1
10
4
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/534b515ecfc915c523a1c5217a125592.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=HCLoERwFcBOClH06NYtB%7Ep58mnTSbACwKsOoXHmZr4GEvL4w%7E9v0FYvi%7EwEbKRRNsolSDUGCqCyIdRHTWOWpRdVLCol4yY2F9KT-5blawasRwCIAAA2%7E%7EyTNABZxjXWv%7EDaA9diLsYY-L6QUwkVA4BPZ2r%7EbPzlNpBTqpCBYsjqIAtHiDjaff8AzryVDXUxDcfxPqbuMwXXnto8CgjEeRlA5fhfSEBnBGxM2E87PTSi0r5GmSe4ycQ2nBUAglvzIeB0fYNJN5YQc%7EoJ9DmQh1H%7Eq9ZDnVJyTr6bU6RD54ZhpFs9wGtaKHX9QY4lwyWSqEeY%7EdXjuc9mMks12oPkI5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
62cb12d6224e85b79e0feba4c90a3d11
PDF Text
Text
*'
' -t
V
& A ?p*v
” >y^vr'?X*irW, ?<‘ 7* "x
B ^-2A
bJ < OO
NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
BY C. BEADLAUGH
The “Life of Abraham ” was presented to our readers, because, as
the nominal founder of the Jewish race, his position entitled him
to that honour. The “ Life of David,” because, as one of the worst
men and worst kings ever known, his history might afford matter
for reflection to admirers of monarchical institutions and matter for
comment to the advocates of a republican form of government.
The “ Life of Jacob” served to show how basely mean and con
temptibly deceitful a man might become, and yet enjoy God's love.
Having given thus a brief outline of the career of the patriarch, the
king, and the knave, the life of a priest naturally presents itself as
the most fitting to complement the present quadrifid series.
Moses, the great grandson of Levi, was born in Egypt, not far
distant from the banks of the Nile, a river world-famous for its in
undations, made familiar to ordinary readers by the travellers who
have journeyed to discover its source, and held in bad repute by
strangers, especially on account of the carnivorous Saurians who
infest its waters. The mother and father of our hero were both of
the tribe of Levi, and were named Jochebed and Amram. The in
fant Moses was, at the age of three months, placed in an ark of
bulrushes by the river s brink. This was done in order to avoid
the decree of extermination propounded bv the reigning Pharaoh
against the male Jewish children. The daughter of Pharaoh, com
ing down to the river to bathe, found the child and took compas
sion upon him, adopting him as her son. Of the early life of
Moses we have but scanty record. We are told in the New Testa
ment that he was learned in the wisdom of the Egyptians, and
*
that “when he was come to years he refused” by faithf “to be
called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.” Perhaps the record from
which the New Testament writers quoted lias been lost; it is certain
that the present version of the Old Testament does not contain
those statements. The record which is lost may have been God’s
original revelation to man, and of which our Bible may be an in
complete version. I am little grieved by the supposition that a
• Acts, c. vii, v. 21,
f Hebrews, c. xi. v. 24.
�2
NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
revelation may have been lost, being, for my own part, more in
clined to think that no revelation has ever been made. Josephus
says that, when quite a baby, Moses trod contemptuously on the
crown of Egypt. The Egyptian monuments and Exodus are both
silent on this point. Josephus also tells us that Moses led the
Egyptians in war against the Ethiopians, and married Tharbis, the
daughter of the Ethiopian monarch. This also is omitted both in
Egyptian history and in the sacred record. When Moses was
grown, according to the Old Testament, or when he was 40 years
of age according to the New, “ it came into his heart to visit his
brethren the children of Israel,” “ And he spied an Egyptian smit
ing an Hebrew;” “And he looked this way and that way, and
when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid
him in the sand.” The New Testament says that he did it, “for
he supposed that his brethren would understand how that God, by
his hand, would deliver them.”* But this is open to the following
objections :—The Old Testament says nothing of the kind;—there
was no man to see the homicide, and as Moses hid the body, it is
hard to conceive how he could expect the Israelites to understand
a matter of which they not only had no knowledge . whatever, but
which he himself did not think was known to them ;—if there were
really no man present, the story of the after accusation against
Moses needs explanation ;—it might be further objected that it does
not appear that Moses at that time did even himself conceive that
he had any mission from God to deliver his people. Moses fled
from the wrath of Pharaoh, and dwelt in Midian, where he married
the daughter of one Reuel or Raguel, or Jethro. This name is not
of much importance, but it is strange that if Moses wrote the books
of the Pentateuch he was not more exact in designating so near a
relation. While acting as shepherd to his father-in-law, “ he led
the flock to the back side of the desert,” and “ the angel of the
Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire that is, the angel was either
a flame, or was the object which was burning, for this angel ap
peared in the midst of a bush which burned with fire, but was not
consumed. This flame appears to have been a luminous one, for
it was a “ great sight,” and attracted Moses, who turned aside to
see it. But the luminosity would depend on substance ignited and
rendered incandescent. Is the angel of the Lord a substanceJsusceptible of ignition and incandesence ? Who knoweth ? If so,
will the fallen angels ingnite and bum in hell ? God called unto
Moses out of the midst of the bush. It is hard to conceive an in
finite God in the middle of a bush, yet as the law of England says
that we must not “deny the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testameut to be of divine authority,” in order not to break
the law, I advise all to believe that, in addition to being in
the middle of a bush, the infinite and all-powerful God also sat
• Aets, c. vii., v. 25.
�NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
on the top of a box, dwelt sometimes in a tent, afterwards in a
temple; although invisible, appeared occasionally; and, being a
spirit without body or parts, was hypostatically incarnate as
a man. Moses, when spoken to by God, “ hid his face, for he was
afraid to look upon God.” If Moses had known that God was
invisible, he would have escaped this fear. God told Moses that
the cry of the children of Israel had reached him, and that he had
come down to deliver them, and that Moses was to lead them out
of Egypt. Moses does not seem to have placed entire confidence
in the phlegomic divine communication, and asked, when the Jews
should question him on the name of the Deity, what answer should
he make ? It does not appear from this that the Jews, if they
had so completely forgotten God’s name, had much preserved the
recollection of the promise comparatively so recently made to
Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. The answer given according to
our version is, “I am that I am;” according to the Douay, “I
am who am.” God, in addition, told Moses that the Jews should
spoil the Egyptians of their wealth; but even this promise of
plunder, so congenial to the nature of a bill-discounting Jew of
the Bible type, did not avail to overcorfie the scruples of Moses.
God therefore taught him to throw his rod on the ground, and
thus transform it into a serpent, from which pseudo-serpent Moses
at first fled in fear, but on his taking it by the tail it resumed its
original shape. Moses, with even other wonders at command,
still hesitated; he had an impediment in his speech. God cured
this by the appointment of Aaron, who was eloquent, to aid his
brother. God directed Moses to return to Egypt, but his parting
words must somewhat have damped the future legislator’s hope of
any speedy or successful ending to his mission. God said, “ I will
harden Pharaoh’s heart that he shall not let the people go.” On
the journey back to Egypt God met Moses “ by the way in the inn,
and sought to kill him.” I am ignorant as to the causes which
prevented the omnipotent Deity from carrying out his intention ;
the text does not explain the matter, and I am not a bishop or a
D.D., and I do not therefore feel justified in putting my assump
tions in place of God’s revelation. Moses and Aaron went t<7
Pharaoh, and asked that the Jew's might be permitted to go three
days’ journey in the wilderness; but the King of Egypt not onlj
refused their request, but gave them additional tasks, and in conse
quence Moses and Aaron went again to the Lord, who told them,
“I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the
name of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known
unto them.” Whether God had forgotten that the name Jehovah
was known to Abraham, or whether he was here deceiving Moses
and Aaron, are points the solution of wdiich I leave to the faithful,
referring them to the fact that Abraham called a place Jehovah*
Genesis, c. xxii., v. 14.
�NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
Jireh. After this Moses and Aaron again went to Pharaoh and
worked wonderfully in his presence. Thaumaturgy is coining into
fashion again, but the exploits of Moses far exceeded any of those
performed by Mr. Home or the Davenport Brothers. Aaron flung
down his rod, and it became a serpent; the Egyptian magicians
flung down their rods, which became serpents also; but the rod of
Aaron, as though it had been a Jew money-lender or a tithe col
lecting parson, swallowed up these miraculous competitors, and
the Jewish leaders could afford to laugh at their defeated rival
conjurors. Moses and Aaron carried on the miracle-working for
some time. All the water of the land of Egvpt was turned by
them into blood, but the magicians did so with their enchantments,
and it had no effect on Pharaoh. Then showers of frogs, at the
instance of Aaron, covered the land of Egypt; but the Egyptians
did so with their enchantments, and frogs abounded still more
plentifully. The Jews next tried their hands at the production of
lice, and here—to the glory of God be it said—the infidel Egyp
tians failed to imitate them. It is written that “ cleanliness is
next to godliness,” but we cannot help thinking that godliness must
have been far from cleanliness when the former so soon resulted
in lice. The magicians were now entirely discomfited. The pre
ceding wonders seem to have affected all the land of Egypt; but
in the next miracle the swarms of flies sent were confined to
Egyptians only, and were not extended to Goshen, in which the
Israelites dwelt.
The next plague in connection with the ministration of Moses
and Aaron was that “ all the cattle of Egypt died.” After “all
the cattle ” were dead, a boil was sent, breaking forth with blains
upon man and beast. This failing in effect, Moses afterwards
stretched forth his hand and smote “ both man and beast ” with
hail, then covered the land with locusts, and followed this with a
thick darkness throughout the land—a darkness which might have
been felt. Whether it was felt is a matter on which I am unable
to pass an opinion. After this, the Egyptians being terrified by
the destruction of their first-born children, the Jews, at the in
stance of Moses, borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, jewels
of gold, and raiment; and they spoiled the Egyptians. The fact
is, that the Egyptians were in the same position as the payers of
church rates, tithes, vicars’ rates, and Easter dues : they lent to
the Lord’s people, who are good borrowers, but slow when repay
*
ment is required. They prefer promising you a crown of glory
to paying you at once five shillings in silver.
Moses led th«
Jews through the Red Sea, which proved a ready means of escape,
as may be easily read in Exodus, which says that the Lord “ made
the sea dry land ” for the Israelites, and afterwards not only over
whelmed in it the Egyptians who sought to follow them, but, as
Josephus tells us, the current of the sea actually carried to the camp
of the Hebrews the arms of the Egyptians, so that the wandering
�NW LIFE OF MOSES.
6
Jews might not be destitute of weapons. After this the Israelites
were led by Moses into Sliur, where they were without water for three
days, and the water they afterwards found was too bitter to drink
until a tree had been cast into the well. The Israelites were then fed
with manna, which, when gathered on Friday, kept for the Sabbath,
but rotted if kept from one week day to another.
The people
grew tired of eating manna, and complained, and God sent fire I
amongst them and burned them up in the uttermost parts of the
camp; and after this the people wept and said, “ Who shall give us
flesh to eat? We remember the fish we did eat in Egypt freely;
the cucumbers and the melons and the leeks and the onions and
the garlic; but now there is nothing at all beside this manna
before our eyes.’’ This angered the Lord, and he gave them a
feast of quails, and while the flesh was yet between their teeth,
ere it was chewed, the anger of the Lord was kindled, and he
smote the Jewish people with a very great plague.
*
The people
again in Rephidim were without water, and Moses therefore smote
the Rock of Horeb with his rod, and water came out of the rock.
At Rephidim the Amalekites and the Jews fought together, and
while they fought Moses, like a prudent general, went to the top of
a hill, accompanied by Aaron and Hur, and it came to pass that
when Moses held up his hands Israel prevailed, and when he let
down his hands Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands w’ere heavy,
and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat thereon,
and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side
and the other ou the other side, and his hands were steady until
the going down of the sun, and Joshua discomfited Amalek, and
his people with the edge of the sword. How the true believer
ought to rejoice that the stone was so convenient, as otherwise the
Jews might have been slaughtered, and there might have been no
royal line of David, no Jesus, no Christianity. That stone should
be more valued than the precious black stone of the Moslem; it
is the corner-stone of the system, the stone which supported the
Mosaic rule. God is everywhere, but Moses went up unto him,
and the Lord called to him out of a mountain and came to him in a
thick cloud, and descended on Mount Sinai in a fire, in consequence
of which the mountain smoked, and the Lord came down upon the
top of the mountain and called Moses up to him; and then the
Lord gave Moses the Ten Commandments, and also those pre
cepts which follow, in which Jews are permitted to buy their fellowcountrymen for six years, and in which it is provided that, if the
slave-master shall give his six-year slave a wife, and she bear him
sons or daughters, that the wife and the children shall be the pro
perty of her master. In these precepts it is also permitted that a
man may sell his own daughter for the most base purposes. Also
that a master may beat his slave, so that if he do not die until a
• Numbers, c. xi.
�6
NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
few days after the ill-treatment, the master shall escape justice be
cause the slave is his money. Also that Jews may buy strangers
and keep them as slaves for ever. While Moses was up in the
mount the people clamoured for Aaron to make them gods. Moses
had stopped away so long that the people gave him up for lost.
Aaron, whose duty it was to have pacified and restrained them, and
to have kept them in the right faith, did nothing of the kind. He
induced them to bring all their gold, and then made it into a calf,
before which he built an altar, and then proclaimed a feast. Man
ners and customs change. In those days the Jews did see the
God that. Aaron took their gold for, but now the priests take the
people’s gold, and the poor contributors do not even see a calf for
their pains, unless indeed they are near a mirror at the time when
they are making their voluntary contributions. And the Lord told
Moses what happened, and said, “ I have seen this people, and
behold it is a stiffnecked people. Now, therefore, let me alone
that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may
consume them.” Moses would not comply with God’s request,
but remonstrated, and expostulated, and begged him not to afford
the Egyptians an opportunity of speaking against him. Moses
succeeded in changing the unchangeable, and the Lord repented
of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Although Moses would not let God’s “ wrath wax hot ” his own
“ anger waxed hot,” and he broke in his rage, the two tables of
stone which God had given him, and on which the Lord had graven
and written with his own finger. We have now no means of know
ing in what language God wrote, or whether Moses afterwards
took any pains to rivet together the broken pieces. It is almost
to be wondered at that the Christian Evidence Societies have not
sent missionaries to search for these pieces of the tables, which may
even yet remain beneath the mount. Moses took the calf which
they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder,
and strewed it upon water and made the children of Israel drink
of it. After this Moses armed the priests and killed 3,000 Jew's,
“ and the Lord plagued the people because they had made the
calf which Aaron had made.”* Moses afterwards pitched the ta
bernacle without the camp; and the cloudy pillar in which the
Lord w'ent, descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle;
and the Lord talked to Moses “ face to face, as a man would to
his friend.”f And the Lord then told Moses, “ Thou canst not
see my face, for there shall no man see me and live.”J Before
this Moses and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel, “ saw the God of Israel, and there w'as under his
feet, as it were, a paved work of sapphire stone, . . . and
Upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand;
also they saw God, and did eat and drink.Ӥ
* Exodus, c. xxxii., v. 35.
f c. xxxiii., v. 11.
J v. 20.
§ c. xxiv., v. 9.
�NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
7
Aaron., the brother of Moses, died under very strange circum
stances. The Lord said unto Moses, “ Strip Aaron of his garments
and put them upon Eleazar, his son, and Aaron shall be gathered
unto his people and shall die there.” And Moses did as the Lord
commanded, and Aaron died there on the top of the mount, where
Moses had taken him. There does not appear to have been any
coroner’s inquest in the time of Aaron, and the suspicious circum
stances of the death of the brother of Moses have been passed over
by the faithful.
When Moses was leading the Israelites near Moab, Balak the
King of the Moabites sent to Balaam in order to get Balaam to
curse the Jews. When Balak’s messengers were with Balaam,
God came to Balaam also, and asked what men they were. Of
course God knew, but he inquired for his own wise purposes, and
Balaam told him truthfully. God ordered Balaam not to curse the
Jews, and therefore the latter refused, and sent the Moabitish
messengers away. Then Balak sent again high and mighty princes
under whose influence Balaam went mounted on an ass, and God’s
anger was kindled against Balaam, and he sent an angel to stop
him by the way; but the angel did not understand his business
well, and the ass first ran into a field, and then close against the
wall, and it was not until the angel removed to a narrower place
that he succeeded in stopping the donkey ; and when the ass saw
the angel she fell down. Balaam did not see the angel at first; and,
Indeed, we may take it as a fact of history that asses have always
been the most ready to perceive angels.
Moses may have been a great author, but we have little
means of ascertaining what he wrote in the present day. Divines
talk of Genesis to Deuteronomy as the five books of Moses,
but Eusebius, in the fourth century, attributed them to Ezra,
*
and Saint Chrysostom says that the name of Moses has been
affixed to the books without authority, by persons living long after
him.f It is quite certain that if Moses lived 3,300 years ago,
he did not write in square letter Hebrew, and this because the
character has not existed so long. It is indeed doubtful if it can
be carried back 2,000 years. The ancient Hebrew character, though
probably older than this, yet is comparatively modern amongst the
ancient languages of the earth.
°
It is urged by orthodox chronologists that Moses was born about
1450 B.c., and that the Exodus took place about 1491 b.c. Unfor
tunately “ there are no recorded dates in the Jewish Scripture^
that are trustworthy.” Moses, or the Hebrews, not being mentioned
upon Egyptian monuments from the twelfth to the seventeenth
century b.c. inclusive, and never being alluded to by any extant
writer who lived prior to the Septuagint translation at Alexandria
�NEW LIFE OF MOSES.
(commencing in the third century b.c.), there are no extraneous
aids, from sources alien to the Jewish Books, through which any
information, worthy of historical acceptance, can be gathered else
where about him or them.”*
Moses died in the land of Moab when he was 120 years of age.
The Lord buried Moses in a valley of Moab, over against Bethpeor,
but no man knowetli of his sepulchre unto this day. Josephus says
that “ a cloud came over him on the sudden and he disappeared in
a certain valley.” The devil disputed about the body of Moses,
contending with the Archangel Michael ;f but whether the devil or
the angel had the best of the discussion, the Bible does not tell us.
De Beauvoir Priaulx,J looking at Moses as a counsellor, leader,
and legislator, says:—“Invested with this high authority, he
announced to the Jews their future religion, and announced it to
them as a state religion, and as framed for a particular state, and
that state only. He gave this religion, moreover, a creed so nar
row and negative—he limited it to objects so purely temporal, he
crowded it with observances so entirely ceremonial or national—
that we find it difficult to determine whether Moses merely estab
lished this religion in order that by a community of worship he
might induce in the tribe-divided Israelites that community of
sentiment which would constitute them a nation; or, whether he
only roused them to a sense of their national dignity, in the hope
that they might then more faithfully perform the duties of priests
and servants of Jehovah. In other words, we hesitate to decide
whether in the mind of Moses the state was subservient to the pur
poses of religion, or religion to the purposes of state.”
The same writer observes§ that, according to the Jewish writings,
Moses “ is the friend and favourite of the Deity. He is one whose
prayers and wishes the Deity hastens to fulfil, one to whom the
Deitv makes known his designs. The relations between God and
the prophet are most intimate. God does not disdain to answer
the questions of Moses, to remove his doubts, and even occasionally
to receive his suggestions, and to act upon them even in opposition
to his own pre-determined decrees.”
* G R. Gliddon’s Types of Mankind: Mankind’s Chronology, p 711
f Jude, v. 9
J Quesliones Mosaicae, p. 438.
§ p. 418.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed by Annib Besavt and 0 hables Beadlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, E.O
�
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
New life of Moses
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from Champion of liberty (Bradlaugh Centenary, 1933), bibliography. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1861]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N100
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 (New life of Moses), 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
Moses (Biblical Leader)
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/00921a226c52f44cb558de27a679103d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=W131uwKd3hMfN4iqDmjkMYS-8mVlV%7EABwRCLVQZxEBjtSf4AihQc82MHQQ07i0m5mBQG4tddfXxhRknrc1AEPV70iebV4eWtutQSGUPeIUPEjfr34K9kr0q7amqWvf1%7EmhWFN9RD%7EeZWN12fIPhNlQnjBS633ta-IU06dPLREYsqOFebYsDadGJSOpYu8ajp6ZnzO%7EGUFY2Wc6MFGg4kIfZkfWrczzRm5SrfGS8eQVcvoihLxm42z5PNCrHAQe%7EQ-uyqG%7Ea5y7RqhcF-2BeEM7iPwGTHJMrVIERK9whedTEW8Rm1KIcHeum-Mr5-YuEoRspu1jup-72ynC9L8hOOZA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0fc84ca232a9106a8e5229be9d8f6573
PDF Text
Text
��������
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
Supernatural and rational morality
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,63, Fleet St., E. C. - 1886 (p. 8).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G903
Subject
The topic of the resource
Rationalism
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 (Supernatural and rational morality), 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
Free Thought
Morality
Rationalism
Religion
Supernatural
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ad2e5247ae1649781210545c1cdfd2ae.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aeLL9XS8Z%7Ey6LVs1HdbmSaChgV2z-1XjqgD8SHJLJO4EEPwNiXvzexbi5PpFLtF%7E0SpKPX73NuN8W5uC3uKASZCFiH6qKX19HAnPXS-rWtei0oslA1fsjfoIdLcCki6ZQYoZkmUJ2TXTq8XCzmTCimgQZjylHV18q3CcheLnf5RgiwsaXsEyjn-6ds%7Eo3Ix%7EChauwEfh6RPjVgBOPYns5wvmvapBQtzYkJGhhWZEGoOiPFExhtktwY426PNMzZjvrIPy0YpGV090CdpnU536SM4lrGspII-UA7dphS6kF3NKv4Y4H6vpnjeJxFcwXQzRIpV4aaa2ECkMVw82e3mgPw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b8ee05afcc4f58f1591070a4d60fe6be
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
IS THERE A GOD?
By CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
The initial difficulty is in defining the word “ God ”. It is
equally impossible to intelligently affirm or deny any pro
position unless there is at least an understanding, on the
part of the affirmer or denier, of the meaning of every
word used in the proposition. To me the word “God”
standing alone is a word without meaning. I find the
word repeatedly used even by men of education and refine
ment, and who have won reputation in special directions of
research, rather to illustrate their ignorance than to ex
plain their knowledge. Various sects of Theists do affix
arbitrary meanings to the word “ God ”, but often these
meanings are in their terms self-contradictory, and usually
the definition maintained by one sect of Theists more or
less contradicts the definition put forward by some other
sect. With the Unitarian Jew, the Trinitarian Christian,
the old Polytheistic Greek, the modern Universalist, or the
Calvinist, the word “God” will in each case be intended
to express a proposition absolutely irreconcilable with those
of the other sects. In this brief essay, which can by no
means be taken as a complete answer to the question
which forms its title, I will for the sake of argument take
the explanation of the word “God” as given with great
carefulness by Dr. Robert Elint, Professor of Divinity in
the University of Edinburgh, in two works directed by
him against Atheism. He defines God (“ Antitheistic
Theories,” p. 1,) as “a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent,
omniscient, righteous and benevolent being who is dis
tinct from and independent of what he has created ” ; and
(“Theism”, p. 1,) as “a self-existent, eternal being, in
finite in power and wisdom, and perfect in holiness and
goodness, the maker of heaven and earth”; and (p. 18,)
“the creator and preserver of nature, the governor of
nations, the heavenly father and judge of man ” ; (p. 18,)
�2
IS THERE A GOD ?
“ one infinite personal ” ; (p. 42,) “ the one infinite being ”
who “is a person—is a free and loving intelligence”;
(p. 59,) “the creator, preserver, and ruler of all finite
beings”; (p. 65,) “not only the ultimate cause, but the
supreme intelligence”; and (p. 74,) “the supreme moral
intelligence is an unchangeable being”. That is, in the
above statements “ God” is defined by Professor Flint to
be : M supreme, self-existent, the one infinite, eternal, omni
potent, omniscient, unchangeable, righteous, and benevolent, per
sonal being, creator and preserver of nature, maker of heaven
and earth ; who is distinct from and independent of what he has
created, who is a free, loving, supreme, moral intelligence, the
governor of nations, the heavenly father and judge of man.
The two volumes, published by William Blackwood and
Son, from which this definition has been collected, form the
Baird Lectures in favor of Theism for the years 1876 and
1877. Professor Flint has a well-deserved reputation as a
clear thinker and writer of excellent ability as a Theistic
advocate. I trust, therefore, I am not acting unfairly in
criticising his definition. My first objection is, that to me
the definition is on the face of it so self-contradictory that
a negative answer must be given to the question, Is there
such a God ? The association of the word “ supreme ” with
the word “ infinite ” as descriptive of a “ personal being ”
is utterly confusing. “Supreme” can only be used as
expressing comparison between the being to whom it is
applied, and some other being with whom that “ supreme ”
being is assumed to have possible points of comparison and
is then compared. But “ the one infinite being ” cannot be
compared with any other infinite being, for the wording of
the definition excludes the possibility of any other infinite
being, nor could the infinite being—for the word “one”
may be dispensed with, as two infinite beings are unthink
able—be compared with any finite being. “ Supreme” is
an adjective of relation and is totally inapplicable to “the
infinite”. It can only be applied to one of two or more
finites. “Supreme” with “omnipotent” is pleonastic.
If it is said that the word “supreme” is now properly
used to distinguish between the Creator and the created,
the governor and that which is governed, then it is clear
that the word “supreme” would have been an inappli
cable word of description to “theone infinite being ” prior
to creation, and this would involve the declaration that the
�IS THERE A GOD?
3
exact description of the unchangeable has been properly
changed, which is an absurdity. The definition affirms
“creation”, that is, affirms “ God” existing prior to such
creation—i.e., then the sole existence; but the word
“ supreme ” could not then apply. An existence cannot be
described as “highest” when there is none other ; there
fore, none less high. The word “ supreme” as a word of
description is absolutely contradictory of Monism. Yet
Professor Flint himself says (“Anti-Theistic Theories”,
p. 132), “ that reason, when in quest of an ultimate expla
nation of things, imperatively demands unity, and that only
a Monistic theory of the universe can deserve the name of
U philosophy ”. Professor Flint has given no explanation
of the meaning he attaches to the word “ self-existent ”.
Nor, indeed, as he given any explanation of any of his
words of description. By self-existent I mean that to which
you cannot conceive antecedent. By “infinite” I mean
immeasurable, illimitable, indefinable ; i.e., that of which I
cannot predicate extension, or limitation of extension. By
‘(eternal ” I mean illimitable, indefinable, i.e., that of which
I cannot predicate limitation of duration or progression of
duration.
“ Nature ” is with me the same as “ universe ”, the same
as “ existence ”; i.e., I mean by it: The totality of all
phenomena, and of all that has been, is, or may be neces
sary for the happening of each and every phsenomenon. It
is from the very terms of the definition, self-existent, eternal,
infinite. I cannot think of nature commencement, discon
tinuity, or creation. I am unable to think backward to the
possibility of existence not having been. I cannot think
forward to the possibility of existence ceasing to be. I have
no meaning for the word “ create ” except to denote change
of condition. Origin of “universe” is to me absolutely
unthinkable. Sir William Hamilton (“ Lectures and Dis
cussions,” p. 610) affirms: that when aware of a new ap
pearance we are utterly unable to conceive that there has
originated any new existence ; that we are utterly unable to
think that the complement of existence has ever been either
increased or diminished; that we can neither conceive no
thing becoming something, or something becoming nothing.
.Professor Flint’s definition affirms “God ” as existing “ dis
tinct from, and independent of, what he has created ”. But
what can such words mean when used of the “ infinite ? ”
�IS THERE A GOD ?
Does “distinct from” mean separate from? Does the
“ universe ” existing distinct from God mean in addition to ?
and in other place than ? or, have the words no meaning ?
Of all words in Professor Flint’s definition, which would
be appropriate if used of human beings, I mean the
same as I should mean if I used the same words in the
highest possible degree of any human being. Here I
maintain the position taken by John Stuart Mill in his
examination of Sir W. Hamilton (p. 122). Righteous
ness and benevolence are two of the words of descrip
tion included in the definition of this creator and governor
of nations. But is it righteous and benevolent to create
men and govern nations, so that the men act crimi
nally and the nations seek to destroy one another in
war? Professor Flint does not deny (“Theism,” p. 256)
“ that God could have originated a sinless moral system”,
and he adds: “I have no doubt that God has actually made
many moral beings who are certain never to oppose their
own wills to his, or that he might, if he had so pleased, have
created only such angels as were sure to keep their first
estate ”. But it is inaccurate to describe a “ God ” as right
eous or benevolent who, having the complete power to
originate a sinless moral system, is admitted to have origi
nated a system in which sinfulness and immorality were
not only left possible, but have actually, in consequence of
God’s rule and government, become abundant. It cannot
be righteous for the “omnipotent” to be making human
beings contrived and designed by his omniscience so as to
be fitted for the commission of sin. It cannot be benevo
lent in “ God ” to contrive and create a hell in which he is
to torment the human beings who have sinned because
made by him in sin. “ God ”, if omnipotent and omnis
cient, could just as easily, and much more benevolently,
have contrived that there should never be any sinners, and,
therefore, never any need for hell or torment.
The Bev. B. A. Armstrong, with whom I debated this
question, says:—
“ ‘Either,’ argues Mr. Bradlaugh, in effect, ‘God could
make a world without suffering, or he could not. If he
could and did not, he is not all-good. If he could not, he
is not all-powerful.’ The reply is, What do you mean by
all-powerful? If you mean having power to reconcile
things in themselves contradictory, we do not hold that
�IS THERE A GOD ?
5
God is all-powerful. But a humanity, from the first en
joying immunity from suffering, and yet possessed of no
bility of character, is a self-contradictory conception.”
That is, Mr. Armstrong thinks that a “sinless moral
system from the first is a self-contradictory conception ”.
It is difficult to think a loving governor of nations
arranging one set of cannibals to eat, and another set of
human beings to be eaten by their fellow-men. It is im
possible to think a loving creator and governor contriving
a human being to be born into the world the pre-natal
victim of transmitted disease. It is repugnant to reason
to affirm this “free loving supreme moral intelligence”
planning and contriving the enduring through centuries of
criminal classes, plague-spots on civilisation.
The word “unchangeable ” contradicts the word “ crea
tor”. Any theory of creation must imply some period
when the being was not yet the creator, that is, when yet
the creation was not performed, and the act of creation
must in such case, at any rate, involve temporary or
permanent change in the mode of existence of the being
creating. So, too, the words of description “governor of
nations” are irreconcileable with the description “un
changeable ”, applied to a being alleged to have existed
prior to the creation of the “nations”, and therefore,
of course, long before any act of government could be
exercised.
To speak of an infinite personal being seems to me pure
contradiction of terms. All attempts to think “person”
involve thoughts of the limited, finite, conditioned. To
describe this infinite personal being as distinct from some
thing which is postulated as “what he has created” is
only to emphasise the contradiction, rendered perhaps still
more marked when the infinite personal being is described
as “intelligent”.
The Rev. R. A. Armstong, in a prefatory note to the
report of his debate with myself on the question “Is it
reasonable to worship God?”, says: “I have ventured
upon alleging an intelligent cause of the pheonomena of
the universe, in spite of the fact that in several of his
writings Mr. Bradlaugh has described intelligence as im
plying limitations. But though intelligence, as known to
us in man, is always hedged within limits, there is no diffi
culty in conceiving each and every limit as removed. In
�6
IS THERE A GOD?
that case the essential conception of intelligence remains
the same precisely, although the change of conditions
revolutionises its mode of working.” This, it seems to
me, is not accurate. The word intelligence can only be
accurately used of man, as in each case meaning the
totality of mental ability, its activity and result. If you
eliminate in each case all possibilities of mental ability
there is no “conception of intelligence” left, either essential
or otherwise. If you attempt to remove the limits, that
is the organisation, the intelligence ceases to be thinkable.
It is unjustifiable to talk of “ change of conditions ” when
you remove the word intelligence as a word of application
to man or other thinking animal, and seek to apply the
word to the unconditionable.
As an Atheist I. affirm one existence, and deny the possi
bility of more than one existence; by existence meaning,
as I have already stated, “the totality of all pheenomena,
and of all that has been, is, or may be necessary for the
happening of any and every pluenomenon ”. This exist
ence I know in its modes, each mode being distinguished
in thought by its qualities. By “mode” I mean each
cognised condition; that is, each pheenomenon or aggre
gation of phenomena. By “quality” I mean each charac
teristic by which in the act of thinking I distinguish.
The distinction between the Agnostic and the Atheist
is that either the Agnostic postulates an unknowable, or
makes a blank avowal of general ignorance. The Atheist
does not do either; there is of course to him much that
is yet unknown, every effort of inquiry brings some of this
within reach of knowing. With “the unknowable” con
ceded, all scientific teaching would be illusive. Every real
scientist teaches without reference to “God” or “the
unknowable ”. If the words come in as part of the
yesterday habit still clinging to-day, the scientist conducts
his experiments as though the words were not. Every
operation of life, of commerce, of war, of statesmanship,
is dealt with as though God were non-existent. The
general who asks God to give him victory, and who thanks
God for the conquest, would be regarded as a lunatic by
his Theistic brethren, if he placed the smallest reliance
on God’s omnipotence as a factor in winning the fight.
Cannon, gunpowder, shot, shell, dynamite, provision, men,
horses, means of transport, the value of these all estimated,
�IS THERE A GOD?
7
then the help of “ God ” is added to what is enough with
out God to secure the triumph. The surgeon who in
performing some delicate operation relied on God instead
of his instruments—the physician who counted on the
unknowable in his prescription—these would have poor
clientele even amongst the orthodox; save the peculiar
people the most pious would avoid their surgical or
medical aid. The “God” of the Theist, the “unknowa
ble” of the Agnostic, are equally opposed to the Atheistic
affirmation. The Atheist enquires as to the unknown,
affirms the true, denies the untrue. The Agnostic knows
not of any proposition whether it be true or false.
Pantheists affirm one existence, but Pantheists declare
that at any rate some qualities are infinite, e.g., that
existence is infinitely intelligent. I, as an Atheist, can
only think qualities of phsenomena. I know each pheno
menon by its qualities. I know no qualities except as the
qualities of some phenomenon.
So long as the word “ God ” is undefined I do not deny
“ God”. To the question, Is there such a God as defined
by Professor ..Plint, I am compelled to give a negative
reply. If the word “ God ” is intended to affirm Dualism,
then as a Monist I negate “ God ”.
_ The attempts to prove the existence of God may be
divided into three classes:—1. Those which attempt to
prove the objective existence of God from the subjective
notion of necessary existence in the human mind, or from
the assumed objectivity of space and time, interpreted as
the attributes of a necessary substance. 2. Those which
*{ essay to prove the existence of a supreme self-existent
cause, from the mere fact of the existence of the world by
the application of the principle of causality, starting with
the postulate of any single existence whatsoever, the world,
or anything in the world, and proceeding to argue back
wards or upwards, the existence of one supreme cause is
held to be regressive inference from the existence of these
effects”. But it is enough to answer to these attempts,
that if a supreme existence were so demonstrable, that
bare entity would not be identifiable with “God”. “A
demonstration of a primitive source of existence is of no
formal theological value. It is an absolute zero.”
3. The argument from design, or adaptation, in nature,
the fitness of means to an end, implying, it is said, an
�8
IS THERE A GOD?
architect or designer. Or, from the order in the universe,
indicating, it is said, an orderer or lawgiver, whose intelli
gence we thus discern.
But this argument is a failure, because from finite
instances differing in character it assumes an infinite cause
absolutely the same for all. Divine unity, divine per
sonality, are here utterly unproved. 11 Why should we rest
in our inductive inference of one designer from the alleged
phenomena of design, when these are claimed to be so
varied and so complex ? ”
If the inference from design is to avail at all, it must
avail to show that all the phenomena leading to misery
and mischief, must have been designed and intended by a
being finding pleasure in the production and maintenance
of this misery and mischief. If the alleged constructor of
the universe is supposed to have designed one beneficent
result, must he not equally be supposed to have designed
all results? And if the inference of benevolence and
goodness be valid for some instances, must not the in
ference of malevolence and wickedness be equally valid
from others ? If, too, any inference is to be drawn from
the illustration of organs in animals supposed to be
specially contrived for certain results, what is the inference
to be drawn from the many abortive and incomplete organs,
muscles, nerves, etc., now known to be traceable in man
and other animals ? What inference is to be drawn from
each instance of deformity or malformation? But the
argument from design, if it proved anything, would at the
most only prove an arranger of pre-existing material; it
in no sense leads to the conception of an originator of
substance.
There is no sort of analogy between a finite artificer
arranging a finite mechanism and an alleged divine creator
originating all existence. Brom an alleged product you
are only at liberty to infer a producer after having seen a
similar product actually produced.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, London, E.C.—1887.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Is there a god?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N096
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
God
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 (Is there a god?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/13141d5fa359a5ff4a38e22179548101.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=v8gfX8vv7-9B82g%7EfDIVdVTGp3Pwm96Sb%7EGgzloYBXrQ1ICY5waYKMpTs-HvJsNBb%7EXGy57bAX07e5r7Kk1fWXrd%7Ehs--QxD3SI23-UUKp6LZBW-lZ98%7E5vZ99HilGm9AZ7-D1i-0VG%7Ezb6MW-QsjrtCFDiJ%7E6lyC84HEdlz0cW97di4SrrQl8ihUbZbC07VHe-umadljMPN7U8rGVNKvTv1AFBhUlRDz2Afl1yLtkQAoSSy4UtwLomjlRErfR%7EQyGb5LuwlAhW2vyRp-fTtAZcJTg3WUYi7sM-Dn5obRn1ydumazDXq1BFKbY3UODO7YnqxbLGf2%7E9NXa3a5m3Opg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ce7197f707d6cf886ca11064aec4efae
PDF Text
Text
8 z^'2-03
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
A CONTRIBUTION TO RELIGIOUS NON-SCIENCE.
---------- -----------By ANNIE BESANT.
---------- *----------
t “ Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of
science, falsely so-called.”—1 Tim. vi., 20.
In these later days, when science is carrying devastation
into the land of faith, and godless education is everywhereoffering the fruit of the tree of knowledge to the children
of men, it behoves those who still cling to the faith once
delivered to the saints to offer such small aid as they may
in defending the citadel of Christianity, the Holy Bible,
against its foes. And above all things is it necessary to
know thoroughly what is in the Bible, so that those who
“ turn the Bread of Life into stones to cast against their
enemies ” may not suddenly shoot one out of an unsuspected
catapult. Let us search the Scriptures, as did the noble
Bereans, and we shall be rewarded by discovering therein
biological facts that we shall never find if we confine our
selves to works written by mere uninspired scientific men.
And, first, let us reject with indignation the idea that
the Bible is not written to teach us science. All that is in
the Bible is written “for our learning” (Bom. xv., 4),
and if scientific statements are made therein they must be
made for our instruction. It is not conceivable that when.
“ holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost” (2 Peter i., 21) they spake wrong. The very
thought is blasphemy, and must be at once rejected by
every reverent mind. How should we be able to trust the
Bible in its revelations about heaven if we refuse to credit
its revelations about earth ? If it is worthy our faith in
celestial matters, surely we may believe it in matters*
terrestrial. If it is to be our guide to eternal, much more
must it be our guide to temporal, truths. Surely no one
�2
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
will be foolish enough to accept a light to his feet and a
lamp to his paths (see Ps. cxix., 105) if that light is delu
sive on the road along which he walks, and only throws a
glare on the far-off mountains beyond the river of death ?
No! Against all such “oppositions of science falsely
so-called” let us set our faces as flint (see Isa. 1., 7).
Give up one of these precious words, and we give up all.
If God has not “at sundry times and in divers manners ”
spoken “in times past unto the fathers by the prophets”
how can we be sure that he “hath in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son” (Heb. i., 1, 2)? Rather let us
‘ ‘ receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able
to save” our “ souls” (James i., 21), and thank God, who
has hidden these things from the wise and prudent Darwins
and Huxleys, and has revealed them unto babes (see
Matt, xi., 25).
Gen. i. contains some biological facts of great interest
and novelty. Herein we learn that trees brought forth
fruit, and herbs yielded seed, and the earth brought forth
grass, before the sun existed to “ divide the day from^he
night” (verses 11—14). These were the first living things
that existed on the earth. At that time there was no ani
mal life in existence ; no sound of life broke the silence of
those vast woods; for two days the vegetable world tri
umphed in security; no snail smeared the delicate fronds
of the fern ; no caterpillar ate the dainty new-born leaves;
no sparrow pecked the cherry ; no blackbird feasted on the
strawberry. Dogmatic science asserts that these grasses
and herbs and fruit-trees could not have brought forth
their seeds and fruits without the sunrays, but Genesis
knows better. Foolhardy science produces miserable pieces
of rock, containing fossil animals older than any plants,
and sets them against our glorious revelation. But are
men moles or rabbits, that they should burrow in the earth
and bring out these deceiving pebbles which God merci
fully hid out of sight, clearly showing that he intended
them to be out of mind ? Far better leave the earth as
God made it, and live on the surface, where God placed us.
The fossils cannot injure the moles, whereas it is plain
that they are a serious danger to a child-like faith. Are we
not told that except we 1 ‘ become as little children ” we “ shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven ” (Matt, xviii., 3),
and I ask you, as sensible persons, “ I speak as to wise
�BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
O'
0'
men, judge ye what I say” (1 Cor. x., 15), would any
child you ever heard of trouble its little head about Terebratula biplicata, Thecodontosaurus, Pterodactylus crassirostris, Noeggerathia cuneifolia, Homalonotus Delphinocephalas, Gorgonia infundibuliformis ? Would not the
mere names be enough to bring on croup ? And if we are
to become as little children, is it not clear that creatures
possessing names of this description are, by the merciful
dispensation of Providence, stamped as utterly inappropriate
to our present state ?
There is one beautiful suggestion, it would be going too
far to call it thought, of a man of God, which the truly
pious may well ponder over. It is this. Perhaps God
created the earth, just as it is, full of fossils, placing these
apparent records of the past out of the sight of simple
people, but ready to entrap the carnal geologist, as it is
written: “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness”
(1 Cor. iii., 19). Who can say that fossils are not among
the means prophesied of by Paul when he says that “ God.
shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe
a lie : that they all might be damned ” (2 Thess. ii., 11) ?
At any rate, no one ever alleges that people will be damned
for refusing to believe in fossils, while if Christianity be
true, people may be damned for believing them, and it is
surely wiser to be on the safe side. Possils would be no
consolation in hell, especially as they would probably all
become metamorphic rocks.
It is most interesting and comforting to know that GocI
gave man and woman ‘1 dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth ” (Gen. i., 23). It is a little
difficult, perhaps, for a man to exercise this dominion when
his log is seized by a shark, or his body is carried off by a
tiger ; but doubtless if he reminded the animals of Gen. i.,
28, they would at once mend their ways, and restore his
property.
Gen. ii., 21, 22, are verses that have been the source of
wide-spread error—I mean of divine correction of so-called
science. Adam clearly went through life short of one rib,
and it has been generally supposed that his sons have in
herited this peculiarity, and that man has normally an
uneven number of ribs, twelve on one side and eleven on
the other, thus affording a beautiful hereditary proof of
�4
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
ancestral generosity. This pious faith has been rudely
shaken by the study of anatomy, and by the unpleasant
discovery that the number of male ribs is not odd; it now
exists only, I fear, in country villages where science classes
under South Kensington have not yet exerted their sceptic
making influence, and where people do not enquire too
curiously into their internal arrangements.
Gen. iii. presents us with a pleasant picture of inter
course with the lower animals before the fall of our first
parents brought sin into the world. What does scientific
zoology know of a talking serpent ? Can any scientist of
to-day pretend that he has ever met with a specimen able
to talk? Yet this remarkable snake talked with great
effect, and we owe to his well-directed eloquence the
inestimable blessing by which, as God said, “ the man is
become as one of us, to know good and evil” (v. 22). The
serpent in question was remarkable in ways other than his
gift of speech. After God had cursed him, he went about
as snakes do now, but before that he progressed on his
back, or his head, or his tail, in a manner since become as
old-fashioned as the minuet.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of
life, are plants quite beyond the reach of modern botany.
It would have been a priceless blessing for mankind if
Adam and Eve had smuggled some cuttings of these out
of the garden, for knowledge now has to be painfully
acquired, while life closes when experience has brought its
highest utility. It is, perhaps, comforting to know that
in the middle of the street of the throne of God and of the
Lamb, and on either side of the river, there is a tree of
life (Rev. xxii., 1, 2), which bears a different sort of fruit
every month—proving incidentally how very much horti
culture has advanced in that neighborhood—but the
thought intrudes, despite all effort, that we could dispense
with the tree of life after we have risen to immortality,
while it would be invaluable to us as mortals here. It re
quires great faith to feel that God is good in withholding
the tree of life while it would be useful, and in giving it to
us when it will be superfluous.
Gen . xxx., 37—42, gives some suggestions which breeders
of cattle will find useful. Peeled rods of green poplar,
hazel, and chesnut will influence the color of the young
of sheep and cattle. There is no reason why they should,
�BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
■and the whole idea is absurd, but we are assured that by
this means Jacob cheated his uncle Laban in the most
scandalous manner.
The bush which burned with fire and was not consumed
(Ex. iii., 2.) and the rod which became a serpent and then
retransformed into a rod {Ibid iv., 2—4), offer much subject
for study to the pious mind, while the kinds of dust that
became lice (ZJm? viii, 16, 17), and of ashes that became
boils {Ibid ix., 8, 10), are fortunately confined to Egypt.
The cattle that were all killed of murrain {Ibid ix., 6) and
■subsequently plagued with boils {Ibid 9), and later smitten
with hail, so that they died again {Ibid 18—25), and of
which some died a third time {Ibid xii., 29), smitten by the
Lord, and others a third time drowned in the sea {Ibid
xiv., 28) are also confined to that same curious land; in
other countries animals only die once.
Lev. xi. gives some interesting facts of animal life. Nowa-days the camel’s leg does end in two toes, although not
very obvious ones, but in Moses’ time it was not so (v. 4).
The hare that chews the cud (v. 6) has become. extinct,
though all hares have a deceptive habit of munching, and
the bat is not now classified as “ a fowl” (compare verses
13 and 19). Probably at that time the bat was not a
mammal, and it has only become one since with the obj ect
of damning the scientific biologist. The “fowls that creep,
going upon all four ” (v. 20) have also become extinct,
and have left no fossils behind them to perpetuate their
memory; four-legged fowls given to creeping are wholly
unknown. So again with the “flying creeping things
which have four feet,” and go “upon all four” (verses 23,
21), such as locusts, beetles, etc. These have six legs
now-a-days, having acquired two more since the days of
Moses, and I desire to point out to scoffing sceptics that
were it not for this blessed book these remarkable quadru
pedal birds and insects would have remained unknown.
Who after this can dare to say that the Bible makes no
■contributions to science ?
I say nothing of the pregnant suggestion contained in
the reference to the flying, creeping things that “have
legs above their feet” (v. 21). To me this verse contains a
hint that at that time there existed some four-legged birds
with feet above their legs, a peculiarity that would neces
sitate a unique anatomical re-arrangement of the appen
�6
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
dages, and, to our purblind eyes, seems to present certain
difficulties in locomotion. This speculation is full of
interest, but perhaps it is dangerous to press too far
inferences from the sacred text. We must ever remember
that he who adds to the words of this holy book is cursed
with him who takes away from them (Rev. xxii., 19), but
perchance we avoid this danger by not regarding the
existence of these supracrural-footed, flying, creeping
things as a matter of faith, like that of the four-legged
fowls, but only as a pious opinion.
The Israelites must have had serious difficulties during
the period of transition between the queer beasts and
their modern namesakes. Thus a four-legged beetle was“clean” (Lev. xi., 22), but “whatsoever hath more feet
[than four] among all creeping things” was “unclean”
{Ibid. 42), as, for instance, everything now known as a
beetle. Perhaps beetles had four legs until the Jewish
ceremonial law was supplanted by Christianity, and there
upon they suddenly changed into the modern six-legged
kind. This change may have taken place even in the
time of Moses, for it is remarkable that in Deut. xiv., 19
“every creeping thing that flieth” has become unclean
and may not be eaten, and it would reconcile this apparent
contradiction if we suppose that all the insects had sud
denly developed an extra pair of legs, and so had come
under the head of flying creeping things with more legs
than four. Thus beautifully does science throw light on
the dark places in scripture, and cause apparently discord
ant texts to harmonise.
In Numbers xvii. we read of a remarkable rod which in
the space of a single night “budded and brought forth
buds, and bloomed blossoms and yielded almonds.” Sogreatly can God expedite natural processes when he wills.
Indian jugglers can now perform these marvels, but no
one would dream of being so blasphemous as to suggest
that Moses, who was “learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians” (Acts vii., 22), played a conjuring trick in
order to substantiate his brother’s claim to the priesthood.
The unicorn is another animal of which we should know
nothing were it not for the Bible. We find it mentioned
in Deut. xxxiii., 17, in Job xxxix., 9—12, and in Ps.
xcii., 10. There must therefore have been such an animal,
as the Holy Ghost would not talk about a non-existent
�BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
7
creature, and yet there is not a trace of its existence out
side this book of God.
Ezekiel is a book of priceless value from our present
point of view. Who can read without his heart thrilling
of the living creatures that “had the likeness of man,”
and such a man—a man with four faces, with four wings,
with a calf’s feet, and a man’s hands, sparkling like
burnished brass, looking like burning coals of fire and like
the appearance of lamps (Ezek. i., 5—13). The likeness
is clearly not to any man of the past, so it must be to a
man of the future, and under these circumstances well
might John the Apostle say that “it doth not yet appear
what we shall be ” (1 John iii., 2). In the tenth chapter of
Ezekiel the same creatures appear again and are named
cherubims, and we learn the additional fact that “their
whole body, and their backs, and their hands, and their
wings, and the wheels were full of eyes round about ”
verse 12), a superfluity of visual organs that must have
been almost confusing to the possessors. Eirst cousins to
these extraordinary creatures must be the four beasts of
Revelation, who are “full of eyes within” (Rev. iv., 8),
an arrangement admirable for introspection, but otherwise
slightly unsatisfactory. I am almost inclined to think that
these four beasts are made out of one of Ezekiel’s, for a
careful comparison shows that, barring the multiplication
of wings, one beast is exactly a quarter of a cherub.
Jonah’s experiences are full of valuable biological in
formation. The whale (compare Matt, xii., 40), which was
a “great fish” (Jonah i., 17) living in the Mediterranean
Sea, and the internal arrangements of which were suitable
for swallowing a prophet and affording him lodging for
three days ; the gourd which grew up in a night, and the
worm which “smote” the gourd {Ibid iv., 6, 7)—are not
these known to and admired by every student of holy
•writ ?
Space fails to draw attention to all the biological revela
tions made in this blessed book, but I cannot pass over the
withered fig-tree without a word. As against the story
so beautifully told (Matt, xxi., 18, 19; Mark xi., 12—14,
20, 21) of this unhappy tree, on which Jesus “found
nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet,” it is
alleged by infidel critics that if the season for figs had not
•arrived it was absurd for Jesus to expect to find any, and
�8
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
they scoff at the explanation given by the true believer that
fig-trees at that time in Judsea (although at no other time
and in no other place) bore figs before they bore leaves,
and that this fig-tree was therefore guilty of false pre
tences, whereby it deceived its Creator. It is perfectly true
that now the fig-tree is covered with leaves long before its
remarkable inflorescence has ripened into fruit, but it is
clear that this particular fig-tree began at the other end
and worked backward, otherwise we should be obliged to
come to the horrible and blasphemous conclusion that Jesus
was both silly and ill-tempered, and that he behaved like
a petulant child, howling because it cannot obtain impossi
bilities.
The Revelation of St. John the Divine offers a rich feast of
creatures unknown to science; I have already mentioned
the quarter-cherubs, and we have in addition a seven
horned seven-eyed lamb (v. 6); locusts shaped like horses,
with men’s faces, women’s hair, lions’ teeth, scorpions’
tails, wearing crowns and breast-plates (ix., 7:—10) ; a red
dragon, with seven heads, ten horns, and a-wonderful tail,
who casts a flood of water out of his mouth (xii. 3, 4, 15) ;
a beast like a leopard, with seven heads and ten horns,
with a bear’s feet and a lion’s mouth, and another with two
horns, who “spake as a dragon” (xiii., 1, 2, 11), how
ever that maybe; yet another, scarlet in color, “full of
names of blasphemy,” as others were full of eyes, and
with seven heads and ten horns (xvii., 3); never was there
suclj a menagerie full of most curiously composite animals
as that seen by the beloved Apostle from “the isle that
is called Patmos ” (Rev. i., 9).
My task is ended; I have shown something of the trea
sures of biological knowledge laid up for us in this most
precious book, and I commend my humble effort to all true
believers, beseeching them to aid it by their prayers.
London : Printed by Annie Be sant and Charles Bbadlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, E.C.—1884.
�
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
Biblical biology : a contribution to religious non-science
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N061
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 (Biblical biology : a contribution to religious non-science), 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
Biology
NSS