2
10
79
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f79a20d89070a0aad83bbaffe0fb347a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VtTUfwvfc6Eyr9jUVUsLDfRckOBxyXBSbXqXzSbN0KsK1ZJRbIAquuwgc2Imedsd84jibEGNhbB8ZtFgGMXI320Oy1XArEuJv5S-8LOiXn1Zvzu6OdNpR-wqKG1AcxguApigOZ-nqTTizo-sf7Cj1RHycGw-1rfmIk9VNvgKV31Q0xUij037Pey9cjrMeZNY1fhuWsoUYHU6IRv7hWzMP9PyMhI9Lfd0FVntrLezvKxzNUVRxFQL33ouljHCFEcsr8U%7EN%7EAzHeVU-9wqi5jRtVq9QUqY6oMEj15mYyTRrKUicV7pgue%7Eszk9nxmbpOX6acjbyQObNrHj22IC6C3D7w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
73340133eb796699a67ffba0f04b3571
PDF Text
Text
1st QUARTER, 1876.
TWO-FENCE,
A SERMON
DELIVERED AT THE PENNSYLVANIA YEARLY MEETING OF
PROGRESSIVE FRIENDS IN THE YEAR 1858.
3
By THEODORE PARKER.
g
H
Kg
5c
TO
THE READER.
Of four sermons delivered by Theodore Parker before the Pennsylvania
Progressive Friends in the year 1858, this is the first. The remaining three,
treat of the “Ecclesiastical Conception of God,'’ the “ Philosophical Idea of
God,” and the “Souls Normal Delight in the Infinite God.” These will be
reprinted during the year. It will be seen therefore, that one leading idea is
common to the four discourses. The object in reproducing them is to serve the
cause of religious truth.
JAMES MACDONALD, Elmwood Street.
gj
Cp
g
g
3
To guaranteed Subscribers of One Shilling per quarter and upwards,
these Sermons will be supplied at the rate of l\d. each, single
copies 2d., post free 2^d.
~
g
3
i
-------------------------------------------
3
&
B. WILLIAMS, “TIMES” STEAM AND HYDRAULIC PRINTING WORKS,
129, HIGH STREET.
�TcT1 W TXT
*
WVV
W 'dXj?
vw ewws iX^X? sJwA» vw iXi^fe VtfV
BRIDGE
STREET,
vOv iXnXf vL'® tfSlt vw>t
SUNDERLAND.
The following course of Lectures will be delivered in the
above place of worship, on the undernamed Sunday
Evenings ;—1876,
January 2nd.—Bev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“Man’s Duties
Pertaining to Beligion.”
January 9th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD. — “ Modern
Literature in Relation to the Bible.”
January 16th.—GEORGE LUCAS, Esq.—“ The Everlasting
Gospel.”
JanuarY 23rd.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD. — “ The
Kingdom of Heaven and its Conditions of Entrance.”
January 30th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD. — “The
Utility of Biblical Criticism.”
February 6th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“The Logic
of Christian Orthodoxy.”
February 13th.—Rev. H. AV. PERRIS (of Warrington).—
“ Modern Life Theories, and their bearing on Religious
Philosophy.”
February 20th.—Rev. JAS. MACDONALD.—“The Tempta
tion of Jesus in the Wilderness.”
February 27th.—Mr. JAMES WATSON.—“ Christ, the Son
of Man.”
March 5th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“ ReligiouS Life
and Individual Indifference.”
March 12th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“ Prophets—
Ancient and Modern.”
March 19th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“ Immortality
and Religion.”
March 26th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“The Christ
of the Gospel, not the Christ of so-called Christian
Orthodoxy.”
ALL SEATS FREE.
The offertory at the close of each service.
MORNING SERVICE at a Quarter to Eleven.
EVENING SERVICE at Half-past Six.
Strangers are requested to enter and take any seat that
may be vacant.
�THE
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION
OF GOD IN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.
A SERMON
BY
THEODORE
PARKER.
In the human race nothing is ever still; the stream of
humanity rolls continually forward, change following change ;
nation succeeds to nation, theology to theology, thought
to thought. Taken as a whole, this change is a Progress, an
ascent from the lower and ruder to the higher and more
comprehensive. Individuals die, special families pass off,
nations go under; and a whole race, like the American Indians,
may perish, and their very blood be dried up from the ground;
yet still mankind survives, and all the material or spiritual
good achieved by any race, nation, family, individual, reverts
at last to mankind, who not only has eminent domain over
the earth, but is likewise heir at history of Moses, of the
Heraclides, of Egypt, and of the American Indians. So of
much that slips out from the decaying hand of the individual
or the race, nothing is ever lost to humanity ; much is out
grown, nought wasted. The milk-teeth of the baby are as
necessary as the meat-teeth, the biters and the grinders of the
adult man. Little Ikie Newton had a top and hoop ; spin
ning and trundling were as needful to the boy as mathematical
rules of calculation to the great and world-renowned Sir Isaac.
The Progress of Mankind is continuous and onward, as much
subject to a natural law of development as our growth from
babyhood to adult life.
You see this change and progress in all departments of
human activity, in Religion and Theology, as distinct as in
spinning and weaving. Theological ideas are instruments for
making character, as carpenters’ tools for making houses,
Take the long sweep of four thousand years that history
runs over, and the improvement in theological ideas is as
remarkable as the change in carpenters’ tools. You see this
progress especially in the Conception of God, and in the
Worship that is paid to him conformable to that conception.
�2
THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION. I
* Sere the change is continuous, and the progress is full of
encouragement for the future.
What unlikeness in the conceptions of God which Christian
men have to day ! The notion of God set forth in certain
churches differs from yours and mine more than Moloch differs
from Jehovah. Certainly the God which some ministers
scare their congregations withal, is to me only a Devil—a
Devil who has no existence, and never appears out of the
theological graveyard, where this ghost of buried superstitions
11 walksfrom time to time to frighten men into the momentary
panic of a revival.
The Bible has become the Sacred-Book of all Christendom.
It is not only valued for its worth, which is certainly very great,
' but still more for its fancied authority—because it is thought to
be a Revelation made directly and miraculously by God, to
certain men whom he inspired with the doctrine it contains.
Now, God must know himself, and that perfectly, and if he
-make a revelation thereof, he must portray himself exactly as
he is. So it is maintained in all Christendom, that to learn
the character of God, you are not to go to the World of
■ Matter, or to the World of Man, but only to Revelation, which
mirrors back to you his exact image and likeness; giving you
God, the whole of God, and nothing but God. Accordingly, it
is said that the conception of God is the same in all parts of
the Bible, howsoever old or new, without variableness or
shadow of turning.
But when you come to look at the Bible itself, and study it
part by part, and then put the results of your study into a
whole, you find a remarkable difference in regard to the
chararter of God himself, that depends on the general civili
zation and enlightenment of the times and the writers : the
further you go back,, the ruder all things become. Take the
whole of Greek literature, from Homer, eleven hundred years
before Christ, to Anna Commena, eleven hundred years after
him, and there is a great change in the poetic representa
tions of God. The same thing happens in the books of the
Bible. They extend over twelve or thirteen hundred years;
it may be, perhaps, fourteen hundred. Perhaps Genesis is the
oldest book, and the Fourth Gospel the newest. What a
difference between the God in Genesis and that in the Fourth
Gospel! Can any thoughtful man conceive that these two
conflicting and'various notions of God could ever have come
from the same source ? Let any of you read through the
book of Genesis and then the Fourth Gospel, and you will be
astonished at the diversity, nay, the hostility even, between
the God in the old book and the new one. Then, and at some
subsequent time, look at the various books between the two,
�OF GOD IN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.
3
.and you see what different notions of the Divine Being there
are in this “ infallible miraculous revelation of God.”
Let us look at this great matter in some details, and to see
just what the facts are, and make the whole matter as clear as
noonday light, divide the Bible into its three great parts, the
Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament. In
the Old Testament, Genesis may perhaps have been written in
its present form, about a thousand years before Christ, though
some scholars put it a few hundreds of years nearer our own
time; at any rate it seems to have been compiled from
.ancient documents, some of them perhaps existing thirteen
or fourteen hundred years before the birth of Christ, though
others are clearly later. The book of Daniel, a spurious
work, was evidently written between 170 and 160 years
before Christ. In the Apocrypha, the book of Eccelsiasticus is
perhaps the oldest work, and seems to have been written
about 180 years before the birth of Jesus. The latest book is
The Wisdom of Solomon, of uncertain date. In the New
Testament, Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians is the oldest, and
was perhaps written 58 or 60 years after Christ; the Fourth
Gospel, I think, is the last, and was written, perhaps, 120 or
140 years after Christ. There are seventy books in the
canonical and apocryphal Bible. With the exception of four
teen prophets, Ezra, Nehemiah, David, and Asaph, the two
authors of some thirty or forty, perhaps fifty of the Psalms,
we know the name of ho writer of the nine-and-thirty books of
the Old Testament. Of the Apocrypha we know the name of
the writer of the book of Ecclesiasticus, of him no more; of
others not even that. In the New Testament it seems clear
that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, that to the
Romans, and the two to the Corinthians ; but I doubt if we
are certain who wrote any other of its twenty-seven books !
Here, then, out -of seventy biblical books, containing the
writings of more than one hundred authors, we know the
names of fourteen Hebrew prophets, two Psalmists, two other
writers in the Old Testament, one in the Apocrypha, one in
the New Testament—twenty men. This fact that we know
so little of the authorship of the biblical books is fatal to their
authority as a standard of faith, but it does not in the smallest
degree affect their value as religious documents, or as signs of
the times when they were written. I don’t care who made
the vane on the steeple, if it tell which way the wind blows
—That is all I want : I don’t know who reared these handsome
flowers ; it matters not; their beauty and fragrance tell their
own story. We know the time the documents came from,
and they are monuments of the various ages, though we know
not who made or put them together.
Now, look at the conception of God in the first and last of
�4
THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION
these three divisions. Of course in the brevity of a morning
s
*
sermon I can only select the most remarkable and charac
teristic things. I shall begin with the oldest part of the Old
Testament, and end with the latest part of the New.
1. At first sight it seems the Hebrews believed in many
gods, and no effort of the wisestand best men could keep the
nation from falling back to idolatry for centuries. It was not
until after the Babylonian Captivity which began in 586 B.C.,
and ended about eighty years later that the Israelites re
nounced their idolatry; then contact with monothestic and
civilised people corrected this vice.
At first, in the Bible, Jehovah appears as one God amongst
others, and seems to have his council of gods about him.
Next he is the special god of the descendants of Jacob, and
called the God of Israel. By and by he is represented as
stronger than any of the other gods; he can beat them in
battle, though sometimes he gets worsted. Finally, he is the
only God, and has regard for all nations, though he still takes
special care of the Hebrews, who are his chosen people. The
book of Job, I think, is the only one in the Old Testament
which makes it appear that God cares for all men alike, and
this seems to be the only book in the Old Testament which
was not written by a Jew. I think it is one of the latest books
in that collection.
Now see what character is ascribed to God in the earliest
documents of the Bible. The first five books of Moses are the
oldest; they contain the most rude and unspiritual ideas of
God. He is represented as a very limited and imperfect being.
He makes the world in six days, part by part, one thing at a
time, as a mechanic does his work. He makes man out of
dust, in “ his own image and likeness,” breathes into him, and
he becomes a living soul. God looks on the world when he
has finished it, and is pleased with his work, “ and behold it
was very good.” But he is tired with his week’s work, rests
on the seventh day, and “ was refreshed,” The next week he
looks at his work, to see how it goes on, and he finds that he
must mend it a little. All animals rejoice in their mates, but
thoughtful Adam wanders lone ; he must have his Eve. So
God puts him into a deep sleep, takes one of his ribs, makes
a woman of it, and the next morning there is a help meet for
him. But the new man and woman behave rather badly. God
comes down and walks in the garden in the cool of the day,
calls Adam and Eve, inquires into their behaviour, chides
them for their misconduct, and. in consequence of their
wrong deed he is very angry with all things, and curses the serpent, curses Eve, curses Adam, and even the ground. The
man and woman have tasted of the Tree of Knowledge, and.
he turns them out of the garden of Eden lest they should also
�OF GOD IN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.
5
eat of the Tree of Life, and thereby live for ever. By and by
God repents that he made man, and “ it grieved him at his
heart,” they behave so badly; so in his wrath he sweeps off all
mankind, except eight persons ; but after the flood is over
Noah offers a burnt offering, and God smells the sweet savour
and is pacified, and says he will not again curse the ground,
and he will never destroy the human race a second time.
To know what happens he must go from place to place ; thus
he understands that the people are building a tower, and
comes near enough to look at it, and, not liking the undertak
ing, he says, “ Go to now, let us go down and confound their
language, that they may not understand one another’s speech ”
he scatters them abroad, and they cannot build the tower,
which was to reach up to heaven.
Afterwards he hears bad
news from Sodom and Gomorrah, that “ their sin is grievous.”
He does not quite credit the tidings, and says, £> 1 will go
down now, and see whether they have done altogether accord
ing to the cry of it, which is come unto me, and if not I will
know.” He talks with Abraham, who pleads for sparing the
wicked city, beats Abraham in argument, and “ as soon as he
had left communing with Abraham,” ££ the Lord wenthis way.” .
God appears to man visibly—to Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Jacob, and to Moses. ■ He talks with all those persons in the
most familiar- way, in the Hebrew tongue : “ the Lord talked
r”
to Moses, face to face, as a man speaketh with his brother.”
He makes a bargain -with Abraham, then with Jacob and his
children. It is solemnly ratified, for good and sufficient con
consideration on both sides. It is for value received : God con
veys a great quantity of land to Abraham and his posterity,
and guarantees the title; they are to circumcise all their male
children eight days after birth; that is the jocular tenure by
which they hold Palestine. God swears that he will keep his
covenant, and though sometimes sorely tempted to break it, he
yet adheres to the oath:
“ And though he promise to his loss,
He makes the promise good.”
».
He dines with Abraham, coming in unexpected one day.
Abraham kills a calf, “ tender and good.” Sarah makes cakes
of fine meal, extemporaneously baked on the hearth. Butter
and milk are set forth, and God, with two attendants, makes
his dinner.
. While Moses was travelling from Midian to Egypt, the Lord
met him at a tavern, and “ sought to kill him,” but Moses’s
wife circumcised her son before God’s eyes—so God let the
“ bloody husband ” go.
He is partial, hates the heathen, takes good care of the
Jews, not because they deserve it, but because he will not
break his covenant. He is jealous ; he writes it with his own
�6
TTiE-ItIocSeSsTvE dSvELOPMTNT
OF THE CONCEPTION
finger in the ten commandments : “ I, the Lord thy God' ani
a jealous God and again, “ Jehovah, his name is jealous.” He
is vain also, and longs for the admiration of the heathen, and.
is dissuaded by Moses from destroying the Israelites when,
they had provoked him, lest the Egyptians should hear of it,,
and his fame should suffer.
Look at this account of one of God’s transactions in Numb,
xiv. : “And the Lord says unto Moses, how long will,
this people provoke me ? And how long will it be ere they
believe me, for all the signs which I have showed amongthem ? I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit
them, and will make of thee a greater nation, and mightier
than they.” And Moses replied : “ Then the Egyptians shall
hear of it, and they will tell it to the inhabitants of the land ;
they will say, “ Because the Lord was not able to bring the
people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore hehath slain them in the wilderness
“ Pardon, I beseech thee,
the iniquity of this people 1” So, lest the Gentiles should
think him weak, Jehovah lets the Hebrews off for a time, and
instead of destroying millions of men at once, he spread their
ruin over several years. “ In this wilderness they shall be
consumed, and there they shall die.”
He is capricious, revengeful, exceedingly ill-tempered ; hehas fierce wrath and cruelty; he is angry even with the
Hebrews, and one day says to Moses, “ Take all the heads
of the people (that is the leading men, the citizens of eminentgravity), and hang them up before the Lord against the sun.”
Once God is angry with the people who murmur against
Moses, and says to him, “ Get you up from among this con
gregation, that I may consume them as in a moment!” Moses.
is more merciful than his God; he must appease this Deity
whois “a consuming fire.” So he tells Aaron, “ Take a
censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on
incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an
atonement for them; for there is wrath gone out from the
Lord; the plague is begun !” Aaron does so. and the plagueis stayed, though not till the fury of the Lord had killed, four
teen thousand and seven hundred men ! (Numb. xvi. 41—50.)
God hates some of the nations with relentless wrath; Abra
ham interferes, pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah, Afoses for
the Israelites, but nobody cares for the rest of the people or
burns incense for them, so God says, “ I will utterly put out
the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.” All the
Canaanites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Perizzites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, and the Jebusites are to be rooted out
—seven nations, each of which was more numerous than the
Hebrews : “Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them;
thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto
�<
OF GOD IN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.
'
them,” saith the Lord. The Canaanites and the Moabites
were kindred of the Hebrews, of the same ethnologic tribe,
but they could not enter into the congregation of the Lord
unto the tenth generation !
This God—powerful, terrible, partial, jealous, often illtempered, wrathful, cruel, bloody—is to be worshipped with
sacrifice, the blood of bulls and goats, with costly spectacles
by the priesthood, who sacrifice to him in a special place, at
particular times ; and God gives the most minute directions
‘how all this shall be done, but he is not to be served in any
other way, at any other place.
Such seems to have been the conception of God with the
leading minds of the Hebrews at the beginning of their
national existence, or at the later day when the early books
were deceitfully compiled. Now see how much they outgrew
it a later day.
The highest Old Testament idea of God you find in the
Proverbs and the later Psalms, which were written only four or
- five hundred years after the promulgation of these extraordi
nary documents which I have just quoted. In these God is
represented as all-wise, and always present everywhere. You
all remember that exquisite Psalm, the cxxxixth, “ Whither
shall I go from thy spirit 1 or whither shall I flee from thy
presence ?” There God is unchangeable; his eyes are in every
•place, beholding the evil and the good; no thought can be
withheld from him. What grand and beautiful conceptions of
God are there in Psalms ciii., civ., cvii. ! So in almost the
whole of the admirable collection, which is the prayer book
of Christendom to-day, and will be till some man with greater
poetic genius, united with the tenderest piety, such as poets
seldom feel, shall come, and, in the language of earth, sing the
songs of the Infinite God.
There is a great change also in the manner of worship.
At first it was a mere external act—offering sacrifice, a bull,
a goat, a lamb ; nay, God commands Abraham to sacrifice
Isaac, and the father is about to comply, but the Deity changes
his own mind, and prevents the killing of the boy. Listen
to this from Psalm li., and see what a change there is : “Have
mercy upon me, 0 God, according to thy loving-kindness,
according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies, blot out
my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin. Create in me a clean heart, O
God ; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away
from thy presence ; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou
delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a
broken spirit; a broken and a contrite spirit, 0 God, thou
wilt not despise.”
’
kN
'
,
- ’
.
,
.>
I
' G
J
�8
THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOEMENT OF THE CONCEPTION
Look at this from Hosea : “ I desire mercy and not sacri
fice ; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offering.”
Or this of Micah : “ What doth the Lord require of thee but
to do justly and love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God T
What a progress for the early times! But even to the last
book of the Old Testament there is the same wrath of God.
The world has seen no such cursing as that of the Jews in the
name of Jehovah. Take the cixth Psalm, and I will defy the
hardest of you to wish worse and crueller things than the
author imprecates against his enemies :—“ Set thou a wicked
man over him ; and let Satan stand at his right hand. When
he shall be judged, let him be condemned : and let his prayer
become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his
place. Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually 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 stranger spoil
his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him ;
neither let there be any to favour 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. Let them be before the Lord continually, that
he may cut off the memory of them from the earth....................
As he clothed himself with cursing like as with a garment, so
let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his
bones.”—vs. 6-15, 18. I quote these because they are seldom
read, while the devout and holy portions of the Psalms are
familiar to all men. In Bibles which have laid on the pulpit
for fifty years, and those read in private from generation to
generation, the best parts are worn out with continuous use,
while the evil passages are still fresh and new.
I think no Old Testament Jew ever got beyond this : “ Was
not Esau Jacob’s brother ? saith the Lord : yet I loved Jacob
and hated Esau,” (Mai. i. 2, 3.) A Psalmist speaks of God as
pursuing his enemies with wrath “ like a mighty man that
shouteth by reason of wine.” The Lord God of Israel says to
his people, “ I myself will fight against you with an out
stretched hand, and a strong arm, even in anger, and in fury,
and in great wrath.” “I have set my face against this city for
evil and not for good.” If they do not repent, his “ fury will
go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it;” and “ this
house shall become a desolation.”
Here is a terrible picture of the Hebrew God, sketched by
the hand of a great master some time after the Babylonian
Captivity. There had been a great battle between the Edo
mites and the Hebrews 1 God comes back as a conqueror, the
�OF GOD IN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. '
.9' '
people see him, and the following dialogue takes place :—
People: —Who is this that cometh from Edom ?
.'
'
.'
■
icK,
’ Vf..-. .’■< ' z< - I i
■
,’ •
, ■ ,.
• x ■
;
;
In scarlet garments from Bozrah ?
This that is glorious in his apparel,
u
Proud in the greatness of his strength ?
Jehovah :—I that proclaim deliverance,
And am mighty to save.
People : —Wherefore is thine apparel red,
And thy garments like those of one that treadeth the wine vat ?
Jehovah'.—I have trodden the wine-vat alone,
And of the nations there was none with me.
,
■
And I trod them in mine anger,
' , .
. X
And I trampled them in my fury,
So that their life-blood was sprinkled upon my garments,
And I have stained all my apparel.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart—
, ’'
I trod down the nations in my anger;
I crushed them in my fury,
And spilled their blood upon the ground.
*
“ Home-keeping youths have ever homely wits,” says the
proverb; it is not less true of nations than of men. The
religious but idolatrous Jews met a monotheistic people in
their captivity in Babylon, and came back with better ideas.
Yet much of the old theological evil lingered still. Ezra,,
• Nehemiah, and the author of the book of Daniel, devout
men, intensely bigoted, knew only “ the great and dreadful
God;” that is the name the last of them calls Jehovah. But
from the first five books of the Old Testament to the Proverbs
and later Psalms there is great progress.
II. You come to the N ew Testament, and here you do not
find much literary excellence in the writers. Wild flowers of
exquisite beauty spring up around the feet of Jesus ; only in
the Revelation do you find anything which indicates a large
talent for literature, neither the nature which is born in the
man of genius, nor the art which comes from exquisite cul
ture. The Fourth Gospel was writ, apparently, by some
Alexandrian Greek, a man of nice philosophic culture and
fancy. Paul had great power of deductive logic. A grand
poetic imagination appears in that remarkable book, the
Apocalypse. But, taken as a whole, in respect to literary
-art, the New Testament is greatly inferior to the best parts
- of the Apocrypha and Old Testament. It compares with Job,
the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ecclesiasticus, and the Wisdom
of Solomon, as the works of the early Quakers compare
with Hooker, Taylor, Herbert, Cudworth, and Milton; and
yet, spite of the lack of culture, literary art, and poetic ■
.genius in the New Testament, as in Fox, Nayler, Penn, and
other early Quakers, there is a spirit not to be found in the
well-born and learned writers who went before.
*Dr. Noyes’s Translation.
-'7 ;M|L
' . '-tB
7,^
V
�TO
THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION
I. In the New Testament, look first at the conception which
Jesus has of God. I shall take it only from the first three
Gospels. In that, according to Matthew, I think we have his
early notion of God. He calls him Father. The same word is
now and then applied to God in the Old Testament, but there I
think it means only Father to the Jews, not to other nations.
But it seems that some of the Greeks and Jews in Jesus’s own
time applied it to him, as if he were the father of all men. As
Jesus makes the Lord’s Prayer out of the litanies which were
current in his time, so he uses the common name for the
Deity in the common sense. With him God alone is good,
and our Father which is in heaven is perfect. “ He maketh
+ his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust.” He pities and forgives the penitent,
as in that remarkable story of the Prodigal Son. With what
tender love does Jesus say, “There is joy in heaven over one sin
ner that repenteth more than over ninety and nine just persons
who need no repentance.” Such noble thoughts come out in
that time as “ shines a good deed in a naughty world.” But
what becomes of the impenitent wicked ? God has no love
for them; they shall go into everlasting punishment. So,
alongside of God there is a Devil, and to the left hand of
heaven there is a dreadful, fiery, endless hell, whither a broad
way leads down, anJ the wide gates stand ever open, and many
there be who go in thereat.
At first Jesus limited his teachings to the Jews ; he would
not take the children’s bread and give it unto the dogs ; he
-declared that not a jot ox jbittle of the Mosaic ceremonial law
should ever fail; he told his disciples to keep all that the
Scribes and Pharisees commanded, because they sat in Moses
seat. But by-and-by he nobly breaks ■with Judaism, violates
the ritual law, puts his new wine jinto new bottles. With
admirable depth of intuitive sight he sums up religion in one
word, Love—Love to God with all the heart, and to one’s
neighbour as himself.
Fear of God seldom appears in
the words of Jesus. Fear is the religion of the Old Testa
ment. Mercy is better than sacrifice. Men go up to heaven
for righteousness and philanthropy, and no question is asked
about creed or form. Other men go down to hell for ungod
liness ; and no straining at a gnat would ever save him who
would swallow down a whole camel of iniquity. Human
literature cannot show a dearer example of tenderness to a
penitent wicked man than you see in the story of the Prodigal
son, which yet the first Evangelist rejected, and two others
left without mention.
All nationality disappears before Jesus. His model man
is a Samaritan. We hear that word commonly used and do
not understand that the Jews hated a Samaritan as the old
�OF GOD IN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.
11
/^rew^England Federalists hated a Jacobin, as the British used
■ I to hate a Frenchman, or as a Southern slaveholder hates a
black Republican to-day. Depend upon it, it created as much
■ A'
sensation amongst men who heard it when Jesus told this story
of the Good Samaritan, as it would in Virginia to have some -!?'a
.
one represent a Negro as superior to all the “first families
of the State, on account of some great charity that he had
done.
■ ' -■?
I do not find that Jesus altered the common idea of God
L V
which he found. He was too intent on practical righteousness
|■■to attend to that. Besides, he was cut off when about thirty
years of age; had he lived longer, it may be that he would
have reformed the popular notion of God ; for there are some
things in the words that drop like honey from his lips which
Eg
to me indicate a religious feeling far beyond his thought.
HL?
2. In the writings of Paul I find more speculation about
God than with Jesus ; for Paul was mainly a theological man,
as Jesus was mainly a pious and philanthropic man. Jesus
could start a great religious movement; Paul could make a
Bfe., ;
theology out of his hints, and found a sect.- But the most
11 important characteristic of Paul’s idea of God is this : God’s
wrath was against all ungodliness in Jew or Gentile, and he
- ,
was as accessible to Gentile as to Jew. Nationality vanishes ;
* all men are one in Christ Jesus; God is God to all, to punish
. '
the wicked and to reward the righteous who have faith in
Christ ; the Jews are as wickedas the rest of mankind, and
are to be equally saved by faith in Christ, and by that alone. .
•; _
Paul’s Christ is not the Jesus of History, but a mythological
. being he conjured up from his own fancy. He says that the
invisible God is clearly made known to the visible material
I ' -5.
world, and conscience announces God’s law to the Gentiles as
effectually as revelation declares it to the Jews. That is a
great improvement on the Old Testament idea of God, as pre
sented even in the Psalms.
3. In the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle attributed to <
' / <'
John—both incorrectly attributed to him—the idea of God
goes higher than elsewhere in the New Testament. God is
mainly love. He dwells iD the souls of men who love each
'other and love him, and is to be worshipped in spirit and in
truth, not only in Jerusalem, .phut anywhere and everywhere
’V '
Perfect love casteth out fear.
This God has an only-begotten Son, to whom he has given
the Spirit without measure, put all things under his hand >
■
.
he who believes on the Son shall have everlasting lite, but he
who does not believe on the Son shall not see life. Christ’s
.
commandment is that they love one another, and to those God
will give another Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, who shall
abide with believers for ever; nay, Christ will manifest him
self to them.
j.
�12
THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION^
But this God has created a Devil, who will send all un
believers into endless torment.
Thus ends the last book of the New Testament. What a
change from Genesis to the Fourth Gospel 1 What a
difference between the God who eats veal and fresh bread
with Abraham, and commands him to make a burnt-offering
of his own son, who conveys all Palestine on such a jocular
tenure, and the God whom no man hath seen at any time; who
is Spirit, and has to be worshipped in spirit and in truth ;
who is love, and who dwells with all loving and believing
souls I There are I know not how many hundred years be
tween the two—what a series of revolutions ! what vast pro
gress of mankind had filled up that brief period of time.
But the idea of God which you gather from the Bible is '
quite unsatisfactory to a thoughtful and deeply religious man
to-day. In the Old Testament there is no God who loves the
. Gentiles ; he made the world for the Jews ; all others are only
servants—means, not ends. This being so, the Hebrew
thought himself the only favourite of God ; his patriotism
became immense contempt for all other nations—was a part
of his religion. In the New Testament, the God whom even
Jesus sets before mankind has no love for the wicked ; there
is no Providence forthem ; at the last judgment he sends them
all to hell, bottomless, endless, without hope • their fire dieth
not, their worm is not quenched ; no Lazarus from Abraham’s
bosom will ever give Dives a single drop of water to cool his
tongue, tormented in that flame. Jesus tells of God, also of
the Devil ; of heaven with its eternal blessedness awaiting
every righteous man, and of the eternal torment not less open
and waiting for every one who dies impenitent. Paul narrows
still more this love of God towards men ; it includes only such
as have faith in Christ; no man is to be saved who does not
, believe in Paul’s idea of Christ, The author of the Apocalypse
constricts it still further yet; he would cast out Paul from
heaven ; Paul is called a “ liar,” “ of the Synagogue of
Satan,” and other similar names. The Fourth Gospel limits
salvation to such as believe the author’s theory of Christ, that
he was a God, and the only-begotten Son of God, an idea
which none of the three Evangelists, nor Paul, nor James, nor
Simon Peter, seems ever to have entertained. I think that
Jesus never held such a doctrine as what Paul and the writer
of the Fourth Gospel makes indispensable to salvation.
To the Jews every Gentile seemed an outcast from God’s
providence. To the early followers of Jesus all unbelievers
were also outcasts ; “ he that believeth and is baptised shall
be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” I find
no adequate reason for thinking Jesus ever spoke these words,
found only in the doubtful addition to the second canonical
�OF GOD IN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.
It
yt,
I" ■
13
Gospel. Yet there seems evidence enough to show that Jesus
himself really taught that ghastly doctrine, that a great wickedness unrepented entailed eternal damnation on an immortal
soul. Paul says human love never fails ; he suffers long and is
kind, and yet both he and the man whom he half worshipped
teach that God has no love for the wicked man who dies in his
impenitence; endless misery is his only destination. Neither
in the Old Testament nor in the New do you find the God of
infinite perfection, infinite power, wisdom, justice, love ; it is
always a limited God, a Deity with imperfect wisdom,
justice, love; God with a Devil beside him, the created fiend
getting the victory over his Creator! The Bible doesnot
know that infinite God, who is immanent in the world of
Matter and Man, and also lives in these flowers, in yonder
stars, in every drop of blood in our veins; who works every
where by law, a constant mode of operation of natural power
in Matter and in Man.
It is never the dear God who is re
sponsible for the welfare of all and each, a Father so tender
that he loves the wickedest of men as no mortal mother can
love her only child. Does this surprise you ? When mankind
was a child, he thought as a child, and understood as a child ;
when he becomes a man he will put away childish things.
How full of encouragement is the fact of such a growth in
man’s conception of God, and his mode of serving him ! In
the beginning of Hebrew history, great power, great selfesteem, and great destructiveness are the chief qualities that
men ascribe to god. Abraham would serve him by sacrificing
Isaac; Joshua, a great Hebrew filibuster, by the butchery of
whole nations of men, sparing the cattle, which he might keep
as property, but not the women and children. This was counted
as service of God, and imputed to such marauders for righteous
ness. In the notion of God set forth in the Fourth Gospel and
the First Epistle ascribed to John, it is love which preponde
rates, and by love only are men to serve God. With Jesus
it is only goodness which admits men to the kingdom of
heaven, and there is no question asked as to nation, creed, or
form ; but this sweet benediction is pronounced : “ Inasmuch
as you did it unto the least of these my brethren, ye did it
unto me ;” “ Come ye blessed, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world !”
Shall you and I stop where the New Testament did ? We
cannot, if we would, and it is impious to try. What if Moses had
been content with the Egyptian chaos of a deity, “ where every
clove of garlic was.a god ;” what if Jesus had never broke with
the narrow bonds of Judaism ; what if Paul had been content
with “such as were Apostles before him/’ and had stuek at
new moons, circumcision, and other abominations which neither
he nor his fathers were able to bear; where would have been
L|
.-jjB
. <
- ,>
�14
THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTIolw,
OF GOD IN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.
the Christian Church, and where the progress of mankind ?
No, we shall not stop I It would be contrary to the spirit of
Moses, and still more contrary to the spirit of Jesus to attempt
to arrest the theological and religious progress of mankind.
God in Genesis represents the conception of the babyhood of
humanity. Manhood demands a different conception. All
round us lies the world of Matter, this vast world above us
and about us and beneath ; it proclaims the God of Nature ;
flower speaking unto flower; star quiring unto star ; a God
who is resident therein, his law never broken. In us is a World
of Consciousness, and as that mirror is made clearer by civili
zation, I look down, and behold the Natural Idea of God,
infinite Cause and Providence, Father and Mother to all that
are. Into our reverent souls God will come as the morning
light into the bosom of the opening rose. Just in proportion
as we are faithful, we shall be inspired therewith, and shall
frame “ conceptions equal to the soul’s desires,” and then in
our practice keep those “ heights which the soul is competent
to win.”
���Tuesday, February 22nd.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—
“ Unitarianism ; or the Gospel as Christ Taught it.’’
Monday, February 28th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—
“Unitarian Christianity in Relation to the Bible and
Science.”
Tuesday, March 7th.—GEO. LUCAS, Esq.—“ The Authority of
Scripture—What it is not—What it is.”
Tuesday, March 14th.—Rev. JAMES MACDONALD.—“The
Bible an Inspired, but not an Infallible Book.”
Tuesday, March 21st.—GEO. LUCAS, Esq.—“ Scripture Inter
pretation—The False Method—The True Method.”
Tuesday, March 28th. — Rev. JAMES MACDONALD —
“Religion—The Dogmatic System—The Rational Con
ception.”
Tuesday, April 4th.—GEO. LUCAS, Esq.—“Do we find the
Doctrine of the Trinity, or the Deity of Jesus taught in
the Book of Acts, if we do—where ? If not—why not”
An Open Conference will be held at the close of each of these
Lectures, to which inquirers after religious truth are invited.
The Chair will be taken each evening at 8 o’clock.
February, 14th, ANNUAL CONGREGATIONAL TEA
MEETING.
On Tuesday Evening, February 15th, the Rev. FT. W. Perris (of
Warrington) will Lecture, subject:—
£< JOHN STUART MILL—A Study of Character,”
A Beliglous & Sooial Improvement Glass
IS HELD
EVERY SUNDAY AFTERNOON, in the Chapel,
FROM HALF-PAST TWO TO HALF-PAST THREE.
THE
CLASS
IS
OPEN
TO
THE
PUBLIC.
WEEK EVENING CLASSES as usual on the Wednesday,
Thursday, and Friday.
�The following valuable Books illustrative of Christian Unitarianism
may be purchased from the book stall at the chapel door before
or after the Sunday services, or from the Rev. JAMES
MACDONALD, Elmwood Street:—
Published
at.
Offered,
at.
3/6
3/6
3/6
5/2/6
...
2/2/2/2/1/-
-/6
1/1/2/—
V-
....
-..
-,.
....
.,■ •
-,.
-/6
-/9
-/8
1/9
1/lOd.
Channing’s Complete Works ............................
Channing’s Perfect Life....................................
Bible and Popular Theology. Dr. V. Smith .,
Memoir of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, M.A.
Priestley’s History of the Corruptions of 1
Christianity .................................... J
Unitarian Hand-book. Rev. R. Spears...........
John Milton’s Last Thoughts on the Trinity
First Principles in Religion. Rev. J. P. Hopps
Parker’s Matters Pertaining to Religion
Spirit and Word of Christ. Dr. V. Smith ...
Childhood of the World. By E. Clodd, F.R.A.S.
The Church of the First Three Centuries. )
By Dr. Lamson ..................................... J
The Childhood of Religions. By E. Clodd, )
F.R.A.S...................................................... f
The following Lectures may also be obtained at the book stall:
Sympathy of Religions. By T. W. Higginson...............
A Study of Religion. By F. E. Abbot............................
Sin against God. By Professor Newman ...................
Birth and Growth of Myth. By E. Clodd, F.R.A S. ...
Dreams and Ghosts. By Dr. Zerffi.......................... ...
The Origin of the Devil. By Dr. Zerffi..........................
The Vedas and Zendavesta. By Dr. Zerffi.................
Erasmus—His influence on the Reformation. By Elley
Finch.............................................................................
Discipleship with Christ. By Rev. J. Macdonald.
...
Ideal Religion.
Do.
do.
...
British Workman. Part I.
Do.
do.
...
Do.
Part II.
Do.
do.
...
Comparative Religion. By Rev. J. Macdonald ..........
Is Jesus God? Rev. R. R. Suffield
...........................
Light for Bible Readers. Rev. J. P. Hopps...................
Popular Doctrines that obscure the views which the New
Testament gives of God. By Rev. W. Gaskell, M. A.
-/2
-/2
-/2
-/3
-/3
-/3
-/3
~/3
-/I
-/I
-/I
-/I
-/I
~/3
-/2
-/I
The Unitarian Herald (weekly) price Id., and the Christian
Freeman (monthly) price l|d., are also on sale at the stall.
�
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 progressive development of the conception of God in the books of the Bible: a sermon delivered at the Pennsylvania yearly meeting of Progressive Friends in the year 1858
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Parker, Theodore
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Sunderland
Collation: [2],14, [2] p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the Scottish Unitarian Pulpit, No. III., 1st quarter, 1858. This is the first of four lectures delivered by Parker before the Pennsylvania Progressive Friends. A list of lectures at the Unitarian Chapel, Sunderland listed on preliminary and unnumbered last pages. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
B. Williams, printers
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5355
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 progressive development of the conception of God in the books of the Bible: a sermon delivered at the Pennsylvania yearly meeting of Progressive Friends in the year 1858), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Sermons
Unitarianism
Bible
Conway Tracts
Sermons
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/73f9cb30a7bb0b0f77182154a9af2e1e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sfS7QrQ7bFGt6JeSXEfpcfcb8T58IUY9jzdGjBkHUfYHoD3y3fmQVfsUf01GCswaANvs6xxaPd3PKPo9LZ-eNZKxtJZ79e-EpI0mYDNwZWfAz8WT6iLdQSmCR32WE%7EPdGwzVmZxjwc5RzcASs8BA-3YPjnqLAa4mT7jCjYHN8gA7ZbQk2vYSa2Wb01sx55jqRrzNFLo7qFDKuY7GheoBZePdT3ubEc-uoZs2O-WXgT2gNn9Pdet0aUOys88HTldNz6bYVD2fCKAFtBO3Pqy9%7EYybnNzf-%7EF1odjSKdXSj0tkwfK9okSrvRqpmlvCvMEMhy%7E1WWNd6o-C2XYMo3mUPw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
81e56b0a159ecaadf251713dcdaefa87
PDF Text
Text
CT
EVIDENCES OE CHRISTIANITY.
THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES.
WALTER LACY ROGERS.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
1 8 7 6.
Price Sixpence.
��THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES.
HE first in order of time of the evidences of Chris
tianity are the celebrated predictions which gave
to the chosen people, in ages long anterior to the event,
the expectation of a Messiah. They are the first also
in importance, because prophecy is an evidence of
Christianity alone. There have been other teachers of
religion and morality who have claimed to work miracles,
who have suffered martyrdom, and who have received
the honours of a posthumous deification. Nor is
any religion, while it flourishes, without its seers,
its medicine-men, its auguries and oracles. But it
was the advent of Jesus alone which is said to have
been the subject of previous prophecy, and to have
been heralded during a period of four thousand years
by the whole literature of an ancient people. Certainly
this is evidence indeed. It is true that the people
themselves, the fellow-countrymen and lineal descend
ants of the writers, while clinging fanatically to the
prophecy, have always obstinately repudiated the appli
cation of it. It is true that they have asserted, with a
resolution unparalleled for its trials and endurance, the
right of understanding their own language. It is true
that for all ecclesiastical purposes that language is with
them and them alone a living tongue, and that, if they
could conscientiously admit that the words of their old
prophets as they still read them have not been unfulfilled,
they would escape from a position which is getting every
year more desperate, and gain for themselves and their
T
B
�6
Evidences of Christianity.
literature a place in the religious scale which would
satisfy even the arrogance and patriotism of a Jew.
But they will not. Because (it is said) two thousand
years ago an excited section of their nation, which was
then in a chronic state of disturbance, and was stumb
ling and wading on through blunders and bloodshed *
up to the climax of national and political suicide, mis
took the character of a man whom his nearest friends
did not understand, and were instrumental in putting
him unjustly to death, therefore their descendants
prefer still to deny the character of this man, than
allow that even under such circumstances their an
cestors could have made a mistake. With this theory,
however improbable, we are not at the present moment
concerned; for it stands to reason that, given an
accurate translation of the Bible, f we are as capable of
forming an opinion nowadays as any Jew in the first
century as to whether the plain and natural meaning of
a prophecy was fulfilled in the historical character and
career of Jesus. It is only those who interpret the
prophecies in a non-natural sense who must bear in
mind that the interpretation which they advance is the
interpretation of foreigners and aliens from the tongue
in which those prophecies were written; and that other
than the literal meaning of the words has ever been
denied by those who formed and spoke the language,
and by teachers whose minute study of every part of the
national literature at the time when this new interpre
tation was first advanced, is a matter of history. Or to
put the matter in a different way : No doubt there are
in England and Germany scholars capable of interpret
ing Aristophanes better than any modern Athenian
* Acts v. 36, 37.
I With regard to this, it must be remembered that the orthodox
octrine of the inspiration of the Bible means not only that each
ook of the Bible as originally written was the word of God, but
that the compiled volume, and its remote descendant, the version
of it that was translated in the days of James I., and our present
version of that translation, are equally inspired.
�The Messianic Prophecies.
7
can. But who would trust to the criticisms of an
English or German professor who discovered in the
“Clouds” points and allusions which we know were
not recognised at the time the play was represented, nor
by any contemporary or immediate successor of Aristo
phanes, however critically he might have studied the
subject ? Surely it was for the Jewish contemporaries
of Jesus to say whether the Jewish prophecies were or
were not fulfilled in him. Their leaders would natur
ally have come to some conclusion on the subject
before they had committed themselves to one side or
the other. There must have been at the time many
“ rulers in Israel ” willing to be convinced, like Nico
demus, or like those who accepted the impartial and
judicious advice of Gamaliel (Acts v. 34-40). What
we propose to do, therefore, is to look at a few of
the principal Messianic prophecies, and see for our
selves why it was such men were not convinced;
whether, in short, according to the fair and plain
meaning of these prophecies as they have come down
to us, any one of them has been specifically and exclu
sively fulfilled in the character and career of Jesus.
Let us begin with the direct prediction of the
Almighty himself, Gen. iii. 15: “I will put enmity
between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed : it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
bruise his heel.”
This prophecy is said to have been fulfilled so far as
it is Messianic—
I. By the mission and teaching of Jesus.
II. By the triumph of Jesus over sin and death.
III. By the temporary humiliation and apparent
defeat of Jesus in his trial and crucifixion.
It may be objected, first, that the order of the clauses
in the prediction has not been observed in the order of
the fulfilment, and that this point, so far from being
immaterial, is really of the essence of the case; for it
makes all the difference to mankind whether the
�8
Evidences of Christianity.
crowning victory rests with Jesus or with Satan. But
waiving this point, has any one a right to say that this
prophecy has been fulfilled specifically and exclusively
in Jesus ? That there always has been and always will
be enmity between the seed of the woman (not Jesus
only) and the Serpent is clear. The very name of Satan
(adversary) or of Devil (confounder) implies this. It is
also clear that man, in his progress onwards, is con
stantly let and hindered by the powers and effects
which are represented under the symbol of the Serpent.
And who can doubt that those powers are constantly
being defeated, and good triumphs over evil ? Was not
the prophecy fulfilled ages before the Advent in the
career of thousands and thousands of good men of all
nations struggling against Ignorance, Superstition, and
Selfishness—defeated in their own persons and in their
own time, but in spite of that defeat, and frequently by
their own sacrifice in the cause, ensuring the ultimate
victory of those principles for which they had so man
fully contended ? What did Jesus more than this ?
Let us take next the prophecy contained in Jer.
xxiii. 5-8: “ Behold the days come, saith the Lord,
that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a
King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judg
ment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah
shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is
his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our
Righteousness. Therefore behold the days come, saith
the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth
which brought up the children of Israel out of the land
of Egypt: but the Lord liveth which brought up and
which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the
north country and from all countries whither I had
driven them; and they shall dwell in their own
land.”
It may be objected that this prophecy is one of those
which has not yet been fulfilled, but is to be so in due
course. To that we reply, that if so, it is not, until
�The Messianic Prophecies.
9
fulfilled, any evidence of Christianity, and should not
be quoted at all; that if it alludes only to the Second
Advent it cannot be adduced as a proof of any special
interposition of God in the first Advent; but that,
placed as it is in the Epistle for the 25th Sunday after
Trinity, it is intended by the Church to commemorate
the Feast of the first Advent.
Otherwise it would
be more appropriately placed for the Sunday after
Ascension-day. Has, then, the prophecy been fulfilled
by the coming of the Jesus of the gospels ? If he was
raised up “ as a Branch unto David,” he must have
been the actual, not the putative son of Joseph. It is
not here a question what the J ews thought, but what
God said. These profess to be the words of the Al
mighty spoken through one of his chief prophets, and
it would be what is called blasphemous to say that God
meant, “ I will pretend to raise up unto David one who
shall be no relation to him ; I will foist a child of my
own upon the Royal stock, in order that you may listen
to him under the belief that he is a lineal descendant
of your Hero King.” It is a dilemma from which there
appears to be no escape, but which does not seem now
adays to create any difficulty, viz., that either Jesus did
fulfil the Messianic prophecies, in being the descendant
of David, and in that case he was not the Son of God,
or that, if he was the Son of God, he did not fulfil the
*
prophecies.
Next, Jesus did not become a “ king,”
nor did he “ reign,” and certainly he did not “ prosper; ”
and as for executing “justice and judgment upon earth,”
it was the very part which he indignantly repudiated
(Luke xii. 14). In the days of Jesus Judah was not
“ saved,” nor did Israel “ dwell safely.” On the con
trary, they were rapidly preparing for themselves that
* This difficulty must have been felt in the first ages of Chris
tianity, and no doubt was the reason why Justin Martyr and the
earliest of the fathers trace the genealogy of Jesus up to David
through his mother. But the subsequent acceptance by the
Church of the gospels of Matthew and Luke in their present
form as inspired writings makes this no longer possible.
�io
Evidences of Christianity.
political destruction, which, soon after fell upon them.
Lastly, when and by whom was Jesus ever called “ the
Lord our Righteousness ? ”
The 53d chapter of Isaiah is not a prophecy at all.
It is written in the past tense, and professes to he a
historical narration of the career of some one who had
adopted in public life an unpopular cause and been its
martyr. It seems to have been composed by a friend
who had sympathised but not suffered with the martyr,
and who, after the danger had passed, writes in terms
of mild self-reproach of the want of courage of himself
and the other followers of his hero. All this may have
been written of several popular leaders whose followers
have hung back when the cause became a dangerous
one. But it must have already happened, and cannot
be taken to have any reference to events which did not
take place until seven or eight centuries afterwards.
In the concluding verses there is a prediction of the
ultimate triumph of the cause and of the martyr’s
reward j but this, if it is to be applied to the case of
Jesus, has not yet been fulfilled, and forms no part of
the evidence of Christianity. For it is not yet a matter
of history that Jesus has “ seen his seed” or has “pro
longed his days,” or that the “ pleasure of the Lord hath
prospered in his hand” (whatever that may mean).
“ He shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied”
will of course be attributed to the historical scene of the
Agony in the garden ; but it is equally applicable to the
last hours of a thousand other martyrs who faced death
with more courage and satisfaction than Jesus did.
So too of Isaiah ix. 6. Is this a prophecy—and if
so, has it been exclusively fulfilled in Jesus ? “ Unto
us a child is born, unto us a son is given,” is a state
ment of fact, and of a very common one, not a predic
tion. It is true that a prediction follows, but is it
applicable ? What “ government ” ever rested upon
the shoulders of Jesus ? When was he ever called
“Wonderful,” or “Counsellor,” the “Mighty God,”
�The Messianic Prophecies.
11
the “ everlasting Father,” the “ Prince of Peace 1 ” *
All this and the predictions in the next verse are still
unfulfilled. The more thoughtful and logical amongst
the Christians recognised this, and conceived the Millen
nium as a period for the realisation of these visions.
But the doctrine seems of late years to have fallen into
disrepute, and nobody cares to maintain it. With this
we have nothing to do more than to point out that such
an idea is, at all events, an acknowledgment that these
prophecies have not already had a fulfilment.
The prophecy quoted from Micah v. 2 is an impor
tant one, because it is said to have been recognised at
the time of Jesus’ birth by those most competent to
form an opinion on the subject (Matt. ii. 4) as applicable
to the birth of the Messiah. And the fact that upon
a report of the Christ having been born, Herod at
once referred to the “ chief priests and scribes of the
people,” proves that both he and they were keenly alive
to the importance of the Messianic prophecies, and pre
pared to recognise as the Christ the person who fulfilled
them. This is the prophecy : “ And thou Bethlehem,
in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes
of Juda; for out of thee shall come a Governor that
shall rule my people Israel.” But has it been fulfilled
in Jesus ? The four biographies that we have of him,
differing as they do in many other particulars, at least
agree in this, that God’s chosen Israel—the people who
prided themselves on their descent from Abraham, the
people who inhabited the land formerly allotted to the
tribe of Juda, utterly and consistently rejected Jesus,
and his pretensions, and his doctrine, and his disciples
after him. “ He came unto his own and his own re
received him not” (John i. 11). It is clear that they
regarded him, if not as an impostor, at all events as a
* As to this title compare what Jesus said of himself, Matt. x. 34,
“ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth : I came not to
send peace but a sword ...” No one can dispute the fulfilment
of this prophecy.
�12
Evidences of Christianity.
crazy and mischievous fanatic (John viii. 48), of no
use to them in their schemes of turbulence and rebellion
(Luke xx. 26). In no sense did Jesus himself aspire to
rule God’s people Israel, nor had he the slightest sym
pathy with them or their rulers, or their projects. His
influence was confined to the hybrid population of
Galilee, a simple people, ignorant of the old Jewish
writings (John vii. 49), without any pride of race or
national sympathy with the inhabitants of Judea.
The story of the flight into Egypt is, as is well-known,
only given by the author of the first gospel, and it is
inconsistent with the history given in the third of Jesus’
early days. It winds up with the quotation, “ Out of
Egypt I have called my son” (Hosea xi. 1). Now this, we
must point out, is no prophecy at all. It is like many
other so-called prophecies, nothing more than the narra
tion of a simple fact. In this case the fact is a well
known one, in Biblical history at all events; but
whether it were so or not, the words quoted are an
allusion to the past, not an anticipation of the future.
Is this so or is it not so ? We can point here to no
less an authority than that of Dr Farrar, who (“Life
of Christ,” vol. I. p. 39) says of this passage that the
writer of the first gospel finds in this narrative “ a new
and deeper significance for the words of Hosea,” and
then adds in a note—
“ ‘ Or in other words, totally misunderstands them,’
is the marginal comment of a friend who saw these
pages. And so no doubt it might at first appear to our
Western and Northern conceptions and methods of
criticism; but not so to an Oriental and an analogist.
Trained to regard every word—nay, every letter of
Scripture, as mystical and divine; accustomed to the
application of passages in all senses—all of which were
supposed to be latent in some mysterious fashion under
the original utterance, St Matthew would have regarded
his least apparently relevant quotations from, and allu
sions to, the Old Testament, not in the light of occa-
�The Messianic Prophecies.
13
sional illustrations, but in the light of most solemn pro
phetic references to the events about which he writes.
And in so doing he would be arguing in strict accord
ance with the views in which those for whom he wrote
had been trained from their earliest infancy. Nor is
there even to our modern conceptions anything errone
ous or unnatural in the fact that the Evangelist transfers
to the Messiah the language which Hosea had applied
to the ideal Israel.”
To our modern conceptions there is nothing erroneous
or unnatural in a man’s writing what he has been
inspired to write. And if the author of the first gospel
was supernaturally informed that Joseph was ordered by
God to take the child into Egypt and keep him there,
in order that a certain prophecy might be fulfilled, he
had no option about his narrative. But Dr Earrar does
not put the case so high as that, fand we should like to
ask so experienced and conscientious a scholar as Dr
Earrar is well known to be, whether there is not to our
modern conceptions something very erroneous and un
natural in the fact of a historian transferring to his own
hero language which had been applied to a totally dif
ferent character ? And whether such a person as Dr
Earrar describes the author of the first gospel to have
been, can be considered a trustworthy biographer ?
Were not the natural and acquired tendencies of his
mind apt to make him look upon as not sufficiently
important the hard and fast lines of historical accuracy ?
In a word, is it not just possible that the whole story
of this Egyptian expedition—upon which the silence of
the author of the third gospel cannot be satisfactorily ac
counted for—was assumed both by writer and readers to
have taken place in accordance with “ this most solemn
prophetic reference ? ” And though this may not be
admitted, it is clear that language which Hosea had
applied to the ideal Israel, and which had no objective
relation to Christ, is not evidence of Christianity.
�14
Evidences of Christianity.
The difficulty as to the prophecy quoted in Matthew
ii. 23, “ He shall be called a Nazarene,” is of a different
ort altogether. It was spoken “by the prophets.”
When, and by whom ‘I No one is able to point out the
passage in any book of our Old Testament, and it is
mere assumption to say that it is a quotation from some
prophetical work or works now lost. The explanation
suggested—viz., that it was prophesied generally that
Jesus should be a “Netser,” or “ Branch” (of the house
of David) is no explanation at all. The statement of
the inspired Evangelist is that Joseph went “and dwelt
at Nazareth ” in order that the prophecy which called
Jesus a Nazarene (i.e., an inhabitant of Nazareth) might
be fulfilled. But if the prophecy did not call Jesus an
inhabitant of Nazareth, it was not fulfilled by his dwelling
at Nazareth, and Joseph could not have gone there for
that purpose. Moreover, it appears to be a historical
fact that Jesus was called, perhaps in his lifetime, cer
tainly after death, “ the Nazarene,” and we have there
fore here a curious phenomenon. In other places it
would appear that a history has been made to fit into
the prophecies ; but in this the reverse has taken place,
and a prophecy has been coined to anticipate the his
tory.
And whatever explanation is given admits
that what we have said of the prophecies in general
is true of this one, at all events—viz., that the inter
pretation of it is the interpretation of foreigners and
aliens from the tongue in which the prophecy was
written.
Again, let us take the prophecy in Isaiah vii. 14,
“ Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall
he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose
the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the
evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest
shall be forsaken of both her kings.”
Here, if anywhere, would the expounders of Scripture
have been justified in departing from the harsh literalism
�The Messianic Prophecies.
15
of the text; and by accepting a metaphorical interpreta
tion, have avoided the reproduction of the grossest
feature in Greek and Roman mythology. But the
exposition unfortunately happened at a time when
asceticism both in man and woman was looked upon
as the height' of moral perfection; and the stainless
purity of the young wife was supposed to occupy the
in estimation of Him who had made woman simply as
a helpmeet for man, a lower place than the crude innocence of the inexperienced virgin.
In order to give this passage more apparently the
form of a prophecy, the future tense has been substituted
for the present in the first paragraph. The proper
translation is said to be, “ is with child and beareth
a son.” * Consequently here too what is called a
prophecy is the statement of a fact. But is there any
analogy here to the case of Jesus?
According to
the authors of the first and third gospels, Mary
while still a virgin became enceinte, and bore a son.
So far the prophecy may be said to have been fulfilled ;
but beyond this there is no pretence for such an
assertion. Mary did not call his name “Immanuel,”
nor anything of a similar signification, but called his
name “Jesus,” and that by the express direction of the
angel Gabriel, who seems to have forgotten this pro
phecy of Isaiah—or, at all events, not to have been
struck by its relevancy. As to eating butter and honey
that he might know to refuse -the evil, and choose the
good, if this means the adoption of an ascetic diet (such
as John the Baptist’s, for instance), in order, according
to the popular error of the day, to quicken the spiritual
perceptions by mortifying the flesh, the description was
singularly inapplicable to a person who was known
amongst his contemporaries as “ a gluttonous man, and
a winebibber.” Further, the event which was to happen
before the child knew to refuse the evil and choose the
* The Holy Bible, with a Commentary.
V. p. 80.
By Canon Cook. Vol.
�16
Evidences of Christianity.
good, happened, as every schoolboy knows, within a very
short time of the prediction, and cannot be supposed
to have been predicted by reference to another event
which was not to happen for seven or eight centuries.
The only pretence therefore of fulfilled prophecy here
is the alleged virginity of Mary at the birth of Jesus.
If this was really fulfilled in his case, we may at once
grant that it was exclusively fulfilled, and constitutes
evidence for Christianity, in comparison with which the
failure of all other evidence would be immaterial.
What proof then have we of this miraculous occur
rence 1 The appearance of Gabriel, according to the
third Gospel, the dream of Joseph, according to the
first Gospel, are the only occasions on which it was
positively asserted. Neither do these two witnesses
agree together. According to one, it was announced
to the husband and not to the wife, according to the
other, it was announced to the wife and not to the hus
band. Moreover, they are themselves miraculous, and
a miracle (it is plain), cannot be evidence of another
miracle unless confirmed itself by some independent
testimony. We must look, therefore, for some such
testimony of these visions. They are never again
alluded to by the same evangelists, and never by
Jesus nor any of his disciples, nor the two other
evangelists.
Still, indirect testimony of them it
ought not to be difficult to find in the record of their
effects. If first the mother and then the father of a
child had received from God, before that child’s
birth, direct revelations of its Divine character, what
would—what must—have been the result? Would
they not have been themselves, and would they not
have brought up their family as his earliest disciples ?
Any picture gallery of old Masters will answer this
question. Look where you will what do you see ?
The Madonna in an attitude of rapt devotion over, or
positive worship of, her wonderful Child. Joseph,
Elizabeth, and other relations frequently accompany
�The Messianic Prophecies.
17
her, all deeply impressed by the sight of One, whom,
ordinary child as he was to others, they knew, on evi
dence they dared not question, to be the Incarnate
God. No wonder the greatest painters could choose
no more fitting subject for the highest exercise of their
art. No wonder that they should have succeeded so
well in a conception at once so natural and so sublime,
and that the constant realization of so vivid and deeprooted an idea never palled from repetition on the pro
fession or the public!
At the time when these
pictures were executed, art was fostered, patronised,
and directed by the Church, and this therefore
is the answer which the Church has given over and
over again to our question. And being the natural
and acknowledged result of these appearances, do we
find in the biographies of Jesus (written, be it re
membered, by his own friends and disciples), that it
ever took place ? Quite the reverse. Nothing is clearer
from the Gospels than that Jesus’ own family and rela
tions were, if at all, among the latest of his disciples.
Mary and Joseph “marvelled” at the “Nunc me dimittis ” of Simeon. Mary sharply rebuked Jesus, just
as an ordinary mother would an ordinary child, for
leaving them after the feast, and when by way of reply
Jesus asked them if they did not know that he must be
about his Father’s business, they stared in his face in
utter ignorance of what he was talking about! At a very
early period of his public career, when his biographers
assert that his fame had gone through all Syria, they
are forced to acknowledge that Nazareth was not con
vinced (Luke iv. 23).
His friends said “ He is
beside himself” (Mark iii. 21).
His mother is
not mentioned as among the women who followed
and ministered to him (Luke viii. 3).
Indeed,
his adversaries could point to his mother, and his
brothers and sisters, and say—“ Are they not all with
us V' and that there should be no misunderstanding
on the subject, we read, in reply, the bitter sarcasm
�18
Evidences of Christianity.
of the disappointed enthusiast—“A prophet is not
without honour, save in his own country, and among
his own kin and in his own house:” Matt. xiii. 56;
Mark vi. 4; see also John vii. 3-10. What other mean
ing can we attach to the sneers which Jesus was
constantly pointing at the obligations of relationship
both in his own case—Matt. x. 35-37, xii. 48 ; Luke
xi. 27, 28—and that of others—Matt. viii. 21-22; T,ukp.
ix. 59-62, xxi. 16 ; and his public adoption of the ties
of sympathy in preference to those of blood—Matt. xii.
49, 50; Luke viii. 211 Was it not Mary’s incredulous
curiosity as to the powers of the Prophet which
brought upon her the rude rebuke—“Woman! what
have I to do with thee; ” and her tardy recognition
of the suffering Martyr, the curt dismissal from the
Cross ? *
After this, we are not surprised to find that not one
of Jesus’ brethren is named among his apostles, and
only one, years after, among his disciples. Then, too,
his mother is mentioned as being among his followers,
Acts i. 14, so it would appear that it was the death of
Jesus rather than his birth which converted his own
family.
But there is still another quarter in which we should
expect to find confirmation of the stories connected with
the Miraculous Conception, and that is in the sayings
and doings of John the Baptist. He is said to have
recognised Jesus before the birth, he publicly proclaimed
him before the baptism, he died when Jesus was in the
full swing of his career, and by that time he had learned
* It is worthy of remark how invariably distrust of, or disbelief
in, the power or mission of Jesus aroused in him the roughness of
language, which, when addressed to bis mother, seems so un
accountable, Matt. xii. 34, 39. Even his most intimate disciples
were not spared, Matt. xvi. 23, Luke xxiv. 25. How else can we
account for the cruel speech to the poor broken-hearted Syrophcenician, Matt. xv. 26 1 And so in contradistinction we may
notice the gracious replies which always followed an acknowledg
ment of his power and position, Matt. xvi. 16-19, xv. 28; Luke
xxiii. 43.
�The Messianic Prophecies.
19
to doubt, if not to deny, that the Messiah had really
come. Is it possible that John, if he had known from
his infancy the stories that we have heard—John, whose
own birth, whose own name, must have constantly re
called them,—could have ever wavered in his belief ?
John was, at the time we speak of, in prison, and the
events that were going on beyond the walls he could
only become acquainted with by the reports and de
scriptions of others, a very unsatisfactory basis of reason
ing, and one never to be adopted in preference to one’s
own experience. John, it must be remembered, had
been no ordinary child. He was “filled with the Holy
Ghost even from his mother’s womb,” and “ the hand
of the Lord was upon him,” Luke i. 15, 16. In his
early days he must have heard and appreciated the
wonderful stories of Jesus’ birth and childhood. Con
sequently, though he himself did not know Jesus by
sight, he announced to the people his coming and great
ness (Luke iii. 16), and yet, so little conviction did all
these reminiscences carry with them, that he actually
sent to ask Jesus whether he was really the Messiah,
*
or whether, with his sanction and that of the Holy
Ghost, John had introduced an impostor to the public?
And what said Jesus in reply ? Did he appeal to John’s
experience and faith ? Did he remind him of what he
must have heard over and over again from their common
relations ? Did he appeal to John’s own life—for if Jesus
was not the Messiah, John’s career as the Forerunner
(John i. 31) was a total mistake. Not at all! He told the
disciples to go back and “shew John again those things
which ye do see and hear.” Jesus knew that John
had heard it all before (Luke vii. 18), but he had
nothing to add, nothing to appeal to, but the sights of
* The character of John the Baptist was too honest and straight
forward to render possible the ingenious explanations usually given
of this question. Besides the little sting added by Jesus to his
eulogy on John (Luke vii. 28), proves that Jesus at all events
looked upon the question as a simple one and resented it.
�20
Evidences of Christianity.
the streets and the gossip of the synagogue. This
might have been evidence to one who knew no better,
but to John, who, as a babe unborn, had acknowledged
the Divine Embryo, who had been kept acquainted all
along with the Messiah, when he no' longer knew the
Man, such “signs” as these were very weak. They
had failed to convince him before, probably they failed
again, and John the Baptist died an unbeliever.
This, then, is some of the indirect negative evidence
against the authenticity of the first chapters of the first
and third Gospels, in which the Miraculous Conception
is respectively asserted. Indirect negative evidence is
not evidence of a very strong order, but here there is
a good deal of it, and none of a stronger sort on
either side. No allusion is ever made afterwards
in the New Testament to the story. John would be
the best authority on the subject, as being the con
stant companion of Mary after the Crucifixion, and it
is never hinted at in any of the works attributed to
him. Paul never notices it, though it would have been
a useful foundation upon which to build some of his
dogmatic teaching. These chapters might be left out
without, in either case, doing the slightest violence to
the commencement or contents of the rest of the Gospels
of which they now form a part. Taking the prophecy,
(Isaiah vii. 14) therefore, as it stands, and acknow
ledging that it was fulfilled according to its primary
signification, we are justified in asking, had it any
other, or is the story of the Miraculous Conception an
invention and interpolation of a later date by some
one “ trained to regard every word, nay every letter,
of scripture, as mystical and divine, accustomed to the
application of passages in all senses,” and determined
to see in the idea which engrossed his mind, the fulfil
ment of every allusion in the Old Testament ?
That the evangelists took liberties with the histories
they professed to be writing, in order to bring them into
agreement with the predictions, is clear from two episodes
�The Messianic Prophecies.
21
related by them all. The first is the ride of Jesus into
Jerusalem. The authors of the second and third gospel
relate the story as that of a simple incident. The
author of the fourth is struck with the idea that some
thing of the kind had been predicted, * and accordingly
(quoting apparently from a very bad memory), adds to
the story—“ As it is written, ‘ Fear not, daughter of
Sion, behold thy King cometh sitting on an ass’ colt.’”
Then the author or interpolator of the first gospel takes
up the story, with this addition, and referring to the
passage, and, not understanding the tautological idiom
of Hebrew poetry, fancies that two animals are men
tioned. Consequently, looking at every word of scrip
ture as mystical and divine, he not only puts a second
ass into the scene, but actually makes Jesus ride upon
both at once (Matt. xxi. 7). Again, the authors of the
second and third gospels mention that the soldiers
divided Jesus’ clothes amongst themselves by lot. The
author of the first gospel tells the same story, but sees
in it the fulfilment of a prophecy, and adds—“ That it
might be fulfilled which was written : They parted my
garments amongst them, and upon my vesture they did
cast lots.” The author of the fourth gospel takes it
up at this stage, but (also misunderstanding the Hebrew
idiom), thinks the prediction must have been more
exactly fulfilled. Consequently, he makes two separate
transactions of it, the soldiers divide the garments, and
cast lots for the coat. In order that this may appear
reasonable, he minutely describes the coat; and it is
but the natural conclusion to the story that we find to
this day the preservation of the identical article at
Treves, where it has been exhibited for centuries to
comfort the faithful and confound the sceptic !
No one supposes that God endows men with superna
tural powers except for some purpose, and no one ought
to believe that in spite of his supernatural interference
that purpose should miscarry. Now, what could have
* Zechariah ix. 9.
�'ll
Evidences of Christianity.
been the object of these so-called prophecies, if it were
not that when the Messiah came he should be at once
recognised by those who were best acquainted with the
writings of the prophets ? But was this the result ?
Not at all; these were the very persons upon whom no
impression was made ! We quote the prophecies as evi
dences of Christianity, it is true: but to address prophecies
to Jews in order eventually to convince Gentiles would
surely have been a great waste of power, such as is incon
ceivable in the God of Nature! Did Jesus ever use these
prophecies as a proof of his mission ? His object was
to seek and to save those who were lost—he was not
sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Would he not, therefore, when exhibiting his credentials
to the scribes and rulers of Israel, be likely to appeal
to tests the validity of which they would be most
anxious to maintain and to see fulfilled ? We are told
that he did so constantly in support or illustration of
his argument. But he never appealed to what have
since been looked upon as the great Messianic pro
phecies in support of his own pretensions.
*
In their
worst treatment of him he asked that they might be
forgiven on account of their ignorance (Luke xxiii. 46),
but why, with such crushing arguments at his com
mand, had he not taught them better ? There must
have constantly been among his audience persons old
enough to have heard the stories “ which were noised
about throughout all the hill country of Judea,”-—to
have remembered the taxing, the visit of the Magi, the
Song of Simeon, the witness of Anna. Why, when
Jesus was accused of having come out of Nazareth, of
being born of fornication, of having a devil, of making
himself equal with God, did he not appeal to the pro* The quotation from Psalm ex. is hardly a Messianic prophec5r, though Jesus claimed it as appropriate to himself. _ Our
idea of the functions of a Messiah is an attitude of constant inter
cession between an erring people and an angry God—not one of
dignified repose while the angry God makes for him a footstool of
the erring people.
�The Messianic Prophecies,
23
phecies, and then point triumphantly to their wonderful
fulfilment ?
There must have been many members of the San
hedrim before whom Stephen was tried, who remembered,
and none who had not heard of, the wonderful child who
at twelve years of age was found in the Temple sitting
in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and ask
ing them questions. What better argument could
Stephen have used than to show that this child, at
whose understanding and answers they had been so
astonished, was in reality the Euler that their prophets
had said should come out of Bethlehem, should be
born of a virgin, and be the promised Branch of
the house of David1? He might have reminded them
of the voice that “ was heard in Eamah,” and explained
how Jesus was preserved from the massacre, and how,
in compliance with the prediction of Hosea, he
had returned from Egypt. He might have pointed
out that the very name “ Jesus of Nazareth,” used by
his accusers on this occasion, was itself a fulfilment of
prophecy, and unimpeachable evidence in his own favour.
The events preceding or at the crucifixion, the Betrayal
by the friend, the thirty pieces of silver, the being
numbered with the transgressors, the parting of the
raiment, were all too recent to have been forgotten.
He would have shown that, so far from destroying that
place, and changing the customs which Moses had
delivered, the whole career of Jesus had been to fulfil
the spirit of the Law, and all the deep and mysterious
sayings of the greatest and wisest of their prophets. If
he had had such materials at hand, is it conceivable
that he should have made the inane, rambling speech
which the writer of the Acts has put into his mouth? As
to the result is it possible to blame the Sanhedrim? They
had an imperative duty to perform under Deut. xiii. 10.
Stephen had it in his power to show by quotations,
by facts, by living witnesses, that Jesus was the very
Lord God who had brought their ancestors out of the
�24
The Messianic Prophecies.
land of Egypt and ont of the house of bondage, and
thus have ensured his own acquittal—and converted his
judges and Paul besides. If he refused to do this, and
even to attempt it, he can have no right to the honoured
name of Martyr, simply because he refused to bear wit
ness to the Truth, upon the only question which was
then at issue.
Had Paul known of the Messianic prophecies we have
quoted, how gladly wordd he have verified the fulfil
ment of them, how gladly would he have used that
fulfilment in his arguments with the Jews, and in his
epistles. How valuable they would have been to the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who has strung
together out of the Old Testament every passage in
which he fancies he finds a type of or allusion to Christ
•—to whom it was “ evident that our Lord sprang out
of Judah ” (Hebrews vii. 14), which obviously he could
only do by being the actual son of Joseph. And as
they are not used by Jesus himself, nor by his followers
after him, we can only conclude that their applica
tion to Jesus is the result of ecclesiastical research and
ingenuity in post-apostolic ages. The gospels, as we
have them now, cannot be identified within a hundred
and fifty years of the last events they profess to com
memorate, and so far, therefore, from being supported
in any way by the old writings of the Prophets, we
have every reason to believe that they have themselves
"been moulded in many of their most important par
ticulars to suit the fancied requirements of those ancient
Oracles.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS PRINTERS EDINBURGH.
�
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
Evidences of Christianity. The Messianic prophecies
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rogers, Walter Lacy
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
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
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT171
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Christianity
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
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 (Evidences of Christianity. The Messianic prophecies), 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>
Conway Tracts
Messiah
Prophecies
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2862b427f7490e9e75f83b759bf37454.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=SBy50byn8iR%7E2AJe1OC16NgHLu8dFfudYj0scdH8P4N0yxUTx8M228QNy%7EavEWqxtPrqm44-XWfwG-S16J4Kuo8chbanM%7E8sjGOlkdy8XjLnl7Pf427dQNmZkzj7GRYBOgqK7cQbYSSgGhf1vEVIna3q1lobp1LMqh5-y96a3MpgoL60d-6oUEkAWzrfWazPGBfTrdU25OqYmRMkcoJAo8Yl0oJbAv4QdPRNdGpHMvGuPLzLSai-WATzt2cYlOxps02GBiQaL9T4ZhqRLD-UFK8C2gSMlEYh8S8vBOgG2EQ8yLf3lHRBkKqXEAvpO2xr8hi3EWEN6wEm7Az2mAtpwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ef7ddc38e5b576601c1c75ab00115e9a
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ABOUT
THE HOLY BIBLE.
A LECTURE
BY
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.
In the nature of things there can be no evidence to establish
the claim of inspiration.
LONDON :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1894.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�CONTENTS.
About the Holy Bible—Introductory
The Origin
of the
Bible
Is the Old Testament Inspired ?
The Ten Commandments
What
is it all
Was Jehovah
a
Worth ?
God of Love ?
Jehovah’s Administration
The New Testament
The Philosophy of Christ
Is .Christ our Example ?
Why should we Place Christ at the Top and
Summit of the Human Race ?
Inspiration
The Real Bible
5
7
io
15
20
30
32
34
44
48
5°
53
58
�5
B’
�ABOUT
THE HOLY BIBLE.
There are many millions of people who believe the Bible
to be the inspired word of God—millions who think that
this book is staff and guide, counsellor and consoler; that it
fills the present with peace and the future with hope—
millions who believe that it is the fountain of law, justice
and mercy, and that to its wise and benign teachings the
world is indebted for its liberty, wealth, and civilisation—
millions who imagine that this book is a revelation from the
wisdom and love of God to the brain and heart of man—
millions who regard this book as a torch that conquers the
darkness of death, and pours its radiance on another world
—a world without a tear.
They forget its ignorance and savagery, its hatred of
liberty, its religious persecution; they remember heaven,
but they forget the dungeon of eternal pain.
��Aboîit the Holy Bible.
1
I.
THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE.
A few wandering families—poor, wretched ; without educa
tion, art, or power; descendants of those who had been
enslaved for four hundred years; ignorant as the inhabitants
of Central Africa—had just escaped from their masters to
the desert of Sinai.
Their leader was Moses, a man who had been raised in
the family of Pharaoh, and had been taught the law and
mythology of Egypt. For the purpose of controlling his
followers he pretended that he was instructed and assisted
by Jehovah, the god of these wanderers.
Everything that happened was attributed to the inter
ference of this god. Moses declared that he met this god
face to face; that on Sinai’s top from the hands of this
god he had received the tables of stone on which, by the
finger of this god, the Ten Commandments had been
written, and that, in addition to this, Jehovah had made
known the sacrifices and ceremonies that were pleasing to
him, and the laws by which the people should be governed.
In this way the Jewish religion and the Mosaic Code
were established.
It is now claimed that this religion and these laws were,
and are, revealed and established for all mankind.
At that time these wanderers had no commerce with other
nations—they had no written language—they could neither
read nor write. They had no means by which they could
make this revelation known to other nations, and so it
�Abolit the Holy Bible.
remained buried in the jargon of a few ignorant, impoverished,
and unknown tribes for more than two thousand years.
Many centuries after Moses, the leader, was dead—many
centuries after all his followers had passed away—the Pen
tateuch was written, the work of many writers ; and, to give
it force and authority, it was claimed that Moses was the
author.
We now know that the Pentateuch was not written by
Moses.
Towns are mentioned that were not in existence when
Moses lived.
Money, not coined until centuries after his death, is
mentioned.
So, many of the laws were not applicable to wanderers on
the desert—laws about agriculture, about the sacrifice of
oxen, sheep, and doves, about the weaving of cloth, about
ornaments of gold and silver, about the cultivation of land,
about harvest, about the threshing of grain, about houses
and temples, about cities of refuge, and about many other
subjects of no possible application to a few starving wan
derers over the sands and rocks.
It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest
theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch,
but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were,
or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line.
We know that the books were not written in the same
generation; that they were not all written by one person ;
that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions.
It is also admitted that Joshua did not write the book
that bears his name, because it refers to events that did not
happen until long after his death.
No one knows, or pretends to know, the author of Judges ;
�About the Holy Bible.
9
all we know is that it was written centuries after all the
judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of
Ruth, nor of First and Second Samuel; all we know is that
Samuel did not write the books that bear his name. In the
25 th chapter of First Samuel is an account of Samuel’s
death, and in the 27 th chapter is an account of the raising
of Samuel by the Witch of Endor.
No one knows the author of the First and Second Kings,
or First and Second Chronicles; all we' know is that these
books are of no value.
We know that the Psalms were not written by David. In
the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not
happen until about five hundred years after David slept with
his fathers.
We know that Solomon did not write the Proverbs or the
Song ; that Isaiah was not the author of the book that bears
his name ; that no one knows the author of Job, Ecclesiastes,
or Esther, or of any book in the Old Testament, with the
exception of Ezra.
We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred
to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is
cruel, absurd, and impossible.
God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, the best
book in the Old Testament.
And we know that Ecclesiastes was written by an un
believer.
We know, too, that the Jews themselves had not decided
as to what books were inspired—were authentic—until the
second century after Christ.
We know that the idea of inspiration was of slow growth,
and that the inspiration was determined by those who had
certain ends to accomplish.
�IO
Abotit the Holy Bible.
II.
IS THE OLD TESTAMENT INSPIRED ?
If it is, it should be a book that no man—no number of
men—could produce.
It should contain the perfection of philosophy.
It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.
There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as
to any subject or science.
Its morality should be the highest, the purest.
Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should
be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accom
plishment of the ends desired.
It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel,
revengeful, vindictive, or infamous.
It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty,
mercy, and the spirit of liberty.
It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and
lust, to ignorance, credulity, and superstition.
It should develop the brain and civilise the heart.
It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and
wisest.
It should be true.
Does the Old Testament satisfy this standard?
Is there anything in the Old Testament—in history, in
theory, in law, in government, in morality, in science—above
and beyond the ideas, the beliefs, the customs and prejudices
of its authors and the people among whom they lived ?
Is there one ray of light from any supernatural source ?
�About the Holy Bible.
11
The ancient Hebrews believed that this earth was the
centre of the universe, and that the sun, moon, and stars
were specks in the sky.
With this the Bible agrees.
They thought the earth was flat, with four corners; that
the sky, the firmament, was solid—the floor of Jehovah’s
house.
The Bible teaches the same.
They imagined that the sun journeyed about the earth,
and that by stopping the sun the day could be lengthened.
The Bible agrees with this.
They believed that Adam and Eve were the first man and
woman; that they had been created but a few years before,
and that they, the Hebrews, were their direct descendants.
This the Bible teaches.
If anything is, or can be, certain, the writers of the Bible
were mistaken about creation, astronomy, geology; about
the causes of phenomena, the origin of evil, and the cause
of death.
Now, it must be admitted that if an Infinite Being is the
author of the Bible, he knew all sciences, all facts, and
could not have made a mistake.
If, then, there are mistakes, misconceptions, false theories,
ignorant myths, and blunders in the Bible, it must have been
written by finite beings; that is to say, by ignorant and
mistaken men.
Nothing can be clearer than this.
For centuries the Church insisted that the Bible was
absolutely true; that it contained no mistakes; that the
story of creation was true; that its astronomy and geology
�12
About the Holy Bible.
were in accord with the facts ; that the scientists who differed
with the Old Testament were infidels and Atheists.
Now this has changed. The educated Christians admit
that the writers of the Bible were not inspired as to any
science. They now say that God, or Jehovah, did not
inspire the writers of his book for the purpose of instructing
the world about astronomy, geology, or any science. They
now admit that the inspired men who wrote the Old Testa
ment knew nothing about any science, and that they wrote
about the earth and stars, the sun and moon, in accordance
with the general ignorance of the time.
It required many centuries to force the theologians
to this admission. Reluctantly, full of malice and hatred,
the priests retired from the field, leaving the victory with
science.
They took another position :
They declared that the authors, or rather the writers, of
the Bible were inspired in spiritual and moral things ; that
Jehovah wanted to make known to his children his will and
his infinite love for his children ; that Jehovah, seeing his
people wicked, ignorant, and depraved, wished to make them
merciful and just, wise and spiritual, and that the Bible is
inspired in its laws, in the religion it teaches, and in its ideas
of government.
This is the issue now. Is the Bible any nearer right in
its ideas of justice, of mercy, of morality, or of religion than
in its conception of the sciences ?
Is it moral ?
It upholds slavery—it sanctions polygamy.
Could a devil have done worse ?
Is it merciful ?
In war it raised the black flag ; it commanded the destruc
�About the Holy Bible.
13
tion, the massacre, of all—of the old, infirm, and helpless
—of wives and babes.
Were its laws inspired ?
Hundreds of offences were punished with death. To pick
up sticks on Sunday, to murder your father on Monday,
were equal crimes. There is in the literature of the world
no bloodier code. The law of revenge—of retaliation—was
the law of Jehovah. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,
a limb for a limb.
This is savagery—not philosophy.
Is it just and reasonable ?
The Bible is opposed to religious toleration—to religious
liberty. Whoever differed with the majority was stoned to
death. Investigation was a crime. Husbands were ordered
to denounce and to assist in killing their unbelieving wives.
It is the enemy of Art. “ Thou shalt make no graven
image.” This was the death of Art.
Palestine never produced a painter or a sculptor.
Is the Bible civilised ?
It upholds lying, larceny, robbery, murder, the selling of
diseased meat to strangers, and even the sacrifice of human
beings to Jehovah.
Is it philosophical ?
It teaches that the sins of a people can be transferred to
an animal—to a goat. It makes maternity an offence, for
which a sin offering had to be made.
It was wicked to give birth to a boy, and twice as wicked
to give birth to a girl.
To make hair-oil like that used by the priests was an
offence punishable with death.
The blood of a bird killed over running water was regarded
as medicine.
�r4
About the Holy Bible.
Would a civilised God daub his altars with the blood of
oxen, lambs, and doves ? Would he make all his priests
butchers ? Would he delight in the smell of burning flesh ?
�About the Holy Bible.
15
III.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Some Christian lawyers—some eminent and stupid judges—
have said, and still say, that the Ten Commandments are the
foundation of all law.
Nothing could be more absurd. Long before these
Commandments were given there were codes of laws in
India and Egypt—laws against murder, perjury, larceny,
adultery, and fraud. Such laws are as old as human society ;
as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as the idea of
prosperity; as old as human love.
All of the Ten Commandments that are good were old;
all that were new are foolish. If Jehovah had been civilised,
he would have left out the commandment about keeping the
Sabbath, and in its place would have said : “ Thou shalt not
enslave thy fellow-men.” He would have omitted the one
about swearing, and said : “ The man shall have but one
wife, and the woman but one husband.” He would have
left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would
have said: “ Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination,
and thou. shalt not unsheathe the sword except in selfdefence.”
If Jehovah had been civilised, how much grander the Ten
Commandments would have been.
All that we call progress—the enfranchisement of man, of
labor, the substitution of imprisonment for death, of fine for
imprisonment, the destruction of polygamy, the establishing
of free speech, of the rights of conscience ; in short, all that
�*6
About the Holy Bible.
has tended to the development and civilisation of man; all
the results of investigation, observation, experience, and
free thought; all that man has accomplished for the benefit
of man since the close of the Dark Ages—has been done in
spite of the Old Testament.
Let me further illustrate the morality, the mercy, the
philosophy and goodness of the Old Testament.
THE STORY OF ACHAN.
Joshua took the city of Jericho. Before the fall of the
city he declared that all the spoil taken should be given to
the Lord.
In spite of this order, Achan secreted a garment, some
silver and gold.
Afterwards Joshua tried to take the city of Ai. He failed,
and many of his soldiers were slain. Joshua sought for the
cause of his defeat, and he found that Achan had secreted a
garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold.
To this Achan confessed.
And thereupon Joshua took Achan, his sons and his
daughters, his oxen and his sheep—stoned them all to death
and burned their bodies.
There is nothing to show that the sons and daughters had
committed any crime.
Certainly the oxen and sheep
should not have been stoned to death for the crime of their
owner. This was the justice, the mercy, of Jehovah!
After Joshua had committed this crime, with the help of
Jehovah he captured the city of Ai.
THE STORY OF ELISHA.
“ And he went up thence unto Bethel, and as he was
going up by the way there came forth little children out of
�About the Holy Bible.
i7
the city and mocked him, and said unto him, 1 Go up, thou
baldhead.’
“ And he turned back and looked at them, and cursed
them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two
she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of
them.”
This was the work of the good God—the merciful
Jehovah!
THE STORY OF DANIEL.
King Darius had honored and exalted LDaniel, and the
native princes were jealous. So they induced the King to
sign a decree to the effect that any man who should make a
petition to any god or man except to King Darius, for thirty
days, should be cast into the den of lions.
Afterwards these men found that Daniel, with his face
toward Jerusalem, prayed three times a day to Jehovah.
Thereupon Daniel was cast into the den of lions j a stone
was placed at the mouth of the den and sealed with the
King’s seal.
The King passed a bad night. Tbe next morning he
went to the den and cried out to Daniel. Daniel answered
and told the King that God had sent his angel and shut the
mouths of the lions.
Daniel was taken out alive and well, and the King was
converted and believed in Daniel’s god.
Darius, being then a believer in the true God, sent for
the men who had accused Daniel, and for their wives and
their children, and cast them all into the lions’ den.
“ And the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all
their bones in pieces, or ever they came at the bottom of
the pit.”
B
�i8
About the Holy Bible.
What had the wives and little children done ? How had
they offended King Darius, the believer in Jehovah ? Who
protected Daniel? Jehovah! Who failed to protect the
innocent wives and children ? Jehovah !
THE STORY OF JOSEPH.
Pharaoh had a dream, and this dream was interpreted by
Joseph.
According to this interpretation, there was to be in Egypt
seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine.
Joseph advised Pharaoh to buy all the surplus of the seven
plentiful years, and store it up against the years of famine.
Pharaoh appointed Joseph as his minister or agent, and
ordered him to buy the grain of the plentiful years.
Then came the famine. The people came to the King
for help. He told them to go to Joseph and do as he said.
Joseph sold corn to the Egyptians until all their money
was gone—until he had it all.
When the money was gone the people said: “ Give us
corn, and we will give you our cattle.”
Joseph let them have corn until all their cattle, their horses,
and their flocks had been given to him.
Then the people said : “ Give us corn, and we will give
you our lands.”
So Joseph let them have corn until all their lands were
gone.
But the famine continued, and so the poor wretches sold
themselves, and they became the servants of Pharaoh.
Then Joseph gave them seed, and made an agreement
with them that they should forever give one-fifth of all they
raised to Pharaoh.
Who enabled Joseph to interpret the dream of Pharaoh ?
�About the Holy Bible.
19
Jehovah ! Did he know at the time that Joseph would
use the information thus given to rob and enslave the
people of Egypt? Yes. Who produced the famine?
Jehovah!
It is perfectly apparent that the Jews did not think of
Jehovah as the God of Egypt—the God of all the world.
He was their God, and theirs alone. Other nations had
gods, but Jehovah was the greatest of all. He hated
other nations and other gods, and abhorred all religions
except the worship of himself,
�20
About the Holy Bible.
IV.
WHAT IS IT ALL WORTH?
Will some Christian scholar tell us the value of Genesis ?
We know that it is not true—that it contradicts itself.
There are two accounts of the creation in the first and
second chapters. In the first account birds and beasts
were created before man.
In the second, man was created before the birds and
beasts.
In the first, fowls are made out of the water.
In the second, fowls are made out of the ground.
In the first, Adam and Eve are created together.
In the second, Adam is made; then the beasts and birds,
and then Eve is created from one of Adam’s ribs.
These stories are far older than the Pentateuch.
Persian : God created the world in six days, a man called
Adama, a woman called Evah, and then rested.
The Etruscan, Babylonian, Phoenician, Chaldean, and the
Egyptian stories are much the same.
The Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, and Hindus
have their Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life.
So the Persians, the Babylonians, the Nubians, the people
of Southern India, all had the story of the Fall of Man and
the subtle serpent.
The Chinese say that sin came into the world by the
disobedience of woman. And even the Tahitians tell us
that man was created from the earth, and the first woman
from one of his bones.
�About the Holy Bible.
21
All these stories are equally authentic and of equal value
to the world, and all the authors were equally inspired.
We know also that the story of the Flood is much older
than the book of Genesis, and we know besides that it is not
true.
We know that this story in Genesis was copied from the
Chaldean. There you find all about the rain, the ark, the
.animals, the dove that was sent out three times, and the
mountain on which the ark rested.
So the Hindus, Chinese, Parsees, Persians, Greeks,
Mexicans, and Scandinavians have substantially the same
story.
We also know that the account of the Tower of Babel is
an ignorant and childish fable.
What, then, is left in this inspired book of Genesis ? Is
there a word calculated to develop the heart or brain ?
Is there an elevated thought—any great principle—any
thing poetic—any word that bursts into blossom ?
Is there anything except a dreary and detailed statement
•of things that never happened ?
Is there anything in Exodus calculated to make men
generous, loving, and noble ?
Is it well to teach children that God tortured the
innocent cattle of the Egyptians—bruised them to death
with hailstones—on account of the sins of Pharaoh ?
Does it make us merciful to believe that God killed the
firstborn of the Egyptians—the firstborn of the poor and
suffering people—of the poor girl working at the mill—
because of the wickedness of the King ?
Can we believe that the gods of Egypt worked miracles ?
Did they change water into blood, and sticks into ser
pents ?
�22
About the Holy Bible.
In Exodus there is not one original thought or line of
value.
We know, if we know anything, that this book was
written by savages—savages who believed in slavery,
polygamy, and wars of extermination. We know that the
story told is impossible, and that the miracles were never
performed. This book admits that there are other gods
besides Jehovah. In the 17 th chapter is this verse : “ Now
I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, for, in the
thing wherein they dealt proudly, he was above them.”
So, in this blessed book is taught the duty of human
sacrifice—the sacrifice of babes.
In the 22nd chapter is this command : “Thou shalt not
delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors :
the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me.”
Has Exodus been a help or a hindrance to the human
race?
Take from Exodus the laws common to all nations, and is
there anything of value left ?
Is there anything in Leviticus of importance ? Is there
a chapter worth reading ? What interest have we in the
clothes of priests, the curtains and caudles of the tabernacle,
the tongs and shovels of the altar, or the hair-oil used by
the Levites?
Of what use the cruel code, the frightful punishments,
the curses, the falsehoods, and the miracles of this ignorant
and infamous book ?
And what is there in the book of Numbers—with its
sacrifices and water of jealousy, with its shew-bread and
spoons, its kids and fine flour, its oil and candlesticks, its
cucumbers, onions, and manna—to assist and instruct man
kind? What interest have we in the rebellion of Korah,
�About the Holy Bible.
23
the water of separation, the ashes of a red heifer, the brazen
serpent, the water that followed the people uphill and down
for forty years, and the inspired donkey of the prophet
Balaam ? Have these absurdities and cruelties—these
childish, savage superstitions—helped to civilise the world ?
Is there anything in Joshua—with its wars, its murders
and massacres, its swords dripping with the blood of
mothers and babes, its tortures, maimings, and mutilations,
its fraud and fury, its hatred and revenge—calculated to
improve the world ?
Does not every chapter shock the heart of a good man ?
Is it a book to be read by children ?
The book of Joshua is as merciless as famine, as ferocious
as the heart of a wild beast. It is a history—a justification—•
a sanctification of nearly every crime.
The book of Judges is about the same, nothing but war
and bloodshed; the horrible story of Jael and Sisera; of
Gideon and his trumpets and pitchers ; of Jephtha and his
daughter, whom he murdered to please Jehovah.
Here we find the story of Samson, in which a sun-god is
changed to a Hebrew giant.
Read this book of Joshua—read of the slaughter of
women, of wives, of mothers and babes—read its impossible
miracles, its ruthless crimes, and all done according to the
commands of Jehovah, and tell me whether this book is
calculated to make us forgiving, generous, and loving.
I admit that the history of Ruth is, in some respects, a
beautiful and touching story; that it is naturally told, and
that her love for Naomi was deep and pure. But in the
matter of courtship we would hardly advise our daughters to
follow the example of Ruth. Still, we must remember that
Ruth was a widow.
�24
About the Holy Bible.
Is there anything worth reading in the first and second
books of Samuel? Ought a prophet of God to hew a
captured king in pieces ? Is the story of the ark, its
capture and return, of importance to us ? Is it possible
that it was right, just, and merciful to kill fifty thousand
men because they had looked into a box ? Of what use to
us are the wars of Saul and David, the stories of Goliath
and the Witch of Endor ? Why should Jehovah have
killed Uzzah for putting forth his hand to steady the ark,
and forgiven David for murdering Uriah and stealing his
wife ?
According to “Samuel,” David took a census of the
people. This excited the wrath of Jehovah, and, as a
punishment, he allowed David to choose seven years of
famine, a flight of three months from pursuing enemies, or
three days of pestilence. David, having confidence in God,
chose the three days of pestilence ; and, thereupon, God,
the compassionate, on account of the sin of David, killed
seventy thousand innocent men !
Under the same circumstances, what would a devil have
done ?
Is there anything in First and Second Kings that suggests
the idea of inspiration ?
When David is dying he tells his son Solomon to murder
joab—not to let his hoar head go down to the grave in
peace. With his last breath he commands his son to bring
down the hoar head of Shimei to the grave with blood.
Having uttered these merciful words, the good David, the
man after God’s heart, slept with his fathers.
Was it necessary to inspire the man who wrote the history
of the building of the temple, the story of the visit of the
Queen of Sheba, or to tell the number of Solomon’s wives ?
�About the Holy Bible.
25
What care we for the withering of Jeroboam’s hand, the
prophecy of Jehu, or the story of Elijah and the ravens ?
Can we believe that Elijah brought flames from heaven,
or that he went at last to Paradise in a chariot of fire ?
Can we believe in the multiplication of the widow’s oil by
Elisha, that an army was smitten with blindness, or that an
axe floated in the water ?
Does it civilise us to read about the beheading of the
seventy sons of Ahab, the putting out of the eyes of
Zedekiah and the murder of his sons ? Is there one word
in First and Second Kings calculated to make men better ?
First and Second Chronicles is but a re-telling of what is
told in First and Second Kings. The same old stories—a little
left out, a little added, but in no respect made better or worseThe book of Ezra is of no importance. He tells us that
Cyrus, King of Persia, issued a proclamation for building a
temple at Jerusalem, and that he declared Jehovah to be
the real and only God.
Nothing could be more absurd. Ezra tells us about the
return from captivity, the building of the temple, the
dedication, a few prayers, and this is all. This book is of no
importance, of no use.
Nehemiah is about the same, only it tells of the building
of the wall, the complaints of the people about taxes, a list
of those who returned from Babylon, a catalogue of those
who dwelt at Jerusalem, and the dedication of the walls.
Not a word in Nehemiah worth reading.
Then comes the book of Esther :
In this we are told that King Ahasuerus was intoxicated ;
that he sent for his Queen, Vashti, to come and show her
self to him and his guests. Vashti refused to appear.
This maddened the King, and he ordered that from
�26
About the Holy Bible.
every province the most beautiful girls should be brought
before him that he might choose one in place of Vashti.
Among others was brought Esther, a Jewess. She was
chosen, and became the wife of the King. Then a gentle
man, by the name of Haman, wanted to have all the Jews
killed, and the King, not knowing that Esther was of that
race, signed a decree that all the Jews should be killed.
Through the efforts of Mordecai and Esther the decree
was annulled, and the Jews were saved.
Haman prepared a gallows on which to have Mordecai
hanged, but the good Esther so managed matters that
Haman and his ten sons were hanged on the gallows that
Haman had built, and the Jews were allowed to murder
more than seventy-five thousand of the King’s subjects.
This is the inspired story of Esther.
In the book of Job we find some elevated sentiments,
some sublime and foolish thoughts, something of the wonder
and sublimity of nature, the joys and sorrows of life; but
the story is infamous.
Some of the Psalms are good, many are indifferent, and
a few are infamous. In them are mingled the vices and
virtues. There are verses that elevate ; verses that degrade.
There are prayers for forgiveness and revenge. In the
literature of the world there is nothing more heartless, more
infamous, than the 109th Psalm.
In the Proverbs there is much shrewdness, many pithy
and prudent maxims, many wise sayings. The same ideas
are expressed in many ways—the wisdom of economy and
silence, the dangers of vanity and idleness. Some are
trivial, some are foolish, and many are wise. These pro
verbs are not generous—not altruistic. Sayings to the
same effect are found among all nations.
�About the Holy Bible.
27
Ecclesiastes is the most thoughtful book in the Bible.
It was written by an unbeliever—a philosopher—an agnostic.
Take out the interpolations, and it is in accordance with
the thought of the nineteenth century. In this book are
found the most philosophic and poetic passages in the
Bible.
After crossing the desert of death and crime—after read
ing the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and
Chronicles—it is delightful to reach this grove of palms,
called the “Song of Solomon.” A drama of love—of
human love; a poem without Jehovah—a poem born of
the heart, and true to the divine instincts of the soul.
“ I sleep, but my heart waketh.”
Isaiah is the work of several. Its swollen words, its
vague imagery, its prophesies and curses, its ravings against
kings and nations, its laughter at the wisdom of man, its
hatred of joy, have not the slightest tendency to increase
the well-being of man.
In this book is recorded the absurdest of all miracles.
The shadow on the dial is turned back ten degrees, in
order to satisfy Hezekiah that Jehovah will add fifteen years
to his life.
In this miracle the world, turning from west to east at
the rate of more than a thousand miles an hour, is not only
stopped, but made to turn the other way until the shadow
on the dial went back ten degrees ! Is there in the whole
world an intelligent man or woman who believes this
impossible falsehood ?
Jeremiah contains nothing of importance—-no facts of
value; nothing but fault-finding, lamentations, croakings,
wailings, curses, and promises; nothing but famine and
prayer, the prosperity of the wicked, the ruin of the Jews,
�28
About the Holy Bible.
the captivity and return, and, at last, Jeremiah, the traitor,
in the stocks and in prison.
And Lamentations is simply a continuance of the ravings
of the same insane pessimist; nothing but dust and sack
cloth and ashes, tears and howls, railings and revilings.
And Ezekiel—eating manuscripts, prophesying siege and
desolation, with visions of coals of fire, and cherubim, and
wheels with eyes, and the type and figure of the boiling pot,
and the resurrection of dry bones—is of no use, of no
possible value.
With Voltaire, I say that anyone who admires Ezekiel
should be compelled to dine with him.
Daniel is a disordered dream—a nightmare.
What can be made of this book with its image with a
golden head, with breast and arms of silver, with belly and
thighs of brass, with legs of iron, and with feet of iron and
clay; with its writing on the wall, its den of lions, and its
vision of the ram and goat ?
Is there anything to be learned from Hosea and his
wife? Is there anything of use in Joel, in Amos, in
Obadiah? Can we get any good from Jonah and his
gourd ? Is it possible that God is the real author of Micah
and Nahum, of Habakkuk and Zephaniah, of Haggai and
Malachi and Zechariah, with his red horses, his four horns,
his four carpenters, his flying roll, his mountains of brass,
and the stone with four eyes ?
Is there anything in these “inspired” books that has
been of benefit to man?
Have they taught us how to cultivate the earth, to build
houses, to weave cloth, to prepare food ? Have they taught
us to paint pictures, to chisel statues, to build bridges, or
ships, or anything of beauty or of use ? Did we get our
�About the Holy Bible.
29
ideas of government, of religious freedom, of the liberty of
thought, from the Old Testament ? Did we get from any
of these books a hint of any science? Is there in the
“ sacred volume ” a word, a line, that has added to the
wealth, the intelligence, and the happiness of mankind?
Is there one of the books of the Old Testament as enter
taining as Robinson Crusoe, the Travels of Gulliver, or
Peter Wilkins and his Flying Wife? Did the author of
Genesis know as much about nature as Humboldt, or
Darwin, or Haeckel ? Is what is called the Mosaic Code
as wise or as merciful as the code of any civilised nation ?
Were the writers of Kings and Chronicles as great his
torians, as great writers, as Gibbon and Draper ? Is
Jeremiah or Habakkuk equal to Dickens or Thackeray ?
Can the authors of Job and the Psalms be compared with
Shakespeare? Why should we attribute the best to man
and the worst to God ?
�3°
About the Holy Bible.
N.
WAS JEHOVAH A GOD OF LOVE ?
Did these words come from the heart of love ?—
“When the Lord thy God shall drive them before thee,
thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them ; thou shalt
make no covenant with them, or show mercy unto them.”
111 will heap mischief upon them. I will send mine
arrows upon them ; they shall be burned with hunger and
devoured with burning heat and with bitter destruction.”
“ I will send the tooth of beasts upon them, with the
poison of serpents of the dust.”
“ The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both
the young man and the virgin; the suckling also with the
man of gray hairs.”
“ Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow; let
his children be continually 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 stranger spoil
his labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him,
neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.”
“ And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body—the
flesh of thy sons and daughters.”
“ And the heaven that is over thee shall be brass, and the
earth that is under thee shall be iron.”
“ Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou
be in the field.”
“ I will make my arrows drunk with blood.”
“ I will laugh at their calamity.”
�About the Holy Bible.
3i
• Did these curses, these threats, come from the heart of
love or from the mouth of savagery ?
Was Jehovah god or devil ?
Why should we place Jehovah above all the gods ?
Has man in his ignorance and fear ever imagined a
greater monster ?
Have the barbarians of any land, in any time, worshipped
a more heartless god ?
Brahma was a thousand times nobler, and so were Osiris
and Zeus and Jupiter. So was the supreme god of the
Aztecs, to whom they offered only the perfume of flowers.
The worst god of the Hindus, with his necklace of skulls
and his bracelets of living snakes, was kind and merciful
compared with Jehovah.
Compared with Marcus Aurelius, how small Jehovah
seems. Compared with Abraham Lincoln, how cruel, how
contemptible, is this god.
�32
About the Holy Bible.
VI.
jehovah’s administration.
He created the world, the hosts of heaven, a man and
woman—placed them in a garden. Then the serpent
deceived them, and they were cast out and made to earn
their bread.
Jehovah had been thwarted.
Then he tried again. He went on for about sixteen
hundred years trying to civilise the people.
No schools, no churches, no Bible, no tracts—nobody
taught to read or write. No Ten Commandments. The
people grew worse and worse, until the merciful Jehovah
sent the flood and drowned all the people except Noah and
his family, eight in all.
Then he started again, and changed their diet. At first
Adam and Eve were vegetarians. After the flood Jehovah
said : “ Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for
you ”—snakes and buzzards.
Then he failed again, and at the Tower of Babel he
dispersed and scattered the people.
Finding that he could not succeed with all the people,
he thought he would try a few, so he selected Abraham
and his descendants. Again he failed, and his chosen
people were captured by the Egyptians and enslaved for
four hundred years.
Then he tried again—rescued them from Pharaoh and
started for Palestine.
Then he changed their diet, allowing them to eat only
�About the Holy Bible.
33
the beasts that parted the hoof and chewed the cud.
Again he failed. The people hated him, and preferred the
slavery of Egypt to the freedom of Jehovah. So he kept
them wandering until nearly all who came from Egypt had
died. Then he tried again—took them into Palestine, and
had them governed by judges.
This, too, was a failure—no schools, no Bible. Then
he tried kings, and the kings were mostly idolaters.
Then the chosen people were conquered and carried into
captivity by the Babylonians.
Another failure.
Then they returned, and Jehovah tried prophets—howlers
and waiters—but the people grew worse and worse. No
schools, no sciences, no arts, no commerce. Then Jehovah
took upon himself flesh, was born of a woman, and lived
among the people that he had been trying to civilise for
several thousand years. Then these people, following the
law that Jehovah had given them in the wilderness, charged
this Jehovah-man—this Christ—with blasphemy; tried, con
victed, and killed him.
Jehovah had failed again.
Then he deserted the Jews and turned his attention to
the rest of the world.
And now the Jews, deserted by Jehovah, persecuted by
Christians, are the most prosperous people on the earth.
Again has Jehovah failed.
What an administration !
�34
About the Holy Bible
VII.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Who wrote the New Testament ?
Christian scholars admit that they do not know. 1 hey
admit that, if the four gospels were written by Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, they must have been written in
Hebrew. And yet a Hebrew manuscript of any one of
these gospels has never been found. All have been, and
are, in Greek. So, educated theologians admit that the
Epistles, James and Jude, were written by persons who had
never seen one of the four gospels. In these Epistles in
James and Jude—no reference is made to any of the
gospels, nor to any miracle recorded in them.
The first mention that has been found of one of our
gospels was made about one hundred and eighty years after
the birth of Christ, and the four gospels were first named
and quoted from at the beginning of the third century,
about one hundred and seventy years after the death of
Christ.
We now know that there were many other gospels besides
our four, some of which have been lost. There were the
gospels of Paul, of the Egyptians, of the Hebrews, of
Perfection, of Judas, of Thaddeus, of the Infancy, of
Thomas, of Mary, of Andrew, of Nicodemus, of Marcion,
and several others.
So there were the Acts of Pilate, of Andrew, of Mary, of
Paul and Thecla, and of many others. Another book
called the Shepherd of Hermes.
�About the Holy Bible.
35
At first not one of all the books was considered as
inspired. The Old Testament was regarded as divine;
but the books that now constitute the New Testament were
regarded as human productions. We now know that we
do not know who wrote the four gospels.
■ The question is, Were the authors of these four gospels
inspired ?
If they were inspired, then the four gospels must be true.
If they are true, they must agree.
The four gospels do not agree.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke knew nothing of the Atone
ment, nothing of salvation by faith. They knew only the
gospel of good deeds—of charity. They teach that if we
forgive others God will forgive us.
With this the gospel of John does not agree.
In that gospel we are taught that we must believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ; that we must be born again; that we
must drink the blood and eat the flesh of Christ. In this
gospel we find the doctrine of the Atonement, and that
Christ died for us and suffered in our place.
This gospel is utterly at variance with the other
three. If the other three are true, the gospel of John
is false. If the gospel of John was written by an in
spired man, the writers of the other three were un
inspired. From this there is no possible escape. The four
cannot be true.
It is evident that there are many interpolations in the
four gospels.
For instance, in the 28th chapter of Matthew is an
account to the effect that the soldiers at the tomb of Christ
were bribed to say that the disciples of Jesus stole away his
body while they, the soldiers, slept.
�36
About the Holy Bible.
This is clearly an interpolation. It is a break in the
narrative.
The 10th verse should be followed by the 16th. The
10th verse is as follows :
“Then Jesus said unto them, ‘Be not afraid ; go tell my
brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they
see me.’ ”
The 16th verse :
“ Then the eleven disciples went away unto Galilee into a
mountain, where Jesus had appointed them.”
The story about the soldiers contained in the nth, 12th,
13th, 14th, and 15 th verses is an interpolation—an
afterthought—long after. The 15th verse demonstrates
this.
Fifteenth verse : “ So they took the money and did as
they were taught. And this saying is commonly reported
among the Jews until this day.”
Certainly, this account was not in the original gospel, and
certainly the 15th verse was not written by a Jew. No Jew
could have written this: “And this saying is commonly
reported among the Jews until this day.”
Mark, John, and Luke never heard that the soldiers had
been bribed by the priests; or, if they had, did not think it
worth while recording. So the accounts of the Ascension
of Jesus Christ in Mark and Luke are interpolations.
Matthew says nothing about the Ascension.
Certainly there never was a greater miracle, and yet
Matthew, who was present—who saw the Lord rise, ascend,
and disappear—did not think it worth mentioning.
On the other hand, the last words of Christ, according to
Matthew, contradict the Ascension : “ Lo I am with you
always, even unto the end of the world.”
�About the Holy Bible.
37
John, who was present, if Christ really ascended, says not
one word on the subject.
As to the Ascension, the gospels do not agree.
Mark gives the last conversation that Christ had with his
disciples, as follows :
“ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs
shall follow them that believe : In my name shall they cast
out devils ; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall
take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall
not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they
shall recover. So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto
them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right
hand of God.”
Is it possible that this description was written by one who
witnessed this miracle ?
This miracle is described by Luke as follows: “ And it
came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from
them, and carried up into heaven.”
“ Brevity is the soul of wit.”
In the Acts we are told that: “ When he had spoken,
while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received
him out of their sight.”
Neither Luke, nor Matthew, nor John, nor the writer of
the Acts, heard one word of the conversation attributed to
Christ by Mark. The fact is that the Ascension of Christ
was not claimed by his disciples.
At first Christ was a man—nothing more. Mary was his
mother, Joseph his father. The genealogy of his father,
Joseph, was given to show that he was of the blood of David.
Then the claim was made that he was the son of God,
�38
About the Holy Bible.
and that his mother was a virgin, and that she remained a
virgin until her death.
Then the claim was made that Christ rose from the dead,
and ascended bodily to heaven.
It required many years for these absurdities to take pos
session of the minds of men.
If Christ rose from the dead, why did he not appear to
his enemies ? Why did he not call on Caiphas, the high
priest ? Why did he not make another triumphal entry into
Jerusalem ?
If he really ascended, why did he not do so in public, in
the presence of his persecutors ? Why should this, the
greatest of miracles, be done in secret in a corner ?
It was a miracle that could have been seen by a vast
multitude—a miracle that could not be simulated—one that
would have convinced hundreds of thousands.
After the story of the Resurrection, the Ascension became
a necessity. They had to dispose of the body.
So there are many other interpolations in the gospels and
epistles.
Again I ask : Is the New Testament true ? Does any
body now believe that at the birth of Christ there was a
celestial greeting; that a star led the Wise Men of the East;
that Herod slew the babes of Bethlehem of two years old
and under ?
The gospels are filled with accounts of miracles. Were
they ever performed ?
Matthew gives the particulars of about twenty-two miracles,
Mark of about nineteen, Luke of about eighteen, and John
of about seven.
According to the gospels, Christ healed diseases, cast out
devils, rebuked the sea, cured the blind, fed multitudes with
�About the Holy Bible.
39
five loaves and two fishes, walked on the sea, cursed a fig
tree, turned water into wine, and raised the dead.
Matthew is the only one that tells about the Star and
the Wise Men—the only one that tells about the murder of
babes.
John is the only one who says anything about the resur
rection of Lazarus, and Luke is the only one giving an
account of the raising from the dead the widow of Nain’s
son.
How is it possible to substantiate these miracles ?
The Jews, among whom they were said to have been
performed, did not believe them. The diseased, thè palsied,
the leprous, the blind who were cured, did not become
followers of Christ. Those that were raised from the dead
were never heard of again.
Does any intelligent man believe in the existence of devils ?
The writer of three of the gospels certainly did. John says
nothing about Christ having cast out devils, but Matthew,
Mark, and Luke give many instances.
Does any natural man now believe that Christ cast out
devils? If his disciples said he did, they were mistaken.
If Christ said he did, he was insane, or an impostor.
If the accounts of casting out devils are false, then the
writers were ignorant or dishonest. If they wrote through
ignorance, then they were not inspired. If they wrote what
they knew to be false, they were not inspired. If what they
wrote is untrue, whether they knew it or not, they were not
inspired.
At that time it was believed that palsy, epilepsy, deafness,
insanity, and many other diseases, were caused by devils ;
that devils took possession of, and lived in, the bodies of
men and women. Christ believed this, taught this belief to
�4°
About the Holy Bible.
others, and pretended to cure diseases by casting devils out
of the sick and insane. We know now, if we know anything,
that diseases are not caused by the presence of devils. We
know, if we know anything, that devils do not reside in the
bodies of men.
If Christ said and did what the writers of the three gospels
say he said and did, then Christ was mistaken. If he was
mistaken, certainly he was not God. And if he was mis
taken, certainly he was not inspired.
Is it a fact that the Devil tried to bribe Christ ?
Is it a fact that the Devil carried Christ to the top of the
temple, and tried to induce him to leap to the ground ?
How can these miracles be established ?
The principals have written nothing, Christ has written
nothing, and the Devil has remained silent.
How can we know that the Devil tried to bribe Christ ?
Who wrote the account ? We do not know. How did the
writer get his information ? We do not know.
Somebody, some seventeen hundred years ago, said that
the Devil tried to bribe God; that the Devil carried God to
the top of the temple, and tried to induce him to leap to the
earth, and that God was intellectually too keen for the Devil.
This is all the evidence we have.
Is there anything in the literature of the world more per
fectly idiotic ?
Intelligent people no longer believe in witches, wizards,
spooks, and devils, and they are perfectly satisfied that every
word in the New Testament about casting out devils is
utterly false.
Can we believe that Christ raised the dead ?
A widow living in Nain is following the body of her son
to the tomb. Christ halts the funeral procession, and raises
�About the Holy Bible.
4i
the young man from the dead, and gives him back to the
arms of his mother.
This young man disappears. He is never heard of again.
No one takes the slightest interest in the man who returned
from the realm of death. Luke is the only one who tells
the story. Maybe Matthew, Mark, and John never heard
of it, or did not believe it, and so failed to record it.
John says that Lazarus was raised from the dead;
Matthew, Mark, and Luke say nothing about it.
It was more wonderful than the raising of the widow’s
son. He had not been laid in the tomb for days. He was
only on his way to the grave, but Lazarus was actually dead.
He had begun to decay.
Lazarus did not excite the least interest. No one asked
him about the other world. No one inquired of him about
their dead friends.
When he died the second time no one said : “ He is not
afraid. He has travelled that road twice, and knows just
where he is going.”
We do not believe in the miracles of Mohammed, and yet
they are as well attested as this. We have no confidence in
the miracles performed by Joseph Smith, and yet the evi
dence is far greater, far better.
If a man should go about now pretending to raise the
dead, pretending to cast out devils, we would regard him as
insane; What, then, can we say of Christ ? If we wish to
save his reputation, we are compelled to say that he never
pretended to raise the dead; that he never claimed to have
cast out devils.
We must take the ground that these ignorant and im
possible things were invented by zealous disciples, who
sought to deify their leader.
�42
About the Holy Bible.
In those ignorant days these falsehoods added to the fame
of Christ. But now they put his character in peril and
belittle the authors of the gospels.
Can we now believe that water was changed into wine ?
John tells of this childish miracle, and says that the other
disciples were present; yet Matthew, Mark, and Luke say
nothing about it.
Take the miracle of the man cured by the pool of Bethesda.
John says that an angel troubled the waters of the pool of
Bethesda, and that whoever got into the pool first after the
waters were troubled was healed.
Does anybody now believe that an angel went into the
pool and troubled the waters ? Does anybody now think
that the poor wretch who got in first was healed? Yet the
author of the Gospel according to John believed and
asserted these absurdities. If he was mistaken about that,
he may have been about all the miracles he records.
John is the only one who tells about this pool of
Bethesda. Possibly the other disciples did not believe the
story.
How can we account for these pretended miracles ?
In the days of the disciples, and for many centuries after,
the world was filled with the supernatural. Nearly every
thing that happened was regarded as miraculous. God was
the immediate governor of the world. If the people were
good, God sent seed time and harvest; but if they were
bad, he sent flood and hail, frost and famine. If anything
wonderful happened, it was exaggerated until it became a
miracle.
Of the order of events—of the unbroken and the unbreak
able chain of causes and effects—the people had no know
ledge and no thought.
�About the Holy Bible.
43
A miracle is the badge and brand of fraud. No miracle
ever was performed. No intelligent, honest man ever pre
tended to perform a miracle, and never will.
If Christ had wrought the miracles attributed to him; if
he had cured the palsied and insane; if he had given
hearing to the deaf, vision to the blind ; if he had cleansed
the leper with a word, and with a touch had given life and
feeling to the withered limb; if he had given pulse and
motion, warmth and thought, to cold and breathless clay;
if he had conquered death and rescued from the grave its
pallid prey, no word would have been uttered, no hand
raised, except in praise and honor. In his presence all
heads would have been uncovered—all knees upon the
ground.
Is it not strange that at the trial of Christ no one was
found to say a word in his favor ? No man stood forth and
said : “ I was a leper, and this man cured me with a touch.”
No woman said : “ I am a widow of Nain, and this is my son
whom this man raised from the dead.”
No man said: “ I was blind, and this man gave me
sight.”
All silent.
�44
About the Holy Bible.
VIII.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHRIST.
Millions assert that the philosophy of Christ is perfect—
that he was the wisest that ever uttered speech.
Let us see :
Resist not evil. If smitten on one cheek, turn the other.
Is there any philosophy, any wisdom in this ? Christ
takes from goodness, from virtue, from the truth, the right
of self-defence. Vice becomes the master of the world, and
the good become the victims of the infamous.
No man has the right to protect himself, his property, his
wife and children. Government becomes impossible, and
the world is at the mercy of criminals. Is there any
absurdity beyond this ?
Love your enemies.
Is this possible ? Did any human being ever love his
enemies ? Did Christ love his when he denounced them as
whited sepulchres, hypocrites, and vipers ?
We cannot love those who hate us. Hatred in the hearts
of others does not breed love in ours. Not to resist evil is
absurd ; to love your enemies is impossible.
Take no thought for the morrow.
The idea was that God would take care of us as he did
of sparrows and lilies. Is there the least sense in that
belief?
Does God take care of anybody ?
Can we live without taking thought for the morrow ? To
plough, to sow, to cultivate, to harvest, is to take thought for
�About the Holy Bible.
45
the morrow. We plan and work for the future, for our
children, for the unborn generations to come. Without this
forethought there could be no progress, no civilisation.
The world would go back to the caves and dens of
savagery.
If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy right hand
offend thee, cut it off.
Why? Because it is better that one of our members
should perish than that the whole body should be cast into
hell.
Is there any wisdom in putting out your eyes or cutting
off your hands ? Is it possible to extract from these extrava
gant sayings the smallest grain of common sense ?
Swear not at all; neither by Heaven, for it is God s throne ;
nor by the Earth, for it is his footstool: nor by ferusalem, for
it is his holy city.
Here we find the astronomy and geology of Christ.
Heaven is the throne of God, the monarch ; the earth is his
footstool. A footstool that turns over at the rate of a
thousand miles an hour, and sweeps through space at the
rate of over a thousand miles a minute !
Where did Christ think heaven was ?
Why was
Jerusalem a holy city? Was it because the inhabitants
were ignorant, cruel, and superstitious,?
Ifa man sue thee at law and take away your coat, give him
your cloak also.
Is there any philosophy, any good sense, in that com
mandment ? Would it not be just as sensible to say : “ If a
man obtains a judgment against you for one hundred dollars,
give him two hundred ” ?
Only the insane could give or follow this advice.
Think not I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to
�46
About the Holy Bible.
send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at
variance against his father, and the daughter against her
mother.
If this is true, how much better it would have been had he
remained away.
Is it possible that he who said, “ Resist not evil,” came to
bring a sword ? That he who said, “ Love your enemies,”
came to destroy the peace of the world ?
To set father against son, and daughter against father—what a glorious mission !
He did bring a sword, and the sword was wet for a
thousand years with innocent blood. In millions of hearts
he sowed the seeds of hatred and revenge. He divided
nations and families, put out the light of reason, and
petrified the hearts of men.
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for
my name's sake, shall receive an .hundredfold, and shall
inherit everlasting life.
According to the writer of Matthew, Christ, the com
passionate, the merciful, uttered these terrible words. Is it
possible that Christ offered the bribe of eternal joy to those
who would desert their fathers, their mothers, their wives
and children ? Are we to win the happiness of heaven by
deserting the ones we love ? Is a home to be ruined here
for the sake of a mansion there ?
And yet it is said that Christ is an example for all the
world. Did he desert his father and mother ? He said,
speaking to his mother : “ Woman, what have I to do with
thee ?”
The Pharisees said unto Christ: Is it lawful to pay tribute
unto Caesar ?
�About the Holy Bible.
47
Christ said : “ Show me the tribute money.
They
brought him a penny. And he saith unto them : “ Whose
is the image and the superscription ?”
They said:
“ Caesar’s.” And Christ said : “ Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s.”
Did Christ think that the money belonged to Caesar
because his image and superscription were stamped upon it ?
Did the penny belong to Caesar, or to the man who had
earned it ? Had Caesar the right to demand it because
it was adorned with his image ?
Does it appear from this conversation that Christ under
stood the real nature and use of money ?
Can we now say that Christ was the greatest of
philosophers ?
�About the Holy Bible.
IX.
IS CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE?
He never said a word in favor of education. He never
even hinted at the existence of any science. He never
uttered a word in favor of industry, economy, or of any
effort to better our condition in this world. He was the
enemy of the successful, of the wealthy. Dives was sent
to hell, not because he was bad, but because he was rich.
Lazarus went to heaven, not because he was good, but
because he was poor.
Christ cared nothing for painting, for sculpture, for music
—nothing for any art. He said nothing about the duties of
nation to nation, of king to subject; nothing about the
rights of man; nothing about intellectual liberty or the
freedom of speech. He said nothing about the sacredness
of home; not one word for the fireside ; not a word in
favor of marriage, in honor of maternity.
He never married. He wandered homeless from place
to place with a few disciples. None of them seem to
have been engaged in any useful business, and they seem to
have lived on alms.
All human ties were held in contempt; this world was
sacrificed for the next; all human effort was discouraged.
God would support and protect.
At last, in the dusk of death, Christ, finding that he
was mistaken, cried out: “ My God! My God! Why
hast thou forsaken me ?”
We have found that man must depend on himself.
�About the Holy Bible.
49
Île must clear the land; he must build the home; he
must plough and plant ; he must invent ; he must work
with hand and brain; he must overcome the difficulties
and obstructions ; he must conquer and enslave the forces
of nature to the end that they may do the work of the world.
�5°
About the Holy Bible,
X.
WHY SHOULD WE PLACE CHRIST AT THE TOP AND SUMMIT
OF THE HUMAN RACE ?
Was he kinder, more forgiving, more self-sacrificing than
Buddha? Was he wiser, did he meet death with more
perfect calmness, than Socrates ? Was he more patient,
more charitable, than Epictetus?
Was he a greater
philosopher, a deeper thinker, than Epicurus? In what
respect was he the superior of Zoroaster ? Was he gentler
than Laotse, more universal than Confucius ? Were his
ideas of human rights and duties superior to those of Zeno ?
Did he express grander truths than Cicero ? Was his mind
subtler than Spinoza’s ? Was his brain equal to Kepler’s or
Newton’s? Was‘he grander in death—a sublimer martyr
than Bruno ? Was he in intelligence, in the force and
beauty of expression, in breadth and scope of thought, in
wealth of illustration, in aptness of comparison, in knowledge
of the human brain and heart, of all passions, hopes, and
fears, the equal of Shakespeare, the greatest of the human
race ?
If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before
him like a panorama moved the history yet to be. He knew
how his words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes,
what horrors, what infamies, would be committed in his
name. He knew that the hungry flames of persecution
would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He
knew that thousands and thousands of brave men and
women would languish in dungeons in darkness, filled with
�About the Holy Bible.
5i
pain. He knew that his Church would invent and use
instruments of torture ; that his followers would appeal to
whip and fagot, to chain and rack. He saw the horizon of
the future lurid with the flames of the auto da fé. He knew
what creeds would spring like poisonous fungi from every
text. He saw the ignorant sects waging war against each
other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of
priests, building prisons for their fellow-men. He saw
thousands of scaffolds dripping with the best and bravest
blood. He saw his followers using the instruments of pain.
He heard the groans—saw the faces white with agony. He
heard the shrieks and sobs and cries of all the moaning,
martyred multitudes. He knew that commentaries would
be written on his words with swords, to be read by the light
of fagots. He knew that the Inquisition would be born of
the teachings attributed to him.
He saw the interpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy
would write and tell. He saw all wars that would be waged,
and he knew that above these fields of death, these dungeons,
these rackings, these burnings, these executions, for a
thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross.
He knew that hypocrisy would be robed and crowned—
that cruelty and credulity would rule the world ; knew that
liberty would perish from the earth ; knew that popes and
kings in his name would enslave the souls and bodies of
men ; knew that they would persecute and destroy the dis
coverers, thinkers, and inventors ; knew that his Church would
extinguish reason’s holy light, and leave the world without a
star.
He saw his disciples extinguishing the eyes of men, flay
ing them alive, cutting out their tongues, seaching for all the
nerves of pain.
�52
About the Holy Bible.
He knew that in his name his followers would trade in
human flesh; that cradles would be robbed and women’s
breasts unbabed for gold.
And yet he died with voiceless lips.
Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not tell his
disciples, and through them the world: “You shall not burn,
imprison, and torture in my name. You shall not persecute
your fellow-men.”
Why did he not plainly say “ I am the Son of God,” or
“lam God ” ? Why did he not explain the Trinity ? Why
did he not tell the mode of baptism that was pleasing to
him ? Why did he not write a creed ? Why did he not
break the chains of slaves ? Why did he not say that the Old
Testament was or was not the inspired word of God ? Why
did he not write the New Testament himself? Why did he
leave his words to ignorance, hypocrisy, and chance ? Why
did he not say something positive, definite, and satisfactory
about another world ? Why did he not turn the tear-stained
hope of heaven into the glad knowledge of another life ?
Why did he not tell us something of the rights of man, of the
liberty of hand and brain ?
Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to
misery and to doubt ?
I will tell you why. He was a man, and did not know.
�About the Holy Bible.
53
XI.
INSPIRATION.
Not before about the third century was it claimed or
believed that the books composing the New Testament were
inspired.
It will be remembered that there were a great number of
books, of Gospels, Epistles, and Acts, and that from these
the “ inspired ” ones were selected by “ uninspired ” men.
Between the “Fathers” there were great differences of
opinion as to which books were inspired; much discussion
and plenty of hatred. Many of the books now deemed
spurious were by many of the “ Fathers ” regarded as divine,
and some now regarded as inspired were believed to be
spurious. Many of the early Christians and some of the
“Fathers” repudiated the gospel of John, the Epistle to
the Hebrews, Jude, James, Peter, and the Revelation of St.
John. On phe other hand, many of them regarded the
Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, the Preaching
of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabus, the Pastor of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the
Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the Gospel
of Nicodemus, inspired books, equal to the very best.
From all these books, and many others, the Christians
selected the inspired ones.
The men who did the selecting were ignorant and
superstitious. They were firm believers in the miraculous.
They thought that diseases had been cured by the aprons
and handkerchiefs of the apostles, by the bones of the
�54
About the Holy Bible.
dead. They believed in the fable of the Phoenix, and
that the hyenas changed their sex every year.
Were the men who through many centuries made the
selections inspired ?
Were they—ignorant, credulous,
stupid, and malicious—as well qualified to judge of “ in
spiration ” as the students of our time ? How are we
bound by their opinion ? Have we not the right to judge
for ourselves?
Erasmus, one of the leaders of the Reformation, declared
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul,
and he denied the inspiration of Second and Third John,
and also of Revelation. Luther was of the same opinion.
He declared James to be an epistle of straw, and denied
the inspiration of Revelation. Zwinglius rejected the book
of Revelation, and even Calvin denied that Paul was the
author of Hebrews.
The truth is that the Protestants did not agree as to what
books are inspired until 1647, by the Assembly of West
minster.
To prove that a book is inspired you must prove the
existence of God. You must also prove that this God thinks,
acts, has objects, ends, and aims.
This is somewhat
difficult.
It is impossible to conceive of an infinite being. Having
no conception of an infinite being, it is impossible to tell
whether all the facts we know tend to prove or disprove the
existence of such a being.
God is a guess. If the existence of God is admitted,
how are we to prove that he inspired the writers of the
books of the Bible ?
How can one man establish the inspiration of another ?
How can an inspired man prove that he is inspired ? How
�About the Holy Bible.
55
can he know himself that he is inspired ? There is no way
to prove the fact of inspiration. The only evidence is the
word of some man who could by no possibility know any
thing on the subject.
What is inspiration ? Did God use men as instruments ?
Did he cause them to write his thoughts ? Did he take
possession of their minds and destroy their wills ?
Were these writers only partly controlled, so that their
mistakes, their ignorance, and their prejudices were mingled
with the wisdom of God? How are we to separate the
mistakes of men from the thoughts of God ? Can we do
this without being inspired ourselves ? If the original
writers were inspired, then the translators should have been,
and so should be the men who tell us what the Bible
means.
How is it possible for a human being to know that he is
inspired by an infinite being ? But of one thing we may be
certain : An inspired book should certainly excel all the
books produced by uninspired men. It should, above all,
be true, filled with wisdom, blossoming in beauty—perfect.
Ministers wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack
the Bible.
I will tell them :
This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death,
the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the
onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned
the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of
man.
This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of
slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families
and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the
�56
About the Holy Bible.
world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants—
the enslaver of women and children. This book has
corrupted parliaments and courts. This book has made
colleges and universities the teachers of error and the
haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with
hateful, cruel, ignorant, and warring sects. This book
taught men to kill their fellows for religion’s sake. This
book founded the inquisition, invented the instruments of
torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving
languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh,
erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled
fagots about the feet of the just. This book drove reason
from the'minds of millions, and filled the asylums with the
insane.
This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the
blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on
which the slave-mother stood when she was sold from her
child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader, and
made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the
fires that burned “witches” and “wizards.” This book
filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts, and the bodies
of men and women with devils. This book polluted the
souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain.
This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and
investigation [the greatest of crimes. This book filled
nations with hermits, monks, and nuns—with the pious and
the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean
saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book
taught man to despise the joys of this life, that he might be
happy in another—to waste this world for the sake of the
next.
I attack this book because it is the enemy of human
�About the Holy Bible.
57
liberty—the greatest obstruction across the highway of
human progress.
Let me ask the ministers one question : How can you be
wicked enough to defend this book ?
�58
About the Holy Bible.
XII.
THE REAL BIBLE.
For thousands of years men have been writing the real
Bible, and it is being written from day to day, and it will
never be finished while man has life. All the facts that we
know, all the truly recorded events, all the discoveries and
inventions, all the wonderful machines whose wheels and
levers seem to think, all the poems, crystals from the
brain, flowers from the heart, all the songs of love and joy,
of smiles and tears, the great dramas of Imagination’s world,
the wondrous paintings, miracles of form and color, of light
and shade, the marvellous marbles that seem to live and
breathe, the secrets told by rock and star, by dust and
flower, by rain and snow, by frost and flame, by winding
stream and desert sand, by mountain range and billowed
sea.
All the wisdom that lengthens and ennobles life—all
that avoids or cures disease, or conquers pain—all just and
perfect laws and rules that guide and shape our lives, all
thoughts that feed the flames of love, the music that trans
figures, enraptures, and enthralls, the victories of heart
and brain, the miracles that hands have wrought, the
deft and cunning hands of those who worked for wife
and child, the histories of noble deeds, of brave and
useful men, of faithful loving wives, of quenchless mother
love, of conflicts for the right, of sufferings for the truth,
of all the best that all the men and women of the
�About the Holy Bible.
59
world have said, and thought, and done through all the
years.
These treasures of the heart and brain—these are the
Sacred Scriptures of the human race.
��Works by Colonel R. G. Ingersoll.
hy am
Some Mistakes of Moses. WPart I. 2d. I
The only complete edition in
England. Accurate as Colenso, Why am I
an
Agnostic ?
an
Agnostic?
Part II. 2d.
and fascinating as a novel. ^3'2pp.
Is. Superior paper, cloth is. od. Faith and Fact. Reply to
Defence of Freethought. Dr. Field. 2d.
A Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial God and Man. Second reply
to Dr. Field. 2d.
of C. B. Reynolds for Blasphemy.
The Dying Creed. 2d.
6d.
The Limits of Toleration.
The Gods. 6d.
Reply to Gladstone. With, A Discussion with the Hon. F. D.
Coudert and Gov. S. L. Woodford.
a Biography by J. M. Wheeler.
2d.
Rome or Reason? A Reply The Household of Faith.
to Cardinal Manning. 4d.
2d.
_
Crimes against Criminals. Art and Morality. 2d.
Do I Blaspheme? 2d.
3d.
Oration on Walt Whitman. The Clergy and Common
3d.
,
Sense. 2d.
Oration on Voltaire. 3d. Social Salvation. 2d.
Abraham Lincoln. 3d.
Marriage and Divorce. An
Paine the Pioneer. 2d.
Agnostic’s View. 2d.
Humanity’s Debt to Thomas Skulls. 2d.
Paine. 2d.
The Great Mistake. Id.
Ernest Renan and Jesus Live Topics. Id.
Christ. 2d.
Myth and Miracle. Id.
True Religion. 2d.
. Id.
The Three Philanthropists. Real Blasphemydols. Id.
Repairing the I
2d.
Christ and Miracles. Id.
Love the Redeemer. 2d.
Creeds & Spirituality. Id.
God and the State. 2d.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
THOMAS PAINE’S WORKS.
The Age of Reason. New edition, with Preface by G, W.
Foote. Is.
Miscellaneous Theological Works, is.
Complete Theological Works. (Including the Age of
Reason.) Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Rights of Man. Centenary edition. With a Political
Biography by J. 1VE. Wheeler. Is. j bound in cloth., 2s.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216 pp., 2s. 6d., post free,
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY.
BY
G. W. FOOTE AND J. M. WHEELER.
Hundreds of exact References to Standard Authorities. No pains spared
to make it a complete, trustworthy, final, unanswerable
Indictment of Christianity.
Chapters :—1, Christ to Constantine; 2, Constantine to Hypatia; 3,
Monkery; Pious Forgeries; 5, Pious Frauds ; 6, Rise of the Papacy
7, Crimes of the Popes ; 8, Persecution of the Jews; 9, The Crusades.
“ The book is very carefully compiled, the references are given with
exactitude, and the work is calculated to be of the greatest use to the
opponents of Christianity.”—0. Bradlaugh, in National Reformer.
“The book is worth reading. It is fair, and, on the whole, correct.” —
Weekly Times.
„
book has a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”—Hudders
field, Examiner.
“The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Aqe
(U.S.A.).
u
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
221 pp., bound in cloth, 2s. 6d., post free,
FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT
(FIRST SERIES)
BY
G.
Old Nick
Fire ! ! !
Sky Pilots
Devil Dodgers
Fighting Spooks
Damned Sinners
Where is Hell ?
Spurgeon and Hell
Shelley’s Atheism
Long Faces
Our Father
Wait Till You Die
Dead Theology
Mr. Gladstone on Devils
Is Spurgeon in Heaven ?
God in Japan
Stanley on Providence
Gone to God
Thank God
W.
FOOTE.
Contents :—
Judgment Day
Huxley’s Mistake
The Gospel of Freethought
On Ridicule
Who are the Blasphe
mers ?
Christianity and Com
mon Sense
The Lord of Lords
Consecrating the
Colors
Christmas in Holloway
Gaol
Who Killed Christ ?
Did Jesus Ascend?
The Rising Son
St. Paul’s Veracity
No Faith with Heretics |
The Logic of Persecu»
tion
Luther and the Devil
Bible English
Living by Faith
Victor Hugo
Walt Whitman
Desecrating a Church
Tennyson and the Bible
Christ’s Old Coat
Christ’s Coat, No. 2
Scotched, Not Slain
God-Making
God and the Weather
Miracles
A Real Miracle
Jesus on Women
Paul on Women
Mother’s Religion
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�302 pp., superior paper, bound in cloth, 2s. 6d. post free,
FLOWERS OF
FREETHOUGHT
[Second Series]
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
Contents :—
Christianity & Slavery Down Among the Dead
Luscious Piety
Men
Christ Up to Date
The Jewish Sabbath
Secularism and Chris Smirching a Hero
God’s Day
Kit Marlowe and Jesus
Professor Stokes ,on Im tianity
Christ
Altar and Throne
mortality
Jehovah the Ripper
Martin Luther
Paul Bert
The Parson’s Living
The Praise of Folly
Converting a Corpse
Wage
A Lost Soul
Bradlaugh’s Ghost
Did Bradlaugh Back
Christ and Brotherhood Happy in Hell
slide ?
The Act of God
The Sons of God
Keir Hardie on Christ Frederic Harrison on
Melchizedek
Atheism
Blessed be ye Poor
S’w’elp me God
Save the Bible !
Converted Infidels
Infidel Homes
Forgive and Forget
Mrs. Booth’s Ghost
Are Atheists Cruel ?
Are Atheists Wicked ? Talmage on the Bible The Star of Bethlehem
Mrs. Besant on Death The Great Ghost
Rain Doctors
Atheism and the French
and After
Pious Puerilities
Revolution
“ Thus Saith the Lord ” The Poets and Liberal
Pigottism
Theology
Believe or be Damned
Christianity and Labor Jesus at the Derby
Christian Charity
Atheist Murderers
Duel ng
Religion and Money
A Religion for Eunuchs
An Easter Egg for
Clotted Bosh
Rose-Water Religion
Christians
Lord Bacon on Atheism
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-■street, E.O.
Price Is. 6d., post free,
ESSAYS IN
RATIONALISM.
BY
CHARLES ROBERT NEWMAN
(Atheist Brother of Cardinal Newman).
With Preface by G. J. Holyoake, and Biographical Sketch
by J. M. Wheeler.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
�Handsomely bound in cloth, 7s. 6d., post free,
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY
OF
FREETHINKERS OF ALL AGES AND NATIONS.
J. M. WHEELER.
The Dictionary has involved enormous labor, and the compiler
deserves the thanks of the Freethought party.”—National Reformer.
“ The work will be of the greatest value.”—Freethought.
At last we have the long-wanted means of silencing those Christians
who are continually inquiring for our great men, asserting that all great
men have been on the side of Christianity.”— Truthseeker (New York).
‘ The most important Freethought work published this year.”—Re
Rageraaa (Amsterdam).
A good and useful work that was much needed.”—Commonweal.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
WILL CHRIST SAVE US?
By G, W. Foote ,
A Thorough Examination of the Claims of Jesus Christ
to be considered the Savior of the World.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.O.
Price Is.
Superior Edition for Subscribers, bound, numbered,
and signed, 2s.,
’
VOLTAIRE:
HIS LIFE AND WORKS.
With some Selections from his Writings, by
J. M. Wheeler and G. W. Foote.
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
READ
THE
FREETHINKER.
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
Published every Thursday.
Price Twopence
London : R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
About the Holy Bible : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 59, [4] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. No. 1b in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1894
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N322
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 (About the Holy Bible : a lecture), 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
Agnosticism
Bible-Criticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/38b4742dcb5dd64646c84549a90ec42f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Z-5PlDwy0ltPVdJJosOaAPLzrnbICljCrwz8yda%7EfgNXzwRFnnuhmYPDzmGXFGPy38Edcg2QhVAhR1uMPCXCj1D0%7EAEiMV4vHmamisDb3eHg5E0Mi7MfKb4eIDSDp4mahnRncp0ql6z0lhEViDsoqW%7EBYJI-zbzD50MRcDaijEyAkQ3r-MoLzNeIWjTAWmA%7Ev0ycbOrN8a8S0Ru%7Etlh0dPmjz-H2Z4dIUaxJTrNlYBuc%7ElrKmQ%7EUO1ZYf4KDyHiOYUb1FGuNGQhA9fOKZlRjcCM%7EHnhVSEtpLjwwvaoUKC%7EF2BMmosP3QAm2qMoWcW%7EyfxxvfRUs6-Vy-Gs2ibo0rA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
859b057ef69051401af582ca102db879
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
THE FOUR GOSPELS.
BY
,< v
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 is formed for the purpose of assisting in the pro
duction 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 is to obtain converts by per
suasiveness rather than undue hostility towards the popular creeds.
The author of each publication is alone responsible for the state
ments contained therein.
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.
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 i%d.,
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.
The Four Gospels. By Julian.
The Subject of the Four Gospels. By Julian.
LIBERTY OF BEQUESTS COMMITTEE.
This Committee is formed for procuring the passing of a law
legalising bequests for Secular and Free Thought purposes.
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.
�82^0
bJ4H?
Part III.
THE FOUR GOSPELS.
What is Required in a Treaty.—The New Testament
professes to be a message of reconciliation between God
and man, and the messenger, we are told, was God’s
own son. If so, without doubt the only thing for man
to do is to ascertain these three things :—
1. Is the envoy what he professes to be ?
2. Was he sent to bring the treaty ?
3. Are the terms stated the exact terms he was com
missioned to deliver ?
If we disbelieve any one of these points, w7e should
dismiss the messenger and break up the negotiation.
Edward I. laid siege to Calais, and when the people
were reduced to great straits he sent a herald to the
governor of the town, promising to raise the siege on
certain conditions. These conditions -were fully stated
in a roll, which was handed in. Plainly, the Mayor of
Calais would make himself sure that no trick was played
him before he delivered up the keys of the city. As
this is now a matter of history, you and I must judge
for ourselves whether the writer has stated the case
rightly or not; and, if we find him perpetually blunder
ing in his names, dates, incidents, and parallel events,
we should read the book as we read the Chronicles of
Geoffrey of Monmouth, or Arthur and his Round Table.
Parts may be true, but they must be proved from other
sources ; for falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a principle
applicable to all historians.
Apply this to the New Testament. Jesus, a man of
Nazareth, and called the son of Joseph the village carpen
ter, professed to be the son of Almighty God. Is this quite
certain ? Is it quite certain that the man proved to be
�30
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
a descendant of David, and known by his townsmen as
the son of Joseph and Mary, was neither one nor the
other ? Is it quite certain that he, of whom his neigh
bours and kinsfolk said “ his brothers and sisters dwell
among us,” had neither brother nor sister ? Is it quite
certain that God sent Jesus from Heaven to earth to
bring his treaty of peace to man ? And is it quite certain
that the record given in the Gospels may be fully relied
on as exact in every particular ? Is all this so certain
that none can doubt it, or ever has doubted it ?
The Gospels our Only Record of the Treaty.—As we
are living many hundreds of years since these things are
said to have happened, we can know about them only
historically; and the records ought to be by contem
poraries of undoubted veracity, of approved ability, and
wholly without bias. Have we such documents ?
We have four books called “Gospels,” which profess
to give us an unvarnished record, without extenuation or
addition; and, furthermore, they profess to have been
written under the direct guidance of God himself. This
is a great claim, and ought to be established without
a shade of doubt. Every founder of a religion, and
many founders of civil laws also, have claimed a similar
inspiration; but no one qualified to judge places
the least reliance on such claims. Mohammed asserted
that he was instructed by the angel Gabriel. He tells
us the original copy of his Koran was written by rays
of light upon a tablet resting on the throne of the
Almighty, and that a copy, bound in white silk, was read
to him piecemeal by Gabriel, and inscribed by “ holy
inspiration” on his heart. This certainly is even a
higher claim than that made by the evangelists ; but its
truth must be tested in precisely the same wTay. If the
Koran is worthy of credit, the Gospels are false; for the
“ book written by the light of Heaven,” and inscribed
by the Holy Ghost on the prophet’s heart, affirms that
Christ was not crucified, whereas the Four Gospels,
inspired by the same Holy Ghost, declare that he was.
In one respect the Koran has this advantage. It was
dictated chapter after chapter by the prophet himself,
and was inscribed upon date-leaves and tablets of white
stone not above a year after the prophet’s death; whereas
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
31
the Gospels were not given to the world, at least as we
have them, for many a year after the death of the Nazarene. There is one other point of advantage in the
Koran : it is model Arabic, the most tuneful, the most
elegant, the most perfect ever written. If God himself
had written in Arabic, he could not have improved on
the Koran. If not actually inspired, it might be so;
for never man wrote such Arabic as this. On the other
hand, the Greek of the New Testament is, for the most
part, harsh and scrannelled, full of solecisms, and so bad
in every respect that no teacher would place it in the
hands of a schoolboy to whom he wished to teach Greek.
Certainly, if the Holy Ghost wrote the New Testament,
he would not pass an ordinary degree at any of our
universities; and any of our upper schools would dis
allow such Greek even in a third form.
Only One Koran, but Many Bibles.—We are told
that God has given to man 104 Bibles, only four of
which have survived : the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the
Gospels, and the Koran. The first three, we are told,
have come down to us mutilated and falsified ; but the
Koran remains just as it came by the hands of Gabriel
from the throne of the Almighty.
No one believes the Gospels with the same sincerity
that an Arab believes the Koran; and no one even
attempts to act up to their precepts, as every faithful
Mussulman wishes to square his life to the requirements
of the Koran.
Not a doctrine, not a dogma, not a rite, not a Church
practice, rests: on the New Testament teaching. They
all lean upon Church Councils, and may be added to
or withdrawn from time to time; but no Councils have
been required to determine the doctrines and dogmas of
Islam, and, as for the introduction of new points of
faith, an Arab would be instantly put to death who even
suggested such an innovation.
How is it with the Christian religion ? Even so late
as the year 1870 the Catholic Church “proclaimed”
the doctrine of “ Papal Infallibility ” as an article
of faith; and in 1890 a part of the Anglican Church
charged a bishop of the same Church with unlawful rites
and practices even in his own diocese. As for Councils,
�32
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
some 2,000 have been required to settle moot points;
and 2,000 more would not avail to produce uniformity
of practice or unanimity of belief.
Undoubtedly, if the Gospels spake as plainly as the
Koran, such diversity on fundamental doctrines could
not exist; but history shows us that not a single doctrine
now held to be essential has been drawn from the Bible
without the interference of Church Councils.
The Doctrine of the Trinity.—Take an example or
two : The doctrine of the Trinity, a fundamental symbol
of the Catholic creed. Noctus denied that any such
doctrine is taught in the Bible; and what was done to
prove it ? In 245 a Council was convened at Ephesus,
and this Council, by a show of hands, voted that the
Doctrine of the Trinity should be considered an article of
Christian faith.
The Divinity of Christ.—Take the divinity of Christ:
Paul, bishop of Samosata (third century), denied that
this dogma is taught either by the Church or in the New
Testament. And how was it proved? In 264 a
Council was called at Antioch, and the question put to
the vote. A show of hands being called, the chairman
declared that the “ ayes ” had it; so the divinity of
Christ was pronounced by this Council to be an article
of the Catholic faith ; but for 150 years longer the
doctrine was a bone of contention, and certainly for 400
years what is called the Arian “ heresy ” was far more
prevalent than the “ Athanasian Creed.” The Council
of Arles, the Council of Tyre, the Council of Milan, and
the Council of Constantinople, all declared against the
Council of Antioch, and voted that Jesus of Nazareth
was not a divine being, but only a man born of a woman,
and of the substance of that woman. This certainly
was a perplexing state of things; so in 336 a “ final
Council ” was convened at Sardica to settle the matter.
And what happened ? The Council was about equally
divided. The “ ayes ” excommunicated the “ noes,”
and the “noes” excommunicated the “ayes.” Those
who believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and those
who believed it not, both had their part in the lake of
fire with Satan and his angels. Whichever horn of the
dilemma you laid hold of was equally fatal.
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
33
The Holy Ghost.—And what about the Holy Ghost ?
The Macedonians denied that any such dogma could be
found in the Bible. So, as usual, a Council was called
in 381 by Theodosius to settle the point, and the vote
turned against the Macedonians; but in
another
Council reversed the previous judgment.
In like manner we might go through every article of
the symbol, and show that it has been adopted, not
because the Bible definitely and distinctly enounces it,
but because it has been elected into the Creed by a
majority of Church dignitaries in some local Council.
Anything more unsatisfactory it is not possible to
imagine. The Church dignitaries were interested partisans.
They were never unanimous, and often a subsequent
Council reversed the judgment of a preceding one. Had
the voters been qualified to judge, they could not possibly
have disagreed. They must always have been unanimous.
Church doctrines are not matters of opinion, but matters
of Scripture teaching; and, if the inspired Bible gives
such an uncertain sound that Councils cannot agree
upon the matter, it certainly is not the voice of God,
and is useless as a guide to man. Protestants ignore all
Councils since that of Nicsea in 325, though those called
afterwards were formed on the same pattern, some of
them were attended by the same ecclesiastics, and all
are equally respected by the majority of Christians. If
you ask why the Councils had power to determine these
matters, you will receive for answer that God has pro
mised to guide his Church into all truth. But, if so, why
do Councils contradict Councils ? and why are many
divided in opinion ? The voice of a king, self-interest,
the party spirit of some leader, have always ruled the
votes, and such ruling can never be relied on.
No One Practically Believes or Acts up to the Gospel.
—We have said above that no one practically believes
or acts up to the Gospel. Such belief is impossible, and
such conformity would disorganise society and render
social life an impossibility. One of the silliest screams
ever uttered by man is “ the Bible, the whole Bible, and
nothing but the Bible.” No man in his senses believes
that “he can remove mountains by faith.” Let him try
on the Alps or Apennines. If these be too big, let him
�34
THE old and new testament examined.
try upon the Gog Magog hills of Cambridge ; and, if he
can remove one single grain of sand by faith or prayer, I
will doubt no longer.
No one out of Colney Hatch believes that these
things shall follow his credulity : “ He shall cast out
devils, speak with new tongues, take up serpents with
impunity, and if he drinks poison it shall do him no
harm” (Mark xvi. 17, 18). This promise was not
limited to the apostles. The words distinctly are, “ These
things shall follow them that believe.” It is notoriously
false; and, therefore, though spoken by Jesus himself,
was not spoken by the God of truth.
“ The whole Bible ”: let us see. “ Sell all thou hast
and give unto the poor.” “ Blessed are the meek, for
they shall inherit the earth.” Is there a Christian in all
Christendom that does the former or believes the latter ?
“ Is any sick among you—let him call for the elders of the
Church, and let them pray over him ; and the prayer
of faith shall save the sick.” Does anyone believe it ?
If tried, would any court of law in Protestant England
acquit those of criminality who followed such a direction
in scarlet fever, small-pox, diphtheria, or any other
disease? Is it ever tried in our hospitals? Would
any of our bishops try it ? Would any of the hierarchy
of Rome ? It is palpably untrue. How, then, can it
be said that “ every word of the Bible is true from the
first chapter of Genesis to the last of the Revelation ” ?
The Four Gospels Uncertain.—Our knowledge of the
“ Good Tidings ” offered to man is derived solely from
four anonymous books, of uncertain date, and proved to
demonstration not to be original copies. It is “ Somebody
one day came to me and said that somebody else had
somewhere readand upon such uncertain tenure as
this we are asked to give up body and soul, mind and
understanding, reason and common-sense, to follow “ a
cunningly-devised fable.”
The Gospels do not even profess to be by Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, but only to be in accordance
with their respective schools of teaching. By whom they
were compiled, or who reduced them to their present
form, nobody has the most remote idea. Papias tells us
it was a general belief in the middle of the second
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
35
century that Peter was the dictator of the second
gospel; but, if so, it ought to be called the Gospel
according to Peter, and not the Gospel according to
Mark.
The same bishop of Hierapolis informs us that Matthew
wrote in Hebrew what was called the “ Sayings [Ta
Logia] of Jesus,” probably from chapter iv., verse 23, to
the end of chapter vii. of the first gospel; but who wrote
the rest, and who translated the ‘‘ Ta Logia ” into Greek,
is as uncertain as the authorship of the letters of Junius.
The Gospel according to Luke was a mere compilation
by someone who made a rechauffe which he termed
“ according to Luke.” This third gospel professes to
be selections from eye-witnesses ; but Luke himself was
no eye-witness ; who he was nobody knows ; probably he
was a Roman slave. In any law-court the testimony of
an eye-witness would outweigh a whole theatre of second
hand witnesses. It certainly is marvellous that the
Councils which determined our canonical books should
have preferred a mere compilation to the “ writings in
order” of eye-witnesses.
Asfor the Gospel according to John, it could not have
been in existence till late in the second century. Papias,
who died 164, and Polycarp, said to have been a disciple of
John, never heard of it; which would be quite incredible
if it had been in existence in their lifetime.
Why Four Gospels, and Neither More nor Less 2—
There were at least eighty gospels in the second century,
and 200 in the fourth; why, then, was the number reduced
to four ? Irenaeus (second century), the great pillar of
the Christian Church, tells us : “ It is meet and right to
have four gospels and no more, because there are four
quarters of the globe, and four winds of Heaven.” He
tells us furthermore that “ there are four dispensations—
that of Noah, that of Abraham, that of Moses, and that
of Christ.” There would be some sense in this remark
if he had shown the analogy between the four gospels
and the four dispensations. And, in regard to the four
quarters of the world, he should have shown that Matthew
was meant for one quarter, Mark for another, Luke for
the third quarter, and John for the fourth.
But, above all other reasons, Irenseus tells us that
�36
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
Ezekiel’s cherubim prefigured the four evangelists. “ I
beheld,” says the prophet, “four wheels....... and the ap
pearance of these wheels was as the colour of a beryl •
....... ar*d the wheels had one likeness, as if a wheel had
been in the midst of a wheel.” This is not very intel
ligible. Four wheels all alike, each in the middle of the
other. Four penny-pieces, all alike, and each penny
piece in the middle of the three other penny-pieces. It
would require a clever draughtsman to draw this
quaternian wheel which was not a wheel. Now, the
prophet says: “ When the wheels went on their four
sides....... they turned not as they went. And....... the
wheels were full of eyes round about, even the wheels
that they four had.” I have not the remotest idea of
what is meant by “ the wheels that they four had;” have
you ? But see further on : “ As for the wheels, it "was
cried out to them, O wheels ! And every wheel had
four faces—the face of a cherub, the face of a man, the
face of a lion, and the face of an eagle.” The face of
the cherub is represented by that of a calf or ox.
This extremely queer wheel seems to have taken hold
of the public fancy, and we still find the four evangelists
symbolised by “ four faces,” but not exactly as Irenaeus
arranged them. Irenaeus makes John to be the lion, and
Mark the eagle; but, now-a-days, John is the eagle,
Mark the lion, Luke the calf, and Matthew the man.
Ezekiel says each wheel had four faces, and, if the four
wheels prefigured the Four Gospels, each Gospel ought
to have been four-faced.
This funny analogy of the Gospels to the wheel of
Ezekiel, “which was no wheel,” which “went on its
four sides without turning round,” which was “full of
eyes ” and yet had sixteen faces, seems to me unmitigated
nonsense; and, if the Gospels resemble it, no wonder
they “are hard to be understood.” That, according to
Irenaeus, is the reason why only four of the two hundred
gospels were selected, and I hope the reason will be
found highly satisfactory.
Why the Four which Form our Canon were Selected
in Preference to Others.—The next question is, Why
were the four compilations which form our canonical
books preferred to all the host of others ? We read of
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
37
the Gospel of Andrew, the Gospel of Apelles, the Gospel
of Barnabas, of James the elder, of Matthias, of Matthew
(not our first gospel), of Nicodemus, of Paul, of Peter,
of Philip, of Thaddeus, of Thomas, of the Apostles,
and scores of others. Some are certainly older than
Luke’s Gospel, according to his own acknowledgment.
The Reason Given in the Synodocon.—YvpfS, or
Pappus, in his “Synodocon” to the Council of Nicaea,
says that the two hundred “versions of the gospel were
all placed under a Communion Table, and, while the
Council prayed, the inspired books jumped on the slab,
but the rest remained under it.” If this was the way
the choice was made, it was a mere Jack-in-the-box
dodge, about equal to the card tricks of a circus-horse
or learned pig.
,
The Reason Given by Irenaus.—Irenaeus tells us that
“the Church selected the four most popular of the
gospels : Matthew’s, because it was the gospel used by
the Ebionites ; Mark’s, because it was the gospel used by
the Docetse; Luke’s, because it was the gospel used by
the Marcionites ; and John’s, because it was the go>pe
used by the Valentinians.” It is very strange ; but all
these four sects were accounted heretical, and were
denounced by Church Councils. The Ebionites were
Judaising Christians, who wanted to weld together the
Mosaic and Christian rites, which Paul protested against
so indignantly. The Docetse were Gnostics, and disciples
of Simon Magus. The Marcionites were heretics who,
as Origen informs us, taught that there are three gods
—one of the Jews, another of Christians, and the third
of the Gentiles. As for the Valentinians, they were
Platonists, who wanted to mix Platonism and Chris
tianity into pinchbeck, and pass it off for gold. .
The Account Given by the Council of Laodicea.—In
the Council of Laodicea, held in 366, each book of the
New Testament, we are told, was decided by ballot.
The Gospel of Luke escaped by only one vote, while
the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse were re
jected as forgeries. A subsequent Council, held later
in the same year, reversed the latter part of this judg
ment. Some forty years afterwards another Council
pronounced the two books undoubted forgeries, and in
�38
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
twenty other Councils they w:re tossed about from limbo
to Paradise; at one time pronounced to be inspired by the
Holy Ghost, and at another time ascribed to the “father
When doctors disagree who is to decide?
Why is Council A better than Council B ? How can
such a question be settled by a ballot-box ? And what
is the value of Councils if they flatly disagree ? The
vote of such convocations is of no more value than a
toss up. It is ridiculous. Why is all this suppressed
by ecclesiastical writers ? He who suppresses the truth
is as much a false witness as he who utters direct false
hoods.
What is Meant by the Church.—Harold Browne, late
Bishop of Winchester, tells us that the “ canon of both the
Old and New Testament depends solely on the authority
of the Church, which alone can determine what books
shall be received and what rejected” (“Articles,” p.
159); but he fails to inform us what he means by the
Church. Does he mean the Greek Church, the Catholic
Church, the Anglican Church, any or all of the thousand
and one sects which have called themselves the true
Church since the death of Jesus to the present hour ?
Apparently the voice of the Councils is the voice of the
Church, and, if so, it is wholly worthless, as it constantly
gives itself the “ lie direct ;” and one Council anathema
tises another Council with all the bitterness of the most
ignorant bigotry.
The Church, says Dr. Browne, is the one and only
tribunal to which appeal is to be made. Well, what has
the Church decided respecting the Apocalypse ? Let us
see. In 366 the Council of Laodicea excluded it from
the canon of Scripture ; but, in 397, the Council of
Carthage declared it to be “ equal in every respect to all
the other books.
Will Dr. Browne, or any other bishop,
inform us which of these two Councils was the “voice
of the Church,” and why ?
Several Books Accepted by the Church are not Con
tained in our Canon.—We have referred to the uncer
tain voice of the Church respecting books admitted into
our canon; we would now refer to some which the
Church at one time received, but which are not enrolled
in our New Testament. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth,
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
39
in the second century, tells us, in a letter to the Church
of Rome, that “all Christians read on the Lord’s Day
Clement’s Epistle in their assemblies.” But I fail to
find this book in the New Testament. Eusebius also
says that Clement’s Epistle was universally read and
received in the Church, “ both in his own day and in all
former times.” That, I think, is pretty strong language.
“ The Codex Damascenus ” contains, as part of the
canonical New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas and
part of “The Shepherd of Hermas.” “The Codex
Sinaiticus,” certainly one of the oldest in existence, con
tains the same. Why have these books been discarded ?
Eusebius (iii. 3) informs us that “ The Shepherd of
Hermas ” was read in all churches when he was Bishop
of Cesarea. Justin Martyr, who died in 167, quotes
entirely from “ Memoirs of the Apostles ;” and Rufinus
mentions other books which, in his time, were received
into the Church, but are now cast out. If we examine
the quotations of the Church Fathers, we shall undoubt
edly decide that the books they cited are not the books
which have come down to us. Justin Martyr tells us
that “when Jesus was baptised the river Jordan burst
into flames.” Where is this stated by the four evan
gelists ?
Again, the same Justin says that “believers are the
true children of God;” and we are told that this is a
quotation from the Fourth Gospel. It is not only no
quotation from that gospel; but the phrase, “true
children,” never once occurs in that gospel. Again, he
says : “ The blood of Christ sprang not of human seed,
but from the will of Godand this we are told is quoted
from the Fourth Gospel; but nothing like it occurs in
our version of any one of the Four Gospels. Again,
Justin says : “If anyone prunes a vine, it sprouts out
again;” and this is claimed as a quotation from the
Gospel according to John. If so, most assuredly our
Gospel is not the same as that used by Justin; for no
such words can be found in our New Testament. It
would occupy too much space to go over all the quota
tions of the Christian Fathers ; but I think I am not
wrong in stating that no quotation in all these numerous
books, except, perhaps, a short phrase or two, can be
�40
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
found in any book of our Canonical Scriptures, and
the inference is irresistible that our Scriptures and theirs
are not the same.
The Witness of the Spirit no Guide to Truth.—The
framers of the Belgic Confession, seeing the difficulty,
tell us that “they accept the authorised books, not
because the Church enforces them on us, but because
their own minds assure them that they are the word of
God.” Methinks this is a very uncertain tribunal, for
education made Romans Pagans, Britons it made Druids,
the Chinese Buddhists, Jews it made believers in Moses,
and the Arabs believers in the Koran. A Unitarian
does not see with the same eye as a Trinitarian, a Non
conformist as a Ritualist, a Protestant as a Catholic.
At ten years of age we may be fully persuaded in our
own mind one way, at twenty another, at fifty something
else, and at eighty we may see the unwisdom of all our
former convictions.
What Baxter Says.—Baxter says : “ The Light of the
Spirit would never have enabled me to see that ‘ Solo
mon’s Song’ was canonical, and the ‘Book of Wisdom’
apocryphal. Nor could I, by my own unaided spirit,
ever credit as historical the Books of Joshua, Judges,
Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Daniel.” To these he might have added the Apocalypse.
He accepted those books, not because his “ mind
assured him that they were inspired,” but in spite of his
conviction the other way.
7W Gospel Contemporaneous with Apostolic Times.—No
gospel was contemporaneous with apostolic times. The
Gospel according to Matthew is generally considered
the oldest of the four; but it certainly was not written
by a contemporary. In chap, xxviii. 7, 8, the writer,
speaking of the potter’s field, bought by the blood
money cast by Judas into the temple, says : “ It is
called the ‘ Field of Blood ’ even to the present day.”
This remark shows to demonstration that a considerable
lapse of time had passed between the event and the
record. In verse 15 of the same chapter we have
another similar instance. Speaking of the hush-money
given to the soldiers, to induce them to say that the
disciples came by night and stole away the body of
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
41
Jesus, the author adds : “ This tale is commonly reported
among the Jews even to the present day.” The im
pression left on the mind by these words is, that the
writer was not writing to Jews, nor from the country of
the Jews, but from some other country, and that the
event was one of long ago. If this is true of the oldest
gospel, a fortiori it applies to all subsequent ones.
The Gospels Flatly Contradict Each Other.—The
synoptic gospels distinctly state that Jesus made his
“ triumphant entry into Jerusalem ” at the beginning of
his ministry. The Fourth Gospel informs us it was his
last function, just before his trial and execution. Both
these statements cannot possibly be true; and apostles,
disciples, and eye-witnesses could not have so blundered.
They must have known whether it was the first act of
his public ministry or the last.
Mark says that Jesus was crucified at the third hour
of the day (9 a.m.), and at the “ sixth hour there was
darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour,” when
Jesus expired (xv. 25, 33). The Johannine Gospel
asserts with equal precision that Pilate said to the Jew's
at the sixth hour, “Behold your king !” and the Jewish
mob yelled out, “ Away with him ! away with him 1”
Both these statements cannot be correct. If Jesus was
crucified at nine o’clock in the morning, he certainly could
not be standing at the bar of Pilate three hours later.
Again, the first three gospels inform us that Jesus
was crucified after the Pascha; but John affirms that he
was “ crucified, dead, and buried ” before that feast.
Matthew and Luke profess to prove that Jesus was
the son of Joseph, a lineal descendant of David, which, no
doubt, was an essential characteristic of the promised
Messiah. John ignores all this, and insists that he was
the Logos, the incarnate son of God, and no descendant
of David at all.
These maybe called the four most important incidents
in the life of Jesus; but the witnesses contradict each
other on every one of them. There are a host of such
discrepancies. I will mention one out of many,
not in the gospels, but in Paul’s epistle. Job xix.
26 says: “Though after my skin worms destroy this
body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” Paul says (Cor.
�42
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
xv. 50) : “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”
Comment is needless. Everyone must see in a moment
that these two statements are not reconcilable.
Christian Writers Accused of Falsehood and Forgery
by Christian Writers.—But infinitely the worst im
peachment of all is that of gross interpolation and a
wilful falsifying of Scriptures. This charge, be it re
membered, is made not by enemies only, but by the
most honoured of the Christian Fathers and historians.
Eusebius declares that it is “lawful and fitting to
employ falsehood in behoof of the Church;” and he
speaks of “ the gross prevalence of sacred forgeries and
lying frauds” introduced into the books of Scripture.
“ Whole paragraphs,” he adds, “ have been foisted in
by our predecessors.”
Origen tells us that falsehood is actually laudable if
thereby the cords of the Church are lengthened and its
stakes strengthened. “It is not only justifiable,” he
says, “but our bounden duty, to lie and deceive if by
such guiles we can catch souls.”
Augustine says : “ Many things have been added by
our forefathers even to the words of our Lord himself.
Sentences have been added neither uttered by Christ,
nor yet written down by any of his apostles. No one
knows by whom.”
Bishop Faustus (who died 320) hesitated not to say
that “words and whole paragraphs have been inserted
into the books of Scripture ad libitum.”
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, says the same thing
(see Eusebius i-v. 23).
Mosheim, the Church historian, is very indignant at
this palpable interpolation and falsifying of Scripture.
Indeed, no one can read Church history, so full of false
decretals, lying miracles, and guileful ways, without
feeling that the Boaz of the Temple is falsehood, and its
Jachin deception
�
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 four gospels
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Julian
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [29]-42 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot (RPA 2003), Appx. 1. 'Julian' is the pseudonym of Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (1810-1897). Issued for the Propagandist Press Committee.
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
N419
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 four 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. N.T. Gospels
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/13141d5fa359a5ff4a38e22179548101.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=v8gfX8vv7-9B82g%7EfDIVdVTGp3Pwm96Sb%7EGgzloYBXrQ1ICY5waYKMpTs-HvJsNBb%7EXGy57bAX07e5r7Kk1fWXrd%7Ehs--QxD3SI23-UUKp6LZBW-lZ98%7E5vZ99HilGm9AZ7-D1i-0VG%7Ezb6MW-QsjrtCFDiJ%7E6lyC84HEdlz0cW97di4SrrQl8ihUbZbC07VHe-umadljMPN7U8rGVNKvTv1AFBhUlRDz2Afl1yLtkQAoSSy4UtwLomjlRErfR%7EQyGb5LuwlAhW2vyRp-fTtAZcJTg3WUYi7sM-Dn5obRn1ydumazDXq1BFKbY3UODO7YnqxbLGf2%7E9NXa3a5m3Opg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ce7197f707d6cf886ca11064aec4efae
PDF Text
Text
8 z^'2-03
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
A CONTRIBUTION TO RELIGIOUS NON-SCIENCE.
---------- -----------By ANNIE BESANT.
---------- *----------
t “ Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of
science, falsely so-called.”—1 Tim. vi., 20.
In these later days, when science is carrying devastation
into the land of faith, and godless education is everywhereoffering the fruit of the tree of knowledge to the children
of men, it behoves those who still cling to the faith once
delivered to the saints to offer such small aid as they may
in defending the citadel of Christianity, the Holy Bible,
against its foes. And above all things is it necessary to
know thoroughly what is in the Bible, so that those who
“ turn the Bread of Life into stones to cast against their
enemies ” may not suddenly shoot one out of an unsuspected
catapult. Let us search the Scriptures, as did the noble
Bereans, and we shall be rewarded by discovering therein
biological facts that we shall never find if we confine our
selves to works written by mere uninspired scientific men.
And, first, let us reject with indignation the idea that
the Bible is not written to teach us science. All that is in
the Bible is written “for our learning” (Bom. xv., 4),
and if scientific statements are made therein they must be
made for our instruction. It is not conceivable that when.
“ holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost” (2 Peter i., 21) they spake wrong. The very
thought is blasphemy, and must be at once rejected by
every reverent mind. How should we be able to trust the
Bible in its revelations about heaven if we refuse to credit
its revelations about earth ? If it is worthy our faith in
celestial matters, surely we may believe it in matters*
terrestrial. If it is to be our guide to eternal, much more
must it be our guide to temporal, truths. Surely no one
�2
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
will be foolish enough to accept a light to his feet and a
lamp to his paths (see Ps. cxix., 105) if that light is delu
sive on the road along which he walks, and only throws a
glare on the far-off mountains beyond the river of death ?
No! Against all such “oppositions of science falsely
so-called” let us set our faces as flint (see Isa. 1., 7).
Give up one of these precious words, and we give up all.
If God has not “at sundry times and in divers manners ”
spoken “in times past unto the fathers by the prophets”
how can we be sure that he “hath in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son” (Heb. i., 1, 2)? Rather let us
‘ ‘ receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able
to save” our “ souls” (James i., 21), and thank God, who
has hidden these things from the wise and prudent Darwins
and Huxleys, and has revealed them unto babes (see
Matt, xi., 25).
Gen. i. contains some biological facts of great interest
and novelty. Herein we learn that trees brought forth
fruit, and herbs yielded seed, and the earth brought forth
grass, before the sun existed to “ divide the day from^he
night” (verses 11—14). These were the first living things
that existed on the earth. At that time there was no ani
mal life in existence ; no sound of life broke the silence of
those vast woods; for two days the vegetable world tri
umphed in security; no snail smeared the delicate fronds
of the fern ; no caterpillar ate the dainty new-born leaves;
no sparrow pecked the cherry ; no blackbird feasted on the
strawberry. Dogmatic science asserts that these grasses
and herbs and fruit-trees could not have brought forth
their seeds and fruits without the sunrays, but Genesis
knows better. Foolhardy science produces miserable pieces
of rock, containing fossil animals older than any plants,
and sets them against our glorious revelation. But are
men moles or rabbits, that they should burrow in the earth
and bring out these deceiving pebbles which God merci
fully hid out of sight, clearly showing that he intended
them to be out of mind ? Far better leave the earth as
God made it, and live on the surface, where God placed us.
The fossils cannot injure the moles, whereas it is plain
that they are a serious danger to a child-like faith. Are we
not told that except we 1 ‘ become as little children ” we “ shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven ” (Matt, xviii., 3),
and I ask you, as sensible persons, “ I speak as to wise
�BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
O'
0'
men, judge ye what I say” (1 Cor. x., 15), would any
child you ever heard of trouble its little head about Terebratula biplicata, Thecodontosaurus, Pterodactylus crassirostris, Noeggerathia cuneifolia, Homalonotus Delphinocephalas, Gorgonia infundibuliformis ? Would not the
mere names be enough to bring on croup ? And if we are
to become as little children, is it not clear that creatures
possessing names of this description are, by the merciful
dispensation of Providence, stamped as utterly inappropriate
to our present state ?
There is one beautiful suggestion, it would be going too
far to call it thought, of a man of God, which the truly
pious may well ponder over. It is this. Perhaps God
created the earth, just as it is, full of fossils, placing these
apparent records of the past out of the sight of simple
people, but ready to entrap the carnal geologist, as it is
written: “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness”
(1 Cor. iii., 19). Who can say that fossils are not among
the means prophesied of by Paul when he says that “ God.
shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe
a lie : that they all might be damned ” (2 Thess. ii., 11) ?
At any rate, no one ever alleges that people will be damned
for refusing to believe in fossils, while if Christianity be
true, people may be damned for believing them, and it is
surely wiser to be on the safe side. Possils would be no
consolation in hell, especially as they would probably all
become metamorphic rocks.
It is most interesting and comforting to know that GocI
gave man and woman ‘1 dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth ” (Gen. i., 23). It is a little
difficult, perhaps, for a man to exercise this dominion when
his log is seized by a shark, or his body is carried off by a
tiger ; but doubtless if he reminded the animals of Gen. i.,
28, they would at once mend their ways, and restore his
property.
Gen. ii., 21, 22, are verses that have been the source of
wide-spread error—I mean of divine correction of so-called
science. Adam clearly went through life short of one rib,
and it has been generally supposed that his sons have in
herited this peculiarity, and that man has normally an
uneven number of ribs, twelve on one side and eleven on
the other, thus affording a beautiful hereditary proof of
�4
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
ancestral generosity. This pious faith has been rudely
shaken by the study of anatomy, and by the unpleasant
discovery that the number of male ribs is not odd; it now
exists only, I fear, in country villages where science classes
under South Kensington have not yet exerted their sceptic
making influence, and where people do not enquire too
curiously into their internal arrangements.
Gen. iii. presents us with a pleasant picture of inter
course with the lower animals before the fall of our first
parents brought sin into the world. What does scientific
zoology know of a talking serpent ? Can any scientist of
to-day pretend that he has ever met with a specimen able
to talk? Yet this remarkable snake talked with great
effect, and we owe to his well-directed eloquence the
inestimable blessing by which, as God said, “ the man is
become as one of us, to know good and evil” (v. 22). The
serpent in question was remarkable in ways other than his
gift of speech. After God had cursed him, he went about
as snakes do now, but before that he progressed on his
back, or his head, or his tail, in a manner since become as
old-fashioned as the minuet.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of
life, are plants quite beyond the reach of modern botany.
It would have been a priceless blessing for mankind if
Adam and Eve had smuggled some cuttings of these out
of the garden, for knowledge now has to be painfully
acquired, while life closes when experience has brought its
highest utility. It is, perhaps, comforting to know that
in the middle of the street of the throne of God and of the
Lamb, and on either side of the river, there is a tree of
life (Rev. xxii., 1, 2), which bears a different sort of fruit
every month—proving incidentally how very much horti
culture has advanced in that neighborhood—but the
thought intrudes, despite all effort, that we could dispense
with the tree of life after we have risen to immortality,
while it would be invaluable to us as mortals here. It re
quires great faith to feel that God is good in withholding
the tree of life while it would be useful, and in giving it to
us when it will be superfluous.
Gen . xxx., 37—42, gives some suggestions which breeders
of cattle will find useful. Peeled rods of green poplar,
hazel, and chesnut will influence the color of the young
of sheep and cattle. There is no reason why they should,
�BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
■and the whole idea is absurd, but we are assured that by
this means Jacob cheated his uncle Laban in the most
scandalous manner.
The bush which burned with fire and was not consumed
(Ex. iii., 2.) and the rod which became a serpent and then
retransformed into a rod {Ibid iv., 2—4), offer much subject
for study to the pious mind, while the kinds of dust that
became lice (ZJm? viii, 16, 17), and of ashes that became
boils {Ibid ix., 8, 10), are fortunately confined to Egypt.
The cattle that were all killed of murrain {Ibid ix., 6) and
■subsequently plagued with boils {Ibid 9), and later smitten
with hail, so that they died again {Ibid 18—25), and of
which some died a third time {Ibid xii., 29), smitten by the
Lord, and others a third time drowned in the sea {Ibid
xiv., 28) are also confined to that same curious land; in
other countries animals only die once.
Lev. xi. gives some interesting facts of animal life. Nowa-days the camel’s leg does end in two toes, although not
very obvious ones, but in Moses’ time it was not so (v. 4).
The hare that chews the cud (v. 6) has become. extinct,
though all hares have a deceptive habit of munching, and
the bat is not now classified as “ a fowl” (compare verses
13 and 19). Probably at that time the bat was not a
mammal, and it has only become one since with the obj ect
of damning the scientific biologist. The “fowls that creep,
going upon all four ” (v. 20) have also become extinct,
and have left no fossils behind them to perpetuate their
memory; four-legged fowls given to creeping are wholly
unknown. So again with the “flying creeping things
which have four feet,” and go “upon all four” (verses 23,
21), such as locusts, beetles, etc. These have six legs
now-a-days, having acquired two more since the days of
Moses, and I desire to point out to scoffing sceptics that
were it not for this blessed book these remarkable quadru
pedal birds and insects would have remained unknown.
Who after this can dare to say that the Bible makes no
■contributions to science ?
I say nothing of the pregnant suggestion contained in
the reference to the flying, creeping things that “have
legs above their feet” (v. 21). To me this verse contains a
hint that at that time there existed some four-legged birds
with feet above their legs, a peculiarity that would neces
sitate a unique anatomical re-arrangement of the appen
�6
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
dages, and, to our purblind eyes, seems to present certain
difficulties in locomotion. This speculation is full of
interest, but perhaps it is dangerous to press too far
inferences from the sacred text. We must ever remember
that he who adds to the words of this holy book is cursed
with him who takes away from them (Rev. xxii., 19), but
perchance we avoid this danger by not regarding the
existence of these supracrural-footed, flying, creeping
things as a matter of faith, like that of the four-legged
fowls, but only as a pious opinion.
The Israelites must have had serious difficulties during
the period of transition between the queer beasts and
their modern namesakes. Thus a four-legged beetle was“clean” (Lev. xi., 22), but “whatsoever hath more feet
[than four] among all creeping things” was “unclean”
{Ibid. 42), as, for instance, everything now known as a
beetle. Perhaps beetles had four legs until the Jewish
ceremonial law was supplanted by Christianity, and there
upon they suddenly changed into the modern six-legged
kind. This change may have taken place even in the
time of Moses, for it is remarkable that in Deut. xiv., 19
“every creeping thing that flieth” has become unclean
and may not be eaten, and it would reconcile this apparent
contradiction if we suppose that all the insects had sud
denly developed an extra pair of legs, and so had come
under the head of flying creeping things with more legs
than four. Thus beautifully does science throw light on
the dark places in scripture, and cause apparently discord
ant texts to harmonise.
In Numbers xvii. we read of a remarkable rod which in
the space of a single night “budded and brought forth
buds, and bloomed blossoms and yielded almonds.” Sogreatly can God expedite natural processes when he wills.
Indian jugglers can now perform these marvels, but no
one would dream of being so blasphemous as to suggest
that Moses, who was “learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians” (Acts vii., 22), played a conjuring trick in
order to substantiate his brother’s claim to the priesthood.
The unicorn is another animal of which we should know
nothing were it not for the Bible. We find it mentioned
in Deut. xxxiii., 17, in Job xxxix., 9—12, and in Ps.
xcii., 10. There must therefore have been such an animal,
as the Holy Ghost would not talk about a non-existent
�BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
7
creature, and yet there is not a trace of its existence out
side this book of God.
Ezekiel is a book of priceless value from our present
point of view. Who can read without his heart thrilling
of the living creatures that “had the likeness of man,”
and such a man—a man with four faces, with four wings,
with a calf’s feet, and a man’s hands, sparkling like
burnished brass, looking like burning coals of fire and like
the appearance of lamps (Ezek. i., 5—13). The likeness
is clearly not to any man of the past, so it must be to a
man of the future, and under these circumstances well
might John the Apostle say that “it doth not yet appear
what we shall be ” (1 John iii., 2). In the tenth chapter of
Ezekiel the same creatures appear again and are named
cherubims, and we learn the additional fact that “their
whole body, and their backs, and their hands, and their
wings, and the wheels were full of eyes round about ”
verse 12), a superfluity of visual organs that must have
been almost confusing to the possessors. Eirst cousins to
these extraordinary creatures must be the four beasts of
Revelation, who are “full of eyes within” (Rev. iv., 8),
an arrangement admirable for introspection, but otherwise
slightly unsatisfactory. I am almost inclined to think that
these four beasts are made out of one of Ezekiel’s, for a
careful comparison shows that, barring the multiplication
of wings, one beast is exactly a quarter of a cherub.
Jonah’s experiences are full of valuable biological in
formation. The whale (compare Matt, xii., 40), which was
a “great fish” (Jonah i., 17) living in the Mediterranean
Sea, and the internal arrangements of which were suitable
for swallowing a prophet and affording him lodging for
three days ; the gourd which grew up in a night, and the
worm which “smote” the gourd {Ibid iv., 6, 7)—are not
these known to and admired by every student of holy
•writ ?
Space fails to draw attention to all the biological revela
tions made in this blessed book, but I cannot pass over the
withered fig-tree without a word. As against the story
so beautifully told (Matt, xxi., 18, 19; Mark xi., 12—14,
20, 21) of this unhappy tree, on which Jesus “found
nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet,” it is
alleged by infidel critics that if the season for figs had not
•arrived it was absurd for Jesus to expect to find any, and
�8
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
they scoff at the explanation given by the true believer that
fig-trees at that time in Judsea (although at no other time
and in no other place) bore figs before they bore leaves,
and that this fig-tree was therefore guilty of false pre
tences, whereby it deceived its Creator. It is perfectly true
that now the fig-tree is covered with leaves long before its
remarkable inflorescence has ripened into fruit, but it is
clear that this particular fig-tree began at the other end
and worked backward, otherwise we should be obliged to
come to the horrible and blasphemous conclusion that Jesus
was both silly and ill-tempered, and that he behaved like
a petulant child, howling because it cannot obtain impossi
bilities.
The Revelation of St. John the Divine offers a rich feast of
creatures unknown to science; I have already mentioned
the quarter-cherubs, and we have in addition a seven
horned seven-eyed lamb (v. 6); locusts shaped like horses,
with men’s faces, women’s hair, lions’ teeth, scorpions’
tails, wearing crowns and breast-plates (ix., 7:—10) ; a red
dragon, with seven heads, ten horns, and a-wonderful tail,
who casts a flood of water out of his mouth (xii. 3, 4, 15) ;
a beast like a leopard, with seven heads and ten horns,
with a bear’s feet and a lion’s mouth, and another with two
horns, who “spake as a dragon” (xiii., 1, 2, 11), how
ever that maybe; yet another, scarlet in color, “full of
names of blasphemy,” as others were full of eyes, and
with seven heads and ten horns (xvii., 3); never was there
suclj a menagerie full of most curiously composite animals
as that seen by the beloved Apostle from “the isle that
is called Patmos ” (Rev. i., 9).
My task is ended; I have shown something of the trea
sures of biological knowledge laid up for us in this most
precious book, and I commend my humble effort to all true
believers, beseeching them to aid it by their prayers.
London : Printed by Annie Be sant and Charles Bbadlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, E.C.—1884.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Biblical biology : a contribution to religious non-science
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N061
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Biblical biology : a contribution to religious non-science), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
Biology
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4dc68da50b99f8c1030d78fe1a955423.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=NO93ikJ%7E84zjZpg193N3T4x7Gy9XWn8h5Gx9k6P%7ETiPZVRBUsvP1-81kX3hr06KiQQIXy96JyD37RjrAdRZWHttuKIYyJH90UB7z3%7ETGa89WlWN7mUnRS0oUZPeYaTceNV%7Eb-OC3HUFSJENjXa-7DU9Dwg5Rj1uux1f6ztSaXqEBYJYM4gqddMrMDxk9p4%7E%7E%7EVVkUkEtXktJ5lm9uFwjKcI6pE-nDfCA6-g0VNfZjU1JzelrQTT9OcXU7iknJR3Q1ASnh%7EmrdTvnZQSPkz4eDL3oJdtAHgQJ-r8pxHi3EbV0-EpT6dcoQRm3fhtMSN5uetxZ9FNKmlGo7oLfX9OXhA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0cadd2aafdfac81b9cb1eb6a4b773c6d
PDF Text
Text
WERE ADAM & EVE OUR FIRST PARENTS?
BY 0. BliADLAUGH.
This question. Were Adam and Eve our first parents? is indeed one of most
grave importance. If the answer be a negative one, it is, in fact, a denial
of the whole scheme of Christianity. The Christian theory is that Adam,
the common father of the whole human race, sinned, and that by his sin he
dragged down all his posterity to a state from which redemption was needed,
and that Jesus is, and was, the Redeemer, by whom all mankind are and
were saved from the consequences of the fall of Adam. If Adam therefore
be proved not to be the first man, if it be shown that it is not to Adam the
various races of mankind are indebted for their origin, then the whole hypo
thesis of fall and redemption is dissipated.
In a pamphlet like the present, it is impossible (even if I possessed the
ability, which I do not) to attempt to give any statement and analysis
of the various hypotheses as to the origin of the human race. I frankly
admit, that my only wish and intent is, to compel people to examine the Bible
record for themselves, instead of making it their fetish, bowing down before
it without thought. I am inclined to the opinion that the doctrine of a
plurality of sources for the various types of the human race is a correct one.
That wherever the conditions for life have been found, there also has been
the degree of life resultant on those conditions. My purpose in this essay
is not to demonstrate the correctness of my own thinking, but rather to illus
trate the incorrectness of the Genesiacal teaching. Were Adam and
Eve our first parents? On the one hand an answer in the affirma
tive to this question can be obtained from the Bible, which asserts Adam
and Eve to be the first man and woman made by God, and fixes ths
date of their making about 6,000 years, little more or less, from the present
time. On the other hand, it seems to me that science emphatically declares
man to have existed on the earth for a far more extended period, affirms
that as far as we can trace man, we find him in isolated groups, diverse in
type, till we lose him in the ante-historic period; and with nearly equal dis
tinctness, denies that the various existing races find their common parentage
in one pair. It is only on the first point that I attack the Bible chronology
of man’s existence. I am aware that compilations based upon the authorised
version of the Old Testament Scriptures are open to objection, and that
while from the Hebrew, 1656 years represent the period from Adam to the
Deluge generally acknowledged, the Samaritan Pentateuch only yields for
the same period 130T years, while the Septuagint vsrsicn furnishes 2243
�ft
WEBB ADAM AND EVE OCR FIRST PARENTS?
years; there is, I am also informed, on the authority of a most erudite
Egyptologist, a fatal objection to the Septuagint chronology—i.e., that it
makes Methusaleh outlive the Flood.
*
The deluge occurred, according to the Septuagint, in the year of the world
4242, and by adding up the generations previous to his (Methusaleh’s.)
Adam
Seth
Enos
Cainan
Mahaleel
Jared
Enoch
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
230
205
190
170
165
162
165
1287
We shall find that he was born in the year of the world 1287. He lived
969 years, and therefore died in 2256. But this is 14 years after the
deluge.
The Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, who wrote about 1644, fixes the month of the
creation at September, 5572 years preceding the date of his book, and
says that Adam was expelled from Eden on the day on which he was
created.^ In the London ‘ Ethnological Journal,’ for which I am indebted to
the kindness of its Editor, an able ethnologist and careful thinker, the reader
will find a chronology of Genesis ably and elaborately examined. At pre
sent, for our immediate purpose, we will take the ordinary English Bible,
which gives the following result:—
From Adam to Abraham (Genesis v. and xi.)
...
.M
From Abraham to Isaac (Gen. xxi. 5)
.............................
From Isaac to Jacob (Gen. xxv. 26)
...
................
From Jacob going into Egypt (Gen. xlvii. 9)
...
...
Sojourn in Egypt (Exodus xii. 41)......................................
Duration of Moses’s leadership (Exodus vii. 7, xxxi. 2) ...
Thence to David, about
......................................................
From David to Captivity, 14 generations (27), about 22
reigns
...
...
......................................................
Captivity to Jesus, 14 generations, about............................
Less disputed 230 years of sojourn in Egypt
...
...
2008
100
60
130
430
40
400
473
593
4234
230
4004
From Adam to Abraham the dates are certain, if we take the Bible state
ment, and there is certainly no portion of the orthodox text, except the
period of the Judges, which will admit any considerable extension of the
ordinary Oxford chronology.
• Sharpe’s History of Egypt, page 196.
t Harmony of the Four Evangelists, and Harmony of the Old Testament.
�VERB ADAM AND EVB OUR MnsI PARENTS?
3
The Book of Judges is not a book of history. Everything in it is recounted without chronological order. It will suffice to say, that the cyphers
which we find in the book of Judges, and in the first book of Samuel
*
yield us, from the death of Joshua to the commencement of the reign
of Saul, the sum total of 500 years, which would make, since the exodo
from Egypt, 565 years; whereas the first book of Kings counts but 480
years, from the going out of Egypt down to the foundation of the temple
under Solomon. According to this we must suppose that several of the
judges governed simultaneously.
*
In reading Alfred Maury’s profound essay on the classification of tongues,
I was much struck with the fact that he, in his philological researches, traces
back some of the ancient Greek mythologies, to a Sanscrit source. He has
the following remark, worthy of earnest attention:—“The God of Heaven
*
or the sky, is called by the Greeks Zeus Pater; and let us have notice
that the pronunciation of Z resembles very much that of D, inasmuch as
the word Zeus becomes in the genitive Dios. The Latins termed the
same God, Dies-piter, or Jupiter. Now in the Veda, the God of Heaven
is called Dyashpitai.” What is this, but the original of our own Christian
God, the father, the H'ln'1 (Jeue) pater of the Old Testament? I introduce
this remark for the purpose of shaking a very commonly entertained
opinion, that the Hebrew Records, whether or not God inspired, are at
any rate the most antique, and are written in a primitive tongue. Neither
is it true that the Hebrew mythology is the most ancient, nor the Hebrew
language the most primitive; on the contrary, the mythology is clearly
derived, and the language in a secondary or tertiary state.
What is the value of this Book of Genesis, which is the sole authority
for the hypothesis that Adam and Eve, about 5,865 years ago, were the sole
founders of the peoples now living on the face of the earth? Written we
know not by whom, we know not when, and we know not in what
language. If we respect the book, it must be from its internal merits; its
author is to us unknown. Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Clemens Alexan>
drinus alike agree that the name of Moses should not stand at the head oit
Genesis as the author of the book. As to its internal merit, Origen did not
hesitate to declare the contents of the first and second chapters of Genesis
to be purely figurative. Our translation of it has been severely criticised
by the learned and pious Bellamy, and by the more learned and less pious
Sir Wiliiam Drummond. Errors almost innumerable have been pointed
out, the correctness of the Hebrew text itself questioned, and yet this book
is an unerring guide to the students of ethnology. They may do anything,
everything, except stray out of the beaten track. We have, therefore, on
.he one hand, an anonymous book, which indeed does not take you back so
much as 6,000 years, for at least 1,600 years must be deducted for the
Noachian deluge, when the world’s inhabitants were again reduced to one
family, one race, one type. On the other hand, we have now existing
Esquimaux men, of the Arctic realm—Chinamen, of the Asiatic realm—
Englishmen, of the European realm—Sahara negroes, of the Af rican realm
—Euegians, of the American realm—New Zealanders, of the Polynesian
realm—the Malay, representative of the realm which bears his name—the
• Munks’ Palestine, page 231.
1
�4
WEBB ADAM AND EVE OUR EIR8T PARENTST
Tasmanian, of the Australian realm, with other families of each realm, too
numerous for mention here; dark and fair, black-skinned and white
skinned, woolly-haired and straight-haired; low forehead, high forehead;
Hottentot limb, Negro limb, Caucasian limb. Do all these different and
differing structures and colours trace their origin to one pair? To Adam
and Eve, or rather to Noah and his family? Or are they (the various
races) indigenous to their nature, soils, and climates? And are these
various types naturally resultant, with all their differences, from the
differing conditions for life persistent to and consistent with them ?
The question, then, really is this—Have the different races of man all
found their common parent in Noah, about 4,300 years ago? Assuming
the unity of the races or species of men now existing, there are but three
suppositions on which the diversity now seen can be accounted for:—>
“ 1st. A miracle or direct act of the Almighty, in changing one type into
another.
“2nd. The gradual action of physical causes, such as climate, food,
mode of life, &c.
“ 3rd. Congenital or accidental varieties.”*
We may fairly dismiss entirely from our minds the question of miracle.
Such a miracle is nowhere recorded in the Bible, and it lies'upon any one
hardy enough to assert that the present diversity has a miraculous origin,
to show some kind of reasons for his faith, some kind of evidence for our
conviction, and until this is done we have no reason to dwell on the first
hypothesis.
Of the permanence of type under its own climatic conditions—that is, in
the country to which it is indigenous—we have overwhelming proof in the
statue of an ancient Egyptian scribe, taken from a tomb of the fifth
dynasty, 5,000 years old, and precisely corresponding to the Fellah of the
present day. J The sand had preserved the colour of the statuette, which,
from its portrait-like beauty, marks a long era of art-progress preceding
its production. It ante-dates the orthodox era of the flood, carries us back
to a time when, if the Bible were true, Adam was yet alive, and still we
find before it kings reigning and ruling in mighty Egypt. Can the reader
wonder that these facts are held to impeach the orthodox faith?
On the second point Dr. Nott writes, “ It is a commonly received error
that the influence of a hot climate is gradually exerted on successive
generations, until one species of mankind is completely changed into
another. . . . This idea is proven to be false. ... A sunburnt
cheek is never handed down to succeeding generations. The exposed parts
of the body are alone tanned by the sun, and the children of the white
skinned Europeans in New Orleans, Mobile, and the West Indies are bom
as fair as their ancestors, and would remain so if carried back to a colder
climate.^
Pure negroes and negresses, transported from Central Africa to England,
and marrying among themselves, would Dever acquire the characteristics
of the Caucasian races; nor would pure Englishmen and Englishwomen,
• “ Types of Mankind,” Dr. Nott, p- 57.
t M. Pulzsky on Iconography—“ Indigenous Races,” p. Ill,
I “ Types of Mankind,” p. 58.
�WERE ADAM AND EVE OUR FIRST PARENTS?
5
emigrating to Central Africa, and in like manner inter-marrying, ever
become negroes or negresses. The fact is, that while you don’t bleach the
colour out of the dark- skinned African by placing him in London, you
bleach the life out of him; and vice versa with the Englishman.
*
For a
long time there has been ascribed to man the faculty of adapting himself to
every climate. The following facts will show the ascription a most
erroneous one:—“In Egypt the austral negroes are, and the Caucasian
Memlooks were, unable to raise up even a third generation; in Corsica
French families vanish beneath Italian summers. Where are the descen
dants of the Bomans, the.Vandals, or the Greeks in Africa? In Modern
Arabia, 1830 years after Mahomed Ali had got clear of the Morea war,
18,000 Arnaots (Albanians) were soon reduced to some 400 men. At
Gibraltar, in 1617, a negro regiment was almost annihilated by consump
tion. In 1841, during the three weeks on the Niger, 130 Europeans out of
145 caught African fever, and 40 died; out of 158 negro sailors only eleven
were affected, and not one died. In 1809 the British expedition to Walchereen failed in the Netherlands through marsh fever. About the same
time, in St. Domingo, about 15,000 French soldiers died from malaria. Of
30,000 Frenchmen, only 8,000 survived exposure to that Antillian island;
while the Dominicanized African negro, Toussaint l’Overture, retransported
to Europe, was perishing from the chili of his prison in France.”
On the third point we again quote Dr. Nott:—
*• The only argument left, then, is that of congenital varieties or pecu•iarities, which are said to spring up and be transmitted from parent to child,
40 as to form new races. Let us pause for a moment to illustrate this
fanciful idea. The negroes of Africa, for example, are admitted not to be
offsets from some other race which have been gradually blackened and
changed in a moral and physical type by the action of climate; but it is
asserted that ‘once, in the flight of ages’ some genuine little negro, or
rather many such, were born of Caucasian, Mongol, or other light-skinned
parents, and then have turned about and changed the type of the inhabi
tants of a whole continent. So in America, the countless aborigines found
on this continent, which we have reason to believe were building mounds
before the time of Abraham, are the offspring of a race changed by acci
dental or congenital varieties. Thus, too, old China, India, Australia
*
Oceana, &c., all owe their types, physical and mental, to congenital and
accidental varieties, and are descended from Adam and Eve! Can human
credulity go farther, or hi man ingenuity invent any argument more
absurd ?”
But even supposing these cbjections to the second and third suppositions
set aside, there are two other propositions which, if affirmed, as I believe
they may be, entirely overthrow the orthodox assertion:—“That Adam
and Eve, six thousand years ago, were the first pair; and that all diver
sities now existing must find their common source in Noah—less than four
thousand three hundred years from the present time.” These two are as
follows:—
• ‘ Indigenous Races of the Earth,’ p. 458. The alleged discovery of white-skinned
Megroes in Western Africa does not affect this question, it is not only to the colour
if the skin but also the general negro characteristics that the above remarks apply.
�4
WERE ADAK AMD ETE OUR. FIRST PARENTS?
1. That man may be traced back on the earth long prior to the alleged
Adamic era.
2. That there are diversities traceable as existing amongst the human
race four thousand five hundred years ago, as marked as in the present day.
To illustrate the position that man may be traced back to a period long
prior to the Adamic era, we refer our readers to the chronology of the late
Baron Bunsen, who, while allowing about 2,2000 years for man’s existence on
earth, fixes the following dates, after a patient examination of the Nilotic
antiquities:—
Egyptians under a republican form......................................... 10,000 n.0.
Ascension of Bytis, the Theban, 1st Priest King................ 9085
Elective Kings in Egypt
................
7230
Hereditary Kings in Upper and Lower Egypt, a double
empire, form
.............................
5143*
The assertion of such an antiquity for Egypt is no modern hypothesis.
Plato puts language into the mouth of an Egyptian, first claiming in that
day an antecedent, 10,000 years for painting and sculpture in Egypt. This
has long been regarded as fabulous because it was contrary to the Hebrew
Chronology.
If this be the result of the researches into Egyptian archaeology, the
reader will scarcely be surprised to find me endeavouring from other sources
to get corroborative evidence of a still more astonising character.
There are few who now pretend that the whole creation (?) took place
6000 years ago, although if it be true that God made all in six days, and
man on the sixth, then the universe would only be more ancient than
Adam by some five days. To state the age of the earth at 6000 years is
simply preposterous, when we ascertain that it would require about
4,000,000 of years for the formation of the fosiliferous rocks alone, and
that 15,000,000 of years have been stated as a moderate estimate for the
antiquity of our globe. The deltas of the great rivers afford corroboration
to our position as to man’s duration. The delta of the Nile, formed by
immense quantities of sedimentary matter, which in like manner is still
carried down and deposited, has not perceptibly increased during the last
3000 years. “ In the days of the earliest Pharoahs, the delta, as it now
exists, was covered with ancient cities and filled with a dense population,
whose civilization 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.”f
From borings which have been made at New Orleans to the depth of
600 feet, from excavations for public works, and from examinations in
parts of Louisiana, where the range between high and low water is much
greater than it is at New Orleans, no less than 10 distinct cypress forests
divided from each other by eras of aquatic plants, &c., have been traced,
arranged vertically above each other, and from these and other data it is
estimated by Dr. Benet Dowler, that the age of the delta is at least 158,000
* Nott and Gliddon, “ Indigenous Races,” page 587.
f Gliddon’s “ Types of Mankind,” page 335.
�WERE ADAM AND EVE OUR FIRST PARENTS?
r
years, and in the excavations above referred to, human remains have beeB
found below the further forest level, making it appear that the human race
existed m the delta of the Mississippi more than 57,000 years ago.
*
It is further urged, by the same competent writer, that human bones
discovered oh the coast of Brazil near Santas, and on the borders of a
lake called Lagoa Santa, by Captain Elliott and Dr. Lund, thoroughly
incorporated with a very hard breccia, every one in a fossil state, demon
strate that aboriginal man in America antedates the Mississippi alluvia, and
that he can even boast a geological antiquity, because numerous species of
animals have become extinct since American humanity’s first appearance.f
With reference to the second point as to the possibility of tracing back the
diversities of the Human Race to an antediluvian date, it is amply sufficient
to point on the one side to the remains of the American Indian disentombed
from the Mississippi forests, and on the other to the Egyptian monuments,
tombs, pyramids, and stuccoes, revealing to us Caucasian men, and Negro
men, their diversities as marked as in the present day. Sir William J ones,
in his day, claimed for Sanscrit literature a vast antiquity, and asserted the
existence of the religions of Egypt, Greece, India, and Italy, prior to the
Mosaic era. So far as Egypt is concerned, the researches of Lepsius,
Bunsen, Champoilion, Lenormant, Gliddon, and others, have fully verified
the position of the learned president of the Asiatic Society.
We have Egyptian statutes of the third dynasty, going back far beyond
the 4,300 years, which would give the orthodox era of the deluge, and tak
ing us over the 4,500 years fixed by our second proposition. The fourth
dynasty is rich in pyramids, tombs, and statues; and according to Lepsius,
this dynasty commenced 3,426 B.C., or about 5,287 years from the present
date.
In reading a modern work on the orthodox side,} I have been much
pained by the constant assumption that the long chronologists must be in
error, because their views do not coincide with orthodox teachings. Ortho
dox authors treat their heterodox brethren as unworthy of credit, because
of their heterodoxy. The writer asserts§ that the earliest reference to the
Negro tribes is in the era of the 12th dynasty. Supposing for a moment
this to be correct, I ask what even then will be the state of the argument?
The 12th dynasty, according to Lepsius, ends about 4,000 years ago. The
orthodox chronology fixes the deluge about 300 years earlier. Will any
sane man argue that there was sufficient lapse of time in three centuries
for the development of Caucasian and Negro man from one family?
The fact is, that we trace back the various types of man now known,
not to one centre, not to one country, not to one family, not to one pair,
but we trace them to different centres, to distinct countries, to separate
families, probably to many pairs. Wherever the conditions for life are
found, there are living beings also. The conditions of climate, soil, &c^
of Central Africa, differ from those of Europe. The indigenous races of
Central Africa, differ from those of Europe.
• “ Types,” pages 336 to 369.
} "Archaia,” by Dr. Dawson.
f “ Types,” pages 350 and 357.
§ “ Archaia,” page 306.
�9
WEBB ADAM AND EVE OUB FIRST PABENTS?
Without pretending, in the present limited essay, to do more than index
some of the most prominent features of the case, I yet hope that enough is
here stated to interest my readers in the prosecution of future inquiry, upon
the important question which serves as the title to these pages. I put
forward no knowledge from myself, but am ready to listen to the teachings
of wiser men; and while I shrink from the ordinary orthodox assertion of
Adamic unity of origin, accompanied as it is by threats of pains and penal
ties if rejected, I am yet ready to receive it, if it can be presented to me
associated with facts, and divested of those future hell-fire torments and
present societarian persecutions which now form its chief, it not sole,
supports.
The rejection of the Bible account of the peopling of the world involves
also the rejection, as has been already remarked, of the entire scheme of
Christianity. According to the orthodox rendering of both New and Old
Testament teaching, all men are involved in the curse which followed
Adam’s sin. But if the account of the Fall be mythical; not historical; if
Adam and Eve—supposing them to have ever existed—were preceded on
the earth by many nations and empires, what becomes of the doctrine that
Jesus came to redeem mankind from a sin committed by one who was not
the common father of all humanity?
Reject Adam, and you cannot accept Jesus. Refuse to believe Genesis,
and you cannot give credence to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.
The Old and New Testaments are so connected together, that to dissolve
the union is to destroy the system. The account of the Creation and Fall
of Man is the foundation-stone of the Christian Church—if this stone ba
rotten, the superstructure cannot be stable. It is therefore most important,
that those who profess a faith in Christianity should consider facts which so
vitally and materially affect the creed they hold.
�
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
Were Adam & Eve our first parents?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, C
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1861]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4947
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 (Were Adam & Eve our first parents?), 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-O.T.-Genesis
Creation-Biblical Teaching
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/21f5e6229e8260abdf94a1a0aa2374da.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MPZkIFr3xX7COtAl8QdxURIOFZebJdY-JxYGUa6v3CJomM1AdDXPqSIkvYXgto46XMU4cBeDWPPACSIp94I-IEJDv6cqvA1v6K%7Eh8fx3Lsg1c9HuqPIBmMQtVHY%7EJHcJuX0SXap7gODf5ySc7XHVJk6u9LtvxNrvGyT%7EOOYp8ophVBUOBd%7EZcEf4kRLNuYdjTmU-1ZNXQl8j%7EBdqat6jUHUlULZKQhmD0c5hy69Ayg4lv7Wgk6p6qCJO%7E42f9hTledyd7uWAAxWR4wRErz-qLCzYe-jPjImz1HFXesY26AYmvMJA8tKApw4VbplIkTpiWY5qV7lN14QBtCgkSKIAcw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b6b05c2e73eef03625b4987fadb6b5e7
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHING CO
NY'S EDITION.
A lecture
DELIVERED TO IMMENSE AUDIENCES IN THE
METHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET STREET, E.O.
1883.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
�[“A brilliant, gonial gentleman; a man of brains, and a heart as tender as a
woman's; a man greatly respected and admired by all who know him, greatly
detested by many among those who do not, and who do not agree with him in
opinion; a man who does his own thinking, and who says what he thinks, and
thinks before he says, is about to address you in review of a great historical
character. He will do this from his own standpoint, and in his own way. Had
he lived one hundred years ago, and succeeded in doing this, he would, under the
forms of law, had been imprisoned — if, indeed, he were suffered to live —his
children taken from him, his property confiscated, his name traduced and his
memory vilified. Times have changed. The world of thought and opinion moves
as well as the world of matter. He may speak to you here to-day, freely and
without reserve. He may give his honest thought. You have come to hear him
and not me. Let me introduce him—Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll.” ]
�MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Ladies and Gentlemen : Now and then some one
asks me why I am endeavoring to interfere with the
religious faith of others, and why I try to take from
the world the consolation naturally arising from a
belief in eternal fire. And I answer, I want to do
what little I can to make my country truly free. I
want to broaden the intellectual horizon of our people.
I want it so that we can differ upon all these questions,
and yet grasp each other’s hands in genuine friend
ship. I want, in the first place, to free the clergy. I
am a great friend of theirs, but they don’t seem to
have found it out generally. I want it so that every
minister will not be a parrot, not an owl sitting upon
a ‘dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and hooting the
hoots that have been hooted for 1800 years. But I
want it so that each one can be an investigator, a
thinker; and I want to make his congregation grand
enough so that they will not only allow him to think,
but will demand that he shall think, and give to them
the honest truth of his thought. As it is now, ministers
are employed like attorneys—for the plaintiff or the
defendant. If a few people know of a young man in
the neighborhood, maybe, who has not had a good con
stitution—he may not be healthy enough to be wicked
—a young man who has shown no decided talent—
it occurs to them to make him a minister. They con
tribute and send him to some school. If it turns out
that that young man has more of the man in him
than they thought, and he changes his opinion, every
one who contributed will feel himself individually
swindled, and they will follow that young man to the
grave with the poisoned shafts of malice and slander.
�4
Mistakes of Moses.
I want it so that every one will be free—so that a
pulpit will not be a pillory. They have in Massachussetts, at a place called Andover, a kind of minister fac
tory, and every professor in that factory takes an oath
once in five years—that is as long as an oath will last
—that not only has he not during the last five years,
but so help him God, he will not during the next five
years, intellectually advance, and probably there is no
oath he could easier keep. Since the foundation of
that institution there has not been one case of perjury.
They believe the same creed they first taught when the
foundation stone was laid, and now when they send
out a minister they brand him, as hardware from Shef
field and Birmingham. And every man who knows
where he was educated knows his creed, knows every
argument of his creed, every book that he reads, and
just what he amounts to intellectually, and knows he
will shrink and shrivel, and become solemnly stupid,
day after day, until he meets with death. It is all
wrong; it is cruel. Those men should be allowed to
grow. They should have the air of liberty and the
sunshine of thought.
I want to free the schools of our country. I want it
so that when a professor in a college finds some fact
inconsistent with Moses, he will not hide the fact, that
it will not be the worse for him for having discovered
the fact. I wish to see an eternal divorce and separa
tion between church and schools. The common school
is the bread of life; but there should be nothing taught
in the schools except what somebody knows ; and any
thing else should not be maintained by a system of
general taxation. I want its professors so that they
will tell everything they find; that they will be free
to investigate in every direction, and will not be tram
melled by the superstitions of our day. What has
religion to do with facts ? Nothing. Is there any
such thing as Methodist mathematics, Presbyterian
botany, Catholic astronomy, or Baptist biology ? What
has any form of superstition or religion to do with a
fact or with any science? Nothing but to hinder,
delay, or embarrass. I want, then, to free the schools;
and I want to free the politicians, so that a man will
�Mistakes 0/ Moses.
5
not have to pretend that he is a Methodist, or his wife
a Baptist, or his grandmother a Catholic; so that he
can go through a campaign, and when he gets through
will find none of the dust of hypocrisy on his knees.
I want the people splendid enough that when they
desire men to make laws for them, they will take
one who knows something, who has brain enough to
prophesy the destiny of the American Republic, no
matter what his opinions may be upon any religious
subject. Suppose we are in a storm out at sea, and
the billows are washing over our ship, and it is
necessary that some one should reef the topsail, and
a man presents himself. Would you stop him at the
foot of the mast to find out his opinion on the five
points of Calvinism ? What has that to do with it ?
Congress has nothing to do with baptism or any par
ticular creed, and from what little experience I have
had of Washington, very little to do with any kind
of religion whatever. Now, I hope this afternoon
this magnificent and splendid audience will forget
that they are Baptists or Methodists, and remember
that they are men and women. These are the highest
titles humanity can bear—man and woman ; and every
title you add belittles them. Man is the highest ;
woman is the highest. Let us remember that we are
simply human beings, with interests in common. And
let us all remember that our views depend largely
upon the country in which we happen to live. Sup
pose we were born in Turkey, most of us would have
been Mohammedans ; and when we read in the book
that when Mohammed visited heaven he became ac
quainted with an angel named Gabriel, who was so
broad between his eyes that it would take a smart
camel three hundred days to make the journey, we
probably would have believed it. If we did not,
people would say: “ That young man is dangerous ;
he is trying to tear down the fabric of our religion.
What do you propose to give us instead of that angel ?
We cannot afford to trade off an angel of that size
for nothing.” Or if we had been born in India, we
would have believed in a god with three heads. Now,
we believe in three gods with one head. And so we
�6
Mistakes oj Moses.
might make a tour of the world and see that every
superstition that could be imagined by the brain of
man has been in some place held to be sacred.
Now, some one says: “The religion of my father
and mother is good enough for me.” Suppose we all
said that, where would be the progress of the world ?
We would have the rudest and most barbaric religion,
which no one could believe. I do not believe that
it is showing real respect to our parents to believe
something simply because they did. Every good
father and every good mother wish their children to
find out more than they knew ; every good father
wants his son to overcome some obstacle that he could
not grapple with ; and if you wish to reflect credit
on your father and mother, do it by accomplishing
more than they did, because you live in a better time.
Every nation has had what you call a sacred record,
and the older the more sacred, the more contradictory
and the more inspired is the record. We, of course,
are not an exception, and I propose to talk a little
about what is called the Pentateuch, a book, or a
collection of books, said to have been written by Moses.
And right here in the commencement let me say that
Moses never wrote one word of the Pentateuch—not
one word was written until he had been dust and
ashes for hundreds of years. But as the general
opinion is that Moses wrote these books, I have entitled
this lecture “ The Mistakes of Moses.” For the sake
of this lecture, we will admit that he wrote it. Nearly
every maker of religion has commenced by making
the world ; and it is one of the safest things to do,
because no one can contradict as having been present,
and it gives free scope to the imagination. These
books, in times when there was a vast difference be
tween the educated and the ignorant, became inspired,
and people bowed down and worshipped them.
I saw a little while ago a Bible with immense oaken
covers, with hasps and clasps large enough almost for
a penitentiary, and I can imagine how that book would
be regarded by barbarians in Europe when not more
than one person in a dozen could read and write. In
imagination I saw it carried into the cathedral, heard
�Mistakes of Moses.
7
the chant of the priest, saw the swinging of the censer
and the smoke rising; and when the Bible was put
on the altar I can imagine the barbarians looking at
it and wondering what influence that black book could
have on their lives and future. I do not wonder that
they imagined it was inspired. None of them could
write a book, and consequently when they saw it
they adored it ; they were stricken with awe ; and
rascals took advantage of that awe.
Now they say that the book is inspired. I do not
care whether it is or not; the question is, is it true ?
If it is true it does not need to be inspired. Nothing
needs inspiration except a falsehood or a mistake. A
fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth
scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every
other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell
whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit any
thing except another lie made for the express purpose ;
and, finally, someone gets tired of lying, and the last
lie will not fit the next fact, and then there is a chance
for inspiration. Right then and there a miracle is
needed. The real question is : In the light of science,
in the light of the brain and heart of the nineteenth
century, is this book true ? The gentleman who wrote
it begins by telling us that God made the universe out
of nothing. That I cannot conceive ; it may be so, but
I cannot conceive it. Nothing, in the light of raw
material, is, to my mind, a decided and disastrous
failure. I cannot imagine of nothing being made into
something, any more than I can of something being
changed back into nothing. I cannot conceive of force
aside from matter, because force, to be force, must be
active, and unless there is matter there is nothing for
force to act upon, and consequently it cannot be active.
So I simply say I cannot comprehend it. I cannot
believe it. I may roast for this, but it is my honest
opinion. The next thing he proceeds to tell us is that
God divided the darkness from the light; and right
here let me say when I speak about God I simply mean
the being described by the Jews. There may be in
immensity some being beneath whose wing the uni
verse exists, whose every thought is a glittering star,
�8
Mistakes of Moses.
but I know nothing about him—not the slightest—and
this afternoon I am simply talking about the being
described by the Jewish people. When I say God, I
mean him. Moses describes God dividing the light
from the darkness. I suppose that at that time they
must have been mixed. You can readily see how light
and darkness can get mixed. They must have been
entities. The reason I think so is because in that same
book I find that darkness overspread Egypt so thick
that it could be felt, and they used to have on exhihition in Rome a bottle of -the darkness that once over
spread Egypt. The gentleman who wrote this in
imagination saw God dividing light from the darkness.
I am sure the man who wrote it believed darkness to
be an entity, a something, a tangible thing that can be
mixed with light.
The next thing that he informs us is that God divided
the waters above the firmament from those below the
firmament. The man who wrote that believed the
firmament to be a solid affair. And that is what the
Gods did. You recollect the Gods came down and made
love to the daughters of men—and I never blamed
them for it. I have never read a description of any
heaven I would not leave on the same errand. That is
where the Gods lived. That is where they kept the
water. It was solid. That is the reason the people
prayed for rain. They believed that an angel could
take a lever, raise a window, and let out the desired
quantity. I find in the Psalms that “ he bowed the
heavens and came down ; ” and we read that the chil
dren of men built a tower to reach the heavens and
climb into the abode of the Gods. The man who wrote
that believed the firmament to be solid. He knew
nothing of the laws of evaporation. He did not know
that the sun wooed with amorous kiss the waves of
the sea, and that, disappointed, their vaporous sighs
changed to tears and fell again as rain. The next
thing he tells us is that the grass began to grow, and
the branches of the trees laughed into blossom, and
the grass ran up the shoulder of the hills, and yet not
a solitary ray of light had left the eternal quiver of the
sun. Not a blade of grass had ever been touched by a
�Mistakes of Moses.
9
gleam of light. And I do not think that grass will
grow to hurt without a gleam of sunshine. I think
the man who wrote that simply made a mistake, and
is excusable to a certain degree. The next day he
made the sun and moon—the sun to rule the day, and
the moon to rule the night. Do you think the man
who wrote that knew anything about the size of the
sun ? I think he thought it was about three feet in
diameter, because I find in some book that the sun
was stopped a whole day to give a general named
Joshua time to kill a few more Amalekites; and the
moon was stopped also. Now, it seems to me the sun
would give light enough without stopping the moon ;
but as they were in the stopping business they did it
just for devilment. At another time, we read, the sun
was turned ten degrees backward to convince Heze
kiah that he was not going to die of a boil. How
much easier it would have been to cure the boil! The
man who wrote that thought the sun was two or three
feet in diameter, and could be stopped and pulled
around like the sun and moon in a theatre. Do you
know that the sun throws out every second of time as
much heat as could be generated by burning eleven
thousand millions tons of coal ? I don’t believe he
knew that, or that he knew the motion of the earth.
I don’t believe he knew that it was turning on its axis
at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, because, if he'
did, he would have understood the immensity of heat
that would have been generated by stopping the world.
It has been calculated by one of the best mathemati
cians and astronomers that to stop the world would
cause as much heat as it would take to burn a lump of
solid coal three times as big as the globe. And yet we
find in that book that the sun was not only stopped,
but turned back ten degrees, simply to convince a gen
tleman that he was not going to die of a boil! They
may say I will be damned if I do not believe that, and
I tell them I will if I do.
Then he gives us the history of astronomy, and he
gives it to us in five words. “ He made the stars also.”
He came very near forgetting the stars. Do you be
lieve that the man who wrote that knew that there are
�10
Mistakes of Moses.
stars as much larger than this earth as this earth is
larger than the apple which Adam and Eve are said to
have eaten ? Do you believe that he knew that this
world is but a speck in the shining, glittering universe
of existence ? I would gather from that that he made
the stars after he got the world done. The telescope,
in reading the infinite leaves of the heavens, has ascer
tained that light travels at the rate of 192,000 miles per
second, and it would require millions of years to come
from some of the stars to this earth. Yet* the beams of
those stars mingle in our atmosphere, so that if those
distant orbs were fashioned when this world began,
we must have been whirling in space not six thousand,
but many millions of years. Do you believe the man
who wrote that as a history of astronomy really knew
that this world was but a speck compared with mil
lions of sparkling orbs ? I do not. He then proceeds
to tell us that God made fish and cattle, and that man
and woman were created male and female. The first
account stops at the second verse of the second chapter.
You see the Bible originally was not divided into
chapters; the first Bible that was ever divided into
chapters in our language was made in the year of grace
1550. The Bible was originally written in the Hebrew
language, and the Hebrew language at that time had
no vowels in writing. It was written entirely with
consonants, and without being divided into chapters
or into verses, and there was no system of punctuation
whatever. After you go home to-night write an
English sentence or two with only consonants close
together, and you will find that it will take twice as
much inspiration to read it as it did to write it. When
the Bible was divided into verses and chapters, the
divisions were not always correct, and so the division
between the first and second chapter of Genesis is not
in the right place. The second account of the creation
commences at the third verse, and it differs from the
first in two essential points. In the first account man
is the last made; in the second, man is made before
the beasts. In the first account man is made “ male
and female ; ” in the second only a man is made, and
there is no intention of making a woman whatever.
�Mistakes of Moses.
11
You will find by reading that second chapter that
■God tried to palm off on Adam a beast as his helpmeet.
Everybody talks about the Bible, and nobody reads it:
that is the reason it is so generally believed. I am
probably the only man in the United States who has
read the Bible through this year. I have wasted that
time, but I had a purpose in view. Just read it, and
you will find, about the twenty-third verse, that God
caused all the animals to walk before Adam in order
that he might name them. And the animals came
like a menagerie into town, and as Adam looked at
all the crawlers, jumpers, and creepers, this God stood
by to see what he would call them. After this proces
sion passed, it was pathetically remarked : “ Yet was
there not found any helpmeet for Adam.” Adam
didn’t see anything that he could fancy. And I am
glad he didn’t. If he had, there would not have been
a Freethinker in this world; we should have all died
orthodox. And finding Adam was so particular, God
had to make him a helpmeet; and, having used up the
nothing, he was compelled to take part of the man to
make the woman with, and he took from the man a
rib. How did he get it ? And then imagine a God
with a bone in his hand, and about to start a woman,
trying to make up his mind whether to make a blonde
or a brunette. Right here it is only proper that 1
should warn you of the consequences of laughing at
any story in the Holy Bible. When you come to die,
your laughing at this story will be a thorn in your
pillow. As you look back upon the record of your
life, no matter how many men you have wrecked and
ruined, and no matter how many women you have de
ceived and deserted—all that may be forgiven you;
but if you recollect that you have laughed at God’s
book you will see, through the shadows of death, the
leering looks of fiends and the forked tongues of
devils. Let me show you how it will be. For in
stance, it is the day of judgment. When the man is
•called up by the recording secretary, or whoever does
the cross-examining, he says to his soul: “ Where are
you from ? ” “ I am from the world.” “ Yes, sir.
What kind of a man were you ? ” “ Well, I don’t like
�12
Mistakes of Moses.
to talk about myself.” “ But you have to. What kind
of a man were you?” “Well, I was a good fellow; I
loved my wife, I loved my children. My home was
my heaven ; my fireside was my paradise, and to sit
there and see the lights and shadows falling on the
faces of those I love, that to me was a perpetual joy.
I never gave one of them a solitary moment of pain.
I don’t owe a dollar in the world, and I left enough
to pay my funeral expenses, and keep the wolf of
want from the door of the house I loved. That is
the kind of man I am.” “Did you belong to any
church ? ” “I did not. They were too narrow for me.
They were always expecting to be happy simply be
cause somebody else was to be damned.” “Well, did
you believe that rib story ? ” “ What rib story ? Do
you mean that Adam and Eve business ? No, I did not.
To tell you the God’s truth, that was a little more than
I could swallow ” “ To hell with him ! Next. Where
are you from?” “I’m from the world, too.” “ Do1
you belong to any church?” “Yes, sir, and to the
Young Men’s Christian Association.” “ What is your
business ? ” “ Cashier in a bank.” “ Did you ever run
off with any of the money ? ” “ I don’t like to tell, sir.”
“Well, but you have to.” “Yes, sir, I did.” “What
kind of a bank did you have ? ” “ A savings’ bank.”
“ How much did you run off with ?” “ One hundred
thousand dollars.” “ Did you take anything else along
with you?” “Yes, sir.” “What?” “I took my
neighbor’s wife.” “ Did you have a wife and children
of your own?” “Yes, sir.” “And you deserted
them ? ” “ Oh, yes ; but such was my confidence in
God that I believed he would take care of them.”
“ Have you heard of them since?” “No, sir.” “Did
you believe that rib story ? ” “ Ah, bless your soul,,
yes! I believed all of it, sir; I often used to be sorry
that there were not harder stories yet in the Bible, so
that I could show what my faith could do.” “ You
believed it, did you?” “Yes, with all my heart.”
“ Give him a harp.”
I simply wanted to show you how important it is to
believe these stories. Of all the authors in the world
God hates a critic the worst. Having got this woman
�Mistakes of Moses.
13
done he brought her to the man, and they started
housekeeping, and a few minutes afterwards a snake
came through a crack in the fence and commenced to
talk with her on the subject of fruit. She was not
acquainted with the neighborhood, and she did not know
whether snakes talked or not, or whether they knew
anything about the apples or not. Well, she was
misled, and the husband ate some of those apples and
laid it all on his wife; and there is where the mistake
was made. God ought to have rubbed him out at once.
He might have known that no good could come of
starting the world with a man like that. They were
turned out. Then the trouble commenced, and people
got worse and worse. God, you must recollect, was
holding the reins of government, but he did nothing for
them. He allowed them to live 669 years without
knowing their A. B. C. He never started a school, not
even a Sunday school. He didn’t even keep his own
boys at home. And the world got worse every day,
and finally he concluded to drown them. Yet that
same God has the impudence to tell me how to raise
my own children. What would you think of a neigh
bor who had just killed his babes, giving you his views
on domestic economy ? God found that he could do
nothing with them, and he said : “ I will drown them
all except a few.” And he picked out a fellow by the
name of Noah, that had been a bachelor for 500 years.
If I had to drown anybody, I would have drowned
him. I believe that Noah had then been married
something like 100 years. God told him to build a
boat, and he built one 500 feet long, 80 or 90 feet
broad, and 55 feet high, with one door shutting on the
outside, and one window 22 inches square. If Noah
had any hobby in the world it was ventilation. Then
into this ark he put a certain number of all the animals
in the world. Naturalists have ascertained that at
this time there were at least 100,000 insects necessary
to go into the ark, about 40,000 mammalia, 1,600 reptilla, to say nothing about the mastodon, the elephant
and the animalculae, of which thousands live upon a
single leaf, and which cannot be seen by the naked
eye. Noah had no microscope, and yet he had to pick
�14
Mistakes of Moses.
them out by pairs. You have no idea the trouble that
man had. Some say that the flood was not universal,
that it was partial. Why, then, did God say: “ I will
destroy every living thing beneath the heavens ?” If
it was partial, why did Noah save the birds ? An ordi
nary bird, tending strictly to business, can beat a
partial flood. Why did he put the birds in there—the
eagles, the vultures, the condors—if it was only a
partial flood ? And how did he get them in there ?
Were they inspired to go there, or did he drive them
up ? Did the polar bear leave his home of ice and
start for the tropics inquiring for Noah ; or could the
kangaroo come from Australia unless he was inspired,
or somebody was behind him ? Then there are animals
on this hemisphere, not on that. How did he get them
across ? And there are some animals which would be
very unpleasant in an ark unless the ventilation was
very perfect.
When he got the animals in the ark, God shut the
door and Noah pulled down the window. And then
it began to rain, and it kept on raining until the water
went 29 feet over the highest mountain. Chimborazo,
then as now, lifted its head above the clouds, and then
as now, there sat the condor. And yet the water rose
and rose over every mountain in the world—29 feet
above the highest peaks, covered with snow and ice.
How deep were these waters ? About 5-g- miles. How
long did it rain ? Forty days. How much did it have
to rain a day ? About 800 feet. How is that for
dampness ? No wonder they said the windows of the
heavens were open. If I had been there I would have
said the whole side of the house was out. How long
were they in this ark ? A year and ten days, floating
around with no rudder, no sail, nobody on the outside
at all. The window was shut, and there was no door,
except the one that shut on the outside. Who ran this
ark—who took care of it ? Finally it came down on
Mount Ararat, a peak 17,000 feet above the level of the
sea, with about 3,000 feet of snow, and it stopped there
simply to give the animals from the tropics a chance.
Then Noah opened the window and got a breath of
fresh air, and he let out all the animals ; and then
�Mistakes of Moses.
15
Noah took a drink, and God made a bargain with him
that he would not drown us any more, and he put a
rainbow in the clouds and said : “ When 1 see that I
will recollect that I have promised not to drown you.”
Because if it was not for that, he is apt to drown us at
any moment. Now, can anybody believe that that is
the origin of the rainbow ? Are you not all familiar
with the natural causes which bring those beautiful
arches before our eyes ? Then the people started out
again, and they were as bad as before. Here let me
ask why God did not make Noah in the first place ?
He knew he would have to drown Adam and Eve and
all his family. Then another thing, why did he want
to drown the animals ? What had they done ? What
crime had they committed ? It is very hard to answer
these questions—that is, for a man who has only been
born once. After a while they tried to build a tower
to get into heaven, and the Gods heard about it and
said : “ Let’s go down and see what man is up to.”
They came and found things a great deal worse than
they thought, and thereupon they confounded the
language to prevent them succeeding, so that the fellow
up above could not shout down “mortar ” or “ brick ”
to the one below, and they had to give it up. Is il
possible that anyone believes that that is the reason
why we have the variety of languages in the world ?
Do you know that language is born of human expe
rience, and is a physical science ? Do you know that
every word has been suggested in some way by the
feelings or observations of man—that there are words
as tender as the dawn, as serene as the stars, and others
as wild as the beasts ? Do you know that language is
dying and being born continually—that every language
has its cemetery and cradle, its bud and blossom, and
withered leaf ? Man has loved, enjoyed, and suffered,
and language is simply the expression he gives those
experiences.
Then the world began to divide, and the Jewish
nation was started. Now, I want to say that at one
time your ancestors, like mine, were barbarians. If
the Jewish people had to write these books now they
would be civilised books, and I do not hold them
�16
Mistakes of Moses,.
responsible for what their ancestors did. We find the
Jewish people first in Canaan, and there were seventy
of them, counting Joseph and his children, already
in Egypt. They lived 215 years, and they then went
down to Egypt and stayed there 215 years. They
were 430 years in Canaan and Egypt. How many
did they have when they went to Egypt ? Seventy.
How many were they at the end of 215 years ? Three
millions. That is a good many. We had at the time
of the Revolution in this country 3,000,000 of people.
Since that time there have been four doubles, until
we have 48,000,000 to-day. How many would the
Jews number at the same ratio in 215 years ? Call
it eight doubles, and we have 40,000. But instead
of 40,000 they had 3,000,000. How do I know they
had 3,000,000 ? Because they had 600,000 men of war.
For every honest voter in the State of Illinois there
will be five other people, and there are always more
voters than men of war. They must have had, at
the lowest possible estimate, 3,000,000 of people. Is
that true ? Is there a minister in the city of Chicago
that will certify to his own idiocy by claiming that
they could have increased to 3,000,000 by that time ?
If there is, let him say so. Do not let him talk about
the civilizing influence of a lie.
When they got into the desert they took a census
to see how many first-born children there were. They
found they had 22,273 first-born males. It is reason
able to suppose there was about the same number
•of first-born girls, or 45,000 first-born children. There
must have been about as many mothers as first-born
children. Dividing 3,000,000 by 45,000 mothers, and
you will find that the women in Israel had to have
on the average sixty-eight children apiece. Some
stories are too thin. This is too thick. Now, we
know that among 3,000,000 people there will be about
300 births a-day ; and according to the Old Testament
whenever a child was born the mother had to make
a sacrifice—a sin offering for the crime of having been
a mother. If there is in this universe anything that
is infinitely pure, it is a mother with her child in
her arms. Every woman had to have a sacrifice of
�Mistakes of Moses.
17
a couple of doves, a couple of pigeons, and the priests
had to eat those pigeons in the most holy place. At
that time there were at least 300 births a day, and the
priests had to cook and eat those pigeons in the most
holy place ; and at that time there were only three
priests. Two hundred birds apiece per day ! I look
upon them as the champion bird-eaters of the world.
Then where were these Jews ? They were upon
the desert of Sinai; and Sahara compared to that is
a garden. Imagine an ocean of lava, torn by storm
and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at by a Gorgon,
and changed to stone. Such was the desert of Sinai.
The whole supplies of the world could not maintain
3,000,000 of people on the desert of Sinai for forty
years. It would cost one hundred thousand millions
of dollars, and would bankrupt Christendom. And
yet there they were with flocks and herds—so many
that they sacrificed over 150,000 first-born lambs at
one time. It would require millions of acres to sup
port those flocks, and yet there was no blade of grass,
and there is no account of it raining bailed hay. They
sacrificed 150,000 lambs, and the blood had all to be
sprinkled on the altar within two hours, and there
were only three priests. They would have to sprinkle
the blood of 1,250 lambs per minute. Then all the
people gathered in front of the tabernacle eighteen
feet deep. Three millions of people would make a
column six miles long. Some reverend gentlemen
say they were ninety feet deep. Well, that would
make a column of over a mile.
Where were these people going ? They were going
to the Holy Land. How large was it ? Twelve
thousand square miles—one-fifth the size of Illinois—
a frightful country, covered with rocks and desolation.
There never was a land agent in the city of Chicago
that would not have blushed with shame to have
described that land as flowing with milk and honey.
Do you believe that God Almighty ever went into
partnership with hornets ? Is it necessary unto salva
tion ? God said to the Jews : “ I will send hornets
before you to drive out the Canaanites.” How would
a hornet know a Canaanite ? Is it possible that God
�18
Mistakes of Moses.
inspired the hornets—that he granted letters of marque
and reprisals to hornets ? I am willing to admit that
nothing in the world would be better calculated to
make a man leave his native country than a few hor
nets attending strictly to business. God said : “ Kill
the Canaanites slowly.” Why ? “ Lest the beasts of
the field increase upon you.” How many Jews were
there ? Three millions. Going to a country, how
large ? Twelve thousand square miles. But were
there nations already in this Holy Land ? Yes, there
were seven nations “mightier than the Jews.” Say
there would' be 21,000,000 when they got there, or
24,000,000 with themselves. Yet they were told to kill
them slowly, lest the beasts of the field increased upon
them. Is there a man in Chicago that believes that ?
Then what does he teach it to little children for ? Let
him tell the truth.
So the same God went into partnership with snakes.
The children of Israel lived on manna—one account
says all the time, and another only a little while. That
is the reason there is a chance for commentaries, and
you can exercise faith. If the book was reasonable
everybody could go to heaven in a moment. But
whenever it looks as if it could not be that way, and
you believe, you are almost a saint, and when you
know it is not that way and believe, you are a
saint. He fed them on manna. Now manna is
very peculiar s'tuff. It would melt in the sun, and
yet they used to cook it by seething and baking. I
would as soon think of frying snow or boiling icicles.
But this manna had other peculiar qualities. It shrunk
to an omer, no matter how much they gathered, and
swelled up to an omer, no matter how little they
gathered. What a magnificent thing manna would be
for the currency, shrinking and swelling according to
the volume of business ! There was not a change in
the bill of fare for forty years, and they knew that
God could just as well give them three square meals
a day. They remembered about the cucumbers, and
the melons, and the leeks and the onions of Egypt, and
they said : “ Our souls abhorreth this light bread.”
Then this God got mad—you know cooks are always
�Mistakes of Moses.
19
touchy—and thereupon he sent snakes to bite the men,
women and children. He also sent them quails in
wrath and anger, and while they had the flesh between
their teeth, he struck thousands of them dead. He al
ways acted in that way, all of a sudden. People had no
chance to explain—no chance to move for a new trial—
nothing. I want to know if it is reasonable he should kill
people for asking for one change of diet in forty years.
Suppose you had been boarding with an old lady for
forty years, and she never had a solitary thing on her
table but hash, and one morning you said : “ My soul
abhorreth hash.” What would you say if she let a
basketful of rattlesnakes upon you ? Now is it possible
for people to believe this ? The Bible says that their
clothes did not wax old—they did not get shiny at the
knees or elbows—and their shoes did not wear out.
They grew right along with them. The little boy
starting out with his first pants grew up, and his pants
grew with him. Some commentators have insisted
that angels attended to their wardrobes. I never could
believe it. Just think of one angel hunting another
and saying : “ There goes another button.” I cannot
believe it.
There must be a mistake somewhere or somehow. Do
you believe the real God—if there is one—ever killed
a man for making hair oil ? And yet you find in
the Pentateuch that God gave Moses a recipe for
making hair oil to grease Aaron’s beard ; and said
if anybody made the same hair oil he should be killed.
And he gave him a formula for making ointment,
and he said if anybody made ointment like that he
should be killed. I think that is carrying patent laws
to excess. There must be some mistake about it. I
cannot imagine the infinite Creator of all the shining
worlds giving a recipe for hair oil. Do you believe
that the real God came down to Mount Sinai with
a lot of patterns for making a tabernacle—patterns
for tongs, for snuffers, and such things ? Do you
believe that God came down on that mountain and
told Moses how to cut a coat, and how it should be
trimmed ? What would an infinite God care on which
side he cut the breast, what color the fringe was, or
�20
Mistakes of Moses.
how the buttons were placed ? Do you believe God
told Moses to make curtains of fine linen ? Where
did they get their flax in the desert ? How did they
weave it ? Did he tell him to make things of gold,
silver, and precious stones when they hadn’t them?
Is it possible that God told them not to eat any fruit
until after the fourth year of planting the trees ? You
see all these things were written hundreds of years
afterwards, and the priests, in order to collect tithes,
dated the laws back. They did not say: “This is our
law,” but: “Thus said God to Moses in the wilderness.”’
Now, can you believe that ? Imagine a scene : The
eternal God tells Moses, “ Here is the way I want you
to consecrate my priests. Catch a sheep and cut his
throat.” I never could understand why God wanted
a sheep killed just because a man had done a mean
trick ; perhaps it was because his priests were fond
of mutton. He tells Moses further to take some of
the blood and put it on his right thumb, a little on
his right ear, and a little on his right big toe. Do
you believe God ever gave such instructions for the
consecration of his priests ? If you should see the
South Sea Islanders going through such a performance'
you could not keep your face straight. And will you
tell me that it had to be done in order to consecrate a
man to the service of the infinite God! Supposing the
blood got on the left toe !
Then we find in this book how God went to work
to make the Egyptians let the Israelites go. Supposewe wish to make a treaty with the Mikado of Japan,,
and Mr. Hayes sent a commissioner there ; and sup
pose he should employ Hermann, the wonderful Ger
man, to go along with him; and when they came in
the presence of the Mikado Hermann threw down an
umbrella, which changed into a turtle, and the com
missioner said : “ That is my certificate.” You would
say the country is disgraced. You would say the
president of a Republic like this disgraces himself'
with jugglery. Yet we are told God sent Moses and
Aaron before Pharaoh, and when they got there Moses
threw, down a stick, which turned into a snake. That
God is a juggler—he is the infinite prestidigitator..
�Mistakes of Moses.
21
Is that possible ? Was that really a snake, or was it
the appearance of a snake ? If it was the appearance
■of a snake, it was a fraud. Then the necromancers of
Egypt were sent for, and they threw down sticks,
which turned into snakes, but those were not so
large as Moses’ snake, which swallowed them. I
tain that it is just as hard to make small snakes
.as it is to make large ones ; the only difference is, that
.to make large snakes either larger sticks or more prac
tice is required.
Do you believe that God rained hail on the innocent
■cattle, killing them in the highways and in the field ?
Why should he inflict punishment on cattle for some
thing their owners had done ? I could never have any
respect for a God that would so inflict pain upon a
brute beast simply on account of the crime of its owner.
Is it possible that God worked miracles to convince
Pharaoh that slavery was wrong ? Why did he not
tell Pharaoh that any nation founded on slavery could
not stand ? Why did he not tell him: “ Your govern
ment is founded on slavery, and it will go down, and
the sands of the desert will hide from the view of man
your temples, your altars, and your fanes ? ” Why ,
did not he speak about the infamy of slavery ? Be
cause he believed in the infamy of slavery himself.
Oan we believe that God will allow a man to give his
wife the right of divorcement, and make the mother
•of his children a wanderer and a vagrant ? There is
not one word about women in the Old Testament ex
cept the word shame and humiliation. The God of the
Bible does not think woman is as good as man. She
was never worth mentioning. It did not take the pains
to recount the death of the mother of us all. I have no
respect for any book that does not treat woman as the
equal of man. And if there is any God in this uni
verse who thinks more of me than he thinks of my wife,
he is not well acquainted with both of us. And yet
they say that that was done on account of the hardness
of their hearts; and that was done in a community
where the law was so fierce that it stoned a man to
death for picking up sticks on Sunday. Would it not
have been better to stone to death every man who
�Mistakes of Moses.
abused his wife, and to allow them to pick up stickson account of the hardness of their hearts ? If God
wanted to take those Jews from Egypt to the land of
Canaan, why didn’t he do it instantly? If he wasgoing to do a miracle, why didn’t he do one worth
talking about ?
After God had killed all the first-born in Egypt, after
he had killed all the cattle, still Egypt could raise an
army that could put to flight 600,000 men. And be
cause this God overwhelmed the Egyptian army, he
bragged about it for a thousand years, repeatedly
calling the attention of the Jews to the fact that heoverthrew Pharaoh and his hosts. Did he help mucin
with their 600,000 men ? We find by the records of theday that the Egyptian standing army at that time was
never more than 100,000 men. Must we believe all
these stories in order to get to heaven when we die ?
Must you judge of a man’s character by the number of
stories he believes ? Are we to get to heaven by creed
or by deed ? That is the question. Shall we reason,,
or shall we simply believe? Ah, but they say the
Bible is not inspired about those little things. The
Bible says the rabbit and the hare chew the cud, but
they do not. They have a tremulous motion of the'
lip. But the being that made them says they chew
the cud. The Bible, therefore, is not inspired in na
tural history. Is it inspired in its astrology? No..
Well, what is it inspired in? In its law? Thousands
of people say that if it had not bee.n for the ten com
mandments we would not have known any better than
to rob and steal. Suppose a man planted an acre of
potatoes, hoed them all summer, and dug them in the
fall; and suppose a man had sat upon the fence all thetime and watched him, do you believe it would benecessary for that man to read the ten commandmentsto find out who, in his judgment, had a right to take
those potatoes ? All laws against larceny have been
made by industry to protect the fruits of its labor.
Why is there a law against murder ? Simply because
a large majority of people object to being murdered.
That is all. And all these laws were in force thou
sands of years before that time.
�Mistakes of Moses.
23
One of the commandments said they should not
make any graven images, and that was the death of art
in Palestine. No sculptor has ever enriched stone with
the divine forms of beauty in that country; and any
commandment that is the death of art is not a good
commandment. But they say the Bible is morally in
spired, and they tell me there is no civilisation without
this Bible. Then God knows that just as well as you
do. God always knew it, and if you can’t civilise a
nation without a Bible, why didn’t God give every
nation just one Bible to start with? Why did God
allow hundreds of thousands and billions of billions to
go down to hell just for the lack of a Bible ? They
say that it is morally inspired. Well, let us examine
it. I want to be fair about this thing, because I am
willing to stake my salvation or damnation on this
question, whether the Bible is true or not. I say it is
not; and upon that I am willing to wager my soul. Is
there a woman here who believes in the institution of
polygamy ? Is there a man here who believes in that
infamy? You say : “No, we do not.” Then you are
better than your God was 4,000 years ago. Four thou
sand years ago he believed in it, taught it, and upheld
it. I pronounce it and denounce it the infamy of in
famies. It robs our language of every sweet and
tender word in it. It takes the fireside away for ever.
It takes the meaning out of the words father, mother,
sister, brother, and turns the temple of love into a vile
den, where crawl the slimy snakes of lust and hatred.
I was in Utah a little while ago, and was on the moun
tain where God used to talk to Brigham Young. He
never said anything to me. I said it was just as rea
sonable that God in the nineteenth century would talk
to a polygamist in Utah as it was that 4,000 years ago,
on Mount Sinai, he talked to Moses upon that hellish
and damnable question.
I have no love for any God who believes in poly
gamy. There is no heaven on this earth save where
the one woman loves the one man, and the one man
loves the one woman. I guess it is not inspired on the
polygamy question. Maybe it is inspired about reli
gious liberty. God says that if anybody differs with
�24
Mistakes of Moses.
you about religion, “ kill him.” He told his peculiar
people: “ If anyone teaches a different religion, kill
him! ” He did not say : “ Try and convince him that
he is wrong,” but “ kill him.” He did not say : “ I
am in the miracle business, and I will convince him,”
but “ kill him.” He said to every husband : “ If your
wife, that you love as your own soul, says, 1 Let us go
and worship other gods,’ then ‘ Thy hand shall be first
upon her, and she shall be stoned with stones until
she dies.’ ” Well, now, I hate a God of that kind, and
I cannot think of being nearer heaven than to be away
from him. A God tells a man to kill his wife simply
because she differs with him on religion 1 If the real
God were to tell me to kill my wife, I would not do it.
If you had lived in Palestine at that time, and your
wife—the mother of your children—had woke up at
night and said : “ I am tired of Jehovah. He is always
turning up that board bill. He is always telling about
whipping the Egyptians. He is always killing some
body. I am tired of him. Let us worship the sun.
The sun has clothed the world in beauty; it has
covered the earth with green and flowers ; by its
divine light I first saw your face; its light has enabled
me to look into the eyes of my beautiful babe. Let us
worship the sun, father and mother of light and love
and joy.” Then what would it be your duty to do—
kill her ? Do you believe any real God ever did that ?
Your hand should be first upon her, and when you
took up some ragged rock and hurled it against the
white bosom filled with love for you, and saw running
away the red current of her sweet life, then you would
look up to heaven and receive the congratulations of
the infinite fiend whose commandments you had to
obey. I guess the Bible was not inspired about reli
gious liberty. Let me ask you right here. Suppose, as
a matter of fact, God gave those laws to the Jews, and
told them : “ Whenever a man preaches a different
religion, kill him,” and suppose that afterwards that
same God took upon himself flesh and came to the
world and taught and preached a different religion,
and the Jews crucified him, did he not reap exactly
what he sowed ?
�Mistakes of Moses.
25
Maybe this book is inspired about war. God told
the Israelites to overrun that country, and kill every
man, woman, and child for defending their native
land. Kill the old men? Yes. Kill the women?
Certainly. And the little dimpled babes in the cradle
that smile and coo in the face of murder—dash out
their brains ? That is the will of God. Will you tell
me that any God ever commanded such infamy ? Kill
the men and the women, and the young men and the
babes! “What shall we do with the maidens?”
“Give them to the rabble murderers!” Do you be
lieve that God ever allowed the roses of love and the
violets of modesty that shed their perfume in the heart
of a maiden to be trampled beneath the brutal feet of
lust ? If there is any God, I pray him to write in the
book of eternal remembrance, opposite to my name,
that I denied that lie. Whenever a woman reads a
Bible and comes to that passage she ought to throw the
book from her with contempt and scorn. Do you tell
me that any decent God would do that ? What would
the devil have done under the same circumstances ?
Just think of it; and yet that is the God that we wish
to get into the Constitution. That is the God we teach
our children about, so that they will be sweet and
tender, amiable and kind ! That monster—that fiend!
I guess the Bible is not inspired about religious liberty,
nor about war.
Then, if it is not inspired about these things, may
be it is inspired about slavery. God tells the Jews to
buy up the children of the heathen round about, and
they should be servants for them. What is a “ser
vant” ? If they struck a “servant” and he died imme
diately, punishment was to follow; but if the injured
man lingered a while there was no punishment,
because the servant represented their money! Do you
believe that it is right—that God made one man to
work for another and to receive pay in rations ? Do
you believe God said that a whip on the naked back
was the legal tender for labor performed ? Is it possi
ble that the real God ever gave such infamous blood
thirsty laws ? What more does he say ?
When the time of a married slave expired, he could
�26
Mistakes of Moses.
not take his wife and children with him. Then if the
slave did not wish to desert his family, he had his ears
pierced with an awl, and became his master’s property
for ever. Do you believe that God ever turned the
dimpled cheeks of little children into iron chains to
hold a man in slavery ? Do you know that a God like
that would not make a respectable devil! I want
none of his mercy. I want no part and no lot in the
heaven of such a God. I will go to perdition where
there is human sympathy. The only voice we have
ever had from either of those other worlds came from
hell. There was a rich man who prayed his brothers
to attend to Lazarus, so that they might “ not come to
this place.” That is the only instance, so far as we
know, of souls across the river having any sympathy..
And I would rather be in hell asking for water than
in heaven denying that petition. Well, what is this
book inspired about? Where does the inspiration
come from ? Why was it that so many animals were
killed ? It was simply to make atonement for man—
that is all. They killed something that had not com
mitted a crime, in order that the one who had com
mitted a crime might be acquitted. Based upon that
dea is the atonement of the Christian religion. That
is the reason I attack this book; because it is the basis
of another infamy—viz., that one man can be good for
another, or that one man can sin for another. I deny
it. You have got to be good for yourself; you have
got to sin for yourself. The trouble about the atone
ment is, that it saves the wrong man. For instance, I
kill some one. He is a good man. He loves his wife
and children, and tries to make them happy ; but he is
not a Christian, and he goes to hell. Just as soon as I
am convicted and cannot get a pardon, I get religion,,
and I go to heaven. The hand of mercy cannot reach
down through the shadows of hell to my victim.
There is no atonement for the saint—only for the
sinner and the criminal. The atonement saves the
wrong man. I have said that I would never make a
lecture at all without attacking this doctrine. I did
not care what I started out on. I was always going to
attack this doctrine. And in my conclusion I want to
�Mistakes of Moses.
27
draw you a few pictures of the Christian heaven. But
before I do that I want to say the rest I have to say
about Moses. I want you to understand that the Bible
was never printed until 1488. I want you to know
that up to that time it was in manuscript, in possession
of those who could change it if they wished ; and they
did change it, because no two ever agreed. Much of
it was in the waste basket of credulity, in the open
mouth of tradition, and in the dull ear of memory. I
want you also to know that the Jews themselves neveragreed as to what books were inspired, and that therewere a lot of books written that were not incorporated
in the Old Testament. I want you to know that twoor three years before Christ, the Hebrew manuscript
was translated into Greek, and that the original from,
which the translation was made has never been seen
since. Some Latin Bibles were found in Africa, but
no two agreed ; and then they translated the Septua. gint into the languages of Europe, and no two agreed..
Henry VIII. took a little time between murdering his
wives to see that the Word of God was translated cor
rectly. You must recollect that we are indebted tomurderers for our Bibles and our creeds. Constantine,
who helped on the good work in its early stage, mur
dered his wife and child, mingling their blood with
the blood of the Savior.
The Bible that Henry VIII. got up did not suit, and
then his daughter, the murderess of Mary Queen of
Scots, got up another edition, whichfalso did not suit
and, finally, that philosophical idiot, King James, pre
pared the edition which we now have. There are at
least 100,000 errors in the Old Testament, but every
body sees that it is not enough to invalidate its claim
to infallibility. But these errors are gradually being
fixed, and hereafter the prophet will be fed by Arabs
instead of “ ravens,” and Samson’s 300 foxes will be
300 “sheaves” already bound, which were fired and
thrown into the standing wheat. I want you all toknow that there was no contemporaneous literature at
the time the Bible was composed, and that the Jews
were infinitely ignorant in their day and generation—
that they were isolated by bigotry and wickedness
�.28
Mistakes of Moses.
from the rest of the world. I want you to know that
there are 1,400,000,000 of people in the world; and that
with all the talk and work of the societies, only
120,000,000 have got Bibles. I want you to understand
that not one person in 100 in this world ever read the
Bible, and no two ever understood it alike who did
read it, and that no person probably ever understood it
-aright. I want you to understand that where this Bible
has been man has hated his brother—there have been
dungeons, racks, thumbscrews and the sword. I want
you to know that the cross has been in partnership
with the sword, and that the religion of Jesus Christ
was established by murderers, tyrants, and hypocrites.
I want you to know that the church carried the black
flag. Then talk about the civilizing influence of this
religion.
Now, I want to give an idea or two in regard to the
Christian’s heaven. Of all the selfish things in this
world, it is one man wanting to get to heaven caring
nothing what becomes of the rest of mankind. “ If I *
can only get my little soul in.” I have always noticed
that the people who have the smallest souls make the
most fuss about getting them saved. Here is what we
are taught by the Church to-day. We are taught
by it that fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters
can all be happy in heaven, no matter who may be in
hell ; that the husband can be happy there with the
wife that would have died for him at any moment
of his life, in hell. But they say : “We don’t believe
in fire. What we believe in now is remorse.”
What will you have remorse for ? For the mean
things you have done when you are in hell ? Will
.you have any remorse for the mean things you have
done when you are in heaven ? Or will you be so good
then that you won’t care how you used to be ? Don’t
.you see what an infinitely mean belief that is ? I tell
you to-day that, no matter in what heaven you may be,
no matter in what star you are spending the summer,
if you meet another man you have wronged you will
drop a little behind in the tune. And no matter in
what part of hell you are, and you meet some one
whom you have succored, whose nakedness you have
�Mistakes of Moses.
29'
clothed, and whose famine you have fed, the fire will
cool up a little. According to this Christian doctrine,
when you are in heaven you won’t care how mean you
were once.
What must be the social condition of a gentleman in
heaven who will admit that he never would have been
there if he had not got scared ? What must be the
social position of an angel who will always admit that
if another had not pitied him he ought to have been
damned ? Is it a compliment to an infinite God to say
that every being he ever made deserved to be damned
the minute he got him done, and that he will damn
everybody he has not had a chance to make over ? Is
it possible that somebody else can be good for me, and'
that this doctrine of the atonement is the only anchor
for the human soul ?
For instance, here is a man seventy years of age,,
who has been a splendid fellow and lived according to'
the laws of nature. He has got about him splendid'
children, whom he has loved and cared for with all
his heart. But he did not happen to believe in this
Bible ; he did not believe in the Pentateuch. He did
not believe that because some children made fun of a
gentleman who was short of hair, God sent two bears
and tore the little darlings to pieces. He had a tender
heart, and he thought about the mothers who would
take the pieces, the bloody fragments of the children,
and press them to their bosoms in a frenzy of grief ;
he thought about their wails and lamentations, and
could not believe that God was such an infinite mon
ster. That was all he thought, but he went to hell..
Then, there is another man who made a hell on earth
for his wife, who had to be taken to the insane asylum,
and his children were driven from home and were
wanderers and vagrants in the world. But just be
tween the last sin and the last breath, this fellow got
religion, and he never did another thing except to take
his medicine. He never did a solitary human being a
favor, and he died and went to heaven. Don’t you
think he would be astonished to see the other man
in hell, and say to himself: “ Is it possible that
such a splendid character should bear such fruit,.
�30
Mistakes of Moses.
and that all my rascality at last has brought me next
to God ? ”
Or, let us put another case. You were once alone in
in the desert—no provisions, no water, no hope. Just
when your life was at its lowest ebb, a man appeared,
gave you water and food and brought you safely out.
How you would bless that man. Time rolls on. You
die and go to heaven; and one day you see through
the black night of hell, the friend who saved your life,
begging for a drop of water to cool his parched lips. He
cries to you : “ Remember what I did in the desert—
give me to drink.” How mean, how contemptible you
would feel to see his suffering and be unable to relieve
him. But that is the Christian heaven. We sit by the
fireside and see the flames and the sparks fly up the
•chimney —everybody happy, and the cold wind and
sleet are beating on the window, and out on the door
step is a mother with a child on her breast freezing.
How happy it makes a fireside, that beautiful con
trast. And we say “ God is good,” and there we sit, and
she sits and moans, not one night but for ever. Or we
are sitting at the table with our wives and children,
everybody eating, happy and delighted, and Famine
•comes and pushes out its shrivelled palms, and with
hungry eyes, implores us for a crust; how that
would increase the appetite ! And yet that is the
Christian heaven. Don’t you see that these infamous
doctrines petrify the human heart. And I would have
every one who hears me, swear that he will never con
tribute another dollar to build another church, in which
are taught such infamous lies. I want every one of you
to say that you never will, directly or indirectly, give a
dollar tetany man to preach that falsehood. It has done
harm enough. It has covered the world with blood.
It has filled the asylums with the insane. It has cast
a shadow in the heart, in the sunlight, of every good
and tender man and woman. I say, let us rid the
heavens of this monster, and write upon the dome :
“ Liberty, love, and law.”
No matter what may come to me or what may come to
you, let us do exactly what we believe to be right, and
let us give the exact thought in our brains. Rather
�Mistakes of Moses.
31
than have this Christianity true, I would rather all the
'Gods would destroy themselves this morning. I would
rather the whole universe would go to nothing, if such
a thing were possible, this instant. Rather than have
the glittering dome of pleasure reared on the eternal
abyss of pain, I would see the utter and eternal destruc
tion of this universe. I would rather see the shining
fabric of our universe crumble to unmeaning chaos
and take itself where oblivion broods and memory for
gets. I would rather the blind Samson of some im
prisoned force, released by thoughtless chance, should
so rack and strain this world that man in stress and
straint, in astonishment and fear, should suddenly fall
back to savagery and barbarity. I would rather that
this thrilled and thrilling globe, shorn of all life, should
in its cycles rub the wheel, the parent star, on which the
light should fall as fruitlessly as falls the gaze of love
on death, than t@ have this infamous doctrine of eter
nal punishment true ; rather than have this infamous
selfishness of a heaven for a few and a hell for the
many established as the word of God !
One world at a time is my doctrine. Let us make
someone happy here. Happiness is the interest that a
decent action draws, and the more decent actions you
do the larger your income will be. Let every man try
to make his wife happy, his children happy. Let every
man try to make every day a joy, and God cannot afford
to damn such a man. I cannot help God ; I cannot
injure God. I can help people. I can injure people.
Consequently humanity is the only real religion.
I cannot better close this lecture than by quoting
four lines from Robert Burns :
“ To make a happy fireside clime
To weans and wife,
That’s the true pathos and sublime
Of human life.”
��
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
Mistakes of Moses : a lecture delivered to immense audiences in the United States
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Inscription on front flyleaf half title page: Mr R.M. Elliott, 9 Henry St [?], Deptford, to be returned to the owner, not forgotten. No. 69k (1883 ed.) in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1883
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N375
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 (Mistakes of Moses : a lecture delivered to immense audiences in the United States), 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. O.T. Pentateuch
Moses
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b87110da396212b9a5c37ec125ad77ad.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hotowe8GAyasQ1hfVQm-dP%7EZQsR3eKHOHlurzNzULp3iJtZ2JdtOglScYaCIlCB8BrdueQo2eekBxDmei4zlawj-UjTfR0IUG1zkoGCiRQmZDVQK7weMGi1bbFzJjEByhS-NuZMsmxOm6UeTKe9OLYdIQgiy0EdDKCY-Sfqhuwk%7E5hvd8-rQEw%7EWPPzn9y2s3LIcf9fYiJwU5JclJL4BjPAzEG59VJQ6xcUcQ-yxBOTo-QBZIP2nCSbl5hNFVpzmt8sEaDqfuLgh-kpjzT%7EqPEelvdV1oo0g3HTjrh8mm%7ErNuzFlnho5rqn3w6rEu1wvWNpepaQ91Ms5cX7hbVZP7g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bb99dc6ddd013ba11acd1dc578c4ee44
PDF Text
Text
3 '1 ? 4-
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
siin-s
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE
ANTAGONISTIC.
BY CHARLES WATTS.
The study of science, and its relation to Biblical records,
should be both interesting and instructive. Science is
defined as being an investigation into the phenomena of ex
istence, and the best application of the lessons derived there
by to the requirements of life. Science 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. It has been urged
that we can have no complete system of science. To some
extent this is true; for no science is perfect, if by perfection
is meant that all that is knowable is known. But the disco
veries that have been made, and the scientific truths that
have been brought to light, are sufficient to show the fallacy
of many Biblical teachings. For instance, so far as man
has investigated the statements of the Bible, and the lessons
of science, their antagonism to each other has become
apparent. This is recognised by some professing Chris
tians, hence they assert that the Bible does not pretend to
teach science. Such a statement, however, is unfortunate
for the orthodox 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 improvement. The national and individual condi
tion 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, but should ex
pound 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 there can be no doubt that the
Bible does refer to scientific subjects, only, unfortunately,
in so doing, it exhibits its shortcomings by stating the very
�2
opposite to what is correct. Surely when, and how, man
was made, the phenomena of the solar system, and how
diseases and death entered the world, are scientific ques
tions. 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. This may be expected from the history and nature
of the book. It was evidently written at a remote period,
by persons who possessed little or no scientific knowledge,
and its teachings are alleged to be fixed for all time and all
people. Progress is thus, so far, practically ignored. No
matter what subsequent ages may reveal, upon the Christian
hypothesis, the Biblical statements must be adhered to. This
places the book in direct opposition to science, and dan
gerous to the development of an advancing civilisation. No
book whose teachings are stationary can accord with modern
wants and aspirations. That which in the days of Moses
might have been considered right, and in accordance with
the laws of nature, science has since proved to be incorrect,
and what Christ taught as natural laws, subsequent experi
ence has shown to be in opposition to scientific discoveries.
Science and the Bible, therefore, differ widely—the one
being progressive, and the other stationary.
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 to
which “ flesh is heir to,” but can even bid the messenger of
death pause in its gloomy and desolating march. Science
has conferred its manifold 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 bar
barism to partial civilisation, and stimulated man to eman
cipate himself from the curse of degrading superftitions.
That which was hid 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 Atlantic friends by that cable which
connects nation with nation. By the mighty propelling
power of steam we can, in a comparatively brief period,
penetrate the very length and breadth of the land. As the
�3
late Prince Albert 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, mag
netism, arid 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 saddening 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 igno
rant misrepresentation. The history of science has been
one continual conflict with religious fanaticism and priestly
intolerance. Too frequently its usefulness has been im
paired, and its exponents have been tortured, and made
to deny the evidences of their own senses. Perhaps from a
theological standpoint we could not expect aught else. A
study of the histories of Bible believers will scarcely justify
the supposition that they would assist in those discoveries
which show the errors of their faith. There have been but
few revelations of any magnitude, in any important branch
of science, but what have exhibited the fallacy of Bible re
cords. The antiquity of man has been proved to be consider
ably greater than Moses alleges ; geology has demonstrated
that the world existed thousands of years anterior to the
Jewish account; the Christian theory that all mankind des
cended from one primeval pair is now given up as unreli
able ; the astronomy of the Bible has long been exploded;
the universal flood mentioned in Genesis finds no scientific
supporters; the possession of devils by the human body, as
believed in by Christ, is regarded as an exploded supersti
tion ; the teaching 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 de
parted,” is deemed too revolting and absurd to be regarded as
more than a fiction. In every field the “ sacred writings” ap
pear the very antithesis of science. Fortunately, truth has so
far triumphed, that notwithstanding all opposition, science
is now appreciated, and existence is regulated by its laws.
The Bible but nominally exists, and its teachings are sup
planted by those of a higher and a more practical nature.
In demonstrating the difference that exists between the
�4
Bible and science, the supposed creation of the world and
the origin of man are the first subjects that suggest them
selves for consideration. Accepting the chronology of the
Hebrew records, there is but little difficulty in ascertaining
how long man has been on the earth. For instance, in
Genesis, we read that whenAdam was 130 years old his son
Seth was born ; when Seth was 105, Enos was born ; when
Enos was 90, Cainan 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, Methusaleh was born; when Methusaleh was 187, Lamechwas born ; when Lamech was 182,
Noah was born. Adding these dates up, we have from the
birth of Adam to that of Noah, 1056 years ; 600 years
after this, the flood appears, making from the creation of man
to the flood, 1,656 years. Then reckoning from the flood
to the birth of Christ, 2501, and from Christ to the present
time, 1874, we have a total of 6031 years since man first
appeared on the earth. Now in Exodus xx. it is said that
“in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and
all that in them is,” and in Genesis i. 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 recent
lecture on “ The Alleged Historical Difficulties of the Old
and New Testament,” delivered for the Christian Evidence
Society, said :—“ The first difficulty, really historical, which
meets us when we open the volume of Scripture, is the short
ness of the time into which all history is (or at any rate ap
pears 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 ver
sion, but a very little exceeds a thousand years. . Conse
quently, it has beenusual to regard Scripture as authoritatively
laying it down that all mankind 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
�5
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 insufficient.
Egypt and Babylonia have histories, as settled kingdoms,
which reach back (according to the most moderate of mo
dern critical historians) to about the time at which. the
numbers of our English Bible place the’ deluge. Consider
able diversities of language can be proved to have existed
at that date; markedly different physical types appear not
much subsequently; civilisation in Egypt has, about the
pyramid period, which few now place later than b.c. 2450,
an advanced character; the arts exist 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.”
That the Biblical assumptions are contradicted by sci
ence is beyond all doubt. Turning to the great book of
nature, and reading the geological lessons inscribed therein,
we find, in the words of Babbage, that “ the mass of evi
dence which combines to prove the great antiquity of the
earth itself is so irresistible and so unshaken by any oppos
ing facts, that none but those who are alike incapable of
observing the facts and appreciating the reasoning can for
a moment 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 Jives in
the study of geology, have arrived at the conclusion that
there exists irresistible evidence that the date of the earth’s
firstUormation is far anterior to the epoch supposed to be
assigned to it by Moses; and it is now admitted by all
competent 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 pre
sent state.” In reply to this, it is urged by Bible believers that
a long period 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-adapta
tion of the chaos of a previous world. If this were so,
how is it no allusion is made to animals or plants as being
.existence before the time referred to by Moses ? Is it
�6
not said by this writer that light was created on the first
of the six days, and the sun on the fourth ? Admit this
correct, 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 ?
It is also equally conclusive that man existed upon
the earth long anterior to the time fixed by Moses.
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 preju
dice, to the' monumental records of Egypt as our best
guide. Even these soon lose themselves, not in the primi
tive 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 lead
ing geologists everywhere. And, although antiquity so
extreme for man’s existence on earth may shock some pre
conceived opinions, it is none the less certain thatlhe rapid
�|
7
accumulation of new facts is fast familiarising the minds of the
scientific world to this conviction. The monuments of Egypt
have already carried 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 archaeologists as Lepsius, Bunsen, Birch,
De Longperier, Humboldt, &c., but on those of also strictly
orthodox writers, Kenrick, Hincks, Osburn, and, we may
add, of all theologians who have, really mastered the monu
ments of Egypt. Nor do these monuments reveal to us
only a single race at this early epoch, in full tide of civilisa
tion, but they exhibit faithful portraits of the same African
and Asiatic races, in all their diversity, which hold inter
course 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 Bible and science also disagree as to the time occu
pied in the so-called creation of the world. According to
the ist chapter of Genesis, this creation was accomplished
in six days, and this theory is confirmed by the words of
the Decalogue as given in Exodus xx. n, Mr. Priaulx
says “ that in reviewing this creation we are struck by its
division into days. These days, though several of them are
undetermined by any revolution of the earth round the sun,
were, nevertheless, no doubt, meant and understood to be
natural days of twenty-four 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 cha
otic period. Geologists, on the contrary, 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. Now, what is the
theological explanation of this antagonism between the
Bible and geology? Why, it is said that the days men
tioned by Moses were not natural days of twenty-four hours,
but long periods of thousands of years. The objections to
�8
this assumption are numerous. The Mosaic periods weredivided into two parts—one of light, and the other of dark
ness. If, therefore, the day in Genesis meant a thousand
years of light, the night represented the same period of
darkness. Moreover, it is declared by Moses that God
rested the seventh day, so that upon the hypothesis that
the day was a thousand years we have the admission that
for ten hundred years the universe continued its course
without the aid of God. But, says Dr. Sexton, in his “Con
cessions 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 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 therefore the sun was not requisite, since the actinic
part of the sun’s rays is equally as indispensable to vegeta
tion as the luminous portion that we call light.”
The Bible account of the material from which man was.
m?de differs from the facts discovered by scientific investi
�9
gation. According to Genesis, man was made from the dust
of the earth; chemical analysis, on the other hand, has
proved dust does not contain the elements found in the
human organisation. The late Dr. Herapath, of Bristol,
wrote thus boldly upon this subject :—“From our days of
boyhood it has been most assiduously taught us that ‘ 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
oneof the elements of organisedstrUcture,for no soil or earthy
material capable of being employed by agriculturists, can
be found without 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 neg
lected 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 organised 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 the
human body by weight is water. Such a proportion of this fluid
certainly cannot be found in dust. The principal elementary
substances to be found in our bodies are oxygen, hydrogen,
nitrogen, and carbon ; these are absent from dust, except a
trifling modicum of oxygen. Silicon, which is observable in
dust, can scarcely be recognised in the human body. The
Lamaic creed supposes man is the production of water.
Priaulx suggests had the writer of Genesis adopted this
theory, he would have been somewhat nearer the truth.
Moses alleges that mankind have descended from one pair,
named Adam and Eve. To indicate the fallacy of this, it is
only necessary to refer to the fact, so unmistakably proved,
that man and woman were on the earth thousands of years
before the time of Adam and Eve. “ The theory,” remarks
Gliddon, “ that all nations are made of one blood, is en
tirely exploded.” Besides, if it were correct that all man
kind 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
distinction characteristics would be found. Such, however,
is not the case. “We know,” observe Nott andGliddon,“ of
�IO
no archaeologist 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 distinctly 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 monuments of the
seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties, as if the paintings had
been executed by an artist of our present age. Hence,
nothing short of a miracle could have evolved all the multi
farious 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 in
vented, and dogmatically defended ; but it is a bare postu
late, 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
existing between the Negro and the Caucasian has been
produced by external causes, such change must have been
effected according to Bible chronology in about 1000 years.
This theory is decidedly contradicted by science and experi
ence.”
Another Bible doctrine which clashes with science is,
that “ by one man sin entered into the world, and death
by sin;” that is, that through the supposed disobedience of
Adam, death was introduced as a punishment for the
alleged offence. In the first place, death, so far from being
a punishment, is 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 pot 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
�II
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 con
dition. But this theory of Adam being the cause of the
introduction of death, involves a few difficulties. If death
had not been introduced, could the world contain its everincreasing inhabitants ? And would it have been capable
of producing provisions sufficient to support such an
immense multitude? Suppose tjie serpent had not played
its “ little game,” could a man that had no knowledge 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 burnt 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 their 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 organisation begins to lose its vitality, and we
slowly but surely exhaust life's power, and death ensues as
certain 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 ” deatlrwas not a necessary conse
quence 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 contrary, his
organisation were of an entirely different structure, how
could he have been our first parent ? Children do not
differ in kind from those who give them birth. So unscien
tific does this Biblical doctrine appear even to many wellinformed clergymen that they have ceased to regard it as a
literal fact. They view it as figurative language or Hebrew
poetry; and it requires no great prophetic power to foretell
that, when science sheds its light more fully among man
kind, facts will take the place of the Bible, and the truths
�12
of nature will supplant the teachings of an ancient and mis
leading theology.
Modern researches have unmistakeably established the fact
that between science and the Mosaic account of the flood
there is an absolute antagonism. The Bible states 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 con
tinually.” Not two thous^ad years before this, so the book,
relates, God had made man pure and morally upright; had
given him the advantage of divine superintendence, and.
subsequently the edification of the preaching of Noah.
These precautions, however, did not, according to the
Hebrew narrative, prevent mankind degenerating so rapidly
that the Lord repented “that he had made man, and it
grieved him at his heart.” God possessed, it is said, infinite
power, wisdom, 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, excepFone family. This was a terrible
resolve, opposed to every sentiment of justice and 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 warning, the cold
water process proved a failure. The people are reported as
being no better after the deluge than they were before.
Even Noah, upon whom God bestowed his preserving care,
was not made moral by the experiment, for on landing from
his excursion he immediately became intoxicated, acted
indecently, and indulged in a tyrant’s curse at the expense
of an unoffending posterity.. <
My 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 inves
tigations and the revelations of science. This fact has
become so palpable 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
�i3 z
teaches the universality of the deluge, as shown by the
following extracts from Genesis, vi. and vii. : “ And the
Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from
the face of the earth ; both man and beast, and the creep
ing 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 the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything
that is in the earth shall die.” “ Every living substance that
I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.”
“ And all flesh died that moved fipon 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 re
garded 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 asto
nishing than the universal.” Professor Hitchcock ob
serves : “ 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 suppo
sition that the flood was partial, it would be interesting
to know what prevented the "water from finding its level ?
Moreover, 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 to visit.
Some of the objections to. the Mosaic account of the flood
may be thus stated :—
�1. Geological. The study of this science proves to demon
stration 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 progressing, and are still in process, evidently extend
in their connection to the pre-Adamite antiquity. “ This
conclusion,” says the Rev. 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 l^ilser, in his “ Testimony 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
materials, exhibit no marks of denudation. According to
the calculations 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 provinces of France, Kalisch, 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 Men subject to many floods,
it has never been visited bv one as described in the
Bible.
2. The Scarcity of Water. The account says : “ And
the waters prevailed exceediagly upon the earth, and all
the high hills 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, therefore, required to cover this moun
tain would be, in the estimation of Dr. Pye Smith, Pro
fessor Hitchcock, and many '’other eminent writers, eight
�I5<
times greater than what already existed. Was it supplied ?
If so, whence did it come ?
3. The Size of the Ark. This vessel is alleged to have
Been not more than 450 feet long, 75 feet broad, and 45
feethigh; 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 accommoda
tion for this vast congregatWTL? 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
the existence of some forms of life. And whence was
obtained the food to sustain for so long a period the carni
vorous and the herbivorous animals—the swallows, ant
eaters, spiders, and flies ? There is a little difficulty also
about the light. There were, it appears, three stories in the
Ark, and but one window. Now, where was the window
positioned ? In the uppel^tory ? Possibly, then, the
dwellers in the other two stories 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.
4. The Collection of Animals. The difficulties attend
ing the narrative of collecting the live stock into one
happy family are thus aptly put by Mr. T. R. R. Stebbing,
M.A. : “ To achieve it he [Noah] must have gone in
person, or sent expeditions^o Australia for the kangaroo
and the wombat, to the frozen North for the Polar bear, to
Africa for the gorilla and the chimpanzee ; the hippopota
mus of the Nile, the elk, the bison, the dodo, the apteryx,
the emeu, and the cassowary must have been brought toge
ther by vast efforts from distant quarters....... Sheep, game,
caterpillars, beasts of prey, snails, eagles, fleas, and titmice
mnst all have their share of attention. Unusual pains must
be employed to secure therruuninjured. 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 another while the search is continued for]
rats, and bats, and vipers, jmd 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 begsffi to subside, the inhabitants of
the.'-'Ark existed for nearly eight months in a temperature
“■ 3,00'G'feet above the region of perpetual snow.” It surely
will not be contended' tnM this statement harmonises with
science any more than the record of an olive tree retaining
its life after being underlie pressure of several tons’ weight
of water for nearly tfiree-qf^te^ of a year. Colenso says :
“The difficulty, that so long an immersion in deep water
Would kill the olive, had, no cjbubt, never occurred to the
Wfiter, who may have observed that trees survived ordinary
R^Urtial floods, and inferred that they would just aS well be
I -able to sustain the deluge ta'which his irnaginattofrsubjected
■ them.’^ Kalisch observes
It is agreed by all botanical
. authorities, that, though pa^fial inundations of rivers do not
Idtih.'•or. materially change the vegetation of a region, the
infukldn of great quantities,of .salt water destroys it entirely
for long periods. But the earth produced the olive and the
vine 'immediately after the’ta&fation of the Deluge.”
In addition to the discrepancies between the Bible and
.Science a,bpve pointed out, tgp following may be mentioned.
The Bible teaches that mai&ind has degenerated from a
state of perfection; science, fn the contrary, indicates that
the career of mati fias beeti'iiugressive, and that each age,
profiting by d^bb'ffehce, hasten superior to its predecessor.
\ The Bible affiftris that at a catain command the sun and
moon stood still; science declares that such an event could
* never have happened. The/B^ble asserts that all the king
doms of the world were exhibited from a certain high
mountain ; geography teaches that there are many parts of
the world totally invisible frjfoc any one elevation. The
Bible says that an iron axe floated on the surface of the
'water; experience proves thi^i^be impossible. The Bible
alleges that the earth and all tnings therein will ultimately
be destroyed by fire ; scientific.Tacts are against the truth
of such an allegation. Thus it is seen that the Bible and
science are so antagonistic that afcy attempt to harmonise
them is hopeless.
PRICE TM&PENCE.
1 —....
•-
.------------
Printed and Published by C. WArrs, 17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet
Street, Londo% E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Science and the Bible antagonistic
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 16 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[C. Watts]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N675
Subject
The topic of the resource
Science
Agnosticism
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 (Science and the Bible antagonistic), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Agnosticism
NSS
Science and Religion
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a23bab24c7f801996b78c48a5980b5f6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=jLXRwdOFpNs85Xe3aG5jJ5wj0%7E-xqxFV%7EBkWA0sN8p4bHR2bS8CNxo6eG4dICX0skax1431sMaTSlxpQ-4v-OEuYwQoa3LFbK1fUBQUixk-RCNQtg7xLj9KrDtadaVu4lfHv1wK5-FM2ICx5uhEoH0zPXvYXm7%7ERP-4niAHiAJkHpcz%7EHDScipzMYwWcwwG71yfQwDK08l4tWYUcs1QhnOVi1oLzHcGnrKb%7EtjuhvoGlz3p4exe4LH3Yhdvq-1%7EuRJIk4eETMt%7EvshyIoej-fqgahWgLkGZt9YPTvyqCkrVQTgZw0Z98XSM9Cd8OA7wmc%7EMiPOIzrtsdXivDmvrxyw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1a6cbf8707dd7b0b2aade17c51c38a63
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL
MAKERS
RUTH, SAMUEL, DAVID
SOLOMON & OTHERS
MOSES
JOSHUA AND JUDGES
Jk
BY
ARTHUR B.
MOSS.
London:
WATTS & Co., 84, FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price One Penny.
��BIBLE-MAKERS.
------- u ... j -n'I. oil n3XGVA,ni.?.9ffj;.
,
Git*, !Rrri»rf fBiw fritH
MOSES.
‘ ‘
1 J
Emerson says that “the sacred books of each nation
express for each the supreme result of their experience.”
This is undoubtedly true. By reference to the sacred
writings of a people we can, to a very large extent, form
a correct estimate of their intellectual and moral ad
vancement. A Bible, in fact, should be the result of
the joint labours of the best scientist, moralist, social
reformer, historian, poet, dramatist, and novelist of the
time in which it is written. Not that these eminent
personages collaborate to produce a book, as dramatic
authors now-a-days do to produce a play, one supplying
the plot, the other the dialogue, and in some instances a
third being called in to compose some music for a song
or two, introduced for the special reason of giving the
hero or heroine a chance of displaying his or her vocal
talent, and relieving, in some degree, the heavy character
of the piece; but each writer supplying, independent of
the other, essays on those subjects with which he feels
himself most conversant, sometimes venturing an opinion
on matters upon which his knowledge is of the scantiest
kind.
Moses, or whoever the author of the Pentateuch may
have been, belonged to the class of versatile writers
sometimes to be found on the staff of our daily journals,
who feel themselves competent to write on all subjects
in heaven above and earth beneath; who can with ease
polish off an article either to refute Darwin, turn Mill’s
logic inside out, expose its many weaknesses, and, as a
light diversion, pulverise the arguments in Mr. Glad
stone’s latest speech into the most minute particles of
rubbish it is possible to conceive, and with one whiff of
journalistic wisdom scatter all that remains to the four
winds of heaven. Accordingly, we find Moses figuring
�4
BIBLE-MAKERS.
first as a scientist, then as a historian, then as a bio
grapher ; next, after bringing the children of Israel out
of Egypt safely through the Red Sea, as a poet; and lastly
as a moral teacher. Of course, it would be unreasonable
to expect Moses to write ahead of the knowledge of the
times in which he lived, unless, like the theologian, we
credit him with being divinely inspired—a claim which,
as far as I can judge, he never put forward on his own
behalf.
jr
When Moses, on his own responsibility, made Jahveh
create the earth in six days, throw into the infinite
expanse the sun, moon, and stars, and finally make man
and woman after his own image, he merely reflected'the
current beliefs of the best informed persons of the time.
Had he done more than this, he would not have succeeded
in pleasing the people for whom he wrote ; and to be a
successful man even in one’s own day is no small task :
it is indeed to gain a position after which many strive
very arduously, but which few manage to attain. To be
successful through ages, to win the admiration, of the
fWpeople as they increase in wisdom and goodness, is given
only to a few men of rare genius, whose works shed im
perishable lustre upon the nation in which they are born,
only that it may be spread through various sources to all
the peoples of the earth.
“ Sufficient for the day is the success thereof” is the
motto of most men of the world. A popular dramatist,
upon being spoken to by a friend, a short time ago,
anent the unenduring character of his work, and asked
why he did not consider the judgment posterity would
pronounce upon it, caustically replied : “ What do I care
for posterity ? Posterity does not pay me.” And Moses
and others among the Biblical writers regarded posterity
with the same air of ’supercilious disregard, having seem
ingly much more care for the certain popularity of the
hour than the enduring regard of subsequent generations.
Not alone in his unscientific disquisitions did Moses show
that he did not possess an idea above the common pre
vailing sentiments of the Jewish people, but he told them
to act towards slaves and blasphemers in precisely the'
way we may fairly suppose they would have chosen to
act when left to be guided by tl^gir own uncultivated
�BIBLE-MAKERS.
5
feelings and judgment. He told them to buy slaves “ of
the heathen round about them,” and to brutally ill-treat
them, if it pleased them so to do. He commanded them
not to “ suffer a witch to live,” and to barbarously stone
blasphemers to death. Mohammed, in establishing a
new religion many years later, was equally careful in the
Koran (chapter entitled “ The Cow ”) to warn his fol
lowers of the fate of unbelievers, who, he said, would
not believe, whether they were admonished or not.
Fr; In his poetical efforts Moses was singularly tame : he
sang not the song of love or labour, but of strife and
warfare; and it lacked the true poetic ring. But, if his
poetry was bad, his history was worse. When he records
the doings of the Israelites, even though he himself is
commander-in-chief, priest, and deliverer, he writes a
comedy of errors, which at last degenerates into the
broadest of farce. His tragic seriousness is drily and un-consciously humorous, so much so that I can fancy the
late Mr. Compton causing shouts of merriment over the
solemn delivery of Moses’ inimitably grotesque’ account
of the plagues. Even when he is describing such a
sad and shameful occurrence as the flood—a god-wrought
crime unparalleled in the history of the world for its
vindictiveness and cruelty—he gives Noah the stupendous
task of collecting all the animals prior to packing them
“ close as herrings ” in the ark, and the tragedy is un
necessarily delayed while this unspeakably cornig, busi
ness is enacted. As to Moses’s biographical sketches, they are sadly
wanting in many important respects. He does not give
us a particle of information concerning the earlier life of
Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, though we should be much
better able to estimate their qualities if we knew howr they
were trained, who were their instructors and companions,
and what were the social conditions by which they were
surrounded. He gives us an account of such unimportant
affairs as the quarrels of Abraham’s and Lot’s servants, of
Jacob’s dream, and of the angel’s acrobatic performances
on the ladder; but of the career of the magnanimous
Esau he supplies us only with the faintest possible out
line.
'.uo.'
..i ;•
■
As a writer of unconsciously grotesque and amusing
�6
BIBLE-MAKERS.
narrative, Moses was, perhaps, the equal of any of the
Biblical writers. Nothing can surpass in this respect the
story of Balaam’s visit to Balak on his talkative donkey,
except it be the candid account of his own death and
burial. But, taken altogether, spite of its many imper
fections of style and its ludicrous stories, its tales of vice
and crime and bloodshed, the Pentateuch is exceedingly
interesting reading, especially to the Freethinker, who,
discarding the silly notion of Divine inspiration, is better
able to estimate its true value as indicating the moral
and intellectual advancement of a people who, though
they plume themselves on being the “chosenchildren of
God,” have been one of the most unfortunate among
the races of men.
JOSHUA AND JUDGES.
Many things, it will be admitted, are extremely doubtful
in reference to the authorship of the books of the Bible;
but no manner of doubt can, I imagine, exist in any
thoughtMamind that Joshua was no more the writer of
the book that bears his name than Moses was the
author of the Pentateuch. For the purpose of having
names to refer to as the accredited authors of the various
books of the Bible, it will be convenient to assume that
these persons were in reality responsible for the books of
which they are the alleged authors. And it may at once
be said that the contents of the Book of Joshua show
that that personage entertained not only a very good
opinion of himself, but a very poor one of everybody
else.
When an author is writing reminiscences of his career
as a general, and describing, in vivid language, the rapine
and murder of which the soldiers under his command
were guilty, it is positively in bad taste to say a word on
his own behalf, as though pleading for promotion or a pen
sion, and to declare that “ his [Joshua’s] fame was noised
throughout all the country.” Joshua seemed to think
that fame and notoriety were much the same.. In this,
however, as in most other things, he greatly erred. Any
murderer may get notoriety if he only display enough
brutality or callousness in the execution of the deed ; but
fame can be achieved only by meritorious conduct, and
�BIBLE-MAKERS.
7
we have no evidence that Joshua understood even what
that meant. Being the successor of Moses, he thought
it incumbent upon him to imitate, as far as possible, the
deeds of wanton cruelty, deceit, and villainy which cha
racterised his predecessor. Or, supposing that Joshua did
not do these things, but merely recorded them as having
happened for the edification of future generations,
then he must have imagined that the people would be
satisfied with stories of bloodshed, or of wonders wrought
by the Lord for the special behoof of his chosen people.
He must have thought, too, that the credulity of his
readers was practically unlimited, and that it did not
matter much how stupid the event was that he recorded,
so long as something similar was said to have occurred
before, or that nobody could doubt that such and such
a miracle had been performed, if only the Lord could be
placed in the background—behind the curtain, as it were
—to act as the performer.
As a historian Joshua was a dead failure. He was
too ignorant to understand even ordinary events, and
extraordinary occurrences simply bemuddled what
little reason he may have possessed. Like all careless
students of nature, he was prone to grossly exaggerate
the things he saw, and to exaggerate still more mon
strously the things that he did not see, but only heard
spoken of by his friends and co-workers. He would
have done very well for the war correspondent of the
Daily Telephone ; for his special telegrams of one day
could have been very easily contradicted on the day
following by some other correspondent who was an “eye
witness ” to the event recorded, but did not see it “ in
the same light ” of the gentleman who did the special.
In point of truth, Joshua was one of that class of writers
—always assuming that he wrote anything at all—who
could have done his correspondence, and appeared to
have been on the field, just as well in the back parlour
of a Fleet Street restaurant as in a rude tent near the seat
of war.
When Joshua wrote the account of the sun standing
still upon Gideon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon,
he forgot for the nonce in which department of the literary
staff of the said journal he was engaged, and thought
�8
BIBLE-MAKERS.
that his views on astronomical phenomena would be
quite as acceptable to the Jewish public as his opinion
on the best method of decapitating the Midianites. It
was as though the sporting correspondent of a paper had
ventured to send in, unsolicited, a descriptive account of
an archbishop’s last sermon, or the musical critic had
supplied an article on the “ germ theory of disease.” If
Joshua meant that the sun stood still in order to allow
him to win a battle, he must have been joking; for, as
every little boy now knows, the sun, so far as this earth
is concerned, never moves. But what about the moon ?
Was not the light of the sun enough? Did Joshua
imagine that a night-light would be of assistance in the
daylight—a rushlight an important auxiliary to the sun ?
If we suppose that Joshua tried to be poetic in referring
to the sun and moon, his figurative language must have
got slightly mixed-—he made too much of the moon. As
Thomas Paine pointed out, as a figurative declaration
Joshua’s is inferior to one by Mohammed, who, when
a person came to expostulate with him upon his
doings, retorted : “ Wert thou to come to me with the
sun in thy right hand and the moon in thy left, it should
not alter my career.” For Joshua to have eclipsed
Mohammed he should have put the sun in one pocket of
his waistcoat and the moon in the other, and used them
as watches—one to time his doings by day, the other to
regulate his conduct by night; or, as Paine remarks,
“ carried them as Guy Fawkes carried his dark lanterns,
and taken them out to shine as he might happen to want
them.”
In addition to being special reporter, historian, poet,
and commander for the Israelites, Joshua varied these
occupations by occasionally acting as executioner.
Among his many achievements I find that he burned the
city of Ai and hanged the king, and performed the office
of executioner (without a special request) to five other
crownedheads. I must not, however, dwell atgreaterlength
upon the writings or doings of Joshua, but come at once
to the gentlemen who describe themselves as “Judges.”
What these persons were judges of we have no means
of knowing. It is pretty clear, however, that they could
not very well have been judges of a man’s capability,
A
�BIBLE-MAKERS.
9
single-handed, of destroying brute beasts or his fellow
creatures, else they would not have favoured us with the
silly account of Samson’s encounter with a lion, or his
great feat with a jawbone. As a profane wag once re
marked, if Samson could have slain a thousand people
with another ass’s jawbone, it is extremSy difficult to
understand why he could not have done it with his
own.
On the subject of dreams the Judges were authorities.
If any wandering lunatic dreamed a dream, these writers
were sure to allow it to come true. Indeed, a very large
portion of the Bible is made up of accounts of religious
dreams, and the “ Bible makers,” being themselves mostly
dreamers, attached great importance to the interpretation
of visions which the dreamers themselves had half for
gotten. And so, in the seventh chapter, we are told that
when Gideon had come into the city of the Midianites
“ there was a man that told a dream unto his fellow, and
said, Behold, I dreamed a dream, and, lo, a cake of
barley bread tumbled into the host of Midian, and came
unto a tent, and smote it that it fell, and overturned it
that the tent lay along. And his fellow answered and
said, This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon, the
son of Joash, a man of Israel; for into his hand hath
God delivered Midian and all the host.” The writers
of the book of Judges then proceed to show that the
barley loaf in the dream did really mean the sword of
Gideon; and though no tent was overturned by either
the loaf or the sword, nor even the walls of the city, the
Midianites were put to flight, pursued, and those of
them that were unfortunately overtaken were mercilessly
slain, even to the princes who were taken prisoners.
Judges, with its stories of dreams, battles, and the man
whose strength lay in his hair, may be considered very
good pabulum upon which to feed religious babes and
sucklings ; but it is decidedly poor stuff upon which to
rear children of a large and more vigorous growth ; and
of such are the children of earth.
RUTH, SAMUEL, AND DAVID.
Sandwiched between Judges and Samuel is the book
of Ruth. How it came to be incorporated in the Bible
�IO
BIBLE-MAKERS.
it would be difficult to tell, without great faith and a
prayerful spirit; and, unless we suppose that some lewd
fellow, thinking that a little more pruriency would be an
improvement, by some dexterous and surreptitious means
slipped the book in, there is no accounting for its appear
ance among the sacred writings at all. It is, however
a pretty love-story. It tells of a poor simple girl from
the country, who came up to town to see her cousin,
Boaz, and, having successfully repelled the advance
ments of numerous young men who were infatuated
with her charms, steals slily to bed with her cousin, who
blesses her for her unselfish kindness, and ultimately
rewards her by making her his wife. As no more
mention is made of them, we will be generous enough to
suppose that they lived happily ever after. If Miss Ruth,
however, wrote this brief autobiographical sketch, it must
be ^confessed that she was as candid in revealing her
failings as Jean Jacques Rousseau was in revealing his,
if, indeed, she meant this little business with her cousin
to be considered as an iniquity at all.
We come now to Samuel. He was the son of Elkanah.
He wrote a book, or a number of books, and followed
his predecessor, Moses’s, example in being careful to give
a full account of his own death and burial. His father
he described as “ a certain man of Ramathaim Zophim
and Mount Ephraim.” Most fathers are “ certain men.”
He gives an account of a man named Saul, who was
seeking his father’s asses, which had gone astray. The
children of Israel at the same time were in search of a
king. The asses were found; so was Saul, who was at
once anointed king by Samuel, who, from an early age,
was a prophet of the Lord. His early appointment to
this profession took place in this wise: he received a
“ call ” from the Lord, who, hiding himself in an obscure
corner of the sky, had an inoffensive game at bo-peep
with the child Samuel, and, after allowing the lad to
make a couple of wrong guesses as to who it was that
had called him, permitted him to guess correctly the
third time, and thus save his bacon, and become a per
petual prophet of the Lord of Hosts ever after.
Samuel faithfully recorded the lives of such illustrious
kings as Saul and David ; gave a graphic description of
�BIBLE-MAKERS.
II
the unequal encounter between David and Goliath, in
which he showed how easy it was for a little boy with a
sling and a stone to kill a giant; and, further, how diffi
cult it is for a harpist—a Jew-harpist—by dulcet strains
of music to soothe the savage breast of a king, after
having taken from him the favour of the people. Samuel
also demonstrates that a high degree of mental culture
was not an indispensable accomplishment of a prophet.
David prophesied upon a harp ; many of the people
prophesied with cymbals and with song; and some, no
doubt, produced the same result upon the bango, or with
the bones ; but King Saul put them all to the blush.
Finding that everybody was going in for prophesying,
he divested himself of all his raiment, and lay on his back
and prophesied as hard as any of them. This, as an
honest historian, the prophet Samuel has faithfully set
down, not in a spirit of malice or uncharitableness,Jbutj
in that of candour and truth, that ordinary folk might
understand the strange doings of the godly.
Samuel’s account of the life of David is filled with
interest. Thackeray’s “ Four Georges ” or Carlyle’s
“ Cromwell ” are not more graphic. If only the letters
of David to his various mistresses had been preserved,
what a splendid addition they would have made to this
fascinating biographical sketch ! Great affection, unselfish
devotion, David unquestionably displayed towards Jona
than ; but how infinitely small it was compared with the
unbounded love he showed towards the wives of Nabal
and Uriah. David robbed, outraged, and murdered
wherever he went; and, in true prophetic strain, Samuel
describes him as a “ man after God’s own heart,” clearly
showing that he knew the character of God very well;
he, therefore, represented David as much “ after the
image of his maker ” as possible. It is said that David,
at the end, repented ; so, too, did Charles Peace—at the
rope’s-end. Worthy couple!
The books of Kings and Chronicles, which are merely
a combination or repetition of the stories of Samuel, I
pass over, as also the book of Job, a Gentile production
which deserves to be considered on its merits, apart
altogether from the place it occupies in men’s minds on
account of being one of the books of the Bible.
�12
BIBLE-MAKERS.
We come now to the Psalms of David, which throw a
flood of light upon the inner life of the king and
prophet. They are a collection of songs—not comic;
mostly expressive of praise to Deity. What many-sided
ness of nature ffihese poetic expressions disclose ! What
infinite piety,jjhombined with consummate rascality—
what unctuousness, covering the imperious dogmatism of
a king and a priest! How anxious David is that the
religious shall have no “ fellowship with the ungodly
that the Lord shall rebuke the unbeliever, and afflict
him with great suffering !
David’s God was essentially a butcher and a king.
Give heed to this poetic strain :—
O clap your hands, all ye people ; shout unto God with the voice
of triumph.
For the Lord Most High is terrible ; he is a great king over all the
earth.
He shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our
feet.
He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob
whom he loved. Selah. (Psalm xlvii.)
As for the Atheist, David loathed him with every drop
of his blood. He regarded him as a fool, and said as
much. Most people call those persons names whom
they cannot answer :—
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Corrupt are
they, and have done abominable iniquity : there is none that doeth
good. (Psalm liii.)
In a more humble mood was the Psalmist when he
penned the following :—
Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty ; neither do I
exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.
Surely I have behaved and quieted myself as a child that is weaned
of his mother : my soul is even as a weaned child.
Let Israel hope in the Lord from henceforth and for ever.
(Psalm cxxxi.)
But in his true colours David is seen when, from the
lowest depths of his fiendish heart, he gives vent to his
views as to how God should treat those who had been
his (David’s) and God’s enemies :—
Set thou a wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right
hand.
�BIBLE-MAKERS.
I
When he shall be judged let him be condemned, and let his
prayer become sin.
Let his days be few, and let another take his office ; let his chil
dren be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds and beg; let them
seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath, andi^et the strangersspoil his labour.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him ;* reither let there
be any to favour his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off, and in the generation following let
his 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.
' u
Oh, what a difference between the sentiments of the
Atheist poet, Shelley, and the Theist poet, David ! The
one wrote for the ignorant and cruel and despotic people
of ages that have gone ; the other, in incomparably grand
verse, breathed the pure and lofty sentiments of the
humanity of the future.
SOLOMON AND OTHERS.
Interspersed among much that was unwittingly funny,
and more that was deliberately barbarous, it was only
natural that the Bible-makers should supply a few
chapters of gloomy sermonising, to lend a kind of moral
respectability to the whole work. King Solomon wa|f ♦
therefore, specially retained to supply the article. Credited
with almost unlimited knowledge and wisdom, but pos
sessing, if we may judge from his writings and conduct,
a very infinitesimal quantity of either; a notorious man
of the world; devoid altogether of principles or sincerity
—a more appropriate person could scarcely have been
chosen for the task. No men are more prone to preach
—and sometimes very good sermons too—than those
whose practice is in flagrant and diametrical opposition
to their teachings. From the judge upon the bench
to the unpaid magistrate in an obscure country town, or
from the opulent bishop to the poor underpaid curate,
we have hundreds of examples of men who, in their
official position, give admirable lessons to the public as
to how they should conduct themselves morally—lessons
which they themselves not only never attempt to put into
�14
BIBLE-MAKERS.
practice, but which they persistently and deliberately
disregard. The Spartans, it is said, used to make a
slave drunk, and set him before their sons, so that the
exhibition might disgust them, and thus influence them
against the excessive use of intoxicating drinks. Solomon
seems to have '^een chosen as a contributor to the pages
of the Bibl,|j^n the same principle. Having divided
his attention?, mainly between wine and woman, espe
cially the latter; monopolising several hundred wives
and three hundred concubines, he was considered to
be a high authority upon the things of life in general,
and upon women and wine in particular. And a very
gloomy opinion it was—pessimistic to the last degree.
The reclaimed drunkard is often considered the best
advocate of temperance; the converted burglar the
most admirable teacher of morality; the reformed prize
fighter the best example of the influence of the meek
and lowly Jesus. In Solomon the qualities of all these
persons were combined. He had had experience of life
in all its varied aspects ; he had prostituted his physical
and mental faculties for the sake of transitory pleasures;
and at last, when he had become a decrepit, used-up
debauchee, he yelled out, in the agony of his despair:
“ Vanity—all is vanity !” To Solomon childish laughter
seemed fiendish, innocent playfulness agonising folly,
honest toil madness; and he summed up life as com
prising nothing but “ vanity and vexation of spirit.”
He had wasted his life, and he longed for death to
escape from wThat, to him, was a dreary and miserable
existence. And while he was in this unpleasant mood
he contributed twelve chapters to the Holy Bible, for
which the long-faced, lugubrious gentlemen of orthodoxy
will ever thank and praise him.
Having finished Ecclesiastes, Solomon apparently
rested for a time, and then rushed into song, which,
being written when the author was in a better state of
mind—in fact, in quite an affectionate mood—with,
doubtless, one of his many wivd^gitting upon his knee
caressing him, are, therefore, much more pleasant,
though not altogether decent, compositions. The meta
phor, at times, is very coarse, as the reader will see, if he
glance cursorily over chapter seven and the first few
�BIBLE-MAKERS.
i5
verses; and one cannot avoid the conclusion that the
writer was inebriated at the time with something of a
stronger nature than exuberant verbosity.
The book of the prophet Isaiah follows. Isaiah was
a dreamer, and all the terrible events which ^e foresaw
as certain to happen he had had revealed to him in a
vision. Many of these predictions were perfectly safe.
They were not to take place till the “ last day,” and, as
that interesting period is unlikely to come very soon in a
world that is, as the Prayer Book properly says, “ without
* end,” the events are not likely to be carefully verified.
When we are assured that “ it shall come to pass in the
last days that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be
established in the top of the mountains, and shall be
exalted above the hills; and all the nations shall flow
into it,” we can only remark that, if ever the mountain
of the House of Lords—or Lord’s House, which is the
same thing—should get elevated at all, it is not unlikely
that it will be exalted much higher than the hills—
probably elevated off the face of the earth • and so that
prophecy will be fulfilled. As to the composition itself,
I think it may not unfairly be said that it is the most in
coherent and meaningless jargon to be found in the
Bible, save and except, perhaps, the ravings of St. John,
the divine maniac, in the book called Revelation, which
reveals nothing but the hopeless imbecility of the
writer.
.
• <■“
>
Prophesying was once a good businessW^Every priest
practised it, and every ignoramus believed in it. Old
women of both sexes gave it their countenance and
support. The Bible-makers knew the importance of it,
and so, to every single historian or poet on the staff, they
kept four prophets.
After Isaiah come Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the former
of which contains nothing of importance, and the latter
only a parable concerning a boiling pot and a faithful
narrative of the disgusting practices of Aholah and
Aholibah, two painted harlots of Babylon. These, with
Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Zechariah, and Malachi, and
one or two others that are never read, complete the first
part of the Bible. Most of these last-named writers
were in the prophetic line, and their prophecies need a
�16
BIBLE-MAKERS.
revelation before they can be understood. I don’t
profess to understand them, and I do not know any
sensible person who does; but, if there are any who
understand them, or think they do, they are sure to be
numbered among the Bible-makers of the future.
.’zui.wiil otd-
7.
TU'vJtol.
■■
*; U ‘
1
vh-
YR
jj
i-•> :
G'hi
1 j:.d
-
■'
lid •
r
hWi
t.’f.ij c.i
,, .
JJJ. U- JJ jTpW
C'?' fr<-'..b-- ..-I'*
.J .
: v;i
IO iMLhlL'on: ulj
' ■
'-■Ji r
’ *t. i'? W
' ' i i<
ALSO BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
m' ' .TfR
■
;
7
.....
,
; . I ,7U C-’L
'
i-
SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS
............................
o i
THE MIRROR OF FREETHOUGHT
............................
x o
THE BIBLE GOD AND HIS FAVOURITES
..
..
ox
FICTITIOUS GODS...................................................................
ox
CHRISTIANITY UNWORTHY OFGOD..............................
ox
THE SECULAR FAITH
......................................................
ox
IS RELIGION NECESSARY OR USEFUL?
..
ox
HEALTH, WEALTH, AND HAPPINESS...........................
ox
THE OLD FAITH AND THE NEW
..
..
..
o i
BRAIN AND SOUL ..
..
..
................
...
o i
BIBLE SAINTS AND SINNERS....................................................ox
AND
'
WAS JESUS AN IMPOSTOR?
(One Hundred Pages.
In Boards.
Price One Shilling.)
A Discussion between two Freethinkers—-Agnes Rollo Wilkie
and Arthur B. Moss. The most blasphemous book of the age.
Freethinkers enjoy it ; Jews like it amazingly ; Christians detest it.
It strikes at Jesus the God, demonstrates the hollowness of his pre
tensions, shows that he deceived himself and his followers, and that
through them the world has been deceived ever since.
Jjrm
.It
GUO
Pt inted arid Published by Watts R Co., 84, Fleet Street,. EXS i
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Bible-Makers: Moses, Joshua and Judges, Ruth, Samuel, David, Solomon & others.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Moss, Arthur B.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: List of works by the same author available from Watts & Co. on back page. 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
[1885]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N498
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 (Bible-Makers: Moses, Joshua and Judges, Ruth, Samuel, David, Solomon & others.), 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-O.T.-Criticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a8ec57ddc02e85bfebb6d29e15283a77.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=d36T8r9TaLtfLuDvvxuJY3n9VzZRrgl7th2uLECTWCwEfQF9llYD1CDPjUrMNHqR5fuZ7Px45UnQ-Rg5eSzHWbxIEpeThA40HRo%7E4kBFd9AQkO191jW4k2fiMRQ972B0uyOm-%7E1nZ09Mf441BMirQcqiTWx7QRTjoVjs%7EXg5ObC3Dcxp-aYg1y88N6jyonqmxnAx3fJjD7p7NLbKAVF3tqgF2xeYL8j9YDFqdCuRBe4qwikPsBydAIH%7EbZOd3yb8R-z6YkIhvvAh6IcLCV8Qlz0TRecUROSXwCZ5eE-xqFl8ouV8LfpajRo06RQXlPnJLd07LBCqt16dIU3plQCPgg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
61f4f5cb51ef1eb732f43d067eae76af
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY (
/(J
UV
Price One Penny.
.
.
TWENTY-FOUR PROOFS
.
THAT THE
BIBLE is NOT the WORD of GOD.
By a CAMBRIDGE GRADUATE.
«.
■
----------- ♦-----------
The 'popular doctrine concerning the Bible, taught by the
Church of England and other bodies of Christians, is that
it is a direct communication from an omniscient and all
wise God to his creature, man, inspired or breathed into the
minds of certain holy men of old. From this it follows, as
a logical necessity, that every syllable, from the first verse
in Genesis to the last in the Revelation of John, must be
absolutely true; that the morality and philosophy of the
Bible must be the most sublime imaginable; its history
perfect in accuracy ; and that its prophecies have been, or
will be, fulfilled in every detail. If this be not the case,
then we must conclude that it is purely human in its origin,
for we cannot suppose that it is partly inspired and partly
false, since God has given us no means of distinguishing
the inspired from the uninspired, and we should have tojudge for ourselves of its value—that is, use reason to the * . "
exclusion of faith, and treat it as we do any other book.
1. The Bible is clearly proved to be historically inaccurate, ’
since it contains contradictions in different accounts of the
same event. For example, we will take the story of the
resurrection of Christ. Matthew tells us that Mary Mag
dalene and the other Mary came to the sepulchre ; there
was an earthquake ; the angel of the Lord descended and
rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it; and
finally “ they did run to bring his disciples word ” (Matt,
xxviii., 1-8). Mark tells us that Mary Magdalene, J^Iary the
mother of James, and Salome, came to the sepulchre, found'the
stone already rolled away (no earthquake or angel this Time), .
and entering in they saw a young man sitting on the -right
side (evidently meant for the angel mentioned in Matthew,
since he gives the same message) ; and finally “ they
trembled and were amazed, neither said they anything to any
man” (Mark xvi., 1-8). Thus on the last .point Mark
flatly contradicts the other three evangelists. Luke tells
�2
us that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of
James, and other women that were with them, came to the
sepulchre, found the stone rolled away, and entering in,
“ behold two men stood by them in shining garments ” ; and
“ they told these things unto the apostles. And their words
seemed unto them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
Then arose Peter and ran unto the sepulchre ” (Luke xxiv.,
1-12). Lastly, John tells us that Mary Magdalene went to
the sepulchre (apparently alone this time), and seeing the
stone taken away, ran and told Peter and the other disciple
whom Jesus loved that they had taken away the Lord. The
two disciples went into the sepulchre, and not seeing Jesus,
went away again unto their own home. Mary stood with
out, and saw the two- angels sitting, “ one at the head and
the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain,”
and she came and told the disciples (John xx., 1-18). It
certainly requires a considerable exercise of faith (self
deception ?) to persuade ourselves that these four accounts
agree with each other in every detail; yet on their truth
hangs the central doctrine of Christianity—namely, the
resurrection of Christ; for “ If Christ be not risen, then is
our faith vain.”
2. The genealogies of Christ given in Matt, i., 1-17, and
Luke iii., 23-38, are different and contradictory to one
another. Not only are the names different, but while
Matthew gives twenty-seven generations from David to
Jesus, Luke gives forty-two 1
3. We are told by John that “ no man hath seen God at
any time ” (1 John iv., 12), and yet Jacob said at Peniel:
“ I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved ”
(Gen. xxxii., 30). Again, we find (in Exodus xxxiii., 11)
that “ the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man
speaketh unto his friend ” ; and in the 20th verse of the
same chapter we are informed that he said to Moses : “ Thou
Sanst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and
live ” ; and so he put Moses in a clift of the rock, and put
his hand over him, and took it away, and showed him his
back parts as he passed by. We are also told that there
“ went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and
seventy of the elders of Israel: and they saw the God
.of Israel : and there was under his feet as it were
a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were
the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the
�3
nobles of the children of Israel he laid^not his hand: also
they saw God, and did eat and drink ” (Exodus xxiv., 9-11).
After this it may be thought hardly worth mentioning that
Isaiah puts in a claim to having seen the Lord in a vision :
“ I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted
up, and his train filled the temple ” (Isaiah vi., 1).
4. The Laws in the Old Testament, which are said to
have been given to Moses by God himself, prove on exami
nation not to be calculated to refine, elevate, and humanise
the race to whom they were given, educating and leading
them to nobler things—“ a schoolmaster to bring them unto
Christ”—such as would come from an all-wise and bene
volent being, “ whose mercy is everlasting ”; but a code
infamously unjust and cruel, brutalising and degrading, in
its tendencies, showing the grossest superstition in the mind
of the lawgiver, and altogether what we should expect to
find coming from a barbarous and primitive people. One
example of the injustice of these laws will be sufficient:
“ If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and
he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Not
withstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
punished : for he is his money ” (Exodus xxi., 20, 21).
5. Not only has the Mosaic code of laws cursed the race
to whom it was given, but even now it exercises a baneful
influence over the world ; those laws sanctioning and regu
lating slavery proving most formidable obstacles to the
abolition of the slave trade in the Colonies and Southern
States of America, where large meetings of ministers were
held declaring slavery to be enjoined by God; and in every
session of Parliament at the present time are they brought
up by the opponents of the Bill for legalising marriage with
a deceased wife’s sister.
6. The laws in the Old Testament on witchcraft (Lev.
xix., 31 ; xx., 6, 27, etc.) have caused tens of thousands of
innocent men, women and children to be burnt alive in the
middle ages, and now the world has discovered it to be a
purely imaginary crime 1 Is it possible that God, fore
knowing all this, would have inspired such laws ?
7. Polygamy is nowhere condemned in the whole Bible,
and is distinctly allowed in the Old Testament; the chief
saints, as Abraham, David and Solomon, being all poly
gamists.
8. We are taught that “ God is love ” and yet that he is
�4
going to burn the vast majority of mankind for all eternity
in hell; for “ strait is the gate and narrow is the way,
and few there be that find it ” ; “ many are called, but few
chosen ” ; “he that believeth not shall be damned.” Surely
no one will contend that the majority believe.
9. Paul teaches that God will torture us in hell, not for
resisting his will, but because he makes us sin without our
being able to resist. “ He saith to Moses, I will have mercy
on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on
whom I will have oompassion. So then it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth
mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for
this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show
my power in thee, and that my name might be declared
throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on
whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault ?
For who hath resisted his will? Nay, but, 0 man, who
art thou that repliest against God ? Shall the thing formed
say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus ?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same
lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto
dishonor ? What if God, willing to show his wrath,
and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.”—Rom.
ix., 15-22. So Paul teaches us to believe, not in a merciful,
all-loving Father, “ unwilling that any should perish,” but in
an omnipotent Devil, who amuses himself by roasting us in
hell for committing sins which he himself forces us to
commit.
10. The Bible does not solve the difficulty of the origin of
evil, but on the contrary states expressly that God is the
author of evil. “ I form the light, and create darkness : I
make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
—Isaiah xlv., 7.
11. There are many other passages which prove that the
God of the Bible, whom we are taught to love and reverence,
is malignant in character, and are wholly incompatible with
those passages attributing to him mercy and goodness. For
example, Paul says, speaking of certain persons, “ God shall
send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
that they all might be damned” (2 Thess. ii., 11, 12).
Noble motive truly I
�12. In the Old Testament especially, God is represented
as approving of the most horrible atrocities ; among otherstoo numerous to mention, slaughtering all the Midianitesb
men, women and children (Numbers xxxi., 1-18}.
13. God is even represented as accepting a human sacri
fice, as in the case of Jephthah’s daughter, who was offered
up “ for a burnt offering ” (Judges xi., 30-39).
14. We submit that the basis of morality held up through
out the Bible is purely selfish ; not doing right because it is.
right, but rather for hope of reward in heaven, and from
fear of hell; trying to curry favor with God, no matter at
what expense to our fellowmen.
15. In some of the Psalms (read every Sunday in the
churches) we find sentiments simply diabolical in theirmalignity. David prays concerning his enemies, “ Let their
table become a snare before them: and that which should
have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their
eyes be darkened that they see not; and make their loins,
continually to shake. Pour out thine indignation upon
them, and let thy wrathful aDger take hold upon them..........
Add iniquity unto their iniquity : and let them not come
into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book
of the living, and not be written with the righteous ” (Psalms,
lxix., 22-28). Just fancy praying that your enemies may
not repent, lest they should get saved and not be burnt for
ever in hell! And this is implied in the above passage.
We can only compare this prayer, inspired by the Holy
Ghost into the mind of David, the man after God’s own
heart, for true charity and nobility of thought, with the
following passage of the Christian father Tertullian, who is.
so highly esteemed by the Church : “ Expect the last and
eternal judgment of the universe. How I shall admire, how
laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many
proud monarchs and fancied gods, groaning in the lowest,
abyss of darkness ; so many magistrates, who persecuted the
name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer fires than they ever
kindled against the Christians ; so many sage philosophers
blushing in red-hot flames with their deluded scholars ; somany celebrated poets trembling before the tribunal, not of
Minos, but of Christ; so many tragedians more tuneful in
the expression of their own sufferings ; so many dancers,” etc.
(De Spectaculis, cap. 30).
16. Again we find in another Psalm—“ Set thou a.
�6
wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right
hand. When he shall be judged let him be condemned,
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 continually
•vagabonds and beg : let them seek their bread also out of
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 there 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 ” (Psalm
cix., 6-14). In our churches and Sunday-schools to-day it
is taught that this is the inspiration of hi a who said, “Love
your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you
and persecute you” (Matt, v., 44).
17. Jesus Christ prophesied that “ the son of man shall
come in the glory of his father with his' angels, and then he
shall reward every man according to his works. Verily, I
say unto you, there be some standing here which shall no
taste of death till they see the son of man coming m his
kingdom ” (Matt, xvi., 27-28). He said also, after referring
to the destruction of Jerusalem, “ Immediately after the
tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the
moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from
heaven and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
And then shall appear the sign of the son of man m heaven:
and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they
shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven
with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels
with a great sound of a trumpet . . . Verily, I saij unto
you, this generation shall not pass till all these things ie ful
filled” (Matt, xxiv., 29-34). It is evident that these pro
phecies, which have been shown to be false by time were
understood by the apostles to be on the eve of fulfilment
when they wrote their epistles, for Peter and Paul apologise
for the end of the world not coming so soon as might be
expected (see 2 Peter iii., 3-12 ; 2 Thess. n.1-6) Peter
also says: “The end of all things is at hand (l Petei
iv , 7)/ Paul says: “ The Lord is at hand (Phil. iv., o),
and tells the Hebrews not to forsake their assemblies, and
�7
to exhort one another “so much the more as ye see the_
day approaching” (Heb. x., 25). James says: “Be ye
also patient; stablish your hearts, for the coming of the
Lord draweth nigh” (James v., 8). Jude says: “There
are certain men crept in unawares,” and after denouncing
them, reminds his readers of the words of Christ—“ How
that they told you there should be mockers in the last time ”
(Jude, v. 18). Lastly, John informs us that “the time is
at hand ” (Rev. i, 3). And all these things (and more, which
we have not room to notice) were written about the time
that “ that generation ” who heard Jesus was passing away.
Have not these predictions one and all been proved utterly
false by time, that trier of truth ?
18. The prophecies in the Old Testament, said by the
evangelists to refer to Christ, on examination will be found
wholly inapplicable. For example, Matthew (ii., 6) applies
to Christ the prophecy of Micah—“ And thou Bethlehem,
in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of
Juda : for out of thee shall come a governor that shall rule
my people Israel.” On turning to Micah, however, we find
that this “ ruler in Israel,” who he says shall rise up, is a
general, coming to defend them against the Assyrians ; for
he goes on to say: “ This man shall be the peace, when
the Assyrian shall come into our land : and wh< n he shall
tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven
shepherds and eight principal men. And they shall waste the
land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod
in the entrances thereof ; thus shall he deliver us from the
Assyrian when he cometh into our land, and when he
treadeth within our borders” (Micah v., 5-6). It is some
what difficult to see how this can apply to Christ; yet if
it cannot the Holy Ghost must have made a mistake in
making Matthew quote part of this prophecy as being ful
filled in Christ.
19. Again Matthew tells us that the words of Hosea,
“ Out of Egypt have I called my son,” were fulfilled in
Christ (Matt, ii., 15). On turning to the prophet we find
him chiding Israel for national ingratitude. “ When Israel
was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of
Egypt. As +hey called them, so they went from them : they
sacrificed umo Baalim, and burned incense to graven
images ” (Hosea xi., 1, 2). We will merely remark on this
that we have not sufficient faith to enable ourselves to
�8
believe that this is not simply an historical reference to the
Israelites coming from Egypt under Moses, much less are
we able to see in it an overwhelming proof of prophetical
power in Hosea.
20. None of the prophecies said to refer to Christ will
bear the slightest examination. For example: “He shall
judge among the nations and shall rebuke many people :
and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their
spears into pruning-hooks : nation shall not lift up sword
against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”
(Isaiah ii., 4). Yet when the Prince of Peace did come, he
said: “ Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I
come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to
set a man at variance against his father and the daughter
against her mother and the daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law” (Matt, x., 34, 35).
21. Science has clearly demonstrated that it is false that
“ in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the
sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ”
(Exodus xx., 11).
22. Science has clearly proved that the grass and herbs
and trees were not created before the sun and moon and
stars, as stated in Gen. i., 11-18.
23. Science clearly teaches the utter absurdity of such
astronomical ideas as that “ God said, Let there be a firma
ment in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters
from the waters. And God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament from
the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven” (Gen. i., 6-8)
St. Augustine, in explaining this, informs us that the firma
ment was‘stretched across the sky like a skin. We suppose
this is what Peter refers to when he says “ the heavens shall
pass away with a great noise ” (2 Peter iii., 10).
24. If by any sophistry it were possible to reconcile
science and the Bible, it must still be admitted that in the
past God was unable to convey his true meaning on these
points, and not only has his revelation given rise to false
scientific ideas, but has hindered the development of science
at every tufti, and brought untold bitterness and persecution
in the last few centuries on scientific men, in addition to
wrecking the faith of many truthseekers at the present day.
Printed and Published by Ramsey and Foote at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Twenty-four proofs that the Bible is not the word of God
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cambridge Graduate
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Tentative date publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Ramsey and Foote
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1885?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N114
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 (Twenty-four proofs that the Bible is not the word of God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
God
NSS