 35). He says, if they want to know any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. But this, in some cases, would be the blind leading the blind; and, in other cases, only the leaders would be blind. Paul should have learned the lesson of O'Connell, the Irish agitator, who said, "Since I have learned that my mother was a woman, I have great respect for women, and advocate their rights."
20. We will now notice the reason Paul assigns for having immoral doctrines as it is claimed wives subject to their husbands: it is simply because man was created before woman (1 Tim. ii. 13). What profound logic! worthy a Locke or a Newton! But, if there is any logical force in the argument, then monkeys should have the preference of men in the churches, as they came still earlier in the order of creation.
21. Paul's doctrine that all governments are ordained of God, and that those who resist them shall receive to themselves damnation (Rom. xiii. 1), is a virtual condemnation of those noble philanthropists who in various ages and countries resisted the authority of tyrants. It makes Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and others sinners and criminals for opposing the tyranny of King George.
22. Paul evinced a very intolerant spirit when he said, "If any man preach any other doctrine than that which I declare onto you, let him be accursed" (1 Gal. i. 9). This is the spirit of intolerance, persecution, and bigotry,—the spirit which has erected the scaffold, piled the fiery fagots around the stake, wielded the guillotine, adjusted the halter around the neck of the martyr, and crimsoned the earth with the blood of the righteous. This very text has had the effect to fire up such a spirit; and it has frequently been quoted as authority for such cruel deeds as those just cited.
23. Paul gives utterance to a very singular doctrine when he says that even nature teaches that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair, but the glory for a woman, because nature gave it to her for a covering. (See 1 Cor. xi. 14.) He was certainly not much of a philosopher, or he would have made the discovery that nature promotes the growth of the hair upon the heads of men and women exactly alike. If nature did not permit any hair to grow upon the head of man, or did not allow it to grow more than an inch in length, there might be some plausibility in the assertion. But, as the case stands, it is the shears, and not nature, which teaches that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair; or rather, if there is any shame in the case, it consists in man cutting off his hair after nature has been so kind as to supply him with such a useful covering.
24. Paul's indorsement of the doctrine of the atonement, and his declaration that "without the shedding of blood there can be no remission for sin" (Heb. ix. 22), show that he had not advanced beyond the old Jewish and pagan superstition of "blood for blood." The doctrine is a relic of heathen barbarism, and is shocking to persons of fine moral sensibilities; but this subject is treated in another chapter.
25. Paul also indorses the old heathen tradition that God is an angry, revengeful being. (See Eph. ii. 3.) He lent the influence of his powerful mind and pen to perpetuate this demoralizing and blasphemous doctrine, which has had an injurious effect upon the minds and morals of the people in all post ages.
26. We again call attention to Paul's declaration that God sent the people a strong delusion that they might believe a lie and be damned. Think of a just and righteous God deluding people in order to damn them! The doctrine is certainly blasphemous. It is enough to charge a demon with such acts as this. Some writers suppose that Paul did not mean what is here literally expressed; but it is probable he did, for it is the old Jewish idea that every thing that takes place is the achievement of a God. We must assume that the devil who now attends to such business, had not been sworn into office at that time. Hence he supposed that Jehovah still attended to such business.
27. One indelible stigma on Paul's character is found in his indorsement of the pagan and Jewish rite of circumcision,—a cruel and bloody custom,—which no truly enlightened and sensible man would lend his sanction to perpetuate, much less perform with his own hands, as Paul did on Timotheus (Acts xvi. 3). Paul also contradicts himself with respect to the matter. He says, "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (Gal. v. 2). Yet he afterward performed the act on Timotheus, as stated above. This is preaching one doctrine and practicing another.
28. Paul said that he was a Roman citizen; but no Jew could be a full Roman citizen till the reign of Philip or Decius, long after. He also passed for Paul of Tarsus; but Tarsus was not a Roman city at that time, nor until about a hundred years after ward. This was being all things to all men in order to gain a few proselytes; and truly he carries out the doctrine quite well. At one time he professes to be a Roman (Acts xxii. 26); at another time he professes to be a Pharisee, and says that his parents were Pharisees (see Acts xxiii. 5); and then, again, he was an apostle of Jesus Christ (Acts xv. 10).
29. Paul uses some rather doughy arguments on the subject of the resurrection. He says that on the last day, at the sound of the trumpet, we shall all be raised, the dead in Christ first (1 Cor. xv. 52). We are also told that "this mortal shall put on immortality." We are compelled to believe, from the language here used, that Paul believed in the sleep of the soul in the grave; and the resurrection of the natural body is a ridiculous absurdity and a physical impossibility. The sleep of the soul is a still worse assumption. Why should the soul lay in the ground covered with filth and worms? What possible benefit could it derive from laying in a state of insensibility for centuries? And what would become of it if some one should remove the decomposed remains of the body, and all the earth contiguous, to some other locality, or toss it into a running stream? And this has been done. What becomes of the soul in such a case? Does it float down the stream with the physical debris? If so, where will it stop? and how will it be found in the day of resurrection?
30. And the doctrine of the resurrection is attended with still greater difficulties and logical obstructions. The physical body, according to Paul, is to become a spiritual body. But a portion of the body is consumed by worms during the process of decomposition in the grave; and those worms, when they die, are consumed by other worms. Will it not, then, require a search-warrant in the day of resurrection to find all those worms, and to gather every minute particle of the old body together to form the spiritual body? Why not make the new body of a stone or a stump, or some other material, instead of the old, decayed, decomposed body? It would require a miracle in either case. Cases have been reported of Christian missionaries being eaten up by cannibals. The flesh of the Christian in such cases becomes a part of the physical body of the cannibal; and the cannibal will, according to Christian theology, come forth unto "the resurrection of damnation," and will take a portion of the body of the missionary with him to the bottomless pit. How will it be obtained? A serious difficulty, certainly! How is it to be met and surmounted? Many other logical difficulties lie in the way of making a practical application of the doctrine.
31. When Paul calls our physical tenements "vile bodies" (see Phil. iii. 21), he reveals the old pagan idea of the body being sinful. They looked upon it as a kind of prison for the soul, and a thing to be hated and contemned as you would a tyrant with a rope around your neck. This error discloses great ignorance of the functions of the human body, and its relation to the soul or mind. It would be impossible to have a pure soul in a vile body. Here Paul discloses still further ignorance of science.
There are other acts and other erroneous doctrines, which mark the practical life of Paul, that are quite obnoxious to criticism; as, for example, the curse he pronounced upon Ely mas, whom he stigmatized as a sorcerer, though he does not prove he was one, but says that was his name by interpretation (Acts xiii. 8). This act, which it is stated produced total blindness, must be regarded as an act of bigotry and intolerance. Elymas is not charged with any crime or immoral conduct; and, so far as we can learn his history, he was an honest, upright man: but he sought "to turn away the deputy from the faith" (Acts xiii. 8); that is, like the Greek philosophers, he attempted to point out the absurdity of some of Paul's doctrines. There is something very significant in the statement of Paul, that some of his doctrines were "to the Greeks foolishness" (1 Cor. i. 23); for they were a learned, intelligent, and sensible nation of people. And no such nation ever has, or ever will, accept as true and sound doctrine some of the theological nonsense and absurd doctrines which Paul preached. Future generations will wonder that such doctrines were ever taught by people claiming to be sensible and intelligent.
The circumstance which Paul relates of a viper coming out of a bundle of sticks, and fastening on his hand without inflicting a deadly wound, evinces a degree of superstition which no philosopher could entertain. The assumption is, that God, after bestowing upon the reptile the disposition and means of defending itself, interposed by a divine act to prevent their action.
Christ and his apostles (including Paul), instead of studying and understanding the laws of nature, were constantly looking for something to contravene them, and set them aside. Of course they were honest in this; but it shows their want of scientific knowledge, which was characteristic of the age.
The circumstance of Paul's handkerchief and apron healing the sick, as related in Acts xix. 12, is evidently regarded as another interposition of divine power. But cases are frequently performed in this manner in various parts of this country by Dr. Newton and other healers, who impart their magnetic aura to a handkerchief, or some article of clothing, or a piece of paper, and send it to the sick, who are cured as effectually as those were by Paul's magnetized handkerchief; for it was undoubtedly his magnetism imparted to the handkerchief that effected the cures. Modern science is solving the mysteries and miracles of the past.
We will only observe further, that Paul lays down three systems of salvation, which, when arranged side by side, certainly make the road broad enough to enable nearly every son and daughter of Adam to reach the heavenly kingdom:—
Salvation by Faith.—"By faith ye are saved, and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. ii. 8). It being the gift of God, we, of course, can have no agency in the matter. "A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. iii. 28). This is a direct contradiction of James, who declares, "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead" (Jas. ii. 17).
Salvation by Works,—"God will render to every man according to his deeds" (Rom. ii. 6). "The doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom. ii. 13). Thus, it will be observed, Paul, in the above-cited texts, not only contradicts James, but contradicts himself.
Salvation by Divine Predestination,—"As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts xiii. 48). This is not given as Paul's language; but it is spoken with respect to his preaching. And Paul sets forth the same doctrine in Rom. xi. 5 when he speaks of a remnant being "saved by the election of grace." Here, then, are three roads to heaven, which so multiply the chances of being saved that but few can be lost.
Such conflicting statements show that confusion and ambiguity characterize the Bible, and render it impossible to learn any thing definite from its statements.
Note.—How can Christians believe In the immortality of the soul after reading Paul's declaration that "God alone hath life and immortality dwelling in the light "? If so, then man is not an immortal being (see 1 Tim. ri. 16).
In his practical life St. Peter was a singular and angular being. He presents us with the opposite extremes of virtue and vice. He appears to have been about as distinguished for wickedness as for piety. He told the same falsehood repeatedly, and backed it up with an oath (Matt, xxvi.): hence lying, cursing, and swearing are laid to his charge. And then, we are told, he was put in possession of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi. 19). How a man, guilty of such moral derelictions, could have had a higher honor bestowed upon him than was ever bestowed upon any other human being, or how he could have been considered a safe custodian for such an important charge, it is difficult to see; and then it looks too much like a bribe for immoral conduct. It weakens the incentives to a virtuous life to reward the criminal, and shows imperfection in the moral system which he was allowed to represent. As for his doctrines, they are characterized by the same moral and scientific errors and defects as those of St. Paul, and embrace some of the same doctrines of heathen mythology.
1. He speaks of the earth as "standing out of the water and in the water" (2 Pet. iii. 5). Here is the old Hindoo tradition which taught that the earth floated on a sea of water, traces of which are also found in Genesis.
2. He tells us, also, that the earth has been once destroyed by water, and in the day of judgment will be destroyed by fire (2 Pet. iii. 6, 7). It has been from time immemorial a very prevalent tradition amongst the Oriental nations that the world had been, and would be again, alternately destroyed by water and fire. Peter and Josephus also seem to indorse this tradition.
3. Peter also indorses and teaches the absurd and unphilosophical doctrine of fore-ordination (1 Pet. i. 20).
4. He also enjoins "servants to be in subjection to their masters," not only the good, but the froward (1 Pet. ii. 18). This is absolute tyranny. There is to be no resistance to the bloody lash. The motto of Patrick Henry is much better,—"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."
5. Wives are to be in subjection to their husbands (1 Pet. iii. 1), even as Sarah obeyed Abraham (verse 6). There is nothing said about husbands obeying wives, probably because, as he says, woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. iii. 7). Wonderful logic! A sage conclusion for a Christian moralist. He thus places Christian morality below that of the ancient Druids, who placed women on a level with men in both Church and State.
6. Peter tells us, "Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. ii. 24). This is the old Jewish idea of carrying away sins by scapegoats, and the Oriental heathen doctrine of putting innocent Gods to death as a punishment for the sins of the people,—a doctrine which posterity will condemn as barbarous. (See "The Sixteen Crucified Saviors," Chapter xxi.)
7. Peter says a "dumb ass spoke with man's voice" (2 Pet. ii. 16). He thus indorses the story of Balaam's ass becoming endowed with human speech.
8. Peter, like Paul and Christ, indorses the absurd story of Noah and the flood (1 Pet. iii. 20).
9. But space will not permit us to notice all the erroneous doctrines set forth by Peter. He teaches the doctrine of a general judgment (2 Pet. ii. 9), the doctrine of election and reprobation (2 Pet. i. 10), the doctrine of a general conflagration of all things terrestrial (2 Pet. iii. 12).
10. But the most remarkable incident in the life of Peter is his connection with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira. We find many logical absurdities and moral errors in this story recorded in Acts v. 1. It is very strange that Peter, who denied his Lord and master three times, and hence was repeatedly guilty of telling positive falsehoods, should be the chosen instrument under Christ's religion to pronounce sentence of death upon Ananias and Sapphira for the same sin. 2. Why should Ananias and Sapphira be punished with death for a crime that Peter, Abraham, and Isaac were all guilty of several times? 3. Is it not strange that Jehovah should be considered as being strongly opposed to lying, if he himself, as stated in 1 Kings xxii., converted four hundred of his prophets into liars, and then indorsed the lying Peter? 4. Is not the crime of Ananias and Sapphira—that of attempting to withhold a little money from the priests by lying—of less magnitude than that of ruining a whole nation by robbery, as we are told God's holy people did? They robbed and "spoiled the Egyptians" (Exod. xii. 36). 5. Is it not probable they needed it more than the priests did? The moral law teaches that it is necessity, and not might, that makes right. 6. Does it not look rather unreasonable that Sapphira should repeat the same falsehood for which her husband had just been struck dead, as it must have been known to her? Who can believe it? 7. And can we suppose that God would be so partial as to kill a man and woman for the first offense of lying, and let Abraham, Isaac, and Peter, and others, escape after committing the sin several times! These considerations seriously damage the credibility of the story.