Who can aflirm to the severance of the race of Ishmael from their common progenitor? All looks plausible, but is it provable ?

The conduct of Sarah, to both mother and child, does not show that she was reconci. led to the act of her adulterous husband. But then this was only an orientalism. If she had consented, she acted in virtue of the bad faith to the woman, and lied to God to his face. Both she and Abraham are not exempt from the iniquity of this adultery, and the crime of expulsion of the unfortunate, whom they had corrupted. They were worse than Hagar.

So much for the Patriarch Abraham, the world's pattern! But, worst of all, the Lord of the bible is the patron of its demoralization.

Ch. xvii. v. 1. And the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, 7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their genera-tions, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, 8. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. Is this prophecy, as pretended, fulfilled ? It is all false pretence.

Circumcision of every man-child was the token of the covenant. If God had required this, he would have caused nature to put the mark on mankind in general. How preposterous, that the female should be exempt! All this is man's folly, all the false pretences of the priestocracy.

Ch. xviii. v. 20. And the Lord said, because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21. I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me ; and if not, I will know.” This was the peculiar god, who of course was not omnipresent; and that he was not omniscient, the sixteenth verse, last clause, proves, as Abraham went with them, to bring them on the way” !-god, or his angel, was actually located with Abraham ; that proves it conclusively. We should close the book, but for the necessity of doing justice to those who have not investigated and will not for themselves.

What an extraordinary influence the priestocracy had, even with god, this chapter is brought forward by them to illustrate.

23 v. And Abraham said, 24. Peradventure there be fifty righteous ? 26. And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous, &c.! and thus they communed, until the Lord said, v. 32. “ I will not destroy it for ten's sake.” What miserable imbecility, and how complete. The Lord not to know how many righteous in Sodom! Can the climax of the peculiar god be carried to any greater effrontery? Ch. xix. And after all, who will dare say to-day, that the destruction of Sodom and the cities of the plains was not accomplished by natural volcanic causes? As to Lot's wife, that is all a legend of the priestocracy. And shall the drunken, lying and incestuous Lot find grace in the sight of the Lord, and shall not the world too, when God has magnified his mercy to the same? What are the means but grace and mercy to a repentant world from its Creator? On just analysis, we see that the rescued are miserable, unworthy of notice. Fine people, were Lot and his daughters, after being spared the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, to commit crimes of drunkenness, lying and incest !

Who were more vindictive than the Jew priestocracy in libeling their enemies, in assigning them wicked and disgraceful origin, and most ignominious ends of existence ? Their wrathful peculiar god was invoked against all the heathen who sacrificed to other or their gods.

All the natural events, as this story of Sodom, were stupidly seized upon to promote their blasphemous pretensions.

Ch. xx. v. 2. And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, she is my sister : This is the second lie implied, and involved Abimelek, who is represented as saved by a dream from god. Thus the stupid superstition is maintained from this bible to this day, and the world has been visionary on the dreams of the priestocracy. All is written to produce the conviction of sacred persons. 7. Now therefore restore the man his wife ; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live. Though a prophet he did not know, and had to resort to a subterfuge, thus proving that he lied either way, for if a prophet, he knew how the event would result, or he lied that he was a prophet. It was not God of the universe, but the priestocracy of the bible we mean. phet assuming, he was true to his vocation. 11. “And Abraham said, and they will slay me for my wife's sake," whom he thus obtained by incestuous marriage. God does not permit any false statement; thus Abraham stands convicted. Noah was a prophet, and is certainly convicted of falsehood, as no universal deluge could take place on this globe. He might have been drunk at the time that he assumed a deluge, whether it was when he stripped himself and cursed Canaan we do not pretend to know. Whether

As a pro

he dreamed that he was on a planisphere, or lied right out, the priestocracy can judge. Dreams and visions could place the whole on their four-cornered earth, where appeared a peculiar god, who spoke to the hearts, and not the minds, and this was the earth that the sun moved around. We propose to send the priestocracy on a voyage of exploration; they have already gone as far as the land of Nod! We have to take the words of the writers about tradition; who endorses? Who can endorse, if they wished? The priestocracy? Assuredly they would most awfully commit themselves to, and convict themselves of, perjury !

17. So Abraham prayed unto God : and God healed Abimilech, and his wife, and his maid servants, and they bare children.” What circumstantial falsehoods.

Abraham was so much in the habit of lying that he could not get over it, in his lying about Sarah. He had previously made out, or his foster priests had done it for him, that he had feasted angels at his house, and that he had made such impressions on god by his entreaties, that god acquiesced in them all about Sodom, if he found so many righteous within the city. Now the chief object of the priestocracy is, to show on all occasions all the miracles, and this adventure of Abraham is introduced for such. It is to prove that Abraham was a prophet besides a priest. The poets take all manner of license with language, but they could not hold a hand with the game of such a profession.

And this Abraham is the founder of a code of morals and faith for the world! Ch. xxi. v. 33. “ And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.” Is the everlasting God the peculiar god ? Is the peculiar god the God of the universe ?

All the gods that Abraham ever called on were peculiar, as his nation.
The God of the universe has no peculiar priest or grove.

What, then, is the difference between the grove of Abraham and the groves of the other priests? We can most easily perceive the difference of the gods in this, that the everlasting God of the universe had all omniscience, without temptation ; but the peculiar “god did tempt Abraham.” Ch. xxii. v. 1. It seems that he only knew by this how it was, as v. 12. “And he (the angel of the Lord) said, For now I know that thou fearest God.” V. 17. “Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” Why libel God? Do the Jews do that, with shame to the lying prophets? 18. “And in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice."

That he did not sacrifice his son in place of an animal, is due to the improved light of mind; but sacrificing an animal proves that the God of the universe had nothing to do with it.

The Creator asks not for the blood of animated nature, neither knee, nor lip, or body worship; but mind's adoration, its supreme duty in life. The shedding of

The shedding of any blood proves a position adverse to all this.

The burnt offering that Abraham made in the place that he called Jehovah-Jireh, eminently proves the sacrifice of polytheists and the name of Jupiter.

The angels of the peculiar god were the intermediates.

So neither in morals or religon have we anything to irradiate mind from the polygamist, adulterous patriarchs. What, in the name of God Almighty, do you want with such bibles? Îo murder with?

This same patriarch Abraham lived with concubines in adultery. Ch. xxv. v. 6: “But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, (while he yet lived,) eastward, unto the east country. Was this, also, a colony of outlaws and robbers, of miserable morals, and peculiar education ? Were they, too, authorized to become wild men, their hands against every man, and every man's hand against them—a prophecy called, but a vocation under that authority, for lies, robbery, and plunder on the world? Is Arabia, then, indebted at this day for her licentious code of morals through this patriarch, cut off as she is from redemption through mind, by want of intercourse from the rest of the civilized world, by her peculiar-faith curses? But what an example of Oriental licentiousness the patriarch leaves for imitation by justification of this faithful morning star!

And Isaac, the son, lied, like his father, for which he was justly rebuked, as well nigh causing adultery.

It is a principle in morals that when a man betrays one of their best ingredients, truth, that he renders himself obnoxious to all its legitimate disadvantages, that of not being believed when he speaks it. On this principle, we surely cannot begin to believe any of this kith and kin, this profession, whenever it is their interest to lie, and that is much of the time, Ch. xxvi. v. 24. “ And the Lord said unto him (Isaac), I will bless thee,” &c., “ for Abraham's sake." Why? What substantial proof of all these traditions ? None. What a righteous character Jacob was, who took advantage of Esau and bought his birthright, circumventing him by selling what was necessary sustenance for Esau's life, when as a brother he should have given it. What sort of morals are these? Is not all this an exact prototype of all the priestocracy, in regard to the world's brotherhood ?

But he also lied to his father at the instance of his mother, and got what belonged to . Esau, his father's blessing, if that was worth anything under such circunstances.

Ch. xxvii. v. 19. “ And (the deceiver) Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy first-born; I have done according as thou badest me : arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.” Here and in v. 20, Jacob only tells four lies to his father, Isaac. Here we can plainly see that the whole institution of priestocracy is base fraud of the lowest kind. The whole bible is lies-shameful deception for ignorant people. But all such were the priestocracies, and all was their lying.

What morals! what religion ! “ Cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.” Who but jesuitical minds of the priestocracy could devise all this? And this system made him (Jacob) “thy (Esau's) lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants." Is this the morale of the Jew-bible, the lowest of barbarisms? “And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him ;” and Esau purposed to slay Jacob his brother. And this is the truest mirror of peculiar faith forever!

So far are the priestocracy, in any way of theirs, from making a universal brotherhood, that they actually break that which already exists into fragments, just like Christ, who affirmed to vindictive sectarianism that he came to set father against son, &c. Here is the portrait of false faith, that caused the deadliest animosity in the same household, causing the most unjust distinctions of predestination, pretended defamatory of nations to be pirated upon. And God blessed the liar in his abundant lies and treachery!

What a libel! This old imbecile blockhead, Isaac, that did not know one son from another, yet had a prophetic blessing! If the credulous verdant people, tory to their own minds, could not be found, the liars would stop. What were all such blessings worth? And now we see here, as we see all over this book of demoralization, that the mind was not enlightened to analyze the facts of truth, and the penalty incidental to its violation. Any mind short of being most stupid, must see that this is no religion. When Esau came in good faith to offer his meat, claiming the promised blessing, he finds himself deceived by his father's household. His father, brother and mother, acted in bad faith, and two, if not all, in collusion against him. Instead of penalty of Jacob, for obtaining what he did under false pretences, he is left in possession of his felony. And the patriarch Isaac is a participant in the crime. This is the justice in the hunter and pastoral stage of life. It is the justice of the priestocracy, to be sustained forever, if mind will submit to be thus cheated. All this is only the false pretences of the priestoc. racy, assuredly, who established their bibles as falsely. Mankind should not make itself a party to this collusion, bad faith, false pretences. No wonder that proscription, persecution, inquisition and all fiendishness should be aroused to force this absurd, this abominable doctrine on the people. 35. “And he said thy brother came with subtility, and hath taken away thy blessing." And could the degraded felon be blessed by an imbecile, that betrays his incapacity for letting such pirates fool him? If Isaac blessed Jacob knowingly, as a prophet, as this bible claims, then Isaac is as bad as the felon Jacob, but if he did not know, then Isaac was anyhow an impostor. Esau was the only honest religious person of the four, performing his contract. But the bible lies, as endorsing the transaction itself without an endorser. And yet the subsequent priestocracy refuse to have it faithfully analyzed, as it will expose their ignominious predecessors. If the last were felons, the first are no better, if acting knowingly. Ch. xxviii. 13. “And the Lord said, (to Jacob) the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed.” God blessed the felon thief, and sure enough thy seed" has no such possession at this day. This book is full to overflowing, of libels on the God of the universe, to prop up the peculiar Jew god. This book abounds with priests' words, done by the dynasty of priestocracy. Whether there was ever such a man as Jacob, they have made him a felon as they have done too much. If ever he was an honorable man, he could well exclaim, save me from such friends. And this priestocracy bluster the world over, is to protect their false pretences, their frauds, and destroy millions of the world, for their accursed profession. 22. And this stone which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house, and of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth unto thee.” And as the patriarch said, so ought the people to be bound by it. Jacob was truly for the priestocracy, as he promised the tenth to the Lord. He was one of them. But as he lied four times in one story, what credit has he for truth? Jacob became an open polygamist and adulterer, had Leah and Rachel, though sisters, for his wives. Was not this incest? What chapters are xxx and xxxi ? Jacob's wives gave

their maids to him. All participants in the crime of adultery. The felon used adultery with polygamy, and he ignominiously excited jealousy between the two wives who were sisters. Is this to be followed by pure republicans? Is this the faith that the world imitates so closely? Are the people so verdant, so insane, or are they slaves? Can they as rationalists, act on principles, or must they follow such cattle as masters? And Jacob's god was the god of his father, and the angel of this god spake unto Jacob in a dream, about the cattle. The 12th verse of chapter xxxi., is equal to that of the New Testament, where the holy ghost appears unto Mary. 19. • And Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's." His chief wife a thief and liar ; his children deceivers, nearly all conspiring for fratricide or the murder of their brother, being intentional murderers, and some were incestuous. The household were idolators, and this is the bible that was not only to delight delicate matrons, but lead refined daughters in the most exalted of mind's attributes, functions and principles. Save them, the sight even of such a nauseous compound. Why will virtuous and good citizens persist in forcing this odious compound of absurdies, contradictions, and abominations, after all its explosions of mind on mind? Why will they conspire with world-despotisms, to perpetrate such felony ? Ch. xxxii. 24. " And there wrestled a man with him (Jacob), 26. And he said, let me go, for the day breaketh ; and he (Jacob) said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. 28. For as a prince hast thou (once Jacob, now Israel,) power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. 29. And he (who? God) blessed him then. 30. For I (Jacob) have seen God face to face," &c. This beats Abraham all hollow. Abraham headed God in argument, but Jacob outwrestled him. Pin the priestocracy close, and they affect metaphor in that particular verse or chapter, thus they would dissolve the whole bible by figures. But this is a figure missed; the priestocracy have been too anxious to show off, and overdrawn on faith, that convenient morsel to a monk's pretences.

The bible, too indelicate for chastity, is too low for mind and religion. We can well exclaim, not only what absurdity, but outrage on the Creator of the universe. The certain and irresistible conclusion is, that if Jacob prevailed with his peculiar god, that he was superior any way, and of course saw this god, as he said ; proving enough for us, that the God of the universe was not in that wrestling scrape. How is this proved ? 32. Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh, in the sinew that shrank. There it is, proved! But this is monk's proof. Who endorses it? Of course, God should. Well, how does he do it? By his word, the bible. All this is in a circle. What is all such worth? In conclusion, how do we know all that? The bible says so, but who endorses the bible statement ? If God does, he must be its witness. Is God a witness? His universe contradicts it entirely. The true analysis is this: that the priestocracy outlied themselves in this affair of Jacob, over that affair of Abraham. The sapient dupes have outlied the pettifoggers, and have befogged themselves and world in inextricable blunders.

Ch. xxxv. v. 2: Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean and change your garments.

What cumulative proof about Joseph, who was to enact a conspicuous part of the drama. Ch. xli. 56. And the famine was over all the face of the earth. 57. And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph, for to buy corn; because that the famine was So sore in all lands. Who can believe all this statement? That very statement bespeaks a grade of civilization founded on science and mind culture, that did not exist. At that time navigation had not advanced to the mariner's compass, that enables man to steer across the trackless ocean. This statement is unquestionably disproved, as false. One of the great characteristics of biblical narration, is identifying its tales by plausible

Its language betrays the ignorance of the writers, that laugh to scorn the idea of inspiration, as xliii. 30. For his bowels did yearn upon his brother. About as physiological as the understanding of his heart. The world might have written all such stuff, but it is another thing to believe it.

Who believes that God talked to the patriarchs? If he knows any idea, he knows that it is only the peculiar god. Ch. xlvi. 31.. And Joseph said unto his brethren, I will say unto him (Pharaoh) 32, and the men (his brethren and father's house) are shepherds, for their trade hath been to feed cattle.

The second stage of life cannot teach the light of civilization to the fourth and last age, that is absurd in the extreme, Ch. xlvii. 20. And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh. 22. Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, &c. 26. Except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaohs. The priestocracy and the king had a community of interest. 27. And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen.


Ch. xlviii. 3. And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz, in the land of Canaan, and blessed me. 4. And said unto me, and (I) will give this land to thy seed after thee, for an everlasting possession. And sure enough, this impostor is rewarded, for time proves him a false prophet about the Jews and their residence.

He that could not tell where his son Joseph was, nor anything about him, as he said, “ Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces. "For I will go down to the grave unto my son, mourning.” After this, if any one can say that a bible prophet is a prophet, then he knows not God of the universe, nor his noblest attributes, truth and honesty.

Yes, but here is a mighty mistake, the bible minions may say—for Jacob said that God Almighty appeared unto him at Luz. And does that pretence mend the matter at all? This peculiar god was all in all, the almighty, but his peculiarity is proved by Jacob himself, in the very speech quoted.

He has peculiarized him, and of course the bible has defined its own position, so the mistake is with the advocates altogether. But they may affect to be thunderstruck about the supposed blasphemy, and there again is their own mistake.

All the bible assertions are predicated with the supposed holiest sanctity : then all the lies of their fraternity, as of Jacob, are all perjuries; for they are all attempted to be fixed as irrevocable, by all the curses of the priestocracy, on those that attempt to revoke them at all. Now it is not so much the inextricable blasphemy of Jacob, bad as it is, as the verdancy of the moderns adopting what idiots ought to be ashamed of.

Who can believe that chapter forty-ninth was ever fixed up by Jacob, if ever there was such a creature in substance? If it was, he portrayed the character of the priestocracy, who have portrayed their own ļikeness. The man that does not know his own grandsons affects to be a prophet! But all these blunders are chargeable to the dramatists, whose patchwork could not hide their peculiar deformity : their mantle was too rickety for truth.

But Jacob speaks from the facts of the case, when he speaks of Simeon and Leviinstruments of cruelty are in their habitations.

“6. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; (hear that, preachers,) unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united. 7. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce ; and their wrath, for it was cruel. 10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” The dearth universal, except in Egypt, of course is a fiction, ingeniously devised to invent the tale for the bondage in, and to the same source of invention is due the deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt. Besides the fanaticism of pretended prophecy, engendered in arousing up the enthusiasm of this people, was the additional motive of recovering the land where the bones of their ancestors were buried. But neither priest-altars, nor wells, nor groves, nor all the pretences of priestocracy's words, entitled the children of Israel to the possession of lands occupied by others, and to say the least, deserted by their ancestors. What sort of a covenant was made with Jacob? Was he honest enough to keep one? As patriarchs, so is the bible worthless.



Who was Moses ? Born of incestuous wedlock, and when grown, a murderer ; when ruler, a repudiator; and when competent to dispense his peculiar faith, an idolator and pagan.

Moses married a priest's daughter, and necessarily became imbued with all the character of a priest, having such previous education in Egypt. He makes an admirable start as a man of genius, intending to play out mind-jugglery. He clothes his superstition with the sublime wonders of nature, and resorts to the volcano to add to the influence on mind.

But the mighty solution is in the bible, that gives the priestocracy for god; but the lord god of Israel is certainly, not the God of the universe, as is proved by ch. iii. v. 7. And the Lord said, 8. And I am come down to deliver them (my people) out of the hands of the Egyptians, &c. All the people of the world are those of the God of the universe ; any other language is untrue.

The God of the universe does not have to come down to earth, as he is omnipresent, and has his conservative principles to represent and vindicate him, excluding necessarily the angels. What proof is there that God sent Moses to deliver the children of Israel? All lied. Moses sent himself; as God had as little need of him as of angels to act divinely for the Hebrew nation. The whole nation lied, claiming any divine mission, proved by the works of God in the universe.

Moses and Aaron were the greatest mind-jugglers, the most astute of their priestoc. racy; and the whole of all peculiar bibles are mind-juggleries. If the world had con

[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »