1
10
6
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7a236ea8fa63007c19f4396cc3d11272.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=c9PAct7xGyAqO80OExeC4qmlHRwA8kToGz2iShw7c5QRsB0%7EW17OXV%7Et9DtTWkBzBisQ6fsUAWJG5RxIb4eMxLFr3KhHBGewbqCZbLdV4IJYGge0jlF2Rc9YDhnM%7Ee2Ym-rGjDMEE%7EkL2E0GbjlUMLB%7EAZPmdQzrPCxwLN%7EXJ-5AuR2xEJHh3-Vyxbsi5qApdGk5EzIbLSFFyteGFM281NujVJd2qjrW3%7E6Z4NMxLl183vMWZ1VC4uRMyhk-gNXu%7EjGaZtH5Tnd%7ERxe9NUzZZd4-Kf3EbCwdk7xk75q262J81vHsA2jwPC-YzhIR7OHWS%7Eqy1C9kstLa%7E4rlto4MoA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e22db135e0c0ed07823d69c8a5c5d34d
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECL’LAT.COCZnT
N)63O
HOSPITALS & DISPENSARIES
NOT OF
CHRISTIAN ORIGIN.
8T
J.
S Y M E S.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY.
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
PRICE ONE
PENNY.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
28, stonecutter street, e.c.
�HOSPITALS AND DISPENSARIES
NOT OF
CHRISTIAN
ORIGIN.
A very frequent question put to Secularists is, What
hospitals have you built or endowed? And an equally
frequent assertion is made to the effect that the world owes
all those institutions for the care and cure of the sick to
Christianity. A greater mistake was never made, as I shall
try to show.
In the first place, I make bold to assert that mercy, compas
sion, humanity, and benevolence did not, and could not, spring
from religion. All the Gods, or nearly all, were origi
nally cold, callous, and cruel. They inflicted upon man
(if fables may be trusted) all the horrors he endured, and
then quietly and stolidly looked on while he writhed in
his agony No Gods sinned more in this respect than those
of the Jews, in proof of which I refer to the story of the
Flood, of Sodom and Gomorrah, of the Israelitish march
through the desert, of the conquest of Palestine, and other
tales of the Old Testament. It was only when man became
civilised that the Gods forsook their barbarism, and the very
mercy man learnt in civilised life was by-and-by ascribed to
the Gods. Every kindly feeling man has must have been learnt
in society—must have been produced there, for Nature
knows nothing of kindness, mercy, or compassion. Nature
and the Gods have not only inflicted flood, pestilence,
famine, and fire, upon man and beast, but they never
interfered to relieve the poor wretches of their suffering.
Wherever man, therefore, learnt his humanity and pity,
most certainly no God or religion ever taught him.
Secondly, as most religions have enjoined the belief in
miracles and miraculous cures of disease, their very spirit
has been antagonistic to the founding of hospitals, in
firmaries, and dispensaries. No religion has done moie
�4
HOSPITALS AND DISPENSARIES
harm in this respect than Christianity. Look through the
New Testament, and you will not find a single commenda
tion of medicine, surgery, or any other healing art. All
diseases are there to be cured by miracles ; the physician is
dispensed with, and physic is entirely thrown to the dogs,,
and the priest and the elder are exalted as the miraculous,
healers of both body and soul. Had the spirit of Christianity
been carried out successfully there would not have been a
hospital or anything of the sort now in the world. If this
religion had spread first among barbarians, instead of the
civilised nations of the Roman empire, and if her converts
had been docile instead of independent, we should have
seen, long ere now, what a curse she was to man. But
Christianity inherited all the learning, the arts and sciences,
the laws and social institutions of Greece and Rome. All
these (with few exceptions) she did her best to destroy, and
when that proved impossible, she coolly adopted and claimed
them as her own productions.
What has been said above will tend to show that we owe
none of our best sentiments to religion; but I will now
proceed to exhibit a few facts which will set the matter at
rest, and demonstrate that hospitals and kindred institutions
are not the product of Christianity. In doing this I shall
quote from, and refer to, an article in the current number
(Oct. 1877) of the Westminster Review, on “ Pre-Christian
Dispensaries and Hospitals.” The writer says :—“ It is in
the medical officers, appointed and paid by the State,
that we find the earliest germ and first idea of the
v?s.t. network of hospitals which has spread over the
civilised countries of the world. These medical officers
were an institution in Egypt from a remote antiquity, for in
the eleventh century b.c. there was a College of Physicians
in receipt of public pay, and regulated as to the nature and
extent of their practice. At Athens, in the fifth century
b.c., there were physicians elected and paid by the citizens;
there were also dispensaries in which they received their
patients, and we find mention made of one hospital.”
Turn we next to India. “In the fourth century b.c. an
edict was promulgated in India, by King Asoka, command
ing the establishment of hospitals throughout his dominions;
and we have direct proof that these hospitals were flourish
ing in the fifth and in the seventh centuries a.d.”—they
flourished then for a thousand years. “Among the Romans
under the empire physicians were elected in every city in
�NOT OF CHRISTIAN ORIGIN.
5
proportion to the number of inhabitants, and they received
a salary from the public treasury.”
Leaving the Westminster Review for a moment, I will
quote an extract from Tacitus. Referring to the fall of an
amphitheatre at Fidenae, in the ruins of which 50,000
people were killed or otherwise maimed, he says: “Now
during the fresh pangs of this calamity, the doors of the
grandees were thrown open, medicines were everywhere
supplied and administered by proper hands; and at that
juncture the city, though of sorrowful aspect, seemed to
have recalled the public spirit of the ancient Romans, who,
after great battles, constantly relieved the wounded, sustained
them by liberality, and restored them with care.”—“Annals,”
iv. 65. This extract shows not merely what the Romans
did at this date, about 27 a.d., but points back to periods
long past, when their forefathers regularly relieved and healed
the wounded soldiers. Such a nation, though still dread
fully barbarous in some respects, did not require the aid of
Christianity to set it on the path of humanity and mercy ;
the germs of those virtues had been there for ages, and only
required time to develop. Those who wish to see what
the best Romans, in the first century before our era, thought of
benevolence may consult Cicero “ De Officiis,” Bk. I., 14, 15.
Turning again to the Westminster Review, we read that
even the “ancient Mexicans had hospitals in their principal
cities ‘ for the cure of the sick, and the permanent refuge of
disabled soldiers.’” The Mexicans, by the way, and the
Peruvians as well, were working out a splendid civilization
for themselves at the time the barbarians from Spain dis
covered and ruined them. The more we know of those
ancient civilisations the more we must admire them; and it
cannot be denied that Spain herself was, at the time of the
conquest, more superstitious and less civilised than Mexico
or Peru; the eruption of those Christian savages into
Central America threw back the civilization of the continent
for four or five hundred years. I have nothing to say in
palliation of either Mexican or Peruvian religion; but I
must say that the Spaniards, in destroying those ancient
creeds, put nothing better in their place.
It is remarkable, viewed from the Christian standpoint,
that the Mohammedans were the first people known to
have had asylums for lunatics. As Mr. Lecky says, “ Most
commonly the theological notions about witchcraft either
produced madness or determined its form, and through the
�6
HOSPITALS AND DISPENSARIES
influence of the clergy of the different sections of the
Christian Church, many thousands of unhappy women, who
from their age, their loneliness, and their infirmity, were
most deserving of pity, were devoted to the hatred of
mankind, and, having been tortured with horrible and
ingenious cruelty, were at last burnt alive.”—“ Hist.
European Morals,” ii., 93. While this barbarity, the
genuine and legitimate fruit of Christ’s own action towards
the “possessed,” was practised wholesale among Chris
tians, the Mohammedans were, as early as the seventh
century, housing and nurturing the insane in asylums
at Fez, and they founded another at Cairo, probably about
a.d. 1304. The first Christian asylum for insane persons
was erected at Valencia in Spain, in a.d. 1409, or 700
years later than those first built by Mohammedans. Thus,
it was in the very country which the Mohammedans had
conquered, ruled, and partially civilised, that the first
Christian lunatic asylum was founded, and it is not difficult
to recognise their influence in this humane act. It should
also be remembered that the kind-hearted monk who
founded the asylum in Valencia, did it to shelter the poor
lunatics from the insults, jeers, and other persecutions of
their Christian neighbours, who never allowed them to pass
through the streets in peace.—(See “Europ. Morals,” ii.,94-5.
See also ii., 92).
To quote again the Westminster Review—li The most
remarkable instance of a military hospital was one in Ire
land. The palace of Emania was founded about 300 b.c.,
by the Princess Macha of the golden hair, and continued to
be the chief royal residence of Ulster until 332 a.d., when
it was destroyed. To this palace were attached two houses,
one, the house in which the Red Branch Knights hung up
their arms and trophies, the other in which the sick were cared
for and the wounded healed; this latter was called by the
expressive name Broin Bearg, the House of Sorrow.”
What has been put forward above will be sufficient to
show that we owe neither medicine nor hospitals to Chris
tianity ; indeed, I am not aware that any one ever ascribed
the former to this religion, though it would be just as
rational as to ascribe the latter to it. Neither Judaism (as
found in the Old Testament) nor Christianity (as found in
the New) shows any favour to medicine. The spirit of the
Old Testament may be found in the following passage :—
“ And Asa, in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was
�NOT OF CHRISTIAN ORIGIN.
7
diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great;
yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the
physicians.” (2 Chron. xvi., 12.) The context tells us he
died; the inference is plain—he lost his life because he pre
ferred medical attendance to miraculous power. The Jews
could not more strongly have condemned medicine than
they have done in this passage, for not only did the patient
die, but the physicians are set in direct rivalry with Jehovah.
And here I may ask how it was that the Jews, who were so
favoured of God, had to learn all their medical knowledge
from other nations ? Their God revealed to them all those
senseless ceremonies found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy, but never told them how to heal one
single disease ! Four books, filled for the most part with a
burdensome ritual or instructions in the art of worship,
were vouchsafed by their divinity, but not a word about
healing ! Large portions of those books, too, are occupied
in directions for finding leprosy, but not a word about the
cure of the disease (See Levit. xiii., 44-46). The whole
dress of the priest was prescribed, colour, shape, texture, and
everything—these were of supreme importance, and involved,
of course, the weal or woe of the world—so momentous
were they that their chief divinity went out of his way to
reveal them ; but human suffering was of no concern at all,
and their divinity forgot to reveal the art of healing. Indeed,
he himself claimed the sole right to kill and make alive, to
inflict or to heal disease. All this was fatal to the study of
medicine.
The same remarks, slightly modified, will apply to the
New Testament, where miraculous agency is the only
recognised mode of healing. This may be due to the fact
that the Jews went into captivity in Babylon, rather than in
Greece or Rome, for “ the Babylonians and Assyrians alone,
among the great nations of antiquity, had no physicians.
The sick man was laid on a couch in the public square, and
the passers-by were required to ask him the nature of his
disease, so that if they or any of their acquaintance had
been similarly afflicted they might advise him as to the
remedies he should adopt.” (West. Review, ibid.') How
much this resembles the Gospel story of the pool of Bethesda,
leaving out the angelic descent 1 (John v., 2.) The Baby
lonians were also fond of charms, for they mistook diseases
for devils, as Jesus did. Mr. H. F. Talbot, in his “Assyrian
Talismans and Exorcisms,” quotes a tablet as follows :—•
�HOSPITALS AND DISPENSARIES.
“ God shall stand by his bedside ; those seven evil spirits
He shall root out and expel from his body; those seven
shall never return to the sick man.” This superstition re
appears in the Gospels :—“ Then goeth he, and taketh with
himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and
they enter in and dwell there, and the last state of that man
is worse than the first.” (Matt, xii., 45.) Jesus actually
cast this number of devils out of Mary Magdalene. (See
Mark xvi., 9.) In face of this most debasing superstition,
people still worship Jesus as an almighty and omniscient
God ! And though he, beyond all men, taught the mira
culous causes and cures of disease, his professed followers
claim for him and his religion all the credit of originating
the scientific treatment of human ills. For certain, science
never met a more determined foe than Christianity; but
science no sooner gains a victory than Christianity turns
round and claims all the merit of inventing the very thing
she did her utmost to destroy.
That people bearing the name of Christ have, in modern
times, built and founded hospitals, I cheerfully acknowledge;
it matters not to me what names men bear so long as they
do good. But this I fearlessly affirm, that every hospital
ever erected has been built on or by principles which Christ
condemned, so that if he was right, the founders of
hospitals must have been wrong. Not only did Jesus teach
that diseases were to be healed by miracles (Mark xvi., 17,
18), but he strictly forbade the laying up of treasure : as
pointedly as he forbade murder or adultery, he also forbade
the accumulation of wealth. Without the wealth, hospitals
could not have been built, nay, all must have been paupers.
Religion and religious teaching, had they been obeyed,
would have made the world bankrupt; but in Secular
principles lies the salvation of man. Religion points to
another world, to reach which we must renounce this;
Secularism teaches to make the best possible—in money,
intelligence, humanity, and morality—of this world, and to
leave the next—a mere dream, most likely—to look out for
itself. I admit there are good things in the Bible ; but all
the good it contains would have been outweighed a thousand
times by a simple and effectual remedy for only one disease.
Why did divine mercy omit such a remedy ? Let Christians
explain.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Hospitals & dispensaries not of Christian origin
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Date of publication from British Library record. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1879]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N630
Subject
The topic of the resource
Health
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Hospitals & dispensaries not of Christian origin), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Health
Health Services
Hospitals
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e85f0a472446c28db72a7e0257908241.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YLUXG7vPaCNLhIdP%7EmMy6l3WvHd3fmmNhXNWOG4EHJdP9I2xacAlvxZMwEOMj8z-Cv-0Ojg0IVHceFFQLrdiBrXXhmNcIWpzc7DbkKb2yS11pjUVm6f4OCoiPbEYe6ifvfv-9PqaoXqnD-kK5648oi5lrhsK5WkPkBlklxkJ7L82MmXCfJkzNQImQFJXLcU9dmgncbXSw9Ifig5OchbUGdm%7E3UxFhH9iLE%7Ec072FDgm7INp6Oz57EETgHgEs4XqcA1m0rMwqimjW5j%7E6peoNzkDB-d5%7Eo0ubETpsAfNmpZLwgZ6zfuJDcv4C0%7EXclc-yJAPXBQxY-MJbwp2g9%7E82Wg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fff2d515f30774742a853ce04b561697
PDF Text
Text
£23 36
I
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
CHRISTIANITY
AND
'
SLAVERY.
BY
JOSEPH
SYMES.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 0.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
�“ Slave-owners are worthy of all honor.”—Paul.
Slavery—“ That execrable sum of all villainies.”—John Wesley.
“ Slavery is no evil, and is consistent with the principles of revealed
religion; all opposition to it arises from fiendish fanaticism.”—Rev.
J. Thornwell, Wesleyan (Tract 19, “500,000 Strokes for Freedom”)
“Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, should be slaveholders ; yes
—I repeat it boldly—there should be members, and deacons, and
elders, and bishops, too, who were slaveholders.”—Rev. W. Winans,
Wesleyan (Ibid).
“If by one prayer I could liberate every slave in the world, I would
not offer it.'’—Gardner Spring, D.D. (Ibid).
“ In ancient Mexico no one could be born a slave.”—Bancroft’s
“ Native Races of Pacific States,” Vol. II., 221.
�CHRISTIANITY AND SLAVERY.
Christians—even some who ought to know better—are
very angry with me because I hold and declare that Chris
tianity favors slavery. Instead of waxing wrath will they
do their best to refute my opinion ? And, that they may
have the best of opportunities to do so, I subjoin the evi
dence on which that opinion is grounded.
1. Abraham, the friend of God, had slaves “ born in his
house,” and “boughtwith his money” (Genesis xvii., 12,13).
And it is evident that he claimed and exercised the right to
do as he pleased with them, for when he submitted to the
barbarous rite of circumcision, the slaves were subjected to
the same. Hagar, too, was evidently a slave, at the entire
disposal of her master and mistress.
Now, since Abraham was God’s friend, had God con
sidered slavery a wrong, he would, I presume, have men
tioned it to the Patriarch. And as Jesus, according to
orthodoxy, was living at that time, and as much Abra
ham’s friend as his Father, he, too, tacitly approved of
Abraham’s slavery. It is useless to plead that this slavery
was not so bad as that of America ; for you cannot prove
that—it may have been worse. The case of Hagar shows
what sort of slavery it was. And a man who could, with
impunity, sacrifice his only son (as Abraham almost sacri
ficed Isaac) was hardly the man to value the life of a slave,
except commercially.
2. By the law of Moses, divinely inspired, be it remem
bered, a man might sell his own daughter (Exodus xxi., 7).
It is curious, too, to note in passing, that that crude code,
so much bepraised by Jews and Christians—the Ten Com
mandments—contains no hint that parents owe any duty to
their children.
3. A Hebrew slave might claim his liberty if owned by a
countryman, at the end of six years’ bondage. But if he
married after his slavery began he could not take his wife
�4
Christianity and Slavery.
and children with him ; they belonged to his master, and he
must “go out by himself” (Exodus xxi., 2—4). I can
think of few things more atrocious than this ; perhaps
Christians can. And it should not be forgotten that it
was the “spirit of Christ” which inspired the prophets
(1 Peter i., 11), and Moses among the rest, I presume.
4. A Hebrew slave-master might kill his slave with im
punity, provided he took time enough. “ And if a man
smite his servant, or his maid (saints might strike females !)
with a rod, and he die under his hand ; he shall surely be
punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he
shall not be punished: for he is his money” (Exodus xxi.,
20—21). In these verses we see the worst features of
slavery. (1) A man might whip his slaves, male or female,
and to any extent short of murder on the spot. Here is no
shadow of provision made for any justice to the slave ; he is
not a man, he is only “ money.” (2) Life and death were
in the hands of the owner. In what part of the world has
slavery taken a worse form ? How can Christians pretend
that their religion is opposed to slavery, when their God
gave such instructions to Moses ? Let them have the decency
to repudiate the Bible before they grumble at our criticisms
on their religion I
5. The following verses are also exceedingly plain and
equally atrocious:—“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids,
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are
round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bond
maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their fami
lies that are with you, which they begat in your land : and
they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as
an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them
for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen for ever : but
over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule
one over another with rigor ” (Leviticus xxv., 44—6).
No doubt a thorough-going defender of the Bible could
easily preach an abolition sermon from these three verses,
and prove therefrom that slavery is contrary to the whole
tenor of the Bible and an abomination in the sight of the
Lord.
6. Joshua, not able to kill the Gibeonites, enslaved the
whole tribe ; and made them “ hewers of wood and drawers
�Christianity and Slavery.
5
of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord,
even unto this day, in the place which he should choose ”
(Joshua ix.). Here we find slavery consecrated. They were
“ cursed ; ” and without being asked whether they believed
in the Lord or not the whole nation is compelled, as a
punishment, and as a punishment for daring to save their
own lives by the only way known to them—for this they
are condemned to serve the Lord! A back-handed compli
ment, surely, to their deity and religion ! Or, if their God
sanctioned it, it shows that in those days he was quite
willing to be served even by slaves. This view of the case
is proved by Numbers xxxi., where the Lord’s portion or
“tribute” of the captive Midianites was 32, out of
32,000 (v. 40).
7. The whole Israelitish state or government was, like
Oriental governments generally, a pure despotism, where the
king was supreme, and the people all slaves, entirely at the
disposal of their lord. Samuel well describes this feature of
the state when protesting against the kingship (1 Samuel
viii., 10—18). Solomon could build his temple and other
works only by the aid of forced labor ; and he enslaved the
descendants of the Canaanites for that purpose (1 Kings ix.,
15—22). I do not remember that the Lord ever found
fault with this arrangement, nor did he decline to own a
temple raised by unwilling slaves, and possibly by men who
regarded him as an abomination. Will Christians explain
this ?
Perhaps I may be told that Hebrew slaves were all
liberated in the Year of Jubilee. But I am not aware that
that year ever arrived until the whole nation, slaves, masters,
and all, were carried into captivity. It is singular that the
Bible nowhere, so far as I remember, records the celebration
of the Jubilee. The Old Testament certainly protests
vigorously against slavery — when the writers and their
friends are the victims. It was a dreadful thing for the
Egyptians to enslave the family of Jacob; but Joseph,
though once sold himself, actually bought up the whole of
Egypt, the whole of the cattle, the whole of the money,
and the whole of the people as the property and slaves of
Pharaoh. Yet “ the Lord was with him.”
Perhaps—nay, for certain—Christians will urge that the
New Testament is essentially opposed to all slavery. If so,
�6
Christianity and Slavery.
then (1) It cannot have been inspired by the same God
who gave the Old; unless (2) that God became somewhat
civilized and improved in morals in the interval between the
writing of the two books.
(3) Any being opposed to
slavery would have repudiated the parts of the Old Testa
ment above referred to and quoted, if he had known them.
Was this ever done by the God or Gods of the New Testa
ment? (4) If Jesus was opposed to slavery, why did he
not say as much? The world was then full of the horrid
thing. Why did he not lift his voice against it ? Instead
of fulminating anathemas against unbelief and hurling
threats against riches, why did he never say, “ It is easier
for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a slave
owner to enter into the Kingdom of God ” ? This would
have stamped him a philanthropist, and a lover of liberty.
Let his followers explain how he missed so grand an oppor
tunity. He who uttered the parable of the Laborers, wherethose who worked but one hour received the same wage as
those who worked the whole day, because, forsooth! the
master wished it so, could have had no conception of liberty
and the rights of man. He who uttered the sentiments of
Matthew xxii., 1—-7, and endorsed them as the policy of his
own projected kingdom, must have been a bitter foe to
liberty. What liberty can there be when a city is liable
to a worse doom than that of Sodom for rejecting the
missionaries of Jesus ? Or where individuals are liable to
be damned for unbelief ? It is an outrage on common
sense to affirm that he who could threaten as Jesus did was
a friend of liberty.
The New Testament nowhere forbids slavery, or even
discountenances it. How was it Jesus omitted all mention
of it when he preached his Sermon on the Mount ? or when
he spoke parables founded on the relation of owner and
slave, as that of the talents ? The language of the New
Testament is saturated with the principles of slavery, while
those of liberty scarcely appear. The word SoSXos (doulos)
occurs about 117 times in the Greek Testament, and always
has the meaning of slave—at least I am able to find no
exception. On the other hand, the word p,ur0io<s (misthzos),
a hired man, occurs but twice at most. Doulos not merely
denotes the slaves of men but even of the Lord; indeed,
KvpLos (kurios), or lord oi' owner, and SoDXos (doulos)
�•.
•••■■a
;
■■
*. *
*
‘'
/
.
Christianity and Slavery.
'-
/v
< w-
-
7
or slave, are corresponding words, and the one implies the
other. There cannot be a lord without a slave, nor slave
without a lord. Christianity is but a gigantic system of
the most absolute slavery on the one hand, and of the
most absolute despotism on the other. The Lord owns, in
the most complete sense, all his servants, and can do with
them whatsoever he will. Hence Paul does not blush
to dub himself the Slave of the Lord Jesus Christ
(Romans i., 1). Such a man knew not the meaning or the
value of liberty; he was content to be a chattel.
But the New Testament acquiesces in slavery, and enjoins
its continuance, as the following texts will show: “Ye slaves,
submit to your owners according to the flesh, with fear and
trembling, in the simplicity of your hearts, as to the Christ;
not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as slaves of
Christ, doing the will of the G-od from the soul; with good
will, slaving unto the Owner, and not to men; knowing that
whatever good a man does the same shall he receive from
the Owner, whether he be bond or free. And you owners,
do the same thing to them, forbearing threatening, know
ing that your Owner is in the heavens, and that there is no
respect of persons with him” (Eph. vi., 5—9). I have
revised this text in rather a literal fashion, but no Greek
scholar can say that I have strained it.
Here Paul either dared not recommend abolition, or was
not enlightened enough to understand its value; in the
former case he was a coward, in the latter a semi-barbarian.
In Colossians iii., 22—25, he gives nearly the same injunc
tion to the slaves. 1 Timothy vi., 1—5, runs thus : “ Let
as many as are slaves under the yoke count their own
despots (Greek, despotas) worthy of all honor, that the
name of God and his teaching be not blasphemed. Nor let
those who have believing despots despise them because they
are brethren ; but rather slave for them, for those who reap
the benefit are faithful and beloved. These things teach
and exhort. If anyone teach otherwise, and does not come
in to the sound doctrine which is of our Owner, Jesus
Christ, and to the teaching which accords with religion,
he is stupid, knowing nothing, distressed about questions
and word-battles, whence come envy, strife, blasphemies,
evil surmisings, perverse disputes, among men of corrupt mind,
and destitute of the truth, imagining that the religion is gain.”
�8
Christianity and Slavery.
Here (1) slaves are bidden to remain as they are, and
count their owners worthy of all honor. If a slave owner
is worthy of all honor, there can be nothing wrong in
slavery, except the bad conduct of the wicked slaves.
(2) The owners here referred to were, some of them, Chris
tians. Had Christianity been opposed to slavery, this could
not have been. Christians still hold slaves in some parts,
and they can defend their conduct by the New Testament.
(3) The latter part of the passage is levelled against aboli
tionists : they dispute, they raise questions, they disturb
existing institutions, they oppose slavery, and have evidently
been tampering with the slaves ; and the owners have as
evidently appealed to Paul to fulminate anathemas against
them. Hence the great Apostle of the Gentiles hurls his
thunderbolts at those “ stupid,” “know-nothing,” “corruptminded,” men, who would overturn society by liberating the
slaves. Paul was not an abolitionist when he wrote those
verses, and had he lived in modern England, how he would
have lashed the “ stupidity” and “ corrupt-mindedness ” of
those notorious “ know-nothings,” Clarkson, Wilberforce,
Buxton, and others, who wrought the death of that Chris
tian institution, slavery, in the British Colonies ! Had Paul
lived in America a few years back most likely Jeff Davis
had never been heard of, and Paul might have been elevated
to the throne of a slavedom.
In the Epistle to Titus (ii., 9) Paul holds the same
language :—Slaves must submit to their own despots ; must
please them in all things ; must not reply when corrected ;
must not steal, but be noted for fidelity. All this implies
that slavery was proper, that one man might justly own
another : the poor slave, who had been stolen, must not
steal; he who had no social or political rights, no pro
perty, himself the property of another—this poor chattel is
commanded to obey, and to behave himself well, for the
sake of the doctrine of God 1 Thus this man teaches that
his great father in heaven, as he calls his deity, approves of
the most heinous of all known crimes, slavery, and will hold
the slave guilty who purloins his owner’s goods, or fails to
slave for that owner to his utmost power 1
Thus I have shown what Christianity, as exhibited in the
New Testament, thinks of slavery. And now we may glance
at the Church in later ages. Guizot, while claiming for the
�Christianity and Slavery.
9
'Church much of the credit of abolishing slavery, says : “ It
has been often asserted that the abolition of slavery in
modern Europe was exclusively owing to Christianity. I
think that is saying too much. Slavery long existed in the
heart of the Christian society, without greatly exciting its
astonishment, or drawing down its anathema. A multitude of
causes, and a great development in other ideas of civilisation,
were required to eradicate this evil of evils, this iniquity of
iniquities ” (“ History of Civilisation.” Edition, Chambers,
1848, pp. 108—9).
The Church, in respect to slaves, was far behind the
empire. Slave marriages were not recognised by either
State or Church for many centuries. “ In the old Roman
society in the Eastern Empire this distinction between the
marriage of the free man and the concubinage of the slave
was long recognised by Christianity itself. These unions
were not blessed, as the marriages of their superiors had
soon begun to be, by the Church. Basil, the Macedonian,
(a.d. 867—886), first enacted that the priestly benediction
should hallow the marriage of the slave ; but the authority
of the emperor was counteracted by the deep-rooted pre
judices of centuries.” (Milman’s “Latin Christianity.” Vol.
II., p. 15.)
In this the Church followed Moses (Exodus xxi., 4). And
Jesus and his Apostles forgot to throw out the slightest hint
on this most important social subject. If the West Indian
and American planters held loose views on sexual morality,
as regards the slaves, the Bible certainly was not calculated
to correct them.
*
If Christianity was opposed to slavery, or the chief in
strument of its abolition, how was it it did not begin sooner ?
How was it it took so long to accomplish the work ? Had
the Bible condemned the crime instead of enjoining and en
couraging it, no doubt it would have influenced the Church
in the right direction. But the Church encouraged and
practised slavery, until the humanity of the world compelled
a change.
When abolition was proposed it was Christians who most
strenuously resisted it; and in doing so they entrenched
themselves in Bible ground, and fought with weapons drawn
* See Appendix.
�10
Christianity and Slavery.
from Holy Writ. A few examples shall close this pamphlet.
The quotations are selected from “ Five Hundred Thousand
Strokes for Freedom,” London: W. and F. Cash, 5, Bishopsgate Street, and Tweedie, 337, Strand, 1853. This work
comprises 82 Anti-slavery tracts, edited by Wilson Armistead, Leeds. Tracts, page 2, reports that at that period
the various Protestant Ministers and Church members held
no less than 660,563 slaves in America. No doubt they
understood the letter and spirit of the Bible as well as the
abolitionists. If not, how and why not ? The Rev. James
Smylie, A.M., of the Amity Presbytery, Mississippi, is re
ported to have said : “ If slavery be a sin, and advertising
and apprehending slaves, with a view to restore them to their
masters, is a direct violation of the divine law, and if the
buying, selling, or holding of a slave, for the sake of gain,
is a heinous sin and scandal, then verily three-fourths of all
the Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians,
in eleven States of the Union are of the devil. They hold, if
they do not buy and sell slaves, and with few exceptions,
they hesitate not to apprehend and restore runaway slaves
when in their power.” Tract 8, p. 20.
The Charleston Union Presbytery, 7th April, 1836, “ Re
solved, that in the opinion of this Presbytery, the holding
of slaves, so far from being a sin in the sight of God, is
nowhere condemned in his holy word: that it is in accordance
with the example and consistent with the precepts of patri
archs, apostles, and prophets,” etc. Ibid. p. 23.
The Missionary Society of the South Carolina Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by their board of managers,
said: “We denounce the principles and practice of the
abolitionists in toto......................... We believe that the holy
scriptures, so far from giving any countenance to this delu
sion, do, unequivocally, authorise the relation of master and
slave.” Ibid.
The Hopewell Presbytery, South Carolina, issued a docu
ment affirming that “ Slavery has always existed in the
Church of God, from the time of Abraham to this day.”
Ibid.
The Presbyterian Synod of Virginia “ Resolved, unani
mously, that we consider the dogma, that slavery as it exists
in the slave-holding States is necessarily sinful, and ought
to be immediately abolished, and the conclusions which
�Christianity and Slavery.
11
naturally follow from that dogma, as directly and palpably
contrary to the plainest principles of common sense and
common humanity, and the clearest authority of the word
of God.” Ibid.
Professor Hodge, Princeton (N. J.) Presbyterian Theolo
gical Seminary, published an article in the Biblical Repertory
containing this : “At the time of the advent of Jesus Christ
slavery in its worst forms prevailed over the world. The
Savior found it around him in Judea, the apostles met with
it in Asia, Greece and Italy. How did they treat it? Not
by denunciation of slave-holding as necessarily sinful.” P. 24.
The Quarterly Christian Spectator, New Haven (Ct.), a
Congregational paper, in 1838, said: “The Bible contains
no explicit prohibition of slavery; it recognises, both in the
Old Testament and in the New, such a constitution of
society, and it lends its authority to enforce the mutual ob
ligations resulting from that constitution.” P. 24.
T. R. Dew, Professor in William and Mary College
(Episcopalian), said: “ Slavery was established by divine
authority among even the elect of heaven, the children of
Israel.” P. 25.
D. R. Furman, Baptist, in an exposition of the views of
his Church, addressed to the Governor of South Carolina,
in 1833, said: “ The right of holding slaves is clearly
established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and
example.” Ibid.
Tract 45 quotes the following from the Boston Emanci
pator, 1846, “ Rev. Dr. Taylor, at the head of the Theolo
gical School of Yale College, stated, in a lecture before the
Theological Class, that he had no doubt if Jesus Christ was
now on earth, that he would, under certain circumstances,
become a slave-holder! ”
Perhaps the following is the very “ richest ” morsel in
this collection: “ Advertisement in the Religious Herald, a
Virginia paper. ‘Who wants 35,000 dollars in property?
I am desirous of spending the remainder of my life as a
missionary, if the Lord permit, and therefore offer for sale
my farm, and the vineyard, adjacent to Williamsberg, con
taining 600 acres, well watered, and abounding in marl;
together with all the crops, stock and utensils thereon. Also
my house and lot in town, fitted up as a boarding establish
ment, with all the furniture belonging to it. Also about
�Christianity and Slavery.
12
(slaves'), mostly YOUNG and likely, and
To a kind
master, I would put the whole property at the reduced price
of 35,000 dollars, and arrange the payment to suit purchasers,
provided the interest be annually paid.—S. Jones.’” Tract76.
I have not met with the biography of this saint; but it is
to.be hoped the Lord did “ permit,” and that he entered the
mission field and proved successful in “ winning souls.”
Probably, before now, he is in glory with the sainted Abra
ham and other slave-holding “ brethren” of Bible times.
What can Christians reply ? The Bible unmistakably
commits itself to, encourages, and enjoins slavery; some of
the most devoted Christians (to wit, S. Jones, the intending
missionary,) have held slaves, and defended themselves by
Bible teachings. Do they not understand the Bible as cor
rectly as modern defenders of the faith, or as abolitionists ?
Are they less honest ?
I rejoice in abolition ; but I am bound to say that it is
decidedly anti- Christian. Wdll some good theologian show
that I am in error ?
40
servants
RAPIDLY INCREASING IN NUMBER AND VALUE.
�APPENDIX.
Not expecting my article to be republished from the N. R.,
I omitted, for brevity’s sake, much matter that might have
been inserted. The following are a few specimens.
Slave Marriages.
44 The Savannah River (Baptist) Association, in 1835,
in reply to the question: 4 Whether, in a case of in
voluntary separation of such a character as to preclude
all prospect of future intercourse, the parties ought
to be allowed to marry again ? ’ Answered: 4 That such
a separation among persons situated as our slaves are, is
civilly a separation by death, and they believe that, in the
sight of God, it would be so viewed.............The slaves are
not free agents, and a dissolution by death is not more
entirely without their consent, and beyond their control,
than by such separation.’ ”
The Shiloh Baptist Association held similar views upon
this subject; and the Rev. C. Jones, 4 who was an earnest
and indefatigable laborer for the good of the slave,’ says
of the slave marriage, 4 4 4 It is a contract of convenience,
profit, or pleasure, that may be entered into and dissolved at
the will of the parties, and that without heinous sin, or in
jury to the property interests of anyone.’ ” 44 Key to Uncle
Tom’s Cabin,” p. 393.
44 The Rev. R. J. Brickenridge, D.D., .... says, 4 The
system of slavery denies to a whole class of human beings
the sacredness of marriage and of home, compelling them to
live in a state of concubinage ; for, in the eye of the law,
no colored slave-man is the husband of any wife in par
ticular, nor any slave-woman the wife of any husband in
particular; no slave-man is the father of any children in
particular, and no slave-child is the child of any parent in
particular.’ ” Ibid, p. 406.
I quote the above to show how atrociously and completely
*
�14
Appendix.
the American Christians executed the Mosaic and Christian
principles of slavery. We are frequently informed that
Christianity is the safeguard of the family, the bulwark of
marriage. But this religion, in its ancient form, repudiates
the idea of slave marriage in its proper sense (Exodus xxi.,
3—5) ; in its New Testament form it tacitly endorses the
law of Moses on the subject; the marriage of slaves was not
recognised in the early Church, nor in the churches of
America. Thus in ancient, mediaeval, and modern times
this divine religion, this source of all blessings, this mira
culous system of doctrines and duties, has denied all liberty,
and even the advantages and rights of decency, to countless
millions of those beneath its sway. All its atrocities and
horrors it has perpetrated at the suggestion, the command,
or connivance of its divine book, and in the very name of
its God—a God whose temples were shambles, whose priests
were wholesale butchers, whose attendants have ever been
slaves—a God who solemnly revealed to Moses a whole
system of sacred cookery and devotional millinery, but
forgot to reveal the principles of right, of honor, of justice,
of liberty, or of decency.
Defence of Slavery.
I might fill many pages with quotations showing how
Christians have pummelled abolitionists with Bible principles,
and how other Christians have vainly tried to parry those
divine blows. When Clarkson’s Bill for the abolition of
the slave trade was carried to the House of Lords it is wellknown that Lord Chancellor Thurlow denounced it as con
trary to the Bible—as it really was.
“ The noblest eloquence was expended upon this subject
(the abolition of the slave trade) in vain .... At first all
the country gentlemen rose en masse against any interference
with it. The commercial body fought for it as if it were a
balance of exchanges in perpetuity. The lawyers defended
it as they would an entail. The army and navy stood up
for it as they would for the honor of the British flag.............
And then there were many strictly Christian people who,
like ants, made it a solemn law to themselves to follow in
the track over which the burden of their faith was first
carried, and who, holding the same belief that was held
before the Flood, were convinced, and not to be put out of
�Appendix.
15
their conviction by any human means, that the slave trade
(or slavery, for it was all one to them) was an old Scriptural
Institution, &c.” “Bell’s Life of Canning,” pp. 214—5.
“ The greatest stress of all was laid upon the antiquity of
slavery. This was a difficulty which paralysed many persons
of tender conscience. They felt with you, that slavery was
cruel, that it blighted human beings, crushed the god-like
part of. them, and reduced them to the condition of the
lower animals. But it was a Sacred Institution—it had
flourished in the earliest ages—it had a divine origin—and
was tabooed by the consecrating hand of time.” Ibid, p. 218.
Just so; not the hyprocrites, but the sincere and
“ conscientious ” believers in the Bible opposed abolition out
of respect to their divine book. And they were right, if the
book is right. This is proof positive that the Bible and its
influence tended only to prolong the evils of slavery; and
that the system would have had no feasible defence amongst
an enlightened people but for the Bible. Christians must
have felt, and did feel, that, in consenting to abolish slavery,
they were presuming to know better than their very God,
who sanctioned and enjoined it. What that Deity must
think of his presumptuous servants I do not pretend to
know. With what face they can meet him after deliberately
helping to destroy one of his institutions, is their . concern,
not mine.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,
28, Stonecutter Street E.C.
�f
;i
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christianity and slavery
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1880
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1783
N629
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Slavery
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Christianity and slavery), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
NSS
Slavery
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b922f0307111d288268b92e20499552c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=crVMkHUuDcSJpvzZgll4Cr%7E03bTgLAFa-EAS2G6O4BR-OuOcbGpCS%7ECzjxb8ECnCSrNxNsiHOLEjDq00it9mBj1TRmFcW-9oFYkwgKV2qgVXPERyGMoHQ%7EPs-LD9ytVtdw0IMufu%7EmPetVHEy9KVbv2CO9W0pX9k%7EfVtgOvtIe3NWr2YrwGe5s3r1pd33zpbxhSqSxjtrx3aCAR-RdxrWhL0AcNEu%7E7A4Q6RW-sbCy5Y70O3CmNGMZmGT8uttpX1Z3Wq4Dk6GVRftjO1dxvo1KSdTMqbF0-BLl2lQ95SbE7dweCgmYVdYwcAcoHFAzXFxzMuGWlJJdrhLzZSHLJpvA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6179d0ed2e7de464fa4210ebb42987a9
PDF Text
Text
5
IM e$( v ° NATIONAL secular society
B'7-(X5
NJ633 PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
■---- *—God
or no
God ?
I.
It has, been long my conviction—arrived at, I may. say,
against my deepest prejudices and the oldest tendencies of
my mind—that Atheism is not merely a logical position or
mental state, but as logical as any.
It appears , to me
that, approach the subject from which side we will—-the
purely intellectual or the moral—philosophy leads inevitably
up to Atheism. I can fully sympathise with the millions
who look upon Atheism as a monster, of absurdity and
immorality, for I once had the same ideas and feelings
myself, and no more dreamt of journeying to Atheism than
to the moon. I have discovered several things in recent
years which I formerly deemed impossible; among others,
that Atheism is not in the least like what popular prejudice
represents, and that Theism is as unfounded as Transubstantiation. Every argument yet produced in evidence of
divine existence fails even to satisfy a previous believer.
Judging from my own experience, I should say that the
most unshaken faith in a God is found in him who never
argued; the reasoner, even on the very smallest scale, starts
I doubts on the subject that can never be solved or destroyed. Once pass beyond the bounds of that innocent
state of spontaneous faith, possible only to early life or to
imbecility, and wrestle with a doubt respecting a God’s
■existence, and I question if the struggle will ever terminate
.entirely, except in Atheism or death. It is true, Orthodoxy
■promises you peace and rest, a solution of your difficulties,
■to be found in certain arguments, which, if rightly con■ ducted, will infallibly lead up to satisfaction. Alas ! how
fallacious the promise and the hope I I spent many years
R in following this will-o’-the-wisp ; but neither logic, prayer,
nor faith, nor all together could give settled satisfaction,
r This is not surprising, when the matter is fully examined.
Let us see.
The teleological argument is no doubt the oldest of the
so-called proofs of divine existence; it is, at least, as old as
Xenophon’s Memorabilia, and seems to have been used by
�4
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
Socrates. The argument, which is based upon a fallacy,
runs thus:—“We see in works of handicraft and Art
evidences of Design and adaptation of means to ends; we
see similar marks of design, &c., in Nature; and as
evidences of design in Art imply a designer, so do they in
Nature.” This, if logical, would be an exceedingly “ short
and easy method” of settling the dispute; but there is
really not one point of analogy between Art and Nature,
regarded either as a whole or in detail.
1. But for our education or experience in handicraft, &c.,
we could not possibly suspect anything like it in Nature.
We could never have gathered the conception of design
even from a work of art, were we not able, in some cases, at
least, to see both the means and the end, and to watch the
one resulting in the other. Now who can say what is the
end of Nature in any one department, to say nothing of
the final cause or ultimate aim of the whole ? This I shall
return to by-and-bye; at present I merely point to the want
of analogy between an art production (whose whole theory
•and action, inception and results, we can grasp) and any
particular part of Nature of which we know little or nothing
beyond the barest phenomena.
2. The analogy fails in another and more serious point.
We have seen and can see the maker of any human produc
tion. The identical man may be out of our reach, but we
have thousands like him all around us continually; ancL
though we may never have seen a given work in course onI
manufacture, yet we have seen artificers at work upon other!
artificial productions; and as all artificial things have!
certain points of resemblance, by the observation of which ,
we can readily pass from the known to the unknown, we
have little or no difficulty in recognising as a work of art
even an article we never saw before. Now where is the
analogy between this and any natural thing ? In Nature
the artificer has never once been seen, nor any one of his
fellows; we never saw any one making a single natural
product. Where, then, is the analogy? To establish it
you must show us some natural thing in course of produc
tion, and the maker himself, or some part of him, must be
seen at his work. Let this be done and our disputes end ;
but until we see some one making things in Nature—I don’t
say all things, but some—we have no right to institute an
analogy between a thing we know to be made and one that
may not be made at all.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
5
3. It is idle to say that the 11 Great Artificer ” is invisible;
that begs the question.
First prove your Artificer, and
then we must perforce admit his invisibility until we see
him. We see all around us the processes of Nature going
on—the revolution of the planets, and alternations of day
and night, storm and calm, summer and winter. We see all
this, but we never see the maker.
4. Not only have we never seen the Artificer of Nature,
we may further say that we have never seen Nature’s Art.
Is there not necessarily a distinction between the two
departments of Nature and Art ? And is not that distinction
essential? It is the height of linguistic- impropriety to
apply the terms of Art to the subjects and phenomena of
Nature. We have the best of proofs that artificial things
are made. Nature was never made ; it is not in any sense
a manufacture, it is an eternal existence as a whole, and its
various phenomena are growths, not Art productions. To
say the contrary is to abuse language and bewilder the
reader. I ask any intelligent man to take a coat and a
sheep, and say if there be any analogy between them. The
animal was not made, it grew; the coat did not grow, it
was made. The materials of the coat also grew; the act
of putting them together was the making of something that
did not and could not grow, any more than the sheep
could have been made. To talk, therefore, of animals
being made is not less incorrect than to speak of coats,
boots, chairs, &c., growing. A wise man will try to avoid
such confusion of • language, while the wisest will see in
natural phenomena nought but pure growths, and will thus
. escape the need of looking for a maker where none is
possible. Theology and false philosophy have done much
to confuse people on these matters, but there can be nothing
more incorrect, in the present state of human knowledge,
than to speak of the making or creation of the earth or of
any natural thing in it. Therefore it is not reason that
desiderates a maker or creator, it is faith that both demands
and supplies one or more, according to its whims or circum
stances.
5. But more serious objections remain. If nature does
manifest design we can discover the fact only by discovering
both the means and the end. This must be apparent at
once. In Art, did we not know why things are made, the
notion of design would be impossible; I don’t say in every
case. We cannot tell why some things have been made,
�6
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
they puzzle us; but these exceptions prove the rule, for if
we were not accustomed to recognise the end or object in
the majority of cases, we could never feel either curiosity or
doubt respecting the end to be answered by the few excep
tions. Now where is the man who will pretend to tell why
Nature was created? Consider its vastness, its intricacy,
how small a speck of the whole is known to us, and the
immense periods occupied in some of its processes. Who
can guess the meaning and the end of such immense and
intricate changes ? Only the most consummate rashness
would venture to attempt an explanation here. And if we
cannot tell the final cause of the whole, by what right do we
pretend to explain the design of a part ? Every part must
contribute to the total results, and must therefore be sub
ordinate to the whole, and without knowing the final upshot,
the end and aim cannot be guessed. Let the bold theologian
show us Nature’s means and her ultimate aim, or confess
that, like the rest of us, he is in total darkness respecting them.
If we cannot discover the end and means of Nature in
her immensity, let us try on a smaller scale. Take the
solar system. Was it designed, or is it the result of
accident ?—that is, the interaction of the materials and
forces of the system ? If designed, why are some planets
iso much farther from the sun than others? All might have
“been accommodated at distances much more nearly equal.
¡As it is there is a great waste of light and heat. If two
thousand millions of globes, each equal to the earth, were
/placed round the sun, side by side, and all at the same
/distance (from 90,000,000 to 100,000,000 miles), they
i would form a complete (omitting interstices) shell, with the
I sun in its centre. Now with the present expenditure of
[ light and heat, the sun would light up and warm the whole
interior of that enormous shell as brilliantly and intensely
as he does the earth at present. Think of what this means.
The sun which could, with the present emission of
1 energy, amply supply with light and heat an area of
1100,000,000,000,000,000 square miles and more, actually
«supplies about 50,000,000 square miles ! In this estimate
U omit all the planets except the earth, for their aggregate
receipts of light and heat are a trifle compared with the
lolar waste.
If, then, the solar system does manifest
Resign, it is not design executed by either wisdom or
aconomy.
Then consider how unequally the distances of the planets
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
7
are arranged. How hot must Mercury or Vulcan (?) b<!
how cold Uranus and Neptune ! Besides, some of the
planets have satellites, others none, as far as yet known.
Where is the design here ? Our earth has but one satellite^
though it is well known we could do with more. What!
do we not need moonlight as much when it is absent as
when it is shining ? If one moon is good, it is my firm
belief that two would be twice as good.
Leaving the earth as a mere planet, let us descend fb
particulars, regarding it as a home for man and oth|r
animals. Look at the distribution of light and heat. Ip.
the tropics the people have far too much of both; in the
temperate regions, the alternations are dreadfully sever®
but in polar regions they are simply monstrous. A loi|g
day of six months’ duration is by-and-bye replaced by^,
night of equal length ! Does that show design and wisdor^?
Then consider the cold—land and sea frozen to an extent
to us almost incredible. What is the object? Is it to test
the enduring powers of seals and polar bears ? or to grfe
the Esquimaux an opportunity of displaying his voracity
upon blubber and his dexterity in travelling over the snow4?
Is there one good thing accomplished by such exaggerate^
cold ? Will the natural theologian explain ? He sees the
<£ hand of God ” and the “ footsteps of deity ” everywhere^
his eyes are so completely opened that he sees “ good in
everything.” He might, therefore, enlighten us a little on
these mysteries of nature. I have never yet heard of an
Esquimaux praising God for his wisdom and goodness as
displayed in Arctic nights and snows. They are people of
a milder clime, and whose civilisation enables them to defy
the malice of Nature, that praise the blessings of so;
extreme a cold.
Winds and rains show equal want of design.
One
country is devastated by storms, another is panting for a
breeze; one land is flooded by excessive rains, another is
parched and famine-stricken for want of water. During
the recent famines in Bengal, Bombay, and China, England
was flooded. Is this design ?—this wisdom ? Let a water
company follow the example of Nature, and flood one part
of a town week after week, while the rest is parched and
dusty as a desert, and your very Tories will demand reform.
Where and what is that supernal wisdom, which cannot be
imitated, except at the expense of common sense ? What
good thing is ever accomplished by a flood?—by a famine?
�8
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
by a hurricane? If the arrangements and processes of
Nature manifest wisdom, the best and most regular actions
of men are foolish in the extreme.
Now since we cannot discover the end or aim in the
above cases, and multitudes more that time forbids me to
mention, how can any one pretend to be able to discover
design in them ? And—
6. If we cannot discover the object or final cause of
Nature’s details, how can we discover it in any large depart
ment—say in the whole earth? Why was this planet made?
—for the sake of man ? Let us adopt that supposition, and
then proceed to test it by human experience. If the earth
was really made for man’s sake, if man is the final cause of
its creation and arrangement, I think he has abundant
reason to grumble, being at once so honoured and so grossly
outraged and insulted. He has no choice—it is not left to
him to take this world or some other. He enters it as he
enters into being; Nature throws him up like a waif tossed
to shore by the waves. If he can endure her treatment
and dodge her malicious blows, he survives; if not, he dies
before he fairly lives. Let him survive, for what does he
live? Ignorance, superstition, want, cold, hunger, fever,
accidents, tempests, volcanoes, wars, and death 1 This the
final cause of the world ! What!—the lord of the estate
knocked about in this fashion ! He for whom all was made
treated with contempt, get his bones broken, his blood cor
rupted, his person maltreated by the ill-arrangement of his
natural and only home 1 How grotesque ! How silly is
theology ! Was it worth while to expend all this care, pains,
and thought in the production of man, if he was to be
treated after all like the most worthless of beings ?
It is here that theology most completely collapses; after
going to the expense of producing what theology regards as
the final cause of the world, the final cause is treated as of
no conceivable value ! Either, therefore, man is not the
final cause of the world’s creation, or the wisdom displayed
in creation ends in a wretched farce. And if we cannot
find the ultimate end aimed at, by what right can we assume
that Nature shows any marks of design ? And, further, is
it not preposterous to speak of a final cause, or ultimate
aim, in an endless series of natural and inevitable events ?
The natural theologian is neither scientist nor philosopher ;
he is a man of faith; and faith can find its basis anywhere
—except in the region of fact and experience.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
9
7. If Nature in one or most parts manifests design, we
must be prepared to find it in all; for every event of Nature
must be as much designed as any that may be named. This
consideration the divine quietly and conveniently ignores.
He recognises design and divine goodness and wisdom in
all agreeable things; the rest are explained or overlooked.
It is our duty, however, to correct his mistakes and bring
up his omissions.
Let us grant then that Nature does undoubtedly manifest« ’
design.
(1) A hurricane that spreads devastation over
large tracts of the globe must be designed for that purpose. |
Smashing houses, rooting up trees, sinking ships, and i
drowning or killing men and animals are the chief works |
performed by those storms. Let the divine show the i
wisdom and goodness of his deity in them. (2) The I
eruption of Vesuvius that buried Pompeii and Herculaneum 1
must have been intended for that work; and the earthquake |
that swallowed up Lisbon was equally designed for that |
purpose. (3) The malaria that rises from the swamp and |
breeds a yellow fever epidemic, is designed for that; else
why does it exist ? What else does it accomplish ? The
evaporation that by-and-bye distils in the fruitful shower is
not more natural than the rise of the poisonous effluvia that
cause the death of thousands. (4) The coals stored up in
the earth’s strata were originally intended for—what?—to
torture poor men, women, and children in extracting them,
to exhale gases that should explode and kill the daring
intruders into Nature’s preserves, to burst steam boilers, I
and to drive machinery by which workers are maimed or ■
crushed to death, to manufacture cannon, torpedoes, and
other deadly instruments. And those coals perform evil
deeds with as much earnestness and effect as good ones ; a j
fire made of them will boil the kettle for tea or burn a child j
to death with equal indifference. What were they designed |
for ? Only stupidity can assert that they were designed for |
good, and not evil.
If design shows itself in one part of Nature, we must ex
pect it in all parts. (5) Theologians recognise design when
Nature turns out a Newton, they are silent when she pro
duces an idiot. And yet, there may be as great an expendi
ture of force and pains in producing the one as the other.
Is the idiot designed or not ? It is idle to lay the blame
upon parents or adventitious circumstances—the forces and
conditions that resulted in that idiot are as truly natural—
B
�IO
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
as much a portion of the original plan as those were which
culminated in the philosopher. How will the divine secure
his dogmas in face of this ? And what is the final cause of
an idiot ?
(6) I once read of the birth of an animal—a dog, I
think—perfect and beautiful in all things, except in one
respect—it lacked its head. Let us pause ! In this case
Nature worked as carefully as she ever does—bones, muscles,
blood-vessels, skin, hair, and everything were carefully made,
and all for what ? A being that could not live. Did Nature,
or Nature’s author and ruler, know that the head was want
ing ? If so, why was the work not stopped, or the defect
supplied? Now, either this dog was designed, or Nature
worked independently of her maker; if it was designed, it
reflects the highest discredit upon the designer, and the
keenest ridicule. We have all heard of the wright who built
a waggon in an upper room, never once considering how it
was to be got out after it was finished. Is this case any more
ridiculous than that of Nature turning out a dog that had no
head? Verily, those who use the design argument employ
a sword with two edges, a weapon that cuts its owners far
more than their enemies. I beg the reader to consider
that in speaking of Nature “ making ” and “ working,” I
merely use the language of theology.
(7) A year or two since I visited a curious little museum
kept by an old sailor in Stockton-on-Tees, and among
other “ queer ” things I saw two that impressed me. One
was a little piggy Siamese twins. They were perfect, as far
as I could see, but fastened together, breast to breast, by a
short tube, so that walking would have been an utter im
possibility. The other was more curious still. It was a
lamb, single as to the head and neck, but double from the
shoulders backwards. There were eight legs and eight feet,
and the two bodies slightly receded from each other the
whole length behind the shoulders. One might have thought
Nature would have been content without sporting or blunder
ing further; but no. From the double shoulders of this
compound animal there grew an extra pair of legs, which
stretched backwards and slightly hung down between the
two bodies. They were fully grown, and had their front
parts turned upwards. I am writing from memory, but can
vouch for the general correctness of what I say. Now, what
could Nature mean—if she really meant anything—by pro
ducing such monsters ? Twin pigs that could never have
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
II
lived, and a compound lamb dreadfully overdone with
bodies and limbs ! Was it divine wisdom that produced
these, or did blind Nature, operating by necessity, give rise
to them ? Let theologians say.
8. Many things in Nature are designed and adapted to
produce pain, if designed at all, and they never do or can
produce anything else. I may mention, as examples, ex
cessive heat and cold, stings of insects, poisons of serpents,
scorpions, &c., bites of beasts—many diseases, such as in
flammation, cancer, and others. Perhaps one of the most
dreadful is childbirth. What pangs, and how perfectly
objectless! There is not one good thing, as far as I can
learn, ever accomplished by any of the above. Indeed, if
I am not much mistaken, ninety-nine per cent, of all the
pain in the world is worse than useless. Theologians say
that, under given circumstances, “ labour is rest and pain is
sweet ” ; but you should not understand them literally. As
a French proverb says, “ One can regard evils with equani
mity—when they are another’s.” Theologians are no
more fond of pain than the rest of us, and they despise it
most thoroughly when they don’t feel it. They may preach
up the benefits of pain as long as they please; pain is pain,
call it by what names you may, and the world has a deal too
much of it to endure. If it was ever intended to do good,
the world’s designer miscalculated, and should long since
have tried to work on some other plan.
It has been asserted by some who are anxious to defend
their fancied deity, that animals which are devoured by
beasts and birds of prey feel no pain. Their own Bible
might have confuted them. Did Jonah feel no sort of pain
in the whale’s belly ? And does not Paul say, “ The whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until
now ” ? Perhaps a bite from a tiger, or even from a dog,
might bring those divines to their senses. One thing is
certain, the animals that are eaten up by others show all the
signs of pain that man shows except those of speech, and
none but the perverse can doubt that they really feel pain.
The question to be answered is, Was pain designed ? If so,
what can be said of its designer? Did he ever feel pain, or
would he like to ?
9. Turn we next to another class of topics. What is to
be. said by a believer in design respecting parasites? I
believe the true parasites cannot live except in or on the
other living beings they inhabit. Which way shall we read
�12
PHILOSOPHIC A'IHEISM.
Nature’s declaration of design in these cases ? Must we
read it, “Parasites were designed for other animals,” or
“ Other, animals were designed for their parasites ” ? This is
a puzzle, and no divine can explain it. Leaving the less
important parasites, let us ponder for a moment the case of
trichina spiralis. This minute worm cannot live except in
an animal body. In the muscles of a pig or of a man he
can make himself very comfortable, though he gives great
pain to his guest and living habitation.. The tapeworm is
worse still—the very thought of it is sufficient to give one
the horrors ! But to the point—Is man designed as the
habitation of the trichina and tapeworm ? If so, which is
the greater, and which, after all, is the final cause of this
world—the man who protects and feeds the tapeworm, or
the tapeworm that dwells in and lives at the expense of the
man ? I think it cannot be doubted that the worm has the
best of it. The man he inhabits is tortured with a horrible
disease ; the worm has every want supplied, and is as happy
as his nature and conditions permit. It seems then, that not
man, but the tapeworm, or some other human parasite,
must be the great end of this world’s creation ! What an
issue and a fate for the celebrated “argument from
design ” !
Having shown that the design argument, when fairly
conducted to its logical conclusion, leads to the interesting
discovery that human parasites are the final cause of the
existence of the earth, I must next proceed to attack Theism
in other directions. I do not think the above conclusion in
the least flattering to human vanity ; but that reflection by
no means militates against its correctness. I suppose no
one will deny that the less, where adaptation prevails, is
subservient to the greater. It cannot be denied, the theo
logian affirms, that Nature manifests design, and it will not
be pretended that man is benefited by the trichina, or tape
worm; it is equally impossible to deny that these most
interesting beings, like princes and priests, are furnished
gratuitously with everything they desire by and at the ex
pense of man. If those parasites are of a superstitious
turn, no doubt they spend much of their time in chanting
“ Te Deums ” to the Bountiful Parent of All Good, who has
created such a delightful world as a human body for them
to dwell in.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
13
II.
But leaving this subject, let us next survey the doctrine
of cause and effect. This doctrine I accept, though I deny
emphatically that it logically conducts us to a first cause or
to a final cause. I suppose the materials and forces of the
universe—that is, the complete round of existence—to be
eternal. I shall not just now attempt to prove the doctrine,
or even to give any reason for my faith in it; the reader will
please observe that I merely assume it here for the sake of
argument. Whether it be true or not, no one can deny that
we find ourselves in the very midst of an exceedingly long
series of causes and effects. We also find ourselves in the
very midst of infinite space, partially occupied, though pos
sibly not entirely so; we are, further, in the very midst of
infinite time or duration. I shall not stop to discuss the
nature of these two infinities, but assume that most people
are agreed respecting their existence, at least.
Now let me ask the theologian if he can put his finger
upon the central point in space, or tell us how far off is the
circumference or limit of space in any direction he may
prefer. To say that this demand is absurd is no objection
to it, for I make it for the purpose of exposing another
absurdity, exactly parallel, though not quite so obvious.
I may assume, I think, that none but an enthusiast, a circlesquarer, or a maniac will try to find either the centre of
space or one of its limits.
Next, I ask, will the theologian find for me the middle,
the last, or the first moment (or any other unit of time) in
eternal duration? I need not press this either, since all
must see its absurdity as soon as it is fairly propounded.
But why cannot my demands be met ? The reason is,
Space has no centre, no limit; Time or duration no begin
ning, no end. We cannot conceive that, though we travelled
in one direction for ever, we should ever come to a spot
beyond which there was no space, or that we should be any
nearer its limit than we now are. It is the same with time
or duration; there never was a first moment, there never
can be a last.
Well, is it not equally absurd to speak of a First Cause
and a First Moment? There were former moments and
former causes; but a first is inconceivable in either case.
Had theologians set up a First Moment in capital letters,
thrown round it an air of mystery, and spoken of it with
�14
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
bated breath, it would have been worshipped ; temples and
churches would have started up by thousands, and the priest
hood would have grown rich upon devotion’s offerings ;
gushing songs would have been composed to the Great First
Moment, the Fount of Eternity, the Source of Being, and
the Ever-adorable Mystery ! I am afraid it is too late now ;
but had theologians begun in time, the Great First Moment
would have brought them a world of wealth and influence.
They have accomplished their purpose, however, by invent
ing and parading their Great First Cause, a fiction equally
absurd with the Great First Moment.
The bewilderment of the theologian is really one of the
most amusing features in the history of our race. He can
not account for the succession of events, or of causes and
effects, as he sees them occurring around him ; so he
deliberately concludes that there must have been a Great
First Cause, and this hypothesis seems to content him. But
sober reason can never rest in such an assumption; for (i)
Why suppose a First Cause ? The sole reason is to account
for phenomena you cannot otherwise explain, and which
you think are explained by your assumption. Really, then,
the First Cause is but a phrase invented to hide human
ignorance, a mere fiction to save appearances, and to keep
men from confessing frankly that they do not know what lies
beyond the circle of their knowledge. (2) But it won’t
serve them. To say there is a First Cause is equivalent to
the confession, “ I don’t know anything at all about the
matter, and am too idle to inquire further.” To assume the
existence of a First Cause certainly does shift the difficulty
one degree farther back, and affords a fictitious explanation
of Nature’s phenomena ; but it is not logical. A is a
mystery you wish to explain ; B explains it ; but what ex
plains B? C will do it. True; but can we stop at C?
“ Yes, if we call it the First Cause,” say you. But how
can you know that D does not precede it ?
Besides, as all must admit, if there really is a First Cause,
the mystery of its existence must be far deeper than that of
all other existences combined. It is not philosophical to
explain a phenomenon by something still more inexplicable ;
to attempt it only deepens the mystery. What then must
be said of thè attempt to explain an inexplicable chain of
causes and effects by the assumption of a great First Cause,
which is infinitely more inexplicable still ? The attempt
may be the result of credulity and ignorance ; most certainly
�logic never led people to it. The mind can no more rest
upon a so-called First Cause than it could on a pre
tended First Moment; in each case it demands what pre
ceded the one, and what caused the other. This difficulty
is not obviated by calling the fiction God, or printing it in
capitals ; investigation may be. forbidden for a time, but at
length the human mind demands a sight of your First
Cause, walks round, and finds an unexplored region at the
back of it. Once tell us how your First Cause rose without
a prior cause, and you will teach us to dispense with all
causes-, for if the infinite First Cause holds his being without
cause, surely the finite phenomena of nature may be allowed
a similar privilege.
Besides, if the infinite is without cause, why look for
cause and effect anywhere ? The doctrine is exploded if
theologians are correct; and thus, in the discovery of
the First Cause they demonstrate that no cause was needed,
and they and their system fall together in the very success of
their undertaking. If the doctrine of cause and effect be
true, every cause must be the effect of some prior cause ; if
they find a cause that is not an effect, an uncaused cause,
the doctrine they start with cannot be true; and thus success
in either direction is destructive of their position. If the
doctrine of cause and. effect be true, no First Cause is
possible ; if it is not true no such cause is required. Let them
take which horn they please.
III.
If Theists find no support from the Design Argument,
and if their First Cause is shown to be a very late effect
—of ignorance, what have they else to rest their faith
upon ? There is one more refuge to which they may run,
but it it can prove nothing but a temporary shelter, for the
pitiless “hail” of modern thought “shall sweep away the
refuge of lies, and the water ” of common sense “ shall
overflow the hiding-place.” The case of orthodoxy, whether
we begin at one end or the other, needs but to be stated in
plain words to be refuted. Not willing to ascribe any
inherent power to what is known and familiar to everybody,
they credulously credit some totally unknown substance
with all possible power, and assign to it the task of impart
ing to matter all its attributes and qualities. It is
impossible, say they, that “blind,” “dead ” matter should
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
move itself, and assume all the beautiful and wonderful
forms we see. The world could not have made itself; there
are to be seen in it beauty, splendour, intelligence; these
could not have originated in mere matter; they must have
been bestowed by a being who himself possesses
them.” All this is specious but hollow, prime faith but
not logic.
Is matter so “dead” and “blind” a thing as they
represent ? Do not divines discredit matter to enhance the
greatness of their fictitious deity ? Those who divest their
minds of prejudice find in matter food for ceaseless wonder ;
and it is quite gratuitous to tell us matter cannot think, feel,
&c. How do you know? Matter has shown such mar
vellous properties, single and combined, that he must be
reckless who will venture to say that he knows all its attri
butes. The facts of nature—the glowing of suns, the
ceaseless revolutions of planets, the endless currents in the
air and sea, the ever changing face of the sky, the resur
rection in spring, the marvels of vegetation and animal
life—all proclaim the power of matter, and rebuke the
ignorance of those who call it “blind” and “dead.”
What! a thing that is in eternal flux, ever changing into
shapes and motions more enchanting than all romances
—this thing “ dead ” and “ blind ” ! Because its mode of
life is different from yours, dare you say it does not live at
all ? Because it sees not as you do through lenses, does it
therefore not see at all? In sooth, you are fine judges of
such profound mysteries !
We see the magnet attract steel; we see chemical action
day by day; we observe the mutual attraction of the earth
and bodies near its surface; this experience is our sole
reason for supposing that the magnet and the earth do at
tract, that elements possess chemical cohesion. In orga
nised bodies, on the other hand, we see all the phenomena
of what we are pleased to call “ life,” and in the higher
ones of intelligence. Why ascribe magnetism to that piece
of soft iron, if you won’t ascribe life to the tree or the man ?
The magnetism is an essential attribute of the magnet, the
life is such of the man. Why suppose there is a living
being who bestows the life, unless you also assume a mag
netic being to bestow the magnetism? Really orthodox
talk on this subject is mere trifling. They say that a being
cannot bestow an attribute itself does not possess. Very
well; if that be so, their God must be a curiosity.
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
17
Let us suppose that they are correct; then their God
must have had, in his own person, all the qualities now pos
sessed by all matter—weight, size, colour, shape, taste,
odour, extension—he must be solid, liquid, and gaseous;
freezing, boiling, burning ; must be magnetic and non-inagnetic, gravitating, attracting, repelling; must be both resting
and moving, living and dead, blind and seeing, intelligent
and foolish, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, rough and
smooth, etc. These are but a few of the qualities we
observe around us, they must be native or imported, belong
ing essentially to matter, or else imparted by some other
substance which possessed them all before. The Deist
may .charge me with trifling and flippancy; but I am merely
delivering his own doctrines, and trying as bestaI can to
show their real absurdity.
IV.
I do not think logic or common sense requires more than
is given above, but orthodoxy is so slippery, so protean in
its shapes; so unscrupulous, so plausible, and gifted with
such astonishing powers of turning and twisting, that I feel
impelled to track it into another region still. The best way
to deal with divines is to admit (for argument’s sake) their
fundamental principles or assumptions, and then proceed to
show their logical consequences. Now, the orthodox
assure us that there exists a being whose nature is infinite,
whose presence is everywhere; and these terms they use in
their absolute or unlimited sense—at least they did in my
orthodox days. Be it so, then ; there is one infinite being;
he must have or must be an infinite substance, no matter
what that substance may be. Now every substance or
being must necessarily occupy some space, since no real
being can exist which is not more or less extended; and
every being must fill space exactly commensurate with itself;
indeed, we have no means of ascertaining or conceiving
the size of anything except by ascertaining or conceiving the
quantity of space it fills, that is, its extension in one, two,
or three directions.
If the above be correct, an infinite being cannot occupy
less than infinite space; all possible space must be so full of
it that nothing more could be introduced anywhere; for if
there be but space enough left for the insertion of one
atom, molecule, or the smallest possible division of sub
�Io
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
stance, the being we are supposing must be less than
infinite, which is contrary to the hypothesis. Now since
an infinite being fills by itself or by its own substance all
possible space, there can be no space left to be occupied by
any other being or substance whatsoever, and thus we are
inevitably led to the interesting discovery that there is no
existence, no being, except the infinite one; that the ortho
dox God is alone, is everything, that nothing but itself
exists or can exist, for there is no unoccupied space for it to
fill. The divine, therefore, is reduced to this dilemma;
either he must give up his infinite substance or all other
substances ; he must renounce his God, or deny existence
to Nature, including himself. If we say that it is past
denying that we and other beings do really exist, and that we
occupy space commensurate with our substance—that being
so, we occupy some, of that space which an infinite being
must have occupied if he had existed; therefore no infinite
being exists. There is but one refuge for the divine from
this conclusion, namely^ to say that all Nature is but a part
of God; though I do not suppose that any one will per
manently abide in such a mental condition.
But let us allow the theologian his infinite God, and
doing so, let us analyse the conception. An infinite God 1
Such a being must be an absolute WzT, for all space must be
filled to its utmost capacity by its substance. It must also
be immovable. It would take infinite time for an infinite
being to move, no matter at what rate he did it. In an
absolute solid there can be no internal motion ; in an infinite
being ho external motion is possible, for there is no space
except what it already fills absolutely. Such a being could
not feel, think, will, or act in any way; for it would take a
whole eternity for a throb to pass through it The think
ing faculty or apparatus must be either located in a par
ticular part, or else diffused through the whole; in either
case thought would be impossible, except only a mere part
of the being thought. There is no act, mental or physical,
possible to any being butwhat takes time in its performance,
and the said time must bear a certain ratio to the size,
structure, organisation, or nature of that being. An infinite
one, therefore, could not perform the most simple or ele
mentary action without spending eternity in doing it, even
on the supposition that it could do it at all.
An infinite God, then, must be helpless, thought-less,
motionless; as void of sense as a block of marble. The
�few
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
19
conception is a conglomeration of the wildest absurdities;
nay, it is not a conception, since none ever conceived it—
it would take eternity to do so. The word God, as used
by Pagans, generally meant something; in orthodoxy it
stands for nought, a label covering the very darkest corner
of the human mind, a word without meaning, a symbol
symbolising nothing.
.
.
It is idle for the divines to appeal to spirit; for an infinite
spirit must be a substance of some kind, and must fill
infinite space, and must be infinitely powerless. Besides,
What is spirit? “Breath, wind,” say I. “Nay,” replies
the theologian, “ it is something more refined; it has no
weight, shape, colour, taste, smell, or sound.”. Exactly so;
it is abstract. To find spirit I give the following receipt:
Take a man, remove his physical being—all that you can
weigh, touch, taste, smell, see, or burn—in a word, all that
is material. Next remove from him all that you can possibly
conceive; persevere and exhaust the subject completely.
Well, all that is left is spirit. Yes; that imponderable, im
measurable, intangible, inodorous, invisible, tasteless, sound
less, and inconceivable nothing—this purest of abstractions—
is the spirit or soul. The believer is heartily welcome to his
■ “find.” If his God is a spirit, we can only say, as Paul
said of other Gods : “ Now we know that an idol is nothing
in the world,” or, in the language of Jesus, we may say to
the most devout: “ Ye worship ye know not what ”—in fact,
Nothing.
If I am not vastly-deceived, on all lines of intellectual
inquiry, the orthodox belief leads inevitably to absurdity. I
shall be glad to be corrected if I am in error, .and if some
one who is able will take the trouble to grind my notions to
powder, I shall take it as a favour. I hate wrong ideas;
they are amongst the foremost of human evils. Will some
one, therefore, do his best to enlighten me, as I am sincerely
trying to enlighten others ?
&
jL-
§
V.
I am not sufficiently vain to suppose that what I have
written previously on this subject has been exhaustive; I
have merely touched some of the more important intel
lectual difficulties that surround and interpenetrate the
Theistic position, and have endeavoured to show howabsurd is the orthodox belief. Just now I shall turn from
3
�20
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
the purely intellectual aspects of the subject and point out
a few of the Moral difficulties which meet the Theist__ diffi
culties he either ignores or explains in a very unsatisfactory
way.
J
The Theist proclaims a God who is infinitely good—
goodness itself, in fact ; whose “ tender mercies are over all
nis works, who is Humanity’s Great Father, and whose
nature is Love. Now all this might have continued undis
turbed in the world’s creed, if, unfortunately, the facts of
every-day life did not ceaselessly protest against such false
doctrines.
If infinite goodness really existed, such a thing as evil
would be impossible. I suppose no one will deny the
existence of evil; even the most thorough optimist must
sometimes be in doubt as to the correctness of his creed,
except he be too stupid to reflect. A fit of the gout,
sciatica, or a cancer would, I should suppose, convert the
most devout optimist into something more or less rational.
In the esteem of most men both physical and moral evils
exist in far too great plenty. Let us therefore reflect, i. If
I had the power I would remove every evil out of nature
and leave only what is useful and good. This I cannot
do for lack of ability. Give me the power and I will under
take the task. But if I have the power to remove one evil
and don t do it, you have the best of reasons for saying that
I am not so good as I should be. Now the orthodox
preach a God who, they solemnly assure us, is infinite in
being and in all his attributes j his power and knowledge
are absolutely infinite, and his goodness equal to either.
But this muet.be false, for such-a being could never have
suffered to exist any evil whatever, even for one moment.
A being infinitely good must will the existence of nothing
but good ; if he has all power and knowledge these must be
subservient to his will—if he be sane. But evils do exist:
these are the result (i) of his design or arrangement, for
nothing could slip in unawares to him; or (2) he had not
power to prevent nor is able now to destroy them ; or (3) he
is careless about their existence, and so does not wish them
to be destroyed; or (4) he desires their existence, and
actively favours their continuance. Which of these hypo
theses is correct ? No matter which , any one of the four
is. fatal to orthodoxy. If he arranged for evils in the
original creation, or introduced them subsequently, he must
himself be evil in the direct ratio of his knowledge and
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
21
power; that is, on orthodox showing, he must be infinitely
evil, for he is infinitely knowing and able. Did a being of
boundless power and knowledge create evils, or create
materials and forces that in their “ workings ” must evolve
evils? The orthodox creed fairly implies this, though
believers shrink from its open and blank avowal. So be it—
the conclusion is inevitable, that he who made Nature, sup
posing it ever was made, and had full knowledge of what
he did, must be solely responsible for all that Nature
evolves.
Evils and goods are equally his offspring, not
begotten by momentary impulse, but after an eternity’s
(aparte ante) deliberation. But herein lies a contradiction;
goods and evils, or in the abstract, good and evil, are
diametrically opposed and incompatible. Therefore, an
infinite being could not will both goods and evils, except
alternately; and in that case they could not exist simulta
neously, for infinite power would instantly execute any wish
such a being might have ; the moment he willed evils goods
would cease, and vice versa. If the orthodox prefer to
suppose a God who wills both goods and evils simulta
neously, I will not at present contend with such an
absurdity.
Again, no Theist would aver that evils crept into Nature
or sprang up in its midst without his God’s knowledge or
power to prevent, as that would involve the conception of
ignorance or weakness. Nor could the orthodox suppose
that he without whom “ a sparrow falleth not,” and who
“ numbereth the very hairs of your head,” could be careless
of the existence of evils—that would un-God the deity at
once. Lastly, to suppose the creator and ruler of Nature
to desire the existence of evils, argues such a wicked or
malicious state of mind as really to shock the most callous
dogmatist in the world. What, therefore, can the Theist
say? Evils exist. How can he hold the doctrine of an
infinitely good, powerful, and wise God, with these un
deniable facts so constantly around him ?
Of course, most believers resort to the fiction of a future
life, and thus create a Utopian world to redress the wrongs
of this ; but that does not explain, it merely evades the
difficulty. For the question is, not the continuance or
redress of evils, but their existence. If the Theist could
prove that evils existed but for one moment, he would still
have to reconcile their existence with his God-theory—the
length of time is quite another affair. If, again, the believer
�22
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
could demonstrate that all evils would be redressed and
fully compensated, either here or hereafter, still that leaves
the real point untouched; for the question is, How does he
reconcile the existence of infinite goodness with the exist
ence of evils? Compensation may make amends, it never
can undo. Evils exist and the children of men groan
under them. Bitter are the tears that daily run down
sorrow s cheeks ; deep are the pangs and woes of humanity.
What ! can they be compensated ? Never. An eternity of
unmitigated bliss would not obliterate the furrows ploughed
by some woes that last but for an hour ■ if it could, what
of the existence of the evil, no matter how short its life ?
/ It seems to me beyond dispute that logic and common
/sense require the Theist to prove that no evil exists or ever
( did, or else give up his belief in an infinitely good God.
To talk of his “ permission ” of evil for wise but mysterious
reasons is mere shuffling. He who “permits” a known
evil he has power to destroy or prevent is so far guilty of
wrong ■ but with an Almighty God, to “ permit ” is to do,
since there is no power but his existing, and hence the evil
that results from his so-called “ permission ” is as actively
produced by him as any other thing he ever effects. When
man “permits ” he merely declines to check the operation
of certain forces not his own; when Almightiness “permits ”
he as actively works as he ever does.
Besides, it is sheer assumption to affirm that the unknown
purposes of the deity are wise. We can never know that a
man is wise except from his words and deeds : he whose
words and deeds are best we regard as the wisest. Now we
can read the character of God only in his deeds, for his
voice we never hear. It is only those works that strike us
as wise that can argue the wisdom of the designer of
nature and its ruler. If some of his deeds are wise, others
very doubtful, and others exceedingly unwise, tested by our
own and our only standard, we can but conclude that his
character is similarly mixed, uncertain, or heterogenous,
rv Theist will, prove the existence and perfect wisdom
of his deity by independent means, then we will readily
ajdmit that we have the best of reasons for supposing even
the most perplexing and staggering processes of nature are all
wise and good, only at present we are too ignorant to com
prehend how they are so. But the Theist first proves the
existence of his God from these very processes of nature, and
then argues the absolute perfection of his character from
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
23
the same data; whereas nature merely presents evidence of
an imperfect, unwise, weak, and very evil-disposed or else
unfortunate deity. To argue perfection of character fromimperfect works; absolute goodness from a mixture of
goods and evils, in which the latter predominate; and;
infinite wisdom from a course of action in which wisdom;
and folly are freely mingled, is to ignore logic and to per-|
petrate an outrage upon common sense. And that the1
“constitution and course of Nature” do exhibit evils andt
goods, and at least as much folly as wisdom, none can!
intelligently deny.
■
’
On the whole I cannot avoid the conclusion that the
Theistic belief in a being of infinite goodness is entirely at
variance with the evidence. There is not, so far as I am
aware, a single fact or logical argument to support it; while
on the other hand, we know for certainty that infinite good
ness does not exist, for if it did, evils would be impossible.
What should we say in reply to one who asserted the theory
of an infinite light ? The only reply necessary would be to
point to one dark corner ! this would at once destroy the
hypothesis. Just so the existence of one evil is sufficient to
destroy all rational belief in infinite goodness. It is surely
time for the orthodox, if they wish to escape universal scorn,
to bethink themselves, and furnish some reasonable basis
for their faith; So far they have done nothing of the kind;
their whole creed is subjective, a genuine picture of their
own imagination, but as destitute of objective reality as
witchcraft or astrology.
But I shall be told, perhaps, that to destroy the belief in
a God is to annihilate the very basis and sanctions of
morality ! There are people, by no means insane, who' still
use this bugbear to frighten people into the orthodox fold.
It is curious to note how in every proposed change, the
timid and the designing raise the silly cry that reformers
are opening the floodgates, bursting the bonds of society,
and otherwise ruining the world! Alas ! how often this
world has been ruined by reformers, inventors, discoverers,
and others. I suggest that the theologian should go a step
further, and declare roundly that, without belief in a God
men would not know how to make boots, to till the ground,
to eat or drink, to build houses, and so forth. This would
be no more absurd than their cry about morality. I once
heard a man in serious debate affirm that we should have no
era to reckon the flight of time from, but for Christ! This
�24
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
I heard myself, and I was the unfortunate being who had to
reply to it. I further heard once of a monarchist who
solemnly assured a republican, that if we abolished the
present form of government we could have no current
money ! “ for,” he queried, with invincible logic, “ whose
head could we put upon the coins but the queen’s ? ”
Many believers are astonished when you tell them that
morality, like science, art, money, manners, language, etc.,
is a purely social growth or production, in fact, no more
divine than the art and weapons of war, or the skill and
weapons of the poisoner. And yet it would be quite as
easy to prove that money came from heaven as to prove
that morality did. It is not my intention at present to go
into the abstract question of morality, nor shall I attempt a
philosophy of ethics; I shall merely show that the Theist
has no monopoly of morality, that his theory respecting it is
.incorrect, and that, whencesoever its sanctions may be drawn,
they do not arise from theology. Let us see:
I. The Bible is held by a very large number of European
Theists to be a book inspired by God, and a sufficient moral
and a religious guide for man. I say they hold these doc
trines, that is, have them in their creeds and formulas, but
the best of them in real life, ignore the Bible, and walk by
higher rules than it contains. As to the divine origin of
the Bible, that has never been proved; the so-called evi
dence is unsatisfactory in the highest degree; and it would
be nothing less than a calamity if such a book could be
proved to have had any higher origin than other ancient
works. It contains the silliest of stories—told, too, with all
solemnity—the worst morality in the world; and we are
assured it is all divine. Its precepts the churches them
selves never think of obeying; its examples they dare not
follow, while large portions of it shock and horrify all
civilised persons. The best morality of the Bible is common
place enough, though paraded with such solemnity as to
impose upon many tolerably enlightened people. The
Bible is certainly not the source, nor can it ever be the
standard of the world’s Morality.
Let us next see if the Theist can draw lessons or
elements of morality from Nature. I speak now of Nature
apart from society, and I roundly affirm that Nature knows
nought of morality, nor do ethics enter at all into her
processes.
i. All through Nature the strong oppresses and eats up
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
25
the weak, and the life of one being involves the destruction
of another, often of thousands daily. This is not morality,
and if done by the arrangement, or even connivance, of a
being able to have prevented it, it must be characterised as
monstrous iniquity.
2. Nature nowhere, in no way, manifests government.
An overruling Providence finds a place in creeds—that is,
in the fictions of the churches; but it exists nowhere else.
Consider these few undeniable facts: (i) Nature has never
yet been able to distinguish, in the very simplest cases,
between right and wrong, crime and accident, sin and mis
fortune. For example—if a man jump down a precipice he
is dashed to pieces—perhaps he deserves it; but if he should
accidentally fall down he suffers to precisely the same
extent; yes,-if he is wilfully flung down by murderers, it is
all the same in the end. Is that justice? Let us compare.
A jumps wilfully off a house and is killed; B accidentally
falls off, and meets the same fate; C is flung off by his
enemies, and is also killed. The three bodies are taken
before a coroner, and the jury, after being made acquainted
with all the facts of each case, return the same verdict for
all three. What should we say if they pleaded that, whereas
A, B, and C did all come by their deaths by too precipitate
a descent from the top of the house, therefore A, B, and C
all alike deserved the fate they met ? Such a verdict and
defence of it would involve about equal quantities of truth,
absurdity, and injustice. But Nature would justify that
stupid jury, and they might plead in self-defence that,
whereas the three died in consequence of their respective
falls, it was evident that Nature regarded them as equally
guilty, and they did not in the least desire to improve upon
the ways of Nature. Now, if Nature must be taken as the
exponent of deity, we can only conclude that deity cannot
distinguish between right and wrong, for in the course of
Nature, by which he governs (?) the sentient beings of this
world, he treats accidents, mistakes, and the greatest mis
fortunes as if they were the greatest crimes, and oftener
inflicts pain upon the innocent than upon the guilty.
(2) Further, if Nature teaches anything in the cases just
supposed, it teaches that murder is an innocent deed, if not
a commendable one; for, while the three who are the sub
jects of accident, suicide, and crime are killed summarily
by the forces of Nature, those who murdered the one not
only survive him, but possibly, as often happens, actually
�26
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
enjoy property and pleasures that honestly • belonged to
their victim. And it must not be forgotten that all natural
forces are, ifTheists speak truth, forces of God; in fact,
mere results of his own will.
This is a point so often ignored that I must spend another
sentence or two upon it to impress it on the reader’s mind.
All that is was created, so Theists say, by an Almighty and
otherwise Infinite God. That being so, the forces of Nature
are such only by derivation, nay, not derivation even—they
are merely the power or powers of God himself, exhibited
under certain circumstances or conditions. Now all natural
processes must be nothing more than actions of deity—he
does all that is done—if the premises of Theism are correct.
This being so, the destructive processes of Nature, and
those that give pain, are actions of God equally with those
which evolve new life or mantle the face of man with,
pleasure. If all this is true, we have in Nature a clear,
constant, and truthful exponent of God’s moral character;
and what a character ! Justice and wisdom are entirely
absent. Indeed, you look in vain to Nature, that is (in
directly) to God, for any one of those qualities esteemed
among men, while many of those society everywhere punishes
are very painfully and palpably present.
(3) To pursue this somewhat further, we may look for a
few moments at some of the frightful evils that have and
still do curse the world :
In an earthquake, a flood, or a storm, we see the deity
roused to fury and venting his rage indiscriminately upon
all who happen to be within reach. Not one of the victims
deserves such treatment, as far as we know; certainly the
infants don’t; yet they are ground to powder, drowned or
otherwise killed, as if they were the greatest offenders. . Is
that government ? and moral government ? The Turkish
manner of ruling Bulgaria was a trifle to this !
Again, how deaf the deity is to cries and prayers ! In
railway collisions, falls of bridges, shipwrecks, and other
catastrophes, you may call, no matter how passionately, to
the ruler of Nature.
He no more attends you than does
the wind, the wave, the iron, the rocks that surround you.
He might help without the smallest trouble or inconveni
ence, for he knows all, he hears all, is ever present, and has
almighty power— so Theists say. A man who will not help
when he sees calamity fall upon his fellows, is next to a
murderer, and is justly execrated. Yet he may plead some
�PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
27
seeming or partial excuses. What could we say, if we were
certain there really existed a God who could look coolly on
in the direst calamity that ever befals men ? The thought
is so sickening I dare not dwell upon it. .Yet that is only
one part of the subject. Human calamity! It is all planned
and executed by the deity; no wonder he does not move to
the rescue. And what does he, can he gain ? It is all for
nought! The devil is said to torment for his pleasure;
not so the Almighty—he can never want a pleasure.
There have been millions of occasions in the world’s
history when the worst government worthy of the name must
have interposed to prevent or remedy mischiefs among its
subjects. What priesthood ever existed that did not speak
and act in the name, and professedly by the authority
of God, the Great Ruler ? Where was that ruler when
Moses and Joshua perpetrated such horrible villanies in his
name? Where was he.when the Pope and the Inquisition
were perpetrating horrid lies in his name, and burning Jews
and heretics for his pleasure ? Did he ever interpose to
prevent or close a war, or famine, or pestilence ? When ?
One case stands out in glaring colours as I sweep the
horizon of the world’s history. A company of fanatics or
knaves concocted a scheme for conveying letters to the
Virgin. Mary in heaven. It was the Feast of the Immaculate
Conception, and the church of La Compania, in Santiago,
Chili, was crammed with 2,000 women, deceived in the name
of Deity, and panting to communicate with the Mother of
God. Thousands of lamps lit up the temple, and thousands
of yards of muslin festooned the place. Suddenly rose the
flames, and played in horrid sport along the drapery. There
is a panic, wild and horrible ! a stampede for the doors,
which are soon choked with quivering, dying humanity, and
all exit is stopped. The ceiling catches fire, and streams
of molten lead pour down upon their living flesh ! The
paraffin lamps burst in the heat, and shower down their
contents in sheets and jets and wreaths of fire !
What an opportunity for a God ! Where was he that he
missed it! The people across the street could look through
the church windows and see the agonised victims running
to and fro in that hell, wringing their hands, and calling
upon men, and angels, and God, to save them. Not a
person who saw that sight—except Ugarte, the fiend-priest,
who saved the Virgin’s image and his own carcase, while he
left the women to seethe and burn—except him, no other
�28
PHILOSOPHIC ATHEISM.
being in the universe would have hesitated to risk his own
life to snatch one of those women from perdition ! But
Theist, where was your God? Your great ruler of the
world ? Your Father which is in heaven and everywhere ?
Whose tender mercies are over all his works? Did he
know ? Was he by ? O, Sir ! you are the blasphemers,
not we
You invent a God and give him all power, make
him all-knowing, and invest him with absolute and bound
less rule—then you write history, every page of which
proclaims your deity an infinite fiend! Sir, burn your
creed, or destroy history! Confess your errors, or else
reconcile the course of the world with the character of your
God ! At present you outrage our best sentiments. Be
ashamed and blush ! Your Bible tells us your God at one
time could so far demean himself as to order Aaron a bran
new suit of holiday clothes, giving minute directions for
every article, even to the pantaloons ! At another time he
stood or sat in stolid indifference, watching the agony of
2000 burning women deceived in his name, whose bodies
were roasting in 7zA own fire—for that fire would not have
burned had he not supplied the power.
I might pursue this subject, but there is no need. I do
not pretend to understand Nature; glimpses and broken
gleams of truth are all that fall to my share. But what little
I do know is all in favour of Atheism. The best light I
have leads up that path; the purest and noblest feelings of
my nature make me shudder at the God-conception—
yea ! even for its own sake. I cannot endure the thought that
any being exists so great and so wicked as the ordinary
orthodox God. The conception is altogether monstrous,
unnecessary, and full of mischief; for the history of Godism
is also the record of the densest ignorance, the worst folly,
the deepest degradation, and the foulest crimes of our most
unfortunate and bewildered race.
�THE
METHODIST
CONFERENCE
AND
ETERNAL PUNISHMENT:
Do its Defenders Believe the Doctrine ?
By J. SYMES, formerly Wesleyan Minister.
HOSPITALS
and
3d.
DISPENSARIES,
Are they of Christian Growth ?
By J. SYMES,
id.
MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE,
Or Man an Animal amongst Animals.
By J. SYMES.
4<1-
�VERY CHEAP REMAINDERS.
THE
GOLDEN LIBRARY SERIES.
All New, Handsomely Bound, and Uncut.
REDUCED to Is. 3d. each.
If sent by Post 3d. extra.
Bayard Taylor’s Diversions Leigh Hunt’s Essays: A
of the Echo Club.
Tale for a Chimney Corner, and
other Pieces. With Portrait,
The Book of Clerical Anec
and Introduction by Edmund
dotes.
Ollier.
Mallory’s (Sir Thos.) Mort
Byron’s Don Juan.
d’Arthur : The Stories of King
Arthur and of the Knights of the
Emerson’s
Letters
and
Round Table.
Edited by B.
Social Aims.
Montgomerie Ranking.
Godwin’s (William) Lives Pascal’s Provincial Letters.
of the Necromancers.
A New Translation, with
Historical Introduction and
Notes, by T. M‘Crie, D.D.,
Holmes’s Professor at the
LL.D.
Breakfast Table.
Pope’s Complete Poetical
Works.
Hood’s Whims and Oddities.
Complete. With all the Origi Rochefoucauld ’s
Maxims
nal Illustrations.
and Moral Reflections. With
Notes, and an Introductory
Irving’s (Washington) Tales
Essay by Sainte-Beuve .
of a Traveller.
St. Pierre^ Paul and Vir
ginia, and the Indian Cottage.
Irving’s (Washington) Tales
Edited, with Life, by the Rev.
of the Alhambra.
E. Clarke.
Jesse’s (Edward) Scenes and Lamb’s Essays of Elia. Both
Occupations of Country Life.
Series Complete in One Volume.
“A series of excellently printed and carefully annotated volumes, handy
in size, and altogether attractive.”—Bookseller.
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Philosophic atheism : a bundle of fragments
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 28, 4 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements on two unnumbered pages at the end. Marginal markings in red pencil. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1879]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1778
N633
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Philosophic atheism : a bundle of fragments), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/41ddba7f8bd061e132faa678909c65a2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Blz3hGE12foX%7EvgJrnQ00L0nQPRc%7EAt6JUPvdrvKaX5JCKKCZ4mcZIYFFeOO1NjxlrnB2hdKfa8ZBdnHoyfogAIJlrq5IeqBD31MpT3gy2IRo5R-3jvygMmJgggh84B3bKeiWSQPq%7EbR62EhyFDIJ9nV68XVPx0MWEfsWITZBgUJBBHKxybAQaJBKhGPclR8X-t91MAlS-Aw9%7Ee1Skzleos4ejfhzGcvp6q7DIMKNWGFoMrDNyHpTOqXpJMQnzDUjfVNAElt2M-DHJz0QHAyaj2JB0lBLlRqyZC91JgNDXKuS3aE-HUSvGcn6PKwtJNlUbM5R5S6RgXr594qtYW2HA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fc7f1688aeec4e0f2375401825e4367f
PDF Text
Text
S'txOASié3l
MORE RATIONAL?
DISOtrSSION
I
BETWEEN
4
Mr. JOSEPH SYMES
GEORGE
■ ♦
LONDON :
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET
E.C.
�H
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
... .IS ATHEISM OR THEISM THE MORE
RATIONAL!
LETTER I.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Some weeks ago, Mr. St. Clair delivered a discourse in Bir
mingham on “ The Folly of Atheism.” When informed
thereof, I wrote to that gentleman, respectfully inviting him
to a public oral debate on the question now at the head of
this letter. This he courteously declined, but suggested a
written discussion instead. It now falls to my lot to furnish
the first of. twelve letters,, six by each disputant, to appear
alternately at intervals of not more than a fortnight. Mr.
Bradlaugh deserves our best thanks for'So readily opening
the columns of the National Reformer for this discussion.
Without any “ beating about the bush,” I shall at once
proceed to show why I regard Atheism as being more
rational than Theism. Theism is belief in a God, or deus,
or theos. Atheism is the absence of that belief, with the
general implication, as I apprehend, that the individual
destitute of that belief has done his best to weigh the merits
of conflicting theories, to sift the Theistic evidence, and has
logically concluded that Theism is irrational.
Atheism, requires no direct evidence, nor is it susceptible
of "it. It is arrived at,^n the most logical fashion, by a
course of destructive criticism applied to the God-theorjt.
This theory, when fairly examined, crumbles to dust, and
then evaporates, leaving the investigator without a Godiiand
without belief in one.
As I desire this contest to be definite, earnest, and real,
1 will state my objections to Theism plainly and fairly,
'so jthat my opponent may have the best opportunity of
refuting them. And let it be borne in mind that to state
valid objections to Theism is to put forward equally valid
reasons in favor ofAtheism. Now, as Theistic arguments
usually- take two forms, the intellectual and the moral; as
�4
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
Theism is as much an assertion of or belief in God’s moral
attributes as in his natural attributes or in his bare existence,
I cannot be straying from the subject in discussing the
moral aspects of the question. To show that the moral
attributes of God are fictions will go very far indeed towards
refuting Theism and justifying Atheism. The following
questions will covey most of the ground :—
I. Does there «Assist an infinitely good God ?
II. Does there exist an infinite God whose goodness
exceeds his evilness ?
III. Does there exist an infinitely wise God ?
IV. Does there exist an infinite God whose wisdom exceeds
his folly ?
V. Does there exist a God of absolutely unlimited power?
VI. Does there exist a God whose power exceeds his
weakness ?
VII. Does there exist a God who is in any sense infinite?
VIII. Does there exist any God at all ?
I. The first question, Does there exist an inhnitelugood God?
may be dismissed without any discussion ; for infinite good
ness would render all evil for ever impossible. Infinite
goodness could produce nothing less than infinite good.
Evil, if existent, must limit goodness ; evil does exist; there
fore infinite goodness does not.
II. Does there exist an infinite God whose goodness exceeds
his evilness ? I am sorry to have to use so uncouth a word
as “ evilness,” but I have no other that will so well express
my meaning.
1. It is generally held among Theists that an Infinite God
created all other things. If so, what motive could have
prompted the act ? That motive could not have been an
■exterior one. From the nature of the hypothesisJLit musthave been one confined solely to himself, arising from his
own unrestrained, uninfluenced desires. In a word, he must
ha^made the universe for his own sake, his own ends, his
own pleasure.
Now a being who accomplishes his own pleasure or profit
by or through the pleasure or profit of others, and no ptherwise, must be pronounced just and benevolent. But he who
gains his own ends irrespective of the rights, the profit,
and the pleasure of others, is selfish. He who sends others,
who are helplessly under his sway, on errands for his
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
5
personal advantage alone, and knowing they must suffer
excruciating pain and die in the undertaking, is a horrible
^Tr-is said that an infinite God created the universe, and peopled it with sentient beings. Those sen
tient beings, in the nature of the case, could not
be consulted beforehand: their life, organisation, circum
stances of all kinds were decided for Hem and imposed
upon them. And a being more good than evil would have
felt himself in honor and justice bound to provide for the
happiness of those creatures before giving them life while
a being more evil than good would have consulted his own
pleasure chiefly, if not entirely, and have cared little or
nothing for the happiness of his creatures. The last clause
seeems to me to describe, but partially only, the action of the
hypothetical God who is supposed to have created the uni
verse. For pain and misery have been the cruel lot of
his creatures from the remotest epoch to which geology
carries U8 back.
“The whole creation groaneth and
travaileth in pain together until now.” Want, disappoint
ment, bitter warfare, pain, and death are the normal con
dition of the universe as far as it is known. No natural
law has been more fully ascertained than this :—Life is an
endless strife; and each combatant must must kill or be
killed, must eat or be eaten. Another law is, That victor
and vanquished succumb to another foe and die, despite their
struggle for existence. These laws hold good not merely as
regards individuals: races also die out. And if there be
purpose and plan in nature it can only be such purpose and
plan as uses sentient beings for the pleasure of the creator,
who cai®s no more for their welfare than the worst of slave
owners does for his human chattels.
.
2. Nay! more. According to the creation hypothesis,
every pang endured by the creature must have been fore
seen and provided for beforehand. The man who invents
an infernal taachine, say Thomassen of Bremer Haven
notoriety, must be immensely less selfish than the creator
of the world. Thomassen had some want to supply,,^ome
sort of excuse for his awful deed. But an infinite and
eternal being is without excuse; and a being that does
wrong without excuse, knowing what he is doing, must be
actuated by pure malignity ; especially when, as is the case
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
of all creatures of this hypothetical God, his victims are
absolutely helpless:—they cannot resist him, cannot out
manoeuvre him, and can get no sort of redress for any wrong
they may suffer.
It may perhaps be safely laid down, that he is extremely
good, who does good according to his knowledge and power.
But he “ who know^th to do good and doeth it not, to him
it is sin.” An infinite God knows everything, and his
power is unlimited. Why does he not do good “ as he hath
opportunity ? ”
The only conceivable reason must be
that he is unwilling. He must therefore be extremely evil.
When to this is added the fact that he does immeasurable
evil to helpless beings, we shall at once perceive that the
Theistic object of worship must be totally evil; for even
the seeming good he does is done merely to please himself.
Even if the world contained as much good as evil, theft
would not prove the creator good, for reasons I have given.
But the existence of only one evil would legitimately raise
the suspicion that he was evil, because a moment’s effort on
his part would remove that evil and replace it by good.
But when we find that evil is inseparably mixed with the
universe; when we find that during all its ascertainable
history, and in every direction, at least as much evil as good
has prevailed, we cannot hesitate, except in deference to
old prejudices, to pronounce judgment to the -effect that the
world’s creator is the embodiment of selfishness and ma.bgnity, and destitute of any discoverable redeeming trait in
his character.
It is at present unnecessary to enlarge upon this subject.
But if the goodness of the hypothetical creator cannot
logically be maintained, and if the extreme contrary can be
p logically'and truthfully propounded, as I contend, the next
i question to be answered is,
I
III. Does there exist an infinitely wise God? This, too,
' must be examined and answered by the study of the facts of
Nature ; and it need not delay us longer than did the ques
tion of infinite goodness. If there were infinite wisdom^Mo
such things as fools and folly would exist. These are enor
mously plentiful; whence come they ? Wisdoniicannot
produce folly; a perfectly wise being could not produce a
fool. Some say the great majority of men are fools;
certain it is that large numbers are such. Who made them
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
7
so ? If there be a creator, he makes the philosopher and the
dolt, the mathematician and the idiot. No wise father
would have an idiot son, if he foresaw its possibility and
knew how to prevent it. Yet the great father, as people
call their deity, produces idiots by the score and fools by the ,
million. Infinite wisdom, therefore, is no better than a
myth, nor more accordant with known facts than the infalli
bility of the Pope.
Want of space compels me here to break off my argument abruptly, though I hope to resume it in my next.
LETTER IT.
From Mr. G. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
As I expect to find in Mr. Symes an honest and fair
opponent, I shall not require a definition of all the terms he
uses, but I may point out that if his definition of Atheism
is correct, we shall want some other word to set forth the
denial of God’s existence. Theism is belief in a God ; and,
according to Mr. Symes, Atheism is simply the absence of
that belief, and valid objections to Theism are equally
valid-reasons in favor of Atheism. I should have thought
this more accurately described Agnosticism than Theism;
but as I am equally opposed to both, perhaps it will not
matter. If the Deity is said by one person to be dead, and
by another to be dumb, I confute them both if I prove that
he speaks. It is only fair I should allow that one sentence
of Mr. Symes’s seems to separate the Atheist from the
Agnostic—the sentence, namely, which says that the Atheist
has logically concluded Theism to be irrational. The
Agnostic does not pretend to do that. At the same time
the question is here begged, or else the language is a little
loose, for, if I am right, no individual can logically conclude
that Theism is irrational, but can only come to such a
conclusion illogically.
I am prepared to prove the existence of an intelligent
Creator of man, and to defend his perfect goodness. I shall
not attempt to defend all the positions which Mr. Symes
sets out to assault. His eight questions, which he says will
cover most of the ground, would no doubt do so, and lead
�8
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
us into oceans of talk as well. I have no desire to meddle
much with the unfathomable and the incomprehensible, and
must decline to be drawn into a discussion of the infinite,
which I do not understand. Six questions out of Mr. Symes’s
eight concern the infinite ! They were, perhaps, prompted
by his idea of what I, as a believer in God, would be likely
to assert; for he says, “It is generally held among Theists
that an Infinite God created all other things.” When he
understands that I maintain a humbler thesis, perhaps he
will withdraw or modify some of these questions. I main
tain that there is an intelligent Creator of Man, against
whose perfect goodness nothing can be proved. If man has
a Creator, that Creator must be called God.; and if there
is a God, the evidence of whose action is to be seen in us
and about us, then Atheism is irrational. It is a larger
question whether God is infinite in all his attributes. It is
another question whether God created all things, matter
and its properties included. I am certainly not going to
maintain that every attribute of God is infinite ; for the
clue and the key to the mystery of evil are to be found in
limitation of power. Like John Stuart Mill, I conceive a
limit to Omnipotence, and that enables me to maintain God’s
perfect goodness. Or rather, I define omnipotence to be the
power of effecting all things which are possible, and I show
that some things are impossible to any worker, because they
involve mathematical or physical contradictions. When,
therefore, Mr. Symes advances to show that “ the moral
attributes of God are fictions,” I have an answer for him
which some Theists have not.
The first question of the eight is in the form, “ Does there
exist an infinitely good God ? ” and in the answer to it there
is a semblance of mathematical demonstration. But I
venture to think that the word “ infinite ” leads to a little
unconscious conjuring. I shall be satisfied to defend God’s
perfect goodness against all attacks. I will not say whether
the goodness is infinite, and what ought, to follow then; but
I calmly assert that the bare fact that “ evil does exist” is
no proof that perfect goodness does not. Mr. Symes con
cludes his demonstration with the Q. E. D. that “ therefore
infinite goodness does not.” I should be glad if he would'
come out of the unfathomable and tell me what he has to
show against perfect goodness. I admit that some evil exists
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
9
but limited evil for a limited time is quite consistent with
perfect goodness. It was consistent with goodness in the
case of a father I knew, who submitted his child to the
operation of tracheotomy in order to save its life. Limited
evil for a limited time is forced upon every child who is
kept to his lessons; and it argues no want of goodness
in the parent, but only a certain intractableness in things,
making it impossible to attain desired results except
by means and methods which may sometimes be a little
unpleasant. I feel myself at liberty to use these human
illustrations because I have left out the word “ infinite ” and
am considering the action of a Deity who creates and educates
man. The Iggfiitions of all work are similar, whether the
worker be human or divine.
Space exists, and matter exists. Mr. Symes must allow
that they can exist without having been created, because he
does not believe in a Creator at all. So far I am inclined
to agree with him that space and matter may always have
existed. But whether matter has been created or not is
of little importance in this discussion, if it be allowed
that without matter and space nothing could be made
and no processes could go on—that for instance there
could be no world like this and no human creatures to com
plain of its arrangements. In fact there could be no
arrangements, if there were nothing to arrange and no space
to arrange it in. The Creator is, we may say, bound to have
matter—whether created or uncreated—if he is to accom
plish anything at all. No blame, therefore, can attach to
him on account of the mere existence of matter. All
depends upon what use he will make of it. Now the mere
existence of matter implies certain properties, such as
extension and impenetrability. Further, nothing can be
done with matter without moving it, to bring its parts and
particles into new positions. But the motion of matter in
space is according to the laws of motion, which cannot well
be imagined to be different from what they are. Without
these laws of motion and properties of matter there could
be no universe and no human life, and no printing of this
discussion in the pages of the National, RefdjSffier. At the
same time the Worker, using these mean^and materials,
does his work under conditions which preclude certain results
as physically impossible, as for instance that there should be
�10
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
adjacent mountains without a valley ; and which sometimes
involve concomitant results which may not be wished for,
as when a sculptor chisels out a statue but makes a mess of
chippings ¿ha dust. The end desired is achieved, and more
than compensates for the temporary inconvenience. The
inconvenience is no accident and no surprise, but is foreseen
and deliberately accepted, on account of the good that shall
follow.
Seeing that I regard the matter in this way, many things
which Mr. Symes has said shoot wide of my position. I
am not obliged to consider what motive induced the Deity
to create the universe—whether it was an exterior motive
or one confined solely to himself. I maintain that he
Seated man. I allow that he must have found his own end
in doing it. I do not allow that he has done it regardless
of the good of his creatures: else creatures so logical
ought all to commit suicide at once. Mr. Symes defines
the Creator’s obligations to his creatures in a way which
ought to prevent most men from marrying and becoming
fathers. Because sentient creatures suffer pain and misery,
a good Being, he says—even a Being more good than evil—
would have refrained from creating them without consulting
them. The force or weakness of such an argument depends
very much upon the amount of pain and misery compared
with enjoyment, and very much upon the question whether
pain and misery are to be temporary or permanent. On
both points Mr. Symes holds a view which in my estimation
is not justified by the facts. He dwells on the struggle for
existence—which he describes as a law that each combatant
must either kill or be killed, either eat or be eaten—he
describes the strife as prevailing from the earliest geologic
ages ; and he infers that the Creator cares no more for the
welfare of his creatures than the worst of slave owners does
for his human chattels. But here, in the first place, some
illusion is produced by looking down a long vista of pain
and death. When we look along a grove the trees seem to
touch one another; yet in reality the open spaces are more
than the trees. We may, if we choose, look down that vista
of the ages and see young life and happiness, and mother’s
love and joy at every stage. Nor is it the fact that there are
no deaths but such as are violent. Nor is it the case that
violent deaths occasion much pain and misery. Follow the
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
11
life of an individual bird, or dog, or human being, and
inquire whether misery or enjoyment preponderates : that is
the fair way to judge, and not by bringing all the misery of
long ages into a near focus.
And then, as to the permanence of pain, misery, evil, Mr.
Symes declares that “ evil is inseparably mixed with the
universe.” This statement he emphasises, and gives no hint
that he expects evil to work itself out. I should have
thought that, as an Agnostic and an Evolutionist, he would
have followed Herbert Spencer in this as well as in other
things; and Spencer has a chapter to show that evil must be
evanescent. By the law of evolution the human race is
progressive—the purpose of nature (the Creator’s purpose,
as I should say) is being worked out, stage after stage. It
is therefore delusive to judge the present condition of the
world as though it were intended to be final ; it is unfair to
judge the past and present without taking into account the
drift and tendency of things. In a manufactory we don’t
judge in that way of the things which are being made, and
which we chance to see “ in the rough.” If evil is evanes
cent, and the consummation of things is to be glorious, it is
not irrational to believe that present pain is like the tem
porary evil of the sculptor’s chippings, the passing irksome
ness of the school-boy’s discipline, and that “ the sufferings
of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the
glory which shall be revealed to us-ward.”
And here, Mr. Editor, I must break off abruptly, like
Mr. Symes, having come to the end of the space allotted.
Else I could easily double the length of this letter, without
departing from the text Mr. Symes has given me : for he
does at least say something.
LETTER III.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
The first paragraph of Mr. St. Clair’s letter requires no
remark; the second may detain us for a few minutes. The
infinity of deity, it appears, is given up. That being so,
Mr. St. Clair should have clearly defined the term god.
The sense he attaches to the word must be exceedingly
�12
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
different from that which Theists in general attach to it;,
and, as I am totally at a loss to know what his god is, I
can neither aecept nor attack his views until he favors me
with them. I shall feel obliged if in his next he will define,
as clearly as possible, “god,” “ creator,” “created,” “intel
ligent creator.” A further favor will be conferred upon me
if Mr. St. Clair will give his reasons in detail for believing
that man was created by “ an intelligent creator,” and also
his grounds for supposing that creator to possess “ perfect
goodness.” At present he merely declares his belief ; I need
his evidence.
Why does my opponent call limited power Omnipotence ?
Is it not equivalent to limited illimitability ? or finite
infinity ?
Mr. St. Clair is prepared to defend the perfect goodness
of man’s creator. But how can a finite, that is, an imperfect
being, be perfect in any respect? My former objections to
infinite goodness press with equal force against perfect good
ness, for perfect and infinite are here the same. Goodness,
perfect or imperfect, finite or infinite, must from its very
nature prevent or remove evil in the direct ratio of its power
or ability. Mr. St. Clair contends that “ limited evil for a
limited time is quite consistent with perfect goodness.” He
may as rationally contend that “limited darkness for a
limited time is consistent with perfect light.” Darkness,
however limited, is incompatible with perfect light; so evil,
though but for a day, and covering but an area of one square
inch, would prove that perfect goodness did not exist. The
illustrations used—the case of tracheotomy and the unplea
sant processes of education—are both as wide of the mark
as possible. They are not cases of perfect goodness resort
ing to temporary evil, but of imperfect goodness and limited
power choosing the less of two evils where it is impossible to
shun both.
“ The conditions of all work are similar, whether theworker be human or divine.” This may, for aught I know,
be true, for I have no notion of a divine worker. But does
Mr. St. Clair mean to say that his god is compelled to
choose between two or more evils, just as we are? If so,
what necessity urges him ? We are driven to labor by
hunger, cold, storms, and innumerable pains and diseases.
Does god, too, labor for his bread, his clothes, shelter, or
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
13
medicine? If not, how are “ the conditions of all labor
similar, whether the worker be human or divine ? ” Will
Mr. St. Clair explain ?
How does my worthy opponent know that evil is limited
as to time ? Can he assure me that any square foot of the
earth’s surface is or ever was totally free from evil ? How
does he know, or why does he assume, that any square foot
of the earth’s surface ever will be entirely free from evil ?
That many evils will diminish in process of time, through
man’s growing wisdom, I cheerfully believe. But, no
thanks to deity for that. Man is improving on god’s
work, and removing evils that ought never to have been in
it. Here the consumer has to labor and suffer and spend
all his energy rectifying the blunders of the manufacturing
deity, or making improvements he never thought of, or else
was too idle, or too weak, or too evil, to introduce.
But does any man conceive that all evil will ever be
removed ? Will the storms be hushed into eternal calm ?
the earthquake heave its final throb and cease for ever ?
the volcano spout no more its terrible agents of destruction?
disease and death prey no longer upon animals and men ?
If these are ever conquered, man must do it, for they are
god’s agents for destroying men—if god there be. Can
Mr. St. Clair name one evil his god ever removed ?
Mr. St. Clair seems to hold the eternity of matter. Is
god also eternal; and if so, how do you ascertain that ?
I am not just now much concerned to inquire whether the
creator found matter ready to his hand, or first made it; but
I contend that he who arranges matter as we find it in
Nature (not in art) is not good. The tree is known by its
fruit. Matter is so arranged as to give pain, produce
misery, and death universal! And if so arranged by an
intelligent creator, he must therefore be more evil than
good. When Mr. St. Clair speaks of the “ end desired ” in
the “ chippings and dust ” of the sculptor, I can pretty well
understand him; but does he know the aim and end of the
creator ? If not, what is the value of his illustration ?
It is of no use to say that creatures “ ought to commit
suicide,” if my contention is correct—ought not to marry,
&c. Has not the creator rendered that impossible for most
men by passion and an invincible love of life ? And is it
kind to stretch a poor wretch longer upon the rack of this
�14
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
rude world by so forbidding him to die, though his every
breath is on® of pain ? Goodness never arranged it thus.
I am not concerned with striking the balance between evil
and good; I merely contend that goodness cannot originate
evil, except unwittingly; that perfect goodness would render
all evil impossible. I do not yet see any just cause to retract
or soften a single statement in my first letter; and shall
therefore proceed now to deal with my questions as far as
space will permit.
But Does there exist an infinite god whose wisdom
exceeds his folly ? Wisdom conducts its affairs with reason,
prudence, economy, and directs its energies to the attain
ment of some definite and worthy end. Does any man
know the final cause of the universe, the latest and highest
end aimed at by the creator ? It seems only reasonable that
the Theist should know this before he ventures to attribute
wisdom to his deity.
I grant that if the “ works ” of Nature exhibited evidences
of wisdom as far as men can observe them, and no cases of
evident folly were discoverable, the Theist would have the
best of reasons for assuming that all the universe was equally
well arranged and conducted. But if the known parts of
Nature exhibit folly in its worst conceivable forms, then
the only rational view to take is that the universe at large is
a blunder, and its creator a blunderer.
It is frequently assumed that a fool is reprehensible for
his folly, and that if men are fools, it must be their own
fault. But that cannot be the case, for no man makes him
self. The creator must take all the responsibility. He who
made men made most of them fools ; therefore he must be
more foolish than wise. And man, be it remembered, is
according to Theists the most important part of the creation
hereabouts. Man, they say, is the crowning piece of his
creator’s workmanship; and all else in the solar system is
subservient to his welfare. Be it so ! But what folly to
make all this and then to people the world with fools !
Such folly cannot be excelled, even by the lowest of
intelligent creatures. And my objections to the wisdom or
“ intelligence ” of deity are equally forceful, whether god
be finite or infinite; for I contend that he is far more foolish
than wise.
The folly of the hypothetical creator, whatever his
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
15
power, is seen everywhere—at least, I know of no spot free
from it. Here grow beautiful grass, and herbs, and trees ;
and human industry turns the region into a paradise, dotted
over with towns and villages. The people increase rapidly,
and their flocks, and herds, and farm produce keep pace
with them. Civilisation in all its branches rises and pro
gresses. There dawns a day when the sun shines in
splendor, the breezes gently blow, birds pour out their
melody, and man is contented and happy in some degree;
but there comes a dismal sound, and a mysterious shaking;
and ashes, and stones, and dust shower down in torrents
burying all life in a burning tomb. If an “ intelligent
creatoiiS makes men, why does he thus destroy them ? If
they need destroying, why did he make them so ? Those
creatures of his are of all ages from the youngest embryo to
the oldest man. Why destroy what is scarcely begun ?
Why begin what is to be so quickly destroyed ?
This “ intelligent creator ” produces blossoms in spring,
and then nips them by senseless frosts ; he makes the grain
to grow, and then destroys it by wet or a summer storm, or
parches it by drought; splendid crops of potatoes to flourish,
and then turns them to corruption by the fungus known as
“ the diseasethe cattle to multiply, only to die by
pleuro-pneumonia or foot and mouth disease ; a whole human
population to flourish for years, only to die by famine and
fever. And all this is the constant, every-day conduct of
man’s “ intelligent creator ! ”
I am deeply interested and anxious to see how my re
spected opponent will be able to reconcile divine “ intelli
gence ” or goodness with the phenomena of the earth.
The next question I have set down for discussion is:
VI. Does there exist a God whose power exceeds his weak
ness ? This question, to my surprise, has been answered
already by Mr. St. Clair, by implication at least; for he
informs us that, “Like John Stuart Mill, he conceives a
limit to Omnipotence.” That conception, when rendered
into plain English, can only mean that Mr. St. Clair’s god
is of merely finite power ; and as finite power can bear no
comparison with infinite power, we must conclude that Mr.
St. Clair’s deity has infinitely greater weakness than
strength.
If I were contending merely with Mr. St. Clair, I could
�16
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
at once pass on to the next question; but I am attacking
Theism in its broadest sense ; and, with all due respect to
my opponent, must decline to narrow the ground to the
dimensions of his peculiar Theism, except by easy and
logical stages.
I hold the doctrine, that force or power can be measured
only by its effects. A force may produce motion in several
phases, or it may be expended in resistance, stress, etc.
But in every case the effect is exactly equivalent to the
cause. An infinite cause could result in nothing short of
infinite effect. But infinite effect does not exist; nor can
any conceivable sum of finite effects amount to one infinite
effect; therefore no infinite cause or infinite power exists.
Now Theists do not pretend to know their god except as
a cause—unless I am mistaken. But if no infinite cause
exists, their god must be finite. But that which is finite
can bear no comparison with the infinite; therefore the power
of a finite being, however great, must be immensely less
than his weakness.
I will close by asking whether it was good, or wise, or
honest for a being of such limited capital, that is, power,
etc., to undertake so great a work as the creation and
direction of the universe ? Though he may be making his
own fortune and ensuring his own pleasure, he is doing it
by the most reckless expenditure of human and animal life,
and by the infliction of unspeakable misery upon helpless
beings. A god of honor and mercy, it seems to me, must
either have stopped the machine in utter disgust, or else
have committed suicide countless ages ago.
LETTER IV.
From Mr. G-. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Space did not permit me to deal with the whole of Mr.
Symes’ first letter ; and now I must let it go, because his
second letter gives me text enough for a second reply. In
this discussion I should be glad if a respectful tone can be
observed in speaking about the Deity. It cannot serve the
purpose of my opponent, nor of the Editor, that Theists who
begin to read our arguments should throw down the paper
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
17
in disgust. Mr. Symes expresses himself “ totally at a loss
-to know what my god Is.” I shall be grateffflF if he will
•oblige me by spelling the word with a capital G, because, for
one thing, my God is not the same as Mumbo Jumbo or
any little imaginary divinity worshipped by an African
tribe. Mr. Symes asks for definitions of “ god,” “ creator,”
“ created,” “intelligent creator;” but probably a dictionary
will supply his want at the present stage. In my previous
letter I told him distinctly enough what I understand the
tgrm God to mean: God is the intelligent Creator of man.
This is sufficient for our present purpose. To believe in a
.Creator of man—not a blind force, not an unguided pro
cess wjkich has resulted in his coming into existence, but in
an intcmigent being who made him—this is to be a Theist.
And since the evidence of God’s operation is to be seen in
man’s own frame, this theistic belief is rational, and the
opposite is irrational. This is what we have to argue about,
-and I should be glad if my opponent would keep to the
subject. If it could be shown that the Creator of man is
an evil Being, it might be reasonably maintained that he
ought to be called a Devil instead of a God ; and therefore
I have undertaken to rebut all attacks upon his perfect
goodness. In my last letter I repelled some objections of
this kind, and was enabled to do so successfully, because I
did not foolishly contend that the Deity possesses infinite
power, adequate to the accomplishment of all manner of
impossibilities.
Mr. Symes exclaims, “ The infinity of Deity, it appears,
is given up.” I never maintained it, and therefore I have
not given up anything. It seems to be inconvenient to my
opponent that I do not maintain it. He declines, he says,
“ to be narrowed to my Theism; he attacks Theism in its
broadest sense.” That is to say, he is confident that he
could confute other Theists, but he cannot easily confute
me. I showed him that his eight propositions about the
Infinite, mostly shoot wide of my position ; but he thinks it
well to return to them, and persists in attacking the impos
sible compound which he has set up as the God of those
who believe in God. No doubt he can do some amount of
iconoclastic work here; but what is that to me? If-he
amuses himself and your readers by wasting half the space
at his disposal, perhaps I ought not to complain ; but I am
�18
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
not bound to follow him into this region, and shall only do
so when I can spare the time. I will pursue him just a little
way now. He considers that a Theist ought to know the
final cause of the universe before he ventures to attribute
wisdom to the Deity 1 But surely I may admire the struc
ture of the eye, and perceive it to be well adapted for
seeing, without waiting to examine the heart or learn the
use of the spleen. I may study and admire the human
frame as a whole, and not feel obliged to be dumb concern
ing it because I have not begun the consideration of the
solar system. My opponent wants me to begin at the cir
cumference of the universe, because it has no boundsg and
he wishes to see me bewildered and floundering^ Yet
immediately he himself ventures to judge of the universe as
a whole, and pronounces it a blunder, and its creator a
blunderer, on the strength of some exhibitions of folly (a£
he counts them) in its known parts.
One exhibition of folly, he considers, is the creation of
fools. Repeating a statement of his former letter, he asserts
that most men are fools, and that he who created them so
must himself be more foolish than wise. My reply is that,
whatever the actual proportion of fools, ignorance comes
before knowledge, folly before wisdom, in the natural order
of things. The crude and unfashioned material must date
earlier than the wrought and finished. The educated man
is a production of a more advanced sort than the ignorant
and uncultured man ; he is the same creature in a later stage
of development. But Mr. Symes—whom nothing will satisfy
save impossibilities—demands the later before the earlier.
My opponent thinks that infinite goodness is incompatible
with the existence of the slightest evil at any time. He
imagines that infinite goodness in the creator would prevent
any evil outside of him. To my mind this is not so, unless
the creator, besides being infinitely good, is also omnipotent,
and omnipotent in a sense which enables him to overcome
physical and mathematical contradictions and accomplish
impossibilities. But, to simplify the discussion, I refrain
from contending for infinite goodness, and contend for per
fect goodness. My opponent does not see the difference,
but conceives that his former objections to infinite goodness
press with equal force against perfect goodness. He con
tinues his unconscious legerdemain with the word infinite.
�; ■ w:./ -’
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
•
w’
19
He asks, “ How can a finite, that is, an imperfect being, be
perfect in any respect ? ” Amazing! We am to suppose
there is no perfect circle conceivable unless it be infinite in
its dimensions, and that no man could be perfectly truthful,
no child perfectly innocent, no flower perfect in its beauty.
The flower must be as large as the universe, it seems, before
its beauty can be perfect. The argument against the per
fect goodness of Jesus Christ would have to run in the form
that his body and soul together were not so big in cubic
measure as all the worlds and spaces which make up the
TCT7rai/, or grtffttall! “ Goodness will prevent or remove evil
to the extent of its ability.” Yes; but since no ability
whatever can be sufficient to surmount impossibilities, limited
^evil nifty exist for a limited time, and be subservient to
greater good (like the inconvenience of scaffolding during
the building of a house). Mr. Symes uses what he supposes
to be a parallel, that limited darkness is not consistent with
perfect light. But this shows some obscurity of thought.
Darkness and light are opposites, and so are good and evil ;
but not goodness and evil. I did not say that limited evil
was consistent with perfect good, as an existing condition
of things everywhere; I said it was consistent with perfect
goodness as an element of character existing in the Deity.
With God, in the higher plane of his operations, as with
man on a lower, it may be wise and good to “ choose the
less of two evils where it is impossible to shun both.”
“ How do I know that evil is limited as to time ? ” How
does Mr. Symes know that it is not ? Let him read Herbert
Spencer’s chapter on the “ Evanescence of Evil.” Let him
ask himself what prospect there is of the eternal duration
of a thing which is continually diminishing in amount. He
admits that evils are diminishing through man’s agency,
man’s growing wisdom. So they ought some day to end.
But he declines to give God the glory. Now the Creator of
man is the author of man’s wisdom. He employs man as
his best instrument to improve the face of the earth and
weed out evils from society. To a Theist this is so, of
course; the creator of man’s body is the author of his spirit
and the guide of his course. But with curious blindness to
the Theistic position, Mr. Symes seeks to infer that man is
wiser than his maker. He reckons disease and all destructive
forces as God’s agents for evil, but does not reckon physi
�20
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
cians, philanthropists and reformers as his agents for good.
He fails to see that on the theistic hypothesis the evils which
man remov^God removes.
Mr. Symes contends that “ he who arranged matter as we
find it, is not good,” because it produces pain and other evils.
He would not say this of any human operator. When I
saw him the other day at a public meeting, he complained
of neuralgia and talked of going to a dentist. I am afraid
the dentist would have to arrange matter so as to give tem
porary pain, and yet the dentist might be good and might do
good. It is not the poser which my oppontml thinks it is,
to ask me whether I equally know the end and aim of fhp
Creator. I’m not going to search for it among the infinities.
Looking at the human jaws, and the apparatus of the teeth,
in connexion with food and the digestive organs, I think I
know the aim and end of the Creator in giving us teeth. It
is that we may chew our victuals. And then their occa-wr
sionally aching is an incidental evil, which may have some
bearing on his omnipotence, but does not bear witness against
his goodness. Mr. Symes’ next paragraph is curiously con
tradictory. He considers life a torture, every breath pain,
death preferable ; but does not commit suicide because lie
has an invincible love of life !
I have agreed with Mr. J. S. Mill that physical “ con
ditions ” put some limit to omnipotence as we might other
wise conceive it. Mr. Symes pounces upon this, but does
not seize it well. He says, “ Here is an admission of finite
power, and since finite bears no comparison to infinite we
must conclude that Mr. St. Clair’s deity has infinitely greater
weakness than strength.” Does this sound conclusive ? I
may correspondingly argue as follows,—My God can do
something, therefore his weakness is not utter inability, not
infinite weakness ; it is finite, and bears no comparison with
the infinite, therefore he has infinitely greater strength than
weakness. Why does not Mr. Symes give up dabbling in
this ocean of the infinite, which is too deep for both of us,
but where, if I choose to follow him, I can make quite as
great a show as he of letting down a plumb-line ? He wants
me to tell him—“ Is god eternal, and how do I ascertain
it?” What I think on the subject, I’ll tell him another
time : at present I assert that the human frame had a
creator—it is a designed machine, and machines must have
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
21
intelligent makers—and I challenge him to show that this,
my belief, is irrational.
“ Why do I call limited power omnipotence ? ” If power
to do all possible things is not to be called omnipotence we
must drop the term. I found the term in use and I used it:
but it is not essential to my argument. If Mr. Symes can
imagine the ability to do impossible things, he has powers
of imagination which transcend mine. I do not expect the
Deity to cause two and two to be five, and the whole to be
less than one of its quarters; I do not look for him to
make squares without angles, and a succession of days without
intervening nights. I believe in a Deity who can do all
¿lings not Involving contradictions. Can Mr. Symes show
that this belief of mine is irrational ? The kind of world
which my opponent demands—brand-new and straight off—
would involve impossibilities. His cry is for the moon.
He wants blossoms which never suffer from frost; he asks
for anjunbroken succession of good crops; he desires the
absence of all liability to disease in man and beast. Can
he suggest how a fleshly body, or any animal organism
could be made free from all liability to disease ? His
notion of the universe leaves no room for incidental evils,
necessary concomitants, “ partial evil, universal good ”—in
which I find the explanation of many difficulties.
I have only space to assert afresh that the human
frame is a machine, the human eye is an instrument;
machines and instruments have to be made ; the maker of
man is God; therefore Theism is true and it is rational to
believe it.
LETTER V.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
I cannot say if it was my fault or the printer’s that “God”
was spelt with a small g ; but I am not anxious to be read
by those who would throw down the paper in disgust for
such a trifle. I cannot induce Mr. St. Clair to give me a
sight of his deity, and therefore do not know what it is he
worships. It is not Mumbo Jumbo, nor yet an infinite god;
it is “ the intelligent creator of man,” he informs me. But
�22
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
no such being exists, as far as I can ascertain ; and why
should I give a capital G to a myth ? My opponent is
illogical in demanding honor for his god before he has
proved that he has one worthy of honor, especially when all
known facts are so strongly against his position. I respect
Mr. St. Clair, for I know him ; I don’t know his god ; to
give him capital letters might be construed to signify that
I both knew and honored him.
“The intelligent creator of man” is no more a description
of deity than “the tree that bears oranges” is of the orange
tree. I wish to know what the deity is; he merely speaks
of what he does. What was he before creating man ?
What is he apart from that action altogether ? I cannot
believe Mr. St. Clair knows, nor do I believe he has any
god at all. He can confute and confound me by a real
exhibition of his deity in his next letter.
My opponent rather unceremoniously sends me to “a
dictionary ” for definitions of “ God,” etc. I go. “ GOD,
n. [Sax., god; G., gott; D., god; Sw. and Dan., gud;
Goth., goth or guth.~\ 1. The Supreme Being ; Jehovah ;
the Eternal and Infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sove
reign of the Universe,” etc. (Webster’s Improved Diet. ;
Glasgow, W. Mackenzie.) What am I to think of Mr. St.
Clair’s consistency ? In both letters he has, almost indig
nantly and with something akin to sneering, repudiated the
“ infinity ” of god ; and yet I find this attribute duly set
out in the only definition of his deity which he has as yet
condescended so much as to indicate ! I must now pi ess
him to be candid : Is the definition to which he directed me
correct? If so, why does he reject the “infinity” or
decline to “maintain” it? If this definition be incorrect,
why did he refer me to it ?
I will next deal with a few of the fallacies and mistakes
of his second letter. 1. Mr. St. Clair is mistaken in as
suming that he “ successfully repelled ” any objections of
mine to god’s goodness. The strength of my objections
lies in the well-known and horrible facts of nature, which
cannot be explained away. Goodness, finite or infinite,
removes or prevents every evil in its power. Does Mr. St.
Clair venture to assert that there is no evil now in the world
which his deity could remove if he would ? If be cannot
remove so much as one of them—say cancer or neuralgia—
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
23
why call such a weakling god ? If he can and will not,
where is his goodness ? I demand no “ impossibilities ” of
deity, unless he is extremely weak. If he is not able to do
immensely more than I require, he should retire from his
post.
2. Mr. St. Clair, in not “ maintaining ” the infinity of !
I his god, “gives it up”—in the only sense I intended. I
j have suffered no sort of “ inconvenience ” from this. Oh
i dear, no! The only inconvenience I feel in this contest '■
lies in the fact that I have nothing but shadows and tinCertainties to contend with, phantoms,
“That flit e’er you can point the place.”
Would Mr. St. Clair kindly furnish me with one or two
stubborn Theistic facts, if he has them ?
3. It is amusing to learn that I waste “ half my space ”
in demolishing the “infinite” god, the very deity my
opponent sent me to the dictionary for! I presume that
must be his own ? 4. “ Ignorance comes before knowledge,
folly before wisdom.” No doubt. And in many millions
of cases the ignorance and the folly are never superseded by
anything better. Does Mr. St. Clair hold that, “whatever
is best ” ? What point has his remark else ? A perfectly
good and wise god would have permitted no folly, nor have
left his creatures ignorant of anything necessary to be
known. I expect Mr. St. Clair to contend in his next that
folly argues the wisdom, and evil the goodness, of his deity,
while inability to remove evils is proof positive of his
omnipotence.
5. My opponent jumbles mathematics, morality, and
botany in the most edifying manner in his allusion to the
circle, the child, and the flower. Geometrical conceptions
are not “ beings;” they are abstractions. Innocence and
beauty may be perfect in a very imperfect and extremely
limited sense ; is that so with god’s goodness ? Mr. St.
Clair is extremely unfortunate in his analogies. All that
he has yet tried are failures. Or else his god is one of
very slender means. He is a surgeon performing “ tracheo
tomy,” a sculptor chipping stones into shape, a parent
“ educating ” his children, a builder employing “ scaffolds,”
etc. Before he has done, I fear he will rouse my sympathy
for this god as the most unfortunate victim of circumstances
�24
ATHEISM OK THEISM?
that ever lived. The orthodox divinity is certainly superior
to this. He never loses his power, and is self-reliant all
throughout his career. But Mr. St. Clair’s deity is so com
pletely under the control of circumstances, mostly adverse
ones, that I expect my opponent to announce next that a
memorial of condolence is to be despatched to him, and a
subscription opened to replenish his exhausted exchequer.
With the old-fashioned Christian god “ all things were
possible ; ” with Mr. St. Clair’s it seems quite the reverse.
No excuse could possibly be urged for any wrong done by
the orthodox deity ; nothing hut excuses have yet been urged
for this new one. I point out his misdeeds and show up his
criminal conduct. But Mr. St. Clair is ever ready with an
apology—“ Well, yes, but he couldn’t help it.” And this
poor thing must have a capital G-! Well, well. He needs
one!
6. Unless Mr. St. Clair knows that his god has removed
one evil, it is irrational to expect him to remove all. If
evil and good are compatible at all, and “ for a limited
time,” why not for ever ? How long must evil last to be
inconsistent with goodness ? “ Darkness and light are
opposites, so are good and evil; but not goodness and evil.”
Is that “ legerdemain ” or theology? It cannot be called
“ confusion of thought,” for thought is absent. We were
informed in Mr. St. Clair’s first that the conditions of all
labor were the same. What now does he mean by in
sinuating that man works on a “ lower plane ” than god ?
How is that assumption to be reconciled with the further
statement that god works by man ? God’s work is man’s
work, and man’s is god’s, if that be so. I shall be delighted
to be assured that all evil will be removed. But what are
its laws ?—laws of origin, progress, and decay ? Will
death and pain go ? Suppose they did go; the crime of
their introduction or creation remains.
7. God employs man to “ improve the face of the earth
and to weed out evils from society.” Assertion without
evidence. If true, what must be thought of a god that
creates evils and nourishes and perpetuates them for indefinite
periods, and ultimately uses man as his catspaw to remove
them ? How horribly they burn their fingers often in the work!
What confusion of thought and of moral perception must
possess a man who can count the author of all evil good,
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
25
and thank him for removing evils by the agency of human
suffering. What a monument that deity would have if all
the bones of his miserable agents could be collected and
reared into one stupendous pyramid—the bones of the
swarming millions who have perished horribly in removing
divine evils, of the poor blind slaves whipped on by the
crudest taskmaster that ever lived to undo the mischiefs
his folly or malice created. What can be the state of mind .
that supposes the “ physician ” who does his best to heal
sickness to be incited thereto by the author of that sick
ness—that the philanthropist who shelters, feeds, and
clothes the orphan is inspired by the being who murders the
parents ? When you “ gather grapes of thorns or figs of
thistles,” then may the author of evil incite to good deeds.
Or must we suppose the deity to be destitute of moral
qualities, and engaged in supernal legerdemain, throwing
in evils with one hand and removing them by the other, using
men as sentient and suffering marionettes in operating his
play ?
8. A dentist would have no calling if deity had not
“ scamped ” his work. If he inflict more than necessary
pain, he is considered cruel. An infinite god, such as I was
sent to the dictionary for, could have been under no
necessity to inflict any pain. Mr. St. Clair’s god seems able
enough for mischief, but almost powerless for good—a being
that needs endless apologies.
9. If my opponent’s deity renders death infinitely desirable
as a refuge from bis tyranny, and yet blocks the path to
it by inspiring an invincible love of life, wherein lies the
“ contradiction ” of my reference to it ?
10. I must leave my opponent for the present floundering
in the hopeless task of proving that his deity must be infi
nitely powerful because he can do “something.” Not I, '
but he, is the one who “ dabbles in the ocean of the infinite.”
11. Mr. St. Clair seems to hold that omnipotence is equiva
lent to the power to do all possible things. Is that new? I
never heard of its being used to signify the power to do
impossible things. I thought from his former letter that
“ omnipotence ” with him designated limited power ; it now
returns to its old condition, and in this letter signifies what
is indicated above. I wish Mr. St. Claii’ would be a little more
definite. He now “ believes in a deity who can do all things
�26
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
not involving contradictions.” Well, I have asked for no
contradictions, the very reverse. This belief of Mr. St.
Clair’s is highly irrational. You cannot possibly know how
many things could be done not involving contradictions ;
nor can you possibly know what power might be necessary
to perform them ; nor is it possible you should have any
reason for believing your deity to possess such power. If
that confession of faith is not a “ dabbling in an infinite
ocean,” what is it ? It is immensely amusing to see how
Theists and semi-Theists talk ! Their knowledge and ex
perience is about on a par with ours; yet they profess
belief in that into which, in the very nature of the case,
they can have no insight. But faith not founded on know
ledge must be irrational. Thus I show Mr. St. Clair’s creed
to be baseless and destitute of reason.
12. Perhaps my opponent will kindly show that a world
such as I desire would involve “ impossibilities,” or that a
God such as he believes in could not have made such a one ?
I do want “ blossoms that never suffer from frost; ” who
does not ? I do desire “ an unbroken succession of good
crops ; ” will Mr. St. Clair say that he does not ? Else why
is he pleased at the thought that all evil will ultimately
cease ? To judge from my opponent’s remarks, one might
suppose that it were a fault to desire good and not evil. Is
it so ? I hope it is no sign of depravity to hate evil and to
protest against evil-doers, even when they are deities. Does
Mr. St. Clair enjoy evil ? Would he not remove it all, if he
could ? He hates evil as I do ; but, like a lawyer with an
utterly indefensible client, he struggles to show a case
where there is none, and tries to defend an incongruous
rabble of half-formed and contradictory conceptions, mostly
remnants and tatters of old superstitions, loosely and unsymmetrically strung together on verbal threads, and col
lectively called God. It is pitiable to see a man of his
intellect and goodness engaged in hot conflict defending
error against truth, and palliating and excusing all evil for
the sake of the fancied author of it all.
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
27
LETTER VI.
From Mr. G. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
I regret that Mr. Symes should persist in speaking con
temptuously of the Deity. The little matter of the little
g ” in the name of God, if it was the printer’s fault, he
now makes his own. He considers he is not called upon to
give a capital G to a myth. No, but until he has proved God
to be a myth, he must allow the possibility of his existence;
and he ought to speak respectfully. In this third letter he
uses language about the Deity which renders it painful for
me to continue this discussion. It is a smaller matter that
he should forget the courtesy due to an opponent, and
insinuate a want of candour, as he does by “ now pressing
me to be candid.”
The question we were to discuss is set forth thus : “ Is
Atheism or Theism the more rational ? ” As Mr. Symes is
a professed Atheist, one would expect him to advance
reasons for believing that Atheism is rational, that there is
Ho God, and that the word ought to be spelt with a small g.
But it would be a difficult task, and as yet he has not at
tempted it. He would have to explain how things came to
be as they are without any intelligence either originating,
guiding, or controlling. His position is, that the eye was
not made to see with, the teeth were not made for mastica
tion, the human frame was not made at all. Like Topsy,
he “ specks it growed !” He knows that steam-engines do
Hot grow, except under the hand and mind of intelligent
engineers, but he thinks that human bodies do. He is
aware that telescopes and opera glasses have to be fashioned,
but he imagines that that'more wonderful instrument, the
human eye, is a sort of accident. Human intelligence has
grown up out of the dust; and there is no other origin for a
mother’s love or a martyr’s self-devotion. There is intelli
gence in every workshop, and at the head of every successful
business in the world, but none presiding over the universe.
Out of the fountain head have come greater things than
ever were in it. These are a few of the things which Mr.
�28
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
Symes has to defend and show to be rational. No wonder
that he defers the task !
He has not even fairly set about the alternative task of
showing Theism to be irrational. I have let him know
that I believe in an intelligent creator of man, worthy to be
called God because of the greatness of his power and the
goodness displayed in his operations. I have explained that
by “ creator ” of man I mean former of man out of pre
existing materials, and author of him as man. I have
urged that this belief of mine is rational, because the human
frame is a machine—in fact, much more, for it is a compli
cation of machines and instruments—and all machines and
instruments at all comparable to the bodily parts and organs
have required intelligence to form them. Telescopes are made,
and for a purpose; so must eyes have been: steam-engines
are made, and for a purpose, and so is the machine of the
human body. This is my rational belief. To deny these
things is to deny that similar effects require similar causes
to produce them, and is quite irrational. But instead of
showing my Theism to be irrational my opponent sets forth
a form of Theism which is irrational, and, therefore, easy to
refute, and picks out some inconsistencies in that. His
method may be summarised as follows:—“ Theism is belief
in an infinite God, a God of infinite power can do all things,
a God of infinite goodness would do all good things, but all
conceivable good things have not been done, therefore, a
God does not exist.” But this argument is fallacious : all
that follows is that either the power or the goodness of God
is less than infinite, and 1 have shown that we have no
right to credit the Deity with a power of effecting impossi
bilities. Omnipotence must be limited in that sense and to
that extent, and we must not expect to see contradictions
reconciled. God’s goodness I defend, and undertake to
show the inconclusiveness of anything which may be urged
against it. I do not contend for infinite power in the sense
of power to effect impossibilities. I do not deny almightiness if properly defined; though it is not essential to my
argument to contend for it, since something less than
almightiness may have sufficed for the creation of man.
Mr. Symes does waste ink in trying to commit me to his
absurd definition of Deity. The “infinite God” whom he
considers that he demolishes is only the image which he
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
29
himself had set up and wrongly exhibited as mine. I can
not allow it is mine any the more because he has found one
something like it in “Webster’s Dictionary.” Certainly,
when he demanded definitions, I said that a dictionary
might serve his purpose at that stage ; but I did not say it
would serve or satisfy me at all stages. Mr. Symes also
amuses me by his awkward gymnastics in the ocean of the
infinite. I followed him into the deep just to drive him out ;
so now he tries to get to shore before me, and shouts out
that it is I who am dabbling in the bottomless sea. Seeing
that I am leaving the waters, he tries to entice me back
again. He protests that he will now be reasonable. He
will confess himself confuted and confounded if I will afford
him, in my third letter, a real exhibition of my Deity!
Very likely; but I really cannot allow myself to make the
attempt. Regarding myself as only a creature, inferior to
my Creator, I do not presume to comprehend all his great
ness, so as to be able to give an exact description, or paint
an adequate portrait. I have heard of genii being induced
to go into a bottle, and I can imagine a Goliath taking a
Tom Thumb in his hand; but I for my part do not profess
to have th’s superiority over God. To define God would be
to chalk out his limits. As I decline to contend for a Deity
possessing contradictory infinities, my opponent wishes to pin
me to the equally foolish alternative of a God with no infinity
at all, a very limited marionette figure, such as I might
comprehend all round and put forth upon the stage for
Mr. Symes to laugh at. If God is not infinite in all senses,
I am to describe him ! But I do not feel shut up to any
such dilemma. God is the intelligent Being who consciously
and deliberately gave existence to man.
Mr. Symes complains that “ intelligent Creator of man ”
is no description. I have not promised a description, and
my argument does not require it. I judge that man had a
maker, as I judge that Cologne cathedral had an architect.
The architect of that cathedral is not known ; his name has
not come down to us, and no description could be given that
should distinguish him from others ; but the cathedral is
sufficient evidence that he existed. It is more rational to
believe in an architect than to disbelieve. I defend the
rationality of believing in God. I am not bound to give an
exact description of him. The question “ What was he
�30
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
before creating man ? ” I am not obliged to answer. I offer
Mr. Symes the “stubborn Theistic facts” which he asks for.
Human eyes are instruments superior to opera-glasses;
opera-glasses are designed for a purpose, and formed only
under intelligent direction; therefore nothing less than
intelligence will account for the existence of human eyes.
The human frame is a machine, including within itself
several subordinate machines of engines and levers ; repeat "
the above argument. A mother’s affection is intended for !
the good of her offspring, for the preservation of its life, for
securing the succession of generations ; and yet this affection
is not accounted for by saying it is of human origination ;
it owes its origin to the author of life, who planned the
succession of generations. These are Theistic facts, so
stubborn that no Atheist can satisfactorily dispose of them,
if I may judge from such attempts as I have seen As I
gave my opponent two out of these three facts before, he
had no ground for crying out that he has nothing but
shadows to contend with.
I define omnipotence to be the power of doing all things
not involving contradiction and impossibility. Mr. Symes
questions whether this view is new. I am not much con
cerned about that: it is the view I hold and I challenge
him to prove it irrational. He says he never heard of
“ omnipotence ” being used to signify the power to do im
possible things. If, then, my view is the only one he has
ever heard of, why does he ridicule it and allude to it as
semi-theistic? why does he say the orthodox divinity is
superior to mine ? why does he complain that I give him no
sight of the deity I worship ? But in truth my opponent
himself assumes that omnipotent goodness ought to do im
possible things—ought to give us the full-blown flower of
creation before the bud, and accomplish grand results
without processes involving incidental evil. He wishes me
to explain to him how it is that a God, such as I believe in,
cannot make such a world as is asked for. I have only to
say that no God could do it, because all operations must
have a beginning, a process and an end, and no conceivable
power, out of Hibernia, can make the end come before the
beginning. Will my opponent show me how it is to be
done ? Will he state a method by which the earth and
moon may be allowed to keep their present orbits, and light
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
o1
01
remain subject to its present laws, and yet eclipses be
rendered impossible ? Can he devise a human body that
can live and move and yet not be at all composed of flesh
subject to wounds ? Does he not see that a great and good
result may carry some minor undesirable concomitants along
with it ? Does he think he could show that any of the
evils he complains of are not of this sort ?
He seems to have great difficulty in grasping the thought
that all operations imply a process, take up time, and
involve incidental results which are not directly bargained
for. They may not be desired, yet may be foreseen and
accepted, because they lie in the path by which greater good
is to be attained. Mr. Symes says that he points out the
misdeeds and shows up the criminal conduct of God, and that
when he does so I reply, “ Yes, but he couldn’t help it.”
This is my opponent’s way of admitting that when he
charges the sufferings of mortals upon the Deity, as a Being
who could prevent them but will not, I have a reply for
him. I show that instead of limiting God’s good intent and
beneficent action, it is equally a solution of the difficulty if
we suppose a limitation of power. Then I show that limita
tions actually exist, in the ever-present conditions under
which operations are performed and ends wrought out. This
view of mine, which I reverently maintain, the language
of my opponent grossly misrepresents as equivalent to
making God “ the most unfortunate victim of circumstances
that ever lived.” It makes him and it leaves him almighty.
The alternative would have been to maintain that the power
of deity is without limits of any sort—that he can make
squares without angles, or diffuse a limited quantity of
material through a greater space without spreading it thinner.
This might have pleased Mr. Symes, who now parades
“the orthodox divinity who never loses his power, the oldfashioned Christian God with whom all things were pos
sible.” He never heard of any view of omnipotence different
from that which I maintain ; but he has heard of this oldfashioned Christian God so different from mine, and thinks
such a conception of God preferable. Naturally so, because
it is the conception which he feels able to demolish, as it is
composed of inconsistent parts.
Mr. Symes, unable to comprehend the temporary use of
scaffolding, except for human builders, inquires how long
�32
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
evil must last to be inconsistent with goodness ? Probably
as long as the good process which necessitates it as a con
comitant is still proceeding, and has not got beyond the
stage which requires it. I am surprised it should appear1
to Mr. Symes’s intelligence that the evil which is compatible
with goodness for a limited time, may as well be so for ever.
A stormy voyage may be endured because of the desirability
of migrating to a better country; but surely the storms
must be differently regarded if it is known that they are to
be perpetual and there is no port to be reached. Mr. Symes
forms his impression of the storms while he is sea-sick,
and refuses beforehand to find any compensation in reaching
the haven of rest. Suppose the storms go, he maintains
that the crime of their introduction or creation remains.”
He persists in charging all evils upon the Deity as crimes, as
though he knew enough of the ultimate issues of things to
justify him in saying there has been the least departure
from wise and good arrangements. If impossibilities could
be effected we might have the fruit before the bud, and ripe
apples before sour ones. If Mr. Symes is going to be
reasonable he must not ask for such things. He does ask
for them when he demands wisdom before ignorance and
declares that a good and wise God would not have left his
creatures ignorant of anything necessary to be known. And
he does ask for them, in my opinion, when he complains
against God on account of any evil whatever. He cannot
show that whatever is is not best, in the sense of being the
best possible at the present stage of the general progress.
As usual I leave much unsaid for want of space.
LETTER VII.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Mr. St. Clair’s third is no stronger in facts or arguments
than his two former letters. It would, however, be unkind
to grumble, as he cannot present a strong case for Theism,
for the very sufficient reason that no such case exists.
He complains of my “ language about the deity.” Well,
in that he shows himself as unreasonable, though not so
cruel, as Nebuchadnezzar when he sent the three Hebrews
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
33
to the fiery furnace for refusing to worship his image. Mr.
St. Clair thinks I should “ advance reasons for believing
Atheism to be rational.” Each of my letters has teemed
with such reasons, not one of which has been yet refuted.
Has my opponent read what I have written ? I have also
shown how irrational it is to believe in a good and omni
potent god. The facts of nature proclaim aloud that no
good god exists; and there does not exist one fact, or one
aggregation of facts, to warrant the belief that an omni
potent god lives. Therefore Mr. St. Clair’s belief is
irrational. The believers in Mumbo Jumbo, the infalli
bility of the Pope, transubstantiation, or witchcraft, are not
more irrational than a Theist. They all believe, no doubt,
sincerely enough, but without any adequate reason.
In my last I expressed the anticipation that my opponent
would in his next argue the omnipotence of his deity from
his “ inability to remove evils.” Mr. St. Clair, in the
penultimate paragraph of his third letter, obligingly fulfils
my prediction by affirming that “ a limitation of power ”
, . . “ makes and leaves god almighty.”
Mr. St. Clair takes umbrage at my request that he would
be “ candid.” The request arose from that reference to the
dictionary and its necessary connexions. I do not yet know
whether the dictionary contains a definition he approves.
It seems to me—I may be in error—but it seems to me that
candor would have set me at rest on that before now.
At length Mr. St. Clair plunges into the Design Argu
ment—the most fallacious and ill founded of all the argu
ments for divine existence.
1. Adaptation argues an adapter, and an intelligent one.
Does it? Water is as well adapted for drowning land
animals as it is for marine animals to live in. Fire is
beautifully adapted to burn men; falling stones, trees, etc.,
storms, floods, explosions, fevers, famines, wild beasts, earth
quakes, and a thousand other evils are delightfully fitted to
kill them. Old age, too, will do it equally well. It cannot
be denied that the processes of decay and destruction show
as much regularity of action and as perfect adaptation of
means to ends as the processes which result in life. Perhaps
Mr. St. Clair regards an earthquake, a cantier, or any other
destructive agency as a “ sort of accident;” he fails to see,
probably, how beautifully, cunningly, and maliciously
�34
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
they are fitted for their work of destruction and misery 1
Certain skin diseases, tic-doloreux, sciatica, cramps, the
stone—how beautifully they are all adapted to the work of
inflicting pain ! Racks, wheels, stakes, gyves, “ boots,”
thumbscrews, bastinadoes, swords, guns, etc., are all made,
and argue or imply makers ; but earthquakes, plagues, frost
and snow, floods, famines, wild beasts, fevers, small-pox,
cancer, and what not, are immensely superior as agents of
pain and death, and yet Mr. St. Clair seems to see no design
in them, and fails to recognise the existence of a perfectly
malignant god, who made them all for his own pleasure !
Can perversity of intellect proceed farther? My worthy
opponent can readily enough perceive the design and the
malice of an infernal machine, and yet fails to recognise
the design and the malice of diseases and famines! He
recognises the folly or the malice of warriors, murderers,
and tyrants who kill or torture a few; and yet cannot admit
that there must be an omnipotent god, who cunningly con
trives and maliciously sets in motion the grand and perfect
machinery of nature to destroy all living things 1 He admits
the existence of folly and malice amongst mankind, and yet
refuses to admit that far greater folly and malice “ preside
over the universe ! ”
Of course, it cannot rationally be contended that god is
infinitely foolish and malicious, though he is “ perfectly” so.
He cannot do “ impossibilities,” nor things involving “ con
tradiction.” He found matter to his hand, and had to work
under the “ same condition of labor ” that men work under ;
and so, though the universe is not absolutely and infinitely
bad, yet it is as bad as the deity could possibly make it.
And, further, we are not to argue that because some scraps
of good, or seeming good, really do exist, that therefore the
good is eternal; for “ limited good for a limited time ” may
be consistent with perfect evil, and the deity is working by
various agencies to remove all good from his universe; and
then nought but evil will remain for ever!
There is Mr. St. Clair’s argument simply reversed.
2. But I must notice in detail the very few natural pheno
mena my opponent condescends to mention. The eye he
instances as a proof of design and beneficent divine work
manship. He says it is superior to opera-glasses. The best
eyes, no doubt, are better than opera-glasses. But our best
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
35
telescopes and microscopes far transcend the eye as optical
instruments. Its qualities are coarse and rudimentary com
pared with theirs. Eyes ! They are beautiful and ugly,
of good color and of disagreeable ; there are blear eyes,
goggle eyes, squint eyes, wall eyes ; color-blindness is a
defect observed in many thousands. Millions upon millions
of eyes never see at all. Were they made to see with ?
Had a beneficent creator made eyes, he would have
ensured their good performance. Had he meant them
for human advantage, he would have turned out
respectable workmanship. I wonder he did not do that
for his own credit. What optician could follow his example ?
All over the civilised world are ophthalmic institutions,
where men are constantly engaged patching up, or actually
improving, the work of Mr. St. Clair’s divine manufacturer,
who made eyes of water, jelly and soft fibres, whereas they
should have been made of hard and tough material, so that
disarrangement and destruction were next to impossible.
And these eyes, good, bad, useless, are palmed off upon us
by the maker, whether we like them or not. He gives no
guarantee for their performance either, as a respectable
jnanufacturei’ would, nor does he ever repair them when
dace out of order. There is no sense of honesty, decency or
shame in this deity. If he bestows eyes as a duty, they
ought all to be good ; if out of charity, it is a mockery to
give a poor wretch the eyes we often see !
If the eye is a divinely-manufactured article, as Mr. St.
Clair says (without attempting to prove it), then the worker
knew less of optics than I do, or else carelessly did his
work. The eye is not achromatic, and it has too many
lenses, the many surfaces of which waste light. It has the
defect of astigmatism, which shows that its maker did not
know much of mathematical optics. This grand instru
ment, the crowning work of an almighty god, has two
odd curves in the front—that is, in the cornea.
Everyone knows that the common run of spectacles
have a longer curve horizontally than perpendicularly,
and so has the eye !
Our best lenses are ground to
mathematical correctness, and the same curve prevails all
over the same side ; but the eye is herein defective. Hence
we cannot see, at the distance of clear vision, a horizontal
and perpendicular line distinctly at once : one of them is in
�36
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
focus when the other is out. Had there been a wise and
beneficent creator, he would long since have corrected this
defect, for opticians pointed it out generations ¡fince in
their critiques upon the eye. The eye, therefore, if made at
all, must be considered as the work of a mere amateur, and
-of one who worked more for his own amusement than for
human welfare.
3. The teeth! First of all, we are born without any;
later we “cut” them in misery, convulsions, often at the
expense of life.' The teeth thus cut are not permanent,
after all; in a few years they drop out, or are pushed out
by the so-called permanent teeth. And these!—in many
cases they begin to decay in a very few years ; henceforth
the victim of this dishonest tooth-maker is subject to tooth
ache, neuralgia, and dyspepsia. He also has to go to the
expense of new teeth, stuffing, etc., if he can afford them.
And may I ask my opponent what he would think of a
dentist who furnished him with teeth that ached, and
and decayed, and tumbled out ? What would he say if any
dentist treated him half so badly as his deity treats thousands?
If eyes and teeth are really manufactured by deity, Mr. St.
Clair must refute my criticisms, or admit that his deity is a
clumsy or careless worker, and also very dishonest and cr^jel.
These facts must be met and explained before Theism can
be shown to be rational.
4. But Mr. St. Clair seems to me virtually to give up all
possible right to use the Design Argument by admitting, as
he does, the independent existence of matter. If there be a
mystery in nature, then the existence of matter is that
mystery. And, further, there must be, from the nature of the
case, as much, at least, as much, if not more, design and
adaptation in the very elements of matter as in any living
thing. And, further still, I am not aware that anyone has
yet drawn the line between living matter and non-living
matter, nor have I any reason to suppose such a line
possible. All matter is probably alive, and always was
so, and ever will be so, though in far different degrees.
I affirm, too, that the adaptation between the molecules,
or atoms, or whatever the ultimate elements of matter may
be called, must be more perfect than between the parts of a
man. No man is perfect; nor is his best organ beyond the
range of adverse criticism. No man is perfectly adapted to
�ATHEISM Oli THEISM ?
37
his environment—at best his adaptation is but a makeshift,
a “ roughing it,” a period of unstable equilibrium, a tight
rope dance for dear life, with absolute certainty in every
case of a fatal fall by way of finale.
Turning from man, look at the ocean. Its waves swell
and roar and break a million million times ; but its water
changes not. Its atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are in
perfect equilibrium, in perfect mutual adaptation. So was
it when the first water flowed ; so will it be for ever. And
could that adaptation, so perfect, so absolute, so time-defy
ing, be the result of an accident, or natural result of merely
natural forces, as Mr. St. Clair implies ? And will he con
tend that the most perfect adaptations require no adapter,
while asserting that the imperfect, evanescent, and miserable
adaptations seen in man required for their production
an almighty and intelligent god ? To do so may be
prime theology, but it is not philosophy, nor science, nor
reason.
Mr. St. Clair now admits that he cannot define deity. I
suspected as much—he has no deity to define. Then why
does he contend for what he does not understand ? Like
the woman of Samaria, he “ worships he knows not what.”
“A mother’s affection is intended for the good of her off
spring,” my opponent informs me. It is impossible that he
can know that it is “ intended” for anything; that it does
effect the good of her offspring, though not invariably, is at
once conceded. What more does Mr. St. Clair know about
it ? And what is a mother’s hate “ intended ” for ? And
this hate “ owes its origin to the author of life.” Rabbits
frequently eat their young; is that also at the instigation
of deity ? Such arguments as my opponent deals in are
not “ Theistic facts,” as he supposes; they are merely
superstitious fictions unworthy the respect of a man
like Mr. St. Clair. To talk about deity caring for a
mother’s offspring is to me simply shocking. Who is
it' kills children in millions by measles, whooping cough,
convulsions, fever, small-pox, by earthquake, flood and
famine ? If there really does exist a deity, he kills millions of
children every century by famine. Has Mr. St. Clair ever
reflected on that fact ? Why, if a mother’s love has any
“ intention ” at all, it is to defend her child as long as
possible against the murderous attacks of this very deity,
�88
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
who meets us at every turn and “ seeks to kill us ” at every
stage of life.
Will Mr. St. Clair give me one proved Theistic fact in
his next ?
LETTER VIII.
From Mr. Gr. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Robinson Crusoe was puzzled as to his whereabouts in the
great ocean, but he was able to explore his little island;
and he might have made canoe voyages and gradually
extended the area of his knowledge, though hopeless of
including all the world. Mankind, in like manner, have
mapped the solar system, and delved down to the Silurian
rocks with their fossils, and they find their knowledge real
and useful, though it brings them no nearer to the beginning
of time or the boundaries of space. Our inability to com
prehend the Infinite is not a reason for undervaluing the
things within our reach. It is foolish to say we explain
nothing, because we cannot fully understand the first origin.
Things are explained, in a degree which gives the mind
some satisfaction, when we trace them back to their causes.
The trade winds, for instance, are accounted for by the
sun’s heat and the earth’s rotation : and this explanation is
not rendered inaccurate by pointing out that the cause of
the earth’s rotation is not known, and that the sun’s heat
itself requires accounting for. I, in my Crusoe fashion,
explore, and am obliged to be content with something less
than infinite knowledge. I trace some things to man’s intel
ligent action as their cause, and am convinced that certain
steam-engines, pumps, microscopes, &c., would not have
existed but for his operation. I find other things which I
can only explain by ascribing them to an intelligence which
is not man’s. The worker is not seen, but the work is seen;
and I know there must have been an architect of the human
frame, as I know there must have been a designer of
Cologne cathedral.
The human eye would be enough evidence if I had no
other. “ Was the eye constructed without skill in optics ? ”
asks that great mathematician, Sir Isaac Newton—“ or the
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
S9
ear without knowledge of sounds ? ” The argument is a
thousand-fold stronger for regarding the human frame as a
designed structure taking it as a whole ; for the eye stands
to the body only as the east window to the cathedral. The
teeth are a beautiful apparatus, surpassing human inven
tions, when we consider their growth, their enamelled pro
tective covering, their office, and their position at the
entrance of the alimentary canal, in proximity to the
tongue and the sources of saliva. The valves in the blood- vessels are so manifestly placed there with a view of securing
the circulation of the blood that Harvey inferred the Crea
tor’s intention, and so was guided to his discovery. It is a
question which all great investigators ask—“ What is the
creative intention in this arrangement ?■ ” for they find it a
clue to discovery. I must not linger over the human body:
let Atheists read Paley, Brougham, and Bell, and some of
them will give up their Atheism and take to refuting Mr.
Symes’s worn-out objections. Every creature is admirably
adapted to its mode of life and to the element in which
it lives. If we desired to give the body of a fish the best
form for moving through the water we should have to
fashion it as a solid of least resistance. “ A very difficult
chain of mathematical reasoning, by means of the highest
branches of algebra, leads to a knowledge of the curve which,
by revolving on its axis, makes a solid of this shape ....
and the curve resembles closely the face or head part of a
fish.” Let the young reader, perplexed by Mr. Symes’s
objections, read more of this in Lord Brougham’s “ Objects,
Advantages and Pleasures of Science.” The feathers of the
wings of birds are found to be placed at the best possible
angle for assisting progress by their action on the air. In
the Duke of Argyll’s “ Reign of Law ” there is a chapter
concerning the admirable mechanism of the bird’s wing. A
bird is heavier than the air in which it is sustained, and it
has to make headway against a resisting atmosphere. Man’s
poor attempts to make wings usually result in the disaster
of Imlac in Dr. Johnson’s “ Rasselas ” ; man’s attempts to
navigate the air by balloons are so poor that the Customs
Officers have no fear of being eluded. If we wish to see
how material laws can be so bent as to effect a designed
purpose we must study the problem of a bird’s flight.
Leaving birds for insects, how marvellous it is that the
�40
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
cabbage butterfly should always lay its eggs on the cabbage,
the leaves of which are so suited for the nourishment of the
young grubs, and will be so much relished! That butter
fly has no taste for cabbage leaves itself, and it will not live
to see its offspring, yet its instinct—which is not of its own
creation—guides it aright. These are samples of Theistic
facts, in one department. When Mr. Symes has dealt with
them I can furnish more.
In my Crusoe fashion, I discern an intelligence at work
which is not my own, nor that of my brother man, which
immensely transcends mine and his, though, with my Crusoe
limitations, I have not the means of deciding the measure
of its greatness. I discern a worker, whether infinite or
not—a worker operating under conditions, whether the con
ditions be self-imposed or not. He accomplishes many
things which I can appreciate ; He seems to be working
out greater purposes which I do but dimly grasp.
As an evolutionist I discern something of a purpose
running through the ages, independent of the will of kings
and legislators. I perceive a gradual advance to higher
platforms of life, at present culminating in man. Man did
not come until the earth had been prepared for him, and
stores of coal and iron laid up for his use. Apparently he
could not come without lower creatures preceding him ;
because he had to be born from them. As a race, we have
had to go through our schooling, for in no other way could
we become educated; our struggle with difficulty makes
men of us, unless we neutralise it by taking the discipline
sulkily. Had the Creator been perpetually at our elbow to
do our lessons for us, to work for us while we slept, and to
help us over all stiles, we should never have attained intel
lectual manhood and moral strength. Man is progressing
still, and therefore will be a nobler creature by and bye.
His surroundings are subject to an evolution and improve
ment, which advances pari passu with himself. He himself
is the Creator’s latest-fashioned and best-adapted instru
ment for effecting these desirable adaptations, commissioned
to carry on and carry out some of the highest purposes of
God. It is a great thing to be conscious of this ; and I am
bold to say that thousands of good people are conscious of
communion with a Higher Soul, of inspirations received
from him, and of tasks assigned by him, the act omplish*
4
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
41
meut of which is another phrase for co-operation with him
and doing his will on earth.
This Divine Worker seems to be limited by “the con
ditions of all work.” rAs regards ourselves and our own
work, we candlbt conceive how we could live at all in a
dreamy, shifting, chance world, not subject to fixed con
ditions. We are finite and conditioned, and cannot realise
an utterly different kind of existence. It would follow from
this alone that anything which the Creater may do with us
or for us must be conformable to the conditions of the
world we live in if it is to be comprehensible to us. Although,
therefore, He be great beyond all assignable limits, he must
necessarily look limited to us. Where we see him operating
we see him making use of natural forces, moulding and
directing them. The natural forces in themselves are neither
moral nor immoral—steam, electricity, and strychnine have
no conscience, and are not to be blamed or praised for their
effects. They may be turned to good uses or to bad uses—
strychnine to poison or to relieve, steam to work a locomo
tive or propel a murderous bullet. We infer a worker and
his moral character from the use made of natural forces.
Mr. Symes does not distinguish between forces working
blindly and forces working under intelligent direction, but
insists on ascribing all results to God, or else none. This
is not what I discern, for I perceive that some things have
been contrived by some Intelligence, and of other things I
do not perceive it.
An enlightened evolutionist ought to know that “ Evil ”
is “ Good in the making.” It has been so in the past,
again and again. Perfect goodness is producing more and
more good constantly (evil, as Spencer shows, is evanes
cent) and may probably produce infinite good in the course
of time. But Mr. Symes is not content to have it produced,
he wants his bread before the cake is baked.
Mr. Symes finishes his last by asking “Will I give him one
proved Theistic fact?” Well, something depends upon
what is allowed to be “ proof,” and that again depends upon
whether you have to convince a man of common sense or a
man of uncommon obstinacy. If folk possess eyes it is no
guarantee that light will reach their minds, if they choose
to live in a camera obscura. My opponent closes the shutters
and then complains that things are dark. What can I do
�42
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
with a man who does not believe that eyes are given him
to see with ? On the same principle his faculties are not
given him to enable him either to reason correctly or to
understand arguments. Perhaps I ought not to be surprised
that my proofs are thrown away upon him.
1 have noticed in going through a cut-glass manufactory
that although the workmen are skilful and the processes are
ingenious by which the crude “ metal” is blown, annealed,
ground on wheels of iron for the pattern, and on wheels of
stone and wood for smoothing and polishing—I have noticed
that accidents are liable to occur at every stage, and some
few cruets, wine-glasses, decanters, etc., get broken and
thrown into the waste tub. But if I want to see what is
being produced, and was designed before it was manufac
tured, I go not to the waste-tub, but to the show-room.
Certainly even a fractured salt-cellar in the waste-tub
would show design—a formative design accidently baulked,
not a design to produce fracture and waste—but a wise man
will rather go to the show-room. Mr. Symes, I imagine,
would go to the waste-tub and refuse to see anything out
side of it. He invites us to contemplate blind eyes, rotten
teeth and people suffering from cancer. He assures us that
had a beneficent Creator made our eyes He would have
ensured their good performance. I should reply that He
does so. “ Not in all cases,” says my querulous friend,
“ why I find squinting eyes and blind eyes, and here are
ophthalmic institutions ! ” True, man’s heart of pity leads
him to heal. Man’s intelligence enables him to understand
something of optics. In both respects he is growing up in
the ways of his Heavenly Father. The modest Newton
admired the Divine skill in optics: but Mr. Symes claims
to “ know more of optics himself,” and to be able to teach
the Creator his business. The eye “ought to have been made
not of water, jelly, and soft fibres, but of hard and tough
material.” Surely Alphonso of Castile has come back again.
That monarch said that had he been of the privy council of
the Deity he could have advised the formation of the solar
system on a better plan ! Had he said this concerning the
actual solar system instead of against the false system of
Ptolemy, it would have been irreverent, not to say blasphe
mous. I count it rather inconsistent in Mr. Symes to want
any uyes at all, as he thinks they were not made to see with
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
43
and are an endlass bother. Perhaps the hard and tough one£
which he would substitute would be faulty in their re
fraction (for all work is conditioned by the material).
Can my opponent assure me that it would not be so ? Has
he got any of these eyes ready-made, and do they answer
perfectly ? or is this an empty boast of his about improving
upon the Creator’s work ? I doubt not that there is a good
reason for employing soft humors and delicate fibres in the
eye, and then I admire the care and wisdom which have
provided so well for the protection of such a delicate organ,
by the position given to it, in a bony socket defended by lids
and lashes and ramparts. “ But the eye lacks achromatism,
and has the defect of astigmatism, and follows the pattern
of inferior spectacle-glasses in having two curves in the
cornea.” Rather random assertions these : take for instance
the first. Chromatism is color-ism; a double convex lens
or magnifying glass causes objects to appear with rainbow
colored fringes. This was a defect for a long time in
telescopes, and telescopes free from the defect are called
achromatic. Well, are we troubled and inconvenienced by
seeing these colored fringes when we use the naked eye ?
Is any reader conscious of it ? Now what is the fact ? All
telescopes were defective in this particular, and Sir I.
Newton had said that there could be no remedy, until it
occurred to an ingenious optician that the difficulty must
have been overcome by the Maker of the eye. So he
examined the eye till he discovered how it was overcome,
and then by imitation of the Creator’s method invented the
first achromatic telescope. I would call my opponent’s
attention to this, but I suppose it is of no use ; he will
persist in regarding the eyes as clumsy workmanship and in
complaining that they are palmed off upon us whether we
like it or not. The traveller Vambery mentions that in
Bokhara they punish slaves by gouging out their eyes. Mr.
Symes, to be consistent, ought not to protest against the
■cruelty, since in his estimation it involves no loss, and the
Chief cruelty is in having the eyes thrust upon us. But in
answer to his astounding assertion that the eye is not
respectable workmanship and that the best telescopes far
transcend it as optical instruments, it is sufficient to say
that we can see with our eyes, unaided by telescopes, whereas
we cannot see with telescopes unaided by eyes.
�44
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
My opponent not only damns his eyes, but curses his
Jreth. First because he is born without them! On his
theory this ought to be an advantage, so far as it goes. But,
considering that other beautiful provision of the beneficent
Creator, which supplies a fountain of milk for the infant
lips to draw from, teeth are not only not required for a milk
diet, but would be inconvenient to the mother. Then Mr.
Symes cries out, “ We cut them in misery! ” He is always
afraid of a little pain. “The first set are not permanent.”
No, becau-e the child will grow, the jaws will lengthen, and
there will be room enough for larger teeth, and for thirtytwo instead of twenty. Mr. Symes, as a child, had less
jaw; which reminds me, however, of a pun made by John
Hunter, the famous surgeon. While he was once lecturing,
and pointing out that in the higher animals the jaw is
shorter, while the intelligence, of course, is greater, his
pupils were chattering nonsense to one another. “ Gentle
men,” said Hunter, “let us have more intellect and less
jaw!” I don’t know whether those young men had attained
their wisdom-teeth. Mr. Symes is annoyed that even the
second set of teeth are subject to neuralgia and decay.
This he considers a great Atheistic fact. The evil appa
ratus of the teeth is thrust upon us in the same cruel
manner as our clumsily-made eyes, and we may any day
have an attack of neuralgia. At length, however, the
teeth decay and leave us, and then what do we do ? Why,
it appears, we have to go to the expense of a new set, so
essential are they, and this is made an additional subject of
complaint! By the bye, I suppose I must not pass over the
question put—what should I say if a dentist supplied me
with teeth that ached ? I should say that he was cleverer
than any other dentist I had met with, for the aching was
proof that he had connected the teeth with nerves, and made
them live. I should say I was glad to have living teeth in.
my mouth, instead of dead ivory, and that I was satisfied
the teeth were contrived for me to eat with, while their very
occasional aching was only an unpleasant incident, and per
haps brought on by my own folly. Careful people will not
often catch cold in the face, and good, moral people will not
so devote themselves to Venus and mercury that their teeth
fall out.
Let us come to adaptations. Of course I am not going.
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
45
to be pinned to any definition which makes adaptation the
same thing as design. Some adaptations may not be
designed. There’s a distinction to be drawn between mere
fitness to produce a result, and purposive fitness which intends
to secure the result. But Mr. Symes as usual does not
perceive distinctions which make all the difference. He
says that water is adapted for drowning and fire for burning.
Granted: but are they purposely adapted, deliberately
designed and fitted ? This is the very essence of the question.
When the jeweller’s boy drops a watch, gravity and “ the
law of falling bodies” are adapted to smash it; but that is
an accidental adaptation, not to be compared with the
adaptation of part to part in the construction of the watch
—not to be compared with it, but rather contrasted.
Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall, and the egg thus smashed
could not say that gravity was unadapted to produce the
result ; but compare this with the purposive adaptation of
an egg, as I will now epitomise it from Professor Owen’s
lecture on “ Design.” An egg is made convex and dome
like, to bear the weight of the sitting bird. It contains a
whitish spot, which is the germ, in which the development
of the chick begins. The germ is on one side of the yolk,
quite near to the shell, for it is necessary that it should be
brought as close as possible to the hot brooding skin of the
sitting hen. Now it is a fact that though you take as many
eggs as you please, and turn them about as often as you
like, you will always find this opaque white spot at the
middle of the uppermost surface of the yolk. Hunter com
pared this phasnomenon to the movements of the needle to
the pole. Of course there is an apparatus -which secures
this result; but it is an apparatus, a piece of machinery.
“ As the vital fire burns up, organic material is reduced to
carbon ; a membrane, over which the blood spreads in a
net-work of minute vessels, like a gill or lung, then extends
from the embryo to the inner side of the shell, between it
and the white; the shell is made porous to allow the air
access to this temporary respiratory organ ; and the oxygen
combining with the carbon, it exhales as carbonic acid. As
the chick approaches the period of its extrication, it is able
to breathe by its proper lungs, and in the vesica aeris, or
collection of air at the great end of the egg, it finds the
wherewithal to begin its feeble inspirations, and to utter the
�46
ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
Jow chirp which may be heard just before it chips the shell.
And how does it effect this ? By means of a hard knob
specially formed upon the end of the upper beak, and which,
after it has done its work, disappears.” All this appears to
me something very different from the adaptedness of the
hard ground to break the egg if it falls; but Mr. Symes
would have us believe that the adaptation is of the same
sort! His words are, “ It cannot be denied that the pro
cesses of decay and destruction show as perfect adaptation i
of means to ends as processes which result in life.”
He argues that if anything is designed, earthquakes,
plagues, cancer, etc., are designed to cause pain, and must
be regarded as proving a malignant God. But can he show
that the fitness or adaptation in these agencies is purposive ?
I can see design in an infernal machine ; oh yes ! but I am
not convinced that earthquakes are an infernal arrangement,
much less that teeth are a diabolical invention because
they sometimes ache. The adaptedness of the teeth for
mastication bears the appearance of a good purpose; the
adaptedness of an earthquake to rock down houses is
not clearly purposive at all. There are influences of
destruction and of decay, I admit; but the constructive
operations are what I see design in. If I don’t attribute
the former to God, my opponent must not object, since he
does not either.
I have a word to say which must be fatal to this idea
that the forces of decay and destruction are purposive, if
any are, and prove a malignant deity. A malignant deity
finding pleasure in destruction, would soon destroy every
thing. But, in fact, the agencies which build up are
stronger than the agencies which destroy; construction
gains upon decay, good gains upon evil. For evil is evanes
cent as Herbert Spencer shows, in a chapter which Mr.
Symes will not deal with. Even if destruction had to be
ascribed to a destroying deity, construction would have to be
ascribed to a deity engaged in building up. Then, as the
same being would hardly build up with one hand and destroy
with the other, Mr. Symes would be landed in Dualism, or
the old Persian belief in two Gods. The further fact that
construction is gaining upon decay, good gaining upon evil,
would force him to admit that the good deity was the
stronger. The way out of this difficulty is only to be found
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
47
fai Theism as I advocate it—one God, operating under con|
ditions. One proof and test of this Theism consists in the
fact that evil and decay do not carry purpose on the face of
them, while organised adaptations do.
If the reader grasps this fact he will see through my
opponent’s curious attempt to turn my argument round and
make it appear equally good for proving the existence of a
malignant deity. He suggests such a being, “ laboring
under conditions ” which prevent infinite evil from being
effected at once, but “ working by various agencies to remove
all good from his universe.” He does not seem to see
that this implies a universe of “ good ” to begin with, and
that this is another form of his irrational demand that the
finished thing should exist before the crude and unwrought,
the perfect v^ork before there has been time for its elabora
tion. He wants his cake before it is baked, before the flour
is kneaded, before the wheat is grown.
LETTER IX.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Mr. St. Clair says he “ knows ” there must have been
an “ architect of the human frame,” as he knows there
must have been “ a designer of Cologne Cathedral.” Well,
then, the human frame must be an architectural production,
or building. Of what Order, of what Style is it ? I never
saw it described in any book on Architecture : how is that ?
So baseless is my opponent’s Theism that he confounds
language in order to support it. If he will prove that
man’s frame is an architectural structure, I will prove
Cologne Cathedral to be a mushroom, of an edible sort, too.
Mr. St. Clair having no case, no real god, no facts to
support his superstition, cherishing a blind belief in an
impossibility, resorts to the unconscious legerdemain of
deceiving himself and his readers by the use of poetical and
mythical language, in which the distinction between natural
objects and human manufactures is ignored, and a potato
is dubbed a building and a building designated a turnip.
This is what the “Design argument” resolves itself into;
and under its witchery, men, not otherwise unfair or
�4 <8
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
^logical, run through fantastic mazes of bewilderment,
vainly persuading themselves that they are reasoning, when
they arc only floundering in “ Serbonian bogs,” following
the Theistic will-o’-the-wisp, manifestly benighted and lost,
and yet assuring you with the utmost gravity that they and
they alone are perfectly self-possessed and well know their
whereabouts, and whither they are tending.
With Mr. St. Clair, teeth are yet a beautiful apparatus
designed and intended for mastication. Has he never
reflected that nutrition is totally independent of mastication
and teeth in countless millions of beings ? The child lives
without teeth, so does many an old man ; sheep and cows
have no front teeth in the upper jaw; the whale, the
dugong, the ornithorhynchus, ant-eaters, and all birds are
destitute of teeth. If presence of teeth argues design, what
does their absence argue ? If ^od gives a man teeth to eat
with, I presume he means him to cease eating when he
destroys them. Instead of that, my opponent and other
irreverent and disobedient Theists, either misunderstanding
or disregarding the divine intimation, rush away to the
dentist and get other teeth wherewith to obstruct the divinf
intentions ! Will he explain his conduct?
Of course, I admit that nature can in some departments
immensely exceed man, but that does not prove any exis
tence ctbopc nature. The valves of the blood-vessels are
manifestly placed there to secure the circulation of the
blood, says my opponent. He might as well affirm that a
river-bed is manifestly placed where it is to secure the flow
of the river that way. Which existed first, rivers or river
beds? Which existed first, valves or blood-circulation?
There is in the animal world abundant circulation without
valves or veins. The cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises,
&c.) have no valves in their veins; and yet, I presume,
their blood circulates as well as ours. Circulation goes on
in a speck of protoplasm where there is no structure at all.
Even in organisms, the heart may be very diverse, and yet
serve the owner as well as we are served. In frogs, toads,
&c., there is but one ventricle; in most fish there is but one
auricle and one ventricle; in the lancelet there is but a
single tube. But their blood circulates as well as ours.
Had Mr. St. Clair’s deity felt any deep concern for
human welfare, he would have placed, had it occurred to
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
49
him, valves in the deep arteries, so that the poor wretcH
who ruptures one of them should not bleed to death.
I grew out of Paley, Brougham, and Bell’s theology years
ago. What naturalist or physiologist to-day shows any
respect to their crude Design argument ? Besides, Mr. St.
Clair has no right to refer to them; his god is not theirs—
theirs was almighty and infinitely wise; his a poor puny
thing for whom his single high priest is ever making
apologies.
If every creature were adapted, !< admirably ” or not, “to
the element in which it lives,” it wmuld never die. Geological
strata furnish absolute proofs that no creatures, no race of
creatures, were ever yet “ admirably adapted to their con
ditions.” Whole races have died out. Will my opponent
kindly explain ? Has he ever read of famines, coal-pit
disasters, earthquakes? What sort of a world does he live in?
Has he never passed a shambles or a cemetery ? Do the
creatures of his marvellously concocted god die of excessive
adaptation to their environments, or what ?
The fish is of just the right shape—the solid of hast
resistance fits it for its element. This looks learned and
imposing. But are all inhabitants of the water of one shape?
How is the solid of least resistance realized in the spermaceti
whale, with its big, blunt, square-fronted head ? In the
hammer-head? In the “ Portuguese man-of-war ? ” In
those slow ones that fall a prey to the swift ? Mr. St. Clair
reminds me of that venerable lady who could not sufficiently
admi re the ■wisdom of god in making rivers run down hill
and along the valleys. That, certainly, is a very strong
proof of divine existence; for rivers would run the other
way if there were no god, just as surely as fishes would be
of divers shapes, instead of being all of one pattern as they
now are, if there were not a god to make them all in his own
image.
The feathers of a bird’s wings are placed, I am informed,
at the “ best possible angle for assisting progress,” etc.
And cold is found in the best possible conditions for freezing
the early buds and blossoms and for killing men and children
exposed to it. Heat is well adapted to warming purposes.
Had there been no god, heat would probably freeze things,
and frost would roast, boil, or burn them. There is as much
design in the one case as in the other. Mr. St. Clair may
�50
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
next tell us the design in the wings of a penguin, a moa, or
an apteryx.
The cabbage butterfly deposits its eggs by instinct, says my
opponent. How does he know that sight or smell does not
guide it ? Has he consulted the insect ? What is instinct ?
And what right has Mr. St. Clair’s god to destroy my cabbages
by the disgusting caterpillars which spring from those eggs ?
Gardeners kill those caterpillars by myriads every year; but
the real destroyer of our gardens is Mr. St. Clair’s god.
Whose instinct or instigation leads the ichneumon to deposit
its eggs right in the body of a caterpillar, so that its
murderous brood should eat up their living host ? Whose
instinct guides the tapeworm to a human body ? Whose
instinct guides the locusts to lay waste a country and produce
a famine ?
My opponent says that butterflies and other objects men
tioned in his second paragraph are “ samples of theisti®'
facts.” So much the worse for deity and Theism, if true. I
had supposed, however, that Mr. St. Clair knew the differ
ence between Theology and Natural Science 1 Must I
enlighten him ? The eye and the circulation of the blood
are anatomical and physiological facts, not Theistic; birds
and fishes are subjects in zoology, and insects belong to the
sub-science of entomology. Cannibalism is as much, possibly
more, a Theistic fact as any yet named. Though if my
opponent will claim for his god the credit of creating all
noxious and destructive pests, including fleas, bugs, tape
worms, etc., I suppose an Atheist need not complain.
What my opponent says of “ discerning an intelligence
at work,” a “ worker .... whether infinite or not,” a
“ purpose running through the ages,” etc., is no doubt
borrowed from one of his discourses; and sure I am it
edified all the devout who listened to it. But discussion is
not a devotional exercise exactly, and I must beg him to
translate those liturgical scraps into plain language,
specially that about the “purpose running through the
ages.” The language is good ; I wonder if the purpose is.
I am in a fever-heat of anxiety to hear what it is my
opponent discerns, whether anyone else may get a glimpse
of it—at not too great a cost. The man that can “ discern
a purpose running through the ages ” of human history
must be either very much clearer sighted or immensely
�ATHEISM OB THEISM ?
51
more superstitious than anyone that I know. Indeed, I
must, till evidence be forthcoming, regard the boast as
nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. Is Mr. St. Clair a
clairvoyant, I wonder, or subject to second sight ?
“Man,” we are gravely told, “did not come until the earth
had been prepared for him.” Neither did the tapeworm, till
man had been prepared for him. It is worthy of note, too, that
pickpockets, forgers, swindlers, fortunetellers, inquisitors,
aristocrats, and vermin generally “ did not come till the
«
earth had been prepared for them.” And, who would credit
it ? there never was a chimney sweep till chimneys existed !
In that fact “ I discern ” a profound “ purpose ” of a two
fold nature:—1st. Chimneys were intended and designed to
be swept, and to this end divine Providence made coals
black and sooty, else sweeps would never have had any
work; 2nd. He made the sweeps in order to clear the flues
of their foulness. Mr. St. Clair may close his eyes to these
facts as long as he pleases ; they are Theistic facts—if any
and are a most remarkable proof of design and
intelligence. It was just as impossible for man to antedate
his necessary epoch, or to postpone it, as for sweeps to precede chimneys. Man’s coming was the natural and inevitable Outcome or result of all the phænomena that preceded
him io-flis own line of development. You have no better
proof that water is a natural product than that man is such.
He had nbJntelligent creator, nor was one required. Man
is a natural, not supernatural, phænomenon. His so-called
creator is Really his creation, a fancy, a bugbear, and
nothing more. It is high time for Atheists, I think, to
cease beating about the bush, and tell the Theist bluntly
that his gods are figments neither useful nor ornamental,
th® offspring of ignorance, fear, and slavery—to-day mere
grim and curious survivals of the epochs when superstition
was unchecked in its growth and sway.
Mr. St. Clair at length takes refuge in inspiration and
. infallibility. “ I am bold to say,” says he, “ that thousands
of good people are conscious of communion with a higher
soul, of inspirations received from him, and of tasks assigned
by him.” Here my opponent chooses for his comrades the
phrenzied prophets and priestesses of ancient superstitions ;
the hysterical nuns who converse with Mary at Lourdes and
where not; Johanna Southcott, Joseph Smith Edward
�52
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
Irving, Brigham Young, Mother Girling, et hoc genus
omne, whose name is legion, whose “ inspirations ” and god
given “ tasks ” have been “ thick as autumnal leaves in
Vallombrosa,” and have included every absurdity and every
crime known to history. What has god not “inspired?”
What has he not imposed as a task? “I could a tale
unfold,” but space forbids.
Will my opponent name one syllable of truth or an original
idea that either he or any other person ever derived from
“inspiration” or in “communion” with this higher soul?
Ah, me! This world is very wonderful. Socrat^ had a
deemon, Prospero was served by Ariel, Faust had his Mephistopheles, and Mr. St. Clair has his “ higher soul,” spelt with
initial capitals ! This higher soul of his—I may speak
with some authority—is but himself, in dim, shadowy, and
magnified outline, a very Brocken Spectre, projected on the
soft clouds of his superstition. I once had the diswg^
badly, but recovered long since. Do not despair, good sir;
the rising sun of common-sense and healthy Atheistic
thought will soon fling his powerful beams on the very spot
where your magnified and ghostly shadow now sits, and the
mists which form the throne of your deity will rarify and
vanish along with the occupant!
But to claim inspiration is to claim infallibility. If you
are sure you have communion with some one, to discuss the
question of his existence, to ask if belief in it is rational, are
highly improper—you have settled the matter by fact, and
there is an end of it. There is no arguing with an inspired
man ; nor should he himself attempt reason, it is unneces
sary. An inspired man should merely dogmatise—as Mr.
St. Clair does. He never argues, he merely states. I under
stand him now; he is weak in logic, but invincible in
faith. Men who hold communion with higher souls rarely
argue well. The reason is obvious:—no man that can
reason well and has a good case ever thinks of rushing into
inspiration. Inspiration is the despair of logic; it is the
refuge of those who are bankrupt of reason. Mr. St. Clair
must no more grumble with the Pope and his infallibility ;
he claims it too, and for exactly the same reasons. Had
the Pope been able to prove his other claims, he would have
had no excuse for claiming infallibility and “ communion
with the higher souls.” Just so, if Mr. St. Clair had been
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
53
able to make out even a passable, lame, blind, and limping
case in this discussion, we should have heard nothing about
inspiration and “ consciousness ” of deity. Any devout
worshipper can extort just as much real inspiration from
old clouts and mouldy bones as my opponent derives from
his god. Of course there is no arguing with this new
Moses—he is up among the crags of Sinai contemplating his
god, speaking to him face to face, reflecting on his feet, or
viewing other “ parts ” of his splendid person. I hope he
will publish his inspirations when he descends.
I should not show any respect to Mr. St. Clair were I to
notice some few sentences in his letter, one close to the end
for example. No man not near his wit’s end could permit
himself deliberately to publish that about gouging out
eyes, &c.
Lastly, Mr. St. Clair has written four out of his six
betters, and yet no shadow of a Theistic fact. Assertions
—-bold enough many of them—we have had in abundance,
but no sound reasoning, no evidence of a divine existence
yet. Is he reserving his arguments and facts for his last
letter, and does he intend to overwhelm me then without
leaving me the possibility of reply? I should like to know
what his god is. Has he not yet made up his mind about
him ?
____
Postscriptum.—I have now, Friday evening, seen the
conclusion of Mr. St. Clair’s long letter. I understood
we were to confine ourselves to two columns and a-half each
letter; but here is one from my opponent of nearly five
columns. If his logic were equal to the length of his
epistles, I should soon be hors de combat, but the logic is in
the inverse ratio of the cubes of the lengths, and so I have
but little to do.
The first sentence of his supplement seems very much like
swearing. I do not “ damn eyes ” or “ curse teeth ; ” I
point out their faults and thus damn their maker, if there be
one. All I have done is to employ fair and honest criticism
respecting the manufactures of this new deity manufactured
by Mr. St. Clair. The really good things of Nature I no
more ignore nor despise than my opponent; I merely show
what sort of a god he has, if he has one. The excuses and
apologies he makes for his most unfortunate deity sufficiently
�54
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
show that Mr. St. Clair feels what I say and cannot refute
my criticisms. This is all I desire of him. He cannot deny
my facts, nor can he successfully defend his poor god upon
one single point, except by representing him as being weak
to contempt. Why contend for such a god ?
Considering how much Mr. St. Clair can write without
saying anything to the point, how long are his letters, how
weak his arguments, how many his words, how few his facts,
and how pointless even those are which he produces, it seems
to me that Hunter’s joke about the “ Jaw ” should have
been reserved for his own behoof. I have nothing at all to
do with the size of the jaw. If the deity made the jaw toe
small for its purpose, my opponent will need to make another
apology for him. I beg to ask : could Mr. St. Clair’s deity
have made the jaw and teeth so that they could grow at an
equal rate, or could he not? Could he have given every
person a good set of teeth that would do their work without
aching, or could he not ? Does he know when producing a
set of teeth that they will begin to decay almost as soon as
completed ? Does he intend them to do so ? Does he intend
them to give pain, or not ? I ask the same about the eyes.
Does this poor deity know when making a pair of blind eyes
that they will never see? Does he intend them to see, or
not? Mr. St. Clair will not answer these questions; his
false position will not allow him.
He would like a dentist who could give him an aching set
of teeth! I have long suspected him of joking, now I am
sure of it. If two of his new teeth pinched his gum, he
would return to the dentist to have them rectified. It is
only when Quixotically defending his poor god that he
pretends to despise pain. It seems to me very heartless to
speak of “ Venus and Mercury ” as he does when he must
know that many people, children for example, who devote
themselves to neither, suffer horrible pain both in connexion
with teeth and eyes—ay, every organ of the body. Is
human suffering a thing to be joked with? Evidently
“ communion with that higher soul ” whom he supposes to
have made this dreadful world, has produced its natural
effects and rendered my opponent callous to the sufferings
around him. Of course, it is only when the spirit of the
lord is upon him and he rises in wrath to do battle for his
deity that he feels no sympathy for human pain. It was
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
i
1
5S
converse with fancied deities that led to all the atrocit’js
of the middle ages. Once believe in a god that inflicts pain,
that makes people deformed, sickly, that afflicts them with
all the horrible diseases that flesh is heir to, and you make
, light of all pain but your own, out of sympathy for your
god and in acquiescence with his supposed intentions. This,
1 I fear, is my opponent’s condition. During this discussion
' he has persevered in ignoring suffering, and has spoken of
all evils as if they were flea-bites. It is, I am sure, his
irrational Theism that makes him do so.
The egg is descanted upon by my opponent. Well, did it
never occur to him that, here, as in every other case he can
mention, the creator, if such there be, must have made the
necessity for his design and adaptation before meeting that
necessity by contrivances? Young are produced in a great
variety of ways. Was it necessary that eggs should be
laid and then brooded over for weeks by the bird ? If so,
whence came that necessity? And does the deity know
whe# he is so carefully constructing an egg that it will
never be laid ? that fowl and egg will both die and rot
together? Or does he know that Mr. St. Clair will eat
g it for breakfast ? What a silly deity to manufacture such
countless millions of eggs, eggs of fishes, and eggs of fowls,
for the purpose of developing them into animals, when he
knows all the while that only a very few of them can
possibly reach their destination ! If he does not know their
destiny, he must be equally contemptible.
Mr. St. Clair tries to establish a distinction between
a mere fitness to produce a result, and purposive fitness
which intends to secure the result. This is a bold flight.
He won’t be “ pinned to definitions,” but he will assume
ability to distinguish between accidents and purposed events
in Nature. I presume his “ communion with the higher
soul ” must have been exceedingly close to authorise him to
speak thus. Is he the grand vizier of his deity, or who ?
Does he suppose his god would overdo his adaptation?
The destructive forces and processes of nature are just as
much organised and arranged for the set purpose of destroy
ing as anything that can be named. To the point: Does
Mr. St. Clair argue or hold that all pain is accidental?
That death is not intended, not designed ? Will he venture
to give a direct answer to these questions ? Are the teeth
�56
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
of cats, tigers, lions, etc., less evidently adapted to their
work of killing than the egg for its supposed intention ? Is
an earthquake less adapted to the destruction of life than
warmth and eggs are to produce or extend it ? Is a famine
less adapted to destroy than a harvest to sustain ? Is the
Spring more fit to produce blossoms than the frost is to nip
them ?
No; a malignant deity would not at once destroy every
thing, for two reasons : 1st. He might be too weak, as Mr. St.
Clair’s is ; 2nd. He would lose most of his horrible pleasure.
Malignancy would do just what my opponent’s god is doing,
raise up generation after generation, as long as he is able,
for the gratification of torturing and destroying them. No .
doubt, if Theism be at all rational, Dualism is the only '
logical form it can take. I am neither Monotheist nor
Duotheist: the whole belief appears to me so irrational and
absurd that I cannot think that civilised men of to-day
would be swayed by it, were their minds not perverted in
that direction in early life.
Indeed, it vastly surprises me to find a partial sceptic,
like my opponent, resuscitating the Design Argument,
which the “ Bridgewater Treatises ” so long ago elaborated
to death. I wish he would say a word or two on the tape
worm, the trichina, and other pests. It is so delightfully
amusing to me to hear a Theist expatiating on the goodness
of deity as displayed in the evils of life 1 “Evil and decay
do not carry purpose on the face of them, while organised
adaptations do.” Indeed 1 What would become of all new
organisms if the old were not cleared off by decay and
death? Beasts, birds, and fishes of prey, are not then
organised to destroy ? The wings of the hawk, the legs of
the tiger, the shape and tail of the dolphin were not
organised to enable them to destroy their prey ? The smut,
a fungus that destroys wheat, the dry rot, barnacles that
eat ships to destruction, locusts, caterpillars, phylloxera,
the empusa muscoo, a fungus that kills flies, the botrytis
bassiana, a fungus which attacks the silkworms, and reduced
the annual production of cocoons in France between the
years 1853 and 1865 from 65,000,000 to 10,000,000; thepotato disease, which caused such suffering and misery in
Ireland—these fungi are not organised, Mr. St. Clair, by im
plication, affirms! What will not Theism lead a man to say?
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
57
He quotes Professor Owen—Does he not know that Owen
and other great Naturalists can tell by the examination of
a tooth whether an unknown animal was a carnivore or a
vegetarian, etc. ? Were the teeth, muscles, viscera, etc.,
of a carnivore “purposively” adapted for killing, tearing,
, and digesting other animals, or not ? Yes, or no ? pray.
!■
My opponent must try again—I wish to encourage him.
He has not yet laid the first stone of rational Theism. No
Theistic fact has he given us yet, no argument or criticism
of mine has he upset so far. I don’t blame him. He has
undertaken an impossible work. All material, all force,
all arrangements (except those of art), all causes, all effects,
all processes, are natural; the supernatural is but a dream.
LETTER X.
From Mr. G-. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Mr. Symes, in his postscript, again tilts at somebody who
believes in the supernatural. When I spoke of conscious
jbommunion with a Higher Soul, and inspirations received
from Him, I knew 1 was saying something the seeming
refutation of- which was easy; sol prefaced it with—“I
am bold to say.” No doubt all sorts of fanatics have
claimed inspiration. But I do not contend for the divine
ness of phrensies, nor argue for the special inspiration of the
Hebrew prophets. I hold reasonably that all new light of
knowledge and all new impulse to duty is inspiration. Tracing
effects back to causes, I come at last to One Divine Fount.
To Him I ascribe all life, all faculty in man, all insight
into truth, and all the development, improvement and refine
ment which are synonymous with progressive civilisation.
So, when I am requested to name one syllable of truth or a
single original idea derived from inspiration, I name all, for
there is not one which has had any othei’ ultimate source.
I may be referred to secondary or proximate sources, but
that would be like referring me to the printer’s types and
the compositor’s muscular exertions as an explanation of
Tennyson’s poem on “ Despair ” in the November number
of the Nineteenth Century. I am told that the Higher Soul
of which I speak is but myself projected in magnified form
�58
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
on a cloud, and there is just that modicum of truth in as
sertions of this sort which serves to lead some persons into
Atheism. Mr. Symes need not address me as though I were
ignorant of all that has been urged in the way of proving
that “ man makes God in his own image.” I believe man
has often done so, and I employ myself sometimes in destroy
ing such images. But just as there is true astronomy,
notwithstanding early and still-lingering superstitions of
astrology, so there is a true theology. I have shown that
there are evidences of purpose in nature—proofs of a Mind
at work—and there is a mind in man which reads and
understands the realised thoughts in nature and the designs
in progress. Hence it is true to say there is a God, and
that man, intellectually, is made after his likeness.
The closing paragraph of the postscript shows again how
Mr. Symes mistakes the issue. He says: “ All material,
all force, all arrangements (except those of art), all causes,
all effects, all processes, are natural; the supernatural is but
a dream.” Is this supposed to be good against me? I might
almost claim it as my own. My opponent denies the dis
tinction between the natural and the supernatural. So do I,
unless you define “ supernatural” to be the action of mind,
whether human or divine. He maintains a distinction be
tween the natural and the artificial. So do I. I perceive
for myself, and I point out to him, that all “ arrangements ”
made by man, and therefore called artificial, are effected by
the use of “ material ” and “ forces ” and “ causes ” ; so
that to judge whether they be artificial or not we have to
look for evidences of mind, purpose, design. Then I point
out that, judged in this way, the human eye is an artificial
production ; yet not a production of man’s art, and therefore
must be the work of some other Artificer. For similar
reasons, I am forced to the same conclusion regarding many
other things, and in a general way regarding the evolution
of the human race and the progress of the world,
“ I see in part
That all, as in some piece of art,
Is toil co-operant to an end.”
I don’t call these works supernatural; but seeing that they
are superhuman I reckon them as divine art. But Mr.
Symes, because it is po-sible to distinguish between divine
art and human, denies all resemblance; as though that
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
59
followed ! In his first paragraph, flippant and foolish, be
cause he does not find the human frame classed with orders
of architecture, he objects to my saying it has been built
up. He ought to have read a little book called “ The
House I live in”—a work on the human body. But he
would like, if he could, to laugh my legitimate analogies out
of court.
Paley, Brougham, and Bell—my God is not theirs. If
he means that my theology is not quite the same as theirs,
I assent, for I take into account Evolution, which they, in
their day, could not do. The arguments of Paley only
want restating in terms of the Evolution theory. The
machinery, and arrangements, and adaptations which Paley
ascribed to the Creator, some Atheists now ascribe to Evo
lution, as though Evolution were an intelligent creative
entity. Mr. Symes has been slow in launching this
boomerang, probably being little familiar with it, or know
ing it to be ineffective against Theism as I defend Theism ;
but now, for lack of better missiles he hurls it, though
timidly, as one who fears it will come back upon himself.
He disputes my argument that the valves in the blood
vessels are intended to secure the circulation of the blood,
OD the ground that a river makes its own channel. A few
zoological facts are adduced to support the inference, I
imagine, that the blood has constructed the blood-vessels
and given them a gradually increasing complication as we
advance from protoplasm through animals of low organisa
tion, up to man. This is an argument from Evolution.
So there is a gradual advance, is there? with increasing
Complication in the apparatus, and with the noble frame of
man as the result, and yet no design in any of it! Topsy
’spects it comes of itself! natural causes account for it!
Topsy does not comprehend that in divine art, as well as
in human, what is designed by the mind has to be accom
plished by the aid of ‘‘natural” instruments. All that the
eye can see is the instrument and the process; for the
existence of the originating mind has to be mentally
inferred, the guiding and governing spirit is only spiritually
discerned.
Alphonso suggests an improvement in the circulating
apparatus ; he would “ place valves in the deep arteries, so
that the poor wretch who ruptures one of them should not
�60
ATHEISM OK THEISM?
bleed to death.” It seems that valves in the blood-vessels'
might be placed there for a purpose if Alphonso were taken
into counsel! Now there are valves in the arteries, which
allow the blood to flow out from the heart, through the
system, and prevent its regurgitating. If this is the very
thing which Alphonso considers a wise arrangement, why
does he object to it when I call it wise? Or would he make
them to open the reverse way ? Then certainly the heart’s
blood would not pour through an accidental rupture, but
neither would it flow through the system at all, and there
fore we could not live. The arrangement suggested for the
arteries is that which does prevail in the veins; and there
fore there is much less danger from a ruptured vein than
from a ruptured artery. But how could you have circula
tion, if both sets of valves were adapted for sending blood
to the heart, and neither set would allow it to come away ?
Alphonso here shows himself very wise indeed. He is
again asking for contradictory arrangements; he again
fails to see that the Creator is working under conditions.
Mr. Symes, who has not a syllable to say in the way of
proving his Atheism to be rational, can only find material
for his letters by drawing out his opponent—“ Could God
make jaws and teeth in a certain way?” .“What isinstinct?” “Will I make plainer the purpose running
through the ages ? ” etc. Though aware of the trick, I will
say as much as my space allows, about Evolution. Briefly,.
Evolution explains the introduction of new species on to
this planet, in the following way. Taking some alreadyexisting species, the offspring inherit the parental likeness
with variations ; afterwards, in their individual life, they
may undergo modifications, which in turn they transmit to
their offspring. The particular varieties best suited to
external conditions, survive, and leave offspring equally
well suited, or even better suited. Variation upon variation,
in successive generations, causes the difference from the
original to become great, and the creatures are then classed
as a distinct species. In this way one species is born from
another, as truly as an individual is born of its parents.
This inheritance with modifications, is creation by birth.
If external conditions change, the modification takes a
direction which adapts the creature to them. If the crea
ture changes its habits, or migrates and comes under new
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
61
conditions, the modification takes the form of increased
growth in the organs and parts now especially called into
use, and diminished growth of the parts disused. It is no
poser for Mr. Symes to ask me the design of the wings of
the penguin, the moa and the apteryx: their wingshave
become reduced to remnants too small to fly with, because
they changed their habits, because they found a paradise
and preferred not to fly away from it. The wings of their
progenitors served their purpose well; inheritance repro
duced them as long as they were wanted; and when new
conditions or changed habits demanded the greater growth
of other organs, the forces of development were turned in
that direction. Could any self-acting arrangement be more
beautiful ? This is creation from age to age. This is part
of the method by which the purpose of the ages is being
elected. I am not contending for the supernatural instan
taneous creation of elephants with tusks full grown, but for
creation by natural means ; and here we see it going on.
Does Mr. Symes know anything at all about Evolution ?
Has he even read Darwin and Herbert Spencer? His
notion of creation seems to exclude evolution, and his
notion of evolution to exclude creation : but there are two
things he cannot do.: (1) explain any possible process of
creation without evolution, (2) explain how Evolution got
itself into geai’ without a Creator—I mean into such gear
as we find, when its machinery produces organised creatures
of higher and higher sort, culminating in man ; yes, in man,
with his marvellous frame and flesh, blood and brain, reason
and conscience, heart and hopes.
God created man; that is to say, the human race
has been born in fulfilment of the divine purpose. The
i idividual, tracing his parentage backwards, must pass
beyond “Adam” to some creature who was the common
progenitor of men and apes. Of course, man could no
more antedate his necessary epoch and come before his
time than sweeps could precede chimneys, to' use Mr.
Symes’s sooty illustration. I will grant Mr. Symes that; I
will grant him that man could not be born before his parents.
With equal readiness I assent to the proposition that, just as
with the individual infant, the human race was the necessary
result of the phenomena which preceded it in its own line of
development. That is to say, man is a product of natural
�62
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
causes, “ a natural and not a supernatural phenomenon.”
But if this is supposed to exclude a creative Mind, which
designed and fashioned man, I need only ask whether the
statue of Priestley, in Mr. Symes’s town of Birmingham, is
not at once the production of the sculptor’s design and the
inevitable result of particular movements of chisels upon a /'■
block of marble. There is no human production except by
the agency of natural causes ; there are no marks of inten
tion stamped upon such productions without a mind to give 5
them origin and authorship.
Mr. Symes, because I twitted him for crying so much
about his toothache, wrongfully represents me as being
callous to human sufferings. I think, if he had studied
Evolution, he would hardly speak of “ a God that inflicts
pain .... and afflicts people with all the horrible diseases
that flesh is heir to.” He wishes to know, “ Do I hold that
all pain is accidental ? and will I venture to give a direct
answer ? ” Of course I will. As I understand this discus
sion, Mr. Symes does hold that all pain is accidental.
Topsy ’spects that all pain comes of its own self. I, for my
part, have no hesitation in saying that the capacity to suffer
pain is deliberately designed, is manifestly for the gcod of
the individual, and a necessary factor in the evolution of
the higher animals. It may seem a paradox to say that
pain, when it occurs, is a good thing, and yet that it should
be removed as quickly as possible. Nevertheless I say it,
and can show it to be true. If you rest your hand on a
heated iron plate, it will disorganise the flesh. That is un
desirable, because it deprives you of a handy servant. The
pain which tells you that you are running this risk is no
evil, but a sentinel’s warning, a red-light danger signal, a
telegraphic intimation to use caution. We should be badly
off without the capacity for pain, while we should be want
ing in sense not to try and get rid of it by removing its
cause. Returning to “ the purpose runuing through the ,
ages,” it will be found that the animals with the most highly
developed nervous system and greatest capacity for pain
have become the higher animals in other respects, and are
classed high by the naturalist. Sensibility to pain has saved
theii’ progenitors from many dangers, has given them an
advantage in the “ struggle for existence,” and has promoted
their upward evolution in proportion to its acuteness.
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
63
Mr. Symes, who, two or three letters back, thought life
not worth living, has a great objection to death. I thought
so, because when I showed that he ought logically to commit
suicide it was not agreeable to him. When he passes a
cemetery, or reflects that whole races of creatures have died
out, he is much concerned, and marvels that I can retain
my Theism. As with pain, so with death, he demands to
know, “ Do I hold that death is not intended or designed ? ”
and how about beasts of prey—“Yes or no, pray ”? This
peremptory attitude, when used on a platform, might cow a
timid man, and at all events helps to produce an impression
that he is shirking a difficulty. To shirk difficulties is not
my custom. But when Mr. Symes adduces the earthquake
as apparently designed to destroy men, I cannot accept the
instance, because I cannot see that earthquakes are pur
posely adapted to rock down cities. Having some idea of
geological facts, I believe that earthquakes were before
cities in the order of time, and men in their ignorance have
built their cities on the earthquake lines. But the tiger’s
claws and fangs I accept as being plainly designed to fit the
animal for catching and tearing prey. I have before asserted-—and my opponent cannot disprove it—that every
organ is for the good of its possessor. If any exceptions
can be brought forward, I will show that they literally
prove the rule. The tiger’s organs are for the tiger’s
advantage ; so far there is design, and even beneficence.
It is equally true, of course, that the tiger’s claws are a dis
advantage to the tiger’s prey—to the individuals which fall
victims. This has been a great difficulty to the minds of
many good people who have not ransacked nature to find
atheistic arguments. I have only space to say that the
weeding-out of inferior and ill-adapted animals, with the
survival of the fittest, who leave offspring “fit” as them
selves, is a necessary part of the machinery for the evolu
tion of the higher animals. Without this arrangement
there never would have been a race of mankind. It ill
becomes us to quarrel with the process which gave us birth.
The death of those weak individuals is for the good of the
species, and the entire arrangement adds to the sum of
animal enjoyment. Death, in the form in which it comes
to the lower animals, is generally unexpected and seldom
painful; death, as it comes to man, is no evil if it be the
�64
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
portal to higher life. But Atheists, of course, are without
hope. The moral difficulties of the “ struggle for life ” are
dealt with in a volume which may be seen in the British
Museum and in the Birmingham Free Library—a volume
called “ Darwinism and Design,” written by George St.
Clair.
LETTER XI.
From Mr. J. Symes to Mr. G. St. Clair.
Mr. St. Clair entered upon this discussion with the
ostensible object of showing that Theism is rational and
more rational than Atheism. But either he has never
seriously engaged in the work or else has wofully failed in
spite of honest and earnest effort. • What a iheos, deus, or
god is has yet to be learned—my opponent has no settled
opinions upon the subject. If he has, why does he not
straightforwardly state the proposition he intends to main
tain, and then allege only such facts and employ only such
reasoning as may tend to establish his theory ?
His Theism has evidently never been thought out ; he has
adopted it as he adopted the fashion of his coat, and has
never investigated the one or the other critically. If he has
investigated his Theism and really does understand its
nature, ramifications, and bearings, he most scrupulously
keeps it all secret, as Herodotus did much of what he was
told about the gods in Egypt—the most secret mysteries he
refused, from the most pious motives, to reveal. This is to
be regretted, especially as my opponent has so much to
reveal, if he could be induced to do it, being imbued with
plenary inspiration. Though, like most modest men, now
that I ask him to let us know what his god has told him, I
find his bashfulness so overpowers him that he cannot
summon up sufficient courage to give the world a single
syllable of what he heard or saw on Horeb or in the third
heaven. It is a pity the deity did not select a more appro
priate prophet ; but the ways of divine providence are
notoriously odd, capricious, uncertain, contradictory, and
insane.
Mr. St. Clair asks if I know anything of evolution. No
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
65
doubt that is intended to be a tit for some tat of
mine,
I may say that I understand Darwin and the
resMf the evolutionists sufficiently to know that evolution
is purely Atheistic, that nature is all-sufficient for all her
operations; that no god is wanted, needed, or desirable for
‘ any of her processes. I am obliged to Mr. St. Clair for
calling attention to his own book on the subject, though fir
the purposes of this discussion it was unnecessary ; and, if
Mr. St. Clair does not understand Darwin far better than
he does his poor deity, the book cannot be worth reading.
A man who can write five long letters on Theism without
naming one Theistic fact, or attempting a logical or rational
argument in support of his position—five letters full of
irrelevancies, side-issues, platitudes, uncertainties apologies
for deity, misrepresentation of natural facts, pompous
boasts of divine inspiration, and ability to “ discern the
purpose” of god “running through the ages,” and the dis
tinction between accidents and “purposive” events in
nature—whatever knowledge such a man may have, his
temper and disposition, his total want of ballast and critical
acumen must unfit him entirely for writing a work on
-evolution or any other philosophical subject.
If nature operates her own changes, evolution is a
beautiful theory ; but admit a god who works by means of
evolution, and the whole aspect of the subject is changed;
evolution becomes the most perfect system of red-tapism
that can be conceived. If evolution results in good, all
that good was as much needed millions of years back as
now; but red-tape decided that whole generations must
perish, that evils and abuses could not be removed, except
by an interminable and bewildering and murderous process,
complex beyond expression or thought—whereas an honest
■ and able god would have done the work out of hand and
i shown as much respect for the first of his children as for
later ones. But Mr. St. Clair’s murders generation after
J generation of his family for the sake of working out some
change, the evolution of a new organ, the gradual atrophy
or decay of old ones, the rise of a new species or the
destruction of aboriginal races.
I shall not further follow up Mr. St. Clair’s remarks.
They are not to the point, even approximately. He con
founds language and mingles art and nature, and thus
�66
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
bewilders his unwary reader instead of informing him. Long
since I should have ignored what my opponent says, only
my action would have been misunderstood. To prove
Theism rational one must prove that there is a god. This
has not been done. Then you must connect god and nature.
This has not been done; in fact, Mr. St. Clair is reduced to
the necessity of admitting that his god is weak and even a
part of nature—a big, stupid giant, most probably living in
that region to which the celebrated Jack climbed up by a
bean-stalk.
Here follow some positive evidences that there is no god
existing, except the mere idols and fictions of worshippers,
etc.—
1. No trace of one has been observed, no footstep, copro
lite, or what not. The only life of which mankind has any
knowledge is animal life and vegetable life; and it is in
conceivable that there should be any other.
2. The world was never made, nor any natural product
in it ; and therefore a maker is impossible.
3. The universe, so far as it is known, is not conducted
or governed, nor is any department of it, except those de
partments under the influence of living beings. Nature’s
processes consist in the interaction, attraction, repulsion,
union and disunion of its parts and forces, and of nothing
else.
4. All known substances and materials have definite and
unalterable quantities and attributes or qualities. Their
only changes are approximation, recession, combination, and
disunion; and all the phenomena of nature are the sole re
sults of these, one class of phenomena being no more
accidental or designed than another. Design is nowhere
found beyond the regions of animal action, and animal
action is nothing more nor anything less than the outcome
or the result, however complex, of the total forces and
materials which alternately combine and segregate in all
animals. An animal is what he is by virtue of his ante
cedents, his physical combinations and disunions, and his
environments.
All known facts lead logically to the above conclusions,
and it is naught but superstition or irrational belief that
assumes or predicates the contrary. Nor is any honest result
ever gained by assuming the existence of a god: it explains
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
67
nothing, it leads to nothing but confusion. More than that,
it is an attempt to explain nature’s mystery by creating a
still ^eater mystery, which is unphilosophical. Further
still, it is an attempt to expound nature by (1) that which
is not nature, or (2) by a natural phenomenon or set of
phenomena; for your god must be either natural, super1 natural, or artificial. Mr. St. Clair’s is not supernatural,
but natural. Very well; if it be natural, as he says, it is
an unknown phenomenon, or substance, or force ; and there
fore cannot be utilised in any way by reason. A false
philosophy or imposture may appeal to the unknown to
explain difficulties ; the whole round of religion consists of
nothing else than examples of it. But true philosophy
never attempts to explain the known by the unknown.
5. Mr. St. Clair believes in evolution, and yet holds the
dogma of a former creation. That is to play fast and loose
with reason; for why do you ascribe any power to physical
causes, if you refuse to regard them as sufficiently power
ful to originate, as well as to develope the phsenomena of
Nature ? Mr. St. Clair ascribes all the evils of life to
second causes, all its goods to deity. That is good Theology,
but the worst Philosophy. If life is physically sustained,
developed, and modified, it must be physically originated.
The only logical conclusion to be drawn from Theistic pre
misses is that each event, each phenomenon, each change is
the work of a separate god, or fairy, or devil—beings of
whom nothing is known beyond the fact that everyone of
them was created by man for the express purpose of creating
and governing the world or parts of it. But the philosopher
will never think of using them in any way till their real
existence and action have been placed beyond a doubt.
6. If the world was really made, it was not intelligently
made,, for it is chiefly a scene of confusion, strife, folly,
insanity, madness, brutality, and death. No intelligent
creator could endure the sight of it after making it:—be
would put his foot on it and crush it, or else commit suicide
in disgust. In geology the world is but a heap of ruins ; in
astronomy an unfortunate planet, so placed as regards the
sun that one part roasts while another freezes.
7. Men talk of the wisdom and goodness seen in God’s
creation ! He made man, and left him naked and houseless,
ignorant of nearly all he needed to know, a mere brute. He
�68
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
showed neither goodness nor wisdom here. It is only by a
painful process “ running through the ages,” a prqgtes of
blood, murder, starvation, and the death of millions %pon
millions that our civilisation has been achieved; and what
is it even now ? A civilisation of fraud, brutality slightly
veiled, hypocrisy wholesale, superstitions the most costly
and profound, a civilisation that houses the dead better than
the living, that pauperises survivors to bestow costly tombs
upon the dead, that builds splendid temples for gods and
priests to sport in, and leaves men and women to rot physi
cally, mentally and morally, in dens !
8. But this god never interferes for human good. This
governor of men never governs. He might prevent all
crime ; he prevents none. What is the use of a god who
could not or would not prevent the murder of Lincoln, Gar
field, and thousands of others ? If he could, and was by,
he is an accessory or worse ; if he couldn’t, he has in man
a creature he cannot control, and is therefore contemptible.
9. I am aware that some Theists urge that god could not
interfere, as I suggest, without violating man’s free-agency.
Whether Mr. St. Clair holds that opinion I cannot just now
say; but all along I have aimed at a much wider Theism
than that of Mr. St. Clair, and shall therefore make a remark
or two on this subject.
(1.) All government interferes with free-agency. And no
one complains that a government should try to prevent
crime. Indeed, that is one of its main functions. And a
government that does not, to its utmost knowledge and
power, prevent crime, is a bad government. Well, the socalled divine government prevents none ; what is its use?
Not to prevent crime is to encourage its commission. This
the divine government does.
(2) The free-agency plea is silly. Every murderer, every
tyrant destroys the free-agency of his victim. Does god
respect the free-agency of the victim less than that of the
villain ? Does he scrupulously refrain from checking the
latter while he inflicts wrong and death upon the former ?
Human laws are professedly (many of them really) framed
to protect the innocent and weak, and to restrain the strong
and vicious; divine laws must have a contrary intention, if
the free-agency plea is correct.
Finally.
I am well aware that my style of treating thia
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
69
subject must be very offensive to some. But I make no
apoloev for it. I adopt it deliberately and of set purpose.
I regard Theism as immensely stupid, so much so that
serious argument is wasted upon it, just as it would be
waste labor to try to disprove transubstantiation or to
show that Laputa could not fly as Gulliver describes.
Uncompromising ridicule seems to me the best weapon
wherewith to attack this miserable fetishism of my
opponent. I have used it unsparingly and heartily, and hope
my opponent has enjoyed the discussion as much as I
have.
I close without a spark of ill-will towards Mr. St. Clair,
and beg to express the opinion that his failure is not due
to any intellectual defect in him, but to the utterly im
possible proposition he undertook to defend. It is no
disgrace to fail where success is impossible. Nor do I
claim any credit to myself—Atheism is so easy to defend
that I must have been totally excuseless to have failed in it.
LETTER XII.
Fi‘‘om Mr. G. St. Clair to Mr. J. Symes.
Mr. Symes goes off the platform with a laugh, and tells the
audience he has won a victory ; but he must be conscious
all the time that he has not dislodged his antagonist from
his entrenchments. I have been disappointed in my op
ponent. His first letter confirmed the assurance which he
had given to me privately—that this discusssion should be
“ definite, earnest, real ”—but his last contains the con
fession that he has deliberately adopted an offensive style
and dealt in uncompromising ridicule, because he considers
that serious argument would be wasted upon so stupid a
subject as Theism.
All through this discussion I have only used half the
notes made on a first reading of Mr. Symes’s letters, and
now, in order to find room for a general summing up, I
must withhold the detailed reply which I could give to his
last. It is annoying to have to leave so many fallacies
unanswered ; but I think I have replied to most statements
which could claim to be arguments, as far as my space
allowed.
�70
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
Mr. Symes opened the discussion, and ought to have
advanced some reasons for considering Atheism rational;
but he confessed at once that he had nothing positive to
urge in favor of his negative, but should confine himself to
picking holes in Theistic arguments. His letters have
abounded with peremptory questions, and every answer I
have given has afforded material to tear to pieces or snarl
at. My opponent began by asking eight questions, six of
which involved a discussion of the infinite, the infinite being
easy to juggle with. The definition of God which he pre
ferred was the vulgar definition, which involves a contradic
tion, and would therefore have given him an opportunity of
dialectical victory. He wished me to say that God is a
Being infinite in power and infinite in goodness, and he
wanted the former part of this definition to mean that the
power of Deity is adequate to accomplish things which are
in their very nature impossible. Then he would have argued
that infinite goodness would desire to free the world at once
from all evil, pain and inconvenience; that infinite power
could accomplish this ; but that it is not done, and there
fore no God exists. I refused to define Deity in the way
dictated to me, but it was all the same to my opponent—
his arguments were only good against the vulgar definition,
and so he attacked that. He set forth at large that there
was a good deal of pain and trouble in the world, which, to
his mind, must be inconsistent with the existence of an
infinite God. Of course, it is not really so unless, besides
possessing infinite goodness of nature, the Creator possesses
unlimited power, and that in a mathematical sense. Now, I
have shown that the Creator cannot possess unlimited power
in this sense, and therefore my opponent’s objection to God’s
existence on the ground that “ evils ” exist is not conclusive.
The analogy of human labor employed in building a
cathedral shows us that a fine pile may be completed in the
course of time. It leads us to compare past phases of the
world with the present, that we may discover the movement
and tendency of things, for
“We doubt not, through the ages one increasing purpose runs.”
We go as deep down into the past as Evolution will enable
us to do, and, beginning at the lowliest forms of life, we
find a gradually ascending series. At length we come to
�ATHEISM OR THEISM?
71
man, who, even as a savage, is superior to all that went
be£a^. But the savage, as Gerald Massey says in his
“TSe of Eternity,” is only the rough-cast clay model of the
perfect statue. The savage advances into the condition of
a barbarian, and the barbarian, in time, becomes civilised.
But God has not yet finished the work of creating man into
his own image. It is astonishing that any student of Evolu
tion, possessing two eyes, should go to the quarry and fetch
out fossils for the purpose of showing that creatures have
suffered and died, and should fail to get any glimpse of “ a
purpose running through the ages.” But this is the case
with my opponent, to whose eye Evolution “ is purely
atheistic.” He also fails to see that, on this rational view
of creation, evils may be only temporary ; nay, more, that
they are certainly diminishing, and tend to vanish altogether.
I have invited my opponent three times over to find any
flaw in the reasoning of Herbert Spencer, where he main
tains that evil is evanescent; but it would have suited him
better if he could have quoted Spencer in a contrary sense.
The Creator’s power is exerted under conditions and
limitations arising out of the mathematical relations of
space “and time. It is, therefore, not “ in fining’ in the
vulgar sense. The vulgar definition of God wants mending;
and this is about all that Mr. Symes has been able to show.
As I, for my part, never put forth the vulgar definition, he
ought not to have given us a panorama of the evils of the
world, much less have made it revolve ad nauseam. The
rational Theism which I hold is not overturned by the
temporary occurrence of evil. But, when Mr. Symes found
this out, he took to ridiculing my God as a being who is
less than infinite in the vulgar sense, and professed to find
the orthodox God immensely superior.
Besides exposing the fallacy of the chief objections
brought against the existence of a Divine Being, I have
advanced positive proofs, from the marks of design in his
works. I lay stress on the fact that organs such as the
eye, and organisms such as the body, are instruments and
machines comparable to those designed and made by man,
and which never come into existence except when contrived
by intelligence. We never see the human mind going
through the process of designing. We never see the mind
at all. We have to look for marks of design in the work.
�72
ATHEISM OR THEISM?
It is the same with regard to the Divine Spirit. Objection
is made to Design, on the ground that Evolution explains
all things without a Creator; but I have shown that this is
not the case. Mr. Symes has hunted up all the blind eyes
he can find, and the perverted instincts, which do not effect
their asserted purpose, and is daring enough to say that
eyes are not made to see with. The difficulty is fully
explained by what I have said of the analogy between
divine and human work, performed under conditions, and
with concomitants of evil. I have challenged our clever
Alphonso to show us a pair of those superior eyes which he
says he could make, but he does not do so. He had only
made an empty boast.
Connected with Design is Adaptation. Mr. ¡Etames is
irrational enough to say that if anything is designed all
things are designed, and if Adaptation is seen in anything
it is seen iu all things. He sees it as much in the accidental
smashing of an egg as in the wonderful formation of the
egg to be the ark of safety for an embryo chick. This
astounding nonsense is forced upon him by his Atheism,
and must be charged to the irrational theory rather than to
the man4 But in seeking to bolster it up, Mr. Symes made
use of one argument which might seem to possess force un
less I exposed its weakness, and I had no space to do that
in reply to his fourth letter. He said that if there be design
anywhere it must be in the elements of matter especially,
where I do not seem to see it, as I bring forward organised
structures, living things. He says all matter is probably
alive—“ probably ! ” An instance of modesty in Mr. Symes,
though immediately afterwards he becomes positive again,
and says “ I affirm.” He affirms something about invisible
atoms, namely, that there is adaptation between the atoms,
and “ an equilibrium stable, perfect, time-defying,” far
superior to the unstable adaptation of living creatures to
their surroundings. My reply must be brief. An atom is
that which has no parts. It cannot therefore have any
organs, nor be an organism, nor possess life. Out of atoms,
as out of bricks, larger things are built up, and in some of
them I discern a certain architecture which speaks of Design.
Whether the bricks themselves are a manufactured article
does not affect my conclusion. The “ adaptation between
the atoms ” which Mr. Symes discerns and affirms cannot be
�ATHEISM OR THEISM ?
73 ’
in their interiors, for they are without parts. If he means
an adaptation of atom to atom, as in the chemistry of water,
I ne«d not deny it, though two or three bricks in combina
tion don’t impress me like the cathedral of the human body;
and as to the “ perfect, time-defying equilibrium ” of the
atoms of oxygen and hydrogen which form water, electricity
will unsettle it at once.
Has Mr. Symes proved Atheism to be rational? He
began by declaring that “ Atheism requires no direct evi
dence,” which I must interpret to mean it has none to offer.
What he now pretends to offer in his last comes late, and is
not good. Has he disproved the rationality of Theism ?
No, not as I present Theism to him. He said, very early,
that he “ must decline to narrow the ground ” to Theism as
I preset it, and, accordingly, what he has chiefly attacked
has be$n the vulgar definition of Theism. Now the dictionary
definition may go as far as I am concerned, but God remains.
If there are some difficulties on the theory of Theism,
they are only increased when we fly to Atheism. Atheism
accounts for nothing. Pain and misery, which are so much
complained of, are just as much facts whether there be a
God or no. Atheism does nothing to explain them, to
release us from them, to help us to bear them. An en
lightened Theism shows that sensibility to pain is a gracious
provision, warning us in time to escape greater evils and
contributing to our upward evolution. Evil is accounted
for as “ good in the making” or the necessary accompani
ment of greater good, or the temporary inconvenience lying
in the path to some glorious goal. Whatever is, is the best
possible at the present stage, if only all the relations of
things were known to us. Death enters into the great
scheme, for, by the removal of the aged, room is made for
younger life, and the total amount of enjoyment is increased.
At the same time, this is no hardship to those who pass
away, for the life of the individual soul is continued here
after and carried higher. This belief brightens the whole
of life and gives a very different aspect to pain and trouble and
death, which might fairly cause perplexity if death were the
final end.
The one advantage I derive from Mr. Symes’s letters is
that they seem to show me how men become Atheists.
There are certain questions which cannot be answered, and
�74
ATHEISM OK THEISM?
they are always asking those questions. There are certain
difficulties of belief, and these they cherish in preference to
the stronger reasons for faith and hope. There is sunshine
and shadow in the world, and they prefer to dwell in the
gloom. They search out all the crudities and failures, stinks
and sores, diseases and evils which the world affords, or ever
has afforded, and look at them through a magnifying glass.
Impressed with the magnitude of the loathsome heap, and
oblivious of everything else in creation, they presume to
think they could have advised something better if the
Creator had only consulted them. Had there been a wise
Creator he surely would have done so 1 Henceforth they
shriek out that there is no God; and nevertheless, illogical
as they always are, they whimper at pain instead of bearing
it, and complain of evils as though therewere some God
who was inflicting them. They complain that life is not
worth living, and yet speak of death as though it were
maliciously desigued and the greatest evil of all. They
have got into a world which is “ a fatherless Hell, “ all
massacre, murder and wrong,” and ought logically to commit
suicide, like the couple of Secularists in Mr. Tennyson’s
“ Despair!’ But, alas ! not even death will land them in
any better place. They are
• “ Come from the brute, poor souls—no souls
—and to die with the brute 1 ”
Yet that couple cherished love for one another and pity for
all that breathe, and ought to have inferred thence that
unless a stream can rise higher than its source, there must
be much more pity and love in the Great Fount and Heart
of All Things.
�Three Hundred and. Seventy-second Thousand.
January, 1882.
. "W ORKS
SOLD BY THE
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, FAhRINGDON STREET, E.C.
Orders should be sent to the Manager, Mr. W. J. Ramsey, accompanied
with Post Office Order, payable at Ludgate Circus, or Cheque
crossed “ London anddsouth Western Bank.”
The International Library of Science and Freethought.
Volume I., “ Mind in Animals,” by Professor Ludwig Buchner.
Translated, with the author’s consent, by Annie Besant,
price 5s. Volume II., “The Student’s Darwin,” by Edward B.
Aveling, D.Sc. (Loud.), F.L.S., Fellow of University College
(Lond.), etc., price 5s. Volume III., “Jesus and the Gospels,”
and “ The Religion of Israel,” by Jules Soury, price Is.
The Freethinker’s Text-Book.—Part I. By 0. Bradlaugh.
Section I.—‘ ‘ The Story of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible
and by Science.” Section II.— “ What is Religion ? ” “ How has it
Grown ? ” “God and Soul.” Each Section complete in itself, with
copious index. Bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d.
Part II., by Annie Besant. ■—“ On Christianity.” Section I.—
“Christianity: its Evidences Unreliable.” Section II.—“Its Origin
Pagan.” Section III.—“Its Morality Fallible.” Section IV.—
“ Condemned by its History.” Bound in cloth, 3s. 6d.
History of the Great French Revolution.—By Annie Besant
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
Impeachment of the House of Brunswick.—By Charles
Bradlaugh. Eighth edition. Is.
What does Christian Theism Teach P—A verbatim report of
two nights’ Public Debate between the Rev. A. J. Harrison and
C. Bradlaugh. Second edition. 6d.
God, Man, and the Bible.—A verbatim report of a three nights’
Discussion at Liverpool between the Rev. Dr. Baylee and C.
Bradlaugh.
This is the only debate extant on the purely Socratic method. 6d.
Heresy; its Morality and Utility.—A Plea and a Justification.
By Charles Bradlaugh. 9d.
�2
On the Being of a God as the Maker and Moral Governor
of the Universe.—A verbatim report of a two nights’Discussion
between Thomas Cooper and C. Bradlaugh.
6d.
When were our Gospels Written?—A Reply to Dr. Tischendorf
and the Religious Tract Society. By Charles Bradlaugh.
6d.
Has Man a Soul ?—A verbatim report of two nights’ debate at
Burnley, between the Rev. W. M. Westerby and C. Bradlaugh. Is.
Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism and
Faith.—-Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough, with
Special Replies by Charles Bradlaugh.
to fid.
New edition, reduced
Is it Reasonable to Worship God?—A verbatim report of two
nights’ debate at Nottingham between the Rev. R. A. Armstrong
and C. Brad laugh. Is.
National Secular Society’s Tracts.-—1. Address to Christians.
2. Who was Jesus ? 3. Secular Morality. 4. The Bible and
.Woman. 5. Secular Teachings. 6. Secular Work. 7. What is
Secularism ? 8. Who are the Secularists ? 9. Secular Responsi
bility. 11. Creed of an Atheist. 7|d, per 100, post free.
My Path to Atheism.—Collected Essays of Annie Besant.—The
Deity of Jesus—Inspiration—Atonement—Eternal Punishment—
Prayer—Revealed Religion—and the Existence of God, all examined
and rejected ; together with some Essays on the Book of Common
Prayer. Cloth, gilt lettered, 4s.
Marriage: as it was, as it is, and as it should be.
By
Annie Besant. In limp cloth, Is.
Verbatim Report of the Trial, The Queen against Brad
laugh and Besant.—Neatly bound in cloth, price 5s., post free.
With Portraits and Autographs of the two Defendants.
Second Edition, with Appendix, containing the judgments of
Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton.
The Biography of Charles Bradlaugh.—Written by Adolphe
S. Headingley. Crown 8vo., cloth, 332 pages, price 7s.
The Jesus of the Gospels and The Influence of Chris
tianity on the World.
Two nights’ Debate between the
Rev. A. Hatchard and Annie Besant.
Is.
PAMPHLETS BY ANNIE BESANT.
s. d.
The Physiology of Home—No. 1, “Digestion” ; No. 2, “ Organs
of Digestion” ; No. 3, “ Circulation”; No. 4, “Respiration”;
Id. each. Together, in neat wrapper ...
...
... 0 4
Free Trade v. “Fair” Trade—No. 1, “England before the Repeal
of the Corn Laws” ; No. 2, “The History of the Anti-Corn
Law Struggle ” ; No. 3, “ Labor and Land: their burdens,
duties and rights ” ; No. 4, “ What is Really Free Trade ” ;
No. 5, “ The Landlords’ Attempt to Mislead the Land
less ”; Id. each. In neat wrapper with Appendix
... 0 6
q-
�3
s. d.
God’s Views on Marriage...
....
...
...
... 0 2
The True Basis of Morality. A Plea for Utility as the Standard
of Morality ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
Auguste Comte. Biography of the great French Thinker, with
Sketches of his Philosophy, his Religion, and his Sociology.
Being a short and convenient resume of Positivism for the
general reader
...
...
...
...
... 0 6
Giordano Bruno, the Freethought Martyr of the Sixteenth Cen
tury. His Life and Works ...
...
...
...0 1
The Political Status of Women. A Plea for Women’s Rights ... 0 2
Civil and Religious Liberty, with some Hints taken from the
French Revolution ...
...
...
...
...
0 3
The Gospel of Atheism
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
Is the Bible Indictable ? ...
...
...
...
... 0 2
England, India, and Afghanistan ...
...
...
... 0 9
The Story of Afghanistan...
...
...
...
... 0 2
The preceding two pamphlets bound together in limp cloth, Is.
The Law of Population : Its consequences, and its Bearing upon
Human Conduct and Morals. Fiftieth thousand...
... 0 6
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity ...
...
...
...0 1
The Influence of Heredity on Free Will, from the German of
Ludwig Buchner
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
The Ethics of Punishment
...
...
...
...0 1
Landlords. Tenant Farmers, and Laborers ...
...
...0 1
The God Idea in the Revolution ...
...
..
...0 1
The Gospel of Christianity and the Gospel of Freethought
... 0 2
English Marseillaise, with Music ...
...
...
... 0 1
English Republicanism ...
...
...
...
...0 1
Christian Progress
...
...
...
...
...
0 2
The English Land System
...
...
...
...0 1
The Transvaal ...
...
...
...
...
...
Q p
Vivisection
...
...
...
...
...
...
q p
Fruits of Christianity
...
...
...
...
...
o 2
Or bound in cloth,
Social and Political Essays.—By Annie Besant. 3s. 6d.
Theological Essays and Debate.—By Annie Besant. 2s. 6d.
PAMPHLETS BY C. BBADLAUG1I.
s. d.
Hints to Emigrants, containing important information on the
United States, Canada, and New Zealand
...
... p q
Cromwell and Washington : aContrast
...
...
... q y
A Lecture delivered to large audiences throughout the United States.
Five Dead Men whom I Knew when Living. Sketches of Robert
Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, Charles Sumner
and Ledru Rollin
...
...
...
’ q 4.
Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus, an Essay on the Population Question 0 2
Life of George, Prince of Wales, with Recent Contrasts and Coin
cidences
...
... ...
...
.
Q g
�Real Representation of the People...
...
...
... o 2
Toryism from 1770 to 1879
...
...
...
... 0 1
Letter to Albert Edward Prince of Wales, on Freemasonry
... 0 1
Why do Men Starve?
...
...
...
...
...0 1
Poverty and its effect upon thePeople
...
...
...0 1
Labor’s Prayer ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 1
The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle
...
... 0 2
Plea for Atheism
...
...
...
...
... 0 3
Has Man a Soul ? New Edition ...
...
...
... 0 2
Is there a God ? ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 p
Who was Jesus? New Edition ...
...
...
...
0 1
What did Jesus Teach ? ...
...
...
...
...
0 1
The Twelve Apostles
...
_ ...
...
...
... 0 1
The Atonement ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
Life of David ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 2
Life of Jacob ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 p
Life of Abraham
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
Life of Moses ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
Life of Jonah ...
...
...
...
...
...
0 1
A Few Words about the Devil. New edition
...
...
0 1
Were Adam and Eve our First Parents ?
...
...
...
0 1
Perpetual Pensions. Thirtieth thousand ...
...
...
0 2
The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy
...
...
0 6
Four Lectures on Anthropology. Id. each. Together in neat
wrapper ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 4
Or to be obtained in volumes.
Political Essays.—By C. Bradlaugh. Bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Theological Essays.—By 0. Bradlaugh. Bound in cloth, 3s.
Four Debates between C. Bradlaugh and Rev. Dr. Baylee, in
Liverpool; the Rev. Dr. Harrison, in London ; Thomas Cooper,
in London; the Rev. R. A. Armstrong, in Nottingham; with
Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough and replies by
C. Bradlaugh. Bound in one volume, cloth. Price 3s.
• Large Photograph of Mr. Bradlaugh for Framing, 2s. fid.
Large Portrait of Mrs. Besant, fit for Framing, 2s. 6d.
A splendidly executed Steel Engraving of Mrs. Besant, price 2d.
Chromo-litho of Mr. Bradlaugh.—Cabinet size, Id. In Letts’s
protecting case, post free 2d.
Splendid Chromo-litho of Mr. Bradlaugh.—Large size, 6d.
In Letts’s protecting case, post free 7d.
Cabinet Photographs of Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant.—
By the Stereoscopic Company. 2s. each.
Also Cabinets.—By the Van der Weyde Light process, very remark
able. 2s.
Past and Present of the Heresy Laws.—By W. A. Hunter,
M.A., Barrister-at-Law, Professor of Jurisprudence, University
College, London. (The Counsel who so ably defended Mr. Edward
Truelove before the Lord Chief Justice of England, and again
before Mr, Baron Pollock). Price 3d.
�5
Natural Philosophy; or, Elementary Physics.
This subject
is the basis of all scientific work, and should be understood by
those who would study Botany, Zoology, or Biology. Especially
adapted for London University Matriculation. The only work
dealing with all the subjects required for that examination. By
Edward B. Aveling. Price 4s.
Pamphlets by Edward. B. Aveling, D.Sc., F.L.S., Fellow
of University Oollege, London.—“ The Value of this Earthly .Life,”
Is. “ Biological Discoveries and Problems,” Is. “ Science and
Secularism,” 2d. “Science and Religion,” Id. “ The Sermon on
the Mount,” Id. “ Superstition,” Id. “Creed of an Atheist,” Id.
“Wickedness of God,” Id. “ Irreligion of Science,” Id. “ Why I
dare not be a Christian,” Id. “God dies: Nature remains,” Id.
“ Plays of Shakspere,” 4d.
Wealthy and Wise. A lecture introductory to the Study of Poli
tical Economy. By J. Hiam Levy. 6d.
Pamphlets by Geo. Standring.—“Life of C. Bradlaugh,” with
portrait and autograph, 12 pages, Id. “Life of Colonel R. G.
Ingersoll,” with portrait and autograph, and extracts from his
Orations, in wrapper, Id. “Court Flunkevs: their Work and
Wages,” Id.
The Education of Girls.—By Henry R. S. Dalton, B.A., Oxen.
Second Edition. Price 6d.
Ish’s Charge to Women. By H. R. S. Dalton. 4d.
Religion and Priestcraft. By H. R. S. Dalton. 2d.
On the Connection of Christianity with Solar Worship.
By T. E. Partridge.
Is.
(Translated from Dupuis.)
Clericalism in France.—By Prince Napoleon Bonaparte (Jerome).
Translated by Annie Besant. Price fid.
The Cause of Woman.—From the Italian of Louisa To-Sko.
By
Ben W. Elmy. Price 6d.
Studies in Materialism.—By Ben. W. Elmy. Price 4d.
Lectures of Colonel Robert Ingersoll.—“ Oration on the Gods.”
Price fid.—“Oration on Thomas Paine.” Price 4d.—-“Heretics
and Heresies.” Price 4d.—“ Oration on Humboldt.” Price 2d.—
“ Arraignment of the Church.” Price 2d. These can be supplied
in one volume neatly bound in limp cloth. Price Is. 6d. Also, by
same author, “ The Ghosts.” Price 4d.—Religion of the Future.”
Price 2d.—-“Farm Life in America.” Price Id.—“Mistakes of
Moses.” Price 3d.
The Ten Commandments.—By W. P. Ball. Price Id.
Religion in Board Schools.—By W. P. Ball. 2d.
The Devil’s Pulpit, being Astronomico-Theological Dis
courses.—By the Rev. Robert Taylor, B.A., of St. John’s
College, Cambridge. (Reprinted verbatim from Richard Carlile’s
original edition). In two vols., neatly bound in cloth, 8s. Or in
forty-six numbers, 2d. each. Also, by same author, “ The
Diegesis,” 3s. fid., cloth, and “The Syntagma,” Is., both dealing
with the origin and evidences of Christianity.
�6
Four Lectures on the “ Chemistry of Home,” by
Hypatia Bradlaugh.—“ Air, I.” “Air, II.,” “Water, I.,”
“ Water, II.”
Id. each, or the whole, in neat wrapper, 4d.
City Missionaries and Pious Frauds.—By W. R. Crofts. Id.
Natural Reason versus Divine Revelation.—An appeal for
Freethought. By Julian. Edited by Robert Lewins, M.D. 6d.
Pamphlets by J. Symes. — “The Methodist Conference and
+
Eternal Punishment: Do its Defenders Believe the Doctrine/’3d.
“ Hospitals and Dispensaries, are they of Christian Growth ? ” new
and revised edition, Id. “Man’s Place in Nature, or Man an
Animal amongst Animals,” 4d. “ Philosophic Atheism,” 4d.
“ Christianity and Slavery,” 2d. “ Christianity at the Bar of
Science,” 3d, “Debate on Atheism with Mr. St. Clair,” Is.
Robert Cooper’s Holy Scriptures Analysed, with Sketch of
his Life. By C. Bradlaugh. 6d.
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.—With New Introduction. By
Charles Bradlaugh. 6d.
New Theory of Poverty.—By H. Aula. Id.
Liberty and Morality. By M. D. Conway. 3d.
Shelley’s Works, reprinted from the original MSS.—The Poet of
Atheism and Democracy.—In four handsome volumes, each com
plete in itself. Vol. .1, Early Poems. Volume 2, Later Poems.
Vol. 3, Posthumous Poems. Vol. 4, Prose Writings. 2s. each.
Pamphlets by C. R. Drysdale, M.D.—“ The Population Ques
tion,” Is. “ Tobacco, and the Diseases it Produces,” 2d. “Alcohol,”
6d.
The History of Clerkenwell. By the late W. J. Pinks, with
additions and Notes by the Editor, Edward J. Wood, complete in
one vol., fully gilt, 800 pp., 15s.
Paine’s Theological Works; including the “Age of Reason,”
and all his Miscellaneous Pieces and Poetical Works ; his last Will
and Testament, and a Steel Portrait. Cloth. 3s.
The Age of Reason. By Thomas Paine. Complete, with Pre
face by C. Bradlaugh. A new edition, the best ever issued,
printed in large type on good paper, Is.; cloth gilt, Is, 6d.
Paine’s Rights of Man. A Reply to Burke on the French Revo
lution. Is.
The Immortality of the Soul Philosophically Considered.
Seven Lectures by Robert Cooper.
Voltaire’s
Philosophical
Is.
Dictionary.
The edition in six,
re-printed in two thick volumes. Two portraits and a memoir. 8s.
Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the
temporal Happiness of Mankind. By Philip Beauchamp (a
pseudonvm adopted by G. Grote, the historian of Greece). Pp.
123. Is.
Shelley’s Song to the Men of England. Set to Music for
four voices. By Herr Trousselle. 2d.
A Manual of Political Questions of the Day, with the
arguments on either side. By Sydney Buxton. 130 pp. 6d.
�7
Fine Large Portrait of John Bright, for framing, size 23| by
17|.
Is.
P. 3d.
The City of Dreadful Night, and other Poems.
Thomson (“ B. V.”)
By James
Cloth 5s.
Pamphlets by G. W. Foote.—“ Secularism the True Philo
sophy of Life,” 4d. “ Futility of Prayer,” 2d. . “ Atheism and
Morality,” 2d. “Death’s Test, or Christian Lies about Dying
Infidels,” 2d. Bible Romances, Id. each : “ Noah’s Flood,” “ Cre
ation Story,” “Eve and the Apple,” “The Bible Devil,”
“Jonah and the Whale,” “The Ten Plagues,” “ The Wandering
Jews,” “ The Tower of Babel,” “Balaam’s Ass,” “ God’s Thieves
in Canaan,” “Cain and Abel,” “Lot’s Wife.” Or the 12, in colored
wrapper, Is.
Fine Steel Engravings of William Ewart Gladstone and
John Bright. 3d. each ; the two sent post free for 6d.
The Life of Jesus. By Ernest Renan. Authorised English
Translation. Crown 8vo, pp. xii.—312, cloth, 2s. fid.; stitched in
wrapper. Is. fid.
The Crisis in Farming; its Radical Causes and then only
Remedies. Twenty-two evils arising from Landlord, thirteen from
Tenant. By the Author of “ Hints to Landlords and Tenants.” 6d.
The First Seven Alleged Persecutions, A.D. 64 to A.D. 235.
By Thos. L’Estrange. fid.
The Eucharist. By the same Author. 6d.
These two pamphlets are highly recommended as able contri
butions to Freethought enquiry.
Chrestos : a Religious Epithet; Its Import and Influence.
By J. B. Mitchell, M.D., Mem. Soc. Bib. Arch.
Is.
Volney’s Ruins of Empires, with Plates of the Ancient Zodiac,
etc., carefully reprinted from the best edition, cloth, lettered, 2s.
The Three Trials of William Hone, for Publishing Three
Parodies ; viz., The late John Wilkes’s Catechism, The Political
Litany, and The Sinecurists’ Creed; on three ex-offleio infor
mations, at Guildhall, London, during three successive days—
December 18tli, 19th, and 20th, 1817—-before three special juries,
and Mr. Justice Abbot, on the first day, and Lord Chief Justice
Ellenborough, on the last two days. 2s.
The House of Lords. How it grew—Fifty years ago—Blueblooded Legislators—Broad-acre Legislators—Professional Legis-'
lators—Against Parliamentary Reform—Against Municipal Reform
—Against Religious Liberty—Against Social Reforms—Its Deal
ings with Ireland—-Its Foreign Policy—Concluding Remarks. By
H. R. Fox Bourne. (Reprinted from the “Weekly Dispatch.”)
80 pp. 3d.
Land Law Reform, and its relation to Work, Wages,
and Population. 2d.
The True Principle of Population, Trade Profits, &c.,
and the Land Laws. By T. R, 2d.
�8
The True Source of Christianity; or, a Voice from the
Ganges. By an Indian Officer. Originally published at 5s.
This work is now republished verbatim, in paper covers, Is. ;
cloth gilt, Is. 6d.
The Roll Call: a Political Record of the years 1775 to
1880. Commencing with the great wars of the last century, and
brought down to the close of 1880, with full Index. In paper
covers, 78 pp., 6d.
Under which Lord? By the author of “Joshua Davidson.”
Originally published in 3 vols. at £1 11s. 6d., now issued complete
in 1 vol., cloth gilt, 2s. 6d.
The Rev. Joseph Cook: A Critical Examination. By Professor
Fiske. Id.
The Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lords. By Pro
fessor Blackie. 2d.
Religion in the Heavens ; or, Mythology Unveiled. In
a Series of Lectures. By Logan Mitchell. Uniform with
International Series. Cloth, gilt, 5s.
LIST B.
Special List of Remainders, in cloth, new and uncut—All
the books in List B are at the lowest price, and no reduction can
be made to the trade, the object being to supply readers of the
National Reformer with literature at specially low rates.
Orders must be accompanied by cost of Postage, which is inserted
after the letter P. Where no postage is mentioned, the books go by
Sutton at cost of purchaser, and 2d. in addition to price must be
sent for booking.
Eminent Radicals in and out of Parliament. By J. Morri
son Davidson, Barrister-at-law. Being sketches of W. E. Glad
stone, John Bright, P. A. Taylor, Sir C. Dilke, J. Cowen, Sir W.
Lawson, H. Fawcett, J. Chamberlain, T. Burt, H. Richards, L. H.
Courtney, A. J. Mundella, John Morley, Robert William Dale,
Joseph Arch. Edward Spencer Beesly, Charles Haddon Spurgeon,
Charles Bradlaugh, Frederic Augustus Maxse, James Beal, Mon
cure Daniel Conway, James Allanson Picton, The Hon. Auberon
Herbert, Edward Augustus Freeman. Demy 8vo., 262 pp. Pub
lished at 10s. 6d. 2s. 6d. P. 7d.
The Outcast. — By Winwood Reade.
Handsomely bound,
pp. 262., Is. 6d. P. 3jd.
Ancient Mysteries described, by William Hone. With En
gravings on Copper and Wood. 2s. 6d. P. 6d.
The Apocryphal New Testament, bein? all the Gospels,
Epistles, &c., attributed to Christ, his Apostles, and their com
panions in the first four centuries of the Christian Era. By
W. Hone. 2s. 6d. P. 6d.
Three Essays on Philosophical Subjects — The Infinite;
Arabic Peripateticism; Sir W. Hamilton and J. S. Mill. Crown
8vo, 290 pp., Is. P. 3|d.
�17
Modern Protestantism: a few words on Essays and Reviews. By
G. J. Holyoake. Published at 6d. Post free l|d.
Thomas Cooper’s Celebrated Eight Letters to the Young Men
of the Working Classes. Post free 3d.
Horatio Prater’s Letters to the American People on Christianity
and the Sabbath. (Published by G. J. Holyoake, Fleet Street.)
P. 2^-d. Paper covers 6d. P. 2d.
By Victor Hugo and Garibaldi. 16 pp.,
stitched, Id. P. |d.
The National Inheritance : an Exhaustive Treatise on the Land
Question. By James Walker. 16 pp., demy 8vo, stitched, Id.
Cloth, new, 8d.
Political Poems.
P. ^-d.
Address to Socialists on the Rational System of Society, and
the measures required for the successful operation of the Universal
Community Society. By Robert Owen. Free 1^-d.
“Notre Dame!” A Freethinker’s address to the Hierarchy of
the Church of Rome. By R. H. Dalton, author of “ Education of
Girls,” etc. (Published at Is.) Post free, IJd.
Vol. 1 of “ Health. ’ A Monthly Magazine, edited by G. Drewry,
M.D. Containing the whole issues for 1878, full of interesting
articles on food, dress, diseases, sanitary matters, &c., &c. (Pub. lished at 2s.) Cloth, new, 6d. P. 4d.
Lord Byron’s “Vision of Judgment.” 24 pp., stitched, in wrapper,
free 2d.
An Essay on the Functions of the Brain. In paper wrapper, Id.
P. |d.
The complete Works of Shakspere, with a Memoir. By
Alexander Chalmers. Handsomely bound, richly gilt covers,
708 pp., Diprose’s diamond edition, Is. 6d. P. 5d. Very suitable
for presentation.
Russian and Turk from a Geographical, Ethnological, and His
torical point of view. By R. G. Latham, M.A., M.D. Royal 8vo
435 pp., 3s. 6d. P. 8d.
Inquiry into the Theories of History, with special refer
ence, to the principles of the Positive Philosophy. By W. Adam.
Dealing with the philosophy of Comte with great care and critical
ability. This work was favorably noticed by J. S. Mill. Demv
8vo, 441 pp., 3s. P. 7d.
Brief Biographies of German Political Leaders, including
Bismarck, Arnim, Camphausen, Lasker, Jacoby, Sonneman, Gueist,
Virchow, etc., etc., in all nineteen principal men in the country.
Crown 8vo, 264 pp., 2s. P. 4d.
Political Pamphlets by Thomas Paine—“ Decline and Fall of
the English System.of Finance;” “Public Good;” “Letters to
the Citizens of America ; ” “ Agrarian Justice opposed to A gra.rian
Law and Agrarian Monopoly, with a plan for creating a National
Fund ; “ Dissertations on the First Principles of Government ”
The five free for 6d.
�18
Pamphlets by R. D. Owen—“A Lecture on Consistency;”
“ Situations—Lawyers, Clergy, Physicians, Men and Women ; ”
" Darby and Susan: a Tale of Old England; ” “ Wealth and
Misery; “ Is eurology : an Account of some Experiments in
Cerebral Physiology; ” “ Sermon on Free Enquiry,” etc. Id. each.
P. |d. Or the whole freQ for 6d.
Letter to the Abbe Raynal, in correction of his Account of the
Revolution in America. By Thomas Paine, with correspondence
between the writer and George Washington. 54 pp., stitched in
wrapper (published at 6d.), free 3d.
Address delivered by Robert Owen on the Opening of the
Institution for the Formation of Character at New Lanark, on
January 1st, 1816, being the first public announcement of ’the
discovery of the Infant School System. Demy 8vo, 32 pp., stitched
in wrapper, free 2d.
An Enquiry into the Nature of Responsibility, as deduced
from Savage Justice, Civil Justice, and Social Justice ; with some
Remarks upon the Doctrine of Irresponsibility as taught by Jesus
Christ and Robert Owen ; also upon the Responsibility of Man to
God. By T. Simmons Macintosh, author of “ The Electrical
Theory of the Universe.” 124 pp., 6d. P. l|d.
The Life and Writings of Joseph Priestley.
Id.
Paper covers,
Personal Narrative of Travels in Eastern Lands, principally
Turkish, in 1833, in a Series of Letters, 67 in all. By Professor F. W.
Newman. The letters are full of most interesting matter concern
ing Eastern Social and Political Life. Crown 8vo, paper covers
120 pages of close print, 6d. P. lj-d.
1
’
Household Words.—Conducted by Charles Dickens.
Strongly
bound. Each volume, 2s.; published at 5s. 6d.
Vol. 9 contains the whole of the essays on Turkey and Greece,
by G. A. SaXa, under the title “ A Roving Englishman,” written
at the close of the Crimean War.
Vol. 14 contains the story of “ The Wreck of the Golden Mary,”
also the famous papers by G. A. Sala, “ A Journey due North,”
and “A Journey to Russia.”
Pamphlets by G. J. Holyoake.—“ Working-class Representa
tion and its Conditions and Consequences ; ” “ Outlaws of Freethought ; ” “ The Limits of Atheism ; or, Why Should Sceptics be
Outlaws ; ” “ The Social Means of Promoting Temperance,” with
remarks on errors in its advocacy; “ A New Defence of the Ballot; ”
“ Life and Last Days of Robert Owen, of New Lanark ; ” “ The
Suppressed Lecture at Cheltenham; ” “ Public Lessons of the
Hangman.” The lot, post free, 8d.
Indian Infanticide : its Origin, Progress and Suppression.
Con
taining a large amount of information respecting the Social Life of
the Hindus. 250 pp., Is. 6d. P. 4d.
�19
The
Scriptural Religions, Histories and Prophecies
Analysed and Examined. By J. W. Willcock, Q.C. A
searching and critical exposure of the Biblical Narratives and
Myths. Vol. I. (all that has been issued), demy 8vo, 526 pp.,
3s. 6d. P. 8d.
Credibility of the Gospel Narratives of the Birth and
Infancy of Christ, with an Introduction on the Acts of the
Apostles. A critical analysis of the contradictions of the Gosiel
Writers. 91 pp. (published at Is. 6d. by Thomas Scott), 6d.
P. Id.
Biographies of John Wilkes and William Cobbett, with
steel engravings. By the Rev. J. S. Watson, M.A. Good inuex,
410 pp., 2s. 6d. P. 6d.
Historical Studies and Recreations. By Shosiiee Chunder
Dutt (J. A. G. Barton), author of “ Bengaliana,” etc. Containing
the World’s History retold, in two parts : the Ancient World and
the Modern World. Also Bengal, an account of the Country from
the earliest times, the Great Wars of India, the Ruins of the Old
World, read as Milestones of Civilisation. 2 vols, 8vo, cloth, new,
uncut. Vol. I. pp. 470; vol. II. pp. 600. (Published at 32s.)
os. 6d.
Phraseological Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Genesis.
By Theodore Preston, M.A.
Illustrating the remarkable
peculiarities and anomalies of matter, style, and phrase in the
Book of Genesis, with references to Rashi, Aben Ezre. Gesenius
etc., etc. Crown 8vo, pp. 290, 2s. P. 4^d.
’
THE GOLDEN LIBRARY SERIES.—Bayard Taylor’s Diver
sions of the Echo Club—The Book of Clerical Anecdotes—Byron’s
Don Juan—Emerson’s Letters and Social Aims—Godwin’s (William)
Lives of the Necromancers—Holmes's Professor at the Breakfast
Table—Hood’s Whims and Oddities, complete, with all the original
illustrations—Irving’s (Washington) Tales of a Traveller—Irving’s
(Washington) Tales of the Alhambra—Jesse’s (Edward) Scenes
and Occupations of Country Life—Leigh Hunt’s Essays, with
portrait and introduction by Edmund Ollier—Mallory’s Sir Thos.
Mort d’Arthur, the Stories of King Arthur and of the Knights of
tlie Round Table; edited by B. Montgomery Ranking—Pascal’s
Provincial Letters ; a new translation, with historical introduction
and notes by T. M’Orie, D.D., LL.D.—Pope’s Complete Poetical
Works Kocflefoucald s Maxims and Moral Reflections, ■with, notes
and introductory essay by Sainte-Beuve—St. Pierre’s Paul and
Virginia, and the Indian Cottage; edited, with Life, by the Rev.
E. Clarke Lamb s Essays of Elia; both series complete in one
volume. Handsomely bound. Reduced to Is. each. If sent bv
Post 3d. each extra.
J
Essays— Scientific, Political, and Speculative. (Second
series.) By Herbert Spencer. (Published at 12s.) Demv 8vo
362 pp., 3s. 6d. P. 6d. A rare opportunity.
’
’
Matter and Motion. By N. A. Nicholson, M.A., Trinity Colleo'e
. Oxford. 48 pp., demy 8vo, 3d. P. Id.
S >
�The Year Book of Facts for 1880.
Containing the principal ;
discoveries in Geology, Dynamics, Geography, etc., with the Speech
of the President at the British Association Congress of that year,
with Index. 210 pp., 7d. P. 3|d.
The Classification of the Sciences ; to which are added Reasons
for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte. By Herbert
Spencer. 48 pp., demy 8vo, colored wrapper, Is. P. Id.
The Eternal Gospel; or, the Idea of Christian Perfectibility. By
N. W. Mackay, M.A. (Published at 2s. by Thomas Scott.) In
two Parts, 200 pp. in all, 6d. P. 2d.
Practical Remarks on State Vaccination, addressed to the
Smallpox and Vaccination Committee of the Epidemiological
Society. By Edward J. Hughes, M.D., Medical Officer to the
Holywell Union. 32 pp., demy 8vo, Id. P. ^d.
The Crimea and Transcaucasia; being the narrative of a
journey in the Kouban, in Gouria, Georgia, Armenia, Ossety,
Imeritia, Swannety, and Mingrelia, and in the Tauric Range. By
Commander J. P. Telfer, R.N. With two fine Maps and nume
rous Illustrations ; two vols. in one, splendidly bound in cloth, gilt
edges, royal 8vo, 600 pp. (Published at £1 16s.) A handsome
presentation book, 5s.
An Essay on Classification. By Louis Agassiz. 8vo. Pp. vii.
and 381. Cloth. (Published at 12s.) Reduced to 3s. P. 6d.
Light, and its Influence on Life and Health. By Dr.
Forbes Winslow. 301 pp. Is. P. 4d.
Human Longevity; and the amount of life upon the globe.—By P
Flourens, Professor of Comparative Physiology, Paris. Trans
lated by Charles Martel. Boards, Is. P. 2Jd.
The Meteoric Theory of Saturn’s Bings, considered with
reference to the Solar Motion in Space. With illustrations. Paper
wrapper, crown 8vo, Id. P. ^d.
The Human Mind. A System of Mental Philosophy. By J. G.
Murphy, LL.D. Cloth, crown 8vo, 350 pp., 2s. P. ad.
The Modern Practice of Physic, exhibiting the symptoms,
causes, prognostics, morbid appearances and treatment of the
diseases of all climates. By R. Thomas, M.D. Eleventh edition,
revised by A. Frampton, Physician London Hospital. In 2 vols.,
royal 8vo, 564 pp. and 756 pp. This work contains a great
number of recipes and prescriptions for all kinds of diseases, each
given in both Latin and English. With a copious index and table
of contents. 6s.
The Finding of the Book. An essay on the origin of the Dogma
of Infallibility. By John Robertson. This is the important
work which provoked the famous heresy’ prosecution. Published
at 2s. Post free Is.
Facts and Figures for Working Men. An analysis of the
Drink Question in relation to commerce, foreign competition,
our food supply, strikes, the death rate, and prosperity of the
country, etc. By Frederick Leary. Id.
�The Irish Problem and how to solve it.
An historical and
critical review of the legislation and events that have led to Irish
difficulties, including suggestions for practical remedies. Cloth,
demy 8vo, 410 pp. This work is only just issued, and brings the
History of the Irish Question up to the present time, and contains
in addition to Compensation for Disturbance Bill, several Acts
of Parliament, including the Coercion Bill of the present year.
2s. P. 9d.
The Rights and Duties of Property. With a plan for paying
off the National Debt, dealing with the Science of Political
Economy, the Land Question, etc., etc. Clotb, gilt lettered, 260
pp. 6d. P. 3d.
Satan: His existence disproved, and the notions of Battles in
Heaven and of Fallen Angels shown to have originated in Astro
nomical Phsenomena. Id. P. ¿d.
Science Lectures for the People. By Professors Huxley,
Tyndall, Duncan, Williamson, Huggins, Roscoe and others.
In all 55 lectures, in 3 vols., gilt cloth, 4s. 6d.
Intervention and Non-Intervention on the Foreign Policy
of Great Britain, from 1790 to 1865. By A. G. Stapleton.
Demy 8vo, 300 pp. 2s. P. 6d.
Reply to Bishop Watson’s attack on the “ Age of
Reason.” By Thomas Paine. Id. P. |d.
Splendid Steel Portraits of Lord Brougham, John Bright and
Richard Cobden. 24 by 18 Is. each; or the three for 2s. 6d.
The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua in Contrast with the
Moral Sense of our Age. Published at 6s. 6d. in parts. By the
late Thomas Scott. In 1 vol. complete. 2s. P. 5d.
Christianity in the Nineteenth Century. A Religious and
Philosophical Survey of the Immediate Past. By Etienne
Ohastel, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of
Geneva. Translated by J. Beard. Cloth, crown 8vo, 236 pp.,
Is. P. 3£d.
The History of Christianity. By E. N. Bouzique. Translated
by J. Beard. In three vols., nearly 400 pp. in each, crown 8vo,
cloth. 5s.
EDUCATIONAL.
From List B.
Elementary Chemistry.
P. 3|d.
By Rev. H. Martyn Hart, B.A.
A Compendium of English History.
Is.
From the Earliest Times
to a.d. 1872. With copious quotations on leading events and Con
stitutional History, with Appendices. By Herbert R. Clinton.
358 pp. Published at 7s. 6d. 2s. 6d. P. 5d.
First Book of English Grammar. By John Hugh Hawley.
Third edition, . Cloth, 3d. P. Id.
�22
Geography Classified.
A systematic manual of Mathematical,
Physical and Political Geography. With Geographical, Etymo
logical and Historical Notes. By Edwin Adams, F.R.G.S. Pp.
357. (Published at 7s. 6d.) Is. 6d. P. 4d.
Latin Grammar. By L. Direy. Pp. 179. Neatly bound. (Pub
lished at 4s.) 6d. P. 2d.
English. Grammar. By L. Direy and A. Foggo. Pp. 136.
(Published at 3s.) 6d. P. 2^-d.
The Life of Cicero. By Conyers Middleton, D.D. Complete
in one volume, with copious index and steel frontispiece. Demy
8vo, 760 pp. 2s. 6d. P. 9£d. Very cheap.
Facts and Figures, Important Events in History, Geography,
Literature, Biography, Ecclesiastical History, etc., etc. Arranged
in classified chronological order. Post free, 6d.
Elements of Chemistry, Theoretical and Practical, including the
most recent discoveries and applications of the science to medicine
and pharmacy, to agriculture, and to manufacture. Illustrated
by 230 woodcuts, with copious index. Second edition. By Sir
Robert Kane, M.D., M.R.I.A., President of Queen’s College, Cork.
Cloth, royal 8vo, 1069 pp. Price, 3s. 6d.
Parker’s Compendium of Natural and Experimental
Philosophy Mechanics, Hydrostatics, Acoustics, Astro
nomy, etc., etc. Post 8vo, profusely illustrated, 400 pp. Is. 6d.
P. 3|d.
The Elements of Agricultural Chemistry and Geology.
By the late Professor J. F. W. Johnston and C. A. Cameron,
Prof. Chemistry, R.C.S., etc., etc. Post 8vo., 500 pp., tenth
edition. 2s. P. 4|d.
Elements of Astronomy, for Academies and High Schools. By
Elias Loomis, LL.D. Well illustrated, crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. P. 4d.
Crabbe’s Technical Dictionary of all the Terms used in the Arts
and Sciences. Post 8vo, 600 pp., 2s. P. 5d.
The Child’s Ladder of Knowledge. By G. J. Holyoake.
Illustrated (published at 8d.), post free 4d.
Works by the celebrated Sir Benjamin Brodie.
Physiological Researches. Dealing with the Influence of the
Brain on the Action of the Heart and the Generation of Animal
Heat. Observations and experiments on the modes in which death
is produced by vegetable poisons, &c., &c. Cloth, Royal 8vo, 146 pp.
(Published at 5s.) Is. P. 3d.
The Diseases of the Urinary Organs, with Treatment and
Modes of Cure. Cloth, Royal 8vo, 400 pp. (Published at 12s.) 2s
P. 7d.
Pathological and Surgical Observations on the Diseases of
the Joints, Inflammation of the Synovial Membrane, Ulceration of
ditto, Morbid Alteration of Structure, Cancellous Structure of
Bones, &c., &c. Cloth, royal 8vo, 400 pp. (Published at 10s. 6d.)
2s. P. 6d.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Is atheism or theism more rational? A discussion between Mr. Joseph Symes and Mr. George St. Clair
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Saint Clair, George
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 74 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's list, dated January 1882, on pages at the end numbered [1]-8 and 17-22, i.e. p.9-16 are missing. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1882
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1777
N631
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
Theism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Is atheism or theism more rational? A discussion between Mr. Joseph Symes and Mr. George St. Clair), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
NSS
Theism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bd735bbb8e7a1674442ff112ede8075f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=KqCN6mbYEUJWCDcAc%7ELK54cRVh9xQrh4q8A%7EzsXy1ky%7E35zFoX72u0ftYfZtWJQtGsCfERKi0xY1lu28l1c3%7EMh7TEaTMDBsig8sCXWk47WIAadCBteCbSejvh8WRtZyY6hMw5V9VM7Y9DUVbVL1BjJqw-lSXgI81U%7E5CCqJBQI-f9TdUH84K5trnx1AMoZ0q9sRGRa-qHvN8KGcawaPHF4WTrx9gF%7EYVdGDV7DI7WDhZL5J7lDJrrJxPe4it7v4cjNsi3e4rsne06907L6UmzmWsQHBdNrF2j-dFl9gP2vaG62qerTxkCEYGldsfov3uBvBPsTyfiQC%7EMui0bm1tg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c6cce66f90071c72114825bc72939015
PDF Text
Text
Hfk
ma
Kr"'
■
m
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
*
B
M
1
7, ■
THE
New Testament
Manuscripts,
OR,
I*
CHRISTIANITY COMPLETELY UNDERMINED.
SYMES.
By JOSEPH
WITH
1
FAC-SIMILES
MSS.
SECOND EDITION.
Price THREE
%
OF
PENCE.
London:
THE PIONEER PRESS, 2 NEWCASTLE STREET, E.C.
�EXPLANATION
OF THE
FAC-SIMILES.
The first is a specimen of the running hand, written on Egyptian papyrus
some time between b.c. too and too a.d. It is a fragment of Hyperides,
an orator of the time of Demosthenes, 4th century b.c.
The second is an extract from Philodemos, a philosopher and poet of
Cicero s day.
t^irdspecimen is from a manuscript of the Greek Old Testament
(Co«x Fredenco-Augustanus). It contains 2 Sam. vii. 10-11
fourth is a specimen of Codex Sinaiticus, the famous manuscript
which Tischendorf brought (the monks say, stole) from the convent of St.
Catherine, Mount Sinai, 1859. The part quoted is Luke xxiv. 33-34
The two lines on the right-hand side below, written up and down
deserve a moment’s notice. They also are from Codex Sinaiticus, and
are a portion of 1 Timothy 111. 16, a passage which has given the Christians
endless trouble and led to disputes which reason can never settle. The
text reads to tes eusebeias mysterion ; but whether the next word is hos or
theos is the point in dispute. It appears that most of the manuscripts
read theos, though several important ones have hos or ho. The difficulty
arises from the fact that the manuscript writers and copiers frequently
contracted or abbreviated words, as we do still. We write Mr. for mister
or master; Mrs. for mistress; Dr. for doctor, etc. And in the ancient
manuscripts OC stand for hos (who); and the same letters, with horizontal
lines across the O stand for theos (God). The puzzle then is to decide
whether 1 Tim. ni. 16 should be read who (or which) or God!—a very
serious puzzle indeed, and one it is now too late to clear up, without a
new revelation—which even the most pious do not expect.
As Dr. Scrivener says, “ This text has proved the crux 'criticorum,” the
despair of the critics, we may say. And it is plain the text in Codex
Sinaiticus has been tampered with or else corrected by the author. Let
the reader look at it—the second perpendicular line, right-hand side below.
Reading up the line, the last letters are OCE. (The C is pronounced S
by the way.) Partly over the O and partly over the preceding letter n’
you see a peculiar compound mark, which Tischendorf says was made by
some corrector in the 12th century. The mark is evidently
which
together with OC below, make theos or God.
The text commonly reads, great is the mystery of godliness; God was
manifested in the flesh. But this celebrated manuscript of Tischendorf’s
reads in the first hand, Graf is the mystery of godliness who was manifested
m the flesh.
J
There are hundreds of similar doubtful readings in the manuscripts •
and I have given this as a specimen that all can understand.
’
�A*?
WWW
XjtcdnMi
ACo
/AM fXUwMl^O O>l
K/J Xhjin£OAi Ker
*t
XCYCM
TOVtXWCrOYhJTKr^
o w •trcMC r* oktn»a 9 SCT>W0m
A rop€YO
s
* lOKO«G
M=
**
YAJrTANTA
ZuY^ACQAir-lMCUCKeJ^K^inoj
O
^
*
e VXOlOMGAXTO»M
OCGmioiC
OTA6'U T* 4 ‘CopAkmAl KATCXWn
»
K At O T CY w6pC M 07 TTO/»|XAA€j
>
*
1
*
TAJTPI &HCAMKAI ATTOTmCAY
rnCriNMTAi/'AfeOAo^ ftXOA,
n €PTATMCrrOtHTJI<HCA^€PM XOM1
^.toTtn^p rroycnoxxzAASCiC
CGKTTONI KA-©CD«h£
XH CKXIX<t>H M €j»C£>
CJOHCTXiAKfll>c ♦
€nnoNAAONM<7 |
ICXkai €TaFTimo> I
caxha^tacto7<
;
exofoyccOTKAi
KYT^CCDCC Kaioi
I
I
|h u> p a yn e ct*’’
YAW€ lCJ6fOyCA
AH M KAI CYf ON
1
*
0|»oicm€moyc-h*
eAIA6KAKAlTOp
C YH A yTO> CACr
***
�FRAGMENT OF GREEK NEW TESTAMENT MSS.
m>W &c Vh«
*J» »CA>tee«u
® S^d-w<5
r
*«£MAice
k
&&C”r&e<SAf®oc«$
rAf
**
t»@ e^ectb
O&i sHoN^eANSCSCO
®
*
^mswcmImtoic
<€$!d»crHm€UH^
<flO$lCTOKHNM7^H
S&l€3.MMdB H0HCAH
&&& A^rw » <YT^f CM
®
*
gltGAUgiieeGaferzHT
®
*
W ’SF’d H H A X Apw M $M$T
®>S 6v KWC T3 K8<fiA« o
*
B-r@r«ocorTOY®® K’e^
Ivt 6m JLaa
r
*$
<rc
r
*6iCM
?fr?^T€
O8nn?Q*t*5ii Yw>^c^^
THH FA A® AAJAH6 Ke\£QT
T&Htf’f ece«KA®u>e^
rJ®^M5«>il6SLGA^7
CAI € 4»Tro NSr>d’T©y
earing® «©x^8*€N rar
Jty TAC TTf»OM O C St A?f K
<
CTaC|C
^•rrf ’
ft e
X
**
The printed Greek
(in English letters)
runs thus :—min ton
lithon ek tes thuras
tou mnemeiou kai
anablepsasai theorousin hoti anakekulistai ho lithos en
gar megas sphodra
kai elthousai eis to
mnemeion eidon neaniskon kathemenon
en tois dexiois peribeblemenon stolen
leuken kai exethambethesan ho de legei
autais me ekthambeisthe iesoun zeteite ton nazarenon
ton estauromenon
ergerthe ouk estin
hode ide ho topos
hopou ethekan auton alia hupagete
eipate tois mathetais autou kai to
petro hoti proagei
humas eis ten galilaian ekei auton
opsesthe kathos eipen humin kai exelthousai ephugon
apo tou mnemeiou
eichen gar autas
tromos kai ekstasis
kai
oudeni ouden
eipon ephobounto
gar.
Kata Markon.
FAC-SIMILE OF CODEX VATICANUS, MARK Xvi. 3-8.
�PREFACE.
I must ask the reader to observe that the following notes upon the
New Testament Manuscripts are not intended to be a treatise or at
all exhaustive. The pamphlet is a reprint from several consecutive
numbers of the Liberator; and the notes were written as the printers
required copy. Hence there will be seen a want of consecutiveness
in them, which I hope may be forgiven.
I have written for the multitude, not for scholars ; although, I
respectfully submit, the best of Christian scholars would do well to
consider the points and issues I raise. Let them remember that
every item in the liberal thought of to-day was first supplied by
Freethinkers, and long afterwards adopted by the Christians when
they found their old notions, no longer tenable. So must it be in the
future. The views I here advance will be generally adopted in the
next generation.
I may here note a common argument of the Christians, though
not so confidently urged now as in former days :—
It is often said that we have better evidence for the Christian
scriptures than for the Classical works of Greece and Rome—that
is, that it is easier to prove, for example, that Matthew wrote the
gospel which goes in his name than to prove that any given Greek
or Roman author wrote a work circulating in his name. If that be
so, we are quite in the dark as to the origin of the Classical books,
for the most eager defender of the faith has never yet been able to
show when, or where, or by whom, any of the New Testament books
were written.
Further, I submit that, had there been various sects of Classicists,
all trying to exterminate the rest; and had one powerful sect gained
the upper-hand and destroyed its rivals and their books as well, and
libelled them into the bargain; and further, that if most of what we
hold to be Classical literature emerged from the care and keeping of
that conquering sect, we could have no confidence whatsoever in the
teachings of that sect as regards the authors, etc., of the books they
handed over to us. Add to this the supposition that the books
actually preserved, on the whole, strongly favored the pretensions of
the sect which preserved them, and you see how suspicious would
be their testimony.
Well, it is not the poor people, nor the masses of the people, to
whom we owe the preservation of the New Testament, but to
the most villainous set of men ever known, and men whose prime
tenets are supported by these very books.
When we further reflect upon the forgeries and lies the dominant
sects have always resorted to on occasion, we shall see that anything
�ii.
PREFACE.
coming from them must be regarded with the strongest suspicion?
until independent evidence can be obtained.
All things considered, the case of the Classical books, though by
no means satisfactory, is not a tenth as bad as the case of theNew Testament, which is vouched for mainly by those who
benefit by it.
Since I began my notes on the manuscripts, quite unexpectedly,
a friend has offered to produce a facsimile or two expressly for me
and through that gentleman’s kindness I am now able to publish, in
addition to the previous fragments, a facsimile, slightly reduced, of
a small portion of the Vatican manuscript or Codex Vaticanus, as
scholars are pleased to call it.
In the column beside it I have given the same words in the
ordinary New Testament Greek, but in English letters. It is not
necessary to insert the translation, as any one with an English New
Testament may read it for himself in Mark xvi. 3-8.
Please look over this facsimile and note a fact or two. 1. It is all.
in capital letters, or uncials, as scholars call them. 2. There are no
divisions between the words, and therefore the manuscript is difficult
to read, and in many cases quite uncertain. 3. In the 14th line
from the top there is a contraction, in, which is read “ iesoun ” or
Jesus (acc. case). But the word must be doubtful, in the nature of
the case. 4. There are little marks over many of the letters which
scholars say were inserted by some one long after the manuscript
was first written. That may be, but who can be sure ? 5. Below
are two words, “ Kata Markon,” said to be by a later scribe. Who'
knows ?
Note.—It is by such trifles scholars undertake to decide the dates
of manuscripts. The whole thing is doubtful in the extreme.
It may not be out of place to rehearse a few facts relating to the
Greek Testament, facts that should be persistently put before our
Christian neighbors and opponents. The clergy should be challenged
to say whether these statements are facts or fictions. And if I am
wrong in my statements, they should be urged to refute them.
It is no advantage to me to deny the truth or to preach and teach
error. If the New Testament is really an authentic history, it will
pay me well to say so. There are many thousands of people ardently
anxious that I should cease my opposition to their beliefs and begin,
again to preach the Gospel I have labored so long to discredit.
Therefore, it will be an immense advantage to me to be shown and
convinced that the New Testament is true history ; for, once satis
fied of that, I shall preach it most earnestly. And to do so would
bring me ^20, where I now get one. Therefore, if I oppose and
expose the New Testament and Christianity, it must be conceded
that some moral and legitimate motive impels me to do so.
On the other hand, if the clergy are not able to refute me, they
have no right to continue to preach and to live upon what they are
not able to prove to be true. If they can confute me, and will not,
they must be extremely immoral to permit me to propagate serious,
error and misrepresentations of the truth, which they can so easilyput a stop to.
�PREFAC®,
♦
iii.
To bring matters to an issue, I assert without fear of contradiction,
that the whole round of the gospel is an unfounded superstition ;
that the Gospels are frauds and forgeries; the New Testament a
‘book of most uncertain date ; and that, instead of having been
written by eye-witnesses of the things it relates, no proof exists that
the book is yet so much as 1,000 years old—-Though I do not deny
that it may be older.
I assert that the New Testament manuscripts now existing cannot
be traced back to any known author or writer or copier ; and that
•it is impossible to discover in what country any one of them was
produced. Nor is it possible to fix, within hundreds of years, the
date when any one of them was written.
Such is my challenge. And there is more to follow. Our common
New Testaments assert, on their title-page, that the English version
has been “ translated out of the original Greek.”
Now this was a known falsehood when first circulated. The
bishops and others of the English Church, in the reign of James I.,
were fully aware that the Greek they used did not pretend to be the
original; they were well aware that no one had ever pretended to
have seen the original—unless they meant to say that the printed
v text they had was the original, as they certainly did not. Those
Scholars knew that Erasmus, the Catholic critics, Stephens, and the
rest, who had for many years been examining manuscripts, had none
of them ever hinted or whispered that they had found the original.
Therefore, when those bishops authorised the printer to print
translated out of the original Greek,” they perpetrated a most
deliberate fib, and a fib that has imposed upon countless millions of
confiding people.
There was no excuse for this falsehood of theirs, except such an
excuse as vanity, ambition, or deliberate imposture could supply.
And whatever excuse might be urged for bishops and others of
nearly 300 years ago, there can be no shadow of excuse for those
who continue to reprint and circulate this fib. Since those ancient
bishops died, and most especially during the last sixty years, every
known corner has been ransacked for New Testament manuscripts ;
the most strenuous efforts have been made by Christian critics,
armed with all the weapons learning could give, to connect the New
Testament with the alleged apostles, and with Jesus. All such
efforts have hopelessly failed. No record, no scrap, of the originals
can be found ; no materials can be discovered out of which to con
struct a historical bridge to connect the oldest known manuscript
with the apostles or with Jesus.
Even if I admitted that Jesus and his apostles may have been
real persons and not fictions, still from the time of their death down
to the oldest fragment of real Church history, and down to the oldest
New Testament manuscript yet found, there must be reckoned
hundreds of years. Although the popular defender of the faith tries
to brazen it out and talks confidently, scholars know, and some of
them admit all that I contend for—in effect, if not in the language
I employ. I must quote a few passages from well known Christian
•works.
�iv.
PREFACE.
Smith's Bible Dictionary, 1863, article “New Testament” (by
Westcott the late Bishop of Durham), says, “ It does not appear
that any special care was taken in the first age to preserve the books
of the New Testament from the various injuries of time, or to insure
perfect accuracy of transcription. They were given as a heritage
to man, and it was some time before men felt the full value of the
gift. The original copies seem to have soon perished; and we may
perhaps see in this a providential provision against the spirit of
superstition which in earlier times converted the symbols of God’s
redemption into objects of idolatory (2 Kings xviii. 4). It is certainly
remarkable that in the controversies at the close of the second
century, which often turned upon disputed readings of scripture, no
appeal was made to the apostolic originals. The few passages in
which it has been supposed that they are referred to will not bear
examination.”
The writer then proceeds to dispose of certain imaginary references
to the originals in Ignatius and Tertullian.
He proceeds, “No Manuscript of the New Testament of the first
three centuries remains.” He drops the innocent remark that,
“ As soon as definite controversies arose among Christians, the text
of the New Testament assumed its true importance.” Westcott
notes the fact that the early Christians mutually accused each other
of corrupting their sacred books. The last note I need quote -from
him just at present is this, “ History affords no trace of the pure apostolic
originals."
Here, then, I have quoted from this Christian divine all that is
needed to justify the strong language I have used above. Of
course, the reader will perceive that Westcott, having, a
shockingly bad case, makes the best he is able of it. He raises
a pious dust, talks of providence, idolatry, etc. Still the truth
appears quite plainly through the mist; and the truth may thus
be summed up :—
1. Had the New Testament been an inspired book or a correct
record of the life of Christ and his apostles, there never could have
been a time when Christians could have valued them at less than
their real worth. Those who wrote the books would surely not be
blind to their value 1 They could not have been careless as to whom
they confided the books.
2. Those who received them from the authors must have valued
them as the most precious heritage of the Church, as Westcott fully
admits in hinting that people might have worshipped the originals
if God had not providentially destroyed what he had taken such pains
to inspire !—a wonderfully comical way of accounting for the loss
or early destruction of the originals, surely !
3. But Westcott was too wide awake not to understand why no
books have descended to us from the apostles, etc.—they never wrote
any, that is the truth. If they had done so, there would have been
no lack of evidence for it. It is not in the power of the .most cun
ning defender of the faith to assign or to.suggest a plausible reason
why the apostolic originals are not now in existence, supposing the
apostles really wrote and published anything.
�PREFACE.
V.
4. The fact that controversies arose so early and that they were
neither prevented nor settled by appeals to the apostolic originals is
clear proof that such originals never existed. How could controversies
arise amongst people who had the New Testament, as they supposed,
as an infallible guide ? And, granting the controversies, it is incon
ceivable that the disputants should have failed to appeal to an
apostolic standard, if such had really existed.
All these admissions of Westcott are plain proof that the New
Testament did not exist at the close of the 2nd century, when
those controversies raged. That being so, the New Testament must
be set down as a forgery of later times; but how much later cannot
as yet be ascertained. As Westcott says, the text assumed its true
importance in times of controversy ! Just so. All the round of
•dogmatic theology arose and was produced in times of controversy.
And it is plain that the New Testament was forged by the squabbling
Christians for the purpose of defending themselves and demolishing
their opponents. Yes, and the book itself is plentifully sprinkled
Over with the evidences of that.
�THE NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
It seems to me that Christian writers upon this subject make,
admissions or statements, which, properly considered, are quite fatah
to all historical claims of or for the New Testament. I have quoted
a specimen or two from Bishop Westcott, and here are others.
Dr. Newth, one of the authors af the Revised Version, says, in
Lectures on Revision, 1881, “ It is scarcely needed to state that we do
not now possess the original copies of any of the books of the Old
or the New Testament. Even while these (that is, the originals)
were still in existence it was necessary to transcribe them in order
that many persons in many places might possess and read them.”
I note here, ist.—That the statement that we do not possess the
originals of any portions of the Bible is strictly and absolutely true.
But, 2nd.—The assumption that the originals were copied and copied
in order to give many person^ the opportunity to read them is a
mere assumption with not one known fact to support it. If Dr..
Newth could prove the originals to have been copied, as he says they
were, he would more than half prove the New Testament historical
but the originals, as I shall show later, are nowhere mentioned by
any ancient writer. If many persons wanted copies to read, popular
education must have been early prevalent; but by common consent,,
the early Christians were not only of the poorer classes, for the
greater part, but also quite illiterate.
The doctor proceeds to show how almost impossible it was to
produce correct copies of the Bible. “ In the work of transcription,
however careful the transcriber might have been, errors of various kinds
necessarily arose ; some from mistaking one letter for another ; some
from failure of memory, if the scribe were writing from dictation ;
and some from occasional oversight, if he were writing from a copy
before him ; some from momentary lapses of attention, when his
hand wrote on without his guidance ; and some from an attempt tocorrect a real or fancied error of his predecessor ” (p. 3).
I ask, What could the Holy Ghost be thinking about to give man
kind a revelation in so uncertain and unreliable a manner ! This
point must be pushed. Nothing could be more blundersome or
more provocative of blunders than the course taken ; and the Holy
Ghost, if he inspired the Bible, must be held responsible for all the
errors of all its copies. He committed the first and fatal blunder of
trying to do what was impossible to be done by the means he
employed.
Dr. Newth says (p. 4) that the more recent the manuscripts are,
the greater is the agreement amongst them! That is as good as to
say, The more ancient your manuscripts are, the more do they
s
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
II
disagree amongst themselves! Well, critics tell you their oldest
existing New Testament manuscripts date from the 4th century.
If, then, the oldest disagree more and more in proportion to their
age, if we had the 3rd century manuscripts, we should find they
'differed Still more than the oldest we have ; if the 2nd century ones
could be recovered, we should find them worse still! and the 1st
-century ones, the worst of all! !
In other words, the nearer you approach the fountain head of
•Christianity, the more impure do you find the waters ! That being
so, of what conceivable value are the most ancient manuscripts ?
Nay, of what value are any of them ? These are questions no
scholar can answer in any satisfactory manner. Confusion of con
fusion, all is confusion and vexation of spirit; and the more the
subject is stirred, the more bewildered does the honest investigator
become. If it were the Koran that was concerned, instead of the
New Testament, how sarcastically and scornfully the Christian
Scholars would wax over such admissions and statements as I have
quoted above. How readily, in that case, would they perceive that
the evidences were totally unreliable and hardly worth refuting!
But reverence for their own fetish book has completely blinded
most of the Christian doctors, on the one hand, of the Mohammedan
doctors, on the other ; and none but Freethinkers can ever settle
the difficulties of either party.
Even the printing press, as Dr. Newth says, has by no means
abolished errors from the Bible. He supplies the following examples
of even printed errors in God’s most holy word, which the Holy
Ghost never took the trouble to correct, although the bishops and
clergy were as full of that ghost when those errors were committed
as at any time in the history of the Church.
In a Bible, called the “wicked Bible,” printed in 1631, Exodus
Xx. 14 reads, “ Thou shalt commit adultery.” In another, printed
1682, Deut. xxiv. 3 reads, “If the latter husband ate her,” instead
of “ hate her.” “ He slew two lions like men,” was printed for
“ two lion-like men ” (2 Sam. xxiii. 20), in a Bible dated 1638.
“ Deliver up their children to the swine ” (Jer. xviii. 21) for “ to the
famine,” appears in a Bible of 1682.
There are several others not worth quoting here. If such blunders
may occur in a printed book, what blunders may not have been
•committed in the ancient manuscripts ! Look at the facsimiles we
give, and note how easy it must have been, in copying hundreds of
pages of such manuscript, to fall into errors.
Dr. Newth says again, “ The exact words used by the inspired
writers are not now to be found in any one book or manuscript.
They have to be gathered from various sources, by long and careful
labor, demanding much skill and learning. These sources, more
over, are so numerous that the investigation of them can be
accomplished only by a large division of labor, no one life being
long enough for the task, and no one scholar having knowledge
-enough to complete it alone ” (p. 79).
There is a confession of the utter hopelessness of the task. Let
us note a point or two. 1. The common Bible will tell you, on its
�12
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
title-page, that it was “translated out of the original ” (Hebrew for
the Old Testament, Greek for the New). But, as New th and other
writers openly acknowledge, this is most untrue, for the manuscripts
used by the authors of our common Bible were recent ones and of
no authority whatsoever. The statement, then, that the books were
translated out of the original is as deliberate a lie as could be told.
2. Still, if no older or better manuscripts had been found, a few
days would have sufficed to compare the printed copies with the
manuscripts. Yes, and Christians would have gone on repeating
the lie about the translation from the original, and would, have
declared that the exact and identical word of God was found in our
common Bible.
3. But the whole question has been so closely studied since 1611,
when our common Bible was first published, that some of the fore
most scholars have set aside the text used then as of no value or
authority whatsoever ; and have tried to reconstruct the original
New Testament out of older and, as they say, more reliable
manuscripts.
4. But now another difficulty stares us in the face. Admitting
that the manuscripts used by the authors of the Revised Version of
1881 to be better than those used in 1611, other manuscripts may
soon be found better than any now known ; and then the work of
reconstructing God’s holy but most delapidated word must all be
done over again.
5. If no one manuscript contains the exact words of the original,
as Newth declares, do any twenty manuscripts ? or any hundred ?
or one thousand ? Do all the known manuscripts contain “ the
exact words,” etc. ? How do you know ? Who does know ? Who.
pretends to know ? If a thousand more manuscripts should be
discovered, or forged and palmed off upon scholars, must the exact
words be picked from them also ?
6. If one life is too short for such a work, then no man can ever
HAVE
SUFFICIENT
KNOWLEDGE
TO
ENTITLE
HIM
TO
PASS . AN
therefore no man can ever have a just
right to decide such a question or to help to decide it; and therefore,,
no man being capable of forming an independent opinion upon it,,
no two men can ever rationally agree upon the subject; and there
fore, lastly, no number of men can ever have the just right to palm
off their version upon the world, or the nation, or to express any
opinion whatsoever upon the subject, except to say, “ The task, is
too great for the human intellect, and can never be satisfactorily
performed.”
Such is the corner into which Dr. Newth unconsciously drives
the Christian critics, himself with them; and. by so doing, he un
wittingly condemns the course taken by himself and his fellow
workers who produced the Revised Version; for they undertook a
work no number of men could possibly perform, and they settled all
disputes and doubts by a majority vote !—voted what was, what was
not God’s word ! Had the Revisers been only half as many, or
double the number, how different the result of their voting must
have been !
opinion upon the subject;
�h
• NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
13
And it must not be forgotten that no other company can ever
succeed any better, for the work is such that it never can be final.
In 1611 it was possible for the King and Parliament to produce a
Bible pretending to be the right one ; and most English speaking
people accepted and used it as a genuine work. Scholars for ages
have known better, and many would like to supersede it. But they
cannot. An Act of Parliament now would never bind the people on
such a subject; and no one church could issue a Bible that all
would accept. No one man can do it. All the churches could
never be brought to agreement on it. And there it rests—nay, not
rests. There is no more rest for the churches, none for God’s most
holy word. Scepticism has won ! The Bible is logically as dead
as Psalmanazer’s History of Formosa; and during the next genera
tion or two the masses will be as well satisfied of that as scholars
are at the present day.
The whole question of the value of the Bible has been unwittingly
raised, in the last few years, by the English and American clergy ;
and this has been done by projecting and executing the Revision of
the common English Bible. The first definite step was taken in
this work, February io, 1870, when the upper house of Convocation
or “ gathering ” of the English Church parsons passed a resolution
appointing a committee to perform the work of revising, amending
and repairing the word of God.
There cannot be the least doubt that those men who then assem
bled expected to do a good stroke of business for their party and
more or less embarrass, and perhaps defeat, the enemies of the faith.
Whether they have succeeded in their object will be seen as we
proceed. In fact, I may say just here that, in my esteem, no step
was ever taken by a large section of the Church more fatal in its
effects upon the popular superstition than this revision business.
Had the common English Bible, which was launched upon the
world in 1611, been merely a faulty book more or less misrepresent
ing the written or manuscript Bible that preceded it, the revision
and correction would have been easily accomplished, and no harm
could have resulted.
Let the reader try to grip the situation. If I wrote a lengthy
article for the Freethinker, and the printers made serious blunders in
the printed copy, it would be very easy to correct them by means of
my manuscript. Yes, but suppose that, instead of one manuscript,
there were from one to two thousand manuscripts of the same article,
all written in different hands, with different spelling ; many of the
manuscripts being unreadable in hundreds of places. And suppose
most of those manuscripts were mere fragments, and only one or
two (or not one) contained the entire article I wrote. And suppose
one or two contained the article and much more besides that I never
wrote.
Suppose, further, that the original manuscript which I wrote
could nowhere be found ; and that all the thousand or two thousand
manuscripts of the article now known were copies of copies of copies
and so on to an utterly unknown extent; and that all those copies
were by unknown persons, in places and times unknown. Add to
�i4
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
this confusion the additional fact that the manuscripts contradicted
or varied from each other in about 150,000 places, and that no man
or number of men could tell which of them was nearest to or most
remote from the original.
In addition to all this, suppose that no one knew what copy or
copies the printers printed my article from, that they never told any
one, or refused to tell, or were out of the way and could not be
questioned.
Once more, suppose there were a dozen first-rate scholars engaged
in sifting the copies, and that no two of them agreed as to which
was best to follow or the nearest to the original.
And then suppose that no one had ever seen the original, but
merely those copies of copies, etc., and that I would not or could
not speak a word or take a step to clear up the mystery which no
other person knew. And, lastly, suppose it doubtful if I ever did
write the article, or that I, its reputed author, could not be proved
ever to have lived.
With all these difficulties before you, how could you, or any other
person, ever tell how the original article read and how it should be
reproduced ?
The case supposed is almost exactly parallel to the case of the
Bible, or to keep to our present subject, the New Testament. And
the attempt to Revise the book has had the effect of calling public
attention to these fatal facts as it never before was called ; and
further, it has demonstrated to scholars themselves the utter hope
lessness of all attempts to recover the original New Testament, or
of deciding what it was like, whence it came, or what was its value.
Note once more the leading facts. The common English Bible
was revised, patched, or repaired in 1611, the cobblers never having
made it known what materials (manuscripts) they used in the
patching, vamping, caulking, puttying, painting, gilding, or whatever
name you may please to give to their work. This was very dishonest;
but they did worse, they declared on the title-page that they translated
from the original and compared with former translations. The first
statement is a deliberate falsehood, for they knew the manuscripts
they had were not the original—unless, by the way, the Bible,
instead of being an ancient book, turns out to have been first
written a few centuries ago. If that is so, the translators of the
common Bible may have used the originals. But no Christian will
adopt that view.
During 250 years many scholars worked with a will to improve
the common Bible, and in the course of time materials were gathered
up from many quarters; and for generations there was a growing
conviction amongst the learned that something required to be done
to bring the Bible into closer agreement with the “ original,” as they
are pleased to call the manuscripts.
But just here the difficulties begin in earnest, and every step
lands the workers deeper into the bog of uncertainty.
The Greek text of the New Testament first published by Erasmus
and patched and mended by the Stephens of Paris, and called
generally the Textus Receptus, Received Text, etc., was quietly set aside
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
15
as of no authority at all by the men who made the Revised Version
of 1881. Theyssay, in the preface to the New Testament, that all
the Greek Testaments used by the translators of 1611 “were
founded for the most part on manuscripts of late date, few in number,
and used with little critical skill,” This text of the old translators,
they say, “ needed thorough revision.” They add, “A revision of
the Greek text was the necessary foundation of our work ; but it
did not fall within our province to construct a continuous and
Complete Greek text.”
Why not ? They imply that that was really necessary; and
therefore it ought to have been done, and done before going any
further ; for what was wanted was not a translation of some imperfect
and uncertain text, but of the undoubted word of God.
“ Textual Criticism,” say they in their preface, “ as applied to the
Greek New Testament, forms a special study of much intricacy and
difficulty, and EVEN NOW LEAVES ROOM FOR CON
SIDERABLE VARIETY OF OPINION AMONG COM
PETENT CRITICS. Different schools of criticism have been
represented among us, and have together contributed to the final
result.”
Just so. They mean to say, but don’t like to speak plainly, that
the Revisers were often at sixes and sevens, and found it impossible
to settle their disputes but by a majority vote ! Fancy settling
what Homer wrote in the same way ! Fancy settling history by a
vote ! Fancy deciding points in Mathematics in that way ! And
then fancy voting upon the question, Which manuscripts shall we
follow in this or that verse or chapter ?
Yes, the Revisers voted, for that was the only way of settling
their difficulties—the only way. And their vote tells us how God
wrote and what he wrote. This is a clever dodge, mind. And it
is precisely the same dodge resorted to at Rome to find out who it
is the Holy Ghost has decided to make the next Pope. It seems a
bit astonishing that men of any reflection at all should make such a
confession ; but, then, what can they or could they do ? There is
no method of settling the points in dispute ; they cannot possibly be
settled ; and, I suppose voting is as good a way as any of performing
the farce which pretends to solve questions which are in their
nature insoluble. But the Revisers should have been candid enough
to tell the world plainly that their work was nothing but a farce,
a farce of the solemn kind, no doubt, and one mixed up with prayer
and other magic ceremonies; but really a farce of the worst
description.
Let us see where we now are. The Revisers of 1881 had set
aside the Old Greek Text as of no authority; but they put
no authoritative one in its room. So we are now without any
Greek text that has authority. True, Drs. Hort and Westcott
tried to palm off a Greek Testament of their own manufacture
upon their fellow Revisers; and they seem to have succeeded
admirably.
I have said that the Revisers of 1881 set aside the Old Greek
Testament, which the translators of the common Bible called the
�i6
NEW TESTAMENT
MANUSCRIPTS.
“original Greek” in 1611, and substituted for it a Greek text
manufactured by Drs. Westcott and Hort, two of the Revisers.
This conduct would have been quite honest and proper, if the
Revisers had only been so happy as to have discovered a better and
more reliable text; but had they ? It appears that some scholars
as pious as themselves and not less learned, are of opinion that the
Revisers really set aside a good text for a much worse one, as a few
notes and quotations will make clear to the reader.
The Rev. Canon Cook, in The Revised Version Considered, London,
1882, earnestly defends the old Greek against the new. I think he
makes out a good case against the new text, but he leaves us com
pletely in the dark as to the value of the old. He demonstrates
that the new idol of the Revisers is not the right and proper object
of worship; but he fails to establish any claims for the old one.
He prefers the old Greek used by the translators of 1611, but his
preference seems to be more a matter of taste than argument.
Mr. Cook admits that the manuscripts relied upon by the Revisers
are very ancient; but he contends that, “ in the earliest ages the
stupidity and licence of copyists was far greater than at any later
period, the result being that the most ancient manuscripts are
tainted with the most numerous and most serious errors ” (p. 7).
This is extremely encouraging ! If the oldest scribes were such
clumsy copyists or such wilful corrupters, and from them has
descended to us “ the divine word,” as we have it, of what use or
authority can it be ? Manifestly none.
The modern critics cannot be relied on either. Tischendorf, the
greatest of them all, it is said, produced several editions of his
Greek New Testament. After he found the Sinaitic Manuscript,
in 1859, he was so full of its importance that he set to work and
produced a new edition of his Greek Testament, differing in more
than 3,000 places from his previous edition. But, as Mr. Cook says,
the larger portion of these changes have been given up as untenable
by editors who have followed Tischendorf (p. 8).
And so the solemn farce of supplying us with “ God’s word ”
proceeds from folly to folly, each successive editor overturning the
work of his predecessors. What Mr. Cook says of two contending
critics who came to ink and paper blows over the question, is
instructive. He says, “ I cannot but regard Dean Burgon’s argu
ment on one side, and Dr. Hort’s on the other, as remarkable
instances of the use and the misuse of vast learning and of equally
remarkable subtlety” (p. 147).
I think the same remark will apply to all the ablest works on
theology. No learning, no subtlety can settle a single point in it.
And, in truth—I speak from experience and long study—the more
learning is brought to bear upon any theological dogma, the more
hopeless does it become. The modern critics have fallen into the
terrible mistake of trying to prove their doctrines by reason or
rational processes. They forget that, not reason, but the blindest
of blind faith is the only saving virtue, the only way by which a
man can receive the Gospel. Wordly wisdom, that is, enlightened
reason, has nothing to do with it. You must, as when taking a
�NEW .TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
17
header into the sea, shut your eyes and plunge ! To wait for reason
to lead faith or to confirm faith is to be a Sceptic and to reject the
whole of Christianity as an unreasonable superstition.
I quote next a few important passages from The Revision Revised,
by John William Burgon, B.D., Dean of Chichester. London,
1883.
'
Let the reader remember that our Revisers of 1881 discarded the
old Greek Testament as of no authority. This fact must be
remembered all through. And so must the other, namely, that
Drs. Hort and Westcott manufactured a new Greek Testament and
induced the Revisers to accept that as God’s most holy word. The
Bishop of Gloucester accepts the new text and defends it. Dr.
Scrivener, says Burgon, held that this new text was based on “ the
sandy ground of ingenious conjecture”....... that the work of the
new editors must be received by a sort of intuition or “ dismissed
....... as precarious or even visionary”....... “Dr. Hort’s system
is entirely destitute of historical foundation”....... and of “all
probability.”
So the reader sees where we are—The Revisers repudiate the old
text and cannot induce the best scholars to accept their new one !
The Revisers say, in effect, “ Ladies and Gentlemen, you have
innocently believed that the Bible you are so familiar with is God’s
most holy word, translated from the original. We are sorry to tell
you it is nothing of the kind. The book from which this translation
was made is of no authority whatsoever, we assure you, Ladies and
Gentlemen ! But do not be alarmed. We have found two manu
scripts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, both
preserved by the mysterious providence of God, which also raised
us up to study and to set them before the world. And by patching
together these two famous manuscripts, with quite a multitude of
others, we have, by divine assistance, produced, or rather, repro
duced, the word of God in as correct and elegant a style as the
resources of scholarship and piety combined can ever hope to produce
it, and as near to the original as the most fastidious piety can
■demand.”
Such, in plain language, is the position taken up by the Revisers.
But, unfortunately, just as they reject the old text, so do other
scholars reject their new one; and the unhappy Christians are left
without any word of God at all; and the wisest of the godly
.scholars can merely grip this or that text in sheer desperation ; for
reason and science declare that not one of them is of any authority
whatsoever.
Burgon says, the Greek text on which the Revisionists spent ten
years “ was a wholly untrustworthy performance ; was full of the
gravest errors from begining to end.” It is “ the most vicious
(text) in existence.” It was also smuggled into the Revisionists’
camp and palmed off upon the members.
The two chief manuscripts used by the fabricators of the new
text differ immensely from the old text. In the Gospels alone, the
Vatican manuscript differs in 7,578 places ; and the Sinaitic in
•8,972 places. This manuscript has been tampered with no less
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
than ten different times between the 6th and 12th centuries(p. 12).
Burgon grows jocular, and declares that if Shakespeare were to
be revised as the Bible has been, Hamlet’s Soliloquy, “ To be, or
not to be,” etc., would read thus >—The Alexandrine Manuscript:—
Toby, or not Toby ; that is the question. The Vatican Manuscript:—
Tob or not, is the question. The Sinaitic Manuscript:—To be a
Tub, or not to be a Tub ; the question is that. Ephrem’s Manu
script :—The question is, to beat, or not to beat Toby ? Beza’s
Manuscript:—The only question is this : to beat that Toby, or to.
be a Tub ” (p. 15).
No doubt exists in the mind of anyone acquainted with Hebrew
or Greek that, if the authors of the Bible could be resurrected, they
would find hundreds of texts quite as ridiculously represented and
as fully muddled as the Shakespeare text just given. Could the'
ancient authors of these holy books be found and consulted, how
astonished would they feel at the marvellous changes made in their
works, and most especially at the meanings now attached to their'
words.
Let the reader reflect, that no two men, born in the same
place, speaking the same language and educated in the same
school, can ever fully understand each other. Two men, all
their lives in diverse conditions, are still less able to comprehendeach other. But let thousands of years intervene between the
writer of a book and his reader, not to mention the fact that
their languages are so different, how can the latter comprehend
the former ? most especially so if it is extremely doubtful what
the author wrote ?
Even if the so-called God’s book had been preserved just
as it was first written, with a full vocabulary of all the words,
and a perfect grammar, even then a perfect understandingwould have been impossible in our day ; and the farther
removed we were from the times and conditions of the authors,
the greater and greater would become the impossibility of
understanding the work—of putting ourselves en rapport with
those who wrote it.
The case of the Bible is immeasurably'worse than that; for we
know not who wrote a line of it; nor what was his motive; nor his
circumstances ; nor his opinions ; nor his moral and social character ;
nor his knowledge of things ; and, worse still, so imperfectly have,
his words descended to us, that the best scholarship can never decide
what he did or did not write.
Burgon proceeds to say that the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the
Beza manuscripts—those mostly relied upon by the Revisers—arethe “ most scandalously corrupt copies extant :—exhibit the most shamefrilly
mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with....... the depositories,
of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and,
intentional perversions of truth,” etc. (p. 6).
He proceeds to criticise the leading editors or manufacturers of
Greek Testaments. Lachmann, who put out a Greek Testament
about 90 years ago, which was based on three or four manuscripts,
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
J.g
only ; Tregelles, who spent his life upon this kind of work, rejected
*
8g out of every go manuscripts, and manufactured his edition of the
“ Word of God ” out of the remainder. Upon Tischendorf, Burgon
is especially severe ; though one can scarcely see why. The fact is,
New Testament Textual Criticism is a game rather than a Science
—an art, certainly it is—the art of thimblerigging, of finding
solutions for insoluble puzzles, of making out a case where there is
none. Taste, prejudice, envy of other critics, love of fame, dogmatism,
narrow-mindedness, perversity, monomania, pet ideas, religious
fervor, callousness, and many other petty principles, prompt and
guide the critic in his work. Never was there a field of inquiry so
well adapted to develop all the crooked elements of one’s nature—
•except the field occupied by the popish priests and especially the
Jesuits. Indeed, all the leading elements of Jesuitry find ample
employment in this department of manufacture—the manufacture
■of different versions and editions of that unspeakable sham, “ God’s
Holy Word.” Common sense, if that were allowed to influence them,
would demonstrate to them the impossibility of a man, who is
dominated by a creed and by pious prejudices, ever coming to
rational and candid conclusions in such an inquiry. Such people
can never deal honestly with the Bible, for blind, stubborn prejudice,
sways them at every step. Their eternal salvation, so they solemnly
believe, depends upon their arriving at certain foregone conclusions.
Those pious “ critics ” deserve no more respect than performing
.animals in a circus. They may be clever and amusing, but their
whole performance is automatic and preordained by their antecedents
and environment.
Here before me lies The History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New
Testament by Eduard (Wilhelm Eugen) Reuss; Edinburgh, 1884;
and what says it respecting the manuscripts ? The following
•quotations will show.
“The original copies of the New Testament books....... do not
appear to have remained in existence long. On account of the poor
quality of the paper, they must soon have become unfit for, use and
finally have been lost, even if they were not destroyed sooner by
violence and neglect. IT IS CERTAIN THAT NO ANCIENT
WRITER MAKES MENTION OF THEM ” (p. 367).
This quotation gives us the whole case. 1. The books were
written on poor paper! Well, then, probably they were to a great
■extent illegible from the beginning ; and hence would arise the con
fusion we find in the Gospels, etc., that have descended to us.
2. But would the Holy Ghost have been such an absolute fool as to
permit his writings or inspirations, intended to remain as a permanent
guide to man, to be written on such flimsy stuff! To suppose so, is
to fling contempt upon the Holy Ghost. 3. Would inspired men
act so idiotically ? Would men who supposed they were writing
divine revelation be likely to put it upon such fragile stuff ?
* It is boasted of Tregelles that he devoted 30 years to examining manuscripts,
•etc., worked himself blind at it. Well, Du Chat spent 40 years on the works of
Rabelais! Tastes differ. Rabelais is less evil, a million-fold, than the Bible.
�20
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
5. Would those who first received this divine truth be likely to
permit accident or time to destroy its vehicle, not to mention
destruction by violence ?
The books of the Sibyl, kept so long in ancient Rome, were not
written upon such perishable material. The revelations of Egypt
and Chaldaea were recorded on clay tablets (say, pottery), and on
stone; and are as sound and strong to-day as they were several
thousand years ago. How was it the Holy Ghost or his agents
were so much more careless or foolish than the Pagan writers ?
Uninspired men have always been wiser, if not so cunning as the
fellows inspired by God.
If no ancient writer mentions the original copies of the New
Testament, of what value can it be ? Absolutely none. This state
ment of Reuss (and other Christian critics) is an admission that
Christianity is not historical, that the New Testament is a forgery;
for had the writers been known, those who received the books from
their authors must have named or recorded so interesting and
important a fact. Reflect upon the case. Some eight or nine
authors are alleged to have contributed their quota to the New
Testament, namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James,
Jude. Is it not a most singular thing that no one of their contem
poraries should have mentioned the interesting fact that they were
inspired, or authorised to write this or that portion of the New
Testament ? Is it not astounding that no one should mention the
fact that he received a given portion of the New Testament from
the author’s own hand ?
I feel sure that this negative evidence, when carefully weighed
by thoughtful people, must prove absolutely fatal to the claims of
the New Testament.
Reuss refers to the well-known tales of finding the autographs of
John at Ephesus in the fourth century ; and in the foundations of
the Temple of Jerusalem, in Julian’s day; of Matthew in the grave of
Barnabas in Cyprus, etc., and stigmatises them as fables. Still,
fables though the tales certainly are, they are instructive,' although
Reuss fails to note that. Those fables show that ancient Christian
authors were puzzled and troubled about the originals and could not
imagine how it was that their predecessors had not mentioned them.
And the fables were invented to fill the painful gap and satisfy the
anxious inquiries of the faithful.
Reuss goes on to discuss the variations in existing manuscripts,
and says, the farther we go back in the history of the text the more
arbitrary do we find the treatment of it by transcribers—that is, in
plain English, the early copiers took great liberties with what they
copied, and the farther we go back the more of such liberties do we
find. Nay, the Apostles themselves, or their amanuenses “ may
have made mistakes” ; and “ the question comes whether the text,
ever existed in complete purity at all, and in what sense” (p. 370).
If one had lighted upon this in very early life, it must have taken
his breath away, considering how confidently his teachers had
assured him that the Word of God was perfect, and that the writerswrote with an unerring hand.
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
21
Reuss says the changes so very early introduced into the text of
the New Testament “were doubtless, for the most part, such aswere designed for its improvement” (p. 371).
Of one thing I am certain, no man who really supposed and
devoutly believed he was reading God’s inspired word could havetried to improve it. Only a doubter or confirmed disbeliever in itsdivine authority could have done that.
If the changes were introduced purposely to improve the booksz
then so long as this continued to be done, the books could not havebeen considered binding, infallible, etc.
If the copyists improved, we ask, To what extent did they do so ?
Did they leave out whole sentences, sections, books ? Did they
invent, borrow, and insert to equal extent ? And how do you know
to what degree the “original” New Testament differed from the
present? Alas for orthodoxy! No means exist for settling that
most essential matter.
Reuss even suggests that some of the readings in the New Testa
ment are due to “freaks of fancy,” although they may be “only
blunders ” (p. 372). Well, when the Holy Ghost is inspiring a
man to write and blunders occur, or “ freaks of fancy ” display
themselves in the writing, whose blunders, etc. are they ? The
Ghost’s or his Clerk’s ? I wish the critics would settle that.
My Christian author proceeds. Alterations, he says, were made
for enrichment; the Gospels were enriched by traditional matter ;
they were also purposely made more like each other, and quotations
from the Old Testament, which had been wrongly quoted, were cor
rected ! Other writers wrote their thoughts or comments in the
margin of their manuscripts, and these were, by-and-bye, copied into
the text. Look at our facsimile on a former page, where kata
markon is seen in the lower margin. That might have been copied
into the text by the next scribe, as many words have been in the
New Testament manuscripts now in existence.
This writer admits that, not the New Testament, but tradition,
decided matters of faith in the early Church ; and therefore the book
was in danger of being altered to suit the tradition. Then he refers
to the frequent mention in early writers of wilful corruptions of the
text for controversial purposes. In this connection he shows up the
unscrupulous characters of the orthodox church fathers, apparently
forgetting that in so doing he damns most effectually the only
witnesses for Christianity. In fact, no Christian critic can traverse
the ground of New Testament history without making statements
altogether fatal to the claims of his superstition. (See pp. 375-6).
I must call attention to the several facsimiles. The manuscripts
are. all written without breaks or points. Reuss says, “ Aside from
the general scarcity of books, reading was rendered difficult for the
unpractised by the total lack of all explanatory pointing. It was
not until the close of the ninth century, after isolated attempts in
earlier times, that copyists generally introduced the breathings and
accents into the copies of the New Testament. A still greater
hindrance to the easy reading of the text was the custom of writing
without breaks between the words. “ This gave occasion foh
�22
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
MANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND MUCH THEOLOGICAL WRANGLING ”
(P- 386).
It is not every Christian critic who will speak so plainly as Reuss.
To see how awkward it is to read without spaces and stops, take the
same passage which appears in the facsimile 1, this time in English
capitals and without any stops or spaces.
ANDTH EYSAIDAMONGTH EMSELVESWHOSHALL
ROLLUSAWAYTH ESTONEFROMTHEDOOROFTH E
SEPULCHREAN DWH ENTH EYLOOKEDTH EYSAW
THATTH ESTON EWASRO LLEDAWAYFO RITWASV
ERYGREATANDENTERINGINTOTHESEPU LCH RE
TH EYSAWAYOU NGMANSITTINGONTH ERIGHTSI
DECLOTH EDINALONGWHITEGARMENTAN DTHE
YWEREAFFRIGHTE DAN DH ESAITHUNTOTH EMB
ENOTAFFRIGHTEDYES E EK J ESUSOFN AZARETH
WHICHWASCRUCI FI EDH EISRISEN H EISNOTH E
REBEHOLDTHEPLACEWHERETHEYLAIDHIMBU
TGOYOU RWAYTE LLHISDI SCI PLESAN D PETE RT
HATH EGOETH B EFOREYOUINTOGALILEETH ER
ESHALLYESEEHIMASHESAI DU NTOYOUAN DTHE
YWENTOUTQUICKLYAN DFLEDFROMTH ESEPUL
CH REFORTH EYTREM B LEDANDWEREAMAZEDN
EITHERSAIDTHEYANYTHINGTOANYMAN FORTH
EYWEREAFRAID
As the old written letters are not half so well formed as our printed
•ones, it must have been all the harder to read them correctly.
Though the manuscripts, says Reuss, are our best sources of
knowledge of the original New Testament, yet they can never vouch
for the correctness of any reading, because they were all written
after the text was corrupted.
Hear again : “the age of a text is only determined with great
difficulty and little certainty, from a comparison of many manu
scripts,” etc. (p. 387).
In all this Reuss confirms what I have so often said. He also
confirms me in reference to the versions of the Bible, by pointing
out that an ancient version needs to be proved itself before it can
be used as a witness for the text (p. 404).
Reuss openly admits that all attempts to restore the New
Testament text to its original purity have failed, and must ever
fail (p. 445).
That is the plain truth about the matter ; and when the clergy
are honest enough to prefer truth to place and pay they will say
the same.
No doubt the reader is about tired of this subject; but I must say
a little more.
The New Testament is of unknown origin, unknown date,
unknown birthplace, unknown authorship. There is not a single
question about its history, for the alleged first two or three centuries
of its existence, which can be answered. Let us ask a few. Who
wrote the Four Gospels ? History does not say. What authority
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
25
had they ? The writers do not tell us. Were they eye-witnesses ?
Manifestly not, for they never profess to be. Are they known ?
Not at all; only one of the Gospels pretends to be written by any
particular person. When was any one of them written ? No one
knows. In what language ? No one knows. On what material ?
No one can tell.
What Church first possessed a Gospel ? History gives no reply.
When and where did the Gospels first circulate ? We cannot tell..
What language were they (or any one of them) first written m ?
No scholar can answer that question. What became of the original
manuscripts ? No one reports ever seeing one of them.
The probability is that the New Testament is a set of monkish
books or pamphlets, written for edification—that is, to rouse religious
or devotional feelings, not to instruct. The stories in the . New
Testament were probably never regarded as true when first written
they were a sort of parables, allegories, tales, intended to convey
some lesson or to stir devotion. Those who first told or wrote the
tales could never have supposed they were relating sober facts, and
would doubtless be abundantly astonished if they could know how
solemnly scholars brood over their ridiculous tales, and try to make:
biography and history out of them.
The New Testament is no more true than the Mythologicalstories of Greece and Rome ; than the Gesta Romanovum ; than the
lives of the popish saints and martyrs; than the multitudinous
stories of saints and miracles found so plentifully in the Bible itself
and in so-called Church history. When Gulliver's Travels and the.
Arabian Nights have been proved to be history, I, for one, shall be
prepared to accept the New Testament also.
So long as it is a merit to believe the impossible, I suppose the
impossible stories of the New Testament will continue to be
swallowed by people of a gulping disposition. But of one thing we.
may be certain, and that is, reason never swallowed the Arabian.
Nights or the New Testament; and never can.
I will quote a few brief passages from Hug's Introduction to the
New Testament; Andover (U.S.), 1836. This is Professor Moses
Stuart’s edition. The work is a learned one, and rather advanced,
for its date.
Hug says (pp. 68-9), “ These books (New Testament ones), whenonce circulated among the multitude, encountered all the fortunes,
which have befallen other works of antiquity....... Only the original,
writings possessed an authority beyond objection, and we might
hence expect that peculiar care would have been taken to preserve
them to posterity. Yet we have no CERTAIN INFORMA
TION WHERE THEY WERE KEPT, how long they were to
be seen, or by what accident they were lost to the world. For those
passages of the ancients which have been supposed to communicate
information respecting the autographs have in fact a totally different
purport.”....... “We have the most irrefutable proof....... that Tertullian, and not only he, but Clement, Origen, and the fathers of the
Church generally, knew nothing of the existence of the autographs,
in all those works in which they combat the heretics.”
�24
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
He goes on to show that the “Fathers” disputed with the heretics
as to how certain texts of the New Testament ought to read. If
they had known where to find the originals, those disputes could
have been settled at once. But they never appealed to the originals ;
and the only inference possible is that the “ Fathers ” never knew
those originals.
In truth, this confession is equal to giving up the whole case for
Christianity. If none of the early writers saw the originals of the
New Testament, or ever referred to them, it is idle to dispute further;
perfectly idle. The book is out of court as a nameless, fatherless
waif, a vagabond who can give no account of himself, except to say,
“ Here I am ; I don’t know what I am ; I don’t know where I came
from ; don’t know any of my family relations ; can’t tell what
country I belong to; and I don’t know anything about my age.”
“ Thus we seek in vain for the original manuscripts at a time
when nothing was known of them. They were lost, without so
much as a hint to us by what means a possession so important to
the Church perished. How shall we explain this singular fact ? ”
(Hug, pp. 67-70).
Hug does not explain it, nor can it be explained, except to the
damage^of Christianity. People do not carelessly lose or destroy
Wills, bcrip, Bills of Sale, Debentures, and other valuable docu
ments. And the original Gospels, etc., according to Church
sentiment, were worth infinitely more than all other documents
whatsoever. Yet they are never mentioned by any Church
writer!
Here is a thought that just this moment strikes me. Relics
were venerated or worshipped very early in the Church. In fact,
we cannot suppose there ever was a time when they were not.
Well, the Church has preserved—so silly fables and impudent lies
assure us—the “holy coat” that Jesus wore; the cross and its
nails; the Veronica napkin, and a crowd of other early relics.
How shall we explain the strange fact that the Church preserved
neither the original books of the New Testament, nor ever pretended
to have them ? How is it that such precious relics were never
counterfeited as most others were ?
There is but one reply, and that is, the New Testament never
became a precious book until the age of counterfeiting or manu
facturing relics had passed its prime, and it was too late to set up
the original manuscripts for worship, too late to manufacture them.
Indeed, until the Reformation the Bible held but a very subordinate
position ; and its monstrous claims since that date were invented
and pushed merely to checkmate Popery. Popery had the Infalli
bility of the Pope, or of the Church, or something, and the Reformers
set up a counter Infallibility in the Bible. Up to that date the
Bible had been little, or no better, or more authoritative, than other
holy fable books, and certainly had never reached the value or
importance of a chip of the cross, or other relics that might be
named.
This reflection, properly worked out, is quite sufficient in itself to
destroy the whole value of the Bible—except as a mere antiquity.
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
25
As an antiquity, its value is assured. As a divine book, it is utterly
beneath contempt.
Here is another instructive selection from Hug’s work :—“ The
fate which has befallen other works of antiquity, befel the New
Testament likewise” (p. 85). The carelessness of copyists pro
duced errors. “ But this is not all; the New Testament has had
the peculiar fate of suffering more by intentional alterations than the
works of profane literature.”
Yet Christians will often proclaim the empty and impudent boast
that the New Testament has far better evidence to connect it with
the Apostles, etc., than any ancient profane book has to show that
it was written by its reputed author. Read again the last quotation
from Hug, who proceeds to say the heretics had no hand in the
wilful alterations. In fact, he shows that the orthodox slandered
Marcion and other heretics by charging upon them corruptions of
the New Testament, which were perpetrated in the orthodox camp
itself! That will not surprise any who understand what modern
Christian malice and lying are constantly doing.
In the first four centuries, says Hug, “ Strange things had
happened in individual manuscripts ” (p. 86). He says Origen
complained much of the wilful corruptions before his day.
I think I need not continue this subject; for I have said enough
in these quotations and notes to destroy all faith in the New
Testament. And when we add the fact that the New Testament
carries its own damnation upon almost every page, the reader will
understand how baseless is the Christian superstition. The New
Testament bristles with fables, superstitions, and impossibilities.
No amount of evidence could ever prove it historical or help towards
that end. The Christians themselves would scout all the fables of
the New Testament as I do, if they found them related in connection
with any other religion than their own.
In conclusion, I may say that never was a greater failure than is
shown in the long-continued attempts to decide what is, what is not,
divine revelation. All such attempts have but demonstrated:
1. that the New Testament (I am dealing only with that just now)
is of unknown origin and date. 2. That it has no authority at all
beyond what blind custom, blind prejudice, tyranny, or a majority
vote imparts to it. .3. That all the scholars in the world are not
able to decide how any text of the New Testament originally ran.
This is literally true. 4. The result of the 300 years’ labor and
expense bestowed by Christians upon this book is to dissipate for
ever all rational claims on its behalf and to explode the entire
authority of the Churches. In one word, it has left us destitute of
all Christian revelation and of all rational grounds for belief in such
a thing.
To the Freethinker this is satisfactory. It blows away a world
of cant, hypocrisy, and clerical impudence and tyranny.
For ages, from Bentley onward, the Christians boasted that,
though the New Testament manuscripts differed from each other in
30,000 (Bentley’s admission) places, or 150,000 (as latertim.es show)
not one doctrine of Christianity was affected by them ! That boast
�‘26
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
is the condensed essence of impudence or of ignorance. For the
variations and other facts combined, strip the Churches of the book
'itself upon which they founded all their pretence and all their
doctrine. Textual Criticism has undermined and blown up the
entire fabric of Christianity and left it destitute of any plausible
excuse for continuing to exist, except blind custom and—cash.
If they deny what I say, let them at once inform us on what
authority they receive the life of Jesus and the rest of the incidents
and doctrines of the New Testament. Let them say on what and
whose authority they receive the New Testament itself. And, lastly,
let them tell us what the New Testament is—I mean, whether all
the books now in it ought to be there, whether none other should
be inserted ; and on what manuscripts or other evidence they rely.
Most confidently I deny their ability to meet these demands.
And therefore I assert that Christianity, in itself, is a gross and
irrational superstition. As it is put before the world, it is the worst
imposture that could be conceived.
�APPENDIX.
Finally, in the Athenaum, June 16, I am gratified to find thefullest confirmation of my views, the most complete justification of
the strongest opinions I have expressed above. The reader may
remember that I quoted the work of Rev. H. A. Scrivener, M.A.,„
D.D., etc. That gentleman was confessedly and by common
consent one of the most sober and reliable critics in this department
of learning, not brilliant, but solid and thoughtful. Since his death
(just recently, in fact), there is issued a work of his entitled
Adversaria Critica Sacra, which the Athenceum reviews. In fairnessto all parties I quote all the critic says upon the subject:—
“ These Adversaria Critica Sacra consist of collations of forty-nine
*
MSS. of portions of the New Testament, Six MSS. containing frag
ments of the Septuagint and a record of the variations from the
Textus Receptus of the principal early editions of the New Testament.
A minute and accurate account is given of each MS. It is needless
to say that Dr. Scrivener did his work with the utmost conscientious
ness, and that his labors are of great value, and deserve the heartiest
recognition from all Biblical scholars.
He made no effort to
determine how far his new collations will modify the text of the N ew
Testament, but throughout the book there runs a current of
opposition to the principles laid down by Hort in his Introduction to
the New Testament in the original Greek, edited by him and Bishop ■
Westcott. It begins in a note on p. vi. of the Introduction, in which
Dr. Scrivener states that Dean Burgon
‘ Had been engaged day and night for years in making a complete
index or view of the manuscripts used by the Nicene (and ante-Nicene)
Fathers, by way of showing that they were not identical with those
copied in the Sinaitic and Vatican codices, and inasmuch as they
were older, they must needs be purer and more authentic than these
overvalued uncials.’ ”
In a postscript to the Introduction, Dr. Scrivener says that Dean
Burgon
“ Very earnestly requested me that if I lived to complete the
present work, I would publicly testify that my latest labors had in no
wise modified my previous critical convictions, namely, that the true
text of the New Testament can best and most safely be gathered
from a comprehensive acquaintance with every source of information
yet open to us, whether they be manuscripts of the original text,
Versions, or Fathers, rather than from a partial representation of
three or four authorities, which, though in date the more ancient and
akin in character, cannot be made even tolerably to agree together.”
Dr. Scrivener renews his avowal, and illustrates it by an instance.
The opinion comes out most strongly in the words of Mr. Hoskier,
who collated Evan. 604 for Dr. Scrivener. Dr. Scrivener says:—
“ Mr. Hoskier’s conclusion shall be given in his own words : ‘ I
defy any one after having carefully perused the foregoing lists, and.
�ii.
APPENDIX.
after having noted the almost incomprehensible combinations and
permutation of both the uncial and cursive Manuscripts, to go back
again to the teaching of Dr. Hort with any degree of confidence.
How useless and superfluous to talk of Evan. 604 having a large
western element or of it Siding in many places with the neutral text. The
whole question of families and recensions is thus brought prominently
before the eye, and with space we could largely comment upon the
deeply interesting combinations which thus present themselves to the
critic. But do let us realise that we are in the infancy of this part
of the Science....... and not imagine that we have successfully laid
certain immutable foundation stones, and can safely continue to
build thereon. It is not so; much, if not all, of these foundations
must be demolished....... It has cost me a vast amount of labor and
trouble to prepare this statement of evidence with any degree of
accuracy; but I am sure it is worth while, and I trust that it may
stimulate others to come to our aid, and also help to annul much of
Dr. Hort’s erroneous theories.’ ”
Such is the quotation from the Athenaum. I have stated in the
pamphlet that the translators of the Authorised Version declared
they translated from the “ original ’’—which was a lie. For two
centuries and a half this falsehood has been imposed upon most
English speaking Bible readers. When the Revised Version was
made, the so-called “ original ” of the old translators was set aside
in favor of a Greek text manufactured by Dr. Hort and the present
Bishop of Durham. In the above quotation, the reader will see how
thoroughly Dr. Scrivener, as well as Dr. Burgon, repudiates the
Hort-Westcott Greek text.
But reflect. One set of critics flings up one Greek text another
flings up another !
I must once more solemnly affirm that anything like certainty in
Greek Testament criticism is impossible—except the damning
certainty that it is impossible to discover whence the New Testament
came, or to find the history of any of the manuscripts.
Criticism, even as conducted by Christian critics, has proved
Christianity to be unhistorical and the New Testament of unknown
authorship and date.—Liberator, Melbourne, August 11, 1894.
�SOME WORKS BY G. W. FOOTE
Price. Post.
Atheism and Morality
Bible and Beer
Bible God, The
d.
d.
0 2
0 4
0 2
|
|
s.
Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and
Inquiring Christians. A new edition,
revised and handsomely printed. Cheap
edition ...
... paper cover, Is. 6d.; cloth 2 6
Book of God, The, in the Light of the Higher
Criticism. With Special Reference to Dean
Farrar’s Apology ...
... Paper, Is.; cloth 2 0
Christianity and Progress.
Second and
cheaper edition ...
...
...
...01
Christianity and Secularism paper Is.; cloth 16
Crimes of Christianity
...
224 pp., cloth 2 6
Comic Sermons and Other Fantasias
... 0 8
Darwin on God
...
...
...
... o 6
Defence of Free Speech ...
...
... 0 4
Dropping The Devil : and Other Free Church
Performances
...
...
...
...02
Dying Atheist, The. A Story.
...
... 0 1
Flowers of Freethought.
First Series, cloth 2 6
Flowers of Freethought. Second Series, cloth 2 6
Grand Old Book, The. A Reply to the Grand
Old Man.
...
Is.; bound in cloth 1 6
Hall of Science Libel Case, with Full and
True Account of the “ Leeds Orgies.”
... 0 3
Infidel Death-Beds.
Second edition, much
enlarged ...
...
...
...
... 0 8
Interview with the Devil...
...
... 0 2
Is Socialism Sound? Four Nights’ Public
Debate with Annie Besant...
...
... 1 0
2|
2
|
2
3
1
1
1
-|
|
8
3
1|
1
1
i
1|
�Works by G. W. FOOTE.-ContM.
Is the Bible Inspired ?
Mundi ...
...
A Criticism of Lux s. d.
...
...
01
Ingersollism Defended against Archdeacon
Farrar ...
...
...
...
... o 2
Impossible Creed, The. An Open Letter to
Bishop Magee on the Sermon on the Mount ...
0 2
John Morley as a Freethinker
...
...
0 2
Letters to the Clergy. (128 pages.)
...
1 0
Letters to Jesus Christ ...
...
...0 4
Lie in Five Chapters, or Hugh Price Hughes’
Converted Atheist
...
...
...01
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy. A Candid Criticism 0 2
My Resurrection. A Missing Chapter from
the Gospel of Matthew
...
...
... 02
New Cagliostro, The. An Open Letter to
Madame Blavatsky
...
...
...02
Peculiar People. An Open Letter to Mr.
Justice Wills
...
...
...
...01
£
|
|
x.
2
f
|
|
x
%
|
Philosophy of Secularism ...
...
...03
x
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh ...
o 6 1
Rome or Atheism? The Great Alternative ... 0 3 1
Royal Paupers
...
...
...
... o 2
|
Salvation Syrup : or Light on Darkest England.
A Reply to General Booth ...
...
... 0
2 x
Secularism and Theosophy. A Rejoinder to
Mrs. Besant
...
...
...
... 0 2 x
Theism or Atheism ...
...
...
...
i o ix
The Jewish Life of Christ
Was Jesus Insane?...
...
What Is Agnosticism?
...
Who was the Father of Jesus?
Will Christ Save Us?
...
...
...
...
....
...
...0
... o
... 0
... 0
... o
6
1
3
2
6
The Pioneer Press, 2 Newcastle-street, London, E.C.
1
|
x
|
1
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The New Testament manuscripts, or, Christianity completely undermined
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: [3], [i]-v, [10]-26, ii p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: "With fac-similes of MSS."--Front cover. Appendix dated "Liberator", Melbourne, August 11, 1894. "Some works by G.W. Foote" listed on unnumbered pages at the end. Includes extracts in Ancient Greek. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Pioneer Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1906
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N632
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The New Testament manuscripts, or, Christianity completely undermined), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Evidences
Bible. N.T.-Criticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/41fa78c743611bcef99ebed2b35d3fc8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=NkuhllEWUZ89btLgsFG7ANP1KOGwC87GUBO0wrwWZfnIQ0%7ENciyeTgbXwvAmg-okw2CYaF3W%7EgMMeu0zlhqgzVNY1Fw%7EmNHCH-nxauiGd0og5RouqS3XqEYxaP2qSzoCn2cBtyMJt2XQ%7E3c5xRXN3gKrSk86dGCESTCYKvo-qwCybbviH5-oCCrhGuw2wum51tGUvzqsJzhATGdKxGjKMSOvmN76U8xnXwIYsWyULvd23CJC9ET2GZFg57as93Y0s0GA3O-I4%7EsprA5qqlG16sCmmJpfDjKBzhfCk6fX9YFY9nu1wgUHlGhetQNFsBL9Ln85LdEFBHB9C6TIFGqZDw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
15f83dad9d64cf22ec8b34b55326b43d
PDF Text
Text
B3l7°
KT62.8
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
No. 1] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE,
[i«.
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
---------------------------------- ----------------------- - -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- >.
♦
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
Who was its author, when and where it was delivered, before
what audience, I do not care; the value of the discourse is no
greater though a great man uttered it; is no less, though the
production of a booby. If it descended or ascended from
heaven, it is no better or worse for that; if it sprung from
earth, or Purgatory, or Hell, that makes it no worse. If God
preached it, it is just as it is ; and you must admit no more
nor less, if the preacher was the Devil. If a Holy Ghost
inspired it, that does not enhance its value ; if a foul or filthy
spirit instigated its utterance, the sermon is no fouler or
cleaner for that. We may estimate the qualities' of' the
Author by those of the sermon ; but not those of the sermon
by those of the author.
Blessed are the poor in spirit (Matt, v., 3.) Poverty of
purse is bad enough; poverty of spirit is the condition of
fools, slaves, lunatics and idiots.—For theirs is the kingclo^
of heaven. What a blessed set, therefore, constitutes tm
kingdom of heaven! Wise men are excluded—by their
own choice, of course.
Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted
(v. 4). Common Sense says, Blessed are they who do not
need to be comforted,
word translated “blessed” all
through these “ beatitudes,” as they were piously and lacka
daisically denominated, should be rendered “ happy.’* The
*-Devised Version,” however, from which I quote, keeps the
old translation.
Perhaps the revisionists did not like to
expose their good book to ridicule. “ Happy are they that
mourn! ” To which I reply, Tall are they that are short !
7- at are they that are lean I Amen. It requires much grace
and divine enlightenment to understand a sermon, my
Brethren, and Sisters, specially when, like this on the Mount
�2
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
it abounds in absurdities. Not one of those who heard it
asked any questions ; discussion was not invited. And if they
had demanded an explanation, no doubt the good-natured
Jesus (if he was the preacher) would have mercifully damned
them for their impertinence.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth (v. 5),
History abounds with proofs of this truth. The meek
Israelites expelled and murdered all the Canaanites they could,
and took possession of all their victims had owned. The
meek Romans conquered the world, or a great part of it; and
the exceedingly meek Danes, Jutes, Saxons, and others con
quered and peopled England. The meek English stole India
and other countries, as the meek Spaniards stole South
and Central America.
Jesus did not understand history.
Gentleness is the characteristic of a strong man who has
strength enough to be self-controlled and goodness sufficient
to direct his power to worthy ends ; but meekness is mental
and moral paralysis. Gentleness is a virtue, meekness a vice. •
The former is independence, the latter absolute slavery to the
priesthood.
Blessed^re they that hunger and thirst after righteousness
(v. 6). Nonsense! Blessed are the righteous is the proper
thing to say. People who hunger and thirst after righteous
ness usually do nothing else, poor things ; their double appe
tite feeds upon themselves, and they are weak and miserable
as children.with worms.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (v. 7).
It is so sometimes, though very often the contrary happens.
After all, the just are better than the merciful, though both
are good.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God (v. 8).
The pure in heart are good, though not always happy. They
will never see God, though. 1. If God is infinite, he can
never be seen, for there is no place where we could stand to
see him. 2. If . seen, he is not infinite. The pure in heart
have their own reward, and no more need a sight of God than
I do a sight of the Queen.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons
of God (v. 9), This is a joke equal to another I will perpe
trate : Blessed are the members of the Peace Society: for they
shall be called the sons of Alexander the Great, Juljps Casar,
Napoleon, Bismarck, Beaconsfield, or Bartie Frty. When
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
3
did God ever make peace or prevent war ? When was there
ever a war his servants did not ascribe to him ?
Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness'
sake ; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (v. 10). Then perse
cution also is a good thing ? If so, the persecutors ought to
be blessed too. To be persecuted is a nuisance, a great evil,
a shame, a disgrace to civilisation. And if the persecuted
have no compensation except the kingdom of heaven, their
case is more hopeless than that of the followers of Don Carlos
or of Jefferson Davis.
As for people now-a-days being persecuted and slandered
for the sake of Jesus, the conception is too grotesque for dis
cussion. It is his pretended and pretentious followers who
do all the persecution; and the kingdom of heaven consists,
not of victims, but of stupid and brutal persecutors. If the
“persecuted for righteousness’ sake” are to obtain a great
reward for their endurance, Hurrah 1 I mean, Hallelujah ! we
shall get the prize, and our Christian persecutors will go------ .
I do not know what will become of them.
Jesus says, “They so persecuted the prophets” (v. 11).
What prophets ? This preacher must have referred to a
different Old Testament from ours. The old Israelitish pro
phets were bitter persecutors when opportunity occurred;
but none of them suffered persecution, strictly so named.
To encourage persecution itself is not much worse than to
encourage its endurance by calling the persecuted happy.
The good teacher does his best to inculcate manliness and
justice, which will, in time, render persecution impossible.
, Matt. v.— Ye are the salt of the earth (v. 13). If Christians
ever were the salt of the earth, they must soon have lost
"their savor : as far as we can trace them back they have been
the world’s “ bitters,” witjtOut being anywise its tonics. Or
■—let me see ! Salt of the earth ! In large quantities salt
renders soil absolutely barren. And wherever Christianity
has reigned in unchecked sway, there has been a general
dearth of all good things. Ye are the light of the world. A
city set on a hill cannot be hid(y. 14). This was no doubt
intended to produce modesty, Those poor illiterate disciples
of an equally ignorant master were the light of the world!
Look at the Science, Philosophy and Art of the world, and
ask how much of it all is due to Jesus and his followers.
�4
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Christianity never shed a ray of light upon anything. Its
lantern is a dark one, having neither wick nor oil.
No let your light shine before men, that they may see your
good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven (v. 16).
Let your rushlights shine, that men may honor the sun.
Amen.
What nonsense, to call upon twelve boobies to
confer honor upon an infinite being! If the Father in heaven
knew the rubbish his only begotten son was spouting on earth,
he would have shown his good sense to have corrected him.
It says little for that parent’s fatherly qualities that his
children behave so badly as they do. Worse behaved beings
than sons and daughters of God there never were—ignorance,
insolence and brutality are their usual characteristics; and
they are just like their father. Think not that I came to
destroy the law or theprophets(v. 17).—No, no, Jesus, youhadnot
the power, your countrymen still cling to them and leave your
doctrines and religion alone.—I came not to destroy, but to
fulfil. How fulfil ? To keep, do you mean ? To obey ? If
so, the Christian Church sorely misunderstands you. What
Jesus says about heaven and earth passing away is nonsense;
but what he says about those who disobey Moses and the
prophets shows him to be a Jew, not a Christian, and puts all
Christians in the wrong—if he was right. Jesus knew no
other law than that of Moses, no other inspired book than
the Jewish Scriptures, he never hinted that any other was
needed or would be written ; yet his professed followers have
almost superseded the Old Testament by the New, as they
supersede the New Testament by their creeds, confessions,
catechisms, and theological writings.
Jesus next proceeds to improve upon Moses, though he
above said he came only to fulfil. “ Thou shalt not kill,”
said Moses—though he was frightfully fond himself of killing.
Thou shalt nof be angry with thy brother, says Jesus; to be so,
thou shalt be in danger of the Judgment, or local petty court.
2/ thou say, Haca to thy brother, thou shalt be in danger of the
Council, the Sanhedrim, or the highest Jewish court; and to
call thy brother a fool, shall expose thee to hell fire ! (v. 21, 22).
Thus, it is bad to be angry, worse to say Baca, but a
damnable thing to call a brother a fool. Yet Jesus and Paul
did not hesitate to call people fools. I hope they are not
damned. If your brother is a fool, and gives you good reason
to tell him so, do it. It may open his eyes and lead to
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
a
improvement. The clergy usually try to give the word
“fool ” here some deep and mysterious and dreadful meaning,
in order to justify Jesus in his absurd denunciation of it; but
it means nothing worse than fool. It may be an impropriety
to call a foolish brother, or even a neighbor, a fool, but it is
not a crime.
As to offering gifts at the altar (v. 23, 24), had Jesus been
wise, he would not have sanctioned but condemned the
miserable superstition. Gifts are offered at the altar which
ought frequently to be paid as just debts to debtors ; in every
case it is disgraceful to waste upon gods what men, women
and children so much need for their life.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, etc. (v. 25). Surely
this ought to depend upon the justice of the case. If men
can honestly avoid law and lawyers, they are great fools to
have any connexion with them ; but there are many cases
when a man must be a coward and a fool to agree with his
adversary. Though if Jesus had agreed with his adversaries,
or even had made any rational defence before Pilate, he pro
bably would not have gone to the cross.
The 27th and 28th verses are simply atrocious, for they
condemn every healthy man that ever lived, and would, if
they could be obeyed, depopulate the earth. Licentiousness
is bad ; asceticism is a thousand times worse. Verses 29 and
31 are most brutal, and their moral tendency debasing in the
extreme. To fear hell at all is barbaric, to fear it to the
extent of mutilating oneself or its equivalent is brutalising.
Had Jesus been a married man he might have spoken
(v. 32) with some authority on the subject of divorce. None
of his utterances on the sexual relationships are at all edifying.
There are just causes of divorce ; a divorce which is not a
perfect divorce ought never to be effected ; when once effected,
the parties ought to be as free to marry again as bachelors
and spinsters.
What Jesus says respecting perjury and swearing (v. 33—
37) I entirely endorse, except that about the Evil One. To
swear is folly. A man that cannot be bound by a promise,
cannot be bound by an oath. But it is amusing to note how
Christians send Jesus to Coventry when it suits them. Their
conduct and teaching on oaths are the most perfect hypocrisy
that could be conceived. In most respects they are to-day, as
the result of purely secular influences, immeasurably superior
�6
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
to their Master ; in respect to the oath business they are as
far behind him. In that respect they are false, hypocritical
and brutal. If they had their way, they would depopulate
the world for the sake of their superstitions.
Resist not evil (Matt. v. 39). What must we resist then ?
Must we resist good ? Jesus seems to have been unable to
run from one extreme without rushing to the opppsite. Re
taliation, in most cases, may be foolish and wrong ; no general
rule can cover all cases. But non-resistance of evil is the
best way to encourage it. There is “a law in our members,”
much older and much more potent, which tells us to resist
evil with all our might—viz., the law of self-preservation.
And Jesus was as much under the force of that law as other
people. He nevei' turned the other cheek (v. 39), but gave
cheek for cheek whenever opportunity occurred. So did his
disciples. And his followers have always been more ready to
smite than be smitten.
Let him have thy cloak also (v. 40). Jesus was too poor to
know the value of clothes, hence this stupid rule of life.
Here, too, we have a most direct and thorough encouragement
to dishonesty. People are too fond of law as it is ; what
would be the state of society if every rogue who stole a coat
could get the owner’s cloak too by simply suing him ?
Verses 39—42 of this Sermon on the Mount are amply
sufficient, if put into practice, to destroy civilisation and
reduce mankind to a state of anarchy and violence. For
tunately, professing Christians have always, with an exception
or two, been more ready to steal than to throw away their
property, more ready to compel others to walk the “miles ”
than do it themselves. Bad as this is, it is better than what
Jesus taught.
Love your enemies (v. 44)—that you may be the children of
your Father which is in heaven (v. 45). No man can love his
enemy. The father in heaven cannot do it, or he would long
since have hugged and caressed the Devil. Jesus did not do
it, or he would have turned those stones into bread, as the
Devil requested him when they met in the wilderness. “' Do
good to them that hate you ! ” By what law ? It is con
trary to reason and nature both. Someone asked Confucius
what he had to say “ Concerning the principle that injury
should be recompensed with kindness ? ”—It was a very old
superstition, evidently—Confucius replied, “With what then
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
will you recompense kindness ? Recompense injury with
justice, and kindness with kindness.” That is good philo
sophy ; the language of Jesus is babyish.
He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust (v. 45). He does
nothing of the sort. The sun doesn’t rise ; it is the earth
that spins round in front of him, like a leg of mutton before
the fire. And if God did this work, he also makes his sun
scorch good and bad alike, and sends rains or drought indis
criminately. If we followed the heavenly father’s example,
no day would pass without our doing much mischief and
murdering more or fewer persons. Better leave him alone.
What reward have ge ? (v. 46—47). Just so. Jesus was
enslaved to the barbarous philosophy of rewards and punish
ments, and his followers have never grown out of it. The
Christian is taught to expect a reward for everything. If he
gives away money in charity, it is to get riches in heaven ; if he
spends his money upon church and chapel building, it is to get
an endless annuity in the New Jerusalem, or to be insured against
the unquenchable fire ; and those who hangfire at parting
with their cash are gravely assured that they will be “ recom
pensed at the resurrection of the just ”—the date of which
will be about the time the sky falls.
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men (Matt, vi., 1).
Christians read this the other way, viz. : Take heed to do
your alms before men, to be seen of them. They boast of what
they give out of their abundance and taunt us with not giving
what we do not possess. They accept challenges to debate at
times, on condition that the proceeds shall go to some charity,
not at all caring if we should be compelled to apply for charity
as a consequence of having to work for nothing. If Christians
were half as good as they pretend, they would be too good to
pretend at all; and if Christians would leave off wasting,
and robbing, and swindling, all would have enough, and
charity would no longer be needed.
When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites (Note,
Hypocrites meant originally an actor) ; for they love to pray,
standing in churches and chapels and in the corners of the
sti eets, that they may be seen of men (v. o).
Here I improve
both the translation and the original.
How many cf the
parsons would ever pray if no man or woman were by to
hear ?
J
�BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Verily, I say unto you, They have their reward. True!
True! ranging from £50 per aunum to £15,000 and per
quisites. Not bad renumeration for actors in religious theatres.
But when ye pray, do not jabber like foreigners, etc. (v. 7).
I make the orthodox commentators a present of this rendering ;
it exactly gives the sense. A paraphrase is:—Don’t jabber
away like foreigners landed on a strange coast, who utter a
multitude of words in the hope of being able to make the
natives understand them. All the orthodox commentators
have missed the point of the advice. And most parsons have
a sort of regulation time for prayer, hoping that their God
will answer a long prayer, though he won’t a short one. In
fact, they treat their deity exactly like dishonest beggars
do their victims—they try the virtues of unlimited blarney.
Were I a god, I would much more readily relieve the Atheist
who never asks for anything than those who make a trade of
prayer—that is, begging. There are laws against begging,
but none against praying; which shows that Christian states
respect the public more than their God.
Your father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye
ask him (v. 8). He is a poor father, then, to wait to be
prayed to before doing his duty. It is a father’s duty to see
that his children have their wants supplied whether they ask
or not. The great father in heaven should spend a fortnight
at some well-conducted house to learn the ways of civilised
people. If he did this, he would burn the Bible and order
a new one, this time not written by his amanuenses, but
by men who could teach him more than all eternity has been
able to do.
The prayer that follows as a model, the Lord’s prayer, has
about all the faults a prayer can have, probably, except length.
There the pious pray for a kingdom to come. All just
government grows. We don’t want foreign rule, though we
can have no objection to God’s will being done on earth as in
heaven, because it is not done there at all. Men should work
for their daily bread, not pray for it. Forgive our debts, as
we forgive our debtors. If Christians believed in “ a prayer
answering god,” they would be afraid to pray thus : for they
do not forgive, and so, in effect, they ask not to be forgiven.
They are the most unforgiving of all people, being inspired
perhaps by the great father who will burn his enemies with
unquenchable fire. To pray not to be led into temptation, is
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
9
wise, if the Bible be true; for God tempted Abram to murder
his son, David to number Israel, etc. But to ask to be de
livered from the Evil One, is like a frightened child begging
his father to keep away the black man the nurse has been
speaking of.
Your father will forgive you, if you forgive others ; he
won’t if you don’t. Good example. Sublime morality!
You are to be perfect as your father (chap, v., 48), and he
threatens to be imperfect if you are so ! That is, you can
make him just what you will, forgiving or malicious, good or
bad; for his conduct is regulated by yours This is the very
highest point in New Testament morality!.
The directions Jesus gives (Matt, vi., 16—18) for fasting are
good enough, supposing fasting were itself of any conceivable
use. The only parties who ought to fast are they who have
eaten too much or whose health may probably be improved
by a short period of abstinence. Fasting as now practised in
Christendom is sheer hypocrisy. And as Christians do not
now honestly practise it, no more need be said, but that
•Christians would get far greater good by a little healthy
honesty than by all “the means of grace ” they employ.
The rest of Matthew vi., 19—34, is so openly antagonistic
both to civilisation and to clerical conduct, that the wonder
is modern Christians have not long since repudiated it as
•contrary to their religion :—
1. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth (v. 19).
The best of Christians obey this by laying up all they can
upon earth.
2. But lay up............. treasures in heaven (v. 20). Many
Christians would do this too, but they know not where heaven
is. They would not object to treasures here and hereafter
both ; but having no prospect of heaven, and being wedded
as closely to the earth as any misers, they make sure of earthly
treasures, and trust in providence for the others.
3. For where your treasure is there will your heart be also
(v. 21). No people love the world more fully than Christians ;
and the “ love of the father,” of course, “ is not in them.”
What Jesus says of the single eye and the light of the
body (v. 22—23) may be ignored : he understood neither
physiology nor optics, nor was he any better instructed in
moral rights and obligations. He uttered rules, proverbs and
commands, which his followers are ever praising and ever
�10
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
deliberately breaking, and must break, or renounce civilisa
tion.
No man can serve two masters............. God and Mammon,
for example (v. 24). Another blunder. The clergy can serve
God and Mammon first rate. The first step is, perhaps, Hie
most difficult. You renounce the world in your baptism,
that is, your godfathers and godmothers do it for you, as
theirs did for them. This is all you need to do. Henceforth
you are safe ; your baptism regenerates you, and the “ new
man ” serves Mammon and God with the most perfect
assiduity for all the rest of life. If in any case God should
grumble at the rivalry of Mr. Mammon, he is politely kicked
out of doors, and Mammon reigns supreme. Jesus was not
half so clever as his followers ; the parsons could put him up
to many a dodge were he now on earth.
Take no thought for your life—neither for food nor raiment
(v. 25). This is the language of a pure barbarian or maniac.
The commentators say, “anxious thought,” “undue thought,”
etc. There is nothing in the gospels to authorise them.
Jesus never inculcates the duty of industry ; but here he
enjoins an absolute indifference for all worldly pursuits. The
fowls (26) are to be your model as regards providing food—
and they neither sow nor reap nor garner: but your heavenly
father feedeth them and will much more feed you, for you
are much better. And why care about clothes ? The lilies
are clothed by providence ; how much more will he clothe
you ? To all except perverse divines this language is so plain
that one wonders even at their temerity in trying to reconcile
it with common sense. But Jesus points it still more :—Can
you, by taking thought, add a cubit to your height? The
answer is obvious. Neither can you get food or clothes by
“ taking thought.” “ Therefore take no thoughtetc. (v. 31).
The Gentiles take thought; they seek food and clothes. But
you have a heavenly father who knows all about what you
need ; and if you only seek his kingdom and righteousness,
he will see to it that all your wants are supplied.
Good father!—How is it nobody trusts him ? I should
like to see a community founded on the principles of the
Sermon on the Mount. The bishops might take the lead in
such an undertaking. They have the best security. They
have a father who is all-good and almighty. He says he will
supply all their needs if they will seek first his kingdom, etc.
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
11
Their is neither bishop nor pastor who believes it. In that
they show their scepticism and good sense. They are
infidels—that is, unfaithful to their own professed principles;
we are infidels in a better sense—viz., we.no more believe the
truth and wisdom of Jesus’s teaching than they do, and we
say so'much. For our honesty we shall be damned, while
they will be saved for their hypocrisy. So be it.
Take therefore no thought for the morrow; for the morrow
shall take thought for the things of itself (v. 34). Confucius
said : “ If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he
will find sorrow near at hand.” If Jesus had taken thought
for the morrow he would have had a place “to lay his head
he would not have been poorer than foxes, as he admitted,
nor would he have gone hunger-bitten to the fig-tree and
cursed it for bearing no figs out of season.
Still there is in the world to-day something much worse
than even the fanaticism of Jesus or his poor insanity, and
that is the miserable cant, found even amongst Unitarians and
a few Freethinkers, which affects to admire and eulogise the
character and wisdom of the teachings of Jesus ! If those
panegyrists are honest they do not understand what they do;
if they understand, they xare veritable hypocrites. Every
enlightened man does habitually, and as a consequence of his
enlightenment, the very things Jesus condemned. He never
more plainly condemned adultery or murder than he did social
prudence and industry.
The early Christians understood their master as I now do,
and it was only the stern reality of life which showed them
how false and pernicious his doctrines are. Cave, in • his
“ Primitive Christianity,” p. 230, says : “ They never met
with opportunities to have advanced and enriched themselves,
but they declined and turned them off with a noble scorn.”
Origen, he says, obeyed the precept not to have two coats, to
wear shoes, nor to be (anxiously) careful for the morrow ”
(p. 242). Cave invents “anxiously ” here. “Nay,” says he,
“ so little kindness had they for this world, that they cared
not how little they stayed in it; and, therefore, readily offered
themselves for martyrdom at every turn ” (p. 246-7). This
agrees with Tertullian : Calamities, etc., “ injure us not; ing
the first place, because we have no further concern with th?
world than how we may most quickly depart from it ’
(“Apology,” c. xii.)
�12
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
When modem Christians exchange cant and hypocrisy for
truth and honesty they will either follow and obey Jesus in
reality or else openly renounce him. Which will they do ?
Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment
7 e judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye
J
mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matt, vii., 1).__
Harsh judgments and censorious comments ought to be
avoided ; but honest judgment is one of the best means of
moral education, and moral education cannot be obtained
without it. Besides, no one ever violated this rule more than
Jesus himself. He judged and condemned in many cases ;
nor did he ever. make it appear that he understood the im
portance or the justice of a fair and open trial. Had he been
wise and good, he would have given some hint, at least,
respecting the forms and administration of justice. The codes
of civilised nations owe nothing to Jesus or to his religion.
His conceptions of justice and law were those of any petty
Oriental despot.
The mote and the shaft—spear-shaft—in the eyes consti
tute a figure of speech grotesquely overdone, and ridiculous
into the bargain. Who with a mote in his eye would wait
for some one to ask to extract or remove it ?—while a spear
shaft in the eye means the destruction of the organ and the
death of the owner.
It was not charity, but bitter and coarse satire, which
inspired what he says about giving holy things to dogs and
casting pearls before swine (v. 6, 7). If men are dogs and
swine, it must be because God made them so, that is Jesus, if
he was God. Why sneer at his own handiwork ? Why not
make them better ?
Ask and it shall be given you (v. 7, 8). If this were true,
how rich and prosperous and powerful the Church would be 1
How soon the world would be converted! How quickly they
would hear and see the last of the Freethinker and its wicked
crew. All the prayers in the world—I mean the Church—
cannot stop these Atheistic sermons, nor confound the preacher.
Let them try. Ask and receive ! The parson prays to God
and receives from men. Their prayers, indeed, are mostly
intended for human ears; and those that do not reach human
ears are never answered. The Church has never been
ashamed to beg, and it has got a million-fold more than it
has deserved. When the orthodox confess themselves un
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
13
worthy, we agree with them, and when most of them confess
themselves “miserable offenders,” we cannot but admit the
justice of the plea.
The contrast (v. 9—12) between earthly fathers and the
heavenly one is all in favor of the former. Most earthly
parents do something for their children ; the heavenly father
does nothing. By the way, how can a man have two fathers,
unless one is merely grandfather or father in a merely legal
or social sense ? If, then, we have earthly fathers, we have
no heavenly one.
Beware offalse prophets (v. 15). Amen. Amen. All pro
phets are false prophets. Truth is found only by experience,
not revelation. All pretenders to revelation are false prophets:
beware of them and their sermons and gospels and predictions.
All those who follow them only repeat the original lies. And
revelation lies have filled the world with confusion, bitterness
and blood.
They come in sheep’s clothing—good broad-cloth made of
wool; but they dress in many ways. Ye shall know them bu
their fruits (v. 16). Yes, yes ! What has revelation, what
have its prophets, done for man ? All the world’s science,
government, philosophy, sanitation, medicine, are due to the
prophet’s enemies. No prophet ever revealed a pregnant
truth that enriched or enlightened the world. To prophets
we owe persecution and darkness ; to secular workers and
thinkers we owe all the knowledge and all the wealth of the
world. By their fruits ye shall know them—if they bear any.
The bishops are barren, the Church is a desert, and the
parsons ever cry, “ Give, give !” We hope Jesus’ prophecy is
correct, that the useless trees shall be hewn down and cast
into the fire. Then the churches are doomed. They bear
no good fruit; they cumber the ground and produce poison.
If none but those who do the will of the father (v. 21—-24)
enter into the kingdom of heaven, there are few destined to
enter. There is no parson or priest now existing that con
forms his life to the Bible, and that is generally called the
will oi’ word of God. Who, then, will people the kingdom of
heaven ? I fancy the standard will have to be altered or the
kingdom will never be anything but a kingdom on paper.
And those who don’t go to that kingdom must, if popular
theology is correct, people the Devil’s kingdom. I have no
respect for the Devil, or his empire ; but he is going to beat
�14
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
the other gentleman. Not only most people belong to him,
bnt all the best are his. The parsons cannot question this,
for they belong to the Devil as much as I do, and they serve
him as heartily too. In face of existing facts, the kingdom of
heaven must be pronounced a complete failure, and its effects
are not worthy of a sale by auction. You, Jesus, need not
make the gate so narrow. Nobody will enter even if you
make a large gap in the fence.
The peroration (v. 24—29) of the Sermon on the Mount is
a splendid one. It fairly rises to the height of true oratory.
But it is awfully selfish and egoistic, besides being maliciously
unjust and severe. Who can do those sayings of thine, Jesus ?
Who can love his enemies ? Who can follow the example of
fowls and lilies ? Who can turn the other cheek, or give his
cloak to the thief who steals his coat ? If thine own rule is to
be the law, thou thyself art hopelessly condemned. There.' is
nought but destruction and ruin in store for thyself and thy
hearers and readers, if thy sermon is the standard of judg
ment. That sermon would damn all men, women and chil
dren ; all angels, archangels, seraphs, and cherubs ; and God
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost will be damned with the
rest; for there is not a being in the world who does or ever
did obey what it enjoins. And yet the orthodox belaud what
must damn them and all. I wonder if they’ll boast of that
sermon when it has damned them ?
THE
LORD’S
MERCIES.
“ The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all
his works.”—Psalm cxlv., 9.
This, be it remembered, is not an empty boast. The Psalmist
understood the matter well, being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
He did not, as sceptical and profane persons would have done,
look at the world and carnally survey the deeds and vicissi
tudes of life ; he piously closed his eyes, and thus saw plainly
that the Lord was “ good to all, and that his tender mercies
were over all his works.” The pious king—when have kings
not been pious?—adopted the only possible method of dis
covering that the Lord was good to all, etc., he saw it by
faith, as any one may who has faith enough.
�THE LORD’S MERCIES.
15
But this sdfelime and salutary and universally comforting
truth may be .proved to a demonstration.
I. The Lord is almighty, and can do whatsoever he will.
He can make two and two to be seven, or turn a summer
sault, or turn himself inside out, if you give him time enough
to do it in—that is, all time. He made all things in six days
the very first time he ever tried, and could no doubt do it in
six minutes now, were he so inclined. I mention these facts
to show that the Lord is quite able to do everything.
II. He is all-knowing too ; and so, in point of knowledge,
as well as power, perfectly competent to execute goodness and
extend his tender mercies to all.
III. Historical proofs may now be given of the above truth ;
and these are so numerous that we can merely select a few
out of an almost infinite miscellany.
1. He made a man and woman and put them into a garden,
where there was a^iree they were not to eat of on pain of
death. He also made a “ subtil ” serpent who tempted the
two to eat, and they did eat.” For this the Lord cursed
the pair, the serpent, and the very earth. All the posterity
of this couple were involved in their parents’ fate, and are to
this day doomed to pain, toil, want, sickness, misery, and
death for that old crime of eating forbidden fruit! This is
the first proof of divine goodness and tender mercies.
2. Less than 2,000 years later, when men were numerous
and not over good in their conduct, the Lord resolved to show
how far he could excel them all in criminality and cruelty.
There was not a man then living who would, if he could,
have drowned the whole world. But the Lord showed his
goodness by pouring down 1,000,000,000 (one thousand
million) cubic miles of water upon the earth, or two thirds of
a cubic mile for every man, woman, and child now in the
world ! So abundantly plentiful was the supply that each
man might have truly said with the grateful Psalmist, My
cup runneth over ”—if he could have spoken after being
drowned. It is true, the story says that eight persons were
saved in this universal deluge ; but they might just as well
have been drowned for any good we know of them. The
water, by the way, was so plentiful that it seems to have dis
gusted Mr. Noah, who broke the pledge and went out on the
spree as soon as he could get anything to tipple upon.
3. Not to confine his exhibition of tender mercies to a
�No. 5 ] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
;
BY
JOSEPH
SYMES,
.
.
[W.
_■
3
/' V?'
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS,
And Noah . . . drank of the wine and was drunken (Gen.
lx., 20-21).—(1) Teetotallers pretend that some Bible wines
were not intoxicating ; but most were, or people might have
drunk them with impunity. The Bible was not written by
abstainers, nor was total abstinence ever contemplated by God,
except for a few peculiar people. (2) Noah was a saint, and
so it was no disgrace for him to get drunk and expose himself
as he did. (8) The verses of this chapter numbered twentytwo—twenty-seven are a curiosity. Ham, Noah’s youngest
son, saw the beastly conduct of the old man ; and Noah, when
he found it out, vented his curses upon Canaan, Ham’s son !
This was written by some unscrupulous Israelite to justify his
countrymen in exterminating the Canaanites. The roguery
is too transparent to be misunderstood—it is the assassin
endeavoring to stand well before those who know of his crime.
Suppose Noah had cursed Canaan for what Ham did! That
would stamp him an idiot. Besides, when did this happen ?
There were only eight human beings in the ark (1 Peter iii-,,
20). Canaajn was Ham’s fourth son, and could not have been
. old enough to have mocked or insulted his grandfather till
many years after the flood, though the story implies that it
. was not long after that event. What an ill-tempered old
grandfather Noah must have been to vent his spleen upon his
grandson, if he really did thus; and how much more illtempered and diobolical God must have been to execute Noah’s
curse upon Canaan’s innocent posterity so many hundreds of
years after the death of Noah ! No gods were ever much to
boast of; but the Jewish-Christian idol is worse than all the
others rolled into one. Besides, how stupid of him to save
�66
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE
such a paltry lot as Noah, and his family when drowning the
world! Any sensible god would have made a clean sweep
both, of animals and men, if he had proceeded as far as Genesis
describes, and then have started de novo with better races,
fashioned on an improved plan and made of better materials.
But this God is par excellence the God of blunders and
blunderers. Still, the Bible is anything but “ a comedy of
errors
it is a tragedy in which few but mad gods, mad pro
phets, mad angels, fools and helpless wretches bear their parts.
Homer’s Iliad turns upon the wrath of Achilles, and the Bible
upon the fury, the very fermented wine or expressed juice of,
the wrath of God.
Genesis x. and its pretended pedigrees of the nations may
be jumped over, for no doubt the writer, some very late scribe,
invented the names. Anybody could invent pedigrees, I
presume. Noah, I just this moment learn by inspiration,
had other sons in the ark with him. One of them ate a man
for his dinner, and they called him Man Chew. Was he not
the father of all those who dwell in Manchuria unto this
day ?
A nd the whole earth was of one language and of one speech
(Genesis xi., 1). Just so. This is a precious fragment of
the word of God. “ Read, mark, learn,” my reader, -‘and
digest.” .Men would build a tower—(why not?)—whose top
should reach to heaven—(well, Jacob’s ladder did)—so that
should there be another flood, they might climb the tower
and escape drowning ! Very sensible project I should say ;
but God viewed it in a totally different light. What! not
allow him to drown them when he felt disposed to have a
little sport that way ! Imagine, my reader, the feelings of
an angler, if all fishes united to wear wire respirator-things
or mouth screens, to defend them against hooks ! Fancy the
feelings of butchers, were sheep and oxen to adopt invulner
able armor that no weapon could pierce!
Conceive the
chagrin of fowlers and sportsmen, were all birds to use shot
proof dresses! Then you may comprehend in some faint
degree the chagrin, the fury of God when his creature man,
whom he had made for his own private and exclusive sport,
proved daring enough to unite to defeat his ends by building
a tower whose top should reach to heaven ! If the earth had
exploded like a modern bombshell, it would not have startled
and amazed him half as much!
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
67
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower (Genesis
xi., 5).—In those days the Lord had no angels to go and come
for him, and so he went on his own errands. Later he made
angels; and then he hit upon a better expedient still—he
expanded himself until he filled all space. The Christians
still entreat him to come down into their temples and
dwellings, but he never heeds them. On this occasion he
went to see the wonderful city and tower, just as you might
go to the Fisheries Exhibition. But the sight alarmed him 1
And he exclaimed, when he saw the works, “Now nothing
will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to
do 1” In plain words, that means that Jehovah was really
afraid that men would raise the tower to heaven, and so secure
themselves against another flood! How extremely childish
this is must be apparent to all. The Lord is and always has
been in his dotage.
Therefore all must be children who
would go and dwell with him, “ for of such is the kingdom of
heaven.” Strong-minded men and women are not wanted
there.
The Lord having no engines by which to destroy the tower
—thunderbolts and earthquakes not having been invented—
undertook to confound the language of men, so that they
should not understand each other. The results were awful.
“Mortar!” shouted a bricklayer; and up came a hod of
bricks.
“Bricks!” cried another, and up went a hod of
mortar. “Bring up that plank!” shouted a third; and up
went a can of tea. A mason dubbed his man a blockhead,
and the man felt delighted at the compliment, and fully
expected higher wages on Saturday.
The architect gave
orders to push on as fast as possible with the building, for the
sky seemed threatening rain. Therefore, the master mason
gave instructions to his men to pull down the left wing and
rebuild it better. The men misunderstood him, and walled
up several of the windows. No two men spoke alike. If a man
said “Good morning,” to his fellow, his fellow thought he
called him names. Then they fought to assist their mutual
understanding. Things went on like this for two days, when
the whole world dissolved partnership, and supposing the
tower and its vicinity bewitched, all spontaneously left it,
rushing away to every point of the compass, some of them
never stopping till they met on the opposite side of the world.
The Lord and his party went back to heaven, climbing the
�68
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
unfinished tower, and stepping from its walls into paradise,
where they laughed till the universe shook again, at the
wonderful success of their joke.
And the Lord played a worse joke still some 1,800 to 1,900
years ago. He gave the world a revelation of his supreme
will, throwing together scraps of his autobiography, history,
romance, poetry, mythology, statistics, ritual, law, agriculture,
cosmogony, ethics, politics, criminal jurisprudence, lies,nonsense,
pointless jokes, puns, platitudes, false philosophy. This he
put together in a book called the Bible, and would have
printed if he had known how. And the result ? The
churches have been fighting about the meaning of this book
ever since—“ they rest not day and night ” praising the book
and quarrelling about its teachings. In this contest reason is
never allowed to intrude. Theological language is always at
sixes and sevens. Millions upon millions of human lives have
been destroyed to prove how divine and precious is the Bible ;
it has perverted the best and noblest sentiments of human
nature and social life ; it has confounded all those who have
endeavored to follow its lead ; it is a will-o’-the-wisp, an ignis
fatuus—a maze, a labyrinth, a whirlpool, in the midst of
which men neither understand themselves nor their
neighbors.
Another leap, and we find ourselves in the company of
Abram or Abraham, son of Terah and friend of God. The
very best parts of Abram’s biography are not in the Bible. I
beg to suggest that the gentlemen who meet in the Jerusalem
Chamber, Westminster Abbey, to improve the Bible, should
insert the Rabbinical stories of Abram and other saints, for
such additions, even if much that is now in the book should
be omitted to make room for them, will enhance the value of
the word of God a hundredfold.
Abram’s father was Terah and also Azer or the planet Mars ;
likewise Zarah and Athar. It is not every man who can
boast of five or six fathers. Abram’s father—(I relate the
story from memory)—lived in high honor at the court of
Nimrod ; and a prophecy went forth that a son of Terah
should dethrone the king.
Therefore his wife, reflecting
that Nimrod would destroy their new child, should it be a
boy, removed out of the town and took up her residence for
safety in a cave. There Abram was born. To make doubly
sure, his mother did not mention the event even to her hus
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS
6fl
band ; and she spent as little time in the cave as possible, to
avoid suspicion. Abram was a remarkable boy for his age,
and grew wonderfully fast. At fifteen months old he was as
big as an ordinary boy of fifteen years. And “ on what meats
did this our Abram feed, that he was grown so great ?”
There lies the point of the whole case. He merely sucked—
his thumbs or his fingers ! Don’t be sceptical; the Lord was
in those digits of Abram, just as he was in the burning bush
of Moses, as he is in a salvation drum, or the hallelujah beer
sold at the Eagle.”
Things turning out so unexpectedly, Mrs. Terah thought it
time to tell her husband ; and one evening she conducted
him to the cave on a visit to their extremely interesting son.
Lest any should doubt the divine truth I am relating, I will
mention an incident that took place a few months back at
Euston Station. I was in the waiting-room waiting for the
midnight train to Birmingham, my companions being a young
lady, and a gentleman with a little boy, apparently of four or
five years. He was running about the room. And his father
remarked to the young lady, “ That’s a wonderful child.
How old do you think he is ?” She said, “ Four years, per
haps.” “ He is only four months old,” replied the father ;
I am just come from Canada with him. Don’t you think
he is a wonderful child ?” I asked him if he had not made a
mistake ; and he solemnly assured me that the child was only
four months old. I gave in, thinking this child, like some in
Palestine in former days, might have been filled with the
Holy Ghost from his birth. Besides I reflected that I had no
means of proving that he was more than four months old ;
and if he had said four weeks, I should have been equally
silenced.
Your fathers dwelt on the other side oj the flood in old time,
even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor :
and they served other gods (Joshua xxiv., 2).—It is a long jump
from Genesis xi. to Joshua xxiv., no doubt, but the subject is
the same. The child Abraham, as previously reported, grew
at a marvellous rate ; and his mother took his father to see
the prodigy. Terah was a courtier, a class of men often
enough very cunning, but rarely remarkable for knowledge or
wisdom. Now when Terah saw his son he deemed it best to
present him at court, for although he knew there was some
danger in that step, he thought there would be much more
�BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
should Nimrod discover that he was hiding such a child from
him. So he and his wife resolved to take him home at once.
Terah soon found that his son was intellectually no less
wonderful than he was physically. On the road home the
precocious youth bored his father about the nature of the
gods, and which was the right and the true one. Terah’s
answers were anything but satisfactory, for Abraham seemed
determined to probe matters to the utmost. How he had
learnt to talk and reason the story does not say ; perhaps the
Holy Ghost could tell you if he would. However, he spoke
with such good effect that his poor father was thrown into
quite a perspiration, and foresaw trouble at the court of
Nimrod. Abraham was no courtier, and had no modesty to
check his impertinence; and Terah plainly foresaw that he
would as soon dispute with Nimrod as a chimney-sweep. Arti
ficial distinctions were unknown to this overgrown child, and
he was no more abashed in the presence of Nimrod than a
sensible man would be before the shadow of monarchy remain
ing in this country. Nimrod was as much confounded
Abraham as the Jewish rabbis were at a later date by the
twelve-year-old Jesus. And, of course, the king resolved on
vengeance, especially as Abraham scouted his gods.
But here I am met by a difficulty. There is no sort of
doubt at all that Nimrod did his uttermost to win the crown
of martyrdom for Abraham, and would have succeeded, had
not a miracle most inopportunely sprung up to rob him of that
eternal honor. But for that untoward miracle, Abraham would
have had the honor of figuring in the calendar as the young
martyr of only fifteen months old, who was put to death by
Nimrod because he could not withstand the wisdom with
which he spake. But it is not very clear why Abraham was
to be martyred; whether it was for confounding the king
before his whole court, or for another reason, does not clearly
appear. The better account of the two is this, substantially.
Terah was either a manufacturer of idols oi’ else he had charge
of Nimrod’s pantheon, where all the principal idols were kept
and taken care of. One day, some great national feast day.
all the city went out to the Ninevite Champ de Mars to enjoy
themselves. Abraham scorning to take any part in the
heathen festival, stayed away, and explored the city. In
the course o-f his investigations he stumbled into the chief
temple (some say it was his father’s workshop or warehouse),
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
71
and looked with not a spark of reverence upon the idols great
and small there set up. No more abashed before gods than
he had been before the court, he took an axe, and with most
sacrilegious hands proceeded to demolish the gods whose wor
shippers were too far away to defend them. He had destroyed
them all except the largest in the place, when a most happy
thought arrested the blow he was about to deal him. Instead
of demolishing that one he put it to a remarkably good pur
pose. He took a piece of cord and tied the axe around the
neck of the only surviving god, and then calmly awaited the
return of the people from the festival.
The first to arrive in the temple was his own father, who
for several seconds failed to realise where he was ; the chips
and rubbish about rather puzzled him. When he had fairly
taken in the situation he was horror-struck, and demanded
who had been guilty of this sacrilege. In almost the same
breath he accused his incomprehensible son, who, however,
pretended to be innocent. “ The fact is, my revered parent,”
said he, “ a woman came to the temple with an offering of
fine flour; and the gods all scrambled for it in so rude a
manner that it came to a deadly fight; and at last that big
one there took his axe and destroyed all the rest, as you see.
In proof of my veracity, behold the very axe still suspended
round the neck of the murderous god1”
This story only made Terah more furious. It was absurd,
he said, to suppose that idols, gods of wood, could quarrel
about an offering, or that one of them should destroy the rest.
Abraham did not forget the sarcastic and obvious remark
that it must be exceedingly absurd to worship gods that could
not do as he averred. But Terah was in no mood to argue;
his blood was up ; his piety—like that of Judge North—was
boiling over; and he resolved to bring his wicked son to con
dign punishment. So he dragged him before Nimrod and
told the mighty hunter how his son had treated the national
gods. Nimrod and his whole court were almost speechless
with horror and indignation. The fury of Jehovah himself
when his breath was hot enough to kindle coals (see Psalm
xviii., 8), scarcely exceeded it. So Nimrod ordered immediate
preparations to be set on foot for the execution of the culprit.
A large meadow was filled up with wood to a great height,
and, at the suggestion of the Devil, they constructed a large
engine, a kind of lithobolus or balista, or catapult, sufficient to
�72
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
hurl a man to a great distance. This was needed for special
reasons. The fire was to be so tremendous in size, and they
wished to light it and let it blaze up a little before flinging
the victim into it; and how, without' an engine of this sort,,
were they to get him into the midst of the fire ? When the
fire was just hot enough and the court and people were expect
ing eagerly the grand holiday sight of a heretic roasting, they
fastened poor Abraham to the engine and fired him off ! And
now, behold a wonder! The aim was correctly enough taken,
and the victim flew along the parabolic projectile-curve right
into the midst of—not the fire, not the pile of wood. The
whole pile, fire and all, disappeared in a twinkling. A flash
of lightning nevei’ came and went faster. And the young
saint fell upon a bed of flowers in the very midst of a beauti
ful meadow!
I do not know how Nimrod endured the disappointment ;•
though no doubt he learnt the lesson never to hunt saints
again or try to kill them. What became of Abraham imme
diately after I cannot say ; though I doubt not he thoroughly
enjoyed the day’s sport and fun, as much as some of us enjoy
the smashing of gods in these degenerate tunes.
Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father s house,
unto a land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee
a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great;
and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless
thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all
families of the earth be blessed (G-en. xii., 1-3).—Having
delivered Abram from the fell designs of Nimrod and the
Devil, we may now resume his history in the Bible. The
pious reader will not fail to note (1) the unsocial nature of
the Lord’s religion, which begins by sending Abram from
home, (2) the low and vulgar promises held out to his ambi
tion, (3) the vengeful spirit of the Lord, who threatens to
curse the man that curses his favorite. This is a very
appropriate start for the Jewish-Ohristian religion—the Lord
seems never yet to have won a single follower except by means
of bribery or intimidation. He never will; and now those
old weapons are almost out of date.
This story of Abram’s leaving home is a good specimen of
Bible history. In chapter xi., 31, we are told it was Terah
who left his native place, Ur of the Chaldees, taking Abram
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
73
and Lot with him ; and they went forth to go to Canaan.
There is nothing here about leaving “ his father’s house
that house went with him. But the text quoted above from
chapter xii. says God told Abram to go out from his kindred
and his father’s house. Where Ur was, or Haran of Oharran,
cannot be ascertained—somewhere near New Jerusalem
perhaps.
And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out
of Haran (Gen. xii., 4).—Is it possible the Lord would send
a poor old fellow of that age on a long journey into an un
known land ? And did he talk to an old fogey of that age
about leaving lens, father s house, etc. ? If his poor old father was
still living, Abram should at least have stayed and buried him
before setting out. And if Terah was dead when God told this
youth to quit, as the last verse of chapter xi. says, what sense
was there in God talking to him about “his father’s house ?”
And there was a famine in the land (Gen. xii., 10).—Ah I
if the Lord had only told the saint how to prevent famines,
and the saint had imparted the secret to the world, then he
would have made him a blessing to mankind; as it is, the
world does not owe anything good to Abram yet, and I fear
it never will.
Abram’s example is instructive. In consequence of the
famine he went to Egypt. His wife, only ten years younger
than himself, is so fair that he fears the Egyptians will kill
him for her sake ; so he bids her tell a lie and pass as his
sister. This was a most ungodly saint, for. he had no faith
in the Lord to protect him in Egypt. What wonder if so
many saints to-day follow the example of this ancient infidel,
the father of the faithful, and trust in anything rather than
Jehovah ? The Egyptians must have had a plague, we sup
pose, just previous to this visit, in which nearly all the women
had been swept off. It is impossible otherwise to account for
Pharaoh’s selecting so old a woman for his harem. Is this
a story that Sarah herself told, when she returned from
Egypt, to some of her gossips over a cup of tea with a little
reviving spirit in it ? Anyhow, why did the Holy Ghost pen
or dictate so stupid and indecent a tale ?
And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver and in yold
(Gen. xiii., 2).—He does not appear to have had anything
when he went to Egypt: he returned a very rich man. Sarah
is said to have been beautiful; and Abram, friend of the
�74
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
most high God, enriched himself in the most unmanly and
immoral fashion to be conceived. Why had not the Holy
Ghost the decency to throw a veil over this part of the saint’s
life ? Yea, why did he ever mention such a man at all ?
Abram’s treatment of Lot is described by an Israelite so as
to redound to the glory of the former ; had one of Lot’s
descendants written Genesis xiii., no doubt Abram would have
been exhibited as the more selfish man.
I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that ifa man
can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be
numbered (xiii., 16).—This is a good specimen of Bible pro
mises, preposterously impossible of fulfilment. The dust
caught up by one gust of wind, in what the Scotch call a
“ stoury day,” contains more particles than all the people that
have ever lived, most likely. Abram’s descendants, if he has
any at all, are not even among the most numerous of mankind.
Both Abram and his God are mere names, no doubt of beings
that never existed, except as Jupiter and Juno existed.
And Melchizcdek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and
wine : and he was the priest of the most high God (Gen. xiv.,
18).—Here is a delightful source of theological speculation!
Who was Melchizedek ? The Jews said he was Shem, son of
Noah. Some of the fathers'said he was an angel; some
heretics (that is, unfashionable Christians) held that he was
a Power, a Virtue, or Influence of God; others regarded him
as being the Holy Ghost. Some Christians thought he was
the son of God ; and some Jews their Messiah. The Epistle
to the Hebrews (v. and vii.) clears up the whole difficulty in
a style which leaves nothing to be desired: Melchizedek,
according to this, was not Shem, not on angel, not the Holy
Ghost, not the son of God, not the Messiah ; he was “ without
father, without mother, without descent, having neither
beginning of days nor end of life !” Here all difficulties
vanish in an outburst of faith ; and I have no doubt the
sceptical commentators who attempt to explain things beyond
this will be damned for their pains. For my part, I cannot
prove that he had parents ; they are not necessary for gods
and high priests. Those beings have the powei’ to create
themselves, and their ancestors also, when they care to
indulge in such luxuries. And he gave him tithes of all (xiv., 20).
Mobal
and
Practical Reflexions.—(1) How wonderfully
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
75
kind was our heavenly father thus to invent this lying story
for the sake of his servants the priests, who always take tithes
when they cannot get more ! (2) How marvellous are the
ways of God, to inspire one of the priests themselves to write
this story in his blessed book! (3) Note the marvellous
success that has followed this divine fraud. Had it originated
with a mere man it must have failed : but it has robbed the
dupes of the Bible of untold millions ; and this grand success
is a standing miracle calculated to show to all, except unde
ceivable sceptics, that the Bible is the word of God. There
are only two or three fatal points in the story, which we
must note:—
1. Salem is an unknown place, and divines don’t know
where to locate it. I may tell them from my own knowledge
that it is in the very middle of Utopia, and within a few
miles of the Garden of Paradise on the one side, and New
Jerusalem on the other. To the north is the mountain, from
the top of which the Devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms
of the world in a moment of time. Other interesting topo
graphical points might be mentioned; but these are amply
sufficient to lead any explorers to the very spot where Mel
chizedek still reigns and deals in bread and wine.
2. The god for whom Melchizedek was priest creates some
difficulty. It was Eliun, an old Phoenician god, who knew
nothing more of Jehovah than Jehovah did of him. They
are both with Melchizedek to this day, though he does not
recognise the difference between them.
3. .Abram swore by Eliun (v. 22) along with Jehovah ;
showing that he, too, was a polytheist, though Christians
absurdly claim him as a monotheist and a champion of that
cause.
I should note, further, that in the third century there arose
a sect of Melchizedekians, who held that he was the Holy
Ghost, and thus superior to Jesus Christ; for, said they, Mel
chizedek. was the intercessor and mediator for angels, Jesus
being only such for man. The priesthood of the latter, they
add, was a mere copy of the former. The latter point, I
must say, is purely scriptural. See the passages in Hebrews
above referred to. The Cocceians (disciples of Cocceius, a
Dutchman of the seventeenth century) and the Hutchinsonians
generally still believe that Jesus and Melchizedek were one
and the same. So do I. Jack-o’-the-Lantem, Will-o’-the-
�76
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Wisp, Apollo, Baldur and Prester John are only other names
of the same individual. He is rarely seen now, and the
reason is, that the churches have neither faith nor grace
enough to induce him to visit them. He has retired in dis
gust, carrying his lantern and his bread and wine with him ;
and will never return until the churches renounce the world,
and parsons live upon charity begged from door to door.
Problem.—What will be the date of his reappearance ?
Abraham is called the Friend of God (2 Ohron. xx., 7 ;
Isaiah xli., 8; James ii., 23.) There is not much in the
Bible to warrant or suggest the relationship ; besides it is
ridiculous, if God be infinite. The Mahommedans have a
very good story on the subject, much better than any in the
Bible. In a time of dearth, say they, Abram sent to a- friend
in Egypt for meal. The friend refused, for he knew that
Abram would give it away instead of keeping it for his own
family. His servants being ashamed to be seen returning
with empty sacks filled them, for appearance sake, with a very
fine sand, closely resembling flour. They told Abram, but
not Sarah, of their failure to get meal, and the old man was
so overcome that he soon fell asleep.
Sarah, finding the
sacks full of flour, as she supposed, set to make some cakes;
and the smell of the new bread awoke her husband, who
demanded whetever she had obtained the meal. “ Why, your
friend in Egypt sent it,” replied she. “Nay,” said he, “it is
not my friend in Egypt who sent itj but my friend God
Almighty.”
Now such’a story is far more to Abram’s credit as a believer
than almost any in the Bible; and if it were inserted to the
exclusion of several others, the Bible would gain by it—
though the new editors might be damned for improving God’s
word. I sometimes think I will bring out a Bible of my own,
retaining all the good in the old one (not very much), and
improving it by a few genuine new revelations. I am quite
qualified, having as much Holy Ghost as any man that ever
lived.
And when the sun was going down a deep sleep fell upon
Abraham; andlo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
(Genesis xv., 12).—Bead the context. Abram killed a heifer,
a she-goat, a ram, a turtle dove and a young pigeon, and
divided them all in pieces, except the birds. And when it
was dark he saw a fiery furnace, and a lamp that went
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
77
between the pieces. The cresset was, I presume, God the
father; the lamp, the son—the Holy Ghost not then being
born, perhaps.
The Mahommedan account of this transaction has the
merit of making a complete story of it, which the Bible does
not. They say Abram was in doubt or perplexity respecting
the mode in which God would raise the dead. Abram, at the
command of God, took an eagle (some say, dove), a peacock,
a raven and a cock, cut them up and pounded their flesh,
bones and feathers all up together in one mass, merely keep
ing their heads intact. Then he called them all by their
names, and the parts came together again, and the birds
resumed life as if nothing had happened. That is as true as
any miracle you ever heard or read of; and I do not for a
moment doubt that a sausage maker could obtain like results
any day, if he only had faith enough. For fear of revelations
of too startling a nature, however, it may be as well not to
suggest that to the fraternity.
Genesis xvi. and xvii. have not much quotable matter in
them. Verse 17 of the later tells us how Abram (in this
chapter his name grows one syllable longer) laughed when
God told him he and Sarah should have a son when their
respective ages were 100 and 90. In this matter all the
world now joins with the saint to laugh at God’s amusing
promises!
And God went up from Abraham (Genesis xvii., 22). This
must have been a very small god. The infinite one cannot
move ; he fills all spac’e, and has no room to move in. He is
an absolute solid, and that is the only quality he has—a per
fect block, but he does not know it. If Christians only read
and studied the Bible, instead of wilfully perverting some of
its words to fit them into others, and all its teachings to fit
them to their own views, how soon they would discover how
ridiculous the old book is, and how opposed to their creeds. I
suppose their God has given them the spirit of slumber to
prevent their understanding the defects of his word.
And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood
by him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the
tent door, and bowed himself towards the ground, etc. (Genesis
xviii., 2).—This story of Abraham' feeding God with veal and
bread (mustard, peper, salt and other condiments not men
tioned) is a puzzle to the orthodox. They believe their God
�78
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
to be almighty, and yet cannot understand how he could
make himself so very small; nor do they quite understand
how he managed to eat and digest Abraham's calf. It is a
bit puzzling, even to me, though I have the gift of the Holy
Ghost to guide me into all truth. However, let us hope
God’s teeth were sound, that his liver was in good order;
though I fear me, that badly-cooked veal sadly disagreed with
him, for immediately after his hasty dinner he went and
destroyed bodom and Gomorrah with fire ! No man could do
that—no god could—whose digestion was good. Good diges
tion when it waits on appetite, brings us into harmony with
all around, and we almost love our enemies—at least those
that are too weak to be able to harm us. If God had enjoyed
his dinner and readily digested it, Sodom and Gomorrah would
not have been so ruthlessly destroyed.
Modal.—When you invite God Almighty to dine with you,,
be sure to get good meat, well killed, well cooked, and well'
served; for if he does not digest it well and readily, he may,
under the influence of the internal burden and torment, go
and burn up a few more cities. Better never invite him than
produce such frightful results.
My own view of the story is this, that three young fellows,
good looking and well dressed, who knew that poor old
Abraham was near-sighted and immensely credulous, played
pranks with him, one of them pretending to be God the
father, and the other two the son and the Holy Ghost.
When they appeared before him and audaciously began to
play their role, Abraham, too conceited to doubt if God would
visit him, too delighted at the honor to be at all suspicious,
assisted the young fellows to gammon him. They found
the old man dying for an heir, and promised him one, at
which Sarah laughed till her aged sides shook again. (It was
the custom with saints in those days to laugh at God;
familiarity bred contempt. For fear of like treatment from
saints, he never appears now-a-days.) Those young fellows
by bribes and flattery, enlisted Sarah in the plot and instructed
her in the part she was to play. At the time appointed they
secretly sent a new-born babe, which Sarah, to content the
poor old man, told him was her own. Thus the divine pro
mise of Isaac was fulfilled; thus prophets and apostles were
sold : and thus the Jewish and the Christian communities
became the victims of a practical joke, and the world’s laugh
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
70
ing-stock unto this day! This view of the case makes every
thing plain ; the orthodox opinion leads only to a cluster of
absurdities.
The story of Sodom reflects little credit upon any of the
parties concerned in it. The Sodomites were bad enough;
Lot was worse ; and God worst of all. To commit wholesale
and indiscriminate murdei' is certainly the worst of crimes.
And stories of brutal punishment only brutalise those who
read and approve them. When I believed the Bible I was
barbarian enough to approve of capital punishment and even
hell torments; in growing out of superstition I grew more
humane.
But his ivife looked back from behind him, and she became a
pillar of salt (Gen. xix., 26).—Some people, alas! treat this
story as a myth. “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” But
if anybody doubts the transformation of Lot’s wife, let him
read some Classical Dictionary or Ovid’s Metamorphoses.
There he will find Daphne was turned into a laurel and Io
into a heifer; Actaeon was turned to a stag, and tom to pieces
by his own dogs; and Atlas was transformed, not into a
paltry pillar of salt, but into a mountain. If the Bible had
only said that this unfortunate lady had been turned into
mount Lebanon, of course all the world would have aagarded
the story as of divine origin; but, a pillar of salt! W hat
God would work a whole miracle for such a trifle ?
And# came to pass that God did tempt Abraham (Gen. xxii.,
1),__ This is fully confirmed by James, who assures us that
God tempteth no man (James i., 13). “Lead us not into
temptation” is a very appropriate prayer for Christians. Had
Abraham known the character of his God he might have used
the prayer and so have escaped the temptation. Can anyone
distinguish this temptation from a practical joke played by
one man upon another on April 1? I cannot—except it be
that here the fun is entirely absent, though that redeeming
feature is sometimes quite evident in a joke perpetrated by
man.
I believe, however, that this transaction really did
occur on April 1, a time when deity considered himself at
liberty to unbend, to resolve the monarch into the clown. So
he sent Abraham to Moriah to murder his son; and when
there, and about to do it, he cried, “ Stop! it is a ram you
have to kill, not Isaac!” Thereupon his courts rang with the
laughter of his flatterers, while Abraham felt himself deceived.
�80
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
And Abraham gave up the ghost (Genesis xxv., 8).—He had
lived 175 years, so the Bible says, and all the good recorded
of him might have been easily performed in 175 minutes.
There is nothing said about immortality in connexion with
the old patriarchs. Indeed, there can be no doubt the writer
made them live so long because he never expected, sensible
man that he was, that they would ever live a second time.
Had he expected his heroes to live again, he never would have
stretched them so long “upon the rack of this rude world.”
And Isaac loved Esau because he did eat his venison; but
Rebekah loved Jacob (Genesis xxv., 28).—“All scripture is
profitable,” says an apostle—chiefly, I should say, in teaching
you how you ought not to act. This family was a saintly
one. The husband and wife, equally pious, are at sixes and
sevens; the old father prefers one son before the other for
the sake of his venison, which he was ’too old to catch for him
self ; and his wife loved the other son only, it appears, because
his father made a favorite of his brother. Between the brothers
the most deadly hatred existed. Esau was a “'muff;” Jacob
was a swindler, a coward, a cheat—a very picture of his God.
and his special favorite. He robbed his brother of his birth
right, though nobody can exactly define how much or little
that meant. Jacob, of course,'was too clever a swindler to
plot and scheme for a trifle ; and no doubt he got at least a
million per cent, for his “mess of pottage,” bread Sind lentils
(verse 34).
The twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis may be skipped at a
bound, for it is false from end to end, a mere repetition of the
story .of Abraham’s sojourn in Gerar.
(To fee conclutZecJ in No. 6).
Printed and Published by Bamsey and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
¥o. 4.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
[id.
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
In verse 14, Cain is made to complain that he is driven
from the face of the Lord! Where did he wander ? And
from, thy face, says he, I shall be hid! And the Lord does
not correct him, therefore he must, I suppose, have been
right. The Lord was confined to some spot in those days ;
to-day he is nowhere.
Cain also feared he should be murdered ; and the Lord set
a mark upon him to prevent that, and threatened seven-fold
vengeance on whoever should slay him! This is curious.
The writer of this was evidently an Arab, a son of the desert,
where the kinsmen of a murdered man were bound to slay the
murderer. He has, in this romantic tale, supposed that this
method of punishing murcer was in vogue in the first family.
If the Holy Ghost inspired this, he too fell into the same inno
cent blunder.
But of whom was Cain afraid ? This question had better
not be pressed, if you wish to believe that Adam and Eve
were the first of living men and women. The story of Cain
implies that the earth was pretty well stocked with people ;
and that shows how fabulous is the tale of Adam and Eve.
The fact is, we are here dealing with nursery tales, which the
orthodox blasphemously ascribe to the inspiration of an
almighty and all-wise God. And the tales are so miserably
edited or compiled that all the learning of 1600 years has
been expended upon them in vain—they are as confused and
irrational as ever.
It may not be amiss to put the question here : How could
the murderer of Cain be punished seven-fold?
Was it
intended to kill him seven times over, or what ? Besides,
�52
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him at his heart (vi., 6).—The Lord is unchangeable ;
here is one of the scripture proofs. He is the first to repent;
the conclusion is that he must have been the first sinner. His
repentance, however, did not do much good to anybody.
Instead of laying the blame where it all honestly fell, upon
himself, he blamed his creatures for being just what he made
them.
So God resolved to commit indiscriminate murder
because his creatures did not please him—a grand example
for all kings, rulers, parents, slaveholders and cattle-owners
for all time ! Any civilised deity would have made a distinction
between the good and the bad, and punished only the latter.
Any rational ruler, god or otherwise, would never have per
mitted his kingdom to become corrupt. In this case “ all
flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth —from man down
to the microscopic monad; there were only a handful of
saints left—viz., Noah and his family, and such other sacred
things as they had about their dwellings and persons.
Those shall be saved in the ark, along with others yet to be
named.
So Noah, being warned in time, set to building his ark. By
the way, they have just found the timbers, half-buried in the
snow, on Mount Ararat. No doubt they will discover the
stalls and cabinets, all labelled and numbered, in which Noah
kept the menagerie during the flood. Pity we can t bring
mountain and all to Great Britain; then sceptics must become
saints in no time at all.
The dimensions of the ark were as follows :—300 cubits
iong, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Altogether the area
was 15,000 square cubits, and the solid content 450,000
cubical cubits. A cubit originally was the length of the fore
arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, and it
varied at different times and places. The Jewish cubit was
sometimes 18 inches, at others 21.
Suppose we take the
larger value. Then the ark measured 525ft. long. 87tt. bin.
wide and 52ft. 6in. high. This ship was the largest ever built—
except the “ Great Eastern.” Of course Noah found no difficulty
in its construction. He merely had to get the wood, cut it into
shape, fasten it together in the desired fashion, pitch it within
and without, and lo ! it was prepared for the storm. Anyone
who questions the patriarch’s ability in so trifling a patter
had better lay down this book never to read it again. Of ail
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS
53
people in the world, sceptics and unbelievers are my dread.
You believe in the “Great Eastern,” why not believe in the
ark ? Must we bring its remains from Mount Ararat to con
vince you ? Must we resurrect Noah and his family, and
repeat the experiment of the flood to excite your faith ?
Into this ark Noah was ordered to collect two and two of all
animals in the world (vi., 19, 20). Some priest or Levite added
to the story later, and gave Noah orders to take clean animals
by sevens (vii., 2). “ If you have faith prepare to use it now !”
To build the ark would have been no trifle to a man not
inspired; but to collect pairs of all the animals in the world !
and no natural history book, no collection of specimens to
guide him ! Ah, Noah! much better had it been for thee
hadst thou but died prematurely at the age of 599 years,
instead of lingering on to 600 and having a task like this
imposed upon thee ! Prythee, good Patriarch, how many fly
catchers, bird-catchers, hunters, microscopists, animal tamers,
and others didst thou employ ? And how long did they take
to finish their work? And how didst thou knew when all
the animals were in ? Art sure that no species was omitted ?
How didst thou feed them when in ? Art perfectly sure the
pail’s were all rightly adjusted ? Art perfectly sure, good
Noah that, thou wast sober when thou toldest this tale of the
flood ? Couldst thou do the like again, thinkest thou ? For
my part, let me be set to drain the ocean with a sieve, rather
than have thy task to do!
There are said to be 400,000 different species of insects
now in the museums of civilised nations ; those have been
collected and classified by the labor of over a century, by
people who know their way about the world, and who have
means of transit such as modem times only can boast of.
They are not impeded by forests and marshes and the total
want of roads, as man must have been in the days of Noah.
There can harly be more species now than in ancient times, if
orthodoxy and not Darwinism be true, though there may be
fewer. And into the ark, if the story is true, all insects must
have found their way, except such as spend their whole time
in water.
A few details will now be given which will doubtless tend
to raise admiration for the divine wisdom and goodness,
and to show how totally God’s ways and thoughts differ from
ours.
�54
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt
thou bring into the ark (Gen. vi., 19).—My readers! I am
puzzled and bewildered, for I do not see how Noah did what
he was commanded. Some blasphemous parsons will tell
you that the flood was not universal; but such men are
“ clouds without water, cariied about of winds ; trees whose
fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the
roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame;
wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of dark
ness for ever,” because they contradict the Bible, which says
plainly that the flood should “ destroy all flesh from under
heaven ; and everything that is in the earth shall die ” (Gen. vi.,
17); “ and every living substance that I have made will I destroy
from off the face of the earth ” (vii., 4). Read the whole of
the seventh chapter, and you will find it stated that this
threat was executed to the letter—no living thing remaining
except those in the ark! By-the-bye, it seems rather unfair
that all land animals should have been drowned, while those in
the sea were not hurt, as verse 22 implies. Perhaps the “ finny
monsters of the deep ” had not sinned, though, and corrupted
their way. That is an interesting point for orthodox com
mentators to clear up. They have the holy ghost to guide
them into all truth ; he never assists me.
Noah took into the ark two and two of all flesh, and suit
able food for them all; a stock of provisions for a year or
more.
(1) Butterflies.—For the cabbage butterflies (Pieridi) he
must have planted a kitchen-garden in the ark ; nettles would
be needed for the vanessoe ; the white admiral lives on honey
suckles when a caterpillar; the poplar butterfly must have
horse-droppings ; the purple emperor would require an oak
tree or a gooseberry bush ; the satyridi live upon grasses,
elms and hawthorns.
Noah must have embarked a whole
country for butterflies alone. I have mentioned only a few.
(2) Moths would be equally difficult to manage. The bee
shaped sesia lays its eggs on the bark of poplars, and the
catterpillars eat into the tree. They remain catterpillars for
two years, by the way ; others must have flowers, the honey
of which they sip while on the wing ; another moth needs the
euphorbia to feed upon; others, oleanders, though fuchsias
are not refused on occasion ; the squeaking death’s-head moth
needs the potatoe plant or the jasmine, though it does not
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
55
object to a hive of honey ; to satisfy another moth, Noah
must have brought in a Banksia bush from Australia; the
lasiocampa is said to live on heather ; the lockey moth is fond
of apple-tree leaves ; the goat moth needs old trunks of elms
or willows to excavate into galleries ; the catterpillars of the
acronycta are fond of the mosses and lichens which grow on
trees, walls, etc. ; one kind of tortridna feeds on green peas
in the pods ; another gets into apples and pears; another
into plums; others into acorns and beech-nuts, chestnuts,
etc.; some of the tineidce moths are the pests that destroy
garments.
(3) Among hymenopterci. some of the saw-flies want rosetrees for their eggs, etc. ; others turnips ; others firs and
pines ; the gall-flies (Cynipsidas) need trees to puncture in
order that galls may grow and protect their eggs and larv®.
Ants are among the most interesting beings in the world.
It would probably be of little or no use to take two of them
into the ark. You need at least three to carry on the affairs
of an ant-nest. The male and female of the common ants have
wings, the workers none. The latter do all the work, con
struct the nest and keep it in repair, take special care of the
eggs, removing them from spot to spot to keep them at the
right temperature, rip them open to let the larvae out at the
right time, and nurse the young ones till able to do for them
selves. Two of them could not construct a nest. Moses and
the Holy Ghost did not know that. The mason ants and the
miner ants would be as helpless in pairs as the little red ones.
The formica fuliginosa lives in old trunks of trees, which
it tunnels in a most marvellous manner. Others get into the
beams of houses and hollow them out. What Noah would
have done with a few of those in his ark it is easy to imagine:
he and his whole menagerie would have gone to the bottom,
for they would have riddled his ship for him till it was no
stronger than a bandbox.
The polyergus rufens is a warrior ant. They are only males
and females and do no work. They make war upon the nests
of the black ants, steal their larvae, and carry them off to their
nests, where the prisoners are reared as slaves and compelled
to work for their masters. Certain American ants, also, are
said to follow this trade.
Noah might have been at his wit’s end with the Driver
ants of West Africa. They range about in large armies
�56
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
having, like the ancient saints, no certain dwelling place.
They march by night. The army is divided into three groups,
soldiers to attack and disable the prey, assistants to divide the
prey into portable portions, and the laborers.
They are
terrible things, and few animals can resist them. They have
been known to kill the python, the largest serpent in the
country.
When they enter a dwelling, rats, mice, lizards, and
cockroaches get out as fast as possible. They visit all dirty
houses and towns where scavengering is needed. A few of
those would have emptied the ark in a short timn.
The excavating insects would have given Noah no little
trouble. When adult they are strict vegetarians, and yet
they have to provide for flesh-eating offspring. There are
four species of them, which differ somewhat amongst them
selves. The mother digs a hole in the earth, a tree, or wall.
Having prepared the nest, she attacks caterpillars, spiders,
etc.. These she stings, so as to disable and paralyse, but not
to kill. The prey is placed in the nest and the eggs deposited.
The young larvae find ready for them living food as soon as
they are ready to eat it, and the victim, though stung and
half eaten, still lives till his enemy has had enough of bim.
Such is one of the ways of divine providence, though the
writer of Genesis did not know of it. The scolia goes to even
less trouble, for it finds a larva of a beetle in the ground, digs
down to it, stings it so as to render it helpless and torpid
without killing it; and then deposits its eggs under the skin of
its victim, which is by and by devoured by the young scolia.
How did Noah manage for all these ? Neither he nor his
God knew anything of these matters.
If they had they
would never have undertaken to save the twos and twos of all
flesh!
Need I mention the fact that bees also could not have been
preserved without more than a pair of each species ? I must
pass over beetles, spiders, and other insects, and merely men
tion the fact that most insects have parasites, as well as many
larger animals. Besides, why were some of them preserved at
all ? Fleas and bugs, the itch-insect, mosquitoes, pediculi
capitis, locusts, ticks, phylloxera, the tsetses, etc. ? And why
were the tapeworm and the trichina preserved ? Trichina
usually enters the human system in underdone pork ; I pre
sume it entered the ark in Ham.
�JUMPING- COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
57
More than half of the insects taken into the ark might well
have been excluded, and many of them would have been if
there had been an enlightened superintendent appointed to
oversee the embarkation. As it was, they were all taken in,
and Noah must have provided them with sufficient food for a
whole year and more. Those who know anything of natural
history can well enough perceive that he must have carried
in a slice of every country in the world, and must have had
some means of reproducing all the world’s various climates to
keep his freight alive and well. This must have been a heavy
task, for we must remember that during the whole year the
ark was floating five miles above the old sea-level, for the
flood was more than five miles deep, as we shall see later on ;
and though the rigors of this arctic temperature may have
been slightly modified by the general rise of what then was
the earth’s surface, yet the cold must have been intense ; and
the wonder is that the whole concern did not get crushed
amongst the myriads of icebergs which must have abounded.
Of course, nothing is too hard for the Lord—except to do a
sensible thing.
If Noah felt difficulty with the insects, what must he have
felt respecting the largest of the beasts ? There were giants
on the earth in those days, and giantesses too, and they had
to be got into the ark some way or other. Horses, cows,
camels and elephants were not easily disposed of. Some of
the giant birds might have exercised his skill—the moa, for
example, or other extinct monsters. Besides, the celebrated
phoenix—in whom the fathers believed as devoutly as they
did in the holy pigeon, alias Holy Ghost—could have
been embarked only as a unit, for a pair of them never
existed.
The dinotherium is estimated to have been eighteen feet
long. He was probably fond of marshy ground, or may
have spent his time much in the way the hippopotamus
does.
A pair of these, standing end to end, would reach
thirty-six feet—about half-way across the ark. Themselves
and their food and accommodation would require no trifling
portion of the space available for the whole menagerie.
Perhaps, however, like Milton’s devils in Pandemonium, the
animals in those days were not so rigid and exacting as now,
and may have accommodated themselves to the space allotted
them—
�58
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
“ . . . the signal given,
Behold a wonder! they but now who seemed
In bigness to surpa-s earth’s giant sons,
Now less than smallest dwarfs, in narrow room,
Throng numberless like that Pygmean race
Bejonu the Indian mount.”
There is, at any rate, nothing in the world so handy as a
miracle to help one out of a fix ; and as Noah must have sorely
needed a few of those accommodating events, of course piety
suggests that we suppose them, though we cannot prove them.
Anything is better than common sense in expounding the
Bible. No truly devout man ever tries that as a key to unlock
its secrets and mysteries. God forbid !
The megatherium was an animal from 12 to 18 feet long,
8 or 9 feet high, and 5 to 6 feet wide behind. His tail, stout
and strong in proportion as a kangaroo’s, was six feet long,
and his foot about a yard from heel to toe. It is supposed
that he lived upon roots which he dug out of ground, or else
upon twigs of trees. I should like to know how Noah found
him employment for claws and jaws during the voyage. It
would have been nothing to him to have scratched a few holes
through the bottom of the ark.
The mylodon (11 feet long) and the glyptodon (9 feet long)
must also have been preserved. The mammoth, which makes
the elephant look like a good-sized calf in comparison, must
have taken a large space ; and he did not live upon nothing.
A pair of these must have devoured many tons of vegetables
during the year.
How did the patriarch manage the megalosaurus, a land
lizard about 40 feet long, which very likely fed upon such
smaller lizards as crocodiles ?
Authorities differ as to the length of the iguanodon. Mantell
thought it must have been 70 feet long ; Professor Owen
brings it down to 30 feet. But its thigh-bone is 4 feet 8
inches long. Fancy four of those tremendous lizards (mega
losaurus and iguanodon), beasts 15 to 20 feet high, and more
than double that length, and broad in proportion—fancy
them, I say, having a fight in the ark, or running about to
catch such prey as crocodiles and alligators—scores of tons of
flesh and bones bouncing about on the floor of Noah’s box 1
And how would elephants, tigers, lions, behave when such a
row was forward ?
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
.59
It is all very well, of course, for divines to assume that the
giants above named were extinct before Noah’s day. They
may say so if they will; but what extinguished them ? I
will give my own inspired opinion ; and whoever shall receive
it shall save his soul alive. My own view is this : That when
Noah undertook to get pairs of all the animals into his ark he
assumed obligations he never contemplated. When he blew
his whistle as a signal for them all to appear, away they came,
each pair bringing a full year’s provisions with them—the
elephants had theirs packed in then’ trunks, of course, and
the kangaroos came with their pouches full ; the rest brought
their stock upon then’ backs. But when Noah saw the number
of animals approaching, the hundreds—where he had bargained,
as he thought, for twos—when he beheld the enormous sizes
of those above named he cried out: “ 0 Lord, thou hast
deceived me, and I was deceived (Jeremiah xx., 7). I will
back out of the bargain. It would take fifty arks to stow
away all this rabble ; and who, I should like to know, would
risk his life in a box for a year—for ten minutes even—with
all these ferocious beasts ?” And it came to pass that the
Lord answered and said unto Noah : “ I also am greatly
amazed at the multitude of living things and at the greatness
of them. Go to, therefore, shut the giants out and let them
drown, for it repenteth me that I made mammoth, and
megalonyx, and mastodon, and megalosaurus, and iguanodon
upon the earth. Lo, I will even put my hook in their nose
and my bridle in their jaws if I can, and lead them back by
the way they came, and thou shalt see them no more for ever.”
So Noah was comforted. Is it not written in the book of
Jasher and in the visions of Iddo the seer ?
And thus those enormous animals became extinct, and their
carcases were buried in the strata of the earth as a warning
to all beasts, lest they also should eat and drink and grow
too large, and thus provoke the Lord to cut them off from
the face of the ground. “ He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear.”
I have no wish, my reader, like commentators in general,
to bore you with further remarks tending to expose the abso
lute absurdity of the flood; though the subject might be
pursued to a very great length, and every step would only
tend to show how totally false or mythological is the narrative.
Even Christians themselves are beginning to throw ridicule upon
�60
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
it. Just recently they have spread reports of the finding of the
ark on Ararat; and one American journal has discovered that it
was insured in a New York office as a vessel to convey pas
sengers and animals, owned by Noah and Sons. Whether
the menagerie was insured has not yet been ascertained.
When sacred subjects such as this can be so treated in
common newspapers, honest men may rejoice to think that
malice and stupidity will not much longer send men to gaol
for doing what their Christian neighbors do,—viz., ridiculing
the holy and ever-blessed revelation God gave to the world to
enlighten and save mankind.
Pray don’t forget that the flood was universal; the earth
was encased in a shell of water, like an orange With its rind,
like the fruit with paste in an apple-dumpling. This shell of
water covered all the mountains, and they are over five miles
in perpendicular height.
We will now inquire into the quantity of water required to
drown the world, and speculate a little on the wisdom of so
expensive and clumsy a method of gratifying vengeance.
The earth is a globe (nearly so) 25,000 miles in circum
ference ; and the area of its whole surface equals about
200,000,000 square miles. Its highest mountains rise more
than 5 miles above the level of the sea ; the flood rose about
26 feet above the top of the highest of them. Therefore, the
earth must have been encased in a shell of extra water about
5-|- to 6 miles deep, the highest peak in the world being over
28,000 feet high. This equals an ocean 25,000 miles long,
by 8,000 wide, and 5^ to 6 miles deep, measuring down to
the ordinary sea-level. The solid content of this new and
universal ocean could not be less than about 1,000,000,000
cubic miles of water, or about l-80th of the solid contents of
the whole earth as it now is. If this water could be formed
into a river 1 mile wide and 10 yards in depth, it would stretch
out to the enormous length of 176,000,000,000 miles, almost
2,000 times the distance from the earth to the sun ! If the
water of that river flowed by at 7 miles per hour, it would
take 2,878,188 years to run away !
Whence did all this water come ? From heaven, and down
through its windows ? It must have been very many millions
of years on the road. And when it is remembered that the
earth is totally invisible from heaven, we must conclude that
he who fired or squirted all that water from his syringe must
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
61
have been a most excellent marksman indeed, not to have hit
the sun instead of so tiny a mark as the earth, and so abso
lutely invisible as it must have been. We cannot, I am sorry
to confess, sufficiently admire the goodness and wisdom of
God in this transaction, especially when we consider that he
must have shot the water from his syringe many millions of
years before either earth or sun was created!
Now this
shows divine skill in its most transcendant phase. Imagine,
my reader, a marksman who could fire his rifle, and while the
shot was flying could go and create the target and then
coolly wait for the flying bullet to hit the bull’s-eye!
Jehovah, the war-God, was the very best marksman evei’ yet
known. How carefully he calculated the time and the posi
tion of the moving target! Remember, this earth is flying
through space at the rate of about 65,000 miles an hour!
How clever of him to hit the mark under such conditions !
Then, how kind of him to arrange for drowning the world so
many millions of years before it was created!
What an
exhibition of foresight and providence !
Who would not
worship thee, 0 Jehovah! after this display of thy goodness
and wisdom?
What became of the water aftei’ it had done all the drown
ing, I am not able to say. Nor can I explain how it was that
so large a mass of water, falling from heaven with a velocity
some hundreds of times greater than a cannon ball has, did
not bear the earth before it as a falling drop of rain does an
invisible grain of dust. These are mysteries we had better
leave alone. Divine wisdom has thrown a veil over them.
Who shall dare to lift it now ?
There are many other incidents connected with the flood
that prudence bids us not to meddle with, if we would retain
our faith. Therefore, let them remain buried in the divine
oblivion which shrouds them.
When Noah escaped from his box he murdered one or more
of all the clean beasts and fowls he had with him, and burnt
them for Jehovah’s dinner. The Lord had kept Lent for over
a year, poor fellow ; and never had been so delighted in all his
days as he was with this sacrifice. He smelled but does not
seemed to have eaten it.
So delighted was he, that he
promised never to drown the world again. Perhaps he feared
he might lose all the animals in another flood, and so get no more
smoke of burning flesh as long as he lived. How extremely
�62
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
condescending, my friend, it was of the infinite God, who fills
all space, to stoop so low as to bring his nose near enough to
sniff up the reek of Noah’s sacrifice ! One might have thought
that he would have been above such conduct. But no ; the
Bible reveals God as having nothing better to do just then
than to enjoy himself smelling the burning animals. Of
course he has been wonderfully civilised since. The bishops
have taken him to task over a good many things, and you
wouldn’t know it was the same god now, so great a transfor
mation has there been in him. Indeed, the incident of Noah’s
sacrifice is now never mentioned in his presence. The slightest
allusion to it would produce an earthquake.
And surely your blood of your lives will 1 require; at the
hand of every beast, will I require it. and at the hand of every
man . . . whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood
be shed (Gen. ix., >5-6).—The Bible has been translated into
many languages, but not into all. Why are the poor beasts
forgotten ? They shed men’s blood, some of them ; and God
will require it at their hands. To this clay the beasts have
never been warned. How shocking ! Lions and tigers, mad
bulls and wolves have shed many a man’s blood because they
did not know the risk they ran. Why does not some pious
divine go and tell them that they will be damned if they shed
human gore ? Alas! to think of the many serpents and
ravenous beasts that might be tamed and converted by this
Bible text if they only knew it! And how hard-hearted are
the worshippers of God, that they don’t go and tell them.
Put up this text in all places where men and beasts meet, in
the languages of all the animal species of a dangerous nature ;
let them know the real price of human blood ; and neither
beast of prey, nor flea, nor bug will ever shed another drop as
long as the world shall last.
The latter part of the text is the stronghold of the public
executioner. But for the Bible the death-penalty would pro
bably disappear. In obedience to divine commands men have
burnt witches and heretics, and still hang murderers to glut
their taste for vengeance. What good is done to anybody by
hanging a man ? Does it restore his victim to life ? Does it
deter from crime ? Not at all. It is the result'of superstition,
and merely multiplies murder.
Behold I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed
after you ; and with every living creature that is with you, ofthe
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
63
fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you (Gen.
ix., 9-10).—Here Jehovah enters into a covenant with Noah
and all the beasts of the earth, pledging himself never to
drown the whole earth again for the term of his natural life.
What better evidence could we have that the writer was
demented ? The flood seems to have affected what little
brain he had ; and so he invents a treaty between the animals
and the extraordinary deity who first makes, then destroys,
and then makes a covenant with the animals ! I wonder if
he took them in the lump or canvassed them one by one !
And what could the animals think of him ? He who had
gone to such pains to destroy their fathers, mothers, brothers,
sisters and playfellows—with what delight they must have
welcomed his advances ! How readily they must have fallen
in with his proposals ! No prudent animal or man could
enter into covenant with such a God as Jehovah, so soon, too,
after his general massacre. They may not have uttered all
they felt when he was canvassing them ; but we can realise
it all notwithstanding their silence. Enter into covenant with
the universal destroyer ! The Bible writers had no conception
of a joke—unless the whole .book is to be regarded as a grim
and ghastly jest at the expense of the Jewish-Ohristian religion.
Certainly, whether the writer meant it or not, few jokes ever
equalled this story of the covenant; and the few stories that
do rival it are found in the Bible.
He would not drown the whole world again, so he would
not! How kind of him ! Does he think we can’t see through
it ? The fact is, all the water was gone, and he had no means
of drowning the world any more. At least, it would take
him several millions of years to do it, and he was not pre
pared to undertake the task a second time. So he made a
virtue of necessity ; pretended to Noah and the beasts that
he could if he would drown the world just as often as he
pleased, but he would not do so because the smoke of the
sacrifice had so delighted him.
And then he proceeds to indicate the sign, token, or proof
of the covenant. No deed was drawn up; neither God nor
Noah could write their names; they and the rest of the animals
could only make their marks. The rainbow, therefore, is
made the sign, the signature of the covenant; but only one
of the parties signifies adhesion to it—viz., God. And his
signature turns out to be a sham. The rainbow is as old as
�€4
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
rain and sunshine in unison. Ever since rain fell and sunbeams
flashed upon the falling drops, there the rainbow has lighted
up and beautified the scene. It not only skirts the rain-cloud;
it dances (or its sisters do) upon the spray of fountains and of
dashing breakers. And how could Noah be so hoodwinked ?
He had lived 600 years and more : could you persuade him
that he had never seen a rainbow before the flood ? Well,
the bow had been no guarantee" that God would behave
himself before the flood, and how could it be after ( For
well nigh 600 years he had seen the bow crossing the cloud
when he happened to be between the sun and the shower ;
and yet in his 601st year there was the universal deluge!
How, then, was it possible for Noah, or his sons, or his
daughters, or his wife, or his cattle, or anything that was
with him in the ark, to put any dependence on this covenant,
ratified by a well-known natural pheenomenon as old as the
nature which produced it ? Who would take the rainbow as
a receipt to a bill ?
And I will remember my covenant (Gen. ix„ 15).—Yes, God
will remember! He will look upon the bow to refresh his
memory, as he adds in the following verse. He who remembers
and refreshes his memory with a sign, may and does forget.
Other texts of scripture show this beyond doubt. “ Forget
not the humble ” (Psalm x., 12)—the very parties most likely
to be forgotten. “ How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord ?”
(Psalm xiii., 1). “Forget not the congregation of thy poor
for ever ” (Psalm lxxiv,, 19). “ Forget not the voice of thine
enemies ” (lxxiv., 23). Manifestly the Bible maligns God, or
he is liable to forget. I prefer the latter alternative. Of
course he can’t remember everything—the strongest-minded
man needs to keep a diary, how much more a God !
(To be conbimraed in No. 5).
Printed arid Published by Ramsey and Eoote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
No. 8.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
[W
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
_________ .
__
. .. Mi
HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED.
Thebe once lived many ages ago a fairy king, named Mihole.
He dwelt in a far-away land, and was ruler over a very large
kingdom. Mihole was skilled in magic, and could work the
most astonishing wonders ; out of nothing he made worlds,
and living beings like men and women out of clay. But this
great king was wayward, cruel, jealous, headstrong; and de
lighted in nothing so much as shedding blood and inflicting
misery. So cruel was he that he even exerted his magic to
create living things for the sole purpose of tormenting them.
At one time he made a world of pretty large size, just like
the earth. Then he made all sorts of plants and animals grow
in it : and even made a pair in his own likeness, who could
talk and reason like men. This pair he put into a palace
where there was a room locked, which they were commanded
not to open on pain of death. He then gave them the key
and departed.
On leaving he chuckled with glee at the
thought that they would disobey him, as he knew perfectly
well they would. To be sure, they were mere babies, without
experience to guide them.
Now Mihole, in order to make sure that Madab and Biba (for
those were the names of the unfortunate pair) should unlock
the fatal door, sent a sort of monkey, named Jocko, to them,
who amused them exceedingly by his antics. This monkey
could talk, and was a clever, gay, sprightly fellow, of endless
fun and frolic. He was at once a favorite with Madab and
Biba, and they could not bear him to be out of their com
pany. One day Jocko snatched away the key from Madab
and began to examine it with pretended surprise ; and after a
time he fitted it into the lock of the room they were forbidden
to enter. Both Madab and Biba ran to him in alarm and
tried to persuade and coax him not to open the door, telling
•
�34
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
him that Mihole would kill them if they did. At this Jocko
laughed till the Palace rung again, saying, “Are you such
babies as to believe that Mihole was in earnest when he bade
you not to enter this room. Booh! He was only joking.
Come on ; we will see what is inside.”
He opened the door and entered, Madab aud Biba reluc
tantly and timidly following. When they were in they were
delighted beyond measure. Here were all things rich and
rare that Fairyland could ever produce, in the greatest pro
fusion too. In this room the three friends enjoyed themselves
the whole afternoon, and paid no heed to the waning of the
day. Before thev knew how late it was, they heard a loud
fierce voice, shouting. “ Madab! where the ------ are you ?
Here, I have been running all over the Palace looking for you
the last half-hour. What! ” he continned, seeing the door
of his secret room open, “ What! have you broken into my
treasury ? You shall pay for this, I promise you! ”
Madab and Biba, in dire confusion, and blank with terror,
excused themselves by throwing the blame upon poor Jocko.
And Mihole at once made a great dark pit full of fire and
brimstone, and there he shut up Jocko for ever. He would
have died, of course, from the fire and the stifling vapors,
but the cruel king magically kept him alive for the purpose
of inflicting pain and misery upon him. When he had dis
posed of Jocko, he turned to Madab and Biba, and told them
they would have to die. But here, too, he tortured before
killing.
You shall die,” said he, “ but not just yet. You
shall live and people this world with your miserable brood,
who shall suffer want, cold, hunger, cancers, coughs, rheu
matics, and a thousand horrible tortures. They shall die of
famine, flood, pestilence, earthquake, war, murder: and after
they have died once they shall live again, and be cast with
Jocko into the unquenchable fire, where they shall gnash
their teeth and yell with anguish and despair for ever and
ever.” Then he drove them out of the Palace to the open
field, fastened the door, put the key in his pocket, and went
away in a mighty rage.
All the evils he had threatened to Madab and Biba, and
their poor children, came trooping one after another, or alto
gether at times, so that their life was dreadfully bitter ; and
they cursed the day that Mihole had made them, as well they
might; for he meant them nothing but mischief from the first,
�HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED.
35
and had even planned and incited their disobedience for the
sake of gratifying his own malignity in seeing them and their
children suffer every variety of torture.
Now fairies are not like men and women, for they live for
millions of years. Madab and Biba, after their disgrace, lived
on to old age, and then died, leaving their country to their
children, and they to theirs for thousands of years. In the
meantime poor Jocko was burning in his hell, with now and
then a holiday granted him by Mihole, who let him out for
nothing in the world but sheer mischief ; so that he might
have an excuse for punishing him yet more, and also have
the gratification of seeing multitudes of the children of Madab
and Biba enticed into his own lake of fire. Indeed the
wickedness of Mihole knew no bounds, and the older he
became the more and more malignant he grew, as the following
will show.
He had an only begotten son, whose mother was unknown
even to his best friends. There was a mystery about this
son ; though, being the only one, he was made much of. Now
a grand and awful scheme entered into the head of Mihole.
He bethought himself thus :—“ Those beings I made, Madab
and Biba, have deeply offended me, and I will never forgive
them. Of course, I planned it all; but I shall not forego the
gratification of punishing them on that account. I can do
what I will with my own. Still, I will not send the whole
race of their children into that fire; I will select a few and
bring them to my Palace to live with me. They will make
good sport fox’ me no doubt; and the craven-spirited wretches
will sing my praises and honor me, though they are well
aware that I am roasting their own flesh and blood in the
lake of fire. Yes! I will do it. But I must have satisfaction.
I am not going to save them from the fire for nothing. I
must and will have some equivalent. If I forego the pleasure
of damning them, I must and will have an equivalent of
pleasure in • another way.
“Now this is what I will do. I will take my only son
Jessah, and will transform him by magic into one of the de
scendants of Madab and Biba; and then I will get him
crucified ; and on the cross he shall suffer the most excrucia
ting tortures that even a fairy can endure. Bah !—never
mind the pain. I shall not feel it. I shall glory in it. And
t
�ss
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
thus I will redeem to myself a few of the doomed race. This
is my will, and it shall be, it must be done.”
“ Jessah ! ” shouted he to his son. His son came and paid
him his respects.
“ My son, you know I love you tenderly, do you not ? ’ said
Mihole.
“ Yes, sire,” replied the son, with no great enthusiasm.
“ Well, my boy, I have some work for you to do. You
remember how Madab and Biba disobeyed me about 4,000
years ago, and how I have had no good will towards the race
of them from that time till now. You know how I have
punished them, and how I have merely made a favourite now
and again of one or other of them whose crimes or stupidity
served to amuse me. Now I intend to save a few of them
from entering that fiery pit below there, and bring them
hither to live in this palace. But I must have an equivalent
»f suffering in another direction for the pain I am going to
remit to them. Do you understand me, my son ?”
l-1 believe I do, sire,” replied Jessah. •'•' And I am glad
you are going to show them mercy ; though I wish you would
forgive the whole race and Jocko, too, and not trouble about
any equivalent of pain.”
••Ah’, ah! Just like the child you are. You do not
understand business, my boy,” replied the old fairy. ••' Give
up a privilege without compensation ! No! No! I have
spent many a year of pleasure in hearing their groans, and
do you suppose I am going to forgive them and stop their
yelling ! I had rather give up all I have and die myself than
put out hell-fire or release a prisoner without compensation!
So no more on that point, my son ! No more !
Now listen to me. You go at once to the world where
the race of Madab live, and by a trick I will show you you
can transform yourself into a baby and be bom of one of the
the same race. I may tell you beforehand that I am going
to make you a sin-offering for that cursed race : and you willX
be crucified and die in awful agony to gratify mj fierce
wrath and justice. Then I will raise you up to life again,
you will return to the palace none the worse for your
journey, and be followed by a select number of the children
of Madab.”
Poor Jessah was wild with amazement, and begged and
prayed his cruel father to forego his design. But in vain.
�, HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED.
37
You will do as I bid you, boy,” said be, “ or—do you see
yonder lake of fire ?—I’ll hurl you into that and roast you
there as long as I live. Take your choice. It is all one io
me.”
So the son yielded to the mad father’s whim, and became
incarnate ; lived a miserable life; was crucified by enemies
instigated thereto by his awful father, who heaped upon hint
all the agony in his power while dying. Three days after
death he restored his son to life and took him home. And
there was an end of the farce. Mihole was no more satisfied
than before. He resolved next to send his son again to the
world of Madab to call all its inhabitants to judgment; then
to bum up the world with fire, and to shut up most of the
unfortunate race in Jocko’s hell for- ever. But the son, sick
and disgusted, fled from his father’s den for ever, to escape
the misery and humiliation of executing his father’s mad
schemes and infernal wishes.
******
‘■ Which things are an allegory.” My Fahy Tale is the
Christian Scheme of Redemption, stript of its pious trappings,
writ as it ought to be writ, and exhibited in its gory features •
and its diabolic qualities. I hope it may help to throw comtempt upon the pious tomfooleries of Christmas-tide, and
expose to ridicule the farce of the incarnation of the Son of
God.
�38
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
No matter, for my present purpose, who wrote the Biblenor how old it may be. My jumping, skipping comments
relate only to the contents of the book, and will be just what
the title indicates, for I shall jump from one text to another,
instead of wasting time in noticing the intervening passages.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.—
Genesis i., 1. Beginning of what ? Time? Time never had
a beginning. Of the world ? It could not have been made in
its beginning, for it existed exactly the same moment it began to
be. Then what does it mean ? The beginning of God’s work ?
\ If so, he must have been a lazy fellow to idle away in doing
nothing at all the inmeasurable time or eternity which pre
ceded the moment he began to work. And what made him
begin just then, I wonder ? Had he been all his life before
making up his mind whether to create or not ? . I think it is
a pity that it should have taken him so long and not a little
longer. Surely a god who could do without a plaything dur
ing his early life might have done without one for ever. The
world seems to be his shuttlecock, created for this own amuse
ment ; and his sport involves the misery and death of his
creatures. It is no credit to a god to have made a world like
this. It is not the work of a good god!
The heaven!—That is a purely fictitious place. The
firmament or heaven is only an optical illusion, the mere
boundary of vision, larger or smaller in proportion to the
power of the eyes of the world. Modern astronomy shows
beyond the possibility of doubt that the heaven, or heavens,
do not exist, and never did. So the Bible opens with a
blunder which shows that the writer, instead of being inspired
by a being who knew everything, drew his inspiration from his
own narrow experience, and egregiously blundered in the first
sentence he wrote.
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was
upon the face of the deep.—i., 2. More nonsense. The earth
always had a form, pretty much the one it has now, too. As
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
39
for the darkness on the face of the deep, we will comment
upon that when we know what deep is meant. Does any one
know ?
The spirit of god or of the gods—if it means anything, it is
the wind. That need not have been mentioned, surely.
Let there be light—i., 3. Did God say that ? In what
language ? To whom ? Why did he say it ? If he had his
tinder-box by him, he need not have said anything about it ;
for flint and steel work no better for being spoken to.
And God divided the light from the darkness—i., 4. I am
sure he never did, for light and darkness never were mingled.
Light is the positive state ; darkness the negative. Darkness
is but the absence of light. How absurd, to talk of dividing
light from darkness ! You need inspiration to commit folly
like that.
And God made the firmament or heaven—i., 7. Why, he
made that in the beginning, and here the next day he makes
it again ! Did the first not please him ? Did he pull it down
and build it up again the next day ? Poor architect! Oh !
I forgot, he had no one to guide him, had no experience in
world-building. Were he to try now with all the advantages
human science could give him, perhaps he would make a
much better job of the whole affair. He could scarcely do
worse.
And the earth brought forth grass—i., 12. In the next
chapter (ii., 3-8) we are told that he made every plant and
herb before they grew and then “ planted ” them—no doubt
using a dibble and watering-pot, after digging the soil with
a fork or spade, as a regular ordained gardener would do
to-day. The reader had better believe both accounts. He is
not bound to understand either—better not try. The less
you know about God and his ways the better you like him.
Lights in the firmament—i., 14. There is no firmament.
Therefore no lights were placed in it.
Two great lights—i., 16. The sun is a light, the moon is
no more a light than the earth. It merely reflects the sun
light. The author of Genesis did not know that. To him
sun and moon seem to have been about equal; in reality the
sun is about 60,000,000 times larger than the moon. Besides,
for about one-half of its time the moon is next to useless for
lighting purposes, without reckoning wet and cloudy weather.
He made the stars also—i., 16. A mere fleabite, the
�40
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
making of the stars, evidently. They are so small.
No
doubt god made them of the sparks struck out by his flint
when lighting the sun. Why, the nearest of them all is so
distant that light takes three years and seven months to
travel from it to the earth: while others seen in the telescope
are so far away that light spends many thousands of years
upon the journey. And some of them must be at least hun
dreds of times larger than the sun! Had the author of
Genesis understood astronomy, he would not have written
this nonsense about the creation.
A nd god made the beasts of the earth .... and everything
that creepeth upon the earth—i., 25. He might have found
better employment than making serpents and snakes, hyaenas,
wolves, tigers, etc. And what was he thinking about when
he made parasites, such as trichina and tape-worms ? But
Darwinism shows that the vegetables and animals, good or
bad, were not manufactured in this sudden manner ; but were
gradually evolved or developed from older forms of life—a
subject too large to entei- upon here.
So god created man in his own image . . . . male and
female created he them—i., 27. In the Hebrew it is “gods ”
not god—the Elohim—that made man. They were evidently
male and female themselves, as all respectable deities were.
And Adam and Eve were made in their image ; in fact if you
had seen the creators and the created together you could not
tell which was which—stature and build, color, hair, and
everything were just alike. The only difficulty one meets
with is this; how could Adam and Eve be the parents of
snch diversified tribes and families of men as now people the
earth ? Black and white, of various shades ; short and tall;
fat and lean; round heads and long heads; Caucasians and
Negroes ; and all the endless variety existing to-day ? Which
of all these descendants are most like the first pair ? I should
say that most likely the lowest, ugliest and most degraded
couple to be found are just the very image of the first pair,
and they were exactly like their creator’s. Tut! tut! I
don’t wish you to worship such a pair of deities. Everyone
to his taste. But if you can worship the creator of a world
like this, you need not pretend to be squeamish.
Every seed-bearing herb and fruit-bearing tree ... to you
shall it be for meat (Gen. i., 29).—All herbs and trees bear
seed, and therefore all herbs and trees were for human food.
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
41
according to this. Poor first pair! Look through some
“Family Herald,” my reader, and see what those poor things
had set before them for food! There is no discrimination
exercised by the nurse ; but those two full-blown babies, who
had never sucked nor had pap given them, are just left to
themselves to select their food as best they may from a
universal Botanical Garden, teeming to excess with every
plant and weed that ever grew! The trees are included in
the stock. And no cookery yet invented! How .sickly they
must have been the first week or two! The marvel is they
did not get poisoned before the first sunset.
And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it
was very good (i., 31).—The man who wrote that had never
been chased by lion or tiger, nor bitten by a snake or serpent;
white ants had never destroyed his dwelling, nor moths spoilt
his wardrobe ; fleas and bugs had never teased him, nor
mosquitoes driven him mad ; thorns and thistles had never
pricked and-lacerated his flesh, nor miasma laid him down
with yellow fever ; tropical heat had never roasted him, nor
Arctic cold frozen his extremities. The world he describes is
not the one we live in ; he but echoes the dreams of the
golden age of poets and mythologists, and tells a tale of the
past that never was present. Geology tells the blunt truth
about it, and shows that this world has always been the scene
of strife, pain, misery and death almost ever since life itself
existed in it. If this world is a manufactured article, then
he who made it must have been the essence of folly and bar
barity. As we never hear anything of him now, I presume
he has had what the Scotch call “ a cast of grace ”—has
committed suicide to escape the wretched sight of his own
infernal handiwork. Pity he did not commit suicide before
creating the world!
Genesis ii.—The first three verses of this chapter belong
neither to the first nor the second properly. They were
added to the ancient story by some priest who wished to
impose the Sabbath upon the people beneath his charge, and
who knew that that could not be done without a good round
lie. He says :—
The heaven and the earth icere finished (ii., 1).—The
heavens, of course, neverjfexisted, any more than the Greek
Olympus or the Scandinavian Valhalla. But the earth never
has been finished yet. Geology teaches that the earth is just
�42
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
as much in course of creation now as ever it was. Coral
zoophytes, globigerinse, many plants ; all waves, streams,
rain-showers, frosts and snows, volcanoes and earthquakes, are
engaged in reconstructing and re-arranging the strata of the
earth. The process never was finished and never can be.
The earth, like every other material thing, except probably
ether and atoms, is a growth, not a manufactured thing, as
the Bible falsely teaches.
And he rested on the seventh dag, etc. (ii., 2).—‘‘ Behold I
show you a mystery!” An almighty god spent a whole
eternity in doing absolutely nothing ; five or six thousand
years ago he built the world, at which he worked six days ;
the putting of these few atoms together so exhausted him
that he rested the whole of the seventh day !—and has done
next to nothing since. To doubt this is blasphemy; to
believe it is piety ! If you ridicule it, the bishops and their
creatures will send you into solitary confinement for at least
nine months, and allow you nothing to read but this stupidest
of books!
These are the generations of the heavens and oj the earth,
when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the
earth and the heavens (ii., 4).—Here beginneth an entirely new
account of the creation by a writer who worshipped Jehovah
not the Elohim. It was the Elohim who created all things in
six days according to Genesis i. This chapter says Jehovah
Elohim did the work in one day—“ in the day that the lord
god made,” etc. Each of the stories is true ; divinely so,
though they so flatly contradict each other, and both equally
contradict known facts. Never mind. Believe both. Con
tradictions and lies constitute nine-tenths of the whole stock
of revealed truth. What then ? It is the fashion to pretend
at least to believe it all, and if you find a flaw, “ mum ” is
the word. To mention it might have the effect of damaging
the interests of spiritual policemen and tyrants “ set over you
in the lord ” and elsewhere, who rob the poor and the
starving to build temples and palaces for their own glory and
amusement.
The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (ii., 7).—This, my
reader, is very sublime language, praise the lord! Man’s
body consists, then, of dust of the ground ; and his soul is
nothing but a mixture of atmospheric air, carbonic acid and
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
43
water-vapor, breathed out of the lungs of his maker into his
own I A man’s first breath would expel most of what the
lord breathed into him, and a few subsequent acts of respira
tion would get rid of it all. He was soon without any soul,
except the constant inrush and outrush of air, etc., to and
from his lung.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of
it, etc. (ii., 17).—As divines long since gave up as hopeless
the task of trying to find where the Garden of Eden was, I
shall not notice it, except to remark that in the first chapter
man had all trees given him without exception; here he is
forbidden the tree of knowledge—almost the only one worth
eating of; and, by implication, he was forbidden to eat of the
tree of life also (iii.. 22).
The first man was exceedingly wise, however, without
eating of the tree of knowledge, for he gave names to all
cattle and fowls and beasts of the field ; and he seems to have
been no time about it either. A very precocious youth, cer
tainly ! The Lord could no faster make animals than Adam
gave them appropriate names. What language he used is
not said. Some contend it was Welsh, and I shall not
dispute it.
Adam’s wife was made of one of his own ribs; and yet
he calls her “ bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh
(ii., 21—23). But she was only bone of his bone. Besides,
if he was asleep when that surgical operation was performed
upon him, how did he know that his rib had been extracted
and used in this way ? He preferred Eve to all the animals
he had seen and labelled, as any fool might have done ; but
how did he know that she was like himself, never having seen
his own shape in a mirror ? Oh1 I forgot! God was just
like him, and no doubt told Adam so, and thus he knew his
own shape from his maker’s !
I may say that that bold, bad, blasphemous man, Bishop
Ellicott, in a new commentary on the Bible, has the audacity
to. affirm, in flat contradiction to God’s blessed and most holy
word, that Eve was not made out of a rib of Adam 1 He is
too respectable to send to Holloway Gaol; but wait till he is
dead; then he will go down to Dante’s Inferno, where so
many blaspheming bishops and popes are already “ suffering
the vengeance of eternal fire.”
The second chapter of Genesis closes with the confession
�44
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
that the Elohim or Jahveh had not the decency to clothe the
pair they had made. We need not be surprised. Gods and
goddesses have never been civilised enough to clothe them
selves. All the garments they have ever worn have been
woven and made by mythologists, painters and sculptors.
Not being clad themselves, the Elohim, including gods and
goddesses, never once thought that the human beings they
had made, just like themselves, had any need of garments.
Dr. Watts, in a hymn many of us learnt in childhood, seems
to regret that civilisation should have effected what God had
left undone. The hymn is both pious and edifying__
“ The art of dress did ne’er begin
Till Eve, our mother, learnt to sin ;
When first she put the covering on
Her robe of innocence was gone;
And yet her children vainly boast
Of those sad marks of glory lost!”
John Milton also, in "Paradise Lost," has something to
say upon the subject. That magnificent Zoroastrian or Mani
chaean poem should be read by all worshippers of orthodoxy.
Milton e real hero is Satan; his God is a pitiable thing.
Genesis iii.—The serpent was more subtle (sly) than any
beast of the field which the Lord God had made (iii., 1).—
Yes, the serpent was always an emblem or symbol of wisdom ;
though it required very little of that quality to out-wit the
Lord God and the first pair. Of course the story is a
" mystery ” in the old-fashioned sense of that word. The
language is emblematical, and intended to show that all gin
and evil, misery and death, spring from the union of the
sexes. It was written by some vile ascetic.
By the way, how is it all clothiers and manufacturers of
textile fabrics do not adopt the serpent as their symbol or as
their arms or trade mark ? The whole of their art is due to
the action of the serpent. Had he not been wiser than the
gods, clothes had never been adopted.
Lest anyone should be bold enough to question if the
serpent ever held the reported conversation with the woman,
let it be remembered that in " ASsop’s Fables ” nothing is
more common than for animals to talk; and nursery tales
and folklore abound with similar incidents. "Be not faith
less, but believing.” " Ye believe in AEsop, believe also in
Genesis.'5 If you doubt the speaking of the serpent, re
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
45
member Balaam’s donkey ; if you are tempted to doubt the
donkey-tale, remember that of the serpent. By thus com
paring scripture with scripture you may assure yourself of
the truth of one absurdity by reflecting upon another equally
bad. If you should still be tempted to doubt, remember that
all doubters will be damned; reflect upon the flames of hell
until the conception drives you half mad. You will be able
to believe anything then.
And Adam and Eve hid themselves from the presence of the
Lord God amongst the trees of the garden (iii., 8).—You need
not wonder now how the serpent dodged the Lord God and
got into the garden unknown to its owner ! They were out of
his presence ! He could not see them ; and had to call them
to find out where they were! If I wrote here that I hid
from the Lord God, and got out of his presence, I might go
to Holloway Gaol for blasphemy ; and if I pretended it was
revelation I was writing, and raised the late Archbishop of
Canterbury from the dead to prove my mission, Dr. Benson
and his party would give me an extra twelvemonths’ of soli
tary confinement for disturbing existing arrangements, while
the resurrected defunct would have to be disposed of or
" removed ” as fast as possible. God could not see far in
those early days, evidently ; and his presence was no more
extensive than Adam’s. In process of time he grew in bulk
till he became infinite—that is, ruptured and destroyed him
self like jEsop’s ambitious frog; and now men can no more
find God than God could find Adam and Eve. He is dis
sipated, like the gas of a ruptured balloon, or, rather, like
the vital spirit of the torn and tattered creeds.
With a kangaroo bound I leap over the other incidents of
the story, and alight plump upon the upshot of the first sin.
“ Behold the man (literally the Adam—that is, both the man
and the woman) is became as one of us, to know good and evil
(iii., 22).—I told you the creators were more than one.
They speak in the plural—one of us. The volumes of learned
rubbish written to explain this would surprise one, if he did
not reflect that twenty useless books are written for every
good one, and that for every great book you might find a
waggon-load of literary rubbish. This mystery is usually
explained by means of the trinity in unity—a mystery that
will clear up almost everything in theology. One of the
three is spoken to by the Elohim 1 That is, the unity speaks
�46
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
to one of the trinity, or to all three. That is, one of them at
least talks to himself—a sign of weak intellect generally.
That is, they all three speak with one voice, so lodged that
all can use it at once, or one of them alone. Where the said
voice was placed, or how it was managed I know not; I was
not there. As this communistic or socialistic voice uttered
what all three equally thought, each of the three heard with
his own pair of ears what he himself and his two companions
uttered; and thus each of the triad came to understand for
himself what all three knew equally well before all three
combined in this co-operative manner to pronounce it for the
benefit of himself and two companions. Ah, me! My last
sentence, I fear, is a bit mixed; so am I. It is that trinity
that has done it. I feel as poor Captain Webb did. probably,
in the Niagara whirlpools, so I’ll make for the shore.
So he drove out the man (literally, the Adam) iii., 24.__
This was an act of vengeance blind and cruel. It was an act
of jealousy. For the three, that is the one, felt afraid of Adam
and Eve. They knew too much. So they persecuted them,
just as the bigots persecute now. The gods and bigots have
always claimed a monopoly of knowledge: being densely
stupid themselves, they have always done their worst to pre
vent other people growing wise. To claim a monopoly of
knowledge is merely to wall up your windows with the object
of shutting in all the sunlight, and to find yourself in absolute
darkness as the result of such folly. Had gods and bigots
(they are both of the same species) been successful, the world
would never have emerged from brutal savagery. The act of
expulsion from Eden was one of mere spite—“ test he put,
forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live
for ever.v These wicked gods begrudgpd man knowledge.
The serpent assisted him, and he won it in spite of them
*
Then they deprived him of immortality. Here, too, the
monopoly proved fruitless. Men die; but the race of man
still subsists. The gods die, and leave no successors. Most of
them are dead. The Bible gods are as dead as the dead
languages that record their deeds.
When the horse was gone God shut the stable-door, and
set cherubs with a flaming sword to guard it! That is a
specimen of divine wisdom. Had he but set that guard at
first the serpent might never have got in ; had he not made
the serpent he could never have tempted Eve. Inexperience
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
47
and folly mark the whole of this story of the creation and
fall. Nothing to equal it in these particulars can be found
elsewhere. Most other nursery tales have some sense and
some humanity in them ; this is destitute of both, And yet
this silliest of stories is taught still as divine truth even in
Board schools, at the expense of the ratepayers. And those
who laugh at it are sent to prison, for the gratification of
bishops and other humbugs who fatten upon falsehoods and
grow rich out of the credulity of the poor.
Genesis IV.—This chapter gives an account of Cain and
Abel. The former seems to have been a vegetarian and a
sort of Buddhist, who refused to kill animals, lienee he
offered the lord the fruits of the ground, which were scorn
fully refused. Abel offered him some fine fat rams, which
delighted him.
I presume the story was invented' to
throw discredit upon agriculture, inasmuch as ploughing
or digging the soil disarranges the order of divine providence f
while the mere cattle-breeder was supposed to be living in a
state of friendship with the deities, only because he lived in a
state of nature. The writer or inventor of the story was in
favor of the nomad life of the desert, and so represented his
god to be of the same sentiments. Cain, the farmer, should
have had nothing to do with the shepard’s god; he should
have invented an agricultural god for his own particular
■ benefit. And so to-day, Atheists and heretics can never please
the gods that now exist; if they ever please any at all, they
must make gods for themselves, as others have done. By the
way, it is easier to invent a whole pantheon of gods than even
one priest. A priest must be a man of some kind ; a mere
name or epithet will do for a god.
The writer of Hebrews (xi., 2) says that faith was the
element that made Abel’s sacrifice acceptable to the Lord •
while the want of it led to the rejection of Cain’s. That is
sheer nonsense. The Lord wanted his breakfast, and a few
good fat lambs were just what his appetite required. Besides,
the way this writer puts it would lead to the conclusion that
Cain, the man of no faith, persecuted to the death Abel, who
had plenty of it! That is absurd. If Cain really did kill
Abel in this religious quarrel, he must have been the more
fanatical—that is, the better believer; and Abel the worse.
It never has been otherwise ; the man of no faith could not
persecute a believer. He might punish any other fault, bu
�*
4
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
not his religion, unless the religion led to open or secret acts
of violence, and then not the religion, but the acts of violence
would be punished.
Beloved reader, the lesson we learn from the story of those
ancient brothers is one of deep significance.
It will be
observed that they quarrelled merely about religion, a thing
neither of them understood. Before this we may suppose
they had lived as became brothers. Now in their full
manhood they fell out. Up to this time they seem to have had
no religion; consequently all went merry as a marriage-bell
with them. No sooner did they betake themselves to religion
than they differed, grew warm, because the thing intoxicated
them. They fought, and the stronger killed the, weaker! It
is a significant fact that the first time religion is introduced
in the Bible it leads to fractricide. From that day till now
the history of the Jewish-Christian religion is a history of
quarrels, lies and blood. Therefore, have nothing to do
with it.
And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel, thy brother ?
—iv., 9. Ah! If the Lord had only been present at the
quarrel, he might have prevented the murder ! But provi
dence and policemen are generally out of the way when most
needed. They are always at hand when sacrifices, offerings,
and rewards are to be presented.
The sentence pronounced upon Cain is full of nonsense.
The earth was cursing him (verse 11) ; would refuse to yield
him her strength when tilled! Why, land saturated with blood,
animal or human, is enriched thereby, and produces better
crops for being so manured! Nor does it know the difference
between a brother’s blood and that of a dog. Scarcely can
you take a step in the Bible without stumbling upon some
gross superstition. So far is the earth from cursing those
who saturate it with blood, that it yields better crops, for the
murderer and anyone else for it.
(To be continued in No. 4).
Printed and Published bv Ramsey and Eootei, at 2S-Stonecutter Street, E.C<
V YTVR&’T"UllXl
Ill AA'iiU'XA IRK
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
No. 2 ] blows AT THE BIBLE,
[id
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
•«'.
t
This gentleman was the first that ever lived ; his father’s
-name was God (Luke iii., 38), and his mother was the
earth or the ground (Genesis ii., 7). Adam was made, or
begotten, or manufactured, or born, or produced twice at
least. In the first instance he was made the saline day with
his wife, viz., on the first Saturday that ever dawned ; and
after this gigantic effort the creator dropped work, “ rested
and was refreshed” (Exodus xxxi., 17) during • the first of
Sundays, and has, we belUye, done no work to speak of since.
his first creation Adam found the world prepared for
him. As Hood, one of his late descendants sung, he came
----------- “ tenderly ushered in
'
To a prospect all bright and burnished
*
No tenant he for life s back slums----He comes to the world as a gentleman comes
To a lodging ready furnished.”
-5 y
; r
There was the earth, in all its vastness of glory, furnished
with a crystalline roof (time, alas! has destroyed it long
since), in which were fixed the sun, moon, and stars—now,
sad to say, left to wander through space as best they can,
with no firmament to hold them fast 1 What would the
astronomer of to-day give to gaze upon the world as our first
fathei’ saw it 1 Overhead that beautiful sapphire vault, roof
at once of the lower world and floor of the musicians of the
gods ! What a pity it was ever permitted to decay I Had it
been kept in proper repair the theologian might confound his
sceptical foes by merely pointing upwards, and dramatically
crying, “Behold!”
�18
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
When Adam first opened his eyes upon the vegetable world
no parasites were found anywhere, and a fungus had never a
chance to grow. The leaves of the tree grew, but never de
cayed ; the blossoms consolidated into fruit, the fruit ripened,
but it never fell. The animals, too, were in a most extra
ordinary state. The lion played with the lamb, and the cat
with the mouse; if the hawk chased the sparrow it was
merely in fun ; and the veriest cormorant to be found would
as soon have dreamt of swallowing a crow-bar as a fish. In
those days all beasts of prey browsed in the meadows ; and
the whales and sharks grew fat upon nought but sea-weeds.
Then it was that tigers had neither fangs nor claws, the
wasps no stings, the serpents no poison ; mosquitoes had not
vet left their eggs, the locusts had never begun to devour,
and phylloxera and the Colorado beetle had never cast mur
derous eyes upon vine, grape or potato.
These were delightful times when our first parents sunned
hemselves in “Eden’s bonny yard,” untroubled by the
nought of debt or danger, untrammelled with skirts or pan
taloons, big romping babies that they were, the very image
of their father I
But Adam’s second Advent was different. In the first in
stance he was made, but of what material we know not: when
he was made the second time it was of dust (Genesis ii., 7).
Whether the dust was moistened and worked up with water,
like plaster of Paris, is not said. A modem man consists
chiefly of water ?• Adam’s one element was dust. Whether it
was stone dust, or clay dust, or saw dust, or gold dust, or
diamond dust, or brick dust, or coal dust, or a mingling of
them, we cannot say. Divine wisdom has not seen fit to en
lighten us further than to condescend to inform us that our
first father was made of the dust of the ground ; and as the
dust of the ground differs so in different regions, we must
leave the solution of this interesting problem till the Great
Day, when the whole of his descendants will, no doubt, rush
to him simultaneously and exclaim, “ Oh 1 Reverend sire, of
what dust did thy creator form thee ?” Adam s reply must,
I am sorry to add, be postponed sine die.
As Adam consisted of dust, and as sons and fathers are
usually of the same material. I presume it is but logical to
infer that Adam’s father—or God—was also of the dust. One
thing is certain, he has been turned to dust or something
�THE LIFE OF ADAM.
19
less substantial for many ages ; and his worshippers can
no more find a relic of his than they can one of Eve’s hair
pins.
When Adam was made on this second occasion, and the
dust was worked up into its required form, proportions, sym
metry, and consistency, his maker “ breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life, and man (Adam) became a living soul.”
The result must be pronounced wonderful and altogether
different from what might have been expected. It must be re
membered that he breathed into Adam, that is, the creator
breathed out of himself or expired his own breath ; and that
breath would have poisoned Adam if he had been previously
alive, for it must have been highly charged with carbonic acid.
So it appears that what would kill a live man will make a
dead man live.
Of course, we should not believe this story if we found it
in Homer—unless we had been coaxed to believe it by a
promise of heaven, or frightened to it by a threat of hell ; but
seeing it is in the Bible, and reflecting that we must be
damned if we doubt it, it seems safest to believe it.
When God the second time created Adam, he certainly did
not improve upon his work ; for this time Adam found the
earth bare ; he himself was the very first living thing created.
When he awoke to life there was nothing to eat, no one to
speak to. A little later he saw a garden rise suddenly
around him, and then beasts, and birds, and insects crowded
into life. But none of them suited him, though the creator
seems to have tempted him to amalgamate with beasts. The
Lord God thought it not good for Adam to be alone, and so
gave him a sleeping draught of extra power, and while he lay
in deep repose, proceeded to vivisect him. Opening the side
of the sleeper, the surgeon-creator extracted a rib, and then
stitched up the wound, leaving Adam a lighter if not a wiser
man. Of the extracted rib the creator now made a woman.
When Adam’s skeleton is dug up it may easily be identified
by being a rib short.
Here we face a decided difficulty. If Adam was an ordinary
man, a rib of his would make but a very small woman, and
merely a bone woman after all. A woman so small must
have been a very poor “ help meet ” for Adam, even if con
sisting of bones and flesh and all things human; and a
woman of bone, whatever hpr size or shape, must have been
�20
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
of far less value than one of ivory, not to mention marble or
the precious metals.
This, however, is merely a sceptical difficulty, and decidedly
dangerous. We prefer sticking to God’s holy word, though
we cannot tell how a rib, no more than a pound or so in
weight, could become a woman, weighing 140 lbs. For if
the rest of the material was taken from some other place,
then manifestly only one hundred-and-fortieth part of Eve
was due to that rib; and, therefore, the Lord God did not
make that extracted rib a woman, as the story avers. It would
have required all Adam’s ribs and nearly all the rest of him
to make a woman of respectable proportions as compared with
himself. Still it is better to believe than be damned.
After his second creation, as just related, Adam—in com
pany with Eve and the animals which he had named (if not
baptised) before he lost his rib—lived very pleasantly in
Paradise. This was a garden, as every Sunday scholar knows,
“planted ” in Eden, where grew the tree of life, of which if
one ate he would never die (Genesis iii., 22), and the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil, of which the happy couple
were forbidden to eat on pain of death.
Thus says holy writ. But the sceptic will be sure to ask
what sort of a tree it was ? 'Why they were forbidden to eat
of it ? and how they could be awed by a threat they could
not understand ? These deep questions are far too profound
for finite minds to solve, and we must leave them beneath
the dark veil divine revelation has seen fit to shroud them in.
Alas!
“ The best laid schemes o’ mice and gods
Gang aft agley.”
In stocking the world with animals the creator or creators
had manufactured the serpent, and the “ serpent was more
subtle than any beast of the field,” so much so that he began
to talk; and soon he showed himself a more powerful
and successful orator, reasoner and commander than all the
creators together. The creator told Adam and Eve not to
eat the tree or touch it, lest they should die. The serpent
said, “Pooh! pooh. It’s the best tree in all the garden—is
good for food, is pleasant and agreeable; and, besides, it
possesses the most astonishing educational properties ; for you
no sooner eat this fruit than you open your eyes, and know
�THE LIFE OF ADAM.
21
good and evil; in a word, Sir, Madam, yon no sooner swallow
a little of this delicious fruit than you become like the
gods themselves, who, out of jealousy, have forbidden you to
touch it.”
No pedlar ever succeeded better, no quack doctor ever
gained an easier victory. Before this, Eve would not have
touched that tree for the world; now she felt that she could
eat every apple it bore. The serpent’s eloquence and subtlety
prevailed ; Eve ate two apples on the spot, and ran off with
one in each hand to her husband, whom she speedily induced
to follow her example and eat of this marvellous fruit. The
serpent now chuckled with delight at the success of his exploit;
and Adam and Eve felt no worse, nor very much better for
the new food.
Their deity, however, who had probably seen the serpent
enter Paradise, suspected something wrong. He descended
in haste, and began to look about among the trees and bushes
for the disobedient pair. Adam heard him rustling through
the long grass, and hid himself among the bushes, rightly
judging that his maker was not in the sweetest of tempers.
At length in desperation he cried, “ Adam, where art thou ?
Hast thou eaten of that tree ?” Not daring to hide longer,
Adam now slowly crawled out of his hiding-place, begging his
majesty not to be so angry with him, as in truth, the woman
had pressed him to eat the fruit in question.
Still, the deity was not pacified, and he pronounced a curse
upon Adam and his descendants, upon the ground, upon the
pool’ woman, and upon the serpent that had deceived them ;
and then went back again to his mansion, his wrath still
burning as it will do for ever and ever.
This story, gentle reader, is extremely instructive. You
know that there are thorns in the world ; they are the results
of the above crime. Mothers, as you know, bear their off
springs in pain and sorrow; it is because Eve ate an apple or
two. All serpents go upon their belly; that is because the
first serpent, who, no doubt, crawled upon his back, temptec.
Eve to sin. Before that date pain and death were known
only by name ; since then there has been little else. Hell, at
that date, was peopled only by devils, and even they were not
regular denizens, but merely occasional visitors; ever since
about that date, men and women, and children have been
dropping into it in ever increasing numbers, whereas, not
�22
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
a human being would ever have sniffed so much as a whiff of
its sulphur, if Eve and Adam had not sinned. All which
shows what sort of a thing divine justice is, and demonstrates
that, of all beings known, none need so much to be civilised
as the gods.
Adam and Eve were next driven out of Paradise to prevent
their becoming gods, the older gods being afraid of the
possible consequences.
They knew that the serpent was
too subtle for the best of them, and they, no doubt, feared
that under his tuition Adam and Eve, should they eat of
the Tree of Life, would be more than a match for them.
Therefore, driving the unfortunate couple out, they guarded
the gate of Paradise by cherubs with a flaming sword.
Whether this was a Damascus blade or Toledo, I cannot say;
antiquaries having never yet lighted upon ii. Perhaps Dr.
Schliemann, when he has finished Troy, Mycene, and other
classical sites, may take a trip to Paradise to explore that
region.
Some little time before this expulsion, the guilty pair took
to vestments. They had been created naked ; nor did their
maker see the necessity of clothing them. Taking the hint,
no doubt, from the “ aprons ” he saw them wearing on the
day he cursed them, the creator next turned butcher, and
killed two beasts and flayed them (we hope he did not flay
them alive); then becoming a tailor, he made the skins into
two coats d la mode, no doubt, for the man and woman. Clothes
had not yet become “ differentiated,” and both sexes dressed
alike; coats, then, were all-sufficient; it was a later
civilisation that first demanded skirts and pantaloons.
After leaving Paradise, this interesting pair were blessed
with a family of sons and daughters, who intermarried with
each other, and came to but little good.
The eldest son
murdered the second, and then became a vagabond. Of the
rest we know nothing; though to judge from their
descendants, they were little to boast of. Adam himself
lived no more than 930 years and then died. If any should
fancy that he lived too long, let them reflect upon the misery
he might have inflicted upon the world if he had never eaten
the apple! In that case he would have lived for ever and
have been an endless nuisance to mankind. Eve, I presume,
never did die, for the Bible does not record any such event in
�---- 5,--t——*---------------------
L~------
THE LIFE OF ADAM.
23
her history ; and I should not like to incur the “ plagues ”
that will fall on those who “ add to ” the Word of God.
Such gentle reader, is a summary of the life of Adam (and
Eve in part) as given in the Bible. It is very interesting and
instructive, is it not ? The lessons we learn are : never to
listen to a talking, garrulous serpent; never to eat forbidden
fruit, nor too much of what is lawful; and if we should ever
have a chance to eat the fruit of the “ Tree of the knowledge
of good and evil,” and also of the “ Tree of life,” the fate of
Adam and Eve suggests that we should eat of the latter first,
for that, it seems, will ensure our immortality, eat of the
other while we may.
LOVE
NOT THE
WORLD.
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.
If any man love the world, the love of the father is not in
him.”—1 John ii., 15.
The apostle John, or indeed, all the apostles together, might
utter this cry on any Exchange in the world, from morning
to night, and from January to December, but he would make
no impression. The assembled merchants, traders, stock
brokers, and what-not would vote him a nuisance, laugh at his
fanaticism, chaff him and quiz him, or send for a policeman
to take him in charge. The most pious present as well as the
profane would all concur that the apostle was out of place ;
that he should keep his sermon for Sunday, a day specially
set apart in Protestant lands for hearing denunciations of the
week’s transactions and for forming resolutions and pious
resolves—to be—more worldly during the week to come.
And if our Exchanges and emporia are not the appropriate
places for such sermons, where shall they be preached. In
the churches, of course : where, no doubt, the preacher would
be listened to with profound and prayerful attention; his
words would sink deep into the hearts of the clergy, who
would confess their sins, bewail their worldly-mindedness,
acknowledge themselves “ miserable sinners,” as they really
are, and declare that they desired only to hold the world with
a slack hand, that they really valued nothing so little as the
�24
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
dung and dross which constituted the world’s wealth, that
they cared only for the wealth that did not fade, the riches
of the kingdom of heaven ; and would pour out volumes of
twaddle and heartless excuses, and resolutions never to be
kept.
Tell the Archbishop of Canterbury that he will be shut
out of heaven or be cl apt into hell, and you hardly impress
him. Tell him his palace is on fire, or his bank broken, his
railway and other shares rendered useless through some com
mercial disaster, and he would turn white as a sheet and be
ready to give up the ghost. Of course his grace does not
really love the world and the things in it; but then it looks
so much as if he did that neither you nor I, the Father, Son,
nor Holy Ghost, nor all together, with the Archbishop to
assist us, could tell the difference between real worldly love
and his grace’s counterfeit.
If you and I, having none of the grace of God, had a
splendid palace to live in, and £15,000 per annum to live
upon, and great titles and huge honors into the bargain, we
should almost certainly love them. But an archbishop has
divine grace sufficient for his very trying 'position, and his
strength is just sufficient to his day, and so exactly balances
his income, perquisites and privileges, that- this! Bight g,ev.
Father in God can love the world and the Father (?.e., himself) both at once and about equally. And besides God the
Father is not quite so particular now-a-days. In olden
time, when he, like the Pope, ruled mtteh of the world, he
-insisted upon all his rights and monopolies; bow he has to
beg a favor where he could formerly command ; and, on the
principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, he accepts
what he can get—just as all his followers do.
In dwelling profoundly upon this text, andhwith the assist
ance of the Holy Ghost who or which inspired it, I note that
it is entirely out of harmony with, I won^ say the world,
but the churches of to-day; and, therefore, either the text
or the churches must be faulty. The question is, Which?
It cannot be supposed that so many churches are at fault ;
they would enlighten each other, and naturally criticise
each other to so great an extent that - any serious deviation
from the truth amongst Christians is next to impossible,
especially on so plain a subject as loving the world or the
Father.
�LOVE NOT THE WORLD.
25
I presume it would be next to impossible for a person to
have a strong liking for anything and yet not know it. If
the Christians love the world, its wealth and pleasures, its
pomps and vanities, they can hardly be ignorant of the fact.
And if they love the Father to any great extent, they must
know it, whether lie does or not. It is also very unlikely
that Christians could hide their preferences from their
neighbors. If they love the Father and despise the world,
people must know it; if they loved the world and despised
the Father, they could not hide it. A tree is known by its
fruits ; and people’s likes and dislikes are ascertained by their
conduct.
Well, I know of no church that does not love the world
most intensely ; I know of no people who love it more than
those who pretend to renounce it. And the text says the
love of the father is not in such people. No doubt the text
is a blunder. The Holy Ghost and John were but babies
compared with the Christians of to-day. They thought that
religion was to be distinguished from the world ; the moderns
have discovered that God and the world are both one, and
that to love the Father is to love the world, and to renounce
the world would amount to renouncing the Father, so they
stick jb both. Bravo ! this is a grand discovery. And the
Church was not long in making it when once those stupid
apostles, who crucified the flesh, were dead and out of the
way. Christians to-day crucify the flesh of others and spare
their own—another great modern improvement.
To be sure, profane and illogical persons will say that if
Christian conduct is right, the Bible must be wrong. Not
at all. You must not understand either'party seriously.
When the Bible bids you not to love the world, it means the
other world, not this ; and when Christians to-day profess
to think lightly of the world, they mean “ the world to
come.” Christianity is a huge, grim, practical joke. The
Church started by renouncing the world, and culminated in
•the possession of most of it; then the civil power had forcibly
to wring from her her ill-gotten gains.
Churchmen still roll in riches and bedeck themselves with
honors, though they profess to be followers of that Jesus who
for their sakes became poor, and to be the spiritual descendants
of men who voluntarily went about in sheep-skins and goat
skins. In their baptism, by godfathers and godmothers, they
�26
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
renounce the world with its pomps and vanities, the flesh and
the devil. This serves them for life. It is a wholesale con
fession, followed by plenary absolution for all the sins they
will ever commit. Having thus hoodwinked the blessed
Trinity, they ever after love the world with all their heart,
and with all their mind, and with all their soul, and with all
their strength, and their neighbor, the flesh, as themselves.
I feel no doubt that Christianity and the churches’
hypocrisy will some day stand exposed before all men, and
become the world’s laughing-stock. But the people are so
blind and priest-ridden that it must take long to accomplish
the work. In the meantime our duty is plain—to expose, to
ridicule this greatest of shams with all our might.
THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION.
•• Ye worship ge know not what: we know what we worship:
for salvation is of the Jews."—John iv., 22.
Here is a text of three clauses, two false and one true.
Salvation is of the Jews !” This is absolutely contrary to
fact.
The Jews are a lost race themselves, and never
afforded salvation to anybody. For well nigh 1,500 years
they lived, if their chronology can be trusted, in Palestine.
But during that long period they produced no philosopher,
no great general, no architect, no discoverer, no scientist, no
statesman, an indifferent poet or two, no inventor. From
what, then, have the Jews contributed to save the world ?
The ancient Jews are remembered for almost nothing else
than sundry superstitions ; and superstitions are the curse,
not the salvation of man. Had the Jews never existed, the
Bible never been written, what would the world miss ? That
Jews in modern times have distinguished themselves I readily
admit; but never except in the midst of Gentilism and under
its inspiration.
Thus the last third of the text is disposed of as an empty
boast.
‘•We know what we worship.” This also is absolutely
untrue. No Jew then, no Jew nor Christian since, ever
�THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION.
27
knew what he worshipped. The only persons who really do
know their god or gods are those that worship tangible or
visible objects. The worshippers of the golden calf, sun
.and fire worshippers, the devotees of stocks and blocks, of
trees and running streams, knew something of their deities,
though not much ; for had they known the truth they would
not, could not have worshipped.
This, too, is purely an empty boast, though quite worthy
of the man who told people he lived before Abraham
(Jolrn viii., 58), that he “ came down from heaven ” (John vi.,
38), that “ all power was given unto him in heaven and in
earth” (Matt, xxviii., 18), and that he could raise the dead
again to life (John xi., 25—27). His was just the spirit
of every fanatic : “ I am right, you are wrong. I am divine,
you are stupid. I shall be saved, you will be damned—unless
you submit to me and adopt my creed.” It is a thousand pities
there was no Freethinker present when Jesus and the woman
of Samaria were conversing ; for he could very soon have
confounded both parties, and have exposed the pretended
knowledge of deity which Mary’s son was boasting of.
Though probably the world might have had one more martyr
to enroll in the “ noble army ;” for Jesus and his disciples (as
soon as they arrived) would no doubt have flung the sceptic
into “Jacob’s well.”
Finding no shred of truth in the second and third clauses,
let us turn to the first. Every Christian will inform you that
he worships “God,” and all the sects of Christendom would
have you believe that they all in common worship one and
the same God ; but of this they can have no proof whatso
ever, and facts are against them,
I. Jews, Mahommedans, and Unitarians have a God who is
one and indivisible. But that is only one section of the
orthodox God. This God is the father of all, be it remem
bered—The Father. He is the father of the earth and
heavens, the sun, planets, comets, stars ; the father of sun
shine and storm, of flood and fire, of earthquake, volcano,
epidemic and famine ; the father of health and of all diseases;
the father of vampires, serpents, snakes, fleas, bugs, mosquitos,
Colorado beetles, locusts, sharks, lions, tigers, jackals, hyaenas,
trichina, and tape-worms; the father of murderers, robbers,
pirates, popes, persecutors, and devils! What a family!
And every one of them all is the very image of his dad.
�r
”
■! ! » iW.rw-'-5 i
28
i
--------------- .1.
lW—
< K
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
What a father! What a God ! What an object of worship !
Verily I do not wonder that persons who can worship such a
deity call Atheists fools—it is the very highest compliment
they could pay us. No doubt the inmates of Bedlam, in like
manner, regard all outsiders as idiots. And we cannot help
it.
We need never wonder that this God’s worshippers
behaved so idiotically and cruelly while in power.
II. Most Christians add two or more extra wings or sections
to their deity, and increase him, at least by about two-thirds.
They have the father, of course, and the Catholics very
logically supply a fourth wing or section called the “ Mother,”
while Protestants half acknowledge and half repudiate this
addition. All, however, agree, except Unitarians, to accept
the Son and Holy Ghost. The fathei’ is, they say, such from
all eternity. But the son is of exactly the same age as his
father, and of the same size, and never was any smaller. He
was begotten, though never bom, from all eternity. These
two never began to be, yet one of them is father of the other;
and, as far as a profane Atheist can perceive, either of them
might equally well be the father or the son of the other. One
wonders if the divine two ever get confused over the matter
themselves! Possibly: they are both alike, both of an age,
height, complexion, and it is not known how the one dis
tinguishes himself from the other. They have never seen
themselves, for certain, for they are both infinite, both occupy
exactly the same space, they cannot move an inch out of each
other’s way, and no looking-glass could be large enough to
reflect them, either singly or together. That is to be regretted.
It is a pity they cannot see themselves.
Then, in addition to the two just named, there is the Holy
Ghost. He, she, or it, is also infinite and eternal, and also
occupies the same same space exactly that the Father and
Son fill so absolutely. The three are most unfortunate.
They are each infinite, and there is but one infinite room for
them to occupy. Three infinite persons in one infinite room
must be awfully uncomfortable, especially in hot weather. I
suspect they suffocated each other long ago, or died of unen
durable pressure.
To make things themselves a little more pleasant in their infi
nitely overcrowded one-roomed house, about 2,000 years ago it
was decided that the Son should “ be born again,” and this time
become a baby of 17 lbs. or so. It was done. This time he
L,!
�THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION.
29
had a different father, too. Tired of his old dad, he chose
the Holy Ghost as his father this time, and the Holy Ghost
chose a mother for him. The reader will not ask me to ex
plain—I cannot. And all Christian divines, commentators,
and gods are as helpless as I am in the matter. However,
here we are, face to face, and at the same time back to back,
with the Christian God ! How beautifully simple the Gospel
is ! “A wayfaring man, though a fool (provided he is a fool,
that is), need not err therein.”
“ He that runneth may
read ”—the posters are so large. 1st. A Father infinite and
eternal; 2nd, a Son, ditto ; 3rd, a Holy Ghost ditto; 4th,
a woman finite and rather young ; 5th, the Son of this woman
and the Holy Ghost, formerly the infinite and eternal son
of the father only, begotten but not bom. These five or six
persons are the two God the Fathers, the two God the Sons,
and the Holy Ghost and Mary. Here we have a double
Trinity in Unity ; and thus the Christians are twice as well
off in gods as they have ever directly let the world know.
Verily “great is the mystery of godliness ! ” “Who can
know it?” The Christian God is the most unmitigated sham
ever palmed off upon a credulous world. In fact, when they
do not pay their devotions to Mammon, to sensuous pleasures,
or other physical deities, all their worship is directed to they
“ know not what.” I would offer them a reward of £1,000,000
sterling, if I had it, on condition that they told me what
their God is. They much need the money, but could never
get it, for they “ worship they know not what.” And if men
were wise enough to see how they are duped, they would pay
not a farthing more for or to the Gospel until its priests in
formed the public who or what it is they worship. In that
case Christianity would be starved out in a few weeks. That
fate awaits it.
ANANIAS
AND
S A P P H I R A.
“And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many
as heard these things.”—Acts v., 11.
No doubt! No doubt! Peter was now in power : the Church
was at his feet. Peter, who always had a keen eye for the
main chance; who gave up nothing himself for or to his
�30
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
master except under promise of one hundredfold more in the
time that then was, and in the world to come life ever
lasting (Matt, xix., 28, 29). The most unconscionable money
lender or bill-discounter in the world never excelled that.
Peter was determined to do his best, while the new converts
were at the white heat of their “first love” and religious
excitement, to realise the promise of Jesus and secure the
one-hundredfold here, at any rate, whatever might be his fate
in the “ life to come! ”
In this respect, the followers of St. Peter, whether at Rome
or elsewhere, have closely copied his meritorious example,
and done their utmost to win the one-hundredfold, or the
millionfold, if that were possible.
Of course Peter soon saw that it would be highly impolitic
to allow these two, Ananias and his wife Sapphira, to give in
just what they pleased to the exchequer of the Church—
others might follow the example, and thus much wealth be
diverted from the proper channel.
Besides, something bold and terrible needed to be done
to impress the rabble, inside and outside the Church, with
the power of this new movement, and especially the power
of the leaders. It was not legitimate power they were con
tent to wield, but the power of superstition. The Church
started life without a single grain of objective truth; and to
support itself was compelled to have constant recourse tothe supernatural—that is, to fraud, to tricks, and to
jugglery.
Now, if Peter could only make away with
Ananias and Sapphira, and give it out that the Holy Ghost
had done it, what a deep and horrible impression it would
create ! and how effectually it would prevent anyone follow
ing the example of these two! So the deed was done.
I now proceed to give definite reasons for holding the
opinion that the Holy Ghost did not kill these two, nor any
other person of the Trinity :—
1. Those divine persons never hated lying—most of what
they themselves are reported to have said is of that stamp.
2. They not only indulged in this weakness themselves,
but had friends who did the same. Abraham told lies about
Sarah ; Jacob deceived his poor old blind father; Jesus said
he came down from heaven—a manifest falsehood; Peter
swore he did not know Jesus! Now, if the Holy Ghost
wanted to make an example of any person why not of one
�of those ? ’Tis tree, Jesus and Peter, if reports are to be
credited, did die violent deaths. Is that to be regarded as
proof that the Holy Ghost killed them for lying ?
3. It has never been the practice of the Holy Ghost,
Father, or Son to kill people for lying. If it had been, in
what age of the church would there have been half-a-dozen
saints left alive ? Why, there never could have been a
church without wholesale lying. The worst thing that could
happen to any Church is the dissemination of truth. Lying!
In it the Trinity, the church, and all other shams * live and
move, and have their being.” What! let the Holy Ghost go
through the church to-day and slay all that preach false
doctrine, and that do little else than teach conscious and un
conscious lies, and. the churches would be in the condition of
Sennacherib’s army—they would waken up next morning to
‘■'find that they were all dead corpses !” (Isaiah xxxvii., 36).
No, my brethren, the Holy Ghost never did kill liars ; they
are his very best friends.
But if the Holy Ghost did not kill Ananias and Sapphira,
' who did ? That is the question. There can be only one
answer, and that is—Peter was their murderer. Look at the
facts. They had offended Peter. He was furious with them.
Both these persons died suddenly in a place where Peter and
the officials of the Church were assembled. There were
certain “ young men ” who at once disposed of the bodies.
And that was the end of it.
1. Are Christians satisfied with the story and the cOTiduct
of reter ?
2. Could Peter possibly stand forth in a worse light ?
3. How was it he did not challenge investigation ? Why
were the corpses so suddenly, and without the least examina
tion, buried ?
4. Would not an honest man or church have done some
thing to clear themselves of suspicion in such a case ?
5. What would a few able detectives and an honest
coroner’s jury have brought to light, had they investigated
the Petro-Ananias and Sapphira case ? It is a fortunate
event for Christianity that it rose in an age and time when
coroner’s inquests were unknown, for in modern London the
killing of these two would have resulted in the sudden death
of the Church as well. And this double murder will even
tually help to kill the Church. Murder will out; and the
�-r
*
r
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
blood of those two cries, not to heaven, but to common sense,
for vengeance, and vengeance it will have.
There is nothing in the character of Peter to warrant or
even suggest his innocence; and fanaticism and crime Jjave
generally gone hand in hand. Witness the bloodthirsty
temper of Moses, of Joshua, of Abraham, of Jephtha, of the
Jews who murdered Jesus, and of Jesus who threatened
worse than murder against all who disbelieved and opposed
*
him ; witness the wholesale and horrible persecutions of they- *
Ghurch in all ages. Let any candid man weigh the matter,
as if he were on a jury trying the case, and say whether,b..
having regard to the whole circumstances and the. almost
invariable character of apostles, prophets, and religious
leaders in all countries and ages, the chances are not a
thousand to one that ■ Peter, the first of Popes, did what
Popes have rarely hesitated to do—committed murder for the sake of the Church’s peace, and covered his crime by a dread- o
ful falsehood in the interest of truth?
1 yLastly. I care not much who murdered Ananias and
Sapphira—they were murdered, whether Peter or the Holy
Ghost did it: the one had as a good right to kill as the
other. And even if either had possessed that right, the two
-I
offenders should, in common justice, have had a fail’ and open
trial. Instead of which, they were murdered, without the
least chance of self-defence.
We $eed not wonder that Christians to-day keep Mr. Brad
laugh from his seat by brute force ; they have never been
friends of justice—except for themselves. Their divine book
i
gives no example of an honest criminal trial ; the highest
judicial proceedings known to the Bible and the blessed »
Trinity are just those of the barbarians or of the “ unspeak- \
able Turk,” when he exhibits himself in his worst possible
fashion.
Reader, instead of “ remembering Lot’s wife,” Remember
Ananias and Sapphira, who, whatever their character, were
murdered for the good of the infant Church, as millions of
innocent people have been for the same institution and prin
ciples in later centuries.
Printed and PublisE& by jfctasey-and Foote, at 2S Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�No. 6.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
[11.
BT
JOSEPH
SYMES.
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
'^v.1
And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy first-born
(Genesis xxvii., 19).—Ananias and his wife were struck dead
for lying; Jacob was protected and favored by the Lord im
mediately after this atrocious lie. As Jacob bamboozled his
earthly father, so most Christians to-day treat their father
who is in heaven. He is too blind to detect the fraud, or he
would soon make short work of the bishops, who rob the poor
Esaus of their birthright. Every priesthood lives by imitating Jacob. That is why the patriarch is so popular with them.
And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth,
and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of
God ascending and descending on it (Genesis xxviii., 12).—This
must have been a divine dream, or it would not have been
recorded. A ladder reaching to heaven ! How preposterous 1
Angels running up and down! This was probably before
they were fledged, or, as someone has suggested, it may have
been at the season when they were moulting, their wings then
being too tattered for a lengthy flight.
And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the
Lord is in this place ; and I knew it not (Genesis xxviii., 16).
—The saint did not know that his God was where he slept!
He had evidently not said his prayers before going to sleep.
He had left home without taking his God with him, and was
startled to find him going on the same journey. And he was
afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other
but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven (verse 17).
Ay ! ay ! it is always so. There is no place, except one, that
saints find so dreadful as the gate of heaven, and that is the
gate of its antipodes. If a saint ever needs comfort it is when
in sight of the heavenly city. Then he sends for the doctor
�82
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
—or two or three doctors, if he is rich enough—to kill the
messenger, the disease, God has sent to call him home. If
the doctors succeed, there is rejoicing; if they fail, the poor
saint shuffles off his mortal coil as reluctantly as he would
strip off his clothes in the Arctic regions; and he enters
heaven (that is, exits from life) with a face as long as he
would wear were he going to prison or the workhouse ! Ah!
yes—the gate of heaven is a dreadful spot, and I should not
be surprised to find it worse inside than out.
And he took the stone that he had put for the pillows, and set
it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it (verse 18).—
Here we land in absolute and widespread idolatry. Jacob
was a phallic worshipper, and he consecrated this stone in
the usual manner, his God, of course, being quite delighted
with the act. He anointed it, and so made a Christ of it,
that is, an anointed, greased, or smeared one.
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and
will keep (that is, protect) me in this way that I go, and will
give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again
to my father s house in peace ; then shall the Lord be my God:
and this stone, ivhich I have set for a pillar, shall be God's
house ; and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the
tenth unto thee (verses 20-22),—This text is full of the mar
row of divinity. 1. Jacob enters into a bargain with God
and puts him to the test. He will have nothing to do with a
God that will do nothing for him. In that he was right.
Neither will I. 2. The vow shows that Jacob had not yet
received Jehovah into his pantheon, and was resolved to
experiment upon him before he did. Eight again. 3. If the
God did his duty, he should have that stone for his house 1
Very kind of Jacob; and the God did not object. Perhaps
the stone had a hole in it. 4. He will pay God ten per cent,
of all that God gives him ! That must have been very tempt
ing to Jehovah; and we must suppose he at once fell in with
the proposal and accepted the bargain.
Note.—We are often told of the disinterested love of God
and his saints. But the article cannot be found in anything
except words. The Bible exhibits no love but what expects
a reward.
We shall see in the sequel that, whatever the Lord did,
Jacob never performed his part of this vow. It was the off
spring of panic, as most vows are, never meant to be kept, but
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
83
only to appease the present wrath of the deity and ward off a
supposed or real danger. Religion, when dissected, is found
to be selfishness consecrated.
The story of Jacob and his married life had better be left
where it is—in the Bible, one of the few places really fit for
it. Comment is both unnecessary and impossible.
The way in which Jacob contrived to grow rich at Laban’s
expense was clever, ay, miraculous—which shows that God
was with the rogue all the way through. Honest men never
get nor need his assistance. To judge from what the Bible
teaches, especially in connexion with Jacob, Moses, Joshua
and Elijah, Jehovah was the patron God of cut-throats,
swindlers and thieves.
And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian
(Genesis xxxi., 20).—Exactly so. Moses did the same from
Egypt; and delivered the Israelites from slavery under pre
tence of going out for a holiday—that is, to worship. But
God was with them.
Jaco& was Ze/ii a/one; and there wrestled a man with
him until the breaking of the day (Genesis xxxii., 24).—The
context shows that the man was a god, whom Jacob saw
“face to face.” The struggle between the almighty and his
servant Jacob, at that time nearly one hundred years old,
if Bible chronology can be trusted, was a very severe and
protracted one ; and for a long period it was doubtful which
would win. If I knew the language of the ring I would
describe the scene; but I fear me that would prove as great
a task for me as God found it to defend himself against Jacob.
After several throws on each side—angels, no doubt, being
seconds and bottle-holders—God gave in and acknowledged
that Jacob was too many for him. He thereupon surrendered
the belt, and begged Jacob to permit him to retire. When
he got back to heaven, I have been told, nobody knew him.
His wig, like John Gilpin’s, was “upon the road,” and his
person was all bespattered and covered with dust and per
spiration. However, a hot bath and a week s rest put him
all right again. It may be remarked that Jehovah rested
only one day after the week he spent in creating all things.
If I am rightly informed, he needed seven times the repose
after this wrestling bout. True, he was 2,000 years older
at the time he entered the ring with Jacob, though even then
he had not reached the years of discretion.
t
�84
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Genesis xxxiv. must be passed over with the remark that
Jacob’s sons were chips of the old block in cunning, as may
be seen in their murders and plunder of Hamor and his son.
Jacob chid them, it is true, but only because he feared the
revenge of his neighbors. Saints usually love the Lord their
God, alias themselves, with all their heart, and so have no
love left for other people.
And Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem
(Genesis xxxv., 4).—Jacob had been in Canaan now for a long
period, and yet had not paid his vow to God; and the latter
reminded him that the debt was still standing, and ordered him
to the place where he had seen the ladder reaching up into
heaven. Though Jacob had conquered Jehovah in the ring,
he still deemed it best to be on good terms with him. So he
packed up to go to Bethel to worship, and he told his house
hold to put away the other gods they had. Those were handed
over to Jacob, and he merely buried them along with certain
jewels and trinkets under the tree. This was merely a com
promise ; the other gods were merely put out of the way
while Jehovah was being attended to—just as people to-day
go to churches and chapels, where they pretend to worship
God; though they are merely enduring the “ service ” until
they can rush back again to the pleasures and riches they
left behind them.
Jacob built his altar to God and offered sacrifice ; but he
did not give the tenth of all he had, as he had promised when
he had nothing at all to give. Of course not. Whoever
thinks of keeping his word with Jehovah ? With whom does
Jehovah keep his pledges ?
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel
(Genesis xxxvi. 31 .—This is genuine revelation, and shows
us that Moses did not write Genesis. It must have been
written after Saul and David, for kings of Israel are mentioned
as having reigned at the time the writer lived. We know
not who did write Genesis. We know Moses did not; unless
his book has been largely interpolated and < orrupted. Though
it matters not the least who wrote it; one man is as likely to
be inspired as any other.
How Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Genesis
xxxvii., 3).—Gods and saints usually have favorites; and
nothing better exhibits their weakness. Jacob loved Joseph,
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
85
made a regular guy of him with a harlequin’s coat; he became
a spy upon his brothers, and reported what he saw to his
father. His brothers hated him, and sold him ; and that was
as good as he deserved. Joseph in Egypt turned out a full
blown professor of dreams, as his brothers had sneeringly
called him (xxxvii., 19) ; married the daughter of a priest of
On, or Heliopolis, a heathen; became grand vizier of Pharaoh
(a purely fabulous title, by the way), gathered up the corn
during the years of plenty, sold it out during the famine for
the people’s money, cattle, land, and themselves, thus making
all the people absolute slaves to the king. No doubt the
writer thought he was sketching a splendid and saintly
character; in truth he has presented us with one of the very
worst tools of despotism. He never interfered with the lands
of the priesthood (a priest wrote the story); their organisation
was too prwerful, and Joseph was too closely allied to that
guild to interfere with their possessions.
And Joseph fell upon his father s face, and wept upon him,
and kissed him (Genesis 1., 1).—Joseph was very affectionate.
For many years he enjoyed himself in Egypt without ever
inquiring for his friends, and would probably never have
sought them again if the famine had not thrown them in his
way; yet he makes an awful fuss now when he finds them
and afterwards when his father was dead !
My jumping, capering comments have now run quite through
the book of Genesis. I may just remark that many people
will regard my comments as altogether inadequate, and even
positively faulty in all respects. Well! I have written as I
thought best under the circumstances, and for the end I had
in view; as I have consulted my own whims and fancies in
writing, I should be sorry not to allow the reader the same
liberty.
My comments, faulty as they may be, are quite worthy
of the Bible, regarded as a divine revelation; considered
as an antiquity, no comment can be too good for it. My
object is not to damage the Bible, but to render it impossible
for men to damage themselves by worshipping it or its wornout God. Still I must say, my comment is more honest and
straightforward than any orthodox one ever written upon the
Bible; for I have not perverted a single text to support fore
gone conclusions; while orthodox commentaries consist of
little else than perversions of that nature.
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
The following true and faithful history of Jesus has just been
handed to me by the Holy Ghost for publication. This is
true, as true as the Bible. If any wicked sceptic disbelieves
it, I will not send him to hell—I would scorn to do such a
mean trick—but I will prove by a miracle that “ my record
is true.” I will even do this—Let a bishop or Tyler drink
enough strychnine to kill him; and when he is dead, I will
restore him to life. If Christians will not submit to so simple
and safe a test, let them doubt as they will; I will not waste
time in arguing with such idiotic people. The story I have
to relate is so evidently penned by the Holy Ghost—its morals
are so pure, its tone so serious and grand, its revelations so
far beyond the reach of mere reason, so immensely transcending
all that science or even romance ever wrote—that any person
with the least pretence to spiritual insight must at once
acknowledge that it could not have been written by a mere
man. Therefore, let all who value their credit for intelligence,
and who do not wish to be regarded as lunatics, acknowledge
at once that the following history is of divine inspiration.
The Holy Ghost told me, as he handed over the manuscript,
that he supposed few would believe it. He had never been
very successful since intelligence and science got abroad; but
still he thought it his duty to do what he could. “ At all
events,” said he, “ publish it. I give you carte, blanche as to
what you shall give to the world and what omit. You under
stand the ways of the world better than I, and I am bound to
say I am delighted to have secured you as my editor and
literary executor. This is my last work ; and I wish you to
render it as attractive as you can. A little embellishment, I
presume, will not be amiss ; and, of course, you are at liberty
to expand the miracles a little if you do not think them
striking enough for popular taste. I am told that sensation
is now the order of the day, especially with the churches ; so
do not be over-scrupulous.”
I promised to do my best, and the Holy Ghost left. All .
this, reader, is teue !—as true, I am bound to say, as that
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
87 ,
Moses saw the western side of God; as true as that the walls
of Jericho fell at the blast of rains’ horns ; as true as that
Jesus came down from heaven ; as true as that Paul was
caught up to the third heaven ; as true as that Tyler is honest
or sensible. And thou knowest, thou sceptical reader, thou!
that nothing can be truer than these.
If the wicked infidel wants further proof still that this
gospel is true, be it known unto him that I once went up to
the sixty-fifth heaven, and saw Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob
there, carrying on their old tricks as upon earth. There I
saw the beasts full of eyes before and behind; and one of
them calved while I was there. In fact, there is a whole
menagerie of curious beasts there now; and they are getting
so numerous that they wished me to buy up a number for
exportation. But it was not in my line. I was told that
they made Jacob the head overseer of all the animals, with
all the young beasts of a certain color that might be born as
his wages. Jacob, true to his character, increased his own
share artificially as he did when under Laban (Gen. xxx., 37).
When caught he denied it, but truthful Peter gave evidence
against him ; and “immediately the cock crew.” Then they
sent Jacob for twenty years to hell; but the Lord was with
him.
Thou foolish sceptic, dost thou now believe ? If thou,
believest not me who have been to the sixty-fifth heaven,
how canst thou believe Paul, who rose no higher than the
third ? Wilt thou compel me to boast yet further ? Be it
so. I will conquer thy unbelief. Once on a time, about
three thousand years before I was born (John viii., 58), I was
on tramp ; and coming to a mountain that stood in my way
I bade it be gone, and it skipped away like a sky-rocket, and
I saw it no more. Where the mountain stood there remained
a hole of immense size. Into that hole ran the river Jordan;
and that hole is the Dead Sea ! Dost thou now believe that
I am inspired by the Holy Ghost ? If not, I leave thee to
thy hardness of heart. Go thy way. Read this new gospel.
And may it open thine eyes! Amen.
The Gospel.
Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise : His mother Mary
had been a nun, and her cousin Elizabeth had been one also.
Now Elizabeth was gay, and her husband Zacharias was old
and well-stricken in years. And, behold, an angel of the
,
,
.
.
�88
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Lord, about twenty-five, who served the Lord day and night
as a monk in a convent near her dwelling, came unto her by
night, and prophesied that she should have a son.
*
And in
process of time his prophecy was fulfilled.
Now it came to pass that for many days the husband of
Elizabeth, even the aged Zacharias, who was not ignorant of
the ways of the Lord’s angels, was dumb, and spake not unto
his wife either good or bad, for he perceived that she was
too subtil for him. Nor yet did he open his mouth when her
cousin Mary came to commune with her.
Now Mary, being young and well-favored, was betrothed
unto a man named Joseph, by trade a carpenter. And lo, he
was good-natured and gentle, one that feared God and his
espoused wife, believing all things, hoping all things. But
when he perceived that Mary was as became her not, he was
perplexed. Although he was aware that Gabriel, another
angel of the Lord, who was also a monk, had visited her,
saying,
All hail, beau ideal of women! The Lord hath
chosen thee to be his friend1” Mary not comprehending the
salutation, the angel explained, and went his way.
Now it came to pass as Joseph was sore perplexed and in
desperation, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him by
night and pleasantly greeted him, and bade him be of good
cheer f .... And the angel said, moreover, forasmuch as
thou art poor, behold, the Lord hath sent thee one hundred
pieces of silver to cheer thy heart withal. And Joseph was
content, and took his espoused wife unto himself.
Now when Jesus was born, there came twenty-five venerable
handmaidens of the Lord to commune with the young child
and his mother, for he was filled with marvellous wisdom
even before he was born, and could even speak “ as never
man spake ” before he could suck ; that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet—“ Out of the mouth of
babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.” Now the
first words that Jesus uttered were these : “ Bring hither
those mine enemies, and slay them before me !” And Joseph,
being astonished at the miracle, even took his axe, and slew
fifty thousand and three-score and ten of the old women, as
* Using my discretion, I omit a few sentences here from the Holy
Ghost’s narrative, which are scarcely fit for ears polite.
f Here again I am compelled to omit a few sentences from the
Holy Ghost’s narrative.
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
89
it is written in the book of Samuel the prophet concering the
men of Beth-shemesh.
*
And all that heard thereof were
amazed, and gave glory to God in the highest, and on earth
peace and good will towards men. But when the king heard
thereof he was wrath, and sought to kill Joseph and Mary
and the young child. But Gabriel came to Joseph by night,
saying, “ Up ! Why tarriest thou ? Take the baby and his
mother, and get thee into the land of Egypt, and dwell there
till I send thee word; for the king seeks the young child’s
life.”
Then Joseph arose and took the young child and Mary his
mother, and fled to the land of Egypt; and there they
remained until the death of the king, which was accelerated
by Gabriel, who was even the king’s confessor ; and he gave
unto him the sacrament, and the king was sick, and lay down
upon his bed, and gave up the ghost.
Then did Gabriel send to Joseph, saying, “Up, return to
thine own land, and bring the young child and his mother
with thee, for thine enemy is dead. Blessed be the name of
the Lord.”
But, behold, or ever the message came Joseph was ready,
knowing that the king was dead. For it came to pass that
as the king gave up the ghost, even in that self-same moment,
Jesus rose in his cradle and cried, “Return to thy own land,
for thine enemy is dead!” And immediately he turned his
■cradle into an ass, ready saddled for the journey ! And all
that heard it did marvel beyond measure, saying, “ Why
should a child of so great power and wisdom flee .from his
enemies ?” But all this was done that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet, saying, “ Behold, I will
confound the wisdom of the wise ; and fools and folly shall
be exalted !”
And when Jesus was about fifteen months old he went into
the temple, even into the place where the scribes and elders
and bishops and all the Levites were diligently reading the
word of the Lord, and religiously quarrelling about the
meaning and interpretation thereof. And one said on this
wise, and another on that; and there was no wisdom nor
agreement amongst them, for the Lord had confounded them
giving a revelation which no man in heaven or earth could
* 1 Samuel vi., 19.
�90
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
understand. And behold, they did chide, and foam at the
mouth, and gnash with their teeth, and curse every man. his
fellow because of the multitude of opinions that prevailed.
Then Jesus stood in the midst of them and asked them ques
tions, and gave them answers which astounded all those that
heard him. And his fame spread abroad throughout, the
whole region and to every nation which is under heaven, inso
much that the newspapers reported nothing else but the
sayings of Jesus for weeks thereafter.
Then did Mary and her husband suddenly rush into the
temple, and when they found the child they took him away
to their home ; and Mary said, “ Why hast thou done thus
unto us ?” Then answered Jesus and said unto her, “Woman,
what have I to do with thee ? I’ll tell the old man of
Gabriel’s visits, if you don’t mind.” And Mary kept that
saying, and treasured it up in her heart.
After these things Jesus went out to the river Jordan,
wh ere his cousin John was conducting Salvation Army work
and dipping the people into the river to wash away their sins.
And Jesus, feeling his need of cleansing, prevailed upon John
to dip him. He stayed in the water too long, and caught a
violent chill. This brought on a fever and delirium, during
which he raved about a spirit (t was not I, certainly) driving
i
*
him into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.
And, behold, Jesus, as he lay in his fever, . did rave
exceedingly, and said that the Devil had come to him in the
wilderness, where he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
and was very hungry. The Devil brought unto him a. pig and
tempted him to eat it; but he repelled the temptation, with
horror. Then the Devil caught him up and flew with him to
a battlement of the temple and hurled him over ; but an
angel caught him before he fell to the earth. Then the Devil
took him away to a mountain exceedingly high, and showed
him all the cities and kingdoms of the world, even in both
hemispheres at one view ; and promised to make him the ruler
of them all, if he would only worship him. This he refused
to do. And the Devil left him there upon the mountain, cold .
and hungry, and not knowing which way to turn to
road home. Then an army of angels, as soon as the Devil
was out of sight, and they were no longer afraid of him, took
* Parenthesis by the Holy Ghost.
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
91
Jesus up and bore him home to his bed in a moment of time.
And behold, he awoke and told his vision to his Mother Mary ;
and she perceived thereby that hei’ son would be great, and
that divine wisdom dwelt in him more than in all the prophets
that were before him.
And Jesus, when the fever had left him chose twelve
disciples, and their names were these : Simon alias Peter;
Andrew (Peter’s brother); James and John Zebedee (also
brothers) ; Philip ; Bartholomew ; Thomas alias Didymus ;
Matthew alias Levi; James Alphseus; Lebbaeus alias
Thaddaeus ; Simon the Canaanite ; and Judas Iscariot. These
he sent out to preach his Gospel. They were bidden not to
meddle with Gentiles, but only Jews; and to cry as they
went, “ The kingdom of heaven is at hand 1” They were
commanded to heal the sick and to cast out devils : for
Jesus would never forgive the king of the devils for tempting
him to eat pork. Therefore, would he have wai’ with him
and his angels for ever. And he commanded them, moreover,
to raise the dead to life. They were forbidden to take any
gold, silver, or brass with them he commanded them not to
have two coats ; and to wear sandals instead of shoes.
Then the disciples went everywhere shouting their cry
“The kingdom of heaven is at hand 1” and healing the sick
and raising the dead in multitudes ; insomuch that the doctors
and undertakers and the parsons were deprived of their occu
pation and their burial fees ; and they cried out against the
disciples with an exceeding bitter cry. And all as many as held
property under their fathers’ wills, when they found their
parents and ancestors rising up to life again, did gnash their
teeth with rage against the disciples of Jesus. And it came
to pass that all the devils whom they had cast out did unite
with the physicians, and the undertakers, and those whom
their fathers had disturbed and dispossessed, and the parsons
who had lost their fees : and they set upon the disciples, and
drove them out of their cities. And all men wondered at that
which they beheld, and said, “ Why could not those men who
raised the dead defend themselves against the living?”
After these things Jesus and his disciples and his mother
went to a wedding, so that the wine ran short. But Jesus
turned a large cistern full of water into prime old port; and
then “ the fun grew fast and furious
and many good toasts
were drunk and good songs were sung. And they all sang a
�92
BLOWS AT THB BIBLE.
new song, even the song of Moses and of the lamb, in honor
of Jesus, saying,
“For he’s a jolly good fellow!
For he’s a jolly good fellow!
For he’s a jolly good fellow !
Which nobody can deny,” etc.
And passing on from thence Jesus met one thousand old
women, very decrepid, withered and toothless. And when
they asked alms of him, he said, “ What will ye that I should
do unto you ?” And they say unto him, “ Lord, that we may
be restored to our youth and beauty.” And he healed them
all, insomuch that they became the most beautiful women
upon earth. Some of them remain even unto this day “ to
witness if I lie.” And when this was noised abroad, behold,
all that had old and decrepid wives and sisters besought him
to heal them also. But he passed by and hid himself in a
desert place.
And his disciples went into a ship to cross over the sea;
and lo, a great wind arose, and the ship was in danger of
being overwhelmed in the midst of the sea. And the disciples,
as becometh good Christians, were sore afraid, saying, “ Alas!
must we enter into the New Jerusalem before our time ?”
And Jesus breathed upon the sea and it dried up; and he
turned the ship into a chariot, and six sharks into horses, and
thus rode, he and his disciples to their own home. And all
men, as many as heard it, did marvel greatly at those things
that were done.
And going on from thence he met a man who had fifty
million devils in him. And he cast them all out, and the
man was empty. < And the devils he sent into a herd of swine ;
and behold, the pigs began to fly like eagles, until they were
over the sea. And then did they all tumble into the water,
and were drowned, they and the devils also. And when the
owners of the pigs heard thereof, they ran out, they and their
neighbors, and chased Jesus out of that region.
And when he came to a fig-tree, he went to see if there
were any figs thereupon ; for he was very hungry, But the
•season for figs was not yet come, and he found nothing on it
but leaves. Then he began to curse and to swear, and the fig
tree turned as pale as death with fright, and entreated Jesus
not to curse it so, fori was unreasonable to expect figs out
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
93
of season. But Jesus gave no heed to its entreaty, but he
answered and said, ‘ ‘ Because thou hast not borne figs to feed
me when I am in need, henceforth let no figs grow on thee
for ever! Selah!” And it came to pass that the fig-tree,
being condemned in his own conscience, suddenly fell down
and gave up the ghost, and became a pillar of salt, as it is
written in the book of Moses concerning Lot’s wife. And
behold the man whose fig-tree it was did weep and lament
exceeding sore, both he and his -wife and family, for that which
had befallen their tree.
And going on from thence, there encountered them certain
of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And it came to pass that as
they chid him and mocked him, behold he performed a
miracle and turned them all into cabbages; and when the
sun shone hot upon them, having no root, they withered away.
And all men wondered at that which had come to pass.
Then began Jesus to say unto his disciples and to the
multitude, “Behold, I came down from heaven.” And they
said unto him, “' When didst thou descend from heaven ? Lo,
wast thou not born in Bethlehem ? Didst thou come from
heaven before thou wast born ? Or hast thou been up to
heaven and returned therefrom ? Tell us, we pray thee, what
explanation thou canst give.” And Jesus was wrath, and
3aid, “ He that believeth not shall be damned. It shall be
worse for you that doubt my words than for Sodom and
Gomorrah.” And he shook off the dust of his feet against
them, and went his way.
And in those days when work was disagreeable and alms
were hard to get, Jesus and his disciples went a-fishing ; but
Jesus himself remained upon the shore. And, behold., as they
rowed and toiled the fish would not enter into their net, and
the disciples knew not what to do, being sore perplexed. Then
Jesus, who was skilled in magic, waved his hands over the sea,
and the spirit of God descended upon the fishes like a mighty
rushing wind ; and the disciples caught three thousand of
them in the twinkling of an eye. And when they drew the
net to land the fishes fell down before him and worshipped
him, saying, “Verily, thou art the Son of God.”*
Then Jesus began to say unto the twelve, “Whosoever he
* One version reads, “ Verily, thou art a son of a gun.” But this is
most probably spurious; for guns were unknown in those ctays.
�96
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
third part of the sea became bloodand a third of all fishes
and ships were destroyed. Then he smote the sun, moon,
and stars, and darkened one third of them. And he opened
the door of the bottomless pit, and let out the fiery locusts
which were shut up there; and they destroyed one-third of
mankind.
Then he mounted a white horse which came from heaven,
and called himself King of. Kings and Lord of Lords; and he
led his armies to war, all riding upon white horses, and there
was an exceedingly great slaughter, so that the blood rose even
unto the horse-bridles for the space of 200 miles ! Then did
he invite the beasts and birds of prey to come and feast them
selves upon the flesh of the millions who had fallen in battle,
for he refused them decent burial because of his hatred of
them.
It came to pass after these things that Judas, one of his
disciples, betrayed him into the hands of his enemies. He
did it on this wise. Finding his master asleep, he took awav
his magic wand, and cut off his hair, wherein resided his
great power. .Then he became powerless and like another
man. Then did Judas conduct his enemies to him, and they
caught him and bound him, and led him away captive, and
they carried him to Egypt and there crucified him (Rev. xi., 8).
Then one of his followers, Mary by name, whose character
was not the best, and out of whom Jesus had cast seven
devils, pretended to have seen him after his death. But even
his disciples treated the tale as a ghost story. They, howe\ er, believed that, like Hercules and Adonis and Osiris, he
had been raised to heaven ; and some there are who believe
it even unto this day.
He that testifieth these things saith true. And if he had
written all that Jesus said and did. the world itself would be
too small to hold the books that would be written. He that
BELIEVETH SHALL BE TAKEN INTO
THE
HEAVENLY
ASYLUM,
New Jerusalem ; he that believeth not shall be
condemned to wander with the wise ones of the earth, and be
at large and at liberty all the days of his life. Amen!
even the
Printed and Published by Ramsey and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Blows at the Bible
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 6 v. (96 p.) ; 19 cm.
Notes: Contents: No. 1: The sermon on the mount.--No. 2: The life of Adam. Love not the world. The mystery of salvation.--No. 3: How a fairy was transformed. Jumping comments on Genesis.-- Nos. 4, 5: Jumping comments on Genesis.--No. 6: Jumping comments on Genesis. The gospel of the Holy Ghost. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Ramsey and Foote]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N628
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Blows at the Bible), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Authority
Bible-Criticism
Bible-Evidences
NSS