It has often been argued that credulity is safer than skepticism—that “it is safest to believe;” inasmuch as if a man believes in heaven and hell, and there be no such places, he is, if no gainer, at least no loser; whereas the Infidel may lose, and cannot gain. Upon the same principle, it were safest to believe all the religions of the world at once—Christian, Mohammedan, Jewish, Hindoo, Confucian, and all the rest; because it is but insuring the matter by halves to trust to one only. If Allah be not the only God and Mahomet be an imposter, there is no harm done and nothing lost; and if there be not a paradise in another world, there has been a pleasant dream of anticipated joys in this.

Let us ask, is the balance of profit and loss fairly struck? Are the chances all in favor of the believer and all against the skeptic? Is there nothing to be thrown into the opposite scale? Surely much. If religion be a fallacy, it is a fallacy pregnant with mischief. It excites the fears without foundation; it fosters feelings of separation between the believer and the unbeliever; it consumes valuable time that can never be recalled, and valuable talents that ought to be better employed; it draws money from our pockets to support a delusion; it teaches the elect to look upon their fellow men as heathen and castaways, living in sin here, and doomed to perdition hereafter; it awakens harassing doubts, gloomy despondency, and fitful melancholy; it turns our thoughts from the things of the world, where alone true knowledge is found; it speaks of temporal miseries and temporal pleasures as less than nothing and vanity, and thus fosters indifference to the causes of the weal and woe of mankind; worse than all, it chains us down to an antiquated orthodoxy, and forbids the free discussion of those very subjects which it most concerns us to investigate. If religion be a fallacy, its votaries are slaves. Whereupon, then, rests the assertion, that if the believer does not gain, he cannot lose? Is it nothing to lose time and talents, to waste our labor on that which is not bread, and our money upon that which profiteth not? Is it nothing to feel that the human beings that surround us are children of the devil and heirs of hell? Is it nothing to think that we may perhaps look across the great gulf and see some one we have loved on earth tormented in a fiery lake; and hear him ask us to dip a finger in water that it may cool his parched tongue? Is it no loss to live in disquiet by day, and in fear by night; to pass through dark seasons of doubt and temptation, and to be conscious that we are but as strangers and pilgrims here, toiling through a weary valley of cares and sorrows? Is it no loss to hold back when truth oversteps the line of orthodoxy, and when there ought to be free discussion, to shrink before we know not what? Is all this no loss? Or, is it not rather the loss of all that a free and rational being most values?

Those engaged in the trade of religion, imagine themselves to have a mighty advantage against Infidels upon the strength of the old, worn out argument that whether the Christian religion be true or false there can be no harm in believing; and that belief is, at any rate, the safer side. Now to say nothing of this old popish argument, which a sensible man must see is the very essence of popery, and would oblige us to believe all the absurdities and nonsense in the world: inasmuch as if there be no harm in believing, and there be some harm and danger in not believing, the more we believe, the better; and all the argument for any religion whatever would be, that it should frighten us out of our wits; the more terrible, the more true; and it would be our duty to become the converts of that religion, whatever it might be, whose priests could swear the loudest, and damn and curse the fiercest. This is a wolfish argument in sheep’s clothing. (Truth Seeker tract.)

“Ours is the safe side,” says the Christian; “for if Infidelity be true then both Infidel and Christian have the same destiny, namely to die and end all, but if Christianity be true what will become of the Infidel?” In reply to this we say, that although at death both believer and unbeliever fall asleep side by side upon the bosom of mother earth, yet it does not make yours the safe side; because if Christianity be true then the most of the human race go into eternal torment. Orthodoxy has always taught that “many are called but few are chosen.” Now if nine tenths of the race are going to suffer endless pain I do not see how those who are going to constitute a large part of that number and are to be eternally lost, can call it the “safe side.” For it should not be forgotten that the vast majority of those who are going to suffer the wrath of God, are professed Christians. “Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them—I never knew you, depart from me ye that work iniquity.” (Mat. 7: 22, 23.)

No, no, it will not do to trust that side as the “safe side” where “many are called but few are chosen.”

We need something safer than that.

Again, we do not see how it can be the “safe side,” to despise this life, in hopes of another that we know nothing of. If Infidelity be true, all Christians are superstitious idolaters. If Infidelity be true, Christians are deceived and are corrupting the minds of millions of children with superstition which will render them bigoted, cruel, and unhappy. And this is about the size of it. How, then, can it be the safe side. The safe side is always to be fair and honorable. It is safe always to examine both sides. It is safe to be on the alert for more truth. It is safe to accept the truth even when it cuts away old prejudices and old beliefs. It is safe not to be a sectarian. It is not safe to be a partizan, but it is safe to be free, courageous, and honest in all things. It is not safe for you to cling to myths, fables, and superstitions, and to leave them as a blighting inheritance to your children.

1. That we are negative, only.—We deny what we deem to be false, we affirm what we believe to be true, Christians do the same; only much that they affirm, we deny, and much that they deny, we affirm. Negation is necessary and healthful. No affirmation is possible that does not presuppose a negation. Negation is but the assailing side of affirmation. We deny the fables of mythology; we affirm the demonstrable truths of science.

2. That we have no incentive to good deeds.—If the Christian acts as he believes, he does good to escape hell and gain heaven—he respects the rights of others through fear of punishment and hope of reward. Hence it is that he cannot understand how the man who rejects his creed can be a good man. We do right because all the experience of the race has shown that what we call “right” is conducive to happiness; because the line of right action is the line of least resistance; because we believe in the principle of reciprocity, and because every act of every individual becomes a part of the inheritance of the race, and thus as we are, so shall be our children. If we are intemperate, diseased, and criminal, our children shall suffer in consequence thereof. What higher or stronger incentive to right action can be offered?

3. That we are unhappy.—Why should we be more unhappy than the Christian? Why should we not be more happy? We live in the same world; we believe in making the most of its opportunities for obtaining happiness, while he (theoretically, at least,) believes that earthly joy depreciates heavenly bliss; we are cursed by no fear of an angry God, by no dreams of an endless hell and of a revengeful devil; the Christian no more than the Infidel, is exempt from accident, sickness and death, and the agony of parting with loved ones is his no less than ours. He accepts Revelation and Creation, and hence believes that we belong to a falling race; we accept Science and Evolution, and hence believe that we belong to a rising race. Which is the most rational and hope inspiring belief?

4. That it is “safest to believe.”—If this proves anything it proves too much. If our future (if we have one) can be rendered more secure by pretending to believe when we do not, then the Protestant should accept Catholicism, and the Catholic, Protestantism, while the members of every sect should believe all that is taught by all other sectarists and Christians of every school should believe all that is contained in the sacred books of other religions.

5. That we hurt the feelings of those who cherish the old faith.—Why should the Christian complain that we disturb settled convictions and cut loose the anchored bark of faith? Has not Christianity ever been a missionary religion? It seeks to disturb the religion of the whole world. Christians attack all religions other than their own—our offence is that we include Christianity in the category of false faiths. (Lucifer.)

“It is a very common argument with Christians, that only those nations which have had the Bible are refined, civilized and learned. The following is the boastful manner in which Christians set forth the claims of their religion: “Take a map of the world, draw a line around those countries that have enjoyed the highest degree of refinement, and you will encircle just those nations that have received the Bible as their authority in religion.” In refutation of this assumption Horace Seaver writes: “From this language the plain inference is, that those nations have been indebted to the influence of the Bible for the positions to which they have attained. Let us follow out a little this line of argument and see where it will lead.

“The ancient Egyptians stood as far in advance of their contemporaries as do the nations of Christendom at the present day, as the remains of their cities and temples fully attest. And if the argument is good, they were indebted for that superiority to their worship of cats, crocodiles, and onions!

“The ancient Greek might have exclaimed, as he beheld the proud position to which Greece attained—‘See what we owe to a belief in our glorious mythology; we have reached the highest point of enlightenment the world has ever witnessed; we stand unequaled in power, wealth, the cultivation of the arts, and all that makes a nation refined, polished, and great!’

“How immeasurably would his faith in the elevating tendency of his religion have been increased could he have looked with prophetic eye into the distant ages of the future, and beheld the enlightened and Christianized nations of the nineteenth century adopting the remains of Grecian architecture, sculpture, painting, oratory, music and literature as their models! Pagan Rome, too, once mistress of the world and arbitress of nations—the home of philosophers and sages—the land in which the title ‘I am a Roman citizen,’ was the proudest that mortal could wear—Rome, by the above Christian argument, should have ascribed all her honor, praise, and glory to her mythology.

“The Turk and the Saracen, likewise, have had their day of power and renown. Bagdad was the seat of science and learning at a time when the nations of Europe were sunk in darkness and superstition. The Turk and Saracen should have pointed to the Koran as the source of their refinement.

“Thus we see that the Christian argument we are noticing, if it proves anything, it proves too much. If the nations of Christendom are indebted to the Bible for their enlightenment, likewise were the Egyptians indebted to their cat and crocodile and onion worship, the Greeks and Romans to their mythology and the Turks and Saracens to their Koran.”—Seaver.

The following is from William Denton’s “Common Sense Thoughts on the Bible:”

“‘But it is well known, that in those countries where the Bible is read, studied, and believed in, there is more knowledge and greater freedom, more virtue and happiness, than in any other countries.’”

“If true, and if all this was the result of reading and believing the Bible, it would not prove the Bible to be divine. A book may be useful, though merely human. But where is the proof that we owe our virtue, liberty, and enlightenment to the Bible? The Abyssinians have had the Bible in their possession twice as long as the Anglo-Saxons, and yet they are a race of barbarians still. What did the Bible accomplish for the people of Syria, and Asia Minor, who were first blessed with it? So little, that the Koran superseded it; the Mohammedans being superior in almost every respect, to the Christians whom they conquered and converted. The Greeks and Romans were as far in advance of surrounding nations as we are or profess to be. Was it the Bible that elevated and made them and made their unsurpassed poets, painters, sculptors, and orators? Their priests, doubtless, attributed their superiority to the superior religion they possessed. So Bible believers oppose science and reform to the last; but when they triumph in spite of their opposition, they are the first to shout glory to the Bible for what it has accomplished.”—Denton.

“I had a conversation with a gentleman once—and these gentlemen are always mistaking something that goes along with a thing for the cause of the thing—and he stated to me that his particular religion was the cause of all advancement. I said to him, ‘No, sir; the causes of all advancement in my judgment, are plug hats and suspenders.’ And I said to him, ‘You go to Turkey, where they are semi-barbarians, and you won’t find a pair of suspenders or a plug hat in all that country; you go to Russia, and you will find now and then a pair of suspenders at Moscow or St. Petersburg; but you go on down until you strike Austria, and black hats begin; then you go to Paris, Berlin, and New York, and you will find everybody wears suspenders and everybody wears black hats. Wherever you find education and music, there you will find black hats and suspenders.’ He said that any man who said to him that plug hats and suspenders had done more for mankind than the Bible and religion he would not talk to.” (Ingersoll’s “Ghosts.”)

“Jacob, blessing Judah, said: (Gen. 49: 11, 12): ‘Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes. His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.’

“Doesn’t look as though Yahweh, the ‘God of Jacob,’ thought wine a very bad article.

“Num. 6: 20: ‘After that the Nazarite may drink wine.’

“In Deut. 7: 13, God, through Moses, said to his chosen people: ‘And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee; and he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil,’ etc., etc.

“Just think of it, Woman’s Christian Temperance Union people, God has solemnly promised to bless his faithful children with an especially large vintage, a better vintage than that of their unbelieving neighbors! Rather rough on the heretic French and the Infidel Germans!

“Deut. 11: 14: ‘That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thy oil.’

“Yahweh is determined that the supply of wine shall not fall short.

“Deut. 14: 26: ‘And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth; and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thine household.’

“Rev. Mr. Stevenson to the box! Repeat your testimony, please. ‘I said that, The education of the children of the republic in temperance principles logically involves the maintenance in those schools of the Bible as the great text book in morals.’

“Deut. 15: 14: ‘Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.’

“This is said regarding the manumitted Hebrew slave. And so it is a blessing for God to give the fruit of the wine-press to his children? And we are to emulate him?

“It seems that God punishes his people by blasting their vineyards, and thus cutting short their supply of wine, as below:

“Deut. 28: 39: ‘Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but thou shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes, for the worms shall eat them.’

“Verse 51 of the same chapter tells the people that their cattle and wine and oil shall be taken from them if they disobey God’s commands. This is the famous ‘cursing chapter’ of the Bible, and is just the reading calculated to make a man believe that God was the first pope of Rome.

“Deuteronomy is a very good book for the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and I suggest that it hold a special meeting to pray for the evidently ‘rum’-loving god who wrote it. There is much other matter in it that helps to make it an admirable work for use in the schools.

“Judges 9: 13: ‘And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?’

“Ah! so it appears that God, the ‘original prohibitionist,’ according to the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union drinks wine, else how could it cheer him?

“Second Sam. 6: 19: ‘And he dealt among all the people, even among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine.’

“Query: What would the Christian temperance ladies have done with that wine had they been present when David, the man after God’s own heart, dealt it out to all, men as well as women?

“Second Sam. 16: 2: ‘And Ziba said, The asses be for the king’s household to ride on; and the bread and summer fruit for the young men to eat; and the wine that such as faint in the wilderness may drink.’

“In Kansas and Iowa many get ‘faint in the wilderness,’ judging by the business of the drugstores. No doubt they have all seen this prescription given by God.

“Second Chron. 2: 10: ‘And behold, I will give to thy servants, the hewers that cut timber, twenty thousand measures of beaten wheat, and twenty thousand measures of barley, and twenty thousand baths of wine, and twenty thousand baths of oil.’

“The article which Solomon, ‘the wisest of all men,’ gave to the servants of the king of Tyre in one-fourth payment for their labor in preparing the temple which he built to the Lord, was probably especially blessed by the Lord for that use, and so rendered non-intoxicating, else we must conclude that he pays those who build houses for him in what friend St. John would call ‘liquid damnation.’

“And inasmuch as Solomon was the wisest of all men (or God made a mistake when he so said), and the temple was for the said God, I am justified in concluding that this God regards wine as a legal tender, and so I put the above passage in this category as one in which God has sanctified the use of wine.

“Neh. 5: 11: (To the usurers): ‘Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their olive yards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them.’

“Neh. 10: 39: ‘For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil ... and we will not forsake the house of our God.’

“Wine, old or ‘new,’ seems to have been always acceptable to ‘our God,’ whether tendered as a holy offering or otherwise.

“‘The Lord’ makes wine, according to the Psalmist:

“Psalm 104: 15: ‘And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart.’

“If ‘the Lord’ lived in Iowa, Lozier and Foster would have him arrested for violation of the new iron-clad prohibitory law.

“Prov. 3: 10: ‘So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.’

“Prov. 31: 6, 7: ‘Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty and remember his misery no more.’

“In these two verses, the author of Proverbs has more than nullified all the good things he said in his earlier chapters, and which I have quoted in List A. I am quite sure that where they have prevented the drinking of one glass of wine or strong drink, these passages have led to the drinking of one thousand. And this is a mild statement of the case.

“Eccl. 9: 7: ‘Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.’

“Song of Sol. 1: 2: ‘Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; for thy love is better than wine.’

“From this we gather that, next to love wine is the best thing in the world. This is the opinion of most bacchanalian experts, I believe. Solomon seems to have had much experience.

“Song of Sol. 5: 1: ‘I have drunk my wine with my milk; eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O believers.’

“Is this the earliest mention of milk punch?

“Song of Sol. 8: 2: ‘I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate.’ Metaphorical, undoubtedly.

“Isa. 1: 22: ‘Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water.’

“Have your wine full strength, as much as you would have your silver unalloyed, is the admonition of God’s prophet.

“Isa. 24: 7: ‘The new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth; all the merry-hearted do sigh.’

“One more in the long list of passages wherein it is said that God punished his chosen people by cutting off their vintage. What God regards as a real deprivation to lose must be good to have and to keep, in his opinion, whatever the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union people may think about it. Verse 9 says: ‘They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it.’ Verse 11: ‘There is a crying for wine in the streets; all joy is darkened; the mirth of the land is gone.’

“God thus punished them by taking away their wine, on the same principle that he punishes us by killing our children, as Christians say that he does. Will they contend that children are inherently an evil? They must if they follow the same line of reasoning that they do in interpreting these texts.

“Isa. 27: 2, 3: ‘In that day sing ye unto her, a vineyard of red wine. I the Lord do keep it; I will water it every moment; lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day.’

“Figurative, doubtless! So is the next, but all the influence of these passages is on the side of intemperance, necessarily, for the simple reason that the great mass of the people will take them literally, and for the further reason that the constant association of wine with ‘good news’ and symbols of religion familiarize the mind with it and serve to give it something of a sacred character. This last mentioned fact helps to explain why the church so long opposed the modern temperance movement. But here is the passage above indicated, Isa. 55: 1: ‘Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat: yea, come buy wine and milk without money and without price.’

“Isa. 62: 8: ‘The Lord hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength, Surely I will no more give thy corn to be meat for thine enemies; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy wine, for the which thou hast labored.’

“Rev. Stevenson should suggest to the Lord that, whereas wine is an evil thing, and the Bible a ‘great text book of morals,’ and the palladium of temperance, essential in the proper training of our children, therefore, he, the Lord, should have clearly shown that he meant that the enemies of his chosen people should take from them their wine that through such deprivation they should be better and happier. But, no! he ranks wine with corn, and registers a mighty oath that the people shall have them both.

“Isa. 65: 8: ‘Thus saith the Lord, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it, so I will do for my servants’ sake, that I may not destroy them all.’

“Jer. 31: 12: ‘Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil,’ etc.

“Jer. 40: 10: ‘But ye, gather ye wine, and summer fruits, and oil, and put them in your vessels, and dwell in the cities that ye have taken.’

“Probably ‘wine’ here means grapes, though it is used in the same construction as ‘oil.’

“Jer. 48: 33: ‘And joy and gladness is taken from the plentiful field, and from the land of Moab, and I have caused wine to fail from the wine presses.’

“Dan. 1: 5: ‘And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank, so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.’

“Here God intends, plainly, to convey the impression that wine is nourishing! The only way in which the Christian temperance people can relieve him from the imputation of teaching lessons so opposite to theirs is to enter the plea that he did not inspire the writer!

“Hos. 2: 8, 9: ‘For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold which they prepared for Baal. Therefore I will return and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness.’

“Of course, if these passages and very many of like import, are any argument against wine, they are of equal weight in the scale against corn, wool, and many other useful and necessary articles. The authors of such verses, wherever found, unquestionably looked upon wine as one of God’s good gifts to his children, but which he was compelled to sometimes deprive them of because of their disobedience.

“Hos. 9: 2: ‘The floor and the wine-press shall not feed them, and the new wine shall fail in her.’

“That is, Israel shall be punished for her transgressions by the destruction of the fertility of the soil.

“Evidently the perfume of wine was pleasing unto the Lord, for he says, in promising his blessing to the repentant people (Hos. 14: 7): ‘They shall revive as the corn, and grow as the wine; the scent thereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon.’

“Joel 1: 5: ‘Awake, ye drunkards, and howl, all ye drinkers of wine.’

“This, taken by itself, would be an unqualified condemnation of intoxicants, but such was not the prophet’s meaning. The verse concludes: ‘Because of the new wine, for it is cut off from your mouths.’

“In the vision of the prophet he sees the great evils that have come upon his country; the palmer-worm, and the locust, and the canker-worm have destroyed the crops. ‘The meat-offering and the drink-offering is cut off from the house of the Lord, ... the corn is wasted, the oil languisheth,’ etc. While in the verse quoted the drinkers are mildly requested to howl, in verse thirteen we have, ‘Gird yourselves and lament, ye priests; howl ye ministers of the altar.’ No temperance admonition or lesson here, that is plain.

“Joel 3: 18: ‘And it shall come to pass in that day that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with water,’ etc.

“Thus, again, among the great blessings to be bestowed upon the faithful is wine in abundance. One of the facts that strikes me most forcibly, in making such an examination as this, is the almost universal favor with which the Hebrew prophets looked upon wine and wine-drinking; and in prophesying the evils to come upon their people because of their disobedience to God or their oppression of their fellows, they rarely fail to include the cutting off of the wine supply. This they evidently regarded as one of the greatest of calamities. Our Christian temperance friends would gladly, so they say, visit wholesale destruction upon the vineyards and barley fields, and they seem almost to seek to convey the impression that God made a mistake when he created grapes and barley. This proves how honest they are when they say that the Bible is a temperance book. In Amos 5: 11, we have another example of the above-mentioned fact in the utterances of the prophet. Denouncing the people for their injustice, he says: ‘Ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink wine of them.’ In the preceding sentence he had said: ‘Ye have built houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them.’ Houses were good, wine was good; but because of their sins they should be deprived of both. There is here no argument either direct or implied in behalf of abstinence.

“Amos 9: 14: ‘And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens and eat the fruit of them.’

“It does not seem that even Mr. Stevenson would venture to claim this verse as a Bible argument for temperance. They shall drink the wine!

“Micah. 6: 15: ‘Thou shalt sow, but thou shalt not reap; thou shalt tread the olives, but thou shalt not anoint thee with oil; and sweet wine, but shalt not drink wine.’

“How can apparently honorable men claim that God, as revealed in the Bible, disapproves of the use of intoxicants when he is continually telling his chosen people that he will punish them by destroying their corn, and their wine, and their oil; evidently taking particular pains to impress upon them the fact that they (wine, corn, and oil) are equally good and useful?

“Zeph. 1: 13: ‘They shall also build houses, but not inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, but not drink the wine thereof.’

“The same old story:

“In chapter 1, verse 11, Haggai calls for a drouth upon the land to punish the people, and he includes, as usual, the corn, and the oil, and the new wine among the things to be destroyed.

“Zech. 9: 17: ‘For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty; corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids.’

“Rather a singular apportionment of his bounty, unless ‘corn’ means something stronger than wine.

“Matt. 11: 19: ‘The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a man is gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.’ But are these her children who claim Jesus as very God and yet fly directly in the face of his precepts and practice? Or is it moral uprightness instead of wisdom that they lack?

“In Mat. 21: 33 to 41, and Mark 12: 1 to 9, Jesus gives us the parable of the vineyard and the husbandman, and in it all there is no hint that there was anything wrong in the business of winemaking.

“The thought that we find expressed in Mat. 11: 19, is given again in Luke 7: 33–4–5, where we read: ‘For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children.’

“Whoever uttered these words, man or god; whoever wrote them, John or some one else one hundred or more years later, there can be no disputing regarding the lesson which is taught. It is that each individual is to determine for himself or herself in all things pertaining to personal conduct and habits. ‘Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind’ is the central idea of the various renderings. There is no rebuke, expressed or implied, of intemperance; there is nothing that can be tortured into a condemnation of wine-drinking or into an approval of the principle of total abstinence, or that of prohibition. Here was his opportunity to condemn the drinking of wine, to speak for that which is now called temperance; but from his lips fell no words of warning; to those gathered about him he said nothing in favor of the great reform which Christians of to-day, falsely assuming to speak in his name, declare finds its sanction and inspiration, its bulwark and tower of defense, in the Bible.

“It seems that the good Samaritan (Luke 10: 34) had with him a supply of wine with which he dressed the wounds of the stranger.

“John 2: 3–11: ‘And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants which drew the water knew), the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.’

“John 4: 46: ‘So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine.’

“The first miracle which Jesus performed was to convert six pots of water into wine! And this feat convinced his disciples of his supernatural origin and powers! And he did this to manifest forth his glory! Either this is true or the Bible is false. Whether true or not, it has been a most powerful argument against abstinence; it has resulted directly in making drunkards, as it has indirectly in making hypocrites and Jesuitical sophists. I of course mean by this last sentence that the seeming necessity to prove the Bible a temperance work has made any number of Christian apologists resort to all kinds of specious arguments and make any number of false claims in order to make good their assertions. The assumption that this wine was not of an intoxicating nature is purely gratuitous. There is not even the ghost of a fact to be found in support of it. Hundreds of passages, which I have quoted under their appropriate heads, prove beyond a doubt that the wine so often mentioned in the Bible was intoxicating; the words of the governor prove that this miraculously produced portion of it certainly was of the very best, for it is against all reason to suppose that men accustomed to the taste and effects of wine would pronounce simple grape-juice to be better than all that had already been served to them at the feast; and, finally, the declaration that this act of Jesus was a miracle and that it made his disciples to ‘believe on him,’ gives the last stroke to the already nearly dead ‘non-intoxicating’ theory.

“Col. 2: 16: ‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.’

“In other words, judge for yourselves in all these matters, submit to no dictation from without. How does that strike you, Messrs. Bible Prohibitionists?

“1 Tim. 5: 23: ‘Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.’

“It is probable that this short verse has led to the consumption of more wine and caused more intemperance than any other equal number of words in any language or contained in any book. It has had more potent effect upon the mind of the Christian believer than have twenty passages which have in a hesitating, half-hearted, uncertain way caution against the use of much wine.

“Comparing this class of passages with those grouped under ‘A,’ we find that the Bible pleas for temperance are out voted more than five to one by those in favor of the use of intoxicants. The record is an astonishingly bad one for the Bible as a total abstinence and Prohibition work, and should put to the blush all of its worshipers and apologists who have been so foolish or unscrupulous as to claim that it is indispensable to the temperance cause and in the education of our children. Both claims are absurd.” (E. C. Walker’s “Bible Temperance.”)

“But pray, why? Does not that proposition tacitly concede that it is irrational to say there is a God? If so, how can it be irrational to deny an irrational proposition or absurdity? Are not the two propositions antithetical? If so, one or the other is, of necessity, false. Conceding then, as he does, the absurdity of the God idea, why will Mr. Pentecost persist, inconsistently, in maintaining that there is no difference between the rationality of Theism and Materialism, with its incidental Atheism?

“Will he kindly tell us the difference in degree of rationality between the position that there is a personal Devil and that there is a God? Are not both notions of the same origin and equally absurd? Are not both transmitted to us from the dark ages, from the same book, and must not both stand or fall together? Yet Mr. Pentecost would not, from pure deference and respect for our poor, non-evolved pious friends, assume an Agnostic’s attitude and concede that ‘it is as irrational to say there is no Devil as to say there is a Devil.’ Of course not. He simply denies the existence of His Satanic Majesty without equivocation, and the proof of his existence not being forthcoming his denial is equivalent to proof that such a being does not exist.

“In law and equity the affirmative is obliged to prove its case. If then a proposition is self-evidently absurd, unnatural and absolutely impossible, why concede to those affirming, without a shadow of proof, that their belief is equally rational with our unbelief, that ‘it may be so,’ ‘I don’t know,’ etc.

“Having discarded as authoritative ancient traditions, there is absolutely no logic, no reason, no science, no analogy that will sustain or demonstrate the existence of a God. And in view of this fact a simple denial is all-sufficient to prove the negative. As the plea of the prisoner at the bar of ‘not guilty’ is equivalent to proof of his innocence and bound to be respected by court and juror, unless, indeed, the affirmative, beyond a shadow of a doubt, establishes his guilt, so the Atheist’s fearless denial, nowadays, must demand profound respect, and is equivalent to proof, unless, indeed, the Church brings proof, outside of a discarded Bible, of the truth of its basic idea.

“Now, though unnecessary to prove a negative, and the God-idea not having been established by history, revelation, science, or reason, yet alleged arguments being continually advanced in the vain endeavor to resuscitate a vanishing religion, a few propositions are here advanced which prove there is no God.

“There is a universe. This proves there is no God.

“The universe is infinite. This excludes anything else of like character—two infinities being an absurdity.

“The universe (nature) is here and there and everywhere. This proves that God cannot be here and there and everywhere.

“Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Matter (implying energy and force) monopolizing every point of space, nothing else can occupy it in addition.

“The universe exists now. Something cannot come from nothing, therefore the universe has always existed.

“Being eternal and infinite, this excludes anything anterior, exterior, or superior to it.

“Is God in the universe or the universe in God? If there is a God, either of these propositions must be true, yet both are glaringly absurd.

“Can an engineer drive a locomotive and be a locomotive at the same time? If not, how can a God manipulate an infinite universe and be infinite ‘Himself?’

“Yet the universe, outside of a God, is an absolute reality, as much so as a locomotive is a reality outside of the engineer. The world is a reality, our planets, the sun, all the countless millions of stars within reach of our telescopes and the infinitude of stars and systems beyond the reach of our strongest lenses, which science infers to exist, all these are a reality and all these, yes, every object of knowledge is a reality, and all these are not God! How then, in the name of reason I ask, can a God, of whom we know absolutely nothing, be infinite, when an infinite number of material objects—not God—fill all space?

“But does the universe exist in God? If we but imagine for a moment the aspect of the universe to resemble a huge machine of infinite proportions, eternally active in all its vast proportions, the idea of the universe existing within a God will appear equally childish and simple.

“All phenomena are the results of energy co-existent and inseparable from matter. All cosmic motion, change, and life may be traced to this physical and chemical energy pervading all nature—never to a God.

“Mind—the so-called infinite as well as finite—implies limit, localization, conditions, etc. This fact tends to prove that while God, perchance, might concentrate his mind on the world or some particular sect or individual, considering their exhortations, the rest of the world and the universe for the time being would be Godless!

“From a late scientific authority I quote in proof: ‘It is impossible for a person’s mind to be in two places at the same time.’ Noted chess players may play twenty games simultaneously, but it is done by speedy transfer of thoughts from one game to another and not by considering two moves at once.

“Thus ‘Omniscience’ is impossible.

“Again; mind implies limit and necessitates organism, brain, nervous force, etc. This again makes impossible a God. Let the Church demonstrate how a God without a brain can be a God and all it implies, or how a God with a brain can be infinite, and I will kneel down and worship with them.

“Is this dogmatism? The ‘dogmatism of the Infidel’ we hear so much about? If it is, then asserting that twice two is four is dogmatism. Then we state all the facts of mathematics, all the truths of history is dogmatism. We simply confine ourselves to fact, to knowledge and demonstrated truth. There we stop and refuse to accept the crude notions transmitted from our ignorant ancestors, which, it is dogmatically asserted, are true in spite of our knowledge and reason.

“I protest against being accused of dogmatism, I studiously endeavor to be fair and make no pretensions to scholarship and learning. But I emphatically protest against the dogmatism of others who, assuming a superior air of knowledge assert notions contrary to fact. Supposing some one should affirm that twice two is five, would it be dogmatism, to deny the proposition, and would thinking minds be justified to assume the attitude of Agnostics and concede that while in their opinion twice two is four, yet twice two may be five, ‘I don’t know,’ ‘one proposition is as irrational as the other,’ etc.?

“We know a universe exists. Existing now proves it is eternal. This simple fact absolutely makes impossible, yes, needless, a God.

“I simply assert that twice two is four and cannot possibly be five. That the universe filling all space nothing else can fill it in addition. If this be dogmatism all knowledge is a farce.”—Wettstein.

“If God foreknew whatever was to come to pass, he must have been perfectly well aware that his whole creation, including the scheme of redemption, would be the most stupendous failure imaginable,—as it certainly has been if the Christian religion be true. For what rational or humane man would raise a family of children, if he knew beforehand that they would all be vagabonds and criminals, ending their days in prison or on the scaffold? What prudent farmer would intentionally sow wheat on land certain to produce a bad crop? What sensible business man would knowingly embark in an enterprise sure to prove disastrous, and to involve himself and his family in irretrievable ruin? And yet such conduct on the part of men would be far less irrational and criminal than that of which the Creator is guilty, if the doctrine of his foreknowledge and omnipotence be true. For, according to this doctrine, he alone is responsible for whatever has occurred and will occur, and for all the suffering in the world, since he had full power to prevent it but did not, and does not; and the conclusion to be drawn from this fact is, that he intended all things to be just as they have been in the past, are now and are to be in the future. For, if he possessed absolute power, he might have placed man under entirely different circumstances, and surrounded him by influences which would have led him into the path of perfect rectitude, but did not choose to do so; and we fail to understand how man can be justly held responsible either for his own creation, for the nature with which he is endowed, or for the environment which determines his conduct.” (J. W. Stillman’s “God and the Universe.”)

“I think it is not a good thing for people to believe in God. I think it is a bad thing for them to do so. I think the belief in God is one of the things that is helping very strongly to keep knaves in power and honest people in weakness; it is one of the things that is preventing the people from thinking for themselves and helping themselves. The human mind will never be perfectly free, and peasants and mechanics and day laborers will never be perfectly fairly treated in this world, until the church is utterly destroyed. I do not want to see the church reformed. I want to see her utterly destroyed, because as long as she exists the ruling classes in society will always have in her a faithful ally to help them carry on their infernal schemes of pillage. I do not want people to have a better idea of God or an idea of a better God. I want the idea of God entirely rooted out of the mind, because I know that as long as any idea of God remains in the mind, the priest and the politician will have something to work upon, and this world will never be free and happy until the priest and the politician are gone.

“One man will tell you that God is a Roman Catholic, another that he is a Presbyterian, another that he is a Baptist, and so on. One man will say that he is a Republican, another that he is a single taxer, another that he is a Socialist, and so on. What we must come to see is, that nothing is done in human society that is not done by men. Poverty must be destroyed, not because it is God’s will that it should be, but because it is best for the human race that it should be. And general wealth must be achieved, not because it is God’s will that it should be, but because it is best for the human race that it should be. Beware of those men who tell you what is or what is not the will of God. In every case you will find a person who is intellectually asleep, or half asleep, or mentally dishonest, or else you will find—and this is more likely—a priest or a politician, a person who wants to get you to not think about what he is teaching you. We have been dragged through enough mire and blood and darkness doing things according to the will of God. It is now time we began to think things out for ourselves.”—Pentecost.

“Mr. Barnum said that Christians had a different way of thinking about God now from that of fifty years ago. ‘When I first heard of the doctrine of the Universalists,’ said he, ‘I felt so utterly astonished that I thought I’d drop dead in my boots. The orthodox faith painted God as so revengeful a being that you could hardly distinguish the difference between God and the Devil. If I had almighty power and could take a pebble and give it life, knowing beforehand that fifty-nine seconds out of every sixty would be extreme misery, I would be a monster. Yet this is how God was described, and people talk about loving such a being.’” (Newspaper clipping.)

1. Something (substance) must have always been, or anything could not now be.

2. Then this something was eternal, and hence self-existent.

3. Since self-existent and eternal, it must have been infinite, and hence was everything existing everywhere.

4. Therefore, all that is, has always been; that is, everything has eternally existed everywhere.

But will you say that this something, this self-existent, eternal everything, is God? Very well. Then nothing but God could be. Then he must be the all of everything existing everywhere. Then where is your universe? You see you cannot have a universe if you have a God. We have the universe; hence you cannot have a God. “But he created the universe,” you say. Very well; from what did he create it? Nothing? Omnipresent God alone extending on, and on, and forever on through all the everywheres, cramming all the immensities full of his essential self. He could not have created the universe beyond himself, since there was no beyond. There could have been no place in which to put it outside of himself when created, since there was no outside. If created, it must have been from his own essence; and then it would not have been a creation of anything, but a changing of himself into something different; and that was not possible, since he was self-existent, and must necessarily exist the same forever, since he was eternal, and must exist unchangeable. So the universe could not have been made from nothing, since all the spaces everywhere were crammed completely full of everything, and hence there was no unoccupied premises where the raw material could have been stored away. It could not have been created from God-substance, since that already was; it could not have been formed from God’s pre-existing self, since that would have been to change the eternally unchangeable into something else—to annihilate himself as God by working himself over into the universe. You see that there can be but one Eternal All. You cannot have both—a God and the universe. And since we have the universe, that is, everything eternally existing everywhere, we need no God, there is no room for a God, and there has never been anything for a God to do. Therefore, there is no God.

As an infinite God must necessarily fill the entirety of space, there could be no room for aught else. God and man could not live together in the same universe. God would necessarily be everything; then the universe must be nothing. But we have the universe, and that is everything; therefore God is nothing—existing nowhere. A mote that is, is better than a God that is not. If we part with God and obtain a universe, we make a magnificent exchange. The issue has always been God versus matter. When people come to understand that matter has always been, that it eternally had the start of everything else, and hence needed no creation, it will be seen that there never has been any necessity for a God, and as the universe is ever governed by law, there is nothing for a God to do. Men must believe in matter, because it is everything, and does everything. Something is always better than nothing. If God is not matter he is not anything; and the idea of God is destined to become obsolete, and gradually pass into utter forgetfulness. The God-idea has been the center and foundation of all the superstitions of the world. When men have learned to dispense with it, their emancipation will be great indeed.—Sam Preston.

1. He was unsuccessful in creation. He made Adam and Eve and the serpent; but all his plans were frustrated in a short time; and “it repented the Lord that he had made man.”

2. In repeopling the world from Noah’s family he decidedly failed again. How easy it would have been after drowning the whole world, to create a new man and woman of perfect character, and omit the Devil business.

3. In attempting to save the world through Jesus Christ he made another failure. It is not in the nature of things for this world to be saved. “To be saved” means too much, and it means too little. Man can not be saved entirely from his weakness, ignorance, and selfishness; and hence can never be perfect. Man can be made morally better, intellectually wiser, physically healthier, individually and socially happier; but his betterment cannot be achieved through preaching, Bible-reading, praying and other religious exercises. It must come through liberty. He must have equal rights with his fellow men. He must have justice established between man and man. The toiler must get the fruits of his toil. A good home has a more sacred influence over the hearts of men to make them kind and good, than all the preaching in the world. With a home of his own man has a little heaven of his own, and a truer and better love of his neighbor.

“The character of a god is the character of the people who have made him. When therefore I expose the crimes of Jehovah, I expose the defective morality of Israel; and when I criticise the God of modern Europe, I criticise the defective intellects of Europeans. The reader must endeavor to bear this in mind; for though he may think that his idea of the Creator is actually the Creator, that belief is not shared by me.” (Winwood Reade, “Martyrdom of Man.”)

1. The doctrine of the atonement is of heathen origin, and is predicated upon the assumption that no sin can be fully expiated without the shedding of blood. In the language of Paul, “Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin.” A barbarous and bloody doctrine truly! But this doctrine was almost universally prevalent amongst the orientals long before Paul’s time.

2. Christians predicate the dogma of atonement for sin upon the assumption that Christ’s death and sufferings were a substitute for Adam’s death, incurred by the fall. But as Adam’s sentence was death, and he suffered that penalty, this assumption cannot be true.

3. If the penalty for sin was death, as taught in Genesis 3, and Christ suffered that penalty for man, then man should not die; but, as he does, it makes the doctrine preposterous. It could not have meant spiritual death, as some argue, because a part of the penalty was that of being doomed to return to dust (Gen. 3: 19).

4. If crucifixion was indispensably necessary as a penalty, then the punishment should have been inflicted either upon the instigator or perpetrator of the deed; either the serpent or Adam should have been nailed to the cross.

5. We are told in reply, that as an infinite sin was committed, it required an infinite sacrifice. But Adam, being a finite being, could not commit an infinite sin; and Christ’s sacrifice and sufferings could not be infinite unless he had continued to suffer to all eternity. Therefore the assumption is false.

6. An all-wise God would not let things get into such a condition as to require the murder of his only son from any consideration whatever.

7. And no father, cherishing a proper regard and love for his son, could have required him to be, or consented to have him put to death in a cruel manner; for the claims of mercy and paternal affection are as imperative as justice.

8. To put an intelligent and innocent being to death, for any purpose is a violation of the moral law, and as great a sin as that for which he died. Hecatombs of victims cannot atone for the infraction of the moral law which is engraven upon our souls.

9. If it were necessary for Christ to be put to death, then Judas is entitled to one half the merit of it for inaugurating the act, as it could not have taken place without his aid; and no one who took part in it should be censured, but praised.

10. It is evident, that, if everybody had been Quakers no atonement would have been made, as their religion is opposed to bloodshed.

11. The atonement is either one God putting another to death or God putting himself to death to appease his own wrath; but both assumptions are monstrous absurdities, which no person distinguished for science or reason can indorse.

12. Anger and murder are the two principal features in the doctrine of the atonement; and both are repugnant to our moral sense and feelings of refinement, and indicate a barbarous and heathen origin.

13. The atonement punishes the innocent for the guilty, which is a twofold crime, and a reversal of the spirit of justice. If a father should catch four of his children stealing and the fifth one standing by and remonstrating against the act, and should seize on the innocent one and administer a severe flagellation, he would commit a double crime: 1st, that of punishing an innocent child; 2d, that of exonerating and encouraging the four children in the commission of crime. The atonement involves the same principle.

14. No person with true moral manhood would consent to be be saved on any such terms; but would prefer to suffer for his own sins, rather than let an innocent being suffer for them. And the man who would accept salvation upon such terms must be a sneak and a coward, with a soul not worth saving.

15. Who that possesses any sense of justice would want to swim through blood to get to the heavenly mansion. I want neither animals, men, nor Gods murdered to save my soul.

16. If there is any virtue in the atonement in the way of expiating crime, then there is now another atonement demanded by the principles of moral justice to cancel the sin committed by the first atonement—that of murdering an innocent being, “in whose mouth was no guile;” and then another atonement to wipe out the sin of this atonement, and so on. And thus it would be atonement after atonement, murder after murder, ad infinitum. What shocking consequences and absurdities are involved in this ancient heathen superstition!

17. It seems strange that any person can cherish the thought for a moment that the Infinite Father would require a sacrificial offering for the trifling act of eating a little fruit, and require no atonement for the infinitely greater sin of murdering “his only begotten son.” Another monstrous absurdity!

18. The advocates of the atonement tell us that man stands toward his Creator in the relation of a debtor, and the atonement cancels the debt. To be sure! How does it do it?—Graves.

“A Protestant minister of Oakland, California, in a recent address on the public school system of the United States, expressed himself as follows: ‘In one of the schools of San Francisco Herbert Spencer’s “Data of Ethics” was introduced as a text book of morals—as palpable a violation of the law forbidding sectarian instruction as the introduction of the Catholic or Methodist catechism; for Hebert Spencer belongs to a very small and narrow sect which promulgates the creed of Agnosticism.’

“If the reverend speaker had taken the ground that the ‘Data of Ethics’ was too abstruse to be placed in the hands of public school pupils we should have felt inclined to sustain his objection. But when he says that to introduce such a book is to give a sectarian character to the school in which it is used, we must enter a protest. Science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what cannot be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed. The followers of Mr. Spencer may be in a minority, but they are no more a sect than were the adherents of the Copernican system of astronomy, or than are the believers in the Darwinian theory of natural selection. Mr. Spencer makes no appeal to faith, but finds his premises in the common experience of mankind. A pupil who was being taught out of the ‘Data of Ethics’ would be quite at liberty to dispute either the premises or the arguments of the author; and he would not be silenced by the declaration that Mr. Spencer is infallible. But when catechisms are taught they are taught, not as containing matter for discussion, but as containing doctrines that must not be disputed, on pain of more or less disagreeable consequences. Similarly when the Bible is read in school it is read not as a fallible record of events, or a fallible guide in morals, but as something absolutely authoritative—the very voice of God. It is perfectly obvious then, where sectarianism in education begins; it begins just at the point where doctrines of any kind accepted on faith by a portion of the community and not discussible on grounds of reason, are made a part of public school instruction. Sectarianism comes in whenever the teacher is obliged to say, ‘Hush’ to the inquiring scholar who wants his reason satisfied before he will believe. There is no sectarianism, on the other hand, in making use of a book which lays no claim to any kind of privilege, and which, therefore, cannot force the belief of anyone. The followers of Mr. Spencer do not form a sect because they have no beliefs which they wish to exempt from criticism or discussion, and because they hold themselves at full liberty to pass beyond the bounds of Mr. Spencer’s thought whenever they can see their way to doing so. Mr. Spencer’s ‘Data of Ethics’ may not contain all the truth on the subject of morals, but the truth which it does contain lends itself to demonstration; and no one can be the worse for being taught demonstrable truths. Upon that foundation he can afterward build what he likes—hay, stubble, or what not; and after his superstructure has been tried by the fire of experience, as it is very likely to be, he will still have something solid left on which to rebuild in perchance wiser fashion. We do not advocate the introduction of the ‘Data of Ethics’ into the public schools: but we are convinced that it would be a very good thing for the rising generation if some of the ideas contained in that book could be brought home to their minds.” (Popular Science Monthly, November 1889.)