CHAPTER XLIX.

SEEMING TRUTH, BUT ACTUAL FALSEHOOD.

AFTER reading the Philosophical Dictionary, the inquiry presented itself, "May not something more able be found in other productions of this author, whose fame has reached around the earth? May he not have reserved his strongest weapons for other volumes and other times?" I opened another book and read. What was my surprise to find there the same spirit, the same manner, and the same texture of plausible falsehood and expert ridicule. I might present the reader with volumes of instances, but it is not expedient here. It is, however, necessary that a proper number of fair examples should be presented, to show what is meant by a mixture of untruth and irony. It is a matter of perfect indifference from what page these examples are taken, or from what author. I shall continue for a time to notice items from the author already before us; and I shall take such articles as come first to my recollection.

I read from the pen of this prince of philosophers, the following declaration: "Men saw Isaiah walking stark naked, in Jerusalem, in order to show that the king of Assyria would bring a crowd of captives out of Egypt and Ethiopia, who would not have any thing to cover their nakedness. Is it possible that a man could walk stark naked through Jerusalem without being punished by the civil power?"

What impression must this make on one who had opened the book in search of support in his system of infidelity? I had read the Bible and heard it read often, through necessity, when I was young. I knew that many who read this would think it true, and make their inferences without further examination; but I knew it false, and I knew that the author must have known its untruth. He knew that the man without arms was and is called naked, in a military sense. Armed troops, and naked troops, are terms in common use. Those who are not only despoiled of arms, but destitute of robes and upper garments, as slaves commonly are, were called naked. No one means by this, stark nakedness, except those who choose so to un derstand; and those who thus choose, have something in their hearts which so actuates them. I began to feel as though I was not to look for much support from those who had received Europe's applause. I did think it strange, that men of so great talent could not offer some argument of weight in their cause, and having truth for its basis.

I read again, in another place, "How could God promise them that immense tract of land, the country between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, which the Jews never possessed?"

I was under the necessity of making the following remarks: "All that prevents this being argument is, that the Jews did possess it. Joshua did not conquer it, but David did. If others should choose to swallow lies without investigation, and build their whole creed upon them, it cannot make the same course safe for me. The objections of the greatest

man on earth must have a portion, at least, of truth in their composition, or I cannot receive them."

I read again, "How could God give them that little spot of Palestine for ever and ever, from which they have been driven so long a time since?"

I knew that the author of this question must have known that God had told the Israelites over and again, that if they disobeyed him, they should be driven away and scattered over all the earth. I knew that all who had read the Bible, had seen these promises were made conditionally; and I thought that my companions in unbelief ought to have honesty enough to confess that which they knew, even if it did favor the Bible.

I read again, "Among the Jews, a man might marry his sister." All I could say to this was, "Among the Jews, a man was forbidden to marry his sister." All the reason why my unbelief was not strengthened by this assertion was, that I felt there was some difference between a falsehood and the truth. I knew that if an instance could be produced where a Jew, contrary to their law, had married his sister, it would prove that this marriage was allowed among them, in the same way that a case of murder in America proves that murder is allowed with us. I began to feel startled for my creed and for my religious views, but I did not yet renounce them. I was an infidel still. The heart of man in these cases receives error readily, and relinquishes it slowly and reluctantly.

I continued to read, "It is said in the book of Joshua, that the Jews were circumcised in the wil

derness."

All the difference between this and fact is, that it is said in the book of Joshua, that the Jews were not circumcised in the wilderness. It is true, that upon this false assertion and others like it, a very ingenious infidel argument is based; but what influence was that to have upon one who had read? I read over the foundation to that very plausible inference once more. "It is said in the book of Joshua,

that the Jews were circumcised in the wilderness." The following was the language of my feelings : "This would support the argument attempted against the Old Testament, only the opposite is asserted in the book of Joshua. Are these the kind of assertions which so many ten thousands are believing implicitly and repeating triumphantly, and upon which they build their entire belief? Out of the millions who applaud, and who cast away the Bible, do none of them pause and investigate ?"

I began to see that things said against that book were certainly popular. I began to have some little discovery of the fact that able arguments in favor of inspiration were not read, or if read, not noticed or remembered, while such things as I have quoted were loved and applauded at once. I did not, however, know the reason of this: I saw something of the fact, but did not at that time suspect man's fallen nature of giving him more love for darkness than for light.

CHAPTER L.

SEEMING TRUTH, BUT ACTUAL FALSEHOOD.

I WOULD not continue to place before the reader the cases of falsehood after falsehood, and perversion after perversion, were it not that it is scarcely credible to those who have never examined, that nations should have been turned away from Christianity by volumes of unmingled untruth. In order to make the impression of this fact as perfect as the naked truth deserves-the fact, that there is no one truthful statement from which an important argument is drawn, in any volume of Voltaire I have ever read, but every article is either partly or totally made up of falsehood-I must continue the presentation of instances longer, and until there is danger of these items becoming wearisome; then I shall turn to other authors of the same belief.

I read a page where the learned author concluded that the Jews were anthropophagi, cannibals, eaters of human flesh. The first argument which seemed to be presented in favor of this opinion was, that there had been cannibals in other parts of the world. This did not seem to me altogether conclusive. I read on until I came to the most commanding proof given by the philosopher, that the Jews did indeed eat human flesh. This he gave by telling us that Ezekiel promised them the flesh of horses, and of captains, and of mighty men; and if they were prom