|
Home
Store
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
p. 313
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 bestudded 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
p. 314
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 later. 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
p. 315
conceive that he and other 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 engraved upon the walls of the Temple of Serapes, 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." 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
p. 316
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 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
p. 317
[paragraph continues] 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
p. 318
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 preeminent, 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. 13.)
p. 319
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;" be 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.
p. 320
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
p. 321
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 or 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
p. 322
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 engraved 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
p. 323
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
p. 324
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
(Irenæus).
"We look in vain," says a writer, "for any contemporary 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
p. 325
than 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
p. 326
and evidenced by the bible itself, that no history of Christ's practical
life was written out by a person claiming 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 mole-hills 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 Christina of India,
Mithra of Persia, Quirinus
p. 327
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 contemporaneous 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 enveloped 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 Cæsar's death, and which
was written long after that famous hero left the stage of action, is
omitted in all the contemporary notices of that monarch, having crept in
subsequently.
p. 328
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
contemporaneous 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 biographers 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
p. 329
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 priest-craft. All that is wanting to convince us that
miracles constitute no part of the real history of Christ, is a
contemporary 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
p. 330
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 widow's son,—Elijah being
considered the special prototype of Christ, who, many believed, had
reappeared 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.
p. 331
Christ's Miracles manufactured from Prophecies
Several of Christ's 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
p. 332
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 demigods
of the illiterate ages, including that, of Christ,
p. 333
is loaded down with miraculous feats. There is the clearest proof that
Christ's disciples were in this general rivalry—this universal
miracle-working mêlée.
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
p. 334
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 religions 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
p. 335
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 religions 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. (1 Kings
xxii. 23.) And most certainly if God himself might thus habitually
depart
p. 336
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
p. 337
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,
p. 338
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
p. 339
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 all 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
p. 340
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
incentives 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 tomorrow 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 preeminently 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
p. 341
originally imperfect, then God himself must have been imperfect, and
hence no God at all. Think of a wonder-working 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.
p. 342
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 tunes 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
p. 343
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
p. 344
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. 1.) 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 Burckhardt, 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
p. 345
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
p. 346
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)
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 that "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
p. 347
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
p. 348
[paragraph continues] Christian era. For there is not one of the moral
maxims or perceptive 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 of
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 five 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."
p. 349
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 moat 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.
p. 350
The following is from the old Persian bible, the Sadder [Sad-dar—JBH]:—
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.)'
p. 351
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.)
p. 352
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
p. 353
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!
from Crucified Saviors
|