The practice seems to have been very early conceived and adopted in various countries by the disciples of different Bibles, which have been long extant in the world, of attaching to all the offensive texts of their sacred books (which, when taken literally, convey either a vulgar, immoral, or foolish sense) a new and more acceptable meaning than earlier custom had sanctioned, or more devout minds had ever thought of. As the growing intelligence of the people was constantly disclosing long-unnoticed and important errors in the Holy Book, this expedient was adopted to cover them up, or put them out of sight. As Jesus, if not Paul, by virtue of the growth of the moral and intellectual perceptions, was able to distinguish some errors and moral defects in the first installment of Bible revelation as found in the Jewish Old Testament, so the people in every age since, in those countries where any cultivation has been bestowed upon the mind, have been capable of bringing to light numerous errors incorporated into the sacred books of past ages; and as some of those books called Bibles were claimed by their disciples to be perfect, divinely inspired, and infallible, and consequently free from error, some expedient had to be devised to sustain this claim, and show that the man of science was guilty of falsehood when he charged "God's Holy Book" with containing errors. The expedient finally adopted was to take the long-established signification of the words of the text out, and put in a new meaning, coined by the prolific brain of the devout defender of the Book for the occasion; and this new sense was called "the spiritual sense." It was presumed it would be more acceptable to the intelligent minds of the age. In this way, whenever a new scientific discovery has been announced, demonstrating some of the statements of the venerated volume to be erroneous, the clergy have set themselves to work with their clerical force-pumps to extract the meaning which our standard dictionaries assign to the words of every text that seemed to conflict with the newly discovered scientific truth, and ingraft into it a new meaning of their own invention. This practice finally became, and has long been, an established practice and art in nearly every country where a Bible has been known, whether Jewish, Pagan, or Christian. In fact, no nation having a Bible has omitted to practice it.

No matter how vulgar, how disgusting, or how shocking to the better feelings, or how immoral the literal reading of the text, a hundred ways could be found to get rid of its offensive signification; a hundred spiritual interpretations could be thrust under its verbal coverings. The most senseless, the most indecorous, and the most demoralizing verbiage could thus be made to pass for great "spiritual truths." The pagans and the Jews practiced this art laboriously and extensively; and the disciples of the Christian faith, in all ages of the Church have been their strict imitators. That it is a very ancient heathen custom is evident from the declaration of "The Nineteenth Century," which quotes Plutarch as saying, "The spiritual or allegorical mode of interpreting words and language was applied to the poems of Orpheus, the Egyptian writers, and the Phrygian traditions" (p. 337). Grote tells us that the plain and literal meaning would not have been listened to, as it did not suit the mental demands of the people. (See Grote's "History of Greece.") He assigns this mode of interpreting sacred books to ancient Egypt; and Mr. Wilson says the Christians caught the passion for spiritualizing and allegorizing their Bible at an early date, and of converting them on all occasions into spiritual mysteries, from the later Platonists, the example of Philo, and the Jewish rabbis. "The Mahomedans," Mr. Kant informs us, "gave a spiritual sense to the sensual descriptions of their paradise," and thus the Hindoos also interpreted their Vedas. "The Mahomedans," says another writer, "indulge in glowing allegories concerning love and intoxication, which, like some of the Hindoo devotional writings, seem sensual to those who perceive only the external sense, while the initiated find in them an interior meaning." The Greeks and Romans, according to the testimony of Mr. Kant, explained away some of the silliest legends of their polytheism by spiritualizing them, or giving them a mystical sense. Speaking in general terms, Mr. Taylor says, "An allegorical sense was the apology offered for the manifest absurdities of paganism." The Roman Julian once remarked, that the poetic stories concerning the Gods, though regarded as fables, he supposed contained a spiritual treasury. Kant declares, in like manner, that the ancient pagans "gave a mystical sense to the many vicious actions of their Gods, and to the wildest dreams of their poets, in order to bring the popular faith into agreement with their doctrines of morality;" that is, they resorted to a spiritual interpretation in order to save them from being condemned as popular intelligence advanced. "All the learned ancients," says Mr. Higgins, "gave their sacred writings two meanings,—one literal, and the other spiritual." Philo confessed that the literal sense of the Old Testament is "shocking:" hence "a divine science, believed by intuition, is necessary to penetrate the hidden meaning." The Essenes declared, the literal sense of their scriptures was devoid of all power. Origen, finding Moses' writings replete with error and immorality, got rid of the difficulty by declaring, "It is all allegory." He makes the remarkable confession, that "there were some things inserted in the Bible as history which were never transacted:" hence he concludes they must be interpreted spiritually, or set down as false. And St. Hillary declares, "There are many historical passages in the New Testament, which, if taken literally, are contrary to sense and reason; and therefore there is a necessity for a mystical interpretation." Not that we have any evidence that such an interpretation was ever thought of by the writer; but this new and forced interpretation is the only alternative to save the credit of the Book. Any senseless expedient or subterfuge that could be invented was dragged in, rather than admit the Holy Book contained errors; for this would prove it to be the work of man, and not of God. This has been the policy from time immemorial of the votaries of all sacred books. Origen—after declaring, "There is no literal truth in the story of Christ driving out the money-changers"—asserts that it is an allegory, indicating that we are to cast out our evil propensities. He says the early Christians seldom used the literal sense of the scriptures, because it taught something objectionable; and, ever since the inauguration of this mode for concealing the errors and defective moral teachings of the Bible, all kinds of ridiculous interpretations of scripture have been resorted to by orthodox writers to make it teach what each one desired. Since they arrogated to themselves the liberty to depart from the literal meaning of the text, hundreds of meanings have been ingrafted upon the same text by as many writers and readers; thus launching all scripture import upon the quicksands of uncertainty. The Rev. Mr. McNaught of England points to one text in Galatians—on which, he says, two hundred and forty meanings have been saddled by different Bible interpreters—as a specimen of this kind of license, that is, two hundred and forty guesses at the meaning: thus making Bible interpretation, and the system of salvation founded on it, an entire system of guess-work; and I would suggest, that, if we have thus to guess our way to heaven, we can do so as well without the Bible as with it. A God who is so ignorant of human language as to give forth a revelation to the world couched in such unintelligible and ambiguous terms that no two people can understand it alike, it seems to us, should not have attempted it. All will be chaos and confusion and wild guess-work with respect to the meaning of a large portion of the Bible, while its readers are allowed to depart from the established meaning of words as defined by our dictionaries, and fabricate new meanings of their own. As for example: St. Andrew tells us, that, when Christ spoke of removing mountains, he meant the Devil; and, when he spoke of selling two sparrows for a farthing, Bishop Hillary says he meant "sinners selling themselves to the Devil." The red heifer offered by Moses on the day of Pentecost was "spiritually Jesus Christ;" thus identifying Gods with beasts. The wool and hyssop used-for sprinkling the people, we are told, means spiritually, "the cross of Christ." Christ's injunction to hate father, mother, brother, and sister, &c., we are told, means that we must love them; and many similar examples of manufacturing new meanings for obnoxious texts might be cited.

Now, we ask, of what practical value can the Bible be, when there is no certain clew to its meaning, or when any of its readers, on finding a word or text whose literal signification does not suit their religious fancy, can assume the liberty to renounce the dictionary, ignore the common and established acceptation of words, and fabricate a new meaning contrary to, and in direct conflict with, the common signification? To get rid of some obvious error in the text, they bestow upon it any kind of fanciful, and sometimes ridiculous, signification their imagination can invent, and then insist with a godly zeal that it is the in-ten led meaning of the writer. If such lawless license in the use of words is to be tolerated, as Bible believers are in the habit of assuming, in order to make it teach something which they devoutly desire it should teach, then all rules with respect to the employment of language and the use of words are at an end: our dictionaries may be banished from the schoolroom. We will no longer have use for them if words are no longer the symbols of ideas, which must be the case if people are allowed to attach any signification to them they please, or assign them a meaning at variance with common custom; and a person can learn as much by casting his eyes over the blank pages of the book as by tracing its printed lines. And the art and labor of printing, so far as he is concerned, is superseded; for, as he fabricates his own meaning, this can be done as well without type as with it. Mr. Ernstein, in his "Principles of Biblical Interpretation" (p. 37), affirms that "a proposition may be strictly true which is not contained in the words of the text;" which is tantamount to saying, "The meaning exists independent of the text, and is to be found outside of it:" so the text is not needed, and is of no practical use; for the sentiment of the text can be traced as well on the blank page. The unwarrantable license which Bible adherents assume of ingrafting new meanings into the words of a text when its literal reading shocks their moral sense by its immodesty, its falsity, or its puerility, would not be tolerated with respect to any other book; and, if it is just and warrantable in this case, why not adopt it for interpreting the pagan Bibles, and thus spiritualize them into truth and harmony? It would take every objectionable statement out of them, and make them pure, un-mixed truth. With this kind of license a book can be made to teach any thing desired. Grant me the liberty that Christians assume in deviating from the established use of language, and coining a new meaning for words, and I will take all the infidelity out of "Tom Paine's writings," and make them chime with the smoothest and soundest orthodoxy.

It should be borne in mind that the custom of spiritualizing the apparently immoral and obscene portions of the Bible is something the common people know nothing about, but suppose that Bible writers, in all cases, mean just what they say. Hence it is evident the practice has been attended with no practical benefit to society; and Infinite Wisdom should have foreseen (and would if it had been his production) that the use of such language would have a demoralizing effect upon the world, and consequently would have made use of better language. Bishop Holbrook says that the notion of an inner sense to the Bible is a mere creation of fancy, and will take the errors out of any book. And, as different writers differ in their mode of spiritualizing the Bible, it proves it is a mere invention and forced expedient to save the credit of the Book. The resort to a spiritual sense for the Bible was simply an attempt to conceal its bad sense,—its nonsense, its vulgarity, its immoral teachings, and its numerous contradictions, which scientific and progressive minds are constantly bringing to light. But it is as illusory and ineffectual as the ostrich hiding its head in the sand to evade its pursuers. In both cases the danger is blinked out of sight, but not removed.

Any sense of a text not clearly expressed or unequivocally indicated by the language, we claim, is a slander and a derogation upon Infinite Wisdom, as it assumes he was too ignorant of language to be able to say what he meant, thus placing him lower in the scale of intelligence than a common schoolboy; and assumes his priesthood are infinitely wiser, as they are able to reveal his "Holy Book" all over again, and thus make the numerous blunders of Infinite Wisdom plain and intelligible to common sense and the poorest understanding.

I can not conclude this chapter without bestowing my thanks upon Emanuel Swedenborg for the service he has rendered the cause of truth and theological reform by an improved system of theology he has made out of the Bible, or rather out of his own brain. Being a man of unusual intellect and moral aspirations, and a man of considerable literary attainments, he could not brook the absurd system of theology taught in the pulpits, professedly drawn from the Bible. And whether his system is more conformable to the teachings of "the Holy Book" is a matter of no importance. It is in many respects a rational and beautiful system, and is thus far very acceptable, and must be very beneficial as a substitute for the irrational, and in some respects immoral, system taught by the orthodox churches; and, were it universally adopted by Christian professors, it would be a great improvement on the popular system, and a step toward the attainment of a true and perfect system.