Yes, we shall make more progress in learning our duties, in learning "what we must do in order to be saved," if we would look about us and forward, and endeavor to read the great Bible or book of nature illuminated by the rules of science, in which there are no contradictions, no confusion, and where we may learn of, and, in our finite measure, grow into and partake of the attributes of the Infinite Father, instead of looking backward and searching amongst the jarring contradictious, the creeds, dogmas, myths, and traditions of the past, covered as they are with the mold and dust of ages.

"Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission for sin." The doctrine of this text constitutes the basis of all the plans of salvation which various ages and nations have founded on dead Gods and living devils. Nearly every religious nation known to history cherished the belief that God is an irritable, irascible, and vindictive being, subject to fits or paroxysms of anger; and, when in this furious and unbalanced and ungovernable state of mind, he frequently poured out his vengeance upon his disobedient children, often subjecting them to the most terrible penalties in this life, and then threatened them with a still worse doom in the next. To avert this direful calamity,—at least so far as it appertained to the life beyond the grave,—most religious nations invented schemes which came to be known as systems or plans of salvation. The original model seems to have been furnished by the Hindoos, and borrowed from them by the Egyptians, and thence transmitted to the Persians and Grecians, and was finally incorporated into the Christian system, and now constitutes what is known as "the Christian plan of salvation." Each system was composed of three cardinal principles: 1. The primeval innocency and moral perfection of man. 2. His temptation and downfall into a state of moral depravity. 3. His restoration to the divine favor by the voluntary sacrifice and atoning offering of a God (one of the three members of the trinity). These three cardinal doctrines constitute what Christians denominate "the great and glorious plan of salvation," and on which a thousand volumes have been written, and ten thousand sermons are preached every year. As it professes to point out the road, and the only road, to heaven, it merits a somewhat critical examination. We will therefore analyze and examine its several principles, to see whether it has a true moral basis, or is in strict accordance with the principles of natural justice. The first proposition assumes that man primordially occupied the highest plane of moral perfection, and that all his animal propensities were held in strict abeyance to his moral convictions, and that he consequently led a morally pure, perfect, and holy life. The first and most important query to which this proposition or assumption gives rise is, Can it be shown to be true? Can it be sustained by either the principles of natural or moral science, or by the facts of history comprised in man's practical life? Now, it so happens that facts have been accumulating for thousands of years, gathered from almost every department of science and history, to prove and demonstrate that the proposition is entirety untenable,—that it is not true. Geology alone demonstrates its falsity. It has written its negative verdict upon a thousand rocks beneath our feet.

These rocks contain the fossiliferous and organic remains of the early and primitive inhabitants of the earth, and indicate the order of man's moral and intellectual development; for as each successive layer or stratum of fossiliferous rocks, in which the organic remains of man are found, marks a distinct period in his history, and the growth of his moral and intellectual brain is found in all cases to correspond to the age and growth of these strata, the question is thus settled and demonstrate! by the facts of geological science. As, the older the rocks, the more remote period they mark in man's history; and, the more remote the period to which it is thus traced, the lower the position in the scale of moral and intellectual development his organic remains prove him to have occupied. The question is thus reduced to a scientific problem, which admits of no disproof or refutation. It is, then, a settled scientific truth, that, the further we trace the past history of man by the footprints of geological science, the nearer he approaches to the condition of an animal,—when he was almost totally devoid of intellectual perceptions and moral feelings, and was consequently a victim to his lusts and animal propensities. Where, then, was his moral purity and perfection, or his angelic holiness? The doctrine is thus shown to be false and fabulous. All the skulls of the primitive races that have been found by geological research show that man, in his first rude type, had scarcely any moral brain; and the history of the race at that period shows that he possessed a correspondingly low, weak, defective moral character, so much so that he could scarcely be considered a moral, accountable being. To talk, then, of his occupying a high moral plane at that early period, is to contradict every principle of science and every page of history. His animal propensities and selfish feelings must have held complete sway over the whole empire of mind for thousands, if not for millions, of years; so that his moral status was but little above that of the brute. The facts of science and history to prove this proposition are abundant; but, as we are compelled to constantly observe the most rigid rules of brevity, we can only find space for one or two proof-illustrations. Human skulls have been found embedded in the rocks of Gibraltar with retreating foreheads, prognathous jaws, and frontal bones an inch thick, and the receptacles for both the moral and intellectual brain very small,—all of which denote very weak moral and intellectual minds, and a preponderance of the animal feelings; and geologists have decided that sixty-five thousand years must have elapsed since those bones and skulls were deposited in those rocks. Hundreds of similar facts have been gathered by geologists, and might be cited: but this one case is amply sufficient, and furnishes as conclusive proof as a thousand could do that the primitive inhabitants of the earth were on a low mental status, and that they were greatly inferior in morals and intellect to the least-developed minds of the present age; and consequently man's course has been upward, and not downward. There has been no falling, but a gradual rising, in both the moral and intellectual scale. It shows that man was at the very foot of the ladder at the commencement of his moral and intellectual career,—that he was flat on his back in the ditch; and, consequently, there was no lower place to fall to. The first proposition, then, is shown to be false,—that man originally occupied a high moral position, and that he was in a state of moral purity and perfection.

The second proposition—that of man's fall and moral degeneracy—is likewise shown to be false by the same facts; for, if he was never in a state of moral purity and perfection, then it is evident he never could have fallen from such a state. It would be superfluous, then, to attempt to show that man never fell, after having shown that he never occupied a high moral position to fall from. He could only fall in the sense the Scotchman did, who stated he fell up a well sixty feet in a bucket. It is settled, then, geologically, scientifically, and demonstrably, that man never fell in a moral sense.

We will now proceed to present what is presumed and assumed to be the scriptural exposition of man's original condition and fall.

We are told in the first chapter of Genesis, that, when God had completed the work of creation, he pronounced it all, not only good, but "very good," which indicates a state of perfection; but it appears the words were hardly out of his mouth till a very bad being, called a serpent, came crawling into the garden on his back, to furnish practical evidence that Moses' God was mistaken in having pronounced every thing so very "good." We have to assume that he came into the garden of paradise on his back, because the reverse mode of traveling was not adopted until after the fall; that is, till after he was doomed to that mode of travel as a punishment for having tempted and beguiled Mother Eve to try her new molars and incisors on some fruit (supposed to be pippins) hanging on a tree, which, it appears, underwent the rapid process of blossoming, and bearing fruit that ripened in a few hours after it was planted. And thus the serpent, although a senseless reptile, committed the first sin,—the first violation of moral law. The first question that naturally arises here is, Why was not the fence around the garden of paradise made snake-proof, so as to keep his snakeship out? Or shall we presume the gate was left open, and that he entered in that way? This, however, would indicate a blundering carelessness on the part of Jehovah, which we dare not assume. Another question arising here is, Why was not the angel with the flaming sword, which, we are told, was placed over the door or gateway to guard it from intruders,—why was he not placed there sooner? Why was he not placed there before the fall, instead of after, so as to bruise the serpent's head, or behead him, on his attempting to enter? To place a guard over the gate after the Devil had entered, and caused the effectual downfall and ruin of the human race, and thus perpetrated all the mischief he could, looks very much like "locking the stable-door after the horse is stolen." And the query also arises here, Are we not compelled to conclude that Moses' God was a little short-sighted, and rather hasty in his conclusion that every thing was so "very good" when the serpent proved to be so very bad? The only way to escape this dilemma is to assume that God did not make him, and that consequently he was not included in the original invoice of goods and chattels which were pronounced "very good;" but, in adopting this expedient, we only leap "from the frying-pan into the fire:" for the assumption does not do away with the difficulty, because it is declared that God made every thing that was made.

Hence it is evident that, if he were made at all, the God of Moses made him; and, if he were not made, then it follows that he is a self-created or self-existent being, and invested with all the attributes, powers, and prerogatives of God Almighty himself. And thus we would place two omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent beings on the throne of the universe; which is not only a moral contradiction, but a moral impossibility. We will assume, then, for the sake of the argument, that God did create the Devil,—an assumption, however, which brings us into still greater difficulty. Christ says, by way of illustrating human character, that "a tree is known by its fruit. A good tree can not bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." In this case God the Creator is the tree, and the Devil the fruit; and one is good, and the other evil. Here, then, is a good tree bearing evil fruit, which seems to furnish the most positive proof that Christ's moral axiom, "A good tree can not bear evil fruit," is false. There is evidently something wrong somewhere in this moral picture. Either Christ was mistaken, or the Christian world is wrong in assuming the existence of this omnipotent and independent being of an opposite character. It presents us with a moral paradox which no theologian in Christendom has yet been able to solve. We are compelled to assume that both beings are good, or both evil, and that they co-operate and act in harmony; or that a good God made a wicked Devil,—i.e., "a good tree brought forth evil fruit;" or else we must reject the Christian system of salvation, and assume the existence of but one invisible and Almighty Being, who orders every thing for the best. The absurdity we have just noticed is but one of many, both of a moral and of a scientific nature, equally senseless and foolish, which we find involved in the Christian plan of salvation. We will notice a few others. According to Christian theology and Christian logic, all evil or sin that is committed is prompted by an evil tempter. Scientists and Harmonialists account for such actions by tracing them to the abnormal or perverted action of natural faculties, powers, and propensities, which, in their healthy state, are productive of good alone, and not evil; and thus making them the product of the mind itself in its unhealthy condition. But Christian theologians tell us it is a separate, evil genius operating in the "inner man" which does all the mischief, and prompts the possessor to the commission of sin. But this assumption gives rise to endless difficulties, some of which we will state in the form of questions. We would ask, then, in the first place, if all sin or evil is prompted by an evil tempter, how came the original tempter himself to fall victim to sin? Who put him up to it, seeing there was no tempter in existence but himself? In such a dilemma, we must either assume that Divine Goodness was his tempter, or that he tempted himself. To make him his own tempter would involve us in an egregious absurdity, equal to that of Guy Faux lifting himself by the straps of his boots; and to make God the tempter would relieve his Satanic Majesty of all responsibility in the case, and make God alone accountable for the sin, and also the author of sin. This, however, they do by other assumptions. Books enough have been written to form a library by orthodox writers in the attempt to rescue their God from the odium and responsibility' of being the author of sin; but, under their system of theology, he can not escape the stigma. No sensible construction of any orthodox system can save God from the authorship and responsibility of sin. They all teach that God created man, and man committed sin. This makes God the author of sin, either directly or indirectly, in spite of all the logic and lore that ever has been, or ever can be, made use of to escape the conclusion; for even if it could be successfully shown that God did not implant in man the desire or inclination to commit sin, and he derived this inclination from the Devil, it can not be denied that God is responsible for allowing the Devil to exist, or, if this could be denied, would still be responsible for leaving man so morally weak as to be overcome by the Devil. If he is infinite in goodness and infinite in power, as they teach, then, if he did not fortify man with sufficient moral strength to resist all temptation to sin, the act of sinning becomes his own. No logic and no sophistry can resist this conclusion. It is now a settled principle in moral ethics, that what any being does through an agent he does himself, and is as responsible for it as if he performed the act with his own hands de facto. If, then, God created the Devil, and he turned out to be the agent of evil or sin, it was only a roundabout and indirect mode of performing the act himself. This is a logical syllogism which defies the ingenuity of the orthodox world to overturn. The most plausible plea in the case is, that the Devil was originally a good being, but fell from grace. According to several Bibles, he is a fallen angel; but it is evident that he could not fall unless he possessed some inherent moral weakness that caused him to fall. A perfect being could not fall. It is, then, self-evident that inherent moral weakness was implanted in him by his Creator. This would make his Creator responsible for his moral weakness, which caused him to fall. And thus the question is settled logically, philosophically, and morally.

We will now proceed to examine the nature of the diabolical act which caused the downfall of the human race,—"the original sin," as it is called. We are told it consisted in eating some fruit which grew on a tree God himself had planted in the Garden of Eden, and forbidden to be used. Why it was interdicted from use is not explained in the Christian Bible; but it is rendered plain by the relation of the same story in other Bibles. In the Persian version it is stated that the tree bore the twelve apples of immortality, and that the Devil, in the shape of a monkey, guarded the tree, to prevent the genus homo from partaking of the fruit; as tradition had taught them, that, by so doing, man would become immortal like the Gods, and live forever. This the Gods deprecated, as they allowed no other beings to become equal to them, and hence had the tree guarded to save the immortal fruit. But the Christian Bible is entirely silent as to the purpose of planting the tree, or forbidding its fruit to be eaten. It cuts short many stories which we find more amplified and in fuller detail in older Bibles. No reflecting or unbiased mind can see any wisdom or any sense in permitting or causing a tree to bear fruit, and then decreeing that it shall all go to waste by interdicting it from being used, as Jehovah is represented as having done. Certainly no sensible God would act thus. And if Adam and Eve were "very good," as he himself declared them to be, must we not consider it an ungodly and a tantalizing act to place fruit within their reach, and then forbid them to touch or taste it? It looks more like the act of a fiend than that of a kind and loving father, who we would naturally suppose, would be so pleased with his newly made children that he would do every thing possible to please them and make them happy. If the fruit was an improper article of diet, it should have been placed out of sight, or rendered unpalatable, so that they should not desire to eat it. If Adam and Eve were very good beings, and God both infinitely good and infinitely wise, he could and should have placed them in a condition from which they could not fall, and in which they would have possessed no inclination to do any thing wrong. I can see no possible benefit to arise from surrounding them with temptations to commit an act that would ruin them eternally, and their posterity after them. The plea is sometimes urged that it was morally necessary for the original progenitors of the race to possess the power and liability to sin, in order to make them free agents. Free agents, indeed! That is certainly a novel kind of free agency, which not only makes a man free to commit an act which it is known will lead to his own destruction and the ruin of the entire human race, but implants in him the inclination to do it. This is free agency run mad.

We will illustrate the principle. A mother sees her little child approaching an open well, and turns heedlessly away, and lets the child rush into the jaws of death; and, when reproved for the act, she raises the plea, "Oh, I did not want to interfere with its free agency!" Here is the Christian logic of free agency put in practice. God is represented as setting traps around the human family, knowing they will be caught; and this is called moral freedom or free agency. The rat enjoys the same kind of moral freedom when he creeps beneath the deadfall in quest of food, and takes the chance of misplacing the triggers. There is no free agency in any rational sense in furnishing a man with a rope to hang himself, knowing that it would be used for that purpose; and this the orthodox God has done for the whole human family, so that we are all now suspended on the gallows of total depravity and moral death.

THE FALL AND CURSE.

We will now notice some of the awful consequences said to have resulted from eating the forbidden fruit,—"the worldwide curse" pronounced upon the human race as the penalty for that act. Several distinct effects are enumerated as consequences of the deed. But a critical investigation of the matter in the light of the present age will show, that instead of being curses, they are blessings, and have added greatly to the enjoyment and happiness of the human family; and, consequently, we should now be in a more deplorable condition than we are if "our primitive parents" had heeded the divine interdiction, and let the fruit alone. We will look briefly at some of the consequences, and observe whether they have really turned out to be curses, or not. The first effect produced by the act of Father Adam and Mother Eve eating the forbidden fruit appears to have been that of opening their eyes so that they could see and distinguish objects around them. It certainly was a very singular way of cursing human beings to grant them the glorious boon of vision, and thus relieve them from the necessity of groping their way through life. As to the gift of sight being a curse, there are thousands of human beings now in the world who would like to be cursed in that way—those who were born blind, or have lost their sight. "The rest of mankind" would consider it to be a great misfortune or curse to be placed in the original condition of Adam and Eve in this respect. We must admit, then, that this curse turned out to be a blessing, and that we are indebted to the serpent-devil for it; and, consequently, he should not have been doomed to dine on dust as a penalty for conferring this blessing upon the human race.

The second consequence growing out of the act of eating the interdicted fruit appears to have been the acquisition of a knowledge of good and evil; that is, the power of distinguishing between good and evil. But this, so far from being a curse, was an inestimable and indispensable blessing; for, without the attainment of this knowledge, they could not have known that any act was evil, and hence would have been liable to plunge into all manner of crime, pillage, debauchery, murder, &c., until they effected the entire extinction of the human race. The acquisition, then, of the knowledge of the moral difference between good and evil was an invaluable blessing, and no curse at all; and, having been brought about through the agency of the serpent-devil, he should have the credit of it.

The third effect produced by plucking and eating the prescribed fruit was the discovery that they were naked. Why they had not made the discovery before is a mystery of godliness. The people of the present age, although presumed to be in a state of degeneracy, if not total depravity, do not require the use of their eyes to know when they are naked; but it seems, that, before the fall in a state of moral perfection, such knowledge could only be acquired through the optic nerves. Hence "the perfection of our first parents," so often spoken of and lauded by the orthodox world, must simply have been the perfection of ignorance; and it is true, if their history is true, that they were most consummately ignorant until they were enlightened by the serpent. They were too ignorant to clothe themselves. God Almighty had to forsake the throne of heaven, and come down to earth, to make garments of goatskins for them, before they could be sufficiently habilitated to go abroad, or admit company. Their two sons, however, were the only company they were permitted to enjoy at that time. And one of these turned out to be a murderer; and, having killed his only brother, he fled to the land of Nod, and married a wife, although, according to the "inspired account," his mother was the only woman then living. It seems strange, under such circumstances, that he should marry a wife when there were no women to make wives of. After he had killed his brother, and repented of it, a mark was set upon him, that "whosoever found him should not slay him." But how could this "whosoever" know what the mark meant? And who was this "whosoever," when he himself had killed off the whole human race, excepting his father and mother? And we presume they would not be likely to slay their own and only son if there were no mark set upon him to prevent it. Up to this period the conduct of the serpent-devil had been very respectful, and every act performed had resulted in a direct benefit to the human family. Even his conduct towards Mother Eve seems to have been marked by politeness; for he served her with fruit before partaking of it himself. For these good acts he deserved the use of his legs, which, we must presume, he lost by the fall, when he transgressed, fell, and was cursed; and a part of this curse consisted in taking his legs from him, and compelling him to crawl. But it appears his legs were afterwards restored to him; for, when he came with the sons of God to attend a picnic at the house of Job, and was asked where he came from, replied, "From walking to and fro in the earth." This feat of walking he could not very well have performed without legs. Hence we naturally conclude they had grown out again, or had been restored to him in some way, notwithstanding it had been decreed he should "crawl on his belly all the days of his life." The whole story of the serpent, as presented in Genesis, is a borrowed and laughable fiction; and the reader will excuse us for presenting it in that light.

We have shown that the violation of the command of Jehovah to Adam and Eve not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, so far from being attended with any evil result, gave rise to several important benefits, and was therefore a praiseworthy act. And if they had carried the act of disobedience a little further, and plucked and eaten of the fruit from the "tree of life" also, it would, according to the context, have produced results still more important, as it would have immortalized their physical bodies, and prevented the ingress of death into the world; and we should have been spared that dreadful calamity. But a worse calamity would have overtaken us; for it is easily seen, that, in the course of a few centuries, our planet would be overstocked with inhabitants. And, as a part of Adam's curse consisted in being doomed to eat the ground (see Gen. iii. 17), it follows, that, if none of his posterity had died, they would have become so numerous in the course of time as to have eaten up all the ground (there being nothing else for them to eat), and leave not a mole-hill of terra firma for a living being to stand upon. The conception is really ludicrous, and yet a legitimate inference from the story which presents us with a series of laughable ideas from beginning to end.

We will now notice the sentence pronounced upon the several participants in this fabled rebellion against the divine government, and observe how, or to what extent, they were realized. Adam, Eve, and the snake were the culprits arraigned at the bar under charge of being rebels; and, all being found guilty, a sentence was pronounced upon each separately. We will examine them in their order. The first part of Adam's curse consisted in being doomed to die,—"The day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die" (Gen. ii. 17). The serpent, however, took the liberty to contradict and counteract the sentence, and told him he should not die, but that partaking of the fruit would make him "wise as the Gods, knowing good and evil." Now, the first question which arises here is, Who told the truth in the case,—Jehovah, or "the father of lies"? In the eighth chapter of Genesis we read, "All the days of Adam were nine hundred and thirty years, and he begat sons and daughters." It will be seen, then, that he did not die in "the day thereof," nor the year thereof, nor the century thereof; so it appears the serpent told the truth and Moses' God told the falsehood, or was mistaken. Hundreds of Christian writers and commentators have racked their brains to find some plausible mode of disposing of these difficulties. The most specious one they have resorted to is that of assigning the text a spiritual signification, and alleging that it was a spiritual death that was intended in this case. But the text does not say so; and the context shows it was not so: for it is declared, "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. iii. 19), which shows it was not spiritual but physical death that was meant; and this did not take place for more than nine hundred years after the sentence was pronounced.

The second part of Adam's curse consisted in being driven out of the garden, and compelled to engage in agricultural pursuits; that is, he was sentenced to earn his bread by the sweat of his face. (See Gen. iii. 23). But the experience of nearly the whole human race, from that period to the present time, proves that the sweating part of the operation is no curse at all, but a real blessing; for no person in warm climates can enjoy good health without perspiring occasionally; and as for labor being a curse, because said to have been pronounced upon Adam as a penalty for transgression, the experience of all who have tried it, and the present condition of the civilized world, proclaim it to be untrue. Indeed, we must consider it a very fortunate circumstance that he was driven out of the garden, and compelled to embark in agricultural pursuits, not only on account of such employments being conducive to health, but because the very existence of human life depends upon it in all civilized countries. It is the source whence we derive all our food, all our clothing, and nearly all the comforts of life. No: it is laziness, not labor, that curses the race; and the most accursed set of beings are the drones, the soft-handed gentry, who are almost as afraid of a hoe, axe, or spade, as they are of the measles or small-pox, having been erroneously taught that labor is a curse.

The third item in Adam's curse consisted in being doomed to eat the ground,—"Cursed is the ground for thy sake, and in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life" (Gen. iii. 17); but we have never seen any report of either Adam or any of his posterity eating the ground, or making it an article of diet. It will be observed, then, that no part of the sentence pronounced upon Adam turned out to be a curse, but, when realized at all, was realized as a blessing.

The sentence pronounced upon the woman was also of a threefold character. In the first place, she was doomed to "Bring forth children in sorrow" (Gen. iii. 16). And her posterity, we are told, inherited the curse, and must suffer in this same way; but the history of the human family shows that many individuals, and whole nations in some cases, have never suffered this affliction. It is well known that the mothers of some of the African tribes, also some of the tribes of Americans, never suffer in childbirth. Hence it will be seen that the curse in the general sense implied by the text is a failure in this case also.

The second punishment to which woman was to be subjected was that of being ruled over by her husband. This portion of her curse, we must confess, has not been an entire failure. Many women, even in civilized countries, are not only ruled over, but tyrannized over, by their husbands. Yet this state of things has by no means been universal. On the contrary, in many cases, woman has been the ruling party; and, in some instances, they have not merely ruled their own husbands, but all the husbands in the nation. Queen Mary, Queen Anne, and Queen Victoria, and many others, are examples of this kind; and then there have been thousands of women in all ages and countries who never had any husbands. Consequently the curse is a failure in their cases. The curse of husband-dominion, then, has not fallen upon woman as a sex.

There was to be enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (i.e., their offspring) as the third part of woman's curse; but we find no evidence that this part of the curse has ever been fulfilled. We observe no more enmity between men and serpents than between men and other noxious reptiles and ravenous beasts. How much enmity exists between the Hindoo juggler and the serpent that twines around his arm and neck, and crawls through his bosom? We may be told in reply that it is not the common serpent that is referred to here, but the serpent-devil that beguiled Eve; but we do not learn that his Devilish Majesty ever had any offspring. So this part of the curse, in a general sense, is a failure also.

THE CURSE OF THE SERPENT.

The curse pronounced upon the serpent was of a twofold character.

He was doomed to crawl upon his belly. How he traveled previous to that period we have no means of knowing, as revelation is silent on this momentous subject. He must have crawled on his back, or hopped on his head or tail,—either of which we should consider a much more difficult mode of traveling than that inflicted on him by the curse. I can see no curse or punishment in an animal or reptile traveling in its natural way, and by the easiest mode known in the whole animal kingdom. To make a curse of his mode of travel, he should have been turned the other side up, so that, while wiggling or wriggling along on his back, his eyes and mouth would get full of dust and mud. This would have been much more like a punishment,—a more real and sensible curse than his present mode of traveling.

The second mode of punishing the serpent was to compel him to eat dust as an article of diet; but some difficulty must have arisen in attempting to comply with the injunction. When the ground is saturated with water, he would have to take a meal occasionally of mud, which would not be more nutritious than dust, and would not be fulfilling the law. But it is needless to speculate. It is evident he does not subsist in that way, but, like the other culprits, escaped the penalties or punishments due to his crime.

I have now examined all the items of the curse—eight in number—said to have been visited upon Adam, Eve, and the serpent; and what do they all amount to? Not one of them has been realized as such; but most of those which were practically realized turned out to be real blessings. And yet they have been proclaimed to the world by the clergy as the missiles of wrath hurled upon a guilty world for the sin of rebellion against the divine government; and, whether any of these so-called "visitations of divine displeasure" were designed as penalties for disobedience or not, it is evident they have not in a moral sense been realized, or had any beneficial effect whatever. And we must conclude that it was rather short-sighted in Moses' God to attempt to bring his children into obedience by pronouncing curses upon them. He himself virtually acknowledges it; for, after having tried these expedients and found they availed nothing, he became so discouraged, that he said, "It grieved him to the heart" (see Gen. vi. 6) that he had made so rebellious a creature as man.

THE SECOND SCHEME OF REDEMPTION.

The God of Moses, after having tried the expedient of cursing his children,—the cunning workmanship of his hands,—and grieved over the failure for more than a thousand years,—he (the God of Moses) came to the conclusion to try another expedient. He concluded to select a few of the choicest specimens of the genus homo, in order to preserve the race and start anew with some of the best stock or material that could be found. Accordingly, old drunken Noah—the most righteous man that could be found amongst the millions of the inhabit ants of the globe—was chosen to build a schooner, yacht, canoe, or some kind of a vessel, called an arc into which he stowed millions of birds, bipeds, and insects of all species and all sizes, from the ostrich and condor down to fleas, flies, mosquitoes, spiders, and bed-bugs; and millions of animals and reptiles of all kinds and all sizes, from the mammoth and the mastodon down to skunks, lizards, snakes, gophers, and grasshoppers; together with himself and family of eight persons, and food sufficient to last them ten months while in the ark, and several years afterwards, as we must presume was done from the fact that it is declared that the waters destroyed every living thing upon the face of the earth. And it must have required several years to restock it with grass and animals to serve as food for the granivorous, herbivorous, and carnivorous species; and this would make a bulk sufficient to fill forty such vessels, and a weight sufficient to sink the whole British navy. And all this living mass of respiring and perspiring animals were dependent upon one little window twelve inches by fifteen for light and air, and which had to be kept shut most of the time to keep out the rain. If some giraffe or cameleopard had been disposed to monopolize the window by thrusting his head out, we can easily imagine what would have been the fatal consequence to this living, breathing cargo. And then we have to entertain the thought that lions and lambs, wolves and sheep, dogs and skunks, hawks and chickens, owls and doves, cats and mice, men and monkeys, all ate and slept together in immediate juxtaposition like a band of brothers. Perhaps more glorious times never were realized since "the sons of God shouted for joy." But it appears the whole thing turned out to be a failure. The drowning process was no more effectual in producing the desired reformation than the first scheme that had been tried; for, only a few hundred years after the culmination of this world-drowning experiment, Moses' God is represented as crying out in despair, "The imagination of man's heart is evil, and only evil continually." This was certainly a deplorable and disheartening state of things witnessed so soon after it had been presumed that all the bad folks had been drowned; but it appears, that, if all that class had been drowned, there would have been no human beings left. David, therefore, was probably right when he exclaims, "There is none that doeth good, no not one" (Ps. xiv. 3).

THE THIRD AND LAST PLAN OF SALVATION.

The atonement was the third and last resort. The third experiment in any case generally ends the siege whether successful or unsuccessful. After a few thousand years more had elapsed of grief, anger, and disappointment in the practical history of Moses' God, he ventured to try one more experiment in the effort to get his people in the right track,—not so much, however, to get them in the right way, as to have his own wrath appeased. In this way he sanctions the greatest crime ever perpetrated by the hand of man,—that of murder. God the "Father," in order to cancel the sins of his disobedient and rebellious children, and mitigate his own wrath, is represented as proposing to have his "only-begotten son" killed,—at least, as consenting to the act. This looks like "doing evil that good may come of it;" which is a very objectionable principle of moral ethics, according to Paul. How the commission of the greatest of all sins can do any thing towards reforming other sins, or how the punishment of an innocent being can do any thing towards atoning for the sins of the guilty, presents us with a moral problem, shocking both to our common sense and common reason. If the Father's anger could not be appeased or his vengeance satisfied without the perpetration of a horrible murder, and the knowledge that some victim had died a slow and agonizing death, we are forced to the conclusion that he is a cruel and revengeful God, and that his passions overrule his love of justice and his paternal regard for his son. But it appears that this last experiment, whether right or wrong, was attended with as complete a failure as the two preceding ones; and yet it assumes to be the best that "Infinite Wisdom" could devise. And the resources of divine knowledge and skill were apparently exhausted when this scheme culminated. And yet it also failed, according to the admission of its own friends and ardent supporters (the clergy); for they tell us, that, notwithstanding all the schemes and systems that Omniscience and Infinite Prescience could devise to save man, he does not get saved: at least but few are saved, and they have to "work out, their own salvation with fear and trembling." Nineteen-twentieths of the human family, the clergy tell us, are still traveling "the broad road," and are finally lost, notwithstanding all the labored experiments and expedients of omniscient or Jehovahistic wisdom to save them. With this view of the case, the thought is suggested that it was hardly worth while to have gone to the trouble and expense of fitting up a heaven for the few that are saved. It certainly "doesn't pay." And this conclusion is the more forcible in view of the fact that it must be rather a lonesome place, and consequently not a very desirable home or situation to live in; for we are told it is "a house of many mansions," "and yet few there be that find the strait and narrow road" leading to it. Hence we may conclude that many of the rooms or mansions are empty. Such a lonesome heaven could not be congenial or adapted to any class of saints but monks and hermits.

We have now briefly examined the three plans of salvation which lie at the foundation of the Christian religion, and shown that they are all failures according to their own witnesses. In view of this fact, we can not wonder that Moses' God is represented as saying that he repented for having made man, and that it grieved him to the heart (Gen. vi. 6). Such a series of signal failures is enough to discourage even a saint or a God.

True religion sees God in every thing, reads his scriptures on every page of Nature's open Bible, and feels him in the inspiration of the soul. It calls God father, not king; Christ a brother, not a redeemer. It loves all men, but fears no God. Its God is not a tyrant, but a loving father. It looks upon Jesus Christ as a truly good man, but not a God; as a noble, loving, benevolent being, but endowed with human frailties. It considers him a martyr to truth and right, but not a just victim to his father's wrath, or the just object of a bloody sacrifice. It regards the laws of nature as sufficient, if diligently studied and strictly observed, to serve as a guide for man's earthly life without any special revelation. It holds that man's natural love of goodness, justice, mercy, and honesty is capable of endless expansion and augmentation. It walks by the light of science. The many grand truths of the age, developed by the onward march of mind, form its infallible laws, and constitute its living virtues. It uses reason for a lamp, and an enlightened intellect for a guide. It ties no martyr to the stake, piles the faggots around no heretics. It issues no dogmas, no bulls, no canons, and hangs man's salvation upon no infallible revelation. Christians say, Give us a better revelation; Christ said, "Cease to do evil, and [then] learn to do well." All wrong and hurtful institutions should be pulled down or abandoned, and trust to finding better ones. Remove the weeds from the soil, and a healthy and useful vegetation will spring up in their place. The true religion grants perfect freedom to all human beings; leaves human thought as free and unfettered as the wind, as free as the rays of sunlight which fall upon every hill and every valley, and rest upon the bosom of the deep.