Chapter XII: Part 12

So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south,
and of the vale, and of the springs and all their kings; he left
none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed as the
Lord God of Israel had commanded. (Joshua 10 : 40.)

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amelek did
to Israel (some three hundred years previous), how he laid wait
for him in the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite
Amelek, and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not,
but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,
camel and ass. (1 Sam. 15 : 2, 3.)

Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children that have not known a man by lying
with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31 : 17, 18.)

To believe these bloody massacres to have been done by the express command of the supreme ruler of the universe, made man brutal and despotic. And it is for this very reason that we have had so many wars among Christian nations. The Old Testament is a record of cruelty and blood; and if we fall back in time on this side of the cross of Christ, we shall find the same spirit, and the same bloody deeds perpetrated upon all those who were not numbered as the peculiar people of God. Constantine established Christianity in the Roman empire by the sword; and his holy successors have maintained it by the same power ever since.

Polygamy.

Although Christians now condemn polygamy, they uphold a Bible that not only approves it, but also shows distinctly that God instituted it.

Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and was not condemned for his polygamy or concubinage, but was condemned for going after other Gods:

And the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned
away from the Lord. (1 Kings 11 : 9.)

There is nowhere any condemnation of Solomon for his polygamy to be found in the Bible. On the contrary, he is extolled to the highest degree. God is represented as saying: "I have found David, a man after mine own heart." (Acts 13 : 22.) "Yet among many nations was there no king like unto him (Solomon) who was beloved of God." (Neh. 13 : 26.)

David, although he was a man after God's own heart, was not so highly esteemed as Solomon who was blest with a thousand wives. David did not have quite as many wives, and consequently did not achieve the royal grandeur of his son Solomon. The Lord gave David a number of wives: "And Abigail hasted and arose, and rode upon an ass with five damsels of her's that went with her; and she went after the messengers of David and became his wife. David also took Ahinoam, of Jezreel, and they were also, both of them, his wives. (1 Sam. 25 : 42, 43.)

And David took him more wives out of Jerusalem. (2 Sam. 5 : 13.)

And I gave thee (David) thy master's house and thy master's wives
into thy bosom. (2 Sam. 12 : 8.)

The Christian apologist says that "the Lord endured them to practice polygamy in consequence of the hardness of their hearts." But it is explicitly shown in the above passage that the Lord gave David a number of wives. "I gave thee thy master's wives into thy bosom," certainly exonerates David, and throws the responsibility on Jehovah. David is not censured for his polygamy, but is uniformly spoken of with approval except in one instance. In counseling Solomon Jehovah said: "And if thou wilt walk in my ways to keep my statutes and commandments as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days." (1 Kings 3 : 14.)

Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord
and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the
days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. (1
Kings 15 : 5.)

The truth is that nearly all the patriarchs and prophets were polygamists. They had not the faintest idea of true marriage, but took women according to their caprice, and kept them as long as they were pleased with them and cast them off when tired of them. It is a remarkable fact that we do not often read of any marriage ceremony when these men after God's own heart took them wives. A man in these days who "takes up" with a woman without marriage is called a free-lover. Were the patriarchs who took a number of women as wives without a marriage ceremony free-lovers? Just now the Christians cannot endure polygamy among the Mormons. They indorse it as a Bible institution, good enough for Abraham, Isaac, and all the rest, but out of fashion just now. The worst of it all is, the Christian sends missionaries and Bibles to the heathens and afterward reports wonderful success in converting them from their Paganism and polygamy through the means of preaching, praying, and missionary work; but when he thinks of the Mormon he forgets what wonders the missionary has done abroad in converting the polygamists, and insists that our Congress send Winchester rifles to Utah rather than missionaries. The Holy Ghost is of no account there. The gospel of peace must now as ever resort to the divine efficacy of bullets rather than Bibles, to secure a victory for truth, justice, and love. Christianity shows the same brutal instincts of war in its treatment of the Mormons that Constantine exhibited in establishing the church by the sword.

The Subjection of Woman.

The Bible nowhere teaches the equality of man and woman, but from Genesis to Revelation it treats her as man's inferior. The mythology of the ancient Hebrew story of the Garden of Eden has proved to be a veritable curse to her. "And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Gen. 3 : 16), has been the poisoned chalice put to her lips for over two thousand years. Paul the founder of the church, insists upon the subjection of woman. "Likewise ye wives be in subjection to your own husbands." (1 Peter 3 : 1.)

Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands. (Col. 3 : 18.)

As the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to
their own husbands in everything. (Eph. 5 : 24.)

The church has uniformly maintained this doctrine, and demanded in the marriage ceremony that she promise to love, honor, and obey her husband.

For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither
was the man created for the woman but the woman (was created)
for the man. (1 Cor. 11 : 8, 9.)

Divorce.

Woman is unjustly treated in the matter of divorce, in both the Old and the New Testament. In the Old Testament the husband had the power to divorce his wife if she failed to please him, while the wife could not divorce her husband for any cause.

When a man hath taken a wife and marries her, and it come to pass
that she find no favor in his eye, then let him write her a bill
of divorcement, and give it into her hand and send her out of
his house. (Deut. 24 : 1.)

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies and the Lord
thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken
them captives and seest among the captives a beautiful woman,
and hast a desire unto her that thou wouldst have her to be thy
wife, then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, she shall
shave her head and pare her nails and she shall put the raiment
of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house
and bewail her father and mother a full month, and after that
thou shalt go in unto her and be her husband, and she shall
be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her,
then thou shalt let her go whither she will, but thou shalt not
sell her at all for money; thou shalt not make merchandise of
her because thou hast humbled her. (Deut. 21 : 10-14.)

Jesus says, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery." (Luke 16 : 18.)

In this case there is a lack of qualification as to whether the man be innocent or not; and there is no allowance made in case the man who married her who was put away should be ignorant of her being a divorced woman.

Again, "But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery." (Mat. 5 : 32.)

Here we find not a word about the fornication of the husband. In short, there is no equality of rights and duties taught in these passages. Jesus, in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke teaches that it is adultery to marry a divorced woman. No matter what the crime of the husband has been, a wife is not allowed to put him away and marry another. If he is a fornicator, and his wife is divorced from him and remarries, she commits adultery. This is only a slight modification of the divorce law--that old law according to which the husband had only to write his wife a bill of divorcement and send her off; but it was not lawful for the wife to write a bill and send the husband away. All Christian nations have repudiated the teachings of both the Old and the New Testament on the question of divorce.

Marriage is now rapidly losing its sacramental character. If matches are made in heaven, it is evident that the work is poorly done, and for all practical purposes they might as well be made on earth; and the general opinion is inclined so strongly in that direction that greater attention is now given to the laws of life, which instruct us how to make happy earthly matches, leaving the matches of heaven to be formed when we get there.

The Jews practiced the sale of their daughters:

And if any man shall sell his daughter to be a maid-servant,
she shall not go out as the man-servants do. If she pleases not
her master who hath betrothed her to himself. (Ex. 21 : 7.)

Jacob purchased Leah and Rachel, by serving Laban their father seven years for each of them. He agreed to serve seven years for Rachel, and after he had fulfilled his obligation, Laban deceived him by palming off Leah in the dark upon him as Rachel. But though so deeply wronged Jacob did not despair, but served another seven years for her whom he loved. See Genesis twenty-ninth chapter.

In the purchase of wives there was usually no ceremony, more than the witnessing of the sale. We read of David and Solomon taking wives, but no mention is made of any marriage ceremony.

A jealous husband could torture his wife, by having her poisoned. See Numbers 5 : 11-31. There was no such law for a jealous wife. There was no law of even-handed justice for a greatly wronged and outraged wife. The laws were made for the benefit of man, not for the protection of woman. Why? Because they were made by man.

The New Testament as well as the Old, Holds Woman in Servile Bondage.

Jesus and Paul were celibates, and their teachings and practice in regard to woman, have done her incalculable wrong.

The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man. Neither
was the man created for the woman; but the woman (was created)
for the man. (1 Cor. 11 : 8, 9.)

Paul gets this idea from the mythical story of creation in Genesis.

In that childish story God is represented as making woman as "an help meet," for Adam. Indeed her creation does not seem to have been intended at all, but the Creator seeing that it was not good for man to be alone, "caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took out one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead: And the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." (Gen. 2 : 21, 22.) Woman was an afterthought to the Lords of creation then, and she is an afterthought to the lords of creation now.

In that ancient myth woman was doomed to perpetual servitude because she was of an investigating turn of mind, and sought to know good and evil. The sentence was, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Gen. 3 : 16.)

Neither Jesus nor Paul proclaimed the dignity of marriage, or discerned the necessity of enlarging the sphere of woman. Jesus shared the common sentiments of his age, and looked upon the marriage relation as incompatible with the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. He deemed it necessary to call his disciples away from their families, and even to advise the men to make eunuchs of themselves if they were able to do so. (Mat. 19 : 12.) In his teachings on the question of divorce, he is far from perceiving the even-handed justice which the case demands. He says (Mark 10 : 11, 12) that if either the husband or the wife put away one the other and marry again, commits adultery. All second marriages would therefore be unlawful according to this teaching. In Matthew (5 : 32) he permits the husband to put away the wife for the crime of fornication, but makes no provision for the wife to put away the husband for the same offense. His disciples received an unfavorable impression of marriage, and after listening to him on this subject, they suggested: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." (Mat. 19 : 10.) How could these plain people have misunderstood him upon a subject with so little chance for misapprehension?

Paul's teachings were adverse to the marital relations: "Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." (1 Cor. 7 : 27.)

"It is better to marry than to burn." (1 Cor. 7 : 9.) What an idea of marriage! He does not have the least conception of love, or of the higher and refining joys of the conjugal relation. But permits him who cannot keep himself from beastliness to marry. In this his judgment is remarkably short-sighted, for he does not regard the sacrifice which the woman must make who marries the beast. He looks upon woman as a mere safety-valve for men's passions,--her rights are not considered: she has no rights. He will permit man to marry, but young widows he denounces as heaping up damnation to themselves in marrying: "But the younger widows refuse, for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry having damnation, because they cast off their first faith." (1 Tim. 5 : 11, 12.) To marry was to wax wanton against Christ, which was nothing less than damnation! But old widows who were above sixty years of age could join the church if they had "been the wife of one man" and "had washed the saints' feet." (1 Tim. 5 : 9, 10.) I wonder what he thought of rejecting all young widowers, and accepting none under sixty years of age, and only those of them who had washed their grandmother's feet?

Paul not only advocates celibacy which is an evil to woman, but where the marriage relation exists he insists upon the subjection of woman to her husband: "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;" (1 Peter 3 : 1.) "Obedient to their own husbands;" (Titus 2 : 5.) "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection;" (1 Tim. 2 : 11.) "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ so let the wives be (subject) to their own husbands in everything." (Eph. 5 : 24.)

The reasons given for woman's subjection are, "The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman (was created) for the man." (1 Cor. 11 : 8, 9.) "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." Wherefore? Because "Adam was first formed, then Eve." "And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Tim. 2 : 11-14.) Woman has always been the guilty cause of man's great misfortune. Adam was not to blame but Eve was the guilty one. Lot was innocent but his daughters were fearfully wicked. Joseph did not tempt anyone, but his master's wife tempted him. Job, dear man, was all patience, but his wife flew into a rage, and tried to have him curse God and die. Solomon, the pure-hearted and single-minded man of seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines was inspired to say, "One man among a thousand have I found, but a woman among all these have I not found." (Eccl. 7 : 28.)

And to this day the Christian marriage ceremony demands of woman that she promise to love, honor, and obey her husband.

The Bible Sanctions Slavery.

What driveling idiots we mortals have been to suppose for a moment that a good being, a heavenly father, would let one part of his family hold the other in slavery!

Moreover of the children of the strangers, that do sojourn,
of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,
which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession.

And ye shall take as an inheritance for your children after you, to
inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever,
but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule
one over another with rigor. (Lev. 25 : 45, 46.)

If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the
seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself
he shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall
go out with him; if his master has given him a wife, and she has
borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be
her master's and he shall go out by himself. (Ex. 21 : 2-4.)

The New Testament Sanctions Slavery.

Servants, obey in all things your master according to the flesh;
not with eye-service, as men pleasers, but in singleness of heart,
fearing God. (Col. 3 : 22.)

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to
the good and gentle, but also to the froward. (1 Peter 2 : 18.)

In addition to these positive indorsements of slaveholding, it should be remembered that Jesus never condemned it, and it was not difficult, therefore, for the church also to indorse and support it.

The American Church was the Bulwark of American Slavery.

The slave system in this country always received the support of the church. In the early history of the country it was occasionally condemned by some of the bravest ministers, but as the nation grew powerful, so also did this sum of all villainies. Not only the ministers of the slave states, but ministers of the free states lent their support to this despotism. The Rev. N. Bangs, D.D., of New York, said:

It appears evident that however much the apostles might have
deprecated slavery as it then existed throughout the Roman empire,
he did not feel it his duty as an embassador of Christ, to disturb
those relations which subsisted between master and servants,
by denouncing slavery as such a mortal sin that they could not
be the servants of Christ in such a relation.

Rev. E. D. Simms, professor in Randolph-Macon college, a Methodist institution, affirmed that, "Those extracts from Holy writ unequivocally assert the right of property in slaves."

The Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D.D., late president of the (Methodist) Wesleyan university, in Connecticut: "The relation of master and slave may and does in many cases, exist under such circumstances as free the master from the just charge of immorality."

Rev. Moses Stuart, of Andover, insisted that, "the precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of slaves and their masters, beyond all question, recognized the existence of slavery."

The Rev. Dr. Taylor, of Yale college, said: "I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ was now on earth, he would, under certain circumstances, become a slaveholder."

The "Independent" makes an admission. Speaking of the degradation of the Southern negroes, it says: "For this Protestant Christianity solely is to blame. It allowed slavery. It was slow to see its enormity. In the South it supported slavery with all its power. It let the negroes live in ignorance of the word of God. It raised no voice against unchristian laws forbidding slaves to be taught to read, and forbidding marriage."

We could give hundreds of just such quotations from ministers who upheld slavery as a divine institution. And these were the blind leaders of the blind until leaders and people were precipitated into the life and death struggle of the nation. If the preachers had been honest and brave we would never have had to pass through the terrible ordeal of the great rebellion.

The northern churches were almost all in sympathy with the "divine institution." Their ministers did not dare to condemn the system lest they should be deposed for their abolitionism. The writer was pastor of a Methodist church in Brooklyn in 1859, and was dismissed from his pastorate on account of his anti-slavery preaching. After President Lincoln's emancipation proclamation the synods and general conferences arrayed themselves against the system, but not before.

The Reformation.

It is a common belief in Protestant countries that Protestantism has been the cause of all modern enlightenment, "overlooking," says Mr. Buckle, "the important fact that until enlightenment had begun, there was no Protestantism required. Enlightenment was the cause of Protestantism. Many causes had been at work to bring up the public mind to a higher intelligence and a braver love of independence."

The reformation broke out at least twenty times before Luther,
and was put down. Arnold, of Brescia was put down; Fra Dolcino was
put down; the Albigenses were put down; the Vaudois were put down;
the Lollards were put down; the Hussites were put down.--Mill,
on Liberty.

The reformation was therefore the result of previous enlightenment, a demand for larger liberty. It was the protest of reason against authority. Liberalism is the full protest against all forms of superstition and despotism. We have greatly over-estimated the work of the reformation. It did not greatly change the humanities of society, as the Protestants so fondly imagine. Protestants were found to be the persecutors when they had the power, just as the Romanists had been; circumstances, however, modified and restrained them from such atrocities as the latter had perpetrated.

Persecution for religious heterodoxy, in all its degrees, was in
the sixteenth century, the principle as well as the practice of
every church. (Hallam, "Middle Ages," vol. 2, p. 48.)

Christianity Teaches Immorality.

The doctrine of the atonement has been the dry rot in our civilization. It has led millions to believe that they could escape the consequences of violated laws of nature. Millions of people believe to-day that they can go through life in utter disregard of all that is right and good, and at the last moment when they come to shuffle off this mortal coil, all they will then need to do will be simply to call upon Jesus and receive his approbation and permission to enter the shining courts above. "Jesus died and paid it all," relieves the votary from the demands of morality, and, "the Devil tempted me and I sinned," exonerates him from all guilt. This sort of teaching has filled our prisons with those who fully believe it--and they are behind the bars because they have lived according to their belief. The malignant and mendacious cry that Freethought leads the truthseeker always downward to a bad life is refuted by the fact that those who fill the prisons of our country are not Infidels, but believers in the divine revelation who have lived up to the advantages offered by the "gathering them in" doctrine of atonement.

The murderers who are hanged on Friday in the different states almost every week, nearly all Christians, are prepared to go to heaven and there join in the company and songs of innocent children and pure maids and matrons who, by their presence, make heaven worthy the name; but these fiends, if they should happen to be pardoned by the governor, there could not be found a reputable Christian who would want to take one of them home to live in his family of noble wife and lovely children, for a single day. And yet he is fit for heaven, fit for the company of angels and the purified of earth. The dying words of a good religious man were, "I am no Infidel," and that man's name is John D. Lee, of Utah, who, in cold blood, murdered innocent men, women, and children, and after eluding justice for twenty years or more was arrested, tried, found guilty and shot to death, with the words on his lips, "I am no Infidel." But his confession was unnecessary, as Freethinkers do not die that way, and the reason they do not die in that manner is because they do not believe in the great bankrupt act--the atonement. They have no savior, and hence have to save themselves. They have no titles to mansions in the skies but have some claims on earth which they prefer to stay with as long as they can.

The doctrine of the atonement is very immoral and no one can begin to estimate the wickedness it has fostered in society, by leading people to believe they can pass through life committing all sorts of crimes and at last, when they find themselves about to die, can call upon Jesus and find eternal life "by believing on his name."

"Long as the lamp holds out to burn The vilest sinner may return."

"This couplet has helped many a one to die easy." Oh, yes, it has, but it has encouraged too many to live easy--to live entirely too easy--so easy that they did not need to gain intelligence, to practice morality and pay their honest debts.

"Between the saddle and the ground Was mercy asked and pardon found."

A salvation so extemporaneously performed, I fear could not endure; it resembles too closely the winter revivals whose fruits have all disappeared before the summer's harvest is over.

"Nothing, either great or small,
Nothing, sinner, no!
Jesus did, did it all
Long, long ago.
Weary, working, burdened one,
Wherefore toil you so?
Cease your doing, all was done
Long, long ago.
Till to Jesus' work you cling
By a simple faith,
Doing is a deadly thing,
Doing ends in death.
Cast your deadly doing down,
Down at Jesus' feet,
Rise in him, in him alone,
Gloriously complete."

Where are those who have risen in him gloriously complete? Show us just one.

Prayer is Immoral.

It is immoral because it seeks to accomplish certain ends without using the proper means, or it tries to do what reason teaches us cannot be done. When some years ago we had yellow fever at Memphis the praying people all over this country united in supplicating the unknown to remove the plague; but notwithstanding their united petitions to a throne of grace and to "a prayer-answering God," they utterly failed. The yellow fever remained until the angel of frost came and touched the air with its white wings of health.

Fred Douglass said he prayed for freedom twenty years, but received no answer until he prayed with his legs.

"Give us this day our daily bread," is a childish superstition. What millions of poor women have starved to death with this prayer on their lips. Jesus made a prayer in the garden of Gethsemane which was not answered. Now if the son of God may pray and receive no answer, what can the common rank and file sinner expect?

When the native African sees an eclipse, he fancies some huge monster is attempting to devour the sun, or the moon, as the case may be. He resorts to his tom-tom, by which he hopes to frighten away the fearful monster. After the eclipse has passed away he turns to his skeptical brethren and says, "I told you so," just as his more civilized brother who prays for rain, and after it comes, no matter whether it is a day or a month afterward, turns upon his incredulous friends, and asks them triumphantly, "Didn't I tell you so?"

The tom-tom business in Africa and Christian prayers for rain, are on a dead level with each other.

Sinner.--Is God infinite in his wisdom?

Parson.--He is.

Sinner.--Does he at all times know just what ought to be done?

Parson.--He does.

Sinner.--Does he always do just what ought to be done?

Parson.--He does.

Sinner.--Why do you pray to him?

Parson.--Because he is unchangeable. ("Ingersoll's Interviews,"
p. 83.)

Prayer is simply supplication to God. God is a mystery; a mystery so profound that nothing is known of him, save that he is a mystery. Even his existence cannot be demonstrated. His non-existence is equally undemonstrable, because no man has a definite conception of him to use as a starting point for investigation. Some claim that he is a person, others that he is omnipresent. Both of these cannot be; for personality and omnipresence are incompatible. Prayer is based on the supposition of his personality. It implies necessarily a person in a certain place, and possessed of certain attributes. He must be omnipotent, omniscient, unchangeable, and all-good. Nothing less than this will come up to the conception of what a God should be. Christians tell us God possesses all these attributes. We accept their statement because it is impossible to prove the contrary. On this basis, then let us examine prayer.

God is said to be all goodness. Goodness is the performance of duty. Perfect goodness is the performance of all duty, and of nothing beyond. It is also the performance of all duty without reluctance or hesitation. Prayer is an insult to this quality of God's character. It implies that his goodness is not perfect. Every blessing for which man can ask, it is the duty of God either to grant or to withhold. In either case, prayer implies the possibility of imperfection. To ask God to grant a blessing which it is his duty to grant, is to assume that he will not do his duty without being urged. Such an assumption is downright insolence. To ask for a blessing which it is God's duty to withhold, is to assume that he can be persuaded to commit sin. This, too, can only be regarded as an insult. In both cases prayer is useless, because God is not likely to grant a blessing asked in the same breath an insult is given.

We are told that God is pleased with prayer, because it shows our faith in his goodness. It rather shows our lack of faith. To be continually asking for blessings, implies a doubt whether we shall get them if we do ask. He who never prays shows the most faith, for he takes it for granted that God is good, and if he is good, he will provide for his children unasked. The child has faith that his father will provide for him, but he never asks him to do so. Such conduct would prove him unworthy of his father's care. So with prayer; the praying man is the true skeptic, and the Infidel is the true believer.

Prayer makes God a changeable being. It implies that he will grant any favor we ask, whether he had previously designed to do so or not. If we were privy to his designs, and knew what blessings he intended to bestow, we could ask only for such as he had intended to give us. In the absence of this knowledge we pray blindly for blessings which it may be, he has determined to withhold. This necessarily implies that he may change his designs. If the object pleaded for is a good one, such a change would be perfectly proper in an earthly monarch. In God it would be fanciful in the extreme. It would place his will at the disposal of a million fallible human beings. It would overthrow the harmony of his government, and replace it by the most reckless chance. Our reception of a blessing would depend no longer on God's goodness; it would depend on whether some other person of greater persuasive power, was or was not asking an opposite blessing at the same time. God would be in constant indecision, and we should be in constant doubt. Prayer, then, is based on the changeableness of an unchangeable being, and therefore valueless.

Prayer, in theory, is based on the supposition of God's personality; prayer, in practice, assumes that God is omnipotent. It supposes that he can be in all places at all times. People are praying at all hours of the day and in all quarters of the globe. To hear them all God must be at such places at such times. To do this he must cease to be a personal being, he must cease to be God. He will then have no intelligence, no volition, for these depend on a personal organization. Prayer, therefore, logically annihilates the being to whom it is addressed.

Prayer implies doubt of the wisdom of God. To pray is to ask for a certain blessing. We assume that such a blessing is best for us, and inform God of the fact. After insulting his goodness by asking for a blessing, we insult his intelligence by specifying what that blessing shall be. Prayers are rarely or never asked for general blessings alone. A person who asks for a blessing and leaves the choice of that blessing wholly to God, is liable to be considered a lunatic by all true believers. Yet to do otherwise is to deny God's omniscience. It assumes that God does not know what our wants are. If God is a rational being, he can only treat such an assumption with contempt. Prayer has been tried for two thousand years and with no result. No prayer has ever been directly or indirectly answered by God. On the contrary, he apparently delighted in mocking those who call upon him. When the Ville du Havre went down, over two hundred ministers were praying for their lives, but in vain. Two girls who trusted not in prayers, but in swimming-belts, alone were saved. ("Logic of Prayer," Charles Stevenson.)

Some years ago when the yellow fever raged at Memphis, Tennessee, the pious people of this country prayed most devoutly to have the plague swept away. These prayers were repeated, were offered up by the most faithful in the Christian ranks, but all in vain. They had read in their Bible that the prayers of the righteous availeth much. They had been taught to believe that "all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Mat. 21 : 22.) There is no one thing that Jesus taught more explicitly than this; the prayers of those who truly believe shall be answered. He said:

Therefore I say unto you, What things so ever ye desire when ye
pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. (Mark
21 : 24.)

But we see that prayers are not answered. And besides, those prayers which it is claimed are answered carry no proof of the fact with them.

Did not millions of Christians pray for the restoration of President Garfield? How utterly delusive it is to palm off as truth the following promise upon credulous minds:

Again I say unto you that if two of you shall agree on earth as
touching anything ye shall ask, it shall be done for them of my
Father, which is in heaven. (Mat. 18 : 19.)

Jesus himself offered a prayer that was not answered. In the garden of Gethsemane he prayed:

O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;
nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Mat. 26 : 39.)

There is no evidence that God has ever interfered in the affairs of
men. The hand of earth is stretched uselessly toward heaven. From
the clouds there comes no help. In vain the shipwrecked cry to
God. In vain the imprisoned ask for liberty and light--the world
moves on, and the heavens are deaf and dumb and blind. The frost
freezes, the fire burns, slander smites, the wrong triumphs, the
good suffer, and prayer dies upon the lips of faith. ("Ingersoll's
Interviews," p. 49.)

"Ask and it shall be given thee" is an erroneous and immoral teaching. It is false. It is not true that people get what they pray for. We hear pious persons praying, "Give us this day our daily bread," but none of them expect to get their bread in that way. What an irresistible smile would wrinkle the faces of the devout if a poor widow should pray: "Give us this day our daily coal," and another of the praying circle should ask, "Give us this day our daily potatoes," and another should beg, "Give us this day our daily beefsteak."

While no one expects to get his daily supplies in answer to prayer, yet millions of pious souls are scandalized if you doubt the efficacy of prayer. They will admit that they have to work for their "daily bread," "but after all God gives it to us just the same." He gives it to the sinner who does not pray in the same manner, that is, if he labors he earns his own bread.

In vain the seamstress in her sickness and poverty, prays, "Give us this day our daily bread." She dies with these her last words on her lips.

In vain the noble souls who have been thrown into prison for daring to tell and defend the truth, have fervently appealed to the judge of all the earth for freedom.

In vain the martyr looked to heaven for deliverance.

Faith in Prayer.

"I will close this letter with a little incident, the story of which may not be so startling, but it is true. It is a story of child faith. Johnny Quinlan, of Evanston, has the most wonderful confidence in the efficacy of prayer, but he thinks that prayer does not succeed unless it is accompanied with considerable physical strength. He believes that adult prayer is a good thing, but doubts the efficacy of juvenile prayer.

"He has wanted a Jersey cow for a good while, and tried prayer, but it didn't seem to get to the central office. Last week he went to a neighbor who is a Christian and believer in the efficacy of prayer, also the owner of a Jersey cow.

"'Do you believe that prayer will bring me a yaller Jersey cow?' said Johnny.

"'Why, yes, of course. Prayer will remove mountains. It will do anything.'

"'Well, then, suppose you give me the cow you've got and pray for another one.'" (Bill Nye.)

A Specimen Prayer.

"O Lord, our Heavenly Father, thou who dwellest in heaven [flattery] Thou art the creator and preserver of all things; [flattery] we thank Thee that we live and move and have our being; [Imagine a response of, 'You are quite welcome, I am sure,'] that we are neither dead nor damned--for hadst Thou visited one sin in a thousand, we should be beyond the reach of hope and mercy. [He's not just, or He would have done it.] Thousands of our fellow mortals, as good by nature as we, and far better by practice, are now trying the unalterable laws of an unending eternity. [Not a very good comment on His justice.] Yet we have [by His partiality] still another opportunity to make our calling and election sure. We come before Thee, O Lord, to ask the forgiveness of our sins. [Must have indulgence.] O Lord, look in mercy on us and remember us in thy love. O we pray Thee that Thou wouldst prosper Thy cause. [He hadn't thought of that for sometime before.] O send more laborers into the harvest, for the harvest is great and the laborers are few, [another piece of information.] O Lord, hasten the time when all shall know Thee from the least unto the greatest [We are satisfied that you are not diligent enough in this matter, and we want you to hurry up.] O Lord, check the progress of evil [You ought to know enough to do it without being told,] and promote the cause of truth, [which you would do, if you were as much interested in the matter as we are.] O Lord, hear our prayer [Do pay attention and don't forget in an hour, like a stupid dolt, what we have been telling you,] and answer our petitions. And in the end, when we are called to die, save us [which on account of our unworthiness, you may not do, or on account of your forgetfulness you may neglect, and leave us the subject of one of the devil's infernal jokes,] and the praise, and the honor, and the glory, we will ascribe through endless ages to Thee. [A great consideration, which will certainly be some inducement to you to save,--only just think what an advantage such an arrangement will be to you.] All of which we ask for Jesus' sake, Amen."

(Newspaper Clipping.)

The Boston Man's Prayer.

"Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul if I have a soul, from hell if there is a hell, Amen, if it is necessary."

Prayer an Echo.

'From the earliest dawn of Nature's birth,
Since sorrow and sin first darkened the earth;
From sun to sun, from pole to pole,
Where'er the waves of Humanity roll,
The breezy robe this planet wears
Has quivered and echoed with countless prayers.
Each hour a million knees are bent,
A million prayers to heaven are sent;
There's not a summer beam but sees
Some humble suppliant on his knees;
There's not a breeze that murmurs by
But wafts some faithful prayer on high;
There's not a woe afflicts our race
But someone bears to the Throne of Grace;
And for every temptation our souls may meet
We ask for grace at the Mercy Seat.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The beams smile on, and heaven serene
Still bends, as though no prayers had been;
And the breezes moan, as still they wave,
When man is powerless, heaven cannot save."

--Charles Stevenson.

Other Worldliness.

It seems to some people selfish for one to attempt to live in the personal enjoyment of this world, but to lend all one's energies toward gaining heaven is to them just right. Caring for one's health and family is selfishness, but struggling to save one's soul is the noblest work of life.

The truth is Christian doctrines are purely selfish. When man does certain duties, as they are called, because he wants to get to heaven, his conduct is intensely selfish. The gospel constantly invites the followers of Jesus to act, from the consideration that "great is your reward in heaven." Very many Christians say that if it were not for the hope of future reward, they would not try to do right. In other words they confess that they do not act from moral motives. They are moved by the selfish motives of other worldliness. To act morally we must do right because it is right and for no other consideration. When we look beyond the act to see how much we are going to make out of it, then our conduct is not moral. He who is going through the performance of duties because he wants to get to heaven, has yet to learn the meaning of morality.

Christianity is Intolerant.

Revelation does not admit of two sides to religious questions. There is only one side, say the Moodys and Talmages, and that side is God's side. We have no right to question Holy Writ. We must accept it. "Believe or be damned," does not admit of the latitude of free thought, or the right of reason to question the authority of the Bible.

"Reason is 'carnal,' says the Christian idolator, and you cannot rely upon it--only trust in Jesus and you are saved."

The following historical facts prove beyond question that intolerance is the very soul of Christianity:

"When any step was taken to establish a system of permanent institutions, which might effectually protect liberty from the invasions of power in general, the church always ranged herself on the side of despotism." (Guizot's "History of Civilization in Europe," p. 154.)

"Persecution for religious heterodoxy, in all its degrees, was in the sixteenth century, the principle as well as the practice of every church." (Hallam's "Middle Ages," vol. 2, p. 48.)

When Queen Mary, the first queen of England, had burned Latimer, Ridley and others, and her ministers had chided her for it, she replied that she did not think God could be angry with her for burning the heretics a few hours in this world, for their heresy, since he was going to burn them eternally in the next world for the same thing.

Here you have the unadulterated article. It is nothing, if not intolerant, and in every age and country, with sword and hand, has commanded the trembling people to believe or be damned. And the Christian who does not do his utmost toward having heretics and infidels burned at the stake, is trying to be better than his God.

Hell, Hades, Gehenna, Sheol.

How many mortals have been frightened out of their senses by the false alarm of fire in the next world. Preachers have pictured to mothers their children who died without the sacraments of the church being administered to them, as rolling on the fiery billows of hell. Parents have been demented by such descriptions, and have gone to lunatic asylums, or to their graves in consequence. Millions thus frightened have joined the church, and confessed belief in the creed, although they may not have known the meaning of a single article of it. But once having avowed their adherence to the church have lived lives of hypocrisy ever afterward because they had not the honor and the courage to break away from their bondage. What stories the pulpit has related of Infidels being struck dead for profanity and blasphemy. These holy pulpit alarmists will have much to answer for if there is any such thing as a judgment day or a God in Israel.

It is plain that Jesus taught the doctrine of future, if not endless punishment. It was endless punishment to those who committed the unpardonable sin: "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Mat. 12 : 32.)

Other passages may be cited to show that Jesus taught the horrible doctrine of eternal torment, and all efforts on the part of modern commentators to explain away hell are in vain. "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." (Mat. 25 : 46.)

If these words do not teach the doctrine of endless torment, it would be a hard matter to express it in the vernacular.

Pictures of Hell.

John Bunyan describes this interesting locality, and its inhabitants thus: "All the devils in hell will be with thee howling and roaring, screeching and yelling in such a manner that, thou wilt be at thy wits end, and be ready to run stark mad from anguish and torment. * * * Here thou must lie and fry, and scorch, and broil, and burn forevermore."

The father of New England theology, Jonathan Edwards, portrays his own imagination after this fashion:

"The saints in glory will be far more sensible, how dreadful the wrath of God is, and will better understand how terrible the sufferings of the damned are, yet this will be no occasion of grief to them, but rejoicings. They will not be sorry for the damned: it will cause no uneasiness or dissatisfaction to them, but on the contrary when they see this sight, it will occasion rejoicing, and excite them to joyful praises."

Dr. Emmons reveals his own "true inwardness" by giving it the following description:

"The happiness of the elect in heaven will in part consist of watching the torment of the damned in hell. Among these it may be their own children, parents, husbands, wives and friends on earth. One part of the business of the blest is to celebrate the doctrine of reprobation. While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy who instead of taking the part of those miserable objects will sing, Amen, hallelujah: praise the Lord."

Again, he says: "When they (the saints) see how great the misery is from which God hath saved them and how great a difference he hath made between their state and the state of others who were by nature, and perhaps by practice no more sinful and ill deserving than they, it will give them more a sense of the wonderfulness of God's grace to them in making them so to differ. The sight of hell-torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever."

"Where saints and angels from their blest abode, Chanting loud hallelujahs to their God. Look down on sinners in the realm of woe And draw fresh pleasures from the scenes below."

The Rev. Thomas Button, describes the bottomless character of his fancies thus:

"The godly wife shall applaud the justice of the judge in the condemnation of her ungodly husband. The godly husband shall say, Amen! to the damnation of her who lay in his bosom. The godly parent shall say hallelujah! at the passing of the sentence upon the ungodly child. And the godly child, shall from his heart, approve the damnation of his wicked parents who begot him, and the mother who bore him."

Thomas Vincent, a reverend, raves after this fashion: "This will fill them, the saints, with astonishing admiration and joy, when they see some of their near relatives going to hell; their fathers, their mothers, their children, their husbands, their wives, their human friends, and companions while they themselves are saved. * * * Those affections they now have for relatives out of Christ will cease, and they will not have the least trouble to see them sentenced to hell and thrust into the fiery furnace."

My thoughts on awful subjects roll,
Damnation and the dead;
What horrors seize the guilty soul
Upon a dying bed.

Where endless crowds of sinners lie,
And darkness makes their chains;
Tortured with keen despair they cry,
Yet wait for fiercer pains.

Then swift and dreadful she descends
Down to the fiery coast
Amongst abominable fiends,
Herself a frighted ghost.

Adore and tremble, for your God
Is a consuming fire;
His jealous eyes with wrath inflame,
And raise his vengeance higher.
Almighty vengeance, how it burns!
Vast magazines of plagues and storms
Lie treasured for his foes.

These grisly rhymes full of horrors are found in one of Watt's hymn books written in England in the early part of the last century, but they are omitted from all modern hymn books.

Tertullian finds great joy in the idea of seeing his enemies in hell.

"What shall be the magnitude of that scene! How shall I laugh! How shall I rejoice! How shall I triumph when I behold so many and such illustrious kings, who were said to have mounted into heaven, groaning with Jupiter their god, in the lowest darkness of hell." (Quoted by Lecky, "Rationalism in Europe," vol. 1, p. 329.)