to outrage women, become “divine" by being printed in the same book with the Golden Rule?

Compare, once more, the saying of Jesus, that, "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee and if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body shall be cast into hell" (Matthew v, 29-31); and this other remarkable advice to make "eunuchs of themselves for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matthew xix, 12), with the gloriously wholesome thought of Seneca on such absurd religious practices: "One, out of zeal, makes himself an eunuch, another lances his arms; if this be the way to please their gods, what should a man do if he had a mind to anger them? or, if this be the way to please them, they do certainly deserve not to be worshiped at all the most barbarous and notorious of tyrants never went so far as to command any man to torment himself."*

66

What would not the clergy have given if the above passage had been in their bible, instead of in the writings of a "heathen"? Jesus recommended self-torture; Seneca says, even tyrants never went so far as to recommend any man to torment himself.” Of course, in his extremity, the Christian will plead for a spiritual interpretation of Jesus' sayings: But why use such decidedly materialistic terms, as "plucking out eyes," "cutting off arms," and "making eunuchs of one's self," to convey ideal meanings? Why could not Jesus talk plainly, like Seneca ?

* Seneca's Morals xvii.

In the selection of these few quotations, I have refrained from culling also from the pages of modern writers, lest it be said that since these modern men and women appeared after Christianity, it is to the bible that the world is indebted for their great thoughts and works. Of course, this is not true, seeing how the church persecuted these men and women, and drove them to the stake, or at least, placed the offspring of their brain upon the Index, branding their thought as blasphemy. Nevertheless, I have denied myself the pleasure of invoking the galaxy of intellectual leaders, from Bruno and Spinoza, to Goethe and Voltaire, and, Shakespeare and Shelley, and Ibsen and Emerson, who though they had their many faults, were morally as well as mentally, as far above Ezra, Nehemiah, Noah, Solomon, or Peter and Paul, as sense and beauty are above folly and platitude.

We have really paid the Hebrew-Christian scriptures an unmerited compliment in comparing them with the noblest teachings of the Pagan philosophers. Not only is it impossible to find in the bible the high aspirations of the European mind, its independence and fearlessness of the gods, so eloquently expressed in Seneca's prayer: "O Neptune, your ocean is big, and my bark is frail. You may save me if you will; you may sink me if you will, but whatever happen, I shall keep my rudder true," but even when we compare the contents of the bible with the teachings and practices of the most primitive peoples in the world the result is far from being favorable to the "inspired" volume.

Was Molock, for instance, who devoured children, as destructive as Jehovah who consumed whole nations

by fire and the sword? Was Baal or Astaroth as sanguinary as the being who slaughtered in one night all the first-born of Egypt? Did the idols of savages ever think even of drowning a world? Is it possible to find in the dictionary of the gods, one who can compare with the inventor of the Christian hell? When the missionaries entered Borneo to convert the natives, the Rajah drove them out of the land, "because the Christian God used people as firewood after death."

In conclusion, before Mr. Bryan and his colleagues may ask us to produce a better bible, let them find in the Jewish-Christian scriptures a text or a passage which will describe a more enviable state of society in any Jewish or Christian country, of the past or the present, than the picture presented by the unrivaled Pericles in his Athenian oration, beginning with the words:

"We are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we employ not for talk and ostentation, but when there is real use for it. We regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs not as a harmless but as a useless character."

Conclusion

The Book of God and the Book of Man

HE former is a miracle. The latter is the actual

THE

story of man on earth, and his achievements. God finished his book long ago. Man is still writing. There is between these two books the same difference that there is between the rock and the vine. The rock does not grow, neither can it move. Sun and shower fall upon it in vain. The vine, on the other hand, responds to the caress of the life-forces. It swings with the wind, and reaches up with every growing thing, for the sunshine.

The book of God is arrested, like the rock.

The book of Man is alive and increasing, like the vine.

THE END.

There appears to be need of some bold man who specially honors plainness of speech, and will say what is best for the city and citizens, ordaining what is good for the whole state, amid the corruptions of human souls, opposing the mightiest lusts, and having no man his helper but himself, standing alone and following reason only.-Plato.

BOOKS BY M. M. MANGASARIAN

A New Catechism

Translated into many European languages.

Containing altogether twenty-two chapters, with an introduction and a photograph of the author, bound in cloth, 270 pages. Fifth edition. Price, $1.

PRESS COMMENTS

It is the boldest, the brightest, the most varied and informing of any work of the kind extant. The book is a cyclopedia in a nutshell. -Literary Guide, London, Eng.

Prof. C. S. Laisant, one of the leading educators of France, and a member of the faculty of the College of France, says:

Admiration is too feeble a word to express my opinion of "A New Catechism." It is a marvelous manual of rationalistic philosophy and scientific morality. To disseminate this book is to aid the cause of European democracy-the emancipation of the people. We congratulate Frenchmen for the opportunity of reading in their own language so beautiful and beneficent a book.

M. Vandervelde, member of the Parliament of Belgium, says of "A New Catechism":

I know of no other work of its kind which is as lucid, as loyal to truth, and as attractive to the daily toiler, as it is to the philosopher.- In Introduction to French edition.

Mr. George W. Foote, of England:

66

Mr. Mangasarian's well-known Catechism" promises to have a great sale in France and Belgium. The English edition ought to be widely circulated in this country. It is written with power, knowledge and dexterity.

Grapples with the problems that underlie all the creeds and all the systems of science and philosophy.— Glasgow Herald. The author shows good judgment in devising questions and great fertility of resource in answering them. The book is well worth a perusal.- Educational News, London.

Mr. Mangasarian seems to us to have hit upon a happy union of the brevity which is the soul of wit, with the amplitude which conduces to enlightenment. It is acute, stimulating and suggestive. It is eminently readable, and we trust it will have the extensive sale which its intrinsic merit deserves. - Literary Guide, London.

Interesting as a pointed statement of the most advanced thought on matters of religion.-Scotsman.

I have unfeigned pleasure in recommending the "New Catechism." It is an effective subversion of all the old catechisms have seen. It is remarkably clear, terse and precise. The questions are asked with an enviable insight into the very vertebrum of orthodox error, and the answers are given with a suc