We come to the beginning of the second two thousand years of modified Jehovaism, called the Christian era.

The Christian era, like the Chaldean-Abrahamic era, and like the Mosaic-Jehovistic era, was introduced in a mysterious manner. Both the Mosaic and the Christian were accompanied with miracles, differing in degree and intensity, as also corresponding with the changes and transitions of the times, the progress of intelligence, and the development of brain power.

If Moses had made the attempt to perform his miracles in Christ’s time, he would have been hooted. He could not have deceived these masses with his tricks as he did the ignorant horde he led out of Egypt. These people had no opinion, no idea, no intelligence. They were the obedient tools and slaves of anyone who exhibited superior skill to control them and keep them in subjection, as the Catholic and Greek church make the ignorant masses subservient to their will at this day.

The small end of the wedge of science had begun to make its way into the dense solid mass of ignorance and superstition, through the thick coating of Jehovistic supernaturalism. This thin end, however, opened a chink big enough to give us the first glimpse of the natural.

Men began to think, reason, calculate. Their past experience made them think and compare the various conditions of man and things in nature. Philosophy, arts, science, had taken root, in opposition to and in spite of any supernatural theory or any Jehovistic influence.

The natural is the proper antidote for this supernatural poison.

Greece was one of the first nations that helped to lift the heavy fog that obscured man’s intellectual vision:

These few citations I hope will be convincing proof of the progress made, thus showing that men were observing, reasoning, calculating, governed by demonstration and proof. It would have been impossible for Moses, or any other man, to perform miracles of the nature theologians believe, at the time of Christ.

Two conditions are always necessary for every miracle—profound ignorance on the one hand, and a clever fraud on the other.

There are, however, another class of miracles, that are at all times in order; that are played and plied on human failing and human weakness, always coupled with ignorance on the one side, and dishonest scoundrelism, a fraud by a priest or church mountebank, on the other.

In disturbances of nature, no one believes unless he has ocular proof and demonstration, knowing that these things are subject to natural laws and no one man could produce an earthquake or a thunderstorm. No man could stop the current of the Mississippi river either by praying or by throwing a stick over it.

What we can do, that has the appearance of a miracle, is to play upon the susceptibilities, failings, weaknesses, and imaginations of ignorant human nature.

These cure-alls, these medical wonder-workers, these spiritual charlatans, these theological miracle-mongers, these fanatical frauds, were introduced more prominently in the Bible story by the celebrated political agitators Elijah and Elisha.

The Christian form of religion is a modification of the Hebrew, mixed with either Greek or some other of the numerous doctrines existing at that period. The hero of this reformation is brought to our notice in what is scripturally called a miraculous manner.

Matthew introduces the subject by saying (i, 18): “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”

We have noticed how (Gen. vi, 2) the sons of God married the daughters of men—who the lady was, the mother of these sons, we do not know, or by what process they were brought into this world.

There are instances in the Bible when prayer had the effect of producing that interesting condition on woman.

We have also the example of Eli, that fat, lascivious priest (whose sons entertained themselves behind the altar with the ladies) who assisted Hannah when the Lord closed her womb. The Temple has served many outrageous purposes, and many amusing as well as instructive lessons might be gathered. Fortunately the Jewish Temple is no exception. The heathen temples were equally guilty.

During the reign of Tiberius, the Romans had a temple of Isis, and they had a god called Anubis. A man with the name of Mundus fell in love with a married lady called Paulina, who bribed the priests to permit him to appear to Paulina in the temple as the god Anubis. The priest representing the god Anubis invited Paulina to the temple in order to be entertained by that god. Her husband, pleased with the favor, consented. Paulina was entertained all night at the temple by what she supposed to be the god Anubis, Mundus representing him. Paulina was delighted, her husband also, but Mundus could not hold his tongue. Tiberius heard of it; he caused the temple, priests, and all to be burnt, and Mundus was exiled for three months. The priests were crucified. Anyone curious to know particulars about this matter may consult history.

In modern times, living as we do in an age of reason, fact, and science, we do not take the same view of these particular occurrences such as the Bible speaks of as our forefathers, the ancients who lived in an age of fancy and imagination. The Holy Ghost, unless he is in the substantial form of a man, can accomplish nothing, and either Mrs. Mary Joseph had committed an act of indiscretion before marriage, or Joseph himself was the father.

It would be far more decent for all parties concerned to legitimatize the child. The effect or result would be just the same, since the young gentleman is to be the great reformer of that age, clever, meek, mild, amiable as he is represented to be in the New Testament.

Mark begins his gospel: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

Luke begins historically and then tells his virgin story (i, 27).

John philosophizes, and tells us that (verse 18) “no man hath seen God; the only begotten son which is in the bosom of the father, he hath declared him.” In verse 45 he is called the son of Joseph.

The entrance of Christ into this world is the most stupid and ridiculous piece of nonsense that was ever written. If Christ is the son of God he can be no relation of David, and Joseph can certainly not be his father. Or if the Holy Ghost was the cause of Mary’s condition before marriage, Joseph condoned the offense by living with her, and is the father by adoption and not by nature; and can by no means be a relation or descendant of David.

Then again, if Joseph is the father, Jesus is not the son of God. In that case, he might be a relation of David, but no relation to God.

Men of ordinary education no longer believe either in the Holy Ghost, the manner of Christ’s coming, nor in his divinity. It is an absurd fabrication, an impossibility and contrary to nature.

I repeat once more, that neither God, his spirit, nor his holy ghost, can perform anything that is in direct opposition to the laws of nature.

The miracles that are attributed to Jesus Christ by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are invariably of a medical nature; embracing all kinds—lepers, palsy, fevers, dropsy, the blind, the dumb, the lame—hemorrhages of women, casting out devils, curing lunatics, healing every disease.

The manner of curing is very peculiar—by touch, by rebuke, by word, by spit and touch.

A sample or two will suffice:

Mark vii, 32: “And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand on him.” 33: “And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue.” 34: “And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said unto him, Ephphatha, that is, be opened.” 35: “And straightway his ears were opened, and the strings of his tongue were loosed, and he spake plain.”

Matt. xvii, 15, etc.: Christ rebukes the devil out of a lunatic.

Chapter xx, 34: He touches the eyes of two blind men and they see.

Luke viii, 43: “And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed by any.” 44: “Came behind him, and touched the borders of his garment; and immediately, her issue of blood stanched.”

Chapter viii, 54 (woman dead): “And put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called saying, Maid, arise.” 55: “And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway,” etc.

John ix, 1: “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man, which was blind from his birth.” Verse 6: “When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay.”

Luke xiv, 2: He cures a man of dropsy, etc.

That these cures were actually performed is not very probable, for the simple fact that the art of medicine was little known, and least known among the Jews.

That these four witnesses really were present at the time these operations were performed, we have no proof. Luke says Christ cures blindness by touch; John makes him use spit and clay. We are not told that he was trying experiments. Anyway, every operation was successful. Raising people from the dead was equally successful.

Why should we wonder that such miracles could be performed among the lower classes, rude, uneducated, and poor? They were ready to believe any kind of plausible deception; and it was among this class that he found his adherents.

These performances called miracles are supposed to have happened nearly two thousand years ago. At that time the masses were not to be compared to the masses of to-day in education, understanding, or in the progress made in every branch of art, science, literature, mechanics, etc.

The church Christianity has also progressed somewhat, and there can be no possible excuse for the priests of to-day affirming these pretended cures of Christ. They ought to know that the notions of these things are due to feebleness of intellect in the uncultured brain, to the lack of understanding and the gullibility of the masses. Christ and his disciples were as ignorant as the masses concerning medicine or the healing art. They knew absolutely nothing about it. At 325 A.D., later 318, fathers of the then existing Christian organizations approved of the entire contents. Nay, a large part of it may have been manufactured by them.

At this day there is no reason that men should not know better. Every man, whether priest or layman, ought to understand that so-called miraculous cures can be performed only by men, priests or others, that premeditatedly, with intent, cheat, swindle, and defraud some portion of the public, in consequence of the ignorance of the one, and the superior knowledge, shrewdness, and cunning of the other.

It is a flagrant abuse of authority, a miserable condition of our laws, a stupendous piece of bigotry, an outrage, that a man can be punished for speaking the truth, and it is an actual miracle that people are still so wonderfully stupid as to believe in the scandalous deception of the healing qualities of an old rag, a coat, pretended to have belonged to Christ or some one else. Recently we read in the daily paper, the Sun: “Berlin, Sept. 26.—In Treves, Herr Reichar has been sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment for ridiculing the holy coat and for attacking the Roman Catholic prelates because they encouraged the people to believe that it had healing qualities. His publisher, Herr Sonnenburg, was sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment. The chief charge against them was blasphemy.”

Even in this city, some miserable cheat or cheats attempted to perpetrate the same sort of scoundrelism in one of the Catholic churches.

During the recent cholera desolation in Hamburg, we read: “In all the churches services of prayer for the abatement of the plague have been held. They have been attended by crowds which have filled the buildings” (Sun).

In ancient times plagues were regarded as visitations from God; to-day we know that they are the products of filth and starvation. Sanitary measures and food for the starving are needed, instead of prayer. The churches would answer a far better purpose converted into soup-kitchens and healthy lodging-houses for the poor and homeless.

In Russia the condition is still worse. The degradation of the masses is extreme. Of the dreadful doings there we hear but the slightest echo. The Russian priest is an ignorant, intolerant, selfish, tyrannical brute. In time of cholera the clergy walk in procession through the streets in church garb, with banners, crosses, candles, chanting and praying, while the dirt, filth, and cholera poison lie all around them.

The pilgrimages to Lourdes are another ecclesiastical swindle. The poor, miserable dupes are enticed in order to be plundered. From the Tribune, “Zola at Lourdes,” we quote: “Nothing could be more truly sensational than the annual pilgrimage thither, the flocking to that shrine of tens of thousands of devotees, dozens of special trains running to it daily; the daily processions, with thousands of priests and tens of thousands of the laity; the fervent prayers of the supplicants, and the wild exaltation of those that are miraculously healed—or who believe themselves to be healed.… So M. Zola, accompanied by Mme. Zola, were at Lourdes, and following the crowd, proceeded at once to the holy grotto. He found it surrounded by more than twenty thousand people, of both sexes and of all ages and conditions. Indeed in none of his novels is a more striking scene portrayed than that. In the afternoon the daily procession occurred. At its head marched no less than two thousand priests, monks, and nuns. Then came the holy sacrament, borne beneath a silken canopy. After it came the sick and the suffering who had come thither to be cured. These were cripples on crutches or leaning on the arms of friends; the blind, led by their friends or fellow-pilgrims; sick and deformed infants in their mothers’ arms; here and there a cripple and a blind man arm in arm, relying upon each other, the one for support, the other for guidance. Behind these thousands came other thousands of suppliants, sightseers, perhaps some scoffers, while yet other thousands stood by and gazed upon the scene.”

It is indeed a miracle that we have so many such persons at this stage of progressive civilization. But the church and its priests have exerted every influence to prevent its advance.

Fortunately the world at large has outgrown this childish nonsense to some extent. The development of our civil laws, with a greater knowledge of the natural laws, keep the church and priestly fanatics in subjection.

As to the resurrection of Christ’s body, or anyone else’s body, we may put it down as fabulous and untrue. Dead bodies do not rise—cannot rise. From the moment a body is dead the process of decomposition begins, and resuscitation is an impossibility. No one believes it, and the priest of this century even doubts it, though the manner of Christ’s birth and death forms the creed of Christian believers, and reads as follows:

“I believe in God, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.”

Does anyone, except the most ignorant, believe any of the items contained in the above creed?

The men that composed the Old, and later the New Testament, may have been sincere in their belief, may have acted from pure motives, and I give them credit that their endeavors were honest, that they knew no better. They could not know the truth, have knowledge of the natural. Its forces, its capabilities, its phenomena—these were unknown to them. They erred, were mistaken in what they observed; that of itself is ample excuse for their opinions.

No such excuse exists at this present time, and no men or set of men, however organized, priestly or otherwise, should be permitted to delude and stupefy the more ignorant portion of a community.

The judge on the bench ought to know better than punish a man because he ridicules the efficacy of an old coat to cure miraculously. It is a disgrace to our civilization, and should not be tolerated.

We have a right to criticise any idea, opinion, set of opinions, or ceremonies, no matter how ancient, how originated or by whom entertained or put into practice.

We have as much right to protest against the truth or falsity of their statements, as any of our forefathers had in remote ages.

Any individual that permits his prejudices to get the better of his judgment, because he belongs to this or that church, is unfit to serve in a public capacity. The judge or magistrate that sentenced Reichar and Sonnenberg at Treves deserves to be branded as the greatest jackass that ever decorated a bench.

Ridicule is the only weapon that wipes out these shameful practices, that helps to enlighten the masses, that elevates their thoughts and makes their understanding.

It is disgraceful enough for the ancients to have crucified Christ for his opinions, beheaded Paul for his preaching, and crucified St. Peter for his energy.

Abraham had a right to have his opinions. He differed with the Chaldeans about their gods, ridiculed them, despised them, argued, reasoned, as best he knew how. He had to leave the land of his birth for his opinions.

Moses had a right to set up his Jehova, organize a nation, and fight under his banner. He forced a success with superior numbers and superior skill.

Coming to Christ, Paul and Peter had a right to their opinions. They suffered for their opinions, yet their opinions held.

We of to-day have a right to deny the truth of their opinion. We have a right to deny any part or the whole of their doctrine, their pretensions, their errors; we have a perfect right to decline to accept their say-so for proof of anyone’s having done certain things by supernatural aid. And neither church nor priest can force people to believe in their absurdities, when our reason, understanding, and common sense tell us that it is neither true nor possible.

Few men are so dull that they do not recognize the fact that it is unpleasant, as well as unprofitable, for an organized body of men, whether church or other organization, who have prospered, gained influence, control and authority over men, territory or wealth, by means of certain ideas or opinions, to be interfered with or encroached upon by a new and opposing organized body, with new ideas or opinions, lest the former might lose some of their influence, control, or authority over men, territory, or wealth.

Selfishness and self-preservation lie at the root of this, and every aggressive movement will be hindered, checked, or prevented if possible.