1
10
79
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4571ffc366e80992b0c3c87a686e6c76.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UHqyN9Y7pmqPSzhzGpXwXv%7EE9eC-wKZ-2LWWsHjdiO4jDUIksaUOSgJrS4UKNt-a5%7ECFU4zeoYj-Cd2KFXfxprzZxrAp07UKaIrncS6J2JnppZGCcuR%7Eut9xEuImxdL4cnFmzrgAOQU89Z25TiCS3GA7jccETO0jVyKj9g0iFKhZSLbhcErKZ%7EqCgDZZ2cGc1xr4rQBUcxo4b9iA-yI%7EhZgVQSZOCObcYmDHFFZ7Prp8p3QPKpXEPEAh2JJCG2ExxfCImUsakREvhAFAK24SEf2S6Hex24a4ootUPrjFdYCX1zxek1dmnc-UG1kanrK5TcdlN1pax5poIgYWFpwtgw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
dfa74e648a725242d26ce7a1de3a9aae
PDF Text
Text
Wherein they Differ.
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought/’
f th or of “ Teachilu/s of Secularisin Compared with Orthodox Christutn ityf'
**- F&dntum ami. Special Creatim^'1' Seeidarism: Ctn^tpuchiveand L>estmG^'e,” u Glori[^<jf Unbelieff “ Saints and Sinners: Which?"
J^ible 'Morality,’
Chrinanity: J ts Origin, Nature and;
- ii^lumtcef “ Agrwsticjgm and' Christian Theism: Which. is
the Metre Reasonable
“ Reply ta Father La'tnbert,"
- • ■
‘■‘■The Superstitionof the Christian Sunday: A
, i'iti ,' .■ Plea for Liberty wyd J> nd ice, ’ ‘fc The JSeprors
WfU,. d- ~ • of the French Rerohiidm," ttec., <£•«.<
■ t.
_
CO^EJ^S.
The Potency of Scienge.
The Bible and Science.
The Bible and Creation.
The Origin of Man..
Creation/, Time and* Mate
rial^ •
6. The BubEb Account
TTONg.
Soropto :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE, *
'5 Adelaide,- St. East?
, /PRICE
of the
Qrigin of Death.
7. The I&ble Deluge.
8-. The Mosaic Account of the
FlooI) : Scientific Obj ec-’
15 CENTS.
��SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
WHEREIN. THEY DIFFER.
—BY—
CHARLES WATTS
Editor of “ Secular Thought.”
Author of “ Teachings of Secularism Compared with Orthodox Christianity,”
“ Evolution and Special Creation,” “ Secularism: Constructive and De
structive,” “ Glory of Unbelief,” “ Saints and Sinners : Which?”
“ Bible Morality,” “ Christianity: Its Origin, Nature and
Influence," “ Agnosticism and Christian Theism : Which is
the More Reasonable ? ” “ Reply to Father Lambert,"
“ The Superstition of the Christian Sunday: A
Plea for Liberty and Justice,''’ “ The Horrors
of the French Revolution,” de., de.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONTENTS:
Science.
6. The Bible Account
The Potency of
The Bible and Science.
The Bible and Creation.
The Origin of Man.
Creation: Time and Mate
rial.
ofthk
Origin of Death.
7. The Bible Deluge.
8. The Mosaic Account of the
Flood : Scientific Objec
tions.
TORONTO :
“ SECULAR THOUGHT ” OFFICE,
31 Adelaide St. East.
PRICE
15 CENTS.
A
��SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
The Potency of Science.—The distinguishing characteristic of this
age is science; it is essentially an age of invention, experiment
and discovery. Knowledge is pushed into the field of physical
nature on all hands to such an extent that each day brings to light
something both new and unforeseen. We are ever on the alert for
wonders in the field of discovery which will not amaze, simply
because they are not unusual. All thought to-day is more or
less influenced by natural science. Old opinions, not only in the
domain of the material, but also in the intellectual and moral,
have to be remoulded or abolished in obedience to the dictates
of the higher knowledge that we have attained of the workings
of natural law. That which cannot reconcile itself to science
must disappear as out of harmony with the genius of the epoch.
We do not, of course, allege that physical science covers the
entire field of knowledge, but we do contend that there is no
phase of thought that is not very largely moulded by modern
discoveries. Scientific truth can no longer be successfully op
posed, even by the most dogmatic theologian, and it is now too
powerful and too widely known to allow itself to be even
ignored. Hence, whatever opinions are advocated, the pretence
put forward in their favour usually is that they are in harmony
with science. The difficulty too often lies in making good this
claim.
Science may be defined as being an investigation into the
phenomena of nature, and the best application of the lessons de
rived thereby to the requirements of life. It may be further
described as meaning facts reduced to a system ; not a fixed,
cramped, and exclusive system, but one which expands with the
acquirement of additional knowledge. “■ Science is the enemy
of fear and credulity. It invites investigation, challenges the
�4
SCIENCE AND THE BIRLE:
reason, stimulates inquiry, and welcomes the unbeliever. It
seeks to give food and shelter, and raiment, education and liberty
to the human race. It welcomes every fact and every truth. It
has furnished a foundation for morals, a philosophy for the
guidance of man......................... It has taught man that he cannot
walk beyond the horizon—that the questions of origin and
destiny cannot be answered—that an infinite personality cannot
be comprehended by a finite being, and that the truth of any
system of religion based on the supernatural cannot by any
possibility be established—such a religion not being within the
domain of evidence. And, above all. it teaches that all our duties
are here—-that all our obligations are to sentient beings; that
intelligence, guided by kindness, is the highest possible wisdom
and that ‘ man believes not what he would, but what he can.’ ”
It has been said that we can have no complete system of science.
To some extent this is true ; for no science is perfect, if by per
fection is meant that all that is knowable is known. But
sufficient information of a positive character has been obtained
in many fields of enquiry to justify conclusions that may be re
garded as reliable. Science has stamped its valuable impress on
the history of the world. By its aid man is enabled to explore
hitherto unknown regions; by its aid we can descend into the
depths of the earth, and discover truths which destroy theological
errors that have too long held captive the human mind; by its
aid we can not only avert many of the diseases which “ flesh is
heir to,” but can even bid the messenger of death pause in its
gloomy and desolating march. Science has conferred its mani
fold benefits upon the king and the peasant, the weak and the
strong, the healthy and the decrepit. It has transformed nations
from a state of barbarism to partial civilisation, and stimulated
man to emancipate himself from the curse of degrading super
stitions. That which was hidden from the gaze of the ancient
world has, by the magic wand of science, been exhibited to us
in all its pleasing aspects. To-day, though separated by the
broad and swelling ocean, we can in a few moments of time com
municate with our European friends by that cable which connects
nation with nation. By the mighty propelling power of steam
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
5
we can, in a comparatively brief period, penetrate the very
length and breadth of the land. As the late Prince Consort of
England said in 1855 : “No human pursuits make any material
progress until science is brought to bear upon them............. Look
at the transformation which has gone on around us since the
laws of gravitation, electricity, magnetism, and the expansive
power of heat have become known to us. It has altered the
whole state of existence—one might say, the whole face of the
globe. We owe this to science, and to science alone.” While
■contemplating the glorious achievements thus won, it is sadden
ing to remember how their progress has been retarded. In ages
long gone, never we hope to return, whenever a scientific truth
was manifested, it was sought to be crushed, or its infantine
purity was corrupted, either by despotic blindness or ignorant
misrepresentation. The history of science has been one continual
conflict with religious fanaticism and priestly intolerance. Too
frequently its usefulness has been impaired, and its exponents
have been tortured, and made to deny the evidences of their own
senses. True, from a theological standpoint we could not expect
aught else. A study of the histories of orthodox Bible believers
will scarcely justify the supposition that they would assist in
those discoveries which show so unmistakably the errors of their
faith.
The potency of science over the influence of theology was
never better presented than in the following eloquent language
by Col. Ingersoll : “ Science, thou art the great magician ! Thou
alone performest the true miracles. Thou alone workest the
real wonders. Fire is thy servant, lightning is thy messenger.
The waves obey thee, and thou knowest the circuits of the wind.
Thou art the great philanthropist! Thou hast freed the slave
and civilised the master. Thou hast taught men to chain not
his fellow-man, but the forces of nature—forces that have no
backs to be scarred, no limbs for chains to chill and eat—forces
that never know fatigue, that shed no tears—forces that have
no hearts to break. Thou gavest man the plough, the reaper and
the loom—thou hast fed and clothed the world ! Thou art the
great physician ! Thy touch hath given sight. Thou hast made
�6
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
the lame to leap, the dumb to speak, aud in the pallid cheek thy
hand hath set the rose of health. ‘ Thou hast given thy beloved
sleep’—a sleep that wraps in happy dreams the throbbing
nerves of pain. Thou art the perpetual providence of man—
preserver of light and love ! Thou art the teacher of every
virtue, the enemy of every vice. Thou hast discovered the true
basis of morals—the origin and office of conscience—and hast
revealed the nature and measure of obligation. Thou hast
taught that love is justice in its highest form, and that even
self-love, guided by wisdom, embraces with loving arms the
human race. Thou hast slain the monsters of the past. Thou
hast discovered the one inspired book. Thou hast read the
records of the rocks, written by wind and wave, by frost and
flame—records that even priestcraft cannot change—and in thy
wondrous scales thou hast weighed the atoms and the stars.
Thou art the founder of the only true religion. Thou art the
very Christ, the only saviour of mankind. Theology has always
been in the way of the advance of the human race. There is
this difference between science and theology—science is modest
and merciful, while theology is arrogant and cruel. The hope
of science is the perfection of the human race. The hope of
theology is the salvation of a few and the damnation of almost
everybody.”
Notwithstanding the value, potency and grandeur of science
it is only of comparatively recent date that its usefulness has
been fairly acknowledged and its power duly appreciated.
Formerly new discoveries were tested by the Bible and encour
aged or discouraged according to their agreement or disagreement
therewith. Fortunately, the Bible test is no longer accepted as
the standard of appeal but the question of utility has taken its
plaqe. Science now holds its undisputed sway although many
of its revelations contradict the teaching both of the Hebrew and
Christian Records.
The Bible and Science.—The Bible has hitherto occupied
in the world a very exceptional position, and there is still
claimed for it “ divine authority and unerring accuracy.” In
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
7
the multiplicity of tests to which its claims might be sub
jected, the one above all others which it must face to-day, isthat of science. By this it must stand or fall. If true, it
should not fear this mode of examination, but whether it does
or not it must submit to this tribunal.
That modern science has demonstrated as fallacies much that
the Bible contains is now recognised by many professing Chris
tians, hence they assert that the Bible does not pretend to teach
science. Such a statement, however, is unfortunate for the or
thodox position, inasmuch that the Bible, which is supposed to
contain all that is necessary for mankind, ought to inculcate
that which has proved the greatest benefit to their general im
provement. The national and individual condition of society
would be lamentable indeed without the advantages of science..
For Christians, therefore, to assert that the Bible ignores science,
is to charge their God with being neglectful of the principal
wants and requirements of mankind. A book which professes to*
have been written under divine inspiration for the guidance and.
instruction of the human race, should not only teach science, butshould expound its truths in such a concise and practical manner,,
that while harmonising with the facts of nature, it should also
commend itself to the judgment and intellect of the humblest
of the land. But it is not sufficient to say that the object of the
book was not to teach science ; that it had a far higher and5
nobler purpose. There might be some weight in such an allega
tion if all its teachings were confined to regions that lie outside
the domain of modern research, though even then such teachingscould not escape being tested by the influence which science hasexerted over every form of thought, indirect if not direct. Un
fortunately, however, for those who take this view, the Bible
does refer to scientific subjects, and deals quite largely with
matters that fall within the region in which science reigns
supreme. This being so, we are certainly justified in ascertain
ing whether or not the two are in harmony. That such subjects
are.dealt with no one can doubt who is at all acquainted with
the teachings of the book. Kalisch says, “ The Bible is not silent
upon the creation ; it attempts indeed to furnish its history \
�8
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
but iii this account it expresses as facts that which the researches
of science cannot sanction.” But the subject of creation is not
the only topic upon which the book states the very opposite to
what is correct. Surely when, and how, man was made, the
phenomena of the solar system, and the mode by which disease
and death entered the world, are scientific questions. These,
with other similar subjects, are dwelt upon in the Bible, and a
reference to its statements thereon will show that science and
the Bible are not on the most friendly terms. The fact is there
have been but few discoveries of any magnitude in science that
have not exhibited in some way the fallacy of portions of the
Bible. That which in the days of Moses might have been con
sidered right, and in accordance with the laws of nature, science
has since proved to be incorrect, and what Christ taught as
natural laws, subsequent experience has shown to be in opposition
to scientific discoveries. The antiquity of man has been proved
to be considerably greater than Moses alleges; geology has
demonstrated that the world existed thousands of years before
the time of creation stated in the Jewish account; the theory that
all mankind descended from one primeval pair is now given up
as unreliable ; the astronomy of the Bible has long been exploded ;
the universal flood mentioned in Genesis finds no scientific sup
porters ; the possession of devils by the human body, as believed
in by Christ, is regarded as an exploded superstition; the teach
ing of the New Testament that the world and its contents are to
be destroyed by fire, has but few believers ; a burning hell for
the “ wicked souls of the departed ” is deemed too revolting and
absurd to be regarded as more than a fiction ; hence science has
practically killed the belief in the devil and firmly closed for
ever his supposed illuminated habitation. The Bible teaches
that mankind has degenerated from a state of perfection;
science, on the contrary, indicates that the career of man has
been progressive, and that each age, profiting by experience, has
been superior to its predecessor. The Bible affirms that at a
certain command the sun and moon stood still; science declares
that such an event could never have happened. The Bible asserts
that all the kingdoms of the world were exhibited from a cer-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
9
tain high mountain; geography teaches that there are many
parts of the world totally invisible from any one elevation. The
Bible says that an iron axe floated on the surface of the water;
experience proves this to be impossible. In almost every field
the “ sacred writings ” appear to be the very antithesis of the
teachings of science.
The entire account of man’s early history as given in the
Bible is flatly contradicted by scientific research. Many attempts,
indeed, have been made to harmonise the two, but without suc
cess. Sophistry, equivocation, denunciation, all the engines, in
short, of polemical warfare, have been brought forward to dis
prove the well-attested facts of science; while those who have
been honest enough to restrict themselves to argument have
usually ended by accepting the facts and giving up the theory.
The great strength of a scientific theory lies in the cumulative
proof of which, if it be a scientific theory, it becomes capable ;
while a fact of science may be attested in many ways. For in
stance, while the geologists have bden at work tracing the
history of the earth from its earliest beginnings, and in so doing
have discovered evidence of the co-existence of man with many
of the extinct animals, of whose remote antiquity there can be no
doubt, the archaeologists have been busy in another field of en
quiry, and proving the same fact in another way. When the
same fact is thus arrived at by independent enquirers, and
different sciences force the mind to the same conclusion, the evi
dence of its truth is such as to be irresistible. Now the very
converse is the case with the orthodox defenders of the Bible.
Working in the same field, on the same subject-matter, they
arrive at various conclusions, and the best we have is a number
of conflicting theories, and if they were to be accepted a means
of harmonising the harmonisers must be found. Of course they
serve their purpose for a time by deceiving the uninformed and
misleading the unenquiring. But for the intelligent and logical
enquirer a study of the Hebrew Records themselves is quite
sufficient to discredit theology, and to show beyond all reason
able doubt that the Bible and science do not agree ; the one is
stationary, the other is progressive ; the first is bound by the
�10
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
ignorance of the past, the second is guided by the knowledge of
the present. Modern thought has neither hesitation nor regrets
in giving up the Bible as a monitor in the practical duties of life,,
for we have science remaining, and its light will shine with an
ever increasing brightness as the years roll on, until theological
ignorance and folly shall be replaced by a knowledge of natural
forces and a wisdom based on the experiences of a more un
fettered intellectual development.
The Bible and Creation.—The supposed creation of theworld and the origin of man as narrated in the Bible fur
nish striking evidence of the contradictory nature of the
teachings of that book to the revelations of science. If wo
accept the chronology of the Hebrew records as being correct,
there is no difficulty in ascertaining how long it is according
to the Bible since the world and man were created. For in
stance, in Genesis, we read that when Adam was 130 years old
his son Seth was born; when Seth was 105, Enos was born;
when Enos was 90, Cainsn was born; when Cainan was 70,
Mahalaleel was born ; when Mahalaleel was 65, Jared was born ;
when Jared was 162, Enoch was born; when Enoch was 65,
Methuselah was born ; when Methuselah was 187, Lamech was
born; when Lamech was 182, Noah was born. Adding these
dates up, we have from the birth of Adam to that of Noah. 1056yearr; 600 years after this the flood appears, making from the
creation of man to the flood, 1656 years. Then reckoning from
the flood to the birth of Christ, 2501, and from Christ to the
present time, 1890, we have a total of 6047 years since man first
appeared on the earth. Now in Exodus 20 it is said that “ in
six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is,” and in Genesis 1 we read that “ God created man on
the sixth day.” Thus, it is asserted, man was made six days
after the creation of the heavens and earth began. Is not this
adequate proof that the Bible teaches that "the world and man
have existed only a little over six thousand years ? This was
really admitted by the Rev. G. Rawlinson, Professor at Oxford,,
who, in his famous lecture on “ The Alleged Historical Difficulties
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
11
of the Old and New Testaments,” delivered on behalf of the
Christian Evidence Society, said :—“ The first difficulty, really
historical, which meets us when we open the volume of Scripture
is the shortness of the time into which all history is (or at any
rate appears to be) compressed by the chronological statements,
especially those of Genesis. The exodus of the Jews is fixed by
many considerations to about the fifteenth or sixteenth century
before our era. The period between the flood and the exodus,
according to the numbers of our English version, but a very little
exceeds a thousand years. Consequently, it has been usual to
regard Scripture as authoritatively laying it down that all man
kind sprang from a single pair within twenty-five or twenty-six
centuries of the Christian era ; and, therefore, that all history,
and not only so, but all the changes by which the various races
of men were formed, by which languages developed into their
numerous and diverse types, by which civilisation and art
emerged and gradually perfected themselves, are shut up within
the narrow space of 2,500 or 2,600 years before the birth of our
Lord. Now, this time is said, with reason, to be quite insuffi
cient. Egypt and Babylonia have histories, as settled kingdoms,
which reach back (according to the most moderate of modern
critical historians) to about the time at which the numbers of
our English Bible place the deluge. Considerable diversities of
language can be proved to have existed at that date; markedly
different physical types appeared not much subsequently ; civili
sation in Egypt had, about the pyramid period, which few now
place later than B.c. 2450, an advanced character; the arts existed
in the shape in which they were known in the country at its
most flourishing period. Clearly, a considerable space is wanted
anterior to the pyramid age, for the gradual development of
Egyptian life into the condition which the monuments show
to have been then reached. This space the numbers of our
English Bible do not allow ”
Turning to the great book of nature, and reading the geo
logical lessons inscribed therein, we find, in the words of Babbage
—a Christian writer—that “ the mass of evidence which com
bines to prove the great antiquity of the earth itself is so irre-
�12
sciteNcfe
and the bible
:
Sistible and so unshaken by any opposing facts, that none but
those who ate alike incapable of observing the facts and appre■ciating the reasoning can for a momeut conceive the present
state of its surface to have been the result of only 6,000 years of
existence. Those observers and philosophers, who have spent
their lives in the study of geology, have arrived at the conclu
sion that there exists irresistible evidence that the date of the
-earth’s first formation is far anterior to the epoch supposed to
be assigned to it by Moses; and it is now admitted by all com
petent persons that the formation even of those strata which are
nearest the surface must have occupied vast periods, probably
millions of years, in arriving at their present state.” In reply to
this, two different theories have been put forth in defence of the
Bible records with a view of bringing them into harmony with
science. The first theory is that a long period—countless ages,
in fact—elapsed between the time referred to in the 1st and 2nd
verses of Genesis, and that the creation spoken of in the first
two chapters of that book was only a re-adaptation of the chaos
of a previous world. If this were so, how is it no allusion is
made to animals or plants as being in existence before the time
referred to by Moses ? Is it not said by this writer that light
was created on the first of. the six days, and the sun on the
fourth ? Admit this to be true, and then, previous to that time,
there was no light nor heat, a condition of existence which
science pronounces an impossibility. Besides, have not geological
investigations discovered that the remains of animals and plants
found in the strata correspond with species now existing on the
-earth, indicating thereby that no new creation took place 6,000
years ago ? Clearly theie was and could be no such break in
the continuity of the chain of geological events as this theory
assumes. The remains of animals and plants found in the tertiary
are identical with those living to-day, and there was, therefore,
no new creation of fauna and flora at the time at which the
writer of Genesis declares the origin of the whole to have taken
place. If such had occurred evidences of it would be found in
those old records written in stone, which cannot err as docu
ments may do that have been produced by human fingers.
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
13‘
Besides, does it not look very much like a childish work of
supererogation to create by a special supernatural act a new set
of plants and animals, exactly like those already existing, who
would, as a matter of course, have propagated their species in
the ordinary natural way as they had been doing for generations
before ? Nor is there the slightest intimation in the book that
any sort of an interval of long duration occurred between the
. creation described in the first verse and that enumerated in the
subsequent account. It is evidently one continuous record, the
whole extending over just six days. The second theory is that
the days mentioned in Genesis are not literal days, but long
periods extending probably over millions of years. This is the
more popular of the two theories amongst orthodox Christians
at the present time. But, like the other, it is beset with insur
mountable difficulties. The light and the darkness are stated to
be synonymous with day and night, which alternate regularly
with each other. Epochs of light and equally long epochs of
darkness we know did not occur, for such darkness would have
been fatal to the vegetation which existed. Then the keeping
of the Sabbath day is enjoined on the principle that God worked
for six days and rested on the seventh, leaving the inference
conclusive that the days in the one case were the same as those
in the other. The most fatal objection, however, of all to the entire
theory is that the order of creation as described in Genesis and
that discovered by geological science are not at all the same. The
vegetable kingdom was not in its origin separated by millions of
years from the beginnings of animal life, as this theory would
make it appear to have been, one entire day or epoch coming
between them ; neither did the higher and lower forms of land
animals make their appearance at the same time. From any
point of view, no reconciliation between the Bible and science
appears to us possible, at least upon this point.
The Origin of Man.—Whatever lack of information may
exist as to the precise time when man first appeared on
the earth, it is as certain as anything can be that the
human family have been in existence much longer than
�14
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the time stated in the Bible. Professor Huxley writes:—
Sufficient grounds exist for the assumption that man co
existed with the animals found in the diluvium, and many a
barbarous race may, before all historical time, have disappeared
together with the animals of the ancient world.” Sir Charles
Lyell supports the statement, that “ North America was peopled
more than a thousand centuries ago by the human race.” Dr.
Bennett Dowler claims for a human skeleton discovered in the
delta of the Mississippi no less than 57,600 years. Baron Bunsen
■claims an antiquity for the human race of at least 20,000 years
prior to the Christian era, and traces in Egypt a double Empire
■of hereditary kings to 5413 B.C. “ It is now generally conceded,”
observe Nott and Gliddon, “ that there exists no data by which
we can approximate the date of man’s first appearance upon
•earth; and, for aught we yet know, it may be thousands or
millions of years.beyond our reach. The spurious systems of
Archbishop Usher on the Hebrew text, and of Dr. Hales on the
Septuagint, being entirely broken down, we turn, unshackled by
prejudice, to the monumental records of Egypt as our best guide.
Even these soon lose themselves, not in the primitive state of
man, but in his middle, or perhaps modern, ages ; for the Egyptian
Empire first presents itself to view, about 4,000 years before
'Christ, as that of a mighty nation, in full tide of civilisation, and
surrounded by other realms and races already emerging from
the barbarous stage...........These authorities, in support of the
extreme age of the geological era to which man belongs, though
startling to the unscientific, are not simply the opinions of a
few; but such conclusions are substantially adopted by the
leading geologists everywhere. And, although antiquity so ex
treme for man’s existence on earth may shock some preconceived
opinions, it is none the less certain that the rapid accumulation
of new facts is fast familiarising the minds of the scientific
world to this conviction. The monuments of Egypt have alreadycarried us far beyond all chronologies heretofore adopted ; and
when these barriers are once overleaped, it is in vain for us to
attempt to approximate even the epoch of man’s creation. This
•conclusion is not based merely on the researches of such arch-ae-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
15
ologists as Lepsius, Bunsen, Birch, De Longperier, Humboldt,
etc., but on those of also strictly orthodox writers, Kenrick,
Hincks, Osburn, and, we may add, of all theologians who have
really mastered the monuments of Egypt. Nor do these monu
ments reveal to us only a single race at this early epoch, in full
tide of civilisation, but they exhibit faithful portraits of the
same African and Asiatic races, in all their diversity, which hold
intercourse with Egypt at the present day.......... In short, we
know that in the days of the earliest Pharaohs, the Delta, as it
now exists, was covered with ancient cities, and filled with a
dense population, whose civilisation must have required a period
going back far beyond any date that has yet been assigned to
the deluge of Noah, or even to the creation of the world.” The
two magnificent works of Nott and Gliddon, entitled “ Types of
. Mankind ” and “ Indigenous Races,” are too little read at the
present time. They contain some few errors, no doubt, but on
the whole they abound in erudition and furnish overwhelming
evidence both of man’s early appearance on the earth and of the
impossibility of supposing all the races to have had the same
origin. The Adam and Eve theory is shattered into fragments
by the facts produced in such abundance. No answer to these
books has been put forth, and we fail to see that any is possible.
“ The theory,” say Nott and Gliddon,“that all nations are made
of one blood, is entirely exploded.” Besides, if it were correct that
all mankind emanated from the “ transgressors in the Garden of
Eden,” it would be right to expect that the nearer we could
trace back to the original stock, the less diversity of race distincion characteristics would be found. Such, however, is not the
case. “We know,” observe Nott and Gliddon, “ of no archae
ologist of respectable authority at the present day, who will aver
that the races now found throughout the valley of the Nile, and
scattered over a considerable portion of Asia, were not as dis
tinctly and broadly contrasted at least 3,500 years ago as at this
moment. The Egyptians, Canaanites, Nubians, Tartars, Negroes,
Arabs, and other types, are as faithfully delineated on the monu
ments, of the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties, as if the
paintings had been executed by an artist of our present age.
�16
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
Hence, nothing short of a miracle could have evolved all the
multifarious Caucasian forms out of one primitive stock ; because
the Canaanites, the Arabs, the Tartars, and the Egyptians were
absolutely as distinct from each other in primeval times as they
are now; just as they all were then from co-existent Negroes.
Such a miracle, indeed, has been invented, and dogmatically
defended ; but it is a bare postulate, and positively refuted by
scientific facts. If then the teachings of science be true, there
must have been many centres of creation, even for Caucasian
races, instead of one centre for all the types of humanity.” Dr.
Samuel Morton states “ that recent discoveries in Egypt prove
beyond all question that the Caucasian and the Negro races
were as perfectly distinct in that country upwards of 3,000 years
ago as they are now. If, then, the difference which we find ex
isting between the Negro and the Caucasian has been produced
by external causes, such change must have been effected accord
ing to Bible chronology in about 1,000 years. This theory is
decidedly contradicted by science and experience.” Now, no
external causes are known that are capable of producing all
the varieties of mankind as we see them to-day. They appear
to be separated from each other by broad lines of demarcation
which nothing that we are at present acquainted with can bridge
over. No consideration of the influence of sun, climate, or geo
graphical position will aid us in solving the problem. If man
kind all sprang from the same stock, which of course is very
questionable, it must have been tens of thousands of years before
the time at which Adam is supposed to have lived. For, as Pro
fessor Draper observes :—“ So far as investigations have gone
they indisputably refer the existence of man to a date remote
from us by many hundreds of thousands of years......... We are
thus carried back immeasurably beyond the six thousand years
of Patristic chronology. It is difficult to assign a shorter date
for the last glaciation of Europe than a quarter of a million of
years, and human existence antedates that. But not only is it
that this grand fact confronts us, we have to admit also a primi
tive animalised state and a slow and gradual development. But
this forlorn, this savage condition of humanity is in strong con-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
17
trast to the Paradisiacal happiness of the Garden of Eden, and
what is far more serious, it is inconsistent with the theory of
the Fall.” [“ Science and Religion,” pp. 199-200.] It is evident,
therefore, that the Bible is at fault in reference to man’s origin,
and no sophistry of explanation will make it agree with the
records of science.
Creation: Time and Material.—The’ disagreement between
the Bible and science as to the time occupied in the al
leged creation of the world is exceedingly clear. According
to the account in the Bible, this event occurred in six days.
There it is distinctly stated that the heavens and the earth and
all that in them is, were created in six days (Ex. 20 : 11). “For
in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day ; wherefore the Lord
blessed the seventh day and hallowedit.” The Jews understood
the word “day” as embracing a common day of twenty-four
hours. From the 20th of Exodus it is perfectly certain that it
is to be understood literally. God commands the Jews to “ Re
member the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is the Sabbath
of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou,.
nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant nor thy maid
servant, nor thy ’cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.”
Why ? Because—“ For in six’ days the Lord made heaven andi
earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh
day ; wherdfore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed
it.” “ Now,” remarks S. J. Finney, “ if the word ‘ day ’ is an in
definite word, embracing a long and indefinite period of time,
how could the Jews know when to work or when to rest, and
how do we know when to keep the Sabbath at all ? If it means,
according to Dr. John Pye Smith, many thousands or even
millions of years, the Sabbath has not yet begun; men are fooling
away one seventh of their time on a false notion that it is
‘ holy.’ ” But it has already been shown that the epoch theory
entirely breaks down when tested by facts. Mr. Priaulx says
“ that in reviewing this creation we are struck by its division
�18
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
into days. These days, though several of them are undetermined
hy any revolution of the earth round the sun, were, nevertheless,
no doubt, meant and understood to be natural days of twentyfour hours each.” Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Pye Smith represent
the creation recorded in Genesis as begun and completed in six
natural days, but as cut off from a previously-existing creation
by a chaotic period. Geologists, on the conti ary, declare that
■the various early strata of the earth have occupied enormous
periods of time during their formation, and that even in the
■vegetable and animal kingdoms the extinction and creation of
species have been, and are, the result of a slow and gradual
■change in the organic world.
Equally at fault is the Bible with reference to the sequence of
events. So diverse, in fact, are the accounts as furnished by
the Bible and by science up©« this zpoint that all attempts to
reconcile them must prove to be time wasted and labour thrown
away. Many years ago Dr. Sexton, who although now a Chris
tian is still & scientist, and would find some difficulty in replying
to his early writings, wrote as follows in his “ Concessions of
Theology to Science ” :—“ The greatest objection, and one which
is insurmountable to the understanding the term day in the first
chapter of Genesis as a long period, and therefore the six days
as including all the ages that have passed away, during which
those innumerable species of plants and animals have made their
appearance on our earth whose remains are embedded in the
rocks, will be found in the fact that the order of creation is not
the same in the two cases. According to geology, there is a
gradual progression from the lowest to the highest, plants and
animals running pari passu side by side, the simplest being
found in the early rocks, and the most complex in those more
recently formed. In Genesis, on the other hand, the whole of
the vegetable kingdom makes its appearance in one epoch, all
the inhabitants of the waters in another—the two separated
from each other by a long period, in which nothing was created
but the sun—and the land animals in a third. Moreover, the
organisms created in the last epoch include animals as low as
creeping things, and as high as man,, which certainly does not
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
19
accord with the facts disclosed by geology; and whales, which
are mammals, and therefore considerably high in the scale of
existence, are represented as having made their appearance with
the fishes, and long before the creeping things, which is also
contrary to fact. The sun, too, does not exist till the epoch after
the creation of plants, so that an enormous vegetation—such as
the immense forests which form the present coal-beds—must
have flourished in the absence of the rays of sunlight, which is
a perfect impossibility. Nor is the difficulty got over by the
theory that light had been previously formed, and that there
fore the sun was not requisite, since the actinic part of the sun’s
rays is equally as indispensable to vegetation as the luminous
portion that we call light.”
The Bible statement of the material from which man was
made differs from the facts discovered by scientific investigation.
We read irt Genesis that man was made from the dust of the
earth ; chemical analysis, on the other hand, has proved that
dust does not contain the elements found in the human organ
ism. The late Dr. Herapath, one of the leading chemists of
the day, wrote thus boldly upon this subject:—“ From our days
of boyhood it has been most assiduously taught us ‘ that man
was made out of the dust of the earth ; ’ and, ‘ as dust thou
art, so to dust thou shalt return.’ Now, this opinion, if literally
true, would necessitate the existence of alumina as one of the
elements of organised structure, for no soil or earthy material
capable of being employed by agriculturists can be found with
out alumina existing largely in its constitution, and clay cannot
be found without it. Therefore, chemistry as loudly protests
against accepting the Mosaic record in a strictly literal sense, as
geology, geography, astronomy, or any other of the physical
sciences so absurdly dogmatised upon weekly from the pulpits
by those who have neglected the study of true science, but still
profess to teach us that which is beyond all knowledge. That
man is not made out of the dust of the earth, but from organic
material or vegetable matter, properly digested and assimilated
by other organised beings, chemical science everywhere proves
to us incontestably.” Prof. Carpenter asserts that two-thirds of
�20
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the human body by weight is water. Such a proportion of this
fluid certainly cannot be found in dust, for we only apply that
ter<n to earth that is dry. Dust mixed with twice its own weight
of water would cease to be described as dust. Yet there is no
escape from the statement made in the Bible that of such ma
terial as dust man was formed. The literal reading of the ori
ginal, as all scholars agree, is “ dust from the ground,” that is,
ordinary dust such as we meet with on the ground. Now, it is
certain man was not made from any such material, and by no
legitimate stretch of language can it with anything like accu
racy or truth be said that he was. The principal elementary
. substances to be found in human bodies are oxygen, hydrogen,
nitrogen and carbon, but these are not to be found in ordinary
dust, with the exception of a very trifling modicum of oxygen.
Silicon, one of the main ingredients of dust, can hardly be de
tected in the human organism. The Lamaic creed supposes man
is the production of water. Priaulx suggests that, had the writer
of Genesis adopted this theory, he would have been somewhat
nearer the truth.
The Bible Account of the Origin of Death.—The Bible
alleges that “by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; ” that is, that through the supposed disobedi
ence of Adam, death was introduced as a punishment for the
alleged offence. In the first place, death, so far from being a
punishment, i« to many “a consummation devoutly to be
wished.” Epictetus wrote : “ It would be a curse upon ears of
corn not to be reaped, and we ought to know that it would be a
curse upon man not to die. Are there not thousands who suffer
a life-long state of physical pain, who have not the strength or
opportunity to obtain sufficient food to satisfy the wants of
nature ? To such persons as these would not death be indeed a
welcome messenger ? Besides, upon the Christian hypothesis,
how can death possibly be a punishment ? To be ushered into
realms of bliss, and there to enjoy everlasting happiness, instead
of remaining in this “ vale of tears, ought certainly to be
accepted by the Christian as an improvement upon his condition.
�WHERMN THEY DIFFER.
21
But this theory of Adam being the cause of the introduction of
death involves many difficulties. If death had not been intro
duced, could the world contain its ever-increasing inhabitants ?
And would it have been capable of producing provisions sufficient
to support such an immense multitude ? Suppose the serpent
had not played its “little game,” could a man who had no know
ledge of swimming have fallen into the water without the
chance of being drowned ? Or could a person have remained in
a furnace and not be burned to death ? Or if he were in a coal
mine during an explosion, would he escape unhurt ? Further,
did the lower animals incur death through the act of Adam ?
If yes, did Christ give them immortality ? Because we read,
“ As in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” If,
however, they did not incur death, it may be asked why one of
theij; kind took a prominent part in what is termed “ the fall of
man ? ” The fact is, by our nature we must cease to live. Death
is a necessity, regardless of what Adam did or did not, and man
cannot but experience it while he is what he is. Change is an
universal law of existence, and we are no exception to that law.
As soon as we enter upon the stage of life we become subject to
that change until we progress to a given point; then our organ
isation begins to lose its vitality, and we slowly but surely
•exhaust life’s power, and death ensues as certainly as a fire will
cease to burn when no longer supplied with fuel. This condition
•of things has always existed so far as science can discover. But
the Bible says no ; before Adam’s “ transgression ” death was not
.a necessary consequence of life. Here, then, are antagonistic
statements. Which is reliable ? If Adam were constituted
similar to us, he must have been liable to death. If, on the con
trary, his organisation were of an entirely different structure,
how could he have been our first parent ? Children do not differ
in their nature from those whose offspring they are. Certain it
is that man’s constitution is such that he cannot avoid the
liability to death. He is so organised that all the influences
operating upon him, while for a time and under certain condi
tions they afford him sustenance and support, may yet, diverted
from their normal purpose, cause him to cease to live. Indeed,
�22
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
it is impossible even to conceive of a human body which is pos
sessed of immortality. The phrase is used glibly enough, but let
one reflect upon it, and ask himself what is the meaning that he
attaches to the expression “immortal man.” A human being lives
by taking food, and that very food diverted from its proper pur
pose may cause death; anyhow, its absence will produce that
effect. Excretions of a poisonous character are continually being
eliminated, and should the glandular organ whose function it is
to remove these deleterious substances cease to act, then the
result is as fatal as though a poison had been swallowed. If it
be said that this would not occur because there would be no
disease, we reply that there is still the impossibility of supposing
an organism, whose existence is dependent on something outside
itself, being at the same time independent of all else.
Then there is the important fact that death was in the ^orld
millions of ages before the supposed existence of Adam and
Eve. There are, indeed, few persons of any education now who
can doubt that at least the lower animals died long before man
was created. Geology has brought to light their fossil remainsentombed in the various rocks which go to make up the crust
of the earth. They came into existence, played their brief part
on life’s stage, and passed away, not simply individually, but
in whole races, long before the era dawned which gave man bis
birth. They preyed on one another then as now, the carnivora
devouring the less ferocious tribes ; and both together becoming’
buried in the earth, their remains were preserved to tell their
history to future generations of men. Race followed race in long
succession, each to pass away as its predecessor bad done whilst
as yet man had not made his appearance upon the scene.
But it was not simply the lower animals that died before the
time assigned to the creation of Adam, It is now demonstrated
beyond the shadow of a doubt that man had shared the same
fate ages before. If our fabled first parents resided in the Gar
den of Eden six thousand years ago, they came far too late in
the history of the world to be the progenitors of the whole
human family. Whole races had flourished and had passed
away long before that time. Death had existed whilst the per-
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
petrator of original sin was not yet born. In no sense, there
fore, can it be a fact that Adam’s sin was the cause of death.
The Fall itself involves contradictions to science. Take, for in
stance, the curses pronounced on the ground, the woman, and
the serpent : the merest tyro in science knows that all these
are simply non-existent. Thorns and thistles are not accursed ,
on the contrary, they are highly useful plants. Moreover, they
were in existence long before the time at which the Fall is said
to have occurred. And they most unquestionably made their
first appearance, not as the result of any curse of God, but by
the ordinary laws of nature. Then the so-called curse on woman
is by no means universal. The pains referred to occur in their
severe form only amongst civilised peoples, and always as a re
sult'of artificial modes of living and the violation of natural
laws. Savage women are almost exempt from such pains, and
suffer no more than do the lower animals. The curse upon the
serpent is still more absurd : “ On thy belly shalt thou go,” as
though serpents ever practised locomotion in any other way.
Nor were serpents changed in their organisation at this time—
as some have suggested—for the remains of those found in
geological strata, whose existence dates back to a period pro
bably a million years before man appeared, show precisely the
same kind of organisation as their modern descendants. Thesecurses are, to say the least, very childish, and place the charac
ter of the Being who is said to have uttered them in a very
contemptible and degrading light. Fortunately, however, ac
cording to science, the whole story is regarded as fiction, not as
fact.
The Bible Deluge.—Modern researches have unmistakeably
established the fact that between science and the Mosaic ac
count of the flood there is an absolute antagonism.
The
Bible statement is, that less than five thousand years ago, God
discovered “ that the wickedness of man was great in the
earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually.” Not two thousand years before
this, so the book relates, God had made man pure and
�24
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
morally upright; had given him the advantage of divine super
intendence, and subsequently the edification of the preaching of
Noah. These precautions, however, did not, according to the
Hebrew narrative, prevent mankind from degenerating so rapidly
that the Lord repented “ that he had made man, and it grieved
him at his heart.” God possessed, it is .-aid, infinite power, wis
dom, and goodness, yet he either could not, or would not, devise
a plan of reformation for the human race, but resolved instead
upon wholesale destruction, and so drowned them all except one
family. This was a terrible resolve, opposed to every sentiment
of justice and to every feeling of benevolence. No being with a
spark of humanity in his nature would be guilty of voluntarily
exposing millions of creatures, men, women, and children, to the
agonies and struggles of a watery grave. Surely an omnipotent
God could have found other means to correct the work of his
own hands without bringing “ a flood of waters upon the earth,
to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under
heaven.” Besides, as a remedy and a warning, the cold water pro
cess proved a failure. The people are reported as being no better
after the deluge than they were before it.
If this deluge were a fact, what can be said of the God who
was the chief actor in it, and who was entirely responsible for
the great calamity—an event so fearfully cruel and so revolting
that one “ cannot think of it without horror nor contemplate it
without dismay.” How can we reconcile the drowning of a
whole world with the justice and goodness of the Almighty
One ? Say that the wickedne-s of man was great upon the
earth, was that any reason for destroying any chance of repent
ance ? What should we say of an earthly despot who acted in
a like manner ? The cruelty and supreme wickedness of the
action thus attributed to God has never been paralleled or even
approached by the greatest monster the world has ever seen ;
and on the part of infinite power the action mu-t partake of the
character of the actor and become infinite in its utter depravity.
Say that men were wicked, was it therefore just to overwhelm
in a common destruction the son with the sire, the little child
who had not yet learned to sin with those who were the real
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
25
sinners ? In the presence of this narrative, we can only say
that, if men were wicked, the being who destroyed them was
more wicked still.
Again, according to the orthodox version of this fearful
tragedy, man had fallen, Adam for his sin had been cast out of
Eden, and the redemption of man was impossible through any
efforts of his own. The Redeemer who was necessary had not
yet been sent. How, then, could it be consistent with infinite
goodness to punish for wickedness which was unavoidable, to
destroy man that he was sinful when he could not by any possi
bility be otherwise ? Moreover, be it observed that this narra
tion is a libel upon the character of God in other ways. By
this universal deluge a great change was effected, but no im
provement. The new generations were as wicked as those which
had gone before ; nay, the very man Noah, who had found grace
in the sight of God, was drunk in his tent immediately, and his
son Canaan, another of the saved ones, maketh shame of his
father. In the 9 th chapter of Genesis the whole disgusting ac
count may be found. The God who drowned the world to cure
the evil in it with no better results than this could not be a God
of any foreknowledge. Or, if it be said that he knew this
would be so, then the utter malignity of the drowning becomes
only proportionately increased.
Our present object, however, is not to dwell upon the inhuman
character of the flood, but rather to show that the account in
Genesis is utterly contrary to the result of modern investigations
and the revelations of science. This fact has become so palp
able that leading theologians, with a view to save the credit of
the Bible story, are driven to assert that the Noachian flood was
only partial. Were this assertion correct, the Bible would be in
error, inasmuch as it clearly teaches the universality of the
deluge, as shown by the following extracts from Genesis, ch. 6
and 7 : “ And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have
created, from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and
the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air ; for it repenteth me
that I have made them'” “ And, behold, I, even I, do bring a
flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is
�26
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
the breath of life, from under heaven ; and everything that is
in the earth shall die.” “ Every living substance that I havemade will I destroy from off the face of the earth.” “ And all
flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle,
and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of
life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living
substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,
both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of
the heaven ; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah
only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”
Bishop Colenso says that the Flood described in Genesis, whether
it be regarded as a universal or a partial deluge, is equally in
credible and impossible. And the Rev. Paxton Hood, in his
work, “The Villages of the Bible,” remarks: “I am aware that
Dr. Pye Smith and some other distinguished scholars have
doubted the universality of the deluge......... I need not refer
more at length to this matter than to say it seems quite unphilosophical to maintain the possibility of such a partial flood ; this
seems to me even more astonishing than the universal.” Pro
fessor Hitchcock observes: “ I am willing to acknowledge that
the language of the Bible on this subject seems at first view to
teach the universality of the flood unequivocally.” Upon the
supposition that the flood was partial, it would be interesting to
know what prevented the water from finding its level. More
over, where was the necessity of drowning the innocent portion
of the local inhabitants ? It cannot reasonably be supposed that
no pure-minded women and guiltless children were to be found.
Besides, it was folly building the ark and collecting the animals
if this partial hypothesis were true; as Noah and his family,
together with “ two of every sort,” could have emigrated to
those parts which the deluge was not intended to visit.
In speaking of this flood, “ Julian,” one of the ablest Biblical
scholars in England at the present day, in his excellent .work,
“ Bible Words : Human, Not Divine,” has the following valuable
remarks upon the account as given in Genesis chapters 6, 7,.
and 8 :
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
27
“ Two of Evtry Sort.—Chapter 6 is Eloistic: the word ‘God’
is used. In verses 19, 20, we read: And God said to Noah he
was to take into the ark ‘two of every sort,’ to keep the race
alive; the two were to be a male and its female : ‘ Of fowls after
their kind, and of cattle after their kind; of every creeping
thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come
unto thee. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten,,
which thou shalt gather together for thee and them.’’
“ This writer evidently supposed that wild beasts and birds of
prey could feed on hay and eat ‘ straw like an ox ; ’ that the
number of animals was so small that two of every sort could be
stalled in an ordinary-sized church ; and that four men would
suffice to feed all the animals and remove the filth from the ark.
Why, a small travelling menagerie requires more attendants to
feed the collection and keep the place clean.
“ The writer supposed that wild beasts would consort with
their lawful prey—serpents with doves, hawks with sparrows,
owls with mice, and insectivorous birds with insects ; for, though*
daily food was to be taken into the ark, only two of every
sort of animal were to be saved, just enough to keep the race
alive.
“ Seven of Clean Animals and Birds.—‘ Two of every sort,’
Elohim says, and repeats the injunction—two of every sort,
remember; only two, and no more ; one male and one female of
each species of beast, bird, and reptile. The-next chapter (7) is
a Jehovistic one; for, instead of God, we read ‘Lord,’ or the
‘ Lord God ; ’ and here a distinction is made between clean and
unclean beasts, and between quadrupedsand birds. Mark what
is said : ‘ Of every clean beast (7 : 2, 3) thou shalt take to theeby sevens, the male and the female; and of beasts that are not
clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls of the air by
sevens, the male and the female.’
“Here the direction is seven clean beasts and seven of all
species of birds, ‘ a male and its female.’ Now, as seven is an
odd number, it was plainly impossible to pair seven animals ; sothe writer must have meant seven pairs, or fourteen of every
clean beast and every fowl of the air. This, of course, would
�38
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE:
require a much larger ark, and would greatly increase the daily
labour of Noah and his family.
“ This wise and sagacious writer saw plainly that birds and
beasts of prey could not live upon seed, so he increases the num
ber of animals for food. He also wanted Noah to offer sacrifice
after the Flood ; -and, had he killed one of his two clean beasts,
he would have extirpated the race ; so he makes Jehovah coun
termand the order of Elohim, and tell Noah that Elohim made a
mistake ; that he did not mean ‘ two of every sort of beast and
bird and creeping thing,’ but only of unclean beasts. All clean
beasts and all birds wTere to be collected by sevens (a sacred
number); but why seven pairs of eagles, vultures, condors,
toucans, parrots, lyre-birds, mocking-birds, cranes, owls, and so
on, is a mystery of mysteries.”
<
Scientific Objections to the Mosaic Account of the Flood.—
Among the many scientific objections to the account of the
Flood as given in the Bible are the following :
1. Geological. The study of this science proves to demonstra
tion that the present diluvian deposits found in the earth are the
result of time going back far beyond the Noachian period. The
evolutions in sea and on land, that for ages have been progress
ing, and are still in process, evidently extend in their connection
to the pre-Adamite antiquity. “ This conclusion,” says the Bev.
Alfred Barry, M.A., “ is the more undoubted, because so many
leading geologists, Buckland, Sedgwick, &c, who once referred
the diluvium to the one period of the historic deluge, have now
publicly, withdrawn that opinion.” Hugh Miller, in his “Testi
mony of the Rocks,” says: “ In various parts of the world, such
as Auvergne, in Central France, and along the flanks of Etna,
there are cones of long extinct or long slumbering volcanoes,
which, though of at least triple the antiquity of the Noachian
deluge, and though composed of the ordinary incoherent ma-'
terials, exhibit no marks of denudation. According to the calcu
lations of Sir Charles Lyell, no devastating flood could have
passed over the forest zone of Etna during the last twelve
thousand years.” Alluding to the remains to be found in certain
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
29
provinces of France, Kalisth, in his Genesis, observes: “Distinct
mineral formations, and an abundance of petrified vegetable and
animal life, bespeak an epoch far anterior to the present condition
of our planet.......... That extraordinary region contains rocks,
consisting of laminated formations of silicious deposits; one of
the rocks is sixty feet in thickness ; and a moderate calculation
shows that at least 18,000 years were required to produce that
single pile. All these formations, therefore, are far more remote
than the date of the Noachian flood ; they show not the slightest
trace of having been affected or disturbed by any general deluge;
their progress has been slow, but uninterrupted.” Thus geology
irrefragably demonstrates that, while the earth has been subject
to many floods, it has never been visited by such an one as that
described in the Bible.
The evidences of the Flood that have been sometimes quoted
are really funny. Not long ago Talmage declared that the flood
was proved beyond the possibility of contradiction by the fact
that sea shells and other remains of marine animals were often
found on the summit of the highest mountains. He forgot to
mention that the Flood was said to have been caused by fresh
water, and that consequently marine animals could have had no
place in its waters. These remans found on mountain tops are
due to other and well known causes. Geologically there is not
only no evidence that such a flood occurred as that described in
the Bible, but there is a mass of undoubted evidence to the con
trary. “ Julian ” observes : “ Such a cataclysm as the Flood
must have left its marks on the earth ; but geologists have not
succeeded in finding a single trace—no confusion of animal
relics, no huge water gullies, no stratum of alluvial earth, which
such a sweep of water would produce. We find relics of marine
animals inland, it is true, and on the tops of high mountains;
but these fossils are all in order, each in its own stratum. There
is no confusion of animals in these rocks, as if a world had been
stamped out in forty days.”
2. The Scarcity of Water. The account says: “And the
waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high
i
�30
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
thills that were under the whole heavens were covered.” Further,
“ the mountains were covered.” Now, the height of Mount
Ararat is put down at 17,000 feet; the quantity of water, there
fore, required to cover this mountain would be, in the estimation
■of Dr. Pye Smith, Professor Hitchcock, and many other eminent
writers, eight times greater than what already existed. From
whence then came the tremendous mass of water required to
produce the Flood, and what became of it afterwards ? These
.are questions which Biblical students should answer or con
fess their inability to do so and admit the absurdity of the
.record.
3. The Size of the Ark. This vessel is alleged to have been
not more than 600 feet long, 100 feet broad, and 60 feet high ;
yet it is said to have held not only Noah and his family, but
“ two of every living thing of all flesh.” According to Hugh
Miller, there are 1,658 known species of mammalia, 6,266 of
birds, 642 of reptiles, and 550,000 of insects. Is it credible that
so small a vessel as the Ark is described to have been could have
furnished accommodation for this vast congregation ? Space,
too, must have been provided for food for the occupants of the
Ark. Under such crowded conditions how did ventilation ob
tain ? The atmosphere must have been fatal, at least, to some
forms of life. And whence was obtained the food to sustain for
so long a period the carnivorous and herbivorous animals—the
swallows, ant-eaters, spiders, and flies ? The Black Hole of Cal
cutta would have been a paradise to it. It is monstrous folly to
suppose all the animals of the earth, by twos and sevens, could
be squeezed into such a space. It is no less folly to suppose that
they would not all have been suffocated before one day had
passed. There is a little difficulty also about the light. There
were, it appears, three storeys in the Ark, and but one window.
Now, where was the window positioned ? In the upper storey ?
Possibly, then, the dwellers in the other two storeys of the Ark
were in the dark, where many of those have since been who
have relied on the Bible instead of profiting by the lessons of
science.
�WHEREIN THEY DIFFER.
31
4. The Collecting the Animals. The difficulties attending the
narrative of collecting the live stock into one happy family are
thus aptly put by the Rev. T. R. Stebbing, M.A.: “ To achieve it
he (Noah) must have gone in person, or sent expeditions, to
Australia for the kangaroo and the wombat, to the frozen North
for the Polar bear, to Africa for the gorilla and the chimpanzee ;
the hippopotamus of the Nile, the elk, the bison, the dodo, the
apteryz, the emeu, and the cassowary must have been brought
together by vast efforts from distant quarters....... Sheep, game,
caterpillars, beasts of prey, snails, eagles, fleas and titmice must
all have their share of attention. Unusual pains must be em
ployed to secure them uninjured. They must be fed and cared
for during a journey, perhaps of thousands of miles, till they
reach the ark ; they must be hindered from devouring one ano
ther while the search is continued for rats, and bats, and vipers
and toads, and scorpions, and other animals which a patriarch,
specially singled out as just and upright, and a lover of peace,
would naturally wish and naturally be selected to transmit as a
boon to his favoured descendants.”
5. Atmospheric and Botanical. The Bible assures us that,
after the waters began to subside, the inhabitants of the Ark
existed for nearly eight months in the temperature prevailing at
a spot “ 3,000 feet above the region of perpetual snow.” It surely
will not be contended that this statement harmonises with sci
ence any more than does the reeord of an olive tree retaining its
life after being under the pressure of several tons’ weight of
water for nearly three-quarters of a year. “ Naturalists tell us
that sun and air are needful for vegetable life; but neither sun
nor air could get to trees buried seven miles deep in water. And
even supposing the trees to have been in leaf, a wind sufficiently
high to dry up seven miles of water in 110 days would certainly
have stripped the trees, if it had not rooted them up altogether.’
Colenso says :—“ The difficulty, that so long an immersion in
deep water would kill the olive, had, no doubt, never occurred
to the writer, who may have observed that trees survived ordin
ary partial floods, and inferred that they would just as well be
�32
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE :
able to sustain the deluge to which his imagination subjected
them.” Kalisch observes : “ It is agreed by all botanical autho
rities, that, though partial inundations of rivers do not long or
materially change the vegetation of a region, the infusion of
great quantities of salt water destroys it entirely for long
periods. But the earth produced the olive and the vine imme
diately after the cessation of the Deluge.”
�* Charles Watts’ Works.
THE TEACHINGS OF SECULARISM COMPARED WWH
Orthodox Christianity, 96 pages.’ Price 25 cents.
Contents.—Physical Teachings. Intellectual Teachings. Present Condition of
Society. Morality. Ethics pf Religion Secularism and the Supernatural. Secu
larism at the hour of Death. Secularism in ^Toeory
Secularism in Practice,
Secularism more reasonable than Christianity. /‘Secularism more noble than Christ
ianity. Secularism more beneficial than Christianity. Secu'ariSm Progressive.
Secularism, its Triumphs. Secularism, its Service to Mankind. Secularism, its
Struggles in the Past. Secularism in the Future. Summing up.
SECULARISM
«
IS IT BOUNDED ON REASON, AND IS IT
SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MANKIND I- jslebate between the Editor of the Halifax Evening Mail and Chai les Watts. With
Prefatory Leiters by Gemge Jacob Htflyoake and Colonel Ingersoll, and an.
Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
60 pages, 25 cents,
A REPLY to FATHER LAMBERT’S
20 cents, post free.
TACTICS of INFIDELS.”’
*v.V’
CHRISTIANITY : ITS ORIGIN, NATURE AND INFLUENCE.
32 pages, price 15 cents.
ContsNTS.—Christianity rf'Human Origin—Not Original^-Tndefinite, Im'
practicable and Contradictory in its Nat use— Its Influence Tested by‘Histpiy apd the
Admissions of Christian Writers
THE HORRORS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
THEIR
CAUSES 24 pages, price to cents
.
Contents.—Atheism and Social Order—Indications of a Great Struggle - Or
thodox Misrepresentation—The'Horrors of the French Resolution—The Causes
of the Excis es
SECULARISM; DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
pages in.cover ; price 10c.
22
Contents.—What is Secularism? Bible Idolatry—The Secularist's Bible.
Natural Depravity. Theological Supremacy. The alleged Fall of Man and his
supposed redemption through Christr Reason and Experience the true guide in
human actions Why supreme attention should be given to the duties of this life.
Science more trustworthy than reliance upon any supposed Supenja ural power.
Morality is of natural growth, haying no necessary connection w thT/tflogy. Tne'
consistent carrying out of Secular teaching in every day life the best preparation for
any future exis’ence,
BIBLE MORALITY. ITS TEACHINGS SHOWN TO BE CONtradictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 24 pages, price 10c.
Contents.—Bib|e Morality, Bible Teachings, Tqe Christian’s Theory of the j
Bible, The Bible as a Guide.
AGNOSTICISM AND € HRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH IS THE
More Reasonable ? 24 pages, price lO cents.
Contents.—(1) What is Agnosticism ? (2) Its Relation to the Universe and to
Chi istian Theism. (3) Is it sufficient to sati.-ify man s" intellectual fequirements.
The batural and the Supernatural.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION.
10 cents. '
Contents.—What is Evolution ? The Formation of Worlds. Tee Beginning
Life upon the Earth. Origin of Man. Diversity of Living 1'nings. Physical
Powers. The Future of Man on Earth.
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE, TORONTO, ONT.
�SAINTS AND SINNERS—WHICH1
24 pages in cover : price 1 Oc.
Contents. —The orthodox division of mankind in*o only two classes an error
Who are the Saints? Catholic and Protestant Saints. Pre-ordained and
Free-will Saints The Melancholy and Zealous Saints. The Oily and HalfandJHalf Saints. Who are the >pipers, and what is 'in,? The relative value
of the servic&rendered to the world py Saints and finders,
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE’ CHRISTIAN SUNDAY:^ A
Plea for-Liberty and <Justice. 26 pages ; price 10c.
Contents.—Introduction The Sabbath : Its Origin. Tne Institution - of Sun
day. Sabbatarian Inconsistency r- Sabbatarianism and Morality. A Free Sunday
and a Day of Rest.
“THE GLORY OF UNBELIEF?* 22 pages in cover; price 10e.
Contents.—Wnerein does the Glory of Unbelief consist? dUnbehef widespread
amongst all classes, Wnat is Unbelief? Its true nature defined- Can it be dis
pensed with ? The Advantages of Unbelief. What it has done for the world.
NATURE AND THE SUPERNATURAL;
or, BELIEF AND
KNOWLEDGE, 24 pages, price io cents.
Content^.—I. Whatjdowe Know of.Nature-? IL Th^Grandeur ind Potency
of Nature. III. The Supernatural. IV. What is the Supernatural ?■ V. Belief
and Knowledge. VI; Religion ; Natural and Supernatural.
.
i
THE AMERICAN SECULAR UNION ; ITS NECESSITY, AND
the-Justice^ of its Nine Demands. (Dedicated to.Colonel Robert
Ingersoll.) 32 pages iif cover; price 10c.
p
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION : An Open Letter to the Rev.'
Dr R. F Burfis, of Halifax, N.S, 16 pages, jtfricb 5c.
In this letter the following subjects are dealt with ". I. Why do the Clergy Avoid
Debate? 2. The Position of Agnosticism Towards Christianity. 3. Freethopgbt
and Men of Science. 4. The Difference between Facts and Opinions. 5. Christ
and Heroism. 6. Christianity and Slavery.
New Work by Mrs. Watts.
last published/
CHRISTIANITY: DEFECTIVE AND UNNECESSARYKate Eunice Watts. 24 pages, price to cents.
-By
Contents.—I. Why is Christianity Believed ? fl.“ Our Father Which art in
Heaven.” lit Tfae FaiJ and the Atonements fV. The Basis and Incentive of
Orthodox Christianity. V, Christianity Not a Necessity to Mankind.
SECULAR THOUGHT:
(The Official Organ of the Canadian Secular Union).
A. Journal of
TTiomglit.
CHARLIES WATTS - - Editor
Secular Thought is devoted mainly to the promulgation of Cqnstructive Sh3ularisin in the affairs of everyday life and is purely
Agnostic in reference th all phases of Alleged Supernatural ism.
Secular Thought is published every SATti'iDAY, at Millichamp’s
Buiiding, 31 Adelaide Street East, Toronto, OnL
Terms : $2.00 a Year (paid iff advance); $1.00 for six months.
Single copies, 6 cents
SECULAR THOUGHT OFFICE
-----
TORONTO, ONT
�
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
Science and the Bible : wherein they differ
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Toronto
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Spine title: Pamphlets by Charles Watts. Publisher's list on back cover.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Secular Thought Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Science
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (<span class="highlight">Science</span> and <span class="highlight">the</span> <span class="highlight">Bible</span> : <span class="highlight">wherein</span> <span class="highlight">they</span> <span class="highlight">differ</span>), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA840
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
Science
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2d9b20d6e91b5bf1860644f2c3087cc1.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=iXitrPDEF9Q0KwiIL0t3POmGhszSSgozmMs-5vhz17KbODuz-nBD9CV2AjAjuWG66kpRVvVlyOgmT6WIwbE5CKLDMc79Rl6iS9OMg8R5HT9DBk7bWd9JG6SJZ1Vnf0pkJHtT6DdPbDdrtvIVSXAV4IdB87BtYG8xwOYGDmToSn89w4OnFPFZWTFbaonIkAJLn3DRnBoQQk-NtW-lqgb2H5AuQjC1UNcyuHpzQgurbo-PHASloDdYalrWeESg3tSnZLrFs3IJDzTsfLs9QZPC6Uz8L1yO2yaIzZcfLjcCCnqlGmWOQpQj1W5obMc53ah3b98DZ4mjCOj3kBGIm2si5w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c7ce4aa88d0a9958c6361260961219a7
PDF Text
Text
CT
m
THE PENTATEUCH
IN CONTRAST WITH
THE SCIENCE AND MORAL SENSE
OF OUR AGE.
By
A
PHYSICIAN.
“ Zufallige Geschichtswahrheiten konnen der Beweis von nothwendigen
Vernunftswahrheiten nie werden ”—Contingent historical truths can never be
demonstration of necessary rational truths.—Lessing.
'
PUBLISHED
BY THOMAS
SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1873.
Price Sixpence.
�LONDON!
PRINTED BY C. W. RBYNELL, 16 LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�Exodus: The Decalogue.
205
“Honour thy father and thy mother”:—a com
mandment natural, beautiful, good and proper in itself
assuredly, but unhappily immediately marred by the
context which adds : “ that thy days may be long in
the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee;” as if
there were no finer sense of duty or moral obligation in
question, and the merely selfish or animal element in
the nature of man were the only ground of appeal
for its observance ! The commandment, as it stands,
is not unconditional, as it ought to be, but is weighted
with a motive, and so meets us in guise of a compact
or bargain, much of the same kind as that which
Jacob proffers for the acceptance of his God when
he sets up the stone Pillar at Beth-El, and vows
a vow, saying, “ If God will keep me in the way
that I go, and will give me bread to eat, &c., then
shall Jehovah be my God.” (Gen. xxviii. 20, 22).
“ Thou shalt not kill.”
“ Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
“ Thou shalt not steal.”
Respect for life, respect for that which is won by
industry and thrift—property in the proper sense of
the word ; and respect for the sanctity of the hearth
and all that pertains to it,—these the Hebrew writer
sees as the foundations on which human society rests.
Propounded in this place as coming immediately
from God, these laws, comprised as they are in the
primary nature of man, are in complete accordance
with the necessities and contingencies amid which he
lives. More than one of them, indeed, appears to
obtain even among certain of the sociable lower
animals. Unhappily they are not all, and at all
times, so carefully observed among ourselves as they
deserve to be. How little they were regarded
by the early Hebrews, is seen throughout the whole
course of their history,—from the murderous invasion
of Palestine and the rapine that accompanied it; the
treachery of Simeon and Levi when they slew the
Sechemites; the terrible order of Moses to the
Q
�206
The Pentateuch.
Levites to consecrate themselves to Jehovah and
earn a blessing by slaying their sons, their brothers,
and their neighbours ; the wholesale murders perpe
trated by such heroes as Samson, Gideon, Samgar,
and the rest; the individual homicides of Moses and
Phinehas, and Jael and Judith ; the incestuous acts of
Reuben and Amnon; the cruelty, vindictiveness,
unforgiveness, and adultery of David, &c., &c.
“ Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbour.”
Nothing, undoubtedly, can be imagined more im
moral and reprehensible in itself, or more adverse to
the security of settled life, than false witness-bearing.
Such a commandment, however imperative in a
policied state of society, could obviously have had
little application among nomads in the wilderness.
Its place in the Decalogue consequently gives us
another assurance of the late date at which this
summary was composed and promulgated.
“ Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou
shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man
servant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass,
nor anything that is thy neighbour’s.”
The injunction against covetousness in general is a
decided advance, in a moral point of view, on all that
had gone before, and may be said to anticipate the
high tone of feeling presumed possible in humanity
by Jesus of Nazareth when he said that whosoever
lusted unlawfully had already committed the sin in
his heart. But it may not be impertinent to observe
that the commandments against false witness-bearing
and covetousness are not propounded as of universal
application. It is his neighbour alone that the Jew
is to have in respect. It was even held lawful to
spoil the Egyptians; was it not, perchance, lawful
also to swear falsely against them, and to covet their
men- and maid-servants, their asses and their oxen.
The Israelites are repeatedly enjoined to keep these
commandments ?
�Exodus: The Decalogue.
207
Repeatedly, but never on the ground of moral pro
priety or unconditional necessity. It is always in
prospect of some material advantage or return : that
they may have long lives, that they may have a
numerous progeny, that they may be victorious over
their enemies, that they may escape Jehovah’s anger,
and not become victims of pestilence, famine, or the
sword. The Decalogue, however, comprised but a
very small part of the Hebrew legislation. Almost
every particular in the life of the Jewish people, even
to its most private and intimate relationships, is
touched upon and regulated; practices being in
several places denounced that proclaim a state of
morals to have prevailed among the people which
shocks the higher and more delicate feelings happily
current in these our days.
Slavery is one of the subjects particularly referred
to ?
Slavery was an authorised institution among the
Jews, as it continues to be among so many other bar
barous and half-civilised peoples at the present time;
notable, however, in the case of the chosen seed, as
countenanced and regulated by their God. What is
remarkable, too, is this : That Jewish slaves were not
only obtained from abroad, but were purchased from
among themselves. Parents were even authorised to
sell their sons and daughters into slavery. The native
Hebrew slave, however, had privileges of his own,
for when he had served six years he recovered his
freedom. Had he fallen into slavery having neither
wife nor child, he then went out as he had come ; but
had he married and had had sons and daughters born
to him during the term of his servitude, the children
went not with him : they were the master’s property,
and—hard measure—the husband and father only ob
tained permission to remain with his wife and children
by vowing himself to slavery for the rest of his life!
Resolving to share their fate, a particular ceremony
was gone through ?
�20 8
The Pentateuch.
The man being brought before the judge, and, we
may presume, a declaration made and implemented,
his ear was then bored through with an awl against
the door-post, to signify his ascription to the house
for ever, and the ceremony was complete.
The Israelites were in the habit not only of selling
their daughters as slaves, but as concubines ?
“ If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant
[concubine, as appears by the context], she shall not
go out as the men-servants [slaves] do,”—to labour
in the fields, doubtless. She is to do the indoor-work
of the house and be her master’s bed-fellow. If she
pleased not her master, however, “who hath betrothed
her to himself,” or if she ceased to find favour in his
eyes, she might be redeemed [euphemism for bought]
by another ; or she might be handed over to the
owner’s son; but she was not to be sold to one of a
strange nation. Did her owner, notwithstanding his
disgust, continue to keep her, having taken to himself another wife, he was to provide her with food
and raiment, and still to comport himself towards her
in all things else as a husband. .Failing in any of
these particulars, the woman was free to go ; but it
was to be “ without money,” i.e., without a provision
from the man to whom she had been as a wife. An
easy way, therefore, lay open to the peculiar people of
ridding themselves of disagreeable wives or concu
bines : they had but to neglect to be quit of them.
Did a man smite another so that he died, the
offender was to be put to death ?
So it is said, but with important reservations; for
if the smiter had not lain in wait for his enemy, but
“ God had delivered him into his hands,” that is, had
he come upon him unawares and slain him, then was
he to have a place of refuge to flee to, Jehovah himself
being held in this case to have thrown the obnoxious
party in the slayer’s way, and given him the required
opportunity to wreak his vengeance on his enemy.
�Exodus: Domestic Legislation.
209
“ If, in striving together, one man smite another
with a stone or his fist, and he die not, but keep his
bed, if he rise again and walk abroad upon his staff,
then he that smote him shall be quit; only he shall
pay him for loss of time and his healing ”—surely an
equitable law, though something more might possibly
in many cases have been required.
Did a man smite his servant or his maid (his male
or female slave) with a rod, and he or she died
under his hand, then was the smiter to be surely
punished ; but, did the servant or the maid “ continue
fora day or two,” he was not to be punished, for the
servant or maid “ is his money.”
A notable distinction this between a cause im
mediate and a cause a little more remote, and made
on grounds that excite our wonder in the present day
when met with in a book still believed by so many to
be the word of God to man ; to have been composed
under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, whatever
meaning is attached to the phrase, and to be used as
among the prime and indispensable instruments in
the education of the young.
The slave, however, was not even thus indifferently
protected, save when his life was endangered ?
Did a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye
of his maid, says the inspired text, so that it perish,
he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake ! Worse we
are to understand might have befallen the unhappy
slave, and he was, therefore, to be well content that
he had only lost an eye.
The same pleasant award is made in case the loss
were the minor one of a tooth ?
Did the owner smite out his man-servant’s tooth,
or his maid-servant’s tooth, he shall let him go free
for his tooth’s sake I
Did a man strive with and hurt a woman with
child, so that her fruit departed from her, and no far
ther mischief followed, he was to be surely punished
�210
'The Pentateuch.
as the woman’s husband should lay upon him, or, “ he
shall pay as the judge determines,” but if other mis
chief followed—if the woman died, then should life
be given for life.
This paying of like with like was a general prin
ciple in the ancient Israelitish legislation ?
Not carried out to the letter in every case, however,
as we have seen above, still it is said : Eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, burning for burning, wound for
wound, stripe for stripe,—the Zea? tdlionis, in a. word,
was the rule. But the savage nature of the precept,
though delivered as from God, and the evils to which
it necessarily led, were seen through by more than
one of the later Prophets, and the moral teacher of
Nazareth expunged it from the code of humanity for
ever when he said : “It was said of old, an eye for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth ; but I say unto you, do
good to them that hate you,” &c. (Matt, v.) If we
perchance see that this is carrying matters somewhat
far, we are still within the pale of our proper humanity
when we abstain from returning evil with the like.
Among these ancient ordinances or laws ascribed
to Moses, though a few of them only can be presumed
to date from of old, there is one that is completely
in harmony with what seems natural right, though
entirely ignored by modern legislation ?
That which says in these terms : “ If a man entice
a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her, he
shall surely endow her to be his wife” (Exod. xxii.
16.) Were such a law now on the statute book there
would certainly be less seduction practised, and fewer
bastard children brought into the world. If union of
bodies be the sole bond of marriage, as it is acknow
ledged to be by our laws—ceremonies and parchments
going for nothing, but being mere shams or makebelieves, would it not be logical were the fact of such
union having taken place to be constituted legal
marriage in every instance ?
�Exodus : General Legislation.
211
Such being God’s or Nature’s law, there can be but
one consistent answer to the question.
An ordinance follows those we have on matters
connubial which had long a most disastrous influence
on human society ?
That which says: “ Thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live.”
A witch ! what is a witch ?
An old woman presumed to be possessed of super
natural power of a wicked or maleficent kind.
We have no such personage among us now ?
The kind became extinct when physical science was
born. The last reputed English witch was judicially
murdered by a learned but credulous judge about
two centuries ago—'Warning for all time that pre
scriptive learning and legal eminence are no
safeguards against superstition and its offspring
inhumanity.
The learned judge in the instance referred to, as in
others—and they are legion—that had gone before,
only followed in all simplicity and blind sincerity the
injunction he found in his Bible, and administered
the law of the land, based, like his belief, on its text ?
No question of this. But the bad law has been
abrogated, and the judge is now pitied for his cre
dulity ; the belief in witches and witchcraft having
died out from among the cultivated, though it still
lingers among the imperfectly educated and the
vulgar, kept alive as it is by the authority of the book
which the clergy and ignorant laity alike continue to
force on the world as inspired by God, and as the
absolute guide in morals and religion, which the
open-eyed see that it most assuredly is not.
There is another ordinance among these reliques of
old and barbarous times that must have wrung the
hearts of parents, and brought mourning into the
homes of men through countless ages of the ancient
world ?
�212
The Pentateuch.
The one we have seen attempted to be particularly
connected with the escape from Egypt and the insti
tution of the Passover, which says : “ The first-born
of thy sons shalt thou give unto me, likewise of thine
oxen and thy sheep; seven days it shall be with his
dam, on the eighth thou shatt give it unto me.” Of
the terrible meaning hidden in these words we have
already had occasion to speak, and found it not
doubtful that “ giving to the God ” in ancient times
meant sacrifice upon his altar. And it is to be noted
that the ordinance as it stands in this—one of the
least manipulated parts of the Hebrew Scriptures,—
makes no provision for redemption by substitution or
by money : the first-born of man and beast, by the
oldest Hebrew statute we possess, was Glierem to
the God ; and that which was cherem could not be
redeemed, but must surely be put to death. The
word in the original which is softened down in the
English version into “ set apart,” means burned :—
the blood as the life was poured out about the altar,
and the body burned upon its fire as an offering of
a sweet savour to the El God,—Baal (Saturn), or
Molech. So late as the days of the prophet Ezekiel,
the redemption clause made no part of the text; it
was interpolated after his day.
*
Sacrifice we know, by the universal practice of
ancient peoples, to have been among the oldest, as it
was also believed to be the most potent of all the
means possessed by man of propitiating the God he
feared as having power to do him good or ill ?
It was so unquestionably, especially among the
Semitic tribes that peopled Western Asia, and the
more precious the offering, whether in itself or to
the giver, the higher rose the claim upon the God for
favour through its means. But the life of a human
being was obviously of far more’ worth than that of a
�Exodus: Human Sacrifices.
213
beast, and the life of a man’s own child priceless to
him in comparison with any other human life.
Hence the value attached to human sacrifice in
general, but, above and beyond all other, to the
sacrifice of a son by his father.
Ideas of the same nature appear to have continued
to influence men’s minds and their acts up to
relatively recent epochs in religious history ?
That they have done so is as unquestionable as that
they continue to do so at the present hour. Ecclesi
astical Christianity has no other foundation. The
“ crowning sacrifice,” as the death of their Christ is
characterised by the churches, has been well said by
an able and learned writer to perpetuate an ancient
rite in its most appalling form, making of a merciful
God a ruthless demon, and giving to the purely moral
doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth the character of a
religion of Molech.
*
In the later periods of the Jewish History, however,
as we have it, the first-born of men were ordered to
be redeemed ?
They were so, and Jehovah is even made by one of the
later prophets to repudiate the claim to all that opened
the matrix which is put into his mouth by the earlier
writer: “ They caused their sons and daughters to
pass through the fire to Molech, which I commanded
them not.” (Jerem. xxxii. 35). Such a rite as the
ever-recurring sacrifice of a new-born babe, the first
of its parents, wore too terrible an aspect to continue
as an institution after some little progress had been
made from utterly barbarous to more civilised life.
Substitution was, doubtless, the first step taken in
favour of the human victim, and among the Hebrews
may even be supposed to have preceded the circum
cision, or partial sacrifice, and the money price that
were finally paid to the priest in its stead. But it
Mackay, 1 Progress of the Intellect,’ ii., 460.
�214
The Pentateuch.
was not among the Israelites alone that redemption
of the human subject from immolation to the God by
means of a substitute or a payment in money came
at length to be effected. We have evidence of a like
advance in ideas leading to like results in practice
among other ancient peoples. If in the Hebrew
legends we have the ram caught in the thicket as a
substitute for Isaac on the point of being sacrificed
by his father Abraham—a tale of very modern inven
tion, as has been hinted, the name of Abraham not
*
having been known to the Jews before the days of
David—in those of Greece we find Athamas spared
the trial of sacrificing his son Phrixos, the divinity
in his now more placable aspect consenting, like
Jehovah, to receive a ram instead of the youth.
Iphigenia, too, in some of the myths, escapes her
impending doom by the goddess at whose shrine she
was to have bled, accepting a hind in her place.
Belonging to still earlier periods, perhaps, there is,
further, the myth of Jupiter Laphisteus, to whom
Rhea presents a stone in swaddling bands instead of
the customary new-born child,—Jupiter Laphisteus, in
whom we not only recognise the Chronos and Saturnus of the Aryan race, but the El-Elijon, the Chijun,
Chamos, Baal, and Molech of the Semites under
another name. In the Egyptian records, still farther,
we have the story of the Three Candles burnt to the
Sun God in his temple at On, in lieu of the Three
Men who, from immemorial times, had been the daily
sacrifice at his shrine.
These legendary and mythical tales all proclaim
the advance that may have been made somewhat
simultaneously among the better policied and more
civilised peoples of the ancient world in their ideas of
what might be truly acceptable to their gods ?
Very possibly : Substitution—an animal for a human
* Vide Our Genesis, page 70-71.
�Exodus : Human Sacrifices.
215
being; Circumcision—Sacrifice of a small but signifi
cant part for the whole ; Presentation at the shrine
with an Initiatory rite of no more moment than the
sprinkling with a little water—still practised in these
days, and a Money payment to the priest—still also
part of the ceremony.—Such, in all likelihood, were
successive steps, proclaiming advances in the Religious
Idea, due, undoubtedly, to progress in the knowledge
of Nature, as well as in civilisation and general refine
ment among mankind.
Human victims, however, long continued in ancient
times to be offered to the Gods on extraordinary
occasions ?
No longer presented as the rule, they nevertheless
continued to be offered occasionally and exceptionally.
In entering on their wars, some of the ancient peoples
seem to have thought that an oblation of the kind to
the God of Slaughter was a due and necessary pre
liminary. Achilles, as we read in the Iliad, offered
up a number of his Trojan captives to Ares ; and
Themistocles, in less mythical times, sacrificed three
distinguished Persian prisoners to Dionysus on the
eve of the battle of Salamis. After his victory over
Antony, Augustus, to propitiate the manes of the
deified Caesar, sacrificed three hundred victims of
senatorial and equestrian rank upon his altar. Commodus offered up a human victim with his own hand
in the Mithriac mysteries to which he was attached ;
and Heliogabalus, two centuries after the Christian
era, had the sons of some of the most distinguished
families of Italy brought to Rome and sacrificed in
the Syriac mysteries which supplied the fashion of his
religious clothing. In the Hebrew history we have
the story of Mesha, King of Moab, besieged in his
capital and sorely pressed by the Israelites, sacrificing
his son and heir, dressed in the royal robes, upon the
wall in sight of the besiegers, and with such effect
that they, indignant, alarmed, and satisfied that no
�2l6
The Pentateuch.
further effort on their part would now avail them—
the God being necessarily propitiated by so distin
guished a victim—raised the siege and departed
home. Is it needful, in fine, to allude to the great
sacrifice which the successors of the Jewish sect
having Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, for
their teacher, believe to have been offered to Jehovah
as a propitiation for the sins of mankind; or to
speak of the fiery deaths of heretics and so-called
blasphemers in modern times, as other than offerings
to appease the offended majesty of God ?—Ordinary
criminals were beheaded or hanged; they to whom
heresy or blasphemy was imputed were done to death
by fire.
What may be said to be the general character of
the many commandments or ordinances that now
follow in the book of Exodus ?
That many of them are good and humane, some of
them childish, and a few positively wicked. But all
obviously are not by the same hand ; numerous inter
polations in favour of the Levitical caste and the
priesthood being especially conspicuous. There is
further such incongruity between so many of the
commandments and the circumstances of the times
in which they are generally presumed to have been
promulgated, that it is easy to see they cannot all
date from the days of Moses. They are, indeed,
mostly and very distinctly adapted to a people
policied in a certain sense, settled in fixed homes,
and having the culture of the soil for their principal
occupation, not to a multitude wandering in the
wilderness, destitute of everything, and only kept
from perishing of hunger and thirst by reiterated
miraculous interpositions—a multitude who could not
possibly have brought ripe fruits and fermented
liquors, the produce of carefully tended vineyards
and fields, nor consumed in smoke upon the altars of
their God holocausts of the bullocks, sheep, and
�Exodus : Sources of the Legislation. 217
goats which, had they had them, were so much
wanted for their own subsistence. What lands,
among other items spoken of in the legislation, could
they have had at this time either to till or to leave
untilled ; with what were they to hold high festival
three times in the year, when they had neither
leavened nor unleavened bread to eat; what could
they have sown, what reaped in the waterless wilder
ness ; and how could they have appeared otherwise
than empty-handed at all times before Jehovah ? Let
us cease to think of these ancient writings as con
temporaneous with the still more ancient times and
circumstances they pretend to portray !
All, indeed, seems plainly enough to imply that the
legislation ascribed to Moses or referred to his age
must have been the product of much more modern
times ?
Such a cenclusion is inevitable. There is, never
theless, so much that is old in the 21st, 22nd, and
23rd Chapters of the Book of Exodus that they have
together been referred in the main to ancient docu
ments, believed to have been extant in the time of
the authors of the text in its present form.
*
Moses is now called up into the mountain along
with Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the
Elders of Israel; but Moses alone is admitted to the
presence of Jehovah, the rest being ordered to worshp
afar off. In spite of this, however, and very incon
sistently as it seems, we are by and by informed that
the Elders of Israel saw God and he laid not his
* Compare particularly Dr Davidson’s Introduction to the
Old Testament: ‘Authorship and Composition of the Penta
teuch,’ Vol. I., p. 1—134; Knobel’s ‘ Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zum alten Testament—Die Bucher Exodus
and Leviticus,’ 8vo, Leipz. 1857; Kuehnen, ‘Hist, critique
des Livres de l’Ancien Testament,’ Trad, de l’Hollandais par
M. A. Pierson, .Torn. I.; the Bishop of Natal’s exhaustive
work, ‘The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua,’ and the learned
Dr Kalisch’s ‘ Commentaries on Exodus and Leviticus.’
�218
The Pentateuch.
hand on them; they saw God and yet did eat and
drink!
Saw God ! What man has ever seen God, save in
the manifestations made of his Being and Agency in
the things of heaven and earth, and in their various
properties or aptitudes ? If we are not informed in
so many words that it was an Image of their God
that was seen by the Elders, the context seems to
show that it could have been nothing else; for,
under his feet, it is said, “they saw as it were a
paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the
body of heaven in his clearness ”—the similitude of
the God, in a word, relieved by the clear blue sky.
Or, did the Elders of Israel perchance see more of
the Infinite body of God than appears in the expanse
of heaven—called Dyaus by our far off Aryan
Ancestors, Zeus and Deus by their descendants, the
Greeks and Romans ? If it was not an Image on
which they looked they certainly saw no more of God
—the Infinite, the Eternal—than meets man’s eye
when he gazes on the depths of endless space. But
this is not what is meant in the text. The ancient
Hebrews, like modern Christians, thought of God as
a Person, and so, perforce, possessed of parts and
proportions, as well as of the intellectual and moral
endowments they owned themselves.
The Elders see Jehovah, however, as said, and sur
vive the sight; but Moses alone is allowed to come
into his immediate presence. And there upon the
mountain, shrouded by a cloud, he remains according
to the record for forty days and forty nights, without
meat or drink—a long time if we measure it by what
we knpw of aught that passed between his God and
him.
Jehovah, it is said, bids Moses speak to the chil
dren of Israel and order them to bring offerings of
gold, silver and brass, of blue, purple and scarlet fine
linen, of goats’ hair, rams’ skins dyed red and badgers’
�Exodus : The Ark of the Testimony. 219
skins, of shittim wood, oil for the lights, spices for
the anointing oil, ingredients for sweet incense, onyx
stones for the Ephod, and precious stones for the
breastplate of the priest. “ And that I may dwell
among ye,” proceeds the narrative, making Jehovah
the speaker, “ let them make me a Sanctuary after
the pattern of the Tabernacle, two cubits and a half
long, a cubit and a half broad, and a cubit and a half
high, to be overlaid with gold within and without;
and a Mercy Seat of pure gold two cubits and a half
high, a cubit and a half broad; and two Cherubims
of beaten gold, one at either end with wings covering
the Mercy Seat, their faces looking towards one
another,” &c.
This Ark or Sanctuary was a highly-important
piece of furniture with the ancient Hebrews ?
As with several others among the peoples of the
old world—Egyptians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, &c.
Upon the proper ark or coffer, the seat or throne, de
signated Mercy Seat in the Old Testament, is ordered
to be placed, where the God was to be found for con
sultation by the priest; and within it the object
entitled Eduth was commanded to be kept. The ark
itself, in some sort the symbol as containing the
symbols of Deity, was believed to be possessed of
supernatural powers ; for it was death to touch or
attempt to look into it, and the power and counte
nance of the tutelary God was supposed to accompany
it wherever it went.
We have already had the Eduth mentioned inci
dentally in connection with the miraculous manna of
the wilderness, when we found the word translated
Testimony, and used now as if it were Jehovah that
was meant, and again, as if the Law or Tables of the
Law were the thing signified; the word Eduth, in
deed, is always translated Testimony in this sense in
the English version of the Bible. But when the con
text is taken into account, it seems as if it cannot
�210
The Pentateuch.
always have such a meaning. It constantly meets us
as if it could only apply to an image or symbolical
figure of some sort.
The Israelites, however, were emphatically for
bidden to make molten or graven images, or the like
ness of anything in heaven or earth ?
At an advanced period of their history as a people;
certainly not before the age of Solomon. But neither
in the days of this Sybarite king, nor even in much
later times, do the Jews appear to have known, or, if
they knew, to have given any heed to the prohibition.
We have but just seen figures of Cherubim ordered
by Jehovah himself for the covering of the Ark; and
an empty seat would have been an indifferent object
for consultation by the priest when he entered the
holy of holies to ask advice. The seat must have been
occupied, therefore, and doubtless by the Image or
Symbol of the God. If neighbouring tribes and
peoples had images and emblems of their Gods, we
may be very certain that the early Hebrews also had
theirs :—They had borne for forty years in the wilder
ness the “ Tabernacle of their Chiun, their idol, the
Star of their God which they had made,” says one
of the earlier prophets whose writings have escaped
mutilation by modern editors (Amos v. 26). The
golden calf set up by Aaron in the Wilderness and the
golden calves erected by Jeroboam at a subsequent
period, as the God and the Gods who had brought
them out of Egypt, could have been no novelties to
the Israelites. On the contrary, they were the old
familiar forms under which Deity was conceived and
approached with offerings by their fathers as by them
selves. The interdict against molten and graven
images came from the advanced Jehovistic party of
the kingdom of Judah, about the time of Hezekiah
probably, if it were not even so late as that of Josiah,
when the leading minds among the Jews had attained,
to the conception of the all-pervading, or so-styled,
�Exodus: The Ark of the Testimony. 221
spiritual nature of the Godhead, which as Infinite and
Ubiquitous can be fitly represented by no “similitude.”
The Eduth may, therefore, have been an image,
if not of any such specific Divinity as was conceived of
under the names of El, Eloha, Chiun, Chemosh,
Baal, Melkart, Molech, or Jahveh, yet of the emblem
that was once universally held typical of the repro
ductive power inherent in Nature or the Nature God ?
There are hints in various places of the Hebrew
sacred writings that have escaped the expurgating
hands of their latest editors which necessarily lead to
the conclusion that the seat in the sanctuary was
not unoccupied, but was verily filled by an image of
the God himself, carefully secluded, however, in later
times at least, from the prying eyes of vulgar curiosity.
Aaron, on entering the inner veiled compartment of
the shrine, was to take a censer full of live coals from
the altar of burnt offerings, to sprinkle incense there
on, and “ raise a cloud before Jehovah.” The prophet
Isaiah must have seen something more than an empty
stool when he exclaimed that he was undone, for that
he “ a man of unclean lips had seen the king (Melek,
Molech), the Lord of Hosts (Jahveh-Tzabaoth)
vi. 5. Ezekiel, indeed, does not hesitate to fill the
throne which he saw with the “likeness of the
appearance of a man ” (i. 26), a roundabout way of
saying an image of Jehovah; and then we have
Jehovah’s own orders for the construction of the
sanctuary in which he promises to dwell among his
people. But God the Infinite and Eternal can have
his dwelling-place in no sanctuary made by the hands
of man. It was his similitude, therefore, or his
symbolical representation that was to be seen on the
lid of the Sacred Coffer between the Cherubim ; and,
when not there displayed, that was laid up with other
sacred apparatus in its interior, the coffer being of the
precise dimensions calculated to receive the life-size
seated figure of a man.
R
�222
The Pentateuch.
The ancient Hebrews were not, as already hinted,
the only people who had a sacred ark or coffer, in
which articles held holy, or apparatus employed in
their religious rites were stored ?
By no means. The ark of the ancient Egyptians,
as we see it in their paintings and sculptures, bears
the most exact resemblance to that of the Hebrews as
described in their records. It has the mysterious
figures of the cherubim with wings on its cover, and
between them the Truncated Cone, symbol of the
generative or reproductive principle immanent in
nature. Among the peoples of the ancient world the
Ark or Sacred Coffer appears to have been more
especially connected with the worship of Dionysus—
the Sun, in his character of regenerator. In the one
said to have been found in the citadel of Troy, when
taken by the Greeks, the image or emblem of
Dionysus—AyaXpa Azorovaov (ayaX/za simulacrum,
res auro ornata, an Image, a gilded Something), is
the article that is particularly mentioned as having
been found within it; and from an old writer, Cle
ment of Alexandria, we learn that in the heathen
arks or sacred coffers, generally, the article laid up
was tov Atovovoov Aibotov (atboia pudenda ab aibws').
These references may help us to a conclusion as to
what the Eduth really was which was stowed away in
the Hebrew Ark of the Covenant, and so carefully
concealed from all eyes save those of the priest. Is
not the Greek word AzJws, in fact, the Hebrew word
Eduth ? *
* On the Hebrew Ark of the Testimony see Spencer, De
Legibus Hsebrseor. Ritualibus, Lib. iii. Diss. v. Singularly
enough the word Eduth is not mentioned in that mine of
learning and interesting information, Winer’s Biblisches
Realworterbuch (3tte. Aufl., 2 vols., 8vo, Leipz., 1847). To
suppose that Winer was ignorant of what is said above were
absurd. He knew it all; but the theologian could not face the
conclusion to which the scholar and critic must necessarily
have come. See also Movers, Die Phoenizier i., chaps. 2 and 3.
�Exodus : The Seven-light Candlestick. 223
There are several other articles connected with the
Hebrew ritualistic worship which require more than
a passing notice ?
The Seven-light Candlestick in particular, with its
arms—three on either side, to hold as many lamps ;
its shaft, branches, bowls, knobs, flowers, and even
the accessory tongs and snuff dishes being all alike
ordered to be “ one beaten work of pure gold, after
the pattern that was shown thee in the mount.”
The lavish expenditure of gold and precious stones,
and of such costly stuffs as purple, blue and scarlet
linen, &c., might lead to the conclusion that the
fugitives had spoiled the Egyptians more effectually
than it is easy to imagine them willing to lend. But
the whole tale is a fiction, involving as it does childish
or worse conceptions of the Deity, and containing
injunctions so utterly impossible of execution under
the circumstances, that there needs no more than a
hint to satisfy every reasonable person not blinded by
a foregone conclusion, that it must date from days
when Jerusalem was the capital of the kingdom of
Judah, with the first or even the second Temple
already in existence, and serving as a model from
which the writer drew.
The gold candlestick with its seven lights, so par
ticularly described in the text, must be presumed to
have had a special significance, symbolical or other
wise ?
That it was symbolical, may be safely assumed, of
the Sun, Moon, and five known Planets—Mercury,
Venus, Mars, Jupiter and, high and far removed over
all, Saturn, the peculiar star of the ancient Hebrew
race—the star of their God by whatever name known
to them at different epochs of their history—Chiun,
Chamos, El, Israel, Baal, Molech, or Jahveh.
This costly piece of furniture it has been surmised
Was not for ornament only or even for giving
light ?
�224
The Pentateuch.
Besides its symbolical significance and every-day
uses, it appears to have been in constant requisition,
in conformity with the astrological notions of anti
quity, for purposes of divination, and especially in
casting nativities. The arms of the candlestick being
in sockets and moveable, the lamps they carried,
severally representing a planet, were probably
arranged by the priest in fanciful accordance with
the relative positions in the heavens of the sun, moon,
and wandering stars at the moment of a birth, and
a forecast thus obtained of the fate that was to befal
the future man or woman.
*
Such forecasts or predictions, however, must have
been constantly falsified by events ?
No doubt; but in spite of this the belief in Judicial
Astrology has either had such tenacity of life in itself,
or continues to possess such attractions for the super
stitious and uninformed, that it cannot be said even
now to have wholly died out from among us. Though
no use is ever made, in so far as we know, of the
information obtained, and the end for which it was
once so eagerly sought after is not even surmised, the
precise moment at which every child born among us
comes into the world is still regularly noted by the
gossips who hold high festival in the Lying-in room.
There are other remnants of the old sun, moon,
and star worship, and of the beliefs once universal in
planetary influences that still linger in the world ?
The general and genial merry-making at the winter
solstice—Dies nctlalis Solis, of the ancient world
the brief period of mourning followed, by rejoicings
at the vernal equinox—Easter (A® Orienie Lux)- of
which we have already had occasion to speak ; the
Beal-fires (El, Bel, Baal), still danced about and
leaped through with shouts and exclamations by the
Breton and Irish peasantry at the summer solstice ;
See Landseer, ‘ Sabsean Researches,’ 4to, Lond., 1823.
�Exodus: The Altar; the Priest's Robes. 225
the sacrifice of the goats, one to Jehovah, another to
Asazel, by the Israelites on Soul-Affliction Day, and
the weeping of the women of Northern Palestine for
Tammuz, in the olden time, at the autumnal equinox,
are all alike reminders or relics of the Sun, Moon,
Star, and Time or Season worship that once prevailed
so extensively over the ancient world; a form of
worship, however, implying a considerably advanced
epoch in the history of human society ; for Astrologism proper could have formed no element in the reli
gious system of the primitive races of mankind. Among
these the mere sense of A Something beyond them
selves, accredited with power to do them good or ill,
would seem to have constituted, as it still continues
with the Savage to constitute, the ground and the
substance of all religious belief and observance.
Particular instructions are given for the fashion
and quality of the altar, or altars,—for there were
two, one for burnt offerings, another for incense ?
The sacrificial altar in earlier times was of the
simplest possible construction, consisting of nothing
more than a heap of earth or a circle of twelve unhewn
stones—one for each month of the year—set up on
level ground. At a later period it seems to have con
sisted of a grating of brass, resting at the sides on
supports, and approached by a number of steps.
The Priest’s robes are also objects of most minute
instructions to Moses ?
They are so indeed; he was to speak to such as
were “ wise-hearted and filled by the Lord with the
spirit of wisdom; ” and they, with the directions he
should give them, were to make a robe and broidered
coat, an ephod and girdle, all of gold, and of blue
and purple and scarlet fine twined linen, with cunning
work; a cap or mitre for the head ; two chains of
pure gold of wreathen work for the neck, hung from
two onyx stones on the shoulders, set in gold and
engraven with the names of the twelve tribes of
�226
The Pentateuch.
Israel. Besides which, there was to be a “ Breast
plate of Judgment,”—Choschen,—four-square, with
four rows of precious stones, three in each row,
engraven with the names of the twelve tribes, and
attached to the Ephod by means of gold chains ; and
another article that has been the subject of much
discussion with Bible expositors and commentators,—
the “ Urim and Thummim.”
What was the Urim and the Thummim ?
The text says no more than this :—“ Thou shalt
put in the breast-plate of Judgment the Urim and
the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart
when he goeth in before Jehovah.”
This would make the Urim and Thummim distinct
from the breast-plate of Judgment:—something to
be put into or contained within it ?
It would so according to the rendering of the
original usually followed. But the Hebrew may as
well be translated put upon as put into. The Urim
and Thummim has consequently been thought by
competent critics to be nothing more than the com
plete breast-plate under another name—a conclusion
which has much to recommend it. By one distin
guished scholar and historical writer, however
(Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht), it is believed to have
consisted of two or more precious stones, cut as dice,
which were used in “ asking Jehovah by Lot ”—a
mode of essaying to look into futurity of which we
find such frequent mention in the Hebrew Scriptures,
although the lots or means used are nowhere named.
The learned Spencer (De Legibus Hsebrzeorum
Ritualibus, Lib. iii. Diss, vii.), following the LXX.,
and assuming the words to signify Manifestation and
Truth, after a disquisition extending over one hun
dred and ninety-three quarto pages ! opines that the
Urim and Thummim were Teraphim or sacred
domestic images of the God or Gods! Great
obscurity, therefore, manifestly hangs over the sub-.
�Exodus : The Urim and Thummim. 227
ject of the Urim and Thummim. But when we
think of the many hands through which the Hebrew
Scriptures have passed, the numberless manipulations
they have undergone, and the interest later editors
had in keeping everything like Idolatry and Sabeeism
out of sight, we shall not wonder that so little is left
us by which we may positively know what the Urim
and Thummim signified in itself, or how it was
used for purposes of divination, in which, as its
designation, Breast-plate of Judgment, implies, it
was undoubtedly an important instrument.
The thing called Urim and Thummim is ordered
to be composed of twelve precious stones, which are
said to have been—
A Ruby, a Topaz, a Carbuncle,
an Emerald, a Sapphire, and a Diamond;
a Ligure or Cornelian, an Agate, an Amethyst,
a Beryl, an Onyx, and a Jasper ?
Assuming the stones to be rightly named, the first
series of six is seen to consist of such as are of a
lustrous or brilliant character ; the second series, like
in number, of others that are generally opaque or
lustreless. To the first series it must have been that
the epithet Urim (Ur, Or, Light) was applied ; as to
the lustreless set of six, it was that the title Thummim
was given (Tumas, Sanskrit, Darkness). Ordered to
*
be engraved with the names of the Twelve Tribes of
Israel, the twelve stones upon the High Priest’s Choschen certainly also typified the twelve signs of the
zodiac, which, besides symbolizing the months of the
year, were likewise held to be the houses of the planets
and of several of the more remarkable among the
fixed stars, whose rising and setting marked the
seasons. The brilliant stones were doubtless repre
sentatives of the signs when the sun, in the ascendant
in the northern hemisphere, was pouring light and
* Nork, Biblische Mythologie, i. 175, note.
�228
The Pentateuch.
life upon the world ; the dark or lustreless stones,
again, stood for the inferior signs, when the power of
the sun is in abeyance, and darkness, symbolical of
night and death, dominates the hour.
The composition of the Urim and Thummim seems,
therefore, to proclaim the astrological or divining
nature of the instrument ?
That it was consulted through the priest as an
oracle, and referred to at times in learning the will
of Jehovah, is certain. It is to be presumed that
the aspect of the heavens and the places therein of
the planets and principal fixed stars having been
noted at the time action in any contingency was
proposed to be taken, the Urim and Thummim was
then consulted by the priest in conformity with the
rules of the diviner’s art, and an answer in affirmation
or negation of the purpose in question obtained.
We have instances in the Hebrew Scriptures in
which the Urim and Thummim was used in this
way ?
When Joshua, the son of Nun, was chosen by
Moses as his successor, he was set before Eleazar the
priest, and the congregation of Israel, and the priest
is ordered at all times to “ ask counsel for him after
the judgment of the Urim before Jehovah” (Numb,
xxvii. 21). Saul enquiring of Jehovah on a certain
occasion after he had fallen out of favour with
Samuel the priest, through non-compliance with his
behests, “ received no answer, neither by dreams,
nor by Urim, nor by the prophets,” i.e., the sooth
sayers (1 Sam. xxviii. 6). The Teraphim, or house
hold gods, of which the Ephod was one of the forms
most familiar to the chosen people of Jehovah in
historical times, appears to have been frequently sub
stituted for the Urim and Thummin : “Bring hither
the Ephod,” says King David, the man according to
God’s own heart—by credit and report, to Abiathai’
the priest, upon a certain occasion; and addressing
�Exodus: The E'phod an Idol.
229
the Idol he says : “ 0 Jehovah God, will the men
of Keilah deliver me up into his (Saul’s) hand ? ”
And Jehovah said: “They will deliver thee up”
(1 Sam. xxiii; 9). Another time the same pious and
exemplary monarch—according to the Bible and the
clergy—says : “ Bring me hither the Ephod,” and he
“ enquires of Jehovah, saying, shall I pursue after
this troop P ” and is answered : “pursue” (lb. xxx.
7). The Urim and the Ephod, or Gilded Image of
Jehovah, were therefore used indifferently as means of
ascertaining the will and pleasure of their God by
the Hebrew people.
But the children of Israel are always credited with
having been worshippers of the one only God, and to
have known nothing of idolatry ?
Let the reader conclude for himself on the above
showing what they were in fact, and begin, if by
possibility he may, to read the Bible with his eyes
unsealed and his reason as his guide.
Returning to the prescriptions for the priest’s
robes, a certain part called Ephod, is particularly
described ?
It was to be made in fashion of a habergeon, or
cape, having a hole in the upper part for the head to
pass through. Its hem, however, was elaborately
ornamented with figures of pomegranates of blue, and
purple, and scarlet, having gold bells interposed.
. The pomegranate had a particular symbolical sig
nificance in the religious mysteries of the ancient
world ?
It was a special emblem of fertility, and an element
in the cult of the Reproductive Principle inherent in
Nature, with which, as with Sabmism, the Hebrew
system, when seen with the eyes of the understanding,
is found to assimilate in so many particulars.
The word Ephod has, therefore, two different
meanings in the Hebrew scriptures ?
In one we have seen it applied to the Image of
�230
The Pentateuch.
Jehovah, used by King David as an oracle ; here we
find it applied to a part of the priest’s robes.
The High Priest was further to have his special
title or designation engraved on a plate of gold
fastened to the front of his mitre or cap ?
A title expressed in these solemn and significant
words: Holy to Jehovah (Holiness to the Lord
*
Eng. vers.).
What might this imply ?
More than appears at first sight. The High Priest
—Aaron—was “ to bear the iniquity of the offerings
hallowed by the children of Israel in their giftsi. e.
Aaron, as High Priest and consecrated to Jehovah, in
receiving the offerings of the people at the door of the
Sanctuary was presumed to concentrate on himself
the essence of their expiatory powers, and in virtue
of his office was liable to be called on at any moment
to enact the part of substitute and make atonement
in his individual person for the sins of the people at
large. And we shall find sufficient reason by and by
for concluding that Aaron was actually required, at a
critical moment in the progress of the Israelites to
wards the Promised Land, to make good the terms of
the contract or understanding on which he held his
office.
Aaron’s sons, solemnly consecrated as his assistants
in the priestly office, and so devoted to Jehovah, are
also furnished with clothing according to special
patterns ordered by their God ?
They are to have coats, breeches to cover their
nakedness, caps of a certain fashion, &c.
Can we, living in this 19th century of the Christian
aara, believe that any orders for the clothing of Aaron
and his sons ever came from God ?
The Infinite all-pervading Essence or Spirit con
ceived by us as Cause, and called God, sends man
into the world naked enough, but furnished with the
senses which induce, and the ingenuity which enables
�Exodus : Consecration of Aaron & his Sons. 231
him to clothe himself for decency, for comfort, and
even for what he intends as ornament—whence not
only the loin-band, and the blanket and skewer, but
the embroidered coat, the chignon, and the bustle—
all according to patterns he devises for himself; cer
tainly after none devised for him by God.
The ceremonies by which Aaron and his sons are
consecrated to their office are also matters of particular
instruction to Moses from Jehovah ?
Besides anointing with consecrated oil, a bullock
and two rams are to be sacrificed before the taberna
cle of the congregation. The fat, kidneys, and caul
of the bullock are to be burned on the altar of sacri
fice, but the rest of the carcase is to be consumed with
fire outside the camp. The blood, as Jehovah’s most
peculiar portion, was to be streaked upon the horns
of the altar, and poured out about its base.
And the rams—how were they to be disposed of ?
One of them was to be sacrificed, like the bullock,
but the whole carcase was to be burned upon the altar
as an offering to Jehovah ; the bullock, doubtless, was
seen as too bulky to be conveniently dealt with in
this way. The other ram, having been slaughtered,
its blood was to be put on the tip of the right ear of
Aaron and his sons, on the thumbs of their right
hands and the great toes of their right feet severally,
their robes being at the same time sprinkled with
anointing oil and blood ; and whilst the fat and kid
neys, the rump and right shoulder were burnt on the
altar as Jehovah’s portion, the rest of the carcase was
to be seethed in the holy place, and there eaten by
Aaron and his sons.
This eating of the victims sacrificed in view of the
expiation of sin was held to be an indispensable part
of the religious rite ?
Without it the act of atonement was not believed
to be complete. As the Life had gone to Jehovah in
the blood, and certain parts, sublimated by fire, been
�232
The Pentateuch.
presented to him for a sweet savour and for food, so
was it by the flesh of the victim, hallowed through
Jehovah’s acceptance of his share, entering the bodies
of the priest and the assembly, that they were pre
sumed to be sanctified and their sins forgiven them.
Like other old observances grounded on speculative
notions, the custom of offering an imaginary sacrifice,
eating the imaginary flesh, drinking the imaginary
blood of an imaginary victim, and so obtaining for
giveness of their sins—oftener real than imaginary—•
is still kept up by communities boasting of the ad
vances they have made in reason and refinement.
Can we in the present age of the world, and with
the lights we have through our cultivated under
standing and accumulated knowledge, believe that
God ever gave such instructions as we have but just
perused—ever ordered the fashion of the priest’s
garments—ever, as a means of consecration to his
service, commanded his ministers to be anointed with
spiced oil; to be touched on the tips of their ears,
their thumbs, their great toes, and to have their
clothes sprinkled with the blood of a sheep ?
It is impossible to do so any longer.
Or that forgiveness for his sins and shortcomings
can be had by man through eating and drinking,
were it even the body and blood of the God he
worshipped ?
Let every man answer this query for himself. If
he have not been crippled in his capacity to judge
aright by a vicious education, or have not naturally
a soft part in his head, he will only be able to answer
it in one way. The more advanced among the Jews
themselves indeed must, in later times, have come to
the conclusion at which all reasonable men, whether
Jew or Gentile, have now arrived, when we find one
of their more advanced writers addressing them in
such words as these :—“ For what, 0 man, does
Jehovah require of thee but to do justly and to love
�Exodus: The Sacrifices.
233
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ” (Micah
vi. 8).
Can we, however, suppose that God gives command
ments at one time which he abrogates at another ?
God is the changeless and eternal: the same yester
day, to-day, and for ever. It is man who changes,
makes and unmakes, orders and annuls, not knowing
his mind from one hour to another.
What, then, conclude as to these minute command
ments about slaying and burning, anointing with oil
and sprinkling with blood, roasting, seething, and
eating in the holy place, &c., &c. ?
That very certainly they never came from God;
and that the men who maintain that they do are either
possessed of the moral and intellectual obliquity of
vision that leads astray, or are chargeable with the
blindness that comes of wilfulness.
Certain ordinances follow concerning the various
kinds of sacrifice that were to be offered, and the
times and seasons at which particular rites were to be
observed ?
A bullock is ordered to be offered daily for a sin
offering and for an atonement; two lambs also, day
by day throughout the year, one in the morning, the
other in the evening; these last being presented ap
parently as a kind of daily ration to Jehovah : Anthropomorphosing God, man imagined that God must be
fed like himself.
In this case flesh meat required the addition of
bread ?
Which is not forgotten any more than a measure
of wine to flavour the repast. Twelve cakes of un
leavened bread baked of wheaten flour, with olive oil
seasoned with salt and spice, were to be duly laid with
each recurring Sabbath morn upon the table which
stood beside the altar of sacrifice, the stale cakes
being then removed for the use of the priests, whose
perquisite they were.
�234
The Pentateuch.
There is also a special altar of Incense, the Jewish
Jehovah being held to delight in other and to human
nostrils sweeter scents than the smell of burning fat,
flesh, and blood ?
This altar, ordered to be overlaid with pure gold,
was to stand by the Ark of the Testimony, before the
Mercy Seat. On it Aaron was to burn sweet incense
every morning when he dressed the lamps, and at even
also, when he lighted them; for there it was that
Jehovah was to be met with and “ give the children
of Israel to know that he was Jehovah their God, and
that he dwelt among them.”
Are we not to think that God is the God of All the
inhabitants of the earth, and that he dwells not here
or there, in a tent or tabernacle, seated on the lid of
a coffer, but has his habitation in the universe ?
Our reason and philosophy assure us of so much ;
but the children of Israel and their teachers did not
think so ; and they who accept their annals as from
God are bound in consistency to agree with them ; an
obligation, however, with which we see the world
feeling it every day more and more difficult to comply.
“ When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel,
says the text, then shall every man give a ransom for
his soul (life) unto Jehovah, that there be no plague
among them.” The price to be paid as insurance of
their lives against pestilence being ?
Half a shekel of the sanctuary, the rich giving no
more, the poor no less.
Such an ordinance must surely point to a time when
the Israelites were a settled community, not to one
when they were wanderers in the wilderness, and at
starvation point ?
No doubt of it; and the order, now seen in this
light by every competent and candid critic, proclaims
the relatively modern date not only of the writing,
but of the institution of the festival itself; for neither
in Exodus (xxiii. 14), nor in Deuteronomy (xvi.),
�Exodus: Temple Furniture.
235
where the festivals of the year are particularly
commanded, do we find any mention made of
an atonement festival. It cannot even have been
known to Ezekiel (xlv. 18), the festivals of the
Seventh month of which he speaks being mere
repetitions of those of the First month, and the
word Atonement does not occur in his text. The great
day of the year to the Jews of Post-Exilic times, con
sequently, was unknown to the Israelites who lived
before the Babylonian Captivity.
Is it reasonable, however, to suppose that man can
ransom his life-, atone for his sins, or make an offer
ing to God by means of a piece of money ?
It is most unreasonable to think that he can. Man
can approach God in no way save by studying to
know and religiously obeying his laws. The money
price was a recent tax for the support of the religious
establishment of the country : “ thou shalt take the
atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt
appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the
congregation.” There could obviously be neither
numbering nor taxing of a horde wandering in the
wilderness, and having no tabernacle of the congrega
tion with numerous attached officials to maintain.
There were to be lavers of brass for the ministering
priests to wash in—furniture most essential, con
sidering the bloody work in which they were habitu
ally engaged. The oil used in anointing or conse
crating was also to be prepared in a particular
manner with oil olive, myrrh, and cassia; it was a
holy anointing oil, not to be imitated nor put upon
a stranger under penalty of death. The confection
for burning on the altar of incense also, composed of
sweet spices and frankincense, was to be prepared
after the art of the apothecary, and was to be ac
counted holy to Jehovah; whosoever should make
any like it, or who should even “ smell thereto,” was
to be cut off from his people.
�236
The Pentateuch.
Can we, we ask yet again, as reasonable beings,
believe that instructions for such trifles as these
were ever given by the great God of Nature to
mankind ?
No, no, no!
Or that he should threaten death to the man who
smelled at a compound of spice and frankincense ?
Never!
And can the book in which such commandments
are propounded as coming from God either be, or by
possibility be conceived to contain, the word of his
will to man ?
It is impossible to think that it can, when viewed
in connection with the Idea we are now privileged to
form of God. All that is said in the book before us
on the topics in question is, however, in perfect con
formity with the Idea which the legendary Moses,
and generations long after Moses and his age, may
be presumed to have entertained of their God, who
was in no wise the impartial parent of the universe,
but the partial God of the children of Israel; not the
God who makes the sun to shine and the rain to fall
on the just and the unjust alike, but a capricious
despot who guided the sunbeam and the shower at
his arbitrary will and pleasure on those he favoured
or had in despite.
How could the Israelites, so lately slaves to the
Egyptians, be supposed to have had among them
workmen possessed of skill to prepare the materials
and execute the details of the apparatus ordered for
use in the worship of their God ?
We can only conceive them short-handed in this
respect; still Jehovah, according to the text, informs
Moses that he had called Bezaleel, the son of Uri, and
filled him with the wisdom to contrive cunning works
in silver, and gold, and brass, in cutting and setting
precious stones, and in carving timber, and had given
him Aholiab, of the tribe of Dan, to help him, beside
�Exodus: Moses in the Mount.
237
others, wise-hearted, though unnamed,, and filled with
the wisdom necessary to make all as commanded.
It is somewhat difficult, nevertheless, to imagine
gold- and silver-smiths, lapidaries and engravers in
jasper and calcedony, carvers, gilders, weavers, up
holsterers, and the like, at work in the midst of a
starving multitude of fugitives from slavery, locked
in by a howling wilderness, and in want of the merest
necessaries of life ?
It is certainly difficult to think of arts that only
belong to settled and peaceful communities being
carried on under such circumstances.
Whence we conclude ?
That all these instructions are the work of rela
tively modern times, and that so much of the Penta
teuch as embodies them, as it cannot be from Moses,
so neither can it be from any document derived from
his age. The writer lived after the age of Solomon
and had the temple as a model from which he drew,
and the skilled Phoenician artizans who built and
ornamented it—Hirom of Tyre and his assistants, as
types of Bezaleel, the son of Uri, and Aholiab of the
tribe of Dan. Even in times when the Chaldmans
and Assyrians were policied peoples—astronomers,
artizans, &c., and using engraved cylinders as seals
in their dealings with one another, the intaglio of the
cylinder is not cut by the lapidary’s wheel of later
days, but by scratching with some point harder than
jasper or cornelian.
*
Moses must have been some considerable time
away whilst receiving all the minute instructions
said to have been given him by Jehovah on the
mountain ?
He was absent, according to the record, for forty
days and forty nights, and is said neither to have
eaten bread nor drunk water during all that time—
* See Landseer, ‘ Sabasan Researches.’
S
�238
The Pentateuch.
a statement sufficient of itself to stamp the entire
narrative as mythical; for as by God’s eternal fiat
man must eat and drink that he may live, so fasting
from solid and liquid food cannot be continued for
more than a very few days without serious derange
ment to the health, and, if persisted in for any much
longer term, without death ensuing as the penalty.
A very notable incident occurs during the absence
of Moses in the Mount ?
The people come to Aaron and say : Up ! make us
Gods to go before us ; for as for this Moses who brought
us out of the land of Egypt we wot not what has
become of him.
Is this a style of address likely to have been made
to Aaron the Priest, the brother of Moses, the leader
of the people ?
A late writer might be supposed to speak in such
terms—more respectfully couched, however,—for the
information of his public ; but the people about Aaron
could scarcely have thought it necessary to remind
him that it was Moses who had brought them out of
Egypt; and they could not but have known that
their leader was up in the mountain, in conference
with Jehovah.
Aaron, however, remonstrates with the foolish
people, and bids them think of all the wonders done
for them by Jehovah, who still dwelt amid the cloud
which only hid Moses from their sight upon the
mountain ?
He does nothing of the sort; assenting at once to
the reasonableness of their clamour apparently, and
familiar, as it might seem, with the worship of God
under the figure of a Bull, he bids them bring him
the rings of their wives and of their sons and
daughters; and having made a molten calf of the
gold, and fashioned it with a graving tool, he presents
it to the people as the God who had brought them
out of their Egyptian bondage 1 He does even more
�Exodus : The Golden Calf.
239
than this; he builds an altar before the Image of
the Bull-calf he has fashioned, and makes procla
mation for the morrow of a feast “ to the Lord! ”
This is most extraordinary—altogether incom
prehensible and incredible ! Would the man who
had witnessed and even taken an active part in the
performance of the extraordinary wonders said to have
been wrought in Egypt, and who could not but have
felt assured of the continuing countenance of Jehovah,
have acted as Aaron is now reported to have done ?
It is impossible to believe that he would.
Would a brave man, a truly pious man, who put
his trust in God through simple natural instinct, have
done anything of the kind ?
He would have suffered himself to be torn in pieces
by the rabid multitude first. '
What then conclude concerning the tale of the
golden calf?
Either that it is a fabrication, contrived for a
purpose which the writer has in view, or that Aaron
is inadvertently allowed to appear as he probably was
in fact—no priest of Jehovah, the spiritual conception
of the late writer of the Pentateuch, but the minister
of the God—El, Baal, Chiun, or Chamos, the true
deity of the ancient Hebrew and other cognate Semitic
tribes—the God of Times and Seasons and Repro
duction ; the God who ceaselessly begetting ceaselessly
devours his offspring, and whose visible image in
the early ages of the world struggling from darkness
into light was the Stone, the Tree, the Serpent, the
Bull, and the universally recognised symbol of the
reproductive power inherent in nature—the Phallus.
The mythical Aaron, we must conclude, either pre
sented the people with the image of the God with
whose worship they were already familiar ; or the
late writer whose work we have before us—one of
the Jehovistic Reformers, a priest of Judah, and
living in or after the reign of Hezekiah—may have
�240
The Pentateuch.
invented the tale of the Golden Calf of the Wilder
ness for the purpose of proclaiming how abhorrent to
Jehovah, the God of the Jews, was the Calf worship
established by Jeroboam as the religion of his realm
of Israel, which he had rent from the kingdom of
Judah.
The people are well content with the Idol which
Aaron has provided, and the feast he has promised ?
They rise up early in the morning, and having
made burnt and peace offerings to their Calf-God,
they sit down to eat and to drink, give themselves
up to merriment and the rites hallowed in the
worship of the Nature-God, upon the particular
character of which it is not necessary to speak
more at large in this place.
What, according to the text, says Jehovah to
Moses on the Mount, whilst all this is going on
below ?
“Get thee down,” says he, “for the people have
corrupted themselves ; they have turned aside quickly
out of the way I commanded them; they have made
them a golden calf, and have worshipped it, and made
offerings to it, and said: This is thy God, 0 Israel,
which has brought thee out of the land of Egypt! ”
It is Aaron the priest, however, who has just said
so ; but what more ?
“ Behold, this is a stiff-necked people; now, there
fore, let me alone that my wrath may wax hot against
them and that I may consume them.”
Jehovah would, apparently, have Moses restrain
him from breaking out upon the people and con
suming them. What answer does Moses make ?
He beseeches Jehovah, and asks him why he should
be wroth with the people and give the Egyptians
occasion to say :—He brought them out for mischief,
to slay them in the mountain and consume them from
the face of the earth. “ Turn from thy fierce wrath,”
he continues, “ and repent of this evil against thy
�Exodus : Moses and the Golden Calf. 241
people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, to
whom thou swearedst by thine own self and saidst, I
will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and this
land I have spoken of I will give to your seed to
inherit it for ever.”
What reply is the Jewish writer’s Jehovah—gene
rally accepted by Christians as the Omnipotent
Creator of the Universe—made to give to this friendly
remonstrance and reminder of the man Moses ?
It certainly is not the God of Philosophy and
Enlightened Piety who replies; it is the redactor of
this Hebrew legend who speaks when he makes his
God say that he “repents of the evil he thought to
do to his people;” for God is not a man that he
should repent, as a later and more advanced writer in
the same heterogeneous collection of books and frag
ments of books has said of the Deity whom he, in
better days, conceived.
Moses comes down from the mountain with the two
tables of the law in his hand, the writing, we are in
formed, being on both sides, and the handy work of
God himself. Coming near he hears shouting and
uproar in the camp, which Joshua, who seems now to
have joined him—although we have heard nothing of
this before—mistakes for sounds of discord or war,
but which Moses, with a truer ear and the intelligence
he had from Jehovah, interprets as no sounds of strife
but of mirth and rejoicing. Reaching the camp, he
sees the Calf and the dancing; his anger is roused,
and in his passion he casts the tables out of his hand
and breaks them in pieces beneath the mount.
This last act was surely unbecoming in a great leader,
as showing a lack of self-control, although his anger
was natural enough. What does he with the Calf ?
That, it is said, he burns in the fire, grinds to
powder, strews it on water which he makes the
people drink, and so compels them to swallow the
God that Aaron had made for them.
�242
The Pentateuch.
Can Gold be burned into ashes in the fire, and
strewed on water so that it may be drunk ?
Gold is unchangeable in any heat short of that
which is centred in the electric spark, by which, if in
leaf, it is dissipated in vapour. Gold, however, may
be beaten out into leaves and then broken up into
particles so fine as to be diffusible through liquids;
but it cannot be reduced to powder by burning in a
furnace; neither, indeed, can it be melted and cast
into an image of any description save wTith means and
appliances such as Aaron could not have commanded
in the wilderness.
So much at least of the story must, therefore, be a
product of the writer’s imagination; even as must
the information he gives, whereby we learn that the
tables which Moses brake in his vexation were written
on this side and on that by the finger of God himself,
a fact—if by possibility it could have been a fact, and
as involving an absurdity we unhesitatingly declare
it could be none, the Supreme Cause not having
fingers like a man—which the narrator could by no
possibility have known ?
So much presents itself as certain to the unpreju
diced mind.
Moses will, of course, be wroth with Aaron his
brother for what he has done ?
So we should have expected; but there is little
show of anger in the remonstrance he makes.
“What,” says he, in the mildest terms imaginable,
where the most severe would have been so much in
place, “ did this people unto thee that thou hast
brought this great sin upon them ? ” A question to
which Aaron can find no better reply than by begging
my Lord, his brother, not to be angry with him, repeat
ing the particulars of his reprehensible act, and declar
ing that, having cast the gold given him by the people
into the fire “ there came out this calf;” a miracu
lous image, therefore, that fell out of the fire, like
�Exodus : Slaughter of the People.
243
those we read of in Greek and Roman legends which
fell from heaven ! After this the subject is dropped
in so far as Aaron, the chief offender, is concerned.
But not as regards the ignorant people who, by
their doings, have roused the anger of Jehovah, and
the still more significant wrath of their leader ?
No, truly ! For Moses seeing that the people were
naked—“ Aaron having,” as it is said, “ made them
naked to their shame ”—scant clothing or nothing on
being the proper costume in the religious orgies of
the earlier ages of the world—he takes his stand in
the gate of the camp and says : “ Who is on Jehovah’s
side, let him come unto me; when all the sons of Levi
gathered themselves to him.”
What order is given-them in the name of Jehovah,
the God of Israel ?
A very terrible order indeed ! “ Put every man
his sword by his side,” says he, “ and go in and out
from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay
every man his brother, and every man his companion,
and every man his neighbour.”
What! in spite of his having persuaded Jehovah
to repent of the evil he had intended against his
people ?
So it appears by the report, which, though we may
cling to the hope that it never had any foundation in
fact, is nevertheless not entirely out of keeping with
Other horrible practices of barbarous man—the custom
of the West Coast of Africa at the present time for
example. “ On that day it is said there fell of the
people three thousand men ! for Moses had said :
‘ Consecrate yourselves to-day to Jehovah, even
every man upon his son and upon his brother, that
he may bestow a blessing upon you this day !!! ”’
And there are men with open eyes and accessible
understandings among us who still maintain that
human sacrifices were not only never offered to their
God by the early Hebrews, but that they were even
�244
The Pentateuch.
abhorrent to the old Jewish mind ; that the firstborn
of the sons and daughters of Israel were at all times
redeemable by presentation at the Tabernacle to the
priest and payment of the petty sum of five silver
shekels of the sanctuary ?
Many men whose soundness of understanding,
scholarly acquirements, critical acumen and candour
can be implicitly relied on in all other directions,
halt in this one, and become false to themselves and
the great task they undertake of bringing light and
proclaiming the truth. And how shall we, living
near the end of this nineteenth century since Jesus
of Nazareth, our brother, and Epictetus, and Anto
ninus, and Seneca, and Marcus Tullius, and so many
others spoke their words of reason and of love and
mercy to the world, imagine that God could ever
have ordered the men who lived in any age to conse
crate themselves and earn his blessing by the wholesale
murder of naked, defenceless men, their sons, their
brothers, their neighbours, and their friends ; or how
continue to receive the record of such atrocities as
the revealed word of God ?
How, indeed I But such stories begin at length
to be questioned even by the many; the few—the
really educated, the well informed, the rational, the
merciful—have long rejected them as blasphemies, if
there be any such 1 against every conception which
reasonable man can form of the Supreme Not our
selves of a pious writer of the present day, by us
called shortly God.
What have we in the way of assurance that the
tale of this massacre cannot be founded on fact—
cannot be true ?
The certainty that the Levites did not exist as a
priestly caste—and the priestly character is implied
in the sacrificial part they are here made to enact—
in the age of Moses. Though pains are taken by
the late writers and editors of the Pentateuch to refer
�Exodus : Moses remonstrates with Jehovah. 245
the connection of the Levites with sacred matters to
the age of Moses, the Levitical Priesthood is satis
factorily ascertained to have been a relatively modern
institution—certainly not to have existed until after
the age of Solomon.
God, therefore, we must believe, never gave orders
to Moses of the kind detailed ?
God speaks not and never spoke in human speech
to man. We know not what amount of barbarity
had place in the mind of the mythical Moses, but an
order to slay ignorant men for yielding to the blind
instincts of their nature and conforming to the usages
of their forefathers very certainly never came from
God.
What does Moses now ?
He tells the people that they had sinned a great
sin, and full sorely have they been made to know and
to pay for it; but he adds that he will now go up to
Jehovah and peradventure make atonement for their
sin-—-speaking as if none had already been made
through the three thousand lives sacrificed by his
own orders !
What says Moses to Jehovah ?
Oh ! this people have sinned a great sin and made
them gods of gold ; yet now, if thou wilt forgive
their sin [and here there seems to be a gap in the
narrative, the terms Moses would make for the sin
ners being wanting], and if not, blot me, I pray thee,
out of thy book which thou hast written.
What answer does he receive ?
“ Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I
blot out of my book,” is the curt reply.
This surely cannot be the God whom men in the
present day conceive and speak of as the loving father
of all, ready to forgive the sin of whosoever repents
and amends his ways ?
Certainly not; he is the God of a still earlier age
'of the world even than that of the Jehovistic writer
�246
The Pentateuch.
whose work we have before us,—a God delighting in
blood-stained altars, best pleased of all with human
sacrifices, requiring the first-born of man and beast
as burnt-offerings to himself, having his preferences
and partialities, commanding the extermination of
the peaceful and less powerful inhabitants of lands
no longer in his gift, and making lavish promises of
dominion, never attained, to a horde of barbarians
arrogating to themselves the title of his peculiar
people.
Jehovah, too, is represented as keeping a sort of
debtor and creditor account against mankind, after
the manner of things on earth ; but we find no notice
of the unwarranted use that had just been made of
his name, and of the slaughter of the three thousand
defenceless men in defiance of his own resolution, on
remonstrance made to him, to abstain from the evil
he had purposed against his people. Moses’ order to
the murderous Levites, however, was surely a crime
of a far deeper dye than the people’s sin—admitting
for a moment that the worship of their God under
the form of the Bull was a sin rather than an act of
ignorance, harmless in itself, sanctioned by the high
priest, and in conformity with immemorial usage
among themselves ?
There is no mention of anything of the kind;
neither is Moses taken to task for having himself
presumed to order the act of vengeance from which
he had diverted his God. He is merely commanded
to lead on towards the promised land. Jehovah,
however, still angry! with his people, will not accom
pany them in person as usual; he will not trust him
self among them, “ lest he break forth on them and
consume them by the wayhe will only send his
angel with the host in his stead.
This cannot surely be any likeness of the one God,
ruler of heaven and earth, with the conception of
whom the Jews are generally credited ?
�Exodus: Jehovah plagues the People. 247
It is much rather the portrait of an irascible mortal
not over-much possessed of self-control. It certainly
has nothing in common with the Idea of the Infinite,
Ubiquitous Cause, which men of culture now appre
hend under the name of God.
Though represented as not breaking out on the
people at once, and consuming them on the spot, the
Jehovah of the writer, we soon find, does not really
forego his purpose of revenge; he does not truly
keep his word to Moses, and “ repent of the evil he
had purposed against his peoplehe rather, as it
appears, abides by his resolution to blot them out of
his book; for in striking contrast with his merciful
purpose as previously announced, he now assures
Moses that “ the sins of the people shall be visited
upon them.” And the threat is not idle; for even as
if nothing had already been done in the way of expia
tion or amends by the slaughter of the three thousand,
Jehovah, we now learn, visits the people with a
plague “ because of the Calf which Aaron made.”
Do not the poor people appear to us in these
days rather to have needed instruction than merited
plaguing for yielding to the error of their age and
worshipping, under the form of a Calf or Bull, the
unknown Something beyond themselves which their
intuitive nature led them to divine, but which the
knowledge of their age did not permit them to con
ceive aright ?
As simply compassionate and considerate men we
should assuredly say so. And there is indeed excuse
as ample for the efforts of early man by personification
to obtain something like a definite conception of his
Deity as there is now nothing to be said for those
who still insist on speaking of God as a Person.
Modern theologians do, in fact, fall into the same
error as the ancient Hebrews when they speak of a
personal God; for a Person is an Entity among other
entities, limited in space, having length, breadth,
�248
The Pentateuch.
and thickness,—in other words, having a Form
of some sort. But figure God as he may, and in
the noblest fashion he can imagine, man’s Image of
God must still be as far from having any similitude to
the Supreme as was the golden Calf of the idolatrous
Israelites.
Referring to the later history of the Jewish people
—the split that took place between the kingdoms of
Judah and Israel, their mutual jealousies, animosities,
disastrous wars, and the coarsely expressed hostility
of the Jehovistic religious party of Jerusalem to the
worship of any other than the conception of Deity
under the name of Jehovah, to which the leading
minds among them had attained,—may we not infer
a motive for the invention of such a story as that of
the Golden Calf and the slaughter that followed its
worship ?
The tale may almost certainly be said to have been
composed after the reign of Solomon, its purpose
being as certainly to show the terrible consequences
that followed the desertion of Jehovah, the God of
Judah, for such Gods as Jeroboam, King of Israel, set
up for his subjects in Sechem and Dan.
*
Jehovah, then, all in renewing his promises of
giving the people possession of the land flowing with
milk and honey, having driven out its present occu
pants the Amorites, Hivites, Hittites, and others
from before them, will not trust himself to go in their
midst as heretofore, lest enraged by their perversity
and stiff-neckedness he break out and consume them
by the way—how does Moses proceed ?
He pitches the Tabernacle without the camp, and
whilst all the people stand at their tent doors, he him
self enters the structure, and it comes to pass, says
the text, that the cloudy pillar descends and stands
* See Bernstein : ‘ On the Origin of the Legends of Abra
ham, Isaac, and Jacob,’ one of Mr Scott’s series of papers, of
great interest.
�Exodus : Moses and Jehovah.
249
at the Tabernacle door. “And Jehovah talked with
Moses,” speaking to him “face to face as a man
speaketh unto his friend.”
How could so vast a multitude as the Israelites are
said to have been, have stood at their tent doors
within sight of the Tabernacle, and seen Moses enter
it to have a colloquy with Jehovah ?
How, indeed, seeing that they were millions in
number. But have we the matter of the conversation ?
We have—from the writer, understood. Moses
entreats Jehovah not to desert them, and reminds
him (!) that the people are his people. “ Is it not in
that thou goest with us that it shall be known that
I and thy people have found grace in thy sight, and
so are separated from all the people that are on the
face of the earth ? ”
Does Jehovah yield to the remonstrance of the
man ?
He does. The foolish mortal whose words we have
here, presuming to speak in the name of his God, pro
ceeds : “I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken;
for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee
byname.”
Moses, presuming apparently on this compliant
mood of his God, makes another request as a kind
of personal favour : “ I beseech thee,” he says, “ show
me thy glory.” To which Jehovah, according to the
text, replies : “ I will make all my goodness pass before
thee; I will proclaim the name of Jehovah before
thee, and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,
and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy
but “ thou canst not see my face; for there shall no
man see me and live. Behold there is a place by
me; thou shalt stand upon a rock; and it shall come
to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put
thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with
. my hand while I pass by; and I will take away my
hand, and thou shalt see my back parts.”
�2^0
The Pentateuch.
All this is worse than childish—it is absurd—alto
gether unworthy even to have been imagined, much
more to have been reduced to terms by man gifted
with reason. How shall the Omnipresent God, im
manent in the yet farther than the farthest of the fixed
stars plunged in the depths of endless space as in
the point therein that is filled by the mote on which
we dwell, be conceived of as shrunk to the limits of
a person, communing in human speech with an in
quisitive man as with his fellow, and showing him his
back parts ? God, let us be well assured, hides not
his face, though it have no feature in common with
the face of man, from him who reverently seeks to
know and to hold communion with him. In the uni
verse of things is God ever to be clearly seen, and in
the changeless laws by which the wondrous fabric is
upheld are his power and his providence ceaselessly
made known. Perusing these man dies not, but rises
ever into newness of life.
Have we not something analogous to this tale of
Moses’ curiosity in wishing to see the face of Jehovah
in what is called the heathen to distinguish it from the
Hebrew mythology ?
We have. Hercules, urgent with Jupiter to be
allowed to see his face, is long denied by the Father
of Gods and men. But, yielding at length, Jove slays
a Ram, wraps himself in the fleece, puts the head of
the animal over his own as a mask, and so meets the
Hero. Whilst it is extremely difficult to connect a
meaning with the Hebrew myth, it is not difficult to
read the mystery involved in the one we have from
the Greeks. Herakles, the Sun, in his annual course
through the Zodiac, is eager to arrive at the vernal
equinox, whose sign in the olden days was the Ram,
when, emerging from the inferior to the superior
signs, he escapes from his wintery impotence to his
summer power—from seeming death to renovated
life. This old astrological myth, the later Jewish
�Exodus: Jehovah and Moses.
251
writer, without understanding its meaning, has in all
probability transferred to his pages, but so travestied
as to leave it without the symbolical and poetical
significance it had in its original shape.
After his interview with Jehovah in the Tabernacle
and the vision he has whilst ensconced in the cleft of
the rock, Moses receives fresh instructions ?
He is commanded to hew two tables of stone like
the first, on which, says Jehovah, “ I will write
the words that were in the first tables which thou
breakedst; and be ready in the morning and come up
unto Mount Sinai ? ”
Moses does as he is commanded ?
With the two tables of stone in his hand he ascends
the mountain, and Jehovah, on his part, descends in a
cloud and proclaims himself as “ Jahveh-Elohim, mer
ciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in
goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands,
forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and that
will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity
of the fathers upon the children and upon the chil
dren’s children unto the third and fourth genera
tion.”
The former and the latter clauses of this communi
cation do not very well agree ?
Certainly they do not, and herein we have fresh
assurance of the composite character of the text—
evidence of the manipulation it has undergone and
of the additions that have been made to it at different
times. The merciful idea of one, and he, we may
presume, the later writer, is utterly opposed to the
revengeful and merciless conception of the other and,
let us believe, the older hand. God the absolute, had
he ever spoken—and we venture to say again that
God never did speak in articulate sounds to man—•
could not in one breath have so mixed up mercy with
far-reaching vengeance. We know the world is so
'constituted that all things with their being have in-
�2^2
The Pentateuch.
herent aptitudes which fit them for their states; and
it is in the exercise of these that sentient beings enjoy
their lives, and that what is called the goodness of
God finds its expression ; as, on the other hand, it is
in contravention of the laws of Nature, which are the
laws of God, that they bring down pains and penalties
on themselves, and that that which must be held to
be the righteous justice—never to be spoken of as the
vengeance—of God is displayed.
God does not surely visit the sins of the fathers on
their children ?
Never, in the sense in which the statement in the
text is made and is meant to be understood. In con
formity with the laws of hereditary descent, however,
the children of vicious and immoral parents, as well
as of those who have injured their health by indul
gence and excess of any kind, are apt to be vicious
and immoral, sickly and short-lived.
Jehovah renews the covenant he has already made
at several times with Moses and the patriarchs, and
declares his purpose of doing marvels such as have
not been done in the earth before. He will drive out
the inhabitants of the land to which he is leading his
people, and they, on their part, are to destroy the
altars of the natives, to break in pieces their images,
and cut down their groves [Aschera—wooden pillars,
typical of Astarte]. They are to worship no God
other than Jehovah, “for Jehovah, whose name is
Jealous, is a jealous Godto make no covenant with
the inhabitants of the land; to make no sacrifices to
their gods ; not to take of their daughters as wives or
concubines for their sons; to make no molten gods ;
to keep the feast of unleavened bread; and much
besides, though it is mostly repetition of what has
gone before, even to the seething of the kid in its
mother’s milk; the injunction as regards the first
born of man and beast being here accompanied by
the interpolated clause authorising its redemption, in
�Exodus: Moses and Dionysos.
253
contravention of the positive order elsewhere imple
mented, that it was Jehovah’s unconditionally, and
that whatsoever was ch&rem or devoted to Jehovah
“was' surely to be put to death.” How long does Moses
remain in the mountain on this second visit ?
Forty days and forty nights, of course, forty being
the sacred number; and under the same impossible
conditions as before, without meat or drink during
all that time.
There is something remarkable about Moses when
he comes down from the mountain ?
“ The skin of his face shone,” it is said, “ though
he wist it not.” The people being afraid to come
near him, he puts on a veil whilst speaking with
them, which he only removes when he goes in to
commune with Jehovah.
What may be the meaning of this ?
It were hard to say, unless it be that Moses is
occasionally made to take the place of his God, as he
certainly at times shows himself the more placable
and considerate of the two,-—-than which nothing can
be conceived more absurd; or it may be that, coming
from the great presence in which he is said to have
stood, he is represented as shedding physical as well
as metaphysical light; whence the shining of his face
and the need of the veil; hence, too, the horns, typical
of rays of light, with which the sculptor and painter
have felt themselves authorised to ornament his brow.
These extraordinary particulars appear to turn
Moses into a wholly mythical personage ?
Assimilating him as they do in so remarkable a
manner with the Dionysos, or Bacchus, of the Pagan
Mythology. He, as well as Moses, is born in Egypt,
and the birth of each is concealed for a time, to
escape the hostility of a royal personage. Both are
exposed in an ark or cradle on the Nile, and are alike
rescued by a king’s daughter. Both lead a host to
victory—Dionysos in India, Moses in Palestine—
T
�254
The Pentateuch,
with a rout of women and children among them.
Both walk dryshod through seas and rivers, which
part at the word of command; and both draw water
from the rock by striking it with a magic rod. Both
have one of their names, at least, from Water—Mow,
in Egyptian, signifying water,—the Hebrew leader
being called Mouses, and the heathen god Myses.
Dionysos, moreover, like Moses, has the predicate
Legislator, Thesmophoros ; and both are represented
as horned,—Dionysos being characterised as Taurokeros, Bull-horned, and Moses, as just said, being
familiarly represented with horns upon his forehead.
As the heathen god, to conclude, was styled Luaios
and Liber, the Free, the Freer, so is Moses the De
liverer ■ and if Dionysos have several proper names,
so has Moses,-—Manetho informing us that he was
known as Osarsiph and Tisithes ; Osarsiph being no
other than Osiris, and Tisithes, i.e. Seth, the sacred
name of Sirius, the star whose heliacal rising regu
lated the Egyptian year and symbolised its God.
Is there not something like inconsistency in the
circumstances amid which the Tables of the Law are
at length delivered to Moses, and the fact that the
Law itself—in so far, at least, as the decalogue is
concerned—has been already imparted, with every
possible impressive adjunct,—Mount Sinai quaking
and being all of a smoke, thunder bellowing, lightning
flashing about its crown, and loud and long-breathed
trumpet-blasts coming out of the cloud that hung
about it ?
It might be said, with great show of truth, that the
account we have of the delivery of these Tables is but
another version, and by another hand, of the delivery
of The Law at large—many of the heads of the Deca
logue following in the part of the text that is now
before us, such as the commandment to have no God
but Jehovah, to make no molten images, and to rest
on the seventh day. To these, however, are appended
�Exodus: Legislation.
255
many other injunctions, some momentous, many in
different, but all alike left out of the Eclectic Sum
mary under the Ten heads which we presume we
owe to the more practised and much later writer of
the Twentieth Chapter. Among the number of these
additional commandments is the order to keep the
feasts of unleavened bread and of weeks, of firstfruits and the in-gathering of the year’s increase
at the year’s end; to appear thrice in the year before
Jahveh-Elohim, the Elohim (God) of Israel; not to
offer the blood of his sacrifices with leaven ; to leave
nothing of the feast of the passover until the morn
ing; and not to seethe a kid in its mother’s milk—a
procedure that must have had a significance to the
Israelites which we fail to discover.
Besides these, there is the important reminder that
all that opens the womb, whether of man or beast, ox
or sheep, that is a male, is Jehovah’s ; the firstling of
an ass, however, being ordered exceptionally either to
be redeemed 'with a lamb or to be put to death by
having his neck broken. What Jehovah’s objection
to receive the firstling of the ass may have been we
do not learn from the Hebrew scriptures. Erom
other sources of information, however, we know that
the ass was one of the animals sacred to the Egyptian
Typhon, the God in his adverse aspect; and that the
mode of sacrifice of the animal to him was that pre
cisely which is commanded in the Hebrew text,—it
was thrown down from a height, and so killed or had
its neck broken. The first-born son of the human
kind, is now ordered to be redeemed, and none are
to appear before Jehovah empty.
The redemption clauses, where they occur, we have
already seen reason to conclude, must have been
added subsequently to the original requisition for the
first-born ?
When we observe that the text in several other
places has nothing about redemption, that this is in
�256
The Pentateuch.
direct contradiction to antecedent positive require
ments, and that denunciations against the practice of
child-sacrifice are of frequent occurrence in the writings
of the later prophets, we shall find no reason to doubt
*
that inasmuch as the first-born of man, being males,
are now ordered to be redeemed, so were they in
former times, and as the rule, sacrificed on the altar
of El, Bel or Baal-Molech, the proper God of the
early Hebrew people and no other than Saturn, the
chief God of the Semitic race.
So much for the Book of the Exodus; all that fol
lows after the thirty-fifth chapter, to which we have
now arrived, containing little or nothing but repe
titions of what has been already minutely set forth in
the chapters from the twenty-first to the thirty-fourth
inclusive.
The whole of this concluding part of the Book has
been held by two esteemed Jewish critics and scholars
to be the composition of a writer who lived not earlier
than from the 270th to the 260th year before the
Christian sera.f The text of these chapters, how
ever, being referred by Kuehnen to the Book of the
Origins, and given by Dr Davidson to the Elohist,
may, possibly, be as old as the earlier portions
of the Book which treat of the same matters.
But questions of age and authorship do not greatly,
and at every turn, interest us here, engaged as we
chiefly are with the moral aspects of the subject, and
* To quote a single instance from the Prophets: “ They
built the high places in Tophet, in the valley of the sons of
Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire.”
(Jerem. vii. 31.) The restriction of the sacrifice to males
appears even to have been a late addition. All that opened
the matrix, whether male or female, was doubtless the original
form.
+ See Kalisch, ‘ Hist, and Crit. Comment, on the Old Testa
ment : Exodus and Leviticus; ’ and Popper, ‘ Die biblische
Bericht fiber die Stiftshiitte.’ 8vo. Leipz. 1862.
�Exodus: Composition of the Book.
257
the possibility of receiving it as the veritable word of
God to man. That Exodus comprises some of the most
ancient records of the Hebrew myths and legislative
enactments that have reached us, is unquestionable.
Down to the thirty-fifth chapter it is, in the main, very
certainly older than every part of the Book of Genesis,
and has been presumed to have been compiled and put
together about the beginning of the seventh century
before Christ—a thousand years after the age of Moses,
but both added to and altered in still more recent
times. How can we, in truth, as reasonable men,
imagine Moses surrounded by the Israelites in the
desert calling to him Bezaleel and Aholiab, and others,
cunning workers in gold and silver and precious
stones, weavers, dyers, embroiderers, tanners, with
a host of artificers besides, and setting them to
carry out the minute instructions he is said to
have received from Jehovah for making the Tent
or Tabernacle, the Ark of the Testimony, the Altars
of burnt offering and Incense, the Table of the Show
bread, &c., &c.,—the surfaces of these last being
ordered to be overlaid with pure gold (when they are
not to be wholly composed of this precious metal),
the cherubim all of beaten gold, the seven-light lamp
stand with its knobs, branches, lamps, snuffers and
snuffer dishes, all also of pure gold; the hangings of
fine twined linen—scarlet, purple, and blue—inter
laced with gold, fastened to pillars having chapiters
overlaid with silver by means of hooks of the same
precious and, in the olden time, little known metal,
&c., &c.,—as we find matters set forth with wearisome
prolixity and iteration in this concluding part of the
book of Exodus ?
It is not possible to do so. The people, according
to the record, were only kept from starving by mira
culous showers of manna (which we feel certain never
fell from heaven, though it may then have been, as it
still is, scantily produced at a particular season by
�• 258
The Pentateuch.
the thorny mimosa that lives a dwarfed existence in
many parts of the desert), and flights of quails, which
still arrive in Egypt, Palestine, and other lands at
certain times of the year. How could a community
so circumstanced have had the apparatus-furnaces,
crucibles, moulds, lathes, looms, saws, planes, dye
stuffs, tan-pits, and the hundred other implements
and appliances indispensable to workers in wood,
metal, and precious stones, in wool, flax, and leather ?
The Israelites were never mechanics or mechanicians.
So late as the age of Saul they had not a blacksmith
among them, but sent their ploughshares and coulters
to their neighbours, the Philistines, to be sharpened.
If this be true their early battles could have been
fought with no better arms than clubs ; in the days
of the Judges, Samgar is said to have used an ox
goad, and Samson so primitive a weapon as the jaw
bone of an ass, in the mythical combats in which so
many hundreds or thousands of the enemy compla
cently suffered themselves to be slaughtered by these
heroes of the imagination—even so late as the age of
Solomon artificers had to be brought from Tyre to
plan and build the Temple ! The whole of the tales
about Moses’ laws and constructions are beyond all
question the creation of writers who lived long, very
long, after the age of the great leader—men who had
seen settled life, and must be presumed to have had
not only the First but the Sqcond Temple as the
model from which they drew.
It was not very long, according to the record, after
the Exodus, before the Tent or Tabernacle, the Ark
and Altars, with their furniture complete, were set up
and ready for inauguration ?
No more than a year : “ On the First day of the
First month of the Second year after quitting Egypt,”
all being in order, the ceremony of Inauguration was
performed. The lamps having been lighted, incense
sublimated, and burnt offerings presented, “a cloud,”
�Exodus : Composition of the Book.
259
it is said, descended and covered the Tent, and the
Glory of Jehovah filled the Tabernacle.
This is but a short time, all things else considered ?
Were so much accomplished by the end of the first
year or beginning of the second, it becomes by so
much the more difficult to imagine what the Israelites
could have been about during the remaining thirty
eight or rather thirty-nine years said to have been
spent by them as wanderers in the wilderness. From
the inauguration of the Tabernacle the history of
the people is a blank until we meet with them making
an attempt, in which they were foiled, to penetrate
Palestine proper on the side of Moab. Forty years,
however,—forty being the sacred number and indis
pensable in the narrative—had to be got over, and
the historian—or shall we say the poet—uses them in
a series of marchings and counter-marchings, to and
fro, from one imaginary station or camping-place to
another, with ever-recurring miraculous interpositions
of Jehovah to keep the people from dying of hunger
and thirst, and repeated murmurings and rebellions
on their part, not without good reason as it seems ;—•
eight or nine-and-thirty years are consumed in
getting over ground that, with every allowance for
contingencies in the shape of delays, difficulties,
necessary halts, &c., could easily have been left
behind in something less than eighteen months after
quitting Sinai, by a horde numerically great as it
is possible to imagine the Israelites to have been, if
they managed to live even for a year in the wilder
*
ness.
The Book of the Exodus ended, and the apparatus
for the ceremonial worship of the sons of Israel com
plete, we now come to the minute instructions for
* Goethe—Nihil quod non tetegit, &c.—has discussed this
subject in a very complete manner in his notes to the better
understanding of his West-East Divan: Zum bessern Verstandniss des West-Ostlichen Divan : Israel in der Wuste.
�26o
The Pentateuch.
carrying it into practice, these being especially com
prised in the next Book of the Series—Leviticus—
although many points have already fallen under our
notice in the book that engages us. The ceremonial
worship of the Jews, however, interests us little in
the present age ; it had even in most particulars ceased
to interest the better minds among themselves some
considerable time before their disruption and disper
sion as a people. Its practice has long since and
necessarily been abandoned in many of its most im
posing elements by the modern Jew, the dweller in
every inhabited land beneath the sun where there is a
living to be made by petty or more liberal traffic,
money-dealing, and the like. The record of such a
system of religious observance, the outcome of the
blind religious sense, indeed, could have no real
interest apart from the tale it unfolds of the childish
beliefs and barbarous acts mistakenly held good and
acceptable to God in an early age of the world’s
history, were it not for the influence it has had on
the religious ideas and religious practices of the most
civilised among the peoples of the earth. There is now
no longer any slaughter of bullocks and rams, goats
and turtle-doves, before the Image of Jehovah at the
door of the Tabernacle or Temple, no burning of fat
and flesh to make what was regarded as a sweet
savour to Jehovah, no longer the lamb at morning and
at evening as his daily ration, nor the show-bread as
its complement and the measure of wine as the
indispensable drink offering ! The terms of the later
Jewish legislation may even be said to have made the
continuance of the sacrificial and ceremonial system
of earlier days, entitled Mosaic or Levitical, impos
sible. By the modern reformed code sacrifice could
only be performed in one, place, and that Jerusalem,
and at one altar—that of the Temple—an ordinance
which may have been devised in view of the Jewish
people scattered over the face of the globe, and
�Exodus : Conclusion.
261
announced as a means of getting rid of the blood
stained rites of the earlier system.
The worship of God by the descendants of the
ancient Hebrews has indeed been long purified from
almost everything that can offend the reasonable reli
gious views of the cultivated in the present age; and
it might even seem that there was a possible future
for the Jehovism professed by the most advanced and
enlightened of their later writers. Could the Jews
but abandon the insolent and indefensible idea of their
being, or ever having been, in any sense, the peculiar
people of God; discard the barbarous rite of circum
cision as a necessity of their initiation ; cease to think
of any kind of wholesome aliment as otherwise than
clean, and of bullocks and sheep as food unfit for them
unless slaughtered in a certain way by one of them
selves, they would have done away with almost all
that keeps them Parias in the midst of the enlightened
among European communities. The last named silly
prejudice in particular given up, one great bar to a
good social understanding between Jew and Gentile
would be removed ; and until it is removed no per
fectly good understanding can be come to between
them, for must not my brother eat of the same
mess and drink of the same cup as myself I
If so much be ever accomplished, the descendants
of the ancient Hebrew stock will have made a
greater stride in the Religious Idea than did their
fathers when they forsook the worship of BaalPeor, Moloch, and Astarte, gave up eating with
the blood (eating raw flesh) on High-places, and
ceased to celebrate the orgies of the Phoenician Venus
in booths and under the shade of green trees. Com
porting themselves in all respects as reasonable
beings, they would possibly find that, instead of
being looked on as subjects for the proselytising zeal
of ignorant, bigoted, and presumptuous men and
women to wreak itself hopelessly upon, they might,
�262
The Pentateuch.
without themselves coming under the influence of
any such bad passion, discover that adherents to the
simple theism they professed were to be won from
among their uncircumcised neighbours, more piously
minded than the mass, but lacking the capacity to
believe that God had ever cursed the world, or con
trived matters so indifferently as to make its redemp
tion necessary by appearing in human shape to be a
propitiatory sacrifice to himself. The people of Eng
land spend a million a-year in missions and futile
efforts to convert the Jew and the heathen to Christi
anity,-—-whence may the mission come that shall con
vert them from the unworthy ideas of the Supreme
they entertain, and teach them the eternal laws he has
ordained for the rule of their lives, of the earth they
inhabit, and of the infinite Universe of which they
and it are so small and insignificant a part!
�
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 Pentateuch in contrast with the science and moral sense of our age.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 205-262 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "By a Physician". Author believed to be Robert Willis. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Willis, Robert
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Pentateuch in contrast with the science and moral sense of our age.), 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>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT123
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
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/02494a549a53981e33b33616d0386823.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CC%7EMflGiCGdehEtwjv%7E6D87TUeyV4EvBhE00GdyihWae1hB8AAHUBsjAOrtw0XXcP3VD7k-QQuwkUYVVcs4NvNWkESFVs5Cj11SwVsTqNFTXv%7ESlBg6yHeK9Vs8zrRGoBXUw5Cht-4G6A7%7EPZFPNd66LMwRGtNAbb4p8KiYc01y1d-bCjjSYYeTu-OCV%7EGYR4X-PKBYbnA0viZgSIqjM29JdtKhP%7E2Dt2LK8vNrZSal7k8GAr1MRlS0rlnDUaC2hno-X1MIuGc7i24cRxSsO62DK2M00q2uObI4ZR7UBBTAZKyumYPgMkmh6jBDKY1usepYlSa6-GlEW%7EFB2r20AXA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
65c9cb2c29c28069c34ae1ed23f67831
PDF Text
Text
IN REPLY TO ONE OF
SPALDING.
BY LUKE GRIFFIN.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
1859.
�AN ADDRESS IN REPLY TO ONE OF MR. THOMAS
COOPER’S LECTURES.
[Seeing from advertisements that Thomas Cooper was to deliver a course
of lectures in Spalding, dn the 20th, 21st, and 22nd of January, I wrote to
that gentleman to allow me, for twenty minutes, on the first evening, before
10 20, to explain the position we stood in as opponents to orthodox
Christianity. Mr. Cooper replied, stating that he could not promise me
twenty minutes, especially on the first evening, when his lecture would be
very lengthy, because he would have to say as much in one evening as he
usually said in two. In fact, I gathered from Mr. Cooper’s reply, that if I
journeyed twenty miles to defend my principles, it would be more than
probable that I should not have an opportunity of being heard. The
remarks which I had prepared for the occasion were as follow;—]
Ladies and C-ENtLEMENy—I believe that no On© present this evening
froiild wish to occupy my place—to stand up in defence Of that which
Christians term ‘ Infidelity.’ Be that as it may, I consider it my duty
to be here, although, in many ways, my being here may injure me.
The principle upon which I act is not that of expediency. I don’t
always stay to inquire whether there will be any pecuniary gain from
what I do, but I first ask whether the act will be right; if so, I do it,
not caring so very much about the consequences. Now, my friends,
this evening I shall address you as the jury who will a true verdict
give according to the evidence brought before you. Many of you
have been in our law courts. There you have heard the plaintiff’s
counsel ably state a case, and call his witnesses to substantiate it;
everything has appeared so clear and straightforward on behalf of the
plaintiff that you have really thought that the verdict must be given
in his favour. But when you have heard the defendant’s counsel
state his case, and examine his witnesses, your views have been
entirely changed. Mr. Cooper for the plaintiff, is much better
qualified to speak than I am for the defendant, because he has had
years of experience, whilst I am quite a novice. Then many may
think it presumptuous in me to oppose a man like Cooper; be that as
it may, I deem it my duty to oppose him, and I feel confident that if
I do not succeed in gaining your verdict, it will be because of my
inefficiency, and not because I have undertaken the defence of a weak
or bad cause. I take it for granted that Mr. Cooper is honest and
sincere, and that however strange his conduct may appear to his old
friends, still his acts are those of an earnest evangelical Christian,
whose chief aim is to do his duty. Whatever I may say, I wish to
say courteously and kindly, so as to give no offence to any rightminded person.
Methodists, Baptists, and Independent's, I believe that your views
are injurious to the majority of mankind, inasmuch as they bring to
them fears which destroy that peace of mind necessary to the enjoy
ment of life. To the favoured few, to those who believe that they are
born again, the Bible doubtless brings glad tidings of great joy, for it
says that theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. But to the great mass
of men—to those having no spirit bearing witness with their spirit
that they are the children of God, to these the Bible, instead of
bringing glad tidings of gteat ji>y, brings tidings of the greatest
misery, for it says that they shall be cast into hell, there to remain
for ever with the devil and his angels. You may reply that the road
�3
to Heaven is open to ail, and if men will not enter in ajt the straight
gate, they must expect to perish, beeause they have only to repent
and to believe in order to be saved. Now, my friends, the great fact
is patent to us all that the masses don’t believe, and what is more,
there is every probability that notwithstanding all your preaching,
praying, and lecturing, they won’t believe; consequently, according to
your teaching, they must all likewise perish. I repeat, that these are to
them tidings of the greatest misery, and what is more, they are not only
lead to believe that they themselves shall perish, but from what they
knew of their forefathers, their souls are now where the worm dieth
not, and where the fire is not quenced. These thoughts to a sensitive
mind are very painful, and as I firmly believe that your views are
erroneous, as I totally disbelieve that a good God would punish His
creatures eternally, as I thoroughly disbelieve the Bible to be inspired
by God more than any other book, and as I am entirely opposed to
the doctrine that man is born totally depraved, I consider it to be my
duty to oppose you, and to make known to my fellow-creatures the
reasons I have for being what is termed a Disbeliever. In doing this
I believe that I am acting rightly, that I may be the means of rescuing
thousands from the hell of apprehension, and that I shall bring glad
tidings of great joy to the majority, because, if they believe and dis
believe with me, they will no longer be enslaved and intimidated by
the Bible. They will agree with the Secularist, that to do well is
sufficient, believe what you may. They will place reliance where
reliance ought to be placed—in good works, believing that if they
work honestly, faithfully, and usefully, that that will save them. In
all matters where positive truth cannot be arrived at, each party has
reasons for believing, disbelieving, or remaining neutral. One
argument or assertion made use of by some of you is, that supposing
Christianity be not true, still it matters little, and will produce no
evil in the end, and that, consequently, be it true or be it false, it is
foolish and useless to oppose it* We will look at this for a few
minutes. What does Christianity teaeh ? It teaches that there
exists a Being creator of all things, that this Being governs the
Universe, and, as the Governor of-the Universe, he will require an
account of the lives of men Whilst upon earth, and according to his
decision, one -part of the human family will enjoy endless happiness,
whilst the other part will have to endure eternal misery. What is
expected of men with regard to faith, it is allowed that not one-tenth
of the human race has ever possessed, and, therefore, according to this
teaching, nine-tenths of the human race will be doomed to everlasting
woe. Now, some persons think with you, that there are sufficient
reasons to believe this to be true, other persons believe with me, that
it is false. Very well. We will now suppose a somewhat parallel
case. A party in England have reasons to believe that the Emperor
of France will shortly rule in this country, and that all who obey
him he will reward with a life of ease and prosperity; but all who
disobey him he will doom to slavery. Then supposing that ninetenths of the population of England would disobey him and thus
become slaves, would it not be the duty of an opposite party, who
had reasons for believing that it was all false respecting the conquest
of this country by France, to disseminate their views as widely as
�4
possible, thus removing the fears of the disobedient and giving them
peace of mind ? The most orthodox Christian would say, certainly
those who believe these notions about the Emperor to be false ought
to oppose them—it is their duty to oppose them, and they will not
be doing their duty as men if they do not oppose them. Well, just
so it is with respect to Christianity. I believe that the Christian’s
views respecting God, eternity, and everlasting punishment, are
erroneous, and tend unnecessarily to intimidate mankind, consequently,
I think it my duty to oppose you as Christians, and I should be liable
to just censure if I did not oppose you. So much, then, fpr the course
which I have taken, and I think that you will allow that if I have
reason and the balance of evidence in my favour, that I am really
justified in what I am doing.
In this locality, had I seen religion subservient to good common
sense, I should not have been so public in my opposition. But when
upon every hand I hear preached doctrines threatening poor creatures
with the most excruciating punishments, I think it my duty to inquire
upon what basis these doctrines rest. I have no particular wish to
interfere with the superstitious notions of men, so long as these
notions simply console them; but when they produce benumbing
terror, and incommodious fear amongst my friends and neighbours, I
think that I should be highly culpable longer to hold my peace. I
have no relish myself for passing my life in perpetual dread, and I
consider myself justified in furnishing others with the means of
escaping from the agony of mind under which they groan. Again,
from the observations which I have so often heard from ministers and
from Christians generally, I know that in their sermons they assume
the absolute truth of their doctrines, and they urge that all, even those
who are logically opposed to them, are so opposed because their deeds
are evil, and because they wish to live in sin and wickedness. Believing
that these assumptions are false, believing that there are many honest,
industrious, truthful Freethinkers who are as good husbands, fathers,
friends, and citizens, as the most devout Christians, and believing that
these men have reasons for their rejection of orthodox Christianity
sufficient to satisfy any earnest mind, I boldly stand forward in their
behalf, and assert that they are conscientious in their disbelief, and
that, consequently, they are as deserving of the respect, esteem, and
goodwill oi their fellow-creatures, as those who call themselves
Christians. In whatever I have said, or may say, I appeal to your
moral sense, to those inward powers by which all good men claim to
be judged, and if you decide in accordance with the same, I shall be
quite satisfied with your decision.
The character of God as represented in the Bible, instead of creating
in me love, respect, or reverence, creates quite the opposite feeling.
Commencing with the first and second chapters of Genesis, we find
that an omnipotent and omniscient Being makes creatures, and places
them in a position with such a temptation which he knew would
cause their fall, and which he knew would bring misery to millions
then unborn. Moreover, the temptation was of that character that
until they had partaken of the forbidden fruit they did not know
good from evil, so the book says, and not knowing good from evil, it
would take a wiser person than myself to ascertain upon what grounds
�|
they could be held responsible for their actions. As Mr. Newman
argues, if a youth who had been carefully brought up were to fall by
the first temptation, the saying is, ‘ Behold the proof of the essential
depravity of human nature.’ But Adam fell by the first temptation,
what greater proof then of a fallen nature do you require than Adam’s,
as it came from the hands of the Creator ? If God has so acted with
man, and if angels also have fallen, why should not angels fall again ?
Hence, in heaven we have no guarantee that we may not become disobedient, and be cast away. If angels now are so constituted that they
cannot sin, why could not man have been so constituted, and thus have
saved much wretchedness ? As we read od in the Bible we find this
all-powerful God repenting that he had made man—yes, this all-wise
Being repents, and is grieved at the heart, and he shows his repentance
and grief by destroying all the human race with the exception of
Noah and his family. But in the choice of Noah and his family God
appears to have been truly unfortunate, for Noah was overtaken by
drunkenness, and his descendants to this time have been far from correct
in their conduct. Who can justify the partiality shown by God to
Abraham and his seed ? In what way were they deserving of that
partiality, especially the deceitful Jacob, who so cruelly robbed his
brother Esau ? Yet we are told that God loved Jacob and hated
Esau. The Bible also represents God as so inveterate in his hatred,
that he instructs Saul to smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant
and suckling, camel and ass. To justify all this, Christians say that
God is the Governor of the Universe, that he must preserve the
harmony of his attributes, and that his perfect justice must be
satisfied before he can shew mercy to the transgressor. To this our
esteemed friend Thomas Cooper, some years ago, if not wisely,
effectually replies:—‘ I hear thee, priest! We know thy solemn and
mysterious croak well, old bo-peep behind the altar, where thou hast
stood for ages affrighting grown up children with horrible pictures
of a Divinity who, to preserve the harmony of his attributes, can
plunge millions into the flames of endless torture, and be happy him
self to all eternity; and who cannot admit any to share his happiness
that have offended him, unless blood be shed as an atonement! He
knows of the torture of hell’s helpless tenantry. He hears their
weeping and wailing, He sees their gnashing of teeth, and He knows,
of their remorse for guilt; but He is happy amidst it all. He cannot
forgive them, they must burn and suffer for ever, for He must pre
serve the harmony of his attributes.’ ‘ Strange harmony,’ continues
Mr. Cooper. ‘ Does the most reprobate man that ever existed possess
so horrible a nature ? What! be happy whilst helpless worms
writhe in endless agony ? Worms that he brought into- existence
without their will, who never asked to exist, and whom he knew
would tenant hell-fire for ever, whilst he was creating them.’ After
this forcible language from a man like Thomas Cooper, words from
me would be powerless. This is a true picture of the evangelical
Christian’s Deity, and, as I before stated, in him I see nothing to love,
respect, or reverence; but plenty to loathe, hate, and abhor. How
men who have correct ideas of the heavenly bodies—men who can
tell you the size of the planets, and can calculate the immense
�T* 1 • :.T
wm .*• >»•
' —* 7??^’-
*-• •*
•.•/■
* • • v ■■’.ThT*r ■ < *'••vMtafrk.a j
6
distances of many of the fixed stars from the earth, men who have for
years enjoyed a scientific education—how these men can believe the
God of the Bible to be infinite in power, wisdom, and goodness, is a
puzzle to me. They cannot have thoroughly investigated the subject,
or if they have, there must be some powerful motives keeping them
from speaking their convictions.
Frankly I say that I don’t believe the Bible to be an infallible
guide, because my opinion is, that by following many parts of it, men
would be guided to do what their moral sense tells them is very
wrong. For instance, we believe it to be very wrong to make slaves
of our fellow creatures, still we find slavery sanctioned in the Bible,
and not only sanctioned, but strict regulations are made by God him
self relative to slavery. In the 25th chapter of Leviticus, from the
44th to the 46th verse, we read, ‘ Both thy bondmen, and thy bond
maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round
about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover,
of the children of the strangers that do sojourn amongst you, of them
shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they
begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall
take them for an inheritance after you to inherit them for a possession;
they shall be your bondmen for ever.’ What think ye to this, after
the Christian world has been declaring over and over again that the
Bible is a friend to liberty—liberty of the highest caste ? Why this
one passage will do more to convince slaveowners that slavery is a
divine institution, than volumes of anti- slavery writings will do to
convince them to the contrary. Again, were we in a foreign country,
and had borrowed of the natives various articles, we should think
that we were morally bound to return them. How would it be if we
were to consult the Bible first ? There we should find that the Lord
commands the Jews, upon leaving Egypt, to borrow of their neigh
bours, and to keep their neighbours’ gold, silver, and raiment. If we
acted according to this example, we should do what our moral sense
distinctly tells us to be wrong. Again, if I were going to send a
message by any one, I should think it right to choose some one who
would speak the truth; but, if I were to take the Bible as an
authority, I might send a liar with intent to tell lies, seeing that God
sent a lying spirit unto the prophets to deceive Ahab. What God
did surely I might do. If our soldiers wished to know how they
were to treat the Sepoys in India, by consulting the Bible, and
following the examples there given, they would slay both man and
woman, infant and suckling, because, as I have before told you, that
Saul was instructed by God so to act. If a man wished to put away
his wife, he must refer to Deut., c. 21, vv. x to xiv,andc. 24, vv. 1 and
2—and he will there find by the standard the easiest way of getting
rid of her. If any one be anxious for information respecting the
number of wives he may have, I would advise him to read the life
of Solomon. By following the example set by Solomon he may place
Brigham or any of the Mormon elders completely in the shade, saying
nothing of Solomon’s concubines. Do you want to know how to
treat your enemies upon your death-bed ? Turn then to the 1st of
Kings, c 2, vv. viii and ix, and you will there find how the man after
God’s own heart treated his enemies. He requested his son with
�7
nearly his last breath to bring down to the grave with blood the
hoary hair of one who had offended him.
If we examine the New Testament, we find many reasons why we
cannot accept its teachings as perfect. The story of the conception
by the Holy Ghost is far too dreamy an affair for us. No one in his
senses would credit the story if told now, respecting any young
married couple; but this has not much to do with the perfection of
the moral teachings. When we come to the sermon on the mount, we
find many things said there which we are told are the perfection of
wisdom, but which even pious Christians do not for a moment regard.
We are told to resist not evil, and if any smite us on the one cheek
we are to turn the other also. Who is there in this neighbourhood
who does not resist evil ? Does not every good man think it his
duty to resist evil ? And who turns the left cheek to the smiter,
when smitten on the right ? No one with whom I am acquainted.
Certain signs follow those who believe. Do they follow? Can
believers snow the signs ? Will they handle serpents or drink poison,
or can they by laying on of hands heal the sick? I am afraid not.
Remember these signs were to follow them that believe, and if he
that believeth not shall be damned is to follow as the punishment in
our day, why should not the signs of belief follow likewise ? If the
signs of belief had been the payment of tithes and church rates, and a
blind deference to the opinions of the priests, every man who professed
to believe would soon be tried by the standard of Christ. If a teacher
of morality were to say these signs shall follow them that are moral—
they shall not injure their fellow creatures, they shall pursue that
course which is useful, etc., it would be just and logical to say if
these signs did not follow, the man was not moral, and if it be just and
logical in the one case, it is so in the other; therefore, I say, if the
signs do not follow, according to the Bible, the man is not a believer.
The fact is, the more I study the Old and the New Testament, the
more I am convinced that the Bible is, like other books, fallible, full
of errors, translators’ errors, printers’ errors, and hundreds of errors
about which learned men have been and are still quarrelling—errors
which have divided men into sects and parties, and which have made
those who ought to have been friends the bitterest of enemies; but
the time I , hope will shortly arrive when all intelligent men will be
of the one opinion that conscientious .belief or disbelief ought always
to be respected.
Several persons, I know, will inquire what is my aim? They ask
me whether I expect my views to become popular, and whether I
think that all men will renounce their present belief in the Bible.
My answer is, that I do not expect that my views will very soon, if
ever, become popular, neither do I think that all men will very soon
renounce their belief in the infallibility of the Bible ; but my aim is
to give my neighbours some of the reasons I have for my disbelief,
agreeing with Mirabaud, that so far as my views have the sanction of
truth, they will gradually insinuate themselves into the human mind,
become familiar to its exercise, extend their happy influence on every
side, and finally produce the most substantive advantages to society.
And, in fact, these views have already, to a large extent, insinuated
themselves into the minds of thousands in this country, hence their
�8
indifference to the speculative theories of our evangelical Christians,
hence the apathy which we see amongst the congregations of our
churches and chapels. The moral nature of men and women rebels
against the infamous doctrine of eternal punishment, hence the
number of moral people in our towns and villages who lay no claim to
be religious—people who our preachers say are farther from godliness
than many of the worthless wretches who lay no claim to virtue, but
who weekly tremble at the denunciations of the pulpit. In point of
numbers openly professing to be disbelievers, we may always be
inferior to the Christian sects. We may probably never have a great
many declaring themselves chiefly devoted to Secular matters, for not
one in a hundred can see the benefit to be derived from openly
asserting an opposition to the Christian doctrines, at the same time
most can see a great loss in business and in social intercourse by so
doing; because, whilst the disbeliever is generally shunned, a man
who is known to be one of the greatest hypocrites and humbugs in
existence, if he regularly attend a place of worship, and nominally
profess to be a Christian, is taken by the hand and treated as a highly
respectable member of society. Besides, we cannot expect to influence
men the same as the parsons. We have no threats of hell or hopes
of heaven. We cannot, neither do we wish, to frighten people into
thinking as we think. We wish them honestly to inquire, and when
they are satisfied of the truth of their principles, we like to see them
faithful to them. Although our influence may not be so great in
society as yours, still, my friends, we have an influence; although our
hopes may not be so brilliant respecting a future state as yours, still
our principles have given us great relief; for believing none of the
stories about a future state, we have but few sources of anxiety on
that account. To use the words of Joseph Barker, I say, ‘It is
certainly no slight relief to the benevolent mind to be rid of the idea
of an angry and revengeful God, of a great savage devil, of an eternal
hell of fire and brimstone, and of countless hosts of fallen angels and
damned spirits weltering together in the burning pool, weeping and
wailing in infinite and hopeless agony. It is also no slight relief to be
at liberty to study nature, and to receive her revelations, without
being forced to reconcile them with the childish fancies of an indignant
and superstitious people. It is a great relief to feel ourselves at
liberty to despise old foolish and savage laws, to reject old monster
fables, and to judge for ourselves what is true, and just, and good, on
every subject.’ To those amongst you who wish to become thoroughly
acquainted with the weighty reasons brought by disbelievers,against
what is known as orthodox Christianity; I would recommend ‘ Parker
on Religion,’ Newman’s ‘ Phases of Faith,’ ‘ The Bible and its
Evidences,’ by R. Cooper, and the discussions between the Rev.
Brewin Grant and Mr. G. J. Holyoake. I think that the perusal of
these works will convince you that conscientious disbelief is possible
and justifiable.
--------These remarks are nearly word for word as I intended delivering
them at Spalding. If only twenty minutes had been allowed me, I
should have had somewhat to have condensed them. Upon the
whole I think the foregoing would have been a fair, honest, and
straightforward statement of the position we stand in as opponents to
Christian doctrines.
�
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
An address in reply to one of Mr. Thomas Cooper's lectures, at Spalding.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Thomas Cooper was a poet, Baptist and leading Chartist.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Griffin, Luke
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1859
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Holyoake & Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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 (An address in reply to one of Mr. Thomas Cooper's lectures, at Spalding.), 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>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4957
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Free Thought
Thomas Cooper
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5ea300c64407981f7141187f041feb0a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=HO5vd4mLep9%7EpLUiLag8wkTun6NsaG2yQSYcUiImTsPcXMrpMHTALlO13BdhXOUrnUh-Z12giFqEKf5yJgTNgLfZVZuNwL%7EmD%7El1GlUXmuteYFDowjPi49QudCUR4XhMKj1bn3brLgHX9f%7ExxKhWSw46ldk0rjCdT88eb%7Ex0SlSLd%7EWD6gsOASWFUuvc4qVBeIIrhZaB1R63aj32BC793wtzjdLakAskTQ5ELuOb%7EmrHg8BSn9dtJ1rKkppW1sHv9kzwyygdrw2SbT8ZpZQJSWyUHjtGbb2F8LSa6h6gSFMiBM4-Vo%7Eh-fq%7EnM8Qm4XBLnAv2UsItKWDUb%7EMMR9-1g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1d905d310576fc679b33e2f64072b3b4
PDF Text
Text
AN
“On Earth Peace, Good-will towards Men”; rescued from
the New Testament Revision.
Jetta
DELIVERED BEFORE THE
SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY,
ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE,
SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 19th FEBRUARY, 1882,
BY
A. ELLEY FINCH.
bonbon:
PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY.
1882.
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 in their bearing upon the improvement and
social well-being of mankind.
PRESIDENT.
W. B. Carpenter, Esq., C.B., LL.D„ M.D., F.R.S., &c.
VICE-PRESIDENTS.
Professor Alexander
Bain.
Charles Darwin, Esq.,
F.R.S., F.L.S.
Edward Frankland, Esq.,
D.C.L., Ph.D., F.R.S.
James Heywood, Esq., F.R.S.,
F.S.A.
Right Hon. Sir Arthur Hob
house, K.C.S.I.
Thomas Henry Huxley,
Esq., LL.D., F.R.S., F.L.S.
Benjamin Ward Richard
son, Esq., M.D., F.R.S.
Herbert Spencer, Esq.
W. Spottiswoode,
Esq.,
LL.D., Pres.R.S.
John Tyndall, Esq., LL.D.,
F.R.S.
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 23rd April,
1882, will be given.
Members’ £1 subscription entitles them to an annual 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) as below,—
To the Sixpenny Seats—2s., being at the rate of Three
pence each lecture.
For tickets, and for list of the Lectures published by the
Society, apply (by letter) to the Hob. Treasurer, Wm. Henry
Domville, Esq,, 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park, W.
Payment at the door:—One Shilling (Reserved Seats);—
Sixpence and One Penny.
�The Society’s Lectures by the same Author, are—on
“ Erasmus ; his Life, Works, and Influence upon the Spirit of
the Reformation.” (Now out of Print.)
“ Civilization : a Sketch of its Rise and Progress, its Modern
Safe-guards, and Future Prospects.”
“The Influence of Astronomical Discovery
Development of the Human Mind.”
in the
“ The Principles of Political Economy ; their Scientific
Basis, and Practical application to Social Well-being.”
“The English Free-thinkers
tury.”
of the
Eighteenth Cen
“ The Science jof Life worth Living.”
“ The Victories
stition.”
of
Science in
its
Warfare
with Super
“ An Aspiration of Science : ‘ On Earth Peace, Good-will to
wards Men;’ rescued from the New Testament Revision.”
Price of each of the above Lectures 3d., or post free 3^d.
“The Inductive Philosophy: including a Parallel between
Lord Bacon and A. Comte as Philosophers.” With Notes
and Authorities, (pp. 100, cloth 8vo., price 5s., or post
free 5s. 3d.)
“ The Pursuit of Truth : as Exemplified in the Principles of
Evidence—Theological, Scientific, and Judicial.” With Notes
and Authorities, (pp. 106, cloth 8vo., price 5s., or post
free 5s. 3d.)
Two vols. of Lectures (3rd and 4th Selection) cloth-bound,
price 5s. each, or post free 5s. 6d., contain nearly all the society’s
Lectures still in print, and some out of print. Tables of con
tents of these vols. and lists of the separate lectures, sent on
application to the Hon. Treasurer.
The lectures can be obtained (on remittance, by letter of postage
stamps or order payable Porchester Road, W.) of the JLon.
Treas., W. Henry Domville, Esq., 15, Gloucester Crescent.
Hyde Park, W., or at the Hall on the days of Lecture, or of Mr,
J. Bumpus, Bookseller, 350, Oxford St., W., or Messrs. Cattell & Co., 84, Fleet Street, B. C.
�SYLLABUS.
Origin and history of the English authorised text (a.d. 1611)
Luke ch. 2, v. 14, before quoted, and its Greek and Latin source8
since the invention of printing. Erasmus (1516). Tyndale
(1534). R. Stephens (1551). Genevan-English Version (1557-60).
Beza (1580).
Our authorised form of this text not found in the great uncial
Greek nor in the Latin Manuscripts, nor in the printed Latin
Vulgate (decreed as authentic by the Council of Trent).
Ambiguous evidence in support of this text as embodying an
actual utterance by the heavenly host.
Its inconsistency with the declaration of Christ (Matt. ch. 10,
v. 34): “ Think not that I am come to send Peace on Earth,”
&c.
Its want of fulfilment as a prophecy. Hence probably ex
punged by the Revisers.
Divergent aims of Theology and Science—the one regarding
the Glory of God—the other the Well-being of Man.
Illustrations from some of the chief Theologies of the world,
showing that the Well-being of Man is therein subordinated to
the Glory of God.
Hence the conflict between Theology and Science. Its rise and
nature.
The text explained as an Aspiration of Science.
Illustrations of the primary care (good-will) of Science for
Humanity from its discoveries, deductions, and teachings in re
ference to (e.g.):—•
1. The Order of nature.
2. The Constitution of Man.
3. Health.
4. Education.
5. Morality (Virtue, Happiness).
6. Aversion from War.
7. International Arbitration.
Concluding inferences.
Editions
Scriptures shown in Illustration
of the Lecture:
TheEditio princeps of the Greek New Testament, by Erasmus,
in which the text ‘ good-will towards men ’ (ai>0pd>7rois eiboKia
—hominibus bona voluntas) is first met with in print (Basilese,
1519).
The first Bible in which the Scriptures are separated into
verses, and the text “ towards men good-will ” first appears in
the English language. (Geneva, 1560.)
The Greek and Latin New Testament of Beza. (Editio tertia,
1580.)
of the
�AN ASPIRATION OF SCIENCE:
“ON EARTH PEACE, GOOD-WILL TOWARDS MEN";
RESCUED FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT REVISION.
T is a remarkable circumstance connected with the
origin of the Christian Religion, that no authentic
record of the Life and Doctrines of its founder should
now exist, or ever have existed, written in the language
of the country where Jesus lived and talked; the only
language in which he could have been listened to and
understood by the majority of his disciples, or the com
mon people, who, we are told expressly, heard him gladly.
This reflection must often have occurred to, and more
or less embarrassed, the numerous scholars and critics,
whose investigations into the authenticity and genuine
ness of the New Testament Scriptures form so consider
able a portion of the vast library of Christian theology
and history.
It is a reflection, moreover, that must be borne in mind
when considering the value and authority of the various
translations,, commentaries, and revisions that appear
from time to time, and whose production indeed follows
a natural law, arising as they do out of the necessity of
accommodating these ancient writings to the continuous,
however slow, progress of human thought and intelligence;
that is to say, the spirit of the age requires to be read
into them before it-can be read out.
This view of the function of the commentator, trans
lator, or reviser is not indeed quite obvious, nor is it the
I
�6
An Aspiration of Science,
ostensible reason put forward for undertaking their
work; that reason is invariably alleged to be, in order to
make the translation or revision in question more accurate
in reference to the original; a task which, if we only had
the original as a standard to refer to, might be a not
unprofitable proceeding, but any such original, in the
sense I have adverted to, is not now, and never was, to
be met with.
For the New Testament Scriptures were at the very
first written in a foreign tongue, that is, the Greek
language. We cannot even except the Gospel according
to St. Matthew, for, though there is a probable tradition
that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Syro-Chaldaic
dialect (the colloquial language of the Hebrews in Pales
tine), this supposition can hardly be accepted as more
than a tradition, since we have not only no positive
proof of it, but not even such a consensus of biblical
critics as might warrant our receiving such supposition
as an admitted fact.
Now the Greek version of the sayings and discourses
of Jesus and others narrated in the Gospels, however
ancient, can no more be regarded as the original of such
sayings and discourses, than an Italian report of one of
the splendid speeches of Mr. Gladstone could be regarded
as the original of what that great English orator may
actually have spoken.
These reflections are especially applicable to the con
sideration of the narrative which St. Luke gives in the
second chapter of his Gospel, part of which, as English
Protestants have hitherto understood it, I have taken for
the subject of the present lecture.
St. Luke, probably a Grecian, at any rate writing in
Greek, tells us (according to our authorised version of
the year 1611) that, shortly after the birth of Jesus in
Bethlehem, ‘ there were in the same country shepherds
�An Aspiration of Science.
7
abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by
night, and lo! the Angel of the Lord came upon them,
and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and
they were sore afraid. And the Angel said unto them,
fear not; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy
which shall be to all people, for unto you is born this day
in the City of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of
the heavenly host praising God, and saying—Glory to
God in the highest, and on earth Peace, Good-will
towards men.’
We are now told, on the authority of the eminent
scholars and divines constituting the company of the New
Testament Devisers, that Luke’s relation of this remark
able supernatural occurrence is not accurately given in
our authorised version. That what Luke really wrote
must be translated or rendered into English thus—‘ Glory
to God in the highest, and on Earth peace among men in
whom he is well pleased.’
This correction, or corruption, of so venerable a text
will be variously regarded, according to the critic’s point
of view. To the pious mind, accustomed to revere the
Scriptures as inspired Oracles, the shock must be great
on finding that he has been imposed upon in being taught
to believe that so sublime an utterance ever formed a
genuine portion of the Gospels, and his dismay will
hardly be diminished on finding further that it has long
been, and will still remain, notwithstanding the revision,
a matter of dispute amongst biblical experts what it really
was that St. Luke actually wrote. The critical scholar,
uninfluenced by dogmatic or doctrinal prepossessions,
will still probably retain his sceptical ©pinion on the sub
ject ; whilst the man of science must consider that what
Luke may himself have written, if not a matter of con
jecture altogether, can be of very little real importance,
�8
An Aspiration of Science.
seeing that he is no authority whatever for what the
heavenly host did really say. For Luke was not present
on the occasion, he does not allege that he received the
report from those who were present, his account of it is
therefore simply hearsay, and, whatever the very words
were, it is morally certain they could not have been
spoken in Greek, that being a language utterly unintelli
gible, an unknown tongue indeed to the shepherds of
Bethlehem, so that, putting it at the highest, if we were
sure, or were agreed, that we were in possession of the
exact language of Luke, it would only in itself amount to
a version or translation of a non-existent, and long since
vanished original.
The man of science, however, will not care to reject
the reviser’s alteration, for he knows that the sublime
aspiration of our text enshrines a truth having higher
intrinsic value than ancient manuscripts, or biblical
critics can confer, and, that though it may henceforth
cease to be received as part of authentic Scripture, it
will live, where in truth it originated, in the noble
inspirations of the human mind, yearning in its benevolence
to ameliorate the lot of man. That it is one of those
scientific forecasts which, flashing from human genius,
are found in history sparsely strewed along the path of
human progress, not confined to creeds, but illuminating
the entire earthly highway towards that goal of human
happiness which all good men are now striving to attain,
for others as well as for themselves.
Before finally parting with our text from the Scrip
ture record, it may be interesting very briefly to trace
its origin and history, to see how and when, in point
of fact, it came to get into our authorised version of
1611.
At the time of the birth of Jesus Christ the language
of the Jews, the Hebrew language, had long ceased to be
�An Aspiration of Science.
9
current amongst the inhabitants of Syria, and their
vernacular speech was that known to scholars as the
Aramaen or Syro-Chaldaic, a dialect very little used as
the vehicle of literature. Hence it happened that the
written accounts or narratives of the life and discourses
of Jesus Christ came from the very first to be composed
in the Greek language ; that language being not only the
language of the learned, but, dispersed through the con
quests of Alexander, was very generally familiar to
educated people of the ancient civilised world, even
amongst the Romans, though their vulgar tongue was
Latin, St. Paul, for instance, when writing his grand
Epistle to the Romans, using the Greek and not the
Latin language.
In the earliest churches established after the death of
Jesus and the spread of a knowledge of his religion, in
the churches, for instance, of Jerusalem, Antioch,
Ephesus, Alexandria, and Rome, the Greek manuscript
gospels had not only to be copied for the purpose of their
dissemination, but, as regards Rome and Alexandria
(Northern Egypt being then a province of the Roman Em
pire), as the religion became dispersed amongst the people
at large, the gospel had to be translated into the latin
tongue, and such translation took place so early, and to so
great an extent, that of the at present existing ancient
manuscripts of the Scriptures the Latin are not only more
numerous than the Greek, but it is by no means a matter
of agreement amongst scholars which of such manuscripts
are the highest in point of authority for what the orginal
writings or autographs of the Apostles (long since utterly
lost), actually contained. Protestant theologians and
critics consider the Greek to be the higher authority.
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church consider
the Latin to be now the more reliable source.
Amongst other arguments relied upon by the Roman
�10
An Aspiration of Science.
Church is this, that the most ancient existing latin manu
scripts, even if not more ancient than the existing greek
ones, are known to be recensions of a text that was re
vised in the 4th century by St. Eusebius, and also by St.
Jerome, through comparison with greek manuscripts con
fessedly more ancient than any now existing, or of which
we have now any other knowledge; and from that early
period up to the time of the Reformation, that is for
upwards of 1,000 years, the only Bible of western chris
tendom was a latin book, generally known as the Latin
Vulgate, the text of which was decreed to be authentic
by the Council of Trent (in the year 1546).
The first English translation of the New Testament of
any note was that executed by John Wiclif (the gospel
doctor, as the people called him) about the year 1380.
This was evidently made from the latin version, such
appearing to be the case, not only from internal evidence,
but from the fact that at that time greek manuscripts
were scarce in Europe, and a knowledge of the greek
language rarely possessed by englishmen, and almost
certainly not by Wiclif. His translation therefore simply
followed the latin.
Previously to the next stage in the history we are
following there occurred two memorable events. The one
was the invention of the printing press in the year 1440,
and the very first book that was printed was the splendid
latin bible of the Cardinal Mazarin. The other event was
the taking of Constantinople by the Turks in the year
1453. Its immediate consequence was the diffusion of
greek manuscripts, and greek scholars throughout the
chief European cities.
The first published New Testament in the greek lan
guage, the Editio princeps, was compiled and edited
by the illustrious Erasmus, being printed for him by
Eroben of Basle in the year 1516. Erasmus’s second and
�An Aspiration of Science.
11
greatly improved impression (which I possess here) being
printed in the year 1519.
Now it is observable that in none of the latin manu
scripts, nor in the printed latin version of the Scriptures
do we find the text “ good-will towards men.” The text
of the latin version invariably runs thus: “ Peace on
earth towards men of good-will.” The meaning of which,
as seemingly held by the Roman Church, being, “ Peace
of mind amongst true believers”; such being of course
Roman Catholics.
When Erasmus published his New Testament he gave
to the world a version from Greek Manuscripts that could
not be so rendered. Along with the Greek text he printed
a literal latin translation of his own, differing greatly in
many important particulars from the Latin Vulgate, and,
in reference to the text we are considering, he gave in
latin, more plainly to mark his meaning, the words
‘ hominibus bona voluntas’ ‘ good-will towards men.’
It is really then to this illustrious scholar, who, I venture
to say, was, in learning and scholastic accomplishments,
in liberal-mindedness, in large-heartedness, in love of
toleration, and in disrelish of dogma, the very proto
type of our late lamented Arthur Stanley, Dean of West
minster—it is to Erasmus we really owe our first distinct
knowledge of the sublime expression ‘ On Earth Peace,
towards men Good-will.’
To those of you who are not acquainted with Greek it
may be surprising to hear that the whole difference
between the two renderings turns upon a single letter of
a single word. That is to say, if the G-reek word were
eiSoKla ending with the letter a, as it is found in some
manuscripts, then the literal translation would be ‘ towards
men good-will,” but if the word were euSoKtas, having the
letter s, as it is found in other manuscripts, then the
rendering would be ‘ towards men of good-will ’ or some
�12
A n Aspiration of Science.
equivalent phrase, even so far fetched, and apparently
strained as that formulated by the Revisers, viz.: “ among
men in whom he is well pleased.”
From Erasmus we may at once turn to our great
countryman and reformer, William Tyndale. He had
probably become personally acquainted with Erasmus on
one of his visits to this country. Tyndale being at
Magdalen Hall, Oxford, whilst Erasmus was at Magdalen
College. Tyndale had great admiration for the erudition
of Erasmus, and had read his Greek Testament, for we
find him paraphrasing the paraclesis prefixed to this
impression of 1519. Tyndale, in his English Translation
of the New Testament (first published in 1526), had
evidently the Greek text of Erasmus in his mind, for his
translation widely differs from the Vulgate Latin, and he
renders our text thus—‘ Peace on Earth, and unto men
rejoicing.’
Erasmus was more closely followed by Robert Stephens
of Paris, who in his fourth edition of the Greek New
Testament (published at Geneva in 1551) not only
reprinted the Greek text of Erasmus with slight variation,
but adopted his latin version verbatim. This Edition of
Stephens is noticeable also as being the first in which the
Scriptures were divided into verses, that is so numbered,
not altogether broken up into verses; that was first done
in the Genevan-English version which I am now going to
mention.
The Greek and Latin texts of Erasmus and Stephens
are the foundation of the valuable translation of the New
Testament executed by the English Exiles at Geneva in
Queen Mary’s reign (in the year 1557). This, together
with their English translation of the Old Testament pub
lished in 1560 (the second year of Queen Elizabeth) formed
for many years the favourite popular household Bible in
in this country (I possess it here). Erasmus and Stephens
�An A spiration of Science.
13
were also further followed on the Continent by the
weighty authority of Theodore Beza, the eminent Genevan
Reformer, and discoverer of the ancient uncial Codex
Bezse, presented by him to Cambridge University, and
whose Greek and elegant Latin Testament of 1580 I also
have here.
In the Anglo-Genevan version we meet with the text
under consideration for the first time printed in the
English language as it was subsequently given in the
authorised version of 1611, the translators of which were
commanded by King James to show especial regard to
this Genevan-English version. Now such as we there
find the text it has ever since remained, and been
accepted by the Protestant English nation and all englishspeaking protestant peoples, until the revision of the New
Testament published last year, that is from the year 1557
down to the year 1881, when we find this time-hallowed
text expunged, and in place of it the strained expression
I have already quoted, that the Peace on Earth, instead
of being for all men, is only for those in whom he is
well pleased; and thus we have the angelic announcement
of ‘ good tidings of great joy to all people ’ cut down and
narrowed by the utterance of the heavenly host (as
interpreted by the revisers), to some portion only of the
great human race.
Now I must not be understood as dissenting from, or
in any way presuming to criticise what the revisers have
accomplished. Erom a doctrinal point of view, there were
doubtless many inducements tempting them to tamper
with the text, and to get rid if possible of the elevated
conception primarily presented to us in print through the
critical acumen of Erasmus. In the first place ‘ Peace
on earth, Good-will towards men’ as general Christian
sentiments, are strikingly inconsistent with the subse
quent declaration of Christ himself. (Matt. ch. x. v. 34.)
�14
An Aspiration of Science.
“ Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth ?
I tell ye, Nay, but rather division. Think not that I
came to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace
but a sword. For I am come to set a man at vari
ance against his father, and the daughter against her
mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-inlaw.”
Then again, if regarded in any prophetic sense, the
announcement has had no fulfilment. Indeed the history
of the world since the coming of Christ fully and fear
fully contradicts it. Not only has there been no increase
of peace on the earth, there have probably been more
wars and bloodshed arising out of Christianity, or since
its birth, than ever took place before. An eloquent his
torian has remarked ‘ That from the very commencement
of the Christian era the sword has accompanied the Cross,
a sword that has never found and never will find a
scabbard, till superstitious creeds and immoral dogmas
shall be abandoned as things invented in the dark ages of
the world, as things directly calculated to sow the seeds
of discord in society, create feuds between man and man,
and perpetuate those animosities which turn the sweets
of life into wormwood. This dogmatic Christianity has
done in every age and in every country into which it has
been introduced. Wherever the Cross has been raised
thither have followed fire and sword, horrid burnings,
brutal massacres. All history teems with accounts of its
savage wars, its deluging bloodshed.’ Even at this very
time our common humanity is being outraged by the
atrocities of the Christian persecution of the Jews now
being carried on in ‘ Holy’ Russia!
From a theologian’s point of view therefore the
authorized text of 1611 might well be considered as a
stumbling block, and the reasoning above adverted to may
not improbably have contributed, even unconsciously, to
�An Aspiration of Science.
15
the decision which has now expunged, or attempted to
expunge, the text, entirely from our English Bible.
If however we are to lose the sublime sentiment of
‘good-will towards men’ from the gospel, it may be
worth while to consider whether we are compelled to part
with it altogether. If it be not inspired Scripture, and
if dogmatic theology disown it, may it not find its true
home to be with Science ? Let us consider shortly how
this may be.
The conspicuous conflict between Theology and Science
which characterises our transitional progress from the age
of Eaith to the age of Reason, when looked into with
the object of ascertaining its less obvious causes, will be
found to arise out of the divergent ends which each of
these great systems of thought appears to be aiming at.
Theology will be found to have for its ultimate realisation
the Glory of Grod. The Aspirations of Science, on the
other hand, are wholly directed towards the well-being of
Man.
I could give you abundant illustration of the aim of
Theology taken from any of the great book-religions of
the world enumerated in my lecture of last year, showing,
as they unmistakeably do, that the glory of Grod and the
well-being of Man are very often not altogether consis
tent ; but it will amply suffice for my present argument
to confine my illustrations to those two great Theologies
the Jewish and the Christian, which are embraced in the
single volume of the Bible, and in the creeds and con
fessions of faith that have been deduced from its pages,
and which are supposed, more plainly than Holy writ
itself, to explain its meaning.
In the very first book of that volume we find the Deity
represented as cursing man and the whole human race his
descendants on account of his having partaken of the
forbidden fruit. The fearful fate thus decreed to man
�16
An Aspiration of Science.
kind universally, though subsequently a comparative few
termed “the Elect” were excepted, is better known
through the adroitly devised and necessarily subdued tone
of it that has been evolved through ecclesiastical subtlety,
such, for instance, as we find it moulded in that authorita
tive theological standard the Westminster Confession of
Eaith, presented by the Assembly of Divines to both
Houses of Parliament in the year 1646, and wherein it
is thus expressed: “ By the decree of God, for the mani
festation of his glory some men and angels are predes
tined unto everlasting life, and others foredained to
everlasting death. God hath appointed the elect unto
glory. The rest of mankind God has pleased, according
to the unsearchable counsels of his own will, for the glory
of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and
ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of his glorious justice I ”
I need hardly quote familiar passages from the book of
Psalms and other books of the Old Testament showing
the many fearful human calamities ordained or practised,
even to the sacrifice of the lives of human beings, all for
the glory of God! If we turn to the New Testament
Scriptures the awful idea we are contemplating culmi
nates in the appalling announcement of the everlasting
punishment of Hell!
Now the God of Theology is an idea of the human
mind. Like the Poet’s, the Theologian’s eye
“ Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven,
And, as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the theologian's pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.’'
Even the ghastly conception of eternal torments, and
the foredoomed fate of millions of human beings is all
�An Aspiration of Science.
declared by theologians to be for the glory of God.
the grim irony of Burns expresses it—
17
As
I Oh Thou, wha in the heav’ns dost dwell,
Wha, as it pleases best thysel,
Sends ane to Heaven, and ten to Hell
A’ for thy glory,
And no for ony guid or ill
They’ve done afore thee.”
If we turn from theological theory to the practice of
theologians, as exhibited in history, we plainly perceive
how their treatment of mankind has ever corresponded
with the cruel character of their credentials. The
reproachful summing up of their conduct by the learned
historian Buckle is only too true. ‘ The theologians,’ he
declares, ‘considered as a class, have in every country
and in every age deliberately opposed themselves to
gratifications which are essential to the happiness of an
overwhelming majority of the human race. Eaising up
a God of their own creation, whom they hold out as a
lover of penance, of sacrifice, and of mortification, they,
under this pretence, forbid enjoyments which are not only
innocent but praiseworthy ... It must be admitted
by whoever will take a comprehensive view of what they
have done, that they have not only been the most bitter
foes of human happiness, but the most successful ones.
In their high and palmy days, when they reigned supreme,
when credulity was universal, and doubt unknown, they
afflicted mankind in every possible way, enjoining fasts,
and penances, and pilgrimages, teaching their simple and
ignorant victims every kind of austerity, teaching them
to flog their own bodies, to tear their own flesh, and to
mortify the most natural of their appetites.’ And Buckle
emphatically warns us, ‘ that we shall assuredly sink under
the accumulated pressure of our high and complex
civilization if we imitate the credulity of our forefathers,
�18
An Aspiration of Science.
who allowed their energies to be cramped and weakened
by those pernicious notions which the clergy, partly
from ignorance, and partly from interest, have in every
age palmed upon the people, and have thereby diminished
the national happiness, and retarded the march of the
national prosperity.’
As we are now accepting it as settled by the New
Testament Revision, that the text ‘ Peace on Earth,
Good-will towards men ’ was no part of original Scripture,
and is discarded by theology, it becomes the privilege of
Science, with the right hand of fellowship, to bid it wel
come. It embodies indeed her most cherished aspirations,
for we shall see that, as the ultimate end of Science is to
bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest num
ber, ‘ Good-will towards men,’ that is human well-being,
and ‘ Peace on earth ’ have ever been objects Science has
had nearest and dearest to her, are indeed of the very
essence of her transcendent faith.
And here I call to mind that the leading idea of my
lecture was a few years since, with almost prophetic
foresight of the work of the New Testament Revisers,
shadowed forth in the luminous and lofty language of a
pioneer of progress, one of the bravest and soundest of
our sons of Science. In professor Tyndall’s Presidential
Address on ‘ Science and Man,’ delivered before the
Midland Institute in October, 1877, he asks “ Does the
song of the herald angels ‘ Glory to God on the highest,
and on earth Peace, Good-will toward men,’ express the
exaltation and the yearning of a human soul, or does it
describe an optical and acoustical fact, a visible host, and
an audible song ? If the former, the exaltation and the
yearning are man’s imperishable possession, if the latter,
then belief in the entire transaction is wrecked by nonfulfilment. The promise of ‘ Peace on Earth, Good-will
toward men’ is a dream ruined by the experience of
�.An Aspiration of Science.
19
eighteen centuries, and in that ruin are involved the
claim of the heavenly host to prophetic vision. But,
though the mechanical theory proves untenable, the
immortal song, and the feelings it expresses are still ours,
to be incorporated, let us hope, in the poetry, philosophy,
and practice of the future.”
Now we seem to breathe the free atmosphere of
Science; Science so variously defined, so differently
understood in the past ages of the world. To us, Science,
in its general sense, is simply real knowledge—know
ledge that may be tested and known to be real by verifi
cation through, or comparison with, the facts of Nature.
This is no mere verbal definition, for, side by side with
real knowledge has always existed the persuasion of false
knowledge. This distinction helps to explain, too, how it
has come to happen that Theology and Science are so often
seen in conflict. To say, as is sometimes done, that
Theology is based on supernatural knowledge, whilst
Science is limited to knowledge that is natural, does not
really solve the problem. It might account for difference
in their respective degrees of knowledge, but not, if both
be true, for downright contradiction between them.
The conflict, in its present proportions, has really
arisen in comparatively recent times, and we shall best
get at its source and nature by glancing at it historically.
In the ancient world, and throughout what might be
termed the golden age of Theology, Science was very dif
ferently conceived to what is now regarded as its right
meaning. In that subtle dialogue of Plato,—Theaitetos,
which is a discussion concerning what is meant by Science,
(written nearly 400 years before the Christian Era,) we
find that Socrates could only define or conceive Science
as being the inmost perception of the mind, or inner
consciousness, concerning any matter. He thought that
there could be no external standard, and that what the
�20
An Aspiration of Science.
individual mind arrives at through pure reflection as
true, must be regarded as the truth by that mind. Such
was the only conclusion that consummate thinker could
come to as to the nature of Science. In Plato’s more
mature Dialogue ‘The Republic’ we again find the nature
and end of Science repeatedly referred to. Thus, with
reference to the Sciences of Arithmetic and Geometry,
Plato thought nothing of any worldly use they might
serve. The object of the study of the properties of num
bers, he says, is to habituate the mind to the contempla
tion of pure and abstract truth, and so to raise us above
the material universe.
In these writings of Plato we have then distinctly
stated the end of Science, and also its method, as he
regarded them; such method being, in the majority of
instances, utterly fallacious, viz.:—That the intuition of
the mind, or the idea which is subjectively conceived, is
to be accepted as the equivalent or correlative of an
objective fact. This fallacy may be detected underlying
those metaphysical systems of philosophy that so authori
tatively prevailed until they were displaced by the modern
inductive method of research, which is based, not on
mental intuitions, but on material facts, ascertained
through the senses, and so marshalled as to constitute an
objective criterion, to which speculative propositions may
be referred, for the purpose of testing which are true and
which are false.
Now the Platonic idea of Science was very early
pressed into the service of Theology. The late Bishop
Hampden, in his learned lectures on the Scholastic Phil
osophy, has acutely explained how this arose, and he
remarks that its abstractedness from the visible world
was one chief reason why Platonism became established
as the orthodox system of the Western Church. This
Platonic notion of Science, having thus become combined
�An Aspiration of Science.
21
with, or subordinated to the dogmas of Theology, with its
universal panacea of prayer, really continued, not always
in practice, but, in intellectual theory, until the advent of
our illustrious countryman Lord Bacon. Bacon, by the
exercise of his marvellous insight, penetrated to the very
core of real knowledge, showing, especially in that latin
casket of scientific gems, the Novum Organum (published
in 1620), that the first thing necessary in the search of
truth is intellectual light—‘ lumen siccum ’ pure light,
unobscured by the mists of superstition, passion, preju
dice, or interest. But then he at once points out that
the intellect left to itself, like the naked hand, can effect
little, that it must be assisted by helps and by instru
ments, and that its intuitions must be corrected, or duly
verified by the observation, or interrogation through ex
periment, of the facts of Nature. That ‘wre scire esse
per causas scire ’—we only truly know anything when we
know its cause.
Utterly ignoring the jargon of theology concerning the
Kingdom of Heaven, Bacon avowed his object was to
establish on Earth the Kingdom of Man, whose sovereignty
would rest on Science, which was not a thing to be
demanded back from the darkness of antiquity, but
must be sought from the light of Nature.
That Science was not derived from human authority,
but is the offspring or fruit resulting ‘ commercio mentis et
rerum’ from the intercourse of mind and matter, or, as
he quaintly phrases it, ‘ the happy marriage between the
mind of man and the nature of things.’
But Bacon’s sagacious discovery, or, at least, his vigorous
presentment in clear and cogent logic of the right method
of arriving at the source of real knowledge, was only a
portion, though a magnificently grand one, of the ser
vices he has rendered to mankind. He proceeded further,
and showed that the speculations of the ancient Philoso
�22
An Aspiration of Science.
phers were comparatively worthless, as not having in view
the true end of Science, which was not, he averred, an
intellectual pastime, or ‘ web of the wit,’ woven merely to
amuse or mystify the dialectical faculties of the human
mind, but was an investigation into Nature, in order to
establish the well-being, and bring about the happiness
of the human race. The end of Science was to consist in
the multiplying of human enjoyments, and the mitigating
of human miseries, concisely it was, to use his own preg
nant words, ‘the relief of man’s estate’; and this is the
sense in which we are to understand his often-repeated
aphorism ‘ Scientia est Potentia,’ real knowledge is power
—power enabling man to grapple with and overcome the
evils of life.
And thus, through the exhaustive exposition of Bacon,
Science was no longer limited by the definitions or ideas
of Plato, the human intellect became liberated from the
bondage of verbal disputation, and Was turned to the con
sideration of useful truths. Science came to be seen as
we now know it, that is, as the process of discovery, by
man’s natural faculties, of the order or laws of Nature.
The laboratory of Science being, according to Plato,
the inner sanctuary of the mind, and the materials of
Science being, according to Bacon, facts, acquired through
the senses, from the outer World of Nature. So con
sidered, the sphere of Science comprehends everything
that, by the constitution of the human faculties, can be
positively known; the region of reality, as distinguished
from the realm of visionary knowledge, that has been
built up, by means of unverified mental intuitions, into
theological and metaphysical systems.
Now what the genuis of Bacon was so powerfully
propounding in precept, others were almost simul
taneously performing in practice.
In our own country we find William Harvey, the
�An Aspiration of Science.
23
friend and physician of Bacon, discovering, by the aid of
experiment, the circulation of the blood, and, in his con
cise ‘exerdtatio de motu Cordis et Sanguinis’, explaining
this grand truth (published in 1628, two years after the
death of Bacon), and also in his larger work ‘ de generatione
Animalium ’ (published in 1651) we may, I think, perceive
many passages proving the extent to which Harvey was
indebted intellectually to his great predecessor Bacon.
Another almost immediate result of the profound
impression made upon thinking minds by the extra
ordinary brilliancy of Bacon’s philosophical writings
appears in the very striking treatise of Richd. Cumberland
on the Laws of Nature, his ‘ de legibus Natures disquisitio’
(published in 1672). “In this work” (says Hallam)
“ the Bathers and Schoolmen, the Canonists and Casuists,
have vanished like ghosts at the first daylight.* The con
tinued appeal is to experience, and never to authority,
unless it be to the authority of the great apostles of
experimental philosophy.”
And thus piety was becoming purified from the dross
of dogma, for with Science, ‘ laborare est orare ’—prayer
consists in work, and the world was being aroused from
the supineness of superstitious sloth to the activity of
intelligent industry.
And now we may distinctly observe what is the relation
which the Baconian or Inductive Science holds towards
Theology. I pass by the attempts that were made by the
Church to strangle it in its birth. The persecution of
Science by the Church when it possessed power, and of
scientific men, the great men who have been the inter
preters of Nature,
“ Their only crime that they should dare
To think, and then their thought declare ”—
is indeed a theme painfully familiar, but happily it forms
no part of my present argument. We are now only
�24
An Aspiration of Science.
referring to the intellectual influence of Science, which
is by Buckle thus tersely summarised, and contrasted
with Theology:—
“ Inductive Science takes for its basis individual and
specific experience, and seeks by that means to overthrow
the general and traditional notions on which all church
power is founded. Its plan is to refuse to accept prin
ciples which cannot be substantiated by facts. In Theology
certain principles are taken for granted, and it is deemed
impious to question them. In England, the rise of the
Baconian Philosophy, with its determination to subordi
nate ancient principles to modern experience, was the
heaviest blow which has ever been inflicted on the Theo
logians, whose method is to begin, not with experience,
but with principles which are said to be inscrutable.
That is, they proceed from arbitrary assumptions, for
which they have no proof, except by appealing to other
assumptions equally arbitrary, and equally unproven.
Over the inferior order of minds our clergy still wield
great influence, but the Baconian Philosophy, bv bring
ing their favourite method into disrepute, has sapped the
very base of their system. From the moment that their
method of investigation was discredited, the secret of
their power was gone.”
And the present attitude of the Church towards
Science is thus graphically portrayed by Dr. Draper :—
“ At length the Church has fastened its eyes on Science.
Under that dreaded name there stands before it what
seems to be a spectre of uncertain form, of hourly dilating
proportions, of threatening aspect.
Sometimes the
Church addresses this stupendous apparition in words of
courtesy, sometimes in tones of denunciation.” This
mingled and trembling tone of courtesy and defiance, of
welcome and of dread, may I think be detected in nearly
all the great theological utterances going on around us.
�An Aspiration of Science.
25
We however may in Science recognise the spirit that
has promised to lead us into all truth, and we may hail
as the children of light those who are endowed with the
intelligence enabling them to follow whithersoever such
spirit may lead, and therefore, when the Bishop of Man
chester asks, as he did in his somewhat singular sermon
preached before the British Association in August last
—“ Is Science to tell me what I am to believe, and how
I am to act,” let us, however respectfully, ask empha
tically, Why not ? For it has now been demonstrated
by experience, that only by belief in Science, and by
acting in accordance with its teaching of Grood-will to
wards man, can the great miseries of human life, its
pinching poverty, its depraving intemperance, its de
moralising vices, its agonising diseases, its premature
deaths, with their attendant train of heartrending sorrows
and corroding griefs, be banished, and life on earth ren
dered tolerably happy. It is only by belief in Science,
and by following its teaching, that wars will ever be
abolished, and ‘ Peace on Earth ’ practically realised.
I need not now dilate on illustrations of the primary
care of Science for humanity, as manifested in its dis
coveries, deductions, and teachings in reference to the
Order of Nature, to the Constitution of Man. The great
astronomical and physiological discoveries are more or
less known to every one. On the subject of Health, so
essential to our happiness, I will dwell for a few moments.
The theological theory of disease (explained in my lecture
last year) has been completely exploded from the creed of
the educated classes, and it is now acknowledged that
Health is entirely dependent on the observance of immu
table and imperative laws of Nature. Diseases are
now distinctly traceable to infringement of these
laws, and several diseases are indissolubly associated
with the poisonous nature of some of the food we
�26
An Aspiration of Science.
eat, and the liquids we drink. But the scientific
knowledge of the subject requires diffusing, to be more
generally taught, and brought vividly home to the reason
and common sense of the people.
Now, some of you may remember that in a former
lecture I deplored the paucity of scientific tracts and texts
or axioms disseminated amongst us, compared with the
number of superstitious stories with which we are literally
deluged by theological Societies. Yet I think that scien
tific teaching might to a great extent be carried on in a
similar manner. Let me hazard a suggestion, illustrative
of my meaning. Some of you I dare say have observed
the scripture text that is engraved above a drinking foun
tain within a quarter of a mile from our doors : “ Whoso
ever drinketh of this water shall thirst again, but whoso
ever drinketh of the water I shall give him shall never
thirst.”
Now, don’t assume that I am quoting this text for the
purpose of scoffing. I only now say, it is not Science,
but it strikes me as pointing out to us a corresponding
method of diffusing scientific knowledge, and that we
might well have our fountains engraved with some scien
tific axiom or truth in connection with their use. Thus,
we might have written over them some such scientific
axiom as the following : “ Whosoever drinketh of water
polluted with organic germs shall be in danger of disease
and death; but whosoever drinketh of water purified
therefrom by Science shall escape taking thereby diarrhoea,
dysentery, cholera, typhoid fever, diphtheria.”
Going to the subject of Education I may point out
that in our Great Schools and Colleges the curriculum
of studies has been considerably changed since society
has come to appreciate the educational value of the study
of the Physical Sciences, not only as regards the real and
useful knowledge thereby imparted of the material world
�An Aspiration of Science.
27
and our actual mode of existence, but in reference to the
discipline of the mental faculties involved in learning their
precise and accurate methods of investigating and veri
fying truth, and showing what concrete truth consists in.
In the Parliamentary Report of the Public Schools Com
mission published in the year 1864 we find Professor
Owen, the late Sir Charles Lyell, and Professor Faraday,
our esteemed President Dr. Carpenter, Professor Tyndall,
and other eminent scientists giving the most clear and
convincing testimony to the value of such study in training
a class of mental faculties which are almost ignored by
purely classical and mathematical culture; such as the dis
tinguishing things from words ; the accurate observation,
and classification of the facts of Nature, and the exercise
of the reasoning faculties on such facts ; the teaching to
the student the principles of real evidence; and how, in
the unprejudiced pursuit of truth, to estimate correctly
the weight of such evidence.
But perhaps the greatest blow that enlightenment has
publicly dealt to superstition in our day was inflicted by
the Elementary Education Act of 1870—under which
Board Schools have been so widely established for impart
ing some amount of really useful secular common-sense
knowledge to the children of the masses of our people,
in the place of the Bible reading and Hymn singing, in
the learning of which their precious time was so much
consumed in the old Church Schools. By Sec. 7 of that
Act of Parliament it is expressly provided, that no religious
observance, or instruction in religious subjects shall be
given during the necessary school hours. That no scholar
shall be bound to attend any religious observance or in
struction, and that it shall be no part of the duty of Her
Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools to enquire into any
instruction in any religious subjects given at such school,
or to examine any scholar therein. Now, bearing in mind
�28
An Aspiration of Science.
that the term religious instruction used in the Act has
especial reference to the jarring and discordant theologies
of the rival religious sects, all of whom were contending
to get the child under their special influence, and that the
prohibition in the Act of Parliament of religious instruction
was resorted to as the only practicable course of getting
rid of the obstructive opposition of such sects; I don’t
think I am going too far in characterising the enactment
in question as the greatest legislative blow dealt at super
stition since the passing of the Act of the 9th of Greo. II.
which repealed that astounding statute of James I., which
had actually recognised as realities the theological delu
sions of witchcraft, conjuration, and dealing with evil
and wicked Spirits, and authorised prosecutions, con
victions, and the infliction of barbarous punishments,
for the alleged commission of such purely imaginary
crimes 1
Now we are all taught in our youth to believe that
Theology or our Religious System is the source or sanc
tion of all morality. If Boman Catholics we are taught
that in matters of Faith and Morals the Pope is the in
fallible authority; a dogma the more astonishing, inas
much as it must be obvious to unprejudiced historical
students that, as the power of the Pope has decayed, the
moral tone of European society has improved. But, in
the decomposition, or decline of theological belief every
where going on, there must exist a danger that what has
been supposed an essential part of its teaching may
decline too. Hence has arisen the necessity of showing,
as the fact is, that the true foundation of morality, or the
right conduct of man towards man, is scientific or secular,
and not essentially theological at all.
Now, that pure morality is absolutely independent of
all theology has been known to Science from the time of
Aristotle, whose demonstration of the doctrine is con
�An Aspiration of Science.
29
tained in his profound and sagacious treatise the Nicomachean Ethics.
Turning then to the consideration of virtue, as the
supreme moral end, we shall see what Science has dis
covered and taught us as the indestructible basis of the
duty of doing, not only what is just and right, but what
is calculated for the happiness of mankind, all of which
are comprehended in that felicitously compendious ex
pression, ‘ good-will towards men.’
It is to the illustrious Grotius (whose great work on the
principles of human conduct I somewhat fully referred to
in my lecture of last year) that we are indebted, according
to his able editor the late Dr. Whewell, for the first
clear enunciation of the true source of moral science.
Man, says Grotius, following the lead of Aristotle, is by
his nature a rational and social being. He can only exist
in the society of his fellow-creatures, and he must live
with them, not anyhow, but according to his instincts,
his faculties, and his desires, that is, peacefully and hap
pily. Human Nature then is the mother of moral right,
and the moral guilt or rectitude of any action is deter
mined by its agreement or disagreement with our rational
and social nature.
These ideas of Aristotle and Grotius have been admirably
developed by (amongst others) Jeremy Bentham, John S.
Mill, and Herbert Spencer. ‘ Nature (says Bentham) has
placed mankind under the government of two sovereign
masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point
out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what
we shall do. The standard of right and wrong is fastened
to their throne. In words a man may pretend to abjure
their empire, but in reality he will remain subject to it
all the while. The principle of utility recognises this
subjection, and assumes it for the foundation of that
system, the object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity
�30
An Aspiration of Science.
by the hand of reason and of law. Systems which
attempt to question it deal in sound instead of sense, in
caprice instead of reason, in darkness instead of light.’
This scientific foundation of morals, general utility, or
the greatest happiness principle (adds John S. Mill) holds
that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. This utilitarian standard, however, is not
the agent’s own greatest happiness but, the greatest
amount of happiness altogether. Utilitarianism there
fore can only attain its end by the general cultivation of
nobleness of character, and the multiplication of happiness
is, according to such standard of ethics, the object of
virtue. Thus it embraces not only our duties, but by
what test we may know them. And the highest life,
says Herbert Spencer, is that which includes the greatest
happiness, and ‘that happiness is the supreme virtuous
end is beyond question true, for it is the concomitant of
that ultimate end which every theory of moral guidance
has distinctly, or vaguely in view.
Such shortly is the ideal of Science in regard to the
true nature of virtue, but so backward is our present
social state, that so far from our being able to realise
such an ideal, the greater part of our present virtue
consists in practising the duty of self-denial, lest the
attempted gratification of our own faculties aud activities
should interfere with corresponding gratifications on the
part of others. For (says Herbert Spencer) the main
tenance of equitable relations all round is the condition
to the attainment of the greatest happiness of all..
There is probably no subject respecting which the
teachings of Theology and Science are more at variance
than in their respective views concerning the dreadful
ordeal of War. You know, if you consult the pages of
the Bible, you find that War is treated as almost, under
�An A spiration of Science.
31
certain circumstances, a normal condition of human
existence. I will not stay to quote texts illustrating this
conclusion, in which the Deity is represented as the Lord
of Hosts, as the Grod of Battles, as a Man of War, over
and over again taking part in and encouraging warfare,
and even expressly commanding Wars to be undertaken.
What the human mind may be degraded into believing
through the too exclusive study of Theology, and the too
confiding credulity in all that we find written in the old
historical books of the semi-barbarous Hebrews, may be
gathered from a recent utterance of one of our learned
Bishops, who declared that he believed War was one of
the means by which the Almighty carried on the govern
ment of the world, and promoted civilization!
Now Science cannot conceive an Almighty power
governing or encouraging a world of human beings
through the dreadful horrors of war, and such power
could not, in any scientific sense, be regarded as benefi
cent, if he were really capable of coolly carrying on human
government by means of the atrocious machinery of
warfare. According to Science, such an idea can only
be a delusion of the morbid imagination, enfeebled through
unreflecting faith in the senseless suggestions of supersti
tion. Science can indeed show that it is quite unneces
sary to attribute war to the intentional Will of an
Almighty Supernatural Being, for it can trace its causes
to the passions of human nature, acting in ignorance or
disregard of those preventives of war which the human
understanding, enlightened by Science, has succeeded in
discovering, and by following which wars might be alto
gether banished from the face of the earth, or, at least,
from amongst the Nations of Europe. Hence in nearly
all such Nations have arisen Peace Societies, founded for
the purpose of diffusing such intelligence amongst the
people at large, that they, being instructed to recognise
�32
An Aspiration of Science.
that their true interest always lies on the side of Peace,
may, through enlightened public opinion, bring pressure
to bear upon their rulers, in order that Peace may be
preserved, and the horrors of War avoided. That this
could even now be effected, through the instrumentality
of International Arbitration, can hardly be doubted by
those who have considered the subject from a scientific
point of view.
I may now then conclude by affirming that the senti
ments ‘ Good-will towards men ’ and ‘ Peace on Earth,’
though expelled from Sacred Scripture, and disowned by
dogmatic Theology, are the inalienable heritage of Science,
and under its guardianship will remain, to exemplify the
sublime sympathies of those noble-minded men, whose
fervent thoughts and dignified lives are devoted to the
realisation of their spontaneous aspirations to improve, to
lift up, and to sweeten the earthly lives of their fellow
creatures ; aspirations which superstition has not suc
ceeded in suppressing, because they are the natural
promptings of the uncorrupted heart, and mind, and con
science of man, civilized through Science.
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
An aspiration of science : "On earth peace, good-will towards men", rescued from the New Testament revision. A lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday afternoon, 19th February, 1882
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 5.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Finch, A. Elley
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1883
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Sunday Lecture Society
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G3429
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Science
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 (An aspiration of science : "On earth peace, good-will towards men", rescued from the New Testament revision. A lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's Hall, Langham Place, on Sunday afternoon, 19th February, 1882), 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
Morris Tracts
Science
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5b999671d2233aa6ed8398b565dfc2dc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Z%7ECDrdnlZO8LFZAjxDlOvSu-wiFW3gciE2Tul4IS7sU2wJAfvzAI7Gbapup4m6Gf90-WX7qE18x6gM1FBrsZpj7oJ7vXo%7E2Irkdc65c6TsHEdbr9960f5HIIpr1WvaiFYypy7oAPLI-6Kkp1blxe60TtpSfxokwsjlR3NA9R3pKyRPbZTMxna2RRTywfBIW%7EFHxBTvv1tViXn2CI6U8RwNSco2P5pNCviQTFcJavS%7E4QL1HjmtygUxmkLBPWoC1bvtQNzE9ff6EPj5EhTAQw9EYQZYSIkG4VNWUrhhDeNhm1kXPdHMaAjfxQcOX5zrQ8%7EF02MiiTQJk3icNtw2XycQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
10064613ce716a85386cccaafef39d71
PDF Text
Text
W88
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
TWO ADDRESSES
DELIVERED BY
Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose,
AT THE
BIBLE CONVENTION,
HELD IN HARTFORD, (CONN.,) IN JUNE, 1854.
Being Her Replies to tiie Rev. Mr. Turner
Accompanied with Comments on the Un
reasonable Character of the Bible.
[Published by request.]
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM, INVESTIGATOR OFFICE.
1888.
��MRS. ERNESTINE L. ROSE
ON
THE BIBLE.
FIRST ADDRESS.
J/y Friends:—I rise under peculiar disadvan
tages : one is, that it is so late, and another that
the ground has been most ably, eloquently, and
masterly occupied by the various speakers who
preceded me. Under these circumstances I would
prefer not to speak at all, were it not for the fact
that this movement seems to be one of the highest
and greatest importance that has taken place in
our age — (Applause)—of more importance even
than the one that has so long lain at my heart,
the rights of woman—(Applause)—for it is closely
connected with it; and as woman has not been
represented here, I feel it my duty to raise my
voice and protest against the Bible, or, as it is
called, the Word of God; for if a line of demarkation could be drawn of the injurious effects pro
duced by the errors of that book on man or wo
man, I would say most emphatically, that on
account of the inferior education and experience of
�4
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
woman, the errors of the Bible which have been
palmed off upon society as emanations from some
superior wisdom and power, have had a far more
pernicious effect on the mind of woman than of
man, for knowledge and experience are the only
safeguards against superstition ; and as woman has
received less of the light of knowledge, supersti
tion has had a stronger hold on her mind, and has
enslaved her far more than man. (Applause,
hisses, and cries of “ Shame! shame! ”)
Mrs. Rose, on looking around at the confusion,
said—My conviction is, that man always acts as
well as he can; and if I see my poor unfortunate
fellow-being act as it appears to me inconsistent
and irrational, I can but pity him for it. (Ap
plause.)
The question under consideration, I believe, is
the origin, influence, and authority of the Bible, or,
Ts the Bible an emanation from, or inspiration of,
God ? It seems to me that it would have been
more in order had we commenced by inquiring
what is meant by the term God, or Divine; but
here again a difficulty presents itself, Where shall
we commence to make the inquiry? If we go
back to past ages, to the very infancy of the race,
and from thence come up to the present time and
hour, and ask the definition of God, the answer
would be that, just what any age or people con
sidered their beau-ideal of greatness, of wisdom, of
virtue, and of perfection, they embodied in one
grand idea, and called it God. (Renewed and
long-continued disturbance in the gallery.) I will
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
5
wait till I can be heard. (Renewed confusion.)
This confusion is an evidence of the influence of
the Bible. (Hissing.) The Bible tells them that
woman “ should not speak in public.” Oh! no, she
must not raise her voice in behalf of truth and
humanity, and if she does, she is met with con
fusion and riot by the believers in that doctrine;
but after all, that is the best argument that can be
brought m support of the Bible. With the sword
it has been promulgated, with riot and confusion it
must be supported. (Applause and hisses.) Yes !
if we go back to the past, we find that men in all
ages, all countries, conditions, and states, have
always embodied what to them appeared the acme
of perfection, and worshipped it. In those ages
wherein the warrior, the conqueror, the hunter has
been considered the most perfect and noble beings
m the conception of men, they have cut out images
of stone, wood, silver, and gold, to embody the
various attributes, and knelt down and worshipped
them; and as we came up from the long past,
through all ages, without mentioning the various
gradations, for time is short, to the present time,
we still behold the same. The opinions only as to
what constitutes greatness, goodness, and perfec
tion, have changed; the tastes have become more
refined, the feelings more humanized, the minds
more enlightened and consistent.
Man, in fact, lias become more civilized; there
fore the beau-ideal of his conception, or the idol of
his imagination, is so too. Thus, instead of cutting
out an image of the grosser materials, or painting
�6
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
it on the canvas, ancl then kneeling clown to wor
ship it, he shuts his eyes and beholds the embodi
ment of what appears to him to be the greatest,
best, and noblest of human attributes, on the
retina of his imagination, and bows down his head
and pays homage to it; but however gross or re
fined, it is ever a likeness of himself, or what he
would wish to be. It has been a great mistake to
say that God has made man in his image, for man
in all ages and times has made his God in his
image, and hence we have as great a variety of
religions and gods as we have stages and grada
tions of man’s perception of the true, the beautiful,
and the noble, from the darkest ignorance and
barbarity to the present comparative state of know
ledge and civilization. (Prolonged applause, hiss
ing, and hooting.) Hiss on, if it does you any
good. I give utterance to these convictions to aid
in man’s emancipation from the superstition and
ignorance from which he has so long suffered. I
know but too well what it is to go against the
long-cherished and time-honored prejudices and
superstitions. It is no pleasant task to go against
the current, but there is a sense of duty that
balances all unpleasantness, even hissing and hoot
ing, and all, that is more potent than all persecu
tions, that brings a peace of mind, content, and
happiness that none can feel but the mentally free.
(Applause.) But to the subject. The Rev. Mr.
Turner denied the objections brought against the
Bible, saying that objections were not arguments ;
but I would respectfully remind him, that denials
�MRS. E. L. IiOSE ON THE BIBLE.
/
are no arguments, and it would have been better to
confute the arguments that were brought against
the Bible, than to do nothing but constantly deny
them. (Applause.)
To judge of the inspiration of the Bible we
must examine the Bible itself, and as its contents
will appear consistent or inconsistent, so we must
pronounce it based upon truth or error, for truth is
always consistent with itself, and with every other
truth, while error is always inconsistent. Now,
when we examine the Bible hi its commencement,
we find its account of creation is perfectly incon
sistent with, and contrary to, the sciences of ge
ology, astronomy, physiology, and all well-ascer
tained facts based upon science and truth; and
therefore we are justified in saying that whosoever
wrote or inspired that part of the book must have
been utterly ignorant of all these sciences; and as
we proceed, we find so many inconsistencies, vices,
and cruelties, that it is impossible to ascribe them
to a wise or kind and benevolent power or being.
(Hissing, stamping of feet, and whistling in the
gallery, and cries of “ Go on, go on.”) My friends,
there was once a time when I had a voice strong
enough to speak against all opposition, and be
heard, but that time is past. My constitution has
been somewhat broken, and mainly broken in the
great conflict against error. I had hoped that
whatever our opponents might think of my opin
ions, they would behave like gentlemen, though
believers and defenders of the Bible. (Cries of
■x‘ Hear, hear.”) [A lady said—“ If you have a
�8
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
heart to speak, speak on.”] (Great applause.) I
thank my sister for saying so. I have a heart to
speak, and I will speak. (Tremendous applause.)
My friends, you who do not know how long and
how ardently I have wished for such a movement,
can have no idea how I rejoice in this Convention,
even hissing and all. (Applause.) The time was,
some twenty-five years ago, when I stood alone on
a platform—(Voice, “Where?”)—for precisely the
same noble cause, to defend the rights of humanity
against the assumptions, superstitions, and errors
of the Bible, without knowing that there was
another human being in the wide world who
thought as I did, and there and then I bore testi
mony against the same errors that I do now.
(Applause and hissing.)
[The Rev. Mr. Turner expressed his hopes that
Mrs. Rose would not be interrupted.]
As we proceed in our investigation of the Bible
we find it inculcates war, slavery, incest, rapine,
murder, and all the vices and crimes that blind
selfishness and corruption could suggest; many
have been enumerated here to-day, but it is utterly
impossible to enumerate all. That book has been
a two-edged sword to men; it has united them in
nothing but persecution; to woman it has been
like a millstone tied to her neck to keep her down;
it has subjected her to the entire control and arbi
trary will of man. It has libelled human nature,
and libelled the very God of whom it speaks—it
represents him as having created man in utter
ignorance of consequences, as having created one-
�AIRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
9
sex, ancl pronounced it all to be very good, but
foiuid out that “it was not good for man to be
alone,” therefore he created woman—not for the
same aims and objects of life that he created man
—Oh! no; but because he found, contrary to his
expectation, that it was not well for him to be
alone. So, after he had finished his work, and
rested, he had to go to work again and make
woman. This might be sublime if it were not
ridiculous. And yet, do you know, my sisters, that
most of the subjugation of woman, the tyranny
and insult heaped upon her, sprung directly or in
directly from that absurd and false assumption. It
is an insult to the suposed Creator to say he
created one-half of the race for the mere purpose
of subjectmg it to the other, as well as a libel on
the nature and powers of woman, to say that there
is no other aim nor destiny in her existence except
to be a mere plaything or a drudge to man, as the
circumstances may require. The writers of all
such parts of the Bible, where it libels her nature
and powers, and therefore restricts her rights more
than man’s, were alike devoid of a knowledge of
her nature and destiny, as of wisdom, justice, and
humanity.
Yes, in reading that book understandingly, and
judging it by its own contents, it tells us in lan
guage not to be misunderstood, that instead of
being an emanation from some exalted wisdom and
goodness, it is simply the work of different minds,
existing in different ages, possessing different de
grees of knowledge and principle; and in accord
�10
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
ance with their state of progress, their knowledge,
and feelings, so did they write—they could do no
better. I have charity and forbearance for the
writers of the Bible. Had they had loftier concep
tions, juster ideas, kinder feelings, and a more
accurate knowledge of Nature in general, and
human nature in particular, they would have writ
ten quite a different Bible. As it is, it seems to
me to be a concoction of incongruities, absurdities,
and falsehoods almost impossible to conceive. It
is true we find some excellent sentiments in it,
such as “ love thy neighbor as thyself,” “ do unto
others as you would others should do unto you,”
and some others equally good; and though they
are not original with the Bible, they are still beau
tiful sentiments; but as arbitrary commands they
never can be carried out, for man is a being that
requires a reason and a motive for his actions.
Give him the reason and motive to love his neigh
bor as himself, in the knowledge of human nature
and the relation he sustains to his fellow-man;
convince him that he can find happiness only in
proportion as he endeavors to promote the happi
ness of others—not only of those immediately con
nected with him, but of the race, for the race is
but the great family of man, of which every indi
vidual is a member; and depend upon it, there will
be no necessity for arbitrary commands with prom
ised bribes and artificial rewards for the observ
ance, and threats of penalties and artificial punish
ments for the non-observance of the great moral
law Nature has implanted in man for his rule of
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
11
action, but which ignorance and error, called re
ligion, has stifled by making mere belief of more
consequence than works. A blind faith in things
unseen and unknown is upheld as the greatest
virtue in man.
The idea that “ he that believeth shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned,” has
caused more mischief to man than all the rest of
the Bible could ever have benefited him, for it has
produced all the persecution and ill-will on account
of belief; and it is evident to my mind that the
writer of this passage was utterly ignorant of the
nature and formation of belief, or he would have
known that there can be no merit in belief, nor de
merit in disbelief, for it is not in our power to
believe or disbelieve by a mere effort of the will.
In childhood, belief is given to us the same as our
food; we can make a child believe that what we
call black is white; and if we tell it that it is of
the highest importance, that its happiness here and
hereafter depends upon its being called white in
stead of black, and any one who dares to call it by
any other name is a bad man, an enemy to the
power who wished it to be called white, and an
enemy to man, whose safety here and hereafter
depends upon its being called white, that child, if
grown up, and possessed of an ardent, sincere, and
conscientious temperament, would lay down his
life, or sacrifice the lives of others, in support of
black being white; and yet it would be black for
all that. Thus we can make a child believe error
to be truth, and it may die or sacrifice the lives of
�12
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
others in maintenance of it, ancl yet the error is
not truth, but error.
[Here Mrs. Rose was interrupted by hissing,
hooting, and stamping. Some gentleman asked if
such disturbances were the kind of arguments by
which they expected to sustain the Bible? He
hoped not. Mr. Barker said, “ As we cannot do
the Bible justice without their assistance, they, the
disturbers, are willing to assist us.” At this point,
some one having gained access to the gas-meter,
turned off the gas, and for some minutes a con
tinual hissing, shrieking, stamping, drumming of
canes, and whistling was kept up by the rioters,
mainly occupying the gallery, the body of the
church having been occupied almost entirely during
the Convention by peaceable and well-disposed
auditors, who during the enactment of this scene
mostly sat in silence. The utter confusion made it
impossible to hear any voice that might have ap
pealed to any sense of decency and propriety per
haps yet existing in the minds of the rioters. The
lights being restored, Mrs. Rose proceeded with her
remarks, and said :]—
When the lights were extinguished, it reminded
me of one of the true things we find in the Bible,
that some there are “who love darkness better
than light.” (Laughter and applause.) Just before
that demonstration I endeavored to impress upon
your minds how easily a child may be made to
believe a falsehood and die hr support of it, and
therefore there can be no merit in a belief. We
find in the various sects in Christendom, among the
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
13
Jews, Mohammedans, Hindoos, in fact, throughout
the entire world, that children are made to believe
m the creed in which they are brought up. The
children of the sect called the Thugs are made
to believe in their creed, their Bible—for they,
too, have a Bible, and priests to interpret it,
and Bibles are always written so obscure as to
require priestly interpreters—which tells them they
are governed by a goddess ; they seem to favor the
rights of woman. (Applause.) Their means of
salvation is to strangle every one they come in con
tact with who does not believe as they do; and the
more Infidels and heretics they strangle the surer
their reward in heaven, and the most pious and
conscientious among them try to bring the most
human sacrifices; and as humanity is not quite
dead even among them, so they have quite a re
fined way to dispatch their victims: they have a
silken cord made into a lasso, and when they come
in contact with an unbeliever, they throw it adroit
ly over his head, and by a quick pull strangle him
without the shedding of blood, and almost without
a struggle. So strongly is humanity engrafted in
man, that in spite of all the errors and supersti
tions called religion, it has not entirely been de
stroyed. (Applause.)
Referring to some loafer in the gallery, with his
boots hanging over the railing, Mrs. Rose said:
—I do not know but exhibiting the boots over the
railing may be a part of the defence of the Bible,
but whether it is so or not, we live in an enlight
ened age, in the free United States of America,
�14
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
where every one may do as he pleases, so long as
he does not interfere with the rights of others,
even to exhibit his boots or discourse in favor of
the Bible. (Applause and hissing.)
Thus we see that children acquire their belief as
they acquire any other habit. In after life, when
we are more capable of reasoning, comparing, and
reflecting, belief depends on the amount of evi
dence. If the evidence is strong enough to con
vince the mind,an assent is elicited; if the evidence
is not strong enough to convince the mind, we can
not believe; and the amount of evidence sufficient
to convince one mind may not be enough to con
vince another; but whether the evidence is con
vincing or not, there can be no particle of merit in
belief, or demerit in disbelief. No one within the
reach of my voice can persuade himself that he
hears me not, nor any one out of it that he hears
me, any more than he can believe that two and
two make five, after he has been made to know that
they make four. Yet in spite of this truth in con
nection with the formation of belief, all religions
have been based on the false supposition that we
can believe as we please, or as the priest wishes
us to, and therefore we were promised rewards for
believing, and punishment for disbelieving, the
fashionable superstitions called religion.
Christianity is based on this error, my friends. I
say it not in anger, but in sadness of heart, that
all cruelties, persecutions, and uncharitableness,
from the time of the Inquisition to the present
hissing, have been in consequence of that irrational
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
15
ancl pernicious sentence, “ He that believeth shall
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be
damned.” (Hissing.) That is perfectly consistent
with your belief. But convinced as I am of the
truth of the formation of human character, and of
the inconsistencies, errors, and falsehoods of the
Bible, in teaching a doctrine contrary to truth and
to Nature, I must come to the conclusion, that no
very good, wise, exalted power or being could have
been the author of it.
Now a few words as to its influence. As the
Bible is based on error, what can its influence be
but pernicious ? For as truth is always beneficial,
so is error always injurious. If we examine the
history of Christianity, we will find that every
step of its progress has been made in blood, and
every atrocity committed has found authority in
the Bible. When the tyrant of Russia and his
despotic coadjutor of Austria subjugated poor,
bleeding Hungary, they brought authority from
the Bible. They told them that all power was of
God—kings, priests, and emperors reign by the
grace of God. “ Oppose not those in authority;
submit to the powers that be, for they are of God,”
has been the motto of every tyrant and every
usurper; and when the burden has become too
heavy to bear, the yoke too severe, and man could
bear the oppression no longer, and tried to cast it
off, he has ever been met with the cry of Babel to
God’s authority, which must be enforced with the
point of the bayonet. The Pope has oppressed
and all but destroyed poor Italy with the authority
�16
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
of the Bible. When the tyrant of Russia held his
iron heel on the neck of my own poor, prostrate
native land, Poland, he brought the same authority.
When with the iron rod, that terrible thing called
a sceptre, said to have been given from heaven, the
usurper sways the liberties and lives of millions, he
brings good authority from the Bible. (Loud hiss
ing.) Do you hiss the Bible, or Russia? (Ap
plause.) My friends, a most terrible outrage has
been perpetrated on poor humanity; there never
has been a heart broken, a tear drawn from the
eye, a drop of blood from the human heart, nor a
sigli of agony from the expiring victim, but the
perpetrators of these horrid inhumanities have
found authorities for it in the Bible. It is a sad
reflection on man, that he could be so enslaved by
the authority of a book. No one knows its origin,
in itself the most unintelligible, unreasonable, and
inconsistent that could ever have been concocted
by the mind of man. (Disturbance.)
It is to be regretted that disorder takes the place
of order; but this confusion of acts proceeds from
the confusion of mind, in consequence of the con
fusion of ideas taught by the Bible; here is its
source and its influence. The disorder of this
book has filled man’s mind with disorder, and when
the mind is a chaos, how can his actions be order ?
What do we claim in this Protestant republic ?
Why, only what it professes to guarantee to every
one, namely, freedom of speech; and look at the
conduct of the believers and defenders of the
Bible ; but their disorder and riot is the best argu
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
17
ment they can bring in support of it. Martin
Luther once received the same argument from the
Church of Rome. (Hisses.) Do you hiss Luther,
or the Pope ? (Applause.) Luther protested agamst
the Church of Rome and her Bible; he called her
a harlot, a falsehood, a libel upon human nature,
religion, and God; he claimed the right of con
science and of private judgment; we, too, claim it
here. Since his time, Protestantism has gone on
constantly protesting; we, too, protest against the
right to shackle the mind and prevent private
judgment and freedom of speech; our protest here
is in consequence of the protest of Luther; do you
dislike it ? Throw your minds back to that time
and hiss him to your hearts’ content. (Applause
and hissing, and drumming of feet and canes.)
According to the Bible in the hands of the Pope,
there is no freedom of opinion, no variety of sects,
no private judgment; his Bible tells him only to
subject human rights, reason, and judgment to his
despotic rule. (Applause and hisses.) Protestant
ism professes to give freedom of conscience and of
speech. Make your choice between the Church of
Rome and Protestantism, and abide by it. (Tre
mendous applause and hissing.) And yet the
Bible, as a history of the past—as reminiscences
of other times and people—would be interesting
enough, provided it was not palmed upon us as a
guide for our age and time; as well might you
force a man, at forty, to wear his swaddling clothes,
because they were once fit for him. The time I
trust will come—is already at hand—when the
�.18
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
Bible, like any other book, will be subjected to the
test of reason, the light of knowledge and of truth,
and by that test either stand or fall, and every man
will adopt what appears to him good, and reject
what appears to him bad and inconsistent. But on
account of its having been forced on man as an in
fallible rule of life, it has been more instrumental
to keep him in ignorance, degradation, and vice, to
prevent his elevation and development, to produce
war, slavery, intemperance, and all the evils that
afflict the race, than any and all the books that
have ever been concocted by man. (Renewed his
sing, indecent expressions, and disturbance.) All
this does not disturb me nor ruffle my temper; it is
only an additional evidence to me of the pernicious
influence of the Bible. This is a practical illustra
tion of it. I have stood more than this in opposing
error, and I can stand this. It inspires me with no
other feeling than pity and commiseration for such
irrationality; but it is late, and I had better save
my voice; it may be wanted to be raised hi the
same holy cause at some other time. (Applause
and hissing in the gallery.) To you, my sisters, I
would but say, that the defenders of the Bible have
given you a most practical evidence of the rights
and liberties Christianity has conferred upon you.
The Bible has enslaved you, the churches have
been built upon your subjugated necks; do you
wish to be free ? Then you must trample the Bible,
the church, and the priests under your feet.
Mrs. Rose took her place amidst deafening ap
plause, hisses, and confusion.
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
19
SECOND ADDRESS.
It seems to me to be a pitiable condition in the
way of argument, when, instead of testing a sub
ject on its own intrinsic value, by its own worth
and its own truth, we have to resort to a compari
son of it with something else that may be quite as
bad. Now to this process our friends, the sup
porters of the Bible, have to resort. The first
speaker, Mr. Storrs, this afternoon, instead of try
ing to defend the origin, authority, and influence of
the Bible by its own intrinsic value and merits,
went to comparing it, or the God of the Bible, with
what he imagines to be the God of Nature; and
therefore, thus comparing the two, they exclaim,
“You will say that the God of the Bible is cruel
and inhuman,—the God of Nature is as cruel; you
will say the God of the Bible allowed many evils to
exist—,we retaliate and say the God of Nature did
the same.” But what does all that amount to ? To
any defence of the God of the Bible? Not in the
least. It simply amounts to this, that if there is
any such thing as a God behind Nature who sends
earthquakes, whirlwinds, tempests, and destruc
tion for the purpose of destroying men, he is quite
as inconsistent as the God of the Bible. It means
no more. But it did not prove it right, nor dis
�20
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
prove any of tlie charges I made against the Bible
or the Bible God. (Cries of hear, hear, and ap
plause.) Mr. Turner, after he had thus compared
the charges laid to the God of the Bible with the
charges he laid against the God of Nature, went to
some of my remarks of last evening. He thought
it was a most outrageous thing to lay the evils that
woman suffers to the Bible. It may appear out
rageous to him, I do not doubt; it appears far more
outrageous to me to find that such is the case; and
as owing to the confusion last evening he may not
have been able to hear what I said on the subject,
I will repeat some of it.
I mentioned last evening the passage of Scrip
ture, that after God had created man, and pro
nounced all to be very good, he found out his mis
take, namely, “It was not good for man to be
alone,” and therefore he created woman. I said,
and do say, that it is a libel alike to the power they
call God, or Creator, as well as to the nature of wo
man, to say that he created one half of his children—
one-half of the whole human race—not for the same
great aim and end in life as man, but because it
was not well for man to be alone; so he was under
the painful necessity to create her as a pastime, a
plaything, or a drudge, as the circumstances and
the position may require. Upon this irrational
foundation has the subjugation of woman in Chris
tendom been based. (Applause.) But Mr. Turner
asked, is it such a hardship to obey a husband?
and brought Sarabias an example, that she, too,
obeyed her husband. I asked him whether, if
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
21
there was no hardship in obeying, he would
like to have been in the position of Sarah, and
obey his wife as she had to obey her husband ? His
answer was, that he was not a woman, and there
fore could not say how he would have felt hi her
position. Yes, so say I, that as he is not a woman, he
is utterly incapaple of judging for her. How incon
sistent then—what an assumption and a farce—for
him to stand here and talk about woman’s position
and woman’s sphere, when he is incapable of plac
ing himself for one moment in her position, to judge
how she would feel under certain circumstances!
The Bible writers were not women, hence they so
cruelly libelled her nature; and as they were men
as utterly ignorant of her nature and feelings as he
is, how could they know what was her proper
sphere ? and how does Mr. Turner know that the
sphere the Bible prescribes to woman is the right
and proper sphere for her, when he cannot give the
simplest answer to the simplest question, how he
would feel were he a woman ? (Applause.) Con
sistency is a jewel which I fear can not be found in
his possession. (Applause.)
How can she ever be in her proper position and
her proper sphere when man prescribes both for
her ? How can she ever be understood when man
defines and interprets for her ? How can she ever
be rightly governed when man enacts the laws to
govern the being whose nature he can not under
stand, whose feelings he can not realize, whose mo
tives he can not appreciate ? How can justice be
done to her when he most ignorantly judges and con
�22
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
demns her? Never! No! woman must speak for
herself, she must help to enact the laws by which
she shall be governed, she must plead her cause,
she must judge for woman. (Pointing to Mr. T.,
Mrs. Rose said, with much feeling and vehemence :)
Yonder sits a man who bears testimony that man
is incapable of judging for woman. (Great ap
plause.) But we are told Christianity has done a
great deal for woman, “for the Bible commands the
husband to love his wife.” Indeed! Husbands
before me, can you love your wives by an arbitrary
command ? [A Voice—Yes, hi some cases.] Wives,
can you love your husbands because somebody,
somewhere, commanded you to do it? No. [A
Voice—As true as eternity.] ■ (Laughter.) If we
are not able to love by an arbitrary command, how
irrational then—.what a wonderful ignorance in the
writers of that command—I care not whether they
were from above or below, that gave it! Husbands,
love your wives from a painful sense of duty, be
cause the Bible commands you to do so. (Laugh
ter.) Painful, indeed, must such a duty be, both to
the giver and receiver. (Applause.) What a pros
titution of the very term love, by affixing a com
mand to it! But suppose it could be done, but
some husbands will not do it,—at any rate we find
not all husbands do it—then would the commander
force him to love his wife ? For if it is true that
husbands can love their wives by an arbitrary com
mand, then they ought to be made to obey. When
any of our laws are violated, the person is held to
account for it, unless a law is so bad and incon
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
23
sistent that no one can or ought to obey it; then
we call that law or lawgiver to account to abolish it.
Let the supporters of the Bible command force
husbands to do their duty, or abolish all such ir
rational laws, or at any rate, whatever the laws are
—good, bad, or indifferent—let them be alike for
both, or not at all. I wish we had fair laws, and
we would be much better, wiser, and happier. We
have far too much legislation here, and I am sure
we require no Bible legislation in addition. (Ap
plause.)
Mr. Turner spoke about the happy condition wo
man was hi. Yes, we have a very gratifying pic
ture before us—to my mind more gratifying than
any other in Nature—to see an assembly of human
beings met with a desire to inquire into the nature
of a book forced upon mankind as a truth; and the
condition of my sisters before me, if compared, as
Mr. Turner compares the God of the Bible, with
something worse, I doubt not is very flattering and
happy; but if we compare her present position
with what she ought, what she might, and would
be, had she her full rights, as a human being, to
education and position, then we find a difference
almost too great to realize it, but of which Mr.
Turner, not being a woman, can know nothing
whatever. (Laughter.) But it is asked, what does
woman want ? Our friend there (pointing to Mr.
Turner) insinuated that we wanted to become ipen.
Do you, my sisters, wish to become men? [A
Voice—“No.”] (Laughter.) In the general sense
of the term, as applying to human beings, we are
�24
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
men. (Hear, hear.) As applying to sex, it requires
no answer, and I will give it none. (Applause.)
But whether man or woman, are we not entitled to
the rights of humanity because we are your mothers
instead of your fathers? We claim our rights
irrespective of sex. We claim them, not only in
accordance with the laws of humanity, but also in
accordance with the Declaration of Independence.
Are we not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness ? (Hear, hear.) And what is life
without liberty ? (Applause.) Who of you would
desire to preserve it an hour without it ? and what
is liberty without equality of rights ? A mockery.
And what can be our pursuit of happiness when
man has prescribed our sphere of thought and
action within the narrowest possible limits—when
the needle and the wash-tub are nearly the only
avocations he has assigned her for her independence,
except getting married.
(Hear, hear, and ap
plause.)
Tell me we complain, and that we ought to be
thankful to Christianity for our condition! Yes,
we owe to Christianity our degraded, enslaved
position, and let all be thankful for it who can. I
ask for woman what you ask for man—the same
rights, privileges, and opportunities to educate and
develop our beings physically, mentally, and moral
ly, to the fullest extent of her being; throw open to
her all the avenues of emolument of honor, and
greatness, and she will find her true sphere, for
who can find it for her ? “Why do I ask for it ?”
Because it is our right, and because the withholding
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
25
of our rights has produced incalcuable evil and suf
fering. I suffer, not only individually, but as belong
ing to niy sex—as belonging to the race—for man
suffers as grievously by it as woman does. We ask
to give woman her inalienable rights, and to enable
her to become a real and true woman, and not a
man ; but if by the term, man, is meant the capacity
to think and reason more, reflect deeper, judge
wiser, and act better, then the sooner all of us are
men, Mr. Turner included, the better. (Applause.)
We ask for knowledge, for knowledge is power.
After mother Eve partook of and gave her husband
of the tree of knowledge, the gods even became
afraid of them, so it must be worth something, and
it is worth to woman just as much as to man. The
great misfortune was, that poor mother Eve did not
eat enough of the tree of knowledge, for we have
been hungry after it ever since. She did not know
that
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or touch not the Pierian spring.”
(Applause.) The slave ought to be in utter ignor
ance ; the moment you give him any knowledge he
will cast off his slavery. We know now too much
to be satisfied with our condition; we want more,
we want all that can be given; for as knowledge is
power, it promotes independence, and we want to
be independent, for dependence is degrading, for
woman ought to be as independent of man as he is
of her. The dependence ought to be mutual and
reciprocal—not as master and slave — joined by
unjust and mercenary ties, but the dependence on
�26
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
each other’s kindness and services ; affection ought
to be the only bond between man and woman.
(Applause.)
And would she be any less woman if capable of
insuring, if necessary, her own independence?
Some wiseacres may tell you so. They will tell
you that if she has her rights she will cease to be
a woman, forsake her children, and turn recreant
to her nature. Common sense will tell you that
only then will she be a woman, capable, if needs
be, to take care of herself, her children, aye, and
her husband too. And why should she not. If it
gives you pleasure, and, I doubt not, elevates you
and fills your minds with unspeakable gratification
when you strive for and succeed in promoting the
happiness of those you love, it would be as gratifying
to her; the same generous emotions would fill the
mind of woman, were she able, if necessity called
for it, to show her affection to her husband, not
only in letting him maintain her, but when she had
to maintain him, by her knowledge and well-directed
industry; and there would be just as little degrada
tion in the one case as in the other. (Applause.)
Mr. Turner proclaims himself a friend to woman’s
rights. I don’t doubt, according to his understand
ing of human rights, and according to his knowl
edge of the nature of woman, he goes for her rights;
but as he derives his knowledge from the Bible,
ought we to wonder that it falls so deplorably
short? Not in the least. I should wonder if, with
his belief in the Bible, he went for woman’s perfect
equality with man, or for human rights, without
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
27
distinction of sex, country or color. Oh! but he told
us that in comparison to other countries and ages,
woman is treated very kindly! The Mohammedan
has been instanced; and we were told that woman
was found there holding the plow. Dreadful! I
can point you to Christian countries where the hus
band smokes his pipe while the wife plows the
land.
[Mr. Turner said, in Mohammedan countries the
woman has to draw the plow, not hold it.]
Well, I can point you to Christian countries for
the same. Go to Christian Germany, and you will
find many a wife plow the ground; and where they
have no horses she has to do it without, and reap
the harvest, and carry it home on her broken back,
while her husband sits and smokes his pipe. But
where he is not too lazy to work, I don’t see any
great hardship that the wife should help him, even
at the plow, if she can do it, only he ought to be
with her if he can. I should prefer to have my
husband with me. (Laughter.) But if a husband
is not able to do his work, or attend to his business,
Oh! what delight it would give a true woman,
how it would rouse her generous feelings, and fill
her with tender emotions, were she able to do the
work for him, or to attend to their busmess, and
take the corroding care and anxiety about the busi
ness going to wreck and rum off his mind, and by
her own exertion provide the necessaries and com
forts for him she loved! Yes, loved, not by arbitrary
command, but by the force of the law of attraction
and affinity. (Great applause.) Love her husband!
�28
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
I don’t think that the wife has any right or any
business to love her husband. The Bible does not
command the wife to love her husband at all; this
command was only given to the husband to love his
wife; the wife has only to obey, that is all. Well,
though we cannot be made to love by force, it is
quite clear we may be made to obey by force; any
slave can tell you that, and so can a wife, according
to the Bible—Sarah for instance. (Laughter.
The Bible husbands Mr. Turner spoke of framed
the laws for woman; hence she is so well protected.
Blackstone tells us—and he must have taken his
ideas of right from the Bible—that the husband
and the wife are one, and that one is the husband.
(Laughter.) That is according to the common law
of England, and common enough it is, mercy
knows ; but from these common laws we have our
laws regulating marriage; and yet it must be right,
for it is according to the Bible; the husband and
wife become one, and that one is the husband, and,
therefore, whatever the wife possesses becomes the
husband’s, for they are one, says the Bible and
Blackstone, except when the wife violates a law of
the land, then they become two again, for instead
of hanging the husband, they hang the wife.
(Laughter.) But Mr. Turner will tell us that even
that is better than something worse. (Laughter.) Is
it not so? (Laughter.) Well, I suppose it is. (Ap
plause.) That in more barbarous ages and countries
woman was treated more barbarously; and who lias
a desire to deuy it ? Not I. But what does it prove ?
Anything ? Oh! yes, it proves that man is always a
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
29
child before he is grown to be a man; not only is that
true with the individual man, but with the race; that
the race was not born civilized any more than indi
vidual man is ever born in the full maturity of
strength and mind, and that in more barbarous
ages we acted more barbarously than in more civil
ized ages (applause), which proves the truth of my
position, that man always acts according to the
knowledge and civilization he possesses. Last
evening we had a full illustration of it (laughter
and applause) ; for it is an unmistakable fact, that
just according as man is civilized does he treat wo
man. (Applause.)
And would you know the
amount of civilization in a country, look at the
position woman occupies, and you will find that in
proportion as she has her rights equal with man, so
is the nation civilized, and in proportion as they are
denied her, so are they yet in a state of barbarity,
no matter by what name they may exist. The
position of woman is a living index of the state of
civilization; they go hand in hand. And as man
becomes more civilized, through the cultivation of
the art and sciences, and has his taste more refined,
his sentiments more elevated, is more capable to
appreciate the beautiful, better to understand the
nature and laws that govern man, the relation he
sustains to his fellow-man, human rights and happi
ness, the aim and end of human existence, so does
he act more rational and more consistent, and wo
man, of course, occupies a more rational and consist
ent position in the scale of society.
But what have we to thank for it ? Christianity
�30
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
or the Bible’? Then let us see how much Christi
anity has done to promote civilization, how much it
has done for the arts and sciences. Go to the Bible,
and you will find it opposed to all the arts, sciences,
happiness, and life itself. Worldly wisdom, knowl
edge, and happiness are called, in Bible language,
“ the enemies of man.” “ Life is only a vale of
tears,” only a gloomy passage to stumble through,
fight with the devil, die, and go up to sing halle
lujah, or down to roast, for the gratification of
those in heaven. What need, then, for arts and
sciences’? They would not be required there.
(Cries of hear, hear.) That is the whole Bible esti
mate of human life, and hence Christianity has ever
opposed every art and science, as the light of knowl
edge and progress forced it upon society. (Cries of
hear, hear.) These facts are too well known to
require any illustration to confirm the truth of
the statement. Astronomy, geology, physiology,
chemistry, the art of printing, education, even, all
has been opposed by the priests, and they found
their authority in the Bible to warn the people
against innovations, against worldly wisdom, to
attach them to this life, and lead them away from
heaven, as emanations from the devil. (Cries of
hear, hear, and applause.) Reason is held up by the
Bible as An enemy to man, a false guide, that will
lead him to perdition; human virtues are called
“filthy ragsfaith, only faith in things unseen and
unknown will save him. Yet we have to thank the
Bible and Christianity for the little civilization,
rights, and happiness we enjoy, when every step
�MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
31
we have taken, every inch of ground we have
gained, was hi direct opposition to it. My very
standing here is in opposition to it. (Applause.)
But I will leave this subject, though my heart and
head are full with it, and go to some other evi
dence that the Bible must be by divine inspiration;
and, as a proof we are told in the Bible that after
God created the world and had pronounced it to be
good, he found out he had made a mistake, for not
only was it not good, but he found it so bad that it
repented the Lord that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart, and he swore
he would destroy it again.
“ And God saw that the wickedness of man was
great in the earth, and that every imagination of
the thoughts of his heart was only evil continu
ally,” and, consequently, he brought the flood to
destroy all flesh; but as if afraid lest he might not
succeed hi making the animal portion over again, he
adopted the very prudent plan of preserving a pair
of each kind as stock in hand to commence the
world anew with. I think the construction of the
ark, with its numberless compartments to accomo
date the vast number and variety of animals that
have existed, from the polar bear, the giraffe, the
elephant, through all gradations, down to the musquito, the flea, and the fly, must be a proof of
divine inspiration! As for how they were all
brought together, I can see no other way than the
angel Gabriel must have called them together with
his trumpet. (Laughter.) However, after the
flood was all over, and Father Noah built an altar,
�32
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
and brought a nice fat little lamb as a sacrifice,
then the Lord smelled the sweet savor, and it
repented him that he destroyed the world, and
he said in his heart that he would not curse the
ground any more for man’s sake, “ for the imagina
tion of his heart is evil from his youth.” Thus the
same reason that made him repent that he had
made man, and induced him to destroy the world,
namely, that the “ imagination of the thoughts of
the heart of man being evil continually,” induced
him, after the flood, to promise Noah that he would
never destroy it again, namely, “for the imagination
of his heart is evil from his youth.” But we must
remember that the sweet savor of the freshlyburned offerings of the fowls, and the beasts, and
the creeping things was so irresistible to God’s
nostrils, that it put him in such a good humor, that
in spite of the wickedness of man’s heart, he resolved
not to destroy him agam.
(Laughter and ap
plause.)
Let no one say that we ridicule the Bible, for it
is utterly impossible to ridicule a thing so sublimely
ridiculous as the whole account of the flood in the
Bible. Just see the position the Bible places its
God in. He created man, pronounced him good,
found him bad, repented for having created him,
resolved to destroy, not only him, but the whole
animal and vegetable creation, then repented again
of having done it, and resolved never to do it again.
Would any of you like to be placed hi so ridiculous
a position? (Cries of no, and laughter.) Yet this
God, the same book tells us, possesses all wisdom,
�MRS. E. L. BOSE ON THE BIBLE.
33
all knowledge, and all goodness. It is almost an in
sult to common sense to talk about believing in such
stuff and nonsense. (Applause.) The head and
the heart, or reason and affection, have always been
libelled by the Bible; for the writers and priestly
interpreters knew but too well if reason and affec
tion were consulted, the Bible would be left alone,
for in it there is food neither for head nor heart;
it has nearly famished and destroyed both. The
wars, the slavery, the intolerance, the vices and
crimes it inculcated, are so many plague-spots on
human society, and will never be entirely effaced
as long as that book is consulted as authority and
guide for man. But Mr. Turner said, it was not at
all inconsistent that the Lord commanded war, for
have not we, as a nation, had war? Yes, we had
war, and all the more shame for it; but does our
having war make it right ? But suppose it were
right for one nation to make war upon another
nation, can that be an excuse for God to make war
upon his children ? For are not all men his chil
dren? We are told he created all men ; if so, all
must be his children. Oh! yes ; but then the impar
tial Father had chosen a few as his favorites, and
commanded them to extirpate all other nations—the
Midianites, Canaanites, and all the other ites that
existed around them, and take their lands as their
possessions. Were these ites, then, not his children ? Had not the Lord created the Midianites,
Canaanites, and all the rest of the ites the Bible tells
us of? And yet the Bible says, “Thus saith the
Lord; go and slay and extirpate, and spare not
�34
MRS. E. L. ROSE OX THE BIBLE.
man or woman, old or young,” except such as they
could make useful to gratify their brutal passions
and appetites. This is said to be the word of God!
Well, I care not whose word it is; most em
phatically do I protest against it as an outrage on
humanity, for my whole heart, mind, and soul
revolts against such barbarity. (Applause.) [A
Voice — Amen.]
[Another Voice — When the
Egyptian power became corrupt, and oppressed the
Israelites, did not God command them to refuse
obedience ?] Oh! yes ; he told his chosen children
to refuse obedience to Pharaoh, another child of his.
And what did this kind and impartial Father (for
God, we are told, is impartial) do to induce his dis
obedient child Pharaoh to set his favorites free ?
Why, he sent Moses to tell him to let them go, and
at the same time he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so
that he might not send them out, so that he might
have the pleasure to punish him, and send him the
plagues for not doing what he would not allow
him to do. And yet Pharaoh, I believe, was made
of flesh, bone, and muscles, the same as all other
men, and therefore the Lord must have made him,
for we are told that he created all flesh. Yes, the
Father hardened the heart of one child to enslave
some of his other children, and they again in turn,
to massacre and extirpate some others again.
(Laughter.) Is this not a beautiful characteristic
of the God of the Bible ? He created all men as
his children, but could not manage them, so he
chose a few as his favorites—I am sure no one can
tell for what particular merits—and set them at
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
85
loggerheads, to fight and destroy each other. I
should be sorry if an earthly parent could not man
age his children better than that. Again, the Bible
says God created man and woman, and placed them
m the garden of Eden, in the midst of which he
placed a tree with tempting fruit on it, of which he
forbade the man to eat; and he also created a ser
pent, which he permitted to go and tempt the
woman to partake of this very forbidden fruit.
Well, did he not know when he placed them there,
and placed the tree there, and sent the serpent to
tempt them—for the Bible tells us that nothing is
done without his permission—that poor mother Eve
would partake of it, and as a faithful wife, finding
the fruit was so good, that she would induce her
husband to partake of it too ? If he knew all this
—and he must have known, for the Bible tells us
that God is omniscient—and he did not wish them
to eat of the tree of knowledge, then why did he
place it there? or placing it there, why did he
allow the serpent to tempt them?
Or why
create them so weak, and with such a taste for fruit,
or rather for knowledge, so as to be unable to with
stand the temptation? If the Bible could only
speak, it might give some satisfactory answer to all
these important questions, for I am sure no one
else can. (Applause.) [A Voice—Woman is so
weak now as to be tempted.]
Mrs. Rose—Very likely; I am sorry he made her
so weak, and created a tempter to tempt her.
(Laughter.) Yes, she is weak enough, or she
would not be so deluded by the Bible and its inter
�36
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
prefers the priests. (Applause.) Well, then, poor
Adam and Eve did eat the forbidden fruit, as they
could do no otherwise under the circumstances.
What then ? Did their heavenly Father correct
them for their first disobedience, the same as any
earthly parent would, and induce them to do better
after that ? Oh! no! curses and heavy penalties
were pronounced against them, and not only against
them for life, but on the whole unborn race to come
after them. (Cries of hear, hear.) This is Bible
justice and Bible mercy. [A Voice from the gallery
—Hear, blasphemy.] Blasphemy! Oh! yes, blas
phemy has ever been the cry against progress, and
opposition to superstition. This was the cry of the
old Pope against the ancient Luther, and this is the
cry of the modern Popes against the modern
Luthers. (Applause.) But it has lost its power
now, and has become harmless. (Applause.) Yes,
only the God of the Bible, mercy and justice, could
have pronounced an eternal curse on an unborn race
for the first fault committed by the first two chil
dren. Is there an imagination black enough to
conceive of a more inhuman and atrocious spirit
than that *? If there were any meaning in the term
blasphemy, then it would be the greatest blasphemy
to ascribe such revolting deeds to any power or
being deserving the name of the most ordinary
goodness. (Applause.) But what was the nature
of the curse ? Why, Adam should have to plow
the ground and cultivate the earth. Well, I don’t
know how it might have been had they remained
in their blissful paradisaic ignorance, but I doubt
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON TIIE BIBLE.
37
very much if corn, potatoes, and all the other good
things, would have grown without cultivation.
(Laughter.) But perhaps the two inhabitants of
Eden might not have required such gross, material
food. But it always puzzled me to know, that if
Adam and Eve had not sinned by tasting that nnfortunate apple, what would have become of the
rest of creation ? We are told that every thing was
created for man; God gave man dominion over
every thing; but if they had not tasted of knowl
edge they could not have had dominion over any
thing, nor made use of any thing; they were too
ignorant even to use a fig-leaf, (laughter), so that
the whole object of creation would have been lost,
were it not for mother Eve’s desire for knowledge.
(Applause.) For knowledge is power, of which
even God seemed to be afraid; for as soon as he
found that they had tasted of the tree of knowledge,
he drove them out of the garden, lest they should
partake of the tree of life, too, “ and become like
one of us”—us, who?
Why, Gods! So there must have been more
than one of them. And so jealous was he even of
the little knowledge they possessed—knowing that
after man once tastes of knowledge he will not be
satisfied till he has more—so he placed angels with
fiery swords at all the gates to fight poor man off
from the tree of knowledge and of life. Thus poor
man has ever since had to fight, step by step, and
inch by inch, for the little knowledge, happiness,
and life he enjoyed; for everywhere he encountered
the sworn enemy of knowledge and of life—the God
�38
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
Of the Bible—with his fiery swords. (Applause.)
Some of those heavenly guardians must have been
here last evening, hence I had to fight pretty hard
for my right to utter my convictions; for by free
dom of speech only do we arrive at knowledge and
truth. (Applause.) Yet Mr. Turner told us that
we have to thank the Bible for the rights and
privileges we enjoy. Indeed! Had your fathers,
before they cast off the British yoke, consulted the
Bible on the subject, they would never have revolted
at all. The Bible does not allow revolt. Revolu
tionists have always been considered as unbelievers
and Infidels by Bible interpreters, whose interest it
is to keep man in subjection and ignorance; for the
Bible injunction is, “Oppose not those in author
ity,” “ Submit to the powers that be, for they are of
God.” Had the people of Boston, when they con
verted their harbor into a tea-pot, because the tax
ation imposed on them was too heavy, gone to the
Bible for advice, they would have paid on and
groaned on to all eternity, for the Bible would have
told them, “ Give unto Caesar the things that be
long to Caesar.”
What a fallacy, then, to talk about the freedom
that comes from the Bible! The little knowledge
and freedom we possess we have in opposition to
and in spite of the Bible, and particularly we, my
sisters.
The Bible and the priests have done
enough to keep us down; it is high time to rise
above both of them. My very appearing here to
raise my voice in behalf of freedom and humanity
is contrary to the Bible; but the desire Nature has
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
39
implanted in me for knowledge and freedom is mor e
powerful than the injunctions of a superstitious
book. Humanity is older than the Bible, and
human rights are as old as humanity. (Applause.)
And therefore I claim for woman equal rights with
man. I claim them, not as a grant, or charity, bu
as our birthright. (Applause.) Humanity has
not come into existence with chains and shackles
but free as the breath of heaven (applause), to
develop human nature as it ought to be—free to
think, feel, and act, always keeping in mind not to
interfere with the same rights in others. Human
rights in elude the rights of all, not only man, bu
woman, not only white, but black; wherever there
is a being called human, his rights are as full and
expansive as his existence, and ought to be without
limits or distinction of sex, country, or color. (Ap
plause.) And only ignorance, superstition, and
tyranny—both the basis and influence of the Bible
—deprive him of it. Mr. Turner, in alluding to my
remark of belief, said I found fault with the Bible
because it said, “ He that believeth shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned,” and
that I said the writer of that sentiment was utterly
ignorant of the nature of man and the formation of
belief. Yes, I did; and I illustrated my position
by showing how easy it is to make a child believe
that what we call black is white, or any other false
hood as truth, and that he could die in support of
it; and black would not be white, nor falsehood truth.
“ But” said Mr. Turner, “ you could not make a
child believe that black was white, if you had told
�40
MRS, E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
him first that it was black?’ No, certainly not,
because you have already made him believe it is
black, which just proves my position. The child
being ignorant of it, will believe whatever you call it
first, and if you teach it a falsehood before it had a
chance to know any thing about the truth, it will
call that falsehood truth. Thus Mohammedans do
not teach their children Christianity before Moham
medanism, nor do Christians teach their children
Mohammedanism, or any other ism, before Christi
anity, so as to give them a chance to judge for
themselves. Oh! no! each of them teaches his
children to believe in his ism only, as truth, and in
every other other ism only, as truth, and in every
other ism as false; and if they never have a chance
to examine, compare notes, and judge for them
selves, each may die in support of the truth of his
ism. And yet one of these isms must be false, or
both may be false, and both sincerely defended as
truth. And therefore there can be no merit in a
belief, nor demerit in disbelief; and he who wrote
that irrational sentence, “He that believeth shall
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be
damned,” was utterly ignorant of the formation of
the human mind. Mr. Turner agreed with me that
in after-life, when we are able to compare and
judge, belief depends on evidence. “ But,” said he,
“evidence of Christianity was given to every one,
for Christ told his disciples to go and preach the
gospel to every creature.” But suppose Moses, Mo
hammed, Christ, and the nine thousand nine hun
dred and ninety-nine other Christs that have existed,
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
41
each had said the same to his disciples, Go and preach
my gospel, and he that believeth in it shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned, and yet
the evidence can at best be in favor only of one, and
most probably of none. What, then, must they
damn each other all around?
(Laughter.) As
rational beings they ought to say, If the evidence
brought to bear on any subject is strong enough to
convince the mind, it elicits an assent or belief; if it
is not strong enough to convince the mind, it elicits
no assent, and we cannot believe; and the evidence
that is strong enough to convince one mind may not
be strong enough to convince another, and every
one has a right to judge for himself whether an
evidence is strong enough or not, and no one has
a right to judge for him. (Cries of hear, hear.)
How irrational and unjust it is to punish for
belief at all, and still more so to punish eternally for
a fault of a moment! For what is life to eternity ?
Who of you, for the disobedience of a child, who
would not believe in something you told him, even
if you thought he could believe, but would not,
would have the inhumanity to punish it, not only
for life, but (had you the power) for all eternity ?
No, not the lowest and the meanest in the scale of
humanity. (Applause.) Yet this is the Bible ac
count of the justice and mercy of its God. (Cries
of hear, hear.)
In Revelation we have some glorious accounts
of the happiness the saints will enjoy in singing
hymns of praise while the smoke of those in hell
will rise up to their nostrils. (A little disturbance in
�42
MBS. E. L. ROSE ON TIIE BIBLE.
the gallery and—A Voice—That is correct.) Mak
ing some little mistake in pronouncing a word, Mrs.
Rose, in correcting herself, said—I hope you will
have charity for any little mistake I may make in
the language, remembering that I am speaking in a
foreign language. (Hissing, and a Voice called out,
“I hope Mrs. Rose will assume the name of Man,
for she will be an honor to our sex.”)
My friends, no one can fathom the depths of the
pernicious effect, the incalculable mischief of this
false, this horrid doctrine, that man can be happy
while he sees another man in misery. Nature has
indelibly written it on the heart of man, in language
not to be misunderstood, “that no man can be
happy while he sees another man in misery.”
(Applause.) This is a truism that changes not
with age, climate, or condition; the idea that man
could be happy in heaven while he would be con
scious of the torments and miseries his fellow-man
was suffering, is a libel on human nature, for man
cannot be happy while he sees another in misery.
The little comparative happiness we enjoy is owing
to the fact that we can, hi a great measure, shut
out the miseries of others by shutting our doors
and sitting down by our own comfortable firesides,
and for the time being forget every thing connected
with others. But place man in a condition here or
hereafter where he shall not be able to close his
doors and shut misery out—where he shall have
constant consciousness of every thing that exists,
and see his brother man—Ah! “ the flesh of his
flesh, and the bone of his bone”—suffering unspeak
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
43
able torments, and he, with his human feelings and
sympathies, unable to help him, and think you he
could enjoy happiness ? Would he feel like sing
ing hymns of praise ? No! it is as false as it is
obnoxious to every better feeling—(applause)—and
the writer of this sentence, I care not who he was,
from above or below, was utterly ignorant of the
nature of man, and the principles of humanity. (A
V oice—“ True.”)
Upon such a principle is based the system of iso
lation, and all the evils that man has inflicted on
man, and he will have to come back from that false
idea—for if happiness is ever to be enjoyed by man,
he must endeavor to form a state of society where
misery, sin, and suffering shall be done away,
where all shall enjoy happiness or none will; for it
is the nature of man, that as long as misery comes
within his sight or his hearing so long must he feel
it. (Applause.) Could you listen to the recital of
the sufferings in Rome and in Hungary—the in
justice, and cruelties, and tyranny perpetrated on
your fellow-man, in far distant lands, without feel
ing every nerve stirred within you with indigna
tion against the perpetrators, and a strong desire to
assist the poor sufferers ? And,for the time being
could you be happy ? No! for the sympathy that
unites man to man would not permit it. (Ap
plause.) It did not last long, it is true, for in our
isolated state we can shut all these things out,
because they are painful to us, and this very fact
proves my assertion. But if we had the miseries
and sufferings of others ever before our eyes, life
�44
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
would become a burden, and we would not wish to
live. And yet the Bible doctrine is, that the spirit
of man—the refined, the purified, the divine part of
his nature—can enjoy happiness, while those near
est and dearest to him in life, perhaps his friend,
brother, sister, father, mother, husband, wife, or
child, will suffer endless torments, and he know it
and unable to help them, and yet enjoy happiness.
Every principle of humanity proclaims it a false
hood. In such a position he would be a thousand
times more miserable than he is here, unless his
nature should be changed, and then he would no
longer be man. (Great applause.)
There is that horrible parable of Lazarus and
Dives.
I don’t know any particular fault of
Dives, for we are told he had not committed any
great sin; it is true, he was rich, but all riches, we
are told, come from God. (Laughter.) Nor are we
told of any great virtues in Lazarus, except that he
was poor and sick, and I am sure he would not
have been so, if he could have helped it. (Laugh
ter.) Yet Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom—what
a bosom Abraham must have, to accommodate all the
poor and sick!—while poor Dives was in torments
and agony, and when he asked for one drop of
water to cool his parched tongue, it was refused
him. Nay, he begged to send a message to his
brother to induce him to be a better man, so as to
avoid a similar fate; but this, too, was refused to
him. Oh! what glad tidings the Bible doctrine is
to man ! (Applause.)
To a sensitive human
nature such a heaven would be worse than any hell
�MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
45
that has ever been described—(applause)-and as long
as man is deluded into the belief of such a heaven,
will we be prevented from forming a real heaven
here, for it has all but stifled every kindly feeling
and sensation within us.
It has cramped and
crippled us, mentally and morally; it has prevented
us from inquiring into the laws best adapted for the
well-training and well-governing of man. The
eternal law of kindness should be the only law,
sympathy the only bond, the great seal of humanity
the only compact, between man and man. No
other gospel is required to bind man to his brother.
This simple law is deduced directly from the in
herent laws of human nature, which some call God.
The Friends call it the light within; I call it the
principle, or law of humanity, which, if man were
not perverted by false creeds and doctrines, would
teach every man that natural golden rule, Do unto
others as you would they should do unto you.
(Applause.) This is my faith! Is that not broad
enough ? Give me a broader, and I will accept it.
(Applause.) Humanity! Oh! that I had words to
express my feelings at the contemplation of it! I
feel a gushing of love within me beyond the power
of utterance, not only for mankind, but for all that
are capable of feeling pleasure and pain. Human
ity’s laws only can ever make man a high and noble
being—higher, more elevated, and nobler far than we
have ever yet conceived the gods to be. (Great
applause.)
The President moved a vote of thanks to Mrs.
Rose for her address, when she said,
I thank you for the attention you have paid to
�46
MRS. E. L. ROSE ON THE BIBLE.
my views and feelings, and without a vote of
thanks I deem myself richly paid for my coining
here, and my efforts in the cause of humanity. In
the pleasure I received in being able to speak the
thoughts that have pressed upon me for utterance,
I am richly paid in being able to do what I deem
my highest duty to do. (Applause.)
The President repeated the motion, and a vote of
thanks was given to Mrs. Rose.
�THE INVESTIGATOR.
THE OLDEST OF THE REFORM JOURNALS.
The “Investigator” is devoted to Universal Mental
Liberty. Independent in all its discussions, discarding
superstitious theories of what never can be known, it
devotes its columns to things of this world alone, and
leaves the next, if there be one, to those who have entered
its unknown shores. Believing it is the duty of mortals
to work for the interests of f/n's tcorZd, it confines itself to
things of this life entirely.
PRICE, $3.00 PER YEAR.
THOMAS PAINE’S WRITINGS.
For sale at the Office of the Boston Investigator, Paine Memorial
Building, Appleton Street, Boston, Mass.
Sent free of postage on receipt of price.
THE COMPLETE WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE, Secre
tary to the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the
American Revolution. Three volumes, consisting
of his Political, Theological, and Miscella
neous Writings. To which is added a Sketch of
his Life.
Price, $7.00
THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE,
with a Brief Sketch of the Author’s Life. A new
edition with additions. 2 vols.
Price, $5.00
THEOLOGICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS
OF THOMAS PAINE. The most complete edition
ever published, — containing his Age of Reason,
and all his writings on Theology, with many Mis
cellaneous and Political Pieces, and his Letters to
Washington.
Price, $2.50
COMMON SENSE, a Revolutionary Pamphlet, ad
dressed to the inhabitants of America, 1776, by
Thomas Paine.
Price, paper, .20
RIGHTS OF MAN: being an Answer to Mr. Burke’s
Attack on the French Revolution, By Thomas
Paine.
Price, $1.00
�STANDARD LIBERAL WORKS.
THE LETTERS TO EUGENIA; or, A Preservative against
Religious Prejudice. By Baron D’Holbacii, author of
the “System of Nature,” etc. Translated from the
French by Anthony C. Middleton, M.D. Price,
$1.00; postage, 16 cts.
GOOD SENSE. By Baron D’Holbach. A new edition
of this truly valuable book has just been issued, and is
now ready for purchasers. Friends who want “Good
Sense’’ (and who does not?) can have a supply sent
by mail and by forwarding their orders. Priced post
paid, $1.00.
A LEGACY TO THE FRIENDS OF FREE DISCUSSION;
being a Review of the Principles, Historical Facts, and
Personages of the Books known as the Old and New
Testaments; with remarks on the Morality of Nature.
By Benjamin Offen, formerly Lecturer of the Society
of Moral Philanthropists, at Tammany Hall, New York.
Price, 75 cts. ; postage, 16 cts.
LETTERS TO THE CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BOSTON.
Proving that the Roman Catholic Religion is opposed
to a Republican form of Government. By an Indepen
dent Irishman. Price, 15 cts.
INTEMPERATE DRINKING ; An Expose of the Crimes of
this Vice, and the means by which it may be obviated.
By Thomas Herttell, of New York City. Published
by order of the New York Society for the Promotion of
Internal Improvement, 1819. Republished by order
of the will of Mrs. Barbara Amelia Herttell, 1867.
Price, 15 cts.
ANTIQUITY AND DURATION OF THE WORLD. By the
learned Dr. G. Toulmin. Price, 25 cts.
EQUALITY ; or, a History of Lithconia. Price, 15 cts.
ELEGANT EXTRACTS from the Holy Bible. Price, 10 cts.
�
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
Two addresses delivered by Mrs Ernestine L. Rose at the Bible Convention, held in Hartford (Conn.) in June 1854 : being her replies to the Rev. Mr. Turner accompanied with comments on the unreasonable character of the Bible
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: 46, [2] p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Running title: Mrs E.L. Rose on the Bible. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
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
1888
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N558
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 (Two addresses delivered by Mrs Ernestine L. Rose at the Bible Convention, held in Hartford (Conn.) in June 1854 : being her replies to the Rev. Mr. Turner accompanied with comments on the unreasonable character of the Bible), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
Bible-Criticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6259e6a37be1ba17f47cf3de61e04718.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=GDg7oEA9l3BVAvwjIKGcHWYP3jFNdnaZocC6o077wvD863zALHBkryRE5zgilLLYr3WkWioCEn6fT7SOZ0P2cCLWbobxLqU4MDxM7L%7ECMrmcqitKWsCWKZgW3j8sH8CtGBZv5dmVPEPJdqdv%7EI8oqdPuSg2ND-jmWE0xTjQqI%7ETGLt2pbq40F5P8gJsf8O-yedocLSkjjP5UsgTeXxe2%7EwSELc9TRy3ZAT04Jh3VOBTiHWYJ2wAZyTvPkEBJXpoB--AD%7E1%7EFII68s95ji6J%7EwGGqEQzBOklEezQuFmF1zU7UCRQJqzf3oOsYc00lUub0qU0RCuw%7E-tnrRNzRf%7EO1vQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
4d60279bb388b2a71cd6a9f993f8e2d5
PDF Text
Text
THE
QUESTION OF METHOD
’AS affecting
RELIGIOUS THOU.GHT.
BY
A CLERGYMAN
of the
CHURCH
of
ENGLAND.
OiiK alcrxpbv
3i?ra ret
\eyeiv ;
Owe, et rb trcodrivai ye rb tyevtios ipepei.
To speak untruly—dost not think it shame ?
Not when we fare the better for the same.
Sophocles Philoctetes.
f
PUBLISHED BY 'THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E. '
1873.
Price Threepence.
��THE QUESTION OF METHOD
AS AFFECTING
RELIGIOUS THOUGHT.
HENCE comes the possibility of that strange
fact,—strange indeed, yet in the present day
by no means unfrequent,—that men having like
opportunities and abilities come to utterly diverse
conclusions on religious subjects? You may note,
say for example, two brothers, each possessed of un
usual talents, starting from the same early training,
each animated by a pure zeal for truth, one of whom,
through whatever wanderings, holds fast at least by
the great doctrines of Christianity, while the other
leaves all orthodox belief far behind him. For—
wonder at the fact if you will—we are constrained
to admit that men do doubt and disbelieve every
Christian dogma, who, whatever judgment may here
after be passed upon them, live, so far as human eye
can see, not less pure or upright lives than the most
strenuous upholders of the faith. How can these
things be ? How can two men, both sane and
sound, affirm of the same fountain, the one that its
waters are sweet, the other that they are bitter ?
Christianity is true or it is false. That is to say,
those occurrences on which all orthodox bodies
■ found their religion have historically happened
or they have not. The issue is a simple one, and one
W
�4
The Question of Method
might suppose that honest men who wished for
nothing but the truth would have little difficulty in
arriving at a similar conclusion one way or other.
Yet we find that men apparently possessed of honesty,
ability and learning, hold contrary opinions on the
subject. The object of the present paper is to point
out the broad beaten road which leads to orthodoxy,
and also the narrow thorny path which ends in un
belief.
Now if in studying the same subject inquirers
arrive at opposite conclusions, either they must start
from different premises, or they must adopt a different
method of inquiry. Obviously, starting from different
premises is a fruitful source of difference in religious
as in other matters. Thus in disputes between a
Christian and an unbeliever the former will often
base his arguments upon biblical texts, forgetting that
the other will by no means accept them as conclusive.
The one starts from the premiss that the Bible affords
an infallible source of information, the truth of which
the other denies. Such an argument often ends in
mere bitterness, as the parties do not see that there is
no common ground between them on which the argu
ment may rest. Or if they consent to go deeper, and
discuss the proposition which to one side formed
the premiss of the previous argument, yet again they
fail to find common ground, and therefore to appear
reasonable to each other. Now the source of the
difference must surely be this, that they approach the
subject in a different spirit: each adopts a different
method of inquiry. I believe the most common
method used by the orthodox party is that of assuming
some one point,—as the authority of the Church, or
of the Bible,—and then arguing from that. This
method, however, labours under the disadvantage
mentioned above. However satisfactory it may be
to the individual who accepts it, it cannot enable him
to convince unbelievers. Such a method may even to
�as Affecting Religious Thought.
5
some extent be open to the charge brought against it
by uncivil persons of being a petitio principii.
To those who endeavour to go to the root of the
Blatter, there are, as far as I can see, but two methods
which they can use as instruments of thought, between
which they must take their choice. I shall call these
the emotional method and the critical method.
These may be briefly characterised as follows :
The former method accepts an explanation simply
as satisfactory to the mind: it does not seek to compars or test further: it rests on intimate conviction.
The critical method, on the contrary, mistrusts every
hypothesis until verified ; if an explanation seem pro
bable in itself, it is not allowed to rest there: it is
brought face to face with other facts and theories, and
questioned as to its agreement with them; it is, in
short, tested in every conceivable way, and not
accepted unless it can endure the trial. The critical
method is based on verification.
I shall now endeavour to show that while the latter
method has its value—perhaps is the only one of any
value—in scientific inquiries, the emotional method
alone can lead to orthodox results in religious inves
tigations.
In ancient times the critical method was almost or
quite unknown. Whatever men wished to explain,
from the genesis of the earth and the human race
to the derivation of a word, was explained out of
hand, and evolved with child-like confidence out of
the mind of the explainer. When Pindar told of the
birth of Ajax (Aias), he derived the name from
aleros (aietos) an eagle. It was enough for him that
the first two letters corresponded in each word, and
that the explanation seemed to him a probable one.
When Eve bare her first-born she called his name
Cain, and said I have gotten (from the verb hanah,
to get) a man. There was a sufficient resemblance
between Kain and kanah ; although, according to the
�6
The Question of Method
critical method, Cain would seem to have been a
smith (pp) by name, although not in trade, and
Cain’s sons were smiths. These two examples will
suffice to show the principle on which names were
anciently derived. But a similar method was em
ployed in other and more important matters. In
order to illustrate this, perhaps the reader will allow
me to tell him a story out of Philo. An animal is
placed on the list of those allowed to be eaten in
Levit. xi. 22, which our translators, for some myste
rious reason, call “ beetle,” and which the Septuagint
version as unaccountably renders ophiomachus, ser
pent-fighter. Now Philo had already proved to his
satisfaction that the Serpent which tempted Eve was
pleasure. Therefore the reason why this ophioma
chus was recommended for the Jewish table was
plain. “For,” says he, “this ophiomachus seems to
me to be nothing else than temperance symbolically,
which wages endless war against intemperance and
pleasure.” I was charmed when I read this passage,
for nothing could more evidently set forth the advan
tages of the emotional method. See how beautifully
the old worthy works it out! The otpiopaxys, which
he lit on in his Septuagint, fitted into the theory he
was constructing, just like a long-sought, queer-cor
nered bit in a child’s puzzle-map. Then what “ uses,”
what edification, proceed from this interpretation ?
What earthly meaning could there be in bidding the
Hebrews eat a particular sort of locust ? But when
you understand how the locust represents asceticism,
what light and interest is shed on the Mosaic com
mand I And to think that Philo and we should have
lost all this had he only been cursed with the very
smallest tincture of the critical method ! Had he
had any notion of verifying his facts, he would have
compared the Septuagint with the Hebrew version,
and thus have found that the name of the creature in
the original language has nothing to do with ser-
�as Affecting Religious thought,
7
penis, but means simply a leap er (chargol), and so
his theory would have fallen to pieces at once. For
tunately he was secure in the strength of his method ;
the inward satisfaction which he felt was ample proof
of the correctness of his position ; and as the Septuagint version suited him, why should he go further to
seek another which might not suit so well ? It would
be easy to multiply instances of the use of the emo
tional method from the writings of authors of all
ages ; but I forbear to quote further from uninspired
writers. To do so would seem to be the more unne
cessary, inasmuch as this method, and no other, was
employed by the writers of the Books contained in
the New Testament.
If this be shown, it will be obvious that those who
wish to hold to the faith which those holy men pro
mulgated must walk in their steps and use their
method. If we attempt to use the critical method in
the exegesis of the Bible, we commence by placing
ourselves at a point of view utterly different from
that at which its authors contemplated their subject;
and shall therefore understand it in a sense alien
from theirs. It is by so doing that so many writers
and others, whose learning and honesty of purpose
are beyond all question, have changed that which
Christians hold to be the Word of God into a collec
tion of more or less curious myths. When the New
Testament writers found a passage of the Hebrew
Scriptures which seemed to them to bear upon the
life of Christ, they assumed at once that it was in its
origin prophetic of him. For example, Matthew re
members the words of Hosea, “ Out of Egypt have
I called my Son.” The critical inquirer remembers
that the prophet was alluding to the Exodus of
Israel. To the Evangelist it is sufficient that these
words, taken apart from their context, serve to illus
trate his narrative. So little did the Evangelists and
Apostles care for such accuracy as is required by the
�8
The Question of Method
critical method, that their quotations from the older
Scriptures are often distortions of the words and
meaning of the originals, at least as these latter have
come down to us. I am not now writing a treatise
on prophecy, and it will be sufficient to request the
reader who may doubt my assertion to compare the
quotations in the New Testament with the prophecies
themselves ; he will often be able to detect the distor
tion, even if he has no knowledge of the original lan
guages. I may observe here that what has been said
holds true of the doctrine of Types. What critical
inquirer could ever believe that the narratives of the
brazen serpent, of David, Jonah, &c., have any refer
ence to Christ ? These stories are complete in them
selves as they stand in the Old Testament, and do not
require any further fulfilment. He alone who proceeds
always on the emotional method can perceive that the
fact that an older narrative may profitably be em
ployed to illustrate the life of Christ, justifies the
assumption that it was intended to do so. So im
pressed, however, were the Apostolic writers with
the truth of this doctrine, that they seemed to have
considered the Hebrew Scriptures as of little impor
tance for any other purpose. Thus Paul cares only
for the story of Isaac and Ishmael in so far as they
typify the Christian and Jewish churches, and for
that of the passage of the Red Sea as exemplifying
the doctrine of Baptism. When he reads the words,
“To Abraham and his seed were the promises made,”
he does not understand “ seed ” to refer to the de
scendants of the patriarch, as any critical student
would, but he insists upon applying it to Christ.
Indeed Paul is perhaps the most consistent of all the
New Testament writers in his exclusion of the critical
spirit. So much so, that he rests entirely on his
emotional convictions. He is far indeed from com
paring critically the accounts of the Resurrection.
He will not confer with flesh and blood. He rejects
�as Affecting Religious ’Thought.
9
all knowledge of Christ “ after the flesh his inner
belief, apart from all comparison with the convictions
of others, or verification from external facts, is suffi
cient for him.
It is impossible within the limits of the present
paper to do more than illustrate the position here
taken up by a few examples. But I feel no doubt
that any candid person who will consider those here
brought forward, and himself search the Scriptures
for others, will be convinced that the writers of the
books composing our Bible had not the very slightest
idea of the critical method, and would, could they
have understood it, have condemned it as unsuited to
their purposes. If this be so, let those who would
continue to think as the evangelists and prophets
thought, beware how they tamper with a method so
alien from their spirit.
At the risk of being tedious I must adduce another
example of the danger of deserting the emotional
method. Many such suggest themselves ; indeed the
adoption of the opposite method breaks up the Bible
in all directions, and leaves, in place of one homoge
neous infallible book, a collection of tales, most of
them of little historical value. I cannot, however, go
into this subject any further at present. The one
instance which follows may be sufficient to serve as a
caution to those who wish to stand in the paths of
orthodoxy in these slippery days.
The apparent contradictions in the Gospel narra
tives have driven our orthodox commentators into
great straits, except when they have got over a diffi
culty by omitting to notice it. They would, however,
find no difficulty at all if they had sufficient faith in
the emotional method, and forebore the attempt to
wield the weapons of their adversaries.
They need not fear lest they should fail to be secure
against doubts and disputations if they will be care
ful to avoid the critical method. When the critical
�io
The Question of Method
inquirer compares the different narratives of the life
of Christ, he finds, among other points of a similar
nature, that Jesus is said to have ascended to heaven
both from Bethany and also from a mountain in Galilee.
According to Matthew,—who is so far confirmed by
the narrative which closes the second Gospel as we
have it,—the disciples met the risen Christ by ap-.
pointment in Galilee. There Mark further informs
us that the Ascension took place, they having first
been charged to go at once (as it appears) and
teach all nations. In Luke, on the contrary, the
Eleven do not quit the immediate neighbourhood of
Jerusalem; nay, they are expressly charged not to do
so until they should be “ endued with power from on
high.” This account agrees with that given in Acts,
while John does not mention the Ascension at all.
Here we see plainly the effect of the comparing or
critical method. To one who adopts it, it seems im
possible that the disciples could both have remained
at Jerusalem for a considerable time, and also during
part of that very time have been in Galilee ; nor less
so that one and the same Ascension should have
taken place at Bethany and on a far distant moun
tain. The emotionalist, on the other hand, feels no
difficulty. To compare the different and differing
accounts in a critical spirit would be foreign to his
nature. Each several account satisfies and edifies
him, and he cares for nothing more. Should such an
one be pressed to the point by an unbeliever, he might
reply that the sojourn of the disciples at Jerusalem is
to be understood in a spiritual sense. They were
commanded to tarry at Jerusalem, that is, not to
break with the Jews and Jewish customs, until the
descent of the Holy Ghost. Eor the double site
assigned to the Ascension I have indeed no explana
tion to suggest; yet I am confident that the holy
ingenuity of a second Philo—who would care nothing
for historic truth and everything for spiritual edifica-
�as Affecting Religious 'Thought.
11
cation—would explain this also as triumphantly as
the first turned the leaping locust into a slayer of
allegorical serpents.
If the reader has done me the honour to follow my
arguments up to this point, it is ten chances to one
that he feels somewhat disposed to quarrel with my
position.
It is likely enough that he will ask whether the
critical method be not that by which all scientific
discoveries have been made, and all our knowledge of
historic truth obtained ; whether, if that be so, it be
not the right method to use in that inquiry which is
of all others most important; and whether in fact
many eminent writers on religious subjects have not
used that method and no other. To the last question
I reply, that I am not acquainted with the works of
any theologian who has successfully used the critical
method and at the same time kept within the confines
of orthodoxy; nor can I conceive it possible that
there should be such. There are, indeed, orthodox
writers who use with more or less success the critical
method throughout the bulk of their work; but, so
far as I know, they always start with one or more
assumptions which are arrived at by the emotional,
not the critical method. They assume the authority
of the Bible or of the Church ; the necessity of a
Divine revelation, and of its miraculous character;
the authenticity of the sacred writings on which they
rely; and other such points. Having made these
assumptions, or some of them, they may proceed to
deduce their conclusions from them by the critical
method. But the propositions on which their whole
subsequent reasoning is based are assumed, not as
critically demonstrated, but as appearing natural and
necessary to the mind of the writer. The super
structure may be critical, but the foundation is
emotional; and it is from the latter, not the former,
that the entire work must take its distinguishino1
character.
°
�12
The Question of Method
With regard to the other question, viz., whether
the critical method be not the better, and therefore
the right one to employ, it should be considered that
either method is an instrument for aiding us to attain
certain ends. We must choose the one best fitted for
our purpose. The critical method is an admirable
instrument for enabling us to ascertain truth of fact.
If we wish to acquaint ourselves with the probability
of a reported occurrence having really taken place or
otherwise, with no care whether we are led to the
affirmative or the negative conclusion, the critical
method will serve our turn. But—I am addressing
myself to those who are predetermined to preserve
their orthodox faith—is this desired ? The critical
method is very exacting. If we adopt it we must
take nothing for granted : we must not say I will
believe this because it satisfies my emotional needs ;
or because it is so conducive to public morality and
the peace of the individual mind. This method
binds us to the pursuit of truth pure and simple, un
influenced by any preconceived wish as to the result.
The emotional method, on the contrary, allows a man’s
feelings to determine his belief. If we adopt it we
shall never need to trouble ourselves with disagreeable
questions, such as, Do we know when and by whom
the Gospels were written ? Do they or do they not
contain numerous contradictory statements ? Are the
accounts therein given of the doings and sayings of
Christ in all cases to be relied upon as matters of
historical certainty ? and the like. These and many
such beset the path of the critical inquirer like im
portunate beggars, who will not be shaken off until
they have their answer. He whose first object is to
continue stedfast in his religious belief should refuse
altogether to enter upon such inquiries. To deal with
them candidly implies a wish to know the truth
rather than to continue orthodox ; and such a wish,
if acted on, is apt to be fatal to orthodoxy. The
�Affecting Religious Thought.
13
importance of inquiry after truth in religious matters
Bas been much overstated. An orthodox believer
should never inquire after truth ; he should assume
that he has it. The word truth is indeed occasionally
used in the Bible, yet always in a sense widely
different from that in which it is used by the modern
critic. Thus the Apostle says : “ We can do nothing
against the truth, but for the truthbut by truth he
means his own system of religious belief, the truth of
which he assumes, and which indeed is the only truth
for which he cares. So, again, Christians are bidden
searc i the Scriptures.” ' But it is implied, as I
have attempted to show, that they are to use a method
of search,—a mode of interpretation,—which certainly
would not lead to such truth as is sought by the man
©f science or modern historian.
I say again, let your wish to know truth always
stand second to your desire to continue orthodox;
otherwise there is much danger that your truth will
not be that of the Church or of the Bible. Should
any one say in reply to this : “ What is orthodoxy to
me ? I desire to know whether or not the religion I
have been taught to profess be really founded on fact.
If it be so, it will stand the severest testing by the
most rigorous method ; if not, I will none of it: ” to
such an one the arguments used in this paper are not
addressed. Let him go on his way, if he is sure he
has strength to follow it out: taking however this
warning with him. I have known those who have
acted as he proposes to act; who, starting with a more
or less orthodox belief, have insisted on subjecting it
to the critical method without fear or favour. The
consequence has been that they have found them
selves in the end stripped of most of those garments
with which their earliest instructors had invested
their minds, and, in some cases, with their worldly
prospects blasted. Let him then count the cost first,
lest having begun he should not dare to finish.
�The Question of Method, &e.
I turn for a concluding word to those who prize
their religious faith above all things : who know that
it brings them peace, comfort, and worldly prosperity;
and are not to be ousted from these solid advantages
by a sneer about honesty. Let such be careful to
abide by the emotional method, to take the satisfaction
which religion and religious books bring to their
minds as the surest—the only—basis of their belief.
The men of science have with their critical method
“ turned the world upside down ” as effectually as did
the Apostles of old. Beware then how you allow
yourselves to inquire on their method into the truth
of sacred narratives. Consider that faith is not as
robust as it was ; it now needs hot-house treatment:
it must be glazed, and warmed artificially, and kept
from rude scientific contact. Guard it from critical
thought as you do your exotic plants from frost.
Consider, a few degrees of cold will consign it to a
grave from which no coming spring can summon it
to resurrection.
�
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 question of method as affecting religious thought
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "By a Clergyman of the Church of England". From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT114
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The question of method as affecting religious thought), 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-Criticism and Interpretation
Conway Tracts
Religious Thought
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2121233032e6c2df4adb0c2dd455d7f0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mhUFQwE0kG1UKL3%7ETZFLveF2d0FkZbkLKV0cmSMeO59PbA9BhMgXTH8jxkHu0y4FVND8bx4lDXbaDYki3bL2w%7ED5Ie5tOgnKTXds1%7EUQBmsbtlEjKfxptYsUUkZoNysV39OdebE7no%7E129UrTcS6%7ETHILCB9R5g20-wK751UZnRYC4h7e0jD1kIaboCCes94T764BY6-ML3aPoqvZ-swVAiMaksEOqhCi2KQVBbhT%7Es7ghu3%7EI4qMeVeFcIQGysLsRP82LRs1TZcmwPrXRjxav2vU4ga2ZBBdrXlN4OTR9BCeX%7ERf%7EfCnrmrcuoP967kWkM1oL0UrbXoNEBgVgPROw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d1260c1aeb8077fc76e76445909f4465
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
WHAT THE OLD TESTAMENT SAYS
ABOUT ITSELF.
BY
JULIAN,
Author of “The Popular Faith Exposed,” “Bible Words: Human,
not Divine,” “The Pillars of the Church,” Etc.
ISSUED FOR THE
London :
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET St.
Price One Penny.
* ,
�OUR PROPAGANDIST PRESS COMMITTEE.
This Committee has been formed for the purpose of assisting in
the production and circulation of liberal publications.
The members of the Committee are Mr. G. J. Holyoake, Dr.
Bithell, Mr. F. J. Gould, Mr. Frederick Millar, and Mr. Charles
A. Watts.
It is thought that the most efficient means of spreading the
principles of Rationalism is that of books and pamphlets. Many
will read a pamphlet who would never dream of visiting a lecture
hall. At the quiet fireside arguments strike home which might
be dissipated by the excitement of a public debate. The lecturer
wins his thousands, the penman his tens of thousands.
The aim of the various writers will be to obtain converts by
persuasiveness rather than undue hostility towards the popular
creeds.
All who are in sympathy with the movement are earnestly re
quested to contribute towards the expenses as liberally as their
means will allow. The names of donors will not be published
without their consent.
On the 31st of January of each year a report and balance-sheet
will be forwarded to subscribers. The books of the Committee are
always accessible to donors.
Contributions should be forwarded to Mr. Charles A. Watts,
17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C. Cheques should
be crossed “ Central Bank of London, Blackfriars Branch.”
PUBLICATIONS ISSUED FOR THE COMMITTEE BY
MESSRS. WATTS & CO.
Agnostic Problems. Being an Examination of Some Questions
of the Deepest Interest, as Viewed from the Agnostic Standpoint.
By R. Bithell, B.Sc., Ph.D. Cheap Popular Edition, cloth, 2s. 6d.
post free.
_____
id. each, by post 1Xd->
Agnosticism and Immortality. By S. Laing, author of “ Modern
Science and Modern Thought,” etc.
Humanity and Dogma. By Amos Waters.
What the Old Testament Says About Itself. By Julian.
The Old Testament Unhistoric and Unscientific. By Julian.
LIBERTY OF BEQUESTS COMMITTEE.
This Committee has been formed for procuring the passing of a
law legalising bequests for Secular and Free Thought purposes.
As the law now stands, all legacies left for the diffusion and main
tenance of Secular or Free Thought principles can be confiscated.
Subscriptions in furtherance of the object of this Committee may
be sent to Mr. George Anderson, Hon. Treasurer, 35a, Great
George Street, London, S.W.
�KH'AZ.
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT
EXAMINED.
Part I.
WHAT THE OLD TESTAMENT SAYS ABOUT ITSELF.
Probably every person who reads this little work knows
that a part of the Bible is called the “ Apcfcrypha,” a
word which means “ reserved for the initiated,” or “ kept
back from the general public.”
Exoteric and Esoteric Disciples.—In all the ancient
religions there were two classes of disciples—-the exoteric
and the esoteric. The exoteric were the general auditors,
the esoteric the real disciples, initiated into the secret and
hidden meaning of the words employed by the master.
Thus, when Pythagoras taught in his schools that wise
men should “ beware of beans,” the general public
supposed he meant that beans were to be avoided as a
food; but he privately told his true disciples that he
meant: Do not interfere with politics, lotteries, or ballotboxes, in which votes were taken by beans, as we now
take them by slips of paper or small ivory balls.
You will remember that, when Jesus had spoken a
parable to the Jewish mob, his disciples frequently came
to him in private, and asked him to explain to them the
esoteric or secret meaning of his words. The initial
verses of the Fourth Gospel afford a good example, where
the words “ Logos,” “ darkness,” “ light,” and so on, have
a. double meaning—one open, and one remote or con
cealed. Now, the latter may be called the Apocrypha,
and we are told by Ezra or Esdras that Moses gave one
Pentateuch to the general public, but another to the
initiated. The exact words are : “ In the bush I
�2
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
[Jehovah] did manifestly reveal myself unto Moses, and
talked with him when my people served in Egypt. And
I sent him to lead my people out of Egypt, and I
brought him up to the Mount of Sinai, where I held
him by me a long season. And I told him many
wondrous things, and showed him the secret of the times
and of the end ; and I commanded him, saying : These
words shalt thou declare [openly to the people] ; but
these thou shalt hide [from the general, and declare only
to the initiated].”* Similarly, as we shall see by-andby, Jehovah commanded Ezra to write certain books,
one of which was to be published abroad, and seventy
others were to be reserved for the priesthood. The
Apocryphal books were the foundation of what is called
tradition.
The Apocrypha.—In the Old Testament, till quite
modern times, there were thirty-eight books, fourteen of
which are omitted in all Bibles now published by the
Bible Society. These fourteen books were first called
“The Apocrypha,” in 1380, by John Wyclif the Re
former ; but they still continue parts of the canonical
Scriptures in all Catholic Bibles.
Why Ignored by Protestants.—Protestants ignore
these fourteen books entirely. But the Church of
England, trimming between Catholics and Puritans,
teaches that the Apocrypha is excellent for Christian
instruction and example, but is not to be used for doc
trine and dogma. The words of the article are as
follows: “Whatsoever Book is in the Old Testament
besides the twenty-four [mentioned] shall be set among
the Apocrypha—that is [books] without authority of
belief. The Church doth read them for example of
life and instruction of manners, but doth not apply them
to establish any doctrine.”
I am quite prepared to allow that much of the Apoc
rypha is extremely foolish, and undoubtedly mere fable;
but what else can be said of the talking serpent and the
talking ass ? and on the former of these stories is founded
the great Church doctrines of original sin, the fall of
man, and redemption or paradise regained. The tale is
* 2 Esdras xiv. 3-6.
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
3
that the Devil metamorphosed himself into a snake, and
chatted with Eve in familiar converse, just like a neigh
bour-gossip. Having persuaded the silly, vain woman
to taste a certain fruit, because it would make her clever,
sin entered the world with all its evils, including death
and Hell.
The Strange Part of the Story.—Now, what is very
strange in this marvellous story is this : The prating
snake was no snake at all, but the Devil; and the whole
serpent tribe was cursed because the Devil acted a lie.
“ On thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all
the days of thy life ” was, in reality, said to the Devil;
but somehow it got transferred to the race of serpents,
who were as innocent as young lambs. The serpent did
not assume the form of the Devil; but the Devil
assumed the form of a serpent. Suppose his Satanic
Majesty had assumed the form of an archangel, as he
sometimes did, would the curse have fallen on all the
hierarchy of Heaven ?—“ on your bellies shall ye crawl,
and dust shall ye eat” henceforth, instead of the fruits of
Paradise ; yet one would have been just as wise, just as
fair, as the other. However, we meet a parallel case in
the New Testament, when a legion of foul fiends took
up their abode in a herd of swine; the swine were killed
for the demoniacal trick. This is just as if a burglar
broke into the mansion at Sandringham, and the Prince
of Wales, his wife, children, and domestics were all
hanged instead of the burglar. If I choose to dress up
like an African and steal the Crown jewels, surely the
Queen would not send her armies into Africa, and reduce
all the inhabitants to slavery. Then why should snakes
and serpents be punished because, without their know
ledge and consent, Satan masqueraded as a snake in
order to tempt Eve to disobedience ? But the mystery
does not end here. Evidently the serpent tribe before
then were not creeping things ; for a part of the curse
was “ on thy belly shalt thou go ” henceforth. Now,
Satan does not go on his belly, and does not eat dust all
the days of his life. At least, I suppose so. Certainly
he did not crawl on his belly like a snake when he
tempted the Nazarene in the wilderness, and carried him
to the pinnacle of the temple, and to a mountain so
�4
the old and new testament examined.
exceedingly high that Jesus could see thence even the
Antipodes, as well as the kingdoms of the northern half
of the globe. Telescopes have done something for ns;
but we have not yet invented an instrument which can
show us our Antipodes. As Satan, the aggressor, escaped
this curse, it fell wholly on the innocent party, who were
as guiltless as you or I.
These manifest fables, these illogical stories, these
palpable contradictions, make us pause to believe that
they can be the words of truth and soberness. I cannot
bring my mind to believe that a God of Justice and
Wisdom would punish innocent serpents because the
Devil chose to assume their form ; nor can 1 believe that
he killed a whole herd of swine because a legion of
devils were supposed to have taken up their abode in
the pigs. I cannot believe that snakes and serpents
are now creeping things, because Satan played them
this trick. But, if the tale of the serpent is not true,
then the tale of the “ fall,” the dogmas of “ original
sin ” and of “ redemption,” are false also, and the whole
Bible scheme falls to ruin like a child’s card-house.
There is nothing in the Apocrypha more illogical and
foolish than these two tales of the canonical Scriptures,
and not all the concensus of all the fathers, Hebrew or
Christian, can render the story of the Serpent and Eve
credible.
I really must press upon my readers the supreme
importance of this remark. We are too apt to dwell
exclusively upon the amiable character of Jesus, his
going about daily doing good, his suffering, his resurrec
tion, and ascension into Heaven. We feel that the
wonderful miracles ascribed to him were wholly beyond
the power of man. We feel that his conception by the
Holy Ghost accounts in some measure for his claim of
being god as well as man. We feel that his resurrection
by his own innate will makes him the potentate of life
and death, and that his ascension into Heaven has
restored him to the throne which, we are told, he aban
doned in order to become man. Looking at these
things alone, we see no great difficulty in believing that
this extraordinary person might be divine. If divine, he
was God incarnate, or God in the fashion of a man. If
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
5
he was God, who had merely assumed for the nonce the
likeness of man, he did it that he might die. If he did
not die on the cross for his own misdeeds, he died for our
redemption. If he died for our redemption, he was our
federal head in the New Dispensation. Before this,
man was in the Old Dispensation, that of Adam; but
after the death on the cross he was transported from the
dispensation of the first Adam into that of the second
Adam, Jesus Christ.
Now mark how all this hangs together. We all know
that the strength of a chain cable is only that of its
weakest link, and so the truth of this long story is wholly
dependent on the weakest portion of the story.
If man was never under the dispensation of Adam, he
could never be removed therefrom into the dispensation
of the new Adam. If there is no transmitted sin, there
was no original sin to be nailed to the cross. If Adam
never bit the forbidden fruit, he never committed that
sin of disobedience, and could not have transmitted the
transgression to his posterity. He was a clean fountain,
and sent forth clean water—not a polluted spring from
which issued a polluted stream. There was nothing to
redeem, no muddy water to purify, no birth sin to wash
away. If, therefore, the tale of the prating serpent is
rejected, the death of Christ to abolish the evil conse
quences of the “ fall ” must be rejected also. If the
Devil, in the guise of a snake, did not talk to Eve,
impose upon her vanity (and remember she had no
vanity, for she was not yet in sin), and induce her to eat
the fruit of the “Wisdom Tree,” then the death of Jesus
to abrogate these consequences is wholly a misconcep
tion. He may have died, but he did not die to abolish
the fatal consequences of Eve’s listening to the words of
a serpent, inasmuch as there was no such serpent.
Just as far as this tale of the Devil is true, the hypo
thesis of redemption is true. Just as far as the iniqui
tous judgment passed on the reptile race, because the
Devil played them a most scurvy trick, is true, so far
and no further the atonement of Christ is true. If the
Almighty did not punish snakes because Satan on one
occasion pretended to be a snake, then Christ did not
die upon the cross because God did do so. If, in fact,
�6
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
Paradise was never lost as related in the foolish and
most illogical tale told us in Genesis, it could never be
regained as we are told it was in the Gospels.
Do look for a moment at the tissue of nonsense and
contradiction in this Jewish myth. Surely never HLsop
could have strung together anything more utterly im
probable :—
We have man made in the image of God, who has
no image at all; no likeness of anything in heaven or
earth ; no form ; no parts.
We have Adam, though perfect in holiness and inno
cence—perfect as God could make him, perfect as God
himself—guilty of disobedience ; and by this one act of
disobedience “ guilty of the whole law ”—by this one
act of disobedience made to rank with liars, adulterers,
thieves, and murderers, the children of the Devil and
the heirs of Hell.
We have a serpent, which was no serpent at all, but
the Devil in masquerade.
We have reptiles before they were reptiles ; because
the condition of “creeping” was not yet imposed upon
them.
We have a godly, immaculate woman, fresh from the
hands of the Almighty, described as vain, conceited,
credulous, wilful, and hungering to know the difference
between good and evil.
We have innocent beasts (serpents) punished eternally
for doing something which they did not do.
We have the guilty Devil let off scot-free, and per
mitted to roam the earth, through all time, to plan more
mischief and ruin millions of souls yet unborn.
And we have, in addition to all this, the sin of all
sins—the teeth of all mankind set on edge, because
thousands of years ago a silly woman chose to eat sour
grapes.
And, mark ye, if every word of this tissue of nonsense
is not precisely true, the whole story of redemption falls
to the ground, for one hangs on the other as cause and
effect.
Religion the Invention of Priests.—Every religious
mystery has had, and still has, its hierarchy, whose
ergon it is to uphold its mythology. The rabbis and
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
7
Christian fathers did the same; but their concensus
is not of the slightest value and authority beyond that
of the priests of Egypt, China, Hindustan, old Greece
and Rome, Etruria, Persia, or any other priesthood.
All they can do is to say : “ Such is our mythology, and
these are our books.”
The Apocrypha Worthy of Credit as Other Scrip
tures.—We have somewhat run away from our imme
diate subject, the Apocrypha, but have shown there is
no earthly reason why the fourteen half-and-half books
are not just as worthy of credit as the twenty-four selected
by the compilers of our articles in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth.
We said above that these fourteen books were first
called “The Apocrypha” in 1380, by John Wyclif, the
Yorkshire Reformer. Before that time they were called
“ Hagiographa.” And it must be distinctly borne in
mind that all copies of the Old Testament in the first
three centuries of the Christian era contained the Apoc
rypha without the slightest intimation that it differed
in authority and character from the twenty-four books
stamped with the authority of our Protestant reformers.
The Council of Trent in 1546 distinctly recognised its
equal authority and “ inspiration ” with any other parts
of Scripture. It forms part of the Septuagint always used
by Jesus called the Christ; it is universally attached to the
version published in 1609 by the English colony of Douay;
and the Catholic Church to the present hour considers it
an integral part of the Old Testament. The main reason
why the reformers disliked it is because certain doc
trines, such as purgatory and prayers for the dead, which
they objected to, are supported on the authority of these
books; but this looks very like selecting Scripture
because it squares with preconceived opinions, and not
forming religious doctrines on the authority of Scripture.
The Church first draws out its own platform, and then
selects such books as correspond therewith, and rejects
whatsoever makes against them. That is, the Church
makes the Bible, and not the Bible the Church. I grant
that the nation makes its laws, not the laws the nation;
and a master makes the rules to be observed in his house,
not the rules the master; but the things are not parallel.
�8
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
In the latter cases the nation and the master are free to
do as they like; but the Church pretends to be the mere
exponent of Jehovah, the interpreter of his laws, the
executive of his government, and every iota of their own
introduction is imposition and forgery. It is living and
acting a lie; palming off their own counters as the
current coin of the kingdom of God. If the Bible is
God’s digest, no human council can possibly introduce
a single dogma or doctrine. The law and the testimony
is the one and only authority, and everything besides is
false coin and religious treason. Take the dogma of
the Vatican Synod in 1870—the Immaculate Concep
tion. Where is that found in the Bible ? Nowhere.
But, if synods are the Church legislators, then plainly the
Church is only a human institution. It is not God’s
Church, but merely a synodical Church. It is not under
the hand and teaching of God, but under the hand and
teaching of human boards, which may vote one thing
to-day and something else to-morrow ; one thing in the
east and another in the west; one thing with the domi
nant party of sect A, and another thing with the domi
nant party of sect B. Practically, this is done all the
world over. A set of men make a platform : those who
like its planks join the set; those who do not, look out
for another sect which they like better ; but, as for God’s
word, it is made by the Church the mere testimonial to
a quack medicine—all very well so long as it fadges with
their own platform; but the moment it runs counter
thereto it is wrong, it must be whittled down, it speaks
in metaphor, the letter killeth, it is man’s interpretation
which giveth life. If science, history, or synods run
counter to the Bible, the Bible, as the weaker vessel,
must go to the wall.
The Two Books of Esdras.—Returning to the Apoc
rypha, you know that two of the books are entitled
“ Esdras,” another form of Ezra. This Ezra or Esdras
was a Jewish priest, born probably during the captivity
of the Jews in Babylon. Artaxerxes, the Long-handed,
King of Persia, gave him a commission to return to
Jerusalem and take with him as many exiles as wished
to return. We are told that only 1,754 persons availed
themselves of this permission, thirty-eight of whom were
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
9
Levites; all the rest of the captives preferred to remain
in the rich cities and fertile lands of the Persian king.
This speaks highly for the prosperity of the people and
the mild rule they were under. Probably the Mosaic
religion was unknown among them, except perhaps by
a few antiquaries, and certainly it was a matter of in
difference to them. Sixty years before, the King of
Babylon had carried away captive 10,000 princes and
mighty men of valour, besides craftsmen and smiths.
This would amount to something like 300,000 in all.
So that less than one man out of 150 was willing to
return. This does not say much for the Jewish theo
cracy. Above 149 out of every 150 preferred the
government, laws, religion, and customs of the Persians
and Babylonians to the vaunted government and religion
of Jehovah.
The Old Testament Unknown and not Cared for.—
You must not suppose that the Jews had Bibles as we
now have. Apparently, in the reign of Josiah, there was
one, and only one, in the whole kingdom of Judea ; but
not a single copy among all the ten tribes of Israel.
Josiah reigned about 100 years before the Captivity.
Apparently “ the Law of Moses”—-that is, the Pentateuch
—was neither read nor even consulted by the Jews, for,
when Hilkiah the priest accidentally stumbled on a
copy in some rubbish-heap of the Temple, it was
announced to the king as a wonderful discovery, and as
much fuss was made about it as if we were now to light
upon, in some out-of-the-way store, a MS. copy of old
Homer.
There is not the least likelihood that a copy was taken
by the captives to Babylon. All that the Jews knew
about Moses and his religion they learnt by hearsay,
just as the Greeks and Romans knew about their my
thology. It was a system taught by their priests, and
we know from our own history of the mediseval ages
how utterly worthless and untruthful such hearsay reli
gion always is. Read our old English Chronicles, such
as Geoffrey of Monmouth, and see what reliance can be
placed on hearsay history; and there is no reason to
suppose that the Jews differed in this respect from the
ancient Britons. History, as a matter of fact, is quite a
�IO
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
modern science, a thing born in the last half of the nine
teenth century; before then it was the record of floating
tradition, cooked, dressed, and salted by romancers, as
historical novels were in the Walter Scott period.
There is a sort of truth in “ Ivanhoe ” and the “ Talis
man;” but it is the traditional grain of wheat in a bushel
of chaff, or needle in a bottle of hay. We know what
such religion must always be—a series of marvels and
superstitions, trifling incidents magnified and grossly
exaggerated, a row in the streets transformed into a great
battle, a rioter knocked down by a policeman exalted
into a martyr, and some ringleader of the mob immortal
ised as a Caius or Tiberius Gracchus. Who now believes
the battle of Lake Regillus, so graphically sung by
Macaulay, to be an historic fact ? or that Castor and
Pollux, on their heavenly steeds, led the Romans to
victory ? Yet such romance was Roman history. Who
now believes in the marvellous feats of Horatius and his
two comrades at the Bridge?—a tale of blood-stirring
interest, and at one time as firmly believed as text of
Holy Writ. There is no tale in the Old Testament so
well attested as these Roman tales. There were feast
days kept in their honour with as much gravity as we
keep Christmas Day or Good Friday. Historians and
poets referred to them, and biographers delighted to
trace up pedigrees to some hero who fought and died
at these mythical engagements. I maintain that Aulus
the Dictator, who led the Romans in the Battle of Lake
Regillus, is as worthy of credit as Joshua, who over
turned the walls of Jericho by too-tooing on seven silver
trumpets. I maintain that the tale of Castor and Pollux
fighting for the Romans is every bit as likely as the
angel which led the host of the son of Nun to victory
after the passage of the Jordan.
“ So Aulus spake, while buckling
Tighter black Auster’s band,
When he was aware of a princely pair
That rode at his right hand.
So like they were, no mortal
Might one from other know ;
White as snow their armour was,
Their steeds were white as snow.......
And Aulus, the Dictator,
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Il
Scarce gathered voice to speak—
1 Say by what name men call you ?
What city is your home ?
And wherefore ride ye in such guise
Befoie the ranks of Rome ?’ ” '
And the two celestial horsemen told Aulus they were
Castor and Pollux, and concluded with these words
’Tis for the right we come to fight
Before the ranks of Rome.’ ”
Turn now to the Book of Joshua, ch. v., the last three
verses: “And it came to pass when Joshua was by
Jericho that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold
there stood a man over against him with a sword drawn
in his hand. And Joshua said to him, ‘ Art thou for us,
Or for our adversaries ?’
And the man said: As
captain of the Lord’s host am I come.’ And Joshua
fell on his face to the earth, and did worship the
heavenly visitant. It was Castor and Pollux come, to
help Joshua, as they helped Aulus ; and one tale is just
as likely as the other.
.
Ezra Read to the People his own Version op the
Books of Moses.—Well, Ezra, at the kings bidding,
went to Judea, and thirty-eight men of the priestly tribe
were willing to cast in their lot with him. What he did
in Judea we are not told ; but probably he left his little
colony there and returned to Babylon. Thirteen years
later we find him again in Jerusalem with Nehemiah,
reading to the people “ the Book of the Law.
The
exact words are (Nehemiah viii.):
Ezra the priest
brought the Law before the congregation, and read
therein before the street that was before the Water-gate ,
[he read] from morning until mid-day........... and all
the people wept when they heard the words of the Law.
And on the second day he read to the people about the
Feast of Tabernacles, and all the people went forth and
brought boughs to the roofs of their houses............and
sat under the boughs.”
Inferences.—Before we proceed any further it will be
well to make one or two passing observations.
Manifestly, the Book of the Law was a new thing to
these Jews, for when Ezra read it the words came to
them as a surprise. Apparently they never before heard
�12
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
ab°ut ?e Fe?St
tabernacles, and, like children thev
made themselves bowers on their house-tops and played
no
Pal ^rnaC CS; T^y had been born and brought
up in Babylonia, and evidently knew nothing of the Five
Books of Moses. Probably they scarcely knew the name
S Kng Arthaur.°Ur m'ettered hindS
have
I he question hence arises, Where did Ezra get his
oook from ? Happily we are not left in doubt upon the
subject, for he himself tells us all about it in 2 Esdras xiv.
ow Ezra Got his Bible.—Ezra says, as he sat under
an oak tree, there came a voice to him out of a bush
hard by and said: “ Esdras, Esdras !” Whereupon I
feetWe And I?'!6 /AL°rd’” and 1 St00d UP™
feet And the Lord bade me go and reprove the people
for their sms. So I answered and said, “I will go and
do as thou commandest: but when I am dead, who will
then be able to teach the people the way of life ? for the
Book of the Law [that is, the Jewish Bible] has been
burnt, and no man knoweth the things that have been
rtr- m thee]r°k
If’ now’ 1 have found favour in
thy sight, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I will write
out all that hath been done from the beginning of the
world, even all that was written in the Book of the Law
Jat men may find thy path, and that those who live in
the latter days may live.”
And the Lord said to me : “ Go thy way Esdras and
prepare thee a goodly number of boxwood’tablets \ and
with thee five men [names given] skilled in writing
quickly. And when thou hast written what is in thy
heart, some of the things thou shalt publish abroad, and
some thou shalt show only to the wise. To-morrow, at
this hour, shalt thou begin to write.n
So I retired from the sight of man with the five scribes
for forty days into a field, and remained there. But no
sooner had I retired from the sight of man than the
IZX Cai3e,it0 !meuagT’ Sayin£: “Esdras, open thy
mouth and drink what I give thee.” So I opened my
mouth and he reached me a cup full of something like
wMer but the colour of it was like fire. And I took
and drank it, and when I had so done my heart uttered
understanding, and wisdom grew in my breast, for my
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
13
spirit strengthened my memory. And the five men
wrote the wonderful visions. For forty days they wrote
all day long, and at night they ate bread. As for me, 1
spake in the day, and held not my tongue by night.
And in the forty days the men had written 204 [the
margin says 904J books.
\nd the Highest said to me: “ The first that them
hast written publish openly, that the worthy and the
unworthy may read it; but the seventy last keep back,zx\a.
show only to the wise among the people, for in them
is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom,
and the stream of knowledge.” And I did so.
Such is the account given by Ezra himself; but there
are one or two things extremely puzzling. The scribes,
we are told, wrote out 204 or 904 books. What, then,
is meant by the first and the seventy last of these, books .
Seventy and one neither make 204 nor 904. It is pretty
plain, however, that the first was the common Bible, or
Old Testament, to be read by and to the people ; but
that there were seventy other esoteric books, to be shown
only to the learned priests. These Apocryphal Scriptures,
like the Sibylline books, furnished traditions whenever
the priests required support.
Another difficulty is this: What is meant by in them
is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom,
and the stream of knowledge ” ? Does it mean in the
seventy Apocryphal books is wisdom, understanding, and
knowledge, or in the “ wise ” to whom these books were
to be shown ? Either way, it is quite certain only a
very small portion of the Bible was given to the general
public; the main part was kept back, as strong meat
unfit for babes.
The most important lesson, however, taught by this
extract is, first, there was but one Book of the Law in
all Judea, and that was burnt or destroyed by fire. Ezra
says he was the only man who knew it more or less
perfectly by heart, and he retired to a field for forty days,
and wrote out from memory what we now call the Five
Books of Moses, probably including Joshua, and other
“Historical Books” of the Old Testament. For this
task he was qualified by drinking a cup-full of some strong
liquor, of the substance of water and the colour of fire.
�14
THE old and new testament examined.
Internal evidence corroborates this tale, for it is quite
certain that many things could not possibly have been
written till long after the death of Moses; and all such
remarks as “which remain unto this day” show to
demonstration that the writer lived long, long after the
event recorded. Of course, Moses and Joshua could
not have written the records of their own deaths. And
such a remark as “ There has not arisen a prophet since
like unto Moses ” must have been written after the days
of the prophets, which would bring us to the time of
Ezra. Similarly, when it is said at the close of Joshua
that “Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and
all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua,” it is
■‘ '^ manifest that these words must have been written after
the “days of the elders,” and probably a considerable
time after.
If the Old Testament is merely the reproduction of
Ezra, written in forty days from memory, and obviously
interpolated, it is not much to be depended on. Six
weeks is but a short time for such a task, and a slippery
memory may account for many palpable errors. But,
what is worse than all this, Ezra had an object, was very
strongly biassed, was brought up in Babylon in the very
darkest period of Jewish history; and, as “no man
living ” knew the Bible except Ezra, there was no one
to check him or correct his box-wood tablets. No doubt
Ezra was a learned man, as learning then went with the
captive Jews; but it is wholly impossible now to tell
where his memory halted, where he touched up his
narrative, as the Catholics touched up the New Testa
ment, and to discriminate between the original text and
the interpolations introduced. Such a book can, in no
sense, be called the Word of God; and it is a gross
falsehood to affirm that not a word, not a letter, not even
a point, has been added thereto or taken therefrom.
This is palpably incorrect, and, being so, if any part
belongs to the original tqxt, the version we possess is a
comparatively modern recension by Ezra after the
Captivity. He tells us so himself; internal evidence
corroborates his statement; and, if this is denied, the
gainsayer is bound to produce a more plausible theory.
�
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
What the Old Testament says about itself
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Julian
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot (RPA 2003), Appx. 1. 'Julian' is the pseudonym of Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (1810-1897). At head of title: The Old and New Testament examined. Issued for the Propagandist Press Committee. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1891]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N422
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 (What the Old Testament says about itself), 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.-Criticism
Bible. O.T.-Criticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e5b66f88b6acf96fb64fa616852f3dd6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=l4WppSUX6Pwpt43avKijRaR9YHT5KWiMNLCS930fh1Fj0C4VRJy87hgl3fkj%7EGDGbKY3vGsPa0k0NQy1fTqZrg9T3qy-R4hHsTrkRO3fhvuEzyvCtMWlRqZ1NZpqtw8rpYLp-a-6l8gSIF4qsot3TkjY87QcQ2aS4Xocp0ziTCi%7EzIdOko7xtuTnj4IzqMs-RXEojU4FKmollYC5IavPtbQ8TWxh2WInjhTM1fsMNKJ5Ma1gB8YwesCjXj94%7EXWuN0%7ETLYD9xaBuM7TbVw4I8LyGEvceBJl4I35gH1hpKIb-wVZ9737k2USrrn9Ax3Pi-a9KzM%7EziLQylheyg1O37g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
cb96de163ee0fe904fffb16010f27818
PDF Text
Text
CT 458
THE MYTHOS OF THE ARK
BY
J. W. LAKE,
AUTHOR OF “TREE AND SERPENT WORSHIP.”
“ Back through the dusk
Of ages, Contemplation turns her view
To mark, as from its infancy, the world
Peopled again from that mysterious shrine
That rested on the top of Ararat.”
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
��THE MYTHOS OF THE ARK.
T is recorded in the Hebrew scriptures that once
upon a time, somewhere about 2400 years before
the Christian era, the Creator of the world was so
incensed at the wickedness of men, that he determined
to destroy the whole world, and that to effect this
destruction he sent a deluge on the earth which
covered the tops of the highest mountains, so that all
living things perished excepting only Noah, his wife,
and his three sons and their wives, with pairs or
sevens of all the various kinds of animals which
Noah was commanded to take with him into an ark,
or floating house, which God had commanded him to
build. These were shut up in the ark for several
months, when, the flood having abated, the ark
grounded on the top of a high mountain, and its
inhabitants, released from their temporary imprison
ment, replenished the earth with a new race of living
creatures.
We have said the Hebrew scriptures record this
narrative, and Englishmen are taught to believe that
these scriptures are the infallible word of God—so
the clergy of almost all denominations declare them
to be. It is evident that such an event, had it really
happened, could never have become a legitimate part
of history. It relates altogether to times that are pre
historic, times of which oral tradition alone could telL
But in the Jewish history no traces of this tradition
I
�4
The Mythos of the Ark.
are to be found till after the Babylonish captivity,
that is, for the 2000 years immediately following the
event. The patriarchs knew nothing of the Blood;
Moses seems equally in the dark concerning it; Noah
is never so much as named in Jewish history, till a
comparatively modern period of its annals. The book
of Genesis, though placed at the head of the Jewish
Bible, is one of the most recent instead of being one
of the earliest of its records. Such at least are the
conclusions of modern scholars, and those who are
familiar with the writings of Colenso, Davidson,
Kalisch, and others, know well how irresistible is the
evidence on which these conclusions are based.
Geological researches have long demonstrated the
impossibility of such a flood as that of which the
book of Genesis speaks, having ever taken place.
Yet our clergy are bound by the conditions of their
office to teach the men and women of England to
regard this narrative as a record of actual fact, to
believe that the world was destroyed by a deluge as
the book of Genesis states, and that the record of this
event has been penned under the influence of a special
inspiration from God.
Now the purpose of this pamphlet will be to show
that this story of the Flood is a mere matter of ancient
tradition, and ancient tradition is only another mode
of expressing ancient fable. But the fables of anti
quity had for the most part a religious, or philoso
phical, or mythological import. As the ancient
Egyptians expressed their wisdom through hiero
glyphic inscriptions, so all the ancient priesthood
veiled their knowledge in some apologue or fable.
As moral teaching even in our own day is often ex
pressed by parable, so the philosophic wisdom of the
ancient world found utterance in fables. Where
moderns would write an essay, the teachers of the
ancient world told a story; and possibly from this
habit the latter phrase has come to have so equivocal
�The Mythos of the Ark.
5
a signification, and the same word is made to stand
at once for a narrative and a falsehood. By way of
commencing our investigation, the reader’s attention
is called to the following traditions of the flood.
TRADITIONS OF THE FLOOD.
All the ancient religions, many of which were long
anterior to Judaism, had in their records similar
stories concerning a deluge, to that which the book of
Genesis contains. “ All the writers of barbarian
histories,” says Josephus, the Jewish historian, “ make
mention of this flood and this ark, among whom is
Berosus the Chaldean.”
The works of Berosus, who wrote probably in the
age of Alexander the Great, i.e., about 240 years before
the Christian era, are lost, save detached portions of
them which are preserved in the writings of the
early fathers, and the account of the Deluge is one of
these. Those who lived before the Flood are re
presented as a race of giants, all of whom, save one,
became exceedingly impious and depraved. “ But,”
says Berosus, “ there was one among the giants that
reverenced the gods and was more wise and prudent
than all the rest. His name was Noa; he dwelt in
Syria and his three sons, Sem, Japet, Chem, and their
wives the great Tidea, Pandora, Noela, and Noegla.
This man, fearing destruction, which he foresaw from
the stars would come to pass, began in the 78th year
before the inundation to build a ship covered like an
ark; at length the ocean burst its boundaries and
the rain fell violently from heaven for many days,
so that the mountains were overflowed and the whole
human race buried in the waters, save Noa and his
family.”
Another Assyrian tradition relates, that the represent
ative of the tenth generation after the first man, was
Xisuthrus, a pious and wise monarch. The god
�6
The Mythos of the Ark.
Chronos (Saturn or Belus) revealed to him that con
tinual rains, commencing on a certain day, the 15th
of the month Dsesius, would cause a general deluge by
which mankind would be destroyed. On the command
of the deity, Xisuthrus built an immense ship about
three-quarters of a mile long and a quarter of a mile
broad, ascended it with his family, his friends, and
every species of quadrupeds, birds, and reptiles, after
having loaded it with every possible provision, and
sailed towards Armenia. When the rain cleared,
he sent out birds to satisfy himself about the condition
of the earth. They returned twice, but the second
time they had mud on their feet, and the third time
they were sent out they returned to him no more.
Xisuthrus, who had by this time grounded in some
Armenian mountain, left the ship, accompanied only
by his wife, his daughters, and the pilot; they erected
an altar and offered sacrifice to the gods and were
soon raised to heaven for their exemplary piety.
The others now left the ship with many lamentations,
but they heard the voice of Xisuthrus admonishing
them to persevere in the fear of the gods. They
settled again in Babylon, from whence they started,
and became the ancestors of a new population.
*
The Hindoo records contain a similar and probably
a more ancient tradition of the flood, in which the
good king Satyavrata takes the place occupied by
Noah in the Hebrew record. The Greeks had an
exactly similar story of which Deucalion was the
hero; while some coins which were struck at
Apamea, named also xil3a)ro$, a boat, in the reign of
the Emperor Septimius Severus, A.D. 193, represent
a chest or ark floating on the waves, and containing
a man and a woman. On the ark a bird is perched
* Kalisch ; Historical Commentary on the Book of Genesis.
But the heathen traditions of the flood may be found in
Colenso on the Pentateuch. Hugh Miller’s ‘ Testimony of
the Kocks,’—Hardwick’s ‘ Christ and other Masters,’ &c., &c.
�The Mythos of the Ark.
7
and another is seen approaching holding a twig with
its feet. The same human pair is figured on the dry
land, with uplifted hands and on several of these
medals the name NO (Nfl) is clearly visible.
.
*
The Egyptian tradition of the flood was recorded,
Josephus asserts, by Manetho, but the greater part of
the works of that historian have perished and this
account is not extant. We shall see, however, when we
come to speak of the mythological meaning of the
flood, that the Egyptians had a very similar mythos.f
Traditions of the Flood exist also in the Scandinavian,
Celtic, ancient British, Mexican, and the various my
thologies, of the new world, and the question naturally
suggests itself, What relation do these traditions bear
to the Hebrew story which our clergy declare has
been given by the special revelation of God ? It used
to be. thought a sufficient answer to say that all the
Gentile traditions were copies and perversions of
the Hebrew record, the prior antiquity of this record
being of course assumed. We know now, however,
that the Hebrew account is of comparatively modern
date. The Jews themselves having no knowledge of
such an event as the Deluge till after the period of the
national captivity in Babylon.
It is acknowledged that the Bible-records referring to the
time previous to Abraham, and which were transmitted to
later generations by the descendants of the ancestor of the
Hebrew race, in some instances admit of an allegorical inter
pretation. Thus even the name of Noah may possibly have
been chosen for the purpose of referring to the time of the
Flood. It is well known that the word Noah is derived
from the Aryan root ‘ na ’ or ‘ nach ’ which means water,
from which the Indian ‘naus,’ the Latin ‘navis,’ and the
German ‘nachen’ and ‘nass’ are derived.—The Hidden Wisdom
of Christ, p. 10, by Ernest De Bunsen.
The nut, (in German ‘ nuss ’) was a ‘ naus ’ or little ship,
a type of the ark, in which the infant deity lay hidden—Lesley
Man’s Origin and Destiny, p. 308.
t See the legend of Osiris and Typhon. Typhon was the
ocean.
�8
The Mythos of the Ark.
Dr Donaldson (Christian Orthodoxy, p. 221) says,
“ the traditions of Babylonian archgeology, preserved to
us in the fragments of Berosus, exhibit a remarkable
correspondence with those which are incorporated in
the Book of Genesis. It might of course be a question
whether the Jews during their captivity borrowed
the ten generations between Adam and Noah from
the ten generations which connect Alorus and
Xisuthrus, or whether they conversely furnished the
Babylonians with the materials of their own cos
mogony. In the absence of all evidence in favour
of the supposition that the Jews had any such cos
mogony before the exile, and with positive evidence
of the fact that they borrowed many of their ideas
from the heathen nations among whom they sojourned,
at the time immediately preceding the formation of
their present collection of sacred books, it would be
more reasonable to conclude that the Babylonian
traditions were the source of the Jewish. With
regard to the Deluge, at any rate, every candid in
quirer must admit that even if we had no other ex
planation to offer respecting Noah, the fact that the
ark is represented as floating to the mountains of
Armenia, points to the local inundation which devas
tated Babylonia and which the Babylonians limited
to their own country.”
Dr. Samuel Davidson, in his Introduction to the
Old Testament, Vol. I., page 188, says : “Authentic
Egyptian history ignores the existence of a general
flood, to which there is no allusion in the annals from
the epoch of Menes, the founder of the kingdom of
Egypt, B.C. 3463, till its conquest under Darius
Ochus, B.C. 340, whereas the period of the Noachian
Deluge is said to be about 2348 B.C. At the latter
time when the whole human race is supposed to have
been reduced to a single family, the Egyptian people
must have attained to a flourishing and civilized
state; indeed, they were civilized and settled before
�The Mythos oj the Ark.
9
Menes united them into one great empire,—i.e.,
towards 4000 B.C., the uninterrupted existence of
their annals from Menes till Ochus, as well as the
absence of all reference to a general flood, proves the
non-occurrence of such a disaster.”
The story of Noah’s ark having no proper place in
legitimate history, must thus be relegated to the realms
of mythologic fable. The fables of the ancient world
were, however, the means of concealing some secret
wisdom, and the ark of Noah forms no exception to
this rule.
THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE ARK.
Long before the Jews were acquainted with the
story of the flood, they were accustomed to the use of
an ark in their religious worship. This ark of the
covenant being an oblong box of the same propor
tionate dimensions with the ship or ark of Noah,
Josephus calls it the ark of God. It was the most
sacred symbol of the Jewish worship, and in it were
kept the tables of the law. To this day the ark of
the covenant is used in the Jewish synagogues for the
purpose of containing the rolls of the Jewish law. A
similar ark, however, to that of the Jews was, we
know, in use among the ancient Egyptians. “ A sculp
ture exists representing Ramases III., accompanied
by his priests and high officers, and the sacred bull
Apis; and in this sculpture we see that an ark of the
same size and shape as the Jewish ark was carried
along upon men’s shoulders in the sacred procession.”
—Sharpe’s Egyptian Mythology. This was doubtless the
ark of Osiris. A similar sacred chest was also carried
in procession by the priests of Isis in the mysteries of
that goddess, as related by Apuleius, and those who
are familiar with the legend of Osiris well know that
this sacred chest or ark contained the phallic emblems
of fecundity. A ship or boat also formed one of the
sacred symbols of this goddess, who was herself the
�io
The Mythos of the Ark.
representative of the great mother—the maternal or
prolific principle of nature.
The goddesses of the ancient worships are now well
known to mythological students to have been the pro
totypes of the Virgin Mary, or mother of God, who is
so highly reverenced in the Roman Catholic churches.
*
They were simply personifications of the maternal
principle. The moon had the same signification;
and as the sun, for the most part, was the symbol of
the gods, so the goddesses were symbolized by the
moon. The bull was in like manner the ancient
symbol of fertility, of the sun at the Spring equinox,
and the cow was for this reason sacred to Isis, and the
symbol under which she was often worshipped. An
tique statuettes are still in existence which picture
this goddess with a cow’s head, and nursing the infant
god Horus, which statuettes, with a human face,
would serve for the virgin and child of Catholic wor
ship. The moon was the symbol of all these ancient
goddesses, but only the crescent moon was used for
this purpose. And this crescent moon, which forms
an arc of a circle, was also the symbol of a boat or
* “ The German mariolatry of the middle ages is to a large
degree traceable to these previous heathen customs (the wor
ship of the storm goddess, Freia Holda, transformed into Freia
the goddess of love, of amorousness, of rejuvenescence, and of
fertility). There are a number of highly-coloured hymns to
the Virgin, the imagery of which is almost literally taken
from similar Freia songs, fragmentary pieces of which latter
have come down to us in children’s rhymes. Many of these
hymns would be perfectly unintelligible if we did not know
the poetical surroundings of the Pagan goddess. Freia, the
queen of the heavens, the sorrowing mother of Balder (that
god of peace who met his death through the traitor Loki),
*
was transfused into the Mater Dolerosa, the ‘ mother of God,’
of the Roman church, but in this transfusion she retained
much of her original character.”—From an interesting article
on Freia Holda, the Teutonic goddess of love, in the “ Cornhill
Magazine” for May 1872.
See the legend of the Death of Osiris.
�The Mythos of the Ark.
11
ship. In a word, the ship or ark of Noah—-the bull
or cow—the crescent moon and the goddesses Isis, or
Diana, or Juno, or Ceres, or Venus, or Freia, were
symbols possessing a common significance, viz., the
fertile principle of nature. In accordance with this
view, we find that an egg was also a symbol of the
ark—a symbol of the germ of animated nature.
In the pictures of the Virgin Mary in Catholic
countries she is often represented with a crescent
moon, this crescent being really the symbol of the
ship or ark, and denoting the secret mythos which the
ark of Noah enshrines. With this thought in our
mind, we have only to read again the scripture nar
rative of the flood to see in the pairs or sevens—male
and female, of all the various forms of animated life—
in the manifest design of this selection—that the ark
contained the fertile principle of nature, and in this
sense was one and the same symbol with the ark or
chest of Osiris. This reverence of the fertile or
generative principle was the foundation of all the
ancient worship, and it has struck its roots so deeply
into the religion of all subsequent times, that we have
not to look far to find evidences of it in the religious
thought and customs of our own day. Our churches
are built in the form of the ark —an oblong square—
*
and the principal portion of them bears the name
“ nave,” a word derived from the Latin, navis, a ship ;
that word being in its turn derived from the Greek,
Naus, whence our word nautical. “ The early Chris
tians were called nautai, or sailors.”—Riddles Christian
Antiquities. But the word navel has also a similar
derivation, the English word being associated with
the Greek van?. The Latin umbilicus being an evi
dent derivation from the Greek 0/z,^>aXo$. Jacob
Bryant has some very curious remarks with regard to
this latter word. He says the term OMPHI was of
* The chancel is a separate and distinct building appended
to a church.
�12
The Mythos of the Ark.
great antiquity, and denoted an oracular influence.
The true rendering was the oracle of Ham, or Cham,
or the sun, or Osiris. The mountains whence these
oracles were delivered came to be denominated Haral-ompi, which al-ompi was changed by the Greeks
into Olympus. This word they associated with
Omphalos, a navel, and so they said of the sacred
oracle of Delphi that it was the umbilicus or navel of
the world, and they applied this term to all other
sacred mountains whence divine oracles were delivered.
It is important to notice here the connection between
the. term navel, as associated with the word which
designates a ship, with the act of birth or generation,
and with a divine word or oracle.
. Under the word Noah, the same author says, “The
history of the patriarch was recorded by the ancients
throughout their whole theology, but it has been
obscured by their describing him under so many
different titles and such a variety of characters. They
represented him as Thoth, Hermes, Janus, Menes,
Osiris, Zeuth, Atlas, Deucalion, Inachus, Prometheus,
Saturn, Dionusus, &c., &c. Among the people of the
East the true name of the patriarch was preserved.
They called him “Noas,” “Naus,” and sometimes
contracted “ Nous.” But “ Nous ” is the Greek term
for mind, and Bryant proceeds to quote Anaxagoras,
who identifies the Eastern Noah with the Greek Pro
metheus. Prometheia, he says, was the mind, and
Prometheus was said to renew mankind by new
forming their minds.
Noah or Noas was thus in all probability the
etymological parent of the Greek word psoj, new,
he having been patriarch or father of the new world.
This connection of the ideas of life and mind has
been fully shown in my pamphlet on “ The Mytho
logical Meaning of Tree and Serpent Worship,” the
serpent being on one hand the symbol of the gene
rative power, and on the other hand the symbol of
�The Mythos of the Ark.
13
the Logos or Divine wisdom. The ark is simply
another form of the symbolism through which the
old Nature worship found expression.
To the uninitiated Noah’s ark would seem to have
not the smallest relation to the Virgin Mary, and yet
by an overwhelming amount of evidence we shall
show them to be closely associated,—to be symbolical
of the same mythos,—the crescent moon being the
navicular symbol that unites them.
M. Didron in his “'Christian Iconography” has an
engraving of the Hindoo goddess Maya, her head sur
rounded by a glory, pressing her breasts, from which
copious streams of milk flow, by which all living
creatures are supported, and in her lap are represented
the various animals, strongly reminding one of the
groups which form the contents of the toy arks in
common use to-day. In a word, Maya as the goddess
mother of Nature is the emblem of the ark, since
all existing beings may be said to have been born
from her, she being but a symbol of the fertilizing
properties of Nature. It is time, however, for us to
consider the curious light which etymology throws
upon the word ark, and though etymology may some
times mislead us, yet the study of words and language
is the study which of all others throws greatest light
on the ideas which prevailed in the ancient world and
on the origin and growth of religious dogma.
*
* “ The things which we call words are organic things like
animals and vegetables. They have roots and branches.
They grow and decay. They have fixed laws to govern their
existence, like all other beings. They do not leap from our
mouths helter-skelter as the toads and jewels dropped from
the mouth of the cruel mother in the fairy tale. They are
not accidentally created. We are not their voluntary crea
tors. They breed in us and issue from us, not only from our
lips but from our brains, by laws as regular and permanent
a,s those which govern the conception and birth of broods of
fishes, birds, or serpents. Language therefore must be a
department of natural history. New expressions or idioms
appear upon the face of human society just as new species
�14
77^ Mythos of the Ark.
Our English word ark * is derived from the Greek
“PX’i, signifying a beginning in order of time, an
entrance into being, first or chief in- point of autho
rity. The word in this sense is in common use.
The Greek rulers were called Archons, our chief
bishops are called ark- or arch-bishops. The science
of antiquity is called ark-eology. The chief builder—
the one who supplies the ideas—is called the archi
tect. So the lunette or crescent is called the arc of
a circle, and this gives its name to the circular arch.
The Greek word for the ship of Noah was Kibotus.
Our word ark, however, has evident relation to the
Greek apzy, and serves us as a plain guidance to the
mythical meaning of the whole story of the flood.
“ The Greeks called ARGos their most ancient city,
and the mythological prototype of all sea-going ships
was the ARGo. They considered the gods of
ARCadia the most ancient deities. They called
their most ancient and sacred religious ceremonies
ORGs (op'yia), from which the Christians got their
opprobrious term ‘orgies' for all sorts of heathen
ceremonies, especially when they were practised in
secresy. The Roman word for any mystery was
ARCanum; for any religious teaching, ORACulum—
that is an arkite thing—knowledge shut up and con
cealed from public view. The old Egyptian word
ARK signifies upon the monuments, says Bunsen,
conclusion, shutting up, and in Coptic it signifies to
guard. From this sense we have the word ara, a
citadel, and in this citadel were kept for safety
and. varieties of animals and vegetables have successively
made their appearance upon the surface of the earth and in
the waters of the sea. And words and languages perish and
are preserved in the history of literature precisely like those
fossil forms of extinct plants and animals which we study in
the geological deposits of the past.”—Lesley on Language as a
Test of Race in “Man’s Origin and Destiny.”
* Ark in Sanscrit signifies the sun. Vernon Harcourt’s
“Doctrine of Deluge,” p. 495.
�The Mythos of the Ark.
15
ancient histories and writings, hence termed archives.”
—Lesley.
The ark had thus various meanings. It symbolised
Noah, the great father of the new world, of which he
was at once the parent and first man, and who was in
ancient time worshipped as a god.
*
It symbolised,
from the nature of its contents, the fertile principle
of Nature, and thus was one and the same with the
virgin goddesses of Paganism, with Maia of India,
Isis of Egypt, Diana, Venus, and Astarte of Syria,
Ceres of Greece, and Juno of Rome, who in turn
were all symbols of the Holy Spirit, i.e., of Deity in
its feminine aspect. The episode of Juno on the top
of Mount Ida is but another version of the ark resting
on the peak of Ararat. The ark, too, was the symbol
of salvation; it was the place of safety by which its
occupants were saved from the devastations of the
deluge. It was the secret receptacle where divine or
creative wisdom was enshrined, and so the ark of the
Jews contained the tables of the law, or in later times
the roll of Scripture, while the ark of Egypt, repre
senting the grosser idea of Divine wisdom, viz., crea
tive power, contained the symbols of procreation. It
is a little singular in this connection that the Jews
were ordered to put into the ark of the covenant
Aaron’s rod that budded, and that consequently
symbolised fertility; and here the idea of the Nature
worship was preserved, though redeemed from the
grossness that marked it in the Syrian and Egyptian
religions.
This, too, implies a relation to have existed between
the ark of Noah and the ark of the covenant or testi
mony.^ The Jewish ark of the covenant was almost
an exact fac-simile of the sacred ark of the Egyptians.
Faber, in his “ Origin of Pagan Idolatry,” says the
* See Harcourt’s “Doctrine of the Deluge.”
+ The ancient meaning of this word is in strict keeping
with the preceding remarks.
�16
The Mythos of the Ark.
sacred ark was a necessary instrument in the due
celebration of the Eleusinian Mysteries. It was borne
in solemn procession on the back of an ass, because
an ass was deemed a symbol of typhon or the ocean,
which sustained upon its waters the ark of the’
•deluge, and its contents, according to Clemens Alexandrinus, were certain conical pyramids, cakes formed
so as to exhibit the semblance of navels, pomegranates,
and the symbol of the female principle spoken of in
the Old Testament as the “ashera.” For the specific
meaning of these symbols the reader is referred to my
tract, on the “ Mythology of Tree and Serpent Wor
ship.” Faber goes on to show that the sacred ark
was but a symbol of the earth or world. The ark
was in fact a miniature world, and containing as it
did the germ of all animated things, it was regarded
as the great mother whence all things sprung. Thus
the ark, earth, and goddess were represented by
common symbols. The lotus or lily, the egg, the
ship, the cow, and the navicular or crescent shaped
moon had in the ancient mythology the same typical
significance, and all had reference to the myth of the
deluge. The ark of Noah was thus symbolical of the
earth or world. But according to Josephus the Jewish
Tabernacle had a mystical meaning, and symbolised
the world. Now, the ark of the covenant was re
garded as a miniature tabernacle. It was, even among
the Jews held to be the especial abode of the god,—of
the source of life,—its contents being in early times
emblematic of physical, as in modern times they are
emblematic of moral or spiritual, life.
Faber shows that a sacred ark was reverenced in all
the ancient religions. This ark was often represented
in the form of a boat or ship, as well as by an oblong
box or chest. Every writer, he says, who treats of
Indian mythology notices the argha or sacred ark of
the god Siva or Isa. The whole tenor of the Druidical
superstition shows that an ark, or chest, or cell, or
�The Mythos of the Ark.
!7
boat, or cavern, was no less important in the Celtic
mysteries than in those of Greece, Egypt, Italy,
Phoenicia, Babylon, and Hindostan. The Spanish
authors who discuss the early history and mythology of
the Mexicans tell us that their great god Mezitli, (or
Vitzliputzli was carried in a sacred ark on the shoul
ders of his priests during their progress in quest of a
settlement, and that afterwards, when they finally
settled in any place the same ark containing the image
of the deity was solemnly deposited in his temple.
Jacob Bryant, in the preface to his Analysis of the
Ancient Mythology, says, “ Upon enquiry we shall
find that the Deluge was the grand epocha of every
ancient kingdom/’ and his work goes to showHhat
this tradition of the destruction of the world by a
flood, and the salvation of a single family in a ship or
ark, was the mythos that lay at the foundation of
all the ancient religious systems. Hence, in all the
old worships the tops of mountains were esteemed
sacred places. The altar derives its name from the
Latin “ altus,”—a high place. The altar was also, as
we shall shortly see, the equivalent of the ark, and it
was also the mountain on which the ark rested—
AL-TOR the mountain. Various terms, says Faber,
are employed by the Greeks to describe this mysteri
ous ark, and they severally, according to their literal
import, convey to us the idea of a chest, a boat, a
coffin, or a navicular ark, such as that in which Deuca
lion and Pyrrha were preserved at the time of the
deluge. The Egyptians and Hebrews, however, styled
the ark Tebah, Baris, f Argo, and Buto, or a coffin..
*
The Hebrews used the word TBH (Teba) to designate
the ark of Noah, and ARN (Aron) to designate the ark
* As Apamea was called the city of the Boat or Ark, so
Thebes in Egypt was in like manner the city of the Ark or
Coffin, because of the Royal graves there.
+ From which our word bark or barque—a ship.
B
*
�i8
The Mythos of the Ark.
of the covenant. This latter was intrusted to the sole
*
guardianship of a class of priests the sons or descend
ants of Aaron—the sons or priests of the ark—showing
thus that in all probability Aaron was a mythological
and not a real person. “ The word TBH,” says Lesley,
{“ Man's Origin and Destiny,” page 315), “ is an Egyp
tian word, meaning a vase or pot. Gesenius says in
his dictionary, that its Hebrew etymology is quite
unknown. In the Coptic it means a cavern, a boat, a
chest or a sarcophagus or coffin.” Lesley also shows
by a multitude of curious and striking ideas, that in
early times architecture was closely associated with
religion—symbolised the early religion in stone That
religion had its origin, for the most part, in the
arkite mythos, in the ship, or house, or chest, on the
mountain top, containing the germs of renewed life.
Thus one of the most common forms of religious
architecture was in Egypt the pyramid or truncated
cone, and in Greece the pediment—a word synony
mous with pyramid—with a cross or urn at the top.
(fig. 1.) As, however, Ararat was double peaked, and
the ark was, in the current tradition, fabled to rest
between the peaks, this pediment or pyramid was
sometimes split in two, and the urn, or arn, or ark
placed between them (fig. 2).
Fig. i.
*
Fig. 2.
* It would seem probable that the Jews had the ark of the
covenant centuries before they knew anything concerning the
ark of Noah. As monotheists they stood in great measure
aloof from the old world mythologies. The rites and cere
monies of these, however, occasionally crept in among them,
and were adopted in their religious worship. Very much of
the Jewish ritual was borrowed about the era of Solomon from
�The Mythos of the Ark.
*9
The altar of our Catholic churches, with the sacred
chest which contains the consecrated host, is thus
symbolical of the mountain with the ark. The chest
in question corresponding with the ark or sacred chest
■of the Jewish and Egyptian worship. But the com
munion-table of Protestant worship is the analogue of
the Catholic altar, is, in short, the TBH or Tebah, or
ark. There are two sacred places in every house, the
table at which meals are taken, the altar, as it were,
of the household, and the circle round the fire-side.
To sit at one’s table is to enter the very sanctuary of
domestic friendship. Just now there is a hot dispute
among the Church of England clergy as to the proper
designation of the piece of church furniture from which
the sacraments are dispensed. Some claim it to be
only a “ table,” others declaring it to be an “ altar”—
neither party apparently discerning that the two
things have, as church symbols, the same meaning,
and have descended from the old arkite worship. The
cup on the table, the chest on the altar, the urn on
the pediment, are one and the same symbol, and repre
sent the ark on the mountain. Some time back the
writer visited the somewhat notorious church of St
Albans, Holborn—a church in which there is a profuse
reproduction of what is called mediaeval symbolism,
but which in reality is a symbolism derived from these
old worships. Here the “table” is boldly asserted to
be an “ altar.” The writer’s attention was arrested by
the fact that around the arch dividing the chancel
from^the church, and on the wall immediately above
the table or altar the decoration was the well known
water symbol of the Egyptians 7WWV indicative of
the turbulent waves that surrounded the mount of
safety and the ark of rest.
the Egyptians, and the ark had been borrowed at a much
earlier period. The Freemasons at the present day use many
rites and symbols of whose ancient meaning they are wholly
ignorant.
�IO
The Mythos of the Ark.
We have seen that the ark was designated by aword which had the meaning of a sepulchre or tomb.
*
It was the tomb of Noah, and of the remnant of theold world life that it contained; and these, when the
flood subsided, were born as it were into new life..
So the ark was the symbol of resurrection or regenera
tion, and in this sense allusion is made to it in the
baptismal service of the Church of England—in the
prayer which asks that the recipient may be saved
from the waves of this troublesome world, and be
received into “ the ark of Christ’s Church." In the old
mythology Janus was a representation of Noah. He
was represented with two faces, as one that looked
upon two worlds, and on the reverse of his coins was
a dove circled with an olive branch. “ He was repre
sented,” says Bryant, “ as a just man and a prophet.”
There was a tradition that he raised the first temple
to heaven, and he was regarded as one of the cabiri, or
the eight original deities of the ark. He is represented
with a key, and is termed the deity of the door or
passage; hence, in reference to him, every door among
* In early Christian times the altar was in some sense a
tomb. The sepulchre of a saint became his shrine—that is,
a chest or box containing sacred, relics. Sometimes churches
as well as altars were erected, over the graves of the dead, and
for the same reason the vaults beneath churches were wont to
be used as cemeteries. In the second Council of Nice a law
was passed which made bishops subject to deprivation if they
consecrated a church without relics—that is, remains of a
saint. England was at one time sorely puzzled to find relics fast enough for all her new altars (Soame’s Anglo Saxon
Church, 130), and this led to their fraudulent fabrication.
The altar of a saint was in some sense the tomb of the saint,
and the chief altar is in this sense regarded as the tomb of
the god who is worshipped. The ideas of death and resurrec
tion are closely associated with the mass service performed on
Catholic altars, and with the communion service of the Lord’s,
table, or Tebah, or ark in Protestant churches.
'1 he word “mystery” applied to the pagan celebration of
arkite worship is still applied to the mass and communion,
services of Christian worship.
�7he Mythos of the Ark.
21
'the Latins was called Janua, and the first month of
the year was called January, as being an opening of a
new era. In this sense the ark had the meaning of
the resurrection, and here its symbol was an egg.
An egg was a common symbol in the mythology of
•the ancient world. A bull butting an egg with his
horns, and thus breaking the shell and liberating the
imprisoned life, was the symbol of the opening year
;at the time when the year had its commencement in
•the Spring, or season in which the earth’s fertility,
which had been destroyed by Typhon, or Ahriman,
or winter, was renewed by Osiris, or Ormusd, or the
Spring sun. Virgil alludes to this idea : “ Candidus
auratis aperit quum cornibus annum Taurus.” This
•is the meaning of the Pasch or Easter eggs; they are
symbols of resurrection or renewed life, and in this
sense were used in the religious rites of Greece, India,
and Egypt.
“ The egg,” says Jacob Bryant, “ as it contained
the principles of life, was thought no improper em
blem of the ark, in which were preserved the rudi
ments of the future world. Hence in the Dionusian
and in other mysteries one part of the nocturnal
ceremony consisted in the consecration of an egg.”
This egg, he asserts, on the authority of Porphyry,
was symbolical of the world, and was called the mun
dane egg, or egg which enclosed the world.
The author of the “ Two Babyions ” says : “ From
Egypt these sacred eggs can be distinctly traced to the
banks of the Euphrates. The classic poets are full of
■the fable of the mystic egg of the Babylonians, and
its tale is thus told by Hyginus the Egyptian, the
learned keeper of the Palatine library at Pome in the
time of Augustus : “ An egg of wondrous size is said
to have fallen from heaven into the river Euphrates,
out of which came Venus, who afterwards was called
the Syrian goddess, i.e., Astarte. Hence the egg
•became one of the symbols of Astarte, or Easter, and
�22
The Mythos of the Ark.
accordingly at Cyprus, one of the chosen seats of the
worship of Venus or Astarte, an egg was represented
of huge size. The occult meaning of this mystic egg
of Astarte (for it had a twofold significance) had refer
ence to the ark during the time of the flood, in which
the whole human race were shut up as a chick is
enclosed in the egg before it is hatched. The appli
cation of the word egg to the ark comes thus:—
The Hebrew name for an egg is Beitz. This in
Chaldee and Phoenician becomes Beith, which is also
the term for house, as Beth-el, house of God. The
egg was thus the house or ark in which the principle
of life was enclosed/’
The egg thus symbolized a tomb and a resurrection
—destruction and creation. Not a few of the ancient
nations, says Dr. Oliver {Signs and Symbols'), blended
the creation and the deluge so intimately that the
same mythos applies to either event. The book of
Genesis tells us that in the six hundredth year of
Noah’s life, in the second month, and the seventeenth
day of the month, the flood began, and Noah entered
the ark. Plutarch, in his treatise “ De Iside, et Osire,”
says “ that Osiris, to avoid the fury of Typhon, went
into his ark, and that it happened on the seventeenth
day of the month Athyr, when the sun was in Scorpio.
The Egyptians, he tells us, kept two festivals at oppo
site parts of the year, viz., the spring and autumnal
equinox, the spring festival being the resurrection
and the autumn festival the death of Osiris; and he
says that on the seventeenth day of the second month
after the autumnal equinox Osiris was shut up in his
coffin or ark, and this agrees with the very date at
which Noah was said to have entered his ark, the
civil year of the Jews beginning with the autumnal
equinox. The time of Noah’s liberation from the ark
was the commencement of the natural year, the time
when Osiris was fabled to enter, not the ark, but the
moon (Isis), and to bring back the earth’s fertility.
�The Mythos of the Ark.
23
The interval during which Osiris was in the ark sym
bolized the Winter or season of the earth’s sterility.
The legend of Osiris being slain by Typhon is thus
the foundation legend of the old nature worship. It
is the sun losing its power—the earth deprived of its
fertility—the death of Osiris, or nature, or Ormusd,
slain by Ahriman; and the opening spring time was
the great resurrection festival, when Noah leaves the
ark, or Osiris quits his tomb, or the egg gives up its
imprisoned life,, or the earth’s fertility is restored, or
the sun’s power regained. Easter Day, as now kept
in connection with the asserted resurrection of Jesus,
is simply the adaptation of a festival of the ancient
religion to the purposes of a new faith. It takes its
name from the Saxon goddess Eostre, who is the same
with the Syrian Astarte and the Egyptian Isis. The
story of the flood has, however, a relation to another
mythological idea—the “ Neros,” or succession of ages
or cycles, or the renewal of worlds. In the Hindoo
mythology this idea finds expression in the Kali Yug,
or great year or age of Brahm, at the expiration of
which the old world is destroyed and a new world
produced. Josephus, however, speaks of a great year
composed of six hundred ordinary years; this consti
tuted the ancient cycle of the Neros. “ God,” he says,
“ afforded the patriarchs a longer term of life on account
of their virtue and the good use they made of their
wisdom in astronomical discoveries, which they would
not have had the means of foretelling unless they had
lived six hundred years; for the great year is com
pleted in that interval.” Godfrey Higgins, in his
Celtic Druids, shows that the ancients thought that
six hundred years constituted a soli-lunar period, or
a period in which the sun and moon would again
sustain exactly the same relations to each other.
Thus if at any time there was a new or full moon, at
the same moment six hundred years hence there
would be new or full moon again. With each of
�24
The Mythos of the Ark.
these periods the ancients held that there was a new
age and a new world. The Avatars of the Hindoo
mythology, and the golden, iron, brass, &c., ages of
the Roman mythology, are illustrations of this
thought; and in the celebrated lines of Virgil, pre
dicting the commencement of a new cycle and the
return of the golden age, the idea finds very plain
expression :—
•‘Jam redit et virgo redeunt saturnia regna,
Jam nova progenies coelo demittitur alto.”
The great series of revolving ages begins anew.
Now too returns the virgin Astrea, returns the
*
reign of Saturn, now a new progeny from high heaven
descends ! ” The duration of an age was 600 years,
and then men looked for wonderful changes to come.
It was in the second month of the 600th year of his
age that Noah entered into the ark, and it was on
the first day of the first month of the 601st year, or
the first day of the first year of a new age, that Noah
is said to have left the ark and to have commenced
the inauguration of a new world.
Saturn was the Greek Chronos,! the God of Time.
Jacob Bryant says he was the same with Janus and
Noah. The association of a new rule of justice, of
an age of virtue succeeding an age of wickedness,
and this under the rule of a virgin goddess, identifies
the prediction of Virgil with the mythos of the ark.
The zodiacal emblems show the astronomical ex
planation of which the mythos is capable. Taurus
or the Bull was the sign in which the sun was,
and under which the sun was worshipped at the
spring equinox. Hence Osiris was represented by
*_ Astrea, in the mythology of the ancients, was the goddess
of justice. She resided on the earth during the reign of
Saturn in the golden age, but shocked at the impiety and
wickedness of men in the succeeding ages, she returned to
heaven, and became one of the signs of the zodiac.
+ Hence our word chrone, signifying an old woman, and
saturnalia as applied to wild and licentious orgies.
�The Mythos of the Ark.
25
the Bull Apis, and Isis represented as a woman
with a cow’s head. The Bull Apis was marked on
the shoulder with a crescent symbolising the moon or
ark. The virgin Isis, with a cow’s head, nursing
Horus, was the prototype of all the virgin goddesses,
mothers of God, and queens of heaven of the old
classic mythology. At Ephesus she was represented
in grotesque though human form, with a multitude of
breasts. Here she bore the name Diana, and repre
sented in a crude way the principle of maternity.
Greek art represented the Egyptian Isis as a beautiful
woman, nursing the infant Horus ; and Mr Sharpe, in
his “ History of Egypt,” tells us that when the worship
of Isis was interdicted at Rome, and that of Christianity
established in its place, the painters, who hitherto had
got their living by painting pictures of Isis and
Horus, still continued to paint the same pictures of
the Virgin and Child, calling them now Mary and the
Infant Jesus. The old mythological taint still con
tinues, and I have before me while writing a beauti
fully coloured picture of the Virgin Mary, accompanied
with a large lunette or curved moon, or ship symbol,
thus showing how Christian art still associates with
its paintings, as Christian festivals continue in their
usages—the buns of Good Friday (the cakes that
were offered to Astarte) and the eggs of Easter—the
symbols of the world’s most ancient mythologies.
THE ARK IN ITS CONNECTION WITH THE ANCIENT
MYSTERIES.
The story of the Ark and Deluge is the story of
the destruction of an old world and the creation of a
new world. The liberation of its occupant is there
fore to the existing age the creation of the first man,
an event common to all nations, and the point to which
all tradition must converge. The name ark (ap^f)
signifies first, pre-eminent, and most ancient, and in
�26
The Mythos of the Ark.
this sense mingles with our common speech to-day.
It is well known that all the ancient religions con
sisted of two parts—one a system of ceremonies and
sacrifices open and common to the masses of the people,
the teachings of which were exoteric or public, and
another portion which was kept carefully concealed
from the public eye, in which a high philosophy and
a pure morality were taught, and which from the
secrecy and mystery in which its proceedings were
shrouded was termed esoteric or hidden. To these
religious rites—mysteries as they were termed—only
a select few were admitted, and these only after a
lengthened probation and passing through a series of
symbolical and initiatory rites, in which the candi
dates were surrounded by a variety of terrors and
difficulties, and were beset by imaginary dangers and
perils, so that their courage of body and mind were
put to a most severe test.
We have seen that the ark signified a coffin or a
sepulchre. The English word boat is derived from
the Greek xifiwros, or an ark; or the Coptic beut, a
coffin or sepulchre. Among the Celtic Britons the
ark of Aeddon was considered as his temple, or
sanctuary, or resting place; this they were wont to
style his bedd, which word, like the Coptic beut,
denotes a coffin or sepulchre. The word is used in
this sense to-day in Wales in the shrine which so
many tourists visit, and which is called indifferently
Bethgelert or Beddgelert, meaning the grave of Gelert.
In the Book of Genesis the same word is used to
designate the ark of the covenant and the soros or
coffin within which the dead body of Joseph was
deposited. This word was ABN (aron), and it lives
in our midst to-day in the word urn, a vase contain
ing the ashes of the dead.
The ark was thus at once the coffin or the ship of
the hero gods. In the mysteries of Isis and Osiris,
Plutarch relates that the image of a dead man was
�The Mythos of the Ark.
2/
carried about in an ark or small boat of a lunette
form, which served him as a coffin. This person was
Osiris, and this interment they viewed as the dis
appearance of the Deity, and the lamentations occa
sioned by his being dead or lost constituted the first
part of the Mysteries. Afterwards, on the third day
subsequent to his enclosure within the ark, a proces
sion went down to the sea at night, the priests bear
ing the sacred ark. Into this they poured water
from the river, and when this rite had been duly per
formed, they raised a shout of joy, exclaiming that
the lost Osiris had been found, that the dead Osiris
had been restored to life, that he who had descended
into Hades had returned from Hades. The exulta
tions in which they now indulged constituted the
second or joyful part of the mysteries. Hence origi
nated those watchwords used by the Mystse: “ We
have found him, let us rejoice together.”* The
ancient Mysteries had their celebrations prohibited
by law by the Emperor Theodosius in the 4th century.
Still the mysteries of Diana were celebrated in the
middle ages in many parts of Europe, and the
mysteries themselves still live in our midst to-day in
the rites and initiations of the Freemasons. The
Freemasons’ lodge is a temple, or tabernacle, or ark,
and the ark itself (for the Freemasons, like the Jews
* The women weeping for Tammuz or Adonis, the sun god
of Syria, alluded to by Ezekiel, and the search of the discon
solate Ceres, in the “Grecian Mysteries,” for her lost daugh
ter Proserpine, carried off by Pluto into the infernal regions,
are modifications of the same mythos. The reader will be
struck with the similarity of this mourning and rejoicing to
lhe Good Friday celebration of the death of Jesus, and the
rejoicing on account of his resurrection on Easter Sunday.
The scholars of Christ’s Hospital, in their Easter visits to the
Mansion House, have or had (for the writer is speaking his
own experience thirty years since) a piece of paper pinned
upon their coats, about three inches long by one inch broad,
having printed upon it in black letter the legend, ‘ ‘ He is
risen! ”
�28
The Mythos of the Ark.
and Egyptians, use an ark in their rites) is but a
miniature representation of the lodge. (Lodge is
derived from the Sanscrit loga, signifying the world.)
Dr Oliver, who has written very learnedly concerning
the rites and symbols of Masonry, calls the ancient
Paganism spurious “Masonry,” whereas the palpable
fact is that Masonry is spurious Paganism—is a
modern imitation of the ancient mysteries. Dr Oliver
says, “ Masonry was revealed to Adam in Paradise,”
and. certainly its rites carry their allusions back to a
period much more remote than the building of Solo
mon’s Temple.
Reproducing the ancient religion we surely expect
to find in Freemasonry the reproduction of the ancient
mythos, to find therefore many allusions to the ark.
In Mr Mackey’s interesting lexicon of Freemasonry,
he tells us that the Freemasons call themselves
“Noachites,” or observers of the commandments of
Noah, * and claim that when mankind began to
wander once more from paths of purity, the principles
of Noah were still perpetuated by that portion of
the race whom the Freemasons regard as their im
mediate ancestors. The seven precepts viz., to re
nounce all idols, to worship the only God, to commit
* The Noachites were a class of people who were not Jews but
who were said to be the sons of Noah, because they observed
the seven moral precepts called the commandments of Noah.
The Talmud recognises these people as pious men. “Who
ever receives the seven commandments,” says the oral law,
which the Talmud records, “ and is careful to observe them, he
is one of the pious of the nations of the world and has a share
in the world to come.”—Hilchoth Melachim, ch. 8, 10. Again,
“we are bound, ” says a Talmudist, “ to love as brethren all those
who observe the Noacliides, whatever their religious opinions
may otherwise be. We are bound to visit their sick, to bury
their dead, to assist their poor like those of Israel.” MlCauVs
old Paths. They were probably the virtuous heathen, who,
celebrating the mysteries or receiving the sacraments of their
religion virtually ranked as the true descendants of Noah to
whom under the various names of Osiris, Bacchus, Adonis,
-&c., the mysteries related.
�The Mythos of the Ark.
ig
no murder, to abstain from incest, from stealing, to
be just, and to eat no flesh with the blood in it, were
said to form the constitution of the ancient brethren.
Moreover, the acme of masonic science bears the
title of royal arch degree. This word arch is merely
aP% pronounced soft, the word ark and arch are the
same as seen in composition, arch-deacon and arch- or
ark-angel. Accordingly we find this Royal Arch degree
has secret reference to the ship mythos, for in Scot
land the royal arch masons bear the title of “ Royal Ark
Manners.
In the Masters or third degree of masonry
we have the death of Osiris or Noah, celebrated by
the death of Hiram Abiff, the chief builder or
architect of the temple. Mr Mackey says that Free
masons take the name Hiramites to indicate their
descent from Hiram, and this term is more particularly
used in the Scotch degree of Patriarch Noachite, to dis
tinguish master-masons from the brethren of that
degree who profess to descend immediately, and with
out connection with temple masonry, from the sons
of Noah. Some learned writers, he adds, embrace
all masons under the term Noachites.
Before the final initiation into the Isidian or
Osirian mysteries, some very terrible ordeals have to
be passed; a state of darkness besets the aspirant, in
which terrible sounds are heard and across which ap
palling visions flash. The reader will find a very
vivid delineation of these terrors in Moore’s Epicurean,
in which the ceremonies of initiation are very fully
described. It is these which are imitated in the
ceremonies which the Freemason undergoes before his
admission to the degree of master-mason. Mr Mackey
says, in the master-mason’s degree, which is the per
fection of symbolic or ancient craft masonry, the
purest of truths are unveiled amid the most awful
ceremonies. None but he who has visited the holy
of holies and travelled the road of peril can have any
conception of the mysteries unfolded in this degree.
�jo
The Mythos of the Ark.
In the language of the learned and zealous Hutchinson,
“ the master-mason represents a man saved from the
grave of iniquity and raised to the faith of salvation.”
It testifies our faith in the resurrection of the body,
and while it inculcates a practical lesson of prudence
and unshaken fidelity, it inspires the most cheering
hope of that final reward which belongs alone to the
“just made perfect.”
Dr Oliver, in his exposition of “ masonic signs and
symbols," says,, (and he is here illustrating masonic
practices, the initiatory rites of this degree by the
ancient usages,) “ an extraordinary ceremony referring
to the Deluge, was used in the initiations which shows
how mysteriously that event was preserved and trans
mitted. The violent death of some unhappy individual
was here celebrated, whose body they affected to have
lost, and much time and many ceremonies were ex
pended in the search, even the aspirant himself was
made figuratively to die, and to descend into the in
fernal regions for the purpose of ascertaining the fate
of him whose disappearance they ceased not to deplore.
This part of the ceremony was performed in darkness,
and was accompanied with loud lamentations, the
body being at length found, the aspirant was passed
through the regenerating medium and was said to be
raised from the dead and born again. This was the
commencement of joy and gladness. This ceremony
*
bears evident reference to the descent of Noah into
the darkness of the ark which was his emblematical
■coffin.”
Dr Oliver did not write to enlighten the general
public, but master-masons who know the mysterious
darkness through which they have to pass before
entering on the master’s degree, and the peculiar rites
attending their initiation into it, find them clearly
■explained by these ancient usages and fables.
The master-mason’s degree embodies the story of the
* See the legend of the death of Osiris before referred to.
�clhe Mythos of the Ark.
31
assassination of Hiram, the architect or master builder
of Solomon’s temple, who, tradition relates, was
murdered by three of the fellow-craftsmen or labourers
for refusing to deliver up the secret password that
was entrusted only to master-masons. In the initia
tory rites of this degree the incidents of this assassina
tion are rehearsed. The lodge is hung with black and
becomes a sepulchral vault dimly lit with tapers in
the middle of which is placed a coffin; the brother
about to be admitted is suddenly smitten on the fore
head and falls as if dead, is then in some lodges placed
in the coffin or pastos and covered with a pall.
*
The brethren then stand round in an attitude denot
ing sorrow and revenge. The ceremonies then go on
to describe the raising of Hiram by Solomon, in which
the brother is restored to life and his initiation after
a lecture on life, death, and immortality, is complete.
In a word, we have in this masonic degree a repetition
of the tradition of the death and resurrection of Osiris,
Adonis, &c., and of the entrance of Noah into the ark
and his egress from it.
While in the ancient religions a crude polytheism
was taught to the people at large, the initiated were
instructed in the great doctrines of the unity of God,
the immortality of the soul, and the system of future
punishment and reward. The initiated, however, are
a select few, and to these the higher and secret
doctrines were revealed. As these initiations are re
produced, in masonry by the various degrees which
are therein conferred, and the meaning of which is
kept secret from all but the initiated, so they are to be
seen in the. communion services of the Christian church,
especially in that of the church of Scotland, where it is
* Clement of Alexandria says, that in the old mysteries,
those who had undergone the higher initiation of which the
master’s degree is a copy, were wont to say, the better to
veil their meaning from the uninitiated, I have descended into
the bedchamber, i.e., I have slept the sleep of death.
�32
The Mythos of the Ark.
celebrated only at long intervals, half-a-year it may
be. The celebration then takes the character of a
general holiday so that the occasion of its observ
ance, from the large gatherings of people that are
brought together, has been named the holy fair.
Faber, who of all authors has given this subject
the most elaborate investigation, says, the philosophy
inculcated in these mysteries taught that matter was
eternal, but that it was liable to endless changes and
modifications ; that over it a Demiurgic Intelligence
presided, who, when a world was produced out of
chaos, manifested himself at the commencement of
that world as the great universal father of both men
and animals ; that during the existence of the world
every thing in it was undergoing perpetual change
that at the end of a certain great appointed period
the world was destined to be reduced to its primeval
material chaos, that the agent of its dissolution was a
flood either of water or of fire; that at this time all
its inhabitants perished and the great father from
whose soul the soul of every man proceeded, and into
whose soul all souls must be resolved, was left in the
solitary majesty of abstracted meditation, that during
the prevalence of the Deluge and the reign of chaos
he floated upon the surface of the mighty deep repos
ing in the bosom of his consort the great mother,
who then assumed the form of a ship, but who was
likewise represented by the lotos, or the egg, or the
serpent, or the navicular leaf, or the lunar crescent
that the two powers of nature, male and female, or
the great creative father, and the great creative mother,
were then reduced to their simplest principles and
sailed over the face of the illimitable ocean in the
form of a ship and mast.
At the close of the divine year the deluge subsided,
and the great father awakening from his deathlike
sleep, and bursting forth from the womb of the great
mother within which he had been confined, created a
�The Mythos of the Ark.
33
new world out of the chaotic wreck of the old world.
That a new race of mortals and of animals was
produced, and that every thing that had occurred
during the existence of the preceding world recurred
again in the new one. The mysteries, in short,
treated throughout of a grand and total regeneration;
a new birth which related to the old world, the great
demiurgic parent, and to every individual man.
Hence, the golden figure of a serpent as a symbol
of immortality was placed in the bosom of the in
itiated, and hence from the earliest ages, the male
and female principle of fecundity were deemed sacred
symbols of the great father and the great mother, and
were introduced into the orgies (or arg or ark cere
)
*.
monies
In the classic mythology Juno was repre
sented sustaining a lunette upon her head and stand
ing on a larger lunette, the crescent being depicted as to
appear floating on the surface of the sea, precisely
after the fashion of the modern life-boat.
The Egyptians had two yearly festivals, in the one
of which they celebrated the entrance of Osiris, the
sun, into the moon, Isis, and in the other, his entrance
into that ark in which he was enclosed by Typhon,
and thus set afloat upon Oceanus or the Nile. But
according to Plutarch this ark was itself a navicular
moon.f The account which Diodorus gives is exactly
to the same purpose. He tells us that Isis enclosed
Osiris within a wooden cow during the turbulent reign
of Typhon, or the all-prevailing ocean. Osiris was
* See Milman’s History of Christianity, book 1., chap. 1.
Apuleius Metamorphoses, and see also Buchanan’s Christian
Researches for an account of this worship existing in a de
generate and licentious form among the Hindoos of the present
day.
t These terms simply imply the conjunction of the sun and
moon, or, as we say now, the new moon of the spring and
autumnal equinox. The first took place in the sign of Taurus
or the Bull; hence the worship of the Bull, and the represent-ation of Isis as a cow ; the latter in the sign Scorpio, the em
blem of Typhon or the destroyer.
C
�34
The Mythos of the Ark.
then indifferently said to enter into the moon, into an
ark, and into a cow dedicated to the moon. The
moon, therefore, and the cow dedicated to the moon,
were alike symbols or hieroglyphics of the ship of'
Osiris—the one astronomically, the other physically.
The sacred cow was in Egypt dedicated to the moon,
and was called Tebah, which literally signifies an ark,
*
and she was palpably the same as the ark into which
Osiris was driven by Typhon.—(Faber’s Pag. Idol., vol..
3, page 7.)
THE ARK CONSIDERED AS A TYPE OF BAPTISMAL
REGENERATION.
Baptism as a symbol of regeneration was a religious
rite in common use in the ancient religions. John
the Baptist, we are told, preceded Jesus, and baptism
by immersion in water was the initiatory rite by
which admission into the Essenian community could
alone be obtained. Tertullian, in his treatise “De
Baptismo,” says that in Egypt disciples were admitted
into the religion of Isis and Mithra by means of
Baptism. This they think sets them free from theirperjuries and accomplishes their regeneration. The
Persians derived the practice of Baptism from India,
the cradle of the world’s ancient faiths. The use of
water, the agent of material cleansing, as a symbol of
moral purification is so natural that every religion of
antiquity might have adopted it on entirely indepen
dent grounds. But coupled with baptism we find the
idea, not only of purification, but also of regeneration
or new birth,f and this idea connects the rite with the
* Thebes was the chief city of Egypt, the city where theBull Apis was worshipped and buried.
+ Baptismal regeneration is a question that at the present
moment divides the Established Church into two hostile par
ties. The High Church party, however, who advocate thisdoctrine, have all the authority of antiquity in their favour.
This was the ancient significance of the baptismal rite; butthis furnishes no evidence of its being a true doctrine.
�The Mythos of the Ark.
35
fundamental idea of the ark and flood, of a regenerate
or new-born world, and of a regenerate or new-born
man in the person of Noah, which doctrines formed
the basis of the ancient worship.
As water had once purified the world from sin, and,
destroying the old, had produced a world altogether
new ; so immersion in water was the typical rite for
the purification and new birth of the soul. As in the
ancient mysteries, those who were initiated were made
to undergo a figurative death, so on the completion of
the rites they were said to have been new born. To
this day the distinctive title of the Brahmin in Hindostan is “twice born/’ and a Brahmin who loses
caste by travelling can only recover it by being born
again, either from a golden woman or a golden cow, as
symbols of the great mother. Another mode of
regeneration practised in India, and traces of which
are still found throughout Europe, especially in Ire
land, is by squeezing the individual through a small
hole in a rock. There is an orifice of this description
near the famous Elephanta cavern temple, and another
in the island of Bombay. This latter place, a natural
crevice on the side of the Malabar hill, communicating
with a cavern below, which opens towards the sea, is.
still used by the Hindoos as a mode of gaining puri
fication from their sins, which, they say, is effected
by their going in at the opening below and emerging
from the orifice above. This orifice is deemed sym
bolic, as the door of each mithraitic cavern and the
door in the floating moon through which the ancients
fabled all souls were born, and the door in the side of'
the ark through which Noah and his companions
emerged to a new life in a new world.
That a connection was held to exist between the
rite of baptism and the tradition of the Deluge is
amply evidenced by the way in which the earliest
Christian writers connect the two together—an associ
ation which is still to be found in the Church of
�36
The Mythos of the Ark.
England baptismal service. The writer of the second
epistle of Peter alludes to the destruction of the world
by water on account of its wickedness, and to its then
pending destruction by fire, and says, “nevertheless
we, according to his promise, look for a new heaven
and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”
Tertullian writing about the close of the second cen
tury says, De Baptismo, “As after the waters of the
flood, whereby the ancient iniquity was purged away
after the baptism, if I may so speak, of the world, the
dove sent from the ark announced to the earth that
the wrath of heaven was pacified; so by the same
disposition of spiritual effects the dove of the Holy
Spirit sent forth from heaven where the church is a
spiritual ark, flies down to our earth, that is to our
flesh, emerging from the laver after our former state
of sin, and brings the peace of God. But the world
again relapses into delinquency, and in this evil too
baptism may be compared to the Deluge.”
Origen, who wrote a century later, says, in a homily
on the Hebrew story of the Flood, “ as at the Flood
Noah was told to make an ark and to introduce to it,
not only his sons and relatives, but also animals of
every sort, so our Noah, Jesus Christ, at the bidding
of his Father, made an ark and dens in it for the
reception of various animals. Thus people who are
saved in the church are compared with those, whether
men or beasts, who were saved in the ark,” and then
he goes on to assert that there are degrees among
them, but that the lower pass through ascending
stages till they come to that which is occupied by
“ the sons or relatives of our true Noah or Rest.”
And in commenting upon the fourteenth chapter of
Ezekiel, Origen has these remarks which the reader
would do well to consider in connection with what has
been said of the typical ceremonies of the master’s
degree in Masonry, “ I once heard a Jew say Noe,
Daniel, and Job are introduced because each of them
�The Mythos of the Ark.
37
saw three periods, one of joy, one of sorrow, and
again one of joy. Consider Noe before the Deluge
when the world was in its bloom ; the same Noe
afterwards preserved in the ark (which, in another
place, he says was shaped like a pyramid—the pyra
mid was the tomb of Osiris) amidst the wreck of the
whole earth. Consider how, after the Deluge, he went
forth and planted a vineyard and became, as it were,
the author of a second world.”
Enough has now been said to indicate that Noah
was a mythological fancy, not an actual historical
personage. The name signifies rest—safety-—salva
tion. Dr. Donaldson has some curious remarks in
this direction. He says : “ An apostle has told us
that the ark of Noah is a type of baptism (1 Peter
iii. 20, 21), and it was by baptism that the mystse
were admitted to the privileges of initiation. It
could not therefore be an accident that those who
were received into that shadowy church of heathenism
were expressly taught to consider and speak of them
selves as having just escaped from the waves of a
stormy sea, and as having found shelter and peace.”
And then he goes on to show that Solomon, the
“ man’ of peace,” dedicated his temple on the seven
teenth day of the seventh month, the day on which
Noah, “ the man of peace” or rest, emerged from the
ark and erected his altar. The dove with the olive
branch is to this day a symbol inseparably associated
with the ark; but the dove is also the bird sacred to
Venus as the symbol of the great mother, while the
Peacock, the symbol of the rainbow, (another arkite
emblem, the first arch or ark of the covenant,) was
the bird sacred to Juno, the queen of heaven, and
the great mother of the gods among the Romans.
The ark has also a meaning of another character.
As in another class of solar myths, the Cross symbol
ized the Phallus and the Logos, and as the creative act
came also to imply the idea of creative wisdom, so the.
�38
The Mythos of the Ark.
ark, as the symbol of the renovation of the physical
world, came to signify also its intellectual and moral
reger^ation. And so the ark came to symbolize
Divine v .sdom, or the Logos, and was in this higher
sense the symbol of salvation, the emblem of the
Christ. It bears this higher meaning of Divine
wisdom as used in the Jewish synagogue, and it is
employed in this higher sense in the rites of modern
Freemasonry. As the coffin belongs to the Masters’
degree, so the ark is the symbol of the Royal Arch or
Ark degree. In the synagogue it contains the sacred
books, the word or wisdom of God, and in the Free
masons’ lodge it contains the book of the constitutions
of the society—the secret or sacred wisdom, i.e., the
“Logos.” In the ancient world Noah was often
worshipped as God, in the same way as Jesus, in his
*
character of Christ, is worshipped as God at the pre
sent day. There are times when a distinction is made,
and Noah and Christ regarded as subordinate to God,
but at other times the characters are merged into one,
and then they were regarded as God. In the heathen
temples the ark was thought to contain the God,—
to be the divine dwelling place, —and it was on the ark,
between the cherubim that covered it, that in the
Jewish temple God was thought to be especially
present. In Catholic and Ritualistic, nay even in the
majority of Protestant churches, it is on the altar or
communion table—the substitutes for the ark of Jew
ish and heathen worship—that God is held to be
actually present to-day. These are placed in the
central and most sacred portions of the churches, the
chancel being to Catholics and Protestants the holy of
holies of Christian worship. In Freemasonry "the
Royal Arch or Ark
degree constitutes the summit
of masonic science. Here the fulness of the secret
wisdom is imparted, and to this degree, as to the
* Vernon Harcourt, on the Worship of Noah in the East.
See Doctrine of the Deluge.
�The Mythos of the Ark.
39
"Communion rite of churches, only a select few are
admitted. These constitute, as it were, the esoteric
brotherhood—the fully initiated. In the ancient mys
teries of Isis and Osiris in Egypt, and of Ceres and
Bacchus in Greece, the candidate, after witnessing
the terrible celebration of the death of the god, was
at length led out of the darkness and terrors into a
chamber where, amid a flood of dazzling light, he was
permitted to gaze on a beautiful and resplendent
statue of the goddess Ceres or Isis. In this scene of
-celestial splendour the secret doctrine was revealed,
and he who had before been called a “ mystes,” or
novice, was now termed an “ epoptes,” or eyewitness.
Apuleius, who in the second century underwent
■initiation into the mysteries of Isis, has written a
lengthened account of the proceeding and its pre
paratory rites. In one of these the priest tells him,
“The gates of the shades below and the care of our
life being in the hands of the goddess, the ceremony
of initiation into her mysteries is as it were to suffer
-death, with the precarious chance of resuscitation.
Wherefore the goddess, in the wisdom of her divinity,
hath been accustomed to select as persons to whom
■ the secrets of her religion can with propriety be
intrusted, those, who standing as it were in the
■utmost limit of the course of life they have com
pleted, may through her providence be in a manner
born again, and commence the career of a new exist
ence.”*—Apulews’ Metamorpli.
Apuleius, after alluding to the pledge of secresy
which binds him, proceeds to tell as much as he dare
concerning the final process. “ Listen,” he says, “ to
what I shall relate. I approached the abode of
death, with my foot I pressed the threshold of Pro.
* St Paul and other New Testament writers repeatedly
draw illustrations from the rites employed in the mysteries—
the new birth, the death unto sin and the life unto righteous
ness, the perfect man, &c., &c.
�40
The Mythos of the Ark.
serpine’s palace, — I was transported through the
elements and conducted back again. At midnight I
saw the bright light of the sun shining. I stood in
the presence of the gods,—the gods of heaven and
of the shades below,—ay, stood near and worshipped.
And now have I only told thee such things that
hearing thou necessarily canst not understand, and
being beyond the comprehension of the profane, .I
*
can enunciate without committing a crime.”
The Royal Arch or Ark degree is virtually a copy
. of this final rite of initiation. It is here that the
Masonic holy of holies is open to the newly admitted
brother, or companion as he is now called. The
actual vision of the goddess is however here replaced
by the revelation of the most sacred and ineffable
name of God. This, the legend of the rite relates,
was discovered in the ruins of Solomon’s Temple, by
some master masons coming accidentally upon the
perfect remains of an arch. Removing the keystone,
they cast lots who should go down. The mason on
whom the lot fell being let down by a rope, brought
up a scroll, which proved to be the lost book of the
law. Coming to another arch, they opened it, and
here found a white marble pedestal, on which was a
plate of gold, and on this plate were inscribed double
triangles, in which was engraven the long lost sacred
word of the Master Mason—the grand omnific Royal
Arch word. This consisted in the triple name of
God, JAO-BUL-ON—too sacred to be spoken in one
* Compare with this Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth,
a city where these mysteries were periodically held. “ How
beit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect (initiated).
. . . We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the
hidden (secret) wisdom. . . . Eye hath not seen nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things
which God hath prepared for them that love him. The
natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for
they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, for
they are spiritually discerned.”
�The Mythos of the Ark.
41
breath, so three Masons have to repeat it, taking
each a syllable.
JAO or JAH was the Hebrew name of God, which
the Jews were forbidden to pronounce; which the
Book of Exodus relates was revealed to Moses, and
which rabbinical tradition relates might only be
uttered by the High Priest in the Holy of Holies on
the great day of atonement, and then amid the sound
of cymbals and trumpets, which prevented the people
from hearing it. The Jews believed that this name
possessed unbounded powers. “ He who pronounces
it, they say, shakes the heavens and earth, and
inspires the very angels with astonishment and
terror.” They declare that a sovereign power at
taches to this name ; that it governs the world by its
power. The Rabbins call it “Shern hamphoresh,”
the unutterable name, and say that David found it
engraved on a stone while he was digging the founda
tions of the earth. (Mackey's Lexicon).—None dared
to enter the temple of Serapis who did not bear
qn his breast or forehead the name Jao or J-ha-ho,
a name almost equivalent in sound to that of the
Hebrew Jehovah, and probably of identical im
port, and no name v as uttered in Egypt with more
reverence than this of Jao. In the hymn which the
hierophant or guardian of the sanctuary sung to the
initiated this was the first explanation given of the
nature of the Deity. “ He is one and by himself, and
to him alone do all things owe their existence. (From
the German of Schiller, quoted in “ Time and Faith.")—
Bui or Bel was the name of God among the Phenicians, and signifies lord or master. On was the name
under which the sun was worshipped in Egypt, so
the city ON was called by the Greek Heliopolis.
Joseph’s wife was a daughter of Potipherah, a priest
of On. Thus Dag-on signifies the fish god. Mr Brown,
in his recently published little book, 11 Poseid-on,” a
deity allied to the Latin Neptune, says with regard
�42
The Mythos of the Ark.
to the word On or Aun : “ Its Egyptian sense is the
enlightener, teacher, or instructor, of which the sun
is the natural type. The Semitic root, 11 an,” signifies
primarily labour or energy, especially procreative
power. Hence the Aun is the great enlightener or
teacher, and also the procreator of all, from whom all
spring or are descended, according to the saying,
‘ Omnia ex ovo,’ all things from the egg, 6on, aun.”
The word Aun transposed is the equivalent of Noah,
and Mr Brown traces an identity of character between
the Aun and the Babylonian fish god Oannes, whom
he also identifies with Noah, as the enlightener as
well as the procreator of the world. It is this triple
name of deity, JAO-BUL-ON, involving the full
description of his attributes,—the philosophy of the
creation and government of the world, the existence
of. one sole and supreme God, the creator of all
things, the father of all men, the all-wise, the all
good, the eternal, who was, and is, and is to be,—
that constitutes the grand secret or sacred wisdom
enshrined in the Royal Arch * Degree. “ The fear of
the Lord,” says a Hebrew writer, “ is the beginning
of wisdom.” It was in the sense of their teaching the
true law of life, and unveiling the providential gover
nance of the universe, that the mysteries of Paganism
were the shrine of secret wisdom. This knowledge
that God is one, that the soul is immortal, that the
practice of righteousness is its true salvation, is the
secret wisdom of which Freemasonry boasts, and this
wisdom is a portion of the Mythos of the Ark.
Godfrey Higgins (“ Anacalypsis,” vol. i., page 73),
shews that the Hebrew
is represented by the Greek
and that it has the meaning of “ wisdom” as well
as “ beginning,” that in fact the accredited authority
* The word “ arch ” in the sense of wisdom has passed into
the familiar language of daily life. We call a shrewd person
“ arch,” and more vulgarly .say he is “ an old one,” an ancient,
i.e., an arkite.
�The Mythos of the Ark.
43
of the Jews the Jerusalem Targum renders the first
verse of Genesis thus, “ By wisdom God created the
world,”—a rendering which the account of wisdom
given in the eighth chapter of the book of Proverbs
amply justifies. Throughout all the east Noah was
held in reverence as a divine lawgiver, and Vernon
Harcourt asserts (“ Doctrine of the Deluge”) Noah
was one and the same, as shown by etymological
identity of name, with the great traditional lawgivers
or patriarchs of the Gentile world, Menu in India,
Minos in Greece, Menes in Egypt, and Numa in Rome.
The ark also was one with the moon, and while in the
ancient religions the sun symbolised divine power, the
moon symbolised the spirit or wisdom of God. Both
•spirit and wisdom are feminine, and hence are allied
to the goddesses Isis, Astarte, J uno, &c., of whom the
moon was the symbol, and who, notwithstanding their
multiform names were one and the same goddess—the
great mother of nature. But Athena and Pallas in «
Greece, and Neith the tree goddess of Egypt, and
Minerva among the Romans, were goddesses of wis
*
dom, and thus it is that the ark of which these
goddesses were the type, was not only like them the
symbol of fertility, but was the symbol of divine wis
dom also. Noah, the genius of the ark, is the root of
the Greek word vovc, signifying wisdom, while the
moon, the intermediate and connecting symbol, has a
■ similar sense. Men in the Greek is the moon, and
from this comes the Latin mens, the mind, and mensis,
a month, “ Menes” and “ Minos,” the wise legislators of
antiquity are allied to the same root. The moon was
the great measurer of time, of weeks and months,
whence the word mensuration, and as the priestesses
who gave the divine oracles in a fit of frenzy or mad
ness were supposed to be under the influence of the
moon, we have the words maniac and lunatic denoting
* Our seats of learning are called to this day “Alma Mater”
by those who have been educated in them.
�44
The Mythos of the Ark.
an insane person, a person of disordered mind; more
over the Latin mensa, a table, carries us again into
close relation with the altar or ark. The term manes,,
as applied to the dead and to the infernal gods, to the
ghosts or spirits of the dead in hades, is in the same
connection with “mens” and “meen” and “menes.”
It relates to the people in the ark or tomb, and is
thus connected with both moon and ark. The crescent
moon was the universal emblem of the goddesses of
antiquity, of whom the ark with the germs of life
within it was a symbol also. Mythologically, there
fore, they have one and the same significance, and
thus the picture of the virgin by Albert Durer repre
senting a beautiful woman with the crescent symbol,
is a picture that represents not the mother of Jesus,
but the beautiful woman that was worshipped in the
ancient world, and of whom the moon and the ark
were symbols. This crescent is to-day the well-known
» symbol of the Mahometan faith— a faith which sprung
up among the self-same Arabian tribes of idolaters, who,
making cakes wherewith to celebrate the worship of the
*
queen of heaven, gave to the corrupt Christian church
of the fourth century the idea of making the mother of
Christ a goddess under the title of the Virgin Mary.f
Had space permitted it would have been pos
sible largely to have extended the evidence which
has here been adduced in proof of the mytho
logical identity of Noah’s ark with the moon and
goddess worship of antiquity, and with the cultus of
the Virgin Mary in modern times. It has, however,
been fully shown that the story of the Ark and Flood,
* See Jeremiah vii. 18.
+ In time of deepest trouble and affliction prayers are
offered in the Romish Church to the Blessed Virgin — the
genius or goddess of the ark of salvation. Mr Hislop, in
“The Two Babyions,” p. 401, gives a prayer offered by the
Archbishop of Turin in 1855, on account of the ravages of the
vine disease, which were spreading ruin through the country,
addressed conjointly to Noah and the Blessed Virgin.
�The Mythos of the drk.
45
given in the Book of Genesis, is simply a tradition or
legend founded on an ancient mythological fancy or
fable, and is not what Englishmen are taught to regard
it as being, a supernatural revelation from the eternal
God, only and specially given to the Jewish people.
We have seen that it constituted the mythos which
was unfolded in the ancient mysteries, where the
hiding of Noah in the ark typified physical death, and
in a spiritual sense death to all the passions and vices
of human nature ; while his release from the ark typi
fied the resurrection from the dead and the new birth
of the soul. The original meaning of all being a
symbolic representation of the death of the sun-god in
*
Autumn, his sojourn in the tomb during the sterile
and stormy months of winter, his resurrection to life
and fertility and joy and gladness in the bright and
happy festival of the opening spring. Our GoodFriday mournings for the death of Jesus, and our
Easter rejoicings for his resurrection, are Pagan cele
brations adapted to Christian purposes. 'The death
*
of Jesus or Christ was, simply, the death of a good
man, was a death that knew no restoration to human
life, for resurrection of this kind is not accorded to
•our human nature. + The spirit of a man does not
die at all, and, therefore finding continued life needs
The Pagan goddess “Freya, ” from which our Friday takes
its name, and from whose worship our Good-Friday derives its
custom of cross buns, is simply a form of Astarte or Venus or
Isis. The cross marked on the cakes is the Grecian x, not
the cross of Christian reverence f. It has the significance of
fertility. The cakes offered to Astarte were called boun,
whence our word bun, from the Greek fiovs, an ox. The ox
was sacred to Isis. The Tauribolia or baptismal rites in bul
lock’s blood were sacred to the Eleusinian goddess. Our town
of Oxford was once the site of a temple dedicated to Isis. It
now stands on the banks of the river Isis, on the spot, where
during the Roman rule, a temple of Isis stood. The ox sacred
to Isis now appears in the name and also in the arms of the
city. The Bull was a prominent feature in the cherubim that
overshadowed the Jewish ark c f the covenant.
t Consult English Life of Jesus, by T. Scott. Esq., new
edition, pp. 316-319.
H
�46
The Mythos of the Ark.
no resurrection. The idea of a dying God was a Pagan idea, and is a huge fallacy when understood in a
literal sense, though it becomes a sublime truth when
its esoteric or hidden meaning is perceived. It is
taught, however, in its grossest and crudest and falsest
sense to English minds to-day, and our Good-Friday
celebrations to mourn the crucifixion of Jesus as the
death of a god lie open to the reproof which Xenophanes,
B.C. 520, gave to the Egyptian priests. Holding himself
enlightened views as to the oneness and spirituality
and eternity of God, he questioned the priests con
cerning the meaning of the mournings in which they
indulged at the celebration of the death of Osiris, and
was naturally puzzled at their grief for the sufferings
of one they called a god. He could not understand
how Osiris could have two natures, one human and
one divine, and he argued with them “ that if they
thought him a man they should not worship him,
while if they thought him a god they should cease to
talk of his sufferings.”—{Sharpe's History of Egypt.)
It has been shown that this mythos of death and
resurrection, elevated from a physical to a moral
atmosphere, understood as relating to the new birth
or regenerate spirit of man, to the human and godlike
principles that unite in his nature, to the struggle of
the quickened soul to leave the thraldom of the
body, and to find the freedom of the spirit, to rise
from the death of sin to the life of righteousness was
the secret wisdom which the ancient mysteries en
shrined. In this sense the mythos of the ark has
passed from the ancient mysteries to the baptismal
and communion services of the Christian church;
services which every student of early Christian history
knows were copies of heathen usages and rites. We
have thus traced the Arkite mystery and shown it to
be one and the same with the secret rites of Freemasons
as practised in their lodges at the present day. In a
word, we have in the story of the ark, when it is pro
perly comprehended, the germ and development of
�7be Mythos of the Ark.
47
man’s religious nature. The story of the struggles of
humanity to find out God, the record of the ceaseless
strivings of the human soul after the life of virtue
and goodness which alone can entitle it to immortality.
In unfolding the mythology of the ark, it has become
necessary to unfold the hidden meaning of Masonry, to
shew the secret wisdom which it professes to enshrine.
Practically, this is unknown to masons themselves,
their rites, like the rites of antiquated churches, have
become for the most part empty and meaningless
forms ; the lectures delivered in the lodges, put often
a secondary meaning into these rites, so that they now
only serve as a crude illustration for a few trite moral
maxims, and Freemasonry as it exists in England is
simply a benefit association for the wealthy classes,
or an order of good fellowship, and it has as little todo with secret wisdom, as a lodge of Foresters or Odd
fellows. Its signs and passwords are its only real
secrets and these none but the members of the masonic
brotherhood ought to wish to know. They are, how
ever, trivial matters of no more general concern than
the private marks which houses of business employ.
Freemasonry in its true meaning is a church, not a
benefit society. Its worship is the grand religion of
nature, Spiritual Pantheism, the religion of which
Noah, Menu, Menes, Buddha, Socrates, Christ, and
Paul, and the great, and good, and wise, of every age
and of every land are and have been the preachers. It
is the opponent of all narrow and exclusive theological
faiths, and though it is itself in its organisation a
sect, yet its platform is one on which men of every
faith and of every clime may meet. It is the old
arkite religion existing in our midst in almost the
purity of its ancient form; and if a living soul were
put into it to-day, if Freemasons knew that their
system was a religion, and not a mere social club,
they would inaugurate a religious reformation and lay
the foundation stones of a universal church. That
which of old Noah was fabled to have found in the
�48
The Mythos of the Ark.
ark when the deluge was destroying all things else,
rest, peace, salvation, the enlightened devotee of the
old world religions, the worshipper of Isis and Osiris,
of Ceres and Bacchus, of the Persian Mithras and the
Syrian Adonis found in the innermost recesses of the
temple after he had borne the penances and privations
of the initiatory rites ; so the Jew found this peace on
the day of atonement, when the veil was uplifted from
the holy of holies, and the Ark of God was seen, and the
Christian reaches an ark of rest and finds a refuge
from the ills of life, an assurance of the salvation his
soul seeks, when he kneels before the altar at which
mass is celebrated, or sits at the sacred table around
which the brethren of the church assemble. And
thus in like manner the Freemason has a sacred shrine,
around which all his hopes and aspirations centre,
and in the revelation which is made to him in the
Royal Arch degree of the sacred name by which the
power, and attributes, and love, and wisdom of the
Great Architect, and framer, and upholder of the uni
verse are described ; of the path of duty he himself is to
pursue, of the virtues he should practise, the hopes he
should cherish and the trust he should display; he
finds an oasis in life’s desert, an ark of safety amid the
boisterous waves of its trouble and its strife; for here,
as in the holiest sanctuary of the church, the true word
of life is, or ought to be, sounded in his ears, the true
guidance is, or ought to be, found, the divine mystery
is, or ought to be unveiled, and the purposes of Pro
vidence made clear. Here at last the temple of truth is,
to his thought, reached, of truth that quickens the angel
nature of the man, and that through a life of love and
virtue, and purity on earth, conducts him to the life
that is everlasting. Here he thinks salvation is attained,
the haven of safety reached. And so he feels that—
Here he can bathe his weary soul
In seas of heavenly rest,
And not a wave of trouble roll
Across his peaceful breast.
�
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 mythos of the ark
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lake, John W.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 48 p. : ill. (diags.) ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1872
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT158
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The mythos of the ark), 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
Conway Tracts
Noah's Ark
Noah's Ark;Deluge
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bf51d1fe908d7f25339604a28adf46e6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vCm1iMlj2sN0SgnxSK2LbCWYXNRaunWc%7EY%7EgCeDXVeiKHJnC--bn6maf47JeSgIrLbJvxjnvnJWbbat5PRU0%7EpdhhRSoNRrIgi9Ud6YYvRyUvSIyYhGUeasi8i0dhQqwX8y7pg4t6yg8%7E-hq1Hd32QvqpTBUpx5G8PA2R1QbwJNB57ngsfkOVCH-Vl1pptgdI%7EL%7EhQjfpsi4H6HTlRsInvR8Tg2Jo7QQdACAoNsNhL0E483ywEAI-D7q2MQ%7El98hR5rjSkkcKJere0qKP46PQ8e4j3WlgSIpC31TyKJzAMWobLHrk9-IHx6AcxU0tbpxqcZtftP1cb8DQdO1m0BXtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5fbc9e292c88dfe78331c2ddc850e248
PDF Text
Text
g X2^7
0 ?B
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
BY
i
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
[revised edition.]
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63, FLEET STREET E.C.
1 8 8 4.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
COMPANY.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
-------------- _
In compiling a biographical account of any ancient per
sonage, impediments often arise from the uncertainty,
party bias, and prejudiced coloring of the various tra
ditions out of which the biography is collected. Here no
such obstacle is met with, no such bias can be imagined,
for, in giving the life of David, we extract it from an all
wise God’s perfect and infallible revelation to man, and
thus are enabled to present it to our readers free from
any doubt, uncertainty, or difficulty. There is perhaps
the fear that the manner of this brief sketch may be
adjudged to be within the operation of such common law
as wisely protects the career of the saints from mere sinful
common-sense criticism; but as the matter is derived
from the authorised version for which England is in
debted to James, of royal and pious memory, this new
life of David may be safely left to the impartial judgment
of Mr. Justice North, aided by the charitable and pious
counsel of Sir Hardinge Giffard. The latter, who has had
more than one criminal client for whom he has most ably
pleaded, might be relied on to make out a strong, if not a
good, case for punishing any one who is unfair to the man
after God’s own heart. Mr. Justice Stephen has furnished
me with some slight guide in his notice of Voltaire’s play
called “ David ” :—
“ It constitutes, perhaps, the bitterest attack on David’s
character ever devised by the wit of man, but the effect is
produced almost exclusively by the juxtaposition, with hardly
any alteration, of a number of texts from different parts of
David’s history. It would be a practical impossibility to
charge a jury in such a case, so as to embody Lord Coleridge’s
view of the law. The judge would have to say : “ It is lawful
f.o say that David was a murderer, an adulterer, a treacherous
�4
NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
tyrant who passed his last moments in giving directions for
assassinations; but you must observe the decencies of contro
versy.. You must not arrange your facts in such a way as to
mix ridicule with indignation, or to convey too striking a
contrast between the solemn character of the documents from
which the extracts are made, and the nature of the extracts
themselves, and of the facts to which they relate.”
It is in the spirit of this paragraph that I have penned the
present life.
The father of David was Jesse, an Ephrathite of Bethle
hem Judah, who had either-eight sons, (1 Samuel c. xvi.,
w. 10 and 11, and c. xvii., v. 12), or only seven (1
Chronicles, c. ii., vv. 13 to 15), and David was either the
eighth son or the seventh. Some may think this a difficulty,
but such persons will only be those who rely on their own
intellectual faculties, or who have been misled by arithmetic.
If you are in any doubt, consult some qualified divine, and
he will explain to you that there is really no difference be
tween eight and seven when rightly understood with prayer
and faith, by the help of the spirit. Arithmetic is an utterly
infidel acquirement, and one which all true believers should
eschew. The proposition that three times one are one is a
fundamental article of the Christian faith. When young,
David tended his father’s sheep, and apparently while so
doing he gained a character for being cunning in playing,
a mighty valiant man, a man of war and prudent in
matters. He obtained his reputation as a soldier early
and wonderfully, for he was “but a youth;” and God’s
most holy word asserts that when going to fight with
Goliath, he tried to walk in armor and could not, because
he was not accustomed to it (1 Samuel c. xvii., v. 39 c. f.
Douay version). Samuel shortly prior to this anointed
David, who, while yet a lad, had been selected by the
(Lord to be King of the Jews in place and stead of Saul,
who had wickedly disobeyed the commands of the Lord,
who in his infinite love and mercy had said (1 Sam., c. 15,
v. 3): “ Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all
that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man
and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and
ass.” Saul, however, behaved unrighteously, for he
“ spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen,
i and of the failings, and the lambs, and all that was good,
* and would not utterly destroy them.’’ This not unnaturally
�NKW LIFE 01* DAVID.
5
irritated and annoyed the Lord. “ Then came the word of
the Lord unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I
have set up Saul to be King : for he is turned back from
following me, and hath not performed my commandments,”
and the Lord bid Samuel fill a “horn with oil,” and sent
Samuel, who anointed David the son of Jesse in the midst
of his brethren, and the spirit of the Lord came upon
David from that day forward. If a man takes to spirits
his life will probably be one of vice, misery, and misfor
tune ; and if spirits take to him, the result in the end is
nearly the same. Every evil deed which the Bible records
as having been done by David was after the spirit of the
Lord had so come upon him. Saul being King of Israel, an
evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.. The devil has, it
is said, no love for music, and Saul was recommended to
have David to play on a harp, in order that harmony
might drive this evil spirit back to the Lord who sent it.
The Jew’s harp was played successfully, and Saul was
often relieved from the evil spirit by David’s ministrations.
There is nothing miraculous in this; at the People’s Concerts
many a working man has beenrelieved from the “bluedevils”
by a stirring chorus, a merry song, or patriotic anthem; and
on the contrary many evil spirits have been aroused by
the most unmusical performances of the followers of
General Booth. David was appointed armor-bearer to
the King; but curiously enough, this office does not appear
to have interfered with his duties as a shepherd; indeed,
the care of his father’s sheep took precedence over the care
of the king’s armor, and in the time of war he “ went
and returned to feed his father’s sheep.” Perhaps his
■“ prudence in matters ” induced him thus to take care of
himself.
A Philistine, one Goliath of Gath (whose height was six
cubits and a span, or about nine feet six inches, at a low
computation) had defied the armies of Israel. This Goliath
was (to use the vocabulary of a reverend sporting corres
pondent to a certain religious newspaper) a veritable cham
pion of the heavy weights. He carried in all about two
cwt. of offensive and defensive armor upon his person,
and his challenge had great weight. None dared accept
it amongst the soldiers of Saul until the arrival of David,
who brought some food for his brethren. David volnnteered to fight the giant, but Elias, David’s brother, having
�6
NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
mocked the presumption of the offer, and Saul objecting’
that the venturesome lad was not competent to take part in
a conflict so dangerous, David related how he pursued a n
lion and a bear, how he caught him, by his beard and slew '
him. Which animal it was that David thus bearded the i
text does not say. The Douay says it was “a lion or a
bear.” To those who have chased the king of the.forests
or studied the habits of bears, the whole story looks, on
an attentive reading, “very like a whale.” David was
permitted to fight the giant; his equipment was simple, a ) *
sling and stones, and with these, from a distance, he slew
the giant. Some suggest that the weapon Goliath fell
under was the long bow. This suggestion is rendered pro
bable by the book itself. One verse says that David slew
the Philistine with a stone, another verse says that he slew
him with the giant’s own sword, while in 2 Samuel c. xxi.,
v. 19, we are told that Goliath the^Gittife”was slain by
Elhanan. Our translators, who have great regard for our
faith and more for their pulpits, have kindly inserted the
words “the brother of ” before Goliath. This emendation
saves the true believer from the difficulty of understanding
how Goliath of Gath could have been killed by different \
men at different times. David was previously well known
to Saul, and was much loved and favored by that monarch.
He was also seen by the king before he went forth to do
battle with the gigantic Philistine. Yet (as if to verify
the proverb that kings have short memories for their
friends) Saul had forgotten his own armor-bearer and
much-loved harpist, and ’was obliged to ask Abner who
David was. Abner, captain of the king’s host, familiar
with the person of the armor-bearer to the king, of course
knew David well; he therefore answered: “As thy soul
liveth, 0 king, I cannot tell.” David, having made known
his parentage, was appointed to high command by Saul;
but the Jewish women over-praised David, and thus dis
pleased the king. One day the evil spirit from the Lord
came upon Saul and he prophesied. Men often talk great
nonsense under the influence of spirits, which they some
times regret when sober. It is, however, an interesting4It
tyl fact in ancient spiritualism to know that Saul prophesied I I
with a devil in him. Under the joint influence of the devil i
and prophecy, Saul tried to kill David with a javelin, and
this was repeated, even after David had married the king’s
�NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
7
daughter (whose wedding he had secured by the slaughter
of two hundred men). Saul then asked his son and ser
vants to kill David; but Jonathan, Said’s son, loved David,
‘ ‘ And Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan: and
Saul sware, As the Lord liveth, he shall not be slain.” It
is interesting as showing the utility of oaths that after
having thus sworn Said was more determined than ever to
kill David. To save his own life David fled to Naioth, and
Saul sent there messengers to arrest David; but three sets
of the king’s messengers having in turn all become pro
phets, Said went himself, and the spirit of the Lord came
upon him also, and he stripped off his clothes and pro
phesied as hard as the rest, “laying down naked all that
day and all that night.”
David lived in exile for some time in godly company,
having collected round him every one that was in distress,
and every one that was in debt, and every one that was
discontented. Saul made several fruitless attempts.<to
effect his capture, with no better result than that he
twice placed himself in the power of David, who twice
showed the mercy to a cruel king which he never conceded
to an unoffending people. David having obtruded himself
upon Achish, King of Gath, doubtful of his safety, feigned
madness to cover his retreat. He then lived a precarious
life, sometimes levying a species of black mail upon defence
less farmers. Having applied to one farmer to make bim
some compensation for permitting the farm to go unrobbed,
and his demand not having been complied with, David,
who is a man after the heart of God of mercy, immediately
determined to murder the farmer and all his household for
their wicked reluctance in submitting to his extortions.
The wife of farmer Nabal compromised the matter. David
'''accepted her person ” and ten days after Nabal was found
dead in his bed. David afterwards went with 600 men and
lived under the protection of Achish, King of Gath, and
while thus residing (being the anointed one of God who
says, “ Thou shalt not steal ”) he robbed the inhabitants
of the surrounding places. Being also obedient to the
statute, “Thou shall do no murder,” hs slaughtered, and
left neither man nor woman alive to report his robberies to
King Achish; and as he “ always walked in the ways ” of
a God to whom “ lying lips are an abomination,” he made
false reports to Achish in relation to his actions. Of
�NEW LINE OF DAVID.
course this was all for the glory of God, whose ways are
not as our ways. Soon the Philistines were engaged in
another of the constantly recurring conflicts with the
Israelites. Who offered them the help of himself and
band ? Who offered to make war on his own countrymen ?
David, the man after God’s own heart, who obeyed God’s
statutes and who walked in his ways, to do only that
which was right in the sight of God. The Philistines
rejected the traitor’s aid, and prevented the consnnmm.fion
of this baseness. While David was making this un
patriotic proffer of his services to the Philistines, his own
city of Ziglag was captured by the Amalekites, who were
doubtless endeavoring to avenge some of the most unjusti
fiable robberies and murders perpetrated by David and his
followers in their country. David’s own friends evidently
thought that this misfortune was a retribution for David’s
crimes, for they spoke of stoning him. The Amalekites
had captured and carried off everything, but they do not
seem to have maltreated or killed any of their enemies.
David was less merciful. He pursued them, recaptured
the spoil, and spared not a man of them, save 400 who
escaped on camels. In consequence of the death of Saul,
David was elevated to the throne of Judah, while
Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, was made king of Israel. But
Ishbosheth having been assassinated, David slew the
assassins, when they, hoping for reward, brought him the
news, and he reigned ultimately over Israel also.
As religious readers are doubtless aware, the Lord God
of Israel, after the time of Moses, usually dwelt on the top
of an ark or box, between two figures of gold; and on one
occasion David made a journey with his followers to Baal,
to bring thence the ark of God. They placed it on a new
cart drawn by oxen. On the journey the oxen stumbled,
and consequently shook the cart. One of the drivers,
whose name was Uzzah, possibly fearing that God might
be tumbled to the ground, took hold of the ark, apparently
in order to steady it, and prevent it from overturning.
God, who is a God of love, was much displeased that any
one should presume to do any such act of kindness, and
killed Uzzah on the spot as a punishment for his sin. This
shows that if a man sees the Church of God tumbling
down, he should never try to prop it up; if it be not
strong enough to save itself, the sooner it falls the better
�NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
9
for humankind—that is, if they keep away from it while
it is falling. David was much displeased that the Lord
had killed Uzzah; in fact, David seems to have wished
for a monopoly of slaughter, and always manifested dis
pleasure when any killing was done unauthorised hy
himself. Being displeased, David would not take the ark
to Jerusalem, but left it in the house of Obed Edom; then,
as the Lord proved more kind to Obed Edom than he had
done to Uzzah, David determined to bring the ark away,
and did so, dancing before the ark in a state of semi-nudity,
for which he was reproached by Michal. Lord Campbell’s
Act is intended to hinder the publication of indecencies,
but the pages of the Book which the law affirms to be
God’s most holy word do not come within the scope of the
Act, and lovers of obscene language may therefore have
legal gratification so long as the Bible shall exist. The
God of Israel, who had been leading a wandering life for
many years, and who had “walked in a tent and in a
tabernacle,” and “from tent to tent,” and “from one
tabernacle to another,” and “who had not dwelt in any
house” since the time that he brought the Israelites out of
Egypt, was offered “ an house for him to dwell in,” but he
declined to accept it during the lifetime of David, although
he promised to permit the son of David to erect him such
an abode. David being now a powerful monarch, and
having many wives and concubines, saw one day the
beautiful wife of one of his soldiers. To see with this
licentious monarch was to crave for the gratification of his
lust. The husband Uriah was fighting for the king, yet David
was base enough to steal his wife’s virtue during Uriah’s
absence in the field of battle. “ Thou shalt not commit
adultery ” was one of the commandments, yet we are told by
God of this David, that he was one ‘ ‘ who kept my command
ments, and who followed me with all his heart to do only
that which was right in mine eyes” (1 Kings, c. xiv.,
v. 8). David having seduced the wife, sent for her
husband, wishing to make him condone his wife’s dishonor.
In modern England under a Stuart or a Brunswick, Uriah
might have become a Marquis or a Baron. Some hold
that virtue in rags is less worth than vice when coroneted.
Uriah would not be thus tricked, and David, the pious
David, coolly planned, and without mercy caused to be
executed, the treacherous murder of Uriah. God is all
�10
NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
just; and David having committed adultery and murder,
God punished and killed an innocent child, which had no
part or share in David’s crime, and never chose that it
should be born from the womb of Bathsheba. After this
king David was even more cruel and merciless than
before. Previously he had systematically slaughtered the
inhabitants of Moab, now he sawed people with saws, cut
them with harrows and axes, and made them pass through
brick-kilns. Yet of this man, God said he “did that
which was right in mine eyes.” So bad a king, so
treacherous a man, a lover so inconstant, a husband so
adulterous, was of course a bad father, having bad children.
We are little surprised, therefore, to read that his son
Amnon robbed of her virtue his own sister, David’s
daughter Tamar, and that Amnon was afterwards slain by
his own brother, David’s son Absalom, and we are scarcely
astonished that Absalom himself, on the house-top, in the
sight of all Israel, should complete his father’s shame by
an act worthy a child of God’s select people. Yet these
are God’s chosen race, and this is the family of the man
“who walked in God’s ways all the days of his life.”
God, who is all-wise and all-just, and who is not a man
that he should repent, repented that he had made Saul’
king because Saul spared one man. In the reign of David
the same good God sent a famine for three years on the
descendants of Abraham, and upon being asked his reason
for thus starving his chosen ones, the reply of the Deity was
that he sent the famine on the subjects of David because
Saul slew the Gibeonites. Satisfactory reason!—because
Oliver Cromwell slew the Eoyalists, God will punish the
subjects of Charles the Second. One reason is, to profane
eyes, equivalent to the other, but a bishop or even a rural
dean would soon show how remarkably God’s justice was
manifested. David was not behindhand in justice. He had
sworn to Said that he would not cut off his seed—2.0., that
he would not destroy Saul’s family. He therefore took two
of Saul’s sons, and five of Saul’s grandsons, and gave them
up to the Gibeonites, who hung them. Strangely wonderful
are the ways of the Lord! Saul slew the Gibeonites,
therefore years afterwards God starves Judah. The Gibe
onites hang men who have nothing to do with the crime
of Saul, except that they are his descendants, and then
we are told “the Lord was intreated for the land.” The
�NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
II
anger of the Lord being kindled against Israel, he, want
ing some excuse for punishing the descendants of Jacob,
moved David to number his people. The Chronicles say
that the tempter was Satan, and pious people may thus
learn what there is of distinction between God and Devil.
Philosophers would urge that both personifications are
founded in the ignorance of the masses, and the continu
ance of the myth will cease with the credulousness of the
people. David caused a census to be taken of the tribes
of Israel and Judah. There is a trival disagreement of
about 270,000 soldiers between Samuel and Chronicles,
but readers must not allow so slight an inaccuracy as this
to stand between them and heaven. What are 270,000
men when looked at prayerfully ? That any doubt should
arise is to a devout mind at the same time profane and
preposterous. Statisticians suggest that 1,570,000 soldiers
form a larger army than the Jews are likely to have
possessed; but if God is omnipotent, there is no reason to
limit his power of miraculously increasing or decreasing
the armament of the Jewish nation. David, it seems, did
wrong in numbering his people, but we are never told that
he did wrong in robbing or murdering their neighbors, or
in pillaging peaceful agriculturists. David said: “I have
sinned,” and for this an all-merciful God brought a pesti
lence on the people, and murdered 70,000 Israelites, for
an offence which their ruler had committed. The angel
who was engaged in this terrible slaughter stood some
where between heaven and earth, and stretched forth his
hand with a drawn sword to destroy Jerusalem itself; but
even the bloodthirsty Deity of the Bible “repented him
of the evil,” and said to the angel: “It is enough.” Many
volumes might be written to answer the enquiries—where
did the angel stand, and on what ? Of what metal was
the sword, and where was it made ? As it was a drawn
one, where was the scabbard ? and did the angel wear a
sword-belt ? Examined in a pious frame of mind, much
holy instruction may be derived from the attempt to solve
these solemn problems.
David now grows old and weak, and at last his deathhour comes. Oh! for the dying words of the Psalmist I
What pious instruction shall we derive from the death-bed
scene of the man after God’s own heart I Listen to the
last words of Judah’s expiring monarch. You who have
�12
NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
been content with the pions frauds and forgeries perpe
trated with reference to the death-beds and dying words
of the great, the generous, the witty Voltaire; the manly,
the self-denying, the incorruptible Thomas Paine; the
humane, simple, child-like man, yet mighty poet, Shelley—
you who have turned away from these with unwarranted
horror—come with me to the death-couch of the special
favorite of God. Bathsheba’s child stands by his side.
Does any thought of the murdered Uriah rack old David’s
brain, or has a tardy repentance effaced the bloody stain
from the pages of his memory? What does the dying
David say ? Does he talk of cherubs, angels and heavenly
choirs ? Nay, none of these things passes his lips. Does
he make a confession of his crime-stained life, and beg
his son to be a better king, a truer man, a more honest
citizen, a wiser father ? Nay, not so—no word of sorrow,
no sign of regret, no expression of remorse or repentance
escapes his lips. What does the dying David say ?
This foul monster whom God has made king; this redhanded robber, whose life has been guarded by “our
Father which art in Heaven; ” this perjured king, whose
lying lips have found favor in the sight of God, and who,
when he dies, is safe for Heaven. It is written: “ There
shall be more joy in heaven before God over one sinner
that repenteth than over ninety and nine righteous men.”
Does David repent ? Nay, like the ravenous wolf, which,
tasting blood, is made more eager for the prey, he too
yearns for blood; and with his dying breath begs his son
to bring the grey hairs of two old men down to the grave
with blood. And this is God’s anointed king, the chief
one of God’s chosen people.
The learned and pious Puffendorf explains that David
having only sworn not himself to kill ‘Shimei (1 Kings ii.
8) there was no perjury on the part of David in persuad
ing Solomon to contrive the killing from which David had
sworn to personally abstain.
David is alleged to have written several Psalms, but of
this there is little evidence beyond pious assertion. In one
of these the psalmist addresses God in pugilistic phrase°l°gy, praising Deity that he had smitten all his enemies
on the cheek-bone, and broken the teeth of the ungodly.
In these days when “muscular Christianity ” is not without
advocates, the metaphor which presents God as a sort of
�NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
13
magnificent Benicia Boy may find many admirers. In the
eighteenth Psalm, David describes God as with “smoke
coming out of his nostrils and fire out of his mouth,” by
which “coals were kindled.” He represents God as
coming down from heaven, and says: “he rode upon a
cherub.” The learned Parkhurst gives a likeness of a
one-legged, four-winged, four-faced animal, part lion, part
bull, part eagle, part man, and if a cloven foot be any
criterion, part devil also. This description, if correct, will
give some idea to the faithful of the wonderful character
of the equestrian feats of Deity. In addition to a cherub,
God has other means of conveyance at his disposal, if
David be not in error when he says that the chariots of the
Lord are 20,000.
In Psalm xxvi. the writer adds hypocrisy in addition to
his other vices. He has the impudence to tell God that he
has been a man of integrity and truth, and that he has
avoided evil-doers, although, if we are to believe Psalm
xxxviii., the hypocrite must have already been subject to
a loathsome disease—a penalty consequent on his licentious
ness and criminality. In another Psalm, David the liar tells
God that “ he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.”
To understand David’s pious nature we must study his
prayer to God against an enemy (Psalm cix., w. 6-14) :
“ Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at
his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be con
demned : and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be
few : and let another take his office. Let his children be
fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be con
tinually vagabonds, and beg : let them seek their bread also
out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all
that he hath ; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let
there be none to extend mercy unto him : neither let their
be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be
cut off; and in the generation following let their name be
blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered
with the Lord; and let not the sin' of his mother be blotted
out.”
A full consideration of the life of David must give great
help to the orthodox in promoting and sustaining faith.
While spoken of by Deity as obeying all the statutes and
keeping all the commandments, we are astonished to find
that murder, theft, lying, adultery, licentiousness, and
�14
NEW LIFE OF DAVID.
treachery are amongst the crimes which may be laid, to his
.charge. David was a liar, God is a God of truth ; David
was merciless, God is merciful, and of long suffering;
David was a thief, God says: “Thou shalt not steal;”
David was a murderer, God says : ‘‘ Thou shalt do no mur
der;” David took the wife of Uriah, and “ accepted” the
wife of Nahal, God says : “ Thou shalt not covet thy neigh
bor’s wife.” Yet, notwithstanding all these things, David
was the man after God’s own heart!
Had this Jewish monarch any redeeming traits in his
character ? Was he a good citizen? If so, the Bible has
carefully concealed every action which would entitle him to
such an appellation. Was he a kind and constant husband ?
To whom ? To which of his many wives and mistresses ?
Was he grateful to those who aided him in his hour of need?
Bather, like the serpent which, half-frozen by the wayside,
is warmed into new life in the traveller’s breast, and then
treacherously stings his succorer with his poisoned fangs,
so David robbed and murdered the friends and allies of the
King of Gath, who afforded him protection against the
pursuit of Saul. Does his patriotism outshine his many
vices ? Does his love of country efface his many misdoings ?
Not even this. David was a heartless traitor who volun
teered to serve against his own countrymen, and would have
done so had not the Philistines rejected his treacherous
help. Was he a good king? So say the priesthood now;
but where is the evidence of his virtue ? His crimes brought
plague and pestilence on his subjects, and his reign is a
continued succession of wars, revolts, and assassinations,
plottings and counterplots.
The life of David is a dark blot on the page of human ’
history, fit in companionship for the biographies of Con
stantine the Great and Henry VIII.; but it is through
David that the genealogies of Jesus are traced, and with
out David there would be no Christian faith.
�Works sold by the Freetliought Publishing Com
pany, 63, Fleet Street, London, E.C.
Postage must be sent with Orders less than One Shilling in value.
Cheques should be crossed “ London and South- Western Bank.”
Bradlaugh., Charles—(See also Biternational Series.)
Genesis : its Authorship and Authenticity. Cloth, gilt, pp. 341, 5s.
The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Part I. Section I.—“ The Story
of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible and Science.” Sec
tion II.—« What is Religion
“ How has it Grown ?” “ God
and Soul.” Bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d.
Impeachment of the House of Brunswick. Ninth edition. Is.
Political Essays. Bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Theological Essays. Bound in cloth, 3s.
Hints to Emigrants, containing important information on the
United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Is.
Debates—All Verbatim Reports.
Four—with the Rev. Dr. Baylee, in Liverpool ■ the Rev. Dr.
Harrison, in London ; Thomas Cooper, in London ; the Rev.
R. A. Armstrong, in Nottingham; with Three Discourses by
the Bishop of Peterborough, and Replies by C. Bradlaugh.
Bound in one volume, cloth, 3s.
What does Christian Theism Teach ? Two nights’ Public Debate
with the Rev. A. J. Harrison. 6d.
God, Man, and the Bible. Three nights’ Discussion, at Liverpool,
with the Rev. Dr. Baylee. 6d.
God as the Maker and Moral Governor of the Universe. Two
nights’ Discussion with Thomas Cooper. 6d.
Has Man a Soul ? Two nights’ Debate, at Burnley, with the Rev.
W. M. Westerby. Is.
Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism, and Faith.
Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough, with
Special Replies. 6d.
Secularism Unphilosophical, Unsocial, and Immoral. Three
nights’ Debate with the Rev. Dr. McCann. Is.
Is it.Reasonable to Worship God ? Two nights’ Debate, at Not
tingham, with the Rev. R. A. Armstrong. Is.
�Bradlaugii, Charles {continued)—•
Pamphlets—
s. d.
The True Story of my Parliamentary Struggle. Contain
ing a Verbatim Report of the proceedings before the Select
Committee of the House of Commons; Mr. Bradlaugh’s
Three Speeches at the Bar of the House etc., etc.
... 0 &
Fourth Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons. 30th
Thousand
...
...
...
...
... 0 |
May the House of Commons Commit Treason ? ...
... 0 £
Correspondence with Sir Stafford Northcote, M.P.
... 0 2
John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough—“Mob,” “Scum,”
and “Dregs”
...
...
...
...
...0 2
A Cardinal’s Broken Oath ...
...
...
... 0 1
Perpetual Pensions. Fortieth thousand
...
... 0 2
Civil Lists and Grants to Royal Family
...
... 0 1
Real Representation of the People
...
...
... 0 2
Letter to Albert Edward Prince of Wales, on Freemasonry 0 1
Why do Men Starve ?
...
...
...
...0 1
Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus: an Essay on the Population
Question
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
Poverty and its effect upon the People
...
... 0 1
Labor’s Prayer
...
...
...
...
... 0 1
The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle
... 0 2
India. A lecture
...
...
...
...
... 0 1
Five Dead Men whom I Knew when Living. Sketches of
Robert Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, Charles
Sumner, and Ledru Rollin...
...
• ...
... 0 4
Cromwell and Washington: a Contrast
...
... 0 G
Anthropology. In neat wrapper
...
...
... 0 4
When were our Gospels Written ? ...
...
... 0 6
Plea for Atheism
...
...
...
...
... 0 3
Has Man a Soul ?
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
Is there a God?
...
...
...
...
... 0 1
Who was Jesus Christ?
...
...
... ,
...01
What did Jesus Teach ?
...
...
...
... 0 1
The Twelve Apostles
...
...
..
..0 1
The Atonement
...
...
...
...
...0 1
Life of David
...
...
...
...
... 0 2
Life of Jacob
...
...
...
...
... 0 1
Life of Abraham ...
...
...
...
... 0 1
Life of Moses
...
...
...
...
... 0 1
Life cf Jonah
...
...
...
...
...0 1
A Few Words about the Devil
. .
...
... 0 1
Were Adam and Eve our First Parents ?
...
... 0 1
Heresy: its Morality and Utility. A Plea and a Jus: ification ...
...
...
...
...
... 0 9
The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy ...
... 0 6
Verbatim Report of the Trial of C. Bradlaugh before Lord Cole
ridge for Blasphemy, in Three Special Extra Numbers of the
National Reformer. 6d.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
New life of David
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: Rev. ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Annotations in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end.
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
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N098
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 David), 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
Hebrew Bible
King David
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f21a96a178808c6ef0d11b3df437b455.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ob9YnH3afzX%7EtuzAOZ-Jlb3%7ExsBeJWrOy4ICfX7S1zkuMN%7EVtx7jBGpUnz-MiEPHz984InNduTLIVatKOts3PSgFFzCgl00ordb32vN6sbhJcT0iUTNtI%7EgsFk9K6X8rVVDbWVLA0yh6-aU5cUEg%7ERWgWTYYaRj-BJ4GbGo6D5QquS5mJUhLgU7AWMjfqoFQIW7U-Tz02Ue8vUT9mVXZXlhaiM08WRuACB7%7EHRYCbIHOW-ZJZUBVF46ZXuKZa%7EogWSUHjCA74OIocSGoTw6uVf12MzlJL1F6VZg2inV4NhU73nc2nXzvbnCIwxmaTjYWEaXh4SUeu3tMLiS1SwWcig__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5010f96cfb759495ce92b18d4f2aa166
PDF Text
Text
ON THE
DEITY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.
AN ENQUIRY
INTO THE NATURE OF JESUS
BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.
BY
THE WIFE OF A BENEFICED CLERGYMAN.
EDITED AND PREFACED BY
REV. CHARLES VOrSEY, R.A.
PUBLISHED
BY THOMAS
SCOTT,
NO. 11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1873.
�LO N DO N :
PRINTED BY C.
W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY
HAYMARKET,
W.
STREET,
�EDITOR’S PREFACE.
HE following pages were put into my hands
—
beneficed clergyman.
T by a ladyto the wife of a her husband, she has
Not wishing
compromise
withheld hei' name from publication, and deserves
all honour for the concession. But the fact led me
to write a few words as a Preface, in which I
would remind the Bishops and dignitaries of our
Church that this is no uncommon case. Ortho
doxy is riddled through and through with heresy.
Every family has its heretic. And although but
few clergymen or their wives could be found to
write such an Essay as the following with equally
felicitous logic and simplicity, there are many
quite capable of relishing arguments so lucidly
stated and so ably drawn. If most of Mr Scott’s
regular readers are familiar with the line of argu
ment, there are many outside the circle whom this
pamphlet may reach to whom it will be new,
and whom it may powerfully affect.
The position which the person of Jesus occu
pies in modern Christendom is the very citadel
of Christianity, and on the settlement of his
claims will turn the future of the Churches.
We, who have been all our lives sceptics, are
growing weary of the very name ; but we must
not forget that we have a great duty to perform
towards those who are yet orthodox, or are
clinging, like some Unitarians, to the skirts of a
fading system.
�iv
Editor's Preface.
When I first knew this lady, she had given up
all points of disputed orthodoxy except this one
of the nature of Jesus, whom she still regarded
as perfect and divine. Careful and independent
study of the whole question, however, led her at
length to see the facts clearly—to own them to
herself in spite of strong predilections the other
way—and to write them down here for the
benefit of others.
In the course of this change I was appealed to
for an authoritative opinion. I absolutely refused
to give one. I refused to be made the means of
shovelling second-hand opinions into any one’s
mind. All I said was— “ If you believe Christ to
be God, stick to it: you are not obliged to
believe as I do. Only make up your mind for
yourself.” This was no case of converting or
proselytising. It was one of independent growth
and natural conviction.
There are hundreds of clergymen, and clergy
men’s wives too, who are fast treading the same
road, if they have not yet reached the same goal.
The alarmists are quite right. Christianity is in
terrible danger. We wish we could add—in ex
tremis ; but when the break up of a faith has
begun with its teachers, with those most in
terested in its being maintained, the days of that
faith are numbered.
Such little works as this Essay, if well placed
and well digested, will do more to open people’s
eyes than many a more pretentious and elaborate
treatise.
CHARLES VOYSEY.
Camden House, Dulwich, S.E., March, 1873.
�ON THE
DEITY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.
----- *----64
think ye of Christ, whose son is
he ? ” Human child of human parents, or
divine Son of the Almighty God ? When we con
sider his purity, his faith in the Father, his forgiving
patience, his devoted work among the offscourings of
society, his brotherly love to sinners and outcasts—
when our minds dwell on these alone, we all feel the
marvellous fascination which has drawn millions to
the feet of this “ son of man,” and the needle of our
faith begins to tremble towards the Christian pole.
If we would keep unsullied the purity of our faith in
God alone, we are obliged to turn our eyes some
times—however unwillingly—towards the other side
of the picture and to mark the human weaknesses
which remind us that he is but one of our race. His
harshness to his mother, his bitterness towards some
of his opponents, the marked failure of one or two of
his rare prophecies, the palpable limitation of his
knowledge—little enough, indeed, when all are told,
—are more than enough to show us that, however
great as man, he is not the A11-righteous, the Allseeing, the All-knowing, God.
No one, however, whom Christian exaggeration has
not goaded into unfair detraction, or who is not
blinded by theological hostility, can fail to revere
portions of the character sketched out in the three
synoptic gospels. I shall not dwell here on the Christ
of the fourth Evangelist: we can scarcely trace in
that figure the lineaments of the Jesus of Nazareth
whom we have learnt to love.
VV
�6
On the Deity of
I propose, in this essay, to examine the claims of
Jesus to be more than the man he appeared to be
during his life-time : claims—be it noted—which are
put forward on his behalf by others rather than by
himself. His own assertions of his divinity are to be
found only in the unreliable fourth gospel, and in it
they are destroyed by the sentence there put into his
mouth with strange inconsistency : “ If I bear witness
of myself, my witness is not true.”
It is evident that by his contemporaries Jesus was
not regarded as God incarnate. The people in general
appear to have looked upon him as a great prophet,
and to have often debated among themselves whether
he were their expected Messiah or not. The band of
men who accepted him as their teacher were as far
from worshipping him as God as were their fellowcountrymen : their prompt desertion of him when
attacked by his enemies, their complete hopelessness
when they saw him overcome and put to death, are
sufficient proofs that though they regarded him—to
quote their own words—as “ a prophet mighty in
word and deed,” they never guessed that the teacher
they followed, and the friend they lived with in the inti
macy of social life, was Almighty God Himself. As
has been well pointed out, if they believed their Master
to be God, surely when they were attacked they would
have fled to him for protection, instead of endeavour
ing to save themselves by deserting him : we may
add that this would have been their natural instinct,
since they could never have imagined beforehand that
the Creator Himself could really be taken captive by
His creatures and suffer death at their hands. The
third class of his contemporaries, the learned Pha
risees and Scribes, were as far from regarding him as
divine as were the people or his disciples. They seem
to have viewed the new teacher somewhat con
temptuously at first, as one who unwisely persisted in
expounding the highest doctrines to the many, instead
�Jesus of Nazareth.
7
of—a second Hillel—adding to the stores of their own
learned circle. As his influence spread and appeared
to be undermining their own,—still more, when he
placed himself in direct opposition, warning the
people against them,—they were roused to a course of
active hostility, and at length determined to save
themselves by destroying him. But all through their
passive contempt and direct antagonism, there, is
never a trace of their dreaming him to be anything
more than a religious enthusiast who finally became
dangerous : we never for a moment see them assuming
the manifestly absurd position, of men knowingly
measuring their strength against God, and endea
vouring to silence and destroy their Maker. So much
for the opinions of those who had the best oppor
tunities of observing his ordinary life. A “ good man,
a “deceiver,” a “mighty prophet,” such are the
recorded opinions of his contemporaries: not one is
found to step forward and proclaim him to be
Jehovah, the God of Israel.
One of the most trusted strongholds of Christians,
in defending their Lord’s Divinity, is the evidence of
prophecy. They gather’ from the sacred books of
the Jewish nation the predictions of the longed-for
Messiah, and claim them as prophecies fulfilled in
Jesus of Nazareth. But there is one stubborn fact
which destroys the force of this argument: the Jews,
to whom these writings belong, and who from tradi
tion and national peculiarities, may reasonably be
supposed to be the best exponents of their own
prophets, emphatically deny that these prophecies are
fulfilled in Jesus at all. Indeed, one main reason for
their rejection of Jesus is precisely this, that he does
not resemble in any way the predicted Messiah. There
is no doubt that the Jewish nation were eagerly
looking for their Deliverer when Jesus was born;
these very longings produced several pseudo-Messiahs,
who each gained in turn a considerable following,
�8
On the Deity of
because each bore some resemblance to the expected
Prince. Much of the popular rage which swept
Jesus to bis death was the re-action of disappoint
ment after the hopes raised by the position of autho
rity he assumed. The sudden burst of anger against
one so benevolent and inoffensive can only be ex
plained by the intense hopes excited by his regal
entry into Jerusalem, and the utter destruction of
those hopes by his failing to ascend the throne of
David. Proclaimed as David’s son, he came riding
on an ass as king of Zion, and allowed himself to be
welcomed as the king of Israel : there his short
fulfilling of the prophecies ended, and the people,
furious at his failing them, rose and clamoured for his
death. Because he did not fulfil the ancient Jewish
oracles, he died: he was too noble for the role laid
down in them for the Messiah, his ideal was far other
than that of a conqueror, with “ garments rolled in
blood.” But even if, against all evidence, Jesus was
one with the Messiah of the prophets, this would
destroy, instead of implying, his Divine claims. For
the Jews were pure monotheists; their Messiah was
a prince of David’s line, the favoured servant, the
anointed of Jehovah, the king who should rule in
His name : a Jew would shrink with horror from the
blasphemy of seating Messiah on Jehovah’s throne,
remembering how their prophets had taught them
that their God “ would not give His honour to
another.” So that, as to prophecy, the case stands
thus : If Jesus be the Messiah prophesied of in the
old Jewish books, then he is not God: if he be not
the Messiah, Jewish prophecy is silent as regards
him altogether, and an appeal to prophecy is abso
lutely useless.
After the evidence of prophecy Christians generally
rely on that furnished by miracles. It is remarkable
that Jesus himself laid but little stress on his mira
cles; in fact, he refused to appeal to them as credentials
�Jesus of Nazareth.
9
of his authority, and either could not or would not
work them when met with determined unbelief. We
must notice also that the people, while “ glorifying
God, who had given such power unto men,” were not
inclined to admit his miracles as proofs of his right to
claim absolute obedience: his miracles did not even
invest him with such sacredness as to protect him
from arrest and death. Herod, on his trial, was
simply anxious to see him work a miracle, as a matter
of curiosity. This stolid indifference to marvels as
attestations of authority, is natural enough, when we
remember that Jewish history was crowded with
miracles, wrought for and against the favoured people,
and also that they had been specially warned against
being misled by signs and wonders. Without entering
into the question whether miracles are possible, let us,
for argument’s sake, take them for granted, and see
what they are worth as proofs of Divinity. If Jesus
fed a multitude with a few loaves, so did Elisha:
if he raised the dead, so did Elijah and Elisha; if
he healed lepers, so did Moses and Elisha; if he
opened the eyes of the blind, Elisha smote a whole
army with blindness and afterward restored their
sight: if he cast out devils, his contemporaries, by
his own testimony, did the same. If miracles prove
Deity, what miracle of Jesus can stand comparison
with the divided Red Sea of Moses, the stoppage of
the earth’s motion by Joshua, the check of the rushing
waters of the Jordan by Elijah’s cloak ? If we are
told that these men worked by conferred power and
Jesus by inherent, we can only answer that this is a
gratuitous assumption and begs the whole question.
The Bible records the miracles in equivalent terms :
no difference is drawn between the manner of working
of Elisha or Jesus ; of each it is sometimes said they
prayed; of each it is sometimes said they spake.
Miracles indeed must not be relied on as proofs of
divinity, unless believers in them are prepared to pay
�IO
On the Deity of
divine honours not to Jesus only, but also to a crowd
of others, and to build a Christian Pantheon to the
new found gods.
So far we. have only seen the insufficiency of the
usual Christian arguments to establish a doctrine so
stupendous and so prima facie improbable, as the in
carnation of the Divine Being: this kind of negative
testimony, this insufficient evidence, is not however
the principal reason which compels Theists to protest
against the central dogma of Christianity. The
stronger proofs of the simple manhood of Jesus re
main, and we now proceed to positive evidence of his
not being God. I propose to draw attention to the
traces of human infirmity in his noble character, to
his absolute mistakes in prophecy, and to his evidently
limited knowledge. In accepting as substantially true
the account of Jesus given by the evangelists, we are
taking his character as it appeared to his devoted
followers. We have not to do with slight blemishes,
inserted by envious detractors of his greatness ; the
history of Jesus was written when his disciples wor
shipped him as God, and his manhood, in their eyes,
reached ideal perfection. We are then forced to
believe that, in the Gospels, the life of Jesus is given
at its highest, and that he was, at least, not more
spotless than he appears in these records of his friends.
But here again, in order not to do a gross injustice,
we must put aside the fourth Gospel: to study his
character “ according to S. John ” would need a
separate essay, so different is it from that drawn by
the three ; and by all rules of history we should judge
him by the earlier records, more especially as they
corroborate each other in the main.
The first thing which jars upon an attentive reader
of the Gospels is the want of affection and respect
shown by Jesus to his mother. When only a child
of twelve he lets his parents leave Jerusalem to return
home, while he repairs alone to the temple. The
�Jesus of Nazareth.
11
fascination of the ancient city and the gorgeous temple
services was doubtless almost overpowering to a
thoughtful Jewish boy, more especially on his first
visit: but the careless forgetfulness of his parents’
anxiety must be considered as a grave childish fault,
the more so as its character is darkened by the in
difference shown by his answer to his mother’s
grieved reproof. That no high, though mistaken,
sense of duty kept him in Jerusalem is evident from
his return home with his parents ; for had he felt that
“his Father’s business ” detained him in Jerusalem
at all, it is evident that this sense of duty would
not have been satisfied by a three days’ delay. But
the Christian advocate would bar criticism by an
appeal to the Deity of Jesus: he asks us therefore
to believe, that Jesus, being God, saw with indiffer
ence his parents’ anguish at discovering his absence ;
knew all about that three-days’ agonised search (for
they, ignorant of his divinity, felt the terrible anxiety
as to his safety, natural to country people losing a
child in a crowded city) ; did not, in spite of the
tremendous powers at his command, take any steps
to re-assure them ; and, finally, met them again with
no words of sympathy, only with a mysterious allu
sion, incomprehensible to them, to some higher claim
than theirs, which, however, he promptly set aside to
obey them. If God was incarnate in a boy, we may
trust that example as a model of childhood: yet, are
Christians prepared to set this “ early piety and desire
for religious instruction ” before their young children
as an example they are to follow ? Are boys and
girls of twelve to be free to absent themselves for
days from their parents’ guardianship under the plea
that a higher business claims their attention ? This
episode of the childhood of Jesus should be relegated
to those “gospels of the infancy ” full of most un
childlike acts, which the wise discretion of Christendom
has stamped with disapproval. The same want of
�I2
On the Deity of
filial reverence appears later in his life : on one occa
sion he was teaching, and his mother sent in, desiring
to speak to him : the sole reply recorded to the
message is the harsh remark : “Who is my mother?”
The most practical proof that Christian morality has,
on this head, outstripped the example of Jesus, is
the prompt disapproval which similar conduct would
meet with in the present day. By the strange warping
of morality often caused by controversial exigencies,
this want of filial reverence has been triumphantly
pointed out by Christian divines; the indifference shown
by Jesus to family ties is accepted as a proof that he was
more than man! Thus, conduct which they implicitly
acknowledge to be unseemly in a son to his mother,
they claim as natural and right in the Son of God, to
His! In the present day if a person is driven by
conscience to a course painful to those who have
claims on his respect, his recognised duty, as well as
his natural instinct, is to try and make up by added
affection and more courteous deference for the pain he
is forced to inflict: above all, he would not wantonly
add to that pain by public and uncalled-for disrespect.
The attitude of Jesus towards his opponents in
high places was marked with unwarrantable bitterness.
Here also the lofty and gentle spirit of his whole life
has moulded Christian opinion in favour of a course
different on this head to his own, so that abuse of an
opponent is now commonly called m- Christian.
Wearied with three years’ calumny and contempt,
sore at the little apparent success which rewarded his
labour, full of a sad foreboding that his enemies would
shortly crush him, Jesus was goaded into passionate
denunciations: “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pha
risees, hypocrites ... ye fools and blind ... ye make
a proselyte twofold more the child of hell than your
selves ... ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how
can ye escape the damnation of hell! ” Surely this is
not the spirit which breathed in, “If ye love them
�Jesus of Nazareth.
13
which love you, what thanks have ye ? . . . Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them
that persecute you.” Had he not even specially for
bidden the very expression, “Thou fool!” Was not
this rendering “ evil for evil, railing for railing ? ”
It is painful to point out these blemishes : reverence
for the great leaders of humanity is a duty deal’ to all
human hearts ; but when homage turns into idolatry,
then men must rise up to point out faults which
otherwise they would pass over in respectful silence,
mindful only of the work so nobly done.
I turn then, with a sense of glad relief, to the
evidence of the limited knowledge of Jesus, for
here no blame attaches to him, although one proved
mistake is fatal to belief in his Godhead. First
as to prophecy: “ The Son of man shall come
in the glory of his Father with his angels : and then
shall he reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here
which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of
man coming in his kingdom.” Later, he amplifies
the same idea: he speaks of a coming tribulation,
succeeded by his own return, and then adds the
emphatic declaration : “ Verily I say unto you, This
generation shall not pass till all these things be done.”
The non-fulfilment of these prophecies is simply a
question of fact: let men explain away the words
now as they may, yet, if the record is true, Jesus did
believe in his own speedy return, and impressed the
same belief on his followers. It is plain, indeed, that
he succeeded in impressing it on them, from the
references to his return scattered through the epistles.
The latest writings show an anxiety to remove the
doubts which were disturbing the converts consequent
on the non-appearance of Jesus, and the fourth
Gospel omits any reference to his coming. It is
worth remarking in the latter, the spiritual sense
which is hinted at—either purposely or unintention
�14-
0# the Deity of
ally—in the words, “ The hour . . . now is when the
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, they
that hear shall live.” These words may be the popular
feeling on the advent and resurrection, forced on the
Christians by the failure of their Lord’s prophecies
in any literal sense. He could not be mistaken, ergo
they must spiritualise his words. The limited know
ledge of Jesus is further evident from his confusing
Zacharias the son of Jehoiada with Zacharias the
son of Barachias : the former, a priest, was slain in
the temple court, as Jesus states; but the son of
Barachias was Zacharias, or Zechariah, the prophet.*
He himself owned a limitation of his knowledge, when
he confessed his ignorance of the day of his own
return, and said it was known to the “ Father only.”
Of the same class of sayings is his answer to the
mother of James and John, that the high seats of the
coming kingdom “are not mine to give.” That Jesus
believed in the fearful doctrine of eternal punishment
is evident, in spite of the ingenious attempts to prove
that the doctrine is not scriptural: that he, in common
with his countrymen, ascribed many diseases to the
immediate power of Satan, which we should now
probably refer to natural causes, as epilepsy, mania,
and the like, is also self-evident. But on such points
as these it is useless to dwell, for the Christian believes
them on the authority of Jesus, and the subjects,
from their nature, cannot be brought to the test of
ascertained facts. Of the same character are some
of his sayings : his discouraging “ Strive to enter in
at the strait gate,/or many,” etc.; his using in defence
of partiality Isaiah’s awful prophecy, “ that seeing
theymaysee and not perceive,” etc.; his using Scripture
at one time as binding, while he, at another, depre
ciates it; his fondness for silencing an opponent by
an ingenious retort: all these things are blameworthy
to those who regard him as man, while they are
* See Appendix, page 20.
�Jesus of Nazareth.
i5
shielded from criticism by his divinity to those who
worship him as God. Their morality is a question of
opinion, and it is wasted time to dwell on them when
arguing with Christians, whose moral sense is for the
time held in check by their mental prostration at his
feet. But the truth of the quoted prophecies, and
the historical fact of the parentage of Zachariah, can
be tested, and on these Jesus made palpable mistakes.
The obvious corollary is, that being mistaken—as he
was—his knowledge was limited, and was therefore
human, not divine.
In turning to the teaching of Jesus (I still confine
myself to the three Gospels), we find no support of
the Christian theory. If we take his didactic teaching,
we can discover no trace of his offering himself as an
object of either faith or worship. His life’s work, as
teacher, was to speak of the Father. In the sermon
on the Mount he is always striking the keynote,
“your heavenly Father; ” in teaching his disciples
to pray, it is to “ Our Father,” and the Christian idea
of ending a prayer “through Jesus Christ” is quite
foreign to the simple filial spirit of their master.
Indeed, when we think of the position Jesus holds in
Christian theology, it seems strange to notice the
utter absence of any suggestion of duty to himself
throughout this whole code of so-called Christian
morality. In strict accordance with his more formal
teaching is his treatment of inquirers : when a young
man comes kneeling, and, addressing him as “ Good
Master,” asks what he shall do to inherit eternal life,
the loyal heart of Jesus first rejects the homage,
before he proceeds to answer the all-important ques
tion : “ Why callest thou me good : there is none good
but one, that is, God.” He then directs the youth on
the way to eternal life, and he sends that young
man home without one word of the doctrine on which,
according to Christians, his salvation rested. If the
“ Gospel ” came to that man later, he would
�16
On the Deity of
reject it on the authority of Jesus who had told
him a different “ way of salvation
and if Chris
tianity is true, the perdition of that young man’s
soul is owing to the defective teaching of Jesus him
self. Another time, he tells a Scribe that the first
commandment is that God is one, and that all a man’s
love is due to Him; then adding the duty of neigh
bourly love, he says; “ There is none other command
ment greater than these:” so that belief in Jesus,
if incumbent at all, must come after love to God and
man, and is not necessary, by his own testimony, to
“ entering into life.” On Jesus himself then rests the
primary responsibility of affirming that belief in him
is a matter of secondary importance, at most, letting
alone the fact that he never inculcated belief in his
Deity as an article of faith at all. In the same spirit
of frank loyalty to God, are his words on the unpar
donable sin : in answer to a gross personal affront, he
tells his insuiters that they shall be forgiven for
speaking against him, a simple son of man, but warns
them of the danger of confounding the work of God’s
Spirit with that of Satan, “because they said” that
works done by God, using Jesus as His instrument,
were done by Beelzebub.
There remains yet one argument of tremendous
force, which can only be appreciated by personal
meditation. We find Jesus praying to God, relying
on God, in his greatest need crying in agony to God
for deliverance, in his last struggle, deserted by his
friends, asking why God, his God, had also forsaken
him. We feel how natural, how true to life, this
whole account is : in our heart’s reverence for that
noble life, that “ faithfulness unto death,” we can
scarcely bear to think of the insult offered to it by
Christian lips : they take every beauty out of it by
telling us that through all that struggle Jesus was the
Eternal, the Almighty, God: it is all apparent, not
real: in his temptation he could not fall: in his
�Jesus of Nazareth.
\"j
prayers lie needed no support: in his cry that the cup
might pass away he foresaw it was inevitable : in his
agony of desertion and loneliness he was present
everywhere with God. In all that life, then, there is
no hope for man, no pledge of man’s victory, no
promise for humanity. This is no man's life at all, it
is only a wonderful drama enacted on earth. What
God could do is no measure of man’s powers : what
have we in common with this “ God-man ?” This
Jesus, whom we had thought our brother, is, after all,
removed from us by the immeasurable distance which
separates the feebleness of man from the omnipotence
of God. Nothing can compensate us for such a loss
as this. We had rejoiced in that many-sided noble
ness, and its very blemishes were dear, because they
assured us of his brotherhood to ourselves : we are
given an ideal picture where we had studied a history,
another Deity where we had hoped to emulate a life.
Instead of the encouragement we had found, what
does Christianity offer us ?—a perfect life ? But we
knew before that God was perfect: an example ? it
starts from a different level: a Saviour ? we cannot
be safer than we are with God: an Advocate ? we
need none with our Father: a Substitute to endure
God’s wrath for us ? we had rather trust God’s
justice to punish us as we deserve, and His wisdom to
do what is best for us. As God, Jesus can give us
nothing that we have not already in his Father and
ours : as man, he gives us all the encouragement and
support which we derive from every noble soul which
God sends into this world, “ a burning and a shining
light ” :
“ Through such souls alone
God stooping shows sufficient of His light
For us in the dark to rise by.”
As God, he confuses our perceptions of God’s unity,
bewilders our reason with endless contradictions, and
turns away from the Supreme all those emotions of
�i8
On the Deity of
love and adoration which can only flow towards a
single object, and which are the due of our Creator
alone : as man, he gives us an example to strive after,
a beacon to steer by; he is one more leader for
humanity, one more star in our darkness. As God,
all his words would be truth, and but few would enter
into heaven, while hell would overflow with victims:
as man, we may refuse to believe such a slander on
our Father, and take all the comfort pledged to us by
that name. Thank God, then, that Jesus is only man,
human child of human parents : that we need not
dwarf our conceptions of God to fit human faculties,
or envelope the illimitable spirit in a baby’s feeble
frame. But though only man, he has reached a
standard of human greatness which no other man, so
far as we know, has touched: the very height of his
character is almost a pledge of the truthfulness of
the records in the main: his life had to be lived
before its conception became possible, at that period
and among such a people. They could recognise his
greatness when it was before their eyes : they would
scarcely have imagined it for themselves, more espe
cially that, as we have seen, he was so different from
the Jewish ideal. His code of morality stands un
rivalled, and he was the first who taught the universal
Fatherhood of God publicly and to the common
people. Many of his loftiest precepts may be found
in the books of the Rabbis, but it is the glorious
prerogative of Jesus that he spread abroad among
the many the wise and holy maxims that had hitherto
been the sacred treasures of the few. With him none
were too degraded to be called the children of the
Father: none too simple to be worthy of the highest
teaching. By example, as well as by precept, he
taught that all men were brothers, and all the good
he had he showered at their feet. “ Pure in heart,”
he saw God, and what he saw he called all to see : he
longed that all might share in his own joyous trust in
�Jesus of Nazareth.
19
the Father, and seemed to be always seeking for
fresh images to describe the freedom and fulness of
the universal love of God. In his unwavering love of
truth, but his patience with doubters—in his personal
purity, but his tenderness to the fallen—in his hatred
of evil, but his friendliness to the sinner—we see
splendid virtues rarely met in combination. His
brotherliness, his yearning to raise the degraded, his
lofty piety, his unswerving morality, his perfect self
sacrifice, are his indefeasible titles to human love and
reverence. Of the world’s benefactors he is the chief,
not only by his own life, but by the enthusiasm he
has known to inspire in others : “ Our plummet has
not sounded his depth
words fail to tell what
humanity owes to the Prophet of Nazareth. On his
example the great Christian heroes have based their
lives: from the foundation laid by his teaching the
world is slowly rising to a purer faith in God. We
need now such a leader as he was, one who would
dare to follow the Father’s will as he did, casting a
long-prized revelation aside when it conflicts with the
higher voice of conscience. It is the teaching of
Jesus that Theism gladly makes its own, purifying
it from the inconsistencies which mar its perfection.
It is the example of Jesus which Theists are following,
though they correct that example in some points by
his loftiest sayings. It is the work of Jesus which
Theists are carrying on, by worshipping, as he did,
the Father, and the Father alone, and by endeavour
ing to turn all men’s love, all men’s hopes, and all
men’s adoration, to that “ God and Father of all,
who is above all, and through all, and,” not in Jesus
only, but “ in us all.”
�20
On the Deity of Jesus of Nazareth.
APPENDIX.
“Josephus mentions a Zacharias, son of Baruch
(‘Wars of the Jews,’ Book iv., sec. 4), who was
slain under the circumstances described by Jesus.
His name would be more suitable at the close of the
long list of Jewish crimes, as it occurred just before
the destruction of Jerusalem. But, as it took place
about thirty-four years after the death of Jesus, it is
clear that he could not have referred to it; therefore,
if we admit that he made no mistake, we strike
a serious blow at the credibility of his historian, who
then puts into his mouth a remark he never uttered.”
�
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
On the deity of Jesus of Nazareth: an enquiry into the nature of Jesus by an examination of the synoptic gospels
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood
Voysey, Charles [1828-1912] (ed)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Appendix on the last page. "by the Wife of a Beneficed Clergyman edited and prefaced by Rev. Charles Voysey". [Title page]. The author is Annie Besant, an attribution from Dr Williams Library Catalogue and Besant's biographer G.M. Williams. Williams believes this to be her 'literary debut'. Printed by C.W. Reynell, London. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT121
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Jesus Christ
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 (On the deity of Jesus of Nazareth: an enquiry into the nature of Jesus by an examination of the synoptic gospels), 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-Criticism
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ