When we learn that there have been no less than one hundred and fifty different translations and commentaries upon the Bible put in circulation, we can see at once that this is calculated to greatly augment the difficulty of ever arriving at any thing like a unity of belief among the churches, or of settling the question as to what it is necessary to do and believe in order to be saved, or of finding the road to heaven through the churches. Translation after translation of the Bible has been made by different churches, each one alleging that all preceding translations were full of errors. The learned Dr. Robinson of England has estimated that some of the modern translations of the Bible, made for the special purpose of getting the errors out of "the Holy Book," contain the frightful number of one hundred and fifty thousand errors; and the American Christian Union, now engaged in translating the Bible, declare that our present popular version, translated by fifty-four of the most learned Christian scholars, and which has long been an established standard authority in a large portion of Christendom and regarded as nearly perfect, yet contains twenty-four thousand errors. How many more translations we are to have, God only knows. The thought occurs here, that, by the time all the errors are gotten out of the Bible in this way, there will not be much of it left,—that it will not be much larger than "Poor Richard's Maxims," or a common-sized almanac. Now, to show the utter impossibility of establishing any doctrine or settling any question in theology by the Bible, or of learning any thing about what constitutes Christianity, or what we are to do and believe in order to be saved, we have only to compare some of these translations together, and observe the wide difference in their teachings, and the fatal contradictions in their doctrines and precepts. We will cite a few examples by way of proof and illustration. In our translation, known as "King James's Bible," a text makes Christ say, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke xxiv. 39); but, in the most popular translation in Europe (the Royal), this text is made to read, "A spirit hath not flesh and blood, as you see I have not." Here is a direct contradiction. One of these Bibles makes Christ say he is a spirit, and the other that he is not, which is a flat, and almost a fatal, contradiction. Now, where on earth is the tribunal to which we can appeal to find out which of these translations is right? or how can the matter be settled? Again: the text which in our own version is made to read, "There are three that bare record in heaven,—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," reads in another translation, "There are three witnesses,—the water, the blood, and the spirit," which knocks the trinity and divinity of Jesus Christ both out of the Bible, so far as they are founded upon this text. We will cite one more example: "The wonderful Messianic prophesy" as it is called (found in Isa. ix. 6.),—which reads in our translation, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, he shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father," &c.,—is made in another translation to say, instead of "the Mighty God," "the Mighty Hero," and, instead of "the Everlasting Father," "the Father of the everlasting age," &c., which shows that the text is not a prophecy at all, and has no more reference to Jesus Christ than to Mahomet. "The Mighty Hero" is not a term that is ever applied to God but to bloody warriors. Now, who is to settle the question as to which of these translations is the right one? It will be observed, then, that we have, in the fifty contradictory translations of the Bible, no-less than fifty contradictory moral codes and fifty contradictory systems of doctrines, which are virtually fifty assumed-to-be-perfect revelations from God (of course, all infallible). Now, let us multiply the number of Christian sects (six hundred) by the number of Bible translations and commentaries (one hundred and fifty), and we will have indicated the number of roads marked out to heaven by the churches. The result is ninety thousand (600 X 150 = 90,000). Here, then, we have ninety thousand roads leading to "the house of many mansions," which suggests the conclusion that nobody can possibly miss getting there; for we must presume that it would be impossible to travel in any direction without striking one of these numerous roads: so that the world of sinners may be comforted with the assurance they will all be saved. "The broad road" they are traveling must be intersected at many points by some of these many pathways to paradise; and they have only to turn off at the last crossing to be landed safe in "kingdom come." They have therefore ninety thousand chances of being saved by traveling "the broad road," if they prefer that to one of "the straight and narrow roads." This soul-saving system may be regarded as a lottery scheme in which there are eighty-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine blanks, and but one prize. Who would risk a farthing in such an investment, with eighty-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine chances against drawing any thing? Certainly no person with common sense or any intelligence. We will use an illustration. We will suppose the proprietor of a brick building comprising ninety thousand, bricks, one of which contains a gold medal worth one thousand dollars, says to one of his neighbors, "Sir, the walls of this building comprise ninety thousand bricks, and one of them contains a gold medal worth one thousand dollars. If you will step to it, and put your finger on it, you can have it." Can we suppose he would be very sanguine about winning the gold medal? Certainly not. We will make another illustration. We will suppose the Queen of England sends a company of a thousand men to Australia to dig for a treasure known to have been buried there during a war, the locality of which she describes in writing so accurately that she presumes there can be no difficulty in finding it. In a few weeks she dispatches a messenger to the island to ascertain what progress the miners are making. But imagine his surprise, on reaching the place, to learn that the laborers are divided up into six hundred companies, and each company stoutly insisting that the spot where they are digging answers exactly to the locality described by the written instrument. Now, on the messenger reporting the case to the queen, what would she conclude—ay, what could she conclude—but that she had made some serious blunder or omission in her attempted description of the place? It is not possible that an explicit revelation of the matter could have led to such endless confusion and disputes. In like manner we are morally compelled to conclude—yes, every principle of reasoning and common sense impels us to the conclusion—that God has made a serious blunder in attempting to give forth a perfect revelation to the world, if (as it seems) he has left it so ambiguous, so unintelligible, and so contradictory in its doctrines and teachings, that six hundred churches have risen up, and are now disputing about what its doctrines and teachings are. These six hundred churches comprise a hundred and fifty millions of guessing Christians, all guessing their way to heaven, with ninety-thousand chances against their ever reaching the heavenly kingdom. To "the angel host" looking down, observing this infinite diversity, demoralization, and conflict among the disciples of the Christian faith, it must be regarded as a species of religious monomania; for we may assume that no intelligent mind, which is not blinded by religious superstition, could be drawn into such a delusion as to conclude that such a book or such a religion or revelation is from an all-wise and all-powerful God, or that it is necessary to believe it, or that it is possible to believe it in any rational sense, or that it can have the remotest connection with our salvation. It makes God a fool, man a lunatic, religion a farce, and the Bible superlative nonsense. Revelation is defined to be "the act of making known." But what is made known by a book whose language is so contradictory and so ambiguous that no two persons in a million agree with respect to all it teaches? Every preacher and teacher simply makes known his ignorance whenever he assumes to know what the Bible teaches; and yet i is called "a perfect revelation of God's will." It is an assumption that makes God an ignoramus and a tyrant to suppose he would give forth a perfect revelation to the world, and require us to accept it as such on pain of endless damnation, and yet leave it in such a jumbled, bungling, and unintelligent condition that it is impossible to understand it. Such an assumption certainly borders on blasphemy. We would charge him with no such driveling nonsense. It is the legitimate prerogative of reason to assume that a perfect being could make a perfect revelation or Bible, the language of which should be so absolutely perfect and plain that no person of ordinary understanding could possibly fail to understand every text, every word, and every syllable of it, and no two persons could possibly differ about the meaning of one text in the whole book. Such a revelation or Bible, and only such, could be ascribed to an all-wise God. Even men and women can now be found who are so far master of human language that they can write books so plainly that there can be no dispute about the meaning of one sentence in them. To assume, then, that an infinitely wise God could not produce such a book is to place him lower in the scale of intelligence than a common schoolboy. When, therefore, I find the Christian Bible so far from possessing such characteristics, I set it down as prima-facie evidence that an intelligent and all-wise God had nothing to do in originating it. And if he were not superior to, or incapable of, such human weakness, he would reject with contempt and disdain the honor, or rather dishonor, ascribed to him in the authorship of such a book,—such a medley of contradiction, ignorance, superstition, and barbarism as is ascribed to him.
It is sometimes alleged (as we have already observed) in defence or mitigation of the endless disputes among Christian professors about the teachings of the Bible, that this disagreement does not appertain to any of the essential doctrines of Christianity, but only to minor points, or doctrines of minor importance. But such an admission is fatal either to their honesty or to their good sense. It concedes that the quarrels among the churches for ages has been about mere trifles, not worth spending breath about. It concedes that it is "non-essentials," or mere trifles, that keep them apart, and that have led them to build five or six churches, and hire five or six priests, in every little village throughout the country, at an expense of many thousand dollars. It is certainly a criminal waste of time and money to spend it by the million for churches and priests to propagate doctrines which they themselves admit possess no real intrinsic importance. It shows they have been actuated by selfish, dishonorable, and ignoble motives in fighting each other for a thousand years, and in some cases murdering each other by the thousand, for a difference of opinion they admit to be of no importance. Those murdered Christians and devout Bible-believers were charged with preaching damnable doctrines and devilish heresies; but now we are told it was minor and unimportant doctrines that they were quarreling about, and for which they were tortured and killed for preaching. Yes, non-essential doctrine! O tempora! O mores! But they make a serious blunder when they talk about non-essential doctrine; for their Bible teaches that all doctrines are essential,—that there is no such thing as a non-essential doctrine; for it first proclaims "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism," and then declares that "he who offends in the least, offends in the whole."
These two declarations taken together prove (if they prove any thing) that there is no "non-essential doctrine," and that the slightest departure from the right faith, or the least disregard of the most trivial doctrine of the Christian creed, will land the soul of the man or woman in endless perdition who is guilty of it. The solemn question arises here, then, Who can escape eternal damnation? For, if there is only one true faith, then the hundred and forty thousand different and conflicting faiths cherished and propagated among Christians must all be wrong but one,—a fact which impels us to the awful and inevitable conclusion that not one Christian in a thousand—no, not in ten thousand—can be saved by these terms of the gospel. The thought sometimes occurs to the writer, that no truly enlightened person, possessing a true moral dignity of character, could consent to hang his salvation upon a book which, after eighteen hundred years of the most critical investigation and explanation by the most learned minds in Christendom, still remains a mystery with regard to all its most important doctrines, so that more than six hundred churches are now disputing about what it teaches; and the difficulty is still increasing by the uprising of new churches with new creeds and new interpretations of the Bible. Let the reader observe the striking difference in the harmony of views which prevail in the various scientific societies throughout the country and those of the churches, and he will discover at once that there is no science in our religion. Take for example the astronomical societies. They are all perfectly agreed with respect to what the great Bible of nature teaches concerning that science. There is no contention and no dispute with respect to the doctrines and principles of that grand revelation of nature, because they are all susceptible of proof and demonstration. Were it otherwise,—were the amateurs and students of that science divided into six hundred conflicting factions, like the churches, each with a different theory with respect to what it teaches,—one contending that the sun rises in the east, another that it rises in the west; one arguing that the sun is the revolving center of our solar system, another contending that the earth is; one teaching that the starry orbs which roll their massive forms through infinite space are mere wax tapers stuck in the azure vault to light this pigmy planet, or mere peep-holes for Gods to look out upon our world; and one arguing that they were all knocked up in a single day out of that singular substance called nothing, and another that they are the outgrowth of other worlds, or have existed from all eternity. Had the author, who was once a member of one of those societies, observed such a chaos of confusion and conflict of opinion, he would have discovered at once that nothing is realty known about the science of astronomy,—that what is called such is nothing but a jargon of conflicting dogmas and wild speculations. Hence he would not have remained with them a single day after making such a discovery. Having learned that the churches are in such a condition, he withdrew, and has not been a member of one of those discordant institutions for many years. He considers it a waste of time to be a member of a religious body which only increases this difficulty and confusion. He has but one life to live, and does not wish to waste that in a mere wild-goose chase after religious speculations that can never be settled. Why fool away our lives in chasing theological butterflies that can never be caught, when there is a hundred times as much to be learned within the domain of positive science as can be acquired in a lifetime, that is practically useful and calculated to enlarge the boundaries of our knowledge and elevate us to a higher plane of happiness, while the occupancy of the mind with theological dogmas is only calculated to "lead to bewilder, and dazzle to blind"?
CHAPTER LIII.—THE THREE PLANS OF SALVATION.
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.