n the dead. The living were impoverished to
enrich the dead. The grave absorbed the wealth of Egypt. The
industry of a nation was buried. Certainly the Old Testament has
nothing clearly in favor of immortality. In the New Testament we
are told about the "kingdom of heaven,"--that it is at hand--and
about who shall be worthy, but it is hard to tell what is meant by
the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven was apparently to be
in this world, and it was about to commence. The Devil was to be
chained for a thousand years, the wicked were to be burned up, and
Christ and his followers were to enjoy the earth. This certainly
was the doctrine of Paul when he says: "Behold, I show you a
mystery; We shall not all _sleep_, but we shall all be _changed_.
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for
the trumpet shall sound, and the _dead_ shall be _raised_ incorruptible,
and _we_ shall be _changed_. For this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." According
to this doctrine, those who were alive were to be changed, and
those who had died were to be raised from the dead. Paul certainly
did not refer to any other world beyond this. All these things
were to happen here. The New Testament is made up of the fragments
of many religions. It is utterly inconsistent with itself; and
there is not a particle of evidence of the resurrection and ascension
of Christ--neither in the nature of things could there be. It is
a thousand times more probable that people were mistaken than that
such things occurred. If Christ really rose from the dead, he
should have shown himself, not simply to his disciples, but to the
very men who crucified him--to Herod, to the high priest, to Pilate.
He should have made a triumphal entry into Jerusalem after his
resurrection, instead of before. He should have shown himself to
the Sadducees,--to those who denied the existence of spirit. Take
from the New Testament its doctrine of eternal pain--the idea that
we can please God by acts of self-denial that can do no good to
others--take away all its miracles, and I have no objection to all
the good things in it--no objection to the hope of a future life,
if such a hope is expressed--not the slightest. And I would not
for the world say anything to take from any mind a hope in which
dwells the least comfort, but a doctrine that dooms a large majority
of mankind to eternal flames ought not to