Wesley Woodward helps younger people with disabilities find an alternative to living in aged care, including our own onsite accommodation.
Whether you're already living at an aged care facility, or think you have no other option, we're here to help you find the most appropriate living situation.
Residents of Wesley Woodward, our site in Western Sydney, are supported with all aspects of their life, such as day-to-day living, medical and personal administration needs, shopping, accessing community services and living a meaningful and productive life in the community.
a large club house that can be used for special events, meetings and any indoor recreational activity.
a large kitchen where residents can entertain a large group of friends and family.
We work with prospective residents and their families from a very early stage to ensure that a transition to Wesley Woodward is the most desirable outcome for the person with disability.
Prospective residents are referred to Wesley Woodward by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Care. We review prospective residents to determine their support needs, the best compatibility with potential unit mate and our capacity to support the client effectively.


text:
Q: win 8 notebook install x551ca I bought a asus x551ca notebook today with windows 8 installed. I upgraded the os to ubuntu. While doing so I made a new partition table. The pc wont boot to grub, it goes straight to bios. Has anyone had this problem? How did you fix it?

A: I'm afraid it will not be an easy way: check this bug and comment on it as appropriate.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Linked lists. Where to allocate and how to cope with fragmentation?
*

*Location

*

*in the heap, fragmented (malloc for every node) -inefficient in several different ways (slow allocation, slow access, memory fragmentation)

*in the heap, in one large chunk - all the flexibility, gained by the data structure is lost, when needing to realloc

*in the stack - the stack tends to be rather limited in size, so allocating large structures on it is not recommended at all

Their big advantage, insert O(1), seems rather useless in the environment of fragmented memory and thousands of calls to the memory allocator to give us another 10 bytes.

EDIT to clarify:
This question was asked on an interview. It is not a workplace question and so the usual heuristics of hoping to stumble blindly on the correct decision out of a small set of standard algorithms is not applicable.
The existing answers and comments mention that "malloc is not so slow", "malloc partially fights fragmentation". OK, if we use another data structure, for example a C port of the C++ vector (that is - allocate sequential memory of sufficient size, if data expands, reallocate to a twice larger chunk) all problems are solved, but we loose the fast insert/remove. Any scenarios where a linked list (allocated where?) has vast superiority to a vector?

A: This sounds like premature optimization. I think the correct way to go about it is to:

*

*use the simplest implementation possible;

*profile the entire program.

*if profiling shows that there is a performance issue with the list, consider alternative implementations (including alternative allocators).

A: If you're worried about the standard allocators not handling your specialized 10-byte allocations efficiently, write a custom allocator that grabs a big chunk of memory from the standard (malloc()) allocator and doles out small items efficiently.  You should not reallocate when you run out of memory in the initial big chunk; you should allocate a new (extra) big chunk and allocate from that.  You get to decide how to handle released memory.  You could simply ignore releases until you release all the big chunks at the end of processing with the lists.  Or you can complicate life by keeping track of freed memory in the big chunks.  This reduces memory usage on the whole, but it is more complex to write initially.
On the other hand, you should be aware of the risk of premature optimization.  Have you measured a performance hit?  Given what I've seen of your recent questions, you should probably stick with using malloc() and not try writing your own allocators (yet).

A: This may not be the exact solution, but another approach

*

*Handle fragmentation on your own.

*

*Allocate big pool of memory

*For each new node provide memory from this node, until there is free memory.

*If pool is utilized, allocate another pool and use that to allocate new chunks

However, this is very easier said than done. There will be lot many issues that you may encounter doing this.
So, will suggest to let this kind of optimization to malloc and related functions.
Allocation from stack is not a viable option. You can't malloc from stack. You will have to pre-allocate big chunk of buffer in some function. In that case, array is better than linked lists.

A: Your linked list implementation, ideally, shouldn't use any of the above. It should be up to the caller to allocate and destroy memory. Think about functions like sprintf, fgets, etc... Do they allocate any memory? No. There's a reason for that: Simplicity. Imagine if you had to free everything you got from fgets (or worse yet, fscanf). Wouldn't that be painful? Try to develop your functions to be consistent with the standard library.
It might be helpful to declare a listnode_alloc function, but this would only wrap malloc and a listnode_init function. Consider how realloc handles NULL input...

A: Well, the memory allocation strategy might varies due to memory fragmentation, thousands of syscalls etc. and this is exactly why O is used! ;-)


text:
Home / News / FØNX releases debut single 'Can't Get Enough'
FØNX releases debut single 'Can't Get Enough'
RJ Frometa August 4, 2017	News Leave a comment 105 Views
British artist, songwriter and producer FØNX has today released his debut single 'Can't Get Enough', which was produced by Grammy award-winner Tommaso Colliva (Muse). LISTEN HERE
FØNX explains, "'Can't Get Enough' came about whilst I was homeless and sofa surfing for a couple of months and after a very colourful twenty-four hours, I found myself writing initial ideas for the song".
Drawing influence from the likes of Kanye West, Childish Gambino, Frank Ocean, D'Angelo, John Mayer and Tame Impala, FØNX delivers R'n'B-infused pop with jazz, funk and soul influences, merging catchy grooves, memorable hooks and intricate guitar licks with inspired lyrical content.
Coming from a musical background FØNX started learning guitar at the age of seven and was soon introduced to rap and hip hop, sparking his enthusiasm to start writing lyrics and create backing tracks from samples.
FØNX continued experimenting with music and film during a number of years of home-schooling and soon enrolled at the Brit School where he studied music.
Since leaving, FØNX has continued writing and producing his music at home, on trains, buses, in coffee shops and backstage before shows, constantly coming up with ideas for melodies and lyrics wherever he went. Playing the live circuit around London and the South East he has also performed at various festivals including Barn on The Farm, Cornbury Festival, Isle Of Wight Festival and Leefest.
FØNX is busy working on brand new material and collaborations. 'Can't Get Enough' indeed!
Previous House Above The Sun Release New Single
Next GRAMMY AWARD-WINNING DIXIE CHICKS UPCOMING LIVE DVD COMES TO MOVIE THEATERS FOR SPECIAL ONE NIGHT EVENT ON AUGUST 7

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Obchodní rejstřík je veřejný rejstřík, do kterého se zapisují zákonem stanovené údaje o podnikatelích, jako je např. firma, sídlo, předmět podnikání nebo společníci. Každý do něj může nahlížet a pořizovat si z něj výpisy.

Rejstříkový soud
Obchodní rejstřík je veden příslušným rejstříkovým soudem, kterým je krajský soud. Konkrétně jde o:
 Městský soud v Praze (vede obchodní rejstřík i pro podnikatele se sídlem v obvodu Krajského soudu v Praze; v rejstříku je zapsána téměř polovina všech obchodních společností v České republice)
 Krajský soud v Českých Budějovicích
 Krajský soud v Plzni
 Krajský soud v Ústí nad Labem
 Krajský soud v Ústí nad Labem – pobočka v Liberci
 Krajský soud v Hradci Králové
 Krajský soud v Hradci Králové – pobočka v Pardubicích
 Krajský soud v Brně
 Krajský soud v Ostravě
 Krajský soud v Ostravě – pobočka v Olomouci

Zapisované subjekty
Do obchodního rejstříku se zapisují:
 obchodní společnosti a družstva,
 některé podnikající zahraniční osoby,
 fyzické osoby, které jsou podnikateli s bydlištěm v České republice a které o zápis požádají (povinný je zápis v případě průměrné výše výnosů nebo příjmů snížených o DPH za poslední dvě účetní období přesahující 120 mil. Kč), a
 další osoby, stanoví-li povinnost jejich zápisu zvláštní právní předpis.

Právnické osoby, které nemají zápis povinný, se nemohou zapsat ani dobrovolně.

Zapisované skutečnosti
Zapisuje se:
 jméno a adresa zapsané osoby,
 předmět činnosti nebo podnikání,
 právní forma právnické osoby,
 den vzniku a zániku právnické osoby,
 u fyzické osoby datum narození, rodné číslo, bylo-li jí přiděleno, a adresa místa pobytu, popřípadě také bydliště, liší-li se od adresy místa pobytu,
 identifikační číslo osoby,
 statutární orgán s uvedením způsobu, jak za právnickou osobu jedná; je-li členem statutárního orgánu právnická osoba, také osoba, která ji při výkonu funkce zastupuje,
 kontrolní orgán a jeho členové,
 prokurista, způsob jeho jednání a údaj o tom, zda se prokura vztahuje jen na určitou pobočku a zda je prokurista oprávněn zcizit nebo zatížit nemovitou věc,
 status veřejné prospěšnosti právnické osoby,
 výše základního kapitálu společnosti s ručením omezeným nebo akciové společnosti,
 výše vkladu každého společníka, je-li podle jiného zákona vyžadován zápis těchto osob do obchodního rejstříku, a rozsah splnění vkladové povinnosti,
 údaj o tom, že byl převeden závod nebo jeho část nebo že byl dán do zástavy, nájmu nebo propachtován, případný údaj o zániku závazků z těchto smluv, a usnesení soudu o nabytí závodu nebo jeho části děděním,
 údaj o tom, že se obchodní korporace podřídila zákonu jako celku postupem podle § 777 odst. 5 zákona o obchodních korporacích,
 údaj o tom, že členovi orgánu nebo prokuristovi byl pozastaven výkon funkce,
 zástavní právo k podílu v korporaci, ledaže je představován cenným papírem nebo nesplacenou akcií,
 zákaz zatížení nebo zcizení podílu v korporaci, byl-li zřízen jako věcné právo,
 u veřejné obchodní společnosti jméno a sídlo nebo adresa místa pobytu, popřípadě také bydliště, liší-li se od adresy místa pobytu, jejích společníků,
 u komanditní společnosti jméno a sídlo nebo adresa místa pobytu, popřípadě také bydliště, liší-li se od adresy místa pobytu, jejích společníků s uvedením, který ze společníků je komplementář a který komanditista, výše komanditní sumy každého komanditisty a její změny,
 u společnosti s ručením omezeným jméno a sídlo nebo adresa místa pobytu, popřípadě také bydliště, liší-li se od adresy místa pobytu, jejích společníků, výše podílu každého společníka, druh podílu a popis práv a povinností s ním spojených alespoň odkazem na společenskou smlouvu uloženou ve sbírce listin a údaj o tom, zda byl na podíl vydán kmenový list,
 u akciové společnosti rozsah splacení základního kapitálu, počet, forma a jmenovitá hodnota akcií nebo údaj o tom, že společnost vydá akcie, které nemají jmenovitou hodnotu (kusové akcie), a v jakém počtu, údaj o tom, zda budou vydány akcie jako zaknihovaný cenný papír nebo budou imobilizovány, druh akcií a popis práv a povinností s nimi spojených alespoň odkazem na stanovy uložené ve sbírce listin a případné omezení převoditelnosti akcií na jméno; má-li společnost jediného akcionáře, zapisuje se i jméno a sídlo nebo adresa místa pobytu, popřípadě také bydliště, liší-li se od adresy místa pobytu, tohoto akcionáře,
 u družstva údaj o tom, zda se jedná o družstvo, bytové družstvo nebo sociální družstvo a výše základního členského vkladu, popřípadě vstupního vkladu,
 u státního podniku označení toho, kdo jménem státu vykonává funkci zakladatele státního podniku, výše kmenového jmění, minimální výše kmenového jmění, kterou je státní podnik povinen zachovávat, a určený majetek,
 další skutečnost, o které to stanoví tento nebo jiný zákon, nebo jiná důležitá skutečnost, o jejíž zápis požádá zapsaná osoba, má-li na takovém zápisu právní zájem,
 den, k němuž byl zápis proveden.

Sbírka listin

Rejstřík také obsahuje sbírku listin, která obsahuje důležité listiny týkající se jednotlivých subjektů (např. zakladatelskou listinu společnosti/společenskou smlouvu, účetní závěrky, podpisové vzory statutárních orgánů atd.).

Zápis
Návrh na zápis lze podat v listinné nebo elektronické podobě (to platí obdobně pro dokládání listin prokazujících skutečnosti uvedené v návrhu a listin zakládaných do sbírky listin). Návrh v elektronické podobě může podat pouze osoba podepsaná s uznávaným elektronickým podpisem. Vždy jej však lze podat pouze na předepsaném formuláři, přičemž podpis musí být úředně ověřen (formuláře stanoví Ministerstvo spravedlnosti vyhláškou č. 323/2013 Sb.). Poplatek za zápis do obchodního rejstříku je stanoven zákonem č. 549/1991 Sb., o soudních poplatcích.

Důležitý je také princip publicity, který se dělí na publicitu formální a materiální. Princip formální publicity spočívá v tom, že obchodní rejstřík je přístupný každému, že každý má právo do něho nahlížet a pořizovat si z něho kopie a výpisy. Rejstříkový soud vydá každému na požádání úředně ověřený opis zápisu či listiny uložené ve sbírce listin. Princip materiální publicity spočívá v tom, že stav zapsaný v obchodním rejstříku bude vůči tomu, kdo jedná v důvěře v jeho zápis, považován za skutečný platný právní stav. To spočívá na principu dobré víry.

Řízení ve věcech veřejného rejstříku rejstříku upravuje v části druhé zákon o veřejných rejstřících právnických a fyzických osob. V části třetí tohoto zákona je pak upravena možnost provedení přímého zápisu notářem v případě, že sám sepsal notářský zápis, který je podkladem pro přímý zápis.

Výpis z obchodního rejstříku
Výpis z obchodního rejstříku podává informace o konkrétních subjektech zapsaných v obchodním rejstříku. Obsahuje například název, její sídlo, předmět podnikání, právní formu, identifikační číslo osoby, identifikaci členů statutárního orgánu. Pro uskutečňování některých právních úkonů je potřeba doložit úředně ověřený výpis z obchodního rejstříku. Rozlišuje se úplný výpis z obchodního rejstříku (včetně historie) a výpis platný k určitému datu.

Výmaz z obchodního rejstříku a změny
Návrh na výmaz z obchodního rejstříku se podává při ukončení podnikatelské činnosti. Výmazem zaniká subjekt zapsaný v obchodním rejstříku. O změnách, které proběhnou, musí podnikatel informovat bez zbytečného odkladu. Pro provedení změny v obchodním rejstříku je nezbytné dodat potřebnou dokumentaci a složit správní poplatek.

Odkazy

Reference

Literatura
 Hampel, P.; Walder, I. Zákon o veřejných rejstřících právnických a fyzických osob. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, a. s., 2014, s. 368.

Související články
 Seznam obchodních rejstříků
 Právní forma
 Identifikační číslo osoby
 Sbírka listin

Externí odkazy

 Vyhledávání v českém obchodním rejstříku
 Obchodní rejstříky v členských zemích EU
 Obchodní rejstříky různých zemí světa na webu nadace Open Knowledge

Obchodní právo
Veřejné rejstříky právnických a fyzických osob
Obchodní společnosti
Číselníky
E-Government

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
<bill session="115" type="h" number="3157" updated="2017-09-11T03:06:01Z">
  <state datetime="2017-06-29">REFERRED</state>
  <status>
    <introduced datetime="2017-06-29"/>
  </status>
  <introduced datetime="2017-06-29"/>
  <titles>
    <title type="short" as="introduced">Merchant Marine Academy Improvement Act of 2017</title>
    <title type="short" as="introduced">Merchant Marine Academy Improvement Act of 2017</title>
    <title type="official" as="introduced">To improve the handling of instances of sexual harassment, dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, and for other purposes.</title>
    <title type="display">Merchant Marine Academy Improvement Act of 2017</title>
  </titles>
  <sponsor bioguide_id="S001201"/>
  <cosponsors/>
  <actions>
    <action datetime="2017-06-29">
      <text>Introduced in House</text>
    </action>
    <action datetime="2017-06-29" state="REFERRED">
      <text>Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.</text>
    </action>
    <action datetime="2017-06-29">
      <text>Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.</text>
    </action>
    <action datetime="2017-06-29">
      <text>Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.</text>
    </action>
    <action datetime="2017-06-30">
      <text>Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.</text>
    </action>
    <action datetime="2017-07-26">
      <text>Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.</text>
    </action>
  </actions>
  <committees>
    <committee subcommittee="" code="HSAS" name="House Armed Services" activity="Referral"/>
    <committee subcommittee="Military Personnel" code="HSAS02" name="House Armed Services" activity="Referral"/>
    <committee subcommittee="" code="HSPW" name="House Transportation and Infrastructure" activity="Referral"/>
    <committee subcommittee="Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation" code="HSPW07" name="House Transportation and Infrastructure" activity="Referral"/>
    <committee subcommittee="" code="HSED" name="House Education and the Workforce" activity="Referral"/>
  </committees>
  <relatedbills>
    <bill type="s" session="115" relation="identical" number="1506"/>
  </relatedbills>
  <subjects>
    <term name="Transportation and public works"/>
  </subjects>
  <amendments/>
  <committee-reports/>
</bill>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Kumudzi Kuwale Limited To Provide Light To 150,000 Rural Malawians Within 2021
Kumudzi Kuwale Limited, situated in Nkhotakota in Malawi, aims at providing affordable light to marginalized rural Malawians by building 300 solar charging stations in rural villages by 2021.
For less than 1,5USD per month, rural Malawians get unlimited access to light through Kumudzi Kuwale's charging station concept. The concept has proven to offer attractive, affordable light to rural Malawians, as well as being a sustainable business model for the company.
The company's mission is simple: provide sustainable energy for everyone. The "No one should be left in the dark" project aims at providing affordable light to the marginalized, rural population of Malawi. The company aims at building charging stations in more than 300 rural villages the coming two years, providing light to an estimated 150,000 rural Malawians. The rapid scale-up of the charging station concept is made possible through funding from EEP Africa, Grønn-Hagen Bjørke Malawi Foundation, and Nkhotakota Youth Organization.
By building charging stations in rural villages far from the national Malawian electricity grid, Kumudzi Kuwale provides unlimited charging of small light beacons for 1000MWK per month (less than 1,5USD) to villagers who would otherwise not be able to access affordable, renewable light. The light beacons cost less per month, lasts longer, and shines brighter than the current light source of most villagers (kerosene, firewood, or torches), and has proven to be an attractive service for villagers, as well as a sustainable business model for Kumudzi Kuwale.
Apart from providing marginalized people with affordable light, Kumudzi Kuwale's rural charging stations offer additional economic and social benefits to both villagers and the larger Malawian community. Each charging station employs operators to take care of day-to-day business on the station, empowering them through a stable income. In future, Kumudzi Kuwale also wants to offer charging station operators training and technical skills on how to do maintenance on solar charging equipment, as well as on basic business practices, in order to make the stations more independent in the long-run. The size of the project also means that Kumudzi Kuwale needs to take on additional staff both in their headquarters and in the field – further providing employment and stability to the local community.
Kumudzi Kuwale Limited is a Malawian for-profit social enterprise, headquartered in Nkhotakota, Central Malawi. The company specializes in solar electricity installations and solar engineering. To achieve its mission of providing sustainable energy for everyone, the company has established three separate business units; shops selling solar equipment to private households (Nkhotakota and Kasungu), solar installations providing electricity to commercial and government functions, and rural charging stations for people not otherwise able to access affordable renewable energy solutions.
Tags: africa,	Malawi


OLYMPIA, Wash. – Community and technical college faculty scored a big win during this year's legislative session. Lawmakers passed Engrossed House Bill 1237 to allow faculty at these colleges to negotiate local wage increases through collective bargaining.
They were the only public-education employees prohibited from bargaining locally before this bill.
Funds that colleges get through fees and tuition will now be available in salary negotiations. Jim Howe, a faculty member at Lake Washington Institute of Technology's Kirkland campus, also is president of his local American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union. According to Howe, community and technical college faculty members need a raise.
"Compensation issues have been plaguing us since before the recession," he said. "I can't keep colleagues here; the turnover is terrible because of how low the compensation is."
However, Howe added money isn't the only issue. He said opening of collective-bargaining rights in this legislation is key. College administrators have opposed collective bargaining for faculty in the past.
Bernal Baca, government affairs director for AFT Washington, called it a historic win for faculty. Rather than driving a wedge between school administrators and faculty, Baca said he sees it as a chance for the two groups to build a united front.
"We've been shortchanged for a number of years," Baca explained. "This gives us an opportunity to go shoulder-to-shoulder with the presidents, to the state Legislature, and correct the imbalance in our system so that we can get money back into the community and technical college system."
The bill was passed in the shadow of a U.S. Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME, that threatens to dismantle collective bargaining for public employees nationwide.
According to Howe, the Evergreen State is bucking the national trend on unionization and he sees this bill as evidence of that. However, he believes the Janus case is just the tip of the iceberg in the fight against unions.
"The proponents of that case have made it clear that they want to get rid of collective bargaining with public employees," Howe stated. "So, this is a little more serious than just getting one little 'right to something.' This is getting stronger collective bargaining."
The legislation now awaits Gov. Jay Inslee's signature.


text:
I thought New Year was January 1st, but no, it's APRIL 1st: 'Covid' reaches the Antarctic as fully-fake-vaccinated polar researchers report outbreak at remote station confirmed by a test not testing for the 'virus'. It's a cunning bastard this 'virus' – now it's got a sleigh
Two thirds of the 25 staff based in Belgium's Princess Elisabeth Polar Station have caught Covid, the Le Soir newspaper reported, proving there is no escape from the global pandemic.
The Omicron outbreak happened despite all staff passing multiple PCR tests, quarantining and living in one of the most remote places in the world.
The situation has echoes of the plot of John Carpenter's 1982 horror classic The Thing,which was advertised with the slogan "man is the warmest place to hide".
An alien life form infects workers on an Antarctic station in the cult Sci fi chiller, which starred Kurt Russell. Unlike the film, none of the infected Belgians have exhibited any severe symptoms – let alone been transformed into bloodthirsty beasts that can only be killed by incineration.
All 25 researchers were fully vaccinated and one had a booster shot. Before leaving for the station, they underwent a PCR test in Belgium two hours before flying to South Africa.
In South Africa, they quarantined for ten days and took another PCR test. A further test was needed when leaving Cape Town for Antarctica and a final one five days after that.
One person tested positive seven days after arriving at the station on December 14. The person was isolated but tests revealed two others had caught the virus. The three were evacuated on December 23 but the virus has continued to spread.
It is thought to be the Omicron variant because that is responsible for 99 per cent of infections in South Africa.
Read more: I thought New Year was January 1st, but no, it's APRIL 1st: 'Covid' reaches the Antarctic as fully-fake-vaccinated polar researchers report outbreak at remote station confirmed by a test not testing for the 'virus'. It's a cunning bastard this 'virus' – now it's got a sleigh
Coronavirus World News


I finally managed to complete my Transformer Hybrid Style (THS) set last month, when a visit to Falcon Hangar got me the last item of the set I was missing all along, T.H.S-01 Galaxy Convoy. It was actually a consignment item and after checking that it was within my budget, I promptly bought it. My first item from this set was T.H.S-02 Convoy, which I had bought from Jeff two years back and after I had gotten T.H.S-02B Black Convoy during one of my trips to CSC, I was quite determined to complete the entire set. The cover flaps can actually be lifted to show the intricate parts of the robots, but to prevent shelf wear and dust, I have decided to keep it wrapped in clear plastic.


Crafty Moments: Mollies Dragon Cards By Lea.
I'm so pleased to be able to share with you these wonderful cards made by my good friend Lea Turner using my free MOLLIES DRAGON Digi.
As yet Lea hasn't got her own blog, but hopefully will have soon, I look forward to seeing more of her wonderful creations in the future.
Labels: Mollies Dragon Cards By Lea.
Lea's made a wonderful job of your image Vince. I like the second one with the white ribbon.
Lea did a fab job with your image. Her card turned out wonderful.


text:
PubDate: 1803-03-01
Slug: essays/religion/reply-to-the-bishop-of-llanaff
Title: Reply to the Bishop of Llanaff
Date: Mon Aug  4 09:08:52 EDT 2014

   Conway's introduction:

   IMMEDIATELY after perusal of Bishop Watson's reply to "The Age of Reason"
   ("An Apology for the Bible," 1796) Paine began his answer to it. By
   reference to his letter to Jefferson (vol. iii. P. 377 of this edition) it
   will be seen that in October, 1800, he was still writing on it, and
   intended to publish it as Part III. of "The Age of Reason." This plan,
   however, was changed, and in His Will (q.v.) this Part III. and the
   "Answer" are mentioned as different manuscripts. That both were not
   published by Paine was due to several considerations. After his arrival in
   America, October 30, 1802, he found the odium theologicum against him so
   strong that it involved President Jefferson and other friends, personal
   and political, and it even seems doubtful whether he could have found a
   publisher. His last pamphlet "Examination of the Prophecies" was, it will
   be seen, "printed for the Author," no other publisher being named. Madame
   Bonneville mentions that "he left the manuscript of his Answer to the
   Bishop of Llandaff; the Third Part of his "Age of Reason"; several pieces
   on Religious Subjects, prose and verse." (See my "Life of Paine," vol.
   ii., p. 486.) Soon after Paine's death Madame Bonneville's reactionary
   religious tendencies which drew her back to the Catholic Church, led her
   to mutilate the manuscripts bequeathed to her. Her pious destructiveness
   was, however, to some extent, limited by her impecuniosity, as has been
   said in my introduction to "The Age of Reason," and Col. Fellows managed
   to rescue several fragments and restore passages that had been erased.
   Fortunately another woman, without reactionary tendencies, the widow of
   Elihu Palmer, attended Paine during his illness in 1806, in the house of
   William Carver. (See 'Post,' note on the "Prospect Papers.") About that
   time he gave Mrs. Palmer a portion of the manuscript of the "Answer" which
   he had transcribed, and after his death she presented this to the editor
   of the Theophilanthropist (New York), in which it was published, 1810, and
   from which (loaned me by Mr. E. Truelove) it is here reprinted. The
   strange fate that brought Paine's latest religious writings under
   expurgation of the Catholic priesthood ultimately consigned some, though
   accidentally, to the flames. (See preface to my "Life of Paine.") The
   chief loss was, I believe, the part of his Anrwer alluded to in the
   opening fragment: "Of these things I shall speak fully when I come in
   another part to treat of the ancient religion of the Persians, and compare
   it with the modern religion of the New Testament." The incidental
   sentences in the further fragment, on Job, in which he accuses the Jews of
   dishonoring God by ascribing to him the evils of nature, rendered it
   certain that Paine had grappled with Bishop Butler's argument against the
   Deists (that the God of the Bible was no more cruel than their God of
   Nature) which had been pressed by Bishop Watson. Although it is clear from
   other passages that Paine had no belief in a personal Ahriman (as indeed
   Zoroaster had not) he probably adopted something like the Zoroastrian
   dualism.

   Concerning the Bishop's "Apology" it may be remarked that those who
   circulated it so industriously could have hardly been aware, generally, of
   its heretical contents. It concedes that Paine had discovered "real
   difficulties" in the Old Testament, in the Christian grove some "unsightly
   shrubs," discrepancies in the genealogies of Christ, and inconsistencies
   in Ezra; it admits that a certain law in Deuteronomy is "improper," that
   Moses did not write some parts of the Pentateuch, and that "many learned
   men and good Christians" regard the Bible as fallible in matters not
   distinctively religious. Others who replied to Paine made large
   concessions in other points, the result being that when these concessions
   are added together they amount very nearly to a surrender of the biblical
   stronghold which Paine assailed. But as for Watson's "Apology," it is well
   known in the history of "Freethought" that the Bishop's work was second
   only to Paine's in the propagation of scepticism, partly, no doubt,
   through the extracts from the "Age of Reason" contained in it. Indeed the
   Bishop's own orthodoxy was suspected, his legitimate promotion was
   prevented, and among his papers was found (dated 1811) this bitter note:
   "I have treated my divinity as I twenty-five years ago treated my chemical
   papers: I have lighted my fire with the labour of a great portion of my
   life." There appears to me no doubt that both the Broad Church in England,
   and the rationalistic wing of the Quakers in America (Hicksites), were
   founded by "The Age of Reason" and the controversies raised by it.

   In criticising these fragments it must be remembered that the portions
   published in 1810 were those thrown aside by Paine after transcribing or
   using them for a statement now lost, that the other portions were obtained
   only with Madame Bonneville's erasures, and that none of them ever
   received Paine's revision.

   Foner's introduction:

   In 1796 the Bishop of Llandaff, Dr. Richard Watson, published a reply to
   Paine's Age of Reason which he entitled An Apology for the Bible. After
   reading it, Paine began to write his rebuttal, intending to publish it as
   Part III of The Age of Reason. He was still at work on it in October, 1800
   and, in a letter dated at Paris, February 21, 1802, wrote to Elihu Palmer:
   "I expect to arrive in America in May next. I have a third part of the Age
   of Reason to publish when I arrive, which, if I mistake not, will make a
   stronger impression than anything, I have yet published on the subject."
   Evidently no publisher was willing to bring out the work, and these
   extracts were not published until after Paine's death. It was published in
   1810 in The Theophilanthropist, a New York magazine, designed to promote
   the "mild, tolerant religion of virtue, which the Creator has wisely
   revealed to the conscience of all mankind. . . ." In this tract, Paine
   maintained that Bishop Llandaff was wrong in his contention that the Book
   of Genesis was the oldest work in the world. He argued that its story of the
   creation was taken from other peoples and that it was the last book of the
   Pentateuch to be written, and held that the Book of Job, a Gentile work, was
   composed before Genesis.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Genesis

   THE bishop says, "the oldest book in the world is Genesis." This is mere
   assertion; he offers no proof of it, and I go to controvert it, and to
   show that the book of job, which is not a Hebrew book, but is a book of
   the Gentiles translated into Hebrew, is much older than the book of
   Genesis.

   The book of Genesis means the book of Generations; to which are prefixed
   two chapters, the first and second, which contain two different
   cosmogonies, that is, two different accounts of the creation of the world,
   written by different persons, as I have shown in the preceding part of
   this work.

   The first cosmogony begins at chapter i. 1, and ends at ii. 3; for the
   adverbial conjunction thus, with which chapter ii. begins, shows those
   three verses to belong to chapter 1. The second cosmogony begins at ii. 4,
   and ends with that chapter.

   In the first cosmogony the name of God is used without any epithet joined
   to it, and is repeated thirty-five times. In the second cosmogony it is
   always the Lord-God, which is repeated eleven times. These two different
   stiles of expression show these two chapters to be the work of two
   different persons, and the contradictions they contain, shew they cannot
   be the work of one and the same person, as I have already shown. The third
   chapter, in which the style of Lord God is continued in every instance
   except in the supposed conversation between the woman and the serpent (for
   in every place in that chapter where the writer speaks, it is always the
   Lord God) shows this chapter to belong to the second cosmogony.

   This chapter gives an account of what is called the fall of Man, which is
   no other than a fable borrowed from, and constructed upon, the religious
   allegory of Zoroaster, or the Persians, of the annual progress of the sun
   through the twelve signs of the Zodiac. It is the fall of the year, the
   approach and evil of winter, announced by the ascension of the autumnal
   constellation of the serpent of the Zodiac, and not the moral fall of man,
   that is the key of the allegory, and of the fable in Genesis borrowed from
   it.

   The fall of man in Genesis is said to have been produced by eating a
   certain fruit, generally taken to be an apple. The fall of the year is the
   season for the gathering and eating the new apples of that year. The
   allegory, therefore, holds with respect to the fruit, which it would not
   have done had it been an early summer fruit. It holds also with respect to
   place. The tree is said to have been placed in ihe midst of the garden.
   But why in the midst of the garden more than in any other place? The
   solution of the allegory gives the answer to this question, which is, that
   the fall of the year, when apples and other autumnal fruits are ripe, and
   when days and nights are of equal length, is the mid-season between summer
   and winter.

   It holds also with respect to cloathing, and the temperature of the air.
   It is said in Genesis (iii. 21), "Unto Adam and his wife did the Lord God
   make coats of skins, and clothed them." But why are coats of skins
   mentioned? This cannot be understood as referring to anything of the
   nature of moral evil. The solution of the allegory gives again the answer
   to this question, which is, that the evil of winter, which follows the
   fall of the year, fabulously called in Genesis the fall of man, makes warm
   clothing necessary.

   But of these things I shall speak fully when I come in another part to
   treat of the ancient religion of the Persians, and compare it with the
   modern religion of the New Testament. At present, I shall confine myself
   to the comparative antiquity of the books of Genesis and job, taking, at
   the same time, whatever I may find in my way with respect to the
   fabulousness of the book of Genesis; for if what is called the fall of
   man, in Genesis, be fabulous or allegorical, that which is called the
   redemption in the New Testament cannot be a fact. It is logically
   impossible, and impossible also in the nature of things, that moral good
   can redeem physical evil. I return to the bishop.

   If Genesis be, as the bishop asserts, the oldest book in the world, and,
   consequently, the oldest and first written book of the bible, and if the
   extraordinary things related in it; such as the creation of the world in
   six days, the tree of life, and of good and evil, the story of Eve and the
   talking serpent, the fall of man and his being turned out of Paradise,
   were facts, or even believed by the Jews to be facts, they would be
   referred to as fundamental matters, and that very frequently, in the books
   of the bible that were written by various authors afterwards; whereas,
   there is not a book, chapter, or verse of the bible, from the time that
   Moses is said to have written the book of Genesis, to the book of Malachi,
   the last book in the Bible, including a space of more than a thousand
   years, in which there is any mention made of these things, or any of them,
   nor are they so much as alluded to. How will the bishop solve this
   difficulty, which stands as a circumstantial contradiction to his
   assertion?

   There are but two ways of solving it:

   First, that the book of Genesis is not an ancient book, that it has been
   written by some (now) unknown person, after the return of the Jews from
   the Babylonian captivity, about a thousand years after the time that Moses
   is said to have lived, and put as a preface or introduction to the other
   books when they were formed into a canon in the time of the second temple,
   and therefore not having existed before that time, none of these things
   mentioned in it could be referred to in those books.

   Secondly, that admitting Genesis to have been written by Moses, the Jews
   did not believe the things stated in it to be true, and therefore, as they
   could not refer to them as facts, they would not refer to them as fables.
   The first of these solutions goes against the antiquity of the book, and
   the second against its authenticity; and the bishop may take which he
   please.

   But be the author of Genesis whoever it may, there is abundant evidence to
   show, as well from the early christian writers as from the Jews
   themselves, that the things stated in that book were not believed to be
   facts. Why they have been believed as facts since that time, when better
   and fuller knowledge existed on the case than is known now, can be
   accounted for only on the imposition of priestcraft.

   Augustine, one of the early champions of the christian church,
   acknowledges in his 'City of God' that the adventure of Eve and the
   serpent, and the account of Paradise, were generally considered as fiction
   or allegory. He regards them as allegory himself, without attempting to
   give any explanation, but he supposes that a better explanation might be
   found than those that had been offered.

   Origen, another early champion of the church, says, "What man of good
   sense can ever persuade himself that there were a first, a second, and a
   third day, and that each of these days had a night when there were yet
   neither sun, moon, nor stars? What man can be stupid enough to believe
   that God, acting the part of a gardener, had planted a garden in the east,
   that the tree of life was a real tree, and that its fruit had the virtue
   of making those who eat of it live forever?"

   Maimonides, one of the most learned and celebrated of the Jewish Robbins,
   who lived in the eleventh century (about seven or eight hundred years ago)
   and to whom the bishop refers in his answer to me, is very explicit in his
   book entitled 'Moreh Nebuchim,' upon the non-reality of the things stated
   in the account of the Creation in the book of Genesis.

   "We ought not (says he) to understand, nor take according to the letter,
   that which is written in the book of the creation, nor to have the same
   ideas of it which common men have; otherwise our ancient sages would not
   have recommended with so much care to conceal the sense of it, and not to
   raise the allegorical veil which envelopes the truths it contains. The
   book of Genesis, taken according to the letter, gives the most absurd and
   the most extravagant ideas of the divinity. Whoever shall find out the
   sense of it, ought to restrain himself from divulging it. It is a maxim
   which all our sages repeat, and above all with respect to the work of six
   days. It may happen that some one, with the aid he may borrow from others,
   may hit upon the meaning of it. In that case he ought to impose silence
   upon himself; or if he speak of it, he ought to speak obscurely, and in an
   enigmatical manner, as I do myself, leaving the rest to be found out by
   those who can understand me."

   This is, certainly, a very extraordinary declaration of Mairnonides taking
   all the parts of it. First, be declares, that the account of the Creation
   in the book of Genesis is not a fact, and that to believe it to be a fact
   gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of the divinity.
   Secondly, that it is an allegory. Thirdly, that the allegory has a
   concealed secret. Fourthly, that whoever can find the secret ought not to
   tell it.

   It is this last part that is the most extraordinary. Why all this care of
   the Jewish Robbins, to prevent what they call the concealed meaning, or
   the secret, from being known, and if known to prevent any of their people
   from telling it? It certainly must be something which the Jewish nation
   are afraid or ashamed the world should know. It must be something personal
   to them as a people, and not a secret of a divine nature, which the more
   it is known the more it increases the glory of the creator, and the
   gratitude and bappiness of man. It is not God's secret but their own they
   are keeping. I go to unveil the secret.

   The case is, the Jews have stolen their cosmogony, that is, their account
   of the creation, from the cosmogony of the Persians, contained in the
   books of Zoroaster, the Persian law- giver, and brought it with them when
   they returned from captivity by the benevolence of Cyrus, king of Persia.
   For it is evident, from the silence of all the books of the bible upon the
   subject of the creation, that the Jews had no cosmogony before that time.
   If they had a cosmogony from the time of Moses, some of their judges who
   governed during more than four hundred years, or of their kings, the
   Davids and Solomons of their day, who governed nearly five hundred years,
   or of their prophets and psalmists, who lived in the mean time, would have
   mentioned it. It would, either as fact or fable, have been the grandest of
   all subjects for a psalm. It would have suited to a tittle the ranting
   poetical genius of Isaiah, or served as a cordial to the gloomy Jeremiah.
   But not one word, not even a whisper, does any of the bible authors give
   upon the subject.

   To conceal the theft, the Robbins of the second temple have published
   Genesis as a book of Moses, and have enjoined secresy to all their people,
   who by travelling or otherwise might happen to discover from whence the
   cosmogony was borrowed, not to tell it. The evidence of circumstances is
   often unanswerable, and there is no other than this which I have given
   that goes to the whole of the case, and this does.

   Disgenes Laertius, an ancient and respectable author, whom the bishop in
   his answer to me quotes on another occasion, has a passage that
   corresponds with the solution here given. In speaking of the religion of
   the Persians as promulgated by their priests or magi, he says the Jewish
   Robbins were the successors of their doctrine. Having thus spoken on the
   plagiarism, and on the non-reality of the book of Genesis, I will give
   some additional evidence that Moses is not the author of that book.

   Aben-Ezra, a celebrated Jewish author, who lived about seven hundred years
   ago, and whom the bishop allows to have been a man of great erudition, has
   made a great many observations, too numerous to be repeated bere, to show
   that Moses was not, and could not be, the author of the book of Genesis,
   nor of any of the five books that bear his name.

   Spinoza, another learned Jew, who lived about a hundred and thirty years
   ago, recites, in his treatise on the ceremonies of the Jews, ancient and
   modern, the observations of Aben-Ezra, to which he adds many others, to
   shew that Moses is not the author of those books. He also says, and shews
   his reasons for saying it, that the bible did not exist as a book till the
   time of the Maccabees, which was more than a hundred years after the
   return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity.

   In the second part of "The Age of Reason", I have, among other things,
   referred to nine verses in Genesis xxxvi. beginning at ver. 31, (These are
   the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the
   children of Israel,) which it is impossible could have been written by
   Moses, or in the time of Moses, and which could not have been written till
   after the Jew kings began to reign in Israel, which was not till several
   hundred years after the time of Moses.

   The bishop allows this, and says "I think you say true." But he then
   quibbles, and says, that "a small addition to a book does not destroy
   either the genuineness or authenticity of the whole book." This is
   priestcraft. These verses do not stand in the book as an addition to it,
   but as making a part of the whole book, and which it is impossible that
   Moses could write. The bishop would reject the antiquity of any other book
   if it could be proved from the words of the book itself that a part of it
   could not have been written till several hundred years after the reputed
   author of it was dead. He would call such a book a forgery. I am
   authorised, therefore, to call the book of Genesis a forgery.

   Combining, then, all the foregoing circumstances together, respecting the
   antiquity and authenticity of the book of Genesis, a conclusion will
   naturally follow therefrom. Those circumstances are:

   First, that certain parts of the book cannot possibly have been written by
   Moses, and that the other parts carry no evidence of having been written
   by him.

   Secondly, the universal silence of all the following books of the bible,
   for about a thousand years, upon the extraordinary things spoken of in
   Genesis, such as the creation of the world in six days -- the garden of
   Eden -- the tree of knowledge -- the tree of life -- the story of Eve and
   the Serpent -- the fall of man and of his being turned out of this fine
   garden, together with Noah's flood, and the tower of Babel.

   Thirdly, the silence of all the books of the bible upon even the name of
   Moses, from the book of Joshua until the second book of Kings, which was
   not written till after the captivity, for it gives an account of the
   captivity, a period of about a thousand years.

   Strange that a man who is proclaimed as the historian of the creation, the
   privy-counsellor and confidant of the Almighty -- the legislator of the
   Jewish nation and the founder of its religion; strange, I say, that even
   the name of such a man should not find a place in their books for a
   thousand years, if they knew or believed anything about him or the books
   he is said to have written.

   Fourthly, the opion of some of the most celebrated of the Jewish
   commentators that Moses is not the author of the book of Genesis, founded
   on the reasons given for that opinion.

   Fifthly, the opinion of the early christian writers, and of the great
   champion of Jewish literature, Maimonides, that the book of Genesis is not
   a book of facts.

   Sixthly, the silence imposed by all the Jewish Robbins, and by Maimonides
   himself, upon the Jewish nation, not to speak of anything they may happen
   to know or discover respecting the cosmogony (or creation of the world) in
   the book of Genesis.

   From these circumstances the following conclusions offer:

   First, that the book of Genesis is not a book of facts.

   Secondly, that as no mention is made throughout the bible of any of the
   extraordinary things related in [it], Genesis has not been written till
   after the other books were written, and put as a preface to the Bible.
   Every one knows that a preface to a book, though it stands first, is the
   last written.

   Thirdly, that the silence imposed by all the Jewish Rabbins and by
   Maimonides upon the Jewish nation, to keep silence upon every thing
   related in their cosmogony, evinces a secret they are not willing should
   be known. The secret therefore explains itself to be, that when the Jews
   were in captivity in Babylon and Persia they became acquainted with the
   cosmogony of the Persians, as registered in the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster,
   the Persian law-giver, which, after their return from captivity, they
   manufactured and modelled as their own, and ante-dated it by giving to it
   the name of Moses. The case admits of no other explanation.

   From all which it appears that the book of Genesis, instead of being the
   oldest book in the world, as the bishop calls it, has been the last
   written book of the bible, and that the cosmogony it contains has been
   manufactured.

   Of The Names In The Book Of Genesis

   Every thing in Genesis serves as evidence or symptom that the book has
   been composed in some late period of the Jewish nation. Even the names
   mentioned in it serve to this purpose.

   Nothing is more common or more natural than to name the children of
   succeeding generations after the names of those who had been celebrated in
   some former generation. This holds good with respect to all the people and
   all the histories we know of, and it does not hold good with the bible.
   There must be some cause for this.

   This book of Genesis tells us of a man whom it calls Adam, and of his sons
   Abel and Seth; of Enoch, who lived 365 years (it is exactly the number of
   days in a year,) and that then God took him up. (It has the appearance of
   being taken from some allegory of the Gentiles on the commencement and
   termination of the year, by the progress of the sun through the twelve
   signs of the Zodiac, on which the allegorical religion of the Gentiles was
   founded.) It tells us of Methuselah who lived 969 years, and of a long
   train of other names in the fifth chapter. It then passes on to a man whom
   it calls Noah, and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet; then to Lot, Abraham,
   Isaac, and Jacob and his sons, with which the book of Genesis finishes.

   All these, according to the account given in that book, were the most
   extraordinary and celebrated of men. They were moreover heads of families.
   Adam was the father of the world. Enoch, for his righteousness, was taken
   up to heaven. Methuselah lived to almost a thousand years. He was the son
   of Enoch, the man of 365, the number of days in a year. It has the
   appearance of being the continuation of an allegory on the 365 days of the
   year, and its abundant productions. Noah was selected from all the world
   to be preserved when it was drowned, and became the second father of the
   world. Abraham was the father of the faithful multitude. Isaac and Jacob
   were the inheritors of his fame, and the last was the father of the twelve
   tribes.

   Now, if these very wonderful men and their names, and the book that
   records them, had been known by the Jews before the Babylonian captivity,
   those names would have been as common among the Jews before that period as
   they have been since. We now hear of thousands of Abrahams, Isaacs, and
   Jacobs among the Jews, but there were none of that name before the
   Babylonian captivity. The Bible does not mention one, though from the time
   that Abrabam is said to have lived to the time of the Babylonian captivity
   is about 1400 years.

   How is it to be accounted for, that there bave been so many thousands, and
   perhaps hundreds of thousands of Jews of the names of Abraham, Isaac, and
   Jacob since that period, and not one before?

   It can be accounted for but one way, which is, that before the Babylonian
   captivity the Jews had no such book as Genesis, nor knew anything of the
   names and persons it mentions, nor of the things it relates, and that the
   stories in it have been manufactured since that time. From the Arabic name
   Ibrahim (which is the manner the Turks write that name to this day) the
   Jews have, most probably, manufactured their Abrabam.

   I will advance my observations a point further, and speak of the names of
   Moses and Aaron, mentioned for the first time in the book of Exodus. There
   are now, and have continued to be from the time of the Babylonian
   captivity, or soon after it, thousands of Jews of the names of Moses and
   Aaron, and we read not of any of that name before that time. The Bible
   does not mention one.

   The direct inference from this is, that the Jews knew of no such book as
   Exodus before the Babylonian captivity. In fact, that it did not exist
   before that time, and that it is only since the book has been invented
   that the names of Moses and Aaron have been common among the Jews.

   It is applicable to the purpose to observe, that the picturesque work,
   called Mosaic-work, spelled the same as you would say the Mosaic account
   of the creation, is not derived from the word Moses but from Muses, (the
   Muses), because of the variegated and picturesque pavement in the temples
   dedicated to the Muses. This carries a strong implication that the name
   Moses is drawn from the same source, and that he is not a real but an
   allegorical person, as Maimonides describes what is called the Mosaic
   account of the Creation to be.

   I will go a point still further. The Jews now know the book of Genesis,
   and the names of all the persons mentioned in the first ten chapters of
   that book, from Adam to Noah: yet we do not hear (I speak for myself) of
   any Jew of the present day, of the name of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch,
   Methuselah, Noah, Shem, Ham, or Japhet, (names mentioned in the first ten
   chapters,) though these were, according to the account in that book, the
   most extraordinary of all the names that make up the catalogue of the
   Jewish chronology.

   The names the Jews now adopt, are those that are mentioned in Genesis
   after the tenth chapter, as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. How then does it
   happen that they do not adopt the names found in the first ten chapters?
   Here is evidently a line of division drawn between the first ten chapters
   of Genesis and the remaining chapters, with respect to the adoption of
   names, There must be some cause for this, and I go to offer a solution of
   the problem.

   The reader will recollect the quotation I have already made from the
   Jewish Rabbin, Maimonides, wherein he says, "We ought not to understand
   nor to take according to the letter that which is written in the book of
   the Creation. . . . It is a maxim (says he) which all our sages repeat,
   above all with respect to the work of six days." The qualifying expression
   above all, implies there are other parts of the book, though not so
   important, that ought not to be understood or taken according to the
   letter, and as the Jews do not adopt the names mentioned in the first ten
   chapters, it appears evident those chapters are included in the injunction
   not to take them in a literal sense, or according to the letter.

   From which it follows, that the persons or characters mentioned in the
   first ten chapters, as Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, and so on to
   Noah, are not real, but fictitious or allegorical persons, and therefore
   the Jews do not adopt their names into their families. If they affixed the
   same idea of reality to them as they do to those that follow after the
   tenth chapter, the names of Adam, Abel, Seth, etc., would be as common
   among the Jews of the present day as are those of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
   Moses, and Aaron.

   In the superstition they have been in, scarcely a Jew family would have
   been without an Enoch, as a presage of his going to Heaven as ambassador
   for the whole family. Every mother who wished that the days of her son
   might be long in the land would call him Methuselah; and all the Jews that
   might have to traverse the ocean would be named Noah, as a charm against
   shipwreck and drowning.

   This is domestic evidence against the book of Genesis, which, joined to
   the several kinds of evidence before recited, show the book of Genesis not
   to be older than the Babylonian captivity, and to be fictitious. I proceed
   to fix the character and antiquity of the book of Job.

   The book of Job has not the least appearance of being a book of the Jews,
   and though printed among the books of the bible, does not belong to it.
   There is no reference to it in any Jewish law or ceremony. On the
   contrary, all the internal evidence it contains shows it to be a book of
   the Gentiles, either of Persia or Chaldea.

   The name of Job does not appear to be a Jewish name. There is no Jew of
   that name in any of the books of the bible, neither is there now that I
   ever heard of. The country where Job is said or supposed to have lived, or
   rather where the scene of the drama is laid, is called Uz, and there was
   no place of that name ever belonging to the Jews. If Uz is the same as UT,
   it was in Chaldea, the country of the Gentiles.

   The Jews can give no account how they came by this book, nor who was the
   author, nor the time when it was written. Origen, in his work against
   Celsus, (in the first ages of the Christian church,) says that the book of
   Job is older than Moses. Aben- Ezra, the Jewish commentator, whom (as I
   have before said) the bishop allows to have been a man of great erudition,
   and who certainly understood his own language, says that the book of Job
   has been translated from another language into Hebrew.

   Spinoza, another Jewish commentator of great learning, confirms the
   opinion of Aben-Ezra, and says moreover, "Fe crois que Fob etait Gentil";
   [ Spinoza on the Ceremonies of the Jews, p. 296, published in French at
   Amsterdam 1678. -- Author.] "I believe that Job was a Gentile."

   The bishop, (in his answer to me,) says, that "the structure of the whole
   book of Job, in whatever light of history or drama it be considered, is
   founded on the belief that prevailed with the Persians and Chaldeans, and
   other Gentile nations, of a good and an evil spirit."

   In speaking of the good and evil spirit of the Persians, the bishop writes
   them Arimanius and Oromasdes. I will not dispute about the orthography,
   because I know that translated names are differently spelled in different
   language. But he has nevertheless made a capital error. He has put the
   Devil first; for Arimanius, or, as it is more generally written, Ahriman,
   is the evil spirit, and Oromasdes or Ormusd the good spirit.

   He has made the same mistake in the same paragraph, in speaking of the
   good and evil spirit of the ancient Egyptians, Osiris and Typho; he puts
   Typho before Osiris. The error is just the same as if the bishop in
   writing about the christian religion, or in preaching a sermon, were to
   say the Devil and God.

   A priest ought to know his own trade better. We agree, however, about the
   structure of the book of Job, that it is Gentile. I have said in the
   second part of "The Age of Reason", and given my reasons for it, that the
   drama of it is not Hebrew.

   From the testimonies I have cited, that of Origen, who, about fourteen
   hundred years ago said that the book of Job was more ancient than Moses,
   that of Aben-Ezra who, in his commentary on Job, says it has been
   translated from another language (and consequently from a Gentile
   language) into Hebrew; that of Spinoza, who not only says the same thing,
   but that the author of it was a Gentile; and that of the bishop, who says
   that the structure of the whole book is Gentile; it follows, in the first
   place, that the book of Job is not a book of the Jews originally.

   Then, in order to determine to what people or nation any book of religion
   belongs, we must compare it with the leading dogmas and precepts of that
   people or nation; and therefore, upon the bishop's own construction, the
   book of Job belongs either to the ancient Persians, the Chaldeans, or the
   Egyptians; because the structure of it is consistent with the dogma they
   held, that of a good and an evil spirit, called in Job God and Satan,
   existing as distinct and separate beings, and it is not consistent with
   any dogma of the Jews.

   The belief of a good and an evil spirit, existing as distinct and separate
   beings, is not a dogma to be found in any of the books of the bible. It is
   not till we come to the New Testament that we hear of any such dogma.
   There the person called the Son of God, bolds conversation with Satan on a
   mountain, as familiarly as is represented in the drama of Job.
   Consequently the bishop cannot say, in this respect, that the
   New-Testament is founded upon the Old.

   According to the Old, the God of the Jews was the God of every thing. All
   good and evil came from him. According to Exodus it was God, and not the
   Devil, that hardened Pharoah's heart. According to the book of Samuel, it
   was an evil spirit from God that troubled Saul. And Ezekiel makes God to
   say, in speaking of the Jews, "I gave them the statutes that were not
   good, and judgments by which they should not live."

   The Bible describes the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in such a
   contradictory manner, and under such a twofold character, there would be
   no knowing when he was in earnest and when in irony; when to believe, and
   when not.

   As to the precepts, principles, and maxims in the book of Job, they shew
   that the people abusively called the heathen, in the books of the Jews,
   had the most sublime ideas of the creator, and the most exalted devotional
   morality. It was the Jews who dishonoured God. It was the Gentiles who
   glorified Him.

   As to the fabulous personifications introduced by the Greek and Latin
   poets, it was a corruption of the ancient religion of the Gentiles, which
   consisted in the adoration of a first cause of the works of the creation,
   in which the sun was the great visible agent. It appears to have been a
   religion of gratitude and adoration, and not of prayer and discontented
   solicitation.

   In Job we find adoration and submission, but not prayer. Even the Ten
   Commandments enjoin not prayer. Prayer has been added to devotion by the
   Church of Rome, as the instrument of fees and perquisites.

   All prayers by the priests of the Christian Church, whether public or
   private, must be paid for. It may be right, individually, to pray for
   virtues, or mental instruction, but not for things. It is an attempt to
   dictate to the Almighty in the government of the world. But to return to
   the book of Job.

   As the book of Job decides itself to be a book of the Gentiles, the next
   thing is to find out to what particular nation it belongs, and lastly,
   what is its antiquity.

   As a composition, it is sublime, beautiful, and scientific: full of
   sentiment, and abounding in grand metaphorical description. As a drama it
   is regular. The dramatis personoe, the persons performing the several
   parts, are regularly introduced, and speak without interruption or
   confusion. The scene, as I have before said, is laid in the country of the
   Gentiles, and the unities, though not always necessary in a drama, are
   observed here as strictly as the subject would admit.

   In the last act, where the Almighty is introduced as speaking from the
   whirlwind, to decide the controversy between Job and his friends, it is an
   idea as grand as poctical imagination can conceive. What follows of Job's
   future prosperity does not belong to it as a drama. It is an epilogue of
   the writer, as the first verses of the first chapter, which gave an
   account of Job, his country and his riches, are the prologue.

   The book carries the appearance of being the work of some of the Persian
   magi, not only because the structure of it corresponds to the dogma of the
   religion of those people, as founded by Zoroaster, but from the
   astronomical references in it to the constellations of the Zodiac and
   other objects in the heavens, of which the sun, in their religion called
   Mithra, was the chief.

   Job, in describing the power of God, (ix. 7-9,) says, "Who commandeth the
   sun, and it riseth not, and sealeth up the stars. Who alone spreadeth out
   the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Who maketh Arcturus,
   Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south." All this astronomical
   allusion is consistent with the religion of the Persians.

   Establishing then the book of Job as the work of some of the Persian or
   Eastern magi, the case naturally follows that when the Jews returned from
   captivity, by the permission of Cyrus king of Persia, they brought this
   book with them, had it translated into Hebrew, and put into their
   scriptural canons, which were not formed till after their return. This
   will account for the name of Job being mentioned in Ezekiel, (xiv. i4,)
   who was one of the captives, and also for its not being mentioned in any
   book said or supposed to have been written before the captivity.

   Among the astronomical allusions in the book, there is one which serves to
   fix its antiquity. It is that where God is made to say to Job, in the
   style of reprimand, " Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades."
   (xxxviii. 31.) As the explanation of this depends upon astronomical
   calculation, I will, for the sake of those who would not otherwise
   understand it, endeavour to explain it as clearly as the subject will
   admit.

   The Pleiades are a cluster of pale, milky stars, about the size of a man's
   hand, in the constellation Taurus, or in English, the Bull. It is one of
   the constellations of the Zodiac, of which there are twelve, answering to
   the twelve months of the year. The Pleiades are visible in the winter
   nights, but not in the summer nights, being then below the horizon.

   The Zodiac is an imaginary belt or circle in the heavens, eighteen degrees
   broad, in which the sun apparently makes his annual course, and in which
   all the planets move. When the sun appears to our view to be between us
   and the group of stars forming such or such a constellation, he is said to
   be in that constellation. Consequently the constellations he appears to be
   in, in the summer, are directly opposite to those he appeared in in the
   winter, and the same with respect to spring and autumn.

   The Zodiac, besides being divided into twelve constellations, is also,
   like every other circle, great or small, divided into 360 equal parts,
   called degrees; consequently each constellation contains 30 degrees. The
   constellations of the Zodiac are generally called signs, to distinguish
   them from the constellations that are placed out of the Zodiac, and this
   is the name I shall now use.

   The procession of the Equinoxes is the part most difficult to explain, and
   it is on this that the explanation chiefly depends.

   The Equinoxes correspond to the two seasons of the year when the sun makes
   equal day and night.

   SABBATH OR SUNDAY - The seventh day, or more properly speaking the period
   of seven days, was originally a numerical division of time and nothing
   more; and had the bishop been acquainted with the history of astronomy, he
   would have known this. The annual revolution of the earth makes what we
   call a year. The year is artificially divided into months, the months into
   weeks of seven days, the days, the days into hours, etc. The period of
   seven days, like any other of the artificial divisions of the year, is
   only a fractional part thereof, contrived for the convenience of
   countries. It is ignorance, imposition, and priest-craft, that have called
   it otherwise.

   They might as well talk of the Lord's month, of the Lord's week, of the
   Lord's hour, as of the Lord's day. All time is His, and no part of it is
   more holy or more sacred than another. It is, however, necessary to the
   trade of a priest, that he should preach up a distinction of days.

   Before the science of astronomy was studied and carried to the degree of
   eminence to which it was by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, the people of
   those times had no other helps than what common observation of the very
   visible changes of the sun and moon afforded, to enable them to keep an
   account of the progress of time.

   As far as history establishes the point, the Egyptians were the first
   people who divided the year into twelve months. Herodotus, who lived above
   two thousand two hundred years ago, and is the most ancient historian
   whose works have reached our time, says, they did this by the knowledge
   they had of the stars.

   As to the Jews, there is not one single improvement in any science or in
   any scientific art that they ever produced. They were the most ignorant of
   all the illiterate world. If the word of the Lord had come to them, as
   they pretend, and as the bishop professes to believe, and that they were
   to be the harbingers of it to the rest of the world, the Lord would have
   taught them the use of letters, and the art of printing; for without the
   means of communicating the word, it could not be communicated; whereas
   letters were the invention of the Gentile world, and printing of the
   modern world. But to return to my subject --

   Before the helps which the science of astronomy afforded, the people, as
   before said, had no other whereby to keep an account of the progress of
   time, than what the common and very visible changes of the sun and moon
   afforded. They saw that a great number of days made a year, but the
   account of them was too tedious and too difficult to be kept numerically,
   from one to three hundred and sixty-five; neither did they know the true
   time of a solar year.

   It therefore became necessary, for the purpose of marking the progress of
   days, to put them into small parcels, such as are now called weeks; and
   which consisted as they now do of seven days.

   By this means the memory was assisted as it is with us at this day; for we
   do not say of any thing that is past, that it was fifty, sixty, or seventy
   days ago, but that it was so many weeks, or, if longer time, so many
   months. It is impossible to keep an account of time without helps of this
   kind.

   Julian Scaliger, the inventer of the Julian period of 7,980 years,
   produced by multiplying the cycle of the moon, the cycle of the sun, and
   the years of an indiction, 19, 28, 15, into each other, says that the
   custom of reckoning by periods of seven days was used by the Assyrians,
   the Epyptians, the Hebrews, the people of India, the Arabs, and by all the
   nations of the East.

   In addition to what Scaliger says, it is evident that in Britain, in
   Germany, and the north of Europe, they reckoned by periods of seven days
   long before the book called the bible was known in those parts; and,
   consequently, that they did not take that mode of reckoning from any thing
   written in that book.

   That they reckoned by periods of seven days is evident from their having
   seven; names and no more for the several days; and which have not the most
   distant relation to any thing in the book of Genesis, or to that which is
   called the fourth commandment.

   Those names are still retained in England, with no other alteration than
   what has been produced by moulding the Saxon and Danish languages into
   modern English:

    1. Sun-day from Sunne the sun, and dag, day, Saxon. Sondag, Danish. The
       day dedicated to the sun.
    2. Monday, that is, moonday, from Mona, the moon Saxon. Moano, Danish.
       Day dedicated to the moon.
    3. Tuesday, that is Tuisco's-day. The day dedicated to the Idol Tuisco.
    4. Wednes-day, that is Woden's-day. The day dedicated to Woden, the Mars
       of the Germans.
    5. Thursday, that is Thor's-day, dedicated to the Idol Thor.
    6. Friday, that is Friga's-day. The day dedicated to Friga, the Venus of
       the Saxons.
    7. Saturday from Seaten (Saturn) an Idol of the Saxons; one of the
       emblems representing time, which continually terminates and renews
       itself; the last day of the period of seven days.

   When we see a certain mode of reckoning general among nations totally
   unconnected, differing from each other in religion and in government, and
   some of them unknown to each other, we may be certain that it arises from
   some natural and common cause, prevailing alike over all, and which
   strikes every one in the same manner.

   Thus all nations have reckoned arithmetically by tens, because the people
   of all nations have ten fingers. If they had more or less than ten, the
   mode of arithmetical reckoning would have followed that number, for the
   fingers are a natural numeration table to all the world. I now come to
   shew why the period of seven days is so generally adopted.

   Though the sun is the great luminary of the world, and the animating cause
   of all the fruits of the earth, the moon by renewing herself more than
   twelve times oftener than the sun, which does it but once a year, served
   the rustic world as a natural Almanac, as the fingers served it for a
   numeration table.

   All the world could see the moon, her changes, and her monthly
   revolutions; and their mode of reckoning time was accommodated, as nearly
   as could possibly be done in round numbers, to agree with the changes of
   that planet, their natural Almanac. The moon performs her natural
   revolution round the earth in twenty-nine days and a half. She goes from a
   new moon to a half moon, to a full moon, to a half moon gibbous or convex,
   and then to a new moon again.

   Each of these changes is performed in seven days and nine hours; but seven
   days is the nearest division in round numbers that could be taken; and
   this was sufficient to suggest the universal custom of reckoning by
   periods of seven days, since it is impossible to reckon time without some
   stated period.

   How the odd hours could be disposed of without interfering with the
   regular periods of seven days, in case the ancients recommenced a new
   Septenary period with every new moon, required no more difficulty than it
   did to regolate the Egyptian Calendar afterwards of twelve months of
   thirty days each, or the odd hour in the Julian Calendar, or the odd days
   and hours in the French Calendar. In all cases it is done by the addition
   of complementary days; and it can be done in no otherwise.

   The bishop knows that as the solar year does not end at the termination of
   what we call a day, but runs some bours into the next day, as the quarter
   of the Moon runs some hours beyond seven days; that it is impossible to
   give the year any fixed number of days that will not in course of years
   become wrong, and make a complementary time necessary to keep the nominal
   year parallel with the solar year.

   The same must have been the case with those who regulated time formerly by
   lunar revolutions. They would have to add three days to every second moon,
   or in that proportion, in order to make the new moon and the new week
   commence together, like the nominal year and the solar year.

   Diodorus of Sicily, who, as before said, lived before Christ was born, in
   giving an account of times much anterior to his own, speaks of years of
   three months, of four months, and of six months. These could be of no
   other than years composed of lunar revolutions, and therefore, to bring
   the several periods of seven days to agree with such years, there must
   have been complementary days.

   The moon was the first Almanac the world knew; and the only one which the
   face of the heavens afforded to common spectators. Her changes and her
   revolutions have entered into all the Calendars that have been known in
   the known world.

   The division of the year into twelve months, which, as before shewn, was
   first done by the Egyptians, though arranged with astronomical knowledge,
   had reference to the twelve moons, or more properly speaking to the twelve
   lunar revolutions, that appear in the space of a solar year; as the period
   of seven days had reference to one revolution of the moon.

   The feasts of the Jews were, and those of the Christian church still are,
   regulated by the moon. The Jews observed the feasts of the new moon and
   full moon, and therefore the period of seven days was necessary to them.

   All the feasts of the Christian church are regulated by the moon. That
   called Easter governs all the rest, and the moon governs Easter. It is
   always the first Sunday after the first full moon that happens after the
   vernal Equinox, or 21st of March.

   In proportion as the science of astronomy was studied and improved by the
   Egyptians and Chaldeans, and the solar year regulated by astronomical
   observations, the custom of reckoning by lunar revolutions became of less
   use, and in time discontinued. But such is the harmony of all parts of the
   machinery of the universe, that a calculation made from the motion of one
   part will correspond with the motion of some other.

   The period of seven days, deduced from the revolution of the moon round
   the earth, corresponded nearer than any other period of days would do to
   the revolution of the earth round the sun. Fifty-two periods of seven days
   make 364, which is within one day and some odd hours of a solar year; and
   there is no other periodical number that will do the same, till we come to
   the number thirteen, which is too great for common use, and the numbers
   before seven are too small.

   The custom therefore of reckoning by periods of seven days, as best suited
   to the revolution of the moon, applied with equal convenience to the solar
   year, and became united with it. But the decimal division of time, as
   regulated by the French Calendar, is superior to every other method.1

   There is no part of the Bible that is supposed to have been written by
   persons who lived before the time of Josiah, (which was a thousand years
   after the time of Moses,) that mentions any thing about the sabbath as a
   day consecrated to that which is called the fourth commandment, or that
   the Jews kept any such day.

   Had any such day been kept, during the thousand years of which I am
   speaking, it certainly would have been mentioned frequently; and that it
   should never be mentioned is strong presumptive and circumstantial
   evidence that no such day was kept. But mention is often made of the
   feasts of the new moon, and of the full moon; for the Jews, as before
   shown, worshipped the moon; and the word Sabbath was applied by the Jews
   to the feasts of that planet, and to those of their other deities.

   It is said in Hosea ii. II, in speaking of the Jewish nation, "And I will
   cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her new moons, and her
   sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Nobody will be so foolish as to
   contend that the sabbaths here spoken of are Mosaic sabbaths. The
   construction of the verse implies they are lunar sabbaths, or sabbaths of
   the moon.

   It ought also to be observed that Hosea lived in the time of Ahaz and
   Hezekiah, about seventy years before the time of Josiah, when the law
   called the law of Moses is said to have been found; and, consequently, the
   sabbaths that Hosea speaks of are sabbaths of the Idolatry.

   When those priestly reformers, (impostors I should call them,) Hilkiah,
   Ezra, and Nehemiah, began to produce books under the name of the books of
   Moses, they found the word sabbath in use: and as to the period of seven
   days, it is, like numbering arithmetically by tens, from time immemmorial.

   But having found them in use, they continued to make them serve to the
   support of their new imposition. They trumped up a story of the creation
   being made in six days, and of the Creator resting on the seventh, to suit
   with the lunar and chronological period of seven days; and they
   manufactured a commandment to agree with both.

   Impostors always work in this manner. They put fables for originals, and
   causes for effects.

   There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those
   impostors and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians
   as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert
   to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.

   Every thing wonderful in appearance, has been ascribed to angels, to
   devils, or to saints. Every thing ancient has some legendary tale annexed
   to it. The common operations of nature have not escaped their practice of
   corrupting every thing.

   FUTURE STATE. The idea of a future state was an universal idea to all
   nations except the Jews. At the time, and long before, Jesus Christ and
   the men callcd his disciples were born, it had been sublimely treated of
   by Cicero (in his book on Old Age,) by Plato, Socrates, Xenophon, and
   other of the ancient theologists, whom the abusive Christian Church calls
   heathen. Xenophon represents the elder Cyrus speaking after this manner:

   "Think not, my dearest children, that when I depart from you, I shall be
   no more: but remember that my soul, even while I lived among you, was
   invisible to you; yet by my actions you were sensible it existed in this
   body. Believe it therefore existing still, though it be still unseen. How
   quickly would the honours of illustrious men perish after death, if their
   souls performed nothing to preserve their fame? For my own part, I could
   never think that the soul while in a mortal body lives, but when departed
   from it dies; or that its consciousness is lost when it is discharged out
   of an unconscious habitation. But when it is freed from all corporeal
   alliance, it is then that it truly exists."

   Since then the idea of a future existence was universal, it may be asked,
   what new doctrine does the New Testament contain? I answer, that of
   corrupting the theory of the ancient theologists, by annexing to it the
   heavy and gloomy doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

   As to the resurrection of the body, whether the same body or another, it
   is a miserable conceit, fit only to be preached to man as an animal. It is
   not worthy to be called doctrine. Such an idea never entered the brain of
   any visionary but those of the Christian church; yet it is in this that
   the novelty of the New Testament consists! All the other matters serve but
   as props to this, and those props are most wretchedly put together.

   MIRACLES. The Christian church is full of miracles. In one of the churches
   of Brabant they shew a number of cannon balls which, they say, the Virgin
   Mary, in some former war, caught in her muslin apron as they came roaring
   out of the cannon's mouth, to prevent their hurting the saints of her
   favourite army. She does no such feats now-a-days. Perhaps the reason is,
   that the infidels have taken away her muslin apron.

   They show also, between Montmartre and the village of St. Denis, several
   places where they say St. Denis stoped with his head in his hands after it
   had been cut off at Montmartre. The Protestants will call those things
   lies; and where is the proof that all the other things called miracles are
   not as great lies as those?

   CABALISM. Christ, say those Cabalists, came in the fulness of time. And
   pray what is the fulness of time? The words admit of no idea. They are
   perfectly Cabalistical. Time is a word invented to describe to our
   conception a greater or less portion of eternity. It may be a minute, a
   portion of eternity measured by the vibration of a pendulum of a certain
   length; it may be a day, a year, a hundred, or a thousand years, or any
   other quantity. Those portions are only greater or less comparatively.

   The word `fulness` applies not to any of them. The idea of fulness of time
   cannot be conceived. A woman with child and ready for delivery, as Mary
   was when Christ was born, may be said to have gone her full time; but it
   is the woman that is full, not time.

   It may also be said figuratively, in certain cases, that the times are
   full of events; but time itself is incapable of being full of itself. Ye
   hypocrites! learn to speak intelligible language.

   It happened to be a time of peace when they say Christ was born; and what
   then? There had been many such intervals; and have been many such since.
   Time was no fuller in any of them than in the other. If he were he would
   be fuller now than he ever was before. If he was full then he must be
   bursting now.

   But peace or war have relation to circumstances, and not to time; and
   those Cabalists would be at as much loss to make out any meaning to
   fulness of circumstances, as to fulness of time. And if they could, it
   would be fatal; for fulness of circumstances would mean when there are no
   more circumstances to happen; and fulness of time when there is no more
   time to follow.

   Christ, therefore, like every other person, was neither in the fulness of
   one nor the other.

   But though we cannot conceive the idea of fulness of time, because we
   cannot have conception of a time when there shall be no time; nor of
   fulness of circumstance, because we cannot conceive a state of existence
   to be without circumstances; we can often see, after a thing is past, if
   any circumstance necessary to give the utmost activity and success to that
   thing was wanting at the time that thing took place.

   If such a circumstance was wanting, we may be certain that the thing which
   took place was not a thing of God's ordaining; whose work is always
   perfect, and his means perfect means. They tell us that Christ was the Son
   of God: in that case, he would have known every thing; and he came upon
   earth to make known the will of God to man throughout the whole earth.

   If this had been true, Christ would have known and would have been
   furnished with all the possible means of doing it; and would have
   instructed mankind, or at least his apostles, in the use of such of the
   means as they could use themselves to facilitate the accomplishment of the
   mission; consequently he would have instructed them in the art of
   printing, for the press is the tongue of the world, and without which, his
   or their preaching was less than a whistle compared to thunder.

   Since then he did not do this, he had not the means necessary to the
   mission; and consequently had not the mission.

   They tell us in the book of Acts (ii.), a very stupid story of the
   Apostles' having the gift of tongues; and cloven tongues of fire descended
   and sat upon each of them. Perhaps it was this story of cloven tongues
   that gave rise to the notion of slitting jackdaws' tongues to make them
   talk. Be that however as it may, the gift of tongues, even if it were
   true, would be but of little use without the art of printing.

   I can sit in my chamber, as I do while writing this, and by the aid of
   printing can send the thoughts I am writing through the greatest part of
   Europe, to the East Indies, and over all North America, in a few months.
   Jesus Christ and his apostles could not do this. They had not the means,
   and the want of means detects the pretended mission.

   There are three modes of communication. Speaking, writing, and printing.
   The first is exceedingly limited. A man's voice can be heard but a few
   yards of distance; and his person can be but in one place. Writing is much
   more extensive; but the thing written cannot be multiplied but at great
   expense, and the multiplication will be slow and incorrect.

   Were there no other means of circulating what priests call the word of God
   (the Old and New Testament) than by writing copies, those copies could not
   be purchased at less than forty pounds sterling each; consequently, but
   few people could purchase them, while the writers could scarcely obtain a
   livelihood by it.

   But the art of printing changes all the cases, and opens a scene as vast
   as the world. It gives to man a sort of divine attribute. It gives to him
   mental omnipresence. He can be every where and at the same instant; for
   wherever he is read he is mentally there.

   The case applies not only against the pretended mission of Christ and his
   Apostles, but against every thing that priests call the Word of God, and
   against all those who pretend to deliver it; for had God ever delivered
   any verbal word, he would have taught the means of communicating it. The
   one without the other is inconsistent with the wisdom we conceive of the
   Creator.

   Genesis iii. 21 tells us that God made coats of skin and clothed Adam and
   Eve. It was infinitely more important that man should be taught the art of
   printing, than that Adam should be taught to make a pair of leather
   breeches, or his wife a petticoat.

   There is another matter, equally striking and important, that connects
   itself with these observations against this pretended word of God, this
   manufactured book called Revealed Religion. We know that whatever is of
   God's doing is unalterable by man beyond the laws which the Creator has
   ordained. We cannot make a tree grow with the root in the air and the
   fruit in the ground; we cannot make iron into gold nor gold into iron; we
   cannot make rays of light shine forth rays of darkness, nor darkness shine
   forth light.

   If there were such a thing, as a Word of God, it would possess the same
   properties which all his other works do. It would resist destructive
   alteration. But we see that the book which they call the Word of God has
   not this property. That book says, (Genesis i. 27), "So God created man in
   his own image;" but the printer can make it say, So man created God in his
   own image.

   The words are passive to every transposition of them, or can be
   annihilated and others put in their places. This is not the case with
   anything that is of God's doing; and, therefore, this book called the Word
   of God, tried by the same universal rule which every other of God's works
   within our reach can be tried by, proves itself to be a forgery.

   The bishop says, that "miracles are proper proofs of a divine mission."
   Admitted. But we know that men, and especially priests, can tell lies and
   call them miracles., It is therefore necessary that the thing called a
   miracle be proved to be true, and also to be miraculous, before it can be
   admitted as proof of the thing called revelation.

   The Bishop must be a bad logician not to know that one doubtful thing
   cannot be admitted as proof that another doubtful thing is true. It would
   be like attempting to prove a liar not to be a liar, by the evidence of
   another who is as great a liar as himself.

   Though Jesus Christ, by being ignorant of the art of printing, shows he
   had not the means necessary to a divine mission, and consequently had no
   such mission; it does not follow that if he had known that art the
   divinity of what they call his mission would be proved thereby, any more
   than it proved the divinity of the man who invented printing.

   Something therefore beyond printing, even if he had known it, was
   necessary as a miracle, to have proved that what he delivered was the word
   of God; and this was that the book in which that word should be contained,
   which is now called the Old and New Testament, should possess the
   miraculous property, distinct from all human books, of resisting
   alteration.

   This would be not only a miracle, but an ever existing and universal
   miracle; whereas, those which they tell us of, even if they had been true,
   were momentary and local; they would leave no trace behind, after the
   lapse of a few years, of having ever existed; but this would prove, in all
   ages and in all places, the book to be divine and not human, as
   effectually, and as conveniently, as aquafortis proves gold to be gold by
   not being capable of acting upon it, and detects all other metals and all
   counterfeit composition, by dissolving them.

   Since then the only miracle capable of every proof is wanting, and which
   every thing that is of a divine origin possesses, all the tales of
   miracles, with which the Old and New Testament are filled, are fit only
   for impostors to preach and fools to believe.

   Thomas Paine


Our value starts here specific to measuring your performance as an event producer. You need to know in real-time who showed up, who didn't, who walked on; and all need to have a great experience.
We're proud to have some of the smartest B2B event marketing brands in the world using Validar to manage onsite registration, ticketing, and on demand badge printing. Validar takes great pride in insuring your attendees will have a best-in-class first impression when checking in and we believe no one provides a better onsite experience! We're also proud of our pre-event registration partners. If you are looking for a full service provider, call us. With our integrated solutions, you can't find a better solution to track registration activity pre and during your event.