1
10
16
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dc855bd1bea70ec67457a41150cb840b.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=egYdBLCu0bEmxeHbNeshs12u2ri%7E2dvzctHjSkyji4-PwaxzJvSXZJHVnXyS7erYh%7ECZF-ULZH4w6KQDcmRAIVPn0QcX2-Ra27rMsiwq4mDmriiLPvTK6B8NKC-sOpAvlEEMiqESahlCtnSYKJo68c0GqLEZhBFO%7E4qAw3QsVPzcPiIZzLW1hyoPhuRV93-HZRcaNxlItMuKyEadFR2nLbnx4CkfGeh%7E8-X1wM6A0P8uXXUGhfRWeCz-dhsJtbBZH98rsEh3NOTntUB8uMoK7mOw9zO3jqNNj9s4USa0M7v6vUroc%7E88AdAu%7EXIPNkigGCIk8%7Ee9f8pDHOuOjVjwDA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7dccbc38951f862b4c4c87d67afd73f0
PDF Text
Text
B 511
■
THE REVISED VERSION: “THE
ORACLES OF GOD.”
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY,
ST. GEORGE’S IIALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
ON
SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 13th NOVEMBER, 1881,
By GEORGE J. WILD, Esq., LL.D.
ilonboit:
PUBLISHED . BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
1881.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
�SYLLABUS
1. —A subject embracing so many points of intricate criticism must
necessarily in a single lecture be treated cursorily and as a whole.
The Nature of the Book revised. Always hitherto regarded as a Sacred
book of infallible authority. Theologians of the minimist school,—various
views of inspiration; neither of these invalidate the authority of scripture
as practically used by recognised bodies of Christians, with whose author
ised statements it is alone possible to deal. Practically the whole
Christian world appeals to us to take scripture as our sure guide.
2. —Sympathy with the alarm of devout persons. Versions;—they
frequently vary. Incongruity of the ideas of an infallible revelation and
varying versions thereof. Opinions, in tlieir own words, of several of the
“Revisers,” and other leading divines, on the effect often produced on
Versions and Manuscripts by bias and dogmatic prejudice—rendering with
a view to edification—chance—attempts at harmonising—intentional falsi
fication and interpolation—dubiousness of meaning.
Reliability of a document must be affected by these incidents.
3.—Attempts to extenuate this difficulty by Christian Apologists. The
attempt invalidated by their own arguments from an opposite point of
view, and by the vital nature of the doctrines affected by the alterations:—
the Trinity—Justification by Faith —Communion in both kinds—The Evil
One;—and by the way in which changed views respecting these doctrines
affect persons and property. Professor Maurice:—Prosecution of “The
Essayists and Reviewers.”
The “trepidation and uncertainty” of the Christian public spoken of by
a clergyman are therefore very natural.
4. —Additional llncertainty warranted by the “ Revisers’ ” own statements
about the text. The Three Great Uncials. Destruction of writings in early
centuries. Rough behaviour of primitive divines. A question for sincere
Christians. The Canon—Four Hundred Years—Eusebius—Dr. Westcott on
“ instinct.”
5. —Sacred volumes among other races deemed also “oracles of God.”
The demons testified of Christ. Reliability of oracles suspected, as sound
knowledge increases.
Conclusion. Apology for disturbing popular sentiment; but to destroy
vulgar conceptions of the infallibility of scripture is as religious and
honest a work in those who think such views detrimental, as is the propa
gation of the Bible by those who think otherwise. The Gospel of the
Future.
�THE REVISED VERSION: “ THE ORACLES
OE GOD.”
ADIES and Gentlemen,—A cursory treatment of such a sub
ject as that proposed to me is all that is possible in a single
lecture, so many are the points of view, and so numerous the
publications to which it bas given rise.
My present purpose is simply to lay before you a few such re
flections as might be supposed to occur to any clear-minded and
fairly-educated person who considered the subject as a whole ; and
I shall only introduce a few of the special points raised by critics
and divines as illustrations by the way.
The first question that naturally occurs is “ What is this booh,”
the revision of which arouses such interest in every direction ?
However vaguely we may recall the lessons of youth, and however
much of late years our attention may have been directed to other
studies, we cannot but remember that it is a book, for which mar
vellous claims are made, which has had a most remarkable history,
and which still exerts a very widespread and powerful influence.
It is a book which claims to be a divine gift from God to man: the
very names that are continually applied to it by divines of all
schools and churches are in fact an assertion of these claims. The
“New Testament,” or, as critics now say it should rather be called,
“ The New Covenant—as setting forth the agreement between
God and man on the terms of salvation. Other titles, familiar to
us, are such as these: “ The Word of God” and “The Oracles of
God,” both adopted from the language of Apostles, “ Holy Scrip
tures,” “ Revelation,” and others, all intended to assert for this
book an authority and a position wholly unique and different from
that of all other books in the world.
Every one,-from his own experience, must be so well aware of
the way in which scripture has been hitherto regarded in the Christ
ian communities, that it would be hardly necessary to insist upon
this point but for the fact that of late years there has grown up
a class of expositors who may be called theologians of the minimist
school. Their notion seems to be that the best method of defend
ing their creed is after the fashion of the animal who escapes from
a trap by leaving his limbs behind him. By a process of gradual
evisceration they seek to free the Christian scheme from whatever
difficulties science or history may discover in it. It may be an
artful plan to confound opponents by providing that all their rude
L
�4
The Revised Version:
blows shall fall upon a vacuum, and if it pleases these gentlemen
to retain the name and style and profess the creed of Christians,
emptied of its contents, it is mainly their own concern. Those,
however, who hold the greater part of the gospel narratives to be
myths, scripture inspired in the same sense as Ovid’s metamor
phoses, and Jesus an amiable social- democrat, burning with the
enthusiasm of humanity, and only divine by a figure of speech, are
not Christians in the usual sense of the word, although it may suit
them to call themselves so. I only allude to them here to say that
it is impossible to take note of the nebulous and ever-shifting
theories by which it is sought to fence or shelter their position. In
discussing the bearing of Christian doctrines it is absolutely neces
sary for clearness sake to have regard only to those presentations
of it put forth by leading Christian bodies and divines of responsible
position. If ever the churches in general come to share the views
of the minimists, there will be not much left then of the old Christ
ianity to discuss, one way or the other, at least nothing probably
that we should care to contend against.
Similar remarks apply in some degree to those defenders of the
faith who insist that there is some refined and esoteric meaning of
scripture language and doctrine imperceptible by ordinary per
sons, and who try to baffle their less learned opponents by telling
them either that they are treating “ Biblical imagery as scientific
*
prose,” or that they “ lade Christians with definitions and conclu
sions which they, are nowhere called on to hold,” or that they are
assuming “ that coarse popular religions of the day represent
Christianity, or attacking “transient phases of opinion long re
linquished.” This all sounds very reasonable, and we acknowledge
that it would be unfair to impute to modern Christians old or igno
rant conceptions which have been abandoned. But then they
must have been really abandoned. It is all very well for one of
our more enlightened bishops, or other speaker at a Church Con
gress, to put a pleasant face on matters, and open both his hands
to science as the true handmaid of religion,—and. my well-read
clerical friend over an evening pipe, may tell me that such or such
a thing only belongs to the “ coarse popular religion of the day,”
that no sensible man thus thinks, and that of course he and his
lettered brethren hold nothing of the kind I—but round the corner
of the street I turn into some Sunday School, and I find the curate
in charge, perhaps my learned friend himself, teaching the actual
titeral beliefs he had been explaining away, or I enter an adjacent
church, and I find much the same thing thought good enough for
* See speeches at Newcastle Church Congress, in Guardian October 5
and October 12.
�a The Oracles of God.”
5
the dear simple-minded mammas and daughters who mostly fill the
pews. It is natural, and not unjustifiable, that such doubletongued Christianity should give rise to the suspicion that certain
of the clergy would gladly re-rivet on us the old superstitions if
only people could be brought to accept them, and that it is only
the persistent voice of the free-thinking objector that forces the
clerical order to concede so much as they do to reason.
On the other hand, I of course allow that there is a considerable
distinction of opinion among genuine Christians. I do not ignore
that there are higher and lower views of inspiration. There are
those who hold that every word and every letter of the sacred
volume were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and those who think
there was only such a general providential superintendence as was
sufficient to guard against substantial error of fact or doctrine.
Liberal theologians, when pressed from the outside.with' the diffi
culties of the inspiration theory, have been ready to concede a
great deal, and have drawn a variety of fine distinctions between
“verbal” and “ plenary,” “ matter and manner,” “ substance and
form,” the “ essence and vehicle” of a revelation—“ the conclusion
and the premises” of a scriptural argument, “the doctrine and
the literary apparatus ” by which it is conveyed. But when they
come to the discussion of points of belief, all schools assume a
practical infallibility for the precise statements, and even, as the
way they use them shows, for short texts and single words of
scripture, and especially are they obliged to do so when dealing
with their hearers in general. For few are so dull as not to
perceive that it must be an extremely risky matter to settle the
criterion of distinction and say how much or how little of a
passage is of divine inspiration: if we admit the fallibility of parts
of scriptural statements, where are we to draw the line ? If none
but expert logicians and skilled linguists are supposed to be
capable of this, scripture for all practical purposes still remains
written “ in a tongue not understanded of the people,” as much as
when written in Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Whatever certain
learned persons may think, therefore, if this theory be plainly put
forward, we others, we of the unlettered multitude, cannot but too
clearly perceive that we are completely at the mercy of a small
priestly or lettered class, or, as Lord Shaftesbury put it, subjected
to the tyranny of professors. The Church of Borne, indeed, faces
this difficulty by claiming for herself the sole and absolute right of
exposition; but she nevertheless, like the Protestant Churches, in
combination with her own tradition, holds the Bible as the rule of
faith.
We may conclude, therefore, this seeming digression by again
�6
The Revised Version:
affirming that amongst all really recognisable Christians the scrip
tures still retain their high prerogative, and that none of those
paramount claims are abated which entitle them to be properly
styled “ the revealed Word of God,” or as St. Stephen called them
“ the living Oracles.” In hundreds of learned and elaborate as
well as popular discourses, in Cathedral and University pulpits,
no less than myriad chapels, we are continually exhorted to
“ search the scriptures,” told that they “ will make us wise unto
Salvation,” to take them “ as a guide to our feet and a lantern to
our paths,” to beware how we “ corrupt the Word of God, either
by adding thereto or taking therefrom;” while some of the more
enthusiastic preachers have not hesitated to apply to the whole
scriptures those words of its last page : “if any man add unto the
words of this book God shall add unto him the plagues that are
written therein, and if any man shall take away from the words of
this book God shall take away his part out of the book of life.”
Of this remarkable and widely reverenced book, then, we are
now presented with a “ Revised Version.”
I can well understand and sympathise with the alarm and
repugnance of simple believers when they first heard that the
venerable volume, whose every verse they had been taught was
sacred, was to be exposed to the tampering and pruning of critics.
Its beautiful language and identical words were stored in their
hearts, linked with the history of their lives, and pregnant with
associations and deep meanings breathed but to God alone, and it
was agony to think that that language of the soul was to be
broken in upon, and those, as they believed, eternal harmonies
dislocated and jarred.
. For does there not in truth seem something incongruous
between the very idea of “ a Word of God ” and “ a revised
version ” thereof? An inspired Oracle, a divine revelation, which
in some way has got so interpolated and wrongly rendered as
to require freshly translating and purging of unwarranted parts.
Some will be disposed to think that a revelation that can be
involved in such risks fails of the very end for which a revelation
might be conceived as possible; at any rate that it must be lacking
in that definiteness and certainty which the very conception of a
divine message seems to imply. For as a renowned divine once
*
said, “ The Holy Ghost sheds pure light, and the truth he teaches
hath a language that is always uniform.”
To reveal means to unveil, to make manifest or clear, and is
opposed to every notion of obscurity, and dark puzzles and con
undrums. If indeed, as at the conclusion of his famous Bampton
* Bossuet, Histoire des Variations des 6glises Protestantes, Preface.
�“ The Oracles of God.”
7
Lectures was once wittily said of Dean Mansel, the chief thing
that we believe in, in regard to revelation, is the veil, it is of course
possible to conceive of a matter being revealed with the object of
making it darker than before. But this process, in the ordinary
use of language, would generally be described as “ obscuring ” not
revealing'a matter. A message is brought to the world, professing
to give information about the nature and being of its God—the
conditions of acceptance with him, the means by which men are
to approach him, and the prospects of future happiness or misery.
I soon find there are divergent copies of the message. Christians
nevertheless aver that it is a revelation which gives precise infor
mation on these and other like matters. But when to my zealous
enquiries I can get no certain and uniform answer, no answer in
which any two agree, in what respect am I better than I was
*
originally ? I am left in a region of conjecture and opinion ; but
I had conjectures and opinions of my own before; and the declared
object of the revelation was to dispel such, and establish certainty.
If it fails of this has it not failed of its end ? The object of a light
is to illumine; of a chart to show the track, of an envoy to carry a
definite message; if the light only shows “ darkness visible,” if in
the map no sure continuous path can be discovered, if the messen
ger is so incoherent that we cannot tell whether he refers to Borne
or Canterbury, Constantinople or Geneva, what in any case can
result but ambiguity and confusion ? Now St. Paul tells us that
God is not the God of confusion, and his master declares we may
know things by their fruits. Judging the churches then by their
own standards, what can we say ?
How very different a complexion and meaning the mere process
of version-making may give to a book is evident from many curious
passages of the Septuagint, as compared with the Hebrew bible.
Some very suggestive remarks on this subject may be found in the
4th and 5th lectures of Professor Bobertson Smith’s recent volume
on “ The Old Testament in the Jewish church.”
To the English reader this divergence of version is made easily
apparent by comparing the prayer-book and the bible versions of
the Psalms. Take for instance two corresponding verses of the
58th Psalm. The prayer-book has it “ Or ever your pots be made
hot with thorns, so let indignation vex him even as a thing that is
raw ”—the bible however says “ Or ever your pots can feel the
thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living,
and in his wrath.” Many similar instances might be given.
It can be shown, then, that considerable differences exist be
tween versions as a matter of fact. Most persons, I think, will
perceive upon reflection that it must have been so from the nature
�8
The Revised Version:
of the case. For consider only the natural bias or prepossession
of each translator derived from his education and mode of thought.
Hear, for instance, what the Bishop of St. Andrews, a “ Reviser,”
says on this point. After alluding to the composition of the
*
Revising Company, with the proportion of Episcopalians and
Dissenters, as necessarily influencing in some degree the results,
he continues thus: “ Bias, of course derived from antecedents,
from education, from position in life, and from ecclesiastical
associations, through the constitution of our common nature there
must needs have been more or less in every case. But I have the
fullest conviction that no conscious partiality . . . was allowed in
any instance to exercise any sway throughout our proceedings.”
So again Mr. Moule,t the well-known Biblical scholar, arguing
against the change from “we have peace with God,” to “let us have
peace with God,” in the revised version of the 5th of Romans,
goes on to say : “ Who can hesitate how to explain the early
growth of the reading ‘ let us have ’ ? It was the result of an age
when the . . . certainties of the Pauline teaching were already
exchanged for the mists of a spirit of unauthorised speculation or
of misguided ecclesiasticism, both alike beclouding the directness
of view and of hold on the part of the Christian towards his
Redeemer.”
As the three earliest MSS. all agree in the reading “ let us have,”
we perceive that Mr. Moule’s estimate of the MSS. even of- that
age is not a high one.
Speaking of another rendering he says, again, “ For this ren
dering, every critical nerve on one side—under dogmatic prejudice
—has been strained.” .... “ But for prepossession against the
idea of the Redeemer’s deity, I am perfectly sure that no rendering
but that now retained would have occurred to a translator in the
first instance.”
Similarly the Rev. W. Ewen, B.D.,1 speaks of “ the unconscious
dogmatic bias” of the “ Revision Committee” itself; even venturing
to state that they have given us, not “ what St. Paul wrote, but
what they think he should have written as an orthodox teacher.”
Then, again, we have an Oxford M.A. complaining that Dr.
Brown',§ one of the Revisers, was led “by dogmatic opinion” . . .
“to insist on the use of the pronoun ‘who’ instead of ‘which’”
when referring to the Spirit; though the Greek word is neuter,
and in English we always say “ it” when speaking of a spirit.*
§
* See his address to his Diocesan Synod, Standard, Sept. 23,1881.
t Moule’s Comment on Epis. to the Romans,-PwiZzcOpm/on,July9th,1881.
J In a letter to Public Opinion, 6th August, 1881.
§ Public Opinion, 6th August, 1881.
�il The Oracles of God.”
9
One gentleman expresses his conviction that a new revision
*
ought to be made chiefly with a view to edification. Since views
of what is edifying differ vastly, this may almost be called erecting
prejudice into a principle.
We have more than one intimation of the opinion that in
introducing “the Evil one” into the Lord’s Prayer, the revisers
were actuated by a laudable desire to restore the doctrine of the
personality of the devil, which has been so depreciated of late
years. One Rev. gentlemant even broaches the comical idea that
the strong dislike expressed by so many persons to this re-intro
duction of “ the Evil one,” arises from the same feeling as Satan’s
own rage when he is found out. I know not to what he alludes,
unless to some of the old stories about the devil appearing in
various disguises, such as lovely women, or beautiful boys, to holy
men and being quickly detected; as when St. Dunstan applied
his hot tongs to the devil’s nose and sent him off swearing.
I need not trouble you with any more statements from orthodox
divines, granting our position as to the large share prejudice must
have in the rendering of any version.
This fact alone must of itself very much affect the trustworthi
ness of any transmitted document.
But our estimate of reliability will have, I think, to be rated
still lower, when we consider the element of chance in the trans
mission of documents—chance including all the risks connected
with the stupidity, the laziness, the superstition and misplaced
reverence of myriads of copyists. Even in the case of the “ Re
vision ” before us, Dr. Sanday, a distinguished critic, allows that
chance must have played its part.J “ In a Committee,” he says,
“ composed of heterogenous elements .... results must needs be
obtained in a great measure by compromise, and even in the
compromises adopted from time to time there will naturally be an
element of accident.”
The Bishop of St. Andrews also emphasises§ the fact that the
voting system of rendering risks the result of a frequent majority
of the least sagacious and able over, as he thinks, a more scholarly
minority.
The Dean of Peterborough and others might be cited as wit
nesses to the same effect.
To the thus allowed effects of prejudice and chance no small
addition must be made from the mistaken views taken of the duties*
§
* J. F. S., in Public Opinion, 17th Sept., 1881.
t Rev. Mr. Tyrwhitt, Public Opinion, 17th Sept., 1881.
t Public Opinion, 6th August, 1881.
§ lb., 24th Sept, and 10th Oct., 1881.
�10
The Revised Version:
of a redacteur in those early centuries. If even nowadays we
hear reverend theologians insisting that it is the first duty of a
version-maker to translate with a view to edification, irrespective
of the weight of evidence for or against any particular reading,
what must we suppose to have been the case in those days when
the science and duty of historical precision were altogether un
dreamt of, and a desire “to build up the believers,” as they
phrased it, “in their most holy faith” was considered, not merely
to justify, but to render right and necessary any required amount
of perversion.
To this tendency may be traced some of the blundering attempts
which were evidently made at an early period to harmonize one
gospel with another. The learned Master of University College,
Durham, gives us an instance where even the translators of our
*
Authorised Version were led by this tendency to mistranslate a
passage in John in order to reconcile it with the parallel account
in Matthew and Mark.
But far greater effect, than by attempts at harmonizing, would
be produced by the intentional interpolation and falsification of the
text in those first ages of fierce strife.
On this we have the Bev. Mr. Tyrwhitt’st statement respecting
a text in Matthew, which, he says, “is a plain indication that
deliberate falsification of the evangelist’s phrase must necessarily
here be charged against one or other of the two sets of conflicting
Greek authorities.”
Similarly, Dr. Dwight,t one of the American revisers, speaking
of passages which mention fasting in the Authorised Version, and
which are properly excluded from the “ Bevised,” as no part of the
true text, so that fasting is now nowhere inculcated as a Christian
duty in the New Testament; he observes, “ This manipulating of
the text in the places to which we have made especial reference,
shows the tendency of a later time than the apostolic age.”
So Professor Sanday§ speaks of a certain combination of manu
scripts, namely, the combination “ Aleph D,” that is the Sinaitic
and the Codex Bezae, having “ been found to mark a well-defined
strain of corruption.”
And, here perhaps, it is as well to remark that it makes no differ
ence to our argument whether these gentlemen, in discussing
various passages, are right or wrong in the view they take of the
particular point before them. We need commit ourselves to none*
§
* His Letter in Public Opinion, 1st Oct., 1881.
t Public Opinion, 17th September, 1881.
1 lb. 25th June, 1881.
§ lb., 6th August, 1881.
�il The Oracles of GodT
11
of their opinions. It is enough for us that we have a large
number—for statements like the above might be infinitely multi
plied—a large number of orthodox divines and professed defenders
of the faith, agreeing that a great amount of deliberate and
accidental corruption of New Testament documents prevailed
during the early centuries of our era.
But no small element of uncertainty still remains; it will be
found, even in many cases where all parties are agreed as to the
original reading, but where the meaning of the Greek is doubtful.
Bor an instance, take a verse in the 3rd chapter of John; commenting
on which Professor Plummer says, “In v. 34, the probably correct
*
interpretation of the Authorised Version, ‘ God giveth not the spirit
by measure unto him,’ is reduced to the correct translation ‘ He
giveth not the spirit by measure.’ The possible rendering, ‘ The
spirit giveth not by measure,’ is not thought worthy of notice in the
margin.”
Here, then, we have three possible renderings of the same Greek
the difference of which is not small, at any rate considerable enough
to very much alter the bearing of the text in a conceivable doctrinal
controversy.
Several of our theological leaders have endeavoured to lessen the
sense of uncertainty, perturbing many minds, on account of the
omissions and variations of the I Revised Version,” and confessed
corruptions of the old, by using some such language as this :—
“ After all what is the upshot of the whole work ? No doctrine of
any importance is affected by these corrections; they chiefly refer
to small points. Granting that all the errors, and all the corrup
tions, insisted on by the most trenchant critics are well founded,
yet enough remains to establish all the great articles of faith.”
We must take leave, however, to considerably qualify these
reassuring and comforting statements’
Indeed, this method of representing the alterations, as of little
consequence, is refuted by the language of many of these divines
themselves ; when, regarding the question from the opposite side,
they show the absolute necessity that existed for a revision.
As for instance, Archdeacon Palmer,t one of the revisers, among
others, speaking at the Church Congress, argues that, if the defects
of the Authorised Version had been only in small matters the
public would hardly have endured the experiment of a revision.
“But,”he says, “ when it is seen that the received text is condemned
by a consensus of critics in passages which have been used by authors,
like Bishop Pearson, to establish important doctrines, and which
* Public Opinion, 1st October, 1881.
t lb., Oct. 22nd, 1881.
�12
The Revised Version:
must continue to invite like use so long as they stand unaltered in
our English bibles, it is impossible to rest satisfied with a version
which represents that received text.”
He then gives as examples the verse in Tim. (1 Tim., iii. 16),
where the words “ He who was manifest in the flesh,” have been
converted, in the Authorised Version, to “ God manifest in the
flesh,” and the text of the Three Witnesses.
No one can have the face to allege that such texts as these refer
only to small points.
The expulsion of the famous text of the Three Heavenly Wit
nesses must be allowed, on all hands, to withdraw no slight support
from the doctrine of the Trinity. This is made plain, if by nothing
else, at least by the pertinacity and determination with which it
was long fought for in the face of overwhelming evidence, and with
which, in -some orthodox quarters, it is still fought for. Eor their
ecclesiastical experience and acumen make them instinctively feel
that, if it is conceded that the Trinitarian party were so resolute
and unscrupulous as to foist in a whole text to back up their be
loved doctrine, it raises no unreasonable suspicion, that many other
texts, originally of lame inference, have been surreptitiously touched
up to meet their argumentative requirements. Those familiar with
early Greek writing well know that, in many cases, it would require
but the insertion of a mere line an -g-th of an inch long, to convert
a sentence, as an authority, from one side of the question to the
other.
When we consider that this last-mentioned text is the only
one which directly, and in so many words, attested the doctrine of
the Trinity in the whole compass of the New Testament, it must
be fairly allowed that the adversaries of that tenet have scored a
point, when at length it is ignominiously ejected from the sacred
text- without one word of excuse, condolence, or record of its for
mer presence: the Revisers not having condescended to notice it,
even in the margin. Shades of Travis and Porson, behold, how
low this once I glorious pillar of unshaken orthodoxy” has fallen !
Once the rallying point of so many famous champions, and the
*
subject of such hard-fought battles, and now, “ None so poor to do
it reverence,” nay even to bow it out with common civility! If
the poor text had language, we can imagine its addressing these
ruthless Revisers in the words of the old song,—“It may have
been wise to dissemble your love, but why need you kick me down
stairs ?”
Another doctrine, held for many generations to be a vital prin* See Dr. Davidson’s Introduction to New Testament, Vol. II. p. 307, and
Blomfield’s Greek Testament, notes in loco.
�“ The Oracles of God.”
13
ciple of Christianity, almost the note of a standing or falling
church, is that of “ justification by faith.” The rendering of an
important text bearing upon this doctrine, which the “ Revisers ”
have thought themselves obliged to adopt, has been strongly con
demned by no less an authority than the Bishop of Llandaff, whose
*
words are that the view of the “Revisers” “is quite subversive of
this essential doctrine of Christianity,” and “ in direct contradic
tion to the teaching of St. Paul upon the subject.”
I offer no opinion upon the matter beyond stating that it can
hardly be supposed our would-be comforters can, as theologians,
call the doctrine of justification a small point, with, the recollec
tion of all the mighty tomes which have been written on it, and
the endless distinctions hammered out between “ causa efiiciens ”
and “ causa instrumentalis,” “ meritum de condigno,” and “ meritum de congruo,” and all the rest of it.
Then, again, it is well known how long and internecine was the
controversy between the Roman and Protestant Churches on the
question of “ Communion in both kinds,” and the withholding of
the cup from the laity. The present Bishop of Winchester in fact
declares,t “ that it is a very serious question whether the sacra
ment is a valid sacrament when there is only administered one
half of what Christ ordained.”
As all the leading churches agree with that of England that the
sacraments are “generally necessary to salvation,” according to
this showing the great mass of Romanists are reduced to what
Touchstone calls “ a parlous state.” So much the greater conse
quently must be the satisfaction of the Roman authorities when
they find that the “ Revisers ” have thought it right so far to
strengthen their view of the question as to translate in accordance
with the Vulgate version, the text of the 27th v. of 11th ch. of 1
Cor.: “ Whoever shall eat the bread on drink the cup of the Lord,”
instead of as in the Authorised Version: “ and the cup of the Lord.”
In several other instances the Vulgate rendering is approved.
The striking change in the Lord’s prayer of “ evil ” into “ the
evil one,” has caused considerable sensation in most Christian
bodies, and has led to a long and learned controversy between the
Bishop of Durham and Canon Cook.J Time precludes further
allusion to this matter, but when such illustrious authorities differ
so considerably on a point like this, common men may certainly
be excused for thinking that the “oracles” cannot be so plain “that
he may run that readeth.”
* Public Opinion, 17th September, 1881.
+ On the Thirty-Nine Articles, Art. XXX., p. 736.
| See Guardians of September 7 to September 28, inclusive.
�14
The Revised Version:
These various changes of the “ Revised Version” can hardly also
be deemed small or immaterial if we consider the probable differ
ence they might have made to persons and parties had they been
foreseen and sanctioned earlier. It is now nearly 30 years ago
since Professor Maurice was the centre of a theological disturb
ance in England, and when, after a somewhat acrimonious dis
cussion, chiefly stirred up by Dr. Jelf, he was ejected from his
professorship. It will be remembered that the main contest ranged
round sundry distinctions of the Professor respecting the word
Aubvios. It can scarcely be doubted that if the standard of infor
mation, and the atmosphere of thought which have led the present
“ Revisers,” in every instance, to translate this word by “eternal,”
and not “ everlasting,” had been as prevalent then as now, that
there would have been nothing heard of the persecution of poor
Maurice—the gentlest and most charitable of men. One, who
was totally opposed to him in most respects, still wrote of him at
the time in these words : “ It is a sorrowful thing to see the fine
subtlety, the large and genial culture, the Christian genius and
virtues of the Chaplain of Lincoln’s-Inn, distorting themselves in
vain struggles of ecclesiastical position, and trying, by all sorts of
loving ingenuities, that would be unveracious in any one else, to
relax the marble brow of a relentless Church.”
A few years later a more terrific storm arose in connection with
the attack upon the authors of “ Essays and Reviews,” which
though finally failing in the attempt to expel the Essayists, subjected
two of them, at least, to a wearisome and costly prosecution, which
if it did not break the heart, at any rate utterly broke the health
and spirits of one of them.
It will be remembered that, the proposed “ handling ” of “ scrip
ture as other books,” was one of the main sources of trouble. It
is probable that a large proportion of those ten or eleven thousand
clergy, who signed the remarkable protest against the “ Essayists,”
have gone to their rest; their survivors must by this time, one
would^think, have got pretty well accustomed to the “ free handling”
of sacred records, and the work of the “ Revisers ” must, at least,
have taught them that if any approximation can be made to the
exact language in which the authors of the New Testament wrote,
it can only be by treating the scriptures very much “ like other
books.” The way in which the “ Revision ” itself has been, for the
most part, accepted is a good index of the great change, in the tone
of thought, on the subject between now and then. But this very
change, this acquiescence in the treatment of “ scripture as other
books,” can hardly be deemed a small or trifling point. It is, in
fact, a point which lies at the very root of the whole matter. It
�“ The Oracles of God.”
15
has already pretty well exploded a whole school of theology, in the
eyes of all rational men, and I am very much deceived if we shall
not, before long, see more remarkable effects. The frantic efforts of
late years among many in Protestant Communities, to bolster up,
like the Homan Controversialists, the scriptures by the Church and
the Church by the scriptures, and the attempt in the Boman Church
to prop what is felt to be itself a crumbling buttress, by elevating
the dogma of infallibility into a “ verite du foi,” are tolerably clear
signs that the feeling of insecurity as to the groundwork of the
faith is spreading in all quarters.
In view, then, of so many varying expedients for underpinning
the faith, and such conflicts of opinion among divines, the letter of
a clergyman, complaining that “ many minds at the present time
*
are agitated by a sense of trepidation and uncertainty,” is not
surprising. When, for instance, we hear so eminent a theologian
as the Bishop of Derryt “ declare his profound conviction that St.
John makes no such statement ” as one which the “ Bevisers ” have
put into his mouth; and that it is to be feared the error of the
revisers will lead to “ serious misapplication ” and “ misapprehen
sion,” and find other ecclesiastics of high position giving utterance
to similar fears, we must grant, I think, that the “ trepidation and
uncertainty ” are not unnatural.
We have hitherto said nothing as to the additional dubiousness
attaching to the subject, in regard to the foundation of the Greek
text of the Bevised Version. The text of the Authorised Version
was confessedly very imperfect. The revisers have, in many re
spects, given us a new one. They tell us, in their preface, that
the materials for improving the text have only come to light within
the last two centuries, some of them only within the last few years.
It follows from this, therefore, that the Christian Church, for the
larger part of its existence, that is from the 5th to the 16 th century,
has had no true text of its divine oracles. The “ Bevisers ” have
chiefly leant upon the great Uncial MSS. Some well known
scholars have complained that they have not consistently done so.
To this the “ Bevisers ” may be said to have replied by anticipa
tion,t when they tdll us “ that it was not within their province to
construct a continuous and complete text; ” and that, in “ many
places,” . . . “it would not be safe for the present to accept one read
ing to the absolute exclusion of others.”
In short, their statements come practically to this : that we are
* Rev. Tilney Bassett, Public Opinion, 16th July, 1881.
t lb., 10th September, 1881.
t Preface to Revised Version.
�16
The Revised Version:
still without a true text of the original oracles, and have at present
no means of forming one.
And after all what are these three great Uncials that are placed
up above the other authorities like my Lords in banco, in their fullbottomed wigs. Two of them descend, they say, from the fourth cen
tury, the other from the fifth. It is notorious that by that time
corruptions had sprung up in the church in all directions. It was
a period of the greatest rascality, unscrupulousness, lying, and self
seeking, besides dire confusion among both the lay and clerical
orders, as is admitted even by ecclesiastical historians themselves.
Certainly it is not a creditable era to date from, and a pedigree
commencing in such a period is surely not unquestionable.
It appears to me a very suspicious circumstance too, that we
have no MS., at least of some of the separate books, higher than
the date named. The preceding period was one of violent and
cruel controversy, and we know that religious antagonists did not
stick at trifles in those days, as witness one early council where the
stronger party pummelled their adversaries to that extent that they
were obliged to take refuge under the seats ; and at Ephesus one
leading bishop was so knocked about that he died a few days after
ward. Are these, we cannot help asking, are these the calm sages
and the holy fathers on whose authority we are to accept the mys
teries of religion, and to whose sagacity and fidelity we are to trust
for the preservation of its evidence ? Temperate and precise state
ment might as reasonably be looked for in a meeting of howling
dervishes, or rowdies of the New York slums. At any rate, gentle
men so little ceremonious with the persons of their adversaries,
would not be very particular as to their books, and they had apos
tolic precedent for burning reprobated writings. As they would
not scruple to destroy books, so they would not hesitate either to in
terpolate them, or to ascribe them to others than their real authors.
We have positive evidence that this was the case in some instances,
and we have no doubt in many others also if we could only un
earth the facts. It is not likely that the three great Uncials, de
rived to us from this turbulent and unwholesome era, have escaped
the general contamination. Since these remarks were written, I
have had the pleasure, last week, of reading the terrific onslaught
made upon the Uncials by the current “ Quarterly Review.” The
reviewer gives them the very worst of characters. I am happy to
be so far in accord with him. He should, in consistency however,
have told his readers that the character of the MSS. on which the
Authorised Version is founded is even worse. The joke of the
matter is, that he evidently imagines himself to be lending valuable
support to orthodoxy. The more prudent of the orthodox will, I
�“ The Oracles of God.”
17
think, be ready to cry “heaven save us from our friends.” The re
marks which he ascribes to Tischendorf on Codex D, “ Soepe du- .
bites,” &c., “You may often doubt whether you are reading things
written seriously or in jest,” seem appropriate, I think, to the re
viewer himself. These well-abused Uncials are, however, the best
and earliest MSS. that can be obtained, and we have seen, how
greatly their authority has been allowed to amend the version
hitherto in use in this country.
A question here arises which we shquld think of serious import
ance to such Christians as take their religion in earnest. And that
is, “ What guarantee have you that this revision is final ?” The
“ Revisionists ” themselves tell you that they are not in a position
to certify a perfect text, and that they look for improvement to the
course of time and further research. What guarantee have you
that time has not some great surprise in store ? Suppose, for argu
ments’ sake, a MS. of some New Testament books turned up of the
end of the second century, or suppose that even the identical parch
ments left at Troas were unearthed. And further, suppose that as
of late the comparison of the later with the earlier manuscripts has
led to the suppression or alteration of more than one crucial
text, so the comparison with those still earlier showed that sundry
other passages, upon which theologians have raised their elaborate
edifices, had either been greatly corrupted, or had no existence at
all. It cannot justly be said that by scholars this is held an im
possible supposition, seeing that our most eminent critics, Messrs.
Scrivener and Hort, and others, who agree with them, tell us, in so
many words, “ that the worst corruptions to which the New Tes
*
tament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years
after it was composed.”
This question of the untrustworthiness of the text brings us
naturally to the subject of the Canon itself.
I conclude that all here understand that by “ the Canon ” is
practically meant the list of books that were eventually received
and held for inspired scripture.
When, then, was this canon finally settled ? All competent
scholars agree that it was not settled until the Council of Carthage,
near the end of the fourth century, and even after that there
were differences of opinion as to certain books.
And here it will be as well for us to try and realise, in some de
gree, the significance of the statement, “ the end of the fourth cen
tury.” Por from the way in which it is often referred to by re
* See Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,
chap. vii. p. 453; and see the whole chapter for many facts confirmatory of
the statements of this lecture.
�18
The Revised Version:
ligious writers and speakers, it is evident that many Christians
conceive that when they have got up to the fourth century, they
have got to the very primal fount and origin of Christianity, and
taste the pure celestial spring. Let us rectify this conception a
little by applying as a measure the course of our own national his
tory. Now four centuries deducted from the present year of grace
will take us back, barring fractions, to the year 1480, near the be
ginning of the last quarter of the fifteenth century.
How many events have changed the face of the world since
then ? The world was then still “ orbis veteribus notus ”—“ the
world as known to the ancients,” as the schoolbooks say. Neither
America nor the Cape of Good Hope had been discovered; printing
had only just been brought to England; the Roman Church was
still dominant; exactly fifty years will pass before the protest of
Luther and the German princes at Spires; Loyola and his famous
society are not yet in existence; the Wars of the Roses are not
yet over; for several generations yet to come Scotland and England
will be still two countries; the first and the second English
revolutions are distant, and the French yet far away in the future;
the present English language had hardly yet been formed; we
must wait longer than a century for Shakespear’s immortal pen;
and, what perhaps is more to our present purpose, the English
Bible was not yet extant, Tindal’s not appearing for over another
fifty, and the Authorised not before 130 years.
One of the arguments used by some to deprecate the Revised
Version before us was, as you will remember, that the fine idiom
atic English of the older book had so worked itself into English
literature and speech, that to change • it would be almost like
changing our forms of thought. But the great bulk of that
English literature has itself grown up nearly within the last 300
years, during which period also our religion has been changed,
our liberties have been purchased, and we have grown from a
small kingdom occupying part of an island to the widest spread
and most flourishing race the world has yet seen.
Such great changes, such modifications of institutions, arts, and
manners, such powerful revolutions of thought and belief, have
occurred in the last 400 years. And can we conceive that during
the first four centuries it was otherwise ? that the world was then
standing still, and that notions and beliefs of the year 50 were
stereotyped, and had submitted to no corruption and no change
by the year when Theodosius I. published the Edict of Thessa*
lonica, and established the Catholic Faith with the sword ? On
* A.D. 380. Other edicts and violent persecutions followed between
380 and 394 A.D.
�11 The Oracles of GodT
19
the contrary, there was probably never a period of greater change
and greater fermentation of thought. The Hellespont and the
Eastern Mediterranean were crowded with an incessant traffic,
and East and West were being brought together as never before :
races were intermingling, and a persistent fusion of all kinds of
superstitions and fanaticisms, rituals, religions, and philosophies,
was taking place and daily developing. Is it not perfectly certain
that the Christianity which resulted from all this, and such
Christian literature as was allowed to survive, must be strongly
impregnated with the atmosphere from which it drew its breath ?
It may be difficult to track all the stages of the process, since we
have no direct Ecclesiastical history of those times before Euse
bius, writing in the first third of the fourth century; and he dis
tinctly avows that he holds it the duty of a Christian historian
*
to suppress matters unfavourable to his cause, and to write with a
view to edification. Other information is chiefly incidental in
works, mostly of a rhetorical or hortatory nature. Heretical writings,
which might have given us a little more light, were systematically
extirpated. But the conclusion, I think, must be obvious to every
intelligent mind that whatever resulted from those ages must have
been largely affected by their spirit, and that the Canon no more
than other things escaped.
The canon was practically settled, as we have seen, by the end
of the fourth century, and by the party which remained finally
dominant after many struggles.
We of course do not deny that a gradual agreement as to the
chief books had been growing during the two centuries preceding;
but on the question what modification these books received in the
process darkness rests. Those who influenced the selection were
mostly a very ill-informed and superstitious sort of persons, with
minds, as Canon Westcott says,t “ essentially uncritical.” It
would be easy, did time allow, to give many instances of their
puerile and ridiculous style of argument. In the immediate postapostolic age the early writers, when they speak of scripture, mean
the scriptures of the Old Testament. By degrees certain other
writings, supposed to have been the work of their first leaders,
grew into respect from being read in the Christian assemblies;
but distant and different churches had not always the same, each
gloried in its own special books; much in the same way as in later
times this shrine would be famous for one relic, and that for
another. Amidst incessant conflicts and discussions and the
* Eusebius, Hist. Ecc., viii. 2, and see Preeparatio Evangelica, xii. 31.
t Westcott on the Canon, Introduction, p. 10, and see M. Nicolas’ “ De la
formation du Canon,” in his “Etudes Critiques sur le Nouv.Test.,”passim.
�20
The Revised Version:
assertion of various claims, the dominant party at length came to
a tolerably harmonious settlement; but it is not to be denied that
books long spoken against are now included in the canon, and
books that were once accepted are now cast out. The Muratorian
Canon, for instance, rejects the Catholic Epistles of Peter, John,
and James, and introduces a book called “The Apocalypse of
Peter.” It is a somewhat significant fact that the first known
Canon is that of Marcion, extremely defective according to ortho
dox views. The only accounts we have of Marcion are from his
adversaries, and therefore suspicious. One fact about him, how
ever, is sufficiently certain, and that is that he protested against
the acceptance of many books afterwards received, and that he had
a different gospel. It is probable that the final result somewhat
depended upon the principle of “give and take.” At any rate, as
Dr. Westcott allows the Canon was “ not definitely marked ” out
*
by any special investigation, but “ was fixed practically by the
common use of Christians; it was formed,” says he, “ by an
instinct, not by an argument.” As he and Dr. Hort tell us again,t
in the notes to their recently issued Greek Testament, “instincts”
are extremely various. There were, it cannot be denied, a great
many warring instincts in those early centuries, and it may be
permitted to question how far the one that finally prevailed was
more likely to be trustworthy than the others.
Regarding then the subject from these several points of view—
the unavoidable bias of version-makers, the conflicting views of
meaning, the enigmatical nature of many statements in themselves,
the well-meant attempts at harmonizing, the unavoidable deterior
ation and corruption of the text, added to the wilful interpolation
and falsification of the text, the suspicious destruction of docu
ments by the finally dominant party, and in addition to all this
the extreme haze and precariousness which surround the whole
history of the Canon itself—have we not said enough to justify
the assertion with which we started, that the idea of a revision is
incongruous with that of a divine revelation; that a “revelation”
transmitted by such means and subject to such drawbacks, must
be of necessity involved in such an atmosphere of uncertainty and
doubt as to fail of the purposes for which a conceivable revelation
might be made.
Is it conceivable that the Bright Intelligence that shines through
out the Universe is so wanting in resource, as to make a message
of mercy to a supposed perishing world dependent on “ the ren
dering of a particle,” the blotting of a letter, or the blunder of a scribe?
* Westcott on the Canon, p. 413, and p. 537.
t Westcott and Hort’s Greek Test., p. 542.
�“\The Oracles of God.”
21
As for that poor plea which has been put forward by a northern
Professor, who argues that if Providence has allowed his Word to
be incrusted with errors, Providence has also preserved to our
times the means of correcting them—thus giving us the delightful
opportunity of resorting to “ critical processes,” and exercising our
skill in the solution of difficulties—it seems to me that to impute
such a roundabout and ensnaring plan to Providence is anything
but respectful and complimentary. Moreover, it is not true, as I
have shown the most eminent critics confess, that we have yet the
means of rectifying the mass of corruptions to which the scrip
tures have been subjected. It is a pitiable spectacle to see a man
of intellect driven by the necessities of a baseless theory to adopt
such a miserable evasion.
And let me remind you again, that all the statements and ad
missions I have adduced and pn which my argument is founded,
are not those of opponents and freethinkers, but of stout defenders
of the faith, mostly divines and scholars of eminence. Many
confirmatory facts may be found in Drs. Westcott and Hort’s
recently published introductory volume to their Greek Testament.
St. Luke tells the Excellent Theophilus, that the object of his
writing to him was that he “might know the certainty” of the
things he had been taught. Whatever effect was produced upon
his first reader, assuredly the opposite effect gains ground with the
Theophilusses of later times, who, in every fresh reading and
revision, find some new sources of doubtfulness. Will a hundred
channels of incertitude when combined, bring forth certainty ?
Or not rather, like combinations in general, when taken all
together, produce a total of uncertainty absolutely incalculable.
What wonder then at the histories of thousands of different
opinions, wrangled over by divergent sects and doctors ? If a
system had been specially devised to produce this polychromatous
result, could it have succeeded better ?
Sometimes it is said in mitigation of this statement, that though
certainty is unattainable on many points on which Christians
differ, yet that it is to be found on all essential points. This
fallacy I have already alluded to. I need only further say, how can
those points be declared unessential over which Churches have
lived in eternal conflict, and filled the world with wars, massacres,
and martyrdoms ? If they were, after all, really unessential,
Christianity stands by that very fact, I fear, condemned before
God and man.
In all nations of the world at a certain stage of progress, we
find men weakly anxious to penetrate beyond those things that
can be known, to claim superior Beings for their patrons, and to
�22
The Revised Version:
read the future. This tendency of the human mind has made men
readily credulous of all sort of revelations and scriptures, Zend and
Buddhist, Sibylline books and other oracles, of Jove, Asclepius, or
Apollo, which to their votaries in those days were verily “ Oracles
of God.” In a further stage of progress the more intelligent
classes of a community begin to ask themselves and one another
awkward questions, and find it very difficult to get satisfactory
answers. Then comes the stage of public discussion, and more or
less open literary assault on ancient faiths and observances. As for
*
instance, Oinomaos of Gardara, in disgust, we are told, with the
ambiguous reply of an oracle to himself, put forth a treatise, in
which, among others, he thus ridicules the deity of Delphi,—“ Why
do you make sport of us with your doubtful sayings ; have you not
at least gumption enough to perceive that we are coming to see
that you do not know what to answer (to our questions) and think
by pompous nonsense to cast a mist before our eyes ? What good
are you doing at Delphi, wasting time chanting your trumpery pro
phecies ? What fools we all are to offer you so many sacrifices !”
While the wiser heathen, however, thus 'detected the fraud in
their oracles, some of the early Christians supposed that they were
true, and attributed them to demons, their theory being that the
demons “ stole from the writings of the prophets a knowledge of
things to come.” Some Christians, indeed, seem to have concocted
imaginary oracles in support of their own views. Eusebius pre
tends to an oracle affirming the doctrine of the Trinity; Nicephorust gives an account of one which testified directly of Jesus
Christ. This notion of making the devils testify to Christ, you
will remember has found its way into the New Testament the
writers apparently not perceiving that it somewhat conflicted with
the argument put into Christ’s mouth in another place about
Satan being divided against himself.
However, at last comes the day when oracles are dumb, and one
after another Sibylline books get discredited. A certain amount of
discomfort and social disorganisation is probably unavoidable as
new notions displace old ones. As long as there are influential
classes personally interested in the maintenance of the status quo,
there will never be freedom from the risk of able and ambitious in
dividuals taking advantage of popular ignorance to stir up reaction
*
in favour of the old. And while large masses of a population re
main mentally uncultivated, and in a low condition of material
welfare there is no security that some fresh and worse delusion
may not ground itself upon ancient ones, and spread through a race
* Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica, v. 21, and seq. and vi. 7.
+ Cited in Vandale’s Treatise on Oracles.
t Mark III. Luke IV.
�4< The Oracles of God.”
23
Eke an epidemic. History shows us more than one instance of this
fact, which philosophers in their studies are sometimes too apt to
forget. It is the part of all wise men, as it seems to me, when old
faiths are crumbling, to hasten on the mental and material improve
ment as rapidly as possible. Nor should it be forgotten that if
they would free mankind from old fond conceptions and prevent
their revival in aggravated forms, they must, as Mr. Frederic
Harrison pointed out in a late able address, find something to fill
the aching void which will give scope for the affections and emo
tions as well as the intellectual part of man.
In conclusion, let me say that it must not be supposed that my
remarks are intended in any spirit of hostility to the bible itself.
As a notable literature, helping largely to the’ study of human
experience and mental progress, and containing much fine poetry
and moral apologue, there are few books more estimable. But when
used, as mainly hitherto, for the manufacture of infallible creeds,
for the armoury of frenzied delusions, and as an excuse for “ dealing
damnation round the land,”—when, in short, it is transformed from
a parable of man, into an “ oracle of God,” instead of a blessing, it
becomes a scourge to the world.
To do what little in one lies to remove this misconception
seems to me a benevolent and religious work. As contributing
thereto I hail the publication of the “ revised version.”
Some people say, “ As the influence of the Scripture is so wide
spread, is it not better to let it remain unchallenged, to take ad
vantage of it as a channel for instruction, and by frequent accom
modation adapt it gradually to the developing knowledge of man
kind ?” Leaving aside for the present the consideration that the
Scripture having been convicted of a mistaken theory of life and
human action cannot be a lasting and safe basis of social welfare
and progress,—it is enough now to answer, that the exorbitant
claims so long asserted for it render it difficult, if not impossible, to
place it in a modified position which shall yet be an authoritative one.
Like Caesar’s wife, a supernatural messenger must be above sus' picion; a supposed infallible guide, once caught tripping, even
when he gives sound information, will hardly gain credit. Sus
picion among the ill-informed quickly becomes exaggerated, and
then arises the danger that those who have based their faith and
duty on a supposed infallible volume, when they “ find out ” their
oracle, will be apt to discard faith and duty altogether.
It may be easier, for the nonce, to rest in some temporary accom
modation of the popular theology, and it may be a long process to
introduce sounder principles, but eventually it will be found the
safer and surer one in a social point of view.
�24
The Revised Version: “ The Oracles of God.”
The Gospel of Science and humanity may not seem at first to
give scope for such fond hopes and afford such marvellous pros
pects as a supernatural revelation, but it has the advantage, that
the lapse of time tends to confirm instead of contradict it, and that
as it never claimed the attributes of an infallible and perfected
scheme, so it'has nothing to dread from any fresh light or manifes
tation. It only opens its record to the patient, slowly and page
by page, as man’s increasing experience enables him to read it, and
if any words are there suggesting error, it not only gives us leave,
but it commands us, by our allegiance to truth, to efface them.
There is no finality about our gospel, and no vain retrospection :
no world and no atom for it is “ lost,” what “ Salvation ” it con
tains embraces the Universe, the immortal mind of man shall never
tire reading its evolving scroll, like the path of the just, ever more
luminous, “ shining more and more unto the perfect day.” Let us
look forward to the time when all men shall learn to read the true
“ living oracles,” the Universe and the mind and heart of man :—
When invitations to sacrifice at inferior shrines shall be met with
the grand words of Cato, advised when in danger, to appeal to the
*
Temple of Ammon:
“ Est ne Dei Sedes, nisi terra, et pontus et aer
Et ccelum, et virtus ? Superos quid qucerimus ultra ?” &c.
Thus versified by Bowe :
“ Is there a place which God would choose to love
Beyond this earth, the seas, yon heaven above,
And virtuous minds,—the noblest throne of Jove ?
Why seek we further, then ?—Behold around
How all thou see’st does with the God abound,
i Jove is alike in all, and always to be foundI”
* Lucan. Pharsal. ix.
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
To provide foi' the delivery on Sundays in the Metropolis, and to en
courage the delivery elsewhere, of Lectures on Science,—physical, intellec
tual, and moral,—History, Literature, and Art; especially on their bearing t
upon the improvement and social well-being of mankind.
THE “SOCIETY’S LECTURES
ARE DELIVERED AT
ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
On Sunday Afternoons at FOUR o’clock precisely.
(Annually—from November to May.)
Twenty-four Lectures (in three series) are given in each year.
Members’ annual subscription, .£1, becoming due the 1st of October.
For Tickets and the printed Lectures, and for lists of all the Lectures
published by the Society, apply (by letter) to the Hon. Treasurer, War.
Henry Domville, Esq.; 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park, W.
�
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 Revised Version: "the Oracles of God" : a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday afternoon, 13th November, 1881
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wild, George J. (George John)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 17 cm
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Sunday Lecture Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3421
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 />This work (The Revised Version: "the Oracles of God" : a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday afternoon, 13th November, 1881), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9a37a3f696a36f81f173b2ca39aa333d.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=iwWVP5y8rZ6SuzikTIuwC7di6s2xOO7ioMWHIXPq2gS%7EebTxksVHyvEmPDiiRWU46N7EEbeY1GuUuuCd-eG95Crtpx-kvRUclhV54k4QZr2d3--V6qzsMQloJzSN5LPoNSLAmfa69FVup5dCHtf5eJ-b42OAyuQZ4FDw-vTgpe1hg0PYLeDxiRoqxOdHv5SdI2gOtWfYhkWHSjd5ssY%7EJaW%7EnVjqStAbO0HZUDH-ys9gj8tOpcN4ZDi8IyfbeQ31JjH8g77D5woX9%7EkWUnZb0U7ha4ncsgHFzMIyjZ7-3AijjtYlEx27beCuWN%7EnUT0Wn45FFILZVxQQaEbXNYRF2w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b2b39661fd62a06ed096d1f064bc5cc3
PDF Text
Text
■f*.
CHRISTIANITY.
I.
THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY FROM A STRICTLY
HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW,
BEING
DELIVERED BEFORE THE
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY,
SUNDAY, 21st NOVEMBER, 1880,
Dr. G. G. ZERFFI, F.R.S.L., F.R.Hist.S.
PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
1881.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
�How to obtain a clear and intelligible notion of the Origin of
Christianity.
The component elements of Christianity.
Some questions to be answered by Historians of other creeds.
Universalism pervading Christianity
The Finite and the Infinite in the East and West.
The Jews and their Sects. The Pharisees, Zaducees, Essenes,
Ebionites, Therapeutics and Samaritans, Hebraism and Hel
lenism.
Description of the Social Condition of Humanity at the birth
of Jesus of Nazareth.
Universal Love the Essence of Christianity. An Arab Legend.
Christ’s conception of the Deity.
Reason, Science, and Truth.
The Historical Causes of the Spread of Christianity.
Buddha and Christ.
Difference between Christianity and Buddhism.
Early Christian Sects.—Dogmatists, Sophists, Talmudists,
Apologists, Fathers, Scholastics, Theologians. General History.
Justin Martyr.
Conclusion. The Second Lecture to treat of the Fathers
“ majorum gentium” and “minorum gentium.”
�CHRISTIANITY
I.
The Origin of Christianity from, a strictly Historical Point
of View.
ISTORIANS may be divided into three distinct
classes—
(1.) The Obstructives,
(2.) The Destructives, and
(3.) The Constructives.
Until recently almost all theological historians were,
by their very nature, Obstructives—that is, they were
compelled to abide by facts as transmitted to them by
tradition, or in sacred records, and were therefore neces
sarily stationary. To inquire was in itself a dangerous
action—undermining the very foundations of faith. To
this class of historians belong the Brahmans, Bonzes,
Rabbis, Priests of the Romish Church, Ulemas, Clergy
men of the Anglican Church, or other Protestant sects,
and their disciples, educated in the same stationary way,
forced to regard certain assertions concerning events, or
certain calculations concerning the time in which these
events happened as facts—though they may have been
anything but facts. We may best classify these writers
as Orientalists. The past, in the received form of some
Sacred Book, was everything with them. The very word
History signified to them a sacrilegious attempt to un
settle the assumed truth of their particular facts,—which
alone could be true; whilst they asserted with admirable
self-reliance and conceit that the records of all other
nations were nothing but falsehoods.
Next we have the Destructives, in whom doubt and
scepticism work supreme; who do not see how one and
the same fact could have happened in two different ways;
why one witness should be credited more than another;
or how two witnesses could have seen one and the same
fact happening in different places, under entirely different
circumstances, and with altogether different results.
H
�4
Christianity.
The Destructives began timidly to pull down, they shook
the foundation of credulity, they suddenly saw the whole
past tumble into ruins. Horrified at the havoc which
they had brought about, they stopped half-way, and the
past became nothing but a heap of dust, lumber, and
fact-rubbish. We may best classify these people as
Galileans. They are a necessary element in the progres
sive development of Humanity, for unless the old tottering
building of assumed facts, cemented together with dog
matic lime and sand were first destroyed, no new building
could be erected.
And last we have the Gonstructives—those who re-arrange
facts on the principles of probability and possibility; who
consult the ancient documents of different nations, not
with a mind filled with hatred and contempt for everything
not contained in their own sacred records, which they
were made to choose by mere chance of birth, education,
and established custom, but with an equal veneration for
those periods in which each tribe, race, and nation, had
their own sacred book—sacred because transmitted to them
from father to son; and what is more sacred to a son
than that which a kind and loving father has left him ?
That the ancient nations throughout the world, in the
fulness of their grateful hearts, should have assumed that
the first father who spoke to them was God Himself,
proves only the Sameness and Oneness of Humanity, arti
ficially divided into innumerable quarrelling sects, tribes,
and peoples. The Constructives, therefore, compare,
draw analogies, separate the separables, dissect myths,
explain symbols, connect equals, inquire, sift, and finally
build up their historical edifice on the firm basis of cau
sation with facts that are facts, and cement them with
common sense—discarding all arbitrariness, all exceptional
providential interference in favour of Brahmans, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, Bomans,
Scotch or Irish—anxious to discover what we have in
common as human beings—never fostering dissent, ani
mosity, contempt or hatred, but sympathy, forbearance,
kindness, and love. We may best classify the Construc
tive Historians as the Hellenic-Teuton element in Hu
manity.
The spirit of these three groups of historians may be
�Christianity.
5
studied in. three works recently published on the “ Life
of Jesus,” by an anonymous English Professor of one of
our Universities, by Renan, the Frenchman, and by Dr.
Strauss, the German.
The Englishman is obstructive, the Frenchman destruc
tive, and the German constructive.
Dr. Strauss is learned, conscientious, and systematic.
He is full of veneration, and yet unflinchingly truthful
without predilection, bias, or prejudice, and gives us the
true history of the foundation of Christianity. His
great merit lies in his having drawn a distinction between
the historical and mythical Jesus of Nazareth. Histori
cally he describes the birth of Jesus, His relation to John
the Baptist, the laws of Moses, the Gentiles, and the
belief in His being the expected Messiah. The mythical
account is divided into three chapters and twelve sub
divisions concerning the pre-historic myths of Jesus, the
mythical account of the life of Jesus, and the mythical
record of His suffering, death, and resurrection. Dr.
Strauss wrote his work with the view of furthering
Protestantism on the firm basis of historical continuity,
and eliminating from the glorious teachings of Jesus of
Nazareth whatever was merely accidental, secondary,
symbolic, and allegorical, borrowed from more ancient
creeds, which at the time of Christ were in a state of
spontaneous and natural dissolution. For whoever
wishes to have a clear and unbiassed notion of the his
torical Christ, must free Him and His doctrine from the
obscuring veil of dogmatism.
The Frenchman, Renan, is learned, but his learning is
too much tainted with emotional outbursts of refined
phrases; his imagination outruns his criticism, and his
criticism loses itself in romantic dreams and visions. He
is far more bent on destroying an idol of the Romish
Church, than on discovering to what extent it had become
in time an entity, to dissolve which will need more than
the superficial pen-strokes of a witty Frenchman.
The English professor is grave—very grave. He pub
lished his work under the title of “ Ecce Homo,” but he
has neither the learning nor the courage of Dr. Strauss,
nor the sprightliness and imagination of Renan. He has,
however, his inherited predilections, which are apparently
�6
Christianity.
shaken by his studies and the intellectual atmosphere of
the nineteenth century. He has heard of Strauss with
conventional horror; he has heard of Renan with in
herited contempt, and he wishes to free his soul from all
doubts by arguing himself out of doubt; and yet, of the
three books, this one, written with apparent obstructive
faith, is the most destructive. It must necessarily lead to
a despairing scepticism, because the positive assertions are
made so timidly, that one sees the trembling writer afraid
to touch his subject, lest his dogmatic Christ might crumble
into dust under his own hands, and turn into a true
“ Ecce Homo,”—“ Behold a Man! ”
To be able to give a clear and intelligible picture of the
origin and spread of Christianity from a strictly historical
point of view, we must make ourselves acquainted with
the moral, political, religious, and intellectual elements
that pervaded Humanity at the advent of Christ. To
detach Christianity from the influences of the different
creeds that preceded its foundation, is to know nothing of
Christianity. The essence of the teachings of all law
givers and founders of religious systems was the redemp
tion of man from the bondage of his animal nature, and
the development and culture of his higher intellectual and
spiritual nature. ' To separate Christianity from the
causes of which its origin and working were a necessary
effect or sequence, is to transport it into the realm of
miracles. But in assuming Christianity to have been a
miracle, we raise terrible phantoms of doubt, or rather
of piety and veneration for the Biety, in the shape of
grave questions which necessarily present themselves to
the thinking mind:
Why was the advent of this miracle so long delayed ?
Why were millions and millions of creatures left with
out salvation, and, as some pious divines will have it,
predestined to eternal damnation ?
Why should the sanguinary miracle of a self-sacrificing
God have had so partial and slow an effect 1
■ Why was the miracle not made universally known ?
Why had Christianity to be established in torrents
of blood, amidst the horrible shrieks of tortured and
martyred human sacrifices ?
Why was the efficacy of the miracle quite imperceptible,
�Christianity.
7
save in such progress as was natural to any creed, sup
ported by fire and sword, by money, and state authority ?
Why should the early Christian authorities have deli
berately destroyed all writings bearing on the origin,
growth, and development of Christianity, if it was a
miracle ordained by God ?
Why should the Emperor Theodosius have felt him
self compelled to issue the following proclamation?:—
“We decree, therefore, that all writings whatever
which Porphyry, or any one else, has written against the
Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they
shall be found, should be committed to the fire; for we
would not suffer any of these things so much as to come
to men’s ears, which tend to provoke God and so offend
the minds of the pious.”
In a spirit of true tolerance, the same Emperor ordered,
“that all those who should object to the dogma of the
Trinity, besides the condemnation of Divine justice,
would have to expect to suffer the severe penalties which
our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, may think
proper to inflict upon them.”
Why should it have been an axiom of the Church
“ that it was an act of virtue to deceive and to lie, when b v
that means the interest of the Church might be promoted?”
Why all these threatening laws, these anxious jealousies,
the falsifications of documents, the oppression of learning,
the abhorrence of our reasoning power, if this was a
miraculously ordained divine act, performed for the sal
vation of Humanity ?
In historically analysing the elements which compose
Christianity, we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that it
has become the universal storehouse of all the different
creeds that have swayed the human mind from the first
dawn of its arising consciousness. We find in Christianity
the strictest Monotheism mixed with the Trinitarian mys
teries of the Brahmans, Buddhists, and Egyptians; the
Incarnation and Atonement theories of the Indians and
Egyptians; the dualistic principle of the Avesta; the
Jewish and Persian assumptions of angels and devils; the
lofty moral enactments of Confucius and Sokrates; the
dreamy idealism of Plato, and the more practical realism
of Aristotle.
�8
Christianity.
Mystics and Rationalists, Believers and Free-thinkers,
Fanatics and Latitudinarians, Spirit-rappers and Philo
sophers, rich and poor, mighty and weak, learned and
ignorant, may find in the tenets of Christianity some
congenial and sympathetic, some suggestive and comfort
ing elements.
The most important fact with regard to the “ new
faith ” was that Christianity became but another name for
those universal principles and eternal laws which, if
recognised, and put in motion, stimulate the innate dor
mant moral and intellectual forces of our human nature
into activity. This fact must explain the superior vitality
of Christianity, which has led Humanity in the West and
North-West, of the world slowly, gradually, yet unin
terruptedly on the path of progress in arts, discoveries,
inventions, and sciences to the very highest achievements.
The followers of any other creed must endeavour to
answer the following questions in their turn: Why did
empires and communities professing other beliefs remain
stationary in their development, in spite of their undoubted
priority in many useful arts and inventions? and why
should the Christians have succeeded, by degrees, in
working out wise and beneficial laws, in producing poetical
works of unsurpassed excellence, and in raising sciences
to a climax never attained before ? Suns and planets are
measured by Christians; the rays of light analysed; the
gradual formation of the earth’s crust is recognised; the
different chemical elements, in apparently indivisible
atoms, are traced; Christians speak by means of electri
city at distances of thousands of miles, reducing space in
its dimensions; and travel by means of fire and water
at an unheard-of speed, reducing time in its duration.
The Universalism pervading true Christianity alone
can serve as an explanation of this phenomenon. As we
may trace in nature positive and negative electricity, so we
can see the working of positive and negative intellectual
currents in humanity.
The currents in the East were generally negative. To
look backwards, to hope, as it were, everything from the
past, was the characteristic of Oriental nations. The
intellectual currents in the West were positive; to look to
and to trust in the future, whether worldly or spiritual,
�Christianity.
9
was and is the distinguishing feature of the Western
World. Man in the East shuns new spheres of thought,
and is content to move round and round in the ever
unchangeable circle of fixed notions, ceremonies, and
customs. Man in the West strives for freedom and an
eternal activity; he must have some goal to long for,
which presents itself in the form of religious enthusiasm,
chivalrous daring, a thirst for inquiry and learning, a
contempt for all danger, and a struggle with real or
imaginary monsters.
The finite submitted in humble acquiescence to the
infinite in the East. In the West the finite strove to
grasp the infinite, and to bring harmony into the dis
cordant elements of good and evil, light and darkness,
mind and matter, God and nature. These contradictory
phenomena led the East very early to endeavour to cast
a light upon the mysterious nature of self-conscious man,
the mystic phenomena of nature, and to attempt the
solution of the riddle of life by means of allegories, sym
bols, wild fictions, incredible fables, and inspired guesses.
The nation that felt the double nature of humanity
most keenly, and first proclaimed a more spiritual concep
tion of a God, was the Jewish. In the mystic schools of
the priests of Egypt, their leaders were made acquainted
with the universal “ Monotheos,” but the Jews deprived
Him of his universality, and transformed Him into a
national Deity, who was only a merciful Grod to His
chosen people, under certain outward ceremonial con
ditions, and a God of wrath and merciless persecution to
all those who had not the good fortune to belong by
mere chance of birth to that chosen people. The Chinese
taught Humanity filial love, and social order; the Indians
unravelled the beauties of the universe in the eternal
Trinitarian process of Creation, Preservation, and Trans
formation; the Egyptians established the “ I am I” mys
tery; the Persians endeavoured to practice purity in
thoughts, purity in words, and purity in deeds; the
Greeks fostered taste and refinement in arts, exalted
humane feelings in their poetry, and manifested a deep
critical discernment in philosophy; the Homans organised,
regulated, conquered, and developed an unsurpassed
patriotism ; and the Jews ?—they taught humanity reli
�10
Christianity,
gious exclusiveness, proud and fanatical intolerance, and
have had themselves to suffer under these curses for more
than 2,900 years.
Even at this very moment we see them harassed and
persecuted in Germany, a country which boasts of the
highest civilization, a country which produced a Lessing,
the Apostle of true Christian Tolerance, and a Herder,
the founder of “ Humanism.” To the honour of that
country, it may be said that every distinguished German,
every learned Historian, and every true Christian abhors
the anachronistic movement of the Ultramontanes, which
is worthy of the dark middle ages of superstition and
gross ignorance. The Jews, as ever in the past, are
still at war with the Gentiles all over the world; they
use ,up the Gentiles for their special purposes, but never
look upon them as their equals. The Jews hoping
against hope, sublimely singing and prophesying in their
despair, loudly proclaiming their thirst after God, their
fervid longing for righteousness and holiness, formed
with their theological sentiments a terrible sanguinary
leaven of a new faith, which was a possibility only after
Persian ethics, Brahmanic tenets, Egyptian mysteries
and rituals, Buddhistic miracles and dogmas, Jewish
prophesies, Greek philosophical researches, and Boman
disciplinary organisations, had been pounded together by
the pestle of time in the mortar of History.
The Jews beeame the most important element in the
historical development of Humanity. They inherited the
dualistic theory of God and Devil from the Egyptians
and Persians, and worked it out theologically through
their deeply-learned prophets, who saw the terrible con
flict manifested in virtue and sin, of which they became
conscious at an earlier period and in a higher sense. By
means of this consciousness they approached a state of
reconciliation; for self-conscious virtue must be based on
a self-conscious knowledge of evil, bringing harmony into
man’s animal and spiritual nature, developing to the
utmost his moral and intellectual faculties. In spite of
this higher moral state, they found themselves cruelly
oppressed. They prayed, sighed, and mourned at Babylon,
and mingled their scalding tears with the waves of the
Euphrates; they were driven from state to state; they
�Christianity.
11
waited and watched; they fought like despairing lions;
they clung to their God, who had so few blessings, and so
many sufferings for them on earth. They were still con
vinced “that the sceptre should not depart from Judah;
and unto him should the gathering of the people beand
yet they were trampled under foot by Boman Tetrarchs
and Praetors, had no political or social freedom, and were
themselves divided by religious sects and factions.
Amongst these were the Pharisees, who clung to the
dead letter of the law.
The Gaulonites or Galileans, a still more fanatical
branch of the Pharisees, who professed “that no one
must obey any mortal in authority, for God alone is our
Lord.” (This sentence enables us to understand those
Pharisaical survivals who, under the pretence of obeying
the self-constituted authority of their God, defy the law
of the land, and turn true religion into mockery.) These
fanatics hoped everything from the internal dissolution of
the Boman Empire. The Pharisees brought into religion
the most contemptible spirit of trading; they always
tried to make a profitable bargain with their God.
Plenty on earth was the reward of godliness. Their
piety had to manifest itself in eating and drinking. “ At
even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be
filled with bread, and ye shall know that I am the Lord
your God,” was the foundation of the egotistical creed of
the Pharisees. To eat and drink was, with the Jews, the
most solemn initiation and termination of all their reli
gious ceremonies. The Greeks cultivated man’s higher
artistic and philosophical aspirations; the Persians ruled,
the Bomans legislated; the Egyptians built imperishable
monuments; the Indians worked out mystic problems—
the Jews did eat and drink. When the seventy (properly
seventy-two) elders accompanied Moses on Mount Sinai
and saw the God of Israel, they did eat and drink. If
we do not correctly study the principles of the different
Jewish sects of this period, we can never properly under
stand the peculiar fanatics, intolerant bigots, eating and
drinking pious hypocrites, who still grace our own social
organisation, as so many survivals in the flesh of a preChristian world.
The Sadducees (the just) were next in importance
�12
Christianity.
to the Pharisees; they were the broad-minded followers of
Zadak. They rejected all artificial explanations of the
Scriptures, and studied the prophets most diligently; they
had a supreme contempt for all those who continually
occupied their minds with mysterious benedictions, sancti
fications, days of atonement, fasting and feasting, leavened
or unleavened bread, palm branches, trumpets, sacred
vessels, offerings, defiled or undefiled gifts, trespasses, red
cows, the blood of calves and goats, scarlet wool, hyssop,
and dead bodies; and despised all those who neglected
doing good to their fellow creatures. The Sadducees
believed neither in the immortality of the soul, nor in
punishment or reward after death. They denied the
existence of angels and devils—although they thoroughly
believed in the Scriptures. They were notorious for their
virtue, honesty, tolerance, learning, and, above all, for
their justice and humanity.
The Essenes, so called from the Hebrew “ asa ” or the
Chaldsean “ asaya,” meaning “to heal”—or according to
others “ the retired ”—were still more important. They
lived a solitary life ; they devoted themselves to the study
of medicine, to the art of working miracles, and to pre
dicting the future. They practised baptism. In con
formity with the ancient Indians and Egyptians, water
was with them the mysterious life-giving element.
Water had been the essence of life when the earth was
still barren and uninhabited. They considered water to
be the fountain of regeneration, the symbol of life ; man
to be good and free from sin was to be born anew of
water. Water mystically washed away the sins of the
world. Water made the Essenes, like the Indians, twice
born. John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth were both
Essenes, and were both baptized. The opinions advanced
by Matthew Tyndal in a work, published 150 years ago,
entitled “ Christianity as old as the Creation,” are borne
out by Eusebius, who has a whole chapter under the title,
“ The Religion published by Jesus Christ is neither new
nor strange; ” and this author also states, in the most
unqualified manner, in the 17th Chapter of his 2nd Book
that the ancient Therapeutics were Christians, and that
their ancient writings were our Gospels and Epistles.
The Therapeutics, Ebionites or Essenes were “ Chres-
�Christianity.
13
tianae,” from “ Chrestos,” good. They were Eclectics ;
they held Plato in the highest esteem, though they
scrupled not to add to his doctrines whatever they
thought conformable to reason in the tenets and opinions
of other philosophers. According to Thomas Burnet,
the Essenes were offshoots of the Brahmans and Bud
dhists, devoting themselves to the contemplation of the
transitoriness of human life.
At last we must mention the Samabitans, who were
the independent among the Jews. They considered Jews
and Heathens equal, if good and kind, and because of
this very cosmopolitan sentiment were held in abomina
tion by all the other Jewish sects, who most furiously
quarrelled both with the outer world and amongst them
selves.—When the Jewish Scriptures became more gene
rally known through the Greek translation, the “ Septuagint” there suddenly sprang into unparalleled activity—
Hebraism as the static, Jand Hellenism as the dynamic
force, working in Humanity, in History, and Religion.
Dogmatism and morals were so closely interwoven in
these Scriptures that the study of history became a
religious duty. The past was to be taken on faith ; the
assertions of the Hebrew writers were not to be doubted;
everything was to be declared credible or incredible by
reference to some scriptural passage and inquiry, and
Scepticism was to be banished from the world. This
banishment aroused a mighty spirit of controversy; the
classic writers were looked upon as perverse liars, desti
tute of light, since they had not known the True God
who had revealed Himself exclusively to the Jews. An
infinite number of lying spirits were assumed to have
deluded Humanity. The glorious works of art, sculp
ture, architecture, poetry and philosophy of the numerous
nations of the Earth were suddenly decried as the out
growths of sin, inherited from Adam. The Greeks had
been taught by Satan; the Persians, Assyrians, and
Babylonians had been annihilated by the God of Israel
for their idolatry; the Indians were children of Beelzebub;
the Buddhists horrible Atheists. All the monuments
of antiquity became objectionable works, conceived in
pride by the fallen angels ; all the historical writings and
records of all nations were considered false and untrue,
�14
Christianity.
and the Jewish records placed above them as the only
true revealed Word of God who had forsaken and
abandoned all His other creatures, and held communica
tion exclusively with the Jews.
From that moment up to our own times, there has been
something wonderfully majestic in this terrible conflict
between Hebraism and Hellenism, keeping humanity in a
continuous exertion of its moral and intellectual forces;
now devoting every thought to theology, then again pro
moting the loftiest inquiries of science, leading us to a
state in which morals and knowledge will no more be
considered as antagonistic, but completing elements of
man’s progressive development.
We have to deal with the beginning of the new his
torical phase of a spiritual life that took its origin in
the Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire.
False prophets and philosophical teachers abounded
everywhere. Greek mock philosophers discussed the most
abstruse spiritual problems in the market-places. Egyptian
priests of Osiris, Isis and Horus, divulged the unintel
ligible symbolisms of their ancient creed; and the Persian
worship of Mithras (meaning the Redeemer or Inter
mediator) was revived with all its deep mysticism.
Numbers of Roman legal casuists engaged in searching
for lawsuits, discussed everything, whilst knowing very
little of anything. The Jewish sects, in spite of their
dissensions and mutual hatred, were all equally oppressed
and plundered by Herod the Great; superstition, ignor
ance, despair and credulity were the distinguishing fea
tures of the Roman world.
The East was crowded with dreamers, visionaries,
traders in charms, augurs, horoscopists, miracle-workers
(Thaumaturgi), soothsayers, cabalists and priests of an
infinite variety of gods and goddesses. All was spiritual
chaos, like that at the dawn of the Creation of the
material world, when Jesus of Nazareth was Born.
We have very little reliable historical information con
cerning the life of “ Christ,” meaning the Anointed. So
much we do know, that we may make of Christ what we
please; we may comment upon His recorded teachings
exegetically or in any othei’ form. We may altogether
deny the whole later Ecclesiastical structure, built upon
�Christianity.
15
His utterances. We may demonstrate that all that was
asserted of Him, was also believed of Melchisedech,
Krishna, Osiris, Buddha, Apollo or Mithras. We may
trace in Him and to Him all the legends of divine incar
nations through which man, having become conscious,
wished to find an explanation of his own low animal
desires, and the lofty intellectual longings of his mind,
thus working out divine models of human beings, or gods
in human form.
We may study the Gospels and their contradictory
views, and critically wade through the still more contra
dictory writings of the Bathers. We may show how
dogma after dogma was attributed to Christ, which He
neither enunciated nor ever could have thought of,
because, whatever contradictions may be recorded of Him,
there was no contradiction between His teachings, and
His own self-sacrificing life. We may prove how the
Councils of the Church changed the true doctrine of
Christ, misunderstanding it altogether; we may reject
the dictates of certain synods and accept others. We
may be Papists, Episcopalians or Methodists, Presby
terians or Ritualists, Lutherans or Quakers, Dissenters
or Shakers, Idealists or Realists, Believers or Free
thinkers ; we may quarrel and hate one another with the
same fervour as did the Jewish sects, and curse every one
who does not hold our own opinions as to the sensations
of the beatitude, the length of the wings of the angels
in heaven, or the horns of the devils in hell.
We may laugh at our petty controversialists who talk
of vestments and postures, candlesticks, crosses, rubrics,
grace, conscience, transubstantiation, real and unreal
presence, and the thousand and one unintelligible, anagogical, parabolical, allegorical and symbolic niceties and
difficulties, which may all be easily settled, if no one asks
questions, and if all men have faith, and do not use their
thinking and reasoning faculty, the brightest gift of the
Creator, under whatever name He be worshipped.
But we cannot deny the immense influence which
Christ’s teachings have exercised on the Western mind.
Let all the circumstances and details have been what they
may, historians must deal with Christ’s Spirit, as it pre
sents itself, as one of the greatest of historical phenomena.
�16
Christianity.
For though we may divest Christ of all the miracles,
rightly or falsely attributed to Him, we cannot divest
Him of one grand immortal fact, “ That he died for Love,
murdered by those whom He taught with a heart full of
universal love—that the whole of humanity was one great
brotherhood ; that every human being was to love his
neighbour as himself; that every human being was the
cherished child of one Father, who loved all His children
equally, and who was in heaven ! ” Had but this simple
doctrine of mutual and universal love been taught for the
last 1880 years with the same fervour as the mystic
dogmas with which Christ’s teachings were perverted,
and which were each and all borrowed from Egyptian,
Assyrian, Persian, Indian and Boman religious systems,
the world would undoubtedly be more Christian, and
humanity would have saved millions of precious lives
which have been wasted on the propagation, not of
Christianity, but “ of prejudiced credulity, and priestly
tyranny.” We have, unfortunately, failed to learn to look
upon Christ as He is characterised in the following ancient
Arab legend:—“ A dog had stolen some meat from a Jewish
butcher’s shop; the dog was stoned, then hanged, then
thrown into the street, and the angry Jews formed a circle
round the dog, spat on him and cursed him; all at once a
mild and gentle voice was heard asking the enraged crowd,
whether they could find nothing worthy of admiration in
the poor dead animal; there was suddenly a deep silence,
and the speaker pointed to the beautiful pearly-white
teeth of the dog. The people grumbled, and it was
whispered among them that the speaker must be Jesus of
Nazareth, for He alone was capable of finding something
good even in a dead dog ! ”
This is Christianity.
The Deity of the Jews was a stern, and revengeful
Despot; Christ’s God was a loving Father. The beginning
of wisdom with the Jews was fear; with Christ, the
beginning of wisdom was love. With the Jews, God was
a God of wrath, persecution and slaughter; with Christ,
a God of mercy, forgiveness, and boundless love.
The God of the Jews, who, like the inexorable Fate of
the Greeks, or the sanguinary monsters enthroned in the
Imperial purple of Borne, punished the sins of the
�Christianity.
17
fathers unto the third and fourth generation, and de
manded holocausts of murdered sacrifices, was changed by
Christ into a God of infinite kindness, rejoicing over
one repentant sinner more than over ninety and nine
just persons. Christ’s doctrine in its primitive purity
was the ever true Law of Peace, Love and Tolerance,
satisfying Beason, leading to Science, and to the Search
for Truth. These are the fundamental elements of Chris
tianity, towards which, freed of all dogmatic unintelligi
bilities, humanity is striving consciously or unconsciously,
in spite of the thousands of sects, and the numberless
commentators who have done their uttermost to destroy
the simplicity and universality of Christ’s teachings. But
Beason cannot be stifled by persecution ; Science cannot
be annihilated by superstition; and Truth cannot be
silenced by blind fanaticism. Christianity checked He
braism, fostered Hellenism, brought life into the Ancient
World, and established Humanism, the last possible phase
in the development of Humanity.
If we look for the principal historical causes of the
sudden spread of Christianity, we have :
1st. The extent of the Boman Empire, with two prin
cipal languages—Greek and Latin.
2nd. The scattering ofthe Jews and the Jewish Christians.
3rd. The general tendency to mysticism, fanaticism,
and symbolism, and the total absence of a correct know
ledge of the Laws of Nature.
4th. The immense number of freed men, slaves, and
beggars. To such people equality was preached; equality
before a God in whose eyes the living visible God on
earth—the Emperor was no more than the lowest beggar.
The poor grew proud, and condescended to admit the
rich into their now blessed community; and the rich,
terrified by the hungry and haggard looks of the people,
enervated by profligacy and licentiousness, were glad to
be made partakers of a future kingdom of bliss, since
they did not feel very safe on earth, and trembled equally
before the covetousness of the tyrants in power, and the
daily increasing number of homeless slaves.
5th. The decline of faith in the old gods of the
classical world, who were now proved to have been
mere idols of stone, or brass, as otherwise they could
�18
Christianity.
not have permitted humanity to sink to such a depth of
immorality as was reached under the Emperors, for men’s
lives had no value, justice was nowhere to be found.
6th. The sanguinary political and religious persecution
which the Emperors repeatedly ordered against the everincreasing Christians.
The Greeks and Romans were in general extremely
tolerant in religious matters. They had either a personal or
a political interest in persecuting some single individual,
and used the religious fanaticism of the mob as the means to
attain their special political or worldly object. They
never had priests in our sense of the word. The early
Christians began slowly to find favour at Court in conse
quence of their universalism. They proved that they did
not hold all the exclusive, national opinions of the Jews,
who would not recognise any other authority but that of
" Javeh—they honestly referred to Christ’s command :
“ Render therefore unto Csesar the things which are
Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s ”—
and the new Religion was at last introduced at Court
under the Emperor Alexander Severus, whose mother,
Mammsea, was said to have been a true Christian. Decius
tried in vain to stamp out the Christians. Under
Gallienus they enjoyed peace ; and the last vain attempts
to abolish Christianity by means of sanguinary persecu
tions were made under the Emperor Diocletian. As is
invariably the case, cruelty only served the more to
develop the whole vitality of Christianity. At this
period certain causes were at work, which altogether
changed, if not the essence, at least the form of Chris
tianity. Some sudden disturbances occurred in the
provinces, situated between China aud the Caspian Sea,
which had been conquered about the first Century of
the Christian Era. “ It appears that, in consequence
of these convulsions, the Samanaeans, disciples of Buddha,
(who probably lived about the time of the Israelitish
Kingdom of the Ten Tribes,) departed from their former
seat, the ancient Aria, and took refuge in the mountains
of Cashmere and Thibet.” Some of these disciples must
have also settled in the more western parts of Asia, and
must have come into contact with the then more and
more spreading Christians, who endeavoured with all the
�Christianity.
19
activity of their intellectual power to bring Christianity
into a system—a dogmatic system. In many of their
details, the tenets of Buddha bear the greatest resem
blance to certain superadded Christian dogmas; “ For
the chief doctrine of the Samanaean Bonzes was, that
Buddha was of Royal descent, born of the Virgin Maja,
worthy of adoration as next in dignity to God whose
ninth incarnation he was, and that he would assume
at the end of all earthly things his tenth incarnation
as Kali, and appear on a white horse to judge the quick
and the dead.” The Samansean priesthood taught men
to prepare for this event, to lead a retired contemplative
life, to suffer persecution but never to persecute, humbly
to submit to any lay power, since this world was a mere
fleeting, transitory abode of misery and decay, prepara
tory to a higher spiritual life to be enjoyed in Eternity in
Nirvana, the unceasing contemplation of the Deity in
His eternal peace and glory. Christianity absorbed all
these elements, but with the Christians, the endeavour to
spread this belief in the bliss of redemption became a
sacred duty, which they thought thems'elves justified in
performing by means of violence, inexorable cruelty, cruci
fixions, boilings and burnings, by fire and sword “Ad
majorem Dei gloriam.”
Here the striking difference between Buddhism and
Christianity becomes apparent. Buddhism is passive
contemplation ; Christianity is positive activity. The
one remained stationary, the other progressively developed
and is still developing. The one acquiesced in any form
so long as the worship of Buddha was the aim ; the other
devoted itself to an unparalleled spiritual activity, en
dowing Christianity with mystic meanings, allegorical
beauties, dressed in the shreds of myths and fables, col
lected from all the religious systems of the ancient
world, adorned with Platonic dreams and visions, and
Aristotelian sophistries and dialectics. Intolerance and
fanaticism spread more and more; and delusion and
ignorance served to build up that glorious spiritual
Revolution which brought new life into the world.
Scarcely had Christ expired on the Cross when a host
of pious preachers and teachers inundated the world with
descriptions of the details of His private and public life.
�20
Christianity.
St. Luke informs us “ that many have taken in hand
to set forth those things which are most surely believed
among us.” There were about 146 independent sacred
writings, among which were 34 Gospels, 20 Epistles,
22 Acts, 5 Revelations, and 22 miscellaneous works ;
several books published under the name of James, and
books under the name of Peter. That these works existed,
is undeniable, for the various diverging and quarrelling
sects of early Christianity were founded on the very
possession of these different sacred books. Letters were
forged, interpolations fabricated, omissions resorted to,
fictions invented, exaggerations propounded, miracles pro
claimed, and interpretations given, so that it is exceed
ingly difficult to gather any reliable facts. To prove how
far such deceptions went, we may point out that Gregory,
of Tours, in the sixth Century a.d., firmly believed that
he possessed the authenticated account of the miracles at
the death and resurrection of Christ in the very docu
ment which Pilate had sent to the Emperor Tiberius.
Lucian, in the latter half of the second Century after
the birth of Christ, bitterly complained that the Christians
were so reserved respecting their mysteries.
Tacitus, Pliny, and others could not understand why
morals and truth should be proclaimed by miracle
workers, magicians and necromancers, who began to
drive a very profitable trade. At first, Jewish and
Pagan priests had heaped opprobrious calumnies upon
the Christians on account of the simplicity of their
worship, esteeming them little better than Atheists,
because they had no temples, altars, sacrifices, priests nor
any of that external pomp in which the vulgar are so
prone to place the essence of religion. The rulers of the
Christians now adopted external, mystic ceremonies, and
suddenly the primitive simplicity which had characterised
the first followers of Christ was gone, and a multitude of
half-Jewish and half-Pagan enthusiasts, visionaries, theosophists, snake-charmers, and adepts abounded in the Chris
tian communities, and proclaimed themselves to be Ascetic,
self-denying, miracle-working Christians. Mysticism and
symbolism became the leading elements in Christianity.
The mysteries engendered sects, in accordance with the
various explanations given to the meaning of the different
�Christianity.
21
symbols, allegories, types, prophesies, gospels, epistles, or
any vague traditions. Sects persecuted sects, each stig
matising their opponents as heretics. Every one of these
sects pretended to have received certain traditions from
the founder of Christianity Himself, or at least from
prophets, apostles, or pious men who had stood near to
Christ; yet subsequently, all their dogmas were declared
to have been heresies by later councils and synods.
The Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites, Alogians, Manichseans, Novitians, Sabellians, Patripassians, and Arians,
&c., may be adduced to prove that Christianity was at first
broad-hearted and broad-minded, so long as it was not
yet fettered by the inexorable power of the State. Dog
matists were permitted to put forward new dogmas and
mysteries, but unfortunately Constantine, in the fourth
century a.d., adopted Christianity as a state religion, and
employed learned converted Talmudists and Sophists to
shape the simple tenets of Christ, and from that time down
to the Reformation everything received a theological basis,
and was looked upon from a one-sided religious point of
view. Gregory of Nazianzen says of this period ; “ the
learned diatribes of Stoics, Platonists, Aristotelians, and
even the teachings of the most important Fathers were
silenced, and every “ shop-boy” preached and talked on
the Trinity in Unity of God the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, or on the “ Hypostasis,” meaning the subor
dinate substances of the Trinity. The City of Constan
tinople was full of working men and slaves who were
profound theologians, and preached in their workshops
and in the streets. If you wanted of anyone change for
a silver coin, he informed you of the distinction between
Father and Son; if you asked for the price of a loaf of
bread, you were lectured on the inferiority of the Son to
the Father; and if you asked whether the bread were
baked, the rejoinder was that the Son had been created
out of nothing.”
It was in vain that Justin Martyr, one of the most
zealous defenders of Christianity, proved with trenchant
conviction that Christ was the Logos, or “ Universal
Reason,” of which mankind were all partakers; and,
therefore, those who lived according to the Logos or
Reason, were Christians, notwithstanding that they
�22
Christianity.
might pass for Atheists. Such among the Greeks were
Sokrat is and Herakleitos, and the like; and such among
the Barbarians were Abraham and Ananias, and many
others. So on the other hand, those who had lived in
former times in defiance of the Logos or Reason were
evil, and enemies to Christ, and murderers of such as
lived according to the Logos or Reason; but those who
made or make the Logos or Reason the rule of their
actions, were and are “ Christians, and men without fear
and trembling.”
It is deeply to be regretted that Christ’s teachings
were deprived of their charming simplicity. But it could
not be otherwise. By the daily increasing number of
theological Sophists, Greek and Boman Dialecticians,
converted Talmudists and Cabalists, who made it their
duty to obscure every intelligible passage in the Old and
New Testaments; to find types where there were none;
to take allegories and metaphors to the letter; and to
transform into deep symbols what had been the literal
record of some every-day occurrence. Man was to be
forced into the narrow Procrustean bed of Dogmatism,
and to know nothing but incomprehensible mysteries.
Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy raised their spiteful and
venomous heads, aud spread like dragons the fire of
destructive disunion throughout the world. Councils
and Synods denounced and persecuted, excommunicated
and succeeded in bringing about a dead silence in the
realm of thought, or submissive professions of the pre
scribed religious formulae.
In the sixth century after Christ the Church, with the
aid of the lay power, at last was enabled to stamp out
by fire and sword all the so-called Heretics, and the
Fathers, Apologists, and the Church dignitaries began to
rule supreme. The writings of the Fathers are the only
important literary products of these times which throw a
considerable light on the gradual development of Chris
tianity from the second to the twelfth century a.d.
The Fathers, like the ancient Patricians of Pagan
Rome, were divided into two classes. Those from the
second to the sixth century a.d. were the “ Patres majorum gentiumwhilst those from the seventh to the
twelfth century a.d. were the “ Patres minorum gentium.”
�Christianity.
23
During the mediaeval period of history the priests of the
Romish Church, occupying themselves with writing on or
discussing theology, were called “ Scholastics,” and only
since the Reformation the Clergy treating religious mat
ters philosophically or ethically, assumed the title of
“ Theologians” (Scientists of God). We cannot fail to
perceive that the struggle between faith or religion, and
reason or science was the vital force that made it possible
for Christians to progress, morally as well as intellec
tually.
The principal tendency of the most learned and most
honest theologians of our day (like Dean Stanley, Prin
cipals Tulloch and Caird,—Stopford Brooke and many
others) is to restore to Christianity that universal spirit
of tolerance which will make culture and true civilisation
a common good, not dependent on rubrics, eastern postures,
vestments, or articles, but on a correct understanding of
our nature, humanising even the bigoted middle classes;
purifying society and making it a general philanthropic
brotherhood, turning capital into a blessing instead of a
curse ; and endowing our dogmatic and arbitrary educa
tional institutions with one analogous system, fitted to
bring out all our higher reasoning faculties. Thus the
pure spirit of true Christianity will once more sway our
hearts and vivify our lifeless and cold, yet eternally
quarrelling, denominational sects. Science and art will
work together, spiritualising our higher nature, foster
ing. Hellenic-Teuton culture instead of Romano-Hebrew
narrow-mindedness, leading us to a universal bodily
and mental happiness, and establishing a practical—not
clerical—“ Millenium.”
We shall endeavour in future lectures to trace how the
' historical development of Christianity commenced in a
controversial thunderstorm, fierce, terrible and destructive
at first; followed by a gloomy calm, silent, deadening
and obstructive; and at last arousing science, purifying
our moral and intellectual atmosphere, spreading the
broad daylight of culture in union with morals, enabling
humanity to be free, good, and truly constructive.
�
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 I: The origin of Christianity from a strictly historical point of view, being a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, on Sunday, 21st November, 1880
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Zerffi, G. G.
Description
An account of the resource
In this lecture Dr. G. G. Zerffi explores the history of Christianity, including the origins and spreading of the religion, as well as a comparison with Buddhism.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23 p. ; 18 cm
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Sunday Lecture Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3431
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 />This work (Christianity I: The origin of Christianity from a strictly historical point of view, being a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, on Sunday, 21st November, 1880), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Buddhism
Christianity
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/33d79fd1fa6cacf3fafbaa4888d7fbf3.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=qGlPOYbTZiIbDchuxrLQGD6eTK0oEnCdeBKn2r4XnsYEeMO5JsNyDJe%7ENI4ji08rxTxQDtmcF%7EKHbVr9sMRhYgu8%7EdZrriAfAZwfnGYNjiTJzIrqTF3PJ9OpBvrlTBZKr0WEXpJUdIp1G7W8ACif4XP9ao5pqtue%7EkWnXm5ybOPeb4pK17CYXi%7EEC3ZI9w9OjModru%7Ecte-Dt5x8p2lfbko3J6TD7LLdlvauwGAnBlf79rwnB9kYBPamzQR0iRULRNG3Hk8wvV03MnAESF2fXwqdI5FntaG6Hj2hKAgcYNGTNuhNMEXq4ePJDd0jQb20mhPMEP--Odnxc9-Ca7Y%7Ezg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6cd656c19d9a76899c129c9abd77f416
PDF Text
Text
CT 8}
COMMON SOURCE OF ERROR IN
SEEING AND BELIEVING.
iCccturc
DELIVERED BEFORE
SUNDAY LECTURE
THE
SOCIETY,
ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 27th FEBRUARY, 1881,
By H. MAUDSLEY, M.D.,
PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
1881.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
�Works by the same Author:
“ The Pathology of Mind.” Being the Third Edition of the Second
Part of the “ Physiology and Pathology of Mind,” re-cast, much
enlarged, and re-written. In 8vo, price 18s.
“The Physiology of Mind.” Being the First Part of a Third Edition,
revised, enlarged, and re-written, of “ The Physiology and Pathology of
Mind.” Crown 8vo, 10s. 6d.
“ Body and Mind : ” An Inquiry into their connection and Mutual In
fluence, especially with reference to Mental Disorders. Second
Edition, enlarged and revised, with Psychological Essays added.
Crown 8vo, 6s. 6d.
Macmillan & Co., London.
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
To provide for the delivery on Sundays in the Metropolis, and to encourage
the delivery elsewhere, of Lectures on Science,—physical, intellectual,
and moral,—History, Literature, and Art; especially iu their bearing
upon the improvement and social well-being of mankind.
, THE SOCIETY’S LECTURES
ARE DELIVERED AT
ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
On SUNDAY Afternoons, at FOUR o’clock precisely.
(Annually—from November to May.)
Twenty-four Lectures (in three series), ending 24th April, 1881, will
be given.
Members’ annual subscription, £1, entitles them to a ticket, transferable
(and admitting to the reserved seats), and to eight single reserved-seat
tickets, available for any lecture.
Tickets for each series (one for each lecture)—
To the Sixpenny Seats —2s., being at the rate of Threepence each
lecture.
For tickets, and the printed Lectures, and for list of all the Lectures
published by the Society, apply (by letter) to the Hon. Treasurer,
Wm. Henry Domville, Esq., 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park,
Payment at the door :—One Penny ■—Sixpence and (Reserved
Seats) One Shilling.
�SYLLABUS.
1. The influence of preconceived idea and of feeling to vitiate observation.
Illustrations:
a. Illusions of Sense.
b. Hallucinations of Sense.
c. Erroneous observation.
d. Miracles.
2. The influence of feeling and belief to vitiate reasoning.
a. Individuals.
b. In communities.
3. The relation of feeling to intellect in the progress of the race.
�.a
c>i
til* ol '.
'
' n
1
,S
■ '.
1>. MCOih
Io feflui ifU'.’ftU > I.
.1’.' i|j,7 HW»fo -‘SK
,«>
,V
.
pail •<! '!u •rwsf'fyii
J
-
-
.mJiuHina.' 7
’ v
«
.6
»
* ■■
',<
)
'uouMnwIT
�COMMON SOURCE OF ERROR IN
SEEING AND BELIEVING.
PROPOSE not in this lecture to enumerate and discuss all the
mistakes which we are liable to make when we see and draw
conclusions from what we see—all the fallacies, that is to say, to
which observation and reasoning are exposed; I purpose only to
note and illustrate now one very common and prolific source of
wrong observation and inference. It is certain we do not see and
judge rightly by instinct; too often, although we have eyes, we
see not truly, and although we have reason, we use it to come to
wrong conclusions. Reason, we know, man claims as his almost
exclusive prerogative, defining himself—for he has that advantage
over other animals—as pre-eminently the reasoning animal; and
one need not cavil at the definition so long as it is not understood
to mean that everybody reasons rightly, or even commonly bases
his beliefs upon reason. To say of the great majority of persons
that they reason at all in the highest sense of the word is to say
what is not true, since their opinions are plainly either got by
inheritance, or engrafted by education, or moulded by particular
life-experiences, or imposed by authority of some kind, and are
then worn by them, as they wear their clothes, after the fashion.
Governed by their habits of opinion as they are by their habits of
life they find it as hard a matter to change the one as to change
the other. If all men reasoned truly and adequately on every
subject, it is evident that all men would be agreed, which is not
quite the case; we should not be meeting here this afternoon to
broach opinions which will not be perhaps in harmony with those
which have been preached from a thousand pulpits this morning;
the heresy of yesterday would not be, as it often is, the common
sense of to-day, and the common sense of to-day the nonsense of
to-morrow; the majority would not have found it necessary to
stone, burn, poison, cut asunder, crucify, or otherwise silence the
voices of the few who, in the succession of the ages, have not
I
�6
Common Source of Error in
failed to appear from time to time to inspire and to raise men to
higher planes of thought and duty; the world would have been
without the history of its noble army of martyrs of humanity.
This being so, it is a good thing, I think, from time to time to
make a particular study of the common errors to which we are
liable in observation and thinking, and to take note how far
wrong they may carry us. My attention is drawn often and
forcibly to this matter, because, in the course of my professional
work, I meet with persons who, of sound understanding in respect
of all ordinary matters, entertain some extraordinary delusions in
respect of one or two subjects, and cannot be convinced of their
errors by the plainest evidence and argument. Naturally one asks
oneself how it comes to pass that they form and entertain notions
which are absurd to the common sense of mankind, holding to
them in the face of conclusive disproof, and notwithstanding that
they cannot find a single person in the world to agree with them.
The vulgar saying is that they have “ lost their senses,” but it is
not so; their senses are in full work, but somehow they fail to
perform their proper offices. In seeking the explanations of these
remarkable distractions of mind one comes to perceive that, after
all, these people have only carried to an extreme pitch, to an
insane height, a kind of faulty observation and reasoning which
is common enough among persons who are not in the least out of
their minds. ’Tis not true perhaps, as is sometimes said, that
everybody is a little mad, but it is true -that everybody makes day
by day the same sort of errors in observation and reasoning as
those which lead madmen to their delusions.
I go at once to the heart of what I have to say by laying down
the broad proposition that in looking at things a person sees what
he believes he sees, not necessarily that which really is : his notion
of what he sees may correspond with the reality or not, but in
any case he does not see the reality purely ; he sees it through the
idea or notion which he has of it. Had I been born blind, and
were my eyes opened at this moment for the first time to see a
human face before me, I should not know it to be such by my
sense of sight alone: I know a human face, when I see it, only
because of the training in seeing which has been going on ever
since I was born, the unceasing, if unconscious, education which
I have had. The idea has been organised gradually in my mind—
abstract, so to speak, from a multitude of impressions—and when
it is stirred into activity by the proper impression made upon
sight it instantly interprets that impression, so that I recognise
�Seeing and Believing.
7
the object.
*
If my idea were very active and at the same time
did not fit the reality, it might mislead sight, making me mistake
the identity of a face which I saw—just as Don Quixote, possessed
with his fixed idea of giants and enchanted castles, mistook the
sails of a windmill for the arms of a giant—or even, in a more
extreme case, making me actually see a face where there was no face
at all. You have perhaps seen a person who has been put into
what is called the mesmeric state and noticed the extraordinary
illusions which he can be made to suffer: the operator bids him
take a glass of simple water, assuring him at the same time that it
is exceedingly bitter and nasty, and he forthwith spits it out as if
it were poison, with every expression of disgust; he is told that a
wasp is buzzing about his face and he instantly makes frantic
movements to strike it away; he is introduced to a stranger as his
mother or sister and he immediately embraces her. There is
scarcely a mistake of sense, however extravagant, of which he
may not be made the victim if he is duly susceptible and the
operator skilful and confident. Now what is it which takes place ?
This: the idea suggested by the operator becomes so very active
in the subject’s mind, takes such exclusive possession of it, that all
other ideas are inhibited or silenced; they are inactive, in abey
ance, asleep, so to speak, unable therefore to comment upon or
correct it; accordingly the person sees, hears, or otherwise per
ceives all impressions through the active idea, which interprets
them instantly into the language of its own nature : being the
only part of the mind which is then sensible to stimulus and in
function, it cannot of necessity reveal anything which it does notice
but in terms of itself. The person does not see the real thing but
his notion of what the real thing is and that does not in this
case accord with what really is. Here then is an experiment
which plainly shows us that an idea in the mind may reach such a
pitch of exclusive activity as to put to silence other ideas and to
completely befool the senses. It is what happens also to the mad
man who, having the delusion that he is the victim of a malignant
persecution, sees or hears his persecutors pursue or threaten him
where no one else can see or hear anything of them.
I now go a step further and note that something of the same
sort takes place in dreams. When we are asleep we see nothing
* The common saying that “seeing is believing” may then be applied
in a double sense—not alone in the understood sense that we believe by
what we see, but also in the sense that we see by what we believe.
�8
Common Source of Error in
outside us: our eyes being shut it is impossible we should ; never
theless we do see very remarkable scenes if we dream, seeing them
too as if they were outside us and more vividly perhaps than we
do see real things when we are awake. What happens is that the
thoughts of the dreamer as they occur to him become instantly
visible as sensory presentations ; the idea of a thing, so soon as it
becomes active, takes form as the sensible object, is translated into
the outward reality; the idea of a person, for example, becomes
the seen person, the idea of a voice the heard voice. >80 before the
dreamer’s eyes as a visible pageant, a scenic show, moves the train
of succeeding ideas; it is as if each vague thought which came
into the mind as we walked along the street absorbed in reverie
was visible as an actual scene ; in which case it is plain we
should be surrounded by an ideal world which would be the real
world to us, while the real world would be faint and shadowy or
quite unperceived. Now this happens the more easily in dreams
for two reasons—first, because the active idea has for the time
almost exclusive possession of the mind, the rest of it being asleep,
and, secondly, because the closure of the senses by sleep to all
outward things, preventing that distraction of them by other
objects which is taking place more or less during waking even in
the deepest reverie, leaves them at the mercy of the idea. Here
there is another instance where an idea or notion vividly experi
enced imposes itself upon sense, becomes an actual hallucination.
Take another case: people don’t see ghosts nowadays when they
go through churchyards by night, as they used often to do in olden
times. Why is that ? It is because, not believing in ghosts, they
do not expect to see them: they have not in their minds the idea
of a ghost which may step solemnly forth from behind a tombstone
or glide away like a guilty thing ashamed. ’Tis an instance of the
excellent philosophy which is never wanting in Shakspeare, that
he makes Hamlet see his father’s ghost at midnight, when the air
is bitterly cold, not a mouse stirring, on the lonely and rocky
platform before the castle of Elsinore, after he had been informed
in solemnly impressive tones of its previous appearances, when he
himself is there in a tremor of expectation to see it, and immedi
ately after Horatio’s exclamation “ Look, my lord, it comes!”
Again: there is an event which has happened sometimes to
dying persons, well fitted to make a solemn and startling impres
sion on those about them. When at the point of death or nearly
so, the dying person, gazing intently before him, as if he saw some
one there, may pronounce suddenly the name of a long dead
�9
Seeing and Believing.
Relative, exclaim perhaps “ Mother,” and soon after expire. Natu
rally people suppose that the spirit of his dead mother has appeared
to him, and are happy to think that he has joined in a better world
those who were taken away from him in this world. So they take
CQmfort to themselves when they lose by death one who is near
and dear to them in the belief that although he shall not return to
them they shall go to him. That may or may not be, but certainly
the apparition is not proof of it, since it is no more than one of
the hallucinations which a dying person is liable to have; for when
he is near death and the failing functions of his brain portend
their near impending extinction, wandering thoughts of the far
distant past, impressions of childhood perhaps, seemingly long
effaced, but never actually effaced, may flicker in the mind and,
taking visible form as thoughts take form in dreams, be seen as
visions. You will remember that Shakspeare makes Falstaff,
when dying in a London tavern after a life of the most gross
debauchery, a worn out old libertine, go back in this way to the
memories of more innocent days and “babble of green fields.”*
These broken reversions, as I may call them, are the last ebbing
functions of the brain which, as Shakspeare puts it, then
“ Doth by the idle comments that it makes
Foretell the ending of mortality.”
'
I might go on to multiply instances of this production of hallu
cination by idea, since they are to be met with in all quarters.
You have heard perhaps that there has lately been an apparition
of the Virgin Mary at Lather Ignatius’s Monastery - of Llanthonev
Abbey, which was seen first in a meadow by four boys of the
Abbey, after that by a brother of the Abbey, and last of all
by Father Ignatius himself. This is his account of what he
saw:—
“ About eight o’clock on Wednesday evening, the 15th inst. (after
the last service of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin) we all
* It is very doubtful, however, whether Shakspeare ever wrote what is
now the received text. In the first authentic edition (1623) the words
were not “ ’a babbled of green fields,” but “ a table of green fields,” which
was nonsense. It was changed by an anonymous critic to “ ’a talked of
green fields,” which Theobald altered into the present reading. Thirty
years ago, however, an annotated copy of the edition of 1632 was found,
which, among a great number of corrections of the text, substituted for
“’a.table of green fields,” the words “on a table of green frieze ”—£<?.,
“ His nose was as sharp as a pen on a table of green frieze.” Dr. Newman
makes use of these discrepancies for the purposes of his argument in
Grammar of Assent (p. 265), and it is from him that I quote them.
�10
Common Source of Error in
came to the porch door. I held the processional crucifix. With
me were the brothers, Mr. Bouse, and a gentleman from Oxford
who had visited the Monastery for the purpose of endeavouring
to see the vision. The boys were kneeling in front of us, Sister
Janet was kneeling in the meadow. It was a very wet night. We
were singing the ‘Aves.’ We had sung three ‘Aves ’ in honour
of the Holy Trinity, and we had just finished a fourth to the
Blessed Virgin, when, all of a sudden, when I was not expecting
anything of the kind, I saw a tremendous outburst of light from
the dark, heavy clouds over the farm building. It seemed to
burst right upon the buildings. The light was all in bulging circles.
In the very centre of the light there appeared, coming down upon
us, a human form. It was a very commanding^ stately figure.
I could only see sideways. The face was turned towards the bush.
I could only see it momentarily, as it were in the 1 twinkling of an
eye.’ But in that moment it stood out so distinctly and startling
that I am sure that it was darker than the light. Had it been
clothed in cloth of silver, or cloth of gold, it might have produced
the same effect—the darkness against the light. There was an
intense reality about the figure. It was momentary, as I before
said, and yet it seemed that it might have been an hour’s vision,
so intensely real was it. In the majesty of the figure, and in its
being dark against the light, it reminded me of Dore’s picture,
‘The triumph of Christianity over Paganism.’ There were
flashings of light about the figure. In a moment, as I looked, it
vanished. Before it vanished it had appeared as if it would have
descended upon the church door or the church roof. I feel sure
that it must have been the figure of the Blessed Virgin, because,
although I could not discern the dress it wore, I could see that it
was fully draped; whereas in the visions which others have seen,
when they have seen a male figure, it has always appeared with
simply a cloth round the loins, as our Lord is represented in
baptism, and at other times. I also feel sure that it was the
Virgin, because the figure appeared immediately after we had
sung the ‘ Ave ’ in her honour. The figure also had its face
turned towards the bush, where our Ladye had first been seen. I
have further confirmation in the fact that about two or three
minutes afterwards the Blessed Virgin’s figure was seen by the
gentleman who was watching with us, and by one of the boys,
nearer to the ground.” *
* South Wales Daily News, September 13th and 27th, 1880.
�Seeing and Believing.
11
“ These,” he says, “ are extraordinary and absolute facts. The
sceptic may and will scoff, but his scoffing will not explain or
diminish the truth or supernatural character of these absolute and
incontrovertible facts * * * No amount of contradiction, ridicule,
or unbelief can alter the fact that Monday, August 30th, 1880, be
tween the hours of 9 and 11 a.m., the Blessed Virgin appeared in
dazzling light to four boys and did what no earthly being could do
before their eyes.”. With such positive and incontrovertible testi
mony of eye-witnesses, are you of so little faith as to doubt that
the Blessed Virgin appeared ? Probably you have great doubts, as
I have; and perhaps I may venture to think that I shall carry your
sympathetic doubts with me in my sceptical interpretation of
another vivid vision of an apparition in circumstances particularly
favourable to its occurrence.
The vision in this case happened to a woman whom we may
believe to have been predisposed in some measure to hallucination,
since we are told of her that she had once had seven devils cast
out of her; a story which, in modern scientific interpretation,
means that she had once been insane and had recovered. In all
likelihood, therefore, she was one of those persons, susceptible or
sensitive, as mesmerists call them, whose unstably balanced nervecentres were easily liable to take on that sort of irregular action
which issues in hallucination and delusion. The woman I refer
to is Mary Magdalene, who visited the sepulchre of Christ on the
third day aft.er His burial, and who, according to the gospel of St.
John, saw two angels in white sitting, the one at the head and the
other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain. I say accord
ing to John, because the stories of the resurrection told by the
writers of the different gospels differ considerably in details;
amongst other things, not agreeing as to whether there was one
angel or whether there were two angels, or as to the persons who
saw the apparition or apparitions. Discrepancies in the stories of
supernatural phenomena are not of course to be wondered at;
they are the natural results of an inspiration more than natural
pouring itself into natural channels. Those, however, whose
understandings are informed by observation and experience of
nature, not by inspiration from outside nature, may suspect
perhaps that Mary Magdalene, having an excitable brain, was the
victim of a hallucination. She ran to the sepulchre in hot excite
ment, eagerly expectant to see something extraordinary, and she
saw something extraordinary: a flitting impression on sight, pro
bably the “ linen clothes lying there, and the napkin that was
�12
Common Source of Error in
about the head not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped
together in a place by itself,” suggested two angels, and the ideas
of the angels so suggested took visible form, dominating the sense,
just as the gleaming whiteness of a tombstone suggesting the idea
of a ghost to the walker through a churchyard by night was trans
formed instantly into a ghost.
This dominion of the idea over the senses, which has its con
summate effect in the production of hallucination, is really the most
fruitful source of error and defect in common observation, an ever
active, and never to be neglected, cause of fallacy. Men see not
the reality purely, but see it in the coloured light of the notions
which they have of it. Hence no two persons see an event exactly
alike; two witnesses go into the witness-box and give widely different accounts of the same transaction at which they were present
together ; two newspaper reporters, of different politics, believing
themselves sincere and truthful, send home to their respective
employers nearly opposite accounts of the same occurrences; in
each case there is the individual mind behind the eye. Has any
one got a belief, no matter how he got it—whether through his
understanding, as he flatters himself he gets all his beliefs, or
through his feelings, as he actually gets most of them—his mind
yields willing access to all facts which are in keeping with it, and
very Unwilling access to any fact which does not consist with it,
insomuch that the belief comes to determine much of what he sees,
to govern his actual observation of things. The stronger, more
over, the feeling associated with a preconceived idea or belief, the
more completely does it rule sense and vitiate observation. What
infatuated lover ever fails to see “ Helen’s beauty in a brow of
-Egypt?” What excited onlooker at a spectacle of horror could
ever give an accurate account of it ? At one time it was a firmlyrooted superstition that the wounds on the body of a murdered
person would bleed afresh when the murderer was made to touch
the corpse, and witnesses testified frequently to having seen that
happen. Two respectable clergymen, for example, swore at a trial
in the time of Charles I. (1628-9) that the body having been taken
out of the grave and laid on the grass, thirty days after death, and
one of the parties accused of murder required to touch it, “ the
brain of the dead began to have a dew or gentle sweat arise on it,
which increased by degrees till the sweat ran down in drops on
the face; the brow turned to a lively flesh-colour, and the deceased
opened one of her eyes and shut it again ; and this opening of the
eye was done three several times ; she likewise thrust out the ring,
�Seeing and Believing.
13
or marriage finger, three times, and pulled it in again; and the
finger dropped blood from it on the grass.” Here was evidence
against the accused which, if true, must have convinced even him
that he ought to be hanged. Of course, it was not true ; the
witnesses, however, were not wilfully or wittingly deceiving, they
were themselves deceived; they saw not the real thing, but the
imagination of what the real thing was. One may be permitted
to judge, by this example, of the value of the unsifted testimony
of the believer who has seen a miracle. ’Tis not that he has
really seen a miracle, but that. he has made a miracle of what he
has mis-seen.
It may be urged perhaps in respect of miracles that it is ex
tremely improbable, if not impossible, that several persons attest
ing them could be deceived in the same way at the same time. On
the contrary, nothing more easy in certain circumstances : a great
wave of emotion passing through a number of people, as emotion
does pass by the quick infection of sympathy, will carry belief with
it and make them see and testify to a quite impossible occurrence.
Hence miracles have always abounded where there was a great
fever of religious enthusiasm. The greater the heat of feeling the
less the coolness of observation and the more plentiful the mira
cles. Nay, it needs not much heat of feeling to see a miracle if a
number of persons be collected together intently expecting to see
something extraordinary happen: the ghost .seldom fails to appear
where the spectators are gathered together to see it. Every
religion has had its miracles and its multitudinous witnesses to
them. We do not believe it any the more on that account; we
ought indeed to believe it rather the less, since the miracle is pre
sumption, if not proof, of bad observation by the witnesses. The
lowest religion will have the most miracles, a higher religion will
have few of them, and the highest of all will probably have none
at ail. What we may fairly conclude from the testimony of hot
believers is that, by reason of their strong belief, they were not
witnesses to be depended upon, as observers. The interest of
miracles at this day, I take it, is not that which could attach to an
occurrence out of the fixed order of nature, but that which attaches
to the study of the defective, irregular, or actually morbid action
of the human brain, especially under conditions of unusual excite
ment ; it is not whether the body of a dead man which had lain in
the grave until it had begun to putrefy came to life again, but why
people thought and said so. When the belief in miracles has
become extinct they will be received by psychology into its domain
�14
Common Source of Error in
and they will be of lasting interest there. Indeed, it will be a
most instructive study of the future to elucidate and set forth the
exact relations of beliefs in supernatural phenomena to defective
or morbid functions of the brain. Supernaturalism will take its
proper place as an interesting chapter in psychology.
Thus much then with regard to the action which idea may exert
upon the senses; an action plainly so strong sometimes as to sub
due them into a complete subjection to it. In any case it is almost
impossible for one who has a preconceived notion in his mind to
help seeing in an event that only which is agreeable to the notion,
that which sorts or suits with it. Those who have not thought of
this tendency as an active source of fallacy in observation, and
realised how deeply, widely, constantly and unconsciously it works
are not qualified to weigh the value of testimony; they are like
those who should accept without question an assertion that the
trees and grass were blue from one who was looking at the country
through blue spectacles. To denote, moreover, this action of idea
upon sense vaguely as imagination or even as mental carries us no
further forward ; to rest satisfied there is simply to make a word
do duty for a conception; there is neither explanation nor definite
meaning in the statement. Whether we like it or not, we shall
have to acknowledge, first or last, that the process is at bottom
physical, and that we can have no explanation worth thinking
about until we find out what the physical basis is. Unhappily we
are yet a long way from that discovery; we must be satisfied for
the present to figure grossly to ourselves what takes place in the
intimate, most delicate and hidden operations of nerve molecules,
by the help of conceptions derived from the grosser operations in
physics which we can observe and manipulate. When the impres
sion on sense vibrates to the same note as the idea, we may say, it
is perceived and intensifies the idea—that is to say, is assimilated
mentally; when it does not vibrate in unison with it there is no
response, it is not perceived; the active idea responds to the note
that is in harmony with it, just as the string of a harp gives back
in consonant vibrations its proper note when that note is struck
near it.
I proceed now to mark the operation of the same sort of error
in the higher region of thought—in reasoning, that is, about what
we get from the senses when we have got the facts correctly.
Even then we are liable to go all wrong in the opinions or infer
ences which we form. The predominant bias sways the judgment.
Two persons shall have the same facts presented to them, and
�Seeing and Believing.
15
shall not differ as to the facts, yet it is notorious that they will,
according to the bias of their respective opinions, feelings, interests,
differ widely in the conclusions they draw from them, just as two
judges will give very unequal sentences for the same kind of
offence. How is it that the one sees a conclusion plainly and
thinks the other, who does not see it, blinded by prejudice to the
most obvious truth?' The reason of course is that each looks at
the circumstances from his own standpoint, and sees only or
mainly that which is in accord with the bias of his mind, over
looking that which is not; he sees vividly the reasons which
support his opinion, and which the other sees dimly or not at all;
he sees only dimly, or not at all, the reasons which go counter to
it, and which the other sees vividly. Now, how would a third
person, undertaking to bring these two to the same conclusion, go
about to accomplish it ? Certainly he would not treat them as
purely reasoning beings, and encourage them to go on arguing, by
which they would only heat themselves the more, but he would
handle each as if he was anything but an exact reasoning being;
he would not consider only the truth of what he had to say to
him, but would take account of his feelings, principles, prejudices,
character, and endeavour to bring this truth into the best relations
possible with these predominant lines of disposition, making it
pleasing or agreeable—that is to say, able to agree—and so to get
it accepted; he would in fact persuade by agreeing more than by
convincing, remembering the adage—
“ A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.”
Dealing in this insinuating way with both he brings them gently
and skilfully over their difference to the same conclusion, and that
the right conclusion if the affair be properly managed. One must
have the feelings of a person engaged in favour of reason before he
can see reason, must prejudice him in favour of an argument
before he can feel the force of it. Is not this a proof how very far
man is from being the good reasoning machine which he imagines
himself?
There is not a day, not an hour of the day perhaps, in any
one’s life which does not yield examples of this sort of biassed
or one-sided perception and reasoning. The moods of the moment
notably colour strongly our views of the character or issue of an
event, notwithstanding that the dry light of reason ought to
demonstrate a plain and certain conclusion. Optimism or pessi
mism is a matter of temperament, not of reason ; life-despair may
�16
Common Source of Error in
be the intellectual expression, and suicide the outcome in act, of
deranged organic feeling in a sadly tuned temperament. In that
extreme state of morbid depression of mind which we call
melancholia the sufferer cannot perceive a ray of hope, a glimmer
of comfort anywhere; he sees every undertaking, every scheme,
moving towards the same goal of ruin; he can follow the argu
ments which prove that his fears are groundless, but they produce
no effect upon him ; they reach his understanding, but they do
not touch his gloom-enshrouded heart, and accordingly they “no
more avail than breath against the wind.” Assuredly we credit
ourselves with a great deal larger measure of reason in the forma
tion and change of our beliefs than ever enters into them. On
the one hand, strong and convincing argument will sometimes not
compel belief; on the other hand, a change will sometimes take
place in an individual’s belief, while the reasons in favour of it are
as strong as ever; as Cardinal Newman has remarked, he does
not know how or when the belief has gone, but he finds out some
day that it is gone ; the perception of the old argument remains,
but some change in feeling in himself arising out of condition, age,
interests, occupation, &c., has worked a change of belief.
I shall not go on now to give any more illustrations from
individual experience, because I am anxious, in the time which
remains at my disposal, to point out how this source of error
in reasoning infects the belief of whole peoples, and leads them
to the most illogical conclusions. Do we not oftentimes see
nations swept by epidemics of feeling and belief, good or bad ?
Have wars been rational undertakings, or have they not been, in
nine cases out of ten, the results of insane suspicion and insaner
folly ? When one looks quietly back at the history of man’s
thoughts and doings upon earth, considering at the same time
his claim to be pre-eminently a reasoning animal, it is impossible
to help being amazed at the utterly irrational belief which pro
fessedly rational beings have formed and sincerely cherished.
More wonder, perhaps, that as they were so irrational as to form
and hold them they were ever rational enough to get rid of them.
It may be said, no doubt, that as they got better knowledge they
abandoned them, but I doubt whether knowledge has nearly so
much to do directly with human progress as we are in the easy
habit of assuming. It has always been as positive a piece of
knowledge as it is now that every one must die—that to be mortal
is not to be immortal—and that when a person is dead and buried
he does not come to life again ; that certainly is as long and sure
�Seeing and Believing.
17
an experience as human beings have had, since it dates from the
beginning of experience ; yet, in spite of that experience, the
greater part of those ranking amongst the most civilized and
enlightened of the earth, and marking therefore the highest water
mark of human progress, solemnly believe at this moment that
there have been men who have not died, and others who, after
being dead, have come to life again. And at great expense, and
through many perils, they send missionaries into all parts of the
earth to teach that wisdom to those whose sad ignorance of it
they compassionate. The very creed of the Christian is that the
God whom he worships became a man, was crucified on the cross,
died and was buried, and on the third day rose again and ascended
into heaven. That is a matter of solemn belief, but can we truly
say that it is a matter of rational knowledge ? Looked at in the
dry light of the understanding, we must admit that there could
not well be a doctrine more improbable, more revolting to reason.
How it strikes the unbiassed minds of those who have not been
trained from youth upwards to accept it we know by the experience
of the Jesuit missionaries in China, who found the dogma of a
crucified God so great an obstacle in the way of conversions that
they quietly suppressed it; they preached Jesus Christ triumphant,
not Jesus Christ crucified. It is beyond question then that there
is in man a power deeper and stronger than knowledge which
decides in some cases what he shall believe, and that the most
complete contradiction of observation and reason which it is
possible to conceive can be accepted as a solemn truth, if it be in
harmony with the prevailing tone or feeling of mind. Thereupon
all the powers of the understanding are brought into play, not to
prove it by a searching trial of its worth, but in order to find out
reasons why it should be believed. Meanwhile, all the reasons in
the world against it will not seriously touch it so long as there is
no fundamental change of feeling : when that takes place, how
ever, the whole fabric of belief tumbles easily to pieces without
any serious assault being made upon it. So far from rational im
probability being a difficulty to theological faith, the greater the
mystery the greater the faith of the true believer, until he reaches
the logical climax of sublime credulity in the acceptance of
Tertullian’s maxim—Credo quia impossible est, I believe it because
it is impossible.
Look back for a moment at the beginnings of Christianity.
How little had knowledge to do with its origin and progress I It
was born of the heart, not of the understanding of mankind, in the
�18
Common Source of Error in
stable not in the Academy or the Lyceum. The great and learned
of that time looked down on it with scorn as a pernicious supersti
tion, and it found acceptance among the poor and ignorant, the
publicans and sinners.
*
Let us note well the meaning of that:
the greatest revolutionary—or rather evolutionary—force which
has moved human society was not the product of the intellect, but
was an outcome of a glowing feeling of the universal brotherhood
of mankind; a feeling so deep and strong and true that it has
inspired and kept alive to this day many beliefs which outrage the
understanding. Can we believe then that the next great revolu
tionary force which shall move society afresh will spring from the
understanding and be governed by its rules? It needs little
reflection, I think, to show that a great social reform will never
come from a Senate or a House of Lords or other sort of upper
chamber, however cultivated and benevolent its members. No;
the impulse will come deep out of the heart of the people,
announcing itself many times beforehand no doubt in blind
yearnings, in wild explosions of social discontent, perhaps in reck
less uprisings of turbulence and violence, a great unreflecting
force, which it should be the function of intelligence to guide in
the right way. You may stop a revolution which has been
hatched in the intellect, by cutting off the heads of the few who
have knowledge ; you will never stop a revolution which has been
bred in the heart of the people by cutting off their heads. Instead
of denouncing wildly the social interest and visionary aspirations
which find outlets in communistic, socialistic, nihilistic, and
similar doctrines and disorders, it would be more wise to try to
understand their meaning; since it may be they are the blind,
* “ It is profitable to remind ourselves,” says Dr. Newman, “ that our Lord
Himself was a sort of smith, and made ploughs and cattle-yokes. Four
Apostles were fishermen, one a petty-tax collector, two husbandmen, one
is said to have been a coachman, and another a market gardener.” Peter
and John are spoken of as “illiterate men and of the lower sort.” Their
converts were of the same rank. They are, says Celsus, “ weavers, shoe
makers, fullers, illiterate clowns.” “ Fools, low-born fellows,” says
Trypho. “ Men collected from the lowest dregs of the people ; ignorant,
credulous women; ” “ unpolished, boors, illiterate, ignorant even of the
sordid arts of life; they do not understand civil matters, how can they
understand divine ? ” says Ccecilius. “ They deceive women, servants and
slaves,” says Julian. The Fathers themselves give similar testimony as to
their brethren. “ Ignorant men, mechanics, and old women,” says Athenagoras. “They are gathered,” says Jerome, “not from the Academy or
the Lyceum, but from the low populace.” Of meaner sort and more de
spised than the Communisis of Paris; and yet they overturned the world!
�Seeing and Believing.
19
instinctive, dimly prophetic impulses of a truth which, coming
from the suffering and brooding heart of society, lies deeper than
knowledge and which knowledge will one day have to reckon
with. No man’s intellect measures his character; from the un
fathomed depths of his being comes not only that which he shall
feel and do but in great measure also that which he shall think.
So it is with humanity as a whole. It is feeling which inspires
and stirs its great pulses, the intellect fashioning the moulds into
which the feeling shall flow. How momentously important then
that the people should have understanding, should learn know
ledge, so that neither craft of superstition, nor craft of ruler, nor
any other craft may again take possession of its forces and turn
them to its profit I
We are so comfortably confident of the stability of our progress
in these days that we do not give the heed we should to the lessons
of the past and consider seriously, as we might well do from time
to time, to what destructive issues uninstructed popular feeling
may one day carry us. There can be little doubt that each of the
mighty nations of the past believed that its kingdom would endure
and that it was impossible its gains should ever be lost to man
kind. But Home, and Greece, and Egypt are now but the
shadows of great names, and the once powerful Empires of the
East have disappeared so completely that even the places where
their mighty cities stood are hardly known. We may be sure that
there were sagacious men in each of these dead nations who fore
saw the end, perceived the causes that were leading straight to it,
and raised their unregarded voices in warning to the people. But
it is the eternal fate of Cassandra to be unheeded. In vain are the
most obvious truths preached to a people possessed by an impulse
of feeling with which they are not in harmony ; the nation which
is declining to its fall is as deaf to the admonitions of the few
thoughtful men who perceive and try to stay its course of folly
as it is blind to the plainest lessons of its own experience;
elementary principles of morality and the commonest maxims of
prudence go down alike before the current of feeling, and the
audacious charlatan who most cleverly flatters, fans, and directs
its sentiments is acclaimed and obeyed as a hero. This has
always been so, and it would be taking much too hopeful a view
of human nature to believe that it will not be so again. In spite
of all the gains of modern knowledge, which we think so certain,
but which, after all, are the real work and possession of only a
few, it is not at all out of the range of possible occurence that a
�20
Common Source of Error in
great turbid wave of superstition may overflow and overwhelm our
civilization, as other civilizations have been overwhelmed before it.
Do you think perhaps that the foundations of modern knowledge
are laid so deep and sure that it is incredible that they should ever
be swept away ? Well, it is a very sanguine belief: one might
have thought it as sure a truth as could well be that a person once
dead will not come to life again, but while multitudes believe the
opposite of that very plain experience, are the foundations of
belief so very sure ? xMen are not moved by knowledge, let me
say again, but by feeling, and were a strong wave of superstitious
feeling to pass through them they would see and believe nothing
that was not in harmony with it, would see and believe every
thing that was in harmony with it, would move on, until it was
spent, a huge devastating force, so far as pure reason was
concerned.
There is something too much of complacent self-deception in the
loud praise which we give to pure truth and in the high-flown devo
tion which we loudly profess to it; we make up by our theoretical
enthusiasm for it for much practical dislike and intolerance of it.
Truth is not so acceptable as illusion, since we live in perpetual
illusion, deceived and deceiving. We seem what we are not, and
make others believe that we think them what they are not. No
one speaks the truth sincerely to another, or talks of him in his
presence as he does in his absence. There is no one who would
not think himself grossly insulted if he had truth told of him, nor
would any one who adopted the practice of speaking the truth
always find it easy to keep himself out of an asylum. We hate the
speaker of truth, although the truth which hurts our self-love may
be most useful to us;. and love the flatterer, although we know the
flattery to be false and injurious. The ardent profession which
we make of a love of pure truth is itself a comfortable illusion
which we create for ourselves. From cradle to grave we are occu
pied—wisely, I dare say—in nursing our illusions, putting away
one, when we have worn it out, to take up another more fitting
the new desires which experience and years give us. If a person
really believed at the outset of life, as he knows at the end of it,
that all is vanity and vexation of spirit, would he have sufficient
motive to live ? Had there been no illusory prospect of Elysian
fields, or happy hunting grounds, or other sort of paradise beyond
the miseries of this world, where those who had suffered much and
unjustly here might hope to find recompense, one may doubt
almost whether faith in virtue could have been kept alive, whether
�*
‘Seeing and Believing.
21
the social organism would have held together ; at any rate, thou
sands of dreary lives would have been more dreary than they were,
thousands of self-sacrifices of work, of wealth, of duty, would never
have been made, the hopes, aspirations, and prayers which have
consoled and sustained thousands of heavy-laden hearts would not
have been. What then will be the consequence if science, as it
seems to threaten, shatters these hopes as illusions ? Will the
multitude be able to bear the pain, to face the fearful void, of so
great a loss ? Will man be able to live what the Bishop of Peter
borough has described lately as. “ a joyless existence, uncheered by
the hope of a happier hereafter, undignified by the consciousness of
divine descent and the heirship of immortality,” if science makes
him sincerely realise, as it seems to be going to work to do, that
he has no hope whatever of a happier hereafter, that his descent is
not divine but simian, that his last heirship is the corruption of
the grave ? Will not the bereaved people, craving for something
to satisfy the needs of the heart which knowledge cannot give, fly
for refuge in despair to some creed or church in which they may
find again the hopes, and consolation, and support of which they
have been robbed ?
Here lies the strength of the position of the Church of Rome.
Possessing an organization the most complete which the world
has ever known, served by its ministers with a devotion which
counts nothing gain that is not its gain, inspired with the theory
that the meanest human soul is worthy of all its energies, it offers
what seems a safe haven of refuge in the midst of the surging tur
moil of doubts, perplexities, and despair, the perfect rest of absolute
truth delivered into its keeping from the beginning: Come unto
me, might be its cry, all ye that are weary of spirit, with many
doubts and heavyladen of heart with the burden of your fears,
and I will give yon rest.
*
It is admirably adapted by its organi
* “ Thus it is sometimes spoken of as a hardship that a Catholic is not
allowed to inquire into the truth of his Creed ; of course he cannot if he
would retain the name of believer. He cannot be both inside and outside
of the Church at once. It is merely common sense to tell him that, if he
is seeking, he has not found. If seeking includes doubting, and doubting
excludes believing, then the Catholic who sets about inquiring thereby
declares that he is not a Catholic. He has already lost faith.”
J. H. Newman, Grammar of Assent. p. 184.
“ For, since we have the truth, and truth cannot change, how can we
possibly change in our belief, except indeed through our own weakness
or. fickleness.” p. 186.
�22
Common Source of Error in
zation, its ordinances, and its doctrine to respond to all the appeals
of the weak side of human nature. And I make no doubt many
will flee to it in the coming conflicts. But not of the people, we
may predict; not of the masses which constitute the foundation
and strength of the social organism. Its converts will come from
the tired votaries of fashion, weary of the dreary frivolities of
their lives, and eager to replace their exhausted desires by new
sentiments; from those who are educated enough to perceive
difficulties and perplexities of thought, without being courageous
and capable enough to face them sincerely and to think them out
thoroughly; from those again who, in the mortal struggle of new
thought for existence, have not the strength of understanding and
character to stay through the course, but falling by the wayside,
eagerly in their need lay hold of the helping hand which authority
holds out to them. These and the like are the classes from which
its converts will mainly come. The strong pulsations of popular feel
ing which make themselves felt in different nations, have no affini
ties with the Church of Rome nor has it shown the least sympathy
with them ; on the contrary they are essentially hostile to it, since
it has committed what seems to an outsider the fatal mistake of
allying itself with caste, privilege, power, and of alienating the
great liberal forces with which lies the determination of the
future : Catholic in name it has lost all claim to be Catholic in
fact. It is a rash thing to prophesy, but if I may venture a
prophesy here, it is that it will be by these great popular forces,
not by the knowledge of the learned, that it will be overthrown in
the final struggle. The French Revolution, momentous as an
event, was perhaps more momentous as a prophesy.
If what I have said thus far be true, what is the function of
those who have faith in the future of mankind, who are sanguine
enough to nurse enthusiastic hopes of its glorious destiny ? As
suredly to work well together, while it is time, to enlighten the
giant, so that when he puts forth his strength he may use it wisely,
to give him the understanding to direct his might in the right way.
Although intellect does not move the world it should guide directly
the forces which do move it, and so modify indirectly, as it will by
degrees, the deeper sources in which they take their instinctive
origin. One thing is certain whatever else may be doubtful: that
the true and honest method to pursue is directly the opposite of
that which the Churches have striven to enforce ; it is not to incul
cate credulity, to stifle doubt, to foster prej udice, in order that the
beliefs which are may continue to be. That method we know to be
�Seeing and Believing.
23
false. It is to seek truth and pursue it, at whatever cost, whether
it bring us sorrow or joy, peace or tribulation. Doubt, be it never
so disquieting, must go before enquiry, and enquiry before the
discovery of new truth. Scepticism is guilt in the eyes only of those
who fear truth, since it is the essential prerequisite of it. It is
impossible to foresee what fate the future has in store for the race
of man on earth; one may fain hope a more peaceful and happy
career than that which he has had in the past, since to look back
through his history from the beginning unto now is to look back
through succeeding chapters of wars, treachery, tortures, cruelties
and atrocities of all sorts and degrees by which “ man’s inhumanity
to man” has “made countless thousands mourn;” a spectacle of
horrors so appalling that, could we compass it in imagination, it
might well warrant the belief, if matters ended now, of a malevo
lent, not a benevolent, scheme of creation. We shall do well to
cherish the hope, or if not the hope the illusion, that matters will
not end here; that a brighter day will come when knowledge and
peace shall spread through the whole earth, and man’s humanity
to man leave few to mourn; that the past traditions of a golden
age, when all was plenty and peace, and the later aspirations for
a Paradise to come, in which sorrow and sin shall be no more,
may be not entire fable and illusion, but essentially dim fore
feelings, the prophetic instincts, of that which one day shall have
a measure of fulfilment upon earth.
�SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
The SOCIETY’S LECTURES NOW PRINTED are .—
Miss Mary E. Beedy. On “Joint Education of Young Men and Women
in the American Schools and Colleges.”
Rev. J. F. Blake. On “The Geological Results of Arctic Exploration.”
Professor G. S. Boulger. On “The Physiological Unity of Plants and
Animals.”
Professor Clifford. On “ The bearing of Morals on Religion.”
On “Right and Wrong; the scientific ground of their distinction.”
Mr. T. W. Rhys Davids. On “ Is life worth having ? and the eternal
Hope. An Answer from Buddha’s First Sermon.”
Mr. W. H. Domvtlle. On “ The Rights and Duties of Parents in regard
to their children’s religious education and beliefs.” With notes.
Mr. A. Elley Finch. On “The Influence of Astronomical Discovery in
the Development of the Human Mind.” With woodcut illustrations.
On “ Civilization; its modern safeguards and future prospects.”
On “The Principles of Political Economy; their scientific basis, and
practical application to Social Well-being.”
On “The English Freethinkers of the Eighteenth Century.”
On “ The Science of Life Worth Living.”
On “The Victories of Science in its Warfare with Superstition.”
Rev. J. Panton Ham. On “The Stage and Drama in relation to Society.”
Professor W. A. Hunter. On “A sketch of the English Law of
Heresy past and present.”
Mr. M. Macfie. On “ The impending contact of Turanian and Aryan
Races;—the Physical and Economic results of Chinese migrations
to the West.”
On “ Religious Parallelisms and Symbolisms, Ancient and Modern.”
Dr. H. Maudsley. On “ Lessons of Materialism.”
On “ The Physical Basis of Will.”
On “ Common Source of Error in Seeing and Believing.”
Mrs. Fenwick Miller. “ The Lessons of a Life :—Harriet Martineau.”
Dr. Andrew Wilson. On “ The Origin of Nerves.”
Dr. G. G. Zerffi. On “ The spontaneous dissolution of Ancient Creeds.”
On “ Dogma and Science.”
On “ The Eastern Question; from a Religious and Social point of view.”
On “ Jesuitism, and the Priest in Absolution.”
On “ Pre-Adamites ; or, Prejudice and Science.”
On “ Long and short Chronologists.”
On “ The Origin of Christianity from a strictly historical point of View.”
The price of each of the above Lectures is 3d., or post-free 3)d.
Mr. A. Elley Finch. On “The Pursuit of Truth.” Cloth 8vo„
pp. 106. “ The Inductive Philosophy.” Cloth 8vo„ pp. 100.
The price of each of these Lectures is 5s., or post-free 5s. 3d.
Two vols. of Lectures (1st and 3rd Selection), cloth-bound, price 5s.
each, or post-free 5s. 6d., contain Lectures otherwise out of print, viz.:
by the late Mr. Geo. Browning and Professor Clifford, and by
Dr. Carpenter, Mr. Clodd, Mr. Edward Maitland, Mr. Plumptre,
and Dr. Zerffi. Table of contents of these vols. sent on application.
Can be obtained (on remittance, by letter, of postage stamps or order) of
the Hon. Treasurer, Wm. Henry Domvtlle, Esq., 15, Gloucester
Crescent, Hyde Park, W., or at the Hall on the days of Lecturi;
or ofTAv. J. Bumpus, Bookseller, 158, Oxford Street, W.
�
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
Common source of error in seeing and believing : a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St. George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday afternoon, 27th February, 1881
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Maudsley, Henry [1835-1918]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of Publication: London
Collation: 23, [1] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Presented in Memory of Dr. Moncure D. Conway by his children, July Nineteen hundred & eight. Includes bibliographical references. List of Sunday Society Society lectures on back page.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Sunday Lecture Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N477
CT87
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 (Common source of error in seeing and believing), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Bible
Christian church
Conway Tracts
Fallacies
Miracles
New Testament
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bb522b33a98b8dcb3c0bb10a161cfa28.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=LQpZ7NVGtD5WZqXfAaMc3anhAXTsmOfOW7pca5k7vMqT2t9Zd0srNu2VZ6biLMHdq3bayCPsDFuMiZ2v7hV1cRpeZXcT%7EydSsBxCd5DmAJm-may96VRLjI8HvQlPUv24XpJblqHxvZI4nrvvkg5W0lEVLT2iNgGK3vNFalswi-CxUn1txbE07LwtyQht2QMVYUxFsBXggWQPzSw1jcqG9nVEU9-wm026Pv7bRH3mZ4i9ldU%7E8DbzNX6bZ6-viIYPFPo-eOpGR9a6AZ01OTP2xj21ifsMsh5CuqGnEGAOa48rWXQqfc%7Ei7G7BAdngt6dtuQRXg90w2tWqyUWZR770hg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
24b768124f2b969eb32690e414b848cb
PDF Text
Text
W ”8
'
"
SUNDAY HARVESTINC.
To the Editor of the “ Free Sunday Advocate.”
October, 1881.
I am glad to see that in your paper for this month you
have copied the letter of a South Oxfordshire “ Landlord and
Parmer,” inserted in the Times of the 1st Sept., in which he
forcibly points out how much better the Clergy would have
been employed on Sunday, the 28th August, if, instead of
offering up the weak prayer of their well-meaning, amiable
Primate, they had given their parishioners words of en
couragement, bidding them gather in the harvest while yet
it could be saved. To those who like myself believe that
no divine commandment has ever been laid upon man to
abstain from work on any day; that neither Jesus of Nazareth
nor any of his Apostles ever said a word to enforce the Sab
bath which Moses, the lawgiver of the Jews, promulgated as
a command emanating from their God; and more particularly
believing that no God “answers prayer” in the ordinary sense
of these words, and which if they mean anything, mean this,
—that an almighty, all-wise, all-beneficent Being is to be
stirred up by a few of us puny mortals, (a mere handful out
of the teeming millions of the inhabitants of this earth) into
altering at their dictation or persuasion, the fixed laws of this
Universe,—Sunday harvest work in seasons like the present
would be a matter of course. But that this ‘ Christian
liberty’ may be accepted universally we must first break
down that rigid Sabbatarianism so naturally engendered and
kept alive by the reading out in solemn form, in all our
churches Sunday after Sunday, the Fourth Commandment
of the Jewish Decalogue.
It may help to this end if I summarize the grounds upon
which Christians should hold themselves unfettered by that
commandment, as well as the grounds for my assertion that
it was no divine commandment but a mere piece of human
legislation, by Moses or some other J ewish Legislator.
The introduction to the Ten Commandments £ I am
the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt’
__ the reason given to the Jews in the Fourth Command
ment, as written in Deut. V.15,‘ remember that thou wast
a servant in the land of Egypt ’ —and ‘ It is a sign between
�2
me and the people of Israel for ever ’ (Exod. 31, 17) prove
conclusively that it was not designed for observance by
any other people.
Next, note how little respect Jesus had for Moses’ Sab
bath law. He went out of his way on many occasions to
offend the Jews by needlessly “ breaking ” it and never
denied that his acts were breaches. (See Mark II. 23, allow
ing his disciples to pluck corn on the Jewish Sabbath—Mark
III. 5—Luke XIII. 14—LukeXIV. 4—John IX. 16) while
as above stated, not one word is to be found in the New
Testament, attributed to him or to his Apostles, in favor of
or urging its observance. On the contrary, what an oppor
tunity was lost by Jesus of enforcing a Sabbath had he so
intended—when asked (MarkX. 17) what we should do to
inherit the kingdom of God and he repeated only the fifth
and other moral commandments of the Decalogue; and again
St. Paul in well known passages in his Epistles, while unwil
ling to interfere with his disciples’ liberty, as nearly as
possible forbids sabbatizing and the observance of days.
‘One man esteemeth one day above another; another
esteemeth every day. alike. Let each man be fully assured
in his own mind.’ (Romans XIV. 5) ‘Let no man, there
fore, judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a feast
day or a new moon or a sabbath day ’ (Colos. II. 16) ‘ 0 foolish
Galatians . . Ye observe days and months and seasons and
years. I am afraid of you lest by any means I have bestowed
labour upon you in vain’ (Gal. III., 1 and IV. 10-11)
When Jesus, healing a man of a long standing in
firmity and telling him to take up his bed and walk, was
properly accused of sabbath-breaking, he replied ‘My Father
worketh hitherto and I work,” and thus used words in express
contradiction to the reason assigned in the Fourth Com
mandment for keeping a Sabbath, namely, that God had
‘ rested the seventh day.’ This singular and absurd sugges
tion of a God Almighty taking rest afterthe labor of creating
our little globe, put forward as a ground for human beings
keeping a Sabbath, ought to satisfy both Jews and Christians
that the Sabbath of Moses was a mere human institution.
Some later lawgiver of the Jews, probably seeing this ab
surdity, rewrote the Fourth Commandment and substituted
the other reason for the Jew keeping it, that ‘ thou wast a
servant in the land of Egypt.’ But thus with two varying
�3
versions, it is impossible to say we even know what the
Fourth Commandment was, for both versions cannot be
correct and we know not which to choose.
I conclude with words of St. Augustine’s, 4 Qui labored,
orat.‘ 4 He who works prays.’ Your obedient Servant,
W. Henry Domville.
It is also interesting to note that the Roman Emperor
Constantine, the first recorded lawgiver to the Christians
who ordered any abstinence from ordinary work on the
first day of the week—‘the venerable day of the sun,’
as he terms it—in his Edict (a.d. 321) expressly reserved
to the dwellers in the country the free use of the day
for agriculture, lest haply the crops “ bestowed by
heavenly provision, should perish,” in this respect showing
greater wisdom than those 44 foolish Galatians,” and, let
me add, greater reverence, than those modern Sabbatarians
who would rather see the whole harvest perish than lift
up a hand to save it on a Sunday. The Act of 29 Charles
2nd c. 7 in more general terms excepts 4‘ works of
necessity and charity ” from its penal clauses.
The letter above quoted of 44 A Landlord and Farmer ”
on the subject of Sunday harvesting, is as follows :—
44 Many country congregations who last Sunday on
their way to church passed acres of cut corn, which
through the last three weeks of bad weather has been
ready for carrying, must have thought of the second
lesson (Mark II. 23) they would hear read in their churches,
and have wondered why the saying of Jesus 4 the Sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath ’ was not
applicable to the present time. As the precious hours of
sunshine—sunshine for which the Archbishop had
ordered a prayer to be offered up in all congregations—
passed by, how many in the congregations must have
thought of the proverb 4 God helps those who help them
selves,’ and have longed for words of encouragement from
their clergy, bidding them gather in the harvest while it
could yet be saved. No such words of practical religion
came, I fear, from any pulpit in the country; and the
rain, which recommenced on Monday, has injured and
destroyed thousands of quarters of corn which, but for the
�4
bitter observance of the Sabbath, might have been saved.
In the face of the bad seasons we have now had for so
many years, is it not a question for the country to decide
whether or not the superstitious, and I might add
un-Christlike, views entertained with regard to Sunday
labour should be allowed to endanger the capital and
industry of our country? Daring the present season
could the fine Sundays that have come between days of
rain have been utilized, a large portion of our crops
would have been saved, and the harvest thanksgivings,
which have become a general institution in the Church,
would have had more of genuineness in them than they can
have had of late years. In this county finer crops of wheat
and oats have seldom been grown, and the peas and beans
have been fairly good. Of the former crops only a small
part is housed in any condition, the remainder, still lying
in the fields, is day by day becoming less fit for food.
The crops of peas and beans still out will serve only as
food for the pigs, which will be turned into the fields to
pick up the seeds shed abroad through the wet weather.
That landlords, farmers, and labourers must suffer in
consequence of this needless waste of their capital and
labour every one will see at a glance; but all do not
recognize the fact that an insufficient or bad harvest
means depression to every trade and industry in England.
It is for the press to point this out; and if you, Sir, will
use your powerful influence in teaching that it is no more
a sin to save the hay and corn crops from needless
destruction on a Sunday than to lift an ass or an ox from
a pit they may have fallen into, you will confer a
material and moral benefit on this country.”
Copies of the above will be forwarded on receipt
of a ready directed pre-paid wrapper, enclosed to
W. Henry Domville, 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde
Park, W.
The Second Volume of the late Sir Wm. Domville's
work on ‘ the Sabbath,' (now out of print) is entitled
i An inquiry into the supposed Obligation of the
Sabbaths of the Old Testament ’ and comprises an
elaborate statement of all the arguments on this subject.
Women’s Printing Society, Limited, 21&. Great College Street, Westminster, S.W.
�
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
Sunday harvesting
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domville, William Henry
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 4 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Letter to the editor of the Free Sunday Advocate, October 1881. Author's name handwritten in pencil on title page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Women's Printing Society, Limited
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N198
N199
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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 (Sunday harvesting), 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
Farming
NSS
Sunday Observance
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0e5717368fc78d07a9e8d05ce050a3c8.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=alA8k1NL21LO17iko8HmMQJmJjO9Vo7OysF1puFF5sR-G8K2WAhNBdp0N6Xf3SHrfFPf4y-ihiazf%7EKuEWM0fqQOT5Pk2rhIeE62R0s1I2HoCGdZMMpBuiqBvF5v2H4MOefBPptU5PZaCvj%7EIEC7r1XZNUTB03xGifYokbYBciF0DlEtjQcPLb5Nkkg3ZLYnVn6ns9AIQVMTmjlxCVTCFIrNDfGTZsTji89q6FwK0azmz52Xc-ayL5vHyNUebHdUC3-Kl-32JRte8KHNu0HYttSs1qNgXfK4GOOMmkFypjpFsPVhRlplC2E-rXBcYaMRQxivlaPgFcclmJzJcAvCnA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
01c8aa8dd2fda92b555e36ebf88d38c3
PDF Text
Text
SECOND PART.
THE
:E OF THE “FATHERS” ON THE FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY.
BEING
Iferture
DELIVERED BEFORE THE
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY,
ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
ON
SUNDAY, 27th MARCH, 1881,
Dr. G. G. ZERFFI, F.R.S.L., F.R.Hist.S.
PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
1881.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
�SYLLABUS.
Some of the most influential Fathers of the First Century.
Objections of the Jews and Heathens to Christianity.
Celsus, Lucian, Porphyrius, and Julian.
The Apologists: Athenagoras, Tatian and his Disciples.
Clemens of Alexandria.
Falsification of History.
Origen, his character and great talent.
Eusebius and Basil, Cyril and Hypatia.
Tertullian and Ambrose.
Augustine. He studies Aristotle and Plato. His influence on the Theology
of our own times. His Confessions. Pride in prayer. “ In the be
ginning.”
The Trinity. “ The City of God.”
The “ Original Sin.” A Chinese Mandarin.
Augustine and Rousseau compared.
Heathen customs and principles mixed with Christianity.
Effects of the Controversialists and Casuists on the simplicity of Christ’s
teachings.
The Third Lecture to treat on Monasticism and Scholaticism.
Conclusion.
�CHRISTIANITY.
II.
The Influence of the “ Fathers ” on the Further Development oj
C hristianity.
IHE ancient world, with its plurality of godsT ceremonies,
oracles, festivities, political and social organisation', its' moral
laws and philosophy did not die very quickly. During the first
Century of our era, the Christians were merely a small sect of re
formed Jews, called “Nazarenes,” who met secretly, often in the
dead of night, in burial places and catacombs. The few existing
records were written only in Hebrew or Syriac.
The first change brought about in the new faith, was the more
exclusive use of the Greek language, not in its classical purity,
but in a colloquial form, in order to make the teachings of the
converted Hebrews more popular. The next step was the aboli
tion of some of the most striking social arrangements of the new
sect with regard to possessing “ all things in common.”
The Indian and Egyptian priests, the Pythagoreans, Essenes,
and Buddhistic monks, had long before possessed a similar organi
sation. They were compelled to give up their private property
and to divide it amongst the members of the community which
they joined. Notwithstanding all attempts to deny, distort, or
falsify them, the records of the Evangelists, and the acts clearly
prove that the germs of “ Communism ” and “ Socialism ” may be
traced to the primitive constitution of the oldest Christian Sects.
Barnabas, one of the earliest Fathers, whose real name was Joses,
a rich Levite, sold all he possessed, and gave everything to the
Apostles. He wrote a Gospel, but this was declared apocryphal.
Hermas, another of the Fathers of the first Century, also a rich
Jow, who lived at Borne, gave up his property, followed St. Paul,
and represented Christ as an angelic shepherd preaching doctrines
of love and equality. The sudden and miraculous deaths of Ana
nias and his wife Sapphira for concealing, and not giving up their
own goods to the. community, prove conclusively that “ Communism ”
was the basis of the first Hebrew-Christian Sect. Another funda
mental creed of primitive Christianity, that concerning the return
1
�4
Christianity.
of the Son in the glory of his Father, with his angels, to bring
peace on earth, which was to happen during the lifetime of those
to whom the promise had been made, was reluctantly given up as
hopeless. The belief in this promise goes far to prove that the
first Christians must have looked upon Christ as a powerful hero
who would vanquish his enemies, and bestow worldly grandeur on
his followers.
Doubt and controversy very early pervaded the assertions of the
fathers.
Ignatius was assumed to have been the “little child” held up by
Christ to the people at Capernaum, but Chrysostom, another
Father, says that Ignatius never beheld Christ. The writings of
Ignatius were looked upon as forgeries, as they are saturated with
dogmas of a later period, and could not have been written before
the 5th or 6th Century.
The same must be said of the writings of Dionysius, of Athens,
who was a well educated man, a member of the highest tribunal,
the Areopagus, and therefore called the “ Areopagite ”; he was
made an overseer by St. Paul, and works “ On the Order of the
Heavenly Spirits,” “ On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy” (which was
not then in existence), “ On God’s Name,” “ On Mystic Theology,”
&c., were attributed to him. The very title of the last work, how
ever, proves that it could not possibly have been written in the
first Century, as mystic theology was certainly wholly unknown
at that period. The works are full of theological and dialectical
controversies not then thought of; they refer to dogmas and cere
monies, the introduction of which was of a far later date; the very
word “ Monakos,” which occurs in them, and which only came into
use about the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth
century, convincingly proves that these writings, like so many
others, were pious forgeries.
During the first centuries terrible accusations were hurled
against Christianity by both Jews and Heathens. The Jews were
more violent than the Gentiles. They saw in Christ a faithless
deserter from their own ranks. They accused him of having
taught Atheism; of having destroyed the unity of the Godhead;
of having without any right proclaimed himself the Messiah.
They complained that he bad propounded utterly impracticable
laws, commanding men “ to give to him that asketh; ” “ not to
hate, but to pray for our enemies,”—that he had asserted that the
Father in Heaven ‘f maketh the Sun to rise on the evil and on the
�Christianity.
5
good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;” and that
it would be “ easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven! ” If Christ’s
teachings were true, they would do away with the rich, and make
the poor masters of the world I What would become of trade and
commerce, of barter and exchange, of all the glorious promises of
plenty on earth, if the poor had any right to such exaltation ?
Humanity would sink into barbarism, and the whole covenant
with the chosen people be cancelled. The Mosaic law would be
abolished if men were no longer to be allowed “ to take an eye for
an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; ” or forced to hold out their left
cheek when smitten on the right. Christ had forbidden man to go
to law, for he had enacted, “ if any take away thy coat, let him have
thy cloak also 1 ” All this the Jews thought shocking, horrible,
and impossible! What was to become of the law and lawyers, of
the learned in the Scripture, and of the expounders, and teachers
of true morals? Were men no longer to be allowed to hate fer
vently, to despise cordially, to persecute, to flog, to stone, and to
crucify ? They recoiled from such a prospect, and asserted that
this Jeshua had been a dreamer, a blasphemer, nay, they even
doubted the fact of his very existence, and looked upon everything
that had been reported of his life, miracles, and resurrection, as
mere inventions. They attempted to show that he had never
taught anything new, and that everything practical and moral, he
said, was contained in the Old Testament, which he had despised
by breaking the Sabbath, and blaspheming God, whilst pretending
to be God himself.
It is a historical fact that the Jews could never comprehend a
faith based on love and mutual forbearance, and unfortunately
more than eighteen hundred years have been required to teach
Christians to understand Christ’s most valuable enactments, which
were to be taken in the spirit, and not to the letter.
The Heathens objected to Christianity because it was a social
and political revolution. It declared all men equal, and denied the
ancient gods that had ruled for thousands of years. The Christ
ians were accused of despising emperors, consuls, pro-consuls,
high priests, and philosophers, whilst they worshipped and paid
divine honours to a crucified rebel. They were called deceiving
“ Sibylists ”; dealers in mysteries, pretending to perform miracles
which they had learned from Indian and Egyptian mountebanks,
and impostors. They were taunted with objecting to the gods in
�6
Christianity.
human form, whilst they themselves were “ anthropolatrae ” (idola
trous worshippers of a man). It was said that whilst they were
opposed to the eating of certain parts of the flesh of the sacrifices,
they were themselves “ Theophagi” (god-eaters)—eating the flesh
and drinking the blood of their own God. The Old and New
Testaments were said to be full of incredible stories, contradic
tions, and fables, teeming with ignorance, and contrary to com
mon sense and reason. The Christians were accused of asserting
that all the laws of Nature had been suspended and acted against
by the eternal gods for the glorification of One who had not been
able to save himself from the most ignominious death. The Christ
ians were accused to hate humanity, to blaspheme God, and to
court death. They were charged with the grossest immorality, with
eating their own children, and with committing incest; they were
called conspirators, assassins, perjurers, infidels, communists, and
atheists ! They were also contemptuously designated Nazarenes,
Galileans, Men of the Magical Superstition, Plautinians, Corne
lians, Synedrians, Cyrillians, Apostatics, Nestorians, Arians, Eustathians, Cataphrygians, and Homousians. These different appel
lations prove that from the earliest times Christianity must have
been divided into many antagonistic sects.
The attacks on both sides became fiercer, the more plainly the
Jews and Pagans perceived that their dominion was at an end, and
that humanity was adopting entirely new principles upon which
to build up an altogether different political and social organisation.
One of the most determined opponents of Christianity (about
150 a.d.) was Celsus, who could not see the necessity of mys
ticism and secrecy in a work of general redemption. Lucian
wrote “ Three Dialogues ” against Christianity, characterising it as
a dreamy superstition, based on falsehoods. Pobphybius (Malchus
of Tyre) was said to have been a Christian, but returned to Pagan
ism. He wrote fifteen books “ On Christianity,” which have been
entirely destroyed, with the exception of a few fragments selected
by Eusebius for the purpose of refutation.
Hiebokles of Nikomedia, a philosopher under Diocletian, was
one of the principal instigators of the persecution of the Chris
tians by this emperor, as he described them as dangerous fanatics
and reckless conspirators. He endeavoured to prove that Christ
had in fact been Apollonius Tyannseus, who could see distant
occurrences, and who gave an account of the murder of Domitian
in the open market place at Ephesus, at the very moment when
�Christianity.
'
7
the terrible deed was done at Rome. Apollonius was said to have
had interviews with spirits, to have revived a dead young woman,
and to have died at the age of one hundred years. The Pagans
often confounded this contemporary of Jesus with Christ himself,
and the deeds of the one were attributed to the other.
The last but not least formidable antagonist of Christianity was
Julian the Apostate, so called because he returned to Paganism
after his conversion. He wrote seven books “On Christianity,”
which are entirely lost, with the exception of a few quotations in
the ten controversial books against him by Cyril of Alexandria.
The works of Julian may be divided into four principal groups :—
(a.) Treatises which he himself calls, Discourses of a more or
less sophistical character.
(A) Satires, written in the style of Lucian, concerning his con
temporaries, and his relations to science.
(c.) Letters, partly official, which he had written when regent,
and partly unofficial, addressed to friends and mere ac
quaintances.
(cZ.) His diatribes against Christianity.
Julian was one of the most important and cultivated men of his
time; he possessed a determined character, was an industrious
and clever administrator, promoted education, and reveals to us
more clearly than any other writer the entirely changed condition
of the world. He endeavoured to transform the religion of the
ancients into a mystic-symbolic system, to satisfy the wants of
the people, and to oppose the subversive tendencies of Christianity,
which already began to revel in gloomy superstitions, and to
discard the simplicity and lofty grandeur of Christ’s teachings.
The violent attacks on Christianity produced an entirely new
science, cultivated to the detriment of real truth up to our own
times, that of “ Apologetics.”
There are two modes of becoming an Apologist. The one is to
ignore your opponent altogether; this is the passive method.
Never mention his works; destroy every vestige of his writings,
and silence him to death. This passive mode of controversy is
exceedingly efficacious, and the least troublesome; it requires no
great effort, and after all is capable of upholding errors, preju
dices, and superstitions. The other method is active; you must
try to refute ytjur opponents. You must state first what they say
and be careful to quote only what you are able to refute; or quote
so as to turn your opponent’s statements into the grossest absurd-
�8
Christianity.
ities. To illustrate this method with an example from our own
times I need only refer to a mighty genius who has devoted him
self to the minute study of the mineral, vegetable, and animal
kingdoms, who saw everywhere connecting links and analogous
laws, and has built on these the striking theory of evolution. Do
not read Darwin’s book, but simply say:—“ Bah ! He proves
that we are all monkeys; that we are descended from monkeys,
and that there is nothing higher than a monkey !” By this means
you at once horrify the immense majority of monkeys, who dread
nothing so much as self-knowledge, and you may hope to cause
your antagonist’s theories to remain for ages a dead letter. By
this calumniating method you may most efficaciously obstruct pro
gress on whatever field of inquiry.
The primitive Christian Apologists made it a point, by fair or any
other means, to defend Christianity, and to silence their antagonists.
They were, above all, firmly convinced of the superiority of their
religion, which required no study, no particular training, no philo
sophy, but simply faith—nothing but faith; faith was to move moun
tains ; faith was to serve as the panacea for every evil to which our
flesh and spirit was heir. As long as this faith was only demanded
for the levelling enactments of Christ proclaiming the universal bro
therhood of men, it worked miracles. When, at a later period, the
Fathers called in the aid of Pagan philosophy and dialectics, when
they endeavoured to prove, in order to gain as many votaries as
possible, that Christianity contained all the dogmas of the most
influential ruling religious systems, their task became gigantic, and
we must honestly confess that many of the Apologists showed an
undoubted superiority over their enervated adversaries. The
Apologists inaugurated through their writings a struggle between
faith or religion, and reason or science, which was the principal
and vital cause of the uninterrupted progressive development of
Christianity. The mystic dogmas and incredible assertions made
with the smooth plausibility of a G-reek sophist, or the trenchant
dialectics of a Boman casuist pleading before some court of just
ice, provoked contradiction, self-thought, inquiry, and argumenta
tion. This fact explains the fierce intellectual thunderstorm of
controversy which swept over the world, silencing all contradiction
in time.
When Athenagobas (177 a.d.) proclaimed Plato and Christ to
be in perfect harmony, he united Pagan philosophy with the
Christian faith. He endeavoured to bring about a balance between
�Christianity.
9
the intellectual and moral faculties of men. But he was emotional,
and explained with assumptions and assertions what he did not
know. That his writings were altered in passing through the
hands of ignorant copyists or interested church dignitaries, may
be fairly assumed; for we find side by side with passages written
under the distinct influence of the Neo-Platonic school, others
that are altogether opposed to their mode of thinking. Some
other passages, again, are full of Hebraism in contradiction to his
Hellenism. He earnestly protested against the re-marriage of
widows, and propounded wild and fantastic speculations on the
“ fallen angels,” dividing them into two Categories, such as were
lost to all sense of justice, and such as had still something good
left in them ; that is, bad and good evil-spirits.
Tatian, who was born in Syria, devoted himself to the gloomy
Study of Gnosticism. He looked upon matter as the fountain of all
evil, recommended the mortification of the body, and introduced
Indian, Persian, and, above all, Buddhistic ideas into Christianity.
His disciples abjured all the comforts and enjoyments of life, and
abstained from wine with such rigorous obstinacy, that at the
Lord’s Supper they used nothing but water, holding that God’s will
would transform water into blood, as it had formerly transformed
it into wine. Tatian constantly referred to a Universal Soul or
Spirit pervading the universe in contradistinction to the Creator
of all things. He borrowed this idea from Plato, who took it
from the Egyptians, who had inherited it from the Indian Pan
theists.
There can be no doubt that the ancient classics with their dry
formalism no longer sufficed to satisfy man’s restless emotional
nature, craving for a deeper knowledge of the supernatural. The
theological spirit of mysticism borrowed from the East was drawn
into the mighty vortex of man’s speculative activity, and opened new
fields to the moral and intellectual forces working in Humanity.
The union between God and man, formally accomplished by the
classical world, was now to be spiritually completed. The divine
Power which had assumed form in the unsurpassed artistic, poetitical, and philosophical works of antiquity, was with Clemens of
Alexandria to become flesh, vivified by the Spirit of the East,
and newly moulded as one mystic, incomprehensible, and super
natural whole, by Christianity. The mythological conceptions of
the Greeks, the theosophies of the Hebrews, and the mysteries of
the Egyptians, were to be blended with the simple, yet sublime,
�10
Christianity.
teachings of Christ. As the prophets, Moses, Aaron, and Elijah,
had devoted themselves to the Lord; as kings had sacrificed their
heirs on the walls of their besieged towns to force the enemy to
abandon their assaults ; as Jephthah had been ready to sacrifice his
daughter—so Christ had been a sacrifice to the Most High for
humanity. The Apologists, however, ignored the fact that the
same had been said of Kama and Krishna by the Indians, of Osiris
by the Egyptians, of the Kentaur, Cheiron, of Apollo, as Adonai
or Adonis by the Hellens, and of Curtius by the Bomans. The
descendants of those who had believed in these self-sacrifices were
easily persuaded that the founder of their religion bad offered
himself as the most precious sacrifice to appease the wrath of an
angry father.
Clemens introduced Hebraism most prominently into Christ
ianity. He held that there was no truth except in the Books of
Moses and the Prophets, and that the writings known as the Old
Testament were the only reliable, the only true books, and older
than any of the writings of any other nation, and that whatever
had been asserted by whomsoever had been taken, copied, or
transcribed from these writings. This monstrous historical falsifi
cation obstructed the progress of humanity for more than 1,400
years. His misstatements were turned into articles of faith, re
peated year by year, hour by hour, in the principal Christian
schools, and thus were transformed into brain-crystallizations and
petrifactions in the believing, but not reasoning and inquiring
minds of the people. A systematic falsification of history was thus
established, fostered, and kept up by a well organised hierarchy,
supported at a later period by the wealth and power of states,
which left the whole machinery of national, collegiate, and uni
versity education in clerical hands, and imposed upon the masses
by means of penal laws, fire and sword, the gallows and the stake,
certain historical statements, chronological assertions, astronomi
cal errors, and geological impossibilities, as so many indisputable
facts.
If we have reason to complain of the primitive apologists of
Christianity, who showed at least a certain candour and probity,
we have still stronger grounds to be dissatisfied with those who
used sophistry and pious frauds. The Fathers, generally, appear
to have been destitute of penetration, learning, system, application,
and talent. They used arguments to dazzle the fancy, and not to
enlighten or convince the mind. They assumed the antiquity of a
�Clbristianit^-.
Il
doctrine to be evidence of its truth. But all these facts must not
blind us to acknowledge the great ability, and even genius of some
of them, who, notwithstanding certain brain-petrifactions really
endeavoured to promote truth, although truth had unfortunately
been already settled for them as such, by the terrible power of
credulity and undisputed authority.
These petrifactions became in time whole ranges of granite
blocks of superstition. Many a tiny barque of inquiry on the
vast ocean of free-thought, sailing with a fair wind of common
sense, guided by the compass of reason, has been dashed to pieces
and sunk by these terrible, apparently immoveable rocks! But
after all the stable rock with its resistence excited the activity of
the dashing sea-farers.
To the honour of the human intellect it must be confessed that
the credulous, who wished to persuade themselves and others that
they were right in their belief of the incredible, contributed much
to the possibility of the dissolution of their own superstitions.
Foremost in the rank of the free-thinking fathers stood Origen.
The historical development of Christianity must remain for ever
an unintelligible riddle without a thorough acquaintance with the
writings of Origen. This father endeavoured to look on the
Scriptures from a rational point of view, and shook “ Bibliolatry ”
to its very foundation. He cast aside the literal interpretation,
finding the mere letter often unintelligible and contradictory,
sought for hidden meanings, and asserted that the Scriptures
ought to be read by the light of reason. He had a higher con
ception of the Deity, believed in the pre-existence of pure
angelic souls and their fall into mortal bodies, and in a “final
restoration of all intelligent beings to order and happiness.”
This was equivalent to denying eternal hell-fire, and was too much
for the loving hearts of his contemporary Christians, so that he
was, therefore, condemned as a heretic. It is most satisfactory to
find that in our own times several Divines, and among them
Canon Farrar, have dared, in the spirit of Origen, to shake the
deluding and maddening hell-fire petrifaction in the brains of
some believers, and to free the Deity from the reproach of being an
irreconcilable and wrathful Avenger without mercy or pity.
Origen was followed by Eusebius, the Father of Christian
Historiography. He worked out a chronology which, in spite
of geology, Egyptian monuments, Assyrian inscriptions, Indian
philology, and Chinese records, serves some of our bigoted
�12
Christianity.
historians as a basis for their historical distortions. Eusebius
collected most of the raw historical material of ancient times,
and of his own age. He wrote with one aim, to prove the
superiority of Christian morals, and in doing so would not admit
that there could have been anything good in other far more
ancient religious systems. He had to sift facts and to record only
such as served his one-sided and special assumption, and this mode
of writing history is still the most cherished method of historical
sectarians of whatever denomination or tribal division.
To strike the principal death-blow at pure Christianity was
reserved to Athanasius, who borrowed Ins mystic, “ Three in
one,” from the Egyptians. To this incomprehensible “ idol,” once
petrified, thousands and thousands of human beings were sacrificed.
The Council of Nice, which, in 325 A.D., determined the Duality
of God as “ Father and Son,” (the Trinitarian dogma having
passed only in 381 A.D.), selected also the four gospels as the
only canonical books from a quantity of other gospels then
existing. The proceedings on that memorable occasion were the
following according to Pappus in his Synodicon to the council.
“ The fathers, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, placed pro
miscuously under a communion table, in front of which the
Council was assembled, all the Gospels which were known at that
time. They then prayed devoutly to God beseeching him ‘ that
the inspired writings might get upon the table, whilst the spurious
ones remained underneath.’ After the prayer a miracle took
place. The gospels which Gelasius ought to burn remained under
the table, and the four inspired ones got upon it, and were declared
to be canonical.”
A still greater miracle happened. “ It was agreed that in order
to make the Council valid, all the fathers should sign the records.
Two bishops, however, Musonius and Chrisantes, died during the
Council without having signed them. The difficulty was great, for
the Council was invalid without their signatures, but the fathers
caused guards to be placed round the tombs of the bishops, and
placed in them the Acts of the Council, which, as is well known,
were divided into sections. The fathers passed the night in
prayer, and the next day they found that the deceased bishops had
fortunately signed the records of the Council.” (See “ On Man
kind their Origin and Destiny.” By an M.A. of Baliol College,
Oxford. London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1872., pp. 166 and
167.)
�Christianity.
13
Basil and Gregory of Nazianzen were the founders of the
Eastern, whilst Tertullian and Augustine must he considered
as the bulwarks of the Western Church. They all became so many
crystallized authorities in Theology. They established obstinacy
and blind faith as the most Christian virtues, and supported their
theory with the most involved intricacies of dialectics. The pheno
menon that astonishes us is, that the learned world, until very
recently, should have applied their two-edged dialectical weapons
for one purpose—to prove what they assumed to be necessary for
the salvation of Humanity. All doubt in that which they asserted
to be an incontestable fact, they punished with stoning, crucifixion,
hanging, or burning. The intellectual, reasoning, thinking, and
inquiring faculty—in a word, the dynamic force, with which
Humanity is endowed, was to be exclusively directed to supernatural
matters and authoritative enactments settled beforehand. At this
period, the greatest calumny against God, the Creator, and Man,
His creature was brought into a systematic form. All was tempta
tion, sinfulness, and horrible wickedness. Nature was to be ex
pelled from nature. Man was to see in every other man an offspring
of hell, sent into this world to do wrong. Hatred and contempt,
trembling and fear, were thus made the chemical elements of which
man’s moral and social condition was to be composed, and a strange
mixture they produced I We need not be astonished that the
false Christians, once come to power, should have fostered an
unrelenting hatred against anything stepping into their obstructive
path. Cyril had nothing but death for the beautiful Hypatia,
who dared to think, to reason, and to inquire, when thinking was
already considered a deadly sin, reasoning a crime, and inquiry a
blasphemy! Tertullian went so far as to state in his “De Idolatria”
that all astronomers, sculptors, mythologists, and merchants were
idolaters and servants of the “Evil One.” Man was so afflicted
by the general reaction which took place in consequence of the
over-strained action of . the ancient classic times, that he lost all
self-reliance, self-thought, self-respect, and entered upon a life
which in reality was no life, or at all events no intellectual life.
That the dynamic force in Humanity cannot be stifled may be
best studied in the writings of Tertullian who exhibits in his
works a mingling of virtues and defects, of learning and ignorance,
of piety and worldliness, which makes him appear on one page as
the most profound scholar, whilst on another, he evinces the most
hopeless superstition and credulity. Through this his double nature
�14
Christianity.
he exercised great influence on the Scholastics of the Mediaeval
period.
Par greater in character and genius than the works of Tertullian
are the six books “ On the Creation,” by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.
In his obstinacy, and in his firm convictions, he was the very
model of an ecclesiastical prince. He was no Sophist or orator in
the pulpit, but a kind-hearted administrator, stern and active, who
said what he meant, and was firmly convinced that whatever he
said or wrote, was intended for the good of Humanity. In his
works we may study the transition of primitive Christianity into
a complicated system of hierarchical feudalism. Passive submission,
faith and self-abnegation were established in contradiction to the
ancient philosophers who enjoined active energy, self-conscious
conviction, and honest virtue. Ambrose insisted, above all, on
“ Faith.” He, however, attempted to distinguish between the
strictly doctrinal, and the less reliable historical parts of the Old
and New Testaments. Origen and Ambrose were the principal
founders of a broader treatment of the Bible, which led on the
uninterrupted path of progressive continuity to our most modern
theological criticism. Ambrose looked upon the emotional in
Humanity as the only force to be developed and cultivated, to be
restrained and regulated. Poetry, painting, sculpture, and music,
were to strengthen this force, and we owe to him the introduction
of a higher culture of the Arts in the Western Christian Churches.
More important than any of the other Fathers was Augustine
(Aurelius Augustinus), who in the 4th and 5th centuries a.d.,
gave Christianity an entirely new dialectical and theological shape,
widely differing from that simplicity and universal humanism
which we find in Christ’s teachings. He was born 354 a.d., at
Tageste, in Numidia. His father, Patricius, was a Pagan, and his
mother, Monica, a Christian—Paganism and Christianity being
thus blended into one in him through his parents. In his youth
at Carthage he led a wild, reckless, and immoral life; but he was
suddenly reformed through the study of “Hortensius” by Cicero,
a book unfortunately lost, and a diligent reading of the works of
Aristotle. He joined the sect of the Manichseans, went to Rome
to teach rhetorics—(philosophy and elocution)—and thence pro
ceeded to Milan, where he taught with great success. He there
made the acquaintance of Ambrose, who instructed him in the
tenets of the then already to a great degree crystallized orthodox
Christianity. Augustine renounced Manichaeism, and at once
�Christianity.
15
denounced it, with the fervour usual in converts, as the most per
nicious heresy. He now devoted himself to the exclusive study of
Plato, with the aid of whose ideal philosophical assumptions he
succeeded in constructing an abstruse metaphysical system of
Christian theology.
The influence of his works on the culture and further dog
matic development of Christianity was unbounded. His ideas
inspired the dissertations and controversies between Abelard and
Bernhard. His subtle and dialectical theories may be traced in
the dissensions between Calvinists and Lutherans, Churchmen and
Ritualists, Baptists and Methodists. The struggle between the
Jansenists and Jesuits was principally called forth by his ideas on
abstruse subjects. The influence of Augustine may be traced in
the following utterly meaningless utterances of one of our noble
Lords, who said a week or two ago, “that no law was needed to
sanction or proclaim that the Sabbath was of divine origin. The
profound wisdom inducing it, and the absolute necessity of such a
day, must be apparent to all, whilst no human mind could have
evolved such a scheme of Sunday observance; ” and immediately
after he complains that the observance which needed no law was
being jeopardised by the lawgivers of England, who intended to
abolish the law with reference to the keeping of the Sabbath ; and
thus an institution, which no human mind could have evolved,
would vanish for ever. The ignorance of the noble Lord is
stupendous; he apparently does not know that he is really de
fending an institution which took its origin in the worship of the
heathenish God, “ Sab,” which the nomadic Jews carried about in
an ark, and which they deposited every seventh day in a “ bath ”
(tent) called Sabbath, the “ tent of Sab,” and not “ tabernacle; ”
and he seems to be equally unaware of the fact that the Phoenicians,
Assyrians, and Chaldseans possessed similar movable “ sun-oracles.”
Such senseless utterances have occupied, and still occupy, more
than seven-eights of Christianity. The first great dialectical wars
which Augustine waged were directed against the Manichaeans,
Donatists, and, above all, the Pelagians, the followers of Pelagius,
a British Monk, who dared to teach that death had not been
introduced into the world by Adam, but that, on the contrary,
man was necessarily, and by nature mortal, so that even had Adam
not sinned, he would nevertheless have died; and that further, the
consequences of Adam’s sin were confined to himself, and did not
affect his posterity. Erom these premises, Pelagius drew certain
�16
Christianity.
important conclusions—which necessarily went against the inherited
sin theory, the necessity of an atonement, and the numberless calum
nies against our miserable, wretched, wicked, sinful, abominable,
and horrible nature. Pelagius shook the very foundation of the
theological structure, which in its details and dogmas began to be
far more Pagan than Christian. Augustine was in arms against
these blasphemies; and historians can trace in this quarrel between
the wild and passionate Monk, and the cool and rational British
Priest, a more developed germ of the Reformation, the seed of
which had been sown long before by the not very edifying quarrels
between St. Paul and St. Peter, as representatives of Hellenism
and Hebraism.
A Synod held at Diopolis acquitted Pelagius of heresy. Pope
Innocent I. condemned him. The next Pope, Zosimus, declared
the opinions of Pelagius perfectly orthodox, but in spite of this,
Augustine craftily obtained a decree from the Emperor, declaring
Pelagius a heretic, condemning him and his adherents to exile and
confiscating all their worldly goods.
To obtain an insight into the arguing practised and taught by
Augustine, it will be well to consider a few passages from the
11th, 12th, and 13th books of his “ Confessions.”
He of course begins by praying “that God will give him to
understand the Scriptures, and will open their meaning to him,”
and declares at once “that in them there is nothing superfluous,
but that the words have a manifold meaning.” The apparent
humility of this prayer really conceals the most inordinate pride.
First he prayed, then comes the terrible assumption that God must
have heard his prayer—and then all his utterances and writings
become embodiments of God’s spirit, and the most unscientific,
confused and incoherent loquacity is taken as spoken or written
under God’s holy inspiration.
Having invoked the help of God, Augustine begins to argue and
apparently to contradict Scripture; but as he contradicts with the
purpose of refuting his own contradictions, the doubts which he
raises are so childish, that it does not require much ingenuity to
dispose of them. This is the method generally followed bv theo
logically trained minds, a method calculated to deceive ignorant
men and emotional women.
With pomp and vanity Augustine says :—
“ The face of creation testifies that there has been a Creator;
but at once arises the question, How and when did He make
�Christianity.
17
heaven and earth ? They could not have been’made in heaven and
earth; the world could not have been made in the world, nor
could they have been made when there was nothing to make
them of.”
The solution Augustine finds is extremely simple :—
“ Thou spakest, and they were made! ” he exclaims, but does not
tell us where the Deity spoke; in or beyond the world.
The speaking of the Deity involves him in new perplexities, for
he says:—
“ The syllables thus uttered by God came forth in succession,
and there must have been some created thing to express the words.
This created thing must therefore have existed before heaven and
earth, and yet there could have been no corporeal thing before heaven
and earth. It must have been a creature because the words passed
away and came to an end; but we know that the word of the
Lord endureth for ever! Moreover, it is plain that the words
thus spoken could not have been spoken successively, but simulta
neously, else there would have been time and change; succession
in its nature implying time, whereas there was then nothing but
eternity and immortality. God knows and says eternally what
takes place in time.”
There is time and yet there is no time, there is eternity but that
is not time. There is an eternally speaking Deity, but the words
this Deity speaks could not have been spoken successively, but
must.have been spoken simultaneously and eternally. A superficial
analysis of these and similar phrases amply suffices to show their
utter hollowness and senselessness.
The next difficulty Augustine finds in the mystic words : “ In
the beginning.”
What was there before the Beginning began? He suddenly
saves himself from the terrible aspect of a beginning Beginning,
and exclaims:—
“ How wonderful are Thy works, 0 Lord! in wisdom hast Thou
made them all. This wisdom is the beginning, and in that Begin
ning the Lord created heaven and earth. But,” he adds, “ some
one may ask: ‘ What was God doing before He made the heaven
and earth ?’ for, if at any particular moment He began to employ
Himself, that means time, not eternity. In eternity nothing
transpires ; the whole is present.”
He at once answers the indirect question with one of those
direct assertions, insinuating that, though he did not intend to say
�18
Christianity.
anything, yet that he was well acquainted with the doings of the
Deity:—
“ I will not answer this question by saying that He was pre
paring Hell for pryers into his mysteries. I say that before God
made heaven and earth He did not make anything; for no crea
ture could be made before any creature was made. Time itself is
a creature, and hence it could not possibly exist before creation.
What then is time ? The past is not, the future is not, the pre
sent—who can tell what it is, unless it be that which has no dura
tion between two nonentities ? There is no such thing as 4 a long
time,’ or ‘ a short time,’ for there are no such things as the past
and the future. They have no existence, except in the soul.”
Such incoherent, rhapsodical assertions as these have been looked
upon as learned disquisitions on sacred and scientific subjects for
more than fourteen hundred years. We might quote the whole of
Augustine’s works, line by line, to prove that they are nothing but
inflated and arrogant conversations between the writer and his
assumed God. These utterances may be looked upon as those of
an individual suffering from religious hallucination, which have
become to a high degree methodical; and we may well exclaim
with Polonius : 44 Though this be madness, yet there is method
in it.”
And such mystic madness stimulated men’s thinking faculties
into action, and in time produced a Bacon, a Newton, a Leibnitz,
a Des Cartes, and a Kant.
Another passage from the twelfth book is still more charac
teristic in its originality, but less methodical:—
44 This, then, is what I conceive, O, my God,” when I hear the
Scripture saying, 4 In the beginning God made heaven and earth;
and the earth was invisible and without form, and darkness was
upon the deep,’ and not mentioning what day thou createdst them;
this is what I conceive, that because of the heaven of heavens—that
intellectual heaven whose intelligence knows all at once, not in
part, not darkly, not through a glass, but as a whole, in manifesta
tion, face to face; not this thing now, and that thing anon; but
(as I said) know all at once, without any succession of times ; and
because of the earth, invisible and without form, without any
succession of times, which succession presents this thing now, that
thing anon, because where there is no form there is no distinction
of things; it is, then, on account of these two, a primitive formed,
and a primitive formless; the one heaven, but the heaven of
�Christianity.
19
heavens; the other, earth, but the earth moveable and without
form; because of these two, do I conceive did the Scripture
say, without mention of days, ‘ In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth.’ For, forthwith it subjoined what
earth it spake of, and also in that firmament is recorded to be
created the second day, and called heaven, it conveys to us of
which heaven He before spake without mention of days. Wondrous
depth of Thy words I Whose surface, behold! is before us, inviting
to little ones; yet are they a wondrous depth, O, my God—a
wondrous depth I It is awful to look therein; an awfulness of
honour, and a trembling of love. The enemies, therefore, I hate
vehemently; O that Thou wouldst slay them with Thy two-edged
sword, that they might no longer be enemies to it; for so do I love
to have them slain unto themselves, that they may live unto Thee!”
Greek philosophy was turned by this passionate African fanatic
into rambling sophistry, and the teachings of Christ, full of love
and forgiveness, into a system of bloodthirsty persecution. Science
was scorned, and continually abused, but barefaced stupidity,
heartless pride, and insolent arrogance were used to destroy and
degrade pure Christianity, to transform it into a code of implacable
hatred, and to foster persecution and wholesale murder.
In the thirteenth Book of his “ Confessions,” Augustine touches
the grand Mystery of Mysteries, the “ Trinity,” and proves it to
be contained in the teachings of the immortal Jewish lawgiver,
Moses.
In great excitement, he says :—
“ Lo, now the Trinity appears unto me in a glass darkly, which
is Thou, my God, because Thou, O Father, in Him who is the
beginning of our wisdom, which is Thy wisdom, born of Thyself,
equal unto Thee, and co-eternal, that is, in Thy Son, createdst
heaven and earth. Much now have we said of the heaven of the
heavens, and of the earth, invisible and without form, and of the
darksome deep, in reference to the wandering instability of its
spiritual deformity, unless it had been converted unto Him, from
whom it. had its then degree of life, and by His enlightening became
a beauteous life, and the heaven of that heaven, which was after
wards set between water and water. And under the name of God
I now beheld the Father, who made these things ; and under the
name of the beginning, the Son in whom He made these things ;
and believing as I did, my God as the Trinity; I searched further
in His holy words, and lo! Thy Spirit moved upon the waters.
�20
Christianity.
Behold the Trinity, my God! Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost,
Creator of all Creation ! ”
As a contrast to this let us turn to a passage from the Indian
Bamayana, a poem written by Valmikis, in 24,000 double verses
(about 1200 b.c., according to the great bibliographer, Dr. Graesse).
In the Ram ay ana, no conceited monk discusses the Deity; in
directly threatening all who may dare to pry into His mysteries
with hell-fire, whilst he thinks himself authorised to commit pre
cisely the same indiscretion; but the gods are assembled in
heaven, and one of them addresses the incomprehensible first
Cause in the following lofty and sublime strain :—
“ O Thou, whom threefold might and splendour veil,
'
Maker, Preserver, and Transformer, hail!
Thy gaze surveys this world from clime to clime,
Thyself immeasurable in space and time:
To no corrupt desires, no passions prone:
Unconquered conqueror, infinite, unknown ;
«
Though in one form Thou veil’st Thy might divine,
Still, at Thy pleasure, every form is Thine.
Pure crystals thus prismatic hues assume
As varying light and varying tints illume;
Men think Thee absent; Thou art ever near,
Pitying those sorrows, which Thou ne’er canst fear.
Unsordid penance Thou alone canst pay;
Unchanged, unchanging—old without decay:
Thou knowest all things—who Thy praise can state ?
Createdst all things—Thyself uncreate! ”
What a difference in language, purity and grandeur of concep
tion I The three in one is the Universe pervaded by a Divine
Force, manifesting itself in the tri-une phenomena of Creation,
Preservation, and Transformation in space and time throughout
eternity.
In imitation of Plato’s “ State ” and Pliny’s “ History of Na
ture,” Augustine wrote a work entitled “De civitate Dei, Libri
XXII.” (The City of God, in twentv-two books). He here divides
humanity into two groups :
1. Such as have mere carnal ideas, and are damned. And—
2. Such as live in the spirit, and must be saved.
Augustine thus assumed two States, of which one would perish
in the general conflagration on the day o£ judgment. Of this
perishable State the Devil was supreme ruler; it was based on
Egotism and a contempt of God. The other he asserted to be a
heavenly State, in which God is King: the State itself being based
�Christianity.
21
on Love to God, and contempt of ourselves. The phenomenal or
visible world was with Augustine a realm of sin, wickedness,
misery, crime and wretchedness, in opposition to an ideal world of
faith and blissfulness, of purity and eternal salvation.
Reality was with him corrupt, and he left reality to the lay
power, which by degrees began to feel its strength: and the
struggle between Pope and Emperor, the Kingdom of God and the
Kingdom of the Devil commenced. This struggle was foreshadowed
in Augustine’s writings ; it lasted for more than a thousand years,
and ended in our century with the abolition of the temporal power,
of the Pope.
Augustine, in his “ City of God,” condemns all worldly endeavour
or activity as sinful; he assumes a spiritual government over all
earthly matters, and settles all moral, dogmatic and scientific sub
jects from a theological point of view.
Augustine worked out the hypotheses of “ Predestination,”
“ Special Grace,” and “ Eree Willconfusing assumptions with
an utterly false moral foundation. . If “ Predestination ” were
made the ruling force of humanity, what would become of our
self-conscious moral responsibility ? If we were to admit a higher,
more powerful, independent force not within, but without or above
us, which directly or even indirectly regulated the destinies of
individuals, nations, and humanity—individuals, nations, and
humanity would be released from all moral responsibility, and
could not become masters of their fate; their actions having been
predisposed, pre-arranged, and providentially predestined, by
“ Special Grace,” or any other arbitrary grant over which the
individual had no control, could not come under the influence of
order and law.
The hypotheses of “ Predestination ” and “ Special Grace ”
transformed man into a mere puppet, with a mighty divine wire
puller behind him ; and history enacted by such puppets could be
nothing but an incoherent pantomime, in which the scientific men
were the clowns, and the theologians the managers, directing both,
their self-constituted wire-pulling Deity and the besotted puppets,
and continually preparing “.the last transformation scene,”
illumined with the lurid glare of hell-fire.
Augustine and his theological disciples looked upon the phe-.
nomena of nature, and of man’s higher moral and intellectual
activity, as mere chance effects of the working of some supernatural
power.
. .
�22
Christianity.
Contrary to Confucius, mediaeval Christianity on the principles
laid down by Augustine did not follow out the axiom—“ The wise
man seeks the cause of his defects in himself ; but the fool, avoid
ing himself, seeks it in all others beside himself.” The bigoted
and uneducated under theological training look for redress in proud
humbleness and blind faith, from any force or power without, and
not within themselves, and by this means fall an easy prey to their
ecclesiastical or political task-masters. It is either “ despotism,”
pure and simple, assuming the incompetence of the masses to
govern themselves, that plays at “ Providence,” “ Predestination,”
“ Special Grace by the Will of Godor it is “ Clericalism ” in a
thousand different forms, which, in accordance with Augustine,
builds up, arranges, furnishes, decorates, and adorns “ a higher
state ” of spiritual blissfulness in unapproachable regions, where
archangels, angels, saints, confessors, martyrs, deacons, sextons,
ringers, and beadles, rule supreme in opposition to this world, in
which the masses are misled by devils, demons, infidels, unbelievers,
agnostics, pantheists, and, worst of all, scientific inquirers, who
dare to pry into the “ wonderful ” and “ awful ” mysteries of God.
Rousseau, like Augustine, wrote “Confessions”—the one from a
political, and the other from a purely theological point of view.
Both were fanatics, and both strove to improve the fate of
humanity.
Augustine, like Rousseau, gives us a precise history of his own
inner life, which he finishes by adopting the Christian religion;
the other, who began as a pious Christian child, abjured Christi
anity, became an atheist, and tells us the causes which induced him
to change his opinions on matters divine and human.
Augustine looks upon history as something utterly indifferent,
and far beneath the dignity of his consideration. He is convinced
that in all historical matters God and Predestination are doing
what is right, and that no amount of study and knowledge can
change what has been ordained by God to happen, whether in
politics or in every man’s private life. This ruling conviction still
excludes the study of General History on a scientific basis from
nearly all our educational establishments, and may serve to explain
the unanimity with which the University of Oxford hailed the
introduction of the study of Scandinavian languages and antiqui
ties, and the delight which one of our most liberal papers expressed
on this occasion, finding it perfectly clear that there could be no
taint of heresy, or of radicalism, in Scandinavian studies. The
�Christianity.
23
study of General History by reason of its drawing of analogies and
comparisons, rectifying of dates, and analysing of different religious
systems, is thought to be tainted with the horrible poison of heresy,
and the bigoted fear, lest we might learn from history that man
at all times, and in all places, had very analogous notions with
reference to the means by which his higher moral progress was to
be effected.
Bousseau on the other hand, like Vico, Guicciardini, Bolingbroke,
Herder and Lessing before him, clearly saw the necessity of the
study of history, and assigned to it the greatest importance. But
whilst Bousseau often misunderstood history, we are compelled
to admit that Augustine thoroughly grasped the wants of super
stitious and ignorant humanity. Scepticism and mere negation
are even more bleak and despairing than the most childish
“ emotionalism,” leading through fear of punishment, and hope for
reward to a certain kind of practical morals. Bousseau saw only
chance, misery, and wretchedness in the progressive development
of civilisation, and wanted to lead us back to the bosom of mother
nature. Augustine traced all the miseries besetting humanity,
not to a misunderstanding of the laws of nature, but to a Father
who mercifully punished his children for a sin committed by Adam
in Paradise—which was called “ the original sin,” and he advised
humanity to rely on this Father with childlike submission, to eat,
to drink, to sleep, but above all to pray, to sing, to believe, and
not to inquire, as we had only one destiny on earth, to atone for
the terrible inheritance left us by Adam, “ the original sin.”
Augustine heard in the first cry of a new-born child a heart
rending lament over the sinfulness of this world, which had been
created by a benevolent first Cause.
The degrading theory of an original sin cannot possibly exercise
any elevating influence on our moral development. In connection
with this it may be instructive to consider the impression this pre
posterous and impious assumption made on the mind of a cul
tivated Chinese Mandarin, who had been brought up in the
moral principles of Confucius. He met a missionary and hearing
of the superiority of the Christian religion, was ready patiently to
listen, and to allow himself to be instructed. The creation of the
world by a God was admitted; then came the special creation of
man, and the “ inherited Sin ”—and the assertion that “ by one
man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” The Mandarin
�24
Christianity.
rose in wrath, clutched a bamboo, and asked the following ques
tions : Who created the world “? “ God,” was the answer. And
who created man ? “ God,” was the next answer. And who made
man sin, and created him mortal ? The missionary hesitated, and
the Mandarin thereupon gave him a sound thrashing, and ex
claimed, “ I will teach you to have a higher notion of the Deity,
and to have a loftier conception of his most perfect and wonderful
creature—man, with all his exalted virtues of family love, know
ledge, industry, arts and sciences. Go, and annoy me no longer
with your blasphemous assumptions for which you have not a
word in the teachings of Christ.”
The fundamental theory upon which a degrading system of
morals had been constructed was, in Augustine’s time,- already
opposed by great divines and was altogether discarded by Rousseau
who, in his sceptic atheism, was more pious in assuming that
nature could not have done any wrong. Whilst Augustine insisted
upon faith, prayer and contemplation, as the only means of con
quering our sunken, sinful nature, and thus poisoned the pure
moral atmosphere of man,—Rousseau demanded practical sciences,
technical skill—anything that would strengthen the inventive and
reasoning faculty.
Both agree that the young ought to be made acquainted with
truth; but, unhappily, this word has many relative significations,
and cannot be grasped by finite beings in its absolute sense. They
both wished intellect to be cultivated; the one that it might see
the glories of the heavens, and the other, to improve man’s earthly
happiness. Both were equally blind to the fact that only in a
perfectly harmonious culture of imagination and reason, of heart
and head, of morals and intellect, could an approximate solution
of our destiny be found.
Augustine should be read side by side with Rousseau; but we
must be careful not to take the opinions of either for dogmatic
truths or mathematical rules of life. Many of their guesses at
the causes of the evils rampant among us are correct; but they are
mere suggestions thrown out, according to the spirit of the time
in which both lived. Augustine is the alpha of a theologicophilosophical system that swayed humanity to its detriment for
more than fourteen hundred years, and Rousseau is the politico
social omega produced by the same wild and fantastic theological
system. Both—in preaching faith and common sense, hope and
practical reason, charity, freedom, and equality—produced blood
�Christianity.
25
shed, hatred, despair, despotism, and political and religious perse
cution.
The forces working in Humanity were disturbed by both, be
cause they started with preconceived ideas; the one with “ a con
crete original sin,” the other with “ an abstract purity of nature
both powerfully impressed those whom they addressed, and both
failed to readjust the balance between morals and intellect in a
truly Christian sense.
There was, however, something wonderfully beneficial in the
blending of heathen notions and principles with Christianity; the
thread of continuity was kept up, isolation avoided, and humanity
appears to the assiduous student of true history as one great whole,
swayed by immutable laws.
By placing religion and science in a conflicting and antagonistic
relation the Fathers aroused a spirit of inquiry, and controversial
ists and theological casuists who sought to lead us away from the
first simple teachings of Christ were in reality instrumental in
bringing us back to them.
In Church and State an apparently retrograde movement to the
benefit of humanity at large is fortunately perceptible. The State
gives up more and more an assumed fantastic prestige of national
honour, diplomatic niceties and double dealings—the stronger a
State is, the more it can afford to be equitable and just. In reli
gion we endeavour to turn back to the primitive sources of Chris
tianity which, like all streams, was far purer, more lucid and
refreshing at its source than in its continually broadening course,
when it became mixed with the quicksands of sophistry, the shoals
of dogmatic rubbish, and coloured red by the torrents of blood
shed by the fanatics of all sects.
The Fathers benefited humanity, for they tried—
(a.) To be scientific, though they opposed science.
(6.) They used the Greek philosophical and historical writers,
though they declared them profane and heretical.
(c.) They wrote in Latin, and thus kept up the knowledge of
the language of Cicero, Caesar, Tacitus, Pliny, and Seneca.
(d.) They cursed and abused nature, prohibited its study as a
prying into the awful mysteries of God, and by degrees,
on the principle “ nitimur in vetitum ” (we crave for the
forbidden), promoted a systematic study of nature.
(e.) They used the Hebrew Scriptures, and blended the Oriental
and Hellenic mode of thinking into one.
�26
Christianity.
(/.) They fostered mysticism, and called forth the study of man
and nature, of astronomy, chemistry, physiology and psycho
logy; abounding in far greater and more intelligible mysteries
than any of the Fathers ever dreamt of.
(</.) They preached love, humility, and forbearance, and yet
openly practised hatred, pride, and persecution, by which
means they kept man’s moral and intellectual powers in a
continuous motion of action and reaction.
(A.) They introduced a controversial spirit into theology, which
stimulated and disciplined man’s mental activity, and led
Humanity through the dark cloisters of monasteries into
the broad daylight of inventions and discoveries, that put an
end to all the distorted theological conceptions of the Deity.
Thus Man began to be studied in his slow and gradual historical
development, not on false and imaginary principles, but on the
foundation of his own human nature. The calumnious assertion
that man, from the moment he entered into this world, had been
destined for evil is dying out; and the assumption that the whole
of his earthly pilgrimage is to be simply a dim attempt to answer
the inane question: “ Is life worth living ? ” is contemptuously
looked upon as the utterance of attitudinizing Pessimists, who
think that we have only one task to fulfil—to sigh and to crouch
in everlasting terror of a curse which Humanity is said to have
been blessed with by the merciful Creator of all things visible
and invisible.
�
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 : second part. The influence of the "Fathers" on the further development of Christianity, being a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday, 27th March, 1881
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Zerffi, G. G. (Gustavus George)
Description
An account of the resource
In this lecture Dr. G. G. Zerffi explores the most notable and influential "Fathers" and their effect on the development of Christianity.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 26, [2] p. ; 18 cm
Notes: Publisher's series list on unnumbered pages at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Sunday Lecture Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3432, G5200
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 />This work (Christianity : second part. The influence of the "Fathers" on the further development of Christianity, being a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday, 27th March, 1881), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Christianity
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ec0eee488c1876982bdee462f4b3bf65.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=G%7E7cHkzvrYBOaPwQRIwTZQSVJXn2OXjwUvJEsch%7EUTaxvvphPVyjlqfs7zXhuJiDbVUlww2tyLmNWkR22LSbRcQU3dyEzZGkmVIvcc%7Eq3O7ocU2948ZozvEwxsa5cetq4nDNUSwp8T6cNNLhrmzYanJconMUJuls2W3QTjwteVNqhqq1-JSfUKtvvpdR55Uk8PHmrbstv1JgY4ZPwemJq6hg27u0sD%7EJylJrbY7ZK2RBqpZha8xDNSjthp6QgY6ZkvRzH3Z-6ap51uJmcK3TL0hsHQOvDRoq9e2W5bv1psoIGyO5j9aqfWrL6QH2OBATZNh2LJjbY2appujtQPGsAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
99217e5cf8c81b0bdc80c91df9ae021e
PDF Text
Text
THE PHYSIOLOGICAL UNITY
OF
■ PLANTS AND ANIMALS.
DELIVERED BEFORE THE
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY,
ox
SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 30th JANUARY, 1881,
BY
Q. S. BOULGER, F.L.S., F.G.S.
bonbon:
PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
1881.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
�SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
To provide for the delivery on Sundays in the Metropolis, and to
encourage the delivery elsewhere, of Lectures on Science,—physical,
intellectual, and moral,—History, Literature, and Art; especially
on their bearing upon the improvement and social well-being of
mankind.
THE SOCIETY’S LECTURES
ARE DELIVERED AT
ST. GEORGE'S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
On Sunday Afternoons at FOUR o’clock precisely.
('Annually—from November to May.)
Twenty-four Lectures (in three series) are given in each year.
Members’ annual subscription, £1.
For Tickets and the printed Lectures, and for lists of all the
Lectures published by the Society, apply (by letter) to the Hon.
Treasurer, Wm. Henry Domville, Esq., 15, Gloucester Crescent,
Hyde Park.
SYLLABUS OF THIS LECTURE.
The progress of science consists in the connection of phe
nomena previously considered isolated.
The old Three Kingdoms of Nature now seen to be in many
points one, in most essential characteristics only two: the
Organic and the Inorganic, or Living and Not-Living.
Plants and animals identical in their ultimate chemical con
stituents; Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
Sulphur, Potassium, Iron: in most of their proximate principles;
Water, Carbonic acid, Sugar, Starch, Cellulose, Fibrin, Casein,
Chlorophyll, Protoplasm.
Structural identity of the lower groups—Hackel’s Protista.
Functions of living beings.
Identity in Respiration.
Identity in Nutrition, the presence of ferments, pepsin, diges
tive acid and peptones—The Chlorophyllian property—The
Conversion of starch into sugar.
The functions of Relation; Sensation, Nervous action and
Motion—The nerve-like action of protoplasm in Drosera—Motion
by pseudopodia or cilia.
Reproduction by fission, gemmation and ovulation—Ova and
Spermatozoa.
�THE PHYSIOLOGICAL UNITY OF
PLANTS AND ANIMALS.
NE of the cardinal laws of the modern philosophy
of evolution is that the history of the development
of the race is summarised in that of the individual. This
is exemplified in the growth of human knowledge, es
pecially of accurate knowledge or science: as a child
learns a number of detached words, chiefly nouns, before
it can frame a connected train of thought, and notices
with unreasoning surprise each phenomenon of nature
which it encounters, so in the progress of science the
human race learns to trace the general laws which govern
phenomena that it once looked upon as isolated and
marvellous.
Thus mankind were for ages content to talk of the
“Three Kingdoms of Nature,” and to look upon minerals,
plants, and animals, as three distinct categories having
little or nothing in common. We now know, however,
that in many respects these three are one, and that in
all essential characteristics they can only be considered
as two. They are subject to the same physical and
chemical laws: plants and animals contain no chemical
element not existing in inorganic minerals, even carbon
occurring in meteoric stones; their mode of growth is
not so radically unlike that of a collection of small crys
tals in a nutrient fluid as has been supposed; nor are the
simple geometrical beginnings of organic structure wholly
unlike crystallisation. The words “ inorganic ” or “ un
organised ” are as applicable to the lowest animals as to
the starch manufactured by chemical synthesis from its
elements in the laboratory; for it is a mere contradiction
in terms to term that an organism which is absolutely
destitute of organs. It would be extremely difficult to
show that in life we have more than an assemblage of
forces possessed individually, at least in some degree, by
the inorganic world ; and we still look upon the dead
body of plant or animal as being plant or animal when
not only is the individual dead, but even when no single
O
�4
The Physiological Unity of
tissue evinces lingering vitality by responding to stimu
lation. Thus the distinction between living and notliving is scarcely more precise than that between organic
and inorganic.
Still, however, though the boundary-line be not easily
definable, there are distinctions readily perceptible be
tween nearly all things that either do live or have lived
and those that have not.
Living beings have curved outlines ; they have much
of their structure in a soft condition; if alive, they ex
hibit numerous functions; they consist chiefly of complex
carbon compounds.
Between plants and animals, at first sight, there may
seem to be distinctions equally simple ; but this seeming
only arises from our thinking of types rather than of the
whole groups, and even popular natural history recog
nises the difficulty in detail in terming one group of
animals “ zoophytes,” or animal plants.
Plants and animals are identical in their ultimate
chemical constituents, i.e., in the elements or simple sub
stances, of which they are composed, the chief of which
are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus,
sulphur, potassium, and iron. The proportion in which
these elements occur varies, however, to some extent in
the two groups, carbon being relatively more abundant in
the vegetable, and nitrogen, sulphur, and phosphorus in
the animal kingdom. These elements occur probably,
however, in every plant and in every animal. Oxygen
and hydrogen form water (H2 O), which constitutes from
14 to 94 per cent, of plants, 67 per cent, of the human
body, and far more in some other animals. Carbon and
oxygen form carbonic acid (C O2), and nitrogen and
hydrogen form ammonia (N H3), invariable products of
the disintegration of the bodies of plants and animals.
All vital actions in both plants and animals—growth,
assimilation, reproduction, nervous action, &c.—are con
ducted by the complex substances known as albuminoids,
which have an average pei’ centage composition of 53 of
carbon, 22 of oxygen, 16 of nitrogen, 7 of hydrogen, 1 of
sulphur, and a trace of phosphorus. Iron, the great
colouring matter of nature, necessary alike to the produc
tion of the green chlorophyll of leaves and of red blood, is
probably universally present; and potassium, which seems
�Plants and Animals.
5
in some way essential to the formation of starch and cellu
lose—those carbo-hydrates, so abundant in most plants,
so rare in animals—occurs, though in small quantities,
probably in all animals.
Many of the chief compounds or proximate principles
are also common to the two groups. Not to mention
further such products of decomposition as carbonic acid
and ammonia, or water, in the absence of which vitality is
impossible; starch (C6 H10 O5) has been detected in the
human brain and elsewhere; cellulose (C61I1O O5) occurs
in the “ mantle ” of the Tunicata, or marine Ascidians ;
fibrin, the chief ingredient of blood and meat, is all but
identical with the gluten of cereal grains ; casein, the
curd of milk, it represented most closely in those most
concentrated of vegetable foods, the seeds of peas and
lentils; chlorophyll even, that green colouring matter
which we look upon as so characteristic of the vegetable
world, not only exists in a score of animals belonging to
most varied groups,1 but in them has the same marked
effect upon the atmosphere that it exerts in plants; and
lastly, that protoplasm, or sarcode, which Professor
Huxley has so well termed “ the physical basis of life,”
appears absolutely identical in both divisions of the
organic kingdom. In either case it would seem to be
very probably a combination of a phosphamide and a sulphamide of some highly complex base containing carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen.
If we leave composition and pass on to structure,
looking, as rational philosophy teaches us, at the base of
the diverging branches rather than at their summits, we
find the identity so close that the shrewdest naturalists
are baffled in their attempts to draw a boundary line; so
that Professor Hackel has been led to cut the gordian
1 The following list of these chlorophyllian animals has been
drawn up by Professor Ray Lankester:—
Foramimfera.
Ccelentera.
Radiolaria.
Hydra viridis.
Anthea smaragdina.
Rhaphiophrys viridis.
Heterophrys myriapoda.
Vermes.
Mesostomum viride.
Infusoria.
Stentor Mulleri, &c.
Boneilia viridis.
Chsetopterus Valenciennesii.
Spongida.
Crustacea (Isopoda).
Spongilla fluviatilis.
Idotsea viridis.
�6
The Physiological Unity of
knot by establishing the intermediate group of Protista,
neither plants nor animals, thus simply doubling the
difficulty.
I hope to show to-day that, without confining our
attention to these lowly forms, we may see an identity
in function superadded to these identities in composi
tion and structure, each leading physiological function
of the animal being represented among plants, and vice
versa.
Now the functions may be classified into three main
groups : those of nutrition, of primary importance, and
co-extensive in time with life, as being necessary to the
support of the individual; those of relation, useful in
bringing the organism into relation with its environment
(primarily evolved, no doubt, as aids to nutrition and selfdefence) ; and lastly, those of reproduction developed
when a mature size has been reached, or, as it has been
well put, when nutrition becomes discontinuous and
secures the permanence of the race.
Subsidiary to nutrition is the important function of
respiration, by which the body is supplied with atmos
pheric oxygen which is utilised in the breaking up or
waste of effete complex compounds in the body, and by
which also the resulting carbonic acid is exhaled. This
function, which it is convenient to discuss first, is univer
sally identical in plants and animals.
We are not concerned with the mechanism of respira
tion whether it be lungs, as in our own bodies, or gills,
or the general surface, as in many of the lower animals.
In both plants and animals oxygen is taken from the
inhaled air, and carbonic acid is exhaled. This breathing
continues as long as life lasts, by night as well as by
day, and even under the influence of anaesthetics, such as
chloroform. Among plants it is clearly observed in the
case of germinating seeds, as in the evolution of carbonic
acid in the artificially-produced sprouting of corn, known
as “ maltingin the action of fungi (which it would be
absurd to class as other than plants) upon the air, as
seen in the like evolution from brewers’ yeast; in the
effect on the atmosphere of any ordinary green plants
during the night or in the dark; and lastly, as we learn
from the luminous experiments due to the marvellous
acumen of the lamented Claude Bernard, in the effect on
�Plants and Animals.
7
their atmosphere of such ordinary green plants when put
under the influence of anaesthetics.
Green plants in the daylight, not under anaesthetics,
have an effect upon the atmosphere the converse of that
of animals, and have accordingly been said to inhale car
bonic acid, and to exhale oxygen.2 This is, however, to
render the physiological term “respiration” meaningless;
and is moreover conclusively disproved by Claude Ber
nard’s experiments, which show that a true respiration is
continually going on in these plants, and polluting the
air with additional carbonic acid, though the effects on
the atmosphere of this function are masked by the more
powerful chlorophyllian property which has a diametri
cally opposite effect. This remarkable action of the green
colouring-matter of leaves, under the influence of sun
light, in causing the removal of carbonic acid from the
air, is part of the nutritive functions properly so-called,
and, though more general among them, is by no means
confined to plants, as shown by the table of animals
belonging to most distant groups which contain chloro
phyll, as evidenced in several cases by the specific name
of “viridis.” (See note 1 p. 5.) This animal chloro
phyll has, moreover, been recently shown to produce the
same effect upon the air as does that of the plants. Many
plants, too—namely, the whole of the fungi—are without
chlorophyll.
This leads us to the functions of nutrition, to which
respiration is merely subsidiary. Most plants derive
their food from two sources : water, and saline substances
dissolved in it, from the soil, through their roots, and
carbon, from the carbonic acid of the atmosphere, ab
sorbed by their green leaves. Their nitrogen they un
doubtedly derive chiefly from nitrates in the soil; their
phosphorus from phosphates. Most animals, on the other
hand, are unable to build up the complex compounds of
which they consist from inorganic materials, subsisting
entirely on food previously assimilated by plants or other
2 I cannot at all agree with Dr. J. H. Gilbert, when he says
(Presidential Address to the Chemical Section of the British
Association at Swansea): “ It may, I think, be a question
whether there is any advantage in thus attempting to establish
a parallelism between animal and vegetable processes.”
See Mr. Corenwinder’s researches in “Revue Scientifique,” 1874.
�8
The Physiological Unity of
animals. This apparent contrast will not, however, hold
universally. Fungi and all parasitic plants depend, either
wholly or in a great measure, on food already assimilated;
whilst, on the other hand, those animals which contain
chlorophyll appear to be able to assimilate inorganic
matter.
The identity of the nutritive processes can, however, be
shown in much greater detail if we describe that even of
one of the higher animals, such as man, and refer in the
comparison partly to those plants which have been termed
“ carnivorous.”3 The food of a man, consisting of pre
viously elaborated animal and vegetable matter, is first
ingested or taken into the alimentary tract. In the mouth
it is masticated and mixed with saliva, a neutral or alkaline
watery fluid, containing a small quantity of ptyalin, a
nitrogenous substance, which, acting as a zymase, i.e., in
a manner similar to that of yeast and other ferments,
converts the insoluble starch into soluble glucose or grape
sugar (C6 H12 O6). The food than passes into the closed
stomach, the glands of which secrete an acid gastric
3 This term may be applied more or less fully to the following
plants belonging to widely different groups:—
Accidentally.
e.g. Lychnis (Campion). Caryophyllacese.
Saxifraga tridactylites. Saxifragacese.
Saprophagous, i.e., only absorbing the products
of decomposition ’? Dipsacus (.Teazle). Dipsacese.
With pitchers - Sarracenia.
Darlingtonia.
>Sarraceniacese.
.Heliamphora.
J
Utricularia.
1
With utricles Polypompholyx. }• Lentibulariacese.
Genlisea.
J
Digesting.
? Helleborus. Eanunculaceae.
? Parnassia. Saxifragacese.
Coelenterate.
Cephalotus. Saxifragacese.
Nepenthes. Nepenthacese.
Motile.
Pinguicula. Lentibulariacese.
Drosera (Sundew).
)
Drosopliyllum.
|
Dionsea (Venus’ Fly-trap). |
Aldxo vanda.
)
�Plants and Animals.
9
juice, containing pepsin, another nitrogenous ferment or
zymase, which acts upon the albuminoid constituents of
the food, rendering them soluble, or digesting them, when
they are known as peptones—substances that readily ooze
through a membrane. The entrance of food into the
stomach stimulates the nerves in its walls, and the neigh
bouring arteries swell so as to produce a blushing of the
surface. After quitting the stomach the conversion of
starch into sugar is completed by the pancreatin in the
intestinal juice of the small intestine, which is neutralised
by the alkaline bile. At the same time, the fatty portions
of the food are emulsionised, i.e.; separated into fine
particles suspended in the fluid, and to some extent sapo
nified, i.e., rendered more soluble by a conversion into
soap by the alkaline bile, just as animal and vegetable fats
and oils are converted into soap, in the_arts, by treatment
with caustic alkali; whilst any remaining albuminoids are
also digested.
The nutrient matter passes through the membranes of
the alimentary canal into the capillaries, or finest blood
vessels, and by the blood, the vehicle of circulation, it is
conveyed to every part of the body to be assimilated, or
taken up, by any organs requiring repair. Any subse
quent changes it may undergo are comprehended under
the term “ metastasis.”
In making this comparison we must not lose sight of
the fact that in the lowest animals we have no specialised
organs or structures to perform these varied functions.
Now, if we turn to plants in general, we find that the
watery solution taken in by the roots penetrates through
the cell-membranes, as the peptones do through those of
the alimentary canal in the animal, and that it is caused
to ascend to the leaves and growing parts by the evapora
tion from the surface. The air enters the stomata, or
pores, in the epidermis, and penetrates the cell-mem
branes, as it does in the air-cells of the bronchial tubes
in our own lungs. The primary product of the union of
this gaseous with this watery food seems to be the forma
tion of protoplasm, that complex albuminoid containing
not only carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, but
also sulphur and phosphorus. Only plants that contain
chlorophyll are able to utilise the carbon of the air in
forming protoplasm or assimilation, others must obtain
�10
The Physiological Unity of
it elsewhere. Chlorophyll is formed in the protoplasm,
only in the presence of iron, and generally in daylight;
plants grown in the dark being bleached by its imperfect
formation. The presence of chlorophyll is necessary to
the formation of starch, though the latter is a very simple
substance.
Starch is therefore absent from the fungi.
Recent researches4 point to the conclusion that starch
is formed by the protoplasm under the influence of light
filtered, so to speak, through chlorophyll. Though in
soluble, starch seems to be readily rendered soluble, as,
though chiefly formed in the leaves, it is rapidly trans
ferred to the stem, the seeds and other parts, where it
is stored up as a food-reserve. It is from these stores
that man obtains some of the most important of his
food-stuffs—the flour of wheat, the sago from the stem
of the sago-palm, and the starchy tuber of the potato.
Agricultural chemists have come to the conclusion that
animals derive their fat from the carbo-hydrates of their
food,5* i.e., from cellulose, starch, and sugar—more es
8
pecially from the two lattei’; and it would seem highly
probable that the similar fatty oils in fruits and seeds,
such as the olive and the oil-palm, are due to the
transformation of starch. A more important change is
that into glucose and soluble starch in germination, in the
spring sap, and such cases, which is brought about by a
ferment or zymase, known as diastase, all but identical
with the similarly acting ptyalin of our own saliva.
While starch is formed by day, by night the proto
plasm originates cellulose, the cells divide and the plant
grows.
Assimilation thus proceeds mainly by day;
growth by night. Some new evidence on this part of
the subject has been educed by Dr. Siemens’s experiments
on plants under the electric light.
In germinating seeds the albuminoids are converted
into substances closely resembling the peptones of animal
4 Those of Pringsheim, remarkably confirmed by Mr. George
Murray, of the British Museum, who has shown that lichenine, a
form of starch occurring in lichens, is formed not in the chloro
phyll-containing “ gonidial layer,” but in the subjacent cells.
8 See Dr. J. H. Gilbert’s Presidential Address to the Chemical
Section of the British Association at Swansea.
�Plants and Animals.
11
digestion ; and in the transfer of these, of soluble starch,
dextrine, and sugar, to the growing parts, we have a close
analogy to animal circulation.6
In the various complex processes of change, known as
metastasis, acid-salts and free acids are formed in plants,
with instances of which we are all familiar, such as the
rhubarb, apple, gooseberry, and orange. Now free acids
are nearly always deleterious to organic tissues. These
acids are therefore either metamorphosed or neutralised,
or to some extent excreted by being stored up in glands
near the surface, as in the orange. Such embedded glands
are very common, as are also the thin-skinned glandular
hairs, which often have a viscid secretion, as in the catch
flies or campions of the genus Lychnis in Saxifraga tri
dactylites, in Pinguicula and in most Droseracec/e. Mr.
Darwin has shown7 that these hairs in Saxifrages,
Droseras, Primula, and Pelargonium, will absorb am
monia from a solution; hence they might obtain it from
dew, in which it occurs in small quantities. It is also
probable that they derive some benefit from the nitro
genous matter in the bodies of flies, with which Saxifraga tridactylites is always covered.
Flies are constantly drowned in the pitcher formed by
the two united leaves of the common teazle, into which
Dr. Francis Darwin thinks he has detected delicate pro
toplasmic threads protruded from the cells of the stem,
like the pseudopodia of a Foraminifer.8
Several plants, belonging to widely separated orders,
have their leaves modified into pitchers, or utricles, in
which insects get drowned and decay, the products of
decay being absorbed by glands on the inner surface of6
8
*
6 The presence of a pepsin-like ferment, or peptogene, which
might have been inferred from the transference of albuminoids
from one part of the plant to another, has been shown in the seeds
of Vetch by Gorup-Besanez. A similar substance occurs in the
milky juice of the papaw (Carica Papaya), which, like the gastric
juice of animals and the secretion from the leaves of the sundew
(Drosera), has the two-fold property of acting as an antiseptic by
destroying the microzymes, or organisms that induce putrefaction,
and of acting as a solvent or peptogene on albuminoids.
“Insectivorous Plants.” London, 1875.
8 Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 1878.
�12
The Physiological Unity of
the organ? Such is the case with the Sarracenias and
their allies, an order related to the water-lilies, and with
the Utricularias or bladder worts, which are related to
the butterwort, Pinguicula, and less closely to the prim
rose tribe. In the true pitcher-plants, however, the
Cephdlotus and the Nepenthes, plants in no way related
morphologically, we reach a much higher physiological
grade. The leaves in this case develope pitchers strictly
comparable to the animal stomach. The glands on the
inner surface of these pitchers secrete a watery fluid
which is slightly acid. Albuminoid matter, whether ani
mal or vegetable, immersed in this fluid, even when
removed from the pitcher, is converted into soluble pep
tones, as in the gastric juice, and this change occurs so
rapidly that we naturally infer the presence of some
pepsin-like ferment. Mere acidulated water, without a
ferment, takes several days to digest albuminoid matter ;
though Professor Frankland has shown that, though dif
fering in the intensity of their action, nearly all acids
will effect such a digestion. After absorbing albuminoid
matter the glands of these pitchers become a bright red
colour, strangely reminding us of the blushing of the walls
of the stomach.
In Pinguicula and in the Droseracece, though we have no
stomach-like pitchers, we have a somewhat higher grade
in the introduction of motion to aid in the nutritive
processes.
The simple leaves of the butterwort are
covered with viscid, glandular hairs, the secretion from
which exerts a remarkable effect upon milk, coagulating
it; whence the name butterwort. When flies stick to
the hairs the leaves roll up at their margins, the secretion
becomes acid, and the albuminoid matter is digested and
absorbed. The absorption is shown by the fact that the
protoplasm in the cells of the glands becomes aggregated
or contracted. If milk is left on the leaves it is first
coagulated, and then its casein is absorbed.
We then come to a most interesting group, the Droseraceoe—a group not represented by any considerable
number of forms, but of world-wide distribution.
A
9 See, on the subject generally, Dr. (now Sir Joseph) Hooker’s
Address to the British Association at Belfast, in 1874, in “ Nature,”
vol. X., and Mr. Darwin’s work before referred to; on Cephalo
tus, Dr. Dickson, in the “Journal of Botany ” for 1878.
�• \ *«* * • r>.Y *.’••’• *
Plants and Animals.
’.• ’.':> '*} ’• »"^
,v? ';/<</ F v’A .\
13
large proportion of the species are natives of Australia;
but they occur also in Patagonia, whilst our British
species range throughout Europe, Siberia, to the Hima
layas, in Kamschatka and in America, from the'Arctic
Circle to Florida and Brazils.
So we may safely say
that they have been successful in the struggle for ex
istence. It affords a strong confirmation to our views as
to the source of their main food-supply that Sarracenias,
Utricularias, Pinguiculas, Nepenthes, and the Droseracece
are in all cases either submerged aquatic plants, or in
habitants of marshes, where they are often seen growing
on pure sand which can only yield them pure water.
Their roots are very small; in Aldrovanda they are
altogether absent.
The round-leaved sundew of our own marshes, which
grows under the protection of the Board of Works on
Hampstead Heath, in Epping Forest, and on Keston
Common, whence Mr. Darwin has procured his specimens,
has its leaves prolonged into glandular hairs or tentacles,
each surmounted by a drop of viscid secretion to which
they owe their name of sundew. The stickiness of this
secretion will amply suffice to detain a small fly by the leg.
On doing so, not only does that particular drop become acid,
but all the other glands instantaneously become aware of
the capture of some nitrogenous matter; their secretions
become acid, and they bend forward till the fly is carried
to the centre of the leaf, covered by the glands. Com
plete digestion then ensues, occupying a time which
varies according to the size of the prey, and the peptones
and other soluble results are absorbed by the glands of
the leaf, the protoplasm of which becomes aggregated.
A substance analogous to pepsin has been detected in the
secretion by Dr. Lawson Tait, who terms it droserin, and
the acid has been determined to be either propionic
(C3 H6 O2), or a mixture of acetic (C2 H4 O2), and butyric
(C4 H8 O2). It is noteworthy that the secretion has also
antiseptic properties, herein also resembling gastric juice.
Chlorophyll is but scantily developed in the mature leaves,
suggesting that organised food renders that derived di
rectly from the atmosphere to a large degree unnecessary.
That the plant derives a decided advantage from this
leaf-absorbed nitrogen is conclusively proved by Dr.
Francis Darwin’s comparative experiment, in which he
�14
The Physiological Unity of
grew some hundred meat-fed plants side by side with a
like number of others not so fed, the former proving
the superior in weight, number of off-sets, of flower
stalks, of flowers, and of seeds, and in the weight of their
seeds.
It is, however, in the exotic ally of our sundew, the
Venus’s fly-trap (Dioncea muscipula) of North Carolina,
perhaps, that we have the highest degree of specialisation
for nutrition in the direction we are considering. In this
plant, rapid movement produced by an electro-magnetic
change in the condition of the blade of the leaf on stim
ulation, takes the place of a viscid secretion. The blade
of the leaf is orbicular, divided by a hinge-like midrib,
and surrounded by spinous prolongations corresponding
to the tentacles of Drosera. Its upper surface is covered
with glands, and bears long sensitive hairs, generally three
on each lobe. These, from their action, I think I may
venture to term vibrissce, i.e., rudimentary sense-organs.
These vibrissae are extremely sensitive to the touch, the
two halves of the leaf instantly closing, their spinous
tentacles becoming interlocked like the teeth of a gin.
Dr. Burdon Sanderson has shown 10 the existence in the
leaf of a normal electric current precisely similar to that
of animal muscle; and that, on the vibrissae being touched,
a deflection of this current, which can be observed with
the galvanometer, is produced, precisely as in the con
traction of muscle under nervous stimulation. Though it
is an anticipation of the next division of my subject, I
must here call your attention also to the remarkable
analogy we have here presented with that deflection of a
normal electric current in the optic nerve which has been
recently shown by Professors McKendrick and Dewar to
be produced by the action of light on the eye in most
animals. The motor impulse, both in this plant and in
Prosera, is transmitted not only by the vascular tissue,
but also by the cellular. The glands are both secretive
and absorptive, but do not secrete until stimulated by
absorption. The acid secretion in the temporarily-formed
stomach acts like that of Drosera. In neither case is fat
absorbed, nor — which is rather remarkable — casein,
though cheese produces an abundant flow of the acid
10 Proc. Royal Society, vol. xxi., and. ‘Nature,’ vol. x.
�Plants and Animals.
15
secretion. In digesting this albuminoid, the butterwort
(Pinguicula) is more active; but perhaps we should look
upon the leaf-digestion in plants as a recently-acquired
function—geologically speaking—so their digestive powers
may as yet be weak. Over-feeding seems to have a fatal
effect either on leaves or on whole plants.
In leaving the subject of nutrition, I hope it will not
be supposed that in dwelling thus at length upon these
plants, I look upon their functions as exceptional. They
are well exhibited for purposes of experiment and com
parison in these so-called “ carnivorous ” plants; but
they are represented in the processes of assimilation and
metastasis throughout the plant-world.11
The functions of relation are motion, sensation, and
nervosity. Some few animals lose the power of moving
from place to place, a power possessed only by the very
lowest plants. Higher plants, however, are carried as
winged fruits or seeds to a distance, and in many cases
possess as much power of relative movement, i.e., the
movement of certain of their parts as do many animals,
e.g., the circum-nutation, as Mr. Darwin has termed it, or
revolving motion of tendrils, twining plants and shoots,
and the irritability of stamens, as in the barberry, or of
carpels as in the balsam. Motion is effected
pseudo
podia in the Myxomycetes and some other Thallophytes,
as much as in the lowest animals, and by cilia in some
what higher members of both groups, whilst muscles are,
of course, as absent in the Protozoa as in plants.
The definitions of sensation, given in most manuals of
physiology, presuppose the existence of nerves and nerve
ganglia. These occur in no animals lower than the
Jellyfishes; yet, I think, most naturalists would rather
look upon protoplasm as a diffused nerve-matter, as
suggested by the late Dr. Bowerbank, than deny sensation
altogether to the Protozoa. Leaving out of consideration
the remarkably rapid action of the sensitive-plant (Mimosa
pudica) and the related movements in various compound
leaves, known as “ sleep,” as being still problematical, I
would ask whether the instantaneous reaction of the
secretion in Drosera (its becoming acid) on stimulation, or
11 I endeavoured to elucidate this point in an article on ‘ Plant
Nutrition ’ in the Gardenerd Chronicle for 1878, vol. ix., p. 202.
�16 The Physiological Unity of Plants and Animals.
the electric action of Dioncea, is not entitled to be con
sidered as the same in kind with animal sensation.
The function of reproduction is performed in three
different ways: by fission, by budding or gemmation, or
by ovulation. Each of these processes is represented both
among plants and among animals, though fission and gem
mation are termed vegetative functions—functions, that is,
of mere discontinuous growth as distinguished from ovu
lation or sexual reproduction. Eission, or cell-division,
is the normal method of reproduction among the lowest
cellular plants (Protophyta), and even a sea-anemone,
when cut in half, has healed to form two perfect indi
viduals. Gemmation, or the production of off-sets more
or less distinct, familiar to us in ferns, bulbs, and straw
berry runners, occurs also in the freshwater polyp {Hydra)
and other animals higher in the scale.
In the processes of sexual reproduction we have, how
ever, perhaps the most striking of all the parallelisms
beween plants and animals. In both we have the im
pregnation of a germ-cell or ovum by a sperm-cell, the
male element: in Cryptogamic plants, and in animals,
this male element is a minute body furnished with one or
more cilia, known as a,spermatozoid: in both kingdoms the
ovum is a single cell originated within its parent cell by
what is termed free-cell formation: in both this ovum
subdivides to form the embryo ; and in the egg of the one,
as in the seed of the other, there is often, in addition to
the embryo, a food-supply for its early nourishment. In
fairness it must be noticed that the animal ovum is seg
mented into four, eight, sixteen or more segments, whilst
that of the plant forms in general a filament (hypha or
suspensor), at the end of which the embryo originates;
and secondly, that flowering plants have perhaps advanced
a grade beyond animals in substituting the fovilla of
pollen for the spermatozoid.
I have thus in detail endeavoured to trace a funda
mental identity, in nutrition, in relation, and in repro
duction, in plants and animals. My object in so doing
has been to extend, as far as our knowledge permits us,
the reign of law and uniformity; and to show that the
study of the physiology even of plants may not be with
out its practical lessons to so exalted an animal as Man.
Kenny & CO., Printers, 25, Camden Road, N.W.
�
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 physiological unity of plants and animals: a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, on Sunday afternoon, 30th January, 1881
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Boulger, G.S.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Sunday Lecture Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3425
N079
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 />This work (The physiological unity of plants and animals: a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, on Sunday afternoon, 30th January, 1881), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Biology
NSS
Physiology
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4d85f9a28f39a3792ccb83c3d159d49e.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=MQp-sZr4xh8x3ZDfR-YjXJh5PZRIbdjHBb0yeL6GMoA%7EwrPmVGD0C1YV32tbBRGramziMh6pKKBGtjtPxT1KHju8JRgwXdB07wcbsalRQqWoz0pNKFG1m5Rcly1azaX9nLUzZczgzvIVgcXim6DYOBxZWD5zofd%7En6NMJ4ecReBdsNJT2xqRN1ij3EXPM4Y3tHEIHMZIGMA9irVlwAhRciUWcRnLzLls0%7E-sshF5VnXYFuXnN0khzHIqZ0xThc0y1jfJ8hFJCqS1gLoPSdn60qoNgui5S5VjAzg5yhdBGLXTkK01URjb68KaG85cmhgOGfnWg3xQMfERSJLag3VC0A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f827b565c43443266a29a97d159b1233
PDF Text
Text
CHRISTIANITY.
I.
THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY FROM A STRICTLY
H HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW, •
BEING
DELIVERED BEFORE THE
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY,
ON
SUNDAY, 21st NOVEMBER, 1880,
BY
Dr. G. G. ZERFFI, F.R.S.L., F.R.Hist.S.
PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
1881.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
�How to obtain a clear and intelligible notion of the Origin of
Christianity.
The component elements of Christianity.
Some questions to be answered by Historians of other creeds.
Universalism pervading Christianity
The Finite and the Infinite in the East and West.
The Jews and their Sects. The Pharisees, Zaducees, Essenes,
Ebionites, Therapeutics and Samaritans, Hebraism and Hel
lenism.
Description of the Social Condition of Humanity at the birth
of Jesus of Nazareth.
Universal Love the Essence of Christianity. An Arab Legend.
Christ’s conception of the Deity.
Reason, Science, and Truth.
The Historical Causes of the Spread of Christianity.
Buddha and Christ.
Difference between Christianity and Buddhism.
Early Christian Sects.—Dogmatists, Sophists, Talmudists,
Apologists, Fathers, Scholastics, Theologians. General History.
Justin Martyr.
Conclusion. The Second Lecture to treat of the Fathers
“ majorum gentium” and “minorum gentium.”
�CHRISTIANITY,
•------------- <-----------------------
I.
The Origin of Christianity from a strictly Historical Point
of View.
ISTORIANS may be divided into three distinct
classes—
(1.) The Obstructives,
(2.) The Destructives, and
(3.) The Constructives.
Until recently almost all theological historians were,
by their very nature, Obstructives—that is, they were
compelled to abide by facts as transmitted to them by
tradition, or in sacred records, and were therefore neces
sarily stationary. To inquire was in itself a dangerous
action—undermining the very foundations of faith. To
this class of historians belong the Brahmans, Bonzes,
Rabbis, Priests of the Romish Church, Ulemas, Clergy
men of the Anglican Church, or other Protestant sects,
and their disciples, educated in the same stationary way,
forced to regard certain assertions concerning events, or
certain calculations concerning the time in which these
events happened as facts—though they may have been
anything but facts. We may best classify these writers
as Orientalists. The past, in the received form of some
Sacred Book, was everything with them. The very word
History signified to them a sacrilegious attempt to un
settle the assumed truth of their particular facts,—which
alone could be true ; whilst they asserted with admirable
self-reliance and conceit that the records of all other
nations were nothing but falsehoods.
Next we have the Destructives, in whom doubt and
scepticism work supreme; who do not see how one and
the same fact could have happened in two different ways;
why one witness should be credited more than another;
or how two witnesses could have seen one and the same
fact happening in different places, under entirely different
circumstances, and with altogether different results.
H
�4
Christianity.
The Destructives began timidly to pull down, they shook
the foundation of credulity, they suddenly saw the whole
past tumble into ruins. Horrified at the havoc which
they had brought about, they stopped half-way, and the
past became nothing but a heap of dust, lumber, and
fact-rubbish. We may best classify these people as
Galileans. They are a necessary element in the progres
sive development of Humanity, for unless the old tottering
building of assumed facts, cemented together with dog
matic lime and sand were first destroyed, no new building
could be erected.
And last we have the Constructives—those who re-arrange
facts on the principles of probability and possibility; who
consult the ancient documents of different nations, not
with a mind filled with hatred and contempt for everything
not contained in their own sacred records, which they
were made to choose by mere chance of birth, education,
and established custom, but with an equal veneration for
those periods in which each tribe, race, and nation, had
their own sacred book—sacred because transmitted to them
from father to son ; and -what is more sacred to a son
than that which a kind and loving father has left him ?
That the ancient nations throughout the world, in the
fulness of their grateful hearts, should have assumed that
the first father who spoke to them was Gfod Himself,
proves only the Sameness and Oneness of Humanity, arti
ficially divided into innumerable quarrelling sects, tribes,
and peoples. The Constructives, therefore, compare,
draw analogies, separate the separables, dissect myths,
explain symbols, connect equals, inquire, sift, and finally
build up their historical edifice on the firm basis of cau
sation with facts that are facts, and cement them with
common sense—discarding all arbitrariness, all exceptional
providential interference in favour of Brahmans, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, Bomans,
Scotch or Irish—anxious to discover what we have in
common as human beings—never fostering dissent, ani
mosity, contempt or hatred, but sympathy, forbearance,
kindness, and love. We may best-elassify the Construc
tive Historians as the Hellenic-Teuton element in Hu
manity.
The spirit of these three groups of historians may be
�Christianity.
5
studied in three works recently published on the “ Life
of Jesus,” by an anonymous English Professor of one of
our Universities, by Renan, the Frenchman, and by Dr.
Strauss, the German.
The Englishman is obstructive, the Frenchman destruc
tive, and the German constructive.
Dr. Strauss is learned, conscientious, and systematic.
He is full of veneration, and yet unflinchingly truthful
without predilection, bias, or prejudice, and gives us the
true history of the foundation of Christianity. His
great merit lies in his having drawn a distinction between
the historical and mythical Jesus of Nazareth. Histori
cally he describes the birth of Jesus, His relation to John
the Baptist, the laws of Moses, the Gentiles, and the
belief in His being the expected Messiah. The mythical
account is divided into three chapters and twelve sub
divisions concerning the pre-historic myths of Jesus, the
mythical account of the life of Jesus, and the mythical
record of His suffering, death, and resurrection. Dr.
Strauss wrote his work with the view of furthering
Protestantism on the firm basis of historical continuity,
and eliminating from the glorious teachings of Jesus of
Nazareth whatever was merely accidental, secondary,
symbolic, and allegorical, borrowed from more ancient
creeds, which at the time of Christ were in a state of
spontaneous and natural dissolution. For whoever
wishes to have a clear and unbiassed notion of the his
torical Christ, must free Him and His doctrine from the
obscuring veil of dogmatism.
The Frenchman, Renan, is learned, but his learning- is
too much tainted with emotional outbursts of refined
phrases; his imagination outruns his criticism, and his
criticism loses itself in romantic dreams and visions. He
is far more bent on destroying an idol of the Romish
Church, than on discovering to what extent it had become
in time an entity, to dissolve which will need more than
the superficial pen-strokes of a witty Frenchman.
The English professor is grave—very grave. He pub
lished his work under the title of “ Ecce Homo,” but he
has neither the learning nor the courage of Dr. Strauss,
nor the sprightliness and imagination of Renan. He has,
however, his inherited predilections, which are apparently
�6
Christianity.
shaken by his studies and the intellectual atmosphere of
the nineteenth century. He has heard of Strauss with
conventional horror; he has heard of Renan with in
herited contempt, and he wishes to free his soul from all
doubts by arguing himself out of doubt; and yet, of the
three books, this one, written with apparent obstructive
faith, is the most destructive. It must necessarily lead to
a despairing scepticism, because the positive assertions are
made so timidly, that one sees the trembling writer afraid
to touch his subject, lest his dogmatic Christ might crumble
into dust under his own hands, and turn into a true
“ Bcce Homo,”—“ Behold a Man I ”
To be able to give a clear and intelligible picture of the
origin and spread of Christianity from a strictly historical
point of view, we must make ourselves acquainted with
the moral, political, religious, and intellectual elements
that pervaded Humanity at the advent of Christ. To
detach Christianity from the influences of the different
creeds that preceded its foundation, is to know nothing of
Christianity. The essence of the teachings of all law
givers and founders of religious systems was the redemp
tion of man from the bondage of his animal nature, and
the development and culture of his higher intellectual and
spiritual nature. To separate Christianity from the
causes of which its origin and working were a necessary
effect or sequence, is to transport it into the realm of
miracles. But in assuming Christianity to have been a
miracle, we raise terrible phantoms of doubt, or rather
of piety and veneration for the Diety, in the shape of
grave questions which necessarily present themselves to
the thinking mind:
Why was the advent of this miracle so long delayed ?
Why were millions and millions of creatures left with
out salvation, and, as some pious divines will have it,
predestined to eternal damnation ?
Why should the sanguinary miracle of a self-sacrificing
God have had so partial and sloiv an effect 1
Why was the miracle not made universally known ?
Why had Christianity to be established in torrents
of blood, amidst the horrible shrieks of tortured and
martyred human sacrifices ?
Why was the efficacy of the miracle quite imperceptible,
�Christianity.
7
save in such progress as was natural to any creed, sup
ported by fire and sword, by money, and state authority ?
Why should the early Christian authorities have deli
berately destroyed all writings bearing on the origin,
growth, and development of Christianity, if it was a
miracle ordained by God ?
Why should the Emperor Theodosius have felt him
self compelled to issue the following proclamation?:—
“We decree, therefore, that all writings whatever
which Porphyry, or any one else, has written against the
Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they
shall be found, should be committed to the fire; for we
would not suffer any of these things so much as to come
to men’s ears, which tend to provoke God and so offend
the minds of the pious.”
In a spirit of true tolerance, the same Emperor ordered,
“ that all those who should object to the dogma of the
Trinity, besides the condemnation of Divine justice,
would have to expect to suffer the severe penalties which
our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, may think
proper to inflict upon them.”
Why should it have been an axiom of the Church
“ that it was an act of virtue to deceive and to lie, when by
that means the interest of the Church might be promoted?”
Why all these threatening laws, these anxious jealousies,
the falsifications of documents, the oppression of learning,
the abhorrence of our reasoning power, if this was a
miraculously ordained divine act, performed for the sal
vation of Humanity ?
In historically analysing the elements which compose
Christianity, we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that it
has become the universal storehouse of all the different
creeds that have swayed the human mind from the first
dawn of its arising consciousness. We find in Christianity
the strictest Monotheism mixed with the Trinitarian mys
teries of the Brahmans, Buddhists, and Egyptians; the
Incarnation and Atonement theories of the Indians and
Egyptians; the dualistic principle of the Avesta; the
Jewish and Persian assumptions of angels and devils; the
lofty moral enactments of Confucius and Sokrates; the
dreamy idealism of Plato, and the more practical realism
of Aristotle.
�8
Christianity.
Mystics and Rationalists, Believers and Free-thinkers,
Fanatics and Latitudinarians, Spirit-rappers and Philo
sophers, rich and poor, mighty and weak, learned and
ignorant, may find in the tenets of Christianity some
congenial and sympathetic, some suggestive and comfort
ing elements.
The most important fact with regard to the “ new
faith ” was that Christianity became but another name for
those universal principles and eternal laws which, if
recognised, and put in motion, stimulate the innate dor
mant moral and intellectual forces of our human nature
into activity. This fact must explain the superior vitality
of Christianity, which has led Humanity in the West and
North-West of the world slowly, gradually, yet unin
terruptedly on the path of progress in arts, discoveries,
inventions, and sciences to the very highest achievements.
The followers of any other creed must endeavour to
answer the following questions in their turn: Why did
empires and communities professing other beliefs remain
stationary in their development, in spite of their undoubted
priority in many useful arts and inventions ? and why
should the Christians have succeeded, by degrees, in
working out wise and beneficial laws, in producing poetical
works of unsurpassed excellence, and in raising sciences
to a climax never attained before ? Suns and planets are
measured by Christians ; the rays of light analysed; the
gradual formation of the earth’s crust is recognised; the
different chemical elements, in apparently indivisible
atoms, are traced; Christians speak by means of electri
city at distances of thousands of miles, reducing space in
its dimensions; and travel by means of fire and water
at an unheard-of speed, reducing time in its duration.
The Universalism pervading true Christianity alone
can serve as an explanation of this phenomenon. As we
may trace in nature positive and negative electricity, so we
can see the working of positive and negative intellectual
currents in humanity.
The currents in the East were generally negative. To
look backwards, to hope, as it were, everything from the
past, was the characteristic of Oriental nations. The
intellectual currents in the West were positive ; to look to
and to trust in the future, whether worldly or spiritual,
�Christianity.
9
was and is the distinguishing feature of the Western
World. Man in the East shuns new spheres of thought,
and is content to move round and round in the ever
unchangeable circle of fixed notions, ceremonies, and
customs. Man in the West strives for freedom and an
eternal activity; he must have some goal to long for,
which presents itself in the form of religious enthusiasm,
chivalrous daring, a thirst for inquiry and learning, a
contempt for all danger, and a struggle with real or
imaginary monsters.
The finite submitted in humble acquiescence to the
infinite in the East. In the West the finite strove to
grasp the infinite, and to bring harmony into the dis
cordant elements of good and evil, light and darkness,
mind and matter, God and nature. These contradictory
phenomena led the East very early to endeavour to cast
a light upon the mysterious nature of self-conscious man,
the mystic phenomena of nature, and to attempt the
solution of the riddle of life by means of allegories, sym
bols, wild fictions, incredible fables, and inspired guesses.
The nation that felt the double nature of humanity
most keenly, and first proclaimed a more spiritual concep
tion of a God, was the Jewish. In the mystic schools of
the priests of Egypt, their leaders were made acquainted
with the universal “ Monotheos,” but the Jews deprived
Him of his universality, and transformed Him into a
national Deity, who was only a merciful God to His
chosen people, under certain outward ceremonial con
ditions, and a God of wrath and merciless persecution to
all those who had not the good fortune to belong by
mere chance of birth to that chosen people. The Chinese
taught Humanity filial love, and social order; the Indians
unravelled the beauties of the universe in the eternal
Trinitarian process of Creation, Preservation, and Trans
formation ; the Egyptians established the “ I am I” mys
tery; the Persians endeavoured to practice purity in
thoughts, purity in words, and purity in deeds; the
Greeks fostered taste and refinement in arts, exalted
humane feelings in their poetry, and manifested a deep
critical discernment in philosophy; the Romans organised,
regulated, conquered, and developed an unsurpassed
patriotism ; and the Jews ?—they taught humanity reli
�10
Christianity.
gious exclusiveness, proud and fanatical intolerance, and
have had themselves to suffer under these curses for more
than 2,900 years.
Even at this very moment we see them harassed and
persecuted in Germany, a country which boasts of the
highest civilization, a country which produced a Lessing,
the Apostle of true Christian Tolerance, and a Herder,
the founder of “Humanism.” To the honour of that
country, it may be said that every distinguished German,
every learned Historian, and every true Christian abhors
the anachronistic movement of the Ultramontanes, which
is worthy of the dark middle ages of superstition and
gross ignorance. The Jews, as ever in the past, are
still at war with the Grentiles all over the world; they
use up the Gentiles for their special purposes, but never
look upon them as their equals. The Jews hoping
against hope, sublimely singing and prophesying in their
despair, loudly proclaiming their thirst after God, their
fervid longing for righteousness and holiness, formed
with their theological sentiments a terrible sanguinary
leaven of a new faith, which was a possibility only after
Persian ethics, Brahmanic tenets, Egyptian mysteries
and rituals, Buddhistic miracles and dogmas, Jewish
prophesies, Greek philosophical researches, and Boman
disciplinary organisations, had been pounded together by
the pestle of time in the mortar of History.
The Jews became the most important element in the
historical development of Humanity. They inherited the
dualistic theory of God and Devil from the Egyptians
and Persians, and worked it out theologically through
their deeply-learned prophets, who saw the terrible con
flict manifested in virtue and sin, of which they became
conscious at an earlier period and in a higher sense. By
means of this consciousness they approached a state of
reconciliation ; for self-conscious virtue must be based on
a self-conscious knowledge of evil, bringing harmony into
man’s animal and spiritual nature, developing to the
utmost his moral and intellectual faculties. In spite of
this higher moral state, they found themselves cruelly
oppressed. They prayed, sighed, and mourned at Babylon,
and mingled their scalding tears with the waves of the
Euphrates; they were driven from state to state; they
�Christianity.
11
waited and watched; they fought like despairing lions;
they clung to their God, who had so few blessings, and so
many sufferings for them on earth. They were still con
vinced “that the sceptre should not depart from Judah;
and unto him should the gathering of the people beand
yet they were trampled under foot by Boman Tetrarchs
and Praetors, had no political or social freedom, and were
themselves divided by religious sects and factions.
Amongst these were the Phabisees, who clung to the
dead letter of the law.
The Gaulonites or Galileans, a still more fanatical
branch of the Pharisees, who professed “that no one
must obey any mortal in authority, for God alone is our
Lord.” (This sentence enables us to understand those
Pharisaical survivals who, under the pretence of obeying
the self-constituted authority of their God, defy the law
of the land, and turn true religion into mockery.) These
fanatics hoped everything from the internal dissolution of
the Boman Empire. The Pharisees brought into religion
the most contemptible spirit of trading; they always
tried to make a profitable bargain with their God.
Plenty on earth was the reward of godliness. Their
piety had to manifest itself in eating and drinking. “ At
even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be
filled with bread, and ye shall know that I am the Lord
your God,” was the foundation of the egotistical creed of
the Pharisees. To eat and drink was, with the Jews, the
most solemn initiation and termination of all their reli
gious ceremonies. The Greeks cultivated man’s higher
artistic and philosophical aspirations ; the Persians ruled,
the Bomans legislated; the Egyptians built imperishable
monuments; the Indians worked out mystic problems—
the Jews did eat and drink. When the seventy (properly
seventy-two) elders accompanied Moses on Mount Sinai
and saw the God of Israel, they did eat and drink. If
we do not correctly study the principles of the different
Jewish sects of this period, we can never properly under
stand the peculiar fanatics, intolerant bigots, eating and
drinking pious hypocrites, who still grace our own social
organisation, as so many survivals in the flesh of a preChristian world.
The Sadducees (the just) were next in importance
�12
Christianity.
to the Pharisees; they were the broad-minded followers of
Zadak. They rejected all artificial explanations of the
Scriptures, and studied the prophets most diligently; they
had a supreme contempt for all those who continually
occupied their minds with mysterious benedictions, sancti
fications, days of atonement, fasting and feasting, leavened
or unleavened bread, palm branches, trumpets, sacred
vessels, offerings, defiled or undefiled gifts, trespasses, red
cows, the blood of calves and goats, scarlet wool, hyssop,
and dead bodies; and despised all those who neglected
doing good to their fellow creatures. The Sadducees
believed neither in the immortality of the soul, nor in
punishment or reward after death. They denied the
existence of angels and devils—although they thoroughly
believed in the Scriptures. They were notorious for their
virtue, honesty, tolerance, learning, and, above all, for
their justice and humanity.
The Essenes, so called from the Hebrew “ asa ” or the
Chaldaean “ asaya,” meaning “to heal”—or according to
others “ the retired ”—were still more important. They
lived a solitary life ; they devoted themselves to the study
of medicine, to the art of working miracles, and to pre
dicting the future. They practised baptism. In con
formity with the ancient Indians and Egyptians, water
was with them the mysterious life-giving element.
Water had been the essence of life when the earth was
still barren and uninhabited. They considered water to
be the fountain of regeneration, the symbol of life ; man
to be good and free from sin was to be born anew of
water. Water mystically washed away the sins of the
world. Water made the Essenes, like the Indians, twice
horn. John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth were both
Essenes, and were both baptized. The opinions advanced
by Matthew Tyndal in a work, published 150 years ago,
entitled “ Christianity as old as the Creation,” are borne
out by Eusebius, who has a whole chapter under the title,
“The Religion published by Jesus Christ is neither new
nor strange; ” and this author also states, in the most
unqualified manner, in the 17th Chapter of his 2nd Book
that the ancient Therapeutics were Christians, and that
their ancient writings were our Gospels and Epistles.
The Therapeutics, Ebionites or Essenes were “ Chres-
�Christianity.
13
tianse,” from “ Chrestos,” good. They were Eclectics;
they held Plato in. the highest esteem, though they
scrupled not to add to his doctrines whatever they
thought conformable to reason in the tenets and opinions
of other philosophers. According to Thomas Burnet,
the Essenes were offshoots of the Brahmans and Bud
dhists, devoting themselves to the contemplation of the
transitoriness of human life.
At last we must mention the Samakttans, who were
the independent among the Jews. They considered Jews
and Heathens equal, if good and kind, and because of
this very cosmopolitan sentiment were held in abomina
tion by all the other Jewish sects, who most furiously
quarrelled both with the outer world and amongst them
selves.—-When the Jewish Scriptures became more gene
rally known through the Greek translation, the “ Septuagint ” there suddenly sprang into unparalleled activity—
Hebraism as the static, ’and Hellenism as the dynamic
force, working in Humanity, in History, and Religion.
Dogmatism and morals were so closely interwoven in
these Scriptures that the study of history became a
religious duty. The past was to be taken on faith ; the
assertions of the Hebrew writers were not to be doubted ;
everything was to be declared credible or incredible by
reference to some scriptural passage and inquiry, and
Scepticism was to be banished from the world. This
banishment aroused a mighty spirit of controversy; the
classic writers were looked upon as perverse liars, desti
tute of light, since they had not known the True God
who had revealed Himself exclusively to the Jews. An
infinite number of lying spirits were assumed to have
deluded Humanity. The glorious works of art, sculp
ture, architecture, poetry and philosophy of the numerous
nations of the Earth were suddenly decried as the out
growths of sin, inherited from Adam. The Greeks had
been taught by Satan; the Persians, Assyrians, and
Babylonians had been annihilated by the God of Israel
for their idolatry; the Indians were children of Beelzebub;
the Buddhists horrible Atheists. All the monuments
of antiquity became objectionable works, conceived in
pride by the fallen angels ; all the historical writings and
records of all nations were considered false and untrue,
�14
Christianity.
and the Jewish records placed above them as the only
true revealed Word of God who had forsaken and
abandoned all His other creatures, and held communica
tion exclusively with the Jews.
From that moment up to our own times, there has been
something wonderfully majestic in this terrible conflict
between Hebraism and Hellenism, keeping humanity in a
continuous exertion of its moral and intellectual forces ;
now devoting every thought to theology, then again pro
moting the loftiest inquiries of science, leading us to a
state in which morals and knowledge will no more be
considered as antagonistic, but completing elements of
man’s progressive development.
We have to deal with the beginning of the new historical phase of a spiritual life that took its origin in
the Eastern provinces of the Boman Empire.
False prophets and philosophical teachers abounded
everywhere. Greek mock philosophers discussed the most
abstruse spiritual problems in the market-places. Egyptian
priests of Osiris, Isis and Horus, divulged the unintel
ligible symbolisms of their ancient creed; and the Persian
worship of Mithras (meaning the Bedeemer or Inter
mediator) was revived with all its deep mysticism.
Numbers of Boman legal casuists engaged in searching
for lawsuits, discussed everything, whilst knowing very
little of anything. The Jewish sects, in spite of their
dissensions and mutual hatred, were all equally oppressed
and plundered by Herod the Great; superstition, ignor
ance, despair and credulity were the distinguishing fea
tures of the Boman world.
The East was crowded with dreamers, visionaries,
traders in charms, augurs, horoscopists, miracle-workers
(Thaumaturgi), soothsayers, cabalists and priests of an
infinite variety of gods and goddesses. All was spiritual
chaos, like that at the dawn of the Creation of the
material world, when Jesus oe Nazareth was Born.
We have very little reliable historical information con
cerning the life of “ Christ,” meaning the Anointed. So
much we do know, that we may make of Christ what we
please; we may comment upon His recorded teachings
exegetically or in any other form. We may altogether
deny the whole later Ecclesiastical structure, built upon
�Christianity.
15
His utterances. We may demonstrate that all that was
asserted of Him, was also believed of Melchisedech,
Krishna, Osiris, Buddha, Apollo or Mithras. We may
trace in Him and to Him all the legends of divine incar
nations through which man, having become conscious,
wished to find an explanation of his own low animal
desires, and the lofty intellectual longings of his mind,
thus working out divine models of human beings, or gods
in human form.
We may study the Gospels and their contradictory
views, and critically wade through the still more contra
dictory writings of the Bathers. We may show how
dogma after dogma was attributed to Christ, which He
neither enunciated nor ever could have thought of,
because, whatever contradictions may be recorded of Him,
there was no contradiction between His teachings, and
His own self-sacrificing life. We may prove how the
Councils of the Church changed the true doctrine of
Christ, misunderstanding it altogether; we may reject
the dictates of certain synods and accept others. We
may be Papists, Episcopalians or Methodists, Presby
terians or Ritualists, Lutherans or Quakers, Dissenters
or Shakers, Idealists or Realists, Believers or Free
thinkers ; we may quarrel and hate one another with the
same fervour as did the Jewish sects, and curse every one
who does not hold our own opinions as to the sensations
of the beatitude, the length of the wings of the angels
in heaven, or the horns of the devils in hell.
We may laugh at our petty controversialists who talk
of vestments and postures, candlesticks, crosses, rubrics,
grace, conscience, transubstantiation, real and unreal
presence, and the thousand and one unintelligible, anagogical, parabolical, allegorical and symbolic niceties and
difficulties, which may all be easily settled, if no one asks
questions, and if all men have faith, and do not use their
thinking and reasoning faculty, the brightest gift of the
Creator, under whatever name He be worshipped.
But we cannot deny the immense influence which
Christ’s teachings have exercised on the Western miud.
Let all the circumstances and details have been what they
may, historians must deal with Christ’s Spirit, as it pre
sents itself, as one of the greatest of historical phenomena.
�16
Christianity.
For though we may divest Christ of all the miracles,
rightly or falsely attributed to Him, we cannot divest
Him of one grand immortal fact, “ That he died for Love,
murdered by those whom He taught with a heart full of
universal love—that the whole of humanity was one great
brotherhood ; that every human being was to love his
neighbour as himself; that every human being was the
cherished child of one Father, who loved all His children
equally, and who was in heaven ! ” Had but this simple
doctrine of mutual and universal love been taught for the
last 1880 years with the same fervour as the mystiff
dogmas with which Christ’s teachings were perverted,
and which were each and all borrowed from Egyptian,
Assyrian, Persian, Indian and Homan religious systems,
the world would undoubtedly be more Christian, and
humanity would have saved millions of precious lives
which have been wasted on the propagation, not of
Christianity, but “ of prejudiced credulity, and priestly
tyranny.” We have, unfortunately, failed to learn to look
upon Christ as He is characterised in the following ancient
Arab legend:—“ A dog had stolen some meat from a Jewish
butcher’s shop; the dog was stoned, then hanged, then
thrown into the street, and the angry Jews formed a circle
round the dog, spat on him and cursed him; all at once a
mild and gentle voice was heard asking the enraged crowd,
whether they could find nothing worthy of admiration in
the poor dead animal; there was suddenly a deep silence,
and the speaker pointed to the beautiful pearly-white
teeth of the dog. The people grumbled, and it was
whispered among them that the speaker must be Jesus of
Nazareth, for He alone was capable of finding something
good even in a dead dog! ”
This is Chbistiajstity.
The Deity of the Jews was a stem, and revengeful
Despot; Christ’s Gfod was a loving Father. The beginning
of wisdom with the Jews was fear; with Christ, the
beginning of wisdom was love. With the Jews, God was
a God of wrath, persecution and slaughter ; with Christ,
a God of mercy, forgiveness, and boundless love.
The God of the Jews, who, like the inexorable Fate of
the Greeks, or the sanguinary monsters enthroned in the
Imperial purple of Home, punished the sins of the
�Christianity.
17
fathers unto the third and fourth generation, and de
manded holocausts of murdered sacrifices, was changed by
Christ into a God of infinite kindness, rejoicing over
one repentant sinner more than over ninety and nine
just persons. Christ’s doctrine in its primitive purity
was the ever true Law of Peace, Love and Tolerance,
satisfying Season, leading to Science, and to the Search
for Truth. These are the fundamental elements of Chris
tianity, towards which, freed of all dogmatic unintelligi
bilities, humanity is striving consciously or unconsciously,
in spite of the thousands of sects, and the numberless
commentators who have done their uttermost to destroy
the simplicity and universality of Christ’s teachings. But
Beason cannot be stifled by persecution ; Science cannot
be annihilated by superstition; and Truth cannot be
silenced by blind fanaticism. Christianity checked He
braism, fostered Hellenism, brought life into the Ancient
World, and established Humanism, the last possible phase
in the development of Humanity.
If we look for the principal historical causes of the
sudden spread of Christianity, we have :
1st. The extent of the Boman Empire, with two prin
cipal languages—Greek and Latin.
2nd. The scattering ofthe Jews and the Jewish Christians.
3rd. The general tendency to mysticism, fanaticism,
and symbolism, and the total absence of a correct know
ledge of the Laws of Nature.
4th. The immense number of freed men, slaves, and
beggars. To such people equality was preached; equality
before a God in whose eyes the living visible God on
earth—the Emperor was no more than the lowest beggar.
The poor grew proud, and condescended to admit the
rich into their now blessed community; and the rich,
terrified by the hungry and haggard looks of the people,
enervated by profligacy and licentiousness, were glad to
be made partakers of a future kingdom of bliss, since
they did not feel very safe on earth, and trembled equally
before the covetousness of the tyrants in power, and the
daily increasing number of homeless slaves.
5th. The decline of faith in the old gods of the
classical world, who were now proved to have been
mere idols of stone, or brass, as otherwise they could
�18
Christianity.
not have permitted humanity to sink to such a depth of
immorality as was reached under the Emperors, for men’s
lives had no value, justice was nowhere to be found.
6th. The sanguinary political and religious persecution
which the Emperors repeatedly ordered against the everincreasing Christians.
The Greeks and Romans were in general extremely
tolerant in religious matters. They had either a personal or
a political interest in persecuting some single individual,
and used the religious fanaticism of the mob as the means to
attain their special political or worldly object. They
never had priests in our sense of the word. The early
Christians began slowly to find favour at Court in conse
quence of their universalism. They proved that they did
not hold all the exclusive, national opinions of the Jews,
who would not recognise any other authority but that of
Javeh—they honestly referred to Christ’s command :
“ Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s ”—
and the new Religion was at last introduced at Court
under the Emperor Alexander Severus, whose mother,
Mammsea, was said to have been a true Christian. Decius
tried in vain to stamp out the Christians. Under
Gallienus they enjoyed peace ; and the last vain attempts
to abolish Christianity by means of sanguinary persecu
tions were made under the Emperor Diocletian. As is
invariably the case, cruelty only served the more to
develop the whole vitality of Christianity. At this
period certain causes were at work, which altogether
changed, if not the essence, at least the form of Chris
tianity. Some sudden disturbances occurred in the
provinces, situated between China aud the Caspian Sea,
which had been conquered about the first Century of
the Christian Era. “ It appears that, in consequence
of these convulsions, the Samanseans, disciples of Buddha,
(who probably lived about the time of the Israelitish
Kingdom of the Ten Tribes,) departed from their former
seat, the ancient Aria, and took refuge in the mountains
of Cashmere and Thibet.” Some of these disciples must
have also settled in the more western parts of Asia, and
must have come into contact with the then more and
more spreading Christians, who endeavoured with all the
�Christianity.
19
activity of their intellectual power to bring Christianity
into a system—a dogmatic system. In many of their
details, the tenets of Buddha bear the greatest resem
blance to certain superadded Christian dogmas; “Bor
the chief doctrine of the Sainansean Bonzes was, that
Buddha was of Royal descent, born of the Virgin Maja,
worthy of adoration as next in dignity to God whose
ninth incarnation he was, and that he would assume
at the end of all earthly things his tenth incarnation
as Kali, and appear on a white horse to judge the quick
and the dead.” The Samansean priesthood taught men
to prepare for this event, to lead a retired contemplative
life, to suffer persecution but never to persecute, humbly
to submit to any lay power, since this world was a mere
fleeting, transitory abode of misery and decay, prepara
tory to a higher spiritual life to be enjoyed in Eternity in
Nirvana, the unceasing contemplation of the Deity in
His eternal peace and glory. Christianity absorbed ail
these elements, but with the Christians, the endeavour to
spread this belief in the bliss of redemption became a
sacred duty, which they thought themselves justified in
performing by means of violence, inexorable cruelty, cruci
fixions, boilings and burnings, by fire and sword “Ad
majorem Dei gloriam.”
Here the striking difference between Buddhism and
Christianity becomes apparent. Buddhism is passive
contemplation ; Christianity is positive activity. The
one remained stationary, the other progressively developed
and is still developing. The one acquiesced in any form
so long as the worship of Buddha was the aim ; the other
devoted itself to an unparalleled spiritual activity, en
dowing Christianity with mystic meanings, allegorical
beauties, dressed in the. shreds of myths and fables, col
lected from all the religious systems of the ancient
world, adorned with Platonic dreams and visions, and
Aristotelian sophistries and dialectics. Intolerance and
fanaticism spread more and more; and delusion and
ignorance served to build up that glorious spiritual
Revolution which brought new life into the world.
Scarcely had Christ expired on the Cross when a host
of pious preachers and teachers inundated the world with
descriptions of the details of His private and public life.
�20
Christianity.
St. Luke informs us “ that many have taken in hand
to set forth those things which are most surely believed
among us.” There were about 146 independent sacred
writings, among which were 34 Gospels, 20 Epistles,
22 Acts, 5 Revelations, and 22 miscellaneous works ;
several books published under the name of James, and
books under the name of Peter. That these works existed,
is undeniable, for the various diverging and quarrellinosects of early Christianity were founded on the very
possession of these different sacred books. Letters were
forged, interpolations fabricated, omissions resorted to,
fictions invented, exaggerations propounded, miracles pro
claimed, and interpretations given, so that it is exceed
ingly difficult to gather any reliable facts. To prove how
far such deceptions went, we may point out that Gregory,
of Tours, in the sixth Century a.d., firmly believed that
he possessed the authenticated account of the miracles at
the death and resurrection of Christ in the very docu
ment which Pilate had sent to the Emperor Tiberius.
Lucian, in the latter half of the second Century after
the birth of Christ, bitterly complained that the Christians
were so reserved respecting their mysteries.
Tacitus, Pliny, and others could not understand why
morals and truth should be proclaimed by miracle
workers, magicians and necromancers, who began to
drive a very profitable trade. At first, Jewish and
Pagan priests had heaped opprobrious calumnies upon
the Christians on account of the simplicity of their
worship, esteeming them little better than Atheists,
because they had no temples, altars, sacrifices, priests nor
any of that external pomp in which the vulgar are so
prone to place the essence of religion. The rulers of the
Christians now adopted external, mystic ceremonies, and
suddenly the primitive simplicity which had characterised
the first followers of Christ was gone, and a multitude of
half-Jewish and half-Pagan enthusiasts, visionaries, theosophists, snake-charmers, and adepts abounded in the Chris
tian communities, and proclaimed themselves to be Ascetic,
self-denying, miracle-working Christians. Mysticism and
symbolism became the leading elements in Christianity.
The mysteries engendered sects, in accordance with the
various explanations given ro the meaning of the different
�Christianity.
21
symbols, allegories, types, prophesies, gospels, epistles, or
any vague traditions. Sects persecuted sects, each stig
matising their opponents as heretics. Every one of these
sects pretended to have received certain traditions from
the founder of Christianity Himself, or at least from
prophets, apostles, or pious men who had stood near to
Christ; yet subsequently, all their dogmas were declared
to have been heresies by later councils and synods.
The Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites, Alogians, Manichaeans, Novitians, Sabellians, Patripassians, and Arians,
&c., may be adduced to prove that Christianity was at first
broad-hearted and broad-minded, so long as it was not
yet fettered by the inexorable power of the State. Dog
matists were permitted to put forward new dogmas and
mysteries, but unfortunately Constantine, in the fourth
century a.d., adopted Christianity as a state religion, and
employed learned converted Talmudists and Sophists to
shape the simple tenets of Christ, and from that time down
to the Reformation everything received a theological basis,
and was looked upon from a one-sided religious point of
view. Gregory of Nazianzen says of this period ; “ the
learned diatribes of Stoics, Platonists, Aristotelians, and
even the teachings of the most important Fathers were
silenced, and every “shop-boy” preached and talked on
the Trinity in Unity of God the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, or on the “ Hypostasis,” meaning the subor
dinate substances of the Trinity. The City of Constan
tinople was full of working men and slaves who were
profound theologians, and preached in their workshops
and in the streets. If you wanted of anyone change for
a silver coin, he informed you of the distinction between
Father and Son; if you asked for the price of a loaf of
bread, you were lectured on the inferiority of the Son to
the Father; and if you asked whether the bread were
baked, the rejoinder was that the Son had been created
out of nothing.”
It was in vain that Justin Martyr, one of the most
zealous defenders of Christianity, proved with trenchant
conviction that Christ was the Logos, or “ Universal
Reason,” of which mankind were all partakers: and,
therefore, those who lived according to the Logos or
Reason, were Christians, notwithstanding that they
�22
Christianity.
might pass for Atheists. Such among the Greeks were
Sokrates and Herakleitos, and the like; and such among
the Barbarians were Abraham and Ananias, and many
others. So on the other hand, those who had lived in
former times in defiance of the Logos or Reason were
evil, and enemies to Christ, and murderers of such as
lived according to the Logos or Beason; but those who
made or make the Logos or Reason the rule of their
actions, were and are “ Christians, and men without fear
and trembling.”
It is deeply to be regretted that Christ’s teachings
were deprived of their charming simplicity. But it could
not be otherwise. By the daily increasing number of
theological Sophists, Greek and Roman Dialecticians,
converted Talmudists and Cabalists, who made it their
duty to obscure every intelligible passage in the Old and
New Testaments; to find types where there were none;
to take allegories and metaphors to the letter; and to
transform into deep symbols what had been the literal
record of some every-day occurrence. Man was to be
forced into the narrow Procrustean bed of Dogmatism,
and to know nothing but incomprehensible mysteries.
Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy raised their spiteful and
venomous heads, aud spread like dragons the fire of
destructive disunion throughout the world. Councils
and Synods denounced and persecuted, excommunicated
and succeeded in bringing about a dead silence in the
realm of thought, or submissive professions of the pre
scribed religious formulae.
In the sixth century after Christ the Church, with the
aid of the lay power, at last was enabled to stamp out
by fire and sword all the so-called Heretics, and the
Bathers, Apologists, and the Church dignitaries began to
rule supreme. The writings of the Bathers are the only
important literary products of these times which throw a
considerable light on the gradual development of Chris
tianity from the second to the twelfth century a.d.
The Bathers, like the ancient Patricians of Pagan
Rome, were divided into two classes. Those from the
second to the sixth century a.d. were the “ Patres majorum gentiumwhilst those from the seventh to the
twelfth century A.D. were the “Patres minorum gentium.”
�Christianity.
23
During the mediseval period of history the priests of the
Romish Church, occupying themselves with writing on or
discussing theology, were called “ Scholastics,” and only
since the Reformation the Clergy treating religious mat
ters philosophically or ethically, assumed the title of
“ Theologians” (Scientists of God). We cannot fail to
perceive that the struggle between faith or religion, and
reason or science was the vital force that made it possible
for Christians to progress, morally as well as intellec
tually.
The principal tendency of the most learned and most
honest theologians of our day (like Dean Stanley, Prin
cipals Tulloch and Caird,—Stopford Brooke and many
others) is to restore to Christianity that universal spirit
of tolerance which will make culture and true civilisation
a common good, not dependent on rubrics, eastern postures,
vestments, or articles, but on a correct understanding of
our nature, humanising even the bigoted middle classes;
purifying society and making it a general philanthropic
brotherhood, turning capital into a blessing instead of a
curse ; and endowing our dogmatic and arbitrary educa
tional institutions with one analogous system, fitted to
bring out all our higher reasoning faculties. Thus the
pure spirit of true Christianity will once more sway our
hearts and vivify our lifeless and cold, yet eternally
quarrelling, denominational sects. Science and art will
work together, spiritualising our higher nature, foster
ing Hellenic-Teuton culture instead of Romano-Hebrew
narrow-mindedness, leading us to a universal bodily
and mental happiness, and establishing a practical—not
clerical—“ Millenium.”
We shall endeavour in future lectures to trace how the
historical development of Christianity commenced in a
controversial thunderstorm, fierce, terrible and destructive
at first; followed by a gloomy calm, silent, deadening
and oisZrucZwe; and at last arousing science, purifying
our moral and intellectual atmosphere, spreading the
broad daylight of culture in union with morals, enabling
humanity to be free, good, and truly constructive.
�The Society’s Lectures by Dr. Zerffi, which have been printed, are—
On “Natural Phenomena and their Influence on different Religious
Systems.”
On “The Vedas and the Zend-Avesta: the first Dawn of Religious Con
sciousness in Humanity.”
On “The Origin aud the Abstract and Concrete Nature of the Devil.”
On “ Dreams and Ghosts.”
On “ Ethics and ^Esthetics.”
The above are out of print.
On “ The Spontaneous Dissolution of Ancient Creeds.”
On “ Dogma and Science.”
On “ The Eastern Question; from a Religious and Social point of view.”
On “Jesuitism: and the Priest in Absolution.”
On “ Pre-Adamites; or, Prejudice and Science.”
On “ Long and Short Chronologists; or Egypt from a Religious, Social,
and Historical point of view.”
All price 3d., or post-free 3|d.
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
To provide for the delivery on Sundays in the Metropolis, and to
encourage the delivery elsewhere, of Lectures on Science,—
physical, intellectual, and moral,—History, Literature, and Art;
especially in their bearing upon the improvement and social well
being of mankind.
THE SOCIETY’S LECTURES
are delivered at
ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLAGE,
On SUNT)A Y Afternoons, at FO UR o’clock precisely.
(Annually—from November to May.)
Twenty-four Lectures (in three series), ending 24th April, 1881,
will be given.
Members’ £1 subscription entitles them to an annual ticket, trans
ferable (and admitting to the reserved seats), and to eight single
reserved seat tickets, available for any lecture.
Tickets for each series (one for each lecture) as below,—
To the Shilling Reserved Seats—5s. 6d.
To the Sixpenny Seats—2s., being at the rate of Threepence each
lecture.
For tickets, and the printed Lectures, and for list of all the Lectures
published by the Society, apply (by letter) to the Hon. Treasurer,
Wm. Henry Domville, Esq., 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park, W.
Payment at the door:—One Penny;—Sixpence;—and (Reserved
Seats) One Shilling.
Kenny & Co., Printers, 25, Camden Road, London, N.W.
�
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: the origin of Christianity from a strictly historical point of view, being a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, on Sunday, 21st November, 1880
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Zerffi, G. G. (Gustavus George)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of Publication: London
Collation: 23, [1] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: List of the Society's lectures on unnumbered page at the end. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed at the Industrial Press Works, Greek Street, Soho, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Sunday Lecture Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT89
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: The origin of Christianity from a strictly historical point of view), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Christianity
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1aa776e91d181f322afaa931e82becb5.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=coJlwFhxnTCvQqlpbocl7QMuItY3K0Op5J0SiVIihCb8TF7Is%7EtsesqttlfqM4t3QshYQh0MSI0VhnvXbsgKY1tP6UqjSy00Z6bpuTfMPH-G4JjpY%7Eg2AKiU8TGDG99MfHAtoc6rV0xaHZvs%7EbJJAqsnzRkePELDQOeJhWhlpXUDry12UwufJjSksYm%7EnKqJcsc2deYOmen9eNqhYUP-dyuyM5%7El79o4CP3AVhTV7bdFVeM4QaNDpLEMJRY8QZzcay%7EL9SaV-T-wB48jVkqIQI8XlRhFq6fa3EttEMmuOrwdFeuVYhjcMakqyvPiKIRs8qP1ZC9NC%7EAnoXqKcoG6pg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b37593f1fe6cfc4dc31cf74589f2a15f
PDF Text
Text
LE
CLERGE BELGE
EN 4881
D’APRES LES DEPOSITIONS FAITES SOUS LA FOI DU SERMENT
DANS L’ENQUETE PARLEMENTAIRE
DISCOURS
PRONONCE A LA CHAMBRE DES REPRESENTANTS DANS LA SEANCE DU 22FEVRIER
PAR
le comte GOBLET D’ALVIELLA
BRUXELLES
M. WEISSENBRUCH, IMPRIMEUR-EDITEUR
45, RUE DU POINCON, 45
1881
��d’apres les depositions f aites sous la foi du serment
DANS L’ENQUETE PARLEMENTAIRE
DISCOURS
PRONONCE A LA CHAMBRE DES BEPRESENTANTS DANS LA SEANCE DU 22 FEVRIER 1881
par le comte GOBLET D’ALVIELLA
Discussion du budget de la Justice pour Vexercice 1881
{chapitre des cudtesj
■ M. Goblet d'Alviella.-—Messieurs, je regrette et jem’applaudis a la
fois de devoir prendre la parole apres l’honorable membre qui vient de
se rasseoir. Je le regrette, car la sympathie et l’estime qui entourent la
parsonnalite de l’honorable chanoine de Haerne m’embarrassent un peu
dans les accusations que j’ai a diriger contre le corps dent il porte la
robe et dont il a pris la defense dans son discours. Mais, d’autre part,
,le tableau qu’il nous a tracb du clergd, tableau que justifie et sa propre
personne et peut-etre aussi ses souvenirs de 1830, ce tableau de ce que
devrait etre ou de ce qu’a ete le clergh beige est de nature d mieux
faire sentir le, contraste de la description que j’ai d vous en faire aujOUrd’hui.
�Je ne suivrai pas l’honorable membre dans tous les ddveloppements
par lesquels il s’est efforcd de prouver que les traitements du clergd
catholique etaient une simple indemnity, Equivalent des revenus eccldsiastiques supprim6s en 1790. Je congois qu’on considere le traitement
du clergy comme une indemnity si l’on reconnait a l’Eglise catholique
le caractere de socidt6 perpetuelle et autonome, existant par elle-meme
en presence de l’Etat. Mais pour nous autres qui nous inspirons du droit
moderne, du droit constitutionnel, qui ne voyons en presence de l’Etat
que des ministres du culte, et non une dglise ou meme des 6glises, nous
devons declarer, comme l’honorable M. Thonissen l’a lui-meme quelque
peu reconnu dans son rapport, que le clerg6 catholique comme les autres
clergds, doit etre rdmun^rd en proportion du service social qu’il rend.
Or, comment mesurerons-nous Etendue de ce service social? Il y a deux
elements A prendre en consideration A cet dgard: — d’abord le nombro
des fideles que l'e clerge est appele A desservir, — ensuite la convenance
avec laquelle il remplit sa mission religieuse.
C’est l’Etat qui paye les ministres du culte; l’Etat a done le droit
d’apprecier leurs services dans les limites de son droit constitutionnel.
En thdorie, beaucoup de gens pensent, et je suis de ce nombre, qu’il
ne faudrait r^mundrer aucune espece de clerge; mais je suis le premiei’ & reeonnaitre que la Constitution de 1830 nous oblige & rdmund»
rer le clergd proportionnellement aux services qu’il rend.
Pour apprdcier ces services, je compte done m’appuyer sur des docu»
ments officiels, sur des depositions faites sous la foi du serment, sur
les aveux du clerge lui-meme, en un mot sur toutes les revelations de
l’enquete scolaire.
Cette enquete ne fait que commencer. Elie ne s’est portee que sur
certains cantons, et cependant le jour qu’elle jette sur les paroles et les
actes du clerge me semble pleinement suffisant pour justifier les amendements que nous avons eu 1’honneur de proposer au budget des cultes.
J’avais commence a relever, dans ces depositions, toutes les attaques,
toutes l,es insinuations, toutes les calomnies que, d’apres certains temoignages, des ministres du culte, dans la plupart des paroisses, auraient
dirigees non pas seulement contre les liberaux, contre les institutcurs,
contre les peres de famille qui envoient leurs enfants aux ccoles communales, mais encore contre toutes les autorites qui, d’une fagon quelconque, cooperent A l’ex6cution de la loi scolaire : depuis les adminis
trations des moindres villages jusqu’aux Chambres, aux ministres, au
Roi lui-meme, dont la personne n’a pas toujours dte respectee dans cette
triste campagne. Mais, au bout de quelques pages, je dois dire que,
devant l’abondance et surtout la qualite des materiaux, la plume m’est
tomb^e des mains de ddgout autant que de lassitude.
�— 3 —
■* . Je laisserai done le soin de poursuivre ces recherches A ceux qui
- veulent voir par eux-memes comment la majority de notre clergb professe l’amour du prochain et le respect de l’autoritb. Je me bornerai
pour le moment h montrer combien se sont trompbs les membres de la
droitequi, avec une parfaite bonne foi.je le veuxbien, —dans une excellente intention, je le veux bien encore, — mais induits en erreur par des
renseignements incomplets, et peut-etre sous l’empire de ces illusions
que favorise l’esprit de parti, sont venus prbtendro que les sacrements
btaient partout accordbs aux enfants des bcoles communales et h leurs
parents, ou du moins que le refus des sacrements A ces deux categories
btait la rare exception.
Je ne pense pas qu’apres avoir jetb les yeux sur les documents de l’en»
quote parlementaire, on puisse encore soutenir que ces refus soient l’exception, car ils constituent au contraire la regie presque invariable; c’est
l’octroi des sacrements qui est l’exception, la rare exception.
Commengons par les enfants.
Non seulement nous voyons les sacrements refuses aux Aleves des
-- deoles communales qui ont dbj^, fait leur premiere communion, mais
encore aux bleves des bcoles d’adultes et des bcoles dominicales, ou la
religion n’est pas et n’a pas btb enseignbe.
Quant h la premiere communion, on ne l’a pas refusbe directement,
mais on a tout fait pour arriver au meme but, soit en refusant de donner
l’enseignement du catbchisme aux enfants des ecoles communales, soit
en donnant cet enseignement exclusivement dans le local des bcoles
litres, soit meme en le donnant dans leglise aux heures qui contra, riaient le plus le programme de l’enseignement communal.
On vous a dbjh retracb le tableau de toutes les avanies que les min-rstres du culte prodiguent aux enfants des bcoles communales, depuis la
simple injure jusqu’aux sbvices dont les tribunaux ont du s’occuper.
Ainsi que l’honorable M. Bara l'avait dbjh affirme, l’an dernier, dans la
discussion du budget de la justice, on a vu, dans plus d’une locality, les
dlbves des bcoles communales arrachbs de leur banc au catbchisme et
forcbs de s’agenouiller sur les dalles nues, ou encore consignbs h la
porte de l’bglise et exposes A toutes les intempbries, uniquement pour
atteindre leurs parents qui les maintenaient aux bcoles offlcielles ou
peut-etre pour les dbgouter de cette frbquentation I
Ce n’est pas tout. Le clergb a trouvb un moyen plus radical encore
; d’empecher les enfants des bcoles communales de faire leur premiere
communion : il a tout simplement supprimb la premiere communion de
1’annbe derniere. C’est ce qui s’est passb a Gedinne, a Malvoisin, h
Patignies, a Fescheux, & Bolinne, — car c’est ainsi que l’Eglise applique
'
s
�ddsormais la belle parole du Christ : « Laissez venir & moi les petits
enfants. »
Quant aux parents, on a refuse l’absolution, non seulement aux peres
et aux meres des sieves, mais encore — comme & Couvin et & Focant —
aux grands-peres et aux grand’meres, aux oncles et aux tantes.
A Louette-Saint-Denis, le secretaire communal depose qu’il a ete
excommunie parce qu’ayant un enfant de 4 ans, il n’a pas voulu s’engager & le mettre a lecole catholique, le jour ou il aurait atteint lage
d’ecole, si alors l'ecole catholique existait encore.
A Fagnolles, le bourgmestre a ete excommunie avecsa femme, parce
qu’il gardait chez lui le fils d’un ami et que ce jeune homme frequentait
l’ecole communale.
A Pondrome, on a etendu le refus des sacrements a ceux qui frequentaient les families dont les enfants suivaient l’hcole communale.
A Doel, on a excommunie un douanier parce qu’il recevait de 1’instituteur des repetitions de grammaire et d’arithmetique.
M. J.-B. Nothomb a hcrit un jour qu’il n’y avait pas plus de rapport
entre l’Etat et la religion qu’entre l’Etat et la geomdtrie. Il me semble
cependant que le clerge trouve aujourd’hui certains rapports entre
l’arithmetique et la religion.
Je ne parlerai pas de la commune de Seloignes, oule cure excommuniaitle conseil communal jusqu’kla quatrieme generation, parce qu’il
s'etait avise de nommer une institutrice laique qui lui dhplaisait. Le
fait se passait sous l’ancienne loi scolaire, bien qu’il ait ete seulement
revele dans la presente enquete.
Mais dans d’autres localites, notamment A Oisy, on est alle jusqu’A
menacer les parents qui enverraient des enfants aux ecoles communales
de ne plus baptiser leurs nouveau-nhs. Il semble que ce soit la une
menace en Fair, devant la doctrine formelie de l’Eglise romaine en
matiere de bapteme.
Il y a cependant un pretre qui a accompli & peu pres ce veritable tour
de force, c’est le cure d’Oordeghem, dans le canton d’Alost.
M. Van Wambeke. — Dans le canton d’Alost?
M. Goblet d’Alviella. — Oui, monsieur Van Wambeke, dans votrc
arrondissement. Un sieur Van Impe avait ses enfants a l’ecole commu
nale. Comme il venait deluiarriver un dixieme enfant, on avait projeth
de celebrer le bapteme avec une certaine solennite. Le Roi avait envoyb
une gratification et deux personnes notables de la commune etaient
designees pour parrain et marraine.
•» La veille du bapteme, depose le docteur Dooreman, le cure accom-
�^pagn6 du sacristain vint chez Van Impe et demanda & voir l’enfant. On
le lui presenta; il tira de sa poche une petite dole pleine d’eau. La mere
. pensait qu’il voulait settlement assurer l’enfant; mais quand le lendemairi Van Impe alia demander a quelle lieure le bap terne aurait
lieu, le curt lui repondit : Ge n’est pas nhcessaire; l’enfant est dhjd
baptist. »
5 Le tour estjoli. Vous voyez que j’avais raison de le qualifier de tour
de force, ear c’est un veritable escamotage de bapteme.
Malheureusement, Messieurs, les pratiques du clergd ne sont pas toujours aussi inofiensives. Certes, il a le droit de refuser les sacrements
quand il lui plait, en toutes circonstances. Mais je ne maintiens pas
moins, en me plagant, sinon au point de vue religieux, du moins au
point de vue de l’humanith, que des refus de sacrements se sont produits
dans des circonstances ou ils constituent de vhritables actes de rtvoltante cruaute.
Jeveux parler du refus de sacrement a des agonisants, parce que leurs
enfants frtquentaient l’bcole publique. Ces cas sont si nombreux que je
dois renoncer & les citer (1).
Je ne puis cependant ne pas citer ici la-deposition du bourgmestre de
Fagnolles.
Ecoutez cette deposition :
- « La femme Mouchette, etant au lit de mort, a fait appeler le cure.
- Le cure lui a dit -. Promettez-moi de mettre vos enfants d l’ecole catholique, ou pas de sacrements! La femme, qui avait encore de l’energie,
. a dit non. Il est revenu ala charge et a cssuyc le meme refus. Enfin,
une troisieme fois, il est revenu; la femme htait affaissde et sans force.
Il lui a demande la meme promesse, l’a obtenue et lui a donne l’absolution. La femme est morte une heure apres. Je tiens le fait du mari luimeme, La seconde fois que le curt s’est presente, la femme m’a demands
si elle serait enterrte en terre sainte si elle mourait sans sacrement. Je
lui ai promis que oui, dussc-je pour cela briser la porte du cimetiere. »
Dans bien des cas, il est aish de comprendre que ces actes de cruaute
aggravent l’htat des malades, si meme ils ne hatent leur fin. Ce sont les
mddecins meme qui en dhposent. M. le docteur Fhrier, de Florenville,
cite h lui seul plusieurs faits de ce genre dans sa clientele :
« J’ai 6th appelh un jour, d’urgence, chez Stevenot, Auguste, martchalferrant & Sainte-Cecile. J’ai trouve la. maison investie par beaucoup
de personnes. Le malade avait l’air tout dgart. Les assistants htaient
(1) Rien que dans le 1" fascicule des documents, 4 Bohan p. 4, it Louette-SaintPierrep. 135, a Olloy p. 223, a Virton p. 533, a Florenville p. 631, it Beauraing. p.399,
Si Heyst p. 466, & Oostcamp p. 557, etc., etc.
�6
effrayds et ils m’ont dit que le curd avait arrache du malade k promesse
de retirer ses enfants de l’dcole communale en le menagant dune inert
tres rapide. Il devait, disait-il, mourir dans les quatre heures. Le malade
dtait en proie & une fievre violente, il dtait dans le ddlire et incapable de
prendre une resolution rdfldchie.
« Des scenes de ce genre faites aupres des malades sont regrettables
au point de vue medical. Je dirai, notamment, A ce propos, qu’une scene
analogue s’est passde chez l’institutrice de Chassepierre, M1Ie Dumont,
dont j’dtais le mddecin. Celle-ci dtait atteinte dune maladie mortelle, et
■ cette scene a exerce sur l’dtat de sa santd une influence ddfavorable. Ells
me l’a dit, du reste, spontandment. Le curd se promenait dans la
cbambre, frappant la table de son tricorne, lui disant qu’elle serait
enterrde dans le trou aux chiens, en un mot, il lui avait fait une seen©
de violence qui lui avait fait du mal. »
Avant d’abandonner ce sujet des refus de sacrement, je veux repro, duire une derniere ddposition ; celle-ci se passe de commentaires, car les
faits qu’elle rdvele parlent assez haut a quiconque conserve dans l’ame
quelque sentiment d’humanite et de justice.
Je ne connais pas dans l’enquete tout entiere de fait plus navrant et
plus profonddment ddplorable.
Il s’agit d’une pauvre vieille femme de 67 ans, menagere a Habay-kVieille; elle raconte comment le curd n’avait pas voulu confesser sa fill©
mourante, parce que celle-ci avait des enfants a l’dcole communale.
« La pauvre femme, disait-elle en parlant de la mourante, jgfa.it
- ' presque a bout, elle et moi. Chaque fois que la porte s’ouvrait, elle
crayait que c’etaitM. le curd. Aminuit, comme j’dtais tres fatigude, elk
me dit : « Allez vous coucher, maman. M. le curd viendra domain. ■»
J’dtais tres tourmentde. Je me suis rdveillee et je l’ai trouvee morte. J’ai
dtd saisie d’une telle douleur en la voyant ainsi morte sans confession,
que je suis tombde sans connaissance. Je suis restee dans cet dtat pen
dant une heure et a la suite de ce triste dvdnement, je suis tombde
malade. J’ai eu une hydropisie des mains que j’attribue au saisissement
qui s’est empard de moi. — Au ddbut de sa ddposition, ajoute le proeds*
verbal, le tdmoin est en proie A une grande emotion et pleure. Il dit en
terminant : Depuis cette dpoque, je ne suis plus la meme personne, je.
pense toujours d ma pauvre fllie qui est partie sans confession. J’ai
dit encore au curd : Le bon Dieu vous tiendra, vous serrera et vous
- jugera. »
Encore le refus des sacrements n’est-il qu’un des nombreux moyens
employ ds par le clerge.
Ld, ou le pere de famille se rit de l’excommunication, on s’adresse d la
mere, & la femme, qui subit plus aisdment l’influence du pretre, et pour
�arriver a ses fins, le clergd n’hSsitera pas A. jatei’ sciemment la discorde
dans les manages.
Rien que dans les quatre premiers cantons visiles par la commission
d’enqucte scolaire, je trouve ce fait rdpdtd dans vingt-cinq temoignages
rdparte dans presque toutes les communes (1).
« Il est b, ma connaissance et A la connaissance de tout le village, dit
notatanent le bourgmestre de Gros-Fays, que le curd a dtd jusqu’a de
clarer en chaire que le devoir des femmes, dont les maris seraient
rebelles a ses conseils, dtait de rdsister & leurs maris, et au besoin de les
ab&ndonner. »
D’apres M. Julien Adam, A Naomd, le curd aurait dit en chaire -. “ Et
vous, meres de famille, il faut tourmenter vos maris jusqu’A ce que vous
soyez mattresses de vos enfants, vos obsessions dussent-elles meme amener de l’humeur dans le mdnage. »
Le curd d’Eghezde, d’apres la conversation que reproduit l’dpouse
Dohet, lui aurait dit de tourmenter son mari “ jusqud pendant la nuit »
pour le determiner A retirer ses enfants de l’dcole communale.
Toutes ces ddpositions sont terriblement uniformes et c’est le cas de
dire qu’on y a l’embarras du choix ■ en voici cependant une derniere qu’il
est bon de relever :
A Fraipont, la dame Octavie Dupont raconte une ddmarche analogue
du curd. « Il m’a dit que si je voulais, je parviendrais bien & tourner mon
mari, que je n’avais qua revenir souvent A la charge. Je lui ai reprdsentd
quejene voulais pas, moi, faire mauvais mdnage. Il rdpondait que cela
ne faisait rien, qu’il fallait seulement A tout prix le tourner. Il disait qu’il
valait mieux que je misse mes enfants a l’dcole catholique et que je
laissasse mon mari boire une piece ou deux de cinq francs au cabaret;
quesije faisais cela, il se laisserait bien determiner A mettre 1’enfantA
1 ecole catholique. »
M. Bouvier. — Quelle belle morale 1
v M. Goblet d Alviella. — D’autant plus belle, — pour confirmer
1 interruption de l’honorable M. Bouvier, — qu’A cet dgard, j’ai dtd tres
surpris de lire bier, dans un des derniers numdros d’un journal que
MM. les dveques ne desavouent certainement pas, la phrase suivante -.
“ Nous, catholiques, — dit le Courrier de Bruxelles a propos de l’admission des femmes dans le service tdldgraphique — enfants de cette
civilisation que 1 Eglise a fondde et que nous voulons ddfendre, nous
avens du mariage une idde tout autre que celle dont le libdralisme se
372
iOO13^’ 42’ r6'
7°’ 71' 7?’ 98, 102,105, 126, 137, 231, 257, 2731 2'9’285’ 337 ’
�plait A nous faire un grossier Ctalage. Nous croyons que l’acte sacramentel est le point de depart terrestre dune union sainte qui doitse
- continuer dans le ciel; nous voyons dans l’Cpoux la tete de l’Cpouse,
- caput mulieris, comme dit saint Paul ; et nous croyons avec l’apotre
que, dans le respect et 1 amour, 1 Spouse doit etre soumise A l’Cpoux
comme l’Eglise est soumise au Christ: s/cut Ecclesia subjecta est Christo,
ita et mulieris viris suis in omnibus. *
Il parait, Messieurs, que le clerge de nos provinces tient pour les
idees de l'honorable M. Pirmez contre celles de l’honorable M. Nothomb
et du Courrier de Bruxelles. Pour ma part, j’en fhliciterais volontiers
notre clergd catholique, sije ne savais encore qu’il y a la une simple
. application de la morale constamment enseignCe par les jesuites, qu’un
mari, qu’un pere de famille perd tous ses droits lorsqu’il dbsobeit A
l’Eglise.
Il arrive, heureusement, que dans la plupart des cas ces incitations
odieuses viennent se heurter contre l’affecti on conjugate et le bon sens
des meres de famille. Alors, puisque peres et meres Cchappent A l’influence de l’Eglise, on s’adresse, en dhsespoir de cause, aux enfinte
eux-memes pour leur enseigner qu’ils doivent obhir a l’Eglise want
d’obdir & leurs parents. Tel est, ici encore, le langage foimel qti’on
voit prefer au clerge dans la grande majorite des communes1. Permettez-moi d’en relever quelques exemples pris dans la masse.
“ Dans un catechisme qui a eu lieu il y a peu de temps, peut-etre
deux mois,—dit M. Ch. Francois, a Olloy,—le curd a recommandC aux
enfants de pleurer pour decider les parents a les envoyer a l’bcole catholique. Il leur disait qu’& Dinant et & Namur, il y avait des enfants
qui avaient fait la meme chose et dont les parents avaient fini par
cCder. »
“ A Rienne, — d’apres M. Brichet — le curb a notamment recoinmandh, en plein catCchisme, aux enfants qui l’Ccoutaient, de se laisser
battre, tuer s’il le fallait, plutot que de se laisser placer dans les Ceoles
officielles, disant qu’ainsi ils seraient agrhables & Dieu. »
Encore une deposition sur ce sujet; c’est celle de M. Dropsy, institateur it Meirx-le-Chateau :
“ Le curb leur a dit qu’ils devaient desobeir it leurs parents et fail's
I’ecole buissonniere plutot que d’aller a l’Ccole communale. Les Cleves
me l’ont ddclarh. A un autre enfant, le curb a dit : Ne pretez pas atten
tion aux lemons de votre maitre, ce sera un pretexte pour lui de vows’
renvoyer de la classe. A une autre, il a dit qu’eZ/e pouvait dtsobdir & son
pere, parce que celui-ci etait remarid cwilement en secondes noces. »
(1) Pages 11, 19, 38, 42, 06, 70, 93, 110, 129, 222,229, 208, 278, 282, 290, 295, 413 (1« fascile>.
�.
y
■
— 9 — -
Quelles belles applications du commandement du Ddcalogue:«Honore
ton pere et ta mere. »
Je sals bien ce qu’on object®, ce qu’on a objects a toutes ces deposi
tions. Malgrd la golennitd du serment sous la foi duquel elles sont pro-duitesrm^g’rt leur universality et leur concordance, malgrd la naivetd
m&nie qui en dtablit la sincbritd, nos adversaires ne manquent pas de
pi’Otendre que ce sont autant de calomnies, de parjures, d’inventions
liberates, diaboliques. Mais que peuvent-ils dire, lorsqu’il s’agit des aveux
du clergy lui-meme ou tout au moins des dypositions de certains
pretres qui, tout en se dyfendant d’avoir intentionnellement prechd la
dOsobdissance et la discorde, laissent cependant dchapper des aveux
oft la verity delate tout entiere pour quiconque se rend compte de la
situation?
Le cury de Musson est accusd dans plusieurs ddpositions d’avoir dit
aux enfants que, si les parents voulaient les envoyer a l’dcole communale, ils devaient formellement leur ddsobdir, et d’avoti ddclard aux
femmes que, si leurs maris voulaient envoyer leurs enfants a l’dcole
, coinmunale, il y avait la un cas de sdparation :
• Je nie, ddpose le curd, avoir dit que les enfants pouvaient manquer
; au respect d. leurs parents. J’ai dit, au contraire, qu’ils leur devaient le
respect, meme lorsqu’ils leur commandaient quelque chose de contraire
& la loi de l’Eglise, mais pas I’obeissance. — Je nie avoir dit que si le
marl, contrairement a la volontd de sa femme, mettait son enfant dans
nn© dcole communale, il y aurait lieu de se sdparer de son mari. Mais
j’ai citd ce texte de l’Evangile : Celui qui ne hait pas son pere, ou sa
mere, ou son enfant, ou son epouse, a cause de moi, n’est pas digne de
moi. »
Voito, certes, des distinguo que ne ddsavoueraient pas les casuistes
citds dans les Provinciates.
D’apres M. J.-B. Lemaire, de Rulles, le curd de cette commune disait
.aux meres de famille « de se dresser comme des lionnes contre leurs
maria, plutot que de leur laisser envoyer leurs enfants dans les dcoles
communales » ; il ajoutait « qu’elles devaient se battre, s’il le fallait », et
d'apres un autre tdmoin, Hippolyte Hubert, il disait « que les enfants qui
dtaient envoyds par leurs parents aux dcoles communales avaient le droit
dene plus leur obdir ». — “ J’ai dit, ddpose le curd deRulles, qu’il valait
mieux obdir h Dieu qu’aux hommes, et cela a propos de la loi sur les
denies et tfes enfants que leurs parents envoient dans les ecoles commitnales. J’ai dit que les femmes devaient faire le possible et meme I’impossible pour amener leur mari a mettre leurs enfants dans les dcoles
catfaoliques. »
Ln wry de Hachy dtait accusd, entre autres extravagances, d’avoir
�— 40
dit qu’h partir de l’age de distinction, c’est-h-dire de lage de sept ans,
un enfant ne devait plus obdir & ses parents, lorsqu’ils refusaient de l’envoyer a l’dcole catholique. « J’ai prechd, dit-il, que les enfants arrivds A
Page de distinction doivent savoir ce qu’ils font, et que si leurs parents
leur commandent une chose contraire a leur conscience, a la loi de
Dieu et de l’Eglise, ils ne clowent pas obeir. »
C’est le meme pretre qui, accusd par plusieurs tdmoins d’avoir dit que,
sile Roi signait la loi du ler juillet 1879, il serait un homme de paille
(brodjong), reconnait avoir prechd que, « si le Roi voulait agir en bon
catholique, en homme religieux, il devrait donner sa demission plutbt
que de signer la loi sur l’enseignement primaire ».
En rdalitd, c’est toujours le systeme du Syllabus, admirablement
rdsumd, d'ailleurs, dans cette meme enquete, par le curd Werrebrouck,
de Zedelghem. « Le tdmoin, constate le proces-verbal, ne croit pas avoir
dit que les seules lois a observer etaient les lois des dveques; mais, si
cela en venait la, je dirais que, si les lois humaines dtaient en opposition
avec les lois de l’Eglise, les lois de l’Eglise sont seules obligatoires.
« Chaque fois, depose, de son co th, le curd de Leuze-Longchamp, chaque .
fois que la loi de l’Eglise sera en contradiction avec la loi civile, je ddsobdirai h la loi civile. *
Ce sont la de veritables apologies du droit h l’insurrection sur lesquelles il est bon de greffer le commentaire du curd de Virginal: « J’ai
dit que c’dtait un moindre mal de tuer un homme que de voter pour
un liberal, parce que le libdralisme est une hdrdsie. »
Que prouvent toutes ces declarations, dont l’origine n’est pas suspects I
Elies prouvent une fois de plus que pour ces membres du clergd catho
lique il n’existe hors de l’Eglise ni dquite, ni justice, ni morale, ni loismeme. Et notez que je n’ai relevd ici que les imputations dont le clergd
reconnait lui-meme le fondement; et je n’ai pas parld des faits extremament graves qui, a diverses reprises, ont dtd alldguds contre des mem
bres du clergd, mais qui ne sont mentionnds que dans des depositions
isoIdes.
Les accusations que j’ai produites suffisent, du reste, pour faire de
cette enquete — au sujet de laquelle nous devons tdmoigner notre
reconnaissance d, l’honorable M. Malou, qui 1’a rdclamde le premier —
Pacte d’accusation le plus formidable qui ait jamais dtd formuld contre
le clergd salarid d’un pays lib re.
Et quelles sont les consdquences de cette monstrueuse croisade contre
nos institutions scolaires ? L’enquete nenous les rdvele que trop. Il n’est
plus une commune ou la vie privde et la vie publique ne soient profonddment troubldes. Le clergd a souffld la ddsobdissance dans l’ame des
enfants.
�— 11 —
Li ou les parents imposent leur volonth, les enfants suivent le consell de ceux qu’on leur a imprudemment representes comme les interpretes de Dieu sur la terre, ils pleurent, se regimbent, negligent leurs
devoirs, font l’eeole buissonniere, travaillent A se faire chasser de l’dcole,
bombent malades sous l’empire de la surexcitation qu’on a rdussi A leur
inspirer, et on voit desjeunes filles de dix-sept ans s’enfuir nuitamment
du toit paternel plutot que de frequenter une ecole reprouvde par leur
confesseur (1). —- LA ou les parents se montrent d’un caractere faible,
hcoutez ce qui se passe :
« Mes enfants, dit entre autres M. Jules Botte A Bievre, suivent
maij/remoz l’ecole catholique, etj’ai perdu toute autorith sureux depuis
qu’ils ont dtd retires de lecole communale. J’ai voulu, moi-meme, aller
rechercher mon fils qui est A l’ecole catholique. Il est agh de treize ans.
Il & rdpondu en termes orduriers qu’il se moquait de moi. Il a ajoutd :
« Coupez-moi en morceaux si vous le voulez, je n’obdirai qu’A ce qui est
j-xiste et raisonnable; mais pour les ecoles communales je n’irai pas. »
Mon enfant s’est alors sauvh. »
La discorde est entr.be au sein des manages jusque-lA unis. Que de
tristes Episodes, de drames intimes viennent s’htaler, comme autant de
plaies faites par le clergd, dans les pages de l’enquete !
- « Depuis ces sermons, dbposeM. Pierre Ghrard, cultivateur A Naomh,
1& discorde est entree dans le menage, ma femme ne cessant d’insister
pour que je mette mes enfants A l’bcole catholique; c’est A tel point que
j'ai pensb un moment A la renvoyer chez son pere. »
« Dans un sermon, dit le sieur Jacqmay A Hanret, le curb a dit que
les femmes devaient combattre jusqu’A la mort pour contraindre leur
mari A envoyer leurs enfants A 1’ecolc catholique. A la suite de ce ser
mon, ma femme, A mon insu, a retire ma fille de lecole communale, et
l’a envoybe A l’hcole catholique. Mon manage, ou la paix regnal t avant
ch sermon, est aujourd’hui completement trouble. Depuis tout cela, mon
enfant n’a plus aucune obdissance envers moi. »
Ailleurs encore, ce sont des femmes qui, suivant A la lettre les conseite du cure, quittent le domicile conjugal et se refusent A y retourner
teat que leur mari n’aura pas pris l’engagement d’envoyer les enfants A
l’^cole catholique.
Du foyer domestique, la discorde s’est glissee dans les relations
aoeiales. Que de fois nous voyons se reproduire cette deposition sthrhotyphe : “ La commune etait autrefois calme et paisible : le trouble et la
division y sont entres par suite des violences du clergh. » Nos tribunaux
en savent d’ailleurs quelques chose, et, si ces divisions ne sont pas allbes
(1) Voirp. 93 ia deposition de M. P.-J. Clarinval, echevin de Gedinne,
�— 12 —
plus loin, dans bien des cas ce n’est pas faute des excitations parties du
haut de la chaire.
“ La conduite du curd a suscitd le trouble dans la commune, dit entee ?
autres un tdmoin de Robermont; les enfants des deux dcoles se sont:
battus les uns contre les autres, et peu sen est fallu que les parents
eux-memes n’en vinssent aux prises. »
Tout cela parce que, a Robermont comme ailleurs, le clergd, suivant
l’expression pittoresque d’un tdmoin de Sdloignes, a cessd d’etre le curd
de la paroisse pour devenir le curd dune dcole.
\.
Ces violences ont eu encore un autre rdsultat, et ici je rentre dans la
seconde partie de mon sujet; ce resultat, c’est, dans une grande partie
du pays, le ddpeuplement partiel des dglises, et j’appelle tout particu*
lierement sur ce point l’attention de l’honorable ministre de la justice.
Pour justifier l’augmentation du clergd catholique, l’honorable M. de
Haerne nous a parld tantdt de l’augmentation correspondante de la
population pendant la pdriode de 1830 h 1880.
Ici je dois tout d’abord placer une observation gdndrale : c’est que
l’augmentation du clergd n’a nullement suivi dans les diverses locality
une marche parallele h l’accroissement de la population.
Ainsi, en ce qui concerne les agglomdrations urbaines, — c’est-h-dire
lh ou l’on ne peut invoquer, pour justifier une augmentation dispropoi*tionnde du clergd, les espaces inhabites & parcourir entre les diffdrents
points de la commune, la par consdquent ou c’est exclusivement le
chiffre de la population qui devrait ddterminer le chiffre des ministres
du culte, sans dgard pour l’dtendue du territoire, — nous pouvons
prendre comme type l’agglomdration bruxelloise, oil l’on ne dira
certes pas que le clergd est insuffisant pour les besoins religieux de la
population.
Eh bien, h Bruxelles, d’apres ce que nous disait, l’autre jour, l’honorable ministre de la j ustice, on compte 100 ministres du culte pour une
population de 400,000 habitants(l). Qu’a-t-on eu besoin des lors de porter
cette proportion — pour ne pas sortir du Brabant — dans la ville de
Hal h 1 pour 1,800 habitants, dans la ville de Louvain h 1 pour 1,300,
dans la ville de Wavre A 1 pour 1,400, — c’est-h-dire qu’h Wavre et
A Louvain un ministre du culte a trois fois moins de besogne qu’h
Bruxelles? A Louvain cependant on ne comptait que 11 ministres du
culte en 1842.
Dans certaines parties de nos campagnes, c’est mieux encore.
La Flandre liberate publiait dernierement une statistique fort curieuse, rddigde h l’aide d’dldments pris dans l’exposd de la situation
(1) Soit 1 pour 4,000 hab.
�— 13 —
■ -.
administrative de la province. On y remarque que dans l’arrondisse- ment de Gand un grand iiombre de local ires ont vu leur population
- dAcroltre depuis 1846 dans une proportion qui va de 8 A 20 p. c. Et
- 'cependant dans la meme periode le clerge catholique s’est accru de
77 nouveaux pretres salaries. A ce compte-lA, si nous ajoutons les
innombmbles convents qui se sont certainement htablis dans ces communesdA comme ailleurs, nous finirions, pour peu que la population
continue a decroitre en raison inverse du clergh shculier et rhgulier,
i par arri ver A cette situation peu enviable de certains pays bouddhistes
ou l’on trouve plus de clergh que de fideles.
Je maintiens que presque partout ou la population a augments dans
' fes proportions tithes par l’honorable M. de Haerne, le chiffre des fideles
r. n’ena pas moins diminuh depuis 1830, et je n'en veux pour preuve que
les revelations de l’enquete.
Non settlement nous voyons le clergh lui-meme refuser partout les
sacraments aux categories directement vishes par les instructions hpis■. copales, savoir les instituteurs et les institutrices qui donnent l’enseip; gnenaent religieux, les eleves des ecoles normales et les membres des
comites scolaires, mais nous voyons encore, dans la grande majority des
communes, cette phnalith s’htendre aux Cleves des hcoles communales et
A leurs parents, ainsi qu’aux membres des administrations communales
' qui font leur devoir en concourant A l'exhcution de la loi. Et ce n’est
■pas tout, car il convient d'y ajouter le nombre bien plus considerable de
- toils ceux que les violences du clergh ont systhmatiquement hloignhs de
l’Eglise.
Autrefois on ne trouvait guere dans cette cathgorie que les librespenseurs des grandes villes. Aujourd’bui, meme en pleine campagne,
nous voyons des groupes entiers de population s’hcarter d’une institution
qui fait trop de politique pour donner satisfaction A leurs besoins relii/' gieux. La commission d’enquete n’a pu visiter que quelques communes,
. ill® ne s’est pas occuphe de la frdquentation des hglises. Voyez, cepen■ dant, que de declarations spontanhes dhnongant l’htat de choses auquel
r ' je fais allusion I
Ainsi A Gros-Fays, —je choisis cette commune parce qu’elle est la
[
ou ait siegh la commission d’enquete, — le bourgmestre
dhpos® : « Autrefois il n’y avait A Gros-Fays que deux personnes qui
ne remplissaient pas leur devoir pascal. Aujourd’hui il y en a, A mon
avis, une centaine. »
- - * Depuis les violences de M. le curd Georges, dit un autre habitant
t de la meme commune, un tres grand nombre, environ cent cinquante,
. se sont abstenus d’accomplir leurs devoirs religieux. » Il faut savoir que
% x lacommune de Gros-Fays ne compte que 370 habitants.
Je releve des depositions analogues dans le canton de Gedinne, A
�— 14 —
Bievre, A Louette, a Petit-Fays, a Houdremont, & Sart-Custinne, a Patignies. Dans le canton de Couvin, & Cul-des-Sarts, & Gonrieux, & Frasnes, & Petite-Chapelle, & Fagnolles, A Bleid. Dans le canton de Beauraing, a Felenneet aFocant. Dans le canton de Florenville, 6 Chasse»
pierre, a Chiny, A Florenville, & Grand-Reny, a Faurceulx. Dans le
canton d’Etalle, & Bellefontaine, A Etalle, a Vance, a Thuillies. Dans le
canton de Louveignd, & Louveignb, A Aywaille, & Noncevaux. Dans le
canton d’Eghezde, & Hanret, etc.
A Patignies, d’apres deux dhposants dont l’un a mdrno occupb les
fonctions de chantre & l’dglise, » les trois quarts de la population ont
cesse de frequenter les sacrements. » Voila done l’Eglise romaine devenue l’Eglise de la minority.—Meme proportion & Fblenne, d’apres l’bchevin et le bourgmestre.
« Autrefois, dans notre commune, dit un bchevin de Bleid, on comptait ceux qui n’allaient pas & confesse; aujourd’hui on compte ceux qui
y vont. »
« Auparavant, dit le bourgmestre de Chiny, il y avait dans la com
mune trois ou quatre personnes qui ne faisaient pas leurs paques, au
jourd’hui, il y en a 300 ou 400. » Chiny est une commune de 1,041 ha
bitants.
A Florenville, le bourgmestre depose : « Le doyen a tres mal fait de
diviser notre paroisse, qui btait une des plus belles de la Belgique. Au
trefois, il n’y avait guere ici que deux individus qui ne faisaient pas leurs
paques ; aujourd’hui, il y en a 500 4 600. L’ancienne eglise, la petite^
serait diijd trop grande pour les besoms du culte. ”
M. Bouvier. — C’est general.
M. Goblet d’Alviella.— Florenville est une commune de 1,805 ha
bitants ; elle compte un curb et un vicaire. Si les faits sont exacts, le
devoir du gouvernement n’est-il pas tout trace ?
Je lui adresserai la meme question a propos de la commune de SaintEdger, oil le bourgmestre depose -. « Jusque dans ces derniers temps,
il n'y avait point de vicaire a Saint-Lbger ; le cure suffisa.it parfaitement
aux besoins de la commune. Au mois d’oetobre de l’annee derniere, il
nous est arrive un vicaire qui s’occupe a peu pres exclusivement de
l’ecole catholique. »
En vdrite, messieurs, est-ce pour cette besogne-la que l’Etat paye des
vicaires la oil le besoin ne s’en fait pas sentir?
M. Bara, ministre de la justice. — C’est une erreur.
M. Goblet d’Alviella. — C’est la deposition du bourgmestre de
Saint-Ldger.
�— 15 —
M. Il ARA, minirtr® de la justice. — C’est un vicaire qui n est pas payb
?".. par 1’Etat.
’M. JBotviER. —C’est un rare avis. (Hilarite.)
M. Goblkt d’Alviklla. —Du reste, le meme argument peut sappliqner & nombre de desservants qui semblent avoir des loisirs de plus
en. plus considerables pour s’occuper des bcoles catholiques.
_
• Le elergb de Binche, dbpose le bourgmestre de cette commune
li' importante, a refuse les sacrements aux parents des enfants de nos
- deoles. Cela diminuait sa besognp de phis de moitid. Aujourd’hui, une
z grande partie de notre population ne frbquente plus l’bglise, oil Ion ne
f preche plus que la revolte contre les lois. »
' “ Tous les parents des bleves des bcoles communales, dit bgalement
nn tbmoin dans la commune de Mont-Saint-Aldegonde, ne regoivent
plus l’absolution. Cela facilite d’autant la besogne de M. le curb, car
cette mesure frappe la moitie de la commune. »
Je ne vous parlerai pas de Rebecq-Rognon, ou, d’apres le bourg- mestre, on parle de huit it neuf cents personnes qui ne vont plus a
IMglise, ou pin tot qui ne regoivent plus les sacrements ; ni de Tubize
*
ou, d’apres la deposition du secretaire communal, tant de personnes se
f sont retirbes de l’bglise que la recette des chaises a diminub et que la
■ fabrique elle-meme a du rbduire le traitement du curd; ni de cette comt mune de Bellefontaine oil il y a actuellement pour une population de
1,362 habitants, deux desservants et un chapelain, bien que d’apres
Fenquete line grande partie des habitants de la commune ait cesse de
frequenter les sacrements; ni d’Aywaille, oil il y a 4 desservants pour
une population de 3,445 habitants et oil d’apres la deposition de M. Ed.
Cornesse, membre du comitb scolaire •—- j’ignore si c’est un parent de
| notre honorable collegue, — un grand nombre de personnes ne vont
plus a l’bglise, ni de Ceroux-Mousty, oil d’apres M. le notaire
Thibeau * la majority de la commune & cessb de frequenter l’bglise »,
< m enfin de Couture-Saint-Germain oil, d’apres le bourgmestre, « l’ex^Bdmjnunication a btb presque gbnbrale, la majority de la commune a
Kf; cessb de frequenter l’bglise. » Mais je dois cependant faire observer que,
I \‘ dans toute ces communes, le clerge a btb plus ou moins augmente depuis
L 1830, sinon depuis 1842.
■ Sous ce rapport, du reste, voici mieux encore, et ici les faits sont si
-z flagrants que je demande formellement h M. le ministre s’il ne pense pas
K ; qu’il y a des mesures immbdiates a prendre.
" Nivelles avait en 1842 •— les renseignements antbrieurs me manquent
—►Unolergb de cinq ministres rbtribubs pour une population de 7,884habitants, soit 1 par 1,637 habitants, — presque trois fois plus qu’a
�— 46 —
'
Bruxelles proportionnellement. — Depuis cette dpoque, la population
ne s’est accrue que de 2,000 habitants, c’est-h-dire un peu plus d’un cinquieme, et cependant dans la meme pdriode le chiffre de ses pretres rdtribuds a double; il est month de 5 a 10. Or, le plus beau de l’histoire, c’est
que, d’apres la deposition de M. Gheude, secretaire du parquet hNivelles,
il s’y est produit dans ces derniers mois un mouvement protestant et
« le nombre des personnes qui se rendent & l’dglise diminue de jour en
jour »».
Voilh done une commune ou le nombre des fideles a diminue depuis
1842 et oil cependant on a double, dans la meme periode, le nombre du
clerge.
Cette situation n’est du reste point particuliere & Nivelles; j’ai pu l’y
constater, graced, l’enquete. Maisje suis convaincu que M. le ministre,
avec les moyens d’investigation que lui fournissent ses bureaux, la retrouverait dans une grande partie du pays, qu’il s’agisse des villes ou des
campagnes.
On nous dira peut-etre : Prenez garde de blesser les populations ruv
rales qui tiennent au chiffre de leurs pretres, afin de ne pas se trouver
genees dans leurs habitudes religieuses, dans le nombre de leurs messes,
par exemple. Messieurs, tel n’est plus, on peut l’afflrmer hautement, tout
au moins dans la partie wallonne du pays, le sentiment de nos popula
tions rurales.
« A la suite des faits cites, dit un dchevin de Grand-Reny, le village
autrefois uni est aujourd’liui divisd; c’est ce qui fait que je ne comprends
pas qu’on puisse encore salarier les personnes qui travaillent contre les •
lois du pays. »
A Estinne un temoin dit « qu’une faible minority s’est seule approchde
des sacrements » et le bourgmestre ajoute : « Le curd paye annuellement 1,500 francs pour soutenir les hcoles libres. J’insiste sur ce point
parce qu’il est inutile de donner de l’argent il des personnes qui en. ont
autant, que cela et qui ne rendent plus de services. »
Non settlement ce sentiment se manifeste par tout dans nos campagnes;
mais il y a meme nombre de communes qui ont sous ce rapport donnd
au gouvernement des exemples, pour ne pas dire des logons.
A Leval-Trahegnies, canton de Binche, le bourgmestre depose :
« Lors de la discussion du budget, il a dtd proposh de retirer le traitement accordh au clergh. Cette proposition, discuthe en seance publique,
a hth vothe a l’unanimitd. La dheision, jointe au proces-verbal, est motivhe par l’opposition systhmatique du curb A, la loi. »
Dans une autre commune de ce meme canton, h Anderlues, le conseil
communal a dgalement supprimd les suppldments de traitement au curd
�47
et au vicaire, « eeuX-ci », dit la decision jointe au proces-verbal de l’enquete, « s’attachant par leurs paroles et leurs actes a ddtruire, a amoindrir et a ddnigrer les institutions communales, les lois du pays et les
actes du gouvernement. » — Mais ce qu’il y a de plus curieux dans ce
Mernier fait, et j’avoue que c'est a peine croyable, c’est, d’apres la depo
sition du bourgmestre, qua la seance du conseilcommunal oille budget,
aiilsi amende, fut vote a I’unanimite, il y avait cinq liberaux et quatre
catholiques.
Voila la solution de la difficult^ presente, fournie par le bon sens
Bellaire, un bon sens qui ne date pas d’hier. Je lisais l’autre jour dans
la Revuepolitique qu’au moyen age les bourgeois de Vezenay, ayant 6td
'sjcommunihs, se bornerent a repondre : « Puisque nous sommes excommunihs, nous devons agir en excommunihs et ne plus payer ni dimes ni
cens. »
M. Bouvier. — Ils avaient raison.
M. Gobuet d’Alviella. — Vous voyez, Messieurs, que nous avons
des logons a recevoir, meme de l’ancien regime.
r L’honorable M. Delcour nous disait triomphalement, l’autre jour, qu’il
y avail en Belgique cinq millions de catholiques. Le systeme est com
mode. Quand il s’agit de payer, oh I alors, tous catholiques. Mais quand
il s’agit de beneficier des avantages spirituels que le clerge a pour
mission d’&asurer aux fideles, oh, alors, il n’y a plus de catholiques que
eeux qui envoient leurs enfants dans les ecoles orthodoxes !
Ce systeme a deux poids et deux mesures est-il juste, est-il rationnel,
est-il conforme a la theorie qu’il faut mesurer le chiffre du clergh et le.
salaire de
chefs a l’htendue des services qu’ils sont appeles a rendre
et qu’ils rendent reellement au pays ?
Voix A DROIte : A demain! A demain !
M Goblrt d’Alviella. — Jusqu’ici, je n’ai guere citd que les rhsultatsdo l’enquete dans les pays wallons.
_ n faut reeonnaitre, en effet, qu’il y a une profonde difference dans les
depositions de l’enquete relatives aux cantons wallons et aux cantons
flamands. Dans les cantons wallons, l’esprit d’indhpendance, ou, si vous
voulez, l’esprit d’herhsie, ne perd jamais ses droits. « Si nous ne pouvons
plus nous eonfesser aux liommes, nous nous confesserons a Dieu, » dit
une brave femme a Sart-Custinne. Et elle ajoute : « ce qui est encore
meilleur. » — « Je suis excommunih, vient dhposer un vieillard de
Beh&ne, mais ma conscience est tranquille, je crois que c’est la le pre-,
mier juge. »>
Ces rhponses ne se rencontrent pas jusqu’ici dans les depositions des
populations flamandes. La, il faut bien le reconnaitre, si l’on excepte les
�— 18 —
grandes villes, ainsi que certains centres de population plus dclairds, le
silence est complet. Les dglises restent pleines et ce sont les dcoles qui
sont vides. Mais si l’orthodoxie y est victorieuse, elle y triomphe comme
I’ordre triomphait & Varsovie, apres avoir fait autour d’elle la terreur et
la solitude.
Je ne connais, pour ma part, rien de plus navrant que la situation
des quelques malheureux assez osds pour rdsister, dans les campagnes
flamandes, a cette tyrannie spirituelle.
On a parld ici de la tyrannie des commissaires spdciaux. On dira.it
vraiment qu’en denongant cette tyrannie avec tant de grand fracas, on.
a voulu donner le change sur les vrais persdcuteurs et les vraies perse
cutions. Et quand je parle de tyrannie spirituelle, ce n’est pas a dire
que le clergd se borne a employer des moyens spirituels pour assurer sa
domination. Lisez l’enquete. A chaque page, dans le pays flamand, vous
voyez reparaitre sur ses levres, a l’adresse des recalcitrants, cette phrase
odieuse : « Je vous ruinerai. »
Et ce qu’il dit, il lefait! Denonciations du haut de la chaire, appels a
l’intervention des bureaux de bienfaisance et des propridtaires, vdritables mises en quarantaine, il n’y a rien qui soit dpargnd pour fournir
a l’honorable M. Malou les elements de ces belles statistiques scolaires
qu'il a si triomphalement produites a la Chambre.
Ici, ce sont des ouvriers tonneliers forces de quitter leur commune ou
ils ne trouvent plus d’ouvrage, parce qu’ils ont un frere dans l’enseignement communal; la, c’est une malheureuse cabaretiere qui tenait uh pe
tit cabaret ou, d’apres sa deposition, elle pouvait gagner 1,500 francs
par an et qui, apres avoir vu sa clientele l’abandonner sous la pression du
clerge, est forcde de quitter la commune et tombe a charge de son fils,
instituteur dans une commune voisine.
Ailleurs, c’est un boulanger que le clergd de sa commune a ruind,
parce qu’il maintenait ses enfants a l’dcole communale et qui a dtd rdduit
a s’engager comme domestique dans sa propre commune.
Je ne m’dtendrai pas sur tous ces faits qui sont d’tine monotonic 'vrai
ment lugubre, je ne m’dtendrai pas sur les retraits de terres, les ddnonciations de baux, les pertes d’emplois, dus uniquement a l’intervenrion
du clergd; je ne m’dtendrai pas non plus sur la situation de ces malheu
reux instituteurs isolds en plein pays fanatisd.
L’heure est avancde et, du reste, la question pourra revenir lorsquenous discuterons le budget de l’instruction publique.
Je dois cependant faire cette observation :
On a beaucoup discutd, j’aurais dit ergotd si le fait ne s’dtait pas pro/
duit dans cette Chambre, sur la distinction entre rexcommunication et
�le refus des sacrements. Que signifie le mot excommunier, sinon retrancher de la communaute des fideles? Des lors, les faits que j’ai rappelds
ne sont-ils pas des excommunications, et des excommunications sous
leur pire forme, vdri tables interdictions de l’eau et du feu?
Je n’hdsite pas & le dire, si pareille situation dont je rougis pour mon
pays devait se perphtuer, il faudrait bien, coute que coute, recourir, —
et pas seulement en matiere hlectorale, — & ces mesures que plusieurs
associations liberates ont deji rhclamdes pour rdprimer les abus de la
pression spirituelle et ce que les Anglais ont appele dans leur legislation
1’intimidation cleric ale.
x Je veux cependant espdrer que la situation s’ameliorera. Oh! je ne
m’attends pas a de la moderation de la part du clerge; il est trop tard;
ce serait s’avouer battu, et quand on se pretend infaillible, on n’avoue
pas sa defaite. Cette reaction, je l’attends du bon sens et de l’dnergie de
nos populations flamandes.
Ecoutez un de ces cris prophdtiques que l’exces de la misere, aux
dpoques troublees, met quelquefois dans la bouche des opprimes et des
faibles, Il s’agit encore une fois d’une pauvre femme tracassee, persecutee, pourchassee pai' le clerge, une cabaretiere de 70 ans, qui a du
renoncer A son commerce et abandonner sa commune.
Elle raconte un dernier entretien quelle a eu avec le vicaire de sa
paroisse et comme celui-ci, suivant l’habitude de ces messieurs, recourait
A l'ultima ratio de l’envoyer tout droit en enfer, elle se redresse enfin
sous la main qui la broie et apres avoir replique : « J’ai fait mon enfer
sur terre » elle se retourne et s’derie •. « Ces gens-la nous feront douter
de notre foi! » (Sensation.)
Que le clerge prenne garde! Quand la reaction se produira, elle sera
plus forte, en raison meme des violences dont on aura souffert et alors il
regrettera, trop tard, ses exces d’aujourd’hui.
Les Flandres qui en plein moyen age repondaient aux excommunica
tions en brulant les bulles papales sur leurs places publiques, les Flandres,
qui au xvie siecle rdpondaient it l’inquisition en acclamant la rdforme, les
Flandres ne laisseront pas faire aux successeurs de Pie IX ce que les
papes les plus puissants du moyen age n’ont pu accomplir qu’avec le bras
de l’dtranger.
. Si je reclame la reduction des traitements du clerge supdrieur qui est
1 instigateur de toute cette croisade, si je rdclame, non pas la reduction
des traitements du clergd inferieur comme a sembld l’admettre tan tot
l’honorable M. de Haerne, mais la reduction du chiffre des ministres du
culte, partout ou, suivant l’expression du ministre de la justice, ils se
font de veritables agents de desordre, si je rdclame ces mesures avec
tent d insistance, c’est que j’ai la conviction de parler, non pas au nom
�de quelques libres-penseurs et de quelques dissidents, mais au nom de
centaines de mille de nos compatriotes qui sont aujourd’hui ecartes de
l’Eglise et qui ne veulent pas contribuer aux charges et aux frais d’unsj
organisation dont ils n’ont plus iji les droits ni les benefices. (Tres bien!
a gauche.')
On a parib de represailles. Il faut nous entendre sur ce mot. Si par la
on veut dire une rancune de parti, l’effet du ressentiment du parti liberaL
& raison des invectives et des attaques du clergb, notre pai-ti est audessus dune pareille tactique, et la preuve s’en trouve bien dans cefait
que, depuis de nombreuses annbes, depuis que le parti liberal existe
pour ainsi dire, le Merge nous combat avec les memes moyens, et,
cependant, comme l’honorable ministre le rappelait l’autre jour, le
parti liberal a fait plus pour le clerge infbrieur que le parti catholique
lui-meme n’a osb faire pendant ses passages au pouvoir.
C’est le parti liberal qui, h tort ou a raison, a surtout augments le
nombre des ministres du culte dans nos campagnes. C’est au parti libe
ral que le clergh infhrieur doit la principale augmentation de son traftement. C’est enfin le parti liberal qui a fait a Rome la dernier® tentative
pour assurer l’independance des desservants contre l'arbitraife episco
pal. Nous sommes done au dessus d’un pared reproche.
Mais il ne s’agit pas ici d’injures de parti a venger, il s’agit de 1’inth- ;
grite de nos institutions, il s’agit de la majesty de la loi, il s'agit des.
droits les plus saerfis de la conscience irnpuntjment violes dans plusieurs
de nos provinces, et, puisque nous ne pouvons pas empecher -directe-'
ment de pareils attentats, montrons du moins que nous ne voulons
pas en accepter la complicite, en supprimant a ceux qui s’en rendent
coupables tous les avantages, toutes les faveurs que nous ne sommes pas
absolument obliges de leur accorder en vertu de la Constitution et des
lois.
Ce n’est done pas un acte de represaille, mais un acte de reparation et
de justice, un nouveau pas dans la voie des reformes inevitables dontle ’
clerge semble prendre lui-meme a tache de precipiter l’accomplissement,
comme s’il voulait justifier l’antique adage « Quos vultperclere Jupiter
demented ». (Applaudissements prolongds a gauche.)
�
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
Le clergé Belge en 1881 d'après les depositions faites sous la foi du serment, dans l'enquête parlementaire. Discours prononcé a la chambre des représentants dans la séance du 22 Février, par le comte Goblet D'Alviella
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
d'Alviella, Goblet
Description
An account of the resource
Place of Publication: Brussels
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Text in French. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Weissenbruch
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT88
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><span>This work (Le clerg</span></span>é Belge en 1881 d'après les dépositions faites sous la foi du serment dans l'enquête parlementaire)<span>, 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
French
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy
Belgium
Belgium
Clergy
Conway Tracts
Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/044c01547fa3da254c5e5189a7b15668.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=UkEBmNaBM-WgzVCEkVTEl-RGzqSLNXvpXOcdPxZ38zbDW3yrXBPD1sdhv6ecMlCGPYfDSZoRlELzQUvfBg-8sAjYj1hs25G0IY0CgYY9rYqx5O3ORnRNZ8-7VqYjpbrQiLIUCW4wNYKZpOW85TJKEhGEiZ-wUah700IvwucVSqyDNx0nDYu2qlv9Exey3nYWscaSglqZVdRvz8P-ZE5Qrt413LYX99F4xweSZ7XGSKEf3ZtQW%7ERC3ua4UdSPexhciSwFgE028Lx6yjFH6VbEMTT9dY8hrUVDkO8POJxarQ8p-qS5aL8bxUei0W8ZDoRqYsbMHkTDKznKctr%7Eyes5Ag__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
459918f8bfe08162256b6e7700683d87
PDF Text
Text
P> 2^4~
national secular society
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS
WRITTEN ?
BY
CHARLES BRADLAUG1L
[fourth edition.]
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET E.C.
1881.
�i
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
----- .
AN ANSWER TO THE RELIGIOUS TRACT
SOCIETY.
The Religious Tract Society, some time since, issued, pre
faced with their high commendation, a translation of a
pamphlet by Dr. Constantine Tischendorf, entitled “ When
were our Gospels Written ? ” In the introductory preface
we are not unfairly told that “ on the credibility of the four
Gospels the whole of Christianity rests, as a building on its
foundations.” It is proposed in this brief essay to deal
with the character of Dr. Tischendorf’s advocacy, then to
examine the genuineness of the four Gospels, as affirmed by
the Religious Tract Society’s pamphlet, and at the same
time to ascertain, so far as is possible in the space, how far
the Gospel narrative is credible.
The Religious Tract Society state that Dr. Tischendorf’s
brochure is a repetition of “ arguments for the genuineness
and authenticity of the four Gospels,” which the erudite
Doctor had previously published for the learned classes,
“ with explanations ” now given in addition, to render the
arguments “ intelligible ” to meaner capacities ; and as the
“Infidel ” and “ Deist ” are especially referred to as likely
to be overthrown by this pamphlet, we may presume that the
society considers that in the 119 pages—which the trans
lated essay occupies—they have presented the best paper
that can be issued on their behalf for popular reading on
this question. The praise accorded by the society, and
sundry laudations appropriated with much modesty in his
own preface by Dr. Constantine Tischendorf to himself,
compel one at the outset to regard the Christian manifesto
as a most formidable production. The Society’s translator
impressively tells us that the pamphlet has been three times
�6
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
printed in Germany and twice in France ; that it has been
issued in Dutch and Russian, and is done into Italian by an
Archbishop with the actual approbation of the Pope. The
author’s preface adds an account of his great journeyings
and heavy travelling expenses incurred out of an original
capital of a “ few unpaid bills,” ending in the discovery of
a basketful of old parchments destined for the flames by the
Christian monks in charge, but which from the hands of
Dr. Tischendorf are used by the Religious Tract Society to
neutralise all doubts, and to “ blow to pieces ” the Ration
alistic criticism of Germany and the coarser Infidelity of
England. Doubtless Dr. Tischendorf and the Society con
sider it some evidence in favor of the genuineness and
authenticity of the four Gospels that the learned Doctor was
enabled to spend 5,000 dollars out of less than nothing, and1
that the Pope regards his pamphlet with favor, or they would
not trouble to print such statements. We frankly accord
them the full advantage of any argument which may fairly
be based on such facts. An autograph letter of endorse
ment by the Pope is certainly a mattei* which a Protestant
Tract Society—who regard “ the scarlet whore at Babylon”
with horror—may well be proud of.
Dr. Tischendorf states that he has since 1839 devoted
himself to the textual study of the New Testament, and it
ought to be interesting to the orthodox to know that, as a
result of twenty-seven years’ labor, he now declares that
“ it has been placed beyond doubt that the original text
. . . . had in many places undergone such serious modi
fications of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty
as to what the apostles had actually written,” and that “ the
right course to take” “is to set aside the received text
altogether and to construct a fresh text.”
This is pleasant news for the true believer, promulgated by
authority of the managers of the great Christian depot in
Paternoster Row, from whence many scores of thousands of
copies of this incorrect received text have nevertheless been
issued without comment to the public, even since the society
have published in English Dr. Tischendorf’s declaration of
its unreliable character
With the modesty and honorable reticence peculiar to
great men, Dr. Tischendorf records his successes in reading
hitherto unreadable parchments, and we learn that he has.
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
7
received approval from “ several learned bodies, and even
from crowned heads,” for his wonderful performances. As
a consistent Christian, who knows that the “ powers that be
are ordained of God,” our “ critic without rival,” for so he
prints himself, regards the praise of crowned heads as higher
in degree than that of learned bodies.
The Doctor discovered in 1844 the MS. on which he now
relies to confute audacious Infidelity, in the Convent of St.
Catherine at Sinai; he brought away a portion, and handed
that portion, on his return, to the Saxon Government—they
paying all expenses. The Doctor, however, did not then
divulge where he had found the MS. It was for the advan
tage of humankind that the place should be known at once,
for, at least, two reasons. First, because by aid of the re
mainder of this MS.—“ the most precious Bible treasure in
existence ”—the faulty text of the New Testament was to be
reconstructed; and the sooner the work was done the better
for believers in Christianity. And, secondly, the whole
story of the discovery might then have been more easily
confirmed in every particular.
For fifteen years, at least, Dr. Tischendorf hid from the
world the precise locality in which his treasure had been
discovered. Nay, he was even fearful when he knew that
Other Christians were trying to find the true text, and he
experienced “peculiar satisfaction” when he ascertained
that his silence had misled some pious searchers after reliable
copies of God’s message to all humankind; although all this
time he was well aware that our received copies of God’s
revelation had undergone “serious modifications” since the
message had been delivered from the Holy Ghost by means
of the Evangelists.
In 1853, “ nine years after the original discovery,” Dr.
Tischendorf again visited the Sinai convent, but although
he had “enjoined on the monks to take religious care” of
the remains of which they, on the former occasion, would
not yield up possession, he, on this second occasion, and
apparently after careful search, discovered “ eleven short
lines,” which convinced him that the greater part of the
MS. had been destroyed. He still, however, kept the place
secret, although he had no longer any known reason for so
doing; and, having obtained an advance of funds from the
Russian Government, he, in 1859, tried a third time for his
�8
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
pearl of St. Catherine,” which, in 1853, he felt convinced
had been destroyed, and as to which he had nevertheless, in
the meantime, been troubled by fears that the good cause
might be aided by some other than Dr. Tischendorf discover
ing and publishing the “priceless treasure,” which, according
to his previous statements, he must have felt convinced did
not longer exist. On this third journey the Doctor dis
covered “ the very fragments which, fifteen years before, he
had taken out of the basket,” “ and also other parts of the
Old Testament, the J\ew Testament complete, and, in addi
tion, Barnabas and part of Hermas.”
With wonderful preciseness, and with great audacity, Dr.
Tischendorf refers the transcription of the discovered Bible
to the first half of the fourth century. Have Dr. Tischen
dorf s patrons here ever read of MSS. discovered in the
same Convent of St. Catherine, at Sinai, of which an
account was published by Dr. Constantine Simonides, and
concerning which the Westminster Review said, “ We share
the suspicions, to use the gentlest word which occurs to us,
entertained, we believe, by all competent critics and anti
quarians.”
In 18b3 Dr. Tischendorf published, at the cost of the
Russian Emperor, a splendid but very costly edition of his
Sinaitic MS. in columns, with a Latin introduction. The
book is an expensive one, and copies of it are not very
plentiful in England. Perhaps the Religious Tract Society
have not contributed to its circulation so liberally as did the
pious Emperor of all the Russias. Surely a text on which
our own is to be re-constructed ought to be in the hands at
least of every English clergyman and Young Men’s Christian
Association.
“ Christianity,” writes Dr. Tischendorf, “ does not, strictly
speaking, rest on the moral teaching of Jesus “it rests on
his person only.” “ If we are in error in believing in the
person of Christ as taught in the Gospels, then the Church
herself is in error, and must be given up as a deception.”
“ All the world knows that our Gospels are nothing else
than biographies of Christ.” “We have no other source of
information with respect to the life of Jesus.” So that,
according to the Religious Tract Society and its advocate, if
the’’ credibility of the Gospel biography be successfully
impugned, then the foundations of Christianity are destroyed.
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
9
It becomes, therefore, of the highest importance to show
that the biography of Jesus, as given in the four Gospels, is
absolutely incredible and self-contradictory.
It is alleged in the Society’s preface that all the objections
•of infidelity have been hitherto unavailing. This is, however,
not true. It is rather the fact that the advocates of Chris
tianity when defeated on one point have shuffled to another,
■either quietly passing the topic without further debate, or
loudly declaring that the point abandoned was really so
utterly unimportant that it was extremely foolish in the
assailant to regard it as worthy attack, and that, in any
case, all the arguments had been repeatedly refuted by pre
vious writers.
To the following objections to the Gospel narrative the
writer refuses to accept as answer, that they have been pre
viously discussed and disposed of.
The Gospels which are yet mentioned by the names popu- I
larly associated with each do not tell us the hour, or the
■day, or the month, or—save Luke—the year, in which Jesus
was born. The only point on which the critical divines, who
'have preceded Dr. Tischendorf, generally agree is, that Jesus
was not born on Christmas day. The Oxford Chronology,
collated with a full score of recognised authorities, gives us
a period of more than seven years within which to place the
■date. So confused is the story as to the time of the birth, ?
that while Matthew would make Jesus born in the lifetime
■of Herod, Luke would fix the period of Jesus’s birth as after ■
Herod’s death.
Christmas itself is a day surrounded with curious cere
monies of pagan origin, and in no way serving to fix the
25th December as the natal day. Yet the exact period at
which Almighty God, as a baby boy, entered the world to
redeem long-suffering humanity from the consequences of
Adam’s ancient sin, should be of some importance.
Nor is there any great certainty as to the place of birth of >
Christ. The Jews, apparently in the very presence of Jesus,
reproached him that he ought to have been born at
Bethlehem. Nathaniel regarded him as of Nazareth. Jesus
never appears to have said to either, “I was born at
Bethlehem.” In Matthew ii., 6, we find a quotation
from the prophet: “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of
Judah, art not the least amongst the princes of Juda, for
�10
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my peopleIsrael.” Matthew lays the scene of the birth in Bethlehem,
and Luke adopts the same place, especially bringing the child
to Bethlehem for that purpose, and Matthew tells us it is
done to fulfil a prophecy. Micah v., 2, the only place in
which similar words occur, is not a prophecy referring to
Jesus at all. The words are: “ But thou Beth-lehem
Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that isto be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of
old, from everlasting.” This is not quoted correctly in
Matthew, and can hardly be said by any straining of
language to apply to Jesus. The credibility of a story on
which Christianity rests is bolstered up by prophecy in
default of contemporary corroboration. The difficulties are
not lessened in tracing the parentage. In Matthew i., 17,
it is stated that “ the generations from Abraham to David
are fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying
away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the
carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen genera
tions.” Why has Matthew made such a mistake in his
computation of the genealogies—in the last division we have
only thirteen names instead of fourteen, even including the
name of Jesus? Is this one of the cases of “painful
uncertainty ” which has induced the Religious Tract Society
and Dr. Tischendorf to wish to set aside the textus receptus
altogether ?
From David to Zorobabel there are in the Old Testament
twenty generations ; in Matthew, seventeen generations ;
and in Luke, twenty-three generations. In Matthew from
David to Christ there are twenty-eight generations, and in
Luke from David to Christ forty-three generations. Yet,
according to the Religious Tract Society, it is on the credi
bility of these genealogies as part of the Gospel history
that the foundation of Christianity rests. The genealogy
in the first Gospel arriving at David traces to Jesus through
Solomon; the third Gospel from David traces through
Nathan. In Matthew the names from David are Solomon,
Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias; and in the Old
Testament we trace the same names from David to Ahaziah,
whom I presume to be the same as Ozias. But in 2nd
Chronicles xxii., 11, we find one Joash, who is not men-
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
11
tioned in Matthew at all. If the genealogy in Matthew is
correct, why is the name not mentioned ? Amaziah is
mentioned in chap, xxiv., v. 27, and in chap, xxvi., v. 1,
Uzziah, neither of whom are mentioned in Matthew, where
Ozias is named as begetting Jotham, when in fact three
generations of men have come in between. In Matthew
and Luke, Zorobabel is represented as the son of Salathiel,
while in 1 Chronicles iff., 17—19, Zerubbabel is stated to be
the son of Pedaiah, the brother of Salathiel. Matthew
says Abiud was the son of Zorobabel (chap, i., v. 13).
Luke iii., 27, says Zorobabel’s son was Rhesa. The Old
Testament contradicts both, and gives Meshullam, and
Hananiah, and Shelomith, their sister (1 Chronicles iii., 19),
as the names of Zorobabel’s children. Is this another piece
of evidence in favor of Dr. Tischendorf’s admirable
doctrine, that it is necessary to reconstruct the text ?
. three names agreeing after that of David, viz., Salathiel,
Zorobabel, and Joseph—all the rest are utterly different. , |
! 1 The attempts at explanation which have been hitherto
offered, in order to reconcile these genealogies, are scarcely
creditable to the intellects of the Christian apologists. They
allege that “ Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob,
in the account of the law was the son of Heli. For Heli
and Jacob were brothers by the same mother, and Heli, who
was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law
directed, married his widow; in consequence of such mar
riage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.’^
This is pure invention to get over a difficulty—an invention
not making the matter one whit more clear. For if you
suppose that these two persons were brothers, then unless
you invent a death of the mother’s last husband and the
widow’s remarriage Jacob and Heli would be the sons of the
same father, and the list of the ancestors should be identical
in each genealogy. But to get over the difficulty the pious j
do this. They say, although brothers, they were only half
brothers ; although sons of the same mother, they were not
sons of the same father, but had different fathers. If so,
how is it that Salathiel and Zorobabel occur as father and
son in both genealogies ? Another fashion of accounting
for the contradiction is to give one as the genealogy of
Joseph and the other as the genealogy of Mary. “ Which?
�12
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
I “ Luke,” it is said. Why Luke ? what are Luke’s words ?
Luke speaks of Jesus being, “as was supposed, the son of
Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” When Luke says
Joseph, the son of Heli, did he mean Mary, the daughter of
Heli ? Does the Gospel say one thing and mean another ?
because if that argument is worth anything, then in every
case where a man has a theory which disagrees with the
text, he may say the text means something else. If this
argument be permitted we must abandon in Scriptural
criticism the meaning which we should ordinarily intend to
convey by any given word. If you believe Luke meant
daughter, why does the same word mean son in every other
' case all through the remainder of the genealogy ? And if
the genealogy of Matthew be that of Joseph, and the
genealogy of Luke be that of Mary, they ought not to have
any point of agreement at all until brought to David. They,
nevertheless, do agree and contradict each other in several
places, destroying the probability of their being intended as
distinct genealogies. There is some evidence that Luke
does not give the genealogy of Mary in the Gospel itself.
We are told that Joseph went to Bethlehem to be numbered
because he was of the house of David : if it had been Mary
it would have surely said so. As according to the Christian
» theory, Joseph was not the father of Jesus, it is not unfair
to ask how it can be credible that Jesus’s genealogy could
I be traced to David in any fashion through Joseph?
So far from Mary being clearly of the tribe of Judah (to
which the genealogy relates) her cousinship to Elizabeth
would make her rather appear to belong to the tribe of
Levi.
To discuss the credibility of the miraculous conception and
birth would be to insult the human understanding. The
mythologies of Greece, Italy, and India, give many prece
dents of sons of Gods miraculously born. Italy, Greece, and
India, must, however, yield the palm to Judea. The inIcarnate Chrishna must give way to the incarnate Christ.
A miraculous birth would be scouted to- day as monstrous ;
-antedate it 2,000 years and we worship it as miracle.
1
Matt, i., 22, 23, says: “ Now all this was done, that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,
saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
13
being interpreted is, God with us.” This is supposed to be
a quotation from Isaiah vii., 14—16 : “ Therefore the Lord
himself shall give you a sign ; Behold a virgin shall con
ceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse
the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall
know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that
thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”
But in this, as indeed in most other cases of inaccurate
quotation, the very words are omitted which would show its
utter inapplicability to Jesus. Even in those which are
given, the agreement is not complete. Jesus was not called
Emmanuel. And even if his mother Mary were a virgin,
this does not help the identity, as the word
OLME in i
Isaiah, rendered “virgin” in our version, does not convey
the notion of virginity, for which the proper word is nbUTZl
BeThULE; OLME is used of a youthful spouse recently
married. The allusion to the land being forsaken of both
her kings, omitted in Matthew, shows how little the passage
is prophetic of Jesus.
The story of the annunciation made to Joseph in one
Gospel, to Mary in the other, is hardly credible on any ex
planation. If you assume the annunciations as made by a
God of all-wise purpose, the purpose should, at least, have
been to prevent doubt of Mary’s chastity; but the annun
ciation is made to Joseph only after Mary is suspected by
Joseph. Two annunciations are made, one of them in a
dream to Joseph, when he is suspicious as to the state of
his betrothed wife ; the other made by the angel Gabriel
(whoever that angel may be) to Mary herself, who apparently
conceals the fact, and is content to be married, although
with child not by her intended husband. The statement—
that Mary being found with child by the Holy Ghost, her
husband, not willing to make her a public example, was
minded to put her away privily—is quite incredible. If
Joseph found her with child &?/ the Holy Ghost, how could
he even think of making a public example of her shame
when there was nothing of which she could be ashamed—
nothing, if he believed in the Holy Ghost, of which he need
have been ashamed himself, nothing which need have in
duced him to wish to put her away privily. It is clear—
according to Matthew—that Mary was found with child,
�14
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
and that the Holy Ghost parentage was not even imagined
by Joseph until after he had dreamed about the matter.
Although the birth of Jesus was specially announced by
an angel, and although Mary sang a joyful song consequent
on the annunciation, corroborated by her cousin’s greeting,
yet when Simeon speaks of the child, in terms less extra
ordinary, Joseph and Mary are surprised at it and do not
understand it. Why were they surprised ? Is it credible
that so little regard was paid to the miraculous annuncia
tion? Or is this another case of the “painful uncertainty”
alluded to by Dr. Tischendorf ?
Again, when Joseph and Mary found the child Jesus in
the temple, and he says, “ Wist ye not that I must be about
my father’s business ? ” they do not know what he means, so
that either what the angel had said had been of little effect,
or the annunciations did not occur at all. Can any reliance
be placed on a narrative so contradictory ? An angel was
specially sent to acquaint a mother that her son about to be
born is the Son of God, and yet that mother is astonished
when her son says, “ Wist ye not I must be about my
father’s business ? ”
The birth of Jesus was, according to Matthew, made
publicly known by means of certain wise men. These men
saw his star in the East, but it did not tell them much, for
they were obliged to come and ask information from Herod
the King. Is astrology credible ? Herod inquired of the
chief priests and scribes; and it is evident Jeremiah was
right, if he said, “ The prophets prophecy falsely and the
priests bear rule by their means,” for these chief priests
misquoted to suit their purposes, and invented a false pro
phecy by omitting a few words from, and adding a few
words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star, after
they knew where to go, and no longer required its aid, went
before them, until it came and stood over where the young
child was. The credibility of this will be better understood
if the reader notice some star, and then see how many houses
it will be over. Luke does not seem to have been aware
of the star story, and he relates about an angel who tells
some shepherds the good tidings, but this last-named adven
ture does not appear to have happened in the reign of Herod
at all. Is it credible that Jesus was born twice ? After the
wise men had left Jesus, an angel warned Joseph to flee
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
15
with him and Mary into Egypt, and Joseph did fly, and re
mained there with the young child and his mother until the
•death of Herod ; and this, it is alleged, was done to fulfil a
prophecy. On referring to Hosea xi., 1, we find the words
have no reference whatever to Jesus, and that, therefore,
-either the tale of the flight is invented as a fulfilment of the
prophecy, or the prophecy manufactured to support the tale
of the flight. The Jesus of Luke never went into Egypt at
all in his childhood. Directly after the birth of the child
his parents instead of flying away because of persecution
into Egypt, went peacefully up to Jerusalem to fulfil all
things according to the law, returned thence to Nazareth,
and apparently dwelt there, going up to Jerusalem every
year until Jesus was twelve years of age.
In Matthew ii., 15, we are told that Jesus remained in
Egypt, “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called my
sou.” In Hosea ii., 1, we read, “When Israel was a child,
then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” In no
•other prophet is there any similar text.
This not only is
not a prophecy of Jesus, but is, on the contrary, a reference
to the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. Is the prophecy manu
factured to give an air of credibility to the Gospel history,
or how will the Religious Tract Society explain it? The
Gospel writings betray either a want of good faith,
or great incapacity on the part of their authors in the
mode adopted of distorting quotations from the Old Testa
ment ?
When Jesus began to be about thirty years of age
he was baptised by John in the river Jordan. John,
who, according to Matthew, knew him, forbade him
directly he saw him; but, acccording to the writer of
the fourth Gospel, he knew him not, and had, there
fore, no occasion to forbid him. God is an “ invisible ”
“spirit,” whom no man hath seen (John i., 18), or can see
(Exodus xxxiii., 20); but the man John saw the spirit of
God descending like a dove. God is everywhere, but at
that time was in heaven, from whence he said, “This is my
beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” Although John
heard this from God’s own mouth, he some time after sent
two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were really the
Christ (Matthew xi., 2, 3). Yet it is upon the credibility
�16
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
of this story, says Dr. Tischendorf, that Christianity rests
like a building on its foundations.
It is utterly impossible John could have known and not
have known Jesus at the same time. And if, as the New
Testament states, God is infinite and invisible, it is in
credible that as Jesus stood in the river to be baptised, the
Holy Ghost was seen as it descended on his head as a dove,
and that God from heaven said, “This is my beloved son, in
whom I am well pleased.” Was the indivisible and invisible
spirit of God separated in three distinct and two separately
visible persons ? How do the Religious Tract Society recon
cile this with the Athanasian Creed ?
The baptism narrative is rendered doubtful by the lan
guage used as to John, who baptised Jesus. It is said,
“ This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias,
saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Isaiah xl.,
1—5? is? “ Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your
God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto
her that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity
is pardoned ; for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double
for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth in the wilder
ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the
desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be
exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low :
and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough
places plain : and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed.”
These verses have not the most remote relation to John ?
And this manufacture of prophecies for the purpose of
bolstering up a tale, serves to prove that the writer of the
Gospel tries by these to impart an air of credibility to an
otherwise incredible story.
Immediately after the baptism, Jesus is led up of the
Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. There
he fasts forty days and forty nights.
John says, in chapter i., 35, “Again, the next day after,
John stood and two of his disciples ; and looking upon
Jesus as he walked, he said, behold the Lamb of God. And
the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.”
Then, at the 43rd verse, he says, “ The day following Jesus
would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith
unto him, follow me.” And in chapter ii., 1, he says, “And
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
17
the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and
the mother of Jesus was there ; and both Jesus was called
and his disciples unto the marriage.” According to Matthew,
there can be no doubt that immediately after the baptism
Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil.
And we are to believe that Jesus was tempted of the Devil
and fasting in the wilderness, and at the same time feasting
at a marriage in Cana of Galilee ? Is it possible to believe
that Jesus actually did fast forty days and forty nights ? If
Jesus did not fast in his capacity as man, in what capacity
did he fast ? And if Jesus fasted, being God, the fast
would be a mockery; and the account that he became a
hungered must be wrong. It is barely possible that in some
very abnormal condition or cataleptic state, or state of
trance, a man might exist, with very slight nourishment or
without food, but that a man could walk about, speak, and
act, and, doing this, live forty days and nights without food
is simply an impossibility.
Is the story that the Devil tempted Jesus credible ? If
Jesus be God, can the Devil tempt God ? A clergyman of
the Church of England writing on this says: “ That the
Devil should appear personally to the Son of God is cer
tainly not more wonderful than that he should, in a more
remote age, have appeared among the sons of God, in the
presence of God himself, to torment the righteous Job. But
that Satan should carry Jesus bodily and literally through
the air, first to the top of a high mountain, and then to the
topmost pinnacle of the temple, is wholly inadmissable,
it is an insult to our understanding, and an affront to
our great creator and redeemer.” Supposing, despite the
monstrosity of such a supposition, an actual Devil—and this
involves the dilemma that the Devil must either be Godcreated, or God’s co-eternal rival; the first supposition
being inconsistent with God’s goodness, and the second
being inconsistent with his power; but supposing such a
Devil, is it credible that the Devil should tempt the
Almighty maker of the universe with “ all these will I
give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me ? ”
In the very names of the twelve Apostles there is an un
certainty as to one, whose name was either Lebbmus, Thad
daeus, or Judas. It is in Matthew x., 3, alone that the name
of Lebbaeus is mentioned, thus—“Lebbaeus, whose surname
�18
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
was Thaddaeus.” We are told, on this point, by certain
Biblicists, that some early MSS. have not the words “ whose
surname was Thaddaeus,” and that these words have pro
bably been inserted to reconcile the Gospel according to
Matthew with that attributed to Mark. In the English
version of the Rheims Testament used in this country by
our Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation between
Matthew and Mark is completed by omitting the words
“ Lebbaeus whose surname was,” leaving only the name
“ Thaddaeus ” in Matthew’s text. The revised version of
the New Testament now agrees with the Rheims version,,
and the omission will probably meet with the entire concur
rence of Dr. Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society,,
now they boast autograph letters of approval from the in
fallible head of the Catholic Church. If Matthew x., 3,.
and Mark iii., 18, be passed as reconciled, although the first
calls the twelfth disciple Lebbeeus, and the second gives him
the name Thaddaeus; there is yet the difficulty that in Luke
vi., 16, corroborated by John xiv., 22, there is a disciple
spoken of as “ Judas, not Iscariot,” “Judas, the brother of
James.” Commentators have endeavored to clear away this
last difficulty by declaring that Thaddams is a Syriac word,
having much the same meaning as Judas. This has been
answered by the objection that if Matthew’s Gospel uses
Thaddaeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to speak of Thad
daeus Iscariot, which he does not; and it is further objected’
also that while there are some grounds for suggesting a
Hebrew original for the Gospel attributed to Matthew, there
is not the slightest pretence for alleging that Matthew wrote
in Syriac. The Gospels also leave us in some doubt as to.
whether Matthew is Levi, or whether Matthew and Levi are
two different persons.
The account of the calling of Peter is replete with con
tradictions. According to Matthew, when Jesus first saw
Peter, the latter was in a vessel fishing with his brother
Andrew, casting a net into the sea of Galilee. Jesus walk
ing by the sea said to them—“Follow me, and I will make
you fishers of men.” The two brothers did so, and they
became Christ’s disciples. When Jesus called Peter no one
was with him but his brother Andrew. A little further on,
the two sons of Zebedee were in a ship with their father
mending nets, and these latter were separately called. From
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
19
John, we learn that Andrew was originally a disciple of
John the Baptist, and that when Andrew first saw Jesus,
Peter was not present, but Andrew went and found Peter
who, if fishing, must have been angling on land, telling him
!:we have found the Messiah,” and that Andrew then
brought Peter to Jesus, who said, “Thou art Simon, the
son of Jonas ; thou shalt be called Cephas.” There is no
mention in John of the sons of Zebedee being a little further
on, or of any fishing in the sea of Galilee. This call is
clearly on land. Luke’s Gospel states that when the call
took place, Jesus and Peter were both at sea. Jesus had
been preaching to the people, who pressing upon him, he got
into Simon’s ship, from which he preached. After this he
directed Simon to put out into the deep and let down the
nets. Simon answered, “ Master, we have toiled all night
and taken nothing ; nevertheless at thy word I will let down
the net.” No sooner was this done, than the net was filled
to breaking, and Simon’s partners, the two sons of Zebedee,
came to help, when at the call of Jesus, they brought their
ships to land, and followed him.
Is it credible that there were three several calls, or that
the Gospels being inspired, you could have three contradic
tory versions of the same event ? Has the story been here
“ painfully modified,” or how do Dr. Tischendorf and the
Religious Tract Society clear up the matter? Is it credible
that, as stated in Luke, Jesus had visited Simon’s house, and
cured Simon’s wife’s mother, before the call of Simon, but
did not go to Simon’s house for that purpose, until after the
call of Simon, as related in Matthew ? It is useless to reply
that the date of Jesus’s visit is utterly unimportant, when
we are told that it is upon the credibility of the complete
narrative that Christianity must rest. Each stone is im
portant to the building, and it is not competent for the
Christian advocate to regard as useless any word which the
Holy Ghost has considered important enough to reveal.
Are the miracle stories credible ? Every ancient nation
has had its miracle workers, but modern science has relegated
all miracle history to realms of fable, myth, illusion, delusion,
or fraud. Can Christian miracles be made the exceptions ?
Is it likely that the nations amongst whom the dead were
restored to life would have persistently ignored the author
of such miracles? Were the miracles purposeless, or if in
�20
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
tended to convince the Jews, was God unable to render his
intentions effective ? That five thousand persons should be
, fed with five loaves and two fishes, and that an apparent
f excess should remain beyond the original stock, is difficult
to believe; but that shortly after this—Jesus having to
again perform a similar miracle for four thousand persons—
his own disciples should ignore his recent feat, and wonder
from whence the food was to be derived, is certainly start
lingly incredible. If this exhibition of incredulity were
pardonable on the part of the twelve apostles, living wit
nesses of greater wonders, how much more pardonable the
unbelief of the sceptic of to-day, which the Religious Tract
Society seek to overcome by a faint echo of asserted events
all contrary to probability, and with nineteen centuries
intervening.
I The casting out the devils presents phenomena requiring
j considerable credulity, especially the story of the devils and
t the swine. To-day insanity is never referable to demoniacal
possession, but eighteen hundred years ago the subject of
lunacy had not been so patiently investigated as it has been
since. That one man could now be tenanted by several
devils is a proposition for which the maintainer would in the
present generation incur almost universal contempt; yet the
repudiation of its present possibility can hardly be consistent
with implicit credence in its ancient history. That the devils
and God should hold converse together, although not with
out parallel in the book of Job, is inconsistent with the
theory of an infinitely good Deity ; that the devils should
address Jesus as son of the most high God, and beg to be
allowed to enter a herd of swine, is at least ludicrous ; yet all
this helps to make up the narrative on which Dr. Tischendorf
relies. That Jesus being God should pray to his Father
4 that “ the cup might pass ” from him is so incredible that
even the faithful ask us to regard it as mystery. That an
angel from heaven could strengthen Jesus, the almighty
God, is equally mysterious. That where Jesus had so pro
minently preached to thousands, the priests should need any
-one like Judas to betray the founder of Christianity with a
kiss, is absurd; his escapade in flogging the dealers, his
wonderful cures, and his raising Lazarus and Jairus’s
daughter should have secured him, if not the nation’s love,
faith, and admiration, at least a national reputation and
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
21
notoriety. It is not credible if Judas betrayed Jesus by a
kiss that the latter should have been arrested upon his own
statement that he was Jesus. That Peter should have had I
a so little faith as to deny his divine leader three times in a <
few hours is only reconcilable with the notion that he had i
remained unconvinced by his personal intercourse with the
; incarnate Deity. The mere blunders in the story of the I
j denial sink into insignificance in face of this major difficulty.
Whether the cock did or did not crow before the third denial,
whether Peter was or was not in the same apartment with
Jesus at the time of the last denial, are comparatively
trifling questions, and the contradictions on which they are
based may be the consequence of the errors which Dr.
Tischendorf says have crept into the sacred writings.
Jesus said, “ as Jonah was three days and three nights in
the belly of the whale, so shall the son of man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Jesus was
crucified on Friday, was buried on Friday evening, and yet
the first who went to the grave on the night of Saturday
as it began to dawn towards Sunday, found the body of
Jesus already gone. Did Jesus mean he should be three
days and three nights in the grave ? Is there any proof
that his body remained in the grave for three hours ?
Who went first to'* the grave? was it Mary Magdalene
alone, as in John, or two Maries as in Matthew, or the two
Maries and Salome as in Mark, or the two Maries, Joanna,
and several unnamed women as in Luke ? To whom did
did Jesus first appear? Was it, as in Mark, to Mary
Magdalene, or to two disciples going to Emmaus, as in
Luke, or to the two Maries near the sepulchre, as in
Matthew? Is the eating boiled fish and honeycomb by
a dead God credible ? Did Jesus ascend to heaven the
I very day of his resurrection, or did an interval of nearly
six weeks intervene ?
Is this history credible, contained as it is in four con- '
t tradictory biographies, outside which biographies we have, ■
as UrTTischendorf admits, “no other source of informa- •
tion with respect to the life of Jesus ” ? This history of
III an earth-born Deity, descended through a crime-tainted .
ancestry, and whose genealogical tree is traced through one I
I who was not his father ; this history of an infinite God nursed
G as a baby, growing through childhood to manhood like any
J
�22
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
frail specimen of humanity; this history, garnished with
bedevilledjnen, enchanted tig tree, myriads of ghosts, and
scores of miracles, and by such garnishment made more
akin to an oriental romance than to a sober history ; thjs
picture of the infinite invisible spirit incarnate visible as,
man; immutability subject to human passions and infirmi
ties ; the 'creator come to die, yet wishing to escape the
death which shall bring peace to Tris God-tormented crea
tures; God praying to himself and rejecting his own prayer;
God betrayed by a divinely-appointed traitor ; God the
immortal dying, and in the agony of the death-throes—
stronger than the strong man’s will—crying with almost
the last effort of his dying breath, that he being God, is
God forsaken !
* If all this be credible, what story is there any man need
hesitate to believe ?
Dr. Tischendorf asks how it has beeu possible to impugn
the credibility of the four Gospels, and replies that this has
been done by denying that the Gospels were written by the
men whose names they bear. In the preceding pages it has A
, been shown that the credibility of the Gospel narrative is
impugned because it is uncorroborated by contemporary
history, because it is self-contradictory, and because many
of its incidents are prima facie most improbable, and some
of them utterly impossible. Even English Infidels are quite
prepared to admit that the four Gospels may be quite anony
mous ; and yet, that their anonymous character need be of •
no weight as an argument against their truth. All that is |
urged on this head is that the advocates of the Gospel history ■
have sought to endorse and give value to the otherwise un- |
reliable narratives by a pretence that some of the Evange
lists, at least, were eyewitnesses of the events they refer to. ‘
Dr. Tischendorf says: “The credibility of a writer clearlyic*
I' depends on the interval of tifrle which lies between him and |
I the events which he describes. The farther the narrator is ■ i
removed from the facts which heTays before us the more ( y,
his claims to credibility are reduced in value.” Presuming
t truthfulness in intention for any writer, and his ability to
comprehend the facts he is narrating, and his freedom from a
prejudice which may distort the picture he intends to paint
correctly with his pen: we might admit the correctness of
the passage we have quoted; but can these always be pre
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
(
23
sumed in the case of the authors of the Gospels ? On the
contrary, a presumption in an exactly opposite direction may
he fairly raised from the fact that immediately after the
Apostolic age the Christian world was flooded with forged
testimonies in favor of the biography of Jesus, or in favor
of his disciples.
A writer in the Edinburgh Review observes : “ To say
nothing of such acknowledged forgeries as the Apostolic
constitutions and liturgies, and the several spurious Gospels,
the question of the genuineness of the alleged remains of
the Apostolic fathers, though often overlooked, is very
material. Any genuine remains of the ‘ Apostle ’ Barnabas,
of Hermas, the contemporary (Romans xvi., 14), and
Clement, the highly commended and gifted fellow laborer
of St. Paul (Phil, iv., 3), could scarcely be regarded as less
•sacred than those of Mark and Luke, of whom personally
we know less. It is purely a question of criticism. At the
present day, the critics best competent to determine it. have,
agreed in opinion, that the extant writings ascribed to Bar
nabas and Hermas are wholly spurious-—the frauds of a
later age. How much suspicion attaches to the 1st Epistle
of Clement (for the fragment of the second is also generally
rejected) is manifest from the fact, that in modern times
it has never been allowed the place expressly assigned to it
among the canonical books prefixed to the celebrated Alex
andrian MS., in which the only known copy of it is included.
It must not be forgotten that Ignatius expressly lays claim
to inspiration, that Ireneeus quotes Hermas as Scripture,
and Origen speaks of him as inspired, while Polycarp, in
modestly disclaiming to be put on a level with the Apostles,
clearly implies there would have been no essential distinction
in the way of his being ranked in the same order. But the
question is, how are these pretensions substantiated ? ” So
far the Edinburgh Review, certainly not an Infidel publica
tion.
Eusebius, in his “Ecclesiastical History,” admits the4
*’ existence of many spurious gospels and epistles, and some .
writings put forward by him as genuine, such as the corres
pondence between Jesus and Agbaras, have since been rejected as fictitious. It is not an unfair presumption from it
this that many of the most early Christians considered the
then existing testimonies insufficient to prove the history of
�24
WHEN WERE O'UR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
Jesus, and good reason is certainly afforded for carefully
examining the whole of the evidences they have bequeathed us.
On p. 48, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Irenaeus, whose writings
belong to the extreme end of the second century, as though
that Bishop must be taken as vouching the four Gospels as
we now have them. Yet, if the testimony of Irenaeus be
reliable (“ Against Heresies,” Book III., cap. i.) the Gospel
attributed to Matthew was believed to have been composed
in Hebrew, and Irenaeus says that as the Jews desired a
Messiah of the royal line of David, Matthew having the
same desire to a yet greater degree, strove to give them full
satisfaction. This may account for some of the genealogical
curiosities to which we have drawn attention, but hardly
renders Matthew’s Gospel more reliable ; and how can the /
| suggestion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew prove that Mat- I
ithew penned the first Gospel, which has only existed ini
Greek ? Irenaeus, too, flatly contradicts the Gospels by \
declaring that the ministry of Jesus extended over ten years I
and that Jesus lived to be fifty years of age (“Against £
Heresies,” Book II., cap. 22).
If the statement of Irenaeus (“Against Heresies,” Book’
11“ III., cap. 11) that the fourth Gospel was written to refute the 1
errors of Cerinthus and Nicolaus, have any value, then the
’ actual date of issue of the fourth Gospel will be consider- £.
* ably after the others. Dr. Tischendorf’s statement that
i Polycarp has borne testimony to the Gospel of John is noth,
I even supported by the quotation on which he relies. All w
that is said in the passage quoted (Eusebius, “ Ecc. Hist.(” "
Book V., cap. 20) is that Irenaeus when he was a child
heard Polvea.rn reneat from memorv the dise.onrses of John I?
- in the time of Polycarp it would have been at least as easy jj
to have read them from the MS. as to repeat them from n
memory. Dr. Tischendorf might also have added that
I the letter to Florinus, whence he takes the passage on '
which he relies, exists only in the writings of Eusebius, to ,
whom we are indebted for many pieces of Christian evidence
since abandoned as forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says : “Any
testimony of Polycarp in favor of the Gospel refers us back
to the Evangelist himself, for Polycarp, in speaking to
Irenaeus of this Gospel as the work of his master, St. John,
must have learned from the lips of the apostle himself,.
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
25
evidence
whether he was its author or not.” Now, what evidence^
is there that Polycarp ever saida single word as to the
authorship of the fourth Gospel, of of any Gospel, or that
, he even said that John had penned a single word? In the (\\
[ I Epistle to the Philippians (the only writing attributed to
; Polycarp for which any genuine character is even pre
tended), the Gospel of John is never mentioned, nor is
there even a single passage in the Epistle which can be
identified with any passage in the Gospel of John.
Surely Dr. Tischendorf forgot, in the eager desire to
make his witnesses bear good testimony, that the highest
duty of an advocate is to make the truth clear, not to put
forward a pleasantly colored falsehood to deceive the igno
rant. It is not even true that Irenasus ever pretends1
, that Polycarp in any way vouched our fourth Gospsl as
having been written by John, and yet Dr. Tischendorf had
the cool audacity to say “there is nothing more damaging
to the doubters of the authenticity of St. John’s Gospel *
than this testimony of St. Polycarp.” Do the Religious
Tract Society regard English Infidels as so utterly ignorant
that they thus intentionally seek to suggest a falsehood, or
are the Council of the Religious Tract Society themselves
unable to test the accuracy of the statements put forward
on their behalf by the able decipherer of illegible parch
ments ?
It is too much to suspect the renowned Dr. Con
stantine Tischendorf of ignorance, yet even the coarse
English sceptic regrets that the only other alternative will
be to denounce him as a theological charlatan.
Dr. Mosheim, writing on behalf of Christianity, says that |
the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians is by some treated'
. as genuine and by others as spurious, and that it is no easy
matter to decide.
Many critics, of no mean order, class it I
amongst the apostolic Christian forgeries, but whether the
/ Epistle be genuine or spurious, it contains no quotation
I I from, it makes no reference to, the Gospel of John.
M ‘ To what is said of Irenasus, Tertullian, and Clement of
l\ Alexandria, it is enough to note that all these are after
a.d. 150. Irenasus may be put 177 to 200, Tertullian about
193, and Clement of Alexandria as commencing the third' _
century.
One of Dr. Tischendorf’s most audacious flourishes is that
(p. 49) with reference to the Canon of Muratori, which we
�26
I
|
I
'
i
I
i,
'
'
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
are told “enumerates the books of the New Testament
which, from the first, were considered canonical and sacred,”
and which “ was written a little after the age of Pins I,
about a.d. 170.”
First the anonymous fragment contains books which were
never accepted as canonical; next, it is quite impossible to
say when or by whom it was written or what was its original
language. Muratori, who discovered the fragment in 1740^ 1|
conjectured that it was written about the end of the second i
dr beginning of the third century, but itjg, noteworthy that
neither Eusebius nor any other of the ecclesiastical advocates
ofjhe third, fourth, or fifth centuries, ever refers to it. It
may be the compilation of any monk at any date prior to
1740, and is utterly valueless as evidence.
Dr. Tischendorf’s style is well exemplified by the positive
manner in which he fixes the date a.d. 139 to the first
apology of Justin, although a critic so “ learned ” as the un
rivalled Dr. Tischendorf could not fail to be aware that
more than one writer has supported the view that the date
of the first apology was not earlier than a.d. 145, and others
have contended for a.d. 150. The Benedictine editors of
Justin’s works support the latter date. Dr. Kenn argues
for a.d. 155—160. On page 63, the Religious Tract Society’s
champion appeals to the testimony of Justin Martyr, but in »
order not to shock the devout while convincing the profane,
he omits to mention that more than half the writings once
attributed to Justin Martyr are now abandoned, as either of
doubtful character or actual forgeries, and that Justin’s
value as a witness is considerably weakened by the fact that
he quotes the acts of Pilate and the Sybilline Oracles as
though they were reliable evidence, when in fact they are
both admitted specimens of “ a Christian forgery.” But |
what does Justin testify as to the Gospels ? Does he say
that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were their writers ?
On the contrary, not only do the names of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John never occur as Evangelists in the writings
of Justin, but he actually mentions facts and sayings as to
Jesus, which are not found in either of the four Gospels.
The very words rendered Gospels only occur where they are
strongly suspected to be interpolated, Justin usually speaking
of some writings which he calls “ memorials ” or “memoirs
of the Apostles.”
»
.
I
j
’
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
27
Dr. Tischendorf urges that in the writings of Justin the
G-ospels are placed side by side with the prophets, and that
“this undoubtedly places the Gospels in the list of canon
ical books.” If this means that there is any statement in
-Justin capable of being so construed, then Dr. Tischendorf
was untruthful. Justin does quote specifically the Sybilline
oracles, but never Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He
‘-quotes statements as to Jesus, which may be found in the
-apocryphal Gospels, and which are not found in ours, so that
if the evidence of Justin Martyr be taken, it certainly does not
tend to prove, even in the smallest degree, that four Gospels
were specially regarded with reverence in his day. The
Rev. W. Sanday thinks that Justin did not assign an ex
clusive authority to our Gospels, and that he made use also
of other documents no longer extant. (“ Gospels in 2nd
Century,” p. 117.)
On p. 94 it is stated that “as early as the time of Justin i»
’ the expression ‘ the Evangel ’ was applied to the four 7
Gospels.” This statement by Dr. Tischendorf and its »
"publication by the Religious Tract Society call for the
I strongest condemnation. Nowhere in the writings of Justin
are the words “the Evangel” applied to the four Gospels.
Gardner only professes to discover two instances in which
the wTord anglicised by Tischendorf as “Evangel,” occurs;
■€.vayyeX.L<i> and evayyeXca, the second being expressly pointed
out by Schleiermacher as an interpolation, and as an in
stance in which a marginal note has been incorporated with
the text; nor would one occurrence of such a word prove
that any book or books were so known by Justin, as the
word is merely a compound of ev good and ayyekta message;
nor is there the slightest foundation for the statement that
in the time of Justin the word Evangel was ever applied to
■designate the four Gospels now attributed to Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John.
Dr. Tischendorf (p. 46) admits that the “ faith of the I
! Church . . . would be seriously compromised ” if we ;
>do not find references to the Gospels in writings between /
a.d. 100 and a.l>. 150; and—while he does not directly '
.assert—he insinuates that in such writings the Gospels were
“ treated with the greatest respect,” or “ even already
treated as canonical and sacred writings
and he distinctly
affirms that the Gospels “ did see the light ” during the
�28
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
“ Apostolic age,” “ and before the middle of the second’
century our Gospels were held in the highest respect by the
Church,” although for the affirmation, he neither has nor
advances the shadow of evidence.
The phrases, “ Apostolic age ” and ‘‘Apostolic fathers”
denote the first century of the Christian era, and those
fathers who are supposed to have flourished during that
period, and who are supposed to have seen or heard, or had
the opportunity of seeing or hearing, either Jesus or some
one or more of the twelve Apostles., Barnabas, Clement,
Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, are those whose names
figure most familiarly in Christian evidences as Apostolic
fathers. But the evidence from these Apostolic fathers is
of a most unreliable character. Mosheim (“ Ecclesiastical
t History,” cent. 1, cap. 2, sec. 3, 17) says that “ the Apostolic
history is loaded with doubts, fables, and difficulties,” and
that not long after Christ’s ascension several histories were
current of his life and doctrines, full of “ pious frauds and
fabulous wonders.” Amongst these were “The Acts of
Paul,” “ The Revelation of Peter,” “ The Gospel of Peter,”
I “The Gospel of Andrew,” “The Gospel of John,” “The
.Gospel of James,” “The Gospel of the Egyptians,” etc.
The attempts often made to prove from the writings of
Barnabas, Ignatius, etc., the prior existence of the four
Gospels, though specifically unnamed, by similarity of
phraseology in quotations, is a failure, even admitting for
the moment the genuineness of the Apostolic Scriptures, if
the proof is intended to carry the matter higher than that
such and such statements were current in some form or other,
at the date the fathers wrote. As good an argument might
’ be made that some of the Gospel passages were adopted from
* the fathers. The fathers occasionally quote, as from the
4 mouth of Jesus, words which are not found in any of our
four Gospels, and make reference to events not included in
the Gospel narratives, clearly evidencing that even if the
four documents ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
were in existence, they were not the only sources of infor
mation from which some of the Apostolic fathers derived
their knowledge of Christianity, and evidencing also that the
four Gospels had attained no such specific superiority as to
entitle them to special mention by name.
Of the epistle attributed to Barnabas, which is sup-
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
29
<posed by its supporters to have been written in the latter
part of the first century, which, Paley says, is probably
genuine, which is classed by Eusebius as spurious (“Eccle
siastical History,” book iii., cap. 25), and which Dr.
Donaldson does not hesitate for one moment in refusing to
ascribe to Barnabas the Apostle (“ Ante-Nicene Fathers,”
vol. i., p. 100), it is only necessary to say that so far from
speaking of the Gospels with the greatest respect, it does not
mention by name any one of the four Gospels. There are
some passages in Barnabas which are nearly identical in
phraseology with some Gospel passages, and which it has
been argued are quotations from one or other of the four
Gospels, but which may equally be quotations from other
Gospels, or from writings not in the character of Gospels.
There are also passages which are nearly identical with
several of the New Testament epistles, but even the great
framer of Christian evidences, Gardner, declares his convic
tion that none of these last-mentioned passages are quota
tions, or even allusions, to the Pauline or other epistolary
writings. Barnabas makes many quotations which clearly
demonstrate that the four Gospels, if then in existence and
if he had access to them, could not have been his only source
of information as to the teachings of Jesus (E. G., cap. 7).
“ The Lord enjoined that whosoever did not keep the fast
should be put to death.” “ He required the goats to be of
goodly aspect and similar, that when they see him coming
they may be amazed by the likeness to the goat.” Says he,
“ those who wish to behold me and lay hold of my kingdom,
must through tribulation and suffering obtain me” (cap. 12).
And the Lord saith, “When a tree shall be bent down and
again rise, and when blood shall flow out of the wound.”
Will the Religious Tract Society point out from which of
the Gospels these are quoted ?
Barnabas (cap. 10) says that Moses forbade the Jews to
eat weasel flesh, “ because that animal conceives with the
mouth,” and forbad them to eat the hyena because that
animal annually changes its sex. This father seems to have
made a sort of melange of some of the Pentateuchal
ordinances. He says (cap. 8) that the Heifer (mentioned
in Numbers) was a type of Jesus, that the three (?) young
men appointed to sprinkle, denote Abraham, Isaac, and
- -Jacob, that wool was put upon a stick because the
�30
I
.
,
1
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
kingdom of Jesus was founded upon the cross, and
(cap. 9) that the 318 men circumcised by Abraham
stood for Jesus crucified. Barnabas also declared that
the world was to come to an end in 6,000 years (“Free
thinkers’ Text Book,” part ii., p. 268). In the Sinaitic
Bible, the Epistle of St. Barnabas has now, happily for
misguided Christians, been discovered in the original Greek.
To quote the inimitable style of Dr. Tischendorf, “ while
so much has been lost in the course of centuries by the
tooth of time and the carelessness of ignorant monks, an in
visible eye had watched over this treasure, and when it was
on the point of perishing in the fire, the Lord had decreed itsdeliverance;” “while critics have generally been divided
between assigning it to the first or second decade of the
second century, the Sinaitic Bible, which has for the first
time cleared up this question, has led us to throw its com
position as far back as the last decade of the first century.”
A fine specimen of Christian evidence writing, cool assertion
without a particle of proof and without the slightest reason
given. How does the Siniatic MS., even if it be genuine,
clear up the question of the date of St. Barnabas’s Epistle?
Dr. Tischendorf does not condescend to tell us what has led
the Christian advocate to throw back the date of its com
position ? We are left entirely in the dark: in fact, what
Dr. Tischendorf calls a “throw back,” is if you look at
Lardner just the reverse. What does the epistle of Barnabas
prove, even if it be genuine ? Barnabas quotes, by name,
Moses and Daniel, but never Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
Barnabas specifically refers to Deuteronomy and the pro
phets, but never to either of the four Gospels.
There is an epistle attributed to Clement of Rome, whichhas been preserved in a single MS. only where it is coupled
with another epistle rejected as spurious. Dr. Donaldson(“ Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. i-, p. 3) declares that who the
Clement was to whom these writings are ascribed cannot
with absolute certainty be determined. Both epistles stand
on equal authority; one is rejected by Christians, the other is
received. In this epistle while there is a distinct reference
to an Epistle by Paul to the Corinthians, there is no mention
by name of the four Gospels, nor do any of the words attri
buted by Clement to Jesus agree for any complete quotation
with anyone of the Gospels as we have them. The Rev.
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
31
W. Sanday is frank enough to concede “ that Clement is
not quoting directly from our Gospels.”
Is it probable that Clement would have mentioned a
writing by Paul, and yet have entirely ignored the four
Gospels, if he had known that they had then existed ?
And could they have easily existed in the Christian world in
his day without his knowledge ? If anyone takes cap. xxv.
of this epistle and sees the phoenix given as a historic fact,
and as evidence for the reality of the resurrection, he will be
better able to appreciate the value of this so-called epistle
of Clement.
The letters of Ignatius referred to by Dr. Tischendorf
are regarded by Mosheim as laboring under many difficul
ties, and embarrassed with much obscurity. Even Lardner,
doing his best for such evidences, says, that if we find
matters in the Epistles inconsistent with the notion that
Ignatius was the writer, it is better to regard such passages
as interpolations, than to reject the Epistles entirely,
especially in the “ scarcity ” of such testimonies.
There are fifteen epistles of which eight are undisputedly
forgeries. Of the remaining seven there are two versions, a
long and a short version, one of which must be corrupt,
both of which may be. These seven epistles, however, are
in no case to be accepted with certainty as those of Ignatius.
Dr. Cureton contends that only three still shorter epistles are
genuine (“Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. i., pp. 137 to 143).
The Rev. W. Sanday treats the three short ones as probably
genuine, waiving the question as to the others (“ Gospels in
Second Century,” p. 77, and see preface to sixth edition
“ Supernatural Religion”), Ignatius, however, even if he be
the writer of the epistles attributed to him, never mentions
either of the four Gospels. In the nineteenth chapter of the
Epistles to the Ephesians, there is a statement made as to
the birth and death of Jesus, not to be found in either
Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
If the testimony of the Ignatian Epistles is reliable, then
it vouches that in that early age there were actually Chris
tians who denied the death of Jesus. A statement as to
Mary in cap. nineteen of the Epistle to the Ephesians is
not to be found in any portion of the Gospels. In his
Epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius, attacking those who denied
the real existence of Jesus, would have surely been glad to
�32
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
quote the evidence of eye witnesses like Matthew and John,
if such evidence had existed in his day. In cap. eight
of the Epistles to the Philadelphians, Ignatius says, “I have
jlr heard of some who say : Unless I find it in the archives I
*' will not believe the Gospel. And when I said it is written,
they answered that remains to be proved.” This is the
most distinct reference to any Christian writings, and how
little does this support Dr. Tischendorf’s position. From
which of our four Gospels could Ignatius have taken the
words, “lam not an incorporeal demon,” which he puts into
the mouth of Jesus in cap. iii., the epistle to the Smyrnasans ?
Dr. Tischendorf does admit that the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles is not of decisive value; might he not go
farther and say, that as proof of the four Gospels it is of no
value at all ?
On page 70, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Hippolytus without
any qualification. Surely the English Religious Tract Society
might have remembered that Dodwell says, that the name
of Hippolytus had been so abused by impostors, that it was
not easy to distinguish any of his writings. That Mill de
clares that, with one exception, the pieces extant under his
name are all spurious. That, except fragments in the writ
ings of opponents, the works of Hippolytus are entirely
lost. Yet the Religious Tract Society permit testimony so
tainted to be put forward under their authority, to prove the
truth of Christian history. The very work which Dr. Tis
chendorf pretends to quote is not even mentioned by Euse
bius, in the list he gives of the writings of Hippolytus.
On page 94, Dr. Tischendorf states that Basilides, before ».
\ a.d. 138, and Valentinus, about a.d. 140, make use of
three out of four Gospels, the first using John and Luke,
the second, Matthew, Luke, and John. What words of
either Basilides or Valentinus exist anywhere to justify this ,
reckless assertion ? Was Dr. Tischendorf again presuming
’ on the utter ignorance of those who are likely to read his
pamphlet ? The Religious Tract Society are responsible
for Dr. Tischendorf’s allegations, which it is impossible to
support with evidence.
The issue raised is not whether the followers of Basilides
or the followers of Valentinus may have used these gospels,
but whether there is a particle of evidence to justify Dr.
'Tischendorf’s declaration, that Basilides and Valentinus
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
33
themselves used the above-named gospels. That the four
Gospels were well known during the second half of the first
century is what Dr. Tischendorf undertook to prove, and
statements attributed to Basilides and Valentinus, but which ■*
ought to be attributed to their followers, will go but little
way as such proof (see “ Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii., pp
41 to 63).
It is pleasant to find a grain of wheat in the bushel of
Tischendorf chaff. On page 98, and following pages, the
erudite author applies himself to get rid of the testimony of
Papias, which was falsified and put forward by Paley as of
great importance. Paley says the authority of Papias is com- 1
plete; Tischendorf declares that Papias is in error. Paley
says Papias was a hearer of John, Tischendorf says he was /
not. We leave the champions of the two great Christian
evidence-mongers to settle the matter as best they can. If,
however, we are to accept Dr. Tischendorf’s declaration
that the testimony of Papias is worthless, we get rid of the
chief link between Justin Martyr and the apostolic age. It
pleases Dr. Tischendorf to damage Papias, because that
father is silent as to the gospel of John ; but the Religious
Tract Society must not forget that in thus clearing away
<1 the second-hand evidence of Papias, they have cut away
their only pretence for saying that any of the Gospels are
mentioned byname within 150 years of the date claimed for
the birth of Jesus. In referring to the lost work of Theo
philus of Antioch, which Dr. Tischendorf tells us was a
kind of harmony of the Gospels, in which the four narra
tives are moulded and fused into one, the learned Doctor
forgets to tell us that Jerome, whom he quotes as giving I
some account of Theophilus, actually doubted whether the ;
so-called commentary was really from the pen of that
writer. Lardner says : “ Whether those commentaries which »
> St. Jerome quotes were really composed by Theophilus may |
be doubted, since they were unknown to Eusebius, and were ■
observed by Jerome to differ in style and expression from
his other works. However, if they were not his, they were
the work of some anonymous ancient.” But if they were
the work of an anonymous ancient after Eusebius, what be
comes of Dr. Tischendorf’s “ as early as a.d. 170?”
1
Eusebius, who refers to Theophilus, and who speaks of his
using the Apocalypse, would have certainly gladly quoted
�34
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
the Bishop of Antioch’s “ Commentary on the Four Gos
pels,” if it had existed in his day. Nor is it true that the
references we have in Jerome to the work attributed to
Theophilus, justify the description given by Dr. Tischendorf,
or even the phrase of Jerome, “gm quatuor Evangelistarum
in unum opus dicta comping ens. ” Theophilus seems, so far
as it is possible to judge, to have occupied himself not with a
connected history of Jesus, or a continuous discourse as to
his doctrines, but rather with mystical and allegorical eluci
dations of occasional passages, which ended, like many pious
commentaries on the Old or New Testament, in leaving the
point dealt with a little less clear with the Theophillian com
mentary than without it. Dr. Tischendorf says that Theo
doret and Eusebius speak of Tatian in the same way—that
is, as though he had, like his Syrian contemporary, composed
a harmony of the four Gospels. This is also inaccurate.
Eusebius talks of Tatianus “having found a certain body
and collection of Gospels, I know not how,” which collection
Eusebius does not appear even to have ever seen; and so far
from the phrase in Theodoret justifying Dr. Tischendorf’s
explanation, it would appear from Theodoret that Tatian’s
Diatessaron was, in fact, a sort of spurious gospel, “The
Gospel of the Four” differing materially from our four
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Neither
Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, or Jerome, who refer to
other works of Tatian, make any mention of this. Dr.
Tischendorf might have added that Diapente, or “the
Gospel of the Five,” has also been a title applied to this
work of Tatian.
, In the third chapter of his essay, Dr. Tischendorf refers
/' to apocryphal writings “which bear on their front the names
of Apostles” “used by obscure writers to palm off” their
forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says that these spurious books
were composed “partly to embellish” scripture narratives,
and “ partly to support false doctrine ; ” and he states that
in early times, the Church was not so well able to distin
guish true gospels from false ones, and that consequently
some of the apocryphal writings “ were given a place they
did not deserve.” This statement of the inability of the
Church to judge correctly, tells as much against the whole,
\ as against any one or more of the early Christian writings,
and as it may be as fatal to the now received gospels as to
I
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ?
35
those now rejected, it deserves the most careful conside
ration. According to Dr. Tischendorf, Justin Martyr falls
into the category of those of the Church who were “not so
critical in distinguishing the true from the false; ” for Justin,
says Tischendorf, treats the Gospel of St. James and the
Acts of Pilate, each as a fit source whence to derive mate
rials for the life of Jesus, and therefore must have regarded
the Gospel of St. James and the Acts of Pilate, as genuine
and authentic writings; while Dr. Tischendorf, wiser, and a
greater critic than Justin, condemns the Gospel of St. James
as spurious, and calls the Acts of Pilate “a pious fraud ; ”
but if Dr. Tischendorf be correct in his statement that
* “Justin made use of this Gospel” and quotes the “Acts of
Pontius Pilate,” then, according to his own words, Justin
did not know how to distinguish the true from the false,
and the whole force of his evidence previously used by Dr.
Tischendorf in aid of the four Gospels would have been
seriously diminished, even if it had been true, which it
is not, that Justin Martyr had borne any testimony on the
subj’ect.
Such, then, are the weapons, say the Religious Tract
Society, by their champion, “which we employ against un
believing criticism.” And what are these weapons ? We
have shown in the preceding pages, the suppressio veri and
the suggestio falsi are amongst the weapons used. The
Religious Tract Society directors are parties to fabrication
of evidence, and they permit a learned charlatan to forward
the cause of Christ with craft and chicane. But even this
is not enough ; they need, according to their pamphlet, “ a
new weapon; ” they want “to find out the very words the
Apostles used.”
True believers have been in a state of
delusion ; they were credulous enough to fancy that theft
authorised version of the Scriptures tolerably faithfully 1
represented God’s revelation to humankind. But no, says ‘
Dr. Tischendorf, it has been so seriously modified in the
copying and re-copying that it ought to be set aside alto-i
gether, and a fresh text constructed. Glorious news thisk
for the Bible Society. Listen to it, Exeter Hall 1 Glad tidings
to be issued by the Paternoster Row saints 1 After spending
hundreds of thousands of pounds in giving away Bibles to
soldiers, in placing them in hotels and lodging-houses, and
shipping them off to negroes and savages, it appears that
�36
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
| the wrong text has been sent through the world, the true
version being all the time in a waste-paper heap at Mount
Sinai, watched over by an “invisible eye.” But, adds Dr.
| Tischendorf, “if you ask me whether any popular version
contains the original text, my answer is Yes and No. I
say Yes as far as concerns your soul’s salvation.” If these
are enough for the soul’s salvation, why try to improve the
matter? If we really need the “full and clear light” of
the Sinaitic Bible to show us “ what is the Word written
by God,” then most certainly our present Bible is not
believed by the Religious Tract Society to be the Word
written by God. The Christian advocates are in this
I dilemma : either the received text is insufficient, or the pro* posed improvement is unnecessary. Dr. Tischendorf says
( that “ The Gospels, like the only begotten of the Father,
will endure as long as human nature itself,” yet he says
“ there is a great diversity among the texts,” and that
the Gospel in use amongst the Ebionites and that used
’^amongst the Nazarenes have been “ disfigured here and
there with certain arbitrary changes.” He admits, more1 over, that “ in early times, when the Church was not so
critical in distinguishing the true from the false,” spurious
Gospels obtained a credit which they did not deserve. And
- while arguing for the enduring character of the Gospel, he
requests you to set aside the received text altogether, and to
try to construct a new revelation by the aid of Dr. Tischendorf’s patent Sinaitic invention.
We congratulate the Religious Tract Society upon their
manifesto, and on the victory it secures them over German
Rationalism and English Infidelity. The Society’s trans
lator, in his introductory remarks, declares that “ circum
stantial evidence when complete, and when every link in
the chain has been thoroughly tested, is as strong as direct
testimony; ” and, adds the Society’s penman, “ This is the
kind of evidence which Dr. Tischendorf brings for the
genuineness of our Gospels.” It would be difficult to
imagine a more inaccurate description of Dr. Tischendorf’s
work. Do we find the circumstantial evidence carefully
tested in the Doctor’s boasting and curious narrative of his
journeys commenced on a pecuniary deficiency and culmi
nating in much cash ? Do we find it in Dr. Tischendorf’s
concealment for fifteen years of the place, watched over by
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
37
an invisible eye, in which was hidden the greatest biblical
treasure in the world ? Is the circumstantial evidence
shown in the sneers at Renan ? or is each link in the chain
tested by the strange jumbling together of names and con
jectures in the first chapter ? What tests are used in the
cases of Valentinus and Basilides in the second chapter?
How is the circumstantial testimony aided by the references
in the third chapter to the Apocryphal Gospels? Is there
a pretence even of critical testing in the chapter devoted to
the apostolic fathers ? All that Dr. Tischendorf has done
is in effect to declare that our authorised version of the New
Testament is so unreliable, that it ought to be got rid of
altogether, and a new text constructed. And this declara
tion is circulated by the Religious Tract Society, which
sends the sixpenny edition of the Gospel with one hand,
and in the other the shilling Tischendorf pamphlet, declaring
that many passages of the Religious Tract Society’s New
Testament have undergone such serious modifications of
meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what
was originally written.
The very latest contribution from orthodox sources to the
study of the Gospels, as contained in the authorised version,
is to be found in the very candid preface to the recentlyissued revised version of the New Testament, where the
ordinary Bible receives a condemnation of the most sweeping
description. Here, on the high authority of the revisers,
we are told that, with regard to the Greek text, the trans
lators of the authorised version had for their guides “manu
scripts of late date, few in number and used with little
critical skill.” The revisers add what Freethinkers have
long maintained, and have been denounced from pulpits for
maintaining, viz., “ that the commonly received text needed
thorough revision,” and, what is even more important,
they candidly avow that “it is but recently that materials
have been acquired for executing such a work with even
approximate completeness.” So that not only “ God’s
Word” has admittedly for generations not been “God’s
Word ” at all, but even now, and with materials not formerly
known, it has only been revised with “ approximate com
pleteness,” whatever those two words may mean. If they
have any significance at all, they must convey the belief of
the new and at present final revisers of the Gospel, that, even
�38
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
after all their toil, they are not quite sure that god’s reve
lation is quite exactly rendered into English. So far as the
ordinary authorised version of the New Testament goes—
i and it is this, the law-recognised, version which is still used
in administering oaths—we are told that the old translators
“used considerable freedom,” and “ studiously adopted a
variety of expressions which would now be deemed hardly con
sistent with the requirements of faithful translation.” This
I is a pleasant euphemism, but a real and direct charge of dis
honest translation by the authorised translators. The new
revisers add, with sadness, that “ it cannot be doubted that
they (the translators of the authorised version) carried this
liberty too far, and that the studied avoidance of uniformity
in the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in
the same context, is one of the blemishes of their work.”
These blemishes the new revisers think were increased by
the fact that the translation of the authorised version of the
New Testament was assigned to two separate companies, who
never sat together, which “ was beyond doubt the cause of
many inconsistencies,” and, although there was a final super
vision’, the new revisers add, most mournfully : “ When it
is remembered that the supervision was completed in nine
months, we may wonder that the incongruities which remain
are not more numerous.”
Nor are the revisers by any means free from doubt and
misgiving on their own work. They had the “ laborious
task ” of “ deciding between the rival claims of various
readings which might properly affect the translation,” and,
as they tell us, “ Textual criticism, as applied to the Greek
New Testament, forms a special study of much intricacy and’
difficulty, and even now leaves room for considerable variety
of opinion among competent critics.” Next they say: “ the
■ frequent inconsistencies in the authorised version have caused
| us much embarrassment,” and that there are “ numerous
passages in the authorised version in which .... the
studied variety adopted by the Translators of 1611 has pro
duced a degree of inconsistency that cannot be reconciled
with the principle of faithfulness.” So little are the new
revisers always certain as to what god means that they
provide “alternative readings in difficult or debateable
passages,” and say “ the notes of this last group are
numerous and largely in excess of those which were ad
�WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
39
mitted by our predecessors.” And with reference to the
pronouns and other words in italics we are told that “ some
of these cases .... are of singular intricacy, and make
it impossible to maintain rigid uniformity.” The new
revisers conclude by declaring that “ through our manifold
experience of its abounding difficulties we have felt more
and more as we went onward that such a work can never be
accomplished by organised efforts of scholarship and criticism
unless assisted by divine help.” Apparently the new revisers r
are conscious that they did not receive this divine help in
their attempt at revision, for they go on: “We know full H
well that defects must have their place in a work so long and
so arduous as this which has now come to an end. Blemishes
and imperfections there are in the noble translation which 11
we have been called upon to revise ; blemishes and imper- ‘
fections will assuredly be found in our own revision; . .
. . we cannot forget how often we have failed in express- I
ing some finer shade of meaning which we recognised in the
original, how often idiom has stood in the way of a perfect
rendering, and how often the attempt to preserve a familiar
form of words, or even a familiar cadence, has only added ,
I another perplexity to those which have already beset us.”
J
THE END.
��
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
When were our gospels written?
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 4th ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 39 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Annotations in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
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
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N105
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 (When were our gospels written?), 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. N.T. Gospels
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0a69e02a0095dafda63250817aa8b9d9.pdf?Expires=1779926400&Signature=PKRXgxPMcXNAJeBH5DRZEgtRIEiZzLhbh9wuJI7SLdcHymKcbnM8zqZMJ6BhO3OV9i-wODL8aULMJlyMqKX1iG7UMWAVHEQfaDeXzg7gUfINntKIJ%7E42gHAsPcDHQdLxPF7eFe1wKapKTsveUij3kaWXcF5M%7EZUY77Hnh4VPcoRLfks%7E6sRzQKA9pV1MFwN%7E8WKSduHTozCWw5BsPjovYfoqVHO5iq7TX7PJK1VEPOhTNjSpcazput7UJZFSqCyV4d8w%7EGD4gFp-Aa9CwiJGVIGPIdMFUZkYU5IbhwZRPVrY5AiaUhm6lLL236mnbT7FzW9%7EoaYcr-%7EiKGJ6ofBGEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fd57b18f6844a76fa6acdb3b1743783a
PDF Text
Text
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM:
BEING
A LECTURE
DELIVERED IN
MERCANTILE HALL, BOSTON,
APRIL 10, 1861,
BY MRS. ERNESTINE L. ROSE.
BOSTON: •
PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM, INVESTIGATOR OFFICE.
1881.
��A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
My Friends :—In undertaking the inquiry of
the existence of a God, I am fully conscious of
the difficulties 1 have to encounter. I am well
aware that the very question produces in most
minds a feeling of awe, as if stepping on forbid
den ground, too holy and sacred for mortals to
approach. The very question strikes them with
horror, and it is owing to this prejudice so deeply
implanted by education, and also strengthened by
public sentiment, that so few are willing to give it
a fair and impartial investigation,—knowing but
too well that it casts a stigma and reproach upon
any person bold enough to undertake the task,
unless his previously known opinions are a guar
antee that his conclusions would be in accordance
and harmony with the popular demand. But be
lieving, as I do, that Truth only is beneficial, and
Error, from whatever source, and under whatever
name, is pernicious to man, I consider no place
too holy, no subject too sacred, for man’s earnest
investigation; for by so doing only can we arrive
at Truth, learn to discriminate it from Error, and
be able to accept the one and reject the other.
Nor is this the only impediment in the way of
this inquiry. The question arises, Where shall
we begin ? We have been told, that “ by search
ing none can find out God,” which has so far
�4
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
proved true ; for, as yet, no one has ever been
able to find him. The most strenuous believer
has to acknowledge that it is only a belief, but he
knows nothing on the subject. Where, then, shall
we search for his existence? Enter the material
world ; ask the Sciences whether they can disclose
the mystery ? Geology speaks of the structure of
the Earth, the formation of the different strata, of
coal, of granite, of the whole mineral kingdom.—
It reveals the remains and traces of animals long
extinct, but gives us no clue whereby we may
prove the existence of a God.
Natural history gives us a knowledge of the
animal kingdom in general; the different organ
isms, structures, and powers of the various species.
Physiology teaches the nature of man, the laws
that govern his being, the functions of the vital
organs, and the conditions upon which alone health
and life depend. Phrenology treats of the laws
of mind, the different portions of the brain, the
temperaments, the organs, how to develop some
and repress others to produce a well balanced and
healthy condition. But in the whole animal econ
omy—though the brain is considered to be a “ mi
crocosm,” in which may be traced a resemblance
or relationship with everything in Nature—not a
spot can be found to indicate the existence of a
God.
Mathematics lays the foundation of all the ex
act sciences. It teaches the art of combining num
bers, of calculating and measuring distances, bow
to solve problems, to weigh mountains, to fathom
the depths of the ocean; but gives no directions
how to ascertain the existence of a God.
Enter Nature's great laboratory—Chemistry.—
She will speak to you of the various elements,
their combinations and uses, of the gasses con
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
5
stantly evolving and combining in different pro
portions, producing all the varied objects, the in
teresting and important phenomena we behold.
She proves the indestructibility of matter, and its
inherent property—motion; but in all her opera
tions, no demonstrable fact can be obtained to in
dicate the existence of a God.
Astronomy tells us of the wonders of the Solar
System—the eternally revolving planets, the ra
pidity and certainty of their motions, the distance
from* planet to planet, from star to star. It pre
dicts with astonishing and marvellous precision
the phenomena of eclipses, the visibility upon our
Earth of comets, and proves the immutable law
of gravitation, but is entirely silent on the exist
ence of a God.
In fine, descend into the bowels of the Earth,
and you will learn what it contains; into the
depths of the ocean, and you will find the inhab
itants of the great deep; but neither in the Earth
above, nor the waters below, can you obtain any
knowledge of his existence. Ascend into the
heavens, and enter the “ milky way.” go from
planet to planet to the remotest star, and ask the
eternally revolving systems, Where is God ? and
Echo answers, Where ?
The Universe of Matter gives us no record of
his existence. Where next shall we search ? En
ter the Universe of Mind, read the millions of
volumes written on the subject, and in all the
speculations, the assertions, the assumptions, the
theories, and the creeds, you can only find Man
stamped in an indelible impress his own mind on
every page. In describing his God, he delineated
his own character: the picture he drew represents
in living and ineffaceable -colors the epoch of his
existence—the period he lived in.
�6
A DEFENCE OF /THEISM.
It was a great mistake to say that God made
man in his image. Man, in all ages, made his
God in his own image; and we find that just in
accordance with his civilization, his knowledge,
his experience, his taste, his refinement, his sense
of right, of justice, of freedom, and humanity,—so
has he made his God. But whether coarse or re
fined ; cruel and vindictive, or kind and generous;
an implacable tyrant, or a gentle and loving fa
ther ;—it still was the emanation of his own mind
—the picture of himself.
But, you ask, how came it that man thought or
wrote about God at all? The answer is very sim
ple. Ignorance is the mother of Superstition. In
proportion to man’s ignorance is he superstitious—
does he believe in the mysterious. The very name
has a charm for him. Being unacquainted with
the nature and laws of things around him, with
the true causes of the effects he witnessed, he as
cribed them to false ones—to supernatural agen
cies. The savage, ignorant of the mechanism of
a watch, attributes the ticking to a spirit. The
so-called civilized man, equally ignorant of the
mechanism of the Universe, and the laws which
govern it, ascribes it to the same erroneous cause.
Before electricity was discovered, a thunder-storm
was said to come from the wrath of an offended
Deity. To this fiction of man’s uncultivated mind,
has been attributed all of good and of evil, of wis
dom and of folly. Man has talked about him,
written about-him, disputed about him, fought
about him,—sacrificed himself, and extirpated his
fellow man. Rivers of blood and oceans of tears
have been shed to please him, yet no one has ever
been able to demonstrate his existence.
But the Bible, we are told, reveals this great
mystery. Where Nature is dumb, and Man igno
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
7
rant, Revelation speaks in the authoritative voice
of prophecy. Then let us see whether that Reve
lation can stand the test of reason and of truth.—
God, we are told, is omnipotent, omniscient, om
nipresent,—all wise, all just, and all good; that
he is perfect. So far, so well; for less than per
fection were unworthy of a God. The first act
recorded of him is, that he created the world out
of nothing; but unfortunately the revelation of
Science—Chemistry—which is based not on writ
ten words, but demonstrable facts, says that Noth
ing has no existence, and therefore out of Nothing,
Nothing could be made. Revelation tells us that
the world was created in six days. Here Geolo
gy steps in and says, that it requires thousands of
ages to form the various strata of the earth. The
Bible tells us that the earth was flat and station
ary, and the sun moves around the earth. Co
pernicus and Galileo flatly deny this 7^ assertion,
and demonstrate by Astronomy that the earth is
spherical, and revolves around the sun. Revela
tion tells us that on the fourth day God created
the sun, moon, and stars. This, Astronomy calls
a moo» story, and says that the first three days,
before the great torchlight was manufactured and
suspended in the great lantern above, must have
been rather dark.
The division of the waters above trom the wa
ters below, and the creation of the minor objects,
I pass by, and come at once to the sixth day.
Having finished, in five days, this stupendous
production, with its mighty mountains, its vast
seas, its fields and woods; supplied the waters
with fishes—from the whale that Jonah swal
lowed to the little Dutch herring; peopled the
woods with inhabitants—from the tiger, the lion,
the bear, tire elephant with his trunk, the drome
�8
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
dary with his hump, the deer with his antlers
the nightingale with her melodies, down to the
serpent which tempted mother Eve ; covered the
fields with vegetation, decorated the gardens with
flowers, hung the trees with fruits; and survey
ing this glorious world as it lay spread out like a
map before him, the question naturally suggested
itself. What is it all for, unless there were beings
capable of admiring, of appreciating, and of en
joying the delights this beautiful world could af
ford ? And suiting the action to the impulse, he
said,
Let us make man.” “ So God created
man in his own image; in the image of God cre
ated he him, male and female created he them.”
I presume by the Term “image,” we are not to
understand a near resemblance of face or form,
but in the image or likeness of his knowledge, his
power, his wisdom, and perfection. Having thus
made man, he placed him (them) in the garden
of Eden the loveliest and most enchanting spot
at the very head of creation, and bade them (with
the single restriction not to eat of the tree of
knowledge,) to live, to love, and to be happy.
What a delightful picture, could we only rest
here ! But did these beings, fresh from the hand
of omnipotent wisdom, in whose image they were
made, answer the great object of their creation?
Alas ! no. No sooner were they installed in their
Paradisean home, than they violated the first, the
only injunction given them, and fell from their
high estate; and not only they, but by a singular
justice of that very merciful Creator, their inno
cent posterity to all coming generations, fell with
them ! Does that bespeak wisdom and perfec
tion in the Creator, or in the creature ? But what
was the cause of this tremendous fall, which frus
trated the whole design of the creation ? The
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
9
serpent tempted mother Eve, and she, like a good
wife, tempted her husband. But did God not
know when he created the serpent, that it would
tempt the woman, and that she was made out of
such frail materials, (the rib of Adam,) as not to
be able to resist the temptation? If he did not
know, then his knowledge was at fault; if he
did, but could not prevent that calamity, then his
power was at fault; if he knew and could, but
would not, then his goodness was at fault. Choose
which you please, and it remains alike fatal to the
rest.
Revelation tells us that God made man perfect,
and found him imperfect; then he pronounced all
things good, and found them most desperately
bad. “ And God saw that the wickedness of man
was great in the earth, and that every imagina
tion of the thought of his heart was evil continu
ally. And it repented the Lord that he had made
man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”
ct And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom
I have created, from the face of the earth ; both
man and beasts, and the creeping things, and the
fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have
made them.” So he destroyed everything, except
Noah with his family, and a few household pets.
Why he saved them is hard to say, unless it was
to reserve materials as stock in hand to commence
a new world with; but really, judging of the
character of those he saved, by their descendants,
it strikes me it would have been much better, and
given him far less trouble, to have let them slip
also, and with his improved experience made a
new world out of fresh and superior materials.
As it was, this wholesale destruction even, was
a failure. The world was not. one jot better after
the flood than before. His chosen children were
�10
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
just as bad as ever, and he had to send his proph
ets, again and again, to threaten, to frighten, to
coax, to cajole, and to flatter them into good be
haviour. But all to no effect. They grew worse
and worse: and having made a covenant with
Noah after he had sacrificed of “ every clean
beast and of every clean fowl,”—“ The Lord
smelt the sweet savour; ai\d the Lord said in his
heart, I will not again curse the ground any more
for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s
heart is evil from his youth ; neither will I again
smite any more everything living, as I have done.”
And so he was forced to resort to the last sad al
ternative of sending “his only begotten son,” his
second self, to save them. But alas! “ his own
received him not,” and so he was obliged to
adopt the Gentiles, and die to save the world.
Did he succeed, even then ? Is the world saved ?
Saved I From what? From ignorance ? It is all
around us. From poverty, vice, crime, sin, mis
ery, and shame ? It abounds everywhere. Look
into your poor-houses, your prisons, your lunatic
asylums; contemplate the whip, the instruments
of torture, and of death ; ask the murderer, or his
victim ; listen to the ravings of the maniac, the
sirieks of distress, the groans of despair; mark
the cruel deeds of the tyrant, the crimes of slave
ry, and the suffering of the oppressed; count the
millions of lives lost by fire, by water, and by the
sword; measure the blood spilled, the tears shed,
the sighs of agony'- drawn from the expiring vic
tims on the altar of fanaticism;—and tell me from
what the world was saved? And why was it not
saved? Why does God still permit these horrors
to afflict the race? Does omniscience not know
it? Could omnipotence not do it? Would infi
nite wisdom, power, and goodness allow his chil
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
11
dren thus to live, to suffer, and to die? No!
Humanity revolts against such a supposition.
Ah ! not now, not here, says the believer. Here
after will he save them. Save them hereafter!
From what? From the apple eaten by our mo
ther Eve? What a mockery! If a rich parent
were to let his children live in ignorance, poverty,
and wretchedness, all their lives, and hold out to
them the promise of a fortune at some time here
after, he would justly be considered a criminal, or
a madman. The parent is responsible to his off
spring—the Creator to the creature.
The testimony of Revelation has failed. Its
account of the creation of the material world is
disproved by science. Its account of the creation
of man in the image of perfection is disproved by
its own internal evidence. To test the Bible God
by justice and benevolence, he could not be good ;
to test him by reason and knowledge, he could
not be wise; to test him by the light of truth, the
rule of consistency, we must come to the inevita
ble conclusion that, like the Universe of matter
and of mind, this pretended Revelation has also
failed to demonstrate the existence of a God.
Methinks I hear the believer say, you are un
reasonable ; you demand an impossibility; we
are finite, and therefore cannot understand, much
less define and demonstrate the infinite. Just so !
But if I am unreasonable in asking you to demon
strate the existence of the being you wish me to
believe in, are you not infinitely more unreason
able to expect me to believe—blame, persecute,
and punish me for not believing—in what you
have to acknowledge you cannot understand ?
But, says the Christian, the world exists, and
therefore there must have been a God to create it.
That does not follow. The mere fact of its exist
�12
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
ence does not prove a Creator. Then how came
the Universe into existence? We do not know ;
but the ignorance of man is certainly no proof of
the existence of a God. Yet upon that very igno
rance has it been predicated, and is maintained.
From the little knowledge we have, we are justi
fied in the assertion that the Universe never was
created, from the simple fact that not one atom of
it can ever be annihilated. To suppose a Uni
verse created, is to suppose a time when it did not
exist, and that is a self-evident absurdity. Be
sides, where was the Creator before it was creat
ed ? Nay, where is he now? Outside of that
Universe, which means the all in all, above, be
low, and around? That is another absurdity. Is
he contained within? Then he can be only a
part, for the whole includes all the parts. If only
a part., then he could not be its Creator, for a part
cannot create the whole. But the world could not
have made itself. True; nor could God have
made himself; and if you must have a God to
make the world, you will be under the same ne
cessity to have another to make him, and others
still to make them, and so on until reason and
common sense are at a stand-still.
The same argument applies to a First Cause.
We can no more admit of a first than a last cause.
What is a first cause ? The one immediately pre
ceding the last effect, which was an effect to a
cause in its turn—an effect to causes, themselves
effects. All we know is an eternal chain of cause
and effect, without beginning as without end.
But is there no evidence of intelligence, of de
sign, and consequently of a designer? I see no
evidence of either. What is intelligence? It is
not a thing, a substance, an existence in itself, but
simply a property of matter, manifesting itself
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
13
through organizations. We have no knowledge
of, nor can we conceive of, intelligence apart from
organized matter: and we find that from the small
est and simplest insect, through all the links and
gradations in Nature’s great chain, up to Man—
just in accordance with the organism, the amount,
and quality of brain, so are the capacities to re
ceive impressions, the power to retain them, and
the abilities to manifest and impart them to others,
namely, to have its peculiar nature cultivated and
developed, so as to bear mental fruits, just as the
cultivated earth bears vegetation—physical fruits.
Not being able to recognize an independent intelli
gence, I can perceive no design or designer except
in the works of man.
But, says Paley, does the watch not prove u
watchmaker—a design, and therefore a designer ?
How much more then does the Universe? Yes;
the watch shows design, and the watchmaker did
not leave us in the dark on the subject, but clearly
and distinctly stamped his design on the face of the
watch. Is it as clearly stamped on the Universe?
Where is the design, in the oak to grow to its ma
jestic height ? or in the thunderbolt that rent it
asunder? In the formation of the wing of the
bird, to enable it to fly, in accordance with the
promptings of its nature ? or in the sportsman to
shoot it down while flying? In the butterfly to
dance in the sunshine? or its being crushed in the
tiny fingers of a child ? Design in man’s capacity
for the acquisition of knowledge, or in his groping
in ignorance? In the necessity to obey the laws
of health, or .in the violation of them, which pro
duces disease ? In the desire to be happy, or in
the causes that prevent it, and make him live in
toil, misery, and suffering ?
The watchmaker not only stamped his design
�14
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
on the face of the watch, but he teaches how to
wind it up when run down; how to repair the
machinery when out of order; and how to put a
new spring in when the old one is broken, and
leave the watch as good as ever. Does the great
Watchmaker, as he is called, show the same in
telligence and power in keeping, or teaching oth
ers to keep, this contemplated mechanism—Man
-—always in good order? and when the life-spring
is broken replace it with another, and leave him
just the same? If an Infinite Intelligence designed
man to possess knowledge, he could not be igno
rant; to be healthy, he could not be diseased; to
be virtuous, he could not be vicious ; to be wise,
he could not act so foolish as to trouble himself
about the Gods, and neglect his own best interests.
But, says the believer, here is a wonderful adapt
ation of means to ends; the eye to see, the ear to
hear,. &c. Yes, this is very wonderful; but not
one jot more so, than if the eye were made to
hear, and the ear to see. The supporters of De
sign use sometimes very strange arguments. A
friend of mine, a very intelligent man, with quite
a scientific taste, endeavored once to convince me
of a Providential design, from the fact that a fish,
which had always lived in the Mammoth Cave of
Kentucky, was entirely blind. Here, said he, is
strong evidence; in that dark cave, where noth
ing was to be seen, the fish needed no eyes, and
therefore it has none. He forgot the demonstrable
fact that the element of light is indispensable in
the formation of the organ of sight, without which
it could not be formed, and no Providence, or
Gods, could enable the fish to see. That fish
story reminds me of the Methodist preacher who
proved the wisdom and benevolence of Providence
in always placing the rivers near large cities, and
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
15
death at the end of life ; for Oh 1 my dear hearers,
said he, what would have become of us had he
placed it at the beginning?
Everything is wonderful, and wonderful just in
proportion as we are ignorant; but that proves no
“design” or “designer.” But did things come by
chance ? I am asked. Oh ! no. There is no such
thing as chance. It exists only in the perverted,
mind of the believer, who, while insisting that
God was the cause of everything, leaves Him
without any cause. The Atheist believes as little
in the one as in the other. He knows that no ef
fect could exist without an adequate cause ; that
everything in the Universe is governed by laws.
The Universe is one vast chemical laboratory,
in constant operation, by her internal forces. The
laws or principles of attraction, cohesion, and re
pulsion, produce in never-ending succession the
phenomena of composition, decomposition, and
recomposition. The how, we are too ignorant to
understand, too modest to presume, and too hon
est to profess. Had man been a patient and im
partial inquirer, and not with childish presump
tion attributed everything he could not under
stand, to supernatural causes, given names to hide
his ignorance, but observed the operations of Na
ture, he would undoubtedly have known more,
been wiser, and happier.
As it is, Superstition has ever been the great
impediment to the acquisition of knowledge. Ev
ery progressive step of man clashed against the
two-edged sword of Religion, to whose narrow re
strictions he had but too often to succumb, or
march onward at the expense of interest, reputa
tion, and even life itself.
But, we are told, that Religion is natural; the
belief in a God universal. Were it natural, then
�16
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
it would indeed be universal; but it is not. We
have ample evidence to the contrary. According
to Dr. Livingstone, there are whole tribes or na
tions, civilized, moral, and virtuous; yes, so hon
est that they expose their goods for sale without
guard or value set upon them, trusting to the
honor of the purchaser to pay its proper price.—
Yet these people have not the remotest idea of a
God, and he found it impossible to impart it to
them. And in all ages of the world, some of the
most civilized, the wisest, and the best, were en
tire unbelievers, only they dared not openly avow
it, except at the risk of their lives. Proscription,
the torture, and the stake, were found most effi
cient means to seal the lips of heretics ; and though
the march of progress has broken the infernal ma
chines, and extinguished the fires of\the Inquisi
tion, the proscription, and more refined but not
less cruel and bitter persecutions of an intolerant
and bigoted public opinion, in Protestant coun
tries, as well as in Catholic, on account of belief,
are quite enough to prevent men from honestly
avowing their true sentiments upon the subject.—
Hence there are few possessed of the moral cour
age of a Humboldt.
If the belief in a God were natural, there would
be no need to teach it. Children would possess it
as well as adults, the layman as the priest, the
heathen as much as the missionary. We don’t
have to teach the general elements of human na
ture,—the five senses, seeing, hearing, smelling,
tasting, and feeling. They are universal; so
would religion be were it natural, but it is not.
On the contrary, it is an interesting and demon
strable fact, that all children are Atheists, and
were religion not inculcated into their minds they
would remain so. Even as it’is, they are great
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
17
sceptics, until made sensible of the potent weapon
by which religion has ever beyn propagated, name
ly, fear—fear of the lash of public opinion here,
and of a jealous, vindictive God hereafter. No •
there is no religion in human nature, nor human
nature in religion. It is purely artificial, the re
sult of education. while Atheism is natural, and,
were the human mind not perverted and bewil
dered by the mysteries and follies of superstition,
would be universal.
But the people have been made to believe that
were it not for religion, the world would be de
stroyed-;—man would become a monster, chaos
and confusion would reign supreme. These erro
neous notions conceived in ignorance, propagated
by superstition, and kept alive by an interested
and corrupt priesthood who fatten on the credulity
of the public, are very difficult to be eradicated.
But sweep all the belief in the supernatural
from the face of the earth, and the world would
remain just the same. The seasons would follow
each other in their regular succession ; the stars
would shine in the firmament; the sun would
shed his benign and vivifying influence of light
and heat upon us; the clouds would discharge
their burden in gentle and refreshing showers;
the cultivated fields would bring forth vegetation ;
summer would ripen the golden grain, ready for
harvest; the trees would bear fruits; the birds
would sing in accordance with their happy in
stinct, and all Nature would smile as joyously
around us as ever. Nor would man degenerate.
Oh ! no. His nature, too, would remain the same.
He would have to be obedient to the physical,
mental, and moral laws of his being, or suffer
the natural penalty for their violation; observe
the mandates of society, or receive the punish
�18
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
ment. His affections would be just as warm,
the love of self-preservation as strong, the desire
for happiness and the fear of pain as great. He
would love freedom, justice, and truth, and hate
oppression, fraud, and falsehood, as much as ever.
Sweep all belief in the supernatural from the
globe, and you would chase away the whole fra
ternity of spectres, ghosts, and hobgoblins, which
have so befogged and bewildered the human
mind, that hardly a clear ray of the light of Rea
son can penetrate it. You would cleanse and puri
fy the heart of the noxious, poisonous weeds of
superstition, with its bitter, deadly fruits—hypoc
risy, bigotry, and intolerance, and fill it with
charity and forbearance towards erring humanity.
You would give man courage to sustain him in
trials and misfortune, sweeten his temper, give
him a new zest for the duties, the virtues, and the
pleasures of life.
Morality does not depend on the belief inany
religion. History gives ample evidence that the
more belief the less virtue and goodness. Nor
need we go back to ancient times to see the crimes
and atrocities perpetrated under .its sanction. We
have enough in our own times. Look at the
present crisis—at the South with 4,000,000 of
human beings in slavery, bought and sold like
brute chattels under the sanction of religion and
of God, which the Reverends Van Dykes and the
Raphalls of the North fully endorse, and the
South complains that the reforms in the North are
owing to Infidelity. Morality depends on an accu
rate knowledge of the nature of man, of the laws
that govern his being, the principles of right, of
justice, and humanity, and the conditions requi
site to make him healthy, rational, virtuous, and
happy.
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
19
The belief in a God has failed to produce this
desirable end. On the contrary, while it could
not make man better, it has made him worse ; for
in preferring blind faith in things unseen and un
known to virtue and morality, in directing his at
tention from the known to the unknown, from the
real to the imaginary, from the certain here to a
fancied hereafter, from the fear of himself, of the
natural result of vice and crime, to some whimsi
cal despot, it perverted his judgment, degraded
him in his own estimation, corrupted his feelings,
destroyed his sense of right, of justice, and of
truth, and made him a moral coward and a hypo
crite. The lash of a hereafter is no guide for us
here. Distant fear cannot control present passion.
It is much easier to confess your sins in the dark,
than to acknowledge them in the light: to make
it up with a God you don’t see, than with a man
whom you do. Besides, religion has always left
a back door open for sinners to creep out of at the
eleventh hour. But teach man to do right, to
love justice, to revere truth, to be virtuous, not be
cause a God would reward or punish him here
after, but because it is right; and as every act
brings its own reward or its own punishment, it
wouid best promote his interest by promoting the
welfare of society. Let him feel the great truth
that our highest happiness consists in making all
around us happy ; and it would be an infinitely
truer and safer guide for man to a life of useful
ness, virtue, and morality, than all the beliefs in
all the Gods ever imagined.
The more refined and transcendental religionists
have often said to me, if you do away with re
ligion, you would destroy the most beautiful ele
ment in human nature—the feeling of devotion
and reverence, ideality, and sublimity. This, too,
�20
A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
is an error. These sentiments would be cultivat
ed just the same, only we would transfer the de
votion from the unknown to the known ; from the
Gods, who, if they existed, could not need it, to
man who does. Instead of reverencing an imagi
nary existence, man would learn to revere justice
and truth. Ideality and sublimity would reline
his feelings, and enable him to admire and enjoy
the ever-changing beauties of Nature; the vari
ous and almost unlimited powers and capacities of
the human mind ; the exquisite and indescribable
charms of a well cultivated, highly refined, virtu
ous, noble man.
But not only have the priests tried to make the
very term Atheism odious, as if it would destroy
all of good and beautiful in Nature, but some of
the reformers, not having the moral courage to
avow their own sentiments, wishing to be popular,
fearing lest their reforms would be considered
Infidel, (as all reforms assuredly are,) shield them
selves from the stigma, by joining in the tirade
against Atheism, and associate it with everything
that is vile, with the crime of slavery, the corrup
tions of the Church, and all the vices imaginable.
This is false, and they know it; Atheism protests
against this injustice. No one has a right to give
the term a false, a forced interpretation, to suit his
own purposes, (this applies also to some of the
Infidels who stretch and force the term Atheist out
of its legitimate significance.) As well might we
use the terms Episcopalian, Unitarian, Universalist, to signify vice and corruption, as the term
Atheist, which means simply a disbelief in a God,
because finding no demonstration of his existence,
man’s reason will not allow him to believe, nor his
conviction to play the hypocrite, and profess what
he does not believe. Give it its true significance,
�A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
*
21
and he will abide the consequence; but don’t
fasten upon it the vices belonging to yourselves.
Hypocrisy is the prolific mother of a large family !
In conclusion, the AtheistJ says to the honest,
conscientious believer, Though I cannot believe in
your God whom you have failed to demonstrate, I
believe in man ; if I have no faith in your religion,
I have faith, unbounded, unshaken faith in the
principles of right, of justice, and humanity.
Whatever good you are willing to co for the sake
of your God, I am full as willing to do for the
sake of man. But the monstrous crimes the be
liever perpetrated in persecuting and exterminat
ing his fellow man on account of difference of be
lief, the Atheist, knowing that belief is not volun
tary, but depends on evidence, and therefore there
can be no merit inathe belief of any religions, nor
demerit in a disbelief in all of them, could never
be guilty of. Whatever good you would do out
of fear of punishment, or hope of reward here
after, the Atheist would do simply because it is
good • and being so, he would receive the far
surer and more certain reward, springing from
well-doing, which would constitute his pleasure,
and promote his happiness.
�
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
A defence of atheism: being a lecture delivered in Mercantile Hall, Boston, April 10, 1861
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rose, Ernestine L. (Ernestine Louise) [Mrs]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Boston
Collation: 21, [3] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Copy CT92 presented in Memory of Dr. Moncure D. Conway by his children, July Nineteen hundred & eight. Ernestine Louise Rose was a freethinker, a feminist, and an abolitionist.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
J.P Mendum
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1881
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N555
N556
CT92
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 style="border-style:none;" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> <br />This work (A defence of atheism: being a lecture delivered in Mercantile Hall, Boston, April 10, 1861), identified by <a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.
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
Conway Tracts
NSS